 Theory
Mike, there are two fallacies associated with your last post. First of all, a field or study or a phenomenon does not need a theoretical underpinning to make it valid. It's preferable, of course, but just because no one has been able--yet--to develop a reliable predictive theory about psi and such phenomena as memory transplantation does not mean the evidence can be dismissed, as the Skeptics would prefer (note the capitalization; Topher, I think you've created a meme!). Also note that some scientists are working on theories that would explain psi, but it's, pardon the pun, an inexact science.
The other fallacy is the idea that a theory of psi has to fit in with current scientific knowledge about how the universe works. That's of course a favorite Skeptical tactic, to claim that psi can't work based on our current knowledge of the cosmos so therefore it must be illusory. Nonsense. Never mind that our "standard model" is always changing and must change as science reveals new realities. Since when does a field have to fit the accepted model to be valid? To explain his observations about light and velocity, Einstein didn't try to make them fit into Newtonian classical physics; he upended the entire applecart and created a new set of laws that passed predictive testing.
I haven't read enough on Einstein to know if there was as much vehement resistance in his day to relativity as there is today to psi, but I suspect there were many people angry that he was "daring" to question the "way things are." I'll wager that psi will require the same kind of paradigm-shattering theory to explain it.  |