seeing the light in skepticism

[Interesting Ian]

And no scientific evidence has been provided. Not in this thread, not in any peer-reviewed scientific magazines, and generally nowhere at all. Your point is?

A colossal amount of scientific evidence has been provided.

 

[Hawk one]

A colossal amount of scientific evidence has been provided.

Gee, and you don't even provide one single link? I mean, with all the amount of scientific evidence around, one would think that the first thing you'd do would be to show all this to us instead of just claiming it. Hell, you should post those links in every single post if they are really worth anything. I mean, you know (or at least should know) that we don't trust claims alone, so if you seriously want to convince us, then put up or shut up. The word "collosal" alone will neither impress nor sway me.

 

[JMA]

Gee, and you don't even provide one single link? I mean, with all the amount of scientific evidence around, one would think that the first thing you'd do would be to show all this to us instead of just claiming it. Hell, you should post those links in every single post if they are really worth anything. I mean, you know (or at least should know) that we don't trust claims alone, so if you seriously want to convince us, then put up or shut up. The word "collosal" alone will neither impress nor sway me.

Newbie like you are really boring because you bring stuff that have been discuss again and again on the forum ad nauseam. (I have a déja-vu feeling here).

Did you even read the topics called "Another attempt to stop Interresting Ian boring spam" before posting?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47826

For Interresting-ian parapsychological research is evidence. So just go and read Dean Radin "Counscious Universe", Sheldrake "The sense of beeing stare at" and subscribe to the Journal of Parpsychology.

But please don't ask him links! That has been done in every topics about ESP on this forum since Ian is here. No use for him to give more links...

We don't agree with him that these publications provides evidence. But no need to ask him again and again what evidence is thinking of...

 

[De'Ville's Advocaat]

It only took two clicks and two words on this forum to find a tiny portion of undebunked evidence. This is right under your nose, yet some people still find it hard to accept that it even exists.

"[...]When 10 new studies published after the Milton Wiseman cut off date are added to their database, the overall ganzfeld effect again becomes significant, but the mean effect size is still smaller than those from the original studies. Ratings of all 40 studies by 3 independent raters reveal that the effect size achieved by a replication is significantly correlated with the degree to which it adhered to the standard ganzfeld protocol. Standard replications yield significant effect sizes comparable with those obtained in the past. " Bem, D.J, Palmer, J. and Broughton, R.S. (2001). Updating the Ganzfeld database: a victim of its own success? Journal of Parapsychology, 65, 207-218
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The above was also covered in Science News:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Since the metanalysis was completed, nine more ganzfeld studies have been published. Milton acknowledges that the psi effect would be statistically significant if the analysis were updated to include these studies." - http://www.sciencenews.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bem's response to Hyman - http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem...e_to_hyman.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Ganzfeld experiments at Edinburgh are getting highly
significant results. They appear to be well designed and
if they are carried out as stated, then the results are
very unlikely to be due to chance and therefore may be
evidence of ESP. " - Dr S Blackmore (member of CSICOP)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Bem, D. J. and Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer, Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4-18. Here's the article online: psi in the ganzfeld. http://www.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/does_psi_exist.html

Child, I. L. (1985). Psychology and anomalous observations: The question of ESP in dreams. American Psychologist, 40, 1219-1230.

Jahn, R. G. and Dunne, B. J. (1986). On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena. Foundations of Physics, 16, 721-772.

Jahn, R. G. (1982). The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An engineering perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE, 70, 136-170.

Radin, D. I. (1989). Searching for "signatures" in anomalous human-machine interaction research: A neural network approach. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 3, 185-200.

Radin, D. I. & Nelson, R. D. (1989). Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems. Foundations of Physics, 19, 1499-1514.

Radin, D. I. (1994). On complexity and pragmatism. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 8 (4), 523-534.

Rao, K. R. & Palmer, J. (1987). The anomaly called psi: Recent research and criticism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 539-551.

Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378.

Jessica Utts' Report on Remote Viewing for the US government, critic Ray Hyman's Response to Utts' Report, and her Response to Hyman's Response. http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/users/utts/response.html

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The $M is yours!

 

[kookbreaker]

I suspect this De'Ville's Advocaat person is Lucianarchy.

I have no solid evidence. It's just a hunch.

I'd say your hunch is right. The prim schoolmarm comments point to a Luci sock. Luci loves to play uptight & stuffy before melting down into a boatload of sailor's curses and insults.

Kind of a sock-puppet assembly line.

 

[dharlow]

Bem, D. J. and Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer, Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4-18. Here's the article online: psi in the ganzfeld. http://www.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/does_psi_exist.html

Child, I. L. (1985). Psychology and anomalous observations: The question of ESP in dreams. American Psychologist, 40, 1219-1230.

Jahn, R. G. and Dunne, B. J. (1986). On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena. Foundations of Physics, 16, 721-772.

Jahn, R. G. (1982). The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An engineering perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE, 70, 136-170.

Radin, D. I. (1989). Searching for "signatures" in anomalous human-machine interaction research: A neural network approach. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 3, 185-200.

Radin, D. I. & Nelson, R. D. (1989). Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems. Foundations of Physics, 19, 1499-1514.

Radin, D. I. (1994). On complexity and pragmatism. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 8 (4), 523-534.

Rao, K. R. & Palmer, J. (1987). The anomaly called psi: Recent research and criticism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 539-551.

Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378.

Jessica Utts' Report on Remote Viewing for the US government, critic Ray Hyman's Response to Utts' Report, and her Response to Hyman's Response. http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/users/utts/response.html

None of these are reports of single experiments. Rather they are summaries of a body of work. While they might be useful to read up on for this forum (in particular the 1987 BBS which contains about 50 commentaries from various out- and insiders), this is not what people are looking for here when they ask for evidence. They are asking for specific experiments that have been replicated to some extend or the other.

 

[gnome]

I think we are at a stage with Psi where some events will be real to some and not to others, where both will be right.

Absurd. A psychic and a skeptic are in a room. The psychic knocks over a candle telekenetically. If it's "real" to the psychic and "not real" to the skeptic, then the psychic will burn when the room does, and the skeptic will not notice anything?

Only one of them can be right.

 

[Anders]

[snip]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Ganzfeld experiments at Edinburgh are getting highly
significant results. They appear to be well designed and
if they are carried out as stated, then the results are
very unlikely to be due to chance and therefore may be
evidence of ESP. " - Dr S Blackmore (member of CSICOP)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip]

A certain reasearcher at Edinburgh University, K D, did cut and paste the sound tapes from her Ganzfeldt studies. Not that strange than she got nice results. Those studies taken away, the Ganzfeld phenomenon cease to exist.

I'm a bit suprised Susan Blackmore even talks about those. How old is that quote?

And I said that if those forged studies were referenced, I was outta here, so buy buy...

 

[dharlow]

A certain reasearcher at Edinburgh University, K D, did cut and paste the sound tapes from her Ganzfeldt studies.

Do you have a reference to this?

And I said that if those forged studies were referenced, I was outta here, so buy buy... [/B]

I've never heard anything about Kathy Dalton's studies being "forged". I'm curious as to where you got this from.

 

[JMA]

A certain reasearcher at Edinburgh University, K D, did cut and paste the sound tapes from her Ganzfeldt studies. Not that strange than she got nice results. Those studies taken away, the Ganzfeld phenomenon cease to exist.

I would like to know more about that...

 

[Ashles]

De'Ville's Advocaat:
People can bend spoons in a way which is scientifically impossible

Sceptics:
Do you have any evidence of this?

De'Ville's Advocaat:
Look! Ganzfeld studies!

Sceptics:
Uh, and that has, what, excactly, to do with the spoon bending?

De'Ville's Advocaat:
Anecdotal evidence counts as fact when I present it. My opinion of sceptics and everything is always correct

Sceptics:
Welcome back Luci! How's the new name working out for ya?

 

[Pragmatist]

Re: Re: seeing the light in skepticism

Absurd. A psychic and a skeptic are in a room. The psychic knocks over a candle telekenetically. If it's "real" to the psychic and "not real" to the skeptic, then the psychic will burn when the room does, and the skeptic will not notice anything?

Only one of them can be right.

No, you don't get it, it's quantum mechanics, they are both burned and unburned at the same time!

Similarly psychics can always be right...even when they are wrong!

 

[De'Ville's Advocaat]

Re: Re: seeing the light in skepticism

Absurd. A psychic and a skeptic are in a room. The psychic knocks over a candle telekenetically. If it's "real" to the psychic and "not real" to the skeptic, then the psychic will burn when the room does, and the skeptic will not notice anything?

Only one of them can be right.

Schroedinger's Skeptic. They are both right, wrong, burned and safe. For each action there is a possible outcome. The skeptic is prepared for the candle to stay upright, and so his observational consciousness remains with that probability. The psychic however, knocks the candle over with PK and continues his focus of observational consciousness on the flow and probable outcomes of that possibility. You are sharing a reality where both types of belief system are in competition for differing outcomes. Your consciousness will choose which is the required outcome and if your are skeptical, it will remain flowing along the lines of that pattern of expectancy and will not be aware of the outcome of the psychic. Of course, there will be an aspect of the psychic's consciousness who will choose to fail, for whatever reason, and they may decide to experience the failure. Likewise, the skeptic will burn in another reality if their consciousness needs this to happen, when the psychic knocks the candle over by PK.

Quantum theory shows that there are an infinite number of outcomes for any one event and that every possibility exists simultaneously. It is also showing that the mind can locate itself at will in any of these existences, although governed by our belief engines we tend to act predictably - which is why spoons do not currently melt in each and every paw and why 3 dimensional images and sound can be transmitted across the world. Our belief in math and physics has shown us that it is possible to transmute living actions into digital signals, whereas such a thought would be complete hokus pokus a mere 500 years ago.

We are at the point in the belief dichotomy where critical mass is being reached in respect of the memetic values which are socially programmed into our way of thinking.

Crowley was wrong in one key area: Believe what you Will, shall be the whole of the law.

 

[Yaotl]

Re: Re: Re: seeing the light in skepticism

No, you don't get it, it's quantum mechanics, they are both burned and unburned at the same time!

Similarly psychics can always be right...even when they are wrong!

You're freakin' psychic is what you are.

 

[Nex]

So, you're saying people with different beliefs live within different physical realities? This is ridiculous.

And with the quantum now? Oh yes, please. That's not been touched on at all.

Do you have any evidence at all that shows belief affects reality?

In the meantime, I believe I'll get a refill on my coffee.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Do you have any evidence at all that shows belief affects reality?

Yes indeed; just consider the placebo effect.

 

[gnome]

Re: Re: Re: seeing the light in skepticism

Schroedinger's Skeptic. They are both right, wrong, burned and safe. For each action there is a possible outcome. The skeptic is prepared for the candle to stay upright, and so his observational consciousness remains with that probability. The psychic however, knocks the candle over with PK and continues his focus of observational consciousness on the flow and probable outcomes of that possibility. You are sharing a reality where both types of belief system are in competition for differing outcomes. Your consciousness will choose which is the required outcome and if your are skeptical, it will remain flowing along the lines of that pattern of expectancy and will not be aware of the outcome of the psychic. Of course, there will be an aspect of the psychic's consciousness who will choose to fail, for whatever reason, and they may decide to experience the failure. Likewise, the skeptic will burn in another reality if their consciousness needs this to happen, when the psychic knocks the candle over by PK.

Quantum theory shows that there are an infinite number of outcomes for any one event and that every possibility exists simultaneously. It is also showing that the mind can locate itself at will in any of these existences, although governed by our belief engines we tend to act predictably - which is why spoons do not currently melt in each and every paw and why 3 dimensional images and sound can be transmitted across the world. Our belief in math and physics has shown us that it is possible to transmute living actions into digital signals, whereas such a thought would be complete hokus pokus a mere 500 years ago.

We are at the point in the belief dichotomy where critical mass is being reached in respect of the memetic values which are socially programmed into our way of thinking.

Crowley was wrong in one key area: Believe what you Will, shall be the whole of the law.

Babble, babble, babble. Just answer this: what will the skeptic see afterwards? Will the "psychic" still be there, or will he spontaneously burst into flame? If nothing happens at all (because it's not "real" to the skeptic), will the Psychic still be able to speak to him?

 

[Ashles]

Quantum theory shows that there are an infinite number of outcomes for any one event and that every possibility exists simultaneously. It is also showing that the mind can locate itself at will in any of these existences

Please, firstly show the part of Quantum theory that proposes this theory. I am interested in what you think you know about Quantum Theory other than a few buzzwords and out of context concepts.
Then explain how this is anything other than currently a theory without any evidence.

We are at the point in the belief dichotomy where critical mass is being reached in respect of the memetic values which are socially programmed into our way of thinking.

No we aren't.
This IS fun isn't it.

So let me get this straight - our beliefs affect our reality. Right?
Yet I don't believe in psychic ability and in my reality there are no experiments which show it conclusively exists.
You DO believe in psychic ability but in your reality also there are no experiments which show it conclusively exists.
Is my reality stronger than yours then?
Or do you "choose to fail, for whatever reason, and... decide to experience the failure."?

I like my reality better.

 

[monkboon]

Yes indeed; just consider the placebo effect.

Not that that's even relevant, but the placebo effect is entirely different - my belief that a placebo will work has no bearing upon how it will work for you.