/sci/ - Science & Math

Bump. I'm just trying to understand as a layman. I don't feel like blindly trusting Radin's work.

Bump again.

>>14956453
Maybe try on /x/? As for my opinion, I don't know much of the subject, all I can say is that science concerns itself only with things you can measure. I don't think there are much measurements (or any at all) for parapsychology stuff. Mainstream psychology itself is very hard to accurately measure already and some here would not ever consider it s science, now imagine parapsychology.

>>14956526
I'm genuinely confused after reading the book mentioned in the OP, the data is presented with a good scientific rigor and such phenomena seem to be repeatable in lab. They present it as science but honestly it's just causing me an existential crisis.

>>14956555
If it goes from "seems to be repeatable" to "has been replicated repeatably" then you can call it science. Remember psychology's replication crisis .

>>14956453
The research done around parapsychology produces vague results that show something being there, but the data isn't enough to be utilised in a scientific and consistent way supposedly. The method used for gathering the data may come into question too.
We are in a materialistic scientific paradigm so anything outside it is regularly labelled as being mentally ill and you're called a crank if you dare to question the foundations of mathematics.

>>14956453
>Why is parapsychology rejected by the scientific community?
Because if you actually look into replications of some of the more famous results you find bias, improper or lack of controls, etc. Books in favor of the subject completely ignore these because it wouldn't sell many copies if they admitted to consistently failing replication.

>>14956592

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logicism

>>14956592
>>14956616

Could you point me out the studies you're talking about and the supposed mistakes, biases and lack of controls you found in them?

>>14956584
Statistically, it actually seems parapsychology is actually more repeatable (and has been repeated) far more than psychology itself.

Bump.

>>14956656
>Could you point me out the studies you're talking about and the supposed mistakes, biases and lack of controls you found in them?
You can start with James Randi and everything he did as well as his foundation, and the research funded by it and in association with similar.

>>14956667
Could you point out someone who was actually a scientist? He got criticized for his unethical ways even by fellow skeptics.

>>14956675
>Could you point out someone who was actually a scientist? He got criticized for his unethical ways even by fellow skeptics.
Given you're being a lazy dishonest twat, no, you can learn how to use google scholar. You're full of shit, and even if you weren't it has literally nothing to do with the content of his work or affiliation with the work of other scientists being motivated by him.

Go fuck off and learn to google.

>>14956682
How am I being dishonest? Are you off meds or something? Firstly, I'm not the one who's claiming anything (I didn't claim psi was real, if anything, I'm trying to look for evidence that points out how it's a fraud), if I come here asking for help and you don't want to contribute, that's fine, instead of getting mad at pixels on a screen, you can spend your time in a more productive way and not reply to the thread. Simple as that. I'm gonna look more into James Randi but, as far as I can tell, someone that purportedly created hoaxes to prove his points, isn't as trustable as he may seems, sorry for my ad hominem. I may be wrong and will look more into his works.

>>14956656
stargate

>>14956694
>How am I being dishonest?
By asking questions you clearly don't want answers to. Someone gives you a starting point, you reply "No not that one". Put your two neurons together and think about how that looks for a femtosecond.
>I'm not the one who's claiming anything
Except that James Randi is a fraud based on... whole lotta fucking nothing it looks like.

>>14956667
>You can start with James Randi and everything he did as well as his foundation, and the research funded by it and in association with similar.

>>14956706
I'm OP but that quote by Sagan is actually taken out of context:

“I pick these claims not because I think they’re likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true.” They “have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong.”

>>14956702
>>14956702
>How am I being dishonest?
>By asking questions you clearly don't want answers to. Someone gives you a starting point, you reply "No not that one". Put your two neurons together and think about how that looks for a femtosecond.
Yeah, I'm looking for actual research and it seems to me that, besides participating in one scientific research, Randi mostly wrote for the Skeptical Inquirer.
>I'm not the one who's claiming anything
>Except that James Randi is a fraud based on... whole lotta fucking nothing it looks like.
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/15/science/magician-s-effort-to-debunk-scientists-raises-ethical-issues.html

>>14956706
Going in order of your propaganda bullshit:
Dean I. Radin debunked: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01891/full

"cumulative hit rate" contains no proper citation. I could not pull it up and I'm not going to spend 30 minutes googling random combinations of keywords. It reminds me of the work of the fraud Rupert Sheldrake, but you failed to cite so I don't give a shit.

Dumping retarded books on claims of past lives isn't evidence. Next.

Ahahahahahahaha oh my God that's why you fucking retards claim Randi is a fraud?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism#Pseudoskepticism
>Oh noes a collection of quacks made up bullshit to defend their quackery this is evidence!!

10/10 top tier retarded shitpost.
>>14956721
If you're just looking for research you can google the proper terms, like meta-science or replication of some given study or field.

Also as I just noted above, the group claiming Randi had "ethical issues" are literally the same group of quacks who wanted him to stop investigating their bullshit. It is 100% made up. Literally a foundation of charlatans. You can check the wikipedia sources on the pseudoskepticism page I just linked.

>>14956731
>Dean Radun debunked
He actually replied to that study.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00726/full

>721
Ok, thank you for your time. I will actually look into the source you linked.

i always bump into the x-tier "it's being suppressed" explanations like
>the government wants a monopoly on these techniques
or
>avoiding panic from the impact it would have on worldview
not that those are entirely far-fetched, they're just unsubstantiated and kind of unprovable
more in the realm of politics than science

>>14956747
>He actually replied to that study.
This is what I mean by dishonest. Magically you can now find research papers and replies? Yet you didn't find the reply to that reply, further explaining why his "commentary" is dishonest?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347322464_Response_Commentary_False-Positive_Effect_in_the_Radin_Double-Slit_Experiment_on_Observer_Consciousness_as_Determined_With_the_Advanced_Meta-Experimental_Protocol

Selective competence on your part makes you look even worse. I don't know what game you're playing but it's clearly heavily motivated by a hefty axe to grind.

>>14956731
>wikipedia

>>14956810
I explicitly said to check the citations. You know you're full of shit. You know the names of the people in that organization were precisely the people being investigated for fraud, and in some cases well shown or lambasted for it. Cope and seethe fucker, go back to /x/.

>>14956813
>I explicitly said to check the citations
only "trusted" citations are allowed

>>14956816
>only "trusted" citations are allowed
Boo hoo you got called on your shit pull up your panties like a big girl and suck it up

>>14956759
>Magically you can now find research papers and replies?
Evidence of Psi! I guess you have to go home in shame now.

It is legit. Lookup Ruper Sheldrake. The man is not a psuedo-scientist at all he has a very rational mind. But of course what they call science should actually be called MONEY. It's all about the stupid money that's all they really care about so yeah stop reading science journals they are basically just dollar signs and the wide open mouth from that green face movie.

>>14956810
I know wikipedia is biased in political things but crying on the talk page with your own primary research and no reputable sources is not the way to counter it. Just comes across as pathetic outsider screeching. You have to know the territory and incidentally requiring reputable secondary sources is one of the things that makes wiki so great.

>>14956453
Short version is that most parapsychology claims are difficult or impossible to test, and what studies have been conducted are often poorly constructed or analyzed - some lack controls, some lack clear falsifiable experimental outcomes, etc. When there are tests that are performed objectively with concise outcomes, they almost universally point to parapsychology and similar areas being bunk.

Dowsing is a good example and probably the 'mystic' claim that's had the most objective experimental testing done on it and those objective experiments (some dating back to nearly a century ago) have universally demonstrated that dowsing in a controlled environment is basically no better than random chance and suggests that any ability of dowsers to identify sources of water in a natural environment are probably just the result of subconsciously picking up on signs of the presence of water nearby.

Man. First time in years came to this board. Parapsychology, really? Tip for countering pseudoscientific claims; don’t respond to them. Their goal is to post their arguments, never defend their points, and make you exhaust. Ignoring them makes their argument irrelevant.

>>14956810
It's worth pointing out it wasn't a terrorist attack - just a violent, impulsive nigger being a violent, impulsive nigger.

>>14956880
it's a noticeable decline in quality from even a few months ago

>>14956892
I’ve noticed. It was bad before but it seems even worse. Like almost /his/ tier of bad. Why the fuck is everyone obsessed with anti-vaxx and /x/ shit now?

>>14956835
Pfff ya got me lol

>>14956896
cry you're little eyes out, sweatie

>>14956947
Go back to your quarantine board

>>14956840
I looked him up, he's a total quack.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

>>14956453
>Why is parapsychology rejected by the scientific community?
The scientific community isn't conscious. They are a bunch of algorithms trying to generate new algorithms from existing algorithms, like the chinese box experiment.

Bump.

>>14956453
Parapsychology is an umbrella term covering a wide range of unrelated alleged phenomena that don't have repeatable evidencial backing.

If any of it were eventually accepted, it wouldn't be considered parapsychology anymore, just like with paranormal phenomena. If one turned out to be true, it would just be normal phenomena then

But everything it covers is in there because there aren't repeatable experiments that support any of it, so it isn't science. Whether you believe any of it or not is irrelevant to that end

>>14956453
Because it's garbage. >>>/x/

>>14956453
because it's black science