Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans.
At worst it promotes bad science. To form the hypothesis that psychic powers exist where's the observation?
At worst it promotes bad science. To form the hypothesis that psychic powers exist where's the observation?
This makes no sense. Just because humans don't have $FOO ability, that does not mean that $FOO ability doesn't exist in some other animal.
If you went that route (i.e. if humans don't possess something, then it doesn't exist), then you'd conclude "scientifically" that light doesn't exist outside the spectrums viewable by humans.
I'm saying that there needs to be some observation to form a hypothesis and there isn't any for psychic powers.
It's the equivalent of starting research on dogs to see if they can predict the future. Why am I doing it in the first place?
What does that have to do what what you said?
>>> Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans.
If you're going to test that $FOO abilities exist at all, it's bad science to dismiss animal testing.
It's literally the opposite of science!
> I'm saying that there needs to be some observation to form a hypothesis and there isn't any for psychic powers.
You're saying that now, and I don't disagree, but that's not what you initially said, which I did disagree with.
What you're saying now is different from what you said before.
What you said before was wrong.
Why test for this on dogs first?
It's a mental capability so communication is important. Why not test on a human first?
I only said it once, and it makes perfect sense - thinking that if something doesn't work on humans it doesn't work at all is primitive and superstitious - it's literally the opposite of science, where things are tested on animals before humans.
> Why test for this on dogs first?
> It's a mental capability so communication is important. Why not test on a human first?
I agree with this, but your original assertion, to whit:
>>> Wouldn't you first want to prove that psychic abilities exist at all and if you planned to do that use humans.
is wrong. None of your replies make it any more right.
A lot of bad science was funded across time basically.