03-23-2004, 05:26 AM
Hi,
Karl Popper: A conjecture or hypothesis must be accepted as true until such time as it is proven to be false.
Yes. But you need to go one step further. You need to look at what Popper meant by a conjecture or hypothesis. He didn't mean just any old hogwash gushing forth from the ignorant superstitious mind. He meant a statement that described a natural phenomena and that could be disproven (falsified). A statement like "paranormal phenomena exists" falls outside of Popper's dictum because (1) it has nothing to do with science (that's the basic meaning of "paranormal") and (2) it is not falsifiable (to falsify it, one must catalog every possible type of paranormal phenomena that could possibly exist and show that each of them separately does not exist).
The collective "paranormal phenomena exists" can be demonstrated by showing in a controlled and reproducible fashion that any one of those phenomena exist. If has been any such demonstration, then it has not come to my attention in spite of many years of interest in the subject. Every attempt at demonstrating paranormal phenomena to date has either failed (the practitioner or demonstrator could not, often with repeated attempts, bring the phenomenon about) or it turned out to have a simple scientific explanation.
The uninformed cannot understand how a stage magician performs his stunts, yet only the most naive amongst them believe that it is *real* magic. Simple observation is not sufficient for understanding -- even the simple observation of a first class genius like Aristotle who, for all his mental powers, was wrong in every particular about the natural world. Thus, a demonstration in a much more controlled environment is required to determine if something is true, a mass hallucination, or a clever trick.
Now, just like the statement "there is no Loch Ness monster" can never be proven by any number of failed attempts to sight it, so it is with "paranormal phenomena". And, just as with Nelly, whose existence can only be doubted after so many filed attempts, so too with the paranormal.
What glaring evidence?
You are willing to accept a tie between al Qaeda and Iraq on the basis of a few doubtful self serving statements by professional liars but you don't care to accept the evidence of years of study by reputable scientists. I envy you your selective BS detector. But, if you want to start somewhere, try The Skeptical Inquirer. http://www.csicop.org/
--Pete
Karl Popper: A conjecture or hypothesis must be accepted as true until such time as it is proven to be false.
Yes. But you need to go one step further. You need to look at what Popper meant by a conjecture or hypothesis. He didn't mean just any old hogwash gushing forth from the ignorant superstitious mind. He meant a statement that described a natural phenomena and that could be disproven (falsified). A statement like "paranormal phenomena exists" falls outside of Popper's dictum because (1) it has nothing to do with science (that's the basic meaning of "paranormal") and (2) it is not falsifiable (to falsify it, one must catalog every possible type of paranormal phenomena that could possibly exist and show that each of them separately does not exist).
The collective "paranormal phenomena exists" can be demonstrated by showing in a controlled and reproducible fashion that any one of those phenomena exist. If has been any such demonstration, then it has not come to my attention in spite of many years of interest in the subject. Every attempt at demonstrating paranormal phenomena to date has either failed (the practitioner or demonstrator could not, often with repeated attempts, bring the phenomenon about) or it turned out to have a simple scientific explanation.
The uninformed cannot understand how a stage magician performs his stunts, yet only the most naive amongst them believe that it is *real* magic. Simple observation is not sufficient for understanding -- even the simple observation of a first class genius like Aristotle who, for all his mental powers, was wrong in every particular about the natural world. Thus, a demonstration in a much more controlled environment is required to determine if something is true, a mass hallucination, or a clever trick.
Now, just like the statement "there is no Loch Ness monster" can never be proven by any number of failed attempts to sight it, so it is with "paranormal phenomena". And, just as with Nelly, whose existence can only be doubted after so many filed attempts, so too with the paranormal.
What glaring evidence?
You are willing to accept a tie between al Qaeda and Iraq on the basis of a few doubtful self serving statements by professional liars but you don't care to accept the evidence of years of study by reputable scientists. I envy you your selective BS detector. But, if you want to start somewhere, try The Skeptical Inquirer. http://www.csicop.org/
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?