The Benefits of the Supernatural.

johnsix

What has the supernatural or the belief in the supernatural actually given humanity. I mean we've had thousands of years of psychics, seers, mystics, readers, telekinetics and astrologers, but what have we got out of it aside from the privilage of give them our money?
Science hasn't been around as long as mysticism but its given us medicine, computers, world wide travel, instantaneous communication, knowledge of the working of the universe and the list goes on and on and on and on....

The supernatural: not a sausage, not even evidence.
Even if there was what does humanity get out of it?

iamhunted

what has the big bad supernatural done to you john that you give out about it so much?

First off - anyone who gets stripped of their money by pychics etc deserve it. theres many people out to take your money, no matter if thats a psychic, a crooked funeral director or the people who supply goths with clothing.

Theres more to it than what you descirbe though. problem is how do you stand by an audio recording or a video recording made by someone else proporting to prove something paranormal. answer is you cant, therefore unless you witness something 'supernatural' yourself, you arent going to be convinced. not many people get the chance to experience a genuine paranormal occurance so I reckon you'll be giving out about the ghosties for years yet.

i say get over it. Just because you havent experienced the paranormal doesnt mean it doesnt exist. I havent seen america, but that doesnt mean its not there.

Riamfada

iamhunted wrote: »

a crooked funeral director or the people who supply goths with clothing.

Hey lay off the goths!

What has the supernatural ever given humanity? Nothing. What have you ever given humanity? Id say .... zip. If we should do away with one shouldnt we do away with the other?

Regarding the wonders of science. Id rather an unproductive belief in the afterlife than scientific results such as anthrax, nuclear war ect ect

G

pH

Grimes wrote: »

Regarding the wonders of science. Id rather an unproductive belief in the afterlife than scientific results such as anthrax, nuclear war ect ect

Anthrax is one of the oldest recorded diseases of grazing animals such as sheep and cattle and is believed to be the Sixth Plague mentioned in the Book of Exodus in the Bible[1]. Anthrax is also mentioned by Greek and Roman authors such as Homer (in The Iliad), Virgil (Georgics), and Hippocrates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax

*yawn* - try harder

Oryx

• Nightmares to small children and nervous adults
• The James Randi website
• An interesting line in Hollywood movies
• The PIGs an interesting hobby
• Chills and Heebie Jeebies
• Charlatans and chancers on the make.

BUT! The supernatural has many sides, some of which are no more a field of science than communion wafer is a medicine. These aspects are more a matter of belief and faith, really, than hard cold fact. The fact that inscrupulous people are taking advantage and making money from it is unfortunate, but good god, so many wrongs have been done by religion in all guises, the supernatural and psychic talent in particular is not unique in that respect. But its all lumped intogether by skeptics into a great money making swindle, which when you look at it properly, as a whole it is not. It is a curiousity we havent fully explained. Please dont claim we have unless you are actually omnipotent and do know everything.

Looked on as a tangible saleable commodity, no, it hasnt contributed much to GDP. However, I dont think thats what it is. Its anecdotal. Its faith. Sometimes its intangible feelings and emotional smoke. Its experienced on a person by person basis. In some ways you are trying to bottle and analyse feeling here. How do you do that?

On a level that does not concern profit and loss and accrual, but mental peace and quality of life, certain (faith based) aspects do give a lot to people who utilise them. Its all about what you are looking for here. I mean, by the same token, what has poetry done for our day to day living? It certainly doesnt pay my wages or get me to work on time. But the world would be a poorer place without it. Im not saying that if Derek Acorah got himself a proper job there would be any tears shed over the loss of his abilities. But some aspects of the supernatural are beneficial regardless of what your personal opinion of them is.

I'm not into all of the supernatural beliefs out there. But I think where you and I differ is that I follow the adage Primum Non Nocere and I dont feel the need to prove or debunk or find a tangible value to everything put to me, as long as it does no harm.

Riamfada

@ph Im typing through the tears. But you get my point and can only retaliate by pointing out a simple mistake on my part. I bow to your debating & wiki skillz sir.

pH

Grimes wrote: »

@ph Im tying through the tears. But you get my point and can only retaliate by pointing out a simple mistake on my part. I bow to your debating & wiki skillz sir.

The point is that reality *actually* is one way or another. Anthrax is either a naturally occurring bacterium or was a nasty disease invented by evil scientists in a lab cos they're like really evil.

I don't get your point either, stupid "paranormal" beliefs have lead to large amounts of death and suffering, but on the flip side, science has allowed billions of us lead longer, healthier, happier and safer lives than ever was possible. Paranormal nonsense is an intellectual dead end, at best a poor form of entertainment, at worst a millstone around our necks dragging us back into the mire or superstition and deluded thinking that held back our species for millennia.

Ghosts either exist or they don't (

THEY DON'T

), and given you happily admit you'd prefer to live in a world of ignorance and superstition, I'm hardly surprised that 'facts' like the true origin of anthrax are beyond you.

All I can offer this: that at least you're not hypocritical, you admit and celebrate your rejection of science, and in the same sentence confirm it. Bravo.

???

