|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2002 : 20:52:37
|
And just one more.
Which of the following statements do you think most accurately describes psychic ability?
1) ESP is impossible and all reports are explainable as coincidence, delusion, halucination, or outright fraud.
2) ESP is remotely possible, but there is virtually no evidence to support it.
3) ESP is a credible research topic, but the evidence is inconclusive.
4) ESP is likely a real phenomenon and it has strong empirical support, but no solid proof as of yet.
5) ESP is a proven fact that as yet has no theoretical explanation.
And again, thank you for your replies.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all!
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2002 : 21:28:04 [Permalink]
|
It is hard to make any qualified statemnet about ESP when people have even problems comin up with a coherent definition of it.
Extra-Sensorial-Perception is as it stands a contradiction in terms.
Of those examples of ESP that I have seen or heard of none appear to me anything other than trickery, ignorance or selfdelusion.
There is no to me known example of anyone actually succesfully demonstrating ESP abilities, so there is nothing to study there.
|
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2002 : 22:47:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Which of the following statements do you think most accurately describes psychic ability?
I say it DOES exist and I will, later, explain but wanted to get my 'vote' in now.
For now I'll just say, it's not so much empirical but is in the realm of what is around us, reality if you will and is tangible. Not sure how else to say it, so you'll have to wait for the reasons.
----------------
*Carabao forever
*SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
*Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand.
Homer Jaye S. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2002 : 22:55:42 [Permalink]
|
None of the above. It's not that there is virtually no evidence of it. There is absolutely no evidence of it. If anyone knows otherwise please share it so I can steal it and go for the Nobel prize.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2002 : 07:10:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
None of the above. It's not that there is virtually no evidence of it. There is absolutely no evidence of it. If anyone knows otherwise please share it so I can steal it and go for the Nobel prize.
Starting in 1990, the premier textbook on psychology, "Introduction to Psychology", known simply as "Hilgard & Atkinson", felt that the evidence for telepathy was compelling enough to start treating it as a serious scientific subject. For three decades before then, H&A had listed telepathy, along with all other forms of psychic phenomena, among those topics it considered were not entitled to serious consideration.
That changed when in the introduction of the 10th edition the authors wrote: "We have discussed parapsychology in previous editions but have been very critical of the research and skeptical of the claims made in the field. And although we still have strong reservations about most of the research in parapsychology, we do find the recent work on telepathy using the Ganzfeld procedure worthy of careful consideration." In other words, they find the ganzfeld method of ESP research to be good science and its results to be acceptable as good science. Many other critics have agreed; one, Christopher Scott, a British mathematician, called the ganzfeld studies "the most convincing argument for the existence of ESP that I have yet encountered." The four things that make the ganzfeld studies so compelling is that they achieve excellent results (with significance levels of at least 20,000-to-1 or better), they are reproducible, they can be confirmed by other labs, and they can accurately predict what kind of people are likely to achieve high results.
And when you consider that the ganzfeld method is only one of many research efforts that are achieving good results, the amount of data in support of ESP is probably quite large. As such, for myself, I tend to lean toward positions 3 or 4 of my poll.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2002 : 10:37:16 [Permalink]
|
The thing is, with something like ESP, one doesn't have to cite psychology experts, studies, or anything else.
All one has to do is imagine what life would be like if it did exist to realize that it doesn't.
One also has to keep in mind that there is such a thing as sub-sensory perception. If one senses danger, it could be that the source of the danger is emitting scents or other types of completely natural and physical substances that our "subconscience" can detect, but we aren't directly aware of at the time.
These types of experiences seem supernatural sometimes, and may lead to continuing belief in paranormal experiences.
But things like remote viewing, psychokinesis, telepathy, etc., if one just thinks about how they would have to operate, one would realize that they can't.
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye... |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2002 : 11:50:11 [Permalink]
|
First of all, paranormal does not mean supernatural. It means that current natural explanations are inadequate. No sober parapsychologist believes that when a theory is finally developed to explain psychic experiences, it will not be a new natural explanation, invoking as yet unknown but otherwise perfectly natural, physical, materialistic forces.
Secondly, the ganzfeld method and others being used eliminate the possibility that "sub-sensory perception" is occurring. And in those few cases where critics correctly identify such possible perception leaks, when the leaks are plugged the results turn out to be the same.
Thirdly, the claim that one can determine that ESP cannot work by imagining how it would work is a fallacious argument. Creationists use the same argument to claim that, if you think about how it would work, you would reaslize that evolution cannot work. But as has been shown over and over again, such armchair "thought experiments" simply do not work.
The best way to determine if something works is to do real, scientific, empirical research, such as what professional parapsychologists are doing. Their studies demonstrate that ESP does indeed work, regardless of what armchair "investigators" claim.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2002 : 12:38:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Thirdly, the claim that one can determine that ESP cannot work by imagining how it would work is a fallacious argument. Creationists use the same argument to claim that, if you think about how it would work, you would reaslize that evolution cannot work. [Straw man] But as has been shown over and over again, such armchair "thought experiments" simply do not work.
The passing of information is a physical phenomenon that requires energy. A typical ESP experiment involves one person (A) staring at a shape on a card, while another person (B) concentrates and tries to "see" what that card is.
Were ESP a real phenomenon, the information of what person A is looking at must somehow be transmitted/passed to person B. This would require energy, some sort of signal being sent from A to B.
Now one of the weakest known forces in the universe is gravity. Yet we have instruments that can measure this force to a great degree of accuracy. It is unreasonable to assume (coupled with my response below in a sec) that were information being transmitted between two people other than through one of the five known senses, we would be able to easily detect it.
quote:
The best way to determine if something works is to do real, scientific, empirical research, such as what professional parapsychologists are doing.
Yes. They have been done for decades, and have failed. James Randi offers double-blind tests to anyone willing to try and demonstrate any psychic ability. Don't you think someone by now would have claimed his $1,000,000 prize?
quote:
Their studies demonstrate that ESP does indeed work, regardless of what armchair "investigators" claim.
Nonsense.
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye... |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2002 : 11:40:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The ganzfeld method appears to have its detractors which question that these experiments are reproducible.
Yes, it is true that there are people who refuse to accept the evidence, but the article you posted does not really say what you claim it does. It reports on a recent (1999) ganzfeld study which gave a result no better than chance. The reporter who wrote the article then said that it was making some people doubt that the ganzfeld method had shown ESP to exist. At no point in the article did anyone conclude that the method was not reproducible; the article only reports on one study that failed to reproduce the results of earlier studies. That same article did, however, report that other studies coming out at that same time did reproduce the earlier studies, and it reported that a number of sessions within the study had shown significant evidence for ESP.
I am a biochemist doing research on Down Syndrome. I use western immunoblotting to measure the level of protein expression in the brains of a mouse model for DS. This is not a straightforward technique, in that results are not always reproducible. However, the causes for this non-reproducibility are well-known technical errors, so it is possible to get these failed results without doubting the reality of the succesfull experiments. The presence of one failed study, or even a dozen failed studies, does not invalidate the reproducibility of a proven method, provided the causes of the failure are known.
An interesting point, the same metanalysis procedure that rendered the study reported on a failure also established that the ganzfeld was a rigorous method that was very reproducible under ordinary circumstances. A published debate appeared in the "Journal of Parapsychology" in 1985 in which supporters of the ganzfeld method used metanalysis (or meta-analysis as it is formally called) to answer all the critiques of their opponents and to establish that veracity of their method. That led one supporter and one critic to publish a paper together listing a set of rigorous rules to ensure that the ganzfeld was used properly. In turn Robert Rosenthal then published an analysis of this set of rules and declared that if ESP was real, then a study using these rules should get a result of 33%, whereas if ESP did not exist then a result of 25% -- the result one would expect by chance alone -- would be obtained. Then in 1989 a study was published that used the set of rules. It had a success rate of 34%; the odds against this result occurring by chance were better than 20,000-to-1.
One would not expect every study using this method to produce this kind of result, but the record of results obtained since then demonstrates that the ganzfeld method is reproducible in the long-run.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2002 : 12:03:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The passing of information is a physical phenomenon that requires energy. A typical ESP experiment involves one person (A) staring at a shape on a card, while another person (B) concentrates and tries to "see" what that card is.
In point of fact, most scientists who do research in parapsychology have gotten away from those early methods, though a few do use them, and they are the easiest methods for lay investigators to use. But I get your point; sorry for interrupting.
quote:
Were ESP a real phenomenon, the information of what person A is looking at must somehow be transmitted/passed to person B. This would require energy, some sort of signal being sent from A to B.
Now one of the weakest known forces in the universe is gravity. Yet we have instruments that can measure this force to a great degree of accuracy. It is unreasonable to assume (coupled with my response below in a sec) that were information being transmitted between two people other than through one of the five known senses, we would be able to easily detect it.
I think you mean it would be unreasonable to assume that we would not be able to easily detect such energy signals.
Are you thus suggesting that since no such signals have been detected that that indicates ESP does not exist?
quote:
Yes. They have been done for decades, and have failed.
Then how do you explain the fact that if ESP did not exist the ganzfeld method would yield results no better than chance (25%), yet the method can consistently and repeatedly yield results from 35% to 85%, and in some rare cases 100%? Remember, the ganzfeld method is designed to eliminate sub-sensory and any other form of perception except that of psi perception. And in those rare cases where critics do find a possible mundane perception leak, when the studies are redesigned to plug those leaks and are repeated, the results come out the same.
Sherlock Holmes said that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. If the ganzfeld method renders all mundane forms of perception impossible, the only other explanation is that the high results are due to psi perception. Even many critics accept that; they try to show that study results are actually no better than chance rather than try to invoke some new form of mundane perception.
quote:
James Randi offers double-blind tests to anyone willing to try and demonstrate any psychic ability. Don't you think someone by now would have claimed his $1,000,000 prize?
That reminds me of the various creationist prizes for proof of evolution. Ignoring for the moment that they are frauds (I do not believe Randi's prize offerring is a fraud), the vast majority of evolutionary scientists are not interested in pursuing cash prizes but in pursuing research. The same is true of parapsychological scientists. The reason is because winning a cash prize proves nothing scientifically, as you should well know. It would only convince James Randi, not fellow scientists, and few scientists would take Randi's word for the legitimacy of ESP; that's called appeal to authority, and it is not just a logical fallacy, it is also unscientific. Scientists who study parapsychology could care less whether Randi believes their results or not; they are out to convince their scientific peers with sound data. Appealing to the failure to win Randi's prize as evidence that ESP does not exist is a stawman argument meant to avoid discussing the evidence.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all!
Edited by - echthroi_man on 07/28/2002 12:04:33 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2002 : 12:57:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are you thus suggesting that since no such signals have been detected that that indicates ESP does not exist?
Yes.
quote:
Then how do you explain the fact that if ESP did not exist the ganzfeld method would yield results no better than chance (25%), yet the method can consistently and repeatedly yield results from 35% to 85%, and in some rare cases 100%?
I don't have to expain it. Research will continue, and it will be found to either work, or not. If it is found to work (highly unlikely, when you weigh in all the other experiments that have been performed looking for ESP and have failed), I will say, "Wicked cool, ESP exists!". Until then, again based on all the other failed searches, I will assume that the Ganzfield method is flawed.
quote:
Sherlock Holmes said that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. If the ganzfeld method renders all mundane forms of perception impossible, the only other explanation is that the high results are due to psi perception.
There are plenty of factors that have not been eliminated that can account for the results.
quote:
quote:
James Randi offers double-blind tests to anyone willing to try and demonstrate any psychic ability. Don't you think someone by now would have claimed his $1,000,000 prize?
That reminds me of the various creationist prizes for proof of evolution.
That's nice, again with the Creationist comparison. Can we stick to the topic please? It's really a simple thing that I'm referring to when I mention James Randi's prize.
quote:
the vast majority of evolutionary scientists are not interested in pursuing cash prizes but in pursuing research.
What do research scientists have to do with people with ESP claiming Randi's prize?
quote:
The reason is because winning a cash prize proves nothing scientifically, as you should well know.
You're obfuscating the issue here. Winning the cash prize means passing a double blind test that would prove beyond any doubt that ESP exists. This would most certainly prove something scientifically.
quote:
It would only convince James Randi, not fellow scientists, and few scientists would take Randi's word for the legitimacy of ESP; that's called appeal to authority, and it is not just a logical fallacy, it is also unscientific.
Why would James Randi's test, a simple, easily reproducible, double-blind test not convince fellow scientists, while this Ganzfield method should have us all convinced, according to you?
The results would not at all be an "appeal to authority"! The results are there for everyone to see, and to reproduce!
quote:
Scientists who study parapsychology could care less whether Randi believes their results or not;
I'm sure you mean "couldn't" care less.
quote:
Appealing to the failure to win Randi's prize as evidence that ESP does not exist is a stawman argument meant to avoid discussing the evidence.
What is unreasonable to conclude that out of all the people who have tried to claim his prize, who believed they had some form of ESP/paranormal powers, not one person has been found to actually have ESP, and that if ESP existed, surely at least one person would have stepped forward by now?
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye...
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 07/28/2002 12:59:07 |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2002 : 12:58:35 [Permalink]
|
Sherlock Holmes was a drug using imbecile who did not know that the Earth orbited the Sun. His methodology was never very scientific and it only worked because he was fictinal character in a fictional world designed to make it work. His creator believed in faries.
So much ad-hominem. What I actually should be saying is, that if you get an extremly improbably result you should check your process for errors before accepting it.
I do not believe that there are any psycic talents out there who don't take on Randi's challange because they don't have any need for a million Dollars.
|
|
|
|
Bradley
Skeptic Friend
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 11:07:31 [Permalink]
|
Though I agree with the second part of #1 ("... all reports [to date] are explainable ..." etc), I'd have to go with #2. Once one entertains this remote possibility, the question becomes one of the medium that this phenomenon operates in. I have never heard ESP's proponents address this question, but would be happy for someone to enlighten me.
"Too much doubt is better than too much credulity."
-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833 - 1899) |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2002 : 10:24:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I say it DOES exist and I will, later, explain
There is nothing suppernatural about sensing something.
Some people are more aware than others.
Take hearing for example or feeling if you like. Both have distance scales.
I often hear things that others don't. I have a big problem going into Costco stores, most of them have the TV/radio area right when you walk in the door. It hurts my ears but when I'm off on the other side of the store it still bothers me. The same for when theose horride idiots who drive around with their car radios blasting, I can hear them from far away. When I complain, the people I'm with don't seem bothered by it. They don't hear it until it's close by. I also smell smoke and other nasty things before others do. Some think I'm crazy but then finally they smell, see, hear it too.
The point is, there is a way to 'pick up on' certain senses, thru the air, waves of sound or whatever. It just reaches through to some people faster. Thinner skin, I don't know? But it penatrates the senses more so on some and maybe not at all on others.
So what ever 'thing' that makes someone feel they know something is going to happen could be this 'wave of sound, smell, etc.' passing through the air when they don't even know it.
Another example could be: some people say dogs 'know' when an earthquake is going to happen but as with their hearing (being many times what humans can hear), they probably feel the earth from down below starting to shake sooner then we do.....because we wear shoes. Nothing mysterious about it.
ps. I'm in a hurry but I hope that kind of explains what I'm trying to say.
----------------
*Carabao forever
*SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
*Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand.
Homer Jaye S.
Edited by - snake on 07/31/2002 10:30:37 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2002 : 11:38:59 [Permalink]
|
Ummm, but that not ESP. Extra Sensory Preception means to obtain information by means other than your senses. In other words to sense things without actually sensing them.
A wag might point out that it was "senseless."
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
