I would also disagree with anyone who claimed to be the only arbiter of truth. I doubt you would find any scientist, even those who would declare themselves "rationalist," who would make this claim.
That is precisely the position they take. The standard approach used by these people is to riducule and vilify others involved in the studies of the "paranormal". While laughing at quack theories is tolerable, dismissal of the work of others, prior to any kind of investigation, is the norm by so-called "rationalists". I have seen interviews, and read papers, produced by "authorities" who are dismissing some piece of work citing, for example, some factor that could explain it. Yet this factor is acknowledged and has been "controlled" in the experiment; it is patently obvious the person criticising the work is not familiar with the paper concerned. This is dismissal
a priori and is the hallmark of an individual/organisation that is only concerned with their view of events (aka "we are the only ones in a position to know this").
Wouldn't a study that definitively showed the existence of parnormal activity be so earth-shatteringly important and undeniable that it would be easily reproduced by eager adherents and skeptics alike throughout the world?
Perhaps I should have said "appears to validate". There are a lot of borderline studies, which although not commissioned to study any "metaphysical" effect, that turn up odd results that appear to support some part of the, shall we say "new-age" thinkers claims. One such experiment (the details escape me for now) involved the study of rabbit immunoglobulins (taken from rabbits and purified for use in the lab.) exposed to different concentrations of antigens (alien proteins). It was found that progressive dilutions of antigen continued to stimulate the full immune response, the experiment went a stage further and diluted the samples so far as to contain no antigen at all (but these were still dilutions of the original solution).
The experimental team published the results, suggesting that water may have some form of "memory" of molecular properties (it is known that water can form complex structures around certain molecules) that was still capable of causing the immune reaction. This publication went mostly un-noticed until someone pointed out that it supported the notion of "homeopathy", from which point the work was dismissed as nonesense and the work of "quack science". I cannot recall the full details of what happened, but I do know that Randi was involved at some point, and insisted on being present during the repeated experiments (I understand he "entertained" the lab technicians with card tricks while they were working). Repititions of the experiment sometimes worked, and sometimes did not, so it was declared "unreliable" and dismissed - end of discussion. So - there was no possible room for further study then?
Perhaps when I say "validating" it really means "appears to support, in any way, mechanisms put forward by metaphysics". And it is not just the dismissal of potentially interesting areas of research either - it is the vitriolic attacks research teams are subjected to by the likes of Randi, that makes their attitude so reprehensible. I used the term "rationalist" perjoratively, when referring to the likes of Scicop, as they are some of the least "rational" scientists you are likely to meet. They are hypocrites.
And what do you mean by
easily reproduced ? Why would an important scientific experiement be "easy" to perform or reproduce? It may a be a highly involved, costly and delicate process that could be carried out by only a few laboratries worldwide - much like a lot of the particle accelerator work. Results could be open to interpretation and need refining. Do you really think that even a minority of scientific experiments produce significant results? and that these cannot be improved upon, or that the work needs developing and funding? Are you aware of how research is funded and produced?
And are you really so naive as to believe that experiments validating "metaphysics" would be accepted? Considering the amounts of money involved for competing research teams in the form of grants and sponsorship? Why don't you look at examples from history, such as Copernicus, for example. And don't try to say it's vastly different today - OK they don't burn you at the stake any more, but you still get "excommunicated" from the scientific "church of reason". THERE IS PLENTY OF RESEARCH that supports alternative hypotheses from well respected scientists. Of course, you never read it do you? Because, if you were truly interested in forming a blanced viewpoint you would at least be familiar with some of it and it is clear from your remarks that you are not.
I agree a lot of experiements are severely flawed, but that goes for all science. Experiments always have to be refined and better-controlled. And yes, there is a lot of "quack science" about, but you seem to group all alternative approaches into one basket called "quack". You are the quack, because you appear to be incapable of determining what constitutes valid science from invalid, you accept the superficial dismissals of Scicop, and fail to even take notice of the highly advanced thinking and studies conducted by well-respected physicists/groups such as Paul Davies and the PEAR team. That is such an easy position for you to adopt is it not: hear no, see, no, speak no.
I never said anything about this. Are you asking me to justify what someone else wrote on Amazon?
You did not SAY it, but you recommended a book as a counter to some of the arguments I was supporting. Yet this book appears to have nothing to do with what I was saying. The reviews of Sagans book do not talk about quantum dynamics, they talk about "UFO's" etc. But of course, in your mind they all belong to the same "group" don't they? This is how you see things is it not? Why do you feel that anyone that supports a more physical "holism" must necessarily also support theories of "alien abduction" or "channelling". Do you actually think this is the case, or are you just trying to use this as a means of ridiculing alternative thinking? If you are, you are following the same game plan as Scicop.
I will readily admit that quantum physics in any capacity is well outside of my limited sphere of knowledge. I suspect the same is true for you, but for all I know you may have a doctorate in the subject matter.
This has to be a joke right? Basically, "I don't understand it and cannot argue my case", therefore I
choose to believe that you cannot either. The philosophy of a moron.
And FYI, I do not have a doctorate in "quantum mechanics", my degree is in Biochemistry but I took an active interest in developments while at University and beyond, and was lucky enough to know and discuss some of the work that was taking place at the time. I was invited to apply to study physics (post-grad) in the USA but, decided my maths and mental discipline was not up to it, and went into industry instead.
You need serious qualifications to deal with the complex mathematics and properties of quantum-based systems. However, a reasonably sharp mind and balanced capacity to follow reason are all that is required to achieve a level of understanding sufficient to understand the implications of the research. It's hard, but really not that hard, otherwise authors like Paul Davies would not be able to sell books on the subject that could do it any justice.
to "debate" you on quantum physics as it relates to ESP would be an exercise in uselessness.
Only because you (by your own admission) are incapable of following the arguments; this statement says nothing about the validity of the studies presently being conducted into consciousness-related phenomena. You are clearly ignorant of this work, and prefer to lump it into the same basket of "quack" science that Scicop use. This is a tedious and pointless exercise on your part, and this remark is no more than a further attempt to dismiss the subject as "not worth" study. How typical of your kind.
What I do know is that as science develops, quacks, mystics, and outright frauds try to associate their beliefs with the latest scientific advancements. This latest idea of "quantum mysticism" strikes me as old ideas in new clothes, but perhaps time will prove me wrong.
First part of this statement - very true. They do this in an attempt to justify their own reasoning. Just like Scicop dismiss all evidence in an attemp to justify their own reasoning. But who is talking about "quantum mysticism". Where did that come from? You know, if you want to debate such topics as develoments in quantum physics, you really do need to be able to differentiate between entirely different subjects. I don't give a damn about "quantum mysticism" or any other hyperbole you have extracted from the Scicop website. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT QUANTUM MYSTICISM. Got that? for God's/(insert your personal deity here) sake man (and your own) go away and read some of the work by Paul Davies. These are books on physics, by an internationally recognised physicist, that talk about mathematics, quantum physics and how this relates to human experience. How many times does this have to be repeated, until you finally realise that it is not a simple case of "us" (Scicop and the "church of reason") versus "them" (quacks, nutters, geller-maniacs, holistic physicists, non-reductionists, in fact anyonoe who holds an alternative position). Can you not see that your position defines itself as "we are right and the rest are quacks". And this is what I accuse Scicop of, and you also, because that is your stance. Your mind is closed to the possibiity that you could be wrong, or perhaps more accurately, there may be more than one right answer (based on current physics).
If history is any indication, I highly doubt it.
Are you even acquainted with the history of scientific development? If you were, you would know that science regularly undergoes huge transformations as old theories and thinking get replaced by new and more complete theories (Copernicus, Darwin, Newton, Einstein among the more obvious). Future theories of science will have to take into account consciousness and conscious experience, if only to define the limits of human endeavour and how it relates to study of the universe/physics. Many physicists now believe that physics is on the threshold of a new understanding, similar to that revolution which occurred with Einstein et al. I won't pretend to know what this transformation is likely to be, but I do know that there are inherent problems and limitations with current theories (particularly the search for a way to unify gravity with the other forces, and the means by which physics can continue to create feasible experimental protocols (next-generation particle colliders are seriously expensive, and may not even provide the necessary data).
if you really think that CSICOP arrives at conclusions a priori, then fine, but in my experience this isn't the case.
Does you experience extend to looking at anything that is not Scicop's? Have you even looked at the PEAR website? If all you ever read is "research" supporting your mind-set, your mind-set will never be challenged. What a comfortable existence that is for you. The fact that you proposed the "Quantum Quackery" article as some kind of authoritative dismissal of non-reducionist physics, just demonstrates how superficial your appreciation of studies in this area is. The article itself contains logical inconsistencies. Perhaps you missed my post:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...;o=14&vc=1
As you appear not to answered any of the points I raised.
As far as Scicop's conclusions are concerned, they have already stated their intention is to debunk all and any evidence that may support theories of "metaphysics". The arguments they use are superficial, logically inconsistent and they allow bad science to be published on their site if it supports their cause. Their utter failure to counter the research of Michel Gauquelin, except by resorting to underhand trickery (producing "results" then refusing to reveal the sources of their information - just the sort of behaviour one would expect from charlatans and fakers, which kinda makes them hypocites) is testament to their methods and ideology. Scicop are not interested in the truth - just their version of the truth.
Play low-limit poker all your life, and you will learn how to play better than bad players, you will be a mediocrity. If you aspire to play well, you have to play higher limits and expose yourself to risk and humiliation.
The same is true of science, if you wish to remain a mediocrity in its study, then just stick with Scicop (the land of superficial science and fixed opinions). If you want to really develop your understanding, you have to dare to have your viewpoint challenged, and that means looking beyong your present limits.