THE PARANORMAL: THE EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS.

[Lucianarchy]

THE PARANORMAL: THE EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS.

Jessica Utts and Brian D. Josephson

A slightly shortened version of this article was published in the Times Higher Education

Supplement's special section on Consciousness linked to the Tucson II conference "Toward a
Science of Consciousness", Apr. 5th. 1996, page (v). -

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/tucson.html



Theoretical explanations aside, in 1996 Prof. Jessica Utts, a statistician and methodology expert from the University of California at Davis reviewed US Government-sponsored psi research for the Central Intelligence Agency. In her final report, Prof. Utts wrote the following:

"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at [SRI International] and [Science Applications International Corporation] have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency
cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud." -

http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/background.htm

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at [SRI International] and [Science Applications International Corporation] have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency
cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud." -
Excellent Lunacy, Now its proved beyond all reasonable doubt we just need to find a use for it.

[Ersby]

From the article: "There have been no explanations forthcoming that allow an honest observer to dismiss the growing collection of consistent results."

The results aren't consistent. Simple as that.

[Stumpy]

In the report linked to by Lucianarchy, Utts writes:

The recent declassification of the US government's psychical research programme (experiments on "remote viewing", similar to the type just described except that it used independent judges to assess the matches rather than having the subjects judge themselves) has permitted a comparison to be made of the results of this programme with those described in the open literature.

In the article found at:
http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/articlesN75+/N76Haisch_scientism.htm (http://)

...the author writes:This was triggered by the declassification and release of a 270 page SRI report and a retrospective review of the program by the American Institutes of Research for the CIA. (Approximately 80,000 pages of program material remain classified, I am told.

So if I have interpreted this correctly, Utts has drawn her conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the remote viewing program from less than 0.5% of the data collected during that program?

[T'ai Chi]

The only issues I can see, is that saying "Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted." could be premature.

[alfaniner]

Note to self:

In the future, avoid any topic title that is posted in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

[TLN]

Originally posted by alfaniner
In the future, avoid any topic title that is posted in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

The hallmark of the true lunatic.

[athon]

What am I not getting?

This is a journalistic article (Times is not esxactly a peer-reviewed journal) which states the tired old 'we've found something' cry of paranormal researchers. I fail to see the difference between this and a page 3 article in The Sun on haunted houses.

Once again, Luci does not provide anything we can seriously debate. It's a case of 'Mr. Blah says there are a lot of articles out there that says Phenomena A exists!'. So? We say there isn't, and hence we are in square one again.

So why does she bother?

As has already been said, based on a small percentage of released data, in this case conclusions have been made that similarity can be found between government information and other studies.

Yay. Give them a banana.

So fine, let's assume that all of these numbers might suggest unquantified phenomena exists. Once again, there are no studies done that explores this in a more detailed way. No indications of how it impacts on known physics, biology, chemistry. Science here has not only paused on its journey, it is simply rocking backwards and forwards in its hole.

The statistics are there...the statistics are there...

Well I propose the following two things:

1) given a large enough number of studies, one can select a range of similar samples to provide the illusion of a statistical anomaly.

2) When all is said and done, statistics is a poor place for science to end. Nothing of real application will be of versatile use until robust qualifiable theories can be developed for the given phenomena.

So wake me then.

Athon

[DangerousBeliefs]

The thing that always bugs me about believers in phenomena X, is if it really is occuring...

Why is it not readily apparent?

If people could move things with their minds, then why aren't people moving things with their minds!?!?!

If remote viewers really can remote view, why aren't they finding buried treasure?

If dowsing really works, why aren't dowsers rich?

If homepathy really worked, why isn't all disease eliminated?

It appears to me that these kinds of things have such a small effect on reality that we could simply say they don't exist....

*GASP*

THEY DON'T EXIST!

What a thought.

No, no. Lucianarchy will - no doubt - find another link PROVING these things have been looked at by credible (wink wink) scientists and are real by golly... despite all the lack of evidence to the contrary.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Note to self:

In the future, avoid any topic title that is posted in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

The fact that a thread is started by Luci is another sure sign that a pantload of half baked supposition is about to be presented as 'evidence'. ;)

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by RonSceptic


The fact that a thread is started by Luci is another sure sign that a pantload of half baked supposition is about to be presented as 'evidence'. ;)

I haven't looked to confirm this yet, but - like the Geller 'FAQ' posted earlier by Robbin . . . er, Luci, this article is probably one of the staples that he regularly cuts and pastes to the sci.skeptic newsgroup.

The pattern for similar ones from Robbin . . .er Luci is to post it to draw comments, then after a time let it die, then repost it as a 'new' message again after a few months.

Rinse, repeat. And repeat. And repeat. And repeat.

Apparently, Rob. . . er Luci is doing the same thing here. Now that we've seen the Geller and Utts cut-n-pastes, expect to see his well worn Targ and Puthoff/PEAR stuff next.

Edited to add: If you go to google and search on some key words from the all caps title, you can see various postings from R. . .Luci.

Like this one:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=PARANORMAL+IMPLICATIONS+CONSCIOUSNESS&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=JUe_8.2983%24nU.316406%40news11-gui.server.ntli.net&rnum=19

This is an especially nice example because "Bruce MCCafferty" is Luci, quoting this 'article' as support for a post made by . . . Luci. Sockpuppetry at its smelliest.


N/A

Ladybrook