Princeton Nukes ESP Department

[T'ai Chi]

Why do you ask questions when you clearly don't listen to the answers? Bob answered your question; you merely repeated the question.

You don't listen to the answers, and you do not want any answers to be anything other that the answer you've already arrived at. The Challenge couldn't possibly be valid, because T'ai has decided it's not.

Yawn.

Let's focus on the logic here instead of personalities that you want to stray into. A "paranormal challenge" wouldn't apply to normal things.

Yes, it is that simple.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yawn.

Let's focus on the logic here instead of personalities that you want to stray into. A "paranormal challenge" wouldn't apply to normal things.

Yes, it is that simple.

Focus on using one-tailed significance testing and calculated rather than measured variation in the RNG experiments instead.

Or, post-hoc and non-blinded analysis in the GCP.

Or, of course, ignore what you asked for.

Your choice.

 

[cj.23]

There is no case for the paranormal. There is no credible evidence to support the paranormal. Thanks for playing, though.

OK, but credible evidence? You can't declare evidence not credible. It's evidence.

Evidence is not proof.

No evidence is credible, if you mean by credible "leading one inexorably to a certain conclusion" - that is by definition a proof.

What you are saying is there is no proof for the paranormal. That I fully agree. There is vast amounts of evidence, by the standard English language definition of the same...

Maybe we should start a new thread?

cj x

 

[cj.23]

No. Evidence has to be valid. There has to be not only a lack of natural explanations, but also viable explanations for the paranormal. It isn't enough to say "Hey, we can't explain this, so it has to be paranormal.

Hyman's critiques and Randi's tests do not apply here.

What defines evidence as valid? That's a genuine question, not me playing word games...

Evidence is that which can be used for or against the hypothesis as a tool in reaching a conclusion - evidence is the facts of the debate. Randi's and Hymans work is evidence in the case - the case for the paranormal. They argue against the hypothesis. Equally there is evidence one can bring for the case.

OK, so we have established there - and sure, you can critique the inference of the opposition from the evidence, and show that it is low quality evidence, and not a proof - but that does not render it not evidence.

There is, and remains plenty of evidence for the paranormal. There si no proof.

Any flaws in this argument?
cj x

 

[Mr. Stick]

..If a claimant said he could flip a coin and get "heads" 50% of the time, it would certainly not qualify. But what if the claimant said he could get 50.1% out of 20 tries? Would that be statistically valid? Hard to tell, without a statistics department..

[derail]How can you get 50.1% out of 20? You can get 55 or 60%, but 50.1%?[/derail]

 

[fls]

Respectful as always eh Linda?

If you think I'm being disrespectful, please consider that you may have misinterpreted what I am saying, or you may be reading something as sarcasm when it is not. If I am sarcastic, I either make it really obvious, or I specifically label it as sarcasm (and I rarely use sarcasm anyway).

Originally Posted by fls
The traditional use of the term "debunked" probably has more to do with revealing the trick that someone used to fool you. When referring to paranormal research it seems to get used as synomynous with disprove. Since paranormal seems to be "something without a normal explanation", the inability to exclude a normal explanation does essentially debunk the research.

This seems not to be right I think. This would be comparing the researches with tricks and cheats. I think this synonymous is more than a little misleading. I do not believe we are dealing with hoaxes speaking of PEAR, unless you assume that every researcher in paranormal is in fact lying, selecting data, choosing statistical methods to fit their claims. The general speech among the skeptics is that paranormal is nonsense and is debunked. Which would mean that all the researchers are either fraudulent or incompetent.

That was the point I was trying to make. You and others were using the term "debunk", when what was really meant was "disprove". Paranormal research should be evaluated using the same methods that we bring to the evaluation of any other research. Debunking implies that we would be using magicians like Randi and investigators like Joe Nickell to investigate the researchers. I don't care which term is used as long as we are all talking about the same process. I just wanted to make that explicit.

There's no implication that all the researchers are fraudulent or incompetent. I think evaluation of paranormal research can and should be approached with the assumption that the researchers have the same sorts of biases and skills as researchers in any other scientific field.

I think what you are referring to is what I mentioned earlier. While paranormal researchers who want to believe in paranormal effects interpret their results (quite reasonably) as supporting their paranormal framework, skeptics point out that the same results are consistent with a non-paranormal framework - i.e the pre-established scientific framework is sufficient to explain the same results. Therefore, what the skeptics mean is that it is nonsense to say that the paranormal has been proved.

The problem is Linda, that skeptics in general do not understand well what is truly behind the claims, or how the claims should be properly studied. Because they are not trained to abstract so much outside of the pre-stablished scientific framework. Thus, if they do not know it intuitively from having experienced directly, they will find it very unlikely to be true. And thus, they will require overwhelming evidence of the phenomenon because they know nothing about it and start presuming that the thing do not exist until it is proven within the current materialistic framework.

I don't think that assumption is correct. It looks to me like the difference between sketpics and believers is not that believers have had experiences that skeptics have not, and therefore lack an intuitive understanding. It is that skeptics and believers have placed different interpretations upon experiences both groups have shared. The requirement for overwhelming evidence is a consequence of the success of naturalism/materialism. If everything we have investigated so far, even that which is initially inexplicable, has led to a natural explanation, the underlying assumption of naturalism (which is the philosophy that underlies science) has yet to be disproved. The strength of our confidence in the underlying assumption reflects that so far it has not been disproved despite plenty of opportunity. So if a natural explanation for a phenomenon has not been excluded, it is reasonable to assume that one could exist, even if we do not yet have enough information to determine (prove) the details of that explanation.

Your point about abstracting outside of the pre-established scientific framework is relevant to what I mentioned to you before. As your ideas become increasingly removed from the established framework, it becomes increasingly difficult to test your ideas in a meaningful manner because you begin to violate the underlying assumptions of hypothesis testing. You can do an experiment, but it is difficult to evaluate whether any conclusions are valid. It is analogous to dividing by zero in mathematics. You have essentially eliminated the possibility that you can find out whether they are right or wrong. Because the process of science revolves around the idea of testing, abstraction for the purposes of testing does not stray very far from the established framework. That does not mean that researchers are not capable of abstracting further, though.

So , I think perhaps the researches are not that flawed, but the requirements to be overcame are too huge based on the ignorance of what is being tested, and this requirements do not make much sense given the nature of the claim. If the paranormal proponents claim that the influences of mind on the physical world are dim, and then produces dim results, a skeptic could think that if it´s dim, so probably it is due to bias, incompetence or fraud. Because if the thing would exist the results ought to be way more convincing to their eyes. And this is where I think the problem lies. I mean, you cannot apply testing for psi and transpersonal experiences like NDE , OBE, and etc, the same way you test newtonian physics or the chemical effect of some drug in a living organism. Mind is involved in psi claims, and science does not know much about mind at all. But in fact, when they need to debunk something, they seem to state that in fact they know much about mind. They argue that everything is an illusion, and mind is an illusion and is a side-effect of matter interactions. But people who does have this experiences are convinced intuitively because of the level of awareness involved while experiencing these things.

Your last sentence refers to one of the most interesting aspects of these phenomena - how we use our intuition to test ideas. Unfortunately, it has unquestionably been demonstrated that intuition is not a reliable tool. In fact, it can be wildly wrong, even when we have the sensation of absolute certainty. And research in this area suggests that the mind can spontaneously generate a sensation of certainty, just like it can spontaneously generate an image. So that sometimes the spontaneous generation of certainty may be part of the an overall experience that is solely a product of the mind, rather than external events (for example, sterotypical hypnagogic hallucinations). I agree that we have a lot to learn about the mind. And I agree that investigating these experiences is valuable. That more creativity is needed to design experiments than is needed to design experiments in physics doesn't make it not possible, though.

For example of a wrong approach is , a psychic who could "talk to the dead" like that Rosemary Altea who sometimes produces hits that are beyond normal comprehension, and still Randi says: "ahh...this is the typical fishing for information...the old cold_reading technique". But still he doesnt provide the proof for that. I do not know if cold reading can be so powerful like this. So this is an example of a thing being apparently debunked by simply denying it. Of course Randi offered Altea to take the test, but is the statistical significance required for the test a fair one? When involving human performances be it physical of psychological, it is not plausible to expect the person to be 100% correct. The claims are that these gifts are rare, and they are dim if put to lab tests. And in fact they produce dim results. So what is the problem exactly? Are they expecting the same level of precision as a hard science like physics? Again, it seems they will never accept the claims nor the results, they will always insist that there´s no effect other than statistical flukes, fraud, data selecting, file drawer or plain incompetence.

Can you provide an example of a hit from Rosemary Altea that was beyond normal comprehension? The claim that these powers are dim is often raised, but an effect so dim that it cannot be demonstrated under reasonable conditions would also be too dim to ever be detected under normal conditions. The "noise" of everyday conditions would only serve to obscure the effect, not to enhance it. If you test it under conditions where you have attempted to remove as much of the "noise" as possible, and even then you cannot see the effect, how can you possibly expect to have seen it when it was surrounded by "noise"?

The problem with these claims is that they are indistinguishable from non-paranormal methods. If the results that you get when you invoke the paranormal are indistinguishable from results obtained by invoking non-paranormal methods, what conclusions do you think you can be drawn?

If researchers perform experiments that allow the effects of bias to influence the results, and the results are no different from what one would expect if bias influenced the results, how can we ignore bias?

If they perform experiments that violate some of the assumptions of hypothesis testing, thereby making it impossible to draw valid conclusions, how can we justify reaching any conclusion?

What skeptics are saying is that the results presented to us are essentially indistinguishable from what we'd expect to see from normal variation, systematic flaws, and the same kinds of biases, incompetence and occasional fraud we see in any other field of research. We apply those same criteria to all other fields. The difference is that there is something left over, when you take all that into account, in those other fields.

Aside from this, I want to make you a question Linda, as you are involved in medical researches. If the placebo effect is a very known fact, so factual that could ruin an entire experiment if not controlled properly, would it not be a confirmation of mind-over-matter?

The placebo effect is a misnomer, in that it is not a specific effect that the mind is having on the body. Rather it is mostly a combination of statistical artefact/bias (e.g. regression) and subjective perception (which I suppose you could characterize as mind-over-mind).

Originally Posted by fls
PEAR is actually a very good example of how not to do it. Their "significant" results seem to depend upon choosing several statistical tricks and applying them to random data. Choose other methods of analysis, and the significance disappears. Not only have they failed to exclude a normal explanation for their data (chosing not to use the analysis that makes your data insignificant doesn't serve to exclude the results), but they haven't even provided reasonable evidence that this particular avenue could be fruitful.

So you are saying that the other statistic methods that they refused to apply are always suitable to produce the same results for the same effect regardless of what is being studied?

I don't think so. This issue is not unique to paranormal research. I'm saying that you can usually choose a variety of different ways to analyze and manipulate the data after an experiment. And after you have put a lot of time and effort into something, it is tempting to try a bunch of different methods and choose the one that looks the best, when presenting the results of your research. If you have truly measured an effect, the results of different analyses should be fairly robust - i.e. the effect is demonstrated even if the methods of analyses differ. If demonstrating an effect is dependent upon how you are manipulating the data, then you should justify your use of that particular method over the other available methods.

Linda

 

[CFLarsen]

From what I've read, I believe they've tried to publish their results, but who exactly are their peers? They couldn't find any mainstream source that would spend 5 minutes on their findings.

Dat's wite, wabbit!

Now, there are two possible explanations here.

1: They do have something to review, but they can't get through, because there is a huge conspiracy of silence going on, encompassing the world's scientists, science editors, government agencies, press offices, etc., etc.

or - of course:

2: They don't have anything to review.

Since you fall in the camp of those who believe they do have something to review, you believe in a huge conspiracy of silence.

T'ai Chi, say hello to Alex Jones. You are two of a kind.

 

[CFLarsen]

Any flaws in this argument?

Yes. How can it be evidence of the paranormal, if there are natural explanations for it?

[derail]How can you get 50.1% out of 20? You can get 55 or 60%, but 50.1%?[/derail]

That's the point: If that is what the claimant says he can achieve, how do you decide if that is a valid claim, unless you rely on statisticians?

 

[cj.23]

Yes. How can it be evidence of the paranormal, if there are natural explanations for it?

OK, then it is worthless evidence, assuming you mean natural explanations that are inconsistent with any possible model for the effect.

However as paranormal presupposes a naturalistic explanation, as opposed to supernatural which presupposes a violation of established natural law, or arbitrary exception thereof, one would expect all paranormal evidence to have natural explanations by {edit:} definition

I think what you mean is that if one applies Occam's Razor - a dangerous practice in Science - to the evidence it may well be better explained away as not actually relevant to the paranormal hypothesis - so the evidence is indeed worthless. That needs to be demonstrated on a case by case basis, and does not prevent the facts in question being called again as evidence to support a new hypothesis. I can think of several occasions in the history of science when this has occurred, and previously dismissed evidence has been seen in a new light when a new explanatory model was developed.

None the less, paranormal believers can produce evidence, that is facts they claim are relevant to the debate. Dismissing that evidence is indeed how one establishes the validity of the case - that they can not provide proof. It however is pointless to claim there is no evidence.

The problem is one could say there is
no compelling evidence - but that is a proof
no conclusive evidence - a proof
persuasive evidence - a proof, on the personal level
relevant evidence - impossible to show, because of the nature of the debate.

I think I make sense but I'm really not feeling very well today! All the best
cj x

 

[CFLarsen]

OK, then it is worthless evidence, assuming you mean natural explanations that are inconsistent with any possible model for the effect.

But, if it is worthless evidence, what value does the term "evidence" have? It means nothing.

However as paranormal presupposes a naturalistic explanation, as opposed to supernatural which presupposes a violation of established natural law, or arbitrary exception thereof, one would expect all paranormal evidence to have natural explanations by {edit:} definition

I think what you mean is that if one applies Occam's Razor - a dangerous practice in Science -

Why do you think that?

to the evidence it may well be better explained away as not actually relevant to the paranormal hypothesis - so the evidence is indeed worthless. That needs to be demonstrated on a case by case basis, and does not prevent the facts in question being called again as evidence to support a new hypothesis. I can think of several occasions in the history of science when this has occurred, and previously dismissed evidence has been seen in a new light when a new explanatory model was developed.

But that is the strength of science: It acknowledges its mistakes, corrects itself, and moves on.

This is one of hardest things to understand about science: That it isn't perfect, it doesn't present itself as being perfect, but, by the very nature of it, it gives us the most precise, most correct perception of what the world really is.

None the less, paranormal believers can produce evidence, that is facts they claim are relevant to the debate. Dismissing that evidence is indeed how one establishes the validity of the case - that they can not provide proof. It however is pointless to claim there is no evidence.

Only if you admit that the term is worthless in itself. What value is something that is defined by a term that is worthless?

 

[Kage]

From what I've read, I believe they've tried to publish their results, but who exactly are their peers? They couldn't find any mainstream source that would spend 5 minutes on their findings.

They published their results, not their proceedure. Any person who wanted to do research on their own in order to try and replicate their results using their protocol would have their data added to all of PEAR's data and could not publish indipendently. This meant that it was impossible to independantly replicate their results.

For example, the PEAR lab program that my friend used asked questions like "MALE or FEMALE" and sure enough there were significant differences between men and women in the results. The program also knew which target photographs where the one that the subject was trying to produce. Their papers published how the data "deviated from random" but left out questions as to how the data was gathered.

 

[CFLarsen]

They published their results, not their proceedure. Any person who wanted to do research on their own in order to try and replicate their results using their protocol would have their data added to all of PEAR's data and could not publish indipendently. This meant that it was impossible to independantly replicate their results.

For example, the PEAR lab program that my friend used asked questions like "MALE or FEMALE" and sure enough there were significant differences between men and women in the results. The program also knew which target photographs where the one that the subject was trying to produce. Their papers published how the data "deviated from random" but left out questions as to how the data was gathered.

Ah, the eternal Song of Woos:

"We got fantastic results!!"

"...how?"

(sound of crickets)

 

[Mr. Stick]

That's the point: If that is what the claimant says he can achieve, how do you decide if that is a valid claim, unless you rely on statisticians?

Ah, stupid me, I thought you just hadn't thought it through.

 

[T'ai Chi]

They published their results, not their proceedure. Any person who wanted to do research on their own in order to try and replicate their results using their protocol would have their data added to all of PEAR's data and could not publish indipendently. This meant that it was impossible to independantly replicate their results.

For example, the PEAR lab program that my friend used asked questions like "MALE or FEMALE" and sure enough there were significant differences between men and women in the results. The program also knew which target photographs where the one that the subject was trying to produce. Their papers published how the data "deviated from random" but left out questions as to how the data was gathered.

I seem to be able to find papers which discuss their procedure, protocal, and etc.

 

[CFLarsen]

I seem to be able to find papers which discuss their procedure, protocal, and etc.

Present your case, then.

Put up or shut up.

 

[cj.23]

But, if it is worthless evidence, what value does the term "evidence" have? It means nothing.

Evidence is that presented for consideration. The process of making deductions on the balance of probability based upon the evidence is secondary. Evidence is either relevant or irrelevant.

Now let's take an example. I dunno, what woo claim? Mediumship? OK, let's take the third Robertson/Roy PRISM paper. I think Skeptic Report played an invaluable role in refining the methodology?

That experiment is evidence, and I can not say it is worthless. Some good science, and interesting results. I am not personally convinced by the results, but I will accept they are evidence. They are clearly not proof. Worthless evidence is evidence that is inappropriate to the debate: this is just inconclusive evidence, but evidence it remains.

Why do I think this matters a jot? Because we can't say "there is no convincing evidence", as convincing evidence constitutes proof.
Saying there is no evidence which would cause a rational person to be absolutely convinced of the case for a claimed paranormal phenomena (ie. no proof) is a curiously illogical, or circular argument - because surely by definition, if it was demonstrable and had proof on its side it would be normal, not paranormal?

So all we can in fairness say is that we see no reason, based upon the evidence, to entertain any paranormal hypothesis. To deny the existence of the evidence strikes me as to do violence to the case...

But that is the strength of science: It acknowledges its mistakes, corrects itself, and moves on.

This is one of hardest things to understand about science: That it isn't perfect, it doesn't present itself as being perfect, but, by the very nature of it, it gives us the most precise, most correct perception of what the world really is.

No I agree absolutely. I certainly have no problem with that -- I think I have a fair grasp of the scientific method, its advantages and known flaws. My concern here is with the semantic presentation of the findings of the scientific discourse, not the actual science involved.

Only if you admit that the term is worthless in itself. What value is something that is defined by a term that is worthless?

In what sense is 'evidence' worthless? It has a very very clear meaning. The fact it is consistently misapplied, including by myself for many years until I suddenly saw the problem last night, is what concerns me. I think a false linguistic issue and misuse of language may be causing us to consider the case inappropriately...

I dunno. I am merely thinking out load. I may be wrong, I often am. Feel free to critique.

j x

 

[CFLarsen]

Evidence is that presented for consideration. The process of making deductions on the balance of probability based upon the evidence is secondary. Evidence is either relevant or irrelevant.

Now let's take an example. I dunno, what woo claim? Mediumship? OK, let's take the third Robertson/Roy PRISM paper. I think Skeptic Report played an invaluable role in refining the methodology?

That experiment is evidence, and I can not say it is worthless. Some good science, and interesting results. I am not personally convinced by the results, but I will accept they are evidence. They are clearly not proof. Worthless evidence is evidence that is inappropriate to the debate: this is just inconclusive evidence, but evidence it remains.

Why do I think this matters a jot? Because we can't say "there is no convincing evidence", as convincing evidence constitutes proof.
Saying there is no evidence which would cause a rational person to be absolutely convinced of the case for a claimed paranormal phenomena (ie. no proof) is a curiously illogical, or circular argument - because surely by definition, if it was demonstrable and had proof on its side it would be normal, not paranormal?

So all we can in fairness say is that we see no reason, based upon the evidence, to entertain any paranormal hypothesis. To deny the existence of the evidence strikes me as to do violence to the case...




No I agree absolutely. I certainly have no problem with that -- I think I have a fair grasp of the scientific method, its advantages and known flaws. My concern here is with the semantic presentation of the findings of the scientific discourse, not the actual science involved.





In what sense is 'evidence' worthless? It has a very very clear meaning. The fact it is consistently misapplied, including by myself for many years until I suddenly saw the problem last night, is what concerns me. I think a false linguistic issue and misuse of language may be causing us to consider the case inappropriately...

I dunno. I am merely thinking out load. I may be wrong, I often am. Feel free to critique.

j x

But if it is worthless evidence, the term "evidence" has no value.

Why do you think that Occam's Razor is a dangerous practice in science?

 

[Kaylee]

Having participated in a PEAR lab experiment (a friend of mine did it for her engineering course and I decided to help her out) I found their results incredibly interesting, mostly because my friend was totally against the idea that the test could work. I really took solace in her skepticism and I know she tried her hardest in the situation to keep the experiment honest, but there is only so much you can do when you use someone else's equipment and you are working on a class determined time frame.

Randi's prize really did it for me on this one. My friend did her test over two days with almost no money (aside from the equipment PEAR gave her) and got results. Anyone who wouldn't spend 2 days to make a million knows that their work is a sham. Honest research publishes its protocols, and the more I learned about PEAR the less I was ready to believe that the people there were doing honest work.

What I hate the most about the PEAR lab was the fact that all they did was give me doubt--that they did not prove their point, that they did not run experiments that logically followed from their previous experiments in order to figure out what was going on. Some of the results of my friends analysis still puzzle me (mostly because I don't know exactly how using PEAR's equipment skewed it), but I no longer have any faith in the work done in that lab.

I was ready to believe their findings, but what I got from them was less of an understanding of the beauty of our universe and not more. Deep down inside I wanted their results to be accurate, but it was all a dishonest scam and that kills me. I'm as glad that the university that I know and love no longer employs these people as I am sorry that my degree associates me with their work.

They published their results, not their proceedure. Any person who wanted to do research on their own in order to try and replicate their results using their protocol would have their data added to all of PEAR's data and could not publish indipendently. This meant that it was impossible to independantly replicate their results.

For example, the PEAR lab program that my friend used asked questions like "MALE or FEMALE" and sure enough there were significant differences between men and women in the results. The program also knew which target photographs where the one that the subject was trying to produce. Their papers published how the data "deviated from random" but left out questions as to how the data was gathered.

(Emphases mine.)

Hi Kage, thanks for posting. I think the forum is lucky to have a poster who has had direct experience with PEAR labs.

So, they never published their procedures?!?

Am I correct in assuming that in peer-reviewed studies, procedures are revealed? (I know that PEAR was not peer-reviewed.)

Can you talk briefly about the experiment you and your fiend participated in? What parts of the experiment procedures were hidden from you and your friend? Also, was your major in science or engineering like your friend?

It's interesting that you mention that your'e sorry that your degree associates you with their work. When I first learned about PEAR, I thought that the P for Princeton in PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) was significant and read a lot of meaning into it. With the help of what I have learned in this forum, I now know that was unwarranted because:

• It was funded by private donations that did not depend upon peer review. As the NYTs article points out, one of the major donors (James S. McDonnell) was a friend of the man who founded the lab (Robert G. Jahn). In another thread, "PEAR closing!", there are links to show that the other donors were connected to Princeton University Alumni.
• Jahn, the founder of the lab is also one of the founders of the Society of Scientific Exploration which published the Journal of Scientific Exploration. To the best of my knowledge this is the only journal that has published PEAR's papers.

If it's not customary to publish a paper which doesn't explain which procedures were used in the experiments, than I think this explains why this was allowed to happened. Jahn printed his results in his own journal. His journal, his rules -- not customary peer-reviewed science rules. Kage, do you think that this is fair to say?
In addition to PEAR being :

• privately funded
• not peer-reviewed
• papers only published in a journal where the lab founder was also one of the journal's founders

One of the posters at the JREF thought it was likely that

They were not really affiliated closely with Princeton at all; they just resided on-campus in sponsor-paid-for premises.

(Post #42 in the thread, it's linked.)

Also see posts 44, 46, 47, 52 and 63 in the same thread.

I'm still a little hazy on whether it's likely that PEAR was only loosely affiliated with Princeton University and exactly what that means. It seems to me that both the Lab and the University would make their status clear, and it also seems that their relationship was public and emphasized in several ways as noted in the other thread. By comparison SRI's web site (Stanford Research International, formerly Stanford Research Institute) makes it clear that they have been unaffiliated with Stanford University since 1970. Since you are a graduate of Princeton, perhaps you have some insider's knowledge that can shed some light on this?

Also, as an insider, would you happen to be able to shed any light on this statement in the OP's link?

Several expert panels examined PEAR’s methods over the years, looking for irregularities, but did not find sufficient reasons to interrupt the work.

Would you happen to know how many panels there were and who was on them? Or would you have any suggestions on how to find out?

I know some would say that I am asking about the small side issues, and not the main ones -- but at this point, those are the only type of questions I still have about PEAR.

TIA

 

[Moochie]

According to Occam's razor, actually.



In otherwords, they have to believe in order to be able to see the evidence.
Gotcha. Investigating the paranormal is a faith-based method to you, only believers have any chance of making it happen.

That does seem to be the gist of what people like omegablue et all are saying, again and again and again, ad infinitum, somewhat like a broken record.

Where science is dynamic, adding to our knowledge and correcting earlier errors every day, these people's ideas appear to be set in concrete.

Perhaps therein lies the problem -- for these folk at least -- there's nothing in or about science that can be pinned down.

There is no "soft science" that omegablue so fervently wishes for. Science is hard. Anything else is just sloppy science, or no science at all.

M.

 

[cj.23]

But if it is worthless evidence, the term "evidence" has no value.

If it is worthless (ie. irrelevent to question at hand) evidence, yes, it has no value. The term 'evidence' can still be applied to those findings relevant to the question. So evidence for the question of mediumship includes Roy/Robertson, and the critical literature. All relevant, so evidence.

If the evidence ever becomes conclusive not indicative, that is proof, the phenomenon in question moves from paranormal to "normal but not entirely understood", and via a sound theory to "normal." Meteorites followed this path - hypnosis is somewhere on it, whatever it may be, (and I am actually personally sceptical of its existence in the popular understanding at least), and "there is a monster in Loch Ness" too - but the vidence is disproving the possibility of the beastie, by becoming proof that is a rational and overwhelming conclusion.

Why do you think that Occam's Razor is a dangerous practice in science?

Same reason the syllogism would be. It is in many cases an incredibly useful tool. Yet the application of Occam's Razor alone does not actually prove a hypothesis - it is a tool, not a guarantee of establishing final truth. In 1910 Occam's Razor was invoked against Relativity, and logically so. Ditto against natural selection. The philosophical tool is useful, but in reality many phenomena arise through the interplay or two or more complicated entities, which give rise to a third situation or event.

I think it is a generally useful diagnostic tool: but in application, it may never be used to demonstrate a conclusion, merely to help decide which hypotheses may be worthy of further enquiry? I certainly endorse its application - I noted the danger of using it uncritically, because I feel that it is not based upon any natural law or principle of the universe, but is merely a useful mechanism or technology. To say otherwise strikes me as to make an almost theological claim for it...

As I have remarked before, I am battling with a rotten headache and vicious stomach bug, and may be making horrendous logical errors as I suspect I am feverish. Nonetheless, I think I might make some sense?

cj x