Psi: Who Decides What "Science" Thinks?

[gattino]

Whether it is book reviews on Amazon, articles in broadsheet newspapers, or editing wars on Wikipedia, the anti-parasychology skeptics swarm to pass negative comment on anything that purports to suggest there is any scientific evidence for Psi/telepathy whatsoever. Anything that says there is or might be is pseudo-science, gullible claptrap, poorly conducted, wildly misquoted but above all, no matter what evidence may be presented it must, they declare, be BS, and whichever eminent professor is putting it forward doesn't understand science at all, because... "Science does not accept the existence of ESP"/ "There is not a shred of scientific evidence for it".

Those arguing with them on the other hand seem to nearly always accept the claim at face value, and as a given.. because they respond in terms of criticising the conservative dinosaurs of materialist science, protest that science doesn't know everything and how arrogant to assume it does, and appeal to historical examples of denying meteors fall from the sky.....

Which kind of prompts the question: who exactly decided that "Science" - or even "mainstream science" - doesn't accept the reality of psi?

There is no body, no committee, no panel of supreme judges to issue a verdict. So what does it mean to say "scientists" don't believe something?
Which scientists?

Yesterday someone on my Facebook who is a space/science geek, a rabidly anti-clerical atheist and a member of the skeptics society put up a picture of Alan Turing, declaring him "my hero". I wondered if he was aware of Turing writing "How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming." But I decided against posting it, for the same reason one can't mention Einstein (definitely never Einstein) writing a friendly forward to a book on telepathy, Newton being a christian and a mystic, Edison's search for contact with the dead, Tesla's visions, the eminent Victorian knights and heroes of the scientific pantheon who set up the SPR, or Nobel Laureates like Josephson. And why not? Because it's forbidden with a quote from the Second Book Of Dawkins.

The quote is "Argument from Authority". These 3 words can be used to dismiss any subject matter where the views of greater or more qualified celebrity scientists than the sceptic are quoted in support. The very fact of quoting them deems the argument void in some mysterious way, because such views are clearly worthless in the face of what "Science" (capital S) now knows and its an act or desperation to base any belief on what clever men from history have said. Depending, of course, on what they've said...

If there is no supreme panel to declare what science thinks, and the individual big brains of science are not the authority, then what does that leave? The majority opinion?

I found the following passage from Christ Carter "Two surveys of over 500 scientists in one case and over 1,000 in another both found that the majority of respondents considered ESP “an established fact” or “a likely possibility”—56 percent in one and 67 percent in the other."

The exception was in the higher realms of academia and i the field of psychology. The majority of scientists overall however clearly saw the subject as valiid. A list of such surveys appears on wikipedia:

hihttp://en.wikademia.org/Surveys_of_ac ... psychology

Extraordinarily one person - of the type I described in the first paragraph - commented online to Carter's quote the following "who cares if 100 out of 100 scientists believe in parapsychology, unless there is a significant body of evidence to prove something their opinions matter not"

?????????

So now we have no supreme authority called Science to offer a verdict or opinion
No authority from the great names and rock stars of the scientific world to determine the matter
And the opinions of the majority of practicing scientists - which appear to be consistently favourable - are also invalid, as its not a democracy either!

So who, exactly, determined that ESP has not been scientifically proven, or that science doesn't accept it? Who determines what is and is not a "significant body of evidence"?

Can anyone enlighten me?

 

[Mythopoeika]

I wondered if he was aware of Turing writing "How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming."

I don't think I can agree with Turing that the statistical evidence for telepathy is overwhelming, but I can agree that the phenomenon is significant enough to warrant further investigation.
It's a question of degree.
And that in itself is the problem - there hasn't been enough statistically repeatable evidence to make the really big beasts of the science world take an interest.

I think that may be it - lack of interest from 'the establishment'.

 

[gattino]

But who do you mean by "the really big beasts"? Clearly not historically big if all the figures I mentioned are to be discarded...so presumably currently so. But who would they be? Hawkings is the only big name scientist familiar to the man in the street today I imagine.. Dawkins is a celebrity writer more than major scientific brain...who else is there to give their seal of approval? And why would their comments been any less irrelevant to anyone else's.

Brian Josephson is a nobel winning physicist, Rupert Sheldrake's academic qualifications are legion...but the fact they turn their attention tot he subject has not enhanced the reputation of hte subject but diminshed the reputation of the scientists in question.


