Wow, it’s that simple?! Gee, I should just, like, do that!
Cool. So let’s discuss the peer reviews that I linked to.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Then I am almost afraid to ask…what the heck is your ‘point’?
Er, yes. You should.
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.
We have to qualify as to what is sufficient. What you may call sufficient proof, isn’t 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, that’s 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. It’s 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 wouldn’t be were it is today. Skepticism is an important philosophical tool for the scientist and media alike and everyone in general, if they don‘t want to end up looking like a damn credulous fool. Those that don’t understand it, or refuse to apply it, end up looking rather silly. Yet, you mock skepticism at every chance you get. Remote viewing doesn’t 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 don’t 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 you’ll start concentrating on the scientific aspects. I’ll put my money on the laws of conservation of energy not being violated, before I put it on you or some TV show.
JZ
That cross looks really heavy on your poor shoulder.
No need. You have so far proven utterly unable to defend yourself against even my most basic offensive maneuver: “cite?”.
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?
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.
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:
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.
Not just here, but in the scentific/skeptical/rational thought arena as well. However, as you insist on us googling for you, here is the first link that popped up when I googled on “remote viewing.” Shall we take this link as your stated evidence?
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.
How many sigmas is “mega-high”?
Seconding Brutus–“Huh?” Then why are you here?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here you’re right, but look at the point you’ve made: skepticism is about peer pressure, not about truth.
Sure, to those in your group, perhaps. And if you don’t believe in Creationism, you’d be mighty uncomfortable among the Fundamentalists.
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.
I haven’t assumed that task.
I don’t know what you’re babbling about. As stated above, RV is about information exchange, not energy consumption/production.
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.
Hay! I have it on good authority that he was a zebra!
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.
Why, I´d be glad to comply.
:wally:
If I had the time I´d give you a well deserved pitting.
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.
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?