4 ms·

Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans. At worst it promotes bad science. To form the hy

Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans. At worst it promotes bad science. To form the hypothesis that psychic powers exist where's the observation?

lelanthran 4y ago
> Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans. This makes no sense. Just because humans don't have $FOO ability, that does not mean that $FOO ability doesn't exist in some other animal. If you went that route (i.e. if humans don't possess something, then it doesn't exist), then you'd conclude "scientifically" that light doesn't exist outside the spectrums viewable by humans.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Light outside the spectrum can be measured in other ways. I'm saying that there needs to be some observation to form a hypothesis and there isn't any for psychic powers. It's the equivalent of starting research on dogs to see if they can predict the future. Why am I doing it in the first place?
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > Light outside the spectrum can be measured in other ways. What does that have to do what what you said? >>> Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans. If you're going to test that $FOO abilities exist at all, it's bad science to dismiss animal testing. It's literally the opposite of science! > I'm saying that there needs to be some observation to form a hypothesis and there isn't any for psychic powers. You're saying that now, and I don't disagree, but that's not what you initially said, which I did disagree with. What you're saying now is different from what you said before. What you said before was wrong.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      First, stop saying "the opposite of science" that doesn't make sense. Why test for this on dogs first? It's a mental capability so communication is important. Why not test on a human first?
      - lelanthran 4y ago
        > First, stop saying "the opposite of science" that doesn't make sense. I only said it once, and it makes perfect sense - thinking that if something doesn't work on humans it doesn't work at all is primitive and superstitious - it's literally the opposite of science, where things are tested on animals before humans. > Why test for this on dogs first? > It's a mental capability so communication is important. Why not test on a human first? I agree with this, but your original assertion, to whit: >>> Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans. is wrong. None of your replies make it any more right.
ggm 4y ago
Well.. yes. But both economies did that too at scale, in the same time frame and managed to show pretty consistently human to human PSI was bad science. So my gut feel is that it's bad science but in the end if they publish negative results it's science correcting itself in longer time. A lot of bad science was funded across time basically.
rongopo 4y ago
I tend not to underestimate popular culture. A saying in my mother tongue about "speaking of the King of Rome, he appears by the door" shows there is an unexplored domain, for which methods have not been cleverly crafted, even if for a bunch of negative results.
- throwaway821909 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_of_the_devil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_of_the_devil ?
  - rongopo 4y ago
    More friendly than this similar version.

lelanthran 4y ago

> Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans. This makes no sense. Just because humans don't have $FOO ability, that does not mean that $FOO ability doesn't exist in some other animal. If you went that route (i.e. if humans don't possess something, then it doesn't exist), then you'd conclude "scientifically" that light doesn't exist outside the spectrums viewable by humans.

themitigating 4y ago
Light outside the spectrum can be measured in other ways. I'm saying that there needs to be some observation to form a hypothesis and there isn't any for psychic powers. It's the equivalent of starting research on dogs to see if they can predict the future. Why am I doing it in the first place?
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > Light outside the spectrum can be measured in other ways. What does that have to do what what you said? >>> Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans. If you're going to test that $FOO abilities exist at all, it's bad science to dismiss animal testing. It's literally the opposite of science! > I'm saying that there needs to be some observation to form a hypothesis and there isn't any for psychic powers. You're saying that now, and I don't disagree, but that's not what you initially said, which I did disagree with. What you're saying now is different from what you said before. What you said before was wrong.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    First, stop saying "the opposite of science" that doesn't make sense. Why test for this on dogs first? It's a mental capability so communication is important. Why not test on a human first?
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > First, stop saying "the opposite of science" that doesn't make sense. I only said it once, and it makes perfect sense - thinking that if something doesn't work on humans it doesn't work at all is primitive and superstitious - it's literally the opposite of science, where things are tested on animals before humans. > Why test for this on dogs first? > It's a mental capability so communication is important. Why not test on a human first? I agree with this, but your original assertion, to whit: >>> Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans. is wrong. None of your replies make it any more right.

ggm 4y ago

Well.. yes. But both economies did that too at scale, in the same time frame and managed to show pretty consistently human to human PSI was bad science. So my gut feel is that it's bad science but in the end if they publish negative results it's science correcting itself in longer time. A lot of bad science was funded across time basically.

rongopo 4y ago

I tend not to underestimate popular culture. A saying in my mother tongue about "speaking of the King of Rome, he appears by the door" shows there is an unexplored domain, for which methods have not been cleverly crafted, even if for a bunch of negative results.

throwaway821909 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_of_the_devil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_of_the_devil ?
- rongopo 4y ago
  More friendly than this similar version.