paranormal claims and related topic areas

born

Scholar
B
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
121
I think with this whole area of paranormal claims field, that skeptics are a necessary area in this field.
I have been researching this area for quite some time, and do not like what I see.
However, that being said, I also believe that there are unexplained events, sometimes the human being the instrument through which the event occurred, that are very real indeed. I do however believe that these would be in the very miniscule minority of the claims being made today. Thus the need for skeptics.
But skepticism should maintain a high standard of honesty and fair scientific principles in it's scrutiny too.
I would like to know, does Mr. Randi agree or disagree with this hypothesis?
 
The question to Mr. Randi was to ask if Mr. Randi agrees or disagrees that in healthy skeptical pursuits, should it not be important to maintain honesty and scientific fair play in their investigations? I am not intending to imply that this is not the case. Take the question for what it is asking, and nothing more.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this question?
 
born said:
The question to Mr. Randi was to ask if Mr. Randi agrees or disagrees that in healthy skeptical pursuits, should it not be important to maintain honesty and scientific fair play in their investigations? I am not intending to imply that this is not the case. Take the question for what it is asking, and nothing more.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this question?
Click to expand...
I can't imagine anyone thinking that honesty should not be paramount in any endeavour to find the truth about the world.

Please clarify what you mean by 'scientific fair play'.
 
born said:
I think with this whole area of paranormal claims field, that skeptics are a necessary area in this field.
I have been researching this area for quite some time, and do not like what I see.
However, that being said, I also believe that there are unexplained events, sometimes the human being the instrument through which the event occurred, that are very real indeed. I do however believe that these would be in the very miniscule minority of the claims being made today. Thus the need for skeptics.
But skepticism should maintain a high standard of honesty and fair scientific principles in it's scrutiny too.
I would like to know, does Mr. Randi agree or disagree with this hypothesis?
Click to expand...
what makes you think skepticism doesn't "maintain a high standard of honesty and fair scientific principles in it's scrutiny"?

In all the tests i have seen Randi do he has done just that.
 
? You do not understand scientific method. there would be no point to say 'scientific fair play' otherwise.
 
"scientific method"- Q> What is the correct "scientific method" for something science does not yet know how to detect or quanify?
If someone tells you they can do something, and BIG MAYBE, they can demonstrate this in a way they explain to you.
If the method of quanifying is altered by others, it would be easy to come up with yet another quack. But would the results have been different if the method of quantifying, as outlined by the claimant were implimented, in cases where the method was in fact scientifically feasible to produce the required analysis.
I do understand scientific principal. You do not realize who you are speaking with. You however are not reading this as it was meant to be heard.
 
"The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world."

By definition it is improper to ask "What is the correct scientific method...". There is one and only one.
 
born said:
I also believe that there are unexplained events, sometimes the human being the instrument through which the event occurred, that are very real indeed
Click to expand...

Of course the are unexplained events. "Scientific fair play" would require that you have a few shreds of valid evidence for believing "the human being the instrument through which the event occurred" rather than just admitting that it's unexplained.
 
born said:
"scientific method"- Q> What is the correct "scientific method" for something science does not yet know how to detect or quanify?
Click to expand...
The alleged phenomena must be detectable in some way otherwise we would have no reason to believe it existed.

I do understand scientific principal. You do not realize who you are speaking with.
Click to expand...
Who you are is entirely irrelevent. It is what you say that will be of relevence and interest.

A layman can carry out an excellent scientific experiment, and a PhD can demonstrate very poor scientific rigour.
 
I have tried to post two replies, directly relative to science itself, and was logged off.
Let's see what happens with this meaningless post.
 
born said:
The question to Mr. Randi was to ask if Mr. Randi agrees or disagrees that in healthy skeptical pursuits, should it not be important to maintain honesty and scientific fair play in their investigations?
Click to expand...
Randi doesn't generally post here, so you're unlikely to get a response from him personally.

Anyway, you do realize that honesty and fair play are loaded wordsWP? Do you really expect anyone to answer that honesty and fair play are completely unimportant or even harmful in "healthy skeptical pursuits"?
 
A I was saying, as with "string theory", it is believed to exist, but no one has found a scientific means by which to quantify it's physical existance.
Could there not be similair issues with trying to detect paranormal claims? I believe this is a very real possibility.
If this were in fact the case, then how can science challenge the existance of something they have not yet figured out how to quantigfy?
I think this a fair and an intelligent stance which serves to maintain the integrity of scientific pursuit.
So in some instances I would think that someone would be saying "well, we don't know for sure if we are doing the right kind of tests.", or "we are not sure how to test that."
These kinds of scenarios should be amongst the comments from science in this realm, and I am not referring specifically to the JREF.
 
However, that being said, I also believe that there are unexplained events, sometimes the human being the instrument through which the event occurred, that are very real indeed.
Click to expand...
I think that everyone here would agree that human beings can experience events that are difficult or impossible to explain scientifically. UFOs are very real, and so are unexplained events.


You believe in unexplained events--but do you really mean unexplained, or do you think the events are caused by something supernatural? If an event is unexplained, then we don't know if it's natural or supernatural; whether it's caused by a ghost or the devil or a prankster or if it's an optical illusion.
 
Last edited:
Ashles said:
The alleged phenomena must be detectable in some way otherwise we would have no reason to believe it existed.
Click to expand...
In the case of Randi's million dollar challenge, this is not the case. For example, if someone claims they can move objects with their mind (chi, telekenisis, or whatever), Randi only cares that they can do what they claim. It is not necessary for someone to be able to detect or measure the "force".

It's a method to determine if there is actually something there, first and foremost. If the claimant can do what they claim, then the scientific community can then attempt to devise a way to detect and measure "what" is there.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
In the case of Randi's million dollar challenge, this is not the case. For example, if someone claims they can move objects with their mind (chi, telekenisis, or whatever), Randi only cares that they can do what they claim. It is not necessary for someone to be able to detect or measure the "force".

It's a method to determine if there is actually something there, first and foremost. If the claimant can do what they claim, then the scientific community can then attempt to devise a way to detect and measure "what" is there.
Click to expand...
That the person moves the object is detectable. Which is all Ashles said.

If the object is moved, that can be detected, hence it is detectable.
 
TobiasTheCommie said:
That the person moves the object is detectable. Which is all Ashles said.

If the object is moved, that can be detected, hence it is detectable.
Click to expand...
No argument with that, Tobias. I'm simply trying to make the distinction between observing something under controlled conditions, and understanding what made it move.

Visual evidence (without controls) is subject to sleight of hand and trickery. With controls, it does amount to evidence of a sort that's worthy of further investigation.

I was just trying to point out the distinction for a new forum member.

I'm not ragging on Ashles at all. Just using his quote to point out something regarding Randi's prelim tests. Sorry for the confusion.
 
Born:

The scientific community is very ingenious at devising experiments to test paranormal claims. For example, to test near-death experiences, a scrolling LED display ("silent radio") displaying a nonsensical phrase was placed on top of a cabinet in a hospital emergency room, the theory being that many NDEs involve the subject floating near the ceiling. The subjects in this experiment were not told that the LED was there. If anyone reported an NDE and correctly reported the phrase, that certainly would commend itself to the scientific community's attention. No results were obtained. This does not disprove NDEs, but it is an example of the type of experiment that is being conducted on these parapsychological phenomena.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom