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

Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Discuss General Topics.

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Eteponge » 23 Nov 2009, 02:19

People who undergo these tests should have reasonable evidence already before they even get tested like this. Just because someone claims they can see through a human body doesn't mean you should test them based on the claim alone. That's a waste of time.

If the individual had a series of reliable documented testimonies from a BUNCH of level-headed no nonsense individuals who had her look through them, and she was accurate, that would be something more sufficient to have the test go through with than someone who just makes a claim without any backing that they can do such a thing, or just a single purported event.

I'm not convinced at all that this person could do what they said they could. One alleged story of her doing it, one, and nothing else except that? Silly.
"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: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Student of Sophia » 23 Nov 2009, 02:19

Nostradamus wrote:Why do you suspect her ability is real?


Because I've experienced veridical psi for myself and I'm somewhat familiar with parapsychological literature, so I know psi is real. If she was brave, then she was confident. if she was confident, then her ability is probably real.

She could not demonstrate what she claims. It appears it only worked 1 before and in suspect circumstances


If she could demonstrate it, then the balance William James spoke of in my last post would have been shifted. I don't think Humanity is ready for that yet. For now, the sheep-goat effect keeps the balance.
Student of Sophia
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Aug 2009, 23:37

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Student of Sophia » 23 Nov 2009, 02:30

ProfWag wrote:They all said they would accept it if there was evidence of psi, but just because psi is accepted by mainstream science doesn't mean that there is evidence to support it.


And the reverse is true. Just because psi is rejected by mainstream science doesn't mean it has a good reason to.

I'm always hearing from skeptics, "if psi is real, then why hasn't science accepted it?" So I asked, if mainstream science did come to accept it, would you? The votes were for no.

Skeptics want to have their cake and eat it too. They fall back on science when it's convenient for their world-view, and they oppose it when it isn't.
Student of Sophia
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Aug 2009, 23:37

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Nostradamus » 23 Nov 2009, 06:10

Because I've experienced veridical psi for myself and I'm somewhat familiar with parapsychological literature, so I know psi is real. If she was brave, then she was confident. if she was confident, then her ability is probably real.


She was confident because she traveled from NC to LA to take this test at her own expense.

Why should the sheep-goat effect cause a balance. The effect is simply that if you believe as did this person, then she should have performed better than someone that did not believe.

Mainstream science accepts a lot of really weird beliefs. There are lots of examples, but one is quantum effects. The reason that quantum effects are believed in is that the effects can be observed. The reason psi is not accepted is that it can't be observed. That's not the sheep-goat effect. Failure to demonstrate is simply failure.

This is not the first test done by the LA group. I read with quite a bit of interest about a dowser. The experiment was modified on the day of the trials to assist the person and still a no pass.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Nostradamus » 23 Nov 2009, 06:14

And the reverse is true. Just because psi is rejected by mainstream science doesn't mean it has a good reason to.


That's not true. Psi is rejected at this time, because it can't be observed. This does not mean that there is something out there that can be observed, but to date claims have failed tests.

It sounds as if you are claiming that lack of experimental proof is not a good reason to reject psi claims. I'm asing here to make sure I understand your position.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Student of Sophia » 23 Nov 2009, 07:08

Nostradamus wrote:
Because I've experienced veridical psi for myself and I'm somewhat familiar with parapsychological literature, so I know psi is real. If she was brave, then she was confident. if she was confident, then her ability is probably real.


She was confident because she traveled from NC to LA to take this test at her own expense.


Perhaps she traveled from NC to LA to take this test at her own expense because she was confident.

Why should the sheep-goat effect cause a balance. The effect is simply that if you believe as did this person, then she should have performed better than someone that did not believe.


Because the unconscious 'anti-psi' of goats balances the psi of sheep, of course.

THE CAPRICIOUS, ACTIVELY EVASIVE, UNSUSTAINABLE NATURE OF PSI: A SUMMARY AND HYPOTHESES

ABSTRACT

Many parapsychological writers have suggested that psi may be capricious or actively evasive. The evidence for this includes the unpredictable, significant reversal of direction for psi effects, the loss of intended psi effects while unintended secondary or internal effects occur, and the pervasive declines in effect for participants, experimenters, and lines of research. Also, attempts to apply psi typically result in a few very impressive cases among a much larger number of unsuccessful results. The term unsustainable is applicable because psi is sometimes impressive and reliable, but then becomes actively evasive.

One of the most testable models for this property is that psi effects occur against a background of supporting and opposing motivation and psi influence due to the extreme polarization of attitudes toward psi in the population. These attitudes may have genetic and gender associated components. Another possible explanation is that the primary function of psi is to induce a sense of mystery and wonder. Other possible functions of psi also need to be investigated. For example, psi could contribute to evolution by briefly influencing random processes to enhance diversity, without specifically guiding evolution or having sustained effects. Some type of higher consciousness may influence or control psi effects. (emphasis mine)

[...]
Student of Sophia
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Aug 2009, 23:37

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Nostradamus » 23 Nov 2009, 10:09

Great, so we are in agreement that this person was confident.

