Believers vs Skeptics

[rorylee]

Im wondering how many Believers there are here at JREF. I know the amount wouldn't out weigh the skeptics but a rough figure would be cool :)

My definition of a believer is somebody who believers in :

Paranormal
Psychic's/Woo's
Any form of Religion, God's
UFO's, Aliens, conspiracies

Add more if needed. Vote and Say I, dont need to list what belief you have.

[philkensebben]

I think Megan Fox is a goddess. Do i vote believer?

[rorylee]

I think Megan Fox is a goddess. Do i vote believer?
If you think you have a chance with her.

[Sean84]

This poll is fundamentally flawed.

[rorylee]

Warning to believers. Don't let the skeptics get to you, that is their job.

[philkensebben]

Warning to believers. Don't let the skeptics get to you, that is their job.

Pay is rubbish :(

[likelystory]

eye :)

[Legend]

Warning to believers. Don't let the skeptics get to you, that is their job.

Yes, the big bad skeptics are out to get you all!

But don't let them win! That's exactly what they want. Don't let them convince you or else you lose! Just keep your mind closed to everything they say; the more closed your mind, the harder it is for them to penetrate your fortress of wisdom with their pitiful ignorance and turn you into a mindless drone with no rationality!

There is a reason why they have "tic" in their name. Once they find you, they cling to you, suck your blood and don't let go!

RUN! RUN, I SAY!

Alex.

[rorylee]

Yes, the big bad skeptics are out to get you all!

But don't let them win! That's exactly what they want. Don't let them convince you or else you lose! Just keep your mind closed to everything they say; the more closed your mind, the harder it is for them to penetrate your fortress of wisdom with their pitiful ignorance and turn you into a mindless drone with no rationality!

There is a reason why they have "tic" in their name. Once they find you, they cling to you, suck your blood and don't let go!

RUN! RUN, I SAY!

Alex.

lol, can be used in the exact opposite =]

[Legend]

Then you have absolutely no idea about the doctrines of skepticism.

Alex.

[Twiler]

I didn't see her face. I'm not a believer.

[PixyMisa]

Are you saying there's still a trace of doubt in your mind?

[Legend]

He's not in love, nooo, nahhh.

Alex.

[Wrathernaut]

Pay is rubbish :(

Haha! Rub.

[JFrankA]

I believe I'm a skeptic......

Oh..wait..uhmm....oh...do I choose yes or no?????? :D

[Doubt]

Are you saying there's still a trace of doubt in your mind?

I was never in that person's mind. You will never prove it!

[valis]

Skepticism, as practiced by 'skeptics' is a religion of its own, so the poll should really be 'believers vs other believers'.

[MarekM]

Skepticism, as practiced by 'skeptics' is a religion of its own, so the poll should really be 'believers vs other believers'.


Nonsense.

[Stout]

Skepticism is a process, what with all that research and evidence and....work, while belief is taking the easy route. Belief does allow you to make stuff up regarding a topic and as such does have a certain amount of appeal.

[Stout]

Nonsense.

See what I mean about making stuff up ;)

[Limbo]

This poll is fundamentally flawed.


So is organized skepticism, but you don't hear me complaining.

Oh wait...

[Sledge]

My definition of a believer is somebody who believers in :

Paranormal
Psychic's/Woo's
Any form of Religion, God's
UFO's, Aliens, conspiracies

Add more if needed. Vote and Say I, dont need to list what belief you have.
1) UFO's what? (apostrophe joke)
2) Looks like Rramjet's got a new friend.

[desertgal]

1) UFO's what? (apostrophe joke)
2) Looks like Rramjet's got a new friend.

Rramjet and rorylee - who both believer in UFO's...:D

[Tricky]

I checked "yes" because I do believe in UFOs. It would be silly to say that there have never been any flying objects that were unidentified. I rember once when I was a child, I swallowed something that was flying (probably a bug) while I was on a swing. I never did identify it though.

[readme.txt]

My definition of a believer is somebody who believers in :

Paranormal
Psychic's/Woo's
Any form of Religion, God's
UFO's, Aliens, conspiracies


By Aliens, do you mean any kind of life form, even the unicellular ones, that could live anywhere in the Universe?

[Mirrorglass]

I checked "yes" because I do believe in UFOs. It would be silly to say that there have never been any flying objects that were unidentified. I rember once when I was a child, I swallowed something that was flying (probably a bug) while I was on a swing. I never did identify it though.

But.. that means there must be aliens too! And thus psychic abilities are real! What a fool I've been!

[desertgal]

I checked "yes" because I do believe in UFOs. It would be silly to say that there have never been any flying objects that were unidentified. I rember once when I was a child, I swallowed something that was flying (probably a bug) while I was on a swing. I never did identify it though.

On second thought, I should have checked "yes", because I do know there are UFOs; my husband is a card carrying alien, and, well, we once conspired to convince our kids about a fat guy in a red suit who had the wooish ability to travel the entire world by sleigh in one night and fit down every chimney he encountered.

I believer! I believer!

[JFrankA]

I believer! I believer!

(singing) I believer I couldn't leave her if I tried (insert cool bass riff here)

:)

[Sledge]

I wasn't a believer. In fact, I thought love was only true in fairy tales, meant for someone else but not for me. Love was out to get me, that's the way it seemed. Disappointment haunted all my dreams.

I can't remember what it was that changed that.

[paximperium]

I'm a believer in Sledge.
Sledge continues to negate rory's supposedly claimed power and hence is more powerful than this rory person who has the power to do absolutely nothing in the presence of the almighty sledge.

[Sledge]

Damnit, now I'm going to have to vote "yes" because I believe in my power. :(

[JFrankA]

Damnit, now I'm going to have to vote "yes" because I believe in my power. :(

I'm convinced!!!! If Sledge is a skeptic and his power is so strong that he has to vote yes, then he IS powerful!!!

I BELIEVE IN SLEDGE!

[rorylee]

hahahaha!!! Im glad ive given you power Slegde =] my ability to draw people into a crowd doesn't lose its effects online either :)

[paximperium]

hahahaha!!! Im glad ive given you power Slegde =] Don't be absurd. Sledge has proven his power. You have done nothing, unless failure and making a fool of yourself is a power.

my ability to draw people into a crowd doesn't lose its effects online either :)Yes. Kind of like the drooling madman standing the corner talking about UFOs.

[sadhatter]

Skepticism, as practiced by 'skeptics' is a religion of its own, so the poll should really be 'believers vs other believers'.

So is " i know you are but what am i?" the new standard for believers? If so i believe we can claim victory at this point.

[Hokulele]

Does one have to believe everything in that list in order to be a believer?

I believe I need a beer.

[desertgal]

I believe I need a beer.

Catch up on the new lingo, wouldya? That should be "I believer I need a beer's." :D

[not daSkeptic]

Warning to believers. Don't let the skeptics get to you, that is their job.

For clarification, you want skeptics to be open to your way of thinking, right?

[Ausmerican]

I am a believer.
See sig.

[Lothian]

I believe I lied.

[Tricky]

I checked "yes" because I do believe in UFOs. It would be silly to say that there have never been any flying objects that were unidentified. I rember once when I was a child, I swallowed something that was flying (probably a bug) while I was on a swing. I never did identify it though.

But.. that means there must be aliens too! And thus psychic abilities are real! What a fool I've been!
If that's what it means, then I must have swallowed an alien.

[Frying Dutchmen]

So is " i know you are but what am i?" the new standard for believers? If so i believe we can claim victory at this point.

That's always been a standard argument for woonauts

[Sledge]

If that's what it means, then I must have swallowed an alien.

That's what SHE said. HEY-O!

[Ysidro]

I believe my mother loves me.

[Mongrel]

I am a believer.
See sig.

I'm a believer in tradition...

Where's the Planet X option?

[bookitty]

Warning to believers. Don't let the skeptics get to you, that is their job.

Actually, no. Our job is to take what a believer says so seriously that we will spend the time to question it. Anyone can post anything here, no matter how strange or silly and it will get a response. A careful, considered response that points out potential flaws, narrows down areas in which evidence might be helpful and gives a historical perspective.

Although that might not be the response a believer wants to hear.

[Toke]

Is it just me or do rorylee have only limited understanding of the term scepticism?

[Mirrorglass]

Is it just me or do rorylee have only limited understanding of the term scepticism?

Sadly, that is not the only subject of which his understanding is limited.

[RoboTimbo]

Damnit, now I'm going to have to vote "yes" because I believe in my power. :(

I voted no because I no longer have to believe in your power. We have evidence of its actuality right on this forum where you totally demolished rorylee's claimed powers.

[Sledge]

I regret voting now. I suppose it would be more accurate to say I was a believer in my powers until they were validated by testing.

Still belive in UFOs though. And conspiracies.

[RoboTimbo]

I regret voting now. I suppose it would be more accurate to say I was a believer in my powers until they were validated by testing.

Still belive in UFOs though. And conspiracies.

I thought we were only supposed to believe in UFMOs?

[Mirrorglass]

I just believe in Unidentified Flying MoFos.

[Stout]

Is it just me or do rorylee have only limited understanding of the term scepticism?

Ah..your first rorylee thread I see...welcome to the wonderful world of making things up as you go and confusing ever yourself with what you've written. Cheers and good luck.

[Rramjet]

I thought we were only supposed to believe in UFMOs?

I believe you do. :balloon:

[Sledge]

I just believe in Unidentified Flying MoFos.

Samuel L. Jackson with a pilot's license?

[paximperium]

Samuel L. Jackson with a pilot's license?
Does it involve Snakes on a Plane again?

[Andrew Wiggin]

On planet X we're all believers...

A

[Foolmewunz]

I believe I lied.

Uh Oh!

I'm not a believer according to the terms of the OP, but when I saw that Lothian put himself down as a believer, I believed him. But... now I see that he says he liied, so I believe that, and that should make me a believer, but .... Oh, I'm so confused! That probably makes me a non-believer believer. Now I just don't know what to answer. I mean, if you can't believe a guy with a duck on his head, who can you believe?

Why couldn't this have been a poll with multiple selections available? Sure would've made it easier for the wafflers in the midst.

[Trent Wray]

I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I think about it every night and day.

[Trent Wray]

I also believe in the Norris, the Sledge, and the Holy Toast. And I believe Sledge posted for my sins.

[valis]

Nonsense.

Oh snap! Now that's a well thought out rebuttal. Allow me to elaborate.

We all live in 'the universe'. We cannot look any further into the past than the moment of the big bang. We do not have any other universe whose state, vis a vis god, that is known. So we cannot see what set our universe in motion and we do not know what a universe without a god would look like, it may look like our present universe but we have no way to know that. What is behind the system we live in is not known and more to the point appears to be unknowable.

From this unknowable point some people say 'I need proof to believe in something' but the fact is that as restricted as our view is we have no way of knowing what proof would look like. Everything we observe (or think we observe) everyday may be proof or not. Maybe the fact that it rained this morning so that I can't walk my dog is some divine plan to cause me to post this message, or not.

No matter what system of measurement you dream up to test the existence of a deity it cannot work because by definition the deity would be able to manipulate it. Now as a practical matter you may choose to act in daily life based on what you can observe or test. You won't be able to do so because, IMO, you will always have hidden prejudices, programming etc. influencing you that you are unaware of. But you can at least try to live that way. But in the end it is a belief system you have chosen. Just like some people choose to be Christians or Buddhists.

I used the atheist belief system for many more years that I have used any other and in retrospect and upon years of reflection it is just another faith based system of processing information.

[CriticalSock]

Oh snap! Now that's a well thought out rebuttal. Allow me to elaborate.

We all live in 'the universe'. We cannot look any further into the past than the moment of the big bang. We do not have any other universe whose state, vis a vis god, that is known. So we cannot see what set our universe in motion and we do not know what a universe without a god would look like, it may look like our present universe but we have no way to know that. What is behind the system we live in is not known and more to the point appears to be unknowable.

From this unknowable point some people say 'I need proof to believe in something' but the fact is that as restricted as our view is we have no way of knowing what proof would look like. Everything we observe (or think we observe) everyday may be proof or not. Maybe the fact that it rained this morning so that I can't walk my dog is some divine plan to cause me to post this message, or not.

No matter what system of measurement you dream up to test the existence of a deity it cannot work because by definition the deity would be able to manipulate it. Now as a practical matter you may choose to act in daily life based on what you can observe or test. You won't be able to do so because, IMO, you will always have hidden prejudices, programming etc. influencing you that you are unaware of. But you can at least try to live that way. But in the end it is a belief system you have chosen. Just like some people choose to be Christians or Buddhists.

I used the atheist belief system for many more years that I have used any other and in retrospect and upon years of reflection it is just another faith based system of processing information.

Nonsense.

[Twiler]

I think valis means the 'scientific' system, that is, relying upon the senses and the principle of induction.

Science does not equal atheism. Atheism is the position of not believing in deities.

[readme.txt]

I believe in Lolcats.

[Fnord]

Megan Fox is certainly a candidate for goddess-hood, but that is just my opinion.

[Mirrorglass]

Oh snap! Now that's a well thought out rebuttal. Allow me to elaborate.

We all live in 'the universe'. We cannot look any further into the past than the moment of the big bang. We do not have any other universe whose state, vis a vis god, that is known. So we cannot see what set our universe in motion and we do not know what a universe without a god would look like, it may look like our present universe but we have no way to know that. What is behind the system we live in is not known and more to the point appears to be unknowable.

From this unknowable point some people say 'I need proof to believe in something' but the fact is that as restricted as our view is we have no way of knowing what proof would look like. Everything we observe (or think we observe) everyday may be proof or not. Maybe the fact that it rained this morning so that I can't walk my dog is some divine plan to cause me to post this message, or not.

No matter what system of measurement you dream up to test the existence of a deity it cannot work because by definition the deity would be able to manipulate it. Now as a practical matter you may choose to act in daily life based on what you can observe or test. You won't be able to do so because, IMO, you will always have hidden prejudices, programming etc. influencing you that you are unaware of. But you can at least try to live that way. But in the end it is a belief system you have chosen. Just like some people choose to be Christians or Buddhists.

I used the atheist belief system for many more years that I have used any other and in retrospect and upon years of reflection it is just another faith based system of processing information.

Philosophically, this is a logical worldview. A completely useless one, sure, but logically sound.


I've been thinking, and I've come to realize that when the so-called "believers" (a.k.a. woos) use the world "believe", they don't really understand what it means.

The world "believe" is simply defined; to believe a statement is to be of the mind that the statement is true. If I think I have hands, then I believe the statement "I have hands" is true, or simply, I believe I have hands. Easy.

So it's clear to see that everybody is a "believer". We all believe some things. As a skeptic, I try to make it my policy to only believe things that I have some evidence of. On the other hand, many woos consider the complete lack of evidence for their beliefs a source of pride. They sneer at the skeptics and their lack of faith and call themselves, that's right, believers.

So when a woo uses the world "believe" he almost invariably means "believe without any logical reason". Thus, "believer" turns out to mean "a person who disregards logic". Of course, it's pretty obvious why the "believers" prefer the shorter form, but it will be good to remember the words don't mean their definitions.

My apologies to anyone who already said the same in this thread; I just felt like summing it up.

[readme.txt]

Philosophically, this is a logical worldview. A completely useless one, sure, but logically sound.


I've been thinking, and I've come to realize that when the so-called "believers" (a.k.a. woos) use the world "believe", they don't really understand what it means.

The world "believe" is simply defined; to believe a statement is to be of the mind that the statement is true. If I think I have hands, then I believe the statement "I have hands" is true, or simply, I believe I have hands. Easy.

So it's clear to see that everybody is a "believer". We all believe some things. As a skeptic, I try to make it my policy to only believe things that I have some evidence of. On the other hand, many woos consider the complete lack of evidence for their beliefs a source of pride. They sneer at the skeptics and their lack of faith and call themselves, that's right, believers.

So when a woo uses the world "believe" he almost invariably means "believe without any logical reason". Thus, "believer" turns out to mean "a person who disregards logic". Of course, it's pretty obvious why the "believers" prefer the shorter form, but it will be good to remember the words don't mean their definitions.

My apologies to anyone who already said the same in this thread; I just felt like summing it up.

I believe you might be right.

[Mirrorglass]

I believe you might be right.

I'm not sure I believe you.

[Aoidoi]

My belief is that the world is fundamentally understandable. That given enough intelligence and time, anything can be understood. From that basis tools like logic, reason, and rationality allow one to avoid self-deception and grapple instead with the inherent complexities of reality.

I believe this is about as low level as one can push a belief system, and I freely admit that it's based on an assumption that I make because it appeals to me. I find it preferable to the contrary assumption which would mean that ignorance is a permanent and unalterable state of being.

[Red3]

I believe in the possibility of alien life, but I'm still voting no, as I don't believe they've visited us or are likely to any time soon. That's if they exist in the first place or are evolved enough to do so.

[carlitos]

I believe in the soul ... the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

[readme.txt]

I believe in the possibility of alien life, but I'm still voting no, as I don't believe they've visited us or are likely to any time soon. That's if they exist in the first place or are evolved enough to do so.

Ibidem

[Sledge]

O7eCUEfb7U0

[Limbo]

As a skeptic, I try to make it my policy to only believe things that I have some evidence of.


What a coincidence, so do I. But I make it my policy as a woo-woo, not as a skeptic.

For instance I do "believe" in psi so that makes me a woo-woo in some circles. But I have 'some evidence' that psi is real - I have veridical psychic experiences, and I do have some familiarity with the alleged parapsychological evidence. I find it convincing.

I don't "believe" in Bigfoot because I've never seen one and I'm not familiar with the alleged evidence. I don't "believe" in NDE because I've never had one and I'm not very familiar with the alleged evidence. Same with homeopathy.

I do "believe" in "UFOs" because I and a friend saw one close-up, and I do have some familiarity with the UFO literature. I do "believe" in poltergeist phenomenon, having been present at an incident. But I attribute it to RSPK, not to spooks.

[RoboTimbo]

I do "believe" in "UFOs" because I and a friend saw one close-up, and I have some familiarity with the UFO literature. I do "believe" in poltergeist phenomenon, having been present at an incident. But I attribute it to RSPK.

Here's a whole threadful (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156375) of UFO believers (and one UFAO believer).

[valis]

I think valis means the 'scientific' system, that is, relying upon the senses and the principle of induction.

Science does not equal atheism. Atheism is the position of not believing in deities.

Well no, I know what I meant. If you ask an atheist why they don't believe in deities they will say what? (I don't see any proof or reason to believe).

[Mirrorglass]

What a coincidence, so do I. But I make it my policy as a woo-woo, not as a skeptic.

For instance I do "believe" in psi so that makes me a woo-woo in some circles. But I have 'some evidence' that psi is real - I have veridical psychic experiences, and I do have some familiarity with the alleged parapsychological evidence. I find it convincing.

Yes, and the moment you reproduce some of this evidence to us I'll start considering the possibility as well.

[valis]

Philosophically, this is a logical worldview. A completely useless one, sure, but logically sound.


I've been thinking, and I've come to realize that when the so-called "believers" (a.k.a. woos) use the world "believe", they don't really understand what it means.



Yes you have divided people into two groups, 'them (woos)' and us. And you have found that your belief system is not understood by the ignorant other group.

[Limbo]

Yes, and the moment you reproduce some of this evidence to us I'll start considering the possibility as well.


One should be 'considering the possibility' anyway, all the time. Otherwise one can slip into dogmatic thinking patterns. If you aren't considering it possible then you are considering it impossible, and that just isn't consistent with the ideals of skepticism. Skepticism is about healthy doubt, not flat-out denial.

Obviously I can't reproduce my past veridical experiences, and so that only leaves the parapsychological literature which you are at liberty to seek out and read at any time, as I did. Of course, I had a motive.

[RSLancastr]

What a useless poll. I identify myself as a skeptic, but based in your OP, I am a believer,because I believe that some Flying Objects are Unidentified. I do not believe that they are piloted by Extraterrestrial beings, however.

[Mirrorglass]

One should be 'considering the possibility' anyway, all the time. Otherwise one can slip into dogmatic thinking patterns.

No, if I went there, I'd be considering possibilities all day. There may be invisible pink unicorns around, but until one eats my lawn, I won't bother even considering their existence. I simply have better use for my time.

As for the psi claims, since someone has bothered to make them, I have considered the possibility. I have found there is no evidence, and thus don't actively consider anymore. I'll consider it again the next time someone makes a claim, but if the evidence is similar to the old stuff, only very briefly.

Obviously I can't reproduce my past veridical experiences, and so that only leaves the parapsychological literature which you are at liberty to seek out and read at any time, as I did. Of course I had motives to do so. You, on the other hand, probably have motives NOT to do so.

I could seek it out, but the fact is that if any of it contained evidence I'd accept, someone would already have made a big deal out of it. I have some motives not to seek this: mainly, odds are it would be a waste of my time, and not very fun at that. People who understand science poorly are usually unimaginative writers.

ETA: Ouch, too slow with the edit ;)

[Limbo]

I could seek it out, but the fact is that if any of it contained evidence I'd accept, someone would already have made a big deal out of it.


I hereby officially make a big deal out of it. So now that that's out of the way, I recommend that you start with this list of books:

Varieties of Anomalous Experience
Extraordinary Knowing
Outside the Gates of Science
The Parapsychology Revolution
The Intention Experiment

[Mirrorglass]

I hereby make a big deal out of it.

I recommend starting with this list of books:

Varieties of Anomalous Experience
Extraordinary Knowing
Outside the Gates of Science
The Parapsychology Revolution
The Intention Experiment

Damn it, I really can't express myself properly today. :p

I meant that someone with some scientific credibility would have. No offense.

Anyway, if there's something to be gained from those books, can't you give me a quick synopsis? A simple experiment that will let me experience psi firsthand? I promise I'll try it seriously, as long as it isn't too time-consuming.

[Ohforf]

If that's what it means, then I must have swallowed an alien.

Oh Noes ! :cry1
Visitors from outer Space traveled many Lightyears... and the last thing they saw was the human gastro-intestinal System. What a Tragedy !

[Limbo]

I meant that someone with some scientific credibility would have. No offense.


I could give you that. But then you say, "well, the fringe scientists are a minority." Then you say that if psi was real, then all of science would have embraced it, and it wouldn't be just a minority of scientists advocating it. Correct? What you really want is consensus, right?

[Mirrorglass]

I could give you that. But then you say, "well, the fringe scientists are a minority."

You could give my scientific-looking studies, but not peer-reviewed studies published by respectable scientific papers. I don't care that the fringe scientist are a minority, I care that they're not scientists.

Then you say that if psi was real, then all of science would have embraced it, and it wouldn't be just a minority of scientists advocating it. Correct? What you really want is consensus, right?

No, consensus has been known to turn from time to time. What I want is repeatability.

[Frying Dutchmen]

I could give you that. But then you say, "well, the fringe scientists are a minority." Then you say that if psi was real, then all of science would have embraced it, and it wouldn't be just a minority of scientists advocating it. Correct? What you really want is consensus, right?

You forgot that Scientific consensus ,means A fair deal of decent evidence.

[Sledge]

I can't believe we've got this far without anyone saying it: I like believers. And I like sceptics. But which one's best? There's only one way to find out...
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y65/1TrueSledge/fight.jpg
FIIIIIIIIIIIGHT

[Limbo]

You could give my scientific-looking studies, but not peer-reviewed studies published by respectable scientific papers. I don't care that the fringe scientist are a minority, I care that they're not scientists.


I could give you some peer-reviewed studies published by respectable scientific papers, actually. But of course most parapsychology papers are published in their own peer-reviewed parapsychology journals.

No, consensus has been known to turn from time to time. What I want is repeatability.


Brain correlation experiments, presentiment experiments, ganzfeld experiments. All these seem repeatable enough to me. Skeptics who wish to repeat them, who are outsiders to parapsychology, just need to do a little homework first.

Brain Correlation Experiments (http://deanradin.blogspot.com/)

"A reader asked for references to papers on EEG correlation experiments between isolated people. The following list may not be exhaustively complete, it is not in any particular order, and it includes a few fMRI studies. I am aware of at least one other published paper by Grinberg-Zilberbaum et al, but I don't have that reference handy. Study 5 is, I think, relevant but is not a psi study."


1. Achterberg, J., Cooke, K., Richards, T., Standish, L.J.,Leila Kozak, L. & Lake, J.. (2005). Evidence for Correlations Between Distant Intentionality and Brain Function in Recipients: a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analysis. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 11, 6, 965–971.

2. Duane TD, Behrendt T. Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins. Science 1965, 150-367.

3. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J. & Ramos, J. (1987). Patterns of interhemispheric correlation during human communication. International Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 41-53.

4. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, J., Delaflor, M., Attie, L. & Goswami, L. (1994). The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in the brain: The transferred potential. Physics Essays, 7,422–428

5. Hasson U., Nir Y., LevyI., Fuhrmann G., & Malach R. (2004). Intersubject synchronization of cortical activity during natural vision. Science 303, 1634– 1640.

6. Hearne K. Visually evoked responses and ESP. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 1977, 49, 648-657.

7. Hearne K. Visually evoked responses and ESP: Failure to replicate previous findings. J Society for Psychical Research 1981, 51, 145-147.

8. Kalitzin S. & Suffczynski P. (2003). Comments on “Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects”. Neuroscience Letters 350, 193–194.

9. Kelly EF, Lenz J. EEG changes correlated with a remote stroboscopic stimulus: A preliminary study. In Morris J, Roll W, Morris R. J (eds.). Research in Parapsychology 1975, Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, p. 58-63 (abstracted in Journal of Parapsychology, 1975, 39, 25) 1976.

10. Kittenis M, Carul P, Stevens P. Distant psychophysiological interaction effects between related and unrelated participants, Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association Convention 2004, 67-76 (meeting held in Vienna, Austria, August 5-8, 2004).

11. Lloyd DH. Objective events in the brain correlating with psychic phenomena. New Horizons, 1973, 1, 69-75.

12. May, E. C., Targ, R. & Puthoff, H. E. (2002). EEG correlates to remote light flashes under conditions of sensory shielding. In C. T. Tart, H. E. Puthoff & R. Targ (Eds.). Mind at large: IEEE symposia on the nature of extrasensory perception. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads Publishing Company, 1979/2002

13. Millar B. An attempted validation of the “Lloyd effect.” In Morris JD, Roll WG, Morris RL. (eds.). Research in Parapsychology 1975, Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 25-27. Millay J. Multidimensional Mind: Remote Viewing in Hyperspace. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 1999.

14. Moulton ST, Kosslyn SM. Using neuro-imaging to resolve the psi debate. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2008; 20(1): 182-192.

15. Orme-Johnson D, Dillbeck MC, Wallace RK, Landrith GS. Intersubject EEG coherence: Is consciousness a field? International J of Neuroscience 1982, 16, 203-209.

16. Orme-Johnson, D.W., Dillbeck, M.C., Wallace, R. K.& Landrith, G. S. (1982). Intersubject EEG coherence: Is consciousness a field? International Journal of Neuroscience, 16, 203-209.

17. Radin D. Event-related electroencephalographic correlations between isolated human subjects. J Altern Complement Med 2004, 10, 315–323.

18. Rebert, C. S. & Turner, A. (1974). EEG spectrum analysis techniques applied to the problem of psi phenomena. Behavioral Neuropsychiatry, 6, 18–24

19. Richards TL, Kozak, L, Johnson LC, Standish LJ. (2005). Replicable functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence of correlated brain signals between physically and sensory isolated subjects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 11(6), 955–963.

20. Sabell, A., Clarke, C. & Fenwick, P. (2001). Inter-Subject EEG correlations at a distance—the transferred potential. In: Alvarado, CS, ed. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, New York, NY, pp. 419–422

21. Schmidt, S., Schneider, R., Utts, J., Walach, H. (2004). Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: Two meta-analyses. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 235–247. [Note: This describes meta-analyses of 3 dozen ANS tests, not CNS.]

22. Shealy CN, Smith T, Liss S, Borgmeyer V. EEG alterations during absent ‘healing.’ Subtle Energies 2000, 11(3), 241-248.

23. Standish L et al. J. Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects. J. Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2004, 10(2), 307-314.

24. Standish L, Johnson LC, Richards T, Lozak L. Evidence of correlated functional MRI signals between distant human brains. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 2003, 9, 122-128.

25. Sugano H, Uchida S, Kuramoto I. A new approach to the study of subtle energies. Subtle Energies 1994, 5(2), 143-165.

26. Targ, R & Puthoff, H. (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature, 252, 602-607.

27. Tart, C. T. (1963). Possible physiological correlates of psi cognition. International Journal of Parapsychology, 5, 375.386.

28. Vassy, Z. (1978). Method for measuring the probability of 1 bit extrasensory information transfer between living organisms. Journal of Parapsychology, 42, 158-160;

29. Wackerman, J, Seiter, C, Keibel, Walach, H. Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects. Neuroscience Letters 2003, 336, 60-64.

30. Wackermann J. (2003). Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects. Reply to the commentary by S. Kalitzin and P. Suffczynski. Neuroscience Letters 350, 194.

31. Wackermann, J. (2004). Dyadic correlations between brain functional states: Present facts and future perspectives. Mind and Matter, 2 (1), 105-122.

32. Walach H., Seiter C., and Keibel H. (2001). Transferred potentials – fact or artefact? Results of a pilot study. In Bridging Worlds and Filling Gaps in the Science of Healing, Ed. R. A. Chez, Samueli Institute for Information Biology, Hawaii, pp. 303–325.

33. Blake T. Dotta, Bryce P. Mulligan, Mathew D. Hunter, Michael A. Persinger (2009). Evidence of macroscopic quantum entanglement during double quantitative electroencephalographic measurements of friends vs strangers. NeuroQuantology, Vol 7, Issue 4, Page 548-551.

34. Michael A Persinger, Eric W Tsang, J Nicholas Booth, Stanley A Koren. (2008). Enhanced power within a predicted narrow band of theta activity during stimulation of another by circumcerebral weak magnetic fields after weekly spatial proximity: Evidence for macroscopic quantum entanglement? NeuroQuantology, Vol 6, No 1, Page 7-21.

[I Ratant]

I checked "yes" because I do believe in UFOs. It would be silly to say that there have never been any flying objects that were unidentified. I rember once when I was a child, I swallowed something that was flying (probably a bug) while I was on a swing. I never did identify it though.
.
Those things always work their out in the end.

[I Ratant]

I believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows.
And for everyone who pleasures himself/herself, a kitten dies.

[Mirrorglass]

I could give you some peer-reviewed studies published by respectable scientific papers, actually. But of course most parapsychology papers are published in their own peer-reviewed parapsychology journals.

Aye, and herein lies the problem. You see, the scientific community isn't a conspiracy to suppress the paranormal; a properly conducted experiment that proved paranormal activity would definitely be published in a large scientific (not parapsychological) publication. The reason parapsychology papers are separated from scientific paper is they don't adhere to scientific standards.


Brain correlation experiments, presentiment experiments, ganzfeld experiments. All these seem repeatable enough to me. Skeptics who wish to repeat them, who are outsiders to parapsychology, just need to do a little homework first.

Brain Correlation Experiments (http://deanradin.blogspot.com/)

"A reader asked for references to papers on EEG correlation experiments between isolated people. The following list may not be exhaustively complete, it is not in any particular order, and it includes a few fMRI studies. I am aware of at least one other published paper by Grinberg-Zilberbaum et al, but I don't have that reference handy. Study 5 is, I think, relevant but is not a psi study."

Got the abstracts for those? The headlines tell me nothing. Actually, make that the full text. The last time I read a study like that, the abstract was so vague I couldn't make out what the experiment was about.

[Limbo]

Aye, and herein lies the problem. You see, the scientific community isn't a conspiracy to suppress the paranormal; a properly conducted experiment that proved paranormal activity would definitely be published in a large scientific (not parapsychological) publication. The reason parapsychology papers are separated from scientific paper is they don't adhere to scientific standards.


Apparently some critics of parapsychology disagree with you. Richard Wiseman would say that parapsychology does adhere to scientific standards, and by ordinary scientific standards psi is established. He would then go on to say that therefore parapsychology should be held to extra-ordinarily high standards.

Critic Ray Hyman would say that the scientific community is not familiar enough with the parapsychological evidence to to give it a fair hearing. I wager you aren't either.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just prejudice and ignorance.

Got the abstracts for those? The headlines tell me nothing. Actually, make that the full text. The last time I read a study like that, the abstract was so vague I couldn't make out what the experiment was about.


No I don't, sorry.

[Mirrorglass]

Apparently some critics of parapsychology disagree with you. Richard Wiseman would say that parapsychology does adhere to scientific standards, and by ordinary scientific standards psi is established. He would then go on to say that therefore parapsychology should be held to extra-ordinary standards.

Critic Ray Hyman would say that the scientific community is not familiar enough with the parapsychological evidence to to give it a fair hearing.

Sources? I've stopped believing anything people here say without sources, with a few exceptions.

Anyway, if I'm correct, what those experiments (claim to) have established is that there is some kind of vague, paranormal-ish reaction to something that can be only detected using precision instruments. If you stopped your claims there, then I might consider you scientifically minded.

But that's not the limit of your claims, is it? You claim there is a thing called psi causing these effects, that you somehow know how this psi works, that people can learn to control it and that it can do something actually useful. Why do you think all this? And if there's any base to it, why is there no evidence showing these actually meaningful psi effects?

[Sledge]

You know what we need, Limbo? Some sort of experiment that anyone could do that would prove your claims. If only we could come up with something... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=169948)

[Limbo]

Sources? I've stopped believing anything people here say without sources, with a few exceptions.


Wiseman is here (http://www.skeptiko.com/rupert-sheldrake-and-richard-wiseman-clash/), debating Sheldrake. And here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/x5413861312xx81p/) is the paper by Hyman.

"...members of the scientific community often judge the parapsychological claims without firsthand knowledge of the experimental evidence. Very few of the scientific critics have examined even one of the many experimental reports on psychic phenomena. Even fewer, if any, have examined the bulk of the parapsychological literature...Consequently, parapsychologists have justification for their complaint that the scientific community is dismissing their claims without a fair hearing..." -Ray Hyman (http://www.blavatskyarchives.com/zeteticism.htm)


Anyway, if I'm correct, what those experiments (claim to) have established is that there is some kind of vague, paranormal-ish reaction to something that can be only detected using precision instruments. If you stopped your claims there, then I might consider you scientifically minded.

But that's not the limit of your claims, is it? You claim there is a thing called psi causing these effects, that you somehow know how this psi works, that people can learn to control it and that it can do something actually useful. Why do you think all this? And if there's any base to it, why is there no evidence showing these actually meaningful psi effects?


I don't claim to know 'how' psi works. I just claim it's real. Maybe someone out there knows how it works but I don't. It's an anomaly. People can learn to partially control it I think, I don't know for sure because I can't partially control it, nor have I really put my heart into trying.

[Mirrorglass]

I don't claim to know 'how' psi works. I just claim it's real. Maybe someone out there knows how it works but I don't. It's an anomaly. People can learn to partially control it I think, I don't know for sure because I can't partially control it, nor have I really put my heart into trying.

Then what on earth were all those comments in the previous threads we talked about this in about? You stated there's something called the "sheep-goat effect". You stated "there is psychic strength in numbers". You stated "retrocausality is on the table". Yet you claim you don't know how psi works? Does that mean you just pulled these ideas out of your hat?

[Limbo]

Then what on earth were all those comments in the previous threads we talked about this in about? You stated there's something called the "sheep-goat effect". You stated "there is psychic strength in numbers". You stated "retrocausality is on the table". Yet you claim you don't know how psi works? Does that mean you just pulled these ideas out of your hat?


If that's what you mean by how psi works, then yeah ok. But I don't feel like I know how psi works. The sheep-goat effect is like a psychic reflex, but it doesn't tell me "how". Strength in numbers tells me something but does it tell me "how"? It suggests that our minds can work together but how? Retrocausality means that Mind transcends time and space, but it doesn't tell me "how" it does that...

[Elizabeth I]

I believe in the soul ... the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

Kevin?!!?! Is that you?

[Foolmewunz]

One should be 'considering the possibility' anyway, all the time. Otherwise one can slip into dogmatic thinking patterns. If you aren't considering it possible then you are considering it impossible, and that just isn't consistent with the ideals of skepticism. Skepticism is about healthy doubt, not flat-out denial.

Obviously I can't reproduce my past veridical experiences, and so that only leaves the parapsychological literature which you are at liberty to seek out and read at any time, as I did. Of course, I had a motive.

I am so tired of this "you need to keep an open mind" crap.

Why is it with True Believers that it's the skeptics who need to consider the possibilities. Why don't Believers consider the possibility that they're just plain wrong and that since they cannot (as you so readily attest in your latter paragraph) replicate those experiences in a controlled situation, the far greater possibility is that you are flat out wrong.

Many of us have stated over and over that there are many paranormal claims that we'd love to see proven real. How much more open can you get?
Get a real clean video or photo of an alien spacecraft.
Or real material from a crash site, for that matter.
Bring me a Bigfoot carcass.
A clear photo/video of Nessie.
Show me someone who can move objects with their mind or predict the suit and numerical value of 52 consecutive cards.

I've looked at all these things at one time, with an open mind, hoping to see proof. And what do I get?
Grainy shaky-cam shots of some sort of indistinct object in the sky - hundreds and hundreds of times.
Reports from a guy who knew a guy who read about a secret underground lair where they have the wreckage (right next to the subterranean submarine base, I think).
A costume shop suit wrapped around some road kill.
A log filmed from aoubt 600 metres away (see also grainy shaky cam).
A poor psycho kinetisist(sic) who can't perform because the "skeptical vibes" are too strong.
A delusional clone who misses 51 out of 52 times.

But rather than improving on any of the above-mentioned "proof", you want me to read woo journals as a good starting point. No thank you. You don't really bring much to the table.

[Loss Leader]

I believe aliens exist somewhere, but not that they're buzzing around annoying commuters. So, I put "No."

[JimBenArm]

Believers vs. Skeptics

Skeptics 42, Believers 3.

Skeptics piled up over 500 yards of total offense, including 253 yards rushing by James Randi. Believers kept it from being a shutout by a field goal by Albert "Crazy Hair" Einstein, that barely cleared the crossbar even though it was from less than 20 yards.

Believers are still claiming victory.

[likelystory]

I am so tired of this "you need to keep an open mind" crap.
You don't really bring much to the table.

Alot of the paranormal experiences are of spiritual contact.

Even JREF has made it clear about avoiding the testing for spirits.So why does JREF lay claim to be an organization orientated in truth seeking?.

What's required is an organization which would be interested in searching to see if the paranormal exists? Like a real x-file organization with skeptics who don't flood the boards with 24 000 posts like Zep and Tricky has.

Some Skeptics are troll gossips.

[Little 10 Toes]

Alot of the paranormal experiences are of spiritual contact.

Even JREF has made it clear about avoiding the testing for spirits.So why does JREF lay claim to be an organization orientated in truth seeking?.

What's required is an organization which would be interested in searching to see if the paranormal exists? Like a real x-file organization with skeptics who don't flood the boards with 24 000 posts like Zep and Tricky has.

Some Skeptics are troll gossips. Please show where the "JREF has made it clear about avoiding the testing for spirits". Just because people claim something, doesn't mean that it should be investigated by someone/something.

And some people who claim things are nuts. There was some one who posted that there was going to be a natural disaster to wipe out LA and San Francisco and that this person was going to be transported to Israel since he was a prophet. D-day came and went. No damage to California.

I claim there is an invisible pink dragon in my garage. You can claim there isn't. Who should ask for, and provide, proof?

[Brainache]

Alot of the paranormal experiences are of spiritual contact.

Even JREF has made it clear about avoiding the testing for spirits.So why does JREF lay claim to be an organization orientated in truth seeking?.

What's required is an organization which would be interested in searching to see if the paranormal exists? Like a real x-file organization with skeptics who don't flood the boards with 24 000 posts like Zep and Tricky has.

Some Skeptics are troll gossips.

My Brother tests spirits. He can test them all night long. Then he falls over and wakes up with a headache. I prefer beer.

[likelystory]

I claim there is an invisible pink dragon in my garage.Who should ask for, and provide, proof?

Ignore the claim or seek help about one's Compulsive POSTING Disorder.

Put a self imposed ban of week free posting on JREF, followed by a month free, followed by a year free. :D

[Little 10 Toes]

Ignore the claim or seek help about one's Compulsive POSTING Disorder.

Put a self imposed ban of week free posting on JREF, followed by a month free, followed by a year free. :D

Ah, so you will not see if there isn't a dragon in my garage. You must be afraid of the truth. [Devil's Advocate mode OFF]

Now you see why Fox and/or Scully don't work for the JREF. It's up to the claimant (sew I can't spell write now) to provide proof of the claim.

[Foolmewunz]

Alot of the paranormal experiences are of spiritual contact.

Even JREF has made it clear about avoiding the testing for spirits.So why does JREF lay claim to be an organization orientated in truth seeking?.

What's required is an organization which would be interested in searching to see if the paranormal exists? Like a real x-file organization with skeptics who don't flood the boards with 24 000 posts like Zep and Tricky has.

Some Skeptics are troll gossips.

You make less and less sense as the day wears on over here. You apparently cannot understand the Rules of the MDC and/or the FAQ. Please show where the JREF has "made it clear about avoiding the testing of spirits". Granted, we haven't had any actual spirits apply for the MDC, but if one of these gifted channelers wants to apply and can design a simple claim and protocol, it would certainly qualify as "paranormal", which is still the raison d'etre of the challenge.

Claimant: I can talk to dead people.
JREF: How can you prove it?
Claimant: I can't. He's shy around beards.
Gong! You can't claim that is testable or that you can write up a protocol.

Claimant: I have contact with a spirit guide.
JREF: How can you prove this?
Claimant: He/She can identify hidden photographos of people as to whether male or female... every single time.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a testable claim.


Both of the above are based on real claims I've heard on this forum. There is no need for skeptics to finance or support an X Files type organization as you say. You want a pro-woo organization to go out there and hunt down positive signs of woo. Just watch the Discovery Channel and their crap about The Historical Jesus, Nostradamus, The Gospels of Judas, etc.... We've got all the woo merchants we need. What we need(imho, of course) is what we're here supporting, a counter-balance to all that crap that we're feed every day.

We have a guy here who's a conspiracy theorist and who keeps asking us for suggestions as to how to help build up his conspiradroid movement. Why on earth would we want to?

[likelystory]

You make less and less sense as the day wears on over here. You apparently cannot understand the Rules of the MDC and/or the FAQ. Please show where the JREF has "made it clear about avoiding the testing of spirits".

IMPORTANT: Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. Also, JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims,

I found this on the applicant page.

[Lothian]

Even JREF has made it clear about avoiding the testing for spirits.So why does JREF lay claim to be an organization orientated in truth seeking?.

Please provide details of the "spirit test" that the JREF have said is not acceptable.

[Hokulele]

Believers vs. Skeptics

Skeptics 42, Believers 3.

Skeptics piled up over 500 yards of total offense, including 253 yards rushing by James Randi. Believers kept it from being a shutout by a field goal by Albert "Crazy Hair" Einstein, that barely cleared the crossbar even though it was from less than 20 yards.

Believers are still claiming victory.


Believers are like Raiders fans? That explains so much...

[Foolmewunz]

IMPORTANT: Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. Also, JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims,

I found this on the applicant page.

"The Holy Ghost protects me." Not acceptable as nothing provable is claimed.
"My spirit guide will correctly identify the suit and number on all 52 cards in a standard (hidden) deck." Very likely acceptable and testable.

[likelystory]

Please provide details of the "spirit test" that the JREF have said is not acceptable.

they won't accept claims of angels existence to be approved for testing....IMPORTANT: Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. Also, JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels

[Lothian]

they won't accept claims of angels existence to be approved for testing....IMPORTANT: Only claims that can be verified by evidence under proper observing conditions will be accepted. Also, JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angelsThe mere existence of a passive angel will not be tested; as in I can see an angel but no one else can. An angel that interacts with the world, which can be tested will. You tell us how an angel's existence can be tested and if it is a valid test it will be accepted. I presume you realise that an anecdote of seeing something strange is not worth $1 million.

[Hokulele]

Yeah, they tried to negotiate a protocol with Ali, who claimed that his god would protect him from an attack by a trained police dog. Religious claims are fine, provided they are testable.

Ali still comes around to try and convert the atheists, but he doesn't say much about dogs these days. :cool:

[Sean84]

You can be tested for spiritual nonsense. Dave Koenig babbled on and on about how he could contact spirits with EVP. If I recall correctly he got around proving that spirits exist by being allowed to simply create a protocol where voices appeared on blank media without resorting to his clearly BS method of scanning radio stations and letting pareidolia do the work.

Of course he had no intention of actually doing so, but that's another matter.

BTW: This all seems to belong in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=171300) where you've failed to answer very simple questions.

[likelystory]

The mere existence of a passive angel will not be tested; as in I can see an angel but no one else can. An angel that interacts with the world, which can be tested will. You tell us how an angel's existence can be tested and if it is a valid test it will be accepted. I presume you realise that an anecdote of seeing something strange is not worth $1 million.

Yes,there are less complicated challenges with more reasonable rules. I get the picture now. JREF is pro-skeptic.

[Hokulele]

JREF is pro-skeptic.


Well, yeah. This was a revelation? :confused:

[Mirrorglass]

If that's what you mean by how psi works, then yeah ok. But I don't feel like I know how psi works. The sheep-goat effect is like a psychic reflex, but it doesn't tell me "how". Strength in numbers tells me something but does it tell me "how"? It suggests that our minds can work together but how? Retrocausality means that Mind transcends time and space, but it doesn't tell me "how" it does that...

My question is how you know any of that. If those things are real, observable things, why can't even the parapsychological scientist provide an experiment that shows them?

You talk about "retrocausality", but you can't provide a mechanism by which it works or any evidence that it exists. Thus, your belief in it is wholly unscientific.

[Jack by the hedge]

Yes,there are less complicated challenges with more reasonable rules. I get the picture now. JREF is pro-skeptic.

There may well be others whose challenges have more lax rules. More fool them. JREF is anti-cheating.

[Foolmewunz]

Yes,there are less complicated challenges with more reasonable rules. I get the picture now. JREF is pro-skeptic.

This sounds like you're disappointed, Likelystory. Were planning on applying? Do you have a guardian angel hanging over your shoulder every day? I think we had one of those, already.
How about being able to tell when people are looking without even looking? That's a good one. Alas, we've had one of them, too.
People who can talk to their friends through walls? Yeah, that too.

So, do tell. We have to assume it involves a demon or ghost or spirit because of your concern. But believe us when we tell you that if you have some sort of spirit who can demonstrate abilities that no one can figure out, you have a legitimate challenge, and you should start working on getting yourself some media exposure* and then setting up a protocol.

*Yeah, that's the real catch - not all this nonsense you're gleaning from the FAQ and Rules. You need to have some sort of media presence and possibly even a preliminary test with a psych professor or such. Read the whole rules, but I know there are people here who could almost walk you through them by rote.

[Jack by the hedge]

Likelystory doesn't have a claim. He/she is just trawling through the rules, looking for stuff to nitpick.

Here, Likely's point seems to be "Ha - they refuse to test claims of spirits - what are they scared of?", which is just a misunderstanding (whether innocent or vexatious). The mere claimed existence of various invisible friends is just not testable. If, on the other hand, your invisible friend can tell you what cards the other guy is holding, then that's testable and would be accepted.

[desertgal]

Yes,there are less complicated challenges with more reasonable rules.

Please show us the less complicated challenge that will pay you X amount of dollars for taking your word on the existence of a passive angel.

I get the picture now. JREF is pro-skeptic.

Well...yeah. Hey, you're quick.

[Legend]

Likelystory doesn't have a claim. He/she is just trawling through the rules, looking for stuff to nitpick.

Here, Likely's point seems to be "Ha - they refuse to test claims of spirits - what are they scared of?", which is just a misunderstanding (whether innocent or vexatious). The mere claimed existence of various invisible friends is just not testable. If, on the other hand, your invisible friend can tell you what cards the other guy is holding, then that's testable and would be accepted.

This.

I've always thought this. He'll hate anything to do with the JREF or skepticism just because it has something to do with the JREF or skepticism. It's this classic judge before you think thing, similar way of thinking to racists or sexists (I'm not calling him one - just saying that the line of thinking is very similar).

Alex.

[Belz...]

Warning to believers. Don't let the skeptics get to you, that is their job.

I don't remember being paid for this.

[Belz...]

lol, can be used in the exact opposite =]

Except it's true. Believers usually WANT to convert. Otherwise they're not reading their book properly.

Skepticism, as practiced by 'skeptics' is a religion of its own, so the poll should really be 'believers vs other believers'.

Huh ?

[RoboTimbo]

Yes,there are less complicated challenges with more reasonable rules. I get the picture now. JREF is pro-skeptic.

You're right! That's not fair! Let's you put up $1,000,000 of your money and we'll be sure to accept claims of angels! How soon can you write the check so we can get this thing going?

[Limbo]

My question is how you know any of that.


I know from my personal experiences with psi and from parapsychology literature.

If those things are real, observable things, why can't even the parapsychological scientist provide an experiment that shows them?


What makes you think they haven't? Oh, right, your various assumptions. You assume that "someone would have made a big deal."

You talk about "retrocausality", but you can't provide a mechanism by which it works or any evidence that it exists. Thus, your belief in it is wholly unscientific.


Do you mean to suggest that there is no possible way that science can explore an anomaly without becoming un-science in the process?

And BTW, there is evidence that retrocausality (http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/) is real.

[JimBenArm]

Believers are like Raiders fans? That explains so much...

Except for the kicker. Sea Bass would have hooked it wide right.

[Mirrorglass]

What makes you think they haven't? Oh, right, your various assumptions. You assume that "someone would have made a big deal".

Well, since even you haven't been able to produce documentation or even stories about an experiment like that, I assumed you're not aware of any such. If you indeed are sitting on some convincing, scientific evidence of, say, retrocausality, then I must admit I'm confused about why you didn't just present that in your first post.


Not wholly. Unless you mean to suggest that there is no possible way that science can explore an anomaly without becoming un-science in the process.

Retrocausality would be an anomaly only if it was actually detectable. As it isn't, it's just something someone made up. And you're not exploring it, but assuming it's true. That is un-scientific.

[Limbo]

Well, since even you haven't been able to produce documentation or even stories about an experiment like that, I assumed you're not aware of any such. If you indeed are sitting on some convincing, scientific evidence of, say, retrocausality, then I must admit I'm confused about why you didn't just present that in your first post.


Hold on a second. Let's just slow down here. You said, "if those things are real, observable things, why can't even the parapsychological scientist provide an experiment that shows them?"

By "those things", you mean the sheep-goat effect and retrocausality? So what you're asking for are any experiments that show these effects, right?

Well, there are lots. I've already given you a link to the retropsychokinesis project website (http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/). As for the sheep-goat effect, I can give you links to experiments about that, too. Is that what you want?

Retrocausality would be an anomaly only if it was actually detectable. As it isn't, it's just something someone made up. And you're not exploring it, but assuming it's true. That is un-scientific.


I'm not assuming it's true. I've had psychic experiences of precognition, so I don't need to assume. You are the one here with assumptions, not me.

Can You Still Win Yesterday’s Lottery? or Retrocausation: Is it Compatible with Known Physics? (http://www.scientificexploration.org/talks/27th_annual/27th_annual_moddel_g_retrocausation_physics.html)

[carlitos]

I think that Limbo has me on ignore, but just my 2 cents. Pre-cognition has a whole bunch of mundane explanations. A shrink once told me that we have 10,000 thoughts per day, and that 90% of them are the same from the day before. Combine this with selective memory (selection bias), maybe a little deja vu sometimes, and unconscious perception, and you have "I have experienced precognition."

[Pixel42]

I'm not assuming it's true. I've had psychic experiences of precognition, so I don't need to assume.
You are assuming that your explanation of your experiences is the correct one. Precedent suggests that such an assumption is unsafe. For example every single applicant for the MDC tested so far had made a similar assumption, only to be proved wrong.

[Mirrorglass]

Hold on a second. Let's just slow down here. You said, "if those things are real, observable things, why can't even the parapsychological scientist provide an experiment that shows them?"

By "those things", you mean the sheep-goat effect and retrocausality? So what you're asking for are any experiments that show these effects, right?

Well, there are lots. I've already given you a link to the retropsychokinesis project website (http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/). As for the sheep-goat effect, I can give you links to experiments about that, too. Is that what you want?


I'm not assuming it's true. I've had psychic experiences of precognition, so I don't need to assume. You are the one here with assumptions, not me.

Can You Still Win Yesterday’s Lottery? or Retrocausation: Is it Compatible with Known Physics? (http://www.scientificexploration.org/talks/27th_annual/27th_annual_moddel_g_retrocausation_physics.html)


Damn it, I spent 20 minutes writing a response only to crash it. Oh well, I'll give you a synopsis.

-You keep providing "proof" of tiny, insignificant abilities like slightly affecting a RNG. Do you think that is the greatest thing psi can do? If not, you should have some evidence for the bigger stuff too.

-The first link was bogus. I couldn't access all parts of the site, but the ones I did get to were a bunch of scientific-sounding mucking around with statistics that makes it seem like there's a documented PK effect, when in fact the experiments are clearly shown to have been mostly faulty. If you want details, feel free to ask about a specific article on the site, though you should probably do it in a new thread.

-No need to speak of the sheep-goat effect until you can show PK.

-Your own experiences shouldn't be enough to convince you of the paranormal. See the "Evidence you want" thread for details.

-You cannot show precognitive abilities. Hence I have no reason to believe you have them, and neither should you.

-The second link was bogus. It only sounds like science. You can ask for details in the science subforum if you like, I'm sure the people there will explain why the lecture is cobblers.

-Even if the second link had shown a legit mechanism, you're still making the leap of assuming a brain can somehow control a mechanism that happens on the subatomic level. You've yet to provide an explanation of how psi works at all.

[Stout]

I am so tired of this "you need to keep an open mind" crap.

.

Ditto, that confusing having an open mind with being credulous shtick is wearing thin.

[IXP]

I am the 100'th non-beleiver, do I win a prize?

IXP

[Legend]

Ditto, that confusing having an open mind with being credulous shtick is wearing thin.

Well if you'd just open your mind to the possibility of... :boxedin:

;)

Alex.

[leafman91]

Don't Stop, believin'
Hold on to that feelin'

[Limbo]

You keep providing "proof" of tiny, insignificant abilities like slightly affecting a RNG. Do you think that is the greatest thing psi can do? If not, you should have some evidence for the bigger stuff too.


Why? I have no first-hand experience with the "bigger stuff", so I'm not going to make a claim about it.

-The first link was bogus. I couldn't access all parts of the site, but the ones I did get to were a bunch of scientific-sounding mucking around with statistics that makes it seem like there's a documented PK effect, when in fact the experiments are clearly shown to have been mostly faulty. If you want details, feel free to ask about a specific article on the site, though you should probably do it in a new thread.


OK.

-No need to speak of the sheep-goat effect until you can show PK.


By "show", you mean replicated by scientists you trust. Naturally, that means skeptical mainstream scientists with good reputations. If such scientists were to suddenly decide to start trying to replicate parapsychology experiments in order to "show" PK, then hopefully they won't feel the same way you do. If they are naive about the effect, their efforts will probably be wasted.

-Your own experiences shouldn't be enough to convince you of the paranormal. See the "Evidence you want" thread for details.


It's sort of a holistic thing. It's the whole that convinces me, not one part (my own experiences).

-You cannot show precognitive abilities.


True, I can't do so on demand. If and when it ever happens again it will be spontaneous.

Hence I have no reason to believe you have them, and neither should you.


It would probably be more accurate to say you have insufficient reason at this time. As for what I should or should not believe, I'm not in the habit of letting anyone tell me that. I decide what I should believe for myself, just so we have that straight.

-Even if the second link had shown a legit mechanism, you're still making the leap of assuming a brain can somehow control a mechanism that happens on the subatomic level. You've yet to provide an explanation of how psi works at all.


That's why I said I don't know how psi works. I only know it's real.

[Lothian]

That's why I said I don't know how psi works.No one knows how elephants fly either.

[Mirrorglass]

Why? I have no first-hand experience with the "bigger stuff."

So you believe in the stuff without any evidence or personal experiences?


By "show", you mean replicated by scientists you trust. Naturally, that means skeptical mainstream scientists with good reputations. If such scientists were to suddenly decide to start trying to replicate parapsychology experiments in order to "show" PK, then hopefully they won't feel the same way you do.

The reputation of the scientist doesn't matter, just the process used to create the article. If you can provide a study that adheres to scientific standards and shows evidence of psi effects, I won't complain about your reputation.


It would probably be more accurate to say you have insufficient reason at this time. As for what I should or should not believe, I'm not in the habit of letting anyone tell me that. I decide what I should believe for myself, just so we have that straight.

Yes, and that's why your beliefs will always be the product of a single brain, while mine and the rest of the skeptical community build on the thousands upon thousands of other thinkers. If you're more comfortable in your worldview, then that's fine, but it's foolish to assume your beliefs aren't of inferior usefulness.

That's why I said I don't know how psi works.

And that's why I said it's pretty weird of you to believe in something without knowing what that something is supposed to be.

[Limbo]

So you believe in the stuff without any evidence or personal experiences?


I think some of the "bigger stuff" is likely, stuff like levitation and teleportation. If that means I "believe" in it, then so be it. But I have not experienced such "bigger stuff", and parapsychology deals with the small stuff.

The reputation of the scientist doesn't matter, just the process used to create the article. If you can provide a study that adheres to scientific standards and shows evidence of psi effects, I won't complain about your reputation.


A skeptical friend of mine took a close look at this experiment (http://www.psiarcade.com/research/radinphoton.pdf). He was impressed, but since there is a replication underway he decided to 'wait and see'.

Yes, and that's why your beliefs will always be the product of a single brain, while mine and the rest of the skeptical community build on the thousands upon thousands of other thinkers. If you're more comfortable in your worldview, then that's fine, but it's foolish to assume your beliefs aren't of inferior usefulness.


Yes I'm comfortable in my worldview, thanks. :D

And that's why I said it's pretty weird of you to believe in something without knowing what that something is supposed to be.


Oh I know exactly what it is supposed to be. An anomaly which your worldview seemingly can't account for. But if you're comfortable in your worldview, then that's fine. :p

[not daSkeptic]

Yes I'm comfortable in my worldview, thanks. :D

But are you willing to step outside that comfort zone and take a chance that what you think is wrong?

[Limbo]

But are you willing to step outside that comfort zone and take a chance that what you think is wrong?


If I wasn't willing, my world-view wouldn't be what it is today. I would still be a mainstream Christian, instead of a heretical mystical woo-woo. :p

But no I've seen too much to have the luxury of choosing any ol' world-view that I happen to like. Yours is tempting, but I'm sorry to say that scientism lacks the explanatory power to satisfy me.

I can consider that I am wrong, but I can't consider that scientism is the answer.

[Lothian]

But no I've seen too much to have the luxury of choosing any ol' world-view that I happen to like. Yours is tempting, but I'm sorry to say that scientism lacks the explanatory power to satisfy me.
Thanks, that is the funniest thing I have read on t'internet here for quite some time.

[Mirrorglass]

I think some of the "bigger stuff" is likely, stuff like levitation and teleportation. If that means I "believe" in it, then so be it. But I have not experienced such "bigger stuff", and parapsychology deals with the small stuff.

It is unscientific to think something is likely with no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. That's all I'm really saying.

A skeptical friend of mine took a close look at this experiment (http://www.psiarcade.com/research/radinphoton.pdf). He was impressed, but since there is a replication underway he decided to 'wait and see'.

The most impressive thing about the document was the ridiculous complexity. The introduction was a bunch of quote-mining trying to make it seem like some famous scientists believed in psi-effects, and the whole thing is based on a misunderstanding of a quantum principle.

The experiment itself is also very suspicious. The system that guided the light to the camera was very complex, while the camera itself wasn't a real precision instrument. The method used to analyze light intensity was strange, and the statistical methods employed were unorthodox and confusing. Even so, the effect shown in the data was tiny - small enough that it could be attributed to, for example, the higher room temperature caused by the meditator and experimenter being in the next room. I lack the expertise to completely deny the validity of the experiment, but I'm fairly confident it would not pass any scientific peer-review - not because of the subject, but because of the protocol.

An even more important notion than the unreliability of the results, however, is the way the paper confounds what the experiment is actually about. What the experiment (seemingly) proves is that a person concentrating in the next room affects a light beam. The writer, however, goes on to claim this is evidence of the person perceiving light. That is nonsense.

The mechanism whereby perceiving a light beam causes changes in it is clearly false; otherwise a similar result could be reached by looking at the beam instead of thinking about it. It is very strange that the experimenters did not try, or even mention, this method. It leads me to believe the knew the idea was groundless.

And even if the mechanism was possible, it would not be only one possible explanation for the observed phenomenon. It is far more likely the effects on the light beam were caused by some form of radiation emitted by the meditator, and there are many other possibilities. The test by no means favours the "observation affects light" theory.

So, in conclusion, the paper is a bunch of misleading text built around a shady test, claiming the shady results prove something they wouldn't prove even if they were completely unambiguous. If your skeptic friend truly was "impressed" by it, then his understanding of scientific research is lacking. I can hardly blame him, though; like most parapsychological articles, the paper was written in a deliberately difficult-to-understand fashion.

That tends to be all parapsychology amounts to; massive bodies of text around a tiny little experiment that isn't at all about the claims parapsychologists make. It looks like science to an outsider, because it is made to mimic the appearance of science, but is something different; namely a tool to convince people of something that does not exist.


Oh I know exactly what it is supposed to be. An anomaly which your worldview seemingly can't account for. But if you're comfortable in your worldview, then that's fine. :p

Are you saying the whole theory of psi is just supposed to be something that doesn't fit a scientific worldview? I always assumed there was some substance to the theories, but it would actually make sense if they're all just part of a single, huge act of trolling.

[Mirrorglass]

If I wasn't willing, my world-view wouldn't be what it is today. I would still be a mainstream Christian, instead of a heretical mystical woo-woo. :p

But no I've seen too much to have the luxury of choosing any ol' world-view that I happen to like. Yours is tempting, but I'm sorry to say that scientism lacks the explanatory power to satisfy me.

I can consider that I am wrong, but I can't consider that scientism is the answer.

No one is asking you to accept this strawman "scientism". Science, however, has much more explanatory power than any parapsychological theory.

[Limbo]

It is unscientific to think something is likely with no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. That's all I'm really saying.


Maybe so. But I consider anecdotal evidence to be a little more than "no evidence whatsoever". It's a little evidence whatsoever. ;)

The most impressive thing about the document was the ridiculous complexity. The introduction was a bunch of quote-mining trying to make it seem like some famous scientists believed in psi-effects, and the whole thing is based on a misunderstanding of a quantum principle.

The experiment itself is also very suspicious. The system that guided the light to the camera was very complex, while the camera itself wasn't a real precision instrument. The method used to analyze light intensity was strange, and the statistical methods employed were unorthodox and confusing. Even so, the effect shown in the data was tiny - small enough that it could be attributed to, for example, the higher room temperature caused by the meditator and experimenter being in the next room. I lack the expertise to completely deny the validity of the experiment, but I'm fairly confident it would not pass any scientific peer-review - not because of the subject, but because of the protocol.

An even more important notion than the unreliability of the results, however, is the way the paper confounds what the experiment is actually about. What the experiment (seemingly) proves is that a person concentrating in the next room affects a light beam. The writer, however, goes on to claim this is evidence of the person perceiving light. That is nonsense.

The mechanism whereby perceiving a light beam causes changes in it is clearly false; otherwise a similar result could be reached by looking at the beam instead of thinking about it. It is very strange that the experimenters did not try, or even mention, this method. It leads me to believe the knew the idea was groundless.

And even if the mechanism was possible, it would not be only one possible explanation for the observed phenomenon. It is far more likely the effects on the light beam were caused by some form of radiation emitted by the meditator, and there are many other possibilities. The test by no means favours the "observation affects light" theory.

So, in conclusion, the paper is a bunch of misleading text built around a shady test, claiming the shady results prove something they wouldn't prove even if they were completely unambiguous. If your skeptic friend truly was "impressed" by it, then his understanding of scientific research is lacking. I can hardly blame him, though; like most parapsychological articles, the paper was written in a deliberately difficult-to-understand fashion.

That tends to be all parapsychology amounts to; massive bodies of text around a tiny little experiment that isn't at all about the claims parapsychologists make. It looks like science to an outsider, because it is made to mimic the appearance of science, but is something different; namely a tool to convince people of something that does not exist.


Do you mind if I pass your comments along to the author?

Are you saying the whole theory of psi is just supposed to be something that doesn't fit a scientific worldview? I always assumed there was some substance to the theories, but it would actually make sense if they're all just part of a single, huge act of trolling.


Well, since psi predates science, that could hardly be possible. The reverse is therefore more likely. :p

[Lothian]

Well, since psi predates science, that could hardly be possible. The reverse is therefore more likely. :pTotal bull. Psi does not exist science does. Beilef in Psi does not predate trust in mechanics, balistics, biology, chemistry or a whole host of other sciences.

[not daSkeptic]

But no I've seen too much to have the luxury of choosing any ol' world-view that I happen to like. Yours is tempting, but I'm sorry to say that scientism lacks the explanatory power to satisfy me.

Obscure terminology aside, what is it precisely that you have seen which you think science is incapable of explaining?

[Limbo]

Total bull. Psi does not exist science does. Beilef in Psi does not predate trust in mechanics, balistics, biology, chemistry or a whole host of other sciences.


Belief in psi certainly does predate science. There is only one thing that belief in psi doesn't predate, and that is the worlds oldest profession - shamanism.

Psi is not new. The word psi is new, but that which it was intended to refer to is not. It is found in every culture, every mythology, every religion since the very first shaman. The word psi is all that's new. It goes by different names, and it's explained in different ways. But all are different manifestations of the same archetype. It's the "mana" archetype. If you didn't know that, it's no wonder you poor guys are so confused.

[Mirrorglass]

Do you mind if I pass your comments along to the author?

I don't, but I feel I should point out that my education in the scientific method is still incomplete, and it's liable to be flawed in some points. But if the author is interested, then sure, I don't mind him reading what I said. He can even contact me and discuss it, should he so wish.


Well, since psi predates science, that could hardly be possible. The reverse is therefore more likely. :p

I'd like to point out that this is yet another unfounded statement. The concept of psi is far newer than the scientific method, and there's no reason to believe it existed before antiquity.

[not daSkeptic]

Psi is not new. The word psi is new, but that which it was intended to refer to is not. It is found in every culture, every mythology, every religion since the very first shaman.

Are you suggesting that its age somehow validates it?

[carlitos]

Obscure terminology aside, what is it precisely that you have seen which you think science is incapable of explaining?

I wish you luck in receiving an answer to this question.

[Limbo]

Are you suggesting that its age somehow validates it?


I'm suggesting that it's more than just a superstitious notion that can be validated or invalidated. It's an archetype. It's almost like an instinct. It just happens, and not only to us humans. To animals as well. I think of psi almost as a mechanism of evolution. The inner eye of nature, so to speak.

[Limbo]

Obscure terminology aside, what is it precisely that you have seen which you think science is incapable of explaining?


I didn't say science. I said scientism.

[not daSkeptic]

I'm suggesting that it's more than just a superstitious notion that can be validated or invalidated.

How do you know this? By what means do you distinguish it from superstition?

[not daSkeptic]

I didn't say science. I said scientism.

Then you're arguing a strawman because nobody ever claimed anything about scientism except for you.

[Trent Wray]

If I wasn't willing, my world-view wouldn't be what it is today. I would still be a mainstream Christian, instead of a heretical mystical woo-woo. :p

But no I've seen too much to have the luxury of choosing any ol' world-view that I happen to like. Yours is tempting, but I'm sorry to say that scientism lacks the explanatory power to satisfy me.

I can consider that I am wrong, but I can't consider that scientism is the answer. That's cool. So you came out of the church because it conflicted with your experiences and such? Is it okay to ask?

And do I understand that likelystory is wanting to test for angels/demons or something? How is he going to do that?

[Limbo]

How do you know this? By what means do you distinguish it from superstition?


Years of studying comparative mythology, comparative religion, comparative mysticism, and parapsychology. These vast academic fields overlap and complement each other perfectly. There is little or no doubt about it - parapsychology is studying very ancient things which are found everywhere in all ages. The "mana-personality" is an archetype, a universal. Not the bright idea of a con-artist or a wishful thinker.

Superstition is what you get when you misunderstand the source of paranormal events. For instance, take "poltergeist" phenomenon. It can seem like the source of the paranormal effects is an external agent. A "noisy ghost". But the paranormal source is the human unconscious mind, is the psi of a human agent(s). It's called recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis (RSPK).

[Elizabeth I]

No one knows how elephants fly either.

Whoa! If elephants are flying, we're going to need some really big umbrellas.


But no I've seen too much to have the luxury of choosing any ol' world-view that I happen to like. Yours is tempting, but I'm sorry to say that scientism lacks the explanatory power to satisfy me.

Remind me again...by what principle of psi are you posting on the Internet?


Belief in psi certainly does predate science. There is only one thing that belief in psi doesn't predate, and that is the worlds oldest profession - shamanism.

Psi is not new. The word psi is new, but that which it was intended to refer to is not. It is found in every culture, every mythology, every religion since the very first shaman. The word psi is all that's new. It goes by different names, and it's explained in different ways. But all are different manifestations of the same archetype. It's the "mana" archetype. If you didn't know that, it's no wonder you poor guys are so confused.

So the fact that superstition is age-old and exists worldwide, particularly in areas where people haven't had the advantage of learning about science, proves...what, exactly?

[not daSkeptic]

Superstition is what you get when you misunderstand the source of paranormal events. For instance, take "poltergeist" phenomenon. It can seem like the source of the paranormal effects is an external agent. A "noisy ghost". But the paranormal source is the human unconscious mind, is the psi of a human agent(s). It's called recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis (RSPK).

Is it not possible that RSPK is simply a misunderstanding of observed phenomena?

[Limbo]

Is it not possible that RSPK is simply a misunderstanding of observed phenomena?


No doubt some is. But not all. I was there, I saw the havoc.

[not daSkeptic]

No doubt some is. But not all. I was there, I saw the havoc.

So you're saying that some RSPK is not a misunderstanding of observed phenomena?

[Ron_Tomkins]

In my opinion, there are no Believers. There are only bad skeptics. Even the most adherent believer in woo has degrees of skepticism when it comes to buying a used car, a new apartment or having to listen to someone's excuse of why they were late.

The only thing that is lacking in the majority of people is consistency, which is why the analogies of the Flying Spaghetti monster or the invisible unicorn are used so much. They are attempts to make people come to grip with their lack of consistency, cherry picking and special pleading.

The only people who are true believers are the completely schizophrenic people. They can't not believe.

[Limbo]

Yeah, some. As in not all and not none. :p

[not daSkeptic]

Yeah, some. As in not all and not none. :p

Or to put it another way, for some RSPK there is no other possible explanation for the observed phenomena. Would you agree with that?

[Limbo]

Or to put it another way, for some RPSK there is no other possible explanation for the observed phenomena. Would you agree with that?


I don't think I would put it quite that way. I mean, anything is possible.

[not daSkeptic]

I don't think I would put it quite that way. I mean, anything is possible.

So it is possible there might be another explanation for the observed phenomena?

[Limbo]

So it is possible there might be another explanation for the observed phenomena?


Yep, it's possible that a literal supernatural entity is responsible. But I highly doubt that.

[not daSkeptic]

Yep, it's possible that a literal supernatural entity is responsible. But I highly doubt that.

What about an explanation that invalidates RSPK altogether? Is that not possible?

[Limbo]

What about an explanation that invalidates RSPK altogether? Is that not possible?


Well, if you're thinking things like hoax or prank or misperception or whatnot accounts for EVERY case, then no. Or at least, the chances are so remote as to be negligible.

[not daSkeptic]

Well, if you're thinking things like hoax or prank or misperception or whatnot accounts for EVERY case, then no. Or at least, the chances are so remote as to be negligible.

Why are the chances so small?

[Limbo]

Why are the chances so small?


Like I said, I was there. It was no mundane hoax, prank, hallucination, or whatnot.

[John Jones]

Years of studying comparative mythology, comparative religion, comparative mysticism, and parapsychology. These vast academic fields overlap and complement each other perfectly. There is little or no doubt about it - parapsychology is studying very ancient things which are found everywhere in all ages. The "mana-personality" is an archetype, a universal. Not the bright idea of a con-artist or a wishful thinker.

....



IOW, Woo.

[John Jones]

Like I said, I was there. It was no mundane hoax, prank, hallucination, or whatnot.

Peer review, reproducibility, falsifiability, Occams razor. You know the drill.

[not daSkeptic]

Like I said, I was there. It was no mundane hoax, prank, hallucination, or whatnot.

Is it not possible that you could be mistaken?

[mike3]

Skepticism is a process, what with all that research and evidence and....work, while belief is taking the easy route. Belief does allow you to make stuff up regarding a topic and as such does have a certain amount of appeal.

Or the lack thereof (of evidence, that is, for the things the skeptic does not believe are true.....).

[Foolmewunz]

Like I said, I was there. It was no mundane hoax, prank, hallucination, or whatnot.

Whoa! Well, that changes everything, then. A guy on the internet says he saw it. Apologies if my hidebound scientism is showing, here. (Equal apologies for Limbo apparently not understanding what the actual criticism of scientism is all about.)

[Stout]

A "noisy ghost". But the paranormal source is the human unconscious mind, is the psi of a human agent(s). It's called recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis (RSPK).

So what you're saying here is when a salt shaker suddenly flies, unaided toward someone's head that it's the intended target, or someone in the near vicinity that's causing it to happen through PK and not a "spirit".

How does that idea relate to the lore of a haunted house?

[Limbo]

Is it not possible that you could be mistaken?


Nope. It was quite an ordeal. :jaw-dropp

[Limbo]

So what you're saying here is when a salt shaker suddenly flies, unaided toward someone's head that it's the intended target, or someone in the near vicinity that's causing it to happen through PK and not a "spirit".


Yeah, basically.

How does that idea relate to the lore of a haunted house?


I don't know. I have no 'haunted house' experience, so I haven't given it much thought.

[Almo]

Skepticism, as practiced by 'skeptics' is a religion of its own, so the poll should really be 'believers vs other believers'.

Religion requires you to take things on faith. Science and skepticism do not. If you don't believe me when I say a spring extends proportional to the weight on it and some constant k (the spring constant), you can get a spring and do the experiment to verify that I am correct.

If I don't believe you when you say there is a god, there's no way for me to verify if you are right or not since it is untestable.

[Stout]

I don't know. I have no 'haunted house' experience, so I haven't given it much thought.

Me neither, save the experience of having one down the street from my mother's place and seeing it written up as being "famous'. I'd walk past that place several times a day and always thing of the stories people told of what went on in there ( cupboards flapping around, Christmas decorations taken down and piled neatly in the centre of the room, that sort of thing.

The phenomenon was supposedly related to the physical location of the house, as are several supposed ghost sightings at local landmarks. That has nothing to do with PK I know, but pins "spirits" to physical locations.

[not daSkeptic]

Nope. It was quite an ordeal. :jaw-dropp

Just to be clear, you are claiming that it is not possible for you to be mistaken in your understanding of things you experienced?

[likelystory]

Religion requires you to take things on faith. Science and skepticism do not. If you don't believe me when I say a spring extends proportional to the weight on it and some constant k (the spring constant), you can get a spring and do the experiment to verify that I am correct.

If I don't believe you when you say there is a god, there's no way for me to verify if you are right or not since it is untestable.

Ah, the ole you can do a scientific experiment on a spring thingy.... So you must be able to do a scientific experiment on paranormal testimonials?.

Think again brainiacs.

[not daSkeptic]

Ah, the ole you can do a scientific experiment on a spring thingy.... So you must be able to do a scientific experiment on paranormal testimonials?.

Think again brainiacs.

Are you suggesting that paranormal claims cannot be tested scientifically?

[Foolmewunz]

Are you suggesting that paranormal claims cannot be tested scientifically?

Well, duh! Of course not. You just have to believe them. Your problem is you don't believe hard enough. If you brainiacs just believed more tinkerbell would come back to life. So everybody, c'mon.... believe! Be-lieve! Be-lieve! (starts rhythmic clapping and foot stomping) Be-lieve! Be-lieve.


Seriously, daSkeptic... what's wrong with you. I mean in this thread alone just look at the mountains of proof of spirits and sprites and goblins and archangels and holy ghosts and blessed virgin mothers. Why in Limbo's post number ...... Uh, what post number was that again? I'm sure it's around here somewh....
Well, Limbo is a bit deep for us. But, look at all the proof LikelyStory has provi- Ummm......

Well, uh... ummm,.... never mind!


(p.s. on a serious note: like your work - you have more patience than I do, but it's more effective than my blatant ridicule tactic)

[likelystory]

Are you suggesting that paranormal claims cannot be tested scientifically?

Yes.In a very large way.

Proving one's ability does not prove the paranormal,and very few have been able to prove their ability to the masses.

[not daSkeptic]

Yes.In a very large way.

Why is that? What is it about the paranormal that causes it to be out-of-reach of scientific testing?

[Toke]

Why is that? What is it about the paranormal that causes it to be out-of-reach of scientific testing?

Non-existence?

[likelystory]

Why is that? What is it about the paranormal that causes it to be out-of-reach of scientific testing?

There are smarter beings.

[Trent Wray]

Nevermind!

[not daSkeptic]

There are smarter beings.

How do you know this?

[Foolmewunz]

There are smarter beings.

Yeah, we'd noticed.


(I cannot believe I beat everyone to that line!)

[likelystory]

True belief is first based on experienced action/event... Your idea of a believer having faith before an event happens is not factual.

Throughout all the Scriptures it was an ''Experienced First Hand Event'' which persuaded people to expect future events to happen on a basis of faith.

God spoke to Abram,and from that ENCOUNTER,Abram believed God's words.

It's the Experience that spawns or gives birth to the Faith/TRUST.

[not daSkeptic]

True belief is first based on experienced action/event... Your idea of a believer having faith before an event happens is not factual.

What if the event in question never actually happened?

[likelystory]

How do you know this?

Because of my own experience and selected recorded history of past world events.

So I KNOW,and that rational reasoning of knowing helps my mind alot. It doesn't help your MIND. But it helps my mind. It's my mind that matters to me. ;)

[likelystory]

It's my peace that matters. I've spent many years doing my head in,when trying to explain things to people which they have not experienced (they claim not to have experienced). So I don't try to go mad anymore by thinking ''I have to change those people''..... Oh it's such a relief. And yes,I do care about people somewhat.

So peace upon you all :)

[Lothian]

Proving one's ability does not prove the paranormal,and very few have been able to prove their ability to the masses.Name some. I don't know any.

[Lothian]

So I KNOW,and that rational reasoning of knowing helps my mind alot. It doesn't help your MIND. But it helps my mind. It's my mind that matters to me.

]It's my peace that matters. We have an expression. Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your peace but don't confuse it with being right.

[likelystory]

Name some. I don't know any.

Messiah is first, and the healers mentioned in the Scriptures.

Peace upon you :)

[not daSkeptic]

Because of my own experience ...

How do you know said experiences really occurred the way you interpreted them?

... and selected recorded history of past world events.

How do you know said history is accurate?

[likelystory]

What if the event in question never actually happened?

I don't question it anymore.My experiences confirm it. :)

[not daSkeptic]

I don't question it anymore.My experiences confirm it. :)

How exactly?

[Lothian]

Messiah is first, and the healers mentioned in the Scriptures.

Peace upon you :)Ok. So you don't think anyone has demonstrated psi to the masses for 2000 years.

Personally I think those accounts may be suspect but there are other threads for whether there is evidence that the bible authors told the truth.

[likelystory]

How do you know said experiences really occurred the way you interpreted them?



How do you know said history is accurate? I know I am regaining content to further my inner peace :)

[not daSkeptic]

I know I am regaining content to further my inner peace :)

That's nice, but it's not what I asked.

[likelystory]

How exactly? Exactly how it is to those that have it explained in personal experiences which translate to one's own mind.

Watch out,there's many decievers out there in all forms. Yet I am regaining more inner peace to shrug off the babbling nonsense that trys to infiltrate my mind. It's my mind that matters to me.

Peace upon you :)

[likelystory]

That's nice, but it's not what I asked.

Then what are you exactly trying ask,and to what end are you asking?.

Your mind is your mind only. If you want the experience of the question you ask me through words, then what are the words really worth to you?

Explain my experience if you can with your mere and questioning words. Or say you can't.

Peace upon your mind :)

[Sledge]

I wonder what likelystory's point actually is? After much sniping and nitpicking, they seem to be shifting tacks to the peace-and-love approach. It's almost like they don't really have a point... :jaw-dropp

[Pixel42]

No doubt some is. But not all. I was there, I saw the havoc.
I once saw David Copperfield saw himself in half and then put himself back together again. I have no idea how he did it.

You have been posting here long enough to know how easily people can be fooled, and can inadvertantly fool themselves, when they rely solely on what they personally can see and hear. Why are you so sure this particular experience, whatever it was, could not also be explained if you had a little more information than that which your senses gave you at the time?

[likelystory]

I wonder what likelystory's point actually is? After much sniping and nitpicking, they seem to be shifting tacks to the peace-and-love approach. It's almost like they don't really have a point... :jaw-dropp

Do you search for the TRUTH?

Who told to go and find truth?

How do you know that the truth of a matter exists to be found?.

Can a person know anything?


Will the truth set ''you free'' from the inner wars in your mind?


Peace upon your soul :)

[Legend]

Do you search for the TRUTH?

Who told to go and find truth?

How do you know that the truth of a matter exists to be found?.

Can a person know anything?


Will the truth set ''you free'' from the inner wars in your mind?


Peace upon your soul :)

I'd be worried, but the last line of the post is a giveaway that he was smoking marijuana.

Alex.

[Mirrorglass]

I'm suggesting that it's more than just a superstitious notion that can be validated or invalidated. It's an archetype. It's almost like an instinct. It just happens, and not only to us humans. To animals as well. I think of psi almost as a mechanism of evolution. The inner eye of nature, so to speak.

Have you read the article linked in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=171233)? If not, then I strongly recommend it.

I've noticed that one of the major reasons you cite for believing in psi is that in your view, it is a concept consistent with the jungian theory of archetypes. You've often cited that since said archetypes can be observed in history and the world, the theory must be right.

Popper's article talks of a very similar case with some different psychological theories. The gist is that the theories are such that any event can be viewed in the light of the theories, and thus all possible observations support them. In essence, the theories make no falsifiable predictions, and as such, the "proof" for them amounts to explaining past events according to the theory, and is worth little scientifically.

Both the psychoanalytic and jungian theories could be correct, of course. I'd be willing to say both do have many correct ideas. But in order for a theory to be scientific, it must be possible to conduct an exam that, upon failure, would clearly disprove the theory.

My worldview is scientific. That means that for any belief of mine, there is an experiment that, should it fail, would disprove my belief. You cannot, or refuse to describe such an experiment for your beliefs. As long as that is true, your worldview will never be scientific in any real meaning of the word. And yes, that is scientific, not scientismic.

[RoboTimbo]

I wonder what likelystory's point actually is? After much sniping and nitpicking, they seem to be shifting tacks to the peace-and-love approach. It's almost like they don't really have a point... :jaw-dropp

Originally it seemed to be MDC bashing. After he got spanked trying that, he switched to religious believer mode. I'm guessing either UFOs or Bigfoot next.

[Sunsneezer]

Do you search for the TRUTH?

Who told to go and find truth?

How do you know that the truth of a matter exists to be found?.

Can a person know anything?


Will the truth set ''you free'' from the inner wars in your mind?


Peace upon your soul :)
If we don't even take as truth the experiences that we immediately and spontaneously perceived as the truth, how can we afford to be certain of anything indeed?

Well, settling on a truth to achieve inner peace is the benefit of believing all right.:p It is something that a skeptic has to relinquish. For me, the inner war is the uncomfortable uncertainty of doubt. You think you win that war by believing in a static truth while skeptics think we should keep fighting to improve what we know.

Truth is such a misused word these days. Truth is for truthers. Reality is for skeptics.

Peace out.:cool:

[Limbo]

Have you read the article linked in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=171233)? If not, then I strongly recommend it.

I've noticed that one of the major reasons you cite for believing in psi is that in your view, it is a concept consistent with the jungian theory of archetypes. You've often cited that since said archetypes can be observed in history and the world, the theory must be right.

Popper's article talks of a very similar case with some different psychological theories. The gist is that the theories are such that any event can be viewed in the light of the theories, and thus all possible observations support them. In essence, the theories make no falsifiable predictions, and as such, the "proof" for them amounts to explaining past events according to the theory, and is worth little scientifically.

Both the psychoanalytic and jungian theories could be correct, of course. I'd be willing to say both do have many correct ideas. But in order for a theory to be scientific, it must be possible to conduct an exam that, upon failure, would clearly disprove the theory.

My worldview is scientific. That means that for any belief of mine, there is an experiment that, should it fail, would disprove my belief. You cannot, or refuse to describe such an experiment for your beliefs. As long as that is true, your worldview will never be scientific in any real meaning of the word. And yes, that is scientific, not scientismic.


"A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific."

You may be right. I can't think of a feasible experiment at the moment. I can however think of an unfeasible experiment that, in principle, might "prove" or "disprove" my "belief". Is feasibility a requirement in order to 'be scientific in any real meaning of the word'? Or is conceiving of it enough?

What conceivable event would refute the theory of evolution? Or quantum mechanics? These are falsifiable, right?

[dafydd]

Do you search for the TRUTH?

Who told to go and find truth?

How do you know that the truth of a matter exists to be found?.

Can a person know anything?


Will the truth set ''you free'' from the inner wars in your mind?


Peace upon your soul :)

I have no inner wars in my mind,I'm a happy camper.

[carlitos]

Just to be clear, you are claiming that it is not possible for you to be mistaken in your understanding of things you experienced?

Just to be clear, Limbo still hasn't told you what he experienced. I wonder why that is? It would be useful to describe the experience, before discussing whether it is mistaken, testable, repeatable, etc.

[Sledge]

Do you search for the TRUTH?
As the good Dr Jones once said, "Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." TRUTH seems to come and go, fact is more useful.
Peace upon your soul :)
And as Spike Milligan would say, peace on you.

[Mirrorglass]

"A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific."

You may be right. I can't think of a feasible experiment at the moment. I can however think of an unfeasible experiment that, in principle, might "prove" or "disprove" my "belief". Is feasibility a requirement in order to 'be scientific in any real meaning of the word'? Or is conceiving of it enough?

It's hard to say. You would have to conceive an experiment that could really be performed, at least in theory. Until the experiment is conducted, no, your theory isn't fully scientific. That can be partially forgiven if you can actually predict future events with your theory, though. What did you have in mind?

What conceivable event would refute the theory of evolution? Or quantum mechanics? These are falsifiable, right?

Quantum mechanics is a field, not a theory. Any particular theory of quantum mechanics should be falsifiable, but you'll have to ask someone with formal physics training for the exact details.

Evolution as a process is fairly simple, though. Just get a tank and fill it with 2,000 fruit flies, 1,000 small and 1,000 large ones (all of the same species though), then create conditions that cause the small ones to die much quicker than the big ones. If, after a few dozen generations, the ratio of small to large fruitflies is still 1:1 or higher, then a large part of the Natural Selection would be disproven (of course assuming there were no interfering factors).

[Correa Neto]

...snip...
What conceivable event would refute the theory of evolution? Or quantum mechanics? These are falsifiable, right?
Here's two examples (one for each case):
600My-old rabbit fossils
Electrons not behaving as they are supposed to behave (you know, spins, orbits, etc.)

For the paranormal, things should follow the same line of reasoning. If phenomena X is true, then evidences Y should be expected. If Y are not around...

[Elizabeth I]

It's my peace that matters. I've spent many years doing my head in,when trying to explain things to people which they have not experienced (they claim not to have experienced). So I don't try to go mad anymore by thinking ''I have to change those people''..... Oh it's such a relief. And yes,I do care about people somewhat.

So peace upon you all :)

What are you saying? All of us have experienced legitimate close encounters of the third kind, or meetings with the spirits of those who have passed on, or you name it, and we're denying it?

[AvalonXQ]

Quick comment: I voted "yes" to "Are you a believer?" I also would have voted "yes" to "Are you a skeptic?"
The two are not exclusive, nor are two people's areas of skepticism and belief necessarily the same.

[likelystory]

What are you saying? All of us have experienced legitimate close encounters of the third kind, or meetings with the spirits of those who have passed on, or you name it, and we're denying it?

At some time throughout the day/night the whole world encounters ''undetected'' paranormal influence from the spirit realm. Yet some of us are partly to fully aware of the encounter and or infuence which is notable from the senses.

But what I was saying in my comment before was that personal experience can't be summed up by outsiders who didn't experience my experience... For example;when I eat a banana,it's only me who knows what it tates like.Yet someone else could eat a banana and know what I'm talking about when saying ''it was a sweet delicous banana''.

The Skeptics have not even encountered paranormal experiences.So it's not even reasonable for Skeptics to suggest that they know of a similarity...

[Mirrorglass]

At some time throughout the day/night the whole world encounters ''undetected'' paranormal influence from the spirit realm. Yet some of us are partly to fully aware of the encounter and or infuence which is notable from the senses.

But what I was saying in my comment before was that personal experience can't be summed up by outsiders who didn't experience my experience... For example;when I eat a banana,it's only me who knows what it tates like.Yet someone else could eat a banana and know what I'm talking about when saying ''it was a sweet delicous banana''.

The Skeptics have not even encountered paranormal experiences.So it's not even reasonable for Skeptics to suggest that they know of a similarity...

If skeptics are simply people who have not yet encountered the paranormal, how do you explain the fact that they consistently outperform believers in tasks such as writing?

[likelystory]

If skeptics are simply people who have not yet encountered the paranormal, how do you explain the fact that they consistently outperform believers in tasks such as writing?

Is it frustating for you to be an academic without the paranormal experiences to write about?.

[not daSkeptic]

Then what are you exactly trying ask,and to what end are you asking?.

Your mind is your mind only. If you want the experience of the question you ask me through words, then what are the words really worth to you?

The question was how your personal experiences confirmed that a historical event actually occurred.

[not daSkeptic]

Do you search for the TRUTH?

Who told to go and find truth?

Seeking truth and finding truth are two different things. Of which do you want to know?

[not daSkeptic]

The Skeptics have not even encountered paranormal experiences.So it's not even reasonable for Skeptics to suggest that they know of a similarity...

How do you know what we have and have not encountered?

[likelystory]

Seeking truth and finding truth are two different things. Of which do you want to know?


They are found.

[likelystory]

How do you know what we have and have not encountered?

How do know what you have and have not encountered?

[not daSkeptic]

How do know what you have and have not encountered?

I never claimed to. You, on the other hand, claimed to know something about us. So please answer the question.

[likelystory]

Seeking truth and finding truth are two different things. Of which do you want to know?

How do you know seeking truth and finding truth are two different things?

[likelystory]

I never claimed to. You, on the other hand, claimed to know something about us. So please answer the question.

And who is us?How do you know there's an us?

[likelystory]

I never claimed to. You, on the other hand, claimed to know something about us. So please answer the question.

From experiences.

[Mirrorglass]

Is it frustating for you to be an academic without the paranormal experiences to write about?.

No, many academics write fiction as well, they just don't claim it's true.

[likelystory]

No, many academics write fiction as well, they just don't claim it's true.

Yes you do write fiction,don't you? :D

[not daSkeptic]

How do you know seeking truth and finding truth are two different things?

Are you unfamiliar with the conventional meanings of the words seeking and finding?

[likelystory]

Are you unfamiliar with the conventional meanings of the words seeking and finding? Are you?

[not daSkeptic]

From experiences.

Exactly what experiences give you knowledge about what skeptics have and have not experienced in regard to the paranormal?

[likelystory]

Exactly what experiences give you knowledge about what skeptics have and have not experienced in regard to the paranormal?

How do I know if what I tell you is will be accept by you to be truth?

Are you a skeptic? prove it exactly.

[not daSkeptic]

Are you?

I'm quite familiar in fact. The former is conventionally defined as an attempt at the latter. Unless you are claiming that is not the case, then the original question stands. Are you inquiring about seeking the truth or finding the truth?

[not daSkeptic]

How do I know if what I tell you is will be accept by you to be truth?

I will not accept anything you say as the truth. I will not accept anything anyone says as the truth. I will not accept anything at all as the truth. I seek the truth, but I do not ever claim to have found it.

[likelystory]

I'm quite familiar in fact. The former is conventionally defined as an attempt at the latter. Unless you are claiming that is not the case, then the original question stands. Are you inquiring about seeking the truth or finding the truth?

I found the TRUTH. So I'm not inquiring nor finding. Have you found the TRUTH?

[Mirrorglass]

Yes you do write fiction,don't you? :D

You've regressed to "I'm rubber, you're glue" arguments. That's pointless.

[Trent Wray]

Sorry to try and jump in again, but I want to ask a question about these posts. If you want to respond, cool.

I will not accept anything you say as the truth. I will not accept anything anyone says as the truth. I will not accept anything at all as the truth. I seek the truth, but I do not ever claim to have found it. Is this really how you think/feel? If so, what is it you hope to find in your seeking? Just evidence? And does truth have to be absolute to be truth?

I found the TRUTH. So I'm not inquiring nor finding. Have you found the TRUTH? What is the truth? Is it absolute?

[likelystory]

I will not accept anything you say as the truth. I will not accept anything anyone says as the truth. I will not accept anything at all as the truth. I seek the truth, but I do not ever claim to have found it.

You fall down there.

You believe you won't accept anything ''at all'' as the truth, Yet you claim to be actively seeking to find the truth. So in reality you really don't believe yourself to be searching for the truth because you can't believe it's there to find.

[likelystory]

Sorry to try and jump in again, but I want to ask a question about these posts. If you want to respond, cool.

Is this really how you think/feel? If so, what is it you hope to find in your seeking? Just evidence? And does truth have to be absolute to be truth?

What is the truth? Is it absolute?

Yes the truth is absolute. Absolute truth is the highest authority to be ''shared'' to all whom are willing to accept it when being offered.