From: boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Karl Boyken)
Subject: Re: PSI - summary of book review
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:47:36 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Iowa

In article <1992Jul29.204138.3043@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

[...]

> >This is the point of view of a skeptic--that the theory with the most votes
> >wins?  I've never heard the scientific method framed in those terms before.
> 
> No, the point is that it can be verified by outsiders.  If I say that (say)
> disease is caused by bacteria, you too can look for the bacteria under a micro-
> scope.  Saying that disease is caused by invisible spirits that all the people
> with microscopes happen to be unable to perceive is another story.

Science does not have a corner on verifiability.  If I'm a shaman in some
tribal culture, working within the belief system of that culture, I'd be able
to look at a patient and see signs of an invisible spirit, and anyone else
working within that system would probably see the same signs.  Otherwise, the
belief system could not persist and be taught from one generation to another.

Anthropharmacology has made important contributions to the medical science
belief system by translating some of the knowledge contained in such
shamanistic systems into terms that medical science can understand and use;
many drugs have been developed by going out into the field and interviewing
tribal medicine men.  Evidentally, such "primitive" people must be doing
something right, even by scientific terms.

[...]

> Fine.  There's anecdotal evidence of "paranormal phenomena".  OK, the
> phenomena exist.  People really do have experiences that seem to be ghosts,
> ESP, or whatever.
> 
> But when you claim that paranormal phenomena exist, you're not referring to
> the perceptions.  You don't mean "when I say that precognition exists I mean
> that people think they're good at predicting the future, rather than that they
> really _are_ good at it".

Yes, I _am_ referring to their perceptions, and to how their perceptions are
interpreted.  I'm not saying that anything _really_ happened, other than the
perceptions.  And _any_ interpretation is just that, an interpretation, and
_no_ interpretation is superior in any absolute sense--not even the much
revered and worshipped scientific one.  In a given context, one belief system
may have more utility than another.  I find that a belief system that tells
me that what I've experienced isn't real has little utility.  Your own mileage
may vary.

> Every culture probably knows some "paranormal
> phenomena", but not every culture knows the concept of scientific proof.

Which proves that people can get along fine without the concept of scientific
proof.  Which suggests that it is not superior to any other belief system in
an _absolute_ sense.

*****        _My_ views, no one else's--except those I plagiarize         *****
Karl Boyken, system programmer | We dance 'round in a ring and suppose, while
Department of Computer Science | the Secret sits in the middle and knows.
The University of Iowa         |
boyken@herky.cs.uiowa.edu      | -- Anyone knows who wrote this?  I forgot.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic