DMcG, in your post of 09 Jan 13 - 04:28 AM, you said:

"That's an interesting observation. Yes, Feynman, and similar scientists, do make a core assumption: that psychic experiences must conform to similar laws to the entire rest of the universe. Under that assumption, his experience with compiling data and statistics is relevant, even if it is not specifically on psychic events. So things known in the rest of data analysis do apply - confirmation bias, sampling outliers and so on.

"Now, if (as I anticipate) your response is that the core assumption is not valid, then we get onto quite interesting grounds since you would be saying this is something that is inherently outside science, not merely something that science chooses not to study for whatever reason."


No, I wasn't saying RF was making a core assumption. I was wondering if he had ever done any scientific studies of psychic phenomena. I think that, scientist or not, a lot of people make assumptions about events or phenomena without having done proper, controlled experiments, or without having read any data from those type of experiments. It's very easy to make sweeping statements about anything at all in the world, but what is the actual, factual, data-based evidence for making those statements?

A scientist usually has to study a specific topic with very specific hypotheses, and to attempt to design experiments which eliminate, as far as possible, flaws in the experiment which might skew the data, or lead to incorrect assumptions. An experiment about one topic does not usually mean that the scientist can make assumptions about different topics. It usually means that more questions are raised and more experiments might be needed to attempt to find answers to those questions. Can a physicist make assumptions about the nature of human abilities of the non-physical kind, without calling on reputable scientific data?

I agree with Pete Jennings, too, that subtle human signs, like body language, tone of voice etc are important ways of picking up on how someone is feeling. I use that a lot and I can see how it links in with other perceptive skills, including psychic skills. Some dogs have been specially trained to pick up on a scent (or something else?) which indicates an epileptic is about to have a seizure, so there are other signs which our brain may perceive that our logical, conscious mind does not realise. So these data inputs are part of the whole process, too.

I think that when psychic abilities are truly understood, they will fit neatly into the physical and other laws of the universe, but I get frustrated when sweeping statements without a base of scientific data are made about the nature of psychic abilities.

I've been thinking, last night, about why I get frustrated.

Imagine this thread:

"I spoke to my sister last night and she told me something important which I want to discuss in this thread. She was at home, 20 miles away. I used a telephone."

Then someone replies to the post saying, "Telephones don't work. It's just a coincidence that you happened to know what your sister had to say."

Surely the response would be, "Why are you diverting the topic of conversation from the core matter of the thread to a technological discussion about whether telephones exist or whether they actually work or whether they are a figment of our imaginations? I started this thread to discuss a particular topic, not to discuss the side issue of telephones."

So, I have noticed over the 17 years I have been coming to Mudcat, and also in other forums and in real-life conversations, that for some reason, if a topic is raised and it refers to psychic abilities, the main topic is often ignored by at least one person, and there is a throwaway line about whether psychic abilities exist. If that one person simply said, "I don't BELIEVE in psychic abilities," it would be an opinion, but I rarely witness that sort of honesty. More times than not, in my experience, the statement is made in a way which challenges the person who mentions psychic abilities to prove that they exist, and it means that that person is then put on the defensive, and diverted from the topic they started the thread to discuss.

Like I said before, I normally don't weigh in on this discussion, but my frustration over the years got the better of me. I just wanted, for once, to put my side of the story, but in doing that, I fear I've fallen for that old "setting the cat among the pigeons" ruse and I have to take some responsibility for diverting the topic away from skarpi's original post. For that, skarpi, I am truly sorry.

Helen