The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Of course it's a science, "ology" study of.
That's by definition. But it does have the same problem that all these "sciences" have, they are all bias. The person doing the study will have a basic theory in mind, and then goes out to prove it. Do you really think they will prove or show themselves wrong? I haven't heard of that happening yet. Watch the TV shows lately on these investigations. Don't matter what it is on, they all end the same way. 'Maybe this is it or maybe it isn't - we'll leave it up to you.' Personally, I'm tired of the same old BS.

I consider it more of what one might call "alternative" science. Much like alternative medicine.

it's like fung shway or chea or cryptozoology......They believe wholeheartedly in THEIR interpretations but that does not make them correct nor does it give them good means to prove anything, and they attempt to pass it off as a science. Other sciences must test and ultimately prove theories and ideas, where as a parapsychologist cannot do this as efficiently, if at all. So therefore it is not a science, and I just really don't take it seriously, though not because it isn't a science..... but because it just isn't a necessary profession in my opinion.

yes i think the tv shows are all the same but have seen things on my own to belive in ghost and such..........

oh


"Science -a branch of knowledge or study, such as chemistry or botany, concerned with the natural or physical substances, facts, laws, etc."

I just don't see many of these sects dedicated to providing supernatural answers as being very scientific. And if they are, science has really went down the tubes.

The paranormal is what you resort to when there are NO other logical avenues to pursue. But the thing is there are other explanations for the things these people say are paranormal, and they have been tested, and are what most professionals accept as truth.

I think para means HALF

it is a half science because the population sample study size needed for documentation of it as a science is so small because the rareness of the events, that it can never be proven or a scientific experiement could ever be run to control the conditions (which is one of the rules of science - to control conditions)

I mean I know what I did to find out what I did, I could take like hundreds of clones like in the Star Wars movie grow them in pods and ultimately make storm troopers out of Boba Fett, but it is an experiement that would take many years, I started my experiement in like July of 1996, and it is culminating within this week. And you know what after all of it, I really do not care to prove it, I am just happy to survive it when I was happy to die from it.

So I mean the supernatural has that effect on you, it is like a lightning strike from god, and your cell phone camera was off because it was recharging because you wasted all your battery on like paying for your cell phone with a credit card.

So what are you going to do after you get hit by lightning? Are you gonna sit there in the rain for another 10 years and say I will get it next time?

No you get out of there, and you don't feel the need to prove anything.

I think the nature of the superbatural is designed to be unexplained, unexplained by time, unexplained by satiating curiosity for the individual on such a fantastic level he need not prove it to anyone else, the low population sample by the freakish nature of it, and the whatever else I mentioned that I forgot, the X factor. The thing you forget when you high tail it away from the scene of a crime.


IT WILL ALWAYS BE HALF A SCIENCE

I would say this is definantly a "If your not interested in it, then don't worry about it" sort of thing. Does Parapsychology cause cancer? Nope. If someone believes or studies the paranormal, what trouble are they brewing up? Let people do what they want, call it what they want, and believe what they want. I could count the hairs on my toes for 30 days and call myself a toeologist if I want. That is the wonders of science. Ha!

Respectfully, and with plenty of sarcasm,
Illuminati

I say Yes and No. Yes because it's having to do with energy and such. And No because a ghost or Orb (I think is the right word) is not science, it's a ghost which is not connected really I believe to the Earth or really atmosphere. I think it's a grand thing to see a ghost ( i see them quite often, i've been given a gift). Why can't we just be happy to see a ghost or see something a ghoist can do and appreciate it, especially if it's a family member, friend, or past pet we had. Be happy to see them!!!

I thought a science had to be able to be proved and an an art is something that had to be interpreted.

In the UK the standard GCSE Psychology paper usually has a question 'Is psychology an art or a science, discuss"

The main problem is that the psychologists can say why they think something happens but can never prove it why it happened.

The parapsychologists would fall into the same pit as the regular psychologists

At one time, Astrology and Numerology were both highly respected sciences. Not too many people now-a-days pay them much mind. they're mostly for entertainment.

Looking for ghost can be proven by instruments, if you believe in the foundation of those beliefs. So, it does work and can be repeated but not with the same results over and over. Hell, it depends on the ghost, now don't it? But then again, the scientist would say, "We just don't have the proper instruments developed yet to sense them."
And there is that maybe/ if statement. Somehow it always show up.

Billy, yup ghost hunters use instruments but they don't prove the extintence of the ghost.

A ghost hunter can prove that the temperature changes or whatever, but can't prove that a ghost has made that happen.

A doctor can prove that a temperature changes and can then produce a whole battery of tests and results to prove why it changed.

As you rightly say, once a method can be developed to show that a ghost caused the effect - then ghost hunting will be less of a study (an -ology) / art - and more of a science

I would just like to say with no disrespect to anyone else's ideas or opinions, that I don't believe everything on this universe needs an explanation or proof that it exists. Ever noticed that the persons experiencing such phenomenas are not looking for scientific answers? Again it's like the experts who write books about children and have none!

Yes it is a science ask all thiose researchers down ar Duke.

One more thing....this might be a little off track, I apologize if it is...

Science is factual based but you still have to believe it and the paranormal is not necessarily factual but you have to believe that, you of course don't have to believe either one but to subscribe to it you do. It's a belief someone hands you and with that theres always a doubt attatched to it. And anything experienced you know without a doubt

DarkAngelGina

Duke is not the world authority in what goes in which category, unfortunately for them.

Opinions on it differ, it isn't set in stone what any of it is. To an extent...

Do you think Parapsychology should be Considered a Science?

I think you have already answered your own question. The Scientific Method REQUIRES the experiment to be REPEATABLE.... many times, by others. In some instances, this is feasable, in others, it is not. All science starts with a "bias or prediction". This is what you want to find out. For the reason you already mentioned (personal influence on the outcome), the procedure and results must be reapeatable to be considered at all by the scientific community.

And Clix... do you take science as a "religion" to be "believed"? Does this mean that if you don't believe bacteria evolve, then they don't, even though it has been proven that they do?

I believe in Fung Shway (Fung Shui?). It's a great interpretation of life... and in the spirit of Fung Shui, I must insist this thread be placed on the western side of the forum, facing away from the center of the room.

"We put the Fun in Fung Shui!"

Anyway, getting back to the real topic which I believe was parapsychology.. I could be wrong, that dark blue font on black background is painful.

Like with just about anything, and everything else... people will believe what they want to believe. If parapsychological subjects make sense to them, they will find said explaination for what they experience... if someone is more science minded, scientific results will make more sense to them... and so on with religions and everything else we've come up with to explain our universe...

So who is right? Who is wrong?

We'll leave that up to you to decide...

HA! I couldn't resist!

Oh, the question posed was "can it be considered a science?"

My bad...

..do they use a proceedural method to prove or disprove their findings? If so, then sure, it can be "considered" a science...

I think a lot of thought and observation has to go into the methods used before it would be considered a science though...

fung shway

yea id believe in it if the "experts" all came to the same conclusion. But it has been proven that they do not. How can one say red is great for the room then another says it will kill you?? its bs, and not a science like they say it is. Science is held to higher standards than what we talk about here.

Like with a ghost, any two "experts" can and WILL come up with different things, their INTERPRITATIONS of what they feel, see, hear. What you believe and feel are not science, that is more faith than it is science.

Yes, I believe that the study of these occurrences are scientific in nature and that they can be studied. I feel though that unlike traditional science, the results being less visible made lead to unbelief by many.

It is relevant, this is a thread on what some and many would call "alternative science" it was merely used as an example, and sometimes topics stray, it happens.

and duke, as I said before, no matter how many pioneers they have, are not the authority on what ends up in what category.

As an added note though, one should be aware that every neon "fortuneteller" sign does not necessarily a truly gifted person. Please don't take offense that most of us could not already figure that out, or that a cheesy sign might hide a very gifted person.

Science is sujective, alternative or not. This reminds me of a thesis done on the "Dangers of dihydrogen monoxide." People took this so seriously--mainly due to this boys major and school he was attending--that there were calls to ban it...WATER! Ban water because this information was put out scientifcly. Yes, science has to be believed first, obviously, then studied.

Illuminati


That whole water thing has been used many times by many people, to make other people look like asses. And it works well. But it has little to do with what is and what is not science, that example you used simply makes the people who did not do research look bad. I don't see how it ties into any of this though, or lends help to either side of this debate.

I put the definition of science in one of my posts, there isn't too much room for contorting what that definition states. It comes down to what science IS not what ones IDEA of what science should be is.

Hi
guys
no disrespect to the people in the room but this is my feeling to some comments that a lot of thing in this world can not be proven by science alone .

Ive never mat anyone who said science could solve everything, many or most things, but not everything.

Anti,

Yup, you are exactly right. That is why, in the aforementioned post, I stated that it reminds me, myself... thats it. It was sandwhiched between the other, small points that I felt were fitting for this thread. Or did those parts go missing, get deleted? Ok good, it's still there. Phew.

Respectfully, if I get it back,
Illuminati

I thought it was already considered a science, as many get degrees in this subject.

Well I think people differ in their attitudes towards the paranormal. At one end is the devout believer who will not consider any counter arguments or evidence. At the other end is the aggressive sceptic who dismisses or seeks to debunk any apparent evidence for the paranormal. Somewhere between these two extremes is the open-minded inquirer who has no particular axe to grind and is willing to consider the evidence on its own merits. Parapsychological research operates somewhere in this open-minded middle ground, although (adopting Occam's razor) the burden of proof always lies with those who would make paranormal claims.

Yes....There are things that normal science just can't explain for lack of the phyical.

BUT....does "parapsychology" explain it where as nothing else can? or does it attempt to.

That's right..since it has already been proven that I am the center of the universe....

What? Prove it wrong!

As Jas mentioned, it is a pretty wide spectrum of believers and skeptics. But again, as far as Parapsychology being a true science... the their research is conducted with scientific methods using instrumentation that can collect evidence towards discovery...

...problem as I see it is, it's pretty hit and miss. You can't sit in a lab and replicate a "haunt." You don't know where or when a "haunt" will take place, or even a spirit calling or, whathaveyou...

Would be kind of like an amateur astronomer gazing into the night sky, seeing a "shooting star" and trying to determine if it was a metorite or space junk...

I believe I states some time ago, since one can get college degrees in this field, it is considered a science.

I don't think being able to get a degree in a subject automatically makes it a science. You can gets degrees in Art, Divinity and so on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology addresses the quesion nicely:

'Parapsychology is the study of certain types of paranormal phenomena. The term is based on the Greek para (beside/beyond), psyche (soul/mind), and logos (account/explanation) and was coined by psychologist Max Dessoir in or before 1889. Its first appearance was in an article by Dessoir in the June 1889 issue of the German publication Sphinx.[1] J. B. Rhine later popularized "parapsychology" as a replacement for the earlier term "psychical research", during a shift in methodologies which brought experimental methods to the study of psychic phenomena.[1]

In contemporary parapsychology, the term refers to the study of psi, indicating psychic phenomena.[2][3][4]

The scientific reality of parapsychological phenomena and the validity of scientific parapsychological research is a matter of frequent dispute and criticism. It is regarded by critics as a pseudoscience.'

It's kind of hard to actually call it a science due to the fact that science as it stands today, requires PROOF of whatever it is you are are trying to explain. As stated in the very first post here, the scientific method requires that other scientist can reproduce the outcome of the study. So, wouldn't it make sense that parapsychology be completely UNscientific due to the fact that no matter what subject you are looking at, chances are you won't be able to reproduce the results? Ghosts don't usually act on command, so if you were to find real solid evidence that they exist...no one else would be able to get those results every single time. I don't think it is an actual science, but I do think it's a worthy cause.

The 'ology' in it's name doesn't necessarily bestow automatic scientific respect upon a study no matter how serious those involved in it try to remain.

There is such a thing as a psuedo-science wherein someone tries to amplify all of the scientific trappings of a study in order to minimize the most important rule of science...observable, MEASURABLE, REPEATABLE evidence. Any theory is valid to an extent because it has yet to be disproven but the impetus is on the theory to prove itself and not the other way around. Theory is proven or at least supported by experiments that produce results.

Theories that make broad paranormal claims based on evidence that can't be measured or reproduced, have yet to embrace the ideas of science.

First off, let me state how much I like this thread. SacredDefiance, you're a model for how the author should moderate his or her own thread.

As you pointed out, the paranormal covers a broad range. It is a science where it is studied scientifically. FelixFelix stated th rules of scientific`method, so I won't.

An example: Two different tests could be performed on a "haunting." One might employ scientific method, repeated experiments and control groups...the other, a "psychic" to come in and proclaim the haunting valid.

One is a science, the other, pseudo.

Well the psychic is only psuedo-science if he/she claims that there is scientific evidence of their ability and the haunting but doesn't follow the proper method for science...know what I mean?

A psychic is just belief until they claim scientific evidence. If the evidence can be repeated and measured...hell you've got actual science. If it's just using technical terms and heat imaging and still relies on you basically taking it on faith...then you've got psuedo...big time...and probably a con.

yep, I know exactly what you mean

Parapsychology should be a science, however; there are things that can't be explained, and somethings that shouldn't be explained. Science is a good thing to a point, but there is only so much studies one can do on things not of this realm. The bad thing about it being scientific about it. If it's not proven in some eyes, then it can't and doesn't exist.
I think somethings should be investigated to try and understand, but then there are somethings in this world there is no explaination for.
no examples sorry.

This thread makes some good points about the methodology required in "science". There are certain criteria but that does not mean that paranormal occurencies fall outside of the realm.

Meeper - I agree that paranormal experiences aren't automatically false simply because they can't be measured or predicted. The psychic who simply believes in psychic abilities isn't practicing psuedo-science. The person studying psychic phenominon without preconcieved answers is a scientist as long as they don't rush to conclusions.

My point is that if one is going to make a 'science' out of paranormal studies, it has to follow proper scientific methods or it's psuedo-science. You can keep it outside of science but then it remains a belief practice or a philosophical study.

Example: Ghost hunters use things like heat sensors and electromagnetic measurements as proof of spirits...but those measurements don't prove the existence of spirits...merely the existence of 'something' that affects their instruments. Trying to prove something with circumstantial measurements is psuedo-science because they already have a belief and they're taking any affected instrument as proof of their belief. It's a close minded 'study' because it's focused on proving a desire not finding the truth.

Billy - if adding -ology to a word makes it a science, you would have to accept sociology as a science too (god forbid)

I've even heard the term Barbaqueology recently.

oh, well that is different. the lighting and use of a good barbecue is both an Art, and a very exact science. i'm sure some expert has already gathered data and can give sound advice on the optimum number of guests, and the minimum quantity of beer required for a successful barbecue

hehe of course...and the proper btu's for a properly medium rare tri-tip.

yes, I believe it should be recognized as a science.

I will start my post off by saying, if I step on someone's toes I apologize. What I am about to say is strictly my opinion.

I believe that it really doesnt matter what it is called. The fact is that no matter what title you put on it, it is there and it happens. I look at it this way, people have religions..... baptists believe in God, and Wiccans believe in gods and goddesses.... (I use both to cover a diverse range) Can we prove either exsist? No. It is all in what the person believes.... The same can be said in this situation. Can a scientist lay a ghost down on the table and say okay what are you made of... no... So truley there is no concrete evidence that any sort of machine can pull up. It is all a theory.

Now my personal belief is, it doesnt need to be explained, and it doesnt need a reason. Somethings in life are not meant to be explained. If we knew everything about everything, there would be no point to life. We live our lives off of the knowledge we recieve through it and the experiances we have during our journeys. Scientists are always going to try to explain the unexplainable, and there will always be skeptics and firm believers..... There are some things that will never change and there are some things that will change daily..... Do we need to study that to know it happens? I dont know about you but to me that is common sense. I say lets not label it. Lets leave it be. Whether it be science, art, or flat out recreation.... It really is not an important matter in the long run of things.... science..... all that is is a word in the big scheme of things.

True but words have meaning and if we can call anything a science simply because there's someone out there that believes it, then the meaning of science will be diluted. Already we have people who think that science is a choice like faith. It's not...science is what you can prove or measure or repeat. It doesn't interfere in personal faith unless your faith is something that directly contradicts what is already measured and repeated and accepted. Science hasn't made any conclusions on the 'afterlife' or spirits or psychic ability or anything paranormal as of yet.

I believe that people should go out and document these cases that are “Parapsychological” even though there are a lot of people that believe that these are just strange coincidences. These are seemingly unfounded at this time but keeping in mind that we know very little about the vastly complicated universe around us these coincidences could prove to be very important to document. Any excuse to do so I believe is okay.

Well if we are going to get technical, then I will say ... NO. it should not be a science. There is nothing to go on to base anything on. As I said you cant disect a spirit.... you cant prove that they make temperature change, you cant prove that a spirit makes the energy levels change.... Those are all theory.... and although yes science is based on theories.... those theories usually come from some sort of proof.... Some sort of test, like Ben Franklins kite.... With a spirit there is no experiament that can be done to show that they exsist....

Perhaps if you only leave it with the study of human activity within parasychology it could be a science... at that point there is a subject to test. I never once recall disecting something we could not see in biology is basically the overall point I am getting out here..... if you cant test it then I dont think it should be science.....

I believe firmly in spirits and people with ability of things.... I believe them all from nothing more then experiance. Things I have seen or experianced myself. BUT however, if someone comes to me and says prove it... I cant. Perhaps this should be more considered just a study.... and if they can find a way to make it concrete... then a science......

My point exactly. There is nothing wrong with beliefs. Nothing wrong with the study of the paranormal...but to claim it's a science requires that it be studied in a very particular way without preconceived targets or beliefs influencing the results.

Now I notice that although the subject is 'parapsychology' all everyone is talking about is ghosts and spirits. Clearly that is not something you could do actual tests on. But what about psychics? Telekinetics? You could certainly study that. Personally, I'd like to see a study on Tarot card readings. You could take people into a lab and ask them to do whatever it is they do. You could observe it. Monitor their brain waves, video tape it, then repeat. I'm sure someone's tried it before, but I've never heard any concrete proof in favour of the paranormal explanation. If this is what parapsychologists are doing, (when they aren't out ghost hunting) then I think it could be a science. But real scientists are willing to admit to being wrong. I've never heard a parapsychologist do that.

That is what I was saying about if they use only the study of the human behind it seeing as how they can run tests on such.... which would cover telekenesis etc. In my opinion if they stick with just the study of the human parapsychology then yes consider it a science.... but if they want to go out on a limb with the things they cant test a theory on and get a sensible and factual answer on... then no it shouldnt be... like I said.. that is just me though.... to each their own. :)

My apologies...my original example was meant to highlight the lack of material for testing in parapsychology.

True there are tests that can be done in the area of psychic study that may look at the whole thing objectively but there are absolutely no conclusive results as of yet. My point was that anyone referring to the nature of psychic phenomenon as an established science is not really accurate.

Those using things like kirlian photography or brainwave patterns or worse...some outdated theory that we only use 10% of our brain, are promoting tests that don't prove anything in order to push a belief...aka pseudo-science.

Yeh, that is what I was trying to get at as well... lol. I think this flu is not doing me well, I apparently cant say things the way I want to. LOL! Eitherway that was the point I was trying to make in my (I think it was) second post. Eitherway I say if it cant be tested..... then it shouldnt be science, it should just be a study or something else if it must have a title. lol.

I think that parapsychology is a science. Back in the 1600's, people didn't have the right equipment to study the stars and the planets but it was still considered a science. I think that parapsychology is ahead of its time and that we will eventually have the equipment to measure it and record it. Parapsychology is a lot like Galileo in that it is being mocked today but in end, just like Galileo has his day, parapsychology will have its day.

Most certainly. Parapsychology covers a broad array of phenomena that are not studied anywhere else. This is something that should definitely be considered a science.

I agree with Billy. I feel that parapsychology is unfortunately a grey area of study which is not taken as seriously as other forms of experiemenntation. However, the results of such studies cannot, in relationship with this, be taken as seriously in many accounts... however, could this not be said for other forms of study that have a more wider following to protect itself?

Great question! I believe it should be a science and heres why.......Psychology is a science and para psychology is the study of things beyond our mental views. They should make it a science at this instant!

Some believe it to be a science. But alot of things happened to me that I witnessed that are unexplainable , to many times . So yes I'm a big believer.

I'm sure there is valid study going on somewhere without bias or preconceived results or an effort simply to show 'something weird'. Those places where the study is observation and testing, don't have very much success right now in proof (and the research is likely very boring at this stage), but they're still following scientific procedure to arrive at a truth, whatever that truth is. For them, parapsychology (if that is what they are calling it) would still be a scientific study.

However, equally at work and perhaps with more publicity, are those that attempt to promote a belief by showing a mountain of unrelated, and inconclusive results from various 'tests' wherein no real answer could be established (due to lack of control groups, and separation from outside influence). They use things like remote viewing 'tests' where answers are maybe coincidental and maybe real as a means of further muddying the water over real tests with real controls and real verifiable (and repeatable) results. These people are more about spotlight and promotion and less about discovery. Their tools are meant to confuse not clarify and they are definitely not scientists.

i thought science always had to be a proven fact for it to be real and true?

i think this one has been answered so i am going to close it *smile*