Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Nonpareil]

All memories are POTENTIALLY flawed. Thus, the burden is on the claimant to demonstrate that the events they remember actually occurred. A person may forget critical details, or may add critical details (this has been so well documented in courtrooms and psychological literature that denying it is on the same level as denying gravity). Or they may just remember something that's entirely false--people "remember" committing crimes they demonstrably didn't commit under police interogation very frequently. It's a major problem with criminal investigations.

If something CAN BE flawed, it is the claimant's responsibility to show that it's NOT flawed IN THIS CASE--meaning the burden of documentation is on them, and each case must be evaluated individually. That's why scientists document everything--if we don't, and rely on memory, it doesn't count.

Add a poor undestanding of cognative biases, a healthy dose of remembering apparent hits and ignoring misses, and other well-known and widely-documented mental issues we all have, and most ESP phenomana evaporate like vampires at dawn. If there are any remaining it is YOUR obligation to demonstrate them.

I don't think you can. In fact, I'm sure of it. If you could, you would have, instead of demanding we disprove anecdotes.

See, this is the sort of thing I would post, if I didn't know full well that the response to it is going to be "No, it's your job to show that every anecdote is fraudulent".

annnnoid does not just lack understanding of the burden of proof, the fallibility of memory, or the difference between anecdotes and observation. He lacks willingness to understand. So, sadly, posts like this aren't going to get anywhere with him. It starts from the assumption that he has just made a mistake or been misinformed.

We'll be back to demanding evidence for the existence of love, equivocating between anecdotes and observation, and demanding that every single anecdote be answered individually within three posts.

 

[Dinwar]

See, this is the sort of thing I would post, if I didn't know full well that the response to it is going to be "No, it's your job to show that every anecdote is fraudulent".

I'm just posting it to have it on record. I know annnnoid isn't going to listen; anyone who's willing to throw out all of science in order to support an unfounded hypothesis isn't exactly going to be convinced by a forum post. I just want it to be in the thread, is all.

 

[annnnoid]

In contrast, annnnoid and his ilk have set vastly higher standards for disproof of their pet hypotheses than for proof of them. Someone saying "I once had a dream that came true" counts as proof--but to disprove it, we are expected to find ONE explanation that disproves ALL of them IN DETAIL. This is the exact opposite of scientific SOPs, and is tailor made to insulate the pet hypothesis from criticism.

Y’know, if you’re not prepared to stop putting words in my mouth maybe it’s I who will decide to stop having anything further to do with you.

Show me where I have ever once insisted that any one or all of these events combined constitute anything more than very conditional proof that they are what they say they are (which, since everyone here seems to constantly forget it...is what the OP is all about: probability).

One….single…case.

As for the rest of what you’ve written, there are so many massive holes in it I’m afraid I’ll just have to leave it for later.

…and I would suggest you refrain from the self-righteous scientific crap. As I said, there are so many blatant methodological flaws in what you just wrote that I would never believe you are a scientist if I didn’t actually believe that you are a scientist.

I am, at the moment, in the midst of a rather significant family crisis… and that is the only reason that it may take some time to very happily expose what a pile of nonsense just about all of what you wrote actually is.

This has been his modus operandi since the beginning of the thread, yes. He has a blatant double standard about any of his pet theories; any evidence against them is not conclusive enough, no matter how rigorous, while anything that he thinks provides any support at all is instantly admitted.

This is why he's bending over backwards trying to equivocate between anecdotes and actual evidence, but refuses to consider the fact that no studies have turned up anything in his favor as relevant.

…yeah of course. This coming from someone who has yet to provide a shred of evidence, links, quotes, papers, studies…anything-at-all…to substantiate a single claim you have ever made anywhere.

Did you not notice…Dinwar…that Nonpareil has never, ever, provided a shred of evidence to support a vast range of extraordinary claims.

…but I guess that’s perfectly ok. Even on a science forum. Hand-waving allowed...and if you're a skeptic, it's encouraged.

As for studies…I’m guessing that you, like everyone else here, has refused to read the studies I’ve submitted. What a surprise.

Little snowflakes. Pretty little snowflakes.

 

[Dinwar]

Y’know, if you’re not prepared to stop putting words in my mouth maybe it’s I who will decide to stop having anything further to do with you.

Evaluations aren't putting words in your mouth. You accept anecdotes as evidence, but demand conclusive disproof in order to count it as a refutation (your weasle-words demonstrate that NO refutations will be accepted, but that's another issue). These are different standards, with the higher standard being applied to arguments against your idea, while a lower standard is accepted for arguments supporting it.

Don't like it? Tough. That's exactly what you're doing. You don't get to complain when you get called out on it.

I'm still waiting on the good-faith effort to demonstrate the validity of those millions of claims, by the way. I did the heavy lifting for you by providing you a scientifically valid protocol--all you need to do is follow those instructions. You can't, though, so you won't.

 

[annnnoid]

What did you have for breakfast on 14th January 2001? And what colour socks did you wear?

…yeah…of course. Because just about everyone wakes up and suddenly, for the first time, remembers a psychic event that happened 14 years ago.

Next serious question.

…and if you want evidence, read these.

http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cm...20Handbook.pdf

http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cm...Baptista14.pdf

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Consci...y.-a0320731649

But you won’t, cause none of you are actually interested in evidence, or facts, or accuracy (did you read any of them Dinwar???...no, didn’t think so). You’re only interested in hiding behind, what did Dinwar call them, your special little snowflakes. All these strawmen that you keep flinging all over the place:

…everybody lies [what, everybody…all the time???]
…everybody forgets [what, everybody…all the time???]
…everybody misrepresents memories [what, everybody…all the time???]
…where is the conclusive scientific evidence to support any of these blatantly stupid claims […nowhere…all the time…]
…we can adjudicate the phenomena directly [not even worth responding to since no one has provided a shred of evidence that this is possible]
…so why don’t we consider Elvis sightings, bigfoot, nessie, ghosts, the abominable snowman [not even worth responding to and anyone who has the slightest clue as to what they are arguing against should know why…that so many here keep introducing these strawmen very clearly illustrates the dimensions of your ignorance]
…studies have conclusively dismissed the psi results [no they haven’t, as the above submissions quite clearly establish]
…available clinical results explain the events [available clinical results are nothing more than conditional and circumstantial and this can very easily be conclusively established]

The positions commonly taken here can be described (and, not surprisingly, explained), very easily:

All is jaundiced to the jaundiced eye.

Simple fact is, there is a scientific reason for psi events to be assigned a valid probability in relation to the OP (see above)…there is a statistical reason for psi to be assigned a valid probability in relation to the OP…and there is an epistemological / ontological reason for psi to be assigned a valid probability in relation to the OP (not one of you has yet addressed that issue…probably cause none of you even understand it).

All any of you have been able to muster is populist clichés and strawmen. The only one of you who has presented anything resembling substantial evidence (despite countless pages of argument) is Dinwar. In relation to the JREF ‘studies’ (and I use that word very charitably)…no reasonable scientist would regard them as credible studies of anything (except the gullibility of fools)…and if you are determined to believe that they represent exactly that…then just see how far you get when you try and have them submitted to a mainstream academic science publication…they wouldn’t even waste their time throwing them out.

As far as Dinwar’s evidence is concerned, it is…and can be…nothing more than conditional and circumstantial. It does not, and cannot, directly address the phenomenon in question (no science does; not surprisingly, the only studies that are making the attempt are those being done in the psi community). Not to mention that those studies do not even begin to differentiate, in any statistically significant way, demographic issues.

IOW…how do the ‘explanations’ offered vary across demographic groups? Any difference between a 5 year old and an 85 year old (the studies provide 0 data)…cause these phenomena have been reported across that broad a spectrum. What about explicit sociological demographics, psychological demographics, physiological demographics…all the multitudes of issues that any credible scientific study adjusts for…so they can actually be considered credible studies.

The studies presented allow for extremely limited data sets…and none directly address the issues…because they can’t. This is conclusively established in one of them [at ingentaconnect] where they very clearly admit that any neural correlation is currently nothing more than hypothetical […doubtless not a single one of you ever notice such significant qualifications in your desperate attempts to preserve your ‘little snowflakes’]…and since the data that the studies use is frequently demographically limited in various ways….it is only possible to conclude that the results are equivalently…

…limited. Conditional, and circumstantial.

Unless…of course….Nonpareil wants to present some actual evidence for once that may support his assertions that claim to comprehensively and conclusively resolve the issue.

…but we all know that is never going to happen. It’s called hand waving. If you don’t know what ‘hand-waving’ means…imagine you’re an epileptic and you sit on a nest of fire ants.

So…the evidence that has so far been presented that CLAIMES to explain these events provides very limited conclusions. Like I said, conditional and circumstantial….and very very easy to establish that this is the case.

Thus, in relation to the OP, psi has a conditionally quantifiable probability. Unless anyone can demonstrate that alien life has an equivalently quantifiable probability …it must be concluded that psi has a greater probability and the matter is resolved.

 

[Nonpareil]

Y’know, if you’re not prepared to stop putting words in my mouth maybe it’s I who will decide to stop having anything further to do with you.

Show me where I have ever once insisted that any one or all of these events combined constitute anything more than very conditional proof that they are what they say they are (which, since everyone here seems to constantly forget it...is what the OP is all about: probability).

One….single…case.

You do realize that's exactly what we're talking about, yes? Your claim that anecdotes constitute "conditional proof", or even very conditional proof, is wrong.

This isn't hard.

…yeah of course. This coming from someone who has yet to provide a shred of evidence, links, quotes, papers, studies…anything-at-all…to substantiate a single claim you have ever made anywhere.

Did you not notice…Dinwar…that Nonpareil has never, ever, provided a shred of evidence to support a vast range of extraordinary claims.

These "extraordinary claims" include memory being fallible, anecdotes not being evidence, knowing that emotions exist, and so on.

Demanding proof of these is equivalent to demanding proof that the sky is blue, and I do not feel like indulging you on it.

As for studies…I’m guessing that you, like everyone else here, has refused to read the studies I’ve submitted. What a surprise.

No, we've read them.

They don't help your case.

 

[Dinwar]

These "extraordinary claims" include memory being fallible, anecdotes not being evidence, knowing that emotions exist, and so on.

Demanding proof of these is equivalent to demanding proof that the sky is blue, and I do not feel like indulging you on it.

It doesn't help his case that even if YOU failed to provide such evidence, others--including myself--have provided ample evidence, including peer-reviewed journal articles and psychological studies demonstrating them to be true.

If I can prove your case, you don't need to. As long as the data are there, who provides it is irrelevant.

 

[annnnoid]

Evaluations aren't putting words in your mouth. You accept anecdotes as evidence, but demand conclusive disproof in order to count it as a refutation (your weasle-words demonstrate that NO refutations will be accepted, but that's another issue). These are different standards, with the higher standard being applied to arguments against your idea, while a lower standard is accepted for arguments supporting it.

Don't like it? Tough. That's exactly what you're doing. You don't get to complain when you get called out on it.

I'm still waiting on the good-faith effort to demonstrate the validity of those millions of claims, by the way. I did the heavy lifting for you by providing you a scientifically valid protocol--all you need to do is follow those instructions. You can't, though, so you won't.

Words in my mouth…yet…again!

Conditional…evidence!!!!!!!

…just how many times do I have to repeat this????

And if you want an obvious scientific precedent for this you need travel no further than the half-million psychoanalysts currently practicing on this planet. They do not just use anecdotal evidence (or personal observation or self-report or whatever particular meaning you may have in mind)…it is one of the foundations of their professional activities.

...so tell me again how anecdotes (or whatever word you want to use) have no evidentiary validity.

They have 'conditional' evidentiary validity. And if you ever again insist I have ever claimed otherwise ...I will, in fact, decide to have nothing more to do with you.

 

[annnnoid]

It doesn't help his case that even if YOU failed to provide such evidence, others--including myself--have provided ample evidence, including peer-reviewed journal articles and psychological studies demonstrating them to be true.

If I can prove your case, you don't need to. As long as the data are there, who provides it is irrelevant.

....I see. So now hand-waving is a valid tactic (he was doing so long before you presented those links). I'll keep that in mind.

...and your evidence is far from ample. I now have work to do, so establishing that will have to wait.

 

[Darat]

…yeah…of course. Because just about everyone wakes up and suddenly, for the first time, remembers a psychic event that happened 14 years ago.


...snip...

Do you remember "infallibly" or not?

 

[Nonpareil]

…yeah…of course. Because just about everyone wakes up and suddenly, for the first time, remembers a psychic event that happened 14 years ago.

Next serious question.

And another point sails over your head.

…and if you want evidence, read these.

http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cm...20Handbook.pdf

http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cm...Baptista14.pdf

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Consci...y.-a0320731649

404 not found, 404 not found, book review by the college student that authored the blog post he was previously parading around.

Not very convincing.

All these strawmen that you keep flinging all over the place:

It's funny, because half of those are strawmen in and of themselves.

…studies have conclusively dismissed the psi results [no they haven’t, as the above submissions quite clearly establish]

Yes, they have.

Your refusal to accept this does not make it untrue.

The positions commonly taken here can be described (and, not surprisingly, explained), very easily:

All is jaundiced to the jaundiced eye.

You still don't understand the burden of proof. Or even what the word "fallible" means.

Simple fact is, there is a scientific reason for psi events to be assigned a valid probability in relation to the OP (see above)…there is a statistical reason for psi to be assigned a valid probability in relation to the OP…and there is an epistemological / ontological reason for psi to be assigned a valid probability in relation to the OP (not one of you has yet addressed that issue…probably cause none of you even understand it).

It's funny that you're suddenly backpedaling into the realms of probability.

Even that much is still incorrect, but still, it's funny. And if you think there is an "epistemological / ontological reason for psi to be assigned a valid probability", perhaps you should present it.

As far as Dinwar’s evidence is concerned, it is…and can be…nothing more than conditional and circumstantial. It does not, and cannot, directly address the phenomenon in question (no science does; not surprisingly, the only studies that are making the attempt are those being done in the psi community).

Hyup hyup, repeating stuff that has already been established as bunk.

Can I call it, or can I call it?

Unless…of course….Nonpareil wants to present some actual evidence for once that may support his assertions that claim to comprehensively and conclusively resolve the issue.

What, that memory is fallible and people make mistakes? Already have.

Or do you mean that anecdotes are not evidence, or equal to observation? Perhaps you might look at a dictionary.

Or do you dispute that the burden of proof rests upon you?

Because that's what I've argued, and that's all that needs to be argued. Saying I "haven't proven it" is ridiculous. It is the equivalent of a kindergarten student arguing that he was right on his math homework, he really was, because nobody's proven that's how addition works.

 

[Nonpareil]

Words in my mouth…yet…again!

Conditional…evidence!!!!!!!

…just how many times do I have to repeat this????

We hear you.

You're still wrong.

And if you want an obvious scientific precedent for this you need travel no further than the half-million psychoanalysts currently practicing on this planet. They do not just use anecdotal evidence (or personal observation or self-report or whatever particular meaning you may have in mind)…it is one of the foundations of their professional activities.

You are still equivocating between anecdotes and observation.

 

[Dancing David]

"The mind is the brain" is nonsense.

"Minds do not exist without brains", on the other hand, remains entirely correct.

Minds are a carpet tossed on top of the brain events. A rubric of poorly define ' I know it when I see it'

 

[Dancing David]

My statement? What statement? A little reading comprehension, please. I am talking about the measurement. I did not say that I thought the measurement was correct. And as for bacteria incorporating arsenic into their DNA, that was not "shown to be true." It was shown to be false, or at the very least unproven.

I already did. The conventional statistical measure of "rising above the noise" is the p-value, and the conventional criterion for rising above the noise is p<.05. The results I showed had a p-value on the order of 10^–8, so they "rose above the noise" by 6 orders of magnitude by conventional standards. Any novel, but otherwise ordinary finding in experimental psych would be believed with far less evidence, but the extraordinary nature of an ESP claim (that is, its low prior probability) implies—rightly so—that the level of evidence for believability be extraordinary. If you take a deep breath and reread my post in context, you might actually see that I brought up claims for ESP, arsenic bacteria, and superluminal neutrinos as examples demonstrating (especially to Dinwar) that, in practice, science follows Bayesian principles of inference, at least informally.

Super luminal neutrinos do not exists except within the very tight bounds of HIP, you can cite p values if you want, show the actual research that demonstrates ESP and we can discuss the methodology.

I am sceptical of most research until I examine the papers and the methodology, I have seen plenty of foolish psychology citations that were never replicated and/or suffered from very bad methods.

(My favorite was a co-worker who claimed that watching sexualized TV shows was lowering the onset of adolescence.)

 

[Dinwar]

Words in my mouth…yet…again!

I have explained why anecdotes are not evidence, and have provided a methodology for gathering data from anecdotes. You have failed both, yet expect us to accept anecdotes as evidence.

This is still a double standard, and thus my evaluation stands.

And if you want an obvious scientific precedent for this you need travel no further than the half-million psychoanalysts currently practicing on this planet. They do not just use anecdotal evidence (or personal observation or self-report or whatever particular meaning you may have in mind)…it is one of the foundations of their professional activities.

You really need to learn what you're talking about. Case studies ARE NOT anecdotes, and are not even close to them. Psychoanalysts put a tremendous amount of effort into the rigorous examination of each case. If you can demonstrate that your anecdotes have been similarly analyzed, they wouldn't be anecdotes, but rather case studies. Case studies are not usually considered strong evidence, by the way--there are a number of well-documented issues with them. Mostly, they're too constrained to be useful for making general statements about the thing. But a meta-analysis of case studies, which is what I outlined above, can help with that.

 

[Pixel42]

Here's the link for the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at the University of London again:

http://www.gold.ac.uk/apru/what/

Here's the list of their papers: http://www.gold.ac.uk/apru/pubs/

Here's the link to one of those papers:
http://www.gold.ac.uk/media/FrenchWilson2006.pdf

Here's its title and abstract:

Incredible Memories —How Accurate are Reports of Anomalous Events?

Christopher C. French and Krissy Wilson

Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit
Goldsmiths College
University of London

Psychologists have studied the accuracy of eyewitness testimony for
many decades and, more recently, there has been a great deal of research
carried out on the topic of false memories. An overview of research
in these two areas is presented with a particular focus upon
the accuracy of reported memories for anomalous experiences. It
has been shown that eyewitness accounts of faked seances and other
pseudo-psychic demonstrations are often highly inaccurate. Recent
research has also considered memory conformity effects whereby the
account of an ostensibly paranormal event provided by one witness
can be shown to have an effect upon the accuracy of the report of
a co-witness. It is often the case that the degree of memory distortion
in such studies is related to the level of paranormal belief.
Paranormal belief and the tendency to report ostensibly paranormal
experiences have been shown to be correlated with a number of psychological
variables which themselves correlate with susceptibility to
false memories, including dissociativity, absorption, fantasy proneness,
hypnotic susceptibility, and reports of childhood trauma. This
suggests that at least some reports of ostensibly paranormal experiences
may be based upon false memories. The results of recent studies
supporting such a claim will be presented.

That's as much spoon feeding as I'm prepared to do.

 

[Dinwar]

There's also that gorilla video. It's not a memory issue, but deals with cognative biases none the less--if you can't spot a gorilla walking into frame (or, rather, a guy in a gorilla suit), just how reliable can we take your testimony? And practically NO ONE sees the gorilla.

If you need more documentation, just type "gorilla video" into Google. It may be the easiest psychological study to track down in history.

 

[Nonpareil]

And practically NO ONE sees the gorilla.

I did.

That led to some very awkward looks while I tried to keep from cracking up laughing and giving it away to the other people watching.

 

[Darat]

And another point sails over your head.



404 not found, 404 not found, book review by the college student that authored the blog post he was previously parading around.

Not very convincing.



...snip...

To be fair the links did work in earlier posts, I'd suggest you read the "papers" they are rather... well I'll not spoil the fun for you:

http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/Baptista et al Handbook.pdf

http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/Meta_Baptista14.pdf

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Consciousness+and+the+Source+of+Reality.-a0320731649

ETA: I was just double checking my links worked, this is what Chrome did:

 

[Nonpareil]

To be fair the links did work in earlier posts, I'd suggest you read the "papers" they are rather... well I'll not spoil the fun for you:

http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/Baptista et al Handbook.pdf

http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/Meta_Baptista14.pdf

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Consciousness+and+the+Source+of+Reality.-a0320731649

"Explicit Anomalous Cognition: A Review of the Best Evidence in Ganzfeld, Forced-choice, Remote Viewing and Dream Studies", by Johann Baptista, Max Derakhshani and Patrizio Tressoldi.

"BEYOND THE COIN TOSS: EXAMINING WISEMAN’S CRITICISMS OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY", by Johann Baptista and Max Derakhshani.

"CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE SOURCE OF REALITY", reviewed by Max Derakhshani.

"An alternative take on ESP", blog post by... Max Derakhshani.

Anyone else sensing a pattern here?