New Scientist - Power of the paranormal

[digital goldfish]

Excellent series of articles in New Scientist about the difficulties science is having investigating parapsychology. Extensive coverage of the work Richard Wiseman is doing. It's only £2.40, so go pick it up..

[digital goldfish]

Some very interesting articles. One is about the 'experimenter' effect, which may or may not exist. As i understand it, this is the idea that the person conducting the experiment can some how influence the outcome by their stance towards their desired outcome.

The second article is about Bayes theorem, and how science can never be truly objective, because even though scientific theory would like us to believe that all decision are made on data alone, it's just not true. There is always a bias introduced, based on our assesment of a subject. Therefore for skeptics, even if (as has apparently happened) ESP experiments show significant evidence, skeptics will always find a way out. the article suggests the only way to solve this is to design experiments whose outcome can be easily agreed by both sides. My understanding is that this is exactly what the JREF does, but even here, it's obvious that both skeptics and believers alike can infer what they want from a results set...

[JamesM]

On a related subject, while browsing my Elsevier new journal issue email alerts, I came across the following paper in the new issue of Biosystems:

"A method to explore the possibility of nonlocal correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated animal subjects"

Now, Biosystems is mainly concerned with mathematical treatments of biological systems (other papers in this issue have such scintillating titles of "Global change in Escherichia coli gene expression in initial stage of symbiosis with Dictyostelium cells" and "On the behavior of solutions in viral dynamical models"), so I was a bit surprised to see this. The abstract reads:

It now appears possible to design an experiment which might reveal whether nonlocal correlations exist between brain electrical activities of spatially separated animal subjects, with initial emphasis on primates and dolphins. This would have the advantage of being based upon research presently being conducted at the University of Washington–Bastyr University and the University of Freiburg, which appears to reveal that a visual evoked potential elicited in the brain of one human subject via patterned photostimulation, can induce a nonlocal transferred potential in the brain of a second human subject, without any apparent classical neural or electromagnetic intervention, since both subjects are in Faraday chambers. An observation of nonlocality may also make it possible to investigate if consciousness or mental experiences exist in various nonhuman animal subjects.

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox is namechecked, as well as concepts of "entanglement" and "biological utilisation of quantum non-locality" and twin studies.

Unfortunately, I can't find any preprint of this anywhere, so I suspect you can only read this paper if you are at a university or similar institution (BTW, the reference is volume 73, number 3, p205-216). The words 'psi' or 'anomalous cognition' are conspicuous by their absence, but from my admittedly sketchy description and the above abstract that is what the author (Fred Thaheld - googling his name comes up with a lot of stuff to do with the 'quantum mind'.) is alluding to, right?

Rather odd.

[Wudang]

I thought the Wiseman article was a very good piece and good science - something looks funny so they try to work out what it is. I was deeply unimpressed with Matthews piece. E.g.
"..many working scientists acknowledge that subjectivity plays a big role in their day-to-day thinking. Behind closed doors they routinely dismiss claims for, say, some new link between cancer and diet, simply because they find it implausible." There then follows lots of hand-waving "the weight if evidence is now very impressive". I saw the references to Bayesian reasoning etc as window-dressing.

[digital goldfish]

Originally posted by Wudang
I thought the Wiseman article was a very good piece and good science - something looks funny so they try to work out what it is. I was deeply unimpressed with Matthews piece. E.g.
"..many working scientists acknowledge that subjectivity plays a big role in their day-to-day thinking. Behind closed doors they routinely dismiss claims for, say, some new link between cancer and diet, simply because they find it implausible." There then follows lots of hand-waving "the weight if evidence is now very impressive". I saw the references to Bayesian reasoning etc as window-dressing.

I agree. I think the article was quite biased actually.. Still, it's interesting.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

There are some significant limits to what quantum nonlocality is capable of explaining - particularly since it still can't transmit information faster than light.

In experiments on a subatomic scale, it is indeed possible to "entangle" the quantum states of two particles so that a change in one particle affects the state of the other. But it's very difficult to keep them entangled in this way for long - random interactions introduce far too much "noise" into the entanglement.

