Posted: Apr 29, 2013 1:58 pm
Vinncent wrote: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'?"
It's not just a good point, it's a first small step towards establishing parapsychology as science.
Vinncent wrote:
Currently, there isn't anything physical which seems to "block" psi.
Then you must model how things behave without psi.
Vinncent wrote:
I have addressed your train of thought... it would be useful if you would address mine, in regards to explaining the experimental results.
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.