As we speak, there is a group of primatologists/zoologists in Northern Zaire tracking down what appears to be a new type of ape.
Current reports are that it is more like a chimpanzee than a gorilla, but it is six feet tall, is strong enough to kill a lion (without weapons), but instead of attacking perceived threats it quietly slips away into the jungle when confronted.
Goes to show that we still have a lot to learn and need to tone down our arrogance somewhat.
Of course, until this thing is proven, I know, *as a good skeptick, * that the simplest explanation is the most likely, and that it is probably just a short, fat, hairy Watusi Warrior who has forgone the use of weapons and retired to the bush due to a broken heart.
Who is “we”? And what arrogance? What the hell are you talking about? Go back and read the post I just posted… a new species of ape (whether bigfoot or Yeti or zaire-ape) does not violate any laws of science. Cryptozoology is not really “paranormal” in any way.
Why do we need a “structure in the brain?” We already know, within “currently accepted scientific knowledge” that the electrical impulses emitted by the firing of brain cells are detectable with currently utilized equipment outside of the structure of the skull!
Now then, we merely have to postulate whether it is possible to decipher those electrical emanations, and frankly (thanks to Occam’s razor), the most likely ‘equipment’ to decipher those impulses would be… a human brain!
Maybe we’ve been asking the wrong question. Perhaps instead of “does ESP exist?” we should be asking, "Why doesn’t everyone experience it?
I think this is closer to the original intent of the term “paranormal,” which is still a catch-all term, as Aeschines says, for something that is perported to happen which isn’t supposed to happen.
The “clearly demonstrable” cuts out a lot of stuff that is currently caught in the term, and I think we have to ask:
This is inductive reasoning: instead of taking facts and using reason to come up with an explanation for the set of facts, you’re taking reason and using it to come up with a set of facts.
Your question, “why doesn’t everyone experience ESP?” would be a better question if we had strong evidence that ANYONE experiences it. All scientific tests point toward nobody’s experiencing it, although many people believe they experience it.
Therefore, the interesting question becomes, 'Why do so many people falsely believe they are experiencing ESP?" Alternately, there’s another interesting question: “Why are brains not able to read brainwaves coming from someone else’s brain?”
That’s not my understanding. Some forces diminish with distance, but light does not. It disperses, or may be dispersed, but it does not diminish.
No wonder they kept me out of the lab. Let me make a correction:
Interesting that Uri Geller scored hits when someone who knew the right answers was in his presence inside the Faraday cage, but he scored no hits when isolated from anyone who knew the right answers by a Faraday cage.
How’s that?
Plus, we still do not know enough about ESP or its mechanisms to say that it violates that so-called law of physics (which I’m not so sure isn’t dispersal in all cases). Some people lump all paranormal phenomenon together: is ESP (mind reading), remote viewing, psychometric detection, astral projection and the like all caused by the same principle? The only thing that’s consistant is that it all operates in some unknown manner.
Simulpost, Max, cool down, relax; it had nothing to do with your post, which, by the way, I find quite agreeable. No one’s attacking you; cancel alert status.
The “arrogance” and “we” were directed at those posting to this thread who claim they already know all there is to know (by inference).
Thank you; I appreciate that. At the same time, I can understand the frustration of skeptics in many cases.
If I say to you, “the odds of rolling a 12 on two six-sided dice is one in thirty-six,” and you say, “Actually, some people can influence the dice with their mind, so that the odds go up significantly,” then I might be intrigued, and test this with people who claim to have that ability.
If after testing numerous people who make that claim, I find that none of their claims pan out, I’ll become increasingly skeptical of any new person who makes the claim–and rightly so. If these previous people have given a proposed explanation for their powers–a hypothesis–then I’m correct to evaluate the data they’ve provided toward their hypothesis, and if it’s relevant, to consider their hypothesis disproven.
All that’s fine. Where we get the difficulty is when yet another person comes forward and supplies the same hypothesis to explain their ability to manipulate the dice. If I show them that that hypothesis has been pretty well discredited, and they still insist that it’s true, then I might start to get very frustrated.
I think that’s the position many scientists are in. There has been a buttload of research into specific paranormal claims, and the research has consistently failed to provide any evidence that the paranormal claims are accurate. Inasmuch as those claims included a hypothesis, these hypotheses have been disproven. It’s pretty frustrating for folks to ignore all that data and put forward the disproven hypotheses over and over.
Of course not all folks making paranormal claims are doing that; some folks are putting forth novel claims, or are making claims on subjects that have not so far been subjected to testing, or are making claims that cannot be tested. It is inappropriate to treat people in these categories with the same disdain proffered to those who ignore the evidence disproving their claims.
Umm, better, but still just a tiny bit garbled. Here, let me try:
Uri Geller, in a Faraday cage, scored hits when a possible accomplice was in the cage with him.
When the accomplice was removed, he scored no hits.
If that is satisfactory, it would seem we have reduced the multiple variables to a single one, and that one (the accomplice) is the most likely reason for the scores. It also suggests that the Faraday cage was NOT a factor.
The only thing that’s consistent is there has never yet been a repeatable, clear experiment showing the existence of ESP, remote viewing, or anything else of that ilk. If that ever happens, we can discuss the possible cause. Until then, you are guessing about the cause for something that has not been reliably observed.
Neither does gravity or any other force actually “diminish,” in the sense you seem to be assuming. If I may be allowed a slight revision in my statement, it is the dispersion which causes the diminuation. It spreads out, and there is less force impinging on whatever detector as the detector is moved farther away. The farther away you go, the weaker the signals. ESP proponents, however, treat their “force” as one that does not become spread out or diminished regardless of distance.
A bit biased, don’t you think? Yet that should be considered. As it was the person was one of the scientists performing the test. We do have to consider if he was an accomplice, or an unwilling accomplice (subject was able to read clues from normal means, like posture, etc.), but we also have to consider whether the Faraday cage was blocking transmission.
I don’t know if the person was even in the view of the subject, but I’d rather consider all options than limit myself to one which is suggested by my bias.
I’d expect you to be more objective.
That’s too many variables in one experiment. Quite frankly, they should never have bothered with a Faraday cage until they had eliminated all possibilities of non-ESP being the source of communication. Targ & Puthoff’s work did not inspire confidence that such variables were even close to being met.
Who, precisely, claims that? Who in this thread (or who in the world) has said anything remotely like that? Who has even said that they are 100% certain that ESP does not exist?
OK, my “possible accomplice” line might not be appropriate before the test, but logical to insert after the outcome.
So how 'bout this: “Uri Geller, in a Faraday cage, scored hits when someone was in the cage with him. He did not score hits when he was alone in the cage.”
Yes. Some factors did not change, yet the outcome was different. Just like it suggests the factor that DID change was responsible, it suggests the factors that did not change are NOT responsible.
Now before you jump down my throat and say, what about the lighting system, the sound system, the rug, a receiver in Geller’s ear, etc., etc., I am talking theoretical here. There may have been factors that we don’t know about, and that is exactly why a magician is useful, to detect factors invisible to many otherwise intelligent scientists.
Once more, here is the concept, and the way all science needs to be done.
First, attempt to control all factors in a test. (Sometimes, not possible, I know; that’s the ideal we strive for.) Next, run the test many times, and with some trials, randomly chosen ones not known to any of the participants, alter only one variable. If, after the trials are completed, the results are in, and all the “unknowns” uncovered, it is found that there is a statistically significant difference between the trials with and without the one variable, it suggests that that variable was the cause of the difference.
To apply that to a caged Geller, if you wanted to test the influence of the cage, you would have to have some trials with and some without the cage (and be sure no one giving or receiving the test knew when the cage was present or absent). The test you described tested for the influence of a person, not a cage.
Or, still theoretical here, suppose we have 3 known factors in a test. Control for 1 & 2, alter 3. If no change in the outcome, control for 1 & 3, change 2. Then if there is a significant change in the outcome, #2 is probably the reason for it.
It’s the only way to arrive at the truth, or at least get darn close.
To who? And actually, if I began embracing ideas without evidence, doesn’t this suggest I will have lost some of my mature adult reasoning abilities? Can you desfine “steadier and surer”. And “Magnanimous” …? Is going along with baseless ideas somehow an act of charity?
Some of the people who were born when I was in my early twenties are now teenagers (I mention this solely becuase I like turning phrases). Doesn’t the existence of ambiguity, dim corners and seeming contradictions suggest we should use our reasoning faculties as much as possible, so these ambiguities (whenever possible) are clarified, the dim corners (whenever possible) are illuminated and seeming contradictions (whenever possible) resolved? Naturally, there will be times when it isn’t possible (or at least immediately possible, pending more research and better scientific instruments) but isn’t it better to learn than to simply accept?
That’s not Randi’s problem, though. It sounds like he’d rather be truthful than popular (though I’m sure he doesn’t mind a good mix of both).
What is a “true adult”, anyway? Any relation to the “true Scotsman”? Can you define the characteristcs of a “true adult” and the characteristics of someone who is demonstrably not a “true adult”, i.e. a positive and a negative?
You description, above, sounds reasonable to me, and now I understand what you were trying to say.
I think what T&P were trying to do was to test to see if Geller had any ability at all, but I haven’t read the whole experimental plan, so I’m not sure. They may have been in a narrowing down phase of testing, and others have commented that their test procedures needed a lot of refinement.
In a case like this, where a person claims to have a certain talent, it’s not enough to test what they say they have; you have to consider that they mnay be misinterpreting the source of their information as well. I believe in this particular case they were trying to test for remote viewing (why the shielding, I don’t know), and Geller may have believed he was doing remote viewing, but we also have to consider mental telepathy, subliminal cueing, etc., and eliminate all those things.
It’s rare when we get someone like Geller, who can make as many hits under controlled conditions as he was able to do, however he was able to do it.
In any case, I have no argument with your experimental procedure; thanks!
