Thread: Many Scientists are Convinced that Man Can See the Future

Awesome Article

It's good to see that some of the more esoteric info that I've found, back when I first started showing interest in this sort of thing (mainly about Radin and Utts), is seeping out through more mainstream sources. This would be amazing, if true. I just hope we're able to confirm it.

[Edit: On a side note: I went home sick from work, on the morning of Sept. 11th. It's funny that the article mentions the upset stomach, specifically, because that's exactly what I had. Just as I was pulling up in the driveway, my ex ran outside and told me what had happened to the first tower.]

I didn't read all of that because I didn't sleep last night and my eyes hurt..

But I read the part about planes and trains "destined" to crash carrying fewer passengers than usual. THAT is weird.

I think usually what happens is this: A guy feels nervous all day and comes home to find that his wife has been kidnapped, so he thinks, "Wow, I knew something bad was going to happen." Well, he also completely discards all of those times when he felt nervous and NOTHING happened. Know what I mean? I think usually people just consider the instances that work for them rather than look at the big picture.

So I read the article with the above in mind, but I can't argue with actual numbers like the passengers thing. I'm definitely interested!

Ha! Take that atheists.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Ha! Take that atheists.

What

Originally Posted by ClassyElf

What

What

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Ha! Take that atheists.

What a stupid thing to post..

Oi, he was being sarcastic.

Actually, I'd say its more of a failed trolling attempt.

(Based on his posts in this thread so far)

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Oi, he was being sarcastic.

Kinda goes over some peoples heads. Like the guy above this post. I would have addressed him but...eh, I don't talk to people with post counts lower than 500. [/ego_based_sarcasm]

Edit: On another note, I find it sad/odd my initial statement is getting more attention than the original post.

www.halfpasthuman.com

Ha! Take that atheists.

Atheist don't believe in god, I don't see how this is evidence for god.

The problem with this article is that Dick Bierman work has not been peer reviewed and his work has alot of critism.

Also, the article is a joke written for stupid people who read the dailymail and know nothing about science. Most of evidence in the article is anecdotal, for example a child getting a nightmare and then spinning into her predicting a crash. I can say something vague then spin it after it happen so it looks like its not rubbish.

The CIA program of Psychics was a big failure and a waste of money.

Also, the appeal to authority and quote mining of Einstein is really bad. Seriously, quoting Einstein is got to be the lowest form of argument.

Most of the article provides no sources for there information, for example they claim that all four planes were unusually empty, where there source for that claim. Also, this could actually be explained using a conspricy theory, like the people were told it would crash so they didn't get on.

Anyway, I think its more likely that people were told 9/11 would happen so they made up excuses for not getting on the plane. Atleast this theory has as much evidence then psychic powers.

A simpler explanation is that the article is rubbish.

P.S. Has anyone read the comments on the article.
P.S.S. Have you got the evidence that many scientist are actually convinced, as the article gives only three people, unless you count the Einstein quote taken out of context.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Also, the article is a joke written for stupid people who read the dailymail and know nothing about science.

I stopped reading after that. Because you know what...I feel the exact same way about your posts.

Well I agree about the anecdotal evidence bit at least.

The problem with this article is that Dick Bierman work has not been peer reviewed and his work has alot of critism.

I don't really consider that a "problem." Not all findings that are true are peer-reviewed, just as not all peer reviewed findings turn out to be true. To use whether or not something is peer-reviewed, as any definitive catalyst as to whether or not it's possibly true, is to show bias; close-mindedness; and a complete obliviousness to the politics which do exist within the scientific community (IMHO).

Also, the article is a joke written for stupid people who read the dailymail and know nothing about science.

This doesn't even deserve a reply. But, I'll humor you: See Rule #5

Most of evidence in the article is anecdotal, for example a child getting a nightmare and then spinning into her predicting a crash. I can say something vague then spin it after it happen so it looks like its not rubbish.

A tried and true base for nearly any investigation, of any kind, is that of anecdotes. Scientists operate on anecdotes as well. They call it "making an observation." You may try to discredit the anecdotes now, since they threaten your bias, but - while not definitive - they should not be ignored.

The CIA program of Psychics was a big failure and a waste of money.

Read much on it, have you? From what I remember, they logged very real results. The problem was in that those results were irreplicable, to a degree that made the method too inefficient for military application.

Also, the appeal to authority and quote mining of Einstein is really bad. Seriously, quoting Einstein is got to be the lowest form of argument.

Funny how that works, isn't it? If time's illusory nature was a concept that obviously defied all accepted physics, the "scientifically-minded" side of the argument would have probably been the first to cite General Relativity as a reason why something was impossible. Imagine that.

