Absolute denial of existence

[Shinova]

I was on James Randi's site last night and I had this thought: what if there was someone who could repeatedly demonstrate paranormal abilities and showed them to a group of professionals, much like in the Randi challenge.

The question now isn't how the world would react but let's say that someone or some group of people either participating in that challenge or not absolutely refuse to admit the existence of the paranormal, even though they see it with their own eyes and other senses but their instruments and scientific laws and theories can't explain what's happening. They say that it's a trick, and when the instruments and surveillance devices show it's not a trick and it's the real thing, they claim that it's their own minds hallucinating images of the paranormal act being performed, and then when told further that everyone else can witness the paranormal act being performed, the said person or people then say that everyone else is suffering delusions as well or they themselves are hallucinating that everyone else can confirm the paranormal activity. And then when they take themselves to the psychiatrists and the latter say there's nothing wrong with them they either say the psychiatrists must've missed something or that too is merely a delusion.

In short, they go to any extreme lengths to deny the existence of the paranormal because their scientific laws and theories can't explain it and because it's the paranormal, even though their instruments and things like video cameras clearly record that something is happening even though they can't tell for sure what it exactly is.


Is it conceivable that such people could exist or show up during a successful pass of the Randi challenge, for example?

[Anguirus]

The problem with this is that if you prove that the paranormal exists, it's not paranormal anymore. It's an event with an unknown cause, and scientific knowledge is replete with unknowns.

I highly doubt that the people who are asking for demonstrations of the paranormal by those who claim they have magic powers are going to ignore evidence because they're too dogmatic. It is the charlatans who have an interest in hiding the truth, not people like Randi.

[Darth Wong]

That's really doubtful. Scientists were willing to accept the crazy-sounding idea that light is both a particle and a wave, in order to reconcile what appeared to be a direct contradiction in nature. Why wouldn't they be willing to accept that there is something about the human body that we didn't know about before, provided real evidence is presented?

[General Zod]

Is it conceivable that such people could exist or show up during a successful pass of the Randi challenge, for example?

We have people like that already. They're called fundies.

[Lord of the Abyss]

There are probably some people who would, but not many and probably not Randi. He's alway struck me more as being pissed off at the misuse of his art and at fakery, not at the mere idea of psychic powers and such. I suspect his reaction to evidence of a verifiable psychic power would be to beat the fakes about the head and shoulders with it; "THIS is what the real thing looks like ! Not peeking under blindfolds or guessing a hundred times and counting only the lucky hits !"

[Broomstick]

You know, it used to be a hard and fast rule that you just didn't have conscious control over things like heart rate and blood pressure. IMPOSSIBLE! Then some people were able to demonstrate, in a laboratory, some ability to control these biological functions. Well, gosh, the scientists didn't know HOW they did it - but they acknowledged they did do it, then set about figuring out the how.

Now, it's accepted that it is possible to exert some control over these processes, and medical science even advocates training people in techniques to do just that - called "biofeedback". No longer mysterious, now a part of science. Even if we don't understand exactly how it works.

Likewise, if someone was able to demonstrate, say, telekinesis in a laboratory setting there would be an initial period of skepticism where the results would need to be duplicated - not just by those researchers but by others. But, if the evidence holds up I don't think real scientists would continue to doubt. They'll set about trying to figure out the how. And, as pointed out, it will no longer be "paranormal" but "science".

[Zadius]

Such a person would probably win a Nobel Prize anyway, and Randi has said himself that he'd have no problem giving the million dollars as a reward for discovering a new phenomenon.

[Vyraeth]

The question now isn't how the world would react but let's say that someone or some group of people either participating in that challenge or not absolutely refuse to admit the existence of the paranormal, even though they see it with their own eyes and other senses but their instruments and scientific laws and theories can't explain what's happening. They say that it's a trick, and when the instruments and surveillance devices show it's not a trick and it's the real thing, they claim that it's their own minds hallucinating images of the paranormal act being performed, and then when told further that everyone else can witness the paranormal act being performed, the said person or people then say that everyone else is suffering delusions as well or they themselves are hallucinating that everyone else can confirm the paranormal activity.

You seem to have a distorted perception of science and scientists if you think that your scenario is plausible.

Why would any half decent scientist automatically assume that telekinesis or some other paranormal activity is the result of a delusion if they saw it in a laboratory setting and other members of their team could confirm it?

They might, at first, doubt what happened, and retest. And then, if they got the same result, they would as other people said, have other researchers test, but what makes you think they're just going to chalk it up as a delusion?

Some skepticism in your aforementioned scenario would be understandable, and I suspect that if such a thing did occur most scientists would want to "see it with their own eyes" so to speak, but that doesn't mean if there's verifiable proof they'll automatically assume it's a delusion.

As others have pointed out, scientists are dogmatic, and revelations in science do occur periodically.

Scientists, good ones at least, are open minded individuals who don't treat laws and theorems are absolutes, but instead conceptualize what they witness.

Don't buy into the Hollywood bullshit (apologies to any Hollywood movie that doesn't paint a scientist as a dogmatic fiend).

[Vyraeth]

Sorry, "scientists aren't dogmatic".

[Shinova]

You seem to have a distorted perception of science and scientists if you think that your scenario is plausible.

Don't buy into the Hollywood bullshit (apologies to any Hollywood movie that doesn't paint a scientist as a dogmatic fiend).

Not to derail this thread but before apologizing to any Hollywood movie you should apologize to me first since I do not perceive scientists and science in the way you seem to say I do.

[kheegster]

Actually, there are people who would totally refuse to accept scientific evidence even if it is accepted by the vast majority of rational people. These people are called 'religious fundamentalists'.

[Vyraeth]

Not to derail this thread but before apologizing to any Hollywood movie you should apologize to me first since I do not perceive scientists and science in the way you seem to say I do.

Well, I don't want to seem offensive, so I apologize. I just wasn't sure where you were coming from.

[Shinova]

Thanks. I posted this topic because every time we believe humanity has finally matured we're shown just how wrong we are, and I'm sure everyone here has heard of more than enough examples to show that there are no limits to human pride, stupidity, and other such vices so I wanted know if it were possible for a scientist to be as dogmatic, even if it seems very unlikely.

[Rye]

Hah. Why the hell would you think it would be beyond possibility? There's a champion for every crackpot idea out there, mostly out of dogmatism.

[Vyraeth]

Hah. Why the hell would you think it would be beyond possibility? There's a champion for every crackpot idea out there, mostly out of dogmatism.

I never said that it was impossible for a scientist to support an errant belief, and quite feverishly at that, I said it was implausible that a half decent (or good) scientist would.

For the champions you mention, ask how many are actually established and respected scientists?

Now for something as huge as telekinesis, I'm sure you'll have a lot of scientists who at first reject the initial set of data, ask for more tests and verification, and, to some extent, want to be involved in the discovery process. But the ones who are real scientists, will, after witnessing the proof come to accept it.

Obviously, I'm not going to make a blanket statement and say all scientists are immune to this, and I'm sure someone who knows far more then I on these matters can point to an example of a respected scientist who "champions" a crackpot idea, but at their core, I wonder how much of a scientist they are.

[Singular Intellect]

A scientist by definition needs to be objective and swayed solely by imperical evidence, not personal beliefs or desires.

[kheegster]

A scientist by definition needs to be objective and swayed solely by imperical evidence, not personal beliefs or desires.

That's in principle. In practice, scientists are still human beings, with their own hopes, egos, passions, and in a few cases, greed. For example, Einstein never really believed in quantum mechanics to his deathbed, despite overwhelming evidence supporting it.

However, science as a group is what transcends the individual personalities, although even then it takes a full generation for new paradigm changes to truly set in.

[R. U. Serious]

Thanks. I posted this topic because every time we believe humanity has finally matured we're shown just how wrong we are, and I'm sure everyone here has heard of more than enough examples to show that there are no limits to human pride, stupidity, and other such vices so I wanted know if it were possible for a scientist to be as dogmatic, even if it seems very unlikely.

Possible? Absolultey. Likely? Not so much. Alister McGrath or Michael Behe are people that might be described as scientists (for some definitions of scientist), yet it doesn't exempt them from putting their faith over scientific principles and using obviously fallacious arguments to arrive at a preferred conclusion.

[Kuroneko]

For example, Einstein never really believed in quantum mechanics to his deathbed, despite overwhelming evidence supporting it.

I agree with the spirit of your post, but your example could use some work. There was no 'overwhelming' evidence against Einstein's position until well after his (and Bohr's) death, for the disagreement at the time was philosophical rather than experimental. Einstein simply saw QM as some sort of glorified statistics--not wrong in the sense that it doesn't have meaningful and useful results, but rather in that it's not the real thing. Although the issue was later resolved empirically, no one was aware that it could be resolved empirically until the 1960s.

[The Cooler King]

Randi's own case history is replete with scientists who were fooled by charlatans like Uri Geller, Ted Serios, and others. As he says, a degree is great, but it's no guarantee you can't be fooled. It's why, when his group devises tests for those who claim to have paranormal abilities, they have people from all sorts of disciplines (sleight of hand, physics, psychology, etc) working together to come up with the testing criteria, to make sure that they weed out all the fakers (which, so far, would be... all of them).