# The Straight Dope On ESP. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 26, 2016, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173 "2016-04-26T08:17:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/61 "2016-04-27T01:51:04Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > That is not an example of “interesting results that warrant more research,” it is an appeal to authority without in any way demonstrating that there are either credible mechanisms or convincing evidence of some kind of extrasensory, precognitive, or psychokinetic phenomena. Please point to an example of something, anything, that would illusrate a reason to consider a hypothesized phenomena which has no basis in current physics or neuroscience. > > Stranger Actually, no, it’s just an example of a scientist publishing the results he saw in an experiment, documenting the protocol and inviting peers to replicate or fail to replicate the results, and several have replicated them. It happens every day in every area of science. As to your theory about physics making such a theory an absolute impossibility, here’s an excerpt from one interesting study about how you may be wrong and Radin’s results could be possible from a pure physics/neuroscience perspective. > **[Future directions in precognition research: more research can bridge the gap...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141237/)** Note that the authors do not take this to mean absolute proof of anything, but merely that it “warrants further study.” > [@](#): > > Physical implausibility > It is not unexpected that psychologists are most skeptical of precognition (Wagner and Monnet, 1979). This is likely due to their knowledge of the many illusions and biases that influence perception and memory. However, putting these cognitive biases aside, this work is often dismissed out of hand under the assumption that precognition would require overturning basic and essential physical and psychological tenets. Schwarzkopf (2014) illustrates this position: > > “… the seismic nature of these claims cannot be overstated: future events influencing the past breaks the second law of thermodynamics… It also completely undermines over a century of experimental research based on the assumption that causes precede effects” > > Some clarification is needed here. From a physics perspective, except for several processes studied in high-energy physics (such as B meson decay), non-thermal physics is time-symmetric, perhaps allowing the possibility of precognitive effects. The formalism of time symmetric physics has been used, for example, in the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory of radiation (Wheeler and Feynman, 1945) as well as in the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (Cramer, 1986), in which quantum wavefunction collapse is described as being due to an interaction between advanced waves (traveling backwards-in-time) and retarded waves (traveling forwards-in-time). With regards to precognition, Bierman (2008) has proposed that coherent conditions present in the human brain allow the fundamental time symmetry of physics to manifest itself. > > Some quantum mechanical experiments can be interpreted as showing retrocausal influence where a decision at a future time seems to affect a past time. One example is Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment in which the way a photon travels through an interferometer (wave-like or particle-like) appears to be affected by a measurement decision made at a later time (Wheeler, 1984; Jacques et al., 2007). However, information transfer into the past (retrocausal signaling), as opposed to influence without information transfer, remains controversial since it has not yet been demonstrated experimentally. That said, there is no physical law which precludes retrocausal information transfer. There has been some effort put into experimental realization of retrocausal signaling. Cramer proposed that standard quantum mechanics allows the construction of a retrocausal signaling machine using quantum optical interferometry (Cramer, 2007). Though Cramer’s work has reached an impasse (Cramer, 2014), an approach of using entangled systems for retrocausal communication may reveal a physical explanation for precognition. Lastly, it is worth noting, that ultimately whether any given theory can accommodate precognition or not is irrelevant; what is relevant are the data. and concludes: > [@](#): > > We suggest that although the current state of evidence does not quite merit proponents’ strong claim of having demonstrated replicable precognition in the laboratory, the accumulated experimental evidence, combined with advances in theoretical physics, warrant further research. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/62 "2016-04-27T03:52:15Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Actually, no, it’s just an example of a scientist publishing the results he saw in an experiment, documenting the protocol and inviting peers to replicate or fail to replicate the results, and several have replicated them. It happens every day in every area of science. > > As to your theory about physics making such a theory an absolute impossibility, here’s an excerpt from one interesting study about how you may be wrong and Radin’s results could be possible from a pure physics/neuroscience perspective. > > [Future directions in precognition research: more research can bridge the gap between skeptics and proponents - PMC](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141237/) > > Note that the authors do not take this to mean absolute proof of anything, but merely that it “warrants further study.” Just to keep people in the loop, that article provides no evidence of any actual positive results. It does not even record experimental data. It describes a possible experimental structure that might be useful to explore retrocausal signaling, which has never been demonstrated conclusively but is merely not completely ruled out by physics. Yet. As is true for other types of time travel. The peer-reviewed Journal it appeared in is Frontiers in Psychology. [Questions have been raised about its peer review process](https://scholarlyoa.com/2013/11/05/i-get-complaints-about-frontiers/). So. Is psi worthy of rigorous, truly scientific study? Hard to think of anything that isn’t. Is the sum total of rigorous, truly scientific evidence for it zero? Yep. Does that mean it’s total and complete bullshit? Today it does. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/63 "2016-04-27T04:26:46Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Just to keep people in the loop, that article provides no evidence of any actual positive results. It does not even record experimental data. It describes a possible experimental structure that might be useful to explore retrocausal signaling, which has never been demonstrated conclusively but is merely not completely ruled out by physics. Yet. As is true for other types of time travel. > > The peer-reviewed Journal it appeared in is Frontiers in Psychology. [Questions have been raised about its peer review process](https://scholarlyoa.com/2013/11/05/i-get-complaints-about-frontiers/). The article provides a theoretical answer to Stranger’s assertion that the idea is impossible before you even begin any experiments because it would require overturning basic tenets of physics. If you disagree with any of the theoretical physics the article employs to demonstrate that isn’t necessarily the case, and have more to go on than your personal opinion, why don’t you publish a challenge to it? The two main points of the excerpt that apply to his post are: “ **That said, there is no physical law which precludes retrocausal information transfer**.” And “ **Lastly, it is worth noting, that ultimately whether any given theory can accommodate precognition or not is irrelevant; what is relevant are the data**.” Those both seem to be correct statements, wherever they were published. If you disagree, again, publish a challenge to the very same NIH site that hosts the study or publish it at Frontiers in psychology or whatever and test your theory about their peer review process. Arguing it here is pretty easy to do with only personal opinions. The data do indicate in some cases further research into some areas of paranormal psychology is definitely warranted. And it isn’t even really controversial in many circles of science, but few want to do it themselves because they will be instantly lumped in with a bunch of crackpots. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > So. Is psi worthy of rigorous, truly scientific study? Hard to think of anything that isn’t. Thank you. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Is the sum total of rigorous, truly scientific evidence for it zero? Yep. Does that mean it’s total and complete bullshit? Today it does. It means some observed results warrant further research despite there not being conclusive evidence. Seems appropriate enough to have at least a mention in this thread among the echo chamber responses. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/64 "2016-04-27T05:03:20Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > It means some observed results warrant further research despite there not being conclusive evidence. What observed results, exactly? Show me some hypothesized mechanism by which some form of ESP could physically work, or statistically significant results of testing, or even some phenomenon that cannot be credibly explained by conventional means, and I’ll agree that more research is warranted (albeit not by psychologists, and certainly not parapsychologists, who are the most gullible people this side of a pyramid scheme). But just reiterating that we don’t know everything about how the natural world works, therefore all claims are equally valid holds about as much weight as the Tobacco Institute claiming that increased incidence of lung cancer doesn’t definitvely correlate to cigarette use. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![edwardcoast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/cab0a1/32.png) [@edwardcoast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwardcoast)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/65 "2016-04-27T05:19:57Z")
> [@Jim\_B](#): > > I was actually inspired to ask this question by Star Trek: TOS. In the original series, \*\*ESP was apparently so mainstream (at that time at least), that they included it as part of their story line. \*\*Characters even had routine tests for their ESP aptitude. This story element featured prominently in the episode [Where No Man Has Gone Before](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_No_Man_Has_Gone_Before). By the time TNG came along, it was so intrinsically part of the series, they just had to include it again, like with the Betazoid race, for example. > > Anyways, this is not the Cafe section. So I will no longer discuss the Star Trek connection. But as I said, it does bring up one question: What is the straight dope on ESP? Telekinesis, clairvoyance, and mind reading, for example? Where does it stand now in modern science? Is it at all in the mainstream? Or is it relegated to the fringe of science? And could there be any validity to its claims? > > Remember, my question is what is the straight dope. So I am asking you, the members, of this board, for information. Please don’t ask me to provide support and evidence:). > > :):)🙂 At the time the series was written, ESP was a buzzword. I wouldn’t say it was mainstream. It was something getting attention. But the real reason they used ESP in Star Trek is the same reason they used transporter technology and that’s to solve production problems in the series and give them more material to write about by extending the capabilities of either of them. I don’t think ESP was included in Star Trek because it is an example of it being in popular use in the 1960s making it mainstream when the series was created and written. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/66 "2016-04-27T05:36:19Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > This is GQ - opinions don’t matter. That includes arguments both for and against the subject. It’s very easy to say ‘that’s a bunch of bunk’ or "it’s true, I know it is!’ but that just doesn’t mean anything. So I provided a link to someone who has done considerable work on the subject, is a qualified scientist, and has applied the scientific method to experiments and research instead of just waving a magic wand and blinking his eyes. I maintain that his research on the subject is far more meaningful to this discussion than any of the personal opinions expressed so far, pro or con. And yet you quoted Radin’s **opinion** and told everyone to go read his studies, like we haven’t already. You know why no one has posted studies to support their points so far? It’s not because we’re “nay-saying amateurs”, it’s because this isn’t a specialist scientist forum and bombarding the OP with hundreds of papers on the overall null result of ESP-research would be counter productive. We’ve read the science and, along with numerous researchers just as qualified as Radin, come to the conclusion that it’s a dead end. Your contribution to this thread isn’t a brave attempt to bring science to the table, it’s plain old false balance. But just in case someone is interested in reading dozens of scientists opinions to balance Radin, here’s a couple to start with: > **[First Person - Into the Unknown - Dr Susan Blackmore](https://www.susanblackmore.uk/journalism/first-person-into-the-unknown/)** > > First Person – Into the Unknown New Scientist, 4 November 2000, p 55 At last, I’ve done it. I’ve thrown in the towel, kicked the habit and gone on the wagon. After thirty years, I have escaped from a fearsome addiction. To be truthful, I’m not really... [http://www.richardwiseman.com/research/parapsychology.html](http://www.richardwiseman.com/research/parapsychology.html) ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/67 "2016-04-27T06:06:40Z")
A common perception is that paranormal phenomena have not been given a fair chance…that mainstream science has been dismissive of such things…Won’t somebody please study this!? But in fact, through most of our history humans have put great stock in mysticism and spirits etc, and it’s never given us anything. _Science_ is actually the new kid on the block: an ability that humans had but was not taken seriously for far too long 🙂 Answering the OP though, no, there’s no evidence for any of the phenomena you list. And scientists have tried to study such things, and either came up blank, or learned something about human psychology. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/68 "2016-04-27T06:23:29Z")
> [@naita](#): > > And yet you quoted Radin’s **opinion** and told everyone to go read his studies, like we haven’t already. You know why no one has posted studies to support their points so far? It’s not because we’re “nay-saying amateurs”, it’s because this isn’t a specialist scientist forum and bombarding the OP with hundreds of papers on the overall null result of ESP-research would be counter productive. > We’ve read the science and, along with numerous researchers just as qualified as Radin, come to the conclusion that it’s a dead end. Your contribution to this thread isn’t a brave attempt to bring science to the table, it’s plain old false balance. > > But just in case someone is interested in reading dozens of scientists opinions to balance Radin, here’s a couple to start with: > [First Person - Into the Unknown - Dr Susan Blackmore](http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NS2000.html) > [http://www.richardwiseman.com/research/parapsychology.html](http://www.richardwiseman.com/research/parapsychology.html) Um, these are the first words of your cite: > [@](#): > > Although Prof Richard Wiseman does not think that the results of laboratory-based studies into psychic ability provide convincing evidence of such abilities, he does believe that they do justify further work in this area > [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > What observed results, exactly? > > Show me some hypothesized mechanism by which some form of ESP could physically work, or statistically significant results of testing, or even some phenomenon that cannot be credibly explained by conventional means, and I’ll agree that more research is warranted … Well, in order to do that I would probably post a link to a collection of studies and articles on the subject that is curated by someone who has devoted considerable time to studying the subject while using proper scientific methods. And then I would evaluate those results and think to myself “that doesn’t actually provide conclusive proof of anything but it is very interesting to consider and the results aren’t so far off base that it doesn’t warrant additional study.” I would have assumed my approach would be shared by others but it seems you want to me to post wall after wall of text quoting statistics that are already available at those links. I’ll just choose one from the several dozen that, to me, indicates good enough reason to justify further research. > [@](#): > > Abstract > > In 2011, one of the authors (DJB) published a report of nine experiments in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology purporting to demonstrate that an individual’s cognitive and affective responses can be influenced by randomly selected stimulus events that do not occur until after his or her responses have already been made and recorded, a generalized variant of the phenomenon traditionally denoted by the term precognition. To encourage replications, all materials needed to conduct them were made available on request. We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma, z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10-10 with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09. A Bayesian analysis yielded a Bayes Factor of 1.4 × 109, greatly exceeding the criterion value of 100 for “decisive evidence” in support of the experimental hypothesis. > > When DJB’s original experiments are excluded, the combined effect size for replications by independent investigators is 0.06, z = 4.16, p = 1.1 × 10-5, and the BF value is 3,853, again exceeding the criterion for “decisive evidence.” The number of potentially unretrieved experiments required to reduce the overall effect size of the complete database to a trivial value of 0.01 is 544, and seven of eight additional statistical tests support the conclusion that the database is not significantly compromised by either selection bias or by “p-hacking”—the selective suppression of findings or analyses that failed to yield statistical significance. P-curve analysis, a recently introduced statistical technique, estimates the true effect size of our database to be 0.20, virtually identical to the effect size of DJB’s original experiments (0.22) and the closely related “presentiment” experiments (0.21). We discuss the controversial status of precognition and other anomalous effects collectively known as psi. In order to fully make all the arguments that indicate to many in the scientific community that further research isn’t necessarily woo or wishful thinking at all, I would need to quote every paragraph of every page of every study that I linked to. Excerpts don’t begin to approach the complexity of the topic and to understand some opinions you might just have to do the reading yourself and draw your own conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/69 "2016-04-27T06:25:30Z")
There was a time in my youth were I voraciously read about UFOs, ESP and other fortean subjects. Got better. As **Mijin** points out, scientists have tried to study such things already, besides coming empty I also realized how impractical things like remote viewing or sending images with your mind could be; not only unreliable. But once things like faxes were invented ([even before the American civil war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Bain_%28inventor%29#Facsimile_machine) :eek:) one can think that the extreme effort that it was supposed to be required for remote viewing was a moot point once technology that does not require faith demonstrates to be more accurate and to work all the time. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/70 "2016-04-27T06:34:42Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > I’ll just choose one from the several dozen that, to me, indicates good enough reason to justify further research. > > [snip] > > In order to fully make all the arguments that indicate to many in the scientific community that further research isn’t necessarily woo or wishful thinking at all, I would need to quote every paragraph of every page of every study that I linked to. Excerpts don’t begin to approach the complexity of the topic and to understand some opinions you might just have to do the reading yourself and draw your own conclusions. Of course there will always be a reason for further research, but as skeptics already reported, researchers like Bem, Tressoldi, Rabeyron, and Duggan deserve to be researched too as their research is not looking solid at all. [http://centerforopenscience.github.io/osc/2014/06/25/a-skeptics-review/](http://centerforopenscience.github.io/osc/2014/06/25/a-skeptics-review/) > [@](#): > > “Ah, psi. The remainder of my review will use a professional tone, and I will try to outline the problems I have with the authors’ analyses. That said, I do think that this line of research tarnishes the reputation of psychology as an academic discipline. I urge the authors to convince themselves of the absence of psi and try and replicate one of Bem’s experiment in a purely confirmatory setting, with a preregistered analysis protocol. When they monitor the Bayes factor they will, as N grows large, obtain massive evidence in favor of the truth. One good, preregistered experiment is worth a thousand experiments where the results are based on cherry-picking. To indicate that cherry-picking is a problem, I have never seen a preregistered experiment that monitored the Bayes factor and ended up supporting psi. Never. If the authors are able to produce such evidence in their own lab (after preregistering the analysis on OSF, and collecting data until the one-sided BF in favor of psi reaches, say, 20) then they can challenge me for an adversarial collaboration and I will gladly accept. Anyway, after having made my prior opinion clear, let’s move on to the review. I have several major worries: > > Background for Worry 1: In the abstract, Bem and colleagues suggest that the meta-analysis concerns replications of Bem’s 2011 studies. However, this is not the case. The meta-analysis largely consists of studies that pre-date the 2011 work. Almost all of the pre-2011 studies were conducted by ESP proponents. The post-2011 studies, many of which were conducted by ESP skeptics, found no effect. > [@](#): > > In conclusion, the work by Bem and colleagues demonstrates that our bread-and-butter statistical methods can not be relied upon blindly. Meta-analyses, Bayes factors, p-curve analyses: all of these methods crumble to dust in the hands of researchers who are motivated to prove that ESP exists. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to state that ESP is where statistical methods go to die. Of course, Bem and colleagues will disagree with my interpretation of their work. To resolve the conflict, I repeat my challenge: preregister the experiment on OSF, monitor the Bayes factor until it exceeds 20, and then I will happily participate in an adversarial collaboration, and grudgingly acknowledge defeat if the data force me to. If the ESP proponents truly believe that the effect is real, preregistration and adversarial collaborations are the only way forward. Perhaps the same holds for other psychological phenomena that are currently under scrutiny as well. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/71 "2016-04-27T07:06:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course there will always be a reason for further research, but as skeptics already reported, researchers like Bem, Tressoldi, Rabeyron, and Duggan deserve to be researched too as their research is not looking solid at all. > > [Open Science Collaboration Blog · Bem is Back: A Skeptic's Review of a Meta-Analysis on Psi](http://centerforopenscience.github.io/osc/2014/06/25/a-skeptics-review/) The process of science is all about theories and experimentation and peer scrutiny of the results. It’s good that people are doing work on both sides of the question and challenging published research. You can find junk science everywhere, not just in fringe topics like psi - but none of that undermines the basic conclusion that the results of some of this research, taken in the big picture across multiple replications by unrelated researchers (including control groups of deliberately selected skeptics whose only objective is to disprove the theory) does sometimes indicate something more than random chance in the collected data. That isn’t conclusive of anything but is pretty much the definition of findings that suggest further research is warranted. Not having made some huge breakthrough yet is never a good reason not to test a theory and follow where the data leads. People thought the earth was flat for thousands of years and the big bang theory was proposed, and thought to be utterly ridiculous, centuries before it became the primary working theory for the origin of the universe. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/72 "2016-04-27T07:48:22Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > The process of science is all about theories and experimentation and peer scrutiny of the results. It’s good that people are doing work on both sides of the question and challenging published research. > > You can find junk science everywhere, not just in fringe topics like psi - but none of that undermines the basic conclusion that the results of some of this research, taken in the big picture across multiple replications by unrelated researchers (including control groups of deliberately selected skeptics whose only objective is to disprove the theory) does sometimes indicate something more than random chance in the collected data. Nope, you are not reading the criticism properly, there are lots of doubts about how they used statistics to get the results they got. > [@Crazyhorse](#): > > That isn’t conclusive of anything but is pretty much the definition of findings that suggest further research is warranted. Again, further research into how the ESP researchers there got it wrong. > [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Not having made some huge breakthrough yet is never a good reason not to test a theory and follow where the data leads. People thought the earth was flat for thousands of years and the big bang theory was proposed, and thought to be utterly ridiculous, centuries before it became the primary working theory for the origin of the universe. Actually, it was in 1927 that the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed the Big Bang theory and for thousands of years already it was known that the earth was round. [Spherical Earth - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth) The issue here is that ESP has been investigated and it will continue to be, but one has to realize what the preponderance of evidence is telling us, no good evidence has been found to support that it exists and there is even the issue of how unreliable it is. I can say that thanks to the admission seen in many documentaries where the ESP believers tell the skeptics that their powers (or the powers of magical water in one funny occasion when Randi looked at Russian medicine quacks) do fail in the end because of an “unbelievers effect”. Well, modern technology like a cell phone does not care about the ones that do not believe in it and will work better and more reliable than the remote viewers think they do. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/73 "2016-04-27T09:34:05Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Um, these are the first words of your cite: > > > [@](#): > > > > Although Prof Richard Wiseman does not think that the results of laboratory-based studies into psychic ability provide convincing evidence of such abilities, he does believe that they do justify further work in this area. Wiseman’s focus has been on running strictly controlled replications. He’s keeping the door open on principle, unlike Radin who’s keeping the door open because he rejects the reality of his own failures and tries to open new windows because science doesn’t seem to be working. Here’s the opening to the conclusion of a meta-study in your earlier link: > [@](#): > > Despite the continuing popularity of DHI as an > alternative healing modality, when it comes to assessing > clinical efficacy, high-quality experiments have so > far failed to show reliable effects. The contradiction > between persistent popularity and lack of clinical effectiveness > may be due on the one hand to some healers, > in some contexts, who do seem to produce remarkable > outcomes,26,52 and on the other hand by conventional > RCT protocols that may be incompatible with the > nature of DHI phenomena.26,53,54 Tools must match > the requirements of the subject, and if the right tools > are not available, then new ones must be devised. In > other words, it is inadvisable to use a sledgehammer to > study the surface structure of a soap bubble. [Radin et al (2015). Distant healing intention therapies: An overview of the scientific evidence](http://deanradin.com/evidence/RadinDistantHealing2015.pdf) He completely ignores the possibility distance healing might be entirely bunk and fails to take into account all the results from medical research and actual psychology that show the very normal psychological and methodological causes of the “persistent popularity” of completely bunk “phenomena”. If distance healing is a soap bubble, the persistent popularity is unrelated to any effects it has, using both to justify further research is intellectually dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2016, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/74 "2016-04-27T15:06:05Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > It means some observed results warrant further research despite there not being conclusive evidence. > > Seems appropriate enough to have at least a mention in this thread among the echo chamber responses. Let me use appropriate scientific language to address this. Nuts. Time travel has not been proven mathematically impossible to occur, yet any “observed results” of time travelers is complete and total bullshit. Can and should mathematical physicists continue to investigate and produce more advanced theories? Yes. The critical understanding to take away from that is that theory and experiment are often separate and sometimes never come together. As I said earlier, scientific and “scientific” research into psi goes back to the 19th century. It is a morass that has ruined the reputation of every investigator who claimed positive results. Nothing, repeat NOTHING, has ever risen to proper scientific standards. Even scientists can get fooled if they want to believe. That a few investigators continue to explore could be a fine thing. Claims have been made and claims deserve investigation. A century and half of debunking should have taught anyone entering the field how to proceed to get worthwhile results. If the investigators fail to use these extremely rigorous safeguards, they are charlatans or cranks or believers or otherwise despoilers of the name of scientist. They degrade the entire discussion. Your comments here as somebody who merely Googles a link without investigating its value or reading anything further on that site belong in that same category. So far everything you’ve presented here is not the “worthy opposition” or the “Devil’s Advocate” but desperate cherrypicking that subtracts rather than adds to our understanding of the subject. The rest of us have done our homework, long before you entered the thread. At least come up to that level of knowledge before you start lecturing us on what we don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/75 "2016-04-28T00:47:37Z")
Wow I really didn’t want to get involved in a Great Debate - I don’t post often enough to keep up with the fanatic anti-everything-except-what-we-already-know crowd. That is why I generally don’t post in GD. And I’m not going to get into a pissing contest of who can find the cites that best supports their personal opinion. This is a GQ thread where a person asked for more information about the current state of “ESP” and such in science. > [@](#): > > What is the straight dope on ESP? Telekinesis, clairvoyance, and mind reading, for example? Where does it stand now in modern science? Is it at all in the mainstream? Or is it relegated to the fringe of science? And could there be any validity to its claims? A link to Radin’s page about research into “ESP” and such is as close to a factual answer to the OP as has been provided in this thread. The OP didn’t ask what are posters personal beliefs about the topic but rather what scientific work has been done, and could there be any validity to any of it. That collection of research is about the closest the OP is going to find to studies that have approached the subject using scientific method, in a sea of frauds and loonies pretending to research the same topics. Among the links are many negative articles and studies that do not support any belief in ESP. There are some that don’t provide any conclusive proof but suggest that further research is warranted. That isn’t an endorsement of any one particular view expressed in any one particular study - just a reference for the OP about what scientific work has been done. All they are going get here otherwise are the typical echo chamber responses of people who think that they appear to be smart simply by being skeptical. A few here have posted well reasoned rebuttals to some of the arguments made by some of the studies, but that is irrelevant to the purpose of posting them; to give the OP a full picture of what work has been done on the subject. Taken as a whole what can be concluded is that yes it is considered ‘fringe science’, many studies have been done that amounted to very little evidence, and in some cases data does actually suggest a better than random chance and should be investigated further. And it will be investigated further despite the protests of our resident messageboard scientists. I think the OP deserves to see all data not just that which is presented to him by a handful of people here who think they have already reached their own conclusions and therefore are qualified to demand an end to any further investigation of the subject. All I can tell you is that in my field I work with a lot of very talented and well known researchers. Speaking candidly to them about such topics almost without exception they all stay that they, personally, in their own experiences, have been interested in topics like ESP but would never touch a study on it with a 10 foot pole - exactly because of the arrogant, and IMHO very unscientific, attitudes expressed right in this very thread. There are many who would try to squash any research, any investigation into the subject because they are already sure that what they know, or think they know, based on what has been done so far, is as far as science will ever go with the subject, so case closed, stop discussing it. That is a really arrogant stance, and fortunately science doesn’t work that way. It is supposed to be about exploring what we don’t already know, not just patting each other on the back by reaffirming what we think we do already know. If you go back in history there is example after example of people who held on to a line of investigation despite being doubted and even ridiculed by their peers, only to turn out much later that they were actually on to something. I am not a woo believer, I don’t think I’ve ever seen any evidence of ESP in my own life, but I’m not so closed minded as to pretend I am in a position to determine that nobody should ever do research on the topic or discuss it ever again just because I don’t personally buy the theories. And when someone more accomplished than me takes the time to do study after study because they believe more research is warranted, I say go for it. Why not exactly? What is being threatened exactly by doing more research? It can only lead to more knowledge, whether it supports or fails to support various hypothesis. Attitudes like Expano Mapcase and others in this thread permeate the world of science and academia, though, and if anyone - an accomplished and honest researcher - tried to take an honest look at some of these topics they would be laughed out of their jobs, lose tenure, lose grants, lose hard earned reputations, so they won’t touch it. Radin is a guy who said fuck it, I don’t care. I’m going to research what interests me. Sure some of his ideas are out there, but I do respect his courage and from what I’ve seen I do believe that he applies proper research practices to his work. Much of it concludes with negative results, some of it seems to show some promise in some of his lines of investigation and certainly who am I to tell him that it doesn’t? That makes him something of a stand out among many others - frauds and loonies and woo practitioners- who have filled the void left in research in these areas due to the dangerous waters they have become for researchers. Anyone who doesn’t think the link is appropriate to the OP’s actual question, as opposed to side arguments they have derailed the thread with, are welcome to open up a GD about it. For my purposes in this thread I have contributed what I intended, a link to a bunch of research on the subject that the OP asked about. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/76 "2016-04-28T00:55:57Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > It’s complete and total bullshit. If you find someone who disagrees, ask them for an answer couched in physics, chemistry, or biology. Nah, this is the wrong approach. The response to this will likely be that they know ESP exists because of [insert anecdotal BS] and the way it works is not for them to understand. And that’s actually a completely valid position _if_ they have the evidence. Plenty of breakthrough research starts with an inexplicable experimental result, with the understanding of that result following after. The better thing is just to ask for the clear objective replicable statistically significant evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/77 "2016-04-28T02:08:17Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Attitudes like Expano Mapcase and others in this thread permeate the world of science and academia, though, and if anyone - an accomplished and honest researcher - tried to take an honest look at some of these topics they would be laughed out of their jobs, lose tenure, lose grants, lose hard earned reputations, so they won’t touch it. Did I say nuts? Here it is again. Nuts. Keep on patting yourself on your back while utterly mischaracterizing our arguments. Heck, our actual words. I want scientists to do proper science. Not only will I support that but I have, repeatedly, and in this very thread. I will also slam bad science every chance I get. If you won’t, why should we listen? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/78 "2016-04-28T02:10:14Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Attitudes like Expano Mapcase and others in this thread permeate the world of science and academia, though, and if anyone - an accomplished and honest researcher - tried to take an honest look at some of these topics they would be laughed out of their jobs, lose tenure, lose grants, lose hard earned reputations, so they won’t touch it. That is actually just what I see in other issues like evolution or climate change. Many people complaining about that, but not demonstrating that they lose tenure or reputation just because of unorthodox research, the reality is that they lose tenure and lose reputations because they failed to demonstrate with hard evidence what they pushed later in life. Not because of the subject. > [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Radin is a guy who said fuck it, I don’t care. I’m going to research what interests me. Sure some of his ideas are out there, but I do respect his courage and from what I’ve seen I do believe that he applies proper research practices to his work. Much of it concludes with negative results, some of it seems to show some promise in some of his lines of investigation and certainly who am I to tell him that it doesn’t? That makes him something of a stand out among many others - frauds and loonies and woo practitioners- who have filled the void left in research in these areas due to the dangerous waters they have become for researchers. The problem here is that you clearly are an ignorant of the frauds and loonies that Radin decided that were the beesness, not great examples of ESP. [http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21749](http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21749) > [@](#): > > Chris French criticized Radin for his selective historical overview of parapsychology and ignoring evidence of fraud. Radin failed to mention that the medium Florence Cook was caught in acts of trickery and the Fox sisters publicly confessed their spirit communications were fraudulent. > [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Anyone who doesn’t think the link is appropriate to the OP’s actual question, as opposed to side arguments they have derailed the thread with, are welcome to open up a GD about it. For my purposes in this thread I have contributed what I intended, a link to a bunch of research on the subject that the OP asked about. I can only thank you for bringing him to my attention, I do think that the OP and everyone else should be aware about the problems that one of the most important proponents of ESP has, he is not really a reliable source. We would not be doing our job if **that** was left out. [http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/radin1.html](http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/radin1.html) ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/79 "2016-04-28T02:50:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is actually just what I see in other issues like evolution or climate change. Many people complaining about that, but not demonstrating that they lose tenure or reputation just because of unorthodox research, the reality is that they lose tenure and lose reputations because they failed to demonstrate with hard evidence what they pushed later in life. Not because of the subject. > > The problem here is that you clearly are an ignorant of the frauds and loonies that Radin decided that were the beesness, not great examples of ESP. > > [The anti-science of Dean Radin - The Skeptics Society Forum](http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21749) > > I can only thank you for bringing him to my attention, I do think that the OP and everyone else should be aware about the problems that one of the most important proponents of ESP has, he is not really a reliable source. We would not be doing our job if **that** was left out. > > [The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin - Book Review - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com](http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/radin1.html) He is certainly not without many critics, and like I said some of his ideas are out there by my understanding of the world. Nevertheless, these points remain irrelevant to the OP or the links I provided. The studies I linked include many outright failures. Some of those originally thought to indicate positive results may later have been shown to have been interpreted incorrectly, or based on a false model to begin with, or any number of other things. They are still examples of work that has been done in the field. And that is all we’re trying to answer here. As to the second question if any of it has any validity, showing where leading research in the area tends to get agreement from many peers that ‘more research is warranted’ is a good indication of where there may, or may not, be a shred of validity, and where there will be future work done. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/80 "2016-04-28T03:14:03Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I want scientists to do proper science. Not only will I support that but I have, repeatedly, and in this very thread. I will also slam bad science every chance I get. I will definitely look for your posts when there is thread asking “What research that Exapno Mapcase approves of has been done in ESP?” Since this one doesn’t, I’m happy to have obliged the OP with a factual answer to their question. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173.md?page=5)