Re: What is 'science'?

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:44:17 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"Mark Isaak" <eciton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:fqruh1t3o90v367hhufegm0hlij1rsnn0d@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 21:56:11 GMT, "Chris Devol" <eat@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>>> In other such cases, there were physical connections to invalidate the
>>>> results. Subtle connections, but enough to explain the very small
>>>> correlation. Let me guess: The correlation that the Princeton team
>>>> found was quite small, too?
>>>
>>>Well DUH! No one is claiming that extraordinary paranormal abilities are
>>>normal!
>>
>> Actually, people claim that constantly.
>
>I am not aware that anyone is claiming that. Did you miss the adjective
>"extraordinary"?

See _You Are Psychic!_ by Peter Sandars. Or see _You Are Psychic_ by
Debra Katz. Or see _You Are Psychic_ by Sofia Williams. Or see _You
Are Psychic: The Incredible Story of David N. Bubar_ by Rene
Noorbergen. The pathetic part is that I did not even know any of
those books existed. But I expected something like them, so I typed
"you are psychic" in an Amazon search, and I got *four* titles just in
the first ten. I must be psychic.

>> Paranormal claims have a 200-year history of being proved false, even
>> when they initially appear valid.
>
>That is a baseless assertion. You cannot produce any evidence to support it.
>I can just as easily assert that paranormal claims have a 5000-year history
>of being proven true.

Do the names J. B. Rhine, the Fox sisters, Russell Targ, and Uri
Gellar mean anything to you? Have you ever read anything by Harry
Houdini or James Randi? I stand by my statement. Paranormal claims
have a 200-year history of being proved false. Granted, most of that
tradition has occurred in the last 120 years, but it goes back to Ben
Franklin at least. You could make your opposite assertion if you
wish, but it would be a lie. No paranormal claim has ever been proven
true such that the results could be reliably repeated by independent
groups.

>Even if you restrict your assertion to the tiny fraction of cases which have
>been investigated in more than a cursory manner (and most of them are
>after-the-fact), you will at best have a sample which consists largely of
>"inconclusive" verdicts.
>
>> Would it not be unreasonable to
>> expect the PEAR study to be the first exception?
>
>The PEAR study was real science, conducted while the phenomena were actually
>occurring, under the auspices of a major university.

Yes, I agree that the PEAR study was real science. (That's what
started this argument, remember?) I also note that there is plenty of
room for problems with it. For example, they say that they have
conducted millions of trials. Yet their results appear to be based on
a small fraction of these trials. It would not take a lot of
cherry-picking to raise the frequency of a random outcome from 0.5000
to 0.5002.

>I wish you would just admit your personal prejudice (True Disbelief) against
>paranormal phenomena, instead of trying to cover your objections with a
>"science" which isn't there.

My belief is based on observation of previous evidence, supported by
theoretical considerations. I don't consider that prejudice.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering

.

Loading