PDA

View Full Version : Remote viewing is real--and the truth is being seen by the media...


Aeschines
01-17-2004, 05:04 AM
Let's make this simple. A Japanese TV show regularly does remote viewing--uh, not experiments, it just gets the people who can do it to do it. And they do.

An American fellow, much used by the FBI it seems (they said that he was able to draw an accurate map of a minefield around an embassy, or something like that) was today's hero.

A Japanese woman wanted to find her mother. The man was able to draw an almost perfect map to the mother's house--then they found her.

The show is called "Super Special '04" and was shown at 7:00 PM Japan Time on Channel 4 (Tokyo).

The followers of Ptolemy on this board--er, I mean "Skeptics"--can guffaw and cry "fraud" (without actually knowing jackola about the case) and whine and whinge, but remote viewing is real, it is leading to genuine effects, and the media around the world are starting to treat it not as a freak but as just a part of reality. In Japan, the media basically recognizes that many "paranormal" phenomena have been proved--case closed.

It's time to become a Copernican.

TonyJ
01-17-2004, 05:24 AM
... by those standards, Alien Autopsy is proof of E.T.

Yes, they are different shows about different things, but your proof seems to be that 1) it was on T.V. and 2) it depicted favorable results.

This is not proof at all that remote viewing is real. I'm not saying remote viewing isn't possible, but what you're presenting is not evidence of its existence.

Rashak Mani
01-17-2004, 05:34 AM
hehe... if they find WMDs then I might start beleiving in this mumbo jumbo.

I also saw the Starship Enterprise on TV... it must be real then.

gouda
01-17-2004, 05:44 AM
Nice sig, Rashak!

Dunderman
01-17-2004, 06:08 AM
Aeschines, is there any entirely unsupported phenomenon that you don't believe in? To help you along: A TV show isn't evidence. Media acceptance isn't evidence. Controlled studies are. Can you provide one? If not, you're wasting time.

John Mace
01-17-2004, 09:14 AM
Aeschenes:

Weren't you the posters claiming to have an MBA from a top school and unable to find a job? You might want to take a few science classes... Learn something about the scientific method, peer review research. Good stuff like that. :)

'possum stalker
01-17-2004, 09:14 AM
That's rich, Ace. I think you meant to post this in Baseless Assertions, not Great Debates.

Also, John Titor called, and he'll be riding by your place in his Pimpin' Singularitymobile later today to pick up a supply of tinfoil hats.

Brutus
01-17-2004, 09:20 AM
Let's make this simple. A Japanese TV show regularly does remote viewing--uh, not experiments, it just gets the people who can do it to do it. And they do.

To keep it short and simple: Do not believe everything you see on TV.

Aeschines
01-17-2004, 09:43 AM
from the "Skeptics." The TV show didn't "depict" what happen through a dramatization. The investigation was put on by the TV station itself.

It happened, and you have your cite. The show. You're free to investigate to what degree this show is credible.

The blase assumption that, oh, it's just TV, meaningless. Easily deniable. Who gives a f**k. Now matter how much evidence piles up, oh well.

Our worldview is intact 'cause we say it is. Fingers in the dike.

Aeschines
01-17-2004, 09:44 AM
Aeschenes:

Weren't you the posters claiming to have an MBA from a top school and unable to find a job? You might want to take a few science classes... Learn something about the scientific method, peer review research. Good stuff like that. :)

Umm, just a little easy-going mockery: the "skeptic" specialty.

I have a Master of Science degree, my friend. I resent your condescending tone like the devil.

Aeschines
01-17-2004, 09:46 AM
To keep it short and simple: Do not believe everything you see on TV.

Nah, stuff like the news, science shows--hey if it supports my worldview, good. If not, it's just TV--haw haw haw!

manhattan
01-17-2004, 09:55 AM
It happened, and you have your cite. The show. You're free to investigate to what degree this show is credible.Japanese TV is well known for putting on BS paranormal shows. It's a staple there. What to conclude about someone who thinks that there are things that can only be done on TV in Japan and are not reproducible elsewhere, despite the megamegabucks that would come with such a thing, I'll leave to you to evaluate.

In other news, some of the people on Jerry Springer are faking it. But you are free to investigate to what degree the Jerry Springer show is credible. Would that everyone in the world had that kind of time.

manhattan
01-17-2004, 09:59 AM
Nah, stuff like the news, science shows--hey if it supports my worldview, good. If not, it's just TV--haw haw haw!Don't believe the news shows or the science shows either. At least not without confirming evidence from other sources.

In fact, don't believe anything without additional evidence from other sources. Not even mom.

Cuckoorex
01-17-2004, 10:03 AM
What evidence do you have that the show was not rigged to produce favorable results for the remote viewers? As others have pointed out, there are a number of TV shows that purport to demonstrate paranormal abilities and events, and most if not all of them seem to break down under scrutiny. Since so many frauds and hoaxes have already been perpetrated using television, skepticism of the show's claims is justified, and a demand for a controlled study verifying the results is not unreasonable. There are just too many ways to rig such a show to appear to be genuine while staging or editing footage to depict favorable results. I would love to find out that remote viewing is a real phenomenon, but not so much so that I am willing to abandon tried and true methods of verification.

Duck Duck Goose
01-17-2004, 10:04 AM
Question: What is the name of the Japanese TV show that "regularly does remote viewing"?

I don't see anything like that listed on Nippon TV's website offhand.
http://www.ntv.co.jp/prog.eng/index.htm

Question: How do you know "Super Special '04" wasn't a scripted, fictional show, perhaps by an independent producer who then sold it to Channel 4? What basis do you have for thinking that it was a news show like "60 Minutes" or "20/20" instead of "The X-Files" or "Roswell"?

Question: Was the program in English, or Japanese? Do you speak Japanese? Did it have subtitles? Is it possible that you missed some kind of "the events portrayed here are not based on real life" disclaimer?

John Mace
01-17-2004, 10:05 AM
I have a Master of Science degree, my friend.

Then you should have all the tools you need to convince us with peer review scientific cites that your claim is true.

x-ray vision
01-17-2004, 10:06 AM
So then, we should believe everything on TV Aeschines?

It happened, and you have your cite. The show. You're free to investigate to what degree this show is credible.

Mentioning the name of the show is not a cite. I did a search for "Super Special '04" and turned up nothing. Since you're the one who thinks this program is so credible, perhaps you can share with us how you've come to this conclusion.

manhattan
01-17-2004, 10:10 AM
I did a search for "Super Special '04" and turned up nothing. In related news, you have no idea how relieved I was to find that a search on "Japanese TV" turned up mostly links about Japanese television. ;)

scr4
01-17-2004, 10:10 AM
Japanese TV is well known for putting on BS paranormal shows.
Well, not all of them. But we are talking about channel 4 in Tokyo, which would be Nippon TV. They are the least credible of them all. I didn't watch this particular show but most of their paranormal stuff I can debunk in my sleep. Definitely not a credible source of information.

The program guide says something about the supposed psychic finding Osama Bin Ladin. Did they?

'possum stalker
01-17-2004, 10:14 AM
Actually, Ace, you never cited anything. So we don't have our cite.

So you claim to have a M.S.

Take a good look at what you've posted thus far and ask youself how convincing it really is. Please, demonstrate your knowledge of the scientific method for us. Show us data that falsifies the null hypothesis that remote viewing does not exist.

Musicat
01-17-2004, 10:18 AM
I once saw a rabbit disappear inside a hat. No, really, live, no camera cuts, no TV bluescreen, a rabbit was placed in a large hat and the rabbit was gone. That proves that it is possible to make small things disappear as long as you have a special kind of hat. Einstein couldn't explain this trick -- everyone knows that in his memoirs, he said, "God does not play dice with rabbits. Relativity fails to explain how this amazing event took place."

I once saw a girl go behind a curtain. On stage, no trick lighting, no film editing, no smoke and mirrors, in front of my honest and unblinking eyes. After saying "Bibblety-bob," the magician pulled the curtain was away, and the girl was gone!!? Now that must be an unknown force, right? Science is baffled! This proves that the magic phrase "Bibblety-bob" has supernatural powers, doesn't it? (Careful -- don't say it out loud or you computer mught disappear.)

I once saw a magician pick a card from a deck. It was the EXACT SAME CARD that I had chosen earlier and put back in the deck! Impossible without psychic ability! He MUST have read my mind, and seeing the cards with his fingers, picked out the correct one. How else could this have possibly have been done? No one in the world knows how, so it must be ancient magic!

I once saw a man shot with an arrow, right through the stomach. The arrow went all the way thru and came out the other side! No trick could ever be this good! Yet he survived! Obviously this man had special, supernatural powers to withstand a hole in his gut, two shows a day.

I could go on, but why bother? How many stories like this do you need -- the phenomena is solidly proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The Harry Potter books aren't fantasy (why would you think that?) -- they are real; witches really do travel on brooms -- I have a cousin who knows someone who was a witch, so case closed, and you cannot argue me out of it. After hundreds of years of magic tricks, science doesn't have the slightest answer about why these events take place, so they must be supernatural.

Or quantum physics.

:rolleyes:

manhattan
01-17-2004, 10:26 AM
Well, not all of them. You're entirely correct, and I apologize for my generalization. Shoulda said something to the effect of "Well, Japanese TV has it's Fox Network, too. ;) And all of the networks from time to time air silly, stupid or untrue stuff, just like they do here."

Musicat
01-17-2004, 10:35 AM
In other news, some of the people on Jerry Springer are faking it. No! Say it ain't so, Manny! But I saw it on TV -- it must be true!

On the other hand, I have heard nasty rumors that TV wrestling is fake. Maybe this bears some looking into.

John Zahn
01-17-2004, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Aeschines
The followers of Ptolemy on this board--er, I mean "Skeptics"--can guffaw and cry "fraud" (without actually knowing jackola about the case) and whine and whinge, but remote viewing is real, it is leading to genuine effects, and the media around the world are starting to treat it not as a freak but as just a part of reality. In Japan, the media basically recognizes that many "paranormal" phenomena have been proved--case closed.

Is that all it takes to convince you is some TV show that you have seen, or did you even see it and only reporting what you read or heard? That done it for you, eh? Iím sure that show is a very accurate purveyor of truth, and leading scientific groups are in awe of this discovery. Physicists are bewildered and now must admit defeat. Just any day, the US media ought to be picking up on this amazing but true story. IĎll be checking all major news networks daily for it. :rolleyes: From the few threads Iíve seen of you, youíre second only to one other in having a propensity for believing in such tommyrot. At the rate youíve been going in your Gullibleís Travelís, you might overtake lekatt to becoming Straight Dopeís favorite whipping boy. Why is it whenever these people agree to be tested by legitimate groups such as CSICOP, James Randi Foundation, and others that have been investigating paranormal phenomena for decades including ďremote viewing,Ē end up each and every time failing miserably? A TV show where there are not much in the way of controls, if any, and just about anything goes as long as it is entertaining, isnít the most ideal place to further your education. Put down the remote.

The blase assumption that, oh, it's just TV, meaningless. Easily deniable. Who gives a f**k. Now matter how much evidence piles up, oh well.

There is a mountain of scientific evidence against it. Your evidence is not scientific. You do have something piling up on the other end, and evidence, it is not.

I have a Master of Science degree, my friend. I resent your condescending tone like the devil.

Mind if we verify that? What particular school puts out people like you? And what scientific interaction do you propose is occurring with remote viewing?

JZ

scotandrsn
01-17-2004, 11:17 AM
An American fellow, much used by the FBI it seems (they said that he was able to draw an accurate map of a minefield around an embassy, or something like that) was today's hero.

A Japanese woman wanted to find her mother. The man was able to draw an almost perfect map to the mother's house--then they found her.


Okay, Aeschines, I will attempt to address you on your own terms, and not make fun of you.

Your OP is rather vague on the details, so I'll list a few assumptions:


That the fellow's connections with the FBI were stated by the host who introduced him, or by the fellow himself in some kind of preliminary chat after he was introduced.
That his experience in drawing a minefield map was introduced in a similar fashion.
That "they found her" means that a camera crew appeared at her house, and she acknowledged upon their arrival that she was the mother of the woman who made the request, who recognized her.


You claim this fellow discovered the location of the mother solely by means of remote viewing. If you wish to convince me that this is the case, you will have to provide evidence of the following:


That the fellow had never heard of the woman making the requestor her search for her mother before she asked him on television.
That the fellow had access to absolutely no resources other than his own psychic powers between the time the request was presented to him and the time he produced the map.
That no one on television has the nerve to broadcast claims that are not true or have not been rigorously checked.


If you can provide uncontrovertible evidence, I will acknowledge that remote viewing does indeed exist. I await your response.

Q.E.D.
01-17-2004, 11:23 AM
Well, not all of them. But we are talking about channel 4 in Tokyo, which would be Nippon TV. They are the least credible of them all. I didn't watch this particular show but most of their paranormal stuff I can debunk in my sleep. Definitely not a credible source of information. Ah. The Japanese version of FOX.

David Simmons
01-17-2004, 11:29 AM
An American fellow, much used by the FBI it seems (they said that he was able to draw an accurate map of a minefield around an embassy, or something like that) was today's hero.


Was the "they said that he was able to draw etc., etc, ..." statement made by an FBI representative on the show?

Hampshire
01-17-2004, 12:21 PM
Remote viewers always seem to surface after the fact or when it's convenient for them. There are tons of ongoing missing person cases and plenty of them make it to local and national news i.e.
If any legit "viewer" out there wanted to make a case for themselves all they'd have to do is call the media, say "My name is such-an-such, i'm a remote viewer, the person your looking for is at this location, so grab a camera crew and get going. And if you don't believe me at least record this call so when they do find them you will see that I was right."
But, since there is no such thing as "remote viewing" this never seems to happen. If it did the media would be all over it and give this person as much airtime as they wanted.

The Great Unwashed
01-17-2004, 12:31 PM
Fuck, if it was on TV then I'm a believer -- I would very much like to subscribe to your newsletter, the rest of you can just wallow in your self-imposed, so-called sceptical ignorance.

KidCharlemagne
01-17-2004, 01:26 PM
from the "Skeptics." The TV show didn't "depict" what happen through a dramatization. The investigation was put on by the TV station itself.

It happened, and you have your cite. The show. You're free to investigate to what degree this show is credible.
.

A "TV Station" is not the vanguard of truth and objectivity; its mission is to get ratings. Some news stations believe the way to steady ratings is objectivity, others take the chance on sensationalism. The credibility of the experiment/experimenter is the single most important variable in paranormal experiments so it can't just be tossed off as an incidental. I understand your frustration with knee-jerk skepticism; its filled with the same fallacious arguments and fanaticism that skeptics accuse "believers" of employing. Nevertheless, citing this show hurts your case a lot more than it helps.

IWLN
01-17-2004, 02:12 PM
Umm, just a little easy-going mockery: the "skeptic" specialty.You could not possibly be surprised at this reaction. You don't have to be psychic to realize that a cite does not equal evidence. lekatt, at least has a message he's trying to spread. What is your purpose? If it's to show that skeptics won't consider factual information, you might want to try presenting them with some next time. If it's just to get attention with outrageous assertions, you Aeschines are a success. :rolleyes:

Dunderman
01-18-2004, 06:47 AM
If any legit "viewer" out there wanted to make a case for themselves all they'd have to do is call the media, say "My name is such-an-such, i'm a remote viewer, the person your looking for is at this location, so grab a camera crew and get going. And if you don't believe me at least record this call so when they do find them you will see that I was right."
Exactly. Best damn point I've heard all week. If all this stuff - remote viewing, dowsing, telepathy, telekinesis, pyrokinesis, speaking to the dead - actually worked, it would be so noticeable as to be impossible to ignore. It'd be like denying the existence of motor cars or airplanes. It would have profoundly changed our society, just like engines did, and computers, and indoor plumbing. Instead we get these fumblers on a Japanese television network and clueless people like Aeschines spreading the word.

John Zahn
01-18-2004, 10:21 AM
If somebody claiming to have remote viewing abilities did as Hampshire suggested, and it turned out the missing person was a dead body, donít you think the cops suspicion would be on him as the murderer? I believe this actually has happened, but the show I watched has been years ago, and I canĎt remember if it was a true story or not. But youíre right, a remote viewer could easily demonstrate this. As long as it was repeatable, and the remote viewer claiming this ability didnĎt turn out to be a serial killer. :) But no amount of hard evidence that science and legitimate groups have accumulated showing the unlikelihood of it, thus far, is going to have an impact on a true believer.

JZ

Sam Stone
01-18-2004, 01:46 PM
Let's evaluate the possibilities here, shall we?

1. Humans have the ability, previously unknown and unexploited, to leave their corporeal bodies and fly throughout time and space.

or,

2. A TV show was rigged.

It's a conundrum.

Leaper
01-18-2004, 06:43 PM
Let's evaluate the possibilities here, shall we?

1. Humans have the ability, previously unknown and unexploited, to leave their corporeal bodies and fly throughout time and space.


Ahh, but how do you KNOW it's been unexploited? Much like the psychics who don't win the lottery with their gifts, maybe these people have been hiding themselves! It's certainly NOT unknown; otherwise, where would all these people who claim to do it get the idea? ;)

Seriously, though, watch Columbo Goes to the Guillotine for just one of the many, many ways that these kinds of tests can be rigged (though I'd expect that, like in the show, many require complicity on the tester's part).

Aeschines
01-19-2004, 04:58 AM
Question: Was the program in English, or Japanese? Do you speak Japanese? Did it have subtitles? Is it possible that you missed some kind of "the events portrayed here are not based on real life" disclaimer?

Nice insult. So much for not getting personal in GD, eh?

At any rate, the show sponsored the research, showed footage of what the psychics actually were doing, and said flat out "such and such was what happened."

Like most Japanese TV shows that are not 100% newsy news, they had guest stars on to comment on the content. One guy said, "It doesn't matter whether you believe or not, but you've got to recognize the fact that this thing happened" (re the guy who helped a Japanese woman find her mother). That is, the show was emphasizing that these were factual happenings.

They had 4 people on which apparently have all have been used by the FBI to solve crimes, etc.

I actually didn't write my OP very well, so my opinion on the matter wasn't very well expressed. OF COURSE the show could have faked every damn thing it presented, and I wouldn't know otherwise. I also know that Japanese TV often gussies up stories with "yarase," or telling people what to say and do for the camera. (I know this because I've experienced it myself when filmed [although I was never shown]). Now, not all "yarase" is dishonest or aimed to deceive--some of it is just stuff like, "Say it again for the camera." But is one to trust Japanese TV blindly? Heck no.

The POINT, however, is that they are saying that the research is for real, and they are putting their credibility on the line. Their attitude is not, "Hey isn't that neato? Whether it's true or not, your guess is as good as ours." Rather, they're saying, "This is what happened, the footage you just saw was of a real person doing what he or she really does, and the results show genuine psychic ability at work."

In other words, the media is taking the phenomena seriously, and they are sponsoring research or actual use thereof.

Mangetout
01-19-2004, 05:48 AM
In other words, the media is taking the phenomena seriously, and they are sponsoring research or actual use thereof.So what? The media (or various parts of it) is well known for taking all sorts of things seriously, provided that it serves the purpose of getting people to watch.

Lets see some more documentary evidence of this phenomenon, please.

Mangetout
01-19-2004, 05:54 AM
BTW: I don't think DDG's questions were unreasonable at all, or intended as an insult; your complaint that you are being insulted looks like a rather transparent attempt to dodge some hard pointed questions.

scr4
01-19-2004, 07:34 AM
In other words, the media is taking the phenomena seriously, and they are sponsoring research or actual use thereof.
Have you somehow missed the fact that it's an entertainment show? Go to the NTV homepage (http://www.ntv.co.jp) and see where Super Special is filed under. You won't find it in the "journalism" section or the "information" section, but under "variety shows." It's understood to be the TV equivalent of Weekly World News, intended for people who want to indulge in a little fantasy and escapism. The show is not "putting their credibility on the line" because it has no journalistic credibility to begin with.

I did a big of googling and found that these "FBI psychics" have been on this show before. The last time was June 2003, when one of the "psychics" investigated an arson case in Japan, providing a sketch and detailed descriptions of the suspect. As luck would have it, the suspect was arrested two days later. (Possibly because the show generated some publicity for this case.) It turns out that the details provided by the "psychic" were all wrong; the "psychc" claimed he was a farmer, that he walked to the scene of the crime, and got injured during the crime and took one week off work. The real criminal was a taxi driver who drove to the scene of crime and turned up to work the next day. Even the "psychic's" sketch is more similar to the police sketch (based on witness reports) than the actual criminal. Here's the source (in Japanese):
http://van-dan-emon.web.infoseek.co.jp/niiki/200306/200306.html

PatriotX
01-19-2004, 08:41 AM
Umm, just a little easy-going mockery: the "skeptic" specialty.

I have a Master of Science degree, my friend. I resent your condescending tone like the devil.

In whatever science you hold a masters in, do you routinely use TV as a source for your research?
Do you now, or have you ever cited a TV show for any of your academic work, like your thesis?

Meatros
01-19-2004, 09:35 AM
Nice insult. So much for not getting personal in GD, eh?

I think you misread DDG, as that wasn't an insult and was obviously a set of relevant questions.

Dunderman
01-19-2004, 11:20 AM
Nice insult. So much for not getting personal in GD, eh?
The Artful Dodger (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame60.html) rides again. That was not an insult.
OF COURSE the show could have faked every damn thing it presented, and I wouldn't know otherwise. I also know that Japanese TV often gussies up stories with "yarase," or telling people what to say and do for the camera. (...)

The POINT, however, is that they are saying that the research is for real, and they are putting their credibility on the line. Their attitude is not, "Hey isn't that neato? Whether it's true or not, your guess is as good as ours." Rather, they're saying, "This is what happened, the footage you just saw was of a real person doing what he or she really does, and the results show genuine psychic ability at work."

In other words, the media is taking the phenomena seriously, and they are sponsoring research or actual use thereof.
Nice backpedaling. You said "remote viewing is real, it is leading to genuine effects". The point of the thread was obviously not that media accepts remote viewing but to claim that it works and exists. You got slapped and changed your position to the point that media is taking remote viewing seriously, which is a nonpoint, a nondebate, and utterly uninteresting.

Aeschines
01-19-2004, 08:15 PM
Nice backpedaling. You said "remote viewing is real, it is leading to genuine effects".

Yeah, that's my claim. Some of those effects were shown on the TV show. The calculus is simple: either they're lying, or remote viewing is real. The skeptos assume "fraud!" I, based on not only this show, but also government research and the actual use of remote viewing/claivoyance by government agencies for decades, believe it.

There's no backpedaling, because I claim, unambiguously, that remote viewing has been proved adequately. But am I trying to prove this claim here to you, the hard-core, close-minded skepto? Mais non. My claim in this thread is that your worldview no longer has the media support it once had, and the tide is turning. The truth will out, and it is.

Make fun of the show as much as you choose (without seeing it, of course), but if this show is a fraud, it's an outright, egregious pack of lies, with both producers and psychics fully complicit. Skeptos seem to find it easy to believe that such frauds can smoothly and thus largely be perpetrated without any complications or repercussions, but I cannot.

The point of the thread was obviously not that media accepts remote viewing but to claim that it works and exists. You got slapped and changed your position to the point that media is taking remote viewing seriously, which is a nonpoint, a nondebate, and utterly uninteresting.

Was that a slap? Sure didn't feel it. Rather, it seems I've pulled the cord of doll Chucky the Skeptic and gotten the same thought-free responses that one always does: Lies! Fraud! Deception! No evidence!

To another poster: "Super Special '04" is a variety show because they do a totally different topic each time.

What's this "Artful Doger" crap, anyway? I'm a Kung-Fu Master, people. At least, I can beat most of you's with one ass-cheek tied behind my back....

Qadgop the Mercotan
01-19-2004, 08:28 PM
I'm a Kung-Fu Master, people. At least, I can beat most of you's with one ass-cheek tied behind my back....
And you're trying to impress us how?

Why not tell us where you got your Master of Science degree? I got both my Bachelor of Arts and my Medical Doctor degree from Johns Hopkins.

As has been said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Thus far, nothing in the way of even ordinary proof has been offered.

photopat
01-19-2004, 08:34 PM
Why is it all the "true believers" here equate skepticism with closed mindedness? If I say "I need proof and what you're giving me may be proof, but I need to see it for myself and see how good the controls were before I accept it, but if the controls were proper and the evidence can't be explained any other way I'll be willing to accept it," that doesn't mean I'm closed minded. It means I won't just believe something extraordinary without real proof.

Closed mindedness is "I don't care what you say, what I believe is true and if you can't see that you never will."

Algorithm
01-19-2004, 08:37 PM
I, based on not only this show, but also government research and the actual use of remote viewing/claivoyance by government agencies for decades, believe it.
Ah, so you have further evidence of your claim aside from a television show. Please share this evidence with the rest of us.

Musicat
01-19-2004, 09:01 PM
Yeah, that's my claim. Some of those effects were shown on the TV show. The calculus is simple: either they're lying, or remote viewing is real.I can easily accept the possibility that people lie, especially to make money by selling advertising on TV shows. I have a much harder time accepting the overturning of 500 years of science, the same science that makes it possible for you to read this on your computer, half a world away.I, based on not only this show, but also government research and the actual use of remote viewing/claivoyance by government agencies for decades, believe it.And you have yet to supply a cite; a single good reference. What government? What agency? Have pity on us, A., and show us some data. Just the tiniest peek, M'kay? So far all we have is your outlandish claims and the hint of black helicopters. Can you back your claims up as rigorously as you pursue your kung-fu?
...if this show is a fraud, it's an outright, egregious pack of lies, with both producers and psychics fully complicit... Yep, that's about the size of it. It's been done before, it'll be done again, and although I won't mention names, gullible people will be taken in by it. P.T. was right, by gum.But is one to trust Japanese TV blindly? Heck no.I believe you just answered your own OP.

PatriotX
01-19-2004, 09:39 PM
I, based on not only this show, but also government research and the actual use of remote viewing/claivoyance by government agencies for decades, believe it.

Having a masters degree in some unnamed science you've undoubtedly looked at the peer reviews of this government research BEFORE you made up your mind, right?
Let me provide you with a link to refresh your memory:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook/POD276/html/602.html
Remote viewing section starts here
http://books.nap.edu/books/POD276/html/647.html#pagetop
Read these, and if you'd like to discuss them I'm sure we' can

To summarize the content of what you're about to (re)read- poor study design and poor controls.
Not necessarily fraud or lying, (though possible), but at least mistaken.
If the search function was working well, I'd link to where I already discussed this topic, (Stargate etc), at length. Instead, I'll just link to Cecil's pithy summary: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpsychicfed.html

Over a period of more than 20 years, the CIA and Pentagon spent approximately $20 million to study and employ numerous "psychics." They were supposed to help track down terrorists, find hostages, help anti-drug activities, etc. Experiments were conducted on precognition, clairvoyance, and remote viewing.

So where does this leave us? Let's look more closely at the studies. Utts said the "psychics" were accurate about 15% of the time when they were helping the CIA. Fifteeen percent? Is this supposed to convince us to pay them to help the United States government? Utts says she thinks "they would be effective if used in conjunction with other intelligence." My intelligence tells me that 15% accuracy isn't much help no matter what it's used in conjunction with--that's an 85% failure rate! So 85% of the time, spies would be wasting their time and resources on incorrect information. We're supposed to be happy with that? And that's presuming she's right about the 15%.

An interesting note in this regard is that "psychics" interviewed by CIA evaluators said the program worked well as long as it was run by those "who accepted the phenomenon." Sorry, guys, but objective scientific results shouldn't depend on who's running a study!

You should apply some of your rigorous scientific training toward the evidence you see.
Currently, it appears that you've chucked all of that out the window, (or never had it in the first place).


What's this "Artful Doger" crap, anyway? I'm a Kung-Fu Master, people. At least, I can beat most of you's with one ass-cheek tied behind my back....
Remeber, "Many lesser Warriors delude themselves into thinking that they are masters of war, but few are the genuine article."

Mr. Miskatonic
01-19-2004, 09:56 PM
I just love the RV advocates. For several years they claimed the best in the business were the PSI-TECH clowns who were assorted "RV'ers" who the government used in its sad little RVing experiments.

Well, when Elizabeth Smart disappeared they gleefully RV'ed that she was dead. They even waltzed around one location they claimed was where she was killed or buried.

Then she turned up alive. They waffled out some excuses but never apologised for the trauma they caused the Smart family.

GIGObuster
01-19-2004, 10:10 PM
Make fun of the show as much as you choose (without seeing it, of course), but if this show is a fraud, it's an outright, egregious pack of lies, with both producers and psychics fully complicit. Skeptos seem to find it easy to believe that such frauds can smoothly and thus largely be perpetrated without any complications or repercussions, but I cannot.

The record of entertainment shows as evidence is not good: being a spoilsport or only a presenter of facts, is not conductive to ratings. Otherwise, science, math, and history shows would be the kings in ratings. There is a force all right, and it is economical: they go for the most outrageous things, all for ratings. See for example the case of Uri Geller and the Tonight Show: when Geller appeared with Carson as host, Geller failed: because Carson knew how magic tricks were done and he knew what to look for. In an entertainment level, it was a dull show. More recently, Geller had a better showing with Jay Leno, needless to say: Jay did go for the show ratings and not for the truth.

The complications or repercussions for the psychics do appear, but only when they comply to do controlled experiments. The real truth is that there is already a record of paranormal failures when confronted with hard science:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=235636

I have seen you before dismissing Randi, but his record on spotting frauds is better than the efforts of claiming his price.

Rilchiam
01-19-2004, 10:17 PM
I rather wish remote viewing was real, so that someone could RV Spalding Gray. :(

I gave remote viewers the benefit of the doubt, for a while. There was some guy a few years ago who would regularly call in to Art Bell, or who was a frequent guest; I forget. Anyway, he claimed to have RV'd some meteor or something, and found that it contained "spores", which would eventually land on earth, and kill off all green plants, leading to a worldwide famine.

He named a specific time frame for this, too. And that time came and went, and no "spores" appeared. I did appreciate the fact that he never did any backpedaling on this. He didn't extend the deadline after nothing happened. Rather, he claimed that he had seen something; it just hadn't been spores. But since then, I've been disinclined to believe that there is such a thing as remote viewing.

Though I did enjoy the Omaha steaks that Mr. Rilch insisted on ordering "while we still could".

Fish
01-20-2004, 12:17 AM
The skeptos assume "fraud!" I, based on not only this show, but also government research and the actual use of remote viewing/claivoyance by government agencies for decades, believe it.
You believe it. Good for you. You're welcome to believe whatever you want. Baselessly attacking skeptics, that's another matter. You began your ad hominem attack before the evidence was even completely out of your mouth. Let's compare your assumption of what skeptics think with what was actually said.

TonyJ said: I'm not saying remote viewing isn't possible, but what you're presenting is not evidence of its existence.
Rashak Mani said, mockingly: I also saw the Starship Enterprise on TV... it must be real then.
Priceguy said: A TV show isn't evidence. Media acceptance isn't evidence. Controlled studies are. Can you provide one? If not, you're wasting time.
'possum stalker said: I think you meant to post this in Baseless Assertions, not Great Debates.
brutus said: Do not believe everything you see on TV.
manhattan said: Japanese TV is well known for putting on BS paranormal shows. ... In fact, don't believe anything without additional evidence from other sources.
Cuckoorex asked: What evidence do you have that the show was not rigged to produce favorable results for the remote viewers?
Duck Duck Goose asked: How do you know "Super Special '04" wasn't a scripted, fictional show...?
John Zahn said: Your evidence is not scientific.
scotandrsn said: If you can provide uncontrovertible evidence, I will acknowledge that remote viewing does indeed exist.

To save you the trouble of re-reading the thread, let me sum up. Not a single person said he assumed it was fraud, as you claim "the skeptos" do. Not one. The arguments are all along the lines that a for-profit television show does not equate to an airtight-controlled scientific study. I don't know why you keep hurling out this tired claim in all of your threads, the claims that "skeptics always ignore the evidence," "skeptics have closed minds," "skeptics never even bother to look at the evidence if it conflicts with their worldview," or words to that effect.

None of the people here appear to be making the assumption you claim. So set that asinine argument aside and start providing some facts, please. Stop trotting out the "skeptics never listen" argument because we can all see it's completely false. You have provided what you consider to be evidence; we want to know more about how rigorously the show used scientific controls and how diligently it pursued truth versus mere ratings. Somehow, this appears to offend you so much that you feel it is unnecessary to give us more information or answer any questions. Very convenient for your argument, I must say.

I realize from past debates with you that you have a blind side when it comes to linking actual controlled scientific studies. In fact, you have a problem providing facts of any kind because "skeptics always ignore them so it'd be a waste of time." Nobody's ignoring your evidence here, buddy. We are giving it the weight that it is due.

You have no problem claiming that these studies exist, of course, but I don't expect you to cough up. In the thread about ghosts, you said that (pardon my paraphrase, the boards are being flaky) you assumed everyone here was knowledgeable about the subject and had all the information they needed about the topic without needing you to provide any. This board don't work that way, bub. It's not a Bring-Your-Own.

Rather, it seems I've pulled the cord of doll Chucky the Skeptic and gotten the same thought-free responses that one always does: Lies! Fraud! Deception! No evidence!
Again the refrain of how skeptics never listen. They questioned the veracity of the television show you cited and cautioned you not to believe everything you see on TV. You even appear to realize that the evidence is not rock-solid:

OF COURSE the show could have faked every damn thing it presented, and I wouldn't know otherwise.
So tell us, Aeschines? Are you expecting us to respect evidence that you admit may or may not be true? This is what you call proof? This is what you call incontrovertible evidence? Look up the word "incontrovertible" in the dictionary and you will find that it means "impossible to dispute, unquestionable." And you yourself admit that there are holes in the evidence big enough to walk Elizabeth Smart through. When you will you provide the rock-solid evidence we are asking for? Or do you just believe because this particular show

supports [your] worldview, good. If not, it's just TV--haw haw haw!
I realize your quote above was to mock skeptics who (you claim) automatically suspect anything they believe cannot be true; but it applies equally to you who (it seems to me) automatically reveres every half-baked piece of evidence that supports that which you believe must be true. If this is merely about the power of your beliefs, then I wonder what you're doing by pretending you're in a debate. If you have evidence that is incontrovertible then by all means let's discuss it.

I don't think we'll see your evidence, because you say the point of this thread isn't even to debate the facts: it is to announce self-importantly that there's a sea change, and when all the major media start putting on television shows about psychics and aliens and UFOs and ghosts and OBEs and invisible pink unicorns, then we skeptics will all be sorry, eh? I ought to make you aware of a wonderful aphorism that we see often on the Straight Dope: "the plural of 'anecdote' isn't 'evidence.'"

What's this "Artful Doger" crap, anyway?
Here is a partial list of questions that, in lieu of answering, you dodged:
1. Was the show broadcast in Japanese? Yes or no.
2. Do you speak Japanese? Yes or no.
3. Can you provide a link to a controlled study of Remote Viewing? Yes or no.
4. What evidence do you have that the show was not rigged to produce favorable results? Your answer: You have no evidence the show was not rigged. You said the show could have been completely faked and you wouldn't have any idea.
5. How do you know that the television program wasn't a scripted, fictional show?

So stop dodging and answer the questions.

It all boils down to this:

The POINT, however, is that they are saying that the research is for real, and they are putting their credibility on the line.
They say it's real and that's good enough for you. You evidently trust someone when they tell you something is real and true. It's not good enough for me. I want to confirm what I'm told, either through independent reason or additional sources of evidence. So we're back to question #3. Do you have any cites of additional evidence you wish to produce?

And one final word of caution about how you support your arguments by authority: just because the government does a study on something (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0WDQ/1999_Oct_4/56195165/p1/article.jhtml) doesn't mean the study was favorable.

That's it for me. Until I see some links to some controlled studies in here, I'm just going to assume that you're asserting your belief muscles, Aeschines. Good luck with the whole science thing.

Ale
01-20-2004, 12:43 AM
Awww... not again, my head hurts already, is this going to drag for what?, 7, 8 pages like that infamous ghost thread?
On one side Aeschines bashin "skeptics" for not seen the self evident and obvious truth of his wild assertions.
On the other side... well, pretty much the entire Doper community pulling their hairs off asking for cites and evidence.

Ale
01-20-2004, 12:47 AM
Oh dear, posting at 3:49 AM does a great disservice to my spelling, doesnīt it?

Dunderman
01-20-2004, 01:27 AM
Yeah, that's my claim. Some of those effects were shown on the TV show. The calculus is simple: either they're lying, or remote viewing is real. The skeptos assume "fraud!" I, based on not only this show, but also government research and the actual use of remote viewing/claivoyance by government agencies for decades, believe it.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpsychicfed.html
There's no backpedaling, because I claim, unambiguously, that remote viewing has been proved adequately. But am I trying to prove this claim here to you, the hard-core, close-minded skepto? Mais non. My claim in this thread is that your worldview no longer has the media support it once had, and the tide is turning. The truth will out, and it is.
[suppresses chuckle] Well, that's a Great Debate, no doubt. "Media will write anything that sells!" Yeah, let's all debate that one.
Make fun of the show as much as you choose (without seeing it, of course), but if this show is a fraud, it's an outright, egregious pack of lies, with both producers and psychics fully complicit. Skeptos seem to find it easy to believe that such frauds can smoothly and thus largely be perpetrated without any complications or repercussions, but I cannot.
Then you're charmingly naive.
Rather, it seems I've pulled the cord of doll Chucky the Skeptic and gotten the same thought-free responses that one always does: Lies! Fraud! Deception! No evidence!
There is no evidence. Show us evidence and we'll evaluate it. So far we haven't. And until you do, stop claiming you have a Masters of Science, as it is an obvious lie, unless you got it via a UNIVERSITY DIPLOMAS!!!!! email.
What's this "Artful Doger" crap, anyway? I'm a Kung-Fu Master, people. At least, I can beat most of you's with one ass-cheek tied behind my back....
This is where I stop thinking you're serious. You've never beaten anyone, not even come close to seriously threatening anyone. And you know it.

Fish
01-20-2004, 01:43 AM
And until you do, stop claiming you have a Masters of Science, as it is an obvious lie, unless you got it via a UNIVERSITY DIPLOMAS!!!!! email.
Maybe he's Dr. Science. (http://www.ducksbreath.com/) Remember, he has a Masters Degree... in Science!

scr4
01-20-2004, 04:51 AM
Make fun of the show as much as you choose (without seeing it, of course), but if this show is a fraud, it's an outright, egregious pack of lies, with both producers and psychics fully complicit.
I HAVE seen Super Special before, and I have seen many other variety shows produced by this TV station. It's obvious that it's meant to be taken as entertainment, not scientific results. The produces don't care if the "psychics" are real. If they can do a decent imitation that's good enough material to put on TV.

Talk to a dozen Japanese people. Tell them someone found out that a variety show was telling blatant lies. I guarantee you that every single one of them will say "yeah, so what?" It just isn't the type of show to be taken seriously. I'm very surprised that you stayed in Japan long enough to be "fluent" in the language and not understand this.

To another poster: "Super Special '04" is a variety show because they do a totally different topic each time.
Right. In other words it consists of "TV talents" who talk about everything from fashion and gossip to "science". Do you think they are qualified to critique scientific experiments? Do you think the producers are qualified in conducting such experiments?

PatriotX
01-20-2004, 08:46 AM
Then she turned up alive. They waffled out some excuses but never apologised for the trauma they caused the Smart family.

I visited their site and chatroom the day that E. Smart showed up alive. A fellow forwarded this email to me for me to share:


From: [deleted] Add to Address Book
To: [deleted] simonwmoon523@yahoo.com
Subject: Fw: [TechnicalRemoteViewers] On Elizabeth Smart
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:15:14 -0600


----- Original Message -----
From: [deleted]
To: TechnicalRemoteViewers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:50 PM
Subject: [TechnicalRemoteViewers] On Elizabeth Smart


This is is the first time we have been wrong about "dead or alive".
The mistake was made in the analysis of the data not the data itself.
This is still a young technology and the analysis of the data is even
younger. So, people can wait another twenty years until we prefect it
or they can be pioneer's to help perfect it but be cautious because
pioneers need backbones. It doesn't make this technology any less
valid - it only makes we, human beings fallible but we knew that
already.

[deleted]


It's worth noting that this practice has been explored as a "technology" for more than one hundred years. So, it may be a young technology if you compare it to fire-making for instance.
It's also worth noting that PSI-TECH say that determining whether a target is alive or dead is the easiest part.
:smack:

I talked to a number of people who felt defrauded and upset. Their programs will run you into the thousands of dollars. I sent the guy who sent me this links to the SD and the SDMB GD. He may've joined for all I know. I posted this previously in the Thread That Wouldn't Die.

This was sent out that same day. I don't know if the story was subsequently...um..."refined" or not.

PatriotX
01-20-2004, 11:14 PM
At least, I can beat most of you's with one ass-cheek tied behind my back...

I wonder if Aeschines will untie that butt cheek and come back. :dubious:

Zoe
01-21-2004, 12:00 AM
Do any of these remote viewers have the remotest idea where Osama bin Laden is?

Someone with a Masters in Science would be likely to value skepticism for its suspended judgment.

As for me, I am not a scientist and I do believe that some things that are described as "paranormal" may be "normal" for some. But I'm not likely to be convinced of it by heresay about a television show. I'm open-minded -- not vacant...

GIGObuster
01-21-2004, 12:11 AM
I wonder if Aeschines will untie that butt cheek and come back. :dubious:

He thinks he is a Kung fu master and he is threatening us? :smack:

He is as effective as Ed Gruberman (http://www.webguys.com/pdavis/karate/tikwanleep.html)!!

Well, at least he got the pajamas! :D

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 06:48 AM
Why not tell us where you got your Master of Science degree?

Purdue University.

As has been said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Thus far, nothing in the way of even ordinary proof has been offered.

This is one juicy canard that the skeptos never sicken of. I'll say it again: "extraordinary" is an emotional qualifier; it's an opinion. It has no basis in deciding what level of proof is needed for any claim. Sufficient proof is always sufficient.

JRDelirious
01-21-2004, 06:51 AM
Sufficient proof is always sufficient.

... and we're waiting for it.

Musicat
01-21-2004, 06:54 AM
Sufficient proof is always sufficient.So when are you going to show us some? So far, we have none. Is none sufficent?

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 07:00 AM
I can easily accept the possibility that people lie, especially to make money by selling advertising on TV shows. I have a much harder time accepting the overturning of 500 years of science, the same science that makes it possible for you to read this on your computer, half a world away.

Such naivete. 500 years of science, huh? Both Copernicus and Newton, to name just a couple of respected dudes, believed in astrology... and host of other things not copaceptic in your worldview. Your atheistic, materialistic way of thinking is really only about 150 years old.

Nice, though, how you give your worldview credit for all our modern inventions, such as the computer. Actually, having worked in applied science myself, the vast majority of "scientific discoveries" are actually the result of people tinkering around in labs, getting their hands in the Play Doh, and has very little to do with theoretical purity.

And you have yet to supply a cite; a single good reference. What government? What agency? Have pity on us, A., and show us some data. Just the tiniest peek, M'kay?

M-not-k, as I am not trying to prove that remote viewing is real to a bunch of people who are free to Google the issue and read debunkings and de-debunkings written by persons who are far more knowedgable of the topic than I. This OP, shittily written as it was, was to say that, seeing as how the paranormal is being treated more and more seriously by the media (Crossing Over, Super Special, whathaveyou), you will no longer be able to rest easy as assume the truth will remain in the same dark corner it has been forced to sit in for the past 100 years.

So far all we have is your outlandish claims and the hint of black helicopters.

Ah, classic Skepto pejorative. Why go for the fillet knife when an axe is handy?

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
01-21-2004, 07:07 AM
Umm, just a little easy-going mockery: the "skeptic" specialty.

I have a Master of Science degree, my friend. I resent your condescending tone like the devil.

When you post rubbish like this, you lose your rights to resent anything.

You remind me of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle & the Pixies. A silly waste of an otherwise perfectly acceptable mind. :smack:

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 07:17 AM
Having a masters degree in some unnamed science you've undoubtedly looked at the peer reviews of this government research BEFORE you made up your mind, right?

I've read both sides of the issue: the original claims, the debunkings, the debunkings of the debunkings. Basically, I didn't find it too hard to believe the claims, but one is required to believe that someone out there is NOT lying. I mean, if a study says that So-and-So got this really big, impossible hit, and if the person who wrote that study isn't a big liar, then RV is right... right?

Skeptos start with the assumption that the phenomenon is impossible, and thus any such big case (such as those on the TV show) indicates fraud. Well, I don't concur with that logic, and hence we differ.

As for Cecil, well, he's great most of the time, but when he hits Paranormal Avenue it seems he always heads directly for the Skeptic Pub, which serves Knee-Jerk Skeptic Milk (a boring drink, if ever there was one) tall and cold. Let's take a look at broken logic at work:

So where does this leave us? Let's look more closely at the studies. Utts said the "psychics" were accurate about 15% of the time when they were helping the CIA. Fifteeen percent? Is this supposed to convince us to pay them to help the United States government? Utts says she thinks "they would be effective if used in conjunction with other intelligence." My intelligence tells me that 15% accuracy isn't much help no matter what it's used in conjunction with--that's an 85% failure rate! So 85% of the time, spies would be wasting their time and resources on incorrect information. We're supposed to be happy with that? And that's presuming she's right about the 15%.

This is hopeless stuff. Firstly, a 15% hit rate is mega-high! We're not talking about guessing cards with a calculable probability rate, we're talking about starting with virtually nothing and getting big, mind-blowing hits 15% of the time.

This proves RV without a doubt. Cecil doesn't bother to separate the issue of whether RV exists (proven by the result cited) from the issue of whether these pyschics can actually be used effectively and economically.

The "with other intelligence part" is apt, I think. That only means that the psychics method will become more usable the more the base data can be narrowed down--which is true of any type of intelligence. I mean, if you're told, "Here's the minefield," you can use metal detectors. If you're told, "There's a minefield within this 20 square mile area," you can't use metal detectors.

An interesting note in this regard is that "psychics" interviewed by CIA evaluators said the program worked well as long as it was run by those "who accepted the phenomenon." Sorry, guys, but objective scientific results shouldn't depend on who's running a study!

Hmm, I understand Cecil's point, but technically he's not correct. "Pychic powers" are ultimately a phenomenon of the human psyche, and pyschological studies can easily be screwed up by the way the experimenter runs them. If you have a hostile experimenter who's trying to trip up the subjects as much as possible, then, sure, the results might not be forthcoming.

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 07:35 AM
Having a masters degree in some unnamed science you've undoubtedly looked at the peer reviews of this government research BEFORE you made up your mind, right?

I've read both sides of the issue: the original claims, the debunkings, the debunkings of the debunkings. Basically, I didn't find it too hard to believe the claims, but one is required to believe that someone out there is NOT lying. I mean, if a study says that So-and-So got this really big, impossible hit, and if the person who wrote that study isn't a big liar, then RV is right... right?

Skeptos start with the assumption that the phenomenon is impossible, and thus any such big case (such as those on the TV show) indicates fraud. Well, I don't concur with that logic, and hence we differ.

As for Cecil, well, he's great most of the time, but when he hits Paranormal Avenue it seems he always heads directly for the Skeptic Pub, which serves Knee-Jerk Skeptic Milk (a boring drink, if ever there was one) tall and cold. Let's take a look at broken logic at work:

So where does this leave us? Let's look more closely at the studies. Utts said the "psychics" were accurate about 15% of the time when they were helping the CIA. Fifteeen percent? Is this supposed to convince us to pay them to help the United States government? Utts says she thinks "they would be effective if used in conjunction with other intelligence." My intelligence tells me that 15% accuracy isn't much help no matter what it's used in conjunction with--that's an 85% failure rate! So 85% of the time, spies would be wasting their time and resources on incorrect information. We're supposed to be happy with that? And that's presuming she's right about the 15%.

This is hopeless stuff. Firstly, a 15% hit rate is mega-high! We're not talking about guessing cards with a calculable probability rate, we're talking about starting with virtually nothing and getting big, mind-blowing hits 15% of the time.

This proves RV without a doubt. Cecil doesn't bother to separate the issue of whether RV exists (proven by the result cited) from the issue of whether these pyschics can actually be used effectively and economically.

The "with other intelligence part" is apt, I think. That only means that the psychics method will become more usable the more the base data can be narrowed down--which is true of any type of intelligence. I mean, if you're told, "Here's the minefield," you can use metal detectors. If you're told, "There's a minefield within this 20 square mile area," you can't use metal detectors.

An interesting note in this regard is that "psychics" interviewed by CIA evaluators said the program worked well as long as it was run by those "who accepted the phenomenon." Sorry, guys, but objective scientific results shouldn't depend on who's running a study!

Hmm, I understand Cecil's point, but technically he's not correct. "Pychic powers" are ultimately a phenomenon of the human psyche, and pyschological studies can easily be screwed up by the way the experimenter runs them. If you have a hostile experimenter who's trying to trip up the subjects as much as possible, then, sure, the results might not be forthcoming.

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 07:38 AM
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]There is a force all right, and it is economical: they go for the most outrageous things, all for ratings. See for example the case of Uri Geller and the Tonight Show: when Geller appeared with Carson as host, Geller failed: because Carson knew how magic tricks were done and he knew what to look for. In an entertainment level, it was a dull show. More recently, Geller had a better showing with Jay Leno, needless to say: Jay did go for the show ratings and not for the truth.[quote]

They've had Uri in a lab and run the camera. He does his thing; meters, you know, scientific instruments move in response. Wash, rinse, repeat.

No evidence! Fraud most likely... no, certainly!

Google it, you'll find it.

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 07:45 AM
There was some guy a few years ago who would regularly call in to Art Bell, or who was a frequent guest; I forget. Anyway, he claimed to have RV'd some meteor or something, and found that it contained "spores", which would eventually land on earth, and kill off all green plants, leading to a worldwide famine.

He named a specific time frame for this, too. And that time came and went, and no "spores" appeared. I did appreciate the fact that he never did any backpedaling on this. He didn't extend the deadline after nothing happened. Rather, he claimed that he had seen something; it just hadn't been spores. But since then, I've been disinclined to believe that there is such a thing as remote viewing.

And ever since I discovered that Sir Isaac Newton was a wackjob who focused most of his energies not on physics or mathematics, but on nutso occult topics, divination, etc., I've been disinclined to believe that E=MC2.

No, wait, that was Einstein, who incorrect because in believed in that superstition called "God." Unacceptable.

And also, if some wacko calls up Art Bell and says he can do RV but can't (shudder!), then RV must not exist. Voila!

Great logic. You're a certified skeptic. Your certified J. W. Randi skeptical supporter will be sent to you when you send your jock size, address, and check for $19.95 to 222 Burberry St., Pasadena OH.

Papermache Prince
01-21-2004, 07:47 AM
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]There is a force all right, and it is economical: they go for the most outrageous things, all for ratings. See for example the case of Uri Geller and the Tonight Show: when Geller appeared with Carson as host, Geller failed: because Carson knew how magic tricks were done and he knew what to look for. In an entertainment level, it was a dull show. More recently, Geller had a better showing with Jay Leno, needless to say: Jay did go for the show ratings and not for the truth.[quote]

They've had Uri in a lab and run the camera. He does his thing; meters, you know, scientific instruments move in response. Wash, rinse, repeat.

No evidence! Fraud most likely... no, certainly!

Google it, you'll find it.You expect people to believe you earned a Masters with "Google it, you'll find it." as a cite? You're not making "remote viewing" more believable; you're making your claim of a Masters less believable.

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 08:12 AM
The arguments are all along the lines that a for-profit television show does not equate to an airtight-controlled scientific study.[quote]

No shit, Sherlock.

[quote]I don't know why you keep hurling out this tired claim in all of your threads, the claims that "skeptics always ignore the evidence," "skeptics have closed minds," "skeptics never even bother to look at the evidence if it conflicts with their worldview," or words to that effect.

You can hardly blame me for stating the obvious.

None of the people here appear to be making the assumption you claim. So set that asinine argument aside and start providing some facts, please.

Wait a sec here.

I realize from past debates with you that you have a blind side when it comes to linking actual controlled scientific studies.

You need to write with more precision. I'm not blind; rather, I know how not to waste time.

In fact, you have a problem providing facts of any kind because "skeptics always ignore them so it'd be a waste of time." Nobody's ignoring your evidence here, buddy. We are giving it the weight that it is due.

What evidence? But yes, always.

You have no problem claiming that these studies exist, of course, but I don't expect you to cough up.

Yeah, they exist. Google 'em and study up.

In the thread about ghosts, you said that (pardon my paraphrase, the boards are being flaky) you assumed everyone here was knowledgeable about the subject and had all the information they needed about the topic without needing you to provide any. This board don't work that way, bub. It's not a Bring-Your-Own.

How about roll your own?

Are you expecting us to respect evidence that you admit may or may not be true?

Oh, it's far more interesting than that. If such a TV show can be made in this way (either as truth or as a polished hoax with many people involved), what does that tell you? The people here assume "fraud"--well, where does that assumption lead you? I find that the boring, dull, uninteresting thing about the Skeptos is that they come to an interesting logical conclusion but fail to do anything with the information so gained.

It's rather like the Moon Hoax people (idiots). IF such a hoax was indeed perpetrated, what does that tell you about the US government? Surely Nixon knew about it... and did nothing. What does that tell you about what kind of hoaxes can be perpetrated, and at what scale? Of coarse, some of these cranks DO follow the conclusions, and suddenly you have a worldview that is completely crackers. A lesson from the moon hoaxers: it's not just what you believe that makes you nuts, it's also what you don't believe.

And it's rather like the Democrats during the Clinton impeachment thingie. OK, you've granted that Clinton's action was "despicable" and whatnot, but you say that he doesn't deserve impeachment. Very well, but, having granted that he did something "despicable" and worthy of a censoring, why are you grinning with him in a photo-op 10 minutes later? There is no heart in the rhetoric.

So it is with the Skeptos. Fine, elegant hoaxes are being perpetrated all around the globe. And so? What does that tell you?

Nada. Uh, fraud. Forgotten. Wash, rinse, repeat!

Look up the word "incontrovertible" in the dictionary and you will find that it means "impossible to dispute, unquestionable." And you yourself admit that there are holes in the evidence big enough to walk Elizabeth Smart through. When you will you provide the rock-solid evidence we are asking for? Or do you just believe because this particular show.[quote]

I don't know who the devil you're conversing with, 'cause it ain't me. Wrong message board, perhaps?

Oh, here are the answers to your questions:

1. Was the show broadcast in Japanese? Yes or no.

It was on Japanese TV, so take a wild fucking guess.

2. Do you speak Japanese? Yes or no.

I already said I was insulted by this question.

3. Can you provide a link to a controlled study of Remote Viewing? Yes or no.

Yes.

4. What evidence do you have that the show was not rigged to produce favorable results?

None, and I already said so.

5. How do you know that the television program wasn't a scripted, fictional show?

'Cause it wasn't.

[quote]They say it's real and that's good enough for you. You evidently trust someone when they tell you something is real and true. It's not good enough for me. I want to confirm what I'm told, either through independent reason or additional sources of evidence.[quote]

Well ain't we rigorous? And I want to sort and count all my lucky charms to make sure the proper proportion of green clovers is in there. My mom, James Randi, and Lucky the Leprochaun will be so proud of me!

[quote]So we're back to question #3. Do you have any cites of additional evidence you wish to produce?

No, but I'm willing to work with those you google up for me.

That's it for me. Until I see some links to some controlled studies in here, I'm just going to assume that you're asserting your belief muscles, Aeschines. Good luck with the whole science thing.

No personal insults in GD, unless you're wearing your genuine J.W.R. Skeptical Protector. Then it's... play ball!

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 08:18 AM
On one side Aeschines bashin "skeptics" for not seen the self evident and obvious truth of his wild assertions.


"Wild assertions." This is insulting rhetoric inappropriate for GD. The next thing you know, you will be flashing me the Putz! smiley, which is also illegal.

Brutus
01-21-2004, 08:20 AM
...Yeah, they exist. Google 'em and study up...

Ok, you claim to have a 'Master of Science' degree. That is an excellent starting point! Now we can rely on you to provide links to scientifically viable studies! Not some stupid geocities crap or similiar nonsense, no sir! With your considerable background, you will surely be able to provide some evidence, no?

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 08:21 AM
There is no evidence. Show us evidence and we'll evaluate it. So far we haven't. And until you do, stop claiming you have a Masters of Science, as it is an obvious lie, unless you got it via a UNIVERSITY DIPLOMAS!!!!! email.

This is clearly a personal insult, which is not allowed in GD. Apparently no one chooses to obey this rule except myself, which puts me at a disadvantage.

This is where I stop thinking you're serious. You've never beaten anyone, not even come close to seriously threatening anyone. And you know it.

I never kick a man when he's down. Now get up, punk, and hit me with your best shot!

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 08:26 AM
I HAVE seen Super Special before, and I have seen many other variety shows produced by this TV station. It's obvious that it's meant to be taken as entertainment, not scientific results. The produces don't care if the "psychics" are real. If they can do a decent imitation that's good enough material to put on TV.[quote]

They seemed pretty serious about it all to me.

[quote]Talk to a dozen Japanese people. Tell them someone found out that a variety show was telling blatant lies. I guarantee you that every single one of them will say "yeah, so what?" It just isn't the type of show to be taken seriously. I'm very surprised that you stayed in Japan long enough to be "fluent" in the language and not understand this.

I'm fluent precisely because I haven't watched much TV. Do you know what "ame" means in Japanese? It can mean either "rain" or "candy."

Right. In other words it consists of "TV talents" who talk about everything from fashion and gossip to "science". Do you think they are qualified to critique scientific experiments? Do you think the producers are qualified in conducting such experiments?

It's not an experiment; it's a demonstration of the phenomena. And if it's not a hoax, then it was, in fact, a good demonstration.

Jon the Geek
01-21-2004, 08:28 AM
So it is with the Skeptos. Fine, elegant hoaxes are being perpetrated all around the globe. And so? What does that tell you?

Nada. Uh, fraud. Forgotten. Wash, rinse, repeat!

What would be so elegant about a remote viewing hoax on a Japanese network known for sensationalist TV? I don't get it.

As for your other comments... We "skeptos" don't take anything on blind faith. That includes a dismissal of the paranormal. If evidence existed, we could be convinced. That's how we work. Show us evidence, try to convince us. If not, stop wasting our time.

I don't understand how you can post a bazillion replies saying that showing us evidence would be a waste of your time. One post with good evidence is all you need to convince us and be done with the matter.

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 08:31 AM
... and we're waiting for it.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. Hit the books.

scr4
01-21-2004, 08:34 AM
The people here assume "fraud"--well, where does that assumption lead you?
It's not fraud if they don't expect people to believes in it. When FOX presented evidence that the moon landing was a hoax, did people cry "fraud"? No, they dismissed it as inaccurate sensasionalism which is typical of television.

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 08:39 AM
Ok, you claim to have a 'Master of Science' degree. That is an excellent starting point! Now we can rely on you to provide links to scientifically viable studies! Not some stupid geocities crap or similiar nonsense, no sir! With your considerable background, you will surely be able to provide some evidence, no?

When are you people gonna read what I've actually written and respond thereto? I'm not here to prove that remote viewing is real to you!

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 08:41 AM
I don't understand how you can post a bazillion replies saying that showing us evidence would be a waste of your time. One post with good evidence is all you need to convince us and be done with the matter.

Wow, it's that simple?! Gee, I should just, like, do that!

PatriotX
01-21-2004, 08:41 AM
I've read both sides of the issue: the original claims, the debunkings, the debunkings of the debunkings.

Cool. So let's discuss the peer reviews that I linked to.


Basically, I didn't find it too hard to believe the claims, but one is required to believe that someone out there is NOT lying.

Not lying, (opposed to "not-lying"), just means that the person belives what they are saying. It in no way precludes that they are mistaken, hence, it is not the same as saying the truth. ("Not-Lying" is just the opposite, where one says what is technically correct without being honest.)


I mean, if a study says that So-and-So got this really big, impossible hit, and if the person who wrote that study isn't a big liar, then RV is right... right?

Surprisng that this'd have to explained to someone who holds an MS, but no it doesn't. It takes something more qualified than that.


Skeptos start with the assumption that the phenomenon is impossible, and thus any such big case (such as those on the TV show) indicates fraud. Well, I don't concur with that logic, and hence we differ.

Here you've diverged from a discussion of the available evidence into a discussion of your feelings about people you don't know. If possible, we should focus on the evidence at hand.
How bout you gather your evidence and present it in one post? So far it seems to consist only of:
Aesc saw a TV show with psychics and the USgov did a study and found the results to be dissappointing and unacceptable.
If there's some more to it, please present it.


This is hopeless stuff. Firstly, a 15% hit rate is mega-high! We're not talking about guessing cards with a calculable probability rate, we're talking about starting with virtually nothing and getting big, mind-blowing hits 15% of the time. This proves RV without a doubt.

Since you've read the studies, you know that these weren't "big, mind-blowing hits" and the odds of achieving 15% under the conditions used isn't that remarkable.


Hmm, I understand Cecil's point, but technically he's not correct. "Pychic powers" are ultimately a phenomenon of the human psyche, and pyschological studies can easily be screwed up by the way the experimenter runs them. If you have a hostile experimenter who's trying to trip up the subjects as much as possible, then, sure, the results might not be forthcoming.
Unless you already believe in it, you won't be able to see the "proof" of it? That what you're saying?

How long til the SDMB search function works? Anyone know?

Algorithm
01-21-2004, 08:42 AM
Aeschines, if you haven't figured this out yet, it's custom here for the person who is making the assertion to cite evidence supporting it, rather than tell their opposition to go find it for them. It's obvious you aren't getting taken seriously here. One wonders why you continue to make such claims when you know ahead of time that you are only going to get asked for cites, which you refuse to provide.

Brutus
01-21-2004, 08:44 AM
Let's make this simple. A Japanese TV show regularly does remote viewing...

...but remote viewing is real, it is leading to genuine effects...


When are you people gonna read what I've actually written and respond thereto? I'm not here to prove that remote viewing is real to you!

Then I am almost afraid to ask...what the heck is your 'point'?

scr4
01-21-2004, 09:46 AM
Wow, it's that simple?! Gee, I should just, like, do that!
Er, yes. You should.

PatriotX
01-21-2004, 10:16 AM
Wow, it's that simple?! Gee, I should just, like, do that!

It certainly would help you make your case if you were to provide, at least "one post with good evidence."

AFACT, it's pretty much unanimous that you should do this.

John Zahn
01-21-2004, 12:18 PM
This is one juicy canard that the skeptos never sicken of. I'll say it again: "extraordinary" is an emotional qualifier; it's an opinion. It has no basis in deciding what level of proof is needed for any claim. Sufficient proof is always sufficient.

We have to qualify as to what is sufficient. What you may call sufficient proof, isnít sufficient to the vast majority of people, and especially for any credible scientist. Centuries ago, David Hume made the argument of why it was important to have that extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims. If someone claims to be able to break some well known scientific law, such as being able to levitate at will where gravity no longer applies, thatís an extraordinary claim to the vast majority of people. Remote viewing is another extraordinary claim because it violates well known establish laws of conservation dealing with energy. Itís only fair to ask for some extraordinary proof of this claim, if such a thing has occurred. Hume goes on about how extraordinary stories are everyday occurrence, and people bend facts all of the time (knowingly or not), but when has natures laws ever gone cuckoo? Which is more likely to be true? Without that healthy dose of skepticism, science wouldnít be were it is today. Skepticism is an important philosophical tool for the scientist and media alike and everyone in general, if they donĎt want to end up looking like a damn credulous fool. Those that donít understand it, or refuse to apply it, end up looking rather silly. Yet, you mock skepticism at every chance you get. Remote viewing doesnít fit well with physicists. You never proposed what interaction was occurring with remote viewing. Physicists can show why conservation of energy holds true for these fundamental interactions. You evidently donít acknowledge just how accurate these modern instruments are in detecting these interactions between particles. You would have to be proposing some new kind of energy altogether that has gone undetected entirely. You might as well take seriously perpetual motion claims as well. Would like to comment further on this, if youíll start concentrating on the scientific aspects. Iíll put my money on the laws of conservation of energy not being violated, before I put it on you or some TV show.


JZ

Dunderman
01-21-2004, 12:19 PM
This is clearly a personal insult, which is not allowed in GD. Apparently no one chooses to obey this rule except myself, which puts me at a disadvantage.
That cross looks really heavy on your poor shoulder.
Now get up, punk, and hit me with your best shot!
No need. You have so far proven utterly unable to defend yourself against even my most basic offensive maneuver: "cite?".
2. Do you speak Japanese? Yes or no.

I already said I was insulted by this question.
Do you really not understand how pathetic this looks? You're insulted by a simple and relevant question of whether you speak Japanese? What conclusions can a reasonable person draw from this?
3. Can you provide a link to a controlled study of Remote Viewing? Yes or no.

Yes.
Then what are you waiting for? Do it. But no, of course you're not here to do that. This thread is about debating whether some media corporations accept remote viewing. Yeah, that's interesting.

IWLN
01-21-2004, 12:34 PM
Aeschines
Hey, I like the way you think. I have been previously unable to make any headway at all with these "skeptics", proving G-d's existence. But you've given me a way. I'd like to cite Joan of Arcadia. She talks to G-d in person every week. This alone would not be completely impressive, but following on the heels of Touched by an Angel is irrefutable evidence. Since two different competing networks are involved, this just adds more evidence that it is not a hoax. There are also over 5 million hits on the google search when you enter G-d. So hey skeptics "Got G-d?" Oh, I have information about a talking horse too, if anyone wants it.:rolleyes:

photopat
01-21-2004, 01:53 PM
It's not an experiment; it's a demonstration of the phenomena. And if it's not a hoax, then it was, in fact, a good demonstration.


And if it was a hoax, it could still have been a good demonstration. Magicians can perform very well without using any paranormal powers. They do it all the time.

tdn
01-21-2004, 03:52 PM
Aeschines, if you haven't figured this out yet, it's custom here for the person who is making the assertion to cite evidence supporting it, rather than tell their opposition to go find it for them.

Not just here, but in the scentific/skeptical/rational thought arena as well. However, as you insist on us googling for you, here (http://www.rviewer.com/) is the first link that popped up when I googled on "remote viewing." Shall we take this link as your stated evidence?

Rilchiam
01-21-2004, 08:06 PM
Great logic. You're a certified skeptic. Your certified J. W. Randi skeptical supporter will be sent to you when you send your jock size, address, and check for $19.95 to 222 Burberry St., Pasadena OH.

That would be my bra size. ;)

BTW, word to the wise: preview your posts and make sure other posters' remarks are contained within the quote boxes.

scr4
01-21-2004, 09:53 PM
Firstly, a 15% hit rate is mega-high! We're not talking about guessing cards with a calculable probability rate, we're talking about starting with virtually nothing and getting big, mind-blowing hits 15% of the time.
How many sigmas is "mega-high"?

Duck Duck Goose
01-21-2004, 10:20 PM
I'm not here to prove that remote viewing is real to you!
Seconding Brutus--"Huh?" Then why are you here?

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 10:27 PM
What you may call sufficient proof, isnít sufficient to the vast majority of people, and especially for any credible scientist.
Really? I thought the "vast majority" of people believed all manner of things without any proof or standard of proof whatsoever. "Credible" scientist means, I assume, scientists who adhere to the Skepto worldview.
If someone claims to be able to break some well known scientific law, such as being able to levitate at will where gravity no longer applies, thatís an extraordinary claim to the vast majority of people.
And their emotional state as regards the claim, including their feeling of "extraordinariness," is completely irrelevent to the issue of what manner of evidence is required to proove the claim.

I could just as well say that I find some of the claims of relativity and quantum mechanics "extraordinary." I could say that 50 years of research and whatnot just doesn't do it for me, because the proof wasn't "extraordinary." And you'd laugh--justifiably so.
Remote viewing is another extraordinary claim because it violates well known establish laws of conservation dealing with energy.
As can be said of any phenomenon, if it's real, then it doesn't violate any laws. At any rate, I don't see how it violates any laws whatsoever. Information is being obtained, just as through the eyes and other sense organs.
Hume goes on about how extraordinary stories are everyday occurrence, and people bend facts all of the time (knowingly or not), but when has natures laws ever gone cuckoo?
There are plenty of unexplained phenomena. E.g., certain claims of relativity and quantum mechanics don't match up. Whether you feel that's nature "going cuckoo" is matter merely of your emotional reaction to the data, nothing more.
Without that healthy dose of skepticism, science wouldnít be were it is today.
This is balderdash. 90% of modern technology is based upon applied science (i.e., fooling around with stuff), and not on theory. If anything, the theory usually has to bend to what people just goofing around have discovered. If you actually take a look at what many very famous scientists, experimental or theoretical, have believed, you'll find that not even 1% would qualify as skeptics. If anything, they were wild-eyed nutso believers. Newton would be the prime example.
Skepticism is an important philosophical tool for the scientist and media alike and everyone in general, if they donĎt want to end up looking like a damn credulous fool.
Here you're right, but look at the point you've made: skepticism is about peer pressure, not about truth.
Those that donít understand it, or refuse to apply it, end up looking rather silly.
Sure, to those in your group, perhaps. And if you don't believe in Creationism, you'd be mighty uncomfortable among the Fundamentalists.
Yet, you mock skepticism at every chance you get.
Right now it's about the most hypocritical and counter-productive worldview out there. Self-deception at its best, in which those in the group pretend to have an open-minded cognitive approach, yet toe the party line better than any political or religious sycophant ever did.
You never proposed what interaction was occurring with remote viewing.
I haven't assumed that task.
Physicists can show why conservation of energy holds true for these fundamental interactions. You evidently donít acknowledge just how accurate these modern instruments are in detecting these interactions between particles.
I don't know what you're babbling about. As stated above, RV is about information exchange, not energy consumption/production.
You would have to be proposing some new kind of energy altogether that has gone undetected entirely. You might as well take seriously perpetual motion claims as well. Would like to comment further on this, if youíll start concentrating on the scientific aspects. Iíll put my money on the laws of conservation of energy not being violated, before I put it on you or some TV show.
Hell if I know what you're talking about. Phenomena precede theory. You're saying it can't be true in theory--well, new stuff's discovered all the time, theory be damned.

samclem
01-21-2004, 10:39 PM
Aeschines
Oh, I have information about a talking horse too, if anyone wants it.:rolleyes:

Hay! I have it on good authority that he was a zebra!

scr4
01-21-2004, 10:46 PM
If you actually take a look at what many very famous scientists, experimental or theoretical, have believed, you'll find that not even 1% would qualify as skeptics. If anything, they were wild-eyed nutso believers.
It doesn't matter. Science, as a system, is based on skepticism. It doesn't mean every scientist needs to be skeptical. The system of independent verifications and peer review makes sure that one person's beliefs are not blindly accepted as truth by the entire community/world.

Ale
01-21-2004, 10:53 PM
"Wild assertions." This is insulting rhetoric inappropriate for GD. The next thing you know, you will be flashing me the Putz! smiley, which is also illegal.

Why, Iīd be glad to comply.

:wally:

If I had the time Iīd give you a well deserved pitting.

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 10:59 PM
It doesn't matter. Science, as a system, is based on skepticism. It doesn't mean every scientist needs to be skeptical. The system of independent verifications and peer review makes sure that one person's beliefs are not blindly accepted as truth by the entire community/world.

Grr, equivocation and sophistry. Science is NOT based on "skepticism"; it is based on a loosely formulated portfolio of standards of proof, experimental methods, and philosophy. Nor is science a unified edifice: the standards of proof for the social sciences and physical sciences vary widely, etc.

The equivocation lies here: self-identifying skeptics claim to adhere to a particular cognitive approach, while at the same time also adhering to a particular interpretation of reality: reductionist materialism.

So, the skeptics define themselves as one thing, but are in fact another. I mean, do you know any theist who is proud to call him/herself a "skeptic"?

Do you know any "skeptics" who do believe in RV--or ANY phenomenon that the group labels as "paranormal"?

Of course not, just as you won't find any evangelical Christian who believes in evolution. The social pressures in either group do not allow for dissidence.

scr4
01-21-2004, 11:14 PM
Do you know any "skeptics" who do believe in RV--or ANY phenomenon that the group labels as "paranormal"?

Of course not, just as you won't find any evangelical Christian who believes in evolution. The social pressures in either group do not allow for dissidence.
How many times do we have to say this? No skeptic believes RV because nobody has given us any proof! And by proof I mean a controlled experiment whose results can be verified and independently reproduced. Quantum mechanics and relativity are based on many types of experimental results, all of which are reproduced in laboratories all over the world by independent groups. That is what we mean by "extraordinary proof." If you want us to believe in RV or whatever, the burden is yours to provide such proof. If not, admit you have insufficient evidence to convince anyone.

I ask again, when you claim "mega high hit rate" in one of the supposed experiments, what is the statistical significance of this hit rate?

PatriotX
01-21-2004, 11:16 PM
Short on evidence still I see.

Oh, well... I'll just be on my way then until you get ready to debate.

IWLN
01-21-2004, 11:31 PM
So, the skeptics define themselves as one thing, but are in fact another. I mean, do you know any theist who is proud to call him/herself a "skeptic"?Theist here. Very skeptical about "paranormal" type claims. Not closed to any and all empirical evidence. Believing in G-d does not indicate the willingness to believe everything on faith. Skeptic is the flip side of gullible. I would be proud to call myself a skeptic were it not for that little deity belief of mine.;)

Do you know any "skeptics" who do believe in RV--or ANY phenomenon that the group labels as "paranormal"?No. There is currently no proof that any of those things exist.

Of course not, just as you won't find any evangelical Christian who believes in evolution. The social pressures in either group do not allow for dissidence.I "was" a Baptist for most of my life and yes, I did believe in evolution, later as the evidence became irrefutable. I may have been encouraged to believe a certain way, but was allowed to think as I pleased.

You know Aeschines, these arguments of yours are almost identical to the ones you used in another thread that comes to mind. In both threads, you have failed to provide one shred of empirical evidence. You continue to miss the fact that in GD, you make a claim and then you prove it with fact or even at least show why it's extremely likely to be true. Don't you get tired of continuously failing to prove your points?

Joe Random
01-21-2004, 11:36 PM
Do you know any "skeptics" who do believe in RV--or ANY phenomenon that the group labels as "paranormal"?

Of course not, just as you won't find any evangelical Christian who believes in evolution. The social pressures in either group do not allow for dissidence.Oh, so the fact that there is no hard evidence has nothing to do with it, then? Oh, wait, you claim to be able to link to a controlled study of remote viewing. Yet you have refrained from doing so. Thus I must conclude that either:

You do not, in fact, have a link to any sort of controlled study.

or

The study you have a link to does not provide favorable results.


So which is it? If I'm wrong, all it would take to make me eat my words is a simple link. However, you seem to be more concerned with bashing "Skeptos" than with engaging in an actual debate.

pervert
01-21-2004, 11:39 PM
I am not trying to prove that remote viewing is real to a bunch of people who are free to Google the issue and read debunkings and de-debunkings written by persons who are far more knowedgable of the topic than I. This OP, shittily written as it was, was to say that, seeing as how the paranormal is being treated more and more seriously by the media (Crossing Over, Super Special, whathaveyou), you will no longer be able to rest easy as assume the truth will remain in the same dark corner it has been forced to sit in for the past 100 years.OK, let me step in here for a second and try this. You started a thread in Great Debates not to debate the reality or not of remote viewing. But merely to suggest that skeptics can no longer sit comfortably by while the popular culture ignores paranormal phenomena. That is, that skeptics should become worried that paranormals are being given more and more attention in more and more mainstream forums. Did I get that right?

If so, then I agree with you. The fact that John Edwards had a second show proves this thesis easily enough. However, you may need to provide some sort of evidence, in the case of your Japanese show, that the phenomena was intended as more than entertainment. It is possible that more and more people are falling for the paranormal sillyness. But it is equally possible that entertainment tastes are becoming sophisticated enough that demonstrations of paranormal activity can be aired without requiring belief. That is, as some have suggested, the demonstration could have been mere entertainment.

I thought the analogy to Jerry Springer was pretty apt to this possibility. No one seriously (I most sincerely hope) thinks of Jerry as a sincere guidance councilor. It is possible that the show you mentioned and John Edwards are enjoyed by people in the same way.

GIGObuster
01-21-2004, 11:43 PM
I could just as well say that I find some of the claims of relativity and quantum mechanics "extraordinary." I could say that 50 years of research and whatnot just doesn't do it for me, because the proof wasn't "extraordinary." And you'd laugh--justifiably so.
It is extraordinary and we have proof:
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
Much of modern technology operates under quantum mechanical principles. Examples include the laser, the electron microscope, and magnetic resonance imaging. Most of the calculations performed in computational chemistry rely on quantum mechanics.

Many of the phenomena studied in condensed matter physics are fully quantum mechanical, and cannot be satisfactorily modeled using classical physics. This includes the electronic properties of solids, such as superconductivity and semiconductivity. The study of semiconductors has led to the invention of the diode and the transistor, which are indispensable for modern electronics.

Researchers are currently seeking robust methods of directly manipulating quantum states. Efforts are being made to develop quantum cryptography, which will allow guaranteed secure transmission of information. A more distant goal is the development of quantum computers, which are expected to perform certain computational tasks with much greater efficiency than classical computers. Another active research topic is quantum teleportation, which deals with techniques to transmit quantum states over arbitrary distances

As can be said of any phenomenon, if it's real, then it doesn't violate any laws. At any rate, I don't see how it violates any laws whatsoever. Information is being obtained, just as through the eyes and other sense organs.
Very general information, and not better than random.
There are plenty of unexplained phenomena. E.g., certain claims of relativity and quantum mechanics don't match up. Whether you feel that's nature "going cuckoo" is matter merely of your emotional reaction to the data, nothing more.
As per the last cite, you are the one who doesnít know what is talking about.
This is balderdash. 90% of modern technology is based upon applied science (i.e., fooling around with stuff), and not on theory. If anything, the theory usually has to bend to what people just goofing around have discovered. If you actually take a look at what many very famous scientists, experimental or theoretical, have believed, you'll find that not even 1% would qualify as skeptics. If anything, they were wild-eyed nutso believers. Newton would be the prime example.
Newton was the product of a different era, anyhow, today his mathematics would pass luster even if dated, but not his Alquemy.
And by the 20th century, the most famous goofer was Edison, a non-believer.
Right now it's about the most hypocritical and counter-productive worldview out there. Self-deception at its best, in which those in the group pretend to have an open-minded cognitive approach, yet toe the party line better than any political or religious sycophant ever did.
The results of experiments and the debunking of great TV frauds like James Hydrick shows that we need experiments that will show us otherwise, experiments others can reproduce; that step is what allows the amazing technology of today, to work reliably; so far, your side can not do this basic next step.
I don't know what you're babbling about. As stated above, RV is about information exchange, not energy consumption/production.
Once again no better than random in controlled experiments, I rather go for a picture phone that will work 90% of the time.
Hell if I know what you're talking about. Phenomena precede theory. You're saying it can't be true in theory--well, new stuff's discovered all the time, theory be damned.
As I do remember all the good it could be there (like finding Spalding Gray) it is irresponsible, and bordering on criminal negligence, that you guys can not figure ways to allow your phenomena to be tested independently. Either that, or they are afraid of ending like James Hydrick.


Or Ed Gruberman. :)

Aeschines
01-21-2004, 11:45 PM
This is just the pantywaist response that I expected:

"Skeptics" all agree because all their positions (A is untrue, B is untrue) just happen to be correct!

O, brilliant.

You're missing the point, people. People just as committed to the scientific method and "correct" ways of thinking choose not to self-identify as skeptics precisely because they have come to different conclusions about the same set of positions.

But if anyone should happen to disagree with any element of that set, he's labeled a credulous fool and mocked without mercy.

Nice social approach. I can just imagine you people sitting in a circle, muching on Cheetos, and feeling superior to the 99.99% of people out there who care fuck all about whether they're worthy of the "skeptic" label.

GIGObuster
01-22-2004, 12:00 AM
If the case of James Hydrick doesn't make you reflect about the quality of evidence entertainment shows swallow, your conclusions are to be suspected, we need those psychics to give us something to begin, to make phenomena they are proposing, as almost automatic as other technologies, the field of entertainment is the worst place to look for new discoveries.

If they have a foolproof way to replicate their phenomenon, it is irresponsible and inhumane that they do not seek a more scientific approach to find what, by this time, should the obvious new discoveries.

scr4
01-22-2004, 12:05 AM
Aeschines, you are making an incorrect assumption that skeptics don't want to believe in the "paranormal" or "supernatural." I am a scientist, and I would be fascinated and delighted if I could find evidence for aliens visiting the earth, or talking with the dead, or this "remote viewing." There's nothing more exciting for a scientist than a chance to shatter our current understanding of the universe. Some scientists spend their entire careers trying to find experimental or observational results that disprove Relativity or QM.

If you have a Master's in science you should know this. You should also know that none of the evidence you provided come anywhere close to being convincing anyone.

Aeschines
01-22-2004, 12:13 AM
Very general information, and not better than random.

Now you're just staing your own belief re RV, not a fact.

As per the last cite, you are the one who doesnít know what is talking about.

The fact that relativity and quantum mechanics don't match is well known. The fact that you don't know it casts doubt on your whole approach to this argument. Here's your cite + a quote from the source.

http://www.mtnmath.com/whatrh/node75.html

There is no theory that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity. In quantum mechanics the greater the accuracy of a measurement of location the more uncertainty there is a in the measurement of energy. The uncertainty principle applies not just to particles but also to empty space. Over very short intervals phantom or virtual particles can appear. The shorter the time the more massive the particles can be. At very short intervals virtual particles will be massive enough to form black holes. One cannot extrapolate simultaneously both quantum mechanics and general relativity to minute distances. The theories explode or diverge.

I readily recognize that quantum mechanics is true. Whether it's extraordinary or not is, again, just a matter of opinion.

Newton was the product of a different era, anyhow, today his mathematics would pass luster even if dated, but not his Alquemy.

Oh dear. The phrase is "pass muster." And it's spelled "alchemy." A different era, huh? Many scientists today believe in God. Here is an article by a magician who knows that psi is real:

http://66.221.71.68/content/research/cox.htm

The results of experiments and the debunking of great TV frauds like James Hydrick shows that we need experiments that will show us otherwise, experiments others can reproduce; that step is what allows the amazing technology of today, to work reliably; so far, your side can not do this basic next step.

First, I'm not on a "side," but since you adhere to one side so much yourself, I can understand why you should assume so. Two, many hardcore experiments have veriried psi. Oh, here's a link to website full of them:

http://www.boundary.org/experiments.htm

Once again no better than random in controlled experiments, I rather go for a picture phone that will work 90% of the time.

We're talking about an aspect of the human mind, not a machine created for a specific purpose.

As I do remember all the good it could be there (like finding Spalding Gray) it is irresponsible, and bordering on criminal negligence, that you guys can not figure ways to allow your phenomena to be tested independently. Either that, or they are afraid of ending like James Hydrick.

I'm not one of "you guys," and it is not "my phenomenon." Your rhetoric is getting more and more frazzled. BTW, I have no idea who either Gray or Hydrick are.

Aeschines
01-22-2004, 12:20 AM
Aeschines, you are making an incorrect assumption that skeptics don't want to believe in the "paranormal" or "supernatural."

How rich. First, it's an observation, not an assumption.

Second, "skeptics" as a group take pride in not believing in what "credulous fools" believe, and form their social identity thereby.

I am a scientist, and I would be fascinated and delighted if I could find evidence for aliens visiting the earth, or talking with the dead, or this "remote viewing."

I certainly don't put all these phenomena in one box, and I think anyone who does is already revealing his or her agenda. I believe psi has been proved, I believe ghosts have been proved, and I believe the afterlife has been proved--all three beyond a reasonable doubt. I'll argue for these three things and not necessarily for any others.

There's nothing more exciting for a scientist than a chance to shatter our current understanding of the universe. Some scientists spend their entire careers trying to find experimental or observational results that disprove Relativity or QM.

I'm certainly not out to disprove relativity or QM--they require mutual integration in some areas, but they are basically good. The funny thing is that the three phenomena I say I believe in would hardly "shatter" our current understanding of the universe, as most people already "understand" that they are true.

If you have a Master's in science you should know this. You should also know that none of the evidence you provided come anywhere close to being convincing anyone.

I also know a lot about human psychology, which goes a long way toward explaining the Skepto approach.

IWLN
01-22-2004, 12:32 AM
I believe psi has been proved, I believe ghosts have been proved, and I believe the afterlife has been proved--all three beyond a reasonable doubt. I'll argue for these three things and not necessarily for any others.You didn't provide any proof when you "argued" your "ghost belief". No one received anything that proved them beyond a resonable doubt. I am relieved to know that there is now proof of an "afterlife", though. Maybe you can start another thread and prove that to us, also.:rolleyes:

GIGObuster
01-22-2004, 12:33 AM
I'm not one of "you guys," and it is not "my phenomenon." Your rhetoric is getting more and more frazzled. BTW, I have no idea who either Gray or Hydrick are.
:rolleyes:

Specially because I already linked to the thread that had this:
http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/dreams_auras_astral_projection/psi.html
While Hydrick was fooling the gullible he was not fooling
magician and psychic investigator James Randi. As Randi recounted
the incident in the The Skeptical Inquirer (Summer 1981), "What
of the pencil and page tricks? Well, my jaundiced eye recognized
these as rather tired old tricks...Hydrick was simply blowing the
page over, and he spun the pencil around by the same means. Not
immediately evident are these facts, however: First, the blast of
air from a half-open mouth takes time to get to the props, and
Hydrick made sure he turned his head away from the pencil and the
page after giving a sharp puff of air, so that he was facing away
when the action occurred. Second, one blows not directly at the
prop but at the table surface."
Randi immediately offered Hydrick his prize of $10,000 for
proof of one paranormal demonstration under proper conditions of
observations. Hydrick accepted Randi's offer and agreed to be
tested on the TV show "That's My Line." During a rehearsal
practice session with Hydrick the day before the actual taping
Randi had the session, unknown to Hydrick, videotaped, with a
highly sensitive microphone aimed and focused at Hydrick's mouth,
and with the amplifier turned up far beyond normal voice level.
Randi's microphone recorded monumental blasts of air every time
the page moved or the pencil turned.
For the actual taped show Hydrick was allowed to perform each
trick once without any controls; then he was required to submit
to a controlled test designed by Randi. John Palmer, a member of
the Parapsychological Association and two UCLA scientists were
called in as judges of Hydrick's abilities. The prize check was
held by "That's My Line" host Bob Barker, and was to be
surrendered to the proper person at the close of the test.
Randi's simple but controlled test involved emptying a small
can of styrofoam particles around the open book. In this way, any
blowing would show up as a massive movement of the particles. In
case Hydrick claimed that his power could not differentiate
between the pages of the book and the styrofoam particles, Randi
was prepared to place a simple germ-mask on his face, which would
in no way interfere with his breathing or his psychic functions
but would prevent one thing-blowing. Not only did Hydrick fail to
perform with the styrofoam particles in place, but he refused
altogether to use the face mask. Hydrick spent ninety minutes
trying to move the page of the telephone book without success.
The judges were polled, and all agreed absolutely that Hydrick
had failed to show them anything paranormal. What was Hydrick's
reply? "This isn't a magician's trick. I just can't come up -
bang bang - and its over. I have to be where I can work with
something small than big to build up my own self. It isn't a
trick. It has to be done...It's mental power."
A few months later Hydrick again agreed to undergo testing of
his psychic abilities. This time proper controls were used and he
failed to exhibit any psychic powers. Hydrick giving in to a lost
cause confessed to magician Danny Korem. Korem was part of the
team testing Hydrick. Also present was Hugh Ainsworth, a former
bureau chief for Newsweek. Hydrick began his confession by
talking of his fascination with magicians at the age of nine.

BTW, Hydrick became famous earlier, when one of the most popular shows on TV, "That's Incredible!" claimed him to be the real deal!

samclem
01-22-2004, 12:46 AM
I also know a lot about human psychology, which goes a long way toward explaining the Skepto approach.

And you know NOTHING about the scientific approach, which goes even farther towards explaining YOUR approach.

GIGObuster
01-22-2004, 12:47 AM
As for Spalding Gray, a simple Google search would be enough for you :dubious:, that is a perfect case for RV, but the track record of RV researches is the pits. If you had look at other posts in this thread, you would already have found about the lack of effectiveness of RV.

GIGObuster
01-22-2004, 01:24 AM
BTW Aeschines from that link on Hydrick:
A scientist and electrical engineer from the University of
Utah after much testing also concluded that Hydrick's psychic
powers were indeed authentic.
The proponents of paranormal phenomena can indeed fool scientists.

Not knowing about the Hydrick affair? For one that supposedly knows lots about the truth about psychic phenomena, not knowing about him, is like a physicist that doesnít know about how Einstein got QM wrong!

Aeschines
01-22-2004, 01:36 AM
And you know NOTHING about the scientific approach, which goes even farther towards explaining YOUR approach.

Nothing, eh? My, how confident you seem.

Lame rejoinder. Please work on that. Cheers.

Aeschines
01-22-2004, 01:37 AM
:rolleyes:

Specially because I already linked to the thread that had this:
http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/dreams_auras_astral_projection/psi.html


BTW, Hydrick became famous earlier, when one of the most popular shows on TV, "That's Incredible!" claimed him to be the real deal!

