Can science prove we're psychic?
I haven't found time to read the paper that this article is about, but I hope to soon enough. Judging from the article though, I'd say that this is going to encounter the same stumbling blocks that most parapsychology studies finding positive results encounter.
It seems that already people are trying to shrug the study off because it doesn't provide a working theory. I'm not a science historian, but it seems to me that most often we discover the phenomenon first and then work out the theory afterward. Expecting a theory before an objective phenomenon is taken seriously seems like a very backwards way of doing things to me.
Then we have the problem of replicability. Not everyone agrees on what counts as replicability in the first place, but for now let's focus on the people that have attempted a replication and got negative results. Going solely by the article, it doesn't seem that they really attempted a replication as they didn't follow the exact procedure of the original experiment. How can this be called a failure to replicate when they weren't even copying the original experiment?
Lastly, I suspect that as soon as conventional explanations for the positive results run dry then the cries of fraud will go up. Never mind that an accusation of fraud requires evidence to prove it; it was surely a trick all along! Some people just don't want ESP or psychic abilities to be demonstrated as a reality. It would topple their worldview.
I have a hard time understanding the ferocious opposition to the idea of ESP and psychic abilities in the age of quantum strangeness. There are plenty of things that we can't explain; why ignore ESP when there is evidence that it is a real phenomenon? This is by no means the first study to show results in favor of ESP, though it could turn out to be one of the best known. It could even be the study that makes people stand up and take notice, if it's replicated. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think it will be that simple or easy to get this taken seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment