Science, pseudoscience, make the difference!

[thibr]

Can one scientifically study the paranormal?

[sen-no-sen]

Now explain me where is the incompatibility between meditators and scientists?
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0058244

They are able to act on their body temperature as others know how to move their ears, training question.

Yet it was considered impossible by official medicine ... until it was demonstrated.
Some masters are able to reduce the time of healing or even reduction of a fracture, to slow the heartbeat below a threshold considered deadly there is not so little, to maintain their attention several tens of minutes (against some seconds for a lambda individual), etc ...
From then on we can see that science still has a lot to learn from this side ...

[izentrop]

science still has a lot to learn from this side ...

No problem, it is in the principles, a scientific theory is not fixed and evolve little if new facts are established.

the physicist David Bohm was considered part of the idealist movement, which did not prevent him from being considered as a very great scientists *.

The problem is that he was openly communist at a time when the Americans were hunting for it. Science and politics should not be mixed http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article2747just like science and religion.

[Janic]

Thibr hello
Can one scientifically study the paranormal?

Before using the word scientifically, we must already define the origin of the word science and its various meanings (and even paranormal ie outside the norm, but what norm?)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science responds well enough
A generic term of knowledge
Main article: Knowledge.
Broad definition [edit | change the code]

The word science is a polysemy, covering mainly three 9 acceptions:
1. To know, to know certain things that serve the conduct of life or that of business.
2. All knowledge acquired through study or practice.
3. Prioritization, organization and synthesis of knowledge through general principles (theories, laws, etc.)
Strict definition [edit | change the code]
According to Michel Blay10, science is "the clear and certain knowledge of something, based either on obvious principles and demonstrations, or on experimental reasoning, or on the analysis of societies and human facts".
This definition distinguishes the three types of science:
1. the exact sciences, including mathematics and "mathematized sciences" such as theoretical physics;
2. physico-chemical and experimental sciences (natural and material sciences, biology, medicine);
3. the human sciences, which concern man, his history, his behavior, the language, the social, the psychological, the political.
However, their limits are fuzzy ; in other words, there is no systematic categorization of the types of science, which is also one of the questions of epistemology. Dominique Pestre explains that " what we put under the term "science" is in no way a circumscribed and stable object in the time that it would be a matter of simply describing »

So before expressing oneself it is necessary to define in relation to which type of science one appeals knowing knowing that the human sciences can not be compared to mathematics for example.
The paranormal does not fall into the category of exact sciences and can not be evaluated according to this type of criteria and yet, according to the very definition of science, it will be within it. For example the stamp or butterfly collection: is it a science? According to the first definition above: no! according to the second: yes! So "scientifically", But expertise in painting, sculpture, film, astrology? According to the last criterion: yes! From where the blur invoked above, the uncertain limits but that some would like to see erected as impassable barriers.

what gives this:

Science and politics Do not have to to be mixed, just like science and religion.

characteristic of intolerance and ignorance as if it could be established, intellectually and practically, impassable barriers.

[sen-no-sen]

science still has a lot to learn from this side ...

No problem, it is in the principles, a scientific theory is not fixed and evolve little if new facts are established.

the physicist David Bohm was considered part of the idealist movement, which did not prevent him from being considered as a very great scientists *.

The problem is that he was openly communist at a time when the Americans were hunting for it. Science and politics should not be mixed http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article2747just like science and religion.

There are scientists who are openly leftists, others openly on the right, others are atheists, Christians, Buddhists etc. can be quite scientific and believing, communist (1) or fascist (2) , preferred brunettes or blondes from the moment when his preferences do not come short circuit searches.
In the case of David Bohm it is clear that his philosophical preferences were turned to Hinduism, rather than materialism so dear to the Communists.
You have a very idealistic vision of science!

(1)Aurelien Barrau(cosmologist) is never hidden from that.
(2) Case of Vladimir Vernadsky to whom we owe the concepts of biosphere and technosphere.
(3) Case of Etorre Majorana, "the absolute physicist" ....

[Janic]

(1) Aurélien Barrau (cosmologist) is never hidden from that.
(2) Case of Vladimir Vernadsky to whom we owe the concepts of biosphere and technosphere.
(3) Case of Etorre Majorana, "the absolute physicist" ....

or even JP Petit on ufology and his critical view of the 11 seven. or Nidhal Guessum Muslim astrophysicist or Abd-al-Haqq Guiderdoni, Muslim astrophysicist director of the Astrophysical Research Center, etc.

[izentrop]

There are scientists who are openly leftists, others openly on the right, others are atheists, Christians, Buddhists etc. can be quite scientific and believing, communist (1) or fascist (2) , preferred brunettes or blondes from the moment when his preferences do not come short circuit searches.

Indeed, the essential thing is that their beliefs or political tendencies do not show through in their works which must be able to be replicated by anyone, another principle of a scientific theory.

they are impersonal, and therefore verifiable by anyone, regardless of religion or metaphysical beliefs; https://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/dictionnaire/pseudosc.html

You have a very idealistic vision of science!

Rigor is also a fundamental principle.

[Grelinette]

I'm going to pick up the subject a bit ... but for his good!

In many ways this debate is similar to another debate I read recently on a site ... Justice ! (within the meaning of the rules of law which frame the actions of citizens). It is also a recurring subject for certain exams: "Is the law always right?"

On the one hand there are those who oppose the side "Just"of the Law which excludes, a priori, anything that opposes the written rules of Law, for example"Common sense",
and those who admit that the rules are what they are and that they must be accepted despite their imperfections.

Dura lex sed lex: The law is hard, but it's the law. In other words, certain rules are painful, sometimes incomplete or incomprehensible, but one is forced to submit to them at a given moment.
For example, if an attacker attacks me with a knife and I defend myself with a pistol, I do not respect the law!

For Science, it is, in my opinion, the same reasoning: there are rules that define it and everything that does not comply at a given moment is not a priori scientific.

I have read 2 comments which seem to me to sum up all the ambiguity of the situation, of Law as of Science:
"Justice is an absolute concept. Law is only a human and partial application".
"Justice is only the justice of men and like them it is fallible"

... and we could write:

"Science is an absolute concept. Its human application is only partial".
"Science is only the science of men and like them it is fallible"

... and from there to say that it would be necessary for the Science equivalent of the lawyer in Justice!

[Janic]

I have read 2 comments which seem to me to sum up all the ambiguity of the situation, of Law as of Science:
"Justice is an absolute concept. Law is only a human and partial application".
"Justice is only the justice of men and like them it is fallible"

you are absolutely right. For example, the death penalty: Is it fair or not? Is abortion right or not? Tomorrow euthanasia. The laws are declared sometimes for one at a time for the other at the will of the lobbies and therefore of the opinion (as if it existed !?)

... and we could write:
"Science is an absolute concept. Its human application is only partial ".
"Science is only the science of men and like them it is fallible"

Difficult because a concept is not defensible by fallible individuals and any lawyer would only defend one or more points of view and therefore the science of men is a vain attempt to get closer to this absolute. But we do with and yet our role is to defend what WE think is right.

You have a very idealistic vision of science!

Rigor is also a fundamental principle

except that the rigor of some is not the rigor of others and even more when it comes to big money.

[izentrop]

"Justice is only the justice of men and like them it is fallible"
... and we could write:
"Science is only the science of men and like them it is fallible"

No parallel is not possible.
For justice, ok the rules are defined by laws that are different from one country to another or from one judge to another and actually fallible.
but for science, the rules are established by facts and are invariable.
For example the calculation of the potential energy of a hydraulic dam, the formula is invariable. If you have fun changing it, the result is wrong.