Peuchère, tu parles le picard, mon clavius ?

Bah moi j'ai traduit ce que le zouave nous a klaxonné.
Oui, je sais, seuls les phoques et les dauphins nous comprennent.

Salut

Etant Nordiste, forcément heu on ne s'éloigne pas du sujet là ? hihi

La traduction:C'est a Pulstars;Hij omvat heel goed nederlandish!

Vive les sudistes et les pingouins espagnols ! Olé !

Bonne nuit clavius et les nordistes.

Je ne connais pas le mot SUDISTES ;please in britisch,dutch ,suit-afrikaans or german!

"Sudiste" means in this forum : "person who lives in the southern France or Spain or Italy".

It doesn't mean the sudists of Secession War in the United States.

Et maintenant encore une fois: Bonne nuit!

Guten nacht !

Goede nacht !

Voici la suite de commentaires dans le salon d'astrophysique sur le réseau Usenet.

Je leur avais posé la problématique suivante :


Je voudrais connaître votre opinion sur le Global Consciousness Projet de Princeton.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/fristwall.french.html

Science ou pseudo-science ?
J'ai l'intuition qu'il y a quelque chose de suspect et de farfelu derrière leurs mesures
et leurs interprétations. Pourriez-vous trouver ce qui cloche ?



Je reproduis ici le commentaire reçu hier soir :


Sans même chercher à faire une analyse statistique sérieuse (qu'ils remplacent par "on voit bien que" et "faible, mais significatif"), on peut aussi remarquer que leurs corrélations sont établies après coup entre des fluctuations d'apparence aléatoires (en tout cas, aucune analyse ne montre qu'elle divergent significativement de ce qu'on peut attendre) et des événements choisis par les observateurs comme importants "pour la conscience humaine"...

Pseudo-science, bien évidemment...

M. D. Feldmann, professeur de Prépa / Maths Sup.


Voici un autre commentaire en réponse :


Tiens, tiens, on s'amuse toujours aussi bien à Princeton.

Science ou pseudo-science ?
Masturbation intellectuelle, peut-être, en tout cas pas science.

Sur les mesures et les interprétations :

On nous montre des écarts correspondant à des événements dramatiques.
Si on a choisi ceux qui marchait bien, en ignorant ceux qui ne donnaient
rien, si on oublie de mentionner les cas ou d'importants écarts ont été
notés alors qu'il ne s'est rien passé, alors on peut démontrer tout ce
qu'on veut et le contraire.

M. D. Caudron, journaliste scientifique.



Un autre commentaire :


La statistique offre parfois des surprises inantendues: si on regarde
leurs graphes, on voit des évolutions qui ressemblent forement à des
courbes en N^(1/2) non ? Et quelle est la distance moyenne entre un
point qui se déplace par marche aléatoire et son point de départ...
Quelque chose en N^(1/2) après N pas, non ?

En fait, quand on lance N fois pile ou face, vers l'infini on tends par
avoir autant de pile (P) que de face (F). Mais l'erreur est de croire
que c'est P-F qui tends vers 0, alors que c'est (P-F)/N (qui lui
évolue en N^{-1/2}). (P-F) à plutôt tendance à augmenter (en
moyenne) en N^{1/2}. Non ?

Bref, ils mesurent des banales fluctuations statistiques, et ils les
relient aux événements (il y a bien toujours un événement qui
traine dans le monde pour pouvoir le relier à ce qu'on veut, quand on
veut).

M. R. Plasson, université de Montpellier.

I am going to study it,but my interest in parapsy is that of an interested outsider,who has a broad interest in many things and does not reject things which are outside of his territory of knowledge.
I do not have a tunnelvision in this world with its developments in an exponential speed!

The methods of science are precis.

What is scientist and what it is not scientist ?
I shall try to explain the differencies.

I resume through these sentences :


La science se distingue de tous les autres modes de transmission des
connaissances, par une "croyance" de base : nous croyons que les
experts sont faillibles, que les connaissances transmises peuvent
contenir toutes sortes de fables et d’erreurs, et qu’il faut prendre
la peine de vérifier, par des expériences.

Science is distinguished from all the other modes of transmission of knowledge, by a basic "belief": we believe that the experts are fallible, that transmitting knowledge can contain all kinds of fables and errors, and that should be taken the trouble to check by experiments.




Some principles of criticism.

Here some principles of criticism which it is good to have at mind when
one is confronted with a mysterious phenomenon in order not to be made handle or of to handle oneself.

I. The right to the dream has for during the duty of vigilance.
Some of our beliefs, although getting a certain wellbeing to us, are
above all the obstacles to knowledge and can sometimes appear harmful for
our freedoms (ex: to adhere to a sect, to ruin themselves to consult an indicator). Thus, at the time
of a seance, it is always wise to wonder:
"Criticist mind... Are you there ?".

II. Unexplained is not unexplainable.
Just like an UFO is not a nonidentifiable object flying, of many phenomena
who seem to us strange are not also rare nor as incomprehensible as
we want to believe it well. An absence of explanation for a phenomenon, is not
never the proof of its supernatural nature but only of our incompetence with
to understand. Thus one can be unaware of the existence of the underground siphons and for as much
to take care not to believe in the presence of mind strikers in a house rich in noises.

III. The burden of proof returns to that which affirms it.
It is logically impossible to show the inexistence of a phenomenon. Also it is
naturally with that which affirms the existence of an unknown phenomenon to bring the proof of it.
In the question "Why don't you believe in the phantoms? ", it is thus necessary initially to ask:
"And you, why do you believe in it?"

IV. An extraordinary allegation requires a proof than ordinary more.
Indeed, more of the assertions leave the known framework, more they must rest on
solid information and of the checks pushed to be credible. To prove
the existence of a "Yeti", one cannot thus be satisfied of a photograph and a trace in snow...

V. The origin of information is fundamental.
Who never found himself to defend information which appeared false?
The doubt about the validity of information is essential as long as the source and the contents
original among that Ci are not known "From which comes information? "and" Which brings it back? "
are two questions to be posed if one wants to avoid speculating in wind.

VI. Quantity of evidence is not quality of the proof.
Thus, a repeated sentence 1000 times does not become true about it for all that. And several thousands
people being able to confuse a balloon probes with a flying saucer without, for as much,
the extraterrestrial ones did not come to visit us.
A conclusive experimentation is always much more valid than thousands of not checked indices.

VII. Coherence is not a proof.
A theory which does not contradict itself does not gain therefore in validity.
For coherent that they are, the theory of the plot (cf JFK, X-Files...) or theories
science fictions (Matrix, Jedi knight...) do not become about it more scientists nor truer.

VIII. The beliefs create illusions.
Our culture, our desires, our emotions, in a word our subjectivity, modify largely our perception of the events. One often remembers what one agreed to see and not what there was to see or not. For this reason there is hardly but on the Ness Log which one is inclined to confuse floating tree trunks with a monster.




---------------------------------


Introduction to scientist method.

The great theories are only provisional mathematical tools, and cannot thus constitute models which are a faithful representation of Reality that the scientists try to describe.

To think that Science is a search of the truth raises of the ideologic pleasure. Science transforms the world more than it does not seek to reach its truth. A scientific truth is thus what is operational. Low importance if the theory of the gravitation is true, it is what one has of to better describe the phenomena and to draw some from the applications.
This is the main thing.

The best scientific attitude is the will to understand what surrounds us, and to doubt all the ideas to which we take note without the reject. Science must always remained associated the pleasure of learning and understanding.

Criticist mind : Attitude of conscience which does not accept any assertion without wondering about its value and which holds a proposal for true only when it was to établie.To have the critical spirit, it is to analyze the facts of the case and to allot to them a row of priority for the traitement. Someone has an idea of the value of the result. Someone stops in way to evaluate its way of proceeding, and one wonders whether the result has direction. One examines the step to emphasize some the defects and the qualities. The states associated with the critical spirit can be the analysis, the appreciation, discrimination, the understanding, the evaluation, the judgement, perspicacity, the reflexion. The contrary states can be confusion, contradiction, credulity, discontinuity, the inconsistency, the honest indifferency. To be, it is to be critical towards oneself. This is essential and much more enviable than to be believable. When someone is credible, people do not show more spirit critical towards our words... but one can be mistaken, it is dangerous. Criticism is a step of setting in question of the opinions and reality, of the transmitting source (nobody, media, institution, expert, organization...). This step can make it possible to encircle them, distinguish them, locate them compared to the debates, until dismounting logic of it. What is important is not to sanction the errors, but them use. Everyone must be brought to build and defend its own opinions, to become aware of the diversity of the opinions and the sources of information, then to become aware that the argumentation is the tool which legitimates the opinion.



Presentation of the scientific method :

The scientific method is a rigorous and objective step studying phenomena starting from an ideal model or to check assumptions which confirm or cancel the theory. A theory is a whole of conjectures which were confirmed by the way of experiment. Simple conjectures are not a theory, they are only speculations. A theory establishes logical bonds of causality between remarks that one describes rationally by means of the mathematics. Science refers only to the facts, and science does not take into account the emotional or cultural implication of the scientist. Each scientific theory is provisional and the new theories are only approximations better than those which have them precedent. The convention first which confers on a knowledge its character scientific it is than one can repeat, to some extent, the discovery ; to remake the observation, to take again the reasoning, to again confront the assumptions with the facts. It we invite to make reproducibility. The single phenomenon observed by a single person cannot thus be the object of a scientific knowledge : the individual mystical experiments through the various religions are an exemple. The theory is not only one formulation in more exact terms of the already acquired knowledge, but still a stimulation to put new questions to improve our knowledge. One "does not believe" not in the rationnality ; one is used for oneself of the rationnality in order to confirm or to cancel the beliefs, the hypothesises. It is not necessary deliberately to confuse the religious faith with the faith within the meaning of confidence. The religious faith is absolute and blind. On the other hand, confidence that I have in sciences is provisional and is confirmed only when it is justified by the experiment. And this confidence can be called in question constantly.

Criteria of the scientific step :

Logic and validity of the assumptions/hypothesises : premises, evidence.

Falsifiability: there is a way of proving that an assumption is false.

Replicability: the experiment is reproducible

Exhaustiveness: there are other explanations, in particular simpler, which consolidate the assumption.

Science does not invent anything, it discovers.

Don't forget that what is not scientific often forgets or hide some elements.

Scientists shew that parapsychology is a pseudoscience,
parapsychologists follow a false experimental protocol and and they wanna make believe to people that what they do is science.

Please read the lines above, in the precedent article, which explain what is the scientific method.

Validity of parapsychology

Certain observers agree on the fact that work of parapsychology highlighted effects, others dispute these analyses. Parapsychology is indeed confronted with various problems:

* The problem of reproducibility : there does not exist at the present time of reproducible experiment with wish by any researcher, in any laboratory, highlighting phenomena psi. It acts of the major reproach against parapsychology. For the skeptics, parapsychology will have proven the existence of its object of study, the psi, when it succeeds in creating an experiment réplicable. There are however certain work completed driving with significant results and others with nonsignificant results. Where the skeptics see only one distribution related to the chances (with a hoop effect related to a skew in the publication of the results), the parapsychologists interpret these results by questioning the place of the subject and the experimenter. Certain parapsychologists think that it is not possible to reproduce these effects as in the other scientific fields since these effects would be variable according to the subjects and experimenters'. For example, it would seem that the belief of the subject in these phenomena conditions the results partly. The parapsychologists speak about effect sheep-goat (Micrometer caliper, 1978). Other parameters as the extraversion of the subjects seem to influence the results. The observers skeptics consider for their part that the difficulties of reproduction of the significant experiments by other researchers as the index of skew come owing to the fact that, basically, Psi does not exist.

* The problem of the theory : there currently does not exist of scientific theory making it possible to explain in a causal way the results obtained by the parapsychologists. There are however "models of comprehension" making it possible to determine which are the parameters making it possible to obtain psi effects (better results at the subjects bound affectivement, importance of certain psychological natures, etc.) and of the drafts of descriptive theories like the model of pragmatic information (Lucadou, 1987). These theories do not make either consensus, in particular concerning the fact that they contradict or not the current theories in contemporary physics. Certain skeptics authors think that these theories are not reconcilable with the classical theories while other researchers, one can quote in particular the Nobel Prize of physique Brian Josephson, Remy Chauvin, or French Olivier Costa de Beauregard, researcher in quantum physics, thinks that the theories of the psi do not invalidate the contemporary models of physique, they supplement them. At the theoretical level, the skeptics generally criticize the fact that the "support" of information and a possible "receiving" body was not highlighted. For the parapsychologists, the psi effects do not function on the same methods as the other physical phenomena, and consequently to speak about receiving body and data carrier is unsuited.

