Why 'believers' don't rely on science.

stevenmu

When posting on the paranormal forum, I often run into the idea that we shouldn't accept something without some form of scientific proof. I've been thinking a lot recently about how various paranormal ideas could be tested scientifically, and I've come to the conclusion that the scientific method as it currently stands is pretty unsuitable for use when examining the paranormal. I don't mean to knock science in anyway, I just feel that t is insufficient to the task at hand, I have a number of reasons for this.

One of the great things about science, and one of the things that has allowed it to progress so far, is it's clear and unambigous nomenclature. That is, everything within science has a particular name or term to refer to it, and every word or term has a clear meaning understood by all who use it. Possibly the best example of this is within chemistry, and organic chemistry in particular, where a name given to a chemical describes it's structure and properties. This means that one person can mention a chemical name to another and the other will instantly know the structure of the chemical, and any two people who happen to work on the same chemical will inherently give it the same name. An (overly complex) example of this would be 2,3-Dichloro-6-[4-chloro-2-(hydroxymethyl)-5-oxohex-3-en-1-yl]pyridine-4-carboxylic acid.

In contrast to this the terminology used within discussion of the paranormal is vague, poorly defined and very ambigous. Take the term 'ghost' for example. There is no set definition of what a ghost is. In fact, looking at discussions on the paranormal forum it becomes clear that the term 'ghost' is commonly used to describe an array of completely different phenomona. People discussing the paranormal also frequently throw around terms such as energy, dimension, frequency, vibration among many others, with what can only be described as abandon. Such words seem to take on a different meaning each time they are used and rarely if ever coincide with the meaning inline with science. The solution to this may at first seem to be to just try and impose some kind of structured nomenclature on paranormal discussion, but this is far far easier said than done. Most, if not all, paranormal discussion stems out of subjective experience as opposed to objective observation. This result in people trying to communicate their experience using the words that seem most appropriate to them, and with it being so subjective two different people may describe the same phenomenon using completely different terms, or may describe the two completely different phenomenon using the exact same terms. Without objective analysis it's impossible to impose a structured naming system or means of describing phenomena.

Which brings me to my next point. Even more important to science than nomenclature, is the ability to use objective observational data over subjecive experience. Scientists, in just about any field, can rely on getting unbiased experimental data to first shape their ideas into theories and then later to prove or disprove such theories. Mass and velocities can be calculated, composition can be analysed, voltages and currents measured and so on. When examining the paranormal we are forced to rely on subjective experiences which at best are poorly described and ambigous and at worst are complete falsifications. Without any objective data how are we supposed to formulate ideas as to how phenomona take place and what causes them. If we do hypothetically assume that there is some paranormal phenomona which work more or less as described, then I think most people would agree that there must be some form or forms of energy which is beyond our current ability to detect (even that is a dangerous assumption which kind of backs up my point). Without any ability to measure or monitor or even detect this energy through anything other than our own subjective senses we can never properly formulate and test theories about the paranormal. Worse than that, without any understanding of this energy form, how can we ever devise a means of testing for it.

Of course some objective data is collected about paranormal phenomona, however without any basic understanding of the phenomenon being measured any analysis of the data is inherently very limited. For example a common experiment is to test for telepathy using zenner cards, with the chances of someone getting the correct card being 1 in 5. This type of test fails to take into account effects such as the pressure of testing on the subject, the effect of the subject trying to 'force' a result, the effects of any enviromental factors which may distort the result and so on. The test fails on these grounds for two reasons, one is the lack of any understanding as to how telepathy should work, and the other is the fact that it really isn't an objective measurement at all, it still relies on the subjective experiences of the human subject. As another example, I've partaken in a few paranormal investigations at supposedly haunted locations. One of the tools we use on such investigations is EMF meters. If our meters were sensitive enough, and directional enough to detect an anomalous field moving across a room, what would this indicate ? Could we just accept that it was a ghost ? If we added in the presence of a pyschic who also 'felt' the presence of a ghost moving across the room could we then accept it's a ghost ? Of course not, at least in scientific terms anyway, we have to ignore the subjective element introduced by the 'psychic' and rely on the objective information which simply tells us that an anomalous field moved across the room, not what caused it, or what it's nature is. Essentially we know no more than we did before the test, and if anything only have some additional questions to throw on the ever increasing pile.

I'm all typed out now, so I'll finish with a quick question. What is left when science fails ?

As far as I can see we're just left with a choice, to either believe or not believe, which we can only make based on our own personal, and subjective, experiences.

(p.s. I don't really like the term 'believer' if anyone can think of a better one I'd love to hear it)

Zombrex

stevenmu wrote:

I'm all typed out now, so I'll finish with a quick question. What is left when science fails ?

Human imagination.

Put simply we start making things up, things which seem to fit a very basic understanding of "how things should work" (TM) ... its nonsense, but it seems to be how human rationalise things, and its the process the ultimately probably lead to the development of rational thought, logic and science, so it can be argued that it is a good thing. Just so long as it isn't taken too seriously when trying to say that strange noise is a "ghost"

ScumLord

You don't have to measure the ghost to prove its existence you can study the person and whats happening in their Brain to see if it's imagined or not.

Scientists can't measure dark matter ether but their fairly sure it's there. Science is really the only way because it covers everything, we might have to wait until they can account for everything in the universe to say there's no way there can be ghosts in it.

Vegeta

ScumLord wrote:

You don't have to measure the ghost to prove its existence you can study the person and whats happening in their Brain to see if it's imagined or not.

Scientists can't measure dark matter ether but their fairly sure it's there. Science is really the only way because it covers everything, we might have to wait until they can account for everything in the universe to say there's no way there can be ghosts in it.

Haven't they made dark matter at this stage in tiny amounts or ami thinking of something completely different

6th

ScumLord wrote:

....fairly sure....

Sure why didnt you say earlier!

torinoblue

Of course, basically we all have the choice of believing in crazy stuff that is made up by other people. We have to make the choice as to whether it is rational to do that.

I have had so many experiences of something that sounds wonderful and unbelievable, and then when time is taken to collect actual information on the event, it is quite mundane.

The third paragraph describes the reality of supposed paranormal events, poorly described mumbojumbo that didn't happen. The descriptions of these events change from era to era and from culture to culture in ways that no scientific observation would. This tends to make a rational person believe that they are created by humans, as this pattern is seen even when the events are supposedly outside of human control e.g. aliens & UFOs.

The fifth paragraph is moot, because it presupposes that something like this would ever happen.

I understand your hypothesis, sort of what if the paranormal was beyond science.

However I think the evidence from science is that most of what is the paranormal is false.

You mention psychics and telepathy, but anyone who reads the transcripts of psychics and knows the techniques of cold reading is embarassed by the transparency of their skill. Surely even one person with real power could become comfortable with their skill to not collapse under pressure. Can it be harder than performing music in front of thousands of people, or any of the other amazing things people do under pressure?

Science will never fail. Unfortunately I will have to listen to crap about ghosts for the rest of my life.

pH

stevenmu wrote:

When posting on the paranormal forum, I often run into the idea that we shouldn't accept something without some form of scientific proof. I've been thinking ...

It really depends on what you mean by accept, sticking to the examples provided, if by accept you mean "to recognize as true" then no you shouldn't

Let's take telepathy, and compare it to say radio transmissions, "both" of which allow us send messages over a distance, and both of which were in a similar state during the 1890s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy

So 120 years later, where are they now, well from similar beginings we now have pretty much instant radio communication small hand held mobile phones, and telepathy proponents are still trying to find the faintest trace of an effect.

If by accept you mean "act in your life as if it were true" then don't do it! Don't go on holiday and expect to be able to communicate back home telepathically, and don't spend your hard earned cash on 'improving your latent telepathic skills' either.

Jackie laughlin

With so many subjects to which to apply one's mind, why do people opt for the "alternative" and go chasing spooks. How much of this stuff, if it were true, would make any difference?

6th

Jackie laughlin wrote:

......How much of this stuff, if it were true, would make any difference?

Quite a bit i'd imagine, I mean if ghost exist and ways are devised to interact with them .... should they be given rights?

And what about Hell (not a personal belief), but if it existed you you live your life different knowing you could face an eternaty of hot pitch forks in your bum for being naughty?

stevenmu

WickNight wrote:

Human imagination.

Put simply we start making things up, things which seem to fit a very basic understanding of "how things should work" (TM) ... its nonsense, but it seems to be how human rationalise things, and its the process the ultimately probably lead to the development of rational thought, logic and science, so it can be argued that it is a good thing. Just so long as it isn't taken too seriously when trying to say that strange noise is a "ghost"

I do agree that some people foolishly put every bump and noise down to ghosts. I don't think we can apply that to everyone who claims to claims to have witnessed paranormal phenomena. Many of the people who have are quite intelligent and have the ability to realise that it may be their imagination, and then either accept or dismiss that theory based on what they eperienced. They are also capable of realising that a noise out in the hallway is probably just floorboards contracting or a light in the sky is just an airplane/lightening/sattelite etc. Sometimes though, very rarely, something happens which people, no matter how hard they try, cannot find any explanation for other than a paranormal one. I think it's hardly fair to dissmisively put such things down to imagination when there is no good reason why the paranormal explanation can not in fact be the correct one.

ScumLord wrote:

You don't have to measure the ghost to prove its existence you can study the person and whats happening in their Brain to see if it's imagined or not.

Without some definitive theory on how a ghost is sensed by a person, how can we say if any brain related activity is paranormal in origin or purely imagination. It's a fairly common theory among people who believe in ghosts that you don't actually 'see' them with your ideas, in fact your subconcious somehow detects them and creates an image for your concious mind to process. I'd expect this would show up in brain scans as being very similar to pure imaginitive active.

ScumLord wrote:

Scientists can't measure dark matter ether but their fairly sure it's there. Science is really the only way because it covers everything, we might have to wait until they can account for everything in the universe to say there's no way there can be ghosts in it.

They infer the existence of dark matter because it's needed to balance some equations. Ignoring for the moment that there's some credible alternate theories like Scalar-Tensor theory, we can assume the existence of dark matter, and also dark energy now that it appears that empty space has an energy greater than zero, because we can make objective observations about the movements of stellar bodies (and also gravitational lensing effects) and plug them into our models of the universe. And when we do so, we find that these extra things, dark matter and dark energy are needed to balance the equations. We can not make such inferences about paranormal phenomona because we cannot make objective observations about them in the first place, hence we cannot derive models which can be used, we could not test such models even if we did, and we cannot see which observations do or do not match what our model suggests.

Vegata wrote:

Haven't they made dark matter at this stage in tiny amounts or ami thinking of something completely different

Are you maybe thinking of Ant-Matter (and maybe even been reading some Dan Browne ). I could be wrong but I don't think dark matter's existence has been proven yet. Some experiments claim to have detected it, others have failed, I don't think there's any definitive proof one way or the other yet.

torinoblue wrote:

The third paragraph describes the reality of supposed paranormal events, poorly described mumbojumbo that didn't happen. The descriptions of these events change from era to era and from culture to culture in ways that no scientific observation would. This tends to make a rational person believe that they are created by humans, as this pattern is seen even when the events are supposedly outside of human control e.g. aliens & UFOs.

As paranormal experiences tend to be only viewed subjectively, it's quite natural that people would put them into a context with which they are familiar. Many of the core aspects though remain the same. In fact that's kind of the point that I'm getting at. I'm not trying (here at least) to say that yes ghosts do exist. I'm merely saying that their nature makes it impossible for science to prove their existence one way or the other, therefore the lack of scientific proof for their existence means absolutley nothing.

torinoblue wrote:

You mention psychics and telepathy, but anyone who reads the transcripts of psychics and knows the techniques of cold reading is embarassed by the transparency of their skill.

Yes, it is very easy to trick people using cold reading. Ultimately though that tells us nothing. It's similarly easy for 'Scienticians' to convince people of pretty much anything using scientificy sounding jargon, that should in no way reflect negativly on true science and genuine scientists

torinoblue wrote:

Surely even one person with real power could become comfortable with their skill to not collapse under pressure. Can it be harder than performing music in front of thousands of people, or any of the other amazing things people do under pressure?

Harder ? In some ways, yes it can. The real difficulty lies in learning to tell the difference between what your psychic senses are telling you, if they're telling you anything at all, and the million and one other random thoughts floating around your head. Performing music makes for an interesting comparison. A musician can pick up their instrument and sit at home and practice for hours on end untill it becomes second nature to them. In the same way that a baby learning to use a spoon will drop food all over the place but with practice we can use spoons all the time, a musician can pick up their instrument and play a tune, and play it well, without really paying much attention to what they're doing. There's no real equivelent to this for psychic abilities. You can practice certain things to try and help your mental discipline and cut down on extraneous thoughts, but ultimately it's up to your 6th sense to decide if it wants to play or not, you can't just switch it on or off. All you can conciously do is try to be receptive to it. It's almost akin to a creative process, try putting a writer or a graphic designer under time constraints and see if you get their best work off them that way. There'll be some exceptions but in general you won't.

Incedentally the most successfull tests that I know of, the ganzfeld type test s, have largely tried to remove any type of performance pressure from the subject and have allowed them to work through the other stray thoughts in their head before reaching a decision as to what they think they have recieved.

torinoblue wrote:

Science will never fail. Unfortunately I will have to listen to crap about ghosts for the rest of my life.

Ah come on, you must enjoy it or you would have just skipped right over this thread

pH wrote:

It really depends on what you mean by accept, sticking to the examples provided, if by accept you mean "to recognize as true" then no you shouldn't

Let's take telepathy, and compare it to say radio transmissions, "both" of which allow us send messages over a distance, and both of which were in a similar state during the 1890s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy

So 120 years later, where are they now, well from similar beginings we now have pretty much instant radio communication small hand held mobile phones, and telepathy proponents are still trying to find the faintest trace of an effect.

If by accept you mean "act in your life as if it were true" then don't do it! Don't go on holiday and expect to be able to communicate back home telepathically, and don't spend your hard earned cash on 'improving your latent telepathic skills' either.

