Which is exactly my point. He has decided that it only counts if it works through supernatural ability. He eliminates the possibility of it working through normal means. Wheras an open minded experimenter would explore the possibility of it working through normal means first, and only explore the supernatural later.
To answer the OP, we don’t currently have any good reason to believe that this can be done.
The best evidence we have to date suggests that there are many subtle sensory ways in which one person can sense the presence of another. Many of these ways have been mentioned in this thread and in the references cited, and the ‘clues’ by which A can detect the presence of B can be very subtle indeed - so subtle that it might even seem ‘paranormal’ until you figure out the sensory cues and clues that are involved.
However, there is no good evidence to date to suggest that if we successfully eliminate all sensory cues or clues - even the very subtle ones - a person can tell that another is staring at them.
One man who is very interested in this idea, and who believes that it HAS been demonstrated experimentally, is Rupert Sheldrake, and you can find a lot about him and his books on the web. However, no-one else has managed to replicate his results or corroborate his findings, and every time some other scientist investigates this ‘phenomenon’, the subjects score no better than chance.
So, until some good evidence emerges, we have to say for the time being that no, people can’t tell if they’re being stared at, even though it often feels that way.
As for the posts in this thread by peter morris, all I can say is he doesn’t seem to have the faintest clue how to debate this kind of issue or handle this kind of data.
In other words, it must work by magic, or not at all. Working by easily explainable normal means will not be regarded as working.
In other words, you have no sensible answer for my points.
If you want sensible answers, then you need to make some sensible points.
You have thus far said that the study you have quoted insists that the ability to tell when one is being stared at does not exist. That interpretation is false. Nowhere does the study say that.
The study addresses only the concept that there is some supernatural method by which people can detect being stared at. This is a very specific claim made by quite a large number of people, and the experiment addresses that claim (and only that claim), and demonstrates it to be false.
The experiment is not designed to test the effect of subconscious cues, and makes no claims about such cues resulting is the feeling of being stared at. I cannot understand how you managed to interpret the study as conclusing that the phenomenon of detecting someone staring at you is nonexistance.
You’re doing it right now, aren’t you?
You’re doing it right now, aren’t you?
This is a perfect example of unwarrented assumptions that I am currently arguing against.
Re-reading my original post, I can pin-pont exactly the line that gave rise to this assumption, and can easily recognize the prejudice behind it.
Far too often scientists make assumptions based on prejudices; for example, the famous comment on the Rocky Mountain Big Horn Sheep.
My argument is that:
just because a phenomenon can not yet be measured (such as cell division, throughout most of human history) doesn’t mean that the phenomenon does not occur.
Yes, I did mean to include the sense of touch; I was going to say ‘the five recognized senses’, but thought that would start too many side debates.
The point of the paragraph you quoted (as I understand it) is not the difference between supernatural and natural, but between someone staring at you and someone being in the same room.
“Normal means” such as subconsciously detecting a scent, body heat, or rustling clothes may be able to tell you whether another person is close by, but they won’t tell you whether that person’s eyes are looking at you or at the ground.
Again, why? Why insist on bringing the supernatural into it? Why not just say that it works through normal methods without any need for supernatural explainations?
Why are skeptics so obsessed with bringing the supernatural into everything? Followed by a lot of hollering about how they don’t believe in the supernatural. Why can’t they look for the rational explaination?h Why do they only look for the irrational?
Note - look at the original question at the start of the thread. It was simply asking whether you can sense someone looking at you. It said nothing about sensing it ‘supernaturally.’ Its always the skeptics that add that part.
They do look for rational explanations for phenomena. Go to James Randi’s website and read for a few hours. You’ll finde pages and pages of skeptics looking for rational explantaions to demonstrated phenomena. Yes, they also dbunk claims of the paranormal, but–and please clean the wax outta your ear for this–only because there are crackpots out there making the claims in the first place. The don’t just go looking it for it. Sheesh. It’s people like you who give skepticism a bad name.
Two reasons.
[ol][li]Almost everyone who claims that people can sense being stared at also claim that the ability is psychic (i.e. supernatual). Thus the experiment was designed to test this specific concept.[/li]
In other words, the experimenter didn’t bring the supernatural into it. The people making the claims that the experiment was designed to test brought the supernatural into it.
[li]It is not possible to detect being stared at via normal means, anyway. You can detect someone’s presence via subconscious cues, but not where their eyes are focused. To detect the exact angle of someone’s eyes while not looking at them would require the supernatural.[/ol][/li]
The sceptics didn’t bring the supernatural into it at all. It was the people who actually believe that one can detect being stared at that brought the supernatural into it, since most of them claim that it’s a psychic phenomenon.
There is no rational explaination (that actually makes sense). There are rational explaination for why you might “feel someone’s presence” when they enter a room, but none for determining (correctly), when you are being looked at. You might feel like someone is watching you, but we’re concerned with correctly determing that someone is watching you, not random feelings of being watched, and there is no non-supernatural way that I can think of that would allow one to do that.
It’s inherent in the question. Please give me a non-supernatural method that one could determine the angle and focus of another person’s eyes without actually looking at that person.
The words ‘James Randi’ and ‘rational’ don’t belong in the same continent, let alone sentence.
Randi makes it clear that he doesn’t want rational explainations, or any explainations at all. See the rules of his test.
And skeptics give themselves a bad name. That’s why I’m a sceptic.
Well, yeah. He isn’t trying to understand the supernatural. He just wants to demonstrate that it doesn’t exist. To that end, he is offering a substantial reward for demonstration of supernatural phenomena.
If such a phenomena is demonstrated, then someone will worry about how it works. At this point, he’s simply using the reward as incintive, while using basic scientific means to weed out the false-positives. The end result is that anyone who has a genuine paranormal or supernatural ability can easilly make a quick $1 million.
The fact that the money is still up for grabs is pretty indicative that no one possess any actual supernatural or paranormal ability. After all, why would anyone pass up the chance to win $1 million if they had the ability to do so?
Tired old cliché, I know, but I’ll pay a million to anyone who can prove they’ll never again kick a dog (beat his wife). The reward must be collected in person by the non-kicker.
So that proves everyone will kick that poor dog?
mu.
I recently read a book by Lynne McTaggart called The Field which claimed research suggesting that this is indeed possible. I would not presume to speak for the veracity of her claims. If you find this topic to be interesting, perhaps you should research her work further.
Let the pile-on resume.
Doing away with the whole concept of “sensing someone was looking at you” would destroy the slasher movie industry!
My opinion is that the subject hears a slight sound from the looker (or someone/something in their vicinity) but doesn’t register it - and glances over to see someone looking straight into their eyes.
I always have a pretty good idea of who’s looking at me, and can’t attribute it to sixth sense, so I’m with Q.E.D. on this one.
Is this an example of your ‘logical’ thought processes?
James Randi is a highly successful magician who has taken an interest in claims by others made of paranormal powers. These include dowsing, absorbing all required energy from sunlight, immortality through magnetism and psychics.
His website examines all sorts of claims, and is supported by voluntary contributions.
In order to examine these claims more closely he has raised and duly offers $1,000,000 to any successful demonstration of the paranormal.
So far every applicant has failed. This does not prove the paranormal does not exist (proving a negative is fraught with difficulty). However it does expose gullible, misguided (and even crooked) people.
He makes the legal point that you don’t have to explain how you are going to perform your paranormal ability to win the money - you just do it under closely-supervised conditions. This is so the conditions for success can be clearly stated. If you include 'the paranormal power must be clearly explained, you open up legal problems of satisfying this condition.
As soon as the first trial succeeeds, scientists (such as Randi) will naturally look for an explanation.
Since there is precisely zero evidence of the paranormal so far, we don’t need any explanation yet.
No, you’re an ignoramus.
That category includes people who make wild overstated generalisations, based on a misunderstanding of one clause in a legal contract.
Don’t you ever wonder why you attract so much criticism?
Do you ever review what you type and check it for accuracy and logic?
To Joe Random
Do you have a cite for that? Why do you think so? Look at the original question, which makes no mention of the supernatural. Its those disagreeing with it that have decided that its supernatural.
Easy. You move your head slightly, and glimpse the starer out of the corner of your eye. This doesn’t register conciously, but your subconcious might send you the alert, so a minute or two later you get the feeling that someone is looking at you, but you don’t know how you knew that.
But skeptics ignore such simple explainations, and look for magic.
I know that sometimes you can sense people staring at you I’ve experienced it myself. A few weeks ago I was in the DMV waiting area at 8:00 AM all alone. Had the feeling I was being watched and turned around. Sure enough a woman was at the back of the room staring at me.