Actually I think I would argue against the first point too. “Demonstrations” of paranormal abilities has been a staple of Japanese TV for as long as I can remember. And this is not unique to Japan; in every country, there are always people pretending to have superhuman or paranormal abilities performing in carnivals, on stage, on TV and in other venues.
You’re probably right, although I suppose what I really meant is that nobody would argue with the point because it is irrelevant; that the media is became increasingly interested in David Beckham’s haircut doesn’t really mean anything at all; if the media suddenly became increasingly interested in my hairy arse, it wouldn’t mean that there is necessarily anything intrinsically wortwhile about it.
I really don’t think you’re giving yourself enough credit. 
Really, though, it seems that the OP is arguing that rising popularity = increased legitimacy of remote viewing claims. That doesn’t work in any other branch of objective knowledge, so why should it be so here?
And if we’re trying to say that ‘extraordinary’ and ‘ordinary’ are totally subjective, how about simply saying that claims that violate our current understanding of the possibility of psychic ability must produce proof as to how they either fit within, or exist outside, of our current frame of understanding?
Only in your mind, like so many other things. Since this post of yours made me lose my last lingering shreds of belief that you’re serious and not just out for attention, I will step out now. For the benefit of other readers I’ll respond one more time.
I haven’t said that, as you know, and even if I had, that’s not the point, as you know. You said “RV is about information exchange, not energy consumption/production”, which shows an utter and complete lack of understanding of your part. You have no idea what I’m talking about here, you don’t know if the topic is interesting or not, nor if it’s worthy of discussion. You’re totally lost, and it’s showing.
So your one and only cite, the best evidence you could come up with, is “just for fun”. I don’t know why I’m still amazed by your antics, Aeschines.
Come on everybody, this is pointless. There is just no way Aeschines is serious. He just wants attention. Let’s not give it to him.
Do you mean apart from all the ad hominem attacks?
Equivocation. (There’s one for you.)
You know “lots” because you know that RV is real, which none of us do, and that means you know more than us. You also know of effects of RV, which none of us do, and that also means you know more than us. So, relatively speaking you know lots. QED.
I found one huge one and thirteen on the first two pages before getting bored and deciding to empty the cat box instead. I wrote them out, but I won’t list them, because I’m not in the business of teaching junior college-level critical thinking. If others are interested, however, I’d be happy to provide the list.
In any case, both of your claims in this thread - that RV is real and that the media is taking it more seriously - are both invalid. You have not proved and will not argue the first, so it cannot be taken as truth. The second claim, as I will show, is invalid, and I shall show it as you did, anecdotally: the media is not taking these phenomena more seriously, as there have been a string of TV specials now and in the past debunking them. (See how fun it is to make fallacious arguments?! Please, top this claim with a Godwin!)
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere.
You refuse to provide a cite for RV, but you’re saying you aren’t trying to prove RV, so I’ll accept that.
However, you DID post in a Great Debate that “the media is now turning a positive eye and ear to psychic pheonomena [sic]”. I assume you mean the attention has increased–if I’m in error, please let me know.
To back up this claim, please provide any shred of evidence that the media coverage of psychic phenomena is now higher than it was at some point in the past. That’s how these Great Debate things work. We’ll let you focus on just one point of your “thesis,” particularly since it would be difficult to prove what will happen in the future (of course, if you can do that, I guess you win).
Heck, I’ll even do some preliminary work for you. I typed “psychic” into the search at CNN.com, and sorted by date. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I didn’t bother weaning out the stories that don’t really support psychic phenomena, such as Ex-‘Miami Vice’ star wins first round against psychic network from 06.06.2000.
So, given that data set, here are my numbers:
2003: 10 articles
2002: 32 articles
2001: 23 articles
2000: 23 articles
1999: 38 articles
I personally see no clear trend of increasing media coverage.
Perhaps you’re referring more to things like “Crossing Over”? Well, the syndicated version has been cancelled now (cite, so I guess that doesn’t really count as increasing.
Of course, the media is giving LESS coverage to this skeptic world view, which Aeschines seems to imply is the dominant view that’s dying, right? Well, here are the numbers over the same timeframe:
2003: 8 articles
2002: 3 articles
2001: 6 articles
2000: 9 articles
I can’t see a trend in those either, but I’d have to say it doesn’t look like we’re losing any foothold.
The fact is, Aeschines, that skepticism tends to be a minority opinion. That doesn’t make paranormal phenomena true–it means we “skeptos” have to fight harder to help people understand the process of critical thinking.
Of course, there are places where skepticism has a healthy foothold, such as science and law. Where will we be once this worldview is officially flushed? Will all hypotheses be assumed true without testing? Will juries rule by guessing, without any evidence being presented? I’m just trying to understand how the world would be improved if all of us rotten skeptos would just give up…
He’s not the only one, there have been many, many others. One example you already provided here:
He does, does he? Meter thingee and all, eh? Wow! Please read in a book store near you: The Truth about Uri Geller. Please read the label, and wash, rinse, repeat as many times as often as necessary to allow for just one fact to soak in. Geller tried to sue Randi on numerous occasions for slander and for ruining his reputation as a national renowned psychic. I’ll spare you the results of what the courts have decided each and every time. Many other cheats will be offered up upon request. Would it be asking too much to get a name of someone you think genuinely has these remote viewing abilities? Let’s see his or her works.
I don’t believe that you have looked at both sides, and if you did, you only dabbled. And no one is required to thinking someone is a big liar if the study shows a positive result. You keep using fallacious arguments, this time by either assuming it has to be A or B, and no other choice is acceptable. If such a phenomenon as remote viewing exists, it’s escaped mainstream science for decades now. What favorably results I’ve seen in paranormal claims, it turns out they either had been using piss- poor testing procedures, or downright cheating altogether, and yes, lying is quite common too. This is why it is important to have results replicated and be peer reviewed by credible groups. If one has such an ability, there are very easy tests that both parties can agree too, if one wants to be tested. One thing Randi observed earlier on, at least with most water dowsers he has tested, was that they were often not liars. They failed miserably, but he thought that many of those honestly believed that they had the ability to do what they said they could do, but were simply mistaken. To date, I believe he has tested over 1,000 people spanning over four decades that have come forward claiming to have some kind of paranormal ability. We are still waiting for just one authentic case. Everyone agrees before hand on what constitutes a positive or negative result. Everyone that I’m aware of agrees afterwards that they had been treated fairly, and they all sign statements or affidavits to that effect after being tested. Many still didn’t deny their abilities, only that their psychic phenomenon or whatever ability they were agreeing to be tested for, failed them that day. CSICOP is another well established group of many professionals that has for over decades looked into just about every type of paranormal claim made, and they too, have tested a great deal of people. Still not one authentic case. CSICOP realized earlier on that even brilliant scientists testing the claimants, often had children that were fooling the testers. This is when they brought in the magicians who were trained to detect the very things they used to fool their audience members with. One doesn’t have to be a magician to test these claimants, but one had very well be well versed with what skills the testers can use to deceive the tests, or had better be willing to have a magician look on, because often cheating goes on. Randi also videotapes each claimant and documents his work well. If other educational groups want to look at the evidence, it’s also available. I don’t know how one could propose anything more fair than that.
JZ
It proves it to the credulous. Do you have more detailed information than what was provided? From what I read here in this thread, there is not enough information to determine if this 15% figure is worthy of attention or not. If that 15% hit rate is not any better than a person selected at random can do by guessing, then that negates any kind of a positive result. But I would take that 15% hit rate, and consider it a high score, if e.g., we took, say 1,000 of known missing persons, and we got what many RVer’s considered to be the best, to come and give us specific locations on where these people may be located. If they were able to find 15% of these people, that would be some fantastic evidence in its favor to me or to many others. But vague, ambiguous and general answers is the norm here. Specifics will kill a hit every time. Specifics are probably what you or other RVer’s would call a harsh environment. 
There are many ways one can design a test to where RVer’s could actually score much higher than 50%. It’s only when the particulars are known, does one realize that remote viewing had nothing to do with it. A person guessing at random could get equally obtainable results.
Newton believed in many things including the literal Creation account laid out in Genesis. Do you think after several more centuries of what science has uncovered, he would have held those same views today? Modern science was still in its infancy in his day. Very little was still known of the world, so no one can’t fault him for that. What’s your excuse?
Albert Einstein, did what many scientists do when referring to God. Scientists often use God as metaphor when commenting on the order of the universe, and perhaps you’re confusing his “God doesn’t play with dice” comments with this. Here’s a list of quotations with sources, that clearly shows he was certainly no theist. One rabbi wrote bluntly demanding to know if he believed in God or not, and he replied back: I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. That did the trick as far as getting out of trouble with religious leaders for the time being. With Spinoza’s God, there is no personal deity separate from nature. Another writes Einstein in 1954 wanting to know more about his religious beliefs. In this letter he replies: It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Many more do not, especially most of the important ones as Penn would say. Do a google on “Leading Scientists still Reject God”. The National Academy of Sciences had hundreds of its members polled, and 93% of those scientists were either agnostic or atheist, with some 70% falling in the atheist category. So not sure what point you was intending to make with that statement.
JZ
That’s asinine. It’s about peer review, not pressure. Any good scientist is going to let the evidence take him wherever regardless of the outcome because they do care what the truth is. Mainstream science remains skeptical about paranormal claims because they have a better understanding of how things work than you do, and also have a better understanding of what constitutes good evidence than you. Your standards are very, very low and are appalling. If you did have a basic understanding you wouldn’t be here acting so dumbfounded as to why you’re getting the responses you are getting. CSICOP has over twenty years of journals you should take a look at before you claim you have looked at both sides of the issue. I actually remember watching that very show of Bob Barker which had Hydrick on, some 20 years ago that another poster mentioned. Without any controls he came in and did the very thing he said he was going to do. He moved a pencil by what appeared to be simply he willing it to move. Next he moved pages from a phone book right before everyone’s eyes. In both cases he clearly kept his hands away and did not touch the object. He clearly demonstrated to Bob Barker, James Randi, the people out in the audience and the people on TV that he could do what he said he could do. Well, that’s how it went the first time around, when no controls were placed on Hydrick. Randi being a magician felt like he already knew how he was doing it. So he asks Hydrick would it be any problem if he put Styrofoam pieces around the pencil. He didn’t object, and again Hydrick was ready to go. He concentrated, made some facial expressions, but after a period of time, he comes up with some ridiculous excuse about the static electricity off of the light hitting the Styrofoam or whatever was causing his powers to fail, which was why the pencil wasn‘t moving this time. Amazing, no one knew Styrofoam had such powerful properties. I’m sure that would have done it for you, but some people aren’t so credulous. Randi blistered him good for that excuse. And there was no need to even get to the telephone book this time. Hydrick was using the same method to move pages of the telephone book as he did the pencil. This trick has fooled millions before on another popular TV show as another poster pointed out. Amazing how a little trick that was found on the back of a popular breakfast cereal, can fool so many, and all it took was a little puff of breath.
JZ
Ought to see it from this end. Just about every post from you has these emotional hysterics that are directed at anyone who isn’t as accepting as you on what you would qualify as evidence, and it seems just about any charlatan claiming to do anything will do it for you, just so long as they appeal to your emotional state, all the while questioning others.
This is what a Master’s Degree in Science will do for you at Purdue? Unfortunately for you some scientific theories are better than others, and the validity of the laws of conservation of energy are well established. You have no regard for it, and simply want to dismiss it by saying that this information that is being received from a remote viewer doesn’t even require energy. That information going on in your brain, isn’t operating off of any non-energy, although in your case, one might make a strong case for it operating with non-energy. This information going to the remote viewer also travels a distance, and there is also the issue of signal strength to distance. That energy follows the inverse square law. Most scientists generally believe that the behavior of living matter including our consciousness and thought processes can be explained by the behavior of the fundamental particles under the four basic forces, in particular the electromagnetic forces. If a remote viewer has a thought, that signal is going to possess enough energy to activate electrons in the nervous system. But according to you, this information is all non-energy, and still gets through, and it‘s just that simple. Any of this conservation of energy biz doesn’t effect me, nosirre. I believe because I believe, and I heard about this Japanese tv show that promoted it, so there. Okie doakie. But if scientific evidence showing you the unlikelihood of it isn’t good enough, and since it is some kind of non-energy that you claim is carrying this information, and science isn’t familiar with it, this still isn’t going to prevent those that claim to have this ability from being tested. So, for the moment, let’s pretend that somebody receives this information in the form of non-energy. Getting back to what I asked earlier, provide a name or two of the best remote viewers you have that have done any fair job at all of documenting their work. Let’s take a looksee of the names involved, see what kind of testing procedures were involved, and see if this information is readily available. You reckon Osama is trembling in his boots to know that remote viewing is very real?
If a caller calls in and claims he has this ability, it shouldn’t be asking too much for one to demonstrate what they claim they can do. It’s not just talking the talk, it’s walking the walk, don’t ya know? Of all these posts from you, if this is your 2 cents worth of evidence, I expect some change back.
JZ
First, despite the desire of the forum to label me a “tinfoiler,” I have no problem with science as it exists today–except for the community’s (or part thereof) conservatism vis-a-vis evidence for psi and the afterlife, although this prejudice slowly seems to be going away.
Scientific theories get accepted along two separate axes: the content of the theories, and the social system of those who must accept or reject them. Sometimes bad ideas get accepted, or good ideas rejected, because of that social system. And then there is that ol’ human resistance to change.
So, you may be right that more evidence is required to get people to make a bigger change, but that has to do with the social side of science.
And yes, it can be tough to integrate anamolies into a body of theory, but that doesn’t mean you should reject evidence of new phenomena just because it’s a pain to deal with them.
What convinces you that this predjudice is slowly going away? The scientific community’s almost total rejection of evidence of psi and the afterlife has never been healthier. Perhaps you’re confused by the prominence of “experts” on talk radio and in the tabloids.
Very much like the situation in this thread, it’s not that scientists don’t accept evidence of new phenomena; it’s that we have yet to see any. If one well-designed study of paranormal activity is ever actually carried out and published, and if that study can then be replicated (another of those annoying things that we skeptics insist on), many, many serious scientists will begin to look into these things, and they will be accepted. However, to my knowledge, there has never been such a study (the Geller nonsense doesn’t count; leaving someone in a room alone and trusting that the spoons were bent by mind power like he said, and not by some other means, doesn’t exactly count as a well-designed study).
If scientists have ignored such studies, show me one. That would require you to actually provide a cite, though, so I guess I won’t be edified.
I saw the American version of the TV program described (about 5 years ago). It lacked a viable skeptic to challenge the results.
Why not? You labeled everyone else a “Skepto.”
To prove this assersion, you need to provide one of these:
[ul]
[li]An example of an idea which is accepted, and continues to be accepted, by the scientific community despite it being “bad.”[/li][li]An example of an idea with sufficient evidence which is not accepted by the scientific community. Accompanied by cites to said evidence.[/li][/ul]
If you do the research I think you will find that when “bad” ideas are accepted because of peer pressure or enthusiasm, it is discarded within a few years because of lack of collaborating evidence. N-rays and cold fusion are good examples.
I agree with that. Let’s see the evidence. We “skeptos” have already said that we are willing to examine any evidence you can provide.
By the way I did read the articles on the Boundary Institute site and found no outright claims for remote viewing being true. If you think I misunderstood, please point me towards the exact page where it proves that this supposed phenomenon is real.
I might get back to this slop-fest thread sometime over the weekend. In the meantime, try not to massage your underwear too much.
Well, okay. I won’t, but only because I like to go commando on the weekend. If I could ask a favor in return, when you next post, would you please include at least one credible link that supports RV? If you can find one, I mean.
Getting back to the OP for a moment, it seems you were suggesting that since a TV show included demonstrations of RV that somehow proves they exist. I’m not quite sure which fallacy heading that falls under, since it’s certainly not an Appeal to Authority and it’s not quite an Argumentum ad Populum. Perhaps we need a new category, Argumentum ad Medium. “An entertainment medium says it’s true so it must be.”
Yeah, that ought to do it.
Boy you guys had me going there. For ages I thought this was a real thread until I got to
and then I realised it’s some Ed Wood kinda thing.
The character Aeschines is a clever idea - a microcosm of his own OP. The media and the common people are starting to accept any old rubbish as fact - why look at me I’m a scientist and I believe it. And then getting a whole cast of characters to engage Aeschines in a futile argument that they will never win because Aeschines doesn’t understand Popper’s principle of falsifiability but is still a scientist. Sheer bloody genius.
Keep the laughs coming and I hope your stamina stands up - Aeschines cannot be proven wrong, it’s not a debate it’s a statement of faith.
But it was on TV. TV makes everything true. Even patently false things. It was on TV. Don’t you get it?