(2017-10-18, 12:41 AM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]Some of the foremost scientists of their day, ie who actually investigated the subject, were convinced by the results of their own research. I’m not suggesting that the subject should automatically be accepted as having been validated by ‘science’ as a result but scientists who have actually done research have attested to the genuineness of some phenomena.
I wonder how many scientists who are determined cynics have actually conducted the same degree of research?
In an online talk - by Peter Bancel I think - survey data about belief in (or openness towards) the paranormal were presented. If I remember correctly, this included data for scientists in different disciplines, with quite high figures among psychologists but quite low ones among physicists.
Considering that most scientists seldom give a thought to psi one way or the other, the relevant group to consider would be those who have knowledge and experience of the area - in the same way that one wouldn't ask geologists for an opinion about a problem in botany, or biochemists about the Theory of General Relativity.
(2017-10-18, 08:37 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]If I remember correctly, this included data for scientists in different disciplines, with quite high figures among psychologists but quite low ones among physicists.
Not sure where I saw this, and whether it was the same place as you, but my memory is of the opposite: that psychologists were more dismissive of psi / the paranormal whereas physicists were more open to it. Maybe we should turn to the good old Googs.
(2017-10-18, 08:37 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]In an online talk - by Peter Bancel I think - survey data about belief in (or openness towards) the paranormal were presented. If I remember correctly, this included data for scientists in different disciplines, with quite high figures among psychologists but quite low ones among physicists.
Considering that most scientists seldom give a thought to psi one way or the other, the relevant group to consider would be those who have knowledge and experience of the area - in the same way that one wouldn't ask geologists for an opinion about a problem in botany, or biochemists about the Theory of General Relativity.
I completely agree. Why would I be interested in the firm opinion of someone who has dismissed the experiences of thousands of people without properly considering the evidence?
(2017-10-18, 08:47 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe we should turn to the good old Googs.
Here's
what Googs tells me (you can see the query I used):
Chris Carter, in his book, "Science and the Afterlife Experiences", writes:
Quote:It is important to remember that most so-called skeptics of parapsychology are not physicists, but psychologists. In one of the surveys mentioned above, Evans found that only 3 percent of natural scientists considered ESP "an impossibility," compared to 34 percent of psychologists.
(2017-10-18, 08:54 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Here's what Googs tells me (you can see the query I used):
Chris Carter, in his book, "Science and the Afterlife Experiences", writes:
"It is important to remember that most so-called skeptics of parapsychology are not physicists, but psychologists. In one of the surveys mentioned above, Evans found that only 3 percent of natural scientists considered ESP "an impossibility," compared to 34 percent of psychologists."
Thanks - evidently I had misremembered, and got psychologists and physicists the wrong way round.
Evans's paper is here (though I can't see those figures in it):
https://books.google.com/books?id=xlaEIJ...&lpg=PA209
And a compilation of other survey data and references can be found here:
http://en.wikademia.org/Surveys_of_acade...psychology
On the whole, the groups surveyed don't seem to be particularly hostile towards psi, but all the data are very old - there's nothing there from the last 35 years.
(2017-10-18, 10:02 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]On the whole, the groups surveyed don't seem to be particularly hostile towards psi, but all the data are very old - there's nothing there from the last 35 years.
Dean Radin often mentions how other scientists find his talks very interesting, with standing room only. I think this must mean that although on the surface they might appear to be indifferent to psi, in reality they are not.
Then again, maybe they just come to see what a real woo meister looks like.
No, I don't really think that.
(2017-10-18, 10:12 AM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]Dean Radin often mentions how other scientists find his talks very interesting, with standing room only. I think this must mean that although on the surface they might appear to be indifferent to psi, in reality they are not.
Then again, maybe they just come to see what a real woo meister looks like. No, I don't really think that.
I was trying to remember who it was that said scientists approach him quietly, individually after a talk, and each admit they are open to this stuff but daren't tell their colleagues. Maybe it was Rupert Sheldrake or Peter Fenwick?
(2017-10-18, 10:02 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Evans's paper is here (though I can't see those figures in it)
Nor can I - the closest I can find is this: "[A]n occupational breakdown showed physicists, engineers, etc, to be very strongly represented amongst the Sheep, where psychologists were rarely to be found".
Perhaps Chris Carter had access to survey data that was not published, at least not in the New Scientist paper?
(2017-10-18, 10:24 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]I was trying to remember who it was that said scientists approach him quietly, individually after a talk, and each admit they are open to this stuff but daren't tell their colleagues. Maybe it was Rupert Sheldrake or Peter Fenwick?
I'm like 95% sure it was Rupert Sheldrake. Maybe even 99%. His charming manner makes it easy to remember stuff he's said like that.