Scientific groups

[MRT]

I look at hundreds of paranormal research group websites (there are so many out there!). One thing they almost all say is that they look for rational and / or scientific explanations for the paranormal. Looking at the pages of their sites, this seems to be far from the case. It is often stated that because they have a mixture of believers, skeptics and 'sensitives' in the group it is 'balanced'. What has balance to do with science or rationality? How does someone decide they are investigating scientifically? It's a puzzle to me! Maybe there is room for a book called Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal.

[Dr B]

It is often stated that because they have a mixture of believers, skeptics and 'sensitives' in the group it is 'balanced'. What has balance to do with science or rationality?

Indeed, a good point well made. It may be linked to their fallacious reasoning that all ideas are equally valid - which we know is simply untrue. I also think many groups like to 'claim' to be scientific simply because they dont want people to think they are nutters......

The problem is, our work is not scientific because we claim it is!

How does someone decide they are investigating scientifically? It's a puzzle to me! Maybe there is room for a book called Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal.

I am not sure its up to the one person per-se - but the community at large.

Individually we can try to adopt sound methods / reasoning and a useful experiment - but there may be holes. One problem I find is that pseudoscientists dont know the difference between a limitation and a confound. All scientific studies are limited - but that does not make them unhelpful. A limitation is not a confound.

It's a school boy error really.

[Dr B]

In terms of a book - maybe so - but i think there are really useful resources out there already - but not ones many of these groups would recognise.

For example, most of these groups are doomed because they are ignorant of logic and scientific reasoning. Thus, all that follows is unlikely to be useful (unless by accident).

So a course in critical thinking would go a long way. Just my opinion of course - ut i find it is a lack of logical thinking more than anything else that typifies amatuer groups

[Zaira]

People see what they want to see. There is something in the sky. One group of people will be convinced that it is one thing, and another group will be convinced that it is something else. They will argue and even fight for what they believe it to be. In the meantime the object has moved on but these two groups will remain convinced that they saw whatever they think they saw. No one cares what it really was. We are such a stubborn bunch.

[Dr B]

People see what they want to see.

Not true for everyone - especially scientists. Of course, scientists can make mistakes - but they do not see what they want to see. They meausre what their experiments reveal and interpret the evidence from there.

One group of people will be convinced that it is one thing, and another group will be convinced that it is something else.

But only one group will have reliable, sound evidence. The other will have wishful thinking and delusion. You seem to be implying both carry equal weight?

They will argue and even fight for what they believe it to be.

The scientists will put forward the evidence which can be objectively explored and indeed, this is invited. Pseudo-nonsense people propose what they want to be true and don't see the need for evidence - even in a debate where they claim to be acting scientifically!!.

.....snip....these two groups will remain convinced that they saw whatever they think they saw.

No - real scientists will become convinced by what they can demonstrate they saw or propose a reasonable argument for it. That is an important difference.

No one cares what it really was.

Scientist care a great deal - more so than most would have you believe.

[Zaira]

Sorry. Speaking more of the ordinary people who spot things in the sky.

[Dr B]

You mean, see meaning in noise?

[Zaira]

It isn’t always about scientists. A lot of what is being discussed on some web sites comes from ordinary people. Now if they had a scientist handy every time they saw an unidentified flying object or were simply sharing some strange and wonderful ideas with other people, then yes the scientist could put forward the evidence which can be objectively explored. But, for the most part, I’m talking about what most people believe and why they believe it. Right or wrong, there is no getting away from the fact that people, ordinary people, will believe what they want to believe. And some, even with the facts being explained to them, will still prefer to believe that they were right.

[Dr B]

It isn’t always about scientists.

But this is a discussion about 'scientific' groups - or at least those that claim to be - so it kind of is really....

A lot of what is being discussed on some web sites comes from ordinary people.

Scientists are ordinary as well - they just appear, on the whole, to be better informed about what they are talking about (there are exceptions of course ). However, I take your point - but dont fall into the trap of making a argument in support of being ill-informed (which i understand by your use of the term 'ordinary')!

Right or wrong, there is no getting away from the fact that people, ordinary people, will believe what they want to believe.

So what? The scientists know this as much as anyone else - indeed, they have testable theories for this very thing. Believing in something does not make it so......in the context of this discussion, a group claiming to be scientific is not scientific simply because they aspire to add credence to their fallacious ideas.

Remember, scientific evidence is something which does not disappear if I choose not to believe in it.

And some, even with the facts being explained to them, will still prefer to believe that they were right.

Indeed, but this will be in spite of the evidence and not because of it. As such they are not doing science and should not claim to be providing knolwedge and understanding (or truth).

Edit - you do not have to have a PhD to 'do science' or to 'think scientifically' (though it should help). Some of the sharpest minds I know have not been through a university education. Nevertheless, they do not propose to be experts in areas they know little about.

[Zaira]

"But this is a discussion about 'scientific' groups - or at least those that claim to be - so it kind of is really...."

Point taken.