New Research Verifying Existence of Psi To Appear

[notthecheatr]

(Note to onlookers: my arguments for the evidence of psi, and my presentation here of a brief history of psi research, should not be mistaken for an assertion or truth-belief that PSI is factually true aspect of reality - meleagar)

Oh, I am(and I think most other people are) well aware that your attack is on science, not on PSI deniers.

Unless you are have academic education and on-the-job, hands-on experience in any of those fields, how do you know they're doing it wrong? How do you know the "reasons why" they are doing it?

Are you saying you have to be an expert to recognize fraud? In this case, and in most case, we have the word of scientists who are experts describing the problems. And some of these problems would have been obvious to a layman, including the one I mentioned that was described in the article.

As for the other theories I mentioned, very often the people denying science or supporting pseudo-scientific ideas will flat-out tell you why they're doing it. If not, you might have to dig a little deeper. You know something is wrong when someone contradicts a massive body of evidence discovered by other scientists. Even moreso when the person contradicting everyone else has a political motive.

It's being presented in the standard way: peer-reviewed and published in the leading journal of the field. How else would you like them to present it?

I don't claim to be an expert on sociology, but when experts are decrying it, you either have to contradict the vast mountain of scientific evidence or you have to contradict the guy with the crazy theory. I've already explained that even if he really did have genuine research, he should be much more cautious about this than to be making wild claims like this. When the results were obviously flawed (as in the example given in the article, where he primed his subjects and then called the results "sensing the future" when they were really just remembering things they had been taught to remember), to call this evidence for anything is a massive stretch.

Without even looking at the research, how do you know that wasn't exactly what happened?

The article describes the research. He did experiments to see if the subjects would be able to predict things correctly. He designed the experiments so they would favor the result he wanted.

How do you know this? Have you read the research, or any of the published work on psi research? Have you read the body of work that exists about the very things you've listed above? Are you even familiar with it? Or, do you really have no knowledge whatsoever of the past 150 years or so of accumulated psi research that has led esteemed scientists like Nobel Prize winner Brian Josephson to state that PSI is a real, empirically substantiated phenomena?

Funny, for such an important, real, empirically substantiated phenomena, all the Google results for it are about other things. You would think if we had real evidence that humans could sense the future, it would be headline news everywhere, top of every Google search related, a heavily researched field of science. For something we've been studying for 150 years now, we ought to have a quantum theory for how humans sense the future, computer programs that can use brain waves to predict future events (or at least the rudimentary beginnings of such programs), and there should be no criticism whatsoever when journals publish these papers - and by the way, journals should be publishing papers on this topic by the buttload, because every scientist from here to Timbuktu would love to study something that fascinating if only it were supported by scientific evidence instead of conjecture, desire, and myth.

In reality, the studies that have been done about these things invariably turn up either "false" or "invalid procedure." It's always one or the other. I'm sure if this one were any different, no one would be complaining. And if there were any reputability to this study, I too would be very excited.

Yes, it is, with about 150 years of research into various sub-fields that fall under the general umbrella of psychical research. Have you ever heard of the American Society for Psychical Research? Have you ever read their journal? From their website:

I think that 150 years of use of the term by some of the best scientific minds is enough to substantiate the use of the term as a general field of research with many particular sub-fields. How is it that you feel comfortable negatively characterizing and smearing the motivations and reputations of researchers you have no knowledge of, and never even bothered to acquaint yourself with? How is it that yo feel comfortable smearing the character of Nobel Prize winner Brian Josephson and past scientific luminaries like William Crooks, Alfred Wallace, etc.?

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm well aware that there are organizations for "psychical" research. I'm just denying that there is any scientific validity to these organizations, or the papers they produce. I think you'll find that the majority of real scientists, and the bulk of scientific research on the topic will agree with me. Along with anyone who has ever taken a high school or introductory college-level science course.

Note your a priori bias here. Why is it absurd?

Note your constant, self-gratifying use of the word "a priori." Do you even know what it means?

It's absurd because it goes against common sense first, and against all other scientific discoveries second. As the article phrases it, this violates almost all scientific laws discovered before. If you want to overthrow all scientific research of the past 400 years, you'd better have a little bit more than a few studies involving human psychology that were obviously tailored to obtain a particular result.

You just admitted you haven't read it. You are passing judgement on it sight unseen, clearly demonstrating your a priori bias and unwillingness to give some ideas/research a fair reading.

I read the beginning, I read the article about it with the opinions of real scientists who read it and descriptions of parts of the paper. Again, not everything is in the details. Sometimes you can detect the fraud at the very highest level of communication, the most basic summary of the information to be presented. And yes, if I thought there were any merit to this study, I would bother to read through it. It would be a very interesting topic to study, but it's obviously fraudulent and therefore not worth my time.

You claim that you are not rejecting something sight unseen, then admit you didn't read the paper.

Real scientists don't read every paper either. They don't have time to. We have things called "abstracts" and "first paragraphs" and "last paragraphs" and things like that which help us separate the wheat from the chaff. If the study had showed promise beyond the first paragraph, I would have known. As it did not, I had no further need to read beyond that first paragraph.

You are willing to smear 150 years of research and the reputations of some of the finest minds in history - again - sight unseen.

"Finest minds of history" is your opinion. I say they're all frauds, and I've seen enough of their research to know this. As I said before, you don't have to read every religious text on the planet to know that religion is bullshit. You don't have to read every novel on the planet to know that it's fiction. You don't have to hear every myth of every culture on earth to know that they didn't really happen.

You've demonstrated a clear a a priori bias

Oh, there you go with the "a priori bias" again. Do you have any new ideas to express?

against the idea of legitimate psi research

I wasn't complaining about legitimate research, because I haven't yet seen any legitimate research.

and have erected such canards as the "no true scotsman" fallacy ("real scientist wouldn't use the term "psi" - is Brian Josephson, a real scientist?)

'scuse me, let me qualify that: a real scientist trying to express real science. Brian Josephson is apparently a physicist. Should've stuck to physics.

The real question is: why are you dismissive of psi research, sight unseen?

Not sight unseen. I've explained that only half a dozen times now.

The only answer I can come up with is: the existence of psi would somehow undermine your belief structure.

It would disagree with my expectations of the universe, but science has very often disagreed with my expectations of the universe before (big bang, evolution, global warming...) and I always weighed both sides of the debate before proceeding into the light. In this case, the sides have been weighed and the verdict is in. This is not science, it's fraud masquerading as science.

Otherwise, there's no reason to call it "absurd" without even giving it a fair reading.

Reading given. Fraud (or perhaps just mistake) detected. Moving on.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

BTW, has anyone noticed the hypocrisy in starting one thread on "PSI verified in peer reviewed journal" and another on "Peer review sucks and is unreliable"?

[Maryjane]

BTW, has anyone noticed the hypocrisy in starting one thread on "PSI verified in peer reviewed journal" and another on "Peer review sucks and is unreliable"?

Heh....I'd call that a Gotcha!

[Meleagar]

Heh....I'd call that a Gotcha!

Not really. This thread is for those who hold peer-reviewed articles published in leading articles as the standard by which they accept - or at least begin to accept - verification of the existence of things and support for theories. They hypocrisy lies in those that claim to adhere to the peer-reviewed, published standard, but then dismiss any peer-reviewed, published work that - apparently - supports something they don't want to believe - especially when they dismiss such work sight unseen. That reveals a clear hyposcrisy and a clear a priori bias.

This is why I so often refer to peer-reviewed articles on these boards - because so many here claim to adhere to that standard. When you debate someone, using the sources and systems they have expressed as valid against their position is the most effective way to make a point.

Obviously, my beliefs are not founded on the peer-review system, so whether a theory is supported by peer-reviewed works or not is irrelevant to me, and whether the peer-review system is a good source of valid information is - again - irrelevant to me. I'm not presenting that evidence to support my own beliefs (which don't require peer-review support), I'm presenting that evidence for the benefit of those who do hold such evidence as valid, and to reveal the very hypocrisy and a priori bias demonstrated by them - such as in this thread.

IMO, such beliefs aren't about empiricism or what the peer-review system legitimizes; they are about accepting what their a priori ideology promotes, and denying what their ideology disallows, regardless of where the data comes from.

[Uncle Rhynchus]

This thread is for those who hold peer-reviewed articles published in leading articles as the standard by which they accept - or at least begin to accept - verification of the existence of things and support for theories.

Which isn't you. You stated in the other thread that you find mainstream, peer reviewed science to be unreliable.

So if this research pans out and is verified by the mainstream peer review process, I suppose you'll have to reject it as a product of the flawed, agenda driven process you so frequently rail against.

They hypocrisy lies in those that claim to adhere to the peer-reviewed, published standard, but then dismiss any peer-reviewed, published work that - apparently - supports something they don't want to believe - especially when they dismiss such work sight unseen. That reveals a clear hyposcrisy and a clear a priori bias.

Wow. The lack of self-awareness is staggering. If the above is true, then the reverse is also true, i.e. that it's hypocritical to claim to reject the peer review scientific process, until it supports something you want to believe.

