Skeptic Richard Wiseman concedes remote viewing is proven

[ProfWag]

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.

I agree with you on the first part of this paragraph. The problem is paranormal researchers don't use proper scientific methodology.
I hate to bring this up again, so for those of you who already know this, I apologize, but the National Academy of Science declared 20+ years ago that there was no evidence of parapsychology and no further research needed to be done. As such, remote viewing HAS NOT been proven by the standards of science. You are flat-out wrong Indigo.

[Indigo Child]

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.

I agree with you on the first part of this paragraph. The problem is paranormal researchers don't use proper scientific methodology.
I hate to bring this up again, so for those of you who already know this, I apologize, but the National Academy of Science declared 20+ years ago that there was no evidence of parapsychology and no further research needed to be done. As such, remote viewing HAS NOT been proven by the standards of science. You are flat-out wrong Indigo.

The opinion of some human organization 20+ years ago is not evidence of anything, other than the opinion of this particular human organization
Science and the scientific method are not partial to any human organization.

Your claim that the paranormal researchers do not use proper scientific methodology is false. Paranormal investigators are trained scientists, many
who have Phd's in the fields of science. Like any science they use quantitative and qualitative research methods to study in this case paranormal phenomena.

You seem to think science favours a particular ism and the opinions of a particular human group. You obviously do not understand science. Your views are
more political and ideological than they are scientific.

[ProfWag]

The opinion of some human organization 20+ years ago is not evidence of anything, other than the opinion of this particular human organization
Science and the scientific method are not partial to any human organization.

The organization I quoted is only a human organization in that humans actually participate (which is a good thing). Let me quote from their website as to who they are:
"The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is an honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.
The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.The Academy is governed by a Council consisting of twelve members (councilors) and five officers, elected from among the Academy membership. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is the president of the National Academy of Sciences."
Now, let me think logically to myself. Should I believe the "human organization" represented above who say there is no evidence to support parapsychology or should I believe Indigo Child who says differently? Hmmm, let me think about that and I'll get back to you.

[Indigo Child]

Now, let me think logically to myself. [b]Should I believe[/v] the "human organization" represented above who say there is no evidence to support parapsychology or should I believe Indigo Child who says differently? Hmmm, let me think about that and I'll get back to you.

Like I said your views are more political and ideological than they are scientific. For starters, this is about belief for you,
not about critical engagement of the evidence, the results of which will speak for themselves.

Telling me the opinion of some human body is not going to establish your point. In the past human bodies just
like these were adament the earth was flat, the sun went around the earth, heavier than air flight is impossible,
supersonic travel is impossible, faster than light information travel is impossible. An opinion is only evidence
of opinion. To continue to use this argument is nothing more than a constant appeal to authority fallacy.

Science and the scientific method are not partial to any human organization, any ideology or any politics. Science is neutral.

[ProfWag]

Now, let me think logically to myself. Should I believe the "human organization" represented above who say there is no evidence to support parapsychology or should I believe Indigo Child who says differently? Hmmm, let me think about that and I'll get back to you.

Wait, I'm not through thinking about whom I should believe, you or the NAS. I said I'd get back to you on that.

[ProfWag]

Now, let me think logically to myself. Should I believe the "human organization" represented above who say there is no evidence to support parapsychology or should I believe Indigo Child who says differently? Hmmm, let me think about that and I'll get back to you.

Wait, I'm not through thinking about whom I should believe, you or the NAS. I said I'd get back to you on that.

Okay, I've given it thorough consideration and I've decided that I will believe the National Academy of Science and the opinions of those who spend their lives conducting and evaluating the science as it is presented to them rather than you. Sorry.
I will say say, however, that I disagree with the 90% of NAS members who say no further research needs to be done. I think we should always research something as important as parapsychology, just in case...

[really?]

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.

Black swans are not extraordinary.




There are many more photos as there are videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_lkIzdNv5I

Elephants, many videos and photos http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=elephants&aq=f

I really do wonder how and why you think the way you do. There's loads of evidence for black swans and grey elephants. Now go find a blue skinned elephant one whose skin color arises from genetics not one that's painted... This doesn't count either

[Indigo Child]

Black swans are not extraordinary.




There are many more photos as there are videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_lkIzdNv5I

Elephants, many videos and photos http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=elephants&aq=f

I really do wonder how and why you think the way you do. There's loads of evidence for black swans and grey elephants. Now go find a blue skinned elephant one whose skin color arises from genetics not one that's painted... This doesn't count either

[/quote]

My oh my, you really did miss the point didn't you. Allow me to spell it out then.
My point was to say there are no blue elephants because we've only seen grey elephants
is like the argument there are only white swans because we have not seen a black swan.
Of course I know there are black swans

The finer point here is that to establish the existence of a black swan requires as much as
evidence as is required to establish the existence of a white swan. Now, lets not gets sidetracked
by swans and elephants, and bring this back to remote viewing lol. Applying the point, to establish
remote viewing requires just as much evidence as any other scientific hypothesis. No moe and no less.

Returning to the skeptic Richard wiseman, remote viewing is proven by normal standards of science. Case
closed.

[Indigo Child]

Okay, I've given it thorough consideration and I've decided that I will believe the National Academy of Science and the opinions of those who spend their lives conducting and evaluating the science as it is presented to them rather than you. Sorry.
I will say say, however, that I disagree with the 90% of NAS members who say no further research needs to be done. I think we should always research something as important as parapsychology, just in case...

That is fair enough. I just want it to be clear that this is only about beliefs and opinions for you.


For me it is about scientific evidence and what the evidence is saying. I have no beliefs or opinions
on this matter. I will go where the evidence is pointing. It does not matter to me what anybody else
is saying, for or against, because I can think for myself. You would make a very lousy scientist thats
for sure.

[ProfWag]

I have no beliefs or opinions
on this matter. I will go where the evidence is pointing.

Unfortunately, the statements made by you in the culmination of all of your posts so far do not appear to support this statement.

It does not matter to me what anybody else
is saying, for or against, because I can think for myself. You would make a very lousy scientist thats
for sure.

Uhhhhhhhh, compared to you or compared to the scientists at the NAS?

[The_Grand_Illusion]

For anyone who hasn't done sufficient research for themselves to have worked out that RV is real and rigorously proven by any reasonable scientific standard (as admitted by the double-thinking Wiseman), I suggest the following reading material for your delectation :

Mind Reach - Targ/Puthoff
PSI Spies - Jim Marrs
Remote Viewing - Tim Rifat
Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain - Ostrander/Schroeder
The Conscious Universe - Radin
Thoughts Through Space - Wilkins/Sherman

Enjoy!

BDM

[The_Grand_Illusion]

Scan to 50:00 and listen for 2 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiw ... re=related

Then watch the whole thing.

[derrida]

nah..
there´s a guy here that beliefs in rv and has a page
he got challenged and never took the chance
why? cause rv doesnt work
there´s a reason why it was dropped by CIA

when things work, we pick them up
think of percy lebaron when he invented the microwave.. it was because he melted a candy, heated popcorn and broke and egg
and THEN PROVE IT and REPLICATE IT that we all have a microwave in our kitchen.
you believers.. would only have the story of a guy that think he saws a guy heating an egg without fire.. and you cant prove it,
you cant replicate it.. but you want all of us to believe you... SORRY.. science doesnt work like that