# 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:** 9
**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 29, 2016, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/161 "2016-04-29T17:36:27Z")
> [@naita](#): > > You keep saying you don’t have a horse in this race, and yet you keep using terms such as “the skeptic’s corner”. You can’t have it both ways. The consensus in the thread before your input was that the sum of scientific investigations have shown ESP to be bunk and positive results to be explainable by poor controls, research bias, etc. and so forth. You then throw in a link list and proceed to alternately fiercely defend it and disavow any responsibility for the content. > > It was very natural of those of us who already knew of Radin’s research and considered it part of the body of ESP science that has been shown to be wrong, to assume you thought it weighed heavier than the negative results, and your waffling between “I didn’t really know anything about Radin, why are you treating my like a proponent of ESP?” and “you there in the skeptic corner aren’t treating this scientifically” is getting really tiring. Anyone who was open to a discussion with me to discern what I knew, or thought about Radin, or psi, etc. would have found out quite easily. But instead immediately assumed i was advocating for him and psi. I agree it’s getting tiring and I think a good solution to that would be to stop yapping about it. ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2016, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/162 "2016-04-29T17:59:10Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Anyone who was open to a discussion with me to discern what I knew, or thought about Radin, or psi, etc. would have found out quite easily. But instead immediately assumed i was advocating for him and psi. > > I agree it’s getting tiring and I think a good solution to that would be to stop yapping about it. As long as you get the last word, amirite? 😉 ---
**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 29, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/163 "2016-04-29T18:01:02Z")
> [@White SIFL](#): > > As long as you get the last word, amirite? > > 😉 No. 😉 ---
**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 29, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/164 "2016-04-29T19:57:56Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > I remember reading the poker player Doyle Brunson’s book a long time ago and he dedicated a section of it to ESP in poker. I don’t remember the exact details but he based his “I’m skeptical, but it’s possible” stance on it from that same idea. > > He said if all the information he has available to him in terms of knowledge of the cards, the odds, his opponents tells, etc. don’t provide him with any clear choice in a tough decision, he goes with a gut feeling he has like an impulse to decide one way or another. And he theorized his uncanny success rate in those tough calls could be from a brain signal leaking from the opponent somehow. > > Something like “with all these powerful electronic appliances we have nowadays (this was in the 1970s) we see interference between them all the time. The brain is an electronic machine so who is to say that while under tremendous pressure and in deep concentration, one brain can’t accidentally transmit ‘a pair of jacks’ to another brain just a few feet away?” But he also mentioned he could just be noticing things subconsciously that don’t enter his conscious thought process but still influence his decisions, or he could just be lucky. > > Old gamblers are a superstitious bunch but he, and you, have a hypotheis that I would always welcome any controlled scientific investigation into. > > Brain to brain communication has actually already been demonstrated in a few ways, some of which are sort of telepathy-like. At least in that they rely on measurements of brain activity to transmit a message from one subject to another subject. So one brain can say “hello” to another in a distant location using no words or gestures. But it requires a whole bunch of equipment between those two brains and only allows such communication in an indirect way. > > The subject doesn’t actually think the word “hello” and the recipient doesn’t actually receive the word “hello” though. In one such experiment a subject looks at one of several LED’s that are each pulsing at a slightly different rate to select what message he wants to send. The different rates the LEDs pulse is undetectable to the eye, but by measuring his brain activity they can tell which light he is looking at. Then a signal is transmitted to a distant subject. That subject also has electrodes wired all over his head, and sees a flash of light (in his mind not an actual light) and the properties of that light tell him what the first subject ‘said’ - for example maybe one flash means “yes” and two flashes mean “no”. > > So that isn’t ESP, but our extremely limited knowledge of the brain means researchers have to work with what they know currently, like which part of the brain fires when the subject sees a light. Not likely ESP and maybe nothing at all, as new research showed, there is no there there. > **[Neuroimaging fails to demonstrate ESP is real — Harvard Gazette](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/01/neuroimaging-fails-to-demonstrate-esp-is-real/)** > > Psychologists at Harvard University have developed a new method to study extrasensory perception that, they argue, can resolve the century-old debate over its existence. According to the authors, their study… > [@](#): > > Psychologists at Harvard University have developed a new method to study extrasensory perception that, they argue, can resolve the century-old debate over its existence. According to the authors, their study not only illustrates a new method for studying such phenomena, but also provides the strongest evidence yet obtained **against** the existence of extrasensory perception, or ESP. > > The research was led by Samuel Moulton, a graduate student in the department of psychology in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University with Stephen Kosslyn, John Lindsley Professor of Psychology at Harvard and was published in the Jan. 2008 issue of the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. The scientists used brain scanning to test whether individuals have knowledge that cannot be explained through normal perceptual processing. > > “If any ESP processes exist, then participants’ brains should respond differently to ESP and non-ESP stimuli,” explains Moulton. “Instead, results showed that participants’ brains responded identically to ESP and non-ESP stimuli, despite reacting strongly to differences in how emotional the stimuli were and showing subtle, stimulus-related effects.” So much for not being a supporter of ESP, do you have a cite for that “Brain to brain communication has actually already been demonstrated in a few ways”? It looks to be underwhelming as usual. ---
**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 29, 2016, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/165 "2016-04-29T20:33:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not likely ESP and maybe nothing at all, as new research showed, there is no there there. > > [Neuroimaging fails to demonstrate ESP is real — Harvard Gazette](http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/01/neuroimaging-fails-to-demonstrate-esp-is-real/) > So much for not being a supporter of ESP, do you have a cite for that > > “Brain to brain communication has actually already been demonstrated in a few ways”? It looks to be underwhelming as usual. I don’t understand the question exactly. Are you saying that you got from my post about non-ESP type brain to brain communication that I was trying to argue that it was due to ESP? I can’t imagine that would be the case but the way my posts to this thread keep getting scanned for any possible pro psi propaganda I guess that’s actually what you’re taking from it. A cite for the process that I described? Sure, but it isn’t even slightly controversial science or disputed by anyone, anywhere, that I’m aware of. > **[Why Brain-to-Brain Communication Is No Longer Unthinkable](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-brain-brain-communication-no-longer-unthinkable-180954948/)** > > Exploring uncharted territory, neuroscientists are making strides with human subjects who can "talk" directly by using their minds > **[Scientists Achieve Direct Brain-To-Brain Communication Between Humans](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/brain-interface_n_6115334)** > > Scientists Achieve Direct Brain-To-Brain Communication Between Humans > **[We can already send thoughts from one brain to another — and that might...](https://www.businessinsider.com/brain-to-brain-communication-is-possible-2015-5)** > > Would you send your thoughts to a friend? > **[Brain-To-Brain Communication Made Possible For The First Time, Allowing A...](https://www.medicaldaily.com/brain-brain-communication-made-possible-first-time-allowing-person-guess-whats-354064)** > > Using brain-to-brain interfacing, a pair of participants were able to communicate solely through brain power. ---
**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 29, 2016, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/166 "2016-04-29T23:05:08Z")
Ah, well, in this case I misunderstood, carry on. And avoid Radin. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2016, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/167 "2016-04-30T03:53:10Z")
It’s from a few pages back, but since nobody has challenged this set of assertions: > [@Crazyhorse](#): > > 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? I’m really not even sure what the first sentence here means, so I’ll pass over it. I can however cleanly answer the question in the second sentence right here. You know, I do disagree with the theoretical physics that that article employs, though I suppose I have no more to go on than the personal opinion of someone with a Ph.D. in a relevant area and some interest in the subject. I do absolutely know why I haven’t published a challenge to the article and indeed won’t, and indeed why probably nobody else has, for that matter: it’s a bunch of crap that is beneath anyone who actually is doing worthwhile work on quantum mechanics to take any time responding to. In somewhat more detail, I’ve read Wheeler-Feynman and the subsequent literature and I’ve read some of Cramer, though I’d hardly claim to be any sort of expert on the transactional interpretation of QM. Now I can then see that this sort of stuff is appealing to anyone wanting to justify some version of ESP. But one can always just wave one’s hands and claim “entanglement”, but there are also all sorts of solid mathematical results that prevent any form of communication via those effects. Since part of the point of “retrocausal” models is that they reproduce normal physics, it’d have surely always been kind of surprising if that wasn’t also true for them. Indeed, Cramer now seems to agree. Bit of a dead end. So an article that parades some crap understanding of some quantum physics that leads nowhere? And I’m meant to be impressed? ---
**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 30, 2016, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/168 "2016-04-30T12:04:22Z")
> [@bonzer](#): > > It’s from a few pages back, but since nobody has challenged this set of assertions: > > I’m really not even sure what the first sentence here means, so I’ll pass over it. > > I can however cleanly answer the question in the second sentence right here. You know, I do disagree with the theoretical physics that that article employs, though I suppose I have no more to go on than the personal opinion of someone with a Ph.D. in a relevant area and some interest in the subject. I do absolutely know why I haven’t published a challenge to the article and indeed won’t, and indeed why probably nobody else has, for that matter: it’s a bunch of crap that is beneath anyone who actually is doing worthwhile work on quantum mechanics to take any time responding to. > > In somewhat more detail, I’ve read Wheeler-Feynman and the subsequent literature and I’ve read some of Cramer, though I’d hardly claim to be any sort of expert on the transactional interpretation of QM. Now I can then see that this sort of stuff is appealing to anyone wanting to justify some version of ESP. But one can always just wave one’s hands and claim “entanglement”, but there are also all sorts of solid mathematical results that prevent any form of communication via those effects. Since part of the point of “retrocausal” models is that they reproduce normal physics, it’d have surely always been kind of surprising if that wasn’t also true for them. Indeed, Cramer now seems to agree. Bit of a dead end. > > So an article that parades some crap understanding of some quantum physics that leads nowhere? And I’m meant to be impressed? So you have an objection to a theoretical conecpt raised by an article offered to counter another poster’s theoretical objection to a theoretical concept raised in the discusion of a study that we have since established about 100 posts ago turned out to not be reproduceable by the researcher anyway, making that entire thread of the conversation moot. And while that article is beneath even trying to challenge correctly, it is worth the time to post challenges to it on a messageboard. And we’re meant to be impressed? Got it. Thanks for setting the record straight, Doctor Bonzer. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2016, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/169 "2016-04-30T21:55:40Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > So you have an objection to a theoretical conecpt raised by an article offered to counter another poster’s theoretical objection to a theoretical concept raised in the discusion of a study that we have since established about 100 posts ago turned out to not be reproduceable by the researcher anyway, making that entire thread of the conversation moot. You do realise that that was an article that **you** yourself cited? And which **you** pre-emptively objected to anyone querying it’s use of quantum mechanics? > [@](#): > > And while that article is beneath even trying to challenge correctly, it is worth the time to post challenges to it on a messageboard. And we’re meant to be impressed? And you do realise that knocking out a reply on the Dope is very much less onerous than writing a formal paper? Or do you? > [@](#): > > Got it. Thanks for setting the record straight, Doctor Bonzer. No problem. ---
**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 30, 2016, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/170 "2016-04-30T23:35:23Z")
> [@bonzer](#): > > You do realise that that was an article that **you** yourself cited? And which **you** pre-emptively objected to anyone querying it’s use of quantum mechanics? Of course I realize I cited it. But it was pointed out later that the same researcher couldn’t replicate those results. I didn’t preemptively object to anything. Between those two events someone commented that physics prevents any such thing from being possible to begin with. I countered with the article you object to, and added - in the portion of my post you chose not to quote - that the two relevant points are: > [@](#): > > 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.” The fact that the particular study at issue wasn’t replicable has no bearing on the truth of those two points in general terms. > [@bonzer](#): > > And you do realise that knocking out a reply on the Dope is very much less onerous than writing a formal paper? Or do you? Yes I realize that as well. Posting anonymously to a message board is pretty darn easy compared to putting your actual reputation on the line by publishing a challenge. Whoever wrote the paper you dispute took that chance and anyone who wants to discredit it should do the same honestly instead of from behind an anonymous identity on a message board. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/171 "2016-05-02T14:46:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I can say that thanks to the admission seen in many documentaries where the ESP believers tell the skeptics that their powers … do fail in the end because of an “unbelievers effect”. cite? Which documentaries? Name the people who have said it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/172 "2016-05-02T15:21:34Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > cite? Which documentaries? Name the people who have said it. Here are three cites about the “Psi-Experimenter Effect”: A quick overview from [The Skeptics Dictionary.](http://skepdic.com/experimentereffect.html) A piece written by noted nutcase and true believer [Victor Zammit.](http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/experimentereffect.html) And to balance it out, a formal study by [Kennedy and Taddonio](http://jeksite.org/psi/jp76.htm), published in 1976 in the Journal of Parapsychology. edited to add: and [these true believers](http://www.psiexplorer.com/experimenter_effect.htm) actually make the claim that > [@](#): > > Experimenters (or other involved personnel) can apparently influence their subjects without ever coming into physical contact with them. The parapsychological literature is filled with possible psi-mediated experimenter effects. For example, a famous series of ESP experiments indicated that people who simply checked results after an experiment seemed to have consistent influences upon their subjects’ earlier psi performance. Thoughts can time travel?? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/173 "2016-05-02T15:37:58Z")
Interesting. I’ll have a look at those. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/174 "2016-05-02T15:55:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Experimenters (or other involved personnel) can apparently influence their subjects without ever coming into physical contact with them. This is the basis of [“distant healing”](http://thealtagonist.blogspot.com/2013/01/distant-healing-not-just-harmless-hokum.html), where “energy” is sent to cure disorders without the practitioner ever seeing or touching the patient. \*"While each healer claims to use a different form of treatment, the procedure in each case is remarkably similar. A session can usually be arranged by email or phone and simply involves payment and a short discussion of the client’s illness. Some healers require a personal item from the client such as a photograph or lock of hair which is claimed to enhance their connection with the client and improve the effectiveness of the healing process. While healers may believe these items to be essential to their practice, the thought of someone using a piece of my hair to establish an energetic connection with me is just a bit creepy. Once you’re all paid up and ready to go, the rest is relatively easy. Some healers will specify a specific time when you should relax and let the healing take place from some distant location while others can perform the healing process as you go about your normal day. At the risk of stating the obvious, there is no scientific basis on which distant healing could possibly work. While it is now possible to detect even the minutest electromagnetic fields, the alleged forces or energies on which energy therapies and distant healing are based have never been detected. A recent study has, in fact, disproved the 20-year-old claim that high-intensity electromagnetic fields could be detected originating from the hands of energy healers. This does not discourage many practitioners of energy and distant healing as they may also claim that the energies they channel cannot be measured using scientific methods and can only be felt by certain individuals with particular abilities or training. In reality, this is just another poor excuse and was rather embarrassingly debunked by an experiment conducted in 1998. In this experiment, energy healers could not detect the energy field of the researcher’s hand from only a few centimetres away."\* I’m sure there are plenty of valid reasons why this experiment failed. “They did it wrong” and “Skepticism disrupts the healing energy fields” are likely candidates. \*I’m definitely going to have to check out that reference on distance healing of skin warts. Probably the randomized trial was sabotaged by dermatologists (and/or the makers of Compound W), who’d be put out of business if it became known that someone hundreds or thousands of miles away could shrink up your warts with the proper energy. ---
**Author:** ![Kron](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kron/32/12444_2.png) [@Kron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kron)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/175 "2016-05-02T18:00:55Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > 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. I believe the saying is “Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” Something along those lines, anyway. And the fact is, after hundreds of years of research, there has been ZERO validity for the claims of ESP (or any other paranormal phenomena). It’s not just a stubborn refusal to acknowledge these claims- it is that the claims, in face of the evidence, have thus far been categorically false. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/176 "2016-05-02T18:49:15Z")
> [@Kron](#): > > And the fact is, after hundreds of years of research, there has been ZERO validity for the claims of ESP (or any other paranormal phenomena). Quite patently false. Sometimes peculiar claims are proved true. But the instant a claim is proved true, it stops being paranormal. Sometimes quack medicine turns out to work; it instantly becomes conventional medicine. If a junk science theory is proved true, it is then real science. If a paranormal phenomenon is proved true it is then a normal phenomenon. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/177 "2016-05-02T18:58:05Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Quite patently false. Sometimes peculiar claims are proved true. But the instant a claim is proved true, it stops being paranormal. Sometimes quack medicine turns out to work; it instantly becomes conventional medicine. If a junk science theory is proved true, it is then real science. If a paranormal phenomenon is proved true it is then a normal phenomenon. “Junk Science” is not the same thing as “paranormal”. What paranormal phenomenon has been proven to be true? ---
**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:** [May 2, 2016, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/178 "2016-05-02T19:30:36Z")
> [@Kron](#): > > I believe the saying is “Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” Something along those lines, anyway. And the fact is, after hundreds of years of research, there has been ZERO validity for the claims of ESP (or any other paranormal phenomena). It’s not just a stubborn refusal to acknowledge these claims- it is that the claims, in face of the evidence, have thus far been categorically false. I have no argument with that. I maintain that perhaps you and I aren’t the only ones in a position to determine if and when someone else should stop doing research, as long as that research is done scientifically and open to peer review. After all, we know almost nothing about the human brain after however many centuries of investigation. It is inevitable that we will make new discoveries that will change the way we currently theorize about all kinds of things, esp or otherwise. The research that continues in various psi subjects is not only done by ‘fringe science’ there are departments within universities both inside and out of the US that engage in real, honest, research into the subject right now. They haven’t seen fit to cease investigation with at least as much, if not more, knowledge of existing research results than we have. Who am I or anyone else posting to this thread to deem their research invalid, quackery, “junk science”, etc. just because to date no previous research in the area has produced evidence suggesting ESP? The fact is that this research goes on because whether or not it is due to spooky magic of the brain, simple coincidences, flawed perceptions, or whatever, a huge number (I think I read greater than 50% of the US population for example) believe that ESP is real. I think it is good if there are some skilled scientists investigating a subject that affects \>50% of the population and that population would like to see more research, and that investigation is not left solely to quacks and frauds to perform. ---
**Author:** ![Kron](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kron/32/12444_2.png) [@Kron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kron)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/179 "2016-05-02T19:33:41Z")
I definitely can’t think of a single thing that went from paranormal to accepted science. I mean, tectonic theory wasn’t exactly in the realm of angels dancing on pins or Kirlian photography of “life auras”. ---
**Author:** ![Kron](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kron/32/12444_2.png) [@Kron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kron)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173/180 "2016-05-02T19:42:06Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > I have no argument with that. I maintain that perhaps you and I aren’t the only ones in a position to determine if and when someone else should stop doing research… I won’t ever stop anybody from doing research (barring my rise to dictatorship, anyway). > [@Crazyhorse](#): > > I think it is good if there are some skilled scientists investigating a subject that affects \>50% of the population and that population would like to see more research, and that investigation is not left solely to quacks and frauds to perform. But at the outset, that makes for poor science. Argumentum ad populum is not a good basis for this, especially in light of some of the WEIRD beliefs that vast amounts of people hold. Science is intended to be objective- and continuing to do research in an area that has so thoroughly proven to be a dead end is just a waste of effort, no matter how many people wish there to be positive results. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-straight-dope-on-esp/753173.md?page=10)