• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Scottish Society for Psychical Research goes bust

Isn't the American SPR all but dead too? I think its less abut a lack of belief but a lack of truly interested truly objective types of a proper scientific bent who take it seriously enough to devote their time to it, or if they are around, an inability to raise money. What's that line "For those who believe no proof is necessary, for those who don't believe no proof is possible". And each type have a thousand other sources to confirm their judgements and feed their interest.
 
I suspect you're correct that the interest is still there, so it's probably the idea of not paying to hear about it from experts when you can get all the theorising and spooky stories you want from amateurs online for free that's destroying the old traditions of psychic research organisations.
 
I think also..or perhaps I'm just rephrasing the same point...in the past the SPR was the scientific authority to go to in matters related to paranormal phenomena, but now media sceptics are considered that authority and the SPR if it's thought of at all, is seen as just another ghost hunting club.
 
The downfall of institutions such as the SSPR mirrors a decline in parapsychology as awhole.

This decline is not helped by parapsychologists whoring themselves out on crappy TV shows either. It's interesting that actual trained parapsychologist have seem their work dry up since paranormal TV shows began to gain popularity. Coupled with every city having it's own amateur ghost investigation team the future does look bleak.

http://www.salon.com/2010/10/30/ghost_hunters/

Didn't FT run a forum article a few years back that suggested chairs of parapsychology that had been funded by bequests that go back years are dying out? Their funds have been mismanaged or used to fund other departments research not linked to parapsychology?

Unlike psychology that does it damnedest to promote itself and gain influence. The people that run parapsychology have not moved with the times. Even it's wiki page describes it as a pseudoscience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology
 
Naughty_Felid said:
Even it's wiki page describes it as a pseudoscience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology
Click to expand...
When you say "it's" wikipage...which it are you referring to? Parapsychology isn't a body. The use of the term "pseudoscience" on wikipedia is factually nonsense and a product of the domination of that troll-friendly website by the skeptic "movement", including the so called "guerilla skeptics" who have a self appointed remit to doctor all paranormal themed wikipedia pages to discourage acceptance of or believe in anything they consider intolerable to the cause.
 
gattino said:
When you say "it's" wikipage...which it are you referring to? Parapsychology isn't a body. The use of the term "pseudoscience" on wikipedia is factually nonsense and a product of the domination of that troll-friendly website by the skeptic "movement", including the so called "guerilla skeptics" who have a self appointed remit to doctor all paranormal themed wikipedia pages to discourage acceptance of or believe in anything they consider intolerable to the cause.
Click to expand...

Pedant. It being the study of parapsychology which has people who belong to bodies such as the Parapstchological Association and organizations such as the SPR, SSPR, etc.
 
Sorry I didn't mean to sound snappy or sarky,...what I was getting at was when you say "*Even* it's wikipage describes it as" it sounded like an implication that it was the owner of the page and was obliged to admit itself that it was pseudoscience.
 
gattino said:
Sorry I didn't mean to sound snappy or sarky,...what I was getting at was when you say "*Even* it's wikipage describes it as" it sounded like an implication that it was the owner of the page and was obliged to admit itself that it was pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

You do have a point though, that Wikipedia supports the hard-line Skeptikal view
http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/investigating-skeptics/wikipedia-captured-by-skeptics/
There is no point looking to Wikipedia for a less biased perpective on these matters.
 
The SSPR is not on the way out - vice-president Innes Smith has published a statement clarifying the situation and correcting the wilder claims that have circulated. It is having financial issues and is going to change the way it operates, but it is not going away. Here is his statement:

http://www.sspr.co.uk/#!SSPR-is-NOT-DEAD/c2c0/569a68460cf21038319690c1

He also discussed the issues at length on the SPR's Facebook page when I posted a link - you may find that the SPR is still a useful source of information.

Yes, the ASPR is in trouble, and there has been an issue with universities diverting money intended for parappsychological research; SPR vice-president Guy Lyon Playfair has written on both topics in FT.

If anybody is interested in the way Wikipedia handles these topics, try Craig Weiler's The Psi Wars, which covers the subject well. There is a review on the SPR's website:

http://www.spr.ac.uk/publication/psi-wars-ted-wikipedia-and-battle-internet
 
Thanks for the info, the way it was being reported was predicting its imminent demise.
 
