intelligent Atheists preferably.. or anyone who would be in the know?

Question

sorry about the title ( not saying non Atheists arent intelligent , because that would include me also lol ) , I just feel perhaps Atheists would be best to answer my question ... but feel free to imput if you can help

in regards to psychical research , I have seen the subject covered at universities by scientists and reasearchers
I have seen peer reviewed journals that have investigated claims with good results
but I have also seen others say that this university states there are no psychic abilities , or this group of scientists have had no proof under controlled circumstances

so my question is
how do I find good honest reliable resources ?
how do I know which peer reviewed journal is correct and which isnt ?

at the moment , I am taking the word of those who have had results ... as you can't prove a negative
and also my direct contact with such scientists and trusting their work
help me out guys please

this is an honest question

I am not asking whether you believe in psychic ability or not
but how to know good sources

let's not go down the Randi road please guys
I have my own reasons to believe he isnt as honest as he makes out
that is another post altogether

I am aware of the SPR thanks BL ... one of their members was my lecturer

good advice atheist
I just hear about peer reviewed journals being reliable
but if there are conflicting journals then that makes no sense to me

Huxley , I do agree that there are many many false claims out there
which does make it difficult

not every psychic runs from Randi...
but I know a few who have been ignored by him
that is why I do not trust his work

the journals of the SPR ( mentioned by BL ) are peer reviewed
I studied at university under one of the scientists from the SPR
I am just a little frustrated to be honest at the amount of times I have seen posts about peer reviewed papers being trustworthy
but if it is peer reviewed about psychic claims then it isnt
and being honest , I am not scientific , not intelligent ... but looking for information to satisfy my own skepticism even in something I believe in
sort out the chaff from the wheat so to speak

Answer 1

Peer review is should be a transparent process. You should easily be able to discover who the "peers" are and what their qualifications are.

Sadly, there is much faux *research* and ersatz peer review out there. I would suggest you talk to a good librarian to help you find quality peer reviewed journals. If there is a university near by, go there first.

EDIT

The "conflict" between peer reviewed journals really isn't too hard to understand. Any organization can publish a "peer reviewed" journal. The question of quality is determined by the transparent process. If you can't discover who the "peers" are, or their qualifications to be peers, then the journal is suspect. Doesn't stop that journal from publishing.

It all a part of good research. Many folks just take a journal at face value. A good research librarian is in the business of knowing good from bad.

Sadly, I doubt that you will find quality research to support psychic abilities (I will admit to assuming that is what you mean by "psychical"). Psychics do not stand up to double-blind, scientific research. People who want to give psychic abilities a "scientific" face can easily create a journal with a pseudo peer review process and publish. Upon reading the journal, however, you may find that there were no controls, not double-blind research, or process to eliminate bias.

Tread carefully with this kind of study. Look for qualifications, scientific method, and research bias. There is a lot of fluff walking around in a scientific wrapper. It is easy to be confused.

Answer 2

In the hard sciences (like Chemistry) there is little tension about the methodology being used to twist data toward any particular direction (usually preconceived in the hypothesis being tested).

In the softer sciences (including sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc.) different schools or groups have their own pet theories and tend to publish and peer review only papers which conform to the schools of thought being supported.

The only reliable method to weed out scientifically correct and unbiased journals is to read them yourself and make a determination about the scientific methods and conclusions of the articles contained.

Another method which usually helps is look up published articles by researchers that you trust. What journals were these articles published in? What about other articles published in the same journal? Reliable? Good methodology? Clear supportive data? Proper conclusions?

What you should be looking for is studies with proper populations under study (10 homeless people or 5 housewives is not an ample selection). The great the numbers usually the better, but not always.

For example for Color perception among the Blind, a sample of less than 20 is perhaps trivial. A sample of one million is unreasonable. Several hundred sorted by blind from birth and acquired blindness may be significant.

Be very careful of shoddy data math. If you know statistics, look for statistically significant conclusions.

Answer 3

I'm very suspicious about someone who says flat out that psychic phenomena do not exist. It's that "proving a negative" thing. And that's one of the reasons I am skeptical about the Skeptic magazine. Is there really such a thing as an open mind, or are there only the gullible and the cynical? I really do consider myself open-minded about psychic phenomena.

But I will say this: I do not believe in the supernatural. If it exists, then it is natural. I just think it is quite possible that we don't yet know what all is natural for a human mind (or at least some human minds) to do.

Answer 4

In investigating physic claims, a question to ask is which claims could possibly be true. First rule out all claims that are just magic by a different name. (search my previous answers for what magic is) Second rule out all claims that are by there very nature "unique" or non-repeatable. These are not subject to scientific verification and therefore not able to be said to be scientifically true. Third note that of all that is left, none have been verified scientifically. This is not to say that there may not be some "physic" phenomena that is discovered in the future but it doesn't look good.

From a Christian theological point of view things are either "natural" that is subject to scientific law (repeatable, verifiable, and accessible to all) or it is an act of God. There is no room for special people to have special "god-like" powers.

Answer 5

Well, honestly, people will find journals that will publish just about everything somewhere, it comes to looking at the published methodology and statistical data... Or, as it is simpler, one can just default to doubt.

James Randi has promised $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal phenomenon statistically with agreed-upon methodologies and results, and no one has been near winning the challenge yet... This of course only applies to demonstratable (non-completely random) psychic phenomenon, but it is fairly strong evidence in my view that the majority of those claiming abilities on demand are completely full of it.

As for ones that claim non-predictable psychic results/mediums, cold reading is usually involved, and as researchers are human as well, it usually seems to involve the researching -wanting- things to turn out a specific way, being impressed with a reading they are given prior to any hard scientific research.

Answer 6

Check out the JREF, or James Randi Educational Foundation, which offers a million dollars to anyone who can prove that psychic abilities exist in an empirically verifiable way. So far, nobody has been able (and few have been willing) to engage in any scientific test of psychic abilities.

Answer 7

Briefly:

University of Nevada-Las Vegas shut down their dept. of paranormal/psychic studies because every test failed for years.

Dr. Gary Schwartz at U. AZ. has made the university the laughingstock of the scientific community as he insists pyschics are real but has yet to publish a paper that passed peer review. Every controlled study he has attempted has failed.

All "papers" are published in lay-science or popular media and are not peer reiviewed. All 'evidence' is anecdotal and untestable.

And reference the Randi passage above. "Psychics" run from James Randi. Honest "mentalists", who perform the same routine but define it properly as entertainment, are friends with Randi.

Answer 8

Psychical research is largely conducted in the field of parapsychology.

Parapsychological research uses a variety of qualitative and quantitative methodologies in an attempt to find evidence for psychic ability. The experimental methods of parapsychologists include the use of random number generators to test for psychokinesis, mild sensory deprivation in the Ganzfeld experiment to test for extra-sensory perception, and research trials conducted (CIA) under contract by the U.S. government to investigate remote viewing.

Here you have your first problem, the statistical methods of parapsychologists have generated a number of meta-analytical studies, which combine the data from several previous experiments into one large data set. Although all of the research methods of parapsychology have contributed to the field, the experimental and statistical methods have attracted much attention and debate.

Despite all this research, Parapsychology is a fringe science because it involves research that does not fit within standard theoretical models accepted by mainstream science.

Scientists such as psychologists Ray Hyman and James A. Alcock, among others, are critical of the methodology and results of parapsychology. Skeptical researchers suggest that methodological flaws best explain apparently successful experimental results, as opposed to the paranormal explanations offered by many parapsychologists.

Some critical analysts argue that parapsychology crosses the line into pseudoscience. To date, no evidence has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community as irrefutably supporting paranormal phenomena. The critics include the professional bodies created to support Parasychological research.

Answer 9

Regardless of how research is described or reviewed, at the end of the day you either participate in the investigation or take someone's word for it. If you've really done your homework, your opinion is as valid as anyone's!
Ending on a practical note, you can learn a lot by seeing who has what to gain or lose by supporting a point of view.

Answer 10

My resource is my own personal experiences. I grew up trying to learn and try things in my own way without much input from others, and I turned out atheist (what are the odds of that). So I guess my answer is, use your own knowledge and experiences and learn from them, anti-religious propaganda is getting to be almost as fake as the religious propaganda so I'm not trusting anything that doesn't seem logical or if it seems slanderous (I really dont trust many sources at all).

A good wikipedia article that you and all the other answerers should read is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot