No, because you changed the discussion from Siro's eyes sight into one about Science, Yoga and the paranormal and your skepticism of yogic "supernatural" and "magical" stuff in post #6 So, it is fair to say this discussion has gone beyond just Siro's eye sight
I'm absolutely unconvinced. The Society for Psychical Research was established in 1882, and it's commonly understood among scientists that 130 years later it's produced sod all. I haven't dissected every detail of the studies myself, but I tend to trust the sceptical reports and commentaries. One common criticism is that the adherents of psi fall foul of various self-delsionary processes, like confirmation bias, and the field suffers from the file-drawer effect, where in fact the negative results get ignored by the institutes, such as PEAR, set up to prove the reality of psi, while they publish the lucky hits. It's a very natural process. If the subject isn't scoring well, they often just quit for a while and scrap the results, thinking their powers will return another time. Meta-studies are particularly susceptible to such skews.
Why do you assume that I mean the Society for Psychical research when I say there has been volumes of positive evidence produced over the 20th century? I am referring to the collection of evidence from a range of studies, such as the Ganzfeld studies to studies done today. The claim that they have not produced significant evidence is counter to what I actually myself have read about these studies. They have indeed produced statistically significant results.
Some of the possibilities like confirmation bias, delusional processes, file drawer problems, all very legitimate explanations and will explain most commonly reported PSI claims, do not account for well controlled and well designed experiments done in the field of parapsychology. As with all things paranormal, a lot of it can be explained through prosaic explanations, but a percentage of these cannot be explained, such as those in well designed experiments.
The efficacy of a medicine is tested extremely rigorously on its main use, in this case as an analgesic (which is why it's a very expensive process). A secondary effect such as you mention might not be given such rigorous analysis. I don't know. One thing about it though is that whether a medicine works or not is not philosophically as important as science that tells us the nature of reality. We like to be pretty clear about whether people can bend spoons with their minds, levitate or remote view.
It shouldn't really matter what the a priori hypothesis is, whether it is testing the effects of a drug or testing for whether minds can levitate or remote view, because if you do this you bring politics and religion into science. Science is not a metaphysics, it is an epistemology and methodology which is ontologically neutral. So if the scientific method leads to conclusions of so-called supernatural things or natural things is irrelevant. They are both valid. To illustrate if using the scientific method I discover electricity and magnetism are related, and use the same method to discover past life memories in children are real(a la Ian Stevenson) then both are valid. But why isn't it? Why should there be double standards in the quantity or quality of evidence required to establish electromagnetism exists and reincarnation exists? Because one is considered more extraordinary than the other? Who decides? How is that decided?
I more than doubt that. If remote viewing was so easy, it would be common knowledge, and someone would have won Randi's million dollar reward. Do you have a reference?
Let me try to understand your argument:
If x, then Y
If remote viewing is so easy, then it is common knowledge
If remote viewing happened, then somebody would have won the James Randi challenge
When did I say remote viewing was easy?
Regarding the James Randi million dollar challenge, that has been debunked by many scholars. It is more of a publicity stunt by a small time stage magician(RIP) and there is something you can always predict in stage magic - trickey It is a challenge which is designed for failure of the challenger so Randi can keep his million dollars It is no substitute for a well designed and controlled scientific experiment.
Again, if that were true, why aren't these people winning every national lottery jackpot every week (the same person)? Why has not even one winner admitted they did it through that method? Why are casinos so happy to rely on simple maths and chuck out the card counters?
Hehe, you should meet me friend he gambles a lot and tells me how the casinos are always on the watch for "psychics" And will find a way of stopping you from gambling if they suspect you are one. Of course, I think it's just one of his paranoid conspiracy theories, as he believes in pretty much every conspiracy theory out there
In any case this is a common argument used against remote viewing/clairvoyance if they are psychic they should be able to win the lottery. Again if x(psychic) then y(win the lottery) But it is a very bad argument how is it known that psychic information can be so accurate that it can tell the future with 100% accuracy? This fundamentally misunderstands that PSI phenomenon that is reported in scientific studies is never 100% accurate. Their best psychics score a hit rate of 70%, and the average is just above chance. The research into PSI shows that PSI has a strong sense of uncertainty. In much the same way there is uncertainty in quantum physics.
