why science is wrong… about almost everything — review by Society for Psychical Research

It's not as complicated as it sounds, folks! Basically you try to replace the word "is" with "appears to be", and extend your yes/no binaries into a yes/no/maybe trinary. So, you know, the subjective nature of human perception is accounted for.
I think modern science has appropriately explored "maybe" and its logical applications in measuring our environments. Maybe - is made objective as uncertainty - in the Mathematical Theory of communication. This measurement of uncertainty has led us to the reliable transmission of messages via the internet. "Maybes" get addressed in electronic computation as "fuzzy logic".

I also think that science has explored "maybe", as a subjective state, via Decision Theory and the use of probability to formalize social data.
 
Last edited:
I think modern science has appropriately explored "maybe" and its logical applications in measuring our environments. Maybe - is made objective as uncertainty - in the Mathematical Theory of communication. This measurement of uncertainty has led us to the reliable transmission of messages via the internet. "Maybes" get addressed in electronic computation as "fuzzy logic".

I also think that science has explored "maybe", as a subjective state, via Decision Theory and the use of probability to formalize social data.
Like many things in modern "science" that's a shell-game. The "maybe" they use is a finite quantity assigned a pseudo-indeterminate value. If it was a genuine "maybe" a message could end up anywhere.
 
Like many things in modern "science" that's a shell-game. The "maybe" they use is a finite quantity assigned a pseudo-indeterminate value. If it was a genuine "maybe" a message could end up anywhere.
I have no idea what a genuine "maybe" might be. A "maybe" can range form a very small probability to anything less than P = 1.

"Maybe", as a subjective state, can be generic. And just mean that an agent is free to choose to actualize an intention, from a number of courses of action, including inaction.
 
I have no idea what a genuine "maybe" might be. A "maybe" can range form a very small probability to anything less than P = 1.

"Maybe", as a subjective state, can be generic. And just mean that an agent is free to choose to actualize an intention, from a number of courses of action, including inaction.
The "I have no idea" encapsulates a genuine maybe. While I agree with you that there has been a lot of attempts to formalize a structure of "maybe", my contention is that those very formalizations are in fact a shell-game. That doesn't mean there aren't lots of practical applications for them. Obviously there are. But when we explore, or discourse about, the actualities of existence practical application is not a consideration.
 
I think modern science has appropriately explored "maybe" and its logical applications in measuring our environments. Maybe - is made objective as uncertainty - in the Mathematical Theory of communication. This measurement of uncertainty has led us to the reliable transmission of messages via the internet. "Maybes" get addressed in electronic computation as "fuzzy logic".

I also think that science has explored "maybe", as a subjective state, via Decision Theory and the use of probability to formalize social data.

Not to be needlessly nitpicky, but I'm not sure I agree that "science" has done or ever will "do" anything. It seems to me that science is a method, nothing more or less. It seems to me it's humans doing all the doing.
 
I am not ready to dismiss science just as much as I am not ready to dismiss my own spirituality. There is a place for both. The only thing that casts a shadow on both is ignorance, profound human ignorance of what reality actually is, or the source of our own consciousness.

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
Not to be needlessly nitpicky, but I'm not sure I agree that "science" has done or ever will "do" anything. It seems to me that science is a method, nothing more or less. It seems to me it's humans doing all the doing.
David,

Not at all. The way I used the term is a reification fallacy (but you knew what I meant). Agents (human or otherwise) can actively use mathematical models of both physics and information theory and explore "the excluded middle" in natural environments. I think we can also use our rationality to explore even another level of reality, our moral role. In the moral environment there is middle ground with free will.

If you believe the leading evolutionary psychology thinkers, our responsibility is taken away by determinism. I truly believe that if we pursue science, with our rationality, we we understand how personal responsibility shapes our character. Literally.
 
David,

Not at all. The way I used the term is a reification fallacy (but you knew what I meant). Agents (human or otherwise) can actively use mathematical models of both physics and information theory and explore "the excluded middle" in natural environments. I think we can also use our rationality to explore even another level of reality, our moral role. In the moral environment there is middle ground with free will.

If you believe the leading evolutionary psychology thinkers, our responsibility is taken away by determinism. I truly believe that if we pursue science, with our rationality, we we understand how personal responsibility shapes our character. Literally.

I think that reification fallacy is, like, mistaking the map for the territory... like when Stephen Hawking mistakes his mathematics for a real description of the universe. It's not clear to me that you perpetrated a logical fallacy at all, in fact. I just think in general it's sloppy to apply the term science to anything except the scientific method. I would accept the descriptor "scientific" for statements which are phrased so as to be falsifiable as per Popper.

Did I know what you mean? Can't say for sure that I did, your writing style is a bit over my head.

I'm really not sure where the stuff about responsibility is coming from or where it's going, or how you got that from anything I said. I brought up non-aristotelian logic as a casual suggestion for forum members; was encouraged to explain it further. Gave the briefest outline of it. Then you started going off about "science this" and "science that". Sorry dude, you just really confused me.

As for as believing leading evolutionary psychology thinkers, or believing anything else, I would caution you against it. The cognitive dissonance problem makes belief very dangerous. It's a form of brain damage when you get right down to it. I'd stick to having opinions, leave belief to the fideists, and avoid dogmatism at all costs. If you must believe in something, believe in the fallibility of experts. Now THAT is science.
 
I am not ready to dismiss science just as much as I am not ready to dismiss my own spirituality. There is a place for both. The only thing that casts a shadow on both is ignorance, profound human ignorance of what reality actually is, or the source of our own consciousness.

My Best,
Bertha

I don't think anyone here was dismissing science, just trying to clear up what science is (and isn't).
 
I would accept the descriptor "scientific" for statements which are phrased so as to be falsifiable as per Popper.
If you must believe in something, believe in the fallibility of experts. Now THAT is science.
I am pragmatic and not political about the subject. Science is a form of organized knowledge and the word comes from that root meaning. We can put credence in science that correctly models and simulates real world empirical events.

Pragmatically, certain math and logical statements do accurately compute and predict reality. Science must and does rely on them.

Warranted belief is the subject matter of philosophy and not science. However, I strongly agree that some, so called experts, are full of __it.

Do you think that meme of cognitive theorists like Dennett, Pinker and Baars have analyzed the data correctly - or are they "experts" who do not deserve warranted belief? Is there communication that is not entirely physical?

ps I am a fan of Popper and the continuing evolution of propensity theory.
One of the principal challenges confronting any objectivist theory of scientific knowledge is to provide a satisfactory understanding of physical probabilities. The earliest ideas here, known collectively as the frequency interpretation, have now been all but abandoned, and have been replaced by an equally diffuse set of proposals all calling themselves the propensity interpretation of probability. (Miller 1994 p. 175) Popper is widely credited with introducing the propensity interpretation in the 1950s. - Patrick Maher
 
I am pragmatic and not political about the subject. Science is a form of organized knowledge and the word comes from that root meaning. We can put credence in science that correctly models and simulates real world empirical events.

Pragmatically, certain math and logical statements do accurately compute and predict reality. Science must and does rely on them.

Warranted belief is the subject matter of philosophy and not science. However, I strongly agree that some, so called experts, are full of __it.

Do you think that meme of cognitive theorists like Dennett, Pinker and Baars have analyzed the data correctly - or are they "experts" who do not deserve warranted belief? Is there communication that is not entirely physical?

ps I am a fan of Popper and the continuing evolution of propensity theory.

I'm not sure if you're an American or not. I certainly am not. Still, as pragmatic definitions go, we can, perhaps, refer to the one offered by the Supreme Court of the United States in Daubert vs. Merrell, “Science is not an encyclopedic body of knowledge about the universe. Instead, it represents a process for proposing and refining theoretical explanations about the world that are subject to further testing and refinement.”

I disagree that we can put credence in "correct" models. There are no correct models. That's positivism... so early 20th century. Knowledge advances through conjecture and refutation. All we have in the way of successful models are ones that have yet to be falsified.

Pragmatically, Newtonian physics was deemed to be "correct" and "accurate" until it was supplanted by a more complete theory.

The sort of positivism you are advancing together with the dogmatism you are espousing lead in the direction of scientism, at least, that would be my take on it.

No, I'm not enamoured of Dennett, Pinker, or Baars. Too many black swan events in my own life for me to buy into materialist thinking. And no, nothing warrants belief. Belief is a form of brain damage. I like to think of myself as someone who has opinions, not beliefs.

At least, that would be my opinion on the matter. :/
 
I disagree that we can put credence in "correct" models. There are no correct models. That's positivism... so early 20th century. Knowledge advances through conjecture and refutation. All we have in the way of successful models are ones that have yet to be falsified.

Pragmatically, Newtonian physics was deemed to be "correct" and "accurate" until it was supplanted by a more complete theory.
The Logical Positivists, likewise as to your stated position, do not accept the essential nature of human character or in spiritual belief. I stand in full opposition to that particular worldview. However, I am informed by much of their thinking, just as I expect to learn and appreciate the ideas you express. Getting my ideas refuted and hence made more secure - is why I like Skeptico. I am in need of having my ideas torn apart as much as possible.

Computational models (within defined margins of error) either do - or do not match empirical data. Newtonian equations have not been supplanted or over-grown. They are just limited in scale. Better equations, which follow the same general structure, have expanded the range of prediction. At the normal scale of human life: F=MA give accurate and correct computational models that match and predict empirical data. http://www.quora.com/Can-you-derive-Newtons-laws-of-motion-from-quantum-mechanical-principles

I am an American. I claim no expertise. I think there is a "way of nature" that will explain how communication can happen, without a physical signal. Intuitive understandings like: "it is an idea whose time has come" or "love was in the air" can be substantiated with an informational point of view.
 
No doubt in my mind now that science is wrong about almost everything indeed ,since it has been equated with materialism for relatively so long now and counting, by the majority of scientists and other people, without question .
We should thus question almost all what materialist science has been telling us all about this universe and ourselves radically, in the sense that almost all what materialist science has been telling us all about the origin of the universe , the nature of life , the origin of life , the evolution of life , the origin of human consciousness , the origin of human language and most of the rest were/are just materialistic dogmatic belief assumptions , no science : just materialistic fairy tales.
Materialists have been thus selling their own false outdated and superseded 19th century dogmatic belief system to the people as science or as "the scientific world view", and that at the global level even.

Science should be set free from materialism indeed,including all sciences for that matter and including the so-called human sciences as well, not to mention history writing , political science, art , literature ... Cheers.
 
"Everything Science tells us about the physical universe is ultimately wrong if it fails to recognize the fundamental nature of consciousness and the underlying role of consciousness in every physical phenomenon that occurs."
That's the scientific philosophical angle. There is also the sociological angle...
Scientists have to lie and cheat to compete for research funding.
Retraction watch.
http://retractionwatch.com/

Science is so hoplessly politicized that you can't trust any scientific finding (see below).
...

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/video-on-the-politicization-of-science.2072/
...
[The result of this is that] Most published research findings are false:
http://www.economist.com/news/scien...w-institute-has-you-its-sights-metaphysicians

And I would add that part of the problem is that science journalism is complicit.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/der-spiegel-discovers-the-truth-from-science/

Der Spiegel, Germany’s leading news magazine, organized an interview with three university professors last week: Dr. Ernst Peter Fischer, professor for the History of Science at the University of Heidelberg, Dr. Holger Wormer, professor for Journalism at the University of Dortmund (who also studied Chemistry), and Dr. Corinna Lüthje, professor for Communications at the Technical University of Dresden. Though not necessarily intended, the discussion gave a good counter, from scientists, to those people (atheist and otherwise), who have been asserting for years that science, not religion has the truth.
...
Because of increased pressure to justify research, Dr. Wormer noted, we now have scientific advertising. And the media are altogether too credulous. In one particular instance, Dr. Lüthje tells us, one Austrian science journalist said to her, “Please understand me, I just can’t criticize a professor.”
...
“We need more journalists who will pose critical questions to Nobel Prize winners,” he said.
...
Der Spiegel protested all of this discussion with the statement, that what they hear is that “journalists want to earn money, whereas scientists are only seeking the truth.” This brought loud guffaws from all three. “Scientists,” answered Dr. Fischer, “want success; they want a wife, a hotel room, an invitation, or perhaps a car!"
...
Here are people in the scientific world, specializing in communication of science to the public, who are urgently calling for more critical thinking and questioning in their area of endeavor. No one in the interview would say that there is no truth to science. But these people also tell us that truth is not the domain of science
....
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/...ech-mit-wormer-fischer-luethje-a-1014716.html

“journalists want to earn money, whereas scientists are only seeking the truth.” This brought loud guffaws from all three [professors]. “Scientists,” answered Dr. Fischer, “want success; they want a wife, a hotel room, an invitation, or perhaps a car!"

These sociological factors are symptomatic of the same permissive environment that makes it possible for obsolete ideas like materialism and naturalism to survive despite being implausible for many reasons.
 
Last edited:
I would like to ask a question, as I have read this thread back, and realised that members have a greater knowledge of philosophy and advanced physics than me. I need simplification please.

What is the true role of the brain during the production of what is usually called paranormal phenomena, or spirit communication, or other events suggestive that a 'mind' is operating outside the body, but connected to it in some way?

As I see it, if the brain is the only cause or driver for these events, then I have wasted thirty years collecting evidence of survival of physical death.!
However, if the brain is merely a fantastic instrument which filters out most of the psychic interaction in the Universe so that we are not driven mad by overload, our real consciousness (or mind?) exists independently of the brain and works through it. This would account for abilities of (genuine) psychics and mediums whose 'filters' are less effective than most people, and for the existence of 'spirit people' in a different realm from ours.

I have read about psychokinetic or telekinetic phenomena as a description of paranormal events which were said to be caused by the thoughts of the brain,and the,body, but never how it works, and according to David Fontana there is no scientific evidence that on a macro level these events are possible.
 
Super psi cannot explain the evidence for the afterlife
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2009/06/survival-and-super-psi.html

Philosopher Chris Carter: Super-psi is Pseudo-science.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/philosopher-chris-carter-super-psi-is.html

Mrs Piper:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2009/05/further-record-of-observations-of.html

ESP is not produced by the brain.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/near-death-experiences-and-afterlife.html#facts_esp

Macro PK occurs. Some of the evidence for it comes from cases of poltergeist that seem to be due to an individual not a spirit.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/05/what-to-do-about-poltergeist.html
If the link to the Tropican Arts case doesn't work try this one:
http://www.ufopsi.com/articles/miamipoltergeist.html
 
Last edited:
Thanks Jim. I'm aware of the authenticity of poltergeist events, but I still question the interpretation of what's really going on. Just because some of these are centred on an individual does not mean that he or she 'causes' the events in my opinion. It could equally well be caused by mischievous spirits being attracted to the individual who might have physical mediumship powers, and they cause it together. As in physical phenomena, which I know happens by my own experiences.

I won't be convinced either way for PK, unless a mechanism is proved to cause it which does not involve the world of spirit.
 
Thanks Jim. I'm aware of the authenticity of poltergeist events, but I still question the interpretation of what's really going on. Just because some of these are centred on an individual does not mean that he or she 'causes' the events in my opinion. It could equally well be caused by mischievous spirits being attracted to the individual who might have physical mediumship powers, and they cause it together. As in physical phenomena, which I know happens by my own experiences.

I won't be convinced either way for PK, unless a mechanism is proved to cause it which does not involve the world of spirit.

I'm not saying all poltergeist cases are due to PK some do seem to be due to spirits. But in the strongest cases said to be due to PK the person seems to twitch or flinch in some way at the same time the phenomenon occurs and the phenomenon correlates with the person experiencing some emotional upset at the same time.

I would assume the mechanism is the same for spirit poltergeist and PK in living humans - both are spirits. That would explain why the PK seems to be unconscious in these cases, the brain normally blocks control over spirit capabilities while we are incarnated, except when there is some sort of "malfunction".

I also know a very sensitive medium who sees whatever spirits are around her and she also experiences unconscious PK. If the phenomenon was caused by a spirit she would know it. It would be foolish to think anyone could understand her experiences better than she does. So this knowledge influences my interpretation of some poltergeist cases said to be due to PK. I know its possible so I have no reason to doubt it can happen to other people.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough Jim. I'm influenced by knowing a physical medium who has experienced poltergeist events caused by spirits she 'knew' or sensed were there. Also by Fontana's Cardiff case, where stone -throwing by 'Pete' took place, and persuaded Fontana that the most likely explanation was that Pete' was indeed a separate personality who had survived death and was able to make his presence felt. This was after two years of investigation.
There seems to be different types of poltergeists .
 
These sociological factors are symptomatic of the same permissive environment that makes it possible for obsolete ideas like materialism and naturalism to survive despite being implausible for many reasons.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/psychology-and-psychotherapy-how-much-is-evidence-based/
Psychology Gone Wrong: The Dark Side of Science and Therapy, by Tomasz Witkowski and Maciej Zatonski, Witkowski is a psychologist, science writer, and founder of the Polish Skeptics Club; Zatonski is a surgeon and researcher known for debunking unscientific therapies and claims in clinical medicine. Together, they turn a spotlight on research and treatment in the field of psychology. They uncover distressing flaws, show that many commonly accepted psychological principles are based on myths, argue that psychotherapy is a business and a kind of prostitution rather than an effective evidence-based medical treatment, and question whether psychotherapy should even exist, since in most cases it offers no advantage over talking to a friend about one’s problems, and in some cases can cause harm.​


http://www.uncommondescent.com/psychology/new-book-psychology-gone-wrong/
New book: Psychology gone wrong?
...

They show how study results can get distorted and changed in re-telling. Remember the Little Albert experiment? An infant was conditioned to develop a fear of white rats by exposing him simultaneously to a white rat and a loud noise.
...
Most psychology textbooks have misrepresented the facts about that experiment. They get the child’s age wrong, say he was conditioned with a white rabbit, and make up other stimuli that he supposedly reacted to, like a puppy and a teddy bear. Some textbooks even described how the researchers later “deconditioned” Little Albert, but that never happened.
...
They uncover social control problems in the scientific community. Scientists who observed misconduct in their peers failed to report it in 36% of cases, and 69% of whistleblowers experienced negative consequences after reporting fraud.

Remember this when someone tell us that science is the best way of discovering truth. Maybe some day it will be. Always check Retractions Watch​
 
Last edited:
Back
Top