I feel it has to be said that for the most part, the paranormal is much less dangerous the either religon or SCAMs (Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicines). I detest mediums for the defication of the memories of loved ones, but they are, in my opinion, the only really dispicable form of paranormal. Belief in ghosties and ghoulies never hurt anyone, belief we're controlled by Lizardmen is only harmful because you can't breath for laughing too hard. The only other time I can think of when paranormal belief is damaging is when a psychic gives tottally unqualified medical advice (but that would almost be a SCAM...)

Of course they can all be financially damaging but compared to the damage done to life by religon and SCAMs, it is generally okay.

Now don't get me wrong, I think we'd all be much better off in a world of pure science and reason but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon... No matter what ludacrious notions people entertain about the paranormal, it doesn't really intrude on or hinder scientific advancement. Belief in SCAMs and religon getting involved in science, however, do retard scientific progress.

In conclusion, belief in the paranormal may cause financial and emotional damage but very rarely does it cause a loss of life, health or seriously impede scientific progress. I would much rather people faffed around in old houses with EM meters than blow themselves up to kill infidels.

Oryx

??? wrote: »

I detest mediums for the defication of the memories of loved ones, but they are, in my opinion, the only really dispicable form of paranormal.

Not always. I think you misunderstand the whole area based on the tv perception, or what you have read. Its quite the opposite of desecrating someones memory, in most cases. Of course publicity hounds/money grabbers deserve to be stoned.

Belief in SCAMs and religon getting involved in science, however, do retard scientific progress.

How so?

???

I'm sorry but every single video clip or transcript of a medium that I have read has appauled me. Do you really think that if a loved one died they would mention a shoe box full of photos? Also, what's with suddenly being unable to pronounce your first name correctly and your surname not at all when you die? If you cross over with all your memories, I would have thought who you are would be pretty high on the things to remember.

Religon getting involved in stem cells and abortion are the most obvious ones. Neither is a religous issue, they should both only be solved with science! I really really hate to do this but... Gallileo! The creationist movement in America is ridiculous and filled with lies. (It now seems Kevin My-arse is on board...)

The NHS in Britain being called on to cover homeopathy. All the wasted funding on studies where the treatment has no possible reason for working other than the placebo effect (homeopathy, acupucture, chyropracty, aromatherapy and reflexology). Totally underqualified quacks providing serious medical advice (someone with a two year diploma in homeopathy is just not as qualified as even a nurse to make medical judgements).

All those things slow scientific advancement.

pH

??? wrote: »

I feel it has to be said that for the most part, the paranormal is much less dangerous the either religon or SCAMs (Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicines).

I guess it depends on your definitions, if witches are paranormal or religion, or if psychic surgery is SCAM or paranormal and so on. To me it's all "paranormal", but I understand the distinction you're making, limiting "paranormal" to ghosties and ghouls.

I detest mediums for the defication of the memories of loved ones, but they are, in my opinion, the only really dispicable form of paranormal.

If the rich and greedy get taken in by paranormal nonsense then it actually brings a smile to my face. Madonna and Kabbalah, oil companies paying Uri Geller to 'prospect' for oil etc.

Mediums on the other hand target the weak and vulnerable in our society, taking advantage of people's grief to lighten their pockets. It's a thoroughly nasty profession highlighting the very worst in us.

Belief in ghosties and ghoulies never hurt anyone, belief we're controlled by Lizardmen is only harmful because you can't breath for laughing too hard. The only other time I can think of when paranormal belief is damaging is when a psychic gives tottally unqualified medical advice (but that would almost be a SCAM...)

While I'd disagree with the absolute "never hurt anyone" I agree in principal that in 21st century western societies the current "Haunted House" beliefs and practices are relatively harmless. Hilarious but as you say harmless enough. However these beliefs are only harmless because they're a minority and a fringe.

Now don't get me wrong, I think we'd all be much better off in a world of pure science and reason but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon... No matter what ludacrious notions people entertain about the paranormal, it doesn't really intrude on or hinder scientific advancement. Belief in SCAMs and religon getting involved in science, however, do retard scientific progress.

As above, as long as these beliefs are fringe nonsense so that a few grown men can act out their Scooby Doo fantasies and gaze thoughtfully at pictures of dust then fine. However we've seen already for instance that Grimes doesn't think much of science looking into nuclear fission (or indeed bacteria and the spread of virulent diseases) and a great many of these believers would love if much of our scientific budgets were spend on crop circles, UFO investigations, ESP and crossing over.

In conclusion, belief in the paranormal may cause financial and emotional damage but very rarely does it cause a loss of life, health or seriously impede scientific progress. I would much rather people faffed around in old houses with EM meters than blow themselves up to kill infidels.

... In the context of 21st century society, with scientists and other rationalists keeping the nonsense in check. In other societies (both current and historical) paranormal beliefs can be a real impediment to progress.

Riamfada

I never claimed that it was anything other than a poor form of entertainment . I just don't see why it has to contribute to the betterment of human society . Whether it be a belief or a past time I dont understand why you feel you have to waste time posting on the hypothetical basis that paranormal studies may be taken seriously as a science. You really have to realise that its just a bit of fun to most people. (also get over the anthrax thing, im retarded obviously)

You seem to be a bit of a reverse witch hunter. "Burn whoever dosn't believe in science for the safety of humanity lest their heresy spread". Let people believe what they believe, I'm also assuming you detest any form of religion. Its really sad that what other people do/believe annoys you.

Oryx

??? wrote: »

I'm sorry but every single video clip or transcript of a medium that I have read has appauled me. Do you really think that if a loved one died they would mention a shoe box full of photos? Also, what's with suddenly being unable to pronounce your first name correctly and your surname not at all when you die? If you cross over with all your memories, I would have thought who you are would be pretty high on the things to remember.

It seems to me that your argument here is with the accuracy or substance of a reading. To me thats a very different thing to saying that a medium is dispicable for stomping all over peoples emotions.

Religon getting involved in stem cells and abortion are the most obvious ones. Neither is a religous issue, they should both only be solved with science! I really really hate to do this but... Gallileo! The creationist movement in America is ridiculous and filled with lies. (It now seems Kevin My-arse is on board...)

I really agree with those points, but whats the mention of Gallileo about? Humour my ignorance...

The NHS in Britain being called on to cover homeopathy. All the wasted funding on studies where the treatment has no possible reason for working other than the placebo effect (homeopathy, acupucture, chyropracty, aromatherapy and reflexology). Totally underqualified quacks providing serious medical advice (someone with a two year diploma in homeopathy is just not as qualified as even a nurse to make medical judgements).

You say they are being called on, are they actually going ahead?

All those things slow scientific advancement.

There are always going to be blind alleys and wrong turnings in research. Some more wrong than others, Ill give you. But without mistakes and the odd accident (as Ive heard it) we wouldnt have things like penicillin, would we? Sometimes things we think are useless at first glance have unexpectedly productive side effects.

???

It doesn't have to better it, it just shouldn't be a detriment.

Out of interest Grimes, what's your problem with nuclear?

Oryx

pH wrote: »

Mediums on the other hand target the weak and vulnerable in our society, taking advantage of people's grief to lighten their pockets. It's a thoroughly nasty profession highlighting the very worst in us.

No, the majority dont. Spiritualist churches are free to attend. Yours is a highly biased opinion, and imo misinformed and largely inaccurate.

Riamfada

??? wrote: »

It doesn't have to better it, it just shouldn't be a detriment.

Out of interest Grimes, what's your problem with nuclear?

I don't have a problem with it , I pulled two things out of my noggin that contradicted the idea that science has done nothing but benefit mankind.

All im concerned with here is the attack on other peoples beliefs for the sake of it. It really confuses me why someone would spend so long on posts online to tell other people that they are stupid. Alas ..... the internet

I really dont see how a couple of blokes running around with cameras in the dark contributes to the detriment of the human race, which is I believe, Ph's point

???

Oryx wrote: »

It seems to me that your argument here is with the accuracy or substance of a reading. To me thats a very different thing to saying that a medium is dispicable for stomping all over peoples emotions.

The really horrific readings are often the most accurate ones. The one's done with hot reading. They almost always leave the person seeking to contact the dead feeling used and manipulated. All it does is boost there reputation with the rest od the audience. Watch Penn and Tellers: Bull**** Season one episode on it. It contains a really heart wrenching example of a guy who's lost his mum.

I really agree with those points, but whats the mention of Gallileo about? Humour my ignorance...

Gallileo was declared a heretic for his views on astronomy. It is common for pseudoscientists to compare themselves to him, claiming they are being opressed by Big Science. Like Hitler and Einstein, he's one of those names that get thrown about in debates.

You say they are being called on, are they actually going ahead?
There are always going to be blind alleys and wrong turnings in research. Some more wrong than others, Ill give you. But without mistakes and the odd accident (as Ive heard it) we wouldnt have things like penicillin, would we? Sometimes things we think are useless at first glance have unexpectedly productive side effects.

There is a difference between getting side products from chemical and biological reactions. Water has no beneficial side products and so you won't get any from homeopathy. Meridan lines do not exist, literally they just are a load of rubbish so stimulating them using needles is not going to advance any physiological knowledge. Loads of things are discovered by accident, but the discovers are generally doing something in the first place!!!

???

Grimes wrote: »

I don't have a problem with it , I pulled two things out of my noggin that contradicted the idea that science has done nothing but benefit mankind.

That's a strawman!!! It's idiotic to claim that science has only benefited humanity, however, all the harm it has done is nothing compared to the good.

Let's run with radiation... Nuclear explossions have killed (directly or indirectly) less than a million people. Anyone want to hazzard a guess at how many people have been saved by X-rays and chemotherapy? The amount of people saved from lung damage by the introduction of nuclear power plants? You are looking at millions, possibly even a billion saved by the horror that is nuclear technology!!!

All im concerned with here is the attack on other peoples beliefs for the sake of it. It really confuses me why someone would spend so long on posts online to tell other people that they are stupid. Alas ..... the internet

Boredom!!!

I really dont see how a couple of blokes running around with cameras in the dark contributes to the detriment of the human race, which is I believe, Ph's point

I think they're fairly safe!

pH

Oryx wrote: »

No, the majority dont. Spiritualist churches are free to attend. Yours is a highly biased opinion, and imo misinformed and largely inaccurate.

Excellent, then there's a list somewhere on the net of all these spiritualist churches in Ireland and the psychic mediums that work in each of them.

