Giogio wrote:
Ohhhh. Lets see.
I agree with Jd- that there's nothing para- / supernatural. However, it is possible that there is stuff (which would normally be called para-whatever) that is not yet scientifically explained or proven, but exists (in a perfectly natural way). Take telepathy as my favourite example. Most scientists are just too afraid of actually analyzing it without prejudice because it may cost them their reputation.
The scientific way is NOT to say "This sounds like stupid esotheric drivel and there's no scientific explanation, so it's wrong."
The scientific way is: "Okay, let's make a double-blind study to see IF and UNDER WHICH CONDITIONS it can be observed and reproduced, and if it can, THEN find out how it works."
Because if you don't do this, "there is no proof" is just a void statement.
There actually is a study with significant results suggesting the existance of telepathy between emotionally close people. I'd love to see the effect myself though, since it might still have been faked.
Hm, maybe we could conduct an experiment in this forum, if enough people are interested?
Foremost, the burden of proof is and always will be on the propagator. In the interests of science, yes, we
do have to approach everything from an agnostic perspective... and that does mean
everything. Invisible unicorns traveling in the skies must be given equal consideration as are ghosts, because we cannot scientifically disprove the notion that there are invisible unicorns roaming about in the skies anymore than we can ghosts. No matter how insane something sounds, we cannot scientifically and categorically say, "No" if there is no means by which we can measure it. However, this is all also exactly why it's a pointless and subservient question that isn't really suggestive of a genuine pursuit of knowledge. Beyond all of this and more to the point: Having to put aside reason in place of faith isn't something I'm interested in, because if someone requires faith for their definition of reality, I can't really relate to that. All I will say on this subject is: If the invisible roaming unicorns are given equal consideration to ghosts and other like-minded woo, then I have no problem with that. So long as we approach things rationally and categorize them along the same lines, that's absolutely fine.
Where I, Jd-, personally stand on this issue is pretty simple: It's
possible for anything to exist (including invisible flying unicorns that flock to the skies en mass), but just because we want it to be true doesn't make it so. There are a lot of really fascinating possibilities in the supernatural and paranormal, but the simple fact of the matter is that none of it's actually true or reflective of reality in any way. The world is already a beautiful and complicated place, and none of us will live long enough to see it all, so I can't say I'm interested in snipe hunting when time's already so limited.
For my part, I would just advise that the most logical and most scientific approach to life is to not live and make life decisions as if something is true when it has not even been established to be anything but the product of fantasy, anecdotes, and conjecture.
As for the study, I would need to read it to be sure, but if we are thinking of the same study, it has been--if memory serves--long discredited for poor and flawed methodology and was not replicable. Going along with that, though, the hypothesis there in your post (emotionally close people demonstrate telepathy--presumably the ability to pass thoughts without words) is something that can easily be explained by a confounding variable. Namely, people with close relations may have similar interests and thought patterns simply based on shared experiences that have shaped their perceptions. Such a situation would not be uncommon even for a husband and wife, who could think of the same things simply because they have had experiences that triggered the same memories--none of that would be cause for assuming they are passing along thoughts telepathically, and instead would be more along the lines of simple recall alignment. I'm not entirely sure how they measured this and did so (allegedly) successfully without winning a Nobel Prize, but I'm very interested and willing to read it. If you can find the study you're referring to, I'll happily review it in full by tomorrow night.
ranger wrote:
The concept of a researcher's reputation on the stake is something I didn't take into consideration, but I can definitely see it being a big factor (not all but a lot of Phd/researchers I know are kind of in this huge circle-jerk, so I can definitely see this)
This is an unfounded conspiracy in every way. A litany of research has been done, by both reputable scientists and quacks, on the subject of telepathy and not one study has ever proven valid and replicable. Judging from what you've said here, I think you are a little unclear on the nature of (at least paranormal) research. Plenty of researchers go into fields seeking the truth behind phenomena, whether they actually "believe" in them or not. Every scientist wants to find something significant, and a great many of them spend much of their lives researching paranormal matters just like this. There's no stigma whatsoever in the scientific community on studying subjects like this. In fact, it's a burgeoning field with scientists willing to test and explore all possible paranormal fields on a daily basis.
The
real reason few scientists are investing their time into telepathy currently is that telepathy has never even suggested that it's an actual phenomenon. We've done hundreds of studies to test whether people can even transmit simple colors and signs to one another, and something even so basic has yet to prove fruitful. Of course, we've also seen research into seeing whether siblings and especially twins can transmit colors, symbols, words, sentences, paragraphs, page numbers and all such things to one another and all of those were met without success as well. There's simply nowhere else to go with it, until some new theory about passing along human thoughts comes to light.
]") without approaching it as objectively and free of bias as possible is grounds for its own ridicule. Say what you will, but virtually everyone that attempts to use Twilight and the like as a basis for (usually vastly misguided) jokes and mockery has never read or seen any of their respective works, and especially did not do so with an open mind even if they had. Just because everyone else hates something or likes something doesn't mean you have to as well. Give it a try--form your own opinions and don't worry about whether you fit with the 99% or the 1%.
