 sj |
||
|
||
Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Escamillo Date: 19 Sep 00 - 02:52 AM I appreciate your words very much, Carol, and still think that no offense was intended by Wolfgang or others, but the subject does not deserve a discussion. I will quote Sopho because her (his?) phrase called my attention: "Were Jesus alive and walking on water today I have no doubt that there would also be scientists trying to figure out how he was doing it. " YOU ARE RIGHT! :)) And probably scientists would prove that it was a myth! And then ? What is the importance of an explained or unexplained legend, compared to His immense message of love and enlightment to humankind ? Wether He multiplied the fish or not, or created wine out of water, is of absolutely no importance, and every scientist, christian or not, will agree, even those who succeed disproving a miracle. But.. psychics who don't have a similar message, and want to contribute to human knowledge, should submit their findings to science, and (as I said before) recognize their mistakes, a thousand times. And forgive those who refute their arguments, at least seventy times seven :) Un abrazo - Andrés
|
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: CarolC Date: 18 Sep 00 - 09:48 PM Andres, I love the fact that you are here in the Mudcat! You have never done anything that was offensive to me in any way! You have my utmost admiration and respect. I would be very sad if you ever left the Mudcat. I don't have a problem with your scientific orientation. I really don't have a problem with anything about you. My problem is with the way Wolfgang sometimes forgets to treat some of us as people. I wish he had never told me that he was going to use some of my postings in his professional life. I don't think that is appropriate behavior in a forum like this. I'm only asking for consideration of the feelings of others about the way they are treated. I am not asking anyone to change the way they think. Please don't ever leave the Mudcat! Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: GUEST Date: 18 Sep 00 - 09:34 PM Gentlemen, put down your engines. You are (both your houses) banging your heads against beliefs and structures of "how to know" which far too ingrained than to be dislodged by mere communication, let alone cybercommunication. The structure of these beliefs -- both those in the rigid disciplines of material science and its rigorous institutionalized skepticism - and those of the more traditional who see a clear divide between the logos of the psyche and the flavorless observation of "behaviour" -- is such that whichever or whatever set you deeply bind to your view, that shall ye experience. It makes no more sense to argue with another's clear-cut experience than it does to try and persuade the blind man at the tail of the elephant that he is mistaken. You see in accordance with the sum total of your own elected, deep-seated beliefs. The religion of the material universe is th emost popular one around on this planet, for obviosu reasons. But there is no reason for anyone to assume that makes it true. Just widely held. Amos
|
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Escamillo Date: 18 Sep 00 - 08:14 PM Carol, once I said in this forum, that I would immediately leave the Mudcat when more than one member asks me to leave. If you feel that myself and other scientifically oriented (and never offensive) members of the community should go with their music to another place, please get just one other vote and let me know. |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: CarolC Date: 18 Sep 00 - 06:24 PM sophocleese, I understand what you are saying. I was not referring to Wolfgang's post in this thread. I was referring to a post in the other thread in which he told me that he is going to use something I posted in that thread as material in his lectures about how not to do experiments. I find that practice to be invasive in the extreme. Wolfgang, I think that if you are going to insist upon using this forum in that way, it would probably be better if you kept your activities to yourself and didn't tell anyone that you are doing it. People have feelings. This is a community. When you don't respect the feelings of the other members of the community, they learn not to trust you. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: sophocleese Date: 18 Sep 00 - 05:39 PM From the Concise Oxford Dictionary,
Control, 1. Power of directing, command. katlaughing, I was not laughing at your beliefs but rather your mix-up with the word 'control'. Wolfgang's post seemed to me to be an attempt to explain some of the apparently mysterious workings of scientific process to those who do not know how it works. It is similar to defining a word so that everybody in a discussion knows what is meant by it. Wolfgang has his own bias in this thread and he is clear about it. His posts do not 'attack' others but state his position with relevant background material. Clearly it is a subject that he has spent many hours researching. That he should then be told that his posts are disruptive to open-minded, free debate, or that he is deriding your opinions is unsettling and unclear. I have found this thread very interesting and will continue to appreciate the views of those who are willing to present them. PS. Were Jesus alive and walking on water today I have no doubt that there would also be scientists trying to figure out how he was doing it. |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: katlaughing Date: 18 Sep 00 - 11:17 AM Sledge, please see your PM's. I don't feel like providing any more laughs for the day at the expense of my spiritual beliefs. |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Bert Date: 18 Sep 00 - 11:09 AM Well I'm an engineer and like Andres I think that science is a "fascinating seek for the truth". I know that what my friend does cannot be explained by Newtonian Physics or even Dimensional Analysis. So it can't happen!!! But I've seen it enough times to know that it DOES happen. She can take someone's hand and look at it a while and say something about that person that is unusual enough that it is beyond the realm of a reasonable guess. For example she was talking to one guy - he was a salesman that she had never met before. She looked at his hand and said one thing "You used to be a singer". Now that phrasing stuck me as really strange immediately, because I'm a singer and I don't know of any singer who would accept the phrase "used to be". We are singers or we are not singers and "used to be" doesn't come into it. Except for this guy, his eyes opend wide and he said "Yes, I used to sing in a choir". Now for some reason or other he had stopped singing and he didn't consider himself a singer any more. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: sledge Date: 18 Sep 00 - 10:29 AM Kat, pure curiosity makes me enquire, what ancient metaphysical organisation. No disrespect intended. Wolfgang, intesting stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: sophocleese Date: 18 Sep 00 - 09:38 AM Thank you Wolfgang for your long well written posting about research into this nest of topics. There's a lot of meat there. Carol C. I cannot see that Wolfgang's posting was in any way detrimental to a forum where people "are having fun, sharing ideas, and being creative with each other." Rather his postings have helped to keep this discussion interesting and diverse rather than a cozy cuddle among 'believers'. Thank you katlaughing for my first laugh of this morning. |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Wolfgang Date: 18 Sep 00 - 09:19 AM Psychology is the study of behaviour, and not only of behaviour in the lab. I would never disclose the identity of a person who has said something to me in a conversation or written something in a private mail, but the posts here are written material to which is public access for everybody like any article in a newspaper. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: CarolC Date: 18 Sep 00 - 08:48 AM Wolfgang, I appreciate your apology, and I accept it. I do want to say this, however. This is not a forum of your colleagues and fellow professionals in your field. This is a forum of people who are having fun, sharing ideas, and being creative with each other. When you scrutinize the things that we say for content that might apply to your professional endeavors, we end up feeling a lot like bugs under a microscope, rather than people. I, personally, don't feel comfortable with this. I don't think this is an appropriate place for you to be gathering your material. Also, you really have no way of knowing whether or not I was even serious when I said the things I did. I could have been joking. It doesn't sound very professional to me to be gathering material that is of questionable validity in terms of whether or not the person was even serious when they said it. I hope you will give the things I have said serious thought. Remember, the rules of your professional world don't apply in the context of this forum. This forum is a creative endeavor. As Max said, it's his work of art. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Wolfgang Date: 18 Sep 00 - 07:39 AM Carol, you're right, if I'd not read at all what is posted here, the discussion would be very one sided. But you've misunderstoood my reasons for posting before reading. This paper was not in response to any particular post, just a bit of information on the state of the art and in my opinion relevant to the topic here. And I did not want to mix up what I had written with particular responses. I posted it and went on reading selected bits from about five days of postings in other threads. And now I'm reading this thread for the first time since my before last post. You stated that I had proven to myself that I had dissolved clouds. I never said any such thing Correct, but I still think that my words were a good summary of what you had said. You wrote about the conditions under which the effect shows more easily, you wrote about teaching how to do it, that you've never seen to fail so far. All that I translated for me that you think it's real. I do not at all think that using your particular post in a book or in an examination task as an example of how not to test an empirical claim is demeaning. However, telling so in this public forum was and I apologise for this. I should have PMed you and not posted here for everyone to read. But there are many more colleagues or persons I have met (in person or as here) whose arguments, articles, reaearch, posts will be used by me to point out what I think are errors of reasoning or faulty experimental designs. Scientists are bound to give their sources and so at least in my book I'll have to give the respective information. One of my ideas once was used by a close colleague as an example of careless use of a formula. It was embarassing for me (but so any fault is), but it wasn't demeaning at all. I've learned a lot from that mistake.
kat, Wolfgang
|
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Ringer Date: 18 Sep 00 - 06:22 AM Hey: I've just discovered that I can psychically break up blockades at oil refineries. Just over a week ago I flew to France (as I mentioned in my post above, where I posed a serious question that no-one has yet bothered to answer) which was experiencing a fuel shortage because the revolting French were blockading refineries as a protest at high fuel prices. I arrived in France, and immediately the protesters broke up and went home. During my week in France (very pleasant, thanks) I saw on the World News that similar protestors in England had caused a fuel shortage there. I recently flew back to England and immediately the revolting English protesters broke up and went home. Spooky or what? On the other hand, of course, it could be my wife who has the power, because she went with me, and she has certain paranormal powers anyway - she can cut steel at 40 paces with that particular tone of voice. |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Escamillo Date: 18 Sep 00 - 05:57 AM Sorry Kat, you know I love you, but I don't think so and I dont feel as being included in "the rest of us" and would like to not be invited to leave a discussion if I appreciate it, though you may dislike it. What Wolfgang is bringing here is authentic scientific research, which indeed may be a different world, but I don't see any intention to ridicule anybody's beleifs. And.. you can't disqualify Medicine with one example. If the same criteria were applied to psychics, you know where their credibility would go, even for beleivers. Carol, I understand Wolfgang's post as a huge contribution that does not depend on any previous post, because it is not a specific reply to any one, but another important element to take into consideration. I would repeat: nobody pretends to put Jesus or Brahma or Love or Music on the dissection table. If you want to find an offensive argument against science, that is one. Science can analyze samples of the so-called Holy Schroud (and find that it is a fraud) but it does not mean to put religious beleifs under the microscope. Such interpretation is a big mistake, or is intentionally agressive. While science is not offensive, it is just a fascinating seek for the truth. :) Un abrazo - Andrés
|
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: katlaughing Date: 18 Sep 00 - 04:40 AM Interesting, disparaging, and in some places judgemental. You mention control several times. Scientist must learn, someday, that there are things they will never have under complete control. Would you have done the same to Jesus and one of his miracles? Put them to a test, see if it could happen everytime, on demand? The ability I have and that of others whom I know, is not something that can be replicated on demand. For me, it comes from my belief in a Higher Power and that is the Source of whatever psychic knowledge I may have. That may seem irrational to you and you may wish to pin it down, but it is an impossible thing. The scientists/doctors who showed us pictures of a tumour in my mom, then cut her open to take it out, then came out almost immediately to tell us they don't know what happened, but the tumour was gone, it did not exist; these men of science, knew they had witnessed an unexplained phenomenon, one they couldn't possibly try to replicate for study in a lab. We, her family, know that she was healed through music and prayer. The doctors had to admit they had no idea of how she was healed. My sisters, who are twins, know when the other has been injured, when they are hundreds of miles away from one another. I do not expect you to understand or to even want to understand; the world you live by is comforting and controlled, why would you want that to change? Please, do try to understand, though, that the gifts I feel I have come from the Cosmic/Great Spirit/God/whatever one wants to call it and I am grateful for that connection and the fact that I am open to it, everyday. It is not something to be abused by trivial use such as performing like a trick dog. It is a serious source to tap into when there is need. As for your 120 years of study. I belong to an ancient metaphysical organisation which has conducted controlled experiments for thousands of years and which teaches the scientific and practical application of metaphysical laws. To study their teachings requires membership and a committment to many years, usually a lifetime, of study. Many, many scientists have been and continue to be among its ranks of members. At no time does the org. ever tell people how they must think or do things. In fact, members are encouraged to be walking "question marks" testing and questioning everything the teachings impart in order to prove the principles to themselves. We are talking about two totally diferent worlds, Wolfgang. I think we should let it go; you with your long lectures, which sound a bit like bullying, and the rest of us with our own stands and beliefs. Opinionated derision is not edifying and serves no purpose other than to hurt feelings and close minds. Let it go, please, everyone.... |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: CarolC Date: 18 Sep 00 - 04:07 AM Wolfgang, It's very nice of you to go to the trouble of typing out all of that information for us. But if you don't take the time to read the things that have been posted since your last post, doesn't the discussion become a little one sided? Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Wolfgang Date: 18 Sep 00 - 03:42 AM I'm writing this offline and I'm not going to look at any new posts before posting. No, I don't have any particular person in mind while writing. This is for your information only in order to introduce a more positive element from my side. Some of it might be over your heads, for it is in parts quite tricky. Sorry for that, but I don't know your educational background. I'll tell you about potential loopholes, mistakes and pitfalls in doing research in parapsychology and on purported (or real?) psychic abilities. I've two aims: First, to warn you about taking too serious your own research at home maybe guided by one of those do-it-yourself books ('How do I find out about my psychic abilities?') which mostly are not worth the paper they are written on. Failing to take into account what is known from 120 years of research in parapsychology might trick you into believing you have found the real thing whereas you only have repeated one of the long known mistakes leading to artifactual results. Second, to make clear to you why even the best results from parapsychological research are looked on with little conviction by the majority of scientists. I'm not writing here for the academic parapsychologists, for nothing you'll read below is new to them. Most of them are extremely clever, know their trade and have learned a lot from past mistakes. They'd have made their way in mainstream research as well if they had chosen to do that. To whom it concerns Pitfalls in doing research on psychic abilities Fraud. The incidence of fraud in parapsychology is (my guess, I have no empirical data) not higher than in mainstream research. Sure, if subjects are paid for performance, a subgroup of them will try to use any information they can get (and not only the one the experimenter wants them to use) to boost their performance. You'll have to be quite careful. Experimenter fraud has been with parapsychology as long as it exists. J.B. Rhine had to fire his already selected successor as head of the institute when that man was caught red handed by his students. The greatest success story in finding out fraud, however, was when by the clever work of parapsychologist Betty Marwick (Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 1978, 56, 250-277) the Soal-Goldney experiments from the 1930s which once were deemed to be the best parapsychological research available were shown beyond reasonable doubt to have been the result of experimenter fraud. What a pity for Soal that the invention of something he couldn't think of when he cheated, namely the computer, made it possible to find out decades later his way of cheating. The incidence of fraud in parapsychological research isn't higher than in mainstream research, but the impact is for one simple reason: In mainstream research on humans we also have our private doubts about some results and ask perhaps a close colleague whether he has also failed to replicate a too beautiful result. But then we shrug and go back to work. If the result cannot be repeated it'll disappear from the literature and mostly nobody really cares whether fraud, a statistical fluke, or an undetected experimental error was the reason for the result. In parapsychology however, singular results from 18- or 19odd are still cited as a potential proof, for there are much less demands on repeatability ('we know that psychic abilities vary'). Whereas in mainstream research singular results slowly disappear without corroboration (with them the fraudulent results), the problem of fraud is worse in a science that relies on uncorroborated reports. Sensory leakage. When you play cards and see your opponent's cards in his glasses that is sensory leakage. In a science that studies whether it is possible to gather information without resort to the usual senses, sensory leakage can be a big problem. Well, it surely was, when it could be shown (Kennedy, Journal of Psychology 1938, 6, 149-153) that the cards used in several experiments in Rhine's lab could be read from the backside as well under appropriate lighting conditions. But the leakage can be minor by far. If the sender and the receiver (both words mean persons here) are