We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Can science prove we are psychic? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
Garrette
View Profile
Special user
926 Posts

Profile of Garrette
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 12:30, Tony Iacoviello wrote:

Garrette:
No, that was not my point, please see my last sentence above.

Tony
Ah, Sorry. I agree with you. Scientists (including 'name' scientists) do disagree. I suspect the point was that often their disagreements on details are mistakenly taken as fundamental disagreements, and that even fundamental disagreements don't happen until their is strong evidence.
Garrette
View Profile
Special user
926 Posts

Profile of Garrette
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 12:37, backinblack wrote:
Quote:

agree with your points. the point before that is:

1st you need a reason / plausibility for a research. than you make the reasearch:

there is an old fairy tale e.g. that birds bring the children. this theory has no plausible base. so it is never researched from what I know. the same is with gods/angels/psychics etc.

the only difference between these fairy-tales is the number of believers - not the lack/existence of a plaubible reason for believing.


Agreed, but in the case of some psi/paranormal/whatever-we-call-it, I think we're past that. Experiences not easily explained by the layman in the numbers reported provided the reason; the point is that it has been investigated, so the question becomes more along the lines, as entity has said, at what point do we stop investigating?


again I agree with you. but think about this: if there would be more believers of bird-children-tale there would propably be also more reports about people having witnessed this phenomen. as the psychic phenomen is the same: scientists found out that all the reported phenomens are withdrawn by research. so the reports where wrong. people saw what they wanted to see / liked to believe.

from the perspective of science there are no-go-criterias. think about multi-variate data-analysis methods (e.g. factor-analysis).
[/quote]And at this point I'll agree. In regard to statistics, I am a knowledgeable layman, but only that.
backinblack
View Profile
Special user
891 Posts

Profile of backinblack
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 12:29, Tom Cutts wrote:

Maybe the person who posted that is misinformed. If not, it appears Dawkins did make a theory which uses the basis of psychic abilities being genetic. Maybe it was a passing statement and "theory" is too strong of a word.

It seems odd that someone would try to bury a theory which appears might strengthen their position.


dawkins is scientist in the field of evolution biology. the books that made him popular for the public are not his scientific works but his works for the masses where he uses scientific ideas/thinking to show that the idea of psychics etc. make no sense.
backinblack
View Profile
Special user
891 Posts

Profile of backinblack
Quote:


But that is beside the point. You stated that "name scientists" don't disagree. I postulate that they do, and often.



misunderstanding. I related/answered to:

"Well, people do disagree about standards of proof."


within science those who have a reputation do not disagree in general ..
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5856 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 12:49, backinblack wrote:
he uses scientific ideas/thinking to show that the idea of psychics etc. make no sense.
So, are you now confirming that he made/used this theory in question? I want to be clear on what you just said.
Tony Iacoviello
View Profile
Eternal Order
13151 Posts

Profile of Tony Iacoviello
[quote]On 2010-11-14 12:47, Garrette wrote:
Quote:
...
Ah, Sorry. I agree with you. Scientists (including 'name' scientists) do disagree. I suspect the point was that often their disagreements on details are mistakenly taken as fundamental disagreements, and that even fundamental disagreements don't happen until their is strong evidence.


I think the disagreements, fundamental or not occur until there is strong evidence. Point in case, the Einstein Theory of General Relativity situation. The academic world was publicly split on the occurrence, not the details. They stayed split until after there was proof of light curving. (Not to say there isn’t continued debates.)

We are humans, we disagree on little things, big things, sometimes we keep it private, other times, not.

Tony
backinblack
View Profile
Special user
891 Posts

Profile of backinblack
From what I read in this thread he also braught up reasons for the not existence of psychics as they would have had more chances to spread their gens than those without these abilitys.
backinblack
View Profile
Special user
891 Posts

Profile of backinblack
[quote]On 2010-11-14 13:02, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 12:47, Garrette wrote:
Quote:
...
Ah, Sorry. I agree with you. Scientists (including 'name' scientists) do disagree. I suspect the point was that often their disagreements on details are mistakenly taken as fundamental disagreements, and that even fundamental disagreements don't happen until their is strong evidence.


I think the disagreements, fundamental or not occur until there is strong evidence. Point in case, the Einstein Theory of General Relativity situation. The academic world was publicly split on the occurrence, not the details. They stayed split until after there was proof of light curving. (Not to say there isn’t continued debates.)

We are humans, we disagree on little things, big things, sometimes we keep it private, other times, not.

Tony

from what I know there was never a serious discussion about statistical measurement related to hypothesis tests etc. this does not focus on such a unknown field like physic does.
Garrette
View Profile
Special user
926 Posts

Profile of Garrette
[quote]On 2010-11-14 13:09, backinblack wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 13:02, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 12:47, Garrette wrote:
Quote:
...
Ah, Sorry. I agree with you. Scientists (including 'name' scientists) do disagree. I suspect the point was that often their disagreements on details are mistakenly taken as fundamental disagreements, and that even fundamental disagreements don't happen until their is strong evidence.


I think the disagreements, fundamental or not occur until there is strong evidence. Point in case, the Einstein Theory of General Relativity situation. The academic world was publicly split on the occurrence, not the details. They stayed split until after there was proof of light curving. (Not to say there isn’t continued debates.)

We are humans, we disagree on little things, big things, sometimes we keep it private, other times, not.

Tony

from what I know there was never a serious discussion about statistical measurement related to hypothesis tests etc. this does not focus on such a unknown field like physic does.
I'm with backinblack on this one.

Any misgivings about General Relativity were in regard to that the ability to experimentally verify it was not available for a while, but (and this is the critical thing that differentiates it from psi research) the math was impeccable and allowed for predictions that were not available before.

A similar situation now is String Theory, for which the math is there (though perhaps not impeccable; I am more than a little bit beyond my expertise) but there is not yet any ability to experimentally verify or refute it.

Psi has no accompanying math or its equivalent to justify the continued support while we wait for better means to test it. More than that, it offers no explanatory or predictive power. G.R. did, even before experimental verification; if I understand my readings correctly, so does String Theory.

Edit to Add: And now I have to sign off, at least for a while. Life intrudes and all that. A good discussion, though, so I hope it continues so I can jump back in later.
Tony Iacoviello
View Profile
Eternal Order
13151 Posts

Profile of Tony Iacoviello
[quote]On 2010-11-14 13:09, backinblack wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 13:02, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 12:47, Garrette wrote:
Quote:
...
Ah, Sorry. I agree with you. Scientists (including 'name' scientists) do disagree. I suspect the point was that often their disagreements on details are mistakenly taken as fundamental disagreements, and that even fundamental disagreements don't happen until their is strong evidence.


I think the disagreements, fundamental or not occur until there is strong evidence. Point in case, the Einstein Theory of General Relativity situation. The academic world was publicly split on the occurrence, not the details. They stayed split until after there was proof of light curving. (Not to say there isn’t continued debates.)

We are humans, we disagree on little things, big things, sometimes we keep it private, other times, not.

Tony

from what I know there was never a serious discussion about statistical measurement related to hypothesis tests etc. this does not focus on such a unknown field like physic does.


What does that have to do whith what I said?

I was illustrating disagreements in the scientific community when it comes to theories.

Tony
Tony Iacoviello
View Profile
Eternal Order
13151 Posts

Profile of Tony Iacoviello
[quote]On 2010-11-14 13:20, Garrette wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 13:09, backinblack wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 13:02, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 12:47, Garrette wrote:
Quote:
...
Ah, Sorry. I agree with you. Scientists (including 'name' scientists) do disagree. I suspect the point was that often their disagreements on details are mistakenly taken as fundamental disagreements, and that even fundamental disagreements don't happen until their is strong evidence.


I think the disagreements, fundamental or not occur until there is strong evidence. Point in case, the Einstein Theory of General Relativity situation. The academic world was publicly split on the occurrence, not the details. They stayed split until after there was proof of light curving. (Not to say there isn’t continued debates.)

We are humans, we disagree on little things, big things, sometimes we keep it private, other times, not.

Tony

from what I know there was never a serious discussion about statistical measurement related to hypothesis tests etc. this does not focus on such a unknown field like physic does.
I'm with backinblack on this one.

Any misgivings about General Relativity were in regard to that the ability to experimentally verify it was not available for a while, but (and this is the critical thing that differentiates it from psi research) the math was impeccable and allowed for predictions that were not available before.

A similar situation now is String Theory, for which the math is there (though perhaps not impeccable; I am more than a little bit beyond my expertise) but there is not yet any ability to experimentally verify or refute it.

Psi has no accompanying math or its equivalent to justify the continued support while we wait for better means to test it. More than that, it offers no explanatory or predictive power. G.R. did, even before experimental verification; if I understand my readings correctly, so does String Theory.

Edit to Add: And now I have to sign off, at least for a while. Life intrudes and all that. A good discussion, though, so I hope it continues so I can jump back in later.


My post was in response to your statement:
Quote:
... I suspect the point was that often their disagreements on details are mistakenly taken as fundamental disagreements, and that even fundamental disagreements don't happen until their is strong evidence.


It was an example, possibly the largest public example, showing fundemental disagreements in the scientific world.

Never did I associate Physics with PSI, I just pointed out a reason for my disagreement with your statement.

Also, see previous post.


Tony
Randwill
View Profile
Inner circle
1915 Posts

Profile of Randwill
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 12:30, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 12:21, backinblack wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 12:14, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Just this weekend I watched discussions on these scientific debates/disagreements on television:
What killed the dinosaurs?
What constitutes a planet?
Is there life beyond Earth?

There were differing opinions and theories.


of course you are right in these points. but did you ever see a debate between scientists with reputation about reasons that a allmighty beeing exists; the possibility of reanimated corpses; humanoids flying due to natural grown wings etc.?


Almighty Bees, no.

Tony


I, for one, welcome our Almighty Bee overlords.
Garrette
View Profile
Special user
926 Posts

Profile of Garrette
[quote]On 2010-11-14 13:35, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 13:20, Garrette wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 13:09, backinblack wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 13:02, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 12:47, Garrette wrote:
Quote:
...
Ah, Sorry. I agree with you. Scientists (including 'name' scientists) do disagree. I suspect the point was that often their disagreements on details are mistakenly taken as fundamental disagreements, and that even fundamental disagreements don't happen until their is strong evidence.


I think the disagreements, fundamental or not occur until there is strong evidence. Point in case, the Einstein Theory of General Relativity situation. The academic world was publicly split on the occurrence, not the details. They stayed split until after there was proof of light curving. (Not to say there isn’t continued debates.)

We are humans, we disagree on little things, big things, sometimes we keep it private, other times, not.

Tony

from what I know there was never a serious discussion about statistical measurement related to hypothesis tests etc. this does not focus on such a unknown field like physic does.
I'm with backinblack on this one.

Any misgivings about General Relativity were in regard to that the ability to experimentally verify it was not available for a while, but (and this is the critical thing that differentiates it from psi research) the math was impeccable and allowed for predictions that were not available before.

A similar situation now is String Theory, for which the math is there (though perhaps not impeccable; I am more than a little bit beyond my expertise) but there is not yet any ability to experimentally verify or refute it.

Psi has no accompanying math or its equivalent to justify the continued support while we wait for better means to test it. More than that, it offers no explanatory or predictive power. G.R. did, even before experimental verification; if I understand my readings correctly, so does String Theory.

Edit to Add: And now I have to sign off, at least for a while. Life intrudes and all that. A good discussion, though, so I hope it continues so I can jump back in later.


My post was in response to your statement:
Quote:
... I suspect the point was that often their disagreements on details are mistakenly taken as fundamental disagreements, and that even fundamental disagreements don't happen until their is strong evidence.


It was an example, possibly the largest public example, showing fundemental disagreements in the scientific world.

Never did I associate Physics with PSI, I just pointed out a reason for my disagreement with your statement.

Also, see previous post.


Tony
I'm back briefly. I understood what you were referring to, but I apparently did not make my point clear. There was no fundamental dispute about General Relativity. There were misgivings about it because it didn't feel right, but no one disputed the math or its predictive power. So I'm saying that your example of fundamental disagreements isn't an example of that at all.
Tony Iacoviello
View Profile
Eternal Order
13151 Posts

Profile of Tony Iacoviello
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 14:31, Garrette wrote:
I'm back briefly. I understood what you were referring to, but I apparently did not make my point clear. There was no fundamental dispute about General Relativity. There were misgivings about it because it didn't feel right, but no one disputed the math or its predictive power. So I'm saying that your example of fundamental disagreements isn't an example of that at all.


Are we talking about the same General Theory of Relativty?

If so, we have totally different ideas of "dispute" means. The world was split with those who said that gravity curved space, and those who said it did not. That was the theory, in a nut shell.

Yes, there were arguments over the math, some said it was wrong and the theory was wrong (gravity did not bend space). The results of the experiment showed that gravity did bend space as stars behind the Sun were visible, and the math was validated as they were in the predicted locations. Validation of 2 points, 1. that the theory was correct in so far as space was curved around the Sun, and 2. that it could be predicted.

So, yes, it is an example.

Tony
Garrette
View Profile
Special user
926 Posts

Profile of Garrette
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 14:52, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 14:31, Garrette wrote:
I'm back briefly. I understood what you were referring to, but I apparently did not make my point clear. There was no fundamental dispute about General Relativity. There were misgivings about it because it didn't feel right, but no one disputed the math or its predictive power. So I'm saying that your example of fundamental disagreements isn't an example of that at all.


Are we talking about the same General Theory of Relativty?

If so, we have totally different ideas of "dispute" means. The world was split with those who said that gravity curved space, and those who said it did not. That was the theory, in a nut shell.

Yes, there were arguments over the math, some said it was wrong and the theory was wrong (gravity did not bend space). The results of the experiment showed that gravity did bend space as stars behind the Sun were visible, and the math was validated as they were in the predicted locations. Validation of 2 points, 1. that the theory was correct in so far as space was curved around the Sun, and 2. that it could be predicted.

So, yes, it is an example.

Tony
I have to disagree, especially on the part about disputes over the math, but yes, we're talking about the same General Relativity. And as a nitpick, it was not the bending of space around the sun but the deflection of star light. That validation occurred in 1919, a scant four years after G.R. was formulated in 1915.

I stand by my point.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5856 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 13:05, backinblack wrote:
From what I read in this thread he also braught up reasons for the not existence of psychics as they would have had more chances to spread their gens than those without these abilitys.
So Dawkins thought there was enough reason to come up with a theory which has as it's basis that psi abilities would be genetic. And Bob offers sad refutation of that theory. Smile
Garrette
View Profile
Special user
926 Posts

Profile of Garrette
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 15:06, Tom Cutts wrote:

So Dawkins thought there was enough reason to come up with a theory which has as it's basis that psi abilities would be genetic.
I've been trying to find a reference for that. Can you point me to it, please?
Tony Iacoviello
View Profile
Eternal Order
13151 Posts

Profile of Tony Iacoviello
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 15:02, Garrette wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 14:52, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-11-14 14:31, Garrette wrote:
I'm back briefly. I understood what you were referring to, but I apparently did not make my point clear. There was no fundamental dispute about General Relativity. There were misgivings about it because it didn't feel right, but no one disputed the math or its predictive power. So I'm saying that your example of fundamental disagreements isn't an example of that at all.


Are we talking about the same General Theory of Relativty?

If so, we have totally different ideas of "dispute" means. The world was split with those who said that gravity curved space, and those who said it did not. That was the theory, in a nut shell.

Yes, there were arguments over the math, some said it was wrong and the theory was wrong (gravity did not bend space). The results of the experiment showed that gravity did bend space as stars behind the Sun were visible, and the math was validated as they were in the predicted locations. Validation of 2 points, 1. that the theory was correct in so far as space was curved around the Sun, and 2. that it could be predicted.

So, yes, it is an example.

Tony
I have to disagree, especially on the part about disputes over the math, but yes, we're talking about the same General Relativity. And as a nitpick, it was not the bending of space around the sun but the deflection of star light. That validation occurred in 1919, a scant four years after G.R. was formulated in 1915.

I stand by my point.


Therein lays the rub.

The light was not deflected. What was theorized was that gravity would bend space around the sun allowing for objects behind it to be seen, this went against prevailing thought, the Newtonian view of gravity.

The rub is, we have differing understandings of what was being tested, what was validated, and what the differing mindsets were at this time.

As for the "long time" it was to Einstein. He was counting on the Nobel Prize money as he had promised it to his wife. And there was a cut-off date for consideration.

If we cannot agree on documented historical fact and events, what hope do we have on anything else? I'll end this discussion as it is futile.


Tony
Garrette
View Profile
Special user
926 Posts

Profile of Garrette
That's a shame that you're bowing out, Tony. I find the discussion interesting and potentially enlightening, for both of us.

As for G.R. itself, I disagree with you on the facts still (note that even Newtonian physics predicted light being bent around the sun, just not by enough. The point remains there was no fundamental disagreement with General Relativity, and use of Einstein's needing the Nobel money as an indicator of whether it was a long time or not is below you, not least because he received the Nobel in 1921 for his 1905 work on the photo-electric effect and not for Relativity.
Tony Iacoviello
View Profile
Eternal Order
13151 Posts

Profile of Tony Iacoviello
I am well aware of when he got the prize and for what. He had hopes of getting it for Relativity and had told his wife so. He had been promising her money for years, and she was suffering in Germany. Not below me, documented fact. He had hoped to have proof during the previous Prize offering, but because of the war, and atmospheric conditions, there was none. (More historical fact.) As a side note, when he did win, his (ex)wife got the money and bought an apartment building.

As for light bending? The theory was for "space bending" not light bending. At that time, it was postulated that light would only travel in a straight line, and was unaffected by any force. For light from an object behind the Sun to be seen, space would have to be bent (as light only went straight). Newton did not allow for this at all.

As we have differing understandings, it is pointless to continue.

Thank you for the conversation,

Tony
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Can science prove we are psychic? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.24 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL