Precognition Causality Quantum Theory and Mysticism

The problem is simple. I was taught science in school. Some how, and for some reason, telepathy/paranormal events, etc., were not taught to me in school. So the creationist is out of touch with basic science, in most cases. Where as I have to go out of my way to seek out information on telepathy and paranormal events. Sorry that it wasn't that important to me to research it earlier. So you seek out sources that support your position? Hmm, interesting debate tactic.- Oni

When the topic is telepathy and paranormal events (just as if the topic were Intelligent Design) there is no science that is taught to support this, so my lack of knowledge on the subject is not my falut. It's the fault of those claiming that this stuff is real to do the work and bring forth what they find. I've heard about String Theory, M-Theory, Brain Theory, Multiverse Theory, Germ Theory, Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory, etc.Where's telepathy/paranormal theory hiding?There is no "balanced view." There's people who think this stuff is real, and skeptics.You accuse me of being bias, but you then provided a link to psychicinvestigator.com. You wouldn't consider psychicinvestigator.com bias?

Oh come now Linda, a topic I know little about? What, I'm not familiar with all the anecdotal stuff out there about telepathy? I know enough about telepathy(as I do about witchcraft, magic, ghosts, etc.) to be able to dismiss it as bogus.Where's the proof for it? There is none. It's wishful thinking on the part of a few people who believe this stuff is real. No, I believe they mentioned what Rhine thought he was looking at.Did you read the whole link? At the bottom when they talked about "abusing statistics"...?

quote:

---

abusing statistics

​

Radin goes through some of the criticisms made of the card experiments such as using hand shuffling instead of proper randomization procedures and the physical handling of the cards, which might allow the subject to read the card from impressions on the back of the card. He explains how it took some time before researchers realized that letting the subjects handle the cards or envelopes containing the cards opened the door to cheating. They first separated the experimenter and subject by a screen. Later they put them in separate rooms, and even in separate buildings to avoid the possibility of cheating or inadvertent communication by sensory cues.

​

But there were some things the researchers didn’t seem to consider, such as the relationship of theoretical probabilities with real probabilities. In the 1930s, a magician by the name of John Mulholland asked Walter Pitkin of Columbia University how does one determine the odds against matching pairs with five possible objects. Of course, Mulholland didn’t have a computer to do his dirty work for him, so he printed up 200,000 cards, half red and half blue, with 40,000 of each of the five ESP card symbols. The cards were mechanically shuffled and read by a machine. The result was two lists of 100,000 randomly selected symbols. One list would represent chance distribution of the symbols and the other would represent chance guessing of the symbols. How did they match up? Well, they didn’t. The actual matches and what would be predicted by accepted theoretical odds didn’t match up. The total number was 2% under mathematical expectancy. Runs of 5 matching pairs were 25% under and runs of 7 were 59% greater than mathematical expectancy. The point is not whether these runs are typical in a real world of real randomness or whether they represent some peculiarity of the shuffling machine or some other quirk. The point is that Rhine assumed that statistical probability, which assumes true randomness and a very large number of instances, applies without further consideration to decks of 25 cards shuffled who knows how or how often.

​

Rhine and all other psi researchers have assumed that any significant departure from the laws of chance is evidence of something paranormal. While cheating should be of concern to paranormal investigators, there should be more concern with this assumption. There are two problems with it, one logical and one methodological. The assumption either begs the question (assumes what needs proving, namely that deviation from chance is evidence of psi) or commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent (If it’s psi, then the data will deviate from chance. The data deviate from chance. So, it’s psi.). The assumption is also questionable on methodological grounds. Studies have shown that even when no subjects are used there is significant departure from what would be expected theoretically by chance (Alcock 1981: 159). For example, Harvie selected 50,000 digits from various sources of random numbers and used them to represent target cards in an ESP experiment. Instead of having subjects make guesses, a series of 50,000 random numbers were produced by a computer. He found a hit rate that was significantly less than what would be predicted by chance If such significant variation can be produced by comparing random strings with random strings, then the assumption that any significant variation from chance is due to psi seems untenable (Alcock 1981: 158-159).

​

In any case, it seems to be a bit of an exaggeration for Radin to claim that statistician Burton Camp finally settled the issue of the statistical criticisms when he declared that Rhine’s statistical analysis is essentially valid (1997: 95-96).

​

Another example of Rhine’s lack of sophistication with probabilities comes from the fact that when he found subjects who scored consistently below chance, he did not see that this would be expected by the laws of chance. Instead, he took this to be evidence of psychic phenomena. He claimed that subjects who didn't like him would consciously guess wrong to spite him (Park 2000: 42). Some parapsychologists accept this explanation: the phenomenon is termed psi-missing.

​

Rhine did not convince the scientific community of the reality of ESP, despite his claims that his subjects had been carefully witnessed and that he had put into place special conditions that completely eliminates all chance for deception. That was about as much detail as he gave the world. It wasn’t enough. His lack of detailed documentation simply added to the perception of many skeptics that ESP researchers are too trusting and careless in setting up their protocols.

​

Parapsychologists generally consider the ganzfeld experiments to be the best evidence for telepathy ever produced in the laboratory, though even these experiments can't distinguish telepathy from clairvoyance.

---

I'm not claiming ignorance, just as I wouldn't claim ignorance about ghosts, witches and magic. I don't know much about investigating this stuff either, exept the stuff they show on TV. But I don't need to...It's bullshit, there's nothing to have knowledge about.If you feel knowing a few anecdotal things about telepathy makes you intelligent on the subject then good. I personally don't care to. But I can expose it for being bullshit, as I have done so far.- Oni

I won't deny an a priori position of being skeptical to claims that revolve around the supernatural - (and I think I've made it clear in other threads as to why I hold to that). I honestly see no reason to be otherwise. This position has nothing to do with what ONE website tells me. I've experienced enough on my own to make the determination. In fact, it's easy with telepathy. I'm not telepathic. I don't need an experiment to point out anomalies, and then tell me that it's possible due to these anomalies. I'm human, I have a mind, and I lack telepathic abilities. Now, you would have to explain why an entire species is not telepathic but for a few people?If we evolve alone the same path, all of us sharing the same abilities, why would I not be telepathic while a few others claim to be? It doesn't make any sense, not in the least.If it were a common ability, claimed by many, many people, then I'd say there's good reason to investigate. But for now, it doesn't seem to be common, it doesn't seem worth my time, and a few assertions by a very, very small group of believers does nothing to sway my opinion. Then why do I, and every single person I know personally, not claim to have this ability? - (We can take a pole on this site to see if anyone claims to be telepathic, if you'd like?) Fair enough, and I will.I'd like to point out though, that I'm not denying anyone the right to conduct any experiment, and I think that if they do carry out such experiments, in an honest fashion using the scientific method, their work should be peer-reviewed and an overall concensus should be drawn as to the veracity of the conclusions.But, at the same time, I also see that there is no concensus on these results, that it is still held as pseudoscience, and it is still considered far from establishing any conclusive results by people who are experienced in science.If it wasn't as I say it was, if there was a general concensus that it might be true, then universities would be littered with these departments working on these experiments. They are not - and that is no reflection on science, but a reflection on the lack of results from the paranormal community.Perhaps the onus is not on me to believe anything, but on them to provide convincing results.As an example: I don't deny evolution, the Big Bang, or gravity, nor do I believe you deny them either. So why is it that we can agree on one set of evidence, but not on the other? I don't have an a priori belief in any of those other theories, yet I agree with the evidence. You agree with the evidence as well, and anyone who looks into it properly will also agree with the evidence. So why is paranormal evidence so unconvincing to the general public and the scientific community?Is your best answer that, we have an a priori position of denying it? Doesn't THAT sound like the exact same argument creationist put forth as to why scientist deny god had a hand in creation - because science has a naturalist a priori stance?To me, that's a weak argument on their part, and if you're bring the same reasoning into your argument, IMO, it's also a weak argument on your part.That's what you need to look at in an un-bias way, the fact that the evidence fails to convince such a large group of intellectual people who deal with investigating our world on a daily basis.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hi Linda Lou, Well one, as I understand it, the point is not to discuss the details of the experiment, but to discuss Sheldrake's conclusion.Is there an anomaly? - yes. Is it telepathy? - what's telepathy? No you don't. (unless you are in a wheelchair) - You can roll, pull yourself up on a bar, probably hold your body weight on a horizontal bar. Now, you may not have advanced gymnastic skills, but you could have had that too, if you would have trained at a young age.We are primates, we are gymnist by nature. Show me. One video, that's all I ask for. I'm sorry Linda, but this sounds like the same BS I hear when playing with a Ouija board, or when someone is trying to talk to the dead. They claim skeptics ruin it with their skepticism. To me that's a load of BS, and more importantly, that's NOT science. And I agree. But what on earth does that have to do with telepathy? Why are you making a connection to something that is unproven to exist? It's just a word that represents an anomaly, nothing more. We are pattern seekers Linda. It just seems like these things are strange. How many times does the phone ring and I have no clue who it is? How many times have I turned around and no one is there?The problem is we don't count those, we only remember the times we do find a coincidence. But if you ran the numbers, almost every time my phone rings I have no clue who it is, we just don't remember that because there's nothing strange about it to remember.Again, we are pattern seekers. Yes, the same one's that are lying about evolution, the age of the Earth, the heliocentric solar system and the 13.7 billion year old expanding universe. I agree with your husband. Looks like there could be a real phenomenon with the dog. But why telepathy? What is that? How does it work? - And that's the issue. All that was pointed out in the "Dog" experiment is that the dog goes to the door at anomalous times. Telepathy doesn't get proven at all!Sheldrake concluded that, almost as a "Well what else could it be?" conclusion. And I don't consider that conclusion good science.I thought this video was relevant to the debate, by the king skeptic himself, Michael Shermer. I recommend watching it, it's very interesting. Why do people believe strange things - Michael Shermer- Oni

And yet he concluded that it was telepathy, something for which no evidence exists to support.It's the same as Intelligent Design as the answer. Supporters of ID say that because it appears designed, and we don't yet have a concensus for a scientific theory, it must be design!Likewise, Sheldrake is saying that, because there are certain anomalies that science, as of yet, hasn't explained naturally, it must be telepathy!But, neither an Intelligent Design(er) nor telepathy have any supporting evidence - So how on earth can they be conclusions to ANY phenomenon?More so, all his work is still ahead of him to explain HOW telepathy works. It doesn't suffice to say it's telepathy. Yes, I am willing to go through the process of determining what caused it.Just as with the emergence of life - I'm willing to go through the process of determining how it emerged.BUT - in a scientific manner, which means, that if thoughts are being transfered between individual brains, the PROCESS (ie. telepathy) must be explained. It does NOTHING to simply say, "it's telepathy" ... OK, "what's telepathy?"Likewise, if the question was how life emerged, "an intelligent designer did it" ... OK, "what's an intelligent designer?"Do you see the logic in what I'm saying? One, because it's interesting. But two, it explains what I just said in detail. More so, it covers the points about anomalies.How many dogs have been tested to see if they do the same thing as the one in the experiement? Where is the data that shows the dogs that DON'T react the same? Shermer explains that science isn't about showing the times it does happen, science is about showing the times it DOESN'T happen - then, making a complete analysis of the entire thing.You asked, how many times I can predict when someone will call me, but my point, and Shermer explains this in the video, is, how many times DOESN'T it happen? Where's that data?Why should I concentrate on the times it does happen, and use that as proof for a phenomenon, when the crux of the matter is the times it DOESN'T happen? I need both sets of data to make a complete assessment. Linda I did read it, that's how I knew what website it came from. I actually enjoy this about him. Like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he brings a fun attitude to science which I think is needed. I understand your opinion about him dismissing paranormal events and debunking them, but frankly, I share the same opinion as him. NO! What I'm saying is that anyone you claims their experiment was ruined by the presence of a skeptic is full of BS.How many skeptics do you think Einstein or Galileo, or Darwin, Copernicus, Kepler (need I go on?) faced in their day? Why didn't any of their experiments get thwarted by the arrogance of skeptics? Because the evidence speaks for itself, Linda.The evidence MUST stand up to skepticism and scrutny; In fact, that is what good science is all about. Do you not agree with that? The evidence should stand alone and speak for itself. Every single scientist has faced this negative opinion when presenting new theories. Wishful thinking again, Linda. Linda, I have no issue with Sheldrakes experiment. It's his conclusion that it's telepathy that I take issue with.Claiming that it's telepathy explains NOTHING - all his work is still ahead of him to explain what, if anything at all, telepathy is, how it functions, what it uses to "transfer thoughts."This is the problem with claiming that phenomena are paranormal, or supernatural - How do you test it? It's the same as saying God-did-it. Well, if god did it then HOW did he do it? It doesn't help to simply say god-did-it.Likewise, if it's telepathy, then HOW does it work. Telepathy explains NOTHING if you can't explain how it works.And that's good science.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

- And yet dogs find it to be a totally hot quality!- Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hi Kitsune, No worries, take your time and good luck with the new job. And that's it, that's all it showed.It could be aliens tranfering the thoughts to the dogs mind, it could be fairies doing this as well. It could be an unknown field by which this one dog can read minds, it could simply be a fact about this particular dog and its mind that is yet to be understood.It could be a number of factors, or, it could be nothing at all - Now, as Shermer said in the video, before we consider it to be something out of this world lets make sure we have ruled out everything in this world.And yet in the case of dogs having telepathy, you can't even begin to define the condition as something unique to all dogs or all K9's, because all you are showing is one test done to one dog. Have at it, explore away - the approach is not unsatisfactory to me at all.I just don't find any reason to believe telepathy is anything more than a word used to define something that is not understood yet. It's no better than god-did-it.but again, this is just a case of one dog, so nothing has been established yet about ALL dogs to even know if you are witnessing a phenomenon. Actually, its completely the other way around. You need to understand the field that electromagnetism works in to be able to explain a photon.Likewise, the field that telepathy works in need to be described so that one can understand how it works. Then, you can find out empirically if dogs have the necessary features to do this OR maybe dogs do it another way.But you need many, many dog experiments to estabish it as something common throughout ALL dogs. No matter how bias any ONE experimenter might be, the evidence should speak for itself.How many skeptics and believers have tried to prove an eather exists by re-doing the Michelson/Morley experiment? Many, many people. And yet the results are null. Why does telepathy get a pass? Linda, I am not trying to drill anything into you.I'm simply stating my reasons for being skeptical about telepathy. If you agree then cool, if you don't, then cool too.- Oni