in the same or neighbouring rooms a minor noise (taking breath, opening the mouth), a minor movement of the head or the eyes and many more things can lead to a performance better than baseline chance without the persons involved even knowing that they have subconsciously read out information using their normal senses. Pfungst ('Clever Hans') has shown that he was able to read peoples' thoughts by just using the information he had from their (mostly) eye movements, an impressing ability, but certainly not beyond normal understanding. Another example from mainstream research: One of my students in her doctoral dissertation wanted subjects to draw red (blue) beads from an urn. They were paid for getting the right colour (in a chance choice). The toyshops had no beads or similar objects that only differed in colour at that time, so she had the (in principle) clever idea to paint hazelnuts either red or blue. Hazelnuts differ in minor details, but as long as you are not allowed to study the nuts before the experiment you cannot profit from that. I get a deep pleasure from finding out experimental loopholes and therefore I asked her, whether I could have one urn for study. After a bit of training I asked her to test me in her experiment and I showed her that I was able to pick the correct colour without error, even from a new urn with hazelnuts I had not seen before. She was flabbergasted and unable to find out how I did it until I told her. I tightly squeezed the nuts in my hands to get them warmer. The warmth slightly changed the surface properties of the colours and one of the two colours then became a tiny bit more sticky. Easy when you know, but also easy to overlook. You even can have sensory leakage if the sender and the receiver are in two different rooms at a large distance, and there's no intercom. How that? One example from parapsychology. In one lab they had the two persons involved in completely separate rooms, no visual, acoustic or whatever sensory contact possible. There was nothing but a buzzer to signal the start of a trial (to make sure that the receiver concentrates only when the sender sends a new pattern/picture). After some time one pair of subjects got extremely good results and someone looked closer. Time delay was the solution. The sender took more time with some patterns (the more complicated ones) than with others before buzzing to say 'I'm sending now'. Since this was an experiment with feedback, after some time the very sensitive receiver found a way to get above chance results. He actually didn't know how he did it, he thought he had the real power when in reality he was just very sensitive to minor changes (time delay) being loosely correlated to the sent patterns. When the time delay was controlled by the experimenter the performance returned to chance level. Randomisation. When two people who might not even have seen each other before or even during the experiment are asked to think of just any number between 1 and 10 and this is repeated many times you'll consistently find that the numbers are more often identical than can be explained by baseline chance alone. Why? People's spontaneous choices are not random at all. The tendency not to chose the extremes (1, 10) or the middle (5) often enough, to prefer the 7,..., leads to extra hits. Bagpuss has pointed out in the astrology thread that humans asked to generate a series of random numbers change too often between numbers. If you are asked to write down a random series of 0s and 1s, like 00101110101....., you'll have too few triplets (three same in a row), quadruplets, quintuplets and so on. From that tendency, better than chance performance can be expected (in some types of experiments) if the randomisation is left to the human brain. Random number tables and random number generators in computers are better but not perfect. They are not truly random they just generate numbers that are identical to truly random numbers for the usual randomness tests (if you see me generating the purportedly random sequence 0101010101010101010101... you'll suspect a deviation from randomness but a test only testing for equal probability of 0s and 1s doesn't spot any deviation), but not for all possible randomness tests. A better solution would be the use of a appropriate control group (e.g., the experimental group concentrates on sending the patterns, the control group does something more interesting while hardly looking at the patterns to be sent at all), and to compare the performance not against the theoretical chance baseline but between the two groups. Deplorably, this is too seldom done in parapsychology, since the effort to yield the same amount of data doubles. The best experiments in this field, however, are flawless in this respect. As a fake psychic you can use human nonrandom tendencies and influencability to your advantage. Many years in succession, I have done a lecture experiment taken from parapsychology, me being the sender and the students the recipients of information unavailable to the normal senses. Their task was to write down five times in succession what type of brightness (bright/dark) I was trying, so I said, to 'project on their mental screen' (courtesy to fake psychic Kreskin for that figure of speech) while in reality I was merely slowly counting to 20 each time. So a full response could be 'bright, dark, bright, dark, dark' or any of the other 31 possibilities. I always got a statistically significant result without ever cheating once while counting or calculating. The real task for the students later was to find out how I had done it to produce a better than baseline chance result as a 'psychic'. First, I had primed them to start with 'black' in order to secure some extra hits: My name (Hell) is the German word for 'bright', clairvoyance in German is (in retranslation) 'seeing bright', and I used the word 'bright' as my example for explaining one potential first response. Now if you rub one possibility of two under the noses of humans you can be quite sure that they start with the other possibility just to show you they are not so easily influenced. And then I choose as my target sequence (before the experiment, of course, for a direct cheat would not have had any fun for me) a sequence I knew humans prefer (there are data about that), that is e.g. dark, bright, dark, dark, bright, and not, e.g., 'dark, dark, dark, dark, bright' which humans don't consider a good sequence and therefore don't choose. Retrofitting. If I had not a significant result with the obvious first test I tried for another test (e.g., leaving out the last trial and only counting the first four; and telling them 'That makes sense, at the last trial your concentration was already declining'). In every case, I was able to find a test which showed a significant result with impeccable statistics. But I hadn't told them before the test, which result I would consider evidence for psychic abilities. I told them after I had found out which statistic to use best in this particular case. If you look at the data with one beloved hypothesis in your minds you can easily trick yourself into finding 'evidence' if you allow yourself 'data snooping'. Amos has posted a prime example above (Ingo Swann) how the fitting of a description to a picture is discussed and decided after the fact. A good parapsychological experiment makes it perfectly unequivocal before the experiment which response is a hit and which isn't. If you're discussing that after the experiment, something is seriously flawed. Psychic detectives make largely use of retrofitting. A boy is missing and the psychic says she sees 'water'. Well, water is always a good guess (in many regions) when it comes to missing boys. The body is found in a lake a ditch, a river, that's a hit. The body is found in a rainy night, that's a hit too. The boy is found safe by a plumber, a hit. The boy was abducted and held captive in a house with a swimming pool, a hit. The boy was keeping himself alive in a cave by drinking water from the walls of the cave, a hit. The boy was murdered by a person with middle name 'Walter', a near hit. You see the game? The unsurmountable problem in these cases is that the evaluation of the performance of the psychic cannot be checked against a chance baserate of success, since 'success' is only defined after the facts are known. That's retrofitting, a serious problem. Feedback in drawing without replacement. (Skip this paragraph if you didn't like math at school.) If I have 52 cards well shuffled face down and let you guess the suits you should not be better than chance (1/4) the first time if I was careful. If I go on with that one card missing ('drawing without replacement') and have given you feedback on the correct response, you can better your performance by not calling the suit which was drawn the first time. And so on. If you have a really good memory you can't fail with the last card. This is an often very well hidden mistake (I have made it much more obvious here, than it normally is). Even if you do not care about conditioned probabilities and do not try at all to remember the correct responses, the mere tendency of humans to change their responses more often after a hit than after a miss must necessarily lead to better than baseline chance performance. It has been shown (and I also could easily make a better than chance performance if tested as a 'psychic' in many experiments) that even merely telling if the response was correct or not (and not telling what would have been the correct response) is enough to secure a better than baseline chance performance. In this case again, the human tendency to avoid repetitions leads (in some experiments) to more hits than chance alone, but that's very difficult to see. In parapsychology there is nearly always feedback given, for the subjects are much more comfortable this way, but at least, nowadays, drawing without replacement has been replaced by the more awkward drawing with replacement (e.g., reshuffling all cards after each single response). These were but some of the pitfalls (including the major ones but by far not all) in doing parapsychological research, I now turn to the evaluation of these and similar problems Decline effect and shyness effect. Parapsychologists from the time of J.B. Rhine on and even before have often found to their dismay that the performance of the psychics tested in the labs was larger at the beginning of the experiments than later on in a series of experiments. This was in coincidence (sceptics would say: causal coincidence) with the tightening of the experimental controls. The better you controlled the worse the performance was. Rhine even advised to loosen the controls if the performance broke down to keep the psychic motivated (some of them complained they could not use their powers when such a distrust was displayed by the experimenter). Rhine coined the name 'decline effect' to describe the tendency of psychics to lose the power during prolonged experimentation with tightened controls. Another name is 'shyness effect' (maybe also from Rhine) to describe that under conditions of perfect control the psychics do not perform as good as with weak or even without controls (Should I mention that bloke who published the finding that children could bend spoons much better when left alone with the spoons than when looked at?). Sadly for parapsychology, long gone are the days of the spectacular results. Nobody ever has been able again to get 25 hits with 25 Zener cards (5 different symbols, that is chance level should be 5 hits, or 20%) as did Rhine to yield odds against chance which were astronomical. Well, he and the subject sat together in a car while doing this experiment and that led some critics to make disparaging remarks and the others to point politely to minor doubts concerning the validity of the data gathered this way. Evaluation and my opinion.The average effect sizes in parapsychology are declining from decade to decade (with outliers, of course) and results as the 50.2% hits reported by Jahn (where 50% is the chance base rate) I have mentioned in a post above are far from what lay persons think could be considered a genuine psychic effect. Everybody involved knows that this decline of effect sizes goes hand in hand with tighter experimental controls against alternative interpretations. The better controls against alternative interpretations are the more marginal are the results. When Susan Blackmore ('adventures of a parapsychologist') did ganzfield experiments for her dissertation she could not repeat the results from a close colleague despite following his procedures to each detail. She then went to the lab in question for a short visit and described later in a written report some problems she had spotted in the randomisation process (that was the end of her friendship with the other researcher and the last time she was allowed in his lab). When she repeated the experiments with what she thought was a wrong procedure (the other researcher disagreed furiously) she could repeat the results, when she did what she thought was correct, no replication was possible. What's the state of the art in my eyes. There are a few incompetent researchers in parapsychology (proportionally probably not more than in mainstream psychology). One pair even earned the nickname 'the Laurel and Hardy of Psi' for their display of incompetence and for how they let the psychics interfere with the experiment they were supposed to control. But the majority of researchers (I have a high respect especially for the British among them) are doing impeccable work according to today's knowledge. I have no doubts that they are doing the best they can and do not cheat; I couldn't do better than they. A subgroup of these researchers get better than chance results that are 'statistically repeatable', that is do not show in all experiments for reasons unknown, but show in more experiments than can be expected by chance alone. These results can sometimes be corroborated by colleagues, sometimes not, for reasons unknown. These results have mostly so small effect sizes (see above) that thousands or even millions of trials are necessary to get them significant. So we have the pattern that the better the controls, the weaker the effect. If all controls the researchers have thought of are used there sometimes seems to be a residual of a minor effect which is much less repeatable than wished for. One interpretation is that this is the real thing, very, very small and not yet under our control. The majority interpretation and my personal opinion is that we don't know for sure what is going on, but by far the most simple interpretation is that one control nobody has thought of yet is missing and with that control the effect will go down to naught. You do not need much of an alternative influence, whatever it might be, to explain a 50.2% result. For persons thinking like that, ESP (extrasensory perception) is better translated as 'error some place'. After 120 or more years of research, the effects have neither been explained in a theory to allow good predictions, nor can they be produced reliably. I like the example of electricity (magnetism) someone has used with other intentions very much. That also was an extremely weak effect, which once could not be produced reliably and had no theory and was not understood at all. That was a kind of protoscience, i.e. a science at the beginning of being a real science but not having all its attributes yet. As you all know the effects were largely understood in a few decades (rather: years), a theory with successful predictions was developed, the effect sizes were increasing together with our understanding and today the effects can be reproduced on demand (always? Well, nearly, as some of you know from bitter experiences with a computer). Parapsychologists liken their science often to a protoscience like knowledge about electricity then. I think, 120 years was long enough for several good tries. I'd rather name (well, somebody else actually did, and I repeat it) their field of research as the 'Royal Nonesuch of Parapsychology'. I'd love to see a successful and convincing experiment, but until then I rather follow Susan Blackmore in thinking that the field really deserving study is why humans come to believe into something which with a quite high probability just doesn't exist. Wolfgang (hoping that this short paper is seen by you according to my intention: mostly information, a bit of opinion, and both clearly discernible) |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Bert Date: 14 Sep 00 - 02:00 PM I do know that **IF** I am shown a case where, under laboratory conditions with careful controls, someone can, on demand and repeatedly... Diagnose an illness and successfully treat that same illness... then I might suspend my suspicion of the medical profession. Sorry to steal your line Bill. It's nothing personal against your opinion, which is quite justified. It just seemed like a good line that I could use for my argument as well. My argument being against using double standards for judging anything. Bert. |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: CarolC Date: 14 Sep 00 - 10:49 AM Wolfgang, I did have a problem with the way you treated me on the previous "Unexplained" thread. You stated that I had proven to myself that I had dissolved clouds. I never said any such thing. I said that I thought that my experiences demonstrated a pattern that was worthy of consideration. That's all. So, if the accuracy of a person's statements is important, I think it would be worth taking a look at some of your own. And as enjoyable as it might be for you to find new subjects to use to illustrate your points to your students so as to make your classes more entertaining, I feel that that behavior is demeaning to the person whom you are using as an object of ridicule. For ridicule it is, regardless of how serious the academic setting. Especially if you haven't got your facts straight about what they said. I think that sometimes a rigid adherence to science gets in the way of a person's humanity. And you are a human being first, and a scientist second. I don't think you can find anything that I've posted in either of these threads that even begins to resemble ridicule of other people's views or opinions. Although I have made a couple of comments about other people's behavior toward others. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Rachel D Date: 14 Sep 00 - 10:36 AM Wolfgang How glad I am to find someonewith a bit of sense posting to this thread. It is amazing how the human body can make itself see and feel things that defy logic when it has the inclination. When I was in my late teens I read people's auras. I really could see them. Was it coincidence that I was unhappy with few friends and desperately wanted to get in with a crowd of 'alternative' types, who I successfully charmed, at the time? I don't think so. So many people want to feel that they are different or special that they can dupe their body into believing it has 'powers' they have heard about. Thank you for your articulate words. Rachel D |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: GUEST,Luther Date: 14 Sep 00 - 09:56 AM Wolfgang, you put in the mildly uncomfortable position of defending Jung, about whom I have no comprehensive knowledge, and in whom I have no compelling interest. But I do remember that he coined the term syncronicity to mean "apparently meaningful coincidence". Now, no rational person would argue that "apparently meaningful coincidence" doesn't exist, the operative word being "apparently". I also recall with some confidence that Jung was unequivocal regarding his "belief" in astrology, tarot, etc. He was not a believer, rather he was interested in the image of human consciousness reflected in such belief systems. I'd say that's a legitimate line of inquiry, and quite rational. |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Wolfgang Date: 14 Sep 00 - 09:20 AM And he had then come to realize that most remarkable truth...: no truth existed beyond personal experience, and all evidence that contradicted personal belief was to be dismissed (Donna Leon, The Anonymous Venetian) kat, I'm tired too of the way how some believers argue, how they bash at a parody of science, how they do not read with care. Your recurring admonitions are extremely one-sided. For instance, I had the intention to leave the astrology thread alone for reasons similar to those given by Escamillo. It was your argumentation which I considered quite unfair that led me to post there, especially your response to Bagpuss. But what is unfair or disdainful, is of course in the eye of the beholder. You write, I have intimated those who feel otherwise as 'fanciful' (you mean me, for I am the only one who has used that word). Go back and read again, I haven't. I have named theories 'fanciful', not persons. And for me that is as big a difference as between calling a person 'stupid' or a particular argument of a person 'stupid'. I prefer to be criticised for what I have actually written. I have made clear my position that the scientific approach can be applied to each domain whenever the question is decidable. Amos says such an assumption can only be held by a moron, hypnotized by a psychotic and is applauded for the post by others. Do you really think that all the disdain, derision and making assumptions come just from one side only? Bert, I don't know for sure what you've mixed up (my guess: the concepts of repeatability and success rate), but your argument to which kat shouted 'thank you' is plainly wrong. Never ever has there been the demand that paranormal phenomena should have a success rate of 100% (except in rare cases in which the psychics themselves claimed it). There are no demands on paranormal research that are not also made for mainstream research. If I'd test you personal choice reaction time in a two-alternatives choice in comparison to a four-alternatives choice I'd expect from the literature that your reaction time is faster in the two-alternatives situation. All of the times? I'd be stupid to expect that, for reaction time is quite variable (and not all causes to that variability are known yet). So I'd perhaps have a success rate (in repeated observation) of about 85%. But whenever I do let's say 100 trials with you, I'd expect to find every time an average advantage for the two-alternatives task That's repeatability. In scientific studies you can have a success rate which is barely higher than chance, but an extremely high repeatability (up to 100%) if you only take a large enough sample When I use a simple memory experiment in a lecture as a demonstration I might make the prediction that the students will have a better recollection in one particular of two tasks. Not every one of them has, for memory, again, is somewhat variable between persons as we all know. Let's say my success rate on an individual basis is 75% that is ¾ of my students show a memory advantage in the predicted direction. My replication, however, is 100% in such a large sample, for whenever I repeat that experiment, I always find the same average advantage (sometimes a bit higher, sometimes a bit lower, but always in the same direction). Now to parapsychology. Let's take the famous psychokinesis experiments by Schmidt and by Jahn as an example. A clock-type pointer moves (counter/)clockwise driven by a random generator. The subject 'wills' the pointer to go more often in one of these directions. Fifty percent success is the base rate in a two directions condition. The parapsychologists report across experiments a success rate of about 50.2 % that is about every 500 trials one more-than-chance move in the willed-for direction. Not an impressing effect size, but with millions of trials the few extra hits get statistically significant, that is chance alone is not a good explanation (real paranormal ability is but one of the remaining explanations). The problem mainstream science has with this result is not that the success rate is far from 100% and much nearer to the chance base line of 50%, the question is can this effect, however small it is, be replicated in independent laboratories. That's replicability(repeatability) and it has nothing at all to do with success rate, except that with a higher success rate, you need fewer trials to show the effect, if it is real. Helen, well, I looked it up on my bookshelf and in my collection of articles this morning to make a rough guess: I've read definitively more than 50,000 pages but not yet 100,000 pages of mostly scientific literature on parasciences (about 15%, I guess is pro, and 85% is contra, which I do not consider too unbalanced, for the contra side is nearly always citing the pro arguments, but often not vice versa). This does not include what I have read about perception and memory illusions in the mainstream scientific literature (roughly, you could double my guess to include these articles and books), which is relevant to paranormal claims as well. I guess you would call that 'a lot' though it is far from 'all of it'? You must have been joking to ask that question whether I have read 'all of it'. If you just know a bit about research on that field you'd know that a person reading without ever sleeping her whole life couldn't read all of it, even only about psychics, by far not. I understand from reading your paragraph that you are angry at me, but that's about all I understand. Neither do I make unsupported assumptions (they may turn out to be wrong, but that's something entirely different), nor is it unscientific to make assumptions or hypotheses about something not tested yet. It would be unscientific to let these assumptions guide my evaluation of results. But to use knowledge from literature and own experiments to make a 'best guess' hypothesis on a particular claim or story is well within what is acceptable in science. I remain open to change my mind if I see the appropriate data. You write you take my statements as my own opinions and beliefs. I hope you do. And I'd like to have a bit of that respect for differing beliefs that kat has asked for in this thread. In an open forum it should be possible, in my opinion, to repeat what mainstream science opinion on claims of perception without using the known senses, i.e. extrasensory perception, is and what the hypotheses are on where these claims come from. I believe that what I have written is the best fitting hypothesis as long as I don't know anything more. (support for that opinion: R. Hyman, The elusive quarry, H. Houdini, A magician among the spirits, P. Kurtz (Ed.), A skeptics handbook of parapsychology, M. Shermer, Why people believe weird things, R. Wiseman, Deception and self deception, D. Marks and R. Kammann, The psychology of the psychic, and many, many others) I often have found especially in talking about my research on illusions of memory a fundamental asymmetry in the respective evaluation of personal experiences and research. Lay persons have not the slightest problems in using arguments from personal experience ('I know it') to challenge scientific results, but often the very same persons do not like at all when scientific results are used to challenge their personal experiences. I think both arguments are in principle valid (as an argument on a case) and should be used for weighting the respective evidence. I once had a perceptual experience in a night that was quite frightening at that time. It was real for me. Later a friend told me he had an alternative interpretation of what has led to my perception. I thought about it and though my memory of that perception still felt real I saw it was at least a possible hypothesis to explain my perception. Was I mad at him for challenging my perception? Did I say he made unsupported assumptions (he made assumptions, sure, about something he could not know for sure, for he couldn't look into my head)? No, I just said I didn't know for sure but he might be right after all. I'm very grateful for the link to Jessica Utts' article. I have always read her articles with great interest though I do not share her conclusion. She is highly respected both by parapsychologists and by psychologist. For instance, she is one of the very few believers in the validity of parapsychological findings that has been invited to contribute to the highly sceptical 'Encyclopaedia of the Paranormal' (Ed.: G. Stein). I recommend everybody to read her to find out how the best parapsychological research available is done. And then you might like to follow the link to her homepage and to click there on an article from Ray Hyman for a differing view. Ironically, that is the same Hyman I have mentioned above who is responsible for the 'cold reading' explanation of how psychic consulting works. C.G. Jung would say that this is an acausal but meaningful coincidence that shortly after I mentioned how Hyman explains psychic consulting you link us to a page from where Hyman's opinion on the best parapsychological research is only two clicks away. Amos, now which way do you want to have it? I did understand you in one post that you did not support the application of the measuring instruments of one field to a qualitatively differing field. A bit later you tell approvingly of the research at the SRI. They do nothing else than apply scientific methods from research on perception and psychophysics (yes, that's methods from physics applied to perception) on a paranormal question. My impression is that you cite research regardless of methods used as long as you approve of the results, but when it comes to results you do not like, you declare that this type of research does injustice to the field in question. Thanks for the anecdote from Ingo Swann. That adds to my already not very high opinion of the research at that institute. They do overly complicated experiments with many loopholes and don't exert rigorous experimental control. As for OBEs (out-of-body experiences), it is extremely doubtful that there has been any substantiation in controlled laboratory research of the ability to see something that couldn't be seen with normal means. However, it is true that there are a lot of fairly detailed and consistent reports of such an experience. The best explanation I have read yet comes from the work of Susan Blackmore, who has had an OBE herself which was very impressive to her and which she only could explain to herself at that time by a paranormal hypothesis. She made her PhD in parapsychology and lost nearly all of her belief in this type of explanations during her experiments. She became quite sceptical through her own experience as a researcher (S. Blackmore, 'Adventures of a parapsychologist'). Her interesting strictly physiological and psychological explanation of OBEs can be found in her book 'Beyond the Body: an Investigation of Out-of-Body Experiences. BTW, her New Scientist article from 22 Sept 1990, 'The lure of the paranormal' also is a very good reading. I recommend that all of you sometimes use the online Skeptic's Dictionary if you want to know what the (or: a) sceptical explanation of a phenomenon or an experience is. They cover nearly everything and they give additional references for further reading though I am not happy that they don't give a reference to a paranormal explanation all of the times. Better, of course, and always with references to both camps, is G. Stein, The Encyclopaedia of the Paranormal. So, e.g. hesperis, you don't need to ask for somebody to explain Edgar Cayce, you can read yourself what the sceptical position is. You may not like it, but at least you'll know then what sceptics think. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Escamillo Date: 13 Sep 00 - 12:36 AM I've reviewed Dr.May's response after the CIA's decision for which the project was cancelled. And as I said earlier, I simpathize with him, mainly because his effort and his co-workers' was huge, apparently well conducted, and he was really convinced that the results were valuable. I would feel really sad if a 24-year effort (10 years under my direction) was thrown by the boards by the decision of an arbitrary authority. And would defend my points too. However, he probably failed to realize WHO was his boss. What can be expected from an organization whose objectives and methods are classified, from which you will never get an explanation on WHY they started a project and WHY they cancelled it or continued it under secret conditions ? Would you expect logical reasons ? The only thing you may expect from them is a lot of money for your project, until one day you receive a kick in the thinking part instead of a check. Not to mention some obscure methods that they can put in practice when there is a political reason valid for them. If Dr. May had discovered something applicable in defense, it could have been used for attack as well, and he would feel worse than what Einstein felt after Hiroshima. It was HIS decision to work for that boss, and he must accept their final decision. Or look for another sponsor, if he is sufficiently convinced of his results and does not fear the consequences. I repeat, my sympathy is with him as a scientist. I'm inclined to think that the problem was simpler. The CIA feared, but neither feared the unknown, nor the religious pressures, nor the community of sceptics opinions. They feared the RIDICULOUS, and the subsequent kick in THEIR parts if they continued sponsorship for something which after a 24-year period (enough is enough)had not given clear and usable results, even did never prove the existence of a minimal, embrionary external psi-MENACE from the Soviets or the Arabs or the narcos. And please see that neither Dr.May nor his colleages mention any TECHNIQUE, not even the minimal usable technique, not to mention that they never could ascertain the nature of the phenomena, they only state that their results were statistically significant, and the CIA evaluation was biased: "It is impossible for me to prove whether or not the CIA determined the outcome of the investigation before it began. What is obvious, however, is that the evaluation domain of the research and particularly the operations were restricted to preclude positive findings. " Some comments on Amos' words later. (Oh, you make my little brain develop muscles. I think with the same part used to sit down, but my brain hurts because of the translation effort!) Un abrazo - Andrés
|
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Sep 00 - 12:30 AM Say Amos, I got a call from your drycleaner....said he couldn't reach you. Your flowing robes are awaiting pickup.......and he said if you get anymore stains on them, he won't be able to help next time. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Helen Date: 12 Sep 00 - 07:15 PM I agree, Carol. Awesome and breathtaking. Succinct, precise, logical All of the above. Helen |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: CarolC Date: 12 Sep 00 - 01:52 AM Amos, Once again, I am in awe. It's hard for me, as someone who expresses myself almost entirely from the level of intuition, to present these kinds of concepts as precisely, as succinctly, as logically, and as well as you do. Your posts to this thread are breathtaking. I take my hat off to you. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Amos Date: 12 Sep 00 - 12:59 AM The question that really has to be faced here is not whether one person or another has some particular psychic ability. The core question is what paradigm (model) can accurately describe the nature of our kind. There is a tendency in some groups to assert that the model which ends at the outside of the physical body is the final word, because it is the only one that agrees fully with past physics. This is of course a self-referential loop. But here's the real question: if there is one white crow found, the assertion that all crows are black goes by the boards. If one person in the world has had a genuine experience of sep[arating from the body and perceiving by other means, then the assertion that human nature is bounded by the limits of the body likewise goes by the boards. In its place, some model must be designed which incorporates the "anomolous" phenomena. If anyone has reviewed the literature on OOB they will find more than one instance where such phenomena have been fairly and accurately reported and substantiated, for example, by the ability to report on things that could not have been seen by the person-as-body. The principle of Occam's Razor requires that we stick to the simplest explanation that covers the known phenomena. It seems pretty plain that if we must include the range of reported phenomena that exceed the body's range, the most direct model we could use is one which allowed for the fact that the core nature of a person, his most fundamental being, is not physical, but something more. SImply add the single premise that the nature of the species is typically a body being run by a non-physical, or spiritual, being who uses the mind to act as an interface between systems. The addition of that one simple element can cover a great many "anomalies". That's why I prefer it. |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: CarolC Date: 12 Sep 00 - 12:51 AM Bill D, I, personally, am willing to forgive you, but only if you post some more limericks to the "Don't Post" thread. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Helen Date: 12 Sep 00 - 12:36 AM Andrés Yes, I realise that the chapter I referred to is a link from Uri Geller's page, although I didn't know that when I first posted the link. The CIA is funded by the U.S. government which is subject to pressure from the community as well as within government and the fundamentalist Christian can influence, and *have* influenced political and government decisions. Please, though, have another look at the article you linked to, by Edwin May. That is the one I referred to/quoted from in my last comments. Helen |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Escamillo Date: 12 Sep 00 - 12:25 AM mmmhhh .. (sceptic smile) The CIA is not an organization of people who fear the unknown, or who have too many religious scruples. We are talking about the Central Intelligence Agency! Frankly, I would rather think that they really did not find any practical application, and decided to put their money to work in another project (Leaving the occidental world unprotected against psi-INT of the Soviets!). Don't you think it's too much? 24 YEARS, 4 different governments, dozens of unsuspectable doctors from well known universities, THOUSANDS of individuals tested, and MANY MILLIONS of dollars spent, what really amazes me is that this project has lived so long. Moreover, if the CIA was not interested any longer, it's curious that NOBODY took the project since 1995 when it was cancelled.
I've read that article, though not in detail, but I find these points to discredit it, always *IMHO*: - That article is not signed Besides, there are two ways of making money: 1) to use supposed paranormal senses to know in advance some economical events and take advantage of that. Many people I know of, could be easily considered psychics, and there is nothing illegal or morally objectable, at least not more objectable than the whole world of bussiness. 2) To sell paranormal services as long as the client is satisfied, or convinced enough to pay for advice, or books, or TV shows or long-term contracts. Here, my proposal still applies: no objection, if the psychic clearly states, beforehand, "I won't tell you anything that you don't already know, I have no responsibility, there is no guarantee, and this is to make you feel better." - by now ! **Mention of the CIA is only for documentation purposes and has no intention implicit or implied to express any opinion on any governmental organization and... et.etc** (..heewww!) Un abrazo - Andrés
|
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: katlaughing Date: 12 Sep 00 - 12:21 AM There's the rub, BillD. Sometimes those things are felt because of conditions of extreme emergency, need, etc. things that cannot happen on demand. I am not saying that is true for all psychics or abilities, but for myself, feeling or knowing somethimg comes about, in a non-emergency, because I have deliberately "tuned" in to what I consider to be the Cosmic flow or Divine intelligence, whatever one wants to call it. It would be disrespectful of me to turn on that tap for anything other than to help someone and probably would not work. That may sound like a cop-out, but it is the truth, for me, anyway. You know I am not Christian, but I do have great respect for Jesus. What do you suppose ya'll would say to Jesus if he were here, today, with all of his abilities? Put him in a lab? I'll bet he wouldn't even bother. Then again, maybe he would, then we wouldn't be questioned so much anymore!*BG* I read a really good book on the government's remote viewing project, written by one of the participants. When I find it or remember the name I will post it. kat |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 12 Sep 00 - 12:18 AM BillD most people who "have it" didnt want it and refer to it as a curse... in many cases you have have no control over it and it can be very disturbing. Yours, Aye. Dave (who knows what he is talking about) |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Mbo Date: 12 Sep 00 - 12:09 AM Aye, yer all makin' me head hurt... |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Bill D Date: 12 Sep 00 - 12:04 AM I hope that those of us who 'feel' as if we have NO psychic abilities will be forgiven for continuing to be sceptics. I cannot even comprehend what it would be like to 'know' that a relative had been hurt, or that something specific was 'going to happen'. I do know that **IF** I am shown a case where, under laboratory conditions with careful controls, someone can, on demand and repeatedly read minds, levitate objects, identify hidden objects...etc..I will ease my disbelief...until then, I can only wonder at what the sensation is like. (and there is NO one who would love to believe in these things more than I!) |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Helen Date: 12 Sep 00 - 12:01 AM Andrés, I have read the abstract, introduction and conclusion of the article you referred to and it seems to me that May is saying that the CIA didn't do a proper evaluation of the Star Gate project, and that they had come to the conclusion that it should be shut down *before* they did the evaluation and made sure that what they evaluated didn't give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. My reading of what May says is that he thinks the remote viewing process worked. I'll read the rest of the article but I'd appreciate it if you would read it again too. quote from the introduction: "This paper is a critical review of AIR's methodology and conclusions. It will be shown that there is compelling evidence that the CIA set the outcome with regard to intelligence usage before the evaluation had begun. This was accomplished by limiting the research and operations data sets to exclude positive findings, by purposefully not interviewing historically significant participants, by ignoring previous DOD extensive program reviews, and by using the questionable National Research Council's investigation of parapsychology as the starting point for their review. While there may have been political and administrative justification for the CIA not to accept the government's in-house program for the operational use of anomalous cognition, this appeared to drive the outcome of the evaluation. As a result, they have come to the wrong conclusion with regard to the use of anomalous cognition in intelligence operations and significantly underestimated the robustness of the basic phenomenon." Helen |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Helen Date: 11 Sep 00 - 05:54 PM Thanks, Andrés, for taking my point on "beliefs". I haven't read the article by May yet, but I will right now, but from what I read in this article ( http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/rv3.htm ) about remote viewing I suspect that politics and fear of the unknown, and maybe even the influence of fundamental Christian beliefs may have had as much to do with cancelling the project as the effectiveness of the outcomes. I like the part near the beginning where other forms of intelligence are outlined and the statement that PSI-INT (psychic intelligence) is used only in conjunction with other means of gathering intelligence. Andrés, I think you will be interested in the part where comments are made about using psychic abilities to make money. I tend to agree with what the author says: it's a fundamental question, maybe to do with morality, but for me there is a strong sense that if I misuse my psychic abilities I will lose them. Amos, I agree with your ideas about how the psychic abilities can and should be used. Helen
|
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Amos Date: 10 Sep 00 - 11:57 PM The Stanford Research Institute did a multi-year project throughout the 70's and early '80stesting remote viewing, psychekinesis and other aspects of psychic ability (Targ, Puthoff). One of their subjects, Ingo Swann, had a remarkable degree of accuracy in describing places chosen at random from a map and given to him only in terms of remote site long-lat figures. He told me the story of an upset in the course of the experimentation when he described a rocky shore with water lapping against it and was told it was a 'miss'. He was told the location was in the center of Lake Titicaca, as I recall. He blew up and demanded a finer-scaled map, which when it was acquired revealed a long narrow spit of land extending well into the lak3e right to the intersection of long-lat values he's been given. There had been no sign of it on the large-area map the controller had been using, because the scaling was too large to reveal the detail. This was just one of many incidents that occurred during those tests in which clear demonstration of abilities beyond the scope of bodily parameters occurred. These anomalies are not well enough understood to provide a workable weapon. It is arguable that they are not ever likely to prove useable for applied destruction, and it is certainly a somewhat foolish impulse to try. If there were a volunteer who wished to exercise psychic powers to support the Department of Defense it would seem pretty obvious that his best and greatest use, and his most probable zone of success, would be in bringing about a mor amenable frame of mind on the part of the enemy, to quote Klausewitz, rather than to try and do magic tricks by melting submarines or finding underground bunkers. The power of thought goes a lot further applied to the domain of thought than applied to bending spoons. A
|
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Escamillo Date: 10 Sep 00 - 11:48 PM Sorry, the URL is correct but the clicky thing is not. This is the clicky for Dr.May response: |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Escamillo Date: 10 Sep 00 - 11:26 PM Helen, how happy I would be (and I'm sure many scientists - which I'm not - will be happy too) if these experiments were driving us to some great discovery! Unfortunately the CIA, who was the government agency who conducted the project, was a late financial sponsor, and made the final evaluation, concluded that the statistical results where significant and scientifically acceptable, but the long project (24 years and thousands of subjects studied) did not render any reliable technique for application, and not even an explanation of the cause of the phenomena, and closed the project in 1995. Prof.Jessica Utts was one of the Statistics specialists who contributed most to the research, but lately was one in a panel of scientists who witnessed (if not backed) the final discredit of the results, and gave reason to the CIA to cancel the project. This is a response from Dr.Edwin May, with his objections to that final evaluation:a href="http://www.lfr.org/csl/media/air_mayresponse.shtml">Click here I feel symphatetic with Dr.May's complaints (a 24-year research cancelled !) and would like to see more efforts dedicated seriously to the subject, but, to say the least, there are few chances, and I understand the reasons. I take your point on the term "beleifs", and won't use it when referring to these phenomena. You are right, that could be part of your knowledge and other's. Un abrazo - Andrés
|
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Helen Date: 10 Sep 00 - 06:23 PM Andrés, You keep saying that it is a "belief" in psychic abilities. I know that I have psychic abilities - I don't just believe it or have an opinion on it, or feel it - I know it. Try doing an internet search using the search terms "psychic experiments military" Also, have a look at this article Click here by Dr Jessica Utts at the University of California, Davis, which came up in that search I did on Google. http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html Helen |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: hesperis Date: 10 Sep 00 - 01:42 AM I just realized that I said Vervain... I meant Valerian. Valerian is for sleep. Arrgh! D'OH! It took me *how* many days... Yeah, herbal medicine can be downright dangerous, particularly when you don't have the right herb! ::embarassed look:: |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Escamillo Date: 10 Sep 00 - 01:18 AM A search of "psychic" plus "university" gave only one reference, the University of Virginia in this link: I have no doubt they are serious researchers. They don't make any assumptions, they simply study cases and invite you to submit your case if you are interested. Although no one single case is presented as a demonstration of paranormal phenomena, they keep being sufficiently open-minded to accept any submission, in certain categories (not all). There are lots of bibliographical references, but I observe that they are always the same authors, a Dr. Stevenson and Dr.Brocher. They seem to be rather isolated, but this does not mean any qualification in any sense. Helen, Kat, I really don't see anything offensive in what sceptics say (may be some humorous comment that could be out of topic, but nothing else). And please understand that none is arguing against religious or moral beleifs, our problem is just with pseudo science, not even with persons. Un abrazo - Andrés (not a sceptic - a friendly enemy :)
|
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Helen Date: 09 Sep 00 - 11:34 PM 'Spaw, he'll have to wait and find out when he goes o/s I suppose. (mutter,mutter, smart-arses, mutter, possum-puffing ..., mutter, mutter....). I wasn't sure that Amos would know where I live. The name Amos is very unusual for a kid of his age here. He was named after a great uncle on his father's side, but also after our mother's father whose Christian names were William Amos. Helen |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: catspaw49 Date: 09 Sep 00 - 03:18 PM I was just curious Helen.............What's your nephew called when he's NOT in Australia? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: GUEST,Amos Date: 09 Sep 00 - 03:07 PM Well, buy the tyke a pint for me -- us Amosi gotta stick together! And thanks for your kind remarks... |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Helen Date: 09 Sep 00 - 05:10 AM Thank you, Amos, for your insights and your exceptionally clever way with words and thoughts on the page. You have hit on some of the things I have been trying to say over the course of this thread - but I am feeling unable to get my points across effectively for some reason. (P.S. - totally off topic - my 14 year old nephew, here in Oz, is called Amos) Helen |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Escamillo Date: 09 Sep 00 - 01:07 AM "The issue is not who is stupid but how do you keep yourself open to new insight, new understandings, learning, and flexible but disciplined thought? " YES, Sir ! Probably there are few people sufficiently wise and generous to find that way to Knowledge. How I would wish to be one. Un abrazo - Andrés |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Amos Date: 09 Sep 00 - 12:43 AM Abrazo a ti tambien, amigo. There is an infinite supply of human stupidity in the world, and I think you can shovel it in great measure off any area which has attracted as much dialogue as the basic nature of our kind. I would point out that classic clanging errors have often been graced with all the diginity of scientific approval and the very best minds. It was a member of the London Academy of Science, I believe, who felt so threatened when the 17th centruy researcher Harvey presented his theory of circulation which flew in the face of the prior paradigm (humours and tides, postulated by the ancient Greek Galen) that he actually said "I would rather err, and stay with Galen, than be right and go with Harvey!". It was men of science, after Ignaz Semmelweiss proved that by washing their hands when moving from the sick wards to the maternity wards they could cut the incidence of mortal childbed fever down by more than fifty per cent, who were so annoyed with him for showing them up as fools that they ran him out of Vienna on a rail. It was leading citizens who allowed the most sensitive women of New England to be persecuted to death as "witches" because they used herbs instead of leeches ( or whatever the issue really was). I think there are a thousand more examples in the annals of history. There is no question that in any occupation we will find a good distribution of the stupid curve among our fellow bipeds. The issue is not who is stupid but how do you keep yourself open to new insight, new understandings, learning, and flexible but disciplined thought? WHat are human blind spots, and how do they work? I believe that any examination of these issues will bring in its wake a clearer appreciation of the possibility that "Man from mud and mud from a big bang with no cause" is almost as thick and close-minded a proposition as "God climbing into virgins to show how much he cares" or "Feathered serpents crashing to earth to show us how special we are" or the legends of Finn McCool or Paul Bunyan. With greatest respect, Amos |
|
Subject: RE: Explaining the Unexplained - Part Two From: Escamillo Date: 09 Sep 00 - 12:32 AM "But a Doctor can treat someone for AIDS, or some other incurable disease, and charge them handsomely for their services and potions with the sure knowledge that the patient is not going to be cured. " I agree, Bert, and I know many doctors who are real merchants, however, the difference is that the Doctor will always give you the truth first, and then the recipe. If s/he does not, there are laws to put him in jail.:) Un abrazo - Andrés
|
| Share Thread: |