So again who is the unimpeachable authority who would declare that there IS overwhelming or even sufficient evidence?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

The current state of science, in the form of neuroscience, is that human beings are basically robots, whose actions are predetermined by subconscious zombie processes with only the illusions of conciousness and free will as rather unfortunate by-products.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/free-will-is-an-illusion_b_1562533.html

So, before you can expect scientists to wrap their heads around ESP and parapsychology, you have to get them to believe that human beings are really sentient, in the first place.

 

[EnolaGaia]

'Institutionalized science' represents an orthodoxy - an orthodoxy whose methodological tenets have afforded results that are relatively demonstrable, reliable, and useful. These results have accorded 'science' an aura of defensible authority that more rigid and less rigorous orthodoxies (e.g., religion) have never achieved.

However, 'science' has always run into difficulties addressing personal / mental phenomena. The sort of accusations and criticisms thrown at 'parapsychology' today were once heaped upon 'psychology' in general. It is still the case that some (e.g.) physical scientists don't consider psychology to be 'science' in the same sense as their own field.

Classical scientific method works best for phenomena that are relatively indisputable in terms of their observability, replicability, universality, and reliability (of occurrence / manifestation). All these four factors are difficult to establish for 'psychological' phenomena, and they're even more difficult to establish for 'parapsychological' phenomena.

The main problem (IMHO) in both cases lies in the fact that the phenomena of interest are both allusive and elusive. They are 'allusive' because they are attributed to varying degrees on the basis of personal reports rather than independently observable evidence. They are 'elusive' because they are not universal (across all humans) or necessarily uniform (in their manner of realization).

Mainstream science can't handle phenomena that are so allusive and elusive unless they can encompass them within the context of a theory that can be empirically tested. Psychology has struggled for well over a century to emulate hard science's methods without ever consistently achieving the sort of conclusive results one expects to obtain in (e.g.) physics.

Parapsychology is at an even greater disadvantage. For one thing, its focal subjects are even more allusive / elusive than the ones mainstream psychologists study. Another problem is that the field of parapsychology represents a haphazard collection of topics that don't fit anywhere else, as opposed to a coherent set of foci circumscribed by a specific class of entities, processes, etc. With no agreement on the subjects at issue or even a focal mechanism or phenomena tying them together thematically, there's little chance that parapsychology can achieve respectable status in the context of scientific orthodoxy.

Because mainstream science is not configured to address the allusive / elusive character of the paranormal, parapsychology's aspirations for operating in a 'scientific' manner might well be considered an exercise in futility.

If parapsychology wants to be accepted as 'science', they have to conform to the scientific orthodoxy. This means they need more empirically demonstrable evidence, coherent and testable theories for their subject phenomena, and tests whose outcomes represent more than statistical suggestions of 'maybe'.

As to why 'science' thinks so little of parapsychology - I can't see any reason why their mindset should allow anything more positive than what they've typically said. I'm not saying I think they're necessarily 'right'; I'm only saying they're practically obligated to dismiss anything that doesn't conform to the orthodoxy upon which their own careers and commitments are based.

As to who decides what 'science' thinks - it's a matter of whom a given journalist happens to contact in pursuing a given story.

 

[EnolaGaia]

The current state of science, in the form of neuroscience, is that human beings are basically robots, whose actions are predetermined by subconscious zombie processes with only the illusions of conciousness and free will as rather unfortunate by-products. ...

That's an excellent point. 'Science' can only deal with the tangible or testable mechanisms presumed to underlie 'cognition' or 'mind'. Parapsychological phenomena are contextualized with respect to experience, not the underlying mechanics.

 

[gattino]

There's been some misinterpreting of the point I was making.

I wasn't saying "Damn you, Science/scientists! Who do you think you are!" nor asking "Why don't they just accept psi?!"

In fact my point was the complete opposite.

I'm questioning the very assumption that science.. as a discipline or a community of individuals - has any such consensus (be it "general" or "overwhelming") against the established reality of Psi at all.

The key is in those surveys which appear to show a favourable disposition amongst the general body of the scientific community... a fact which appears to be either unknown, ignored or deemed irrelavant by the "skeptical" lobby.

To put it another way, my whole point is to suggest that when someone online claims that "most scientists" dismiss or remain unimpressed etc etc....wouldn't the appropriate response be to ask "who told you that, and why did you believe them?"

