ARE DIFFERENT STANDARDS WARRANTED TO EVALUATE PSI?
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 mee...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Parapsychology Vol. 79; no. 2; pp. 186 - 203 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Rhine Research Center
Fall2015
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=113873959&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 113873959 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00223387 PAY jtl: Journal of Parapsychology issn: 00223387 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Fall2015 vid: 79 iid: 2 pid: 533 pub: Rhine Research Center artinfo: ui: 113873959 ppf: 186 ppct: 17 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 2.5MB tig: atl: ARE DIFFERENT STANDARDS WARRANTED TO EVALUATE PSI? aug: au: Williams, George affil: 8004 Maple Ave. Takoma Park, MD 20912, USA su: Standards Best practices Teaching models Standard-setting organizations Bayesian analysis sug: subj: Standards Best practices Teaching models Standard-setting organizations Bayesian analysis keyword: Bayesian Kuhn paradigm psi debate testing standards Bayesian Kuhn paradigm psi debate testing standards ab: 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 boundaries 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. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|