Calling All Remote Viewers [Archive]

Darat

22nd August 2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by TLN

He probably already has. If you'll just wait a little while longer...

Of course our remote viewers have already located her….

Just take the first letter of the third line in the last post in the thread down, combine that with the 4th letter from the first post last Wednesday and you have the initials of the town where she is to be located....

Or at least that is my prediction for one of the ways this lack of humanity by people who claim they can remote view back and forwards in time will be explained.

Anyone who wonders why people do sometimes get angry with some of the claims made here by posters think about this case.

There are people posting tonight who claim to have the superpower of remote viewing, yet when it comes to the crunch, when a child could be in terrible danger, when parents are suffering torture not knowing where their child is or if they are even alive these people just stand by.....

Lucianarchy

22nd August 2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Darat

Of course our remote viewers have already located her….

Just take the first letter of the third line in the last post in the thread down, combine that with the 4th letter from the first post last Wednesday and you have the initials of the town where she is to be located....

Or at least that is my prediction for one of the ways this lack of humanity by people who claim they can remote view back and forwards in time will be explained.

Anyone who wonders why people do sometimes get angry with some of the claims made here by posters think about this case.

There are people posting tonight who claim to have the superpower of remote viewing, yet when it comes to the crunch, when a child could be in terrible danger, when parents are suffering torture not knowing where their child is or if they are even alive these people just stand by.....

You are quite disgusting, Darat. What you are doing here by using this terrible event in order to accuse people who have some RV ability, is far worse than any psychic scammers who take advantage of greiving relatives. You are taking advantage of this poor childs plight in order to flame someone on an internet forum. I'll leave it to work out for yourself why (a) anyone would want to report any information here instead of the law enforcement people and (b) why you think anyone here has the specific, reliable sort of ability you talk of. In the meantime, meditate or say a prayer for your best wishes and safety to the child and her family. I won't bother asking you to apologise for your sickening behaviour, you don't seem mature enough to understand why it is necessary.

Prester John

22nd August 2003, 05:19 PM

Then please for the sake of the lost teenager and her poor family tell us what you can see Luci....................

KelvinG

22nd August 2003, 06:29 PM

Yes Luci, instead of trying to turn this around and attack Darat why don't you impress us with those amazing remote viewing skills of yours (y'know, the ones that have been tested in Edinburgh) and find that lost child.

Oh, but that's right, it doesn't work that way. I suppose after they find her, you will try and claim that you knew all along just like that Ladybrook nonsense you attempted scam the board with.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

22nd August 2003, 06:30 PM

Luci said:(b) why you think anyone here has the specific, reliable sort of ability you talk of.
Uh, exactly. We don't think anyone here has even a slightly reliable ability that could be of any use whatsoever. Given the marvelous possibilities if someone did have the ability, particularly in the face of horrific events such as this girl missing, it is grotesque that anyone even suggests there is such a possibility.

Sometimes this crap just pisses me off.

~~ Paul

Prester John

22nd August 2003, 06:32 PM

waiting... (.....)

Darat

22nd August 2003, 06:41 PM

Sorry to be so egotistical as to quote myself but ...

Originally posted by Darat

....snip....

Undoubtedly it will either be ignored or some attempt to divert attention away from a specific will be employed.

...snip...

(And I’ve taken the opportunity to correct a misspelling.)

Soapy Sam

22nd August 2003, 06:42 PM

I do not, in any way, believe Luci's psychic assertions.
Therefore, given the truth of Paul's statement-'

We don't think anyone here has even a slightly reliable ability that could be of any use whatsoever. '-

I feel it is both tasteless and pointless, to issue such a challenge.

reprise

22nd August 2003, 07:00 PM

Luci did make one valid point. Many of those convinced of their RV ability will be contacting the police with their "vital information", thus leading to many hours being spent pursuing lines of inquiry based on nothing more substantial than the egotistical delusions of whackjobs.

Should I ever be unfortunate enough to find myself in a similar situation to these parents, I sincerely hope that I will retain enough presence of mind to kick the ever-loving crap out of anyone who offers me their "paranormal" assistance to find my child.

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

22nd August 2003, 09:30 PM

^^^ So you already made your mind up about RV'ers being whackjobs. I don't know about this ***** but I didn't think skepticism was about reaching these pre-determined conclusions without evidence about paranormal abilities like that.

CFLarsen

22nd August 2003, 10:57 PM

reprise

22nd August 2003, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by traveller
^^^ So you already made your mind up about RV'ers being whackjobs. I don't know about this ***** but I didn't think skepticism was about reaching these pre-determined conclusions without evidence about paranormal abilities like that.

Pre-determined? Nope.

My conclusions in respect of remote viewing are based on evaluation of the "evidence" provided by those who claim it's existence. If you want myself and other skeptics to reach different conclusions, provide us with the evidence which supports those different conclusions.

You seem to be over-looking the fact that many skeptics were once believers in the paranormal and changed their conclusions precisely because they examined the evidence in support of the paranormal and found it inadequate.

T'ai Chi

22nd August 2003, 11:44 PM

Calling out remote viewers? Yeah, post to the JREF board. That makes sense. That is where all of them hang out. :roll:

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

22nd August 2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by reprise
Pre-determined? Nope.

My conclusions in respect of remote viewing are based on evaluation of the "evidence" provided by those who claim it's existence. If you want myself and other skeptics to reach different conclusions, provide us with the evidence which supports those different conclusions.

Then what evidence supports your statement that they are whackjobs since you are making the claim? I never made any claims about remote viewing and I never asked for anyone to reach different conclusions I can't stand idiots like you who pretend to be skeptics then just outright reject everything which does not go along with your little world view in that way. Another example is I noticed in the Pam Reynolds NDE thread where you said "rather we reject claims that they are "supernatural". You have clearly already made your mind up so what is the point? That is not what skepticism should be about your just a non-believer or at the most a cynical skeptic.

You seem to be over-looking the fact that many skeptics were once believers in the paranormal and changed their conclusions precisely because they examined the evidence in support of the paranormal and found it inadequate.

You seem to be over-looking the fact that many believers were once skeptics in the paranormal and changed their conclusions precisely because they examined the evidence in support of the paranormal or had a paranormal experience and found it very adequate.

Darat

23rd August 2003, 02:42 AM

And again...

Originally posted by Darat

....snip....

Undoubtedly it will either be ignored or some attempt to divert attention away from a specific will be employed.

...snip...

People (more then one) who post here have made a claim they have the ability to "remote view".

Yet when a reason that should completely overrule for anyone with even just an ounce of compassion any of the “I don't like sceptics" or "Randi is a fraud, I don't trust him" excuses, e.g. a young girl potentially in danger of her life or terrible abuse what happens....?

…Silence.....

Their silence condemns them.

Find the girl.

Ladewig

23rd August 2003, 04:06 AM

So you already made your mind up about RV'ers being whackjobs. I don't know about this ***** but I didn't think skepticism was about reaching these pre-determined conclusions without evidence about paranormal abilities like that.

If someone claimed the ability to flap his arms fast enough to fly through the air, I would consider such a person a whackjob or a con-artist. Similarly, if someone claims the ability to see things at a distance, the odds are overwhelming that the person falls into one of those two categories. Evidence of such a power would require changing both the laws of physics and biology. The evidence presented so far in the field of RV is nowhere near strong enough to throw out the foundations of these two fields of science.

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

23rd August 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Ladewig

If someone claimed the ability to flap his arms fast enough to fly through the air, I would consider such a person a whackjob or a con-artist. Similarly, if someone claims the ability to see things at a distance, the odds are overwhelming that the person falls into one of those two categories. Evidence of such a power would require changing both the laws of physics and biology. The evidence presented so far in the field of RV is nowhere near strong enough to throw out the foundations of these two fields of science.

This is an extremely flawed unfair comparison. How many people claim to have the ability to flap their arms and fly (which is something you obviously just made up) compared to people who claim to rv that also has some evidence (which is debateable but we already know what so called skeptics are going to come up with when confronted with any evidence)?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd August 2003, 06:50 PM

Traveller said:. . . I can't stand idiots like you who pretend to be skeptics then just outright reject everything which does not go along with your little world view in that way.
You know what? Instead of ragging on us because we're close-minded, as if that makes a damn bit of difference, why don't you go hassle so remote viewers to do something useful with their earth-shattering skills? "Ooh, I can see all over the place with my amazing sixth sense. Of course, I can't see anything useful at all, so instead I just give poor slobs false hope in the face of horrific events in their lives. Is it a problem that not a single one of us has ever helped a single person in need of our services?"

It's so sickeningly grotesque that my close-mindedness pales to utter insignificance in the face of it. Wake up, people! You can't see anything remotely. Stop making up crap that you can.

~~ Paul

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

23rd August 2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Traveller said:
You know what? Instead of ragging on us because we're close-minded, as if that makes a damn bit of difference, why don't you go hassle so remote viewers to do something useful with their earth-shattering skills? "Ooh, I can see all over the place with my amazing sixth sense. Of course, I can't see anything useful at all, so instead I just give poor slobs false hope in the face of horrific events in their lives. Is it a problem that not a single one of us has ever helped a single person in need of our services?"

It's so sickeningly grotesque that my close-mindedness pales to utter insignificance in the face of it. Wake up, people! You can't see anything remotely. Stop making up crap that you can.

~~ Paul

I was pointing out that idiots like that shouldn't be considered real skeptics unless if true skepticism is about flat out labeling paranormal claims bull **** which is a belief based thing to do. I don't disagree that remote viewers should try to help others if they have the ability and if they choose to. If I could rv I would try to help others with it but I doubt there are many hard-core skeptics willing to try it out themselves instead of speculating against it because of their already set views.

Pyrrho

23rd August 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by traveller
If I could rv I would try to help others with it but I doubt there are many hard-core skeptics willing to try it out themselves instead of speculating against it because of their already set views.
Been there, done that, came to my senses and stopped lying to myself. My woo-woo days are done.

Besides, it isn't about "set views". Impossibilities such as remote viewing violate the laws of physics, which do not change regardless of our opinions.

If people claim to be able to perform remote viewing, they had better be prepared to be challenged on that claim.

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

23rd August 2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Been there, done that, came to my senses and stopped lying to myself. My woo-woo days are done.

Why not keep trying or do you let your views about it get in the way? If it does exist it would probably take a lot of effort and wouldn't work for everyone. Whether if it exists or not the way people view it has no real effect on it. Since skeptics spend so much time investigating the paranormal you would think as investigators that they would try some of it out instead of jumping to conclusions and speculating about it.

Besides, it isn't about "set views". Impossibilities such as remote viewing violate the laws of physics, which do not change regardless of our opinions.

This would be a whole other debate but the laws of physics are not set in stone. Science is always changing even though some people get dogmatic about it and fear or try to supress change this has no effect on reality whatever it may be.

If people claim to be able to perform remote viewing, they had better be prepared to be challenged on that claim.

Sure it should be tested more.

bPer

23rd August 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by traveller
we already know what so called skeptics are going to come up with when confronted with any evidence [of remote viewing] Well, I'm not sure who you mean by 'we'. I can tell you what this skeptic would 'come up with':

Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that somebody comes forward and tells us all where to find this missing teenager, and proclaims that (s)he knew where she was by using remote viewing. My reaction would be to say that there are three ways that the 'RVer' came up with the location:[list=1]
By luck (guesswork),
By inside knowledge (e.g prosaic detective work), or
By remote viewing.
[/list=1]
Surely you cannot argue with that reaction, whether you call yourself a skeptic or not. To accept anyone's word without question is simply being gullible and leaves you open to exploitation by charlatans.

So, what next? This skeptic says you look for proof that option (3) is actually at play here. Construct a test to allow the RVer to prove his/her ability, eliminating the possibilities of guesswork and inside knowledge.

And if the RVer passes (and the test is repeatable and passes examination by others), what then? This skeptic would say "Neat - here's something new that we never thought possible!" That's a big IF, though.

So am I the only open-minded skeptic there is? Not a chance! All of the people you have been talking to here would react the same way. That's what skepticism is, not the phony strawman you present.

One other thing, traveller. You've been registered here for a week. I don't know if you lurked before then, but you seem to have a pretty set opinion of skeptics, given this and the rest of your posts. It won't get you anywhere calling people 'idiots' just because they don't share the same beliefs as you. Lose the attitude, or you'll be quickly labelled a troll and ignored.

βPer

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

23rd August 2003, 08:52 PM

Well, I'm not sure who you mean by 'we'. I can tell you what this skeptic would 'come up with':

Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that somebody comes forward and tells us all where to find this missing teenager, and proclaims that (s)he knew where she was by using remote viewing. My reaction would be to say that there are three ways that the 'RVer' came up with the location:[list=1]
By luck (guesswork),
By inside knowledge (e.g prosaic detective work), or
By remote viewing.
[/list=1]
Surely you cannot argue with that reaction, whether you call yourself a skeptic or not. To accept anyone's word without question is simply being gullible and leaves you open to exploitation by charlatans.

I agree with that and being skeptical about claims like this would be important.

So, what next? This skeptic says you look for proof that option (3) is actually at play here. Construct a test to allow the RVer to prove his/her ability, eliminating the possibilities of guesswork and inside knowledge.

And if the RVer passes (and the test is repeatable and passes examination by others), what then? This skeptic would say "Neat - here's something new that we never thought possible!" That's a big IF, though.

So am I the only open-minded skeptic there is? Not a chance! All of the people you have been talking to here would react the same way. That's what skepticism is, not the phony strawman you present.

I'm only against skeptics who completely reject the paranormal explanation all the explanations that you gave should be considered without jumping to conclusions from either side and yes this sort of thing should be tested as much as possible.

One other thing, traveller. You've been registered here for a week. I don't know if you lurked before then, but you seem to have a pretty set opinion of skeptics, given this and the rest of your posts. It won't get you anywhere calling people 'idiots' just because they don't share the same beliefs as you. Lose the attitude, or you'll be quickly labelled a troll and ignored.

Yes I have lurked here a lot but I say that because I just can't stand when people who are supposed to be skeptics clearly show that they have already made their minds up about the nature of paranormal. I have no problem with open-minded skeptics but I don't think people who show their bias by jumping to pre-determined conclusions should be considered real skeptics.

Pyrrho

23rd August 2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by traveller
Why not keep trying or do you let your views about it get in the way? If it does exist it would probably take a lot of effort and wouldn't work for everyone. Whether if it exists or not the way people view it has no real effect on it. Since skeptics spend so much time investigating the paranormal you would think as investigators that they would try some of it out instead of jumping to conclusions and speculating about it.

Believing in the paranormal and practicing nonsense kept me in ignorance and denial, while some very real factors in my life were neglected. I could easily switch back to indulging in the "exploration of my paranormal abilities", but I choose not return to those days of mental and emotional illness. Perhaps your own views get in the way of thinking critically about what you believe to be true. I know that my views got in the way of my own rationality, before I returned to skepticism.

Again, even if we were to "experience" paranormal ability, our experiences can be deceptive. What seems real may not be.

This would be a whole other debate but the laws of physics are not set in stone. Science is always changing even though some people get dogmatic about it and fear or try to supress change this has no effect on reality whatever it may be.

Hmm. Our understanding of the laws of physics may change, but we do know quite a bit. What we do know precludes such things as remote viewing. Sorry, but it's a myth that skeptics fear change or try to suppress it.

Sure it should be tested more.
No, I do not agree it should be tested more. Enough's enough.

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

23rd August 2003, 09:13 PM

Believing in the paranormal and practicing nonsense kept me in ignorance and denial, while some very real factors in my life were neglected. I could easily switch back to indulging in the "exploration of my paranormal abilities", but I choose not return to those days of mental and emotional illness. Perhaps your own views get in the way of thinking critically about what you believe to be true. I know that my views got in the way of my own rationality, before I returned to skepticism.

You are welcome to your preconceptions about the paranormal which are not supported by fact but again personal views have no effect on reality.

Again, even if we were to "experience" paranormal ability, our experiences can be deceptive. What seems real may not be.

Some experiences could be deceptive but if you were able to gain a paranormal ability then you could learn to replicate it for yourself and others. Besides actual experience is how we learn different things and is really the best way to know.

Hmm. Our understanding of the laws of physics may change, but we do know quite a bit. What we do know precludes such things as remote viewing. Sorry, but it's a myth that skeptics fear change or try to suppress it.

Our understanding of physics could stay the same, slightly change, or be completely change but at this point there is no telling what may later be discovered. Only considering and getting dogmatic about currently accepted laws will not help in discovering the truth.

No, I do not agree it should be tested more. Enough's enough.

translation: I want evidence of the the paranormal but I don't want it to be tested.

This is hypocritical to demand further evidence then claim it should not be tested anymore and this is a perfect example of closed views. If you look at it this way then what is the point of being a skeptic since you won't take it into consideration and don't want it tested?

T'ai Chi

23rd August 2003, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Believing in the paranormal and practicing nonsense kept me in ignorance and denial, while some very real factors in my life were neglected.

I'm just thankful that people can study and investigate paranormal subjects and still have a good grasp on reality. I guess some people just can't do that.

No, I do not agree it should be tested more. Enough's enough.

I'd rather stay scientific and actually do scientific tests.

Pyrrho

24th August 2003, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by traveller
You are welcome to your preconceptions about the paranormal which are not supported by fact but again personal views have no effect on reality.

That applies equally to all parties concerned, doesn't it?

Some experiences could be deceptive but if you were able to gain a paranormal ability then you could learn to replicate it for yourself and others. Besides actual experience is how we learn different things and is really the best way to know.

Our understanding of physics could stay the same, slightly change, or be completely change but at this point there is no telling what may later be discovered. Only considering and getting dogmatic about currently accepted laws will not help in discovering the truth.

It isn't dogmatism; it's simple acceptance of what scientists have learned over the past centuries. These realities are not subject to change. Nobody can learn paranormal abilities. They can, however, quite easily become delusional.

translation: I want evidence of the the paranormal but I don't want it to be tested.

This is hypocritical to demand further evidence then claim it should not be tested anymore and this is a perfect example of closed views. If you look at it this way then what is the point of being a skeptic since you won't take it into consideration and don't want it tested?
The point of being a skeptic is to stand up for sanity and rational thinking in the face of continued promulgation of nonsense and wishful thinking. It's my opinion that the paranormalists have had their day, and have wasted enough time and resources chasing fantasies. If I demand evidence, it is for the purpose of rubbing the believers' noses in their consistent failures and, ultimately, their own denial. People claim, "I have special powers," but when challenged, the only power they seem to have is the ability to generate excuses.

Zep

24th August 2003, 05:44 AM

See my sig line?

Pyrrho

24th August 2003, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm just thankful that people can study and investigate paranormal subjects and still have a good grasp on reality. I guess some people just can't do that.

Sure they do. Sooner or later the reality that they're ignoring will bite them in the ass.

I'd rather stay scientific and actually do scientific tests.
The problem is, the tests devised so far tend to take unnecessary convoluted twists and turns. What should be a simple demonstration of ability under carefully controlled conditions always becomes secondary to intricate protocols and/or meta-analyses that require true experts to decipher, and even then, no two experts can agree. We're left with unavailable data, ambiguous evidence, unfalsifiable hypotheses, and a few temporarily popular books which the authors and their fans tout as the foundations of bold, new, world-changing paradigms. Nothing ever moves past that point.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th August 2003, 07:47 AM

I've read most of the PEAR paper Information and Uncertainty in Remote Perception Research. At one point they are discussing the fact that they were distracted by having to write a response to an analysis of their research, and that this may have reduced the effect of current experiments. They say:Beyond, this, in order to forestall further such specious challenges, it led to the imposition of additional unnecessary constraints in the design of the subsequent distributive protocol. Although it is not possible to quantify the influence of such intangible factors, in the study of consciousness-related anomalies where unknown psychological factors appear to be at the heart of the phenomena under study, they cannot be dismissed casually. (emphasis mine)
What an odd thing to say.

~~ Paul

Martin

24th August 2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by traveller
Our understanding of physics could stay the sameYes...slightly change...yes...or be completely change...yes...but at this point there is no telling what may later be discovered...and no. Whatever we discover in the future, it'll have to fit in with what we already know.

CFLarsen

24th August 2003, 08:02 AM

Paul,

It's very easy to understand. The mere act of responding to an analysis indicates that critical voices are present.

And you know that paranormal phenomena never works in the presence of critical voices.... ;)

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

24th August 2003, 08:17 AM

That applies equally to all parties concerned, doesn't it?

Yes both sides can be equally ignorant.

It isn't dogmatism; it's simple acceptance of what scientists have learned over the past centuries. These realities are not subject to change. Nobody can learn paranormal abilities. They can, however, quite easily become delusional.

Science is always changing and you can't say for sure that the laws of physics will hold up forever. I would like to know how where exactly you get the information that nobody can learn paranormal abilities and what evidence backs this claim up since you are making the claim. This is why some skepics are are thought to closed-minded and cynical. Of coarse they can be delusional but so can you hardcore skeptics.

The point of being a skeptic is to stand up for sanity and rational thinking in the face of continued promulgation of nonsense and wishful thinking. It's my opinion that the paranormalists have had their day, and have wasted enough time and resources chasing fantasies. If I demand evidence, it is for the purpose of rubbing the believers' noses in their consistent failures and, ultimately, their own denial. People claim, "I have special powers," but when challenged, the only power they seem to have is the ability to generate excuses.

Yes we all know that you skeptics are saving us all from being irrational. It could be said that this is wishful thinking on your part because you don't want the paranormal to even be considered since it goes against your little narrow views of how things are. You can't see past what you see in your mind as rational and irrational and that is strictly your narrow opinion. At least you can admitt that your completely biased against it and view the paranormal as impossible.

Pyrrho

24th August 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by traveller
Yes both sides can be equally ignorant.

True, but this side doesn't take ignorance and make it an argument for the existence of impossibilities.

Science is always changing and you can't say for sure that the laws of physics will hold up forever. I would like to know how where exactly you get the information that nobody can learn paranormal abilities and what evidence backs this claim up since you are making the claim. This is why some skepics are are thought to closed-minded and cynical. Of coarse they can be delusional but so can you hardcore skeptics.

The laws of physics are what they are. They preclude the existence of paranormal abilities. I need only point to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence for this.

Yes we all know that you skeptics are saving us all from being irrational. It could be said that this is wishful thinking on your part because you don't want the paranormal to even be considered since it goes against your little narrow views of how things are. You can't see past what you see in your mind as rational and irrational and that is strictly your narrow opinion. At least you can admitt that your completely biased against it and view the paranormal as impossible.
Nope, I'm not saving anyone but myself. I said it before, my woo-woo days are done. I'm not in the healer business anymore, and I'm much, much healthier.

Biased? Sure. I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it: paranormal abilites are impossible. To say that they are possible is indulgence in ignorance. I would prefer that such beliefs be kept in their rightful place in fantasy land and not be given serious consideration, because, as Harlan Ellison once said, "It keeps people stupid."

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

24th August 2003, 08:51 AM

The laws of physics are what they are. They preclude the existence of paranormal abilities. I need only point to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence for this.

Again they are not set in stone and are subject to change even if some want to use wishful thinking to believe that they will absolutely stay around forever.

Nope, I'm not saving anyone but myself. I said it before, my woo-woo days are done. I'm not in the healer business anymore, and I'm much, much healthier.

But you must save all us stupid irrational people who need someone else like you and CSICOP to think for us since you are the king of rational thinking.

Biased? Sure. I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it: paranormal abilites are impossible. To say that they are possible is indulgence in ignorance. I would prefer that such beliefs be kept in their rightful place in fantasy land and not be given serious consideration, because, as Harlan Ellison once said, "It keeps people stupid."

I doubt whether if he agrees with you or not that Randi himself would not even dare to publicly say anything like that. As always your welcome to your materialistic fantasy land of how things should be but your views don't shape reality. Some people just can't see past what they personally see as rational but that is strictly opinion. Since you admitt to believeing it's impossible then you are admitting to being a closed-minded skeptic.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th August 2003, 08:57 AM

Claus, what I found odd about that paragraph was that the researchers thought the protocol changes were unnecessary, yet also think that those changes cannot be dismissed as a cause of the diminution in effect. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the changes may have plugged a leak in the protocol.

~~ Paul

T'ai Chi

24th August 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho

The laws of physics are what they are. They preclude the existence of paranormal abilities. I need only point to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence for this.

heh, rrriiiggghhhht. You really don't live up to your namesake. The laws of physics preclude some things, but surely they don't preclude the existence of paranormal abilities, as you wish/hope/believe is the case.

Lucianarchy

24th August 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by traveller

Again they are not set in stone and are subject to change even if some want to use wishful thinking to believe that they will absolutely stay around forever.

But you must save all us stupid irrational people who need someone else like you and CSICOP to think for us since you are the king of rational thinking.

I doubt whether if he agrees with you or not that Randi himself would not even dare to publicly say anything like that. As always your welcome to your materialistic fantasy land of how things should be but your views don't shape reality. Some people just can't see past what they personally see as rational but that is strictly opinion. Since you admitt to believeing it's impossible then you are admitting to being a closed-minded skeptic.

There's the rub. Some people call themselves "skeptic", when they are in fact ,'True Unbelievers'.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th August 2003, 11:02 AM

This kind of conversation will never get anywhere. Better to debate some actual claim or paper than to argue semantics until our heads explode. Gee, who is more close-minded, a "skeptic" or a "debunker." Gee, who is more credulous, a "believer" or a "woo woo."

