Telepathy Debate in London

[T'ai Chi]

http://www.nature.com/nsu/040119/040119-7.html

[Tricky]

Don't you hate it when people start threads with just a link and absolutely no comment?

For those who don't wish to follow the link, it was a article in Nature about a "debate" betweena paranormal believer and one of Britain's top scientists. Here's a shocker. People believe in the paranormal.
Sheldrake, who moved beyond the scientific pale in the early 1980s by claiming that ideas and forms can spread by a mysterious force he called morphic resonance, kicked off the debate.

He presented the results of tests of extrasensory perception, together with his own research on whether people know who is going to phone or e-mail them, on whether dogs know when their owners are coming home, and on the allegedly telepathic bond between a New York woman and her parrot. "Billions of perfectly rational people believe that they have had these experiences," he said.

Yeah, people suck this stuff up. Everybody wishes there were magic in the world. But was there any hard evidence produced? Any testable hypotheses? Anything other than anecdotes? (Well, there was a new piece of paranormal gobbledygook, "morphic resonance" added to the woo-woo lexicon).

Nope, nothing at all of substance. Charismatic believer scores points with everyday folks. If popularity made something true, then there really would be a Hogwarts school of magic.

[geni]

Originally posted by Tricky
" added to the woo-woo lexicon).

Nope, nothing at all of substance. Charismatic believer scores points with everyday folks. If popularity made something true, then there really would be a Hogwarts school of magic.

Shouldn't that be Unseen University? Morphic resonance is a phrase Pratchett uses a lot.

[Interesting Ian]

From the article



Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist at University College London, made the case against the existence of telepathy . . .

Wolpert is one of Britain's best-known public spokesmen for science. But few members of the audience seemed to be swayed by his arguments . . .

For Ann Blaber, who works in children's music and was undecided on the subject, Sheldrake was the more convincing. "You can't just dismiss all the evidence for telepathy out of hand," she said. Her view was reflected by many in the audience, who variously accused Wolpert of "not knowing the evidence" and being "unscientific".



Yes! :D We might win the war yet! :D

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
From the article



Yes! :D We might win the war yet! :D

Why do I get the feeling that you deem "winning the war" as swaying public opinion in the favour of belief in the paranormal.
Forget about evidence and facts. It's all about indoctrinating the weak minded.
You'd make a great creationist, Ian.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Why do I get the feeling that you deem "winning the war" as swaying public opinion in the favour of belief in the paranormal.
Forget about evidence and facts. It's all about indoctrinating the weak minded.
You'd make a great creationist, Ian.
Indeed. In fact paranormalists had the war much more "won" back in the dark ages. In those days, you wouldn't find anybody who didn't have some sort of paranormal beliefs. Now the rationalists are only overwhelmingly outnumbered, rather than non-existant.

To quote Roger Waters, "But oh-oh-oh, the tide is turning".

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Tricky
Don't you hate it when people start threads with just a link and absolutely no comment?


You hate that? Uh ok.

Several people on this board do that. Zakur does it all the time in the Politics section, and so does another person who posts those skeptical news links every so often, and a couple more.

I think the point is that comments are unnecessary when the full text is a click away.

[Zep]

So the result depended on who was the more persuasive speaker, NOT on any demonstrable, testable, reliable facts?

Oh good. Science by popularity poll. That makes SO much sense!

[Lucianarchy]

""You can't just dismiss all the evidence for telepathy out of hand," she said. Her view was reflected by many in the audience, who variously accused Wolpert of "not knowing the evidence" and being "unscientific"."

Indeed. We skeptics have often upheld Occam to measure the overall body of evidence. The most likely explanation is that each and every last piece of data cannot all be bogus. The simplest explanation is that people experience what is being purported - ESP.

As skeptics, we must now move on to understanding the mechanism than waste time on irrational denial.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"You can't just dismiss all the evidence for telepathy out of hand," she said. Her view was reflected by many in the audience, who variously accused Wolpert of "not knowing the evidence" and being "unscientific"."

Indeed. We skeptics have often upheld Occam to measure the overall body of evidence. The most likely explanation is that each and every last piece of data cannot all be bogus. The simplest explanation is that people experience what is being purported - ESP.

As skeptics, we must now move on to understanding the mechanism than waste time on irrational denial. Wrong. Occam's Razor is "The simplest answer that accords with all the FACTS".

In the case of psi and ESP and all that, there have been NO SOLID FACTS PRESENTED AT ALL! Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

So, applying Occam, the simplest explanation of ESP and so on, in accordance with the fact that nothing reliable supports it, is that it is a load of bollocks.

But then I'm sure you will agree that anecdotes ARE solid evidence, won't you! But if you do, be prepared to defend your position! (Hint: you will lose badly)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zep
Wrong. Occam's Razor is "The simplest answer [b]that accords with all the FACTS".

In the case of psi and ESP and all that, there have been NO SOLID FACTS PRESENTED AT ALL! Nothing. Zilch. Nada.



There is sound evidence for certain parpsychological phenomena. That is a cold fact which skeptics might not like, but which is true.

[geni]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


There is sound evidence for certain parpsychological phenomena. That is a cold fact which skeptics might not like, but which is true.

Really where? (and why havn't you taken the million yet?)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zep
So the result depended on who was the more persuasive speaker, NOT on any demonstrable, testable, reliable facts?

