3 ms·
Alternatively, you can read it that the author is defining strict as, 'Something that would make me believe parapsychology.' At least if it met those standards.
by 6d0debc071 12y ago
Alternatively, you can read it that the author is defining strict as, 'Something that would make me believe parapsychology.' At least if it met those standards.
- rainmaking 12y agoYes, I understand that, and I believe it would be unscientific to do so. If psi does not exist, let science discover that, not preclude it.
- 6d0debc071 12y agoIf you think psi is a part of reality, then anything that doesn't preclude reality shouldn't preclude psi. It'd be like having a scientific method that somehow precluded testing paracetamol for pain management but allowed testing codeine. I just don't see how it's meant to work here. If you think that something's part of reality, what's the problem with a stricter standard of proof? If someone screws it up, then it'll be obvious: loads of stuff will become untestable - (worse than just being impractically pricey to test, it will become in principle untestable) - at the same time. Do you have any substantive objections to making the standard of proof stricter, other than that it would preclude psi? If you think that a stricter standard of proof would preclude psi but not other things, why do you think psi is an accurate description? ---- Maybe what I'm saying is unscientific. :/ So be it, I guess. There's nothing innately great about science - it's just a tool; a method, to get to the truth. The truth itself is only really of value for its instrumental power, as far as I'm concerned - if you didn't require truth to actually do something, then you could make up any method and believe that its results were true.