Replies

Is this what you consider science?

I consider it valid research, including "forensics" and as much of the scientific process as possible (even if it's just a mite). Once again, that is more than we can say for macroevolution hypothesis and research, since there are actual anecdotal cases.

Rather than depend on case files (ancedotes) why not do some simple experiments. For a few bucks and a few hours time you could rig some good double-blind experiments to see if people can tell when they are being watched, or whether dogs know when their masters are coming home. A freshman Psych student could design and conduct the experiments.

Thank you so much for the heads up to your post!

js1138: Is this what you consider science?

unspun: I consider it valid research, including "forensics" and as much of the scientific process as possible (even if it's just a mite).

I am not familiar with his work and thus have no input to that particular subject. However, I want to mention that some things do not lend themselves to the kind of tests which feature falsifiablility (Popper) and thus a high degree of confidence.

Many statistical surveys are like this, e.g. rate of breast cancer in the abortion debate. Some surveys show trends which can be amplified though laboratory tests. For instance, the rate of lung cancer in the population shows an increased risk among smokers though some life-long smokers never succumb to it and non-smokers are known to die of it.

And in some cases, like the search for mass in the neutrino, vast numbers of neutrinos must pass through the medium before one throws an electron off thus proving mass.

In the search for near death experiences I found it particularly refreshing when a skeptic researcher was astonished at the result. Not everyone has the near death experience, but the nature of the experience itself - and that it is remarkably the same among those who experience it - are quite engaging results. The sameness of experience among children is even more astonishing.

In sum, the inability to test with falsification (Popper) and the inability to achieve a high percentage statistically, does not debunk the results although we may receive the information with less confidence.