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

Human Flying

Discuss Spirituality, Share Spiritual Teachings and Lessons.

Re: Human Flying

Postby ProfWag » 30 Sep 2011, 21:01

craig weiler wrote:You're going to think I'm obnoxious for this, but yes. You are a skeptic only until you encounter evidence. As there is a ton of evidence from a wide variety of sources, continued skepticism indicates an emotional reason for non acceptance. If you were actually objective and open you would have come to the conclusion already that psi is real. Most of the world's population knows this already with or without scientific studies and it is perfectly explainable with existing physics.

Soooooo, you're saying I shouldn't believe a thorough study by MIT a couple years ago that concluded there is no evidence of psi?
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs ... lCode=jocn
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: Human Flying

Postby NinjaPuppy » 30 Sep 2011, 21:11

ProfWag wrote:Soooooo, you're saying I shouldn't believe a thorough study by MIT a couple years ago that concluded there is no evidence of psi?
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs ... lCode=jocn

Hmmmmm, I thought it was previously stated that you can't prove a negative.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 30 Sep 2011, 21:27

Profwag,
Oh, that study. No, you should not believe them. It is yet another poorly done, yet widely publicized skeptical study with sweeping conclusions based on faulty data. In this case, they rushed the subjects through their paces and thereby ignored basic protocol in creating the proper conditions for telepathy. They also failed to cite several other studies of this sort which yielded positive results.

I keep telling you guys to be skeptical of the skeptics, but you never listen.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Human Flying

Postby Arouet » 30 Sep 2011, 22:31

Wait a minute - so it is possible to look at the same data and reach different conclusions?

Good to know!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 30 Sep 2011, 23:39

No. You've missed the point entirely; the skeptical study was POORLY DONE and the conclusions were faulty. It is really all just another form of scientific denial.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Human Flying

Postby Arouet » 30 Sep 2011, 23:54

craig weiler wrote:No. You've missed the point entirely; the skeptical study was POORLY DONE and the conclusions were faulty. It is really all just another form of scientific denial.


I didn't miss your point. You've missed my point: that different people can look at the same studies and reach different conclusions. You seem to think there's only one possible interpretation from reading these studies.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 01 Oct 2011, 00:03

In the case of this MRI study, there is only one sensible conclusion to reach: It proves nothing. No other conclusion is merited. My calling it a form of scientific denial is, of course, simply my opinion.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Human Flying

Postby Arouet » 01 Oct 2011, 00:12

Craig: I'm talking about parapsychology in general.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 01 Oct 2011, 00:33

Ok. Here is the problem I face in dealing with skeptics: You are blind to the shortcomings of your own skepticism and because of this, you are denied the opportunity to look at parapsychology and psychic people objectively. When I showed you a large list of positive studies that were all treated identically by skeptics, you saw no problem with that. You can't see the continually bad skepticism of people like Shermer, Wiseman, Hyman and pretty much every high profile skeptic you care to name. The fact that they continually bend the facts to fit their narrative is no problem for you. That is not skepticism, it is denial. And you are getting your information from them.

Why is the skepticism so continually bad? You never ask that question.

But I do. I see this and I question why I should respect the differences of opinion that are so obviously biased. I have not found anyone who is truly objective among the ranks of skeptics, so why should I take their viewpoints seriously?
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Human Flying

Postby Arouet » 01 Oct 2011, 00:53

Craig: you list a whole bunch of studies that you say: none are accepted! The implication being that the skeptics are wrong not to accept them. That's not an argument. What we should do is take a topic on its own, and evaluate them independantly. I was trying to do that with ganzfeld, but you weren't interested.

I've told you what my general problems are with parapsychology. At the end of the day what you have are largely studies showing small deviations from chance, in a tiny field of study. It doesn't make me comfortable with putting a high degree of confidence on the conclusion that its psi. It is too easy for small biases and errors to affect the results, producing a small effect. That's not to mention the issues involving the statistics and meta-studies.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 01 Oct 2011, 01:19

What we should do is take a topic on its own, and evaluate them independently.


Absolutely not. You have to look at trends to understand what is going on. Dismissal of an entire field of science and all positive studies is a sure sign of denial. Looking at them individually only obscures this point.

I've told you what my general problems are with parapsychology. At the end of the day what you have are largely studies showing small deviations from chance, in a tiny field of study. It doesn't make me comfortable with putting a high degree of confidence on the conclusion that its psi. It is too easy for small biases and errors to affect the results, producing a small effect. That's not to mention the issues involving the statistics and meta-studies.


This is not a parapsychology problem, this is an Arouet problem. The statistics are pretty clear here. Your claim about small biases is a convenient excuse to dismiss results, nothing more. There is no proof of these small biases that you claim are making as much as a 7% difference in study results. You have already seen that the results remain pretty much the same across different study qualities and when meta anayses specifically target studies that hew to a specific protocol, the numbers get better, not worse. And further, really bad studies tend to generate null results.

So no, you are not standing on solid scientific ground with your assumptions.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Human Flying

Postby Arouet » 01 Oct 2011, 01:25

As much as 7% eh?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 01 Oct 2011, 01:54

For overall results, yes. Actually, in the study with artistic people, it was around 22%. 7% is a big enough number to be able to identify the cause of the bias. I think that is rather obvious. Since this number is fairly consistent across a wide range of researchers and their studies, someone should be able to spot it if it's there. And people have been looking specifically for this bias with no success. Do you acknowledge this point? All of this research comes under very close scrutiny.

And none of the evidence indicates that researcher bias is in play. The results do not decline as the studies get tighter. As I said, you are not standing on solid scientific ground here.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Human Flying

Postby Arouet » 01 Oct 2011, 02:01

22% meaning a 47% hit rate? Which study was that?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 01 Oct 2011, 03:29

U. of Edinburgh, Scotland* Kathy Dalton 1997

128 trials

47% hit rate

* Artistically gifted sample

This closely matched the results of a study with Julliard Students. Schitz and Honorton 1992 which yielded 50% and another by Morris, Cunningham, McAlpine and Taylor, 1993, which had a 41% hit rate.

http://books.google.com/books?id=F4-p5T ... 25&f=false
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

PreviousNext

Return to Spirituality / Spiritual Teachings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron