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

Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Announcements and site updates.

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby quantumparanormal » 02 Sep 2009, 00:04

ProfWag wrote:That's quite a claim Quantum, so please, don't keep us in suspense any longer. Let's see the reference for psi results for the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to one odds!


Again, absolutely! I'll have to dig through my literature, which I don't have with me at the moment, but I'd be glad to furnish the published data when I get around to it. ;)

I doubt any of this will convince you, however. Some people are just stuck in their biased worldview.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby Scepcop » 02 Sep 2009, 00:17

ProfWag,
If you really want evidence, read this book.

http://astore.amazon.com/religion-spiri ... 1585011088

Parapsychology and the Skeptics: A Scientific Argument for the Existence of ESP
By Chris Carter
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby quantumparanormal » 02 Sep 2009, 00:19

Scepcop wrote:ProfWag,
If you really want evidence, read this book.


Scepcop, There's no point. He dismisses Radin's research outright, having not even read his book, "Entangled Minds." These people don't want to believe psi is real. It's that simple.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby ProfWag » 02 Sep 2009, 01:58

quantumparanormal wrote:
Scepcop wrote:ProfWag,
If you really want evidence, read this book.


Scepcop, There's no point. He dismisses Radin's research outright, having not even read his book, "Entangled Minds." These people don't want to believe psi is real. It's that simple.

I appreciate people putting words in my mouth again. I do not and did not dismiss his research outright. I have not read his book, (I will, but haven't had the time in recent weeks/months) but have read info on his research, both positive and negative. I use critical thinking and form an opinion. For you to say that I don't want to believe psi is real is hogwash. I do. In fact, I probably want to believe more than you. But I'm not going to look at one persons test results and proclaim success in the paranormal. For anyone to do that is shallow on their part.
Quantum, you appear to be an intelligent person. I'm sure you know that for science to accept someone's test results, they must be able to be duplicated. As of yet, that hasn't happened to my knowledge, hence why I am asking for references.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby quantumparanormal » 02 Sep 2009, 02:09

ProfWag wrote:I'm sure you know that for science to accept someone's test results, they must be able to be duplicated. As of yet, that hasn't happened to my knowledge, hence why I am asking for references.


I apologize if I "put words in your mouth."

That said, the preceding quote shows your lack of knowledge about the data/evidence that's available (no offense intended). There have surely been repeated experiments which have confirmed prior experiments' results. The many Ganzfeld experiments are one very good example, but just one. I would advise you read Radin's book. In it is very detailed data on various forms of psi experiments, many having been repeated over the years, with varying degrees of results, but with an overall statistically positive yield (i.e., psi-is-real-positive).

The problem, however, is that "science" will probably not yield to a paradigm shift in light of the existing evidence, not because the data is invalid, but because scientism's biases/prejudices are too strong and, hence, a major hindrance to such a shift.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby ProfWag » 02 Sep 2009, 02:40

The following quote from a review of Entangled Minds by R.T. Carroll speaks volumes of the results of Dr. Radin's work (bold and italics mine):
"Entanglement is a concept from quantum physics that refers to connections between subatomic particles that persist regardless of being separated by various distances. Radin notes that some physicists have speculated that the entire universe might be entangled and that some Eastern mystics might have been on to something cosmic. His speculations are rather wild, but his assertions are rather modest. For example: "I believe that entanglement suggests a scenario that may ultimately lead to a vastly improved understanding of psi" (p. 14, italics added) and "I propose that the fabric of reality is comprised [sic] of 'entangled threads' that are consistent with the core of psi experience" (p. 19)."
The way I read that is essentially, he hasn't found anything to prove the existance of psi. Yet.
Since I get so many book suggestions thrown at me, would you read my suggestions if I proposed them?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby ProfWag » 02 Sep 2009, 02:57

And concerning the Ganzfeld experiments:
"More recently, Julie Milton (University of Edinburgh) and Richard Wiseman (University of Hertfordshire) did a follow-up meta-analysis on 30 new studies not included in the Bem and Honorton analysis. Scott Lilienfeld reports in one of those CSICOP articles (Skeptical Inquirer, November 1999, www.csicop.org/si/9911/lilienfeld.html) that those findings "stand in stark contrast to those of Bem and Honorton and raise serious questions concerning the replicability of the ganzfeld findings." In science, replicability is essential. If other scientists can't reproduce your results, chances are they may have been due to some flaw in the experiment rather than a real effect. Milton and Wiseman found a result "which corresponds to essentially chance performance and can most charitably be described as negligible."
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... xperiments
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby quantumparanormal » 02 Sep 2009, 03:16

