Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Wow, this thread went haywire since I last posted. Some good points, some bad points, lots of bashings.
My original point was that main stream science does not recognize psychic phenomena, yet fringe science does. There is quite a long history of the scientific method being applied to "super natural" effects, mostly with marginal results.
Yes, there is. The difference is, when a scientist fails to prove something, or is given experimentally validated information which contradicts their hypothesis, they acknowledge that and look for a new solution, while quacks insist that the study was biased/the results were suppressed by the International Association of Information-Suppressing Scientists/their particular quackery is immune to science, and keep believing in it anyway.
Let's look at one:
Do we have to?
Dowsing.
Dowsing is scientifically provable, repeatable, and most importantly, learnable. Most people have to the ability to learn how to dowse water. Like any other ability, it takes instruction and practice. A talent for it helps, but isn't actually necessary. My father dowses, which is how I learned about it. Although, truth to tell, I'm not all that good at it.
From the wikipedia article on dowsing;
A 1948 study tested 58 dowsers' ability to detect water. None of them was more reliable than chance.[16] A 1979 review examined many controlled studies of dowsing for water, and found that none of them showed better than chance results.[5]
More recently a study[17] was undertaken in Kassel, Germany, under the direction of the Gesellschaft zur Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences]. The three-day test of some 30 dowsers involved plastic pipes through which water flow could be controlled and directed. The pipes were buried 50 centimeters under a level field, the position of each marked on the surface with a colored strip. The dowsers had to tell whether water was running through each pipe. All the dowsers signed a statement agreeing this was a fair test of their abilities and that they expected a 100 percent success rate, however the results were no better than chance.
Among other things I've learned to do via study is removing pain from myself and others. I learned how to do this by reading up on the very well documented science (at least in Russia) of strengthening your personal bio-electrical field. I came across this in a book written on how to quit smoking/addictions. Since I began the exercises, I've been able to feel electrical current from a distance, to the point that I can now trance electrical wiring in a house through the drywall, as well as feel the pressure of high-power lines without being able to see them. Anyone can learn to do this. I've used it quite successfully for over 20 years as an electrical engineer.
Placebo effect.
As to removing pain, again this is learnable, repeatable, and provable. At the time I learn how to do this, I had never heard of Reiki, yet further studying on my part has lead me to conclude the technique is similar (what is known as Level 1 Reiki). It is provable and repeatable in that I can localize and remove the pain in another without them being aware that that is what I am doing (i.e., no placebo effect). Is it measurable with scientific instrumentation? Sort of. You can measure the increase electrical field, and you can use the current patient-use pain charts doctors use to measure pain.
Reiki is not provable or repeatable, a systematic review done in 2008 found that all but nine studies on the subject were biased, tainted, or incompetent, and in studying those nine remaining found no evidence of efficacy. It has no validated method of action, and the proposed method of action is contrary to experimentally validated information which we already possess.
I'm not claiming to be a psyker, psychic, faith healer or whatever. I'm stating that what I've posted above falls under fringe science because it is not accepted by main stream science and peer review.
Which means it is not science, of any sort. If you pick up a football(soccer for you yanks) and begin to play a game with your friends that has no referees and ignores many of the rules, you're not playing "fringe football" while athletes play "mainstream football"; you're just kicking a ball around for fun
And no, I'm not going post web links or cite sources, so take my post as anecdotal evidence if you will.
You mean teleportation and transmitting information faster than light via entanglement isn't hocus pocus?
Really? *sigh* If you're going to argue conspiratorial anti-science quackery, could you at least go to the effort of coming up with some new arguments? It gets so boring having to refute the same tired nonsense over and over again.
Quantum Mechanics as a field has existed since the beginning of the 20th century, and has its origins in the early 1800's. It underlies pretty much every last scrap of modern technology we use today, from GPS to computer circuitry to some of the materials our clothes are made out of; it is the very bloody opposite of "hocus pocus". "I'm incapable of understanding this, it has big numbers and head-hurty words in it" is not the same thing as "I don't grasp this, so it is irrational and so is anyone who studies it". Here's a simple rule to guide you in your exploration of physics; if you're gaining your understanding through anything other than the maths, your understanding is incomplete; the further away from the maths that your source of information is(for example; popular science articles in the media), the more incomplete your understanding will become.
Melissia wrote: It was very bland and watered down thought-food, though.
U mad, bro?
Serious Melissia is serious...I was goofing the other guy being serious that said "rational physicists" by saying in a tongue in cheek manner that quantum physics has been forced in a closet for years by people that touted "if you can't prove it, it doesn't exist"...
And now we are teleporting stuff...
