Psi study: skeptics vs believers

[modernPrimitive]

A series of KPU studies (e.g.Watt & Ramakers, 2003) have looked at the question of experimenter effects in parapsychology. We selected a number of individuals who scored extremely high or extremely low on a paranormal belief questionnaire, and then trained them to administer a psi task to naive participants. So, the 'experimenters' were either strong believers or disbelievers in the paranormal. The psi task was a simple 'remote helping' task involving two sensorially isolated individuals - the 'helper' and the 'helpee'. The helpees sat in a sound-shielded room and were asked to focus their attention on a candle and to press a button every time they noticed they had become distracted from this focus. A computer recorded the number of self-reported distractions and the time that they occurred during the session. At the same time, in a distant room, the helper was following a randomised schedule of 'help' and 'no help' periods. During the help periods, the helper was asked to attempt to mentally assist the distant helpee to have fewer distractions on the task. Since the experimenter and the helpee did not know the times when the helper was attempting to help, one would expect there to be no systematic relationship between the helpee's distractions and whatever the helper was doing. The psi hypothesis, on the other hand, would predict that the helpee would have fewer distractions during those randomly-scheduled periods when the helper was thinking of them. The results for all sessions combined showed overall significant positive scoring on the psi task - that is, fewer distractions during help periods. More interestingly, when comparing sessions conducted by believer experimenters with sessions conducted by sceptics, the effect was entirely limited to those participants tested by believer experimenters. Participants tested by sceptical experimenters obtained chance results on the psi task.

What does this mean? The positive psi result could not be due to subtle cueing of the experimenters or helpees, because all were blind to the randomised condition manipulations that were taking place during the psi task. Sensory leakage was also ruled out by locating helpees and helpers in separate isolated rooms. Questionnaire measures suggested that participants’ expectancy and motivation were unaffected by their experimenters’ paranormal belief, raising the possibility that it was the experimenter’s psi that influenced the outcome of the study. Note, however, that other researchers have not yet attempted to replicate this finding. So, although it is statistically significant, the study's findings should be regarded as suggestive but not conclusive. If experimenter psi effects are real then this raises challenging questions not only for parapsychology but also for science in general. Traditionally the experimenter is regarded as an objective observer of the data, rather than being another participant in the study.

source (http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/Psi.html)

(bold mine)

Interesting....

[Szkeptik]

I'm willing to bet my life that an independent science team will never be able to replicate this. Nuff said.

[modernPrimitive]

I'm willing to bet my life that an independent science team will never be able to replicate this. Nuff said.

Sounds like an "argument from faith". Nuff said?

The KPU are a team that are trying to promote critical thinking about psi, having done research into and identifying pseudo-psi and even promoting the JREF on their site.

[Apostate1970]

in this setup there was a helpee, a helper, and an "experimenter". but why did there have to be an experimenter at all. why couldn't the helper have merely been handed a sheet with instructions. maybe you could even have a machine print out the sheet so that it never got "contaminated by the psychic residues of a skeptic". the helpers could themselves be the skeptics or believers.

one other question is whether or not the people recording the results knew who was who or, for that matter, whether they had any record of any aspect of the experiments or any interaction with the participants at all other than the raw data... recording group A knows what times the buttons were punched but nothing more, group B knows what the timetable for helping is but nothing more, they turn their data over to C who correlates it but doesn't know anything else, and C turns it over to D who is the only one to have actually had any contact with the helper, helpee, or experimenters.

somehow i doubt that the experiment was this massively blinded. and if it were and gave negative results then i'm sure that you'd get people complaining how involving all those people just made too much psychic noise for the result to be positive.

anyway, it all comes down to reproducibility.

[crispy]

If they were to convince me they had to do a lot of variations of the experiment. Some experiments would probably provide a negative result, others a positive. With enough experiments it should be possible to narrow down specific factors that contribute toward this alleged 'psi factor'.

[breezanne]

It's only logical that mental attitudes affect mental abilities... and everything is related to and affects everything else (all minds included).

[breezanne]

It always strikes me funny how inaccurately labeled many "skeptics" are... they are often the most "certain" of all that their beliefs are true.

[modernPrimitive]

It always strikes me funny how inaccurately labeled many "skeptics" are... they are often the most "certain" of all that their beliefs are true.


[Origin: 1565–75; < LL scepticus thoughtful, inquiring (in pl. Scepticī the Skeptics) < Gk skeptikós, equiv. to sképt(esthai) to consider, examine (akin to skopeǐn to look; see -scope) + -ikos -ic]


Apparently you might be right.

[PyramidHead]

It's only logical convenient for the failure of unbiased psi experiments that mental attitudes affect mental abilities... and everything is related to and affects everything else (all minds included).

Now it's fixed. I call bullshit on your rationalization, because if there were clear evidence of psi discovered by skeptical researchers, you would NOT be saying "how illogical that their mental attitudes didn't affect what they were studying!" Not a peep. You'd be doing cartwheels, proclaiming that you'd been right all along, objective evidence finally having validated your position. You crave this validation, and would welcome it should it arrive in the headlines one day; if it's "only logical" that no skeptical experiments have bore that fruit, you'd have to say it would be illogical if that day ever came. And you wouldn't. So stop it.

[modernPrimitive]

in this setup there was a helpee, a helper, and an "experimenter". but why did there have to be an experimenter at all. why couldn't the helper have merely been handed a sheet with instructions. maybe you could even have a machine print out the sheet so that it never got "contaminated by the psychic residues of a skeptic". the helpers could themselves be the skeptics or believers.


I think the idea was to see whether the experimenter actually influenced the outcome rather than the participants specifially. It has interesting connotations for all scientific expereimntation. Your idea would also make for an interesting experiment though, I'm sure results would be similar.


one other question is whether or not the people recording the results knew who was who or, for that matter, whether they had any record of any aspect of the experiments or any interaction with the participants at all other than the raw data... recording group A knows what times the buttons were punched but nothing more, group B knows what the timetable for helping is but nothing more, they turn their data over to C who correlates it but doesn't know anything else, and C turns it over to D who is the only one to have actually had any contact with the helper, helpee, or experimenters.

somehow i doubt that the experiment was this massively blinded. and if it were and gave negative results then i'm sure that you'd get people complaining how involving all those people just made too much psychic noise for the result to be positive.

"The positive psi result could not be due to subtle cueing of the experimenters or helpees, because all were blind to the randomised condition manipulations that were taking place during the psi task"


anyway, it all comes down to reproducibility.

And if someone did get the funding to do this and the result was positive would that be enough to change the skeptics mind's forever. I somehow doubt it. I've been pondering whether I should fund a follow up....would anyone know what that would cost - roughly?

[figuer]

I'm willing to bet my life that an independent science team will never be able to replicate this. :huh: Why?

[Simen]

Alright, so those using the correct scientific method of attempting to falsify the theory fail to verify it, while those who are already convinced of its truth do verify it. The lesson to be had here seems to be that only true believers manage to prove paranormal phenomena; that's the opposite of this anti-skeptic rhetoric.

[figuer]

I am confused by the title...I am a skeptic...I don't believe in anything...for example, my experiences regarding telepathy don't make me a "believer" in psi...it is just an experience, like seeing the moon or feeling the effects of gravity.

[Abel]

I think the idea was to see whether the experimenter actually influenced the outcome rather than the participants specifially. It has interesting connotations for all scientific expereimntation.

I'm sure you meant to say implications for all scientific experimentation. You poor souls already have enough connotations for science, don't you think?:Cheeky:

Your idea would also make for an interesting experiment though, I'm sure results would be similar.

How dare breez say, "It always strikes me funny how inaccurately labeled many "skeptics" are... they are often the most "certain" of all that their beliefs are true.":eek:


"The positive psi result could not be due to subtle cueing of the experimenters or helpees, because all were blind to the randomised condition manipulations that were taking place during the psi task"

What does psi stand for? Pounds per square inch?


anyway, it all comes down to reproducibility.

And if someone did get the funding to do this and the result was positive would that be enough to change the skeptics mind's forever. I somehow doubt it.

Surely by now you know that reproducibility is the foundation upon which science is built. Of course, the reproducers have to be disinterested third parties. Could you manage that?

I've been pondering whether I should fund a follow up....would anyone know what that would cost - roughly?

Zounds, my man! You have it in hand! Imagine all the believers pooling their monies and funding experiments using the scientific method, submitting their results for peer review, asking disinterested parties to attempt reproducing their results...

Nah. Ain't gonna happen.:rolleyes:

[LeoM]

I think the idea was to see whether the experimenter actually influenced the outcome rather than the participants specifially. It has interesting connotations for all scientific expereimntation.

I'm sure you meant to say implications for all scientific experimentation. You poor souls already have enough connotations for science, don't you think?:Cheeky:



How dare breez say, "It always strikes me funny how inaccurately labeled many "skeptics" are... they are often the most "certain" of all that their beliefs are true.":eek:




What does psi stand for? Pounds per square inch?





Surely by now you know that reproducibility is the foundation upon which science is built. Of course, the reproducers have to be disinterested third parties. Could you manage that?

I've been pondering whether I should fund a follow up....would anyone know what that would cost - roughly?

Zounds, my man! You have it in hand! Imagine all the believers pooling their monies and funding experiments using the scientific method, submitting their results for peer review, asking disinterested parties to attempt reproducing their results...

Nah. Ain't gonna happen.:rolleyes:

True skeptics are the most certain of their beliefs which makes them very bias.

[skepticalbip]

True skeptics are the most certain of their beliefs which makes them very bias.You are confusing skeptical and denial.

[LeoM]

True skeptics are the most certain of their beliefs which makes them very bias.You are confusing skeptical and denial.

But they appear to go hand in hand sometimes not always but sometimes

[Abel]

[QUOTE=Abel;5366672]True skeptics are the most certain of their beliefs which makes them very bias.

True scientists don't deal with beliefs. That's why we're so hard on you. You put your beliefs out in front so we have to knock them aside to be able to see you. When we do that, we usually see a void where science should be. You're missing out on the best thing about life, scientific discovery.

[skepticalbip]

You are confusing skeptical and denial.

But they appear to go hand in hand sometimes not always but sometimesNot at all... Skepticism is just the polar opposite of gullibility. The gullible believe something because it "feels good" while the skeptic reserves judgment (even if the claim "feels good") until sufficient evidence demonstrates the likely reality or falsity of the claim.

Today's "PSI researchers" remind me much of yesterday's phrenologists and today's astrologers. They get enough "hits" to convince the gullible (those who want to believe) but not enough to rise above the noise level. When, or rather if, they ever demonstrate PSI effects in a repeatable manner, it will move up a little on my scale of being a likely real phenomena.

[breezanne]

It's only logical convenient for the failure of unbiased psi experiments that mental attitudes affect mental abilities... and everything is related to and affects everything else (all minds included).

Now it's fixed. I call bullshit on your rationalization, because if there were clear evidence of psi discovered by skeptical researchers, you would NOT be saying "how illogical that their mental attitudes didn't affect what they were studying!" Not a peep. You'd be doing cartwheels, proclaiming that you'd been right all along, objective evidence finally having validated your position. You crave this validation, and would welcome it should it arrive in the headlines one day; if it's "only logical" that no skeptical experiments have bore that fruit, you'd have to say it would be illogical if that day ever came. And you wouldn't. So stop it.Quit the drama. Digest the meaning of the statement I made. Do mental attitudes commonly affect mental abilitites? Of course they do. For instance, your reactionary stance against psi evidence (and those who don't deny its existence) made you less able to digest the meaning of my statement.;)

So, what do you seek to emulate about the monster from "Silent Hill"?

[breezanne]

How dare breez say, "It always strikes me funny how inaccurately labeled many "skeptics" are... they are often the most "certain" of all that their beliefs are true.":eek:I call 'em as I see 'em.

[breezanne]

When, or rather if, they ever demonstrate PSI effects in a repeatable manner, it will move up a little on my scale of being a likely real phenomena.They already have, and you haven't budged an inch.

The thing is, you have to remain skeptical about even your own beliefs. And of course you have beliefs. Those of us in science know full well that all humans have beliefs of one kind or another.

The question is, what is the basis for your beliefs. Real human experience? Or fidelity to a particular (physicalist) assumption about reality?

[skepticalbip]

When, or rather if, they ever demonstrate PSI effects in a repeatable manner, it will move up a little on my scale of being a likely real phenomena.They already have, and you haven't budged an inch. They have to the same extent that the phrenologists did when phrenology was "hot". And the "evidence" for PSI so far seems to be about as good as the "evidence" for astrology.

[LeoM]

But they appear to go hand in hand sometimes not always but sometimesNot at all... Skepticism is just the polar opposite of gullibility. The gullible believe something because it "feels good" while the skeptic reserves judgment (even if the claim "feels good") until sufficient evidence demonstrates the likely reality or falsity of the claim.

Today's "PSI researchers" remind me much of yesterday's phrenologists and today's astrologers. They get enough "hits" to convince the gullible (those who want to believe) but not enough to rise above the noise level. When, or rather if, they ever demonstrate PSI effects in a repeatable manner, it will move up a little on my scale of being a likely real phenomena.

Haha and you wouldn't call Richard Dawkins a bias individual? The man promotes his own cult.

[LeoM]

They already have, and you haven't budged an inch. They have to the same extent that the phrenologists did when phrenology was "hot". And the "evidence" for PSI so far seems to be about as good as the "evidence" for astrology.

Psi researchers have already repeated experiments over and over again but the skeptics demand more and more until absurdity hits.

[skepticalbip]

Not at all... Skepticism is just the polar opposite of gullibility. The gullible believe something because it "feels good" while the skeptic reserves judgment (even if the claim "feels good") until sufficient evidence demonstrates the likely reality or falsity of the claim.

Today's "PSI researchers" remind me much of yesterday's phrenologists and today's astrologers. They get enough "hits" to convince the gullible (those who want to believe) but not enough to rise above the noise level. When, or rather if, they ever demonstrate PSI effects in a repeatable manner, it will move up a little on my scale of being a likely real phenomena.

Haha and you wouldn't call Richard Dawkins a bias individual? The man promotes his own cult.Illogic is not a rational response. It is a logical fallacy to base a general position on a specific case ("I saw a white cow therefore all cows are white"). Dawkins is a "man on a mission", not a dispassionate skeptic.

[LeoM]

Haha and you wouldn't call Richard Dawkins a bias individual? The man promotes his own cult.Illogic is not a rational response. It is a logical fallacy to base a general position on a specific case ("I saw a white cow therefore all cows are white"). Dawkins is a "man on a mission", not a dispassionate skeptic.

but skeptics are allowed to call believers deluded and bias?

[skepticalbip]

Illogic is not a rational response. It is a logical fallacy to base a general position on a specific case ("I saw a white cow therefore all cows are white"). Dawkins is a "man on a mission", not a dispassionate skeptic.

but skeptics are allowed to call believers deluded and bias?I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Would you agree that someone who really believes in some disputed proposition and blindly accepts any claim that supports it, rejecting any contrary information, is delusional or biased? Suppose if that disputed proposition was that bigfoot was a time-traveling, shape-shifting alien from the Pleiades?

And what would you call someone who says, "I dunno... there isn't enough evidence to support such an extraordinary claim so until there is I'll put it in the unlikely column."?

[LeoM]

but skeptics are allowed to call believers deluded and bias?I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Would you agree that someone who really believes in some disputed proposition and blindly accepts any claim that supports it, rejecting any contrary information, is delusional or biased? Suppose if that disputed proposition was that bigfoot was a time-traveling, shape-shifting alien from the Pleiades?

And what would you call someone who says, "I dunno... there isn't enough evidence to support such an extraordinary claim so until there is I'll put it in the unlikely column."?

Well I would call them an open minded person that would be there opinion. I know there are people out there that will blindly accept things but if the evidence is there and is very strong then I don't see no reason to at least strongly consider it's basis.

[modernPrimitive]

Surely by now you know that reproducibility is the foundation upon which science is built. Of course, the reproducers have to be disinterested third parties. Could you manage that?

Sure. I'm allowed to speculate.

I've been pondering whether I should fund a follow up....would anyone know what that would cost - roughly?


Zounds, my man! You have it in hand! Imagine all the believers pooling their monies and funding experiments using the scientific method, submitting their results for peer review, asking disinterested parties to attempt reproducing their results...

Nah. Ain't gonna happen.:rolleyes:

Why not?

[WCH]

Everyone is biased. Anyone who denies their own bias is... well... apparently unfamiliar with the last 100 years of philosophy. The point is to accept that you have a bias, and then choose the extent to which you'll let it influence your actions.

[Abel]

How dare breez say, "It always strikes me funny how inaccurately labeled many "skeptics" are... they are often the most "certain" of all that their beliefs are true.":eek:I call 'em as I see 'em.

<edited>

[Abel]

Haha and you wouldn't call Richard Dawkins a bias individual? The man promotes his own cult.

Are you perhaps confusing him with Stephen Hawkins? That weed Québécoise must be pretty strong. Care to share?>:D<

[Abel]

Psi researchers have already repeated experiments over and over again but the skeptics demand more and more until absurdity hits.

<With a very Hurley (from LOST) attitude>
Um, dude. We're not demanding anything from you. Do you see us going to the "psi" boards and demanding anything?

<SNIP>



Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
psi1 Audio Help /saɪ, psaɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy, psahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural psis.
1. the 23rd letter of the Greek alphabet (Ψ, ψ).
2. the group of consonant sounds represented by this letter.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < Gk pseǐ]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
psi

To learn more about psi visit Britannica.com

© 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
psi2 Audio Help /saɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
any purportedly psychic phenomenon, as psychokinesis, telepathy, clairvoyance, or the like.
Compare pseudoscience, parapsychology.

[Origin: 1940–45; shortening of psychic or parapsychic]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
psi
pounds per square inch.
Also, p.s.i.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

[Abel]

Illogic is not a rational response. It is a logical fallacy to base a general position on a specific case ("I saw a white cow therefore all cows are white"). Dawkins is a "man on a mission", not a dispassionate skeptic.

but skeptics are allowed to call believers deluded and bias?

I have never called you biased! :p

[skepticalbip]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Would you agree that someone who really believes in some disputed proposition and blindly accepts any claim that supports it, rejecting any contrary information, is delusional or biased? Suppose if that disputed proposition was that bigfoot was a time-traveling, shape-shifting alien from the Pleiades?

And what would you call someone who says, "I dunno... there isn't enough evidence to support such an extraordinary claim so until there is I'll put it in the unlikely column."?

Well I would call them an open minded person that would be there opinion. I know there are people out there that will blindly accept things but if the evidence is there and is very strong then I don't see no reason to at least strongly consider it's basis.And I have and found the "evidence" for PSI to consist of little more than wishful thinking, anecdotal stories, and piss poor "research" methodology (sorta like astrology). I'm still waiting for something more substantial before taking such an extraordinary claim out of the unlikely column.

[mirage]

The Psi experimental sector is a very interesting phenomenon because it exploits a systematic perversion of the scientific process. It exploits it so successfully that it fools the Psi researchers themselves and many other thick people, including some scientists who don't understand probability either, and anyone on this thread who thinks it might be something (and me when I was younger for a brief while - all kids are pretty much thick).

