[sciborg2]

I'll take a look at Sheldrake's data. I just wanted to point out that there are people researching Psi, and people trying to replicate those results without success.

As to whether people who have paranormal experiences are deluded...I'll admit that's a hard one when people talk about clairvoyant/precognitive dreams. Is everyone who makes such a claim a liar?

What about people who seem to have genuine trauma about an abduction event?

I don't think anecdotes, however compelling, can serve as evidence in these cases. I do think that there is a lot there that is worth studying, if only from a psychological/sociological perspective.

[Wilshire]

I don't think anecdotes, however compelling, can serve as evidence in these cases.

Evidence, surely not. Unlike the court of law, eye witness is the lowest form of proof. The brain is terrible at remembering things, thats just how it is.

But to say everyone that believes/experiences something like this is crazy/deluded... seems lazy. Similarly, saying they are all sane and clear headed is equally as silly. You'll get your crazies in any sample.

[sciborg2]

I don't think anecdotes, however compelling, can serve as evidence in these cases.

Evidence, surely not. Unlike the court of law, eye witness is the lowest form of proof. The brain is terrible at remembering things, thats just how it is.

But to say everyone that believes/experiences something like this is crazy/deluded... seems lazy. Similarly, saying they are all sane and clear headed is equally as silly. You'll get your crazies in any sample.

I agree with you there. And I'm happy to see money allocated to some of this Psi stuff given the variety of subjects the sciences cover.

Something is happening to a lot of these people. What that something is...well that still seems up for grabs. And I'd say a mundane explanation does not negate the interesting psychological/ethnographic components to all paranormal topics.

[Royce]

Something is happening to a lot of these people. What that something is...well that still seems up for grabs. And I'd say a mundane explanation does not negate the interesting psychological/ethnographic components to all paranormal topics

I agree,and if we ignore it we certainly won`t find out.Personally I think we never will figure this out collectively.I think this is a very subjective matter,and all minds out there are different.That makes it almost impossible to replicate results,since every experience is different.Anyway,it is not written anywhere neither on paper or stone that humans are supposed to understand everything,but we have to try though   It certainly beats being lazy.

[anor277]

I don't think anecdotes, however compelling, can serve as evidence in these cases.

Evidence, surely not. Unlike the court of law, eye witness is the lowest form of proof. The brain is terrible at remembering things, thats just how it is.

But to say everyone that believes/experiences something like this is crazy/deluded... seems lazy. Similarly, saying they are all sane and clear headed is equally as silly. You'll get your crazies in any sample.

Who claims that the individual who experiences a paranormal or inexplicable event is deluded?  On the basis of much evidence it is likely that each individual who makes such a claim is mistaken.  Anybody can be fooled and the easiest person to fool is oneself.  As I have said before, there is a limited pot of money for research, and there is much Science, often backed by sound and reproducible evidence, that will never get funding.  To spend a portion of that money on paranormal programmes that are by and large preposterous,. have been repeatedly shell-holed, and are prone to exploitation by frauds and charlatans, does not make a lot of sense.  And should, say Sheldrake or Schwarz, reach a dead-end and no substance is found in their claims, in 5 to 10 years another paranormal researcher will come along and the cycle will begin anew. 

[Royce]

Who claims that the individual who experiences a paranormal or inexplicable event is deluded?

I think Richard Dawkins did a pretty good job globalizing the term "deluded" through his book "the god delusion".
Mainly attacking religious experience of course,but what is the difference between a personal religious experience and a so called paranormal experience? You would say they are both mistaken right?
I agree with you though,many people are mistaken,but everyone? I am not so sure

[anor277]

@Royce, Richard Dawkins does not speak for everyone.  I myself am often mistaken.  It is a human condition.

[Royce]

@Royce, Richard Dawkins does not speak for everyone.  I myself am often mistaken.  It is a human condition.

I totally agree.It is obvious that everyone makes mistakes.It means that people who suggest that telepathy is preposterous and impossible,might be mistaken.
I am sorry if a gave the impression that something that obvious needed to be clarified

[anor277]

@Royce, Richard Dawkins does not speak for everyone.  I myself am often mistaken.  It is a human condition.

I totally agree.It is obvious that everyone makes mistakes.It means that people who suggest that telepathy is preposterous and impossible,might be mistaken.
I am sorry if a gave the impression that something that obvious needed to be clarified

Of course, those who insist that telepathy is preposterous might be mistaken.  The idea is not inherently absurd.  However, in the attempt to demonstrate it, I would protest at the expenditure of any public money.  It is simply not worth it and not cost effective.   

[sciborg2]

Of course, those who insist that telepathy is preposterous might be mistaken.  The idea is not inherently absurd.  However, in the attempt to demonstrate it, I would protest at the expenditure of any public money.  It is simply not worth it and not cost effective.   

But it seems by this argument, we could eliminate a lot of stuff - such as the space program - that isn't likely to give us immediate improvement in our lives.

I'm guessing if put to public referendum people might be more interested in Psi than space, linguistics, and probably a few other areas that receive public funding.

[Wilshire]

It is simply not worth it and not cost effective.   

According to... what?

Rarely are serendipitous discoveries ever where you expect to find them. Incremental improvements of technology can be counted on after years and years of research. Leaps forward often come from accidental discoveries in unrelated fields.

I mean no matter how much you research an oven, you'll never figure out how to build a microwave.

Some of the biggest advancements in early detection of breast cancer technology came from the incorrectly focused lens in the Hubble space telescope.

Hell, electricity was considered useless and nothing more than a child's fancy when it was first discovered.

You simply never know what is and is not useful until after the fact.

You need to dream. If you pigeon hole everything into over simplified categories like "worth it" and "not worth it", nothing exciting will ever happen.

Science is not an exact science, no matter how much you want it to be 

[anor277]

It is simply not worth it and not cost effective.   

According to... what?

Rarely are serendipitous discoveries ever where you expect to find them. Incremental improvements of technology can be counted on after years and years of research. Leaps forward often come from accidental discoveries in unrelated fields.

I mean no matter how much you research an oven, you'll never figure out how to build a microwave.

Some of the biggest advancements in early detection of breast cancer technology came from the incorrectly focused lens in the Hubble space telescope.

Hell, electricity was considered useless and nothing more than a child's fancy when it was first discovered.

You simply never know what is and is not useful until after the fact.

You need to dream. If you pigeon hole everything into over simplified categories like "worth it" and "not worth it", nothing exciting will ever happen.

Science is not an exact science, no matter how much you want it to be 

Hundreds of years of psychic research:  Shit all result; procession of charlatans and impostures; no application; no advancement of human knowledge; not even conclusive evidence of paranormal phenomena.  200-300 years of scientific research:  Modern industrial society; life-spans beyond 30; an advanced understanding of how the universe works.  And I would never prejudge a research programme simply because it was only aimed at abstract knowledge. 

[Royce]

Hundreds of years of psychic research:  Shit all result; no application; no advancement of human knowledge; not even conclusive evidence of paranormal phenomena.  200-300 years of scientific research:  Modern industrial society; life-spans beyond 30; an advanced understanding of how the universe works

Is that a fair comparison though? If you spend 90% of your time,money and resources on one area,and 10% on another,which of those will prosper? the answer is pretty obvious.I am not at all saying we should cut in areas that are of huge importance to human well being,but certainly not all branches of scientific research work toward this goal.

Hell, electricity was considered useless and nothing more than a child's fancy when it was first discovered.

The story of Nicola Tesla popped up in my mind An amazing man

[anor277]

.................................
Is that a fair comparison though? If you spend 90% of your time,money and resources on one area,and 10% on another,which of those will prosper? the answer is pretty obvious.I am not at all saying we should cut in areas that are of huge importance to human well being,but certainly not all branches of scientific research work toward this goal.

..............................

I think it's a completely fair comparison.  Paranormal research could develop its own priorities and applications, and attract considerable funding; well, at least it could if it convincingly demonstrated paranormal effects. 

And again, if you attribute to me the priority that only utilitarian research should be funded, you are mistaken.

[Wilshire]

Hundreds of years of psychic research:  Shit all result; procession of charlatans and impostures; no application; no advancement of human knowledge; not even conclusive evidence of paranormal phenomena.  200-300 years of scientific research:  Modern industrial society; life-spans beyond 30; an advanced understanding of how the universe works.  And I would never prejudge a research programme simply because it was only aimed at abstract knowledge.

Remember what I said earlier about just throwing numbers at stuff to make a point?

Hundreds of years?

I could argue that medicine has been researched for nearly 3000 years and it took a whole 2900 of those years for "modern medicine" to actually have exceptional results.
Oh or astronomy, since you specifically mentioned "how the universe works", has been around since before that even.
Sounds to me more like 1000's of years...

Therefore, by your own standard, we should at least allow for three millennium of research into each and every field before we can access whether or not it is useful or not. To me, that seems like a bit extreme, but maybe I'm just not as generous as you.

And I would never prejudge a research programme simply because it was only aimed at abstract knowledge.

Right, unless it didn't show the results you wanted.

Is that a fair comparison though? If you spend 90% of your time,money and resources on one area,and 10% on another,which of those will prosper?

I'd guess that a field that had less money and was looked down on would under preform. But thats just me.
Maybe we should be looking at research money and not something silly like time?