# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2000, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/101 "2000-05-20T15:44:58Z")
> [@](#): > > **Overuse of the word “fallacious” seems to be a problem in this forum.** No, poor understanding of logical fallacies seems to be the most common problem in this forum. As you seem to be part of this problem, here’s a link to help you out: [http://www.datanation.com/fallacies](http://www.datanation.com/fallacies) You’re welcome. ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2000, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/102 "2000-05-21T03:18:02Z")
I’d just like to get the opinions of the group on Dean Radin’s book, The Conscious Universe. Have any of our resident skeptics read it, and, if so, what counter-arguments do you have to his claims? ---
**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 21, 2000, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/103 "2000-05-21T13:04:29Z")
I have not read the book and therefore cannot comment directly on it. One of the things apparently mentioned in the book is something about people being able to tell (or at least thinking they are able to tell) when they are being stared at. There was an article in the most recent _Skeptical Inquirer_ on this topic: [http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-03/stare.html](http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-03/stare.html) (One of the references is Radin’s book.) ---
**Author:** ![Winged\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Winged\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winged_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2000, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/104 "2000-05-22T02:46:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Winged\_Wolf said: > > > [@](#): > > > > If psi were any subject less controversial socially, it would have already been accepted as proven, many ages ago. > > Prove it. Show us the scientific results that back up this claim. Horselover couldn’t (wouldn’t, whatever) do it. Now I guess it’s your turn. > > After all, you seem to be taking Horselover’s place by acting like you don’t understand that if you are making the claim, you have to back it up – as in the way you asked me to prove there were no psychics in the show. Wrong. You prove there were _any_. > \*\* The only thing I could possibly prove would be that McMoneagle’s “performance” was “inconclusive”. (Nor do I have the resources to do so). The only way to prove otherwise is to prove exactly what it was that McMoneagle did. You all want to seem references on the existences of psi–i therefore refer you to "Parapsychology: The Controversial Science by Richard S. Broughton, Ph.D. Published by Ballantine in 1991. It covers the procedures used to procure evidence, and what evidence has been procured, as well as the difficulties that parapsychologists have faced. I was merely offering my personal opinion on the subject after all–which was that all of the rest of them were charlatans, save for McMoneagle. This is like telling a blind man that the cup he is holding is blue…terribly difficult to prove to the blind man. ---
**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 22, 2000, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/105 "2000-05-22T02:56:35Z")
Yes, I’ve seen the book. I even owned a copy (may still have it around here somewhere). It is, shall we say, less than convincing. You want to make the point that most of the folks on that show were bogus, you won’t get much argument around here. But you want to claim that at least one was for real, then you’re going to be asked some serious questions. (As you’ve seen.) ---
**Author:** ![Winged\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Winged\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winged_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2000, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/106 "2000-05-22T03:03:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Regarding the use of “random” number generators and statistical analyses to supposedly show psychic powers: > > "Why, you may wonder, all this business of random machines? … It is not clear that any of these machines are truly random. Indeed, it is generally believed that there are no truly random machines. It may be, therefore, that the lack of randomness only beings to show up after many trials. \*\* This is a very poor answer to PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research), which compared trials in which machines were observed by persons attempting to influence them with control machines which were not so observed–and yielded significantly different results from the observed and unobserved trials. Head to the Princeton University site to see it. Regardless of the randomness of the machines, there is no explanation for why results would be different in the presence of observers. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Besides, if the mind can influence inanimate objects, why not simply measure the static force the mind can exert? \*\* First you have to find someone capable of using this ability at-will. They are not easy to come by, it is one of the rarest and most difficult of known abilities. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Modern ultramicrobalances can routinely measure a force of much less than a billionth of an ounce. Why not just use your psychokinetic powers to deflect a microbalance? It’s sensitive, simple, even quantitative, with no need for any dubious statistical analysis. \*\* Is it a moving system? You see, WHY the PEAR results came out the way they did is the part that isn’t yet known. If it is due to some sort of probability alteration, it would be much more difficult to influence the balance. But of course, I don’t happen to have a microbalance to play with, or you can be sure I would be trying to talk my tek friend into trying it. \ (I have no trace of this particular ability). > [@](#): > > \*\* > “The reason, of course, is that the microbalance stubbornly refuses to budge. That may explain why statistical studies are so popular in parapsychological research: they introduce all sorts of opportunities for uncertainty and error. And error has a way of seeming to support the biases of the experimenter.” (p. 199) \*\* Refer to my alternative explanation. You’re also assuming that no teks have ever been tested in that manner. I ask you to tell me HONESTLY if you think the US Government would release to the public positive results from such an experiment which they have funded. The best tek I ever heard of was found dead in the desert with occult symbols carved into his chest and wires sticking out of his head. No joke. > [@](#): > > \*\* > “No proof of psychic phenomena is ever found. In spite of all the tests devised by parapsychologists … and huge amounts of data collected over a period of many years, the results are no more convincing today than when they began their experiments. No mechanism is ever uncovered. No testable theory ever emerges.” (p. 200) > \*\* He wishes. ---
**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 22, 2000, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/107 "2000-05-22T03:26:24Z")
> [@](#): > > He wishes. So prove him wrong. I’ve asked more than once for the evidence. Last time (just above) you referred me to a book that proves nothing and made a comment about how you just were stating something you thought. Now you’re entering into the realm of making claims about somebody else’s statements on evidence. So back your claims. Let’s see it. (I don’t have time right now to reply to the rest of your message. I should be able to tomorrow, unless somebody else beats me to it and says everything I would say.) ---
**Author:** ![Winged\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Winged\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winged_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2000, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/108 "2000-05-22T03:45:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > While lying in bed, half-asleep, this morning I made the connection … Winged\_Wolf is the WingdWolf2 mentioned in the first post of [What could this be?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=23631). Obviously not a major epiphany, but … \*\* I am not familiar with that post. However, I was using the e-mail address “[WingdWolf2@aol.com](mailto:WingdWolf2@aol.com)”. > [@](#): > > \*\* > **Winged\_Wolf** , I’ve got to say that (assuming your views are correctly stated in that thread) diagnosing a condition such as that described by **Honesty** based on text communications is rash, irresponsible, and possibly dangerous to **Honesty**. \*\* Again, not familiar with the post, nor the context. I wouldn’t presume to diagnose a medical condition over the computer. However, if someone relates an experience on a psychic forum and asks for others’ opinions, I give my opinion. I generally make an effort to also point out that there are alternative possibilities, and if the condition SOUNDS medical in any way, I recommend they see a medical doctor first, to rule that out. I’ve also been known to mention to people that certain symptoms can also be caused by specific mental disorders such as schizophrenia. > [@](#): > > \*\* > There’s no reason (of which I’m aware) to believe that the government is still investigating RV. \*\* There’s no reason I am aware of to assume that they are not. The individuals I personally know who have been involved with these programs seem to feel that they are still in progress. Their “yes they are” is at least as good as the goverment’s “no we aren’t”. > [@](#): > > \*\* > One of the government’s consultants coincluded that the experiments were failures, the other concluded that some statistically significant results were obtained. The results were not good enough for "field use’; if 5 of 6 pieces of information are wrong and you don’t know which piece is right, the overall set of information is almost always useless. This subject was addressed on this board in [Did the U.S. government fund psychic research?](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpsychicfed.html) and there is a good discussion with lots of links at [STAR GATE {Controlled Remote Viewing}](http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/stargate.htm). \*\* In other words, the government (or individuals claiming to represent such) admitted that they succeeded, but they had some difficulties with application. One person said yes, another said no…and you assume that one of them must be telling the truth? Stargate is far from the only RV program the Army has conducted…let alone other branches of the government such as the NSA. Some of these programs are still classified. Just for a lark, write to the NSA and ask them under the freedom of information act to release data on Project Sunstreak. (I think that’s one of the ones still classified, not sure on that). The response should be interesting for you, though. (I’ve seen the response. \). > [@](#): > > \*\* > The existence of atoms was established beyond any reasonable doubt before 1900. See [Introduction to Atomic Theory](http://www.sel.k12.oh.us/brush/Teeter/InterNet/Chemistry%20Review/Atomic%20Theory/main.html) (although this source gives no credit to Democritus, who had an atomic trheory B.C.E.) and [Atomic Theory: What Is It?](http://library.thinkquest.org/10380/briefing.shtml) \*\* The term theory is used to describe something which has NOT been proven. > [@](#): > > \*\* > You’re just repeating the assertion I questioned. My question is _why_ is it not possible for you to demonstrate your claims? \*\* Because you cannot sense the things I am best at doing. Yet. > [@](#): > > \*\* > A _statistically significant_ number of trials in which a _statistically significant_ better-than-chance result is achieved would be very convincing (and I’ll bet that would be good enough for the million). !00% is not necessary. If you can do it that twice under the direction of different investigators who have expertise in illusions and methods used by charlatans, the vast majority of scientists will be convinced. \*\* I do not WANT to convince the vast majority of scientists. In any case, no one would fund me, and I cannot afford to travel to them. (Nor to Randi, for that matter, even if I were so inclined). > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > I’ll have to do some experiments with that myself, it might be interesting to document. > > Without controlled conditions and without supervision by an appropritae expert, I would only find such experiments _indicative_. \*\* Yes, but _I_ would like to do them. \ > [@](#): > > \*\* > Are you sayng that “non-psychics” cannot detect whether or not a surgery scar is present? \*\* No, I said my ability to detect such was not reliable enough for me to be confident of the outcome of testing it. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Are you saying that your “manipulation of psychic energy” has no effect? Very subtle effects can be detected and measured in properly designed studies. \*\* It does have an effect, but the effect on non-actives is seriously reduced, and requires a great deal more energy. If I could actually get someone to twitch or scratch their head, I would be surprised. However, other psis can detect this quite strongly. I would REALLY love to have the equipment to search for raises in blood pressure due to increase in psi energy levels–the sensations described suggest this is quite possibly a side-effect which COULD be measured. A few psis have even experienced reddening of the hands when charging them with large amounts of energy. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > And it’s possible that some of what we perceive are these types of illusions. However, we at least perceive them consistantly. That consistancy suggests that something is indeed there > > It’s also possible that the “something that is indeed there” is that your senses are consistently lying to you; the same inputs producing the same outputs. \*\* Even this explanation includes a lack of explanation for the phenomena. In other words, whether or not it is what we think it is, no one else has another explanation for it. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Also, I’m not going to be convinced by a subjective evaluation of consistency. \*\* Two people describing the same thing with no prior knowledge of one another’s experience does not constitute a validation? To me, it is good enough. > [@](#): > > \*\* > There’s certainly a lot written about psi… the vast majority of it scientifically worthless, most of the remainder is flawed, and _maybe_ a little of the remainder is _possibly_ significant. The fact that most of the scientific community does not accept psi has nothing to do with social pressures or social controversy; it has to do with evidence. \*\* And interestingly, when evidence IS found, further funding is amazingly lacking. That is quite inexcuseable, really. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I don’t see why you say that psi is controversial socially; there’s plenty of surveys that show that many if not most people believe that psi exists, there’s thousands of psychic web sites, there are psychic fairs and meetings and journals. Although I’ve admitted the _possibility_ of a witch hunt, the result so far is many psychics investigated for fraud and a few “bible-thumpers” preaching with no discernable effect. Your talk of fear and witch hunts appears to be a cop-out. \*\* Most people believe in the possiblity of psychic abilities. They think it’s kind of a neat, spooky thing. Professional psychics are either seen as a neat trick, or they are practically worshipped. However, ask some people how they REALLY feel about the idea that someone can actually read their mind–without their permission, without their knowledge, anytime, and anywhere. And that this person is no more moral than anyone else. Ask them how they feel about the idea that someone might be able to kill a person without leaving a mark, without leaving a sign of who did it, or how it was done. Ask those questions, then you might understand why I have a healthy fear of public knowledge of psi. I have heard people casually remark that they would kill someone if they thought they could really read their mind. Not fundamentalists–just everyday people. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The percentage of scientists who beleive in psi is small, there are not enough because there’s not enough evidence. Please note that 100% successs is not required (although less than 100% requires more trials to establish significance) and anything that is repeatably detectable or measurable can be tested. \*\* Humans have this tendency to get bored after a while…and when they do, their performance suffers. How many trials do you want, to prove a point? People are not machines, they can’t keep doing the same thing over and over and over with the same consistancy. If this is not taken into consideration, then these kinds of trials are innately flawed. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Parapsychology is the study of psi phenomena… > > But you said “And all these parapsychologists are stuck in a loop gathering more and more evidence to try to prove the phenomena exist when all they will ever be able to say is INCONCLUSIVE.” Well, formally, nothing in science is ever _proven_, but there are a lot of things for which the evidence is so good that we can practically regard them as proven. You seem to believe that it is impossible to bring psi to that level; I do too, but I think that my reasons are different {grin}. Why do you think that? \*\* No, I think psi is already at that level, but there has been a refusal to accept it as such. Many disagree with me. Many also agree with me. _shrug_ However, I think that one way or another, ineviteably, it will be eventually accepted. Not until the parapsychologists manage to get out of this infinitely repeating loop of information gathering, however. A zillion case studies, and all it comes to is “inconclusive, inconclusive, inconclusive”–meaning no prosaic explanation has been found, no “ordinary” reason for the event…but because of the lack of other types of evidence, they cannot say what actually DID happen. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > A “dense electron” … Another suggestion considered was some sort of particle of smaller size and mass than a quark > > What is a dense electron? \*\* What does it sound like? \ It is a hypothetical particle. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Note that scientists won’t accept a particle invented to explain a phenomenon when it’s not yet been sufficiently established whether that phenomenon exists. \*\* They also don’t seem to want to accept a phenomenon without an explanation for why it occurs. And the army won’t let you out unless you can prove you are crazy. \ > [@](#): > > \*\* > And it’s _really really hard_ to come up with new particles that fit all the well-established observations and math. You can _extend_ the observations and math, but the existing ones work\* and any extension is going to have to replicate a _lot_ of existing predictions and results. > \*\* For us, it’s quite simple–the phenomena exist. Therefore, there must be a cause for the phenomena. The laws of physics generally state these kinds of things cannot occur “unless acted upon by a greater force”. Therefore, psi must be a greater force. Speculation on the nature of that force is therefore helpful. Observation of the phenomena, on a level that most others cannot observe it, has proven invaluable…the behavior of this energy leads to speculations on what it is comprised of. The particle must be capable of producing all observed effects. It is not the only hypothesis, but it is one of the better ones. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2000, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/109 "2000-05-22T12:38:16Z")
> [@](#): > > ## The existence of atoms was established beyond any reasonable doubt before 1900. See Introduction to Atomic Theory (although this source gives no credit to Democritus, who had an atomic trheory B.C.E.) and Atomic Theory: What Is It? > > The term theory is used to describe something which has NOT been proven. This is completely incorrect for several reasons. To begin with, science does not concern itself with proof; mathematics and logic do. Science concerns itself with testing, confirmation and repeatability. All scientific knowledge is conditional. For another thing, “theory” describes something which _has_ been tested, examined, repeated, and provisionally confirmed. If it hasn’t, it’s a hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2000, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/110 "2000-05-22T13:09:03Z")
OK, I haven’t seen my post for an hour, so here goes again … > [@](#): > > I am not familiar with that post. Perhaps you didn’t notice that I provided a clickable link? Here it is again: [What Could this be?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=23631) From the original post in that thread: “The second part of this started when I was a teenager. When I would experience great emotion (Anger, being afraid, etc etc) I would get the sensation of my hair standing on end. A slight tingle would be at the back of my neck, then race across my upper torso and arms, leaving my hair standing on end, finally being punctuated by a violent shudder. The shuddering go so bad, that I would actually jerk my arms back. I would always say to myself, that it was like being hugged by a ghost.” which certainly could be describing a minor motor seizure. > [@](#): > > There’s no reason I am aware of to assume that they are not. The individuals I personally know who have been involved with these programs seem to feel that they are still in progress. Their “yes they are” is at least as good as the goverment’s “no we aren’t” There is reason to believe that the government is no longer investigating RV. They did investigate it, and their best results were not good enough to be used for their purposes. An un-named person’s “feeling” is not as convincing or worthy of notice as a government pronouncement (no matter how true you think a government pronouncement is). > [@](#): > > In other words, the government (or individuals claiming to represent such) admitted that they succeeded, but they had some difficulties with application. One person said yes, another said no…and you assume that one of them must be telling the truth? Your “other words” are not accurate. In other words, the government tests found that the effect _might possibly_ exist, but the tests were not conclusive and the results of the tests were definitely not good enough to be useful for the goverment’s purpose. I believe that both consultants were telling the truth as they saw it. One is wrong, one is right. There is not enough data to say for sure which. Taken in conjunction with the body of studies that do exist, my best estimate is that the effect does not exist. > [@](#): > > Just for a lark, write to the NSA and ask them under the freedom of information act to release data on Project Sunstreak. (I think that’s one of the ones still classified, not sure on that). The response should be interesting for you, though. (I’ve seen the response. If it’s still classified, you have not seen any data in an FOI act response. If you have seen an FOI act response, is it published somewhere? If not, why not? It is legal to publish FOI act responses. > [@](#): > > The term theory is used to describe something which has NOT been proven. A common misconception. “Theory” is used in everyday conversation with a connotation of “untested and unproven”. In science, it is a technical term and its meaning is different; it does not include the “untested and unproven” connotation. “Hypothesis” means something pretty close to the everyday meaning of “theory”. There’s a scientific theory that (in the absence of interfering by psychics {grin}) when you drop something off a building it falls. Do you regard that as unproven? > [@](#): > > Because you cannot sense the things I am best at doing. Yet. It doesn’t necessarily have to be one of the things you are best at doing. Also, I cannot evaluate this claim, because yiou have not defined what you are best at doing. You did mention detecting surgical scars; that we can sense. > [@](#): > > I do not WANT to convince the vast majority of scientists. In any case, no one would fund me, and I cannot afford to travel to them. OK, your call. There are lots of people who do want to convince the majority of scientists, and they have so far failed. Please don’t try to invoke a monolithic scientific conspiracy to remain unconvinced! {grin} > [@](#): > > It does have an effect, but the effect on non-actives is seriously reduced, and requires a great deal more energy. If I could actually get someone to twitch or scratch their head, I would be surprised. However, other psis can detect this quite strongly. If you can transmit information or feelings to any other person coonsistently better than chance expectations under appropriate controlled conditions, then that’s a measurable effect. > [@](#): > > Even this explanation includes a lack of explanation for the phenomena. In other words, whether or not it is what we think it is, no one else has another explanation for it. “Your senses are lying to you” is a valid possible explanation for many phenomena. Especially when there is significant doubt as to whether a phenomenon exists. > [@](#): > > Two people describing the same thing with no prior knowledge of one another’s experience does not constitute a validation? I have yet to see a demonstration of that; but let’s assume that it happens. Are their descriptions word for word the same? If not, there may be a possibility that their descriptions are not exactly the same, and we should review their descriptions to evaluate if they are indeed describing the same thing. If they are word for word the same, we should carefully investigate whether they indeed had no prior knowledge. Actually, we should carefully review the “no prior knowledge” claim in any situation! And that may or may not consitute a validation. More data! I need more data! {grin} > [@](#): > > And interestingly, when evidence IS found, further funding is amazingly lacking. Evidence of lacking funding? References? Or is this something you heard from somebody? The people at Duke have had funding for decades … and the more careful and sophisticated their tests become, the less they indicate evidence of a phenomenon.There, more investigation has produced less evidence. > [@](#): > > However, ask some people how they REALLY feel about the idea that someone can actually read their mind–without their permission, without their knowledge, anytime, and anywhere. And that this person is no more moral than anyone else. Ask them how they feel about the idea that someone might be able to kill a person without leaving a mark, without leaving a sign of who did it, or how it was done. Ask those questions, then you might understand why I have a healthy fear of public knowledge of psi. I have heard people casually remark that they would kill someone if they thought they could really read their mind. I’ve never heard anybody say anything remotely close to that. Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence for your fears? I believe your fears are real, and sufficiently based to satisfy you; but I remain unconvinced. I notice tht you haven’t claimed to be able to read people’s minds … > [@](#): > > Humans have this tendency to get bored after a while…and when they do, their performance suffers. How many trials do you want, to prove a point? People are not machines, they can’t keep doing the same thing over and over and over with the same consistancy. If this is not taken into consideration, then these kinds of trials are innately flawed. True, and well-known by the scientists that help design the experiments. What trials have forced people to perform over and over again without sufficient rest? When the subject must participate in and approve the experimental design (as is common, and as in Randi’s challenge), why not build sufficient rest into the experimental protocol? > [@](#): > > A zillion case studies, and all it comes to is “inconclusive, inconclusive, inconclusive”–meaning no prosaic explanation has been found, no “ordinary” reason for the event. Few parapsychologists are trying to find reasons for events, prosaic or otherwise. They’re stuck at trying to establish whether there are events. The result so far is “maybe, just maybe …”. > [@](#): > > (a dense electron) is a hypothetical particle But what characteristics does it have? Is there some connection to claimed psi powers? > [@](#): > > They also don’t seem to want to accept a phenomenon without an explanation for why it occurs Apparently this misconception is also common … I can’t see why. It’s against human nature. People tend to acti in accordance with human nature. Scientists in general love unexplained phenomena; they see them as opportunities to find out why they occur. They see opportunities to extend the frontiers of knowledge for the sake of knowledge, they see advancement in their profession, they see loads of grant money, they see Nobel prizes, they see their name elevated to stand with Einstein and Newton. It’s only human to be that way; you don’t expect people to be greedy? > [@](#): > > For us, it’s quite simple–the phenomena exist Others are still struggling to get to that point. There are many cases of people who were convinced that some phenomenon existed, and were wrong. Even, in some cases, large groups of people. > [@](#): > > Speculation on the nature of that force is therefore helpful. Observation of the phenomena, on a level that most others cannot observe it, has proven invaluable…the behavior of this energy leads to speculations on what it is comprised of. The particle must be capable of producing all observed effects. It is not the only hypothesis, but it is one of the better ones. Well, more power to you. I was just pointing out that it’s incredibly hard to add anything to physics that adds something new and produces all observed effects. Not because of any resistance on the part of scientists, but because the structure is complex and interdependent with many subtle interactions. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2000, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/111 "2000-05-22T16:29:37Z")
> [@](#): > > They also don’t seem to want to accept a phenomenon without an explanation for why it occurs. And the army won’t let you out unless you can prove you are crazy. You’ve got that backwards, **Winged Wolf**. The “Catch 22” scenario you describe is baloney. The scientists in here are trying to get you to understand that any theory offered up to explain a set of phenomena is absolute nonsense unless and until you can measure or otherwise establish the veracity of reports regarding said phenomena. So far you’ve offered anecdotal evidence in support of your contention that psychic abilities exist in some part of the population. Let me restate the pink unicorn example more clearly: What you are doing is like claiming pink unicorns exist because many people report seeing pink unicorns. Meanwhile, the scientists point out that we have no pink unicorns in captivity, no photographs, footprints, hair and horn samples, no _undisputed_ and _objective_ evidence at all that pink unicorns exist. Any biological or evolutionary theory you come up with to explain pink unicorns is likely to be scoffed at until you offer verifiable evidence. _Show me the thing_, then explain it. But I’ll leave the tutorials of scientific method to those who are better equipped to explain to you why “dense electrons” and “psionic particles” are non-sequitors. Instead, there’s some aspects of your comments thus far that bother me with their apparent inconsistency. If you don’t mind terribly, could you please explain how you can believe that > [@](#): > > Most people believe in the possiblity of psychic abilities. They think it’s kind of a neat, spooky thing. Professional psychics are either seen as a neat trick, or they are practically worshipped. and also believe > [@](#): > > If psi were any subject less controversial socially, it would have already been accepted as proven, many ages ago. Forgive my confusion, but I’m also wondering why, if you are so paranoid about persecution, do you argue so vocally in favor of psychic powers in this public forum? You also claim to teach others to use “psi”, and have offered to teach me and others who’ve replied to you. I don’t mean to state categorically that you’re out to hoodwink anyone, but surely you can see why we might not trust you fully when you say, in effect: [paraphrase]“I want to teach you how to use an ability, but I’m against scientifically proving anything I say, because proof of what I do would bring persecution (if I merely proclaim it to be true though, I’ll be fine). Just put your trust in what you feel and I’ll explain what’s happening…” [/paraphrase] This is, after all, a very well known technique used by manipulative con artists all over the world. I don’t know if you’re running a scam or not. But if you’re _not_ trying to pull the wool over anyone else’s eyes, then you’re certainly fooling yourself. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2000, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/112 "2000-05-22T18:53:33Z")
> [@](#): > > This is, after all, a very well known technique used by _ **manipulative con artists** _ all over the world. Sorry all; I had thought I’d edited this to read: “…used by _ **charismatic charlatans to manipulate people** _ all over the world” A minor distinction possibly, but I meant to differentiate this type of scam from money-making scams, in that the intention is to get into the _belief system_ of the mark, rather than the pocket-book. ---
**Author:** ![Winged\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Winged\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winged_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2000, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/113 "2000-05-23T03:36:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Yes, I’ve seen the book. I even owned a copy (may still have it around here somewhere). It is, shall we say, less than convincing. > > You want to make the point that most of the folks on that show were bogus, you won’t get much argument around here. But you want to claim that at least one was for real, then you’re going to be asked some serious questions. (As you’ve seen.) > \*\* Yes, some serious questions…and quite a few not so serious questions. \ ---
**Author:** ![Winged\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Winged\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winged_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2000, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/114 "2000-05-23T03:46:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > For another thing, “theory” describes something which _has_ been tested, examined, repeated, and provisionally confirmed. If it hasn’t, it’s a hypothesis. > > \*\* And “reasonable doubt” only comes into play in Court. If a theory is established to be true, then it becomes a law. Hence, evolution, and relativity are both theories. The conservation of matter and energy is a law. Saying that a theory is “true”, therefore, is sheer opinion, nothing more. It’s certainly not an established fact…that is not a statement that can be made about ANY theory. The moment it can be, it’s no longer a theory–it’s a law. ---
**Author:** ![Winged\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Winged\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winged_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2000, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/115 "2000-05-23T04:33:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > OK, I haven’t seen my post for an hour, so here goes again … > > > [@](#): > > > > I am not familiar with that post. > > Perhaps you didn’t notice that I provided a clickable link? Here it is again: > > [What Could this be?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=23631) \*\* Thank you, I see now. I also see exactly why I replied as I did, there is very little in this post that is ambiguous–at least to me. > [@](#): > > \*\* > From the original post in that thread: > > “The second part of this started when I was a teenager. When I would experience great emotion (Anger, being afraid, etc etc) I would get the sensation of my hair standing on end. A slight tingle would be at the back of my neck, then race across my upper torso and arms, leaving my hair standing on end, finally being punctuated by a violent shudder. The shuddering go so bad, that I would actually jerk my arms back. I would always say to myself, that it was like being hugged by a ghost.” > > which certainly could be describing a minor motor seizure. \*\* However, it isn’t. I am very intimately familiar with the sensation described here, as are most of the other psis I know. Strong emotions seem to generate psi-energy production, which can result in minor nerve spasms. This individual later goes on to describe learning to deliberately trigger this action/reaction. No one I have ever heard of has come to harm from this, and I’m sure if you described it to any medical professional, they would tell you the same thing–that it is wildly unlikely to be anything harmful, particularly since it had been going on for so very long without progression. (Quite the opposite, since that individual gained nearly complete control over it–the ability to stop it, and to trigger it willfully). > [@](#): > > \*\* > There is reason to believe that the government is no longer investigating RV. They did investigate it, and their best results were not good enough to be used for their purposes. \*\* Which purposes? Are you assuming that the purposes they specifically named are the only ones they had? > [@](#): > > \*\* > An un-named person’s “feeling” is not as convincing or worthy of notice as a government pronouncement (no matter how true you think a government pronouncement is). \*\* No, but their inside knowledge might be. \ > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > In other words, the government (or individuals claiming to represent such) admitted that they succeeded, but they had some difficulties with application. One person said yes, another said no…and you assume that one of them must be telling the truth? > > Your “other words” are not accurate. In other words, the government tests found that the effect _might possibly_ exist, but the tests were not conclusive and the results of the tests were definitely not good enough to be useful for the goverment’s purpose. \*\* The part that really gets to me, here, is that you are honestly assuming that they are telling the truth. This is the same government that denied the existence of the Stealth Bomber (F117) for several years after it was released as a model by the Tester model company. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I believe that both consultants were telling the truth as they saw it. One is wrong, one is right. There is not enough data to say for sure which. Taken in conjunction with the body of studies that do exist, my best estimate is that the effect does not exist. \*\* You aren’t open to the notion that they were both wrong? Your assumption of their honesty also strikes me as rather naive. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If it’s still classified, you have not seen any data in an FOI act response. If you have seen an FOI act response, is it published somewhere? If not, why not? It is legal to publish FOI act responses. \*\* Happen to have an extra 800 bucks around? If you do, they’ll be happy to print the information for you–at least whatever’s been declassified. \ (I’m not kidding). > [@](#): > > \*\* > A common misconception. “Theory” is used in everyday conversation with a connotation of “untested and unproven”. In science, it is a technical term and its meaning is different; it does not include the “untested and unproven” connotation. “Hypothesis” means something pretty close to the everyday meaning of “theory”. There’s a scientific theory that (in the absence of interfering by psychics {grin}) when you drop something off a building it falls. Do you regard that as unproven? \*\* No, there is a scientific LAW which states that if you drop something off a building it falls–it’s the law of gravity. Just as the popular useage of theory is closer to a hypothesis–YOUR useage of the term is synonymous with a scientific law…which is just as incorrect. > [@](#): > > \*\* > It doesn’t necessarily have to be one of the things you are best at doing. \*\* It does if you want consistant accuracy. I am not a master psi. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Also, I cannot evaluate this claim, because yiou have not defined what you are best at doing. \*\* Psi energy manipulation, and I am also adequate with perception. (Although not fantastic). > [@](#): > > \*\* > You did mention detecting surgical scars; that we can sense. \*\* Yes, but the circumstances under which I did that are slightly tricky…it’s repeatable, but not something I could necessarily do every day on command. Which is why I wouldn’t claim to be able to do so. > [@](#): > > \*\* > OK, your call. There are lots of people who do want to convince the majority of scientists, and they have so far failed. Please don’t try to invoke a monolithic scientific conspiracy to remain unconvinced! {grin} \*\* Nope, but I’d be lying if I said I trusted that the government was being forthcoming about all they know on this subject. They’ve been experimenting with psychotronics, for crying out loud. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > It does have an effect, but the effect on non-actives is seriously reduced, and requires a great deal more energy. If I could actually get someone to twitch or scratch their head, I would be surprised. However, other psis can detect this quite strongly. > > If you can transmit information or feelings to any other person coonsistently better than chance expectations under appropriate controlled conditions, then that’s a measurable effect. \*\* Information? Feelings? Probably not. What I was talking about was a pure nervous system reaction–the nervous system does seem to react to psi energy, even if the person is not conscious of it. Given another psi to work with, I might be able to do a bit more–they could probably sense what I was doing relatively consistantly, depending on their own ability. > [@](#): > > \*\* > “Your senses are lying to you” is a valid possible explanation for many phenomena. Especially when there is significant doubt as to whether a phenomenon exists. \*\* The thing is, there is no doubt that these phenomena exist. Nearly all scientists have to agree that there ARE phenomena of this nature–what they disagree on is what is causing them. When you rule out all of the prosaic explanations, you are left with a mystery…and you have to deal with that. If my senses are lying to me, then why does the guy next to me sense the same thing? If both of our senses are lying, then what, EXACTLY, is causing that sensory hallucination? Because absolutely NO one has a suggestion that could answer that question. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Two people describing the same thing with no prior knowledge of one another’s experience does not constitute a validation? > > I have yet to see a demonstration of that; but let’s assume that it happens. Are their descriptions word for word the same? If not, there may be a possibility that their descriptions are not exactly the same, and we should review their descriptions to evaluate if they are indeed describing the same thing. \*\* Example: What do you see over there? “It’s a cat”. Ok, that’s what I see, too. Are you saying that it might not be the same cat? Does it matter, at that point, if two people are seeing an “invisible” cat? \ What’s the shape of this energy form I’ve created in my hand? “it’s a pyramid”. Good, that’s exactly what I intended to create. How is this ambiguous? (Yes, I’ve done the latter exercise, and more than once, with a variety of simple and complex shapes). > [@](#): > > \*\* > If they are word for word the same, we should carefully investigate whether they indeed had no prior knowledge. Actually, we should carefully review the “no prior knowledge” claim in any situation! > And that may or may not consitute a validation. More data! I need more data! {grin} \*\* Obviously, if I am one of the people in question, I have absolutely no doubt about the “prior knowledge” aspect. For me, these kinds of experiences serve as validation that, whatever it is that I’m doing, I’m not doing it alone, and I’m not inventing it all in my own mind. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > And interestingly, when evidence IS found, further funding is amazingly lacking. > > Evidence of lacking funding? References? Or is this something you heard from somebody? \*\* It’s something I’ve seen in print, coming from the hand of fairly large number of parapsychologists. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The people at Duke have had funding for decades … and the more careful and sophisticated their tests become, the less they indicate evidence of a phenomenon.There, more investigation has produced less evidence. \*\* I’d have to do a lot of sorting through what they’ve been doing to be sure of that, but if only a percentage of the population are capable of using these sorts of abilities without training (as I assert), then over time their results would follow that pattern as those individuals got “lost in the crowd”…unless they made a deliberate effort to retain individuals who showed significant results and discard those who did not. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I’ve never heard anybody say anything remotely close to that. Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence for your fears? I believe your fears are real, and sufficiently based to satisfy you; but I remain unconvinced. I notice tht you haven’t claimed to be able to read people’s minds … \*\* No, my telepathy is very minor, and consists only of the occasional flash of an image or a concept. And that generally only from other psis, not from Nons. As for my fears, _I_ am the one who heard the guy say that. And talking with a variety of people has revealed that he is not alone in his opinion. > [@](#): > > \*\* > True, and well-known by the scientists that help design the experiments. What trials have forced people to perform over and over again without sufficient rest? When the subject must participate in and approve the experimental design (as is common, and as in Randi’s challenge), why not build sufficient rest into the experimental protocol? \*\* Why not? You tell me. Because I don’t know. As for the trials in question–how many days in a row could YOU guess Zenar cards before your attention wandered? Even doing only a few at a time, doing them EVERY DAY would wear on you after a while. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Few parapsychologists are trying to find reasons for events, prosaic or otherwise. They’re stuck at trying to establish whether there are events. The result so far is “maybe, just maybe …”. \*\* Depends on who you ask–most parapsychologists would say the answer is absolutely…but what good does that do? > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > (a dense electron) is a hypothetical particle > > But what characteristics does it have? Is there some connection to claimed psi powers? \*\* I am not a physicist, and it’s not my theory. Perhaps you should ask a physicist those questions. \ As to the connection–what I’ve been told by someone who knows more about it than I do is that a particle like this one COULD produce all known psi effects. Which is quite a feat. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > For us, it’s quite simple–the phenomena exist > > Others are still struggling to get to that point. There are many cases of people who were convinced that some phenomenon existed, and were wrong. Even, in some cases, large groups of people. \*\* I quite agree, but that does not invalidate my own experiences, nor those of other psis. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Well, more power to you. I was just pointing out that it’s incredibly hard to add anything to physics that adds something new and produces all observed effects. Not because of any resistance on the part of scientists, but because the structure is complex and interdependent with many subtle interactions. > \*\* No kidding. We are aware of the difficulties, believe me. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2000, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/116 "2000-05-23T06:12:05Z")
I just wanted to pop in and straighten out your misunderstanding of “theory” vs. “law”. A scientific law is a statement of an observation. The law of gravity–things fall. (More correctly, masses are attracted to one another.) Natural selection could be described as a law–more favorable traits are more likely to be passed on to future generations. “Laws” are generally not subject to debate. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a collection of observations. Evolution and relativity were proposed as explanations for certain phenomena. Experiments are performed to test these hypotheses, and once the hypothesis is backed up by a significant amount of evidence, it is considered a theory. That’s as proven as it gets in science–the misconception is that the theory then progresses to a law, but these are two different animals. A law says “this is something we consistently observe”. A theory says, “this is an explanation for these phenomena we consistently observe. We can’t prove it conclusively, since this isn’t mathematics, but we’ve seen enough evidence supporting it to consider it proven.” (Aside: How much trouble would it be to have a page explaining this shown to everyone who signs up for the message board? It could have a little form at the bottom you have to click that says, “I understand the scientific definition of a theory, and I promise not to misuse the term.” It would save us a lot of trouble.) Dr. J ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2000, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/117 "2000-05-23T11:12:34Z")
This one is going in a separate message. This is the first time I’ve flamed anybody in 15 years of on-line communication, but it’s necessary. David, chastise me it you want, but I’m going to do it … > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > which certainly could be describing a minor motor seizure. > > However, it isn’t. **BULLSHIT!** In this case, it doesn’t matter whether or not psychic powers exist. It doesn’t matter whether or not you have them. It doesn’t matter whether or not the phenomenon is similar to experiences you’ve had, or experiences that your acquaintances have had. It doesn’t matter whether or not your experience is that such phenomena are not dangerous. **YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT CAUSED HIS PARTICULAR EXPERIENCES** **YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WOULD SAY!** **YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HIS EXPERIENCES ARE SAFE OR DANGEROUS!** Hell, I surmise that you and your firends have not consulted a neurologist and don’t **know** for sure that your experiences aren’t seizures! They’re common … Nor do I _know_ any of those things. But at least I have the honesty to state that my opinions are opinions. Voicing your _ **opinions** _ as _ **fact** _ is not merely _wrong_, it’s _evil_. I feel strongly about this subject; my son has a seizure disorder, and has nearly died on several occasions. I could tell the story about the time he spent ten minutes with his leg resting against an active electric heater, and the two months in Shriner’s Burns hospital … Because of my son’s disorder, I am far more knowledgable about seizures and the medical literature about them than the vast majority of lay people. It is virtually certain that I know far more than you about seizures. I _know_ that it is _possible_ that **Honesty** has a seizure disorderand, if so, it is _possible_ that could lead to danger to his life or health. ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2000, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/118 "2000-05-23T12:09:47Z")
Ok, take a deep breath, back to polite mode. > [@](#): > > Which purposes? The purposes of gathering intelligence by remote viewing. > [@](#): > > Are you assuming that the purposes they specifically named are the only ones they had? No, and it doesn’t matter. You stated that there is no reason to believe that the government is no loinger investigating RV. I pointed out that there is a reason; it is a fact that a reason exists. Whether or not you are convinced by that reason is another question. > [@](#): > > No, but their inside knowledge might be. \ Someone might have inside knowledge that contradicts the conclusion I reach based on the information available to me. That does not invalidate my conclusion unless and until a person appears with such inside information and proves to my satisfaction that they indeed _do_ have inside information. That hasn’t happened, and is unlikely to happen, at least because of the legal ramifications of the situation. Hinting slyly at information that is not available to all may be legally required, but is useless and pointless when evaluating claims. > [@](#): > > The part that really gets to me, here, is that you are honestly assuming that they are telling the truth. This is the same government that denied the existence of the Stealth Bomber (F117) for several years after it was released as a model by the Tester model company. Telling the truth about what? The tests that they ran, or their current and future intentions? There is good reason to believe they are telling the truth about the tests that they ran. The data was evaluated by two non-government consultants, each with a different axe to grind, each with a strong personal interest in publicising the results if they were favorable to their particular views. Summaries of the results are availlable in many places. One could almost certainly obtain more detailed results through an FOI act request. It’s probably reasonable to assume that they are telling the truth about their current and future intentions, unless someone offers an argument why (other than reference to times the government has not told the truth, or do you believe that they _never_ tell the truth?). However, it’s certainly possible that they are not telling the truth about their intentions. > [@](#): > > You aren’t open to the notion that they were both wrong? I don’t understand. One consultant said that the tests showed no evidence of paranormal effects, one said that the tests showed evidence of paranormal effects. I don’t see another alternative. > [@](#): > > Happen to have an extra 800 bucks around? If you do, they’ll be happy to print the information for you–at least whatever’s been declassified. If the information is valuable and supports your position, why not publish it on the Web for all to see? I’ll be glad to help on that project, and I’ll even waive my usual consulting fee. When someone says “I make these extraordinary claims, and I want you to believe me, but you’ll have to pay to see my proof” my suspicions are aroused. > [@](#): > > No, there is a scientific LAW which states that if you drop something off a building it falls–it’s the law of gravity. Just as the popular useage of theory is closer to a hypothesis–YOUR useage of the term is synonymous with a scientific law…which is just as incorrect. I beleive **DoctorJ** has already addressed this adequately. > [@](#): > > The thing is, there is no doubt that these phenomena exist. Nearly all scientists have to agree that there ARE phenomena of this nature–what they disagree on is what is causing them. No, nearly all scientists do not _have_ to agree, and in fact they do not. > [@](#): > > If my senses are lying to me, then why does the guy next to me sense the same thing? Possibly because you both have essentially the same senses, and they react in essentially the same way when they recieve the same stimuli. [/quote] If both of our senses are lying, then what, EXACTLY, is causing that sensory hallucination? Because absolutely NO one has a suggestion that could answer that question. [quote] You seem to be very certain of what _every_ person in the world is thinking … What causes sensory hallucinations is complex, and there are literally thousands of scientists working in that field and tens of thousands of papers and results. I don’t know enough to answer your question. However, I think you are asking the wrong question … you claimed that scientists don’t want to hear about a phenomenon unless there’s an explanation for it (which is not true), yet you don’t want to hear about sensory hallucinations unless there’s an explanation for them. A little of the pot calling the kettle black? {grin}. I think it would be more productive if you concentrated on explaining _why_ you believe that your experiences are not sensory hallucinations. Experiences shared with other people. are interesting and very possibly significant, but theyre not enough to convince. You have said repeatably that your claimed powers are essentially impossible to measure; how do you detect that your experiences are the same as someone else’s? > [@](#): > > What’s the shape of this energy form I’ve created in my hand? “it’s a pyramid”. Good, that’s exactly what I intended to create. How is this ambiguous? What you have described is not ambiguous. Whether what you have described ever happened exactly as you described it, and whether your description included all relevant information, is questionable. What you described is testable, and if you or anyone can _really_ do that Randi’s going to be out a million bucks. > [@](#): > > Obviously, if I am one of the people in question, I have absolutely no doubt about the “prior knowledge” aspect. Not necessarily. People communicate without being consciously aware of it all the time. There have been reasonable claims that nonverbal cues are far more than 50% of face-to-face communications, and it’s definitely true that noverbal cures are very significant. > [@](#): > > It’s something I’ve seen in print, coming from the hand of fairly large number of parapsychologists. References, please? Your sources have a potential conflict of interest, and I can’t evaluate your statements without considering the point of view of those who made the funding decisions (who also may have potential conflict of interest) or an evaluation by a disinterested third party (which I don’t really expect). > [@](#): > > but if only a percentage of the population are capable of using these sorts of abilities without training (as I assert), then over time their results would follow that pattern as those individuals got “lost in the crowd”…unless they made a deliberate effort to retain individuals who showed significant results and discard those who did not. They did. They’re not stupid. > [@](#): > > Why not? You tell me. Because I don’t know. As for the trials in question–how many days in a row could YOU guess Zenar cards before your attention wandered? Even doing only a few at a time, doing them EVERY DAY would wear on you after a while. You didn’t answer my questions, but I’ll answer yours. There is no reason why not, and therefore there is no reason to invoke fatigue or deterioration of performance as an excuse for not demonstrating claimed powers under controlled conditions. If EVERY DAY is too much, then do it every other day. Or once a week, Or once a month. Whatever is required. > [@](#): > > Depends on who you ask–most parapsychologists would say the answer is absolutely…but what good does that do? Yes, most parapsychologists would say that paranormal phenomena exist. But they have not yet succeeded in producing enough scientific evidence to convince a majority of the scientific community. That’s what they’re trying to do. > [@](#): > > As to the connection–what I’ve been told by someone who knows more about it than I do is that a particle like this one COULD produce all known psi effects. Which is quite a feat… That’s _nothing_ compared to what a feat it would be if such a particle did not contradict any of the many thousands of experiments and existing body of knowledge. That would _really_ be a feat! Note that I’m not saying that current theories of particle physics are complete and unchangeable; they’re not. It’s analogous to trying to come up with a theory that says things fall _most of the time_ but sometimes, because of some new postulated particle, things don’t fall. Not only do you have to explain how this particle causes things to not fall, you also have to explain why this particle failed to cause so many other things not to fall. ---