The key point about it is that it is a Darwinian evolution machine for experimental set ups that have very hard to detect tiny systematic biases.

Science uses experimental set ups designed to minimise systematic error and to amplify the experimental effect so that it asserts itself above any such errors. It looks for converging evidence of an effect across many different experimental set ups.

Pseudo-psi science uses experimental set ups that have nothing to do with testing a particular hypothesis (because psi researchers have no worked out hypothesis or theory) but that have been selected from a range of random variations based on their ability to produce systematic errors. I.e they deviate from what you would expect from chance and no systematic bias. The effects are entirely centred upon and dependent upon the particular set up of the moment, and never ever have converging evidence from different types of experimental approach.

Naturally the sizes of any such hard to detect errors are tiny. Since Psi doesn't exist, then no one can actually just lift a kilo weight with their mind or correctly read a card 99 times out of 100. Instead they have absolutely tiny "but statistically significant" effects on what continue to look like random results.

Psi pseudoscience therefore does not amplify a real physical effect using physical equipment. It amplifies the systematic bias that you find in any experimental set up using bogus statistical trawling of vast reams of data to amplify up bogus p values and crow about "chance of this happening by chance is less than one in thirty three thousand million billion squillion"! Well guess what turd heads? The chance of any sufficiently long set of experimental data occurring by chance alone is also a zillion squillion to one! If there was a real physical effect for telekinesis say, then you could just use very sensitive equipment to measure it every time. That would be real science.

Now it pays to think about the history of psi pseudocrap. Remember that scientists tend to evaluate experiments rather naively because they assume other workers are proper scientists interested in the truth. That is why you need magicians like Randi to help uncover deceit and tricks when evaluating claims for the supernatural.

Psi research is a selection process for difficult to detect effects. To start with it fooled people for a while with big macroscopic things. It tried (and people believed) things like influencing big things like coin flips or dice. Then when that was obvious crap it went to smaller things and culminated in microscopic quantum events with effects only detectable by trawling vast amounts of data for bogus p values!

Is there any theme to this history? Is it led by some underlying hypothesis? No! The same people that find it credible a coin could be influenced see no contradiction in psi being only evident in a statistical trace effect upon single particles. Notice how the single particle experiment is directly motivated by woo woo beliefs about big objects and yet if small effects on single particles were the limit of abilities then psi idiots would have no influence over big stuff AT ALL. This doesn't bother researchers because they are not testing a hypothesis. They are looking for an effect. ANY effect. Just so long as it cannot be explained by chance. There is no underlying hypothesis, so psi woo woo can never be falsified.

Prove after exhaustive research that the crappy, tiny experimental bias in one "Ganzfield" pile of crap is audio interference in headphones from a video signal used to generate a test image and what happens? Is psi shown to be bollocks? Nope, you just generate a couple of dozen other random experimental set ups until one of them throws up a subtle systematic bias in the noise and the whole circus goes round for another few years.

That new effect unrepeatable? Never mind, there is no hypothesis or model so we just blame absolutely anything for the failure. I know, it is the sceptical researchers putting out negative karma! Brilliant! Psicrappology remains unfalsified!

There are many other criticisms (file drawer effect, reporting bias, just plain statistical idiocy) of the desperate thickness of Psi researchers but the above is the key uniting critique that covers the whole field, past present and future.

Evaluation of experimental evidence in science depends on the nature of the experimental set up being selected to minimise systematic bias. The same hypothesis is tested via very different experiments in an attempt to reduce the chance of an unknown effect from one experiment confounding the result. The reverse is true in PSIology, the set ups are selected for systematic bias and the results are tied to a very particular experimental set up rather than a particular effect evident across many different kinds of experiment.

And finally, three probabilities that need to be considered in any Bayesian evaluation of p(Woo wooo! wooo! I can lift atoms with my mind!):

p(LIARS)
p(CHEATS)
p(MISTAKES)

When you get these three well down below p(I see dead people) then come see us again.

[figuer]

...thick people... psi pseudocrap...obvious crap... psi woo woo...pile of crap...Psicrappology...Are these supposed to make your arguments more convincing? If what you say is correct, why do you recur to such intellectual terrorism?

[mirage]

...thick people... psi pseudocrap...obvious crap... psi woo woo...pile of crap...Psicrappology...Are these supposed to make your arguments more convincing?
No, they are supposed to convey contempt. The arguments don't need any help.

If what you say is correct, why do you recur to such intellectual terrorism?
If Mr T is going to put someone in a "world of pain" then why does he recur/resort to also calling them a "fool" and expressing his "pity" for them?

[mirage]

Also, you forgot "turd heads".

One of my finest in that post I think.

[figuer]

The arguments don't need any help.They do. They have the same weakness you claim for the Psi experiments: They are based on mathematical probabilities, not on any hard physical evidence.

[PyramidHead]

breezanne,

Your criticism of my response is revealing. On the one hand, you say my mental attitude makes me unable to grasp the content of your post. But on the other hand, you're saying the mental attitude of the researchers--an attitude of uncommitted skepticism, which in any other science environment is prized because it lends support to the findings--directly affected the results in the OP's example. You never denied my underlying claim; namely, that despite your calling the current lack of experimental confirmation "only logical," you wouldn't call the presence of such confirmation "illogical." On the contrary, you would welcome it wholeheartedly as proof of your beliefs. Am I wrong?

LeoM,

The adjective is "biased," not "bias." "Bias" is a noun meaning "that which a biased person has."

To all,

Since some people here are of the mind that serious experiments have proven the existence of psi, could one of you provide an example of such a study (which would naturally have to be double-blind, performed by impartial researchers, and repeated by others)? A link to the peer-reviewed journal that published the findings will suffice. Since the examples are so numerous and we skeptics so blind, it should be cinch to find at least one such case. I look forward to being convinced that my position is incorrect!

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vprETGvyShM

[breezanne]

They already have, and you haven't budged an inch. They have to the same extent that the phrenologists did when phrenology was "hot". And the "evidence" for PSI so far seems to be about as good as the "evidence" for astrology.Phrenology and Astrology are based on the idea that observable states of certain material objects (skulls, stars) reveal certain immaterial qualities of people or events. Both are more like a poor attempt at science than like authentic psi events.

You admitted that you think everyone who has experienced convincing psi events is just "gullible." Well, that settles it as far as you're concerned. You've got your broad brush out, and you're gonna use it on everything. Just like I said.

[GenesisNemesis]

I have a question. Why do matters of the supernatural or paranormal always come down to "skeptics vs believers"?

[skepticalbip]

They have to the same extent that the phrenologists did when phrenology was "hot". And the "evidence" for PSI so far seems to be about as good as the "evidence" for astrology.Phrenology and Astrology are based on the idea that observable states of certain material objects (skulls, stars) reveal certain immaterial qualities of people or events. Both are more like a poor attempt at science than like authentic psi events. No shit... They believed different things but still used the same "scientific methodology" to "prove" their belief as the PSI researchers - Wishful thinking, anecdotal stories, and piss-poor methodology.

You admitted that you think everyone who has experienced convincing psi events is just "gullible." Well, that settles it as far as you're concerned. You've got your broad brush out, and you're gonna use it on everything. Just like I said. You are reading into my posts what you want to read. I never said that I thought those who experienced what they thought were psi events were gullible. What I think of those is that they either have very active imaginations or don't understand coincidents and their probability. What I said is that those who believe something because if feels good or believe that anecdotal stories constitute proof are gullible.

I am still waiting for some actual scientific study, not piss-poor "research" by those who are only looking for something they can spin with sufficient mumbo-jumbo to claim they found it.

[temporalillusion]

I have a question. Why do matters of the supernatural or paranormal always come down to "skeptics vs believers"?

When it really should come down to "skeptics vs. doers".. :D

[Abel]

Phrenology and Astrology are based on the idea that observable states of certain material objects (skulls, stars) reveal certain immaterial qualities of people or events. Both are more like a poor attempt at science than like authentic psi events.

And what are psychic (using the long term for psi) events like? Please don't say science.

You admitted that you think everyone who has experienced convincing psi events is just "gullible." Well, that settles it as far as you're concerned. You've got your broad brush out, and you're gonna use it on everything. Just like I said.

If not gullible, then what? Are you basing your whole trust in psychic abilities on personal experiences that may just be looping thoughts?

[breezanne]

Quite a post there, Mirage. Your fervor and contempt sound just like those of a fundie religious zealot railing against a "sinner." Laden with beliefs and emotions and sweeping accusations and insults.

[Abel]

Quite a post there, Mirage. Your fervor and contempt sound just like those of a fundie religious zealot railing against a "sinner." Laden with beliefs and emotions and sweeping accusations and insults.

Why the name calling? Wouldn't a more reasoned rebuttal that includes some solid science be more appropriate?

[breezanne]

Nope.

Interesting... after Mirage's rant, you consider my assessment of it to be "name-calling."

[breezanne]

breezanne,

Your criticism of my response is revealing. On the one hand, you say my mental attitude makes me unable to grasp the content of your post. But on the other hand, you're saying the mental attitude of the researchers--an attitude of uncommitted skepticism, which in any other science environment is prized because it lends support to the findings--directly affected the results in the OP's example. You never denied my underlying claim; namely, that despite your calling the current lack of experimental confirmation "only logical," you wouldn't call the presence of such confirmation "illogical." On the contrary, you would welcome it wholeheartedly as proof of your beliefs. Am I wrong?Mostly you're just being illogical. Did you even read the opening post? Your accusation that I'd be doing "cartwheels" made no sense. When biased "skeptics" find clear evidence of psi, it will be obvious that their individual mental biases did not overwhelm the psi effect. It will be no big deal. It has already happened many times that "skeptics" have been able to drop their biases when faced with spontaneous personal psi events. For many, "up close and personal" is what it takes.

You seem to have a simplistic view of this stuff... as though it's all or nothing. What I said was that it's only logical that mental attitudes affect mental abilities... and everything is related to and affects everything else (all minds included). We should not be surprised when polar mental attitudes cause significant differences in mentally oriented activity (or perhaps any kind of activity)... or that we find minds to be influential within systems, when we are basically checking to see how influential minds can be within systems.

[GenesisNemesis]

Everyone, please stay on topic. Can't we all just get along?

-GN-

[breezanne]

Phrenology and Astrology are based on the idea that observable states of certain material objects (skulls, stars) reveal certain immaterial qualities of people or events. Both are more like a poor attempt at science than like authentic psi events. No shit... They believed different things but still used the same "scientific methodology" to "prove" their belief as the PSI researchers - Wishful thinking, anecdotal stories, and piss-poor methodology.

You admitted that you think everyone who has experienced convincing psi events is just "gullible." Well, that settles it as far as you're concerned. You've got your broad brush out, and you're gonna use it on everything. Just like I said. You are reading into my posts what you want to read. I never said that I thought those who experienced what they thought were psi events were gullible. What I think of those is that they either have very active imaginations or don't understand coincidents and their probability. What I said is that those who believe something because if feels good or believe that anecdotal stories constitute proof are gullible.

I am still waiting for some actual scientific study, not piss-poor "research" by those who are only looking for something they can spin with sufficient mumbo-jumbo to claim they found it.Surely you don't have anything against "scientific methodology." Well, true, it can be tricky to apply to the study of psi/mental events... understandably enough. Being mental in kind they are not predictable or precise like gravity, abilities vary among people and over time and with circumstances, and such events most often occur spontaneously rather than "on command." Minds are much less obedient/lawful than matter/energy. ;)

What you basically said was that only the "gullible" are convinced by the "hits" of the psi researchers. So, you class those who find psi effects or events significant as "gullible," imaginative, and/or ignorant... as opposed to being "skeptical." Those are the colors of your paint. I am skeptical of how hard you are looking for studies that show significant psi effects, and even more so for authentic and impressive personal human experiences.

[breezanne]

I have a question. Why do matters of the supernatural or paranormal always come down to "skeptics vs believers"?

When it really should come down to "skeptics vs. doers".. :DSo it does... there are those who experience psi events... and those who are skeptical of other people's experiences.

[GenesisNemesis]

So it does... there are those who experience psi events... and those who are skeptical of other people's experiences.

Because they are experiences, which do not really count as credible evidence.

[breezanne]

Phrenology and Astrology are based on the idea that observable states of certain material objects (skulls, stars) reveal certain immaterial qualities of people or events. Both are more like a poor attempt at science than like authentic psi events.

And what are psychic (using the long term for psi) events like? Please don't say science.

You admitted that you think everyone who has experienced convincing psi events is just "gullible." Well, that settles it as far as you're concerned. You've got your broad brush out, and you're gonna use it on everything. Just like I said.
If not gullible, then what? Are you basing your whole trust in psychic abilities on personal experiences that may just be looping thoughts?Impressive psi events are not something deduced/produced from observing states of certain material objects. That's practically the opposite of what real psi events look like. Being essentially mental events, they do not involve the assumption that the study of material objects/processes/systems (science) tells the whole story.

I certainly don't trust all claims of psi events or abilities. That would be silly. Neither do I automatically distrust them all. That would be equally silly (although I think I did when I was younger and sillier). I have seen and heard of (and been close to) enough very impressive and diverse ones to find no better explanation than that psi abilities exist. Mind is a pervasive aspect of reality. There is nothing about it to be afraid of.

Looping thoughts? I have no idea what you're suggesting.

[breezanne]

So it does... there are those who experience psi events... and those who are skeptical of other people's experiences.

Because they are experiences, which do not really count as credible evidence.Experiences are all that we ever have... even in science.

[skepticalbip]

No shit... They believed different things but still used the same "scientific methodology" to "prove" their belief as the PSI researchers - Wishful thinking, anecdotal stories, and piss-poor methodology.
You are reading into my posts what you want to read. I never said that I thought those who experienced what they thought were psi events were gullible. What I think of those is that they either have very active imaginations or don't understand coincidents and their probability. What I said is that those who believe something because if feels good or believe that anecdotal stories constitute proof are gullible.

I am still waiting for some actual scientific study, not piss-poor "research" by those who are only looking for something they can spin with sufficient mumbo-jumbo to claim they found it.Surely you don't have anything against "scientific methodology." Well, true, it can be tricky to apply to the study of psi/mental events... understandably enough. Being mental in kind they are not predictable or precise like gravity, abilities vary among people and over time and with circumstances, and such events most often occur spontaneously rather than "on command." Minds are much less obedient/lawful than matter/energy. ;)

What you basically said was that only the "gullible" are convinced by the "hits" of the psi researchers. So, you class those who find psi effects or events significant as "gullible," imaginative, and/or ignorant... as opposed to being "skeptical." Those are the colors of your paint. I am skeptical of how hard you are looking for studies that show significant psi effects, and even more so for authentic and impressive personal human experiences.
I notice that you are being very careful not to say exactly what you are talking about. So are you talking about: moving objects with will alone; talking with the dead; reading minds; seeing the future; astral projection; talking with god; getting mental messages from aliens; etc.?

Tell me what you are talking about and I'll tell you what I have read about the "research" into that subject and why I think the "methodology" is piss-poor.

[GenesisNemesis]

Experiences are all that we ever have... even in science.

We also have evidence, and objective reasoning. Anything to the contrary would not be science.

[figuer]

I have a question. Why do matters of the supernatural or paranormal always come down to "skeptics vs believers"?Bad choice of words on the part of those who claim experiencing rare phenomena.

[figuer]

We also have evidence, and objective reasoning. Anything to the contrary would not be science.Evidence = Experience. Objective reasoning is a tool to organize experience.

[GenesisNemesis]

Evidence = Experience. Objective reasoning is a tool to organize experience.

Evidence does not equal experience, but evidence would not be evidence without experience.

[figuer]

Evidence does not equal experience, but evidence would not be evidence without experience.Of course it does.

[GenesisNemesis]

Of course it does.

Experiences, at least, need to be repeatable.

[figuer]

All experiences are 'evidence' (of something)...but evidence is not proof.

Experiences which are constantly repeated are evidence of a particular regular behavior of reality.

[modernPrimitive]

To all,

Since some people here are of the mind that serious experiments have proven the existence of psi, could one of you provide an example of such a study (which would naturally have to be double-blind, performed by impartial researchers, and repeated by others)? A link to the peer-reviewed journal that published the findings will suffice. Since the examples are so numerous and we skeptics so blind, it should be cinch to find at least one such case. I look forward to being convinced that my position is incorrect!


Well if you understood the implications of the study then you would understand why this is a problem in the first place. And by the way this study was double-blinded; secondly I doubt that there is such a thing as an impartial researcher in which case as the study indicates holds a massive problem for scientific methodology.

[Abel]

All experiences are 'evidence' (of something)...but evidence is not proof.

Experiences which are constantly repeated are evidence of a particular regular behavior of reality.

No. Evidence is objective and is observer independent. Experience is subjective and is observer dependent. Evidence is outside the observer's mind. Experience is within the observer's mind. Evidence is an input. Experience is an output. Evidence is reliable. Experience is not.

[Abel]

Nope.

Interesting... after Mirage's rant, you consider my assessment of it to be "name-calling."

Yes. Mirage is attacking the subject of the thread.

[figuer]

No. Evidence is objective and is observer independent. Experience is subjective and is observer dependent. Evidence is outside the observer's mind. Experience is within the observer's mind. Evidence is an input. Experience is an output. Evidence is reliable. Experience is not.This is nonsense from beginning to end. Evidence is experience which has been given such a name because it is being documented in an investigation.

[modernPrimitive]

All experiences are 'evidence' (of something)...but evidence is not proof.

Experiences which are constantly repeated are evidence of a particular regular behavior of reality.

No. Evidence is objective and is observer independent.

Speculation. Proof would be an impossible experiment.

[PyramidHead]

When biased "skeptics" find clear evidence of psi, it will be obvious that their individual mental biases did not overwhelm the psi effect. It will be no big deal. It has already happened many times that "skeptics" have been able to drop their biases when faced with spontaneous personal psi events. For many, "up close and personal" is what it takes.

That's a nice little safety net you've woven there. When skeptics don't find evidence for your position, it must be their individual mental biases affecting the outcome. But when those same skeptics validate what you're saying, it's "obvious" that they were feeling slightly less biased that day?

In other words, since their results may or may not be overwhelmed by their not being convinced ahead of time, the lack of evidence is exactly what we'd expect if there were actually no evidence to be found.

Well, true, it can be tricky to apply to the study of psi/mental events... understandably enough. Being mental in kind they are not predictable or precise like gravity, abilities vary among people and over time and with circumstances, and such events most often occur spontaneously rather than "on command." Minds are much less obedient/lawful than matter/energy.

Okay, let me get my obfuscation checklist out:

1. Unpredictable phenomena (divine intervention, miracles, psychic abilities) don't have to be verified empirically like predictable phenomena. CHECK!

I notice you beg the question by noting that being "mental in kind" is enough to make them unpredictable. Why should mental events not be wholly predictable, given all the information? And why should this unpredictability give the lack of repeatable evidence a free pass, when in other scientific disciplines that lack is a deathblow to the hypothesis?

2. Variation among these phenomena (divine intervention etc.) is so high that we could never be expected to study them comprehensively, unless you want a reason to believe in their existence, in which case the current studies suffice. CHECK!

The object of scrutiny you're suggesting looks exactly how we'd expect something imaginary, suggested, and wholly anecdotal to look: no underlying pattern, no hits above the background noise of chance, only anecdotal support (which you hilariously continue to call "up close and personal" as if proximity to a single unrepresentative event makes it more valid).

3. These phenomena (etc.) can't be coaxed into happening, so the entire enterprise of double-blind study and causal research doesn't apply! Oh, again, unless you want to show somebody that it's been proven to exist. Then regular people science is your friend. CHECK.

Tell me, why do so many other mental events, such as depression, anxiety, sexual arousal, and humor have such a large presence in the peer-reviewed psychological literature, if "minds are much less obedient/lawful than matter/energy" (a qualifier that is bafflingly unsupported, since the former is composed of the latter)? You'd think nobody would be able to cull together a respectable study on clinical depression, since mental events can't be commanded or forced, are inherently unpredictable, and vary so much that no patterns would be perceived anyhow. So why do we know so much about clinical depression, the physiological basis of anxiety, the amygdala's role in the fight-or-flight response, etc.--but when it comes to psi, nothing other than "I know people who say they've had experiences"?

Again, if there's more to it than that, I'm waiting for you to point me to the journal where the papers on these uncontroversially-organized and soundly performed studies are located.

[Abel]

Impressive psi events are not something deduced/produced from observing states of certain material objects.Then what are they if not limited to the mind?


That's practically the opposite of what real psi events look like. Being essentially mental events, they do not involve the assumption that the study of material objects/processes/systems (science) tells the whole story. Are you saying here that psychic events can manifest themselves outside the mind for impartial observers to document? Or are they only mental processes exclusive to the individual; the common view of critics.

I certainly don't trust all claims of psi events or abilities. That would be silly. Neither do I automatically distrust them all. That would be equally silly (although I think I did when I was younger and sillier).
Why is it silly to reject claims of psychic abilities when no scientific data can be accumulated for study? For as long as humanity has addressed this issue, no reproducible, credible, viewable, documented, scientific data has been cataloged. The only constant is that the "events" occur within the brain.


I have seen and heard of (and been close to) enough very impressive and diverse ones to find no better explanation than that psi abilities exist. Mind is a pervasive aspect of reality. Care to share a couple of your best for "analysis?" :D

There is nothing about it to be afraid of.

There is nothing to be interested in outside the field of psychology.

Looping thoughts? I have no idea what you're suggesting.

Trapped in one's own mind; dazzled by mind experiences; ego.

[skepticalbip]

I can only say that I am so glad that real science didn't go the way of psi researchers. I can just imagine Galileo, instead of developing and testing hypothesis for his understanding of gravitation, simply accumulating anecdotal stories from people about seeing rocks fall. Then with a few hundred such stories in hand as proof, proclaim that rocks were more comfortable in the lowest possible position they can find so they try to get there.

The principal that rocks fall being established, someone reports to Galileo that they saw a witch fall. Obvious conclusion is that witches are made of rocks so anyone who falls must be a witch and should be burned.

Then someone reports that they have seen tools fall too, and they aren't rocks. - The report then spurs another round of gathering anecdotal stories of other tools falling. Conclusion: tools are possessed by rock spirits.

etc.

[figuer]

I can just imagine Newton, instead of developing and testing hypothesis for his laws of universal gravitation, simply accumulating anecdotal stories from people about seeing rocks fall.
Speaking of "anecdotal stories and falling rocks", are you aware that your dogmatic, dismissive attitude towards people's claims of experiencing Psi was the same that academic scientist displayed towards people who reported anecdotal stories about rocks falling from the sky? "Rocks can't fall from the sky" the scientist said. But they were wrong, the people were reporting meteorites, but the "scientist" thought they knew all about the Universe, so they felt confident denying any evidence that contradicted their world view...just as you do.

I can only say that I am so glad that real science didn't go the way of psi researchers.Seems you think that history has ended and that there is nothing new to learn, and that 'psi researchers' can not develop new experiments, or discover new evidence.

[skepticalbip]

I can just imagine Newton, instead of developing and testing hypothesis for his laws of universal gravitation, simply accumulating anecdotal stories from people about seeing rocks fall.
Speaking of "anecdotal stories and falling rocks", are you aware that your dogmatic, dismissive attitude towards people's claims of experiencing Psi was the same that academic scientist displayed towards people who reported anecdotal stories about rocks falling from the sky? "Rocks can't fall from the sky" the scientist said. But they were wrong, the people were reporting meteorites, but the "scientist" thought they knew all about the Universe, so they felt confident denying any evidence that contradicted their world view...just as you do.

I can only say that I am so glad that real science didn't go the way of psi researchers.Seems you think that history has ended and that there is nothing new to learn.
Where the hell did you see a dismissive attitude toward the claims of people experiencing "psi"? My criticism is for the "psi researchers'" lack of science rigor in determining what, how, and why the experiences.

Apparently you aren't familiar with the scientific method. Collecting anecdotal stories is not scientific research. It may, however, well indicate that there is something to investigate - or maybe not since there are numerous anecdotal stories spurred by all kinds of misunderstandings - some from mental delusions. Real scientific research into the stories could determine which.

The scientific method is, after becoming aware that there is something to investigate, to develop a hypothesis describing how or why it happens then testing that hypothesis (not collecting more claims of it happening). If the hypothesis fails then another hypothesis is developed to account for why and how it happens and tested. etc.

[figuer]

Apparently you aren't familiar with the scientific method.I am...I don't see any justification for such a silly ad hominem.

Collecting anecdotal stories is not scientific research. It may, however, well indicate that there is something to investigateYou are contradicting yourself here, apart from being wrong. Collecting "anecdotal stories" (observations) is an aspect of scientific research, indeed the first step.

[modernPrimitive]

Speaking of "anecdotal stories and falling rocks", are you aware that your dogmatic, dismissive attitude towards people's claims of experiencing Psi was the same that academic scientist displayed towards people who reported anecdotal stories about rocks falling from the sky? "Rocks can't fall from the sky" the scientist said. But they were wrong, the people were reporting meteorites, but the "scientist" thought they knew all about the Universe, so they felt confident denying any evidence that contradicted their world view...just as you do.

Seems you think that history has ended and that there is nothing new to learn.
Where the hell did you see a dismissive attitude toward the claims of people experiencing "psi"? My criticism is for the "psi researchers'" lack of science rigor in determining what, how, and why the experiences.

Apparently you aren't familiar with the scientific method. Collecting anecdotal stories is not scientific research. It may, however, well indicate that there is something to investigate - or maybe not since there are numerous anecdotal stories spurred by all kinds of misunderstandings - some from mental delusions. Real scientific research into the stories could determine which.

And when "real" scientists do this their research will be neatly labelled as parapsychology by the mainstream and their work ignored. Catch 22. Think about it.

The KPU has done extensive research into "psuedo-psi" - unconscious signalling etc etc. Perhaps psi is just ultimately pseudo-psi but we won't find out until it's properly funded and thoroughly investigated.

Read this public address by one of the KPU researchers. He clearly demonstrates a balanced and rational view of their research - promoting critical thinking:


[31:16]Yes, first of all to see if there actually is something going on because when you start looking at peoples experiences of telepathy what you find a lot of the time is that a lot of it is a bit dubious, that we tend to have selective memory of things that are impressive, like picking up the phone to call someone and they're at the other end of the line. that may happen a few times in our lifetime but you tend to remember that and you don't remember all the other time where nothing happened. So there's a lot of self deception going on in our memory of experiences like this so taking it into the lab and trying to recreate it under controlled conditions is first of all a step to see if it's actually happening, it's not just completely self-deception, and then to look at the possible mechanisms that might be involved.


source (http://www.slowfall.org/page/marios_kttenis)

Mainstream science accepts the placebo effect but they have done nothing to determine how or why it works.

[breezanne]

Experiences are all that we ever have... even in science.
We also have evidence, and objective reasoning. Anything to the contrary would not be science.Sometime the experience is the evidence (when the subject is experience).

[breezanne]

When biased "skeptics" find clear evidence of psi, it will be obvious that their individual mental biases did not overwhelm the psi effect. It will be no big deal. It has already happened many times that "skeptics" have been able to drop their biases when faced with spontaneous personal psi events. For many, "up close and personal" is what it takes.

That's a nice little safety net you've woven there. When skeptics don't find evidence for your position, it must be their individual mental biases affecting the outcome. But when those same skeptics validate what you're saying, it's "obvious" that they were feeling slightly less biased that day?

In other words, since their results may or may not be overwhelmed by their not being convinced ahead of time, the lack of evidence is exactly what we'd expect if there were actually no evidence to be found.

Well, true, it can be tricky to apply to the study of psi/mental events... understandably enough. Being mental in kind they are not predictable or precise like gravity, abilities vary among people and over time and with circumstances, and such events most often occur spontaneously rather than "on command." Minds are much less obedient/lawful than matter/energy.

Okay, let me get my obfuscation checklist out:

1. Unpredictable phenomena (divine intervention, miracles, psychic abilities) don't have to be verified empirically like predictable phenomena. CHECK!

I notice you beg the question by noting that being "mental in kind" is enough to make them unpredictable. Why should mental events not be wholly predictable, given all the information? And why should this unpredictability give the lack of repeatable evidence a free pass, when in other scientific disciplines that lack is a deathblow to the hypothesis?

2. Variation among these phenomena (divine intervention etc.) is so high that we could never be expected to study them comprehensively, unless you want a reason to believe in their existence, in which case the current studies suffice. CHECK!

