62 replies to this topic

[Old Guy]

Robot, on Jun 1 2010, 06:41 AM, said:

Ever see how to make "soap" in "Fight Club", soap will never look the same again.

That was a mean thing to plant in the mind of a visually oriented person so early in the AM.

Now I have to go wash my brain out with ... er ... soap.

[Robot]

Old Guy, on Jun 1 2010, 10:31 AM, said:

Robot, on Jun 1 2010, 06:41 AM, said:

Ever see how to make "soap" in "Fight Club", soap will never look the same again.

That was a mean thing to plant in the mind of a visually oriented person so early in the AM.

Now I have to go wash my brain out with ... er ... soap.

LOL!

[PhenomInvestigator]

Old Guy, on May 28 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

Perhaps there's no physical science to explain?

Let me try one more time. As I pointed out earlier, the research does exist. The physical experiments have been done by people like Roll in controlled laboratory settings. To be clear,
these are demonstrations of apparent physical psi phenomena, namely macroPK. The studies
are reported in the Journal of Parapsychology.

Lay people are uniformed about these matters. The Phillip experiment to which I referred earlier was another likely example, albeit not well-controlled surely.

Likewise more than satisfactory evidence (to a truely sketpical yet open-minded scientist, not to a cynic) also exists demonstrating ESP and even anomalous information reception which is the basis for claims of mediumship and telepathy. Again these are controlled studies which preclude fraud. And again they are published in several peer-reviewed journals.

The only people that don't seem to understand this are those who sadly uninformed.

That all said, there is not any real 'proof' that ghosts exist, however there are well-formed notions on possible underlying mechanisms which do seem a bit more certain. And none of this has anything to do with 'ghost hunting' or 'paranormal investigation or research'. If the concern is that these activities have resulted in little, I would concur. But if the assertion is that science has produced nothing, than that is simply untrue.

[canuck]

As an addendum to this, I would suggest that anyone interested in further investigation of the real science associated with these phenomena, would benefit from reading the book: “The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena” by Dean Radin PhD.

This book summarises a lot of the work that has been done in this field, and particularly refers to that which has been subject to meta-analysis.

The meta-analysis shows that, on the whole, the real research that has been done on some of these phenomena have a higher credibility and reproducibility than some areas of “hard” science.

In fact, the evidence for these phenomena is so well established that most psi researchers today no longer bother to conduct “proof orientated” experiments. Instead, they focus largely on “process oriented” questions.

That is, they don’t concern themselves with “does it exist”; instead they ask questions like: “what factors influence performance”; and “how does it work”.

As a case in point, to quote: “We didn’t know how to explain it; but we weren’t so much interested in explaining it, as determining whether there was any practical use for it.”

This quote is from an interview of Major General Edmund R. Thompson, Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 1977-1981.

[Old Guy]

PhenomInvestigator, on Jun 5 2010, 02:20 PM, said:

As I pointed out earlier, the research does exist. The physical experiments have been done by people like Roll in controlled laboratory settings. To be clear,
these are demonstrations of apparent physical psi phenomena, namely macroPK. The studies
are reported in the Journal of Parapsychology.

To be sure, TONS of research has been conducted. Using both private and public funds. All inconclusive. If that were not the case, we'd either be discussing Roll's Theory or Roll's Law. No?

PhenomInvestigator, on Jun 5 2010, 02:20 PM, said:

Likewise more than satisfactory evidence (to a truely sketpical yet open-minded scientist, not to a cynic) also exists demonstrating ESP ...

I'm only aware of one recent study that "suggests" that there may be something to it. Again though, if there were any reproducible, quantifiable "evidence", the scientific community would have reviewed, accepted, and either labled it theory or law, and someone would've won a Nobel based on said evidence.

Not to criticize too harshly, but (IMHO) for these reasons, calling it "evidence" is inacurrate.

[Old Guy]

canuck, on Jun 5 2010, 07:33 PM, said:

As a case in point, to quote: “We didn’t know how to explain it; but we weren’t so much interested in explaining it, as determining whether there was any practical use for it.”

This quote is from an interview of Major General Edmund R. Thompson, Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 1977-1981.

As someone who's paycheck comes from tax dollars, there's only so much I can say about how funding works. I can say that all the agencies within the DoD compete visciously for funding. They will say anything they can to outplay the other agencies. And let's keep in mind, it was the Army that experimented with LSD in an effort to "enhance" such abilities. For me, just because the Army said, don't make it so,

[canuck]

Old Guy, on Jun 6 2010, 08:56 AM, said:

PhenomInvestigator, on Jun 5 2010, 02:20 PM, said:

As I pointed out earlier, the research does exist. The physical experiments have been done by people like Roll in controlled laboratory settings. To be clear,
these are demonstrations of apparent physical psi phenomena, namely macroPK. The studies
are reported in the Journal of Parapsychology.

To be sure, TONS of research has been conducted. Using both private and public funds. All inconclusive. If that were not the case, we'd either be discussing Roll's Theory or Roll's Law. No?

PhenomInvestigator, on Jun 5 2010, 02:20 PM, said:

Likewise more than satisfactory evidence (to a truely sketpical yet open-minded scientist, not to a cynic) also exists demonstrating ESP ...

I'm only aware of one recent study that "suggests" that there may be something to it. Again though, if there were any reproducible, quantifiable "evidence", the scientific community would have reviewed, accepted, and either labled it theory or law, and someone would've won a Nobel based on said evidence.

Not to criticize too harshly, but (IMHO) for these reasons, calling it "evidence" is inacurrate.

Not that I want to belabor the point, but I refer you to my previous post regarding “true believers”, and suggest that you familiarise yourself with the book cited.

Science is no different from any other religion: it has its dogma, and its herd of “true believers”.

Current scientific dogma states that there is no such thing as “psi”. “ghosts” or other “supernatural phenomena”. Consequently most of the scientific community, just like sheep, follow the dogma of their chosen religion, and blindly accept this dogma as truth.

I could bore you to tears with a long list of things that “scientists” believe to be true but are, in fact, nonsense. It follows from this, that the converse is also true: there are things that “scientists” don’t believe that are, in fact, true.

The history of science is replete with examples of things that were ridiculed by “scientists” because they didn’t fit into their belief system, and challenged contemporary dogma, but which are now accepted as part of mainstream science.

The emphasis in all of this is on the word “believe”; true believers will believe what they want to believe.

As an illustration of this you might like to review some of the posts to this site from our resident cheerleaders for science, which are in many cases cringe worthy in their embarrassing ignorance.

To give you one more relevant quote:

“I never liked to get into debates with the skeptics, because if you didn't believe that remote viewing was real, you hadn't done your homework.”

Quoted from: Major General Edmund R Thompson, U.S. Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 1977-81, Deputy Director for Management and Operations, DIA, 1982-84

[ohreally?]

canuck, on Jun 6 2010, 08:44 PM, said:

Science is no different from any other religion: it has its dogma, and its herd of “true believers”.

1. Current scientific dogma states that there is no such thing as “psi”. “ghosts” or other “supernatural phenomena”. Consequently most of the scientific community, just like sheep, follow the dogma of their chosen religion, and blindly accept this dogma as truth.



2. I could bore you to tears with a long list of things that “scientists” believe to be true but are, in fact, nonsense. It follows from this, that the converse is also true: there are things that “scientists” don’t believe that are, in fact, true.


3. The history of science is replete with examples of things that were ridiculed by “scientists” because they didn’t fit into their belief system, and challenged contemporary dogma, but which are now accepted as part of mainstream science.

1. Unless you can find an official statement I assume this is your opinion.

2. Please bore us. If not then you are just opining

3. Yes, the first thing you've said which is true. The funny thing is you haven't a clue I think why that's so.

You have a wry sense of humor for one that uses a computer to type out there thoughts.
To give you one more relevant quote:

Science is not a set of laws handed down from On High that are invariable; it is a way of looking at the world that lets us make useful predictions about it. Any of the tools of those predictions--the Laws of Science, are always within a context and subject to amendment or replacement as needed to apply to another context. -Anon

[Caniswalensis]

canuck, on Jun 6 2010, 07:44 PM, said:

Science is no different from any other religion: it has its dogma, and its herd of “true believers”.

Sorry Canuck, I gotta call you on this one.

While I agree that there are people who misaply the scientific method, and that the scientific community being comprised of humans, has a certain amount of politics that goes with it, science is not a religion.

There is no science dogma or sacred text. Today's truths may be tommorow's bird cage liner. Unlike a religion or belief system, science does not have sacred, immutable tennets. It allows for the possibility that knowledge can be refined and improved on.

Scientist's can not just shout down beliefs with dogma, although people who hold unsuportable beliefs may prefer to think of it that way. That is the heart of the scientific method; you actually have to back up what you say. If someone wants their belief to be accepted, all they have to do is have some evidence.

I also have to say that calling people who see value in the scientific method "cheerleaders" is rather a cheap shot coming from you. I generally like your posts and find what you have to say very interesting. You are better than this. It is equally easy to turn it around and call someone that believes in psi a "paranormal cheerleader." It is also equally devoid of merit to do so. We should be discussing ideas on their own merit here, not indulging in this sort of hyperboly.

Regards, Canis

P.S. Gooooooooooooo SCIENCE!! *shakes pom-poms*

Edited by Caniswalensis, 06 June 2010 - 10:27 PM.

[Old Guy]

canuck, on Jun 6 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

Not that I want to belabor the point, but I refer you to my previous post regarding “true believers”, and suggest that you familiarise yourself with the book cited.

I refer you to the top of the page, where it says, "Skeptics" and "How to Create a Ghost." I *know* who Dean Radin is. Shall we now discuss Radin's Theory or Radin's Law? Maybe you'd be interesting in a review of another of his books: http://www.skepdic.c...gledreview.html

canuck, on Jun 6 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

Science is no different from any other religion: it has its dogma, and its herd of “true believers”.

