Sure, I suppose we could discover some previous unknown particle through exploring some animal perception. but it seems like unlikely way to do so at this point. But if there were some even near unmeasurable sense of one of these things then there would seem to be an obvious course of research where you think of all the ways one could detect a thought, or aura, or future event. Find radiation or something that could be the source, turn it up to 11 so you can get a clear result from your study. Does anyone build a 10,000 watt thought cannon and see if people can detect the thought laser pointed at their heads?
I would argue they don’t do that because they are trying to find evidence of magic and finding the time particle that some gland of the brain is slightly sensitive to would be just as much a defeat as all the evidence that no-one can predict the future through anything other extrapolating from the present.
Finally had the stomach to read the whole article. To me, this sums it up:
In one of Randi’s freely distributed classroom guides, he misleadingly stated that Rhine had reported only positive results in his ESP trials. In fact, in the early 1930s, when Rhine’s lab opened, it was standard practice in the behavioral and life sciences to discount experiments with null or negative results
First, it’s not misleading to say something happened…that happened. Oh, it’s “standard practice,” then I guess it’s OK.
Second, the importance of reporting all results is they very thing necessary to debunk this woo. Anyone can predict a card, a roll of a die, or a flip of a coin with 100% accuracy… if you only count confirming results.
Third, the ad hominem attack on Randi just stinks of desperation… or maybe it’s just bullshit.
RIP Amazing Randi! Long live the skeptic in all of us.
There are plenty of examples of research into actual, real, legitimate things that could be considered ESP… things like blindsight, magnetoreception, and artificial brain-to-brain connections (as low quality as those have mostly been).
And yet the ESP field does not care about any of them, and rejects any interest in them, because it doesn’t look like how they want ESP to look, which is the most stunning condemnation of the parapsychology field I can imagine. They aren’t interested in the actual phenomena unless it is explicitly magical, unless there is no mechanism of action. Which is crazy to me, because actual real life existing neurological phenomena, and the means by which we can artificially achieve the various things psychic powers claim to exist, are both really awesome!
Only if it doesn’t confuse the issue of what’s actually happening in reality. It may be a useful concept at a certain stage of simplified hypothetical, but once applied to the real world the distinction blurs to the point of uselessness.
I don’t think it’s particularly important, but especially not in this case, where we are talking about a promoter trying to use researchers as a shield, but also, as pointed out elsewhere, not all “research” is fundamentally worthy, and even that is not the case being argued, but rather that somehow my tax dollars not being spent on clear and well-debunked nonsense is somehow an attack on science, which also, just coincidentally, might dent my book sales.
What constitutes good science, it turns out, is a little bit more complicated than the three bullet points we all learned in second grade.
Not quite. After decades if not centuries of looking into the issue, the verdict is pretty much “unproven but very, very, VERY unlikely to exist, based on other things we’ve found out about how the universe works that by now we’re quite sure are correct”, which is a completely different ball game.
Spending loads of money on serious university-level research on how strange phenomena come about may be interesting and worthwhile – but in general it helps a lot if the actual phenomena can first be reliably demonstrated under controlled circumstances, which is the main problem of ESP.
(Also, no wonder that the Randi 1-million-dollar challenge only attracted fakes and losers. The actual real mediums and fortune tellers don’t need to bother with Randi’s measly million-dollar prize; they can make all the money they could ever want or need from foreseeing winning lottery numbers and the stock market.)
Yes I remember how it took over a century and several thousand experiments, all flawed, inconclusive or negative, until we finally verified special relativity… That’s why we need to keep trying with ESP!
Randi’s gruff and grumpy responses aside, I’m not convinced by the article that he did as much to negatively impact the scientific study of E.S.P., telepathy, etc. as the field, itself. It seems that, after nearly a century of study with no broadly accepted evidence demonstrating that such things exist (let alone mechanisms for them), the people who control science funding figured their limited resources could be more wisely spent. That makes a little more sense to me.
Also, it’s a rather silly, hyperbolic title. I mean, how could one ever “destroy” something like skepticism?
Thank you. People seem to use the word “science” to refer to some imagined sort of council of authority when it is, in fact, nothing more than a process. Science is incremental, broadly dispersed, diverse in subject and often uncertain of its own conclusions (hence peer review). The very reason it is trustworthy is that it is designed to circumvent human bias and influence.
Magic is our ability to willfully produce desired effects through hidden or unknown forces.
A good everyday example is how architectural decoration changes the vibe of a building. Surely this operates through a physical mechanism. But we don’t really know how it works, if we are honest with ourselves. Similarly with a powerful film. Sure, we know lots about filmmaking, but it’s important to leave room for practitioner magic and not think that it’s “all science” and formula. There is so much we don’t know - - but when we can make it work even when we don’t know how - - that’s the practice of magic.
I was under the impression that tests for the JREF prize were designed so there was no need for a committee or other judges: the results would be self-evident. Say a dowser applied to try for the prize. After determining exactly what ability the applicant was asserting (e.g., the ability to detect buried or hidden water with rods or a pendulum), the foundation and the applicant would together agree a fair test that could be done under controlled conditions: e.g., determining whether or not a bottle of water was hidden under an inverted bucket. They would also agree on a necessary level of success to rule out a chance result: e.g. there would be X bottles hidden under Y buckets and the applicant had to correctly declare “water” or “no water” for Z% (or more) of the buckets. So when the test was performed, it would be immediately clear, under the agreed upon rules, whether or not the applicant was successful. No need for anyone to weigh evidence and come to a decision.
Also worth mentioning that immediately before the test proper, the applicant would have a trial unblinded run where they knew which buckets hid water and which didn’t, so they could check that the buckets weren’t blocking the dowsing signals, the water was of the right type and in sufficient quantity, and so forth.
This definition has nothing to do with anything any of us are talking about, and is idiosyncratic to the point of meaninglessness. You might want to read up on the fallacy of equivocation.
Seeing as the size, location and nature of the fundamental accupuncture points are disputed between practitioners, how would you even begin to design a properly controlled test?
It’s like claiming we need to test the effects of sodium on blood pressure, but all the doctors not agreeing on how much sodium should constitute a dose, or even agree on exactly what sodium is.
I teach visual design for a living. I still don’t think my resumé would qualify me for a position at Hogwarts. Creating subjective emotional responses with art and architecture doesn’t really count as quantifiable evidence of the paranormal.
