4 ms·
>science in principle shouldn't treat them any differently than results about "regular" subjects. That's the whole problem, as I understand it. If we are going
by amatic 5y ago
>science in principle shouldn't treat them any differently than results about "regular" subjects.
That's the whole problem, as I understand it. If we are going to treat ESP research the same as research in other fields, we either accept ESP as real, or reject both ESP and other fields as deeply flawed.
Personally, I'm leaning heavily toward the second option. The methods in ESP are identical to methods in psychology, social sciences, etc, but not physics or chemistry. I'm just wondering where to draw the line. Maybe the whole method of statistical inference needs to be flushed? Maybe it cannot be saved by preregistration, publishing all the data, transparency and other bells and whistles.
- coldtea 5y ago>That's the whole problem, as I understand it. If we are going to treat ESP research the same as research in other fields, we either accept ESP as real, or reject both ESP and other fields as deeply flawed. That's my point them. "If we are going to treat ESP research the same as research in other fields", according to the principles science pays lip service to this shouldn't be a question to begin with, because science shouldn't have a priori ideas about what can be treated "the same as other fields" and what shouldn't. Research (results) should determine that (which means: if there are results in its favor, and we can't see a problem with the research that other - non ESP - accepted research doesn't have, we should accept it, as much as we accept in other such - non ESP - results).