Comments on: Pseudoscience

http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/ reality bizarres the standard Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:45:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: indigoblade http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1439 indigoblade Fri, 10 Oct 2008 02:22:25 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1439 How do you deal with something intangible...like quantum mechanics...huh...lets see...you have an observation, make a theory, test it repeatedly and then make your conclusion...but what if technology hasn't caught up yet? You could always wait for the tech. to catch up...or you could look at existing data and utilize that to come up with inteligent theoroms that make since according to existing data. But thats just what i think...er...excuse the spelling. Basicly what i am trying to say is that there are ways to find that which seems to be intangible...scientist have done it for years...as did the ancients before scientific method evolved. So if you wanna know you cna either wait for tech to catch up and help you prove the case, or you can have the guts to use whats already there to set up the future explorers....think einstein By: fruo http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1417 fruo Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:38:31 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1417 So what do you think we should do to alter the scientific method in a way it is still usable and will yield true results? By: Trick http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1416 Trick Wed, 03 Sep 2008 06:42:32 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1416 Its been discovered, just how it WORKS hasnt been discovered. So we cant really do much. By: Antisankari http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1415 Antisankari Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:35:48 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1415 Its been discovered. Fusion has been discovered too. Why aren't there any fusion plants operational in full production yet? Because the damn thing just isn't worth the effort yet. Psi is kewl but the bang for the invested buck just ain't very good. By: Trick http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1414 Trick Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:59:12 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1414 Yeah, I disagreed too. It doesnt evade being discovered, just not a lot of people can do it so they really dont have that many known proofs. It has been tested with VERY significant results though. By: gigamosh57 http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1413 gigamosh57 Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:21:09 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1413 What makes you think that these phenomena under the umbrella of "pseudoscience" are "evading phenomena" ? You said you believe they are, but perhaps they only seem that way because the groups involved in their discovery (although I am not familiar with them, PsiPog seems to be a good example) do not function in a scientifically rigorous manner. If more money and time were designated for paranormal research, experiments could easily be devised to test the validity of these phenomena. Take telekinesis for instance (I have not done much research into the subject, but this is just one example): I have an object on a table that I would like a supposedly telekinetic individual to move. If the experiment was in a closed system and closely observed (to prevent outside tampering), and the person was able to make an object move, independent of any visible external forces, 29 out of 30 times, wouldn't that prove that the assumption that telekinesis was impossible is false? My point is that so long as there is a physical manifestation of the results of these "paranormal events" (visible ghosts, moving objects, impossible knowledge, etc.) then they are not evading phenomena; the people who talk about them may be unscientific in their methods (Online communities are hardly the place to look for scientific rigor). With proper funding and experimenters with accountability and peer review, any of these phenomena can be tested and proved or disproved. It is a good thing that you are thinking in this way; so long as you are committed to the honest truth about your experience (and not your online reputation) you will continue to discover amazing things about the world and be taken seriously for them. Page By: NeoPsychic http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1412 NeoPsychic Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:31:01 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1412 Actually I don't think we should classify psionics under pseudoscience. It should still be kept in the realm of science. This stuff needs to be studied accurately in the basis of the natural world no matter how supernatural it seems. The idea that science cannot explain everything is no reason to throw it out the window when examining our own practices. I say keep researching and formulating theories until we get it right or wrong. By: redefine http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1411 redefine Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:40:35 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1411 well, it comes from karl popper's falsifiability, its all well and good if a theory fits in and sounds good, but unless there is a concievable scenario where the theory is false, it means nothing. its to take that possible scenario and test it. if the theory fails, you re-think it. that, and alot of things in science cant be proven right, or its much easier to prove them wrong. so if you try to prove the theory wrong and you fail, then thats one tick toward your theory. this is especially important with things that cant necesarily be proved true. sean, have you thought about this other thing which may be prevalent in parapsychology (esp. among ametures like us), which i cant remember the name of, but its skewing and manipulating the results to fit the theory, rather then changing the theory to fit the results. its something like 'conventionalist twist' i think, which is separate from confirmation bias By: Trick http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1410 Trick Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:17:52 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1410 I think its still provable. Like micro PK. You can do many repeated tests with that, cant you? By: cinderwild http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1409 cinderwild Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:27:33 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2008/08/17/pseudoscience/#comment-1409 Oh, I knew that, but I was thinking that aren't you technically trying to prove it right OR wrong, not just one or the other?