Scientific evidence for psychic phenomena by citizen

I thought that as I typed it

.
But I had a choice of two, and that one was more direct, and more importantly, shorter

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2005 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

Great Einstein quote, thanks.

I greedily devour all scientific evidence, as I am certain that everyone is psychic, the trick is only in allowing it to flow, and that the trick to keeping that channel open once you have experienced it has a great deal to do with compassion and acceptance. Agape, as the Christians name it.

I also believe that you don't really get to be a reader in the fullest sense until you have achieved a state of agape, wherein you do not judge the information you receive from others, nor does it frighten you. Gotta be pretty clear and free of fear to do that. The first part is easier, and I believe working to increase your compassion smooths the way to the second part.

"Social systems have built-in mechanisms for maintaining the established order, from experts to executive orders to threats of violence." -The Paradigm Conspiracy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 1:12 AM

It should be noted that Einstien was referring to the distinctions of past, present and future being hooey only in differing frames of reference, ie on a cosmic scale.

I'm rather soured on these sorts of studies. In most of the ones I have looked into in any detail the researcher(s) apparently had some attatchment to the notion that metaphysical ideas could be empirically proven...or were outright frauds. Tread carefully in these realms; remember the bunkum peer-reviewed study on prayer for Columbia medical journal - one of the researchers turned out to be a career criminal. Credentials aren't a guarantee against bad science, especially when dealing with the "paranormal".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 6:07 AM

True, eyetooth, which is why the studies I cited (and the evidence I didn't show for the sake of being verbose) have all been brought forth by reputable labs, conformed to the scientific, been rigerous to remove all flaws suggested by critics and been exceptionally rigerous with respect to removing the possibillity of fraud.
Even sceptics that are informed on the subject of psi and parapsychology are saying that there's something interesting, beyond our current scientific understanding, going on.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 10:32 AM

I think science is in general flawed by the 'expectation of outcome' inherent in researching a theory. People won't always look in directions that might lead away from their expectation. There are many ways to fudge, and people are weak.

Then there's the part where the photon chooses which window to go through in the end anyway.

The part I enjoy is that science shows an interest in the woo woo; whether the researcher is trying to prove or disprove makes no nevermind to me. I think we have reached the moment of zero point where science=religion, and the possibilities are glorious.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 11:00 AM

Sorry to sound like a mystic-bashing ninny, but science =/= religion. The two can be reconciled to a certain point, but at the highest, metaphysical level, there's a fundamental difference of thought. I do consider the core of science to be certain metaphysical assumptions, specifically that science arises from the comparison of evidence, not the evidence in itself; this makes it a kind of extention of philosophy. However its basis in metaphysics doesn't make it any more amenable to religion at the metaphysical level - as the Jansenist Catholics say, "there comes a point where philosophy must end and faith begin."

Your objection strikes me as sophistic - detaching yourself from an expected outcome as much as possible is the very notion of science. Nobody is going to be freed of prejudice, because nobody is God.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 11:01 AM

The thing that interests me is that despite the long documented history of the mainstream scientist of the time being outright wrong about new theories/innovations etc (Heavier than air flight, for instance), sceptics still seem to think it's okay to not bother to even look at, or objectively evaluate, evidence that challenges mainstream ideas.

I agree, to an extent. The desire of scientists to attack new ideas if they challenge the current 'accepted order', despite even scientific evidence to the contrary, borders on the religious.
Kill the Heathen! Stone 'em!
Or is that: Destroy the parapsychologist! Obliterate their career! They aren't real scientists anyway!

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 11:55 AM

I don't mean to cast aspersions on parapsychologists, or dismiss their hypotheses out of hand. Admittedly I groan a little whenever I see a study claiming to offer evidence for pre-/tele-/kinetocognition, but this is because such subjects are so often covertly or overtly tied up with mysticism. So I'm prejudiced; I try to get past that, but I'm sure as hell warranted in being cautious.

Shifts in accepted scientific worldviews (or, "mainstream ideas") come from cross-related studies buttressing each other until a sweeping assumption can be made. Science is not a detective story - the clues to the (small-t!) truth are not framed in a single narrative; very rarely is there the study which in one swoop causes a paradigm shift, and even such studies do not create truth in a vacuum.

My point is that there have been fitful steps towards suggesting that somehow there might be some quantifiable of connection between the physical process of cognition and some of the various assertions of parapsychology. How far those steps go is dependent on how many of the studies you think are valid. I'm inclined to think that very, very few are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 12:07 PM

Quote:
My point is that there have been fitful steps towards suggesting that somehow there might be some quantifiable of connection between the physical process of cognition and some of the various assertions of parapsychology. How far those steps go is dependent on how many of the studies you think are valid. I'm inclined to think that very, very few are.

There's a great deal of studies that are very vigorous, and hold up to sceptics, who necessarily want to rip them apart.

I think it's also telling that particle physics considers a particle's existence proved is 3 tests out of 200,000 are successes, where the majority of sceptics dismiss successful studies because, well, they can't be psi, can they...

Not an attack on you, btw, just an observation of 'professional' sceptics...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 12:21 PM

There's more to proving a particle's existence beyond reasonable doubt than the simple quantity of successful tests would imply, though I can certainly agree with the spirit of your example. There is indeed a good deal of psychic-bashing to be found amongst professional sceptics, but that makes for easier (and much more glamourous) work than peer-spelunking the labrynths of esoterica that are modern hard science studies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by eyetooth:
but science =/= religion.

Your objection strikes me as sophistic - detaching yourself from an expected outcome as much as possible is the very notion of science. Nobody is going to be freed of prejudice, because nobody is God.

I like your equation, where / = the photon's choice of doorway, but I am not fluent in math, and don't have a Babelfish. Is this mixed metaphor math(+webspeak)? Is / the impenetrable wall of 3rd dimensional voodoo? I'm not only teasing you, please explain.

Sophist, eh? I haven't made you angry, have I, Obi Wan? Of course people who choose to work in research would need to apply effort to removing the subjective from their research to protect the results, or the research is worthless. Removing one's expectation of and attachment to outcome is a noble effort, and very difficult ground on which to maintain one's balance as human beings. As the citizen says, it takes lots of experimentation to prove or disprove a thing. That's comforting, as there's plenty mojo wrapped up in being right, especially when there's grant money and publishing clout wrapped in the package.

Finally, I think some things are very hard to prove/disprove, and anything relating to the workings of the mind is a particularly slippery subject. I'm glad to hear about another of the 10,000 necessary experiments.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 7:37 PM

It's "does not equal". Normally it's just an equal sign with a slash through it. I suspect you already knew this...

Focusing on publishing clout and grant lawyers, guns and money and false tracheal/ocular omniscience and all the silly crap that is part and parcel to science and everything else in the universe again misses the point, lest your point is to be a postmod satyr heckling from the wood. Sanity may be devilishly hard to maintain as a true scientist, as the joys and unitiy of mystical Truth are willfuly kissed goodbye, but for some people that's just their path. Science too has its own joys, distant and barren though they are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 17, 2005 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by eyetooth:
It's "does not equal". Normally it's just an equal sign with a slash through it. I suspect you already knew this...

Focusing on publishing clout and grant lawyers, guns and money and false tracheal/ocular omniscience and all the silly crap that is part and parcel to science and everything else in the universe again misses the point, lest your point is to be a postmod satyr heckling from the wood. Sanity may be devilishly hard to maintain as a true scientist, as the joys and unitiy of mystical Truth are willfuly kissed goodbye, but for some people that's just their path. Science too has its own joys, distant and barren though they are.

I just didn't recognise your gliph =/=
Dang, you -do- think I'm heckling you. Not heckling, really. Silly keeps me sane, sorry if I yanked your chain.

Let me try to restate what I meant about objectivity. It takes a willingness to submerge the ego, which requires a good deal of will and strong belief in one's reasons for it to happen at all. It's a difficult state to maintain, but from the reasearch driven friends I have, I hear that what happens for them is similar to what happens for me when I'm creating something: the world floats away, and there's only me inside the work that's happening. I have hung out in labs, and I've watched them float away. I don't find that a distant and barren place at all, however one manages to access it.

Publishers and funding agencies, or publishers and gallery owners, it's the same crappy game of politics, and it's hard not to morph into a politician when you're playing at politics. To paraphrase a line above- 90% of everything is crap. It's hard work strive for the illusive 10%.

I hope I have achieved clarity?

[insert Sheldrake quote guaranteed to annoy]

Really, no, not shooting at you from the safety of a pixelated wood.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:21 AM

CALHOUN

David Copperfield can make the space shuttle disappear! How much more evidence do you need?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 18, 2005 7:35 AM