MsBlack, I suspect that you could classify my objects to paranormal research and the debunking there of into a larger category of my objections to the present manifestation of the scientific community.
I have already covered my great annoyance that the scientific community does not respect and does not publish negative results. It seems that you understand this objection, yes?
We are now entering into the second of my great annoyances with the scientific community: lack of independent confirmation of results. Peer-Review, as noted previously, consists of analyzing the methodology that a researcher used and in independently running the experiments to confirm the results. Please note, this is a two step process. On occasion independent verification of experiment results occurs, usually when two or more careers have been built around contradictory stances, but this information is likewise seldom published (confirming results is almost as looked down upon as negative results). The effective result is that, from the perspective of someone researching a particular field but not actively participating in it, there is often no distinction between independently confirmed results and unconfirmed research.
I am quite happy to entirely sidestep the question of if science should investigate paranormal topics. The fact of the matter is, a handful of individuals attempt to scientifically investigate them and the scientific community, on occasion, acknowledge that research by rejecting it. Science is engaged, so it should behave in an appropriate manner. Thus, if it is going to specifically reject something, it must do so in a scientifically rigorous manner. This means that if someone puts forwards a hypothesis and has data to support it (such as the PEAR group), science has obligated itself to evaluating the methodology (which has happened, to an extent) and independently test the hypothesis (which has no happened, at least not that I can determine, though see my earlier comments regarding the publication of negative results for a caveat).
The issue of paranormal research is a red herring in this regard. Scientists have been half-assed in rejecting it. Paranormal topics may be bunk, but so is the rigor with which it has been debunked.
I am quite happy to label Remote Viewing, Ghosts, Telepathy, Telekinesis, etc as bogus. But as soon as it is claimed that these things have been disproven, rigorous criteria must be applied. In doing so I find the "disproof" to be little better than the "proof." Paranormal researchers use sloppy methodology, the debunkers likewise do not follow proper protocol in addressing the issues. I must insist that even if paranormal concepts are crap, the analysis of and response to those concepts must be intellectually sound. From what I have researched into the matter, responses to paranormal concepts have a good start, but they have not followed through. Until the analysis has been completed, I must maintain that it should continue.
Thus concludes the real body of this post. Now allow me to respond directly to a few particular comments that you made. These responses don't particularly relate to my arguments, but may be of interest to the topic in general.
If such theories were correct they would always apply and be consistent and repeatable. But they’re not.
Ideally, yes, but science is seldom so neat. You will find that consistent and repeatable results are the odd duck out as far as scientific research goes, if one looks at experiments in aggregate (rather than in print, as it were).
Establishing tight controls for an experiment is incredibly difficult. I am not a scientist, so the majority of my perceptions in this regard are second hand and anecdotal, having come from friends and relations who are scientists. That being said, let us take mice as an example of how difficult research can be. It was recently noted (as in the past two years) that the most common form of food given to research mice contained relevant levels of phytoestrogens that can skew test results. Ignoring the effect that such a thing would have on a single set of experiments at a specific institution, consider the problem then of peer-reviewing those experiments. If another lab followed the protocol exactly, but their animal resource center used a different food that did not contain phytoestrogens (or didn't contain the same amount), the results could very well be different. Switch that around now; research was conducted without these unaccounted for phytoestrogens but the results were not reproduced by institutions that did have these phytoestrogens. Are the results bogus or are the phytoestrogens skewing the experiments?
But science is worse than that. If one of the technicians caring for the mice used a different soap that morning in the shower, the mice will behave differently. If someone came into the room at an unusual time, that can skew the results. If the air filters in the room need to be changed, that can skew results. If construction happens nearby, that can skew results. And so on, and so forth.
That is just on the living side of research. If one is harvesting and studying parts of the mouse, that just allows for more opportunities for confounding factors to be introduced. Chemicals might be mislabeled, microscopic cracks in testing equipment might cause unusual reactions, instruments might be in need of recalibration, etc.
A lot of a scientist’s time is spent running down all these possibilities, and others. Eventually, after a lot of due diligences, consistent and repeatable results
are obtainable.
But paranormal research seldom has this due diligence, it seldom has controls, it seldom even has a significant testing population. That Person A appears to have psychic powers in their own home but not in a lab may well mean that they do not truly have psychic powers, but confounding factors need to be investigated before a definitive conclusion can be made. Likewise, a significant number of instances need to be tested, and the confounding factors investigated for each.
In turn, reviews of paranormal research often lack similar due diligence. Potential explanations for the phenomenon can be found in faulty methodology. The solution is not to stop there but to continue on and rerun the experiments as one might run real science experiments.
Without the due diligence of true science, it should be expected that paranormal research will be a mixed bag at best, regardless of its validity.
You say that paranormal "theories" are inconsistent, I say show me where they have been tested rigorously.
So far as I know, String Theory’s claims are still untested. Indeed, I don’t see that it deserves the title of ‘theory’; at this point, it still seems to be ‘hypothesis’. I would question how much you know and understand (and I know and understand) of String Theory though, as from what I gather, it’s popular to invoke it and get excited about it without understanding it.
Still untested, yes. I am sorry if I was unclear, but I meant that it is beginning to enter the realm of testability (hence "real science"). Particular particles (though from what I understand, the moniker "particle" may be misleading) that are predicted/necessitated by string theory could be produced and observed by the Large Hadron Collider, if they can ever get it working properly. Thus it hasn't been tested yet, but it might be tested in the near future.
Additionally, String Theory has really given way to M-Theory (which is mostly the same, with a few additions, and the two are usually used interchangeably by laypersons, such as myself. This is really a bad habit that should be broken, like a dog peeing on the carpet, so again I must apologize). M-Theory relates to the possibility of a multiverse and in turn makes particular predictions as to how our universe originated. There are two (that I am aware of) different potential origins to universes: one is that they are produced from pre-existing universes in a manner that admittedly I don't understand well (it seems to do with quantum fluctuations along the lines of virtual particles/antiparticles). However, if this particular aspect of the theory is correct, there would actually be trace elements of our "mother" universe in our own. The theory predicts that these would be very subtle traces, requiring particularly sensitive equipment to detect. As a bit of trivia, if you happen to watch Big Bang Theory, the character of Leonard made reference to this in the first episode. Energy traces of the Big Bang will be different if it was formed from a pre-existing universe or not.
And to be complete, the other potential theory for the origin of the universe is that it is the result of Branes colliding; the points of contact spawn randomly generated universes.
However, this touches on another potentially observable phenomenon that could confirm M-Theory, or parts there of (but this is much farther away from being a reality). Branes, the fundamental element of existence, would have two sides (unlike the older strings of String Theory which would only have one). This would imply that we actually have a sister universe, as it were, on the flip-side of our particular brane. Sharing the same brane, these two universes would also share a lot of other things such as matter and energy. Current imbalances in our own universe could thus be explained by the missing elements being on the other side of our brane. At least part of that hypothesis is testable; we can determine if there are missing elements in our universe (or, more exactly, not in our universe). Scientists have been wondering if dark matter/energy exists and, if so, where this stuff is. M-Theory predicts that not all of it will be found in our universe; if science can indeed confirm that it is missing, that would support M-Theory.
Allow me to here state my own lack of understanding in this regard. Branes (sometimes called P-Branes, but too many jokes are possible with that) seem to function on both a super-microscopic level and an extra dimensional level. Branes relate to gluons and all that fun stuff, but an entire set of muliverses are supposedly created when branes collide. It generally seems like there are two different things at work here, both given the same name, but as far as I can tell that is only appearances; they are really one thing. Which, as indicated, I don't understand and thus may be aversely influencing much or everything that I said above.
Again, the implications are ridiculous. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but claims can only be extraordinary with respect to a frame of reference. If our frame of reference is as strong as current physics, a paradigm shift as dramatic as accommodating the paranormal would certainly require extraordinary evidence.
Not at all, our paradigm
must conform to the available evidence. Perfectly ordinary proof is all that is needed to overthrow a paradigm. It must be verifiable and solid proof, but all proof should be that way regardless, so it would be hardly unusual in that regard. It is to evidence that we must cling, not to theories. If we find that we have put on a hat that is too small for our head, let us get a new hat, not cut off part of our head.
The paranormal will almost certainly not overthrow our current paradigms, but if legitimate proof of the paranormal does arise, it need only be the same quality of proof that built our paradigm and sustains it.
If you ask someone for the time, you’d probably accept their answer; are you telling me that if they told you they had proof of a telepathic Teapot instead, that'd be good enough for you? Or perhaps that you would require a formal study to be done to determine whether or not they were giving you the right time?
Oddly enough, I rarely ask people for time, choosing instead to look at my watch. Which relates to our discussion in that I try to personally investigate that which I believe.
To use your analogy, if the individual lacked a means of telling time, indeed I would disbelieve them. Likewise, if the individual had a little device in their pocket that told them the position of all teapots, and they told me that there was a teapot orbiting the sun between mars and earth, I would indeed most likely believe them (but, of course, only if I have reason to believe in the abilities of the device).
I am familiar enough with watches to trust their abilities to track time, if properly maintained and configured. If I were to believe a teapot-locating device, I would want to likewise be familiar enough with it to judge it capabilities of tracking teapots.
