But It Defies The Laws Of Physics!

(Edit: Abridged, yet still slightly long-winded first post, but I felt like venting. Sue me. :P)

It has come to my attention that there’s a culture of dissent and ridicule actively disguising itself as legitimate skepticism that is constantly bashing the mental capacities of those that disagree with them, on any issue. The case in point, here, is the possibility of the “paranormal,” which seems to be as heated a debate as any.

This culture (many of whom are, admittedly, exceptionally intelligent in many areas) overstep the boundaries of legitimate skepticism by (among other ways) holding onto the perception that the secrets and limits of the universe have been defined, by way of physics. In doing so, they use this misconception as a means to cast a heavy shadow of dissent over those who so much as mention the possibility of ‘paranormal’ phenomena.

Granted, there are many reasons to believe that the ‘paranormal’ is not Likely. I myself question metaphysics and classical physics, equally. I believe that, at the time, neither has been sufficiently mapped out, especially to a degree that one can exert a sort of pompous chastening over the other party. While there is ample evidence against the paranormal, to imply that these deductions/theories/laws are infallible, and that opposition to them is ignorant, is to display an ignorance that exposes the perpetrator to be no more conscious, intelligent or competent about the issue at hand than the person they are bashing. This, however, rarely stops the dissenter from wailing away on the “foolish believer,” regurgitating quotes that they think concur with the whole of the scientific universe, simply because it is what they have grasped through exposure, however minimal, to mainstream science - Taking the “path of least resistance,” if you ask me.)

Quantum physics have been producing results that are continuously evident to be in violation of some of the “laws” of classical physics that so many dissenters cling to like scripture. My stance is simply that one cannot ignore the recent discoveries in the realm of quantum physics while competently arguing that the metaphysical is not possible. It is no different than someone with no understanding of classical physics preaching, irrefutably, that classical physics don’t stand, and the metaphysical exists beyond all doubt. If more close-minded skeptics, or pseudoskeptics, would realize this fact, they would stand less chance of proving to be guilty of the same level of ignorance they are callously ridiculing. I hope that those who wish to be known as credible, rational skeptics never lose perspective on this, and continue to debate their points of view fairly, justly, open-mindedly and without the scare tactic of public ridicule against those who offer another perspective.

This thread is a place for posting evidence of what is now considered “paranormal.” It should not be a place to go quoting baseless anecdotes like “Well, this one time, I was dreaming that I saw my friend at school, and she was wearing this shirt that I thought was really cool, and when I went to school the next day, she was wearing that shirt!” Such a thing would be counter-productive. I mean things that are as verifiable as possible. Articles, links to videos, book title recommendations, etc. etc. If your source is questionable, please make this clear. There is no dignity to be lost by posting information while acknowledging it may not be 100% credible, but we do want to at least Try to shoot for quality over quantity. This is a great task, and I don’t expect this thread to flood with verifiable information right off the bat, but I do believe that there is enough out there to at Least structure support for the claims that the metaphysical is Possible. Do I propose to prove beyond all doubt that metaphysics exist? No. Such a claim would be naïve on my part. However I’m in hopes that this thread may prove as a legitimate argument in favor of metaphysical possibility, hopefully dispelling the myth that "No evidence exists". Nothing more.


To begin, here is an overview of the concept of quantum entanglement from a “New Scientist” issue. This is the first time I, personally, have heard of “New Scientist” but it is an easily comprehensible report that outlines the basic concepts of quantum entanglement, and, I feel, a good place to start. I think it is the most suitable stage for tugging on the rug beneath the pedestals that paranormal dissenters place themselves on. I will be adding more, later, and hope that others post their findings on any and all things paranormally legit, as well.

http://www.biophysica.com/quantum.htm

A few more that I've skimmed over briefly, but might help get a better understanding of QE for those, like myself, that are new to the concept.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInte...ntTeleport.html
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/6/18
http://media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MO...DE=VIEW&ID=8075
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6558

Our main argument was never that it goes against the laws of physics but that it has never been proven to work, has never been recorded, has never been successful in an experiment and is all based on subjective experiences that seemingly are impossible to recreate as soon as someone asks to do so. I'd have no problem with paranormal stuff if there was only 1 seriously unquestionable case of it happening, a case that is agreed upon to be valid by serious researchers from both sides.

Well this looks familiar:

CNN wrote:

Quote:

---

Carter: CIA used psychic to help find missing plane
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Former President Jimmy Carter said the CIA, without his knowledge, once consulted a psychic to help locate a missing government plane in Africa. Carter told students at Emory University that the "special U.S. plane" crashed somewhere in Zaire while he was president.
According to Carter, U.S. spy satellites could find no trace of the aircraft, so the CIA consulted a psychic from California. Carter said the woman "went into a trance and gave some latitude and longitude figures. We focused our satellite cameras on that point and the plane was there."
Carter made the disclosure after two students asked if he was aware of any government evidence pointing to the existence of extraterrestrials. "I never knew of any instance where it was proven that any sort of vehicle had come from outer space to our country and either lived here or left," the former president said.
[/b]

---

Well….that’s 1.

On top of that, we have the alleged RV evidence on the same Remote Viewing thread where I posted the above quote for you, the first time. They still stand unless you call stating that it’s “all bullshit” your way of disproving them. But here are a couple more, for you. Keep in mind, I offer these as Evidence. Not irrefutable proof. I can no more say that these actually happened than I can say Chris Columbus discovered America because I wasn't there. But, any self-respecting skeptic will be able to fully disprove the claims stated before the next time they dare form their lips (or text) to say no evidence exists.

Quote:

---

From: A Lawyer Presents a Case for the Afterlife:

7. Other psychic laboratory experiments
'I am attacked by two very opposite sects — the scientists and the know-nothings. Both laugh at me, calling me 'the frogs' dancing master'. Yet I know I have discovered one of the greatest forces in nature.'
~Galvani, the discoverer of electricity

Laboratory experiments into psychic phenomena have been conducted for over a hundred years and continue to increase the voluminous objective evidence for the existence of the afterlife. Most impressive and persuasive results have been achieved in controlled experiments where maximum co-operation was achieved between intelligences from this dimension and the afterlife. It is proposed here to give details of only a few experiments. *
One of the first of a long line of eminent scientists to undertake such investigations was Sir William Crookes who among other things investigated the mediumship of Daniel D. Home. *
Sir William Crookes was one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. He was showered with honors from many countries — from England, from the United States, Scotland, Germany, France, Italy, South Africa, Holland, Mexico, Sweden. His contribution to science is unparalleled by any one single individual in his and in our modern times. *
Sir William was a skeptic before he was specifically chosen by the English skeptics to investigate psychic phenomena with the intention of discrediting it (Crookes 1871). He was also a man of enormously high integrity, extremely high intelligence and unshakeable intellectual independence. He had stated that he would never let lobbying prevent him from telling the truth, the whole truth. *
Accordingly, he thoroughly investigated psychic phenomena and although he obtained overwhelming evidence of the existence of unknown forces for most of his lifetime he remained cautiously skeptical about the afterlife. It was only when his wife materialized through a medium that he was convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever about survival. *
Because of his independence of mind, strength of character and because he would not be subservient to the skeptical closed-minded scientists, Sir William was viciously attacked by those who had appointed him to investigate psychic phenomena.
One of the most disgusting attacks was the claim by Walter Mann that Sir William Crookes' investigation into materializations were fraudulently concocted because he was having an affair with one of the mediums he investigated— then a 15 year old girl. Of course, the person who made the claim did not have the courage, the fortitude and the conviction to make this claim when Crookes was alive. This cowardly English skeptic waited until Sir William Crookes' death before he used gutter level cowardly accusations to attack Sir William. *
To this day, this unfortunate incident caused by an enormously jealous and envious nonentity has remained one of the most abhorrent examples of disgusting conduct in the history of English psychic investigation. Those who for material motivation have become the dupes of their materialist masters and are repeating Walter Mann's deliberate falsification against Sir William will one day retract their scurrilous, gutter level smear campaign.
Sir William Crookes did a great deal of psychic investigation with Daniel Dunglas Home. In one of their experiments Home, with the assistance of his invisible companions, demonstrated the ability to affect the weight of objects in Crookes' immediate presence. Dozens of highly credible witnesses independently gave testimony of Home's ability to levitate heavy pieces of furniture. Crookes showed in a laboratory situation that Home could affect the weight of a board resting on a balance scale merely by placing his fingers in a glass of water resting on the end of the board.
Crookes concluded that he had discovered a 'new force' to which he gave the name of 'Psychic'. He noted that this force or power was very variable and at times was entirely absent; it required painstaking and patient investigation. He was at pains to avoid speculating on the nature of this new force and appealed to his fellow scientists to come forward to assist him to investigate it (Crookes 1874:17).
In another carefully constructed experiment a musical instrument, an accordion purchased by Crookes, played by itself in Home's immediate presence. In these experiments Home's hands and feet were restrained and the accordion placed inside a wire cage through which an electrical current was passed. Crookes and two of the other witnesses present stated that they distinctly saw the accordion 'floating about on the inside of the cage with no visible support' (Crookes 1874:14).
Sir William's wife, Lady Crookes, was more willing to speak plainly about her observations. Here was a classic example where an intelligence from the afterlife was able to make himself half-seen. According to her she saw the accordion taken from Homes' hand by:
a cloudy appearance which soon seemed to condense into a distinct human form, clothed in a filmy drapery...It was semitransparent, and I could see the sitters through it all the time. Mr Home remained near the sliding doors. As the figure approached I felt an intense cold, getting stronger as it got nearer, and as it gave me the accordion I could not help screaming. The figure seemed to sink into the floor to the waist, leaving only the head and shoulder visible, still playing the accordion, which was then about a foot off the floor *
(quoted by Stemman 1975: 129).
No doubt, Sir William Crookes will remain as one of the greatest investigators of psychic phenomena who irretrievably established absolute objective proof for the existence of the afterlife.
More laboratory experiments
Dr Hereward Carrington is a most distinguished, highly credible and respected scientist and author who was Director of the American Psychical Institute. In many instances he personally investigated psychic phenomena. In his most impressive work, The World of Psychic Research (1973) he outlines a number of psychic laboratory experiments which clearly and in absolute terms prove how intelligences from the afterlife are in a position to make their presence and participation known.
The Dr Osti-Rudi Schneider physical psychic experiments. *
Dr Eugene Osty, head of the Metaphysic Institute in Paris, proved under laboratory conditions that a young medium, Rudi Schneider, was able to produce genuine physical phenomena without fraud. This is how Carrington described the experiment:
Dr Osty placed the objects to be moved upon a small table. Across the top of the table he passed a beam of infra-red rays. These were, of course, invisible to the eyes of those present, but the apparatus was so designed that if any solid object was interposed in the path of the rays, cutting off as much as thirty per cent of them, a battery of cameras would be exposed, flashlights ignited and the pictures taken of the tabletop at that moment. This would happen if any material thing tried to move the objects — say a human hand. A series of photos would at once reveal the fraud.
In the sittings that ensued objects were moved on numerous occasions, flashes were set off, and the plates developed. What did they show? Nothing — that is, nothing abnormal. They just showed the table top. But something had nevertheless been moving about over the table because the beam of infra-red rays had been interfered with and the objects had been displaced (Carrington 1973:54).
The first stage of the experiment was most successful with the medium obtaining the co-operation of an intelligence from the afterlife to move things around so that his presence was made known as evidenced by the battery of cameras flashing when the intelligence moved the items on the table. *
The second stage was to locate and identify the presence of the intelligence. To do this the experimenter devised an apparatus, a galvanometer, by means of which it would be possible to register the oscillation or the vibration rate of the intelligence once the experiment commenced. As soon as the experiment commenced, the intelligence began to move things around indicating that he was present; then something quite spectacular happened — the galvanometer began to register the 'pulsation' of the invisible intelligence. As Carrington states:
It was somewhat like taking the pulse of an invisible being standing before them in space! ( Carrington 1973:54).
Corroborative evidence
For centuries clairvoyants have claimed that every living thing possesses an invisible body — an astral body or an etheric body — which duplicates our physical body and which contains our real 'mind' as distinct from our physical brain. Most interesting corroborative evidence for this claim was reported by Sheila Ostrander & Lyn Schroeder in their revolutionary book, PSI Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain (1973). *
These authors state that experiments in Russia using sensitive electronic equipment are detecting that all living things — plants, animals and humans — not only have a physical body made of atoms and molecules but also a counterpart body of energy which the Russians are photographing and calling 'the biological plasma body'. Interestingly the Russians have corroborated the claim of clairvoyants that if a human being loses a finger or an arm or a leg the counterpart body remains whole — a kind of 'ghost' of the missing limb (Ostrander and Schroeder 1973: 223). *
Measuring psychic temperature *
Another most impressive experiment included in Carrington's book (1973) was the endeavor to produce objective, scientific evidence for the many claims made by mediums that a 'cold breeze' settles whenever they detect intelligences in the vicinity and when they are entering a trance. For a long time, the claim by mediums had to be subjectively accepted until science was used to show that the change in temperature could be objectively measured:
A thermometer ... was enclosed in a cage of wire netting, and fastened to a beam on the wall by means of screws. The clockwork was set going just before the seance commenced, and of course it began registering the heat of the room. In the seance that followed, a number of extraordinary physical phenomena were noted, among them complete liftings or levitations of the table. Coinciding with these manifestations, the thermometer showed instantaneous drops in temperature of ten, fifteen and up to twenty degrees Fahrenheit. And these drops only took a second or two to bring about, and they coincided exactly with the psychic phenomenon taking place elsewhere in the same room. Thus, science was able to measure another remarkable effect. (Carrington 1973: 57).
Carrington reports:
The object of the experiment was to prove conclusively that a new force unknown to science was being employed under conditions that permitted no conceivable form of fraud or trickery (1973: 57).
Psychological testing *
In another series of laboratory experiments the experimenters moved away from physical to psychological testing. This involved the participation of one of the most successful American mediums ever, Mrs Garrett, who according to Carrington submitted herself to all kinds of scientific investigations. She was tested by leading universities and scientific groups in Europe and America.
Mrs Garrett as a medium stated that she had a regular control, a spirit or intelligence by the name of Urvani who would speak through her while she was in trance. The experimenters decided to use a word association test devised by Dr Carl Jung from Zurich to test whether Urvani was really a separate entity from Mrs Garrett. It was decided to give Mrs Garrett the test when she was NOT in trance and to give her control, Urvani, a word association test when Mrs Garrett WAS in trance.
Professional psychologists and psychiatrists attest that the subject cannot maintain fraud for any length of time using a word association test of 100 words where the response time to a word is measured in tenths of a second. Any inconsistency and hesitation is noticed immediately. This being so, it was arranged that Urvani would himself take the test and bring in another seven intelligences from the afterlife to also participate.
The results showed conclusively that the word associations of Mrs Garrett when not in trance and of Urvani and the seven other entities were all radically different and that it was NOT possible for the information transmitted to have come from one person, from one mind (Carrington 1973:59). These results correspond with the evidence that we survive physical death and that our personality, our mind, our character survive with us.
Voice machine analysis
The independence of the entities speaking through a medium was also given corroboration by a totally independent scientific investigation of a most gifted Australian medium, Shirley Bray. The voices of three intelligences which regularly manifest through her were tape recorded. These taped voices were then put through a very high tech voice machine, the same one which was used by the British police in the investigation of the serial killer, the Yorkshire Ripper. The voice machine can measure variables such as pace, rhythm, accents etc. The machine showed that all taped voices from the medium Shirley Bray were those of totally different individuals. Scientists stated in unequivocal terms that because the machine registers the person's breathing pattern while speaking it would not have been possible for one person to produce the three voices on the tape. This is because the voice pattern-vibration for each individual is just like a fingerprint — different from person to person (Bray 1990:15).
EEG analysis
American Professor Charles H. Hapgood, reports in his excellent book, Voices of Spirit (1975) that he tested a medium to see if the electroencephalograph (EEG) of the medium Elwood Babbitt when out of trance would be different from when the medium's mind was allegedly taken over and controlled by intelligences from the afterlife. Hapgood took EEGs of Babbitt while three different intelligences were allegedly in control of the medium. The EEGs of each of the three were found to be completely different from each other and from the EEG of Babbitt not in trance. An EEG expert, Dr Bridge, noticed that the EEG's were characteristic of people of different physical age and could not belong to the one person. Hapgood reproduces the EEG diagrams in his book (1975: 224-227).
These are only a few of a huge number of experiments which together comprise a substantial body of evidence.
[/b]

---

Anybody else lose count, here?

Further, your using the term “Our” implies that you embody the whole of every pseudo-skeptic argument heard around the world, and is not valid. On this forum alone, I’ve noticed many people refer to their adherence to classical physics as the reason metaphysics are “silly.” So please speak only of yourself, as yours is not the only frame of mind I’m addressing.

Though in your case, perhaps you’ll say that everything above is bullshit, also, just like you did on the other thread. Well, in quantum entanglement there are enigmas that even physicists are now facing that seem, themselves, metaphysical. Wave/particle duality, quantum leaps of electrons, possible superluminal travel of information between particles that are entangled, in which changing the properties of one particle seems to Instantaneously effect the entangled mate, no matter how far apart they are. There is evidence of these things all around, the bias of a pseudo-skeptic simply forbids them to qualify anything they witness as evidence, especially when they can make up, right there on the spot, a “more Acceptable” (disguised as the "more logical") reason why such and such is happening, and present this baseless conception as "disproof of the paranormal," without the least bit of personal research, simply because it is their habitual illogic to do so, in favor of securing their own beliefs.

Also, here's a link to the RSA Telepathy Debate, that I would love to get more comments on. I started a thread about it a while ago, but seems that most of the people who are usually so quick to stand up and shoot down 'evidence' of the paranormal had chosen to stay quiet on this one.

Take note of the crowd poll results at the beginning and end of the debate, as well as the stereotypical pseudo-skeptical approach to reasoning by the anti-metaphysical advocate.
Trust me, this is a very interesting read:
http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/RSA_text.html

I believe this needed to be said. Good post!
It seem as if the more intelligent people cling to the laws of physics. Maybe it is something that they can temporarily put their finger on. I feel it is similar to why they are often the same people that bash religion. It takes faith rather than an equation that can be figured out.
But if you notice the laws of what physicist and many skeptics consider to hold true are also ever changing. But because they can find this change and follow it, the hole world of physics can be turned upside down in an instant and that is considered new and exciting. But in fact their prior belief was not correct.
So you would think to make an assumption that remote viewing or AP exists would not be such a great leap of faith for those like minded people. But with no existing evidence they have much more ground to stand on.
I hope many people can extract something from your post Oneironaut. I am rather fond of it. And I am not a skeptic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Korittke
Our main argument was never that it goes against the laws of physics but that it has never been proven to work, has never been recorded, has never been successful in an experiment and is all based on subjective experiences that seemingly are impossible to recreate as soon as someone asks to do so. I'd have no problem with paranormal stuff if there was only 1 seriously unquestionable case of it happening, a case that is agreed upon to be valid by serious researchers from both sides.

---

This also is a very valid point. And you can say it would be stupid to argue otherwise.
But if indeed any of these paranormal activities are possible then and we as sentient beings have yet to trigger its existence in our realm or lives or our minds then it could certainly be viewed as one of the greatest equations to figure out.
What loop whole are we missing?
What area of consciousness have we not grasped.?
What can we evolve into?
What dimensions may exist that hold the key to some of these questions.
Why can't we grasp something that we can fully imagine?

I guess we should watch our double posting Onironaut. :P

[quote]I believe this needed to be said. Good post!
...I hope many people can extract something from your post Oneironaut. I am rather fond of it. And I am not a skeptic.

Thanks man, I appreciate that. :)
I hope so, too.


And yeah...my double posts can be contagious! All that's left now is for the Bush Administration to propose martial law on the forum and quarrantine us so it doesn't spread!
:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut
Also, here's a link to the RSA Telepathy Debate, that I would love to get more comments on. I started a thread about it a while ago, but seems that most of the people who are usually so quick to stand up and shoot down 'evidence' of the paranormal had chosen to stay quiet on this one.

Take note of the crowd poll results at the beginning and end of the debate, as well as the stereotypical pseudo-skeptical approach to reasoning by the anti-metaphysical advocate.
Trust me, this is a very interesting read:
http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/RSA_text.html

---

That was indeed a good read...kudos for that Big O! :goodjob2:

I believe that Professor Wolpert was the most persuasive, despite both presentations being very well structured.

The most convincing points of Professor Wolpert's discussion, were the following quotes:

Quote:

---

There is not in the whole of the scientific literature, properly refereed in proper journals like the British Journal of Psychology, a single paper that is persuasive with regard to the ability of thoughts to be transferred, and that’s not terribly surprising.[/b]

---

Quote:

---

I think you must understand that, if telepathy were really there, the Neuroscience would be begoggled, bedazzled. They’d work on it like a shot. It would be exciting beyond words. Scientists aren’t as dim as you may think they are. If you take my own field, for example, we are so bogged down in detail, you could die of boredom on occasion … I really mean it. It’s technique … to find a new phenomenon where you could open up a whole new world … you’d jump on it like a shot. Why haven’t they done so? Simply, there isn’t a good experimental system, which gives you reliable results.[/b]

---

Quote:

---

The only way would be to try and repeat those experiments by other people, and I think, when for example, Rupert wants to go for personal anecdote … I’m terribly sorry, I don’t take personal anecdote seriously … sorry, that’s not the way science works. Sorry, you actually think … let me give you one of your personal anecdotes. When you’re at 400mph in an aeroplane, do you think there’s a force pushing you forward? Yes, or no? Cowards, come on … yes, or no? There isn’t, you know that. Force causes acceleration, not motion. So, your anecdote … all of you would say, “Yes, of course it’s a force. It’s the aeroplane pushing me forward. It’s false.” So, anecdote, I’m afraid, will not do and I can give you millions of examples.[/b]

---

Quote:

---

Also, when Rupert says, “186 papers were published in the scientific literature.” Which scientific literature? The parapsychology literature. Now, I’m not snobbish - (yes, I am, of course I’m snobbish!) - if it were in the British Journal of Psychology or Science or Nature or the Transactions of the Royal Society, I would take it much more seriously, and if it were a real phenomena, these journals would publish it. There’s no question of it. What’s in it for us? Why should we scientists, be worried that telepathy exists, even though we can’t explain it?[/b]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut


Thanks man, I appreciate that. *:) *
I hope so, too.


And yeah...my double posts can be contagious! All that's left now is for the Bush Administration to propose martial law on the forum and quarrantine us so it doesn't spread! *
:eek:

---

C'mon now is that any way to talk about our Patriot Act? :P


Aww...crap <double posted>!! Guess I'll be rooming with you and Howie in the quarrantine chamber. :doh:

Ok, big post, but I think it is going to help out this thread a little bit, because there is so much good stuff in that debate that many people will probably pass up, anyway. :wink:

ITM wrote:

Quote:

---

C&#39;mon now is that any way to talk about our Patriot Act?[/b]

---

Hehe..is there any Other way? :cooler:

I&#39;m j/k.. Heh.

ITM wrote:

Quote:

---

That was indeed a good read...kudos for that Big O&#33; [/b]

---

Any time, man. Thanks for the input. I’d hate to turn this thread into a debate on that one article alone, but I figure I have to at least respond to yours, then if you wanna we can take it back to the original thread I started on it. http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic....asc&start=0
(And wow, before digging up that thread, I&#39;d forgotten that there was actually some pretty good activity for it, and I left Peri hanging for a reply. :( My bad&#33;)

Now, even though I understand your stance on God and metaphysics, I have to wonder how it was you found Wolpert’s argument to be more persuasive? I mean, even for someone that takes no stock in the paranormal, I would figure Wolpert’s argument would seem obviously a little weak.

Quote:

---

Wolpert said: There is not in the whole of the scientific literature, properly refereed in proper journals like the British Journal of Psychology, a single paper that is persuasive with regard to the ability of thoughts to be transferred, and that’s not terribly surprising.

Wolpert said: Also, when Rupert says, “186 papers were published in the scientific literature.” Which scientific literature? The parapsychology literature. Now, I’m not snobbish - (yes, I am, of course I’m snobbish&#33;) - if it were in the British Journal of Psychology or Science or Nature or the Transactions of the Royal Society, I would take it much more seriously, and if it were a real phenomena, these journals would publish it. There’s no question of it. What’s in it for us? Why should we scientists, be worried that telepathy exists, even though we can’t explain it? [/b]

---

Properly refereed? Proper journals? A single paper that is “persuasive?” Persuasive to whom? Opinion like that kinda falls flat without giving us the strict requirements for being considered “Proper” and/or “Persuasive” and who it is that sets this standard. But let’s draw what we can from the debate:

Quote:

---

Sheldrake said: Now, when we come to the case of the psychic dog, Jaytee, - the dog that belongs to Pam Smart who is here this evening - what we found in our experiments was that the dog - here are some averages from these experiments the dog … these are 10-minute periods after Pam went out … these are the number of seconds at the window, evaluated from the videotape by a third party who knew nothing else about the experiment in an objective measure at the time it went to the window. That is the first 10 minutes of her homeward journey, from at least five miles away. These are medium-length experiments and these are short ones. The dog did sometimes go to the window, when she wasn’t coming home, to bark at passing cats or look at commotions or disturbances outside or people arriving in cars, but it went to the window far more when she was on the way home and it started waiting, in the 10 minutes before she started off home, when she decided to come home or when she got a random signal on a pager to go home. It was highly significant it was at the window most when she was on her way home and it wasn’t just that it waited a certain time and then went there, because in these short experiments, you see it was at the window at long time, whereas at the same time after she went out here, it wasn’t.

Sheldrake said: The case of Richard Wiseman and his colleagues is a very interesting one. Wiseman is one of Britain’s leading media sceptics. He is an informed sceptic, in the sense he reads the literature and knows what’s going on and he actually does experiments. However, he is a very committed sceptic who believes these things are basically impossible, and Wiseman went along to do these experiments with Pam Smart. He invented a criterion for the success or failure of the dog, which was, that it should go to the window, for no reason apparent to Wiseman … the first experiment it was 60 seconds. Then he changed the criterion to being two minutes for no apparent reason. If the dog went to the window for no apparent reason when she wasn’t coming home, it failed the test. He published a paper in the British Journal of Psychology, saying it had failed the test. There’s the paper. He put a Press Release. It was in all the science correspondence that most of our broadsheet newspapers are committed sceptics (most of them). They’re very credulous when it comes to claims of sceptics. The papers were full of it. ‘Psychic dog fails test … Psychic dog fails to give scientists a lead,’ and so on&#33; It was on the radio, it was on the television … the whole phenomenon was totally refuted and everybody bought it (who wants to believe that) and we’ve heard from Lewis, a categorical statement. However, if you plant Richard Wiseman’s data on a graph, which he didn’t do in his papers, even though I sent him graphs before he submitted it, showing it’s a self-reinforcing system, reinforced by a system of taboos and prejudices, which I think, are a shame to science. [/b]

---

Now, if this is indeed true, then I think some investigation into the prerequisite for being admitted into the British Journal of Psychology needs to be done. As Wolpert has a “select” taste for what sources he counts on for his scientific news (of which he only referred to three or four on the planet) I would think that more should be done to investigate how many of these “serious paranormal tests” have been done, re-done, what conditions, and what was the exact requirement for each test passed. Wolpert did have some persuasive points, as you stated, but, if you ask me, those very few points (relative to Sheldrake’s presentation) were more rhetorical than anything else. He offered One statistic (if I’m not mistaken) out of his entire presentation, and that was something that didn’t even have to do with the subject at hand. (How many people in a room till you get two matching birthdays.)
To quote one of the students in the audience:

Quote:

---

Roger Harridan: [sp ?] I came and voted myself into the open-minded category. So … probably empty-minded, but I’m not a complete sceptic. I’ve seen Rupert’s work on the dogs before and I have to say I was extremely sceptical of that because it seemed to be so deeply implausible, but what we’ve seen tonight is a blizzard of statistics from Dr Sheldrake, and really, what I had hoped for, from you, Professor Wolpert, was a rather more forensic examination of one or two of the cases. Instead, you’ve replied with great wit and elegance and charm, but you haven’t really, in my mind, demolished anything that he said, and I would like to invite you to look at one specific case, which is the Wiseman experiment about the dog. Was it right for Wiseman to end the experiment where he ended it, or should he have continued to look at the data as it unfolded?

Professor Lewis Wolpert: Well, I’m terribly sorry … I’ve got the paper in front of me. It’s not my area of expertise. It’s been refereed and this paper is very persuasive, showing that there is no such thing as the dog realising when the owner’s coming home. [/b]

---

Now, if I’m understanding correctly, after the conductors of the Wiseman experiment DOUBLED the requirement for the dog test to pass, while simultaneously ELIMINATING the chance for the dog to travel to the door even a Few (Understandable) times, failed the dog, and then published after the experiment with One Dog that there is “No Such Thing” as the dog realizing when the owner’s coming home. If this is true, then the ethics empowering one of Wolpert’s “seriously taken” sources of information is questionable, to say the least.

Quote:

---

Sheldrake said:
It’s an extraordinary thing that scientists who claim to be rational or rationalists, get extraordinarily irrational when it comes to the subject of telepathy. The belief in evidence just goes out of the window. It often arouses deep emotions, and I often wonder, why is it that people get so upset at the possible existence of telepathy? Why is it something so deeply disturbing? I think the reasons are historical. They go back at least as far as the ‘enlightenment,’ when the idea of the agenda was to push forward the science and reason and reject religion and superstition, credulity, folklaw and so forth. Somehow, telepathy - at that time, not called telepathy - but somehow, these psychic phenomena got put into the compartment of ‘superstition,’ and ever since then, rational people have been supposed not to believe in them. I think that’s why (as a sociological fact) you won’t find serious articles about this in broadsheet newspapers or on Horizon programmes on BBC, because these are beyond the pale of rational discourse, and educated people - not just scientists, but most university graduates - know that they’re meant to be part of this ‘enlightenment’ project, and at least in public, are supposed to deny telepathy, or at least, not talk about it. The penalty for doing so is to be thought credulous, superstitious or stupid and no one wants to lose intellectual cast. So, I think that this taboo got established quite early on and it’s somehow been in place ever since then. If you look at the controversies in the late 19th century, they were the same as today, the same kinds of arguments. The people in favour, said, “Here’s all the evidence.” The people against, said, “It’s impossible, the evidence is all not credible, etc.” It’s very strange in science that some new ideas are perfectly acceptable. For example, David Deutsch who is a Physicist in Oxford has written a book on Time Travel. He’s also written a book on Multiple Universes, the idea that every time a physical observation is made, the universe splits, and there’s billions, trillions, quadrillions of parallel universes, completely unobserved. He holds down a respectful position in Physics in Oxford. There’s no evidence at all for this postulate, and yet, this is quite tolerable within Physics.

It’s very strange in science that some new ideas are perfectly acceptable. For example, David Deutsch who is a Physicist in Oxford has written a book on Time Travel. He’s also written a book on Multiple Universes, the idea that every time a physical observation is made, the universe splits, and there’s billions, trillions, quadrillions of parallel universes, completely unobserved. He holds down a respectful position in Physics in Oxford. There’s no evidence at all for this postulate, and yet, this is quite tolerable within Physics. However, when it comes to the subject of telepathy, David Deutsch says very much the same as Lewis Wolpert. “It’s total rubbish, not a shred of evidence.” I know he hasn’t studied the evidence, but somehow the same person can have totally wild theories about paranormal universes and yet, this complete taboo against telepathy, co-existing in the same person.[/b]

---

If I take the time to quote every one of Sheldrake’s most convincing quotes, I’ll be here all day. The ratio is simply staggering. Wolpert asks for evidence, Sheldrake has scores and scores of statistics, each taking into account the element of chance, and even distance on the telephone experiment (of course Wolpert was wrong about accusing them of not testing for distance because he Never Read the Reports in which he’s “falsifying.”) Without Once refuting the statistical evidence, he reprimanded Sheldrake for gaining admittedly significant results but not “falsifying” the findings and trying to “understand” them, and a student in the audience called Wolpert out for advocating quantum physics when he just admitted that physicists say we “don’t understand quantum mechanics, but they work.”

I dunno, ITM…..I gotta wonder if you and I were reading the same debate&#33;
:cheers:

Awesome thread. I think Science is purposely stacked so that psychic phenomena cannot be Scientifically tested and approved. I think Metaphysics and Science are an apple and an orange, partially comparable. They have different goals in mind, Metaphysics meets my criteria whereas Science does not. Any word that is a derivative of Science does not hold meaning to me anymore.

By the way, if it defies the Laws of Physics, the Laws of Physics must be wrong. I have enough of an education to be able to think for myself. There are some things about Science I really do not like.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DistantClone
Awesome thread. I think Science is purposely stacked so that psychic phenomena cannot be Scientifically tested and approved. I think Metaphysics and Science are an apple and an orange, partially comparable. They have different goals in mind, Metaphysics meets my criteria whereas Science does not. Any word that is a derivative of Science does not hold meaning to me anymore.

By the way, if it defies the Laws of Physics, the Laws of Physics must be wrong. I have enough of an education to be able to think for myself. There are some things about Science I really do not like.

---

It was indeed an enlightening post, but your views seem to be a bit excessive. Science is not "purposely" created to make it so that type of stuff cannot be proved. Anyways, indeed, if it defies the Laws of Physics, the laws must be wrong. But at least when I say it violates the laws of physics, I hope people will go and look for an alternate conclusion than "the laws of physics are wrong." For most of the cases, I doubt that people's stories are right and the laws of physics are wrong.

There is a very good chance I might be picking up this book some time in the future.

Quote:

---

CHINA&#39;S SUPER PSYCHICS

Paul Dong & Thomas E. Raffill
Marlowe & Company, New York, 1997
Paperback, 250 pp., &#036;12.95
Available via Publisher&#39;s Group West
1-800-788-3123

(Reviewed April 1998)


In certain essays already placed elsewhere in this database, it has been theoretically suggested that research and development of the superpowers indwelling in our species are not supported (socially, scientifically or philosophically) because if they were supported then the way social power is distributed would have to undergo certain modifications.

If this would theoretically be the case, then it is easy enough to see that ways and means would be found to relegate to the non-relevant any and all clues to the superpowers, not only with regard to their existence within the species, but also regarding how to develop them into functioning. This would permit the consigning of the superpowers to limbo -- where layers upon layers of confusions could be heaped upon them.

Conversely, IF any major form of broad social interest were to be taken with regard to identifying and enhancing any of the superpowers, then there would have to be equally broad and compelling social reasons to do so.

One such compelling reason might come about if one of the world&#39;s big governmental powers took it upon itself to begin researching, developing and enhancing this or that format of the biomind superpowers -- a development that surely might give concern to other governments, causing as well a hasty reassessment of relevance&#39;s.

Indeed, a compelling reason such as this took place in the very early 1970s.

As mentioned in certain materials earlier placed in this database, the principal reason, back in 1972, that specifically mandated the American intelligence community to fund research into human superpower potentials was to assess the "threat potential" of similar work in the former Soviet Union and its colonized East Bloc nations.

The Soviet effort in this regard had been building and on-going during the four decades prior to 1972 -- and the rather tardy discovery of whole of it came as an astonishing "surprise" to American analysts when they finally realized how large and serious the involvement of Soviet scientific and military agencies actually was.

Up until about 1981, the major American media tended superficially to romanticize this situation as the "Psi warfare gap." However, it can be pointed up that the American mainstream social systems of sciences, leading intellectuals and media labor within pronounced misconceptions and phobias regarding the superpowers. And so rather than informing the public as to the exact nature of the Soviet work and its extent, the Psi-phobic editorial policies of the major media seized upon the "gap" to poke fun not at the Soviet work but at the American intelligence agencies.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, the "threat potentials" of the Soviet work were considered at an end -- and the American intelligence agencies formerly involved took active steps to discredit any advances made within the American work they, themselves, had funded (for about seventeen years). Thus, the American scientific habit of pretending that the superpowers don&#39;t exist once more was reinstated as the status quo of American mainstream illusionism.

In fact, though, nothing of the kind is at an end -- because by 1979 the accumulating Soviet and the American efforts (supported at such high levels as they were) triggered a not unreasonable result among thinkers of other nations -- principally China and Japan.

After all, and for one thing, the Soviet and American work DID, in their times, create a lot of noise, smoke and wonderment at the international level. And so if the United States could become concerned enough to attempt assessing the Soviet threat potential, why should not responsible analysts of the OTHER powerful nations attempt to assess the threat potentials of BOTH the American and Soviet work?

For another thing, one of the basic factors regarding the human superpower functions is that IF truly organized and impartial attempts are undertaken to determine their real existence, it is not at all difficult to conclude that an entire spectrum of them does exist in verifiable fact.

Further, IF this kind of conclusion IS achieved, then it would not be necessary to try to build upon the Soviet or American work. After all, very competent thinkers and researchers exist in other countries -- and presumably they could engineer various novel ways and means of researching and developing whatever they can get hold of.

One of the principal difficulties of learning anything about the nature and progress of human superpower research in China and Japan is that evidence of it is hardly ever rendered into English, and never made much of if it is. And indeed, in their book CHINA&#39;s SUPER PSYCHICS, authors Paul Dong and Thomas Raffill complain about the reluctance and avoidance of American sources to report on Chinese and Japanese research, even though some of it makes headline news in Asia.

Paul Dong is an internationally known writer. Now a citizen of the United States, he was born in Canton, China, and has maintained close ties with the Chinese scientific community. He is one of the few writers in the West with in-depth access to scientific developments in the People&#39;s Republic of China. He is also a chi gong instructor. Thomas E. Raffill, a translator and consultant, has been a student of Paul Dong&#39;s chi gong meditation since 1987.

In their book, the authors state that "China&#39;s Psychic Research" has gone through three stages, the first beginning in 1979 with "Discovery and Rise to Prominence." The second stage involved "Controversy and Conflict." The presently on-going third stage involves "Experimentation and Study" -- and which can also be read as "development and training."

Throughout the book, the authors make two significant factors quite clear -- both of which should carefully be understood and carried in mind, since both factors contribute to a Chinese state-of-the-art that has no comparison in the United States or Europe.

The first significant factor is that the Chinese research and development enjoys official and very impressive government support and in-depth cultural leadership. "Over one hundred scientific and academic institutions in China" took part in the initial stages of the research, and since then the number of research agencies "has grown rapidly."

Many of these agencies are identified. For example: Beijing High Energy Physics Institute; the Institute of Aerospace Medico-Engineering (Beijing); the National Defense Laboratory 507; Quinghua University; Beijing Teachers&#39; College; many academies of Chinese medicine -- and "newly formed human body science laboratories all over the country."

From an intelligence-gathering perspective alone, it&#39;s worth pointing up that the "Over one hundred" research institutions in China is a far greater number than the nineteen or twenty known to have been involved in the former Soviet Union.

The second significant factor is that the entirety of the Chinese research is mounted upon fundamentals totally and radically different from any approach in the West and especially in the United States.

Very briefly outlined here, the Chinese research and development is fundamentally based in the concept that "human body science is to view the person as a massive system, and an open system in close connection with the whole universe around it." This concept unifies the macroscopic and microscopic levels, and leads to the idea of "the man-universe paradigm." This theory then is expanded to deal with the larger systems of the human and the environment -- and leads to the workable concept that "exceptional human functions" (EHF&#39;s) exist and can be demonstrated and researched as such.

"From this we can see three parts of the man-universe paradigm." The first investigates the human person as an entity in the universe; the second considers the relationship between the inner workings of the body with the environment; and the third studies the quantum mechanical basis of the "man-universe paradigm." This includes quantum measurement, with "the effect of the uncertainty principle on perception at the quantum level. At the macro level, the paradigm takes in the principles of traditional Chinese medicine."

In this "macro" view, the human body is seen as "an extremely complex macrosystem, a macrosystem open to the outside world and having countless numbers of links to the environment." These links "include the exchange of matter and energy" not only at the more familiar conscious perceptual levels, but at very subtle "exchanges of matter and energy" levels reaching down into the quantum levels.

This fundamental overview, "a new field in modern science and technology -- human body science," is seen by the Chinese as a "system science" which "teaches us that reductionism alone is inadequate to the task of understanding the workings of physical systems of [the macro] level of complexity."

Reductionism, of course, is the hallmark of all Western sciences and approaches to phenomena. As the authors state, "Reductionism analyzes each level in terms of lower levels, from the human to the subsystems of the body, to the organization of these parts, down to the cells, cell nuclei, and chromosomes, all the way down to the level of the molecular biology."

The reductionistic approach is inadequate with regard to understanding, or even realizing the existence of, "a high-level perspective, the multidimensional structure naturally formed by the macrosystem of the human body, the different functions of each level, the relationship between levels, and so on."

Research in human body systems science encompasses chi gong, Chinese medicine, and Exceptional Human Functions (EHF). A matter of vital importance "is that the facts demonstrate that practicing chi gong gives rise to exceptional human functions" -- with the result that empirical theory is derived from the actual EHF phenomena, and permitting confirmations that generalizations and systematic ideas can be formed regarding them.

The authors establish that exceptional human functions are specifically derived from biophysical energies -- while the use of the term "mind" is relegated almost exclusively and only to the topic of "mind reading." In this, the Chinese EHF research is similar to the former Soviet research which likewise studied biophysical energies and potentials. In this sense, then, the substance of the Chinese (and Soviet) research differs from the substance of Western and American parapsychology, within which the phenomena are considered solely of mental rather than of physical origins.

Through the three stages of the development of the Chinese interests, it appears that a consensus was earlier reached as to the most likely and fundamental nature of the "biophysical energies" involved, and that these compared positively with the energies associated to CHI GONG.

As a further refinement of verified experiments, it would appear that chi gong, Chinese medicine, and exceptional human functions are "three parts of the same system."

This understanding led to the concept of training an individual&#39;s awareness and control of chi gong energies -- and which training in turn is "using chi gong, and Chinese medicine, to raise people with EHF to their highest level of functioning (or &#39;eigenstate&#39; in the jargon of systems science), and improve the stability of the [exceptional human function] abilities."

A major concept is given substance in this book, one that is radically different from all American and Western approaches. Although various states of exceptional human functions in a kind of natural condition can be found active in numerous children and some adults (who have been studied in China), enhancement (or "training") of the EHF&#39;s is otherwise a noted by-product of chi gong training.

As the authors note, "when a person has reached a high stage of chi gong practice, the internal body [systems] produce a strong chi energy flow. This energy can be released through the eyes, palms, or fingers. In the terminology of chi gong, this is called energy healing. While the power can be used for healing, it can also be used to harm the body. This is the &#39;empty force&#39; used in chi gong for martial arts. The helpful or harmful direction of the power is determined by the mind and the strength of the &#39;chi&#39; energy developed through practice. We know that the &#39;chi&#39; of chi gong is closely related to the chi or energy of exceptional human functions."

To help clarify here, in the expanding Chinese framework of exceptional human functions, the functions are NOT themselves seen as separate or even special "talents" of mind in the reductionistic micro-way they are seen via American or Western parapsychology concepts. Rather, they are seen as concomitants of the chi energy macro systems of the body -- or as indwelling functions (or faculties) of the macro-energy human system.

Enhancement (or training) of the functions therefore is not achieved by addressing them as reductionistic micro-issues, so to speak, but by addressing the entirety of the energy macro systems -- of which the exceptional functions are "the more striking manifestations."

There is much to be learned, and seriously considered, in this unusual book. The descriptions of the many exceptional human functions under research and development in China range from merely shocking to dumbfounding -- and demonstrate a wide spectrum of functions from mind-bending psychokenisis to refined forms of mind-reading.

But the descriptions tend to give substance to the following and quite astonishing statement that appears on page 39 of the book:

"It is because chi gong is popular in China today that thousands upon thousands of people with EHF have appeared there. There may be as many in China as the rest of the world put together. IF A SO-CALLED &#39;PSYCHIC WAR&#39; EVER TAKES PLACE, CHINA&#39;S OPPONENTS FACE CERTAIN DEFEAT [emphasis added.] However, the Chinese government has many purposes for pursuing EHF research. Besides the military and security applications, it also has industrial uses (such as for mineral prospecting), medical applications, navigational and policing application, etc."

This book is well-worth reading, if only to be boggled by the descriptions of EHF&#39;s given, and the several ways the exceptional human functions have been researched in laboratories.

[NOTE: Some few readers may wish to refresh themselves regarding their knowledge about chi gong. There are several books available, but recommended here is: THE WAY OF QIGONG: THE ART AND SCIENCE OF CHINESE ENERGY HEALING. Kenneth S. Cohen. Ballantine Books, New York: 1997, and containing a nice Foreword by the well-known Larry Dossey, M.D.]
[/b]

---

Interesting list of names of people that believe in phenomena that "there is no evidence for."

http://www.spiritwritings.com/HartmannWhosWho1927.html

I only had time to read the section on Psi research, but this looks like an interesting site.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/skeptic-faq/

But, for those that don&#39;t wanna read the whole thing....check out the Psi excerpt:

Quote:

---

0.7: Is there any scientific psi research?
------------------------------------------

[Contributed by Roger Nelson of PEAR]

In short, yes. According to a recent National Research Council report,
there is a 130 year history of scientific research, albeit with no clear
conclusion that the classical psi effects, telepathy, clairvoyance,
psychokinesis, precognition, have been demonstrated. Most knowledgeable
scholars would date the advent of controlled research later, to the early
1930&#39;s when J. B. Rhine began his work with McDougall in Duke University&#39;s
psychology department. Rhine&#39;s work has been much criticized, and is
widely discounted, but inappropriately for the most part.

In any case, later workers built on these foundations of experimental
design and statistical analysis, and there has been a cumulative
increase in scientific rigor and sophistication. Most of current psi
research is conducted by a small number of investigators in
universities and established institutes, and reports are presented at
conventions of professional organizations such as the
Parapsychological Association, and the Society for Scientific
Exploration, and published in professional journals of these groups
or, occasionally, in mainstream journals in physics, psychology, and
statistics. Professionals familiar with the literature, including
recent meta-analyses, find persuasive evidence for small, replicable
anomalous effects correlated with human consciousness and intention.

There are currently perhaps a dozen active research laboratories,
worldwide, and on the order of 50 to 100 researchers actually doing
experiments. It is a fact that their work is not well known to the
general public including most of the sci.skeptic readership. Thus,
the frequently negative, and sometimes disdainful commentary on psi
research from "skeptics" tends to be ill-informed, or refers to
something other than scientific research. Language usage is part of
the problem, as the terms psychic research, parapsychology, esp,
telepathy, etc., have been usurped by non-scientists and media people.
With suitable modifiers, the term anomalous is often used to describe
the subject of investigation in modern research, partly to avoid the
implied mechanisms and relationships attached to the older terms.

Much of current experimental psi research is not only scientific, but
adheres to more rigorous standards than are found in much contemporary
work in the social and physical sciences, largely because the
investigators understand the technical difficulties as well as the
implications of positive findings for our general scientific models.
It should be noted that constructive criticism from skeptics has made
important contributions to research quality.
[/b]

---

This site caught my eye. Just posting it here so I don't forget to check it out when I get outta work. :mrgreen:

http://stargate.collection.free.fr/Elements/news.php3

Hey man, i didnt read the entire post, i dont have the time nor the energy (but mainly the time) to read the whole thing

im just gona say one thing
subjective experience, if you dont believe in this stuff now, it may be another life before you realize that subjective experience goes beyond anything anyone in the world will ever tell you

seeing time, and astral projection into other thought realms or even other animal's bodies

that was enough to convince me, if you haven't had that happen its not a problem

ne way just thought i'd put out my opinion

"Row row row your boat, gently down the stream, merily merily merily merily, life is but a dream"

Quote:

---

THE PARANORMAL: THE EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS
.
Jessica Utts and Brian D. Josephson

A slightly shortened version of this article was published in the Times Higher Education Supplement&#39;s special section on Consciousness linked to the Tucson II conference "Toward a Science of Consciousness", Apr. 5th. 1996, page (v).

Those who recognise that significant discoveries in science are very often prompted by observations that do not fit expectations will find a stimulating challenge in accumulating evidence that it is possible to elicit psychic functioning in experiments with ordinary volunteers acting as subjects. Even more convincing results occur with specially selected subjects.
In one type of experiment, a "target" photograph or video segment is randomly chosen out of a set of four possibilities. A "sender" attempts to transmit it mentally and a "receiver" is then asked to provide an account either verbally or in writing of what she imagines it might be. She is then shown the four possibilities, and selects the one she thinks best matches her perception. By chance alone, a correct match is expected on average one time in four, whereas the experiments typically show the considerably higher success rate of around one in three.
The recent declassification of the US government&#39;s psychical research programme (experiments on "remote viewing", similar to the type just described except that it used independent judges to assess the matches rather than having the subjects judge themselves) has permitted a comparison to be made of the results of this programme with those described in the open literature. Despite the different judging procedure, similar success rates were found. In addition, many of the governmental experiments used gifted subjects. The success rate was then even higher, typically over forty percent. The few experiments in the open literature that used gifted subjects found similar success rates.
In the past, critics have attempted to discredit positive results in psychical research on grounds of lack of repeatability. But, as anyone with a training in statistics knows, even where an influence exists, an isolated experiment with an insufficient number of trials may not demonstrate a statistically significant effect. Accordingly, without a more sophisticated analysis, "failure to reproduce an effect" does not demonstrate its absence. Suppose, for example, psychic abilities, in line with the results already described, increase the chances of a successful match from 1/4 to 1/3. Then (according to the accepted statistical theories), an experiment with 30 trials, which has been typical of these experiments, would have less than a 17% chance of achieving a result of statistical significance. The more recent larger experiments still utilise only about 100 trials, and have only about a 57% chance of achieving statistical significance.
Detailed analysis of the complete collection of experiments on this type of phenomenon shows that what holds, despite changes in equipment, experimenter, subjects, judges, targets and laboratories, is far greater consistency with the 1 in 3 success rate already mentioned than with the 1 in 4 chance expectation rate. Such consistency is the hallmark of a genuine effect, and this, together with the very low probability of the overall success rate observed occurring by chance, argues strongly for the phenomena being real and not artifactual.
Reexamination of other types of psychical investigations reveals that they too achieved replicable effects, which went largely unappreciated because of a poor understanding of statistics. For instance, an analysis of experiments in precognitive card guessing and related "forced-choice" experiments, published by Honorton and Ferrari in the Journal of Parapsychology, found that gifted subjects were able to achieve consistently about a 27% success rate when 25% was expected by chance. Similar U.S. government experiments have been revealed to have achieved the same 27% success rate over thousands of trials. If chance alone were the explanation for these results, it would be truly remarkable to achieve a 27% success rate over thousands of trials, and it would be even more remarkable to see identical results in the government work. For further details about the recent evidence, including both a favourable and a skeptical assessment of the U.S. government experiments, consult the Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 10(1), or http://www-stat.ucdavis.edu/users/utts/ on the Internet.
Strong statistical results are of course meaningless if experiments are not properly conducted. Debunkers of parapsychology are fond of showcasing the very few experiments that have been found to have serious problems. But that ignores the fact that the vast majority of experiments were done using excellent protocols, paying close attention to potential subtle cues, using well-tested randomisation devices and so on. For the past decade the U.S. government experiments were overseen by a very high-level scientific committee, consisting of respected academics from a variety of disciplines, all of whom were required to critique and approve the protocols in advance. There have been no explanations forthcoming that allow an honest observer to dismiss the growing collection of consistent results.
What are the implications for science of the fact that psychic functioning appears to be a real effect? These phenomena seem mysterious, but no more mysterious perhaps than strange phenomena of the past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope. What ideas might be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these phenomena into account? Two such concepts are those of the observer, and non-locality. The observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics, if taken literally, imply a universe that is constantly splitting into separate branches, only one of which corresponds to our perceived reality. A process of "decoherence" has been invoked to stop two branches interfering with each other, but this still does not answer the question of why our experience is of one particular branch and not any other. Perhaps, despite the unpopularity of the idea, the experiencers of the reality are also the selectors.
This idea perhaps makes sense in the light of theories that presuppose that quantum theory is not the ultimate theory of nature, but involves (in ways that in some versions of the idea can be made mathematically precise) the manifestations of a deeper "subquantum domain". In just the same way that a surf rider can make use of random waves to travel effortlessly along, a psychic may be able to direct random energy at the subquantum level for her own purposes. Some accounts of the subquantum level involve action at a distance, which fits in well with some purported psychic abilities.
These proposals are extremely speculative. What needs to be done, in any event, is to integrate mental phenomena more thoroughly into the framework of science (including the quantum level) than is presently the case. The research of Lawrence LeShan (as described in his book The Medium, the Mystic and the Physicist), where interviews with psychics disclosed that they were aware of a "hierarchy of meaningful interconnections", perhaps provides a hint of what might be involved. Science has a poor handle on ideas such as meaningful interconnections since they are alien to its usual ways of thinking. Perhaps it will need to overcome its current abhorrence of such concepts in order to arrive at the truth.
* * * * * * * * * *
Jessica Utts is professor of statistics, University of California, Davis, and was one of two experts commissioned by the CIA to review the two-decade U.S. government psychic research programme in the Summer of 1995. She has recently published a book, Seeing Through Statistics, Duxbury Press, 1996, designed to improve understanding of statistical studies. Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate, is professor of physics, University of Cambridge, and heads the Mind-Matter Unification Project at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge.
[/b]

---

Link to page:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/tucson.html

Prof. Prof. med superman Mr. Dumbass E. Fake: On the existence of phenomenon XYZ

blah blah blah government blah blah blah CIA blah blah blah we actually made experiment xyz under serious conditions but i kinda missed out to give any evidence this ever happened blah blah the government tested this too but i have no evidence either blah a bunch of meaningless numbers i just pulled out of my ass. bleh so obviuosly phenomenon xyz exists.

Prof. Prof.med superman Mr. Dumbass E. Fake is professor at 5 international universities, well respected among the 7 richest men of the world and sweats when shitting.

The feeling of knowing you&#39;re getting under someone&#39;s skin: Priceless. :cooler:

You know, it&#39;s funny how many times some people have to be reminded of the most valid points. In your case, that point would be: Unless you have evidence that whatever claim you&#39;re "falsifying" is, indeed, false, then talking out of your ass, as you&#39;re doing now, does nothing but prove to the world how full of shit you are.

Keep it comin, Korittke. It&#39;s infantile, melodramatic shit like that that exposes your true psychological structuring (or lack thereof) and makes what I&#39;m trying to do here a Whole Lot Easier. :wink:

Thanks for the help, man&#33;

Since when do I have to prove your shit wrong? This forum is really like a time machine to the middle ages, maybe you guys should patent it before I get all the money.

Wankers.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Korittke
Since when do I have to prove your shit wrong?

---

Lol. You don&#39;t.
The opportunity is there, if you wanna take it, but leaving it as is helps my cause more than hurts it, so I&#39;d actually prefer for you to keep doin what you&#39;re doin by not being able to present a mature argument and using neurotic banter to make yourself feel significant. :goodjob2:

And by all means, lay claim to the patent. If you patent the time machine then you&#39;ll Have to concede to evidence of the paranormal, because time travel "doesn&#39;t exist," right? lol

In either case, I win. :cooler:

Get &#39;r Done&#33;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut
If you patent the time machine then you'll Have to concede to evidence of the paranormal, because time travel "doesn't exist," right? lol

---

Wow, good job, Sherlock.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Korittke
Wow, good job, Sherlock.

---

Lol. Jesus.

The fact that you just answered a rhetorical question that completely contradicts your point of view, by agreeing with it, albeit sarcastically, as if my point was Obviously Correct, is fuckin&#39; Hilarious. :chuckle:

You should probably read it again, once or twice, before attempting to be witty about it.

Just a thought&#33; :lolxtreme:

Sorry to jump in without reading everything...but since when is time travel impossible? Going forwards is easy. Going backward is a bit trickier, but not impossible.

You are asking Korittke, right?

I don't think time travel is Impossible, hense the quotation marks, so I just wanna make sure you're addressing him and not me. :wink:

[Edit:] And since we're on the subject:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/resources.html

Well I'm just making sure everyone knows that it's not 'paranormal' either. It's fully in line with the laws of physics.

umm that's an inspiring post you made there...but it's so verbose and exaggerated that I didn't waste my time reading it. Do you ever get tired of hearing yourself talk? Your posts go on and on with repetitive quotes. The only people who can read them are the lack-a-lifes who sit down for hours reading your monologues. I think you should have a better grasp on something before bashing it and taking other's time.

Here's a quote for you:

Avoid senseless banter and excessive posting.
Please refrain from senseless or meaningless posts. These include posts like 'Yeah...me too,' or 'That's strange,' or 'Cool.' Try to make your posts actually contribute to the thread so that others will enjoy reading them.

LOL, WHO IS THIS GUY!

Ok, I couldn't bear to read all the nonsensical ~ SHIT ~ tha you have posted time and time again. All you do is google stuff about paranormal pratter and post URLs and quote shit. And what made me laugh the most is the fact that you think you can grasp quantum entanglement just by reading a few websites. <<< LOL!!!!

You have no grasp on just the basis of QM, HELL! YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS!

And, the scientific method has been used since Aristotle 'er Plato (I forgot who), it has been used over and over again. Extremely effective, 99.999% success rate when trying to decide whether a hypothesis is valid or not. When you can't test psi balls and stupid crap like that, it comes under serious threat already.

Oh wait, you'll probably google "define:quantum mechanics" and then post it in a second. Oh wait, but since I just said that, you'll change it up and use poor grammar to make it sound like you came up with it.

Just because some websites say stuff that come from the CIA and FBI and government and shit like that, doesn't mean it's backing you up in any way. It just strengthens the point of all the other posters that aren't high from sniffing sharpies and air freshener. I mean, I've read your other crap, you just say the same thing over and over.

I don't care if I'm breaking the rules, go ahead and lock this topic. The downfall of mankind is due to psuedo-scientific, religious, political bullshit like this. I won't stand for it, and neither should anyone else. All this passive aggressive bullshit makes me sick as hell.

Before you continue posting, acquire a better grasp on the topic at hand before looking like a total dumbass, and then trying to RUB YOUR FRIVOLOUS SHIT in other people's faces to boost your already massive ego.

My work is done.

Quote:

---

umm that&#39;s an inspiring post you made there...but it&#39;s so verbose and exaggerated that I didn&#39;t waste my time reading it. Do you ever get tired of hearing yourself talk? Your posts go on and on with repetitive quotes. The only people who can read them are the lack-a-lifes who sit down for hours reading your monologues. I think you should have a better grasp on something before bashing it and taking other&#39;s time.

Here&#39;s a quote for you:

Avoid senseless banter and excessive posting.
Please refrain from senseless or meaningless posts. These include posts like &#39;Yeah...me too,&#39; or &#39;That&#39;s strange,&#39; or &#39;Cool.&#39; Try to make your posts actually contribute to the thread so that others will enjoy reading them. [/b]

---

Quote:

---

LOL, WHO IS THIS GUY&#33;

Ok, I couldn&#39;t bear to read all the nonsensical ~ SHIT ~ tha you have posted time and time again. All you do is google stuff about paranormal pratter and post URLs and quote shit. And what made me laugh the most is the fact that you think you can grasp quantum entanglement just by reading a few websites. <<< LOL&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

You have no grasp on just the basis of QM, HELL&#33; YOU DON&#39;T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS&#33;

And, the scientific method has been used since Aristotle &#39;er Plato (I forgot who), it has been used over and over again. Extremely effective, 99.999% success rate when trying to decide whether a hypothesis is valid or not. When you can&#39;t test psi balls and stupid crap like that, it comes under serious threat already.

Oh wait, you&#39;ll probably google "define:quantum mechanics" and then post it in a second. Oh wait, but since I just said that, you&#39;ll change it up and use poor grammar to make it sound like you came up with it.

Just because some websites say stuff that come from the CIA and FBI and government and shit like that, doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s backing you up in any way. It just strengthens the point of all the other posters that aren&#39;t high from sniffing sharpies and air freshener. I mean, I&#39;ve read your other crap, you just say the same thing over and over.

I don&#39;t care if I&#39;m breaking the rules, go ahead and lock this topic. The downfall of mankind is due to psuedo-scientific, religious, political bullshit like this. I won&#39;t stand for it, and neither should anyone else. All this passive aggressive bullshit makes me sick as hell.

Before you continue posting, acquire a better grasp on the topic at hand before looking like a total dumbass, and then trying to RUB YOUR FRIVOLOUS SHIT in other people&#39;s faces to boost your already massive ego.

My work is done.[/b]

---

Damn…nothing but personal attacks. Not one of you gave even a Hint that anything posted was false. Not a single one. I mean, shit, one would figure that if you both had so much info on me being Wrong, you’d actually have something to bring the table…but…nope. Nada.
I’m sorry that you boys feel that everybody should be as prone to getting as riled up about something like this as you are. Maybe you should take some tips from ITM and learn to state your opinions about the subject with at least a little maturity and conviction. Damn shame, really. ( <--Uh oh. Bad Grammar. Let’s flame me for that while ducking the point as if everyone reading this thread was ignorant enough not to recognize rhetoric when they see it.)
Hmm, why is it that my ‘few’ posts on this subject have been similar? Probably because whenever I offer evidence to be dispelled, I never hear from the other person, until it’s on another thread. But, seeing as how you’ve “read my other posts,” I’m sure you’ve figured that out on your own.
I love it how you both feel that, just because I’m offering another view point while clearly stating that I’m a skeptic, I’m somehow offending you to the point where you have to try to redeem yourself by attacking my character, oh-so-atrocious grammar and post-structure. Seriously, it’s refreshing.

Hopefully you’ll both re-read your posts and realize: A) You can attack my character all you want. If the evidence I post is invalid, by all means, let me know. And B) The more effort you take to attack me as if you know something more about me than I’m trying to gather evidence to counter people like yourselves, without having a single argument against the evidence I’m providing, you’re doing nothing but helping me out. I&#39;ve no problem with conceding when my points are countered, so whenever you&#39;re both competent enough to do so, this conversation will probably be a lot more interesting.
If I was as touchy as the two of you, passive aggressiveness would “make me sick, too.” Guess there’s nothing worse than trying to get somebody worked up and realizing they aren’t as sensitive as you.

“I can’t counter the claims you’re posting, but they’re not true, and you’re a doo-doo head&#33;”

Stretch it out as long as you want…it still sounds just as pathetic.

Oh...and please give me a link to the "How long a post should be" thread, so I can see other peoples&#39; views on the set limit that I didn&#39;t know we had, because, as of now, the only people bitching about it are two guys who are obviously a little touchy about an opposing perspective. You&#39;d think we&#39;d have Moderators that would come around and let me know if I posted in a way that would disrupt others from having a pleasurable experience here.

Oh wait……we do.


:hrm:

Its important to keep the Laws of Physics around as a kind of Baseline Threshold point, so that we know that anything that exceeds them can then be classified as bonifide Miracles. The Vatican has always kept that criteria in mind, and those in the Far East and South Asia more or less intuit the importance of the Laws of Physics as being the line that must be crossed by those who would be classified as Saints.

But once in awhile the distinction is not discerned. There is a semi-humorous story told in a little known book, "The Healer of Los Olmos and other Mexican Lore". The book is about one of America's greatest Saints, Don Pedro Jaramillo, a healer who worked in South Texas at about the turn of the 20th Century. The book was written by a lady of Scotch extraction who was making a study of the Traditions and Folklore of the Hispanics in South Texas, and she found herself overwhelmed with Don Pedro Stories. In one story, she found that the Miracle was quite wasted upon the recepiants thereof. It seems that for one set of cures, Don Pedro had asked the people of one small town to take their serapies, their cloaks, and to spread them out on the pond and then lay on them life rafts and paddle out to the middle of the pond and take an hours nap and then paddle back, and then they would be cured. The Scottish Lady was amazed at the recitation of this 'miracle' but the mexicans were quite puzzled by her reaction which at first confused her until she realized that these Hispanics did not realize that serapies -- nothing more than a section of wool cloth -- would not float by itself, not to mention being able to act as a raft. So she explained her viewpoint, but the people were incredulous, and so they lead her to the pond whereupon they took their serapies and actually tried to demonstrate how well they could float, and this time they were surprised to see just how ill-suited as rafts these pieces of cloth actually were. A generation had transpired since Don Pedro had worked his 'miracle' before the people realized that it had been a miracle, or at least to what extent it was a miracle, as before they had only been grateful that they had been cured of their colera so easily.

Quote:

---

Leo Volent wrote:
Its important to keep the Laws of Physics around as a kind of Baseline Threshold point,[/b]

---

Whoa...it&#39;s been quite a while since we&#39;ve both agreed on somethin, Leo. :cheers:

I have the utmost respect for the laws of physics, the work that went into establishing them, and the scientific method (not even sure where Manifold pulled that little tangent from.) But, just as you outlined, (though in your own way) the steadfast belief that they are infallible is just that, a belief, and people that bathe themselves in their own intellectual pride, while mercilessly attacking someone&#39;s intelligence who blasphemes the laws&#39; illusory infallibility, are no better than the people who wage holy war in the name of a God that may or may not exist.

Glad you chimed in with your opinion on the matter. :cooler:

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research:

http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epear/index.html

More, for those that will only accept the word of a scientific mind:
(I love the concept behind this site)

http://www.issc-taste.org/index.shtml

wow....my 2 paragraph post helped inspire you to ramble on for another page.

If my posts aren't agreeing with you, why not use your psychic powers to track me down and blast me with a psi ball?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inverting_world_lines
wow....my 2 paragraph post helped inspire you to ramble on for another page.

If my posts aren't agreeing with you, why not use your psychic powers to track me down and blast me with a psi ball?

---

Because that would expose him to unwanted attention from James Randi. There are places to practice that stuff, you know.
The laws of physics I totally agree w/, but I also agree w/my religion, too.
Oh, and I broke my Card Concentration record...(was 29, now 31 in a row w/o hints!!)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut

Quote:

---

Leo Volent wrote:
Its important to keep the Laws of Physics around as a kind of Baseline Threshold point,

---

Whoa...it's been quite a while since we've both agreed on somethin, Leo. :cheers:

I have the utmost respect for the laws of physics, the work that went into establishing them, and the scientific method (not even sure where Manifold pulled that little tangent from.) But, just as you outlined, (though in your own way) the steadfast belief that they are infallible is just that, a belief, and people that bathe themselves in their own intellectual pride, while mercilessly attacking someone's intelligence who blasphemes the laws' illusory infallibility, are no better than the people who wage holy war in the name of a God that may or may not exist.

Glad you chimed in with your opinion on the matter. :cooler:[/b]

---

Hmmmmmm. I just looked at a few of the other postings... my... I had no idea it had been getting so ugly.

Anyway, perhaps we should be more sympathetic to their viewpoint... unless these people show a great deal of enthusiasm in their attacks on Civilization, Religion and Spirituality, then they will not either be inducted into the Free Masons, or promoted if they are already members, and then they would be stuck with having to work all of their lives only to likely get nowhere. But if they show enough emphatic hate for our positive values, then they will rise up to those significant Masonic Degrees and have their careers guaranteed for them. How can we blame them for wanting to succeed in this highly competitive world. And if impressing a Secret Society is the only way they can manage, whom are we to judge? But for the Grace of God, so goes ourselves, no?

Heh! @ Leo.
Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inverting_world_lines
wow....my 2 paragraph post helped inspire you to ramble on for another page.

If my posts aren't agreeing with you, why not use your psychic powers to track me down and blast me with a psi ball?

---

One day when you're all grown up and you've had countless run-ins with ignorant people, you'll look back and realize how juvenile you seem right now. :wink:

Until then, keep it comin, boy. lol. I figured I might make a few enemies on this thread, but what do you say you throw us a curve and impress us by helping discern truth by bringing in some sources and references from your perspective, so we can see where you're comin from and try to actually Contribute something to the thread you're festering upon?

:hrm:

Quote:

---

what do you say you throw us a curve and impress us by helping discern truth by bringing in some sources and references from your perspective, so we can see where you're comin from and try to actually Contribute something to the thread you're festering upon? *

[/b]

---

About time you asked. I had some meaningful info waiting in the wings.

Here's something I bet you didn't know.
I'm sure this will prove my point thoroughly.

http://www.vgg.com/tp/tp_072700_HistoryOfBJ.html

Just another example of misleading sources.

I know, I know. Here comes the barrage of: UR SO CALLOW/CHILDISH THAT YOU DON'T KNOW HOW STUPID YOU ARE

.....lol....you Can&#39;t be for real.

You post a piece of sketch comedy and cite it as a "misleading source?"

Lol...THAT was the Grand Point you had "waiting in the wings?&#33;"



:rolllaugh:

Agreed ^

yeah I was hoping you'd find that to be an amusing article. The point it to not believe everything you read on the internet.

Apparently you couldn't identify the sarcasm I expressed when I posted that link.

Quote:

---

One day when you're all grown up and you've had countless run-ins with ignorant people, you'll look back and realize how juvenile you seem right now. Wink
[/b]

---

One day when you actually understand QM, you'll look back on this and realize that these absurd notions of psi balls and psychic powers are not only unjustified, but are proven wrong by the laws of physics. I understand that is the point you are trying to make in this thread, but being insistent about something that cannot be proven means that the whole topic's validitiy relies on your faith in it. Very much like religion perhaps?

OH NO i didn't just say the R word! :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inverting_world_lines
yeah I was hoping you&#39;d find that to be an amusing article. The point it to not believe everything you read on the internet.

Apparently you couldn&#39;t identify the sarcasm I expressed when I posted that link.

Quote:

---

One day when you&#39;re all grown up and you&#39;ve had countless run-ins with ignorant people, you&#39;ll look back and realize how juvenile you seem right now. Wink

---

One day when you actually understand QM, you&#39;ll look back on this and realize that these absurd notions of psi balls and psychic powers are not only unjustified, but are proven wrong by the laws of physics. I understand that is the point you are trying to make in this thread, but being insistent about something that cannot be proven means that the whole topic&#39;s validitiy relies on your faith in it. Very much like religion perhaps?

OH NO i didn&#39;t just say the R word&#33; :shock:[/b]

---

...What does religion have to do with anything this thread is about?

[Edit: But since you did bring it up, the point of this thread is that people get bashed by "skeptics" for Exactly what you&#39;ve just outlined. Many skeptics try to shred people&#39;s dignity because they think Nothing paranormal exists, and the laws of physics are infallible.
If You knew anything about quantum physics, even enough to begin to tell me what I do and don&#39;t know, you&#39;d know that the laws of physics are being questioned by most every scientific circle that is studying the subject. Again, if you have evidence that that isn&#39;t true, post it. I&#39;d love to see it.]

The only way to ever understand something is to read about it, whether you go to school for it or not. To think that you cannot get a basic, fundamental knowledge of practically Anything by finding literature on it, is to show the world how ignorant you really are. I don&#39;t mean that as an insult, that&#39;s simply an observation.
I suppose you problem lies somewhere in the ability (or lack thereof) to be able to make conscious decisions about where to get your information. I&#39;m making it a point to get information from sources that are as reliable as possible, while maintaining that if anyone has a problem with the sources Anyone is posting, to offer a little reason into why.
So far, I&#39;ve been posting things from universities, research centers that are fully traceable for validity, and the most prestigious establishments I&#39;ve used my judgements to feel comfortable with.....you posted a skit from..what...a comedy group? who&#39;s site has "Sketch Comedy" paraphernalia all over it.

Either learn to convict to your opinions like an adult, or just Grow Up.
:roll:

sigh ... you've missed the point entirely and strayed away from the subject.

I think I'll go make a thread about how the sky is blue because of paranormality.

Questioning someone who has his mind already made up is futile,
people will always believe what they want to believe.

Uhm...actually I think I&#39;ve covered all your bases, and you&#39;re bordering on delusional.

But of course, as always..if anyone reading this sees something that I&#39;ve overlooked, let me know so I can get this trainwrecking attempt at mature conversation back on track. :chuckle:

Quote:

---

LOL, WHO IS THIS GUY!

Ok, I couldn't bear to read all the nonsensical ~ SHIT ~ tha you have posted time and time again. All you do is google stuff about paranormal pratter and post URLs and quote shit. And what made me laugh the most is the fact that you think you can grasp quantum entanglement just by reading a few websites. <<< LOL!!!!

You have no grasp on just the basis of QM, HELL! YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS!

And, the scientific method has been used since Aristotle 'er Plato (I forgot who), it has been used over and over again. Extremely effective, 99.999% success rate when trying to decide whether a hypothesis is valid or not. When you can't test psi balls and stupid crap like that, it comes under serious threat already.

Oh wait, you'll probably google "define:quantum mechanics" and then post it in a second. Oh wait, but since I just said that, you'll change it up and use poor grammar to make it sound like you came up with it.

Just because some websites say stuff that come from the CIA and FBI and government and shit like that, doesn't mean it's backing you up in any way. It just strengthens the point of all the other posters that aren't high from sniffing sharpies and air freshener. I mean, I've read your other crap, you just say the same thing over and over.

I don't care if I'm breaking the rules, go ahead and lock this topic. The downfall of mankind is due to psuedo-scientific, religious, political bullshit like this. I won't stand for it, and neither should anyone else. All this passive aggressive bullshit makes me sick as hell.

Before you continue posting, acquire a better grasp on the topic at hand before looking like a total dumbass, and then trying to RUB YOUR FRIVOLOUS SHIT in other people's faces to boost your already massive ego.

My work is done. [/b]

---

Excuse me. Butting in here. I'm skeptic. Most definitely skeptic. I spend at least a few hours a day studying science in some form, often upwards of four hours. I'm quite proud of being a skeptic as a result: I don't just take things for granted, even out of my science textbooks. I've done my own experiments in my room just to be sure it's all right. Admittedly, I have limits. I can't test string theory in my room. I can't test special relativity in my room. There's a LOT I can't test in my own room. But at least I try what I can to be sure I'm not misplacing trust. So, it's quite understandable that when I hear an outrageous claim, I want to know about their sources, their methods, and their statistics. Usually, I come to the conclusion that the paranormal is simply bogus. Not because of bias, but because of logic. You must realize that, while you CAN be right, you likely won't be right MOST of the time, at least unless you severely limit the amount of claims you make, or at least the content of those claims. Science moves forward slowly, but it does move. Most paranormal proponents seem to be unsatisfied with the speed of such movement, but the misinterpret it: It isn't just because scientists don't like change, it's because they don't want to accept something as true without being absolutely sure. Some scientists may dislike change, but their dislike isn't validated by the core values of science. However, like I said, it DOES move.
Therefore, posts like the one above are the greatest embarassment a scientist can ever see. Especially when the rhetoric contained within such a post is flawed.

Quote:

---

And, the scientific method has been used since Aristotle 'er Plato (I forgot who), it has been used over and over again. Extremely effective, 99.999% success rate [/b]

---

Not necessarily. Remember when I said that I look at the statistics of a claim first? The reason is to find any fallacies or misinterpretations of data. Misinterpretations or fallacies remarkeably like the one you just made. Hypothesis testing, the core of statistics, isn't 99.999% accurate all the time. It's all based on an α level. α=.05 means you will only accept the results to be significant if the observed statistics would only coincide with the null hypothesis less than 5% of the time. In short, you're 95% sure that the alternative hypothesis is correct. So you're only right 95% of the time. But if α=.001, you can be 99.9% sure. Now, in medical studies, α might be set to .00001, so you'd be 99.999% sure, but most studies are happy enough with an alpha level of .001 or so. And it varies with every experiment, so you can't make a generalization such as scientific method being right 99.999% of the time.
Further, in ancient Greece there was some form of a method to ensure accuracy, a sort of primitive scientific method, but the modernly used form of the scientific method was invented by Francis Bacon, LONG after ancient Greece. Get your facts right.
And criticizing O for researching QM? That's horrible! He's willing to go and look up some information, willing to learn about what says that he might be wrong, and willing to devote the time to find out why he might be right. Every time I read O's posts, it makes me a bit happier. It's nice to know that while MOST people just propagate their opinion, and buy into something with no validation, that there's still people left who actually think. Oneironaut has definitely won my respect. He should have yours, if you truly do claim to be interested in science.

Well, sorry for rambling.

Thanks, man. Very much appreciated.

This thread is extemely painful.

The more I read, the more I fear for the safety of our world with idiots running around like this. :shock:

And yet you Keep reading.

The more you post, the more we realize how hard it is for you to back your own Beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut
And yet you Keep reading.

The more you post, the more we realize how hard it is for you to back your own Beliefs.

---

LOL

Big O definitely gets my respect...specially after staying on point in the face of flame baiting. Kudos! :goodjob2:

Lets all realize, regardless of what you believe, that this is a good discussion. Up until the point of name calling .
When name calling begins the topic is sure to go down hill from there.
If you can't rebut something without an intelligent response, usually anger ensues. When this happens ------------------------> DON'T POST!
Thank you.

At the risk of further violating the "useless post" rule, I feel it's always proper to show respect to those that give it, so:

Thanks to both of ya! :goodjob:

Now I'll give it a rest until I find something else to contribute with, so we can get this thread back on track.

i have transcended that of the god head and am so far thus beyond around this being

my existence is amazing

i need no beliefs, for i am of them and they of me and i feel for you all, as for those of you spending time posting on this thread

at least you are trying

but perhaps thou should try and not let them hold you back no?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gus
i have transcended that of the god head and am so far thus beyond around this being
my existence is amazing
i need no beliefs, for i am of them and they of me and i feel for you all, as for those of you spending time posting on this thread
at least you are trying
but perhaps thou should try and not let them hold you back no?

---

That makes little sense to me Gus. Could you elaborate so I can feel as liberated as you?
My existance is amazing as well. Thus I wonder!

I guess what Gus means is it (Alan Watts style).

alas i do not know

i mean simply this, i am :D
i wish i could point you further, but hell i dont care anymore

im havin fun though :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gus
i have transcended that of the god head and am so far thus beyond around this being

my existence is amazing

i need no beliefs, for i am of them and they of me and i feel for you all, as for those of you spending time posting on this thread

at least you are trying

but perhaps thou should try and not let them hold you back no?

---

Are you talking about Existentialism? or maybe the fact that anything is possible in your subjective viewpoint (but not objective)? or both?

Here is my interpretation of Gus' post: Our current understanding of God is terribly wrong. I am using the Catholic version, because that's what I was taught, and I feel the same way. It is filled with flaws, if we just throw it all away we will be much happier. I am with Gus on this one.

Religion seriously limits one's belief system, and Gus has conquered it. He is free from such thinking and able to enjoy life and death as they truly are, not how most believe. He says kudos to those searching for the truth instead of sticking to religion. He's inviting those stuck to religion to come see things from a new perspective. People will be much happier if they join him.

After a discussion with Oneironaut and the other mods, this is to be moved to Extended Discussion.
He also requested a sticky, which was voted against however.

I think the problem with people's ignorance when discussing the infallability of science of that they think laws are like the ten commandments , rules which may never be broken . The view one should have , IMO , is to keep and open mind about everything BUT dont let yourself get carried away with something you want to be true when in reality you yourself know there is little chance of it being true .

Even scientific theories should be questioned and not taken as gospel truth , as they are but an explaination or viewpoint of a human , no matter how well supported . If there is something you think may be so , and you start researching it , you may well be able to provide enough evidence for people to take your idea seriously , but always remember that that theory came from your brain , you searched for evidence that matched the findings , there may be more than one explaination which can return the same evidence but for a completely different reason . When man looks at the world around him , he only considers what he can see or sense , but there may be more there . Take radiation for example , noone can see it (not the visible spectrum i mean) yet its there and has always been and only through our understanding of the world and the way particle physics is thought to work could we unlock its potential .

I think what im trying to say is , as other people have said , science is progressive and must be for it to be the ultimate search for truth , because its only our percived truth . So we must always build upon what previous generations have taught and discovered , and when evidence is found to be in violation of those laws we have governed to be most likely truth we should go back to the beggining and take a better look with the new evidence and try to think of other explainations which seem to validate the evidence . But the new theories must be in agreement with all data . Thats one thing i dont like about modern day physics , when anomalous evidence is found , they alter the specific theory they are investigating instead of looking back and thinking , we need to look at this from another direction . Im not saying everyone does this , but when a theory is altered to fit evidence simply by adding a constant or some abstract value it just seems like a bandaid to fix the theory not a cure . But then , all a theory is is an explaination of data so to many it might not matter of the actual theory , only that it fits the data .

Well said, Darkmatic. :thumbup:

A pretty good report from the Boundary Institute:
http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/articles/rngma.pdf

[Edit: And another good one, dealing with time-reversed experiments:
http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/articles/...imereversed.pdf ]

More double-posting from the man that's made it an artform! (Sorry mods! At least I confine it to this thread! :sweat1: )

"Consciousness as a Sub-Quantum Phenomenon"
(I don't care who you are or what you believe, this is interesting stuff! :cooler: )

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp/caasqp/caasqp.html

There's a book you might like--- How Quantum Physics Proves the Existence of a Soul.

Personally, the book started with a good idea and then threw it into the toilet, but it gets you thinking nevertheless. I'll try to find the author next time I'm at the library.

I'd appreciate that. If you find it, I'll definitely check it out. :goodjob2:

Wonder if any of the skeptics want to try to debunk Bohm's "baseless" Implicate/Explicate Order theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and...Explicate_Order

And as for the "Quack's" credentials?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm

I found the whole McCarthyism thing interesting, not familiar with the term, before now. I think that mentality has actually evolved.

:hrm:

I heard about this a while ago. Wonder if there's anything to it:
http://www.nbc10.com/news/5455548/detail.html

"the more convinced you are that a certain point of view is right, the more determined you should be to find proofs that it is wrong" ~~ aleister crowley

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dream yogi
"the more convinced you are that a certain point of view is right, the more determined you should be to find proofs that it is wrong" ~~ aleister crowley

---

I agree, wholeheartedly.
Though, that profound quote does work both ways, for closed-minded skeptics and closed-minded believers, alike. I'm not sure which side of the spectrum you were commenting to, if any. Was that addressed To Me, or simply for the sake of being said?

Pseudoskepticism and Scientific Suppression: Well-stated perspectives

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/possiblev...susprobable.htm
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/arrhenus.html
http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/claim.html
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/do...sregoodtxt.html
http://www.alternativescience.com/scientif...-censorship.htm

More on our good friend Wiseman:
(Experimenter of the Psychic Dog Trial mentioned earlier.)
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/who...who/O'Neill.htm

And, as is only fair, Wiseman's rebuttal:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/who...who/Wiseman.htm

More from where the last two links came from: (Haven't been through the whole site, yet.)
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm

Haven't had a chance to read these yet, either, just posting so I don't forget.
(May or may not remove depending on my impressions after reading.)
http://dharma-haven.org/science/dispelling...cal-science.htm
http://alex.edfac.usyd.edu.au/methods/scie...nce%20(McComas)

A little insight into the workings of the Parapsychological Association:
http://paranormal.se/topic/parapsychologic...ssociation.html

This proves whatever I believe

I am so right! LOOK AT MY REFRENCES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


www.thislookslikeitagreeswithme.com
www.ilook-likeiknoweverythingposting-this.com
www.hopefully-has-something-I-Agree.com
www.the-more-infothebetterI-look.com
http://www.I-maynot-agree-withthison...feellikeit.com.
www.lookhowprofessionalthisoneis.com
www.havenotreadthisbutheadinglookedgood.com
www.excellent-info-icouldnot-evenunderstand.com
www.something-icouldnotthinkup-butsoundsgod.com

SO> In conclusion.
True physics are not wrong.
but true physics are true

WONG PHYSICS ARE WRONG
and as a result wrong physics are not true

......I'm sorry but.....what the hell was the point of that? :|

Oneironaut . I wasn't having a go at you btw. not at all.

but I am having a go at people who use scientific knowledge to say stuff they do not even know what they are talking about.

just think about it and you'll know what I am talking about

He's just being Nirvana.

I was being humorous.

But there was a purpose to what I just said. If you look very closely or think (that can hurt sometimes if you dont do that alot) it is possible to find

Hehe @ ITM.

"Jenkins": I understand the Meaning behind what you posted, but there was no Point demonstrated. Only reason I bring it up is that posts like that are somewhat counter-productive to the whole concept of this thread. It is often speculated that there is no intelligent foundation for claiming anything that goes against scientific dogma. Unfortunately, it is posts like that that do nothing but fuel that side of the debate.
If you wanna contribute to the cause it's best to take the time to present something that is going to actually provoke thought and reflection, ya know? Just tryin' to keep the rhetoric to a minimum, from both sides.

Thankya. :cooler:

Quote:

---

Hehe @ ITM.[/b]

---

what is hehe? I love humour. I wish I got this joke.you didnt get mine by the looks :(

Quote:

---

"Jenkins": I understand the Meaning behind what you posted, but there was no Point demonstrated.[/b]

---

:(

Quote:

---

Only reason I bring it up is that posts like that are somewhat counter-productive to the whole concept of this thread.[/b]

---

you mean counter-fun :(

Quote:

---

It is often speculated that there is no intelligent foundation for claiming anything that goes against scientific dogma. Unfortunately, it is posts like that that do nothing but fuel that side of the debate.[/b]

---

i didn't know there was a debate that has being fueled by my joke sorry.

Quote:

---

If you wanna contribute to the cause it's best to take the time to present something that is going to actually provoke thought and reflection, ya know?Just tryin' to keep the rhetoric to a minimum, from both sides.[/b]

---

thank you for being so civil about it. it's quite diplomatic of you.

Good job
:goodjob2:

The debate is the universal debate on whether or not it's right to bash and demean the intelligence of people that advocate paranormal possibility. I'm sure you're already aware of it, as you've come in with your opinion on it. My point is that I'm just tired of seeing this type of an issue fall into empty rhetoric, as it often does. I give 'skeptics' a hard time when they try to state their case with empty rhetoric and do the same for 'believers,' equally.
Even though I think that those that believe in paranormal Possibility have more of a case than people that say it 'just plain doesn't exist,' I take seriously that people should state their cases with some conviction and thought. Doing anything less, from either side, 'counter-fun' though it may be, does nothing but make your perspective on the issue much more difficult to take seriously. That's all. :wink:

And I'm assuming you were being genuine at the end, so Thanks.

I was.

What makes me sad though is seeing the ones on tv or radio, who are actually on the side I would think is right and true. But they are letting the more intelligent guy walk right over him! There is so many points the other guy can make here and there. And he doesn't. And the side I think is false ends up presenting a better case.

sorry for :hijack: lol

Well I have only given this thread a brief look-over, but I must say I disaggree with the notion that all scepticism is just holding narrow-minded beliefs that all science there is to know has already been learnt. This stereotyping of scepticism is the same as stereotyping anyone that believes in paranormal or metaphysical occurances as barefooted hippies with nose rings that have a collection of mystical gems and stones etc etc.

I myself will not believe in something unless it is proven by science. That doesn't mean I won't accept anything that goes against current scientific ideas and beliefs, it means I won't accept it until it has been proven scientifically, ie by proving a testable hypothesis. I am not, however, closed to the idea of things that haven't as yet been thoroughly tested etc, I just won't claim to 'believe' in them. The notion that science needs to 'grow up' or become more open-minded is a bit strange, because there is nothing wrong with science - things that are viewed as impossible by the scientific community can be proven correct using science itself, and it happens all the time.

One thing I have noticed with the ongoing debate about metaphysics etc is the ongoing stimatisation of each side. Depending on whose side you're on, either those that believe in the paranormal are a bunch of weed-smoking hippies, or the scientific community is full of stuffy professors that refuse to accept anything that goes against their idea of science. I think that the only way forward with such arguments, as with nearly all arguments is to take a centrist view and look at things with an open mind, but never accepting them until they have been proven by scientific method.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Roller
Well I have only given this thread a brief look-over, but I must say I disaggree with the notion that all scepticism is just holding narrow-minded beliefs that all science there is to know has already been learnt. This stereotyping of scepticism is the same as stereotyping anyone that believes in paranormal or metaphysical occurances as barefooted hippies with nose rings that have a collection of mystical gems and stones etc etc.

---

I'm not sure who's notion that was. Mine is that pseudoskepticism, (close-minded, dogmatic clingyness to old, familiar pardigms, while disguising it as "objective doubt") is unwarranted, in light of evidence (or potential evidence) that Has been attained scientifically.

Being skeptical of many things paranormal, myself, I would have no reason to criticize All skeptics.

Now, by saying that you only believe things that have been proven scientifically, are you meaning in the True notion of being proven somewhere scientifically, or something that has passed the head suits in charge of mainstream scientific reasearch and publishing?

If you ask me, there is a difference.
Many things that "skeptics" (note the quotations) denounce because they haven't been "proven scientifically" have been tested and given at least Some Credibility. But if these results are supressed from the public eye because of their taboo nature and bizarre implications, how do you know what has been proven scientifically or not?

ofcourse the skeptics are always wrong in the end. That's whats so funny about it.
when something is finally proven right. The skeptics are somewhat shamed. But they then adopt this new fact, as if it were their own from the start. When it is again challenged. They are shamed yet again! poor dinosaurs will never get with the times......

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Boris
ofcourse the skeptics are always wrong in the end. That's whats so funny about it. when something is finally proven right. The skeptics are somewhat shamed. But they then adopt this new fact, as if it were their own from the start. When it is again challenged. They are shamed yet again! poor dinosaurs will never get with the times......

---

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
--Arthur Shopenhauer

However, all that is proposed is not truth, and it is in fact the gullible, not the skeptical, who are shamed. Skepticism is doubt; it is not automatic disbelief. Before you decide to believe a new idea simply because it is new and you do not wish to appear a "dinosaur," remember this: it is far easier to come up with a wrong idea than a correct one.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus
However, all that is proposed is not truth, and it is in fact the gullible, not the skeptical, who are shamed. Skepticism is doubt; it is not automatic disbelief. Before you decide to believe a new idea simply because it is new and you do not wish to appear a "dinosaur," remember this: it is far easier to come up with a wrong idea than a correct one.

---

Exactly. Yes, there were many things that were ridiculed and laughed at when they were first proposed (the idea that the earth was round is usually wheeled forth as an example here). Yes, many people thought the idea was proposturous and stuck with their pre-determined ideas, but that does not mean that every new claim or idea is true and that 'it just needs to be accepted by science'. Sometimes the basics of the idea might be correct, but the wrong reasoning applied. An example is when monks discovered how to turn wine into vinegar - they would pour the wine from bottle to bottle all the while performing sacred rituals etc to entice holy spirits to make the vinegar. What they didn't realise was that it was simply the exposure to the air that did it, not the chanting and carrying on.

I'm not trying to say that people should disregard all new ideas and claims - far from it - but that simply because some things that have been ridiculed in the past have since been accepted as scientific fact does not mean that every new idea 'just has to be accepted'.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut
something that has passed the head suits in charge of mainstream scientific reasearch and publishing?

---

I see what you're saying here - that a lot of scientific magazines and groups are reluctant to publish valid research into such phenonomen because of the stigmatised view of such things and the notion that it's all pseudoscience. I think that gradually these views are changing and more journals are willing to publish these things, but it takes time I gues.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Roller

I think that gradually these views are changing and more journals are willing to publish these things, but it takes time I gues.

---

I agree. I love to find all of the stories of "out of the box" minds that actually look into things in spite of the ridicule they may receive from their colleagues. I don't think that any great mind should be a lemming that follows their bretheren to the ends of the earth. The more revolutionary scientists that dare to ask and test the really outlandish questions, the harder it will be for dogmatic scientists to keep their vice-grip on the knowledge that the rest of the world perceives.


Also...I heard a rumor a while ago and I'm having trouble finding whether it is true or false. Apparently there is very little knowledge of the subject and I know there are some pretty smart and resourceful people here Sooo....

A cookie goes to whoever can help me mind out what science knows about how moray eels communicate! :cookiemonster:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut
A cookie goes to whoever can help me mind out what science knows about how moray eels communicate! *:cookiemonster:

---

Googling with I'm Feeling Lucky and '"moray communication" information' is about the best I could find.
Then again perhaps you've seen that already.
If not, you can keep your stinking cookie :P

LOL @ this being the link the "Feeling Lucky" gave
http://news.povray.org/moray.win/thread/%3....povray.org%3E/

Nope. :tongue: No cookie fo' you!! And don't act like you're not heartbroken!!!

GIve me that damn cookie already, it does work!
You have to type exactly this:

Quote:

---

"moray communication" information[/b]

---

With the quote marks as presented above

*grumblewheresmycookiegrumble*

Oh, ok. I didn't know the word "information" was a part of your search. I see the site that you pulled up, now.


But no cookies shall be distruuted until I find out that it has the info I'm looking for! :evil:

Intriguing little essay:

The Human Energy Field:
http://www.vxm.com/21R.43.html

The Human Energy Field in Relation to Science Consciousness and Health
http://www.vxm.com/21R.54.html

Hmm...

Effects of Group Practice of the Transcendental Meditation Program on Preventing Violent Crime in Washington, DC
http://www.mum.edu/m_effect/dc_md.html

The New Discovery in Chiropractic:
For Chiropractors as directed from Dynamic Chiropractic and The Chiropractic Journal:
http://www.testandresponse.com/tnrhistory.htm

Excerpt:
"Two groups of living cells were sealed within separate vessels and also separated by a layer of quartz glass so that there was absolutely no possibility of physical contact with each other; one group was injected with a "disease." The other group without any physical contact whatsoever readily developed the same condition. Fellow scientists declared that this was impossible. Then numerable tests were made and the impossible happened numerable times.

Fantastic indeed, this experiment, which provided those scientists with the great discovery that living cells, can transmit by some sort of radiation their condition to other living cells.

It is well to observe that a perception capacity exists as well as a radiation capacity with living cells, else this experiment could not have produced such results. In addition it is theorized that all matter radiates a pattern of its own identity. In the Test & Response bioelectrical testing we have been able to utilize this perception capacity of living cells of the human body, not only to respond to other living cells but also to respond to, and to interpret the radiating pattern of any organic or inorganic substance of the environment."

The veil thins:

Ok check it out. Throughout this thread there are scores and scores of “evidence” that, at least, SHOULD be considered before passing judgment on whether a phenomenon exists or not. However (as professor Wolpert so proudly proclaimed in the debate posted earlier) many “credible scientists” (inferring that ‘anyone with a brain Should’) get their information on scientific community goings-ons from “Distinguished scientific journals” only. Anything less, worldwide, when dealing with the realm of science, is inadequate.

Brought into question now is one of those journals and the type of deadbolt testing that must be done before something is published in a ‘distinguished journal.’

If you’ve read half of the crap on this thread, you have somewhat of an understanding on how vigorous these tests have to be to even be accredited to having the possibility of a metaphysical nature. They are tested, retested, double-blind, triple-blind, placebo variant gauntlets that, when left with a ‘mysterious’ outcome are either retested again or simply cancelled out do to a hypothetical “dirty test tube” accusation of compromised testing. Whatever the case, through decades of this “vigorous testing” most mainstream “intellects” will tell you that there is No documented evidence whatsoever of any metaphysical phenomenon published in one of these journals.

We brought up the credibility of the debunking of Robert Sheldrake’s dog test earlier.

Now let’s look at this one.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9804/01/therapeutic.touch/
which, in turn, spawns articles like this:
http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/juniorSkeptic.htm

Does anyone not see the hypocrisy in this?

Seriously…anyone?

On the Lack of Evidence for the Evolution of Psi as an Arguement Against the Reality of the Paranormal


A Compendium of the Evidence for Psi

I think I've reached the point where I try not to judge that stuff. It is arrogant to say it is definetly true... but science judges things that we are able to percieve or measure in some way. We can't do that with paranormal things, so there is no point saying it is false or true I guess. Like science shouldn't mess with religion, because it can't do anything with it...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ataraxis
It is arrogant to say it is definetly true... but science judges things that we are able to percieve or measure in some way. *We can't do that with paranormal things, so there is no point saying it is false or true I guess.

---

That's not entirely true. Science can test the existence of many paranormal events/abilities, etc. If those events or abilities have a measurable, perceivable effect, they can be studied by science. It's been tried before - there have been studies to test telepathy, psychokinesis, remote viewing, precog, etc. One of the main problems is with the subjectivity of the proposed mental abilities. What counts as a "hit"? If someone is supposed to be looking at a picture of a forest and describes "a scene filled with green," does that count as a hit? Surely a forest is green, but so is just about anything else outdoors and not in the dead of winter as well as a myriad of other man-made green constructs. There's no one accepted methodology (at least as far as I know), so studies are not necessarily comparable. Of course, this may well be the case in psychological research in general, especially within emerging areas of inquiry. It's not necessarily that science can't study these things (so long as they produce a perceivable, measurable effect), but rather that the interest does not exist. It's a subject considered too controversial to risk one's career by studying. While a large percentage of the general population believes in such thing, only a much smaller percentage of the scientific community does. Most are either undecided, apathetic, ambivalent, or think it's all just wishful thinking combined with selective memory and coincidence.

The current dominant scientific paradigm does not support the existence of such phenomena, and for this reason, little research is done, and that research which is done tends to face resistance within the community. One reason for this could be the unseemly number of respected scientists who were taken in and hoaxed during the age of spiritualism in the 1800's. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... well, scientists don't want to get fooled again. Once was embarrassing enough. Also, our current understanding of the physical world does not include a mechanism through which these proposed phenomena could occur, and in the absence of rigorous and wide-spread ongoing research, there is very little besides personal and anecdotal evidence by which to draw conclusions.

So all of that is to say: Yes, science could study most proposed paranormal phenomena, but no, right now it isn't. Of course, history bears out the fact that if it is possible for science to study a phenomenon, it will get to the truth of the matter eventually. But, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, when there is resistance, it takes quite an accumulation of anomalous data before a paradigm shift occurs. However, make no mistake: the fact that science does not support the existence of paranormal phenomena is not indicative of some vast conspiracy or cover-up. It does not mean that those paranormal phenomena exist. People want to believe that such things are possible - that they can communicate mind-to-mind, that they can affect the physical world by will alone, etc - and when someone wants to believe that a thing is real, they are that much more susceptible to fraud.

What do you want to believe? That it's real or that it's not? Whichever you desire to be true is the one towards which you should be most skeptical and critical. The mind has a convenient way of dismissing that which runs counter to its desires.

Good post, thanks for the insight...

I understand the first part of your post... but I was more trying to say that science doesn't really have "instruments" to study this stuff. Some stuff... like for example, electricity. You can measure electrical charge. Science can run experiments on people who say they have paranormal abilities, but with our current technology we can't "measure" it. A person can't see the "level of psychic energy" (or however it would be judged) is being outputted from a person when trying to do something paranormal. But sure, science can judge it based on experiments.

Also... though I tend not to believe in it, I would definetly LIKE it to be true. Who wouldn't want t o be able to float objects with your mind or shoot fireballs from your hand? :P

Ah, I see what you mean. I think "psychic energy" or whatever would probably be considered part of the mechanism rather than the effect. And yeah, if that's not physically detectable, studying it directly would be scientifically impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ataraxis
Also... though I tend not to believe in it, I would definetly LIKE it to be true. *Who wouldn't want t o be able to float objects with your mind or shoot fireballs from your hand? :P

---

Here here! But at least I can do all of that and more in my dreams :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus

What do you want to believe? That it's real or that it's not? Whichever you desire to be true is the one towards which you should be most skeptical and critical. The mind has a convenient way of dismissing that which runs counter to its desires.

---

Words to live by. :goodjob2:

Though a little presumptuous, I found this interesting.
The Sovereignty of Science: Scientific Belief is Obedience to Authority

The author is correct that there is a predominant culture within science which takes the non-existence of psychic phenomena as a foregone conclusion; however, he considerably overestimates the effect that "proof" and acceptance of such phenomena would have on the world. It wouldn't upend socio-economic stratification. Corporations (the primary power-holders in both the developed and developing world) would immediately being research to develop applications. Governments would embrace the technology developed by global and local corporations and would begin research campaigns of their own which emphasize military and security applications. The power would remain with those who have it now because they have the resources to expand into new markets. It would likely have profound philosophic ramifications, but there is no guarantee that such would carry over into social change.

As for the supremacy of science in the western, industrialized world: most people fall into one of two categories. Either they believe science is the infallible, be-all-end-all purveyor of truth, or they believe that science is the enemy of God. Both viewpoints are borne of ignorance. Science, like any progressive, human pursuit, has flaws and limitations. However, through its systematic examination of empirical reality, it seeks an objectivity heretofore unseen in human endeavors. The methods of science restrict the biases which creep into any human activity, but they do not eliminate them completely. Only through education into the methods, history, and current pursuits of science can this be understood by the masses.

Also, all of the evidence cited for psi that I have seen has either been anecdotal (and therefore highly prone to psychological biases and misattributions) or of an extremely small magnitude. Being of a small magnitude in no way makes it less significant from a statistical perspective. However, psychologically, it matters. If research came out claiming that people can levitate cars like Luke Skywalker can levitate a Tie Fighter, you’d get more interest than when a study comes out stating that over a million trials, an RNG deviated by 0.01 percent based on the intentions of human operators. It doesn’t matter that, if that RNG experiment were accurate, it would indicate a highly statistically significant effect – it’s just not very exciting.

Although the implications of such a study would be astounding, it’s hard to get people to care about a 0.01% deviation (I’m just making these numbers up, btw, not referencing any specific study). Even trained scientists who understand the statistics involved would be sorely tempted to dismiss the findings because of the small magnitudes and therefore large opportunities for flawed data involved - the smaller the magnitude of the effect, the smaller the flaw necessary to confound the data. When you have small flaws in an experiment claiming small-magnitude effects (and flaws can be found in almost any experiment – the only question is whether those flaws affected the experimental outcome), it's easy to dismiss that study, especially if it's on a disputed subject and especially if one is already of the belief that the phenomena being studied are wishy-washy poppycock.

Anyway, all that’s to say that no, the scientific dismissal of research into psychic phenomena may not be scientifically justified (I haven’t read the original studies and their corresponding peer reviews in order to compare them and come to an informed personal conclusion), but it’s probably going to take several highly publicized studies claiming confirmation of the existence of the phenomena to open that field up to serious, prolonged, and extensive research. Of course, when the scrutinizing eye is turned upon a subject as controversial as psychic phenomena, the rebuttal will almost undoubtedly be a study denying the existence of said phenomena. Like those two studies on the effects of prayer on heart patients - one claiming a positive effect, the other claiming that no such effect exists – it will be a back-and-forth ping-pong match between “Is Real” and “Not Real”. One can only hope that when the game is over and the points are counted, there is a clear winner. I’d certainly tune in for that battle.

And Oneironaut, how the hell do you manage to keep your posts short and still get your point across? I thought this was going to be two, maybe three quick paragraphs, but no, it's about 700 freakin' words. :doh: And I probably haven't said anything here that I haven't already said elsewhere...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus

And Oneironaut, how the hell do you manage to keep your posts short and still get your point across?

---

Haha. Call it a gift. What can I say? :wink:

You know, I’d been thinking about the whole “0.01% significance” thing for a while now and I’m glad you brought it up, because it's absolutely true.
However, and this is just a wild speculation, but let’s assume that metaphysical things such as psi do actually exist and, as far as now, remain outside of our scope of perception. Think about it like consciousness, or even the ambiguous nature of the origin of talent. Something natural. Something that can be developed just like any other behavioral aspect or skill. Something with Direct ties to the human subconscious. Think about it more psychologically than physically.

Now, with that in mind, think about how hard it might actually be (assuming all of this was reality) for us to develop beyond that “0.01% significance,” with the sporadic, hush-hush, practically occult nature of the research and testing that is going on.
Great athletes are grown, whether purposefully or coincidentally. They aren’t made overnight, and they are grown because it is within the realm of known possibility to Become a great athlete. It has been for millennia. Such is the way, in varying degrees, with great artists, spiritual leaders, martial artists, musicians, comedians, novelists, etc. etc.

The difference would be that these are all skills and traits that have been around for eons. They have been observed, studied and verified to be real over the course of human history. If we are on the threshold of discovering the more metaphysical phenomena like psi, (which would explain many current paradigms, but again, only when assuming this is all real, for the sake of argument) then this would be a new, perceptual beginning for a fundamental human trait; one that (were it true that we’ve had the trait all along, which would explain what some say about ancient nomadic and hunter/gatherer tribes that had a sort of “supernatural navigational sense”) has been completely devolved over centuries of disuse, and could take a century more for widespread reactivation and development.

Could it be said, then, that that “0.01 Significance” is not something to be ignored, but reflected upon? Perhaps invoking principles such as Ockham’s Razor (which is a widespread scientific parameter, no?) sometimes, inadvertently have an opposite effect on discovering, what could be, a learnable discipline.

I've just started into a book called The Sense of Being Stared At: And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind, by Rupert Sheldrake. He continues to do extensive research on what he refers to as the "seventh sense." His premise is simply that the mind is not the brain, and the sphere of influence of the mind is much broader than our physical senses. I know the truth of it from experience.

Sheldrake got into this by studying dogs who knew when their masters were coming home. He uses scientific method to conduct his research, and invites others to participate:

http://www.sheldrake.org/

Oneironaut,
That's a good point. I don't see why expectations wouldn't affect any and all human activities in which psychological state is an active variable in performance, psychic phenomena (if they exist) included. If a child has been told that he or she is terrible at basketball, has no natural talent, and will always be picked last for the team, that's likely what will happen. With no confidence, no way to get into the zone and flow which all great athletes describe, the child will fail. The same is true of a child's abilities in math, reading, and any number of other academic subjects. In the absence of external influences, a person's expectations will almost always be fulfilled, regardless of to what those expectations pertain.

However, just any good coach builds his or her team from the strongest, most talented and well-trained athletes, a researcher seeking evidence for psychic functioning should likewise build his or her subject pool from those with the most psychic talent (assuming that psi exists and that, like athletics, lucid dreaming, and any number of other human endeavors, its functioning depends at least in part on a component of natural talent). Those researchers are not trying to demonstrate the strength of the effect in the general population - they're trying to demonstrate its existence and how strong the effect can be.

Although belief is psychic phenomena is waning in western cultures (which, if the effect is real, could explain its weakness observed in experiments conducted on western subjects), there are plenty of other religious and tribal traditions (especially those with a strong shamanic component) which claim not only belief in psi functioning, but who regularly practice it. Why not use those people as subjects, if they are willing? They claim to be able to daily perform scientific anomalies, so if the strength of psychic effects depends upon the psychological acceptance of its practitioners, wouldn't they be the most logical choice of subjects?

Perhaps cross-cultural comparisons of psi effects have already been performed. (Like I said earlier, I'm not very well-read on the subject, so you'd know better than I.) If they have been done, what were the results. If they haven't been done, why not?

It’s a good research question, especially since one of the main defenses of the non-replicabiltiy (if that wasn’t a word before, it is now) of experiments to test the existence of psi is the strong dependence of those phenomena on the psychological state of the subjects. If that’s true, it is only reasonable to test which psychological variables are most crucial to psi functioning. If it’s only an excuse to mask poor experimental design, then it makes perfect sense to block further investigation of the issue. But I tend not to believe in conspiracies – people aren’t that easy to control when it comes to keeping secrets – so my guess is that someone has done a study like that. The question then becomes, what were the results, was the study sound, and have the results been replicated by independent researchers?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pj
I've just started into a book called The Sense of Being Stared At: And Other Aspects of the Extended Mind, by Rupert Sheldrake. He continues to do extensive research on what he refers to as the "seventh sense." His premise is simply that the mind is not the brain, and the sphere of influence of the mind is much broader than our physical senses.

---

So where does he believe the mind resides, if it encompasses more than the physical senses?

Quote:

---

So where does he believe the mind resides, if it encompasses more than the physical senses? [/b]

---

He doesn't address where it resides that I've yet found - just getting into his work, really. He may well address that further on or in.

He does address what it works through, which is, in part, the brain and the physical senses. He further notes and takes very seriously the extremely common experiences of humans and animals that clearly breach those physical boundaries, yet are part of consciousness.

A rather meager response to such a broad topic, however... The truly gifted!
What I believe is this to be all of these discussed circumstances to be enveloped by an individual. Which is obviously something that does not happen too often. A true Prodigy. One who has had the rare happenstance of circumstance for all of these traits, if you will, to be developed in there environment of their development.

What do you guys think?

I add --> Not all are created equal. sorry. And not all of us are conditioned equal either.

Been writing this while working, so if it's hard to follow.... :P

I agree with that, to an extent. If these abilities do exist, anyone with the ability to exercise them (however small the significance of the effect) should be considered prodigious, in my eyes. This would be a completely different level of prodigy, though. While current prodigies display talents in already wide-spread human activities like athletics art or science, a prodigious psionist, (?) if proven authentic, could open a world of tangible research material that could lead us to understanding how the trait works, and possibly, how to awaken the trait in the general population and develop and strengthen it further down the line, maybe even hereditarily.

Where we disagree (assuming I get the gist of your post) is that I don’t think psi (if it exists) is something available only to the gifted; that is to say, a select, finite number of human beings. If these abilities, however insignificant, do exist then I’d believe them to be something available to all humans, equally, give or take the number of people that would be born with the sensual disability, as many people are born with limited senses, already.

Hmm.. Although, in retrospect, I suppose the anomaly, or disability role, could be reversed, and grant an ability to a small number of members of a species that wasn’t supposed to have it? So we might just agree on that one, although it’s more of a speculation than anything else. But could there be a truth to it? I definitely think so.

Dogs, for example: We know them to be colorblind. But how sure are we that that is a universal truth? What is it that keeps dogs from seeing color? Is it a stretch to believe that somewhere on this earth there exists at least one dog that has been given the statistically odd gift of color perception?
If there, in fact, is a dog in existence with this trait, that means senses may not be as absolute as they seem, and their elusiveness does not mean they are not real. If dogs had human dexterity, were the dominant species on the planet and took our place as the scientists, physicists and engineers of our day, how different would “reality” be? Everything would be based off of a colorless perspective and deal, rather, with shades of black and white. If a few of the, hypothetically possible, anomalous dogs that I mentioned earlier were to speak up, anecdotally, about having strange senses of color, how hard would it be to convince the mass populace, especially with tests using materials that aren’t even made to register the concept of color, in the first place?

Such is the nature behind the challenge of metaphysical research. I think it is a respectable field and should be treated as such. The fact that it’s treated so cynically by the people who have the best influence within the scientific communities and how science is portrayed to the public doesn’t sit well with me for So many reasons; not the least of which is that it showcases the arrogance much of humanity takes toward boasting about “What We Know of Reality.” We don’t even know the origin of consciousness, of which All of our subjective experiences are based. We don’t even know how it actually works. We concede, collectively that “anomalies” do happen, yet we refuse to give them any sort of meaning by referring to them simply as anomalies. The harder they are to understand, the easier they are to write off as “just another strange occurrence,” however I think that, as long as these strange occurrences do happen, their mere presence is cause enough to keep us in check about what we feel we can go out bragging that we know does or doesn’t exist.

I'm hopelessly behind on this thread but I'll try to catch up and get in on it.

To keep my non-backread thoughts simple and so you know where I'll be coming from, I believe that as long as doubt exists, anything is possible. It doesn't seem sound that you can say something definitely doesn't exist or isn't happening when we're so far from understand anything about what really does exist and what really is happening.

Has anyone here read about Red Rain? Basically there was a strange rainstorm in africa where the skies rained red water for a few days. It was dismissed by the scientific community as some sand being dumped from a faraway desert due to a weird weather pattern. One guy, however, decided to examine some particles from the rain under a microscope and he found this: http://curdrice.com/ranga/red_rain.html
Now if you've ever seen cells under a microscope, you know that those babies look almost exactly like red blood cells. This scientist tested the chemical consituents and found all the necessary elements of life present in the 'cells' except for DNA. Now, the missing DNA is the smoking gun here, because all life on earth uses DNA or RNA, even things that aren't technically alive like viruses. So, that's a pretty big thing to uncover, it means that the rain could actually contain ALIEN life forms, which he postulates came from a broken up meteor or comet or whatever. This could mean not only that there is life outside of earth, but that the very beginnings of life on earth actually came from outer space!

So the scientific community hears about this and it sends them into a huge uproar. They were so pissed off that this guy could suggest such a thing that they ridiculed him and banished his findings to obscurity. Recently, however, some of them pulled their heads out of their butts and conceded that he could actually be right. The whole situation really bothers me; I mean scientists are out there, supposedly figuring out the nature of the universe for us, and when something like this pops up they keep a closed mind and dismiss it as impossible. Anyone who could dismiss evidence as stark as this without a very good reason is NOT someone I want figuring out the universe for me, thank you.

Haven't had much of a chance to check out that link yet, Russ, but I'm plannin on it. :goodjob2:

Here's a damn good reference for seeing through common pseudo-skeptical arguments.
Winston Wu Debunks the Skeptics

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." -H.P. Lovecraft

Thats pretty much my take on the subject. In order to understand anything (Logic, which I hold in higher regard than physics 'laws') says that you much have a relative value to compare it against.

Since we don't know how much there is to know, statistically, we know nothing. We could know a great deal, or we could know only psuedo information that only works in practice, but the theory is all wrong. We really have no standard by which to measure.

So I finally started checking out the Red Rain stuff. Whoa. Very interesting.

Popular Science on Red Rain

Yorkshire Post on Red Rain

A particular section of this article stood out to me, and should stand out to everyone else who has read this thread:

Quote:

---

But if there really is no DNA, the mystery deepens and the extra-terrestrial explanation becomes even more likely – especially if it is possible to repeat the reproduction experiments, left out of Dr Louis's paper for Astrophysics & Space Science because they seemed too amazing to be true.[/b]

---

Leaving acknowledgement of positive results for an experiement out of a mainstream Journal because it "seemed too amazing to be true?" Now why would any self-respecting scientist want to do that? It wouldn't be because of the bias in the mainstream scientific community that we've been bantering on about, now would it? Nah. It couldn't be that. :neutral:

More

Quote:

---

Louis and Kumar have previously posted other, unpublished papers saying the particles can grow if placed in extreme heat, and reproduce. But the Astrophysics and Space Science paper doesn’t include these claims. It mostly limits itself to arguing for the particles’ meteoric origin, citing newspaper reports that a meteor broke up in the atmosphere hours before the red rain.[/b]

---

Obviously they felt the need to express it too. Hmmm.

So, back to the relevance to this thread and today's quiz question:
If someone doesn't read about "any persuasive evidence for Psi," or anything else paranormal for that matter, in a peer-reviewed Journal, does it mean the evidence (or the phenomenon) does not exist?

Anyone? Anyone?

well that depends which peer-reviewed Journal you are talking about.
So which "peer-reviewed Journal" are we talking about? I'm a little behind on what's been going on in the thread.

Oh and about the first posts...lol...I apologize for those. I was under the influence of certain...substances...i was just BSing you and being an ass. Hence the history of the blow job:D. In case you didn't understand that part, that link was a joke meant to mock the links you had been posting by showing that internet articles are misleading. The fact that the content was over blow jobs was subtly saying ...something else.
Yeah I know, it was stupid. Let me say that I don't feel that way. I regret posting that especially on a serious thread.

And lastly: something I might suggest is that you didn't make your posts so huge. Being concise helps and doesn't turn off the users who don't have the time/energy to read it all.
Interesting red rain by the way.

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inverting_world_lines
well that depends which peer-reviewed Journal you are talking about.
So which "peer-reviewed Journal" are we talking about? I'm a little behind on what's been going on in the thread.

---

Well, in particular, the article was talking about Astrophysics and Space Science. My point, though is that it doesn't matter which journal, specifically. They are all subject to bias and conflicts of interest, as is anything else man made or written, and should be recognized as such.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inverting_world_lines+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Inverting_world_lines)</div>

Quote:

---

Oh and about the first posts...lol...I apologize for those. I was under the influence of certain...substances...i was just BSing you and being an ass. [/b]

---

No problem, man. Water under the bridge. :cooler:

<!--QuoteBegin-Inverting_world_lines

And lastly: something I might suggest is that you didn't make your posts so huge. Being concise helps and doesn't turn off the users who don't have the time/energy to read it all.

---

Well, what can I say? That's a lot harder than it seems. The opening post started off as a rant, so I didn't really care how long it got. (but maybe I'll go back and shorten it a bit, sometime) After that, I've been doing what I can not to ramble on, but a lot of my thoughts on this stuff I'm putting into text for the first time, so I don't always have the most efficient way to voice them planned out. Most people I run into with a mind to debunk any and everything "paranormal" will throw everything but the kitchen sink at you so I simply try to touch on all points that come to mind at the time so I won't have to have someone touch on the one or two things I left out, and have to go back and say "Well, I was going to bring that up last time, but...."

You get the idea, but I see your point, so I'll do what I can.

Quote:

---

If someone doesn't read about "any persuasive evidence for Psi," or anything else paranormal for that matter, in a peer-reviewed Journal, does it mean the evidence (or the phenomenon) does not exist? [/b]

---

Is this saying not to believe everything we hear?

And to answer the question:

No; this not only applies to the paranormal, but hobbits and aliens as well.:lol: Not that it's fair to compare them. ;) It's all up to their agenda what they decide to inform us about.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inverting_world_lines
Is this saying not to believe everything we hear?

---

Nah. That should be common sense. My question is simply implying that saying "such and such isn't published in a 'distinguished' scientific journal" is not a solid arguement for its nonexistence. That is all. I just think it's funny how some of the most "intellectual" people lose sight of that concept.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inverting_world_lines

And to answer the question:

No; this not only applies to the paranormal, but hobbits and aliens as well.:lol: Not that it's fair to compare them. ;) It's all up to their agenda what they decide to inform us about.

---

Give the man a prize. :happy:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut
My question is simply implying that saying "such and such isn't published in a 'distinguished' scientific journal" is not a solid arguement for its nonexistence.

---

One can never prove nonexistence. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something. :wink:

^^ Only existance and universal quantification can be proven. Of course, "not existing" would be the same as "for all cases, [proposition] does not happen".

For example, in the rational numbers, with integer coefficients, there are no prime numbers. It could be said that no prime numbers exist throughout the rational numbers.

Perhaps you meant scientifically proven, though.

We have no right to disqualify life in other areas at all, we cannot say we have done every experiment possible, and its just impossible for other life to exist, to say so would be naive. To say we have done everything, we must first explore the entire universe, and then we can say we KNOW, not we THINK. Untill then, i think those people are relying on other peoples beliefs way way way too much.
____
|BOX|
|___ | think

If you cant think outside the box, you need to place yourself in this box, and get it over with quicker.
:microwave:

Rational numbers are numbers that can be expressed as a fraction, and all prime numbers are rational numbers, actually, since they are all necessarily integers. For example, 23 is a prime number. 23 can be expressed as 23/1 or 46/2 or 69/3, etc. Perhaps you were thinking of a different set of numbers.

But when I say that nonexistence cannot be proven, you are correct in assuming that I do not speak of mathematical proofs, as those are derivations based upon previous definitions, rules, and proofs, and can only negate the existence of those things contained within its closed system. One cannot write a mathematical proof for the existence of Big Foot, for example. "Prime numbers do not exist within the set of irrational numbers" could just as easily be restated as "Prime numbers are not included within the set of irrational numbers." At no point is the actual existence of prime numbers in doubt. It is the question of existence itself with which I am concerned.

Returning to the Big Foot example, a Big Foot adherent could always claim that Big Foot was snoozing at the north end of the Forty Acre Woods while you and your team were out surveying the south end. One cannot be simultaneously everywhere and with simultaneous knowledge of everything, and for that reason, it can always be argued that those who are searching are simply looking in all the wrong places at the wrong times. Didn't see Big Foot last weekend at Yosemite? That's because he was down South with me having tea with his cousins. You didn't get any results with that telepathy experiment you ran last month? You subjects were just too preoccupied and nervous because you had them sitting in that padded white room. You haven't seen any proof of aliens visiting Earth? They're sneaky bastards with those anal probes - do you really think with their advanced technology they'd just write "Hey ya'll, we're here" in the sky?

And so it goes on. One can only prove existence, and even then there are gradations based upon the personal biases and standards of those one is trying to convince. What convinces one person will not necessarily convince another. As far as nonexistence goes, the strongest statement one can truthfully make is that there has been no conclusive evidence to suggest the existence of <insert whatever is in question>. You can't prove that it doesn't exist. You can only prove that so far, there isn't evidence that it does exist. That's actually a very important distinction.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus
all prime numbers are rational numbers

---

You are going the wrong way with this. For example, 2 is not always a prime number. In the natural numbers and integers, it is.
A number p is prime if it's only divisors in the set of numbers are ±1 and ±p. With rational numbers, 2 = 4 * 1/2 and 2 is no longer prime.
23 would be a prime number in the natural numbers, integers, but not the rationals, or irrationals, because it has non-trivial factors.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Distant Clone+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Distant Clone)</div>

Quote:

---

You are going the wrong way with this. For example, 2 is not always a prime number. In the natural numbers and integers, it is. *
A number p is prime if it's only divisors in the set of numbers are ±1 and ±p. With rational numbers, 2 = 4 * 1/2 and 2 is no longer prime. *
23 would be a prime number in the natural numbers, integers, but not the rationals, or irrationals, because it has non-trivial factors.[/b]

---

<!--QuoteBegin-MathWorld
A prime number (or prime integer, often simply called a "prime" for short) is a positive integer p>1 that has no positive integer divisors other than 1 and p itself. (More concisely, a prime number p is a positive integer having exactly one positive divisor other than 1.)

---

Source: Prime Number
When determining whether a number is prime, one concerns oneself only with positive integer divisors. Since 1/2 is not a positive integer, the fact that 2 is divisible by 1/2 does not disqualify it from being a prime number. Since all prime numbers are integers and all integers are rational numbers, all prime numbers must be rational numbers.

^^ I don't like that definition of prime. It does fine for integers, but I like the definition abstracted for any set of numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Distant Clone
^^ I don't like that definition of prime. It does fine for integers, but I like the definition abstracted for any set of numbers.

---

I don't mean to be rude, but it doesn't really matter what you like. That's the accepted mathematical definition of a prime number. If the definition is not limited to integers, then no numbers would be prime as any number can be divided by any other (with the exception of zero).

Ok, if you two kids can't play nice we're going to have to split this into a "But it Defies Mathematics!" thread. :chuckle:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut
Ok, if you two kids can't play nice we're going to have to split this into a "But it Defies Mathematics!" thread. :chuckle:

---

No! God, I'd never get out of that one - it'd be like a tar pit that killed all those mammoths and saber tooth tigers, except that the tar would be the stinky, gooey, goop of pathological perfectionism and and the inability to just give up. So I'm not playing mean - not on purpose - I swear. I just... can't let some things slide. Ok, lot's of things. Like tedious seeming-trivialities which turn a good thread into a laborious tangent. So, um, yeah, my bad? :undecided:

Here, as a token of peace, I give you your thread back :hijack:
:D
[whimper]no math thread, oh, please please no math thread[/whimper]

Hahaha. Accepted. :goodjob2:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut
Hahaha. Accepted. :goodjob2:

---

Whew, dodged that one! :sweat1:

More on Sheldrake and his "telephone telepathy" experiments.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/05...reut/index.html

Charles Fort and his works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fort

Book of the Damned: (I started on this one, but had a hell of a time getting through this guy’s writing style. I’ll check these out when I have more time for them.) http://www.sacredspiral.com/books/damned.pdf
Lo&#33;: http://www.resologist.net/loei.htm
New Lands: http://www.resologist.net/landsei.htm
Wild Talents: http://www.resologist.net/talentei.htm

OMG i didnt think neone else in the world had even HEARD of Charles Fort except me&#33;&#33; I love the book Lo&#33; the best

~R~

Yeah, I&#39;ve just recently learned about him after coming across his name while searching for "anomalous phenomena," but I&#39;m glad I did. Heh. I&#39;m looking forward to reading more about what he&#39;s had to say after spending so much of his time devoted to researching scientific oddities. :content:

It&#39;s so much text, could somebody please outline what it&#39;s about so I know if I&#39;d find it interesting? :)