Aduke.2051 net.misc utzoo!decvax!harpo!duke!bcw Sat Apr 17 01:42:39 1982 Paranormal phenomena Re: Paranormal phenomena From: Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University My previous message should not have been taken as an irrevocable condemnation of paranormal phenomena; it was rather a condem- nation of some of the slipshod reasoning/experimenting which is rampant in this business. For example, I have often seen the assertion that telepathy is an *instantaneous* phenomenon [whatever that means in the context of general relativity], which takes place faster than the speed of light. I'm sure that no experiment has ever been done to test this assertion; you'd have to be at least as far away as the Moon in order to have any kind of noticeable delay at all (otherwise it would be indistinguishable from speed-of-light transmission). Moreover, I am aware of no physical model which predicts such behavior which doesn't founder on things like the theory of general relativity (a principle which has been solidly supported by much recent experimental evidence). Such weighty counterevidence should not be brushed aside without good cause-- which the paranormalists have not so far deigned to provide. I'm quite ready to accept such phenomena with sufficient proof-- which could take the form of either hard experimental evidence or some kind of theory which explains *in some powerful way* something which isn't handled by any existing theory. To date, I have not seen such evidence (and I am not totally ignorant of the literature on the subject). But many of the advocates of such phenomena try to justify their position with extremely weak arguments; it is the uncritical acceptance of this type of reasoning which I consider dangerous for science. The fact that Galileo and others were persecuted for their views should in no way be used as an a priori justification for new theories. In those days, there were any number of crackpots who were also persecuted (whether this is justifiable is another issue which should be debated on fa.poli-sci); trying to justify new theories on such grounds is a non sequitur. Theories should be able to stand on their own feet without special pleading or they should be discarded. It is quite possible to provide an alternative theory -- in fact any number of alternative theories -- on the mechanisms which are behind the motions of the solar system; the epicycle theory is an example. Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton did not disprove the older epicycle theory, but rendered it superfluous: since the new theory was simpler and fit the data just as well, and suggested plausible mechanisms, the need for the old theory vanished (this type of argument is called Occam's Razor in honor of one of its strongest advocates). Therefore, the mere fact that an alternative theory exists does not mean that any other theories should be immediately abandoned simply because the new theory flatters us in some way; it should also have such properties as mathematical elegance and ideally it should predict *well documented* phenomena better than the alternatives. In general, there are an infinite number of theories which predict the same or similar phenomena, so we must apply such principles ruthlessly in order to prevent sinking into a sophist quagmire. Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University ----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/ This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided: 1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles. 2. The following notice remains appended to each copy: The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.