X-Message-Number: 5804
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 13:19:26 -0600 (CST)
From: N E U R O M A N C E R <>
Subject: "Paranormal" reasoning (Mac Tonnies)

Thanks to everyone who posted a response to my "telekinesis" query.  The
following are some anonymous points I felt needed clarification.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

>Ah, but then why not rule out cryonics? After all, it's not turned up
>any positive results either. Well, actually cryonics also hasn't turned 
>up any negatives. So the chances of it working haven't been determined
>yet - unlike telekinesis for practical purposes.

    In one subscribes to the "faulty research" premise your message indicates, 
then telekinesis _hasn't_ produced any negatives.  So what's the problem?

****

>I believe any worthwhile philosophy of transhumanism must be ready to
>cope with cranks plugging Telekinesis.

    You're absolutely right.  It's also going to have to deal with "cranks"
plugging glycerol as a reasonably effective cryoprotectant, liquid nitrogen as
the ideal freezing medium, Arizona as the safest geographical area to house
suspension facilities, etc.
    
****

>I think you have made a big mistake here. Just because cryonicists are
>interested in a topic that isn't mainstream doesn't mean we are
>believers in "paranormal" phenomena, or other junk science.

    I hate the word "paranormal" as much as you do, although possibly for
different reasons.  My take is that if something is observed in our universe 
then it must be delt with like anything else.  
    Hail may be rarer than rain, but it is still the product of essentially the
same meteorological forces.  Understanding of one does not exlude understanding
of the other.  At least it shouldn't, in my opinion.
    It's so easy to label uncommon, "difficult" phenomena as "junk."  There is
outright nonsense and there is science, but no such thing as "junk science." 
And keep in mind that, sticking to the scientific method, a disproved
hypothesis does not grant the given realm of inquiry the status of "junk
science."  

****

>In one of the PK experiments, the subject tried to influence the fall of 
>SEVERAL DICE SIMULTANEOUSLY. According to Rhine's analysis, the results were 
>far beyond chance, hence the phenomenon was "proven." But Rhine apparently 

>failed to notice that, if we acknowledge the first miracle--direct influence of

>mind over matter at at distance, or application of the presumably needed forces
>--we must also acknowledge at least one more miracle.  That is the ability of 
>that mind to ANALYZE THE TRAJECTORIES AT A GLANCE AND COMPUTE THE NEEDED 
>FORCES! (Or else to assure the outcome without continuity of events.)

    I undertand that your use of the word "miracle" was one of gentle sarcasm,
but I find it indicative of the narrow outlook usually given "fringe science." 
Why the incredulity to influencing the fall of "SEVERAL DICE SIMULTANEOUSLY"? 
If there is such a thing as telekinesis, it seems logical that it would be
capable of something like this...When applied to genetic structure, it would
have to be much _more_ potent than this to produce any sort of morphogenetic
effect.

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," preaches Carl Sagan.
    And yet whenever extraordinary-sounding evidence comes along, he denounces it
_because_ it is extraordinary.  This mentality has stifled thoughtful study of
"unacceptable" phenomena for an insufferably long time.

****


>Really?  This is news to me, and I know quite a few top-notch neuroscientists.

    Neuroscientists are not out to prove or disprove telekinenesis.  When
conclusive evidence is finally given wide dissemination, I am almost certain it
will not be given by neuroscientists as we know them.  Not to invalidate their
research, by any means--but do you honestly know any hard-core neuroscientists
committed to trans-cerebral study?

****

>Of course he denounces it. Carl Sagan is a good scientist and realizes that 
>extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

    I argue that Carl Sagan is _not_ a "good scientist" at all, but a very
astute "science politician."  He is committed to selling science to the public,
even if it means glossing over certain areas of inquiry.  Witness his faux 
write-up of the Tunguska explosion of 1908 in "Cosmos," for example--then read
some scientific papers by contempoarary researchers, Russian and otherwise. 
The amount of data Sagan excluded from his account is nothing short of
staggering.
    Or read Sagan's facile wrap-up of the "Face on Mars" in PARADE magazine: he
deliberately used false color images to detract from an otherwise anthropoid
geomorphic feature.  Misrepresentation of this sort is not "good science."
    Of course, these two phenomena share the same defining characteristic--they
defy and bewilder science's popularized world view.  There is too much vested 
speculation for the mainstream scientific community to tackle enigmas like this
with anything approaching rationality, leaving the field open to other (often 
less-qualified) researchers whose methodology can be denounced for this same 
reason!
    It is very difficult to convince the American public of the importance of
science (a sentiment I think cryonicists would agree with).  Results are better
when the "fringe" is excluded or denied. [Disagree?  Ask the man off the street
what he thinks of the workability of nanotechnology.]
    Sagan's goals, while admirible, do not reflect the workings of a great
scientific mind.

****

>Any scientist would LOVE to be able to prove such a thing, it would instantly 
>make him the greatest scientist since Newton...

    I agree with you.  But the road to proof (what with retaining scientific
integrity in the face of opposition, etc.) is a daunting elemenent that has to
be taken into account.  "Proof" of something as misconstrued as telekinesis
("What?  Moving objects with 'thought power'?  I think I'll skip this
particular conference!) is not the same thing as the _process_ one goes through
to establish any outlandish physical reality.
    I think it's unreasonable to devaluate a particularly emotive field of
research such as so-called "paranormal" phenomena because proof has yet to be
revealed in the manner of superconductivity (to pick an example at random).
    As its very nature is intangible, it's unrealistic to think that the 
"scientific community" would express interest in it in any other way.

____________________________________________________________
Mac Tonnies      
509 Phillips Hall                          
Northwest Missouri State University
Maryville, MO 64468
(816) 562-6716
   http://www.nwmissouri.edu/~0211555/apu.html


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5804