Educating youngsters at an early age.

[Lucianarchy]

I am in the process of compiling information for a book on 'what science can't yet explain', aimed at children 5 - 9 and suitable for junior school study.

The idea is to get children who have not yet been conditioned through misinformation to think for themselves and make their own unprejudiced enquiries about what is currently beyond scientific understanding. True skepticism from an early age.

We already know about the scientific evidence for many of the 'psi' effects, SAIC, PEAR PRP, etc,. Can anyone suggest other areas of the so called 'paranormal which have good evidence to draw from (mediumship, telepathy, PK etc) ?

 

[Starrman]

We already know about the scientific evidence for many of the 'psi' effects, SAIC, PEAR PRP, etc,. Can anyone suggest other areas of the so called 'paranormal which have good evidence to draw from (mediumship, telepathy, PK etc) ?

Will your book present any of the valid criticisms of this evidence?

 

[Lucianarchy]

Will your book present any of the valid criticisms of this evidence?

Sure. What are the valid criticisms of the PEAR PRP replications of the SAIC experiments?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Luci said:

We already know about the scientific evidence for many of the 'psi' effects, SAIC, PEAR PRP, etc,. Can anyone suggest other areas of the so called 'paranormal which have good evidence to draw from (mediumship, telepathy, PK etc) ?

Wait. Are you going to state that psi effects are not yet explained by science? So you're going to say "Science has found evidence for psi, but can't explain it"? Doesn't that sound like science might be wrong about the evidence itself, then?

Other things science hasn't yet explained: abiogenesis, the origin of species, chemtrails, crop circles, the birth of stars, astrology, talking with dead people, Hell, the relationship between gravity and quantum mechanics, orbs, Planet X, consciousness.

~~ Paul

 

[Ed]

PEAR, the fishing expedition? You gotta be kidding.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Luci said:
Wait. Are you going to state that psi effects are not yet explained by science? So you're going to say "Science has found evidence for psi, but can't explain it"? Doesn't that sound like science might be wrong about the evidence itself, then?

Other things science hasn't yet explained: abiogenesis, the origin of species, chemtrails, crop circles, the birth of stars, astrology, talking with dead people, Hell, the relationship between gravity and quantum mechanics, orbs, Planet X, consciousness.

~~ Paul

Yes, there are many things not yet explained by science. The idea is to present a balanced , open minded picture of what is, and is not known. So yes, there is evidence, good evidence, scientific evidence for many of them. For the 'psi' effect, for instance, we can show that the effect is replicable as in SAIC/PEAR PRP. In another, we can show that scientific theory can explain how it is possible for some things to exist in two places at once (QT). We can say that science has found evidence for effects, for which their mechanism of action is as yet unexplained.

The difficulty is explaining this in terms that even a five year old can understand.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Science cannot explain why some people continue to believe in paranormal phenomena despite an overwhelming lack of credible evidence.

 

[Starrman]

Well, PEAR was shot down in the Journal of Parapsychology here .

Their conclusion:

It is concluded that the quoted significance values are meaningless because of defects in the experimental and statistical procedures.

On SAIC - the one positive result came from a sole judge who was the director of the program. Hardly double blinded.

Please give me a link to the information on the successfull replication of SAIC - I was not aware that it had been replicated.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Well, PEAR was shot down in the Journal of Parapsychology here .

Their conclusion:

Which has been refuted:

Response to Hansen, Utts, and Markwick
"Statistical and Methodological Problems of the PEAR Remote Viewing (sic) Experiments"
York H. Dobyns, Brenda J. Dunne, Robert G. Jahn, and Roger D. Nelson
Most of the issues raised by Hansen, Utts, and Markwick, including shared descriptor preferences, environmental or temporal cues, and agent encoding, have long been acknowledged, adequately addressed in our experimental designs and analytical techniques, and fully documented in our literature. The remainder of their concerns, including randomization of targets and reference score distributions, trial-by-trial feedback, stacking, and cheating are either misapplied, fundamentally incorrect, or have trivial impact. Additional calculations and derivations, supplementing those previously published, further demonstrate the insensitivity of our matrix scoring methods to target and descriptor dependence from any source. In sum, it is readily shown, both empirically and theoretically, that analytical methods, which remain rigorous and effective methodologies for remote perception research. Thus, the published results and conclusions of our entire 336 trial database are fully reaffirmed.

source: Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
Princeton University - Abstracts publications

Please give me a link to the information on the successfull replication of SAIC - I was not aware that it had been replicated.

I don't have a link, I only have a digital copy of the paper. I posted it here, but Claus Larsen had it removed. It's not a problem, I will be able to use and reference it for teachers in the book.

 

[CFLarsen]

What to read, what to read...? Oh, there are so many books out there.

The new Madonna kiddie book? Nah...

Any book by Lucianarchy?

Wins, hands down. For entertainment purposes only...

Please, please get this book published! It will be so helpful to skepticism....!!

 

[voidx]

If you teach kids to be skeptical of everything, something inherent in true science, always trying to prove itself wrong, or update itself as a means of verifying itself, then there's no real need to go into specifics. This to me looks like an agenda in support of paranormal claims, dressed up as a call to raise "true" skepticism. Sure a real kid taught proper skepticism will never completely discount the paranormal as we can't explain it away yet, but I really don't see that as your goal here.

 

[Lucianarchy]

What to read, what to read...? Oh, there are so many books out there.

The new Madonna kiddie book? Nah...

Any book by Lucianarchy?

Wins, hands down. For entertainment purposes only...

Please, please get this book published! It will be so helpful to skepticism....!!

Thank you. It will indeed. I already have some great illustrations - a child poking around inside a 'ghost' with a magnifying glass, and a QT 'magician' pulling the same rabbit out of two hats at once.

 

[Yahweh]

I am in the process of compiling information for a book on 'what science can't yet explain', aimed at children 5 - 9 and suitable for junior school study.

Any Developmental Psychologist (or school teacher) is going to tell you that your are aiming at the wrong age group, those kids are entirely too young.

I recommend you aim for something older...

 

[CFLarsen]

Thank you. It will indeed.

Who is publishing your book?

I already have some great illustrations - a child poking around inside a 'ghost' with a magnifying glass, and a QT 'magician' pulling the same rabbit out of two hats.

Yeah, that's the way to sell books these days. Go tell the publisher: "Oh, I have a great book! I already have som great illustrations!!"

This might be the funniest thing ever.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Re: Re: Educating youngsters at an early age.

Any Developmental Psychologist (or school teacher) is going to tell you that your are aiming at the wrong age group, those kids are entirely too young.

I recommend you aim for something older...

Good point. My lover happens to be a child psychologist. It is never too young to learn. It just needs to meet the child's needs. Most five year olds have begun to ask questions about 'ghosts' and such like. There is currently nothing available which provides good answers.

 

[athon]

This smacks of propaganda. Why? Because children 5-8 have a terrible grasp of anything abstract, such as scientific methodology. Teaching them science is limited to teaching them how to use their senses, how to describe events and how to convey their observations. Concrete analysis - which even then, is limited.

Do you have a grasp of education at all, Luci? Obviously not - selling psi' labelled science to a five year old is as ludicrous as explaining organic chemistry to a pre-schooler: sure, you can give them the pretty pictures and they'll take your word for it, but their grasp of forming a conclusion based on the evidence is non-existant. It's insane if you think you could give them a 'balanced' view (as if you could do that to begin with) and ask them to form their own belief.

Science education has a hard enough time conveying the idea of science to the public without crackpots like you making it harder. Leave it to the professionals and get out of the kiddie pool before you drown.

Athon

 

[Ersby]

Which has been refuted:

Response to Hansen, Utts, and Markwick
"Statistical and Methodological Problems of the PEAR Remote Viewing (sic) Experiments"
York H. Dobyns, Brenda J. Dunne, Robert G. Jahn, and Roger D. Nelson
Most of the issues raised by Hansen, Utts, and Markwick, including shared descriptor preferences, environmental or temporal cues,

I ended the quote there, because I'm interested in the temporal cues part. In the original Chicago trials (those trials that, throughout the PEAR experiment supplied the most significant results), the judge had four photographs with which to judge the RVer's notes. Since the judge knew the date of the session, and s/he knew that the photo was taken of the target on the day of the session (which was the agreed procedure of the earliest PEAR results) s/he could use seasonal and temporal cues to influence the choice.

The "refutation" was released before those Chicago trials were rejudged. Without a knowledge of the procedure and/or seasonal and weather conditions of a particular day (which would have been 20+ years earlier) the judges had to rely on the RV session notes to make their choice. The results were at chance. That is important, don't you feel? Will it be in your book?

 

[Flo]

Re: Re: Re: Educating youngsters at an early age.

Good point. My lover happens to be a child psychologist. It is never too young to learn. It just needs to meet the child's needs. Most five year olds have begun to ask questions about 'ghosts' and such like. There is currently nothing available which provides good answers.

Propaganda and conditionning, pure and simple ! The same as advocated by the Jesuits: take a kid young enough to be malleable, and even if he "escapes" for a while, you'll have him within your grasp at the end ...

 

[Zep]

Luci, PEAR as good as admitted in a paper of their own published EARLY LAST YEAR that summarised their own re-analyses of their own data using more refined methods. These were yielding less and less "RV effect," to the point that there was no effect at all when "properly" analysed.

The authors expressed disappointment...but then resorted to concocting spurious explanations for this by involving mystical flummery like Chi and so on. Unbelievable for supposedly reputable researchers! Truly...

I have posted the link to this quite a few times here before, so I suggest you go look it up yourself on the PEAR website - March 2002.

 

[RonSceptic]

True skepticism from an early age.

Ah yes. Luci sceptism. Here is a reminder of a few things that 'sceptic' Luci believes in...

Paranormal powers of Uri Geller
Paranormal powers of Natalia
Dowsing
Esp
Telekenisis
Mediumship
Precognition
Clairvoyance
The ability to predict lottery numbers in advance
Wiccan Magic
Worms on Mars

Did I miss anything?

Or am I doing you a disservice? Anything on the list that you do not in fact belive in?

Care to clarify for us?