I have had some basic observations about the above subjects and how they relate to each other. I would be very interested in everyones thoughts on my observations.

I believe I have a good understanding of what science is and its implications on the world we live in. I am also a fairly logical person. I find myself becoming more and more uncomfortable as the years go by with how science and scientists are viewed. It seems that scientists and people who claim to be scientists are becoming authorities about subjects that are completely out of the scope of science. From my understanding, science is based on facts, at least physical science. It seems that some scientists are becoming "experts" in fields where there are little or no facts present. My sad observation is that the media and a whole lot of people swallow what an "expert" says without question. It seems that if someone holds the title of "Scientist", they become an aurhority on just about anything, in or out of their field. Let me get a little more specific.


I dont want to get people inflamed around here, I am not pushing any certain agenda. I just want to know if Im crazy. Im am going to bring up a couple of hottly contested subjects, not to push a certain school of thought, but to illustrate my point. So there is no need to get your fur up, people.

Let us take for example the subject of near death experiences. Let us look at the subject as a whole for a second. In this area there are certainly few facts. People are experiencing something, but what is it? What facts are present? Even more important to science, what is testable? From all of the evidence that I have seen, it would seem that it is impossible to test any fact. At minimum, any test possible would cause controversy nonetheless. We will have to agree that no scientific conclusions can be made due to lack of evidence, for either side. I wouldnt have to go too far out on a limb to say that, would I? Nonetheless, you will see scientists quoted as experts on the subject. A scientist who claims to be an expert or an authority on a subject such as NDEs, would seem to be abusing the authority granted to such persons by our culture. Since, at this moment in time, NDEs are not in the realm of scientific observation it would seem irresponsible for a scientist to claim to be an authority on the subject. An example of this would be Susan Blackmoore. You see her on every program about NDEs representing the sceptical point-of-view. It bothers me to see her throw around baseless theories that could not possibly be tested. Its one thing for a doctor or a patient to present a theory, its another thing(IMO) for a scientist to do so (in this instance).

Of course this brings up a question of what a scientist is. If you have a doctorate and are doing research at a university, does that make you a scientist? I will just just narrow my definition for the sake of argument. Lets just say the above are true and they claim to be a scientist. A claim is certainly good enough for the media, I guess that is where the problem lies. The heart of the problem is true scientist being qouted as an authority on subjects out of thier field. Would a scientist who specializing in brain function be an expert on the subject of NDEs? I would have to say no, because there is no concrete evidence it is even a function of the brain. So, what should a scientist as a respected authority figure in our society say on the subject? A simple "I dont know" would work fine.

If a physicist claims to have evidence that further supports the Theory of Relativity and it is accepted by the scientific community, that person is a legitimate authority on the subject. His theory could be trusted and quoted. This is what all the scientists theorizing out of thier field lack. The media and most people dont know the difference.

Lets have some fun and talk about UFOs. You thankfully dont see many scientists qouted on the subject. Another problem that arises in this area is what I call "In The Name Of Science!" sceptics. Now, this is more devious and much more subtle form of authority manipulation. You have sceptics who will claim to be the gaurdians of science running around debunking everything from UFOs to "The Shroud of Turin". I personally find it humorous, but this can truly be damaging to freedom of thought. In our society, science should be taken seriously, for it is the most reliable way to understand our world. But science cannot be taken out of its scope to supress thought. Whenever a balanced UFO program is aired that truly attempts to show both sides of the issue, you will see sceptics attempt to use the words "science" or "scientific" to give authority to thier opinions. The most common tactic is to qoute some thoery or another about how far away other stars are or how large the universe is. They are speaking true, but twisting it to fit thier opinion at the same time claiming to represent science.

Without getting too much into specifics, I dont believe sceptics should be using science as a shield to convince other people that ETs could not possibly visit our world. There is no evidence at this point, no hard evidence at all. This puts this entire subject out of the realm of science, so people claiming to represent science shouldnt be even conversing on the subject as an authority. UFOs should be confined to realm of specualtion until a UFO crashes into Los Alamos. The point would probably be moot anyway, because most scientists would die of shock as thier world expanded exponentially;) Sceptics, IMO, commit a disservice to science by claiming to represent it. I dont mind hearing about lights in the sky or alien abductions as long as someone is not citing science as an authority on the subject, from either direction.

All of this stuff I learned in Logic 101, but apparently members of the media, sceptical community, and some scientists need to take that class too or take it again.

Am I just crazy? I hate ignorance coming from both directions at the same time.

*is member of that "sceptical" scientific community*


um...it's just MHO that those so-called NDE are simply chemical/hormonal reactions occuring at the time death, or near-death ..in response to the amount of stress the body is undergoing at the time.

Originally posted by Swatter
...Even more important to science, what is testable? From all of the evidence that I have seen, it would seem that it is impossible to test any fact. At minimum, any test possible would cause controversy nonetheless. We will have to agree that no scientific conclusions can be made due to lack of evidence, for either side. Put a person in a big centrifuge (like the ones they use to train pilots and astronauts) and spin them until they start to black out; many of people will have near-death experiences. Monitor the brain activity during the NDE and you'll see that there's a lot of random activity in the part of the brain that interprets sensory input, especially light. Stimulate that part of a person's brain randomly with an electrode and they will experience similar NDEs. It's a (relatively) easily testable, repeatable experiment. Thus one could put forth a valid scientific theory that NDEs are caused by random activity in a certain part of the brain.

Sorry that I can't be more specific, this is all stuff that a vaguely remember from a class on the human brain that I took quite a while ago.

I dont want to debate those specific issues, but I will give you a few things to think about concerning NDEs.

1) The centrifuge theory, IMO, is the poorest of them all. The only thing that happens is that as a person is passing out, thier vision begins to narrow(called G-Lock?). This is not at all what a NDE is. If you wish to accept that theory, you are ignoring 90% of the evidence.

2) As for the first repy about a chemical reaction, that is certainly possible but also leaves out other bodies of evidence.

3) There is no current theory that ties together all parts of the NDE experience.


4) There are some pieces of evidence that are very hard to explain away, such as a person being able to hear the surgeon's conversation with zero brain activity. Also, being able to see objects or people in other rooms while the person is brain dead. Most sceptics just ignore the things they cant explain.

I personally am undecided on the issue, but I think everyone should look at all sides of the issue.

Originally posted by Nasor
Put a person in a big centrifuge (like the ones they use to train pilots and astronauts) and spin them until they start to black out; many of people will have near-death experiences. Monitor the brain activity during the NDE and you'll see that there's a lot of random activity in the part of the brain that interprets sensory input, especially light. Stimulate that part of a person's brain randomly with an electrode and they will experience similar NDEs. It's a (relatively) easily testable, repeatable experiment. Thus one could put forth a valid scientific theory that NDEs are caused by random activity in a certain part of the brain.

Sorry that I can't be more specific, this is all stuff that a vaguely remember from a class on the human brain that I took quite a while ago.



The most interesting NDE evidence comes when the person doesnt have any brain activity and is able to experience the enviroment around them. You dont see the so-called "authorities on the issue" comment on such evidence. It doesnt fit into thier theory, so they ignore it.

As a scientist, a sceptic and authority of a sort, here are some of my thoughts.

<i>It seems that if someone holds the title of "Scientist", they become an aurhority on just about anything, in or out of their field.</i>

In my experience, many scientists (especially those with teaching experience) take care to qualify statements they make. If they are commenting on things which are out of their fields of expertise (which are usually fairly narrow), they will often say so. This is not always the case, however. Also, in some instances what is given as a personal opinion can be taken as a statement backed by the authority of the scientist's position by the media and general public. This sort of thing is by no means restricted to scientists, though.

<i>From all of the evidence that I have seen, it would seem that it is impossible to test any fact [about near-death experiences].</i>

Of course it is possible to test the facts. You go about that in the same way you try to gather objective evidence of any fact, scientific or otherwise. You ask many people. You carry out tests which aim to control certain factors and exclude others. You look at what you already know and try to put together a coherent explanation.

<i>We will have to agree that no scientific conclusions can be made due to lack of evidence, for either side.</i>

Certain conclusions are possible. There are commonalities in reports of near-death experiences. The subjective experiences of people involved are (tellingly) not restricted to NDEs, but occur in other situations. Common factors appear (e.g. seeing a "tunnel" can be associated with a reduced blood flow to the visual cortex of the brain).

<i>Nonetheless, you will see scientists quoted as experts on the subject. A scientist who claims to be an expert or an authority on a subject such as NDEs, would seem to be abusing the authority granted to such persons by our culture.</i>

What do you require for somebody to be an "expert" on NDEs? Is having certain academic qualifications enough? Is it necessary to have the experience yourself? Do you need knowledge of neuroscience? Religion? Can there be any "experts", in your opinion?

<i>An example of this would be Susan Blackmoore. You see her on every program about NDEs representing the sceptical point-of-view. It bothers me to see her throw around baseless theories that could not possibly be tested.</i>

That bothers me, too, if that is what she is doing. The important question is: are, in fact, her ideas untestable?

<i>Of course this brings up a question of what a scientist is. If you have a doctorate and are doing research at a university, does that make you a scientist?</i>

If you're researching in science, I think you'd have a fairly strong argument. :)

Some people claim that anybody who uses the methods of science to analyse facts and present hypotheses is a scientist. Others are more restrictive.

<i>The heart of the problem is true scientist being qouted as an authority on subjects out of thier field.</i>

How narrowly do you propose to limit scientists' comments on things, and in what contexts? If I am an astrophysicist, what is my "field"? Is it the detailed workings of stars? Is it astronomy in general? Is it physics? Is it science? Where do you draw the line? What makes somebody an authority on something?

<i>Would a scientist who specializing in brain function be an expert on the subject of NDEs? I would have to say no, because there is no concrete evidence it is even a function of the brain.</i>

I would say that a neuroscientist who has studied NDEs with respect to the brain is an expert. Certainly he or she would know more on the subject than perhaps 95% of people. Is that enough to be an expert or not?

<i>So, what should a scientist as a respected authority figure in our society say on the subject? A simple "I dont know" would work fine.</i>

Sure, but a neuroscientist who studies NDEs doesn't know <b>nothing</b>. He just doesn't know <b>everything</b>. The distinction is important, and knowing enough in any field makes you an expert. The only question is where exactly you draw the line.

<i>Lets have some fun and talk about UFOs. You thankfully dont see many scientists qouted on the subject.</i>

That's because there has been no new convincing evidence of alien spaceships in the last 50 years. The only people still pushing the idea are nutters. (Note: personal opinion!)

<i>You have sceptics who will claim to be the gaurdians of science running around debunking everything from UFOs to "The Shroud of Turin".</i>

It is interesting that you use the term "guardians of science". I actually don't think it is science which is under attack from such ideas. If not for the sake of science, then why do you think skeptics try to debunk such things? Think.

<i>But science cannot be taken out of its scope to supress thought.</i>

I agree. So do Skeptics.

<i>Whenever a balanced UFO program is aired that truly attempts to show both sides of the issue, you will see sceptics attempt to use the words "science" or "scientific" to give authority to thier opinions.</i>

When was the last time you saw a <b>balanced</b> UFO program?

<i>Without getting too much into specifics, I dont believe sceptics should be using science as a shield to convince other people that ETs could not possibly visit our world.</i>

What method do you suggest they use?

<i>There is no evidence at this point, no hard evidence at all.</i>

You're getting the burden of proof wrong here. The people making the positive claims - that ETs <b>are</b> visiting Earth right now - have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is not on skeptics to disprove every goofy idea somebody comes up with.

(Also, most informed scientists are quite open-minded about the possibility of extraterrestrial life.)

<i>UFOs should be confined to realm of specualtion until a UFO crashes into Los Alamos.</i>

Right. Until good evidence of some kind comes along, there is no reason to believe that aliens are visiting us. Until we have that evidence we should keep an open mind, bearing in mind the difficulties of interstellar travel and so on (which are informed by our scientific knowledge).

<i>Am I just crazy?</i>

No, but perhaps a little too credulous. :)

Excellent reply, thanks:)

I dont believe I am credulous. I tend to be undecided about complicated subjects, although I do keep an open mind. If I am credulous, I can afford to be because I am not a scientist and I dont claim to represent anything but my own opinion :)

---------
"Of course it is possible to test the facts. You go about that in the same way you try to gather objective evidence of any fact, scientific or otherwise. You ask many people. You carry out tests which aim to control certain factors and exclude others. You look at what you already know and try to put together a coherent explanation."
--------

I did concede in the next sentence that it would be possible to test facts about NDEs, I just dont think it would get anywhere at this point.

------------
"Certain conclusions are possible. There are commonalities in reports of near-death experiences. The subjective experiences of people involved are (tellingly) not restricted to NDEs, but occur in other situations. Common factors appear (e.g. seeing a "tunnel" can be associated with a reduced blood flow to the visual cortex of the brain)."
--------------

You will have to excuse my not so presise wording. I only meant to say that there are no widely accepted general conclusions about the NDEs. All I have heard are a bunch of often unconnected theories.

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

"What do you require for somebody to be an "expert" on NDEs? Is having certain academic qualifications enough? Is it necessary to have the experience yourself? Do you need knowledge of neuroscience? Religion? Can there be any "experts", in your opinion?"
------------


I believe that scientific knowledge of this subject is in its infancy and at this point you have "authority figures" throwing around little more than thier opinions. That is the problem. Im sure there are scientists out there conducting first-hand empirical research on the topic, they would seem to be the experts.

I really didnt want to make this a debate about NDEs, I just wanted an example. I should have stayed more focused.


------------------------
" Also, in some instances what is given as a personal opinion can be taken as a statement backed by the authority of the scientist's position by the media and general public. This sort of thing is by no means restricted to scientists, though."
----------------------

Thats kinda my point. You dont see a priest when you need to attach the proper lense to Hubble, you would hope NASA could take care of that. You dont see priests being qouted about how to fix Hubble, and if you did they wouldnt be taken seriously. It doesnt work the same way with scientists. Scientists can be qouted outside of thier field as an authority and not many would know the difference. I guess as a counter-point, a priest is a bad example. Im sure you get the idea.


------------------
"<i>An example of this would be Susan Blackmoore. You see her on every program about NDEs representing the sceptical point-of-view. It bothers me to see her throw around baseless theories that could not possibly be tested.</i>

That bothers me, too, if that is what she is doing. The important question is: are, in fact, her ideas untestable?"
-----------------


Particularly with her, she likes to use witness testimony. She takes what witness A says and compares it to what witness B says and concludes that they are alike. For example, comparing a pilot experiencing tunnel vision when blacking out to the entirety of the NDE experience.

Thats the whole problem with NDE reasearch at this point. Too much reliance is placed on subjective experience and then subjective analysis of the subjective experience. At this point there is more conjecture than facts. All of this makes me uncomfortable on the subject.


---------------------
"<i>The heart of the problem is true scientist being qouted as an authority on subjects out of thier field.</i>

How narrowly do you propose to limit scientists' comments on things, and in what contexts? If I am an astrophysicist, what is my "field"? Is it the detailed workings of stars? Is it astronomy in general? Is it physics? Is it science? Where do you draw the line? What makes somebody an authority on something?"
---------------------


If a physicist claims to have evidence that further supports the Theory of Relativity and it is accepted by the scientific community, that person is a legitimate authority on the subject. His theory could be trusted and quoted.

That is Logic and Critical Thinking 101. I believe the current guidelines are sufficient, but sometimes ignored. I will deal with the rest of your comment on the next line.

---------------------
"<i>Would a scientist who specializing in brain function be an expert on the subject of NDEs? I would have to say no, because there is no concrete evidence it is even a function of the brain.</i>

I would say that a neuroscientist who has studied NDEs with respect to the brain is an expert. Certainly he or she would know more on the subject than perhaps 95% of people. Is that enough to be an expert or not?"
----------------------


I would agree that neuroscientists who study NDEs would be experts. A neuroscientist who has not studied NDEs are not solid authorities on the matter. That would seem to be consistently logical.


