Past, Present and Future

[Jester]

Which shows to me, as we discussed above, that whatever ability does exist is not one that is controlled.

While this is conceivable, it reeks of a "god of the gaps" argument. It runs: Psychic ability exists, but not anywhere that you can really pin it down. It doesn't matter if test after test fails, because the psychic can't really control it, so maybe it just didn't manifest at that particular moment. Psychic powers (or God, or whatever) might still yet be hiding under the next rock, so let's search there!

It's a silly argument, a vapid set of non-theories, and a waste of research dollars. We've searched under a hell of a lot of rocks. They've all come up empty. Randi's million is still unclaimed.

If there is a mammalian ability to have foreknowledge, of some milliseconds, or more, then it would be natural for this to be developed as a survival skill.

If there is a mammalian ability to breathe underwater, surely we would have developed that too? Except not. Evolution doesn't work like that. Just because something would plausibly be advantageous says absolutely nothing about whether it would or did develop.

I'm not ruling it out, just because there have been no proper validated experiments. Enough anecdotal evidence exists to warrant some investigation, which is being done by those scientists willing to tolerate the arrogant scoffers and close minded.

"Some investigation" has been going on for centuries into these phenomena, never with any success. They had their heyday back in the 1960s and 70s with the rise of Parapsychology departments and they failed to produce anything but shoddy experiments, vague hypotheses, and non-replicable results. After decades of this pointless meandering, the Parapsychology departments were shut down, one by one, as wastes of money and embarrassments to their universities.

They had their shot to come up with something good, and they blew it, big time. To reverse that tremendous record of failure, to make me believe this isn't just hokum we can ignore, I'm still looking for one thing: A successful, repeatable test, under controlled conditions. The closest they've come is the Ganzfeld, but even that only shows barely-significant results in meta-studies involving seriously questionable research.

Many realities we accept today were inconceivable 100 years ago.

And all of them because they followed from elegant, precise theories that made powerful, falsifiable predictions, which were backed up by the results of repeatable (and endlessly repeated) experiments. They survived after having been savaged by some of the most brilliant minds of the day.

This stuff? Where it has been tested rigorously, it has shown no results. Where it has not been tested, it is largely untestable, vague, and riddled with bias. It relies on a totally unknown mechanism which would, at least at first glance, violate practically every law of physics we know.

In short? Bunk.

Or, for a brief history, written by a a believer no less:

Dr Ray Stantz: Hey, Dean Yeager! Are you moving us to a better office on campus?
Dean Yeager: No, you're being moved off campus. The Board of Regents has decided to terminate your grant. You are to vacate these premises immediately.
Dr Ray Stantz: What?
Dr. Peter Venkman: This is preposterous. I demand an explanation.
Dean Yeager: This university will no longer continue any funding for any of your group's activities.
Dr. Peter Venkman: But the kids love us!
Dean Yeager: Doctor... Venkman. The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman!
Dr. Peter Venkman: I see.
Dean Yeager: And you have no place in this department, or this university.

-Jester