I suppose either definition of 'accept' is fine with me (altough I do see the firm difference between them). Your comparison of radio with telepathy is a well chosen one, again it backs up my point nicely . We've been able to make a lot of progress with radio, because since it was discovered we have had equiptment we can use to create it and measure it on demand. The same does not apply to telepathy, while we may never be able to create equiptment to work with it if it doesn't exist, we can't even begin to imagine how such equiptment might work if it did. Therefore we can't even attempt to detect any type of telepathic energy.

torinoblue

Basically, feel free to believe any mumbo-jumbo if you can convince yourself that somehow science will never be able to disprove it.

Yes, it is very easy to trick people using cold reading. Ultimately though that tells us nothing. It's similarly easy for 'Scienticians' to convince people of pretty much anything using scientificy sounding jargon, that should in no way reflect negativly on true science and genuine scientists

While there are millions of genuine scientists, there has never once been a person able to pass any rigorous test of psychic or ESP ability. Pseudoscientists and 'psychics' are in the same bracket and often overlap.

Sometimes though, very rarely, something happens which people, no matter how hard they try, cannot find any explanation for other than a paranormal one. I think it's hardly fair to dissmisively put such things down to imagination when there is no good reason why the paranormal explanation can not in fact be the correct one.

I have never seen any story that provided sufficient information to discount an ordinary or extraordinary explanation. I have met people who are hellbent on believing in ghosts and UFOs, and cannot be swayed. I see no reason to believe that the people involved in the more outlandish claims of these paranormal events are not similar to these people, even if they state otherwise.

There's no real equivalent to this for psychic abilities. You can practice certain things to try and help your mental discipline and cut down on extraneous thoughts, but ultimately it's up to your 6th sense to decide if it wants to play or not, you can't just switch it on or off. All you can conciously do is try to be receptive to it. It's almost akin to a creative process, try putting a writer or a graphic designer under time constraints and see if you get their best work off them that way. There'll be some exceptions but in general you won't.

Ok, but if you tell an artist draw a picture of me, most of the time they will be able to do a good job in a given time. I think this is all pure garbage.

Many tests have been done on people who have claimed to be psychic. The occasional tests that have given great results, are then redone when the trick the 'psychics' have used is pointed out and denied to them and the 'psychics' fail. Of course your idea would be to disregard the countless charlatans because there are real psychics out there. Fine, if you want to do that there is no real arguing about it, but you have just decided to be irrational while claiming to be 'open-minded' - the great shield of the wishful believer.

I have no problem with believing psychics or ghosts or any of the other paranormal stuff, if they weren't so obviously and embarassingly created by humans.

GuanYin

Ohh, I feel some people here haven't actually read the OP properly.

I think the biggest problem is the lack of a truely unbiased approach. Those involved in such research are either skeptics, cynics or "believers" or crackpots. However, the range of people who report such incidents isn't limited to these four categories.

As such, reporting, no matter how well intentioned is biased. Negative results are ceased upon by skeptics and cynics as "noone has ever passed" while believers claim that "the conditions were wrong". The flaw here is that science cannot tell the difference, yet both sides apply their belief to what the results mean. From a neutral pointof view, we can say nothing more than the results showed no evidence of the phenomenon. It does not tell us anything about the wider phenomenon. Because we do not know what it is we are supposed to be looking for, our tests may be akin to looking for a proton with a magnifying glass. Or what we are looking for may simply not be there. Anything we say to try and discern the two, no matter what rationale we use, is only an assumption on our part. And assumptions, are just another form of "belief".

So huge assumptions are made on both sides. Believers claim "it was definitely X, Y or Z" while skeptics and cynics automatically assume that eevery single case is NOT paranormal but just human tendancy to personify phenomenon. This kind of logic is dangerous. I have previously referred to it as the "Nelly is a pink elephant, therefore all elephants are pink" argument.

The truth is, case by case examinations is all that one can study and depending on the circumstances involved, it is not automatically accepted that one may relate to another.

While no scientific experiment on record has shown any suggestion that the paranormal phenomenon reported daily across the world have any validity, several things should be noted. Firstly only a very very small proportion are ever investigated. Secondly the means by which they are investigated are often random or arbitrary - ie. protons with magnifying glasses. Those that are shown to be hoaxes or misunderstandings are good worthwhile investigations, but contribute nothing to the greater picture insofar as telling us if these things actually occur or not.

After all, people hoax or imagine illnesses too. Humans like attention. the difference is, the human body, where the illness occurs, is understood far better than the physical world we live in, so we know what to use to look for what.

torinoblue

The flaw here is that science cannot tell the difference

I understand that is the original premise, but this is then used to suggest that we can't come to a conclusion on certian phenomenon because we can imagine ways that science can be circumvented, in particular experiments or instances. I say there are other ways of looking at phenomena other than the specific events and experiments.

My response is that science and statistics have shown many of these phenomenon to be linked directly to culture and times in a way which real phenomena are not, so there is no reason to believe that science is at a loss. And there is real evidence to believe that these events are fabricated by humans, or misunderstood by them due to their education, beliefs or culture.

Fairy stories were more common years ago, different fads of psychics and ghosts were given different explanations over a hundred years ago, for example when human control of electricty was a new technology. Psychics have been shown to be charlatans. It is not the case that science cannot prove it either way, the people who claim to be psychics have been shown consistently to be false and have evaded any real tests. You say its possible because of the weird way that the psychic thing works, but it seems rather convenient and like the old excuse of 'There is someone here who doesn't believe' or 'You would have been healed if you had enough faith'.

This consistency in the pretense, falsehoods, evasiveness, failure and emptiness of the paranormal field leads a rational person to disregard it.

You can always say that something might be, but at a certain stage you have to decide whether ghosts, unicorns, fairies, ESP, alien visitations, succubus visitations, leprechauns, Jesus revelations, Buddha revelations, Hindu revelations, end-of-the-world prophecies show a common human hand or if it is a failure of science.

I have decided for myself and the way I live my life that there is overwhelming evidence that these are human created events and are interesting only from a cultural perspective. They have already been shown to be false many times, but in the believers world a million charlatans and disproofs is only the welcome mat for the true event that will surely happen.

ISAW

spent 20 mins on this yesterday and them the reply didnt post!

stevenmu wrote:

...we shouldn't accept something without some form of scientific proof. ... I just feel that t is insufficient to the task at hand, I have a number of reasons for this.

Nope we shouldn't accept claims of paeanoprmal as real without some evidence. That means you should be able to measure what is happening. I I claim to have a dragon in my garage and every test you apply e.g. let me see - no he is invisible; infrared - no my dragon cant be seen in infra red either, put powder on the floor - he hovers; throw paint on him - he is incorporeal etc. The what is the difference between no evidence for a dragon and just simply no dragon.

One of the great things about science, and one of the things that has allowed it to progress so far, is it's clear and unambigous nomenclature. That is, everything within science has a particular name or term to refer to it, and every word or term has a clear meaning understood by all who use it. ...
In contrast to this the terminology used within discussion of the paranormal is vague, poorly defined and very ambigous. ...
People discussing the paranormal also frequently throw around terms such as energy, dimension, frequency, vibration among many others, with what can only be described as abandon... Most, if not all, paranormal discussion stems out of subjective experience as opposed to objective observation. This result in people trying to communicate their experience using the words that seem most appropriate to them, and with it being so subjective two different people may describe the same phenomenon using completely different terms, or may describe the two completely different phenomenon using the exact same terms. Without objective analysis it's impossible to impose a structured naming system or means of describing phenomena.

I agree with your main point. I have posted several times to paranormal to ask what the poster meant. I even asked for copy of posters comments here. to date none of the original posters has replied to my requests for clarification! They set up a copy thread for this purpose because skeptics were asking what they meant but then the people who posted didnt even
I have been threatened with a ban from paranormal for asking someone what they meant by an "astral reading"! apparently they meant telling a fortune (which in itself I have never seen ANY evidence for) to someone who isnt actually present. I dont really know since they never replied.

Which brings me to my next point. Even more important to science than nomenclature, is the ability to use objective observational data over subjecive experience. Scientists, in just about any field, can rely on getting unbiased experimental data to first shape their ideas into theories and then later to prove or disprove such theories.

Not necessarily in post modern science but in bog standard science yes. Empirical science yes if one has onthologically and epistemilogically nailed down the foundation of the empiricism.

If we do hypothetically assume that there is some paranormal phenomona which work more or less as described, then I think most people would agree that there must be some form or forms of energy which is beyond our current ability to detect (even that is a dangerous assumption which kind of backs up my point).

First of all it is paranormalists NOT scientists who claim "psy powers". second isnt a hypothesis of "psy powers" just like the above dragon?

Without any ability to measure or monitor or even detect this energy through anything other than our own subjective senses we can never properly formulate and test theories about the paranormal.

Not true. If someone actually has such powers or senses they can be correlated in a blind test with someone else who is also detecting something. it need not even be paranormal in the usual variety. If someone can "feel" colours or electric fields then they could win the million dollar challange. I remember once on the net someone telling me about the accuracy of their astrological predictions. I showed them the Randi challenge and how if they were so sure they could win a million dollars. they were certain they would win. that was about four years ago. Nobody has won it.

Worse than that, without any understanding of this energy form, how can we ever devise a means of testing for it.

Again it is the psy peopl;e and not scientists who hypothesise this "unmeasurable ununderstandable energy". so isnt it still the dragon you cant see?

Of course some objective data is collected about paranormal phenomona, however without any basic understanding of the phenomenon being measured any analysis of the data is inherently very limited.

This is an entirely unsupported and contradictory comment. What "evidence" has been collected? And if the phenomena cant be measured or understood then how do you know any "evidence" is measuring the paranormal?

... test for telepathy using zenner cards, with the chances of someone getting the correct card being 1 in 5. This type of test fails to take into account effects such as the pressure of testing on the subject, the effect of the subject trying to 'force' a result, the effects of any enviromental factors which may distort the result and so on.

these could all be surmounted by test protocols. The fact is that noone ever has been able to show better than chance on such tests! Again back to the dragon. If a so called telepath cant ever show telepathy then whats the difference between that and no telepathy?

The test fails on these grounds for two reasons, one is the lack of any understanding as to how telepathy should work, and the other is the fact that it really isn't an objective measurement at all, it still relies on the subjective experiences of the human subject.

One can get postitive results without having to propose a mechanism. Indeed science sometimes does this. I believe the cure for cholera was arrived at in this way. Microbiology did not exist but statistics did. a doctor analyses them and found they correlated with the geographic and demographic line of a river. He soncluded it was something to do with water supply. In fact sewerage for one source was spreading the disease to the next node.

As another example, I've partaken in a few paranormal investigations at supposedly haunted locations. One of the tools we use on such investigations is EMF meters. If our meters were sensitive enough, and directional enough to detect an anomalous field moving across a room, what would this indicate ? Could we just accept that it was a ghost ? If we added in the presence of a pyschic who also 'felt' the presence of a ghost moving across the room could we then accept it's a ghost ?

science doesnt confirm things so much as rules them out. If there was no electrical or magnetic field you could conclude someone wasnt using electromagnetism to make things move. You could also turn a room into a Faraday cage. If the ghost suddenly didnt appear anymore you might conclude ghosts dont like it when there cant be any el;ectricity about or more likely fakers had their power source rumbled. Of course you can believe I get everyone in china to bang a drum until they scare the dragon who stops swallowing the sun or you can believe that the eclipse would end anyway.

we have to ignore the subjective element introduced by the 'psychic' and rely on the objective information which simply tells us that an anomalous field moved across the room, not what caused it, or what it's nature is. Essentially we know no more than we did before the test,

Again not true. If such a thing happened my attention would switch to the "psychic". If it seems they can sense EM fields, either they are cheating and actually are linked to the cause of the field or maybe they do have the power to detect a non paranormal EM field - in which case they will also win a million dollars in the Randi challenge. funny haw nobody has though isnt it?

As far as I can see we're just left with a choice, to either believe or not believe,

True but belief can also be based on rationality.

which we can only make based on our own personal, and subjective, experiences.

False! It can be based on other things as well.

ISAW

psi wrote:

reporting, no matter how well intentioned is biased.

One could say the same of other branches of science. Yet they still produce evidence. Paranormal has produced none!

Negative results are ceased upon by skeptics and cynics as "noone has ever passed" while believers claim that "the conditions were wrong". The flaw here is that science cannot tell the difference, yet both sides apply their belief to what the results mean.

No! The flaw is that no evidence means exactly that! All sorts of conditions have been tried. The only ones where any positive results have been obtained are when the test protocols allow cheating! When that protocol is changed the paranormal ability disappears - as if by magic! I am sorry but claiming that any objective test of an ability will immediatley result in the ability being temporarily blocked is not convincing evidence that such abilities
exist.

From a neutral pointof view, we can say nothing more than the results showed no evidence of the phenomenon.

No from an objective point of view. The whole way a "null hyphothesis" is set up is for this reason. the false negitive and false positive errors also fit into this model. The test should be so that something happens if the paranormal ability claimed is being used. The fact that paranormal ability is NEVER detected is in fact evidence! If i claim to be able to pick winning hoeses and you bring me to races and test me for years and I do no better than chance you might well conclude thet I still have the ability but it disappears every time I try to pick a horse. i would conclude I dont have such an ability but you are free to lose your shirt on it if you wish.

It does not tell us anything about the wider phenomenon. Because we do not know what it is we are supposed to be looking for, our tests may be akin to looking for a proton with a magnifying glass.

No they arent! Because we have a theory of atoms and can say how protons could be detected! nobody has a scientific theory of paranormal forces or how they could be measured.

Or what we are looking for may simply not be there.

Now you are getting it! Maybe the fact that psy powers havent been detected is because the people who claim just simply dont have them?

Anything we say to try and discern the two, no matter what rationale we use, is only an assumption on our part. And assumptions, are just another form of "belief".

It is not just a belief. It is based on rationality. Is it more rationa that I believe I cant pick winners or that you continue to bet on the horses I pick and wont even punt on?

So huge assumptions are made on both sides. Believers claim "it was definitely X, Y or Z"

When no evidence for X Y or Z exists?

while skeptics and cynics automatically assume that eevery single case is NOT paranormal but just human tendancy to personify phenomenon.

Cynics might but no scientific skeptic could! The skeptic must say they they are prepared to accept evidence when they see it. they have as yet not seen any!

This kind of logic is dangerous. I have previously referred to it as the "Nelly is a pink elephant, therefore all elephants are pink" argument.

the premise is unstated i.e. "all elephants have a colour" The proposition is not founded in reality. No naturally occuring pink elephants have probably ever existed. Cartoon or painted elephants may have been artifically created which were pink. But the conclusion is affirming a consequent.

skeptics are certainly affirming a consequent not doing this when they say "where is the evidence for this claimed paranormal ability"? But there is some truth to the idea that
1. If all the so called paranormalists have been shown to be fakes or couldnt produce the goods when requested and so were not able to demonstrate the ability
2. then forgive me for being sceptical and asking you to prove your claimed ability.

The truth is, case by case examinations is all that one can study and depending on the circumstances involved, it is not automatically accepted that one may relate to another.

and the truth is also whether as a class of frauds, Well meaning water diviners who hadent the ability, tricksters or even on a case by case basis noone has ever shown to have paranormal powers in a properly conducted test.

While no scientific experiment on record has shown any suggestion that the paranormal phenomenon reported daily across the world have any validity, several things should be noted. Firstly only a very very small proportion are ever investigated.

Very small proportion of what? If you are claiming that the vast majority of those with paranormal powers are in remote geographic locations and hiding their light under a bushel I am sorry but this is not evidence of paranormal. and how come those tested dont manifest the powers they claim?

In any case skeptics say of course it is true that paranormal powers may exiat. We dont argue about that. It is CLAIMS of paranormal powers we argue about. If someone did indeed have such powers I would be interested. If they kept them quite I woudl see them as decent people. How is it then that people claim to hae them dont manifest them but still charge people money and still claim to have them?

Secondly the means by which they are investigated are often random or arbitrary - ie. protons with magnifying glasses. Those that are shown to be hoaxes or misunderstandings are good worthwhile investigations, but contribute nothing to the greater picture insofar as telling us if these things actually occur or not.

whats the difference between no evidence for a dragon and no dragon? Tell me again? whats the point of speculating on other univrses if we can never get there or measure anything coming from them?

After all, people hoax or imagine illnesses too. Humans like attention. the difference is, the human body, where the illness occurs, is understood far better than the physical world we live in, so we know what to use to look for what.

I dispute this. The "laws of physics" describe accurately how the world works. the Body/medicine is not nearly so certain.

Jackie laughlin

6th,
I'm hurt. My ass is safe with or without hell for I have led a blameless life!

If ghosts existed, it would have to be established what rights they might enjoy but by definition they couldn't be human rights. Did you ever wonder why when people "speak" from the "other side", they never have anything interesting to say?

If it can be proved that God exists, should we put Her on trial or will we accept Her plea that she is not omnipotent?

6th

Jackie laughlin wrote:

6th,
I'm hurt. My ass is safe with or without hell for I have led a blameless life!

Yeah right, I've done a google image search for your name!

Jackie laughlin wrote:

If ghosts existed, it would have to be established what rights they might enjoy but by definition they couldn't be human rights. Did you ever wonder why when people "speak" from the "other side", they never have anything interesting to say?

I'm sure people are only as interesting on the other side as they are on this side

Jackie laughlin wrote:

If it can be proved that God exists, should we put Her on trial or will we accept Her plea that she is not omnipotent?

If God was awoman you think she would have stayed quiet for this long?:p

Jackie laughlin

If these clairvoyants are for real, there is a possibility that only halfwits survive death and make contact with the living to pass on halfwitted statements. Another possibility is that the mind doesn't survive.

However, perhaps mediums (or is it "media") when contacting the "other world" could be instructed by the Chartered Institute for the Paranormal to ask, "Is there anybody there with anything sensible or significant to say?"

6th

Jackie laughlin wrote:

If these clairvoyants are for real, there is a possibility that only halfwits survive death and make contact with the living to pass on halfwitted statements. Another possibility is that the mind doesn't survive.

However, perhaps mediums (or is it "media") when contacting the "other world" could be instructed by the Chartered Institute for the Paranormal to ask, "Is there anybody there with anything sensible or significant to say?"

Actually maybe you can tell me where the consciousness resides in our physical selves?

Jackie laughlin

6th,
It's approximately an inch behind the navel and slightly to the left!

No, of course I can't tell you.

However, I have intelligent conversations with the living daily. On the other hand I've ever been told by clairvoyants (I have two married friends who think they have such powers!) or by people who've attended mediums or I've read about such "contacts" suggests that the best those on the "other side" can manage is along the lines of, "I'm your uncle Fred. I died of a heart attack. I'm happy and I've met your mother who sends her love."

6th

Ok so you cant answer the question about the conciousness ... how about this one?

What causes us to be willing to sacrafice for someone and not for other people?

And so what percentage of conversations you have with your family and friends are life changing and what percentage are just chats and mindless bits of prattle?

robindch

> What causes us to be willing to sacrafice for someone and not
> for other people?

Rationales for self-sacrifice, together with altruistic behaviour in general, can be derived from theories of kin and group selection and Hamilton's mathematical framework for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Conf/MemePap/Evers.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Costello.html

et al.

6th

And now do you want to tackle the question about where the conscious resides?

robindch

> And now do you want to tackle the question about where
> the conscious resides?

I take it you're happy with the reply for self-sacrifice and altruism?

Consciousness, as you know as well as I do, is still an open scientific question. And rather than asking where it "resides" (which assumes that it's a physical thing), why not ask the better question of "how does consciousness, or the illusion of it, arise?".

Anyhow, one of the better books I've read on the topic is Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained which suggests that it doesn't really "reside" anywhere, but rather that our brains are wired to provide "us" with the illusion that consciousness exists in the first place. It also suggests, hardly surprisingly, that when you go looking for exactly what it is at a deep level, it becomes virtually impossible to pin down exactly what's meant by "consciousness" outside of our own subjective experience.

Myksyk

With regard to conciousness I agree that the framing of 6th's question may betray an assumption that it resides in a definite place in the first instance. I think, but am open to correction, that most people seriously studying consciousness agree that it is in some way a product of brain function; that it arises as robin says from the workings of the brain. Even people in serious disagreement (e.g. Searle and Dennett) agree on this one. A fundamental problem is that of definition ... we can't be completely satisfied that everyone is thinking about the same thing when they are discussing the matter. It is considered one of the great open scientific questions but at least now that it is a respectable area of inquiry, we are beginning to scrape the surface.

