Richard Dawkins Going After Faith Healers

[ZapperZ]

Thanks. I'll post this on my blog as well! :)

Zz.

 

[TestUser12]

25:13 into it, that's the face. ahhahahaha. I love him.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But Ivan, you're using one of the most common trick of attacking the debunking of it, by saying that something else could also be equally faulty and thus, it can't be all that bad. I do not believe that this has addressed any degree of credibility of astrology.

The point was that I have never seen a qualified test of astrology, in spite of all of the debunking. The most common approach is to show that people make bad subjective interpretations, which is a test of the people but not of the claim. If the debunkers really wanted to explore this and determine if there could be any validity to it, they would devise a reasonable test, but I have never seen it done. I can't help but wonder if this is because psychology would do no better; ie. we have no reliable way to test the claims.

This speaks to your second point as well. I have never seen a credible test of astrology, so I don't know if there might be anything to it.

 

[ZapperZ]

The point was that I have never seen a qualified test of astrology, in spite of all of the debunking. The most common approach is to show that people make bad subjective interpretations. If the debunkers really wanted to explore this and determine if there could be any validity to it, they would devise a reasonable test, but I have never seen it done.

This speaks to your second point as well. I have never seen a credible test of astrology, so I don't know if there might be anything to it.

But don't you think it is rather strange that the burden of "proof" in your scheme here seems to lie not with those who claim it is valid, but those who claim it isn't? I've never seen a qualified test of astrology that claim that it works either. And as far as I know, usually it is those who claim such a thing that have to prove its validity.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If science has no valid means to test a claim, how can the burden of proof be dumped on laymen? Granted, their's is a statement of faith, but the debunking is pretty much worthless from what I can see. And I don't mean just here, but in every debunking of it that I've seen.

 

[ZapperZ]

If science has no valid means to test a claim, how can the burden of proof be dumped on laymen? Granted, their's is a statement of faith, but the debunking is pretty much worthless from what I can see. And I don't mean just here, but in every debunking of it that I've seen.

There are many things in which science has no means to test a claim, because these things are unfalsifiable. It is not the fault of science. But the public, however, needs to understand that, which is these claims simply have no validity that can be shown and proven. The burden of proof still lies with those who made the claim that these things are real, just like the rest of us when we make our claim. Why would they be any different or special?

Secondly, since when has none of these things been tested? Psychic abilities etc. have been the subject of testing for many years, with nary a well-document evidence. If there is, we'd all won't be talking about its validity Bob Park even highlighted a test done by a high school girl that clearly debunked one of these things and even got published in a reputable journal. So no, I disagree that there are no aspect of any of such pseudoscience that has been tested rigorously.

Zz.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

well,

the burdain of evidence. Evidence can be provided, only if the available science grows up to it.

Heres something I would like to say.

Faith healing, does it work? Absolutely.
All faith healers true? Absolutely not.
How do you know it works? I have seen it.

How did you see it?
Like this. I have seen this man with a tumor on his leg, full of puss and with bandages. he comes to a holy man I know of and asks for curing it. The holy man doesn't budge for a long time. He is one of those recluse kind of guys who doesn't bother with what they make in terms of money. There are many such in India. They don't bother with money or fame, they neither have home nor have job, they live by eating what ever they come across that particular day, most of them don't even talk usually and keep silent and meditative. This is one such guy. So, this guy, this holyman, after some prayers by the sick guy looks at him and says, get me a glass of water.

The sick fellow limps off to the corner of the shed and gets the holy man a glass of water. The holy man drinks it and again keeps silent. After a few minutes, this sick guy realizes that his leg doesn't hurt anymore. He checks out and sees that his bandage is hanging loose and sees that there's no trace of the tumor! he thanks the holy man sitting there and then goes away. I was still sitting in the holy man's presence. After a few minutes, the holy man changes posture, and now i can see his leg and it has the same exact tumor which was not there before when I gave a massage to his legs!

This happened in front of my eyes. I am not a person of blind belief. I look at myself as a guy who searches for explanations. Either in science or otherwise. But this happened at around 11 AM, i was not sleepy nor drowsy, i don't take any intoxicants ever, it was right before me! The same exact tumor! the shape was also unmistakable!

Now, how can I prove that it can happen?
Two ways. One, if the holy man decides to show off and he succeeds or if I can do it in a lab and show that it is possible.
Two, If I can provide a logical basis, a tentative deduction of rational thinking that supports such claims.
The second one is not quite possible, because the logical basis for it is not "found" by science yet, that consciousness is all pervading and that a tune up with that conscious level can enable a man to perform the seemingly super-natural feets. They are not supernatural at all, but are parts of nature's mechanisms, but for this, science needs to grow.

In that case, again, we all have two ways to go.
We can say "the heck with it. I won't believe it until science catches up".
or we can say "may be.. may be not.. I will try and find out myself and make my mind about it."

eitherway, the ugly face of it that we see in the commercialization of faith healing (in evangelism and other ways) must be fought and the correct version must be sought.

Now, with in the above framework, I would be glad if anyone can point me to a methodology that I can use to prove it.

I have a similar experience with astrology, but not as emphatic as this one is.

I was studying astrology (Vedic Astrology -- called "Jyotisha" meaning "lighting up"), a basic study. My teacher is a young guy, quite un-assuming guy who was open that he himself was not at adept and that astrology itself can't accurately predict anything, but its combination with other sciences like palmistry and with mental abilities of intuition can greatly increase the chances. He was teaching at around 3 pm in the afternoon and in the middle of the class, while explaining certain configuration of stars and planets, he said, "this config will occur at around 4 PM. It should drizzle at that time most probably. It happens 75 percent of the time. It rains atleast a little everytime this configuration occurs in the sky" and then he went on with his class. We were absorbed in the class when suddenly it started raining! He looked at the watch and said "See? Its 4.05!" And then we realized how accurate his prediction was.

it was a sunny day, not a cloudy one. Its India and it doesn't rain much in these parts. It might, but not so predictably.

It happened three more times confirming its validity TO ME.

This one is more provable. One can look up the configuration and see if it will rain more than 70 percent of the time and see if it happens. I will try and find out exactly when it happens, say in the city I stay (prediction vary based on longitudes and lattitudes) and some other cities. I am in the process of doing it.

Now what can science say about this? Not a peanut!

DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

Then what are you waiting for? James Randi has $1 million waiting to award to you!

Again, as I've illustrated, most people have no clue on the difference between anecdotal evidence and actual, scientific evidence. This is one clear example.

Zz.

 

[Moridin]

Was that anecdotal evidence? Yes.
Can meteorologists do it? Probably, but with certain error bars.
How do I know? Because the evidence says so.

Generally, science can damage supernaturalism in two ways:

- Come up with an experiment that falsifies the idea (if it turns out that it is indeed a natural causality).
- Replace the supernatural explanation with a natural one and explain the natural origin of said supernatural belief (such as rain dance, the Sand Man and so on). Of course, this does not in any way disprove the supernatural idea, but it does make it obsolete.

If science has no valid means to test a claim, how can the burden of proof be dumped on laymen? Granted, their's is a statement of faith, but the debunking is pretty much worthless from what I can see. And I don't mean just here, but in every debunking of it that I've seen.

It does not matter if the claim can be tested by science, is outside science, reason or logic or what have you. The burden of proof/evidence is still on the one making the assertion to show why it is relevant, by which ever means is applicable.

On another subject, this was only briefly addressed at the very end, probably a build-in trailer for the second part. It was the clip with that funny postmodern relativist. Their basic claim is that science is orthodox and that the evidence might support one idea for one person and another idea for another person, thus attempting, in a way, to reduce science to an arbitrary social construction. I do hope this will be debunked in the second part.

I have a few objections to their claims.

1. If science is an arbitrary social construction, how come it has been enormously successful in such areas as medicine, technology and so on, whereas voodoo, astrology and so on has not shown any progress at all if we look at the advancement of society? This is where the relativistic distortion falls to it knees. This argument is generally enough to debunk their claims, but why stop when you are having fun?

2. Science knows that cognitive biases exists and attempts to remove or limit them by double blind studies, peer-review and a valid method of self-correction (doing more tests), whereas voodoo, astrology and so on does not.

3. Certain aspects of science is hard-wired into our genes. Indeed, this can be demonstrated by babies, how and by which means they explore the world around them.

4. Lack of testability, repeatability, falsifiability, evidence, methodology and epistemology for pseudoscience. These are valid obstacles and they are welcome to try and overcome them (by logic or otherwise). They have not done it so far.

I may have over interpreted his stance. Oh well.

 

[ZapperZ]

The social relativists as advocated by some postmodernists have been thoroughly debunked by Alan Sokal. In fact, many aspects of postmodernism suffered a severe blow of respectability when Sokal pulled off his hoax in Social Text. It revealed that these people were adapting physics concepts with very little knowledge beyond a superficial understanding of what they are, i.e. they were using something based on ignorance.

Zz.

 

[Moridin]

Right, by publishing the 'Transgressing' article because it sounded scientific and appeared to agree with their ideology?

I should add some books by him and others on the subject to my reading list. Thanks.

 

[asterias]

Then what are you waiting for? James Randi has $1 million waiting to award to you!

Again, as I've illustrated, most people have no clue on the difference between anecdotal evidence and actual, scientific evidence. This is one clear example.

Zz.

d_jnaneswar said that he has seen supernatural workings ( and not that he is one who can do it ). Does Randi give award even to them ? Huh ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There are many things in which science has no means to test a claim, because these things are unfalsifiable. It is not the fault of science. But the public, however, needs to understand that, which is these claims simply have no validity that can be shown and proven. The burden of proof still lies with those who made the claim that these things are real, just like the rest of us when we make our claim. Why would they be any different or special?

Well, first of all, part of the point is that anyone who claims that astrology is all rubbish is likely blowing smoke since AFAIK no one has ever done a good test of it. At the least no one seems to point to a good test showing that serious astrological claims are falsified. So from what I see, the typical attacks are unfounded even if correct. But the real question is why people believe in astrology. I think the answer is that people perceive truth in what they read or hear [I'm talking about serious astrologers and practitioners, and not tabloid stuff]. Now, this may be due to nothing but gullibility and word games, but in many cases it seems that having tried it, many people are left believing that it works. That may not be evidence for you, but it is for them. If scientists are going to demand scientific evidence, they need to provide a fair test and quit pointing to subjective stooges as evidence that astrology doesn’t work.

Secondly, since when has none of these things been tested? Psychic abilities etc. have been the subject of testing for many years, with nary a well-document evidence. If there is, we'd all won't be talking about its validity Bob Park even highlighted a test done by a high school girl that clearly debunked one of these things and even got published in a reputable journal. So no, I disagree that there are no aspect of any of such pseudoscience that has been tested rigorously.

We were talking about astrology. I never said anything about psychics here – not even the ones who find bodies when the police can’t.

What has been tested rigorously in the lab is the assertion that psychic phenomena can be produced on demand in the lab. That might rule out one class of claims - namely the obvious charlatans - but it hardly settles the point.

Speaking of pseudoscience; the effort to prove that nothing non-physical exists? Isn’t that a philosophy 101 error?

 

[siddharth]

Well, first of all, part of the point is that anyone who claims that astrology is all rubbish is likely blowing smoke since AFAIK no one has ever done a good test of it. At the least no one seems to point to a good test showing that serious astrological claims are falsified.

So from what I see, the typical attacks are unfounded even if correct. But the real question is why people believe in astrology. I think the answer is that people perceive truth in what they read or hear [I'm talking about serious astrologers and practitioners, and not tabloid stuff]. Now, this may be due to nothing but gullibility and word games, but in many cases it seems that having tried it, many people are left believing that it works. That may not be evidence for you, but it is for them. If scientists are going to demand scientific evidence, they need to provide a fair test and quit pointing to subjective stooges as evidence that astrology doesn’t work.

There was a test that Shawn Carlson did on astrology which was published in Nature. Also, there have been other tests which have repeatedly shown that astrology has no greater predictive power than what is expected by chance. I think James Randi had also done experiments which proved the same thing.

Here are the references

- A double-blind test of astrology, Nature 318, 419 - 425 (05 December 1985)
- Treating astrology's claims with all due gravity, Nature 447, 528 (31 May 2007)
- http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10 No. 6-7, 2003, pp175-198

What has been tested rigorously in the lab is the assertion that psychic phenomena can be produced on demand in the lab. That might rule out one class of claims - namely the obvious charlatans - but it hardly settles the point.

I disagree. Claiming that psychic phenomena cannot be reproduced when tested under proper controls, yet somehow may exist otherwise seems very analogous to the God of the gaps argument

 

[ZapperZ]

d_jnaneswar said that he has seen supernatural workings ( and not that he is one who can do it ). Does Randi give award even to them ? Huh ?

Randi only needs someone who can prove to him that such a thing exists. He doesn't have to be the one having such supernatural ability. So if he thinks such anecdotal evidence is sufficient to establish validity, how come he hasn't applied for the prize?

That was my point.

Zz.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Well,

Why didnt I apply to randi? The answer is :

1. I didnt know much about randi until very very recently.
2. randi seems to be biased on debunking rather then seeing the truth.
3. randi seems quite obviously deluded about his views on homeopathy that works. IT simply works! Yet randi is hell bent on saying that it is not logically possible, which is true. If randi were looking for a case to find the truth, he can just walk out and find it, practically, around the world!
4. The issue of homeopathy working on so many patients, including me (i got rid of ailments ranging from common cold to typhoid to malaria with homeo alone) shows that there's is enough "survey" type evidence out there, which randi appears so blind towards.
5. There is no point in applying when one knows that the tester is plainly blind to what ever he thinks is not possible.
6. I am from india, and I don't need some randi to give me money, i can earn it.
7. randi's claims of 1 million dollars don't allure me enough. An opportunity for scientific study, in the shade of adept scientists would probably encourage me enough to apply.
8. all randi has to do is come to India and see things for himself with an open mind. I am open to show him such people, but granted that such holy people don't give a peanuts worth to 1 million dollars, randi couldn't "make them" do what they do.
9. i am testing out those astrology claims myself, and once i am sure that it works, i might apply to randi regarding the astrology issue.

Any further questions?
Oh.. by the way.. if you didnt read it yet, read this in your spare time. A life sketch of a Holy Man in India who lived in the 19th and early 20th century. The book is written based on personal interview who lived along side the Holy man, and also based on a biography that was written during His lifetime. here's the link ... Its free for online reading.
http://www.divyajanani.org/saibharadwaja/books/SaibabaTM/Introduction.html

Does it prove anything? Well, for me, it proves of a possiblity. For randi and folks, God knows whether it would do any good or not.

DJ

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Regarding the anecdotal evidence vs scientific evidence, its a strange thing!

Sure that i gave only anecdotal evidence. But its evidence none the less. Such evidence is ample for all those issues such as miracles.

How can I provide "scientific evidence" when I am not even sure of the vocabulary of science? I am not a qualified scientist, not even educated to be a professional scientist, all my science studies are based on query rather than anything else. How can I provide proper scientific evidence?

Besides science itself is not much more than experimentation and verification. How do you verify claims such as this when you yourself can't do them? I mean, I can't cure someone of their tumors. I can't make this man do it at my will. Then how can such claims be proved scientifically?

Only one option. One has to walk the walk. Try and achieve that level of ability oneself and try and do it oneself and that's the only sure way to go about it. But the so called scientists are so "blind" that they don't want to spend time experimenting, and rather go about calling any thing "foul" that they don't understand.

Mysticism is a classic example. There are numerous mystics who have claimed to have achieved meditational states where they stated to have found God. All of them separated by time/space/tradition. Yet each of their descriptions of such an existence as God seem to be perfectly in accord with one another. Now, how can we "scientifically" prove what they experienced in deep meditation?

Reading brainwaves during meditation is much like searching for alphabets in a shakespear play. Its not the alphabets that matter, but the way they are put together and their portrayal of story and emotion that matters.

Now, with that brain wave thing out of the way, how can one claim that such a God exists? How can one scientifically prove that all those amazing feets that such mystics did were possible?

ONLY ONE SURE WAY. One has to sit and meditate the prescribed way and see if such a state is attainable or not. Unfortunately, most scientists who call these claims "foul" seem to lack the fortitude to do so. They arent willing to experiment the right way, and still claim to be "scientists" and "debunkers" and go about calling such claims as "non-sense". So much for their scientific outlook.

I am myself testing it, experimenting it myself. Trying to do the meditation in the prescribed way to see if it all happens or not. If it doesnt, I would happily agree that it might not. but before that, I would not claim to "DEBUNK" things.


DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

Well,

Why didnt I apply to randi? The answer is :

1. I didnt know much about randi until very very recently.
2. randi seems to be biased on debunking rather then seeing the truth.
3. randi seems quite obviously deluded about his views on homeopathy that works. IT simply works!

And that is where we differ.

This is still a "physics" forum, and you should realize by now that just saying it works just doesn't cut it. It also shows that you continue to not understand the difference between such anecdotal evidence and what is a scientific, valid evidence. Your view on homeopathy is one such example, because you have discounted the possibility of other reasons for what you perceive to be its effects. In science, such cause-and-effect is an important ingredient that is investigated and identified. Correlation does NOT imply causation!

As for Randi, he has never passed himself as anything else. No one will confuse him as someone who doesn't not have a skeptical view of such things. So this isn't a surprise. Still, what better subject you can get to prove wrong? If you are THAT convince of what you believe, then prove it to him. It can't be that difficult if it is that obvious to you, can it? After all, physicists like Millikan were out to prove Einstein's photoelectric effect model wrong. Yet, their results turns out to make verification of the model. There's nothing more convincing that someone who is skeptical of your idea to come out and verify that it really is true.

I would also like to point out to you that the PF Global Guidelines applies even in here. Please review it before proceeding any further, and pay particular attention to the type of links that are allowed.

Zz.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Hey zz,

I didnt think the link I provided was wrong. Its just a link to a book about a man. No strings attatched. Still, if you think its not meant to be, then by all means, take it down. I would take it down if its any way problematic.

This is still a physics forum. Debunking and talking about theories is what I expected. I was just pointing out that homeo seems to work! Thats all! The hundreds and hundreds of people getting cured by homeo is something I see everyday. And Randi's comments on homeo never touches it. Thats what I wanted to point out.

Secondly, I am not a medical guy. I have no clue how homeo works. I was hoping for a discussion on how it might. I know how it might not, thanks to randi.

Very clear that correlation doesn't imply causation. But it doesn't deny it either. It is obvious for me that its working, based on the effects that I see in people. Its not obvious for me as to how it works. I mentioned Homeo to point out one of the reasons of me not bothering with randi. Skepticism is fine, but confirmed skepticism is as bad as blind faith. I have neither. All i have is my natural tendency to believe what seems reasonably right. Thats all.

This whole topic came about because of "Debunking" and "faith healing". I was just pointing out areas where there's no debunking happening. All people are doing is to debunk false people, people with false claims, and I am all for it. I don't accept it on "blind faith" that just because a few nut-cases got debunked, it means that the whole thing is wrong. I feel there's more to it, because I have seen it. I want to find it and research into it.

I am open to the possiblity, completely open to possiblity that it might all be poof. But I am against blind faith, and against blind skepticism. I am on these "physics" forums to study and discuss and improve "MY" view of the world.

I am happy to just read these forums, but can't help but ask questions that don't seemed to be touched on. This is an amazing forums that gives me knowledge of several people who might have read several books, helping me think of concepts without having to wade through mountains of books to find just that one argument. I don't want to make this forums an ugly debate any ways. I was just talking of randi, because its mentioned.

Anyways, let's get one with it!

DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

Hey zz,

I didnt think the link I provided was wrong. Its just a link to a book about a man. No strings attatched. Still, if you think its not meant to be, then by all means, take it down. I would take it down if its any way problematic.

This is still a physics forum. Debunking and talking about theories is what I expected. I was just pointing out that homeo seems to work! Thats all! The hundreds and hundreds of people getting cured by homeo is something I see everyday. And Randi's comments on homeo never touches it. Thats what I wanted to point out.

Secondly, I am not a medical guy. I have no clue how homeo works. I was hoping for a discussion on how it might. I know how it might not, thanks to randi.

Very clear that correlation doesn't imply causation. But it doesn't deny it either. It is obvious for me that its working, based on the effects that I see in people. Its not obvious for me as to how it works. I mentioned Homeo to point out one of the reasons of me not bothering with randi. Skepticism is fine, but confirmed skepticism is as bad as blind faith. I have neither. All i have is my natural tendency to believe what seems reasonably right. Thats all.

This whole topic came about because of "Debunking" and "faith healing". I was just pointing out areas where there's no debunking happening. All people are doing is to debunk false people, people with false claims, and I am all for it. I don't accept it on "blind faith" that just because a few nut-cases got debunked, it means that the whole thing is wrong. I feel there's more to it, because I have seen it. I want to find it and research into it.

I am open to the possiblity, completely open to possiblity that it might all be poof. But I am against blind faith, and against blind skepticism. I am on these "physics" forums to study and discuss and improve "MY" view of the world.

I am happy to just read these forums, but can't help but ask questions that don't seemed to be touched on. This is an amazing forums that gives me knowledge of several people who might have read several books, helping me think of concepts without having to wade through mountains of books to find just that one argument. I don't want to make this forums an ugly debate any ways. I was just talking of randi, because its mentioned.

Anyways, let's get one with it!

DJ

But see, this is where I see the consistent double standards. You expect science to clearly and succinctly debunk these claims, yet, you never require those who made these claims in the first place the same requirement. Because if you do, we won't be having this conversation, and there's no need to debunk anything, because the burden of proof is on the proposer, not the objector, and the proof is just isn't there! This whole discussion is then moot!

People like Dawkins and Bob Park (I suggest you read his book "Voodoo Science") should NOT have to go out and have to reveal to the public what a bunch of quackery this is. When there are claims being made that this thing is as effective as any medical treatment, then the burden for it to be tested in the same rigorous manner as any medical treatment falls on the claimer. Yet, they don't! You continue to claim that it works (now, you are saying it SEEMS to work. What changed?) but you have provided no concrete evidence that it does. And when I say concrete evidence, I mean as in a scientific study that has been verified independently. Considering how long homeopathy has been claim to work, and yet we are still now questioning whether it really is real or not, this is a clear sign of voodoo science. Real, scientifically-verified evidence doesn't evolve this way.

The fact that homeopathy has been claimed to "work" without any reputable evidence and study has never been disputed. Again, Bob Park listed several of the "best" of the dubious claims made about it. In the US, they try to fly under the radar of the Food and Drug Administration by claiming that they are an "alternative, natural" medicine and not subjected to the same rigorous standards as conventional medicine. So what are they afraid of? That they really can't show that the diluted water they're using truly has a "memory"? This would crumble their whole empire since this is what they based everything upon! Somehow, people who buy these things never cared about how nonsensical and unproven the foundation of this whole thing is. This is not something conventional science is allowed to get away with!

Until there is clear clinical evidence of the effectiveness of anything, no one should put anything on the same degree of certainty with something that has gone through and been verified via such process. We do not put String Theory on the same degree of certainty as the BCS Theory of Superconductivity, and neither should you.

Zz.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

I totally understand what you mean when you say that all I have is anecdotal evidence. I know its not "scientific" enough.

I can't claim that its true as long as it is not "scientific" enough. I shall search for it before I put forth any argument to support that case.

But all I wanted to see ask was that why does it work so well on so many people and still elude science? Does science need to grow? Is there a new avenue and new outlook that can be brought about? Is something very obvious missing?

I don't know how homeo works. I have a fairly decent theory as to why faith healing might work, but its based on things that are not accepted by science. Not that science denies them, but that there's not enough experimentation done on the subject, nor sound theories proposed yet.

Thats all I was saying. I was not saying that I could prove it. Quite the contrary, I was trying to see if there's a way that I can. If there's a way I can get an answer to "why so many people are getting cured using homeopathy". I coudnt find an answer any where. One answer that I came across is the "Placebo" theory. But it can't work so often on so many people with such predictablity.

Randi's test on homeo was to apply the medication on a laboratory sample of bacteria and viruses. The test showed that homeo didnt have any effect on the microbes, and the results were as good as they would be with plain water. I understand that homeo medicine might not even contain a single grain of medicine in a sample.

Still, it seems to cure people. Its becoming more and more mainstream. Its affordable, and seemingly, it works. I am yet to hear of a case where homeo failed. There will be cases, but I didnt come across any to analyze where homeo failed.

I am studying the responses of nervous systems during an attack of disease. I am studying the immune system. But since I am not qualified, I don't even know what books to study. Until almost a year ago, me being in India, didnt have access to books on the latest studies on consciousness and what scientists are doing towards it. Now that I have them, I am reading them like a maniac, in hope of understanding.

Similarly, i don't have an access to the books on the other side of homeo. I can ask a homeo doctor about a book, but what ever he suggests would probably be pro-homeo. I want to see anti-homeo ideas and books but i can't seem to find them. And among those that I found, there's no address to the issue of so many people getting cured.

I hoped that this forum, full of intellectuals to whom I have immense respect, would show me some of them. Thats what my stance is. I am not here to prove that science is wrong. I know it can't be complete right, by common sense, and that it can improve with every theory. I am hoping to enhance my understanding and that's all.

in the midst of it, i get across books by people like Richard Dawkins. he seems like a nice guy in the interviews, but his words on religion are "strong coffee". They are almost at the point of hurting. So are randi's.

Just to clear up my stance there. I don't want to be seen as an anti-science guy, which I am not. I hope that this would provide an easier sense of good discussion when ever i might enter into it.

Double standards are there in my argument because I can't do any better. I am not an authority to walk up to a homeo doctor and say "DO THIS". I am hoping that prominent scientists do it. Science has the burdain of serving people. I know that the people who claim such things must also claim them only under "proper" experimental evidence. I am not denying that. But that side of things is totally lacking. All I see is scientists providing "debunking" theories. I can't find "homeo works" experiments at all. I hope I can see some. But since one side is active while the other side seems to be running away gives me no option but to ask more of the provider. I am just seeking to find if there's a through claim as to why it WILL NOT WORK and along with it, to complete the theory, I seek an explanation for WHY ITS WORKING ON SO MANY. Thats all.

I wish that the people who claim these things provide evidence. Its not right of them to claim it if they cant. You see, I am not in a position to do either. I am not a homeo guy who can prove it, nor a scientist who can disprove it. I am looking at scientists to provide me answers that i can use my reason to integrate them in my world view. I am looking for the homeo guys to provide evidence too.

I think homeo WORKS because it SEEMS to. Nothing more than that. Theres no change in my stance there. When I said "Homeo simply works!" i only meant that "to me homeo seems to work!" Theres no difference between those statements, and as I am new to discussing things in english, i requst you to take it as a lack of expression.

Looking forward to learning a lot!
Thanks for these forums!

DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

But all I wanted to see ask was that why does it work so well on so many people and still elude science? Does science need to grow? Is there a new avenue and new outlook that can be brought about? Is something very obvious missing?

There have been several studies that indicated that the placebo effect clearly is at work here. In other words, homeopathy has not ruled out this effect. Try look at the STATISTICS and see how many actually got better with it, and then try looking at a similar study whereby a placebo was given instead. You'll see that the number that claims for the homeopathy medicine to work is NEVER higher than the "background noise" of the statistics,i.e. you cannot discount the placebo effect!

Many of us who do experiments are always, always careful about this. Did we get something simply via coincidence or chance? Is our statistical result clear enough beyond simple statistical fluctuation? Not only that, if we do see a correlation, can we figure out the mechanism that allows us to point to a cause and effect? This is important because science isn't just a matter of "stamp-collecting". In medicine, one MUST know of and verify the exact mechanism that causes something before it even goes into a clinical trial. If not, it is voodoo science.

I could point out to you a case where, if you look just at one subject who claim that he/she is affected by cell phone transmitter, managed to indicate 6 times out of 6 whenever the transmitter signal is ON. Now, what would you deduce from this? That yes, a human being can feel something when the transmitter is on, because this is proof? This is what those in the homeopathy industry is also claiming! But this is NOT a scientific proof, and it doesn't pass muster as far as establishing the validity of that claim. This is because if you look at the WHOLE study, the number of people who claim they are affected by such signal but FAILED to correctly detect when the the signal is on is LARGER than whose who got it all correct! Not only that, people who did NOT claim that they are affected by the signal can ALSO got it right, simply based on chance!

What I'm trying to illustrate here is that there are MANY ways in which the apparent observation of something working can be misleading, and can in fact have an entirely different explanation. What science does and tries to establish is that yes, it works, and we can describe/explain the mechanism on why it works. This is a very stringent criteria and not something that can be done simply by declaring it on some internet public forum.

Zz.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Besides,

I think homeo works on a "life" level. Not just on a chemical level. It works inside a patient, but might not work on a glass plate in a laboratory. I haven't seen experiments like these. Unless its done, its not "Scientific" enough to say that homeo doesn't work, just like randi did. What you said seems to say that test groups have been used. Can you point me to any link if you have any at hand? I would look at the statistics myself.

Could there be a difference? "Life" is something science fails to explain emphatically. All it says is that Life and consciousness MIGHT be emergent properties. Nothing more than that. The mind vs brain debate is age old and is not solved because science didnt grow up to it yet.

Thanks for the discussion and taking your time.
DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

Besides,

I think homeo works on a "life" level. Not just on a chemical level. It works inside a patient, but might not work on a glass plate in a laboratory. I haven't seen experiments like these. Unless its done, its not "Scientific" enough to say that homeo doesn't work, just like randi did. What you said seems to say that test groups have been used. Can you point me to any link if you have any at hand? I would look at the statistics myself.

Could there be a difference? "Life" is something science fails to explain emphatically. All it says is that Life and consciousness MIGHT be emergent properties. Nothing more than that. The mind vs brain debate is age old and is not solved because science didnt grow up to it yet.

Thanks for the discussion and taking your time.
DJ

What you just asked is vague and undefined. I have a simpler rebuttal to it - show under clinical trial that it works in the first place. Then we'll go on to try and find what causes it. To try and speculate (it is what you're doing, isn't it?) what could cause it and whether it can or cannot be studied is meaningless when the validity of the phenomenon hasn't been established, even after all these years.

I have, however, studies on the placebo effect that clearly show that these can cause a physiological effect on people. Studies on homeopathy has never even come close to reaching this standard.

Zz.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

I certainly was guessing. I don't know if it works on a life level. But if it works, that's a strong possiblity, isn't it? Especially when its doubtlessly found not to work on a glass plate level, it is still a possibility? I was not suggesting it is, but i think it might be the case. I will wait for scientific explanation before confirming on whether it works at the level or not. Atleast, hahnimann says that it helps "VITAL FORCE" in restoring the bodies balance. Thats what I thought.

Placebo effect is indeed interesting. Psychology over physiology is an interesting topic. Any homeo specific study links? i am googling away, but i take it that i can get a better set of links on these forums than all those thousands that google gives.

Oh by the way, speculation is the first step in formulating an experiment, isn't it? First a theory is estabished and only then, its validity is tested, right? Thats what I was trying to do.

DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

I certainly was guessing. I don't know if it works on a life level. But if it works, that's a strong possiblity, isn't it? Especially when its doubtlessly found not to work on a glass plate level, it is still a possibility? I was not suggesting it is, but i think it might be the case. I will wait for scientific explanation before confirming on whether it works at the level or not. Atleast, hahnimann says that it helps "VITAL FORCE" in restoring the bodies balance. Thats what I thought.

Placebo effect is indeed interesting. Psychology over physiology is an interesting topic. Any homeo specific study links? i am googling away, but i take it that i can get a better set of links on these forums than all those thousands that google gives.

Oh by the way, speculation is the first step in formulating an experiment, isn't it? First a theory is estabished and only then, its validity is tested, right? Thats what I was trying to do.

DJ

But see, using terms such as "life level" and "vital force" etc. are vague and undefined. It certainly isn't well-defined in physics and biology. So yes, while we do start of speculating, we speculate using established knowledge, i.e. we try to build on top of things that we already know and well-defined. That way, we know what to measure when we try to verify it. That is not what you are doing here.

I do not have any homeopathy "studies" handy. I think that Bob Park may have a couple in his book, but it has been a couple of years since I read it, so I could be wrong.

Zz.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

But see, using terms such as "life level" and "vital force" etc. are vague and undefined. It certainly isn't well-defined in physics and biology. So yes, while we do start of speculating, we speculate using established knowledge, i.e. we try to build on top of things that we already know and well-defined. That way, we know what to measure when we try to verify it. That is not what you are doing here.

Well then. I must wait till science grows up enough to define them. In case of homeopathy, we need that physics and biology base.

Life force or vital force is not well defined in physics or biology, I wonder why. Psychology may provide answers. Unfortunately, atleast to me, psychology seems to be more of an infancy in its growth than physics and biology. Ill search around nevertheless.

here in india, theories of life force, vital force, what ever you want to call it, is almost home science. But now a days, its too diluted to find concrete information anywhere. That kind of study doesn't feed and so many dropped studying it.

I was searching around why homeoworks and on this particular webiste, skepdic.com , it mentions some of the reasons. Curiously though, same reasons are given to "dis validate" many other alternative medicines, which is understandable. But it goes on so far to say that mystical experiences are psychological delusions based on similar explanations of mistakes in evaluating personal experiences. Although it is a possiblity, it seems a bit too much to assume that who ever thinks any thing that science doesn't understand yet is subject to "mistakes" in personal evaluation. And so far, I didnt find any other explanation than "mistakes in personal evaluation" for the growing demand for homeopathy. ill give some time to think of homeopathy. But mystical experiences are a whole different ball game. I am quite familiar with the practices and with people who had such experiences. Quite closely. Their lifestyles, not just claims, are thorough proof of the validity of their experiences, and the extraordinary feets they perform are almost undeniable, although at the present time, they are just anecdotal. I would love to see a thorough study in it. Otherwise, I will just go ahead and do it myself someday. Studying psychology a bit these days to understand why scientists say that mystical phenomenon are delusions. So far, didnt find any good reason to believe that. Do you have any say towards mystical experiences? Homeo might be placebo, but does mystical experiences (im not talking of just out of body experiences or just paranormal ones of seeing ghosts... I am talking of the likes of one-ness with all existence, ineffable peace and bliss, bliss that passeth understanding, thorough knowledge of self and a wide explanation of psychology of humans without even studying psychology and so forth..).

I should probably discuss mystical phenomenon on another thread. Just thought "faith healing" is a bit related to this, atleast the "faith healing" that I think of is closely connected with mysticism.

If I can know about what ways I can prove such things, it would be rather helpful. I am clearly ignorant of the procedures to follow or anything like that. But anecdotal evidence is so much for me that i can't just deny it. Neither can I prove it, in the case of mystical phenomenon. I understand it philosophically, but not scientifically. I wonder how people study this effect.

I dream of the day when we understand all these things atleast as little as we understand gravity.

DJ

 

[Moridin]

Oh by the way, speculation is the first step in formulating an experiment, isn't it? First a theory is estabished and only then, its validity is tested, right? Thats what I was trying to do.

You seem to be confusing 'idea' and 'theory' with hypothesis. An idea is just what it sounds. A (scientific) hypothesis is a falsifiable statement. A scientific theory is a well-supported explanation to a phenomena in the natural world that can include facts, laws, inference and tested hypothesis. In science, a theory is trumps a mere fact or law. A scientific theory explains the data and makes testable predictions.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=2

Well then. I must wait till science grows up enough to define them. In case of homeopathy, we need that physics and biology base.

Do you know what homeopathy is about? Generally, it is about using heavily diluted substances to attempt to cure illness. According to homeopathy, the more diluted it gets, the stronger the dose is. In fact, even if it is so diluted that no molecules are left, they assert that water can 'remember' it and still have therapeutic effects.

Science has grown up. Science can and have refuted homeopathy, because their claims are so easily debunked.

The Skeptic Dictionary Entry on Homeopathy
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/belgium.html
Mass Media Bunk 11
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/strange-world.html
http://www.csicop.org/articles/19990226-altmed/index.html

Of course, science is open to new evidence, but so far, they have been virtually nonexistent in their support of homeopathy.

d_jnaneswar, I would love for you to explain the article with the Belgium Skeptics.

 

[siddharth]

Life force or vital force is not well defined in physics or biology, I wonder why.

Maybe, because "life force" is such a poorly defined and meaningless term?

here in india, theories of life force, vital force, what ever you want to call it, is almost home science.

That's a flat out lie.

I was searching around why homeoworks

Which is futile, cause it doesn't.

And so far, I didnt find any other explanation than "mistakes in personal evaluation" for the growing demand for homeopathy.

Lack of knowledge of science in the public, belief in mysticism without evidence, effect of religious/spiritual beliefs, lack of coverage in the media about why pseudoscience like homeopathy doesn't work?

Studying psychology a bit these days to understand why scientists say that mystical phenomenon are delusions. So far, didnt find any good reason to believe that.

I'll give you one. Because there's not a single shred of experimental evidence to the contrary.

Im talking of the likes of one-ness with all existence, ineffable peace and bliss, bliss that passeth understanding, thorough knowledge of self

All badly defined terms. By "thorough knowledge of self", I guess you don't mean knowing stuff like where the pineal gland is located.

If I can know about what ways I can prove such things, it would be rather helpful. I am clearly ignorant of the procedures to follow or anything like that. But anecdotal evidence is so much for me that i can't just deny it. Neither can I prove it, in the case of mystical phenomenon. I understand it philosophically, but not scientifically. I wonder how people study this effect.

One way, is to learn how the scientific method works, and understand what scientists mean when they talk about http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/8_1.html. Then, the meaning of confirmation bias, control studies and double blind experiments.

 

[ZapperZ]

I did a quick search on possible review papers or surveys of possible "evidence" of homeopathy, and I come up with these two papers that are also available online, at least to me while I'm in Argonne's domain. So I'm not sure that these are available to everyone else.

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/138/5/393
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01699.x

The two review papers essentially say the same thing - no clear evidence on the whole that homeopathy is anything different than the placebo effect. Still, one paper has a more "open" outlook of it, while the other has a more skeptical of it.

Now keep in mind that homeopathy is more than 200 years old. So after 200 years, we are still in the effort of trying to establish its validity, what I said as still trying to get out of First Base. That in itself should mean something if one is aware on how other things have progressed significantly beyond that.

Zz.

 

[Moridin]

I can confirm that both are available to the general public.

 

[Tony11235]

I hope Dawkins gets to remote viewing. I would seriously like to see this get debunked. Not that I wish it wasn't true. I'm just soo sick of my dad insisting to me that it's true. We get in huge arguments and tells me that I'm limited. Of course I laugh.

 

[RetardedBastard]

You seem to be confusing 'idea' and 'theory' with hypothesis. An idea is just what it sounds. A (scientific) hypothesis is a falsifiable statement. A scientific theory is a well-supported explanation to a phenomena in the natural world that can include facts, laws, inference and tested hypothesis. In science, a theory is trumps a mere fact or law. A scientific theory explains the data and makes testable predictions.

Hmmm, while I agree with your other posts, I seriously think we need to give d_jnaneswar a break here with the "definitions." There are plenty of examples of scientific "theories" out there that would not qualitfy your strict definition of a theory (string "theory" does not trump Gauss' "law" nor is it well-supported... atleast not yet). Caloric "theory" and many others also come to mind, but I'm sure you know about them.

So my point is, if so many scientists themselves are so "care-free" about definitions and usage of the words theories, hypotheses, laws, etc, why should the general public be held to a different (higher?) standard?

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Siddharth,

Cool down. I am not here to win converts or anything. Let logic and reason be prevailant in this discussion rather than blind belief. I am trying to do that, otherwise, I can equally emphatically argue that science is nothing but half-knowledge as of today and blindly deny things as not having "a shred of evidence". Especially cases of consciousness and psyche and Life.

What scientists are saying now about phenomenon like sleep have been around since ages in Indian philosophy. Some of the quotes of modern scientists are almost similarly described by people like Ramana Maharshi. Especially, the psychological phenomenon is someplace which has not seen enough light in modern science.

You say that there's no shred of evidence for mystical experiences. On the contrary, there is tons of anecdotal evidence. I know that anecdotal evidence is not scientific enough. but there must be a reason for such anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately not many scientists did test them as extensively as one is doing, for instance, in the case of particle physics. How can there be evidence when there's no proper scientific experimentation?

When I said that the theories about life force are almost home science, that is science which moms talk to kids, you said its a flat out lie. Unfortunate. Stories of pranayama, yoga, tapasya, about Saints and Mahatmas are surely home science. I also said that these days it lost popularity because it doesn't pay. So, surely its not prominent these days, but it still persists. I am from such a family. The recent support for Swami Ramdev shows how much Yoga holds good in people's hearts in India. Oh, by the way, yoga is also not widely tested scientifically until recently. Even now, research is "going on". If research has not happened, how can there be a "shred of evidence"?

Also, anecdotal evidence is not good as scientific evidence, which i do agree, but as a lay man, and a curious one at that, I need to understand the basis for such huge anecdotal evidence. If science is not strong enough or open enough to get out of its shell to study it, then it begs the question as to why not. I wonder if you ever meditated long enough to find out whether such mystical claims are true or not. Otherwise, there's not much point in discussing "evidence" there, isn't it? When we are not ready to experiment, how can there be evidence?

As you said, the words I used to express my notion of "mystical experiences" seem very vaguely defined. Vaguely defined to you, probably? Any Indian philosopher would consider what I wrote as "definitive". They are anything but vague. How can I know what is vague for you when I have no clue about how far science went and what words you use for what? I want to learn to do that. Thats why I am here. I want to learn science. I want to know why they are vague, when they are anything but vague to philosophers of advaita siddhanta and bhagavatgita. Especially when almost similar words are used by people even in the west, to explain mystical experiences.

For me, anecdotal evidence is so widely available regarding mystical phenomenon. I have been in the thick of things in that case, just like many of you guys might be in terms of science. I wonder if you ever really seen a mystic. If you were, I think this discussion would go on quite differently. I have been practicing meditation and other such concepts for almost 20 years now (I am 26), I learned from an adept, the likes of which science is yet to meet. I want to take that anecdotal evidence, take today's science and find out how I can explain it to the scientific community. Why do I want to do that?
Because science has become a "universal" these days. If I can make scientists understand, I can pretty sure make the whole world understand it.

Or may be I will end up finding that all the anecdotal evidence is just plain false and that i have been mistaken. I am open to that. Thats how I was taught. There have been instances when I stopped practicing meditation and stuff because I was convinced then as to why its just a hocus pocus. I didnt do it until I was convinced otherwise again. I am ready to let go of it if I can truly find out what's happening. I don't dismiss it as "not a shred of evidence" because i don't know what experiments were conducted and how they were conducted and on whom they were conducted. I don't know the study that went into it. I am reading psychology for that. Still, I couldn't find any reason to call mystical experiences delusional. I am looking to study more if it can help me. I am sure that i just started out and there's a lot more to read. But on any case, I will never take your word for "not a shred of evidence" unless you prove that you have studied/experimented the whole thing yourself and explain me as to why it is so "definitively" delusional.

I will read about scientific method as you pointed out.

Moridin :

Homeo seems to be beaten down. I will do a bit more research on that. I was wondering why "anecdotal evidence" is so high. Thats all. I was not for homeo or against homeo. Well, may be I am a bit for homeopathy because it worked on me and my family. But I am open to go against it. Which is what I think I am moving towards, after reading the material you provided.

But its a fact that science is yet to understand what "sleep" is, beyond the effects recorded on the brain. So far, even in the latest "discover" magazine, dreams and sleep are stated as some of the top 10 unsolved mysteries about the brain. So is the concept of "consciousness". Anecdotal evidence for consciousness as a fact of life is unsurmountable. A scientist needs it even to debunk it. Still, sadly enough, science is not grown up enough to explain it! There is still no definitive definition that i know of for the term "consciousness" in science. Thats what I was talking about. Curiously, this concept of consciousness, its links to living beings, the response systems of the body, the workings of involuntary systems of the body, all these are still mysterious to science. Science is still to stamp a solid theory explaining all these. And medicine depends on these things. True that homeo cannot work logically as per today's scientific knowledge. But I see thousands of people getting cured every day. There are about 1000 homeo clinics here in hyderabad, Andhrapradesh, India. They have been in buisiness for many years. I wonder why. Thats all I am saying. I am not saying that it is true. I am saying that to an uneducated guy like me who is beginning to study into this topic, the anectodal evidence seem to say that homeo works. Thats all I was saying.

I will look into it more for sure. It is very interesting.

Regarding mystical phenomenon, it would be great if some can point out books to me that "debunk" them as delusions. I shall seek to buy and read them. Any standard course material (like open courseware) would also be great if you point it out to me. I would be grateful. At this moment in my scientific study, as immature as it is, I can emphatically say that science didnt provide answers to the mystical experiences. But i am open to seeing any studies on it. I can be more authoritative on this to myself, rather than on homeopathy, as I understand how this might work. If you want, i can provide you ample anecdotal evidence of mystic experiences and theories. Especially one by Ramana Maharshi seems very logical. Google it up and you will find that many of His works are free to download. His explanations regarding things like "sleep" and "dreams" and "waking states" are very sound, atleast logically. Recently I read a book called "From Science to God" which quoted phychologists using similar words to explain those states.

Regarding "shred of evidence" on a last note, and regarding concepts of "life force" being home taught in India, one recent article I read online about "Reality" was very close to what was written hundreds of years ago in India. That we might never know what really exists, and can only know what our senses give us, like C.G. Jung said. The effects of reality, and delusion of senses, its limitedness and such stuff is age old. Even many western philosophers of yonder times proclaimed similar ideas, but in India, it was mainstream. (Siddharth, before calling this a flat lie, please read into the philosphies of advaita, visishtadvaita and the hundreds of treatises on bhagavatgita and their histories and influences in India).

That was a bit encouraging to me.

On a final note, I am here to learn, not to prove. First I learn, then I find, then I prove. Until then, I don't accept any thing on blind faith. I will look into scientific studies with a critical eye that science seems to advocate and I shall try and find out the truths of it. I am interested most in these mystical experiences and psychology, although I am interested in physics and chemistry and biology. I love the concept of "evolution", for example, because evidence showed me so. Similarly, I am looking for evidence to call these mystical experiences as delusions, or to call them absolutely true. Oh, by the way, I would like to know about what happened to Fritjoff Capra and his theories and what main stream science thinks about them. I loved "Tao of physics". It was wonderful. What do you guys think about it?

Thanks for telling me what "theory" actually is. I didnt know that. I shall keep it in mind. So, first comes hypothesis, then experimentation and then theory, right?

Sorry for the long post guys, and thanks for taking time.

DJ

 

[Moridin]

Hmmm, while I agree with your other posts, I seriously think we need to give d_jnaneswar a break here with the "definitions." There are plenty of examples of scientific "theories" out there that would not qualitfy your strict definition of a theory (string "theory" does not trump Gauss' "law" nor is it well-supported... atleast not yet). Caloric "theory" and many others also come to mind, but I'm sure you know about them.

So my point is, if so many scientists themselves are so "care-free" about definitions and usage of the words theories, hypotheses, laws, etc, why should the general public be held to a different (higher?) standard?

The general ideas is that a law (generalized mathematical relationship) and a fact (a data point) can be contrasted with a scientific theory explains the laws and facts.

The notion that unsupported objects fall to the ground is a fact. A approximate mathematical relationship that has been heavily confirmed within its error bars is a law. A scientific theory is what would explain all of this.

Also, 'string theory' is not mainstream physics in the sense that it is accepted as a valid and strong approximation supported by empirical evidence.

Perhaps I should label it as a 'currently accepted scientific theory' to avoid confusion.

Why explain to the general public the terms scientific theory and so on? Because there is a profound difference between the usage in the general public and in science.

What scientists are saying now about phenomenon like sleep have been around since ages in Indian philosophy. Some of the quotes of modern scientists are almost similarly described by people like Ramana Maharshi. Especially, the psychological phenomenon is someplace which has not seen enough light in modern science.

I doubt it. Even if it where, it was not based on scientific methodology. Anyone can guess things right.

You say that there's no shred of evidence for mystical experiences. On the contrary, there is tons of anecdotal evidence. I know that anecdotal evidence is not scientific enough. but there must be a reason for such anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately not many scientists did test them as extensively as one is doing, for instance, in the case of particle physics. How can there be evidence when there's no proper scientific experimentation?

Yes, there is indeed reasons for anecdotal evidence such as confirmation bias, false positive pattern recognition, chance, hallucinations and so on. You cannot possibly compare particle physics with pseudoscientific nonsense. There is plenty of 'proper scientific experimentation' in both particle physics and experimental psychology. What are you trying to get at?

When I said that the theories about life force are almost home science, that is science which moms talk to kids, you said its a flat out lie. Unfortunate. Stories of pranayama, yoga, tapasya, about Saints and Mahatmas are surely home science. I also said that these days it lost popularity because it doesn't pay. So, surely its not prominent these days, but it still persists. I am from such a family. The recent support for Swami Ramdev shows how much Yoga holds good in people's hearts in India. Oh, by the way, yoga is also not widely tested scientifically until recently. Even now, research is "going on". If research has not happened, how can there be a "shred of evidence"?

I'm sorry. You cannot just make up words and give them a complete arbitrary definition and then use them to back up your claims. Science is not a noun, it is a verb. It is a process that uses empirical experiments. None of the things you mention are science, not even in India. They are, however, memes that are indoctrinated into the next generation. The fact that pseudoscience persists is not a valid argument for its validity.

The reason that pseudoscience lacks evidence is not because science hasn't examined them, it is because the practitioner themselves have been unable to produce evidence to support their claims.

Also, anecdotal evidence is not good as scientific evidence, which i do agree, but as a lay man, and a curious one at that, I need to understand the basis for such huge anecdotal evidence. If science is not strong enough or open enough to get out of its shell to study it, then it begs the question as to why not. I wonder if you ever meditated long enough to find out whether such mystical claims are true or not. Otherwise, there's not much point in discussing "evidence" there, isn't it? When we are not ready to experiment, how can there be evidence?

Science is about investigations into the natural world. If you want to claim that you have knowledge about something in the natural world, you would need to present evidence for it. I don't see how science would lack strength in its own corner.

There has been no valid methodology or epistemology presented that supports the gain of knowledge through meditation. Spending long times alone without stimuli has been know to cause hallucinations.

The burden of evidence is one the one making the positive assertion, not on other people to disprove it. Science is ready to do experiments on pseudoscience and it has. Pseudoscience has just lost (so far).

As you said, the words I used to express my notion of "mystical experiences" seem very vaguely defined. Vaguely defined to you, probably? Any Indian philosopher would consider what I wrote as "definitive". They are anything but vague. How can I know what is vague for you when I have no clue about how far science went and what words you use for what? I want to learn to do that. Thats why I am here. I want to learn science. I want to know why they are vague, when they are anything but vague to philosophers of advaita siddhanta and bhagavatgita. Especially when almost similar words are used by people even in the west, to explain mystical experiences.

Science uses descriptive language to explain its findings. Just saying that 'well, the life force did it' doesn't cut it. When you can describe the concept of 'life force' in as descriptive language as atoms are described in modern science, then you might understand how your labels are vague.

There have been instances when I stopped practicing meditation and stuff because I was convinced then as to why its just a hocus pocus.

I am convinced that meditation has great psychological benefits. It is just that the random metaphysical claims that goes with it has not been shown to be at all relevant. Spiritual experiences does not have to do with the supernatural at all. According to Carl Sagan (Demon-Haunted World), 'spirit' means 'to breathe' and it does not have to deal with anything immaterial.

I am ready to let go of it if I can truly find out what's happening.

Your first step would be neuroscience.

Still, I couldn't find any reason to call mystical experiences delusional.

Mystical experiences does not need to be delusional. If you are mystified by, say, an unresolved question in science, or a new area that you just have begun to study in science, you are certainly not delusional. It becomes delusional when one attached unsupported metaphysical claims.

But its a fact that science is yet to understand what "sleep" is, beyond the effects recorded on the brain. So far, even in the latest "discover" magazine, dreams and sleep are stated as some of the top 10 unsolved mysteries about the brain. So is the concept of "consciousness". Anecdotal evidence for consciousness as a fact of life is unsurmountable. A scientist needs it even to debunk it. Still, sadly enough, science is not grown up enough to explain it!

The problem with this line of argument is that neither sleep nor consciousness are part of mysticism. With the available evidence, we can conclude that they are very natural phenomena that occur all the time and a lot of research have been made into both sleep and consciousness. There is not only anecdotal evidence for the existence of sleep or consciousness, but much scientific evidence as well.

Curiously, this concept of consciousness, its links to living beings, the response systems of the body, the workings of involuntary systems of the body, all these are still mysterious to science.

There is actually quite a lot that science can show about response systems of the body, from sensation to the vertebrate immune system and the blood clothing system and so on. Reflexes have also been explained. No big mystery here.

And medicine depends on these things. True that homeo cannot work logically as per today's scientific knowledge. But I see thousands of people getting cured every day. There are about 1000 homeo clinics here in hyderabad, Andhrapradesh, India. They have been in buisiness for many years. I wonder why. Thats all I am saying.

There is both the placebo effect and it is no more to the fact that medieval doctors managed to cling on to people as long as they did. The reason they have been in business for so many years is because science obviously has not made a broad appearance in your area.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Thanks for taking the time.

I accept that I should learn to use the vocabulary correctly. I shall study hard to develop it. I am not even clear on what "mysticism" means. I was using it more as the "spiritual experience" (again, i don't know the english exactness of what I mean.. In sanskrit, it means "Adhyatmika", which is obviously not useful here on these forums..) the experience that Saints claim to have. Claims of experiencing God (meaning, by their own explanations, the oneness that underlies all existence).

I was using "mystic experience" to mean that. I am sorry to use vocabulary loosely. I don't know any better yet. But I am learning.

Science is a verb? Thats new for me! I thought Science is a noun, atleast i was using it that way.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

A quote from the website sciencemadesimple.com . This quote shows that science is a noun? A noun to describe a system?

I doubt it. Even if it where, it was not based on scientific methodology. Anyone can guess things right.

You have the right to doubt it. But i don't think its a guess. All the entire life history of Ramana Maharshi shows complete understanding of it. It is anecdotal, sure, but it is substantial enough to make me feel that He didnt just guess it.

I would one day write a book about the teachings of these "Saints" (might not be the exact word. These are not saints canonized by the pope. By saints, I mean people who perceived and expressed their intimate knowledge that everything that exists is connected and their at-one-ment with all existence. There are countless examples of such people. Many such people are thrown out along with the false quacks that pose as such, by modern thinkers. Paul Brunton is a prominent name that was influenced by Ramana Maharshi.) and how it sits quite well with modern scientific claims. The book "Tao of Physics" did this to a certain extent, but I want to go more deep into it. I want to develop my scientific vocabulary so that I can accurately describe the parallells and exactnesses of their findings with modern scientific findings.

Anyways, back to the topic.

I'm sorry. You cannot just make up words and give them a complete arbitrary definition and then use them to back up your claims. Science is not a noun, it is a verb. It is a process that uses empirical experiments. None of the things you mention are science, not even in India. They are, however, memes that are indoctrinated into the next generation. The fact that pseudoscience persists is not a valid argument for its validity.

I sincerely apologize. I am working on developing my vocabulary. Thank you for your patience and your time to talk with a noob like me.

The reason that pseudoscience lacks evidence is not because science hasn't examined them, it is because the practitioner themselves have been unable to produce evidence to support their claims.

Quite true. Thats what I am trying to achieve. And in the mean time, I am quite open to debunking the whole thing if I can't do it.

I am convinced that meditation has great psychological benefits. It is just that the random metaphysical claims that goes with it has not been shown to be at all relevant. Spiritual experiences does not have to do with the supernatural at all. According to Carl Sagan (Demon-Haunted World), 'spirit' means 'to breathe' and it does not have to deal with anything immaterial.

You are convinced only after seeing scientific results I believe. Regarding whether there's anything Immaterial is debatable based on what one means by "immaterial". I am not sure of its scientific meaning. Many psychological facts like "fear" are immaterial in a sense. Theres no "fear material". Carl Sagan is a great writer. Coincidentially (almost) the meaning of "spirit" given as "to breathe" is very similar to the sanskrit term "Prana" which is "spirit" or "life force", and it also is closely related to breathing. breathing is called "pranayama", the journey or movement of Prana.

Regarding meditation, I would research before i claim.

They are, however, memes that are indoctrinated into the next generation.

If sufficient experimentation was not done yet, I suspect that many people will think of meditational benifits(psychological) as just "memes" too.

There has been no valid methodology or epistemology presented that supports the gain of knowledge through meditation. Spending long times alone without stimuli has been know to cause hallucinations.

I hope to provide that some day. Anecdotal evidence says to me that there is a strong possiblity of knowledge gain through meditation. I shall research more as to how to prove it within the scientific framework.

Yes, there is indeed reasons for anecdotal evidence such as confirmation bias, false positive pattern recognition, chance, hallucinations and so on. You cannot possibly compare particle physics with pseudoscientific nonsense. There is plenty of 'proper scientific experimentation' in both particle physics and experimental psychology. What are you trying to get at?

I was trying to get at saying that there is a need for formulation of methods of experimenting the validity of subjective experiences, and distinguishing temporary hallucinations and true insights and experiences that are life-altering. People who had such experiences devoted their lives to telling people how to achieve the same effects through systematic practices, and there's ample anecdotal evidence to show that such practices did provide the promised results. But the practices require dedication of life, just like study of science does. Those who did dedicate their lives for them and studied them through out did get expected results.

I am accepting that particle physics is far more "science" than the pseudoscience. I am looking forward to studying and creating methods to bring this so called "pseudo science" into the status of "science".

The problem with this line of argument is that neither sleep nor consciousness are part of mysticism. With the available evidence, we can conclude that they are very natural phenomena that occur all the time and a lot of research have been made into both sleep and consciousness. There is not only anecdotal evidence for the existence of sleep or consciousness, but much scientific evidence as well.

Sleep and consciousness are very much parts of mysticism and spirituality. Infact, the spirituality that I am referring to is all about Consciousness. Universal consciousness ( the existence of the trait of consciousness in the fundamental energy which pervades all of the universe as per science ) is at the heart of the teachings of such mystics who claim to have experienced it.
Science is yet to explain what consciousness actually is, how it comes about and why. All it can say right now (according to the books like those of Gary Schwartz and Paul davis) is what it might be. It has not been accurately explained as to when and why consciousness arises in matter. Complexity as the origin of consciousness has been proposed, but has not been proven, either theoritically or practically. Awareness, self-awareness are also not explained fully.

There is actually quite a lot that science can show about response systems of the body, from sensation to the vertebrate immune system and the blood clothing system and so on. Reflexes have also been explained. No big mystery here.

True, but it is yet to be explained as to why the immune system works as a system, and works every time, even when i has a chance not to work. It hasnt explained as to what triggers "self-preservation" in the case of those things. The chemical part of it was explained quite well by science. Its origin is also explained through "evolution". But the "why" of it as to why these cells work in unison to do what they do to preserve the system has not been explained. Similarly, the parts of the brain and the chemical side of things has been explained regarding the involuntary response systems, but not why it works "for" the system.
The close approximation is that the system of natural selection forces those cells to work as a system so as to help them enhance their survival chances. This is a great theory for sure. But it certainly doesn't explain "why natural selection". Why can't just matter remain matter. Why life. why preservation of it. Where did the tendency of self preservation come from? Who wants to "self preserve"? When and how did that "self awareness" arise? Why did it arise? And above all, why does this all work to preserve itself from obeying the second law of thermodynamics? Why do living systems stay ordered?
Also questions like "how does the nervous system know of self preservation?" arise. Also, "does the nervous system know of a "self"?" and "does each cell knows it? Does it know who its working for? Does it work with a goal? What chance is there for a cell to work as it works?" The chemical workings of cells are still a mystery. How those millions of molecules work together to sustain the cell is a mystery. The latest stint is that the synapses display quantum effects which might hint at "life" and "consciousness". Thats the latest stuff I read about what science knows about consciousness. In short, almost all of it is a mystery. Only the chemistry part of it is explained quite well.

I will start studying neuroscience. I am sure I can learn a lot.

Thanks!

DJ

 

[Moridin]

It all depends what one means with 'science'. It could either be referring to scientific methodology (verb) or the knowledge gained from using scientific methodology (noun).

It is important to separate the concepts used in science from the ones used in religious traditions. Sleep and consciousness are scientific concepts and religious traditions also uses them, although differently. The same analogy could be made for rain dance. I am sure that there are religious traditions that see rain and water as some kind of magical Hocus Pocus, but it is very different from how the concepts of rain and water are used in science.

Where did the tendency of self preservation come from? Who wants to "self preserve"? When and how did that "self awareness" arise? Why did it arise? And above all, why does this all work to preserve itself from obeying the second law of thermodynamics? Why do living systems stay ordered?

Evolutionary traits that can be observed today are here because the individuals who lacked them died. Natural selection is not a conscious mechanism. It can be applied to giraffes for instance. It is not that their long neck suddenly came about, but more that the ones with shorter neck were unable to reproduce as much as the ones with longer, as the ones with the shorter had a harder time finding food.

Living systems stay ordered because of the input of energy. The overall order must reduce, but that does not mean that order cannot shift.

I'll try to answer your other questions to the best of my ability when I have time, if no one have done it before me.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Well, evolution does explain "how" things came to be, like giraffe's neck. I know that stuff and quite agree with it. But the "why" part of the question is still un-answered. Why should there be any "natural selection"? Why should the world be the way it is? Why do so many "genes" and the protiens in DNA act in such a remarkably accurate way, even though they have a high "chance" of acting otherwise? And why do they do it so consistently?

Those are still unanswered to me. I think they are un-answered, generally, in science.

Also, giraffe's consciousness is a contention. Based on the usage of the word "consciousness" by people like Sir James Jeans, Ken Wilber, Peter Russel and others, giraffe does come under the concept of "conscious" as giraffe is observed to be "self aware" or atleast "aware" of its surroundings and makes qualitative judgments about the situations it encounters. It is a living thing. It makes a change within itself by itself, which requires the information of its current state and the expectation of the state it wants to "change" into. All these are possible if "consciousness" is there in a giraffe. Note that I am using the word "consciousness" in the sense that it is used by guys that I mentioned above. Any other "scientific" definitions that might exist for the word are unknown to me, but i would be grateful if you can provide them to me.

DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, evolution does explain "how" things came to be, like giraffe's neck. I know that stuff and quite agree with it. But the "why" part of the question is still un-answered. Why should there be any "natural selection"? Why should the world be the way it is? Why do so many "genes" and the protiens in DNA act in such a remarkably accurate way, even though they have a high "chance" of acting otherwise? And why do they do it so consistently?

Those are still unanswered to me. I think they are un-answered, generally, in science.

Er.. let's not turn this into a lesson in evolution. You can ask all you want in the Biology forum.

And the issue to the WHY is well-answered, even in Darwin's original book! It is the environmental pressure on the specie and the available nitch in the ecological system. The species evolve because a newer one is better adapted to the environment that either changed for a number of reasons, or the species migrated to a different environment.

Again, this is well-described in any Botany/Ecology 101 classes. You should not be making that kind of sweeping statements about something that has been well-studied and explained.

Zz.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Slightly off topic -- I want to know what you guys think of Fritjoff Capra and his book "Tao of Physics". Has none of you read it?

DJ

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There was a test that Shawn Carlson did on astrology which was published in Nature. Also, there have been other tests which have repeatedly shown that astrology has no greater predictive power than what is expected by chance. I think James Randi had also done experiments which proved the same thing.

Here are the references

- A double-blind test of astrology, Nature 318, 419 - 425 (05 December 1985)
- Treating astrology's claims with all due gravity, Nature 447, 528 (31 May 2007)
- http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Dean.pdf, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10 No. 6-7, 2003, pp175-198

That looks more like it. It seems that only recently has this finally been addressed [well, that one goes back 1985]. Do we have any more examples? Let's look at all of the evidence. We will also need evidence that personalities can be tested accurately in the first place. Given ten of the best personality tests, how much will they agree about a particular person? Also, are the tests used in these studies still considered to be accurate? How do we know that the personality tests were correct and that the astrological predictions were incorrect, or no better than chance?

I disagree. Claiming that psychic phenomena cannot be reproduced when tested under proper controls, yet somehow may exist otherwise seems very analogous to the God of the gaps argument

The fact is that many psychic claims are made by average people who don't claim to have control of such abilities. It happens when it does. In other cases, even so called psychics say that it just comes to them when it does. There is no justification for demanding that this can be done at will any more than a doctor can insist that patients exhibit symptoms on demand.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We have had a number of stories about "psychics" finding bodies when the police failed. The skeptics claim that this is just cleverness, yet not one skeptic has found a body.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=138358
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=89477

I know that we had one news account where the "psychic" is led by instinct or whatever to a lake, she walks into the water, and the body of the missing person literally rises in the water right in front of her. I don't know if it's in there or not, but here are a couple of links for now.

 

[Moridin]

Psychic Detective
How Psychic Sleuths Waste Police Resources
http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-07/i-files.html
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/psychic-sleuthing.html
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/police-psychics.html
Despite Popularity, Psychic Detectives Fail to Perform

It would appear as if no psychic has ever been awarded by the police for helping them solves crimes.

 

[siddharth]

That looks more like it. It seems that only recently has this finally been addressed [well, that one goes back 1985]. Do we have any more examples? Let's look at all of the evidence.

From here, there are references to 36 further studies, in which astrology was shown to have no predictive power.

The number of peer-reviewed studies I found which validated the claims of astrology was zero.

We will also need evidence that personalities can be tested accurately in the first place. Given ten of the best personality tests, how much will they agree about a particular person? Also, are the tests used in these studies still considered to be accurate?

I believe that the personality test used was the CPI. From the Nature article, the CPI test was used "because the advising astrologers judged the CPI attributes to be closest to those discernable by astrology."

See here for more.
http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/psychtests.php

How do we know that the personality tests were correct and that the astrological predictions were incorrect, or no better than chance?

Even if the CPI test used isn't 100% accurate, I think the consensus is that there exists a definite correlation between actual behavior traits, and the results of the tests. On the other hand, there was no correlation between the astrology charts, and the results of the CPI tests.

Two tests were performed:

Test #1: Astrological charts were prepared for 83 subjects, based on natal data (date, time and place of birth), provided by the subjects. Each subject was given three charts: one chart based on their own natal data, and two charts derived from natal data of other people. Each subject was asked to identify the chart that most correctly described them. In only 28 of the 83 cases, the subject chose their own chart. This is the exact success rate expected for random chance. The astrologers predicted that the subjects would select their own chart more that 50% of the time.

Test #2: 116 subjects completed California Personality Index surveys and provided natal data (date, time and place of birth). One set of natal data and the results of three personality surveys (one of which was for the same person as the natal data) were given to an astrologer who was to interpret the natal data and determine which of the three CPI results belonged to the same subject as the natal data. In only 40 of the 116 cases, the astrologers chose the correct CPI. As with test #1, this is the exact success rate expected for random chance. The astrologers predicted that they would select the correct CPI profiles in more that 50 per cent of the trials.

(from http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/what_do_you_mea.html)

The fact is that many psychic claims are made by average people who don't claim to have control of such abilities. It happens when it does.

Maybe. Or, maybe it doesn't happen at all.

In other cases, even so called psychics say that it just comes to them when it does. There is no justification for demanding that this can be done at will any more than a doctor can insist that patients exhibit symptoms on demand.

I don't follow that analogy. The symptoms that a patient complains about can be experimentally confirmed. If a patient complains about something, he/she can be kept under observation till that symptom is experimentally confirmed.

 

[d_jnaneswar]

hmm.. interesting post siddharth!

Looks like astrology lost in those studies! I wonder where and how the tests subjects got their astrology education from. I think that will point to the real culprits.

I don't say that astrology that we see is correct. It is usually wrong. But i certainly don't rule out the possiblity.

Any one heard of "NADI" astrology of India? Its one mystery that is quite simply mind boggling. It has many loop holes too. But none the less, its a puzzle to me. I wonder if any studies went into it. Its a bit secretive too though. Most of the time, it too fails to predict the future. But what those guys can tell you about your past is amazing. They can tell you sometimes even the names of your grand fathers and grand mothers and explain their family, financial and health conditions, which only our family might know.

DJ

 

[ZapperZ]

We have had a number of stories about "psychics" finding bodies when the police failed. The skeptics claim that this is just cleverness, yet not one skeptic has found a body.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=138358
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=89477

I know that we had one news account where the "psychic" is led by instinct or whatever to a lake, she walks into the water, and the body of the missing person literally rises in the water right in front of her. I don't know if it's in there or not, but here are a couple of links for now.

But see, Ivan, this is why I mentioned about that study regarding the cell-phone transmitter. If you get a large enough number of subjects, then even a few of them are bound to get it "right", simply by chance. What this means is that, unless this psychic can consistently get it right, and get it right under a controlled study, you cannot rule out chance. I mean, how many times did this person get it wrong? And how many times can people like you and I can simply guess at a number of these cases and get it right? That's the whole point of a controlled and large-sampling study - to get factors such as chance and lucky guess out of it.

Again, those reports are similar to the example I gave, where I am simply reporting on people who actually got it right 6 out of 6 on when the transmitter signal was turned on. It is misleading to draw a conclusion on something like that, and that applies to any claim of psychic ability. I want a systematic collection of data on how many times that psychic actually made predictions, under what conditions, and how many of those were right. An individual event doesn't count, and certainly as you can see, isn't convincing either to me or to many scientists. If they want to be out of the pseudoscience doghouse, this is the kind of evidence that is required. There's no way around it.

And I'll make sure we clarify this point again. I am not claiming that such a thing doesn't exist (that is an entirely different argument that I can argue for). I am arguing that to state these things as if it is an obvious, well-known and well-verified phenomenon with the same degree of certainty as everyday physical phenomena is a fallacy. Valid evidence beyond just anecdotal evidence is just isn't there.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But see, Ivan, this is why I mentioned about that study regarding the cell-phone transmitter. If you get a large enough number of subjects, then even a few of them are bound to get it "right", simply by chance. What this means is that, unless this psychic can consistently get it right, and get it right under a controlled study, you cannot rule out chance. I mean, how many times did this person get it wrong? And how many times can people like you and I can simply guess at a number of these cases and get it right? That's the whole point of a controlled and large-sampling study - to get factors such as chance and lucky guess out of it.

However, every time someone says that there is no evidence for psychic phenomenon, they are wrong. We may have no practical way to discern chance from potentially causitive mechanisms, but there is evidence.

Again, those reports are similar to the example I gave, where I am simply reporting on people who actually got it right 6 out of 6 on when the transmitter signal was turned on. It is misleading to draw a conclusion on something like that, and that applies to any claim of psychic ability. I want a systematic collection of data on how many times that psychic actually made predictions, under what conditions, and how many of those were right. An individual event doesn't count, and certainly as you can see, isn't convincing either to me or to many scientists. If they want to be out of the pseudoscience doghouse, this is the kind of evidence that is required. There's no way around it.

I never said that there was conclusive or even convincing evidence to all, but there is evidence. Also, I wasn't aware of anyone claiming proof. It seems to me that many scientists are so quick to dismiss these claims as nonsense that they lose perspective. When we consider some of these cases like that of Etta Smith, the idea that she found the body by chance is basically nill.

And I'll make sure we clarify this point again. I am not claiming that such a thing doesn't exist (that is an entirely different argument that I can argue for). I am arguing that to state these things as if it is an obvious, well-known and well-verified phenomenon with the same degree of certainty as everyday physical phenomena is a fallacy. Valid evidence beyond just anecdotal evidence is just isn't there.

Zz.

That is a matter of interpretation. Again, consider the case of Smith: I don't see where chance plays a likely role at all. The idea that someone could go for a drive in Los Angeles and by chance find the body of a victim that she has visions about, that she had even reported to the police, is ludicrous. It is not the same problem as the transmitters. Now maybe something else could explain it but that conjecture with no basis in fact or evidence. And the fact that scientists don't give such cases more credence tells me that they're not being objective. What I see is the default to the frauds and easily explained cases, and ignoring the cases that are impossible to explain based on the known facts. To me this is no better than pointing to Richard Hoagland as a typical example of a scientist.

I have no problem accepting that there may be questions for which we have no answers. Other seem to demand that we call something nonsense unless it can be proven in a lab. Well, there are plenty of things that can't be done in a lab.

With typical debunking, what I see are scientists and others demanding proof where no one claims any [less the charlatans]. Next, the assumption is that if there is no proof, it ain't real. That is a fallacious. On the other hand, you seem to be happy to accept that real things might exist that we simply can't test at this time [or maybe even never], so we probably agree much more than not.

If there is anything to this stuff, and if we keep open minds and recognize where true mysteries seem to exist, then maybe one day someone smart enough will come along who can figure out how to test and study these things.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Psychic Detective
How Psychic Sleuths Waste Police Resources
http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-07/i-files.html
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/psychic-sleuthing.html
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/police-psychics.html
Despite Popularity, Psychic Detectives Fail to Perform

As long as there is one valid case, the rest is moot.

It would appear as if no psychic has ever been awarded by the police for helping them solves crimes.

There may not be any awards, but testimony from the police involved in these cases says otherwise. And the fact the Emma Smith was arrested proves that your links are meaningless.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From here, there are references to 36 further studies, in which astrology was shown to have no predictive power.

The number of peer-reviewed studies I found which validated the claims of astrology was zero.

You have certainly produced the best and only evidence ever presented here that astrological claims have been tested. Thank you. Most debunkers talk a lot and do very little. I will be sure to post your links in our Debunking Napster.

I believe that the personality test used was the CPI. From the Nature article, the CPI test was used "because the advising astrologers judged the CPI attributes to be closest to those discernable by astrology."

See here for more.
http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/psychtests.php



Even if the CPI test used isn't 100% accurate, I think the consensus is that there exists a definite correlation between actual behavior traits, and the results of the tests. On the other hand, there was no correlation between the astrology charts, and the results of the CPI tests.

So this would be evidence, but not proof that the claims are falsified. We have no proof that the test is even accurate.

Maybe. Or, maybe it doesn't happen at all.



I don't follow that analogy. The symptoms that a patient complains about can be experimentally confirmed. If a patient complains about something, he/she can be kept under observation till that symptom is experimentally confirmed.

We don't know if the phenomenon even exists, so there is clearly no way that we can make assumptions about when it should work, or under what conditions. The analogy was to compare symptoms that come and go. Another example would be the proverbial intermittent fault in an automotive electrical system. If the fault doesn't happen to occur when the car is at the shop, the mechanic may have no way to find the problem. This is a very common problem in the real world. But the mechanic would be narrow minded and in error to accuse every such customer of lying.

 

[Moridin]

There may not be any awards, but testimony from the police involved in these cases says otherwise. And the fact the Emma Smith was arrested proves that your links are meaningless.

Now who is the one that uses anecdotal evidence, reading too much into small number, confirmation bias and observational selection?

If anything, the event you proclaim to be factual actually supports the contents in the links posted. But of course, it seems if you are advocating that it is upon the skeptic to disprove the idea of psychic detectives?