The True Nature of Psi

[Epsilon Rose]

This is a good article, but I like several others take issue with the name. It does a good job of showing that psi is not em radiation, however it does not do a good enough job of ruling out other possibilities to say what it is; both the extra dimensions posited in string theory and quantum entanglement seem like reasonable alternative explanations (as for quantum entanglement not being fast enough or working over long enough distances seems to be addressed by this experiment [the set up can be found by clicking the supplementary information link and downloading the pdf]).

[Mindlessinvalid]

Science isn't about proving what is, It's about providing evidence of what isn't.

[darthlobo]

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."

-sh*tmydadsays

[Steve]

Science isn't about proving what is, It's about providing evidence of what isn't.

Science is the study of nature/reality.

~Steve

[Mindlessinvalid]

I wasn't pointing at the reason for science so much as how it works.

The Scientific Method in the positive is a logical fallacy (of a basic syllogism) when you extrapolate your data.

The Scientific Method in the negative is a logical proof (basic syllogism again) in the same scenario.

x before y,
x,
 therefore y

x can exist independently of y, but we assume y is there because of x is the positive of the scientific method, which is why we always call scientific ideas of a positive to be postulates, natural laws, and theories (though theory is the most complete of the three). Anything stated by science in the positive is subject to change without exception.



x denies y.
x,
therefore not y.

this is an example of science in the negative. We have a fact that says in these circumstances, x does not allow for the existence of y. We can extrapolate that fact into a more solid idea by finding out more situations where x bars the existence of y.

Science tells us not what is, but what isn't. From that we can safely make assumptions in place of actual knowledge of what is.

To reference the daodeching and some hermetic science (hope no-one hits me for the two being mixed)

Never underestimate the value of what doesn't exist. The spokes on a wheel give it form, but the shaft in the hub makes way for the axel. Without windows and a door, a room is but a tomb.

and in hermetics,

what is is not knowable until you can perceive what isn't.

hence my argument.
 (I've got Taoism, hermetics, and syllogisms on my side, what could possibly go wrong?) <- failed attempt at humor.

[Steve]

Then I have to disagree with you again. Science can only show what is, and can never show what isn't; the closest that science can come to showing what isn't is by exhaustive testing in order to determine as many things that are in order to say "we've done all that we can in trying to figure out whether this Thing A exists or not, but are unable to find it. We must therefore conclude that we cannot as of yet find it using our current levels of understanding, testing, and technology. As such, any person who says that Thing A does exist must provide some pretty good evidence that we ourselves have not been able to find."

Many bad scientists shorten the foregoing into just saying "If we can't find it with science, then it doesn't exist" but that is not truly the case with science (it is just the case with those who call themselves scientists).

In fact, we even have a logical fallacy named for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

~Steve

[Mindlessinvalid]

Were talking on two different scales here.

On the large scale, we use what doesn't work to show what does.

On the small scale, we find out what doesn't work and what does under what circumstances.

You compile successes and failures to form the large scale ideas. It's all based on narrowing down possibilities.

A a paraphrased from death world is a very good example.

"what If I told you a stingbat was hanging in the doorway?
*everyone aims theirguns at the door*
 "well what if I told you that there is something that resembles a sting bat, but is in fact a large insect with a talent for mimicry?"
*hesitatation, then they all aim their guns at the door*
 "it was a spinner fly, and it mimics the most dangerous life form on the planet as a defensive mechanism. In a survival situation, you would not have time to make that judgement, but there are other possibilities other than what is at face value."
*someone raises their hand*
"but there are no spinner flies here."
"for the purpose of my argument, pretend they were left inside one of our incoming food crates. If we had time to rule out the creature being an aggressive predator,then we could stand to profit and bring more wealth into the planet and use that for survival."

[darthlobo]

Why wouldn't you just shoot the damn thing anyways just to be safe?

[Mindlessinvalid]

That's my point.

For the common man, science is a luxury.

For a scientist, it's a vocation.

Scientists have to rule out many possibilities before making a claim.

The common man is allowed to take what he sees at face value.

[darthlobo]

So...a scientist wouldn't shoot it?  Is that why they always die first in sci fi films?

[Mindlessinvalid]

I think you're either trolling or taking this too literally.

If they had time (to not die) to figure out that it wasn't a sting bat and that it wasn't dangerous, it opens up new possibilites that can lead to better lives.

They need to shoot the creature (hypothetical creature) to survive, but if it wasn't what they thought it was then what is it?

Scientific Method in Death world.
Hypothesis: There is a sting bat in the doorway.

It doesn't seem aggressive.

It's not a sting bat. Hypothesis invalidated.

What is it then?

It's making silk.

The silk seems to have high monetary value on interplanetary markets.

Hypothesis: If we cultivate these creatures, then we can make money to buy weapons to fight off the real stingbats.

The silk does not seem to be in great supply.

Buyers who are inclined to buy the silks are not worried about price or origin.

We now have enough money to buy weapons. Hypothesis Verified.