Pseudoskepticism and evidence for precognition

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Magical Realist, May 17, 2011.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,451
    Is it scientific to be skeptical of a phenomena just because you don't believe it to be possible? OR..is it more scientific to accept the possibility of a phenomena when real evidence for it is obtained?


    Check this out:


    Is Precognition Real? Cornell University Lab Releases Powerful New Evidence that the Human Mind can Perceive the Future
    http://hplusmagazine.com/2010/11/04...eleases-powerful-new-evidence-human-mind-can/
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,476
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    It's scientific to be skeptical of all phenomena.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Including skepticism?
     
  8. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    Of course... that's why there are measures to address concerns for bias and conflict of interest in pretty much everything.
     
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    But is anyone skeptical about those measures for addressing concerns for bias and conflict of interest?
     
  10. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    I think everyone is.
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    The modern reductionist dogma dictates us to believe that we presume too much to be real, and that in reality, there are fewer things than are dreamt of in our philosophy.

    Secondly, modern science is generally aimed toward debunking stuff that has been believed for a long time, not toward finding new truths.
     
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Then what's the point of keeping to those measures, if everyone is skeptical about them?
     
  13. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    To make the person accused of bias feel better about himself.
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,476
    I disagree.
    Science finds out new truths that incidentally debunk stuff that has been believed for a long time.
    There's a difference.
     
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Really? Tell that to those who fund scientific research.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    How unscientific!
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,476
    You think?
    Someone gives a budget and says "show X is wrong"?
    Or do they hand out money to investigate aspects of the universe that possibly have a pre-existing explanation?

    I can't think of any scientist I've met who was under the impression his job was debunking old "knowledge", rather they thought they were extending the boundaries and "investigating the unknown".
     
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Official justifications are always so formidable, aren't they?
     
  19. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    Tell me about it.
     
  20. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    Show that tobacco does not cause addiction.
    Show that GMOs do not cause health hazards.
     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,476
    Are they the questions asked?
    Or is it "Is tobacco addictive?" and "Are GMOs hazardous to health?"
    The way you phrased the questions pre-supposes the answer...
     
  22. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    It doesn't matter what the answer is, that is not what I am paying you for. I want you to show that my product doesn't pose risk to the population and you better show it or you're in the gutter.
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,476
    Then that's not science, is it?
    It's a "political/ business" decision on what results be presented, not what the results actually are.
    And how many cases have there been when someone has done that - presented skewed "conclusions" by suppressing the genuine results - only to have the actual ones exposed later?
     

Share This Page