Does anyone know of any Scientific proof of Paranormal?

Question

It can be anything like God, Ghosts/spirits, ESP, mind power, aura.

We all have our respective faiths. But is there any scientific study ever done to prove these things exist.

Answer 1

If you're interested in the more scientific end of paranormal research, I suggest subscribing to a peer-reviewed journal such as the Journal of Parapsychology. Most often they are finding alternative explanations for things "paranormal," but on occasion the are unable to.

Answer 2

Scientifically, if you can imgaine it, it can exist..even if it's just in your head.

Something can exist even if you have no way to quantify it yet.  It just means you'll need to create the means to measure whatever "it" is to prove it exists.

Answer 3

This isn't the answer you were looking for, of course, and it's not a s**y answer, but the truth is no.  There have been plenty of experiments, but none have ever provided any evidence whatsoever of any paranormal phenomena.

As for a previous answer,

>"Also, it is rarely mentioned that parapsychology experiments on the whole have better methodology than most other mainstream experiments in social science or medial research."

is the biggest load of rubbish I've seen posted on here for some time.  Medical trials are typically extremely rigorous, often double-blind, always repeated.  Parapsycholoy proponenets seem to believe that because one experimenter said something, it must be true.  Duh.

.

Answer 4

There is no proof of anything in science. Science does not deal with proof it deals with evidence. True there are some things like gravity that has so much consistent experimental evidence that it is accepted as proven.

However, even in this Newton's formulation of gravity said that it was not subject to the law of the speed of the light and every single earth bound experiment confirmed this conclusion.

Then a quack by the name of Einstein working as a patent clerk came along and wrote a little theory called relativity and showed that gravity was subject to the speed of light  thus overturning all the established confirming evidence for how gravity worked.

Science can either fail to provide evidence for a hypothesis or provide supporting evidence for a hypothesis.

With the above in mind yes there is lots of experimental evidence showing the reality of such phenomena as ESP.

I grant that it is not at the level of gravity mostly because it is a human ability and not a phenomena of nature (like gravity).

However, the evidence has met the criteria for social sciences and medical research (less than a 5% probablity of it accuring by chance or p<.05).

Skeptics often criticize the evidence on the grounds of methodology not mentioning that all possible flaws are taken into account by the extremely compenent people who evaluate the studies. They also fail to provide evidence that any claimed flaws could actually result in false positive results (a claim that shifts the burden of proof to them as they are suggesting an alternative hypothesis for the results). Also, it is rarely mentioned that parapsychology experiments on the whole have better methodology than most other mainstream experiments in social science or medical research.

Here are links to actual scientific research to allow you to read and evaluate it for your self.

The more you know....

Psi

Answer 5

Yes. Maybe psiexploration will post some links for you.  He's put them on here before..but I don't think I can find them.

Edit..Here's one I just found on Google.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/12/...

Answer 6

I don't know about scientific proof (it does exist, I just don't know where to look for it) but the US government has about a zillion documented cases of all you have mentioned and things so off the wall you couldn't even imagine them. You can see parts of many of these documents by requesting them from the gov through the freedom of information act.The government spends a butt load of money on these things and it doesn't seem likely they would do that with no proof or reason.

Answer 7

none whatsoever regardless of what you might read on the Internet no one has ever presented any concrete proof of life after death

Answer 8

There is NO scientific proof. Most of these people don't even know what the word "science" means. They think that if you're measuring ghost-signals or whatever cra*p with a voltmeter, then the more expensive the voltmeter or heat detector is, then the more "scientific" the work is.

They have no clue what science is.

Answer 9

I'm not going to give you a long answer but

You do not need proof all you need is hope

Then they will come to you

Proof, is a way of saying the answer

Hope, is the way of knowing the answe

Answer 10

I see our resident maven of science misinformation has already answered :)  Let me answer your question by addressing some of his fallacies.

"With the above in mind yes there is lots of experimental evidence showing the reality of such phenomena as ESP."

I agree there is "lots" of experimental evidence. It's just extremely poor evidence which doesn't even come close to "showing the reality" of ESP. The ganzfeld studies, the rolling dice PK studies, the PEAR studies with micro-PK, etc., all have fallen into the forgotten dustbin of science. Due to poor experimental controls and dubious analysis methods, they have failed to convince many scientists at all that they are detecting actual physical phenomena. These experiments also represent a strange kind of "science", completely orphaned from any mechanistic linkage to established science. While Newton's theory is contained within Relativity, there are no scientifically valid theories connecting ostensible paranormal phenomena with our present scientific knowledge.

"However, the evidence has met the criteria for social sciences and medical research (less than a 5% probablity of it accuring by chance or p<.05).... it is rarely mentioned that parapsychology experiments on the whole have better methodology than most other mainstream experiments in social science or medical research." To state that the evidence is statistically valid by citing the P-value is an extreme trivializing of statistical methods. What's critically important is how that P-value is arrived at. Regarding the second point, parapsychology literature is actually very poor in quality on average, since you'll find that most paranormal journals aren't peer reviewed by scientists and many of the articles are written by layman ghosthunters. That's not to say you cannot find a few paranormal articles of publishable quality, but they are not very common in my experience.

"Skeptics often criticize the evidence on the grounds of methodology not mentioning that all possible flaws are taken into account by the extremely compenent people who evaluate the studies." The first part of this is false -- no experiment can take into account ALL possible sources of unexplained variation since you're dealing with unknowns. However, skeptics may criticize certain paranormal experiments on a number of counts including poor controls, which they seem to suffer from quite a bit. The second part, e.g., "extremely competent people", is merely amusing :)

"They also fail to provide evidence that any claimed flaws could actually result in false positive results (a claim that shifts the burden of proof to them as they are suggesting an alternative hypothesis for the results). " This is twisting of the concept of the burden of proof, I'm afraid. As said above, paranormal experiments tend to suffer from poor controls, and it's axiomatic in science that poor controls lead to poorly reliable data. Citing poor controls does not amount to a shift in the burden of proof.

I am encouraged, however, to see the discussion on evidence vs proof which appears to be correct. "Scientific proof" is a phrase in our vernacular which seems to mean that something has so much scientific evidence going for it that to disbelieve it is absurd. However, actual absolute proof cannot be provided by the scientific method. All we can do is keep piling up evidence for the theories that work and falsify the theories that don't. That being said, there just isn't much in the way of compelling scientific evidence for spirits, esp, aura, etc.

For further information, see the very well documented paper below on the history of psi research :)

The less you don't know...

Answer 11

No.  If it actually existed, it wouldn't be paranormal any more - it would be normal.  Sure, there are plenty of books out there.  But there is a severe lack of peer-reviewed research in real science journals.  Anyone can write a book on anything.  But not everyone can get published in a journal.

Answer 12

Research efforts have been made.  There was the Rhine Institute that researched parapsychology.   There is Kirlian photography.  

These subjects are in an area in which the scientific method is not very helpful.   The most compelling evidence is the thousands of years of stories told by so many people.

Answer 13

Why do people think just because there has been an exhorbitant amount of boring data compiled that it is proof?

Why not just experience it in your daily lives and leave that boring type hype to the egg heads?