What most influenced your opinion on PSI

[Open Mind]

Did I miss any important category? If so please name another category and preferably give example of PSI spokesperson or cause that doesn’t fit any of my above categories.

[Nex]

My opinion of psi has been formed after years of learning about it, believing in it, and investigating it myself. If it existed, I think I would have run across it by now. Coupling that personal experience with the known psychological processes that cause people to believe in psi and the supernatural (forer effect, pareidolia, remembering hits/forgetting misses, etc) makes me very doubtful in its existence.

If there is psi/supernatural, it's hiding really really well underneath all those natural explanations.

[Eleatic Stranger]

How about "Basic Sillyness of the Entire Concept"?

In my experience there are lots of conjectured phenomena that come down to "if you really want it hard you'll get/know it". Prayer, magic, and psi all fit under this nifty umbrella.

But pretty much anything that fits under that catagory is bunk.

[T'ai Chi]

I try to read all the articles I can that are published by the actual psi researchers.

I also try to read all the articles that I can by the 'debunkers'.

This way I hope to be well informed on both sides, so as to understand the issues the best I can.

[Pragmatist]

None of the above. The thing that has most influenced my opinion about psi are the actual examples of lying, cheating, fraud and just plain ignorance by many of its advocates that I have come across.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Did I miss any important category? If so please name another category and preferably give example of PSI spokesperson or cause that doesn’t fit any of my above categories.

Nah, none of them. Personal experiences, and experiences of acquaintances, and philosophical considerations.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Nah, none of them. Personal experiences, and experiences of acquaintances, and philosophical considerations.

Yeah I've overlooked some obvious ones ... :) ....... I was more focussing on trying to find out how so many skeptics got to be certain of what is nowhere near certain ;)

Anyway good to see you back here.

[Ashles]

Ian!
[Runs and hugs hello, then looks semi-embarassed in a manly kind of way]

Where have you been?
:)

Anyway,

My opinion of Psi, like Ian, has been gained by experience.

Analysing what I thought when I was younger and how I interpreted certain experiences and how I told the stories of those experiences compared with what I think now has caused me to reject it as likely.

Also a year in a holistic healing centre being surrounded by healers, readers and psychics.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Open Mind
.... I was more focusing on trying to find out how so many skeptics got to be certain of what is nowhere near certain ;)



Well, if we are going to play that game; which of these is the most important thing to ignore when fostering a belief in psi? ;)

[Kopji]

I've met too many clients of psychics, to ever believe. :(

[BPScooter]

Excellent poll! And I'm also glad to see Ian, thanks for posting again, bro.

I will vote for the "csicop" category, although it is a selectiion that needs to be given one more category: "Personal experience, intelligence, and common sense drove me to conclude that there was no time to spend on such matters."

But it was while browsing the shelves at a university library 20 years ago I found a copy of Skeptical Inquirer, and was so engaged that I read the whole lot, subscribed for a while, and got it in my head that there were others that looked at things in a way similar to mine. So I guess the confirmation comes from the 1980s CSICOP efforts.

[JMA]

I voted for "Failed replication of PSI effects in long term controlled trials"... I'm a beginner in the parapsychology debate but I think I was convince by failed replications (especially Wiseman).

But I know that can be dismissed by proponent with the experimenter effect... :(

So for me "Esteemed skeptic scientists (with no published PSI trials) arguing PSI contradicts known science" is also true, because I was convince by Alcock and Hyman that there is epistemological problem with the field of parapsychology.

Well, it's even better when it's "Esteemed skeptic scientists (with published PSI trials) arguing PSI contradicts known science", like Blackmore. There not enough Blackmore (on top of that she don't do parapsy experiment anymore...) and Wiseman in the academic world :(

Both.

Well, I'm maybe wrong about all that stuff... I'm not sure anyway... I would like to be better in statistics for a better understanding of the statistical methodology used in that field.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Nah, none of them. Personal experiences, and experiences of acquaintances, and philosophical considerations.

Which are worthless. They don't convince anyone here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Yeah I've overlooked some obvious ones ... :) ....... I was more focussing on trying to find out how so many skeptics got to be certain of what is nowhere near certain ;)

We could also turn the question around: Why are believers convinced, even though there is no evidence of any paranormal phenomenon?

Why do they accept non-existent evidence?

[John Beattie]

Basically, I did some research, and found no convincing evidence. While it's impossible to prove there are no psychic abilities, the burden of proof is clearly on the psychics. It's their job to proove they can, not our job to prove they can't.

[Ersby]

I'm in much the same boat as jzs. After years of looking and research re the ganzfeld and cold reading, the evidence is so flimsy it's often hard to know where to begin debunking it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
How about "Basic Sillyness of the Entire Concept"?

In my experience there are lots of conjectured phenomena that come down to "if you really want it hard you'll get/know it". Prayer, magic, and psi all fit under this nifty umbrella.

But pretty much anything that fits under that catagory is bunk.

I'm guessing then you're saying that psi is inconsistent with what we know about reality, and that therefore any reported instances must be mistaken?

This attitude seems a bit strange to me given that we have not a clue what consciousness is; whether it is a special sort of physical thing/process or something else entirely. If consciousness is wholly mysterious and doesn't seem in principle reducible to other physical processes, then with what justification can we give to the a priori rejection of an alleged ability/attribute like psi? I presume not merely because of its relative rarity and capricious nature?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Nah, none of them. Personal experiences, and experiences of acquaintances, and philosophical considerations.


CFLarsen
Which are worthless. They don't convince anyone here.

They may not convince anyone here. However, that does not entail they're worthless.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
They may not convince anyone here. However, that does not entail they're worthless.

Feel free to convince me that they are not worthless.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Feel free to convince me that they are not worthless.

Not to worry, I do feel free. By the way, do you too feel delighted that I am back?

[JMA]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why do they accept non-existent evidence?

About parapsychology, because we learn in psychology that if it's stat. sign. so it's true. Then a lot of parapsychological research is stat. sign., so psi must be true, must exist...

I do feel that there is a problem the way statistical analysis is taught at the university. Or maybe that there is a problem because critical thinking is not enough tought at the university...

Something like that ;)

[Psiload]

Originally posted by JMA
About parapsychology, because we learn in psychology that if it's stat. sign. so it's true. Then a lot of parapsychological research is stat. sign., so psi must be true, must exist...

I do feel that there is a problem the way statistical analysis is taught at the university. Or maybe that there is a problem because critical thinking is not enough tought at the university...

Something like that ;)

In my humble opinion...

Parapsychology has become to Psi, what the DeBeers Corporation is to diamonds.

An institution bent on self-preservation through the perpetuation of a myth... the myth of utility of a product that is, for all intents and purposes, worthless.

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Psiload
In my humble opinion...

Parapsychology has become to Psi, what the DeBeers Corporation is to diamonds.

An institution bent on self-preservation through the perpetuation of a myth... the myth of value, and utility of a product that is, for all intents and purposes, worthless.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not to worry, I do feel free. By the way, do you too feel delighted that I am back?

I don't give a rat's rectum, Ian.

Now, convince me. But I warn you: If you end up with "God allows it", you lose.

Can you argue your point without falling back on this copout?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I don't give a rat's rectum, Ian.

Now, convince me. But I warn you: If you end up with "God allows it", you lose.

Can you argue your point without falling back on this copout?

Yes I can, but I choose not to.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes I can, but I choose not to.

Then you can't.

Thank you for calling.

[Nolan Coppenger]

Based on my personal experience psi is real.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Nolan Coppenger
Based on my personal experience psi is real.

Based on my personal experience, Santa exists.

Now what?

[Nolan Coppenger]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Based on my personal experience, Santa exists.

Now what?
If Santa exists for you then Santa exists for you, Santa does not have to exist for others, so psi exists for me, it does not have to exist for you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Nolan Coppenger
If Santa exists for you then Santa exists for you, Santa does not have to exist for others, so psi exists for me, it does not have to exist for you.

What a load of crap.

It can supposedly influence physical objects, ergo it exists for both you and me.

Now, we can sit around the camp fire, and tell fairy-tales. That is what you suggest.

Or, we can determine which fairy-tales are true and which are not. That is what I suggest.

Which approach do you think is the most beneficial?

[JPK]

Originally posted by Nolan Coppenger
If Santa exists for you then Santa exists for you, Santa does not have to exist for others, so psi exists for me, it does not have to exist for you.

Are you suggesting that Claus gets to determine what exists and what doesn't? Who appointed him to that position? :)
JPK

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JPK
Are you suggesting that Claus gets to determine what exists and what doesn't? Who appointed him to that position? :)
JPK

Well, I am Santa... ;)

[Eleatic Stranger]

If Santa exists for you then Santa exists for you, Santa does not have to exist for others, so psi exists for me, it does not have to exist for you.

"Exists for you"? No offence intended, but that phrase is almost pure nonsense. Aside from a sense of 'exists' where "I think it exists" is synonymous with 'it exists" -- which would be, of course, a meaning of 'exists' which is both entirely divorced from what we actually mean when we say 'exists' in English and also would mean rejecting the very notion of an objective reality, no matter how loosely defined -- there's simply no such thing as 'exists for you'.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Nolan Coppenger
If Santa exists for you then Santa exists for you, Santa does not have to exist for others, so psi exists for me, it does not have to exist for you.

Imaginary friends exist for you, but that's about it. You can't make something exist just because you want it to anymore than you can make something you don't want to exist go away by ignoring it. Try locking yourself out of the house with all your keys inside, then open the doors with a key that exists "for you." Don't lockpick or anything, just use a key that exists the way Santa does.

[rppa]

I always hoped for the reality of psi. It was a prominent feature of some of my favorite sci-fi as a kid, and I also saw Ouija boards and Zener cards (sp?) at a pretty young age. I really, really thought it would be great if some of that stuff actually worked.

Unfortunately, I was also exposed to critical thinking at a young age, and no amount of fictional exploration of the possibilities, or of reading about woo-woo books could overcome the vast amount of evidence to the contrary.

I think belief in out-of-body experience might have been the last to go. I even read some of a book on how to train yourself to have an OOB experience. While it didn't do that for me, the meditation techniques I learned there have been enormously helpful in giving me a lot of voluntary control over sleep. I could, for instance, go to sleep within 5 minutes sitting here at the computer if I wanted to. That kind of thing has been very helpful in a lifetime of irregular hours.

[c4ts]

I had an OOBE on cough syrup. It had codine in it.

[Nolan Coppenger]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What a load of crap.

It can supposedly influence physical objects, ergo it exists for both you and me.

Now, we can sit around the camp fire, and tell fairy-tales. That is what you suggest.

Or, we can determine which fairy-tales are true and which are not. That is what I suggest.

Which approach do you think is the most beneficial?

Fairy tales are not true no matter who tells them, don't be silly, all fairy tales are false except the concepts they teach or feelings they create are not always false.

Personal experince of psi in my case is highly personal yet is real for me perhaps not real for you but that is expected, it is not your experience but is my own experience, this is nothing you find in a lab, a lab is a lab not life as we live it. Life as we live it contains many many experiences especially interfactions among people, it is interfactions among people where psi is found not in a lab, in a lab interfactions are artificial, interfered with, interrupted, psi functions among interactions without lab artifice.

Highly personal interfactions between people exert psi, I find psi often occurs when we are coupled with other people in sex, I experience psi many many times when coupled with my sex partner especially while the sex act is slowly built minutely during teh hours we experience each other's phsycialities. At ultimate culmination our spritis commingle as our bodies have commingles and we not only read each others thoughts we are each others thoughts, one flesh in compleat ecstasy over time. Many many times each of us dreams of each other in total detail so when we meet physically we repeat everything exactly as dreamed, this is psi.

So LOL at your talk of fairy tales, psi is not fairy tales.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Nolan Coppenger
Fairy tales are not true no matter who tells them, don't be silly, all fairy tales are false except the concepts they teach or feelings they create are not always false.

Personal experince of psi in my case is highly personal yet is real for me perhaps not real for you but that is expected, it is not your experience but is my own experience, this is nothing you find in a lab, a lab is a lab not life as we live it. Life as we live it contains many many experiences especially interfactions among people, it is interfactions among people where psi is found not in a lab, in a lab interfactions are artificial, interfered with, interrupted, psi functions among interactions without lab artifice.

Highly personal interfactions between people exert psi, I find psi often occurs when we are coupled with other people in sex, I experience psi many many times when coupled with my sex partner especially while the sex act is slowly built minutely during teh hours we experience each other's phsycialities. At ultimate culmination our spritis commingle as our bodies have commingles and we not only read each others thoughts we are each others thoughts, one flesh in compleat ecstasy over time. Many many times each of us dreams of each other in total detail so when we meet physically we repeat everything exactly as dreamed, this is psi.

That's it? That's what you experience? How do you determine what you both think?

How do you distinguish between a coincidence, a hallucination, a dream, wishful thinking - and psi?

Can psi interact with physical matter?

Originally posted by Nolan Coppenger
So LOL at your talk of fairy tales, psi is not fairy tales.

I can't tell the difference. Would you care to explain it to me?

[jambo372]

I couldn't vote either.
It would be personal experience for me, some other stuff to a lesser extent.
I always thought something existed but became 100 % sure when I got involved in the movement.

[BillC]

Originally posted by Nolan Coppenger
Personal experince of psi in my case is highly personal yet is real for me perhaps not real for you.... (snip)You have used this same phrase again "real for me". A phenomenon either exists or it does not. Do you mean "I have had experience of psi, even if you have not"? If so, we can debate this. But no-one can discuss something that is claimed to be "real for me but not for you".

[T'ai Chi]

The Parapsychological Association also being an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, since 1969, is pretty interesting.

(source: http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/affiliates/#P)

[BPScooter]

Nolan, you use the word "interfactions" and that's not easy to type, so I suspect it's not a typing error. If you mean "interactions" and it's a problem with English, fine, I get that.

If you are creating a new thing, an interfaction, and it describes to a T the experience you had with your lover, then we need to get to the dictionary, the works of the poets, or the Song of Songs, and decide whether what you just called "interfaction" is really new or not.

If you meant "interaction," then that lends itself a bit better to being bunked or debunked.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
The Parapsychological Association also being an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, since 1969, is pretty interesting.

Why do you think that?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why do you think that?

It is interesting, isn't it? The Parapsychological Association in the American Association Advancement for the Advancement Science.

I guess they meet some of the AAAS standards, eh?

[Psiload]

Originally posted by jzs
It is interesting, isn't it? The Parapsychological Association in the American Association Advancement for the Advancement Science.

I guess they meet some of the AAAS standards, eh? Not really.

It was a controversial decision to accept parapsychology into the AAAS in 1974, and the controversy has not subsided over the last 30 years. The decision to accept parapsychology as a member science was made at a time when parapsychology as a scientific field seemed to show great promise (the Uri Geller salad days)., and even then the decision was made more due to a small number of popular personalities, Margaret Mead being the most vocal, than any actual concrete scientific body of evidence.

The controversy continues to this day...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/7813

I am writing as a concerned member of the AAAS and as a former member of the board of directors and as a former president of the American Physical Society to ask that a five man committee of review be appointed by the board of directors and the council jointly to review the work of the section of parapsychology of the AAAS to determine:

(a) Whether this field of investigation by now has produced any "battle tested result";

(b) To report on the advantage gained in fund raising by workers in the field of parapsychology by their association with the AAAS;

(c) To report on the effect of this association on the public image of the AAAS;

(d) To advise whether this section should be left "as is," suspended until the field has produced some "battle tested" results or deleted outright from the AAAS.

I know that the views of our late and beloved Margaret Mead were strong in getting parapsychology admitted to the AAAS. I was present at the meeting where it happened. The opinion that I had and many others had was overridden by the permissiveness of the time. The words might not have been used, but the idea was there of that old phrase, "Marry him to reform him." Now the decade of permissiveness has passed.