nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Limitations of Science?

nagirrac

The problem with Dawkins is he is as reactionary and closed minded as those he opposes. Science is an evolving aspect of human endeavour and to draw such 99% certain conclusions from limited information as he has is sheer arrogance. The world simply cannot be explained simply in materialistic terms as anyone would even a rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics accepts. Science is based on what we can objectively describe with our 5 senses but who knows what lies beyond our sensory ability. Science as it currently stands simply cannot answer the big questions; what is consciousness and where does it derive from? where are memories stored or retrieved from say after a concussion? how is knowledge passed on from generation to generation withour direct communication as it clearly is?
We are supposed to believe that the sheer perfection of the laws of nature that led to the beautiful world we percieve around us happened by chance, just atoms banging into each other and making DNA. As Fred Hoyle said regarding life developing randomly "like believing a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and making a 747". Genetics as currently understood explains only a fragment of life and how life evolved and continues to evolve. We have a very incomplete understanding of reality and to say that science as we know it today will explain reality to us in time is the height of arrogance.
None of the above postulates a God or the lack of a God. Life could have come here from outer space via a comet but then you have to wonder where that life came from. Populist scientists like Dawkins will not lead us towards furthering our understanding of reality, it will be evolutionary giant steps in our species whose minds are more open, people like Einstein who did not feel the need to wage war on those with a belief in a God and was humble enough to accept the possibility of a God.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Again in your rant you've failed to address my point. Can't imagine why, among other stuff you've dodged.

Watson is a decorated, well qualified scientist, how can you disagree with him?
How could he possibly be wrong?
Why is it important that he doesn't have the data to back up his claims, he's way more qualified than you, so therefore you have to believe him right?

This is getting a bit tiresome but I note you have not addressed anything in my post which means you want to keep the blinkers on. What is your view on neuroplasticity? Is it magic?

I have explained why Dr. Watson is wrong to state what he did on race but apparently you have a problem comprehending. He has produced no data to show that people of one color are less intelligent than those of another color. His statement, however outlandish, could of course be proven wrong or right (however politically incorrect that might be) someday, but today there is no data that supports his position. His qualifications or accomplishments in other areas are irrelevant. He is a perfect example of a scientist who wanders off into an area that he knows nothing about and makes a fool of himself, a bit like Dawkins in that respect.

I am open minded enough to know that what is accepted as "true" today in scientific endeavor may well be found to be "false" tomorrow and vice versa. The history of science demonstrates that and likely will continue to demonstrate that.

[Deleted User]

nagirrac wrote: »

His qualifications or accomplishments in other areas are irrelevant. He is a perfect example of a scientist who wanders off into an area that he knows nothing about and makes a fool of himself, a bit like Dawkins in that respect.

So then why did you use that exact tactic with the scientists who spout stuff you like?
Why do their qualifications make in impossible for me to question them?

nagirrac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Much of it yes. What worried me is that some of the people putting spin on their results to massage them... among other tactics... know _exactly_ what they are doing... but they do it anyway. I would be keener to weed out the dishonest elements first and the flawed elements second or in parallel.

I have no desire to engage further with you on ganzfeld studies, as we would never agree, but I do wish to debate "dishonesty" with you. You have been throwing the word around a lot, so I am curious what you think of the following:

Susan Blackmore has been the the most ardent opponent of psi in the skeptical community, a mantel that has recently been take on by Richard Wiseman. Let's explore Susan's history in this area and see how honest she has been. Susan started out in parapsychology herself doing her Ph.D in psi research completed in 1978. After becoming a skeptic and being elected as a fellow of CSICOP in 1988 she stated her skepticism came after "ten years of intensive research in parapsychology". Really? Rick Berger examined her claim in 1989 and found that her research consisted of 2 years (from 1976 to 1978, her Ph.D research) of hastily constructed, executed, and reported studies. It appears does it not that Susan having given up on her dream of becoming a world famous parapsychologiost got a bit fast and loose with the truth in her zeal to become a world famous skeptic.

In her response to Berger Blackmore stated; "I agree with his final conclusion that drawing any conclusion, positive or negative, about the reality of psi that are based on the Blackmore psi experiments must be considered unwarranted". It is rather interesting to compare Susan's statements before and after the Berger study. Before, she cannot correlate others positive results with her negative results, and continues to quote her "ten years of extensive research in parapsychology".. and afterwards in scientific journals she conceded "I agree one cannot draw conclusions about the reality of psi based on these (her) experiments", but in her public writings in the popular press never made this admission.

At least in recent years she has become more forthright. In a recent article she stated "I feel slightly sad.. thirty years ago I had a dramatic out of body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena, just a few years of careful experiments changed all that.. and I became a skeptic". So at least she is admitting it was 2 years and not 10, but now is claiming they were "careful" experiments when it was shown and she admitted over 20 years ago that her own experiments were flawed and sloppy when exposed to the rigorous examination of Berger.

What were you saying about dishonesty? and I have not even got to Wiseman, someone unfit to lace Susan Blackmore's boots.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

So then why did you use that exact tactic with the scientists who spout stuff you like?
Why do their qualifications make in impossible for me to question them?

You are comparing apples and oranges. You are free to question whomever you like, free will and all that:)

I am not referring to their academic qualifications (although that's a good start), I am referring to their work. In the area of psi I will give more credence to Dean Radin over Susan Blackmore. Why? because Radin has done decades of his own work and is today the leading researcher in this area. Blackmore did 2 years of work for her Ph.D, claimed later it was 10 years work, became a skeptic based on her own work which was shown by Berger to be sloppy (something she later admitted in academic journals but never admitted in popular literature) and finally gave up and said "she didn't know".

I choose to consider Radin's work trustworthy because of the meticulous and standardized approach to his experiments, rather than the opinion of Randi who claimed to have done experiments that conflicted with Radin's psi research but could never produce the data and finally had to admit it didn't exist.

The scientists I am referencing like Radin have done the work.. and by the way they make no claims about magic or fairies. If you read Dean Radin you will find he is simply doing his experiments, reporting his results and then trying to explain the results like any scientist. There is no claim of UFOs, ETs, or God.

Now for the third time, what's your opinion of neuroplasticity? You've had plenty time to look it up and pour scorn on it.. or do you just want to debate poor old Dr. Watson?

[Deleted User]

nagirrac wrote: »

You are comparing apples and oranges. You are free to question whomever you like, free will and all that:)

I am not referring to their academic qualifications (although that's a good start), I am referring to their work. In the area of psi I will give more credence to Dean Radin over Susan Blackmore.

No, you demanded to know my qualifications and declared that the scientists your are refering to were more qualified so there for could not question their conclusions.

You clearly don't think this is an honest tactic when it is applied to other silly, unscientific theories.

So when you used it did you realise it was a dishonest tactic or did you not realise it?

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

No, you demanded to know my qualifications and declared that the scientists your are refering to were more qualified so there for could not question their conclusions.

You clearly don't think this is an honest tactic when it is applied to other silly, unscientific theories.

Go back and read the thread. This is your exact quote that started the "qualifications" discussion:

"That you are using your personal ignorance and lack of education about quantum mechanics and physics as a basis for your claims about psi, or to give it it's proper name magic".

I outlined my academic and professional background and asked (not demanded) what your background was? I made no further comment on your qualifications, show me where I did? You are the one who continues to slur the reputations of scientists, don't you see the irony there? These people are leaders in their chosen field of study, have a bit of respect. Argue with their data if you must, but all this hysterical "magic" nonsense just makes you sound silly (and unscientific).

[Deleted User]

nagirrac wrote: »

Go back and read the thread. This is your exact quote that started the "qualifications" discussion:

"That you are using your personal ignorance and lack of education about quantum mechanics and physics as a basis for your claims about psi, or to give it it's proper name magic".

I outlined my academic and professional background and asked (not demanded) what your background was? I made no further comment on your qualifications, show me where I did? You are the one who continues to slur the reputations of scientists, don't you see the irony there? These people are leaders in their chosen field of study, have a bit of respect. Argue with their data if you must, but all this hysterical "magic" nonsense just makes you sound silly (and unscientific).

You really should read what you write.

nagirrac wrote: »

So in your narrow bigoted view of "science" all the following are cranks:
Dean Radin, Ian Stevenson, Daryl Bem, Charles Honorton, Rupert Sheldrake (yes, him again), Jessica Utts, John Beloff, John Searle.. all crazies according to your good self. Your credentials and accomplishments in science are better I take it? or are you just another hack academic who couldn't survive in the real world and live off the teat of government sponsored welfare?

So do I need to be more qualified as these people to be able to question their rather silly conclusions?
If so, then why are you allowed to question the silly conclusions you don't like?

Also it's hilarious that you're whinging about attacking the data not the person right after a post were you do exactly that.

And I keep referring to magic because that's what you are arguing for. You are claiming these effects exist but can't even suggest a mechanism by how they could work or why they would exist.
It's no different than claiming it's magic.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

You really should read what you write.

So do I need to be more qualified as these people to be able to question their rather silly conclusions?
If so, then why are you allowed to question the silly conclusions you don't like?

Also it's hilarious that you're whinging about attacking the data not the person right after a post were you do exactly that.

And I keep referring to magic because that's what you are arguing for. You are claiming these effects exist but can't even suggest a mechanism by how they could work or why they would exist.
It's no different than claiming it's magic.

I wrote my scurrilous remark afer you wrote your scurrilous remark. It was late at night and I was a little cranky after being told about my "personal ignorance and lack of education". I withdraw it and will edit the post.

Can we move on and discuss how quantum entanglement works? My understand from what I have read (quite a bit, although I admit I am not a mathematician or physicist. Penrose's "The Road to Reality" is about my level but I have been trying to understand the work of Richard Amoroso).

My understanding of Amoroso's work (and others) is that reality can be described in 8 dimensions. Quantum entanglement can happen because particles that are separated in our four dimensional space-time have no separation in 8 dimensional space. Now I understand this is hypothetical still but it has been proven mathematically right?

[Deleted User]

nagirrac wrote: »

I wrote my scurrilous remark afer you wrote your scurrilous remark. It was late at night and I was a little cranky after being told about my "personal ignorance and lack of education". I withdraw it and will edit the post.

So did you realise you were making a dishonest argument or not?

nagirrac wrote: »

Can we move on and discuss how quantum entanglement works? My understand from what I have read (quite a bit, although I admit I am not a mathematician or physicist. Penrose's "The Road to Reality" is about my level but I have been trying to understand the work of Richard Amoroso).

My understanding of Amoroso's work (and others) is that reality can be described in 8 dimensions. Quantum entanglement can happen because particles that are separated in our four dimensional space-time have no separation in 8 dimensional space. Now I understand this is hypothetical still but it has been proven mathematically right?

Not of this makes any sense and bares no relation to anything I wrote in my post.

How does quantum entanglement result in psychic powers/magic?

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

So did you realise you were making a dishonest argument or not?

Not of this makes any sense and bares no relation to anything I wrote in my post.

How does quantum entanglement result in psychic powers/magic?

No, I was making an angry statement. Sounds like you still want to have an argument. I see you have not withdrawn your statement regarding my "ignorance and lack of education" so I assume you are standing by that?

As for linkage between quantum entanglement and psi, I never said they were linked. What I said was that quantum entanglement is an example of an effect that has been demonstrated by experiment but its mechanism not explained as yet. Lots of interpretations and hypotheses but nothing concrete as yet. In MY opinion there is an analogy with psi, the effect is there but not the mechanism. I understand you think psi is BS, lets not go back over old ground

I could be completely wrong in my statement above on quantum entanglement and open to correction which is why I asked you to explain the mechanism of quantum entanglement as you are a physicist and I am not. As I said the closest I have seen that makes sense to ME is the work of Amoroso? What do you think of his interpretation?

