If you’re saying that we don’t have the means to tell whether or not the phenomenon of “correctly feeling I’m being stared at”:
a) actually happens correctly more often than not
b) if “a” is true, that it is caused by something paranormal or by something unknown to science at this time
then I think you’re very wrong. The tests have been done, and come down on the side of “a” being somewhat true, but “b” being false.
It seems that when properly controlled experiments are done, the phenomenon goes away. By controlled, I mean that mundane ways of telling someone might be looking at you are eliminated. So if you take away the chance of cueing by the “looker” or a third party, noise, peripheral vision, or other perfectly ordinary ways that we might know or guess that someone was watching, we don’t seem to know that someone is watching.
So I think we do have the means to answer it, and that it pretty much has been answered, at least as far as some unknown faculty for perception or paranormal means. And even if you don’t agree with the couple of test that have been done, more rigorous testing is certainly possible. Saying “that we don’t yet have the means to answer” these questions seems pretty short-sighted.
That’s not to say a study of just which low level perceptions were best at tipping us off, or just how small of a stimulus it takes, or other related things couldn’t be interesting.
And if you meant some other questions couldn’t be answered, I’d like to hear what you think they are. Maybe I’ve missed your point.
A more scientific way to approach this is to set up an experiment that monitors a person’s reaction, galvanic skin response or other change and see if there is a correlation.
But if you stare at someone and they don’t look round, do you record it?
Here’s one that works pretty well:
Stand on a wide area of pavement and stare fixedly at a rooftop. At first no-one notices you, then people glance at you as they walk past (presumably thinking ‘what’s he up to?’).
But eventually someone will stop (a few feet away) and stare at the rooftop. Hold your position - the process is about to accelerate. Before long several people are all gazing at the rooftop. Now step quietly away and take a picture of them!
This of course illustrates no paranormal powers - just that humans have a sense of curiosity, and also are more likely to act when others are already doing something.
Just for interest, why are you not interested in a million dollars?
(I 've asked dowsers this question, and they say things like:
‘I must be true to my craft’
’ money doesn’t interest me’
‘my powers don’t work where a reward is involved’
‘I don’t like showing off’)
Entertainment is in the eye of the beholder.
But Randi is also a scientist.
As RJKUgly said, of course we can test for this. (There’s even a million dollar reward!)
What I find interesting is why people (especially those who think the power exists) don’t want to.
I’m an atheist, since there is no evidence of any God.
I’m not interested in Randi’s mil. Maybe if I checked the site, I would be. I don’t know. It’s like I’ve already learned all I want to know about the guy. I assume (a much maligned practice) that many have tried to collect. I do throw a few bucks at the lotto once ib a while, though. A million dollars would be cool, but that million doesn’t seem real to me.
I’m not so sure “The Power” does exist. I am sure that I’ve turned and seen people watching me, and that three people I watched (not stared at) turned and looked directly at me. Maybe I’ll repeat the, um, game. I’ll try to notice if anyone I’m not watching turns and looks.
I really don’t have time for all this, though. I’m trying to read Different Seasons again.
One thing I wonder about: Do these carefully set up scientific experiments accurately test my experience? The environment is very different. There’s a name for the effect of observation, with all the controls and such, but I don’t remember what it is. If a supernatural component did exist, it could be skewed by all the attention focused on the test itself, couldn’t it?
I emphasize “watching”, as opposed to “staring”, because there’s a big difference. If one of you were watching me, you probably wouldn’t know I was watching anybody.
Y’know, mangeorge, it’s refreshing to meet a poster with such an open and insightful mind as yourself. Perhaps you could help me with a little problem of mine.
You see, there are these pixies in my garden. Little people with wings and everything. And they turn invisible whenever I try to show them to other people, so no one believes me. I don’t know why I’m the only person who can see them – it just be supernatural or somethin’ – and I can’t think of any way to prove that there are actually pixies there.
Pixie dust. Boy, you are an innocent one, aren’t you. If it helps, there are a lot of other people just like you who see pixies all the time. Most of them know about the dust, though.
When you stare at someone, maybe they can feel collapsing wave functions on the back of their neck or upper lip (very sensitive areas of skin) due to the act of observation.
OK, it’s a crap hypothesis. Havent seen a better one though.
TVAA, try live catch rat traps. They’ve always worked for me. The only problem is, when I try to show the pixies to other people, they change into rats!
Sometimes my wave function collapses. Strangely enough it only does it when others are looking. Quite embarassing. I sometimes think other people don’t believe I have one.
mangeorge, I don’t see how you can say that demanding that someone disprove something is the same as asking them to prove something.
However, I wonder about Clause 7 of the application “When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi…” That seems rather arrogant to me. And does he have a definition of what is supernatural? Had he offered this 200 years ago, would I be able to claim the prize by claiming that there were “magic rays” that can see inside a person?
If I did say that, I certainly didn’t mean it, Not like that anyway. Isn’t that what Randi and his fans are doing here, trying to disprove something by asking someone to prove it?
BTW; I was sitting about 120* behing a cop (CHP) in a Starbucks in San Jose today, and he kept turning and looking at me. Probably because I kinda flirted with the “barista” and made her laugh. Cops are jealous that way. But, it could have been because he sensed my atrtitude toward cops in general.
Finally I glared at him and he shook his head and went back to his laptop.
“My offer and Randi’s are, essentially, the same.”
Your offer requires the person to disprove that they will ever kick a dog; Randi’s requires that they prove that there is a supernatural phenomenon.
Well hell. I guess that before I comment any further on Randi’s offer I should actually read the danged thing. I’m under the impression that Randi’s offer seeks to disprove the existance of supernatural influence by the fact that no one has won the million.
I’ll be back.
Oops, that line is possibly under copyright.
it is quite clear that this clause is just to avoid someone subsequently claiming for defamation or accident occuring during the testing. It is quite clear from the last sentence that you are free to take legal action to claim the prize if you pass the test and JREF won’t pay.
No, not as I understand it, just anything that is not explicable on normal rational grounds. So yes, if you had been able to develop x-ray equipment in total secrecy, and then took the challenge, chances are that you would have won the prize.
Mangeorge, you need to read up on Randi’s challenge because it is entirely collectible. People take the challenge all the time, on simple tests that, if they were to pass, would give them the money. They never pass. The tests can be as simple as people who say they can view objects psychically through a blindfold, being asked to do so. Invariably, they simply cannot, but if they could actually view objects psychically through a blindfold, they’d be millionaires by now.
Randi does not seek to disprove the existence of the paranormal, he offers a million dollars to anyone who can prove it. There is a subtle but very important difference between disproving something and not believing in something because there is no evidence upon which to do so. What Randi’s challenge does is set up perfect conditions for anyone who thinks they have pyschic ability to create really good evidence of that. None do.
The conclusion I reach is that where there is no evidence of X, and where the infrastructure is in place for those who state that X exists to prove X exists but fail to do so, then there is no reason to believe X exists. It is not a question of proving X does not exist.
Actually, as you very well know, Peter (because you have been provided with cites ad nauseum) many many dowsers do consider Randi’s tests to be fair and reasonable, and sign pieces of paper to that effect. Indeed dowsers are the single most common applicants for the prize. It is only after they fail that they start thinking of excuses.
First, if someone can actually demonstrate an ability that cannot be explained by normal human capacity, the test would help publicize the existence of such a phenomenon.
Secondly, the fact that no one who has taken the tests has even managed to demonstrate such an ability – and that those who insist they have demonstrable powers often don’t take the test in the first place – shows that belief in “supernatural” powers is currently unjustifiable.
I’ll try to notice if anyone I’m not watching turns and looks.