ProfWag wrote:The following quote from a review of Entangled Minds by R.T. Carroll speaks volumes of the results of Dr. Radin's work (bold and italics mine):
"Entanglement is a concept from quantum physics that refers to connections between subatomic particles that persist regardless of being separated by various distances. Radin notes that some physicists have speculated that the entire universe might be entangled and that some Eastern mystics might have been on to something cosmic. His speculations are rather wild, but his assertions are rather modest. For example: "I believe that entanglement suggests a scenario that may ultimately lead to a vastly improved understanding of psi" (p. 14, italics added) and "I propose that the fabric of reality is comprised [sic] of 'entangled threads' that are consistent with the core of psi experience" (p. 19)."

The way I read that is essentially, he hasn't found anything to prove the existance of psi. Yet.


You are talking about two different things here: 1) Radin's theory that quantum entanglement may be the process/medium which makes possible or facilitates psi; and 2) that theory constituting proof of psi.

1) Radin's mention of "quantum entanglement" occurs towards the end of his book and is presented as a theory, not as empirical data which can be considered evidence supporting psi. Radin admits this. So, to say that "he [Radin] hasn't found anything to prove the existance of psi" is not correctly deduced.

Similarly, many respected scientists now theorize that 11 dimensions exist via M-theory (String theory with membranes included), even though no empirical data supports this theory (it's a mathematically deduced theory), yet it's theorized that M-theory may help explain the unusual events that occur at the quantum level. In other words, "weird" things happen at the quantum level, and a theory has been proposed which might explain how this weirdness might be able to manifest, but that theory is not evidence per se. The same holds true in regards to Radin's quantum entanglement theory, although Radin's theory has much less theoretical support. But I'm not interested in his theory when I'm considering what constitutes evidence for psi.

2) As Radin once put it, "As scientists, we don't prove anything. We provide evidence for." So, what constitutes proof of psi for you might not for someone else. Proof is a subjective, qualitative attribute, not an objective, quantitative one. However, just because we don't understand how or why something works doesn't mean it doesn't work. Empirical data demonstrates that psi can be real. The data, however, does not show how or why it can be real. We propose theories and hypotheses which might explain how and/or why, then conduct empirical experiments to confirm or dismiss them.

ProfWag wrote:Since I get so many book suggestions thrown at me, would you read my suggestions if I proposed them?


Certainly.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby quantumparanormal » 02 Sep 2009, 03:31

ProfWag wrote:And concerning the Ganzfeld experiments:
"More recently, Julie Milton (University of Edinburgh) and Richard Wiseman (University of Hertfordshire) did a follow-up meta-analysis on 30 new studies not included in the Bem and Honorton analysis. Scott Lilienfeld reports in one of those CSICOP articles (Skeptical Inquirer, November 1999, http://www.csicop.org/si/9911/lilienfeld.html) that those findings "stand in stark contrast to those of Bem and Honorton and raise serious questions concerning the replicability of the ganzfeld findings." In science, replicability is essential. If other scientists can't reproduce your results, chances are they may have been due to some flaw in the experiment rather than a real effect. Milton and Wiseman found a result "which corresponds to essentially chance performance and can most charitably be described as negligible."
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... xperiments


I'm glad you brought this up. I'm going to reply to this in detail, later. In short, let me paste this fact:

The existence of psi—anomalous processes of information transfer such as telepathy or clairvoyance—
continues to be controversial. Earlier meta-analyses of studies using the ganzfeld
procedure appeared to provide replicable evidence for psi (D. J. Bem & C. Honorton, 1994),
but a follow-up meta-analysis of 30 more recent ganzfeld studies did not (J. Milton & R.
Wiseman, 1999). When 10 new studies published after the Milton-Wiseman cutoff 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.


More to come...
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby ProfWag » 02 Sep 2009, 03:54

quantumparanormal wrote:That said, the preceding quote shows your lack of knowledge about the data/evidence that's available (no offense intended).

BTW, no offense taken. You're not totally wrong. I have an M.B.A. and am a professor of management so I'm not a total dumbass, but I am fairly new to paranormal research (serious researching for only 6 months or so) and as I've stated many, many times, I am on this forum to learn. I am skeptical of practically everything. If someone claims something that to me is illogical, I'm going to see if there's another side to a story. So far, from what I've seen, there appears to be. Radin's work is not without its critics. Niether is Schwartz', ganzfeld, and so on. You can give me books and articles to read until the cows come home, but there are people in this field a hell of a lot smarter than me that follow this stuff rather closely so if there is a hint at psi success, it will be reported as such. I will, however, read these books in due time. I am a firm believer that one can't deny something without experiencing it firsthand so trust me, I will become more informed.
One last thing, it was said by either you or Winston that we skeptics don't want to believe. That is a total farce. We do, but skeptics want to see absolute proof before we believe in something as important as parapsychology. That's just our nature. I was born that way and can't change this trait about me so please don't criticize me for questioning things and presenting a counter-argument.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby quantumparanormal » 02 Sep 2009, 03:57

ProfWag wrote:I was born that way and can't change this trait about me so please don't criticize me for questioning things and presenting a counter-argument.


Fair enough; no argument there. :D
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby ProfWag » 02 Sep 2009, 03:58

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:The following quote from a review of Entangled Minds by R.T. Carroll speaks volumes of the results of Dr. Radin's work (bold and italics mine):
"Entanglement is a concept from quantum physics that refers to connections between subatomic particles that persist regardless of being separated by various distances. Radin notes that some physicists have speculated that the entire universe might be entangled and that some Eastern mystics might have been on to something cosmic. His speculations are rather wild, but his assertions are rather modest. For example: "I believe that entanglement suggests a scenario that may ultimately lead to a vastly improved understanding of psi" (p. 14, italics added) and "I propose that the fabric of reality is comprised [sic] of 'entangled threads' that are consistent with the core of psi experience" (p. 19)."

The way I read that is essentially, he hasn't found anything to prove the existance of psi. Yet.


You are talking about two different things here: 1) Radin's theory that quantum entanglement may be the process/medium which makes possible or facilitates psi; and 2) that theory constituting proof of psi.

1) Radin's mention of "quantum entanglement" occurs towards the end of his book and is presented as a theory, not as empirical data which can be considered evidence supporting psi. Radin admits this. So, to say that "he [Radin] hasn't found anything to prove the existance of psi" is not correctly deduced.

Similarly, many respected scientists now theorize that 11 dimensions exist via M-theory (String theory with membranes included), even though no empirical data supports this theory (it's a mathematically deduced theory), yet it's theorized that M-theory may help explain the unusual events that occur at the quantum level. In other words, "weird" things happen at the quantum level, and a theory has been proposed which might explain how this weirdness might be able to manifest, but that theory is not evidence per se. The same holds true in regards to Radin's quantum entanglement theory, although Radin's theory has much less theoretical support. But I'm not interested in his theory when I'm considering what constitutes evidence for psi.

2) As Radin once put it, "As scientists, we don't prove anything. We provide evidence for." So, what constitutes proof of psi for you might not for someone else. Proof is a subjective, qualitative attribute, not an objective, quantitative one. However, just because we don't understand how or why something works doesn't mean it doesn't work. Empirical data demonstrates that psi can be real. The data, however, does not show how or why it can be real. We propose theories and hypotheses which might explain how and/or why, then conduct empirical experiments to confirm or dismiss them.

ProfWag wrote:Since I get so many book suggestions thrown at me, would you read my suggestions if I proposed them?


Certainly.

Thanks for that information and clarification. It was professionally presented and reasoned and I appreciate that. I will comment in a moment after I find something.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby ProfWag » 02 Sep 2009, 04:54

quantumparanormal wrote:1) Radin's mention of "quantum entanglement" occurs towards the end of his book and is presented as a theory, not as empirical data which can be considered evidence supporting psi. Radin admits this. So, to say that "he [Radin] hasn't found anything to prove the existance of psi" is not correctly deduced.

Quantum, again, it sounds like I'm agreeing with you to a point. You state that Radin's work is presented as a theory and he presents it as such. That's fine and that much I can readily accept.
Now what I disagree with is my deducing the outcome of thought process. Words that have come from Scepcop (and you to a lesser degree) have strongly hinted that Radin's work proves the existance of psi. I present the following as evidence of why I came to that conclusion:
Scepcop writes in the FAQ: Why is Parapsychology so controversial? thread:
"Parapsychology has remained controversial, even with a substantial body of scientifically valid results..."
Quantum writes (sorry, I didn't copy down the heading, but can find it if requested)
"because it hasn't yet, even in light of the various evidence that exists. Materialism, pseudo-skepticism, biases, and so on, will ensure that it doesn't happen"
These two statements are but two of many that is interprreted by me to mean that psi has been shown to exist. I have stated early on in this website that psi has not been proven and I have been rebutted by scepcop that I should review the work of Dr. Dean Radin. That's a far cry from Dr. Radin stating his experiments have only resulted in a theory.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby quantumparanormal » 02 Sep 2009, 06:23

ProfWag wrote:Words that have come from Scepcop (and you to a lesser degree) have strongly hinted that Radin's work proves the existance of psi.


As I mentioned before, Radin's book was not written to prove anything. It was written to provide objective, analytical, and empirical data which can be considered evidence supporting the existence of psi. I say "can be considered" because the data might not be considered evidence supporting psi to those not willing to accept it, no matter how valid that data and/or evidence might be. I.e., the criteria used for determining whether or not data qualifies as proof of psi is very subjective, qualitative, and, hence, is subject to psychological construction, unfortunately. I can only hope that objectiveness aids the criteria-development process employed in determining what is or is not "proof."

However, Radin's book indeed proves to me that psi does exist.

ProfWag wrote:I present the following as evidence of why I came to that conclusion:

Scepcop writes in the FAQ:
Scepcop wrote:Why is Parapsychology so controversial? thread:
"Parapsychology has remained controversial, even with a substantial body of scientifically valid results..."


There's no doubt parapsychological research is controversial, much like the theory that the world is flat was once controversial, and much like the smashing of atomic particles at CERN (via the LHC) is controversial (i.e., some theorize such an event might create a huge black hole). But psi being controversial is not evidence that psi does not exist. Things are controversial because of our phenomenological interpretations of their implications on our preexisting beliefs, ideas, and worldviews. For example, should the scientists at CERN discontinue their research because some believe the smashing of elementary particles will result in a huge black hole that will destroy the world? No. Similarly, we should not discontinue psi research on the grounds that some find it controversial. We should continue researching psi because, so far, experiments have confirmed its existence, but we need to learn more about it.

ProfWag wrote:
QuantumParanormal wrote:"because it hasn't yet, even in light of the various evidence that exists. Materialism, pseudo-skepticism, biases, and so on, will ensure that it doesn't happen"


That was taken out of context. Here's the link to the original post: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=79&p=3792&hilit=because+it+hasn%27t+yet%2C+even+in+light+of+the+various+evidence+that+exists#p3792

Here's what I said:
QuantumParanormal wrote:It's presumptuous to think that's what would occur (that a Nobel prize would be awarded), but I'll consider it a possibility nonetheless. I don't believe that will happen, though, because it hasn't yet, even in light of the various evidence that exists. Materialism, pseudo-skepticism, biases, and so on, will ensure that it doesn't happen.


In other words, what I meant was that I don't believe a Nobel prize would ever be awarded on the grounds of psi-supporting research because it hasn't yet occurred, despite the already-existing evidence supporting psi. The powers that be will ensure it doesn't happen, not because of facts, but because of psychological reasons, those consisting of, but not limited to, the following: materialism, pseudo-skepticism, biases, and so on. In other words, there are various psychological reasons why we chose to dismiss or accept data as evidence supporting a particular hypothesis or theory, even though facts, data might exist showing the deductive opposite of those dismissals or acceptances.

However, the preceding is all speculative. In other words, I cannot know for sure that a Nobel prize will never be granted. One should never say "never." That's just my subjective opinion, my speculation about the subject, and I admit that.

However, that--my speculation--doesn't constitute evidence neither for nor against psi. It's the data and its meaning that provides evidence for psi, not speculation about Nodel prize awards.

ProfWag wrote:These two statements are but two of many that is interprreted by me to mean that psi has been shown to exist. I have stated early on in this website that psi has not been proven and I have been rebutted by scepcop that I should review the work of Dr. Dean Radin. That's a far cry from Dr. Radin stating his experiments have only resulted in a theory.


Again, you are talking about two different things: 1) Radin's theory of how/why psi might exist (i.e., quantum entanglement) and 2) Radin's theory constituting evidence for psi, which is not evidence for psi per se.

Additionally, Radin has not stated "his experiments have only resulted in a theory." The two are not mutually exclusive. He has conducted empirical psi research and subsequently formulated a theory for how/why psi might be possible, but his, et al, research still produced data that supports psi, regardless of whether or not his theory about quantum entanglement might or might not be true. In other words, and as an example, while M-theory might be proven to be an invalid theory in the future, it doesn't negate the fact that quantum particles behave in unusual, non-Newtonian ways. We have empirical evidence that they do behave in opposition to the Newtonian, classical laws of physics. Just because we don't have a validated theory that explains why or how they behave this way doesn't mean they therefore do not. Similarly, and back on topic, while Radin's quantum entanglement theory--as it pertains to psi--might be proven invalid in the future, it doesn't negate the fact that psi phenomena can, and do, exist. We have empirical evidence that they do, and can, exist. Just because we don't have a validated theory that explains why or how psi occurs doesn't mean it therefore does not.

We have to separate theories from facts.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize Winner, joins SCEPCOP!

Postby Scepcop » 02 Sep 2009, 07:39

ProfWag wrote:Scepcop, you continue to amaze me. I make an honest post and your first word back to me is "illogical." What is illogical about wanting a Nobel Prize winning scientist's participation? Your post says that he has joined. If he's not going to post, then what did he join? Quite confusing I must say. I would love to see what kind of evidence he claims. I've read that he says there is evidence but the mainstream scientists don't give it credance. Why is that? I would like to see what he has to say. If he doesn't participate in the discussions then having his support doesn't mean much of anything to me and doesn't help me to learn what's out there. You now have the support of Dr. Dean Radin and Dr. Josephson. You should be proud as they are heavyweights in their field. But if they don't contribute, then your "scientific" claim is still questionable.
Unfortunately, you are wrong about scientific evidence. I have seen nothing that hasn't been easily disputed. There has been no proof whatsoever presented. Nothing at all unfortunately. Do I want someone to read my mind and describe objects in my home? I sure do. That would go a long way towards supporting the paranormal. Having a .02 percent positive result in a random number machine doesn't show anything. What can be garnered from that knowledge? It actually shows me that people who claim to read minds, actually can't. So why all the talk? I don't know, but I wish someone would tell me.
Finally, I don't know what point you were trying to make with your parking lot story, but your use of the term "rednecks" says a lot about you and your prejudices. Not very scientific I'm afraid. If you want this site to be taken seriously, you should present your evidence scientifically and professionally and not point fingers and discredit someone's views just because they are different than yours.


It was just the facts. Honest? I have seen no evidence of your honesty. Either that, or you are totally blind to your own denial and closed mindedness and refusal to examine any evidence you don't like. It's illogical cause your words and actions completely contradict each other.

It's illogical because a Nobel Prize Winner, someone who's known for achieving something of value rather than simply criticizing everything he doesn't understand, is wise enough to not waste time arguing with fools cause in the big picture, nothing good comes out of it and nothing is accomplished. Great teachers do not come to try to prove something to you, they are usually asked by others to share their knowledge.

You simply lack common sense to realize that. It's like you don't even live in the real world. These things are obvious to people of good sense.

Josephson joined SCEPCOP to be on the committee and participate in committee discussions and to take a stand against pseudo-skepticism, and to lend his name to this movement, and cause he's known me from my posts in the past on other lists, NOT to come to the forum and try to debate people like you who only deny, deny, deny. What use is that? If you'll notice, many of the SCEPCOP committee do not post in this forum. Why do I have to tell you that? You should have already realized that. Nothing you say makes any sense. It's like I have to spoonfeed everything to you.

If you want to learn from him, then read his writings that I posted from his home page. Don't demand that he come here and personally answer your questions. That's not realistic. Most people in the world are not involved in forums. Do you think great authors and famous scientists come to forums to answer questions and criticisms? Hell no.

You have to go knocking on THEIR door and PROVE that YOU'RE worthy of their attention and time! DUH! You simply haven't done so.

Think of one of your skeptic heros, Randi for instance. Does he debate people on his forum? No. He considers himself above that, and always has. People who consider themselves accomplished have better things to do, are selective with their time, and have to have a good reason to give attention to something.

Likewise, I am wasting my time debating you guys too. It's better to participate in more meaningful discussions, if I am to participate even.

I do not have the support of Dean Radin. His name is not in the endorsement quotes page. I only have his "appreciation" of this site.

I am not wrong about scientific evidence. I've cited Ganzfeld, PEAR, Sheldrake, etc. They were CONTROLLED and double blind. And they have never been debunked. Some pseudoskeptic merely nitpicks on irrelevant stuff or conjectures about flaws and other pseudoskeptics claim it's been debunked. He might as well look up at the blue sky and say it's not blue too, and the rest will believe him.

Anyone can dispute anything, like I said. But that doesn't mean the dispute is valid.

The stories and testimonials themselves, as long as they are honest, sincere and genuine, are PROOF in and of themselves. If you don't accept that, that's your problem. But they DO HAPPEN nevertheless, and do NOT require your permission to be real.

The parking lot story just goes to show how out of touch with reality you guys are and how lacking in common sense you guys are. It's a true story.

The bottom line is, many experiences and stories exist. And there are CONTROLLED experiments that get psi results. And there are CREDIBLE testimonials to back up UFO evidence, ghosts, etc.

All that is real and overwhelming, in real life, maybe not in your mind, but in real life it is.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

PreviousNext

Return to Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron