The Credibility of Scientific Evidence: Replication and Reliability

[selfAdjoint]

Pretty much I agree with you. However science does study energy flows, and insofar as psychic phenomena are associated with energy flows, they can be studied by science. And science is competent to refute claims that particular psychic phenomena do or do not involve particular energy flows.

Similarly if modern tMRI studies of conscious subjects show that particular phenomena of mystical experience are the products of particlular physical brain states, then the conclusion that those experiences are necessarily "beyond science" is falsified.

This is not to say any of this has happened or will happen; it's just a discussion of the capabilities of science.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Pretty much I agree with you. However science does study energy flows, and insofar as psychic phenomena are associated with energy flows, they can be studied by science. And science is competent to refute claims that particular psychic phenomena do or do not involve particular energy flows.

Agreed, but what of spiritual phenomena. They too may involve energy flow but I don't know that they do.

[QOUTE]
Similarly if modern tMRI studies of conscious subjects show that particular phenomena of mystical experience are the products of particlular physical brain states, then the conclusion that those experiences are necessarily "beyond science" is falsified.
[/QUOTE]

It is assumed by scientist that these mystical phenomina are a product of brain states rather than the brain state is a product of the mystical experience. Once again the direction of the arrow is assume to point one way because of their mind set that consciousness and all other states of consciousness are a product of the brain.

The fact the certain mystical experiences may be induced or simulated by stimulation of certain areas of the brain means only that our brain is capable of experiencing these states not that it produces these states. Again which way does the arrow point? It all depends on our mind set or point of view.
If I want to believe in the spiritual and mystical for whatever reason, I will say it points one way. If however I want only to believe in the objective physical world then I say that it points the opposite way. Which is the cause and which is the effect?

 

[Another God]

I skim read FZ+'s explanation of his beliefs, and I think I am essentially identical. I was labelled a materialist before I claimed to be one, and in claiming to be one, I never changed any of my actual beleifs... my beliefs essentially being what FZ+ said.

As for talk of Psychic phenomena and Mind and...auras or whatever being outside of science, then I also disagree completely. Either they have a real, tangible effect in this world, and science can (somehow) measure that effect, or THEY DO NOT EXIST.

IN fact I am about to finish 'The Field' by Lynne McTaggart. She is a journalist who has tried to connect all sorts of scientific theories and experiments together to explain basically everything that is considered Pseudoscience. A lot of the elements which she has brought in has grabbed my attention...there is a lot of scientific work done on psychic powers and remote viewing and homeopathy etc etc. A lot of these experiments are supposed to have 'Shown conclusively' that these things exist. The problem is, other scientists dispute the results. In other words, the real failing in this research, is that human bias is altering our perceptions of the research. Either the experiments are showing us this stuff (which people commonly claim can't be shown by science), or else the people doing the studies are doing poor jobs and making up the results somehow.

Either it is there, or it isn't. And whatever is there...we are yet to figure out 'how' exactly it is there, and what it means to be there...

That's reality.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There was the sad story of the "Prayer helps sick people" research where their statistics didn't show a significant effect, so they went and cherry picked cases out of the data that did show an effect and published those, which made a short hoo-hah in the press, but was quickly shown up.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
There was the sad story of the "Prayer helps sick people" research where their statistics didn't show a significant effect, so they went and cherry picked cases out of the data that did show an effect and published those, which made a short hoo-hah in the press, but was quickly shown up.

Hmmm, shall I believe those that "cherry picked"? Or those that claim they "cherry picked"? Hmmm so many decisions.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It was pretty well established, all the data eventually got published. There was an excellent story about it in Wired, months ago now. The title was "A Prayer before Dying".

 

[FZ+]

Science does not accept anecdotal evidence. It can't. So far the only evidence of any phenomena other than physical is all anecdotal.

Just take this as an example...

I disagree that science cannot accept anecdotal evidence. Much of physics is based on anecdotes - each experiment is effectively an anecdote. We have all heard of the anecdote of Rutherford and his gold foil. Or the anecdote of Young and his twin slits. The distinction is that of the credibility of the source, their reliability, the alternatives available and so on. And in much of these cases, I'm sorry to say, this has been found wanting.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Fliption
Hmmm, shall I believe those that "cherry picked"? Or those that claim they "cherry picked"? Hmmm so many decisions.

Exactly. Although I naturally tend to side with the 'skeptics', I am not going to claim to 'know' who is telling the truth: I just see more evidence in daily life one way than I do the other. This book though, it is precisely going through every such case and claiming 'Statistical relevence'...the odds of this occurring by chances are 1 in a billion... blah blah blah. I hate statistics. They are meaningless unless put into perspective, and they never are.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by FZ+
The distinction is that of the credibility of the source, their reliability, the alternatives available and so on. And in much of these cases, I'm sorry to say, this has been found wanting.

Oh, and the fact that someone else has to be able to replicate the experiment...That is the most important fact. That is why people don't receive nobel prizes for science until 20 or 30 years after the event. They need to be certain that their piece of anecdotal evidence is real. They get other people to check it. If other people can't check it, then there is no way of ever really trusting the anecdote.