Discuss General Topics.
There are numerous myths that have been proposed as evidence of Psi and the legitimacy of parapsychology as a science. For example, people often misquote the statement that humans only use 10% of their brains.
I am looking for specific statements or claims that are made concerning the science of parapsychology. If you make some general comment like "None of this stuff is real", I will give you a thumbs down and you will not get a best answer from me. I want specifics, and I am not interested in reading about people's praise of their hero or any references to challenges.
On the other hand, I am looking for honest and thoughtful opinions without any regard to which position they are supporting. Please try to keep the responses respectful.
ummm... science of parapsychology?
dude.. i am a psychologist and not even
i consider psychology a science.. (a soft science at most)
I'm a bit mixed on this, but parapsychologists do tend to try and follow scientific protocols - so I'm willing to call it science.
Yeah. I see where you're coming from. Well, it is a science, and as everything that can't be proven or explained by science or has been proven by science -- it's all a science. Although, there is no such thing as evidence in science. Because, science and observation is always changing.
I hate it when people tell me that Psi and the paranormal defies that laws of Physics (Inverse Square Law, Law of Motion, etc.), which isn't true. As Galileo was saying that anything is possible. Even if it defies the laws of Physics (history class).
Not sure what this means. Science has a rough definition but there is often debate as to what is science or pseudo-science. Some people say that parapsychology is pseudo-science, and it does have some pseudo-sciecy aspects. That is: it doesn't really make predictions although it sort of does. The closest you get is the hypothesis that: doing this will produce a statistical anomaly. Problem is, parapsychology never gets past that stage (or hasn't yet). But I'll give it the nod as close enough.
I don't know what you mean by "it's all science"
Can you explain what you mean by this? How are you defining "evidence" here? "Science" is not always changing: the scientific method is fairly consistent. By using the scientific method, our understanding of the things we study does indeed change. Neither does "observation" change. Once you've observed something, it stays observed in that manner. If you mean, as we look, we continue to notice new things, then I guess you are correct, but this seems obvious, so I'm not sure the point you are trying to make.
Perhaps you can elaborate.
I hate it when people tell me that Psi and the paranormal defies that laws of Physics (Inverse Square Law, Law of Motion, etc.), which isn't true. As Galileo was saying that anything is possible. Even if it defies the laws of Physics (history class).[/quote]
The stated claim psi is a fact.
I like this one for it's clarity
All of psi research is provisional with a capitol P
my problem with calling it a science
is that it does not make predictions and it does not replicate results
See that's the issue, and its really a philosophical one. It does make predictions, but the predictions are purely stats based.
As for replications: there certainly are replication attemtps, which is why we have so many metastudies- which are problematic, but still probably science.
I'm no expert on this though, but I think for the sake of discussion it's close enough that its not worth ruffling feathers by calling it pseudo-science.
From what I've studied, there have been many replication attempts on all sorts of studies concerning psi, but as of now, there have not been any successful replications. True?
It is also my opinion that many of the scientific tests of psi (most notibly RV) are not able to agree as to what constitutes a "hit." For example, an RVer may "see" a tornado when the actual picture was a rainstorm. RVers will claim this as a "hit" whereas skeptics say it is not and neither one can agree on what constitutes a "hit." In my opinion, if a picture is the Empire State Building, the RV would not be successful unless the RVer actually says "Empire State Building." Simply saying "building" would not constitute a "hit," but that's just me...
I'm starting to look into this stuff. The ganzfeld stuff has certainly been replicated a ton: but there may be problems with heterogenity and it seems like the stats are showing a file drawer effect that puts the results in question.
RV stuff is pretty problematic. I've just picked up Dean Radin's book, the Concious Universe, he claims that psi is proven. I'm going to read the book, and some of the criticisms of it. I'll try and report back occasionally on my thoughts. It may take me awhile to get through it all. By the time I have time to just read, I'm usually exhausted (well, I guess I could play less spammer, or watch less tv, but gotta wind down somehow!)
im going to guess you are a call of duty/EA nhl 2011 kind of guy
if i was right, this is proof ESP is real
if i was wrong.. we should still look for it
Ok, we'll have to keep looking. I have played some call of duty, though its not my favourite, I will get back to it though. I hate sports games (except for the wii ones, those are fun!). I've been making my way lately through Halo Reach (myself and coop with the wife) and Fallout III, with a little bit of Mario Galaxy and prince of persia thrown in. I don't have that much time to play (and I'm not the best) so it takes me a long time to finish a game! I have a huge list of games that I want to get but I'm exercising restraint by forcing myself to finish the games I have before I move on to another game!
Let's get back on topic please......
Oooooooo, careful with that word "proven." I have several wet noodle marks on the back of my hand for using that word inappropriately...
BTW, I believe that I've read that Radin states explicity that his experiments did not "prove" psi...
I would like to clarify that the above post that has my name as the writer was not actually written by me. Don't know how my name got mixed in there. I am most definitely a very occasional, simple Wii type of guy.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests