Something BIG may be coming... A Liberation ?

[John Doe]

Do you actually BOTHER TO READ what I post, and follow the links?

 

As far as I am concerned, the Video Interview with Robert McLuhan fully supports my points,

and I think anyone who watches it and reads the review of his book will say:

"Game, Set and Match to Dr Bubb!"

 

You show yet again, that you just deny or wave away anything that you do not want to consider.

 

That's not fair. I've looked/read through loads of stuff over the years, UFO's paranormal, Life after death etc etc, (even spent time with many crackpot inventors who always end up coming to our department with their perpetual motion machines. We always have a look at them, and then show/explain why they don't actually work. But it's a waste of time, they still think they've cracked the laws of thermodynamics, even when shown directly why they haven't ).

 

And I watched most of the X-Files FFS

 

Now, you have heard an interview with a bloke who's selling a book and that's enough proof for you?

 

I listened to it, objectively, looking to be convinced. You listened to it wanting to believe.

 

I liked the way he tried to link the rejection of religion and the enlightenment with the inability of scientists nowadays to take non-scientific stuff seriously. Total nonsense of course, but along with the other snake oil he's selling, it would sound very impressive to a non-scientist who doesn't actually understand the scientific method. I really like the way he tries to make out that science would not accept real proof That's priceless. Trying to convince the listener that science is not objective and is actually the bad guy is the obvious trick of a salesman that has no proof of his medicine. Even his book title is skewed to reverse the burden of proof "Why Do Sceptics BELIEVE What They Do". This is just regurgitating the basic tricks of reverse psychology.

 

He spins a good narrative, I'll give him that (along with a supporting interviewer that hasn't challenged him once, and indeed actually accuses science of being a religion, a very old trick btw) while he tries to build a case for debunking the debunkers, but it's all just simple tricks and words. So I ask again, where is the proof?

 

If someone told you the moon was made of cheese, would you believe them? Of course not. It's just someone’s opinion. That's not proof.

 

There are loads of prizes on offer, yet none have been won, ever. That is what we call a fact.

 

 

If that's your version of Science, I don't want any of it !

 

My version of science demands proof, so that its discoveries can be tested, then once shown to hold, they can be built upon in a logical, methodological manner.

 

This has just been amply demonstrated with the landing of a robot on another planet in order to explore it's geology.

 

Perhaps one of your remote viewers could have saved us the trip?

 

My version of science enables you to host a website where the whole world can read your thoughts at the touch of a button. Perhaps every house should have a psychic in the corner instead of their computer and phone?

 

I do need more than someone’s opinion to convince me of things. I was like that long before my scientific training by the way. Of course, other people don’t.

 

Perhaps you don't, perhaps you're one of the people that’s happy to take other peoples word for things? That's OK, you’re not on your own. Practically all religious people are the same.

 

 

(Derren Brown does a great job of showing how some of the new religions tricks are done too BTW. As they say, you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time. )

[aardvark]

yet again i find myself agreeing with JD

[drbubb]

That's not fair. I've looked/read through loads of stuff over the years, UFO's paranormal, Life after death etc etc, (even spent time with many crackpot inventors who always end up coming to our department with their perpetual motion machines.

Specifically,

Have you listened to Hal Putoff?

How many of the 5 episodes?

 

Why do you think the US military hired these guys and built a team of Remote Viewers?

How can you explain their success in passing the tests thrown at them, finding missing persons, etc.?

 

How do you explain the very accurate drawings that remote viewers have done on various targets?

If these hits are just "a coincidence", it is a remarkable, and reasonably consistent coincidence?

(If you do not know what I am talking about, you need to look at Courtney Brown's website.)

 

As for McLuhan's interview, it talks about an argument in his book, rather than making the full argument in the interview. (That is appropriate, given the nature of audio interviews vs. books.) We would both have to get the book, and read it, to continue the discussion at a more meaningful level. I think you are beyond unfair to make your claims about McLuhan's work without having read it. I have read the comments (and quoted some) from those who have at least read his book. You seem to know what is in it without reading it, so perhaps you are now claiming psychic abilities of your own.

[John Doe]

Specifically,

Have you listened to Hal Putoff?

How many of the 5 episodes?

 

Why do you think the US military hired these guys and built a team of Remote Viewers?

How can you explain their success in passing the tests thrown at them, finding missing persons, etc.?

 

Specifically,

Have ytou read all the evidence that shows it doesn't work?

Remote viewing (RV) is the practice of seeking impressions about a distant or unseen target using paranormal means, in particular, extra-sensory perception (ESP) or "sensing with mind". Unlike traditional psychic practices, remote viewers use physical models to organize their alleged extra-sensory perceptions and to stabilized the virtual umwelt. Scientific studies have been conducted, some earlier, less sophisticated experiments produced positive results but they had invalidating flaws,[1] and none of the newer experiments had positive results when under properly controlled conditions.[2][3][4][5][6] The scientific community rejects remote viewing due to the absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain remote viewing, and the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results.[7] It is also considered a pseudoscience.[8]

 

^ a b Marks, D.F. & Kammann, R. (1978). "Information transmission in remote viewing experiments", Nature, 274:680–81.

^ a b c d Joe Nickell (March 2001), "Remotely Viewed? The Charlie Jordan Case", Skeptical Inquirer

^ a b c d e f g "An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications" by Mumford, Rose and Goslin "remote viewings have never provided an adequate basis for ‘actionable’ intelligence operations-that is, information sufficiently valuable or compelling so that action was taken as a result (...) a large amount of irrelevant, erroneous information is provided and little agreement is observed among viewers' reports. (...) remote viewers and project managers reported that remote viewing reports were changed to make them consistent with know background cues (...) Also, it raises some doubts about some well-publicized cases of dramatic hits, which, if taken at face value, could not easily be attributed to background cues. In at least some of these cases, there is reason to suspect, based on both subsequent investigations and the viewers' statement that reports had been "changed" by previous program managers, that substantially more background information was available than one might at first assume."

^ a b c d e f g Time magazine, 11 December 1995, p.45, The Vision Thing by Douglas Waller, Washington

^ a b "Remote Viewing". UK's Ministry of Defence. June 2002, disclosed in 2007-02-23. p. 94 (page 50 in second pdf).

^ a b c Randi & Clarke, An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural "Remote viewing" definition "The data of Puthoff and Targ were reexamined by the other researchers, and it was found that their students were able to solve the locations without use of any psychic powers, using only the clues that had inadvertently been included in the Puthoff and Targ transcripts."

^ a b Wiseman, R. & Milton, J. (1999). "Experiment One of the SAIC Remote Viewing Program: A critical reevaluation" (PDF). Journal of Parapsychology 62 (4): 297–308. Retrieved 2008-06-26.

* Obtained from listing of research papers on Wiseman's website

^ a b c d Gardner, Martin (2000). Did Adam and Eve have navels? : debunking pseudoscience. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-32238-5.

 

 

And for the US military

 

Remote viewing was popularized in the 1990s, following the declassification of documents related to the Stargate Project, a $20 million research program sponsored by the U.S. Federal Government to determine any potential military application of psychic phenomena. The program was eventually terminated in 1995, because it had failed to produce any useful intelligence information.[3][4]

 

Except for this lot who carried on the work

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS-jutv-rh0

[drbubb]

Do you want to believe those reports,

or believe the testimony of those directly involved?

(ie Hal Putoff, Russell Targ, Joe McGonegal... etc.)

 

Of course, there are some obvious reasons that the US Military would want to get the word out

that RV does not work.

 

My own experiments with it are in a very early stage, and they are very encouraging.

I have not been properly trained, so once my success rate falls off, I will take more training.

My hope is that the simplified techniques that I am using will provide a useful shortcut.

 

Do you want me to explain my first experience and what happened?

 

One of the reasons that I am excited about this, is because of the good results from my own

direct experience with it.

 

BTW, You have cited Randi as a source refuting it, Robert McLuhan has written a book which (I am told) has an entire chapter completely refuting the conclusions that Randi drew about Targ/Putoff's work, so I think you should refer to McLuhan's rejection if you want to cite Randi as a source.

[John Doe]

Do you want to believe those reports,

or believe the testimony of those directly involved?

(ie Hal Putoff, Russell Targ, Joe McGonegal... etc.)

 

I want to see proof, not just take someones word for it.

 

I want to see someone win one of the many, many prizes available. No-one ever has. Perhaps you could be the first?

 

Contrary to what you think I may think about such things, that would actually make me very happy.

 

My own experiments with it are in a very early stage, and they are very encouraging.

