New Scientist March 13

davros

The cover story of the current New Scientist is a special report: "Power of the Paranormal: why it won't surrender to science".

Doubtless it will take weeks for my subscribers' edition to arrive in the post so I don't know what's in it yet.

Anyway, if you're interested, there it is.

williamgrogan

I've the same problem with deliveries, I think I'll, complain.

If you have read NS for years (I'm reading it for nearly 30 years) do you think it's not as good as it was. Dumbed down a bit?

Syth

Mine came a few days ago.

The feature is very good, and is split into 3 parts. The most interesting is when it describes the 'Believer effect' Basically if the person trying to find evidence for the paranormal is a believer they are more likey to find evidence in favour of the existance of the paranormal. So either there is some unconscience effect or the paranormal is real and the believers are changing the result. This is increasing being used by paranormal supporters.

The other section is about the amount of evidence that has been collected so far (apearantly there's quite a lot of it), and the attempts to convince people.

It's quite a good feature and no doubt interesting to people on this board.

One thing it doesn't mention is that no method for paranormal effects has yet to be put forward. There is evidence there (appearantly), yet noone has yet to explain how it works.

davros

Yeah, just to prove me a liar, my issue arrived a few days ago too (along with a delayed earlier issue). I haven't figured out what the pattern is yet.

Anyway, I haven't had time to read it carefully yet. Upshot seems to be that some decades of psi experiments show a very low, but statistically significant, level of proof when performed by believers and not when performed by non-believers. That's not enough to satisfy scientists generally but it is enough to motivate the paranormalists. Since they don't seem to be able to convince science generally, they are talking about opting out of the usual rigours of scientific method.

I've only been a subscriber to NS for less than two years; I bought it very irregularly before that so I don't remember what it used to be like. But I was a long-time subscriber to Scientific American and was quite shocked by the turn that magazine took.

(I corrected the mis-spelled thread title - don't know how I missed that )

Syth

I think the main problem with trying to find a scientific explination for paranormal stuff is that they only collect data. They haven't proposed therories, methods, made predictions based on their theries.

rde

I think the main problem with trying to find a scientific explination for paranormal stuff is that they only collect data. They haven't proposed therories, methods, made predictions based on their theries.

I wouldn't call that a problem. As long as the data are accurate (ie unbiased), they'll be there for all to use in the future. Tycho Brahe (the man, not the band, but you know that) collected data for years, but it just sat there until Copernicus came along to do something with it.

For the record, I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive. Haven't seen an issue in ages, but two Scientific Americans arrived together this morning.[1]

1. Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Feynman. har har.[2]
2. Yes, I know. They're both dead.

MeatProduct

I'm not certain the scientific establishment is ready to deal with the paranormal, particularly psi discoveries. Nelya Mikhailova, a PK medium, has undergone a great many experiments behind the iron curtain in the 50's and 60's. The Soviet Edward Naumov, a self-trained telepathist, conducted a number of famous experiments under controlled and supervised conditions.

There is a volume of incontestable fact that shows that elements of the paranormal can be proven experimentally. I would personally like to see more respect given to this field as it would seem to be an integral part of humanity.

I await the rebuttal.....

Nick

rde

Not a rebuttal as such, but what the hell...

Moving compass needles and the like is pretty impressive, but also very easy to fake. If we're to assume that this ability is prevalent throughout the human population, then lots of people outside Russia should have that ability, too. At least a handful of Americans should have that ability, and at least one of those should've wandered up to James Randi and claimed his million dollars. No-one has, which to my mind means we should go with the simplest answer; the results were faked.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by rde
Not a rebuttal as such, but what the hell...

I really don't find this comment useful, to be expected though.

Moving compass needles and the like is pretty impressive, but also very easy to fake. If we're to assume that this ability is prevalent throughout the human population, then lots of people outside Russia should have that ability, too.

I agree with that.

At least a handful of Americans should have that ability, and at least one of those should've wandered up to James Randi and claimed his million dollars.

I must admit that I was unaware of James Randi. I found his site and it didn't work so I'm none the wiser for the moment. That no one has turned up to prove themselves to Mr. Randi is no major surprise. If I had such an ability I would not be interested in proving it to Mr. Randi. Since no one has turned up to Mr. Randi is certainly no proof that no one has paranormal ability.

No-one has, which to my mind means we should go with the simplest answer; the results were faked.

In a great many cases I would agree with you but I think there have been a sufficient number of controlled experiments that show that psi ability is possible.

I have wandered off-topic here so perhaps a new new thread could be started on this subject if there is sufficient interest.

Nick

PS: Related reading:
Handbook of PSI Discoveries
Sheila Ostrander and Lynn Schroeder
ISBN:0 349 12699 0

rde

I really don't find this comment useful, to be expected though.

I've no idea what that means.

I must admit that I was unaware of James Randi. I found his site and it didn't work so I'm none the wiser for the moment. That no one has turned up to prove themselves to Mr. Randi is no major surprise. If I had such an ability I would not be interested in proving it to Mr. Randi.

Briefly, Randi has promised $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove any paranormal ability under controlled conditions. If you were telekinetic, and American, and displayed the ability, then it's unlikely that no-one to whom you demonstrated the ability would've heard of Randi, or his offer. Were I possessed of such ability, and someone told me of Randi, I'd've been on the next plane. You may not be interested in a million dollars for a day's work, but I wouldn't object; nor, I imagine, would most people.

Since no one has turned up to Mr. Randi is certainly no proof that no one has paranormal ability.

Certainly absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. But the suggestion that none of the tens of thousands (or however many) of teeks out there is interested in such a sum is at best disingenuous.

Evidence, to my mind, would be someone who can perform paranormal tasks regularly, for at least two (ideally, three or more) independent teams of investigators. I'm not aware of any such evidence.

MeatProduct

I'd be happy to discuss this further in another, more appropriate, thread.

Regards,

Nick