Poll: Poll: Investing (tax) money in researching paranormal science?

[Xanadu84]

"... Paranormal that might have a case, and paranormal that is obviously quackery."

That is an interesting distinction, as I'm sure there's not an easy way to make it?
For example, what one person would recognise as an obvious quack, others are devout defenders of said practise. For the sake of argument, I'd like to know where you draw the line between "plausible" (for lack of a better word) and "quack" paranormal research?

I have to admit, it's difficult. Basically, I can see some sort of case being made for ghosts, EVP or mind reading. However, there is not a good case for the idea that Dolphin spirits access your energy and heal you, or that newspaper astrology could be accurate. Basically, I could deal with research into phenomena that are falsifiable, and current theory in it requires some sort of phenomena we have no observed, and have just absence of evidence. But I wouldn't give credence to a phenomena that has already been disproved, and whose basic tenet requires ignoring contrary facts.

As it is, it's all pretty much dead last on my list of things to research, and even if there was research, an absolute minimum of 99% would be completely bogus.

 

[Worgen]

you might as well just throw all your money in a hole

 

[titanium turtle]

Until we start producing Space Marines it's all lesser science in the eyes of the God Emperor, his name be praised.

emperor is puny compared to da might Gork!
WAAAAGGGGHHHH!!!!

(also what is you're preferred type of cake)

XENOS SCUM! PURGE THE UNCLEAN!

stomp da puny umies flat!!

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Im guessing the OP primarily intended this question for Americans?

If that's the case then I must ask, does the american government pay out educational grants for schools that choose to teach "Intelligent Design" in science classes?

... Cause if that's the case, you already have tax money being spent on paranormal science.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

Im guessing the OP primarily intended this question for Americans?

If that's the case then I must ask, does the american government pay out educational grants for schools that choose to teach "Intelligent Design" in science classes?

... Cause if that's the case, you already have tax money being spent on paranormal science.

The American and Soviet governments are two that I know of, that have spent loads of money on this type of research. But in theory any government can spend it's money on this.
So the question is there for anyone; would you mind or applaud your own goverment investing in fringe science?

"Intelligent Design" <= I think they do, but can't be certain. Is there an American Escapee who can say for sure?

 

[Insanum]

There were videos showing mild telekinetic abilities, But they were done by Russia and probably faked.

I'm still intrigued by Tesla's "Death Ray" designs. I'm all for fringe science, Within Reason.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

So the question is there for anyone; would you mind or applaud your own goverment investing in fringe science?

Well, I'll put it like this. If my government decides that they would spend part of my salary in better ways than I can (and it is a BIG part since I live in a country with really high tax rates), I'd think that they should make sure that we have no homeless, starving and/or illiterate people in the country first and foremost before spending money on trivial matters such as fringe pseudo-science.

A country that has homeless, starving and illiterate people but the government still choose to spend tax money on would really have no excuse or justification for that descision.

 

[cobra_ky]

Im guessing the OP primarily intended this question for Americans?

If that's the case then I must ask, does the american government pay out educational grants for schools that choose to teach "Intelligent Design" in science classes?

... Cause if that's the case, you already have tax money being spent on paranormal science.

The American and Soviet governments are two that I know of, that have spent loads of money on this type of research. But in theory any government can spend it's money on this.
So the question is there for anyone; would you mind or applaud your own goverment investing in fringe science?

"Intelligent Design" <= I think they do, but can't be certain. Is there an American Escapee who can say for sure?

generally no. a 2005 court decision ruled that Intelligent Design was a form of Creationism and therefore teaching it in public schools is unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

though for all we know, there may be schools out there teaching it that no one's made a stink about it yet.

 

[fletch_talon]

For a place that seems to be hyped up as the last intelligent forum on the internet, there sure are a lot of ignorant closed-minded people here.

Outright blind denial of something without evidence against it is every bit as bad as blind faith. It applies to this situation as surely as it applies to the topic of religion.

No I don't think tax money should contribute to this, but am I going to rule out research into the paranormal completely? No. Because unlike some I'm not arrogant enough to claim to be omniscient.

These things aren't important enough to warrant public funding: education, healthcare, charity, roads, the environment these things are what the public needs and deserves. However, if someone with the money to do so, decides to fund research into the possibility that part of us stays behind when our body is deceased (ie. ghosts) then how is this a bad thing. At worst they find nothing, at best they find out what it is that causes ghost sightings.

 

[Antlers]

Keep this in mind tho; tell someone from the 1940's about a microwave oven and he'll think you a weirdo; instantly heating matter with invisible rays?!
Another example; Intel (from the CPU's) has demonstrated wireless electricity some months ago!

Your toughts, please!

Argumentation: FAIL

Both microwaves and wirless electricity are ideas based on centruries of studying theoretical physics while

Stuff that sounds like nonsence to the general public sane people: mind reading, telekinesis, mind control, eternal life, channeling, dowsing, Extra-sensory perception

is based on absolutely nothing and has been disproven multiple times. If my goverment started take the already horrifying money wasting to such extremes, I swear on my dirty ass I'd riot.

I was also going to declare the failure of the argument for the same reason. So now I'll just agree with Kukul instead.

I completely disagree with spending money on researching baseless paranormal claims. HOWEVER, I do think that, (this is the best example I can think of) say there's an alternative medicine (which I think very little of) but this alternative medicine is reporting loads and loads of success. And it gets to the point where the outstanding success stories just can't be ignored. In that case, it should be scientifically investigated to see if it isn't actually anything paranormal (I mean more along the lines of the willow plant that it turned out contained aspirin, not obviously crystal healing energy bollocks). In this case, converting the paranormal into the scientific is absolutely worthwhile.

I can't think of an example that would ever really apply to something like "seeing ghosts". Nor can I think of where the funding would actually go. So in usual cases, I think there's no point in spending money researching paranormal claims, unless there is the tiniest outside chance that they may not be paranormal at all. In this case (sort of as in the case of wireless communication) it's far more likely to be investigated from a physics point of view than a paranormal one anyway.

 

[Antlers]

Outright blind denial of something without evidence against it is every bit as bad as blind faith. It applies to this situation as surely as it applies to the topic of religion.

No. It isn't. It isn't up to someone to prove a negative. Betrand Russell made the best argument I've ever heard about this:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"

-Quoted from Wiki to save you the time of clicking on a link.

However, if someone with the money to do so, decides to fund research into the possibility that part of us stays behind when our body is deceased (ie. ghosts) then how is this a bad thing. At worst they find nothing, at best they find out what it is that causes ghost sightings.

Hey, if someone wants to privately fund it go right ahead. But this is about government funding.

 

[Pimppeter2]

No, thats a huge waste of cash. Immagine the amount of dough you need to research that. Let's fix the rest of the worlds problems first

 

[fletch_talon]

Outright blind denial of something without evidence against it is every bit as bad as blind faith. It applies to this situation as surely as it applies to the topic of religion.

No. It isn't. It isn't up to someone to prove a negative. Betrand Russell made the best argument I've ever heard about this:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time"

-Quoted from Wiki to save you the time of clicking on a link.

Hmmm, so by my logic there could be a miniscule teapot between us and Mars, whereas by your logic Australia didn't exist until it was discovered.
Not to mention the teapot or more common "flying spaghetti monster" is a huge load of crap. Why is Scientology not considered a valid belief by intelligent people? Because the person who created it quite clearly did so to make money. The FSM was created for the sole purpose of mocking religion and the teapot exists for the same reason.
Many religions on the other hand we don't know the exact origins of. Because of this we can only make assumptions as to who created them and why. Perhaps a higher power did talk to someone, perhaps someone with a mental disorder heard voices and attributed it to a God.

The point I'm trying to make is that the fact that certain beliefs exist and not knowing why is enough to raise questions. The arrogance of you, and people like you disgusts me. Nobody is asking you to worship God because he might exist, simply to stop claiming intellectual superiority over those not willing to rule anything out until its been sufficiently disproved.

