Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[tsig]

...so where, precisely (besides anecdotally)...has love been demonstrated to actually exist?

When a lad meets a lass and they both have laugh, that's amore.

When both their hearts swoon and they're under the moon, that's amore.

 

[Daylightstar]

The ones I discussed here,

Those (behind the links in your post) are statistical meta studies. They tell us nothing about the validity of the actual data generated in experiments.

Sorry.

 

[annnnoid]

When a lad meets a lass and they both have laugh, that's amore.

When both their hearts swoon and they're under the moon, that's amore.

...and those are anecdotes.

 

[Daylightstar]

When a lad meets a lass and they both have laugh, that's amore.

When both their hearts swoon and they're under the moon, that's amore.

But if there's no one to witness it, it's just an anecdote


E.T.A.: As I was typing annnnoid posts this:

...and those are anecdotes.

 

[Nonpareil]

Saying that the meta-analysis is irrelevant is simply ignoring evidence. Of course the meta-analysis is relevant to the ESP hypothesis. It's data from ESP studies, studies that were at least as high in quality as typical studies in experimental psychology (not that that exactly sets the bar high). I don't believe the results myself, but I admit they're relevant.

No, the meta-analyses are not relevant. This is not ignoring evidence. It is discounting nonsense. The numbers analyzed are garbage. Thus, any conclusions drawn from them are garbage. You cannot present an analysis of meaningless numbers and claim that it is evidence for anything.

 

[jt512]

No, the meta-analyses are not relevant. This is not ignoring evidence. It is discounting nonsense. The numbers analyzed are garbage. Thus, any conclusions drawn from them are garbage. You cannot present an analysis of meaningless numbers and claim that it is evidence for anything.

What is your reason for believing that the numbers are meaningless?

 

[Nonpareil]

What is your reason for believing that the numbers are meaningless?

Are you reading my posts? We literally just had this discussion.

 

[jt512]

Those (behind the links in your post) are statistical meta studies. They tell us nothing about the validity of the actual data generated in experiments.

1. What would tell you the validity of the actual data generated in the experiments?

2. What tells you the validity of the data in any study in experimental psychology?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Please establish how we know an emotion called 'love' exists...without using anecdotes.

Doing that properly would involve some very heavy philosophical work that would unravel pretty much all claims about the world. You could begin with a Husserlian phenomenological approach where we try to bracket out all claims about a world beyond our own minds and attempt to describe our own experiences at a level with as little theory as we think we can.

Or we can accept all of the unavoidable theory-ladeness of our worldviews and take a pragmatic stance. We take a lot on given and we can examine brain states that seem to relate to behaviour and subject reported emotions. We can also examine bonding behaviours between animals and offspring or mates and relate those to brain states and structures. The hypotheses based on these kinds of studies would make definite predictions that would see them cast aside or provisionally held. ESP claims make a lot of predictions that have failed pragmatic predictive measures.

 

[Daylightstar]

1. What would tell you the validity of the actual data generated in the experiments?
...

For instance a demonstration of the actual phenomenon which is tested and/or demonstrably establishing parameters for the claimed phenomenon.
Without demonstrably having established parameters for the claimed phenomenon, testing it generates meaningless data.

...
2. What tells you the validity of the data in any study in experimental psychology?

Could you give an example of the subject of such a study?

 

[annnnoid]

So, if in your case "love" is restricted to anecdotal .... I'm sorry to hear about that.

Anyways,

referred to claims for paranormal events, not to something you change it into later.

...so where, precisely (besides anecdotally)...has love been demonstrated to actually exist?

We've been over this.

We can show that emotions exist.

We know that an emotion or collection of emotions with the same broad parameters, reffered to as "love", exists.

This is not hard.

…the standard Nonpareil template:

We've been over this. (whether we have or not)

We can show that... (your argument is wrong and my argument is right)(without, of course, every having to suffer the indignity of actually presenting an argument)

We know that... (the details of whatever the argument is are self evident and don’t require any additional substantiation)

This is not hard. (but it’s apparently too hard to actually present an argument)

Please establish how we know an emotion called 'love' exists...without using anecdotes.

Doing that properly would involve some very heavy philosophical work that would unravel pretty much all claims about the world. You could begin with a Husserlian phenomenological approach where we try to bracket out all claims about a world beyond our own minds and attempt to describe our own experiences at a level with as little theory as we think we can.

Or we can accept all of the unavoidable theory-ladeness of our worldviews and take a pragmatic stance. We take a lot on given and we can examine brain states that seem to relate to behaviour and subject reported emotions. We can also examine bonding behaviours between animals and offspring or mates and relate those to brain states and structures. The hypotheses based on these kinds of studies would make definite predictions that would see them cast aside or provisionally held. ESP claims make a lot of predictions that have failed pragmatic predictive measures.

So basically…we know love exists because we say it does. Anecdotes, IOW.

...so…at least one of the most valued phenomena on the planet has been demonstrated to exist only anecdotally….but…according to all of you, anecdotal evidence is worthless.

So the first lesson to the assembled kindergarteners is….there is actually a very substantial precedent when it comes to allowing for anecdotal evidence.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[Sideroxylon]

…the standard Nonpareil template:

We've been over this. (whether we have or not)

We can show that... (your argument is wrong and my argument is right)(without, of course, every having to suffer the indignity of actually presenting an argument)

We know that... (the details of whatever the argument is are self evident and don’t require any additional substantiation)

This is not hard. (but it’s apparently too hard to actually present an argument)






So basically…we know love exists because we say it does. Anecdotes, IOW.

...so…at least one of the most valued phenomena on the planet has been demonstrated to exist only anecdotally….but…according to all of you, anecdotal evidence is worthless.

So the first lesson to the assembled kindergarteners is….there is actually a very substantial precedent when it comes to allowing for anecdotal evidence.

Here endeth the lesson.

I see you responding to what I said but I don't see you replying what I said.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
So the first lesson to the assembled kindergarteners is….there is actually a very substantial precedent when it comes to allowing for anecdotal evidence.

Here endeth the lesson.

None of that increases the probabilities for ESP.

 

[Daylightstar]

I see you responding to what I said but I don't see you replying what I said.

I am also not convinced he actually read it.

 

[annnnoid]

Or we can accept all of the unavoidable theory-ladeness of our worldviews and take a pragmatic stance. We take a lot on given and we can examine brain states that seem to relate to behaviour and subject reported emotions. We can also examine bonding behaviours between animals and offspring or mates and relate those to brain states and structures. The hypotheses based on these kinds of studies would make definite predictions that would see them cast aside or provisionally held. ESP claims make a lot of predictions that have failed pragmatic predictive measures.

There is no science on the planet that can even begin to establish the phenomenology of ‘love’.

Period.

It is exists anecdotally, or it doesn’t exist. The credibility of anecdotal evidence is thereby established to have an enormous precedent. There are countless others.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I am also not convinced he actually read it.

I don't see any evidence and I will not be accepting self-reported anecdotes to that either.

 

[Daylightstar]

There is no science on the planet that can even begin to establish the phenomenology of ‘love’.

Period.

It is exists anecdotally, or it doesn’t exist. The credibility of anecdotal evidence is thereby established to have an enormous precedent. There are countless others.

Not so much for things which have never been demonstrated to exist in any way shape or form.

 

[Nonpareil]

…the stadard Nonpareil template:

We've been over this. (whether we have or not)

We can show that... (your argument is wrong and my argument is right)(without, of course, every having to suffer the indignity of actually presenting an argument)

We know that... (the details of whatever the argument is are self evident and don’t require any additional substantiation)

This is not hard. (but it’s apparently too hard to actually present an argument)

If you want me to be more creative, start posting things that actually require some thought to respond to. As it is, we are regularly forced to reestablish extremely simple concepts because you like to pretend there has never been a response before.

Ignoring the arguments presented does not make them go away.

We know emotions exist. We can observe them. We even know what they are (chemical states in the brain: dopamine, adrenaline, and so on), but that's largely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Unless you're arguing for p-zombies, which are an inherently self-contradictory and incoherent concept, love - and every other emotion - has been proven to exist, because we can observe them. It isn't anecdotal evidence. It can be observed any time you interact with others.

Denying it doesn't change that.

Here endeth the lesson.

Comedy gold.

 

[Sideroxylon]

There is no science on the planet that can even begin to establish the phenomenology of ‘love’.

Period.

It is exists anecdotally, or it doesn’t exist. The credibility of anecdotal evidence is thereby established to have an enormous precedent. There are countless others.

We have a word in various human languages. What do you think it refers to, if anything? What work does it do in the sentence "I love you" in any contexts you care to choose?

 

[annnnoid]

None of that increases the probabilities for ESP.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to admit that.

...but it very effectively trashes your continued insistence that anecdotal evidence is worthless. And if anecdotal evidence has been demonstrated to be of such inestimable value (as to definitively confirm the existence of one of the most prized phenomenon in the world)...then anecdotal evidence can legitimately be considered to have some value in evaluating reports of a phenomenon that is experienced by upwards of 50% of the worlds population.