Science in Parapsychology

I find it amazing that skeptics seem to love the Parapsychology Forum. It is obvious that whatever transpires during Telepathy, lucid dreaming, etc. that this Forum was created to discuss is not measureable at this time.

So it has become more of a PSI bashing Forum than anything else. Sites such as PSIPOG are beneficial in the fact that most users have an open mind, or have experienced things they cannot explain scientifically.

It would be interesting to see theories here, even remote hypothesis and perhaps one day suggestions on experiments to prove them.

Science cannot prove these things do not exist. The scientific method has always been used to prove a theory is true, when prior to the experiment it was simply an unproven idea. Re-creating these experiments to your class for educational purposes or an interest in science does not make someone a scientist.

Are we so bold as to assume we now know everything?

Ernst Haeckel once refered to a cell as "a simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon". SIMPLE!

There are 100 trillion cells in your body (give or take a trillion), and none of them is SIMPLE. We now know that each cell contains huge data banks (chromosomes). Our cells have special enzymes that unzip these DNA strands. Then another set of enzymes separate the strands. Then another DNA reader comes along and copies out the chemical data into a strand. Then more enzymes come, put the DNA strand back together, and zip it back up into its spiral form. The chemical data or "messenger RNA" is then delivered to one end of the "Ribosome". It is a an organelle (factory)specializing in putting together proteins in a highly organized fashion based on the code now embedded in the messenger RNA. "transfer RNA molecules" carry amino acids ("bases" adenine,cytosine,thymine and guanine) to the Ribosome in a precise order creating a new protein.

So "a simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon" is hardly an accurate description of a living cell. The DNA strands in each individual cell not only contain "instructions" for proteins and molecules, but contain the genetic codes for the organism in which it inhabits.

So science can move forward, but it requires forward thinkers. It is impossible to be a scientist without using your imagination and being open to possibilities, despite your unsubstantiated beliefs.

If anyone can prove that parapsychology is bogus, then try. The field is currently barred by limitations of current knowledge. Skepticism does serve its purpose if it is undeterministic, however if your mind is closed to the possibility then what purpose does it serve (besides graffiti) to even peruse the parapsychology forum?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dont be too dishearted kwhilborn, Scientists at the leading edge of discovery are by their very nature renegades - natural heretics who enjoy plunging into the unknown and having all their assumptions challanged on a deeply fundamental level.
Small-mindedness in my experience is only really embraced by those on the very bottom rungs of science, or those who are left out on the periphery of the scientific establishment.

The only real difference between the top and the bottom of social pyramid is imagination and critical thinking, the lower down the pyramid you go the less natural ability you find for imaginative reasoning, and thats useally where dogma takes its place as a poor-man's substitute.
Its certainly not confined to science either you get the exact same dynamic in religion and philosophy, it just seems to be the way people behave in large groups.
As long as nature continues to produce its trail-blazers and renegades we should be alright though (thank god).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the subforum is invaluable. It explores a vast arena of psychology behind human delusion as well as different types of natural human hallucination... alot of times in combination.

I at first found it odd that lucid dreaming was in this subforum; however, considering how intertwined it becomes with hypnogogic hallucination, hypnopompic hallucaintion, and various forms of delusion, I can understand why it is here.

I wouldn't take the psi-bashing personally. It's a natural result of insufficient (or an absence of) supportive evidence for the mere existence of psi. Being open to possibility should be tempered with taking the knowns into account. The presence of knowns restricts possibility and that is something I have noted that believers in general do not like... and for good reason too because it challenges what they want to be true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no scientific evidence that the statistical differences found in psi experiments are due to human delusion. Sceptics have made this claim but have yet to back it up with any actual scientific evidence.

Its no more and no less irritating than listening to Christian Fundamentalist bash evolution.

There is evidence. Sceptics have yet to produce results showing that the statistical difference is psi experiments is due to human deception or error.

Wow, I can't believe you can't see the irony in this comment. You are dismissing the known evidence because it challenges what you want to be true.

 

I have not seen that claim. I have seen sceptics say that the results cannot be trusted due to inadequate controls.

When a fundamentalist bashes evolution it really doesn't matter because reality disagrees with them. It's not the case for psi.

It's an option for them; however, the existence of psi is not accepted in science so the onus is still on the believer to prove the claim.

I want psi to be true and I see the evidence supporting the existence of human error. Hardly applicable.

 

Because like all fundamentalists you have blinders on.

Your comment is nothing more than dogmatic bullshit. There is evidence for psi. Reality disagrees with you.

No, there is evidence. If sceptics think the statistical evidence is due to methodological error the onus is on them to prove it. Speculation isn't science. Speculating that the statistical evidence doesn't constitute falsifying an experiment. Funny, how you accept speculation as proof when it comes from sceptics but dismiss science when it comes form "advocates."

No, stupid. You don't want psi to be true so you refuse to accept any evidence just like Christian fundamentalists don't want evolution to be true so refuse to accept any evidence.

