More of what is Proof
A member of a discussion board I sometimes visit responded that “using physical tools to attempt to prove the metaphysical is a fool’s errand.” I responded with:
Properly done, a metaphysical thread should imply a cosmological model from which testable hypotheses can be derived. It is the nature of frontier science that many future “facts” begin with observation and conjecture. Survival is one of those.
I have been taught that one cannot claim a truth without explaining why other truths do not work as well. When I write technical proposals, it is necessary to discuss alternatives so that the executive decision maker has the information necessary to make a decision. However, I am allowed to expect my reader has prior knowledge. I expect no less from an academically trained person.
For instance, when a person discusses the dynamics of a falling apple, much of the equation is understood as background science. Such factors as the acceleration of gravity, air resistance and coriolis effect are defined external to the falling apple study. They become engineer’s constants and that is allowed because previous science was conducted to establish their parameters.
On the other hand, if I am proposing the company purchase XXX computer system to manage the network, it is necessary that I discuss major contending solutions. My executive could be counted on to ask me “What about that other system?” I would have been remiss if I did not discuss “that other system” or one like it in my proposal.
In things paranormal, parapsychologists are beginning to develop the same sort of supporting material, as found in physical science, from which new thought might inherit credibility. While mainstream science is based on a complex of interrelated principles, such principles are still being established for things paranormal. But they are being established.
Right now, I know of three dominant models for the nature of Psi phenomena. All three have some foundation of fact in that there are measurable, objective effects attributed to them. The Super-Psi Hypothesis is really the Psi Hypothesis on steroids. Most discussions of survival pitch Super-Psi against survival. If I say that a mental medium told me my father said “Hi,” it is necessary for me to understand if Super-Psi is a better explanation than my dead father talking. That is, did the medium psychically sense the information from my mind or the mind of someone who knew my father (Super-Psi) or was the message actually imitated by my Father (Survival)?
That is my dilemma. I am about to begin critiquing the BICS essays. Most of the essays I have seen ignored the Super-Psi Hypothesis by claiming that a particular study, experiment or personal account is evidence of survival. The challenge for me as a layperson is to find a reasonable way of pointing out the logical errors without seeming like a “I know better than you” kind of crackpot.
