Science investigating the Paranormal

Zombrex

stevenmu wrote:

People seem to think that 'believers' are afraid of seeing anything sceptical, that we want to wrap ourselves up in whatever it is that we believe in and not be exposed to anything which may contradict it.

it isn't really that. The thing that frustrates "sceptics" is more an unwillingness to accept that what a "believer" saw or thinks they saw might not have actually happened, coupled with the some what wild speculation that takes place after an event.

When faced with some strange shape in the darkness the "believers" tend to accept the more fantastical explination (there is something moving over there, even though we can't properly see it and we know there is nothing over there) over the less interesting but (from a skeptical position) more likely explination (it was a trick of the light interpreted by your brain as movement). Then this "something" is speculated to be a ghost or a spirit or UFO or whatever.

This can frustrate "skeptics" because their view would be you don't know that actually happened and you are just making assumptions about it. Even if there was "something" over there there is no reason to make assumptions about what you think it is.

That is why they look to the scientific method, because that limits the assumption you can make. If you didn't see something clearly then you simply don't know what it was etc.

So it isn't that "believers" don't want to be exposed to sceptical opinion, it is more that they tend to make more assumptions over what they think they saw rather than simply saying "No idea what that was". Not that there is anything particularly wrong with that, but it doesn't mean one can say that these things are actually happening, and it makes it harder to trust that a "believer" has sceptically reviewed the experience before commenting on what he/she believed happened.

stevenmu wrote:

science as it currently stands is incapable of explaining the paranormal, and therefore other means and methods need to be used (I may well be alone on this one).

That kinda doesn't make sense. If there is a way of studying these "events" in a proper fashion then that is science.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

He said science "can't explain".

What he actually said was that science cannot explain so other methods and means are needed. My point was if you figure out a mean or method to study a paranormal event, that is science. I'm not quite sure what means or methods he believes would be capable of studying these events but would still fall inside of the scientific method. They would not be external to "science". As I said, that doesn't make sense.

There seems to be a general idea on Boards and particularly this forum that science and the scientific method is some how fixed or limited and that there is all this stuff the lies outside of what science can study. That isn't really true, we just haven't come up with ways to study them. But all science is is a particular way to study something that makes sure you get close to the truth as humanily possible. If you can study anything you can study it within the scientific method

psi wrote:

You seem to think that science "can explain everything" it can't.

There is a difference between saying that science cannot explain something and saying that we has humans have not discovered a way to properly study something. If stevenmu comes up with a way to properly study a paranormal event that is science

psi wrote:

Its a very different thing and you seem to confuse it in your posts on boards in general.

Yeah thanks for that psi, I love you too :rolleyes:

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

There seems to be a general idea on Boards and particularly this forum that science and the scientific method is some how fixed or limited and that there is all this stuff the lies outside of what science can study.

Noone is suggesting that scientific method cannot be used to study something. But you are wrong to thing that the mere act of studying something is scientific method.

That isn't really true, we just haven't come up with ways to study them.

Scientific ways you mean?

But all science is is a particular way to study something that makes sure you get close to the truth as humanily possible. If you can study anything you can study it within the scientific method

This is simply not true. Its a nice dream but there are plenty of aspects of my own work that I would love to investigate but simply can't because the proper reference points and controls to interprete my results are not available. I can still study these things, I can look at them using technologies and I can postulate what the results may indicate, but because any hypothesis would be loaded and biased by the observation and not referenced to a control, this would not be scientific investigation or indeed science. This would merely be an exercise in curiosity employing technologies that are sometimes used in scientific rigour.

This applies to the paranormal. You cannot prepare a rigourous examination of an unknown set of variables. You can collect data but that in itself is not science, no matter what you might think.

If it WAS science, the the field I work in would be 100 times easier to fund and work in.

There is a difference between saying that science cannot explain something and saying that we has humans have not discovered a way to properly study something. If stevenmu comes up with a way to properly study a paranormal event that is science

I've highlighted the key words there.

You have created a paradox, as you have done before in such discussions.
In order to "properly" investigate the paranormal, you must know its nature, in which case it ceases to be paranormal.

Yeah thanks for that psi, I love you too :rolleyes:

Lets not get personal.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Noone is suggesting that scientific method cannot be used to study something.

Stevenmu seems to be.

psi wrote:

But you are wrong to thing that the mere act of studying something is scientific method.

True, but that more depends on what you do with the information you gather from the study, rather than the study itself.

Also there is a difference between studying something and studying something to the point where the results will tell you what you want to know. Because you don't get the results you require doesn't mean something wasn't studied, or that it cannot be studied in a scientific fashion.

You seem to be confusing science with getting a satisfactory result. They aren't the same thing. Something doesn't have to give you the answer you want for it to be scientific.

psi wrote:

Its a nice dream

Where did this "dream" metephor come from? You keep saying I'm dreaming as if I have some deep Martian Luther King longing for something. I find it a particularly strange metephor for the context you keep using. I can assure you (as I have before) that I don't dream about the scientific method.

psi wrote:

but there are plenty of aspects of my own work that I would love to investigate but simply can't because the proper reference points and controls to interprete my results are not available.

As I said, there is a different between saying that science (ie the scientific method) cannot explain something or something lies "outside" of science, and simply not having figured out a way to actually study or interprate the results of studying something.

psi wrote:

I can still study these things, I can look at them using technologies and I can postulate what the results may indicate, but because any hypothesis would be loaded and biased by the observation and not referenced to a control, this would not be scientific investigation or indeed science.

Exactly. So the correct response would be "we don't know". That is still a valid scientific response to the study. Just because you cannot actually gather enough data from a study to answer the question you want doesn't mean the study was un-scientific or that you aren't studying the subject in a scientific fashion. The response to a study is limited by your ability to study the subject and the questions you ask from the study, not the subject itself.

psi wrote:

This applies to the paranormal. You cannot prepare a rigourous examination of an unknown set of variables.

The variables aren't unknown. I have never figured out why people keep claiming this, and using it as a justification for the statement that paranormal events lie outside of sciencce.

You start at what is percieved to be happening, just as all scientific study of the natural world starts. This will be dependent on the phenomona you are studying. For example if the phenomona involves light (ghosts for example) you start with the light.

If the variables were completely unknown then no one would have experienced the event in the first place. The very fact that people claim to experience these things means that some measureable variable exist, even if that exist only inside the human brain.

psi wrote:

You have created a paradox, as you have done before in such discussions.
In order to "properly" investigate the paranormal, you must know its nature, in which case it ceases to be paranormal.

That is not true. The accient greeks were investigating, in a largely scientific fashion, the behaviour of the heavens without being aware of what the stars or sun actually were. They had no idea about the speed of light, the nature of nuclear reactions, a photon, relativity, gravitey etc. They only knew they could see them. They started from there.

If you can observe something you can study it. If you can study it you can study it in a scientific fashion.

psi wrote:

Lets not get personal.

Lets refrain from making sweeping statements about Wicknights posts in general too shall me. Focus on this thread, I don't need to be told by you that all my other posts were wrong as well.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

Also there is a difference between studying something and studying something to the point where the results will tell you what you want to know. Because you don't get the results you require doesn't mean something wasn't studied, or that it cannot be studied in a scientific fashion.

This is why you aren't a scientist. You never require results. Your results don'ttell you anything in themselves, its the context of them that gives you information.

What context do you put paranormal investigations in? You can compare sound, frequency etc against known phenomenon and if they don't compare, what then? Do you conclude that its a ghost or simply that you don't know what it is? Isn't that the same position you were in before?

This is pseudoscience, its just observational hobby-science.

You seem to be confusing science with getting a satisfactory result. They aren't the same thing. Something doesn't have to give you the answer you want for it to be scientific.

Not at all, I actually work in science research. I've a few research grants and more than a few publications to my name. I design scientific experiments for a living.

Results aren't about being right or wrong, they are (I repeat this for clarity) about context. IF you design an experiment that doesn't give you context for your results, then it isn't scientific method.

Where did this "dream" metephor come from? You keep saying I'm dreaming as if I have some deep Martian Luther King longing for something. I find it a particularly strange metephor for the context you keep using. I can assure you (as I have before) that I don't dream about the scientific method.

its the dream in your head about how science works. Its not real.

As I said, there is a different between saying that science (ie the scientific method) cannot explain something or something lies "outside" of science, and simply not having figured out a way to actually study or interprate the results of studying something.

That is just semantics. At the moment manythings lie outside scientific understanding and scientific methods. These are referred to as the preternatural. Things that seem amazing today, but will surely be explained in the future.

Noone, not one scientist I know, would boast that science can explain or even will in the future explain everything. Yet you make that boast. So either they know better or you do. Which is a more credible explanation?

Exactly. So the correct response would be "we don't know". That is still a valid scientific response to the study. Just because you cannot actually gather enough data from a study to answer the question you want doesn't mean the study was un-scientific or that you aren't studying the subject in a scientific fashion. The response to a study is limited by your ability to study the subject and the questions you ask from the study, not the subject itself.

No wicknight, if you design an experiment that observes something and doesn't have controls to compare, that is called observation, not science.

The variables aren't unknown. I have never figured out why people keep claiming this, and using it as a justification for the statement that paranormal events lie outside of sciencce.

You start at what is percieved to be happening, just as all scientific study of the natural world starts. This will be dependent on the phenomona you are studying. For example if the phenomona involves light (ghosts for example) you start with the light.

If the variables were completely unknown then no one would have experienced the event in the first place. The very fact that people claim to experience these things means that some measureable variable exist, even if that exist only inside the human brain.

God wicknight, you really don't have a clue.

You can't examine a phenomenon scientifically unless you have a reference for it.

If someone see's a ghost and you want to look at light, you might scientifically examine the incident, but you are not scientifically studying ghosts.

That is not true. The accient greeks were investigating, in a largely scientific fashion, the behaviour of the heavens without being aware of what the stars or sun actually were. They had no idea about the speed of light, the nature of nuclear reactions, a photon, relativity, gravitey etc. They only knew they could see them. They started from there.

And we don't call them scientists, we call them naturalists.

Go look it up.

If you can observe something you can study it. If you can study it you can study it in a scientific fashion.

As a scientific professional, I can tell you, you are wrong. if you don't want to accept that fine.

If you want to educate yourself, you can PM me and I'll give you some reading material or you can google a bit.

I know you'll argue til the death because you just don't like to be wrong so if you want to keep up, PM me and I'll try explain why you're wrong (ir you are willing to listen).

This thread has gone off topic enough (thats a direct hint) and its as much my fault as yours..

Lets refrain from making sweeping statements about Wicknights posts in general too shall me. Focus on this thread, I don't need to be told by you that all my other posts were wrong as well.

Fair enough, but if you have a scientific mind, you should be open to learning.

I think thats enough on this thread about what is and isn't science.

Folks, if you have suggestions, please keep em coming.

GuanYin

Moved.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Moved.

You could have told me

Ignore the bit in the PM about I can't find the post

GuanYin

Good then you will see it is you who first mentions light and attributed it to the study of ghosts (post 4)

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Good then you will see it is you who first mentions light and attributed it to the study of ghosts (post 4)

"For example if the phenomona involves light (ghosts for example) you start with the light."

You will notice the for example bit. It was not an assumption, it was an example. There is not assumption that ghosts emit light (as I stated). There were not assumptions at all for that matter

goldilocked

Here's an extract from David Deutsch's Fabric of reality, where the author is discussing whether it's possible for us to understand everything there is to understand. So here's a scientist who believes it is likely to be possible to understand "everything".

http://www.qubit.org/people/david/FabricOfReality/FoRExtract.html

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

"For example if the phenomona involves light (ghosts for example) you start with the light."

You will notice the for example bit. It was not an assumption, it was an example. There is not assumption that ghosts emit light (as I stated). There were not assumptions at all for that matter

You gave an example that makes an assumption, unless you are definitively stating that ghosts emit light and have some sort of evidence of this?

goldilocked

I think what he was saying is that eye's perceive light, and people claim to see ghosts.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

using the word "prove" as a goal of science.

Actually it is. The goal of science is to discover the truth of the universe.

But (and its a big but) there is a realisation that this goal is ultimately impossible for humans. This is explained by people such as Popper. All hypothesis have to be falsifiable, even if they are actually true, because it is impossible for humans to know everything and there for impossible to know for certain that something is proved. Every theory must have a logical counter example, even if this counter example doesn't actually exists. Popper swans is the classic example

This is more a safety check against the arrogence of humans (induction), than a property of the scientific method itself. The scientific method as applied by humans is an attempt to get a close as possible to this "proof", knowing that it is like the frog that always leaps half the distance to the lilly pod, ie an ultimately unreachable goal.

That, by the way, does not mean it is not possible for science to explain everything.

As I said before, you have to seperate out the scientific method from the ability of human beings to actually carry it out. The falsifiability clause of a theory is only necessary because humans can't know everything. If God did science it would become irrelivent.

psi wrote:

You still haven't given a plausible scenario with which to conduct an experiment and set up valid scientific methodology.

So without knowing the specific phenomona or event I'm studying, giving any detailed scenario on how to study it would be rather pointless. I've given up giving you theorectical examples because you throw them back in my face as "assumptions" on my part.

psi wrote:

Again, if you say "science proves" then you need to clarify that you are using different contexts.

Fair enought.

Posts are in ISS and my first comment was in response to your mention of light and photons, personally, light wouldn't be the first thing to come to my mind when examining such a scenario.

You see a strange light in a room with no obvious source, a light that is observed by others. Where would you start?

I expect you'll conceed this point and correct yourself. If you can't follow your own argument how am I supposed to?

You might want to read the posts again ...

You - "You can compare sound, frequency etc against known phenomenon and if they don't compare, what then? Do you conclude that its a ghost or simply that you don't know what it is?"

Me - "If it is collection of photons with unknown and undetected origin you conclude it is an collection of photons with unknown and undetected origin."

You - "But you are assuming that the phenomenon will emit photons."

You will notice I didn't make any assumptions, the big "IF" is quite clearly visiable. It was an example, working from the assumption that in the example you detect photons. You introduced the realm of examples here by saying "If they don't compare what then?"

I didn't start attacking you for using an example where they won't compare calling this an assumption on your part (since it wasn't it was an example) so why are you attacking me for assumptions I didn't make. BTW I also didn't connect the detectable collection of photons with the concept of a "ghost", I specifically said you don't assume it is a ghost.

psi wrote:

In the context of what we are talking, this is the point. We don't know what we are looking at and we don't know what we are looking for. We have no idea of the nature of the phenomenon we are examining. How then do we create a scientific methodology to examine it?

You do know what you are seem to be looking at. You are looking at (in this example only!) light, light that appears to be stimulating the human eye the way normal light would.

That isn't much to go on, but it is a start.

psi wrote:

How to you apply controls?

Depends on what you are testing specifically. A control is simply a method to ensure a variable is effected only by what you are studying.

Of the top of my head an obvious control would be a simulated stream of light coming from the exact spot the phenomona took place to see if anything is in between your instruments and the phenomona.

psi wrote:

How do you recreate the experiment in another setting to ensure results (negative or positive) are reproducable?

That would be a more interesting challange, but again without knowing the specifics of what you are studying it is hard to say here. BTW it is not necessary to repeat the experiment in another setting if the setting itself is a variable in the experiment.

To say that that is impossible when neither you or I have actually decided on a specific event to study is rather premature, don't you think.

psi wrote:

What you are suggesting is that you pick a random trait that you think might exist and then test for it and the sequentially progress through equally randomly picked aspects of what you think the phenomenon might entail.

No, thats not what I'm suggesting. At all.

psi wrote:

The truth is, you don't know what the phenomenon is or what its properties are so what you may be doing could be akin to using a magnifying glass to look for either an atom or a galaxy. This is not scientific method.

Psi if you knew what the phenomenon was before hand you wouldn't need to do the study. If you knew what results you would get you wouldn't need to do that study.

I'm not sure what area of science you work in but if you already know the results of every test you are going to run before you run them I'd imagine it is pretty sweet to work there. Can I have a job?

psi wrote:

But again you are making a tonne of assumptions without justification. Why light? Why not matter? why not electromagnitism? Why any of these things?

Because using the original example the people observing the phenomona can see a bright light. That of course IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE!!!

psi wrote:

This is why science is not equipped. Take psychics and remote viewing. Many tests have been employed to try and investigate these phenomena, usually the results are negative, ie. they show no evidence of such abilities. However, it is then claimed (by the psychics) that negative emotion or strain of the tests can nullify the phenomena.

Ah yes, the confirmation holism. That is true of ANY scientific study, including the ones you yourself do using the scientific method.

Which is why ultimately the opinions of the scientists, Occam's razor, and those that study the results will decide the out come rather than the actual results since they can never be truely trusted.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Well it was your idea YOU linked "ghosts" and "light"!

No, I linked the paranormal phenomona that most "believers" call ghosts to light, since most descriptions (or at least intersting descriptions) involve unexplained light, shapes or movement. You linked it to sound, but to be honest that isn't that interesting.

psi wrote:

If you think the hypothesis is stupid, don't put it forward.

I didn't.

You will notice that I said a large number of times that it is necessary to ignore the pre-concieved concepts and properties of what people know as "ghosts" when studying such phenomona, since these properties are largely inventions.

psi wrote:

Thats not what your initial example said.

That is exactly what my inital example said. And since then I've repeated this a number of times

psi wrote:

In any case, I've already said why randomly looking at unknown facets of a phenomenon is bad science and bad science isn't science.

Where did I ever say you randomly start looking at "unknown facets" of a phenomenon. You start looking at the observed facets of the phenomenon, as you would do with any phenomenon, paranormal or otherwise. And you don't do it randomly.

psi wrote:

Right. So how does someone seeing a phenomenon that turns out to be a shadow or light source have any bearing on the paranormal?

It doesn't. If you show that something that was originally believed to be say a ghost is actually a spark from static electric charge caused by people moving across a carpet, that is is not a paranormal event.

If you show that it is the a photonic emition caused by the interaction of a intelligent engery matrix of zero mass, well then the "believers" would probably be quite happy with that out come. But then the phenomenon because simply part of ordinary science and calling it "paranormal" wouldn't make sense, so maybe they wouldn't be happy about it. Discussion of it would have to move from the paranormal forum to the science forum.

psi wrote:

You are now suggesting that science can be used to investigate a phenomenon that has been reported as a ghost (correct me if I am wrong).

That is all I have every been suggesting. Why are you assuming it has to be a ghost? Do you even have a definition of what a "ghost" is?

psi wrote:

And this is science examining the paranormal how?

It is only a paranormal event because its unexplained. If it is explained it isn't a paranormal event anymore, it is simply normal.

All the "paranormal" is is a series of unexplained event that have had concepts from the human imagination attached to them. The concepts that we make up to fit these events are rather irrelivent from a scientific point of view.

psi wrote:

You examine it in the context of a hypothesis based on the context and knowledge of what you are studying. The paranormal offers know context or knowledge (we don't know how to define it).

The "paranormal" isn't a context to begin with. You define it within the context of the hypothesis and the hypothesis is formed based on established scientific theory. As all science is.

psi wrote:

As I said before, conduct an experiment to study an aspectof the paranormal. You have refused to thus far.

I haven't refused, I've given a large number of examples which were thrown back in my face as being assumptions. I stated that if an unexplained light is observed, testing the nature of the light would be a good start.

psi wrote:

Then why did you suggest light as a method of looking at ghosts?

I didn't. I used the emition of light as an example of a phenomona that believers commonly refer to as "ghosts", because most "ghost sightings" involve unexplained light patterns. I didn't say ghosts emit light. In fact I repeatable said that even if you identifiy the light and its source you cannot conclude that it is a ghost.

Please read my posts properly.

Zombrex

goldilocked wrote:

I think what he was saying is that eye's perceive light, and people claim to see ghosts.

Thank you, someone read my posts properly.

I'm saying that people see strange shapes or lights and call these "ghosts". But one should examine the light and ignore the pre-concieved notions of what the light is.

I used that as an example of a paranormal phenomona, while at the same time stressing that it would be jumping the gun to assign something the classification "ghost" just because others call it that.

It was an example, nothing more. I'm not, and never have, said ghosts emit light., any more than Psi was saying ghosts emit sound.

I don't even accept "ghosts" as a valid concept to begin with, so how Psi can think I'm making claims of their characteristics is beyond me.

GuanYin

First off wicknight, you've published a PM in a public forum without my consent or permission. That is generally frowned upon on boards and I think I'll have an apology for that lest I make a complaint.

Secondly, You initially gave an example making the assumption that ghosts emit light. Its ther ein black and white. You used the term "ghost" and you equated it to light. Backtrackiing and asking why I'm talking about ghosts is a bit rich seeing as it was the basis of your argument that I initially followed.

So you were wrong before or you are wrong now. You also accused me of first referencing ghosts=light. Again, you didn't even realise you had made the argument. Incorrect again.
Both times you don't stand by your own posts and try blame me.


In any case, the flaw in your assumption is that ghosts (which is what you were talking about before and what I followed up on, before of course you realised you'd made mistake in your reasoning and then tried to back track).
are light emitting entities. What if these phenomenon are hallucinatory? The cause could still be paranormal. However, your conclusion previously was that if you don't detect light, it is "not a normal photon".

This is the flaw in your whole argument. You are trying to apply scientific methodology without knowing or understanding what you are examining. You have no context for any results you get and as such anything you try apply them to is biased on your part. Because of occams razor and it's application, negative reults will always cause conflict in paranormal investigation.

You can examine all aspects of what ever you like but it won't be a scientific method.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

First off wicknight, you've published a PM in a public forum without my consent or permission. That is generally frowned upon on boards and I think I'll have an apology for that lest I make a complaint.

Apologies, I figured you wouldn't mind since we weren't discussing anything that didn't start of in public (no one read this forum anyway )

psi wrote:

Secondly, You initially gave an example making the assumption that ghosts emit light.

Psi, for the last time, no I didn't.

I gave an example of a "ghost" (ie an unexplained paranormal event that believers coin as ghosts) emiting light, and explained a number of times that this was just an example.

There is no assumption that a ghost has to emit light, or even what a ghost is. There wasn't even an assumption that that particular "ghost" actually was a "ghost", in fact I went out of my way to explain that that assumption cannot be made You obviously didn't read that part.

This is quite clear to others, I'm not really understanding how you aren't getting this. I've explained it differently a number of times and yet you still don't get that it was an example, not an assumption. In the context of the rest of the posts it doesn't even make sense as an assumption so how you believed it was one is beyond me.

psi wrote:

You used the term "ghost" and you equated it to light.

Yes I did in the example. Otherwise the example would not make sense.

You jumped on this and have been battering me over the head with it since claiming I'm stating that I've assumed ghosts (what ever they are?) emit light. Which I didn't, I stated the specific example I was talking about was emitting light, because otherwise my example wouldn't make any sense.

psi wrote:

Backtrackiing and asking why I'm talking about ghosts is a bit rich seeing as it was the basis of your argument that I initially followed.

No one is back tracking Psi :rolleyes:

I stand by what I original said which was this :-

"When faced with some strange shape in the darkness the "believers" tend to accept the more fantastical explination ... Then this "something" is speculated to be a ghost or a spirit or UFO or whatever."

"For example if the phenomona involves light (ghosts for example) you start with the light."

Notice the "example" part ...

Most "ghost" sighting involve some form of visual event. That isn't my assumption, that is the fact of paranormal events. How you jump from that to me assuming or asserting that a ghost has to emit light is beyond me when I don't even accept "ghost" as a valid definition of something. "Ghost" is what believers call certain unexplained events, as I stated.

psi wrote:

In any case, the flaw in your assumption is that ghosts (which is what you were talking about before and what I followed up on, before of course you realised you'd made mistake in your reasoning and then tried to back track).
are light emitting entities.

Groan :rolleyes:

That has never been my assumption Psi.

It wasn't at the start, and it isn't now. That is what you mistakenly believed I was saying because you didn't read my post correctly

psi wrote:

What if these phenomenon are hallucinatory?
...
However, your conclusion previously was that if you don't detect light, it is "not a normal photon".

Do you even read my posts ...

"Of course you might discover it isn't light, it something else, or that there is nothing there, it is happening inside the eye ball or brain etc etc."

How can I be saying that it must be some form of "unknown" light if I'm explaining that it might be happening in the eyeball or brain?

I've mentioned the fact that it might be distrubance in the human brain a number of times.

The only person here making assumptions is you, based on you not reading my posts correctly.

psi wrote:

You are trying to apply scientific methodology without knowing or understanding what you are examining.

Which science does all the time.

Otherwise we would never discover anything. If we knew and understood everything we examined we wouldn't need to examine it in the first place.

psi wrote:

You can examine all aspects of what ever you like but it won't be a scientific method.

It is scientific if you follow the scientific method. Would have thought that was obvious.


On a more serious point ...

To be perfectly honest I think it is a bit rich that you are constantly demanding I apologies to you over various things (which of course I'm happy to do if I have done something inapproprate) when you are continually and consistantly mis-representing what I post in this thread and claiming I'm making assertions that I have never done and which clearly contradict the rests of my posts.

If you have missunderstood what I have posted that is fair enough, it happens to the best of us. But once I've clarified that you have misunderstood my post, or that you made a unjustifed leap or assumption, and you continue to miss-represent what I posted, well that isn't on. Not only is it missrepresenting my posts but it gets increasingly tiresome to have to repeatably explain to you that you have misunderstood or not read a post properly.

I think an apology from you is order. I won't hold my breath though

GuanYin

Psi wrote:

You initially gave an example making the assumption that ghosts emit light.

Wicknight wrote:

I gave an example of a "ghost" (ie an unexplained paranormal event that believers coin as ghosts) emiting light, and explained a number of times that this was just an example.

So you are saying that in your example a ghost emits light and it is detectable and this isn't assumed - it just is. Otherwise there is no difference between what I said and what you said you said.

There is no assumption that a ghost has to emit light, or even what a ghost is. There wasn't even an assumption that that particular "ghost" actually was a "ghost", in fact I went out of my way to explain that that assumption cannot be made You obviously didn't read that part.

Then why give the example? Why mention ghosts when surely its a light emitting phenomenon that you are examining.

That could be anything. How does this help stupy the paranormal?

In order for you to study a phenomenom in the contextof the paranormal, you have to make an assumption that it is paranormal or the assumption must be made for you. In which case, what do you base this on - what criteria to you assign it - if you show that it isn't paranormal, then you weren't studying a paranormal phenomenon to begin with? If this assumption isn't made, how does your study relate to science investigating the paranormal? Why should the investigation of a phenomenon relate to the paranormal?

This is quite clear to others, I'm not really understanding how you aren't getting this. I've explained it differently a number of times and yet you still don't get that it was an example, not an assumption. In the context of the rest of the posts it doesn't even make sense as an assumption so how you believed it was one is beyond me.

Ok, so you don't assume light comes from ghost, it was just an example where light conveniently does come from ghosts. Except that it wasn't an example because you didn't use ghosts and you didn't mention light....oh no, wait you did, all in post 4. My question is, why would you associate light with ghosts?

Yes I did in the example. Otherwise the example would not make sense.

Ok, but why give this as an example. Its a loaded one. If you see light, you investigate it as light. Why should you make any link to ghosts. In which case why would your investigation be anything more than an investigation of light?
In which case, how is scientific methodology examining the paranormal?

You jumped on this and have been battering me over the head with it since claiming I'm stating that I've assumed ghosts (what ever they are?) emit light. Which I didn't, I stated the specific example I was talking about was emitting light, because otherwise my example wouldn't make any sense.

Because it was a useless example. I'm battering you on the head with it because it makes a point about how what you're talking about "looking at phenomenon" contributes nothing to understanding the paranormal, unless you assume the phenomenon is paranormal. In which case you have made a biased assumption because you have nothing to base this assumption on.

I stand by what I original said which was this :-
"For example if the phenomona involves light (ghosts for example) you start with the light."

Way to take it out of contect: if you read down, you were talking about context and variables. I said you cannot scientifically study the paranormal, because the variables are unknown.

Your reply was

wicknight wrote:

The variables aren't unknown. I have never figured out why people keep claiming this, and using it as a justification for the statement that paranormal events lie outside of sciencce.

You start at what is percieved to be happening, just as all scientific study of the natural world starts. This will be dependent on the phenomona you are studying. For example if the phenomona involves light (ghosts for example) you start with the light.

So unless you left out a paragraph, you are talking about (in your example) light as an indicator of ghosts.

So again, in your example a phenomenon involving light is examined. In order to study this as a paranormal event lying within science (which is what you claimed) you have to assume the light is paranormal (in your example light is ghost). What justification do you have for this?

Now if yo want to put your stuff out of context and say it mean soemthing else go ahead. But I'd like to know, if you're not making assumptions, how you can say that the measurable indices of paranormal lie within science, if you don't assume that the phenomenon is paranormal. That is what the context of your post was.

Notice the "example" part ...

Note the out of context quoting by you. Amazing how you managed to miss the whole preceding paragraph!!!!!!!

Most "ghost" sighting involve some form of visual event. That isn't my assumption, that is the fact of paranormal events.

Its a fact now is it? How do you know its visual and not mental? How do you know that mass hallucinations or some subliminal suggestion isn't involved? What evidence do you have to support this so-called "fact"?

How you jump from that to me assuming or asserting that a ghost has to emit light is beyond me when I don't even accept "ghost" as a valid definition of something. "Ghost" is what believers call certain unexplained events, as I stated.

Because of the context you put forward.

If you don't assume that the light is a paranormal phenomenon, how is it scientific method examining the paranormal?

It wasn't at the start, and it isn't now. That is what you mistakenly believed I was saying because you didn't read my post correctly

I wasn't supposed to read the bit you didn't want to include in your quote then?

Do you even read my posts ...

Seem to be the problem, I read ALL of it and not just the bits you want people to see.

"Of course you might discover it isn't light, it something else, or that there is nothing there, it is happening inside the eye ball or brain etc etc."

Ok, then how has this been a stufy of the paranormal, seeing as there was nothing paranormal to begin with?

Which science does all the time.

Give me one example of an accepted scientific experiment that was designed without know the variables or the nature of what was being looked at.

Otherwise we would never discover anything. If we knew and understood everything we examined we wouldn't need to examine it in the first place.

No, we take small steps, looking at one thing, may allow us to look at others.

You simply need a starting point, something that is observable.

NAme one observable thing that has no definition that has been studied scientifically.

If you are making these claims, show an example.

It is scientific if you follow the scientific method. Would have thought that was obvious.

You can't follow the scientific method if you cannot design a methodology. You cannot design a methodology to study the paranormal without defining it, assuming it is there and then having a measurable indice. Doing so without these means that any negative result is meaningless as you have no context for it. But the paradox is, in doing so you have made biased assumptions.

To be perfectly honest I think it is a bit rich that you are constantly demanding I apologies to you over various things (which of course I'm happy to do if I have done something inapproprate) when you are continually and consistantly mis-representing what I post in this thread and claiming I'm making assertions that I have never done and which clearly contradict the rests of my posts.

You've mis represented me, said I initiated something I didn't and then posted my PM without consent. You then post your quote out of context and claim it wasn't what you meant.

Don't make me laugh.

If you have missunderstood what I have posted that is fair enough, it happens to the best of us. But once I've clarified that you have misunderstood my post, or that you made a unjustifed leap or assumption, and you continue to miss-represent what I posted, well that isn't on. Not only is it missrepresenting my posts but it gets increasingly tiresome to have to repeatably explain to you that you have misunderstood or not read a post properly.

I think an apology from you is order. I won't hold my breath though

Oh too late, you just did.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

So you are saying that in your example a ghost emits light and it is detectable and this isn't assumed - it just is.

Psi it's an example, not assertion.

I'm not stating that ghosts exist, that they emit light, or that if they did emit light it is going to be detectable. All these would be classification of a “ghost”, which would be a bit hard considering I don't believe in them in the first place..

If I say “ok psi assume you like chicken” that is not saying you do like chicken. Its an example

Are you honestly going to make me explain the concept of an example to you?

psi wrote:

Why mention ghosts when surely its a light emitting phenomenon that you are examining.

Because “ghost” is a term commonly used by believers to describe certain paranormal phenomona.

But just because someone calls something a “ghost” doesn't mean it actually is.

psi wrote:

In order for you to study a phenomenom in the contextof the paranormal, you have to make an assumption that it is paranormal or the assumption must be made for you.

The assumption is made by the believers. They go to a castle, see a “ghost” and then say “here look this is a ghost”. This can then be studied.

But it would be extremely inapprorate for the person studying the phenomona to assume it was a ghost (or any paranormal description), since a ghost (or most other paranormal descriptions) are completely undefined.

psi wrote:

Why should the investigation of a phenomenon relate to the paranormal?

“Paranormal” is simply a buzz word used to describe events that have not been properly explained yet. That is all. There is no proper context to the paranormal

psi wrote:

Ok, so you don't assume light comes from ghost, it was just an example where light conveniently does come from ghosts.

In the example it is coming from a phenomona that has been traditionly classifed as “a ghost”. The entire point of the exploration is to figure out what is actually causing the light.

psi wrote:

If you see light, you investigate it as light. Why should you make any link to ghosts.

I believe I said exactly the same thing. It is linked to “ghosts” only by believers who rush to clasify it as such.

psi wrote:

"looking at phenomenon" contributes nothing to understanding the paranormal, unless you assume the phenomenon is paranormal.

Define “understanding the paranormal”

If you study an event that is classified by believers as paranormal in nature you are understanding the paranormal. But the “paranormal” is really just the normal we haven't understood yet.

psi wrote:

So unless you left out a paragraph, you are talking about (in your example) light as an indicator of ghosts.

Where? Please quote me the line in that paragraph that says light is an indicator of ghosts.

The only line I can find in that paragraph that mentions ghosts is this one

”For example if the phenomona involves light (ghosts for example) you start with the light.”

It is rather ironic that you are talking about context when the only way to understand that sentence is in previous context.

The paranormal phenomona commonly know as “ghost” normaly involves light. If you don't believe me rent any movie from Xtra-Vision that involves a ghost. 99.99% of them include a ghost that you can see.

This continues on nicely into all the previous times I used the term ghost -

“When faced with some strange shape in the darkness the "believers" tend to accept the more fantastical explination ... Then this "something" is speculated to be a ghost or a spirit or UFO or whatever”

An unexplained light is most often explained by “believers” as a ghost, though it can be explained as other things such as a UFO.

So what context you took from this is compleletely beyond me. How in the hell did you get from that to claiming that I believe in ghosts and am asserting they produce light?

psi wrote:

you have to assume the light is paranormal (in your example light is ghost).

No you don't. I'm not even sure how you seriously go about assuming a light is paranormal in nature. That is what believers do and it is a gross abuse of the point of scientific study.

psi wrote:

Now if yo want to put your stuff out of context and say it mean soemthing else go ahead.

The context hasn't changed Psi. The context has always remained the same.

That funny feeling in the back of your head is the slowly dawning realisation that you have made a mistake. I know that conflicts with your axom “Psi never wrong – Wicknight always wrong”, but give it a few hours ....

psi wrote:

But I'd like to know, if you're not making assumptions, how you can say that the measurable indices of paranormal lie within science, if you don't assume that the phenomenon is paranormal.

Because “paranormal” doesn't actually mean anything. It is just the normal that hasn't been explained yet coupled with rather wild assumptions and guesses made by believers.

psi wrote:

Amazing how you managed to miss the whole preceding paragraph!!!!!!!

That smoking gun paragraph only supports my original position.

But hey if you can actually find the part where i assert ghosts are real and emit light, please go ahead.

psi wrote:

How do you know its visual and not mental?

I can be both. Something can be visual and mental. Close your eyes. You see the funny colours on the inside of your eyes. They don't really exist There are no photons stimulating your eye ball to produce those colours. They are a visual phenomona but they are entirely mental. The same is true of the visual images you “see” when you dream.

The simple fact is that most “ghost” experiences are recorded as visual phemomona, as in the person believes they saw something, rather than heard something.

psi wrote:

Because of the context you put forward.

You always do this. You can't actually find where I asserted what you claim I did, so you start going on about the “context” I was using, a context which apparently only percieve.

Psi it doesn't make sense in any context that i would assert anything about the characteristics or nature of ghosts since I don't believe in them in the first place.

psi wrote:

If you don't assume that the light is a paranormal phenomenon, how is it scientific method examining the paranormal?

Whether the “paranormal” is being examined or not rather depends on if you accept that paranormal is an actual thing. That would be a rather silly thing to do, since “paranormal” is just a buzz word, a catch all, for events that have not been explained yet.

psi wrote:

Ok, then how has this been a stufy of the paranormal, seeing as there was nothing paranormal to begin with?

Nothing is actually “paranormal”. Everything that actually happens is simply normal. Even if you show something is a dis-embodied spirit of a dead person that becomes normal.

Trying to show something is paranormal is pointless and illogical, since once it is explained it is no longer paranormal.

psi wrote:

No, we take small steps, looking at one thing, may allow us to look at others.

