Is the I Ching worth investigating to see if it truly works?

[Interesting Ian]

To be quite explicit I'm asking whether it is worth investigating, whether the throwing of coins to determine one of the 64 hexagrams, will, to a statistically significant extent, be more of an appropriate hexagram to read for advice, for the question asked, than compared to any of the others?

PS I know that sometimes 2 hexagrams are generated together with moving lines, but let's keep it simple.

[shemp]

Good. Let's keep it simple, like you.

I suggest you do a long series of trials, maybe 100,000 coin tosses, then let us know how it went.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by shemp
Good. Let's keep it simple, like you.

I suggest you do a long series of trials, maybe 100,000 coin tosses, then let us know how it went.

Who will pay me to do this research?

[Atlas]

Ian,

I'm not sure. It sure sounds less messy than chicken entrails. But somehow not as satisfying and a nice hot cup of tea with a pattern of tea leaves to interpret.

Since interpretation is going to be key I think you should start by learning chinese - immerse yourself in the culture, travel there and see how it has helped the original practitioners. Once satisfied that it can help you achieve your goals then apply yourself toward the mastery of it.

What would be your goals in this? One doesn't study electricity to learn how to swim. What kind of results would you expect that would tell you whether at the end of your study that it worked or it didn't?

Could you approach it as scientifically as that or do you believe that expecting something is the surest route to failure and only when you don't expect anything will the advice be meaningful.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

I don't think so. You can't waste your time testing every half-baked idea somebody pulls out of their @ss. Unless there is some reason to think that there might actually be something to it, your time is better spent testing things that you actually have a reason to think might be legitimate.

Of course, if the people who believe in that nonsense want to go to the trouble of proper testing, nobody is stopping them.


Dr. Stupid

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Who will pay me to do this research?
Ask the I Ching. :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
I don't think so. You can't waste your time testing every half-baked idea somebody pulls out of their @ss. Unless there is some reason to think that there might actually be something to it, your time is better spent testing things that you actually have a reason to think might be legitimate.

Of course, if the people who believe in that nonsense want to go to the trouble of proper testing, nobody is stopping them.


Dr. Stupid

How would such research be funded? General taxation?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How would such research be funded? General taxation?
In the United States, funding for research comes from government grants, corporate profits, private funding such as donations or membership fees, and the odd philanthropist, not from direct taxation.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

How would such research be funded? General taxation?

How is any research funded? Some private organizations fund research that they are interested in. Governments typically fund research that they think has a significant potential to be beneficial to society. Sometimes individual researchers are funded, and given discretion over what they will research. It all depends.

If somebody thinks this I-Ching nonsense is worth funding research for, I am sure somebody will be willing to accept the grant money, and do so.


Dr. Stupid

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

After you flip a few coins and get some "advice," how do you decide if it was good advice?

Doesn't this clash badly with your concept of free will?

~~ Paul

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Who will pay me to do this research?
Somebody who feels that I Ching is worth looking into I suppose. Don't you think it is?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
To be quite explicit I'm asking whether it is worth investigating, whether the throwing of coins to determine one of the 64 hexagrams, will, to a statistically significant extent, be more of an appropriate hexagram to read for advice, for the question asked, than compared to any of the others?

PS I know that sometimes 2 hexagrams are generated together with moving lines, but let's keep it simple.

Actually, the proper way is to use decorated wooden sticks, not coins. Not that it really matters...

I have a few copies of the I Ching and played around with it a lot in college. What I came to find out that, although it doesn't really matter per se what hexagram you come up with, it is important to use some effective random means to keep from (even subconsciously) coming up with the hexagram you want. The reason why is, as is my conclusion, that the I Ching works by getting you to think about your situation in a way you haven't before. Pretty much all the hexagrams could be applied to any given situation, but they get you focused on different areas and aspects of the situation that you hadn't focused on or maybe even ignored. It's kind of cool in that regard.

[Clancie]

How can 81% say that it isn't even worth investigating at all, not even to see IF there's anything to it?

Curiosity is apparently at a premium here.

Or, the other possibility is that the people who voted "No" all already know that the I-Ching has been thoroughly investigated and totally debunked. If that's the case, I'm sure someone will provide a link to these studies--or at least, a good summary of the protocol and the results.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Clancie
How can 81% say that it isn't even worth investigating at all, not even to see IF there's anything to it?

Curiosity is apparently at a premium here.

Of course, the other possibility is that you all feel it has been thoroughly investigated and totally debunked. If that's the case, I hope someone will provide a link to these definitive studies.
Tell me Clancie do you feel it's worth investigating if:
1) The future can be told from examining the shape of ables?
2) Carrying half rotten tomatos in plastic bags bring luck?
3) Washing you face in carrot juice increases your intelligence?
If you do please commence experiments immediately, if you don't please show experiments which have thoroughly examined and debunked these notions. Have fun. :D

[Clancie]

So, Kerberos, no curiosity about the I-Ching and no link to any study debunking it.

Think anyone who voted with you will answer differently? (No, frankly, I don't either but one can always hope for a surprise.)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

Tell me Clancie do you feel it's worth investigating if:

3) Washing you face in carrot juice increases your intelligence?


Well, carrot juice contains a prodigious quantity of beta-carotene. Beta carotene is good for your skin and may help to get rid of acne. Not having acne might mean that you might be accepted to do a Ph.D when you go for the interview at University. Doing a Ph.D might increase your intelligence.

[Pyrrho]

I don't know...if research into the I Ching is valid, then I call for research into the Magic 8-Ball® (http://www.mattelgames.com/magic8/flash_index.asp)

[Pyrrho]

I Ching online:

http://flytrapinteractive.com/~complimentary/iching/

So subjective as to be pitifully worthless as an object of serious research, except perhaps as a sociological or psychological study of why people believe such things are genuine.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Clancie
So, Kerberos, no curiosity about the I-Ching and no link to any study debunking it.
No but if you're curious why don't you study it? Ian has already proposed a protocol which seemed flawless. I don't see why we should examine every claim that is offered to us which has no credible evidence in it's favor. You obviously don't think so either since you're not rushing of to wash your face with carrot juice. What I don't understand is what makes you think that I Ching is any more credible, personally I'd be more surprised to learn that I Ching worked, than that carrot juice in the face increased intelligence.
Originally posted by Clancie

Think anyone who voted with you will answer differently? (No, frankly, I don't either but one can always hope for a surprise.)
No I don't think so, as I pointed out above there's no reason why we should, if you feel it's worth investigating then feel free. In any case it would be a waste of time for skeptics to investigate I Ching since believers would simply claim negative vibrations had intefered.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I don't know...if research into the I Ching is valid, then I call for research into the Magic 8-Ball® (http://www.mattelgames.com/magic8/flash_index.asp) Pyrrho,

I think they work on entirely different principles. One is Fortune and the other is Magic. Isn't that true? I think we all already believe in magic. Where do butterflys come from? Magic Fairies.

We don't need to research that, I hope.

BTW... I Ching online: That's great. It sure answered my question.

[asthmatic camel]

Your sticks show the magic 8 ball hexagram. This is worrying. The magic 8 ball hexagram generally means that you are a stupid b*stard, who has little or nor grasp of reality.

On the positive side, this hexagram indicates that you are a dragon slayer, and find peace contemplating unidentified flying objects.

Sever your connections with the real world and take large doses of chlorpromazine.

I CHING XXXXX

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

No but if you're curious why don't you study it? Ian has already proposed a protocol which seemed flawless. I don't see why we should examine every claim that is offered to us which has no credible evidence in it's favor. You obviously don't think so either since you're not rushing of to wash your face with carrot juice. What I don't understand is what makes you think that I Ching is any more credible, personally I'd be more surprised to learn that I Ching worked, than that carrot juice in the face increased intelligence.



Did you know that carrots are the only vegetable whose juice can be mixed with fruit without making you fart?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Did you know that carrots are the only vegetable whose juice can be mixed with fruit without making you fart?

Hmmmm . .so which other vegetable should I use . . .

[Pyrrho]

There are many "oracle" systems. I Ching, runestones, Tarot, "Ouija" boards, Magic 8-ball®, needles dangled on strings over wrists, etc. Which of them is any more or less valid than any other? They all involve pseudorandomly generated responses to questions. If one oracle is valid, are all oracles valid? Is there a mysterious hidden intelligence that governs them all, or mysterious hidden intelligence for each?

I Ching has its origins in Asia; are the English translations of the hexagrams valid? Which translation is valid? If you ask the same question about the same situation ten times in a row, do you get the same hexagram each time? If not, why? If it's truly an oracle, it should be consistent in its answers. If the hexagrams are different for each of the ten throws, but your interpretation is the same, does this not suggest that you, yourself, are supplying the answer you secretly want, or are supplying an answer that you don't want, in order to pretend that the oracle is valid?

[Ed]

I would think that fortune telling is incompatable with free will but I am sure that there is an out somewhere.

What in nature, science, experience, or common sense would lead one to wish to expend time and resourses on exploring this particular piece of flummery?

I am told, on good authority, that putting silverware under one's pillow increases the chances for getting a day off from school due to weather. Might this not be worthy of some attention? I guess the point is how loony does a contention have to be before one dismisses it?

How does one distinguish between various silly claims? Because, in the case of the I Ching loonie Chinese guys have relied on it? Is that a reason? So, if a large uneducated mass of people believes in something, no matter how screwy, that contention is worthy of examination?

Read this quote:

"Some Indians of the Orinoco worshipped toads and kept them in vessels in order to obtain from them rain or sunshine as might be required; when their prayers were not answered they beat the toads."

Frazer, J. G. The Golden Bough Page 19.

Tell me precisely why this particular bit of silliness is less worthy of examination than the I Ching (Aside from the decidedly racist perspective that the East is somehow "mystical")? Frazers book is a full 300+ pages of looney beliefs believed by masses of people for ages. I can share more, and will as we generate discussions of loony beliefs here. The one I quoted has always appealed to me because of the vision it conjures up of a bunch of half naked natives wailing away on a bunch of toads. Amusing, about as amusing as Ian tossing coins or sticks and thinking there is meaning in that particular toad beating exercise.

Tell me Clancie, if sticks, why not toads?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Did you know that carrots are the only vegetable whose juice can be mixed with fruit without making you fart?
Ehmm... No. Your point being?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

No but if you're curious why don't you study it? Ian has already proposed a protocol which seemed flawless. I don't see why we should examine every claim that is offered to us which has no credible evidence in it's favor.

Why don't you simply state there is no evidence? Why the need to qualify it by adding "credible" in front of the word evidence?

The I Ching has been used by people for thousands of years. Why are you so certain that it cannot possibly work? What do you know and understand that all these other people didn't?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why don't you simply state there is no evidence? Why the need to qualify it by adding "credible" in front of the word evidence?
Because if we define evidence sufficiently broadly there's evidence for anything. For example anecdotical evidence is evidence, but it's very, very weak evidence and thus anecdotical evidence isn't credible evidence - at least not for a claim that violates well-established natural/mathematical laws.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The I Ching has been used by people for thousands of years. Why are you so certain that it cannot possibly work? What do you know and understand that all these other people didn't?
Because it violates the laws of probability. Of course my opinion on the like hood of I Ching working is subject to revision. How is your experiment going?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
I would think that fortune telling is incompatable with free will but I am sure that there is an out somewhere.



I don't think that the "I Ching" is fortune telling. It simply provides you with advice on how a wise person would deal with the situation (but I'm not sure guys, so am I wrong about this?).

But anyway, even if it did predict the future this would have no more consequences for free will then a precognitive dream does.



What in nature, science, experience, or common sense would lead one to wish to expend time and resourses on exploring this particular piece of flummery?



Are you not interested in whether it works?



I am told, on good authority, that putting silverware under one's pillow increases the chances for getting a day off from school due to weather. Might this not be worthy of some attention? I guess the point is how loony does a contention have to be before one dismisses it?



It all revolves around our background suppositions about reality. We in the western world understand reality in a certain way, and of course, from this perspective, the I Ching providing the most appropriate hexagram is ludicrous. But this simply begs the question of how we know our background suppositions about reality are absolutely correct.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why don't you simply state there is no evidence? Why the need to qualify it by adding "credible" in front of the word evidence?

The I Ching has been used by people for thousands of years. Why are you so certain that it cannot possibly work? What do you know and understand that all these other people didn't?

"In many Silesian villages the figure of Death, after being treated with respect, is stripped of it's clothes and flung with curses into the water, or torn in pieces in a fioeld."

Ways of Bring Back Summer, Frazer, p.263.

Why not this bit of launicy Ian? This one, at least, has some evidence to support it.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Are you not interested in whether it works?




Yes, but not to the extent that I would spend a penny on finding out since I can extrapolate from my experience and come up with a provisional hypothesis that it is codswaddle. Much like the toads. Though beating them might be diverting.:D

Seriously, folks: Can you picture a bunch of guys running around wailing away on some tiny amphibians? And believing that it is actually doing some good?

[Ed]

Ian,

why not believe or investigate those thousands of claims? each with as much reason for belief as the i ching>

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Ed
Seriously, folks: Can you picture a bunch of guys running around wailing away on some tiny amphibians? And believing that it is actually doing some good? I pity those poor toads if it actually does rain the next day. They will receive many more beatings whenever it gets dry - harder and harder too if they don't make it rain.

My dad used to tell me, If a dog eats grass, it rains the next day. If I were an Orinoco I would just keep a starving dog around and feed him a little grass when I needed rain - that makes a lot more sense to me.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perhaps people put more faith in outlandish claims that have heavy anecdotal backing, and less faith in the shape of rotten tomatoes soaking in carrot juice, with only a few of us singing its praises.

~~ Paul

[Ed]

"... to make it go down faster, the Australians throw sand into the air and blow with their mouths towards the sun".

Frazer, p. 25.

Clancie, Ian, shall we test this one too? Why not?

[Interesting Ian]

Would people agree that it's the case that they are judging that the "I Ching" cannot possibly work because of their background suppositions about the nature of reality?

Yes or no?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Would people agree that it's the case that they are judging that the "I Ching" cannot possibly work because of their background suppositions about the nature of reality?

Yes or no?
No. :D

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Would people agree that it's the case that they are judging that the "I Ching" cannot possibly work because of their background suppositions about the nature of reality?

Yes or no?

Are you dismissing toad effects upon weather because of your inherent biases against anything that is not inscrutably orientally mystic?

Yes or no?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Would people agree that it's the case that they are judging that the "I Ching" cannot possibly work because of their background suppositions about the nature of reality?

Yes or no?


Kerb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. :D [/B]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



{SHRUGS}

Well in that case you're beyond all reason.

No point in me sticking around here.

Bye.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Would people agree that it's the case that they are judging that the "I Ching" cannot possibly work because of their background suppositions about the nature of reality?

Yes or no?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Are you dismissing toad effects upon weather because of your inherent biases against anything that is not inscrutably orientally mystic?

Yes or no?

I do not dismiss anything a priori

Now do you intend answering my question or not?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I do not dismiss anything a priori

Now do you intend answering my question or not?
So you think that the toad claim should be investigated?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Kerberos

So you think that the toad claim should be investigated?

YES!!!!


http://www.rangerdj.com/clipart/animals/toad.jpg

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Believer’s addiction to fiction should not be mixed with the objective materialism necessitating scientific method!

We can logically and scientifically conclude that none of this can be real because of the laws of physics! We will never allow paradigm change, so it shall be defended without our lives!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Would people agree that it's the case that they are judging that the "I Ching" cannot possibly work because of their background suppositions about the nature of reality?

Yes or no?
Bad question. Your erronious assumption is that those suppositions are not inclusive of all forms of evidence, which they are. The palpible lack of evidence helps form those assumptions.

The question that you are asking is akin to "do you still beat your wife.

Now about these guys

http://www.rangerdj.com/clipart/animals/toad.jpg

[Ed]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Perhaps people put more faith in outlandish claims that have heavy anecdotal backing, and less faith in the shape of rotten tomatoes soaking in carrot juice, with only a few of us singing its praises.

~~ Paul

You know, Paul, the question of where this wierdness comes from is highly interesting. My toad thingie is probably as obvious as the local species of toad sealing themselves up in mud only to emerge when it rains, or some such.

Doubtless the I Ching is somehow related to taking bones of loved ones or enemys and invoking their spirit to get the poop.

Investigating the "why" strikes me as a more useful expenditure than regressing to a primitive state and emulating ancient practices.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The whole anecdotal evidence thing is interesting, too. Some people seem to use a linear or exponential function when evaluating the merit of a claim based on the number of anecdotes, whereas others of us use a logarithmic function.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Would people agree that it's the case that they are judging that the "I Ching" cannot possibly work because of their background suppositions about the nature of reality?

Yes or no?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bad question.



{Sighs}

Of course it's not a bad question! It's absolutely crucial to this issue!



Your erronious assumption is that



I am not making any assumptions.


those suppositions are not inclusive of all forms of evidence, which they are. The palpible lack of evidence helps form those assumptions.



Necessarily there is a lack of evidence since you are making an a priori proclamation. You know without anyone investigating, remember :rolleyes:

Right, you won't answer the question so I'm not going to waste anymore time on this thread.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Necessarily there is a lack of evidence since you are making an a priori proclamation. You know without anyone investigating, remember :rolleyes:
No we know without specifically investigating I Ching. Plenty of people have investigated coin tossing and there has never been established any pattern to it.

[Darat]

Ok - so says someone decides to research the I-Ching. What is it they are researching, what is the data and evidence that needs a hypothesis?

I suspect that if you asked different "practitioners" of the I-Ching you'd get a range of "What it is" and "What it is it does" definitions.

(You only have to look at some of the homeopathy threads here and elsewhere to see the huge range of different definitions of what it is, how it is practised and what it isn't to begin to see the problems behind attempting to research these apparently simple to test beliefs.)

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Would people agree that it's the case that they are judging that the "I Ching" cannot possibly work because of their background suppositions about the nature of reality? Ian,
What is meant by "possibly work"? Do you mean 'make this person feel good'? Or do you have any objective criteria in mind?

I'm not afraid to answer your question - I think people may indeed feel better if they consult the I Ching or Ed's Toad.

I think smokin dope makes people feel good. But what is the long term value?

What would be the thrust of your research? The I Ching doesn't seem to provide Yes/No answers. It's completely subjective isn't it? Or do you detect it's objectivity in the way it might "work."

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


{Sighs}

Of course it's not a bad question! It's absolutely crucial to this issue!



I am not making any assumptions.





[Theatrically bored sigh ... adjusting of privates in pants... belches ... farts] Oh Ian, you used the word "supposition", that makes it a bad question. Don't blame me if your english is lacking. The answer of course is "yes" but not for the silly reasons that you think. You might better ask after the nature and cause of those suppositions. A bit complex, I know, but better. [walks out of room with a trail of toilet tissue sticking to left heel]

Whoa!! Almost forgot.... What about the toads, Ian? Are you dismissing them?



http://www.rangerdj.com/clipart/animals/toad.jpg

[Stimpson J. Cat]

You know, Ian, for somebody who completely dismisses the idea of somebody being able to read while blindfolded, it strikes me as rather odd that you would think there is any real chance of there being anything to this I-Ching nonsense. How is this any more plausable than the blindfolded reading thing?

They are both ridiculous claims which completely fly in the face of what we know about how things actually work, and for which there is absolutely no reliable supporting evidence.

I swear, sometimes it seems like your only criteria for deciding whether something is reasonable or not, is just whether it happens to strike your fancy. If it does, then anybody who dismisses it as silly or astronomically unlikely, is a closed-minded fool. And if it does not, then anybody who entertains the idea that it might be true, is being equally foolish.

Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
You know, Ian, for somebody who completely dismisses the idea of somebody being able to read while blindfolded, it strikes me as rather odd that you would think there is any real chance of there being anything to this I-Ching nonsense.
Dr. Stupid

These 2 cases are not comparable. Someone with human eyes cannot see through objects. It contravenes what we know about human eyes and physical laws. I've already explained why the I Ching might be possible in the other thread I started a few months ago. Go and read it if you're interested.

[jj]

You left out the real answer "not any more".

It was worth investigation, but after more than a few, it's no longer worthy.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Necessarily there is a lack of evidence since you are making an a priori proclamation. You know without anyone investigating, remember.Do you think it's never a good idea to use inductive reasoning, or do you merely think that some people are misusing it in this particular case?

The former is hardly defensible, and the latter requires a more detailed argument than "well, you haven't investigated the I Ching specifically, so you can't possibly have any reason to doubt its effectiveness."

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by 69dodge
Do you think it's never a good idea to use inductive reasoning, or do you merely think that some people are misusing it in this particular case?

The former is hardly defensible, and the latter requires a more detailed argument than "well, you haven't investigated the I Ching specifically, so you can't possibly have any reason to doubt its effectiveness."

Inductive reasoning is fine although I would be cautious with it. For a kick off we must be talking about similar things having similar effects or causes. Induction is a bit restrictive in the context of science.

Now, where have I stated or implied people "can't possibly have any reason to doubt its effectiveness"? One can certainly have reasons to doubt its effectiveness. As normal, skeptics have changed what I said, so that instead of the question of how skeptics can be certain it's not possible, it's changed to "how can skeptics possible doubt it doesn't work". A slight difference I think.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
These 2 cases are not comparable. Someone with human eyes cannot see through objects. It contravenes what we know about human eyes and physical laws. I've already explained why the I Ching might be possible in the other thread I started a few months ago. Go and read it if you're interested.
For Ed's sake, man, the person is not reading through her blindfolded eyes! She is reading with her third eye or her medulla oblongata or her navel or something. Hell, maybe her eyes can detect wavelengths of light that penetrate cloth.

There is no reason to discard a perfectly good paranormal claim just because of some supposed limitations on light entering the body.

~~ Paul

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


These 2 cases are not comparable. Someone with human eyes cannot see through objects. It contravenes what we know about human eyes and physical laws. I've already explained why the I Ching might be possible in the other thread I started a few months ago. Go and read it if you're interested.
First congratulations to Ed for making me laugh out loud while reading this thread and convincing my gf that the last few shreds of my sanity have finally disappeared.

Now, onto the fun derailment questions. What's human? Are ghosts human? Spirit communicators human? If the physical world is all a bunch of perceived flummery and the self is all that is real, could it not find a way to...oh I dunno PSI its way through that old blindfold? Is the only stipulation for being human having a perceived physical body? If a disemobied self pokes its head into the physical world again and is physically visible, does it regain a smidgen of humaness? If its the other way around and we are in fact perceiving the non-physical realm are we giving up part of our humaness to view it? For someone that is always poking and prodding everything else Science or materialism states or claims, I find it interesting you so quickly believe the "human" eye can't see through objects. So close-minded :D.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

These 2 cases are not comparable. Someone with human eyes cannot see through objects. It contravenes what we know about human eyes and physical laws. I've already explained why the I Ching might be possible in the other thread I started a few months ago. Go and read it if you're interested.

I rest my case. When the claim in question is something you consider to be silly, you are perfectly happy to cite the fact that it contradicts our scientific knowledge. But when it is something you think is cool, you happily reject any such criticism by inventing ad-hoc hypotheses for how it might work without contradicting our scientific knowledge.

Believers in remote viewing have no more problem inventing such ad-hoc explanations for their nonsense, than you do for yours. For pete's sake, man, you are willing to accept things like anomalous cognition, telepathy, telekinesis, and god knows what else, but you have a problem with somebody being able to read through a blindfold because it violates the laws of physics???


Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Ian,



I rest my case. When the claim in question is something you consider to be silly, you are perfectly happy to cite the fact that it contradicts our scientific knowledge. But when it is something you think is cool, you happily reject any such criticism by inventing ad-hoc hypotheses for how it might work without contradicting our scientific knowledge.

Believers in remote viewing have no more problem inventing such ad-hoc explanations for their nonsense, than you do for yours. For pete's sake, man, you are willing to accept things like anomalous cognition, telepathy, telekinesis, and god knows what else, but you have a problem with somebody being able to read through a blindfold because it violates the laws of physics???


Dr. Stupid

I wouldn't absolutely reject the possibility of someone being able to read through a blindfold. But it's much more likely, in my opinion, that some sort of trickery is involved. Nobody else can do it, so how likely do you think that this one person can do it? But I know you agree with me here, so I won't drone on.

Regarding anomalous cognition. There are no reports of people generally having the equivalent of x - ray vision. At the most people might be able to vaguely sense a target which is inaccessible to the normal senses. And we all have this ability to a greater or lesser extent. We have anecdotes throughout human history testifying to this. We have anecdotes across virtually all cultures testifying to this. And we have the scientific research suggesting its existence as well.

We do not know what consciousness is. Thus it is rather foolish to simply declare a priori that consciousness cannot have certain abilities!

It's against physical laws? Depends on how one suppose it works. I do not believe that psi works through information flow (ie I therefore subscribe to a noncybernetic model). Thus the link between consciousness and the "sensed" object is not physically mediated but rather teleological in nature. The outcome correlates with our dispositions or interests. It is goal orientated. One can only declare this is impossible if one is wedded to a mechanistic conception of reality.

[Ed]

What about the toads, Ian?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
It's against physical laws? Depends on how one suppose it works. I do not believe that psi works through information flow (ie I therefore subscribe to a noncybernetic model). Thus the link between consciousness and the "sensed" object is not physically mediated but rather teleological in nature. The outcome correlates with our dispositions or interests. It is goal orientated. One can only declare this is impossible if one is wedded to a mechanistic conception of reality.
Fine, then. So the blindfolded girl is using some form of psi to read the words. She's using telepathy to read someone else's mind who is reading the words or who wrote them. She is using micro-PK to move someone else's eyes to the page, then reading their mind. She is using precognition, since she will be shown the page after the test. She is using backward causation to change the words on the page to the words she is claiming to read. Or some combination of the above.

Use your imagination, man! You've certainly constructed a world in which there are no limits.

~~ Paul

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


...snip...

Regarding anomalous cognition. There are no reports of people generally having the equivalent of x - ray vision. At the most people might be able to vaguely sense a target which is inaccessible to the normal senses. And we all have this ability to a greater or lesser extent. We have anecdotes throughout human history testifying to this. We have anecdotes across virtually all cultures testifying to this. And we have the scientific research suggesting its existence as well.

...snip...

But this is just your definition of remote viewing/AC, many other people claim they can get awesome levels of details and accuracy.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
To be quite explicit I'm asking whether it is worth investigating, whether the throwing of coins to determine one of the 64 hexagrams, will, to a statistically significant extent, be more of an appropriate hexagram to read for advice, for the question asked, than compared to any of the others?

PS I know that sometimes 2 hexagrams are generated together with moving lines, but let's keep it simple.

Hi Ian,

I think "Yes", and think that as long as a reasonable test can be devised for X, then X can and should be tested.

Considering the I-Ching, at least the mechanics, not necessarily the interpretation, is straightforward, and the I-Ching is enjoyed by many, many people, I think it is worth testing.

[Ed]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Hi Ian,

I think "Yes", and think that as long as a reasonable test can be devised for X, then X can and should be tested.

Considering the I-Ching, at least the mechanics, not necessarily the interpretation, is straightforward, and the I-Ching is enjoyed by many, many people, I think it is worth testing.

So, is your contention that any contention should be tested?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

There is no reason to test something we know doesn't exist! We might as well test to see if there is a tooth fairy if we were to condone wasting money on non-existent nonsense! My view will always be closed to this being a possibility!

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Hi Ian,

I think "Yes", and think that as long as a reasonable test can be devised for X, then X can and should be tested.

Considering the I-Ching, at least the mechanics, not necessarily the interpretation, is straightforward, and the I-Ching is enjoyed by many, many people, I think it is worth testing.
So why don't you test it?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kerberos

So why don't you test it?

Why don't you test it?

Just because I think something can and should be tested, it doesn't follow that I should be the one doing the testing. Obviously...

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Why don't you test it?
I don't think there's anything to find and in any case my negative vibrations would, according to Ian, ruin the experiment and thus make the experiment invalid.
Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Just because I think something can and should be tested, it doesn't follow that I should be the one doing the testing. Obviously...
True. Ian and Clancie has criticized skeptics for not thinking it's worth investigating, but I suppose I shouldn't lump you together like that.

[Blue Monk]

Personally I would not bother with such testing but even with the subjective nature of the readings I think protocol for testing could be devised.

Without going into detail I am assuming a controlled double blind test and the consultation of a real statistician to calculate a significant success rate before testing.

I would first devise a questionnaire that the subject could use to rate the accuracy of the reading.

I would then administer the readings on a test group and have the test group rate the readings accurately but only half would get their own readings and the other half would a random readings (or someone else’s).

If there was anything to it one would expect a higher success rate within the group that got their own readings than those that didn’t. If both groups report an equal success rate then that would indicate that there is nothing there.

I’ve heard of the this testing procedure being applied to astrologists of which none have ever beaten.

I’ll bet the I Ching has been tested before and I also suspect that even if you did and the results were negative they would simply be ignored.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Who will pay me to do this research?
In this response is the answer to your question, Ian. Is it "worth" investigating? Obviously, it is not to you, because you would not do so without the promise of monetary gain. Or perhaps one might think that the investment of his time will pay off when he makes a monumental discovery which proves marketable.

And this is pretty much the same situation as with the skeptics here. Is it worth their time to do it? No. Is it worth paying someone else to do? No. Is it worth spending taxes on? No.

Ian, you have admitted here that to you, it is not "worth" investigating, or you would already be doing so. You know the methodology, so get cracking. I promise to read your results.

[RamblingOnwards]

As a matter of interest, if I wished to set up a paranormal experiment, how would I go about getting an external body to monitor it for 'scientificness'? (yes, I know, I just couldn't think of a better term).

Could I convince, say, CSICOP to approve my methods and oversee the results so that I could scribble 'results audited by CSICOP' at the top of my web page? (Not that I'm actually planning to set up any experiments, but if I did would there be any way of giving it more legitimacy than my own word that I conducted it properly?)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

CSICOP might be interested in reviewing your protocol. You could most certainly find a pile of folks interested in doing it here.

~~ Paul

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
CSICOP might be interested in reviewing your protocol. You could most certainly find a pile of folks interested in doing it here.

~~ Paul

"here" meaning this bulletin board? This bulletin board will oversee and approve the scientificness of experiments in an official capacity??

[Interesting Ian]

I think it might be appropriate to quote the following. This is taken from Rowbotham (1918,pp. 27 -- 9).


Galileo's first trial of strength with the university professors was connected with his researches into the laws of motion as illustrated by falling bodies. It was an accepted axiom of Aristotle that the speed of falling bodies was regulated by their respective weights: a stone weighing two pounds would fall twice as quick as one weighing only a single pound and so on. No one seems to have questioned the correctness of this rule, until Galileo gave it his denial. He declared that weights had nothing to do with the matter, and that . . . two bodies of unequal weight . . . . would reach the ground at the same moment. As Galileo's statement was flouted by the body of professors, he determined to put it to a public test. So he invited the whole university to witness the experiment which he was about to perform from the leaning Tower. On the morning of the day fixed, Galileo, in the presence of the assembled university and townsfolk, mounted to the top of the Tower, carrying with him two balls, one weighing 100 pounds and the other weighing one pound. Balancing the balls carefully on the edge of the parapet, he rolled them over together; they were seen to fall evenly, and next instant, with a loud clang, they struck the ground together. The old tradition was false, and modern science, in the person of the young discoverer, had vindicated her position.

[Atlas]

Ian,

If you had started this thread with the nature of your intended experiment, along the lines of Blue Monk's description, I doubt that there would be much argument.

Galileo had real objective results in mind when he argued against Aristotle and had an experiment in mind to prove his assertions.

Can you describe what you'd test or what you might prove other than "whether it works"?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

T'ai said:
"here" meaning this bulletin board? This bulletin board will oversee and approve the scientificness of experiments in an official capacity??
I'm not sure what you mean by official capacity. I don't think there is an official scientific oversight organization floating around. That's what peer review and replication is for. How about a university department?

~~ Paul