Psychics and science

[LittlePinky82]

Exactly how would science test psychic abilities that would be more correct that the current scientific method?
Ignore the lack of empirical evidence? Accept hearsay as gospel? Allow the claimant to control the testing standards?
I suppose that would satisfy the claimants.

People would always just claim coincidence about things. I know I've had lots of psychic experiences in my life. Since high school at least. It was quite helpful to me in life especially in social things. Like knowing who to trust and who doesn't like you. My feelings were always right on. I've also just seemed to "know" things. For example when I was first in college I wasn't driving at the time. My mother dropped me off and would leave. I had this English class and it was taught by an older woman. You never knew when she was going to be out.

One day I was getting ready to leave for class and had this very strong feeling that I should tell my Mother to wait around for a while. I didn't know why just knew to say that and it was important. So I did and went to class. While we were waiting on the professor to show up this other guy came in. I can't remember if he was the dean or another professor or what, but anyways, he came in and said the professor of the class had fallen and slipped on some ice on her side walk and she hurt her back pretty badly. Of course we all got out of class. I was really glad I told my Mother to wait because I would have had to wait around for her because I don't think I had a cell back then. I can't remember. So would science just say that was a coincidence or what?

 

[LittlePinky82]

It's hard to prove a negative and people who usually are involved in psychic phenomena always end up making claims like the scientists doubt messes with their "powers" or that the supernatural event is so random that a scientist can't gauge it because it's not repeatable.

Really it's the same reason Randi's million dollar challenge has never been won, when the "psychic" can't manipulate people and has to pony up something real it all turns out to be bull.

For stuff like UFO's and Ghosts, reptoids, etc never doubt the ability of the human mind to fantasize and totally warp what really happened. People also hate to be told that they imagined it.... and well the thing is they probably did imagine it. Witch attacks in prior centuries match up almost exactly to people who claim to have seen/attacked by ghosts and ufos today, I have no doubt that they really believe even in cases of abduction that something really happened but that it has a natural explanation and they are distorting it.

I know for me if I try really super hard to force things in the psychic senses it'll always end up a bust. I know that I'm just asking for a failure. Only reason why I can think of is because you're so focused on wanting to know an answer and you won't take anything else you're trying to force it and nothing will happen. Things just have to come to you. Whenever that happens to me at least my instincts are always correct so I never try to force anything. If I have a question about something I will put it out there and wait for the answer at the right time. The other side doesn't know time so it doesn't matter to them but it does to us. We have to be ready for the answer whatever it may be.

 

[Gunfingers]

It's like this, if you want to believe that your intuition is a magic power or a curve in space-time that your mind somehow has access to or whatever then knock yourself out. But you can't be surprised that it isn't taken seriously when you cannot ever produce any sort of empirical basis for that.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm actually only thinking of the primary dictionary definition of the word. Nothing so exotic as Joe seems to think.

It seems we are treating the word subtly but significantly differently (such is the way of language I guess). I don't think it makes a difference to the point I'm trying to make though.

Much of the reason psychic claims and the like are treated differently by the scientific community is because they're presented differently. We have a wide and diverse range of claims intimately tied up in an equally wide and diverse range of beliefs and faiths.

There are very clear hypotheses on the nature of the phenomena (by your definition ) and no clear hypotheses on the fundamental principals behind them yet "science" is expected to address these claims in the same way it does in fields where that groundwork is in place.

 

[Willamena]

It seems we are treating the word subtly but significantly differently (such is the way of language I guess). I don't think it makes a difference to the point I'm trying to make though.

Much of the reason psychic claims and the like are treated differently by the scientific community is because they're presented differently. We have a wide and diverse range of claims intimately tied up in an equally wide and diverse range of beliefs and faiths.

There are very clear hypotheses on the nature of the phenomena (by your definition ) and no clear hypotheses on the fundamental principals behind them yet "science" is expected to address these claims in the same way it does in fields where that groundwork is in place.

I agree that the problem is in how they are presented. For instance when they are presented as their hypotheses, rather than as themselves (a point I touched on earlier), such as, "Well, with something like precognition, identification of some form of matter or energy travelling from a source of the information to the mind of the person experiencing the effect. If the person is gaining some information, that information must be transferred somehow."

Is that (quoted) what precognition is, though? Isn't it safe (and more accurate) to say that we don't know what precognition is, and that rather, with the word we are simply describing a phenomenon (pre- "before", -cognition "knowing") rather than suggesting a means of scientific study? The hypothesis in the quote you made (and others like it) is what is unsupported, not the phenomenon.

The phenomenon itself is supported (as Alceste pointed out) by events.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Related to science and psychics, there is a very good interview between Derren Brown and Richard Dawkins. A bit of background - Derren Brown is very talented in being able to use the way people interact and various body languages to make people act how he wants, believe what he wants them to believe. He does things like buying a $4500 platinum ring from a jeweller with blank pieces of paper. Takes another man's wallet, phone and keys just by asking them. There are several videos of him doing things that seem to be very psychic, but as he explains in the following interview, he's just aware of the various ways verbal cues and non-verbal communication can be used to his advantage.

