• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed A call for new open-minded research on psychic phenomena

Pixel42 said:
On the contrary, I do agree that there's no point in further testing of the kind that has already conclusively established that people who perceive what they interpret as paranormal phenomena are mistaken. It's what I've been saying all along.

I'm completely open to a different kind of evidence, however, if such is ever forthcoming. I just have no idea of what it would consist, or how it would be obtained. Until someone does, what more is there to say or do?
Click to expand...

I think the word "concluded" makes more sense (for me), here. Because if you feel that it has been "conclusively established" that there is nothing...why would you search any further, no matter what the test?

I'm not trying to nitpick, but the connotation seems very different.

Outside of that, it doesn't seem that we are worlds apart on these points.
 
Last edited:
P.J. Denyer said:
Reading this thread I can't help but feel it's like arguing that when a map shows that a road is a dead end, and driving down the road shows it to be a dead end you should keep checking different maps in case it's actually a shortcut to Narnia.
Click to expand...

Well, one thing is for sure...to have any chance of getting to Narnia, you should probably stop driving down that same dead-end road.
 
Warp12 said:
I think the word "concluded" makes more sense (for me), here. Because if you feel that it has been "conclusively established" that there is nothing...why you search any further, no matter what the test?

I'm not trying to nitpick, but the connotation seems very different.
Click to expand...
It has been conclusively established that people who think they can find underground water with a divining rod are mistaken. Same for psychic mediums, astrologers, homeopaths etc.

What you seem to be saying is that does not rule out some other kind of paranormal phenomena, something that can't be tested for using the scientific method. I'm willing to listen to what that might be, and what alternative type of research might identify it. But you have to tell me. Because I currently have no clue.
 
Warp12 said:
I think the word "concluded" makes more sense (for me), here. Because if you feel that it has been "conclusively established" that there is nothing...why would you search any further, no matter what the test?

I'm not trying to nitpick, but the connotation seems very different.

Outside of that, it doesn't seem that we are worlds apart on these points.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to say it's been conclusively established that the tests carried out so far, of the predictions made so far by paranormal claimants, consistently falsify those predictions. From this we can reasonably conclude that the claims are false.
 
Warp12 said:
"We should only use the testing methodologies that we already know have found nothing".
Click to expand...

Where this argument fails is that the claims that have already been made imply effects we should be able to detect with conventional methods. They predict macro-scale observations that simply fail to materialize. Insisting that we must develop new methods before we give up on the claims is entirely disingenuous. If you have different detailed observations you believe require more refined methods state them -- but you categorically decline to do that.
 
Warp12 said:
Well, one thing is for sure...to have any chance of getting to Narnia, you should probably stop driving down that same dead-end road.
Click to expand...

It sounds like your actual complaint is with the people who keep saying Narnia is down that road, no matter how many times they've been taken there and shown the dead end. No matter how many times we draw up maps telling them how to go and find the dead end for themselves and see that it's real.

I personally have no particular urge to go keep going down that road again and again to see if Narnia is really there after all. But I'm more than happy to take you by the hand and lead you to the dead end, if you insist it's not there and can't read a map well enough to find the road on your own.
 
Warp12 said:
Why is this so controversial?:

"IF there is something to be found, we clearly aren't going to find it with current testing methodologies".

I would think this would be more controversial:

"We should only use the testing methodologies that we already know have found nothing".
Click to expand...
A guy claims he can see Zener cards better than chance. What's wrong with the existing experimental setups?
 
Warp12 said:
Well, one thing is for sure...to have any chance of getting to Narnia, you should probably stop driving down that same dead-end road.
Click to expand...
Errr, one gets to Narnia via a wardrobe in ones bedroom. No roads or cars are involved or even vaguely required.


Is this yet another book you failed to read?
 
Warp12 said:
Mark, this is not in line with your assertions regarding "open mindedness" and skeptics. That is an example of seeing things in black and white terms, just as I implied that SOME here clearly do. I used the word "some"....as in:

"Here, some simply chase me with torches and pitchforks."
Click to expand...

I note that despite my rebuttal to this post which is entirely in error, you have neither apologised for your misunderstanding and blatant attempt to mischaracterise me as being closed minded based on a fundamental misreading of what I actually wrote, nor have you acknowledged that you were in error.

I would not want it to come across as being an attempt to build a strawman that failed, so please, acknowledge your error and respond to the point I made rather than your misreading of it.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I note that despite my rebuttal to this post which is entirely in error, you have neither apologised for your misunderstanding and blatant attempt to mischaracterise me as being closed minded based on a fundamental misreading of what I actually wrote, nor have you acknowledged that you were in error.

I would not want it to come across as being an attempt to build a strawman that failed, so please, acknowledge your error and respond to the point I made rather than your misreading of it.
Click to expand...
Oh let us go with it. It is a mess, but where does it lead?

According to...some, the scientific method utterly fails when it comes to investigating magic. Or psychic phenomena. No difference.

Therefore we need entirely new methods of investigation since science as is has clearly failed to spot these psychic phenomena. Science must perforce be fundamentally faulty, right?

OK, what phenomena do you propose and what method of investigation do you propose?

That is not my problem, science should simply do whatever it is that I cannot identify to address the problem I cannot identify anyway.

Perhaps it is just me, but straight out of the box, such a position seems riddled with issues from the start.
 
Yes, but

JayUtah said:
But what you wrote is not precise. If you rule out all attempts to get you to elaborate, and give mixed signals about what is or isn't included in the scope of your proposal, then you have no business trying to tell people they've misrepresented your claims.
Click to expand...

he gets to be the center of attention.
 
Warp12 said:
We are going in circles with this.

It all comes back to me needing to develop and fund the new testing myself, right?

We can't even seem to agree that doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results, makes little sense.
Click to expand...

Fine. Suggest something else, rather than whingeing that nobody else has.

Dave
 
Warp12 said:
We are going in circles with this.

It all comes back to me needing to develop and fund the new testing myself, right?
Click to expand...

Not at all, there are many who would be willing suggest testing protocols. But you can't talk in any detail about testing protocols without some idea of what you're testing.

Is your objection to the protocols used in the past that they rely on known physical science and laws?
 
If there is no evidence that something exists, it is as likely to exist as anything else that has no evidence. In other words, you need to provide some evidence first if you want people to care more about this than about the monster under their bed.
 
JimOfAllTrades said:
Not at all, there are many who would be willing suggest testing protocols. But you can't talk in any detail about testing protocols without some idea of what you're testing.

Is your objection to the protocols used in the past that they rely on known physical science and laws?
Click to expand...

I posted this earlier, and this is my position:

Warp12 said:
Why is this so controversial?:

"IF there is something to be found, we clearly aren't going to find it with current testing methodologies".

I would think this would be more controversial:

"We should only use the testing methodologies that we already know have found nothing".
Click to expand...

I have also posted that I simply see no point in using the same tests over and over, when we already know what their result will be. IF...IF...IF there is something, we must not be looking in the right place.
 
Warp12 said:
I posted this earlier, and this is my position:







I have also posted that I simply see no point in using the same tests over and over, when we already know what their result will be. IF...IF...IF there is something, we must not be looking in the right place.
Click to expand...
Or there's nothing wrong with the science and the purported effect doesn't exist.
 
Warp12 said:
"IF there is something to be found, we clearly aren't going to find it with current testing methodologies".
Click to expand...

But why? Why do you think current methodologies can't determine if something is happening? Again, not how or why something is happening, but only if it's happening?
 
Warp12 said:
I have also posted that I simply see no point in using the same tests over and over, when we already know what their result will be. IF...IF...IF there is something, we must not be looking in the right place.
Click to expand...
If if if there is someplace else we all should be looking, why is it you cannot point it out? You claim we should all be looking at whatever. We all say OK point us at whatever it is. You say nope. Not telling you.

What on earth is anyone supposed to do with such abject nonsense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom