• 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.

Scientists refuse to test psychics!!

They are named in the article Claus as
The scholars involved included William James, the famed American psychologist and philosopher, and Oliver Lodge, the British physicist and radio pioneer. They saw evidence for the supernatural — in this world and perhaps the next.
Click to expand...

Further reading reveals it was a 100 years ago this test.
 
From the original story:
In one instance they made a request to an American medium while she was in a trance. The request was in Latin, a language the medium did not speak. The instructions included a proposal that she "send" a symbol to a British medium. During her next trance session, the American began asking about whether an "arrow" had been received. Later, comparing notes, the researchers discovered that during the American's first trance, the English psychic had suddenly begun scribbling arrows. It was only after a series of similar, equally unexpected results that the researchers published their findings.
Click to expand...
Clearly no-one had EVER heard of collusion, cold-reading, and other simple parlour-tricks, in that day and age...

I highlighted the critical point, for the slower amongst us.

:crazy:
 
CFLarsen said:
I meant: Who are the scientists who refuse to test?
Click to expand...

I think I messed up the thread title,I assumed (as I read it in another thread with same comment)it mentioned some.It doesn't.;)

ETA: I think this is the one sentence that may be close to thread title
What has diminished is the interest of academic researchers on a par with James and his colleagues — and, correspondingly, the quality of the science
Click to expand...

So not refusing just not interested?
But there's nothing as sophisticated, at least in design, as the Victorians' work.
Click to expand...
No science hasn't advanced in a 100 years at all!
 
Last edited:
William James's gullibility and inability to ascribe venal motives to Mrs. Piper's behaviour is the subject of a classic article by Martin Gardner, reprinted in The Night is Large.

I read up on some major British scientist being comprehensively bamboozled by Daniel Dunglas Home, it may have been Oliver Lodge. In any case, didn't his skepticism go right out of the window and didn't he form the SPR? (This is all off the top of my head, not really able to google at the mo).
 
By comparison, a telepathy study, presented this month at an annual meeting of the British Assn. for the Advancement of Science, involved 63 people asked to say in advance which of four friends or relatives was calling on the telephone. The answers were 45% correct, which, the researchers pointed out, was considerably above the 25% expected through chance.

I confess that this a rather silly and unconvincing experiment — too small and too poorly controlled to prove anything. But I've seen plenty of orthodox research studies that made claims based on even sketchier experiments. So it doesn't convince me, as it did a host of angry British scientists, that telepathy is merely "a charlatan's fancy." It convinces me that we need smarter science on all levels.
Click to expand...
So have I seen such results and such claims. But those claims haven't necessarily become part of the body of accepted science. However, there is the JREF and there is CSICOP and I've no doubt many other places willing to put paranormal claims under strict scientific conditions (to say nothing of Susan Blackmore's experiments which yielded no significant results, despite her being a believer). It's so typical of biased believers to cherry pick what they see as a lack of scientific interest by ignoring all the scientific work which has been done.
 
Seems my thread title was a little misleading and there is no reference to anyone refusing to test a psychic!!

Humble apologies!
 
What's odd about the article is that the author completely ignores the research of Dr. Gary Schwartz into life after death. Not that I blame anybody for ignoring Dr. Schwartz, but he is an example of a 'scientist' who is perfectly willing to investigate these possibilities. It seems the author would rather make science look bad rather than admit that some research actually does take place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom