Science investigating the Paranormal

Zillah

psi wrote:

1 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.

A lack of evidence is not proof of a negative. Thats an established fundamental of logic; you can't prove a negative.

(EDIT: I misunderstood this a little bit. The point stands though. We have no evidence either way on the question of "Is there anything that is fundamentally unexplainable?" However, we do know that to the best of our knowledge, there is much we can explain, and every generation there is exponentially more that we can understand. The trend shows that rather than anything being "unexplainable", it is more likely that things are simply beyond current understanding.)

2 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.

You absolutely must committ to a definition of the word "ghost" if you intend on either using it again, or for your previous posts to make sense.

We may aswell say "banana-hamock" instead of "ghost" if you won't commit to a defintion.

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

Thats being a little obtuse. You could easily remove the word "belief" thats causing you problems. Here, the question rephrased:

"Could any phenomena, according to your knowledge and reasoning, currently considered "paranormal" (according to my above definition) have the potential to be analysed, identified and 'normalised', ie, made "not paranormal"?"

4 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.

Put it this way, if you answered "no" to the above question, do you understand that had you said that at any point previous to this instant, you would have been demonstratably wrong?

If you said "no" a thousand years ago, you would have been wrong. We showed that those magic blasts the Gods shoot at us when they're angry are in fact a stream of electrons that we call "lightning". Same scenario with earthquakes, comets, dreams, seizures etc.

Occams Razor would follow that its quite likely that phenomena currently considered magical or nonexistant will be proven to be normalised in the future.

Unless of course you believe that whatever the most recent discovery to this instant was, happened to be the last? Which is highly unlikely, I don't think I need to point out. (I will though... ?)

5 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. [snip]

But surely observation could be considered the first step of the scientific method?

For example. Lets go with your Remote Viewing example. We do a massive string of tests in which people use their "remote viewing" to communicate images over long distances. Lets also say we have them hooked up to devices to measure what parts of their brains are active. And lets say hypothetically that it becomes apparent that a particular small part of the brain jumps in neural activity by 200% during the successful "remote viewing" sessions. Then lets say blood samples are taken at it appears that the levels of a particular protein, hormone or whatever in the successful remote viewers also showed an increase, this time of 80%.

Then we disect their brains and do a dozen other things and eventually we uncover the mechanisms by which it functions. Then, armed with such, we design an experiment to confirm what we know, with controls in place.

What is fundamentally wrong with this scenario? (Aside from its hypothetical nature.

(Thought: Might your problem be that you are assuming "paranormal" = "false"? And therefore "paranormal" issues are immune to be proven by the scientific process?)

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.

Observation must come first. Once we have observed enough, then we will know enough to make a controlled experiment. Perhaps we don't even have the science to make those observations yet.

Wicknight wrote:

Psi wrote:

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

Good point!

"Toy" was carefully chosen to evoke an honest reaction from Psi. I knew it was the word that would sit most comfortably on Psi's "I'm not actually involved here" shoulders. Its a safely flippant word.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

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

The only other bit I can see is this -

"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."

Which doesn't really add anything to what you already said, so how you expect this to clarify is beyond me.

You are saying that in this example you are trying to show remote viewing, but that this will ultimately be impossible because what remove viewing is and how it works isn't defined, so how can you compare what you observe to remote viewing?

I agree 100% with all of that, in fact I was the one who initally stated this in relation to ghost. Which is why I asked :- why are you trying to show remote viewing in the first place? To which I got the rather nonsensical answer "I'm not" when clearly that was the basis for the example

You are taking a non-scientific and largely baseless theory (remote viewing) as the base for your hypothesis and then complaining that you can't support or or disprove this. Which is true since it is based on nothing to start with. You are commiting a self-fulling the prophecy that you won't be able to support or disprove yoru hypothesis by starting off with a nonsense one.

You need to base your inital hypothesis on something real and tangable, not some wishy-washy made up theory that you have no idea if it even exists.

You keep asking what "context" you should study paranormal events. You should study them in the context what phenomona we already understand, which is how all science is studied.

psi wrote:

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

If you are talking about the rather silly please tell me how I test for a ghost otherwise I refuse to believe its possible style questions I'm ignoring them because they are irrelivent, as I already explained to you.

Because I can or cannot come up with test to examine what ever completely theoretical example of a paranormal evident you come up with next shows or explains nothing about the logic of the scientific method. It is possible to detect the energy given off when two sub-atomic particles smash into each other but I've no idea how that is done either

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

I knew it was the word that would sit most comfortably on Psi's "I'm not actually involved here" shoulders.

Yeah, for someone who has no interest in arguing with me she does do it an awful lot

Zillah

Just so you know Psi, I'm not even neccessarily disagreeing with you. You're a scientist, you've gotta know what you're talking about, but its not making sense to me.

mysteria

Parapsychology is a Science therefore no amount of intellectualizing, twisting people's words and "academic" bullying can change that. Fact: Parapsychology is the scientific research/study of all types of Psychic Phenomena and statistics are available to support this. The Oxford Dictionary defines Science as : " 1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. 2 a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject. ORIGIN Latin scientia, from scire ‘know’." Parapsychology is defined as "the study of mental phenomena which are outside the sphere of orthodox psychology (such as hypnosis or telepathy)."
The key words in any branch of Science are study and research. This includes investigating, theorizing, experimenting under controlled conditions but it also requires openness and imagination. In every field there are people with qualifications but this does not make them experts. Wicknight, your opinion is as valuable as everyone elses on the board, and Zillah you always ask such clever question but spoil it by adding a question everyone can attack you for. This gives them an excuse to ignore the very valid questions you pose, I'm not trying to be condescending don't take it the wrong way but you're too clever to set yourself up like this.

GuanYin

Zillah wrote:

A lack of evidence is not proof of a negative. Thats an established fundamental of logic; you can't prove a negative.

(EDIT: I misunderstood this a little bit. The point stands though. We have no evidence either way on the question of "Is there anything that is fundamentally unexplainable?" However, we do know that to the best of our knowledge, there is much we can explain, and every generation there is exponentially more that we can understand. The trend shows that rather than anything being "unexplainable", it is more likely that things are simply beyond current understanding.)

Erm, I never suggested it was.

In contemporary science, we work on known paramters. A so-called negative result (and its an awful term) should be related to the context of the science you are working with - ie. context (which could be anything - but in good science yo know all the variables).

However, my point is here that without such context science cannot make sense of a "negative result".

You absolutely must committ to a definition of the word "ghost" if you intend on either using it again, or for your previous posts to make sense.

No, because I don't need to. You're assuming (I assume) that I believe in ghosts or the term ghost means anything to the argument. It doesn't. I seized upon it from wicknight's arguement because it was, even as an example, wooly thinking.

We may aswell say "banana-hamock" instead of "ghost" if you won't commit to a defintion.

Zillah, my point is and has been (although I may have stressed it more via PM) that there *IS* no set definition of a ghost. How can you disprove anything, from the paranormal to god if you cannot define it.

Thats being a little obtuse. You could easily remove the word "belief" thats causing you problems. Here, the question rephrased:

"Could any phenomena, according to your knowledge and reasoning, currently considered "paranormal" (according to my above definition) have the potential to be analysed, identified and 'normalised', ie, made "not paranormal"?"

If you think that requiring proper terminology before I commit to making a statement that you will try beat me over the head with, is obtuse, then the quality of your debating opponents must have been severely lacking in the past

I'd disagree with the definition "the term used to describe a number of phenomena that are either as of yet unexplained, or non-existant"
I'd term that which appears to fall outside the normal or natural explanation of things as preternatural and what appears above or beyond the established laws of the universe as supernatural. The paranormal, should really encompass that outside our laws.

Skepticwiki defines it as "Events, which by definition, are supposedly psychic events or phenomena that are outside the scope of the known and the normal. They supposedly transcend the normal laws of nature and science as it is currently understood." and I would tend to go along with that.

The whole point of it is, as soon as you identify any single event or phenomenon as "not paranormal" you are merely identifying a single event as not paranormal. If you are studing something by established scientific method, using established scientific context AND you achieve a result (of any sort), you are not studying the paranormal. Because BY DEFINITION, it is not paranormal and never was if it can be related to our laws of nature.

Put it this way, if you answered "no" to the above question, do you understand that had you said that at any point previous to this instant, you would have been demonstratably wrong?

