euphgeek Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 My challenge to Randi is simple. He claims that psychics are using trickery to get their high hit rate, that they have no real powers. If it really is trickery, he should be able to reproduce that trick himself, even in a controlled setting [...] He has. I'll have to do more research on what the experiments exactly consisted of, but Project Alpha shows that these so called powers can be demonstrated through trickery. And Randi isn't the only person who attempts to debunk these things. Derren Brown comes to mind. http://en.wikipedia....i/Project_Alpha Project Alpha was an elaborate hoax orchestrated by the stage magician and skeptic James Randi. It involved planting two fake psychics, Steve Shaw (now better known as Banachek) and Michael Edwards, into a paranormal research project. During the initial stages of the investigation, the researchers came to believe that the pair's psychic powers were real. However, more formal experiments, as well as criticism from both the parapsychology community and Randi himself, led them to dismiss their initial trust.[1] The hoax was later revealed publicly. The success of Project Alpha led Randi to use variations of the technique on several other occasions. Perhaps the most famous example led to the downfall of TV evangelist and faith healer Peter Popoff, when Randi had a man pose as a woman with uterine cancer, which Popoff happily "cured." In another example, Randi worked with performance artist José Alvarez, who posed as a channeller known as "Carlos," who was presented on Australian TV and soon had a wide following. After this hoax was exposed, the artist was constantly approached by people who believed him to be genuine, even if he told them directly that he was an actor. Excellent. Perhaps I misjudged Randi in that respect. I still think his approach in general leaves a lot to be desired and that his million dollar challenge is a mere gimmick, but this is definitely a good thing he did for the scientific community. I think it would be great if he did more of this type of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyString Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Look, you can say what you want about Randi, but I find it admirable that he is committed to exposing the frauds and making it his life's work to uncover the real truth. Like I said before, he is not the only person who does this. After all these years and all these experiments, there is still no real conclusive evidence that psychic powers are real. I'm sure that if psychic abilities could be demonstrated with consistent results through successful scientific experimentation Randi would be the first to accept that there really was something here. But that hasn't happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 Look, you can say what you want about Randi, but I find it admirable that he is committed to exposing the frauds and making it his life's work to uncover the real truth. Like I said before, he is not the only person who does this. After all these years and all these experiments, there is still no real conclusive evidence that psychic powers are real. I'm sure that if psychic abilities could be demonstrated with consistent results through successful scientific experimentation Randi would be the first to accept that there really was something here. But that hasn't happened. As I've said before, I think it's a good thing to expose frauds. I'm not against that at all. My only complaints are with his pompous, confrontational attitude that turns people off from even hearing what he has to say and his million dollar challenge gimmick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 What should my explanations matter? I already said that I'm not a debunker, nor would I try to satisfactorily explain these things, not being an expert on the subjects. The only likely purpose my giving you my ideas would serve would be for you to shoot them down. My specific ideas are not the point, the point is simply that even I, uneducated as I am on the subject, can think of ways that these psychic events weren't actually psychic events. That you want to believe nothing else is all that prevents you from doing the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 What should my explanations matter? I already said that I'm not a debunker, nor would I try to satisfactorily explain these things, not being an expert on the subjects. The only likely purpose my giving you my ideas would serve would be for you to shoot them down. My specific ideas are not the point, the point is simply that even I, uneducated as I am on the subject, can think of ways that these psychic events weren't actually psychic events. That you want to believe nothing else is all that prevents you from doing the same. I was just curious as to what explanations you're able to come up with in case they were different from other explanations I'd heard before and been unsatisfied with. If you don't want to share them with me, that's fine. But don't tell me what I do or don't want to believe. I believe what makes sense to me. If someone comes up with a good enough reason to stop believing what I currently believe, then I stop believing. I de-converted from Christianity, after all, and I never thought I'd do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowJacket Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I just spent the weekend with him and he is neither pompous nor arrogant. and he loves scientists. and the feeling is mutual. Bill Nye was there as well. A man in his late 80s riddled with cancer has a right to feel impatient at times. so you think he should spend the million dollars on something more useful? like perhaps scholarships for students