3 ms·

> This kind of misinformation is often recycled in journalism and reference literature [ ... ] Including this article, whose preferred outlook quickly becomes

by lutusp 1y ago

> This kind of misinformation is often recycled in journalism and reference literature [ ... ] Including this article, whose preferred outlook quickly becomes clear. This can all be resolved by objective research programs having strong controls and a high bar of statistical significance (much higher than P = 0.05). Speaking hypothetically, of course. > My sympathies for parapsychology are self-evident. This should be the first sentence in the article, not nearly the last, buried in the footnotes. The article tries to say that, because of bad actors, parapsychology research has failed to resolve basic scientific issues. This is false. Bad actors on both sides notwithstanding, an evidence vacuum continues to draw air away, leaving room only for breathless argument.

pogue 1y ago
Are there any universities or mainstream organizations that are still considering or studying parapsychology in any way?
- lutusp 1y ago
  Apparently so (https://library.ctstate.edu/c.php?g=1318271&p=9694905 https://library.ctstate.edu/c.php?g=1318271&p=9694905). The link includes some obviously pseudoscientific projects, as though the list was meant to ridicule the field. A Google search for "recent parapsychology research programs" lists any number of loony projects that seem designed to make the field look absurd.
  - pogue 1y ago
    When I was a lad, I was fascinated by Ghostbusters and wanted to become one when I grew up. So, when I was thinking about college, I tried to ask around on forums dedicated to ghost hunting and other miscellaneous topics to find out if there was any actual careers in the field of parapsychology or if there was anywhere to study it. The replies I got were rather disheartening, with people telling me not to bother with such stuff and work on my "psychic abilities" to become a medium. :/
- ceckGrad 1y ago
  I don't know whether IONS is mainstream; it is not a university. It is at: https://noetic.org/about/origins/ https://noetic.org/about/origins/ Rupert Sheldrake is certainly not mainstream, but he has earned quite a few academic qualifications: https://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/biography https://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/biography However, any organization that dares to mention parapsychology as worthy of study puts a target on its back. The people who imitate Randi will automatically label it as too far outside the mainstream to be taken seriously. Parapsychology is not my field of academic credentials, so I will not be taking up the cudgels to defend it -- or Mitch Horowitz-- here. However, skepticism and logic are supposed to be within my bailiwick, so I ought to take up the cudgels against those who present illogic as logic and those who decry logic as illogic. Mitch Horowitz is not exactly a legendary logician, but Randi was a positively harmful influence on logic, so I feel justified in pointing out that Randi was a force for irrationality.
  - lutusp 1y ago
    > ... Randi was a positively harmful influence on logic, so I feel justified in pointing out that Randi was a force for irrationality. You mean, by posting a one million dollar paranormal challenge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_...) that offered a million dollars to anyone who demonstrated a paranomal effect in scientifically valid laboratory conditions? And who opened the contest to over a thousand candidates, all of whom failed? Sorry -- that's not how a scientist defines irrationality. In essence, Randi's challenge was, "Put up or shut up." A thousand put up, none succeeded, and since then they won't shut up -- which, in fairness, is their right. Meanwhile, no rational person misses the irony that the complainers produce everything but evidence. In discussions about, for example, dark matter, personalities don't matter, because we have evidence. By contrast, in debates about the paranormal, personalities are everything, because of a perfect evidence vacuum. Remember, when you bring up Randi, you're acknowledging a spectacular evidence vacuum. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.
    - ceckGrad 1y ago

by lutusp 1y ago

pogue 1y ago

Are there any universities or mainstream organizations that are still considering or studying parapsychology in any way?

lutusp 1y ago
Apparently so (https://library.ctstate.edu/c.php?g=1318271&p=9694905 https://library.ctstate.edu/c.php?g=1318271&p=9694905). The link includes some obviously pseudoscientific projects, as though the list was meant to ridicule the field. A Google search for "recent parapsychology research programs" lists any number of loony projects that seem designed to make the field look absurd.
- pogue 1y ago
  When I was a lad, I was fascinated by Ghostbusters and wanted to become one when I grew up. So, when I was thinking about college, I tried to ask around on forums dedicated to ghost hunting and other miscellaneous topics to find out if there was any actual careers in the field of parapsychology or if there was anywhere to study it. The replies I got were rather disheartening, with people telling me not to bother with such stuff and work on my "psychic abilities" to become a medium. :/
ceckGrad 1y ago
I don't know whether IONS is mainstream; it is not a university. It is at: https://noetic.org/about/origins/ https://noetic.org/about/origins/ Rupert Sheldrake is certainly not mainstream, but he has earned quite a few academic qualifications: https://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/biography https://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/biography However, any organization that dares to mention parapsychology as worthy of study puts a target on its back. The people who imitate Randi will automatically label it as too far outside the mainstream to be taken seriously. Parapsychology is not my field of academic credentials, so I will not be taking up the cudgels to defend it -- or Mitch Horowitz-- here. However, skepticism and logic are supposed to be within my bailiwick, so I ought to take up the cudgels against those who present illogic as logic and those who decry logic as illogic. Mitch Horowitz is not exactly a legendary logician, but Randi was a positively harmful influence on logic, so I feel justified in pointing out that Randi was a force for irrationality.
- lutusp 1y ago
  > ... Randi was a positively harmful influence on logic, so I feel justified in pointing out that Randi was a force for irrationality. You mean, by posting a one million dollar paranormal challenge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_...) that offered a million dollars to anyone who demonstrated a paranomal effect in scientifically valid laboratory conditions? And who opened the contest to over a thousand candidates, all of whom failed? Sorry -- that's not how a scientist defines irrationality. In essence, Randi's challenge was, "Put up or shut up." A thousand put up, none succeeded, and since then they won't shut up -- which, in fairness, is their right. Meanwhile, no rational person misses the irony that the complainers produce everything but evidence. In discussions about, for example, dark matter, personalities don't matter, because we have evidence. By contrast, in debates about the paranormal, personalities are everything, because of a perfect evidence vacuum. Remember, when you bring up Randi, you're acknowledging a spectacular evidence vacuum. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.
  - ceckGrad 1y ago