Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[beenherebeforeagain]

It's not even that, necessarily.

I test hypotheses - about road safety - for a living and I'm fine with doing that.

... But there are only so many hours in the day and I'm already filling all of them. Why should I set aside the things I'm already doing to test some wild-*** claim?

There's no shortage of hypotheses in my field of expertise that need investigation but show a fair bit of promise and, if true, have the potential to save lives. If I had spare time for hypothesis testing, I'd focus on that stuff, not the claims some YouTuber pulled out of their butt about angels or the "hollow Earth."

So, no one else should devote time and effort to investigating another field of knowledge because you're already busy in yours? REALLY?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fact that you prejudge claims as 'wild-***' suggests that maybe you do need to test some of those claims. Personally, I find the approach you seem to be advancing to be intellectually dishonest and lazy.

In the case of ghosts in the modern reality TV shows, the proponents claim that ghosts are detectable by means that are eminently testable involving electromagnetic effects.

Yes, you can sanctimoniously dismiss the claims because you don't see how they could be true.

But a truly inquisitive mind would say, "You know, I can test this. I can do it in a way that should demonstrate that either I am right and their 'findings' are unfounded, or I am unfounded in my skepticism. I admit that my position could be falsified...but at the same time, I could falsify their assertions."

Sure, no one wants to fund such a study, and no one wants to put their own reputation on the line. But it could be done, and this is what the OP asked:


I am arguing that some claims of the paranormal could be tested. I think I hear you arguing that although the scientific method COULD be used, there is no reason to even try because you've already decided that there is nothing to any of the claims.

While this may be the way science is usually practiced in our society, it is not the way it SHOULD be practiced, in my opinion.

No. I am not saying that. So much as saying that people that make these claims operate on assumptions that have little, if any validity and are seeking to demonstrate undefined constructs. I actually support the idea of applying science to investigate these things. It is just that science is not going to be applied as I have seen some claim.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

No. I am not saying that. So much as saying that people that make these claims operate on assumptions that have little, if any validity and are seeking to demonstrate undefined constructs. I actually support the idea of applying science to investigate these things. It is just that science is not going to be applied as I have seen some claim.

I actually agree with you. Science COULD BE APPLIED to some of the questions/assertions. But no one with a real career in science has the time or wants to risk their reputation of what their peers at least publicly consider to be bunk--and there certainly doesn't appear to be any source of funding to support such studies. And I've not seen many (if any) proponents of the paranormal actually design and execute double-blind null-hypothesis testing (an good alternative is certain kinds of modeling) studies of their assertions.

Can it happen? Yes.
Has it happened? I haven't seen significant evidence that it has.
Will it happen? Perhaps, when someone has sufficient resources and training to do so.

But 'could it happen?' was how I read the OP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, no one else should devote time and effort to investigating another field of knowledge because you're already busy in yours? REALLY?

Did I say "anybody?"

Other people can make their own decisions, but the fact that some supernatural claim hasn't been tested yet suggests that nobody has found it worthwhile to test it so far.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I actually agree with you. Science COULD BE APPLIED to some of the questions/assertions. But no one with a real career in science has the time or wants to risk their reputation of what their peers at least publicly consider to be bunk--and there certainly doesn't appear to be any source of funding to support such studies. And I've not seen many (if any) proponents of the paranormal actually design and execute double-blind null-hypothesis testing (an good alternative is certain kinds of modeling) studies of their assertions.

Can it happen? Yes.
Has it happened? I haven't seen significant evidence that it has.
Will it happen? Perhaps, when someone has sufficient resources and training to do so.

But 'could it happen?' was how I read the OP.

It happened many times (~1000, apparently) with the JREF's Million Dollar Challenge:

One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia

(Edit: I mean scientific investigation, not necessarily double-blind studies. I think a lot of supernatural claims couldn't be properly blinded even if you wanted to)

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Did I say "anybody?"

Other people can make their own decisions, but the fact that some supernatural claim hasn't been tested yet suggests that nobody has found it worthwhile to test it so far.

