The Straight Dope On ESP.

[Crazyhorse]

@Peter_Morris

… that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.

That is one of the areas of current research done by the Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia.

Some young children, usually between the ages of 2 and 5, speak about memories of a previous life they claim to have lived. At the same time they often show behaviors, such as phobias or preferences, that are unusual within the context of their particular family and cannot be explained by any current life events. These memories appear to be concordant with the child’s statements about a previous life. In many cases of this type, the child’s statements have been shown to correspond accurately to facts in the life and death of a deceased person. Some of the children have birthmarks and birth defects that correspond to wounds or other marks on the deceased person whose life is being remembered by the child. In numerous cases postmortem reports have confirmed these correspondences. Older children may retain these apparent memories, but generally they seem to fade around the age of 7 .

The research staff at the Division of Perceptual Studies has been investigating these cases since 1961 and have published numerous articles and books about them. There is also a list of books on reincarnation which includes one book about Dr. Stevenson’s work by Tom Shroder, editor at the Washington Post at the time of the publication of the book. This book is called “Old Souls” and was published in 1999 after Mr. Shroder spent a great deal of time observing Dr. Stevenson investigating cases in the field. The young subjects of these cases have been found all over the world including Europe and North America.

You would think they had heard of the SDMB and all the scientific doubts we have here about continuing, but if they have it seems they choose to continue despite it.

[Musicat]

@Peter_Morris

…if the contentions violate well-established laws of physics, such objections of course carry great weight.

Nonsense. The reverse if true. Extraordinary claims, and all that…

[Derleth]

@Crazyhorse

Why are you asking me?

Why nobody is using these powers to make money, even though they don’t know how they work.

If they exist, people can use them. If people can use them, they’ll use them to make money. Nobody’s using them to make money. Therefore, either people don’t care about money, or they don’t work. Do you really think people don’t care about money?

[Crazyhorse]

@Derleth

Why nobody is using these powers to make money, even though they don’t know how they work.

If they exist, people can use them. If people can use them, they’ll use them to make money. Nobody’s using them to make money. Therefore, either people don’t care about money, or they don’t work. Do you really think people don’t care about money?

I asked “why are you asking me” because I haven’t claimed to believe that anyone has demonstrated such abilities. I have claimed that research continues (fact) and that it is warranted (personal opinion).

To answer your question based on what little is known or studied so far, it would be because the phenomena under discussion don’t seem to be controllable, at-will events but rather fleeting glimpses, symbolic dreams, and ‘gut feelings’ and the like, not reproducible at-will, on-demand powers of some kind that someone might be able to exploit consistently enough to make a killing in a stock market or casino.

[Peter_Morris]

@Musicat

Nonsense. The reverse if true. Extraordinary claims, and all that…

It’s great sense. Who are you to disagree?

[RaftPeople]

I’m not sure what to make of it, but the minute I saw the OP I just knew this thread was going to go to muliple pages…that’s spooky

[Czarcasm]

@Crazyhorse

And you’re honestly not able to recognize the connection between those two things?

I am glad you brought up the nature of this thread though. You seem to be mistaking it for something posted in Great Debates. It is a GQ asking what is the state of scientific research into psi. The answer is that it continues, despite not having produced any answers so far.

Any statements in this thread in favor of or against the validity of such research is personal opinion and irrelevant to the question.

WRONG. From the OP:

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?

Validity IS absolutely relevant to the question, no matter how many times you try to handwave it away.

[Crazyhorse]

@Czarcasm

WRONG. From the OP:
Validity IS absolutely relevant to the question, no matter how many times you try to handwave it away.

WRONG. It asks if there is any validity to some unspecified claims about psi, not if there is any validity in ongoing research.

[Czarcasm]

@Crazyhorse

WRONG. It asks if there is any validity to some unspecified claims about psi, not if there is any validity in ongoing research.

That is a very poor interpretation of the OP’s intent.

[GIGObuster]

@Crazyhorse

That is one of the areas of current research done by the Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia.

You would think they had heard of the SDMB and all the scientific doubts we have here about continuing, but if they have it seems they choose to continue despite it.

And of course they continue, that they ended up not finding good evidence is what should be taken into account, leading to the practical result that the field is not being taken seriously and it is dying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/health/psychology/18stevenson.html

Until his retirement in 2002, Dr. Stevenson was the head of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia; he had founded the division in 1967. Formerly called the Division of Personality Studies, it is part of the university’s department of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences. Among the phenomena that the division investigates, according to its Web site, are children who claim to remember previous lives, near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences, apparitions and after-death communications, and deathbed visions.

With the planned closing later this month of the Princeton University laboratory devoted to studying telekinesis and extrasensory perception, the University of Virginia center remains one of the few academic facilities of its kind in the country.

“I think he was trying to figure things out, but he just didn’t follow elementary proper standards,” said Leonard Angel, a philosopher of religion at Douglas College in New Westminster, British Columbia, said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. “but you do have to look carefully to see it; that’s why he’s been very persuasive to many people.”

Asked repeatedly whether he believed in reincarnation, Dr. Stevenson was publicly circumspect. But tucked away in a file cabinet in the Division of Perceptual Studies is an ordinary combination lock, which Dr. Stevenson bought and locked nearly 40 years ago. He had set the combination himself.

As a colleague in the division, Emily Williams Kelly, explained in a telephone interview on Wednesday, Dr. Stevenson based the combination on a secret mnemonic device — a particular word or a sentence, perhaps — known only to him.

“He did say, that if he found himself able, he would try to communicate that,” Ms. Kelly said. “Presumably, if someone had a vivid dream about him, in which there seemed to be a word or a phrase that kept being repeated — I don’t quite know how it would work — if it seemed promising enough, we would try to open it using the combination suggested.”

Thus far, Ms. Kelly said, the lock has remained firmly shut.

[Czarcasm]

@Peter_Morris

Are you sure?

Objections to pseudoscience on the grounds of unavailable mechanism can be mistaken - although if the contentions violate well-established laws of physics, such objections of course carry great weight.

Well, the specific pseudoscience being discussed in this thread is ESP, I believe. Do you think the objections to it on the grounds of unavailable mechanism are mistaken, or do you think they carry great weight?

[Crazyhorse]

@Czarcasm

That is a very poor interpretation of the OP’s intent.

The OP asks:

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?

The question of whether or not there is any validity to some claim made in an episode of Star Trek, regarding some unspecified power of ESP, is not asking whether or not you think continued research in ESP is valid science.

[Czarcasm]

@Crazyhorse

The OP asks:

The question of whether or not there is any validity to some claim made in an episode of Star Trek, regarding some unspecified power of ESP, is not asking whether or not you think continued research in ESP is valid science.

Is that actually how you interpreted the OP???

[Crazyhorse]

@Czarcasm

Is that actually how you interpreted the OP???

I’m pretty sure that is how anyone who speaks English and has a modicum of reading comprehension would interpret it.

Let me break it down for you in the two relevant portions:

'Anyways, this is not the Cafe section. So I will no longer discuss the Star Trek connection. ’ … [skip to the conclusion of this same train of thought] … could there be any validity to its claims? [THE STAR TREK EPISODE’S CLAIMS]

How do you interpret it?

[Czarcasm]

@Crazyhorse

I’m pretty sure that is how anyone who speaks English and has a modicum of reading comprehension would interpret it.

Let me break it down for you in the two relevant portions:

'Anyways, this is not the Cafe section. So I will no longer discuss the Star Trek connection. ’ … [skip to the conclusion of this same train of thought] … could there be any validity to its claims? [THE STAR TREK EPISODE’S CLAIMS]

How do you interpret it?

I interpret it like someone who isn’t grasping at straws.

[Crazyhorse]

@Czarcasm

I interpret it like someone who isn’t grasping at straws.

Yes, you’ve really got me on the ropes with this strategy of misunderstanding the OP, and then arguing this irrelevant minutia until I finally get tired of debating it.

The OP is there for anyone to read and decide for themselves.

[Measure_for_Measure]

We’re on page 6, so I’ll quote the OP:

@Jim_B

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?

I think the OP wanted to know the straight dope on ESP in a GQ way as opposed to a GD way. I think the first questions have been answered and Crazyhorse is answering the last question, precisely stated (i.e. could) in the affirmative. Notwithstanding my earlier remarks, I am more dubious.

[Peter_Morris]

@Czarcasm

Well, the specific pseudoscience being discussed in this thread is ESP, I believe. Do you think the objections to it on the grounds of unavailable mechanism are mistaken, or do you think they carry great weight?

“Objections to pseudoscience on the grounds of unavailable mechanism can be mistaken - although if the contentions violate well-established laws of physics, such objections of course carry great weight.”

So:

1. they CAN be mistaken
2. they carry great weight IF the claims violate well-established laws of physics

Are you claiming some contradiction here?

[Czarcasm]

@Peter_Morris

“Objections to pseudoscience on the grounds of unavailable mechanism can be mistaken - although if the contentions violate well-established laws of physics, such objections of course carry great weight.”

So:

1. they CAN be mistaken
2. they carry great weight IF the claims violate well-established laws of physics

Are you claiming some contradiction here?

I’m claiming you’re just rewording the question and repeating it back to me, instead of just answering it. You can play your stalling tactics with someone else.

[Tibby]

@Trinopus

Pretty much, no. A sensory means of communication did evolve: speech. Other forms of communication could have evolved, as they exist in other living things. We humans have a very, very slight scent-communication ability; that certainly could have evolved into a system with a higher bandwidth. <snip>

Indeed, we did develop speech, but that’s not exactly “stealth” communication.

Scenario: You and me hiking through Jellystone National Park. You’ve gotten a couple dozen meters ahead of me, looking for stray pic-a-nic baskets:

Tibby: Yo, Trinopus! Look out for that bear and her cubs just ahead of you!

Trinopus: Huh? What’d you say, Tibby!?!

[9’ long mother grizzly bear’s ears perk up, zeros in on the sound, see’s Trinopus stuffing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich into his mouth, charges, rears up on her massive haunches and…well, what follows isn’t a pretty sight for the squeamishly inclined]`.

Tibby: Oh, never mind…good knowing you, pal!

As far as scent/pheromone communication…just stop wearing deodorant and you’ll communicate quite clearly: *“stay away!” *