December 1st, 2008, 07:35 AM
Can we have a new sub forum please entitled 'Parapsychology'. A sub forum devoted to all unknown psychological phenomenas; dreams, OBE's, premonitions. Etc. Where we can share ideas and thoughts and discuss them. I have a few I'd like to discuss and would like to discuss them in a sub forum where they fit in. I'm sure we'd get a few more members also, it could be interesting... Pretty Please. :P
Premonitions? That sounds rather like pseudoscience to me, chaotic.
I know. But I believe that pseudoscience is a bit too general for the area of parapsychology. Its a subject that has always interested me and I would very much like to discuss dreams, visions of ghosts etc, in a scientific way. I understand that parasychology is pseudo in nature, but I do think that to call is pseudo is a tad general. Because they are phenomena that does need researching and I beleive that start of research will begin with the questioning of that field.
There is no science of ghosts, bogeymen and things that go bump in the night.Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
I am pretty sure that they can fit well in the psychology section when talking about why and how our brains create them or the religion section when talking about why God sent them (or not), no? If neither God nor brain malfunction is purported as the cause, then it could fit nicely in pseudoscience or psychology if it is brought under proper inspection (no claims of a new evolutionary trait, links to aliens/historical figures, etc).
Or did you have something else in mind?
Well, if we go down that route, we'll have to start adding all sorts of extra subforums to cover all the pseudoscientific areas - I'm sure WVBIG would love to have a cryptozoology subforum, for instance. And then perhaps we'll need one for conspiracy theories, etc.
I think if you want to base a discussion of any of these things in real scientific inquiry, say, what are the neurological processes that might result in someone thinking they've seen a ghost, or how past experiences build a subconscious intuition that makes some people think they have premonitions - that could all go in the existing Behavior subforum. But if you're going to talk about ghosts and premonitions being a reality, then I think pseudoscience is where it firmly belongs. In either case I see no need for a new subforum.
But that is just my opinion, perhaps others feel differently.
Edit - I see that Kalster shares my viewpoint.
What I liked about this forum when I joined it, was that it was devoted to true science. I am afraid that such a subforum might open doors to individuals much like or even worse that William or eanassir and start to pollute the real science forums. If this would happen, I'd be off this forum very quickly. For me, parapsychology is not much else than a discipline of pseudoscience with a strong lobby. I am against it.
Mainstream science once had it that the earth was at the centre of the universe. I have a certain empathy with making the forum 'pure science' but then you would get rid of religion which used to be a considerable 'member puller' (sorry couldn't resist that one).. Next you get rid of Sci-Fi and a few others. Surely science is not only the predictable behaviour of our universe and all its individual components but it is also the discussion of ideas and theories however absurd they may seem. Leave as is is my vote - it adds colour and often humour.
Wert, we are not planning on changing the current set up. This thread is about the addition of a new sub-forum, which most of us find unnecessary because the subject already fits in an existing sub-forum.
Any topic not fitting the existing subforums can easily be posted under general discussion. No need for a proliferation of subforums, and in fact I'd be in favor of a little pruning of seldom used forums. That would not prohibit posting of any topic.
A dash of parapsychology adds spice. It invites correction. It sparks good scientific discussion.
I feel every subforum benefits from a measure of pseudoscience in the mix.
Oh go on, its a dashing idea. I don't want to stay in 'known' science all my life. We won't progress as a species if we stick with what we know. I don't feel comfortable posting anything in the pseudoscience section, mainly because people will shun it if they read it.
"Oh its here, I'm not going to take it seriously".
The phenomena may be made by delusional crackpots, but most of it fits too well to be a load of crap. There is many unknown phenomena in the world. If we dont' acknowledge they exist, only ignorance (as Q bieng my example, still a theory not neccisarily truth), makes us disprove these phenomena, it has not been dis-proven through science. Please remember that. There are many institutions that dedicate time and effort in studying phenomena evident in parapsychology and most of them prove something, even if mostly its a load of crap disproven.
If we go around saying 'its nonsense', its delusional' etc. We are not actually going to prove that without firm evidence are we? Besides I know everyone likes to think what their dreams mean. Lighten up a little. Your not under pressure from Oxford University to beat Cambridge's next brilliant idea are you?
PS. As for the mentioning of extra trolls, what does that matter? We have an armada of moderators these days. I'm sure you guys can handle any issues that come along? If I started numerous parapsychology threads in the Behavioural sub forum, would KALSTER not eventually throw them into pseudo science? Remember that accepting the ideas of ghosts being true, etc, is pseudo scientific, not actually going about discussing those ideas. Any questions I put forwards in this new sub forum, will follow the scientific method. And I shall try and maintain that that is upheld in any conversation that begins as a result.
I merley suggest an idea here. Sciforums has a section and so does marnixR's brilliant, yet short of members, Philosophorum. Its good to leave science now and again, and to escape to fantasy, after all, its dreaming that gives us new ideas.
Having experienced things most of you would consider "crazy" and I think many just won't talk about for concern of ridicule I would have to say I'm on the fence on this idea. While I beyond a shadow of a doubt believe there are many things we have absolutely no scientific clue about we also can't prove anything that science has no clue how to begin to explain. Kind of a catch twenty two. We can't explain it, but yet too many have experienced such things that it can't be not real.
OK, I'll stop with the ramblings. Let me know what everyone decides
Chaotic, what makes you think we're only "sticking with what we know"? There's plenty of room in neuroscience for explanations for premonitions and ghost-like visitations. There is SO much we still don't know about the brain. There is SO much we still don't know about all these different fields represented by the subforums here. And it's not as though the field of parapsychology has simply been ignored - there has simply been a large paucity of evidence that would lend any solid support to the ideas it proposes. Perhaps not all of its ideas have been strictly disproven but the same can be said for a great many logical sounding but sparsely supported ideas in "mainstream" science as well.
You say you want to hold to scientific standards in your discussions; if you do so, I see no reason why Kalster would punt any of those threads to pseudoscience. If anything, keeping such discussions in the behavior subforum will help prevent people who simply want to appeal to some unknowable supernatural force from derailing your threads - they can justifiably be split off into the psuedoscience subforum.
Why do we need yet another subforum that will probably be doomed to sparse attendance like many of the other small specific subforums we have? I'm with Harold - I think we could use some conglomeration among some of those forums. To make yet another subforum would just be splitting hairs in my opinion.
Edit - I understand the desire to come up with something new and exciting. Even within their respective fields, every grad student wants to do something sexy and new with every paper they write. But things like that don't come from the top-down; they need to be built up piece by piece. It takes time to develop the background knowledge and to build up the evidenciary support, which usually needs to come from a variety of sources and in a variety of forms before the theory being proposed is given any serious weight by any significant number of people. Trying to make a new subforum on an internet discussion board for it won't add much to helping that process along.
That's the problem.
Because the mods understandably use Pseudoscience as Gulag. And even when a thread evolves in there, it never can rise out.
Why is pure trash heaped into Pseudoscience? Trying to be diplomatic. Afraid to delete a thread. Maybe better put trash in "Trash".
Now that I agree with. I'll ask the rest of the mods about perhaps clarifying what goes into psuedoscience versus what goes into trash.That's the problem.
Because the mods understandably use Pseudoscience as Gulag. And even when a thread evolves in there, it never can rise out.
Why is pure trash heaped into Pseudoscience? Trying to be diplomatic. Afraid to delete a thread. Maybe better put trash in "Trash".
science is not a body of knowledge, it's a method - so there's plenty of scope within science proper to go beyond the boundaries of what is currently known
pseudo-science, however, pretends to be science without sticking to the methodology of science, or sticks to outdated concepts long after they've been proven to be wrong
as for using the trash more often, i'm all for it since that section is currently underutilised + posts of the likes of eanassir are more crypto-religion rather than pseudo-science
I totally agree. Isn't that what science is all about? Extending the border of our knowledge? As far as I understand and how I practice science, it is not meant (only) for managing what is already known, but to increase the knowledge. It is the scientific method of empiricism that accepted in natural sciences to achieve this. I am just afraid that such a new sub-forum - especially this one - might just end up in discussing, whether all the "evidence" for such phenomena really satisfy scientific standards.science is not a body of knowledge, it's a method - so there's plenty of scope within science proper to go beyond the boundaries of what is currently known
OK I understand. In that case I have put forward to KALSTER an idea of a sticky thread in Behavioural and social sciences named 'parapscyhology', or 'parapsychological phenomena'. That way there can be open discussion about unknown phenomena to do with behaviour, yet still be in the relevant field. I am aware that you could so do the same with every sub forum with all kinds of different unknown forces, each with their own stickies, but the phenomena of parapsychology persists on a more frequent and personal basis to all of us than any other known science. I mean, its not everyday we feel the weight of a Higgs Boson is it? (Thats pun by the way).
Exactly. How many moderators can say that when a new theory of somebody comes along, say Bigfoot, or FTL that it is thrown in pseudoscience? Granted it may fit well. But most are thrown in there as if it were a trash can. Hardly anything goes in the trash these days. All I see is this:That's the problem.
Because the mods understandably use Pseudoscience as Gulag. And even when a thread evolves in there, it never can rise out.
Why is pure trash heaped into Pseudoscience? Trying to be diplomatic. Afraid to delete a thread. Maybe better put trash in "Trash".
'move to pseudoscience', 'fits better here'. If it doesn't fit in in the correct sub forum its convieniently put out of the way and any credibility that is in that thread loses itself because it is now in pseudoscience. I can understand WilliamMcCormicks ideas in there. They do seem outright wacky, but paraspychology, there is actual terms for phenomena that exist, whereas for Will there isn't. So would you throw something very well put or scientifically approached into pseudosciece because it doesn't fit in with current science? Remember that science is just is body of knowledge that has been created from a method, by follwing a method. Pseudoscience as I know it, is defined as 'That scientific practice that does not follow the scientific method'. I aim to follow that method when explaining something, and do not wish to share the same company as people such as William McCormick (no offense Will). I believe people like me who wish to discuss and try to explain these things deserve better. After all, not all of us can safely develop theories in a patent office.
Its a shame this guy can't see his idea come true:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/New-H...-forum-29f.php
Or can he... 8)
| « The trash can | "Read first" stickies » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