------------------
"<i>You have sceptics who will claim to be the gaurdians of science running around debunking everything from UFOs to "The Shroud of Turin".</i>

It is interesting that you use the term "guardians of science". I actually don't think it is science which is under attack from such ideas. If not for the sake of science, then why do you think skeptics try to debunk such things? Think."
----------------------


I use the word "claim" because I dont see any cabinet level posts called "The Gaurdian of Scientific Purity". I dont not doubt thier motivations are related to promoting science over mysticism. My problem is sceptics mixing thier authority as (insert your favorite occupation) and the authority of science. Because they claim to represent science, doesnt make them a scientific authority on anything. Unless, of course, they are already a legitimate authority in the field they are trying to debunk. Being a magician doesnt make you an authority in science. Unfortunately, the media treats James Randy as a scientific expert in a multitude of fields. I dont mind them running around debunking things, I just take exception to sceptics using the word "science" as a substitute for a PHD in the field they are debunking.


---------------
"When was the last time you saw a <b>balanced</b> UFO program?"
-----------------

Your right :(


-----------------
"<i>Without getting too much into specifics, I dont believe sceptics should be using science as a shield to convince other people that ETs could not possibly visit our world.</i>

What method do you suggest they use?"
----------------


My suggestion is that they need to stop pretending such topics are within the scope of science. The question of whether ETs are here or not is the realm of speculation, not science. If they just came out and said "Im Joe Shmoe, I believe X, Y, Z, you need to believe me", thats one thing. But they say "Im Joe Shmoe, I represent science. I believe X, Y, Z, if you dont believe me your an idiot." It doesnt matter if sceptic X is a clerk at your local shopping mall, he represents science. The authority given to sceptics nowadays is mis-placed, in my not so humble opinion.


--------------
"<i>There is no evidence at this point, no hard evidence at all.</i>

You're getting the burden of proof wrong here. The people making the positive claims - that ETs <b>are</b> visiting Earth right now - have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is not on skeptics to disprove every goofy idea somebody comes up with."
-----------------------


This simply ties into mis-placed authority. The sceptics have a very valid view on the subject. The point is that it is no better than mine. People who claim to represent science as an authority figure will always get more validation for thier opinion, even though such faith in said persons opinion is unwarranted. They simply say "You must believe me, I represent science". They can speculate all they wish, just speculate with your own credentials.


-------------
"(Also, most informed scientists are quite open-minded about the possibility of extraterrestrial life.)

<i>UFOs should be confined to realm of specualtion until a UFO crashes into Los Alamos.</i>

Right. Until good evidence of some kind comes along, there is no reason to believe that aliens are visiting us. Until we have that evidence we should keep an open mind, bearing in mind the difficulties of interstellar travel and so on (which are informed by our scientific knowledge)."
------------------


You could be qouted as an expert on the possibility of ET visitation, as a scientific authority. Would that authority be in the correct place? I guess that is what this thread is all about:)

:D you want credible?? just go ask Art Bell...

+++Whenever a balanced UFO program is aired that truly attempts to show both sides of the issue, you will see sceptics attempt to use the words "science" or "scientific" to give authority to thier opinions.+++

since when do we believe anything that is on tv????

:) "Hi."

Some friends and I were just discussing this.. I think you've got a point, Swatter. We had an all out war between four or five well- knowledged laymen, two being of the seriously skeptical scientific type. The discussion was 'mind effecting matter.'

It became more than just a discussion right about the time we got into the subject of an undiscovered dimension...Of course there is no means of proof, no means of calculating.- But if you look at the techniques of measuring for say, thermodynamics, they've had to work around a problem involving the zero theory...

The ones who were focused on that particularly were having a hard time incorporating other topics in relation. The serious skeptic in the group would not even consider the possibility because there was no way to prove it. He totally dismissed the idea and continued to argue the 'known' sciences.

We ended up coming to the conclusion that at the base of science is philosophy. Science, now more developed, is a field of it's own. -But at the fringes of science is an area of relentlous mysteries- so science is still nothing but a tool. The experts, in their fields do seem to forget sometimes, don't they?

I'm with you guy on that. But are you looking at the whole picture? (Am I wrong by bringing this up..?) Have you considered the fact that there might be scientists out there allready that have incorporated the unknown into real time practicallity? I want to share this..
Lets have some fun and talk about UFOs. You thankfully dont see many scientists qouted on the subject.

That's because there has been no new convincing evidence of alien spaceships in the last 50 years. The only people still pushing the idea are nutters. (Note: personal opinion!)

You've heard of SETI, right? I'm sure J.R. has..
Last year sometime I ran across some documents on one of the SETI sites. They were witnessed accounts from astrophysisisists
saying that the area 51 thing really happened. These were coming from the SETI sight, which at the time was a Federaly funded program. The whole slew of documents were pleas for the government to release the black broject files on ET's that have been known of since 1946!
Can you imagine?? The federally funded SETI program was born in the 60's! This is a program that was founded on the intent to search for ET. It is, BTW, no longer federally funded..

One of the things that was stated on those documents was a strange mettalic material that had the ability to reform ittself after being crushed. I'm sorry for bringing a conspiracy theory into this, but a few years ago scientists discovered a carbon molecule dubbed buckyballs..I'm sure you've heard of this..Is it coincidence that these molecules show the same properties?

See, I guess my question is, do you suppose there are scientists out there that are laughing at the ones we question? I have a lot of respect for the laymen in the field, but I'm with you on questioning their "open-mindedness," and motives also...

Peace, Anna

This whole thread is dumb. Swatter, you're ranting about people using unrelated authority to push their opinions as facts. This happens quite often in the public press, because the public press has no official referee mechanism. There are no organizations or committees with the charge to maintain proper scientific conduct in the popular press.

There are, however, many such mechanisms in place in the fields themselves, by journal referee and peer review.

Your argument is just a rant. When was the last time you turned on the six o'clock news and saw a real, honest-to-God expert explaining things? The people found to talk on the six o'clock news (on any topic) almost never have any sense. And it doesn't matter -- the news show is only interested in finding good testimony to the point that they convince watchers to keep watching. Any additional effort is wasted. The same goes for the alien shows and what-not on network TV: these shows aren't scientific, and don't care to be. It would require a lot more effort to maintain scientific conduct, but wouldn't really attract any more viewers. The shows are just going for the best bang (most viewers) for the least buck (effort in research).

It is sad, really, that this is all the public's fault. If the public were better educated so to recognize and ignore the shows which are obviously of poor scientific valor, they would force the broadcast companies to make shows of respectable scientific valor. The mass media is dumb, Swatter, and it always will be.

If you want scientific rigor and good conduct, go to your local University and read some journals.

- Warren

Originally posted by bluemommaphish
Last year sometime I ran across some documents on one of the SETI sites. They were witnessed accounts from astrophysisisists
saying that the area 51 thing really happened. These were coming from the SETI sight, which at the time was a Federaly funded program. The whole slew of documents were pleas for the government to release the black broject files on ET's that have been known of since 1946!
Riiiight. The government spent loads of money funding primitive versions of SETI, when they already had a big ol' flying saucer in New Mexico. Please...
One of the things that was stated on those documents was a strange mettalic material that had the ability to reform ittself after being crushed.
All metallic materials have this property. It's called elasticisty.
I'm sorry for bringing a conspiracy theory into this, but a few years ago scientists discovered a carbon molecule dubbed buckyballs..I'm sure you've heard of this..Is it coincidence that these molecules show the same properties?
Buckyballs are made by the billions in every charcoal grill on earth. I don't remember seeing any indication they behave like "funny metals."

- Warren

Merry Christmas to you too, chroot..:bugeye:

http://wunmr.wustl.edu/EduDev/Fullerene/structure.html
http://buckminster.physics.sunysb.edu/nobel.html

Thats all I could muster up for ya' now- most of the recent work has been done on conducting qualities..I'm not a scientist, I'll admit it now so you don't need to go and challenge my credibility.
I'm an observer whose been occupying my time by keeping an eye on the whole picture. I, myself am a skeptic of sorts..only my motive is nothing more than to see truth.