Say what??? I don't know where you got that idea, but it's a patently false assumption.

canuck, on Jun 6 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

Current scientific dogma states that there is no such thing as “psi”. “ghosts” or other “supernatural phenomena”. Consequently most of the scientific community, just like sheep, follow the dogma of their chosen religion, and blindly accept this dogma as truth.

Another blatantly false assumption. Where are you getting these facts?

canuck, on Jun 6 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

I could bore you to tears with a long list of things that “scientists” believe to be true but are, in fact, nonsense. It follows from this, that the converse is also true: there are things that “scientists” don’t believe that are, in fact, true.

I could bore you to DEATH with contadictory counterpoints, but by chance have you heard of any of these people?
http://en.wikipedia....ed_after_people

canuck, on Jun 6 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

The history of science is replete with examples of things that were ridiculed by “scientists” because they didn’t fit into their belief system, and challenged contemporary dogma, but which are now accepted as part of mainstream science.

Hmmm. Ya' think that *might* have something to do with the PEER REVIEW process? I'm completely baffled by your stance on all this. What part of the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS is it that you refuse to acknowledge? The SCIENTIFIC METHOD was established in the 3rd century B.C by Aristotle.

canuck, on Jun 6 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

... true believers will believe what they want to believe.

True. And a zealot insists on believing beyond all common sense.

canuck, on Jun 6 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

As an illustration of this you might like to review some of the posts to this site from our resident cheerleaders for science, which are in many cases cringe worthy in their embarrassing ignorance.

"People who live in glass houses..."

canuck, on Jun 6 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

To give you one more relevant quote:

“I never liked to get into debates with the skeptics, because if you didn't believe that remote viewing was real, you hadn't done your homework.”

Quoted from: Major General Edmund R Thompson, U.S. Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 1977-81, Deputy Director for Management and Operations, DIA, 1982-84

Speaking as a veteran, if you believe everything a soldier tells you, you *might* be living on the wrong continent.

If you're going to convince this cynic/skeptic/believer into adopting your particular "dogma", you'll need a much better sales pitch. I'm not interested in white elephants.

Edited by Old Guy, 07 June 2010 - 06:18 PM.

[MoonChild]

I don't think the very idea of this discussion is to convert a cynic or skeptic or a believer, but sharing various thoughts which "each of us think is right".

[ohreally?]

MoonChild, on Jun 7 2010, 11:19 PM, said:

I don't think the very idea of this discussion is to convert a cynic or skeptic or a believer, but sharing various thoughts which "each of us think is right".

To that one would agree you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

[MoonChild]

ohreally?, on Jun 8 2010, 09:24 AM, said:

MoonChild, on Jun 7 2010, 11:19 PM, said:

I don't think the very idea of this discussion is to convert a cynic or skeptic or a believer, but sharing various thoughts which "each of us think is right".

To that one would agree you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Ironically or interestingly it is a fact. You just can't force people to "believe" with your own line of thought unless they resonate with those line of thoughts. I say there are no cynics in tis world, only believers, because everyone believes whatever they believe to be true.

[Old Guy]

MoonChild, on Jun 7 2010, 10:06 PM, said:

I say there are no cynics in tis world, only believers, because everyone believes whatever they believe to be true.

I say that's not accurately stated. By definition, there are LOTS of cynics in this world. But back to the point about "fact"...

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
fact
NOUN:
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

If a statement is made based on "belief", it may or may not be factual. It may or may not be "true".
I'm a cynic (toward the uses and methods of "ghost hunting" equipment),
I'm a skeptic (toward all the "evidence" being presented as "proof"),
I'm a believer (influence by my upbringing and personal experiences).

My belief system is not inflexible. At such time as there becomes repeatable, quantifiable, bonafide proof of the existance of ghosts, I'll no longer be a cynic or skeptic.

Edited by Old Guy, 08 June 2010 - 09:51 AM.

[PhenomInvestigator]

[

Old Guy, on Jun 6 2010, 08:56 AM, said:

To be sure, TONS of research has been conducted. Using both private and public funds. All inconclusive. If that were not the case, we'd either be discussing Roll's Theory or Roll's Law. No?

I'm only aware of one recent study that "suggests" that there may be something to it. Again though, if there were any reproducible, quantifiable "evidence", the scientific community would have reviewed, accepted, and either labled it theory or law, and someone would've won a Nobel based on said evidence.

The research is simply not inconclusive. Anyone who has the interest and ability to comprehend scientific papers can read the research.

What is the basis of the claim that nothing has ever been proven? I ask this because this claim is false. I have studied the literature for over four decades and understand that which has been published. I work in this field and regularly interact with colleagues who author these studies.
I have a sense of what is truly out there and what has been done. It would be wise to at least read the studies in order to make reasonable comments.

As to why this information is not more in the public domain. The challenge is that many mainstream scientists cannot afford to say what they truly think. Censure is quite real if professional science. When a Nobel prize winner is disinvited from an academic forum based on his interest in parapsychology, something is quite wrong.