<< Cityboy916 is to astrally project himself to Glee’s desk and describe in sufficient detail ten objects on it. Mod DavidB is holding the list of objects in secret until the test is completed.
… It’s been seven months now, I think, and the chances of AP, which were nearly nil at the start, are rapidly receding. >>
Also, that half eaten ham and cheese sandwich is gonna be taken off Glee’s desk by the cleaning crew one of these days, it’s green and starting to move.
Don’t say that. He’ll claim psychokenesis next.
Understandable. It’s all in your mind, Son. Unfettered and unrestricted by reality; it’s what makes us human.
Bad idea. Do you think that your mind is a perfect, undisorted recorder of events around you? Hardly. It is affected by a myriad of factors such as that bigass burrito you downed for dinner last night. :eek:
Your uncontrolled, dreaming mind may be a good source of imagination to fuel fantasy fiction, but far from a reliable record of actual events from a scientific standard.
Snakespirit:
Not at all, I was being wholly serious. I know that most people on these boards are very cynical when it comes to unmeasurable phenomena but I like to keep an open mind.
I suppose what you are saying could be true if only living beings have astral bodies and non-living things are perceptible to the AB, but not solid. Thats not my understanding of the theory though.
Might I also point out that the experiment is flawed: suppose CityBoy916 does correctly guess the 10 objects (IMHO too many to easily remember physically never mind astrally), that doesn’t say anything about how he did it. There could be foul play, or some other “psychic” phenomena at work.
Don’t open your mind up so far that your brains fall out. A skeptic is not a cynic. A skeptic is, however, from Missouri, the Show Me State. You make a wild claim, we say, “That’s nice. Show us some proof.” It’s not enough just to make a claim; it must be backed up by solid evidence. Having an open mind does not mean believing everything you hear without question.
How right you are. Such a loosely-designed experiment could never definitively decide the question; more tests would be needed.
But it can be fun to persue anyway. And the fact that Cityboy916 has not yet come up with the list counts even more than an accurate result. Using all means at his disposal, including potentially devious or fraudulent means, he has been unable to come up with a list of objects at all after seven months. So not a scrap of proof of AP has yet been presented by someone who claims to be (or have been) an AP practitioner.
You are assuming that I believe in AP although I never said as much. I consider the theory of AP with the same equanimity as I would, for example, superstring theory. As there seems to be no evidence for either theory, I am undecided although I think AP is far more likely to be true.
And not having sufficient evidence to either prove or disprove something means that the something is unproved, not disproved as many people seem to beleive. Of course in the absence of evidence you are free to believe whatever you like, but your position is the product of belief, not knowledge.
I am not qualified to discuss superstring theory. If “there seems to be no evidence” for AP, what makes you feel that it is “likely to be true”? Wouldn’t the very lack of evidence hint that it is NOT likely to be true?
Wouldn’t you put something that is unproved and violates numerous known facts in a different category from that which is unproved and is likely to exist because it doesn’t violate numerous known facts?
If you have a wild-ass proposal that doesn’t mesh with solid scientific knowledge, knowledge upon which is built many branches of science and most of the modern world, you’d better have a whole shitload of proof, Bub, if you want to be taken seriously. More than just “I believe” – much more. “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” The weirder the claim, the stronger the evidence needed to overturn convention.
No, Sir, that is not how science works. YOUR position is the product of belief. I can point to centuries of scientific discoveries and a buildup of knowledge. If AP can be shown to exist, pretty much 99% of all that knowledge will have to be thrown out. The heavy knowledge stuff that went into the manufacture of the computer you are now using, for example.
Can I say with 100% certainty that AP doesn’t exist? Theoretically, no. But to insist that it has a reasonable chance is merely being ignorant or perserse in a loud voice.
What does it mean when we say “a law” of the universe? It means something which is so darn well established, has so much built upon it and passes every test we have ever tried, that to question it – like gravity – is unreasonable.
Hey Snake,
I love SMDB, paid my $5 to join, and generally get along with people here. Still, every board has its own personality, and I learned early on that this is not the board on which to advocate the existence of ghosts, psi, or anything that a good, orthodox skeptic would consider “paranormal.”
People whose opinions I otherwise greatly respect will use ridicule, blatantly felacious reasoning, and outright ridicule to make their point: that no evidence of the “paranormal” exists at all–none! Already in this thread we have mention of J. Randi’s $1M prize–if no one has claimed it yet, the paranormal must be unreal! (This argument is made all the more unpalatable to those defending the “bad” phenomena, as the prize is a crock, and J. Randi himself can be extremely unfair and unpleasant. Then the skeptics defend Randi as a saint, etc., and soon you are 3 arguments removed from the actual point. Frustrating stuff.)
Oddly, defenders of creationism and other such fantasy beliefs get much easier treatment than those who seriously defend psi. But it makes sense in a way, since must use better weapons against that which can be defended more readily.
Cecil himself is great but jerks his knee when it comes to anything “paranormal.” But these are the times in which we live: intellectuals today are in one camp or another, and the majority are atheists. The skeptics and New Agers just don’t speak the same language.
I don’t care what kind of evidence or documentation you can produce–it will not be taken seriously on SMDB. Do what I do and save that energy for a board where it will be rewarded with real dialog.
James Randi does not administer the $1 million JREF prize, nor does JREF or Randi dictate the terms of the experiments. The applicant must design the experiment, which JREF may or may not approve, or may suggest additional controls which the applicant must approve. Ultimately, the applicant must agree that the experiment to be conducted is fair, and every effort is taken to accomodate the applicant’s concerns. Nothing is done unless the prize applicant agrees to it. The prize money exists, and is held in an escrow account, which may be be verified upon request. Show me one unfair experiment which was conducted under the prize rules.
On the other hand, you could actually submit evidence and documentation so that we might examine it, instead of preemptively jumping down our throats for being close-minded. Yes, it would be so much easier to find message boards where people will believe anything you say because they know you will believe anything they say, but is this really what you want?
Hey, here’s the Randi argument I mentioned!
My understanding was that Randi has veto/approval over everything. The description you give her deserves a cite, I should think. I have visited the pertinent site before, but I don’t have a link.
At any rate, during my last visit to the site in question, the most recent test involved a clueless dowser who in no way proved his powers. The point, however, is that that test terms were in no way fair, nor could they be taken seriously by anyone with an understanding of probability. The dowser agreed to get 10 tries right out of 10. In each try there were 10 cups or what have you, only one of which held the target object. In other words, a 1/10 chance for success each time.
The probability of getting 1-10 targets right is as follows:
0 35%
1 39%
2 19%
3 6%
4 1%
5 1 in 672
6 1 in 7k+
7 1 in 114k+
8 1 in 2.7M+
9 1 in 111M+
10 1 in 10B even
So, suppose the dowser had gotten 5. Still pretty good–but failure! OK, at that level I’m sure the experimental result would have been pooh-poohed as a fluke of luck. But what about 9/10 tries? Then Randi or whoever is in a fix: the experiment (assuming no cheating) is then extremely good evidence of the phenomena, but the prize is still denied.
The rejoinder to all this is that dowsing is impossible, and it really didn’t matter whether the requirement was 10/10 or 8/10 (above which this mathematical expectation of success is well under a dollar).
This may be so, but most reasonable proponents of psi know that the experiments which are thought to have been successful do not involve such black and white probabilities. Rather, they involve (as in the Ganzfeld experiments) results of 30+% for expected successes of 25% (in which experiments, of course, there have been people getting nigh impossible runs, difficult to explain without recognizing psi). There is no way to subject such phenomena to a Randi-type test. Why? Let’s say the experiment is like the Ganzfeld work: guessing images with a 1/4 chance of success. Randi would (appropriately) not accept a percentage at which mathematical expectation was high ($1M x a low percent is still going to mean some money), an someone attempting to prove the phenomena would not accept a very high percentage (like the dowser’s 100%!), since such a high rate of sucess is not even what is claimed for this phenomenon.
No, rather, psi has been proved in the lab–again and again, and no cite, no document, in short, nothing will prove the skeptics here that that is the case.
This very post is precisely an example of what I was explaining to Snake. The facile assuming that I have never provided a cite, a document, or anything to back up any claim I have made. The ridicule of the second sentence, in which I am portrayed as being desirous of an echo-chamber for my views.
I point out the flaws in reasoning and the unpleasant reasoning style that goes with them on this board, and in five seconds people do me the favor of providing actual examples. I’m sure this is quite educational to Snake. Thank you.
I am not taking a holier-than-thou attitude here. My attitude toward Creationists and Fundamentalists when they post here can be very curt. No, I don’t take their positions seriously. I think psi deserves to be taken seriously. I also understand that the skeptics here feel that psi is about as respectable as Creationism.
I firmly disagree and have argued about it several times. I feel that, when it comes to psi, this board just isn’t the place to argue about it. The topic will not be treated with respect, the person arguing in favor of it will be subjected to ridicule, and that person will be going it alone.
SMDB is great for discussing a wide range of topics. It just so happens that the paranormal is not one of them.
I’m gonna ring a Moderator’s bell here.
This forum is for Comments on Staff Reports. I don’t see anyone in the entire thread that’s said anything about anything in the Staff Report.
There is a forum called GREAT DEBATES where the topic of ESP, psi, spectral navigation, astral projection, holomorphic dislocation, etc are discussed and debated ad infinitam. This thread seems to be far more of a GREAT DEBATE than comments on the Staff Report.
Yes, I know that the Staff Report is about astral projection, but the Staff Report asserts a scientific explanation (namely, short-term hallucination.) You want to discuss that, fine. But a discussion about whether people are close-minded (on one side or the other), or whether skepticism breeds cynicism, or what constitutes a scientific proof of the existence of paranormal phenomenon… and you’re in GREAT DEBATES territory.
So… I’m ringing the warning bell. If you want to discuss the hallucination explanation, fine, go to it. If you want to debate the broader questions, then I’ll move the thread to GREAT DEBATES… where the moderators are attuned to this sort of thing.
Let me also just note that our regulars here, on both sides of the psi issue, have seen their share of hard-core loonies on the other side. The positions have therefore tended to harden. When you’re a skeptic and you hear a bunch of loonies who claim to have talked to their broken teapot from beyond the grave (or whatever), you harden your position and heap scorn on the next person who proposes a controlled seance. Similarly, if you believe in (say) dowsing and want to propose an experiment, and you bump into enough loonies who reject your ideas by equating dowsing with Bigfoot, you learn to keep your mouth shut.
Aeschines, is there any thing specific in the Staff Report on AP that you object to or question? If so, bring it forward; we can talk about it and keep this thread on topic.
Do you have any evidence that refutes the SR? How good would you say that evidence is? Let’s see it.
Meanwhile…
Perhaps you would be happier here, where anything you say will not be challenged, no matter how bizarre it may be:
[ul][li]NDE forum: Leroy talks about love []Bigfoot Forum[]X-Project Paranormal Forum[]Paranormal Studies Forums[/ul][/li]But stay away from ones that think logic, truth and evidence is more important than your feelings:[ul][]JREF Forum[]Bad Astronomy Forum[]The Straight Dope[/ul]
Why do I picture C.Dex walking out onto the porch of a ranchhome with a giant metal triangle and grabbing the iron bar and screaming “Come and Get It!!!”
I must be hungrier than I thought.
Musiccat:
Oh really? And how, might I ask, did you come to know my position? I can’t seem to see that I stated whether I believe in AP or not.
What I was only trying to convey is that I consider the existence of an astral plan to be a more credible theory than superstring, but know that without evidence it is just that; a theory.
You then go on to say:
Could you elaborate on why you think thats the case? I’m not sure I follow you.
No it is not a theory.
It is a hypothesis.
Go to the dictionary & look it up. :rolleyes:
Correct me if I misjudged you, but it seems to me that you are saying that there is “something” to AP, that is, it should not be ruled out.
Theoretically, but only theoretically, I would have to agree. But I put the chances at a nearly-infinite, tiny number, and I think your number is a lot higher, perhaps in the realm of “a likely possibility.”
If so, then all we are arguing about is how likely. Do you think AP should be investigated seriously, hard money spent, extensive, expensive tests done to verify its existance? Then we part company, as nothing I have seen so far is strong enough evidence to suggest that there is any new force waiting to be discovered. Oodles of negative results so far, etc. – there has to be a point where you say, “No more – this is a complete waste of time!”
Sure. Just to name one example off the top of my head, let’s take action at a distance. “People who claim to have these talents claim that their powers operate undiminished at any distance, even across interstellar space.” Forces in physics diminish with distance – light, gravity, sound, for example. Even laser light, which can be transmitted for great distances with minimal loss, spreads out by the time it gets to the moon.
But postulated psychic forces such as AP, precognition, telekinesis appear to violate this law. When was the last time you heard a psychic complain that they had to “get closer” to the subject for their powers to work? Quite the opposite, they claim to be immune to distance effects. Of course, since no one has produced a single, repeatable test that shows any of these powers to actually exist, I admit it is hard to test for distance.
Which brings us back to the Randi test. All Randi is asking is that the claimant prove his postulate with the same kind of tests as are done in legitimate science every day. The world is full of people claiming they can do this or that, every day, reliably, no question, easy. They may be frauds or they may be deluded. All Randi is asking is they back up their claims with good, reliable, repeatable evidence, the same kind of science that created your computer. Nothing more. And there is bonus that most scientists don’t get just for being right - a cool mil. Hard to see why there aren’t more takers if they really believe in their own claims. Could it be that they got nothin’ and are just blowin’ it out their ass?
Is there a new force waiting to be discovered? Maybe. But a mark of a pseudoscience is that the evidence does not get stronger over time. Is positive evidence of AP building up? I haven’t seen it.
I would like to refer you to this highly-recommended site: Russell Turpin’s “Characterization of Quack Theories”. See if Astral Projection is better classified as “undiscovered science” or “pseudoscience.” And pseudoscience is just a hifalutin’ word for “nonsense.”