 

My point being that "What is known" is not enough. Historians deal with "what is known". Scientists used to be called "natural philosophers" and are supposed to be open to the possibility unless it has been proven that no possibility exists.

This reasoning being that the Parapsychology forum is used as a source for delusional people, and the intrinsic value of it is to serve in psychological research. Glad I've helped you with your homework, however I truly believe in the adage, "the last frontier of science is the human mind". It is possible (wishful thinking aside, and everyone knows my stance by now) that discoveries regarding telepathy, etc. may soon be possible.

I did say
If anyone can prove that parapsychology is bogus, then try. The field is currently barred by limitations of current knowledge. Skepticism does serve its purpose if it is undeterministic, however if your mind is closed to the possibility then what purpose does it serve (besides graffiti) to even peruse the parapsychology forum?

We now know that this forum appears to be rich in subjects for psychological research. It would be nice if there was a Forum devoted to "Parasychology", maybe they could call it the "Real Parapsychology Forum".

We are bounded by existing technology to understand what (if anything) transpires during telepathy. It is disheartening to think that potentially valid contributors towards an understanding of E.S.P. are shy to come here because of their low acceptance.

The entire forum might as well be named "Woo Woos".

Until Parapsycholgy can be formally ruled out as valid (I doubt will ever happen), then the potential is there.

There would never be any advances in science or any scientists, unless someone somewhere uses the scientific method to expand our knowledge.

"Expand our knowledge" implies that we do not know everything yet, although you would think we did reading through some of these threads.

 

Riiight. Show me one instance of it and that will serve as evidence that some skeptics hold that claim.

Hardly, but like the Christian fundy it really doesn't matter.

Ignoring the knowns again I see. The onus is still on the believer as psi is not accepted as existing in the scientific world.

See, you want things to be your way so bad that you have to stoop to falsly re-inventing other people's positions. Emotion, psychology, and no psi.

 

IMO, the field is barred by an absence of an actual phenomena to study; however, there is great value in understanding the values and psychological needs of people. Parapsychology, Religion, and to some degree Philosophy are great resources to study this.

 

That is textbook definition of "narrow minded".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/narrow-minded

So the "graffiti artists" are in reality conducting psychological research. We covered that already in this thread.

Telepathy, lucid dreaming, healing, cosmos, harmony is what the categories are for study in this thread.

If anyone is capable of providing evidence that these things do not exist, then this is the correct forum.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

It is convenient how "all-knowing" people can draw conclusions based on assumptions.

Until this past week space was thought to be a vacuum, devoid of oxygen, yet because someone thought differently and looked for it, we now know that oxygen can indeed be found in space.

I am sure there were cavemen (Paleolithic era men) who were equally confident in their "all-knowing"-ness. They Knew the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, and that women could get pregnant just by male presence.

These cavemen views were limited. Cavemen certainly were not capable of studying the atomic structure of molecules. If you asked a caveman why he did not study molecules he would respond.

Because modern science distinguishes between subjective and objective and teaches us that objective is “good” and subjective is “bad,” this creates for us an increasingly wide gulf between our perceptions of phenomena and the concepts by which we explain them.

In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue,” and as you may recall, he had trouble finding funding for his trip because people thought he’d fall off the edge of the ocean into who-knows-where and end up down underneath (if he lived long enough).

300 years ago historians knew the Earth was only 6000 years old.

What I am implying is that perhaps; just perhaps...

Scienctists in a few hundred years will search through the old sci-forum posts and have a chuckle at those who are now "all-knowing".

Perhaps; just perhaps... "we don't know everything yet" as shocking as that may be to your beliefs.

No future discovery will ever be possible without looking for them.

I am not implying that parapsychology has validity. I am implying that we will never know if it does as long as there are people who approach the subject with.

 

Crunchy you just dont accept the evidence when its shown to you. That simple. The Ganzfeld experiments constitute evidence which have yet to be falsified. Period.

Exactly. Your comment is nothing more than dogmatic bullshit and to you it doesn't matter. In your mind the case is closed and there is no reasoning with you. Its actually pretty comical. I didn't no there were people like you that literally can't accept the possibilty that psi might be real.

No, silly the knowns are that there are many scientific studies that show evidence for psi that have yet to be falsified by actual scientific tests. Many sceptics av especulated about the results but have not actually falsified the tests. Thats how science works.

It doesn't take psi to see that you You don't want psi to be true so you refuse to accept any evidence just like Christian fundamentalists don't want evolution to be true so refuse to accept any evidence. What is it about a non-psi universe that you have to cling to it so badly? What dark little secrets are your in head that you are afraid could get out?

 

Please. Start a thread and cite this evidence so that we may discuss it. Simply saying it exists does not appear to make it manifest itself.

 

Skinwalker. How many threads do you need started exactly? What do you need talked about? There are both in numbers here at sci-forums.

The evidence is in front of you all.

 

Skinwalker,
We have been discussing the evidence in the Psipog thread. Maybe this thread should be closed since it is now covering the same subject as the psipog thread and that thread has evidence referenced and discussed.

 

Hold on.

This thread was started to point out that with a little "open-mindedness", the discussions could evolve into

Theories.???

I would think the onus should be on skeptics IN THIS FORUM. To assume we know everything about Telepathy, Lucid Dreaming, Cosmos, or whatever this thread is SUPPOSED to be for, is arrogant.

The kind of arrogance the cavemen (Paleolithic era men) had, who were equally confident in their "all-knowing"-ness. There is NO evidence to support these things do not exist.

So instead I ask for proof (from skeptics) that there is no possibility of Parapsychology.

Go on - Prove it. As they say.

 

Well, in all fairness the burden of proof is on people that make the claim of somethings existence. Only unreasonable fanatics people like Crunchy say its impossible and that there is no evidence.

 

Sorry I seemed to have missed it. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to leave a link to the post that contains the most convincing evidence. Or at least the post # and thread.

Which post # in that thread contains the most convincing evidence?

Since theories are comprised of one or more tested hypotheses, I should be most eager to see one of these "theories." Or are you simply using the non-academic and colloquial form of the word? If so, this is a science forum and you are making scientific claims, therefore we should stick to the real definition of 'theory.'

 

Sorry (because I am laughing), it has been a long time since my english has been challenged.

Skinwalker; my use of words is almost always correct.

Skinwalker.
First; I am not making scientific claims in this thread. Show me one. I am arguing for "open-mindedness" in this Forum.

Secondly; you are very incorrect with the supposition that the word "THEORY" means it is a tested hypothesis. It is the starting point for the "Scientific Method".

I could jest at your use of the word "colloquial". That refers to words that are broken down in syntax. If you say, "I'm gonna" instead of " I am going to" then that is a colloquialism.

Skinwalker; if you want to learn "The scientific method" you will find that the very beginning is unsubstantiated theory. When the apple fell on Newtons head he started developing theories as to how this could have occurred.

Theoretical means that it has not been proven by experiment. Thought experiments are prime examples of this.


I'll use it in a sentence for you.

"My aunt May has a theory that says if it is 0 degrees outside, and it is going to be twice as cold tomorrow, then it will still be 0 degrees."

obviously she is wrong. Actually the dictionary (something people should use themselves before attempting ridicule) gives a better sentence. see for yourself.

Theory (WEBSTERS DEFINITION)

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION


3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Of course this post ALSO does not belong in a science forum. Thank you skinwalker for taking this thread further off course.

Now:

Yes. Yes. Yes. for once we agree on this thread. I would also like to see theories in the Parapsychology Forum. That is what I've been saying here.

I would also be interested in seeing threads and posts with evidence or "THEORIES" as to why Parapsychology is bunk.

I challenge anyone with their wits about them to start a thread proving that Parapsychology is bunk. I am non-judgemental, and will review all arguements fairly. My personal opinions being that there is something to Telepathy, etcetera, that just has not been discovered as yet.

Discovery should be the goal of all of us, and to make the assumption that Telepathy does not exist just because it does not coincide with your current beliefs is presumptuous, and arrogant. Both traits that are undesireable in a scientist.

So if anyone has proof that Telepathy is impossible then by all means share.

 

I know that telepathy is possible. This is considering all concern for the wellbeing of the thread (my tone of voice). Not only do I know it is possible, but I know without a doubt. The only thing lacking is clarification. AT this moment I am causing everyone to be affected by me. I'm talking long distances etc. Such things exist, and the evidence ,

SKINWALKER,

exists in a thread pointing out several things to your inability to notice the details.
Or even say anything about them, for that matter!!

It is called "Proving telepathy exists"
and I would say that the entire thread is relevant.
Why do you not go there and post? We 'psychics' would be more than happy to introduce you to the rethoritic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So, in other words, kwhilborn, you are visiting a science forum and referring the colloquial version of "theory" and not the real version pertinent to science that would be expected in a science forum. Therefore, we shan't be expecting to see tested hypotheses then, shall we?

And you've made many scientific claims in this thread, starting with the OP where you said,

Not only are you making claims about science here, but you are demonstrating a bit of ignorance about science at the same time. Scientific methods aren't used to "prove theories true." Theories are established via scientific methods (there are many methods in science). This is a science forum. In this place, "theory" implies something vastly different than your undereducated and uninformed version does. Click the wiki link I left you in a previous post and educate yourself, my friend. There's nothing at all wrong with ignorance unless the ignorant refuses to improve.

And, for someone that claims to desire openmindedness, you appear to have the least open mind in the thread. I'm at least willing to revise my opinion on ESP, psi, telepathy and all the other mumbo-jumbo you're going on about. I require only valid, reproducible evidence.

I'm still waiting for someone to offer the # of the post that offers the most convincing evidence for telepathy.