There’s no particular reason to think parapsychologists are doing anything other than what scientists would do; their experiments are similar to those of scientists, they use statistics in similar ways, and there’s no reason to think they falsify data any more than any other group. Yet despite the fact that their null hypotheses are always true, parapsychologists get positive results.
This seems self-contradictory. If they get positive results by methods we approve (as you write, nothing other that what scientists do), what entitles us to dismiss those results? If we admit flaws in the methods of science (publication bias etc.) which allow us to explain the positive results of parapsychology away, why we need a control group to test whether science works well?
In short: if scientific method is what is being tested, by what method do we establish the falsity of parapsychology in the first place?
Not that I disagree, but when one wants to make a serious inquiry with control groups and formal analysis of evidence, “obviously” is word which should rather be omitted.
I agree with prase and would like to point out that Academia and Science are not the same thing. Academia is the establishment based on commonly and popularly accepted scientific truth while Science is a method to achieve objective truth from empirical evidence. The use of the word “nonsense” and “absurdity” is common to Academia as well as propagators of all faith based establishments. The use of parapsychology as a control group would need more than a faith based assumption of null hypothesis being true in every case. Serious inquiry would have to be made in every case of parapsychology.
I agree with HiddenTruth and prase. The original post is flawed, because it starts with a perfectly good idea: “if there were a group that ‘did science’ but was always wrong, it would be a good control group to compare to ‘real science’”, but then blows it by assuming parapsychologists are indeed always wrong.
FWIW, I too believe parapsychologists are probably almost always wrong, but so what? Who cares what I believe? No one does, and no one should (without evidence), and that’s the point.
This seems self-contradictory. If they get positive results by methods we approve (as you write, nothing other that what scientists do), what entitles us to dismiss those results? If we admit flaws in the methods of science (publication bias etc.) which allow us to explain the positive results of parapsychology away, why we need a control group to test whether science works well?
In short: if scientific method is what is being tested, by what method do we establish the falsity of parapsychology in the first place?
Parapsychology is obviously a load of old nonsense based on wishful thinking.
Not that I disagree, but when one wants to make a serious inquiry with control groups and formal analysis of evidence, “obviously” is word which should rather be omitted.
I agree with prase and would like to point out that Academia and Science are not the same thing. Academia is the establishment based on commonly and popularly accepted scientific truth while Science is a method to achieve objective truth from empirical evidence. The use of the word “nonsense” and “absurdity” is common to Academia as well as propagators of all faith based establishments. The use of parapsychology as a control group would need more than a faith based assumption of null hypothesis being true in every case. Serious inquiry would have to be made in every case of parapsychology.
I agree with HiddenTruth and prase. The original post is flawed, because it starts with a perfectly good idea: “if there were a group that ‘did science’ but was always wrong, it would be a good control group to compare to ‘real science’”, but then blows it by assuming parapsychologists are indeed always wrong.
FWIW, I too believe parapsychologists are probably almost always wrong, but so what? Who cares what I believe? No one does, and no one should (without evidence), and that’s the point.