If you said "no" a thousand years ago, you would have been wrong. We showed that those magic blasts the Gods shoot at us when they're angry are in fact a stream of electrons that we call "lightning". Same scenario with earthquakes, comets, dreams, seizures etc.

I see what you're saying, Its roughly the same as wicknight.

But you don't get it. I'm not saying that these things can't and won't one day be explained. I'm saying that at present, they can't and never will be scientifically.

If science changes, if we redefined our laws because we discovered some amazing new concept in science that showed an overlapping dimension with entry points or whatever, the definition of the paranormal would change contextually.

But you can't set up a scientific method that examines a phenomenon by way of a law that does not exist. You can only work with what you have.

Occams Razor would follow that its quite likely that phenomena currently considered magical or nonexistant will be proven to be normalised in the future.

And I agree. But perhaps not by our current laws of nature. Which means not by "our" current understanding of science.

If you change the goalposts you redefine what is paranormal.

Unless of course you believe that whatever the most recent discovery to this instant was, happened to be the last? Which is highly unlikely, I don't think I need to point out. (I will though... ?)

again no. I merely suggest that you cannot scientifically study something that cannot be defined or understood by our current science. If you cannot create a methodology to examine something in context, you cannot study it scientifically. If you can create a context for a phenomenon that allows you to study it, it is not paranormal.

But surely observation could be considered the first step of the scientific method?

It would be. But its NOT scientific method. Its like saying that owning a car is driving.

For example. Lets go with your Remote Viewing example. We do a massive string of tests in which people use their "remote viewing" to communicate images over long distances. Lets also say we have them hooked up to devices to measure what parts of their brains are active. And lets say hypothetically that it becomes apparent that a particular small part of the brain jumps in neural activity by 200% during the successful "remote viewing" sessions. Then lets say blood samples are taken at it appears that the levels of a particular protein, hormone or whatever in the successful remote viewers also showed an increase, this time of 80%.

Then we disect their brains and do a dozen other things and eventually we uncover the mechanisms by which it functions. Then, armed with such, we design an experiment to confirm what we know, with controls in place.

What is fundamentally wrong with this scenario? (Aside from its hypothetical nature.

The fundamental problem with your scenario is that remote-viewing is then not paranormal.

As I'm sure you may have seen written before, when you ask any question in science (which are usually phrased as "is there any evidence to suggest that......"), you must a couple of questions.

1. Is there any evidence to suggest against?
2. Has anyone looked?

In your instance, you are assuming that the answer to thesetwo questions is no. What you have done is uncovered a previously uncharacterised natural phenomenon. This means that remote-viewing is not and never was paranormal. It was at best preternatural and just uncharacterised. In order for it to be truely paranormal, the first criteria would be for the researchers to find nothing

(Thought: Might your problem be that you are assuming "paranormal" = "false"? And therefore "paranormal" issues are immune to be proven by the scientific process?)

I don't assume that anything paranormal is false but the second part of your thought may fit well.

Observation must come first. Once we have observed enough, then we will know enough to make a controlled experiment. Perhaps we don't even have the science to make those observations yet.

Yes indeed, but like owning a car does not mean we are dribing, the mere act of observing does not mean we have engaged in scientific methodology. We may observe an oasis, we may observe an optical illusion, until we test our observation, we are merely observing.

"Toy" was carefully chosen to evoke an honest reaction from Psi. I knew it was the word that would sit most comfortably on Psi's "I'm not actually involved here" shoulders. Its a safely flippant word.

But I'm not. As I'm sure my PM's have conveyed, I don't have any emotional attachment beyond bemusement on boards.ie. I don't see arguement or debate as a win/loss or scoring points. The people who do rarely keep focus and are so intent on "proving themselves" and worrying about saving face, they find it hard to keep track of their arguments. As we have seen.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

You are taking a non-scientific and largely baseless theory (remote viewing) as the base for your hypothesis and then complaining that you can't support or or disprove this.[/qiote]

surely all claims of paranormal are non-scientific and baseless. That is why they are paranormal.

Which is true since it is based on nothing to start with. You are commiting a self-fulling the prophecy that you won't be able to support or disprove yoru hypothesis by starting off with a nonsense one.

Which is true of all scientific endeavours into the paranormal.

If you did manage to make a sensible hypothesis based on a phenomenon such as you describe, it would have no bearing on paranormal phenomenon.
You can study normal phenomenon that people mistake for the paranormal, but these in themselves will not be paranormal events so you are not studying paranormal.

You need to base your inital hypothesis on something real and tangable, not some wishy-washy made up theory that you have no idea if it even exists.

Anything real and tangible, will not, by definition, be paranormal.

You keep asking what "context" you should study paranormal events. You should study them in the context what phenomona we already understand, which is how all science is studied.

Name a paranormal phenomenon that has a context that we understand well.

If you are talking about the rather silly please tell me how I test for a ghost otherwise I refuse to believe its possible style questions I'm ignoring them because they are irrelivent, as I already explained to you.

But you have said that science can investigate the paranormal. I am asking you for a hypothetical experiment that shows this is possible. Zillah has tried and in my view, failed to provide one (and I'll admit, I cheated because the task I am setting is, by definition, impossible, I do so just to prove a point).

Because I can or cannot come up with test to examine what ever completely theoretical example of a paranormal evident you come up with next shows or explains nothing about the logic of the scientific method.

No it shows the logic (or lack thereof) of claiming scientific methodology in examining something that has no parameters to study.

It is possible to detect the energy given off when two sub-atomic particles smash into each other but I've no idea how that is done either

But these are not paranormal occurances.

SkepticOne

Science can study many claims of the paranormal. The claims themselves are not of course paranormal.

If the paranormal has as part of its defiinition that it is beyond all possible scientific explanation then tautologically it can't be explained scientifically.

Can we agree that what science tries to investiges are the claims? Then we can move on to what types of claims can be investigated.

Zillah

Psi thats actually very interesting. It really does explain a lot about our previous disagreements. We have entirely seperate understandings of what the "Paranormal" is. And if you've previously seen me as subscribing to your understanding, that would make my attitude (derived from my take on the "Paranormal") seem much worse than it is.


**

Ah Mysteria, welcome to the Skeptics forum...

Mysteria wrote:

The key words in any branch of Science are study and research. This includes investigating, theorizing, experimenting under controlled conditions but it also requires openness and imagination.

No it doesn't. Read Psi's posts. Science doesn't require "openess", it requires a method. Its not a flexible method, there is no room for "deciding" to believe something or not. You can prove something or you can't.

And it most certainly does not require "imagination". Thats what leads to your particular brand of nonesense-science. You take words you don't understand and drag them through the mud. You take the briefest and most crude understanding of scientific principles and breed them with your own fantasies to produce grotesque parodies of science.

Zillah you always ask such clever question but spoil it by adding a question everyone can attack you for. This gives them an excuse to ignore the very valid questions you pose, I'm not trying to be condescending don't take it the wrong way but you're too clever to set yourself up like this.

What the hell are you talking about? How have I set myself up? Have you been reading the right thread...?

Zombrex

mysteria wrote:

Parapsychology is a Science therefore no amount of intellectualizing, twisting people's words and "academic" bullying can change that.

Er ... ok.

Not sure anyone on this thread said it wasn't a "science", anything that is studied using the scientific method is a science.

Though my most up to date understanding is that so far the field of parapsychology has found very little proper evidence the phenomona is actually happening, let alone explained how it is happening.

But, as in sure Psi would no doubt point out, that doesn't mean it isn't happening, as there is a difference between being unable to detect something and it not happening. Though in the case of paranormal claims that have to on some level intereact with the human brain one would imagine that if they are happening it would be possible to detect them since our brains have to detect them also

Zombrex

psi wrote:

surely all claims of paranormal are non-scientific and baseless. That is why they are paranormal.

The explinations given by believers to explain paranormal events are non-scientific and largely baseless. Which is why it isn't a good idea to try and come up with experiements to test for or against these explinations since they are not properly defined in the first place.

psi wrote:

Which is true of all scientific endeavours into the paranormal.

It is only true if you use the previous (unscientific and often wild) explinations for an event as the starting point for your study.

psi wrote:

If you did manage to make a sensible hypothesis based on a phenomenon such as you describe, it would have no bearing on paranormal phenomenon.

Psi you are getting the phenomenon confused with the believers explinations for the phenomenon.

The classifications given to unexplained events such as "ghosts", "esp" "magic" etc etc are not the important bits. If one just ignored all previous unscientific paranormal explinations and simply classifed everything as "we have no idea yet" you would still have paranormal phenomenon, and it would still be possible to study them in a scientific fashion. In fact it would probably be a much better starting point.

psi wrote:

You can study normal phenomenon that people mistake for the paranormal, but these in themselves will not be paranormal events so you are not studying paranormal.

To me a paranormal event is any event that people do not understand and which seems to not make sense based on what we currently know about the universe. As far as I know "para" means above and "normal" means well normal. I try and ignore the quick to define explinations that humans naturally come up with ("its a ghost! Its a alien! Its ESP!")

If something is happening that contradicts what we know about the universe then what we know about the universe if obviously wrong. Once an explination is found for this event, even if the explination alters what we currently know about physics or chemistry or biology, the event becomes normal phenomenon, since we now understand it.

If tomorrow someone explained very scientifically what actually was happening with the paranormal phenomona commonly classified as "ghosts" by believers then that phenomona would from then on simply be normal, even if it was found that the explination was incediable and completely changed how we view biology and physics.

Take your definition of paranormal

Skepticwiki defines it as "Events, which by definition, are supposedly psychic events or phenomena that are outside the scope of the known and the normal. They supposedly transcend the normal laws of nature and science as it is currently understood."

The key word here is "known"

Nothing that happens is beyond the normal, because if it does happen it is normal. Events can be beyond what we currently know or understand as the normal though.

psi wrote:

Anything real and tangible, will not, by definition, be paranormal.

Well only if you believe everything paranormal is happening in the human mind. But even then what is happening in the human mind will be real and tangible.

psi wrote:

Name a paranormal phenomenon that has a context that we understand well.

Anything paranormal pheomenon that involves light or sound, since we understand both light and sound very well.

psi wrote:

But you have said that science can investigate the paranormal.

It can, but that does not mean it has to use the previous rather unscientific explinations of believers and lay people as starting point for this investigation.

As I said before I think you are confusing the paranormal event with the explination for that event.

psi wrote:

I am asking you for a hypothetical experiment that shows this is possible.

Ok, describe a paranormal event in detail and I will try and devise a hypothetical experiment based around that to discover what is happening.

psi wrote:

No it shows the logic (or lack thereof) of claiming scientific methodology in examining something that has no parameters to study.

You keep saying it has no parameters to study, and I keep pointing out that if it had no parameters to study it would be unobservable to humans and as such we would not notice it in the first place. A paranormal event by definition must have parameters to study otherwise we would never be aware of it.

psi wrote:

But these are not paranormal occurances.

Thats not really relivent to my point.

mysteria

This topic is called "Science investigating the Paranormal", yet most of the discussion involves unexplained phenomena and paranormal beliefs, which is not the same thing. Nobody can generalise about the Scientific community as a whole, their opinions vary and like any body of graduates disagreement is more common than agreement. Psi, you're a Scientist ( may I ask what you're qualifications are?) but you're not a Parapsychologist, there's lots of info available about Parapsychology which is what this thread is about. Zillah thanks for the welcome, I was complimenting you if you think about it, and trying to give a little advice that might help earn you the respect you deserve .And answers to your questions. Wicknight you have made some very interesting points. A questioning mind is the key to knowledge.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

The explinations given by believers to explain paranormal events are non-scientific and largely baseless. Which is why it isn't a good idea to try and come up with experiements to test for or against these explinations since they are not properly defined in the first place.

What "believers" use to explain phenomenon is beside the point.

There are two scenarios.

The paranormal exists, then by definition we cannot examine it using scientific method because it is outside the scope of our defintion.

The paranormal doesn't exist then we still cannot examine it by scientific method.

It is only true if you use the previous (unscientific and often wild) explinations for an event as the starting point for your study.

Again no. It doesn't matter what the definition is. The mere act of applying science to a phenomenon makes it non-paranormal.

Psi you are getting the phenomenon confused with the believers explinations for the phenomenon.

Yet again no. What people believe is beside the point. There is paranormal or there isn't. You have set your stall in the "there is no such thing in the paranormal" (which means that I incorrectly gave you huge benefit of doubt in the forum before) which is again not very scientific because you have already biased all your research and your scientific methodology is flawed as such.

The classifications given to unexplained events such as "ghosts", "esp" "magic" etc etc are not the important bits. If one just ignored all previous unscientific paranormal explinations and simply classifed everything as "we have no idea yet" you would still have paranormal phenomenon, and it would still be possible to study them in a scientific fashion. In fact it would probably be a much better starting point.

Again no. The definition is that they are outside science. Once science can study it, it is not paranormal.

To me a paranormal event is any event that people do not understand and which seems to not make sense based on what we currently know about the universe. As far as I know "para" means above and "normal" means well normal. I try and ignore the quick to define explinations that humans naturally come up with ("its a ghost! Its a alien! Its ESP!")

Well it is nice and convenient that you use your own personal definition that suits your arguement and not a definition that is generally accepted by either skeptics or "believers".

How easy my life would be if I redefined all my definitions to suit my beliefs....oh no, that wouldn't be scientific.

If something is happening that contradicts what we know about the universe then what we know about the universe if obviously wrong. Once an explination is found for this event, even if the explination alters what we currently know about physics or chemistry or biology, the event becomes normal phenomenon, since we now understand it.

Yes and once we redefine the matural laws of science, by definition of the word paranormal, we also redefine what is paranormal so yet again, we cannot study the paranormal through science.

If tomorrow someone explained very scientifically what actually was happening with the paranormal phenomona commonly classified as "ghosts" by believers then that phenomona would from then on simply be normal, even if it was found that the explination was incediable and completely changed how we view biology and physics.

True but again, you can't change one set of goal posts and not the other.

Take your definition of paranormal

Skepticwiki defines it as "Events, which by definition, are supposedly psychic events or phenomena that are outside the scope of the known and the normal. They supposedly transcend the normal laws of nature and science as it is currently understood."

The key word here is "known"

Nothing that happens is beyond the normal, because if it does happen it is normal. Events can be beyond what we currently know or understand as the normal though.

Oh how you try to weave an dturn.

Firstly, the key word is known. Fair enough, but as I simply stated, once something becomes known, the definition of paranormal changes (as the definition of the laws of nature have jjust changed) so what is paranormal is still paranormal and what is not paranormal is science.

This doesn't mean that paranormal can be studied scientifically, nor does it mean that we can gradually set up a methodology to eliminate the paranormal. It merely means that we previously hadn't looked hard enough or more likely, we were wrong about something.

Secondly, you have again apporached this arguement with a biased and closed mine. Which again is not very scientific. You have assumed by your own arguement that paranormal does not exist. Admittedly, you may not intentionally have done this, but by creating a definition of paranormal that suits your needs, you have stacked the deck.

Well only if you believe everything paranormal is happening in the human mind. But even then what is happening in the human mind will be real and tangible.

No, - my apologies - I meant "real and tangible" in the context of empirical evidence.

Anything paranormal pheomenon that involves light or sound, since we understand both light and sound very well.

Ahh again, you fall back to using poorly though examples.

Once bitten twice shy, one would have thought.

Again no wicknight. If you investigate sound and light and find a source for it. You have not been investigating the paranormal. If you have sound and light with no source, the phenomenon may be paranormal. The act of discovering a source will remove it from paranormal classification.

It can, but that does not mean it has to use the previous rather unscientific explinations of believers and lay people as starting point for this investigation.

As I said before I think you are confusing the paranormal event with the explination for that event.

No, explanations are irrelevent. YOU are using explinations and believers as leverage in your arguement. I have repeatedly said and shown how they are not involved.

Ok, describe a paranormal event in detail and I will try and devise a hypothetical experiment based around that to discover what is happening.

No, YOU describe a paranormal event in detail and devise and experiment.

You keep saying it has no parameters to study, and I keep pointing out that if it had no parameters to study it would be unobservable to humans and as such we would not notice it in the first place. A paranormal event by definition must have parameters to study otherwise we would never be aware of it.

No, observation is not the same as scientific methodology. A simple concept you cannot seem to grasp.

Thats not really relivent to my point.

Do you even know what your point is anymore or are you on such a revenge vendetta that you won't actually take on any points made and are just trying to "score a win". Have a look at Zillah and scepticones assimilation of the arguement. While maybe not agreeing with me they understand the points. You it seems have not reached their level.

GuanYin

mysteria wrote:

Psi, you're a Scientist ( may I ask what you're qualifications are?) but you're not a Parapsychologist, there's lots of info available about Parapsychology which is what this thread is about.

1. You have already been told my qualifications. If I wanted to divulge them publically I'd have them on a sig or something. I don't so I won't.

2. Scientific method is universal. Anyone who tries to change it to suit their means and ends is not a scientist.

3. Qualifications are meaningless. I have plenty and they don't mean I'm an expert in all things scientific or medical. Times and science changes and it is impossible for anyone to keep abreast of everything. Qualifications give you a grounding to work in a field and understand the knowledge base but they don't mean you have the answers to everything. I am deeply suspicious of anyone who holds up their qualifications in lieu of an arguement. As well as an arguementis fine, but in place of just makes them look like they can't argue.

GuanYin

SkepticOne wrote:

Science can study many claims of the paranormal. The claims themselves are not of course paranormal.

You get a gold star

Thank you, that is my point exactly.

If the paranormal has as part of its defiinition that it is beyond all possible scientific explanation then tautologically it can't be explained scientifically.

Can we agree that what science tries to investiges are the claims? Then we can move on to what types of claims can be investigated.

Yes I have no dispute with that.

However, I will dispute that science can be used to study that which has no context in which to study, such as the paranormal etc.

Zillah wrote:

Psi thats actually very interesting. It really does explain a lot about our previous disagreements. We have entirely seperate understandings of what the "Paranormal" is. And if you've previously seen me as subscribing to your understanding, that would make my attitude (derived from my take on the "Paranormal") seem much worse than it is.

I'm glad you think so

However, referring to our "disagreements" they have merely been on following the rules. As I have said, I view most things that are boards-related dispassionately (no matter what some egomaniacs would have you believe) so your attitude per se would not have matters so much as the incident in question.

But you do see my point. If you are going to use a definition in relation to science. You must use a a generally accepted one. The mere act of setting our own definition invalidates the scientific process.

robindch

> there's lots of info available about Parapsychology

Yes, and lots, if not virtually all, of that is poorly-defined or contradictory or badly specified or any mixture of many defects which make the information less than useful, if not downright wrong.

The farewell note written by Susan Blackmore, who spent thirty years researching the paranormal finally gave up, having failed to find anything is worth reading:

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NS2000.html

mysteria

psi wrote:

1. You have already been told my qualifications. If I wanted to divulge them publically I'd have them on a sig or something. I don't so I won't.

2. Scientific method is universal. Anyone who tries to change it to suit their means and ends is not a scientist.

3. Qualifications are meaningless. I have plenty and they don't mean I'm an expert in all things scientific or medical. Times and science changes and it is impossible for anyone to keep abreast of everything. Qualifications give you a grounding to work in a field and understand the knowledge base but they don't mean you have the answers to everything. I am deeply suspicious of anyone who holds up their qualifications in lieu of an arguement. As well as an arguementis fine, but in place of just makes them look like they can't argue.

Psi you never told me your qualifications, pm them to me ok? If they are so unimportant , why do you keep reminding us about them? Re "Scientific method is universal. Anyone who tries to change it to suit their means and ends is not a scientist. " Most of the greatest Scientific discoveries were made by Scientists clever & imaginative enough to go out on a limb and experiment. Anyone can be a Scientist by getting a degree, and sweeping generalizations add nothing to a debate.

GuanYin

Wicknight.

I'll try break it down simply.

If you study what you think is a species of bear and turns out to be a type of racoon. Have you actually studied a bear at any stage?

GuanYin

mysteria wrote:

Psi you never told me your qualifications, pm them to me ok? If they are so unimportant , why do you keep reminding us about them? Re "Scientific method is universal. Anyone who tries to change it to suit their means and ends is not a scientist. " Most of the greatest Scientific discoveries were made by Scientists clever & imaginative enough to go out on a limb and experiment. Anyone can be a Scientist by getting a degree, and sweeping generalizations add nothing to a debate.

They are in a previous PM to you (that was highlighting the unimportance of them). If you didn't bother to take them on board that is your point.

I don't. I merely say I am a professional scientist and engage in scientific method. I say this to give context for my take on the debate, but I have never posted my qualifications instead of debating my own arguement.

You don't need a degree to be a scientist. All a degree gives you is scientific training - a platform to perform scientist. It doesn't mean you are a scientist.

"Just because a ****er has a library card, doesn't mean he is Yoda"

Imagination can be useful, but its use is not scientific method. After imagination leads you to an observation you can engage in scientific method perhaps.

mysteria

A graduate with a Ph.D. can study and gain qualifications in Parapsychology at many accredited Universities, I'm a parapsychologist so is Matthew from Most Haunted ( & Liverpool Uni). The reason for many studying to get a qualification in something is to gain knowledge NOT available in books or on Google, and to have "proof" they have completed these studies and have gained enough knowledge to pass exams. I don't see what a patronizing attitude adds to a discussion either.

mysteria

Sorry Psi checked my pms, never ever got one from you specifying what your qualifications are. Just wondering as you mentioned working in a research lab, I was in the Moyne Institute TCD, research assistant late 70's. I've pm'd Zillah the answer to all his questions. And this a Scientific topic?

GuanYin

mysteria wrote:

Sorry Psi checked my pms, never ever got one from you specifying what your qualifications are. Just wondering as you mentioned working in a research lab, I was in the Moyne Institute TCD, research assistant late 70's. I've pm'd Zillah the answer to all his questions. And this a Scientific topic?

Mysteria, apart from the extreme offtopicness of your posts, if I really wanted to put my life on the internet, I'd join bebo or myspace.

The PM you are looking for is one directed at both you and 6th, entitles "com on people now" As it happened you replied to it, proporting to have actually read it.

Regarding internet debates, the reason I reference a qualification without stating it is because I'm merely showing that I have a trainin in the terminology. I could equally have a diploma or a professorship. It doesn't actually change the debate.

I don't have an Irish employer.

mysteria

psi wrote:

Wicknight.

I'll try break it down simply.

If you study what you think is a species of bear and turns out to be a type of racoon. Have you actually studied a bear at any stage?

Em...this is on topic? Psi mea culpa found your pm with qualifications.

GuanYin

mysteria wrote:

Em...this is on topic?

If you actually read through the thread, you would find that it is.

mysteria

psi wrote:

If you actually read through the thread, you would find that it is.

If you actually read what I said, I asked you to pm not post your qualifications. I've read through a convoluted, mindboggling mass of uninformative non-productive wordplay and I still maintain your analogy is off-topic. Are you a moderator on this forum too?

GuanYin

mysteria wrote:

If you actually read what I said, I asked you to pm not post your qualifications.

Why give you information you already have. You asked what institute I worked in.

I've read through a convoluted, mindboggling mass of uninformative non-productive wordplay and I still maintain your analogy is off-topic.

That nice for you. You can believe what yo like, it doesn't make it true or right.

Are you a moderator on this forum too?

No, why are you?

mysteria

Re: Parapsychology Psi, no comments from you about that? I haven't time to be a moderator, too busy working. I really wouldn't want it either. Stop patronizing me! And where did I ask you "What institute you work in"? I do not want to argue, simply clarify.

GuanYin

mysteria wrote:

Re: Parapsychology Psi, no comments from you about that? I haven't time to be a moderator, too busy working. I really wouldn't want it either. Stop patronizing me!

Why should I comment on it? I didn't understand that we were required to interact with every post. Perhaps I have no opinion or perhaps I just don't care to share it with you.

So thatis why you're not a moderator. Boards.ie loses out there.....

Who is patronizing you? If *you*feel patronized or upset by the interweb perhaps you should go have a little lie down.....

robindch

Folks -- briefly wearing my moderator's hat, could I ask you to refrain from trying to batter each other to death by degrees?

ta.

GuanYin

robindch wrote:

Folks -- briefly wearing my moderator's hat, could I ask you to refrain from trying to batter each other to death by degrees?

ta.

Acknowledged, apologies.

Incidently, if you intended that pun, it was delicious.