The documents I found were from many in the field who at the time were federally employed. Yes. Believe it or not. I've been searching for them again, but of course they're non-existent now..(If I do happen to find them again I'll be sure to show you.)

Ya' know..I think you are the 'scientific type.' My intentions, and the whole point of bringing the buckyball thing up are for aestheric purposes. It was something that I noticed and believe to be true. I was sharing my opinion...(I had assumed that was the basis of this thread.) My ability to back my opinion up with fact might be somewhat limited, but I'll be happy to attempt it in an objectional manner if thats what you want.

But to knock down others opinions, especially on a topic such as this, is 'kind of a moronic thing to do, don't you think? It seems like what your doing is just enforcing our opinions..

No offense, I'm just defending the art of theorology, and the will of free thought, based on logic.. Peace, brother.

And chroot..think about it-in the day and age of national defense and its need to keep things secret- do you really feel that they would not attempt to cover things up that could benefit their own technologies?

Originally posted by bluemommaphish
But to knock down others opinions, especially on a topic such as this, is 'kind of a moronic thing to do, don't you think? It seems like what your doing is just enforcing our opinions..
No, I don't think it's moronic. I think it's moronic to go around opining what is clearly contradicted by fact.

The bottom line is that Swatter wants to bitch about the popular press having lax scientific standards. He's right. He has only two choices: live with it, or get his fill of science from a more reputable source.

- Warren

bluemom

I, myself am a skeptic of sorts..only my motive is nothing more than to see truth.

If so, then you would not make statements such as:

He totally dismissed the idea and continued to argue the 'known' sciences...We ended up coming to the conclusion that at the base of science is philosophy... I'm sorry for bringing a conspiracy theory into this...Can you imagine??... The experts, in their fields do seem to forget sometimes, don't they?... I have a lot of respect for the laymen in the field... Yes. Believe it or not... It was something that I noticed and believe to be true... But to knock down others opinions, especially on a topic such as this, is 'kind of a moronic thing to do...

Those statements are rather contrary to this one:

No offense, I'm just defending the art of theorology, and the will of free thought, based on logic..

:)

Swatter,

I’d say you’re adhering too much to what you learned in Logic 101. On NDEs, for example, one fact present is that thousands of credible people say they experienced it. If someone interviewed thousands of the NDEers, they’d qualify as an expert, by the definition of the word.

A story: My dad was one of the most logical people I knew. With no hard evidence about an afterlife, he was agnostic. Believing that existence likely ended at death, despite a painful heart condition he often professed the desire to live. One day while in the hospital his heart stopped. Upon resuscitation he was sad to be alive. He said he had been in a beautiful field and that it was more real than here. People he knew, relatives who had died, were walking towards him when he was brought back. A few days later, his heart stopped again and again he was resuscitated. This time he was mad, and signed a do-not-resuscitate order. A week later I was in my apartment when my dad turned off my TV and said goodbye to me. Then my mom called me to tell me he had died.

I’m glad the public press has no official referee mechanism that maintains proper scientific conduct. If it did, the material might be limited to only the scientists’ viewpoint.

swatter

scientists are bunch of arrogant dumb glorified beancounters.
they go round and round in circles repeating the same old shit.
in fact i have heard that these people regularly visit our very own
sub-cultures forum for inspiration

peer review - prepare to be torn apart by jealousy, spitefullness and anger. your creativity and vision will be laughed at and ridiculed. later you find your lifes work has been appropiated by thieves.

:D

aw, don't let Chroot scare ya off...he's really just a plucky, lovable, little elf in disguise.:D

Originally posted by chroot
No, I don't think it's moronic. I think it's moronic to go around opining what is clearly contradicted by fact.

The bottom line is that Swatter wants to bitch about the popular press having lax scientific standards. He's right. He has only two choices: live with it, or get his fill of science from a more reputable source.

- Warren


It is called a discussion and it has veered off topic. The whole point is that true scientists have a responsiblity not to abuse thier authority. If they are asked a question in the media that is out of thier field they need to say its thier opinion and the topic is out of thier field. Some of them totally disregard this and have active agendas.

Originally posted by Swatter
It is called a discussion and it has veered off topic. The whole point is that true scientists have a responsiblity not to abuse thier authority. If they are asked a question in the media that is out of thier field they need to say its thier opinion and the topic is out of thier field. Some of them totally disregard this and have active agendas.
It would seem to be the minority.

- Warren

"their" *cringes*

Geez Q..

You cut and pasted the hell out of my argument, didn't you?? It's amazing you were able to construct your own argument by re-constructing mine...
(Honestly, I wasn't contradicting myself- your opinion maybe..)


I think maybe I've spun myself a web of my own opinion-you guys are trying to tear it up, man! Hey, chroot- I'm sorry about the moronic thing..you ruffled my feathers. (If I didn't find those documents on the SETI site- I would've dissregarded them myself.)

This probably isn't my place of refuge- I don't trust all facts with my life...I rely on my instincts, which is obviously not a very practical idea when it comes to debate. All I wanted to say is, "I agree. "

...And actually I had asked a question, but somehow it fell by the trench side...

Later... Anna

<b>Swatter:</b>

<i>I believe that scientific knowledge of [NDEs] is in its infancy and at this point you have "authority figures" throwing around little more than thier opinions. That is the problem. Im sure there are scientists out there conducting first-hand empirical research on the topic, they would seem to be the experts.</i>

So, is the fact that "real" experts are not consulted the fault of the experts, the non-experts, the press, or a society willing to consider anybody an expert?

<i>You dont see a priest when you need to attach the proper lense to Hubble, you would hope NASA could take care of that. You dont see priests being qouted about how to fix Hubble, and if you did they wouldnt be taken seriously. It doesnt work the same way with scientists. Scientists can be qouted outside of thier field as an authority and not many would know the difference.</i>

Really? Let's turn it around. Would you ask a scientist to interpret the meaning of the bible? Would you ask a scientist about meditation? The will of God? Religious ethics?

<i>I would agree that neuroscientists who study NDEs would be experts. A neuroscientist who has not studied NDEs are not solid authorities on the matter. That would seem to be consistently logical.</i>

I agree with you. Perhaps, then, what you're really complaining about is people who claim to be experts when they are not. I agree that's bad. Or, maybe you're complaining that people accord scientists too much authority. I agree that can be bad, too, though in that case it isn't the scientists' fault.

<i>My problem is sceptics mixing thier authority as (insert your favorite occupation) and the authority of science. Because they claim to represent science, doesnt make them a scientific authority on anything.</i>

I think that sceptics claim to be authorities in <b>critical thinking and analysis</b>. Most of the time, they spend their time saying "Look at these (pseudoscientific) claims! They are not logically supported by good evidence." They are trained to recognise valid evidence and chains of reasoning when they see it. When those are not present, they point out the fact.

<i>Being a magician doesnt make you an authority in science.</i>

No, but it certainly makes you an authority in methods of deception.

<i>Unfortunately, the media treats James Randy as a scientific expert in a multitude of fields.</i>

Do you think so?

<i>The question of whether ETs are here or not is the realm of speculation, not science.</i>

I disagree. It is simply the case that there is no good reproducible evidence showing that ETs are on Earth right now, or ever have been. That's not a matter of speculation - it's fact.

<i>The authority given to sceptics nowadays is mis-placed, in my not so humble opinion.</i>

I think you're mixing up authority to speak on a topic and authority to comment on the strength of presented evidence. Anybody can be trained to recognise good evidence when they see it, but few people are trained in that way. Personally, I think that critical thinking should be taught in schools.

<i>The sceptics have a very valid view on the subject [of UFOs]. The point is that it is no better than mine.</i>

All the skeptics are doing is saying "There is no good evidence for the existence of UFOs. If there is, please show us." So far, nobody has produced any evidence except anecdotes, blurry photos and film, and small quanitites of equivocal physical evidence.

Whether a skeptic personally believes in aliens is beside the point when you're asking whether ETs are currently visiting Earth. That is simply a question of evidence.

<i>You could be qouted as an expert on the possibility of ET visitation, as a scientific authority. Would that authority be in the correct place?</i>

Any claim I make must be subjected to the same process of critical review as anybody else's claim. If I turn out to be correct more often than not, it would be reasonable to consider me an expert, don't you think?


<b>chroot:</b>

<i>The bottom line is that Swatter wants to bitch about the popular press having lax scientific standards. He's right. He has only two choices: live with it, or get his fill of science from a more reputable source.</i>

Or, he could try to get the press to lift its standards. If people demand higher standards from the press, they will be forced to deliver.

bluemomma

please say you will keep the dream alive??
please?

:(

How Spooks??

I'm pretty sure that most of the scientific community approaches things from the inside. Working with factual data only. The scientific method is to dissprove theory, isn't it?

How in the world do you present a picture painted with reason to a community of people that have to, by right, refuse to look at the whole picture?

I don't think this is the right topic-or the right forum for an argument such as this.....(Oh well:) )

How in the world do you present a picture painted with reason to a community of people that have to, by right, refuse to look at the whole picture?

Please forgive me, that was stupid.

Some of us just have a different idea of what the whole picture is...Right?...ok. I'll shut up now.

Originally posted by bluemommaphish
Please forgive me, that was stupid.

Some of us just have a different idea of what the whole picture is...Right?...ok. I'll shut up now.
Yeah, I was about to ask you what this "pictures painted with reason" is that scientists reject out-of-hand.

In fact, the entire argument that "scientists reject things out-of-hand, and therefore are closed-minded" is very stupid. Scientists dismiss theories which are directly contradicted by established, trusted experiment -- these are the majority of theories published by laymen on the internet. They have every right to dismiss them, because they simply cannot be correct. It is unfotunate that most laymen interpret the dismissal of their theory as a personal attack, or as a conspiracy to squelch "the Truth."

On the other hand, there are many, many open questions in physics right now, and more every day. When someone pipes up with a theory, even a nutty-sounding one, that can correctly explain and predict experiments, scientists will always take notice. I personally feel that string theory is precisely an example of thousands of physicists maintaining an open mind.

- Warren

Hey, chroot! How are ya'?:D

"I agree."

Have you heard of Laplace? Probably. The picture I was speaking of is his...Gestault? Remember him? Same idea.

I guess I see occasionaly someone who is so incredibily focused that they seem to miss the concepts behind the science. The zero theory? (I'm a believer.) It cannot be proven, yet it cannot be dismissed..ya' know? We've made some incredible things with all of our technologies..but have some strayed from the fronts?

blue

this is the right place
spend sometime reading the various threads and get a feel for where any particular discussion stopped off at. everything seems to have been done to death over here at one time or another. the more scientific minds here are the backbone of this community and they keep it relatively sane. no one gets away with garbage here (i try tho)

speculate away but try to be realistic and work within an established framework (for the most part anyway)

:D

This thread seems to have wandered a bit from its original intention. Science, sceptics, and authority is one thing. Ufo's are quite another. Continued into this direction of UFO's will result in this thread being moved to the proper forum.

Yes, Sir............:cool:

To JR


<i>So, is the fact that "real" experts are not consulted the fault of the experts, the non-experts, the press, or a society willing to consider anybody an expert?</i>

The point is that scientists, who are non-experts in said field are qouted as experts. I dont blame the experts, I blame the unprofessional scientists. The media is also to blame, of course. I have also seen this in texts studied at my university.



<i>Really? Let's turn it around. Would you ask a scientist to interpret the meaning of the bible? Would you ask a scientist about meditation? The will of God? Religious ethics?</i>

I wouldnt, but I have actually seen it done. What could possibly solve the problem in a reasonable way is if a scientist is qouted out of his/her field, they should be qouted as a sceptic(if that is the case). I have seen this done, but not enough.


<i> Or, maybe you're complaining that people accord scientists too much authority. I agree that can be bad, too, though in that case it isn't the scientists' fault.</i>

It is a characteristic of our society. I dont disagree with it either. If a scienctist sticks to what he knows, his opinion is valuable. What really hurts us as a society is when science "runs amuck". When opinions of scientists about a certain subject creates a stigma. When serious research should be done in subjects such as NDEs, ESP, and various "fringe" subjects, we find these areas cannot be explored due to heavy scientific bias mostly from out of field. NDEs should be heavily researched, due to its heavy implications as to how the brains works(wont comment on religious implications). At the present time, ESP is beginning to have solid scientific grounding but is still laughed at. Its implications about the brain are enormous, but small minded scientists outside of the field will deny logic and stall serious research for who knows how long. My complaints about authority were symtoms, this is the disease.

JR, you seem to be a logical person. I am going to pin you down here. It is, at this point(due to the laws of probibility), impossible to explain away ESP. There are now experiments replicable around the world, such as Ganzfield. I am not saying there is proof of any particular thing, but this area is dying for serious research. Why is this topic still a laugher? It would go against all logic, in my opinion. For sceptics being so logical, they only seem to use logic when it suits them.

I will digress even further here for a moment. I read a book called "How To Think About Strange Things", a very good book BTW. I would recommend this book to every person. The book goes into critical thinking and logic, then into debunking this and that. Where I think the book goes wrong, and die-hard sceptics go wrong, is when it deals with things that are truly unexplained. The policy seems to be, if you cant debunk it, ignore it. While I dont advocate jumping to conclusions, it doesnt seem logical to ignore it either. Take for example, an obviously manufactured steel pellet or ball was found in a lump of coal. While I dont advocate scientists coming up with theories about ETs visiting earth, it doesnt seem logical to ignore it as though it never happened. I sent this question to the people at CSICOP and never got a response(they said they would look into it), which did not suprise me.


<i>I think that sceptics claim to be authorities in <b>critical thinking and analysis</b>. Most of the time, they spend their time saying "Look at these (pseudoscientific) claims! They are not logically supported by good evidence." They are trained to recognise valid evidence and chains of reasoning when they see it. When those are not present, they point out the fact.</i>


Sure, they claim to be critical thinkers, but they in words as well as implication claim to represent science and therefore mix thier authority as individuals and that of science. Keep your eye open, maybe you will see what Im saying.


<i>I disagree. It is simply the case that there is no good reproducible evidence showing that ETs are on Earth right now, or ever have been. That's not a matter of speculation - it's fact.</i>

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. In science, everything is possible, but there are degrees of possibility. To say anything more is speculation. An astronomer can say it is highly unlikely ETs are on Earth, nothing more.

In the realm of speculation, I think you are wrong. I see many scientists at NASA talking about visiting Alpha Centari in 50-100 years. In the 1970s we send out spacecraft that will likely someday reach some star. Taking what we know of life and evolution it is not a great logical leap to look for ET spacecraft. If you ask me if they are manned, Id say that wouldnt follow logically at this point.

So, therefore photographs of purported UFOs are more likely photographs of ET probes/spacecraft than you astronomers like to admit. Im not saying its very likely, but the possibilities are greater than you would care to admit.

What I dont understand is the acceptance of ET radio waves as possible and logical, but not of unmanned ET spaceprobes. Why not scan the heavens with radar and look for ET probes, it makes just as much sense. Dont let your bias get in the way, tell me honestly. It does follow logically. And if you do admit that much, you will be laughed at. The same reason astronomers dont discuss ET probes is the same reason brain scientists dont discuss ESP, human bias.


<i>I think you're mixing up authority to speak on a topic and authority to comment on the strength of presented evidence. Anybody can be trained to recognise good evidence when they see it, but few people are trained in that way. Personally, I think that critical thinking should be taught in schools.</i>

It seems we will have to agree to disagree. I think sceptics often appeal to authority not legitimately granted to them, you do not see this. Like I said, watch a little closer, you might see what Im saying.

I agree logic and critical thinking should be taught probably starting in high school.


<i>Any claim I make must be subjected to the same process of critical review as anybody else's claim. If I turn out to be correct more often than not, it would be reasonable to consider me an expert, don't you think?</i>

Absolutely not ;)

That actually opens up another can of worms. Does your knowledge of astronomy and physics make you an expert on the possibility of ET visitation? Even if you have never first-hand examined any purported UFO evidence? Or is it sort of like the patent office, they wont look at your invention if it breaks any of the known laws of science?

Originally posted by wet1
This thread seems to have wandered a bit from its original intention. Science, sceptics, and authority is one thing. Ufo's are quite another. Continued into this direction of UFO's will result in this thread being moved to the proper forum.


I would hope you wouldnt do that. If any posts go off to far, just delete them. They original topic, that is still being discussed is legitimate. There is some discussion of UFOs, but it is in a different context. If topics veer from discussions of the atomic weight of boron, does that make it a canidate for moving it? Are wider discussions of science allowed?

Swatter:

<i>If a scienctist sticks to what he knows, his opinion is valuable.</i>

How are scientists different in this respect from any other kind of expert? Why pick on the scientists? It must be that you think that scientists are given more than their fair share of credibility by society in general (or perhaps by the press).

<i>When opinions of scientists about a certain subject creates a stigma. When serious research should be done in subjects such as NDEs, ESP, and various "fringe" subjects, we find these areas cannot be explored due to heavy scientific bias mostly from out of field.</i>

I agree it can be a problem when a fringe field has a history of fraud or unsupported claims. New legitimate research tends to be ignored.

<i>NDEs should be heavily researched, due to its heavy implications as to how the brains works(wont comment on religious implications).</i>

They <b>are</b> being researched, as I understand it. What particular implications for brain function are you referring to?

<i>At the present time, ESP is beginning to have solid scientific grounding but is still laughed at. Its implications about the brain are enormous, but small minded scientists outside of the field will deny logic and stall serious research for who knows how long.</i>

As far as I am aware, there is little, if any, convincing evidence for any form of ESP. A few legitimate studies have shown small statistical effects, but nothing to write home about. On the other hand, all studies which have claimed to demonstrate large effects have been shown in one way or another to be methodologically flawed. That does not do much for the reputation of ESP research.

<i>JR, you seem to be a logical person. I am going to pin you down here. It is, at this point(due to the laws of probibility), impossible to explain away ESP.</i>

Tell me why.

<i>There are now experiments replicable around the world, such as Ganzfield.</i>

Do you have a reference or link to this? I haven't heard about it.

<i>I am not saying there is proof of any particular thing, but this area is dying for serious research. Why is this topic still a laugher?</i>

For the reasons I gave above.

<i>I will digress even further here for a moment. I read a book called "How To Think About Strange Things", a very good book BTW. ... Where I think the book goes wrong, and die-hard sceptics go wrong, is when it deals with things that are truly unexplained. The policy seems to be, if you cant debunk it, ignore it.</i>

I would say if you can't debunk it, keep an open mind. I think you'll find most skeptics do that, and that is why they may seem to ignore it. If there seems to be something new, skeptics don't set out to debunk it any more than scientists of any kind would. However, it is part of the process of science that new theories are tested to their limits. If a theory can stand up to all challenges, then it is probably a good one.

Many people unfamiliar with skepticism make the mistake of assuming that skeptics start from a position of disbelief. In fact, they start with an open mind, but bear in mind how thinking and experimenting can go wrong. They are on the lookout for unsupported or unsupportable conclusions.

<i>Take for example, an obviously manufactured steel pellet or ball was found in a lump of coal. While I dont advocate scientists coming up with theories about ETs visiting earth, it doesnt seem logical to ignore it as though it never happened. I sent this question to the people at CSICOP and never got a response(they said they would look into it), which did not suprise me.</i>

As a skeptic, the first questions I would ask in this case is: how do you know the steel pellet was manufactured? And how did it get inside the lump of coal in the first place? What is unexplained about this? Have you considered explanations within what we already know? How do they stack up against the alternatives?

<i>Sure, [skeptics] claim to be critical thinkers, but they in words as well as implication claim to represent science and therefore mix thier authority as individuals and that of science. Keep your eye open, maybe you will see what Im saying.</i>

That's because scientists also have to be critical thinkers. The scientific method involves careful evaluation of claims. You don't need to be a scientist to be a skeptic, but you should be a skeptic to be a good scientist. (Note: in real life, scientists don't always make good sceptics for a number of reasons.)

<i>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.</i>

Of course it isn't. But in the absence of evidence, it cannot be concluded that ETs are present, either (which is what the UFO nutters claim).

<i>In science, everything is possible, but there are degrees of possibility. To say anything more is speculation. An astronomer can say it is highly unlikely ETs are on Earth, nothing more.</i>

I agree. Show me one quote by a professional astronomer saying that there is no way ETs could be visiting Earth. I don't think you'll find one.

<i>In the realm of speculation, I think you are wrong. I see many scientists at NASA talking about visiting Alpha Centari in 50-100 years. In the 1970s we send out spacecraft that will likely someday reach some star. Taking what we know of life and evolution it is not a great logical leap to look for ET spacecraft.</i>

Alpha Centauri is 4 light years away and it is the <b>closest</b> star to Earth (other than the sun). Any interstellar voyage from there to here would therefore take 4 years at the very least, and probably much longer. Even the Voyager spacecraft - the fastest objects ever created by human beings - will take about 100,000 years to reach any other star.

The chances of ETs arriving on our doorstep without any prior notice are miniscule. If you'd spent 4 years travelling through space to get here, wouldn't you at least send a message saying you're coming?

And yes, it is reasonable to listen for messages from ETs. Messages are much more likely than spacecraft. That's why the SETI program is going ahead.

<i>So, therefore photographs of purported UFOs are more likely photographs of ET probes/spacecraft than you astronomers like to admit.</i>

There is simply no persuasive evidence that <b>any</b> purported UFO photo shows an alien spacecraft of any type.

<i>Im not saying its very likely, but the possibilities are greater than you would care to admit.</i>

What makes you think that?

<i>What I dont understand is the acceptance of ET radio waves as possible and logical, but not of unmanned ET spaceprobes.</i>

They are certainly possible, though much more difficult to send than messages. But again, there is no evidence that they exist (so far).

<i>Why not scan the heavens with radar and look for ET probes, it makes just as much sense.</i>

No, it doesn't. In the case of radio messages, we assume that ET is trying to contact us. If we look for space probes with radar they will be a lot harder to find than a radio message deliberately beamed our way. And radar has a limited range.

<i>The same reason astronomers dont discuss ET probes is the same reason brain scientists dont discuss ESP, human bias.</i>

No. The reason is that there's nothing to discuss (so far). That doesn't mean that the possibility is not taken seriously, though.

Finally, I said: <i>Any claim I make must be subjected to the same process of critical review as anybody else's claim. If I turn out to be correct more often than not, it would be reasonable to consider me an expert, don't you think?</i>

You replied: <i>Absolutely not

That actually opens up another can of worms. Does your knowledge of astronomy and physics make you an expert on the possibility of ET visitation? Even if you have never first-hand examined any purported UFO evidence?</i>

I should have said "If I turn out to be correct more often than not <b>when discussing the relevant topic</b>..." I agree with you that I should not be considered an expert on UFOs unless I have studied the available evidence and arguments for and against alien visitations.

<i>Or is it sort of like the patent office, they wont look at your invention if it breaks any of the known laws of science?</i>

A side point, but the patent office doesn't actually work that way. You can get a patent on a perpetual motion machine if you like, even though the laws of thermodynamics say that such a thing cannot exist. There are, in fact, a number of people who hold such patents. Your invention need not work in order for you to be able to patent it.

JR

Thanks for the great debate.

Here is a link for ganzfeld(I am a terrible speller with a terrible memory).

http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ganzfeld.html


Heres a little snipet from a different web page:

--------
Honorton and his research team proceeded to design a new ganzfeld system which met the criteria he and Hyman had specified in their communiqué. This system, and studies using it, are referred to as ``autoganzfeld studies'', as much of the procedure is under automated computer control in order to avoid the problems found in some of the earlier studies. Before Honorton's lab closed in 1989, 11 experimental series, representing 355 sessions, conducted by eight experimenters, had been collected using the autoganzfeld. Honorton et al. [15] published a summary of the autoganzfeld studies and compared them with his earlier meta-analysis. The autoganzfeld sessions yielded overall significant results ( z = 3.89, p = 0.00005), with an obtained hit rate of 34.4 percent (with 25 percent being chance expectancy). The effect sizes by series and by experimenter were both homogeneous. Comparing the autoganzfeld outcomes to those of the 28 studies of the earlier meta-analysis revealed very similar outcomes, with the autoganzfeld showing slightly better ESP scoring than that obtained in the earlier studies (autoganzfeld results by series: effect size or es = .29, earlier 28 meta-analysis studies by experiment: es = .28).
--------


That is 20,000 to 1 odds.


Apparently 20,000 to 1 is still fringe.



This link describes the experiment:

http://www.psiexplorer.com/ganzint2.htm

Originally posted by Swatter
Here is a link for ganzfeld(I am a terrible speller with a terrible memory).
I have a few major complaints about the methodology presented in this website:
Thus, if the experiment uses judging sets containing four stimuli (the target and three control stimuli), the hit rate expected by chance is one out of four, or 25 percent.
How exactly was the hit rate expectation determined to be 25%? The fact that there are four choices does not by itself lead to the conclusion that each should be chosen 25% of the time. Some of the stimuli might be selected more often because they provoke people more, or simply because they are first on the left. I would go so far as to say that it is impossible to create four stimuli that are so similar that they get chosen by a control group 25% of the time each.

Four different colors would evoke personal bias. Four different photographs of anything would evoke personal bias. Four different numerals or letters would evoke personal bias. Four different playing cards would evoke personal bias. I simply don't see how any four stimuli could be chosen to prevent personal bias from entering the equation.

This study claims that "receivers achieved an average hit rate of about 35 percent." They fail entirely to explain the conditions that might cause this hit rate, and instead imply that ESP is the only possible explanation.

Futhermore, the studies were done 354 times with the autoganzfeld. This isn't even remotely a large enough sample size to determine anything. Keep in mind that ESP effects, if they exist at all, are extremely weak, and are swamped by all sorts of larger effects. You need immense sample sizes to find the needle in the haystack. These results are also not repeatable from subject to subject -- if you can't find a single person who is capable of a consistent 35% hit rate, how can you assume that the group's 35% is significant?
twenty music, drama, and dance students from the Juilliard School in New York City to serve as receivers. Overall, these students achieved a hit rate of 50 percent, one of the highest hit rates ever reported for a single sample in a ganzfeld study. The musicians were particularly successful: 75 percent of them successfully identified their targets.
I still can't follow the leap of logic from "music students are good at this test" to "music students have ESP." Perhaps the music students are just better at detecting minute biases left in the targets themselves by the people who designed them? Keep in mind that these experiments are always designed by people, even when run by computers.

I really think all of these experiments belong fully in the realm of sociology....

- Warren

None of this, however, detracts from the autoganzfelds themselves. Honorton’s experiments did produce strong positive results which cannot be easily denied. Nonetheless, many scientists remain unconvinced because of several potential flaws in the research. "Of the eleven ganzfeld studies, smaller samples displayed larger hit rates than larger samples. If the effect is real, this is the opposite of what you’d expect." says Lee D. Ross, psychology professor at Stanford. The fact that larger hit rates existed among the smaller samples (The 50% hit rate was from a sample of only twenty) does raise doubt as to whether it really was ESP (Bower 68).

Also, some technical errors raised the brows of other scientists. Early on in the experiments, there was found to be some faulty wiring in the receiver’s headset. This allowed some of the information from the sender (who was allowed to vocalize the images in order to help concentration) to be heard by the receiver. Although Honorton, after fixing the problem, maintained that the flaw was not perceptible, even subliminally, to the receiver, others assert that the possibility of contamination requires that all data gathered prior to the discovery of the problem be discarded. Without that data, the results of Honorton’s experiments are no longer statistically significant (McCrone 31).

Another consideration is that the highest hit rate among the Honorton experiments was with video clips rather than static images, about 41% compared to about 30% (McCrone 30). The latter hit rate is not statistically significant, however the former appears to be so. Yet, what does not seem to be taken into consideration is that a 60 second video clip provides several more images than a still picture. If several more images are involved, the probability that the receiver may identify the film clip coincidentally is raised significantly.

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

Then if six decades of experiments have failed to accurately demonstrate the existence of ESP, there are two reasons that could have caused that failure. The first is the simplest: ESP does not exist. The second is that any explanation of ESP transcends science. That is, ESP becomes a matter of faith in the same class as God, angels, and other spiritual matters. This may be asserted because of the logical rules of alternatives: if not one thing, then another. That is to say if something can not be asserted by the empirical use of the scientific method, then it must be either non-existent, or a matter of faith. The popularity of the phenomena of ESP seems to make at least some argument for its existence, even if its not a scientifically sound one. Thus, rather than not existing at all, ESP likely belongs in that category of human experience which does not relate to science at all, but to personal faith; its existence a matter of the heart, rather than the laboratory.

ESP: Just Have Faith (http://www.angelfire.com/nc/Oracle/ESP.html)


what makes people believe in esp is personal experience or the experience of others that are known to them. to ascribe it to faith is a cop out. also why assume the case is closed? how about devising new tests with tighter and more stringent methods?

The topic will not doubt be moved, so I guess I wll answer.

I dont claim that my resource is rock solid, I just picked a site to qoute. Just use a search engine.

If there are scientists or sceptics who do not wish to believe, there is no amount of evidence that will convince them. The qoute above is the first qoute I have ever seen that challenges the validity of autoganzfeld results. I will investigate your source.


<i>Futhermore, the studies were done 354 times with the autoganzfeld. This isn't even remotely a large enough sample size to determine anything. Keep in mind that ESP effects, if they exist at all, are extremely weak, and are swamped by all sorts of larger effects. You need immense sample sizes to find the needle in the haystack. These results are also not repeatable from subject to subject -- if you can't find a single person who is capable of a consistent 35% hit rate, how can you assume that the group's 35% is significant? </i>

No one claims to have proven anything. I agree that a great deal more research needs to be done to say anything for sure. I dont believe you have a valid argument challenging the expected hit rate of 25%.

Originally posted by Swatter
I dont believe you have a valid argument challenging the expected hit rate of 25%.
Why not? Have you done an experiment where you have verified that a large sample of people pick one of four designed stimuli an average of 25% of the time?

- Warren

Originally posted by spookz
None of this, however, detracts from the autoganzfelds themselves. Honorton’s experiments did produce strong positive results which cannot be easily denied. Nonetheless, many scientists remain unconvinced because of several potential flaws in the research. "Of the eleven ganzfeld studies, smaller samples displayed larger hit rates than larger samples. If the effect is real, this is the opposite of what you’d expect." says Lee D. Ross, psychology professor at Stanford. The fact that larger hit rates existed among the smaller samples (The 50% hit rate was from a sample of only twenty) does raise doubt as to whether it really was ESP (Bower 68).

Also, some technical errors raised the brows of other scientists. Early on in the experiments, there was found to be some faulty wiring in the receiver’s headset. This allowed some of the information from the sender (who was allowed to vocalize the images in order to help concentration) to be heard by the receiver. Although Honorton, after fixing the problem, maintained that the flaw was not perceptible, even subliminally, to the receiver, others assert that the possibility of contamination requires that all data gathered prior to the discovery of the problem be discarded. Without that data, the results of Honorton’s experiments are no longer statistically significant (McCrone 31).

Another consideration is that the highest hit rate among the Honorton experiments was with video clips rather than static images, about 41% compared to about 30% (McCrone 30). The latter hit rate is not statistically significant, however the former appears to be so. Yet, what does not seem to be taken into consideration is that a 60 second video clip provides several more images than a still picture. If several more images are involved, the probability that the receiver may identify the film clip coincidentally is raised significantly.

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

Then if six decades of experiments have failed to accurately demonstrate the existence of ESP, there are two reasons that could have caused that failure. The first is the simplest: ESP does not exist. The second is that any explanation of ESP transcends science. That is, ESP becomes a matter of faith in the same class as God, angels, and other spiritual matters. This may be asserted because of the logical rules of alternatives: if not one thing, then another. That is to say if something can not be asserted by the empirical use of the scientific method, then it must be either non-existent, or a matter of faith. The popularity of the phenomena of ESP seems to make at least some argument for its existence, even if its not a scientifically sound one. Thus, rather than not existing at all, ESP likely belongs in that category of human experience which does not relate to science at all, but to personal faith; its existence a matter of the heart, rather than the laboratory.

ESP: Just Have Faith (http://www.angelfire.com/nc/Oracle/ESP.html)


what makes people believe in esp is personal experience or the experience of others that are known to them. to ascribe it to faith is a cop out. also why assume the case is closed? how about devising new tests with tighter and more stringent methods?



Who exactly wrote your source? He mixes this with that and tries to spin it to suit him. You should find a better source.


I suspect that any evidence that comes forward positive of ESP will straight out be not believed not matter what by some people.
No one is saying case closed, the research continues. I suspect when the test pool reaches into the thousands and the results stay consistent there will be other rationalizations to discount this or that.

Using the kind of rationalization that I see scpetics use against ganzfeld, you could probably rationalize anything out of existence.

Good day to you all.

Originally posted by chroot
Why not? Have you done an experiment where you have verified that a large sample of people pick one of four designed stimuli an average of 25% of the time?

- Warren


25% seems logically correct, but I am not an expert. The experts seem to agree on the statictics part, I dont see what your beef is. Chance says if you have one of four choices, the chance rate is 25%. You can even rationalize logic out of existence if you so desire.

i truly believe james r is god

bye bye topic, I will see you in your new home

During the early to mid-eighties, Hyman published a series of debates with Charles Honorton over the proper protocols for Ganzfeld experiments. Given his decades of experience, and past debate with Honorton, Hyman was a natural choice to be a reviewer of the 1994 Bem and Honorton Psychological Bulletin review article. Hyman recommended publication, but was asked to contribute a response in the same issue of Psychological Bulletin.

Hyman's criticisms of the ganzfeld studies and parapsychology in general range from the heavily methodological to the philosophical and epistemological. First, Hyman questions the reasonableness of arriving at conclusions from meta-analysis. He maintains that the proper use of meta-analysis should be to generate hypotheses, which then must be independently tested on new data.

Second, Hyman told me that in thoroughly probing the data reviewed in the Psychological Bulletin article, he uncovered what he considered "peculiar" patterns. He noticed that all of the significant "hitting," the correct rating of a target by the receiver, was done on the second or later appearance of a target. When Hyman examined the guesses against just the first occurrences of targets, the result was consistent with chance. Adding to his suspicions, Hyman also discovered that the hit rate rose systematically with each additional occurrence of a target. Since all the targets were displayed on video to the receivers, Hyman suggests that to correct for a non-paranormal reason why one target video clip might appear different then another, all the targets be run through the video machine an equal number of times before they are shown to the receiver.

Hyman also severely questions the non-replicability of the ganzfeld experiments and other experiments in parapsychology. "The most serious weakness of parapsychology is that there is a failure of replication by rivals in independent laboratories," Hyman said. "Every field has 'paradigm experiments' where you can get results. There are thousands of experiments in psychology that can be replicated, but in parapsychology there isn't one where you can get that. In no other field is there something similar." As Hyman has maintained for several decades, he believes that the ganzfeld experiments continue to need independent replication with tighter controls.

I asked Hyman why he thought Bem had taken such an interest in the ganzfeld research of Honorton. "Most of the criticisms of parapsychology are unfair. I think Bem may have had the feeling of defending the underdog."

http://www.csicop.org/genx/ganzfeld/

http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/response_to_hyman.html


YAY! I can post articles too!!!

Originally posted by spookz
swatter

scientists are bunch of arrogant dumb glorified beancounters.
they go round and round in circles repeating the same old shit.
in fact i have heard that these people regularly visit our very own
sub-cultures forum for inspiration

peer review - prepare to be torn apart by jealousy, spitefullness and anger. your creativity and vision will be laughed at and ridiculed. later you find your lifes work has been appropiated by thieves.

:D

unfortunately this is quite true...

what's lacking most in science nowadays is creativity. They think that I am nuts because I usually start with writing the discussion, instead of the results.

jeez spurious

i was just yanking chains
for the most part everything works as it should

this thread is belongs in "science and society"

spookz

From the link you posted:

Bem told me that he would like to see a large scale series of ganzfeld experiments using as subjects what he termed "superstars"-individuals previously believed to demonstrate psychic ability. "If you were to test for high jumping ability, you wouldn't take random people; you would use the superstars," Bem said.

Interpretation: The loonier - the better.

He regards psi as a topic that deserves the attention and resources of mainstream psychology. "It is far more interesting than the hum-drum stuff that gets funded."

Oh yes, let's take away funding from "hum-drum stuff" such as cognitive research, development behavior, etc. and give it to the loonies.

Though Hyman doesn't see much promise in current and past psi research, he agrees that a confirmation of psi would be of wide interest and importance. "The first person to make a breakthrough is going to make Newton and Einstein look puny," Hyman predicted.

hehe - this is too funny. Hyman certainly has his work cut out for him, wouldn't you agree ?

The history of parapsychology has not offered much hope that future generations will witness the scientific confirmation of psychic ability, but the prospect remains provocative and tantalizing to the imagination. Daryl Bem's research may stand as a major guidepost on the road to discovery, or go down in future decades as one of many promising findings never to be replicated nor confirmed.

If his findings cannot be replicated or confirmed, then it is complete nonsense. That's what makes good science and good theories - the capacity to replicate and confirm findings.

q
my good man

i buy into all of this shit, ufo's, esp........the works

:)

spookz

i buy into all of this shit, ufo's, esp........the works

Perfect! That gives us good reason to partake in a variety of discussions. :)

spurious,

<i>what's lacking most in science nowadays is creativity.</i>

Who created your microwave oven, and your TV set, and the jet engine, and your dishwashing liquid, and CD players and ....

Scientists, that's who.

Oh boy, this thread is a mess. I just started reading Demon Haunted World, by Carl Sagan, and it's very relevant to this discussion. It's a great summary of what it is to be skeptical, why science is such a powerful tool, and how to tell fact from fantasy. I'll let Sagan make the points I want to make:

"Yes the wourld would be a more interesting place if there were UFOs lurking in the deep waters off bermuda and eating ships and planes, or if dead people could take control of our hands and write us messages. It would be fascinating if adolescents were able to make telephone handsets rocket off their cradles just by thinking at them, or if our dreams could, more often than can be explained by chance and our knowledge of the world, accurately foretell the future.

These are all instances of pseudoscience. They purport to use the methods and findings of science, while in fact they are faithless to its nature--often because they are based on insufficient evidence or because they ignore clues that point the other way. They ripple with gullibility. With the uninformed cooperation (and often cynical connivance) of newspapers, magazines, book publishers, radio, television, movie producers, and the like, such ideas are easily and widely available. Far more difficult to come upon...are the alternative, more challenging, and even more dazzling findings of science."

A few pages later:

"Pseudoscience differs from erroneous science. Science thrives on errors, cutting them away one by one. ... Hypotheses are framed so they are capable of being disproved. A succession of alternative hypotheses is confronted by experiment and observation...

Pseudoscience is just the opposite. Hypotheses are often framed precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of disproof, so even in principle they cannot be invalidated. Practitioners are defensive and wary. Skeptical scrutiny is opposed. When the pseudoscientific hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists, conspiracies to suppress it are deduced." --Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World

Now, before you point out to me that Sagan is not considered an "expert" in the field of, say, near death experiences, I'd like to say that he IS an expert in what we are discussing here. That is, the methods of good science. Therefore, his comments are valid in this argument, regardless of the relation of his area of study to the topics. :cool: