Skepticism -- SkiP, Soc
*
In one of my first articles here I shared a technique for sensing and effecting bio-energy fields over a distance of just a few inches. It's a pretty pitiful version of telekinesis -- defined as the ability to affect objects at a distance without using any apparent physical force to do so. But when I read about an award offered by a "professional debunker" like the Amazing Randi for any proof of "psychic ability," I find myself flabbergasted. Especially when people claim that since no one has claimed said prize, we have absolute and inconvertible proof of the non-existence of all non-physical influences, entitites, etc. Such an attitude seems astonishing.
Why? See this article. "The Power" is already there.
Am I claiming the phenomena explained here is classic floating object telekinesis, like you see in movies? That you'll be able to study this method for a minute or two and then be able to coam your hair, tie your shoes or literally balance your checkbook... with no hands? No.
My point is that even such a relatively small ability to affect and alter an object over a very short distance raises questions about supposedly "iron clad proof" that all telekinesis is fake. Given that most of the people tested by sceptics like Randi seem to be of the "levitate/move paper giblets at incredibly short ranges" variety, I have real doubts as to whether he's disproven anything. As it would seem such minute forces can indeed be exerted -- at least in one form -- over such pitifully small distances.
You can affect at least some objects at a very short distance without touching them, breathing on them or otherwise affecting them with any obvious physical force. That's the basic definition of telekinesis.
Can you levitate a chair with this technique? I don't know that you can... but that brings me back to what I was saying in my original post. Virtually anyone can learn this technique in just a minute or two. Hence, virtually anyone can demonstrate to themselves the reality of this form of "telekinesis". Personally, it doesn't matter to me if someone proves this effect is all the result of bio-electricity, bio-magnetic fields, etc.
Do you want to debunk this phenomena as a "spiritual" or "psi" power? Go ahead. Because if you're experimenting on these questions in a scientifically rigorous manner, then at least you'll be looking at the actual data, rather than refusing to see it out of blind devotion to a philosophy or paradigm of what constitutes acceptible results and what uncomfortable facts are simply unmentionable.
What's surprising to me is that so many people who want to talk about reason, logic and the Scientific Method look at the evidence -- and all but declare it to be a Heresy against the Teachings of the Great Book. If they deal with it at all. Personally, I'm sorry if the thought of anything spiritual, non-physical and/or ephemeral is antithetical to anyone's religious or philosophical beliefs, but if the notion offends people so much, why don't they go out and prove this is entirely a physical phenomenon? (It may not be, and the existance of associated real-but-incredibly-faint electromagnetic fields may end up damning that theory with faint proof -- but that is the Scientific Method, so why not use it? Are we all so afraid of the Truth after all?) This is telekinesis over a range of no more than three inches. Why is it so darned intimidating?
In the end, this is a relatively minor talent, so why can't members of the scientific community and its supposed friends handle it a bit more logically and reasonably? That is what science is supposed to be about. And with a technique that only takes a minute or two to learn, the evidence isn't going away. So why not test it? And disprove it -- or reclassify it -- using facts, not baseless suppositions?
Future Imperative
In one of my first articles here I shared a technique for sensing and effecting bio-energy fields over a distance of just a few inches. It's a pretty pitiful version of telekinesis -- defined as the ability to affect objects at a distance without using any apparent physical force to do so. But when I read about an award offered by a "professional debunker" like the Amazing Randi for any proof of "psychic ability," I find myself flabbergasted. Especially when people claim that since no one has claimed said prize, we have absolute and inconvertible proof of the non-existence of all non-physical influences, entitites, etc. Such an attitude seems astonishing.
Why? See this article. "The Power" is already there.
Am I claiming the phenomena explained here is classic floating object telekinesis, like you see in movies? That you'll be able to study this method for a minute or two and then be able to coam your hair, tie your shoes or literally balance your checkbook... with no hands? No.
My point is that even such a relatively small ability to affect and alter an object over a very short distance raises questions about supposedly "iron clad proof" that all telekinesis is fake. Given that most of the people tested by sceptics like Randi seem to be of the "levitate/move paper giblets at incredibly short ranges" variety, I have real doubts as to whether he's disproven anything. As it would seem such minute forces can indeed be exerted -- at least in one form -- over such pitifully small distances.
You can affect at least some objects at a very short distance without touching them, breathing on them or otherwise affecting them with any obvious physical force. That's the basic definition of telekinesis.
Can you levitate a chair with this technique? I don't know that you can... but that brings me back to what I was saying in my original post. Virtually anyone can learn this technique in just a minute or two. Hence, virtually anyone can demonstrate to themselves the reality of this form of "telekinesis". Personally, it doesn't matter to me if someone proves this effect is all the result of bio-electricity, bio-magnetic fields, etc.
Do you want to debunk this phenomena as a "spiritual" or "psi" power? Go ahead. Because if you're experimenting on these questions in a scientifically rigorous manner, then at least you'll be looking at the actual data, rather than refusing to see it out of blind devotion to a philosophy or paradigm of what constitutes acceptible results and what uncomfortable facts are simply unmentionable.
What's surprising to me is that so many people who want to talk about reason, logic and the Scientific Method look at the evidence -- and all but declare it to be a Heresy against the Teachings of the Great Book. If they deal with it at all. Personally, I'm sorry if the thought of anything spiritual, non-physical and/or ephemeral is antithetical to anyone's religious or philosophical beliefs, but if the notion offends people so much, why don't they go out and prove this is entirely a physical phenomenon? (It may not be, and the existance of associated real-but-incredibly-faint electromagnetic fields may end up damning that theory with faint proof -- but that is the Scientific Method, so why not use it? Are we all so afraid of the Truth after all?) This is telekinesis over a range of no more than three inches. Why is it so darned intimidating?
In the end, this is a relatively minor talent, so why can't members of the scientific community and its supposed friends handle it a bit more logically and reasonably? That is what science is supposed to be about. And with a technique that only takes a minute or two to learn, the evidence isn't going away. So why not test it? And disprove it -- or reclassify it -- using facts, not baseless suppositions?
Future Imperative
posted by Ralph Cerchione | Sunday, August 28, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home