What I find so interesting is that the goat-sheep effect is being extended to include goats being able to interfere with sheep.

I looked over parts of the paper you posted a link to. What is interesting there is the lack of a statement on the problem with testing. Testing is done to a statistical model in which the data can reflect a valid result, a false positive, or a false negative. It's just not psi research that runs into this problem. To claim that the failure to demonstrate psi is evasive is to misrepresent the process and its interpretation.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Student of Sophia » 23 Nov 2009, 10:29

Nostradamus wrote:What I find so interesting is that the goat-sheep effect is being extended to include goats being able to interfere with sheep.


Is that new to you? You may recognize that extension as the experimenter psi effect.

http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy. ... k/Psi.html
Student of Sophia
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Aug 2009, 23:37

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Nostradamus » 23 Nov 2009, 11:23

The notion that an observer can interfere with the results of an experiment of course is not new. That is why double blinded experiments are done. What I find interesting here is that despite double blinding it seems that the there is a claim here that results can be affected by third parties.

In testing that I have been involved with there is a realization that it is possible to obtain false results due to the use of statistical methods. If work is done to a 95% confidence interval it still means that 5% of the results are wrong and not due to a failure of the experimenter in doing their work, but rather due to chance. This is considered a reasonable trade off when considering the amount of work that can be invested.

Some times we get a good hit that does not pan out. The field of medicine is strewn with these false leads.

The "candle experiment" described here is odd. It reminds me of work done on people in VE, virtual environments. The idea was to see how often immersion was broken during an experiment. A measurement of immersion was found to be unreliable.

This experiment is clear in stating that it could be one of the 5% of studies.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby ProfWag » 24 Nov 2009, 00:29

Student of Sophia wrote:
... so I know psi is real.

No you don't.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby NinjaPuppy » 24 Nov 2009, 02:57

Oh yes she does and so do I.

Just because it hasn't been proven scientifically does not mean that it doesn't exist or is not possible. We can argue all we want about the statement that SOS made: "... so I know psi is real.".

First of all, psi is in fact a real subject.
Secondly, she is stating her personal opinion on a subject that can't be proven or disproven.
Third, no one knows squat about psi from a scientific standpoint other than it hasn't yet been approved by science.

Try telling someone who know the instant their loved one has died, that what they felt was nothing or that the feeling of dread that kept someone from doing something, that saved their life, that it was nothing. Just because a person can't make it work at will doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are too many personal experiences documented to say it doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist in science.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby ciscop » 24 Nov 2009, 06:00

Try telling someone who know the instant their loved one has died, that what they felt was nothing or that the feeling of dread that kept someone from doing something, that saved their life, that it was nothing. Just because a person can't make it work at will doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are too many personal experiences documented to say it doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist in science.


i read that a bunch of times
and i still dont get your point
like... why would you tell anybody that they felt nothing when somebody dies?
and what does that has to do with science?
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: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby NinjaPuppy » 24 Nov 2009, 06:42

ciscop wrote:i read that a bunch of times
and i still dont get your point
like... why would you tell anybody that they felt nothing when somebody dies?
and what does that has to do with science?


I'm not talking emotionally. Some people get a 'feeling', like an instinct that the person has died at the exact time of death, many miles away.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby ciscop » 24 Nov 2009, 07:03

oh yeah.. i know what you mean now

I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced."
―Obi-Wan after feeling the Destruction of Alderaan


:D
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: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Hellboy » 24 Nov 2009, 07:23

Nostradamus wrote:
The notion that an observer can interfere with the results of an experiment of course is not new. That is why double blinded experiments are done.


Interesting........ I take it as read you are referring to the 'experimenter effect' ? I.e.- unconscious desires and bias affects the review of the evidence or even affects the design and interpretation of the aforementioned experiment(s).
Not to be confused with the idea that involves an observation of a quantum system that influences the out comes of a quantum experiment.

I will not go into the quantum world and associated wave functions and how it relates to the macroscopic world debate. :roll:
A highly interesting and contentious arena of debate, however for the moment not relevant to this thread.

As has been intimated in this thread, there is evidence for PSI. However to quickly summarise, the question is whether PSI is the culprit or the misinterpretation of the data and subsequent statistical analysis of the alleged phenomena.

However on has to be cognisant that the experimenter effect works for a someone who believes in PSI as well as someone who does not believe in PSI. How it affects someone who is agnostic in terms of how they interpret the data relative to their inner model. Is potentially a fascinating and productive area of research in itself. This may indeed shine a metaphorical light upon the way that scientists (who are human beings) affect the outcome of experiments and subsequent analysis of the relevant data.
Hellboy
 
Posts: 40
Joined: 09 Aug 2009, 05:37

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron