X-Message-Number: 5804 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 13:19:26 -0600 (CST) From: N E U R O M A N C E R <> Subject: "Paranormal" reasoning (Mac Tonnies) Thanks to everyone who posted a response to my "telekinesis" query. The following are some anonymous points I felt needed clarification. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >Ah, but then why not rule out cryonics? After all, it's not turned up >any positive results either. Well, actually cryonics also hasn't turned >up any negatives. So the chances of it working haven't been determined >yet - unlike telekinesis for practical purposes. In one subscribes to the "faulty research" premise your message indicates, then telekinesis _hasn't_ produced any negatives. So what's the problem? **** >I believe any worthwhile philosophy of transhumanism must be ready to >cope with cranks plugging Telekinesis. You're absolutely right. It's also going to have to deal with "cranks" plugging glycerol as a reasonably effective cryoprotectant, liquid nitrogen as the ideal freezing medium, Arizona as the safest geographical area to house suspension facilities, etc. **** >I think you have made a big mistake here. Just because cryonicists are >interested in a topic that isn't mainstream doesn't mean we are >believers in "paranormal" phenomena, or other junk science. I hate the word "paranormal" as much as you do, although possibly for different reasons. My take is that if something is observed in our universe then it must be delt with like anything else. Hail may be rarer than rain, but it is still the product of essentially the same meteorological forces. Understanding of one does not exlude understanding of the other. At least it shouldn't, in my opinion. It's so easy to label uncommon, "difficult" phenomena as "junk." There is outright nonsense and there is science, but no such thing as "junk science." And keep in mind that, sticking to the scientific method, a disproved hypothesis does not grant the given realm of inquiry the status of "junk science." **** >In one of the PK experiments, the subject tried to influence the fall of >SEVERAL DICE SIMULTANEOUSLY. According to Rhine's analysis, the results were >far beyond chance, hence the phenomenon was "proven." But Rhine apparently >failed to notice that, if we acknowledge the first miracle--direct influence of >mind over matter at at distance, or application of the presumably needed forces >--we must also acknowledge at least one more miracle. That is the ability of >that mind to ANALYZE THE TRAJECTORIES AT A GLANCE AND COMPUTE THE NEEDED >FORCES! (Or else to assure the outcome without continuity of events.) I undertand that your use of the word "miracle" was one of gentle sarcasm, but I find it indicative of the narrow outlook usually given "fringe science." Why the incredulity to influencing the fall of "SEVERAL DICE SIMULTANEOUSLY"? If there is such a thing as telekinesis, it seems logical that it would be capable of something like this...When applied to genetic structure, it would have to be much _more_ potent than this to produce any sort of morphogenetic effect. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," preaches Carl Sagan. And yet whenever extraordinary-sounding evidence comes along, he denounces it _because_ it is extraordinary. This mentality has stifled thoughtful study of "unacceptable" phenomena for an insufferably long time. **** >Really? This is news to me, and I know quite a few top-notch neuroscientists. Neuroscientists are not out to prove or disprove telekinenesis. When conclusive evidence is finally given wide dissemination, I am almost certain it will not be given by neuroscientists as we know them. Not to invalidate their research, by any means--but do you honestly know any hard-core neuroscientists committed to trans-cerebral study? **** >Of course he denounces it. Carl Sagan is a good scientist and realizes that >extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I argue that Carl Sagan is _not_ a "good scientist" at all, but a very astute "science politician." He is committed to selling science to the public, even if it means glossing over certain areas of inquiry. Witness his faux write-up of the Tunguska explosion of 1908 in "Cosmos," for example--then read some scientific papers by contempoarary researchers, Russian and otherwise. The amount of data Sagan excluded from his account is nothing short of staggering. Or read Sagan's facile wrap-up of the "Face on Mars" in PARADE magazine: he deliberately used false color images to detract from an otherwise anthropoid geomorphic feature. Misrepresentation of this sort is not "good science." Of course, these two phenomena share the same defining characteristic--they defy and bewilder science's popularized world view. There is too much vested speculation for the mainstream scientific community to tackle enigmas like this with anything approaching rationality, leaving the field open to other (often less-qualified) researchers whose methodology can be denounced for this same reason! It is very difficult to convince the American public of the importance of science (a sentiment I think cryonicists would agree with). Results are better when the "fringe" is excluded or denied. [Disagree? Ask the man off the street what he thinks of the workability of nanotechnology.] Sagan's goals, while admirible, do not reflect the workings of a great scientific mind. **** >Any scientist would LOVE to be able to prove such a thing, it would instantly >make him the greatest scientist since Newton... I agree with you. But the road to proof (what with retaining scientific integrity in the face of opposition, etc.) is a daunting elemenent that has to be taken into account. "Proof" of something as misconstrued as telekinesis ("What? Moving objects with 'thought power'? I think I'll skip this particular conference!) is not the same thing as the _process_ one goes through to establish any outlandish physical reality. I think it's unreasonable to devaluate a particularly emotive field of research such as so-called "paranormal" phenomena because proof has yet to be revealed in the manner of superconductivity (to pick an example at random). As its very nature is intangible, it's unrealistic to think that the "scientific community" would express interest in it in any other way. ____________________________________________________________ Mac Tonnies 509 Phillips Hall Northwest Missouri State University Maryville, MO 64468 (816) 562-6716 http://www.nwmissouri.edu/~0211555/apu.html Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5804