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

Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

Discussions about Psychics and Psychic Phenomena, Extra Sensory Perception, Telepathy, Psi, Clairvoyancy, 6th Sense, Psychokinesis, etc.

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby really? » 20 Jun 2010, 22:55

Scepcop wrote:Check out this clarification by Richard Wiseman that is even more favorable to parapsychology!

http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/ ... meets.html

"It is a slight misquote, because I was using the term in the more general sense of ESP – that is, I was not talking about remote viewing per se, but rather Ganzfeld, etc as well. I think that they do meet the usual standards for a normal claim, but are not convincing enough for an extraordinary claim."


From Jime to me:

"Hi Vinstonas,

Wiseman's concession is very important, because he's one of the few professional skeptics well-informed about the parapsychological literature. This is why I suggested to you to add Wiseman's concession to the argument 8 of your treatise. It's time to make known that some informed professional skeptics have accepted that some of the evidence for psi is technically correct (their disagreetment is purely philosophical, which makes obvious their materialistic biases).

Wiseman tried to clairfy his concession, arguing that he was slightly misquoted. But his clarification is even more favorable to parapsychology as I've shown here:

http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/ ... meets.html

Note that he said he was misquoted because he wasn't referring to remote viewing as such, but to ESP in general (hence, his concession is broader: in addition to remote viewing, other ESP claims also have met the widely and commonly accepted standard of science!). So his clarification is even more destructive for the skeptical agenda than his previous concession.

Best,
Jime"


Actually he omitted remote viewing:
It is a slight misquote, because I was using the term in the more general sense of ESP – that is, I was not talking about remote viewing per se, but rather Ganzfeld, etc as well. I think that they do meet the usual standards for a normal claim, but are not convincing enough for an extraordinary claim."


What RW means by ordinary is and I quote
Although Prof Richard Wiseman [ http://www.richardwiseman.com/research/ ... ology.html ] does not think that the results of laboratory-based studies into psychic ability provide convincing evidence of such abilities, he does believe that they do justify further work in this area.
The difference is between you all and him is this he does not feel at this time any manner of psychic ability has been conclusively confirmed, therefore not meeting the extraordinary claim standard. Apply this clarification to the previous quote and all will still think no differently then before. While I'm at it I'd like to give you all an example of an ordinary claim versus an extraordinary claim.
I went to the zoo an saw an elephant
I went to the zoo and saw an elephant whose skin was bright blue in color
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58






Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby NinjaPuppy » 20 Jun 2010, 23:46

really? wrote:What RW means by ordinary is and I quote
Although Prof Richard Wiseman [http://www.richardwiseman.com/research/parapsychology.html ] does not think that the results of laboratory-based studies into psychic ability provide convincing evidence of such abilities, he does believe that they do justify further work in this area.
The difference is between you all and him is this he does not feel at this time any manner of psychic ability has been conclusively confirmed, therefore not meeting the extraordinary claim standard. Apply this clarification to the previous quote and all will still think no differently then before. While I'm at it I'd like to give you all an example of an ordinary claim versus an extraordinary claim.

I went to the zoo an saw an elephant
I went to the zoo and saw an elephant whose skin was bright blue in color

I have seen an elephant whose skin was bright blue in color but not at the zoo. It was at the circus.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby really? » 21 Jun 2010, 06:17

NinjaPuppy wrote:
really? wrote:What RW means by ordinary is and I quote
Although Prof Richard Wiseman [http://www.richardwiseman.com/research/parapsychology.html ] does not think that the results of laboratory-based studies into psychic ability provide convincing evidence of such abilities, he does believe that they do justify further work in this area.
The difference is between you all and him is this he does not feel at this time any manner of psychic ability has been conclusively confirmed, therefore not meeting the extraordinary claim standard. Apply this clarification to the previous quote and all will still think no differently then before. While I'm at it I'd like to give you all an example of an ordinary claim versus an extraordinary claim.

I went to the zoo an saw an elephant
I went to the zoo and saw an elephant whose skin was [naturally pigmented ] bright blue in color

I have seen an elephant whose skin was bright blue in color but not at the zoo. It was at the circus.

That's an ordinary claim you make. Since circuses are spectacle leading one to conclude that this particular elephant was painted blue. Zoos on the other hand are not know for painting elephants blue or any color. Had you said you saw an elephant at the zoo painted bright blue that would be an example of an extraordinary claim. I have revised the examples.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby NinjaPuppy » 21 Jun 2010, 18:14

really? wrote:I went to the zoo an saw an elephant
I went to the zoo and saw an elephant whose skin was [naturally pigmented ] bright blue in color

How odd. I didn't know that elephants could get Methemoglobinemia just like humans.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby really? » 21 Jun 2010, 19:28

NinjaPuppy wrote:
really? wrote:I went to the zoo an saw an elephant
I went to the zoo and saw an elephant whose skin was [naturally pigmented ] bright blue in color

How odd. I didn't know that elephants could get Methemoglobinemia just like humans.


Now see what an extraordinary claim looks like. Color is irrelevant.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby NinjaPuppy » 21 Jun 2010, 22:05

really? wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:
really? wrote:I went to the zoo an saw an elephant
I went to the zoo and saw an elephant whose skin was [naturally pigmented ] bright blue in color

How odd. I didn't know that elephants could get Methemoglobinemia just like humans.


Now see what an extraordinary claim looks like. Color is irrelevant.

Are you confirming that elephants can get Methemobloginemia?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby ProfWag » 21 Jun 2010, 22:54

If I may chime in, how's this for an example of an extraordinary claim:
In 1950, if a person claimed that they could run a mile in less than 4 minutes, that would have been an extraordinary claim. If Roger Banister and Uri Geller just TOLD us that he could do it, that would probably NOT have met the evidence needed to support the extraordinary claim. It would have required a stop-watch and at least 2 "uninterested" people to verify it's extraordinary achievement.
I don't know, maybe?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby really? » 22 Jun 2010, 02:57

Are you confirming that elephants can get Methemobloginemia?


Please NP don't make this more complicated than you need to. The elephant's color could be any color other than the natural skin color of elephants.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby NinjaPuppy » 22 Jun 2010, 04:34

ProfWag wrote:If I may chime in, how's this for an example of an extraordinary claim:
In 1950, if a person claimed that they could run a mile in less than 4 minutes, that would have been an extraordinary claim. If Roger Banister and Uri Geller just TOLD us that he could do it, that would probably NOT have met the evidence needed to support the extraordinary claim. It would have required a stop-watch and at least 2 "uninterested" people to verify it's extraordinary achievement.
I don't know, maybe?

Howeve,r today there is nothing extraordinary about this statement. As a matter of fact:
John Walker, the first man to run the mile under 3:50, managed to run 135 sub-four-minute miles during his career (during which he was the first person to run over 100 sub-four-minute miles), and American Steve Scott has run the most sub-four-minute miles, with 136. Currently, the mile record is held by Hicham El Guerrouj, who ran a time of 3 minutes and 43.13 seconds in Rome in 1999.

really? wrote:Please NP don't make this more complicated than you need to. The elephant's color could be any color other than the natural skin color of elephants.

What I am getting at is the use of the word 'extraordinary'. Yes, a blue elephant is extraordinary. Someone telling me that they saw a blue elephant makes me curious. It does not give me the right to dismiss your claim based on a blue elephant never being seen before.

Just like ProfWags example. What used to be considered extraordinary is no longer extraordinary.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby ProfWag » 22 Jun 2010, 04:36

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:If I may chime in, how's this for an example of an extraordinary claim:
In 1950, if a person claimed that they could run a mile in less than 4 minutes, that would have been an extraordinary claim. If Roger Banister and Uri Geller just TOLD us that he could do it, that would probably NOT have met the evidence needed to support the extraordinary claim. It would have required a stop-watch and at least 2 "uninterested" people to verify it's extraordinary achievement.
I don't know, maybe?

Howeve,r today there is nothing extraordinary about this statement.

Yes, my point exactly. If one show extraordinary evidence they could read minds or foretell the future, those would no longer be extraordinary claims...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby NinjaPuppy » 22 Jun 2010, 04:40

ProfWag wrote:Howeve,r today there is nothing extraordinary about this statement.

ProfWag wrote:Yes, my point exactly. If one show extraordinary evidence they could read minds or foretell the future, those would no longer be extraordinary claims...

And what would be said of Rodger Bannister if he claimed that he was told by his crazy old aunt Tilly who reads palms that he would be breaking the four minute mile in the future?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby ProfWag » 22 Jun 2010, 05:33

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Howeve,r today there is nothing extraordinary about this statement.

ProfWag wrote:Yes, my point exactly. If one shows extraordinary evidence they could read minds or foretell the future, those would no longer be extraordinary claims...

And what would be said of Rodger Bannister if he claimed that he was told by his crazy old aunt Tilly who reads palms that he would be breaking the four minute mile in the future?

:-)
Point taken...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby Indigo Child » 22 Jun 2010, 06:24

I think Winston has dealt with this common pseudoskeptical fallacy
of extraordinary claims very well in the treatise. There is no such thing
in science as an exordinary claim, because what is ordinary in science is
basically what is the current understanding of the world. Heavier than air
objects flying was extraordinary before the Wright brothers proved it was
possible and since heavier-than-air objects flying is ordinary. Faster than
sound travel was extraordinary before the advent of supersonic travel, since
it is ordinary.

In neither case was a special(double) standard of science required to establish the
extrordinary conclusion. The extraordinary became ordinary, just as previous ordinary
things went from ordinary to extraordinary.

Paranormal sciences are no different. As long as they are using proper scientific methdology
in order to their research, they are proper science and their results are just as valid as any
other scientific investigation. Remote viewing has been proven by the standards of science.
Move on and embrace it.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby really? » 22 Jun 2010, 11:29

NinjaPuppy wrote:
really? wrote:Please NP don't make this more complicated than you need to. The elephant's color could be any color other than the natural skin color of elephants.

What I am getting at is the use of the word 'extraordinary'. Yes, a blue elephant is extraordinary. Someone telling me that they saw a blue elephant makes me curious. It does not give me the right to dismiss your claim based on a blue elephant never being seen before.

Just like ProfWags example. What used to be considered extraordinary is no longer extraordinary.

You would be curious because you doubt and have to see for yourself. A blue elephant is extraordinary as it would be in most peoples opinions until shown to be true or false.
In no way was I suggesting extraordinary claims be dismissed. Extraordinary claims necessarily illicit doubt requiring further investigation whereas ordinary claims do not. The more extraordinary a claim is the more carefully the investigation has to be and quality of evidence has to be more stringent.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is prove

Postby Indigo Child » 22 Jun 2010, 12:43

A blue elephant is no more extraordinary than a grey elephant. That is like the
argument all swans are white, simply because we have only ever seen white swans,
until we see a black a swan and it goes against the rule. The existence of a blue
elephant requires as much evidence as the existence of a grey elephant requires
to be established.

The scientific method is neutral to all claims. There are no value judgements in it
of "ordinary" and "extraordinary" You collect data(method) and you analyse the results(results),
and then you explain the results with the best hypothesis(conclusion). In the remote viewing
experiments the same method is used. You collect data, in this case remote viewers attempting
to identify a target by giving information on the target (blue, underwater, metal, machine, cold, oblong = submarine)
You analyse the results and show that the statistical liklihood of you getting the target correct, say 1 in a million
and you come up with the best hypothesis to explain it: the target was identified through ESP.

And there you go. You're done. You've proven ESP exists and you can move on. These experiments are decades
old now and if we were living in a proper rational world, ESP should have been mainstream fact today. I mean
seriously move on. Accept ESP exists .
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

PreviousNext

Return to Psychic Phenomena / ESP / Telepathy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron