Psychic Abilitys

Post Reply New Topic

First, punctuation is your friend.

Second, stop quoting that image of the money stacks. It's getting to big to load quickly and it clutters up the boards.

Third, we in fact give paranormal claims a fair chance. If you can prove under controlled double-blind conditions that paranormal forces exist, and those results can be repeated by others in similar conditions, not only will you have proved the existence of the paranormal to everyone's satisfaction, you will also be rich and famous.

other studies have had double blind situations but yet scientists still believe the variables were not controlled enough. Then the study gets locked in a revolving door of rebuttal, rebuttal to the rebuttal, and so on. Science does not want to accept the possibility because psychic abilities is seen in the same vein as magic, ghosts, etc.

Ok. Which studies? Describe the methodoloy. Were the results duplicated by others or only arrived at by a single individual or team?

Scientists who are critical of parapsychology begin with the assertion that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Proponents of hypotheses that contradict centuries of scientific research must provide extraordinary evidence if their hypotheses are to be taken seriously.[27]

The reality of parapsychological phenomena and the scientific validity of parapsychological research is a matter of continued dispute. The methods of parapsychologists are regarded by some detractors as a pseudoscience.[6] Some of the more specific criticisms state that parapsychology does not have a clearly defined subject matter, an easily repeatable experiment that can demonstrate a psi effect on demand, nor an underlying theory to explain the paranormal transfer of information.[30] James E. Alcock, Professor of Psychology at York University, said that few of parapsychology's experimental results have prompted interdisciplinary research with more mainstream sciences such as physics or biology. Alcock states that parapsychology remains isolated science to such an extent that its very legitimacy is questionable,[31] and as a whole is not justified in being labeled "scientific".[32]

1) Clearly Defined Subject matter - there is none that would be classified as science as correct because theres no scientific principle that can support it. It is not through genetics as said before which the only other theory would be a locked in ability that most don't access like people who use ecolocation but again scientists believe they have the brain figured out so they wouldn't accept such a claim. Parapsychology has lumped alot of different abilities together.

2) A repeatable experiment that demonstrates a psi effect - most psi effects discounting pyro and telekinesis are not demonstrated in the conventional sense hence it would be ahrd to demonstrate such an effect that does not leave an energy trail or show anything available that could not be taken as subjective data.

3) Underlying theory of explanation - none of any theory that can explain it would be accepted by the scientific community due to the fact that most of it can't be scientifically explained.

2) A repeatable experiment that demonstrates a psi effect - most psi effects discounting pyro and telekinesis are not demonstrated in the conventional sense hence it would be ahrd to demonstrate such an effect that does not leave an energy trail or show anything available that could not be taken as subjective data.

Please post the url to the entire article. Thanks.




I'll go ahead and grant you (1) and (3) for the sake of argument. I am not convinced that you are right, but it seems to me that there could be reasonable debate about them (for reasons I will go into if asked) so I'll let it go. Number 2 is where I have trouble:





If I understand you, what you are saying here is that there is something, let's call it P, that exists but cannot be demonstrated or detected either on its own or in its effects. In other words, you are saying that there is no proof of P. Why, then, do you believe "P" rather than "not P?"

I'm taking it as it doesn't have an energy we can measure currently. I believe P because it seems reasonable that such ability exists but currently is an infantile stage. Personally I think if its not a so called physical effect that can be measured through energy measuring or brain measuring devices that they would conclude that its not there. If the subject stated that something was correct then scientists would say that information is from a biased source Aka (uncontrolled variable). I just think to know what a psi effect is we need to know what exactly psi is without knowing that how can we "demonstrate" it.

I believe P exists but we do not know how to measure it or observe it and I believe it falls outside of scientific way of thinking.

Did you...did you read what I wrote? Do you understand what I am asking? You have as much as said there is no proof, but you believe anyway.

You also say that it falls outside the "scientific way of thinking" (which betrays a complete ignorance of what science actually is, but I won't go into that unless asked) while at the same time arguing that the Schwartz experiments are scientifically valid.

no I'm saying science will not give paranormal a fair shot so you can't be like well if it was right I'd be scientifically proven cause that is false. So if you don't believe it believe it because you don't believe it don't not believe it due to science saying its wrong. Science would not allow such a thing to be proven as fact because it esses up with the scientific agenda to replace religion. While the people who do not feel science is a replacement for religion will study it make a report it will be rebutted by those who want to make science replace religion as its own political power.

They refut it on the basis of peer review and uncontrolled variables but as every scientist says that is really not that much of a common measure and many things that are taken as fact have not been peer reviewed or every variable controlled. Its a different amount of scrunity I remember reading one rebuttal that acutally admitted that the guy never had his work peer reviewed or a firm control of variables but he said because of the topic all those measures should be in place. That is contradictory in nature and no matter how much firmer people control variables they will always say its not enough because if its proven as a fact they'd need a reason and there is no real reason.

Its a gift while sometimes genetic most are usually not genetic so what can they call it a disease? everyone would be trying to get that disease. How is it spread? how is people chosen to have this gift? all the lack of answers to these questions would hurt science badly since psychic ability was always kind of weird subject who noone but the crazy scientist took. So as I'm saying believe what you want but honestly if we apply the same scrunity that has been asked for 75% of the things that science has "proven" is wrong. So theres no way anyone can say psychics had a fair shake on this they didn't and theres alot of proof that it does exist.

So you were saying you wanted me to show some facts I did and thats only the tip of the iceburg on it. So don't put down anyone's belief in psychics because obviously it was such a unbelieveable thing that much of the cold war was devoted to get telekinetics (they can manipulate the rhythm of the heart see : Nina Kulagina), telepaths (used in spy operations, and psychically wiped targets to assassinate then recover making them look crazy.), remote viewing (this allowed to find people who were hard to find or submarines and such project stargate was initially very good at this operation).

The KGB in particular came out with some technology through their observations of psychic talent. Mostly using radiowaves to block certain emotions like fear. Russians even helped a nation who was against America and another force by using remote viewers to help them avoid planted landmines. They also used radiowave technology to get people sick which they usually pointed towards US Embassy buildings.

Its a topic I find interesting but I responded to you thinking that your way is right its not. If Psychic power wasn't possible the Russians and Americans wouldn't have used it. Am I saying do a 360 and suddenly whole heartedly believe in psychics? nah thats your choice but you gotta understand that because of the biases in the world there is no facts because a fact is objective and unable to rewritten which all of our "facts" currently can be. So understand the political forces and agendas behind where your learning your information. Then you'll be able to find your own truth and know which information is real and what information is propoganda and dogma.

your missing my point if Schwartz study was on something that was more accepted by science it would be accepted. It is believed due to the fact that without P that certain things could happen (IE: accuracy of psychics who are good) Scientific studies alot of them are not peer reviewed alot of them don't have controlled variables but because its about parapsychology they feel its more proof full well knowing that the topic cannot be proved with extraordinary evidence but yet if this was more accepted those things would have never came up.

I believe eveutally if more work is done in that area they could find a way to acknowledge P but at the current level I think it falls outside. Effectively you missed my point if Gary Schwartz was doing a study on something scientific like energy electricy, chimerstry or the like he would not be in a rebuttal study about this topic.

You more or less said that you believe in the paranormal in response to beautifalspam right? Yet you also said that it can't be tested, so why are you critisising scientists for being unable to come to a conclusion when you say it can't be tested? What exactly do you want from scientists, "Yup it's completely true but we don't know how", yeah that's really scientific, kind of like an art critic saying about a piece of art "It's great but I don't know how, or why. But I said it's good so try it out anyway!", not good enough.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-01/medium.html

What about this link that was provided to me by Wikipedia on Gary Schwartz' Wikipedi Article? It provides a critique of his methods.

"I believe eveutally if more work is done in that area they could find a way to acknowledge P but at the current level I think it falls outside." So you want scientists to do more research into that area when a lot of the evidence seems to go contrary to what you say about the validity of the Paranormal?

Hi Deus.

I was often told in college that the most honest way to engage in debate in papers and in general conversation is to restate the opposing argument in the most favorable light and attack that argument. So I'm going to restate his argument here as I understand it and then explain why I disagree.

I think he is saying that scientists demand an underlying theory that would explain observed events, and since no such theory exists they refuse to take experimental data from medium researchers seriously.

I happen to think he is wrong, but it is not an irrational argument. Long before we had a theory of why and how gravitation occurs, Newton was working out complex descriptions of observed gravitational effects as a property of matter with a high degree of predictive validity.

I think what he is looking for is a Newton of the paranormal. Someone who can prove correlations or even cause and effect under controlled conditions without being required to propose a mechanism that explains the correlations etc.

Personally, I agree with him about this. When experiments produce strong positive results I don't imagine that we can throw them out merely because we are ignorant of the mechanism that causes them.

Where I disagree with him is in his contention that the lack of a theory of a psychic mechanism is the primary reason that scientists won't accept the schwartz experiments. In fact, the main reason that they won't accept the results is that, well, his methodology is ret*d, his results often little better than chance, and what positive results he claims to have observed are easily explained by rater bias, poor controls, etc. I am a little surprised that the University of Arizona puts up with him.

I am not even going to go into the kgb/ pentagon/ remote viewing canard. I enjoy the Art Bell show as much as anyone else, but the fact that the government spent money on something doesn't prove that it works.

but then your forgetting about the other studies that were done like the scientist who studied project stargate. There are other studies which don't claim that paranormal activies are flawless but indicate that knowledge that mediums find out is beyond a reason for them to know in such detail. Also lets not forget that gary schrwartz whether or not he did poor controls or not this kind of scurnity is not applied to other fields that science believes in so even if its a matter of he should have he probably didn't because most times these topics are not brought up.

I believe it should be treated as any other area of study as said before if this level of scrunity was applied to anything else things would be unlikely to be proven thats why nothing is done in that field and not lack of a legimitate try. Lets also remember some of that is what gary schwartz said some may not be your reading almost exclusively from the skeptic inquirer who are funded by James Randi.

Hi Deus.

I was often told in college that the most honest way to engage in debate in papers and in general conversation is to restate the opposing argument in the most favorable light and attack that argument. So I'm going to restate his argument here as I understand it and then explain why I disagree.

I think he is saying that scientists demand an underlying theory that would explain observed events, and since no such theory exists they refuse to take experimental data from medium researchers seriously.

I happen to think he is wrong, but it is not an irrational argument. Long before we had a theory of why and how gravitation occurs, Newton was working out complex descriptions of observed gravitational effects as a property of matter with a high degree of predictive validity.

I think what he is looking for is a Newton of the paranormal. Someone who can prove correlations or even cause and effect under controlled conditions without being required to propose a mechanism that explains the correlations etc.

Personally, I agree with him about this. When experiments produce strong positive results I don't imagine that we can throw them out merely because we are ignorant of the mechanism that causes them.

Where I disagree with him is in his contention that the lack of a theory of a psychic mechanism is the primary reason that scientists won't accept the schwartz experiments. In fact, the main reason that they won't accept the results is that, well, his methodology is ret*d, his results often little better than chance, and what positive results he claims to have observed are easily explained by rater bias, poor controls, etc. I am a little surprised that the University of Arizona puts up with him.

I am not even going to go into the kgb/ pentagon/ remote viewing canard. I enjoy the Art Bell show as much as anyone else, but the fact that the government spent money on something doesn't prove that it works.