Ragabr wrote:
They have been proven to much higher standards than other things that science normally accepts
Ragabr - I would love nothing more than to be presented with proof of psychic phenomena - it would corroborate some of my recent and still evolving beliefs. It will take me some time to track down and follow up those sources, but the bulk of that article, WADR, does more to underline my concerns than to alleviate or remove them. It is about as "fuzzy" as an article can get:
"As extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, it is reasonable to use a higher standard in looking at psi. They are correct; and psi research, after more than a century, has yet to meet such a higher standard."
"At the current time, the skeptics are much farther from this goal than the psi researchers are from establishing psi."
Of course they are - this was exactly my point in the previous post!
"In effect, the psi researchers are accusing their critics of unscientifically taking a position that is unfalsifiable, e.g. no matter what evidence is produced in favor of a psi effect, skeptics will come up with some argument in favor is dismissing it." (sic)
I believe they have knowingly reversed the argument: it is the contention that psychic phenomena exist that is, unfortunately, unfalsifiable. Similarly:
"Psi researchers respond to this approach by claiming that potential flaws in their studies do not suffice to disqualify their findings. They claim that the burden is on the skeptics not only to find flaws but, additionally, to demonstrate that these flaws could have contributed somehow to the beyond chance results they have obtained."
One thing I neglected to write in my previous post is that when faced with extraordinary claims, the burden of proof by definition is on the claimant. And it is part of the process and perfectly natural for anyone, skeptics included, to find flaws in a flawed proof - that is what is meant by rigour. Putting the burden on the skeptics to me is akin to reversing the presumption of innocence in a court of law: the burden of proof does and should lie with the contender of extraordinary claim. And later, the article pulls an "unfalsifiable" 180:
"Skeptics counter by claiming that the psi hypothesis, itself, is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. They claim that no matter how many experiments fail to obtain positive results, or how many studies are shown to be faulty, researchers will claim that they have not disproven psi's existence."
But this is true, no? And as I have stated, it is next to impossible to disprove. The article seems to be asserting that the skeptics are at once "taking a position that is unfalsifiable"
and accusing the psi hypothesis of being unfalsifiable. And we're back to the burden of proof...
"The fact -- that, after more than a century of inquiry, psi researchers have yet to firmly establish the phenomena which they purport to study -- cannot help but reflect on the quality of the research itself (or the researchers themselves) in comparison to work in other related disciplines. Yet, considering the low level of funding for psi research, one might well argue that both the quality and quantity of research studies has been surprisingly high."
What quality of research can there ever be if they are incapable of firmly establishing "the phenomena which they purport to study"?
After a century? And "surprisingly high"...? perhaps, but there is nothing in this article to suggest so.
"Science today is incomplete in many respects. We lack a unified theory of the physical forces. We lack a theory of consciousness itself. Our ability to integrate psi (if it exists) into our scientific worldview is extremely limited until we can develop adequate theories of these fundamental constituents of the universe."
This is so true! and maybe it is these gaping holes in several scientific disciplines that is preventing us from "establishing the phenomena" of "psi". But if filling these gaps is required (the conclusion of this very article)to make any advances in the field of psi, is it not incumbent upon psi researchers to channel their funding and their energy and talent into these fields to shorten the length of study in the interest of advancing things to a point where psi research itself can be advanced, and the proof we all want and require so much more forthcoming?
Anyway, thanks for the article and when I have some time I promise I will follow up on those sources!
And PLEASE don't take this as a personal attack - it certainly isn't meant as one. It's happened here when I back up my arguments that people construe it as a personal attack. I am thorough, which I think is sometimes viewed as fanatical, and hence confrontational. I like a good debate! And as I said before, I will embrace any and all proof when it has been unsuccessfully and rigorously attacked.
thanks for the brain food!
JBArk
