I think you misread DDG, as that wasn’t an insult and was obviously a set of relevant questions.
The Artful Dodger rides again. That was not an insult.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.”
Ah, so you have further evidence of your claim aside from a television show. Please share this evidence with the rest of us.
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.
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?
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.
I believe you just answered your own OP.
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
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).
Remeber, "Many lesser Warriors delude themselves into thinking that they are masters of war, but few are the genuine article."
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.
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:
I have seen you before dismissing Randi, but his record on spotting frauds is better than the efforts of claiming his price.
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”.
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.
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:
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
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.’”
Here is a partial list of questions that, in lieu of answering, you dodged:
- Was the show broadcast in Japanese? Yes or no.
- Do you speak Japanese? Yes or no.
- Can you provide a link to a controlled study of Remote Viewing? Yes or no.
- 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.
- 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:
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 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.
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.
Oh dear, posting at 3:49 AM does a great disservice to my spelling, doesn´t it?
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpsychicfed.html
[suppresses chuckle] Well, that’s a Great Debate, no doubt. “Media will write anything that sells!” Yeah, let’s all debate that one.
Then you’re charmingly naive.
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 where I stop thinking you’re serious. You’ve never beaten anyone, not even come close to seriously threatening anyone. And you know it.
Maybe he’s Dr. Science. Remember, he has a Masters Degree… in Science!
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.
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?
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:
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.
I wonder if Aeschines will untie that butt cheek and come back. :dubious:
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…