10 natural formations made by aliens

[Nostradamus]

[NinjaPuppy]

That was both amazing and funny as all heck.

[Nostradamus]

I had not seen all of the formations either. The chock stones in China are amazing. I've seen some interesting ones, but not as dramatic as that. The elephant's trunk in Red Red Canyon outside of Vegas is similar, but no where near as dramatic.

[NinjaPuppy]

Which brings me to this question: "If scientists can't figure out what they can see with their own two eyes, feel, smell and test the physical evidence in a laboratory... how do they figure they can disprove things like psi which they can't even see? Think about that for a few moments.

[Nostradamus]

This is a misleading statement in a way NinjaPuppy. You are asking the scientists to prove a universal negative. You can't prove that psi does not exist. What is stated is that the evidence for psi does not exist. After many experiments the conclusion is that it does not. But the conclusion is not proof, it is an inference.

Here you say that scientists do not trust their subjective senses and turn to objective measurements. That is true. There is importance in using an objective measurement system. It's a way to allow someone else to replicate the results. But, the person is often an important part of the loop. In medical studies the identification of the structures observed in a microscope is difficult. A person states yes or no to an observed object. It is or is not something they are interested in studying. For example, is the cell a neuron or glial cell. They look a bit different. Writing a computer program that can successfully differentiate the two is difficult (as in it isn't done). So taking a person completely out of the measurement loop is not really done.

So how can psi be detected in the lab? It can be done in the lab if the results can be reduced a decidable question. I mentioned to Daz Smith that the problem with remote viewing was leaving the question up to others to decide. My suggestion was to have the viewer decide. He agreed that was the way to do it scientifically, but he said his methodology was to leave the answer up to the client. Now this agreement on our parts does not mean that we chose a good idea. What it really suggests is that it is likely that a method can be worked out that makes the issue more of a yes-no decision.

[NinjaPuppy]

[NinjaPuppy]

[Nostradamus]

I certainly agree that you can't prove psi doesn't exist. That is not possible. There is always the possibility that some form of psi can be proven clearly and decisively. What hasn't happened is the clear demonstration of psi to date. Part of the issue is reproducibility.

The reason many skeptics say psi doesn't exist is that the evidence to date is that it doesn't exist. Or to remove all of these negatives, skeptics say there is little evidence that psi exists.

If someone holds a rock and let's it go we notice that the rocks drop. That doesn't mean every rock let go everywhere and every time will drop, but we believe all rocks will drop. That's an issue few would dispute, but I've seen discussions where it has been. Now take something a little more complicated. A drug trial may have a less certain result. Or it might be a toxicological study. So 10 subjects are given an experimental substance or placebo. If no subjects receiving the placebo showing a reaction, but all of the experimental group show a reaction do we in fact have evidence that the substance is a risk? What if the next study shows only 3 of the 5 experimental subjects showing a reaction. What if 10 more experiments are done and someone discovers complicating factors?

Pretty soon the initial positive result doesn't look as interesting. The result is a lot of murkier than the first experiment that was reported.

So we are left with a great deal of uncertainty in many issues. It is my understanding that the evidence for psi is on the same order as many studies in medicine. I think a good example of this was a study that splashed across news magazines claiming a caffeine-cancer link. Subsequent studies showed that the initial study was a false positive. It happens.

[NinjaPuppy]

Thank you. Very well put.

I also understand that research money is poured into things that have a dollar return as well. That would make paranormal studies more of a hobby or special interest.

[Nostradamus]

I agree on the money return. If you can put a dollar return on the investment it meets the capitalist agenda. There is lots of money going into schizophrenia research because it costs the government billions each year. Unless you can show that psi is a money saver you end up in the list of things that might be fun to do. What's interesting is often left for others to do - the unfunded others.