ZapperZ said:
The only difference here is the question of the nature of the evidence, and is the evidence convincing? You are ready to grant them the benefit of the doubt. I don't.
Not accurate; I am willing to consider the claim and recognize it for what it is without instantly dismissing as nonsense. There is a big difference.
The issue here isn't some scientist suddenly coming out of nowhere and claiming something to not exist. This has never been the case. The issue here is MANY people claim that these things (i) are real (ii) are as valid as other physical phenomena (iii) should be treated as valid as other physical phenomena. Now that is bogus.
True. There are some who make dramatic claims. In the case of people who claim to have direct experience with such things, they may know for a fact what we can only guess at, but there is certainly no scientific proof that psychic phenomena exists, yet.
It is perfectly valid, in my opinion, to challenge such claims and then ask for convincing evidence. When that doesn't exist, after hundreds of years, then something isn't right here.
Sure it is valid to challenge claims and ask for evidence, but absense of evidence of evidence of absence. Again I suggest that we simply may have no way to study such things yet. I don't demand that science progress at a rate that satsifies me personally in order to justifiy keepingan open mind. And a good thing considering how often our facts seem to change: The expansion of the universe is slowing down.. no, its speeding up. Whoops, we just noticed that we missed 90% of the universe. And the speed of light limit only applies to local space. Something must be wrong here.
Again, we need to look back at all the things that we know now very well and the issue that REAL things evolve from one aspect to another and to another. We know this for sure. This is how valid and real phenomena evolve. We know more and more about it beyond just establishing that it is real. This is not what has occurred with these pseudosciences, and this fact is undisputed.
First of all, pseudosciences have nothing to do with the discussion. Real phenonema can be studied scientificially or not. The methodology has no bearing on the credibility of the claim. Next, phenomena don't evolve, our understanding does. I have no idea what your point is here.
Even after that length of time, there are people who either accept them, or still want to give them the benefit of the doubt by claiming there are "evidence" just doesn't make any sense to me.
That is a personal point of view and not a scientific one. I point to a compelling case and you argue that we should ignore it based on what? It seems to me that your position is that nothing yet proven will be ever be proven.
How long does one needs to keep an open mind before flies fall into it?
There are plenty of real phenomena that were dismissed by most scientists, but are real nonetheless. We have a napster full of them.
The difference here is that Richard Hoagland hasn't produced anything, while the rest of the scientists have. Can you say the same for that group of people you're defending?
I am talking about cherry picking the cases that are easy to dismiss instead of considering the compelling cases. What is often refuted by debunkers are cases that interest only the zealots. If we want to be fair about it, then we have to consider the more interesting cases.
When one does work based on physically-testable and measurable phenomena, it really doesn't matter whether people believe you or not. Various institutions throughout history have tried to suppress such things to no success. So why do you think "real" psychics are so special that the typical process of being accepted does apply to them, after all these years? Even poor Galileo and his model of the universe got accepted and verified even with such irrational religious opposition. Yet, psychics could not convince what I perceive to be generally rational, intelligent people, and could not do it for such a long time. Why are they so special?
I am not defending psychics. I am defending the possibility that there are genuine psychic experiences. I spoke to this point earilier when I specified that it may not be something that anyone can control. Smith doesn't claim to be a psychic, nor does she claim to have had any other psychic experiences. She claims to have had one psychic experience, and she produced the body to back up her claim.
If something can't be tested under controlled conditions then there isn't much that we can do to address the issue for now. That doesn't make the claim bogus. And if one gives any credence to human experience, as we do in a court of law, for example, then we have to leave the door open that these things may actually happen. You seem to argue that we should ignore all but what we can already prove, and that effectively closes the door to discovery.
