The Paranormal & Scientific Method

simu

I had always thought that the paranormal was concerned with phenomena that are or that appear to be unexplainable by science or science at its current level of development. In this case though, you would have to use the scientific method to examine unusual phenomena and it would only be when you were unable to find a scientific explanation that you could categorise something as being paranormal. I imagine there are diverse opinions about this amongst people who are interested in the paranormal and that these opinions vary depending on which aspect of the paranormal one is dealing with.

I'm curious what people here think about the role of the scientific method and of skepticism in general in the study of the paranormal because looking at some of the threads here, I get the impression that many people are willing to see paranormal activity everywhere without looking for other possible explanations.

Nick_oliveri

Its quite hard to look for a scientific explanation if you dont know what you are looking for. Take the thread i started, OBE's. Where could i start there? Looking over everything else , phychics, ghosts, haunted wardrobes etc. have not so far been explained scientifically. As for skepticism, everyone needs that cuz otherwise we would all be gullable fools. I believe what i see and i will look for the most obvious explanation before resorting to "the unexplained". Let the scientists look for explanations because if common sense fails to explain, well i couldnt be arsed! Also i believe that science doesn't want to play a role in the unexplained. People think that what they dont know will hurt them and are afraid. A defience in the logic of science itself. Exploring new possibilities and the like. If this is senseless babble then i apologise, ive been up all night.

keu

This subject was already discussed (thread titled guidelines for skeptics)
To suggest that people who are interested in the paranormal aren't interested in scientific validation and research is untrue. (there is scientific evidence, on top of years of research)
Yet the thread which delved into this topic by discussing an approach toward the scientific community was closed by the moderator, as it was made clear that this forum is for believers only. (with the reasurance that we do not have to proove anything)
If you wish to discuss validation or conduct a discussion seeking proof, you will have to take it to skeptics or request a new forum in order to do this.

ie; if you don't believe or have not had any experience you consider "supernatural" post elsewhere.
Not my rules, forum rules.

keu

Maybe it would help if those who have little experience could understand that everything is energy.
All energy resonates certain frequencies.
Not all scientific instruments can detect those frequencies, but humans (particularly perceptive humans) can and do determine frequencies which are not"scientifically" recognised or understood in a capacity that relates to psychic phenomena.
A quick example.
A psychic can "read" your energy patterns. An innate ability (like eyesight) determines and translates the pattern into tangiable information (quite like how a mri can produce images)
bearing in mind, if an mri scan picks up an ominous situation like a tumour, it is not reasonable to suggest that it can also determine the outcome of the situation. Doctors can only suggest options and offer advice. (same theory applies)
Psychics are not all knowing beings (but they can determine some things that are not generally perceived) and not all psychics operate similar functions.

There are several categories within the framework.
Clairvoyance: where information is relayed visually (either a mental image or via an external visual)
Clairsentience: where information is relayed via the senses (particular qualities are impressed upon the recievers senses, emotive, phsycial touch, smell)
Clairaudience: where information is relayed telepathically (reciever picks up an impression via thought)

Mediums for example can pick up other frequencies by methods outlined above.
Again in the same way as an mri scanner, the variations of these frequencies can determine size, function and other qualities associated with the image. This is how they relay information.

To deny humans have this ability is skepticism based purely on an inability to trust human sensory qualities (preferring to trust scientific theory, mathematic equations and machinery)
In other words, for a human to produce a scientifically acceptable result they must proove by scientific reasoning (100% infallibilty) the method works.
Most results to date have acheived 70% success rates, (see thread guidelines for skeptics for figures) which is not good enough or reliable enough to be considered prooven scientically.

Often people with these abilities have attained heightened senses by way of experiencing traumatic situations, like OBE's or NDE's..or have developed them through particular forms of study and meditation which increases (self) awareness.

(sorry you had sleepless night nick....I shouldn't have brought up the topic, hope you get a good nights sleep tonight)

simu

Originally posted by keu
This subject was already discussed (thread titled guidelines for skeptics)
To suggest that people who are interested in the paranormal aren't interested in scientific validation and research is untrue. (there is scientific evidence, on top of years of research)
Yet the thread which delved into this topic by discussing an approach toward the scientific community was closed by the moderator, as it was made clear that this forum is for believers only. (with the reasurance that we do not have to proove anything)
If you wish to discuss validation or conduct a discussion seeking proof, you will have to take it to skeptics or request a new forum in order to do this.

ie; if you don't believe or have not had any experience you consider "supernatural" post elsewhere.
Not my rules, forum rules.

Well, I don't see what's so bad about discussing this here as long as it doesn't end in people insulting each other. I think you have to ask these questions if you take the paranormal seriously. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if this gets locked or not!

Not all scientific instruments can detect those frequencies, but humans (particularly perceptive humans) can and do determine frequencies which are not"scientifically" recognised or understood in a capacity that relates to psychic phenomena.

Out of curiosity, do you think these phenomena could be picked up by scientific instruments in the future, with better technology or do you think the whole thing is just beyond the realm of science?

keu

Out of curiosity, do you think these phenomena could be picked up by scientific instruments in the future, with better technology or do you think the whole thing is just beyond the realm of science?

yes I do. (believe these phenomena could be picked up by scientific instruments in the future) No it is not beyond the realm of science, just beyond the realm of some scientists approach.

the guidelnes for skeptics thread outlines these issues and although there is a lot of research in the area it is still in its infancy.

can find this information here

Fysh

I've looked at the site you linked to...

I have to say that quoting a site with entries such as "Argument #5 - anectodal evidence is invalid", "Argument #7 - the burden of proof is on the claimant" and "Argument #9 - the scientific method is the only reliable method", "Argument 17 - "Experiments that show evidence for psi must be replicable in order to count as evidence" which then goes on to try and disprove (I say try because, while there are certainly some worhty points raised, in those particular examples I have seen flawed reasoning) these statements. In addition to this, there are some counterpoints which counter behaviour that should not be considered adequate from a skeptic's perspective (eg. Argument 10).

I'm all for exploration of any kind of observable phenomena, and I'm more than ready to accept that our technology is limited and may not be able to detect certain things (in the way that a radio isn't sophisticated enough to do anything useful with a tv signal). But I would also say that any exploration of such phenomena would have to use some sort of structured method, if for no other reason than for separate individuals exploring similar phenomena to be able to compare their results.

What I'm not for is something that seems to be increasingly popular with the advent of the pop/layman-science book (in which a reductive and incomplete version of scientific theories is given) - taking a generalised and poorly qualified statement regarding a given theory and using that as being supportive of paranormal phenomena (such as "Argument 10" and its statement that "Just the discovery alone in quantum physics that all matter is a form of vibrating energy makes paranormal and psychic phenomena much more plausible and understandable" - quantum theory does not in fact state this in such a definitive manner, instead dealing with wave-particle duality and the idea of energy levels that are properties of particles).

Now I'm not saying that new scientific theories won't account for currently-unexplained behaviour (often such behaviour is the driving force behind new theories) - I'm simply saying that, if we're going to talk about the grounds for accepting or dismissing a scientific theory, we must have rigorously defined grounds on which to do so. Quantum physicists have had very little to say so far about any implications regarding spiritual matters as far as I know, because quantum theory offers a view of the world which at an atomic and subatomic particle level is rigorously different to the macroscopic world we inhabit. However, the probabilistic nature of the theory is such that, by virtue of the vast number of atoms involved in any object that can be considered from a macroscopic perspective, the odds against a violation of "classical" behaviour are what is commonly known as "infinitesimally small" - not impossible, but extremely improbable.

It's not however impossible for some later development of the theory to extend the observed phenomenon of "entanglement" (which I have previously referred to as a "quantum bond" - entanglement is the more commonly used name) to some sort of macroscopic level, but I haven't seen this idea given any serious consideration yet.

So. If this has been discussed before, I don't imagine there's a great deal of mileage to be had in this thread, and there's no point in having it descend to namecalling or anything like that. I'm happy to end at this point, really.