I have not been properly trained, so once my success rate falls off, I will take more training.

My hope is that the simplified techniques that I am using will provide a useful shortcut.

 

Do you want me to explain my first experience and what happened?

 

OK, please tell me what's on my desk. It’s in the upper right hand corner and quite distinct.

 

One of the reasons that I am excited about this, is because of the good results from my own

direct experience with it.

 

I'm very happy for you and would honestly believe you fully if you can tell me what's on my desk.

 

BTW, You have cited Randi as a source refuting it, Robert McLuhan has written a book which (I am told) has an entire chapter completely refuting the conclusions that Randi drew about Targ/Putoff's work, so I think you should refer to McLuhan's rejection if you want to cite Randi as a source.

 

Randi is just one of many, many that has been debunking this stuff for years. He is the most well known and as such attracts the most venom from those that cannot/will not, Pass/attempt his tests.

It remains the case that no-one has ever shown positive results under proper scientific conditions.

 

However, putting such conditions to one side for a moment, if you can tell me what's on my desk, in the upper right hand corner, I'll be a happy convert.

[Chartered Surveyor]

Let me be first to guess...............Is it your brain or your ego

[John Doe]

Let me be first to guess...............Is it your brain or your ego

 

Don't remember to tell you the truth. I'm on holiday at the moment and forgot what I left there (Probably my brain, hopefully )

 

 

 

(BTW my ego? I'm not claiming anything at all, just asking for proof of others claims )

[drbubb]

I want to see proof, not just take someones word for it.

I want to see someone win one of the many, many prizes available. No-one ever has. Perhaps you could be the first?

Contrary to what you think I may think about such things, that would actually make me very happy.

Do your own experiments, if you reject those of others.

That is what I am doing, and the results have been surprisingly good, so far.

 

OK, please tell me what's on my desk. It’s in the upper right hand corner and quite distinct.

I'm very happy for you and would honestly believe you fully if you can tell me what's on my desk.

I am not at all sure, if I have the right info for that.

And I have to be in the mood to try it.

 

Randi is just one of many, many that has been debunking this stuff for years. He is the most well known and as such attracts the most venom from those that cannot/will not, Pass/attempt his tests.

It remains the case that no-one has ever shown positive results under proper scientific conditions.

 

However, putting such conditions to one side for a moment, if you can tell me what's on my desk, in the upper right hand corner, I'll be a happy convert.

Putoff's talk has a great anecdote about what happened when the military sent its own debunker,

to try to explain what was happening. Have you listen to his talk yet?

 

If I am in the mood, after I do my stock market work for next week, maybe I will try.

But I do not know where you are, and I may need someone to act as a sender.

[drbubb]

Are you ready to embrace this as Science, JD ?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN9z0XEEb4w

 

The Most Important Scientific Message ever that can Heal our World and Solve All Human Problems and Conflicts. Latest Scientific facts that Alter the Perception of our World and Promote Global Oneness and Happiness.

[John Doe]

There probably no point continuing this further as we can never agree fully, but I’ll try and put my position across in another way first.

 

I work full time on my chosen field, where I research a specific area of science (which I have been involved in studying for decades now). When I have results that are new and interesting, (and which I am certain are real), I write them up and send them to high impact factor scientific journals where they are reviewed by my peers.

 

They are then published, and others in my field know that they can repeat my experiments and will achieve the same results.

 

As such, I accept the research of scientists in other areas that also publish their work in respected high impact journals as I know I can take their approach and achieve the same results. So when the researchers offering these prizes publish that someone has won their challenge, I will accept this, especially when corroborated by others.

 

I respect that you think you are onto something, and I am not saying that there is nothing in this stuff (although I haven't seen any convincing evidence yet), just that you cannot claim it to be real until certain criteria are met (not mine by the way, but rather the criteria of modern science).

 

That is not a dig, nor a condescending put down, just a statement of how science actually works, and not how some try and skew it's workings and processes so that they may circumvent it for their own gain.

 

 

Until then, all you have presented is anecdotes and possible a few coincidental results. It’s very easy to convince yourself of certain results, especially if you believe strongly in them. Many scientists have found themselves in this predicament. However, the stringent requirements of the scientific method are specifically designed to root out this problem and leave us with real, testable, repeatable results.

 

Consequently, when one of the “psychics” wins one of the many many prizes available, by demonstrating their powers under full scientific conditions, then I will accept their claims.

 

I hope you can understand my position as I attempt to understand yours.

[drbubb]

"That is not a dig, nor a condescending put down, just a statement of how science actually works"

 

I think you have expressed that inaccurately,

I would understand it better if you had said: "This is how the Church of Science Works."

 

Many choose to operate outside the Establishment Church (of Science), and this iritates those who are still in it. There are various good reasons that people would choose to operate in another way, and McLuhan book is likely to explain in some detail why people choose to do that, and why "the church" reacts as it does.

 

To be honest, I am more interested in getting things that work for me (and others) rather than battling procedures laid down by "the Establishment."

 

I have heard that many breakthrough discoveries are made by Mavericks, who operate in their own way. Certainly, Tesla was one of those. And there are many following his footsteps now. The really alarming thing, is how often one hears stories of how these Mavericks have been shutdown, and even murdered, by the establishment - I am npt saying that is was other scientists that shut them down, but rather powerful people, associated with wealth and other industries, which are threatened by new developments. I could give you many examples, but I am sure you have heard some of the same stories that I have.

 

When I heard stories of Remote Viewing successes, I was at first very skeptical, and then I began to find that it was possible to test it myself, and I am now doing this.

[John Doe]

"That is not a dig, nor a condescending put down, just a statement of how science actually works"

 

I think you have expressed that inaccurately,

I would understand it better if you had said: "This is how the Church of Science Works."

 

Many choose to operate outside the Establishment Church (of Science), and this iritates those who are still in it. There are various good reasons that people would choose to operate in another way, and McLuhan book is likely to explain in some detail why people choose to do that, and why "the church" reacts as it does.

 

To be honest, I am more interested in getting things that work for me (and others) rather than battling procedures laid down by "the Establishment."

 

Now you're just regurgitating ths silly trick I pointed out a few posts ago, the one that fraudsters have used for ages in order try and convince non-scientists that science is subjective and biased against things that don't fit with the currently accepted bank of knowledge.

 

However, as you seem to have fallen for this guff, (The "Church", The "establishment" etc etc) perhaps I can help you with a little example of just how plain wrong and silly such statments and attacks are.

 

 

Perhaps you can cast your mind back a few months to the announcement that scientists at CERN had observed particles that appeared to travel faster than light.

 

FASTER THAN LIGHT! Can you imagine! Someone actually questioning the cornerstone of modern physics!

 

Were they hushed up? NO.

 

Were they laughed at? NO.

 

Were they ostracised? NO.

 

So what exactly did happen then? Oh yes, that's right. Their research was published in THE most respected scientific journal in the world!

Hardly the actions of an "establishment" was it?

 

Why? Because they followed the scientific method and ran their experiments under proper scientific conditions.

 

"The Church of Science" Ha!

 

You have, once again, clearly showed that you have no understanding whatsoever of how real science works.

 

So, rather than waste any more of my time trying to help, if all you can do is offer anecdotes and peoples words for things as “proof”, and then launch silly attacks on a "method" (how weird is that? ) then as I said before, it's probably pointless continuing this debate.

 

Until one of your psychics wins one of the multitude of prizes on offer for a real demonstration of such things that is

[drbubb]

Your argument is full of gravity, "Rational Gravity"

 

(Here's what I mean by that)

 

Robert McLuhan: What I was trying to say about the-I came up with this term, “rational gravity” and by that I meant the sort of pull of orthodoxy. It’s a psychological process. We’re used to the world working in certain ways. That’s our everyday reality.

 

When something comes along that doesn’t fit with that reality, then I suspect there’s a psychological process that kicks in in many cases, not in all. Some people will unconsciously find some way of resolving the dilemma posed by this apparent anomaly and in the process of doing that they will come up with all sorts of explanations.

 

Having arrived at explanations of what’s happened or what somebody has claimed, no matter how speculative it may be, they will feel that the whole matter has been resolved successfully and they don’t have to think about it anymore. I think that’s a process that one sees going on quite a lot in the skeptical community.

 

Alex Tsakiris: Right, because you think the evidence that you lay out in the book is actually quite strong, at least in some areas, right?

 

Robert McLuhan: I do, yes. But I think how one responds to it is very much a question of temperament. I mean, take something like telepathy, and personally I’m not particularly phased by the idea. It doesn’t bother me. It doesn’t frighten me. I’m intrigued about it, curious about it, but I don’t automatically think something like that is impossible and could never happen.

 

I’d want to see evidence of it, but I think there are people who find something like that pretty difficult to deal with. That’s actually fair enough, when you think about people messing with your head. That’s the ultimate schizophrenic/paranoid nightmare. So of course some people are going to be upset by that and try and explain it away.

 

But ultimately I see this in the same terms as I see politics. I think people identify with different positions, different points of view, according to their temperaments, their background perhaps, the circumstances they’re in. All of these things shape their attitudes to political ideas, ideologies.

 

And at the bottom it’s a sense of ‘what kind of world do we want this to be? What kind of world do I want to live in? What is it that makes me feel comfortable?’ And then trying to make that world come about. I see the same process happening in this argument with psychic phenomena. Some people accept it and go with it; others resist it.

/more: http://www.skeptiko.com/randi-prize-exposed-in-new-book/

[John Doe]

Your argument is full of gravity, "Rational Gravity"

 

(Here's what I mean by that)

 

Robert McLuhan: What I was trying to say about the-I came up with this term, “rational gravity” and by that I meant the sort of pull of orthodoxy. It’s a psychological process. We’re used to the world working in certain ways. That’s our everyday reality.

 

When something comes along that doesn’t fit with that reality, then I suspect there’s a psychological process that kicks in in many cases, not in all. Some people will unconsciously find some way of resolving the dilemma posed by this apparent anomaly and in the process of doing that they will come up with all sorts of explanations.

 

Having arrived at explanations of what’s happened or what somebody has claimed, no matter how speculative it may be, they will feel that the whole matter has been resolved successfully and they don’t have to think about it anymore. I think that’s a process that one sees going on quite a lot in the skeptical community.

 

Alex Tsakiris: Right, because you think the evidence that you lay out in the book is actually quite strong, at least in some areas, right?

 

Robert McLuhan: I do, yes. But I think how one responds to it is very much a question of temperament. I mean, take something like telepathy, and personally I’m not particularly phased by the idea. It doesn’t bother me. It doesn’t frighten me. I’m intrigued about it, curious about it, but I don’t automatically think something like that is impossible and could never happen.

 

I’d want to see evidence of it, but I think there are people who find something like that pretty difficult to deal with. That’s actually fair enough, when you think about people messing with your head. That’s the ultimate schizophrenic/paranoid nightmare. So of course some people are going to be upset by that and try and explain it away.

 

But ultimately I see this in the same terms as I see politics. I think people identify with different positions, different points of view, according to their temperaments, their background perhaps, the circumstances they’re in. All of these things shape their attitudes to political ideas, ideologies.

 

And at the bottom it’s a sense of ‘what kind of world do we want this to be? What kind of world do I want to live in? What is it that makes me feel comfortable?’ And then trying to make that world come about. I see the same process happening in this argument with psychic phenomena. Some people accept it and go with it; others resist it.

/more: http://www.skeptiko.com/randi-prize-exposed-in-new-book/

 

Words and more words. I give you fact based, testable evidence that anyone can check for themselves and you just give words.

 

Interesting .

 

You do not address any of the facts I laid down regarding how science acts when challenged, which blew your silly "Science is a church" argument to bits.

 

Instead you just copy and paste the words of someone else who either doesn’t understand science, or who has a vested interest in trying to convince others it is something that it is not. Interesting.

 

Cannot you think for yourself and offer a legitimate rebuttal of what I put down regarding the most recent example of what you might call "the orthodox" being questioned, at the highest possible level no less, and how the scientific community actually responded to it?

 

Of course you can't, because that is what we call fact. Not hearsay or anecdotes, but facts.

 

As such, and as I said before, I think there is no point continuing this "debate".

[drbubb]

Words?

Do I need to go through and quote the entirety of McLuhan's book here?

 

Facts?

I havent seen a single fact from you, just feeble attempts to brush away the evidence and arguments that I have provided.

 

I suggest you leave it alone for now - and re-read this thread in a few weeks, and you may see things more objectively, as others can see it now.

[John Doe]

Facts?

I havent seen a single fact from you, just feeble attempts to brush away the evidence and arguments that I have provided.

 

I suggest you leave it alone for now - and re-read this thread in a few weeks, and you may see things more objectively, as others can see it now.

 

Objectively Do you actually know what that means?

 

Fact 1) No one has ever claimed any of the many prizes available for proof of such things.

 

Fact 2) No one has ever demonstrated such things under properly controlled scientific conditions

 

Fact 3) You tried to deflect the discussion by claiming that science was "a church" and "the establishment" so as not to address the facts outlined above (1 & 2).

 

Fact 4) Your silly church of science argument was blown to bits with a very recent example of a cornerstone of science being challenged and how the scientific community actually reacted. You chose to completely ignore this. Very telling .

 

It seems you do not understand what facts are. Maybe this explains your strange "beliefs?"

 

Thank you for your suggestion, in return may I suggest you go and learn what facts are, and how science actually works, instead of continually filling your head with mumbo jumbo (from those that continually try to discredit science, as they know science shows them up to be the frauds they really are) and making silly attacks on things you clearly don't understand

[stunlee]

 

Just popping in to say that this is a hilarious thread guys. Oh, and thanks to Adcott (?)for the Neil deGrasse Tyson links, although they might have been posted on another thread.

In my first year of University I used to enjoy debating with the hardcore Christian groups. I quickly learned it was utterly futile.

[aardvark]

 

It seems you do not understand what facts are. Maybe this explains your strange "beliefs?"

 

Thank you for your suggestion, in return may I suggest you go and learn what facts are, and how science actually works, instead of continually filling your head with mumbo jumbo (from those that continually try to discredit science, as they know science shows them up to be the frauds they really are) and making silly attacks on things you clearly don't understand

 

+1

[drbubb]

Objectively Do you actually know what that means?

 

Fact 1) No one has ever claimed any of the many prizes available for proof of such things.

 

Fact 2) No one has ever demonstrated such things under properly controlled scientific conditions

 

1) No one has ever claimed any of the many prizes

 

Randi is using his "Prize" as a publicity stunt.

Quite obviously, he is not interested in awarding the money,

and he has rigged it so no one can win.

(Haven't you got the intuition to see this?)

 

JD, this is getting very tiresome.

 

Thank goodness I do not need to approach the world with your narrow perspective.

 

You seem to think you are the only one who can define "facts", "science" and "proof".

 

Your last post is a dead give away:

"demonstrated such things under properly controlled scientific conditions"

 

You want to control the conditions, or have biased control freaks like Randi control them.

 

xx ?? xx

 

(I was looking for the comment where I suggested that Brown and his questioning colleague work together to design a test that they would both find as satisfactory. Isn't that a sensible way to search for truth, rather than having each side design their own test?)

 

(I have read in the past that in various test like card reading, many psychics have achieved way-beyond-random results. But frankly, I don't want to waste time looking for such studies. That isn't why I started this thread - And chances are, you will find better references that I can provide in the books by McLuhan and Russell Targ.)

[drbubb]

Does JD (or Randi) think they are the only ones with the path to the Truth ?

 

1. James Randi is not the hero of skepticism that modern New Atheists make him out to be. He makes a living by looking for the biggest names in the spiritualist world (obvious frauds who soak up celebrity, and preexisting celebrities who "feel" spiritual) and going after them to promote his own brand. But his work has barely even touched real parapsychology. Its actual skeptic heroes, Frank Podmore etc. go unsung.

 

2. There's a reason for that: the more people investigate parapsychology, the more convinced they become. No joke! Randi and the news media feel comforted by stories that confirm their materialist views-- but the plural of anecdote is not materialism. Even by reading the preview of this book (check it out!) you will start to understand what parapsychologists really deal with.

 

3. When debunkers do look at the evidence, they get mad. They wall themselves off from anything that might legitimately suggest a non-materialist conclusion, and fall back on anything that could reduce a psychic to a clever hoaxer. McLuhan quotes several instances were debunkers purposefully misrepresent their primary sources to make an unambiguous success look like a failure.

Those aren't my words, they were written by someone who reviewed The Randi Prize book.

. . .

"When debunkers do look at the evidence, they get mad"

In JD's case, he seems to deny that there is any evidence, without actually bothering to look.

(And it is not my job to be his research assistant!)*

 

The fact that I have experienced some remarkable results from Remote Viewing is all the evidence that I need, to begin to take RV seriously. Of course, I do not expect anyone to believe my story, but I have suggested that others try themselves, and consider what Courtney Brown, Hal Putoff, and Russell Targ have said about the amazing results achieved by Remote Viewers. The fact that the US military used it for years, and developed Teams of Remote viewers, is not something to be lightly dismissed.

 

(This thread on) GEI is not the best place to conduct a defense of Parapsychology, and even if it was, I do not want to waste any more hours of my time doing that... On Demand, at this instant, for the benefit of skeptics here, who never respond to my legitimate arguments (about anecdotal evidence, etc.)

 

Don't expect me on this thread to present a full-blown argument for Parapsychology - that's not the purpose for which I started this thread, nor is it something I want to spend my own time doing it right now, when it is asked for.

 

If someone else wants that "hard evidence" right now, then: Go and look yourself!

 

There is plenty of evidence and studies. I have pointed to a books by Russell Targ, Courtney Brown's website, and Rob McLuhan's book... amongst other places mentioned here.

 

In reaction to what JD has posted, I already wasted more time than I wanted to: finding evidence that Randi is biased, and presented some of it here.

 

I think JD's arguments are:

+ Repetitive

+ Dismissive of any counter-arguments without answering them

+ Attacking straw men

Example:

JD keeps repeating : "where's the hard evidence?"

Does he think a GEI thread, and especially THIS thread, is the place to publish "hard evidence" for parapsychology?

 

What would that be?, some sort of long research paper?

If so, I am not interested in writing it, searching for it, or even side-tracking the thread by posting such a paper here. If someone else wants to spend their time doing it - then they are welcome to do so. (BTW, I have found so many "scientific" studies to be so heavily biased, that I no longer have much interest in diverting my time right now, to search for them and to read them. Personally, I prefer direct experience, and listening to reports from others with credibility.)

 

Does anyone truly think that they have the right to tell others how they should approach their own search for truth?

 

That is beyond arrogance.

=== === ===

 

/ FOR THOSE WHO WANT MORE "SCIENTIFIC" PROOF right now /

 

*Here's a link to a Google Search, and you can start there:

(Parapsychology Research Evidence):

https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&cp=32&gs_id=4&xhr=t&q=Parapsychology+Research+Evidence&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Parapsychology+Research+Evidence&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=b3f5f5114e0b0522&biw=1159&bih=563

 

For me: It is the experience that I have had myself, which is the evidence that matters most.

If someone wants a different sort of "proof" than I want, then pleee-ase:

Go and look for it on the Google Search link, or in some of the places I have pointed to.

Maybe you can start a new thread: Pros-and-Cons of parapsychology.

(I might even contribute there, if that was the purpose of the thread.)

=== ===

 

I am considering moving this thread back to the Fringe Section since it is going nowhere and I find it wasting my time, and it is irritating to read the same repetitive comments every time I come here

[drbubb]

(Assuming I do move this to Fringe, then):

If and when some posts start showing up here that are more interesting* I will move this back the the Main section

 

== ==

*"interesting" is not someone repeatedly saying "Where's the hard evidence?"

Without bother to look themselves, and refusing to react to the strong anecdotal evidence that has been presented.

[BradleyWong]

/ FOR THOSE WHO WANT MORE "SCIENTIFIC" PROOF /

 

*Here's a link to a Google Search, and you can start there:

(Parapsychology Research Evidence):

https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&cp=32&gs_id=4&xhr=t&q=Parapsychology+Research+Evidence&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Parapsychology+Research+Evidence&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=b3f5f5114e0b0522&biw=1159&bih=563

Like this?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology

 

Since the 1980s, contemporary parapsychological research has waned considerably in the United States.[38] Early research was considered inconclusive, and parapsychologists were faced with strong opposition from their academic colleagues.[2] Some effects thought to be paranormal, for example the effects of Kirlian photography (thought by some to represent a human aura), disappeared under more stringent controls, leaving those avenues of research at dead-ends.[2] Many university laboratories in the United States have closed, citing a lack of acceptance by mainstream science as the reason;[38] the bulk of parapsychology research in the US is now confined to private institutions funded by private sources.[2] After 28 years of research, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory (PEAR), which studied psychokinesis, closed in 2007.[38]

 

Two universities in the United States currently have academic parapsychology laboratories. The Division of Perceptual Studies, a unit at the University of Virginia's Department of Psychiatric Medicine, studies the possibility of survival of consciousness after bodily death, near-death experiences, and out-of-body experiences.[39] The University of Arizona's Veritas Laboratory conducts laboratory investigations of mediums. Several private institutions, including the Institute of Noetic Sciences, conduct and promote parapsychological research.[38]

 

Over the last two decades some new sources of funding for parapsychology in Europe have see a "substantial increase in European parapsychological research so that the center of gravity for the field has swung from the United States to Europe".[3] Of all nations the United Kingdom has the largest number of active parapsychologists.[3] In the UK, researchers work in conventional psychology departments, and also do studies in mainstream psychology to "boost their credibility and show that their methods are sound".[38] It is thought that this approach could account for the relative strength of parapsychology in Britain.[38]

++++

 

Parapsychologists' rebuttals

 

Nobel laureate Brian David Josephson is one of the more well-known scientists who say that parapsychological phenomena may be real.

According to some parapsychologists, controversy stems from the apparent elusiveness and unpredictability of parapsychological phenomena and their incompatibility with the established scientific laws. Greater acceptance of the field will therefore be contingent on improved replicability and better integration with related subject areas.[165]

 

Harvey J. Irwin and Caroline Watt have discussed "skeptical attacks on parapsychology".[166] Irwin suggests that skeptics often use name-calling and ridicule to belittle parapsychology, and he says that this approach is characteristic of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and its periodical the Skeptical Inquirer.[167] Irwin contends that some scientists reject parapsychology simply because they "cannot accept its empirical findings".[168]

 

Nobel Laureate Brian David Josephson and some other proponents of parapsychology have spoken of "irrational attacks on parapsychology" which stem from the difficulties of "putting these phenomona into our present system of the universe".[13] Josephson contends that some scientists feel uncomfortable about ideas such as telepathy and that their emotions sometimes get in the way when making evaluations.

 

- End Quote

 

Maybe we will find the answers in the UK ?

[BradleyWong]

...the bulk of parapsychology research in the US is now confined to private institutions funded by private sources

This might be a site to explore:

 

http://www.noetic.org/research/overview/

 

"We conduct basic science and laboratory research on mind-matter interactions, social science investigations of transformational experiences and practices and their impact on individual and collective wellness, and clinical and applied studies testing the real-world effectiveness of consciousness-based interventions. We also advance the study of consciousness by training young scientists interested in noetic topics through our internship program and facilitating strategic collaborations and invitational meetings among scientists and scholars to accelerate development of new, cross disciplinary studies of consciousness and transformation.

 

In addition, we synthesize bodies of knowledge, such as the science of meditation or the role of compassion in healing, disseminate these summaries, and use what we’ve learned to identify next steps. Finally, we communicate what we’ve learned in peer-reviewed scientific journals and scholarly meetings, and we translate our findings into educational products and curricula for targeted audiences and the general public."

 

Russell Targ is one of their Advisors:

http://www.noetic.org/directory/group/distinguished-advisors/

[John Doe]

1) No one has ever claimed any of the many prizes

 

Randi is using his "Prize" as a publicity stunt.

Quite obviously, he is not interested in awarding the money,

and he has rigged it so no one can win.

(Haven't you got the intuition to see this?)

 

JD, this is getting very tiresome.

 

Thank goodness I do not need to approach the world with your narrow perspective.

 

You seem to think you are the only one who can define "facts", "science" and "proof".

 

Your last post is a dead give away:

"demonstrated such things under properly controlled scientific conditions"

 

You want to control the conditions, or have biased control freaks like Randi control them.

 

I see you're totally missing the point again. You keep trying to make it personal, but it's not, so please don't get irritated.

 

It's not me (or anyone else for that matter) that is wanting to "control conditions" or "define "facts", "science" and "proof"."

 

It's just the requirement of scientific method of investigating phenomena, which was established to avoid the problem of human beliefs, emotions, vested-interests, bias and prejudices influencing results and giving false results.

 

That's all there is to it. It really is that simple.

 

 

Just popping in to say that this is a hilarious thread guys. Oh, and thanks to Adcott (?)for the Neil deGrasse Tyson links, although they might have been posted on another thread.

In my first year of University I used to enjoy debating with the hardcore Christian groups. I quickly learned it was utterly futile.

 

Yeah, I know just what you mean. It’s irrational how irrational some people can be.