Frankly, I doubt very much that two biological systems could plausibly become entangled, and certainly not spontaneously. I await evidence indicating otherwise, but this extraordinary claim will require quite extraordinary proof.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by digital goldfish
the article suggests the only way to solve this is to design experiments whose outcome can be easily agreed by both sides. My understanding is that this is exactly what the JREF does, [/B]

Huh?? :eek:

Give me a list of parapsychologists who agree with JREF experimental protocols.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by digital goldfish
Excellent series of articles in New Scientist about the difficulties science is having investigating parapsychology. Extensive coverage of the work Richard Wiseman is doing. It's only £2.40, so go pick it up..

It's not online? :(

[Interesting Ian]

A method to explore the possibility of nonlocal correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated animal subjects"

Now, Biosystems is mainly concerned with mathematical treatments of biological systems (other papers in this issue have such scintillating titles of "Global change in Escherichia coli gene expression in initial stage of symbiosis with Dictyostelium cells" and "On the behavior of solutions in viral dynamical models"), so I was a bit surprised to see this. The abstract reads:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It now appears possible to design an experiment which might reveal whether nonlocal correlations exist between brain electrical activities of spatially separated animal subjects, with initial emphasis on primates and dolphins. This would have the advantage of being based upon research presently being conducted at the University of Washington–Bastyr University and the University of Freiburg, which appears to reveal that a visual evoked potential elicited in the brain of one human subject via patterned photostimulation, can induce a nonlocal transferred potential in the brain of a second human subject, without any apparent classical neural or electromagnetic intervention, since both subjects are in Faraday chambers. An observation of nonlocality may also make it possible to investigate if consciousness or mental experiences exist in various nonhuman animal subjects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox is namechecked, as well as concepts of "entanglement" and "biological utilisation of quantum non-locality" and twin studies.

Unfortunately, I can't find any preprint of this anywhere, so I suspect you can only read this paper if you are at a university or similar institution (BTW, the reference is volume 73, number 3, p205-216). The words 'psi' or 'anomalous cognition' are conspicuous by their absence, but from my admittedly sketchy description and the above abstract that is what the author (Fred Thaheld - googling his name comes up with a lot of stuff to do with the 'quantum mind'.) is alluding to, right?

Rather odd.



It sounds exactly like anomalous cognition. Saying non-local correlations denies this?? :confused: I don't think so.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
There are some significant limits to what quantum nonlocality is capable of explaining - particularly since it still can't transmit information faster than light.

In experiments on a subatomic scale, it is indeed possible to "entangle" the quantum states of two particles so that a change in one particle affects the state of the other. But it's very difficult to keep them entangled in this way for long - random interactions introduce far too much "noise" into the entanglement.

Frankly, I doubt very much that two biological systems could plausibly become entangled, and certainly not spontaneously. I await evidence indicating otherwise, but this extraordinary claim will require quite extraordinary proof.

The article is not necessarily talking about quantum non-locality I don't think. This couldn't be justified.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Huh?? :eek:

Give me a list of parapsychologists who agree with JREF experimental protocols.

I think you missed the point. The JREF test is designed so that the tester and the testee agree on the terms of the experiment. Both sides are satisfied. From Randi's perspective, the tests are not designed to prove anything, only to disprove the matter at hand. So even if he disproves the test subject can read a newspaper while blindfolded, parapsychologists the world over are free to claim that people exist who can read a newspaper while blindfolded. Randi says, "Just show me one." :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Luke T.
[B]

I think you missed the point. The JREF test is designed so that the tester and the testee agree on the terms of the experiment.



So you claim.

Again I ask you or other people. How many parapsychologists agree to Randi's experimental protocol??

Please provide me with a list.



Both sides are satisfied.



I somewhat doubt that. I somewhat doubt that *I* would agree for a kick off, nevermind any parapsychologist.



From Randi's perspective, the tests are not designed to prove anything, only to disprove the matter at hand. So even if he disproves the test subject can read a newspaper while blindfolded,



Please tell me how anyone can read a newspaper blindfolded?? :rolleyes: Does your sheer idiocy know of any limits??

Luke T, you're a waste of time and space. Go away.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by digital goldfish
Therefore for skeptics, even if (as has apparently happened) ESP experiments show significant evidence, skeptics will always find a way out. the article suggests the only way to solve this is to design experiments whose outcome can be easily agreed by both sides. My understanding is that this is exactly what the JREF does,

I say you are a despicable liar. Please provide a list of parapsychologists who approve of Randi's experimental protocol. And also please provide any evidence that he is testing any phenomena coming under the purview of the subject of interest.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
--------------------------------------------------
the article suggests the only way to solve this is to design experiments whose outcome can be easily agreed by both sides. My understanding is that this is exactly what the JREF does,
--------------------------------------------------

Huh?? :eek:

Give me a list of parapsychologists who agree with JREF experimental protocols.
The first contention of the JREF Challenge Application Form (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html) reads:
Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.

And from the JREF Challenge Splash Screen (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html):
The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant.

Sorry, I dont have a list of parapsychologists available at my disposal, but Digital Goldfish's comment "the only way to solve this is to design experiments whose outcome can be easily agreed by both sides" is identical to the italicized portion in The JREF Prize Application's Contention #1.

It appears if anyone intends to apply for the JREF Prize, they are required to abide by Contention 1 which describes that they (as the applicant) and the JREF will agree on the design protocols of any testing procedure.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

The first contention of the JREF Challenge Application Form (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html) reads:


And from the JREF Challenge Splash Screen (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html):


Sorry, I dont have a list of parapsychologists available at my disposal, but Digital Goldfish's comment "the only way to solve this is to design experiments whose outcome can be easily agreed by both sides" is identical to the italicized portion in The JREF Prize Application's Contention #1.

It appears if anyone intends to apply for the JREF Prize, they are required to abide by Contention 1 which describes that they (as the applicant) and the JREF will agree on the design protocols of any testing procedure.

I thought we were addrssing whether psi is real or not. Not supernormal powers.

[iain]

Before Ian's trolling derails this thread entirely, I have a serious question about comments made in one of the New Scientist articles.

The article "Opposites detract" by Robert Matthews (a visiting reader in science at Aston University, Birmingham, UK) contains some statements of fact which would seem to be at odds with what I have heard in the past, including comments Randi has made about replicating paranormal experiments. I would be interested if people who know can comment on their validity.

For years, well-designed studies carried out by researchers at respected institutions have produced evidence for the reality of ESP. The results are often more impressive that the outcome of clinical drugs trials because they show a more pronounced effect and have greater statistical significance. What's more, ESP experiments have been replicated and their results are as consistent as many medical trials - and even more so in some cases. In short, by all the normal rules for assessing scientific evidence, the case for ESP has been made. And yet most scientists still refuse to believe the findings, maintaining that ESP simply does not exists.

Despite this relentless rejection of their work, parapsychologists such as those at the [Koestler Parapsychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh, UK] have ploughed on in search of clinching evidence they hope will convince the scientific community. Some believe it is a waste of time because the reality of ESP has now been put beyond all reasonable doubt.

Sceptics agree it is fruitless, but on the ground that since ESP cannot exist, all positive results must be spurious.

[corplinx]

There is no such thing as paranormal phenomenom since by the paranomalist definition, my disbelief dispells the paranormal.

Duh.

I guess crapola like this sells magazines though.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by iain
Before Ian's trolling derails this thread entirely, I have a serious question about comments made in one of the New Scientist articles.

The article "Opposites detract" by Robert Matthews (a visiting reader in science at Aston University, Birmingham, UK) contains some statements of fact which would seem to be at odds with what I have heard in the past, including comments Randi has made about replicating paranormal experiments. I would be interested if people who know can comment on their validity.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For years, well-designed studies carried out by researchers at respected institutions have produced evidence for the reality of ESP. The results are often more impressive that the outcome of clinical drugs trials because they show a more pronounced effect and have greater statistical significance. What's more, ESP experiments have been replicated and their results are as consistent as many medical trials - and even more so in some cases. In short, by all the normal rules for assessing scientific evidence, the case for ESP has been made. And yet most scientists still refuse to believe the findings, maintaining that ESP simply does not exists.

Despite this relentless rejection of their work, parapsychologists such as those at the [Koestler Parapsychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh, UK] have ploughed on in search of clinching evidence they hope will convince the scientific community. Some believe it is a waste of time because the reality of ESP has now been put beyond all reasonable doubt.

Sceptics agree it is fruitless, but on the ground that since ESP cannot exist, all positive results must be spurious.



Iain,

Please do not take notice of what skeptics say, especially Randi!

Yes the above is true, why do you doubt it?? If you don't think it's true then you're simply not aware of the facts. Skeptics lie about these things all the time. I don't know why they do, but they do.

Of course not every experiment shows positive results if that is what you're getting at. Also we can never be 100% certain that fraud is not systematically taking place. As for artifacts skewing the results all the time, well what could they possibly be??

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by corplinx
[B]There is no such thing as paranormal phenomenom since by the paranomalist definition, my disbelief dispells the paranormal.



What the hell are you talking about???



Duh.

I guess crapola like this sells magazines though.

WOW!!! Damn the evidence huh? My materialism is right!!! :mad:

[Interesting Ian]

Is this copy of New Scientist still for sale? I'll go and see if I can get a copy today if so.

[iain]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Iain,

[b]Please do not take notice of what skeptics say, especially Randi!

Yes the above is true, why do you doubt it?? If you don't think it's true then you're simply not aware of the facts. Skeptics lie about these things all the time. I don't know why they do, but they do.Ian,
Please try not to be quite so childish; it is getting rather boring. I do not know whether it is true or not, which is why I asked the question. I'm not going to accept something as true just because someone says so in an article; but I would like more information.

New Scientist is still on sale so go out and get a copy. Should stay on the shelves until next Monday or Tuesday.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by iain
Ian,
Please try not to be quite so childish;

In what sense could I be accused of being childish? I'm simply telling you the facts.

[wipeout]

Originally posted by JamesM
On a related subject, while browsing my Elsevier new journal issue email alerts, I came across the following paper in the new issue of Biosystems:

"A method to explore the possibility of nonlocal correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated animal subjects"

Now, Biosystems is mainly concerned with mathematical treatments of biological systems (other papers in this issue have such scintillating titles of "Global change in Escherichia coli gene expression in initial stage of symbiosis with Dictyostelium cells" and "On the behavior of solutions in viral dynamical models"), so I was a bit surprised to see this. The abstract reads:

It now appears possible to design an experiment which might reveal whether nonlocal correlations exist between brain electrical activities of spatially separated animal subjects, with initial emphasis on primates and dolphins. This would have the advantage of being based upon research presently being conducted at the University of Washington–Bastyr University and the University of Freiburg, which appears to reveal that a visual evoked potential elicited in the brain of one human subject via patterned photostimulation, can induce a nonlocal transferred potential in the brain of a second human subject, without any apparent classical neural or electromagnetic intervention, since both subjects are in Faraday chambers. An observation of nonlocality may also make it possible to investigate if consciousness or mental experiences exist in various nonhuman animal subjects.

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox is namechecked, as well as concepts of "entanglement" and "biological utilisation of quantum non-locality" and twin studies.

Unfortunately, I can't find any preprint of this anywhere, so I suspect you can only read this paper if you are at a university or similar institution (BTW, the reference is volume 73, number 3, p205-216). The words 'psi' or 'anomalous cognition' are conspicuous by their absence, but from my admittedly sketchy description and the above abstract that is what the author (Fred Thaheld - googling his name comes up with a lot of stuff to do with the 'quantum mind'.) is alluding to, right?

Rather odd.

I think it's exactly what you think it is. :)

Just understanding how quantum physics creates everyday phenomena at our scale has been a challenge for some of the finest minds in physics over the last few decades. The finest minds before them screwed up a lot too, hence a lot of alleged paradoxes and weirdness. Weirdness such as nonlocality...

That someone like the author of this paper thinks he can just waft in and start applying quantum physics to something as complex as a brain, well... no more need be said.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by wipeout


I think it's exactly what you think it is. :)

Just understanding how quantum physics creates everyday phenomena at our scale has been a challenge for some of the finest minds in physics over the last few decades. The finest minds before them screwed up a lot too, hence a lot of alleged paradoxes and weirdness. Weirdness such as nonlocality...

That someone like the author of this paper thinks he can just waft in and start applying quantum physics to something as complex as a brain, well... no more need be said.

But no mention is made of quantum physics. I don't think QM can explain anomalous cognition. Science cannot in principle explain consciousness, and a fortiori cannot explain anomalous cognition.

[iain]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
In what sense could I be accused of being childish? I'm simply telling you the facts. First, even you must see that attacking a whole group of people such as sceptics, of whom know a very small number, as lieing about these things all the time, is a baseless attack.

Secondly I asked a genuine question to get more information on something I didn't know about. Instead of giving me more information (if you have any) you just state your own belief and attack a few other people. That's childish - it reminds me of playground "debates" at primary school.

If you have information, I would be interested to read it. If your level of debate is unable to raise above statements of opinion and personal attacks on others then I think I'll give it a miss.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by iain
First, even you must see that attacking a whole group of people such as sceptics, of whom know a very small number, as lieing about these things all the time, is a baseless attack.

Secondly I asked a genuine question to get more information on something I didn't know about. Instead of giving me more information (if you have any) you just state your own belief and attack a few other people. That's childish - it reminds me of playground "debates" at primary school.

If you have information, I would be interested to read it. If your level of debate is unable to raise above statements of opinion and personal attacks on others then I think I'll give it a miss.

I've given you the information. Go do your own homework. Try reading Irwin's "An Introduction to Parapsychology".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Wudang
I thought the Wiseman article was a very good piece and good science - something looks funny so they try to work out what it is. I was deeply unimpressed with Matthews piece. E.g.
"..many working scientists acknowledge that subjectivity plays a big role in their day-to-day thinking. Behind closed doors they routinely dismiss claims for, say, some new link between cancer and diet, simply because they find it implausible." There then follows lots of hand-waving "the weight if evidence is now very impressive". I saw the references to Bayesian reasoning etc as window-dressing.

I thought the Matthews article was absolutely brilliant. You clearly understand nothing about the nature of science and its progress if you didn't think much of it. But what would one expect from a skeptic :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by digital goldfish


I agree. I think the article was quite biased actually.. Still, it's interesting.

Biased? Biased?? How the hell was it biased??? There was absolutely nothing whatsoever biased about it.

Deal with it.

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But no mention is made of quantum physics. I don't think QM can explain anomalous cognition. Science cannot in principle explain consciousness, and a fortiori cannot explain anomalous cognition.

"Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox", "entanglement" and "biological utilisation of quantum non-locality" mentioned in the paper are quantum physics references.

I'd also add that they first must show that any effect is there to explain before they try and explain it, otherwise it becomes like explaining the propulsion methods of Santa's reindeer. :)

And as to science not in priciple being able to explain consciousness, I don't believe that to be true.

The author should be making references to nonseperability and not nonlocality anyway, as the speed of transmission of the alleged phenomena isn't relevant in this context but correlations between seperated particles are.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by wipeout
[B]

"Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox", "entanglement" and "biological utilisation of quantum non-locality" mentioned in the paper are quantum physics references.



I know they are, but no mention was made of those in the quote. QM can explain anomalous cognition?? Forgive me my skepticism, but I find this unlikely.



I'd also add that they first must show that any effect is there to explain before they try and explain it, otherwise it becomes like explaining the propulsion methods of Santa's reindeer. :)



70 years of good parapsychological evidence is there demonstrating its existence.




And as to science not in priciple being able to explain consciousness, I don't believe that to be true.



Science deals with reality from the third person perspective. Consciousness is only known through the first person perspective.

[geni]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Please provide a list of parapsychologists who approve of Randi's experimental protocol

What protocol? None exist untill someone makes a cliam which makes it a bit hard for parapsychologists to agree or dissagree.

[iain]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I've given you the information. Go do your own homework. Try reading Irwin's "An Introduction to Parapsychology". Actually you gave me no information at all. You gave me your opinion. You are right, I could go and research this myself. However, I don't want to (I'm busy reading other books and doing other things right now) - I was hoping someone who has already done this could give me some information. You are plainly unable to do so; but I'm still hoping someone else might be able to help.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by iain
Actually you gave me no information at all. You gave me your opinion.

Opinion? I'm not stating my opinion.

I'm stating a fact.

What the hell is your problem??

[iain]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Opinion? I'm not stating my opinion.

I'm stating a fact.

What the hell is your problem?? My problem is that you might be stating a fact but, as my telepathy powers are notoriously poor and you haven't given any supporting evidence, I've no way of knowing whether it's a fact or not.

I'm also impressed that you've managed to convince me yet again of your inability to present a rational argument in a polite way. I started with a simple request for information and you've done almost everything except offer me the slightest shred of what I asked for. When I've explained in detail, you've just been insulting. Your lack of understanding and empathy towards other people's positions is truly astonishing.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
In what sense could I be accused of being childish?
Well, there's this

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I say you are a despicable liar.
and this
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Does your sheer idiocy know of any limits??

and this
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Luke T, you're a waste of time and space. Go away.
All of these to people who had in no way attacked you personally. That is very childish behavior.

Ian, you have set the tone here. Expect others to respond in kind, but don't then complain about being abused when you are incapable of holiding a civil discussion.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I thought the Matthews article was absolutely brilliant. You clearly understand nothing about the nature of science and its progress if you didn't think much of it. But what would one expect from a skeptic :rolleyes:

Cut out the insults. I had to study experimental design in depth as part of my psychology degree. In non-contentious subjects I found enough bad reporting of results, misquotes, poor design, poor statistical analysis (anova is tricky) and other simple human cockups that I do not trust any experimental results unless I know the design.
Matthews article is journalism, not science. He's trying to provoke a reaction to publicise himself. Do some simple propositional analysis on the piece and see how many supported statements there are and how many unsupported assertions .

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Wudang

Cut out the insults.



No.




I had to study experimental design in depth as part of my psychology degree.



Who the hell is interested and who the hell cares??




In non-contentious subjects I found enough bad reporting of results, misquotes, poor design, poor statistical analysis (anova is tricky) and other simple human cockups that I do not trust any experimental results unless I know the design.



Right, reject 99% of science then. Parapsychology is no worse than any other branch of science in this regard. Indeed not as bad.





Matthews article is journalism, not science.



He's stating facts about science and scientists.




He's trying to provoke a reaction to publicise himself. Do some simple propositional analysis on the piece and see how many supported statements there are and how many unsupported assertions .

No I won't. The article is absolutely spot on. You do that if you wish. I have no disagreement with him whatsoever. And I do not care what the likes of you think. You're a skeptic and therefore you are, in my eyes, a complete idiot.

[iain]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You're a skeptic and therefore you are, in my eyes, a complete idiot. If you don't care what sceptics think and consider all sceptics to be complete idiots, why do you post here? Do you think that the idiots will be won over by your brilliance? Do you seek the approval of idiots? Do you crave the attention of idiots? You've been here quite a while, so what's your motivation?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by iain
If you don't care what sceptics think and consider all sceptics to be complete idiots, why do you post here? Do you think that the idiots will be won over by your brilliance? Do you seek the approval of idiots? Do you crave the attention of idiots? You've been here quite a while, so what's your motivation?

Quit whining. Sometimes I get in a bad mood and like to call people idiots :)

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by iain
If you don't care what sceptics think and consider all sceptics to be complete idiots, why do you post here? Do you think that the idiots will be won over by your brilliance? Do you seek the approval of idiots? Do you crave the attention of idiots? You've been here quite a while, so what's your motivation?

he's an emotionally abusive person who denies he's abusive.
From Dr Irene's site (again) http://www.drirene.com/verbal1.htm
After all, doesn't Ian:

ignore your feelings?
disrespect you?
ridicule or insult you then tell you its a joke, or that you have no sense of humor?
ridicule your beliefs, religion, race, heritage or class?
criticize you, call you names, yell at you?
humiliate you privately or in public?
roll his or her eyes when you talk?
seem to make sure that what you really want is exactly what you won't get?
seem energized by fighting, while fighting exhausts you?
have unpredictable mood swings, alternating from good to bad for no apparent reason?
present a wonderful face to the world and is well liked by outsiders?
"twist" your words, somehow turning what you said against you?
try to control decisions, money, even the way you style your hair or wear your clothes?
complain about how badly you treat him or her?
threaten to leave, or threaten to throw you out?
seem to stir up trouble just when you seem to be getting closer to each other?
manipulate you with lies and contradictions?
act immature and selfish, yet accuse you of those behaviors?
question your every move and motive, somehow questioning your competence?
interrupt you; hear but not really listen?
make you feel like you can't win? damned if you do, damned if you don't?
use drugs and/or alcohol involved? are things worse then?
incite you to rage, which is "proof" that you are to blame?
try to convince you he or she is "right," while you are "wrong?"
frequently say things that are later denied or accuse you of misunderstanding?


Ian has said he's none of these thing IRL. But all I know is his JREF personna, and he is all of these things.

[iain]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Quit whining. Sometimes I get in a bad mood and like to call people idiots :) Not whining. Just a poor idiot asking a genuine question. Feel free not to answer, but please don't blame me for asking.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No.



Who the hell is interested and who the hell cares??



Right, reject 99% of science then. Parapsychology is no worse than any other branch of science in this regard. Indeed not as bad.



He's stating facts about science and scientists.



No I won't. The article is absolutely spot on. You do that if you wish. I have no disagreement with him whatsoever. And I do not care what the likes of you think. You're a skeptic and therefore you are, in my eyes, a complete idiot.

I now see why that woman described you as intellectual but of very low intelligence. You join ++whover-he-is++ as the 2nd member on my ignore list.