Oh good. Science by popularity poll. That makes SO much sense!

{shrugs}

I agree that it is appalling. But this is how the question of the existence of controversial phenomena is decided. Not so much by a popularity vote, but by those who wield the power.

This following extract from a parapsychological text book may be of interest.

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter17.pdf Page 314

"Some critics (e.g., Hyman, Á980) have argued for the need to respond to
parapsychology in a sober and proper manner, but nonetheless a common tactic
of skeptics is the use of ridicule. Parapsychological phenomena are derided
as nonsensical and primitive folk beliefs and parapsychological research is
belittled as occultism in pseudoscientiÞc garb. This approach especially is characteristic
of the Committee for the ScientiÞc Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal (CSICOP). CSICOP is a group of scientists and other people originally
founded to examine objectively the evidence for paranormal phenomena (Frazier,
Á996), but it has maintained an inßexible stance against research into the
paranormal (Hansen, Á992), some of its aàliates even resorting to deception
in experimental reports (Pinch & Collins, Á984); many of its more evenhanded
members consequently have resigned.
Articles published in the Humanist and in CSICOPÕS own periodical the
Skeptical Inquirer (see Frazier, Á98Á, Á986, Á99Á) amalgamate parapsychological
research with astrology, vampires, UFOs, pyramid power, numerology, the
Bermuda triangle, witchcraft, the Tarot, the Abominable Snowman and the
like, encouraging an impression of parapsychologyÕs guilt by association. Parapsychology
has been depicted by some skeptics as a spiritualist or occultist
movement seeking to maintain popular support by adopting a facade of scienti
Þc methodology; for example, the discipline is said to be a ÒpseudoscienceÓ
(Alcock, Á98Á) and Òa prime example of magical thinkingÓ (Bunge, Á99Á, p.
Á36), its researchers Òcloset occultistsÓ (Romm, Á977), and its concepts Òa reversion
to a pre-scientiÞc religio-mystical traditionÓ (Moss & Butler, Á978, p.
Á077). The results of parapsychological research are dismissed out of hand or
are patently misrepresented. Bunge (Á99Á, p. Á33), for example, makes the bald
declaration, Òall of the well-designed parapsychological experiments have produced
negative results.Ó Similarly, in a major report commissioned at the
request of the US Congress Hyman (Á995, p. 325) asserted, ÒOnly parapsychology,
among the Þelds of inquiry claiming scientiÞc status, lacks a cumulative
database.Ó
Although parapsychologists deplore these rhetorical devices the fact of the
matter is that this is how scientiÞc controversy is waged. As Feyerabend (Á975)
maintains, it is not so much the logic of the case that determines the outcome of a scientiÞc controversy but rather the rhetorical skills of the advocates for
each side". (emphasis added)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by geni


Really where? (and why havn't you taken the million yet?)

Look at the reseach done over the past 60 years. As a whole it is clearly highly suggestive of anomalous cognition and perturbation.

I imagine that the million hasn't been won because[list=a]
Randi is not primarily interested in testing for parapsychological phenomena
He is a skilled illusionist
The type of phenomena does not appear to be the type which can be switched on and off at will, which would seem to be required to win the $ million.
And most importantly of all, the results that he requires are way way beyond what all the evidence would reasonably be said could be acheived.
[/list=a]

All this is very very obvious. Now please decease being a complete pr*ck.

[Garrette]

a. Not interested in testing for parapsychological phenomena? Tripe. He's interested in testing for anything paranormal that the claimant can and will define.

b. I think you're on to something with this one. Claimaint: I can do something that makes most people think I have paranormal abilities. If I pass Randi's test, I'll get a million dollars. But, wait, Randi's a skilled illusionist. Hmmm....I don't think I can pass Randi's test.[/I] Yep. Nothing wrong with this reason.

c. The vast majority of claimed phenomena most certainly does seem to be able to switched on and off. Or are you suggesting that the phenomena which you claim has solid evidence in support of it is of a different type, and the vast majority of folks claiming paranormal abilities out there truly are frauds or are deluded?

d. Surely you can't be serious? The results he requires are exactly that the claimant can perform to the degree of success he claims he can perform. Oh, wait. That probably is way beyond the level that anyone could be expected to actually achieve. I guess you're right on this one, too.

2 out of 4 correct, II. Not bad.

[shemp]

The only complete pr*cks around here are the people who insist that the burden of proof is upon the skeptics to prove that telepathy doesn't exist.

It's very simple guys. The burden is on you to prove it exists. Jeez, with all these educated guys like Sheldrake running around saying it does exist, you'd think they could get together and design an experiment that could be run in a way that the public could watch the results in real time, with analysis of the data by a panel of disinterested statisticians. But nooooooooo!

Like Nike says, "Just do it!" Stop debating it and just do it where everyone can see it.

The million still lies unclaimed. I don't wonder why.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Look at the reseach done over the past 60 years. As a whole it is clearly highly suggestive of anomalous cognition and perturbation.


All this is very very obvious. Now please decease being a complete pr*ck.

As a whole, unfortunately, it suggests gullibility, fraud, ignorance of anything approaching a scientific perspective, amaturishness, playing for the gallery, ignorance of statistics, ignorance of the seamier side of human nature, overall naivite, wishful thinking.