The implication sure seemed to be that YOU were busy and had lots of things to investigate in your field, and so everyone else in all other fields would be otherwise unwilling or unable...if I misread that implication, I apologize.

However, you're using circular reasoning: It's not worth investigating, so no one has investigated it, and since no one has investigated it, it's not worth investigating...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The fact that you prejudge claims as 'wild-***' suggests that maybe you do need to test some of those claims. Personally, I find the approach you seem to be advancing to be intellectually dishonest and lazy.

In the case of ghosts in the modern reality TV shows, the proponents claim that ghosts are detectable by means that are eminently testable involving electromagnetic effects.

Yes, you can sanctimoniously dismiss the claims because you don't see how they could be true.

But a truly inquisitive mind would say, "You know, I can test this. I can do it in a way that should demonstrate that either I am right and their 'findings' are unfounded, or I am unfounded in my skepticism. I admit that my position could be falsified...but at the same time, I could falsify their assertions."

Sure, no one wants to fund such a study, and no one wants to put their own reputation on the line. But it could be done, and this is what the OP asked:


I am arguing that some claims of the paranormal could be tested. I think I hear you arguing that although the scientific method COULD be used, there is no reason to even try because you've already decided that there is nothing to any of the claims.

While this may be the way science is usually practiced in our society, it is not the way it SHOULD be practiced, in my opinion.

I also recognize that there are questions that we will never be able to answer yes or no about.

 

[gnostic]

Theoretically the scientific method is fine HOWEVER it may be that our physical senses and instruments at this time can not detect the posited planes of nature beyond the known physical.

Not theoretical.

If you can test anything through observation, measurements and quantities (eg repeatability of experiments, discovery multiple independent evidence, etc, for statistical data, probability and verification purposes), then scientific method is set of useful procedures.

Second, science accepts that (A) what models are testable and reject what models that have been tested false (thus refuting the models). The former (A) is probable, the later (B) improbable; these are two possible outcome of falsifiable models.

It is the EVIDENCE (along with any data associated with the evidence) that determine the conclusion of any model.

The 3rd possible outcome (C) is that the models are unfalsifiable, and are untestable. These models should not only be thrown out as failed models and improbable, but should be deemed as pseudoscience if the researcher refused to let it go. Example, Fred Hoyle with his Steady State model on cosmology, or Michael Behe with his Irreducible Complexity.

My points is that NO explanatory models should be accepted as true by default, without testing - which is what you are suggesting above quote, which I’ll replay:

“...HOWEVER it may be that our physical senses and instruments at this time can not detect the posited planes of nature beyond the known physical.”​

Here, you are suggesting that we should accept what you believe in the supernatural to be true, even when we have no mean of testing such claim or belief.

How long do you think we should wait for technology to catch up with this claim of the supernatural?

HOWEVER it may be that our physical senses and instruments at this time can not detect the posited planes of nature beyond the known physical.

Well, that’s now science work.

It is true, that are number of cases, where someone has theoretical models that cannot be tested until years later, decades later, and even centuries later.

For instance, the Hellenistic astronomer and mathematician, Aristarchus of Samos, theoretically proposed that the Earth and other planets orbiting around the sun, hence the Heliocentric model of planetary motion, as opposed to the sun orbiting around the stationary Earth, hence geocentric model, which is the popular in much older Babylonian astronomy and in younger Greek astronomy (eg Aristotle, and 2nd century CE Claudius Ptolemy).

The church officially accepted Ptolemy’s geocentric model for a thousand years. But Nicolaus Copernicus brought Aristarchus’ heliocentric model back into limelight, and it was later verified by astronomers using telescopes, Galileo, Kepler and Isaac Newton.

Likewise, Alexander Friedmann, Howard Percy Robertson and Georges Lemaître independently proposed the expanding universe model (later called the Big Bang theory) during the 1920s, with Robertson and Lemaître proposing the Redshift to test the expansion. And in 1948, the BB model was expanded to include the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (proposed by George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman) as mean of testing this model. CMBR was discovered until 1964, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson; this is what turn the Big Bang from “hypothesis” into a working “scientific theory”.

So yes, sometimes technology need to catch up with the model, except that what Aristarchus originally proposed was natural phenomena, not a supernatural one.

What you are proposing is acceptance of supernova, which have never been tested true, and yet you wanted us to treat supernatural as fact.

Like I said, that’s not science. Science required repeatable and testable observations for verification. You cannot expect science to treat something to be factual without evidence.

You are accepting something prematurely, and want everyone to follow your lead.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It happened many times (~1000, apparently) with the JREF's Million Dollar Challenge:

One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia

Great! So, we see there was quite a bit of interest in studying something paranormal...and of course, whoever was to submit evidence had to provide funding to carry out such research in the hopes of winning the prize...not that it's wrong, just that it's a familiar problem in science: finding funding to conduct a study of ANYTHING. Do you fund your own research into transportation safety?

So, initially it was open to anyone, but later it was limited...and eventually "One of the reasons offered for its discontinuation is the unwillingness of higher-profile claimants to apply." And by 2015 it was ended altogether. And it certainly appears that it was not set up for scientific studies, but for 'demonstrations.'

A criticism in the wiki article..."Astronomer Dennis Rawlins described the challenge as insincere, saying that Randi would ensure he never had to pay out. In the October 1981 issue of Fate, Rawlins quoted him as saying "I always have an out".[15] Randi stated that Rawlins did not give the entire quotation, and actually said "Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!"[16]"

Such a sincere test of paranormal claims...

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I also recognize that there are questions that we will never be able to answer yes or no about.

Yes, including many of the assertions about the paranormal. But there are some assertions that can be tested.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The implication sure seemed to be that YOU were busy and had lots of things to investigate in your field, and so everyone else in all other fields would be otherwise unwilling or unable...if I misread that implication, I apologize.

I took this post of yours as you telling me that I ought to be investigating supernatural claims.

However, you're using circular reasoning: It's not worth investigating, so no one has investigated it, and since no one has investigated it, it's not worth investigating...

Not really. Plenty of claims have evidence pointing to their potential validity even before they're rigorously tested. This is the more often the case than not, actually. It's pretty rare for a scientist to just say "hey - let's try testing this idea that just popped into my head that isn't related to anything anyone else has looked at. I have no reason to think it's true, but I can't rule it out, either."

It's much more often the case that it'll be more like "this correlation is showing up in case reports or was noted in a study that wasn't really focused on it. Let's test it in a rigorous way to see if there's really a causal relationship."

... so it's not circular at all that we should ask for evidence before doing investigating a claim in a rigorous way. Even a claim that hasn't gone through the scientific ringer should have at least low-grade evidence supporting it if it's true.

 

[George-ananda]

Not theoretical.

If you can test anything through observation, measurements and quantities (eg repeatability of experiments, discovery multiple independent evidence, etc, for statistical data, probability and verification purposes), then scientific method is set of useful procedures.

Second, science accepts that (A) what models are testable and reject what models that have been tested false (thus refuting the models). The former (A) is probable, the later (B) improbable; these are two possible outcome of falsifiable models.

It is the EVIDENCE (along with any data associated with the evidence) that determine the conclusion of any model.

The 3rd possible outcome (C) is that the models are unfalsifiable, and are untestable. These models should not only be thrown out as failed models and improbable, but should be deemed as pseudoscience if the researcher refused to let it go. Example, Fred Hoyle with his Steady State model on cosmology, or Michael Behe with his Irreducible Complexity.

My points is that NO explanatory models should be accepted as true by default, without testing - which is what you are suggesting above quote, which I’ll replay:

“...HOWEVER it may be that our physical senses and instruments at this time can not detect the posited planes of nature beyond the known physical.”​

Here, you are suggesting that we should accept what you believe in the supernatural to be true, even when we have no mean of testing such claim or belief.

How long do you think we should wait for technology to catch up with this claim of the supernatural?

HOWEVER it may be that our physical senses and instruments at this time can not detect the posited planes of nature beyond the known physical.

Well, that’s now science work.

It is true, that are number of cases, where someone has theoretical models that cannot be tested until years later, decades later, and even centuries later.

For instance, the Hellenistic astronomer and mathematician, Aristarchus of Samos, theoretically proposed that the Earth and other planets orbiting around the sun, hence the Heliocentric model of planetary motion, as opposed to the sun orbiting around the stationary Earth, hence geocentric model, which is the popular in much older Babylonian astronomy and in younger Greek astronomy (eg Aristotle, and 2nd century CE Claudius Ptolemy).

The church officially accepted Ptolemy’s geocentric model for a thousand years. But Nicolaus Copernicus brought Aristarchus’ heliocentric model back into limelight, and it was later verified by astronomers using telescopes, Galileo, Kepler and Isaac Newton.

Likewise, Alexander Friedmann, Howard Percy Robertson and Georges Lemaître independently proposed the expanding universe model (later called the Big Bang theory) during the 1920s, with Robertson and Lemaître proposing the Redshift to test the expansion. And in 1948, the BB model was expanded to include the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (proposed by George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman) as mean of testing this model. CMBR was discovered until 1964, by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson; this is what turn the Big Bang from “hypothesis” into a working “scientific theory”.

So yes, sometimes technology need to catch up with the model, except that what Aristarchus originally proposed was natural phenomena, not a supernatural one.

What you are proposing is acceptance of supernova, which have never been tested true, and yet you wanted us to treat supernatural as fact.

Like I said, that’s not science. Science required repeatable and testable observations for verification. You cannot expect science to treat something to be factual without evidence.

You are accepting something prematurely, and want everyone to follow your lead.

You are missing a key point. I am not calling for scientific acceptance of supernatural phenomena at this time. I was only saying the scientific method requires appropriate tools to test certain theories so the supernatural theory is not testable at this time.

My personal belief in supernatural phenomena comes from reasons science can not address. Not being a disciple of scientism, I consider other sources and wisdom traditions beyond mainstream science in forming my personal beliefs.

.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, including many of the assertions about the paranormal. But there are some assertions that can be tested.

I agree. But I often note that none of those are assertions that people in favor of testing actually assert.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Great! So, we see there was quite a bit of interest in studying something paranormal...and of course, whoever was to submit evidence had to provide funding to carry out such research in the hopes of winning the prize...not that it's wrong, just that it's a familiar problem in science: finding funding to conduct a study of ANYTHING. Do you fund your own research into transportation safety?

So, initially it was open to anyone, but later it was limited...and eventually "One of the reasons offered for its discontinuation is the unwillingness of higher-profile claimants to apply." And by 2015 it was ended altogether. And it certainly appears that it was not set up for scientific studies, but for 'demonstrations.'

A criticism in the wiki article..."Astronomer Dennis Rawlins described the challenge as insincere, saying that Randi would ensure he never had to pay out. In the October 1981 issue of Fate, Rawlins quoted him as saying "I always have an out".[15] Randi stated that Rawlins did not give the entire quotation, and actually said "Concerning the challenge, I always have an 'out': I'm right!"[16]"

Such a sincere test of paranormal claims...

The JREF cut back its activities - including the Million Dollar Challenge - when James Randi retired in 2015.

Every applicant who got tested would first work with the JREF staff to agree on a testing protocol that both the applicant and JREF agreed was a fair test of the claimed ability.

 

[gnostic]

My personal belief in supernatural phenomena comes from reasons science can not address. Not being a disciple of scientism, I consider other sources and wisdom traditions beyond mainstream science in forming my personal beliefs.

I don’t follow scientism.

Each model (hypothesis or theory) will either succeed or fail to verify the model. No models are “absolute”, and every ones of them are only accepted on provisional basis of the available evidence, data or information.

Every models can be changed, replaced or discarded, depending on the evidence available.

That’s not scientism, George.

Just because for anything to be accepted as science, it must meet the requirements of being (A) Falsification, (B) Scientific Method (testing and analyzing models) and (C) Peer Review, follow this framework, doesn’t in any way imply Scientism.

This framework is to ensure, no one is cheating, doctoring fake successful results, and hiding errors in the hypotheses. The framework is used to weed out poorly researched or investigated models, especially pseudoscience like parapsychology, Intelligent Design and creationism.

You are missing a key point. I am not calling for scientific acceptance of supernatural phenomena at this time. I was only saying the scientific method requires appropriate tools to test certain theories so the supernatural theory is not testable at this time.

Then the supernatural (or claims of supernatural) shouldn’t be treated as fact.

You call it “supernatural theory” but since it untested, it isn’t scientific theory.

You have already made up your mind that supernatural is real, so really you are not interested in being objective.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I took this post of yours as you telling me that I ought to be investing supernatural claims.

Sorry to convey that impression...I meant to communicate that it is possible to devise scientific investigation of some of the more specific of paranormal claims, if someone would be willing to undertake the study and devote the resources, not that you yourself should.

Not really. Plenty of claims have evidence pointing to their potential validity even before they're rigorously tested. This is the more often the case than not, actually. It's pretty rare for a scientist to just say "hey - let's try testing this idea that just popped into my head that isn't related to anything anyone else has looked at. I have no reason to think it's true, but I can't rule it out, either."

It's much more often the case that it'll be more like "this correlation is showing up in case reports or was noted in a study that wasn't really focused on it. Let's test it in a rigorous way to see if there's really a causal relationship."

... so it's not circular at all that we should ask for evidence before doing investigating a claim in a rigorous way. Even a claim that hasn't gone through the scientific ringer should have at least low-grade evidence supporting it if it's true.

I would argue that given the prevalence of belief in the paranormal in the world (even among the highly educated and scientists), I think the very complete and competent testing could help to demonstrate that the rather flimsy evidence provided by the paranormal 'investigators' is worthless....but also consider the import if their claims were validated by good studies...

Sure, if the claims are shown to be baseless, the paranormal proponents will just shift to some other proposals, probably untestable ones.

But all science begins with individuals noticing something that doesn't seem to fit. And perhaps science doesn't pursue every little idea, but technical innovators/inventors do. Most attempts fail. Edison supposedly said that 1,000 test lightbulbs with only one success means he found 999 ways NOT to make one.

For the general public, anecdotes and TV claims constitute evidence. To me, that evidence needs to be dealt with, not just denied.

 

[George-ananda]

I don’t follow scientism.

Each model (hypothesis or theory) will either succeed or fail to verify the model. No models are “absolute”, and every ones of them are only accepted on provisional basis of the available evidence, data or information.

Every models can be changed, replaced or discarded, depending on the evidence available.

That’s not scientism, George.

What is 'scientism' is a concern with only what science has to say on the subject.

Then the supernatural (or claims of supernatural) shouldn’t be treated as fact.

You call it “supernatural theory” but since it untested, it isn’t scientific theory.

I am not calling it scientific fact remember?

You have already made up your mind that supernatural is real, so really you are not interested in being objective.

Actually I feel I came to my beliefs through an objective consideration of various paranormal phenomena and certain wisdom traditions that provide theoretical explanatory models for such phenomena to occur.

I believe what appears the most objectively reasonable to believe and call it my leading theory.

 

[Polymath257]

I think you have handled the use of ghost as well as I have seen. Observations could be attributed to a phenomenon we call "ghost", but linking that to a classical definition of ghost would be impossible, since there is no evidence to establish that link.

I don't see that as a huge problem in itself. It is common for terminology to develop as our understanding does. So, at the first sight of unusual optical, electromagnetic, and audio effects, we could postulate a common cause and call such a 'ghost'. If, later, it is found that some of these phenomena are not actually linked, then we might postulate poltergeists for some that are different than the ghosts for others and the apparitions of another.

Just ask someone if Pluto is a planet some time.

The fact that you prejudge claims as 'wild-***' suggests that maybe you do need to test some of those claims. Personally, I find the approach you seem to be advancing to be intellectually dishonest and lazy.

On the contrary, the suggestions are so far from the scientific mainstream and would require such an overturn of the thinking on several different, tested fronts, as well as having been tested multiple times and showing fraud each time, that the default position is that it is a crank claim, pure and simple. In fact, claims of perpetual motion machines are more believable.

In the case of ghosts in the modern reality TV shows, the proponents claim that ghosts are detectable by means that are eminently testable involving electromagnetic effects.

Let's face it. Those shows make money because they 'keep the mystery'. They have no reason to actually do a thorough scientific search. If they did, it would happen. Also, let's face it, those who own the 'haunted properties' tend to be making money off of such. They would much rather pay money to someone who will say there might be something than to pay money to someone (or let someone investigate) who is likely to interfere with their cash stream.

Yes, you can sanctimoniously dismiss the claims because you don't see how they could be true.

Oh, it is much more than that. It is actual violation of well-tested physical laws that would be involved. Unless there is *very* good reason to take the claims seriously, it is reasonable to say they are bunk. There *are* people who investigate these things. of course, if they are honest and don't find anything, they are labeled as 'debunkers' and not allowed to investigate further,

But a truly inquisitive mind would say, "You know, I can test this. I can do it in a way that should demonstrate that either I am right and their 'findings' are unfounded, or I am unfounded in my skepticism. I admit that my position could be falsified...but at the same time, I could falsify their assertions."

How many times do they need to be tested? People who honestly investigate this stuff and say they would be happy to find something unusual uniformly say it is bunk. They complain about the crazies they have to deal with in their investigations, etc.

Sure, no one wants to fund such a study, and no one wants to put their own reputation on the line. But it could be done, and this is what the OP asked:

I am arguing that some claims of the paranormal could be tested. I think I hear you arguing that although the scientific method COULD be used, there is no reason to even try because you've already decided that there is nothing to any of the claims.

On the contrary, people do follow up on such claims and have uniformly found them to be lacking. The only reason to continue testing is to satisfy those who cannot be convinced by the (lack of) evidence.

The money required is not large. Any of the TV shows could do it at the drop of a hat if they really wanted to. Why do you think they don't? Because it *pays* to not.

While this may be the way science is usually practiced in our society, it is not the way it SHOULD be practiced, in my opinion.

Why keep testing things that have been tested over and over and only fraud is found?

If you have a *real* case to report, document it and call James Randi or some other stage magician that knows how people are fooled. Then see if anything is left when they put the controls on.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually I feel I came to my beliefs through an objective consideration of various paranormal phenomena and certain wisdom traditions that provide theoretical explanatory models for such phenomena to occur.

I believe what appears the most objectively reasonable to believe and call it my leading theory.

Let me ask you this. Who would you trust to do such a study? Someone that, if they say nothing is going on, you would say you are wrong?

I can think of any number of people who, if they say there *is* something going on, I would be inclined to say the case is closed: James Randi, Penn & Teller, etc.

But I would want someone who is trained in doing stage magic looking over it as well as a scientist. Too many scientists are unaware of how stage magic works and will fall for the illusions.

 

[George-ananda]

Let me ask you this. Who would you trust to do such a study? Someone that, if they say nothing is going on, you would say you are wrong?

I can think of any number of people who, if they say there *is* something going on, I would be inclined to say the case is closed: James Randi, Penn & Teller, etc.

But I would want someone who is trained in doing stage magic looking over it as well as a scientist. Too many scientists are unaware of how stage magic works and will fall for the illusions.

It seems like here you are trying to focus too much on supernatural performers.

Randi I believe would never admit defeat like all arch-skeptics but that is another tangent.

Most paranormal phenomena appears randomly and spontaneously leaving nothing for science to investigate. And much is posited to not even be occurring at the physically investigable level or enters a person's awareness spontaneously.

Reason and consideration of those claiming direct insight into the unseen are our strongest weapons in this.