The problem is, we can never collect all the information we need to really understand what happened with some psi experiment. So instead we just call each other names. Funny, that.

~~ Paul

bPer

24th August 2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
True, but this side doesn't take ignorance and make it an argument for the existence of impossibilities.

The laws of physics are what they are. They preclude the existence of paranormal abilities. I need only point to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence for this.

[...]

Biased? Sure. I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it: paranormal abilities are impossible. To say that they are possible is indulgence in ignorance. I would prefer that such beliefs be kept in their rightful place in fantasy land and not be given serious consideration, because, as Harlan Ellison once said, "It keeps people stupid."

Pyrrho,sorry but I have to call you on this. You have crossed the boundary from skepticism into dogmatism here.

You have made a negative assertion here by saying that paranormal abilities are impossible. That shifts the burden of proof to you. Proving your assertion is something you cannot do, because you lack the tools to do so. By definition, paranormal abilities lie outside the realm of scientific understanding, yet you are trying to use scientific understanding (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics) to support your assertion. That's clearly invalid.

The truth is, all scientific understanding is provisional, even the fundamentals that have been around for centuries. Should some undeniable evidence appear that cannot be explained by existing scientific theories, the theories will have to be modified or discarded in favour of new theories that better fit the entire body of evidence.

You and I can agree that the probability that our fundamental laws of science are going to be overturned by the activities of the paranormal crowd is infinitesimally small, but I am not willing to take the next step that you have taken to assert that that probability is zero. Please rethink your stance on this.

On another note, I am very annoyed at you for posting what you did. It is pretty clear that traveller came here looking to confirm his/her pre-conceived, false notion that skeptics are close-minded and dogmatic. You stepped right into his/her trap. You been here long enough; you should have known better. It's hard enough, fighting the uphill battle against ignorance and irrational thought, without being blind-sided by the someone from your own side. Please be more careful in the future.

Now, to traveller: just as the KKK claims to be Christian, to the great dismay of the vast majority of Christendom, so skeptics like me feel dismay when people like Pyrrho behave as they do. I assure you that these people are misguided, and urge you to look further to see the true nature of skeptics.

Also, don’t take my admonition of Pyrrho as tacit support for your obvious belief in remote viewing. The burden of proof is on you and the rest of the remote viewing advocates to prove that remote viewing exists. You have a daunting task ahead of you; the body of scientific evidence that supports the existing scientific theories is massive, and notwithstanding the possibility that the theories are inadequate, it is overwhelmingly likely that you are wasting your time on a fantasy.

βPer

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

24th August 2003, 11:54 AM

On another note, I am very annoyed at you for posting what you did. It is pretty clear that traveller came here looking to confirm his/her pre-conceived, false notion that skeptics are close-minded and dogmatic.

I'm not trying to generalize that all skeptics are like that I only have a problem with the ones who make statements like that which shows their beliefs that they view this sort of thing as impossible. Those types are the ones a have a problem with.

You stepped right into his/her trap.

True but I wasn't expecting that much of an outright rejection of the paranormal from a so called skeptic.

Now, to traveller: just as the KKK claims to be Christian, to the great dismay of the vast majority of Christendom, so skeptics like me feel dismay when people like Pyrrho behave as they do. I assure you that these people are misguided, and urge you to look further to see the true nature of skeptics.

I agree with that and I don't view all skeptics as being closed-mined or ignorant it wouldn't be right to label them all like that. Both believers and skeptics have thier fanatics and it wouldn't be fair to judge a whole group based on what a few of them think.

Also, don’t take my admonition of Pyrrho as tacit support for your obvious belief in remote viewing. The burden of proof is on you and the rest of the remote viewing advocates to prove that remote viewing exists. You have a daunting task ahead of you; the body of scientific evidence that supports the existing scientific theories is massive, and notwithstanding the possibility that the theories are inadequate, it is overwhelmingly likely that you are wasting your time on a fantasy.

I can't say for certain that remote viewing is real at this point even though in my opinion it seems like a good possibility but I might in the future have to try it out for my self. I understand that the burden of proof is on remote viewers so hopefully if it is real it will be tested much more and the truth will eventually come out.

bPer

24th August 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by traveller
I'm not trying to generalize that all skeptics are like that I only have a problem with the ones who make statements like that which shows their beliefs that they view this sort of thing as impossible. Those types are the ones a have a problem with.Well, as you've seen, a ... er ... I have a problem with them too. I'm relieved to hear that you don't paint all skeptics with the same brush, although I must ask you to forgive me if I remain skeptical of your intentions here. ;)
Originally posted by traveller
... I don't view all skeptics as being closed-mined or ignorant it wouldn't be right to label them all like that. Both believers and skeptics have their fanatics and it wouldn't be fair to judge a whole group based on what a few of them think.
Indeed! But too often, skeptical arguments are dismissed by 'believers' (your term) out of hand, simply because they are made by skeptics. That's what I'm reacting to here. I'm reading from this quote that you see that too, and I hope you will treat a skeptical response as a positive thing - a different point of view that is worthy of consideration and analysis.
Originally posted by traveller
I can't say for certain that remote viewing is real at this point even though in my opinion it seems like a good possibility but I might in the future have to try it out for my self. I understand that the burden of proof is on remote viewers so hopefully if it is real it will be tested much more and the truth will eventually come out.
:eek: Good possibility!? Wow. We’re pretty far apart on that, I’m afraid, unless ‘good possibility’ means a whole different thing to you than me. I’d rate it as ‘highly unlikely’ (putting it mildly), given the evidence I’ve seen so far. It’s good, though, that you have left open the possibility that it is not a real phenomenon.

I’m actually curious about why you think that there is a ‘good possibility’ that RV exists. Perhaps you’d consider posting your reasons/evidence? (probably best in a separate thread) You seem like someone who is open to alternative views, and you’ll certainly get them if you post here. Treat it as an opportunity to examine your reasons and evidence. You never know - it may strengthen your beliefs in RV, or it may show you where your beliefs aren’t warranted. From our side, it never hurts to have an actual ‘believer’ to dialogue with, if only to help dispel any unwarranted stereotypes.

βPer

Pyrrho

24th August 2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by bPer
Pyrrho,sorry but I have to call you on this. You have crossed the boundary from skepticism into dogmatism here.

You have made a negative assertion here by saying that paranormal abilities are impossible. That shifts the burden of proof to you. Proving your assertion is something you cannot do, because you lack the tools to do so. By definition, paranormal abilities lie outside the realm of scientific understanding, yet you are trying to use scientific understanding (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics) to support your assertion. That's clearly invalid.

The truth is, all scientific understanding is provisional, even the fundamentals that have been around for centuries. Should some undeniable evidence appear that cannot be explained by existing scientific theories, the theories will have to be modified or discarded in favour of new theories that better fit the entire body of evidence.

You and I can agree that the probability that our fundamental laws of science are going to be overturned by the activities of the paranormal crowd is infinitesimally small, but I am not willing to take the next step that you have taken to assert that that probability is zero. Please rethink your stance on this.

I can either tell the truth and state my opinion, which is that paranormal abilities are impossible, or I can lie, and say that they might be. Believers often use the argument that the paranormal lies outside of science, yet also claim that science is about to be overturned. Can't have it both ways. I can either accept the limitations implied by the laws of physics, or I can decieve myself and pretend that the limitations don't apply to certain people. My opinion is that the limitations apply to everyone, and that paranormal abilities do not exist. Nobody has to share my opinion.

On another note, I am very annoyed at you for posting what you did. It is pretty clear that traveller came here looking to confirm his/her pre-conceived, false notion that skeptics are close-minded and dogmatic. You stepped right into his/her trap. You been here long enough; you should have known better. It's hard enough, fighting the uphill battle against ignorance and irrational thought, without being blind-sided by the someone from your own side. Please be more careful in the future.

I knew full well what I was posting and how it might be received. I'm no longer going to play the game of "well, I'll leave this door open just a little bit to prove I'm open-minded". Sorry, but I'm not. I challenge the contention that science and skepticism is dogmatic. I'm tired of that accusation; it's been used as an excuse for far too long. The fundamental question is not whether science and skepticism is dogmatic: it is whether or not there is, as you put it, undeniable evidence that paranormal abilities exist.
There is no such evidence. I am convinced that paranormal abilities do not and cannot exist, and I cannot honestly say otherwise.

Pyrrho

24th August 2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
heh, rrriiiggghhhht. You really don't live up to your namesake. The laws of physics preclude some things, but surely they don't preclude the existence of paranormal abilities, as you wish/hope/believe is the case.
By all accounts, my namesake had no use for smug intellectuals who pretended to have complete understanding of things. His opinion was that nothing in this world could be known with complete certainty, but I do not think he would have extrapolated uncertainty into belief that anything was possible.

Pyrrho

24th August 2003, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
There's the rub. Some people call themselves "skeptic", when they are in fact ,'True Unbelievers'.
Fine with me. I truly do not believe, thus I am skeptical of all claims that require belief. I cannot honestly pretend otherwise.

bPer

24th August 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I can either tell the truth and state my opinion, which is that paranormal abilities are impossible, or I can lie, and say that they might be. […] My opinion is that the limitations apply to everyone, and that paranormal abilities do not exist. Nobody has to share my opinion.
Oh now it’s just your opinion. It would have been nice if you’d stated up front that you were expressing an unsupportable opinion, and not a scientific assertion. Especially when addressing a believer who’s looking for dogmatic skeptics.
Originally posted by Pyrrho
Believers often use the argument that the paranormal lies outside of science
I’ve got news for you, Pyrrho. It’s not just believers. That’s the definition of ‘paranormal’ for everybody!. Sheesh!
Originally posted by Pyrrho
Believers often use the argument that the paranormal lies outside of science, yet also claim that science is about to be overturned. Can't have it both ways.
Well, of course science won’t be ‘overturned’ by evidence of the paranormal. In fact, if some paranormal phenomenon is scientifically proven, it will cease to be paranormal, and will become part of the body of scientific knowledge! A few scientific theories may be modified or discarded for improved ones in the process, but science won’t disappear. That’s merely absurd, wishful thinking on the part of some of the more ignorant believers we face.
Originally posted by Pyrrho
I can either accept the limitations implied by the laws of physics, or I can decieve myself and pretend that the limitations don't apply to certain people.
Nobody’s asking you to deceive yourself. The limitations of the laws of physics apply to everyone, but you have to understand that the laws of physics are our current best guess at the underlying phenomena and mechanisms. If we have it wrong, there will be phenomena that are inexplicable by the current set of physical laws. The believers rest their hope in that possibility, and you and I cannot deny them that hope without abandoning the principle of falsifiability. I am not willing to do that, for that destroys one of the foundations of the scientific method. You evidently don’t care about that, and thus you are nothing but a dogmatic believer (of science). It’s time you admit that.
Originally posted by Pyrrho
I knew full well what I was posting and how it might be received. I'm no longer going to play the game of "well, I'll leave this door open just a little bit to prove I'm open-minded". Sorry, but I'm not. I challenge the contention that science and skepticism is dogmatic. I'm tired of that accusation; it's been used as an excuse for far too long.
I challenge the contention too, but I don’t do it by girding myself in the mantles of science and skepticism and then throwing dogma at the believers! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
Originally posted by Pyrrho
The fundamental question is not whether science and skepticism is dogmatic: it is whether or not there is, as you put it, undeniable evidence that paranormal abilities exist.
“As I put it”! If that’s some kind of veiled question of my beliefs, let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. Are you?
Originally posted by Pyrrho
I am convinced that paranormal abilities do not and cannot exist, and I cannot honestly say otherwise.
Fine. Nobody’s forcing you to say anything. But when a paranormal believer comes here bent on finding dogmatic skeptics to use as scapegoats for their failing pseudoscience, do us all a favour and keep your unscientific, dogmatic opinions to yourself.

βPer

bPer

24th August 2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I am skeptical of all claims that require belief.
Really? Let's examine this, shall we?
Originally posted by Pyrrho
paranormal abilities are impossible
Prove it.

If you can't, and yet you continue to assert that claim, then you are relying on blind faith. Are you skeptical of your own beliefs?

βPer

T'ai Chi

24th August 2003, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
The laws of physics are what they are. They preclude the existence of paranormal abilities. I need only point to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence for this.

Your claim rivals the unscientificness of the hardcore Creationists who say that the second law of thermodynmaics prevents evolution from occuring.

Lucianarchy

25th August 2003, 01:41 AM

B'per,

What do you find wrong with the SAIC evidence reviewed by Hyman?

What do you find wrong with the PEAR PRP replications which Hyman called for in his conclusion of the SAIC review?

Pyrrho

25th August 2003, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by bPer

Oh now it’s just your opinion. It would have been nice if you’d stated up front that you were expressing an unsupportable opinion, and not a scientific assertion. Especially when addressing a believer who’s looking for dogmatic skeptics.

I thought it was a given that most everything on this board is opinion.

I’ve got news for you, Pyrrho. It’s not just believers. That’s the definition of ‘paranormal’ for everybody!. Sheesh!

Yes, it is.

Well, of course science won’t be ‘overturned’ by evidence of the paranormal. In fact, if some paranormal phenomenon is scientifically proven, it will cease to be paranormal, and will become part of the body of scientific knowledge! A few scientific theories may be modified or discarded for improved ones in the process, but science won’t disappear. That’s merely absurd, wishful thinking on the part of some of the more ignorant believers we face.

Agreed.

Nobody’s asking you to deceive yourself. The limitations of the laws of physics apply to everyone, but you have to understand that the laws of physics are our current best guess at the underlying phenomena and mechanisms. If we have it wrong, there will be phenomena that are inexplicable by the current set of physical laws. The believers rest their hope in that possibility, and you and I cannot deny them that hope without abandoning the principle of falsifiability. I am not willing to do that, for that destroys one of the foundations of the scientific method. You evidently don’t care about that, and thus you are nothing but a dogmatic believer (of science). It’s time you admit that.
Yes, but some of these purported abilities contradict even the best understood physical laws. I'm not willing to ignore how the world works in order to accomodate the idea that something might exist that condradicts how the world works.

I challenge the contention too, but I don’t do it by girding myself in the mantles of science and skepticism and then throwing dogma at the believers! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

“As I put it”! If that’s some kind of veiled question of my beliefs, let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. Are you?

It was not a veiled reference, was not intended as insult or sarcasm, it was merely giving you credit for the statement, which I found to be useful.

If ever I'm proven wrong on this, I'll freely admit it.

Fine. Nobody’s forcing you to say anything. But when a paranormal believer comes here bent on finding dogmatic skeptics to use as scapegoats for their failing pseudoscience, do us all a favour and keep your unscientific, dogmatic opinions to yourself.

βPer
You can count on it. I've had enough of these so-called discussions.

bPer

25th August 2003, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
B'per,

What do you find wrong with the SAIC evidence reviewed by Hyman?

What do you find wrong with the PEAR PRP replications which Hyman called for in his conclusion of the SAIC review?
Lucianarchy,

It's bPer, or βPer if you can manage the lower-case beta.

I'm not prepared at this time to debate these topics with you. Sorry. My only reason for posting was to try to address the issue of 'dogmatic skeptics'.

βPer

Lucianarchy

25th August 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by bPer

Lucianarchy,

It's bPer, or βPer if you can manage the lower-case beta.

I'm not prepared at this time to debate these topics with you. Sorry. My only reason for posting was to try to address the issue of 'dogmatic skeptics'.

βPer

OK, it's just that you made the following claim;

[...]let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong.

I provided the evidence and in light of your claim I just assumed that you'd therefore be "willing" to back up your claim, or modify it. You may not regard it as proof, but it is evidence, highly credible and compelling evidence.

alfaniner

25th August 2003, 07:30 AM

So, have any psychics found this girl yet? No? Thought so. And they won't.

Any results in this case will be brought about by the police, and those who deal in the real world.

bPer

25th August 2003, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Yes, but some of these purported [paranormal] abilities contradict even the best understood physical laws. I'm not willing to ignore how the world works in order to accomodate the idea that something might exist that condradicts how the world works.
Well, I’ve tried twice now to explain to you why you don’t need to deny the current state of scientific understanding, and yet can acknowledge that the paranormal might someday be proven, so I give up.
Originally posted by Pyrrho
It was not a veiled reference, was not intended as insult or sarcasm, it was merely giving you credit for the statement, which I found to be useful.
In that case, I apologize for taking your comment in the wrong way. It was ambiguous, and such statements are often used to undermine the positions of opponents, and I felt I had to address that possibility. Oh, and I’m glad you found the expression useful.
Originally posted by Pyrrho
I've had enough of these so-called discussions.
Oh dear. Looks like I’ve made an error in judgment here. I did not intend to try to shut down discussion. Let me explain.

You’re one of the posters who I have always enjoyed reading. We all form our opinions of each other here, and when you posted the message I objected to, it truly was a blind-side, because my impression of you was quite different from what you wrote. I went back over the previous posts, and noticed that you said that you had once been a believer, but had discarded those beliefs in favour of science. I read that (rightly or wrongly) as meaning that you had abandoned the beliefs but not the practice of belief. I thought, with the best of intentions, that I might be able to nudge you one step further away from your past. It looks like that effort has failed, probably because of my ham-fisted, aggressive style. This aggressiveness is not my normal style. I tried it in your case because my impression was that you use and respond well to such a style. I guess that was a mis-calculation. I apologize.

The real bummer is that now, due to my ineptitude, I have likely lost one, and perhaps more allies in the fight against ignorance and irrational thought.

bPer

Starrman

25th August 2003, 07:59 AM

Your claim rivals the unscientificness of the hardcore Creationists who say that the second law of thermodynmaics prevents evolution from occuring.

No - the creationists are wrong in their understanding and application of the second law. Pyrrho is not.

bPer

25th August 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
OK, it's just that you made the following claim;

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I provided the evidence and in light of your claim I just assumed that you'd therefore be "willing" to back up your claim, or modify it. You may not regard it as proof, but it is evidence, highly credible and compelling evidence.
Oh, I see what you meant. Yes, that was careless phrasing on my part. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Of course, I acknowledge that evidence of paranormal phenomena has been produced. Anecdotal evidence, for example, is nonetheless evidence, although not at all convincing or compelling. And using the word 'proven' was laziness on my part. I was merely trying to do two things: (1) assure any readers on the skeptical side of the fence that I was one of them (since I’m a relative newbie here and people may not know that about me) and (2) restate the point that I am willing to see well-established scientific theories modified or replaced in the face of proof of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Better?

As for your reports, they are part of the continuum of debate on the issue. I frankly have had very little interest in remote viewing, and have not been following it to the level where I can debate with you at a worthy level. If in the future I am motivated to investigate RV further, I will of course evaluate your evidence and join in the debate. In the event that I don‘t become motivated to actively join in the debate, I will await the day when scientific studies have been published in reputable scientific journals, fully debated and critiqued, and a scientific consensus has been formed that RV is a real phenomenon. Until that day, my position will be that RV is an unproven conjecture.

bPer

Lucianarchy

25th August 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by bPer

Oh, I see what you meant. Yes, that was careless phrasing on my part. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Of course, I acknowledge that evidence of paranormal phenomena has been produced. Anecdotal evidence, for example, is nonetheless evidence, although not at all convincing or compelling. And using the word 'proven' was laziness on my part. I was merely trying to do two things: (1) assure any readers on the skeptical side of the fence that I was one of them (since I’m a relative newbie here and people may not know that about me) and (2) restate the point that I am willing to see well-established scientific theories modified or replaced in the face of proof of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Better?

As for your reports, they are part of the continuum of debate on the issue. I frankly have had very little interest in remote viewing, and have not been following it to the level where I can debate with you at a worthy level. If in the future I am motivated to investigate RV further, I will of course evaluate your evidence and join in the debate. In the event that I don‘t become motivated to actively join in the debate, I will await the day when scientific studies have been published in reputable scientific journals, fully debated and critiqued, and a scientific consensus has been formed that RV is a real phenomenon. Until that day, my position will be that RV is an unproven conjecture.

bPer

OK, I got you now. :) I'd take issue with your last bit though. Please by all means get up to speed with SAIC / Hyman and the PEAR PRP replications which he called for. But you may not be aware that SAIC was peer reviewed by Hyman and Utts under part of the AIR contract with the CIA. You can go and look this stuff up on the 'net, it's no secret anymore. The PEAR PRP paper can be found in the JSE (Journal of Scientific Exploration), a peer reviewed scientific journal. I could give you some links if you want, but it's best if you do your own research first.

Anyway, thanks for your comments and best wishes to you.

Prester John

25th August 2003, 10:20 AM

So does Santa Claus exist? Prove he doesn't.

Old i know but you can't prove a negative, we all know that here.

However it is reasonable to assume that some things are so unlikely (eg santa claus is real) , the chances of them exisiting are vanishingly small, that they are effectivly impossible . Thus we would say that santa claus does not exist and is impossible.
It comes down to personal judgement and experience where we place the barrier between impossible and possible.

Still no news on the girl from the RVer's?

bPer

25th August 2003, 11:29 AM

Prester John,

I don't know if you were addressing my posts or not. Seems likely. In the future, perhaps you could make it clear?

Originally posted by Prester John
So does Santa Claus exist? Prove he doesn't. Old i know but you can't prove a negative, we all know that here.
Ok, time to stretch these neophyte logician's wings. Hope I don't crash.

As I understand it, if I make the statement “Santa Claus exists”, the burden of proof on that claim is with me, and I cannot demand that an opponent prove that he does not exist. That’s the context of the well-known axiom “you can’t prove a negative”. All an opponent need do is demonstrate that the proof I provide is erroneous to counter my claim.

If I make a negative claim like “Santa Claus does not exist”, the burden of proof remains with me to prove the claim, despite the negative. The opponent still simply waits for the proof and reacts accordingly. Or, of course, the opponent can produce Santa Claus and directly disprove the claim.

To illustrate this with an easier example, I can prove that “I do not have a million dollars in my bank account“, simply by showing you an up-to-date bank statement. I’ve proven a negative.

In Pyrrho’s case, I challenged his claim that “paranormal abilities are impossible”, because he was indeed making a claim that he could not prove.

On a side note, I think your example is interesting. If you worked back and found the first fictional reference to Santa Claus, could you claim that he is just a work of fiction and thus does not exist? Would that be sufficient proof? Just asking.

Originally posted by Prester John
However it is reasonable to assume that some things are so unlikely (eg santa claus is real) , the chances of them exisiting are vanishingly small, that they are effectivly impossible . Thus we would say that santa claus does not exist and is impossible.
Wrong. “Vanishingly-small chance” does not equal “impossible”.

Sure, in practical terms, you can regard the two distinct things as the same, for purely practical purposes. But when circumstances demand rigour (as this one does) you cannot equate the two. To do so will result in logical errors. As well, in this circumstance, you open up skeptics to the fair accusation of dogmatism, because you are asserting that the laws of physics are immutable.

bPer

Starrman

25th August 2003, 12:16 PM

You can prove a specific negative, like your million dollars in your bank account example. It is universal negatives that cannot be proven. Santa Claus may exist somewhere in the Universe, but unless you can look at all points within it at the same time, you can never say with 100% certainty that he does not exist.

bPer

25th August 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Starrman
You can prove a specific negative, like your million dollars in your bank account example. It is universal negatives that cannot be proven. Santa Claus may exist somewhere in the Universe, but unless you can look at all points within it at the same time, you can never say with 100% certainty that he does not exist.
Ah, yes, the universal negative. Forgot that. Thanks! I was trying to do this without reference, to see if I had absorbed what I read a while ago. Looks like I dragged a wing, at least.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I try to claim "Santa Claus does not exist", the burden of proof still remains on me, the claimant, even though it's essentially a fool's errand, right?

bPer

Darat

28th August 2003, 02:56 AM

Starrman

28th August 2003, 05:46 AM

Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I try to claim "Santa Claus does not exist", the burden of proof still remains on me, the claimant, even though it's essentially a fool's errand, right?

I think I know where your going. I think when someone says 'there is no such thing as Santa' they are not really stating a universal. They are saying that he doesn't exist as we know him in popular culture (sorry if I ruined it for anyone). Obviously you can't prove that Santa doesn't exist anywhere in the entire galaxy. But the laws of physics do prohibit him from existing on Earth.

The difference here is, no one is out there making the positive claim - that Santa does exist here on Earth. There are many, however, claiming that remote viewing is a true ability.

UnrepentantSinner

28th August 2003, 07:09 AM

Hmmm, let's see, this thread, like so many asking for demonstrations of superpowers has been almost successfully diverted into the nature of skepticism. But I still see a few trying to cling to the original question...

RVers... you've had time... what are your impressions? What information is the matrix giving you? What can you possibly have gleaned from this case instead of bitching and whining about the nature of skepticism? Do you have anything... anything substantive at all?

From the looks of things... Lucianarchy's Clock is getting ready to tick another day.

Ladewig

28th August 2003, 08:56 AM

Nobody’s asking you to deceive yourself. The limitations of the laws of physics apply to everyone, but you have to understand that the laws of physics are our current best guess at the underlying phenomena and mechanisms. If we have it wrong, there will be phenomena that are inexplicable by the current set of physical laws. The believers rest their hope in that possibility, and you and I cannot deny them that hope without abandoning the principle of falsifiability. I am not willing to do that, for that destroys one of the foundations of the scientific method. You evidently don’t care about that, and thus you are nothing but a dogmatic believer (of science). It’s time you admit that.

Let's talk about how science works. Every year, physicist are adding to our body of knowledge. These additions do not cause us to throw out the fundamental ideas in the field of phsyics. Imagine a college text on physics. The first chapter might describe basic laws of motion, another chapter near the beginning might describe the laws of thermodynamics. When revolutionary ideas are added in this field, they ususally take the form of adding a new chapter at the end of the textbook. Einstein's theories about what happens when bodies move at speeds near c did not cause the first chapter to be re-written; instead they appeared in a latter chapter as a special case that did not violate the basic laws.

Psychic phenomenon such as remote viewing, however would have us rewrite every chapter. All forces observed in the universe decrease in power over distance. That applies to forces on an atomic scale as well as a galactic scale. RV would have us discard that rule. For RV to be true, physics would have to develop entirely new theories for

the most basic description of light
how energy can be detected and measured by machines
how energy can be detected and measured by humans
conservation of energy (laws of thermodynamics)

So, could RVers be right and scientists be wrong. It is possible - provided you define possible as anything that has even the slightest, most negligible, most remote, most unimaginable chance of occurring.

__________
Oh, I almost forgot: has any RVer has found this girl yet?

bPer

28th August 2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Ladewig
So, could RVers be right and scientists be wrong. It is possible - provided you define possible as anything that has even the slightest, most negligible, most remote, most unimaginable chance of occurring.
Right! I'm glad we agree.

Let me take one more stab at this. Look at this from a strategic perspective. Our opponents are looking for any way to discredit us, because frankly the science is stacked against them. If you ignore the principle of falsifiability and state unequivocally that paranormal abilities are impossible, then you leave yourself open to valid criticism. To me, it's a no-brainer to simply acknowledge the rigourous truth, that even our fundamental laws of science are provisional, so that that criticism isn't available to our opponents, forcing them to argue the science!

Look, as UnrepentantSinner pointed out, this thread has gotten derailed, and I regret my part in doing that. Perhaps this is an issue that should be taken to a new thread. I'd be happy to contribute (such as I can) there.

bPer

T'ai Chi

28th August 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Starrman

No - the creationists are wrong in their understanding and application of the second law. Pyrrho is not.

So.... do you actually care to explain why Pyrrho is not wrong?

Ladewig

28th August 2003, 08:12 PM

Right! I'm glad we agree.

I know I am going to look like a whackjob here for disagreeing with a position I posted less than 24 hours ago, but here goes.

To me, it's a no-brainer to simply acknowledge the rigourous truth, that even our fundamental laws of science are provisional, so that that criticism isn't available to our opponents, forcing them to argue the science!

To me, the possibility that RV is being practiced by people is about the same as the probability that there is an undiscovered continent in the Atlantic Ocean, i.e. zero percent. No, the fundamental laws of science are not that provisional. Some of the more complex theories might be provisional, but the most basic laws have been studied for quite some time.

billydkid

29th August 2003, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Ladewig

I know I am going to look like a whackjob here for disagreeing with a position I posted less than 24 hours ago, but here goes.

To me, the possibility that RV is being practiced by people is about the same as the probability that there is an undiscovered continent in the Atlantic Ocean, i.e. zero percent. No, the fundamental laws of science are not that provisional. Some of the more complex theories might be provisional, but the most basic laws have been studied for quite some time.

Phew, you scared me for a minute. I was almost ready to jump all over you.

bPer

29th August 2003, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by Ladewig
No, the fundamental laws of science are not that provisional. Some of the more complex theories might be provisional, but the most basic laws have been studied for quite some time.
Then you are nothing but a dogmatic believer of science, and in that regard, no better than the RVers. My above criticisms and admonition of Pyrrho apply equally to you and any others who share your erroneous opinion. I recommend you all go back and do some remedial reading on the principles of the scientific method.

bPer

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th August 2003, 06:45 AM

Aw geez, bPer, you caught us. All right, even the most fundamental laws of science are still provisional.

Does it really matter if I think the second law of thermo is 95%, 99%, 99.99999%, or 100% sure? Just get on with providing the evidence for RV or whatever. These conversations are always diverted with a debate about precisely how close-minded skeptics are, because the believers have nothing else to talk about. It's proof by assertion of close-mindedness. Snore.

~~ Paul

Darat

29th August 2003, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Aw geez, bPer, you caught us. All right, even the most fundamental laws of science are still provisional.

Does it really matter if I think the second law of thermo is 95%, 99%, 99.99999%, or 100% sure? Just get on with providing the evidence for RV or whatever. These conversations are always diverted with a debate about precisely how close-minded skeptics are, because the believers have nothing else to talk about. It's proof by assertion of close-mindedness. Snore.

~~ Paul

Couldn't agree more, strange that I can make precise accurate predictions yet the many people who say they have superpowers and post here can't?

I did say:

(Spelling error corrected)

Hmm... strange isn't it that people who can prove that they can "remote view" don't step forward to help with this case?

Undoubtedly it will either be ignored or some attempt to divert attention away from a specific will be employed.

To the people who have said they can "remote view", to the people who claim they have proved it right here on this forum - please for the sake of this girl and her loved ones locate her!

To date not one RV has found this girl (news sites checked 15:00 29/8/03).

To date not one of the people who post here that claim they can RV has posted anything that shows they can find the girl.

If RV works then PLEASE JUST FIND THE GIRL, then you can berate me and the rest of the "closed minded" people here, then you can pour scorn on the paucity of our beliefs, on how we are cynical, how we are scared by the amazing possibilities of the universe – but until the girl is found by a RVer just shut-up!

If RV works then the people who practice it must be among the most callous and inhumane people on this planet to allow such torture to continue.

RVers – FIND THE GIRL!

bPer

29th August 2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Aw geez, bPer, you caught us. All right, even the most fundamental laws of science are still provisional.
Hurray! I had a feeling that I could count on you to understand this. Thanks.
Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Just get on with providing the evidence for RV or whatever.
Well, if you're asking me for this evidence, you won't get it; I'm on your side on this issue. And again I apologize for taking this thread off the tracks.

bPer

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th August 2003, 09:08 AM

No problem, bPer.

~~ Paul

Darat

30th August 2003, 09:50 AM

I was about to add a rather flippant comment into this thread about still no sign of the girl and asking the RVers who post here to again find her.

When searching to see if anymore news had been posted I came across this site:

http://crime.about.com/library/blfiles/blmissingchildren.htm#everett

and then this one

http://missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PublicHomeServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US

I can’t say how angry I am at the moment, knowing there are these liars these inhumane fools who strut around here claiming the ability to RV, claiming it has been proven, claiming it can find people.

LOOK AT THESE SITES, LOOK AT THESE KIDS AND STOP LYING!

billydkid

30th August 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Darat
I was about to add a rather flippant comment into this thread about still no sign of the girl and asking the RVers who post here to again find her.

When searching to see if anymore news had been posted I came across this site:

http://crime.about.com/library/blfiles/blmissingchildren.htm#everett

and then this one

http://missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PublicHomeServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US

I can’t say how angry I am at the moment, knowing there are these liars these inhumane fools who strut around here claiming the ability to RV, claiming it has been proven, claiming it can find people.

LOOK AT THESE SITES, LOOK AT THESE KIDS AND STOP LYING!

The ones that really make me angry are the ones who actually make these claims in an attempt to gain personal notoriety and profit at the expense of those who are suffering the loss of a loved one. As far as the nitwits who come in here and claim they have paranormal ability, well, I guess they are not hurting anyone, but is certainly a pathetic attempt to gain admiration and attention.

billydkid

30th August 2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by bPer

Then you are nothing but a dogmatic believer of science, and in that regard, no better than the RVers. My above criticisms and admonition of Pyrrho apply equally to you and any others who share your erroneous opinion. I recommend you all go back and do some remedial reading on the principles of the scientific method.

bPer

So let me get this straight - someone who accepts the law of the conservation of energy as factually true is "no better" than someone who claims that certain individuals are capable of "remote viewing"?

Darat

3rd September 2003, 01:54 PM

Can any of the posters on this forum who say they can RV find the girl?

Aschliee Everett
15 years old, disappeared from Elyria, Ohio, August 18.
She is believed to have run off to meet a 40-year-old man she'd met online -- whose name the police and her parents don't know -- living in Pennsylvania
Contact: Elyria PD at (440) 322-3465 or

She is still missing, perhaps even one word could help the FBI or local police to locate her.

Why can't she be found by the RVers? :mad:

Lucianarchy

3rd September 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Darat

I can’t say how angry I am at the moment, knowing there are these liars these inhumane fools who strut around here claiming the ability to RV, claiming it has been proven, claiming it can find people.

I'm sure you'll get over it.

billydkid

3rd September 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by traveller

I can't say for certain that remote viewing is real at this point even though in my opinion it seems like a good possibility but I might in the future have to try it out for my self. I understand that the burden of proof is on remote viewers so hopefully if it is real it will be tested much more and the truth will eventually come out.

So after the many thousands of years of man's existence this remarkable ability was somehow overlooked and now we're going to discover it? The truth is most of us aren't even looking for scientific proof, which is a very particular thing, we're looking even one shed of credible evidence that such an ability exists - some reason even to believe there is something to investigate. If it does exist it is simply astonishing that such an amazing secret could be kept for so long. I submit that it is astronomically unlikely that some fundamental human ability would have been overlooked after all this time.

billydkid

3rd September 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho

I can either tell the truth and state my opinion, which is that paranormal abilities are impossible, or I can lie, and say that they might be. Believers often use the argument that the paranormal lies outside of science, yet also claim that science is about to be overturned. Can't have it both ways. I can either accept the limitations implied by the laws of physics, or I can decieve myself and pretend that the limitations don't apply to certain people. My opinion is that the limitations apply to everyone, and that paranormal abilities do not exist. Nobody has to share my opinion.

I knew full well what I was posting and how it might be received. I'm no longer going to play the game of "well, I'll leave this door open just a little bit to prove I'm open-minded". Sorry, but I'm not. I challenge the contention that science and skepticism is dogmatic. I'm tired of that accusation; it's been used as an excuse for far too long. The fundamental question is not whether science and skepticism is dogmatic: it is whether or not there is, as you put it, undeniable evidence that paranormal abilities exist.
There is no such evidence. I am convinced that paranormal abilities do not and cannot exist, and I cannot honestly say otherwise. [/B]

Thanks, I agree. All this pussyfooting is really tiring. There is no reason whatsoever to believe in the "paranormal" and those who do should have the grace to admit that they are believing irrationally. Fine, I guess, if one wants to believe such things. Just don't pretend one has a good reason to do so.

3rd September 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Sure they do. Sooner or later the reality that they're ignoring will bite them in the ass.

The problem is, the tests devised so far tend to take unnecessary convoluted twists and turns. What should be a simple demonstration of ability under carefully controlled conditions always becomes secondary to intricate protocols and/or meta-analyses that require true experts to decipher, and even then, no two experts can agree. We're left with unavailable data, ambiguous evidence, unfalsifiable hypotheses, and a few temporarily popular books which the authors and their fans tout as the foundations of bold, new, world-changing paradigms. Nothing ever moves past that point.

With respect, you are absolutely wrong. The only chance of any support for paranormal claims resides in obfuscation. Research in this area is simply a rorshach test for believers. The point of the research is to muddy the water so that the debate goes on, witness Schwartz. Experiments designed for ambiguity.

If you take a real physical process and design a kitchen sink analysis of it and do enough trials you will, through data mining, get some series of results that deviate from expected by a more or less significant degree. Look at the lunacy of PEAR for a sterling example. The point is that to believers, there always is an effect and we cannot see it because

1)the design is flawed (why Ph.Ds such as Schwartzie can't design a Psych 101 experiment provides a prima facie case for fraud, BTW)

2)The effect IS there, the problem is that some unquantifyable countervailing fgorce is at work (non-believers are present, for example)

3) By it's nature effext x is not testable in any formal manner

4) It has been tested and replicated. See arcane journal y.

The whole area is a sorry, excuse ridden, mess.

T'ai Chi

3rd September 2003, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Ed

If you take a real physical process and design a kitchen sink analysis of it and do enough trials you will, through data mining, get some series of results that deviate from expected by a more or less significant degree.

Dismissing research into the anomolous as 'data mining' is misleading and at least partially incorrect. The discipline of data mining includes such things as cluster analysis, nearest neighbor methods, in general, multivariate statistics. That isn't what the researchers do.

If there are tight controls, and RNG's repeatedly generate results that are not expected by chance, further exploration is needed to determine if there is an effect or errors.

Many researchers (Utts, May, Radin, Spottiswoode, James, and many others) have statistical models for force-based (micro-PK, anamolous perterbation) and non-force based influence (ESP, anomolous cognition) of RNG's. These models predict quite different things.

The scientists can (and have) test what the models predict against the data as any scientist does. And, in their writings, these scientists are the first to say that additional well designed experiments are needed before anything definite is concluded. They are also the first to admit that, obviously, their "arguments in favor of an anomaly are based on statistical inference", and they "must consider, in detail, the consequences of such analyses."

At least one of these models, decision augmentation theory (non-forced based, ESP, anomolous cognition), was inspired by the idea that an organism could use anomalous mental phenomena to optimize its environment. It has been worked on since 1979, but the main articles I am familiar with are from 1995.

I think now there is incorporating Shannon entropy into the mix.

In any case, "applying models to shed light on the physical, physiological, and psychological mechanism of anomalous mental phenemona" is a far cry from dismissing this field as 'data mining'.

3rd September 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

In any case, "applying models to shed light on the physical, physiological, and psychological mechanism of anomalous mental phenemona" is a far cry from dismissing this field as 'data mining'. [/B]

OK. Tell me, for this research, just pick one, what the falsifiable hypothesis is. The problem seems to be that there is no "thing" that is being examined. Is there a clear phenomonon that can be reliably repeated? And is the replication outside of the group that you mention?

Just an edit to add that models, per se, have relevance when there is something being modeled. What are the theoretical constructs that are being modeled here?

T'ai Chi

3rd September 2003, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Ed

Tell me, for this research, just pick one, what the falsifiable hypothesis is.

Are the RNG's performing how we'd expect them to by chance, even after certainly accounting for outside influences?

The problem seems to be that there is no "thing" that is being examined.

If a well designed experiment is carried out and RNG's still don't perform as expected to by chance, then there is some "thing" going on (effect or errors). The authors of the papers do fully admit that the study of anamolous cognition has a negative definition.

Is there a clear phenomonon that can be reliably repeated? And is the replication outside of the group that you mention?

Not sure, and yes, I am fairly certain.

Just an edit to add that models, per se, have relevance when there is something being modeled. What are the theoretical constructs that are being modeled here?

You might just have to read the papers. *gasp!*

;)

Martin

3rd September 2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Are the RNG's performing how we'd expect them to by chance, even after certainly accounting for outside influences?In other words, the hypothesis is that a certain experiment will produce certain results. Not good.

And how the hell does one certainly account for outside influences?

T'ai Chi

4th September 2003, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Ed

OK. Tell me, for this research, just pick one, what the falsifiable hypothesis is.

Here are a couple hypotheses that can be falsified:

-there is significance between levels of belief and standardized scores

-people get better scores if there is feedback of their previous outcomes

-the best results are from studies with the least methodological controls

-belief, remote viewing training, and studying movement arts, gives higher standardized scores

-person X can lift a chair with their mind ;)

-the DAT model fits the data better than the micro-AP model

-anamolous effects occur in the effort periods

-information effects are independent of n (where n is the number of bits resulting from a single run)

-the quality of the data is proportional to the total change of Shannon entropy

-micro-AP relations exist more in biological experiments (systems)

-physical effects (Brownian motion, temperature gradients, etc.) can account for the observed variance in the absence of human operators

-the data are independent of the physical mechanism producing the randomness

-effects with pseudo RNG's are statistically equivalent to those observed with true RNG's.

-in micro-AP, the effect size is proportional to 1/sqrt(n), ie. a quadrupling of the number of bits will produce a standardized score twice as large.

-in binary RNG experiments, the AP effect size = 0

-Monte Carlo simulations can confirm the simple model formulations

-an intercept larger than 1 would support the DAT model, so we can test that hypothesis. (by doing a weighted least squares regression on (Z^2,n) )

Darat

4th September 2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Darat

Hmm... strange isn't it that people who can prove that they can "remote view" don't step forward to help with this case? :mad:

Undoubtable it will either be ignored or some attempt to divert attention away from a specific will be employed.

To the people who have said they can "remote view", to the people who claim they have proved it right here on this forum - please for the sake of this girl and her loved ones locate her!

Well it still seems, very unfortunately, that my prediction has not been invalidated.

Just excuses about why their “superpower” can’t help this girl or her family or attempts to divert attention away from the question “If you can RV why can’t you help?”

:mad: