Why is science so prejudice against the paranormal?

[George-ananda]

What evidence have you shown here?

That is a near infinite project and not what this thread is about.

The rest of the quote is rather silly. "These people ask for actual verifiable evidence drawn from controlled studies, like every other thing in the entire world that we accept as factual, and that makes them meanies!"

At this point it seems these parapsychologists are only asking the skeptics to accept the results of controlled studies that are being asked for. Have they gotten that far?

 

[George-ananda]

So, scientists want to hold these claims to the same standards as claims verified via the scientific method, and you think that's a bad thing? And not only that, but a hostile thing?

No, I don't think it's a bad thing. Where is parapsychology asking science to accept things that have not been shown in controlled experiments? Getting the skeptic community to even accept the results of controlled studies is proving a hurdle.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, I don't think it's a bad thing. Where is parapsychology asking science to accept things that have not been shown in controlled experiments? Getting the skeptic community to even accept the results of controlled studies is proving a hurdle.

Well, this is worth a read (especially the last paragraph) - and as to Bem and some of his work:

Do Scientists Fear the Paranormal? | Live Science

And I see this from 2015:

The Scientific Evidence for Parapsychology | Religious Forums

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why do we draw the line. We can look at each of these and have thoughts on their reality. I think all experiences that suggest things outside known science should be taken seriously. All those things you mentioned are subjects in themselves to be discussed on their merits.

I think that is how a scientific mindset would approach this.

When I consider claims of the paranormal I of course look for inside-the-box explanations first. I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the current explanations inside-the-box are not satisfactory for all these many types of experiences. So, what is outside the current box of understanding that can explain these things. That is what I am interested in. All such stuff gets lumped under broad terms, but detailed considerations can be more specific.


I agree that most people that experience ghosts or the paranormal have no understanding of the mechanisms behind them nor can answer any questions beyond just describing their experience.

However, there are esoteric traditions like Hindu, Theosophy and others that do go a step deeper and show how these experiences are really part and parcel of a more extended understanding of reality. I find most scientists are not even aware of the reality framework descriptions that are part of these esoteric traditions.

Then the answer is "we don't know" NOT "well there must be some paranormal world where anything we can imagine exists."

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is a near infinite project and not what this thread is about.

But you've claimed several times that people like myself ignore the evidence.

At this point it seems these parapsychologists are only asking the skeptics to accept the results of controlled studies that are being asked for. Have they gotten that far?

When the results actually indicate "the paranormal" rather than "there is something going on here that we can't explain."

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I don't think it's a bad thing. Where is parapsychology asking science to accept things that have not been shown in controlled experiments? Getting the skeptic community to even accept the results of controlled studies is proving a hurdle.

All over the place.
The "skeptic community" probably doesn't accept the "results of controlled studies" because the conclusions that it's "the paranormal" aren't warranted. As explained in previous posts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, we don't disagree so much on all of that. I think it is fair to say that these results strongly suggest the anecdotal and psychic claim that something akin to telepathy exists. But it leaves questions and no answers for science. A person only interested in science can leave it at that at this time.

I, a believer in many things that fall under the colloquial umbrella term 'paranormal' from the accumulated mountain of anecdotal evidence, am already considering mechanisms described in esoteric wisdom traditions of Hinduism and Theosophy and others.

I theorize (from esoteric/spiritual sources) that there is a mental plane of reality in dimensions and vibratory rates not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments in which thought actually takes place. We have a mental body that interpenetrates our physical body that is sensitive enough to be affected the thoughts of others. Depending on one's sensitivity one can pick things up from the thoughts of others. I know of no way to test this with physical senses and instruments.

No, it just appears to be wishful thinking. When one makes sure that a proper test is run the concept fails. That indicates to me that people are seeing the results that they want to see in poorly ran studies.

 

[George-ananda]

Then the answer is "we don't know" NOT "well there must be some paranormal world where anything we can imagine exists."

Who said ‘must be’? But the situation is ripe for considering new ideas. That’s a first stage in the scientific method.

 

[George-ananda]

But you've claimed several times that people like myself ignore the evidence.

More, dislike the evidence with prejudice.

When the results actually indicate "the paranormal" rather than "there is something going on here that we can't explain."

"the paranormal" is just a vague umbrella term we agreed.

 

[George-ananda]

No, it just appears to be wishful thinking. When one makes sure that a proper test is run the concept fails. That indicates to me that people are seeing the results that they want to see in poorly ran studies.

OK, that's your opinion. Mine is that one of the specialties of parapsychology is to design experiments that eliminates variables like sender/receiver feedback. That's what they are experts in. And even skeptics that have done the details are satisfied with the protocols.

But for a prejudiced skeptic, no positive test can ever have been done correctly. Again, that's the way I honestly see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, that's your opinion. Mine is that one of the specialties of parapsychology is to design experiments that eliminates variables like sender/receiver feedback. That's what they are experts in. And even skeptics that have done the details are satisfied with the protocols.

But for a prejudiced skeptic, no positive test can ever have been done correctly. Again, that's the way I honestly see it.

It is too bad that the believers in woo woo cannot follow the scientific method. And then they wonder why people that can reason rationally laugh at them.

It is rather hypocritical to demand others respect scientific validation for your beliefs when those on your side refuse to follow the scientific method. When you puh pseudoscience others are going to point out that error of yours.

 

[John53]

Page 6 and still yet to see even one example of scientist or sceptic acting prejudiced, biased or irrational.

