Why do we still entertain the idea of psychics?

[Fallen Angel]

Ye of zilch faith

They're all charlatans.

 

[Snow Queen]

It took me until morning to realize this said psychics and not physics.

 

[KevanG]

Several people seem to have had that problem.

 

[Beige Lantern]

Apparently dyslexia runs high in comic movie communities.

Yes, humans sometimes possess what seems like a sixth sense, but we're learning more and more how much of that is actually your brain's amazing ability to process and interpret information in ways you're not consciously aware of. Your brain can pick up on a thousand different facial ticks on another person that are either too small or too fast to consciously notice.

That, and the placebo effect is insanely strong.

You don't need magic when reality is far more wondrous already.

 

[Fallen Angel]

^^
This man is on the gooey green stuff.

 

[Duke]

I'd sooner trust what a Magic 8 Ball had to say than what psychics say. I don't put any faith or even money on such people.

 

[KevanG]

You shouldn't. Like I said, anyone who can do it is few and far between and likely just tries to ignore it while all the frauds and crazies are running about trying to dress like Miss Cleo.

Remember Miss Cleo?

[YT]pWyHiV3l3MA[/YT]

 

[Fallen Angel]

 

[Duke]

How could I forget about her?? She's another among the thousands so called "know all", "see all" charlatans, who are about just making a quick buck out of someone who is gullible enough to listen to them.

 

[Beige Lantern]

She doesn't hold a candle to Sylvia Browne who has actually really hurt people with her ********.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Personally, I think anyone who says that it is NOT real with 100% certainty is JUST as ludicrous as those who claim it IS real. Being ignorantly close-minded is just as bad as being ignorantly open-minded.

I can't profess to KNOW whether psychic abilities can/do exist; neither can I say that they do not. I do, however think that it is a possibility that psychic phenomenon could be real, though certainly not in the way movies and pop culture depict it.

The thing is, the more we learn about quantum physics/mechanics, the more we see how everything is connected in the most interesting ways, which is some ways, could produce evidence of what we might call "psychic" abilities. Again, I am not saying that I believe psychics, or that psychic-like abilities/remote viewing, and experiences ARE real...but neither am I saying that it is NOT real. We simply do not know one way or the other for certain. But I do believe that in the future we will know one way or the other.

Here's some interesting articles, regardless of one's own beliefs on the topic.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...finally-discovered-evidence-psychic-phenomena
http://probablefuture.com/p396.htm
http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/the-physics-behind-psychic-ability/
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1868287,00.html

 

[Doctor Evo]

Personally, I think anyone who says that it is NOT real with 100% certainty is JUST as ludicrous as those who claim it IS real. Being ignorantly close-minded is just as bad as being ignorantly open-minded.

This can be applied to literally anything. At some point this reasoning, while not irrational, ceases to be useful.

I can't profess to KNOW whether psychic abilities can/do exist; neither can I say that they do not. I do, however think that it is a possibility that psychic phenomenon could be real, though certainly not in the way movies and pop culture depict it.

The thing is, the more we learn about quantum physics/mechanics, the more we see how everything is connected in the most interesting ways, which is some ways, could produce evidence of what we might call "psychic" abilities. Again, I am not saying that I believe psychics, or that psychic-like abilities/remote viewing, and experiences ARE real...but neither am I saying that it is NOT real. We simply do not know one way or the other for certain. But I do believe that in the future we will know one way or the other.

Here's some interesting articles, regardless of one's own beliefs on the topic.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...finally-discovered-evidence-psychic-phenomena
http://probablefuture.com/p396.htm
http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/the-physics-behind-psychic-ability/
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1868287,00.html

Quick question: how much do you actually know about quantum physics and quantum mechanics?

 

[PacificBoy]

Of course we should burn the charlatans and the like who seek to profit from the weak-minded and ignorant, but we should be open to the possibility.

We should retain healthy doses of rationalism, skepticism and empiricism in our outlooks IMO.

 

[Victarion]

I'm going to look for that game where you can conjure a real live demon. I'll post the instruction and want one of you to record yourself doing it.

 

[Apollo]

So what... no practicing psychic should be burned and killed... that is 100 x worse than some innocent woman reading you palm at a fair...

 

[Morg]

Good god why am I not surprised you're into this mumbo jumbo?

The only thing they tap into is absolutely nothing.

Funny I'm psychic, I'm seeing something happening if someone continues with this burning comments

 

[KevanG]

That's not a 'haha' funny at all.

 

[Spider-Who?]

This can be applied to literally anything.
At some point this reasoning, while not irrational, ceases to be useful.

Being aware of what we DO know and what we DON'T know (so that we can properly respond/discuss/learn) NEVER ceases to be useful. The problem is what you chose to do with that knowledge. Since I assert that we really don't know 100% one way or the other, we cannot fully dismiss it nor embrace it. YET. We have to (and should) learn more. I fail to see how that point is "useless".

Quick question: how much do you actually know about quantum physics and quantum mechanics?

Like with many things: never enough. There are aspects that I consider myself well versed in, and aspects that I absolutely need/want to know more of. Those links are posted are hardly indicative of my knowledge base, and were included solely as quick and easy (re: first page google) links for (hopefully) starting discussion. I'm at work so I'm unable to dig deeper/view my home bookmarks for more informative links.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Being aware of what we DO know and what we DON'T know (so that we can properly respond/discuss/learn) NEVER ceases to be useful. The problem is what you chose to do with that knowledge. Since I assert that we really don't know 100% one way or the other, we cannot fully dismiss it nor embrace it. YET. We have to (and should) learn more. I fail to see how that point is "useless".

We also don't know whether leprechauns control the weather.

My point was that the reasoning you presented needs to be taken in moderation - a strict adherence to this agnostic philosophy runs the risk of becoming just as absurd (and, in some cases, potentially as damaging) as the other two extremes you presented.

Like with many things: never enough. There are aspects that I consider myself well versed in, and aspects that I absolutely need/want to know more of. Those links are posted are hardly indicative of my knowledge base, and were included solely as quick and easy (re: first page google) links for (hopefully) starting discussion. I'm at work so I'm unable to dig deeper/view my home bookmarks for more informative links.

The reason I ask is because it's extremely common for people to point to "quantum" physics/mechanics as some sort of catch-all for pseudoscientific garbage. Usually these people seem to think they have a better grasp of these concepts than they actually do.

#3:

http://io9.com/10-scientific-ideas-that-scientists-wish-you-would-stop-1591309822

It's a variant of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy...and it's annoying as all hell.

Spirits and the soul? OOGA-BOOGA, QUANTUM PHYSICS. *Hand waving ensues*

 

[KevanG]

OOGA-BOOGA, QUANTUM PHYSICS. *Hand waving ensues*

Alright Captain Science, are you good to walk home or do we need to call you a cab?

 

[Spider-Who?]

We also don't know whether leprechauns control the weather.

Bad example, because we DO know what controls the weather.

My point was that the reasoning you presented needs to be taken in moderation - a strict adherence to this agnostic philosophy runs the risk of becoming just as absurd (and, in some cases, potentially as damaging) as the other two extremes you presented.

And this is a very good point. However you are assuming a great deal about myself and more rational people who understand and agree with my point, which includes the vast majority of scientists: without the appropriate information and evidence, an accurate statement cannot be made. It's this thought process that pushes, and has pushed humanities knowledge forward through out history. Unfortunatley, there are far too many people who take things at face value and/or have opinions/stances without the information to back it up and steadfastly refuse to accept anything else, regardless of any evidence (or lack there of) that suggests anything other than their own view point.

Which is more dangerous: the person who staunchly says something can or cannot be, despite any evidence to support the claim, or the person who says "I don't know; we should find out"?

The reason I ask is because it's extremely common for people to point to "quantum" physics/mechanics as some sort of catch-all for pseudoscientific garbage. Usually these people seem to think they have a better grasp of these concepts than they actually do.

Yes it is common, and I agree that it can be annoying, but if you re-read my original post, you'll see that I phrased the quantum mechanics comment in a very specific way:

which in some ways, could produce evidence of what we might call "psychic" abilities.

Notice I never said that science DOES nor WILL produce evidence of psychic abilities. I very purposefully phrased the sentence to avoid that and make it clear that it was a possibility of the future, not a present day fact.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Alright Captain Science, are you good to walk home or do we need to call you a cab?

You're not the boss of me.

*Vomits and passes out on the sidewalk*

 

[Doctor Evo]

Bad example, because we DO know what controls the weather.

Only proximally. You could make the claim that leprechauns are controlling the weather by controlling other factors.

We can go allllll the way down the rabbit-hole if you'd like.

And this is a very good point. However you are assuming a great deal about myself and more rational people who understand and agree with my point...

No, I'm not. I'm simply demonstrating that your reasoning, when taken to certain lengths or when taken in certain contexts, is not always the most practical philosophy.

...which includes the vast majority of scientists: without the appropriate information and evidence, an accurate statement cannot be made. It's this thought process that pushes, and has pushed humanities knowledge forward through out history.

What, exactly, is the threshold for being able to make these so-called "accurate statements?" What do you mean by that phrase?

Unfortunately, there are far too many people who take things at face value and/or have opinions/stances without the information to back it up and steadfastly refuse to accept anything else, regardless of any evidence (or lack there of) that suggests anything other than their own view point.

I certainly don't disagree with this point, but I also believe that it can be problematic, if not dangerous (see: evolution vs. creationism in schools).

Which is more dangerous: the person who staunchly says something can or cannot be, despite any evidence to support the claim, or the person who says "I don't know; we should find out"?

As I (thought I) made clear earlier: it's a matter of context.

Yes it is common, and I agree that it can be annoying, but if you re-read my original post, you'll see that I phrased the quantum mechanics comment in a very specific way:

Notice I never said that science DOES nor WILL produce evidence of psychic abilities. I very purposefully phrased the sentence to avoid that and make it clear that it was a possibility of the future, not a present day fact.

But you did single out a field of study, and in so doing you implied something more specific than you perhaps intended.

 

[Lencho01]

You shouldn't. Like I said, anyone who can do it is few and far between and likely just tries to ignore it while all the frauds and crazies are running about trying to dress like Miss Cleo.

Remember Miss Cleo?

[YT]pWyHiV3l3MA[/YT]

She's the first person I think of whenever physics are brought up in anything.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I distrust psychics who charge money. Charles Xavier never charges people, that's why he has credibility.