<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">James Randi</a> is a famous skeptic who challenges paranormal and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience" rel="nofollow noreferrer">pseudoscientific</a> claims. Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices may give the appearance of being scientific, but, are untestable. James Randi's claim is that the Silva method is untestable and, therefore, unscientific.  In other words, the Silva method has no observable (or statistically significant) effect on memory, learning or telepathy.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-26T06:01:00.830Z
I agree with Randi. This is definitely pseudoscientific. There is no science involved in any way.
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-27T19:35:09.513Z
So, i guess that there must be some papers that show :** In other words, the Silva method has no observable (or statistically significant) effect on memory, learning or telepathy.** , and i am searching for find any fail or true result about this method, do you know which lab or paper written about that, or that is one opinion.
Soheil Paper
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-27T20:52:44.300Z
@SoheilPaper That's not how it works. Scientists don't bother investigating obviously made up stuff, they test things that are plausible based on what is already known. If someone wants to propose some crank theory, it is *up to them to provide evidence it works* not up to anyone else to provide evidence it doesn't.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-27T21:16:35.403Z
I know, that there must approved or have enough wealth for testing by scientific methods, but the word of **unstable** and don't find any experiment that worked on the Silva method are amazing, how could say those are unstable, when it could be tested by two group sample during some period of time and is testable? or i don't consider some aspect of the psychological search methods.
Soheil Paper
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-27T22:46:32.617Z
An axiom of science is that nothing can be proven true, that is, claims can only actually ever be proven false.  Claims that steadfastly resist being proven false advance to become a theory (i.e. theory of gravity).  People who make claims (such as Silva) must firstly express their claim in a manner that can be proven false. Claims articulated so as to be untestable (see any astrology chart) are said to be pseudoscientific.  Until Silva restates the claim in a manner that may be proven false and supports the claim with evidence, all others (including you) should remain sceptical of the claim.
Tony Mobbs
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-28T23:42:50.103Z
A good read on the process of science is a wonderful book by Alan Chalmers: What Is This Thing Called Science?, University of Queensland Press, Open University press, 4th edition, 2013 ISBN 9780702250873
Tony Mobbs
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-26T01:48:07.457Z
2020-07-26T01:48:07.457Z
Tony Mobbs
<p>I have tried to find some papers about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silva_Method" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Silva Method</a> when that i seen this text in Wikipedia:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>James Randi wrote that the Silva Method &quot;claims to develop improved
memory, learning ability, and paranormal powers like telepathy. Much
of the course consists of 'visiting' absent persons imagined by
students and performing diagnoses on them. No tests of the validity of
this practice have been done; such tests are discouraged by the
teachers of the system.&quot;<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&amp;q=allintitle:%20%20psychology%20%22Silva%22&amp;hl=fa&amp;as_sdt=0,5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>so i tried this tags(<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&amp;q=allintitle:%20%20psychology%20%22Silva%22&amp;hl=fa&amp;as_sdt=0,5" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>psychology &quot;Silva&quot;</strong></a>) and not find any paper, So if there is not any paper on silva methods, why does it happen? is it not scientific issue or ...?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-04T12:19:24.797Z
Other than the original source linked by Wikipedia? [The Silva Mind Control Method](https://archive.org/details/silvamindcontrol00silv_0). Or, are you looking for scientific research discussing the (pseudoscientific) claims made therein?
Steven Jeuris
<brain-waves>
Searching for Silva Method papers
Soheil Paper
# Searching for Silva Method papers

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-07-25)

I have tried to find some papers about [Silva Method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silva_Method) when that i seen this text in Wikipedia:

> James Randi wrote that the Silva Method "claims to develop improved
> memory, learning ability, and paranormal powers like telepathy. Much
> of the course consists of 'visiting' absent persons imagined by
> students and performing diagnoses on them. No tests of the validity of
> this practice have been done; such tests are discouraged by the
> teachers of the system."[2](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=allintitle:%20%20psychology%20%22Silva%22&hl=fa&as_sdt=0,5)

so i tried this tags([**psychology "Silva"**](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=allintitle:%20%20psychology%20%22Silva%22&hl=fa&as_sdt=0,5)) and not find any paper, So if there is not any paper on silva methods, why does it happen? is it not scientific issue or ...?

**Tags:** brain-waves

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Other than the original source linked by Wikipedia? [The Silva Mind Control Method](https://archive.org/details/silvamindcontrol00silv_0). Or, are you looking for scientific research discussing the (pseudoscientific) claims made therein?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-07-26. Score: 2

[James Randi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi) is a famous skeptic who challenges paranormal and [pseudoscientific](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience) claims. Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices may give the appearance of being scientific, but, are untestable. James Randi's claim is that the Silva method is untestable and, therefore, unscientific. In other words, the Silva method has no observable (or statistically significant) effect on memory, learning or telepathy.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: I agree with Randi. This is definitely pseudoscientific. There is no science involved in any way.  
> **username_0**: So, i guess that there must be some papers that show :** In other words, the Silva method has no observable (or statistically significant) effect on memory, learning or telepathy.** , and i am searching for find any fail or true result about this method, do you know which lab or paper written about that, or that is one opinion.  
> **username_4**: @SoheilPaper That's not how it works. Scientists don't bother investigating obviously made up stuff, they test things that are plausible based on what is already known. If someone wants to propose some crank theory, it is *up to them to provide evidence it works* not up to anyone else to provide evidence it doesn't.  
> **username_0**: I know, that there must approved or have enough wealth for testing by scientific methods, but the word of **unstable** and don't find any experiment that worked on the Silva method are amazing, how could say those are unstable, when it could be tested by two group sample during some period of time and is testable? or i don't consider some aspect of the psychological search methods.  
> **username_2**: An axiom of science is that nothing can be proven true, that is, claims can only actually ever be proven false.  Claims that steadfastly resist being proven false advance to become a theory (i.e. theory of gravity).  People who make claims (such as Silva) must firstly express their claim in a manner that can be proven false. Claims articulated so as to be untestable (see any astrology chart) are said to be pseudoscientific.  Until Silva restates the claim in a manner that may be proven false and supports the claim with evidence, all others (including you) should remain sceptical of the claim.  
> **username_2**: A good read on the process of science is a wonderful book by Alan Chalmers: What Is This Thing Called Science?, University of Queensland Press, Open University press, 4th edition, 2013 ISBN 9780702250873  

---

