"You're right, one can't state the non-existence of anything with absolute certainty. But my point is this - if we are going to accept the existence of 'psychic phenomena' in the absence of any scientific evidence, we should also be obliged to accept the existence of centaurs, satyrs, werewolves etc."

To me it isn't a matter of acceptance, more than it is personal belief based upon what is plausible, in turn based upon what you as a person know of the universe. More of a "reserving judgement" scientifically, with faith and speculation added in to take care of personal beliefs.

I mean, at one time people would have said "If you think the world is round you should also be obliged to accept the existance of centaurs, etc." right? We're always one discovery away from making myth reality, but no one discovery can ever rule out myth.

I'm just saying that anyone that portrays themself as an objective student of science, and who then tells you there is no such thing as God, fairies, the loch ness monster, etc., just doubled back on his claims about himself.

I do see your point ... up to a point, anyway. Perhaps the Randis of this world just need to pick their words carefully, and prefix any such claims for the non-existence of things with 'As far as we know ...' or 'There is to date no evidence to support ...'.

However, I have great trouble with allowing room in science for 'faith', 'speculation', and 'personal belief based on what is plausible'. In the absence of scientific evidence, people - by which I mean people in general, not anybody here - have more bizarre and conflicting ideas as to what is plausible than one could hope to poke a stick at. eg. The oft-cited 25 million Americans who believe from the most unconvincing and flimsy 'evidence' that Elvis Presley is alive and well and probably working in a burger joint just around the corner.

Science is science, personal belief is personal belief. Time after time, scientists have tested particular hypotheses (which, it should be noted, are very different from personal beliefs, and should not be confused with them) and proven the OPPOSITE of that which they had expected to find. A problem? Not a bit of it - this is one of science's great strengths.

Finally, back to the 'psychic phenomena' issue. Countless people around the world claim countless varieties of psychic power. There are foundations to support them, and magazines to spread their cause. And yet, there is not a scrap of solid evidence to provide scientific support for these claims - otherwise, how is it that Randi's $1m goes begging? Therefore, while there are claims from many other currently 'unscientific' causes for scientific validity, this is one particular area where any such expectation must be considered to be increasingly remote.

So, to any 'psychics' out there who disagree, do the scientific thing - prove me wrong!

'However, I have great trouble with allowing room in science for 'faith', 'speculation', and 'personal belief based on what is plausible'. "

*sigh*, I never said that. read again:

"More of a "reserving judgement" scientifically, with faith and speculation added in to take care of personal beliefs."

Unless you think that people can only be one or the other, which would make all scientists agnostic.

No, I don't think that. Scientists can be whatever they like - believers, atheists, agnostics. Science, on the other hand, is not about belief, absent or present.

One is of course quite at liberty to reserve judgement as you describe above. However, this is not reserving judgement SCIENTIFICALLY, as you claim - rather, it is reserving judgement on the basis of faith / speculation / what one believes to be plausible.

I take your point, LW. The very premise of religious conviction is faith - indeed, this is why I argue above that science and personal belief are two very different things.

However, the same is not true of psychic phenomena. Proponents of psychic powers claim very real, tangible and observable results. That is, they claim results that exist within the scientific realm - predictions of future events, mind-reading, the transmission of information by telepathic means, spoon-bending, watch-stopping and so on. Even the author of this thread recognises that scientific method is relevant here (although he cites science as SUPPORTING the psychic case; claiming that 'anti-psychic' people 'scoff at any science that proves them wrong').

The point is that all these claims predict 'real world' results - results that are physical, unambiguous and measurable. As such, these results can and should be subjected to scientific scrutiny, according to the very nature of the claims. And in the case of claims for psychic phenomena, when such scientific scrutiny is applied, the claims fail.

Psychic abilities are just another form of magic.

There's nothing magic about psychic ability. It's natural. It just varies in degree from person to person. There are a few 'freaks' who have acute psychic awareness, but most people possess a normal degree of psychic (i.e. spiritual) awareness. (If you're sceptical about psychic phenomena in the first place, then it's worth noting that the intrinsic ‘is-ness’ of your self-awareness is psychic phenomena, which transcends brute materialism. Again, how much psychic ability one possesses is a question of degree.)

The idea that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden may be more interesting (to you) than more rational explanations for your observation of the flowers growing, but that doesn't make it true ...

Fairies at the bottom of the garden is a fallacious argument here.

And yet, there is not a scrap of solid evidence to provide scientific support for these claims

I recently saw a documentary about a fella who could dream the future. Every time he had a significant dream, the next morning he painted the events, (for example, twin towers burning with planes flying into them), went to a bank, and put the painting in a bank-safe, and dated it. He correctly predicted numerous news-worthy events, and most of his paintings had remarkable detail. All the paintings were scientifically analysed, and they were all accepted as genuine. When a hardened scientist was interviewed about it, he said, “There has to be a more rational, scientific explanation. It is impossible to see into the future.”

In my view, the rational, scientific explanation is that psychic awareness can transcend space and time and see into the future. I think some scientists need to be more open minded about reality.

'I recently saw a documentary about a fella who could dream the future.'
Do you have any details? (Not that I disbelieve you, just that details are what turn anecdotes into something more substantial.) Either way, it sounds like we may be hearing about this guy soon, as there's an easy $1m waiting for him in James Randi's bank deposit box!

'Fairies at the bottom of the garden is a fallacious argument here.'
But what's your argument? I was simply making the point that just because an idea is interesting doesn't give it credence. Fairies at the bottom of the garden seemed as good an example as any of an interesting but unsubstantiated idea. Many people have believed in them, and for all I know many people may believe in them still.

Do you have any details? (Not that I disbelieve you, just that details are what turn anecdotes into something more substantial.)

I can't remember what the program was called to be honest. I caught it one evening and sat and watched it. James Randi was actually on it. He wouldn't give his $1m, because his argument was that the pyschic could have painted lots of paintings, and only picked out ones that were relevant by coincidence. Based on this logic, due to the laws of probability the psychic failed, in Randi's view.

People can always think of alternative explanations, which is fair enough, because it's healthy to keep an open mind. But when our opinions start bordering on the dogmatic, it can get unhealthy.

'Fairies at the bottom of the garden is a fallacious argument here.' But what's your argument? I was simply making the point that just because an idea is interesting doesn't give it credence. Fairies at the bottom of the garden seemed as good an example as any of an interesting but unsubstantiated idea. Many people have believed in them, and for all I know many people may believe in them still.

My argument was that belief in the existence of faries at the bottom of the garden is different to belief in heightened pyschic abilities. I think the whole issue of "psychic" or "spirituality" is so subjective - by nature - that sceptics will never really be satisfied anyway. From a scientific point of view, consciousness itself is an elusive customer, let alone higher vibrational frequences of it.

The day I read the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery Three Times In A Row" I'll be a believer. Until then, the only thing I have ever seen proven as far as psychics go is that there are a huge number of frauds out there. I have yet to see any verifiable proof of anyone having psychic abilities.
Why don't we ever hear of psychics winning the lottery?
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but I have never seen anything coming close to real proof. There have been far too many serious scientific studies on "psychic ability" for there to have not been some kind of proof of such a thing by now. So far, nothing.

, the next morning he painted the events, (for example, twin towers burning with planes flying into them), went to a bank, and put the painting in a bank-safe, and dated it.

The date was the date he painted it, by the way, not the future date of the event.

Why don't we ever hear of psychics winning the lottery?

Maybe our consciousness can't get that clinically attuned, even psychics' consciousness.

Rough paintings or images ("rough" is relatively speaking) of future or parallel events might be the closest we can get.

Incidentally, psychic abilities come in many different forms, and not all are to do with knowing the future or seeing ghosts. Some have an ineffable awareness – knowledge – of God and the hereafter. Yet this would be too subjective for sceptics to accept.

Good stuff little whip.

I do know these flashes of precognition are a very real phenomenon, even if only because I myself have experienced them

Yes, it's this kind of subjectivity that many sceptics can't accept. It's just not scientific enough, in their view.

in vivid detail that was too remarkable to be coincidence.

If you got James Randi on the case, he would no doubt either chalk it up as a coincidence, or would dismiss it due to lack of proof. Even if you'd have painted the scene beforehand, it wouldn't have been enough evidence for him.

where the hell did that come from?

Psychic ability is natural. You obviously have an attuned knack which pops up every now and again little whip! Thanks for sharing it,

also, what do you think about those psychics who have correctly predicted where a body of a murder victim was...how do you explain that?

As I've said, there may be something to the psychic thing...I've had my share of premonition/deja vu experiences...nothing important, I'm just saying that the people who write books and do shows and outrageously charge for it are probably bullshitting their audience.

~Zoo

.

well, this rant certainly sparked a debate...