The object of scrutiny you're suggesting looks exactly how we'd expect something imaginary, suggested, and wholly anecdotal to look: no underlying pattern, no hits above the background noise of chance, only anecdotal support (which you hilariously continue to call "up close and personal" as if proximity to a single unrepresentative event makes it more valid).

3. These phenomena (etc.) can't be coaxed into happening, so the entire enterprise of double-blind study and causal research doesn't apply! Oh, again, unless you want to show somebody that it's been proven to exist. Then regular people science is your friend. CHECK.

Tell me, why do so many other mental events, such as depression, anxiety, sexual arousal, and humor have such a large presence in the peer-reviewed psychological literature, if "minds are much less obedient/lawful than matter/energy" (a qualifier that is bafflingly unsupported, since the former is composed of the latter)? You'd think nobody would be able to cull together a respectable study on clinical depression, since mental events can't be commanded or forced, are inherently unpredictable, and vary so much that no patterns would be perceived anyhow. So why do we know so much about clinical depression, the physiological basis of anxiety, the amygdala's role in the fight-or-flight response, etc.--but when it comes to psi, nothing other than "I know people who say they've had experiences"?

Again, if there's more to it than that, I'm waiting for you to point me to the journal where the papers on these uncontroversially-organized and soundly performed studies are located.That's common sense I've woven there. We've got some evidence in the OP, and our task is to understand what it tells us.

In this case, what's your theory for why the negative attitudes had an effect at squashing significant psi effects? That they didn't?;) What's your theory for why we can often (as in this case) find significant psi effects? That we don't?;) I'm sorry, but you offer nothing but denials based on personal beliefs.

And actually, I don't assume that mental biases have affected every outcome where significant psi effects were not found. As I explained, psi abilities vary among people and over time and with circumstances. While alive in the body, they are not always evident. When they are evident, they represent evidence of their existence.

1. Unpredictable events are harder to study than predictable events. That doesn't mean that when they do happen, they didn't really happen.

Impressive psi events are impressive by virtue of being extremely unlikely due to chance. You need to spend less time resisting the fact that they occur, and spend more time asking yourself what hypothesis about reality best helps explain them.

2. We can and do study and record psi events, both the majority that occur spontaneously in daily life, and the study of various kinds of intentional psi activity.

There is an underlying pattern... many kinds of psi events occur in human experience. Even one single occurrence of something extremely unlike due to chance can be impressive. Multiply that times the number that actually occur. Even more impressive.

3. Double-blind studies and controls work just fine. But you have to remember that the subject of study is a potential mental activity, not an observable physical state. If you cannot remember that, you will be unable to make sense of the subject of your study.

The mental events you mentioned are all correlated tightly with "life in the body," so of course they are studied in conjunction with the body. They are nested in mind/body feedback and control loops. Depression, for instance has particular physiological correlates, and adjustment of those has great effect on mental experience. Guess what? Adjustment of mental attitudes and beliefs can also have great effect on physiological correlates. It works both ways. Just ask anyone who has benefited from therapy.

Anyway, back to the point. Psi events involve the connections between minds, and the connections between minds and mental and/or physical events, whether past, present, or future, whether near or far. If you think there is some "body" or physical stuff you can study that correlates with these kinds of connections, go ahead and start studying it.

First you'll have to propose it. Here's a start... these psi abilities might relate to the known nonlocality of reality, which I suspect you may now proceed to either deny and/or mischaracterize. But the puzzle pieces are already beginning to fit together to show us a larger and more coherent reality than you may expect.

Yeah, I'm not surprised I have little in common with someone with a taste for one of the creepiest bad guys I ever killed in a video game.

[breezanne]

Impressive psi events are not something deduced/produced from observing states of certain material objects.Then what are they if not limited to the mind?

Are you saying here that psychic events can manifest themselves outside the mind for impartial observers to document? Or are they only mental processes exclusive to the individual; the common view of critics.

Why is it silly to reject claims of psychic abilities when no scientific data can be accumulated for study? For as long as humanity has addressed this issue, no reproducible, credible, viewable, documented, scientific data has been cataloged. The only constant is that the "events" occur within the brain.

Care to share a couple of your best for "analysis?" :D

There is nothing to be interested in outside the field of psychology.

Looping thoughts? I have no idea what you're suggesting.
Trapped in one's own mind; dazzled by mind experiences; ego."Critics" cannot explain connections of "awareness" or "influence" between minds, or between minds and nonlocal events set in spacetime. Read the last four paragraphs in my post preceding this one.

It is silly to automatically distrust all claims of psi events or abilities. Particularly after you've seen some very impressive ones. Scientific data has been accumulated for study. See Jessica Utts, for example.

I've shared the case of a psychic informing a family that a recently deceased loved one had a previously unknown child (including gender) somewhere in the world. They didn't believe it... but it proved true within weeks. Opposite side of the world. They've since met.

So you don't think psi abilities are interesting. Why then are you here discussing them?

Well, I'm sure your thoughts are looping at least as much as my own. I'm at least somewhat aware of all that my mind is interconnected with.;)

[PyramidHead]

The scientific method is, after becoming aware that there is something to investigate, to develop a hypothesis describing how or why it happens then testing that hypothesis (not collecting more claims of it happening). If the hypothesis fails then another hypothesis is developed to account for why and how it happens and tested. etc.

Well put. Semantics can be invoked to argue that anecdote gathering is perhaps the first step rather than the pre-game (as figuer suggests), but that objection can only take one so far, because eventually the hypothesis needs to get past first base. I've asked the proponents of psi several times on this thread to point to the studies that have been done in this vein, and I haven't heard any forthcoming examples.

And the whole mainstream rejection line is getting pretty tiresome at this point. First of all, scientific discoveries that completely and undeniably alter the currently accepted theoretical framework are highly rewarded in the community. You'd get name recognition, and endless flow of grant money, and worldwide attention for having proven a previously unknown aspect of the universe's structure, and perhaps hailed as the most important scientist in history since Darwin. Never mind string theory, this would be a deathblow to everything we know about physics thus far. What scientist would resist such an offer of financial and intellectual stardom? The only explanation for this lukewarm reception and widespread reluctance is that the experimental findings in the area of psi have been unconvincing. I haven't heard a better explanation for why an acedemic department whose stated goal is to fund new and exciting research wouldn't jump at the chance to become internationally renown.

If there was even a remote possibility that psi phenomena were real, there would be multiple accredited universities racing to be the first one to prove it. You think mental events are unpredictable, breezanne? Tell that to the researchers around the world with multi-billion dollar particle accelerators, trying to be the first to show the existence of the Higgs boson. They know they may never find it, and they know that to many people it's considered fringe research. But they do it because the theoretical evidence matches so well with what has so far been demonstrated experimentally that the Higgs boson is very likely to be detectable, and the first one to detect and quantify it gets the accolade of the world. Comparitively, the discovery of unshakeable evidence for psi would be more scientifically awesome than the Higgs boson by a factor of a thousand. And yet nobody in the mainstream community of scientists seems to think it's worth bothering about. Why? There must be a deficiency in the evidence for psi, both theoretical and experimental, otherwise science departments would be opening psi testing wings in droves--how expensive could it be, after all, when compared to the Large Hadron Collider? So what's the big hold-up? Their cherished materialist dogmas? Not to any practical scientist faced with the prospect of being remembered throughout history. Of course, we all know the real reason. The data is so flimsy and inconclusive, or outright damning, to the psi hypothesis (such as it is) that everybody has rightly agreed it's superstition and wish-thinking.

I'm still waiting to be proven wrong on this, by the way! I love comic books and video games, as my screen name suggests, and nobody would be more tripped-out and gleeful if telepathy was proven than me! You can all start pointing to the double-blind controlled and repeated experiments that show positive psi effects over chance levels! Anybody...?

[LeoM]

The scientific method is, after becoming aware that there is something to investigate, to develop a hypothesis describing how or why it happens then testing that hypothesis (not collecting more claims of it happening). If the hypothesis fails then another hypothesis is developed to account for why and how it happens and tested. etc.

Well put. Semantics can be invoked to argue that anecdote gathering is perhaps the first step rather than the pre-game (as figuer suggests), but that objection can only take one so far, because eventually the hypothesis needs to get past first base. I've asked the proponents of psi several times on this thread to point to the studies that have been done in this vein, and I haven't heard any forthcoming examples.

And the whole mainstream rejection line is getting pretty tiresome at this point. First of all, scientific discoveries that completely and undeniably alter the currently accepted theoretical framework are highly rewarded in the community. You'd get name recognition, and endless flow of grant money, and worldwide attention for having proven a previously unknown aspect of the universe's structure, and perhaps hailed as the most important scientist in history since Darwin. Never mind string theory, this would be a deathblow to everything we know about physics thus far. What scientist would resist such an offer of financial and intellectual stardom? The only explanation for this lukewarm reception and widespread reluctance is that the experimental findings in the area of psi have been unconvincing. I haven't heard a better explanation for why an acedemic department whose stated goal is to fund new and exciting research wouldn't jump at the chance to become internationally renown.

If there was even a remote possibility that psi phenomena were real, there would be multiple accredited universities racing to be the first one to prove it. You think mental events are unpredictable, breezanne? Tell that to the researchers around the world with multi-billion dollar particle accelerators, trying to be the first to show the existence of the Higgs boson. They know they may never find it, and they know that to many people it's considered fringe research. But they do it because the theoretical evidence matches so well with what has so far been demonstrated experimentally that the Higgs boson is very likely to be detectable, and the first one to detect and quantify it gets the accolade of the world. Comparitively, the discovery of unshakeable evidence for psi would be more scientifically awesome than the Higgs boson by a factor of a thousand. And yet nobody in the mainstream community of scientists seems to think it's worth bothering about. Why? There must be a deficiency in the evidence for psi, both theoretical and experimental, otherwise science departments would be opening psi testing wings in droves--how expensive could it be, after all, when compared to the Large Hadron Collider? So what's the big hold-up? Their cherished materialist dogmas? Not to any practical scientist faced with the prospect of being remembered throughout history. Of course, we all know the real reason. The data is so flimsy and inconclusive, or outright damning, to the psi hypothesis (such as it is) that everybody has rightly agreed it's superstition and wish-thinking.

I'm still waiting to be proven wrong on this, by the way! I love comic books and video games, as my screen name suggests, and nobody would be more tripped-out and gleeful if telepathy was proven than me! You can all start pointing to the double-blind controlled and repeated experiments that show positive psi effects over chance levels! Anybody...?

It's more than their materialist biases any scientist that dares to jump ship loses everything they ever worked for. Psi is repeated but not 100 percent repeatable their are many phenomena in behavorial sciences that are not 100 percent repeatable either.

[Dogfish]

in this setup there was a helpee, a helper, and an "experimenter". but why did there have to be an experimenter at all. why couldn't the helper have merely been handed a sheet with instructions. maybe you could even have a machine print out the sheet so that it never got "contaminated by the psychic residues of a skeptic". the helpers could themselves be the skeptics or believers.


I think the idea was to see whether the experimenter actually influenced the outcome rather than the participants specifially. It has interesting connotations for all scientific expereimntation. Your idea would also make for an interesting experiment though, I'm sure results would be similar.



"The positive psi result could not be due to subtle cueing of the experimenters or helpees, because all were blind to the randomised condition manipulations that were taking place during the psi task"


anyway, it all comes down to reproducibility.

And if someone did get the funding to do this and the result was positive would that be enough to change the skeptics mind's forever. I somehow doubt it. I've been pondering whether I should fund a follow up....would anyone know what that would cost - roughly?

I don't know why you feel that we are dead-set against the existance of psi. That we don't want it to be true. We've seen nothing but useless, poorly done experiments, as well as blatant lying from so-called "researchers". And, because of such a shitty track record, you dis us for not jumping on your poorly built bandwagon? It's pretty obvious from you're posts you have an emotional need to believe all this crap to be true. We don't.

[breezanne]

Right. From whence springs your emotional need for it not to be true?

[Dogfish]

Quite a post there, Mirage. Your fervor and contempt sound just like those of a fundie religious zealot railing against a "sinner." Laden with beliefs and emotions and sweeping accusations and insults.

Why the name calling? Wouldn't a more reasoned rebuttal that includes some solid science be more appropriate?

I have to wonder if you would RECOGNIZE solid science...

[LeoM]

I think the idea was to see whether the experimenter actually influenced the outcome rather than the participants specifially. It has interesting connotations for all scientific expereimntation. Your idea would also make for an interesting experiment though, I'm sure results would be similar.



"The positive psi result could not be due to subtle cueing of the experimenters or helpees, because all were blind to the randomised condition manipulations that were taking place during the psi task"



And if someone did get the funding to do this and the result was positive would that be enough to change the skeptics mind's forever. I somehow doubt it. I've been pondering whether I should fund a follow up....would anyone know what that would cost - roughly?

I don't know why you feel that we are dead-set against the existance of psi. That we don't want it to be true. We've seen nothing but useless, poorly done experiments, as well as blatant lying from so-called "researchers". And, because of such a shitty track record, you dis us for not jumping on your poorly built bandwagon? It's pretty obvious from you're posts you have an emotional need to believe all this crap to be true. We don't.

There have only two cases that have been found as fraud in psi experiments. I see nothing but lying on the side of the materialist scientists.

In "The Elusive Quarry," he admits that nobody has offered a satisfactory "normal" explanation for the Home phenomena or the Ganzfeld results (he still thinks that the scientific community shouldn't take parapsychology seriously). He also agreed with Jessica Utts that the CIA remote viewing evidence can't be explained away. Hyman is an obscurantist, but at least he has some semblance of intellectual honesty.

[modernPrimitive]

Then what are they if not limited to the mind?

Are you saying here that psychic events can manifest themselves outside the mind for impartial observers to document? Or are they only mental processes exclusive to the individual; the common view of critics.

Why is it silly to reject claims of psychic abilities when no scientific data can be accumulated for study? For as long as humanity has addressed this issue, no reproducible, credible, viewable, documented, scientific data has been cataloged. The only constant is that the "events" occur within the brain.

Care to share a couple of your best for "analysis?" :D

There is nothing to be interested in outside the field of psychology.


Trapped in one's own mind; dazzled by mind experiences; ego."Critics" cannot explain connections of "awareness" or "influence" between minds, or between minds and nonlocal events set in spacetime. Read the last couple of paragraphs in my post preceding this one.

It is silly to automatically distrust all claims of psi events or abilities. Particularly after you've seen some very impressive ones. Scientific data has been accumulated for study. See Jessica Utts, for example.

I've shared the case of a psychic informing a family that a recently deceased loved one had a previously unknown child (including gender) somewhere in the world. They didn't believe it... but it proved true within weeks. Opposite side of the world. They've since met.

So you don't think psi abilities are interesting. Why then are you here discussing them?

There are lots of cases (both personal and public) that indicate the existence of psi through their ridiculous statistical significane. The problem with statistical analysis of said psi events is that as an average over multiple experiments lowers the score significantly indicating that psi is very much a hit and miss affair. Utts had similar comments about her analysis of PEAR experiments, specifically remote viewing, where certain tests with certain "gifted" individuals produced results so positive that their statistical significance could simply not even be calculated given the amount of detail they offered. On other occasions with other testees results might have only been slightly higher than chance.

The problem of reproducibility boils down to the following:

1) Psi is bogus
2) People misinterpret psi for pseudo-psi (unconscious signals / body language etc)

OR

3) Psi is a largely sponteneous event that is difficult to control, hence current scientific method fails to do it justice.

Skeptics assume points 1 or 2 to be responsible for lack of reproducibility.

Now why is it so difficult to comprehend point 3 as being responsible for certain events?
If I asked anyone here to induce an emotional response at will (say, a feeling of love) and repeat it at given random intervals for a specific duration of time how do you think you would fare?

[Dogfish]

Right. From whence springs your emotional need for it not to be true?

See, your need to mis represent what I said and put words in my mouth shows how right I am. I have no need for it to be untrue.

[breezanne]

Right. From whence springs your emotional need for it not to be true?
See, your need to mis represent what I said and put words in my mouth shows how right I am. I have no need for it to be untrue.And we have no need for it to be true. So quit misrepresenting others by saying they have an "emotional need to believe all this crap to be true." The table turns.

[modernPrimitive]

It's pretty obvious from you're posts you have an emotional need to believe all this crap to be true. We don't.

Yes, you're quite correct - I do have an emotional reason behind my argument which simply boils down to the fact I have witnessed full-blown psi personally and I detest being called a fraud or delusional when neither are true. Your conclusions are as dangerous to people who experience psi as Christianity was to scientific enquiry in the past.

[breezanne]

"Critics" cannot explain connections of "awareness" or "influence" between minds, or between minds and nonlocal events set in spacetime. Read the last couple of paragraphs in my post preceding this one.

It is silly to automatically distrust all claims of psi events or abilities. Particularly after you've seen some very impressive ones. Scientific data has been accumulated for study. See Jessica Utts, for example.

I've shared the case of a psychic informing a family that a recently deceased loved one had a previously unknown child (including gender) somewhere in the world. They didn't believe it... but it proved true within weeks. Opposite side of the world. They've since met.

So you don't think psi abilities are interesting. Why then are you here discussing them?

There are lots of cases (both personal and public) that indicate the existence of psi through their ridiculous statistical significane. The problem with statistical analysis of said psi events is that as an average over multiple experiments lowers the score significantly indicating that psi is very much a hit and miss affair. Utts had similar comments about her analysis of PEAR experiments, specifically remote viewing, where certain tests with certain "gifted" individuals produced results so positive that their statistical significance could simply not even be calculated given the amount of detail they offered. On other occasions with other testees results might have only been slightly higher than chance.

The problem of reproducibility boils down to the following:

1) Psi is bogus
2) People misinterpret psi for pseudo-psi (unconscious signals / body language etc)

OR

3) Psi is a largely sponteneous event that is difficult to control, hence current scientific method fails to do it justice.

Skeptics assume points 1 or 2 to be responsible for lack of reproducibility.

Now why is it so difficult to comprehend point 3 as being responsible for certain events?
If I asked anyone here to induce an emotional response at will (say, a feeling of love) and repeat it at given random intervals for a specific duration of time how do you think you would fare?One of the most egregious errors in statistical logic is when anti-psi folks claim that psi ability should be averaged over the population. That's like saying that because the average person would run 100 meters in about 25 seconds, it's impossible for anyone to run it in less than 10 seconds. With psi, it's the extreme improbability of individual events, like the extreme speed of an individual run, that establishes the real existence of sporadic but remarkable abilities.

[Dogfish]

I don't know why you feel that we are dead-set against the existance of psi. That we don't want it to be true. We've seen nothing but useless, poorly done experiments, as well as blatant lying from so-called "researchers". And, because of such a shitty track record, you dis us for not jumping on your poorly built bandwagon? It's pretty obvious from you're posts you have an emotional need to believe all this crap to be true. We don't.

There have only two cases that have been found as fraud in psi experiments. I see nothing but lying on the side of the materialist scientists.

In "The Elusive Quarry," he admits that nobody has offered a satisfactory "normal" explanation for the Home phenomena or the Ganzfeld results (he still thinks that the scientific community shouldn't take parapsychology seriously). He also agreed with Jessica Utts that the CIA remote viewing evidence can't be explained away. Hyman is an obscurantist, but at least he has some semblance of intellectual honesty.

:rolling::rolling::rolling:

My god, it IS just like a religion to you guys, isn't it? No, I won't do your research for you, but if you really think that there have only been 2 cases of fraud in psi research, you have obviously been redefining words to fit your beliefs, a practice well-documented in the christian circles. The paralells are sooo blatant. "If you don't believe, then you don't want it to be true/you hate god". "If the "evidence" doesn't convince you, you're mental state is keeping you from seeing/you're not reading the bible right". "If it is not reproducible, than it is because the mind is variable/you can't test god". "I have seen, heard about, read about psi/divine experiences, so how can they all be false?".
"Look at all the "science" I can pull out of my ass that appears to support psi/god, but the science that doesn't support it is not science, because if it was, it would support what I believe, and that makes them liars".

I am constantly amazed how much people can let their emotional neediness take over the rational part of the brain.

[Dogfish]

See, your need to mis represent what I said and put words in my mouth shows how right I am. I have no need for it to be untrue.And we have no need for it to be true. So quit misrepresenting others by saying they have an "emotional need to believe all this crap to be true." The table turns.

Your accusation that people who don't accept your "evidence" don't want psi to be true is the game of an emotional child.

[breezanne]

I am constantly amazed how much people can let their emotional neediness take over the rational part of the brain.
Me too, Dogfish, me too. Like denying all evidence that contradicts your pet dogma. That dogma doesn't need you any more than you need it.

[breezanne]

And we have no need for it to be true. So quit misrepresenting others by saying they have an "emotional need to believe all this crap to be true." The table turns.Your accusation that people who don't accept your "evidence" don't want psi to be true is the game of an emotional child.Interestingly, it was a mirror of your very own accusation. Back atcha.

[Dogfish]

It's pretty obvious from you're posts you have an emotional need to believe all this crap to be true. We don't.

Yes, you're quite correct - I do have an emotional reason behind my argument which simply boils down to the fact I have witnessed full-blown psi personally and I detest being called a fraud or delusional when neither are true. Your conclusions are as dangerous to people who experience psi as Christianity was to scientific enquiry in the past.

But I would not insist that personal witness of an event makes it true. I would sooner consider that the experience itself is misjudged, especially if I looked at the track record of psi, as well as my wish for it to be true.

[Dogfish]

Your accusation that people who don't accept your "evidence" don't want psi to be true is the game of an emotional child.Interestingly, it was a mirror of your very own accusation. Back atcha.

Again with the childish comeback. YOU are the one who made the first accusation. I haven't used, "I'm rubber, you're glue..." since 1st grade.
:rolleyes:

[figuer]

But I would not insist that personal witness of an event makes it true. I would sooner consider that the experience itself is misjudged...:eek: Thus you would deny your own personal experience in order to accommodate it to some external socially sanctioned dogma. That has a name: FUNDAMENTALISM.

[Dogfish]

I am constantly amazed how much people can let their emotional neediness take over the rational part of the brain.
Me too, Dogfish, me too. Like denying all evidence that contradicts your pet dogma. That dogma doesn't need you any more than you need it.

Again, you are assuming that I deny all "evidence" unjustly, and that I have a "dogma". You have no basis for doing so, but I guess you got nowhere else to go.

[Dogfish]

But I would not insist that personal witness of an event makes it true. I would sooner consider that the experience itself is misjudged...:eek: Thus you would deny your own personal experience in order to accommodate it to some external socially sanctioned dogma. That has a name: FUNDAMENTALISM.

???? So you're saying a reasoned, rational evaluation of personal experiece, taking into consideration how both chemical and emotional states can alter our perceptions, as well as the power of group dynamics, the attraction of belonging to a group, the pull of unique/limited knowledge (also considering the failed attempts/outright hoaxes in the field -Uri Gellar, anyone who has ever applied for the Randi bucks, etc..) is dogma?

Guilty.

And nice redefinition of "fundamentalism".

[figuer]

So you're saying a reasoned, rational evaluation of personal experiece, taking into consideration how both chemical and emotional states can alter our perceptions, as well as the power of group dynamics, the attraction of belonging to a group, the pull of unique/limited knowledge is dogma?No... dogma is reaching a particular conclusion instead of leaving the question of explanation open. If you have an experience that seems to belong to the category Psi, then there is no obligation for you to either accept or deny such categorisation.

[breezanne]

Interestingly, it was a mirror of your very own accusation. Back atcha.

Again with the childish comeback. YOU are the one who made the first accusation. I haven't used, "I'm rubber, you're glue..." since 1st grade.
:rolleyes:Refer to post #83. It was in defense of someone else that I called you on your crap.
Again, you are assuming that I deny all "evidence" unjustly, and that I have a "dogma". You have no basis for doing so, but I guess you got nowhere else to go.Not an assumption, just an observation... of your repeated, emotionally laden remarks denying all evidence.

[Dogfish]

So you're saying a reasoned, rational evaluation of personal experiece, taking into consideration how both chemical and emotional states can alter our perceptions, as well as the power of group dynamics, the attraction of belonging to a group, the pull of unique/limited knowledge is dogma?No... dogma is reaching a particular conclusion instead of leaving the question of explanation open. If you have an experience that seems to belong to the category Psi, then there is no obligation for you to either accept or deny such categorisation.

And notice that I said "would sooner consider". But it sure sounds like you're as dogmatic as anybody. You seem to have decided it's existance, and wave away all who don't accept it.

[Dogfish]

Again with the childish comeback. YOU are the one who made the first accusation. I haven't used, "I'm rubber, you're glue..." since 1st grade.
:rolleyes:Refer to post #83. It was in defense of someone else that I called you on your crap.
Again, you are assuming that I deny all "evidence" unjustly, and that I have a "dogma". You have no basis for doing so, but I guess you got nowhere else to go.Not an assumption, just an observation... of your repeated, emotionally laden remarks denying all evidence.

But my emotion isn't in the denying of evidence. It's just that seeing childish attempts at rationalization and the mis-definition of words gets to be aggrevating. I have no emotional investment in the existance of psi phenomenon. It's just a strawman that makes you feel good to knock about.

[figuer]

But it sure sounds like you're as dogmatic as anybody. You seem to have decided it's existance, and wave away all who don't accept it.After countless experiences involving unbiased, materialistic confirmation it would be rather ilogical not to realize that some form of connection between minds involving a yet unidentified mechanism exist.

[modernPrimitive]

Yes, you're quite correct - I do have an emotional reason behind my argument which simply boils down to the fact I have witnessed full-blown psi personally and I detest being called a fraud or delusional when neither are true. Your conclusions are as dangerous to people who experience psi as Christianity was to scientific enquiry in the past.

But I would not insist that personal witness of an event makes it true. I would sooner consider that the experience itself is misjudged, especially if I looked at the track record of psi, as well as my wish for it to be true.

And I would agree in principle.
However I've looked at many counter arguments - pseudo-psi: unconscious singalling, body language, confirmation bias, false memories, hallucination etc. and none of these can honestly account of the certain events. In some cases sure, but not all. So if I'm to be intellectually honest with myself then I must assume that "true psi" (whatever that might entail) is currently the best explanation.

[Dogfish]

But it sure sounds like you're as dogmatic as anybody. You seem to have decided it's existance, and wave away all who don't accept it.After countless experiences involving unbiased, materialistic confirmation it would be rather ilogical not to realize that some form of connection between minds involving a yet unidentified mechanism exist.

"Countless"??? You've GOT to be kidding! If this was true, there would be hardly a question of its existence. :rolleyes:

[figuer]

"Countless"??? You've GOT to be kidding! If this was true, there would be hardly a question of its existence.It is true...and I don't have any question of its existence...I have questions regarding its mechanics and function.

[modernPrimitive]

After countless experiences involving unbiased, materialistic confirmation it would be rather ilogical not to realize that some form of connection between minds involving a yet unidentified mechanism exist.

"Countless"??? You've GOT to be kidding! If this was true, there would be hardly a question of its existence. :rolleyes:

I think Figuer meant personally. I'd imagine that those that don't have strong first-hand experience with psi probably wouldn't care either way.

[figuer]

I think Figuer meant personally.Certainly. He wasn´t reading carefully...I wonder why...perhaps is has to do with the theme of this thread...

[Abel]

But, repeatedly, you say that psychic abilities are not measurable:

3. Double-blind studies and controls work just fine. But you have to remember that the subject of study is a potential mental activity, not an observable physical state. If you cannot remember that, you will be unable to make sense of the subject of your study.

The mental events you mentioned are all correlated tightly with "life in the body," so of course they are studied in conjunction with the body. They are nested in mind/body feedback and control loops. Depression, for instance has particular physiological correlates, and adjustment of those has great effect on mental experience. Guess what? Adjustment of mental attitudes and beliefs can also have great effect on physiological correlates. It works both ways. Just ask anyone who has benefited from therapy.

Anyway, back to the point. Psi events involve the connections between minds, and the connections between minds and mental and/or physical events, whether past, present, or future, whether near or far. If you think there is some "body" or physical stuff you can study that correlates with these kinds of connections, go ahead and start studying it.

What is your goal? And more broadly, what is the goal of psychic proponents? How do you hope to convince scientists that anything more than brain activity is going on? Beyond psychologists' branding of said activity as delusional?

[Lavis Knight]

I am unfortunately going to have to close this thread as the tone is becoming less than civil. If you wish to further discuss the plausibility of PSI in the future please refrain from personal attacks.

-Lavis