This shows that you claim to know about a psychic phenomenon, namely remote viewing – that it is real and “is leading to genuine effects”.
(QED, though I am quite willing to explain further if needed.)
On a side note, I’ve never heard so many logical fallacies coming from one person! Is this some kind of exercise? I wouldn’t mind playing along; I once wrote a quite good fallacy-laden paper for a critical thinking class several years back, and I found it incredibly entertaining to purposefully argue falsely. Perhaps this is Aeschines purpose here!
Aeschines, I was about to post that it’s time for everyone to leave this thread since you’ve shown to have no grasp of science (for example, the applied science/theory distinction that you seem to find so important exists in your head only and is no argument against us, you don’t see what information exchange has to do with energy consumption/production (try looking up Maxwell’s Demon) and somewhere you’ve picked up the idea that skeptics believe something in the face of the facts, which is patently untrue) but then you actually did post a cite! So let’s look at that.
Now, unfortunately I’ve been unable to open any of the links on that site (www.boundary.org/experiments.htm), but I have reason to believe that it’s technical difficulties on my side rather than on boundary.org. Could someone (I know it’s not going to be you, Aeschines, since that’s not your purpose here) copy-paste the text of those pdf documents and make that available somehow? I’d really like to read what Aeschines has dug up for us.
After writing but not yet posting the above, I decided to look into what else there was on the same site. And as it turns out, the tests described in those pdf files I couldn’t open, were online games. In one test, you have five face-down cards in front of you. You click one, and then the computer randomly selects one card to be the “correct” card. This is supposed to be a precognition test since the correct card isn’t selected until you’ve already clicked… or so they say.
How easy is it to load a test like this one? How can we control it? We can’t. I also find it telling that they require a lot of questions to be filled out when you register, such as if you meditate, if you trust faith, follow hunches, believe in remote viewing and the like. Basically, the registering process can easily make sure that the ones who believe in “psychic” phenomena do well at the tests, whereas the people like me do badly. And, tellingly, I got scores of 20% and 17% on the above test, 20% being the number expected by chance. I’m willing to bet that those pdf files make the point that believers are better at this kind of thing, while “skeptos” do badly.
Ah, you admit it. You claimed your attacks on skeptics are based on observation. You claimed that skeptics assume fraud. I have used observation and a few simple quotations based on what skeptics actually said to prove that you are wrong. Your observations about the skeptics here are flawed. I have proved my point, and yet you cannot look the evidence in the face. This shows how rigidly you adhere to observation—eg, not at all. Your central argument about the nature of skeptics has been reduced to dust. You are not winning anything, Aeschines.
The fact that you have created this thread with absolutely no point whatsoever proves that argument is false as well. You have claimed a Masters of Science but have evaded anything resembling scientific method.
You appear to have abandoned Super Special because it is obvious you cannot demonstrate independently that the program was conducted with rigid scientific controls. You admit as much—you admit that you can only assert that it was authentic but you cannot verify it. But such was your evidence, sir, and we gave it the weight it was due.
If you create a test that everyone can cheat on, both the geniuses and the fools will pass. We have pointed out that the Super Special television show is just such a test. A real psychic could pass that test; so could a fool. Therefore the show has little weight as evidence. Another argument of yours becomes as nothing.
I would give your links the weight they deserve as well, but this thread has become increasingly pointless.
I googled and googled all day long and I couldn’t find any cites for Remote Viewing. Therefore, there is no evidence for remote viewing. Sorry.
And I’m taking a page from your book: if you ask me why my googling technique failed to come up with an answer, I am prepared to become “offended” so I don’t have to provide you with a suitable answer. This is a technique that tinfoil hatters find very useful, I find: become “offended” or “insulted” so the question can be sidestepped.
In ten minutes of googling for results on television, fraud, scandals, and news, I found incidents that demonstrate either laxity or outright corruption in the news media and television broadcasters both in America and Japan. I find it very easy to believe that fraud might be perpetrated, and following the logic of “fraud” doesn’t lead me to a wacky logical Wonderland where cows drink milk and the Earth is flat and Apollo Ohno is a woman and mosquitoes are messengers from the 12th dimension and tinfoil hats protect you from alien rays. Television and news fraud happens a lot in both countries. If you are unable to bring yourself to believe that human beings, gasp, sometimes lie for their own profits, then I cannot help you.
You should learn a lesson from the moon hoaxers: it’s not just what you believe, it’s what you don’t believe. You appear to believe that fraud on a massive scale is impossible. I suggest you look into it.
You sum up own your posts so eloquently. Hoaxes are being perpetrated all over the world and it tells you, Aeschines, nothing. You simply believe that an entertainment program is telling the truth because you don’t want to face the alternative. I am facing both alternatives and I have insufficient evidence to decide between them.
Am I to assume that you consider wild fucking guesses to be scientific evidence? It would certainly explain a great deal about Remote Viewing, that’s for sure.
Then the television show is, again, not scientific evidence. You really must think these things through before you admit to them.
You’re quick to seek the protection of the Board rules when it comes to personal attacks on you, I see, even when personal attacks don’t exist. And yet you have no qualms whatsoever to attack any and all skeptics, with a broad and insulting brush, loaded with the paint of condescension: but because you’re attacking everyone it’s not personal? Shall I direct my personal scorn at the “tinfoil hatters” who use your arguments? It amounts to the same thing.
I refrain from attacking your beliefs because this is Great Debates, and belief is permitted here. If you are here to assert your belief, or to “witness,” then feel free and I won’t dispute you. Since you claim not to be presenting a debate, I can hardly see what other point you have; I am going to treat this as a non-debate declaration of your own beliefs in remote viewing. You certainly aren’t treating this seriously as a debate of the phenomenon.
I agree with Priceguy. Aeschines appears to have no point, and insists he is not engaging in debate over the phenomenon, and yet he claims to be “winning.” I’m not going to waste my time here.
Maybe he’s remote-viewing the personal attacks, 'cos I don’t see them.
I read the first paper. Overall, it deals with results that even they acknowledge only reach chance levels (!), and sometimes a little bit worse! Yes, they claim a small effect can be seen among believers, but it looks to me that they get those results through meta-analysis. That is controversial in other quarters too. However, the paper mostly self congratulates in the fact that this is a new way to investigate, by getting testing data through the Internet (it looked to me that that was the main reason for the submission!). They said the technique is good for other researches, like good old psychology for example. However, it results in very poor evidence for RV.
The other papers are not relevant to RV, but I gave up after seeing all depending on Meta-analysis to “prove” their points.
Wrong again. The qualifier “extraordinary” does not refer to some vague, emotional content; it refers to the quality and extent of the evidence.
There’s no need to provide extensive, high quality evidence to demonstrate something commonplace or ordinary. But one would need very extensive, very high quality evidence (extraordinary evidence) commensurate with the apparent scientific improbability (deviation from accepted scientific theories) of what you’re trying to demonstrate to convince an informed audience of the reality of, say, remote viewing.
In other words, the standard of evidence needed to persuade us that you submitted your posts from say, Evanston, Ill, is far lower and easier to provide than the standard of evidence needed to convince us you posted them from an extraterrestrial spacecraft in the Proxima Centauri system. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Dangling a set of car keys would persuade us that you owned a car, but dangling something you claimed were flying saucer keys would amount to far less than the extraordinarily high-quality evidence you would need to persuade us you owned an extraterrestrial spacecraft.
Whoa, nice sleuthing Keanu, but where did I say I knew “lots”?
If you have the guts and/or balls, I welcome you find even ONE logical fallacy in this thread by me, with the appropriate category attached (e.g., argument from ignorance).
Certainly, leave the field of battle. I advise retreat, indeed, based on your current situation. But keep in mind that he who holds the field is considered the victor.
The point was raised in response to your tenuous assertion, that, were it not for skepticism, we would have no modern technology.
Umm, it’s an interesting topic, one worthy of discussion, but your assertion that psi is impossible, as it contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, requires a bit more elaboration on your part. For example, how many jules of energy are required for me to see something? I have no idea, nor do you.
Yes, I did pick this up somewhere: to wit, planet Earth, where people known as “skeptics” deny well-proved phenomena.
I am most glad to see that you have adopted my terminology, a more appropriate moniker for your “team.” As for the on-line “experiment,” it’s just for fun.
I’ll be damned if I can sort out what you’re trying to say here. But as for “winning,” indeed, there is no prize for fool demolition, but I do it as a public service; the reward is strictly spiritual.
“That argument”–what argument? I’ve made several. Mostly I have made philosophical arguments, ones so meaty that few are done yet chewing. You don’t seem to have begun yet.
Nice observation. I’d have to turn PI and commit serious resources to get that job done. I’m content, however, to recognize that either big lies are being told, or big phenomena being proved. The intent of the thread, if you haven’t grasped it yet, was to reflect on how the Skepto world view is losing credence by the day.
Good evidence for the point I was trying to make; namely, that your worldview is less and less accepted by the public around the world. You’ve lost your foothold. It’s gone, ne’er to return.
Oh dear. No one has proved any such thing. You’d have to be behind the scenes of the show.
Argument for what? You’re incoherent.
You gave it your all, kid. Time to throw in the towel.
You don’t offend me; you bore me. Go away. Let the best of your team step up to the plate. You’ve struck out, son.
Oh my. The Moon Hoax is an example of idiots doubting what is flat-out fact. It’s evidence for my position, not yours. And yes, I believe that fraud on such a massive scale as faking a moon landing IS impossible.
You need to up the sophistication of your thought process. Connect the dots a little.
Personal attacks and mockery are BANNED in GD, got it? Please play by those rules or get your sorry, slack ass off the sandlot.
Listen, Junior Mod with the martyr complex, what is your point? You should not come to GD, post ‘Holy poop, remote viewing is real!’, and expect people to take your good word for it. If you have some other point to make, then do so in a clear and concise manner.
Provide cites for your assertions. If you do not, then this thread is useless.
My vision of the future (OMG! I remotely viewed the future!) is that you will continue your psycho ramblings, and will not backup your claims with so much as one shred of legitimate proof.
I suggest you state once again what your argument is. Are you claiming that there is now sufficient evidence that Remote Viewing is real? If not, what exactly is your point? Which of your statements are suggestions for further discussions/consideration, and which statemens do you claim are based on undeniable proof?
“Extraordinary” is an opinion-word, dammit. Not quantifiable. Subject to dispute. Get a clue and a grip.
“Commonplace” and “ordinary” are, again, just matters of opinion. Many religious people would consider answered prayers, etc., to be “ordinary.” You gonna go with that?
Rich cake, this. What good are “accepted scientific theories” if they’re dead wrong? So, you’re saying that the more people believe something to be true, the more evidence is required to prove that they’re wrong? So, if a bunch of creationists get together who believe 100% that evolution is wrong, you need better evidence for evolution that you would were the group in question “skeptics”? Sounds like epistomological relativism to me. Sounds like junk.
This has nothing to do with scientific theory. This is a matter of proving a one-off fact. It’s more like a legal matter. If I say that I was with my friends last night, you believe me. But if it’s a murder case and there’s more at stake, you demand more proof. I call my friends as witnesses; they back up my story. It’s up to you whether to believe at that point or not.
Many people have said such and such a paranormal event happened. People back them up at witnesses. Experiments are done in labs; cameras roll. Still you say, No, I don’t believe it. Your perogative. But what has this to do with science? Fuck all. It’s just your opinion, nothing more.
Irrelevant, stupid example. On the other hand, time after time Uri Gellar has bent spoons in the hands of people without even touching them. There are witnesses to this aplenty. There are movies of what he did under controlled conditions. At some point your statement that it’s all BS is just a matter of your own pigheadedness and nothing more.
Thesis: the game is up, skeptos. The media is now turning a positive eye and ear to psychic pheonomena, which will be demonstrated again and again and again–not because of hoaxing, but because they are real.
Why do you think the “accepted scientific theories” are accepted in the first place? Because it is consistent with an overwhelming number of observations and experimental results. If you have one data which “proves” that the theory is wrong, it’s one data against centuries of accumulated data. Of course it requires more evidence to prove wrong such established theories.
Your saying so doesn’t make it true; seems like there are a number of assertions here:
[ol][li]The media is becoming increasingly interested in reporting paranormal phenomena[/li][li]Demonstrations of apparently paranormal phenomena are being conducted.[/li][li]Paranormal phenomena are real.[/ol][/li]
I don’t think anyone is arguing with you on the first two, they’re just questioning whether point 3 is backed by any reliable evidence and if not, whether it is acceptable to conclude point 3 solely on the basis of points 1 and 2.
Aeschines, through the title of this thread you have made a claim of fact. You have done nothing since then to support this claim, and most(if not all) of your posts since then have consisted of nothing but snide responses to those who have asked for evidence and cites. If you have evidence or cites for the claim you have made, please post them now. If all you can do is make unsubstanciated claims, MPSIMS is the place for you.
Aeschines, derogatory references to the state of someone’s ass are not proper in GD. Also, asking you questions is not a personal insult, and the Mods will determine what is and is not an insult, not you. Everybody, back it down a notch.
He’s also born false witness against his neighbors, through accusing everybody that criticizes his posts of insulting him, followed up by accusations of Board Rules violations thereby.
Surely you aren’t going to overlook such great achievements? :rolleyes:
