Your science is stuck in my mystical, By Mark Morford

[madokie]

Look! Here are some scientists. Are they not cute? Are they not totally adorable like angry pfffting kittens as they scoff and furrow their brows and make many dismissive sounds with their pursed mouths, all in the general direction of the very idea of ESP, or psychic ability, or pretty much anything related to the mystical and the weird, the unquantifiable and the supernatural? Man, they really hate that.

Here they are, in the New York Times just recently, all aflutter that an esteemed fellow scientist and scientific journal -- Daryl J. Bem and The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, respectively -- wuld dare to publish a paper on the more than likely possibility that the beloved New Age chestnut known as extrasensory perception (ESP) might, just might, actually exist, in some tiny way, maybe, if we all just quite whining about it and opened up to the idea a little. The horror! The humiliation! What will happen to our funding?

Look! Here are the selfsame scientists, throughout the ages, baffled and entranced, confounded and enthralled; countless times have they been convinced that a huge range of formerly strange and magical phenomena -- dark matter, black holes, bacteria, a round planet, gravity, anal sex, Portland -- must be total bunk because, well, the phenom simply could not be proven by the sundry scientific models of the time, until they could.

Is that not adorable? How so many brilliant people are absolutely right until they are proven wrong? And vice-versa? Is anyone keeping track? ...

(Full URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/19/notes011911.DTL&nl=fix)

[Atman]

1. A rec just for the "anal sex and Portland" remark.

Priceless.

[SpiralHawk]

2. "All your reality are belong to us." - ScyUnTisTas

[MorningGlow]

3. Bwaaaaahaaa

"The horror! The humiliation! What will happen to our funding?"

MM rawks. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[OneGrassRoot]

4. +1000. Love him! K&R n/t

[edhopper]

5. Glad to see

anti-intellectualism alive and well on DU.

[JackDragna]

6. What a bunch of anti-scientific claptrap.

Mr. Moford cannot profess "love of science," then create caricatures in his article of scientists being these eggheaded dinosaurs, resistant to change. All of these things he brings up, such as dark matter or black holes, were discovered by individuals the scientific method. He uses these examples to bash scientists as to how they could be foolish, but then a few paragraphs down, says that science isn't the only way to obtain knowledge. Interesting, considering all of the aforementioned things were discovered by careful research and observation. He can create as many false equivalancies as he wants, but the core of the matter with things like ESP, dowsing, and all other things for which Moford exists is this: if mysticism, if "feeling" can establish something to be true, then how do we know if anything is true?

[deutsey]

7. I remember once when I was living with a couple friends at the beach one summer

that I woke up one morning with the feeling--actually, the profound certainty--that my mom would arrive soon for a visit.

We had talked a few days or a week before on the phone and she had said nothing about coming to see me, so I shrugged off my feeling and rolled over to go back to sleep...until I heard footsteps coming up the stairs and saw my mom peeking into the attic apartment window for a surprise visit.

I've never been able to explain that (why my mom thought it would be ok to just pop in like that :evilgrin:, and, more importantly, how I KNEW when I woke up that she was coming to visit me).

I've always attributed it to some kind of a natural "psychic", intuitive awareness that I think we all have but we're so disconnected from it by our all-controlling ego consciousness that it seems weird or crazy when anyone makes claims about its reality.

Having worked at the National Institutes of Health, I've seen firsthand the kind of scientists Morford skewers here. Uptight assholes who are far from objective in their personal drive and ruthless ambition. But there were also some really cool scientists I met there who were brilliantly logical and yet very comfortable with the deeper mystery surrounding their research and life itself.

[madokie]

11. When I was in the navy stationed at the SERE school

I had watch that came on at 2 am and when the guy who I was going to relieve came to wake me he said to me you're not going to believe what just happened this evening and I out of the blue/night said "you mean they shot Robert." Sure enough Senator Kennedy was murdered while I was sound asleep. There was no radios or tvs on or any way I could have known that before the moment I was awakened and I blurted that out.

[deutsey]

15. I had a similar experience when John Lennon was shot

I woke up way before sunrise (unheard of for me when I was in high school) and couldn't get back to sleep for some reason. My mom normally had to almost drag me out of bed for school back then.

So I turned on the radio as I lay there in the dark and found a station playing A Day in the Life (one of my favorite songs) and listened to it until the DJ announced during the long fade-out that Lennon was dead.

I didn't know that had happened when I first woke up, of course, but I remember I was very restless and couldn't sleep. Same happened when the attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran ended in disaster.

I'm not saying I'm psychic; I'm just saying I occassionally seem to be affected by an awareness beyond my ego knowledge, kind of like when an animal gets fidgety before an earthquake or something.

[tinrobot]

22. How many times have you had similar intuitions...

...and nobody showed up?

I would guess that if that ever happened (i.e. nobody shows up) you'd just shrug it off and forget about it completely. Usually, we only count the intuitive moments that have positive results. To make it a true scientific study, however, we have to record all instances, including the ones that don't match up with your intuition.

