Another good read

[boomerang]

I'm not familiar with the proper format for posting in the Book Reviews section. So, being too darned lazy to find out, I thought it okay to recommend a good book for seekers of the strange.

"Fringe-ology" by Steve Volk, is a worthwhile read for anyone on the belief vs. can't-be-true spectrum. Volk walks the reader through his findings on numerous aspects of the paranormal: psi, ufos, psychokinesis, NDE's, and more. He tops it off with a tale of childhood experience. Volks's family lived in a house with strange phenomena witnessed by his entire family and then by subsequent occupants of the house.

Volk's main points, as I understand them:

-Evidence for the paranormal in nature is ample and widespread. We needn't waste time wondering if something outside accepted models is happening. Volk cites eyewitness testimonies of strange "stuff" too numerous and credible to simply ignore, plus statistics from well designed studies of telepathy and remote viewing. The reader will, I suppose, either take, or not take, Volk's claim that these studies are well designed. "Fringe-ology is heavily annotated with sources and with frequent explanatory notes for clarification.

-Statistical evidence for psi phenomenon, while recurrently exceeding that expected by chance alone, is always small. So small, in fact, that we needn't revise scientific models, Newtonian or otherwise, based on such evidence. This does not mean effects are not real, merely that they are (statistically) too small to affect everyday life.

-Humans are hard-wired to detest gray areas in decision making and in formulating world views. This is embodied in both the hard core "skeptic" such as James Randi and also those who think "anything is possible". Most people, especially experts in a given field, are simply not allowed to say "I don't know". When, in fact, this is the best answer we currently have for things worthy of more study.

 

[Wade]

I've for one sometimes bemoaned the apparent lack of a model of statistical(not empirical) evidence for paranormal evidence. The reason why i'd be happy for simple stats is that there are some basic tenets in theoretical physics that are accepted as not just possible but probable because the math works out. And why should that not be so? I don't have a head for numbers but I am very much open to the idea of einstein-rosen bridges, multiple universes and eleven dimensions even if its based on the fact that the numbers work out. So paranormal phenomena needn't be nor shouldn't be such a big leap.

Look at the money and time spent trying to find the higgs...and apparently it's still not official, they're being careful...and it was based on the premise that statistical models dictated the likelihood of it's existence. I wonder (wish we had an icon for tongue in cheek) that if a statistical model could be found to suggest the existence of paranormal events...which could be a by-product or extension of various theoretical physic concepts we accept as likely...would the money taps open for funding for paranormal phenomena? Would CERN lead the way ? Could chris get his super-camera ? Would other theoretical physicists jump on the bandwagon because there is money available ?

It's funny how a century ago, things like paranormal and supernatural things were accepted as a given and any attempt to introduce such things as theoretical physics were met with ridicule (or worse in an even earlier age) and today it's the reverse. The only difference is that today we're more "evolved", well looking around, I'm not so sure of that, if anything in some areas, we may have regressed, I'll have to see how the math works out first.

"... (wish we had an icon for tongue in cheek)..." Found One !!

I feel like a makeover, any input is welcome.