However, if someone with the money to do so, decides to fund research into the possibility that part of us stays behind when our body is deceased (ie. ghosts) then how is this a bad thing. At worst they find nothing, at best they find out what it is that causes ghost sightings.

Hey, if someone wants to privately fund it go right ahead. But this is about government funding.

It was about government funding, but then people made it about the paranormal in general and how obviously everyone who so much as keeps an open mind about it is a fool.

 

[Antlers]

Hmmm, so by my logic there could be a miniscule teapot between us and Mars, whereas by your logic Australia didn't exist until it was discovered.
Not to mention the teapot or more common "flying spaghetti monster" is a huge load of crap. Why is Scientology not considered a valid belief by intelligent people? Because the person who created it quite clearly did so to make money. The FSM was created for the sole purpose of mocking religion and the teapot exists for the same reason.
Many religions on the other hand we don't know the exact origins of. Because of this we can only make assumptions as to who created them and why. Perhaps a higher power did talk to someone, perhaps someone with a mental disorder heard voices and attributed it to a God.

The point about Australia makes no sense. That's implying that someone claimed that this completely unprovable paranormal landmass existed somewhere, then someone went out to find out if they were right. Australia was found. That's why we know it exists. It wasn't baselessly proposed that it existed, and then investigated.

I don't understand your 'load of crap' argument about the FSM. You're essentially saying 'well, popular religion is more valid because we don't really know where it came from.' I agree that's a difference, but not one I think particularly works in the favour of popular religions. They all started somewhere anyway. What makes starting a few years ago any less valid than starting a few thousand years ago?

The point I'm trying to make is that the fact that certain beliefs exist and not knowing why is enough to raise questions. The arrogance of you, and people like you disgusts me. Nobody is asking you to worship God because he might exist, simply to stop claiming intellectual superiority over those not willing to rule anything out until its been sufficiently disproved.

I'll ignore the needlessly insulting 'you disgust me' comment. As for the rest, I'm not a fundamentalist skeptic. I wouldn't never assume to KNOW 100% for certain that there's nothing beyond science (no one really does, unless they're a lunatic). However, I see nothing wrong with dismissing an idea that presents me with absolutely no reasoning to believe in it. I don't try to convince other people that a god (or paranormal activity in general) doesn't exist (unless they try to convince me that it does, in which case that is completely fair game). I simply have no respect for their belief that he does. That's not to say I won't find them a perfectly amiable person with other idealogies that I find respectable. It should only bother that you that i'm claiming intellectual superiority if you actually think I'm intellectually superior. Otherwise it's irrelevant. It's like I could say you're claiming intellectual superiority (I don't actually think either of us are, though you disagree I guess) on the subject, but since I think you're wrong it doesn't really matter to me.

 

[fletch_talon]

The point about Australia makes no sense. That's implying that someone claimed that this completely unprovable paranormal landmass existed somewhere, then someone went out to find out if they were right. Australia was found. That's why we know it exists. It wasn't baselessly proposed that it existed, and then investigated.

Something that nobody knew existed, and which a number of people at some point in time believed could not exist, did exist. It exists regardless of whether the people who believed it existed could prove it or not.

I know that's not as clear as it could be, but hopefully you get the basic idea of what I'm saying. Simply put, you can't deny the existence of something 100% simply due to the current inability of people to prove otherwise.

I don't understand your 'load of crap' argument about the FSM. You're essentially saying 'well, popular religion is more valid because we don't really know where it came from.' I agree that's a difference, but not one I think particularly works in the favour of popular religions.

Actually I was trying to point out that there is evidence for why the FSM doesn't exist, namely the fact that it is the product of a mind whose intent was to manufacture the most ridiculous fictional entity in order to mock the beliefs of others.

I'll ignore the needlessly insulting 'you disgust me' comment. As for the rest, I'm not a fundamentalist atheist. I wouldn't never assume to KNOW 100% for certain that there's nothing beyond science (no one really does, unless they're a lunatic). However, I see nothing wrong with dismissing an idea that presents me with absolutely no reasoning to believe in it. I don't try to convince other people that a god doesn't exist. I simply have no respect for their belief that he does. That's not to say I won't find them a perfectly amiable person with other idealogies that I find respectable. It should only bother that you that i'm claiming intellectual superiority if you actually think I'm intellectually superior. Otherwise it's irrelevant. It's like I could say you're claiming intellectual superiority (I don't actually think either of us are, though you disagree I guess) on the subject, but since I think you're wrong it doesn't really matter to me.

My original post was clearly not directed at you then. You've shown that by admitting that you can't know 100%. My issue is with those people who do. There is a difference between dismissal and outright denial. That's where my remarks about intellectual superiority came from, because there are people out there who state their POV as fact, whilst you merely remain heavily skeptical (and rightly so) about things that have no evidence or proof. I wholeheartedly agree with your stance regarding a lack of respect for blind faith, I think if you wish to lean towards spirituality because of your feelings upon the matter then great, but that's different to believing something cuz you've been told to.

TL;DR - My posts have all been referring to people with truly closed minds, I'm talking plasticine stuck in the keyhole and draught stoppers in every crevice closed. If you have even the slightest acceptance of the possibility of things beyond your current knowledge then disregard the comments.

For the record whilst irrelevant I wanted it to be clear that I disagree with this quote:

It should only bother that you that i'm claiming intellectual superiority if you actually think I'm intellectually superior. Otherwise it's irrelevant.

If someone who is intellectually superior to me wants to claim as such, so be it. I however find it offensive when any kind of superiority is claimed with reason or truth to back it up.

 

[Dys]

It sounds like a good investment, but first maybe we should consentrate on funding;
-Schools so run at a better standard than they did 45 years ago,
-Hospitals so they have enough beds and staff to function competantly,
-Students so they can afford to live independant of their parents without having to work hours that would leave a normal person whimpering,
-Senior citizens, might be nice if they can live without resorting to the bargain bin,
-The public transport, I'm sure if we try we could make it at least competitive with other developed nations,
-Our have an internet/telephone service, at the moment it's left red face when compared to those of third world countries.

I'm not opposed to funding research that may not yeild productive results, but lets at least get our shit together first. This means you Australian politicians, no more studies showing that fat kids may get bullied at school...

 

[Antlers]

Something that nobody knew existed, and which a number of people at some point in time believed could not exist, did exist. It exists regardless of whether the people who believed it existed could prove it or not.

I know that's not as clear as it could be, but hopefully you get the basic idea of what I'm saying. Simply put, you can't deny the existence of something 100% simply due to the current inability of people to prove otherwise.

I get what you're saying I think. But lots of things that we don't know exist, do exist. But as in most cases (such as Australia) no one is claiming they do with absolutely no base. It would be like me saying 'There are 5 yellow and black stripey moons.' Well, maybe there are. But there's no point in me saying that. If someone discovers 5 yellow and black stripey moons, then obviously they were there all along. If someone claims it and wants to be taken seriously, surely they should provide some sort of evidence to back it up?

Actually I was trying to point out that there is evidence for why the FSM doesn't exist, namely the fact that it is the product of a mind whose intent was to manufacture the most ridiculous fictional entity in order to mock the beliefs of others.

I could argue that the people who started the FSM truly believed it. There's nothing to say they don't. It's quite obviously a satire, but they never said that themselves.

For the record whilst irrelevant I wanted it to be clear that I disagree with this quote:

It should only bother that you that i'm claiming intellectual superiority if you actually think I'm intellectually superior. Otherwise it's irrelevant.

If someone who is intellectually superior to me wants to claim as such, so be it. I however find it offensive when any kind of superiority is claimed with reason or truth to back it up.

In the case of no backup or proof, I usually just see it as a victory.