Proper Scientific Testing for 'Jealous' Phenomena

[Aether Blue]

How does one test for phenomena that may react to opinions and beliefs about it?

One proposed defense for the existence of psychic phenomena in the face of typically poor experimental evidence for it is that the "negative attitudes" of researchers prevent it from manifesting. Now, at face value, this sort of argument strikes me as a terribly convenient excuse that could be used to paper over just about any undesirable results. On the other hand, if psychic phenomena really exist, then they must be governed by some truly novel principles - existing science has no known mechanism to produce such effects. Thus, they may well react to testing in bizarre and unprecedented ways.

Some people argue that this point alone renders psychic phenomena impossible a priori. However, the quest for new knowledge ends if we refuse even to consider the possibility that our understanding of the universe may be incomplete. To be sure, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

So how to obtain such proof in situations where open doubt might actually prevent the tested phenomenon from occurring? Limiting research only to true believers does not help at all, for perfectly obvious reasons. Where can one find researchers who are totally unbiased and completely open-minded? How to screen out the inevitable fakers, cheaters, and fanatics (either pro or con)?

My own hypothesis to explain an alleged "jealous phenomena" effect is that psychic phenomena, if they really do exist, might be driven by the subconscious, with even the most talented people lacking full conscious control. It's not too much of a stretch that someone in an unfamiliar environment, and facing an intimidating researcher, could experience performance issues. This effect may be compounded when someone is told that, the effect he or she produced easily, in complete ignorance, is so widely doubted by educated people that rigorous trials are being performed to see whether it can "in fact" be done.

 

[Tunn11]

It's a great point. I don't want to trivialise it but I couldn't help but think of a sex researcher saying to some poor guy "OK you say you can do it four times in half an hour, I don't believe you but; here's a willing partner, don't mind the cameras, lights, technicians........"

 

[Aether Blue]

It's a great point. I don't want to trivialise it but I couldn't help but think of a sex researcher saying to some poor guy "OK you say you can do it four times in half an hour, I don't believe you but; here's a willing partner, don't mind the cameras, lights, technicians........"

Actually, that was precisely what popped into my mind when I wrote the post, because there are so many parallels. I think you put it better than I could have.

 

[PeteS]

How does one test for phenomena that may react to opinions and beliefs about it?

One proposed defense for the existence of psychic phenomena in the face of typically poor experimental evidence for it is that the "negative attitudes" of researchers prevent it from manifesting. Now, at face value, this sort of argument strikes me as a terribly convenient excuse that could be used to paper over just about any undesirable results. On the other hand, if psychic phenomena really exist, then they must be governed by some truly novel principles - existing science has no known mechanism to produce such effects. Thus, they may well react to testing in bizarre and unprecedented ways.

Some people argue that this point alone renders psychic phenomena impossible a priori. However, the quest for new knowledge ends if we refuse even to consider the possibility that our understanding of the universe may be incomplete. To be sure, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

So how to obtain such proof in situations where open doubt might actually prevent the tested phenomenon from occurring? Limiting research only to true believers does not help at all, for perfectly obvious reasons. Where can one find researchers who are totally unbiased and completely open-minded? How to screen out the inevitable fakers, cheaters, and fanatics (either pro or con)?

My own hypothesis to explain an alleged "jealous phenomena" effect is that psychic phenomena, if they really do exist, might be driven by the subconscious, with even the most talented people lacking full conscious control. It's not too much of a stretch that someone in an unfamiliar environment, and facing an intimidating researcher, could experience performance issues. This effect may be compounded when someone is told that, the effect he or she produced easily, in complete ignorance, is so widely doubted by educated people that rigorous trials are being performed to see whether it can "in fact" be done.

This is a point I always make when the subject of the lack of scientific evidence is brought up. How could psychics/ mediums be tested in lab conditions in any meaningful way whether there are negative attitudes involved or not? OK as a minor example in a couple of instances during my interest in the subject I was informed by one medium that I had just smashed the front nearside suspension on my model car and by another that I had just removed a sidecar from a bike. Neither knew me and that info could not be guessed at. If a researcher was given that type of info would that be definitive proof of these phenomena to a scientist?

The other info I was passed on which proved to be devastatingly accurate would require a researcher to closely follow my life for 20 years. Not really possible by lab investigation. I have never supported the view that such could be used to confirm or deny the true existence of this subject.