Why Psi is Pseudoscience

Discussions on UFOs, ghosts, myths etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#121  Postby Vinncent » May 03, 2013 3:59 am

Shrunk wrote:BTW, I'm curious about this statement:

Vinncent wrote: However, this all seems to be avoiding the actual results... the effect only seems to occur, among other things, due to consciously focusing on the given result.


How do we know that? How do investigators run the test while making sure subjects are not focusing on the given result?


Cito hit this point on the head. I honestly don't know how many of experiments used a control group where there was no "sender" at all, and the person wore ping pong balls and whatever else before choosing a certain image. Given the nature of sensory deprivation, it's likely they saw all sorts of images in their head. However, the ganzfeld experiments don't rely on people merely seeing random things while under sensory deprivation... they rely on people seeing that are close enough to the "target" in order to differentiate it between four other random choices.

We should expect that a "receiver" with no "sender" should score 25%, and although time consuming, would be easy enough to set up (if it hasn't already).
Vinncent
 
Posts: 38

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#122  Postby Vinncent » May 03, 2013 4:19 am

It's not just a good point, it's a first small step towards establishing parapsychology as science.


It would be interesting to see if any physical mechanisms could block non-local conscious interactions... but I don't see how it's completely necessary. Similar to entanglement, it does break certain pre-concieved notions as to how reality operates, but it also only occurs in specific circumstances, and with a small enough effect size it doesn't appear to throw everything else we think we know about reality out of whack.

Then you must model how things behave without psi.


Things seem behave as we typically observe and expect without the influence of psi, except for specific circumstances where all other "noise" can be controlled for, outside the slight effect of conscious influence. Also similar to QM, given its observable effects, but only noticeable in controlled environments.

No, you have yet to address the issue of falsification. You plainly do not understand it.

Deviations in statistics show deviations in statistics, and remain deviations in statistics until there is a proposed falsifiable model to explain them.


Talking with others about this subject, it would help to repeat this again, as clearly as possible:

Psi refers to a phenomena.
Psi does not currently refer to a comprehensive theory.

There isn't currently a new -theory- to be falsified yet (the last one I can remember was electromagnetism, which still produced positive results when controlled for). There is only the phenomena, which you seem to acknowledge here exists beyond explaining due to random chance.

What (mechanism) allows or causes this phenomena to occur?

Nobody knows.

Researchers reasonably conclude that its related to non-local conscious information transfer, as the "sender" is the experimental control, and no one can offer any other well established mechanism, other than vaguely stating "I bet it's a mistake".

The statistically significant deviation in statistics requires an actual explanation.

This deviation (phenomena) is what is referred to as "psi".
Vinncent
 
Posts: 38

Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#123  Postby Vinncent » May 03, 2013 4:35 am

lobawad wrote:Vinncent- let's say we accept that the Ganzfeld experiments have indicated that something non-random is happening.

Now what? You can't just keep citing Ganzfeld experiments. Even if others accept the statistical deviation, you still haven't presented a scientific test of "psi"!

The EM-theory experiments in the 1970's represented a scientific approach- they had a falsifiable theory which they falsified.


This is exactly the point.

"Now what?"

Now, we need to come up with some sort of comprehensive, falsifiable theory to explain the statistically significant deviation in the results.

Which, again, as stated, is the next step in this research.
Vinncent
 
Posts: 38

Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#124  Postby epepke » May 03, 2013 6:59 am

I thought I had written this here, but it must have been elsewhere. About a quarter century ago, I had a lengthy correspondence with a higher-up in the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) library. I won't divulge his name. At the time, the PEAR experiments were considered pretty much the best, and they reported very slight statistics. People in the skeptical movement were pretty dismissive, but I had always considered the essence of skepticism to be careful examination and investigation. (I now do not consider myself part of the movement. As a friend of mine commented, it has become "cargo cult science" in large part.)

At the time, I was working at the Supercomputer Computations Research Institute, a cross-disciplinary organization devoted to finding novel computational solutions for hard problems. I was working with George Marsaglia, one of the world's foremost experts on random numbers. Then, there were two ways of generating pseudo-random numbers: congruential and shift register. George found that both generated rather gross patterns, difficult to detect using computations but very easy for a human to detect. (This was a lot more than the known bit patterns. My contribution was to develop visualization techniques by which humans could easily detect the patterns pretty much no matter how much the numbers had been cooked. This worked even on George's combination PRNG. It's just unavoidable.)

We also tried using a reverse PN junction to generate "real" random numbers. It was kind of terrible. The distribution was all off, and the device was highly sensitive to environmental conditions, such as when the air conditioners went on.

I did some research and found their experimental setup. They were using congruential PRNGs and a reverse NP junction device designed to make white noise for audio applications. (These are much better now, but they weren't very good back then.) I was a fan of the Herbach and Rademan catalogue, which sold DIY geiger counter kits for about $60.

I wondered if there was something in the research itself, not only some bias in reporting (which is very hard to eliminate), but even perhaps the time of day they ran the experiments and whether the heating was on or off, that was responsible for the results. I had been inspired by some of the boxes they had used, nice wooden boxes with a circle of lights that would go either left or right, and the operator would concentrate on making it go one way. This rather appealed to my retro sensibilities, and I could build electronics, metal, and wood, using the shop at the University.

After all, the effect was slight. It wouldn't take much to bias the results. It could easily be something that nobody had ever noticed.

So I got in touch with them. I offered to build sealed boxes like the ones they had. Each one would contain either a radioisotope random number generator or a recording of a radioisotope random number generator. Thus, the distributions would be identical, and both would have the same minimized environmental sensitivities. Both would be lined with lead, sealed, and with exactly the same hardware, but different connections. The RNG box would have a PROM record the radioisotope results, and the recorded box would ignore the radioisotope results and just play back the recording. They could run their experiments and generate results, and then send the boxes back to me. I would cut them open and examine the PROM.

My hypothesis was that, since the recorded boxes couldn't be influenced and would always give a recorded output per run, and the RNG boxes could conceivably be influenced even by some unknown mechanism, then if there is an effect, then it should affect the nondeterministic RNG boxes and not the completely deterministic boxes. I also offered to provide a virtual service (we didn't have the Web, but Universities had the Internet, and I was good at writing that code.) That would have been easier and better for record-keeping, because I could hook it up to a computer which I didn't want to put in a box. I also reasoned that having something like this, with an independent research facility, would put a big feather in his cap. Oh, and I was also offering to do this at absolutely no cost to him. I thought it would be fun to participate, and I had a few thousand bucks I wanted to use to build stuff for fun anyway. Plus, I had all the University stuff for publication.

He did three things:

  1. He told me that I was assuming that the phenomenon was "mechanistic." I still do not know what it means. As far as I can tell, though, it means that it really happens and is not the artifact of something else, like, say, experimental procedure possibly having to do even with something else psi, like precognition. I pointed out that if this were the case, it would also be evident in the record, which would be very helpful. He remained unmoved.
  2. He said that they had other ways to deal with the "control problem," in such a way that it was obvious he considered a control to be a way to get published and read, and not as something that you need to do.
  3. When I pointed out that a good result from this would finally settle the matter about the experiments in such a way that would convince everybody rational, he said that they weren't interested in this but were interested in "finding out more about the phenomenon" instead. When I pointed out that this would help, too, again he was unmoved.

These are the hallmarks of complete pig-fucking flaming asshole willfully fraudulent pseudoscience. They would be just as much if it weren't psi, if it were something else.

And remember, these were considered the very best psi experiments. I have seen a lot of bad experiments, such as in cold fusion, but they tend to get straightened out fairly quickly. And good experiments that people doubted that stood the test of scrutiny, and good for them. The PEAR people were not willing to let that happen, for good or for ill, and I'm guessing that they knew it would threaten their cushy sinecures. I'm sure a lot of psi advocates will still continue to insist that the only reason that they were shut down was the prejudices of the evil scientific mainstream. Those are too stupid to deal with/

Probably the more intelligent ones concentrate on new experiments. So, hand-waving about Ganzfeld and everything is all better now, ho ho ho. How many of these experiments had a young working scientist like me to investigate at a deeper level than Vinncent? At what point does it become a race to lay down so much bullshit that it just takes a while to clean up, always providing a loophole?

And, though I may get flak for this, I still don't discount the concept of psi. There are some very interesting things happening at the quantum level. Although the experimental evidence seems lacking, I do not discount the possibility that, say, some Shannon information can be transmitted back in time. It seems unlikely, but the thing about "unlikely" is that it isn't the same as "never." I am not such an extreme classicist that I can rule it out entirely. Still, I want to see it, and I prefer people who take science seriously over the hand-wavers and bullshitters.
User avatar
epepke
 
Posts: 4080

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#125  Postby Onyx8 » May 03, 2013 9:26 am

Good post. Tks for that.
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 64
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#126  Postby VK-machine » May 03, 2013 1:27 pm

Vinncent wrote:"mistakes and errors" is not a reasonable explanation, as already explained, -unless you can point out sources of mistakes and errors-. Simply stating "I bet there are mistakes and errors" is an illogical assumption that can be levied against literally every piece of scientific experiment ever. Certain experiments are prone to this, and seem typically thrown out in meta-analysis due to their poor procedure/controls.

I'll give you an example. One early and very successful ganzfeld researcher was Carl Sargent. One day his lab was visisted by Susan Blackmore who had little or no success. She wanted to find out how she should improve her experiments.
She noticed some suspicious events and decided to get to the bottom of things. She found inctrovertible evidence that Sargent had been manipulating the experiment and wrote a whistle-blowing report to the parapsychological association.

Sargent denied everything and his co-workers vouched for him.

So what should we make of that? Do Blackmore's observations tell us what went on at that lab? Do you dismiss her accusations as "unfalsifiable"? They certainly are.
The best hope would be examining the documentation from the lab. Unfortunately, when the PA demanded to see the records, Sargent refused to cooperate. He has left parapsychology and that is that.
To my knowledge, his papers were never retracted and are still incorporated in meta-analyses.

Of course, that is a very exceptional case. An outsider visited Sargent's lab, who was astute enough to become suspicious, persistent enough to follow up, and upstanding enough to blow the whistle. Usually, we would simply be settled with an inexplicable result.

The simple fact is, when dealing with unreplicable results, one will assume that something went wrong. You may call this "illogical", I call it Occam's razor. But yes, it is and explanation "levied against" all such results.
VK-machine
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 241

Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#127  Postby VK-machine » May 03, 2013 2:01 pm

epepke wrote:I thought I had written this here, but it must have been elsewhere.

Thanks for that. I suspect your experience, or something like it, is shared by a lot of "mainstreamers".

And, though I may get flak for this, I still don't discount the concept of psi. There are some very interesting things happening at the quantum level. Although the experimental evidence seems lacking, I do not discount the possibility that, say, some Shannon information can be transmitted back in time. It seems unlikely, but the thing about "unlikely" is that it isn't the same as "never." I am not such an extreme classicist that I can rule it out entirely. Still, I want to see it, and I prefer people who take science seriously over the hand-wavers and bullshitters.

Alright, let's take precognition as an example for the concept of psi.
We predict the future all the time using common sense or science. The sun will rise tomorrow, there will be a solar eclipse in a certain area some decades down the road, it will likely rain tomorrow, and so on. The thing about precognition is that it must predict something, which according to all conventional knowledge impossible to predict, such as a RNG which is especially designed to be unpredictable.
But, of course, as you point out, scientific progress will continue and then, maybe the unpredictable will become predictable? But wait, this is happening continuously. Our ability to predict the future gets better constantly, so at what point do we decide that we are dealing with psi?

The concept of psi is similar to the concept of god.
Maybe we discover at some point some space aliens like Q from Star Trek or the Doctor [Who]. Maybe we find that Däniken got something right and some religions were inspired by alien visitors. Maybe that the bible chronicles suche encounters.
But I don't think any of that is what religious believers think of as god. As far as I can tell there is more to it than just being a non-human, and powerful intelligent being. There is this spiritual component.

Psi is a lot like god in many ways. It is objectively a vague and unclear concept but highly concrete in the minds of believers and many are quite open about it being part of some spiritual belief system for them. It is not something you can ever nail down or falsify. I struggle to think of any possible scientific discovery that would ever live up to that spiritual component that is part of "god" or "psi".
VK-machine
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 241

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#128  Postby epepke » May 05, 2013 1:52 am

VK-machine wrote:But, of course, as you point out, scientific progress will continue and then, maybe the unpredictable will become predictable? But wait, this is happening continuously. Our ability to predict the future gets better constantly, so at what point do we decide that we are dealing with psi?


I do not actually care.

It doesn't actually matter if you call something "psi" or "psionics" or "potato-headed Bobby."

There is this spiritual component.


Nor does that even matter.

Psi is a lot like god in many ways. It is objectively a vague and unclear concept but highly concrete in the minds of believers and many are quite open about it being part of some spiritual belief system for them. It is not something you can ever nail down or falsify. I struggle to think of any possible scientific discovery that would ever live up to that spiritual component that is part of "god" or "psi".


No, that doesn't even matter either. Really. The point is simple. If you say you're doing science, then you either do science, or it's pseudoscience. That's it.

If you want to do something other than science, fine. Just because something isn't science doesn't mean that it's bad. Love is not a science. Art is not a science.

But if you are pretending to do science so that people will trust you because of "Ooh, Science!" and you're not, then it's pseudoscience. That's what the PEAR people were doing.
User avatar
epepke
 
Posts: 4080

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#129  Postby VK-machine » May 05, 2013 10:21 am

epepke wrote:
VK-machine wrote:But, of course, as you point out, scientific progress will continue and then, maybe the unpredictable will become predictable? But wait, this is happening continuously. Our ability to predict the future gets better constantly, so at what point do we decide that we are dealing with psi?


I do not actually care.

It doesn't actually matter if you call something "psi" or "psionics" or "potato-headed Bobby."

There is this spiritual component.


Nor does that even matter.

Psi is a lot like god in many ways. It is objectively a vague and unclear concept but highly concrete in the minds of believers and many are quite open about it being part of some spiritual belief system for them. It is not something you can ever nail down or falsify. I struggle to think of any possible scientific discovery that would ever live up to that spiritual component that is part of "god" or "psi".


No, that doesn't even matter either. Really. The point is simple. If you say you're doing science, then you either do science, or it's pseudoscience. That's it.

If you want to do something other than science, fine. Just because something isn't science doesn't mean that it's bad. Love is not a science. Art is not a science.

But if you are pretending to do science so that people will trust you because of "Ooh, Science!" and you're not, then it's pseudoscience. That's what the PEAR people were doing.


I am not quite sure what you are onto here. I'm just pointing out that psi is fundamentally not a scientific concept. I think you were not aware of that when you said you did not discount it. I am unsure what exactly you thought or think psi is supposed to mean.
You can't do science with such a concept at the center.
VK-machine
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 241

Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#130  Postby Scar » May 05, 2013 11:41 am

VK-machine wrote:
epepke wrote:
VK-machine wrote:But, of course, as you point out, scientific progress will continue and then, maybe the unpredictable will become predictable? But wait, this is happening continuously. Our ability to predict the future gets better constantly, so at what point do we decide that we are dealing with psi?


I do not actually care.

It doesn't actually matter if you call something "psi" or "psionics" or "potato-headed Bobby."

There is this spiritual component.


Nor does that even matter.

Psi is a lot like god in many ways. It is objectively a vague and unclear concept but highly concrete in the minds of believers and many are quite open about it being part of some spiritual belief system for them. It is not something you can ever nail down or falsify. I struggle to think of any possible scientific discovery that would ever live up to that spiritual component that is part of "god" or "psi".


No, that doesn't even matter either. Really. The point is simple. If you say you're doing science, then you either do science, or it's pseudoscience. That's it.

If you want to do something other than science, fine. Just because something isn't science doesn't mean that it's bad. Love is not a science. Art is not a science.

But if you are pretending to do science so that people will trust you because of "Ooh, Science!" and you're not, then it's pseudoscience. That's what the PEAR people were doing.


I am not quite sure what you are onto here. I'm just pointing out that psi is fundamentally not a scientific concept. I think you were not aware of that when you said you did not discount it. I am unsure what exactly you thought or think psi is supposed to mean.
You can't do science with such a concept at the center.


If there were such a thing as psi, then you should very much be able to do science with it.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 34
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#131  Postby VK-machine » May 05, 2013 12:00 pm

Scar wrote:If there were such a thing as psi, then you should very much be able to do science with it.

And if there was such a thing as Superman you would be able to do science on him, but that is not what Superman is about.
VK-machine
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 241

Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#132  Postby Cito di Pense » May 05, 2013 12:28 pm

VK-machine wrote:
Scar wrote:If there were such a thing as psi, then you should very much be able to do science with it.

And if there was such a thing as Superman you would be able to do science on him, but that is not what Superman is about.


Perhaps so, but treating psi as some sort of metanarrative by means of which its proponents are striving for self-validation is itself some sort of metanarrative by means of which a certain sort of rational skeptic is striving for self-validation.

The relentless whining that simply dismissing bullshit as bullshit is not appropriately rational is that of somebody who doesn't have all that much clarity to spare. That said, we should each ponder in our own way why a thread entitled "why psi is pseudoscience' is pseudorationality at its internet-forum best.

surreptitious57 wrote:
So nothing should ever be disregarded no matter how improbable unless it has been falsified as it could still be true


:evilgrin:
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#133  Postby VK-machine » May 05, 2013 12:42 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
VK-machine wrote:
Scar wrote:If there were such a thing as psi, then you should very much be able to do science with it.

And if there was such a thing as Superman you would be able to do science on him, but that is not what Superman is about.


Perhaps so, but treating psi as some sort of metanarrative by means of which its proponents are striving for self-validation[...]

You know, I think that's a good way of putting it.

[...] is itself some sort of metanarrative by means of which a certain sort of rational skeptic is striving for self-validation.

How so? Please supply some argument for your position.

The relentless whining that simply dismissing bullshit as bullshit is not appropriately rational is that of somebody who doesn't have all that much clarity to spare. That said, we should each ponder in our own way why a thread entitled "why psi is pseudoscience' is pseudorationality at its internet-forum best.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Is it some sort of self-referential joke? Am I supposed to dismiss your bullshit now on account of it being "pseudorationality at its internet-forum best"? Don't you worry, I will certainly do that if you are unable to come up with some sort of rational argument.
VK-machine
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 241

Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#134  Postby Cito di Pense » May 05, 2013 1:06 pm

VK-machine wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
VK-machine wrote:
Scar wrote:If there were such a thing as psi, then you should very much be able to do science with it.

And if there was such a thing as Superman you would be able to do science on him, but that is not what Superman is about.


Perhaps so, but treating psi as some sort of metanarrative by means of which its proponents are striving for self-validation[...]

You know, I think that's a good way of putting it.

[...] is itself some sort of metanarrative by means of which a certain sort of rational skeptic is striving for self-validation.

How so? Please supply some argument for your position.


Get in line. First, the premise that psi is some sort of meta-narrative and blah-blah needs to be supported. Other than that, what epepke said about deciding whether or not to do scientific research. The reasons are those that epepke alluded to, using the word 'sinecure'. When you think about it, the whole discourse of 'meta-narratives' is a kind of sinecure, at least for some.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#135  Postby VK-machine » May 05, 2013 1:24 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
VK-machine wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
VK-machine wrote:
And if there was such a thing as Superman you would be able to do science on him, but that is not what Superman is about.


Perhaps so, but treating psi as some sort of metanarrative by means of which its proponents are striving for self-validation[...]

You know, I think that's a good way of putting it.

[...] is itself some sort of metanarrative by means of which a certain sort of rational skeptic is striving for self-validation.

How so? Please supply some argument for your position.


Get in line. First, the premise that psi is some sort of meta-narrative and blah-blah needs to be supported.

You introduced the term "meta-narrative"...

Other than that, what epepke said about deciding whether or not to do scientific research. The reasons are those that epepke alluded to, using the word 'sinecure'.

How about you put in your own words what you think he is saying...

When you think about it, the whole discourse of 'meta-narratives' is a kind of sinecure, at least for some.

Is that a confession? :ask:
VK-machine
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 241

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#136  Postby Cito di Pense » May 05, 2013 1:58 pm

VK-machine wrote:
When you think about it, the whole discourse of 'meta-narratives' is a kind of sinecure, at least for some.

Is that a confession? :ask:


Not like this one is:

VK-machine wrote:I struggle to think of any possible scientific discovery that would ever live up to that spiritual component that is part of "god" or "psi".


VK-machine wrote:
Scar wrote:If there were such a thing as psi, then you should very much be able to do science with it.

And if there was such a thing as Superman you would be able to do science on him, but that is not what Superman is about.


The point, for some of us, is not that people shy of heavy-duty religion seek out substitutes. The point is that people make a living out of all sorts of crap, depending on the gullibility of great hordes of ignoramuses. The fact that NRC funds are directed at psi experiments is some indication of how far one can advance as an ignoramus. All that is required is an ambition for advancement.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29554
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#137  Postby VK-machine » May 05, 2013 2:35 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
VK-machine wrote:
When you think about it, the whole discourse of 'meta-narratives' is a kind of sinecure, at least for some.

Is that a confession? :ask:


Not like this one is:

VK-machine wrote:I struggle to think of any possible scientific discovery that would ever live up to that spiritual component that is part of "god" or "psi".


I think I'll take that as a yes. You're either a troll or part of some entirely different conversation taking place in your mind only.
VK-machine
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 241

Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#138  Postby theropod » May 05, 2013 3:38 pm

VK-machine,

You wrote wrote:(here)... "You're either a troll or part of some entirely different conversation taking place in your mind only.


Careful there, those comments could be seen as overly personal and adding nothing to the discussion. Some could even interpret those as personal attacks, or intentionally inflammatory. Cito di Pense certainly isn't a troll, IMO, as a glance at his post count suggest otherwise. Trolls are rooted out pretty quickly around these parts, both by the membership and the moderators.

Now, as to the topic;
When Psi can produce repeatable positive results will someone drop me a note. Thx, otherwise it's all "Men Who Stare at Goats" to me. Repeatable negative results we have already.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 67
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#139  Postby VK-machine » May 05, 2013 5:29 pm

epepke wrote:He did three things:

  1. He told me that I was assuming that the phenomenon was "mechanistic." I still do not know what it means. As far as I can tell, though, it means that it really happens and is not the artifact of something else, like, say, experimental procedure possibly having to do even with something else psi, like precognition. I pointed out that if this were the case, it would also be evident in the record, which would be very helpful. He remained unmoved.
  2. He said that they had other ways to deal with the "control problem," in such a way that it was obvious he considered a control to be a way to get published and read, and not as something that you need to do.
  3. When I pointed out that a good result from this would finally settle the matter about the experiments in such a way that would convince everybody rational, he said that they weren't interested in this but were interested in "finding out more about the phenomenon" instead. When I pointed out that this would help, too, again he was unmoved.

These are the hallmarks of complete pig-fucking flaming asshole willfully fraudulent pseudoscience. They would be just as much if it weren't psi, if it were something else.
[...]

And, though I may get flak for this, I still don't discount the concept of psi.
[...]


Again about the concept of psi, I've thought of a more concrete way to explain the problem. What you (quite correctly) describe there as flaming pseudoscience is exactly the concept of psi. I am pretty sure that any parapsychologist would tell you roughly the same as the unnamed higher-up (R.G.J.?).

Experiments similar to what you suggested to them have been done. Someone tries to influence a RNG, but the RNG has already done its job and numbers already exist as a print-out.
Except that parapsychologists don't treat that as a control, they treat it as a test for "retroactive psi"...

In parapsychological practice, the operational definition of psi is simply a statistically significant result where the only conventional explanation is "fool or fraud".
If both your conditions had been significant when tested against some "chance expectation", that's just two different forms of psi and not a sign of a problem.
If neither had been, then that would simply have been a failure to produce psi but again not a problem. They already have evidence of psi and the only way to make that disappear is to come up with a convential explanation they deem acceptable.

And that's why I'm saying that psi is pseudoscience. Because the very concept demands pseudoscientific practice.
VK-machine
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 241

Print view this post

Re: Why Psi is Pseudoscience

#140  Postby VK-machine » May 05, 2013 5:29 pm

theropod wrote:VK-machine,

You wrote wrote:(here)... "You're either a troll or part of some entirely different conversation taking place in your mind only.


Careful there, those comments could be seen as overly personal and adding nothing to the discussion. Some could even interpret those as personal attacks, or intentionally inflammatory. Cito di Pense certainly isn't a troll, IMO, as a glance at his post count suggest otherwise. Trolls are rooted out pretty quickly around these parts, both by the membership and the moderators.

Sure. I'll go with the other option then.
VK-machine
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 241

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Paranormal & Supernatural

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest