Daily Kos

Open Science Thread

Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:34:48 AM PDT

Chris Mooney reviews the anti-evolution movie Expelled. After the obligatory and accurate recognition the film is a steaming pile of crap, he points out what most reviewers avoid:

From Michael Crichton’s State of Fear to Stein’s Expelled, there is nothing to prevent the most awful, misleading drivel from reaching and influencing mass audiences. There are no standards. There is no filter. And the truth is not just automatically going to win in the competition of ideas when the playing field tilts against it.

Regardless if the movie is a money maker, thousands of people will see it. Hopefully, most won’t walk out of the theater blaming evolutionary biologists for the Holocaust despite the intent of the producers to do exactly that and more. But I bet plenty of viewers will buy into the slickly packaged premise that evolutionary biology is built on a tottering foundation of lies propped up by a vicious cabal of modern day Lysenkoists eagerly persecuting those brave martyrs presenting the revolutionary evidence for creationism, or intelligent design, or whatever opinion poll tested pseudonym is chosen next. That same spurious public relations methodology will continue to win hearts and minds, on everything from stem cell research to climate change, until such time as we invest in and develop counter measures that can match the efforts of our highly motivated and often well paid anticognates.

  • I've recently been highlighting right-wing lunatic Sun-myung Moon by way of author of John Gorenfeld. Let's take a trip down DKos memory lane and revisit Dr. Jonathon Wells who also appears in Expelled and whose science education -- intended in his own words to 'destroy darwinism' -- was paid for by Moon's Unification Church.
  • People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is offering a one-million dollar prize for anyone who develops a process to produce meat in the lab, with no animal attached.
  • A reader sent me this article which sounds dreadfully familiar to those of you who've followed the political attacks on James Hansen and NASA GISS, except the tax payer supported agency under seige this time is the EPA.
  • I hope to be announcing a science panel at Netroots Nation 2008 next week, the subject of which will be, in part, repairing the extensive damage inflicted on US science policy over the last eight horrible years.

Update 5:15 AM EST: It would be inexcusably misleading to blame Christianity for Nazism or the death camps, even though at times Hitler used a perverse, twisted theology to justify his ideology. Hitler referred to his Christian beliefs -- including his idea of Jesus as an Aryan role model that would have condoned persecution of Jews and other scapegoats targeted by Nazis (More recent evidence suggest the Nazis had vague plans to eliminate traditional Christianity or at least those elements of it considered in conflict with Aryan supremacist  dogma and replace it with a more compliant, Nazi friendly version) -- many times more than evolution to rationalize his murderous actions. Any intellectually honest person, religious or otherwise, would readily concede that blaming the Bible and modern day Christians for the evils of Nazism would be as silly and as ugly as blaming Isaac Newton for the V-2 rocket -- or laying the responsibility for Auschwitz at the feet Charles Darwin. Sad to say, there are documented instances of creationists doing precisely that, both directly or indirectly, including portions of Expelled.  

  • ::

Tags: open thread (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 287 comments

  •  Aww Sweet Saturday, Gentle King of Days. (15+ / 0-)

    This weeks music video goes out to you, my friends, my fellow wonder junkies:

    Read UTI, your free thought forum

    by DarkSyde on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:35:36 AM PDT

  •  It's comforting to know Yoko Ono (16+ / 0-)

    is suing Ben Stein for using John Lennon's "Imagine" in the movie without permission.  The movie is already a bust, and likely to make zero profit, but the lawsuit should at least have some entertainment value.

    "I cherished my hate like a badge of moral superiority." - Mark Rudd

    by Bob Love on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:42:44 AM PDT

  •  It's going to be light here soon. (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    eeff, DarkSyde, TexMex, Translator, BYw

    I've surfed and watched tv all night.

    I'm pathetic.

    (Surely this is related to science somehow.)

  •  In the anti-science pop media vein... (11+ / 0-)

    is anyone else tired of seeing (technically for me seeing and quickly changing the channel) the proliferation of ufo, para-normal, etc. shows on supposedly science oriented channels (Discovery, TLC, History Channel)?

    Not sure what if anything can be done about it but its turned me off these channels for the most part.

    "...what Washington means by bipartisanship is mainly that everyone should come together to give conservatives what they want." --- Paul Krugman

    by puppet10 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:51:20 AM PDT

    •  I am (7+ / 0-)

      of course those shows are produced privately and the producer pay for their airing just like any other show. But I'd like to see more skeptic shows. Something like Randi or Penn and teller's Bullshit! only geared to pseudoscience.

      Read UTI, your free thought forum

      by DarkSyde on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:58:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd LOVE to do something like that. (4+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        TexMex, amRadioHed, JeffW, BYw

        Mythbusters is my dream job, but straight science would be fun.

        -6.00, -7.03
        Obama '08

        by johnsonwax on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:20:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Its better to READ about UFOs (4+ / 0-)

          There are lots of TV shows about UFOs lately because people are fascinatd with trying to learn the truth. Isn't that what we are all about here?

          But if you want to read some no-bullshit truth about how folks especiall in the military have UFO encounters regularly and how tons of evidence is hidden (and military personnel are threatened with career threats), then there is only one place to go - Dr Steven M Greer's Disclosure Project website.

          Dr. Greer has literaly interviewed hundreds and hundreds of military folks, many retired, who witnessed UFOs, and who will go on the record with Congress to testify. The Disclosure Project gets its name from the presentation at the National Press Club in DC in early 2001. At that conference, Dr. Greer had about 20 of his witnesses speak for 5 minutes each to tell their stories.

          These military witnesses include retired pilots who saw UFOs while flying and personnel who worked the miltary's radar systems and tracked UFOs time and again. Then there are the crashes. Yes, real honest to goodness UFOs that have crashed and which are secreted away by the powers that be, which includes individuals high up in the corporate world (especially the oil industry) as well as some from the mlitary.

          These crashed UFOs are VERY IMPORTANT...and are the reason every Kossak should take the initiative to visit Project Disclosure and learn more. The UFOs have been reverse engineered. The UFO technology holds the solution to global warming and FREE ENERGY.  Thats right, free energy. The holy grail of advanced technology.

          The military side of this cabal wants to keep this technology secret for miltary superiority reasons. The corporate side wants to keep it secret to protect the oil industry.

          In the last century, when global warming was not a threat, it was acceptable to not learn if UFOs were real. Today, it is much too important to not investigate UFOs if there is even a remote possibility that UFOs can help us with global warming and free/inexpensive energy. But, EVERYONE has to personally take the initiative. Please visit the Disclosure Project website and spend an hour reading. Then, spend the $5.00 to get web access to hundreds of pages of witness testimony.

          Lastly, people often rationalize that if UFOs were real, then there would be real evidence by now. However, after reading the witness testimonies, you will realize there is mountains of evidence, but the powers that be keep it secret by threats of career loss and even much worse. There are thousands of Americans who have witnessed these things but threats and ridicule keep them silent.

          •  Yeah, okay (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            amRadioHed, BYw

            Thousands of people over decades with knowledge of aliens: secret kept.

            Blowjob in the Oval Office that only two people (initially know about): Page One in newspapers.

            It's glib, but sometimes one has to be.  Quite honestly, I can think of much better uses of $5.00.  A lunch at Subway, perhaps.

            I used to be somewhat of a believer.  Oh, I knew all about the abductions, and the crashes, and the secret hangar at Wright-Patterson, and Area 51 (before it became a subject of pop culture)...and then in high school I had a dawning realization that there was no there there.  I grew up and allowed reality in.

            •  Infinite number of glaxies (0+ / 0-)

              then in high school I had a dawning realization that there was no there there.  I grew up and allowed reality in.

              So in the infinite number of galaxies each with their uncountable suns and each with possible planets...our little planet is the only one to develop life.

              Yes, you grew up and your mind slammed shut just as you finished high school...

              Seriously IMO, the universe is teaming with life simply based on the number of opportunities.  I just find it very doubtful how any life could possibly travel the distances required to reach our planet.

              •  life elsewhere (0+ / 0-)

                So in the infinite number of galaxies each with their uncountable suns and each with possible planets...our little planet is the only one to develop life.

                Probably not.  Indeed, almost CERTAINLY not.

                But it MAY be the only one to have intelligent life.  At least for now.  Me, I've always considered that "intelligence" is just an evolutionary failure, doomed to disappear from the planet.  All it does is give life the ability to destroy itself (and everything around it).  Bacteria do a much better job of preserving genes and passing them on.

                Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:28:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

                  But it MAY be the only one to have intelligent life.  At least for now.

                  Why??    

                  Unless intelligence is almost infinitely impossible, then with the gigantic numbers of possible homes there should be other intelligent life somewhere in this universe.

                  •  Intelligent (0+ / 0-)

                    And how do you define intelligence?  Or are you considering a higher form of consciousness as intelligence?

                    Is a dog intelligent life?  Is a monkey intelligent life?  Or is only man intelligent life?

                    •  I'm talking about (0+ / 0-)

                      technological intelligence.

                      Dogs don't alter their environment to the point where they can no longer live in it.

                      Neither do monkeys.

                      Humans do.

                      That "intelligence" is an evolutionary dead end.  It will die with us, and if Mother Nature is smart, she'll never try that particular failed experiment again.  It was a disaster.

                      Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                      by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:21:37 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Intelligence (0+ / 0-)

                        That "intelligence" is an evolutionary dead end.  It will die with us, and if Mother Nature is smart, she'll never try that particular failed experiment again.  It was a disaster.

                        I disagree.  I see no reason for intelligent life to die off when intelligence provides greater surviveability.  

                        Of course, intelligence needs to be combined with wisdom which is so often sadly lacking even amonst our most techically intelligent.  

                        •  but that's my point (0+ / 0-)

                          The ONLY technological intellgience we know about (so far) is NOT providing "greater survivability".  Indeed, it is THE single most prominent threat to survival, and not just of the species that produced it.

                          We are living right now within a mass extinction event that is the largest since the K-T, and are even threatening the existence of our own species.  And it is produced, solely and only, by our technological intelligence.

                          I'm not sure by what measure of "survivability", that is a good thing . . . .

                          It sounds an awful lot like an "evolutionary failure" to me.

                          Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                          by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:42:57 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  intelligence combined with wisdom (0+ / 0-)

                            I did say intelligence combined with wisdom.

                            Just because intelligence combined with windom is rare in our species, does not mean it is rare in all other intelligent species.

                            •  assuming there ARE (0+ / 0-)

                              other intelligent species.

                              ;)

                              So far, our sample size is . . . one.

                              And the odds for a combination of "wisdom" and "intelligence" are, based on that sample, zero.

                              We can always hope, of course.

                              Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                              by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:45:34 AM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  Grain of sand (0+ / 0-)

                                So far, our sample size is . . . one.

                                Our sample size is only one because we are only capable of examining a single grain of sand on a beach of trillions of sand grains.  

                                So we cannot draw definite conclusions from such a limited sample.  ;>)

                                •  indeed (0+ / 0-)

                                  But alas, if we want to be reality-based instead of faith-based, we have to admit that every example of technological intelligence we know about -- every single one -- is an abject failure, biologically.

                                  :)

                                  Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                                  by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:06:15 AM PDT

                                  [ Parent ]

                                  •  Half empty (0+ / 0-)

                                    You are seeing the glass as half empty when it could, just as correctly, be seen as half full.

                                    Much happier seeing the glass as half full.

                                    •  well I can only hope (0+ / 0-)

                                      that if there is other intelligent life out there, it's not as self-destructive as we are.

                                      I also hope that we limit ourselves to just destroying THIS planet -- I'd hate to see us become interstellar and leave a trail of destroyed planets behind us, locust-like.

                                      (That reminds me of a T-shirt I once had, that read "Earth First! We can wreck the other planets later!").

                                      :)

                                      Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                                      by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:45:32 PM PDT

                                      [ Parent ]

                •  Check out the NASA (0+ / 0-)

                  Astrobiology Institute, and SETI.

                  We are looking.

                  Back from the dead due to a busted ankle and severe boredom.

                  by coigue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:13:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Excuse me, where did I say that? (0+ / 0-)

                Believing that there's probably life out there in the universe (what I consider a near certainty) IS NOT the same thing as believing that Zeta Reticulans are snatching people to stick probes up their asses.

                I don't believe in aliens as portrayed by the UFO conspiracy nuts.  That says NOTHING about my belief in the possibility of extraterrestrial life other than that I don't think it's here to conduct extensive proctological exams on humanity.

          •  why is it kept secret, then? (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            amRadioHed

            What do the governments of the US, or Botswana, or China, or Somalia, gain by keeping all this, uh, massive UFO "evidence" secret from everybody?  

            What's the PURPOSE of this big vast international conspiracy that stretches back for decades?

            What's it trying to ACCOMPLISH?

            Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

            by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:25:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  okayyyyyyyyyyyy . . . . (0+ / 0-)

            The UFOs have been reverse engineered. The UFO technology holds the solution to global warming and FREE ENERGY.  Thats right, free energy. The holy grail of advanced technology.

            And we're, uh, not using it because . . . . . ?

            Can you point to anything -- anything at all anywhere -- that is based on "reverse-engineered alien technology"?

            Anything?

            (So many nutters, so little time . . . . )

            Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

            by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:32:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm more inclined to think (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Jagger, comeinpbrstreetgang

            that the intelligent life that is out there is as bound to its own solar systems as we are to ours. They haven't found a way to communicate faster than the speed of light, let alone move complex higher life forms at those speeds without destroying them. They don't visit us because they can't, any more than we can visit them. Their spaceships would take untold thousands of years to get here; the crews would be made up of beings that consigned themselves to being stuck on board for generations, facing the constant threat of destruction from interstellar dust and rocks slamming into their ships at high speed, and unable to talk to the folks back home because the messages would take lifetimes to transmit and reply. And that's all assuming that they had somehow detected life here and decided to send someone to check it out.

            •  indeed (0+ / 0-)

              Seems to me that the, uh, UFOnauts have gone to an awful lot of trouble to come here just visit a backwater planet where nothing much of interest to them happens.

              I am really amused by the nutters who argue that the space aliens are here for our DNA, to make "alien-human hybrids" (for, uh, some reason or another).  Such people don't know anything about fourth grade genetics.  If they did, they'd know that humans would be no closer genetically to space aliens than we are to petunias, so a human-alien hybrid wouldn't be any more useful to them than a human-petunia hybrid would be to us.  Or, heck, the aliens would do just as well producing an alien-petunia hybrid.  We're no more similar genetically than petunias are.  

              Even the flying saucer fans simply can't get over the idea of humans as "something special".  

              We're not.

              We were born as a species, we'll live out our lifetime as a species, and we'll die as a species.  Just like the billions of other species that have come before us and will come after us.

               

              Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

              by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:26:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Threats of career loss??? (0+ / 0-)

            Do you seriously believe that someone with access to real evidence of the existence of UFO's wouldn't have countless more to gain by coming out with that evidence instead of staying in their government job?

            We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace -6.63, -6.97

            by amRadioHed on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:42:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yep (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              amRadioHed

              Such a person would be on every TV station in the world, would make billions just on the speaking fees alone, not to mention the book rights, movie rights, etc etc etc.  He would have his choice of research projects, could fund any institution or research center he wanted to, and would be able to do whatever research he liked.  He would be more famous than Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, and Bill Nye the Science Guy all rolled into one.

              And the flying saucer kooks are seriously suggesting that every single person with access to this, uh, "secret", would willingly and knowingly give all that fame and fortune up . . . for a government salary?

              Seriously?

              THAT is what they are claiming?

              Really????????

              No WONDER everyone thinks they're nuts.  (shrug)

              Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

              by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:47:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  yes (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      eeff, BYw

      I haven't seen those programs (not in the US), but there has been a lot of crap on the progressive op-de news lately.

      "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." - Thomas Jefferson

      by Jeffersonian Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:59:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've also lost all patience with (8+ / 0-)

      the raft of shows about nothing but weapons technology and war, with no attempt to provide human perspective.  It's all just toys, not things that burn children alive on the orders of callous sociopaths.  

      About six years ago, I felt compelled to write a disgusted letter to The History Channel when they used a painting of Alexander facing Darius in battle as a backdrop for a documentary about Dark Age England.  They never mentioned Alexander, Darius, Greece, Macedonia, Persia, or any element of the painting, and nothing of relevance to any of the above was ever brought up - they were just using it as random "historicky" imagery.  Over the intervening years, it's probably gotten much worse, but these days I don't see much reason to even watch them to find out.

      And don't get me started on even their civilian technology programming.  Modern Marvels was once interesting, in a trivial sort of way, but they've run out of marvels to profile and are now just talking about utterly random subjects with peripheral (if any) connection to modernity or technological progress.  Hour-long "documentaries" that are nothing more than image montages of big machines operating to the sound of electric guitar chords - your cue that they're "cool."  

      Then, of course, are all the goofy religious shows that show up on the "History" Channel, treating Biblical stories as records of actual events when the vast majority of historians regard them as fiction.

      Freedom is in the fight.

      by Troubadour on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:17:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Those bother me very much, because (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      puppet10

      they give a sense of legitimacy to nonsense.  That is not to say that I have never watched them, but prefer the Star Trek universe for my aliens.  Warmest regards, Doc.

      Sometimes I feel like Robert Louis Stevenson created me. -6.25, -6.05

      by Translator on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:16:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yep, had the grandkids actually interested (5+ / 0-)

      in a show about the pyramids and Ramses. (2 little girls sitting quietly watching the statues and ruins)when suddenly the narrator plunged offtopic to how Hebrews had been resident in Egypt for 400 years and that Ramses probably used forced Hebrew labor to construct his public projects. From there, we were treated to Moses and Exodus and the premise that Ramses' army was the Egyptian force drowned in the Reed Sea.

      This mixing of history and myth is very destructive to the learning process of children, as they are easily confused as to what was real and what is speculation.  

    •  Challenging worldviews (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Jagger, ibonewits

      The paranormal-themed programs do challenge the prevailing Cartesian Dualist worldview, but why is that a bad thing?

      Rather than dismissing objectionable data as bunk, why not engage the data scientifically?  Why not accept that our experience includes phenomena that existing scientific models cannot yet explain, and try to develop models that explain those phenomena?

      If such models require a fundamental revision or even rejection of the philosophical construct of Cartesian Dualism, doesn't that indicate a failure of Cartesian Dualism?  Isn't that how the science works?  If a construct doesn't match the data, you revise or reject the construct ... not the data.

      The problem is not that science cannot possibly explain paranormal phenomena, but that scientists have deemed the phenomena not worthy of scientific explanation.  They've decided to just say the data don't exist.

      That's not science.

      •  alas (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        puppet10, amRadioHed, BYw

        Science HAS examined everythign from "alien abductions" to "Bigfoot" to "ESP" to "pyramid power" to "the healing power of prayer".

        They're all horse shit.  (shrug)

        Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

        by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:04:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's probably better.... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Jagger

          Take a look at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research studies sometime.  These are observable, measurable data for which there is no adequate scientific model.  There are others, but this is probably the best place to begin your course of study.

          It's probably better not to advertise your ignorance on a science thread.  Just sayin'.

          •  alas (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            amRadioHed, BYw

            Scientists have looked at all the purported "scientific data" from all sorts of ESP nus, flying saucer kooks, and pyramid power whackos.

            They're all horse shit.  (shrug)

            Maybe you can make a movie that explains how all the big bad scientists are plotting to keep all you poor downtrodden "anomolies researchers" out of the Ivory Towers because they're all beholden to their, uh, "Cartesian Dualist Worldview".

            You can title it "Expelled", or something.

            Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

            by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:51:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Scientists have studied everything ... (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Jagger

              Scientists have looked at all the data ...

              Yeah, y'all know everything worth knowing, and by definition that means anything you don't know ...

              ... isn't worth knowing.

              Get back to me when you decide to pursue science, rather than the Church of Scientism.

              •  (yawn) (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                BYw

                Educate me, then.  Right here in front of the whole world.

                Give me your best example of this "alternative" of yours, whatever the heck it is.  ESP, psychokinesis, alien abductions, pyramid power, remote seeign, whatever.

                Your very best one.

                I'd be very happy to shred it to bits for you.  For free.  In as much detail as you can stand.

                Right here in front of everyone.

                The floor is all yours. . . . .

                (I do sooooo enjoy this . . . . .)

                Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:01:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  here, I'll start: (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  BYw

                  Let's take the example you cited above, the PEAR "tests":

                  The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)
                  The brainchild of Robert G. Jahn, who, in 1979, when he was Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University, claimed he wanted "to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice." In short, he wanted to be a parapsychologist and test psychokinesis (PK) and remote viewing (called remote perception by the PEAR folks). The PEAR folks are best known for their study of the mind influencing the behavior of machines, so this entry will focus on that work.

                  Scientists have been unable to find any clear and decisive evidence for psychokinesis. Those who claimed to move objects with only the power of their mind use tricks such as blowing on objects, moving them with thin threads, and using static charges to move objects. Some parapsychologists have not given up the chase, however. They began searching for micro-psychokinesis (MPK), minds affecting machines in ways that can't be detected except by statistics. Just as significant variance from chance in an ESP experiment is taken as evidence of ESP (the psi assumption), so a statistically significant deviation from chance in an MPK experiment is taken as evidence of MPK.

                  The PEAR lab shut down in February 2007 to a yawning scientific community.

                  In the 1960s, physicist and parapsychologist Helmut Schmidt started using random event generators to do MPK experiments. According to Dean Radin (1997), over the years Schmidt provided solid scientific support for the MPK hypothesis (or precognition, since there does not seem to be any way to tell the difference between MPK and precognition. Is the mind affecting the outcome of a random event generator or is anticipating what the outcome will be?)

                  In 1986, Jahn, Brenda Dunne, and Roger Nelson reported on millions of trials with 33 subjects over seven years trying to use their minds to override random number generators (RNG). Think of the RNG as producing zeros and ones. Over the long haul, the laws of probability predict that in a truly random sequence, there should be 50% of each produced. The subjects in the PEAR experiments tried to use their minds to produce more zeros (or ones, depending on the assignment). In short, the PEAR people did what many drivers do when they try to use their thoughts to make a red light turn green.

                  Radin thinks the PEAR group replicated Schmidt's work in 258 experimental studies and 127 control studies. C. E. M. Hansel examined the studies done after 1969 and before 1987 that attempted to replicate Schmidt’s work. He notes: "The main fact that emerges from this data is that 71 experiments gave a result supporting Schmidt’s findings and 261 experiments failed to do so" (Hansel 1989: 185). That is the beauty of meta-analysis: you can transform a failure rate of nearly 4 to 1 into a grand success.

                  In 1987, Dean Radin and Nelson did a meta-analysis of all RNG experiments done between 1959 and 1987 and found that they produced odds against chance beyond a trillion to one (Radin 1997: 140). This sounds impressive, but as Radin says "in terms of a 50% hit rate, the overall experimental effect, calculated per study, was about 51 percent, where 50 percent would be expected by chance" [emphasis added] (141). A couple of sentences later, Radin gives a more precise rendering of "about 51 percent" by noting that the overall effect was "just under 51 percent." Similar results were found with experiments where people tried to use their minds to affect the outcome of rolls of the dice, according to Radin. And, when Nelson did his own analysis of all the PEAR data (1,262 experiments involving 108 people), he found similar results to the earlier RNG studies but "with odds against chance of four thousand to one" (Radin 1997: 143). Nelson also claimed that there were no "star" performers.

                  However, according to Ray Hyman, "the percentage of hits in the intended direction was only 50.02%" in the PEAR studies (Hyman 1989: 152). And one ‘operator’ (the term used to describe the subjects in these studies) was responsible for 23% of the total data base. Her hit rate was 50.05%. Take out this operator and the hit rate becomes 50.01%. According to John McCrone, "Operator 10," believed to be a PEAR staff member, "has been involved in 15% of the 14 million trials, yet contributed to a full half of the total excess hits" (McCrone 1994). According to Dean Radin, the criticism that there "was any one person responsible for the overall results of the experiment...was tested and found to be groundless" (Radin 1997: 221). His source for this claim is a 1991 article by Jahn et al. in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, "Count population profiles in engineering anomalies experiments" (5:205-32). However, Jahn gives the data for his experiments in Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (Harcourt Brace, 1988, p. 352-353). McCrone has done the calculations and found that 'If  [operator 10's] figures are taken out of the data pool, scoring in the "low intention" condition falls to chance while "high intention" scoring drops close to the .05 boundary considered weakly significant in scientific results."

                  According to McCrone, the "size of the effect is about .1 percent, meaning that for every thousand electronic tosses, the random event generator is producing about one more head or tail than it should by chance alone" (McCrone 1994). Jahn says that the measured effect of MPK was "not large enough that you're going to notice it over a brief experiment, but over very long periods of study, we see a systematic departure of the behavior of the machine in correlation with what the operator wants it to do" (Park 2000: 198). Most experiments in medicine or psychology use fewer than 100 trials, or perhaps a few hundred at most. Big trials will have 25,000 or more subjects. Massive prospective studies might survey 250,000 people. The most commonly used P-value in the social sciences and medical studies is P<0.05, where there is a one in twenty chance that the result is a statistical fluke. The 95% confidence interval, used as a standard in most of these studies, is arbitrary, however. It can be traced back to the 1930s and R. A. Fisher. There is nothing sacred about the standard, but it was not introduced to be used with studies having millions of data points. The RNG studies go into the millions of trials, allowing a very small effect to generate a very large statistic. When we’re dealing with small effects and millions of trials "even the slightest departure from the assumptions might suffice to produce artificially significant outcomes" (Hyman 1989: 151). The main assumption that Jahn and his colleagues made may not be warranted. "It is not clear that any of these machines is truly random. Indeed, it is generally believed that there are no truly random machines. It may be that lack of randomness only begins to show up after many trials" (Park 2000: 199).</p>

                  These data should remind us that statistical significance does not imply importance. Science that claims to have identified barely detectable causal agents observed near the threshold of sensation, which are nevertheless asserted to have been detected with great accuracy and be of great significance, is one of the signs of what Irving Langmuir called pathological science and Bob Park calls voodoo science.

                  http://www.skepdic.com/...

                  As I said, science looked at the "alternative data", and saw it was horse shit.  (shrug)

                  Your turn . . . . . .

                  Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                  by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:09:56 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh wow ... a reference from skepdic.com (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Jagger

                    Obviously a totally neutral source.

                    •  and of course (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      amRadioHed

                      PEAR is a totally neutral source, huh.

                      But I notice that you didn't actually, ya know, refute any of the arguments made there . . . .

                      I wonder why that would be . . . . .

                      Care to give it a go?

                      The studies showed a 75% failure tare, and statistical results that did not differ from chance.

                      Care to explain why?

                      (sigh)  The more I listen to "leftist" anti-sciencers (flying saucer kooks, ESP nuts, whatever) the more they sound exactly like global warming-deniers and creationists.

                      Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                      by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:28:55 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Hate to break it to you (0+ / 0-)

                      but skeptic's are biased against pseudo-science. So yes, they are biased against PEAR but only because it is bullshit.

                      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace -6.63, -6.97

                      by amRadioHed on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:54:20 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Biased against ... because it's bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                        Call it "pseudo-science" and "bullshit" and there's no reason to keep looking ... because it's pseudo-scientific bullshit.

                        Can we spell "tautology?"

                        •  i don't see the problem (0+ / 0-)

                          It's just like I stop searching for my keys once I find them. Sure I could keep looking, who knows what else I may find? But I don't because there are far better uses of my time then to constantly search for nothing in particular.

                          That's what the scientists have done. They've investigate the paranormal phenomena, concluded they have no scientific validity and moved on to more productive areas of research.

                          We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace -6.63, -6.97

                          by amRadioHed on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:28:57 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  um, we HAVE looked (0+ / 0-)

                          We found it was bullshit.

                          (shrug)

                          Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                          by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:46:24 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm curious ---- (0+ / 0-)

                      do you also reject the reality of global warming because support for it comes from "liberal sources"?

                      (sigh)

                      You sound just like every IDer I've ever met.

                      Sad.

                      Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                      by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:48:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If I could <ignore user> (0+ / 0-)

                        I would.  I've discussed science.  You've discussed ...

                        ... that I'm a "nutter" ...

                        ... that I'm an "ID freak" (though I've never mentioned evolution at all) ...

                        ... that I'm a "conspiracy whacko" (though I've advocated no conspiracies at all) ...

                        ... hrmm ...

                        ... you just like to insult people with whom you disagree, hoping to browbeat them until they shut up and stop challenging your monopoly on meaning.

                        Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.

                        •  could you please just answer the question? (0+ / 0-)

                          If you reject the criticism of PEAR becaue it comes from a skeptic source, do you also reject global warming data because it comes from liberal sources?

                          If not, why not?

                          If so, then what makes you any different than the global warming deniers?

                          Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                          by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:18:19 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  And as a matter of fact ... (0+ / 0-)

                        ... the science of climate change is pretty clear.  It's happening.  We caused it.  And we're past the tipping point, which means we can no longer stop it.

                        ... the science of evolution is also pretty clear.  It's by far and away the best explanation for the similarities and differences among species.

                        But you'll just deny that I said that, just like you'll deny anything else I might say that you may agree with - or throw another 15 "challenges" (and at least as many insults) at me - until you think you've "won" the conversation ...

                        ... because while for me this is a matter of intellectual curiosity ...

                        ... for you it's a matter of religious fervor.

                        But I'm the "nutter" who "sounds just like every ID freak."  Anything you don't believe is "bullshit," and anyone who believes it is crazy or worse.

                        You worship at the Church of Scientism.  But you're not a scientist.  Nowhere close to it.

                        •  alas for you, the science of "the paranormal" (0+ / 0-)

                          is also quite clear.

                          There isn't any reproducible scientific study that demonstrates the existence of any "paranormal phenomenon" at all.

                          Not a one.

                          None whatsoever.

                          Your chief complaint seems to be that science won't pay any attention to your paranormal beleifs.

                          You're wrong.  Science HAS examined them.

                          And concluded they're all horse shit.

                          You can call me all the names you like.  You can yammer all you want about the "Church of Scientism".  You can eveb make a movie explaining how all the big bad scientific conspirators "expell" you from the scientific sandbox and won't let you play.  It won't change the simple fact that science has examined all the claims of the "paranormal researchers", and found ALL of them to be bullshit.

                          Sorry if you don't like that.  (shrug)

                          Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                          by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:22:39 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Finally, we make progress! (0+ / 0-)

                            There isn't any reproducible scientific study that demonstrates the existence of any "paranormal phenomenon" at all.

                            This is the first reasonable - non-insulting, non-belittling, non-combative - thing you've said in the entire thread.  It's also true.  Finally, we make progress!

                            No, there are no reproducible scientific studies demonstrating 'paranormal' phenomena.  There's a very good reason for that.  Once you understand and can predict a phenomenon well enough to reproduce it in a laboratory ... it's not a 'paranormal' phenomenon anymore.

                            It has become an ordinary phenomenon, like the fear cage (or helmet) that can reliably induce a sense of "haunting" by disrupting the normal biocognitive activity.  There is no ghost, no disembodied spirit lurking nearby.  Just EMF fluctuations that induce sensations that we mistake for "haunting."

                            My point all along has been that when we turn the tools of science on 'paranormal' phenomena, they turn out to be not 'paranormal' at all.  They are simply phenomena we hadn't understood before, and for which we'd spun 'paranormal' explanations in the absence of real understanding.

                            That's not the same as saying "It's all bullshit," which implies the phenomena don't happen, that the people who claim to experience them are either lying or mentally ill.  The phenomena do happen ... they're just not 'paranormal,' once we understand why they happen.

                            I had a personal experience of this last evening.  My daughter and I were listening to a TV show while doing other things (I was reading; she was working a Sudoku).  A character on the TV show said "It's de ja vu all over again."

                            That caught my attention, and I said, "I love that expression!"  (And I do.)

                            My daughter said, "Wow, we must be psychic, mom.  I was thinking the same thing, and then you said it."

                            That experienced seemed 'paranormal' for her, but only because she didn't understand what happened.  It wasn't 'paranormal' at all.  We were listening to the same program and responded simultaneously to a shared stimulus.

                            The best 'paranormal' research - and there has been some good research done - accepts that the response is real, and looks for the actual stimulus:

                            It may be something we experience intermittently, and misidentify the source of (e.g.: the thump in the night that is actually poorly-anchored pipes shaking as water moves through them).

                            It may be something we can readily experience, but don't recognize the neurocognitive significance of (e.g.: the dimensions or geology of a catacomb).

                            It may be something that passes below conscious experience, but that can be detected with the right instruments (e.g.: the EMF "fear cage"), or in the right conditions (e.g.: sleep paralysis leading to a perceived UFO abduction).

                            I suspect we'll eventually discover an ordinary, causal link in the PEAR studies as well.  That is, there was 'something' that caused some of the PEAR results to measurably skew, 'something' the PEAR researchers did (without realizing it) in some of the studies, and didn't do (without realizing it) in their other studies.  Because the PEAR folks don't know what the 'something' was, it wasn't in their experimental protocol, and the people trying to reproduce their results didn't do it either ... again, without realizing its absence.

                            When we find that 'something,' the PEAR phenomena will no longer seem 'paranormal' at all.  They'll be ordinary.  Not "bullshit."  Just "ordinary."

                            That's good science.  It adds to our understanding of what we do (and can do), sometimes without even knowing we're doing (or can do) it.

                            And, often, we learn something truly useful that we'd never have known if we hadn't spent some time researching the 'paranormal.'  A good example was the research into accounts of dogs' 'psychic ability' to predict epileptic seizures.  When the scientists really studied that, it turned out not to be 'psychic' at all.  There are physiological changes that happen before a seizure, and dogs can smell those changes.

                            Now we train "seizure dogs" to help epileptics cope with the illness by giving them enough warning to get to a safe place before a seizure strikes.  It's a wonderful benefit for people who suffer from that potentially life-threatening illness.  And we'd likely never have found it - never even considered it - if scientists merely dismissed the reports of dogs' 'psychic abilities' as "bullshit."

                            That's a classic example of why it's important to study 'paranormal' phenomena until we can explain what elicits the experience, rather than sneering at it because "It's bullshit."

                            But, once the research can explain what elicits the experience, it will no longer be 'paranormal.'  And that is why science has never proven a 'paranormal' phenomenon.  Once they can explain what's happening it's not 'paranormal' anymore.

                            No conspiracies.  No UFOs or ghosts or psi-powers.  Just ordinary experiences that we hadn't been able to explain until some scientists found the funding and time to really prise it apart.

                            But we never get there if we begin with "It's all bullshit" and look no further.  That's my beef with people like CSICOP, the "skeptics" who say that because they've no scientific model to explain it, it doesn't happen.  Rather than look for a rational explanation, they say the data (and those who experience it) are irrational.

                            That's not science.  That doesn't get us from (irrational) reports of dogs' 'psychic abilities' through (rational) proof of detectable pre-seizure physiological changes to (useful) training seizure dogs to help epileptics cope with their illness.

                            I'm not anti-science.  I'm anti-Scientism.  There is a world of difference.

                  •  Or, more completely ... (0+ / 0-)

                    Note the weasel words essential to their conclusion:

                    The RNG studies go into the millions of trials, allowing a very small effect to generate a very large statistic. When we’re dealing with small effects and millions of trials "even the slightest departure from the assumptions might suffice to produce artificially significant outcomes.

                    The main assumption that Jahn and his colleagues made may not be warranted. "It is not clear that any of these machines is truly random. Indeed, it is generally believed that there are no truly random machines. It may be that lack of randomness only begins to show up after many trials

                    "Might," "it is generally believed," "may be" ... these are not words that conclusively prove a case.

                    There "might be" a God.  "It is generally believed" that a God exists.  That God "may be" steering hurricanes into U.S. cities to punish sinners.

                    Pick which referents you attack to the predicates, but it's the same argument.  And no less specious.

                    Hint: Don't throw self-identifiably biased websites like skeptic.com at me.

                    •  you can wave your arms all you want (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      amRadioHed

                      the bottom line is that (1) PEAR's "results" were indistinguishable from chance, and (2) PEAR's "results" have never been duplicated by anyone, anywhere, at any time.

                      Why is that?

                      Leave your word games at home, and just explain too me why PEAR's "studies" failed three-fourths of the time, and why nobody has been able to reproduce whatever "results" they claim to have gotten.

                      Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                      by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:30:41 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The PEAR results did differ from random chance (0+ / 0-)

                        Not by much.  And perhaps not enough to warrant further study.  But they did.  The skeptic.com rebuttal simply translates to "We've decided this isn't enough."  Note that the rebuttal doesn't offer any alternative statistical standard.  It doesn't offer any proof that the p=0.05 standard is wrong.  It simply says that standard isn't enough for skeptics.

                        And that's very convenient for skeptics.  They make a habit of establishing their own standards for proof - and changing those standards if anyone brings forward evidence.  It's the "bring me the captain's log and the body of a dead alien" approach to evidence.  That is ... I'll decide what's enough, and I'll set whatever standard is most certain to reinforce my preexisting belief.

                        •  no, the reproducible ones did not (0+ / 0-)

                          The ones that PEAR claimed did, were unreproducible.

                          Why is that?

                          It's the "bring me the captain's log and the body of a dead alien" approach to evidence.

                          We call that "reality-based"

                          As opposed to "faith-based".

                          Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                          by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:51:50 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually it's the self-congratulatory-based (0+ / 0-)

                            "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," according to Carl Sagan.

                            True, so far as it goes.

                            Except that skeptics assert the unilateral right to decide what is and isn't an "extraordinary" claim, and what is and isn't "extraordinary" evidence.

                            And, surprise surprise, anything skeptics disagree with is an "extraordinary claim" ...

                            ... and no evidence in support of that is ever quite "extraordinary enough."

                            Translation:  "It's bullshit because I disagree with it."

                            And that is not "reality-based."  It's 100% "this is my opinion and I'm not changing it ever" based.

                            Kinda like ... most conservatives.

                            •  if you say so (shrug) (0+ / 0-)

                              Of course, you can change the mind of every scientist on the planet, simply by, uh, presenting some falsifiable reproducible scientific findings that support your beleifs.

                              Alas, you can't.  There ain't any.  And your weeping and whining, won't change that.

                              Science has examined the claims of the paranormal.  And concluded they're all crap.

                              Sorry about that.  (shrug)

                              Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                              by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:24:21 PM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

          •  PEAR data was attempted to be reproduced (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            amRadioHed, BYw

            at two German labs and PEAR itself and all three were unable to reproduce the original results.  As this is one of the fundamental requirements in experimental inquiry (reproducibility) it hurts their claims significantly.

            It also recently shut down.

            "...what Washington means by bipartisanship is mainly that everyone should come together to give conservatives what they want." --- Paul Krugman

            by puppet10 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:14:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yeah verily (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              puppet10, amRadioHed

              Despite decades of handwaving, the "psychic researchers" have never produced one single reproducible study that demonstrates the existence of any "psychic powers" or "ESP" or "paranormal abilities".

              Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  None.  Not a one.

              All of them, without exception, have been horse shit.  (shrug)

              The whining and weeping that I hear from the "paranormal researchers" -- "the big bad scientific conspiracy won't let me publish my world-shattering research boo hoo hoo !!!!"  is precisely the same whining and weeping that I hear from the producers of "Expelled".

              Indeed, the "big bad conspiracy" is the trademark cry of every crank, whacko and nutjob, from the "ESP" researchers to the "moon-landing-was-faked" kooks to the "alien abduction" fans to the "vaccines cause autism" shysters.

              ANY time I hear someone say "I have all this wonderful convincing evidence here, but the close-minded scientific conspiracy won't let me challenge their worldview!!!", I know that I'm talking to a nutter.  (shrug)

              Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

              by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:23:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've not argued any conspiracies (0+ / 0-)

                Scientists rely on funding.  Most of that funding comes from corporate grants.  Corporations are, quite reasonably, interested in funding science that will produce profitable products.

                There isn't much grant money available for studies of 'paranormal' phenomena, because the consensus is that such studies aren't likely to yield profitable products.  That's not a conspiracy.  It's not evil or secret.  It's just economic reality.  And given that we have a whole lot of demonstrable problems that do demand economically viable solutions, I've no problem with scientists having no great interest in 'paranormal' phenomena.

                My problem begins at the next step, the one that happens when - without adequate study - scientists say 'paranormal' phenomena do not happen, because ... well ... if it happened they would be studying it!

                That's where science - a vital and worthwhile field of human endeavor - turns into Scientism.  That is, it's at that point where the emphasis shifts from doing good science (a worthwhile thing!) to holding that anything worth studying has been explained or is being studied by Science, and anything Science can't explain and is not studying is not meaningful at all.

                That's not science, a method of learning.  That's Scientism ... a cult-like proclamation of monopoly on meaning.

                I don't "believe" in ghosts, psychics, UFOs, and the like.  I don't know.  If you asked me to speculate, I would guess that most 'paranormal' phenomena happen inside the human brain, a function of biocognitive processes that we don't yet fully understand, elicited by physical stimuli (e.g.: the EMF "fear cage" discoveries) that we're unaware of at a conscious level.

                That is to say, the experiences are "real" in the sense that the experients do perceive them, but the experiences are generated by as-yet-unidentified stimuli playing in as-yet-unmodeled ways through the biochemistry of the human brain.

                One fascinating study in Scotland (sorry but I've not found a link) studied the "haunted catacombs" beneath the city of Glasgow (as I recall).  I say it was fascinating, because the researcher found that subjects were measurably more likely to report experiences of "haunting" in catacombs reputed to be "haunted," even though the subjects had no prior knowledge of the local legends.

                Do I conclude from this that those catacombs really are occupied by disembodied souls of the dead?  No, and neither did the researcher.  Instead, I look at that and ask: what properties of those particular spaces elicits an experience of "haunting?"

                My guess is that the answer has nothing to do with disembodied spirits.  My guess would be that there are measurable properties - dimensions, geological or EMF effects, etc. - that we commonly perceive as a "haunting" experience.  It may simply go back to atavistic aversions to particular kinds of spaces, hard-wired into our neural nets through milliions of years of evolution, avoiding places that for entirely other reasons were unsafe or believed to be unsafe.

                Why hasn't this researcher done more?  Maybe he has.  I don't have the original document that I read (in a book, not online) some ten years ago, and I don't even remember his name, so it's hard to follow up.  Maybe he found that study was merely a statistical fluke.  Maybe he found a very prosaic, very ordinary description of the spatial properties of those "haunted" catacombs.  Either way, he found some interesting data, and I hope he followed up on it.

                Now, that's not a kind of research that is likely to attract a lot of corporate funding.  It doesn't seem to have any profitable potential.  And while I'm curious, I'm not wealthy enough to fund it, and I'll also freely concede that there are more useful fields of study that scientists find more valuable in terms of their time and effort.

                No conspiracy.  The problem just doesn't rate as high on the "gee we ought to fund this" scale.  I can accept that.

                I can accept it right up to the point where the "gee we ought to fund this" scale becomes a "if we're not studying it then it's meaningless bunk" scale.  That's where science becomes Scientism.

                •  really? (0+ / 0-)

                  Then why does science think all your "paranormal research" is a crock of shit?

                  Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                  by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:46:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  alas (0+ / 0-)

                  I can accept it right up to the point where the "gee we ought to fund this" scale becomes a "if we're not studying it then it's meaningless bunk" scale.

                  Science HAS studied it.

                  And found it to be bunk.

                  Sorry if you don't like that.  (shrug)

                  Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                  by Lenny Flank on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:47:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If science studied love the way it's studied.... (0+ / 0-)

                    If science studied love the way it's studied paranormal phenomena, it'd drag 100 random people in off the street, pair them off by some method, put them in a room for an hour or three while they wear heart, brain, and blood chemistry monitors ...

                    ... and conclude that people don't really fall in love after all because they couldn't replicate it in a laboratory.

                    Having thus decided that people don't fall in love, scientists would then announce "But we've studied it and it's bunk."

                    Most of what little scientific research has been done into the paranormal - and it has not been much - was done by eliminating key event factors, with the express purpose of proving that the events won't happen because they don't because they can't.

                    I can set up an "experiment" to prove that people can't experience the paranormal, in the same way I can set up an "experiment" to prove that people can't fall in love.  And I'll get the results I want, replicably.  But all I'll have proved is my ability to design a bad experimental model.

      •  The problem is (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        entlord1, BYw

        the shows are generally breathless in their tone about what little evidence they present which is generally extremely limited in probative value (usually limited to eyewitness accounts and videos or photos without contextual cues).

        If they treated the subjects with some reasonable skepticism I wouldn't have a problem with the shows.

        "...what Washington means by bipartisanship is mainly that everyone should come together to give conservatives what they want." --- Paul Krugman

        by puppet10 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:43:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually ... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Jagger

          ... most of the ones I've seen look first for rational explanations of the data.  Finding none - and there are a lot of cases where no current model fits the data - they then start asking questions of what the data might mean.

          Keep in mind that the obviously explanable data don't make it to these shows.  Paranormal research groups freely concede that 95% of the data they get can be explained by ordinary models.  It's the other 5% that get the "breathless" attention ... precisely because they can't be explained by our existing scientific models.

          Folks like CSICOP toss that 5% out with the rest.  And have no doubt about it, they have a socio-political agenda.  As a CSICOP spokesman said on a broadcast this week, "These 'theories' [of the paranormal] are not harmless.  They make people distrust the U.S. government."  (The horror!)

          There are many responsible researchers who try to narrow down that 5%, to seek provable models for this or that data, to say "Okay, we thought this was 'paranormal' but now we realize it's something else."

          A well-known and well-proven example is the effect of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on our experience.  It turns out that many "haunting" experiences can be explained by faulty home wiring, which can cause very large EMF fluctuations, which in turn induce a sense of "a presence," of being watched, along with a number of other physiological and psychological responses.  Paranormal researchers now have a name for this phenomenon, where identifiable sources of EMF elicit these responses in a particular place: they call it a "fear cage."

          That we're able to detect and respond to EMFs isn't surprising once you think about it ... but it's not something anyone thought about until some scientist decided to study "hauntings."

          As more science is turned upon paranormal phenomena, more of those phenomena do yield scientific explanations.  And sometimes those explanations force us to look at ourselves in very different ways, e.g.: as beings who can detect and be influenced by EMF, even if we're unaware of what we're detecting or being influenced by.

          And some of that is beginning to edge into macro-level experiences of quantum principles, something we'd assumed was not possible.  Quantum theory was always confined to the micro-scale.  The model was developed to explain the interactions of subatomic particles, and it was assumed that Bernoulli's Theorem precluded quantum-like effects in ordinary experience.  That is, any quantum effects would be moderated by the Weak Law of Large Numbers (statistical regression toward the mean) and thus our experience (comprised of billions of quantum-level events) would indeed be deterministic and predictable.

          We're now having to re-think that.  We're having to look at the possibility that the quantum model - stochastic rather than deterministic, interactive and interconnected at some core level - may apply beyond the limits of subatomic particles.  We may be able to apply equations of quantum physics to other domains (e.g.: macrosocial modeling), and if that proves to have predictive value, it will blow Cartesian Dualism out the window.

          But that's still science.

          It's just a science you don't get to when you begin from the perspective of "we already know everything worth knowing."

          by