 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:4b111fbd$1@news.povray.org...
> >> Disproving a theory is every bit as important as proving a theory. By
> >> proving that the psychic phenominon does not exist, now nobody else
> >> needs to study it. This is beneficial.
> > If *nobody else* studying it is good, an unqualified *nobody* studying
it is
> > even better, is it not?
> The only way to scientifically determine whether a claim is valid or not
> is to, you know, actually investigate it. If we wrote off anything that
> sounded too weird, human kind would never have advanced anywhere.
Person A: I can read minds.
Scientist: Hypothesis: Some people can read minds. Sure, let's test it.
- Test yields a negative result -
Person A: I was off that day. I cannot read minds on Fridays.
Scientist: Sure, let's repeat the test on a Monday.
- Test yields a negative result -
Person A: The room was too cold. It doesn't work in the cold.
Scientist: Sure, let's repeat the test in a warmer room.
- Test yields a negative result -
Person A: There are too many lights. I cannot concentrate.
Scientist: Sure, let's repeat the test in the dark.
- Test yields a negative result -
Person A: Today's subjects were antagonistic. It doesn't work with
everybody.
Scientist: Sure, let's find new subjects.
Person A: No, I've had enough. I don't have to prove myself to you.
- next day -
Person B: I can read minds.
... rinse and repeat.
So what did the scientist "prove"? Even if she tests a million people with
negative results, she can not conclude that reading minds is not possible
because there will be a million and first person making the same claim or a
similar claim with minor variations. The supposed hypothesis stated at the
beginning was patently inadequate and nonsensical, for she did not take into
account the effect of Fridays, temperature of the room, alignment of moon
and venus, the effect of coffee... etc, all of which the subject made up on
the way. Not only that, but one cannot disprove *some* without exhaustive
search. Do you think scientists should investigate if "some" apples might
fall up?
A claim itself is not evidence (unlike what some people here seem to think).
With paranormal, there are only personal/subjective claims.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4b11384d$1@news.povray.org...
> On 11/28/09 04:59, Warp wrote:
> > Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> There was a time when all of humanity honestly believed the world was
> >> flat, and anybody who claimed it wasn't was *obviously* a lunatic.
> > AFAIK that's an urban legend. "Popular history" so to speak.
> That's an urban legend if you're looking at "recent history". It
> wouldn't surprise me if 10,000 years ago everyone thought this. And if
> not then, keep going further back in time...
Sure, and at one point, all proto humans were hurling feces at each other.
None of this is relevant to the question of *modern* science investigating
paranormal *today*.
There are many myths about "establishment" of science wholesale laughing at
"maverick" thinkers who end up proving themselves, be it flat earth or
impossibility of heavier than air flight.
But there's a deeper issue here as well besides rewriting history to fit a
hollywood theme: If someone makes the correct (as proven later) prediction
based on faulty reasoning and/or insufficient data, are those contemporaries
laughing at him correct in doing so or not? With billions of people
expressing billions of opinions today, some are bound to make predictions
that, to a future generation, may appear to be spot on. But if that person,
at this time, is unable to provide supporting evidence or articulate a
reasoning for his prediction, I feel I would be correct at laughing at him.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
news:4b11abcc$1@news.povray.org...
> in JAMA or another medical journal that showed placebos were just as
> effective, if not more, as prescription anti-depressants in treating
> mild to moderate depression and anxiety. And if the placebo makes them
> feel better, why now let them use it?
Good question, with complicated answers. If people in position of trust
telling the populace that economy is recovering makes economy recover, why
(and we not) not do that? Isn't a doctor telling you that taking aspiring
will make you feel better already pushing an extra placebo bias, even when
aspirin would have healing effect without his endorsement?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
> news:4b11abcc$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> in JAMA or another medical journal that showed placebos were just as
>> effective, if not more, as prescription anti-depressants in treating
>> mild to moderate depression and anxiety. And if the placebo makes them
>> feel better, why now let them use it?
>
> Good question, with complicated answers. If people in position of trust
> telling the populace that economy is recovering makes economy recover, why
> (and we not) not do that?
Different type of trust between populous and expert. Government experts
are appointed outside your control, doctors you can change if you
dislike how the current one handles your visits. Plus, you add the
assumption that telling the populous the economy is getting better will
have the result of it getting better, without any proof that this is the
case.
So, bad analogy or straw man.
> Isn't a doctor telling you that taking aspiring
> will make you feel better already pushing an extra placebo bias, even when
> aspirin would have healing effect without his endorsement?
Yes, it is. And yet, that has been the standard doctor advice since
Aspirin was trademarked. So much so that "Take two of these and call me
in the morning" is a common phrase. I do not see the problem with using
placebo bias to treat common and non-threatening ailments, where the
placebo is as effective or more so than complex prescriptions. Even if
it is marginally less effective, if the placebo has fewer side effects
it may still be a better treatment for certain patients.
"So, Mrs Soandso, we have two drugs we can treat you with today. This
one is the latest that some company is paying me to push, and has lots
of side effects. This other one is a little less effective, but has
roughly the same side effects as Aspirin. Both should help you feel
better in a few days. Which would you like me to send you home with?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> But there's a deeper issue here as well besides rewriting history to fit a
> hollywood theme: If someone makes the correct (as proven later) prediction
> based on faulty reasoning and/or insufficient data, are those contemporaries
> laughing at him correct in doing so or not? With billions of people
> expressing billions of opinions today, some are bound to make predictions
> that, to a future generation, may appear to be spot on. But if that person,
> at this time, is unable to provide supporting evidence or articulate a
> reasoning for his prediction, I feel I would be correct at laughing at him.
What if that person got together some money and did some actual
investigations into their predictions. By providing a testable
hypothesis, statistically and scientifically sound testing, and found
some results, either confirming, disproving, or offering no conclusive
proof. Person takes confirmation as vindication, disproving as reason to
rethink their stance, and the last as reason to refine their experiment.
Still laughable?
What if instead of doing it all themself, they talked it out with some
academics and convinced them it was worth investigating. The same was
done: hypothesis, scientific testing, etc. End with same possible
results. Still laughable?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Not only that, but one cannot disprove *some* without exhaustive
> search. Do you think scientists should investigate if "some" apples might
> fall up?
They are, see physics and astronomical research into antigravity and
negative mass.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The only way to scientifically determine whether a claim is valid or not
>> is to, you know, actually investigate it. If we wrote off anything that
>> sounded too weird, human kind would never have advanced anywhere.
>
> Person A: I can read minds.
> Scientist: Hypothesis: Some people can read minds. Sure, let's test it.
> - Test yields a negative result -
> Person A: I was off that day. I cannot read minds on Fridays.
> Scientist: Sure, let's repeat the test on a Monday.
> - Test yields a negative result -
> Person A: The room was too cold. It doesn't work in the cold.
> Scientist: Sure, let's repeat the test in a warmer room.
> - Test yields a negative result -
> Person A: There are too many lights. I cannot concentrate.
> Scientist: Sure, let's repeat the test in the dark.
> - Test yields a negative result -
> Person A: Today's subjects were antagonistic. It doesn't work with
> everybody.
> Scientist: Sure, let's find new subjects.
> Person A: No, I've had enough. I don't have to prove myself to you.
> - next day -
> Person B: I can read minds.
> ... rinse and repeat.
>
> So what did the scientist "prove"?
That if this ability does exist, it's far too rare and/or unreliable to
be useful for military purposes, which was the point of the study.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The only way to scientifically determine whether a claim is valid or
>> not is to, you know, actually investigate it. If we wrote off anything
>> that sounded too weird, human kind would never have advanced anywhere.
>>
> No argument there. Now.. Given how only the people that cheat, lie,
> stack the deck, or consider "Blair Witch" style theatrics, followed by
> babbling, "That random sound sort of sounded like...", or, "Gee that
> random camera glitch moved like moved 'purposefully', why can't we drop
> the supposed paranormal already? Oh, and I love that last one, "move
> purposefully". By whose definition, by what criteria? That its less
> random than some other random light? More? Moved in what you *think* is
> a pattern? What the hell does "moved purposefully" even fraking mean
> without context of the ability to determine what the purpose *is*?
The military weren't studying the entire zoo of paranormal claims, they
studied one specific aspect: the claim that certain people can see
events distant in space and possibly time. This one is quite easy to
verify one way or the other. They tried; the statistics were
unimpressive; they gave up and shut down the project. Seems like a
non-WTF to me.
> Its been tested and retested ***over and over*** thousands of times,
It has *now*. Not sure about back when this study was done...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
news:4b1240c8$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > But there's a deeper issue here as well besides rewriting history to fit
a
> > hollywood theme: If someone makes the correct (as proven later)
prediction
> > based on faulty reasoning and/or insufficient data, are those
contemporaries
> > laughing at him correct in doing so or not? With billions of people
> > expressing billions of opinions today, some are bound to make
predictions
> > that, to a future generation, may appear to be spot on. But if that
person,
> > at this time, is unable to provide supporting evidence or articulate a
> > reasoning for his prediction, I feel I would be correct at laughing at
him.
> What if that person got together some money and did some actual
> investigations into their predictions. By providing a testable
> hypothesis, statistically and scientifically sound testing, and found
> some results, either confirming, disproving, or offering no conclusive
> proof. Person takes confirmation as vindication, disproving as reason to
> rethink their stance, and the last as reason to refine their experiment.
> Still laughable?
No, but that's a posteriori. Anyone may make a claim without good reason or
evidence, and I can justifiably laugh at him (for making a claim without
supporting reasoning or data). That's present time. That same person, in the
next 10 years, may actually work very hard to prove his claim, and let's say
it turns out to be correct (whether it was dumb luck or unexplainable genius
behind him making such a claim 10 years before he had any evidence, matters
not). But that won't change the fact that at the time he made the claim, he
did not know enough to make it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Probabiliy of so called psychic phenomena being "real" is, for all practical
> purposes and by all intelligent accounts, is between 0 and 0. Any single
> cent wasted on such research is, well, wasted,
Well, we know that *now*. 50 years ago, before someone studied it
scientifically, it wasn't quite so obvious.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
