Posted: Apr 29, 2013 4:02 am
Shrunk, consider another far-out idea that is seriously addressed by science- "dark matter". It's easily as bizarre as "psi".
Why is dark matter seriously studied and psi not? After all, dark matter is "just a theory". If you look at it closely, you'll see why. We have models of the universe with dark matter, and models of the universe without dark matter. The models with dark matter match our observations far better than models without.
Does this "prove" dark matter? No- but it makes the search for dark matter science, not pseudoscience.
This is the kind of "negative" or "not-psi" that psi needs in order to be studied scientfically. As Cito has already pointed out as an example, if you could create some kind of helmet or something that "blocks" "psi", you really could make scientific "psi" tests. You wouldn't have just purely inductive statistical variation as evidence- you'd be able to draw deductive lines in the sand. As much as philosophers may hysterically wank about induction, the sine qua non of science is deduction, specifically in the form of modus tollens.
This is actually a good point, particularly in regards to "What can block 'psi'?"
Previous hypothesis as to how psi operates have included radio waves, electromagnetism, and whatever else... but have still gotten approximately the same results while utilizing procedures which block all these things. Currently, there isn't anything physical which seems to "block" psi.
Since we can't pin down a mechanism, currently, it's hard to hypothesize on what would block it, if anything. If, for example, it arises by some sort of quantum entanglement via a "conscious field"... it would require not only discovering how a conscious field operates, as well as finding out how such a thing could be completely blocked, or reduced to virtually nothing via noise.
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. There isn't anything about the results which is inherently contradictory with the rest of what we know about reality, in operation or significance.
Saying, "You can't show where it DOESN'T occur" is completely avoiding the question of how it appears to occur in the first place. Where it doesn't occur should be seen by chance expectation, and where it does, by results that can't reasonably be attributed to chance, particularly repeated results from various experimental groups, even if the effect is rather small.
I have addressed your train of thought... it would be useful if you would address mine, in regards to explaining the experimental results.