In remote viewing experiments the viewer only reports sensations they are getting such as cold, watery, metallic, oblong. If the target they are remote viewing is a submarine than obviously this descriptive criteria is very close. The remote viewer themselves report that what they perceive is fuzzy, bits of data, lots of dark. There are ways of improving PSI functioning as discovered in paranormal research(progressive relaxation, sensory deprivation, breathing, biofeedback) and the impressions can become clearer, but nobody makes claims of 100% certainty.
Oh those pesky scientists, always dedicated to not finding out the truth! Could you please also explain how all those scientists who have figured out that psi is true are silenced? How are they prevented from getting the Nobel Prize?
Taboo. Scientists who research PSI face taboo in the mainstream scientific community, can lose their professional careers, face ridicule in the scientific media and find it more difficult to secure funding. This has been reported by many scientists working in these areas of research. This taboo is very much there. I will provide you some references after this reply.
It was actually Carl Sagan, repeating an idea expressed by both Laplace and Hume, at least. It makes sense.
It really makes no sense for reasons I already outlined. To consider something "ordinary" and "extraordinary" is relative and subjective. Why are black holes not extraordinary? Why are atoms and quarks not extraordinary? Why is dark matter not extraordinary? In fact, one thing is definitely true in the history of science the ideas that are considered the most crazy and ridiculous end up being accepted as obvious later. If we begin with any a priori ideas of what is ordinary and extraordinary are not really doing science any more.
I doubt that.
I will provide you a reference after this post. I would do it now, but it involves me looking for it. I'd rather post this now, and then give it you later.
Again, I doubt the relationship is that way round - I suspect it is very much the other. One reason why paranormal phenomena should be doubted is that - despite being commonly believed by uneducated people from all cultures - there are well understood psychological reasons why they believe these things eroneously.
However, the truth it is believed by many highly educated people Phds, MA's, professors, acclaimed scientists. Thus it is not a case that it is only believed by uneducated people. In fact, as I stated, and I will provide you the reference after the reverse is true: The more educated you are, the more likely you are to believe in the paranormal.
I am not exactly uneducated myself and am rather intelligent if I so say so myself, and I believe it, in fact I have experienced paranormal phenomena myself, one of these phenomena's saved my mum's life where I got precognition that she was having a heart attack(Lets not discuss this particular case, as its personal)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they already defy our earlier understanding (in other words, lots of earlier evidence we have gathered). We experience day after day people not walking through walls. This makes us require specially good evidence if someone says they can walk through walls. I can walk through walls. Do you believe me?
I have already answered this point above. If you said you can walk through walls, would I believe you? No, because I would want to see you do it. However, would I a priori disbelieve walking through walls is possible. No, because then I cease being a scientist. As science is epistemologically dynamic, that is that it is not certain knowledge and always changing, we cannot a priori say what is not possible. In fact it turns out that walking through a wall is possible in quantum physics if you can place an object into a quantum coherent state of no motion and motion. Whether that is possible with a human sized object is a question of technological capacity and not theoretical. Theoretically, yes, if you can put all the atoms of the human body into a quantum coherent state it can pass through a wall.
Yes, generally true. That's because the people who have become sceptical about humanity's ancient and universal belief in god(s) have become sceptical about many other claims - for the same reason - when investigated properly, there is no evidence of the claim being true, and lots of evidence arises about how deluded we are.
No skeptic is ever a consistent skeptic, because all skeptics will accept something in the end. David Hume is probably one of the most purest skeptics, for he could never guarantee if he turned his back, whether reality still existed behind him? The problem of induction in science is a big problem in philosophy of science, because as all scientific knowledge is induced it is not actually certain. Thus a real skeptic would reject all laws of physics discovered by science, but most skeptics do in fact accept these laws. In fact they argue based on that "This is not possible according to the laws of physics, therefore it did not happen"
Outside my expertise, I'm afraid, but I googled and found contrary figures. It seems the Copenhagen Interpretation was taken on board very widely at first. I have also read time and time again frustrated scientists trying to explain to mystics or whatever you call yourselves that an actual human conscious observer is not indicated in the theory, a mechanical counter or photographic plate collapses the wave function just as well.
Indeed, it was, I was referring to later surveys done recently, which show 70% of scientists accept the multiple world theory over the CI.
But rewinding a moment - you're presenting something of a false syllogism, it seems - the reality of psi bears absolutely no relation to whether scientists are right or wrong to postulate dark matter or parallel universes. And by presenting that argument, you actually support the idea that your beliefs are weird (although you consider theirs weirder). Further differences are that they know they are working out possible theories, yet to be tested for viability or disproved - they aren't worshipping at an altar or telling everyone there are definitely parallel universes. Secondly, a while ago many ridiculed them for postulating black holes, but we have pretty good proof they exist now...and there is a long list of such things. Why is that? Well, it's because they're not just making stuff up or having faith in ancient belief, they're working things out. No doubt some mystic has argued at one time that scientists ought to take their ideas seriously, and laugh that they think light can be bent by gravity or humans evolved from earlier species.
Your statement that they were once ridiculed that black holes exist, but now we know proof black holes exist can work equally as well to show that today PSI is ridiculed, but tomorrow it maybe accepted fact. What I am arguing is not a false syllogism, I am pointing out double standards when it comes the CI and the Multiple world theory. There is absolutely no evidence that a parallel universe exists, not even a single iota of evidence. However, there is a lot of empirical evidence supporting the CI. We can actually clearly see in the experiment the observer affects the behaviour of the particles.
In supplementary experiments we have controlled for the variable of the observer and again found direct causative relationships.
How do you test for a parallel universe? You cannot, it is as unfalsifiable as me saying there is an invisible pink unicorn in your bedroom. In fact by the standards of modern science where falsifiability is an important point of demarcation between science and pseudoscience, multiple world theory is pseudoscience. The CI, at least is supported by strong empirical evidence, in fact the CI has been the most successful theory in the history of science, passing every test thrown at it.
So my point is there are definite double standards in Science when it comes to anything which relates to mind and matter interactions. Why this is there goes back to Descartes.
Well it doesn't actually matter, but scientific knowledge is given a sort of category according to how well established it is (and also how simple it is) - thus, evolution through natural selection is a 'theory', which indicates both that it is complex, incorporating a lot of different principles, and that it is extremely soundly supported by evidence of many kinds, while 'gravity' is commonly called a law, because it is both simple (in that a single mathematical expression represents its workings) and has absolutely never been seen not to apply. Even so, that's just a label - if it were found to be false through experimentation, science would reinterpret the evidence. I don't know enough about QM to know why they call it an interpretation, but there are competing explanations of the observed phenomena, so that would be my guess.
Indeed, scientific knowledge is based on corroboration. The history of science shows through that eventually all scientific theories are falsified. However, falsification is not cut and cry as well, because falsification depends on whether scientists agree it is a case of falsification and sometimes what is agreed to be falsified is later reintroduced e.g. the theory of ether was rejected in the early 20th century, but since the mid-20th century the theory has come back with a vengeance. So scientific knowledge always is uncertain, irrespective of how corroborated it is. It proceeds from one paradigm to another in what the famous philosopher of science Thomas Khun calls gestalt switches This does not mean I am rejecting scientific knowledge, but I am rejecting its certainty. We cannot a priori say based on any scientific theory what is ordinary and what is extraordinary.
That's right, it isn't true. It wasn't 'discovered' by Newton, or 'inferred to exist'. Gravity was absolutely common knowledge. Cave men throwing stones knew about gravity. Newton's idea was to realise that the force that made an apple fall (or a stone to curve to earth) was the same as that which kept the planets in motion - he made it a general princple operating in the universe, and came up with at least one completely general equation about how it affects the motion of bodies!
No, actually gravity was not common knowledge. I think you mean to say falling was common knowledge, but that this was caused by a force that acted down on the object was not common. Aristotle for example, whose mechanics ruled the root till Newton, said that the cause of falling was because of divine will of an object.
Did they now?
Yes, this is one of the subjects I am addressing in my dissertation Eurocentrism in science. Basically a lot of discoveries, at least in terms of the dynamics of nature that are attributed to Western scientists, are not in fact originally discovered by the West. The Vaiseshika were natural philosophers(science is natural philosophy) They described the mechanics of an object in terms of the force vectors acting on the object, and gave non-mathematical descriptions of all Newton's laws of motion.
An example is how they explain the motion of an arrow from a bow: The initial momentum provided through the conjunction of the hand with the bow transfers to the arrow the momentum, the velocity of the arrow is directly proportional to this. The arrow then proceeds in a straight line with the momentum energy, but due to the disjunction produced by gravity on the arrow, the arrow begins to lose its momentum energy each successive moment of its flight, and then when it loses all its energy it falls due to gravity.
The Vaiseshika recognized 5 kinds of motions: upwards, downwards, contraction, expansion(or attraction or repulsion) and general(including circular) They say that all objects in the world have forces acting on them. The force of gravity(meaning heaviness) is primary force in all bodies. Remarkably, they also model atoms as being bodies upon which forces act.
They explain all atoms are held together by atomic forces. Atoms do not combine with other atoms without forces. Heat is requires to create and break atomic combinations etc. They recognize five classes of atoms, in terms of the classic terminology: earth, fire, air, water and ether. However, this does not literally mean earth, light, wind, water and ether, but it means the atoms with the basic properties:
Earth: solidity, fluidity, colour, touch and wave
Water:fluidity, colour, touch and wave
Light: colour, touch and wave
Wind: Touch and wave
Examples of earth atoms are all solid substances that have the quality of smell because they are received by the nose.
Examples of water atoms refers to atoms with kinetic energy(The Vaiseshika recognize that the states of matter solid, liquid and gas are atoms with different kinetic energy)
Examples of light atoms are the particles that make up light(The Vaiseshika recognize that light is made up of particles of light travelling at very fast speeds travelling in a straight line - they also recognize refraction and reflection)
Examples of Wind atoms are particles that make up forces like gravity, magnetism etc
Examples of Ether: Ether is just the medium in which waves propagate. Waves are considered non-atomic. The Vaiseshika explain waves as propogating through reproduction travelling to the ear of the subject. The medium of air is explained as the cause of the wave's sound being heard.
While the Vaiseshika knew about gravity as a force. They did not explain it as being caused by the Earth or the planet, but rather it a primary force in all atoms. However, the Indian astronomer Aryabhatta(400-500AD? I think) was the first to propose a heliocentric theory of gravitation. He proposes the Earth and the other planets revolved around the sun. The earth titled on its axis. The the orbits were held together by the gravitational attraction of the sun. The Earth also had its own gravitational field.
I think it is unfortunate that the history of science the contributions made by non-Western cultures are not acknowledged, and I aim to address this balance in my dissertation.
No, real science has at least one very significant difference. It accepts that individual human experience can be flawed, and therefore requires collective, repeated and extremely careful verification. The ancients will say that the evidence for kundalini, or enlightenment, or prana, for instance, will only be available to those who practise the relevant methods and feel the 'reality' of those things. Sensing is believing. It may be true - I don't know - but it does conveniently sidestep the question of how we distinguish self-delusion from actual fact. Psychology has revealed just how powerful our delusions are. We see faces in random patterns, and we easily and naturally bias evidence in favour of 'agency' where there is demonstrably none - we think like little children, in fact, unless we exercise a sceptical scientific caution.
You underestimate how sophisticated the epistemologies and methdologies of the ancient Indians were(another topic I am addressing in my dissertation) However, I do not blame you, because we don't really about them. To give you an idea of how sophisticated they were look up "Navya Nyaya" is a highly sophisticated analytical language that develops a technical language to explore epistemological topics like perception and logical inference developed in the 13th-14th century AD. Such does not appear in the West until symbolic logic and propositional calculus in the mid 20th century. However, even the systems of logic and epistemology from 500BCE are highly sophisticated. For example, this you will find admitted in mainstream articles on linguistics, the science of linguistics studies by the Indians was vastly ahead of anything done in Europe up until the modern times. In fact, the methods the Indian grammarian Panini(500BCE) uses to describe and generate the Sanskrit of grammar are not rediscovered until Emile Post in the mid 20th century. Modern linguistics is strongly based on studying ancient Indian linguistics.
It is a common tactic to dismiss stuff like enlightenment, prana, chakras kundalini by saying they belong to a premodern and unsophisticated, religious and superstitious culture. However, if you actually studied how intellectually sophisticated this culture was, the rigour of argument and refinement of methods you would definitely reconsider. Prana, chakras and Kundalini are based on both theoretical and practical studies conduced in the Indian schools.
Really. Samkhya philosophers knew about collapsing quantum states?
Yes, if you did not know already, Samkhya is what influenced Erwin Schrodinger to develop his wave mechanics and the idea of wavefunction collapse. He even borrowed his famous cat paradox from an ancient paradox in the Upanishads, and revamped it for modern setting. Samkhya is based on strongly on the theory that there is a quantum matter called Moolaprakriti underlying all of matter that we see. It cannot be seen because it is infinitely subtle. It is completely continuous, undifferentiated and unmanifest, but the modification that arise within this quantum field produces all manifest matter which is particular, finite, spatially and temporally limited. There are infinite observers acting in this quantum field, the field responds to the observers.
The argument given for why observers exist are also 5. One notable one is that quantum matter exist in an unmanifest and undifferentated state that it cannot collapse its own state. The state can only be collapsed when the observer is in proximity to the quantum field.
There are thousands of scientists who would absolutely LOVE to show that consciousness has such a power. Why don't they all get together and show it? Is it the Men in Black?
There are many peer groups of scientists in the fields of parapsychology and also peer-reviewed journals. They sometimes also overlap with the mainstream. The mainstream today is not as closed off to parapsychology as it was in the past. Peer-reviewed articles on the subject of parapsychology also routinely appear in mainstream scientific journals.
Yes, it's fantastic, extraordinary. They will require extraordinary evidence, like Einstein did that mass is a function of speed. At the moment it's just an idea. And yet YOU believe that consciousness makes waves into particles. Isn't that pretty extraordinary? In fact, I think you also said reality doesn't exist. I must have snipped it. Funny, you argue extremely hard for its various qualities. Really? Reality doesn't exist? Who were these Indian philosophers? Who are you? Why are you arguing about particles?
I tell you something that is extraordinary, that there is something rather than nothing The fact that we have a reality at all, a universe, Earth life is all very very extraordinary that I don't really like to second guess what wonders are in this existence. Now, physicists are telling us there are parallel universes, there are 11 or maybe even hundreds of dimensions, most of the universe is made out of invisible matter, time travel maybe possible, that vacuum of space may contain infinite energy. Why is none of this extraordinary to you?
Much of the 20th and 21st centuries, according to my sources, have seen science make unimaginable progress in working out what is true and what isn't, while a small number of believers have cheated and fumbled and deluded themselves in the search for psi, and still haven't found it. I'd post a link, but I can't yet.
No, actually much of the 20th century in philosophy of science or even philosophy itself has been a move towards anti-philosophy and anti-science. As my professor himself said, teaching philosophy of science, "Science has become inexplicable to itself" This is why we have this postmodern mess today. The great project of modernity of science, rationality and the search for truth has failed - barely anybody believes in that today. People are increasingly skeptical of science and turning to religion. Modern philosophy of science can be a frustrating subject for a scientist, for they will find constantly how science is criticized and attacked.
I am not anti-science myself. I had very fierce debates with my professors and peers defending science. However, I do recognize that science is in big trouble! There are too many problems that need to be addressed, such as:
Falsification and demarcation
Mind and matter
The hard problem of Consciousness
Non-Western traditions and to situation them global science discourse(eg Yoga)
Science today has broken of its into factions. Hence why in quantum physics you find many "interpretations" It is called interpretation because of the postmodern mess science has got itself into it. Many philosophers of science don't even now whether science is even possible, or whether it just another set of interpretations.