Originally posted by inimalist
lolalright...
which studies?
Theres this
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/hyman.html
Professor Jessica Utts and I were given the task of evaluating the program on "Anomalous Mental Phenomena" carried out at SRI International (formerly the Stanford Research Institute) from 1973 through 1989 and continued at SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation) from 1992 through 1994. We were asked to evaluate this research in terms of its scientific value. We were also asked to comment on its potential utility for intelligence applications.
Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. [Utts, Sept. 1995, p 1]
Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud. [Utts, Sept. 1995, p 1]
Theres also the Ganzfield experiment but Susan Blackmore thought that how the experiement was carried out made it flawed, but thats just her opinion.
I don't know about all the other experiments but there are other scientists that believe that modern science has proven psi. Also people can conudct their own reasearch.
Originally posted by inimalistalso, name a single plausible mechanism by which ANY paranormal phenomenon might occur
Death? Intent?
Originally posted by Deadline
Theres thishttp://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/hyman.html
Professor Jessica Utts and I were given the task of evaluating the program on "Anomalous Mental Phenomena" carried out at SRI International (formerly the Stanford Research Institute) from 1973 through 1989 and continued at SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation) from 1992 through 1994. We were asked to evaluate this research in terms of its scientific value. We were also asked to comment on its potential utility for intelligence applications.
Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. [Utts, Sept. 1995, p 1]
Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud. [Utts, Sept. 1995, p 1]Theres also the Ganzfield experiment but Susan Blackmore thought that how the experiement was carried out made it flawed, but thats just her opinion.
I don't know about all the other experiments but there are other scientists that believe that modern science has proven psi. Also people can conudct their own reasearch.
ok, no, but i mean real published data that I can look up. Stuff that has a strictly written methods section, something which reports its means and standard deviations. I want to see effect magnitudes and null hypotheses.
That page has no indication it was ever published, and though it does have sources, it has no reference section, so I can't look up Utts 1995 to confirm WHY they say psi phenomenon is well established.
Originally posted by Deadline
Death? Intent?
Ah, my bad. A mechanism is the physical actions that go into a phenomenon occuring. I tend to think psi phenomenon would be located in the brain, so neuro-mechanisms normally involve describing how activation in cells in one area of the brain leads to excitement/surpression of cells in other areas, and how this produces changes in observable behaviour.
What mechanisms underlies intent and how does that effect psi? [psi? pounds per square inch?]
Deadline, you're missing the point with the Randi nonsense. If someone could prove their paranormal-ness in an objective, controlled setting, they wouldn't need Randi to do it and would make millions of dollars from their findings. If it really were believable, they'd eventually find a credible audience through which to gain fame. Such a discovery would revolutionize how we view the world, or at least modify how we have to think of it.
Randi's prize is available for the commercial value of it. It draws attention to his cause. But even if he were too biased to be trusted (which I doubt greatly) it wouldn't invalidate the point that no one has been able to prove anything paranormal.
As was also stated, Randi's is not a one-man crusade against all paranormal claims. But people claiming paranormal powers (usually knowing they're false) prey upon the gullible and uninformed. It's deceitful, unethical, and hard to combat. Randi's work does so much to expose hucksters who exploit others, and he's to be commended for it.
And if you believe something HAS been proven, ask where it's been published, peer-reviewed, if it's been repeated or observed by others, and if they can identify the causal mechanism by which the phenomenon takes place. It's easy to believe something that seems exciting, harder to look at it with a skeptical eye when the proper amount of evidence hasn't been provided to justify believing it.
funny how closely they are connected.
Originally posted by Digi
But even if he were too biased to be trusted (which I doubt greatly) it wouldn't invalidate the point that no one has been able to prove anything paranormal.
What was it David Hume said about it being better to believe in even the utmost improbable explanation over the possibility of paranormal activity. Therefore, even if some psychic performed amazing feats in front of thousands it would be more sensible rather to believe they were all brainwashed or suffering from a collective hallucination. Therefore would our Million-dollar prize giver ever have enough evidence to be convinced? Or would there always be an alternate explanation he would rather accept?
(A semantic point I know...but still.)
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, no, but i mean real published data that I can look up. Stuff that has a strictly written methods section, something which reports its means and standard deviations. I want to see effect magnitudes and null hypotheses.That page has no indication it was ever published, and though it does have sources, it has no reference section, so I can't look up Utts 1995 to confirm WHY they say psi phenomenon is well established.
Does this help?
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html#6.
Also we can see that the scientist took a direct quote from this page and was refering to this.
Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.
Theres also the Ganzfield experiment. People can still conduct their own reasearch. I don't think James Randi has ever published any of his experiements in a journal but is still respected.
Originally posted by inimalist
Ah, my bad. A mechanism is the physical actions that go into a phenomenon occuring. I tend to think psi phenomenon would be located in the brain, so neuro-mechanisms normally involve describing how activation in cells in one area of the brain leads to excitement/surpression of cells in other areas, and how this produces changes in observable behaviour.
Well to be honest I'm not sure how I haven't answered your question obvously dying affects the brain and can cause an NDE.
Originally posted by inimalist
What mechanisms underlies intent and how does that effect psi? [psi? pounds per square inch?]
Sorry I'm not sure how I haven't answered your question. All I can say is psi experiements people have the intention of doing remote viewing and may be focusing on a particular place this intention cause remote viewing.
😕
Originally posted by Digi
Deadline, you're missing the point with the Randi nonsense. If someone could prove their paranormal-ness in an objective, controlled setting, they wouldn't need Randi to do it and would make millions of dollars from their findings. If it really were believable, they'd eventually find a credible audience through which to gain fame. Such a discovery would revolutionize how we view the world, or at least modify how we have to think of it.Randi's prize is available for the commercial value of it. It draws attention to his cause. But even if he were too biased to be trusted (which I doubt greatly) it wouldn't invalidate the point that no one has been able to prove anything paranormal.
As was also stated, Randi's is not a one-man crusade against all paranormal claims. But people claiming paranormal powers (usually knowing they're false) prey upon the gullible and uninformed. It's deceitful, unethical, and hard to combat. Randi's work does so much to expose hucksters who exploit others, and he's to be commended for it.
it is also important to note that a few years ago Randi changed the prize, because he wasn't interested in continually dealing with sort of the "common folk". He wanted to focus primarily on already media recognized psychics, and less on telling optimistic people they are wrong.
If we want to paste a motivation to him, it is to bring down people who are legitimately scamming money off of millions.
Originally posted by inimalist
it is also important to note that a few years ago Randi changed the prize, because he wasn't interested in continually dealing with sort of the "common folk". He wanted to focus primarily on already media recognized psychics, and less on telling optimistic people they are wrong.If we want to paste a motivation to him, it is to bring down people who are legitimately scamming money off of millions.
Ah I didn't know that he actually did it, but that's what I thought was clear he was talking about, even from the excerpt Deadline posted.
Originally posted by Digi
Makes sense though. Focus on those swindling the most time and money from gullible people. Sounds like effective time management to me. And the prize was up for a LONG time before now, so it's not like people didn't have a chance.
Anyone with a trick worthy of trying out for the prize would most likely get media attention very quickly anyway.
Originally posted by Digi
Deadline, you're missing the point with the Randi nonsense. If someone could prove their paranormal-ness in an objective, controlled setting, they wouldn't need Randi to do it and would make millions of dollars from their findings. If it really were believable, they'd eventually find a credible audience through which to gain fame. Such a discovery would revolutionize how we view the world, or at least modify how we have to think of it.
No Digi again I understand the point completely and you are missing the point. This is what I said earlier.
Originally posted by Deadline
You will notice that there is always flaw in the experiement, the person is lying, or mad. So all people that believe in the paranormal are all lying, mad or just dumb. Sorry something wrong with that scenerio.
You are also assuming that psi has to be something 100% blatant. Just because somebody can’t get 100% hits doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If the paranormal occurs people always have an excuse eg people who experience NDE’s aren’t actually dead.
Originally posted by Deadline
Randi's prize is available for the commercial value of it. It draws attention to his cause. But even if he were too biased to be trusted (which I doubt greatly) it wouldn't invalidate the point that no one has been able to prove anything paranormal.
Yes it would absolutely for the reasons given.
Originally posted by Digi
As was also stated, Randi's is not a one-man crusade against all paranormal claims. But people claiming paranormal powers (usually knowing they're false) prey upon the gullible and uninformed. It's deceitful, unethical, and hard to combat. Randi's work does so much to expose hucksters who exploit others, and he's to be commended for it.And if you believe something HAS been proven, ask where it's been published, peer-reviewed, if it's been repeated or observed by others, and if they can identify the causal mechanism by which the phenomenon takes place. It's easy to believe something that seems exciting, harder to look at it with a skeptical eye when the proper amount of evidence hasn't been provided to justify believing it.
Already posted a link.
Originally posted by inimalist
it is also important to note that a few years ago Randi changed the prize, because he wasn't interested in continually dealing with sort of the "common folk". He wanted to focus primarily on already media recognized psychics, and less on telling optimistic people they are wrong.
That not what he said though is it? It wasn't a few years ago it was in 2002. He first encountered him 1999. Thats not a few years.
http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html
Originally posted by inimalist
If we want to paste a motivation to him, it is to bring down people who are legitimately scamming money off of millions.
Is that we he said? How was he scamming people? Honestly eventhough that maybe true you are bending over backwards tend insert stuff.
Originally posted by Deadline
Does this help?http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html#6.
Also we can see that the scientist took a direct quote from this page and was refering to this.
Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.
Theres also the Ganzfield experiment.
interesting, the meat of the article has some interesting results, though nothing really as convincing as the author claims.
A lot of it just seems like data cherry picking to me. If you look at any group of experiments, there will be some strange and unexplainable results, and we can find patterns, but they often don't bare any fruit.
Like, a prof that worked in the psych department that I did had done some tests on Ingo Swan. The results were "wow, there are some unexplainable things here". however, unexplainable is actually the worst result to get in science, when it comes to making interpretations.
One of the best examples of this from the study you posted was that remote viewing only worked for static versus moving targets, which seems silly, or at least requires a mechanism for remote viewing that can only identify static objects (something I've never heard remote viewers claim, iirc they are said to be able to locate government satelites [sic]).
Again, while this article does provide some stats, they are missing some of the critical ones. p values are only reported a couple of times, when convenient, and no standard deviatiions. I'll have to look at their effect sizes more as well, as I've read reviews of the same material sourced here that talks about how their magnitudes don't reach significance, or something of that nature.
Originally posted by Deadline
People can still conduct their own reasearch.
yes, but the quality would be terrible
Originally posted by Deadline
I don't think James Randi has ever published any of his experiements in a journal but is still respected.
James Randi isn't a scientist... he has no theories or hypotheses, I can't imagine what you would expect him to publish...
Originally posted by Deadline
Well to be honest I'm not sure how I haven't answered your question obvously dying affects the brain and can cause an NDE.
how though? what is occuring at death to produce an NDE
Originally posted by Deadline
Sorry I'm not sure how I haven't answered your question. All I can say is psi experiements people have the intention of doing remote viewing and may be focusing on a particular place this intention cause remote viewing.😕
but yes, the question then being, how does visual information get from that place into the person's mind? that is the mechanism
Originally posted by Deadline
That not what he said though is it? It wasn't a few years ago it was in 2002. He first encountered him 1999. Thats not a few years.http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html
Is that we he said? How was he scamming people? Honestly eventhough that maybe true you are bending over backwards tend insert stuff.
what do you think I'm arguing?
all I'm saying is that Randi does attempt to debunk psychics, though his mission has changed in recent years (I'm not going to argue what is recent with you... ffs) to target psychics more in the lime light.
Another note, along the "looking for anomalies" line, the report says "For instance, Viewer 372 at SAIC appears to have a facility with describing technical sites."
This is actually a very unscientific conclusion to make. I assume there was no pre-supposed hypothesis that this individual would be better at these tasks, and it destroys double-blind for researchers to know this.
It also poses a terrible problem for remote viewing on a theoretical level again, as it seems very odd that someone would be apt at remote viewing technical things but not others.
It seems to me that this fact was chosen simply because it appears to challange the notion the psy does not exist (it doesn't actually challange it), though no consideration for what this means theoretically for remote viewing is given.
Originally posted by inimalist
interesting, the meat of the article has some interesting results, though nothing really as convincing as the author claims.A lot of it just seems like data cherry picking to me. If you look at any group of experiments, there will be some strange and unexplainable results, and we can find patterns, but they often don't bare any fruit.
Like, a prof that worked in the psych department that I did had done some tests on Ingo Swan. The results were "wow, there are some unexplainable things here". however, unexplainable is actually the worst result to get in science, when it comes to making interpretations.
One of the best examples of this from the study you posted was that remote viewing only worked for static versus moving targets, which seems silly, or at least requires a mechanism for remote viewing that can only identify static objects (something I've never heard remote viewers claim, iirc they are said to be able to locate government satelites [sic]).
Again, while this article does provide some stats, they are missing some of the critical ones. p values are only reported a couple of times, when convenient, and no standard deviatiions. I'll have to look at their effect sizes more as well, as I've read reviews of the same material sourced here that talks about how their magnitudes don't reach significance, or something of that nature.
Well thats just your opinion no I don't see how psi working easier with static objects is inherently silly. So based on that I'm doubting your analysis. I thought concentrating on a non moving object would be easier.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but the quality would be terrible
Why? There are probably some obvious answers but I don't think this always has to be the case.
Originally posted by inimalist
James Randi isn't a scientist... he has no theories or hypotheses, I can't imagine what you would expect him to publish...
My point is people respect him in the skeptic community and so do others scientists.
Originally posted by inimalist
how though? what is occuring at death to produce an NDE
The heart stops and theres no blood pumping to the brain you have a cardiac arrest.
Originally posted by inimalistbut yes, the question then being, how does visual information get from that place into the person's mind? that is the mechanism
Im really not sure how not knowing that answer neccesarily makes a difference. Obvoulsy when these experiements are conducted you have to try and make sure they don't see or hear anything that will give it away. I guess the answer is I don't know but if all other possibilities are eliminated then we can assume its psi.
Originally posted by inimalist
Another note, along the "looking for anomalies" line, the report says "For instance, Viewer 372 at SAIC appears to have a facility with describing technical sites."
Not entirely sure what that means. They had some assistance if this is the case is this the case for all of them?
Originally posted by inimalist
This is actually a very unscientific conclusion to make. I assume there was no pre-supposed hypothesis that this individual would be better at these tasks, and it destroys double-blind for researchers to know this.
Why?
Originally posted by inimalist
It also poses a terrible problem for remote viewing on a theoretical level again, as it seems very odd that someone would be apt at remote viewing technical things but not others.
I'm sorry thats just absurd some people find physical tasks more difficult but that shouldn't apply to psi? Im sorry thats ridculous.
Originally posted by inimalist
It seems to me that this fact was chosen simply because it appears to challange the notion the psy does not exist (it doesn't actually challange it), though no consideration for what this means theoretically for remote viewing is given.
I don't know about that. Maybe your right.
Originally posted by inimalist
what do you think I'm arguing?all I'm saying is that Randi does attempt to debunk psychics, though his mission has changed in recent years (I'm not going to argue what is recent with you... ffs) to target psychics more in the lime light.
The point is the post shows hes a hypocrite, hes also making an absurd statement surviving on just water is more absurd than talking to the dead. You cannot trust somebody like that be objective. People are trying re-interpret what he was saying so he seems more objective.
Originally posted by Deadline
Well thats just your opinion
LOL
🙄
Originally posted by Deadline
no I don't see how psi working easier with static objects is inherently silly. So based on that I'm doubting your analysis. I thought concentrating on a non moving object would be easier.
ok, but here is where the mechanism question becomes important. You don't know how it works, so you can't say that concentrating on something can or can't make it easier, because we have no idea whether concentration, however it is operationally defined, is even involved in the viewing.
Are you saying that a person needs to attend to an object to view it? Like, through attentional systems? Do you see why questioning the mechanism is important? If you can't say how it works, you can't say what evidence actually proves what you are saying. By leaving it ambigious, you let anything that can be seen as "weird" be evidence for this ambigious thing.
Originally posted by Deadline
Why? There are probably some obvious answers but I don't think this always has to be the case.
well, not entirely. My thoughts are that at home you are more likely to be sloppy, and there is absolutly no oversight. Also, I'd assume more people doing experiments at home are amature scientists not attempting to publish in peer review sources, which would insinuate to me that there are almost certainly huge statistical and methodological problems.
Even people who have been in their field for 20 years still get torn apart on peer-review, often having to re-run parts of their study to even get it published. It cannot be overstated how important this is to research as a whole. You need someone tearing apart your stuff with a fine toothed comb.
Originally posted by Deadline
My point is people respect him in the skeptic community and so do others scientists.
yes, but nobody thinks he is a scientist. I have respect for lots of people who aren't scientists.
Originally posted by Deadline
The heart stops and theres no blood pumping to the brain you have a cardiac arrest.
ok... so, to you there is nothing paranormal about an NDE? it is just a natural process of the brain shutting down?
Originally posted by Deadline
Im really not sure how not knowing that answer neccesarily makes a difference. Obvoulsy when these experiements are conducted you have to try and make sure they don't see or hear anything that will give it away. I guess the answer is I don't know but if all other possibilities are eliminated then we can assume its psi.
but what is psi?
that is what I'm saying. By the standard you are using, we could say it is chi, or zen, or mishisishimuto. You can't just have this undefined thing, you at the very least need a theory.
Originally posted by Deadline
Not entirely sure what that means. They had some assistance if this is the case is this the case for all of them?
The viewer in question was able to view technical sites with greater ease
Originally posted by Deadline
Why?
well, double blind is important because researchers can bias their own findings. If they are thinking, "hey, this guy is good at viewing technical sites", that is going to bias the way they interpret his later viewings. Double blind is standard in modern research in all fields
also, in scientific research, it is important that you predict your findings before going into the research. In any sufficently large study, you will get positive results just by chance, it is statistically inevietable. So, unless you predict things before hand, you aren't really suppose to make conclusions from anomolous significant results.
Originally posted by Deadline
I'm sorry thats just absurd some people find physical tasks more difficult but that shouldn't apply to psi? Im sorry thats ridculous.
again though, with no theory to back what psy is, there is no reason to think people should have any more or less difficulty with viewing things.
I can't imagine how the physical qualities of something would make it more or less easy to view, unless you can explain how remote viewing works.
Originally posted by inimalist
also, name a single plausible mechanism by which ANY paranormal phenomenon might occur
Currently, there maybe nothing we know of, however to dismiss it completely doesn't seem that good of an approach.
Sounds which are outside of human hearing threshold can only be measured by certain equipment.
It doesn't mean they don't exist, nor that animals cannot hear it. However, saying to a scientist 400 years ago would probably invoke ridicule.
We also know for a fact that the way we see things is not the same way other animals see. We do not see movement the way cats do - their vision is very movement specific, but they cannot see ''the bigger picture''.
On the other hand, we cannot see movement as well as cats, but we see a lot of other things, cats are unable. When we look at something our brain takes a 'picture' of it and constantly updates it.
Very fast movement may be beyond our capability to see it.
So, who's ability to see is more reflective of the true world, ours or animals? (gosh, I love philosophy <3)
I believe we have evolved the way we are because of the way we can see and hear, not that we can see and hear because of how we are.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Currently, there maybe nothing we know of, however to dismiss it completely doesn't seem that good of an approach.
there is a difference between dismissing and not being convinced by weak evidence
you might have missed my analysis directly above your post where I tried to outline problems with the research, as opposed to dismissing it outright.