(2017-09-22, 09:34 PM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]
Will do, give me a bit - sorry for the delay.
It's case dependent, since some (like the one you linked) have pre-interview recorded statements, and others don't.
Can you clarify this a bit? In what way are these pre-recorded statements "facts about someone", given that they are statements which someone attempts to find a match for post hoc?
If I give you a set of statements that is created artificially and ask you to find a match for them, sometimes you will be able to and sometimes you won't. In what way are those matches facts?
Quote:Well, those social science studies are in a lot of ways flawed or not replicatable, and are maybe plagued by the same issues you're saying are there with the reincarnation research, but mainstream science accepts them. I don't think medicine (unless you mean psychiatry) has the same level of subjectivity as the others. Further, just because the subjective info is used in those fields you referenced, doesn't mean they're preferred or liked. It's substantially more difficult to collect information where subjectivity is involved, and as we've discussed, there's more risk in it - it's less straightforward and much more difficult. Just because it's used doesn't mean it's well liked.
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The medical history (the story that a patient tells about their health and illness) is the most important information a physician uses. And we heavily depend upon symptoms, which are almost entirely subjective. Some conditions are entirely subjective (e.g. chronic fatigue syndrome). The S in the SOAP form which many physicians use in clinical records, is "subjective" and consists of the story the patient tells about what is going on plus all potentially relevant symptoms (Objective is the result of physical exam, Assessment is a list of all the possible conditions to be considered, and Plan is the approach taken to figuring out what is going on (e.g. tests) and treating/helping the patient.)
Quote:I also think you have a naively rosy view (as you and Roberta discussed) of why some paranormal phenomena aren't taken more seriously by mainstream science. I don't disagree that much of it falls below what would be required for for evidence for a hard science phenomena to achieve broader scientific acceptance, partially because I feel it's of a fundamentally different nature (as we've discussed in this thread). However, I think you're incorrect to say that it ends there - paranormal phenomena are blatantly not accepted a priori, and unlike you, I, and those who have actually looked into studies, there are many (most likely a strong majority of) scientists who don't pay any sort of attention to the studies, haven't read them at all, and dismiss them outright. That could be for a variety of reasons - too busy with their own research to pay attention to it; just don't really care enough to look into it; or assume a priori that it's wrong because of their belief system. I think there are a lot of people in that last group. There are also those who don't like the link to spirituality or even religion that some of the phenomena might permit inference from.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I'm just pointing out that this isn't unique to parapsychology. That's partly what makes science work - scientists are generally biased against ideas they don't believe and tend to ignore the research. But there are often one or a few proponents scattered throughout various departments who bring research to the attention of some of their colleagues. And if that research is strong enough, their colleagues bring it up to other scientists in their area, and then it starts to spread - it gets presented and talked about at weekly meetings and then national and international conferences. Other scientists get interested and perform research of their own. But at that first step, if you ask a colleague to look at weak research, they will probably ignore it once they recognize the weaknesses, and it stops there.
There are too many research articles out there to read them all. I realize this sounds harsh, but the first step is to decide whether a paper is even worth your time. If you read the abstract and it describes a weak methodology, and you don't believe the idea to begin with, then it's a waste of time to read any further and you move on to the next paper.
I've struggled with this myself. Sometimes I am given a hard time about my interest in parapsychology, and I have looked for a paper that I could ask that person to read to justify my interest. I haven't been able to find one that holds their attention beyond the abstract. Because as soon as the abstract is read, I hear "give me a break, the assessment wasn't blinded" or "there are no controls" or "this experimental sounds highly contrived, how was it validated?" And there isn't an answer for that because they're right.
Quote:while I don't disagree that the current evidence isn't going to meet a typical scientific standard for majority, or even significant, acceptance, I think it's pretty unreasonable to act as if there is not severe bias against paranormal phenomena that would just disappear if that standard was met. That bias certainly exists and certainly plays a large role in the ignorance of the studies and research that do exist.
I guess we wouldn't know until it was tried. Roberta did have a good point earlier about the promises which were made with the Honorton/Hyman collaboration with respect to the Ganzfeld protocol. I don't think a good enough job was done on it, and that's why it failed to have the desired response. But I also think it justifies your skepticism about a wider acceptance.
Linda