That is, taken as a whole, as you have suggested.

[pupdog]

Now, let's see ... did all of the participants stay at home and telepath, or did they actually have to travel to a central meeting place?

I'll wait for the proceedings to come to me in my dreams.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette
[B]a. Not interested in testing for parapsychological phenomena? Tripe. He's interested in testing for anything paranormal that the claimant can and will define.



I've never come across any claims being tested which come under the purview of parapsychology. Please name some.



b. I think you're on to something with this one. Claimaint: I can do something that makes most people think I have paranormal abilities. If I pass Randi's test, I'll get a million dollars. But, wait, Randi's a skilled illusionist. Hmmm....I don't think I can pass Randi's test.[/I] Yep. Nothing wrong with this reason.



Yeah, and apparently he's always got an out. But let's forget about that shall we.



c. The vast majority of claimed phenomena most certainly does seem to be able to switched on and off.



I repeat, there is no solid evidence to substantiate any claims that paranormal phenomena can be switched on and off at will.

You may or may not like that, but I suggest you deal with it.



Or are you suggesting that the phenomena which you claim has solid evidence in support of it is of a different type, and the vast majority of folks claiming paranormal abilities out there truly are frauds or are deluded?


I have absolutely zero interest in people who claim they can reproduce paranormal phenomena at will. As far as I'm concerned they're as big a pr*cks as skeptics.



d. Surely you can't be serious? The results he requires are exactly that the claimant can perform to the degree of success he claims he can perform.



I have absolutely zero interest in what simple minded fools or charlatans can claim they can perform.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by shemp
[B]The only complete pr*cks around here are the people who insist that the burden of proof is upon the skeptics to prove that telepathy doesn't exist.



If there is solid scientific evidence, and if people throughout human history and across all cultures have believed that they have experienced telepathy, then it is incumbent upon those that deny the reality of this alleged phenomenon to argue their case. Not just simply sit back in thier chairs and make ill-informed crass comments.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed


As a whole, unfortunately, it suggests gullibility, fraud, ignorance of anything approaching a scientific perspective, amaturishness, playing for the gallery, ignorance of statistics, ignorance of the seamier side of human nature, overall naivite, wishful thinking.

That is, taken as a whole, as you have suggested.

Your comments display either a crass ignorance or a deliberate denial of the truth.

Some of these things are true to a limited extent, and some are not. People will try to cheat with some people being very good at it. Positive results will be obtained by those researchers sympathetic to this phenomena and contrariwise for those hostile (as in every other area of science). But being scientificallly incompentent is not generally a charge which has particular substance, and neither is ignorance of statistics. Or at least (especially going by their suggestions) skeptics ignorance of statistics is certainly no less than parapsychologists, and possibly more.

As I say, taken as a whole, the evidence is solid. So if you reject it you need to provide good reasons why you do so.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Your comments display either a crass ignorance or a deliberate denial of the truth.

Some of these things are true to a limited extent, and some are not. People will try to cheat with some people being very good at it. Positive results will be obtained by those researchers sympathetic to this phenomena and contrariwise for those hostile (as in every other area of science). But being scientificallly incompentent is not generally a charge which has particular substance,


cf. Schwartz. Lack of a light amplification instrument makes Scole laughable. How about "inept"? Targ.

and neither is ignorance of statistics.

Targ. Any study that fishes through many results to get "significance" without an adjustment.

Or at least (especially going by their suggestions) skeptics ignorance of statistics is certainly no less than parapsychologists, and possibly more.

As I say, taken as a whole, the evidence is solid. So if you reject it you need to provide good reasons why you do so.

There is nothing that can be demonstrated, period. There is no benchmark effect. An embaressment, actually.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Your comments display ... a deliberate denial of the truth.

Look who's talking! :dl:

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Positive results will be obtained by those researchers sympathetic to this phenomena and contrariwise for those hostile (as in every other area of science).

Unmitigated nonsense. Controls are put into place to avoid precisely this problem ... in real science that is.

The fact that you even bring it up illustrates the basic problem: To get results you need sympathy, to get sympathy you need a lousey experiment.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed

Ian
Your comments display either a crass ignorance or a deliberate denial of the truth.

Some of these things are true to a limited extent, and some are not. People will try to cheat with some people being very good at it. Positive results will be obtained by those researchers sympathetic to this phenomena and contrariwise for those hostile (as in every other area of science). But being scientificallly incompentent is not generally a charge which has particular substance,

Ed
cf. Schwartz. Lack of a light amplification instrument makes Scole laughable. How about "inept"? Targ.



These are scientists rather than parapsychologists. I do not know if Schwartz and Targ are incompetent. They might well be, they might well not be. But it's not really important about isolated examples of incompetence performed by people who are not even trained in parapsychology. Let's not be silly.



There is nothing that can be demonstrated, period. There is no benchmark effect. An embaressment, actually.



"Benchmark effect"? What's that supposed to mean. There is solid evidence for this phenomena. Why don't you try and address that fact?

BTW, what do you mean by lack of light amplification at scole?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
[B]

Unmitigated nonsense. Controls are put into place to avoid precisely this problem ... in real science that is.



LOL and they don't work. Doesn't look like science is as objective as some people think it is ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Look who's talking! :dl:

Do you concede I did not make a gaffe? Answer the question.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Now please decease being a complete pr*ck.

You, of all people telling someone else to stop being a pr!ck. that's funny, perhaps the funniest thing I have read in a long time. You have inspired me though, I think I am going to find someone and tell them to lose some weight.

[CFLarsen]

Why do they need to hold a conference on telepathy in London? If telepathy was real, they could just all stay at home.

Right? :halo:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
As I say, taken as a whole, the evidence is solid. So if you reject it you need to provide good reasons why you do so.

I need to see it before I can reject - or, of course, accept it.

Can I see it, yes or no?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Do you concede I did not make a gaffe? Answer the question.
On deeper analysis, yes, I do. You did not gaffe.







































































You also did not read the sources. You lied about it. You posted a passage without understanding it. You then were absolutely surprised to hear from me the information you had cut & pasted with neither reading nor understanding. You then lied about that.

But, it cannot properly be called a gaffe.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why do they need to hold a conference on telepathy in London? If telepathy was real, they could just all stay at home.

Right? :halo:

You make some assumptions when you say that "they could all just stay at home" instead of holding the conference (and then hint that since they didn't stay at home, telepathy is not real). You assume:

1. one, let alone 200+ people, can do telepathy at will or effortlessly for 2hrs straight (the length of the conference), all together

2. all people attending the conference are telepathic. Considering this was a debate between supporters and skeptics, your assumption is unfounded

3. you only attend a telepathy conference to talk about telepathy. Unfortunately for your assumption, people go to conferences to also meet people, eat food and drink drinks, sign books, buy merchandise, go to a bar afterwards, etc.

4. they didn't want media attention. Every group wants to spread their word. I'd bet if they all stayed at home no articles would have been written. It was good press for the supporters, the skeptics, and the RSA of London (who were the ones who staged the event!)

5. they didn't want audience interaction. If they all stayed at home, presenting a pro vs con debate about telepathy to an audience and then polling the audience would be more than problematic.

Their main purpose, I take it, was to educate people (free tickets helped) about a controversial subject and not discount or ignore general belief in telepathy and also the evidence and the studies that have and are being done in that area, and present a skeptical viewpoint. From what I've read, it was a fair and balanced presentation, with audience interaction.

It appears the audience was more persuaded by the pro-telepathy evidence. By far.

Better make lists for all of those people.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You make some assumptions when you say that "they could all just stay at home" instead of holding the conference (and then hint that since they didn't stay at home, telepathy is not real). You assume:

I assumed that people would see the joke. Apparently, I was wrong.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
1. one, let alone 200+ people, can do telepathy at will or effortlessly for 2hrs straight (the length of the conference), all together

Well, why not? Doesn't Sheldrake claim that dogs can know when their owners leave for home? Doesn't he also claim that even a parrot can be in telepathic contact with its owner for a long time?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
2. all people attending the conference are telepathic. Considering this was a debate between supporters and skeptics, your assumption is unfounded

Do we know that not all people are telepathic? Who are, who are not?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
3. you only attend a telepathy conference to talk about telepathy. Unfortunately for your assumption, people go to conferences to also meet people, eat food and drink drinks, sign books, buy merchandise, go to a bar afterwards, etc.

But if telepathy existed, they could simply have at least a few "attend" telepathically, and have them recount what was going on at the conference. A very simple test, yet this was not tried. Guess I know why.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
4. they didn't want media attention. Every group wants to spread their word. I'd bet if they all stayed at home no articles would have been written. It was good press for the supporters, the skeptics, and the RSA of London (who were the ones who staged the event!)

If telepathy existed, and was shown this way, you can rest assured that every news media in the world would clear their front pages. As we know, they did not.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
5. they didn't want audience interaction. If they all stayed at home, presenting a pro vs con debate about telepathy to an audience and then polling the audience would be more than problematic.

But scientific evidence is not decided by polling or voting.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Their main purpose, I take it, was to educate people (free tickets helped) about a controversial subject and not discount or ignore general belief in telepathy and also the evidence and the studies that have and are being done in that area, and present a skeptical viewpoint. From what I've read, it was a fair and balanced presentation, with audience interaction.

All very fine. Where is that evidence, then?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It appears the audience was more persuaded by the pro-telepathy evidence. By far.

Again, science is not done by popularity.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Better make lists for all of those people.

Better find some evidence of telepathy. So far, none exist.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


LOL and they don't work. Doesn't look like science is as objective as some people think it is ;)

OK, Ian. You are right, scientific control does not work.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

On deeper analysis, yes, I do. You did not gaffe.







































































You also did not read the sources. You lied about it. You posted a passage without understanding it.



Perfectly wrong on all counts. Indeed, on the contrary, it is quite evident that you fail to understand the source.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

If there is solid scientific evidence,

It's up to you and other claimants of telepathy to provide such evidence. I've never seen any. Randi has never seen any. Provide the evidence.

and if people throughout human history and across all cultures have believed that they have experienced telepathy,

Anecdotes = evidence? Maybe on Planet Ian, but not on Earth.

then it is incumbent upon those that deny the reality of this alleged phenomenon to argue their case. Not just simply sit back in thier chairs and make ill-informed crass comments.

There is no need to argue against a case that has not been made. All we need is evidence. If Sheldrake et. al. would stop spewing bilge and present firm, proven evidence, then there would be no argument from me or any others. But none has been presented, and none exists.

[Garrette]

All quotations from Interesting Ian:

I've never come across any claims being tested which come under the purview of parapsychology. Please name some.

Don’t shift it, Ian. Your original claim was this:

Randi is not primarily interested in testing for parapsychological phenomena

Randi will test anything paranormal. If someone presents a distinct claim, he’ll test it. If they don’t present it, it is not on him to go find them, nor is it on me to do your research.




Yeah, and apparently he's always got an out. But let's forget about that shall we.
Forget about it? I support it! It’s the best out of all: If they can’t do what they claim, they lose.


I repeat, there is no solid evidence to substantiate any claims that paranormal phenomena can be switched on and off at will.

You may or may not like that, but I suggest you deal with it.
Your apparent definition of solid evidence is both loose and inconsistent. According to your standards on this Forum, there is as much solid evidence for Sylvia Browne, John Edward, the huckster medium who occasionally shows up at the Louisville Public Library, and the palm reader down the street as there are for your amorphous and ill-defined body of true paranormalists/parapsychologists or what have you.

You consider and dismiss evidence as it pleases you, with arbitrary abandon and without an ounce of concern for integrity. The only mystery to me is if you are aware of it.

I have absolutely zero interest in people who claim they can reproduce paranormal phenomena at will. As far as I'm concerned they're as big a pr*cks as skeptics.
Why? What evidence do you have to suggest that they are wrong or lying? Their evidence is as solid as any you have presented for any other phenomena.

Or shall we simply replace Occam’s Razor with Ian’s Whim?


I have absolutely zero interest in what simple minded fools or charlatans can claim they can perform.

Then it’s a good thing you don’t run the JREF Challenge. Since it is not the Interesting Ian Challenge, please be so kind as to let it operate under its own rules which, to any detached observer, are far more coherent, consistent, and fair than anything you have presented.

If you want to test something in which you have more than a zero interest, please create your own challenge. At the very least, stop lying about what the JREF Challenge is.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If there is solid scientific evidence, and if people throughout human history and across all cultures have believed that they have experienced telepathy, then it is incumbent upon those that deny the reality of this alleged phenomenon to argue their case. Not just simply sit back in thier chairs and make ill-informed crass comments. Ian, here's an analogue by way of a mind experiment.

Please prove that I cannot play the violin. Show your working.

[Lothian]

It is fantastic that the public that decided that telepathy exists. All that remains is for the public to find a single person out of the millions in the world who can demonstrate it. Shouldn’t be too hard.

[pillory]

I know it exists.It has been as unpleasant as you would imagine.
but it is possible......

[thaiboxerken]

If there is solid scientific evidence, and if people throughout human history and across all cultures have believed that they have experienced telepathy, then it is incumbent upon those that deny the reality of this alleged phenomenon to argue their case.

Yes.. IF there was solid scientific evidence. There is not. Also, the phenomenon, as you stated, is still just "alleged".

Established facts need to be disproven if denied. Telepathy isn't an established fact. It is up to the people that claim telepathy is real to provide the evidence.

[Tricky]

To me, the greatest evidence that telepathy doesn't exist is the invention of the telepathic telephone, the telepathic television the telepathic radio and the telepathic camera. That's right, they're not even on the drawing board. People have been suggesting that telepathy existed practically since the invention of language, but in all these thousands of years, not one single practical paranormal device has ever been produced.

By contrast, radio waves were first predicted in 1864 (http://www.sparkmuseum.com/HERTZ.HTM) and first produced later that decade. In less than 150 years, radio waves and their offshoots have made instant global communication possible while telepathy researchers are still struggling to get a measurable suggestion of its existance. One would think that with such a head start, telepathy would have been developed far beyond those upstart electronic gizmos.

But no telepathy waves have been discovered, in fact no medium at all that would explain telepathic communication. The only thing that telepathy has been able to do with consistancy is to capture the imagination (and often the money) of people who desperately want there to be some magic in the world.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette

Ian
I repeat, there is no solid evidence to substantiate any claims that paranormal phenomena can be switched on and off at will.

You may or may not like that, but I suggest you deal with it.

Garrette
Your apparent definition of solid evidence is both loose and inconsistent.



Please point me to the definition I have provided which is loose and inconsistent.



According to your standards on this Forum, there is as much solid evidence for Sylvia Browne, John Edward, the huckster medium who occasionally shows up at the Louisville Public Library, and the palm reader down the street as there are for your amorphous and ill-defined body of true paranormalists/parapsychologists or what have you.



As I say, you need to point to anything I have said which would remotely imply this.


Ian
I have absolutely zero interest in people who claim they can reproduce paranormal phenomena at will. As far as I'm concerned they're as big a pr*cks as skeptics.

Garrette
Why? What evidence do you have to suggest that they are wrong or lying? Their evidence is as solid as any you have presented for any other phenomena.



Well let's have concrete examples shall we? You see the problem here is that it seems to me that a lot of these individulas claim they can produce what we might describe as "superpsi" on demand. Now if the world were such that a few gifted individuals were able to do this, then surely the claims would not be controversial??? We wouldn't need Randi to debunk them!

But we know from all the evidence that psi phenomena is not like this. There is no particularly credible scientific evidence for "superpsi", and the vast majority of anecdotes are of the normal psi variety.

Basically, if these people coulkd do what they say, eg explode the andromeda galaxy, kill people instantly with their thoughts etc, then we would know about it anyway!





Ian
I have absolutely zero interest in what simple minded fools or charlatans can claim they can perform.


Garrette
Then it’s a good thing you don’t run the JREF Challenge.


Er . .yes. An accurate albeit wholly irrelevant observation.



Since it is not the Interesting Ian Challenge, please be so kind as to let it operate under its own rules which, to any detached observer, are far more coherent, consistent, and fair than anything you have presented.



I have absolutely no problem with this! Why don't you attempt to read my posts if you're going to repond to them? :rolleyes:

I merely attack those who suggest that Randi's challenge remotely has any implications for the paranormal phenomena which scientific evidence and anecdotes throughout history very strongly suggest exist. If people accept that this challenges constitutes no evidence whatsoever against such phenomena then this is absolutely fine. The problem here is that skeptics are complete scumbags who will try and cheat and imply that Randi's challenge somehow provides some evidence against non-"superpsi" phenomena as well. If they do this, then I'll say what I think of them ie thoroughly despicable individuals who have no interest whatsoever in an honest debate, because they would know they're on a loser.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by shemp

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

If there is solid scientific evidence,


Shemp
It's up to you and other claimants of telepathy to provide such evidence. I've never seen any. Randi has never seen any. Provide the evidence.



If you're unsatified with the present evidence then there is very little that one can do since parapsychological research is starved of funding.




and if people throughout human history and across all cultures have believed that they have experienced telepathy,



Anecdotes = evidence? Maybe on Planet Ian, but not on Earth.



Yes of course they do. It's a matter of sheer logic. Clearly it is more likely that telepathy exists if the foregoing is true than if no-one had ever experienced any apparent telepathy ever. Of course you might wish to argue that people are so psycholically disposed to suppose that there is telepathic communication where none really exists. This is a fair point, but doesn't of course affect the evidential point, providing you bear in mind this is not scientific evidence.

[Suezoled]

Ya know something? Toasted onion bagels with cream cheese is pretty good for breakfast sometimes.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zep
Ian, here's an analogue by way of a mind experiment.

Please prove that I cannot play the violin. Show your working.

I do not know that you cannot play the violin, and I wouldn't assert that you couldn't. This is different from the skeptics who assert very confidently that there has been no paranormal phenomena whtsoever throughout the history of the Universe. What they are doing is asserting that they know that their model of reality is correct. But this is breathtakingly both arrogant and irrational. Every culture thinks that they have reality completely sussed out. I'm only interested in reason and evidence.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Ya know something? Toasted onion bagels with cream cheese is pretty good for breakfast sometimes.

I've reported you for spamming.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

You see the problem here is that it seems to me that a lot of these individulas claim they can produce what we might describe as "superpsi" on demand. Now if the world were such that a few gifted individuals were able to do this, then surely the claims would not be controversial???
So PSI effects can only be produced inconsistently and weakly? Kind of like we'd expect if they didn't exist, and the results were products of cheating and coincidence?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lothian
It is fantastic that the public that decided that telepathy exists.

Yes I agree it is indeed fantastic! :) They heard the evidence on both sides, realised there is no evidence for the skeptical model of reality, and made their decision accordingly :)

The war against the skeptics might be won yet! :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by pillory
I know it exists.It has been as unpleasant as you would imagine.
but it is possible......

Yes we know it exists. I've had experiences myself, although almost all were when I was a child :(

[Garrette]

All quotations from Interesting Ian:


Please point me to the definition [of solid evidence] I have provided which is loose and inconsistent.

And you accuse me of not reading your posts...

I said quite plainly "your apparent definition", making it clear that you haven't given one. You merely claim anecdotes are evidence so long as they are anecdotes of things you want to believe.


As I say, you need to point to anything I have said which would remotely imply this [That there are true paranormalists/parapsychologists.]

Shall I retract? I will happily do so if you are now stating that there are no true paranormalists/parapsychologists.


Well let's have concrete examples shall we? [Of evidence which I said is as solid as Ian's]

Okay. Here is evidence which is exactly as solid as any you have presented on this thread:

And I'm not joking.



I merely attack those who suggest that Randi's challenge remotely has any implications for the paranormal phenomena which scientific evidence and anecdotes throughout history very strongly suggest exist. If people accept that this challenges constitutes no evidence whatsoever against such phenomena then this is absolutely fine. The problem here is that skeptics are complete scumbags who will try and cheat and imply that Randi's challenge somehow provides some evidence against non-"superpsi" phenomena as well. If they do this, then I'll say what I think of them ie thoroughly despicable individuals who have no interest whatsoever in an honest debate, because they would know they're on a loser.

Here's my take:

1. The fact that the Challenge exists has no implications for anything.

2. The fact that no one has passed it has implications for those people.

3. The fact that no heavy hitters attempt to pass it, together with the fact that no one, not even the surpassingly brilliant Interesting Ian, can suggest anyone with the remotest chance of passing it, does in fact have implications for the paranormal phenomena which anecdotes throughout history strongly suggest exist but which are sorely lacking in scientific evidence which Interesting Ian continues to claim exists but which he continues to fail to produce. It does, though, have only an implication. It proves nothing, but does suggest that the correct stance is to not believe in the existence of these phenomena until proven otherwise with something beyond anecdote.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Ya know something? Toasted onion bagels with cream cheese is pretty good for breakfast sometimes. <table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#333333 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#333333><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Upchurch:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported as being spam. However, it does not fit any definition of spam that I am familiar with. It is not advertising anything nor is it repeated posting the same thing over and over again. I see no violation of forum rules here.
[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I've reported you for spamming.

Ian, calm down before you lose it altogether.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch

This post has been reported as being spam. However, it does not fit any definition of spam that I am familiar with.


Then I suggest that you gain a greater understanding of what is meant by spam.





It is not advertising anything nor is it repeated posting the same thing over and over again. I see no violation of forum rules here.


Oh I see. So am I also allowed to post something entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand?? Good, then I will do so. I'll start doing it to Suzelod's conversations and your conversations. How would you like that??

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Then I suggest that you gain a greater understanding of what is meant by spam.



Oh I see. So am I also allowed to post something entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand?? Good, then I will do so. I'll start doing it to Suzelod's conversations and your conversations. How would you like that??

Ian, calm down. You are definitely losing it here.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes I agree it is indeed fantastic! :) They heard the evidence on both sides, realised there is no evidence for the skeptical model of reality, and made their decision accordingly :)

The war against the skeptics might be won yet! :D

Oh please, Ian. I find it highly doubtful that average person has done any sort of research on both sides of the paranormal issue. Sadly, I fear that the average person tends to make their decisions based on TV talk shows featuring the likes of John Edward and Sylvia Browne.
Again, why do I get the feeling you are more concerned about public opinion being on your side as opposed to the facts.

[thaiboxerken]

This is a fair point, but doesn't of course affect the evidential point, providing you bear in mind this is not scientific evidence.

If it's nto scientific evidence, then it's unreliable and worthless.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Then I suggest that you gain a greater understanding of what is meant by spam.I'm going by the guidelines given in the forum rules:Originally posted here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17422)
3. The post contains commercial advertisements or spam.
-Note: this does not mean that people cannot reference commercial ideas, but merely that one may not use the Forum as a literal market place to sell for-profit items.
Spamming is the multiple posting of items just to annoy or attract attention. It is not the same as cross posting to a relevant thread. The forum administration reserves the right to make a final determination as to the legitimacy of a ‘commercial’ post.You are, of couse, welcome to appeal the decision to Hal as always.
Oh I see. So am I also allowed to post something entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand?? Good, then I will do so. I'll start doing it to Suzelod's conversations and your conversations. How would you like that?? I wouldn't like it all, but it is your right to do so as long as you follow the forum rules (see link above).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Oh please, Ian. I find it highly doubtful that average person has done any sort of research on both sides of the paranormal issue. Sadly, I fear that the average person tends to make their decisions based on TV talk shows featuring the likes of John Edward and Sylvia Browne.


I feel they probably do, although this is just a guess. So I'm in agreement with you. But I believe the audience were presented with both sides of the argument? And possibly they might have been more discerning than the average man in the street.

In order to win the war we need to get intellectuals over to my side.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm going by the guidelines given in the forum rules:You are, of couse, welcome to appeal the decision to Hal as always.
I wouldn't like it all, but it is your right to do so as long as you follow the forum rules (see link above).

No I won't do it to you, but I might do it to Suezelod. A taste of her own medicine might do her some good.

[voidx]

Here is one of my main problems with telepathy:

Posted by T'ai Chi
1. one, let alone 200+ people, can do telepathy at will or effortlessly for 2hrs straight (the length of the conference), all together

Now your over-riding point here I don't have a problem with. But you seem to counter-assume that telepathy is not easy, that it can not be done effortlessly. Indeed the overwhelming majority of people that believe in telepathy also believe this. It makes no sense to me. If telepathy is real I think it would have to show that the world is at the very least dualist, if not straight out immaterialist. There seems to be no physical process in the materialist view of the world that can currently account for telepathy, or even conceive of how it might work. So, if telepathy is an immaterial process, and not a physical one, why would it be phsyically difficult? Since my "mind" can think and imagine effortlessly, then it should also be able to communicate effortlessly via "telepathy" with other "minds". To me the obvious reason it is assumed telepathy is difficult is because it provides an easy-out and excuse for whenever poor results are obtained. Its a fallback for when results are inconclusive or vague. If someone can point me at an in-depth description of the telepathic process, or any mediumship process and convincingly argue why it is assumed its a difficult and draining process, I'd gladly read it.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Tricky
To me, the greatest evidence that telepathy doesn't exist is the invention of the telepathic telephone, the telepathic television the telepathic radio and the telepathic camera. That's right, they're not even on the drawing board. People have been suggesting that telepathy existed practically since the invention of language, but in all these thousands of years, not one single practical paranormal device has ever been produced.



Exactly. And, where are the "Super" users, the people who can perform telepathically consistently well?? One would suppose that after 1,000's of years there would be a genetic pool of such folks.

Ahh - but these "powers" don't seem to conform to the norm found for other physical/mental abilities. One has to wonder why this is so - and why credophiles are not troubled at all by this fact and take solace in statements like this [from Monatgue Keen];

“We are dealing with a mysterious faculty that does not subscribe to the normal rules governing the senses, cannot be turned on and off to order, and which manifests itself in all manner of odd ways and unpredictable occasions.”

Barkhorn.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Upchurch
<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#333333 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#333333><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Upchurch:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported as being spam. However, it does not fit any definition of spam that I am familiar with. It is not advertising anything nor is it repeated posting the same thing over and over again. I see no violation of forum rules here.
[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

WHAT??? ARE YOU BLIND!!! Can't you see that it was a cleverly-placed advertisement by the "International Toasted Onion Bagels with Cream Cheese Council"?!!

[shemp]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I've reported you for spamming.

If there were a rule allowing people to be reported for being feckwits, you'd be long gone.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1a

. . . where are the "Super" users, the people who can perform telepathically consistently well?? One would suppose that after 1,000's of years there would be a genetic pool of such folks.



I dunno. If people could read everything else that another person were thinking, do you seriously suggest they'd find it easier to get tapped up?

[Suezoled]

whoa... I read Shemp's reply because Shemp is, quite frankly, always worth reading. And then I backed up from there. As I really don't pay attention to Interesting Ian's statements, imagine my surprise to find out the immaterialist is having a tantrum. Okay, well, it wasn't a surprise. But man, some people take toasted bagel replies very very seriously. I'll keep that in mind for future reference.

I mean, the whole "free speech" concept can't apply to Ian's posts, can it, nor can thread deviation. It seems it has to be all about Ian and what Ian wants.


Oh, and Shemp, it's the "International Cream Cheese with Toasted Onion Bagels Council" and their dastardly plot to take over the world.... starting with this one thread. :D

[Tricky]

One of the main excuses that is used by believers in telepathy for not taking the JREF challenge is that it "cannot be turned off and on at will". While this is an obvious cop out for their inability to support their claims, still we should be able to find a way around it.

The obvious solution to this problem is simply to take a large enough sample. With enough repetition, even a small significant difference from random should emerge. Of course, it will then be incumbant upon the challenger to define what percentage of the time telepathy can reasonably expected to work. If it is ten percent, then you must take a sample size ten times greater than would normally be needed to show statistical significance. If it is 2%, then a 50X sample would be needed. This would amount to some hardship on the participants and the observers, but I would guess it might be worth a million dollars.

So believers, what would you say would be a good estimate for the percentage of time that telepathy works in the average population? What about in trained clairvoyants? Is it a number greater than zero?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Suezoled
whoa... I read Shemp's reply because Shemp is, quite frankly, always worth reading. And then I backed up from there. As I really don't pay attention to Interesting Ian's statements, imagine my surprise to find out the immaterialist is having a tantrum. Okay, well, it wasn't a surprise. But man, some people take toasted bagel replies very very seriously. I'll keep that in mind for future reference.

I mean, the whole "free speech" concept can't apply to Ian's posts, can it, nor can thread deviation. It seems it has to be all about Ian and what Ian wants.


Oh, and Shemp, it's the "International Cream Cheese with Toasted Onion Bagels Council" and their dastardly plot to take over the world.... starting with this one thread. :D

Hmmmm . . . I think I might blast out Pink Floyd's "dark side of the moon".

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Hmmmm . . . I think I might blast out Pink Floyd's "dark side of the moon".

Yaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Hmmmm . . . I think I might blast out Pink Floyd's "dark side of the moon".
Oooo! Do "That Great Gig In The Sky". I've never been able to understand the lyrics.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Then I suggest that you gain a greater understanding of what is meant by spam.

Then I suggest that Upchurch is enlightened by your blinding knowledge. Tell him, then. What is meant by spam?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Oh I see. So am I also allowed to post something entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand??

(Can I? Can I? Please??? :D)

(OK.)

Ian, you never seem to do anything else.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Good, then I will do so. I'll start doing it to Suzelod's conversations and your conversations. How would you like that??

Childish.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
In order to win the war we need to get intellectuals over to my side.

So far, you are doing a very lousy job.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky

Oooo! Do "That Great Gig In The Sky". I've never been able to understand the lyrics.

I prefer the 2nd side excluding "money" (of the original black vinyl disc i.e "us and them" onwards).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Suezoled


Yaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn

Damn! I need Internet Explorer to go on the National Lottery! :mad: Oh well, better fire it up.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Damn! I need Internet Explorer to go on the National Lottery! :mad: Oh well, better fire it up.

yup. Y're showin' me. Yup.

But then again, "every sperm is sacred..."

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Suezoled


yup. Y're showin' me. Yup.

But then again, "every sperm is sacred..."
As usual, it is the innocent bystanders who suffer. This is T'ai Chi's thread. Who does Ian think he's punishing?

If you're finished paying your "bad at math" taxes, Ian, would you care to answer my question,
What would you say would be a good estimate for the percentage of time that telepathy works in the average population?

Just a ballpark figure will do.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes I agree it is indeed fantastic! :) They heard the evidence on both sides, realised there is no evidence for the skeptical model of reality, and made their decision accordingly :)

The war against the skeptics might be won yet! :D Ian,

Indeed the audience enjoyed going to a scientific debate as they normally got their science knowledge from Bella and Best. However, before you celebrate imagine what they thought of your anti-materialism theories .:D

[pupdog]

I had a toasted bagel with my lunch! Does that mean I have the Power? Or Suezoled? Or both?