As a psychology student in the 1970s I took part in some parapsychology experiments at Cambridge University, where there was a research post in the department. My main comment is on how undefined Psi is theoretically. Usually experimental results are used to postulate an underlying theory with predictive powers, on the basis of which other experiments are performed. But with Psi it seems sufficient to say ‘something odd is going on’ and not attempt to provide a coherent theory that could encompass phenomena as diverse as the ganzfeld telepathy effect and Bem’s precognition(?) effect. As there is no theory that links them, it’s both wrong to claim evidence for one increases the probability that the other is real. On the other hand debunking Bem does not debunk Ganzfeld. Saying “this proves Psi exists” is too woolly a statement to be classed as scientific.
A very good point I think. I guess it's possible that all these things run on entirely different mechanisms (e.g. the death-related stuff like ghosts and poltergeists would have to be different from the psychic powers used by conscious living humans). In some sense it's just an accident of history that they're all classified under the same title... or maybe it's because a better way to classify all of them is "they go completely against known physics and probably don't exist".
Was a bit unsure about the physics bit here. If telepathy was real wouldn't we by default expect it to just be going via electromagnetic waves rather than some sort of unknown physical effect?
Will Tom's new book be in audiobook format eventually? I can see how the subject might not lend itself to audio format, but I'm far more likely to listen to a book than read it these days.
Great stuff as always! Disappointed about the conclusion, I perked up at the statement that there's decent evidence out there for psi. The main take home (that we tend to believe findings that are not up to rigorous standards and what an ideal study looks like) totally makes up for the disappointment though, very well done! Really enjoy the show though sometimes I feel you both linger on a point a bit too long and could speed things up a bit. Love the banter, my premonition is that your aspiration of becoming the rest is history for science will come true...
As a psychology student in the 1970s I took part in some parapsychology experiments at Cambridge University, where there was a research post in the department. My main comment is on how undefined Psi is theoretically. Usually experimental results are used to postulate an underlying theory with predictive powers, on the basis of which other experiments are performed. But with Psi it seems sufficient to say ‘something odd is going on’ and not attempt to provide a coherent theory that could encompass phenomena as diverse as the ganzfeld telepathy effect and Bem’s precognition(?) effect. As there is no theory that links them, it’s both wrong to claim evidence for one increases the probability that the other is real. On the other hand debunking Bem does not debunk Ganzfeld. Saying “this proves Psi exists” is too woolly a statement to be classed as scientific.
A very good point I think. I guess it's possible that all these things run on entirely different mechanisms (e.g. the death-related stuff like ghosts and poltergeists would have to be different from the psychic powers used by conscious living humans). In some sense it's just an accident of history that they're all classified under the same title... or maybe it's because a better way to classify all of them is "they go completely against known physics and probably don't exist".
Was a bit unsure about the physics bit here. If telepathy was real wouldn't we by default expect it to just be going via electromagnetic waves rather than some sort of unknown physical effect?
Certainly papers exist on this possibility - I can't speak to the quality, though... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7937662/
Will Tom's new book be in audiobook format eventually? I can see how the subject might not lend itself to audio format, but I'm far more likely to listen to a book than read it these days.
Yes! Looks like you can pre-order it here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Everything-Predictable-Remarkable-Theorem-Explains/dp/B0CHSB97VG/
I'm recording the audiobook in January! People will just have to imagine the graphs.
Great stuff as always! Disappointed about the conclusion, I perked up at the statement that there's decent evidence out there for psi. The main take home (that we tend to believe findings that are not up to rigorous standards and what an ideal study looks like) totally makes up for the disappointment though, very well done! Really enjoy the show though sometimes I feel you both linger on a point a bit too long and could speed things up a bit. Love the banter, my premonition is that your aspiration of becoming the rest is history for science will come true...
fingers crossed you're right, those Rest is History guys are raking it in apparently
(more importantly, thank you! You're probably right that we waffle sometimes even though we do try to keep it tight)