And through quantum mechanics it appears very likely that all things conceivable are probable (albeit terrible odds--enter Han Solo)...potentially making all skeptics technically wrong, no matter what topic is challenged. That's a terrible universe to live in as Doubting Thomas, because disproving turns into "highly unlikely". We're not just conjugating verbs anymore, it's a little complex.
So anytime someone calls you a fool for speculating , even for fun, I take that as a very serious challenge to inform them they are likely wrong...well, probably wrong anyway.
So, you were trolling, essentially? I also find it quite hilarious, by the by, that you're arguing that quantum physics has been "forced into a closet for years" with a sub-atomic particle physicist.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/06 13:30:40
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Ascalam wrote: Think you might need to take a step back and realise that 40K is just a game, dude...
Just a game? Since when? I though it is a way of life....
Anyway to OP, according to 40k lore Human psykers existed even in old history - mages, shamans, psychics, magicians... they are all psykers.
The universe has many horrors yet to throw at us. This is not the end of our struggle. This is just the beginning of our crusade to save Humanity. Be faithful! Be strong! Be vigilant!
You know, after your lecture on knowing the math, I'm deeply offended that you didn't get my embedded joke earlier...those types of nuggets are placed specifically for the particle physicists on the board...
I love how people cite wikipedia as truth. it must be cause wiki's are never wrong, right?
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
Dowsing is not the least bit provable or repeatable. It is a thing people do that does not work. A bad dowser tries to find water by dowsing. A good dowser has learned how to spot indications of water and thinks dowsing is somehow involved. But even a good downer is not very good at finding water, as has been proven time and again.
Removing pain... as in reducing the amount of pain you feel? What has that to do with pseudoscience? That's just learning to deal with and ignore pain. I learned to ignore and reduce pain just by being show and having to deal with it. I never involved electrical fields. I'd like to see one study correlating electrical field fluctuations with pain reduction, much less a study indicating causation.
All this stuff has been studied. The difference between the apparent craziness of quantum physics and the apparent craziness of dowsing is that one works and is demonstratable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/07 11:01:37
jeffersonian000 wrote: Dowsing is scientifically provable, repeatable, and most importantly, learnable.
It is none of those things. It has not been scientifically proven.
Reishi is also none of those things. It has not been scientifically proven.
Are you going to start arguing for fething homeopathy now?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/07 13:32:09
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
jeffersonian000 wrote: I love how people cite wikipedia as truth. it must be cause wiki's are never wrong, right?
SJ
Actually, by just shrugging off whats on wikipedia is kinda not getting the point of "research", you can easily tell the quality of a wikipedia article by checking their references at the bottom of the page, if none is put up or the references are bogus, then so is the article.
Ofcourse he could link to the sources themselves without the 3rd party, but its just easier to hit up a article that have already lists of references instead of linking all of them as a seperate.
But yes, its kinda lazy to just link to wikipedia, but its just as lazy not checking the references the site offers and learn something in the process.
Karandras15 is self-deluded and irrational enough for this entire thread. Why did we need additional super-crazies to join as well?
Why do I get attacked? I haven't even expressed an opinion, other than clowns and children being hilarious.
No one has yet torn down the quacks that invest and research this stuff, they just attack...much like the Inquisition, I suppose for doubting the status quo, I should be subject to the thumbscrews... thanks for the enlightenment.
Dowsing can be scientifically verified by having a dowser locate water, then back check with ground-penetrating radar to see how accurate the dowser was; i.e., scientifically provable. And yes, there are quite a lot of fakes ... just like in academic and government research. Corporate research follows the money, so fakery tends to last only as long as the company can afford to support it.
And by pain removal, I meant the reduction and/or removing of chronic pain felt by an individual. Scientifically provable in that you can have someone in pain state their level of pain before the application, and then have the same person state their level of pain after the applicant, just like in any other pharmacological study.
And I assume that by "deluded woo-woo", you are citing a "wiki-fact"?
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
No, I don't see Wiki as The Fountain of Truth either.
I usually use it as a starting-point and as a place to get some references.....then the real research begins.
And, yes, dowsing can be scientifically verified (just like everything else can potentially be scientifically verified).
It is just that so far dowsing has been shown to be no better than chance when tested under reasonable scientific conditions.
When some people state that dowsing have indeed been verified, I'll point out that they are committing the logical fallacies of Cherrypicking and Sharpshooter.
Here would be a chance to reference Wiki in a decent way.
The two above mentioned logical fallacies are well known, logically proven and unchanging.
Thus a reference to Wiki for their meaning would save me a lot of time explaining them, giving examples of them and logically showing why they are relevant.
