ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/12/85)
>>>>>I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful >>>>>experiences with experiments in the paranormal. He noticed that when >>>>>scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is >>>>>was not, the number of successes jumped sharply. Of course, there are >>>>>always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an >>>>>atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur. If that's >>>>>not wishful thinking, I don't know what is. [ROSEN] >>>>Can you say straw-man? I knew you could. [BILL GATES?] ...and so on... Comment: If recent big name physics people count, Pauli -- who arguably reduced chemistry to QM by his `exclusion principle' whereby the periodic table of elements is explained (screw radiation from black holes!!) -- worked with Jung to formulate some most irrational concepts. Strange beliefs infest the QM community. >But, alas, they do, every time serious scientific rigor shows up what they >claim to be true. The fact remains that the only trials at which >parapsychological "success" have occurred are those for which rigorous >analytical procedures were not followed. Careful examination of what really >goes on when psychic powers are demonstrated persistently show fraud. The enigma is that the most believable kinds of parapsychological phenomena are precisely those hardest to test -- totally unpredictable, uncontrollably rare AND UNCAUSED moments of certain knowledge. Not that I've ever had convincing experiences mind you, but the few instances where people around me DID have such moments were amazing. I skeptically remain happily agnostic on this issue. The problem with psi phenomena is their antiscientific essence -- if such things exist, they either are not psi (they have scientific explanation) or they were just fortuitous accidents "caused by luck", to put things perversely. Never mind that causality, as both Hume and Wittgenstein deduced, is a superstition. Psi phenomena vaguely resemble the antiscientific aspect of, say, Freudian `causes': the son may become any of {anarchist, playboy, gay activist, atheist, social reformer, moonie, criminal} due to the father's strict conformist religion, all explained by the Oedipus complex! Such `causes' are at best only contrafactual ones (ie- Y was `caused by' X only in the sense that X would probably would not have happened if Y had not first occurred). Genuine scientific causality is better than that, modulo ignorance. `Real' causality is subject to WILL. On the other hand, parapsychology is searching for contracausal facts rather than contrafactual causes, of which we have plenty enough already. Now the scientific method has evolved the most subtle mechanisms for searching out WILLFULLY CAUSED phenomena. Our focus on such explanations is most refined indeed, to the point of blindness sometimes. Why DID it take so long (Einstein did it!) to see the perpetually moving `atoms' predicted by Democritus in Brownian motion? And why DID it take so long between the Einstein/Bohr debates and the final showdown in 1982? The scientific method only verifiably sees what is CAUSABLE. Consequently, if a person claims to be able to `cause' psi phenomena, I'd look for rabbits under their hats, and check inside their sleeves -- or else I'd gladly pay and watch their show in good humor. >> Nevertheless, if she has made such a statement, my claim that the argument >> was a straw man, would not be correct (the argument would still come very >> close since I would still claim it to be a minority opinion). Although it is >> possible that Dr. Moss has said such a thing, I don't know of it, and think >> that it is unlikely. Does anyone have a citation? > >I think it highly likely given that it the only "excuse" left after rigorous >analysis shows the causes of the phenomena to be quite simple and explainable >(blowing "under one's breath", etc.). ...which is a most useful conclusion, if it is fact true. Is it? The scientific study of parapsychological phenomena at least gives us a place where fantastic conjectures can be put to {t,r}est. Some psi researchers actually number among the formerly deluded who would hope to put an end to all this `silliness'. Others have crossed sides several times. Hmmm.. In the late 60's people used to talk a lot about Duke U's positive parapsychology results. Since then, rumors are that those results have been discredited. Is this verifiable? Did the psi people actually take too much LSD? If there are new parapsychological findings from reputable sources, I think most people would like to hear a summary. Otherwise both sides are just blowing hot air. >> A hostile atmosphere does seem to interfere with the eliciting of psi >> phenomena, but, with some care and forethought, rigorous controls can be >> applied in an atmosphere of open-minded skepticism. When this is done, psi >> phenomena frequently (not always) occur. >Since any skepticism is deemed "hostility" ("You've gotta believe!" ---famous >psi scholar Dr. Tug McGraw :-), and since skepticism is a necessary part of >rigorous analysis, what conclusions can we draw? Some say psi is like making love. Personally, I am skeptical, although I have had a few `experiences' where a bizarre unfamiliar sense of sudden knowledge about unknowable facts entered my so-called `mind'. On one occasion, I had spontaneous knowledge about several remote but formerly intimate family members. Long distance calls revealed that I may have experienced anti-psi, if there be such a thing. On a second occasion, I somehow KNEW that there was something most singularly cosmic occurring outside. Rushing into the night, I encountered the clearest view of the sky I have ever witnessed. Then, to the companions of the right hand, how happy are the companions of the right hand! And, to the companions of the left hand, how wretched are the companions of the left hand! -The Holy Qur'an Chapter LVI "The Great Event" (Al Waqi`ah) Revealed at Makkah Section 1 "Three Classes of Men" v8,9 -michael