 

[Dingo667]

The current state of science, in the form of neuroscience, is that human beings are basically robots, whose actions are predetermined by subconscious zombie processes with only the illusions of conciousness and free will as rather unfortunate by-products.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/free-will-is-an-illusion_b_1562533.html

So, before you can expect scientists to wrap their heads around ESP and parapsychology, you have to get them to believe that human beings are really sentient, in the first place.

Well, fortunately even Neuroscience is moving on, especially as our understanding of Physics has changed and there are now quite accepted groups which use Quantum Neuroscience to explain functions that could beforehand not be explained.
I think that is the first step on a long way which will hopefully one day explain ESP and other phenomena scientifically. People/ Scientists need to be led into it very slowly which is the problem, but I think they are on the right way.



ABSTRACT
Neuropsychological research on the neural basis of behavior generally posits that brain
mechanisms will ultimately suffice to explain all psychologically described phenomena.
This assumption stems from the idea that the brain is made up entirely of material
particles and fields, and that all causal mechanisms relevant to neuroscience can therefore
be formulated solely in terms of properties of these elements. Thus terms having intrinsic
mentalistic and/or experiential content (e.g., "feeling," "knowing," and "effort") are not
included as primary causal factors. This theoretical restriction is motivated primarily by
ideas about the natural world that have been known to be fundamentally incorrect for
more than three quarters of a century. Contemporary basic physical theory differs
profoundly from its seventeenth to nineteenth century forebearers on the important matter
of how the consciousness of human agents enters into the structure of empirical
phenomena. The new principles contradict the older idea that local mechanical processes
alone can account for the structure of all observed empirical data. Contemporary physical
theory brings directly and irreducibly into the overall causal structure certain
psychologically described choices made by human agents about how they will act. This
key development in basic physical theory is applicable to neuroscience, and it provides
neuroscientists and psychologists with an alternative conceptual framework for
describing neural processes. Indeed, due to certain structural features of ion channels
critical to synaptic function, contemporary physical theory must in principle be used
when analyzing human brain dynamics. The new framework, unlike its classical-physicsbased
predecessor is erected directly upon, and is compatible with, the prevailing
principles of physics, and is able to represent more adequately than classical concepts the
3
neuroplastic mechanisms relevant to the growing number of empirical studies of the
capacity of directed attention and mental effort to systematically alter brain function.
"[T]he only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of
reality --- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical --- as
compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously."

Wolfgang Pauli, The Influence of Archetypal Ideas on the Scientific Theories of Kepler

http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTB6.pdf

 

[Mythopoeika]

I'm questioning the very assumption that science.. as a discipline or a community of individuals - has any such consensus (be it "general" or "overwhelming") against the established reality of Psi at all.

Does 'the science community' have a consensus at all about PSI?
I think it's rather a 'non-consensus', hovering right there in the air not doing anything.

 

[kevinjwoods]

I've always felt that the main problem with stating that Psi is false is that in many cases it is based on experiments that have a low chance of success even if pSI was true, for example take telepathy, you need to prove Person A can obtain information from the mind of Person B without any technological aids, unfortuneately many experiments are done by picking an item at random that person B cannot know so that in order to prove that A can read a piece of information from b that B knows at any point over a day or longer they instead try to prove A read b over a few seconds, imagine trying to prove sight by putting a sign on a shed a t the back of a garden for five minutes then removing it and asking someone to write what it said.
Also none of the reports I have read include any mention of how the conditions will affect the results, if a requirement for mentally contacting the dead is complete darkness and relaxed then tying someone up in their underwear in a fully lit room will disprove the theory even if the theory was correct, science acts on the assumption that to prove something only certain conditions are acceptable, without feeling it neccessary to have those conditions match the real worldit would be easy to perform an experiment to prove the "someone is talking about me effect" is potentially real (and yes I have the basics of one) but it would be impossible to do so under scientific conditions.

 

[Xanatic*]

As mentioned it's really down to what scientists in general think. Which to me is a lot better than having some science governing body handing out verdicts on such things.

The latest issue of New Scientist has an article that may be of interest:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...aign=hoot&cmpid=SOC%7CNSNS%7C2015-GLOBAL-hoot

 

[Loquaciousness]

Who decides what Science is - the current paradigm at the time. Paradigms change and shift, sometimes very slowly as the old establishment tries to remain in control. That isn't just the case for Science though, it is the case for ANY topic. I think Science is much maligned, and doesn't always deserve the bad rap it gets.
As for Parapsychology, it's now even on the A level specification as part of the "Applied Psychology" paper - that is how main stream it has become.

