skeptics and the paranormal

Decidedly_Unsure

The reference to what many would consider a paranormal phenomenon http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C5-2004040384%2C00.html was made in another thread. I?m almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it?s an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity. Skeptics assert that they will not accept such things unless they meet some predefined ?scientific methodology?. My question is: will any phenomena ever be able to meet such criteria? They ask for reproducible results, things that can be tested and reproduced under controlled conditions. All this sounds logical and has served us well. Important discoveries that have served us well have undergone this scrutiny. I?m sometimes confused as to what constitutes this scientific methodology, is it really complete? I?ll use 1 (perhaps far-fetched) analogy to illustrate the point: Long before microscopes were invented, some scientists and doctors like everyone else contracted not-so-common such diseases. Eg Rheumatic fever. By not-so-common I mean not everyone contracted them and usually not frequently. Did scientists/doctors say that these ailments/diseases were figments of the imagination of these poor souls? No! Even though it would be awhile before bacteria, microscopes and such things would be developed, unexplained diseases and science were able to co-exist. No such ?we can?t reproduce these conditions in a laboratory? nonsense was at work. So, has scientific method (un)evolved to a point of arrogance viz if I can?t explain the phenomenon or reproduce it under my controlled conditions, it can?t possibly exist? This is what they do with paranormal phenomena. X has an experience in Europe today, Y has several experiences in India tomorrow. They dismiss all these as random ?unexplained? things. Why not consider the countless experiences of all these people who experience paranormal activity as a whole? Why do u have to bring each of these people in a lab and say ?show me again and again? under my scrutiny so I can see it. Could you imagine if that approach was taken before bacteria and microscopes were discovered?

Decidedly_Unsure

Yike! What happened to my formatting??

Sirona

Interesting article. If she is so talented, perhaps the scientists will want to do an official study of her abilities.

Although I agree that there are things out there which currently cannot be tested scientifically, I think you miss some things. Firstly, they have tried to test paranormal phenomena and as far as I'm aware nothing has been conclusive. Secondly, the effects of disease years ago could be seen in countless patients - the symptoms were actually seen by the eyes of the doctors, so although they didn't know about bacteria etc. they would not say it was the imagination of the patient.

If every person using psychic abilities developed a purple spot on their forehead (psychics will know what I'm referring to LOL), then skeptics would likely have something visual to refer to and research.

I don't believe we should only accept what we can "see" with our eyes, and you make the good point that just because we haven't discovered it yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Sirona

donkey

If something can't be discovered does it really exist?

reminds me of the tree falling and no one heard it deal again

Sirona

Donkey

If something can't be discovered does it really exist?

I didn't say that. I said

just because we haven't discovered it yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Something that can't be discovered, can't be discovered. Something we haven't discovered YET is likely to be discovered at some point in the future.

Example : year "plonk" man says "I think there are little tiny creatures that we cannot see with our eyes and they could live inside us" - his friend says "don't be so stupid" then thousands of years later science discovers microscopic organisms.

Sirona

darkuncle29

Its sort of like god and religion. The god of the bible is just men's view of god. It is bass ackwards thinking-trying to fit the universe to a human paradigm. If you do that, you miss much of what is really going on.

"Sit down before fact like a little child, be prepared to give up every preconcieved notion, follow humbly to wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads or you shall learn nothing." -Thomas Huxley

Decidedly_Unsure

*******
Example : year "plonk" man says "I think there are little tiny creatures that we cannot see with our eyes and they could live inside us" - his friend says "don't be so stupid" then thousands of years later science discovers microscopic organisms.
Sirona
*******
And Plonk man's friend mirrors the attitude of a number of modern day skeptics. If instead Plonk man's fried had said, "that's highly unlikely" or "do you have anything that we could use to verify or disprove?" , all that's good; but what a number of modern-day skeptics (including some on this board)do, is ridicule all possibilities. "A psychic force?? hahaa, you delusional idiot: no such thing could exist, there is a logical explanation (ie based on something we already know about!)"

Abaddon

I'm almost sure that skeptics will remain silent on this or say it's an aberration and does nothing to confirm the existence of paranormal activity.

Really? What evidence do you have for that assertation?

Do you understand how it works now?

My question is: will any phenomena ever be able to meet such criteria?

Yeah, gravity, for example.

They ask for reproducible results, things that can be tested and reproduced under controlled conditions. All this sounds logical and has served us well. Important discoveries that have served us well have undergone this scrutiny.

Thank you! It's good to have someone from the para-positive camp accept this.

I'm sometimes confused as to what constitutes this scientific methodology, is it really complete? I'll use 1 (perhaps far-fetched) analogy to illustrate the point: Long before microscopes were invented, some scientists and doctors like everyone else contracted not-so-common such diseases. Eg Rheumatic fever. By not-so-common I mean not everyone contracted them and usually not frequently. Did scientists/doctors say that these ailments/diseases were figments of the imagination of these poor souls? No! Even though it would be awhile before bacteria, microscopes and such things would be developed, unexplained diseases and science were able to co-exist. No such "we can't reproduce these conditions in a laboratory" nonsense was at work.

Mmmmm.... point one is that there is a difference between 'Natural Philosophy' (old time science) and what we call science today. This is a random link that gives more information on what scientific methodology is;

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ukatheist/articles/scientificmethodology.htm

As for your example, they would be able to prove that certain people with certain charcteristics of infection or disease had their condition progress in a certain way, and that the progression could be influebnced by certain treatments. IF they followed scietific methodoloy. However, until the rise of modern science in the 19th C, very often they just did what people had been doing for hundreds of years (and this would probably mean they'd bleed them with leeches!).

Even now, yeah, scientists are as human and vain and obstinate as other people, so can cling to cherished theories that compromise their 'faith' in scietific methodology with the same fervour as a religious person can cling to an obviously ridiculous belief that deifes logic or even their own beliefs in another area.

To the case in point; if this girl can do this in a controlled setting, there is proof something is happening. I hate to tell you, but the Sun is a daily equivalent of the National Enquirer... we will see.

Personally, I would love it if we were in an Anne Rician Universe with spirits and strange beings and arcane powers. I've not seen one bit of evidence to support it though.

As with the girl, if someone can tell the future, let's test it. It is possible, I can describe methodology that would suffice. Likewise with psychokinisis, remote sensing, healing; healing is an easy one;

Take a group of people with the same condition at roughly the same stage of development. Split them into three groups, those that believe in the paranormal, those that don't, and those that don't know. Divide each of the groups you have into three.

Treat one with a genuine faith healer. Treat one with an actor who does what the genuine faith healer does. Do nothing to the third group.

The results would prove whether the genuine healer was more effective than the fake or doing nothing, and would also show whether people who believed they would be healed fared better than those who were negative or ambivalent.

MY chief gripe is that supporters of the paranormal complain about how unfair cynics are, instead of getting experimental proof that they could knock the cynics over the head with. That makes me suspicious.

Nathan Natas

I think we should dissect her head and figure out how she does it.

peacefulpete

Firts the words "skeptic" and "cynic" are not synonyms. Tho in common vernacular they are used interchangably, these are in fact antonyms to a modern Skeptic. Skeptism is an approach to learning requiring reason and application of Scientific study, cynicism is a position of distrust of recognised authority and the assumsion of selfish motives in others. Ironically then it is often the believers in the paranormal that better fit the definition of Cynic.

In fact so pervasive has this distrust of recognised authority become that the fashion is to chide science as closed minded and arrogant. Hasty media coverage of new and incomplete studies and have circumvented the self correcting nature of the profession giving science the appearance of being whimsical and hoplessly divided. Fundementalism, New Age groups, and occult themed popuar entertainment have all riden this wave to new heights.

People 'believe' for varied and complex reasons, so offering a "one size fits all" explanation for all the experiences people claim to have had would be insulting. The first step is however to understand how we form our perceptions of the world around us and recognise the flaws in the process. I'd recommend Michael Shermer's book Why People Believe Weird Things" or "How We Believe". Both are written for lay folks like us so as to explain the process and how it goes wrong at times.

skeptics and the paranormal

Share this