[notthecheatr]

hypocrisy

sight unseen

clear hyposcrisy

a priori bias

a priori ideology

Any new points yet?

[Charlatan]

Clearing up the problems, if there is confusion between exploring the thing, or confirming the thing, they should try to, while exploring, fix on the 'picture' currentlly in thier mind. This picture could be explained by them as to whether it is relevent by them explaining what it means to them. Of course people always change the picture as iit is time to stop, so it will always be like a safer position, not wanting to be wrong they settle for something 'safe'. Of course you do get people that try too hard to get a picture and will push themselves for one. Both are valuable!fu push for a picture as a 'shy' person, or if you settle for one as a extrovert, as people always try to balance thier pictures in thier minds, then you will find that people that think they are ahead go back and people that think they are behind go forwards. How do you tell whether you are ahead or behind? Well, in these experiments, they will be somewhere, whether they are at an event or not, and it will be a conclusion and not a exploration as soon as you tell them to stop.

In the event that the information does not match - it always does. If the person sees something that is not relevant, then they need to find out how it is relevant. It comes from association, in fact I believe that all figments are relevant to someone or other because of determinism! Maybe it should be seen as if they are seeing something for someone else, I mean what are the odds of all the things they have seen not equaling or deviating from the future of the sum of all those equations going on in their head. The problem comes with undrstanding the impulses you have - a sexual impulse is no different from a figment, not rooted in fiction or gobbledy gook, but rather real sensible determined things.

If you find soething that is anecdotal, then try again!

[Charlatan]

Well, a while ago I set forth a good way to find people in the afterlife and prove there is magic or whatever spirit things are out there. THis was done by taking two radio recievers and tuning one to tune out all the natural noise in the area. Then there are the results I heard about, just hearing kids playing in the afterlife. This is now proven, as the people in 'the world' were able to answer questions. I suppose doing this in a court of law could be set up, then those words of telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth could have a resounding impact! Anyway, that is another story.

Now, for psi to come to the fore, there needs to be an understanding of one world consciousness. Brain waves are based on electicity of the nervous system, so they will naturally travel to the brain of others in the right conditions. These waves are thought based, and esp is real. It is real because it is the sonic projections of a tongue at a frequency that is very soft, yet carries more mental energy than sonic energy. If you can produce pictures for investigation, then how about some simple sounds?

[Charlatan]

Let's explore the science of psi, as if it exists, it can be presented, eventually, scientifically.

Okay, I have researched magic and all that jazz, and conclude that all magic and even this psi stuff is electrical, but how do we sense it? Is it a impression on our nervous system from another to mimic sounds? I know of espers that can send thoughts without words to each other, but it must be percieved somehow...

If the impression is left with the person, [1] where did it come from, [2] how did it get there, [3] and how is it captured?

first off, what do we use our brains for? if you observe the jellyfish, it just reacts after sensing, so that is, while i am tempted to say minimal, just reflexive. You can train your muscles for running the same extent of jelly fish workings. This means the brain just processes stimulis. From the brain the esp must come. I remember on a previous forum, somewhere I cannot trace, I seemed to divulge that esp doesn't travle like a stone, but rather like a web that connects all living things in the universe together. This is like turning atoms positive or negative to conduct the esp, which is, as far as i know, like 'lightning' and will travel the same way.

So, it travels through atoms, or, transfers the charge from atom to atom. The atom travelling must carry some thoughts in it, or be understood somehow. If there was a message, what form would it take? It transcends language, as it can come in thought forms. This means it must be from brain to brain, but what force projects it? does it travel the speed of light, faster, slower?

If the 'thoughts' were translated into impulses, you might be able to give the person impulses through the web of esp that surrounds the universe. Then again, how does someone become active? I hear there needs to be some sort of realising of the esp before it can be used. To activate it I suppose it is like a sperm cell fertilising an egg, with some electrical charge for that part of your brain that uses this. To activate somebody, you would need to send them an esp message and wait for a reply or something.

The force that pushes the esp would be like making them the polar opposite of you, like north and south magnets. This would be like identifying that person as the flip side, and therefore changing your thoughts to the opposite of thiers so they recieve the message. If it were electrical nervous brain to brain communication, then i would guess that you change the actual thoughts to be the attracted to the person, as a reciever cannot change for a message they do not know is out there.

To hook this up to a computer, you would need to replicate the brain impulses in a computer, we would have to replicate the telephone, yes? It carries both phonic and data from place to place, maybe some looking into that will help?