**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 23, 2000, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/119 "2000-05-23T12:26:41Z")
W\_W: DoctorJ has already mentioned this, but it appears you need it to be repeated several times. You do not seem to understand at all what a theory is. Please allow me to help. I usually have to pull out this file for the creationists, but it appears you need it as well: From _College Chemistry_, 8th Edition, by Henry F. Holtzclaw, Jr. and William R. Robinson (U of Nebraska and Purdue U, respectively), D.C. Heath and Company, p. 10: "The Scientific Method … a tentative explanation is suggested. Such a proposal is called a **hypothesis**. For instance, Dalton attempted to explain why mass is conserved in a chemical reaction when he first presented his ideas, which were really hypotheses, of the atomic number of matter. A hypothesis is tested by further experiments, and, if it is capable of explaining the large body of experimental data, it is dignified by the name **theory**. Dalton’s ideas have been so extensively tested that we now refer to the atomic theory. Theories themselves can prompt new questions or suggest new directions in which additional information can be sought." From _Outlines of Physical Chemistry_, by Farrington Daniels (U of Wisconsin), John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 4: ``` " **Scientific Method**. ``` … a speculation regarding the cause of a phenomenon is called an **hypothesis**. After an hypothesis has been subjected to the test of experiment and has been shown to apply to a large number of phenomena it is termed a **theory**." While the standard dictionary is often a dangerous tool to use in defining scientific terms, the Third College Edition of Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English, gave the following under SYN for theory: “SYN.–THEORY, as compared here, implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of certain phenomena (the THEORY of evolution); HYPOTHESIS implies an inadequacy of evidence in support of an explanation that is tentatively inferred, often as a basis for further experimentation (the nebular HYPOTHESIS)” The following has been added as an update, to further bolster the above: “‘Theory’ – to a scientist – is a concept firmly grounded in and based on facts, contrary to the popular conception that it is a hazy notion or undocumented hypothesis.” – New Orleans Geological Society, 1985 ---
**Author:** ![Winged\_Wolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/73ab20/32.png) [@Winged\_Wolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winged_Wolf)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2000, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280/120 "2000-05-23T21:27:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > They also don’t seem to want to accept a phenomenon without an explanation for why it occurs. And the army won’t let you out unless you can prove you are crazy. > > You’ve got that backwards, **Winged Wolf**. The “Catch 22” scenario you describe is baloney. The scientists in here are trying to get you to understand that any theory offered up to explain a set of phenomena is absolute nonsense unless and until you can measure or otherwise establish the veracity of reports regarding said phenomena. \*\* Hypothesis. Not theory. And if you can establish facts which seem to show the hypothesis correct, it becomes a theory. Once a theory, it remains so unless you can prove it to be false. That is why Creationism is still considered a theory. Unless you wish to accuse the establishment of saying something just to please the masses…but of course, they would NEVER do that…\ > [@](#): > > \*\* > So far you’ve offered anecdotal evidence in support of your contention that psychic abilities exist in some part of the population. Let me restate the pink unicorn example more clearly: What you are doing is like claiming pink unicorns exist because many people report seeing pink unicorns. Meanwhile, the scientists point out that we have no pink unicorns in captivity, no photographs, footprints, hair and horn samples, no _undisputed_ and _objective_ evidence at all that pink unicorns exist. Any biological or evolutionary theory you come up with to explain pink unicorns is likely to be scoffed at until you offer verifiable evidence. _Show me the thing_, then explain it. \*\* But wouldn’t you sure like to know why so many people keep seeing pink unicorns? Until you can explain that, you have to accept that one POSSIBILITY is that they are actually there. If you deny that possibility, you’re not thinking scientifically. > [@](#): > > \*\* > But I’ll leave the tutorials of scientific method to those who are better equipped to explain to you why “dense electrons” and “psionic particles” are non-sequitors. \*\* You have something against hypotheses, don’t you? \ > [@](#): > > \*\* > Instead, there’s some aspects of your comments thus far that bother me with their apparent inconsistency. If you don’t mind terribly, could you please explain how you can believe that > > > [@](#): > > > > Most people believe in the possiblity of psychic abilities. They think it’s kind of a neat, spooky thing. Professional psychics are either seen as a neat trick, or they are practically worshipped. > > and also believe > > > [@](#): > > > > If psi were any subject less controversial socially, it would have already been accepted as proven, many ages ago. > > Forgive my confusion, but I’m also wondering why, if you are so paranoid about persecution, do you argue so vocally in favor of psychic powers in this public forum? You also claim to teach others to use “psi”, and have offered to teach me and others who’ve replied to you. \*\* None of you have any idea who I actually am. I am incapable of OBJECTIVELY proving psi at this point in time. To subjectively introduce you to it is no problem…nor is it threatening. I suppose you might freak out and start vocally demaning public action, but you would be ignored. I can be vocal in this forum, and I can teach psionics, because to do so offers no threat to me at this time, in this “place”. And I am also more than a bit reckless…I do things which I know might put me into a position of danger, in spite of my bit of paranoia over it. There are two ways to avoid certain types of persecution–one way is to hide. The other is to become so well-known that it’s dangerous for anyone who doesn’t want to become equally well-known to touch you. That doesn’t work against the mass of the public in general, but they won’t pose a problem until psi is objectively proven and accepted. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I don’t mean to state categorically that you’re out to hoodwink anyone, but surely you can see why we might not trust you fully when you say, in effect: [paraphrase]“I want to teach you how to use an ability, but I’m against scientifically proving anything I say, because proof of what I do would bring persecution (if I merely proclaim it to be true though, I’ll be fine). Just put your trust in what you feel and I’ll explain what’s happening…” [/paraphrase] \*\* That would not be an accurate paraphrase. The first part is fine, but I would never encourage you to trust ANYTHING. I’d simply give you the tools with which to test it for yourself. We could all be living in an elaborate delusion, after all–as I’ve said before. \ I can explain to you what I THINK is happening, but ultimately you’ll have to make your own decision on that. Meanwhile, your experience (which I expect to be consistant, and would be surprised to find different) will be added to my personal list of “that worked just as I thought it would”…or “that was unexpected.” And will have an influence on future hypothesis and my own research. > [@](#): > > \*\* > This is, after all, a very well known technique used by manipulative con artists all over the world. I don’t know if you’re running a scam or not. But if you’re _not_ trying to pull the wool over anyone else’s eyes, then you’re certainly fooling yourself. > \*\* What would be my motivation? I have better things to do with my time. As for your certainty about my fooling myself–I find that a curious statement indeed, coming from a person who has yet to try any of the things I’ve offered to teach…and who has no evidence at all one way or the other. Tsk, tsk…certainty, when there is no evidence to support it? Sounds quite a bit like Faith to me… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-fox-psychic-show/19280.md?page=7)