Funny, that sounds pretty similar to

”If you keep your realm of questioning specific you will hopefully find it easier to get specific answers. Asking "Is that a ghost" is pointless, but asking "What is the makeup and nature of that light" is a much more managable study. You take it in steps, often baby steps, and you don't rush to catergorise things based on preconieved notions of paranormal phenenoma.”

psi wrote:

Name one observable thing that has no definition that has been studied scientifically.

Who said “it” (what ever it is) has no definition? If it is observable it has a definition, the initial definition is how it is being observed. For example light, or sound. If it had no definition it couldn't be observed.

psi wrote:

You can't follow the scientific method if you cannot design a methodology. You cannot design a methodology to study the paranormal without defining it, assuming it is there and then having a measurable indice.

Psi, “paranormal” isn't a thing to be measured. It is a (rather inaccurate) catch all description for things that aren't explained.

psi wrote:

You've mis represented me, said I initiated something I didn't and then posted my PM without consent.

The fact that you have continued to debate me in public kinda shows that you are not seriously emotionally tramatised by this :rolleyes:

You did initiate the use of examples in the context of the discussion. I even quoted where you did (something you seem completely incapable of doing for the accusations towards me)

I'm still waiting for the apology.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

But it would be extremely inapprorate for the person studying the phenomona to assume it was a ghost (or any paranormal description), since a ghost (or most other paranormal descriptions) are completely undefined.

Then how do you assert your position, the crux of this argument, that the paranormal can be studied scientifically.

The hypothesis can never arrive at a conclusion.

“Paranormal” is simply a buzz word used to describe events that have not been properly explained yet. That is all. There is no proper context to the paranormal

How do you measure something with no context.

You yourself have used the buzzword. Specifically you maintain that science can explain the paranormal. But if there is no context, how can you study it? How do you know what you are studying enters into the realm of your hypothesis?

In the example it is coming from a phenomona that has been traditionly classifed as “a ghost”. The entire point of the exploration is to figure out what is actually causing the light.

But we don't have a definition of a ghost. How do you confirm the phenomenon is actually a what is classified as a ghost to study it? You may be studying a reflection or shadow or imperfection in glass.

If you study an event that is classified by believers as paranormal in nature you are understanding the paranormal. But the “paranormal” is really just the normal we haven't understood yet.

Hold on, belief has nothing to do with this. I am talking about a phenomenon that does not make sense. Belief has no bearing on whether something is explainable by conventional laws of nature or not.

The paranormal phenomona commonly know as “ghost” normaly involves light. If you don't believe me rent any movie from Xtra-Vision that involves a ghost. 99.99% of them include a ghost that you can see.

so hollywood is supplying your definition?

An unexplained light is most often explained by “believers” as a ghost, though it can be explained as other things such as a UFO.

belief is irrelevent to the phenomenon. It exists or it doesn't,

No you don't. I'm not even sure how you seriously go about assuming a light is paranormal in nature. That is what believers do and it is a gross abuse of the point of scientific study.

Ok, then science can't study paranomal phenomenon because paranomral phenomenon doesn't exist and if it didn't wouldn't be

That funny feeling in the back of your head is the slowly dawning realisation that you have made a mistake. I know that conflicts with your axom “Psi never wrong – Wicknight always wrong”, but give it a few hours ....

Well I like how you have yet to supply me with one scientific methodology that can be aookied to studying an alleged paranormal phenomenon that will further understanding of the paranormal.

Yo've evaded it by now claiming the paranormal is a buzzword (which didn't seem to bother you previously). Movingthe goal posts again are we?

Because “paranormal” doesn't actually mean anything. It is just the normal that hasn't been explained yet coupled with rather wild assumptions and guesses made by believers.

Provide evidence to support this.

I can be both. Something can be visual and mental. Close your eyes. You see the funny colours on the inside of your eyes. They don't really exist There are no photons stimulating your eye ball to produce those colours. They are a visual phenomona but they are entirely mental. The same is true of the visual images you “see” when you dream.

Please support this assertation with a source.

The simple fact is that most “ghost” experiences are recorded as visual phemomona, as in the person believes they saw something, rather than heard something.

Supporting reference please? You say its a fact, so show the data.

I maintain that there is no evidence to suggest that it is anything more than illusion or hallucination.

Whether the “paranormal” is being examined or not rather depends on if you accept that paranormal is an actual thing. That would be a rather silly thing to do, since “paranormal” is just a buzz word, a catch all, for events that have not been explained yet.

You said "paranormal events" can be explained by science. Now you are saying that nothing is really paranomal. Again, this is an assumption ohn your part that you cannot support.
so your argumentis based on an assumption?

Thats ok, if you mean this whole thing is just "your opinion" I wouldn't have wasted my time arguing.

Nothing is actually “paranormal”. Everything that actually happens is simply normal. Even if you show something is a dis-embodied spirit of a dead person that becomes normal.

Wow, talk about moving the goal-posts again. How do you ascertain that it is indeed the dis-embodied spirit.

Please detail the methodology to examine this and arrive at this conclusion.

Trying to show something is paranormal is pointless and illogical, since once it is explained it is no longer paranormal.

But if you can't explain it? (and this is an important question).

Psi, “paranormal” isn't a thing to be measured. It is a (rather inaccurate) catch all description for things that aren't explained.

I do of course mean paranormal phenomenon or to use your terms, events.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

The hypothesis can never arrive at a conclusion.

Only if the hypothesis you pick is a baseless and silly hypothesis to being with.

Which as I said, would be a bad idea :rolleyes;

psi wrote:

How do you measure something with no context.

Groan ... the event has context, but not a paranormal one since that doesn't make any logical sense.

"Paranormal" is not a basis for forming a hypothesis to being with.

psi wrote:

Specifically you maintain that science can explain the paranormal.

I maintain that science can explain any phenomena that is observable.

That would include observable "paranormal" events, ie events that people classify as paranormal, probably because they don't understand them.

But you don't have to explain them inside the context of the "paranormal". The "context" of paranormal is a lot of made up assumptions and guesses by people, mostly made hundreds of years ago.

Paranormal has no proper context that can be used to form hypothesis. If you think it does please explain the context to me.

psi wrote:

But we don't have a definition of a ghost. How do you confirm the phenomenon is actually a what is classified as a ghost to study it?

You don't need to. Jesus Psi, what part of that do you not get.

You simply have to describe it in terms of modern understanding of science, even if it contradicts elements of the modern understanding of science.

If you determine through years of experiment and study that it turns out to some how be an electrical disturbance caused by some form of energy produced by a dead "spirit" (for want of a better term), then the believers can decide if that does or does not fit their concept of a ghost.

BTW before you fly off the handle again, that is only an theoretical example. I'm not claiming that all (or any) paranormal event is an electrical disturbance cause by some form of spirit energy.

The people studying the event should never make any reference to the term "ghost" at all.

psi wrote:

You may be studying a reflection or shadow or imperfection in glass.

Exactly, so assuming it is a "ghost" is rather presumptuous.

psi wrote:

Belief has no bearing on whether something is explainable by conventional laws of nature or not.

I don't remember saying it did .... more mis-representations Psi? :rolleyes:

psi wrote:

so hollywood is supplying your definition?

Popular culture is supplying the definition of a ghost. Which is a very good reason to ignore that definition, as I have stated REPEATABLY

psi wrote:

belief is irrelevent to the phenomenon. It exists or it doesn't,

Which is why you don't go on what the believers claim this even is. I seem to remember saying that in one of my earliest post Psi :rolleyes:

psi wrote:

Ok, then science can't study paranomal phenomenon because paranomral phenomenon doesn't exist and if it didn't wouldn't be

Pretty much. Paranormal, in the context of science, is an oxymoron. It doesn't make sense as a scientific concept.

