Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Vladimir, Apr 23, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. heliocentric Registered Senior Member

    Oh it definitely isnt reliable as a be-all-end-all proof or for than matter non-proof for psi, my point originally if you remember was to show that psi has been utilised with success - since that was crunchy's original assertion - that psi has never been utilised by anyone for anything.

    Nope! all we can do is see that they had a perceived success rate high enough to for police depts to keep using them.
    Although again, the original point in this isntance isnt to prove psi outright, simply to show its utility.

    From what ive read a new dept took control of the program and quality of the people they brought in sharply dropped from there.
    Prior to that - again you have statistically significant results, certainly enough to keep the program going for well over a decade.

    I seem to remember Homo floresiensis being lumped in with a vauge debunking on archeological anomalies at one point - of course the idea of a sub-species of dwarf like humans is now completely accepted by the scientific community.
    Its not so much that im concerned about what they are critical about, its what they arnt critical about that bothers me.
    Anyone can debunk things like creationism or spoon-bending, the problem is they set themselves either easy targets or things that simply dont have masses of supportive evidence (for one reason or another) which makes it very easy to rustle up an article with abit of selective wording and make it appear as no evidence ever existed in the first place.
    Even if someone does call them out on being biased and not being genuinely critical they can always simply say that youre an odd-ball who feels threatened that his or her pet theory is being bashed (much as youre trying to do now).
    Its a very selective type of skepticsm that these sorts of sites champion, this is the problem i have with them.

    Id really love to see the odd article about dark matter, m-theory, or black-holes, but ive looked there arnt any - they only deal with things that have that backroom snicker factor.
    I suspect because theres either some sort of reverence or irrational fear of tackling things that lie within accepted science.
    But the thing is that's what critical thinking is - its being critical of everything you dont pack up and go home because it looks and smells like proper science so its probably ok (even when there's no more evidence for it than there is for spoon-bending).

    Generally i think it is, i just dont really understand why you get all reactionary whenever i voice concerns about people like Randi or Skepdic.

    Im a paid-up nihilist im afraid, so believing in anythings going to be abit difficult for me, but if it makes you feel more secure in calling me a believer then by all means do.

    Im sure i went over this with you in the Randi thread already, unless im thinking of someone else, source - Lynn McTaggart - the field (she interviews some people whove worked with Randi in the past in a section of the book).
    Last edited: May 19, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    I am actually just disagreeing. I don't see QM making the existence of psi a possibility.

    Don't get me wrong. I am all for speculation. IMO, psi is past the speculation point and into the outright delusion point.

    Do you find the idea of psi-powers and / or having psi-powers attractive / fascinating? Have you seen sciforums poll results of 'do you want psychic powers?'. Is the show 'heros' getting good ratings? How many movies, shows, books, magazines are about magic / superpowers / psychic powers?

    Do you have any doubt that your experiences are anything less that 100% genuine?

    Sally, is just a Sally. Debunking her (which someone might waste time on eventually) just debunks another Sally and then comes the next one. Is she seeking to prove her claim? Has she accepted the Randi challenge? Are physacists and neuroscientists all over the world working hard to unlock the mircales of her brain? She is a fake by the very definition of her actions and inactions.

    Remote viewers in the defense department are the same phenomena as psychic detectives. What's achieved by pointing out that these people are delusional is truth.

    I want my tax dollars to fund research into real things. I would be horrified for example if my personal safety was reliant on remote viewers rather than people using their education, senses, and technology. If you needed to fix damage to your heart, would you go to a heart surgeon or someone with telekensis?

    In matters of existence there is only black and white. Something either exists or it does not.

    How many people with psi abilities have been debunked? How many have to be debunked before someone realizes their claims are b.s.?

    To experience the subjectivity would probably require consciousness. Once people figure out how to reproduce consciousness with technology, then we might be able to expose such technology to different subjective experiences.

    You would think they would have seen the world trade center disaster if employed... seeing as it was pretty significant.

    If they worked really well they would probably be used and their successes advertised. It would probably be part of military traning programs for the army, navy, and air force.

    The idea of psi of course.

    It's not so much a leap if you take all the knowns into account. There is enough evidence to know that all claimers of psi are frauds. After a point, the individual cases should no longer matter; however, the door should always remain open for proof should a claimer decide to step forward for a controlled performance.