Link please.

I'd be expecting hundreds of names on this list if it's to be a "majority" ie outnumber all the psychics and mediums operating in Ireland for financial gain.

Does anyone have a reasonably concrete figure of the number of psychics operating in Ireland for financial gain - ie Irish citizens who make some income each year from readings? I'd hazard a guess at a few hundred, but I could be way off - Oryx if you can claim that "free mediums" are in the majority then you must have an estimate of both numbers (how else could you make a claim?)

Then again, you might not be telling the truth, who knows, some evidence please.

Oryx

??? wrote: »

The really horrific readings are often the most accurate ones. The one's done with hot reading. They almost always leave the person seeking to contact the dead feeling used and manipulated. All it does is boost there reputation with the rest od the audience. Watch Penn and Tellers: Bull**** Season one episode on it. It contains a really heart wrenching example of a guy who's lost his mum.

If you look for bad examples you will find them by the bucketload. Particularly if you are looking at the more public operators. Im not arguing that point. But to write off all mediums as spawn of the devil is like saying all gps are murders because Harold Shipman was a killer. The objective of mediums is, or should be, to leave people uplifted and supported. Not distraught. And that is how the good ones work, and most of the work is private sittings, not public demos. And its often for free, so not all are after your money.

Gallileo was declared a heretic for his views on astronomy. It is common for pseudoscientists to compare themselves to him, claiming they are being opressed by Big Science. Like Hitler and Einstein, he's one of those names that get thrown about in debates.

Youre the first to throw it in though.

There is a difference between getting side products from chemical and biological reactions. Water has no beneficial side products and so you won't get any from homeopathy. Meridan lines do not exist, literally they just are a load of rubbish so stimulating them using needles is not going to advance any physiological knowledge. Loads of things are discovered by accident, but the discovers are generally doing something in the first place!!!

Can I make the point that I agree with you on homeopathy, just so we can get that one of the table! My point was though, that how can you know for sure what to disregard and what to entertain? Knowledge now is not absolute, it never has been.

???

Oryx wrote: »

If you look for bad examples you will find them by the bucketload. Particularly if you are looking at the more public operators. Im not arguing that point. But to write off all mediums as spawn of the devil is like saying all gps are murders because Harold Shipman was a killer. The objective of mediums is, or should be, to leave people uplifted and supported. Not distraught. And that is how the good ones work, and most of the work is private sittings, not public demos. And its often for free, so not all are after your money.

GP's can at least show what they are doing is real. Mediums cannot.

Youre the first to throw it in though.

Hence me saying "I really really hate to do this but..." before mentioning him! The problem is he is the perfect example of religon messing with science.

Can I make the point that I agree with you on homeopathy, just so we can get that one of the table! My point was though, that how can you know for sure what to disregard and what to entertain? Knowledge now is not absolute, it never has been.

Quite easily. You consider what is being proposed and if there is a fair chance it will work then it is worth researching. If there is a next to zero chance it will work then it should be dismissed out of hand. The most important tool is prior plausability. Homeopathy, acupuncyure etc. have zero and so are not worth considering.

Oryx

??? wrote: »

GP's can at least show what they are doing is real. Mediums cannot.

Thats your opinion based on what you have seen. Ive seen different evidence, and I completely disagree.

Hence me saying "I really really hate to do this but..." before mentioning him! The problem is he is the perfect example of religon messing with science.

And science messes with religion too, and wars result. Which is why we have mods here!

Quite easily. You consider what is being proposed and if there is a fair chance it will work then it is worth researching. If there is a next to zero chance it will work then it should be dismissed out of hand. The most important tool is prior plausability. Homeopathy, acupuncyure etc. have zero and so are not worth considering.

But who decides on the fair chance? You? You keep throwing in the easy targets here of homeopathy et al. But what about telepathy including the mind bond of twins? Or any of the other odd mind powers claimed. Are you going to dismiss these and many others because well, it might just be nothing and us scientists would look silly? As I said before science does not know everything, here is an example of that conflict of opinion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4180592.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/900848.stm while consensus now on something might say 'no chance' that might change next year.

???

Oryx wrote: »

Thats your opinion based on what you have seen. Ive seen different evidence, and I completely disagree.

Wanna share it?

And science messes with religion too, and wars result. Which is why we have mods here!

I'm confused!

But who decides on the fair chance? You? You keep throwing in the easy targets here of homeopathy et al. But what about telepathy including the mind bond of twins? Or any of the other odd mind powers claimed. Are you going to dismiss these and many others because well, it might just be nothing and us scientists would look silly? As I said before science does not know everything, here is an example of that conflict of opinion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4180592.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/900848.stm while consensus now on something might say 'no chance' that might change next year.

Those two news articles are incompatible. The first one you present is from 2005 and is a peer reviewed study, the second one, it seems to me you present it as being later but I'm not sure if that's a mistake, is from 2000 and feautures a single doctor going against the consensus.

Is there any plausible, physical reason for twins to have a 'connection'? The answer's no. What force does telepathy work with? Making one up to explain an unproven phenomena (surely it is one of the easiest to test and if it were real would be recognised as such by now) is not good science.

Oryx

??? wrote: »

Wanna share it?

As ever, in person, certainly. Here, nah...

I'm confused!

Apologies, I wasnt making any point there. Just saying that science and religion are often at loggerheads, and fatwahs and war are often the outcome. Which is why we need moderators on this site to stop our argumentative nature getting out of hand and boards war declared.

Those two news articles are incompatible. The first one you present is from 2005 and is a peer reviewed study, the second one, it seems to me you present it as being later but I'm not sure if that's a mistake, is from 2000 and feautures a single doctor going against the consensus.

The order they were presented was irellevant. The point was science disagrees all the time, over lots of stuff. They eventually get to agreement, but it takes time, argument and contrary opinion to make that agreement worthwhile. If everyone agreed from the get go we would have no progress.

Is there any plausible, physical reason for twins to have a 'connection'? The answer's no. What force does telepathy work with? Making one up to explain an unproven phenomena (surely it is one of the easiest to test and if it were real would be recognised as such by now) is not good science.

Then why do we see telepathic twins? Which we do! It may be extremely difficult for the boffins to pin down and study, but to dismiss it completely because they see no basis for it to exist is to me bad or at least lazy science.

pH

Oryx wrote: »

Then why do we see telepathic twins? Which we do! It may be extremely difficult for the boffins to pin down and study, but to dismiss it completely because they see no basis for it to exist is to me bad or at least lazy science.

You're confusing Hollywood movies and cheap satellite TV programs with something we call 'reality'.

No one has seen telepathic twins, it wouldn't be hard to pin down and study (if they existed) but the facts are they don't exist and never have.

If you can find a pair that can repeatedly convey telepathic messages to each other then world-wide fame and glory await you.

This is exactly why the paranormal is bad for society, every Euro spent investigating telepathic twins in one not spent on something real, and there are those who'd like this money to be spent to explain why Traci and Laura just *know* when the other one is going to call.

???

Give me a million euro research budget and I will study the hypothesis I have an invisible pink unicorn that farts rainbows living in my room. That has as much plausability as telepathic twins.

Telekenesis and telepathy are piss easy to test because they are real world interactions. They either are able to do it or they aren't. It's not a vague feeling thing. It is solid and verifiable.

Oryx

??? wrote: »

Give me a million euro research budget and I will study the hypothesis I have an invisible pink unicorn that farts rainbows living in my room. That has as much plausability as telepathic twins.

Twins was mentioned in passing, but I could have said perfect strangers. There is worth in researching it, and that research has been done in the past and I presume is continuing. To keep throwing in your weak comparisons to pink unicorns just shows you havent anything sensible to say, so you fall back to mocking the whole area with ridiculous examples. You feel that there is no merit to it, fine. Others disagree, and I dont mean just the psychics. Your kind of a priori judgements have no place in research.

Telekenesis and telepathy are piss easy to test because they are real world interactions. They either are able to do it or they aren't. It's not a vague feeling thing. It is solid and verifiable.

You are dealing with two separate points I have made. One was to do with what people get out of the supernatural. Thats the feeling area. The other was to do with telepathy or psi. Psi is easy to test, and has been tested.
Psychologists have researched it since 1974 using ganzfeld testing. This test has produced results that are above what would be expected from statistical chance. (38% as against 25% in the report I saw) Obviously because acceptance of this would require a huge change in our outlook, these results are still heavily contested. But both sides do have areas of agreement, they argued over the problems in filtering out errors and weaknesses in the testing, and how the results were analysed.

???

Oryx wrote: »

Twins was mentioned in passing, but I could have said perfect strangers. There is worth in researching it, and that research has been done in the past and I presume is continuing. To keep throwing in your weak comparisons to pink unicorns just shows you havent anything sensible to say, so you fall back to mocking the whole area with ridiculous examples.

And why are pink unicorns less likely than psychic ability? Both have as much decent objective evidence.

You feel that there is no merit to it, fine. Others disagree, and I dont mean just the psychics. Your kind of a priori judgements have no place in research.

Sorry what? A priori judgements are one of the most crucial things in medical research. If there is a choice between testing a drug that has a proposed mechanism and one that doesn't, which will be tested? In fact a drug that doesn't have a proposed mechanism is not even considered. Thge problem is there are double-standards in testing science and pseudoscience. Pseudoscience seems to manage to dodge most of the prerequisites any real theory must go through before being tested.

You are dealing with two separate points I have made. One was to do with what people get out of the supernatural. Thats the feeling area. The other was to do with telepathy or psi. Psi is easy to test, and has been tested.
Psychologists have researched it since 1974 using ganzfeld testing. This test has produced results that are above what would be expected from statistical chance. (38% as against 25% in the report I saw) Obviously because acceptance of this would require a huge change in our outlook, these results are still heavily contested. But both sides do have areas of agreement, they argued over the problems in filtering out errors and weaknesses in the testing, and how the results were analysed.

Yeah the Ganzfeld experiments are a tad weak. There is a lot of flaws and documented failures to follow the correct protocol. The other problem is all the data is drawn from meta-analysis which are... well fairly unreliable. One of the major problems is the publication bias. Positive studies are more likely to be published than negative studies. Differences in methods and controls again make it difficult to compare different studies. A perfect metaanalysis of imperfect studies still leads to imperfect results. Using the best studies Andrew Endersby found the result to be between 28.6% and 28.9%, a much lower figure. While it is still a fair gap the number of studies is not enough for it to be truely statistically significant. Drawing conclusions from a 4% deviation from chance is dodgy at the best of times. The questionable reliability of the Ganzfeld studies also make drawing conclusions dificult. Further more, the assumption that this 4% gap is due to psi is kinda leaping to conclusions as the results of the Ganzfeld experiments can only be demonstrated en masse and not by indivual people with any reliability.

A single well controlled study is much more preferable to any number of ganzfeld metaanalysi. The only fair conclusion you can draw from the data is that at best they are inconclusive.

Oryx

Sorry what? A priori judgements are one of the most crucial things in medical research. If there is a choice between testing a drug that has a proposed mechanism and one that doesn't, which will be tested? In fact a drug that doesn't have a proposed mechanism is not even considered. Thge problem is there are double-standards in testing science and pseudoscience. Pseudoscience seems to manage to dodge most of the prerequisites any real theory must go through before being tested.

The testing of drugs is based on economic pragmatism, not discovery. And we are talking about parapsychology, not pseudoscience. There is a difference.

A single well controlled study is much more preferable to any number of ganzfeld metaanalysi. The only fair conclusion you can draw from the data is that at best they are inconclusive.

I disagree. A single study is just that. And what do you think the ganzfeld studies were? Individual studies. The problem was that they were done to differring criteria. What matters, and what you repeatedly say here, is that any findings should be repeatable, so a single stand alone study is not definitive. And Ill take inconclusive over prior statements here that it is rubbish or comparable to fairytale unicorns.

???

Oryx wrote: »

The testing of drugs is based on economic pragmatism, not discovery.

What? And anyway I just used drugs as an example, it's the same for all research.

And we are talking about parapsychology, not pseudoscience. There is a difference.

There really isn't. Parapsychollogy is a form of pseudoscience.

I disagree. A single study is just that.

I am reffering to doing a single study that is double, if not triple blinded with security as tight as is humanly possible. The sort of definitive study that is used in drug research.

And what do you think the ganzfeld studies were? Individual studies. The problem was that they were done to differring criteria. What matters, and what you repeatedly say here, is that any findings should be repeatable, so a single stand alone study is not definitive.

A single, near perfect study is. The results have to be repeatable with in the study, not across studies. If one person was consistantly getting a hit rate of 40 or 50% that would be repetition. Statistical anomalys across 3000 studies are not.

And Ill take inconclusive over prior statements here that it is rubbish or comparable to fairytale unicorns.

You realise that inconclusive is science talk for rubbish, right? It sorta refers to the fact that you can not conclusively say something doesn't exist.

stevenmu

??? wrote: »

Telekenesis and telepathy are piss easy to test because they are real world interactions. They either are able to do it or they aren't. It's not a vague feeling thing. It is solid and verifiable.

I think you are falling in to a trap that many skeptics seem to fall in. Very very few people claim the levels of accuracy and controlability that you seem to expect. For the majority of people who believe they posess some kind of paranormal ability it is something sporadic and outside their ability to control.

As one example I once tried reading a person through psychometry (through touch). I got a fairly clear picture in my head of her playing hockey, and it somehow didn't seem like my own thought, like it hadn't originated in my head. The person I was reading verified the image. I have tried it several times since with other people and not recieved anything, or at least I did not have any thoughts which felt like they originated outside of me.

Another example, and the reason I first became interested in the paranormal, is that sometimes I get 'flashes' of what is going to happen next. Generally just some small event that will happen in the next ten seconds or so, but more rarely something bigger that will happen a bit more down the line. These flashes are accompanied by feelings of disorientation, kind of like deja vu but very different at the same time, that distinguish them from the regular ramblings of my mind. Again, I have no idea how to trigger them or cause it to happen, or to focus on a particular outcome of a particular event. No amount of trying, so far at least, has allowed me to do it at will. The only commonality I've spotted is that it generally only happens when I'm not engaged in something else, like when I'm not involved in any particular task or talking with someone for e.g.

That second example is something I now firmly believe in. I used to be very much an un-believer in all things paranormal, but it wouldn't make sense to ignore the evidentiary value of my own experiences. But at the same time, it's not something that is 'scientific'. I can't prove it to someone else. I can't demonstrate it at will. It's certainly not repeatable and would almost certainly fail any form of scientific testing.

The reason I mentioned the first example (I really should have put them the other way around but I'm too lazy to change now ), is beause it's an example of one of the difficulties of demonstrating any form of psychic ability, distinguishing between psychically accessed information and simple imagination. It is quite difficult to do and trying to force information only makes it worse. It is even more difficult to not let your imagination add to any information which is recieved psychically. And the pressures of being part of a scientific investigation would, I'd imagine, only make this more difficult again.

SkepticOne

stevenmu wrote: »

As one example I once tried reading a person through psychometry (through touch). I got a fairly clear picture in my head of her playing hockey, and it somehow didn't seem like my own thought, like it hadn't originated in my head. The person I was reading verified the image. I have tried it several times since with other people and not recieved anything, or at least I did not have any thoughts which felt like they originated outside of me.

If it only happens sporadically, how do you know it is not merely coincidence that the hockey image was accurate. Seeming not to originate in your head does not mean it does not originate in your head, it is merely a subjective feeling.

Another example, and the reason I first became interested in the paranormal, is that sometimes I get 'flashes' of what is going to happen next. Generally just some small event that will happen in the next ten seconds or so, but more rarely something bigger that will happen a bit more down the line. These flashes are accompanied by feelings of disorientation, kind of like deja vu but very different at the same time, that distinguish them from the regular ramblings of my mind. Again, I have no idea how to trigger them or cause it to happen, or to focus on a particular outcome of a particular event. No amount of trying, so far at least, has allowed me to do it at will. The only commonality I've spotted is that it generally only happens when I'm not engaged in something else, like when I'm not involved in any particular task or talking with someone for e.g.

I'm sure this happens to a lot of people. I would only attribute this to the paranormal if, in a controlled environment, you could predict an event that that had a certain probability of occurring in advance of the actual event. Like the first example, the ability need not be 100% reliable, you would just need be significantly better than chance. Otherwise, again, it is too easily attibutable it to a purely subjective feeling like, as you say, deja vu.

???

stevenmu wrote: »

I think you are falling in to a trap that many skeptics seem to fall in. Very very few people claim the levels of accuracy and controlability that you seem to expect. For the majority of people who believe they posess some kind of paranormal ability it is something sporadic and outside their ability to control.

Yeah... Surely all proffesional psychics claim high levels of accuracy? If you're making your money of a so-called ability you must have a lot of faith in your ability to be right. Proffesional dowsers also? So no, I think that plenty of people who claim to have paranormal abilities, claim to have high success rates.

As one example I once tried reading a person through psychometry (through touch). I got a fairly clear picture in my head of her playing hockey, and it somehow didn't seem like my own thought, like it hadn't originated in my head. The person I was reading verified the image. I have tried it several times since with other people and not recieved anything, or at least I did not have any thoughts which felt like they originated outside of me.

I'm unsure of the age or whatever but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a middle-class girl who hasn't played hockey.

Another example, and the reason I first became interested in the paranormal, is that sometimes I get 'flashes' of what is going to happen next. Generally just some small event that will happen in the next ten seconds or so, but more rarely something bigger that will happen a bit more down the line. These flashes are accompanied by feelings of disorientation, kind of like deja vu but very different at the same time, that distinguish them from the regular ramblings of my mind. Again, I have no idea how to trigger them or cause it to happen, or to focus on a particular outcome of a particular event. No amount of trying, so far at least, has allowed me to do it at will. The only commonality I've spotted is that it generally only happens when I'm not engaged in something else, like when I'm not involved in any particular task or talking with someone for e.g.

Very similar thing happens to me too. Do I think I'm psychic? No I think it's a form of deja vu. Out of interest, can you change what you see? When it happens to me I sometimes see myself saying something, sometimes I say it, sometimes I deliberatly don't. And if anyone even suggests I'm psychic and I don't realise it....

That second example is something I now firmly believe in. I used to be very much an un-believer in all things paranormal, but it wouldn't make sense to ignore the evidentiary value of my own experiences.

Personal experiences have no evidentiary value. To paraphrase: people aren't very good at observing things, people aren't very good at remembering what they've observed and people aren't very good at telling people what they remembered they've observed.

But at the same time, it's not something that is 'scientific'. I can't prove it to someone else. I can't demonstrate it at will. It's certainly not repeatable and would almost certainly fail any form of scientific testing.

Then how can it be real?

The reason I mentioned the first example (I really should have put them the other way around but I'm too lazy to change now ), is beause it's an example of one of the difficulties of demonstrating any form of psychic ability, distinguishing between psychically accessed information and simple imagination. It is quite difficult to do and trying to force information only makes it worse. It is even more difficult to not let your imagination add to any information which is recieved psychically. And the pressures of being part of a scientific investigation would, I'd imagine, only make this more difficult again.

Right.......

psychic-hack

??? wrote: »

Very similar thing happens to me too. Do I think I'm psychic? No I think it's a form of deja vu.

Right.......

Well no, it is not. Deja vu can be explained as an event taking a short cut into your long term memory, thereby giving the conscious mind the impression of having been there /experienced it before. It can be induced in a lab setting.

What Stevenmu seems to be describing is precognition - the knowledge of a future event. What you are describing is anticipation (because you can change it). Precognition is not the same as deja vu as the future cannot be imprinted on your memory if it has not happened.

I would be interested to know if anyone had any ideas on what brings about precognition though.

SkepticOne

I think the key issue is not whether what Stevenmu feels is a form of deja vu or an unrelated phenomenon, but whether it is genuinely predictive or merely has the feeling of precognition but without paranormal predictive power. The sporadic nature of the experience makes it difficult to test in practice if not in principle.

iamhunted

??? wrote: »

Yeah... Surely all proffesional psychics claim high levels of accuracy? If you're making your money of a so-called ability you must have a lot of faith in your ability to be right. Proffesional dowsers also? So no, I think that plenty of people who claim to have paranormal abilities, claim to have high success rates.

many dont charge nor do they make a living from it.

I'm unsure of the age or whatever but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a middle-class girl who hasn't played hockey.

thats not really an answer is it? thats just stereotyping. Im sure theres many middle class girls who havent played hockey - in fact I know a few

Very similar thing happens to me too. Do I think I'm psychic? No I think it's a form of deja vu. Out of interest, can you change what you see? When it happens to me I sometimes see myself saying something, sometimes I say it, sometimes I deliberatly don't. And if anyone even suggests I'm psychic and I don't realise it....

whats deja vu anyway? its a bit like using the word coincidence - handy word to use but whats it mean and is it any more provable than being psychic?

Personal experiences have no evidentiary value. To paraphrase: people aren't very good at observing things, people aren't very good at remembering what they've observed and people aren't very good at telling people what they remembered they've observed.

does this apply to life in general? Amazing how those humans managed to do anything they're so damned incompetent. emotional development is based on personal experiences so if they have no evidentary value, how do they shape people's lives? Strikes me as one of these sceptical answers that only apply to certain things in life.

Then how can it be real?

things are only real when they are proved to someone?? what kind of logic is that? I have an experience but it isnt real until I prove it to someone else? pardon my french, and no offence intended, but thats bullocks.

Right.......

yeah, you said it ...

???

iamhunted wrote: »

many dont charge nor do they make a living from it.

Non sequiter.

thats not really an answer is it? thats just stereotyping. Im sure theres many middle class girls who havent played hockey - in fact I know a few

That was a joke!

whats deja vu anyway? its a bit like using the word coincidence - handy word to use but whats it mean and is it any more provable than being psychic?

This

does this apply to life in general? Amazing how those humans managed to do anything they're so damned incompetent.

Fallacy. Appeal to ridicule.

emotional development is based on personal experiences so if they have no evidentary value, how do they shape people's lives? Strikes me as one of these sceptical answers that only apply to certain things in life.

What the hell are you talking about? Anecdotes have no value as evidence. It's that simple. What the hell does that have to do with emotions?

things are only real when they are proved to someone?? what kind of logic is that? I have an experience but it isnt real until I prove it to someone else? pardon my french, and no offence intended, but thats bullocks.

I'd be highly doubtful of the reality of something if it constantly fails testing.

iamhunted

??? wrote: »

Non sequiter.

indeed it does follow - you said they made money, i said many dont.

This

that is a wikipedia url. anyone can edit those so it doesnt really tell me anything

Fallacy. Appeal to ridicule.

explain how you come to that conclusion?

What the hell are you talking about? Anecdotes have no value as evidence. It's that simple. What the hell does that have to do with emotions?

the 'hell' im talking about is the way you use 'anedotes'. If i tell you personal experience, to you thats an anecdote. to me its a human experience. I'll just phrase things simpler from now on shall I?

I'd be highly doubtful of the reality of something if it constantly fails testing.

ah fantastic - so you have developed tests to prove or disprove the paranormal! Other people have been working on those kind of things for years - stick it up on ebay and you'd make a fortune ...

stevenmu

SkepticOne wrote: »

If it only happens sporadically, how do you know it is not merely coincidence that the hockey image was accurate. Seeming not to originate in your head does not mean it does not originate in your head, it is merely a subjective feeling.

That is quite true. It is not something I am very convinced by myself, I do have a lot of doubt about it, but I feel it is a good example of a non-controllable ability.

I'm sure this happens to a lot of people. I would only attribute this to the paranormal if, in a controlled environment, you could predict an event that that had a certain probability of occurring in advance of the actual event. Like the first example, the ability need not be 100% reliable, you would just need be significantly better than chance.

The problem is that it is not something I can control or trigger, every time it has happened has been completely out of the blue and every time I have deliberately attempted it I have failed. I'm sure most people have had the experience of having a muscle twitch or spasm involuntarily, and then when you try to recreate the movement you can not. It is not entirely unlike that

Otherwise, again, it is too easily attibutable it to a purely subjective feeling like, as you say, deja vu.

I have read up on deja vu and the associated theories behind the causes for it (some of which have I believe been verified experimentally). I have been able to rule them all out one way or the other. The most promising one was a theory (and iirc it has been verified, I forget the name of it now but I believe it was on skepdic.com) that after an event has happened and the memory of it has been recorded, the brain can 'mis-file' the memory which can make a subject believe they were aware of the event before it had happened. After having read this theory the next time I had an 'experience' I fully thought through the steps I believed were to come, before they happened in fact (which they did). The ability to do this indicated to me that it was not a faulty "after the event" memory. Although it is possible that even that step was a faulty memory.

Very similar thing happens to me too. Do I think I'm psychic? No I think it's a form of deja vu. Out of interest, can you change what you see?

I have only really tried once, I'm struggling to remember the details hopefully they will come back to me (I really need to keep notes ), but I do recall that I didn't manage to change the outcome, and was thus left wondering if I had actually caused the events I had 'predicted' or simply hadn't understood the prediction enough to change it.

Then how can it be real?

As pH eloquently put at the start of the thread

The point is that reality *actually* is one way or another.

Whether something is proven or not has no bearing on whether it exists or not. Something could be proven beyond all doubt and yet not exist, and similarly something for which there is absolutely no proof could very well exist.