Scientific testing is valuable, but is it the whole picture?

[Pam]

We debate and discuss back and forth in this forum about scientific testing, but is it really the whole picture? Isn't it possible that there are some realities that cannot yet be measured by science?

Carl Jung, the father of modern psychology, said that there are different ways in which the conscious mind can apprehend reality. According to Jung, these are (a) Sensation, (b) Intuition, (c) Thinking and (d) Feeling. Shouldn't the phenomenalogical (personal experience) evidence of A, B and D place strongly in the valuation of psi as well?

I think I've said elsewhere on this forum, "no one ever wrote on their tombstone, 'I wish that I had read more scientific studies in my lifetime...' If the human experience is not valued as acceptable in the equation equal to, or more than science, then I would be very concerned about just what we're trying to prove with scientific testing.

To me, the only thing that a scientific tests "prooves" when it concludes that psi does not exist, is a lacking in the scientist's ability to measure and describe a very real phenomina.

[RC]

Pam, I pretty much agree with you. I tend to think some things like mediumship aren't meant to be proved scientifically. Otherwise, we'd all know the real story, would take the mystery out of life, and could keep us from doing what we need to focus on in the real world. I think it's important that faith be a strong component of our belief. I don't really mean religious faith, just faith..trusting and believing that something is true even if not proven.

[VTFlowerGirl]

You know Pam, I had half a reply written to a post this morning regarding this same issue. With that side project I've been doing lately on dowsing I find much is written on why testing dowsers usually fails. But the problem I had was I can't find the exact phrasing I read in the pile of books I have here.

The theory lies behind the purpose of the testing. You see, there is no need to prove to those who already believe. The purpose of dowsing, for example, is to find and locate something, NEVER to prove it exists. Therefore, when a dowser is being put through experiments for some other purpose than to locate something, the NEED for the true purpose of dowsing is skewed.

Between a truckload of cold medicine, and a head swirling full of so much good information I've read lately, I'm sorry I can't express this more clearly. But that's the basic gist of it.

Some things you have to believe to see too.

An analogy was drawn between dowsers and greyhounds racing after a mechanical rabbit. The fact that the rabbit is not real makes no difference to the dogs. As long as they believe the object speeding in front of them is a rabbit they run.

"Faith," wrote Paul to the Hebrews, "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If so, then faith may be the true substance of dowsing, etc.......

(excerpted from "The Divining Hand" by Christopher Bird.)

No offense to anyone, but all this psychobabble about proving this and testing that - to me it's just a balloon full of hot air headed up to the clouds. Seems like the scientists spend too much time on proving the existence of something already known to exists to many, and instead should be working on the development of such phenomenon.

Hope this makes sense.

[sgrenard]

VT This is precisely what Professor Jessica Utts said after reviewing the CIA's remote viewing experiments. It is clear
that something is going on, that the phenomena exists and
we should stop wasting time and effort responding to more calls for evidence of its existence and instead find out how and why it occurs. In the course of so doing, development can obviously be fostered.

An excellent example is EVP. [ebm EVP= Electronic Voice Phenonima) We know it exists, hundreds of researchers have made thousands of tapes going back more than half a century. We need to refine the technique, develop it for the common man and make an EVP receiver as common as a television set or a telephone. Sony, Panasonic and probably others are doing that. For teleportation, IBM is continuing to sponsor research which is advancing to a point where in 10 years or so they confidently predict it will be possible to teleport just about anything. They have done it with subatomic particles and more recently have developed a model enabling the teleportation of trillions of atoms.

[PsyQuestor]

IMHO It's all about justification.

I believe because ~ I believe; I didn't need anyone to justify it for me ( via data ). I do think that others use data to rationalize what they believe, but I do not believe that people use it as a basis for their belief. Perhaps they would use the data to show someone else that there is a scientific backbone to all of this; but in the end it's a matter of belief.

Hope that makes sense, and yes it's just my opinion.

For example, there are signs all around us that say that ( example ) Saint Bernadette has had mystical experiences. You could view her right now, and she looks just as she did the day she passed. ( incorrupt ) She has not decayed nor lost her earthly beauty since passing. Some people would never believe this, even upon seeing it. They would be convinced that there is a "rational" explaination for this aside from anything mystical. But others who see it will see it for the mystery it is. As a sign from above that Saint Bernadette was telling the truth and visited with the Virgin Mary at Lourdes.



Tammy