    I disagree. That evolution exists is self evident once visibility is provided. That's pretty much a 100% proof. What cannot be provided with a 100% accuracy rating is all the details concerning how it works. In other words, the 'what' can be demonstrated. The 'how' is incomplete.

    Thanks for the link. I was able to use the names referenced to find the real challenge:

    The challenge is not to prove evolution. The challenge is to prove a scientific theory of everything. He even explicitly states that he is redefining the word 'evolution' to really mean 'theory of everything'.

    Also, for payment he basically says something along the lines of he has a rich friend that will pay the money...

    So you are correct in that this challenge cannot be met... mainly because it's redefining the word 'evolution' to something very different. Of course if someone did have a provable theory of everything, you have to trust some rich friend to actually provide the cash.

    The challenge seems bent on smearing the validity of anti-delusion challenges, but fails to do so because its integrity is greatly compromised by redefining 'evolution' and saying 'trust my rich friend for payment... our word is good'.

    This really has no parallel to the Randi challenge which is more about 'you make the fantastic claim', 'we both develop and agree upon the self-evident demonstration', and 'if you perform as agreed upon you contractually get 1 million dollars held explicitly in *this* escrow account'.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. heliocentric Registered Senior Member

    But the problem is you can never explain the reasoning behind your assumptions and sensiblities, so i wont bother asking why you believe this to be the case - because it will just go round in never-ending tautological loops outside of any real scientific or speculative criticism.

    All ive really gained from this conversation is that - you believe psi is magic because you just do, you feel alot of psychics are frauds but cant specifically point how or why this might be the case, you dont believe QM offers up any sort of possiblities for closed-channel communication in aggregate systems of particles - but youre not at liberty to explain how or why this should be the case.
    Really there's nothing for me to argue against here, there are no avenues of discourse open because alot of what you believe isnt based in any critical process.

    But you can never explain how these delusions yeild such impressive positive results - specifically in cases like sally morgan.
    I know i know, you just sort of have a hunch that something shifty is going on - unfortunately to have any sort of sensible dialog you need to allude to some sort of rational process, again there is none.

    This of course assumes that a debunking would without a shadow of a doubt render her abilities null, zero.
    Your entire world is built on these assumptions.
    Again i cant really argue with someones assumptions if theyre not prepared to expose them to any sort of outward rationalism.
    Nothing tangible for me to argue against here.

    Yeah because the fact that neuroscientists arnt studying her must mean shes a fraud by default, i guess in the absense of your double blind controls this approach of deduction works just as well.
    Seriously this is just become embarrasingly sloppy logic.

    no no no :bawl:
    Evidence only offers degrees of certainty either way.

    But you cant actually explain whats exactly magical about psi can you.

    No there really isnt, i think you dont really understand even really basic deductive logic, this the entire problem here.

    Anti-delusion challenges? :bugeye:
    I guess anti/pro debunking agendas is all wed have if we let certain people control the scientific paradigm.
    Thank god that rational equiry still exists and people like Randi only exist on the fringes is all i can say.
    Although i still find it incredibly worrying that you think Randi is some sort of litmus test of the scientific method - we're clearly entering a phase in history where scientism is over-taking real science in allegiance and popularity.
    Last edited: May 20, 2007
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    The reason is simple. Entaglement is a real existing phenomena. Psi is an idea born of human desire. The existence of entanglement has no relationship of making an idea born of human desire a possibility.

    Well, in retrospect, maybe magic wasn't the best word. Delusion is much better. It's not a matter of 'feeling' that all psychics are frauds. It's knowing all psychics are frauds. If you see enough of them debunked, not one of them vindicated, then its not a leap of faith to follow the pattern. I think my position on QM is misunderstood. I think it offers many possibilities for communication, relationships, etc. I have no doubt that we'll be able to take advantage of the knowledge. Maybe we'll make 'psi' technology. What I don't think QM does is make all the existing claims of psi by humans a possibility of actually being true. It might help to understand my position on psi as well. Do I know that a generic 'psi' doesn't exist in reality? Nope I hold no such knowledge and neither does any other person. Do I know that human claims of 'psi' don't exist? You bet.

    The only impressive result of delusions such as psi is that people are so susceptable to them. The impressive results of people like Sally Morgan are no different than the impressive results of people like David Copperfield. The only difference between the two is that Sally claims what she is doing is 'real' while David claims that what he is doing is 'illusion'. How Sally achieves her results isn't really important because enough similar 'psi practicioners' have been debunked. Her behaviors are no different. Her claims are no different. Only her show is different. She's an entertainer just like Copperfield.

    Why wouldn't it? It has with other frauds. The only rationale that needs to go into psi is to consider the knowns and how it results in claim over long periods of time without supportive evidence. That is evidence against psi... it is self-evident evidence. Any other 'impressive' entertainer whom comes along in this context is a fraud by default; of course, they would always be welcome to really prove their claim in a controlled environment... but that's not going to happen because they can't and nobody wants to be exposed as a fraud. Maybe you don't see it or understand it. I know your position is that psi is 'probably' true and I know that your personal experiences have the most influence. I am thinking that our positions differ from a very fundamental thinking differences. For example, I am very good at separating hallucaintion from real sensory stimulus. A life chalk full of lucid dreaming, hyponogogic hallucination, and hynopompic hallucination have helped me do this... yet I see adults whom experience (or remember experiencing) a hypnopompic hallucination for the very first time and suddently think there are real life forms sitting on their chests and conjuring strange magic. All of a sudden all sorts of magical thinking becomes their reality... from that one personal experience. Put in a second or third experience and the delusion is reinforced. The point is I am good at asking the question 'Is this real?', knowning when to ask it, and applying the knowledge to future events. Now here is some interesting wisdom that comes out of it, if you have any doubt about an experience... any whatsoever and you even think 'Is this real?' for a brief moment then chances are immensly high that its not. I suspect this is might partially be why you don't accept 'psi' as truth based on your personal experience (which has the greatest influence for you). That nagging little doubt that something doesn't quite add up, that the cigar was not just a cigar, that the self-evidency might be illusion.

    It's not that neuroscientists aren't studying her that makes her a fraud by defualt. It's a combination of the knowns, what she is doing, and what she is not doing. It's neither embarassing or sloppy.

    Your computer either exists or it does not exist... completely outside of human interpretation. That is black and white. Putting human observation into the mix, it's presence is self-evident for you. It's effects are self-evident for me. No degree of certainty is required... it exists.

    Take a Higgs Boson. It either exists or does not exist completely outside of human interpretation. That is black and white. Putting human observation into the mix, the particle shows up in math equations and as a theoretical step in observable physical processes. So the evidence in this case offers a degree of certainty that it exists but it is unknown for sure whether or not it really does exist (that exclusively has a binary outcome). This year, the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva will be searching for the self-evident effects of the Higgs boson. If found, it proves the particle exists. If not found, it proves the particle does not exist. No degree of certainty is required at that point.

    So the point of this exercise is to show that something either exists or does not. There is no middle ground. If that something or its effects shows up indirectly as part of something that exists but its presence or effect cannot be directly observed yet then we have a degree of certainty that we work with. It doesn't alter whether that something exists or not... that is still binary... only two possible outcomes. What we can do is find a way to bring that mystery something or its effect into view. Do that and we find out definitively whether the something exists or not.

    Sorry, it was a bad word to use on my part. I shoudl have used 'delusional'.

    Oh, I think I understand logic pretty well and in rediculous complexity. After all, my career depends on it and my rediculously high performance bonus validates it. What I see is a possibly big delta in our fundmanetal observational skills. It's nothing to be embarassed or ashamed of. We're just different. The result of that difference is that you think human claims of 'psi' are probably true and I think they are false. In matters of existence, there are only two outcomes for a specific claim. It either exists or it does not.

    Yep, Randi wasted some 30+ years of life searching for the non-existent. When he didn't find it, he set up a challenge for the non-existent to prove its existence... which of course by its very nature cannot be done. He uses real scientists, an agreed upon process with the claimers, and real money for the challenge. Nothing about it is 'unfair', 'rigged', etc. The fact that nobody can prove their claim serves as a point of important evidence. Humans want fast money and will go great lenghths to delude each other for it... I mean alot of effort... yet, here is an immensly easy million waiting for someone whom can prove their fantastic claim. In other words, if its easier to delude others for money than prove a claim then the claim is false by the sheer nature of human psychology.

    I do have one point of contention with Randi however. I get the impression that he still thinks that human fantasy might be real and that is his underlying motivation for his challenge. In other words, its like he wasted 30 years of search time and the only thing he learned was how to stop searching and bring the 'phenomena' to him... rather than the glaringly obvious that he can't find what he's looking for because its not there.

    Regardless of his motivation however, the challenge has the same result. It removes credibility and power from the delusional and promotes truth as a desireable value.
  8. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    What were the results of all the ganzfeld sessions? What were the results of all the sessions in that article? Are both results statistically signficant? Are both results the same? Stop relying on other people's conclusions, look at the data, and think.

    Um... because the data collection process is not trustworthy.

    ?. I seem to recall saying that there appears to be a 'what' for emotionally similar people. That's evidence for emotionally similar people being able to achieve statistically significant (but very poor otherwise) results. I disagree with you that the evidence supports real-time human brain-to-brain information exhange.
  9. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Heliocentric wanted to know where the quote came from so I showed him. It doesn't hurt my 'case' that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences really issued that quote. It doesn't hurt my case that it was criticized because it lacked 'parapsychologist' input. It doesn't hurt my case that the Office of Technology Assessment thought parapsychologists were real scientists and their input should be required for a fair assessment.

    You are way to fixated on other peoples conclusions and keep missing the data points as a result. In this case in particular you completely missed that the link was made to show Heliocentric who issued the quote... which was the datapoint.
  10. grover Registered Senior Member

    You the first article you posted had NO data. The second article you posted you were trying to use it as saying that it the Ganzfelds couldnt be replicated and they were saying it partially replicated it, which is true. So, you have yet to find any artilce that actually falsifies the Ganzfelds.

    We know you think that. But, you have yet to demonstrate that it is untrustworthy.

    Thats exactly what it shows.
  11. grover Registered Senior Member

    It was citicized because it was biased and not objective.
    Parapsychologists are real scientists.
    You have yet to post any data that disproves the Ganzfelds. The only articles you have posted both state that the Ganzfelds were tightly controlled scientific experiments.
    Yes, but you comletely missed that the point of the article you posted was to show that the conclusions couldn't be trusted. Get it? You can't even post articles that agree with you. It's pathetic.
    Last edited: May 21, 2007
  12. heliocentric Registered Senior Member

    You dont know psychics are all frauds though this is the point; you know of - id say at a guess no more than 10 psychics that have been debunked and youre using that knowledge to deduct that all psychics therefore must be frauds also.
    I really think youd gain alot by doing a short course in philosophy - i think youd get where im comming from here really easily if you did.
    As it is i think youre only ever going to see me as some sort of champion of weird stuff trying to turn you onto superstition and irrationality, which is probably why this conversation's run its course.

    All ive been deconstructing from the begining hasnt really been anything to do with psychics atall, what ive been picking apart and discussing with you is your Epistemology (ways of knowing).
    Thats my main interest.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Id say if we have fundamental evidence that seperated physical systems can know/have information pertaining to the other without any apparent physical link between them, then it kind of does.
    Since that has commonly been the basis of psi not being prone to being taken seriously 'woah what, you cant communicate information, without a physical medium!'
    Of course we now know this is complete bunk - you can.
    So we can definitely argue over the existance of psi, but you cant really argue of it being unfeasble, theres nothing mechanically that should make it impossible, or outside the realms of possiblity.

    The whole problem is you cant show that Sally Morgan *is* an illusionist because you cant show how (or even if) she is creating illusions.
    The comparison falls apart almost immediately because only one of these people (mr. copperfield) can be shown to meet the criteria of 'illusionist'.

    I know youre hedging your bets based on past debunking that she probably is a fraud, but thats not the same as knowing - ask around in the philosophy forums if you want that confirmed. They'll tell you the exact same thing i have.

    Sure, i have huge nagging doubts about psi, but then i have nagging doubts about everything. For me its about constantly upheaving my assumptions so i dont get complacent.
    It is very very easy to sort of build a wall around yourself that neatly protects everything you believe, im certainly prone to doing it - i think everyone is.
    So i guess what i try to do is follow every thread of logic for every bias i have so i can see how far down it actually goes.
    Its quite suprising really, some of the time you follow a bias so far back to its original conception - and you often find it was never based on anything atall!

    Sure, but evidence doesnt work that way - well it does in so much as we can both agree that the concept of evidence exists and we can agree apon its value.
    But evidence rarely if ever gives you black and white proofs - again ask in any of the science forums and im sure many many people will confirm this.

    Evidence simply gives you degrees of probablity,
    I know i know, it isnt nice living with a bunch of probablities in your head as opposed to hard truths and un-truths, but thats really what you have to train yourself to do if youre commited and passionate about science and empiricsm in general.
    Thats litterally all im saying here, in this entire thread, nothing more nothing less.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Well youre right i think in as much as certainty definitely comes into a different realm when we're dealing with the purely physical. Relationships between subjective and objective system/states however are much more difficult to define, and useally rely on pooled statistics to gauge their existance on a gradient (not binary).
    In terms of the purely physical (no complex subjective/objective interaction) what you can certainly know is that something exists.
    Although even that is on shaky ground when we try to talk about those things in terms of absolute knowledge.
    For instance our idea of what an atom is may grow in such complexity in the future than the old concept of what an atom is might have to be thrown out altogether.
    Using that hypothetical - yes we knew that something was 'there' and existed, but our understanding of it was deeply flawed - we did not have absolute knowledge of it, just absolute knowledge of what we thought existed.

    I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on that one then - i believe it debases the entire scientifc method.

    In any case i think i worked out or fundamental difference - you think in binary and i think along a gradient, i reacon that's what we were arguing over all along.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: May 21, 2007
  13. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member


    I dont value philosophy very much and I do understand your positions plus where you are coming from. I just disagree with you in many ways

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Think about psychics this way. What is the ratio of successful debunking attempts vs. unsuccessful ones? What is the ratio of debunked psychics amongst the psychic claimer population? How do these ratios campare with claimers of phenomena with real supportive evidence? Finding 10 frauds in this type of envirnment is immensly signficant. Factor in the knowns and you really do have a solid proof against psi. I really do know that human claims of 'psi' are false because of this. Remember we're dealing with specific human claims of truth about human abilities.

    An therein lies the value of sub-forums like this. You can examine many aspects of human psychology and thought process.

    IMO, its a leap of faith to say entanglement makes it a possibility that humans right now communicate via entagled thought processes. It might make technology that could do that a possibility for the future.

    So really until you told me that earlier, I had never heard that argument before (I probably just dont travel in skeptic circles enough). I think what really matters is evidence. What reality says is true is true no matter how bizarre or weird it is. Real self-evident psi phenomena simply doesn't appear to exist.

    If we're talking about generic psi (outside of specific human claims) then right you are. If we're talking about specific human claims then yes it becomes unfeasable as we know that humans can't do that.

    If I did, then the response would be 'ok Sally's a Fraud... but what about Suzy?'. What you can do is learn from previous 'debunkings'. Take Silvia Brown for example. She's been debunked through and through. How do her behaviors relate to Sally's? How do her inactions relate? How do her values relate? How does her 'show' relate with a Copperfield show? Repeat the process with any debunked psi claimer and you can see the pattern... and its very different from someone issuing a genuine claim.

    I know, and I think its a flaw because it effectively means that all psi claimers have to be debunked to prove psi claimers are all frauds... which is not possible because there will always be new psi claimers. It effectively protects the claim from being not true... which is the flaw.

    Sounds a bit unhealthy IMO.

    Sounds like a fun exercise. You are right that people build that wall of protection (I think philosophy itself might do that to some extent). Even in my positive claim of human claims of psi are all false, I still keep the door open for a real proof... just in the offchance that a real phenomena emerged later in my lifetime that doesn't exist now.

    I would agree as well and in most (if not all) of those situations, the gradient is in regards to the certainty of a 'how'. We're talking about existence which is very different. It is the 'what' and can only have a binary outcome. Gradients do come into play with 'whats' when their presence or effects cannot be seen but real surrounding presences and effects predict that they are there. The Higgs Boson example is a good exemplification of this. Psi, simply does not qualify for a gradient in the 'what' category and has no presence or effect for a binary outcome. It just is not there.

    In general I agree. The chair you are sitting in right now... that's a 'what' whose existence has a binary outcome. There is no probability. It exists. That's how existence works. The gradient only plays a role when something in the surrounding environment says it exists but that something cannot be seen in terms of presence or effect.

    This is another area where we differ. I think the subjective is very physical... just damn complicated. Regardless, yes pooled statistics are often used in such situations. If the data collection process can be trusted then at best you are left with a correlation. That's a different kind of 'what'. It typically doesn't support a specific hypothesis. All it does is say something is statistically there, but its anybody's guess what that is or how that works. In other words correlation does not establish the presence of a specific causality / process.

    There is a slight flaw in this example. An atom was at one time on a gradient becuase nobody had seen a direct instance or effect of it. Now with electron microsopes and other devices we can see atoms, quarks, protons, gluons, etc. So while our knowledge how how atoms work may change, we can see their presence and effects directly.

    I tend to use both : ). Try the binary sometime. Works great for existence.
  14. grover Registered Senior Member

    As Heisenberg said "atoms are not things."

    You're being simplitstic. When talking about quantum phenomenon it isn't corret to say either that it exists or doesn't but rather that things are potentials.
  15. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    In the picture cluster of this link:

    You can find a tunneling microscope image of a single atom. Whether you want to classify it as a 'thing' or a 'tendency' is up to you. What this means is that regardless of how you conceptually classify it, you cannot protect it from visibility and of course validation of its existence.

    Do you exist? Oh wait, you are a collection of quantum phenomena. It isn't correct to say that you exist or dont. Anything to protect psi right?
  16. grover Registered Senior Member

    Well, I would say Heisenberg would diagree with you.

    The point is that you try and make it sound as if all phenomenon are just so black and white. It plain and simply isn't true. It's funny that you think I have some kind of deep existential need to believe in psi. I think you have a deep existential need for certainty. I think the possibility of psi scares you. I think it is precisely the indeterminacy/uncertainty of psi that scares you.
    Last edited: May 21, 2007
  17. heliocentric Registered Senior Member

    I dont know and id suspect neither do you.
    This is what i mean about building castles in the sky built on pure assumption.

    Given this is the logic by which you know psi claims are false - you seem to be saying it would only take 10 instances (experiments) of completely null data for any sort of phenomena to be proven false.
    The problem is - plenty of things that we now accept as being 'true' i would garantee at some point in the past would have been experimentally nullified or simply non-verified far far in excess of 10 instances.

    So the problem with saying things are absolutely false after a certain number of experiments (in this case 10) is that we know from experience that verification can actually come well after this number of experiments have come up short (or proved inconclusive).
    Id aso, argue (in a round about way) that its because of this experimental learning-curve that scientists almost never talk about things in terms of absolutes. Theyre not being obtuse for the sake of it, its just an acknowledgement of the circular nature of empirical proofs.

    Its most definitely a leap of faith, but thats how science works - you string together these little leaps of faiths and then see(via empiricsm) what comes of them.

    Mechanically speaking - no we dont.

    In some ways it is, people who exist within very strict/concrete belief structures do tend to live alot longer, i'll admit.
    It just depends on what youre after in life i suppose, and what youre prepared to sacrifice in its place.

    There's alot of 'what's' that exist on a gradient too - the existance of gravity, evolution, FDA drug trails etc.
    All these areas of science use data pooled to deduce how likely or unlikely something is to either be what we think it is, or work how we think it does.
    The key thing with all those things ive listed above of course if that theyre not distinct objects located somewhere in immediate space, much the same as psi they dont have a 'reach out and grab' nature to them, so we have to pool data to see if we can infer their existance.
    I think thats why youre frequently running into problems with psi - youre trying to reduce it down to things you can hold in your hand. But it really doesnt work like that.
    In fact the majority of modern science seems to be increasingly interacting with concepts and ideas that arnt spacially located anywhere atall.

    Heres a dawkins quote that highlights what im trying to say far more eloquently...

    Last edited: May 22, 2007
  18. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Ok so we don’t know if this success actually had anything to do with psi. Does that mean that psi is being utilized?

    Yes apparently there were some significant results but even Jessica Utts agreed that the testing was flawed. Perhaps here we have a fine example of how poor test methodology can produce encouraging results. In the end it was closed down because it wasn't working.

    I believe that most of the early Stargate work was done by Targ and Puthoff. I find it hard to take these two seriously after they tested Geller and declared him a powerful psychic.

    Well I don’t recall the article but I know you wouldn’t just make stuff up so I will take your word for it.

    But millions of people still believe in these ideas regardless of the lack of evidence. That is the problem. That is why they are trying to educate. So if they are ‘easy targets’ then that is irrelevant.

    I don’t think you are an odd-ball but you are not putting forward any real problems with the site. If your main criticism is that they are only skeptical of the more popular paranormal ideas then that is a pretty weak complaint. The sub title is “A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions”. The articles there are not any less valid because they don’t discuss astronomy.

    Well I am argumentative... Also it appears to me that you are a very rational person except when discussing these two subjects.

    I couldn’t find any comments on Randi by her. I couldn’t find anything on Randi performing homeopathy experiments. I know he has observed some. I will look out for the book though.
  19. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    It's too bad he's not here to take a look at the image.

    Well, whether a phenomena exists or not is black and white. Only two outcomes are possible. Yes or no. If there is no direct measurement of the phenomena or its effects then we're on a gradient should surrounding phenomena predict its existence.
  20. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Why don't you know? Why aren't you asking those questions?

    The knowns are not being taken into account again nor the fact that these claims are made by people about their 'abilities'. Do you know of any human ability which fails most of the time and the praticioner of the ability does not know if he succeeded or not? You seem like a logical person and for whatever reason appear to not be able to hold all the variables together.

    It's a silly leap. I do agree that following the 'thought' can result in a quicker discovery in some cases... but to leap into a zone where all evidence points to delusion is just silly.

    Evidentually speaking, we do.

    It might be worth exploring alternatives that can yield both health and truth.

    I don't think that gravity and adaptation are on a gradient for their existence. How they work certainly is. FDA drug trials are also quite self evident in their existence and how they work is fairly well documented... i.e. I am not sure the how is on a gradient.

    Well yes, I am absolutely trying to reduce psi to something self-evident. The claims of psi are not of strange probability wave decoherence. They are claims of human abilities. Reading minds, moving objects with the mind, seeing across distances of space and time using the mind... etc.

    I don't know how you can say "it doesn't work like that" for psi. You would have to have intimate knowledge of the phenomena to make such an assertion... and you can't have intimate knowledge of a phenomena that is not there.

    I love the quote and its nothing new. Remove 10 seconds of transient state from the universe. In that little nook of state we call 'Earth' with those little transient life forms we call 'humans' there are little changing claims of the fantastic. Those claims have no corresponding transient state. They are disconnected from the overall changes... they are un-true.
  21. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Naturally the tangible change of including parapsychologist removes all bias.

    Don't they by defintion search for the existence of the paranormal where science is the study of the natural world?

    25.x% vs. 34.x% means the results could not be replicated.

    um... no... the article posted there was to show that other delusions have undergone serious research. It was a response to your defensive feedback that psi is not in the same bucket as vampires, werewolves, ghosts, demons, etc.
  22. grover Registered Senior Member

    No, Crunchy. The point is is that if you are going to write an objective report you don't bring in one person that has in the past shown them to be decidelt against the phenomenon in question. It's funny how williing you are to throw out objectivity whenever it agrees with you.
    Don't they by defintion search for the existence of the paranormal where science is the study of the natural world?[/QUOTE]
    No, they use the scientific method to investigate the hypothesis of psi. Journals that publish psi studies accept both pro and con studies.

    Yes, but your once again cutting out the part of the experminet that did duplicate the study (the percentage was 37% I think). Which is precisely why the authors of the study present as partially duplicate the Ganzfelds and not, as you would have it, as falsifying the Ganzfelds.

    No, the point of the under disscussion here was "The report concluded that parapsychology needs 'a fairer hearing across a broader spectrum of the scientific community, so that emotionality does not impede objective assessment of experimental results" (Office of Technology Assessment, 1989)." Is your memory fucked-up? Or are you being intellectually dishonest again?

    (And in regards to the other issue you have yet to show there has ever been scientifc evidence for vampires, werewolves, ghosts, and demons.)
  23. heliocentric Registered Senior Member

    Because it would take forever.

    Why does an ability or phenomena have to already exist within the same parameters for it to true?
    Its like youre saying its impossible for processes or things to have completely
    independant/distinct behaviours that arnt self-similar to anything that already exists.

    Yeah it would be, but it doesnt. Im still not sure you understand that statistically signifcant data isnt the same as non-significant data.

    Well again all it comes back to is we can only say with absolute certainty that something exists.
    You cant ever say that gravity (as we believe it to be) exists, GR/SR has been proven experimentally to the degree of something like 99.2% i believe.

    So we still cant say what we know or believe to be gravity, is what it is.

    To use the same logic in this instance, we can both say with complete certainty that that some sort of information transfer is taking place with people like Sally Morgan
    What we're arguing over (on a gradient of probablity) is that they work outside of classic/known communication methods.

    I have to have intimate knowledge of psi to know that you cant 'hold it in your hand'?

    Well Dawkins with would at least be pround of your evangelical absolutism, even if your logic is flawd.
    Last edited: May 22, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page