2 ms·
Yes, 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.
by rainmaking 12y ago
Yes, 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.