My primary interest however is consciousness, another effect that is currently poorly enough understood. Here unlike psi research there is quite a bit of ongoing research into a quantum approach to consciousness, the work of Beck and Eccles, Penrose and Hameroff on microtubules, etc. Don't know whether you are familiar with it or not, but of course feel free to dismiss it as "magic", you are fully entitled to your opinion.

[Deleted User]

nagirrac wrote: »

No, I was making an angry statement. Sounds like you still want to have an argument.

I want to establish whether you knowingly used a dishonest argument cause you were pissy, or if you just didn't realise it was a dishonest argument.
I think it's important to identify whether that particular argument you used shows off your dishonesty or your ignorance more.

So did you realise it was a dishonest argument or not?

nagirrac wrote: »

I see you have not withdrawn your statement regarding my "ignorance and lack of education" so I assume you are standing by that?

Yes, as that's what you are constantly displaying as well as a large helping of dishonesty.

nagirrac wrote: »

As for linkage between quantum entanglement and psi, I never said they were linked.

Cept for the small problems of quantum entanglement being both experimentally observed and consistent with physical models.
Neither of which is applicable to psi/magic.

Not only that you cannot provide any plausible mechanism by which your brand of magic can work. Not even a hypothetical one.

mcmoustache

mickrock wrote: »

As an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life Darwinism isn't very logical at all and the "proof" is only circumstantial at best.

Ignoring the fact that evolution by natural selection (or Darwinism as you like to call it) has been and is being observed, both in nature and in labs, what kind of explanation would you propose? I'm not looking for a scientific paper from you or anything - just an idea.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

I think it's important to identify whether that particular argument you used shows off your dishonesty or your ignorance more.

Cept for the small problems of quantum entanglement being both experimentally observed and consistent with physical models.
Neither of which is applicable to psi/magic.

Not only that you cannot provide any plausible mechanism by which your brand of magic can work. Not even a hypothetical one.

Your definitions of "ignorant and dishonest" are obviously different to mine.

You described Dean Radin as a crank, I would call that ignorant. You show no interest in discussing any scientific topic I raise, which leads me to the conclusion that you are an ignorant skeptic. This is the classic behavior of irrational ignorant skeptics, don't bother me with the details, its all magic, (covers easrs with hands) la, la,la.

You are firmly on the side of skeptics like Susan Blackmore (not so much of a skeptic anymore as it turns out) and Richard Wiseman. I would call that being on the side of dishonesty. I have outlined Blackmore's dishonesty elsewhere but let me repeat it briefly here.

Blackmore conducted 2 years of psi research for her Ph.D. She later referenced her "10 years of psi" research. Her data was rubbished by Bergen. By then she was a skeptic so had a vested interest in proving psi wrong. She accepted her data was flawed in an academic journal but continued to reference it in popular publications. More recently she referenced her "two years of careful experiments". Now that to me is dishonesty (unless your definition of honesty is Mitt Romney's version).

So, proven beyond reasonable doubt, you are the one on the side of "ignorance and dishonesty".

Psi has been experimentally observed and replicated in numerous studies under strict conditions. The scientists conducting such research (hypothesis, experiment, collection of data, test the hypothesis) are doing just as valid science as anyone else and in terms of publishing negative data actually more honest than many of their colleagues. The fact that you refuse to accept that fact is your problem. Life is too short to try and convert every skeptic.

"Controversies in science normally occur between groups of researchers who formulate hypotheses, design experiments, and collect their data to test their hypotheses. The field of psi is characterized by disputes between a group of researchers, the parapsychologists, and a group of critics who do not do experimental research to test psi claims or the viability of their counterhypotheses".
Charles Honorton, "Rhetoric over Substance".

[Deleted User]

nagirrac wrote: »

Your definitions of "ignorant and dishonest" are obviously different to mine.

Would you call avoiding points and using dishonest tactics dishonest?
If so, I think we agree on the definition.

You used a dishonest argument because you wanted to throw a strop.
Either that or you didn't know how dishonest and idiotic your argument was.

You constantly attack researchers personally while then relying on the authority of others.
You invent conspiracies to discredit people you don't like.
You ignore all criticisms.

And all to defend what amounts to magic.

It's a bit sad and a bit worrying that you think you're a scientist.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

And all to defend what amounts to magic.

No, to defend science.
What you are defending is ignorance (and the dishonesty of certain skeptics).

Which researcher (someone involved in research) have I personally attacked?
What conspiracy did I invent?
What criticism did I ignore? I freely admit there is lot I don't understand. I even asked you to educate me on quantum mechanics but you choose not to. You are the one who ignores questions, on this and other threads.

Anyway the baseball has started so later dude

[Deleted User]

nagirrac wrote: »

No, to defend science.

Psychic dogs aren't science. It's magic.

nagirrac wrote: »

What you are defending is ignorance (and the dishonesty of certain skeptics).

Nope, just pointing out the dishonesty your are using. And given you are so prone to using dishonest, emotive tactics, I think your own accusations are a little suspect.

nagirrac wrote: »

Which researcher (someone involved in research) have I personally attacked?

Wiseman and Blackmore.
You have made repeated personal attacks on them.

nagirrac wrote: »

What conspiracy did I invent?

You claimed there is invested interests in denying psi/magic exists.

nagirrac wrote: »

What criticism did I ignore? I freely admit there is lot I don't understand.

nozzferrahhtoo's

nagirrac wrote: »

I even asked you to educate me on quantum mechanics but you choose not to. You are the one who ignores questions, on this and other threads.

Unfortunately you get very rambly and make random, meandering, nonsensical points. If I ignore something it's because I'm not arsed to decipher your bull**** only for my point to be then ignored.

So can you please either answer, or point to where you've answered this question:

I want to establish whether you knowingly used a dishonest argument cause you were pissy, or if you just didn't realise it was a dishonest argument.
I think it's important to identify whether that particular argument you used shows off your dishonesty or your ignorance more.

So did you realise it was a dishonest argument or not?

mickrock

mcmoustache wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that evolution by natural selection (or Darwinism as you like to call it) has been and is being observed, both in nature and in labs, what kind of explanation would you propose? I'm not looking for a scientific paper from you or anything - just an idea.

There's no denying that natural selection can work in producing changes within particular species i.e so-called microevolution.

But to conclude that lots of microevolution over time can bring about macroevolution and produce a new species doesn't make sense and hasn't been shown by the fossil record.

I don't have any explanation for the origin of species.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

And I keep referring to magic because that's what you are arguing for. You are claiming these effects exist but can't even suggest a mechanism by how they could work or why they would exist.
It's no different than claiming it's magic.

Are you saying that if a phenomenon cannot currently be explained by science that it's magic?

Reality is reality, regardless of whether or not humans can explain it.

Michael OBrien

mickrock wrote: »

There's no denying that natural selection can work in producing changes within particular species i.e so-called microevolution.

But to conclude that lots of microevolution over time can bring about macroevolution and produce a new species doesn't make sense and hasn't been shown by the fossil record.

I don't have any explanation for the origin of species.

Speciation has been observed.
I think you funamentally don't get what evolution entails with the common ancestor aspect.
EVERY stage of evolution you have one species giving birth to the same species, but with tiny differences. Over a period of time these tiny changes result in a very different type of animal and may have difficulty interbreeding with the original (or may not be able to for other reasons not down to desire or biology).
So all dogs originally came from wolves, while wolves still exist today and are not dogs. Wolves and felines have a similar common ancestor, and carnivores have a common ancestor with earlier mammels and earlier mammels shared a common ancestor with a branch of reptiles and that branch shared common ancestorship with a slightly more primitive reptile, and so on and so on. Macroevolution is a fallacy, its all evolution.
The example of pluto's orbit is excellent for this. While we have only observed a small part of its trip, our knowledge of the process allows us to understand its total orbit, despite not having seen everything in its entireity. We don't have to see every stage of evolution to know that it happens and how it happens.
There has been no evidence that disproves evolution, only discussion on refining the factors responsible for it, whether that would be the introduction of viral dna infusing into an organisms native dna, or societial norms affecting evolutionary traits, or sexual preferences or dietrary requirements, etc.

[Deleted User]

mickrock wrote: »

Are you saying that if a phenomenon cannot currently be explained by science that it's magic?

Reality is reality, regardless of whether or not humans can explain it.

No, I'm saying something that cannot be reproduced or has no explanatory model or rely on nonsensical unknowable mechanisms (or all of the above) yet is still claimed to exist is pretty much the same as magic.

Being lectured about reality by someone who doesn't accept or understand evolution (or is pretending not to) is a bit rich.

mickrock

Michael OBrien wrote: »

There has been no evidence that disproves evolution

If evolution is just gradual change from a common ancestor the fossil record should reflect this but it doesn't.

Although there are many fossils of fully formed species, there is a lack of transitional, intermediate forms.

Sarky

The fossil record does reflect that. There are loads of transitional fossils. Stop being silly.

mickrock

Sarky wrote: »

The fossil record does reflect that. There are loads of transitional fossils. Stop being silly.

Carry on deluding yourself, sunshine.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

No, I'm saying something that cannot be reproduced or has no explanatory model or rely on nonsensical unknowable mechanisms (or all of the above) yet is still claimed to exist is pretty much the same as magic.

I think you're magic!

joseph brand

mickrock wrote: »

If evolution is just gradual change from a common ancestor the fossil record should reflect this but it doesn't.

Although there are many fossils of fully formed species, there is a lack of transitional, intermediate forms.

Found one for ya buddy.

joseph brand

nagirrac wrote: »

I choose to consider Radin's work trustworthy because of the meticulous and standardized approach to his experiments, rather than the opinion of Randi who claimed to have done experiments that conflicted with Radin's psi research but could never produce the data and finally had to admit it didn't exist.

The scientists I am referencing like Radin have done the work.. and by the way they make no claims about magic or fairies. If you read Dean Radin you will find he is simply doing his experiments, reporting his results and then trying to explain the results like any scientist. There is no claim of UFOs, ETs, or God.

Now for the third time, what's your opinion of neuroplasticity? You've had plenty time to look it up and pour scorn on it.. or do you just want to debate poor old Dr. Watson?

Is this the guy who bends spoons? If I had telekinesis I would devote my powers to bending spoons, until they break. I hate spoons.

Improbable

mickrock wrote: »

If evolution is just gradual change from a common ancestor the fossil record should reflect this but it doesn't.

Although there are many fossils of fully formed species, there is a lack of transitional, intermediate forms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Feel free to peruse at your leisure.

nagirrac

King Mob wrote: »

Psychic dogs aren't science. It's magic.

I do believe we have caught a live one here, an actual person who does not understand the scientific method. Note I have chosen your psychic dogs point here which leaves me most vulnerable to your scorn but I am made of stern stuff so here goes:

The Scientific Method: 1. Pose a question, 2. Do some research on the subject and formulate a hypothesis, 3. Design and run experiments to test your hypothesis, 4. Analyze your data and draw conclusions, 5. Communicate your results.

The following is the research that Sheldrake conducted on dogs:

Question: It has long been observed that some animals have some kind of enhanced sense that is not easily explained. Is this true or not?

Hypothesis: Some animals have an enhanced sense that among many other manifestations (e.g. warning their owners of impending natural disasters) exhibits as knowing when their owners are coming home.

Experiment: Design experiments to monitor dogs while their owners are away and look for specific signs that the dog is anticipating their owner's return. In general terms this is done by videotaping the dog in its natural environment and having the owner return at random times.

Data analysis and Conclusions: Simple enough, record the number of times and the duration of time the dog sits by a door or window at the home entryway while the owner is out and when the owner is returning. Conclude whether the dog shows any indication of knowing when it's owner is returning by sitting by the window/door in anticipation.

Publish your results.

This is called science following the standard scientific method. Now for the interesting bit.

The controversy over this research centered on a dog called Jaytee who demonstrated remarkable signs of precognition. Thirty separate experiments were run. The data clearly showed that the dog spent far more time at the window when its owner was returning home than any other time (55% versus 4%) and spent a significant amount of time there compared to random vists to the window. The behavior was consistent regardless of the length of time the owner was away or when they were sent a signal to return (by beeper). The chances of this happening are 10,000:1.

The results were published and of course met with skepticism as one would expect. Richard Wiseman suggested several explanations including routine times of return all of which had been tested and eliminated by Sheldrake. Sheldrake invited Wiseman to perform tests of his own.

This is where it gets really interesting

Wiseman ran his own tests following Sheldrake's method and ran 4 experiments, three at the same location and one at a separate location. His data was identical to Sheldrake's for the first 3 experiments, actually better, the fourth was inconclusive. However he discounted all three experiments due to the dog going to the window for "no apparent reason" during the experiment. He discounted all 30 of Sheldrake's experiments for the same reason i.e. the 4% of the time that the dog spent by the window invalidated the experiment regardless of the fact that the dog was at the window for an extended period during the owners return 55% of the time.

Sheldrake's claims were as follows: 1) the dog spent significantly more time at the window when the owner was returning home than any other time, and 2) The difference is statistically significant. Wiseman's data showed the same thing but Wiseman chose to apply an arbitrary criterion to ignore the data based on the dog going to the window at any other time for no apparent reason, even momentarily. This completely ignored the fact that the dog sat for an average of 5 minutes at the window while the owner was returning.

In this example I am making no claims for physic dogs, just pointing out that Sheldrake's work followed the scientific method and therefore is science. Furthermore, Wiseman's work replicated Sheldrake's work and also was science even though he came to a different conclusion, so we have a difference of opinion between researchers, hardly unusual in science. I will leave it to you to decide whether Wiseman's approach to the data was "honest" or not.

My opinion on Sheldrake's research and my own observations and the observations of others I know who have spent a lot of time around animals is that animals generally are more intuitive than most humans. You may choose to call intuition magic if you insist.

nozzferrahhtoo

nagirrac wrote: »

I have no desire to engage further with you on ganzfeld studies, as we would never agree, but I do wish to debate "dishonesty" with you. You have been throwing the word around a lot, so I am curious what you think of the following:

I do not "throw" things around without reason. There are many areas of "science" which ego has resulted in people being dishonest. PSI is far from the only one. The literature on homeopathy for example is rife with various levels of dishonesty.

I personally find cherry picking studies for a meta analysis to be dishonest. If you do not then so be it but I certainly do. As I said SOME level of cherry picking has to be engaged in. One has to, for example, ensure that the studies in your selection display similar methodologies or grouping them makes no sense.

But deciding what conclusion you want to reach and then selecting your studies based on them meeting that conclusion IS dishonest and then being deliberately vague about where the studies come from in the hope no one noticed that you did this is doubly dishonest. They are the things that were found to have been done in some of the links cited on this thread so far and I have no qualms about calling them on their dishonesty.

Further as shown in another link I cited there are those who try to put spin on their lack of a result which displays their bias and even dishonesty. Explaining a lack of result away by declaring PSI exists but is foiled by static pictures... or PSI exists but the people who have it lose interest when tested.... is spin. And is dishonest. Again I do not apologize for pointing this out. At all.

If you want to change the subject from these things to pointing out that you think people on the skeptical side have been dishonest too then by all means do that. As I said the message that is coming across on this thread is that both sides need to start from scratch and implement new methodologies and studies that take into account the failings of the past. So digging around desperately to try to find dishonesty on the skeptical side does not counter my core points, it makes them for me.

Especially if the dishonesties I have shown were methodological ones and putting spin on studies.... dishonesties that actually affect the conclusions and results within the field of research itself.... while the dishonesty that seems to have gotten your back up is a single person massaging their CV.

The only conclusion I can reach however is that currently there is no evidence, argument, data or reasons on offer to lend even a modicum of credence to the claim humans have some paranormal PSI ability and I certainly have seen nothing on this thread to influence that conclusion.

nozzferrahhtoo

mickrock wrote: »

Although there are many fossils of fully formed species, there is a lack of transitional, intermediate forms.

False.

In fact as Catholic Evolutionary Biologist Kenneth Miller points out he has been at meetings of paleontologists where there has been so many transitional fossils found that arguments break out about where to even draw the divides between reptile like mammals and mammal like reptiles. "There are so many transitions," adds Miller, "that it's often difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs."

Take the Whale for example which is a major success story in the field of Evolutionary Biology and Transitional forms. Creationists thought it so ridiculous that there could be a transition of whales from land mammals to sea mamalls that they drew comedy pictures of half whale half mammal nonsense animals and released them in news papers.

The comics dried up instantly however when just such a transitional fossil was found and was named Ambulocetus natans. If your etymological skills are poor I can tell you this translates roughly into english as "the walking whale who swims".

Did the scientists stop there and declare the work done? No way! They went to where this fossil was found predicting they would find much more. They did. We now have many transitional forms. They poured in now that we knew where to look. Forgive me as I am doing this from memory so the order might not be correct but we now have Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Takracetus, Gavioceluus, Dorudon. So many in fact that we do not now have intermediate fossil forms, but intermediate fossil CATEGORIES on the road from one to the other.

Did the scientists stop there and declare the work done? No way!. They made predictions. Massive ones. They predicted that if they worked out what order the fossils should line up in based on one single criteria than if evolution is true and speciation happens on a grand scale then ALL the other attributes should line up perfectly too. No cherry picking, no tricks, just use one criteria and then check the rest.

The fossils were dated and lined up in temporal order based on the dating. They were not lined up out of convenience to match the theory. We did it in the age they appeared to be in our dating tests. The changes were THEN looked at to see if they matched. If three fossils dated in a row but we then saw something evolving "forwards" and then "backwards" again we know either our dating sucks or the theory is wrong. Did either happen? No. The steady migration of the dorsal blow hole, the steady and necessary changes in the middle ear, and more, all matched up perfectly. The predictions were borne out.

We also do this on a genetic level. We make predictions based on the theory that must be borne out if the theory is true. For example the human genetic structure has 1 less chromosome pair than the higher apes. Massive changes are not allowed in genetics as it would rubbish the theory. Evolution is a slow process requiring slow small changes. We could not lose an entire pair of chromosomes and survive. This is impossible. The likely hood of a !sudden! Development in a pair is also small. The theory therefore predicts that 2 pairs must have merged. No other explanation would work if we were to hold the theory of evolution to be true.

Guess what? It is human chromosome number 2. In fact our knowledge is now advancing so well we can pinpoint it to a precise fusion point of base pairs. The precise fusion site has been located in 2q13–2q14.1 (ref. 2; hg 16:114455823 – 114455838),

So for someone like yourself to waltz into a thread like this and declare there has been no transitional forms really achieves literally nothing other than to highlight the fact you have no idea what you are talking about. It is akin to me walking into a room and declaring "I am the biggest fan of American Ice Hockey there ever way.... and David Beckham is the best player". No one in such a room would be left with any doubt that I was just a pretender bluffing my way through the conversation with no actual concept of the subject or what I was talking about.