[deutsey]

23. None, honestly, that stand out like that

I'm usually not one to sit around trying to intuit whether some one's coming. Seriously. If I did do that, then I'd agree with you.

But that's why this instance (and the very few others like it I've experienced) stand out for me. They're unusual for me.

I don't really care to prove or disprove it. I think what made me think of this instance was Morford's larger point that there is more to reality than what we can always understand or explain. I believe that, too. I also believe in science (as I think Morford probably does).

But there are other ways to experience reality than through what we can rationally measure and explain.

I'm not sure why that agitates people. Maybe because there are so many crackpots out there who are either con artists or truly delusional? I don't know.

But I happen to be at ease with the amazing things science reveals to us as well as the profound mystery of existence that science will never be able to touch. Those who get lost in either way of understanding without including the other are the poorer for it, imo.

[tinrobot]

26. I've had similar experiences

I sensed a friend's suicide before it happened, among many others. Those experiences became "profound" for me because when the premonition came true, it was a huge reinforcement.

But when I dig deeper, I realize that my brain is always trying to predict the future. There are plenty of moments where my intuition failed me. Those false predictions were not reinforced, so I tended to forget or discount them. Only the positive ones got remembered. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? Were some premonitions stronger than others? I don't keep a tally, so I have no idea. The point is that, in these situations, there's a huge tendency for confirmation bias and we need to account for that.

I'm sure there's a lot more to this universe than our current science can explain. Psychic/intuitive moments may very well be part of that unexplained body of knowledge, but the only way we can truly know is to apply the scientific method to find out.

[deutsey]

32. I agree with you there

I think thre's a difference between the brain's effort to read the "signs of the times" around us and then to conjure up "intuitions" based on them, and those times when something just comes to you out of nowhere, where you had no reason to perceive what you did.

Creative endeavors can be like that too. That sudden "zap" of inspiration that sort of writes or paints or films itself.

It's very rare when something that pure happens...for me anyway. But when it happens...wow.

[alarimer]

31. Confirmation bias explains almost everything about these experiences.

Nobody every remembers things that didn't happen.

[deutsey]

33. I'm aware of that

and I stand by my assessment.

I don't typically have intuitive experiences that come out of nowhere and then come true (like my mom's unexpected visit).

Have I had times when I hoped or feared something would happen based on things going on and mistake those for "intuitions" of the future whether they came true or not? Sure. But I can tell the difference between that and what I explained about the visit I had. I woke up and was absolutely certain that mom was coming that day. I had no reason to assume that (it was a weekday, my mom said she took the day off and just came down on a whim, etc.)

That doesn't happen often to me (whether it "comes true" or not). When it has happened, it stands out.

[BanzaiBonnie]

37. Nice deutsey.

When people cling so hard to any sacred cow, it says more about their self assurance and mental health than it does about either the science or the woo.

I say, no sacred cows. Well, except the cows that are really sacred. :silly:

When science and spirituality join together, then we'll make real progress in this being human thing. It takes both head and heart. You can't have one without the other, even though some people try.

[deutsey]

39. +1

:hi:

[Delphinus]

40. Bonnie,

I so agree with your last statement. One of my favorite quotes from Kahlil Gibran is: Science, without the saving grace of beauty and compassion, is a dead issue.

[edhopper]

8. From the NY Times article

"So far, at least three efforts to replicate the experiments have failed. But more are in the works, Dr. Bem said, adding, “I have received hundreds of requests for the materials” to conduct studies. "

Sounds more like Cold Fusion or the French Homeopath studies to me.

[JackDragna]

10. I'm shocked.

Really. :P

[Stuckinthebush]

13. Wow, that scientific method is actually cool, huh?

Let's see, we have one set of researchers who test a hypothesis. They find a statistically significant difference from chance and report their results. Other scientists say, "Well we have issues with your method and issues with your statistical analysis." So these researchers replicate the experiment with tighter controls and better statistical analyses. They find no statistically significant difference from chance.

We continue this process until we either find more studies that can accurately replicate the results or more that do not. We build a case on many different experiments.

Folks, that's science. It works. It is wonderful.

[SpiralHawk]

17. And they are still using rational methods to test irrational phenomena

Perfect set up for FAIL

[BuddhaGirl]

25. +1

n/t

[SpiralHawk]

27. + 2

...what they don't know...

[Stuckinthebush]

42. So is your claim that ESP is too irrational to be studied?

If there is a phenomena that people theorize that exists then why not test that with scientific methods? Is the claim that it is too sporadic to be tested? Is the claim that it is so special that we can't study it? Is that claim that it is too foolish to study? Is the claim that observation using a logical method inadequate to understand something like ESP? I'm confused about your statement.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. Two reasons not to waste time and money studying ESP.

1) Study has already been done
2) A great deal of what we know about how the brain and physics work make it impossible.

For ESP to work, the human body would need to contain something capable of transmitting signals, and something capable of receiving signals; also, there are only a very few ways those signals could be transmitted, and we would be able to detect them easily by other means.

[Stuckinthebush]

48. I do not disagree

but from a purely scientific method standpoint, one would replicate to build a case.

[Frank Cannon]

24. I've seen a lot of intriguing studies about this kind of thing in the past.

But I don't recall a single one where the conditions were replicated and the results were reproduced consistently, and that's a crucial component of the whole science thing.

It's amazing to me how many people think that science is just another way of looking at things, like just having an opinion about something. Don't they teach the scientific method in schools anymore?

[CBGLuthier]

9. When I think of all the scientists responsible for all the inventions

and discoveries required so this fucking idiot can say these stupid things and be heard around the world it just makes you want to laugh even more at his pathetic ass.

[madokie]

12. Lighten up Francis,

sheeesh

[CBGLuthier]

16. Gee, I thought that was light.

The guy comes across as a snotty moron full of himself. No use for it.

[niyad]

18. you DO understand that MM is a satirist, yes?

[MilesColtrane]

20. He may be, but that particular essay is not satire.

[PVnRT]

29. I don't get much satire coming off that column, either

[niyad]

35. in your opinion

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. In my opinion too. He is certainly making no attempt to indicate it's satire.

I'm afraid I think he genuinely believes the tosh he writes here.

[sufrommich]

14. Well, that was an incredibly stupid article. nt

[niyad]

19. see post 18

[Iggo]

21. I had a feeling something might happen, and then it did!

Fuck you, Science!

[KansasVoter]

28. Wow, are people stupid to believe in shit that is not proved! Even DEMs

[Arugula Latte]

30. This is a different sort of take for Mark.

I love him as a writer -- nobody is better at skewering the stupidity that is religion. I am surprised he went after scientists.

But as a former S.F. resident and current Portland resident I've gotta give him props for that line about dark matter and Portland. :rofl:

[OneGrassRoot]

34. Neil DeGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist) on "The Daily Show" last night:

Stewart: "You could just be making stuff up."

Tyson: "Allow me to say that when you are on the frontier of knowledge between known and unknown, reaching out into that abyss, sometimes you have to make stuff up that might be true so that you can organize a research plan to find out whether or not it is."

Stewart: "I see. Like a false bridge that will allow you a couple of footholds to possibly find the truth."

Tyson: "This is the creativity of discovery that not everyone has."

He then said his favorite Einstein quote is: Imagination is more important than knowledge

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-18-2011/neil-degrasse-tyson

:)

I don't diss science or scientists. I value both tremendously. I value skepticism.

It does concern me when people resist discussion and the potential of what we MAY discover because of an inability to accept the very real possibility that there are some things beyond the scope of current human comprehension.

[niyad]

36. missed TDS last night, so thank you for sharing this.

scientists at one time thought the earth was flat, and the center of the universe. scientists conducted the tuskegee experiments. so, who knows what we will find as we keep learning and exploring.

"there are more things under your heaven, horatio. . . "

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. "beyond the scope of current human comprehension." is a cop-out phrase.

It blurs the distinction between "we don't know everything" and "we don't know anything".

Yes, there are many things we don't know. However, there are also many things we *do* know, and those things preclude the possibility of ESP (there's no way the signals could be transmitted that we wouldn't be able to detect).

[OneGrassRoot]

47. I respectfully disagree. :) n/t

[Matariki]

38. What most people think of as "science" is shit they learned in High School - in the 50's

Or at least from text books that old.

Muford makes the obvious (to thinking persons) that science changes with new discoveries all the time. REAL scientists have opened minds to the (as yet) unknown and unexplained.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. I disagree.

Science *expands* all the time, replacing "we don't know" with "we know this". Occasions where a large chunk of what was previously believed to be true turns out to be false, however, are very rare - the last one in physics was the replacement of Newtonian physics with quantum theory and relativity (both of which we know and have always know are not actually true, just good approximations); I am not aware of one in chemistry for longer than that but I'm not a chemist; in biology I don't think there's been one on that scale for a long time but smaller changes are probably more common.

I would say that Muford makes the common mistake of conflating "there's a lot we don't know" with "there are not things we do know", and that the latter also precludes a great deal.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. This guy is a total idiot.

>Put it this way: Only the bitterest fundamentalists of any ilk would disagree with the fact that pure science and pure >mysticism are, in their own unique spheres, violently limited. It's the timeless conundrum, the age-old battle. Most agree >the two are eternally conjoined and interlaced, as awkwardly interdependent as an old married couple who simply forgot how to >have sex.

I've heard this line of argument advanced more times than I can count; it's usually safe to dismiss out of hand anyone who advances it.

Science is limited - it can only answer questions where evidence to the correct answer exists.

Mysticism is unlimited - it can answer any question. The drawback is that the answers it provides are pretty much always wrong, because they are not arrived at via evidence.

There is no kind of parallel or equivalency between science and mysticism, and trying to prevent one is the hallmark of an idiot who wants to appear broadminded.

There are indeed many questions that science will never be able to answer, but mysticism will never be able to answer them either! Questions of value can be addressed by philosophers, but any question of fact (e.g. "is there a god?" or "why is there something instead of nothing?") cannot be answered by anything except scientific means.

[Ignis]

49. An interesting (albeit flawed) R.A. Wilson book springs to mind here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Inquisition