Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens

[Shyone]

I tried to find the original study, but the link to the journal where it was published is down and there are no other links that have any details.

 

Found it. This Noetics group looks dubious but let's evaluate it together.

 

It isn't in the set up of a formal abstract, findings and conclusion and it is only detailed in the first part of the publication.

 

http://www.noetic.org/publications/shift/issue%2017/S17_Death_FRONTIERS_LoveStudy.pdf

 

1. What measures insured lack of communication?

2. What measures constituted a positive reaction (physical parameters)?

3. What kind of "inspiration" gave the one sending the signal the time to send the signal?

4. What precisely was considered a true response? (change within what amount of time compared with initial synchronization)

 

1. Ok, total separation for a 30 minute relaxation period. Told their partner would be seeing a video feed and directing thought at some point.

2. What's skin conductance?

3. I'm confused, the sender was instructed to make an intentional direction of thought, but the 10 second intervals were random. How does that work?

4. Rise in conductance over the 10 second period.

Skin conductance is essentially a measure of perspiration. Sweat conducts electricity, so the "conductance" of the skin increases when one sweats. Used in Lie Detectors (and we know how well those work).

 

I looked over the study, and the data is not sufficient here to make any conclusions one way or another. Here are some problems with this presentation of the results (which appear to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative).

 

1. The groups did not include a "control" at all. They considered control group to be "untrained", but they still went through the same procedures. This is the most serious weakness. How often does skin conductance change when someone thinks they are being thought about when they aren't?

. There was no attempt to have someone sitting with no one in the other room and their partner otherwise occupied.

2. This "result" is fishy with no confidence limits specified:

 

A

half-second

after the sender began

to direct intention, the receiver’s average skin conductance

began to rise. It continued to rise and peaked at the end of

the 10-second period; then it began to decline.

 

3. Rates of false positives were not given

4. Parameters for skin conductance were not given. What constituted a positive response?

5. Negative results are not mentioned - how often were signals sent but not "recieved"?

6. Subjective results are not given (if they were even obtained). Was there any attempt to have the receiver indicate conscious reception, or was it entirely based on physical measurements?

7. Have these results been reviewed by skeptics or "non-noetic" organizations?

8. Regarding the training, were the "trainees" put through a similar set of sending and receiving practices that might have conditioned them in some way?

9. Only the length of the signal being sent was given. Intervals between signals were only specified as "random" but the length and variation were not given.

10. There was no specification of the "blindedness" of the people evaluating the skin conductance results. Were the results determined during the recording of the data, or later by people that had no way to know the timing of the sending of the "signals"?

11. What measures were undertaken to be sure that there wasn't any fiddling with the skin conductance measurements by someone that also knew the timing of the sending of the signals?

 

Most studies indicate a finding that would be a null result (which requires a true control group). They didn't. Positive results should be expressed relative to a true control group.

 

For example, a man trying to read the mind of someone sending a signal with cards with 6 different markings. The receiver guesses and the result is recorded. 100% is never the case, but they hope for something better than chance. Hence, if chance indicates a 17% success rate in 500 guesses and the guesses were right in 20%, that result would be better than chance - but nowhere near 100%. The results they "give" suggest 100% of the receivers were correct 100% of the time - receiving signals within 1/2 of one second after the sender starts sending.

 

We don't even know what a chance result (or null result) would be for this study.

 

Sorry, I don't buy it unless there are a lot more details available. A LOT more. And someone else that has no vested interest in "psi" phenomena duplicates the results.

[RankStranger]

Yeah, what he said.

[Shyone]

This thread is moving faster than I can type.

 

From OM's presentation (much more detailed than I had before), I still found the same basic problems, but these two things struck me in particular:

 

Outcome measures

Using nonparametric bootstrap procedures, normalized skin conductance means recorded during the intention epochs were compared with the same measures recorded during randomly selected interepoch periods, used as controls. The preplanned difference examined the intention versus control means at the end of the intention epoch.

 

This isn't how you create a control. A control is not the data obtained when someone isn't sending a signal. It is the data you get when there is no signal at all for the same period of time. They are using their own results as a control for their results!

 

Planned differences in skin conductance among the three groups were not significant, but a post hoc analysis showed that peak deviations were largest and most sustained in the trained group, followed by more moderate effects in the wait group, and still smaller effects in the control group.

 

Insignificant? Post hoc analysis is usually not double blinded. Sheesh. It really sounds like they went data mining and found fool's gold.

 

Drawing results from "changes" that are not significant is - insignificant!

[RankStranger]

Well to be fair, their post hoc analysis could be used to establish better criteria for a new study.

 

Not that I'd expect anything to come of it.

 

And I'll also point out that "not significant" is really just a mathematical statement- statistical analysis. Doesn't mean that there's no correlation- just means that there isn't much of one according to the criteria set up.

[The-Captain]

Again - the reason for publishing in a peer-review journal is so that other scientists can critique (and try to reproduce) your work. I'm not a scientist and I'm not defending - or promoting - Radin's definition of a control group. My point all along has been that serious scientists are studying these things and putting their findings out there to be tested and reviewed by their peers.

 

Well I'm certainly a lay person myself, but I think that particular study was poorly conducted. Specifically it lacked a real control group, and the post hoc analysis is highly suspicious. All was skewed towards a positive result, as Shyone points out.. Your point remains though, better scientists than Mr. Radin are delving into this area.

[Shyone]

Again - the reason for publishing in a peer-review journal is so that other scientists can critique (and try to reproduce) your work. I'm not a scientist and I'm not defending - or promoting - Radin's definition of a control group. My point all along has been that serious scientists are studying these things and putting their findings out there to be tested and reviewed by their peers.

 

Well I'm certainly a lay person myself, but I think that particular study was poorly conducted. Specifically it lacked a real control group, and the post hoc analysis is highly suspicious. All was skewed towards a positive result, as Shyone points out.. Your point remains though, better scientists than Mr. Radin are delving into this area.

I worry that there may not be enough scientists looking into this. Scientists don't usually investigate things they feel have already been dismissed, so the entire field of "Noetic Research" is filled with people who, like Theologians, have a vested interest in positive results.

 

Ironically, this could be ground breaking, extremely important, and might radically change how we view human interaction, but wack jobs and lousy research will keep anyone from seriously considering it.

 

Well, almost anyone.

[RankStranger]

better scientists than Mr. Radin are delving into this area.

 

I would hope so, and I'd be interested to see studies done by them.

[The-Captain]

better scientists than Mr. Radin are delving into this area.

 

I would hope so, and I'd be interested to see studies done by them.

 

Well there are guys like Dossey and others with studies mentioned in the first post, but these are mostly Alt Medicine guys. I don't keep up well, but there are always some intriguing thinks going down with neuroscience. I'll see if I can pull something up for you later.

 

Ultimately though I think all internalism/externalism and the surrounding debate isn't so much a question for scientists but philosophers rather. Empirical studies can inform us of the mind body connection, but they cannot tell us much about the nature of the mind itself.

[PaulQ]

It’s not intended to be a random sampling of couples, it’s intended to be a study of connectedness, that’s why they call nicknamed it “the love study”.

 

In addition, let’s assume the scientists weighted the study by finding the “perfect” candidates.

 

The final question – still needs to be answered – how are any two individuals, (whether in love or not) connected in such a way that person “B” is aware that person “A” is thinking of him/her? Classical – reductionist science does not allow for non-local connections at a macro scale.

 

What exactly are the criteria for the "Perfect Couple?" Is it necessary for them to believe in this beforehand? Also, the question is, where is the evidence that such a supernatural connection exists between such couples? To be perfectly honest, the real question in my mind is, are they conducting this test to further human understanding, or are they conducting it in an attempt to fool people? Based on the tone of the article, I strongly suspect the latter.

 

This is pretty elementary stuff, Paul… Seriously… by isolating Teena and putting her in an electromagnetically shielded chamber the scientists are eliminating communication possibilities such as sound, cell phones (can’t be used in electromagnetically shielded chambers), and even unknown ways of perceiving through electromagnetic waves. Part of good science is to use experimentation to eliminate possibilities. By taking the time and effort to eliminate different possibilities than future experiments can continue to narrow down and hone remaining possibilities.

 

What is unusual is that such extraordinary measures were taken, when a baseline study wasn't even established. Do you really think the "Perfect" couple are going to cheat by using cell phones? Part of good science is to keep the experiments as simple as possible, but no simpler. I'd imagine a simpler experiment would yield the same results; and if those results proved positive, the next step might include shielded chambers. Then there's the fact that there exists other more accurate instruments for measuring physiological changes in one's response. They happened to pick the two which allowed for the greatest degree of manipulation, while still allowing for the experiment to appear legit to the layperson.

 

:whatever: … this doesn’t show your bias at all

 

Really who cares what you want to label it, “prayer”, “compassion”, “love” … the point is, does the receiver perceive (if only on a subtle level) that someone else is thinking of him/her.

 

I am allowed to have my bias; I am not the one claiming to have conducted a scientific study. If I were involved in a scientific, double-blinded test, I would need to leave my bias at the door. Unfortunately, the people involved in this study seem to base their entire research on their own bias.

 

That said, my question is still valid. By which process does the "Sender" send their "Message" to the "Receiver?" Is it like prayer, or is it something else? Details like this are the stuff of good scientific research; leaving them out demonstrates sloppiness. Then again, that level of sloppiness is to be expected from a charlatan trying to fool everybody with their so-called "Research."

 

Snide remark aside … you might want to see the following paragraph from the original article.

 

After running 36 couples through this test, the researchers found that when one person focused his thoughts on his partner, the partner's blood flow and perspiration dramatically changed within two seconds. The odds of this happening by chance were 1 in 11,000. Three dozen double blind, randomized studies by such institutions as the University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh have reported similar results.

 

Yes, I addressed that already. Without seeing ALL the results of the experiment, including those that were likely conveniently discarded, the claim becomes an extraordinary one. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; good researchers understand this. That is why such a statement needs to be backed up with that evidence, meticulously documented. This is completely lacking in the article you posted.

 

Another snide remark with absolutely nothing to back it up. One of “the people conducting the experiment” is Dean Radin, a Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences. You don’t have to agree with his research, but his research has been published in standard peer review journals and is up for debate amongst the wider scientific community.

 

That is the whole reason I started this thread, to point out that not all scientists march lock-step behind a clock-work, reductionist view of the universe. There are many – qualified and respected – scientists who are doing the work of showing the clock-work view of the universe as flawed (at best).

 

If you disagree with Radin’s experimentation methods do the work of finding rebuttal studies in peer review journals. He puts his work out there for fellow scientists to prove wrong, as of yet, I’ve not found any experiments that successfully rebut his work (and the work of many other scientists showing non-local connections between human beings).

 

There are lots of sloppy studies on paranormal activity, but increasingly scientists are doing systematic and well run and yes double-blind studies to show that there is something happening. They use electromagnetically shielded chambers to eliminate accusations of sloppy methodology. They use standard protocol and their work is standing up to peer-review.

 

So… you don’t like the implications…. If you truly do possess a critical mind than you know that we are suppose to let the science lead us to the truth… we’re suppose to set our own biases aside and look at the facts…

 

So… have at it … you’ve got access to the internet… feel free to do the research and find the rebutting studies, the studies that debunk the work of Radin and other scientists who are working in this area.

 

The article presented limited details of an experiment which was clearly not double-blind, which suggests that the person conducting the experiment may not even know how to conduct a double-blind experiment. Now, generally, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim to present evidence rather than to challenge the doubter to "Disprove," but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't have to look very far to find out that the Institute of Noetic Sciences isn't exactly squeaky clean. Thomas W. Clark of the Center for Naturalism has stated that:

There are any number of promoters of paranormal and occult phenomena willing to supply such transcendence, for instance renegade biologist Rupert Sheldrake and parapsychologist Dean Radin of the Institute of Noetic Sciences. The lure of what humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz calls the transcendental temptation drives the flight from standard, peer-reviewed empiricism into the arms of a dualism that privileges the mental over the physical, the teleological over the non-purposive.[16]

Stephen Barrett, organizer of the nonprofit organization Quackwatch, whose website describes itself as a "Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions," has stated that he views the Institute of Noetic Sciences "with considerable distrust."[17]

 

Found at the good old wikipedia.org.

 

With that, I lay the burden of proof on you to support this article with evidence.

 

EDIT: It looks like much as happened since I wrote this, and others have done this work for you. Looks like much of what I suspected all along.

[Open_Minded]

So many posts, so much to answer and it's past my bedtime... so I'll keep it short...

 

From my original post...

 

But… there are those within the scientific community who are pushing boundaries. I do not pursue this discussion to try and prove a nonlocal mind/consciousness. It can’t be proven. But neither can it be proven that consciousness is a product of brain activity.

 

My reason for starting this discussion is simple, to show that the scientific community does not march lock-step behind the reductionist and scientific materialistic view of consciousness.

 

I am still not trying to prove nonlocal mind/consciousness. I still don't think it can be proven. My reason for starting this discussion and continuing to participate is to show that the scientific community does not march lock-step behind the reductionist and scientific materialistic view of consciousness (or the universe for that matter).

 

Having said that...

 

From the original NPR news article ... NPR is not a quack news source....

 

After running 36 couples through this test, the researchers found that when one person focused his thoughts on his partner, the partner's blood flow and perspiration dramatically changed within two seconds. The odds of this happening by chance were 1 in 11,000. Three dozen double blind, randomized studies by such institutions as the University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh have reported similar results.

 

The University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh are not going to risk their reputations on quack science....

 

Those of you questioning methodology are not scientists, scientists at the Universities Edinburgh and Washington deemed the research valid enough to pursue and/or duplicate it themselves....

 

I stand by my original position...

 

My reason for starting this discussion and continuing to participate is to show that the scientific community does not march lock-step behind the reductionist and scientific materialistic view of consciousness (or the universe for that matter).

 

The Genie is out of the bottle and there is no going back....

 

The author of this study put it up for peer review... if it is flawed by scientific standards it will receive the same treatment from the scientific community as any other flawed experiment (and there are many flawed experiments that's why there is a scientific review process). And as time goes the study of these issues will be refined and perfected.... just like any other area of science...

 

The point is ... there is now serious debate and experimentation around these issues ... and that is a new... the discovery is only just beginning.

[Shyone]

 

The University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh are not going to risk their reputations on quack science....

Do you happen to know of the specific research and/or studies performed at these institutions that sought to confirm the Love Study?

 

The department might also be interesting even. What department at a university would investigate paranormal claims?

 

Psychology? Behavioral science? Or is there a "Department of Noetic Studies" at these universities?