In my mind there's seems little reason to think that it is not a consequence of brain function/greater neural complexity. There is ample evidence within neurology/neuropsychology which demonstrates that certain brain lesions profoundly impact on what can be generally agreed to be 'conscious' behaviour/cognition. It may not be a surprise to know then that I think when a person's brain dies, their consciousness does too; this is one of the reasons that I am so horrified by alzheimers where the intricate, deeply individual neural connections which reflect the learning of one person over a lifetime of experiences, are destroyed - a living body losing their personhood. Profoundly sad. One of the Irish Skeptics' recent talks was from Professor Ian Robertson on self-awareness and the brain. His looking at lesions and their effects on awareness/consciousness was fascinating. He is in no doubt that conciousness is an emergent property of a physical system - the brain. I don't think this lessens the astonishing nature of consciousness one jot. Others may disagree.

Jackie laughlin

Certainly, most of my conversations are of no real consequence. However, let me make you a promise: If I survive death and make contact with the living, I will have a really great story to tell, I will have views on immortality, time etc. In other words, if anyone hears from me from "the other side", I won't mess about with inanities.

stevenmu

torinoblue wrote:

Basically, feel free to believe any mumbo-jumbo if you can convince yourself that somehow science will never be able to disprove it.

I will , but I don't think that science will never be able to prove/disprove it. I just think it'll take a large leap of faith on the part of science, which is something it cannot currently do. The correct way, I believe, to study the paranormal, will be to first accept it (even if only hypothetically), then try to understand it, and then use that understanding to prove/disprove it.

torinoblue wrote:

While there are millions of genuine scientists, there has never once been a person able to pass any rigorous test of psychic or ESP ability.

There have been many tests through the years which have demonstrated some kind of phenomenon has take place, most have been discredited on technicalities, some have just been plain ignored. The worst have even demonstrated an inherent cynical bias on the part of the testers. With the mountains being placed in front of people investigating paranormal phenomena it's no surprise that none have been able to pass 'rigorous tests'.

torinoblue wrote:

I have never seen any story that provided sufficient information to discount an ordinary or extraordinary explanation.

It's unlikely that any story is going to discount every possible alternate explanation. There will always be some rational explanation possible, and unfortunatly finding some potential alternative, no matter how far fetched, always seems to be enough to dissuade people from investigating further

torinoblue wrote:

My response is that science and statistics have shown many of these phenomenon to be linked directly to culture and times in a way which real phenomena are not, so there is no reason to believe that science is at a loss. And there is real evidence to believe that these events are fabricated by humans, or misunderstood by them due to their education, beliefs or culture.

Many things such as fire or the sun and the stars could fit that description. They have been described and classified differently by different people in different cultures going back as far as history can tell. That doesn't mean that at the heart of these descriptions and classifications there wasn't the exact same phenomena which were poorly understood untill years later. Because paranormal experiences are so subjective, people are naturally going to report the same events in different ways depending on their cultural context. Just because something is reported differently by two different people does not mean that it is not the same thing.

torinoblue wrote:

You say its possible because of the weird way that the psychic thing works, but it seems rather convenient and like the old excuse of 'There is someone here who doesn't believe' or 'You would have been healed if you had enough faith'.

It's actually rather inconvenient, both in terms of being able to deliver proof and being able to use such an ability in any real and meaningfull way. Any psychic would love to be able to perform any set task on demand. It simply doesn't work that way.

ISAW wrote:

Nope we shouldn't accept claims of paeanoprmal as real without some evidence. That means you should be able to measure what is happening. I I claim to have a dragon in my garage and every test you apply e.g. let me see - no he is invisible; infrared - no my dragon cant be seen in infra red either, put powder on the floor - he hovers; throw paint on him - he is incorporeal etc. The what is the difference between no evidence for a dragon and just simply no dragon.

The natural place to start looking for evidence in this case would be to see why you believed you had a dragon in your garage, why do you think anything is there and what makes you think it's a dragon, and work from there. It may be possible you actually do have a dragon, or it may be possible you have a 'something' which for some reason you have interpreted as a dragon. The difference between no dragon and no evidence for one lies in the details of why you think there's a dragon there in the first place.

ISAW wrote:

Not true. If someone actually has such powers or senses they can be correlated in a blind test with someone else who is also detecting something. it need not even be paranormal in the usual variety. If someone can "feel" colours or electric fields then they could win the million dollar challange. I remember once on the net someone telling me about the accuracy of their astrological predictions. I showed them the Randi challenge and how if they were so sure they could win a million dollars. they were certain they would win. that was about four years ago. Nobody has won it.

The problem with using a blind test with somebody else detecting the same thing, is that both people may report something different, or one may report something while one may not. Because the nature of how they may detect something is unkown, it's impossible to devise a reliable test.

ISAW wrote:

these could all be surmounted by test protocols. The fact is that noone ever has been able to show better than chance on such tests! Again back to the dragon. If a so called telepath cant ever show telepathy then whats the difference between that and no telepathy?

Yes they have, one example off the top of my head is the KPU at Edinburgh University have gotten signifigantly better than chance results using variations of the ganzfeld method, go to http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/, select PSI from the left menu, the ESP up top for details on their methods and findings. This is only one of many, altough it's one of the few which haven't yet been completely discredited for some small innocous reason.

ISAW wrote:

science doesnt confirm things so much as rules them out. If there was no electrical or magnetic field you could conclude someone wasnt using electromagnetism to make things move. You could also turn a room into a Faraday cage. If the ghost suddenly didnt appear anymore you might conclude ghosts dont like it when there cant be any el;ectricity about or more likely fakers had their power source rumbled.

I more or less agree with you completely here, I think this is the kind of testing which should be done. Instead it seems to have degenerated into a vicious circle of parapsychologists trying to find some statistical proof of anything to silence sceptics, whlie sceptics try to come up with any imaginable reason to discredit it.

ISAW wrote:

Again not true. If such a thing happened my attention would switch to the "psychic". If it seems they can sense EM fields, either they are cheating and actually are linked to the cause of the field or maybe they do have the power to detect a non paranormal EM field - in which case they will also win a million dollars in the Randi challenge. funny haw nobody has though isnt it?

I could be completely wrong here, but I think it's pretty well accepted these days that people can sense electromagnetic fields, in fact iirc a lot of the work done in this area has been by sceptics trying to show that various paranormal experiences are actually the result of someone detecting a natural or man made EMF and misinterpreting it as something else.

Jacki Laughlin wrote:

No, of course I can't tell you.

However, I have intelligent conversations with the living daily. On the other hand I've ever been told by clairvoyants (I have two married friends who think they have such powers!) or by people who've attended mediums or I've read about such "contacts" suggests that the best those on the "other side" can manage is along the lines of, "I'm your uncle Fred. I died of a heart attack. I'm happy and I've met your mother who sends her love."

I don't want to get too much into the conciousness argument, but essentially
conciousness is not a single item, it's a complex system of interactions between many aspects of our physical body if not more than that. Also if there was some way to measure where and how most of our thoughts develop, I suspect the vast majority of what we think about everyday is based around physical biological processes. I believe this is why we don't get any complex messages from the 'other side'. Imagine being a 'ghost', you haven't got any body, you can't walk anywhere or move your arms or legs, you can't feel any sense of touch, or temperature, you can't see or hear or taste anything, you don't feel hungry, thirsty, tired, gender is suddenly completely and utterly meaningless. Your conciousness would be completely different to anything we can possibly even begin to imagine. Now, how do you communicate any of what it's like to someone still alive. What words do you use to describe it, or what pictures even.

Jackie laughlin

Then "I" wouldn't exist; something else would.

Are you saying that those who claim to hear the "Uncle Fred" messages are at best delusional?

By the way, if I develop a hypothesis, my responsibility is to disprove it. I would be more inclined to take seriously "new agers" who were trying and failing to disprove their beliefs.

ISAW

stevenmu wrote:

I will , but I don't think that science will never be able to prove/disprove it.

and the popper philosophy would suggest that if it cant be falsified then it isnt for science.

I just think it'll take a large leap of faith on the part of science, which is something it cannot currently do.

Because such things lie outside of empirical science. If it can be measured then you may believe in whatever you want but dont claim it is scientific.

The correct way, I believe, to study the paranormal, will be to first accept it (even if only hypothetically), then try to understand it, and then use that understanding to prove/disprove it.

this is a logical contradiction. First how can one disprove something which you already claimes could not be proved or disproved. Second how can one understand something they believe in if it turns out that what they believe in does not exist in the first place and their belief was false? They will still go on believing because there is no way one can disprove something that doesent exist by starting form a position that it does and then try to measure it!

There have been many tests through the years which have demonstrated some kind of phenomenon has take place, most have been discredited on technicalities, some have just been plain ignored.

Have there. Care to give me three examples of the many tests dissmissed and three of the ignored ones?

The worst have even demonstrated an inherent cynical bias on the part of the testers. With the mountains being placed in front of people investigating paranormal phenomena it's no surprise that none have been able to pass 'rigorous tests'.

A proper test protocol rules out any bioas on the part of the tester! It should not matter what they believe.

It's unlikely that any story is going to discount every possible alternate explanation. There will always be some rational explanation possible, and unfortunatly finding some potential alternative, no matter how far fetched, always seems to be enough to dissuade people from investigating further

So what? First it is the person who claimes the psy powers who claims them. second if something is happening that also should be detected. If it isnt being detected how can you claim it happened? Ever heard of Occams Razor. Well some people claim to be able to bend spoons by psy powers. Other people can show you how to do it as a parlour trick. If Uri Geller is doing it by psy powers he is doing it the hard way! Of course he might be. I prefer the simpler rational explaination.

Many things such as fire or the sun and the stars could fit that description. They have been described and classified differently by different people in different cultures going back as far as history can tell. That doesn't mean that at the heart of these descriptions and classifications there wasn't the exact same phenomena which were poorly understood untill years later.

But this is the same as above i.e. in order to discuss these paranormal phenomena in rational terms, one has to pretend that the ghosts and goblins and psychic phenomena are real in the first place . . . in effect, validating those beliefs rather than dispelling them.

Because paranormal experiences are so subjective, people are naturally going to report the same events in different ways depending on their cultural context. Just because something is reported differently by two different people does not mean that it is not the same thing.

so what? if they can "experience" something and even if they report it differently one can correlate the two of them in different rooms and see if they experiences happen at the same time.

It's actually rather inconvenient, both in terms of being able to deliver proof and being able to use such an ability in any real and meaningfull way. Any psychic would love to be able to perform any set task on demand. It simply doesn't work that way.

so what? all one has to do it wait until the psychic says they are experiencing something and see if the something is being measured elsewhere at that time.

The natural place to start looking for evidence in this case would be to see why you believed you had a dragon in your garage, why do you think anything is there and what makes you think it's a dragon, and work from there.

You are just playing with words. We know what a "dragon" is. Whatever the belief, if something cant be measured how do you know it is there?

It may be possible you actually do have a dragon, or it may be possible you have a 'something' which for some reason you have interpreted as a dragon.

Again playing with words. It is understtod what is meant by dragon! But let us say I have a language which uses the word "dragon" for "car". You can stil go and see if ther is a car in my garage. If yo ucant see one do you think it is a motivation problem on my part as to why there is not the actual physical car there or do you believe the car isnt there?

The difference between no dragon and no evidence for one lies in the details of why you think there's a dragon there in the first place.

This is more of the same wordgames. It doesn not matter as to why I believe there are faries or unicorns in my garden or dragons in my garage or the Moon is made of cheese. You can still go and look! If none of my claims can be measured ther is no way you can announce to the world that these things are true!

The problem with using a blind test with somebody else detecting the same thing, is that both people may report something different, or one may report something while one may not.

So what? If the claim is that they detect things which cant be measured by any other means and they fail to both detect them ata the same time then what is the difference between them and either of them and a "no garage" guy like me who just says at random "Im feeling something now" . Indeed I believe I can do better than these so called "psychics" with my "no garage" abilities.

Because the nature of how they may detect something is unkown, it's impossible to devise a reliable test.

I think I already gave you a scientific example of how this statement is scientifically untrue - the discovery of Cholera.

Yes they have, one example off the top of my head is the KPU at Edinburgh University have gotten signifigantly better than chance results using variations of the ganzfeld method, go to http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/, select PSI from the left menu, the ESP up top for details on their methods and findings. This is only one of many, altough it's one of the few which haven't yet been completely discredited for some small innocous reason.

From my knowledge of ganzfeld it has been debunked but I will come back to this. Please care to mention three more of the "many" tests which have shown positive tests for paranormal?

I could be completely wrong here, but I think it's pretty well accepted these days that people can sense electromagnetic fields, in fact iirc a lot of the work done in this area has been by sceptics trying to show that various paranormal experiences are actually the result of someone detecting a natural or man made EMF and misinterpreting it as something else.

Yes but if someone has really really sensitive ability it is not normal and they could win the challenge. Indeed of a human had the sence of smell of a dog they could win! I tmay be explainable by nornal science but the person cluld claim paranormal ability and win the million dollars.

ISAW

stevenmu wrote:

I
Yes they have, one example off the top of my head is the KPU at Edinburgh University have gotten signifigantly better than chance results using variations of the ganzfeld method, go to http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/, select PSI from the left menu, the ESP up top for details on their methods and findings. This is only one of many, altough it's one of the few which haven't yet been completely discredited for some small innocous reason.

Sorry but I don't seem to be able to fing ANY evidence of paranormal powers there. Could you please maybe direct me to the actual research and to who carries it out? maybe to the name of the paper they published on it? I admit I looked (skinned really) over the publications and seem to find ones which deal with belief inthe paranormal but nothing on people who tested positive for paranormal powers. Where is that one please? and while you are at that could you support you claim of "many" such tests positive of the paranormal?

Jackie laughlin

There is an electromagnetic field around all objects. It is relatively strong around humans. In the early days of electronic chip manufacture it presented a problem; factory workers were causing damage by proximity. The field can be easily detected and has become very easy to display using computer graphics.

There's a "moral" (I'm stuck for a better word.) aspect to Popper. Those who believe in the paranormal OUGHT to be seeking to disprove.

Nevyn

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Those who believe in the paranormal OUGHT to be seeking to disprove.

Why ?

Son Goku

Thaedydal wrote:

Why ?

The ideas that survive attempts to disprove them are the strongest and the ones eventually accepted by science.

For instance late 19th Century biologists set out to disprove evolution, but couldn't.

It's the reason we accept our current theories, because we can't disprove them.
In science you should set out to find evidence against, rather than evidence to support.

GuanYin

Jackie laughlin wrote:

In the early days of electronic chip manufacture it presented a problem; factory workers were causing damage by proximity.

Can you reference this with a source material?

I was under the impression that this was actually ESD and EMF. ie. static electricity.

pH

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There is an electromagnetic field around all objects.

No there's not!

The electromagnetic field is a physical influence (a field) that permeates through all of space and which arises from electrically charged objects and describes one of the four fundamental forces of nature - electromagnetism. It can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by non-moving charges and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz Force Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

It is relatively strong around humans.

Really? What's it(the field) measured in, and what's an indicative value for 'strong'?

In the early days of electronic chip manufacture it presented a problem; factory workers were causing damage by proximity.

Link please.

The field can be easily detected and has become very easy to display using computer graphics.

Link please.

Son Goku

stevenmu wrote:

Are you maybe thinking of Ant-Matter (and maybe even been reading some Dan Browne ). I could be wrong but I don't think dark matter's existence has been proven yet. Some experiments claim to have detected it, others have failed, I don't think there's any definitive proof one way or the other yet.

Dark Galaxy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4679220.stm
Dark Matter is probably a mix of galaxies that never turned on and very heavy particles that don't interact much.

Jackie laughlin

PH,
Are you telling me that these energy fields don’t exist or explaining how they exist? Please don’t read this as me being smart. I’m not clear what you are saying and asking a question.

The point I was trying to make was that the “aura brigade” are turning a natural phenomenon into a fetish.

I didn’t expect to have to write a paper or provide references on this. Indeed I can’t as my experience is entirely practical. I worked in development in the electronics industry when Large Scale Integration (LSI) arrived. (How silly that term seems now!) We were trying to replace older circuits with newly designed LSI while keeping the cards (circuit boards) interchangeable. There was very little experience with the new chips and very little practical material published.

We were experiencing high and expensive failure rates. The conventional wisdom at the time, as I recall (though I’m seeing flaws as I write) was that very high input impedances – even without the chip powered and especially before the chip was inserted – somehow became induced with electrical levels high enough to “blow” the device. The first culprit we thought about was static. We attempted to deal with this through various earthing procedures. We even advised that staff not wear nylon or silk!

The incidence of failure was reduced but it seemed that we were still getting failures caused by proximity. We therefore thought about radiation. We conducted crude experiments and found that we could detect lowish frequency radio waves. They were detectable from almost anything but were more pronounced from people. There may have been higher frequency radiation. Indeed it might even have been at greater levels. We never checked as we didn’t have test equipment which would go up towards VHF. (Hardly seems credible these days!) However, we were happy with our results as we had something resembling a problem which we could then take steps to address.

I’m trying to remember but I think the later chips became more stable before we ever sorted the problem.

That’s the story. What’s the aggressive questioning all about?


Th,
The "ought" in Popper is not isolated. Faith for Kirkegaard was the crucifixion of reason. I admire the honesty, humility and doubt of a person who knows that he or she is deciding to believe in the face of little or contradictory evidence. Belief without doubt is unworthy.

pH

Jackie laughlin wrote:

PH,
Are you telling me that these energy fields don’t exist or explaining how they exist? Please don’t read this as me being smart. I’m not clear what you are saying and asking a question.

The point I was trying to make was that the “aura brigade” are turning a natural phenomenon into a fetish.

No they're inventing something that simply is not there.

I didn’t expect to have to write a paper or provide references on this. Indeed I can’t as my experience is entirely practical.
<snip>
We were experiencing high and expensive failure rates. The conventional wisdom at the time, as I recall (though I’m seeing flaws as I write) was that very high input impedances
<snip>
The incidence of failure was reduced but it seemed that we were still getting failures caused by proximity.

This is why it's not sensible to extrapolate from anecdotal/once off results. May I *politely* suggest that that cause of your failures was not an EMF coming from humans, and that a more prosaic explanation would be simply teething problems with new technology.

We therefore thought about radiation. We conducted crude experiments and found that we could detect lowish frequency radio waves. They were detectable from almost anything but were more pronounced from people. There may have been higher frequency radiation. Indeed it might even have been at greater levels. We never checked as we didn’t have test equipment which would go up towards VHF. (Hardly seems credible these days!) However, we were happy with our results as we had something resembling a problem which we could then take steps to address.

Are you claiming that humans are in fact radio transmitters?

I’m trying to remember but I think the later chips became more stable before we ever sorted the problem.

!

That’s the story. What’s the aggressive questioning all about?

The "aura brigade" started off primarily with people claiming they could see auras. Then various technologies came along which purported to make visible to all what these aura viewers said they were seeing.

Kirlian Photography relies on a strong external (to the thing being photographed) electric field being generated. Even then the photograph is not really a picture of 'the field', rather the Corona Discharge

The computer graphics application (I presume you mean winaura) uses an off the shelf webcam! nuff said?

Jackie laughlin

PH,
Thank you for the links.

You may politely suggest anything at all!

These posts are brining me back to my youth. We repeated the experiments often enough to convince ourselves that radio energy associated with human proximity was a problem. True, we were working in development and not research and needed answers ASAP. However, we were not unaware of the danger of jumping to daft conclusions. There were interesting "canteen discussions" about whether the bodies were actually generating the energy, reflecting it more efficiently than other items or even amplifying it from some other source. This had to remain as just talk, typical of the kind in which curious technos without a research budget engage.

Two questions. Do you reject the presence of static fields and/or do they simply not feature in this discussion? Seconly, I've read your links - and thanks again. Am I understanding it correctly that the "aura" appears only when the object is subjected to an external source of energy?

GuanYin

Jackie laughlin wrote:

These posts are brining me back to my youth. We repeated the experiments often enough to convince ourselves that radio energy associated with human proximity was a problem.

Perhaps you should have repeated the experiments with the aim of showing that this wasn't a problem.

Jackie laughlin

PSI,
You tend not to have time for adequate research. If you think you have a likely source for the problem, you take two courses at once. Firstly, behave as if your data are true and attempt to deal with the situation. Secondly, continue to try to disprove the data and find an alternative source/explanation. The latter it is also hoped might even reveal further information about the running hypothesis.

It's the difference between research and development. Most of the staff would love to work in research!

GuanYin

I'm aware of the difference, it just seems to me that you took you took a biased slant to deciding the cause and it wasn't so much research as justification.

Jackie laughlin

PSI,
That's a bit unfair. People in development labs know the limitations. Management want a solution today. The part-formed theories often (No, I think, "usually" would be nearer the truth,) lead to a solution.

Sorry, if I'm leading this off thread.