# That Fox Psychic show **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2000, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280 "2000-05-12T00:46:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![jally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90ced4/32.png) [@jally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jally)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/41 "2000-05-17T01:51:38Z")
Koffing: [QUOTE] \*\* No, you are completely incorrect here. Scientists would, upon observing the repeatable application of the ultra-beam, begin forming hypotheses. Since there are existing models of the universe that have withstood rigorous testing, scientists would first work within these models. If the existing theories (the scientific definition of the word theory, by the way) failed to accurately and repeatedly model the results of the ultra-beam, then those theories would be changed until they modeled the relevant parts of the universe, including the ultra-beam. Any radical changes would meet with resistance, of course, but there would eventually be change. That’s how science works. It corrects itself. [quote] ?? I did not understand the above > [@](#): > > I’m sure that some scientists have imagined such a world. It has no relevance to this world, however, unless it is an accurate model. Since double-blind studies and genetics work nothing like that, I’d say that it isn’t an accurate model. ?? I did not understand the above > [@](#): > > This is patently untrue. Just because a condition doesn’t have a name doesn’t mean that science says that it doesn’t exist. Your assumption is faulty. True. But it’s just a demo of how inconsistent science is, in that it deigns to recognize the existence of some conditions, while so many are left unaddressed and unexplained. > [@](#): > > Science says that chips & choco don’t give pimples. My body says otherwise. > > > [@](#): > > > > Wrong. This is true for the majority of people, but a small percentage of the population have food allergies that can bring on acne. I remember reading the above assertion in more than one article, as quoted (I believe) by dermatologists. > [@](#): > > Science says that mint & garlic are soothing/curative for sore-throats/colds. Yet raw garlic, garlic pickles, & spearmint jelly _cause_ me to get sore-throat & cold. > > > [@](#): > > > > Those sound like home remedies to me, and home remedies are rarely scientifically researched. You score again. Yet, I wonder, have any scientists set out to prove or disprove the theory of garlic curing colds, to the same degree that they rush to “disprove” PSI? > [@](#): > > Please note that science is only applicable to things that can be disproven. If one wishes to believe in something that can’t be disproven (most supernatural phenomena fall under this category), that’s his or her right, but one can’t then try to support such a belief scientifically. That’s not what it’s for, and it won’t work that way. > \*\* It’s also each person’s choice when he/she has personal experiences of unrelated, sundry people verbally reading his/her mind (every so often, say, like every 5-10 years, & at impromptu moments) to either believe or disbelieve the phenomenon of PSI. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/42 "2000-05-17T02:44:19Z")
Horselover said: > [@](#): > > I don’t think anyone is arguing PSI theory, only if it can be demonstrated, lets proceed one step at a time. Indeed. But you said you thought it was real. If you think it’s real, you have to explain it. Personally, I go by the principle I quoted earlier. > [@](#): > > 1. PSI is created/controlled/modified by the brain. > > Why not a different part of the body, whole body, or even a source from out of the body? We cannot assume that consciousness “lives” in the brain, just that the brain is required for consciousness beings to live. So where does the energy come from? It’s all nice to first say you believe this exists but then say the energy could come from anywhere, but it doesn’t help anything. > [@](#): > > 1. This “brain energy” is doing work, physical or otherwise. > > Sudden insight of information of a remote source or altering the chances of random numbers coming out of a RNG may not require work, as we commonly define it. Wrong. If you are changing the result of a computer, you are doing work. (For more on this, see Pldennison’s comments in the ghost thread.) You are altering the real world. To do so requires work, and therefore energy. > [@](#): > > 1. That we’re able to identify all forms of energy, that there’s a significant number of studies on the search of “brain energy.” The only energy that, at this point, we could be unable to “identify” is energy that is so weak as to be beyond our abilities to see. If it is strong enough to do work, it is strong enough to be detected. You can’t have it both ways. > [@](#): > > 1. PSI effects require energy. If it does work, it requires energy. What else would you propose? > [@](#): > > PSI may be a normal part of consciousness that is always-on not requiring anymore energy than is normally produced and emitted by the body. Except then you’re back to the detection again. Not to mention the fact that energy decreases exponentially as you leave the source of the energy, meaning the energy would have to be exceedingly strong to affect things going on away from the body. But in the end, it all comes down to first showing that “psi” exists. Nobody has. ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/43 "2000-05-17T03:50:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* Indeed. But you said you thought it was real. If you think it’s real, you have to explain it. Personally, I go by the principle I quoted earlier. > [@](#): > > This is very flawed logic: I think lots of things are real - my webcam, though I can’t explain how it works. According to your “if you think it’s real, you have to explain it” statement it doesn’t exist or my belief is wrong. > > Perhaps you’re refering to natural phenomenon, like say, lightning. I think its real, but I can’t explain that either. However you slice it, you’re reasoning is wrong. So where does the energy come from? [quote] Just like your above reasoning, its one thing to observe its effects and another to have a bullet-proof theory on how/why/when it works. If you’re looking for Parasychology theory I suggest you try the library. Again the energy/work suggestion, which is yours btw, may not be applicable. [quote] Wrong. If you are changing the result of a computer, you are doing work. [quote] I also don’t think thats applicable, you are assuming that the change is done on the transistor level. An alternative would be a change on the level of actual possibilties, PSI altering which one possibility out of many actually manifests itself. [quote] But in the end, it all comes down to first showing that “psi” exists. Nobody has. [quote] I disagree, I find the meta-analysis of the specific studies I have listed as convincing and with much merit. I also I find your posts to be characterized by a lapse of logic, straw-man arguments, and broad generalizations. There are many intelligent criticisms of PSI and yours really don’t come close. I also cannot see how you can be so sure that “Nobody has” found at least an interesting phenomenon here. Even a cursory look into 50 years of Parapsychology research should show the possibility that _something_ might have been detected. Are you blithely disregarding the entire field and every single study’s methodology, theory, and result? Are the criticisms of PSI research so convincng? Are you willing to post one that isn’t an obvious logical fallacy? Do you know any? Maybe PSI isn’t real and every study has a fatal flaw or part of a personal religious agenda(as some Skeptics have accused them of), but you certainly haven’t proven it to me. Using terms like “Nobody has” flies in the face of years of real research and is a sad testiment to how you make your decisions. It has been shown, many times, its really your job to refute this study by study and meta-analysis by meta-analysis. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/44 "2000-05-17T07:22:24Z")
Jally, you quoted the following from koffing: > [@](#): > > **No, you are completely incorrect here. Scientists would, upon observing the repeatable application of the ultra-beam, begin forming hypotheses. Since there are existing models of the universe that have withstood rigorous testing, scientists would first work within these models. If the existing theories (the scientific definition of the word theory, by the way) failed to accurately and repeatedly model the results of the ultra-beam, then those theories would be changed until they modeled the relevant parts of the universe, including the ultra-beam. Any radical changes would meet with resistance, of course, but there would eventually be change. That’s how science works. It corrects itself.** and [quote] \*\* I’m sure that some scientists have imagined such a world. It has no relevance to this world, however, unless it is an accurate model. Since double-blind studies and genetics work nothing like that, I’d say that it isn’t an accurate model.\*\* [quote] To each of these excerpts you responded > [@](#): > > **?? I did not understand the above** My first comment: no shit. My second comment: you are displaying either colossal naiveté or great courage in venturing over to GD to continue your participation in this thread. Especially when the first two statements you make amount to an admission that, in matters of science, you are so bereft of familiarity and understanding that you are essentially _tabula rasa_. Such bald-faced ignorance displayed so prominently on the SDMB is worthy of an attempt at remediation I doubt that I will be any more successful in imparting understanding to you than koffing was, but I’m going to give it a try anyway, just on account of the fact that I’ve read this exchange so many times in the past nine months, that I have the feeling I could do it in my sleep. I have great confidence (based upon empirical observations) that any errors that I make in the process will be duly noted and corrected by the actual scientists who read this board. The way science works is this: a scientist observes a phenomenon, gathers data related to the phenomenon, forms a hypothesis that fits the data gathered, makes predictions based on the hypothesis, and gathers more data to determine if the predictions are borne out. If the predictions are supported by the new data gathered, then other scientists are told of the scientist’s work, whereupon they replicate the conditions under which the first scientist obtained his (or her) results, and attempt to replicate the results themselves. The foregoing description is, of course, far more linear than the usual sequence of events in real life, but I’m just trying to communicate a concept, here. Should the scientist’s predictions not be borne out by the new data gathered, the scientist can either: 1.) abandon the original hypothesis in favor of an entirely different one, 2.) refine the initial hypothesis in such a way that it takes into account the data that did not fit the hypothesis (as it stood prior to the commencement of testing), 3.) refine the methods for data-gathering , 4.) refine the methods for data analysis and interpretation, 5.) a combination of 2.), 3.) and /or 4.), or 6.) abandon any attempts to explain the particular phenomenon. Given the results posited by you in your example of the ultra-beam, scientists would not likely choose 6.) after their first failure to hypothesize the principles behind the ultra-beam. They would eventually come up with a hypothesis that was able to incorporate the demonstrated effects of the ultra-beam, while retaining predictive value in the case of our day-to-day experience. It would be simply a matter of time and resources. Even when a prediction _is_ borne out, and replicated the wide world over, a hypothesis (or model, or theory) is still subject to eventual falsification, replacement, extension, and/or refinement. Because, as koffing pointed out, **science corrects itself**. And it tends to do so incrementally; paradigm shifts and quantum advances to long-standing models are not very common in real life. So the ultra-beam will have to be based upon principles that, once articulated, do not violate any of the predictions that have been successfully made by any accepted scientific theory. I apologize for ending this so abruptly. It has taken me much longer to write than I would have liked, and I’m getting sleepy, to boot. Good night. BTW, jally, you’re not Kenneth G. Beacon, by any chance, are you? Just curious. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/45 "2000-05-17T12:03:38Z")
Horselover said: > [@](#): > > This is very flawed logic: I think lots of things are real - my webcam, though I can’t explain how it works. According to your “if you think it’s real, you have to explain it” statement it doesn’t exist or my belief is wrong. _You_ may not be able to explain it, but _somebody_ can. To my knowledge, _nobody_ has come up with a reasonable explanation for the things I mentioned above. > [@](#): > > I find the meta-analysis of the specific studies I have listed as convincing and with much merit. Yes, so you’ve said. Unfortunately, what you find convincing and what scientists find convincing are two different things, apparently. Meta-analysis of a bunch of flawed studies brings flawed results. But I know that when people point this out to you, you complain that they are just rationalizing and making up straw men. So I tried a different angle by pointing to the theoretical problems. But you have ignored that just as easily. All in all, you have shown a great ability to ignore anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions – something you accuse the skeptics of doing! > [@](#): > > I also cannot see how you can be so sure that “Nobody has” found at least an interesting phenomenon here. Because I’ve followed it. It’s really quite a simple way to figure it out. > [@](#): > > Even a cursory look into 50 years of Parapsychology research should show the possibility that _something_ might have been detected. A “possibility” that “_something_ might have been detected” is not “showing that ‘psi’ exists,” which is what I said. > [@](#): > > Are you blithely disregarding the entire field and every single study’s methodology, theory, and result? No, I am pointing out the methodological flaws and poor overall results. As to theory – what theory? For a theory you first need evidence. And, to top it off, when I have questioned you about theory, you have pushed it off and ignored it! > [@](#): > > Are the criticisms of PSI research so convincng? Yes – to somebody who understands the scientific method and the way experiments should be run and reported. > [@](#): > > you certainly haven’t proven it to me. Considering your attitude here, I don’t expect to. I can only teach – I can’t be responsible if you refuse to learn. > [@](#): > > Using terms like “Nobody has” flies in the face of years of real research and is a sad testiment to how you make your decisions. No. Using that term _with the rest of the sentence_ is perfectly correct. But your knee is apparently jerking so hard into your chin that it rattled your brain and you are unable to see that what I said is 100% correct. > [@](#): > > It has been shown, many times, its really your job to refute this study by study and meta-analysis by meta-analysis. Wrong. It’s your job to back up your claims. You have provided absolutely nothing in that arena. All you have said is that the meta-analyses convinced _you_. Well goody for you. But don’t expect the rest of us to believe in magic just because you do. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/46 "2000-05-17T16:43:07Z")
HorseloverFat, what David meant to say is: how do propose it is that PSI works? What does it physically do? Answer that (this time around) and maybe we’ll get somewhere . . . maybe. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2000, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/47 "2000-05-17T20:41:02Z")
Jally wrote: > [@](#): > > \*\* > btw, I notice that “facts-persons” predominate on these boards - I wonder why > \*\* I know the answer to this one! This board is dedicated to stamping out ignorance. This is best done with facts. ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2000, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/48 "2000-05-18T01:45:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Meta-analysis of a bunch of flawed studies brings flawed results. But I know that when people point this out to you, you complain that they are just rationalizing and making up straw men. So I tried a different angle by pointing to the theoretical problems. But you have ignored that just as easily. All in all, you have shown a great ability to ignore anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions – something you accuse the skeptics of doing! > \*\* I’d rather discuss the facts than the broad generalizations you tend to toss out along with the standard skeptics party like of “its all fake, please do not remove you head from the sand.” Which meta-analysis do you have problems with? You’re gonna have to back up your claims. Don’t do hardcore skeptics a favor with your theoretical “problems” as you still haven’t provided evidence for: 1. That there has been an exhaustive search for PSI “brain energy” and why it is safe to conclude there is none. 2. That our current understanding of energy is so perfect that it is impossible to miss any type type of energy in any experiment, PSI or otherwise. Please cite specific studies on this, because it is such an outragous claim. If anything your “theoretical problem” shows more about your ignorance of scientific methodology than a real criticism. Like I’ve posted before a lack of a bullet-proof theory doesn’t invalidate the phenomena. **There is a _fundamental_ difference between observing and theorizing.** As to people poiting flaws in meta-analysis, please do so. No one has pointed out one specific flaw in any speicific meta-analysis, please site which one, by whom, and the appropriate criticisms. The only thing that has been pointed out to me is the reactionary “skeptics say its not real” attitude with absolutly no backing or with naive theoretical problems that are not being backed up with facts. ---
**Author:** ![jally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90ced4/32.png) [@jally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jally)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2000, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/49 "2000-05-18T06:40:41Z")
Kaylasdad: > [@](#): > > \*\* > My second comment: you are displaying either colossal naiveté or great courage in venturing over to GD to continue your participation in this thread. Especially when the first two statements you make amount to an admission that, in matters of science, you are so bereft of familiarity and understanding that you are essentially _tabula rasa_. Such bald-faced ignorance displayed so prominently on the SDMB is worthy of an attempt at remediation\*\* I only ventured to GD because the thread was transferred here from General Questions. Seems to me “scientists” bog themselves down in a swamp of semantics to the point they can’t see something if it’s staring them in the face. Someone might yell at them “FIRE!” and they’ll hem & haw, "where’s the proof? the validation? the quantum predictive dynamic factor which… zap! sorry, scientist, you’re sizzled to a crisp, & don’t say I didn’t warn you! > [@](#): > > Given the results posited by you in your example of the ultra-beam, scientists would not likely choose 6.) after their first failure to hypothesize the principles behind the ultra-beam. They would eventually come up with a hypothesis that was able to incorporate the demonstrated effects of the ultra-beam, while retaining predictive value in the case of our day-to-day experience. It would be simply a matter of time and resources. You’re right on the button w/respect to my not understanding either Koffing or you. Why do they have to “hypothesize principles behind the ultra-beam”? All they have to do is see that it consistently turns red when there’s an angry atmosphere, green when there’s a jealous atmosphere, etc. Then they’d see that elements within the projector are identical to elements found within psychics (with a higher representation of those elements found within the most highly acclaimed psychics). And that should be enough **physical** proof to suit any non-biased person. I have no idea what you meant by “predictive value” and I’m not sure I want to know. I prefer clear, straightforward language, instead of the jargon of scientists. I’m just stating my preference, so **please** save your efforts for someone who **isn’t** as “colossally naive” as this poster 😉 BTW, I wasn’t aware that laypeople are less than welcome on SDMB, since I’ve seen the full gamut of questions in all stripes posted on GQ. P.S. I’m not K.Beacon \*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![jally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90ced4/32.png) [@jally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jally)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2000, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/50 "2000-05-18T07:05:24Z")
Picture this scenario: Assume, say, the preying mantis should become extinct a century from now. Assuming that at that future date, circumstances would have conspired as not to leave any photographic evidence that there ever was a preying mantis existing in the 20th century. So, there’ll be a guy 110 years old who babbles over and over about having seen a preying mantis when he was a child. And the scientists will respond, “where’s your photographic evidence”? And the guy will say, "once upon a time there was; it was also on the InterNet; but it’s all gone… all that’s left is in my memory… don’t you believe me? Get the connection? So many people have claimed **fleeting** experiences of PSI (in one form of another) most of which were **not** captured on camera, nor under controlled studies. Should that make them subject to such ridicule and disbelief? ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2000, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/51 "2000-05-18T07:31:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > HorseloverFat, what David meant to say is: how do propose it is that PSI works? What does it physically do? Answer that (this time around) and maybe we’ll get somewhere . . . maybe. > \*\* Horse, would you answer the flippin’ question?!! Jally, your praying mantis example doesn’t fit. Little green bugs are the kind of things that have been known to exist and/or go extinct. A report of such a thing, even w/o evidence, would not fly in the face of our understanding of how things work. Besides, there would have been such a large, credible experience of these bugs, passed down by oral tradition if nothing else, that the stories’ validity wouldn’t come in to question. On the other hand, there is an extraordinarily small amount of “first-hand” accounts of the paranormal for something that is allegedly so powerful, and this is exactly the sort of thing that very unreliable witnesses tend to swear to (remember my severe borderline aunt?) ---
**Author:** ![Klaatu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Klaatu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klaatu)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2000, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/52 "2000-05-18T07:50:33Z")
This could very well be like a disussion, circa 1750, regarding the possibility of man and flight. (keeping in mind the first manned balloon ride was some 30 years later) I would like to hope (no offense) that, as proven over and over in the past, you skeptics are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2000, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/53 "2000-05-18T08:19:57Z")
\*\* [/QUOTE] Horse, would you answer the flippin’ question?!! \*\* [/QUOTE] Please read the entire thread, I’m not espousing PSI theory, but am taking the position that something has been isolated and reproduced in controled settings and PSI, so far is our best definition of it. In fact there is no one accepted theory of PSI, as there are many researchers with many different opinions, as it should be. There’s an interesting FAQ at [http://www.psiresearch.org/](http://www.psiresearch.org/) ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2000, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/54 "2000-05-18T09:20:19Z")
klaatu, why would you hope that the skeptics are wrong (i.e. that there is PSI or supernatural phenomena)? Is there not already enough beauty and mystery in the world? We do not need to posit the existence of things that most objective studies have shown to be patently ridiculous in order to marvel at the unknown. . . . and horse. horse, horse, horse. You don’t have to explain everything to the last detail, just give us a possible way, using very general terms, in which PSI might conceivably work. I mean, your webcam works by processing the light in front of it into data that is fed into the computer and is then turned into an image and displayed on the monitor (or something like that). Just give me one of those. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2000, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/55 "2000-05-18T10:47:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Seems to me “scientists” bog themselves down in a swamp of semantics to the point they can’t see something if it’s staring them in the face. Someone might yell at them “FIRE!” and they’ll hem & haw, "where’s the proof? the validation? the quantum predictive dynamic factor which… zap! sorry, scientist, you’re sizzled to a crisp, & don’t say I didn’t warn you! Sorry, that’s a very bad analogy. One of the basic tenets of science is not ignoring observations. The major problem with parapsychological research is that the observations are _at best_ subtle and their very existence is questionable. Someone might yell to a scientist “I had a vision that there’s going to be a fire! Shut down al your experiments and run for your life!” Woudl it not be reasonable for the scientist, whose experiments will be destroyed by shutting them down, to question the evidence for the fire? > [@](#): > > All they have to do is see that it consistently turns red when there’s an angry atmosphere, green when there’s a jealous atmosphere, etc. Then they’d see that elements within the projector are identical to elements found within psychics (with a higher representation of those elements found within the most highly acclaimed psychics). Perhaps that demonstration would be convincing, although it is based on so many assumptions that it’s difficult to evaluate. There’s no reason to believe there is a “mood of the atmosphere”. As of now, the closest we have to a “highly acclaimed psychic” is the faint possibility that a very few of many experiments may show a result that is slightly statistically significant (plus many people who claim psychic powers but cannot demonstrate them under controlled conditions but are acclaimed by a following of believers). There are no proposed “elements found within psychics” that are not found in the general population (note that I carefully left the possibility open that such “elements” may exist). All you have done is _illustrated_ your _belief_ that science would ignore or ridicule such a demonstration. I claim that science would not ignore a clear or even probably clear demonstration of phsycic powers. Look at cold fusion; the experiments demonstrated it were essentially certainly flawed and erroneous, but the effect (if there was one) is measurable and demonstrable. There are still scientists investigating cold fusion. You believe that scientists would ignore and ridicule a clear demonstration of psychic powers? If you want to convince me to agree, please do so with evidence of or analogy to _real_ events, not hypothetical scenarios where the outcome is based on your beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2000, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/56 "2000-05-18T11:14:54Z")
> [@](#): > > So, there’ll be a guy 110 years old who babbles over and over about having seen a preying mantis when he was a child. And the scientists will respond, “where’s your photographic evidence”? And the guy will say, "once upon a time there was; it was also on the InterNet; but it’s all gone… all that’s left is in my memory… don’t you believe me? > Get the connection? > So many people have claimed fleeting experiences of PSI (in one form of another) most of which were not captured on camera, nor under controlled studies. Should that make them subject to such ridicule and disbelief? Sigh. Another analogy that’s so far-fetched that it’s difficult to discuss. Assuming the ludicrous proposition that all praying mantises are destroyed; all evidence, photographic or text or otherwise, of praying mantises is gone; there are no measurable side effects such as sudden changes in insect populations; that nobody else remembers praying mantises; then, a careful scientist would conclude that the 110-year-old was almost certainly mistaken. And there would be no reason to conclude otherwise, because there wouold be no reason to bleieve that praying mantises ever existed because it wouldn’t make the slightest difference to anything, except the credibility of the 110-year-old, that they ever existed. If it _did_ make any difference, then that difference would be evidence for praying mantises. If there were _many_ people who remembered praying mantises, and they all had a common measurable factor (they would all be older than most of the people who did _not_ remember praying mantises), then a scientist could conclude that there may have been praying mantises and there may have been some incredible phenomenon that destroyed all praying mantises and all evidence of them, and go looking for evidence of either praying mantises or the phenomenon that destroyed all evidence of praying mantises. But the scenario is too unrealistic for serious discussion. Many people have indeed claimed fleeting instances of psi that have not been captured. Many people have tried and are trying to replicate and explain those instances. There are very few (if any) claims of psi _that are not also adequately explained by other hypotheses_ in the light of current knowledge. Maybe psi exists; if it does, it’s extremely difficult to measure. But people are trying. The ridicule is reserved for those who don’t admit the _possibility_ of alternative explanations, who conduct flawed experiments and refuse to admit the possibility of flaw, who want us to believe based only on their word. An example is your claims of synchronistic experiences. I and others politely asked some questions and offered alternative explanations. Your response was: > [@](#): > > flaming isn’t worthy of a response. > People who deliberately choose to disbelieve others’ first-hand experiences are flamers (perhaps they should join the crows - caw, caw) Now, who’s using ridicule? I notice you still haven’t addressed my questions … ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2000, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/57 "2000-05-18T11:18:45Z")
> [@](#): > > This could very well be like a disussion, circa 1750, regarding the possibility of man and flight. And perhaps it could not. There is no reason to believe that the situations are analogous. There is reason to believe that the situations are _not_ analogous; flight (although not by humans) was known to exist. Prior to 1750, there had been many thoughts of human flight, some ludicrous in practice (e.g. Icarus) and some scientifiacally based and on the right track ingeneral (e.g. Leonardo da Vinci and his helicopter-like drawing). ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2000, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/58 "2000-05-18T12:04:12Z")
Horselover said: > [@](#): > > Which meta-analysis do you have problems with? You’re gonna have to back up your claims. Did you read any of the previous messages here? **You** are the one making the claims. **You** are the one who has to back it up. Not the other way around. > [@](#): > > Don’t do hardcore skeptics a favor with your theoretical “problems” as you still haven’t provided evidence for: > > 1. That there has been an exhaustive search for PSI “brain energy” and why it is safe to conclude there is none. Nor have I said this. You accuse us of making straw men, etc., and here you are doing exactly that. Earlier I showed how you accuse us of refusing to acknowledge anything outside our preconceived notions, but you do exactly that. It’s getting to the point where it will almost be safe to assume that anything you accuse anybody else of doing, you are doing. > [@](#): > > 1. That our current understanding of energy is so perfect that it is impossible to miss any type type of energy in any experiment, PSI or otherwise. Please cite specific studies on this, because it is such an outragous claim. I didn’t say that, either. The only person making an outrageous claim here is you – and you refuse to support your outrageous claim while simultaneously ignoring every criticism or question. I feel like I’m talking to a creationist… ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2000, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/59 "2000-05-18T20:12:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > We do not need to posit the existence of things that most objective studies have shown to be patently ridiculous in order to marvel at the unknown. > > You don’t have to explain everything to the last detail, just give us a possible way, using very general terms, in which PSI might conceivably work. \*\* Sorry I see that first sentence as a common misconception, there are more double-blind studies in Parapsychology per study than any other scientific discipline (New Scientist has a good article on the subject ask and I’ll look up the URL for you) and many Parapsychology studies include skeptics to keep an eye out for fraud and errors, yet positive results still come through. As for the second sentence a common definition of PSI is information exchanged through means is not (yet) known. So asking me to provide an explanation that would pacify skeptics would go against the definition of PSI. See why this is a loaded question? It is a mystery _because_ the means of information transfer cannot be detected. If you’re looking for theory, theres a list of many interesting theories here: [http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/psi\_index.html](http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/psi_index.html) ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2000, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/60 "2000-05-19T02:42:54Z")
Horselover said: > [@](#): > > there are more double-blind studies in Parapsychology per study than any other scientific discipline Oh, please! I’d _love_ to see you back that one up. :rolleyes: Of course, I’d also love to see you provide the evidence you’ve been asked for several times over now, but I am beginning to have doubts that either will happen… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280.md?page=4)