 

[eburacum]

The closest thing to parapsychology in mainstream science might be Bell's Inequality. Quantum entanglement transmits information about states at speeds much faster than light, between distant entangled particles; but you can't transmit usable information directly in this way. Just observing one particle by itself results in a lot of random data.
It's not until you compare the behaviour of both particles with each other that you start to observe correlations.To make this comparison you have send classical data as well, that is, data transmitted at the speed of light.

The same restrictions seem to apply to most, if not all parapsychological phenomena. Observed by themselves, the results of a psi test look like meaningless random data; but if you sort though the data afterwards you can sometimes find interesting correlations. Unfortunately you can't use the random data in its raw state without making the comparisons - psi seems to be useless at transmitting usable data by itself. Perhaps instead it could be used as a form of quantum cryptography - you might be able to use psi data to determine if information is authentic, or if it has been hacked. Even then, psi seems less reliable than quantum entanglement for this purpose, since it is so intermittent.

 

[GeorgeP]

I`ll quote you on that in 2799 AD when we have bio computers that transmit at the speed of thought.

(I`ll be sat in my Ford levi-car thats powered by a mini Hadron Collider. Mercury is poured inside the collider and becomes pressurized before being bombarded by more. A reaction occurs that creates a outer EM field that separates the levi car from normal gravity. Shite, your not supposed to know about that yet.....MODs delete)

 

[Mythopoeika]

Pressurised mercury, hmmm?

 

[Stuart Certain]

Whether it is book reviews on Amazon, articles in broadsheet newspapers, or editing wars on Wikipedia, the anti-parasychology skeptics swarm to pass negative comment on anything that purports to suggest there is any scientific evidence for Psi/telepathy whatsoever. Anything that says there is or might be is pseudo-science, gullible claptrap, poorly conducted, wildly misquoted but above all, no matter what evidence may be presented it must, they declare, be BS, and whichever eminent professor is putting it forward doesn't understand science at all, because... "Science does not accept the existence of ESP"/ "There is not a shred of scientific evidence for it".

Those arguing with them on the other hand seem to nearly always accept the claim at face value, and as a given.. because they respond in terms of criticising the conservative dinosaurs of materialist science, protest that science doesn't know everything and how arrogant to assume it does, and appeal to historical examples of denying meteors fall from the sky.....

Which kind of prompts the question: who exactly decided that "Science" - or even "mainstream science" - doesn't accept the reality of psi?

There is no body, no committee, no panel of supreme judges to issue a verdict. So what does it mean to say "scientists" don't believe something?
Which scientists?

Yesterday someone on my Facebook who is a space/science geek, a rabidly anti-clerical atheist and a member of the skeptics society put up a picture of Alan Turing, declaring him "my hero". I wondered if he was aware of Turing writing "How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming." But I decided against posting it, for the same reason one can't mention Einstein (definitely never Einstein) writing a friendly forward to a book on telepathy, Newton being a christian and a mystic, Edison's search for contact with the dead, Tesla's visions, the eminent Victorian knights and heroes of the scientific pantheon who set up the SPR, or Nobel Laureates like Josephson. And why not? Because it's forbidden with a quote from the Second Book Of Dawkins.

The quote is "Argument from Authority". These 3 words can be used to dismiss any subject matter where the views of greater or more qualified celebrity scientists than the sceptic are quoted in support. The very fact of quoting them deems the argument void in some mysterious way, because such views are clearly worthless in the face of what "Science" (capital S) now knows and its an act or desperation to base any belief on what clever men from history have said. Depending, of course, on what they've said...

If there is no supreme panel to declare what science thinks, and the individual big brains of science are not the authority, then what does that leave? The majority opinion?

I found the following passage from Christ Carter "Two surveys of over 500 scientists in one case and over 1,000 in another both found that the majority of respondents considered ESP “an established fact” or “a likely possibility”—56 percent in one and 67 percent in the other."

The exception was in the higher realms of academia and i the field of psychology. The majority of scientists overall however clearly saw the subject as valiid. A list of such surveys appears on wikipedia:

hihttp://en.wikademia.org/Surveys_of_ac ... psychology

Extraordinarily one person - of the type I described in the first paragraph - commented online to Carter's quote the following "who cares if 100 out of 100 scientists believe in parapsychology, unless there is a significant body of evidence to prove something their opinions matter not"

?????????

So now we have no supreme authority called Science to offer a verdict or opinion
No authority from the great names and rock stars of the scientific world to determine the matter
And the opinions of the majority of practicing scientists - which appear to be consistently favourable - are also invalid, as its not a democracy either!

So who, exactly, determined that ESP has not been scientifically proven, or that science doesn't accept it? Who determines what is and is not a "significant body of evidence"?

Can anyone enlighten me?

Whether it is book reviews on Amazon, articles in broadsheet newspapers, or editing wars on Wikipedia, the anti-parasychology skeptics swarm to pass negative comment on anything that purports to suggest there is any scientific evidence for Psi/telepathy whatsoever. Anything that says there is or might be is pseudo-science, gullible claptrap, poorly conducted, wildly misquoted but above all, no matter what evidence may be presented it must, they declare, be BS, and whichever eminent professor is putting it forward doesn't understand science at all, because... "Science does not accept the existence of ESP"/ "There is not a shred of scientific evidence for it".

Those arguing with them on the other hand seem to nearly always accept the claim at face value, and as a given.. because they respond in terms of criticising the conservative dinosaurs of materialist science, protest that science doesn't know everything and how arrogant to assume it does, and appeal to historical examples of denying meteors fall from the sky.....

Which kind of prompts the question: who exactly decided that "Science" - or even "mainstream science" - doesn't accept the reality of psi?

There is no body, no committee, no panel of supreme judges to issue a verdict. So what does it mean to say "scientists" don't believe something?
Which scientists?

Yesterday someone on my Facebook who is a space/science geek, a rabidly anti-clerical atheist and a member of the skeptics society put up a picture of Alan Turing, declaring him "my hero". I wondered if he was aware of Turing writing "How we should like to discredit them! Unfortunately the statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming." But I decided against posting it, for the same reason one can't mention Einstein (definitely never Einstein) writing a friendly forward to a book on telepathy, Newton being a christian and a mystic, Edison's search for contact with the dead, Tesla's visions, the eminent Victorian knights and heroes of the scientific pantheon who set up the SPR, or Nobel Laureates like Josephson. And why not? Because it's forbidden with a quote from the Second Book Of Dawkins.

The quote is "Argument from Authority". These 3 words can be used to dismiss any subject matter where the views of greater or more qualified celebrity scientists than the sceptic are quoted in support. The very fact of quoting them deems the argument void in some mysterious way, because such views are clearly worthless in the face of what "Science" (capital S) now knows and its an act or desperation to base any belief on what clever men from history have said. Depending, of course, on what they've said...

If there is no supreme panel to declare what science thinks, and the individual big brains of science are not the authority, then what does that leave? The majority opinion?

I found the following passage from Christ Carter "Two surveys of over 500 scientists in one case and over 1,000 in another both found that the majority of respondents considered ESP “an established fact” or “a likely possibility”—56 percent in one and 67 percent in the other."

The exception was in the higher realms of academia and i the field of psychology. The majority of scientists overall however clearly saw the subject as valiid. A list of such surveys appears on wikipedia:

hihttp://en.wikademia.org/Surveys_of_ac ... psychology

Extraordinarily one person - of the type I described in the first paragraph - commented online to Carter's quote the following "who cares if 100 out of 100 scientists believe in parapsychology, unless there is a significant body of evidence to prove something their opinions matter not"

?????????

So now we have no supreme authority called Science to offer a verdict or opinion
No authority from the great names and rock stars of the scientific world to determine the matter
And the opinions of the majority of practicing scientists - which appear to be consistently favourable - are also invalid, as its not a democracy either!

So who, exactly, determined that ESP has not been scientifically proven, or that science doesn't accept it? Who determines what is and is not a "significant body of evidence"?

Can anyone enlighten me?

 

[Coal]

Trouble being, that 'science' and the 'scientific method' are often confused. 'Science' has become a kind of pop term for 'established thinking' and is generally used in a negative way as in 'Science doesn't know everything' (Science knows that, it why we do experiments).

As ever prevailing culture and views are the issue (not 'science'), and when most scientific research is done at least in part by people paid by either "interested industry" or via research grants, it tends to focus on the request of the piper - some might say, this inevitably biases the chances of getting the "right" result. It's fair to say that humans tend to stick with what they know and learn in the first 20-30 years and very few stay open minded after that, even scientists. The great ones (Feynman for example) kept being curious and open minded long after many other would have stopped.

Given the type of thing that might prove the existence of (say) ESP can be very simply tested, I wonder why someone hasn't just done that? Stick one person ('transmitter') in an EMC chamber (you can probably rent those cheap during the night) with the door closed (making sure there is air ingress to avoid the 'DARK IN HERE ISN'T IT?@ thing) and only a camera for observation (EMC chambers have those) and give them a (battery powered) box with a random number generator that puts up a two digit number every 10 seconds, so 0-99.

[Previously having check the sync. The boxes can be started together outside the chamber and then separated.]

The 'observer' has a similar box, with just a timer, an indicator and using a key pad type in the number he/she think is being 'transmitted', which is stored locally in (say) a pen-drive. Ideally in another room.

"Transmitter" searched (metal detector), receiver searched (same metal detector). Run 1,000 times per subject (I might allow tea breaks and potty breaks). Repeat 10 or 20 times.

For less than £10K with a nearby university, you could nail that.

Job done.

I don't say ESP/PSI doesn't exist, it's wise to not state anything like this with certainly, only that proving it's existence to a decent degree of probability would be very straightforward, and if that is the case, why hasn't someone done it, allowed peer review of the set up and independent observers, then published the paper in a respectable journal?

P.S. Invite people who think they have ESP to take part. My rules, stick with metal detector searches and I'll personally check both boxes before and after the experimenter. Ditto the metal detectors. And the camera.

PPS I kept a small paper four vane spinner balanced on a needle point under an airtight bowl for 8 months at uni. No-one ever moved it. And the two sides facing the window had a couple of pencil dots on them...for good luck

 

[Mythopoeika]

I thought someone did this some years ago?
With a whole load of coloured balls going down different channels.
I also recall their results had a small amount of statistical significance.
Can't remember any details (like who), sorry.

 

[Xanatic*]

Yes, people have done similar things. The problem is they never get any worthwhile results. No prodigies, just at best a bit more accurate than you would expect from chance.

 

[Coal]

Yes, people have done similar things. The problem is they never get any worthwhile results. No prodigies, just at best a bit more accurate than you would expect from chance.

When I get some down time, I'll search a few libraries which I have access to and see if there are any formal papers on this.

 

[Ermintruder]

Given the type of thing that might prove the existence of (say) ESP can be very simply tested, I wonder why someone hasn't just done that?

I was exceedingly keen that one of my own university children pursued almost this exact experimental approach, but sadly, at thesis level, they opted for an entirely-safe conventional research topic (let's just say that academic supervisory common-sense outbids ferverish parental aspiration....so far, anyway).

You are right that The Public has popularly learnt to use the term 'Science' in a partly-pejorative mode. But you're only theoretically correct in your proposition that science continues to ask questions and keep looking.

Yes, of course, at isolated edge-points it does, but if 'science' were a giant molecular substrate, it would be shaped in rigid flat carbon rings, it would insist upon compliance and adherence, and only rare fragments would ever 'get to buckie'.

I make a cheap shot, here. In one brief human lifetime, the majority of scientists must be white-coated worker bees....the wagons must remained circled, or no real shoulders will be stood upon.

We Forteans are but empowered powerless mayflies, confident in our misconstrued own little orbits, assured of our immortal grasp and grip. But sometimes we shall see the sun early...or feel the wind first. Or even find another unseen way, truth or light...

 

[Xanatic*]

If you're looking for formal papers, keep in mind that Princeton for years did research into such things at their PEAR institute. Including experiments similar to what you mentioned, with people trying to affect random number generators.

 

[Coal]

I was exceedingly keen that one of my own university children pursued almost this exact experimental approach, but sadly, at thesis level, they opted for an entirely-safe conventional research topic (let's just say that academic supervisory common-sense outbids ferverish parental aspiration....so far, anyway.

I can imagine the reaction of the staff where I'm studying if I wanted to do just that...despite claims to open mindedness and a tacit admission no-one really knows how a brain does what it does.

I think that most such experiments are set up with the goal of finding ESP, if it was me I'd set one up to prove it didn't, which the puts you in the frame of mind to remove all possible confounding factors, leaving you with chance/something else. Hence my suggestion of an EMC chamber based experiment.

You are right that The Public has popularly learnt to use the term 'Science' in a partly-perorative mode. But you're only theoretically correct in your proposition that science continues to ask questions and keep looking.

By which I mean the 'science' in it's definitive, non-anthropomorphic sense, keeps on looking and asking questions. The basic openness to the possibility of something new. 'People' in science of course get as hide bound and conventional as they do in any situation.

Yes, of course, at isolated edge-points it does, but if 'science' were a giant molecular substrate, it would be shaped in rigid flat carbon rings, it would insist upon compliance and adherence, and only rare fragments would ever get to buckie'

Heh. History teaches us total compliance is simply not possible with people. Despite the best endeavours of those who 'know best' and enforce their vision of the world on the rest of us, there are always, without fail, those who instigate and motivate change. Bloody good thing too as otherwise we'd all be sitting caves 100% happy with the flint tools and skins. Vive la difference (in a non gender specific way).

 

[Xanatic*]

I don't quite see how you intend to design an experiment to show that ESP doesn't happen. Putting a guy in front of a random number generator and have nothing happen, might just show that he's crap at ESP.

 

[Ermintruder]

History teaches us total compliance is simply not possible with people

Nearly. That particular conditioned reflex can be tuned/trained very effectively, via the application of tenured position and research grants.

Of course, you're absolutely correct that not all cavemen or postgrads will keep their heads down and follow the herd. And that's a good thing, some must always break their chains and feel the need to lead (that's rhyming with bleed, not Pb).

Informed inspiration, of course, is the rarest element. It cannot easily be synthesised in the lab, or lecture theatre. It has a very-short half-life, and tends to follow a rapid decay sequence towards entropy (cf tangential employment and reproduction). Watch you don't oxidise too early (I did).

 

[Xanatic*]

Sadly a lot of it is just down to money. You might not get that research grant for investigating the Higgs Boson if those holding the purse strings find out you also did research on telekinesis.

 

[Coal]

I don't quite see how you intend to design an experiment to show that ESP doesn't happen. Putting a guy in front of a random number generator and have nothing happen, might just show that he's crap at ESP.

True. But one can't use just one pair of subjects. Equally one 'reciever' person showing high scores doesn't prove there is ESP. Sample size matters. That's the difficulty with one person showing ESP like behaviour. In a population of 8 billion, there are always people who consistently guess right and pick numbers that come up. Law of averages as it were.

In my hypothetical experiment, I'd want a large sample of 'senders' and 'receivers' and I'd expect some pairs to do better than chance, because they just do. The data analysis then shows the possibility of this being a chance result (or not).

(There are also potential issues with the 'randomness' of random number generators and random numbers picked by people, which aren't really random).

For the sake of argument, if I got (say) five pairs (out of 100) who perform better than chance, I could run a second trial with just those pairs, but more 'data runs' to see if an effect persisted. Or, better, would be to re-run the whole thing with the same 100 'pairs' and see if the same 'pairs' kept scoring above chance and analyse the odds of that. Especially if I didn't tell the subjects what they got last time.

 

[Coal]

Nearly. That particular conditioned reflex can be tuned/trained very effectively, via the application of tenured position and research grants.

Of course, you're absolutely correct that not all cavemen or postgrads will keep their heads down and follow the herd. And that's a good thing, some must always break their chains and feel the need to lead (that's rhyming with bleed, not Pb).

Exactly. Good to know isn't it?

Informed inspiration, of course, is the rarest element. It cannot easily be synthesised in the lab, or lecture theatre. It has a very-short half-life, and tends to follow a rapid decay sequence towards entropy (cf tangential employment and reproduction). Watch you don't oxidise too early (I did).

Ah now. Imagination, inspiration and working outside the herd are hard things to sustain in the face of a big mortgage and responsibility to kin. (Which is why the government like us all to have big mortgages and great hardships with moving house. Nice compliant workforce.)

I can only suggest that one reads as widely as possible, conventional and unconventional subjects, doesn't believe anything anyone says too much, constantly asks the questions 'Why?" & "What for?" (even if it's only in your head) and also to hang about on forums which allows flights of fancy, however outrageous.

 

[Mythopoeika]

^^ This. ^^

 

[Ermintruder]

^^ This. ^^

For definite....pass the crown over from that shelf, please, it will fit Coal perfectly. My faith in this forum remains high.