Ulalume said:
You do have a point though, that Wikipedia supports the hard-line Skeptikal view
http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/investigating-skeptics/wikipedia-captured-by-skeptics/
There is no point looking to Wikipedia for a less biased perpective on these matters.
Click to expand...

My point is that parapsychology organizations that include lots cleaver people have been pretty passive and have not done enough to halt or at least inform the hardcore skeptical movement. Both promote investigation through use of scientific methods and critical thinking. Now we have vocal parapsychologists such as Blackmore and O'Keefe promoting hardcore skepticism.

O'keefe particularly, I watched a doco with him and he came across as particularly closed-minded, unenquiring and uncritical.

On an aside I can never understand either how a lot of the skeptical movement can believe in god but not ghosts. It's cool they say as god is unmeasurable so outside the realms of science but ghosts are and there's no evidence to say they exist. What did one Deist Skeptic say? "Skepticism is process, not a conclusion" - They are happy to right off the paranormal as not being real but are ok with god, (unmeasurable), dark matter (not seen yet).

So who came up with those laws then?
 
Naughty_Felid said:
So who came up with those laws then?
Click to expand...
Don't confuse scientific laws with 'the Law of the Land' ('legal' laws), or even with religious laws ("Thou shalt not...")

A scientific Law is just the best description we can come up with about how Nature behaves.
If nature in some circumstances does not agree with this sort of law, we don't say "Nature's behaving illegally!!".
We say "Ah, our description isn't quite right - how can we modify it to better describe reality?"

Human and religious laws are Prescriptive, however, laying down how people should behave.

prescriptive adjective formal mainly disapproving

saying exactly what must happen, especially by giving an instruction or making a rule: Most teachers think the government's guidelines on homework are too prescriptive.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prescriptive
 
rynner2 said:
Don't confuse scientific laws with 'the Law of the Land' ('legal' laws), or even with religious laws ("Thou shalt not...")

A scientific Law is just the best description we can come up with about how Nature behaves.
If nature in some circumstances does not agree with this sort of law, we don't say "Nature's behaving illegally!!".
We say "Ah, our description isn't quite right - how can we modify it to better describe reality?"

Human and religious laws are Prescriptive, however, laying down how people should behave.

prescriptive adjective formal mainly disapproving

saying exactly what must happen, especially by giving an instruction or making a rule: Most teachers think the government's guidelines on homework are too prescriptive.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prescriptive
Click to expand...


sigh* :rolleyes: what is it with this thread?
 
The way I see it...
Many of these psychic investigation organisations seem to be not only poor at recruiting and keeping new members, but they also seem to be against taking on new members. Political inertia within the group?
And...the other thing...many people are losing interest (I'm just guessing with this one). It may have something to do with the huge flood of fakes drowning out the genuine cases. People will just leave in disgust, after they have been called out to another dead-end fake.
 
Mythopoeika said:
The way I see it...
Many of these psychic investigation organisations seem to be not only poor at recruiting and keeping new members, but they also seem to be against taking on new members. Political inertia within the group?
And...the other thing...many people are losing interest (I'm just guessing with this one). It may have something to do with the huge flood of fakes drowning out the genuine cases. People will just leave in disgust, after they have been called out to another dead-end fake.
Click to expand...

i applied to a local ghost hunter group as their background investigator, (it was advertised on their site), putting together the family and building histories to help give the investigation a bit of context. I've had more than enough experience doing similar work professionally.

Never heard back.
 
Naughty_Felid said:
i applied to a local ghost hunter group as their background investigator, (it was advertised on their site), putting together the family and building histories to help give the investigation a bit of context. I've had more than enough experience doing similar work professionally.

Never heard back.
Click to expand...
Yup, I looked at a few websites and noted that they were not looking to take on any new members, or if they were, they only wanted someone with a proven scientific background.
 
graylien said:
What is a proven scientific background? I have an O Level in Physics. Does that count? Or do you have to be a Nobel Laureate?
Click to expand...

I think it helps if your'e gullible. I have my suspicions about these so called Ghost-hunting groups. I reckon they can be quite 'clicky.' If they are rude enough not to get back to you, then I suggest you are better off not joining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top