View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Discuss General Topics.

Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby RarelyImpressed » 21 Sep 2009, 14:04

Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper:


In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected.

Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.

"The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments."

Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists.

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

"If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.

"But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.

"Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."


Thus, a prominent skeptic agrees that (1) the study of remote viewing is an area of science, which should thoroughly obviate the skeptical epithet of "pseudoscience" once and for all. And (2) that when judged against prevailing scientific standards for evaluating evidence, he agrees that remote viewing is proven. The follow-on argument that this phenomenon is so unusual that it requires more evidence refers not to evidence per se, or even to scientific methods or practice, but to assumptions about the fabric of reality.

I agree that remote viewing would be difficult to explain using 17th century ontology, which from today's perspective would be a naive, classical physics view of reality. But I suspect it will be explained through 21st century expansions of those assumptions
RarelyImpressed
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 25 Aug 2009, 19:09






Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby ProfessorX » 22 Sep 2009, 05:04

RarelyImpressed wrote:
Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.


"Skeptics" like Wiseman argue that paranormal phenomena must meet scientific standards to determine their validity. But, when something like remote viewing DOES in fact meet scientific standards, does Wiseman then accept the validity of remote viewing? No, he changes the standards and arbitrarily states that paranormal phenomena must meet a higher standard of scientific proof! Unbelievable, lol.

In his attempt to avoid having to accept the validity of paranormal phenomena, what Wiseman unwittingly ends up doing is exposing the inherently subjective nature of "scientific" standards of proof. His argument for a higher standard of proof for paranormal phenomena is based on his skepticism or disbelief in such phenomena. There is no objective, scientific basis for raising the standard of proof, he's changing the standard to wash away the annoying problem of cognitive dissonance - the pyschological sense of irritation one feels when reality isn't consistent with one's ingrained beliefs.
ProfessorX
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 13 Sep 2009, 09:36

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby Eteponge » 22 Sep 2009, 07:07

ProfessorX wrote:"Skeptics" like Wiseman argue that paranormal phenomena must meet scientific standards to determine their validity. But, when something like remote viewing DOES in fact meet scientific standards, does Wiseman then accept the validity of remote viewing? No, he changes the standards and arbitrarily states that paranormal phenomena must meet a higher standard of scientific proof! Unbelievable, lol.

Indeed. It's a "Raise The Bar" / "Move The Goal Post" type of fallacy.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby Purple Scissor » 22 Sep 2009, 10:30

There is really something to be said for "extraordinary claims require..." What Wiseman should have explained is just why RV is so extraordinary. What factor, exactly, makes if so inherently amazing? If he could quantify that, then there could be an experiment which could meet his requirements. As it is, he is subjecting science to his own internal feeling.

Of course, there is no factor which makes it inherently amazing. Not when compared to other things science accepts. Am I right?
Purple Scissor
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 12 Jun 2009, 10:15

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby Eteponge » 22 Sep 2009, 16:40

Purple Scissor wrote:There is really something to be said for "extraordinary claims require..." What Wiseman should have explained is just why RV is so extraordinary. What factor, exactly, makes if so inherently amazing? If he could quantify that, then there could be an experiment which could meet his requirements. As it is, he is subjecting science to his own internal feeling.

Of course, there is no factor which makes it inherently amazing. Not when compared to other things science accepts. Am I right?

What is an "extraordinary claim" is purely subjective and changes from generation to generation as we as humans learn new things. For example, when the Wright Brothers made their First Flight, skeptics of the day laughed at them and declared on behalf of science that it is "scientifically impossible for machines to fly!" So, flying machines at one time was considered an "extraordinary claim". The concepts of invisible (to the human eye) germs that make people sick, hundreds of years ago would have been considered an "extraordinary claim". Television, Radio, Space Flight, Tape Recorders, Etc, have been considered to be "extraordinary claims" in the past. It changes from generation to generation.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby quantumparanormal » 23 Sep 2009, 04:47

I posted a similar topic a while back on this. Here's my latest take, something I had to write in order for certain people to "get it:"

In other words, we "need" a "new" science when dealing with and testing phenomena such as remote viewing, not the ones we use for everything else (i.e.,medicine, biology, psychology, etc.), which is biased, but that's essentially what he said; and that if we were to employ this "new" science, remote viewing would most likely be disconfirmed/disproven, but until this "new" science is employed, remote viewing has been proven by the "current" science.

In other words, according to Wiseman, promissory materialism will prove him correct (i.e., that remote viewing is "false"), some day. :lol:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=487#p4739
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby ciscop » 24 Sep 2009, 01:00

quantumparanormal wrote:I posted a similar topic a while back on this. Here's my latest take, something I had to write in order for certain people to "get it:"

In other words, we "need" a "new" science when dealing with and testing phenomena such as remote viewing, not the ones we use for everything else (i.e.,medicine, biology, psychology, etc.), which is biased, but that's essentially what he said; and that if we were to employ this "new" science, remote viewing would most likely be disconfirmed/disproven, but until this "new" science is employed, remote viewing has been proven by the "current" science.

In other words, according to Wiseman, promissory materialism will prove him correct (i.e., that remote viewing is "false"), some day. :lol:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=487#p4739


i always find it funny
that the guy that believes in x men powers thinks he is smarter than the guy requesting for proof
hahaha well done!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby quantumparanormal » 24 Sep 2009, 01:02

ciscop wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote:I posted a similar topic a while back on this. Here's my latest take, something I had to write in order for certain people to "get it:"

In other words, we "need" a "new" science when dealing with and testing phenomena such as remote viewing, not the ones we use for everything else (i.e.,medicine, biology, psychology, etc.), which is biased, but that's essentially what he said; and that if we were to employ this "new" science, remote viewing would most likely be disconfirmed/disproven, but until this "new" science is employed, remote viewing has been proven by the "current" science.

In other words, according to Wiseman, promissory materialism will prove him correct (i.e., that remote viewing is "false"), some day. :lol:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=487#p4739


i always find it funny
that the guy that believes in x men powers thinks he is smarter than the guy requesting for proof
hahaha well done!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


It's amazing how to continue to embarrass yourself, over and over again. Baffling.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby ciscop » 24 Sep 2009, 01:13

hahahaha
i find it more embarassing if my hero was a quack that believes in enhaced chocolate and chamans sending healing thoughts thru space and time!
is that dumb or what?
nah.. his followers are even dumber for trusting anything he says

Can Psi just be a belief quantum?
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby quantumparanormal » 24 Sep 2009, 01:28

ciscop wrote:hahahaha
i find it more embarassing if my hero was a quack that believes in enhaced chocolate and chamans sending healing thoughts thru space and time!
is that dumb or what?
nah.. his followers are even dumber for trusting anything he says

Can Psi just be a belief quantum?


Good stuff. Keep it coming.....
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby ProfWag » 25 Sep 2009, 23:59

quantumparanormal wrote:
In other words, according to Wiseman, promissory materialism will prove him correct (i.e., that remote viewing is "false"), some day. :lol:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=487#p4739

I disagree with your assessment again QP. I am quite confident that Dr. Wiseman is smart enough to know that such things cannot ever be proven false.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby quantumparanormal » 26 Sep 2009, 00:27

ProfWag wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote:
In other words, according to Wiseman, promissory materialism will prove him correct (i.e., that remote viewing is "false"), some day. :lol:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=487#p4739

I disagree with your assessment again QP. I am quite confident that Dr. Wiseman is smart enough to know that such things cannot ever be proven false.


If only you followed his "logic," then, there'd be very little debate between us. If he is not saying remote viewing would be proven false with a "new science, then what is he saying?
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby ProfWag » 26 Sep 2009, 01:47

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote:
In other words, according to Wiseman, promissory materialism will prove him correct (i.e., that remote viewing is "false"), some day. :lol:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=487#p4739

I disagree with your assessment again QP. I am quite confident that Dr. Wiseman is smart enough to know that such things cannot ever be proven false.


If only you followed his "logic," then, there'd be very little debate between us. If he is not saying remote viewing would be proven false with a "new science, then what is he saying?

I do follow that logic. I have never said that such things cannot be proven false. I've even said there is evidence for it. What I am saying (and I believe Dr. Wiseman is saying without speaking for him) is that the proof must be such that it can be replicated and with unquestionable test validity.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby quantumparanormal » 26 Sep 2009, 03:21

ProfWag wrote:What I am saying (and I believe Dr. Wiseman is saying without speaking for him) is that the proof must be such that it can be replicated and with unquestionable test validity.


Ahhh... and with one single word you've put into place a constraint that is a subjective quality and which makes, essentially, the ability to acquire "proof" of psi effects literally impossible, making any psi experiment or hypothesis unfalsifiable: unquestionable. So, by your logical reasoning, if just one person questions the validity of the empirical psi tests employed, those tests automatically become invalid. Similarly, all replications must be conducted with "unquestionable test validity" in order for "proof" of psi to exist. How on Earth will that ever be possible? There are bound to be several people questioning the validity of psi experiments no matter how ridiculous those questions might be. You've created an unfalsifiable/unprovable position for psi. Your logic is so askew that it baffles me as to why I bother to debate you at all.

I highly doubt Wiseman would use your logic. It's clear he's referring to the requirement of a "new" science to handle psi.

ProfWag wrote:I've even said there is evidence for it.


Please provide evidence to backup this claim by furnishing this "evidence."
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby ProfWag » 26 Sep 2009, 03:42

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:What I am saying (and I believe Dr. Wiseman is saying without speaking for him) is that the proof must be such that it can be replicated and with unquestionable test validity.


Ahhh... and with one single word you've put into place a constraint that is a subjective quality and which makes, essentially, the ability to acquire "proof" of psi effects literally impossible, making any psi experiment or hypothesis unfalsifiable: unquestionable. So, by your logical reasoning, if just one person questions the validity of the empirical psi tests employed, those tests automatically become invalid. Similarly, all replications must be conducted with "unquestionable test validity" in order for "proof" of psi to exist. How on Earth will that ever be possible? There are bound to be several people questioning the validity of psi experiments no matter how ridiculous those questions might be. You've created an unfalsifiable/unprovable position for psi. Your logic is so askew that it baffles me as to why I bother to debate you at all.

I highly doubt Wiseman would use your logic. It's clear he's referring to the requirement of a "new" science to handle psi.

ProfWag wrote:I've even said there is evidence for it.


Please provide evidence to backup this claim by furnishing this "evidence."


I admit that the word "unquestionable" may be the wrong word for me to use. You are correct that there will probably always be someone who questions the validity of an experiment. However, the tests must still be valid and available for critique..
As for the socond thing, what the hell do you want me to backup? That there is evidence for psi or that I have said there is evidence for psi?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Next

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest