Aduke.2051
net.misc
utzoo!decvax!harpo!duke!bcw
Sat Apr 17 01:42:39 1982
Paranormal phenomena
Re: Paranormal phenomena
From: Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University
My previous message should not have been taken as an irrevocable
condemnation of paranormal phenomena; it was rather a condem-
nation of some of the slipshod reasoning/experimenting which is
rampant in this business.
For example, I have often seen the assertion that telepathy is
an *instantaneous* phenomenon [whatever that means in the context
of general relativity], which takes place faster than the speed
of light. I'm sure that no experiment has ever been done to
test this assertion; you'd have to be at least as far away as
the Moon in order to have any kind of noticeable delay at all
(otherwise it would be indistinguishable from speed-of-light
transmission). Moreover, I am aware of no physical model which
predicts such behavior which doesn't founder on things like the
theory of general relativity (a principle which has been solidly
supported by much recent experimental evidence). Such weighty
counterevidence should not be brushed aside without good cause--
which the paranormalists have not so far deigned to provide.
I'm quite ready to accept such phenomena with sufficient proof--
which could take the form of either hard experimental evidence
or some kind of theory which explains *in some powerful way*
something which isn't handled by any existing theory. To date,
I have not seen such evidence (and I am not totally ignorant of
the literature on the subject). But many of the advocates of
such phenomena try to justify their position with extremely
weak arguments; it is the uncritical acceptance of this type
of reasoning which I consider dangerous for science.
The fact that Galileo and others were persecuted for their views
should in no way be used as an a priori justification for new
theories. In those days, there were any number of crackpots who
were also persecuted (whether this is justifiable is another
issue which should be debated on fa.poli-sci); trying to justify
new theories on such grounds is a non sequitur. Theories should
be able to stand on their own feet without special pleading or
they should be discarded.
It is quite possible to provide an alternative theory -- in fact
any number of alternative theories -- on the mechanisms which
are behind the motions of the solar system; the epicycle theory
is an example. Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton did not disprove
the older epicycle theory, but rendered it superfluous: since
the new theory was simpler and fit the data just as well, and
suggested plausible mechanisms, the need for the old theory
vanished (this type of argument is called Occam's Razor in honor
of one of its strongest advocates). Therefore, the mere fact
that an alternative theory exists does not mean that any other
theories should be immediately abandoned simply because the new
theory flatters us in some way; it should also have such
properties as mathematical elegance and ideally it should predict
*well documented* phenomena better than the alternatives. In
general, there are an infinite number of theories which predict
the same or similar phenomena, so we must apply such principles
ruthlessly in order to prevent sinking into a sophist quagmire.
Bruce C. Wright @ Duke University
-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <
[email protected]>
of
http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/
This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:
1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.
2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.