 

If the last is correct, then we may still have a conflict of interest. Methods and data are the features that count, but the history of paranormal research is littered with bad studies whose only goal was to confirm the existence of some pet paranormal phenomenon.

 

[Confirm, rather than "investigate"]

[PaulQ]

I worry that there may not be enough scientists looking into this. Scientists don't usually investigate things they feel have already been dismissed, so the entire field of "Noetic Research" is filled with people who, like Theologians, have a vested interest in positive results.

 

Ironically, this could be ground breaking, extremely important, and might radically change how we view human interaction, but wack jobs and lousy research will keep anyone from seriously considering it.

 

Well, almost anyone.

 

Reputable scientists usually need to see phenomenon reproduced before investing time and research dollars into research. They don't send teams to the North Pole to prove the existence of Santa Claus, and they certainly don't send probes into space to prove that God exists. They're also not proving the existence of ghosts, fairies, and leprechauns.

 

Things like ESP have been very extensively researched by better scientists with better equipment and control groups. The CIA, for example, spent a lot of money and time since World War II over a span of some 40 years, and they certainly had a vested interest in this sort of thing to be real. At some point, you need to ask yourself; can I do better than the CIA? At what point do we stop deluding ourselves that something is real, so that we can invest time and money on scientific research that will actually benefit mankind? Besides, as I walk around with a bluetooth headset in my ear working with my cell phone, talking to my wife who has her bluetooth headset in her ear in another city, our technology already provides us with ESP-like communications. We can achieve the things we imagine through good science; this sort of quackery is unnecessary.

[Shyone]

Besides, as I walk around with a bluetooth headset in my ear working with my cell phone, talking to my wife who has her bluetooth headset in her ear in another city, our technology already provides us with ESP-like communications. We can achieve the things we imagine through good science; this sort of quackery is unnecessary.

Good point. ESP is virtually superfluous.

 

I think that the intent of the study was to show more than just "communication". They are intending to show emotional connections - love.

 

I never found that I was lacking any way of sharing such emotions.

[Open_Minded]

Do you happen to know of the specific research and/or studies performed at these institutions that sought to confirm the Love Study?

 

The department might also be interesting even. What department at a university would investigate paranormal claims?

 

Psychology? Behavioral science? Or is there a "Department of Noetic Studies" at these universities?

 

If the last is correct, then we may still have a conflict of interest. Methods and data are the features that count, but the history of paranormal research is littered with bad studies whose only goal was to confirm the existence of some pet paranormal phenomenon.

 

[Confirm, rather than "investigate"]

 

Shyone..

 

I did a quick search to find the specific studies done at The University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh and was unable to find anything. But..NPR is a reliable news source so I’m willing to take their word that the research was done and I stand by my original point… these institutions are not going to risk their reputations on “quakery” no matter what department the research is conducted under.

 

I’ve been working all day and didn’t have much time to do a lot of searching for the work done at the Universities of Edinburgh and Washington. However… as often happens… google did send me down a few side roads. The following links may be of interest to you.

 

Annals of Internal Medicine - the American College of Physicians

 

Western Journal of Medicine

 

Evidence-Based Medicine

 

PubMed.Gov - The effects of distant Healing...

 

PubMed.Gov - US National Library of Medicine..

 

PubMed.Gov - "Spooky actions at a distance": physics, psi, and distant healing.

 

My point in listing these studies is NOT to try and prove anything. Any objective person can see that there is much debate within the scientific community around these topics. Quite frankly... I've had a long day at the computer and didn't want to spend any more time reading journal abstracts. Some of the following articles may be favorable to my position, others favorable to your position. My point in listing these studies is two fold…

 

[*]To point out that there IS in fact debate within the mainstream scientific community. Professional Journals are not going to risk their reputations either.

[*]Valid research (it would not be included in industry journals if it wasn’t valid and didn’t meet the criteria for publication) is being conducted and published for peer review. Debate is lively and on-going (as it always is within the scientific community). But… the discussion is happening and it will continue to happen… it’s not going to disappear anytime soon.

 

Shyone… I took a fair amount of the life sciences when I was in college. One of my professors was fond of telling all his students … over and over and over again… that there is no such thing as a “perfect study” or “perfect experiment”. He constantly reminded us that science is a process of critically analyzing the work of others, ripping it apart, refining the experimentation process and improving on it for better results.

 

You all want to rip the studies I’m presenting here apart… have at it… really… I learned decades ago that this is the scientific process. But… at least have the integrity to admit that this IS the scientific process for EVERY study ever published. Scientists rip each others work apart all the time, they debate, they deride, they publish rival studies… that’s what the peer-review process is.

 

My original position hasn’t changed. There are serious scientists questioning the 300 year-old assumption that we live in a reductionist, clock-work universe. And that’s what science is as well…

 

Would you really want it any other way????

[Shyone]

You all want to rip the studies I’m presenting here apart… have at it… really… I learned decades ago that this is the scientific process. But… at least have the integrity to admit that this IS the scientific process for EVERY study ever published. Scientists rip each others work apart all the time, they debate, they deride, they publish rival studies… that’s what the peer-review process is.

 

My original position hasn’t changed. There are serious scientists questioning the 300 year-old assumption that we live in a reductionist, clock-work universe. And that’s what science is as well…

 

Would you really want it any other way????

 

I sincerely appreciate your efforts, and I know how difficult it can be to find specific research studies online (if they are even online - not everything is accessible).

 

I'm really not interested in "ripping" the studies you present, but I think that an extraordinary claim that seems to contradict previous studies should entail a carefully designed protocol involving both those who are convinced that their "unorthodox" position is correct and those that don't. Seriously, the purpose of such research isn't to convince those who are already convinced, but those that aren't.

 

There may not be "the perfect study", but there are clearly some problems with the Love Study that could be addressed - and I would imagine that the University of Edinburgh (or the University of Washington) would have done that. So I'd like to see their study design, results, statistical analysis and conclusions.

 

"Similar" doesn't mean much to me.

 

Really, do you understand how "earth shattering" such studies, if confirmed, would be? This is important stuff, and sloppy research does not do it justice. I fear, however, that the sloppiness is part of the design, and the results fudged or interpreted post hoc in the most favorable light without any attempt at serious scrutiny or analysis. And that would be sad indeed.

 

I have at least found the unit at the University of Edinburgh that studies such things: the Koestler Parapsychology Unit.

 

Here are their latest publications (a list of titles).

 

I suspect that this study (or methodology) is the one being referred to. It is an (apparently) well designed study with a reasonable null hypothesis that is taken into account. The statistics of correlation are not included, and no specifics of rates are mentioned, but rather a vague "creative people tend to have more correct hits". Statistically significant?

 

Well, there are about 3-4 studies they are referring to, but I'm not aware of any ground breaking research. Overall, it sounds like noise in the random patterns of selection.

 

The IONS is trying for a home run when other institutions are still trying to make sure there is actually a ball to hit. The avoidance of specific discussions of results - pro and con - or any statistical analysis (except to say that the results did not reach statistical significance) makes me think that their conclusions are overbroad and overreaching.

 

A case of "too good to be true."

[Open_Minded]

Shyone... you're missing my point...

 

Really - be critical... it's good science and it honestly doesn't bother me. I've never made any effort (in this discussion - or otherwise) to use these studies to try and "prove" anything. I don't think it can be done yet.

 

My point is... the journals and institutions participating in this broad debate are taking the debate seriously. It is no longer exiled from mainstream science. The debate has - in fact entered mainstream institutions and mainstream journals. In part it has done so BECAUSE of the valid criticism of scientists that studies were sloppy and lacked the discipline required to be included in mainstream discussion.

 

Further criticism will force further maturation and refinement of study methods... that is science... I accept that.

 

At least now the debate has advanced... it is part of a more disciplined community and the disciplined enforced on study protocol, etc... is a welcome thing (in my book).

 

Give the scientists involved in this effort a bit of credit as well... they are willing to work under the discipline.... they are willing to open their work up to criticism and peer-review. That should say something to you (and every other skeptic) about the scientists conducting these studies.

[Shyone]

Shyone... you're missing my point...

 

My point is... the journals and institutions participating in this broad debate are taking the debate seriously. It is no longer exiled from mainstream science.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this entirely. I like the attitude of the Edinburgh department of parapsychology, but that's because they are willing to admit that there is nothing established or proven about these effects.

 

IONS, OTOH, boldly makes claims without documentation or evidentiary support, and although such things may exist, the implications go way beyond what they could possibly have established.

 

Our approach does not assume that psi exists, but treats the existence of psi as a hypothesis that can and should be tested scientifically.

 

This is the correct approach. They also use metaanalytic methods, however, which means taking several piles of shit, making one big pile, and trying to polish it.

 

Notice the lack of confidence. They aren't saying, "Now that we have established that Psi exists, we are going to..."

 

IONS, OTOH, is an echo chamber that is flaunting poorly designed studies claiming outlandishly excellent results.

 

Don't you get it? Anyone seriously studying this must approach it skeptically. It's fine and dandy to "take it seriously." The government took UFOs seriously. It doesn't mean they were there, and in fact, after much study, they finally concluded there wasn't anything to study.

 

So, yes there are some who seriously study this, but not the ones claiming the dramatically positive results.

 

Here's an overview article about IONS and some criticisms.

 

This article explains why people don't take parapsychology seriously. Seriously, you should read it. Radin wants the possible to be true, so he says it's true, and he says it's proven - but he really hasn't gone beyond the wanting phase. The rest is hype.

 

If you want possible results - look at U of Edinburgh. If you want to be fooled, look at IONS.

[Open_Minded]

Hello Shyone:

 

Firstly - you and I are not that far apart on the issue, and trust me I've no intention of getting into a long, detailed and endless back and forth about what each of us mean when we say what we say.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this entirely. I like the attitude of the Edinburgh department of parapsychology, but that's because they are willing to admit that there is nothing established or proven about these effects.

 

IONS, OTOH, boldly makes claims without documentation or evidentiary support, and although such things may exist, the implications go way beyond what they could possibly have established.

 

My point is... whether you like IONS approach, or not is pointless. Does IONS adhere to base line expectations? Are they willing to put their work out their for peer-review? Do they conduct their studies by (at the very least) minimum standards so that their work can be accepted for peer-review? See the following link.

 

They seem to publish in PubMed.gov, run by U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. I assume PubMed.Gov has basic requirements for inclusion into their journal? I'm assuming PubMed.gov has an editorial board that determines guidelines for submission and overall content? I assume PubMed.gov isn't going to risk it's reputation on "quakery"??

 

So... bottom line... the folks at IONS can be as biased as they want, but they are willing to put their work out there and adhere to minimum standards. That dynamic isn't unusual at all the world of science, that's why we have a peer-review system, to balance out scientists individual biases.

 

We live in a world of bias and scientists are not immune, especially when the standard means of funding research in this country is obtaining research grants from organizations that have an agenda. The grant process alone injects bias into the scientific research process. So... IONS bias does not disqualify them from the discussion... if bias disqualified a study from discussion we wouldn't be having ANY scientific discussion about ANY topic.

 

As long as IONS adheres to (at least) the minimum standards of publication, then they are opening themselves up to peer-review scrutiny and they deserve credit where credit is due.

 

This article explains why people don't take parapsychology seriously. Seriously, you should read it. Radin wants the possible to be true, so he says it's true, and he says it's proven - but he really hasn't gone beyond the wanting phase. The rest is hype.

 

Your reference makes my point. You use an article from The Skeptic's Dictionary to prove why people don't take parapsychology seriously. Seriously, Shyone, an article for Skeptic's Dictionary? As if they don't have their own agenda and biases?????

 

I mean really... they're welcome to their opinion and by all means they have as much right to participate in the discussion as anyone else. But.. let's at least have the honesty to admit they come to the table with their own perspective, just like IONS does. And IONS is at least willing to adhere to some basic ground rules in its research or it wouldn't get its research published.

 

If you want possible results - look at U of Edinburgh. If you want to be fooled, look at IONS.

I'm not in total disagreement with that statement, although I'm not naive enough to look at the research behind the majority of pharmaceuticals in this country and trust that research either. The greatest majority of time pharmaceutical research is either done, or paid for, by major pharmaceutical companies who have already determined the results before conducting the research. As a result, I don't trust their research, I trust the peer-review process. The same holds for research being conducted by IONS (and just about any other institution). That's why we have a peer-review process.

[Shyone]

Hello Shyone:

 

Firstly - you and I are not that far apart on the issue, and trust me I've no intention of getting into a long, detailed and endless back and forth about what each of us mean when we say what we say.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this entirely. I like the attitude of the Edinburgh department of parapsychology, but that's because they are willing to admit that there is nothing established or proven about these effects.

 

IONS, OTOH, boldly makes claims without documentation or evidentiary support, and although such things may exist, the implications go way beyond what they could possibly have established.

 

My point is... whether you like IONS approach, or not is pointless. Does IONS adhere to base line expectations? Are they willing to put their work out their for peer-review? Do they conduct their studies by (at the very least) minimum standards so that their work can be accepted for peer-review? See the following link.

 

Thanks for the link. The questions you ask (rhetorically) are difficult to answer. I think the answer is maybe sometimes they "adhere to baseline expectations." Maybe their work is really put out there, sometimes, for peer review. Maybe sometimes they conduct studies suitable for review.

 

I looked at one of their publications, and it is not a research paper, but an "essay".

 

http://www.sfms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=1538&SECTION=Article_Archives&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm

 

Some papers, although perhaps well conducted, seem to draw inferences that are not justified. This paper measures anticipation, but calls it "intuition."

 

This is the direction they should be going, and I hope they are:

 

Of two minds: Sceptic-proponent collaboration within parapsychology

 

The point is that research is meant to be discussed and evaluated by both sceptics and proponents of view.

 

Your reference makes my point. You use an article from The Skeptic's Dictionary to prove why people don't take parapsychology seriously. Seriously, Shyone, an article for Skeptic's Dictionary? As if they don't have their own agenda and biases?????

 

The article I cite above deals with this exactly, and it's published by IONS. I'm not saying they are absolute out and out frauds. At least I don't think so. I think they, in conjunction with other parapsychology or paranormal institutions, have recognized the problems, but when it comes to some pet projects or theories, they dump all pretense of respectability and forge on alone with poorly established protocols, goals and bad analysis.

 

I'm not in total disagreement with that statement, although I'm not naive enough to look at the research behind the majority of pharmaceuticals in this country and trust that research either. The greatest majority of time pharmaceutical research is either done, or paid for, by major pharmaceutical companies who have already determined the results before conducting the research. As a result, I don't trust their research, I trust the peer-review process. The same holds for research being conducted by IONS (and just about any other institution). That's why we have a peer-review process.

 

That we can agree on.

[Open_Minded]

I'm not in total disagreement with that statement, although I'm not naive enough to look at the research behind the majority of pharmaceuticals in this country and trust that research either. The greatest majority of time pharmaceutical research is either done, or paid for, by major pharmaceutical companies who have already determined the results before conducting the research. As a result, I don't trust their research, I trust the peer-review process. The same holds for research being conducted by IONS (and just about any other institution). That's why we have a peer-review process.

 

That we can agree on.

 

Yes... we can agree on that.

 

Just a side note about pharmaceutical research. I am acquainted with a gentleman who used to be employed as a lead scientist in a major pharmaceutical laboratory. He is no longer employed by that pharmaceutical firm because he refused to sign off on one of the drugs he was testing and send it to the FDA with (what he viewed as) falsified results.

 

There is bias in science, there always has been and there always will be...

 

I am thankful for the peer-review process because it puts a check on human bias (whether the bias is intended or not).

 

I respect scientists who intentionally subject themselves (and their work) to peer-review and criticism. I'm not naive enough to think that every scientist, or research institution is without bias. I simply feel that if one is willing to submit one's work to peer-review and criticism than that action points to someone who is not afraid of the scrutiny. They may be eccentric, they may be overly optimistic about the results of their studies, they may be arrogant, but at the end of the day they are willing to just simply "put the work out there" for the rest of the scientific community to rip apart.

 

____________________________________

 

On another note, Shyone, I could have started this thread on some Christian, or New Age forum. Or I could have elected to not start it at all. I could have simply taken the NPR News Story to my local church bible-study and gotten all the affirmation I needed of my own beliefs. But.... I've had some wonderful discussions with folks here at Ex-C over the years. I knew I would get a skeptical reception by posting the thread on this forum... but I still posted it. I still put it out there for Ex-C to critique....

 

That is why I respect scientists who are willing to put their work up for peer-review and subject themselves and their work to professional criticism. The action alone says something about who they are as individuals... whatever their bias they know that to be taken seriously they have to take the heat.

[Shyone]

That is why I respect scientists who are willing to put their work up for peer-review and subject themselves and their work to professional criticism. The action alone says something about who they are as individuals... whatever their bias they know that to be taken seriously they have to take the heat.

I applaud this approach. It is the only reasonable way to get to the truth. I will concede that simply being skeptical does not make one "right." Hell, I'm skeptical about a lot of things that are otherwise generally accepted, so I'm bound to be wrong in some major way about a lot of things.

 

But I also follow the evidence. I have to read journals in my specialty, so I'm familiar with the statistical methods, significance of sample size, and the types of data and controls that make the analysis meaningful. I actually enjoy picking things apart so that I can better grasp what the "meaning" of the study is.

 

If you aren't skeptical of the news on the television or radio, you would be gullible. The news is frequently "sensational" and just as often wrong in some respect. News people have the job of making the boring interesting - and they do so sometimes by bending the truth.

 

Pharmaceutical companies have more than just a job to make something interesting. They have a financial interest, and slowly but surely that kind of transparency is being appreciated as necessary. It shouldn't be. We should be able to trust scientists. But we can't blindly trust anyone.

 

I worry when I see people uncritically presenting information that is based on a paper that flies in the face of common knowledge and common sense. I'm thinking more of UFO papers and conspiracy theories right now.

 

Just as important, watch for noise in research. If 1,000 studies with a confidence limit of 0.001 show a negative result and one then shows a positive result, it may well mean that this 1 of the 1001 studies is the one that is the wrong one indicated by the confidence limits of 1/1000.

[Open_Minded]

We have more in common than the labels we give ourselves would suggest.

 

On another note... you wrote the following earlier in the thread....

 

Really, do you understand how "earth shattering" such studies, if confirmed, would be?

 

Yes... actually I do understand how "earth shattering" such studies, if confirmed would be. Actually I understand how reality shattering such studies would be (if confirmed). That is why I am so intrigued....

 

Just think... Shyone... to prove in a concrete way that we humans belong to a non-local interconnected reality... If every human took that for granted, (the way we take the sun rising in the east for granted)... If every human fully comprehended the extent of this one thought, "what we do to each other we do to ourselves, what we do to the earth we do to ourselves"....

 

Just think of how that knowledge would affect the way we treat each other????

 

I am capable of cynicism, hence my earlier comments that science has always been biased and always will be. But... the higher part of myself hopes that we humans someday fully comprehend what it means to be interconnected, to be all part of the same non-local ONEness.

[Shyone]

We have more in common than the labels we give ourselves would suggest.

 

On another note... you wrote the following earlier in the thread....

 

Really, do you understand how "earth shattering" such studies, if confirmed, would be?

 

Yes... actually I do understand how "earth shattering" such studies, if confirmed would be. Actually I understand how reality shattering such studies would be (if confirmed). That is why I am so intrigued....

 

Just think... Shyone... to prove in a concrete way that we humans belong to a non-local interconnected reality... If every human took that for granted, (the way we take the sun rising in the east for granted)... If every human fully comprehended the extent of this one thought, "what we do to each other we do to ourselves, what we do to the earth we do to ourselves"....

 

Just think of how that knowledge would affect the way we treat each other????

 

I am capable of cynicism, hence my earlier comments that science has always been biased and always will be. But... the higher part of myself hopes that we humans someday fully comprehend what it means to be interconnected, to be all part of the same non-local ONEness.

We already have this ability - to know that "what we do to each other we do to ourselves."

 

Empathy - it's both human and "magical" at the same time. I think it's physical and that no communication other than shared experiences, words, sights and sounds is necessary. Even all that isn't necessary. I feel empathy for people whose voices I have never heard, who I have never met. I can even feel empathy for people that I am reasonably sure existed, but I have no names, no faces, and they lived long ago.

 

Empathy is at war with tribalism, selfishness, and nationalism. It is the antidote to cruelty, and a recipe for striving for a common good.

 

It is our own perception that defines ONEness. We can either think that way, or remain imprisoned by our primordial urges.

[Open_Minded]

We already have this ability - to know that "what we do to each other we do to ourselves."

 

Empathy - it's both human and "magical" at the same time. I think it's physical and that no communication other than shared experiences, words, sights and sounds is necessary. Even all that isn't necessary. I feel empathy for people whose voices I have never heard, who I have never met. I can even feel empathy for people that I am reasonably sure existed, but I have no names, no faces, and they lived long ago.

 

Empathy is at war with tribalism, selfishness, and nationalism. It is the antidote to cruelty, and a recipe for striving for a common good.

 

It is our own perception that defines ONEness. We can either think that way, or remain imprisoned by our primordial urges.

 

Yes... yes... we do have the ability to empathize. Even animals have the ability to empathize (ask a dog or cat owner). But... I affirm our ability to empathize has evolved over the eons. How much more would it evolve if we continued to learn (in concrete ways) how truly interconnected we all are? Does not evolution - also involve learning? Isn't that one of the reasons the quest of science began and continues on?

 

On another note...

 

How do you feel things will change if these studies bear fruit and change the way humans view reality?

[Shyone]

We already have this ability - to know that "what we do to each other we do to ourselves."

 

Empathy - it's both human and "magical" at the same time. I think it's physical and that no communication other than shared experiences, words, sights and sounds is necessary. Even all that isn't necessary. I feel empathy for people whose voices I have never heard, who I have never met. I can even feel empathy for people that I am reasonably sure existed, but I have no names, no faces, and they lived long ago.

 

Empathy is at war with tribalism, selfishness, and nationalism. It is the antidote to cruelty, and a recipe for striving for a common good.

 

It is our own perception that defines ONEness. We can either think that way, or remain imprisoned by our primordial urges.

 

Yes... yes... we do have the ability to empathize. Even animals have the ability to empathize (ask a dog or cat owner). But... I affirm our ability to empathize has evolved over the eons. How much more would it evolve if we continued to learn (in concrete ways) how truly interconnected we all are? Does not evolution - also involve learning? Isn't that one of the reasons the quest of science began and continues on?

 

On another note...

 

How do you feel things will change if these studies bear fruit and change the way humans view reality?

I agree that empathy is an evolved "ability." One thing about being alive at this time is that evolution is so slow it's very difficult for us to imagine humans evolving at all.

 

In fact, most evolution takes place with really stressful situations. Animals have to die for most species to have any significant genetic change. Just like with bacteria; antibiotics kill off all that are sensitive leaving only those that are resistant, and that's what it takes to become antibiotic resistant. Imagine a worldwide catastrophe that kills off the vast majority of the human population leaving little pockets of people with no technology. They would evolve, but I'm afraid that they would evolve in many different directions befitting their individual circumstances. We would have at least as many species of humans as we do "bears."

 

Given, for the purpose of argument, some unexplained method of communication not involving our known senses, I'm not sure it would change much. Many, if not most, people already accept that such things happen or that at least certain humans are capable of extrasensory communication. It hasn't helped people to be more understanding of each other however (with the possible exception of the West Coast New Agers).

 

As things stand now, when people accept that there are such mental interactions beyond our understanding, they also generally acknowledge that such things are 1) rare, 2) uncontrollable, and 3) mostly useless. They happen, if at all, with the same frequency of random coincidences. "I was just thinking of you!"

 

We wouldn't have cell phones if distant communication via ESP was easy or reliable.

 

Regarding "views of reality", many people have a very tenuous hold on reality, and the ones who either claimed special abilities or were said to have such abilities in the past have not always been treated well. There is a fine line between extrasensory perception and/or communication and sorcery.

 

Furthermore, there is a lot of psychic quackery. This also touches on religion. People want to believe in Faith Healing, talking with the dead and past lives (even if these things are not strictly consistent with the doctrines of their particular religion). Perhaps it is this that makes me skeptical of all claims of a paranormal nature. Rather than trying to say that THIS psychic has special abilities and THAT psychic is a quack, I decided that a manifestly skeptical attitude towards them all was the best course.