Question about parapsychology

[ghost kid]

What do you think is proof beyond any doubt.Of parapsychology being real?

[Sinera]

define 'parapsychology', you question is too broad

[ghost kid]

define 'parapsychology', you question is too broad

Parapsychology is the study of the paranormal with science backing it up.So my question is.What do you think is proof beyond any doubt.Of parapsychology being real?

[Sinera]

Yes. Read e.g. Dean Radin's work and the IONS institute. There are lots of more parapsychologists who do and did successful work. The Pear labs at Virginia university would be another example.

Of course they are bashed by close-minded scientists of the mainstream and 'skeptics'. But this will change in the future after we are through the paradigm change, they are losing. It might still take a few years though. People are not yet open for the change.

[olyris]

What did one self say to the other self? Hi me!

[CFTraveler]

Parapsychology is a branch of science. Like psychology, it's considered a 'soft' science. A science isn't 'real' or 'not real', it's either credible or not, or somewhere in between.
Parapsychologists study phenomena, and come to conclusions based on the evidence discovered. If the scientists follow a rigorous procedure, its conclusions will be considered accurate, under the specified rules of the studies.
Parapsychology is not something you believe in or disbelieve, it's a branch of study whose conclusions you either trust or not. Like psychology. That's all.

[olyris]

Q: Could there be a science to magic?
A: There could be a science to magic.

[Sinera]

Q: Could there be a science to magic?
A: There could be a science to magic.

2441

[CFTraveler]

Q: Could there be a science to magic?
A: There could be a science to magic. If by 'science' you mean 'system' then I agree. There are ways of manipulating what we believe about reality to see if we can achieve a desired effect- a discipline. The problem with calling it 'science' is that science relies on falsifiability to disprove an hypothesis, while in magic, there is a lot of subjectivity, and things often depend on the beliefs of the practitiones more than experimentation to see what works and what doesn't, and often things that don't work for one might work for another.
That's why I trust parapsychologists and their findings vs. practitioners and their claims.

[olyris]

If by 'science' you mean 'system' then I agree. There are ways of manipulating what we believe about reality to see if we can achieve a desired effect- a discipline. The problem with calling it 'science' is that science relies on falsifiability to disprove an hypothesis, while in magic, there is a lot of subjectivity, and things often depend on the beliefs of the practitiones more than experimentation to see what works and what doesn't, and often things that don't work for one might work for another.
That's why I trust parapsychologists and their findings vs. practitioners and their claims.
It would be true to say that existence is alone before existence is convened, therefore that magic comes before maths... and then of course, the math is up to you.

[Antares]

If by 'science' you mean 'system' then I agree. There are ways of manipulating what we believe about reality to see if we can achieve a desired effect- a discipline. The problem with calling it 'science' is that science relies on falsifiability to disprove an hypothesis, while in magic, there is a lot of subjectivity, and things often depend on the beliefs of the practitiones more than experimentation to see what works and what doesn't, and often things that don't work for one might work for another.
That's why I trust parapsychologists and their findings vs. practitioners and their claims.
I think this is a cosmic-ancient paradigms-"war" between logic-based discovery and intuitive-based empirism. One is symoblized by the left pillar or the qabbalah tree, the other - by the right one. Both can go astray.

There is also a central pillar - the balance between both.

I think the difference between science (like occult) and magic (like mysticism and shamanism) lays also in the primary intent: whether you are interested in developing the understanding (developing thinking skills) vs. using (developing pragmatical skills). If everything is energy, then magic therefore is about using energy (power), and science is about understanding energy. There is also technology: using something external, beyond the user. Thus, magic is engaged with the tools within (and thus powers searched for are subjective, like in Castaneda books), and science + technology is engaged with tools without (where power is developed objectively - in accord to the assumed system). The paradigm for magic is simple - it is a depth or "vertical" development (lookking up for more spirit in the end); the paradigm for technology and such science is complex - it is detailed or "horizontal" development (looking up for more "toys", sometimes practical in a sense - for the mind, I'd say). Traditionally however, magic is about the unkown (to rational logical mind) powers where understanding them is not required, while science is about the known (at least to some point) forces where, on the other hand, practical usage is not required.

Therefore:


Q: Could there be a science to magic?
A: There could be a science to magic.
Science (in its universal meaning - a system, not "the" system that is used today in the universities) can be applied to magic (turning unkown into known) - it is called occultism.
(And I would say that many modern magic handbooks are actually attempting to be scientific / occultist more than actually magical / mystical).
There could be magic to science, as well - it is called a mystical insight.
Both of course were experienced by many people in the history.


It would be true to say that existence is alone before existence is convened, therefore that magic comes before maths... and then of course, the math is up to you.
Yes, creativity always precedes the thought applied... if thought does not have anything to apply (to refer to), it does not exist (would not have come to existence).
Mercury (thought) will always be related to the Sun (power), and not vice versa. Thought without a power does not exist. Hence the ancient division between mages / shamans / mystics and scientists.

Thought was probably created as a playground (by those "gods" which exist above mental planes) - to mentally play with thoughts about and discover as much as possible about the power... as such, it should be something fun. Modern scientists however treat thought seriously, while power - they treat with a total lack of responsibility! See for instance how DNA research is made today... total lack of respect for those powers of the universe: the power of life in this case.

Both, magic and science, are equally dangerous, I believe. But if you asked me, I prefer the direct creation and dealing with reality, the magical paradigm, instead of being weak without the technological "toys" and skipping the self-development (like some ET races and modern people chose).