That relationship in nature that “has never been observed” must have some sort of corroborating physical, verifiable evidence first before a scientific hypothesis about it can be formed (aka physical relationships). Simply stating “psi exists” isn’t a hypothesis, it’s an assertion. If one were able to bend spoons in their hand without any sort of mechanical assistance, and demonstrate that ability to others, then a valid scientific hypothesis can be formulated that “psi is what caused the spoon to bend” (although it would be irresponsible of a scientist not to rule out more likely, physical explanations first). The problem is, no one has ever been able to demonstrate the ability to bend spoons in their hand without mechanical help or trickery. The same goes with all claims of psi that have ever been presented.

In the case of psi, the “evidence” people claim to present isn’t really evidence at all, because there is nothing to present. Their claims are untestable, therefore unfalsifiable.

The relationships in nature must first be observed to exist before a hypothesis can be created. “Men are generally taller than women” is simply an observation, that’s all. It is NOT a hypothesis because it doesn’t explain why they are taller, it just describes the physical attribute. That’s what a hypothesis is, a preliminary explanation of why it is that men are taller than women. So, a hypothesis would be something like ,”men are taller because they evolved with higher levels of testosterone and growth hormone.” Then the scientists would go about testing whether that is true or not.

I challenge you to cite one peer-reviewed scientific publication that uses a descriptive observation (relationships in nature) as its hypothesis. A psychologist simply stating “some patients diagnosed with clinical depression respond to a certain anti-depressant better than others” is simply an observation, not a hypothesis. A psychologist would have to then go on to posit an explanation as to WHY the anti-depressant works. So, an actual hypothesis would be something like ,”We believe, based on the evidence, that the responsive patients have a higher number of receptors for the drug in question than the non-responders.”

To try to use an observation as the hypothesis is useless. That’s like stating that my desk is black, and that’s my hypothesis. There is nothing to test just knowing that my desk is black. If I were to then explain that my desk is black because it absorbs nearly all electromagnetic light, that is a testable hypothesis.

Those who do the MDC are making existence claims, not hypotheses. They are describing a claimed phenomenon “I can walk through walls”. That is merely an description of on observation that their solid body can pass through other solid matter. Simply stating that is not explanatory in any way as to how or why, so it’s not a hypothesis. It goes without saying that without demonstrating that the person can actually walk through walls, obviously no hypothesis can be formed.

For a hypothesis to be scientific, it first has to have physical evidence to test.

This is incorrect. There is no logical reason why a hypothesis cannot test for the presence of a relationship in nature that has never before been observed. In fact, we do this all the time in science when a theory is used to predict novel observations. However, a theoretical precedent is also not necessary for the process of hypothesis testing to work. That said, we don’t normally form hypotheses without any input from theory or previous observations for pragmatic reasons. It is clearly more sensible to let hypotheses be guided by current observation, but not logically necessary.

The hypothesis is simply a preliminary explanation of the observed physical phenomenon, nothing more.

Again, I think you are confusing mechanistic hypotheses with scientifically testable hypotheses per se. Mechanistic hypotheses are a subset of scientifically testable hypotheses. For example, the hypothesis “men are generally taller than women” is a testable hypothesis and amenable to scientific inquiry. However, there is no explanatory component. Rather, it is a hypothesis that states there is a certain relationship that exists in the natural world.

It is you who is confused on what a scientific hypothesis is because science ONLY deals with the physical universe.

I didn’t say otherwise did I? Hypotheses can certainly make predictions about what has yet to be observed (physically).

Verifying that the claimed evidence exists at all in the first place is not science, even if the procedures used to verify are identical to procedures used in an actual scientific experiment or study.

There are many examples of published scientific studies that test hypotheses stating that certain relationships exist in nature. This is very much part of the scientific process as it is practiced today. Read psychology journals for examples.

Actually, yes, in order for something to be qualified as a hypothesis, evidence for its existence must first be confirmed, whether or not one actually observed it directly.

You are confused. It is not the hypothesis that is hypothesised to exist in nature. It is physical relationships that are hypothesised to exist. Furthermore, if physical relationships that are hypothesised to exist in nature must “first be confirmed to exist”, it would be impossible to make predictions about novel observations – one of the driving forces of science.

For instance, we have strong evidence for a Big Bang event, even though no one ever observed it before; that evidence being physical, measurable, and independently verified phenomenon.
This contradicts what you have been claiming. If nobody had ever observed these physical, measureable and independently verified phenomena before, then clearly, hypotheses can be made about the existence of physical relationships that have not yet been observed. You are in agreement with me here.

The claims of psi, however, have never been verified to exist – they cannot even withstand the first step of the scientific process – so no hypotheses can be made about them.

Again, this comes down to a mix-up between mechanistic hypotheses and scientifically testable hypotheses per se. See above for reasons why (bear in mind that I am not disputing whether the claims of psi have actually been verified to exist, but rather, I am disputing your claim that hypotheses cannot be made that state such relationships exist in nature).

For a hypothesis to be scientific, it first has to have physical evidence to test. The hypothesis is simply a preliminary explanation of the observed physical phenomenon, nothing more. It is you who is confused on what a scientific hypothesis is because science ONLY deals with the physical universe. Therefore, the MDC experiments are not scientific because they don’t involve the scientific process.

Verifying that the claimed evidence exists at all in the first place is not science, even if the procedures used to verify are identical to procedures used in an actual scientific experiment or study. If JREF were able to positively determine that the claimed evidence actually exists, they could THEN formulate a hypothesis on the phenomenon because they have actual physical evidence to test.

So, testing the validity of a claim of evidence is not the same as testing a hypothesis of evidence already verified to exist.

Actually, yes, in order for something to be qualified as a hypothesis, evidence for its existence must first be confirmed, whether or not one actually observed it directly. For instance, we have strong evidence for a Big Bang event, even though no one ever observed it before; that evidence being physical, measurable, and independently verified phenomenon. The claims of psi, however, have never been verified to exist – they cannot even withstand the first step of the scientific process – so no hypotheses can be made about them.

Claims of psi existence, no matter how many people make it, are not hypotheses and therefore testing these claims isn’t science, even if the testing procedure is identical to scientific experimentation.

I’ll grant that there are definitional distinctions between the supernatural and the paranormal. Unfortunately, many people use the terms colloquially interchangeably, but in a strict sense, one can have “paranormal” results, or results that are outside what is accepted as normal, and it still not be “supernatural”, or events that lie outside what is known about the physical universe. In this case, psi, and many other of the claims leveled in the MDC, are both paranormal and supernatural in nature. If one claims that they are able to physically lift 10 tons, that could be considered a paranormal claim. If one says that angels help him lift 10 tons when he can normally only lift 2 tons, that would be both paranormal and supernatural, because his ability to lift 2 tons is outside the norm, but angels are supernatural in nature.

No, I said the MDC is kind of a scam because the tests are, in actuality, scientific experiments but the JREF tries to pass them off as “not supposed to be science”, I suspect in an attempt to deflect legitimate criticism about the scientific shortcomings of the tests. So the scam bit is about use of the “not supposed to be science” claim. You can disagree with me on that, of course, but I’m not using the Nirvana fallacy.

Essentially a hunt for anomalies unrelated to the claimed ability when the claimed ability can’t be produced. Choosing anomalies post hoc is a perfect way to find anomalies. Every sequence of 100 coin flips is extremely unlikely. But if you flip a coin 100 times, you will get a sequence with 100% certainty. If you wait until after you know what the flips are to decide if the resulting sequence is an anomaly, you will find lots of anomalies.

I don’t understand. Is this supposed to be what the JREF do when they run the challenge?

The JREF are testing indivdual paranormal claims scientifically but say that are not really doing what could be described as proper scientific experiments. Davidsmith says they ARE trying to do proper scientific experiments but are not really doing their proper scientific experiments properly.

“the way the hypotheses are constructed is short sighted and thoughtless, lacking the true spirit of scientific inquiry in my opinion”

This is his real beef. They are not doing tests that will give a chance for a signal to rise above the noise every now and then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

A better analogy than the 10 tons 2 tons would be someone claims to be able to lift 10 tons, but when that test fails, claims to be able to walk on water, then when that test fails, claims to be able to predict the future, then when that test fails claims distant seeing, then when that fails claims distance healing.

Essentially a hunt for anomalies unrelated to the claimed ability when the claimed ability can’t be produced. Choosing anomalies post hoc is a perfect way to find anomalies. Every sequence of 100 coin flips is extremely unlikely. But if you flip a coin 100 times, you will get a sequence with 100% certainty. If you wait until after you know what the flips are to decide if the resulting sequence is an anomaly, you will find lots of anomalies.

I’m not really even sure what position you’re advocating anymore.
-If you think the MDC is not conducting science experiments, you’re right (they’re just using scientific/skeptical thinking)
-If you think they’re masquerading as science, than I can see your point but disagree with you.
-If you think the MDC is a waste of time and a distraction, then I think you have an interesting point but may have muddled your argument.

I think that the MDC is an attempt at scientific experiments but, with regards to tests of “psi” abilities, the way the hypotheses are constructed is short sighted and thoughtless, lacking the true spirit of scientific inquiry in my opinion. However, proponents of the MDC often try to pass it off as “not supposed to be science” which is nonsense. I think this is an attempt to draw attention away from the scientific shortcomings of the challenge. If you think I have muddled my argument, it would help if you pointed out why you think so.

A hypothesis in science is a preliminary explanation of an observed natural phenomenon.

It looks like you are confusing mechanistic hypotheses with scientific hypotheses per se. For a hypothesis to be scientific, it merely has to be testable. For example, in the MDC test of Natasha Demkina, the “paranormal hypothesis” was that there would be a relationship between her responses and the independent variable. The null hypothesis was that there would be no relationship. The JREF may well have used different terminology but that is what they were doing at the end of the day (one remaining issue was, of course, agreement on the prestated threshold for rejection of the null).

What they are doing isn’t a scientific experiment, but rather verification of the presence of the claimed physical evidence.

Setting up controlled conditions where you want to observe whether a relationship exists in nature is still a scientific experiment. The null hypothesis is that the relationship does not exist while the alternative is that is does. This is very much part of the scientific process as it is practiced today. Read psychology journals for examples.

“Does psi exist” doesn’t even qualify as a hypothesis, because there is no observed evidence present that is testable.

The relationship you wish to test the existence of does not need to have been observed before (whether under controlled or uncontrolled conditions) for the scientific process to work. Nevertheless, there are literally thousands of reported experiences that we label as “extrasensory experiences” that have occurred under uncontrolled conditions. The point of the scientific experiment in this context is to test whether similar relationships occur under controlled conditions.

That’s easy – pretty much anything that directly contradicts what we know to be natural. It’s not that they have some notion of what the supernatural or paranormal are, but that they would be phenomena outside of what is known to be natural.

There is a distinction between ‘supernatural’ and ‘paranormal’. The term ‘supernatural’ means outside of the natural. This places anything deemed supernatural beyond scientific inquiry. Therefore, if you are trying to scientifically test for the existence of a particular relationship in nature, then by definition, you can’t call it a supernatural phenomenon. ‘Paranormal’ on the other hand means outside of what is known to be normal (I prefer – currently unexplained by present knowledge derived from the scientific method).

Haha, you totally hit it on the head!

@davidsmith

I’m not really even sure what position you’re advocating anymore.
-If you think the MDC is not conducting science experiments, you’re right (they’re just using scientific/skeptical thinking)
-If you think they’re masquerading as science, than I can see your point but disagree with you.
-If you think the MDC is a waste of time and a distraction, then I think you have an interesting point but may have muddled your argument.

The bottom line is that if you want to classify the kind of “experiments” the MDC is doing they can, at best, be described as pilot studies. If you wanted to prove that Psi is real, you’d need to acquire a huge body of evidence that tested the existence of Psi abilities on a large scale, precisely define Psi and offer some kind of mechanism by which Psi works.

One last note:
You could never really use science to prove Psi exists. At the end of the day, even if you gathered mountains of evidence, you’d end up with a Theory of Psi. In other words, you would be able to say “Given the available evidence, this Theory of Psi is the best explanation we have to explain these phenomena”