Are Different Standards Warranted to Evaluate Psi?

Journal of Parapsychology 79 (2):186-202 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Throughout the debate on psi, skeptics have almost universally insisted on different standards for evaluating the evidence, claiming that psi represents a radical departure from our current scientific understanding. Thus, there is considerable ambiguity about what standard of evaluation psi must meet. Little attention has been paid to the possible harm to the integrity of scientific investigation from this resulting inconsistency in testing standards. Some have proposed using a Bayesian framework as an improvement on this dilemma in order to more explicitly model beliefs, assumptions, and background scientific knowledge, especially when evaluating a controversial hypothesis. Recently, Kuhn’s notion of paradigms, which constrains scientific research within bound- aries believed to be most productive, has been incorporated into a Bayesian framework. Within this framework, I explore a likely paradigm or meta-theory used by skeptics that typically constrains research and makes it difficult for psi evidence to be accepted. It appears that such a paradigm would in many respects have difficulty accounting for consciousness, which is fundamental to an understanding of psi. I discuss why psi data are likely to play a key role in making progress in solving the problem of consciousness. Thus, applying different standards of evaluation to psi data is likely counterproductive.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ii. a reply to Siegel on Kuhnian relativism.Gerald Doppelt - 1980 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 23 (1):117 – 123.
Bayesian Test and Kuhn’s Paradigm.Xiaoping Chen - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 43:23-31.
Standards, Double Standards and No Standards.Beuy Joob & Viroj Wiwanitkit - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (1):265-265.
Lines of Descent: Kuhn and Beyond.Friedel Weinert - 2014 - Foundations of Science 19 (4):331-352.
Kuhn’s Epistemological Relativism: An Interpretation and Defense.Gerald Doppelt - 1978 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 21 (1-4):33 – 86.
The Kuhnian Paradigm.Rogier De Langhe - 2013 - Topoi 32 (1):65-73.
Grading Religions.Noriaki Iwasa - 2011 - Sophia 50 (1):189-209.
Incommensurability and Scientific Progress.Mark Alan Stone - 1987 - Dissertation, The University of Rochester

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-04-02

Downloads
715 (#23,119)

6 months
142 (#25,491)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Edited by Ian Hacking.
Facing up to the problem of consciousness.David Chalmers - 1995 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 2 (3):200-19.
What is it like to be a bat?Thomas Nagel - 1974 - Philosophical Review 83 (October):435-50.
Every thing must go: metaphysics naturalized.James Ladyman & Don Ross - 2007 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by Don Ross, David Spurrett & John G. Collier.

View all 26 references / Add more references