* Anomality and causality : the parapsychologists highlight in their research of the statistical anomalies. However, a statistical anomaly is right that: an anomaly. It is for the moment unexplained and asks to find an explanation. Certain parapsychologists consider that the explanation of the anomaly is an extrasensory perception. That does not imply ipso facto that the explanation of this correlation is Psi.

* The experimentative effect : This term takes a particular direction in the field of parapsychology. It is a particular form of the sheep-goat effect on the level of the experimenter. The parapsychologists put forth the assumption that the experimenter could have an influence on the results in way psi (and not in a traditional way, such as for example with the Rosenthal effect). The skeptics, contrary, do not see there that an effect Rosenthal one cannot traditional any more. The possibility of distinguishing from possible psi effects coming from the subjects of the effects coming from the experimenters is an important debate within the community of the parapsychologists.

* Lack of means : the research carried out in the field of parapsychology since nearly one century was carried out with the same means as those reserved for the American departments of psychology for two months. That makes it possible to partly explain the reason for which the parapsychologists have great difficulties in set up research. It is necessary to add to that the low number of full-time researchers working in this field. Another explanatory factor of the lack of rise of parapsychology is the difficulty in retorting the experiments for the reasons called upon previously. Lastly, one can mention the fact that it is often very badly seen in the academic world to work on the questions related to parapsychology. It is generally a critical approach which is favoured and work trying to highlight the phenomena are often difficult to set up.



Parapsychology: a pseudo-science

A pseudo-science is distinguished from a scientific discipline in particular with regard to the refutability proposed by Karl Popper. Parapsychology appears not-refutable from its experimental protocols and in particular the fact that an experiment is not necessarily reproducible. A failure tending to refute parapsychology is justified by a missed experiment, for example by calling uponthe experimentative effect.

It then appears impossible to refute parapsychology. That does not mean however that it is founded on the lie, but that implies that it cannot be regarded as a scientific discipline.

We join the problems described here previously. Although some affirm that effects were highlighted, they are not explained according to traditional models' scientific, which makes problematic this discipline. Indeed, the parapsychologists put forth in particular the assumption that it could exist still unexplained interactions between an observer and a studied phenomenon.


The situation in France, the Descartes' country

In France, parapsychology is not recognized like a scientific discipline and is taught in no public university.

The principal organization of research on the subject is international the Metapsychic Institute (IMI) [ 8 ], recognized foundation of public utility depending on the ministry for the Interior. Created in 1919, it in particular counted among its founder members, Charles Richet, (Nobel Prize of physiology). The Group of Experimental Studies of the Phenomena Parapsychologiques (GEEP) is also interested in the subject.

The laboratory of zetetic of Henri Broch [ 9 ], proposes for its part a zetetic approach of these phenomena, i.e. it seeks, without a priori and with rigour, to study the "paranormaux" phenomena and in particular the phenomena psi.



Skeptical links about parapsychology (into english) :

http://www.csicop.org/
http://www.randi.org/
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/
http://phoenix.herts.ac.uk/PWRU/RWhomepage.html

Je pense que si des associations s'autoproclament scientifiques sans l'être, c'est à cause de leur statut privé, et donc exempt de tout contrôle par des comités.

La laïcisation des institutions empêchent les dérives et les abus. L'école publique permet donc un enseignement neutre et objectif. Les enseignements privés peuvent donc être dirigés par des individus qui peuvent avoir n'importe quelle idéologie en faisant passer celle-ci pour une science, afin de gagner la confiance des gens mal informés sur le sujet.

L'imposture scientifique est assimilable à de l'abus de confiance. Lorsqu'un système d'idées est proposé aux gens intéressés, ceux-ci devraient avoir le droit légitime de connaître les aspects critiques et sceptiques, et ainsi choisir en toute connaissance de cause.

Sachez voir les différences.

--------------

English version :


I think that if organizations name themselves scientific without to be it, that's because of their private status, and thus their are free from any control by committees.

The laicization of the institutions prevents the abuses. The public school thus allows a neutral and objective teaching. The private lesson can thus be directed by individuals who can have any ideology while making pass this one for a science, in order to gain the confidence of people badly informed on the subject.

Scientific imposture is assimilable to breach of trust. When a system of ideas is proposed to interested people, those should have the legitimate right to know the critical and skeptical aspects, and thus to choose in all knowledge of what it is.

Will be able to see the differences.