[Shyama Kanungo, Deepak Samantray, Gadadhar Mishra, Namita Nayak, Ajay Ku. Barik, Bandita Ray, Prasad Tripathy] 48th All Orissa Sri Aurobindo Study Circle Conference: 4th to 7th April 2018, Matrubhaban, Cuttack. 9437023407, 9437120220 email@example.com https://t.co/c7nasZEPLz
[What Sri Aurobindo represents in World's History: Biswanath Ray, Archana Nayak. Role of India in preparing a New Creation: Alok Pandey, Biswanath Ray. Harmony at any Cost: Malabika Ray, B.N. Mohapatra, Rabi Padhi. One day the Victory is Certain: CH. Nirakar, Saroj Kanta Mishra.]
[Foundations of Indian Culture: Alok Pandey, Rabi Padhi, Sk Abdul Kasam, Mahendra Nath Swain, Suprakash Choudhury, Prakash Chandra Panda, Rita Chand, Mamata Dash, Pravakar Mishra, Biswanath Ray] 48th All Orissa Sri Aurobindo Study Circle Conference 4-7 April 2018 Matrubhaban Cuttack
[Indian Culture: Bhagirathi Mohapatra, Kapilash Prasad Dash, Soudamini Nanda, Ramesh Chandra Sahu, Golak Bihari Sahu, Radhakanta Mishra, Sanjaya Kumar Mohapatra, Bimal Prasanna Das, Alok Pandey] 48th All Orissa Sri Aurobindo Study Circle Conference 4-7 April 2018 Matrubhaban, Cuttack
[Indian Culture: Subas Chandra Kar, Prasant Kumar Swain, Sangeeta Pattanaik, Debidutta Kar, Santosh Gahan, Bijayeeni Mohapatra, Dharanidhar Pal, Biranchi Narayan Mohapatra, Archana Nayak] 48th All Orissa Sri Aurobindo Study Circle Conference, 4-7 April 2018, Matrubhaban, Cuttack.
108 YEARS AGO: In the afternoon of April 4, 1910, the Pondicherry pier witnessed a scene which will remain etched in history: Le Dupleix steamer arrived from Calcutta, carrying the ‘most dangerous’ man on board. (photos of the actual steamer and of Pondicherry port at the time)
108 years of Sri Aurobindo's arrival to Pondicherry- an important milestone in the history of the synthesis of East and West but more importantly marks a decisive stride towards the next step of mankind in the process of evolution through Integral Yoga. A day to express gratitude
[Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts Cordially invites you to the Inauguration of Prof. Devendra Swarup Personal Book Collection on Wednesday, 4th April, 2018 4:00 p.m. Kala Nidhi: Reference Library (First Floor) 11, Mansingh Road, New Delhi – 23388333, 23388362] @igncakd
Inauguration of Prof. Devendra Swarup Personal Book Collection at IGNCA Reference Library, 11, Mansingh Road, New Delhi
4 April, 2018; 4 pm https://t.co/eRduoxPrAT
IGNCA is holding an exhibition on Rahul Sankrityayana’s antiquity collection in collaboration with Patna Museum, Bihar till 9 April. IGNCA Twin Art Gallery, C.V. Mess, Janpath; 11 am - 7 pm https://t.co/345tbp0ufs
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:09 PM, georgeweis via Matters Of Mind
I think Thomas Kuhn points the way here. He says paradigm shift is not only possible, but is the principal way science progresses. That is the "optimist" perspective. But he also says, supporting the "pessimist" perspective, that a fundamental paradigm shifts (at a sociological level) mostly by the old paradigm adherents dying out (there are some open-minded exceptions), not by changing their minds.
I think Menas was thinking of both the optimist and the pessimist angle when he called it half a joke. The sapientia (wisdom) necessary for being open to changing one's mind is all too often missing Right, Menas?
Specifically regarding psi, the materialist-objectivist-"realist" family of paradigms is particularly immune to contrary evidence. It is a sad joke (not half a joke) that most of those who label themselves "skeptics" are the very least truly skeptical (i.e. the least appreciating the effect of paradigm and presuppositions on their own personal reality), and therefore the least able to identify, let alone challenge, their own presuppositions.
But as I said before, there are open-minded exceptions, and they might make Stan's project worthwhile for someone so inclined (as they indeed do for me). But I understand that high-powered psi researchers such as Dean, given their limitations of time and money, are more interested in exploring the vast unknown (to conventional science) terrain of consciousness than in convincing those who have already shown themselves to be incapable of opening their mind and letting in evidence that threatens their hallowed beliefs.
Kathy: Maybe Dean can best answer your question. But his second objection is based on extensive experience of interactions with skeptics, and is empirically well grounded. As to Dean's first objection, no mainstream scientist has to my knowledge ever been asked to have an "objective" (i.e. "skeptical") observer present throughout the experiment. The very idea would be considered insulting and ridiculous. Instead, in mainstream science, when a scientist is skeptical of another scientist's results, and is motivated enough, he/she tries to replicate the experiment independently, or waits for others to do it. So Dean rightly rejects that demand as an inappropriate double-standard, and the underlying presupposition about psi researchers as false (and insulting, I would add).
Many thanks for sending your thoughts on replicability in standard science. Have you been following the incredible action in that topic in the past few years? It is mainly in social psychology but also in lots of other fields including pre-clinical trials. I strongly recommend looking at:
The good news is that mainstream science has woken up to the major replicability issues and there is lots of action now to do a lot better monitoring of the problem. Everyone interested in replication problems should have a look at that web site and similar ones.
Presence of skeptics at the experiments may or may not be important. But if requirement of reproducibility, especially for the so called hard sciences, is not required, it will be indeed crisis for science, in my opinion. I think the fundamental basis for science is that the results should be reproducible by any person anywhere when all other variables are controlled in the same manner. What do you think?
For hard science (inanimate systems), yes. For soft science (animate systems), no.
If strict reproducibility were possible for human performance then watching sports would be boring. Even at the Olympics level there is no guarantee on who will win an event. And Olympic champs know that a key factor in their competitive strategy is psychological strength, not just physical strength.
When it comes to psi, the phenomena are explicitly psychophysical, not just psychological or physical. This makes repeatability even more difficult. Still, with enough replications in hand (as there are) it is possible to show to high levels of confidence that effects are repeatable (on average).