Serious question about ESP (I don't mean psychic or anything silly)

[bdk3clash]

Naphand:

Obviously you have done a ton of research, reading, and thinking about these types of things, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm out of my depth responding to a lot of your assertions.

Having said that, a few of your statements stood out to me as less-than-accurate or, at the least, ambiguous to me.

Other than that, I'm cool "agreeing to disagree" and all, but I have to say, I remain unconvinced--as I'm sure you do for most of the things I've said. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
If you cannot see the transparently flawed thinking behind these statements (from James *The Amazing* Randi - a man who specialises in misleading the public) then you are in no position to understand their implications either.

[/ QUOTE ]

This strikes me as an ad-hominem attack. Not once did I attack ESP (etc.) believers--I don't really think this is fair.

[ QUOTE ]
Application of Occams' Razor - we don't need it therefore we ignore it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a reasonable application of Occam's Razor.

[ QUOTE ]
When scicop comes across evidence they cannot refute - they bury it and refuse to discuss it, and worse. That this organisation has any credibility whatsoever, is a damning indictment of the nature of so-called *scientific progress* and the entrenched attitudes of the scientific community.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a previous post, you posted a link to an article by an author who dissented with the conclusion of a previously published "Sketpcial Inquirer" article. Does this strike you as the actions of a group of people who "bury" and "refuse to discuss" dissenting opinions?

[ QUOTE ]
"if, for one answer to be true, well-established laws of logic and science must be re-written, ignored, or suspended in order to allow it to be true, and for the other answer to be true no such accomodation need be made, then the simpler--the second--of the two answers is much more likely to be correct."

Yeah - I'm pretty sure Einstein ran into plenty of people with these kind of ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, this old chestnut. Since Einstein himself encountered "violent opposition" to his ideas, then many/most/all/some ideas that encounter opposition must be true!

[ QUOTE ]
Note that "more likely to be correct" does not "=BS" it just means "less likely". And in fact in just means "less likely from our present level of understanding".

[/ QUOTE ]

No--the definition is "much less likely."


[ QUOTE ]
And finally:

"I've read "Skeptical Inquirer" for years, and I haven't found any article that shows how an event can be replicated, and then concludes that the event could only have happened that way."

Really? Why then, is this Randi's standard approach to debunking so-called "paranormal" phenomena on his TV appearances?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know--seems pretty reasonable to me. If someone makes a claim ("I can bend spoons with my mind"), and then Randi shows another way it can be done, I guess it's up to the viewer to believe what he wants to believe.

As Randi points out, if people are bending spoons with their minds, they're doing it the hard way. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
His particular relationship, and totally unscientific hatred, of Uri Geller is a case in point. While I find Geller "interesting" I am not in a position to confirm or refute his claims, though the fact he has made millions using his powers for the benefit of mining companies is itself a level of vindication (they would not have employed him if he could not supply the "goods").

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, the notion that Geller has made millions from mining companies is completely unsubstantiated by anyone other than Geller himself. Conveniently, Geller claims that these deals are so super-duper top-secret that he can't divulge any information about them.

Secondly, let's say that Geller has in fact received millions of dollars from mining companies. Do you really take this as any level of "vindication" that Geller has "the goods?"

[ QUOTE ]
But Randi uses a conjuring trick to bend spoons on TV in front of live audiences, and claims that, because he has duplicated Gellers "tricks" on TV, they are in fact also just conjuring tricks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, take it for what it's worth. Geller bends spoons, Randi bends spoons in an identical manner (from the tapes I have seen.) Geller claims to do so using telekinetic powers, Randi claims to do so using simple conjuring tricks.

Maybe Randi is the one that's lying! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[daryn]

i pity you naphand, take your bad teeth and leave 2+2 for good.

[naphand]

You may not have attacked believers in ESP directly, but posts containing such phrases as "ESP=BS" amount to the same thing - ridicule. Ridicule is the idiots form of dismissal, as it involves no argument. The strange thing about such comments, is that they usually come from those least qualified to make them - people who have done NO research into the matter at all. I forget who said this, but it remains very true:

"Refutation prior to investigation, is the worst form if ignorance"

James Randi is on the record as saying he is an out-and-out rationalist whose aim is to debunk all paranormal phenomena. This is called "setting an agenda". He believes in something and then sets out to prove it, sadly this is how most science works so he is not alone in adopting that philosophy. However, scientific study is certainly not the carefully orchestrated determination of data and theory creation by logical deduction that many think it is.

The childish giggling and name-calling about things like ESP by the disbelievers is sadder and more pathetic than the clingers-on who want to believe it. Those who repeat "there is not a shred of evidence..." are basically saying "I have never done any research into this matter". There is a huge body of research, and increasingly elegant and scientifically acceptable research with spectacularly significant results into such subjects as (and I just know this will not go down well): remote viewing, ESP, astrology, pre-cognition and reincarnation.

I stand by my assertion that if you cannot see the inherent weaknesses csicops statements, then your thinking must also be weak. Their claims may be more acceptable to the majority of the scientific community, that does not make them correct. If Randi wants to dissect and expose flaws in research, then he must also be prepared to accept such analysis of his own statements and work.

The occam's razor comment I made was from Stephen Hawkings book (he may not have used these exact words). Occam's razor is frequently used PRIOR to forming a theory, to simplify potentially very complicated calculations. In Hawkings book, he talks of simplifying the mathematics for a particular theory in order to make it solvable .

But your definition (or that popularly described):

A problem should be stated in its basic and simplest terms. In science, the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected.

May, in fact, be the reason for the many failings of science. Think of the drugs industry, for example. Following this principle, successful natural remedies are discarded on the basis that their "active principle" has been identified and synthesised. Problem: natural remedy less effective, but new drug has horrible side effects not present in the original. This is a very common finding, and in fact 35% of all hospital admissions in the USA are due to the side effects of drugs administered by your wonderful pharmaceutical industry. Occam's Razor is the science of parts, of incomplete study, of discarding anomalous results. Perhaps anomalous results hold the key to understanding the universe, as these "subtle" effects may in fact be indications of quantum level effects.

Occam's Razor is a means to achieve a result more quickly. It is not a principle, nor has it ever been proven to be correct, nor can it be proven correct in any given situation (except a manufactured one).

Occam's Razor is often interpreted to mean unknown phenomena should first be explained in terms of what is already known. While this is perfectly reasonable, scicop appear to take it to the extreme of, IF it can be explained (however manufactured that explanation is) by some other means then we can dismiss it. This is not a progressive, or even scientific, viewpoint. That Randi can bend spoons by sleight of hand, does not mean that is how Geller does it. Reproduction of a RESULT is not the same a reproduction of an EVENT or EFFECT.

That scicop has published Sheldrakes response to their own studies is a positive step, but past incidences indicate that they will bury research and ignore it, if they can. I don't believe thay have changed their ambitions, and I wonder if Sheldrakes response was published in their magazine. I would like to think it was, as perhaps scicop may have learned from past lessons. The events to which I refer, are those surrounding the work of Michel Gauquelin. A whole book has been written about this (in fact there may even be 4 books) so I don't want to repeat it here. Scicops involvement in this, their falsification of results, their failure to reveal their data sources for inspection (when demanding this of Gauquelin, who complied with their every demand), their preposterous assumptions and eventual refusal to discuss the matter any further, were an indication of how low they would stoop to prevent any counter-rationalistic evidence from being publicly accepted. Gauquelin's work is irrefutable, the data sources are statistically highly significant and based on tens of thousands of studies is several countries, his statistical methodology is sound and accepted. All scicop could do was say - it's wrong for the USA (their falsified results) therefore its all wrong. Pathetic. Pscicop exist to stifle debate, not to encourage it (at least at that time). There were resignations and changes at the top in scicop, but I suspect this had more to do with the embarrassment they suffered from being exposed, than to any change of heart or willingness to open up the debate.

You only have to look at the "staring" experiments conducted by scicop to see how, after the first experiment produced positive results, the protocol was altered for the second experiment, and in a way identified as likely to affect the results. Read the articles for details. Scicop funded this research and published it - and it was bad science. They will publish bad science if it supports their view, and I suspect they only published Sheldrakes response due to his considerable standing, and pressure brought to bear by an increasing minority of scientists willing to take on these kind of studies. Psicop have a history of unprincipled behaviour and inadequate discussion.

Since Einstein himself encountered "violent opposition" to his ideas, then many/most/all/some ideas that encounter opposition must be true!

I did not say anything of the kind. I merely used an obvious example to demonstrate that radical ideas are very rarely accepted by the scientific community. Opposition to an idea is not proof the idea is wrong, nor that it is right, but opposition to ideas goes against the philosophical basis of science.

An idea may be "less likely" to be correct but on what scale? How do you judge an idea is "less likely". Your definition (or even the commonly accepted one) still amount to "less likely based on WHAT WE KNOW". Regardless of you assertion - you need to look deeper than words. Physicists, particularly, are acutely aware that simple does not always mean correct. The more complicated the system you study, the more complicated the theory (which explains why theories concerning biological systems are few, while physics progresses in leaps and bounds). "Simple" physical theories for explanation of unversal phenomena usually turn out not to be complete theories at all, but are derived from much more complex theories, that appear in different forms according to the prevailing physical contraints. The Grand Unified Theory being a perfect example of this.

Simple theories are easier to work with, and if they can explain 99% of the results, they are accepted. But the 1% anomalies won't go away, and will sooner or later need explanation. Occam's Razor is not an over-riding principle to reach the truth, it is merely a means to manage theory into digestible chunks.

Far from "bending spoons the hard way" I would suggest that physical means to manipulate the universe, as opposed to quantum mechanical ones, is doing it the hard way. One requires a huge expense of energy, the other the tiniest fluctuation at the Planck scale. Randi is demonstrating his ignorance of the nature of such events by comments like these. Your eagerness to accept them and laugh, also shows how eager you are also to accept the "status quo" in terms of thinking. Sure it's easier to "think" about bending spoons with your hands. I have never seen anyone perform "spoon-bending", but I do know it is a lot more prevalent than you think, by all accounts Geller was a novice - try "rolling up" a spoon like a cigarette paper (and leaving no marks). I do know someone who has seen it done (by a teenager) and from what they said it has nothing to do with the kind of explanations Randi prefers. This could be a genuine phenomenon, though quite what its purpose may be I have no idea, and Randi's attempts to stifle study are achieving very little.

Your point about Gellers claim (from mining companies) is well taken. Though it has been confirmed by some 3rd parties, to a degree, and Geller has recently revealed the names of some companies he worked with, who I understand, did admit that he was on the payroll for a while. I cannot recall the article or the reporter, which is annoying or the book where I got the information, but it was within the last year or 2. However, althought the following link is from Gellers website, I can confirm (as a UK resident) that the article did appear:

http://www.uri-geller.com/sub.htm

Make of it what you will. He has since been hired by crash investigators to locate sunken parts of aeroplanes that have downed at sea, so he is taken seriously by many in authority. Geller is a phenomenon who has impressed many people with his "tricks/abilities" but again, the questions begs, why can they not be duplicated under contolled conditions? Perhaps the research methodology is not there, I don't know the answers, but I don't refute the testimony of the many senior scientists who have witnessed what he can do.

Randi is not lying - he is in a state of permanent denial. He probably believes himself. But I fail to see how manipulating a spoon using sleight of hand, to produce a bent spoon, can even conceivably be seen as the same things as, and I quote:

"Uri ran his finger above the spoon and stood back. Nothing happened. We expressed some disapointment, still watching the spoon. He said, Wait and Watch. Slowly, as we watched, with Uri standing well away, the spoon started to curl in front of us, and within four minutes the tail of the spoon had risen up like a scorpions sting.
Dr. Peter Fenwick. MB, BChir, DPM, FIRCPsych

and

"Geller altered the lattice structure of a metal alloy in a way that cannot be duplicated. There is no present scientific explanation as to how he did this." (This is the first research related to parapsychology conducted at a US Government facility to have been released for publication by the US Department of Defence).
Eldon Byrd (US Naval Surface Weapons Centre, Maryland - U.S.A.)

My greatest concern, is not that we might be missing some physical property unknown to science or even that I cannot personally bend spoons/know when cars are going to turn left, but that idiots like Randi, who clearly simply refuse to accept alternatives to their world-view, have so much influence. Perhaps its for the good, I don't know, but it is certainly not good science, and it is not good that the majority of people appear to be being misinformed.

[naphand]

I suspect you pity a lot of people Daryn, presumably because you believe they are below your intellectual abilities. But your sadly-lacking posts on the Forum, which appear to consists of one-line dismissals of others, are the least likely to to be missed on this forum: they contain no discussion or reasoning and appear to be knee-jerk responses to alternate opinions. I suspect you will be voting for "Dubya", as he seems to prefer very simple statements, with little or no reasoning behind them.

Toothless, but capable of stringing together more than a few words. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[daryn]

i love to reason,.. i'm still not quite sure what you're talking about. i like one-liners and zingers on an internet forum.. it lightens the mood i guess. i have many posts where i talk poker strategy, maybe you've missed them? i also sometimes get involved in physics related discussions in the off topic forum, as that is one of my interests.

i just find it funny that you think you can glean from a few of my posts my entire personality

[naphand]

Nobody said anything about *entire personality*. Arrogance is not hard to spot. Personally, I find humour, self-deprecation, and wit to *lighten the mood*, rather than 1-line put-downs, but there you go....

Physics eh? Well there is plenty of that in this thread, but the only contribution you have made appears to have been...

"if you really believed in ESP then you wouldn't ALWAYS wait.. you would only wait when you got "the signal"

Which is not only a rather feeble put-down, it is also nonsense: believing in ESP is not the same as having ESP... [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

I have made one or two posts in this thread with a little physics mixed in. If you genuinely have an interest in physics then your comments, would in fact, be very welcome, as a different viewpoint may help to clarify what are somewhat abstract concepts. My knowledge on the matter is certainly incomplete, as will be my interpretation of it.

[naphand]

For a straightforward review of research in this area, including experiments with *remote viewing* under controlled conditions, I suggest the following publication:

"Margins of Reality" by Jahn & Dunne

Published by the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research team. You may also wish to view their scientific papers, available for viewing here:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publist.html

Should you find any problems with their scientific protocol, then by all means continue in this thread. On the other hand, if you do not wish your world view to be challenged by even this small quantity of evidence, then don't read it.

But please, do not make comments like "there is not a shred of evidence", "there has been no scientifically validated..." (maybe not you, but others on this thread).

It's good that you make reference to Carl Sagan's work, he is well respected, but a rationalist nonetheless. And as has been said, an explanation for a phenomena is not a proof of a mechamism, and many scientific protocols are too crude to be able to detect the kind subtle/quantum effects which would likely form part of any theory of ESP and the like.

Evidence exists, explanations vary, but condemnation appears almost ubiquitous - your comment about the easter bunny is a good example of the attitude of most of the raionalists - "we know it cannot exist, therefore we refuse to consider it". And sadly, this is most often the case, which might explain why funding for research into "psi" phenomena is so hard to come by. And worse, any scientist daring to perform such research is often ridiculed or even thrown out of their university. Very rational approach....

This is not really surprising, considering the antics of people like Geller, who gives the strong impression of actually being mad, but there is a sufficient body of work in existence to justify a more tolerant and inquisitive attitude, as well as further serious research.

One ofthe problems with biological/psychological systems, is the difficulty in obtaining statistically significant results, due to their complex nature and the myriad factors that come into play (such as how much sleep, what they ate, the time of year/month, what someone said etc. etc.). This is also true of many models of animal behaviour, and ecosystems. They are very difficult to study in isolation. However, some of the *psi* research has produced results of a significance only previously seen in physical experiments (the *hardest* of sciences), probabilites of the order of p=0.001 or less (p=0.05 is significant). But, even the best of experiments and strongest of results will not win the argument against a mind that refuses to change. "Never underestimate the power of denial".

[Lazymeatball]

[ QUOTE ]
"if you really believed in ESP then you wouldn't ALWAYS wait.. you would only wait when you got "the signal"

Which is not only a rather feeble put-down, it is also nonsense: believing in ESP is not the same as having ESP...


[/ QUOTE ]

Festus claimed to have experienced an ESP moment in his post, he may not be totally sure or willing to testify to congress about it, but that's what his post said. That at that instance, he had ESP and it saved his life.

Daryn then pointed out a blaring inconsistency in his belief that he should always wait at an intersection, whereas someone who actually had ESP, would know when to wait and when not too. I beleive he kept it blunt for both clarity and the well documented 'zinger' effect.

As for Daryn making fun of your teeth he should know better. It's not your fault you have an abysmal social healthcare system.

[naphand]

Actually, my impression was that Festus was not sure if it was ESP or not. There are plenty of alternative explanations, one of which he suggested himself (the car may have been travelling faster than normal). As for testifying before congress, I'm not sure I (or Bill Clinton) believes this amounts to much.... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Daryn's point started "If you really believed..."

Not only had Festus not stated that he "really believed" he was not even sure his experience was ESP, just that it freaked him out a bit. The operative word here being "YOU". Maybe the point was "lost in translation", as in the original English, "you" is used as a direct reference to the person concerned. Perhaps Daryn meant "you" as in "one".
As for the "zinger effect" I think I have more success sucking lemons.... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

As for your comments about our healthcare system, it is clear you have not the slightest capacity for rational comparison. The NHS may not be what it once was but at least it gives everyone a fair chance of getting treatment. And teeth, well I am happy with mine (especially now I have filed them down to sharpened points), rather my teeth and my face than your teeth and your face, anytime. And if I ever get in a big fight, it wont costs me $1000's when I lose my teeth (we can still get gold teeth on the NHS for free).

Do you think we're getting a bit off-topic here? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[bigpooch]

I think it is simply the brain processing peripheral vision
and acting upon it; don't forget that so much information is
visual and there is a lot of information that we take for
granted. For example, with my eyes opened there must be
billons of photons striking my retina every second.

Somehow, our brains are able to tell that something in the
periphery requires some immediate attention! Obviously this
is no proof, but certainly it seems quite testable in a
controlled setting. Perhaps this has been already examined?