 

[HonestJoe]

Well, we don't disagree so much on all of that. I think it is fair to say that these results strongly suggest the anecdotal and psychic claim that something akin to telepathy exists. But it leaves questions and no answers for science. A person only interested in science can leave it at that at this time.

You can't propose that something exists without properly defining it. "Something akin to telepathy" doesn't mean anything more than "something" alone.

Obviously something (or some things) are causing these results but there is no reason to declare than science must stop there. If scientists took that position, we'd never have discovered anything. Just like literally any other phenomena we don't (yet) fully understand, it can continue to be studied and tested to try to establish a better understanding.

I, a believer in many things that fall under the colloquial umbrella term 'paranormal' from the accumulated mountain of anecdotal evidence, am already considering mechanisms described in esoteric wisdom traditions of Hinduism and Theosophy and others.

And if those mechanisms exist and can be observed, they can be studied using scientific method. The fact the concepts originate from religious beliefs is irrelevant.

I know of no way to test this with physical senses and instruments.

Just because you think (or want to believe) your ideas can't be tested doesn't mean the phenomena can't be further addressed via scientific method and actual meaningful hypotheses tested to build our understanding of them (be that based on similar ideas to yours or something entirely different). You're entitled to your own ideas but you can't claim any kind of ownership of a whole set of different phenomena on the basis of some abstract categorisation and unilaterally declare them "beyond science". That attitude is what the actual "prejudice" raised by this thread is against.

 

[PureX]

Why is science so prejudice against the paranormal?

Science is not "prejudiced against the paranormal". It's just not a subject that science has been able to investigate with any success. It's the "scientism" crowd that is biased against recognizing anything of a spiritual nature, because they are materialists.

 

[SkepticThinker]

More, dislike the evidence with prejudice.

I just pointed out to you that you haven't presented evidence.
Your response is that people like myself "dislike the evidence with prejudice."
So again I have to ask, what evidence? How can I discount evidence "with prejudice" if I've never been presented with it in the first place?

"the paranormal" is just a vague umbrella term we agreed.

Right. So how is it that you're lumping anything into such a useless category?

 

[George-ananda]

You can't propose that something exists without properly defining it. "Something akin to telepathy" doesn't mean anything more than "something" alone.

Obviously something (or some things) are causing these results but there is no reason to declare than science must stop there. If scientists took that position, we'd never have discovered anything. Just like literally any other phenomena we don't (yet) fully understand, it can continue to be studied and tested to try to establish a better understanding.

I'm not sure where we disagree about the above. This is a call for scientific interest in the issue not proof and understanding of anything.

And if those mechanisms exist and can be observed, they can be studied using scientific method. The fact the concepts originate from religious beliefs is irrelevant.

I agree with that also. But with the vast majority of the universe not directly detectable by current physical senses and instruments a breakthrough may not occur until next century or whenever.

Just because you think (or want to believe) your ideas can't be tested doesn't mean the phenomena can't be further addressed via scientific method and actual meaningful hypotheses tested to build our understanding of them (be that based on similar ideas to yours or something entirely different). You're entitled to your own ideas but you can't claim any kind of ownership of a whole set of different phenomena on the basis of some abstract categorisation and unilaterally declare them "beyond science". That attitude is what the actual "prejudice" raised by this thread is against.

It is a valid part of the scientific mindset to propose theories in the face of a 'we don't know' situation. That is all I am doing here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure where we disagree about the above. This is a call for scientific interest in the issue not proof and understanding of anything.
I agree with that also. But with the vast majority of the universe not directly detectable by current physical senses and instruments a breakthrough may not occur until next century or whenever.

Correct, but that does not mean that there is evidence for the paranormal. The time to believe is after reliable evidence is found.

It is a valid part of the scientific mindset to propose theories in the face of a 'we don't know' situation. That is all I am doing here.

No, you are trying to make false claims about rational people because they will not accept beliefs that are not supported by reliable evidence.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm not sure where we disagree about the above. This is a call for scientific interest in the issue not proof and understanding of anything.

What are you suggesting science has no interest in? Science can be (and is) used to address literally any phenomena or question. The "prejudice" against "the paranormal" isn't about the kind of phenomena lumped under the term (which as we've covered, varies anyway), it is about the approaches proponents take to that category of phenomena. As I've said, all sorts of things generally considered "paranormal" (or that once were) are routinely formally studied using scientific method, sometimes even in direct response to the claims of "paranormal" proponents.

I agree with that also. But with the vast majority of the universe not directly detectable by current physical senses and instruments a breakthrough may not occur until next century or whenever.

So? That doesn't change anything I'm saying. There is a fundamental difference between "we can't yet detect" or even "we never will detect" and "it cannot be detected".

It is a valid part of the scientific mindset to propose theories in the face of a 'we don't know' situation. That is all I am doing here.

You're really not. You're not presenting any well formed hypotheses or theories for anything and what you are presenting is couched within the default assumption that whatever you're proposing can't be directly studied (you literally quoted a definition of "psi" that declared it "... cannot be explained by traditional scientific principles."). If something can't be detected, you can't apply scientific method to it (but then you can't claim anyone has observed or been aware of it in any way either).

Anyway, this isn't about you, it's about the general concept of "the paranormal" and all of the people who promote it. You are far from the worst example of the reasons for the "prejudice" the OP is referring to. The concept itself remains essentially meaningless and counter-productive. I you want to study particular phenomena, just do that. You don't need to raise anything about "the paranormal" at all.