What is classified as "paranormal" by believers is actually either something normal or something normal we haven't discovered yet.

If the event actually is something that contradicts or modifies our understanding of physics chemistry of biology it is still "normal", it is in fact our understanding that was flawed.

Things happen or the don't. Anything that actually happens is "normal", even if we don't realise that yet.

psi wrote:

Movingthe goal posts again are we?

No Psi, you have just realised you are on the wrong pitch :rolleyes:

Paranormal event is a commonly used description of certain types of events. But you might as well use the term "weird" instead. It is certain possible to study "weird" events, these are events that are clasifed by the public as "weird". But demanding that you study them in the "context of weird" is illogical and silly.

psi wrote:

Provide evidence to support this.

What? That paranormal doesn't actually mean anything? The dictionary would be a start.

psi wrote:

Please support this assertation with a source.

You want me to prove to you that the shapes in front of your eyes when you close your eyes are not actually light infront of you. Are you fecking serious? I learnt about that in primary school. What kind of a scientist are you?

I can't believe I'm bothering to do this :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucination

psi wrote:

I maintain that there is no evidence to suggest that it is anything more than illusion or hallucination.

Good for you. I don't really care.

psi wrote:

You said "paranormal events" can be explained by science. Now you are saying that nothing is really paranomal.

Replace "paranormal" with "weird"

You said "weird events" can be explained by science. NOw you are saying that nothing is really weird.

Does it make sense to you now? "Paranormal" is a classifcation people give to things they don't understand and that do not logically seem to make sense, just like "weird". But the term itself is an oxymoron (para normal). Anything that actually happens is by definition normal.

Deciding something is para-normal is an objective assumption most likely based on lack of understanding, just like the term "weird".

You can study something that people classifiy as "weird". A lot of people, including scientists consider quantum physicals "weird". That doesn't mean it is necessary to explain it in the context of weird (what ever that is). Same is true for paranormal events.

psi wrote:

Again, this is an assumption ohn your part that you cannot support.

The English language supports me. Great isn't it.

psi wrote:

Wow, talk about moving the goal-posts again. How do you ascertain that it is indeed the dis-embodied spirit.

No idea, I was working on the assumption that an experiment had been designed to do so.

Yet we have another example of me using an example, and example demanded by Psi, that is then thrown back in my face. Why I bother I've no idea.

psi wrote:

Please detail the methodology to examine this and arrive at this conclusion.

ITS NOT A CONCLUSION ITS AN EXAMPLE

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

psi wrote:

But if you can't explain it? (and this is an important question).

If you currently can't explain it then you currently can't explain it.

250 year ago we couldn't explain the atom, or the properties of light.

The fact that you cannot currently explain something makes no assumptions about if the event can it ever be explained. It was possible to explain the atom 250 year ago even before we knew how.

It is rather ridiculous to assume that if something is not explainable now that is it is impossible to explain it ever.

Zillah

Ok, to stir up this little hornet's nest somewhat, I have a few questions for Psi:

1 - How would you define the word "paranormal". I would suggest that the only useful definition would be "the term used to describe a number of phenomena that are either as of yet unexplained, or non-existant."

2 - What meaning do you take from the word "ghost", for the purposes of a discussion such as this? I would suggest "the term given to a phenomenon or range of phenomena, believed by some to be the spirits of the dead, or by others to be misinterpretations of other sensory input, be in external, or internal."

3 - Do you believe that any phenomena currently considered "paranormal" (according to my above definition) have the potential to be analysed, identified and 'normalised', ie, made "not paranormal"?

4 - If not to Q3, why? Everything was unexplained at some stage.

5 - Do you believe there are any perceiveable phenomena (to humans) that are fundamentally beyond the capacity of science to understand? (I do not mean currently, I mean fundamentally, ever, by any means.)

6 - Is your purpose in this thread primarily to toy with Wicknight?

I think thats it for now. It is 7 in the morning and I have been at work since 12...

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

6 - Is your purpose in this thread primarily to toy with Wicknight?

"toy" with ... I feel so violated ..

GuanYin

Zillah wrote:

Ok, to stir up this little hornet's nest somewhat, I have a few questions for Psi:

1 - How would you define the word "paranormal". I would suggest that the only useful definition would be "the term used to describe a number of phenomena that are either as of yet unexplained, or non-existant."

Unexplained, non-existant or unexplainable. The third one may be controversial, but we can only assume that everything can be elucidated - we have no evidence that this is so.

2 - What meaning do you take from the word "ghost", for the purposes of a discussion such as this? I would suggest "the term given to a phenomenon or range of phenomena, believed by some to be the spirits of the dead, or by others to be misinterpretations of other sensory input, be in external, or internal."

I didn't first use the term ghost. I merely seized upon its use (because it was a wooly example). Personally I think "ghost" is a red herring. You can't really create a scientific experiment that will test any so-called paranormal phenomenon, mainly because any hypothesis relies on poistive or negative results allowing you a conclusion. With paranormal, all negative results are open to subjective interpretation.

3 - Do you believe that any phenomena currently considered "paranormal" (according to my above definition) have the potential to be analysed, identified and 'normalised', ie, made "not paranormal"?

My belief is beside the point. Its not about belief. Its about methodological testing and hypothesis driven examinations.

4 - If not to Q3, why? Everything was unexplained at some stage.

That is true, but you of all people should know that past events and trends have no bearing on future passages. That is a very unscientific thing to think.

5 - Do you believe there are any perceiveable phenomena (to humans) that are fundamentally beyond the capacity of science to understand? (I do not mean currently, I mean fundamentally, ever, by any means.)

Well I haven't looked in any great detail so I can't say. This is the crux of my argument (and from this point I'm replying to wicknights last post aswell).

If we examine any "paranormal" phenomenon - say remote-viewing, we can set up an series of unbiased tests to see if we can discern evidence of remote-viewing.

However, we are not examining the mechanism of the phenomenon, we are merely observing the phenomenon, because we don't know how it is perceived to work.

So consider, we don't have an opinion whether remote viewing is a true phenomenon, we merely wish to observe it in action:

The results are
(A): Remote viewing is observed - we don't however know how it has occured so we don't know what we have actually observed.

(B): Remote viewing is not observed - We must decide if (1) our experiment is insufficient to observe the phenomenon (for example, some remote-viewers claim the streess affects tehir ability - but the reasons could be any one of hundreds). (2) The phenomenon does not exist.

In either case, we have neither the ability to verify or disprove that remote viewing is a paranormal event or a natural one or whether it even exists. All we can say is that a phenomenon occurs.

Phenomenological observation, is not scientific methodology. Even if we verify remote-viewing and we must do this to begin to be able to study how such a phenomenon might work, any approach to elucidating a mechanism would be a "hit and hope" approach.

This is down to an interesting historical observation. Many of sciences great breakthroughs have NOT been founded on scientific rigour, but on chance discoveries.

6 - Is your purpose in this thread primarily to toy with Wicknight?

Oh come on, I think you and I have ineracted long enough for you to know that I'm not actually that bothered about any individual on boards.ie. Wicknight doesn't interest me (not that this is on topic). It often amuses me (and I mean this in general, I've read some interesting threads about his style of arguing) how he posts but I'm more interested in the idea of the thread.

I'd be quite interested if ANYONE can create a scientific methodology to examine a current alleged paranormal phenonemon that will hold up to rigourous examination.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

I've read some interesting threads about his style of arguing

People are writing whole threads discussing me? Really? :eek:

I guess its true what Wilde said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

GuanYin

Incidently Zillah, do you really think that Wicknight is so feeble that I'd be able to toy with him.

Surely the merit of his argument would inherently prevent me toying with him.....

Zombrex

psi wrote:

If we examine any "paranormal" phenomenon - say remote-viewing, we can set up an series of unbiased tests to see if we can discern evidence of remote-viewing.

Why are you trying to show it is or is not remote viewing?

As I've stated a number of times, that is a very unscientific hypothesis to start off with. A good hypothesis should be based almost entirely on already established theories, and you should change only the specific element you are testing for.

Basing your inital hypothesis entirely on the unscientific and largely baseless guess of what something is by a believer is rather ridiculous, and destined to become completely untestable.

Any definition of remote viewing would be a guess since the term is not defined to start with. Somone could come along and say that isn't what is meant by "remote viewing"

psi wrote:

Phenomenological observation, is not scientific methodology.

Large areas of science are based on phenomenological observation, such as Astronomy. That does not mean they don't or can't use the scientific method. They can and do.

Phenomenological observation simply means an assumtion what you are observing is actually happen as you observe them, the observation is not a trick of the mind. There are a large number of ways to verify this (controls as you would put it) using the scientific method.

Ultimately all scientific observation (even simulated in a controlled experiment) will eventually be phenomenological since we can never be totally sure that reality itself isn't a trick of the mind.

I'm not quite sure what you think the scientific method involves, but your repeated claim that any areas of science that use phenomenological observation are not really science is incorrect and a bit of insult to any astronomers reading this.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Incidently Zillah, do you really think that Wicknight is so feeble that I'd be able to toy with him.

Good point!

Yeah Zillah, I had Psi on the ropes over her repeated mis-representations of what I had said
(which I notice she has quitely given up argument after her rather silly attempt to argue that it was in fact not what I actually said but the "context" I said it in, a "context" that was apparently obvious only to her and no one else :rolleyes:)

It is in fact me who is toying with Psi! Waahaahaahaah (evil villian laught)

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

Why are you trying to show it is or is not remote viewing?

I am not. I said that are you trying to look for evidence of the phenomenon referred to as remote viewing.

As I've stated a number of times, that is a very unscientific hypothesis to start off with.

What is and why?

A good hypothesis should be based almost entirely on already established theories, and you should change only the specific element you are testing for.

Well for the gazillionth time. Examine the supposed phenomenon that is referred to as remote-viewing. You said that science can examine any phenomenon. Construct a methodology.

Basing your inital hypothesis entirely on the unscientific and largely baseless guess of what something is by a believer is rather ridiculous, and destined to become completely untestable.

No, people claim to have achieved remote-viewing. They present (albeit anecdotal) evidence for this. If it actually is possible (remote viewing) the phenomenon should be observable, testable and reproducable.

Please explain how in this case, it is untestable?

Any definition of remote viewing would be a guess since the term is not defined to start with. Somone could come along and say that isn't what is meant by "remote viewing"

Well to be fair, remote viewing is an accepted terminology for a rather specifically defined alleged ability, so you are grasping now.

But for arguments sake, assume that the tester and testee agree on a definition.

Large areas of science are based on phenomenological observation, such as Astronomy. That does not mean they don't or can't use the scientific method. They can and do.

But this is what you fail to understand. In these cases, the science doesn't propose that these things exist or don't exist. They put "best fit" explanation on the phenomenon, but they don't at any stage suggest that they are definitively right. And they do this by applying similar applied physical phenomenon and the rules of science to the phenomenological observations (such as gravity, bending of light etc). This is as I have said before "context".

Apply this to paranormal? What "context" do you put paranormal phenomenon in?

Phenomenological observation simply means an assumtion what you are observing is actually happen as you observe them, the observation is not a trick of the mind. There are a large number of ways to verify this (controls as you would put it) using the scientific method.

verify what exactly? That something is happening?

how do you apply this to an alleged phenomenon such as ESP? What controls do you use?

Ultimately all scientific observation (even simulated in a controlled experiment) will eventually be phenomenological since we can never be totally sure that reality itself isn't a trick of the mind.

Thats probably the wooliest thinking I've ever seen to evade an argument.

I'm not quite sure what you think the scientific method involves, but your repeated claim that any areas of science that use phenomenological observation are not really science is incorrect and a bit of insult to any astronomers reading this.

How so? Please give me an example.

Astronomy uses known phenomenon to compare and contrast observed events. The effect of gravity on X is similar to the observed phenomenon Y).
This is in cases wher ethey cannot directly verify matters.

That is very different to the matter we are discussing, mainly because we don't have a base reference for the phenomenon we are discussing. In fact there may not even be a phenomenon.

If we observe what appears to be a gravity pull but are unable to locate its source, we might assume it is an astral body. We know gravity exists and we know astral bodies exist and we know they exert gravity so we can scientifically examine this hypothesis by taking what we know about the environment of astral bodies we can test rigourously to rule out other sources.

If we observe someone who appears to be able to see into the future how do we investigate that?

Zombrex

ok, not following

how is this ..

psi wrote:

we can set up an series of unbiased tests to see if we can discern evidence of remote-viewing.

not the same as this ..

wicknigh wrote:

trying to show it is or is not remote viewing?

The word "discern" means "show". Your sentense could be re-written as "to see if we can show evidence of remote-viewing", which is the same as trying to show it is or is not remote viewing.

So I ask again, why are you trying to show it is or is not remote viewing. You have started off with a made up pre-concieved concept "remote viewing" and are not trying to fit the phenomona around that.

psi wrote:

but they don't at any stage suggest that they are definitively right

No science, at any stage, suggests that they are definitly right. You in fact told me this.

That doesn't matter if you are looking at the stars or held up in a lab running a controlled simulated experiment.

For any scientific theory to be scientific in nature it must be, at least logically, possible that it is wrong. This is called falsifibiliy of a theory, and it is a corner stone of modern science. I know this because you spend 2 posts drilling me on that very fact.

psi wrote:

Please explain how in this case, it is untestable?

Because you haven't defined what "remote viewing" actually is, so how do you test for it.

Though you claim you have a specific definition, so I'll take your word on that one.

psi wrote:

What "context" do you put paranormal phenomenon in?

The same "context" as any another naturally occuring phenomenon.

psi wrote:

Thats probably the wooliest thinking I've ever seen to evade an argument.

Whos evading?

I'm pointing out that your lack of acceptance of an area of study such as astonomy as "scientific" because it is based largely on non-simulated observation is illogical since the reasons you dismiss it apply to all areas of science, even those with involve simulated controlled experiments.

When you say "this isn't science" you are, to put it simply, incorrect.

psi wrote:

If we observe someone who appears to be able to see into the future how do we investigate that?

In exactly the same way as you originally described -

"known phenomenon to compare and contrast observed events"

While astonomers are doing this they are constantly discovering new phenomona which does not fit perviously known phenomenon or models of the universe.

Theories like a black-hole, dark matter, worm holes, super-liquid universe etc etc could easily be clasified as "para-normal". They do not fit into the current model we have of the universe, they seem contradict what we know. We are either observing the phenomona wrong or what we know is incomplete.

But to say we have no reference point for them because we don't already know what they are would be silly. Likewise with paranormal phenomona here on Earth.

Psi you seem to have a rather strange view that everything is already known (i'd imagine you work in medicine :rolleyes:), and as such we can only ever apply known phenomenon to new observations, ie nothing new can ever be discovered.

That is nonsense.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

ok, not following

Reply again including the bits you left out and if you still don't follow I'll reply.

Oh and answers to my questions would be polite before you go asking your own.