going into physics and biology? that would sure be a cool idea. http://www.randi.org...holarships.html and maybe instead of saying he's less likely to be tricked than a scientist, he could TEAM UP with some scientists, like maybe neurosurgeons or physicists or astronomers. yeah that would be pretty cool too. http://www.randi.org...86-jref-fellows 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 Great, all good things to do. Nobody, least of all me, is begrudging him for any of that. But does that mean he is above criticism? Honestly, as one who believes in psychics, he's seen by believers as someone who is at best not credible when it comes to debunking due to his belligerent and confrontational approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 question: where is this 80% figure coming from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 Years ago I read about an experiment where psychics got an 80% hit rate even though they were separated from their subjects by a wall. I don't remember where I saw it, but I remember reading that James Randi looked at the experiment and declared that because he found a small hole in the wall, that was how the psychics must have been doing it. Sorry, but I don't remember all the details. But here's a post on the JREF forum where they're discussing an experiment with similar results (perhaps the same one). http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-20697.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted November 1, 2011 Super Moderator Share Posted November 1, 2011 Years ago I read about an experiment where psychics got an 80% hit rate even though they were separated from their subjects by a wall. I don't remember where I saw it... Well, that's good enough proof for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 Right, because since I don't remember where I saw it, that means it must not exist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowJacket Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 ^kinda like Nessie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 ^Yes, because a link to a discussion on the JREF forum about that experiment is exactly like some grainy, blurry photos of some floating wood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 It seems that you are speaking of a Dr Gary Schwartz at the University of Arizona. (his website is here: http://www.drgaryschwartz.com/index.html) A copy of his paper on the subject is available here:( http://www.drgaryschwartz.com/files/QuickSiteImages/BeischelEXPLORE2007vol3.pdf ). I haven't read it yet. the EXPLORE editorial board http://www.explorejournal.com/edboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 Yes, that name does sound familiar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 No one else has said it so I will. Physics Psychics are frauds. Go read up on all the oracles of the past. The "prophets" of the bible. The Essenes in Josephus. The Corinthians in Paul. All had "psychic" powers. All were tied directly to "religion" of some nature. To attempt to remove that now to the skeptics is ridiculous. It is not confidence of thought that makes religion but belief in the unprovable/untestable otherwise we should all give up education so as to perfect ourselves. EDIT: Changed "Physics" to "Psychics" after error was pointed out to me. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted November 2, 2011 Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 No one else has said it so I will. Physics are frauds. "Physics?" Never mind, I know what you meant. That's your belief and you're welcome to it. Go read up on all the oracles of the past. The "prophets" of the bible. The Essenes in Josephus. The Corinthians in Paul. All had "psychic" powers. All were tied directly to "religion" of some nature. To attempt to remove that now to the skeptics is ridiculous. It is not confidence of thought that makes religion but belief in the unprovable/untestable otherwise we should all give up education so as to perfect ourselves. mwc It's not confidence of thought that makes religion, but the absolute certainty one is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 "Physics?" Never mind, I know what you meant. That's your belief and you're welcome to it. Ha. Bit in the ass by my FireFox spell check and lazy proofreading (I went back and changed the other post). Of course I'm welcome to my "belief." Thank you for allowing me to have it. I base it on how things work. Magic is not real. It does not occur in the everyday. Therefore it is simple to predict what will, and will not happen, on a regular basis. If these things were not so then life would be difficult to navigate. It is why the unexpected causes so much turmoil. An "accident" causes upheaval. One drops a glass and it breaks can cause many issues. A car accident. A meteor strike. All normally unexpected cause problems. If the unexpected were the norm we would just move about as-if nothing had happened but we take notice of these events, to their varying degrees, because they are unexpected. Magic is the unexpected. It would cause us to be immune to these things. We are not. Psychics are not. They are no different than us. They are alarmed by the unexpected. They are frauds. My cat is far more alarmed by things than I am. I have reason that it lacks. I know what the door bell is. I know what it represents. I know what lies on the other side. My cat does as well. But to my cat it represents a threat. To me it is a friend, or a package or a stranger but not a threat. I do not need to run and hide. To be alarmed in the same way. I possess a higher level of processing the world than does my cat. A psychic should be able to, in many ways, able to process the world in the way I do in relation to my cat. They do not. They process it identically to all others. They do not lead people to safety prior to, during, or immediately after disasters. They are caught up and swept away in tragedy, natural and man-made, as are the rest of us. The "unexpected" finds them the same as the rest. The exception is when they are putting on their "show." Then and only then do they process "differently." It is controlled. Beyond that they become victim to the same "unexpected" as we all do. Us "normals." They are frauds. Go read up on all the oracles of the past. The "prophets" of the bible. The Essenes in Josephus. The Corinthians in Paul. All had "psychic" powers. All were tied directly to "religion" of some nature. To attempt to remove that now to the skeptics is ridiculous. It is not confidence of thought that makes religion but belief in the unprovable/untestable otherwise we should all give up education so as to perfect ourselves. It's not confidence of thought that makes religion, but the absolute certainty one is right. I left my own quote because you failed to address it. How do you remove your psychics from the religions of the past? How are yours different from them? How is it they've all claimed such powers and have been sent to the garbage heaps of history as frauds? Where are the evidences of any one true psychic from any of human history? There is none. Yet you persist with the claim that I am closed minded. I have read volumes of histories and have come up empty handed. There are no gods. There are no psychics. There are texts filled with frauds and phonies but nothing of a legitimate person that would and could perform these feats without question in a repeatable fashion. They're absent. Unless we grant that all the magic mentioned in all these various texts are equally valid. Since you are apparently able to reject some magic in some texts, based on your earlier claim that you are no longer a christian, then it seems safe to say that you are able to pick and choose which types of magic you wish to find valid and don't it all as equal. What you're saying is we need to prove you wrong and we're saying is you need to prove your position to be right. I find no problem with your ad hom attack on my mindset for not being "open minded" enough to simply accept your position because you want me to accept it. I do not. It is unreasonable in light of all I have said. The world does not work in a magical way. It is up to you to demonstrate that it does. And you need to do it using established and recognized methods or demonstrate that your methods are their equal for this task. It is at that point I will reconsider my position. If I do not then I might be "closed minded" but until then you have nothing other than sour grapes. mwc 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euphgeek Posted November 2, 2011 Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 "Physics?" Never mind, I know what you meant. That's your belief and you're welcome to it. Ha. Bit in the ass by my FireFox spell check and lazy proofreading (I went back and changed the other post). Of course I'm welcome to my "belief." Thank you for allowing me to have it. Never said you weren't. I'm not here to say that my beliefs are right or wrong. I base it on how things work. Magic is not real. It does not occur in the everyday. Therefore it is simple to predict what will, and will not happen, on a regular basis. If these things were not so then life would be difficult to navigate. It is why the unexpected causes so much turmoil. An "accident" causes upheaval. One drops a glass and it breaks can cause many issues. A car accident. A meteor strike. All normally unexpected cause problems. If the unexpected were the norm we would just move about as-if nothing had happened but we take notice of these events, to their varying degrees, because they are unexpected. Magic is the unexpected. It would cause us to be immune to these things. We are not. Psychics are not. They are no different than us. They are alarmed by the unexpected. They are frauds. My experience tells me differently. And I would not classify it as "magic," just something completely natural that can't be explained completely yet. My cat is far more alarmed by things than I am. I have reason that it lacks. I know what the door bell is. I know what it represents. I know what lies on the other side. My cat does as well. But to my cat it represents a threat. To me it is a friend, or a package or a stranger but not a threat. I do not need to run and hide. To be alarmed in the same way. I possess a higher level of processing the world than does my cat. A psychic should be able to, in many ways, able to process the world in the way I do in relation to my cat. Why do you think that is? Psychics don't claim to be superhuman. At least not the legitimate ones. They do not. They process it identically to all others. They do not lead people to safety prior to, during, or immediately after disasters. They are caught up and swept away in tragedy, natural and man-made, as are the rest of us. The "unexpected" finds them the same as the rest. The exception is when they are putting on their "show." Then and only then do they process "differently." It is controlled. Beyond that they become victim to the same "unexpected" as we all do. Us "normals." They are frauds. You seem to be under the misapprehension that psychics claim to be able to predict the future with 100% accuracy. Not so. At least not the legitimate ones. Speaking as one who has taken psychic development classes, "spirit communication" is rarely in straightforward English. It's more like a thought that pops into your head that you know wasn't yours. It uses frames of reference that you're familiar with. And it's not always literal. So you can't always tell when or who to warn. Sometimes in the cases of big disasters, the people who died had already agreed to die before they came into this life and you're not allowed to interrupt their karma. Go read up on all the oracles of the past. The "prophets" of the bible. The Essenes in Josephus. The Corinthians in Paul. All had "psychic" powers. All were tied directly to "religion" of some nature. To attempt to remove that now to the skeptics is ridiculous. It is not confidence of thought that makes religion but belief in the unprovable/untestable otherwise we should all give up education so as to perfect ourselves. I left my own quote because you failed to address it. How do you remove your psychics from the religions of the past? How are yours different from them? How is it they've all claimed such powers and have been sent to the garbage heaps of history as frauds? Where are the evidences of any one true psychic from any of human history? Prophets and psychics are one and the same. There is no difference. They brought forth essential truths for people to live by. Yes, they made predictions. Some came true, others didn't. The one underlying, essential truth to all of them though was to "love one another." There is none. Yet you persist with the claim that I am closed minded. I have read volumes of histories and have come up empty handed. There are no gods. There are no psychics. There are texts filled with frauds and phonies but nothing of a legitimate person that would and could perform these feats without question in a repeatable fashion. They're absent. Unless we grant that all the magic mentioned in all these various texts are equally valid. Since you are apparently able to reject some magic in some texts, based on your earlier claim that you are no longer a christian, then it seems safe to say that you are able to pick and choose which types of magic you wish to find valid and don't it all as equal. All religions, Christianity included, contain the same basic truths. I left Christianity as a religion. That doesn't mean I believe Christianity is not a true religion. It just means that I don't believe in the whole virgin birth, believe in Jesus to get to heaven, all bad people go to hell parts which are essential to the religion. What you're saying is we need to prove you wrong and we're saying is you need to prove your position to be right. I find no problem with your ad hom attack on my mindset for not being "open minded" enough to simply accept your position because you want me to accept it. I do not. I'm afraid you've been misinterpreting what I've said. If you go back and read my posts, nowhere do I ask or demand anyone believe the same way I do. I don't expect people to do that to me and I try not to do it to anyone else. If you interpreted anything I said as me asking you to believe what I do, I apologize for not being more clear. In fact, my original post was only talking about how unscientific Randi is in his approach to debunking. Real scientists do experiments with an open mind. They don't offer monetary rewards for people to prove them wrong, nor do they become belligerent when their beliefs are challenged. From there, people started challenging me and asking about my beliefs which I have no problem with. I've answered questions as honestly as I can to the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge. It is unreasonable in light of all I have said. The world does not work in a magical way. It is up to you to demonstrate that it does. And you need to do it using established and recognized methods or demonstrate that your methods are their equal for this task. It is at that point I will reconsider my position. If I do not then I might be "closed minded" but until then you have nothing other than sour grapes. mwc As far as psychic abilities go, I only want them to be studied more. Some scientists have gotten positive results. That doesn't necessarily prove psychic phenomena but it does mean that something is happening that science can't completely explain at the present. As I've said before, there might need to be a new paradigm in science in order to study it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Sorry for the provocative title, but I just had to get this off my chest. I was recently pointed to this article from another site in which Randi gloats about how James van Praagh refuses to take his million dollar challenge. My response to that is that if I was a psychic, I wouldn't want to be tested by Randi either. The million dollar challenge just seems to be some gimmick so he can go around smugly declaring how right he is, just like Kent Hovind with his evolution challenge. It's one thing to suggest better controls for scientific experiments, but to declare all scientific experiments that suggested psychic abilities might be real as frauds is the height of arrogance. It's fine if he doesn't want to believe in psychic abilities and it's good that he wants to expose real frauds but he's turning people off with his attitude and making himself look like some religious nutjob who has a bone to pick with those who are not of his religion. Furthermore, it puzzles me how atheists just eat it all up. For a group of people who say they prefer science over religion, they sure do like Randi's decidedly non-scientific approach. He starts with the conclusion that all psychic abilities are fake and then looks for ways to prove it, including harassing well-known psychics who may or may not be actual frauds. But he'll never find out the scientific way, he'll just dangle that million dollars out there and declare that because nobody has ever won it that that must mean that psychic abilities don't exist, an approach known as "denying the antecedent." The posters on his site are not any better. Their posts consist of either blind praise for Randi or vapid things such as, "I predicted the sun would rise in the east, million dollars please. Hurr hurr." Not a single one of them stops to think how illogical and unscientific the whole approach is. In conclusion, I couldn't care less whether or not Randi or anyone else believes in psychic abilities. He is well within his rights not to. And as I said above, I applaud his efforts to bring better controls to scientific experiments and expose charlatans. But nobody should mistake his approach for being scientific or proving anything. Randi is a magician, not a scientist. So, do you think psychics are real? And, if so, where were they on 9-11? Yeah I know the response about how psychicness doesn't work that way but hey, some psychic somewhere must have had a brain fart that day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Never said you weren't. I'm not here to say that my beliefs are right or wrong. I would hope that you think that your beliefs are right. Otherwise are you just arguing your side for the sake of arguing it? Like in a debate class where you are assigned a side? Or just to play "Devil's Advocate?" My experience tells me differently. And I would not classify it as "magic," just something completely natural that can't be explained completely yet. The natural would be explained via a naturalistic explanation. Psychics do not put forward any reasonable naturalistic explanations. They generally base their theories on yet to be tested or verified other theories. So, for example, perhaps if String Theory proves to be true then some Psychic theory based upon String Theory will prove to be true as well. But the Psychic Theory would not say how such a thing might work. It just pins its hopes on the strange bits and pieces of String Theory, the odd happenings at the quantum level that allow for "spooky" actions, and maybe it is there that the "psychic" also occurs? Figure out how the quantum world works and, ta-da, we've figured out the psychic as well. Or so the hope goes. But if String Theory fails? The the psychic lies elsewhere. Or String Theory succeeds but we have no progress in the psychic? We just don't know quite enough. But no actual theory ever arrives. There's nothing to ever really investigate or test. Just some vague concept that someone should hopefully "discover" if they root around enough in enough places. And given enough vague references if one of them happens to be right some day then it is that one that is correct. The predicted theory. Offer a thousand theories for the origin of man and one of then happened to be evolution and Darwin becomes a very happen man when his is the one that happened to be the correct one. But that's not how it worked. He did quite a bit of work to develop his theory and it won out over the other theories. You need that to be taken seriously. Develop a real theory. Something that can be testable. And have it demonstrate how psychic powers are real. So far this is a dismal failure. Why do you think that is? Psychics don't claim to be superhuman. At least not the legitimate ones. I don't seek superhuman. I seek human that would be in touch with "paranormal" or above and beyond normal ability. I cannot swim. Getting pushed into a swimming pool would panic me. A person with greater than average swimming ability should be at a much greater ease than myself in the same situation. Psychics are not. We are at the same level in situations where their "ability" should put them at ease. You seem to be under the misapprehension that psychics claim to be able to predict the future with 100% accuracy. Not so. At least not the legitimate ones. Speaking as one who has taken psychic development classes, "spirit communication" is rarely in straightforward English. It's more like a thought that pops into your head that you know wasn't yours. It uses frames of reference that you're familiar with. And it's not always literal. So you can't always tell when or who to warn. Sometimes in the cases of big disasters, the people who died had already agreed to die before they came into this life and you're not allowed to interrupt their karma. I am going to simply call bullshit on this entire paragraph. It reads like the ravings of a madman. I would walk quickly by someone if they were speaking like this on the street. All religions, Christianity included, contain the same basic truths. I left Christianity as a religion. That doesn't mean I believe Christianity is not a true religion. It just means that I don't believe in the whole virgin birth, believe in Jesus to get to heaven, all bad people go to hell parts which are essential to the religion. So you reject the basic tenets of christianity. How can you reject all of the basic tenets and yet maintain that you think it's a true religion? You've gutted it. You find its very core false. I'm afraid you've been misinterpreting what I've said. If you go back and read my posts, nowhere do I ask or demand anyone believe the same way I do. I don't expect people to do that to me and I try not to do it to anyone else. If you interpreted anything I said as me asking you to believe what I do, I apologize for not being more clear. In fact, my original post was only talking about how unscientific Randi is in his approach to debunking. Real scientists do experiments with an open mind. They don't offer monetary rewards for people to prove them wrong, nor do they become belligerent when their beliefs are challenged. A lot of scientists usually come up with a hypothesis and then go about trying to prove that hypothesis. They're biased towards their own ideas. They try to perform experiments that remove that bias. This gets coupled with peer reviews that allow others to review and replicate their work so they can see if their results are actually worthwhile. This is something that does not happen in the psychic field and excuses and apologetics are what gets offered in return. Since no one will step forward to put their "gift" or "talent" up for actual experimentation of the type I just mentioned, the reward is there as an enticement. One would think if displaying their ability in the local strip mall whenever the lonely woman happened by then doing so for the scientist or for the $1 million prize could also be done. But where the strip mall psychic never falters they suddenly have a moral issue "from beyond" when they are asked to better humanity through research or to pad their wallet in one large lump sum as opposed to many small deposits from those who likely cannot afford it. And the "legit" psychics are equally impotent when placed in front of the same said scientists or paying skeptics. Suddenly they develop psychic withdrawal that lasts the length of the tests which rightly require repeatability. A high score over one sitting is not a psychic home-run as much as that person may like it to me. The purpose of the test is repeatability just like it is for the scientist demonstrating a new cure or a new type of fuel. It must work for that person and for others. So take the psychic test. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. We need to know if this person can stand up over time or is a one hit wonder. A 100% hit rate is amazing unless they get a 50% or 25% or something else the next time. That might indicate guessing. And guessing 100% is near impossible but it is possible just like bowling a 300. You might be a 50 point bowler and get a 300. But you need to get the high 200's to be a pro. Otherwise it's a fluke. Scientists may not pay a million to entice people but they do offer cash to participate in experiments. You can find this online and especially at colleges. It happens quite regularly. And for that money you must go and follow the rules laid out by those in charge. You are their guinea pig. If you don't follow the rules then you don't get paid. Psychics don't want to follow the rules but want special rules that conform more to their "ability" but that isn't how it works in this situation. From there, people started challenging me and asking about my beliefs which I have no problem with. I've answered questions as honestly as I can to the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge. And it's appreciated. As far as psychic abilities go, I only want them to be studied more. Some scientists have gotten positive results. That doesn't necessarily prove psychic phenomena but it does mean that something is happening that science can't completely explain at the present. As I've said before, there might need to be a new paradigm in science in order to study it better. Like I mentioned earlier there is nothing to study more. You want someone to invent something to study something that you cannot explain. So what is that something they should invent to study that thing you don't know how it works? What is this vague concept and what device and/or procedure is used to investigate it? All things in the universe work on energy. Should we detect that? Some radiation? What wavelength? None of our detectors, to my knowledge, have found anything shooting into/out of our heads like a radio. So what now? Something new? Quantum level? We need to just invent something to do something there? None of the so-called experts in the psychic field know what but they blame the real scientists for not dumping lots of time and money into this "problem" when none of the psychics can sit down and do anything repeatedly in a setting of the real scientists choosing just to get the ball rolling? Not even for a million dollars if it works to the psychics advantage? So what is to study? Nothing. Just people saying something works. I think I'd keep my money. The psychics clearly saw that coming and it obviously pisses them off. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Years ago I read about an experiment where psychics got an 80% hit rate even though they were separated from their subjects by a wall. I don't remember where I saw it... Well, that's good enough proof for me! Right, because since I don't remember where I saw it, that means it must not exist! C'mon, you should know better than that. What it means, is that you have not demonstrated anything with this example. If I were to tell you, "I can't find it, but some study indicated that Thalidomide causes birth defects," I would not have demonstrated anything whether it was true or not, and whether the study actually existed or not. That sort of thing happens to bode particularly poorly when trying to defend an extraordinary claim, since unsubstantiated extraordinary claims float on this sort of shaky, slippery evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted November 2, 2011 Super Moderator Share Posted November 2, 2011 As far as psychic abilities go, I only want them to be studied more. How much more? Decades of study by independent labs around the world, the US government and the former Soviet Union is not enough to come to a conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 As far as psychic abilities go, I only want them to be studied more. How much more? Decades of study by independent labs around the world, the US government and the former Soviet Union is not enough to come to a conclusion? He wants them to keep searching until they can conclusively prove what he already knows. IOW, he's motivated by true objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 the US government This idea always bothered me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts