What is Science?

[anonymous]

I just noticed this very interesting article in the Paramormalia blog from March 6.

http://monkeywah.typepad.com/paranor...psi-wars-.html

More Psi Wars

...

But Hyman does have a new gambit, and it strikes me as one that goes to the heart of the matter. He claims that some psi-researchers themselves agree that parapsychology has failed. These neoparapyschologists, as he calls them - he mentions Dick Bierman, Walter von Lucadou and Robert Jahn - appear to concede that psi fails to meet scientific criteria, and that the evidence for it will never satisfy scientific standards. In that case, he argues, the goal set by the founders of psychical research, that psi be accepted by mainstream science, is clearly unattainable.

Quite so, and for science to restrict its focus in this way has made sense. But it does not follow that a phenomenon for which there is abundant evidence in a number of areas - often anecdotal, to be sure, but also confirmed by careful investigation - does not exist, merely on the grounds that it does not fully meet these three criteria. On the contrary, an entity that arises from consciousness would surely be expected to be fitful and elusive.

Jahn notes that psi's primary correlates appear to be subjective in character, including such nebulous factors as

('Change the Rules!', Journal of Scientific Exploration), 2008.

Such an entity is likely to evade detection as long as it fails to conform to scientific objectivity, he says.

This is what Hyman's neoparapsychologists are really talking about. If psi lies outside science, as science is presently conceived, then as far as they're concerned, so much the worse for science. It's time, as Jahn says, to change the rules. In particular - as Rupert Sheldrake too argues in his new book - scientists need to abandon the illusion that what they do is somehow purely objective, as if human subjectivity never entered into it.

[anonymous]

If demonstrating a psi effect requires certain factors which are currently not understood and therefore cannot be accounted for, then an experimental result might not be readily reproducible or replicable.

If this is true, is parapsychology science?

I would say yes. Science is the study of the universe through observation and testing hypotheses. Anything that exists can be studied by science. For science to reject a phenomena because it doesn't conform to a human definition of the scientific method is misguided. If the scientific method does not work for a certain area then the scientific method needs to be improved.

Psi is a very difficult problem for science but that is no reason to give up on it. What could be more important to humanity than a subject that shows there are gaps in our current understanding of being human and our understanding of the universe?

[billw]

This is an excellent post, and you have highlighted the exact parts that I would have. Particularly "On the contrary, an entity that arises from consciousness would surely be expected to be fitful and elusive."

Regarding science changing, I can really understand Hyman's reasons for not wanting that. However I think it inevitably will be forced to.

Cheers,
Bill

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by billw

This is an excellent post, and you have highlighted the exact parts that I would have.

Thanks. Robert McLuhan of the Paranormalia blog is a pretty astute fellow.

[mszlazak]

If psi lies outside science, as science is presently conceived, then as far as they're concerned, so much the worse for science. It's time, as Jahn says, to change the rules. In particular - as Rupert Sheldrake too argues in his new book - scientists need to abandon the illusion that what they do is somehow purely objective, as if human subjectivity never entered into it.

This really is the issue and psi isn't the only problem that science can't deal with. Science is built on a restricted set of metaphysical assumptions about measurement, objectivity, causality, space/time in basically a materialist philosophy with a hidden super-naturalism about physical laws.

As a worldview it is an absurdity but a useful one that holds significant cultural power.

However, the change required is really one of metaphysics and it definitely will not involve some move backward into previous super-naturalisms. This is a huge task since that metaphysics will not only provide a new language for science but also for politics and culture as well.

The other option to changing the philosophy of science is to leave it as is but downgrade sciences status to something secondary like engineering. A new meta-discipline could arise which would be more fundamental than science and have the relationship basic science currently has with engineering and medicine.

Hyman's argument can be used against his likely initial intent.

[billw]

Originally Posted by anonymous

Thanks. Robert McLuhan of the Paranormalia bolg is a pretty astute fellow.

I've been observing these topics for quite a long time, and only recently read anything that he has written. Not only is he astute, but he also shows a good degree of unbiased assessment of the state of affairs regarding psi. Even in his insistence to NOT use any scandals surrounding people like Randi (described in one of his blog post) to detract from their position. I respect that, as I do all unbiased opinions from either side.

Cheers,
Bill

[Craig Weiler]

Originally Posted by billw

I've been observing these topics for quite a long time, and only recently read anything that he has written. Not only is he astute, but he also shows a good degree of unbiased assessment of the state of affairs regarding psi. Even in his insistence to NOT use any scandals surrounding people like Randi (described in one of his blog post) to detract from their position. I respect that, as I do all unbiased opinions from either side.

Cheers,
Bill

The rather tawdry state of affairs with Randi does bring up his character issues. This relates to the Million Dollar Challenge because it is so tightly controlled by him with little to no access to the process or details of those rare occasions when someone is actually tested.

In other words, he is asking the world to trust that he is capable of unbiased and sound judgment and is of high character. However, he appears to be an accomplice to identity theft, which means that he does not have the high moral standards necessary to be credible as the sole arbiter of this challenge.

[billw]

Originally Posted by Craig Weiler

The rather tawdry state of affairs with Randi does bring up his character issues. This relates to the Million Dollar Challenge because it is so tightly controlled by him with little to no access to the process or details of those rare occasions when someone is actually tested.

In other words, he is asking the world to trust that he is capable of unbiased and sound judgment and is of high character. However, he appears to be an accomplice to identity theft, which means that he does not have the high moral standards necessary to be credible as the sole arbiter of this challenge.

I don't disagree. But the only reason I even mentioned the Randi nonsense was to point out why I respect McLuhan's lack of need to use that against Randi to discredit him. Regarding the Randi Challenge, to me the whole premise of it speaks to it's motive, and nothing else needs to be said about it.

Cheers,
Bill

[msi4mahesh]

wow. really appreciate being able to read this article. it explains a lot about Psi effect. especially the last part where it says,

"History tells us that their time will come, because change always comes eventually - whether we like it or not. Positions that once were defended to the death are overrun and disappear, and with hindsight it's incredible that anyone took them seriously. That will happen with the resistance to psi - of that we can be sure. What we don't know is how long it will take."

i am sharing this article too regarding what is science. another peaceful explanation


What is Science? The Designated Vehicle for Enquiry, Science | WTM

[David Bailey]

That is a very thoughtful article.

It is interesting that Wiseman, who once said that the evidence for ψ would be adequate in other scientific contexts, would now like to declare parapsychology dead! It is as though scepticism is more about gamesmanship

I am sure that Jahn is right that parapsychology is weakened because some of the most significant variables can't be controlled for. Clearly, some of the best evidence for psi comes from urgent signals when a loved one is in unexpected danger, or actually dying. All of these tend to be dismissed as 'anecdotal', yet unless the recipient of the message also received regular false alarms, the chance that that is the explanation for these cases, seems negligible.

I have actually had one false alarm dream, when I dreamed about an urgent telephone call from my brother, which corresponded to nothing - so such things do happen, but generally the message is very close in time to the corresponding event.

I think science is poorer for not taking all this data seriously, and I think consciousness research absolutely needs this data.

David