Anyhoo, here's the first of the six-part interview. You might like to also check out some of the fun stuff he does

[youtube]Xswt8B8-UTM[/youtube]
YouTube - Derren Brown Interview (1/6) - Richard Dawkins

 

[HonestJoe]

I agree that the problem is in how they are presented. For instance when they are presented as their hypotheses, rather than as themselves (a point I touched on earlier), such as, "Well, with something like precognition, identification of some form of matter or energy travelling from a source of the information to the mind of the person experiencing the effect. If the person is gaining some information, that information must be transferred somehow."
Is that (quoted) what precognition is, though? Isn't it safe (and more accurate) to say that we don't know what precognition is, and that rather, with the word we are simply describing a phenomenon (pre- "before", -cognition "knowing") rather than suggesting a means of scientific study? The hypothesis in the quote you made is what is unsupported, not the phenomenon.

You're quoting me out of context there. I wasn't presenting a hypothesis, I was answering your question of what kind of mechanism I would expect to exist if something like precognition was really happening (i.e. the people are actually gaining information about what is going to happen).

The presentation problem is that the mechanisms typically proposed (often assumed) for this kind of phenomena are ones which are totally unproven at the fundamental level (spirits, psychic energy etc). That makes it harder for scientists to get down to the core phenomena and opens them to condemnation if they dare to even suggest alternative, mundane mechanisms for them.

I think we're basically saying the same thing from opposite directions.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Psychic abilities are no more a scam than astrology, tarot cards, biorhythm readings, astral projection, past life regression, scientology, infomercials, snake oil, communicating with dead people, the loch ness monster, or religion.

Well, you said it, it must be true.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I have some swampland in Florida I want to sell you...

Hmmm, that's how Disney World got started.

 

[Willamena]

You're quoting me out of context there. I wasn't presenting a hypothesis, I was answering your question of what kind of mechanism I would expect to exist if something like precognition was really happening (i.e. the people are actually gaining information about what is going to happen).

Sorry; it was just a good example. Other proposals of mechanism, like "guess" or "magic", can't really be turned into working hypotheses (and the document Alceste linked to was hard to follow.)

The presentation problem is that the mechanisms typically proposed (often assumed) for this kind of phenomena are ones which are totally unproven at the fundamental level (spirits, psychic energy etc). That makes it harder for scientists to get down to the core phenomena and opens them to condemnation if they dare to even suggest alternative, mundane mechanisms for them.

I think we're basically saying the same thing from opposite directions.

Perhaps, but my issue is with claims like that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Two words: James Randi.

Nuff said.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well, you said it, it must be true.

Good of you to accept and acknowledge this fact.

 

[Alceste]

Sorry; it was just a good example. Other proposals of mechanism, like "guess" or "magic", can't really be turned into working hypotheses (and the document Alceste linked to was hard to follow.)

No kidding! Basically, they studied a guy who reliably makes accurate guesses a significant part of the time in lab conditions and found a correlation between the level of activity in a certain part of his brain and the accuracy of his guesses.

Not definitive proof of anything, but tickling away at the edges of a potential mechanism.

Perhaps, but my issue is with claims like that the phenomenon doesn't exist.

Mine too, and also with the hypocrisy of accusing those who reject such unsubstantiated claims of a lack of empiricism.

 

[Alceste]

People would always just claim coincidence about things. I know I've had lots of psychic experiences in my life. Since high school at least. It was quite helpful to me in life especially in social things. Like knowing who to trust and who doesn't like you. My feelings were always right on. I've also just seemed to "know" things. For example when I was first in college I wasn't driving at the time. My mother dropped me off and would leave. I had this English class and it was taught by an older woman. You never knew when she was going to be out.

One day I was getting ready to leave for class and had this very strong feeling that I should tell my Mother to wait around for a while. I didn't know why just knew to say that and it was important. So I did and went to class. While we were waiting on the professor to show up this other guy came in. I can't remember if he was the dean or another professor or what, but anyways, he came in and said the professor of the class had fallen and slipped on some ice on her side walk and she hurt her back pretty badly. Of course we all got out of class. I was really glad I told my Mother to wait because I would have had to wait around for her because I don't think I had a cell back then. I can't remember. So would science just say that was a coincidence or what?

That sounds very similar to my experiences. I just get an irresistable and out of character impulse that, when I follow through on it, always seems to deliver me to a fortunate coincidence. For example, I went to a party once without knowing exactly where it was in a densely developed two block radius. The impulse told me to cross the street and just stand there, so I did. Less than a minute later a pair of musicians I didn't know walked out of a nearby townhouse. They were coming from the party and I was standing by their car.

 

[Octavia156]

So, then you support the method of scientific inquiry that states that if the science does not produce the desired result, the scientist is at fault?

[sarcasm]I like this! We can blame anybody for not producing the desired results, no matter whether those results are realistic or possible or not! Great thinking! [/sarcasm]

Ok i shall revise further.....

POLITICIANS are to blame for not allowing Scientists to do their jobs properly :drool:

 

[Engyo]

POLITICIANS are to blame for not allowing Scientists to do their jobs properly :drool:

I have absolutely no argument here!

 

[Octavia156]

If they'd allowed Oscar Janiger and Tim Leary to complete their experiments into LSD - we would be alot more advanced in both NeuroScience and Psychology

 

[SuperNova66]

i dont know how you see this but if there are scientific error in bible can you say that god is telling us a lie.....the logical answer is like many Christian scholars believe that Bible has been fabricated with time , its no longer the Torrah the revelation given to Jesus (Pbuh)...there might a part of the Bible which is correct but not all

like the Bible says

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

(John 16:13 NKJV) "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you"

who is being PROPHESISED here ...for complete answer

The Qur’an mentions in Surah Al-Araf chapter 7 verse 157:

"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures) in the law and the Gospel".

1. MUHAMMAD (PBUH) PROPHESISED IN THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY:

Almighty God speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

The Christians say that this prophecy refers to Jesus (pbuh) because Jesus (pbuh) was like Moses (pbuh). Moses (pbuh) was a Jew, as well as Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew. Moses (pbuh) was a Prophet and Jesus (pbuh) was also a Prophet.

If these two are the only criteria for this prophecy to be fulfilled, then all the Prophets of the Bible who came after
Moses (pbuh) such as Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist, etc. (pbut) will
fulfill this prophecy since all were Jews as well as prophets.

However, it is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is like Moses (pbuh):

i) Both had a father and a mother, while Jesus (pbuh) was born miraculously without any male intervention.

[Mathew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 and also Al-Qur'an 3:42-47]

ii) Both were married and had children. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not marry nor had children.

iii) Both died natural deaths. Jesus (pbuh) has been raised up alive. (4:157-158)

Muhammad (pbuh) is from among the brethren of Moses (pbuh). Arabs are brethren of Jews. Abraham (pbuh) had two sons: Ishmail and Isaac (pbut). The Arabs are the descendants of Ishmail (pbuh) and the Jews are the descendants of Isaac (pbuh).

Words in the mouth:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was unlettered and whatever revelations he received from Almighty God he repeated them verbatim.

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

[Deuteronomy 18:18]

iv) Both besides being Prophets were also kings i.e. they could inflict capital punishment. Jesus (pbuh) said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36).

v) Both were accepted as Prophets by their people in their lifetime but Jesus (pbuh) was rejected by his
people. John chapter 1 verse 11 states, "He came unto his own, but his own received him not."

iv) Both brought new laws and new regulations for their people. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not bring any new laws. (Mathew 5:17-18).

2. It is Mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy chapter 18:19

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not harken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."

3. Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesised in the book of Isaiah:

It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12:

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned."

When Archangel Gabrail commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying Iqra - "Read", he replied, "I am not learned".

4. prophet Muhammad (pbuh) mentioned by name in the old testament:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16:

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."

"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters
of Jerusalem."

In the Hebrew language im is added for respect. Similarely im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad
(pbuh) to make it Muhammadim. In English translation they have even translated the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as "altogether lovely", but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is yet present.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in the New Testament:


Al-Qur'an Chapter 61 Verse 6:

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said, 'O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me and giving glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmed.' But when he came to them with clear signs, they said, 'This is evident sorcery!' "

All the prophecies mentioned in the Old Testament regarding Muhammad (pbuh) besides applying to the Jews also hold good for the Christians.

1. John chapter 14 verse 16:
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."

2. Gospel of John chapter 15 verse 26:

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which
proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."

3. Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 7:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not
come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you".

"Ahmed" or "Muhammad" meaning "the one who praises" or "the praised one" is almost the translation of the
Greek word Periclytos. In the Gospel of John 14:16, 15:26, and 16:7. The word 'Comforter' is used in the English translation for the Greek word Paracletos which means advocate or a kind friend rather than a comforter.
Paracletos is the warped reading for Periclytos. Jesus (pbuh) actually prophesised Ahmed by name. Even the
Greek word Paraclete refers to the Prophet (pbuh) who is a mercy for all creatures.

Some Christians say that the Comforter mentioned in these prophecies refers to the Holy Sprit. They fail to realise
that the prophecy clearly says that only if Jesus (pbuh) departs will the Comforter come. The Bible states that the
Holy Spirit was already present on earth before and during the time of Jesus (pbuh), in the womb of Elizabeth, and again when Jesus (pbuh) was being baptised, etc. Hence this prophecy refers to none other than Prophet
Muhammad (pbuh).

4. Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 12-14:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is
come, he will guide you unto all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me".

The Sprit of Truth, spoken about in this prophecy referes to none other than Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

NOTE: All quotations of the Bible are taken from the King James Version.

 

[jarofthoughts]

i dont know how you see this but if there are scientific error in bible can you say that god is telling us a lie.....


<snipped a whole lot of quotes from irrelevant holy books>

I don't know how this even remotely relates to the discussion at hand.