Most of the article provides no sources for there information, for example they claim that all four planes were unusually empty, where there source for that claim.

I'd love to see a source for it, myself. Does the sources' not being cited mean it's complete BS? I don't believe it does - only that it warrants further inquiry - do you? If not, why bring it up?

Also, this could actually be explained using a conspricy theory, like the people were told it would crash so they didn't get on.

THAT was pretty weak. Anything could "actually be explained using a conspiracy theory." Where were you going with this?

Anyway, I think its more likely that people were told 9/11 would happen so they made up excuses for not getting on the plane. Atleast this theory has as much evidence then psychic powers.

You say that like someone who has actually weighed all the evidence, for both scenarios. To me, that pretty much sounds like a cop-out. Something along the lines of "well, I have no interest in looking into anything about this, so I'm just going to say the evidence for my side outweighs the article's, and see where that gets me."

A simpler explanation is that the article is rubbish.

It's funny how you can conclude such, without out any substance, whatsoever, while condemning the article for being insubstantial.

P.S.S. Have you got the evidence that many scientist are actually convinced, as the article gives only three people, unless you count the Einstein quote taken out of context.

When have you seen an article actually list every single name that supports an idea? That's to prompt interest into the subject. If you take a little time to dig into the topic of parapsychology, yourself, you'll see plenty of names (just as I have) of scientists who have had the same sorts of results as Radin. The problem is that, when putting such up against dissenters, their next line is usually "Well...nobody knows those scientists! Now let me so something peer-reviewed!" It's called 'moving the goalposts,' and, amazingly enough, that's pretty much how you began your post.

I don't really consider that a "problem." Not all findings that are true are peer-reviewed, just as not all peer reviewed findings turn out to be true.

There a difference between writing a paper for the scientific community and writing a paper to get headlines in a newspaper. Again, peer review is good as it filters out rubbish, like creationism.

They call it "making an observation." You may try to discredit the anecdotes now, since they threaten your bias, but - while not definitive - they should not be ignored

The difference is they then get empirical evidence and stop using anecdotes instead of making them there foundation of there reasoning.

Does the sources' not being cited mean it's complete BS? I don't believe it does - only that it warrants further inquiry - do you? If not, why bring it up?

No, however if you don't cite you're sources then you can be using false premises to reason with. I can claim pigs can fly, however I wouldn't have any sources to support me, however if I don't cite any then is that find with you?

THAT was pretty weak. Anything could "actually be explained using a conspiracy theory." Where were you going with this?

That if you base your evidence on ancedotes then you can reason anything.

"well, I have no interest in looking into anything about this, so I'm just going to say the evidence for my side outweighs the article's, and see where that gets me."

Actually the physical evidence from physics suggest heavily that you can't see the future. In A brief history of time by Stephen Hawking he explaines that the thermodynamics and entrophy won't allow the future to be perceived. Anyway, so unless you have evidence that thermodynamics is wrong or the article cites the sources, its safe to concluded that its wrong.

If you take a little time to dig into the topic of parapsychology, yourself, you'll see plenty of names (just as I have) of scientists who have had the same sorts of results as Radin.

I mean actual scientists not parapsychologist.

Now let me so something peer-reviewed!" It's called 'moving the goalposts,' and, amazingly enough, that's pretty much how you began your post.

Not really. Peer review is important, the only people who argue against it our creationist, however thats because they have no evidence but god did it to support them, which is not science.

I won't expect to see stories about reptilian overlords on Fox seeing as things that are so farfetch'd borderlining total bullshit will cause Fox and other major news/media syndicates/outlets to lose credibility ultimately falling into the ranks of media outlets such as "The National Enquirer". However...Fox chose to cover a similar story regarding man perceiving the future as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361623,00.html

wendy, I am not going to get into a debate with you. Sometimes I think your head is shoved so far up your ass you'd try to debate your prostate gland if you had one. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant individual, but just because he's come to the conclusion (which I haven't seen empirical evidence to support that he has anyway) that perceiving the future is impossible, doesn't deem it so. The man is smart but his logic isn't free from fallacies. Einstein's theory of relativity should be evidence enough for you that such things are at least minutely possible.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Not really. Peer review is important, the only people who argue against it our creationist, however thats because they have no evidence but god did it to support them, which is not science.

A lot of people argue against the current state of peer reviewal; its not just creationists. I suspect you are trying to set up a straw man to support your argument with that one.

For instance, you may have heard of a study done at princeton awhile back concerning the influence of thought on random number generators. Their evidence showed that a person's thoughts and intentions can have a statistically signifigant effect on the output of these machines. The reason why the study didn't get much attention was not because they were reviewed by their peers and were shown to be wrong, but rather because no one would review or print their results.

Do a google search on "arguments against Peer review" before you make silly claims.

The reason why the study didn't get much attention was not because they were reviewed by their peers and were shown to be wrong, but rather because no one would review or print their results.

Actually the problem with that study was that it used flawed statistics. I can get you the article that explaines all this, however I think you won't understand it.

Also, Random number generators are not random, they are just based on alot of computations, you can't effect the outcome its impossible.

Do a google search on "arguments against Peer review" before you make silly claims

I know some people critise peer review, however most say its too time consuming.

Anyway, micro PK is interesting, however its hard to determine if something is happening or not. I read a good article in newscientist about this.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Actually the problem with that study was that it used flawed statistics. I can get you the article that explaines all this, however I think you won't understand it.

Also, Random number generators are not random, they are just based on alot of computations, you can't effect the outcome its impossible.

More straw men and dubious sources. You suck at this game.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Actually the problem with that study was that it used flawed statistics. I can get you the article that explaines all this, however I think you won't understand it.

Include the article with the post, or don't post at all.

Originally Posted by wendylove

I know some people critise peer review, however most say its too time consuming.

Unfounded casual dismissal.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Anyway, micro PK is interesting, however its hard to determine if something is happening or not. I read a good article in newscientist about this.

Masking of your dismissal and of not including the article.

Address the points or remove yourself from this thread.

.lol.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Awesome Article

It's good to see that some of the more esoteric info that I've found, back when I first started showing interest in this sort of thing (mainly about Radin and Utts), is seeping out through more mainstream sources. This would be amazing, if true. I just hope we're able to confirm it.

[Edit: On a side note: I went home sick from work, on the morning of Sept. 11th. It's funny that the article mentions the upset stomach, specifically, because that's exactly what I had. Just as I was pulling up in the driveway, my ex ran outside and told me what had happened to the first tower.]

I don't doubt it, I quite often have feeling about things. Some claim I'm crazy but I'll never stop listening to that voice and you are I'm sure happy you listened to yours...

I have an idea throw ideas like thermodynamics around when they have nothing to do with the subject.(Minute connections to energy...)



I found a straw man...

Thermodynamics has minute connections to energy? What are you even talking about? Your post makes no coherent sense.

Anyway, about the article... well, for a start it was apparently published by the Daily Mail. For those not in the UK to whom the Daily Mail is unfamiliar... basically they just make bollocks up. I can't find any information about this experiment, mainly because the article didn't actually give any details about it. If such phenomena were really true, it's hard to believe that it wouldn't have become common knowledge by now, as it would draw intense interest from many scientists. The two laurates mentioned are a bit weird... one of them believes in astrology and denies that HIV causes AIDS.

If I can get a good article with details on a particular experiment I'll look at it, but that thing is a load of fragmented rambling that it's impossible to glean any coherent information from.

Originally Posted by Xei

If I can get a good article with details on a particular experiment I'll look at it, but that thing is a load of fragmented rambling that it's impossible to glean any coherent information from.

I posted this before in here but I'll do it again. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361623,00.html

Fox? The News channel that made a huge fuss about what they said was free energy technology when they saw a man burning STRAIGHT THROUGH SOLID CHARCOAL with a hydrogen flame? And then told me that the centre of the flame was HOTTER THAN THE SURFACE OF THE SUN...

Could you read the article yourself please? Because although Fox has decided on the catchy headline PEOPLE CAN SEE THE FUTURE, nowhere at all in the article do the scientists claim that is remotely true. They are talking about visual processing in the visual cortex and how it extrapolates ten microseconds into the future to make up for the signal delay.

Originally Posted by Xei

Fox? The News channel that made a huge fuss about what they said was free energy technology when they saw a man burning STRAIGHT THROUGH SOLID CHARCOAL with a hydrogen flame? And then told me that the centre of the flame was HOTTER THAN THE SURFACE OF THE SUN...

Could you read the article yourself please? Because although Fox has decided on the catchy headline PEOPLE CAN SEE THE FUTURE, nowhere at all in the article do the scientists claim that is remotely true. They are talking about visual processing in the visual cortex and how it extrapolates ten microseconds into the future to make up for the signal delay.

I read the article yesterday. The purpose of the title (as I'm sure you know) is to catch viewer's attention. While there's no talk of man receiving vivid luminous visions thousands of years into the future...it does center around man "perceiving" the future, by an eighth of a second courtesy of the visual cortex, therefore the article is quite relevant. How you failed to see that connection is beyond me.