Psychics and science

[Alceste]

Perhaps, though, the tests, as designed, entirely failed to test for telepathy or precognition. Alceste's point is that the mechanism of these things is not defined --with no defined mechanism, then perhaps they entirely failed to test for it.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. IMO, the biggest challenge researchers face is the conviction across the board, from both skeptics and the credulous, that the mechanism is supposed to be MAGIC! Skeptics deride it, the credulous are desperate to believe it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You going to cite a study backing up your proposed mechanism for experiences such as knowing who is calling before you pick up the phone, or just make a claim like that and leave it dangling?

Very skeptical and empirical of you.

I was being rhetorical, not empirical. If you have any empirical evidence I'd love to hear the results along with the experimental setup and methodolgy.

 

[Gunfingers]

I don't know what people are expecting, really. 100% accuracy about every event at all times seems to be what "skeptics" want to see, but such expectations are unrealistic. Even the most "psychic" people I've ever known experience it passively, unpredictably and rarely. A little bit right about a few unknowable things once in a while is what it's like. Not absolute unshakeable certainty of all future events.

The issue is that i don't have expectations about it. You're trying to use science to prove yourself right. You go into these studies looking for a way to prove the point of view you have. So to you it being unpredictable and rare but working sometimes might be enough to justify what you already believe, but when you look at it from the outside there's no phenomena to be seen. And looking at it from the outside is exactly how science must work.

So no, it doesn't have to be 100% accurate, hell a few standard deviations would probably be enough (i'm not a scientist, so i'm not going to pin myself to an exact number), but you can't wave off the lack of success as though it proves it.

 

[Willamena]

The issue is that i don't have expectations about it. You're trying to use science to prove yourself right. You go into these studies looking for a way to prove the point of view you have. So to you it being unpredictable and rare but working sometimes might be enough to justify what you already believe, but when you look at it from the outside there's no phenomena to be seen. And looking at it from the outside is exactly how science must work.

Outside of what?

 

[Alceste]

Of course it's almost as much evidence as you'd expect for a phenomena that doesn't actually exist.

It exists, at least subjectively. Weird, inexplicable stuff happens to loads of people. Given the preponderance of anecdotal evidence throughout human history, it's just silly to think otherwise. What has yet to be conclusively, empirically established by researchers are the mechanisms that cause these experiences to occur.

You bring up another issue too. If we're talking about phenomena for which the actual mechanism isn't known, we're not necessarily talking about psychics because that implies a specific mechanism.

That's just not true. What "specific mechanism" are you talking about?

All we're really talking about is evidence of people somehow being able to predict things. Scientific evidence of psychics wouldn't only have to demonstrate the effects but also (at least something about) the cause.

I agree, but the observation of statistically significant effects should provide scientists with the impetus to search for a cause, rather than simply make untested and unempirical claims of fraud, cognitive bias, pure coincidence, delusion, etc.

This is a good example of what I've just said. We've all had the "I knew it was you!" feeling answering the phone but that could be down to perfectly mundane subconscious knowledge. Only a certain subset of people are going to phone you and there will be times or circumstances where they're more or less likely to call.

Perhaps it could, if it hadn't been tested in a lab and reasonable attempts made to control for such explanations. If I can find the studies I'm referring to again, I'll post a link, but at the moment I can't be bothered to look. People are too heavily invested in their opinions on this topic for me to think anything can be gained by providing evidence one way or the other. Also you have to wade through so much crap the minute you type anything to do with psychic phenomena into the browser, I find it depressing.

It could be a result of some kind of psychic energy moving through the ether but in the absence of any evidence (even any consistent hypothesis for that matter) suggesting that is even possible, there is no logical reason to suspect this is the case.

To put it bluntly, tough! Lots of fields of study suffer all sorts of different problems and restrictions. That's no reason to treat them differently on the principals of burden of proof and evidence.

And yet this field is treated differently than all the others - statistically significant deviations from pure random chance aren't enough to gain acceptance as evidence of a phenomena, whereas in any other field of research they would be.

 

[Alceste]

The issue is that i don't have expectations about it. You're trying to use science to prove yourself right. You go into these studies looking for a way to prove the point of view you have. So to you it being unpredictable and rare but working sometimes might be enough to justify what you already believe, but when you look at it from the outside there's no phenomena to be seen. And looking at it from the outside is exactly how science must work.

So no, it doesn't have to be 100% accurate, hell a few standard deviations would probably be enough (i'm not a scientist, so i'm not going to pin myself to an exact number), but you can't wave off the lack of success as though it proves it.

I don't accept the claim that there has been a total lack of success, since I've read otherwise. I don't have expectations myself, and there's nothing to prove myself "right" about. Unlike some who attribute all such claims to severe character failings or delusions on the part of the subject or researchers, I have no idea what causes these experiences to occur. I know what I've experienced subjectively and I trust my friends to accurately report their subjective experience. None of us have any interest in proving anything to anyone or any beliefs about why such phenomena occur (perhaps with the exception of the guy who's into voudou.)

I can say, though, that such a strong attachment to the unsubstantiated belief that these phenomena simply don't occur puts you at risk of having to make a very difficult psychological adjustment should they ever happen to you. I'd rather leave the whole issue in the nebulous category of "unknown things", for the sake of my own mental health.

 

[painted wolf]

It's always easiest to claim science has a "bias" against something... than to do the hard work to provide evidence for said thing.

wa:do

 

[Gunfingers]

Outside of what?

Outside of the preconceived opinion that the findings are a product of telepathy.

I know what I've experienced subjectively and I trust my friends to accurately report their subjective experience

I don't doubt for once second that you've experienced the things you claim to. I'm sure you've often guessed who is calling before you saw the caller ID. I've done it too. We're intelligent people, and we're capable of making predictions intuitively. There doesn't need to be an outside cause, or a different understanding of physics as we know it. We just have to be capable of pattern recognition. Occam's razor, etc.

 

[Willamena]

Outside of the preconceived opinion that the findings are a product of telepathy.

What is "a product of telepathy"?

If the word telepathy is used to describe the phenomena (i.e. what is observed by participants), then, in the absence of mechanism or means to declare otherwise, it is telepathy.

 

[Gunfingers]

What is "a product of telepathy"?

If the word telepathy is used to describe the phenomena (i.e. what is observed by participants), then, in the absence of mechanism or means to declare otherwise, it is telepathy.

If we're gonna take the tautological outlook of "whatever people use to guess who is calling before they look at the caller ID is telepathy, therefore people telepathically know who's calling before they look at the caller ID" then sure. But in most contexts "telepathy" refers specifically to a supernatural explanation for the phenomena.

 

[Willamena]

If we're gonna take the tautological outlook of "whatever people use to guess who is calling before they look at the caller ID is telepathy, therefore people telepathically know who's calling before they look at the caller ID" then sure. But in most contexts "telepathy" refers specifically to a supernatural explanation for the phenomena.

But you've suggested a mechanism!

Is that what telepathy is? a guess? Isn't that a preconceived notion?

Edit: I'm saying that "telepathy" describes a phenomenon. It doesn't explain it.

 

[Alceste]

I was being rhetorical, not empirical. If you have any empirical evidence I'd love to hear the results along with the experimental setup and methodolgy.

OK, rather than wade through the cesspool that is the internet's extensive library of websites affirming and debunking various attitudes toward the paranormal, I'll tell you a single example from my life.

I had heard about a documentary on people who experience what's described as "out of body experience". Researchers had asked them to describe rooms and objects seperate to where they were sleeping and some of the participants were successful, or so said my father. The whole thing sounded rather implausible to me, at 15, so I concocted my own rudimentary experiment. I planned to go into deep relaxation using a technique I picked up in drama class at bedtime and set out to accomplish a task: I would try to visit my best friend and tell her to wear a particular shirt the next day at school. Thinking that was not going to be good enough I decided to throw in someone I didn't know at all - a boy who was new to the school, but I happened to know where he lived and recall the shirt he wore his first day. Anyway, I don't remember anything I dreamed that night, let alone a striking experience of being out of my body, but both kids wore both shirts.

Yup, that could have been pure coincidence and, if not, I could be recalling it incorrectly. I don't rule either of those possibilities out, but I HAVE ruled out, to my own satisfaction, that those who claim to experience such things are all frauds. Please keep in mind I'm not attempting to convince you or anyone else of anything. I'm describing my subjective experience to give some idea of how I, personally, arrived at the opinion that consciousness may not always be as temporally and geographically limited as it appears to be most of the time. This is one of a small handful of similar experiments and dozens of similar passive experiences, all of which present a fairly consistent picture.

 

[Alceste]

Outside of the preconceived opinion that the findings are a product of telepathy.


I don't doubt for once second that you've experienced the things you claim to. I'm sure you've often guessed who is calling before you saw the caller ID. I've done it too. We're intelligent people, and we're capable of making predictions intuitively. There doesn't need to be an outside cause, or a different understanding of physics as we know it. We just have to be capable of pattern recognition. Occam's razor, etc.

Lol - I have an old fashioned rotary phone, thanks. There are three people living in the house, and I only seem to answer the phone when it turns out to be for me. Otherwise I let it go to the machine.

Physics as physicists know it does not even begin to suggest that the universe we live in is three dimensional and temporally linear, which is how it appears to us. So, what does that say about our inability or enthusiasm to accept phenomena that appear to defy the illusion of a 3-dimensional, temporally linear universe? Do you think bias might be a problem for those whose minds are made up?

 

[Alceste]

This is not the study I saw before, but is pretty representative of the type of thing I'm talking about when I say I don't accept the statement that there is "no evidence" these phenomena are genuine.

http://www.psychicalresearchfoundation.com/docs/roll-et-al-ijn-2002.pdf

 

[HonestJoe]

It exists, at least subjectively. Weird, inexplicable stuff happens to loads of people. Given the preponderance of anecdotal evidence throughout human history, it's just silly to think otherwise. What has yet to be conclusively, empirically established by researchers are the mechanisms that cause these experiences to occur.

Not at all. Lots of the weird stuff that happens (or stuff perceived to be weird at the time by the people experiencing it) does have the causal mechanisms empirically established.

I don't think weird stuff happening in itself justifies the term phenomena. That implies something more structured and specific to me.

That's just not true. What "specific mechanism" are you talking about?

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.

I agree, but the observation of statistically significant effects should provide scientists with the impetus to search for a cause, rather than simply make untested and unempirical claims of fraud, cognitive bias, pure coincidence, delusion, etc.

Those claims aren't always untested and unempirical - they can be (and have been) the result of searching for a cause.

And yet this field is treated differently than all the others - statistically significant deviations from pure random chance aren't enough to gain acceptance as evidence of a phenomena, whereas in any other field of research they would be.

I don't believe that's true. In all fields, deviations from chance are accepted as exactly that and nothing more. Talk of "phenomena" is only relevant when you are talking about causes of those deviations.

Part of the reason for the difference we see in this kind of field (not just psychics, things like alien abduction, spiritual healing etc.) is that there are people with preconceived causes to explain the deviations and often won't accept investigations in to any other "mundane" cause. I'm not denying that some people are too quick to dismiss anything with a hint of the supernatural to it but many of the people proposing it don't help themselves by being equally dismissive of anything formal or scientific.

 

[Willamena]

Being observed/perceived is the only criteria for something to be a phenomenon.

 

[Alceste]

Being observed/perceived is the only criteria for something to be a phenomenon.

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

 

[Noaidi]

Oh... PSYCHICS and science.
I was reading PHYSICS and science, and thinking there was no dispute there at all...

 

[PhosphorylatedHypnoMonkey]

Pshycics = rubbish.

Science = logical

 

[Gunfingers]

Actually science is empirical. Logic is for math and philosophy.