So as you see, a Wiki reference can be useful and relevant......and any who dismisses that information out of hand, simply because it comes from Wiki, is being irrational.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
People seem to be misinterpreting what I posted. I didn't say "scientifically proven", I stated "scientifically provable". As in, you can apply the scientific method to it. My example on dowsing pointed out that it can be used accurately to find water if used by someone who knows how to do it, just like current technology can be used to do the exact same thing if used correctly by people that know how to use it.
My example on pain reduction is the exact same thing as testing medical pain killers, with the exact same results (i.e., they don't work the same on everyone, and the only way to prove they work is in a blind study).
However, because I caged my statements as "fringe" science rather than "main stream" science, immediately posters disregarded my posts as "deluded woo-woo". Which shows that blind ignorance is still the common state of the human condition, which is provable using the scientific method. Cheers!
SJ
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
jeffersonian000 wrote: People seem to be misinterpreting what I posted. I didn't say "scientifically proven", I stated "scientifically provable". As in, you can apply the scientific method to it.
Which is EXACTLY what I just said. Look.....
Steelmage99 wrote:And, yes, dowsing can be scientifically verified (just like everything else can potentially be scientifically verified).
It is just that so far dowsing has been shown to be no better than chance when tested under reasonable scientific conditions.
Maybe I was unclear. My point is that dowsing, while being subjected to the rigours of scientific scrutiny, is completely unable to produce verifiable, repeatable results.
My example on dowsing pointed out that it can be used accurately to find water if used by someone who knows how to do it
Which is an unproven assertion presented by you several times in this thread.
Any assertion presented without proof can be dismissed without proof.
So every time you state that "dowsing works", I will simply say; "no", and I will need to present no further arguments.
The onus of proof always lies with the asserting party, and no amount of accusing the sceptics of being closed-minded, blind or of limited imagination will change that.
Until such proof is presented it is irrational and illogical to keep repeating the assertion.
just like current technology can be used to do the exact same thing if used correctly by people that know how to use it.
No. Just NO. Those two things cannot be equated in ANY way.
However, because I caged my statements as "fringe" science rather than "main stream" science, immediately posters disregarded my posts as "deluded woo-woo". Which shows that blind ignorance is still the common state of the human condition, which is provable using the scientific method.
There is no such thing as fringe science....there is only science and non-science.
It is like how alternative medicine that is proven to work is just called medicine, and everything else is pot-pourri.
Fringe science is a term invented by people wishing to surround their woo woo with an air of legitimacy that the woo woo hasn't earned.
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
jeffersonian000 wrote: When seen through Western eyes, yes, there is no such thing as psychics. However, the Western world is not the whole of the Earth. Eastern cultures have practiced many different "psychic" arts since pre-history, from the soothsayers of Delphi to modern day Reiki. Westerners scoff at the concept because it hasn't been "scientifically proven", which translates to being taught in the Western educational system. Yet, the Western view is not exactly true, has there has been numerous studies into the fields of energy healing and extra-sensory perception, with verying results. Unfortunately, due to those fields being considered "fringe" science (ie, not main stream), there is no foundamental way to gain honest peer review on the subject in the Western world. And as such, Westerners will ignore centuries of Eastern documentation and practice.
Not to say that I feel 40k style psykers are present in today's world. Yet if the fluff behind 40k is to see is "truth", then psykers as we know them probably won't come into existence for a while yet, seeing as we do not quite have the ability to fabricate designer human being with tailored genetic codes. Maybe in the few more years.
SJ
'scientifically proven' doesn't mean taught in Western education systems. It means if something is empirically proven and peer reviewed. Penicillin is scientifically proven, Homeopathy is bs. Energy healing is bs. Most alternative medicines 'work' as placebo's. You know what alternative medicine that works is called? Medicine.
Tailored genetic codes won't create psykers. That's not how biology, chemistry or physics work. It is quite literally impossible to control objects with the pwoer of your mind, to read other people's mind etc. That's not how physics, atoms or electrons work. There's no gene for E.S.P.
A friend and I both contended that we had powers.
We devised a test of said powers.
A coffee cup was placed on the table between us.
He focused his telekinetic powers to move the cup.
His exertions caused him to shart himself.
I then focused my powers.
With a controlled exertion of approximately 10.4 calories I extended my left hand (the sinister hand, coincidence?)
grasped the mug and hit him with it.
Science.
The universe has many horrors yet to throw at us. This is not the end of our struggle. This is just the beginning of our crusade to save Humanity. Be faithful! Be strong! Be vigilant! 
18.000 
3.500 
8.200 
3.300 
2.400 
3.100 
5.500 
2.500 
3.200 
3.000
>Raptors Lead the Way < 
5000(7 drop-pods)pts (15/10/4)