If he was a fraud and a cheat, then I'm glad he got caught.

Aeschines
01-22-2004, 01:39 AM
BTW Aeschines from that link on Hydrick:

The proponents of paranormal phenomena can indeed fool scientists.

Not knowing about the Hydrick affair? For one that supposedly knows lots about the truth about psychic phenomena, not knowing about him, is like a physicist that doesnít know about how Einstein got QM wrong!

Actually, I don't know "lots" about pyschic phenomena. Can you find me claiming that in any thread?

I have my belief set and my command of logic and the English language. The latter two are enough to beat most people here to a rhetorical pulp.

scr4
01-22-2004, 01:48 AM
How rich. First, it's an observation, not an assumption.
Fine. It's an incorrect observation.

Second, "skeptics" as a group take pride in not believing in what "credulous fools" believe, and form their social identity thereby.
And proponents of paranormal phenomena, as a group, take pride in not believing in what "the scientific community" believe, and form their social identity thereby.

Both statements are equally true (and qually false). Doesn't get you anywhere in this discussion.

I believe psi has been proved, I believe ghosts have been proved, and I believe the afterlife has been proved... The funny thing is that the three phenomena I say I believe in would hardly "shatter" our current understanding of the universe, as most people already "understand" that they are true.
No, people do not "understand" they are true. People have fantasies about them being true. Unless you want to insist that "intuition" is a valid proof.

I agree with samclem, you have not demonstrated any familiarity with the scientific approach.

GIGObuster
01-22-2004, 02:03 AM
Actually, I don't know "lots" about pyschic phenomena. Can you find me claiming that in any thread?

I have my belief set and my command of logic and the English language. The latter two are enough to beat most people here to a rhetorical pulp.
Actually, I have acknowledged before that I have problems with English, but I know enough to beat you into conceding what an ignorant you are in this matter. Hydrick is a good lesson, learn from it grasshopper.

If he was a fraud and a cheat, then I'm glad he got caught..
"If he was a fraud"? Excuse me: what did you said about logic? So much to learn, so much to learn...

TonyJ
01-22-2004, 02:22 AM
Actually, I don't know "lots" about pyschic phenomena. Can you find me claiming that in any thread?
From your OP:
...remote viewing is real, it is leading to genuine effects...

This shows that you claim to know about a psychic phenomenon, namely remote viewing -- that it is real and "is leading to genuine effects".

(QED, though I am quite willing to explain further if needed.)

On a side note, I've never heard so many logical fallacies coming from one person! Is this some kind of exercise? I wouldn't mind playing along; I once wrote a quite good fallacy-laden paper for a critical thinking class several years back, and I found it incredibly entertaining to purposefully argue falsely. Perhaps this is Aeschines purpose here!

Dunderman
01-22-2004, 02:33 AM
Aeschines, I was about to post that it's time for everyone to leave this thread since you've shown to have no grasp of science (for example, the applied science/theory distinction that you seem to find so important exists in your head only and is no argument against us, you don't see what information exchange has to do with energy consumption/production (try looking up Maxwell's Demon) and somewhere you've picked up the idea that skeptics believe something in the face of the facts, which is patently untrue) but then you actually did post a cite! So let's look at that.

Now, unfortunately I've been unable to open any of the links on that site (www.boundary.org/experiments.htm), but I have reason to believe that it's technical difficulties on my side rather than on boundary.org. Could someone (I know it's not going to be you, Aeschines, since that's not your purpose here) copy-paste the text of those pdf documents and make that available somehow? I'd really like to read what Aeschines has dug up for us.

After writing but not yet posting the above, I decided to look into what else there was on the same site. And as it turns out, the tests described in those pdf files I couldn't open, were online games. In one test, you have five face-down cards in front of you. You click one, and then the computer randomly selects one card to be the "correct" card. This is supposed to be a precognition test since the correct card isn't selected until you've already clicked... or so they say.

How easy is it to load a test like this one? How can we control it? We can't. I also find it telling that they require a lot of questions to be filled out when you register, such as if you meditate, if you trust faith, follow hunches, believe in remote viewing and the like. Basically, the registering process can easily make sure that the ones who believe in "psychic" phenomena do well at the tests, whereas the people like me do badly. And, tellingly, I got scores of 20% and 17% on the above test, 20% being the number expected by chance. I'm willing to bet that those pdf files make the point that believers are better at this kind of thing, while "skeptos" do badly.

Do better, Aeschines.

Fish
01-22-2004, 03:08 AM
The arguments are all along the lines that a for-profit television show does not equate to an airtight-controlled scientific study.
No shit, Sherlock.
Ah, you admit it. You claimed your attacks on skeptics are based on observation. You claimed that skeptics assume fraud. I have used observation and a few simple quotations based on what skeptics actually said to prove that you are wrong. Your observations about the skeptics here are flawed. I have proved my point, and yet you cannot look the evidence in the face. This shows how rigidly you adhere to observationóeg, not at all. Your central argument about the nature of skeptics has been reduced to dust. You are not winning anything, Aeschines.

You need to write with more precision. I'm not blind; rather, I know how not to waste time.
The fact that you have created this thread with absolutely no point whatsoever proves that argument is false as well. You have claimed a Masters of Science but have evaded anything resembling scientific method.

Nobody's ignoring your evidence here, buddy. We are giving it the weight that it is due.
What evidence?
You appear to have abandoned Super Special because it is obvious you cannot demonstrate independently that the program was conducted with rigid scientific controls. You admit as muchóyou admit that you can only assert that it was authentic but you cannot verify it. But such was your evidence, sir, and we gave it the weight it was due.

If you create a test that everyone can cheat on, both the geniuses and the fools will pass. We have pointed out that the Super Special television show is just such a test. A real psychic could pass that test; so could a fool. Therefore the show has little weight as evidence. Another argument of yours becomes as nothing.

I would give your links the weight they deserve as well, but this thread has become increasingly pointless.

You have no problem claiming that these studies exist, of course, but I don't expect you to cough up.
Yeah, they exist. Google 'em and study up.
I googled and googled all day long and I couldn't find any cites for Remote Viewing. Therefore, there is no evidence for remote viewing. Sorry. :)

And I'm taking a page from your book: if you ask me why my googling technique failed to come up with an answer, I am prepared to become "offended" so I don't have to provide you with a suitable answer. This is a technique that tinfoil hatters find very useful, I find: become "offended" or "insulted" so the question can be sidestepped.

If such a TV show can be made in this way (either as truth or as a polished hoax with many people involved), what does that tell you? The people here assume "fraud"--well, where does that assumption lead you? I find that the boring, dull, uninteresting thing about the Skeptos is that they come to an interesting logical conclusion but fail to do anything with the information so gained.
What does it tell me? That (http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/Q/htmlQ/quizshowsca/quizshowsca.htm) it's (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20011213.shtml) been (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/13/ny.times.investigation/) done (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s221617.htm) before. (http://www2.gol.com/users/kilburn/dirty.htm)

In ten minutes of googling for results on television, fraud, scandals, and news, I found incidents that demonstrate either laxity or outright corruption in the news media and television broadcasters both in America and Japan. I find it very easy to believe that fraud might be perpetrated, and following the logic of "fraud" doesn't lead me to a wacky logical Wonderland where cows drink milk and the Earth is flat and Apollo Ohno is a woman and mosquitoes are messengers from the 12th dimension and tinfoil hats protect you from alien rays. Television and news fraud happens a lot in both countries. If you are unable to bring yourself to believe that human beings, gasp, sometimes lie for their own profits, then I cannot help you.

You should learn a lesson from the moon hoaxers: it's not just what you believe, it's what you don't believe. You appear to believe that fraud on a massive scale is impossible. I suggest you look into it.

So it is with the Skeptos. Fine, elegant hoaxes are being perpetrated all around the globe. And so? What does that tell you?

Nada. Uh, fraud. Forgotten. Wash, rinse, repeat!
You sum up own your posts so eloquently. Hoaxes are being perpetrated all over the world and it tells you, Aeschines, nothing. You simply believe that an entertainment program is telling the truth because you don't want to face the alternative. I am facing both alternatives and I have insufficient evidence to decide between them.

1. Was the show broadcast in Japanese? Yes or no.

It was on Japanese TV, so take a wild fucking guess.
Am I to assume that you consider wild fucking guesses to be scientific evidence? It would certainly explain a great deal about Remote Viewing, that's for sure.

4. What evidence do you have that the show was not rigged to produce favorable results?

None, and I already said so.
Then the television show is, again, not scientific evidence. You really must think these things through before you admit to them.

That's it for me. Until I see some links to some controlled studies in here, I'm just going to assume that you're asserting your belief muscles, Aeschines. Good luck with the whole science thing.
No personal insults in GD, unless you're wearing your genuine J.W.R. Skeptical Protector. Then it's... play ball!
You're quick to seek the protection of the Board rules when it comes to personal attacks on you, I see, even when personal attacks don't exist. And yet you have no qualms whatsoever to attack any and all skeptics, with a broad and insulting brush, loaded with the paint of condescension: but because you're attacking everyone it's not personal? Shall I direct my personal scorn at the "tinfoil hatters" who use your arguments? It amounts to the same thing.

I refrain from attacking your beliefs because this is Great Debates, and belief is permitted here. If you are here to assert your belief, or to "witness," then feel free and I won't dispute you. Since you claim not to be presenting a debate, I can hardly see what other point you have; I am going to treat this as a non-debate declaration of your own beliefs in remote viewing. You certainly aren't treating this seriously as a debate of the phenomenon.

I agree with Priceguy. Aeschines appears to have no point, and insists he is not engaging in debate over the phenomenon, and yet he claims to be "winning." I'm not going to waste my time here.

Maybe he's remote-viewing the personal attacks, 'cos I don't see them.

GIGObuster
01-22-2004, 03:26 AM
AeschinesHow easy is it to load a test like this one? How can we control it? We can't. I also find it telling that they require a lot of questions to be filled out when you register, such as if you meditate, if you trust faith, follow hunches, believe in remote viewing and the like. Basically, the registering process can easily make sure that the ones who believe in "psychic" phenomena do well at the tests, whereas the people like me do badly. And, tellingly, I got scores of 20% and 17% on the above test, 20% being the number expected by chance. I'm willing to bet that those pdf files make the point that believers are better at this kind of thing, while "skeptos" do badly.

Do better, Aeschines.
You win the bet Priceguy!

I read the first paper. Overall, it deals with results that even they acknowledge only reach chance levels (!), and sometimes a little bit worse! Yes, they claim a small effect can be seen among believers, but it looks to me that they get those results through meta-analysis. That is controversial in other quarters too. However, the paper mostly self congratulates in the fact that this is a new way to investigate, by getting testing data through the Internet (it looked to me that that was the main reason for the submission!). They said the technique is good for other researches, like good old psychology for example. However, it results in very poor evidence for RV.

The other papers are not relevant to RV, but I gave up after seeing all depending on Meta-analysis to ďproveĒ their points.

Although focused on medicine, a good summary of problems with meta-analysis can be found here:
http://www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/meta.htm

ambushed
01-22-2004, 04:53 AM
I have a Master of Science degree, my friend.Well, then, you're precisely as qualified as Dr. Science! (http://www.drscience.com)How does Dr. Science know the secrets of the universe? He has a Masters Degree ... in Science!

ambushed
01-22-2004, 05:25 AM
This is one juicy canard that the skeptos never sicken of. I'll say it again: "extraordinary" is an emotional qualifier; it's an opinion. It has no basis in deciding what level of proof is needed for any claim.Wrong again. The qualifier "extraordinary" does not refer to some vague, emotional content; it refers to the quality and extent of the evidence.

There's no need to provide extensive, high quality evidence to demonstrate something commonplace or ordinary. But one would need very extensive, very high quality evidence (extraordinary evidence) commensurate with the apparent scientific improbability (deviation from accepted scientific theories) of what you're trying to demonstrate to convince an informed audience of the reality of, say, remote viewing.

In other words, the standard of evidence needed to persuade us that you submitted your posts from say, Evanston, Ill, is far lower and easier to provide than the standard of evidence needed to convince us you posted them from an extraterrestrial spacecraft in the Proxima Centauri system. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Dangling a set of car keys would persuade us that you owned a car, but dangling something you claimed were flying saucer keys would amount to far less than the extraordinarily high-quality evidence you would need to persuade us you owned an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Aeschines
01-22-2004, 05:38 AM
From your OP:
This shows that you claim to know about a psychic phenomenon, namely remote viewing -- that it is real and "is leading to genuine effects".

Whoa, nice sleuthing Keanu, but where did I say I knew "lots"?

On a side note, I've never heard so many logical fallacies coming from one person! Is this some kind of exercise? I wouldn't mind playing along; I once wrote a quite good fallacy-laden paper for a critical thinking class several years back, and I found it incredibly entertaining to purposefully argue falsely. Perhaps this is Aeschines purpose here!

If you have the guts and/or balls, I welcome you find even ONE logical fallacy in this thread by me, with the appropriate category attached (e.g., argument from ignorance).

Aeschines
01-22-2004, 05:55 AM
I was about to post that it's time for everyone to leave this thread since you've shown to have no grasp of science....

Certainly, leave the field of battle. I advise retreat, indeed, based on your current situation. But keep in mind that he who holds the field is considered the victor.

...For example, the applied science/theory distinction that you seem to find so important exists in your head only and is no argument against us.

The point was raised in response to your tenuous assertion, that, were it not for skepticism, we would have no modern technology.

...You don't see what information exchange has to do with energy consumption/production (try looking up Maxwell's Demon).

Umm, it's an interesting topic, one worthy of discussion, but your assertion that psi is impossible, as it contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, requires a bit more elaboration on your part. For example, how many jules of energy are required for me to see something? I have no idea, nor do you.

...And somewhere you've picked up the idea that skeptics believe something in the face of the facts, which is patently untrue) but then you actually did post a cite! So let's look at that.

Yes, I did pick this up somewhere: to wit, planet Earth, where people known as "skeptics" deny well-proved phenomena.

Basically, the registering process can easily make sure that the ones who believe in "psychic" phenomena do well at the tests, whereas the people like me do badly. And, tellingly, I got scores of 20% and 17% on the above test, 20% being the number expected by chance. I'm willing to bet that those pdf files make the point that believers are better at this kind of thing, while "skeptos" do badly.


I am most glad to see that you have adopted my terminology, a more appropriate moniker for your "team." As for the on-line "experiment," it's just for fun.

Aeschines
01-22-2004, 06:13 AM
Ah, you admit it. You claimed your attacks on skeptics are based on observation. You claimed that skeptics assume fraud. I have used observation and a few simple quotations based on what skeptics actually said to prove that you are wrong. Your observations about the skeptics here are flawed. I have proved my point, and yet you cannot look the evidence in the face. This shows how rigidly you adhere to observationóeg, not at all. Your central argument about the nature of skeptics has been reduced to dust. You are not winning anything, Aeschines.

I'll be damned if I can sort out what you're trying to say here. But as for "winning," indeed, there is no prize for fool demolition, but I do it as a public service; the reward is strictly spiritual.

The fact that you have created this thread with absolutely no point whatsoever proves that argument is false as well. You have claimed a Masters of Science but have evaded anything resembling scientific method.

"That argument"--what argument? I've made several. Mostly I have made philosophical arguments, ones so meaty that few are done yet chewing. You don't seem to have begun yet.

You appear to have abandoned Super Special because it is obvious you cannot demonstrate independently that the program was conducted with rigid scientific controls.

Nice observation. I'd have to turn PI and commit serious resources to get that job done. I'm content, however, to recognize that either big lies are being told, or big phenomena being proved. The intent of the thread, if you haven't grasped it yet, was to reflect on how the Skepto world view is losing credence by the day.

You admit as muchóyou admit that you can only assert that it was authentic but you cannot verify it. But such was your evidence, sir, and we gave it the weight it was due.

Good evidence for the point I was trying to make; namely, that your worldview is less and less accepted by the public around the world. You've lost your foothold. It's gone, ne'er to return.

If you create a test that everyone can cheat on, both the geniuses and the fools will pass. We have pointed out that the Super Special television show is just such a test.

Oh dear. No one has proved any such thing. You'd have to be behind the scenes of the show.

A real psychic could pass that test; so could a fool. Therefore the show has little weight as evidence. Another argument of yours becomes as nothing.

Argument for what? You're incoherent.

I googled and googled all day long and I couldn't find any cites for Remote Viewing. Therefore, there is no evidence for remote viewing. Sorry. :)

You gave it your all, kid. Time to throw in the towel.

And I'm taking a page from your book: if you ask me why my googling technique failed to come up with an answer, I am prepared to become "offended" so I don't have to provide you with a suitable answer. This is a technique that tinfoil hatters find very useful, I find: become "offended" or "insulted" so the question can be sidestepped.

You don't offend me; you bore me. Go away. Let the best of your team step up to the plate. You've struck out, son.

You should learn a lesson from the moon hoaxers: it's not just what you believe, it's what you don't believe. You appear to believe that fraud on a massive scale is impossible. I suggest you look into it.

Oh my. The Moon Hoax is an example of idiots doubting what is flat-out fact. It's evidence for my position, not yours. And yes, I believe that fraud on such a massive scale as faking a moon landing IS impossible.

You sum up own your posts so eloquently. Hoaxes are being perpetrated all over the world and it tells you, Aeschines, nothing. You simply believe that an entertainment program is telling the truth because you don't want to face the alternative. I am facing both alternatives and I have insufficient evidence to decide between them.

You need to up the sophistication of your thought process. Connect the dots a little.

You're quick to seek the protection of the Board rules when it comes to personal attacks on you, I see, even when personal attacks don't exist. And yet you have no qualms whatsoever to attack any and all skeptics, with a broad and insulting brush, loaded with the paint of condescension: but because you're attacking everyone it's not personal? Shall I direct my personal scorn at the "tinfoil hatters" who use your arguments? It amounts to the same thing.

Personal attacks and mockery are BANNED in GD, got it? Please play by those rules or get your sorry, slack ass off the sandlot.

Brutus
01-22-2004, 06:17 AM
...Personal attacks and mockery are BANNED in GD, got it? Please play by those rules or get your sorry, slack ass off the sandlot.

Listen, Junior Mod with the martyr complex, what is your point? You should not come to GD, post 'Holy poop, remote viewing is real!', and expect people to take your good word for it. If you have some other point to make, then do so in a clear and concise manner.

Provide cites for your assertions. If you do not, then this thread is useless.

My vision of the future (OMG! I remotely viewed the future!) is that you will continue your psycho ramblings, and will not backup your claims with so much as one shred of legitimate proof.

scr4
01-22-2004, 06:23 AM
"That argument"--what argument? I've made several. Mostly I have made philosophical arguments, ones so meaty that few are done yet chewing. You don't seem to have begun yet.
I suggest you state once again what your argument is. Are you claiming that there is now sufficient evidence that Remote Viewing is real? If not, what exactly is your point? Which of your statements are suggestions for further discussions/consideration, and which statemens do you claim are based on undeniable proof?

Aeschines
01-22-2004, 06:28 AM
The qualifier "extraordinary" does not refer to some vague, emotional content; it refers to the quality and extent of the evidence.

"Extraordinary" is an opinion-word, dammit. Not quantifiable. Subject to dispute. Get a clue and a grip.

There's no need to provide extensive, high quality evidence to demonstrate something commonplace or ordinary.

"Commonplace" and "ordinary" are, again, just matters of opinion. Many religious people would consider answered prayers, etc., to be "ordinary." You gonna go with that?

But one would need very extensive, very high quality evidence (extraordinary evidence) commensurate with the apparent scientific improbability (deviation from accepted scientific theories) of what you're trying to demonstrate to convince an informed audience of the reality of, say, remote viewing.

Rich cake, this. What good are "accepted scientific theories" if they're dead wrong? So, you're saying that the more people believe something to be true, the more evidence is required to prove that they're wrong? So, if a bunch of creationists get together who believe 100% that evolution is wrong, you need better evidence for evolution that you would were the group in question "skeptics"? Sounds like epistomological relativism to me. Sounds like junk.

In other words, the standard of evidence needed to persuade us that you submitted your posts from say, Evanston, Ill, is far lower and easier to provide than the standard of evidence needed to convince us you posted them from an extraterrestrial spacecraft in the Proxima Centauri system.

This has nothing to do with scientific theory. This is a matter of proving a one-off fact. It's more like a legal matter. If I say that I was with my friends last night, you believe me. But if it's a murder case and there's more at stake, you demand more proof. I call my friends as witnesses; they back up my story. It's up to you whether to believe at that point or not.

Many people have said such and such a paranormal event happened. People back them up at witnesses. Experiments are done in labs; cameras roll. Still you say, No, I don't believe it. Your perogative. But what has this to do with science? Fuck all. It's just your opinion, nothing more.

Dangling a set of car keys would persuade us that you owned a car, but dangling something you claimed were flying saucer keys would amount to far less than the extraordinarily high-quality evidence you would need to persuade us you owned an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

Irrelevant, stupid example. On the other hand, time after time Uri Gellar has bent spoons in the hands of people without even touching them. There are witnesses to this aplenty. There are movies of what he did under controlled conditions. At some point your statement that it's all BS is just a matter of your own pigheadedness and nothing more.

Aeschines
01-22-2004, 06:30 AM
My vision of the future (OMG! I remotely viewed the future!) is that you will continue your psycho ramblings, and will not backup your claims with so much as one shred of legitimate proof.

More pejorative, more insults. I think it's time for you to do the Billy Madison, if only to work on those social skills.

Aeschines
01-22-2004, 06:31 AM
I suggest you state once again what your argument is. Are you claiming that there is now sufficient evidence that Remote Viewing is real? If not, what exactly is your point? Which of your statements are suggestions for further discussions/consideration, and which statemens do you claim are based on undeniable proof?

Thesis: the game is up, skeptos. The media is now turning a positive eye and ear to psychic pheonomena, which will be demonstrated again and again and again--not because of hoaxing, but because they are real.

Your worldview is flushed, officially.

scr4
01-22-2004, 06:32 AM
What good are "accepted scientific theories" if they're dead wrong? So, you're saying that the more people believe something to be true, the more evidence is required to prove that they're wrong?
Why do you think the "accepted scientific theories" are accepted in the first place? Because it is consistent with an overwhelming number of observations and experimental results. If you have one data which "proves" that the theory is wrong, it's one data against centuries of accumulated data. Of course it requires more evidence to prove wrong such established theories.

Mangetout
01-22-2004, 06:39 AM
Thesis: the game is up, skeptos. The media is now turning a positive eye and ear to psychic pheonomena, which will be demonstrated again and again and again--not because of hoaxing, but because they are real.

Your worldview is flushed, officially.
Your saying so doesn't make it true; seems like there are a number of assertions here:

The media is becoming increasingly interested in reporting paranormal phenomena
Demonstrations of apparently paranormal phenomena are being conducted.
Paranormal phenomena are real.

I don't think anyone is arguing with you on the first two, they're just questioning whether point 3 is backed by any reliable evidence and if not, whether it is acceptable to conclude point 3 solely on the basis of points 1 and 2.

Czarcasm
01-22-2004, 07:23 AM
Aeschines, through the title of this thread you have made a claim of fact. You have done nothing since then to support this claim, and most(if not all) of your posts since then have consisted of nothing but snide responses to those who have asked for evidence and cites. If you have evidence or cites for the claim you have made, please post them now. If all you can do is make unsubstanciated claims, MPSIMS is the place for you.

Gaudere
01-22-2004, 08:21 AM
Aeschines: get your sorry, slack ass off the sandlot

[Moderator Hat ON]

Aeschines, derogatory references to the state of someone's ass are not proper in GD. Also, asking you questions is not a personal insult, and the Mods will determine what is and is not an insult, not you. Everybody, back it down a notch.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor
01-22-2004, 08:23 AM
Aeschines, through the title of this thread you have made a claim of fact. You have done nothing since then to support this claim, and most(if not all) of your posts since then have consisted of nothing but snide responses to those who have asked for evidence and cites. If you have evidence or cites for the claim you have made, please post them now. If all you can do is make unsubstanciated claims, MPSIMS is the place for you.

But, Czarcasm! He's done more than that!

He's also born false witness against his neighbors, through accusing everybody that criticizes his posts of insulting him, followed up by accusations of Board Rules violations thereby.

Surely you aren't going to overlook such great achievements? :rolleyes:

Sarcasm alert! For Aeschines & the humor-impared.

PatriotX
01-22-2004, 09:01 AM
Certainly, leave the field of battle. I advise retreat, indeed, based on your current situation. But keep in mind that he who holds the field is considered the victor.

"It's just a flesh wound"

Am I the only one who thought of this?

scr4
01-22-2004, 09:27 AM
The media is becoming increasingly interested in reporting paranormal phenomena
Demonstrations of apparently paranormal phenomena are being conducted.
Paranormal phenomena are real.

I don't think anyone is arguing with you on the first two...
Actually I think I would argue against the first point too. "Demonstrations" of paranormal abilities has been a staple of Japanese TV for as long as I can remember. And this is not unique to Japan; in every country, there are always people pretending to have superhuman or paranormal abilities performing in carnivals, on stage, on TV and in other venues.

Mangetout
01-22-2004, 09:37 AM
You're probably right, although I suppose what I really meant is that nobody would argue with the point because it is irrelevant; that the media is became increasingly interested in David Beckham's haircut doesn't really mean anything at all; if the media suddenly became increasingly interested in my hairy arse, it wouldn't mean that there is necessarily anything intrinsically wortwhile about it.

Stonebow
01-22-2004, 10:52 AM
if the media suddenly became increasingly interested in my hairy arse, it wouldn't mean that there is necessarily anything intrinsically wortwhile about it.

I really don't think you're giving yourself enough credit. :-)

Really, though, it seems that the OP is arguing that rising popularity = increased legitimacy of remote viewing claims. That doesn't work in any other branch of objective knowledge, so why should it be so here?

And if we're trying to say that 'extraordinary' and 'ordinary' are totally subjective, how about simply saying that claims that violate our current understanding of the possibility of psychic ability must produce proof as to how they either fit within, or exist outside, of our current frame of understanding?

Dunderman
01-22-2004, 10:58 AM
Certainly, leave the field of battle. I advise retreat, indeed, based on your current situation. But keep in mind that he who holds the field is considered the victor.
Only in your mind, like so many other things. Since this post of yours made me lose my last lingering shreds of belief that you're serious and not just out for attention, I will step out now. For the benefit of other readers I'll respond one more time.
Umm, it's an interesting topic, one worthy of discussion, but your assertion that psi is impossible, as it contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, requires a bit more elaboration on your part.
I haven't said that, as you know, and even if I had, that's not the point, as you know. You said "RV is about information exchange, not energy consumption/production", which shows an utter and complete lack of understanding of your part. You have no idea what I'm talking about here, you don't know if the topic is interesting or not, nor if it's worthy of discussion. You're totally lost, and it's showing.
As for the on-line "experiment," it's just for fun.
So your one and only cite, the best evidence you could come up with, is "just for fun". I don't know why I'm still amazed by your antics, Aeschines.

Come on everybody, this is pointless. There is just no way Aeschines is serious. He just wants attention. Let's not give it to him.

photopat
01-22-2004, 04:21 PM
If you have the guts and/or balls, I welcome you find even ONE logical fallacy in this thread by me, with the appropriate category attached (e.g., argument from ignorance).

Do you mean apart from all the ad hominem attacks?

TonyJ
01-22-2004, 04:33 PM
Whoa, nice sleuthing Keanu, but where did I say I knew "lots"?
Equivocation. (There's one for you.)

You know "lots" because you know that RV is real, which none of us do, and that means you know more than us. You also know of effects of RV, which none of us do, and that also means you know more than us. So, relatively speaking you know lots. QED.

If you have the guts and/or balls, I welcome you find even ONE logical fallacy in this thread by me, with the appropriate category attached (e.g., argument from ignorance).
I found one huge one and thirteen on the first two pages before getting bored and deciding to empty the cat box instead. I wrote them out, but I won't list them, because I'm not in the business of teaching junior college-level critical thinking. If others are interested, however, I'd be happy to provide the list.

In any case, both of your claims in this thread - that RV is real and that the media is taking it more seriously - are both invalid. You have not proved and will not argue the first, so it cannot be taken as truth. The second claim, as I will show, is invalid, and I shall show it as you did, anecdotally: the media is not taking these phenomena more seriously, as there have been a string of TV specials now and in the past debunking them. (See how fun it is to make fallacious arguments?! Please, top this claim with a Godwin!)

Jon the Geek
01-22-2004, 05:33 PM
Thesis: the game is up, skeptos. The media is now turning a positive eye and ear to psychic pheonomena, which will be demonstrated again and again and again--not because of hoaxing, but because they are real.

Your worldview is flushed, officially.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

You refuse to provide a cite for RV, but you're saying you aren't trying to prove RV, so I'll accept that.

However, you DID post in a Great Debate that "the media is now turning a positive eye and ear to psychic pheonomena [sic]". I assume you mean the attention has increased--if I'm in error, please let me know.

To back up this claim, please provide any shred of evidence that the media coverage of psychic phenomena is now higher than it was at some point in the past. That's how these Great Debate things work. We'll let you focus on just one point of your "thesis," particularly since it would be difficult to prove what will happen in the future (of course, if you can do that, I guess you win).

Heck, I'll even do some preliminary work for you. I typed "psychic" into the search at CNN.com, and sorted by date. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I didn't bother weaning out the stories that don't really support psychic phenomena, such as Ex-'Miami Vice' star wins first round against psychic network (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/06/ctv.cleo.thomas/index.html) from 06.06.2000.

So, given that data set, here are my numbers:
2003: 10 articles
2002: 32 articles
2001: 23 articles
2000: 23 articles
1999: 38 articles

I personally see no clear trend of increasing media coverage.

Perhaps you're referring more to things like "Crossing Over"? Well, the syndicated version has been cancelled now (cite (http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/44536.htm), so I guess that doesn't really count as increasing.

Of course, the media is giving LESS coverage to this skeptic world view, which Aeschines seems to imply is the dominant view that's dying, right? Well, here are the numbers over the same timeframe:
2003: 8 articles
2002: 3 articles
2001: 6 articles
2000: 9 articles

I can't see a trend in those either, but I'd have to say it doesn't look like we're losing any foothold.

The fact is, Aeschines, that skepticism tends to be a minority opinion. That doesn't make paranormal phenomena true--it means we "skeptos" have to fight harder to help people understand the process of critical thinking.

Of course, there are places where skepticism has a healthy foothold, such as science and law. Where will we be once this worldview is officially flushed? Will all hypotheses be assumed true without testing? Will juries rule by guessing, without any evidence being presented? I'm just trying to understand how the world would be improved if all of us rotten skeptos would just give up...

John Zahn
01-22-2004, 06:38 PM
If he was a fraud and a cheat, then I'm glad he got caught.

Heís not the only one, there have been many, many others. One example you already provided here:


They've had Uri in a lab and run the camera. He does his thing; meters, you know, scientific instruments move in response. Wash, rinse, repeat.

He does, does he? Meter thingee and all, eh? Wow! Please read in a book store near you: The Truth about Uri Geller. Please read the label, and wash, rinse, repeat as many times as often as necessary to allow for just one fact to soak in. Geller tried to sue Randi on numerous occasions for slander and for ruining his reputation as a national renowned psychic. Iíll spare you the results of what the courts have decided each and every time. Many other cheats will be offered up upon request. Would it be asking too much to get a name of someone you think genuinely has these remote viewing abilities? Letís see his or her works.

I've read both sides of the issue: the original claims, the debunkings, the debunkings of the debunkings. Basically, I didn't find it too hard to believe the claims, but one is required to believe that someone out there is NOT lying. I mean, if a study says that So-and-So got this really big, impossible hit, and if the person who wrote that study isn't a big liar, then RV is right... right?

I donít believe that you have looked at both sides, and if you did, you only dabbled. And no one is required to thinking someone is a big liar if the study shows a positive result. You keep using fallacious arguments, this time by either assuming it has to be A or B, and no other choice is acceptable. If such a phenomenon as remote viewing exists, itís escaped mainstream science for decades now. What favorably results Iíve seen in paranormal claims, it turns out they either had been using piss- poor testing procedures, or downright cheating altogether, and yes, lying is quite common too. This is why it is important to have results replicated and be peer reviewed by credible groups. If one has such an ability, there are very easy tests that both parties can agree too, if one wants to be tested. One thing Randi observed earlier on, at least with most water dowsers he has tested, was that they were often not liars. They failed miserably, but he thought that many of those honestly believed that they had the ability to do what they said they could do, but were simply mistaken. To date, I believe he has tested over 1,000 people spanning over four decades that have come forward claiming to have some kind of paranormal ability. We are still waiting for just one authentic case. Everyone agrees before hand on what constitutes a positive or negative result. Everyone that Iím aware of agrees afterwards that they had been treated fairly, and they all sign statements or affidavits to that effect after being tested. Many still didnít deny their abilities, only that their psychic phenomenon or whatever ability they were agreeing to be tested for, failed them that day. CSICOP is another well established group of many professionals that has for over decades looked into just about every type of paranormal claim made, and they too, have tested a great deal of people. Still not one authentic case. CSICOP realized earlier on that even brilliant scientists testing the claimants, often had children that were fooling the testers. This is when they brought in the magicians who were trained to detect the very things they used to fool their audience members with. One doesnít have to be a magician to test these claimants, but one had very well be well versed with what skills the testers can use to deceive the tests, or had better be willing to have a magician look on, because often cheating goes on. Randi also videotapes each claimant and documents his work well. If other educational groups want to look at the evidence, itís also available. I donít know how one could propose anything more fair than that.

JZ

John Zahn
01-22-2004, 06:47 PM
This is hopeless stuff. Firstly, a 15% hit rate is mega-high! We're not talking about guessing cards with a calculable probability rate, we're talking about starting with virtually nothing and getting big, mind-blowing hits 15% of the time.

This proves RV without a doubt. Cecil doesn't bother to separate the issue of whether RV exists (proven by the result cited) from the issue of whether these pyschics can actually be used effectively and economically.

It proves it to the credulous. Do you have more detailed information than what was provided? From what I read here in this thread, there is not enough information to determine if this 15% figure is worthy of attention or not. If that 15% hit rate is not any better than a person selected at random can do by guessing, then that negates any kind of a positive result. But I would take that 15% hit rate, and consider it a high score, if e.g., we took, say 1,000 of known missing persons, and we got what many RVerís considered to be the best, to come and give us specific locations on where these people may be located. If they were able to find 15% of these people, that would be some fantastic evidence in its favor to me or to many others. But vague, ambiguous and general answers is the norm here. Specifics will kill a hit every time. Specifics are probably what you or other RVerís would call a harsh environment. :D There are many ways one can design a test to where RVerís could actually score much higher than 50%. Itís only when the particulars are known, does one realize that remote viewing had nothing to do with it. A person guessing at random could get equally obtainable results.

This is balderdash. 90% of modern technology is based upon applied science (i.e., fooling around with stuff), and not on theory. If anything, the theory usually has to bend to what people just goofing around have discovered. If you actually take a look at what many very famous scientists, experimental or theoretical, have believed, you'll find that not even 1% would qualify as skeptics. If anything, they were wild-eyed nutso believers. Newton would be the prime example.

Newton believed in many things including the literal Creation account laid out in Genesis. Do you think after several more centuries of what science has uncovered, he would have held those same views today? Modern science was still in its infancy in his day. Very little was still known of the world, so no one canít fault him for that. Whatís your excuse?

No, wait, that was Einstein, who incorrect because in believed in that superstition called "God." Unacceptable.


Albert Einstein, did what many scientists do when referring to God. Scientists often use God as metaphor when commenting on the order of the universe, and perhaps youíre confusing his ďGod doesnít play with diceĒ comments with this. Hereís a list of quotations with sources, (http://atheisme.ca/citations/cit_en_Einstein.html) that clearly shows he was certainly no theist. One rabbi wrote bluntly demanding to know if he believed in God or not, and he replied back: I believe in Spinozaís God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. That did the trick as far as getting out of trouble with religious leaders for the time being. With Spinozaís God, there is no personal deity separate from nature. Another writes Einstein in 1954 wanting to know more about his religious beliefs. In this letter he replies: It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Many scientists today believe in God.

Many more do not, especially most of the important ones as Penn would say. :D Do a google on "Leading Scientists still Reject God". The National Academy of Sciences had hundreds of its members polled, and 93% of those scientists were either agnostic or atheist, with some 70% falling in the atheist category. So not sure what point you was intending to make with that statement.

JZ

John Zahn
01-22-2004, 07:00 PM
Here you're right, but look at the point you've made: skepticism is about peer pressure, not about truth.

That's asinine. Itís about peer review, not pressure. Any good scientist is going to let the evidence take him wherever regardless of the outcome because they do care what the truth is. Mainstream science remains skeptical about paranormal claims because they have a better understanding of how things work than you do, and also have a better understanding of what constitutes good evidence than you. Your standards are very, very low and are appalling. If you did have a basic understanding you wouldnít be here acting so dumbfounded as to why youíre getting the responses you are getting. CSICOP has over twenty years of journals you should take a look at before you claim you have looked at both sides of the issue. I actually remember watching that very show of Bob Barker which had Hydrick on, some 20 years ago that another poster mentioned. Without any controls he came in and did the very thing he said he was going to do. He moved a pencil by what appeared to be simply he willing it to move. Next he moved pages from a phone book right before everyoneís eyes. In both cases he clearly kept his hands away and did not touch the object. He clearly demonstrated to Bob Barker, James Randi, the people out in the audience and the people on TV that he could do what he said he could do. Well, thatís how it went the first time around, when no controls were placed on Hydrick. Randi being a magician felt like he already knew how he was doing it. So he asks Hydrick would it be any problem if he put Styrofoam pieces around the pencil. He didnít object, and again Hydrick was ready to go. He concentrated, made some facial expressions, but after a period of time, he comes up with some ridiculous excuse about the static electricity off of the light hitting the Styrofoam or whatever was causing his powers to fail, which was why the pencil wasnĎt moving this time. Amazing, no one knew Styrofoam had such powerful properties. Iím sure that would have done it for you, but some people arenít so credulous. Randi blistered him good for that excuse. And there was no need to even get to the telephone book this time. Hydrick was using the same method to move pages of the telephone book as he did the pencil. This trick has fooled millions before on another popular TV show as another poster pointed out. Amazing how a little trick that was found on the back of a popular breakfast cereal, can fool so many, and all it took was a little puff of breath.

JZ

John Zahn
01-22-2004, 07:17 PM
Right now it's about the most hypocritical and counter-productive worldview out there. Self-deception at its best, in which those in the group pretend to have an open-minded cognitive approach, yet toe the party line better than any political or religious sycophant ever did.

Ought to see it from this end. Just about every post from you has these emotional hysterics that are directed at anyone who isnít as accepting as you on what you would qualify as evidence, and it seems just about any charlatan claiming to do anything will do it for you, just so long as they appeal to your emotional state, all the while questioning others.


I don't know what you're babbling about. As stated above, RV is about information exchange, not energy consumption/production.

This is what a Masterís Degree in Science will do for you at Purdue? Unfortunately for you some scientific theories are better than others, and the validity of the laws of conservation of energy are well established. You have no regard for it, and simply want to dismiss it by saying that this information that is being received from a remote viewer doesnít even require energy. That information going on in your brain, isnít operating off of any non-energy, although in your case, one might make a strong case for it operating with non-energy. This information going to the remote viewer also travels a distance, and there is also the issue of signal strength to distance. That energy follows the inverse square law. Most scientists generally believe that the behavior of living matter including our consciousness and thought processes can be explained by the behavior of the fundamental particles under the four basic forces, in particular the electromagnetic forces. If a remote viewer has a thought, that signal is going to possess enough energy to activate electrons in the nervous system. But according to you, this information is all non-energy, and still gets through, and itĎs just that simple. Any of this conservation of energy biz doesnít effect me, nosirre. I believe because I believe, and I heard about this Japanese tv show that promoted it, so there. Okie doakie. But if scientific evidence showing you the unlikelihood of it isnít good enough, and since it is some kind of non-energy that you claim is carrying this information, and science isnít familiar with it, this still isnít going to prevent those that claim to have this ability from being tested. So, for the moment, letís pretend that somebody receives this information in the form of non-energy. Getting back to what I asked earlier, provide a name or two of the best remote viewers you have that have done any fair job at all of documenting their work. Letís take a looksee of the names involved, see what kind of testing procedures were involved, and see if this information is readily available. You reckon Osama is trembling in his boots to know that remote viewing is very real?


And also, if some wacko calls up Art Bell and says he can do RV but can't (shudder!), then RV must not exist. Voila!

If a caller calls in and claims he has this ability, it shouldnít be asking too much for one to demonstrate what they claim they can do. Itís not just talking the talk, itís walking the walk, donít ya know? Of all these posts from you, if this is your 2 cents worth of evidence, I expect some change back.

JZ

Aeschines
01-22-2004, 07:38 PM
Why do you think the "accepted scientific theories" are accepted in the first place? Because it is consistent with an overwhelming number of observations and experimental results. If you have one data which "proves" that the theory is wrong, it's one data against centuries of accumulated data. Of course it requires more evidence to prove wrong such established theories.

First, despite the desire of the forum to label me a "tinfoiler," I have no problem with science as it exists today--except for the community's (or part thereof) conservatism vis-a-vis evidence for psi and the afterlife, although this prejudice slowly seems to be going away.

Scientific theories get accepted along two separate axes: the content of the theories, and the social system of those who must accept or reject them. Sometimes bad ideas get accepted, or good ideas rejected, because of that social system. And then there is that ol' human resistance to change.

So, you may be right that more evidence is required to get people to make a bigger change, but that has to do with the social side of science.

And yes, it can be tough to integrate anamolies into a body of theory, but that doesn't mean you should reject evidence of new phenomena just because it's a pain to deal with them.

samclem
01-22-2004, 07:56 PM
First, despite the desire of the forum to label me a "tinfoiler," I have no problem with science as it exists today--except for the community's (or part thereof) conservatism vis-a-vis evidence for psi and the afterlife, although this prejudice slowly seems to be going away.


What convinces you that this predjudice is slowly going away? The scientific community's almost total rejection of evidence of psi and the afterlife has never been healthier. Perhaps you're confused by the prominence of "experts" on talk radio and in the tabloids.

Jon the Geek
01-22-2004, 08:02 PM
First, despite the desire of the forum to label me a "tinfoiler," I have no problem with science as it exists today--except for the community's (or part thereof) conservatism vis-a-vis evidence for psi and the afterlife, although this prejudice slowly seems to be going away.

Scientific theories get accepted along two separate axes: the content of the theories, and the social system of those who must accept or reject them. Sometimes bad ideas get accepted, or good ideas rejected, because of that social system. And then there is that ol' human resistance to change.

So, you may be right that more evidence is required to get people to make a bigger change, but that has to do with the social side of science.

And yes, it can be tough to integrate anamolies into a body of theory, but that doesn't mean you should reject evidence of new phenomena just because it's a pain to deal with them.
Very much like the situation in this thread, it's not that scientists don't accept evidence of new phenomena; it's that we have yet to see any. If one well-designed study of paranormal activity is ever actually carried out and published, and if that study can then be replicated (another of those annoying things that we skeptics insist on), many, many serious scientists will begin to look into these things, and they will be accepted. However, to my knowledge, there has never been such a study (the Geller nonsense doesn't count; leaving someone in a room alone and trusting that the spoons were bent by mind power like he said, and not by some other means, doesn't exactly count as a well-designed study).

If scientists have ignored such studies, show me one. That would require you to actually provide a cite, though, so I guess I won't be edified.

Magiver
01-22-2004, 08:38 PM
I saw the American version of the TV program described (about 5 years ago). It lacked a viable skeptic to challenge the results.

scr4
01-22-2004, 09:27 PM
First, despite the desire of the forum to label me a "tinfoiler,"
Why not? You labeled everyone else a "Skepto."

Scientific theories get accepted along two separate axes: the content of the theories, and the social system of those who must accept or reject them. Sometimes bad ideas get accepted, or good ideas rejected, because of that social system. And then there is that ol' human resistance to change.
To prove this assersion, you need to provide one of these:

An example of an idea which is accepted, and continues to be accepted, by the scientific community despite it being "bad."
An example of an idea with sufficient evidence which is not accepted by the scientific community. Accompanied by cites to said evidence.

If you do the research I think you will find that when "bad" ideas are accepted because of peer pressure or enthusiasm, it is discarded within a few years because of lack of collaborating evidence. N-rays and cold fusion are good examples.

And yes, it can be tough to integrate anamolies into a body of theory, but that doesn't mean you should reject evidence of new phenomena just because it's a pain to deal with them.
I agree with that. Let's see the evidence. We "skeptos" have already said that we are willing to examine any evidence you can provide.

By the way I did read the articles on the Boundary Institute site and found no outright claims for remote viewing being true. If you think I misunderstood, please point me towards the exact page where it proves that this supposed phenomenon is real.

Aeschines
01-23-2004, 08:52 AM
I might get back to this slop-fest thread sometime over the weekend. In the meantime, try not to massage your underwear too much.

photopat
01-23-2004, 10:40 AM
I might get back to this slop-fest thread sometime over the weekend. In the meantime, try not to massage your underwear too much.

Well, okay. I won't, but only because I like to go commando on the weekend. If I could ask a favor in return, when you next post, would you please include at least one credible link that supports RV? If you can find one, I mean.

Getting back to the OP for a moment, it seems you were suggesting that since a TV show included demonstrations of RV that somehow proves they exist. I'm not quite sure which fallacy heading that falls under, since it's certainly not an Appeal to Authority and it's not quite an Argumentum ad Populum. Perhaps we need a new category, Argumentum ad Medium. "An entertainment medium says it's true so it must be."

Yeah, that ought to do it.

don't ask
01-23-2004, 10:49 AM
Boy you guys had me going there. For ages I thought this was a real thread until I got to Yes, I did pick this up somewhere: to wit, planet Earth, where people known as "skeptics" deny well-proved phenomena. and then I realised it's some Ed Wood kinda thing.

The character Aeschines is a clever idea - a microcosm of his own OP. The media and the common people are starting to accept any old rubbish as fact - why look at me I'm a scientist and I believe it. And then getting a whole cast of characters to engage Aeschines in a futile argument that they will never win because Aeschines doesn't understand Popper's principle of falsifiability but is still a scientist. Sheer bloody genius.

Keep the laughs coming and I hope your stamina stands up - Aeschines cannot be proven wrong, it's not a debate it's a statement of faith.

Tapioca Dextrin
01-23-2004, 10:54 AM
Keep the laughs coming and I hope your stamina stands up - Aeschines cannot be proven wrong, it's not a debate it's a statement of faith.

But it was on TV. TV makes everything true. Even patently false things. It was on TV. Don't you get it?

Jon the Geek
01-23-2004, 01:09 PM
I think I've decoded what Aeschines is trying to say here, and I want to make sure all of my fellow "skeptos" are debating the same topic.

He's not saying RV is real because it was on Japanese TV. He's not even offereing this show as evidence that RV is real. He's saying RV is real (we have to take that as a given), and finally the media has decided to stop covering it up!

Read his op again, that's really what he's saying.

So, I'm willing to let him off the hook on the "this entertainment show proves RV is real" thing.

I just want him to prove (or otherwise convince us) that
1) The media (and, by extension the pulbic in general) gives more credence to paranormal phenomena than they did at some point in the past, and
2) More people believing this hogswallop without evidence means we "skeptos" should give up.

Those seem to be the assertions he's debating. He refuses to post cites on the other topics because he claims that's not what he's arguing... if we focus on what he IS arguing about, maybe we can get some sort of evidence.

Eve
01-23-2004, 01:33 PM
Boy you guys had me going there. For ages I thought this was a real thread until I got to and then I realised it's some Ed Wood kinda thing.

"My friend, you have seen this incident based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn't happen? Perhaps on your way home, you will pass someone in the dark, and you will never know it, for they will be from outer space. Many scientists believe that another world is watching us this moment. We once laughed at the horseless carriage, the aeroplane, the telephone, the electric light, vitamins, radio, and even television! And now some of us laugh at outer space. God help us . . . in the future."

photopat
01-23-2004, 02:10 PM
Shoot. I was just about to post that I had a vision of Eve writing that very post, but she was too quick for me.

Still, I think you'll all agree that I've proved I have visions. I mean, nobody would put something on line that wasn't true, right?

Eve
01-23-2004, 02:19 PM
Shoot. I was just about to post that I had a vision of Eve writing that very post, but she was too quick for me.

Greetings, Photopat. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember, Photopat, future events such as these will affect you in the future. You are interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable. That is why you are here. And now, for the first time, we are bringing to you the full story of what happened on Japanese TV. We are giving you all the evidence, based only on the secret testimonies of the miserable souls who survived this terrifying ordeal. The incidents, the places, my friend we cannot keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty, let us reward the innocent. My friend, can your heart stand the shocking facts about remote viewing on Japanese TV?

IWLN
01-23-2004, 03:26 PM
Below are just some fun highlights from Aeschines' participation in a recent thread. The purpose is only to remind you that it is not always possible to fight ignorance and doing so sometimes just causes it to flourish. Sometimes a good skeptic does fail to prove his point, but only because they mis-judge the aptitude of the one they are trying to reach. So take heart, it's not your fault. There was really nothing you could do to save this one. He is lost.;)
by IWLN
Aeschines
I'm just curious about the reason that you're even interested in participating in this setting. There is no true debate going on. Every thread I've seen you in seems like your main agenda is negative. Your purpose seems to be to run down atheists and skeptics and if other people don't agree with you, then you just give them one of those titles. Maybe I'm missing something and if so, I'm sorry. But, why are you here? Below is just a quick hilight of of your participation here so far. It seems your agenda or purpose isn't the paranormal or any enlightenment at all. It is simply your forum for your bias against skeptics. If that is the case, why don't you stop pretending to be interested in honest debate? You are just wasting the time of those who are here for the right reason.

Aeschines' Priceless Pearls of Wisdom
<I'm saying that I'm going play on this playground precisely as I please, albeit keeping within the boundaries set by the moderators and common decency.
<I don't see the skeptics here as eager to engage with evidence, so my motivation to provide any is less than meager.
<When following the purported rules of the forum, however, I have not felt the action to be reciprocated. Also, the level of logic and reasoning to be found here often approaches the piss-poor.
<The skeptics reply: it's all hoaxes, hallucinations, goofs, and mistakes.
<As always, the skeptics show what poor scientists and logicians they are.
<But so it always is with the skeptics.
<Many atheists, agnostics, and "skeptics" get a kick out of thinking themselves as intellectually superior to "believers," who are irrational, credulous rubes, in their view. Hence, not only is their reasoning extremely poor and disingenous, their tone is arrogant and nasty as well.
<Skeptics won't accept the idea of God/spirit no matter what.
<Tsk tsk, the mocking, self-superior tone of the "skeptics" is in evidence here.
<Close-minded skeptics stonewall: they simply refuse to take any evidence contrary to their position seriously. It's just like the creationists.
<Sure, that's true. It's best just to ignore idiots, not attack them personally. Why lose one's cool?
<No shit, Sherlock.
<proves that you are not taking the base data seriously. For that reason, I don't take you seriously. This will be the final time I respond to your childish posing. G'bye.
<Like most close-minded skeptics (er, at least the amateurs on the web), everything you write is replete with mockery and disdain.
<Disingenous and childish.
<BTW, not all evidence is "empirical." Go back to school, chum.
<Look up the word "empirical" in a dictionary before you use it again. I'd hate for you to continue to demonstrate your ignorance of its meaning.
<Well, this is the standard skeptic hyphothesis.
<Close-minded skeptics: always such extreme and poor use of logic.
<You close-minded skeptics are tiresome in precisely the same way that creationists are truly to refute the evidence for evolution. If only you knew how damn silly you seem.
<This kind of rhetoric is just irresponsible and disingenuous.

Mangetout
01-23-2004, 04:02 PM
Greetings, Photopat. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.To be perfectly honest, I preferred the past; some folks say the past is a foreign country, but the food was better, to be sure, and the people didn't smell.

photopat
01-23-2004, 04:13 PM
To be perfectly honest, I preferred the past; some folks say the past is a foreign country, but the food was better, to be sure, and the people didn't smell.

Well, the food might have been better, but a lot of the people did smell.

As Monty Python put it:

"'E must be a king."

"How can you tell?"

"'E's not covered in shit."


:cool:

Aeschines
01-23-2004, 08:23 PM
Looking now over this thread, it is hard not to cringe in shame. My OP was not only poorly written, it was poorly conceived as well.

Further, I was naive to think that this would be a civil discussion, a mutually satisfying attempt to explore new truths. Rather, having merely stated my premise (though poorly, as recognized above), I was greeted with a fussilade of mockery. Outright derision. Insults that cut to the bone.

I have been called a "tinfoiler" and a "credulous fool." My language skills have been doubted, if not outright denied. And, sadly, my childish reaction to this crass but cunning negativity was to lash out with my own crude expletives and pejorative palaver.

Truly, it was like Neo versus the Smiths in the park. One against hundreds. But in this case Neo was defeated within two minutes, despite his ignorance of that fact. Blackened and absorbed by the hand of his foe.

In short, my friends, you have made a skeptic of me. I sit now an acolyte in the Temple of Reason, praying that you will not toss me to the Cerberus of Belief, that waits in hunger outside the door. Nor will I light a candle for the faith I've lost, but rather one to that true light of modernity: skepticism.

Friends, it is your choice whether to greet me with arms widened for embrace, or sullenly akimbo. I truly hope it is the former pose.

Czarcasm
01-23-2004, 08:52 PM
Yeah, right.
Next time, bring facts.
Since you do not wish to participate in an actual debate on the issue you brought up in the first place, I think I'll just lock this thread.