• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Matt Rouge on Why Skeptics will never accept the existence of psi

But using my special definition of words I was saying "the sun is a star" - so you are saying that you think it is only 50/50 that the sun is a star! Amazing.

Before you told me it meant "the sun is a star"? Yes, it would be 50/50 because at that point it might as well have meant "the sun is a not a star". You don't really grasp how this reasoning thing works, do you?
 

From the article:
(my highlight)
" Under the Perceptual Training Systems and Tools banner, extrasensory perception has a new name in the modern era: “sensemaking.” In official Defense Department literature sensemaking is defined as “a motivated continuous effort to understand connections (which can be among people, places, and events) in order to anticipate their trajectories and act effectively.”"

It appears from the article that the military believes they are training soldiers to use their senses and "intuition" to anticipate actions. This is not at all "extrasensory"; It is teaching them to use their unconscious mental processing and act on the intuitions that processing creates.

Also from the article:
"Commander Joseph Cohn, a program manager at the naval office, told the New York Times, “These reports from the field often detailed a ‘sixth sense’ or ‘Spidey sense’ that alerted them to an impending attack or I.E.D., or that allowed them to respond to a novel situation without consciously analyzing the situation.”"

The soldier feels as if they are using a sixth sense, they get a "feeling" and act on it, and in some cases this has proven to save lives. This is not a description of psi, it is a description of how the brain works to process multiple streams of information unconsciously and then plops the result into awareness so the individual can act on it. It feels like the idea comes out of thin air, because the consciousness can not access exactly what sensory factors lead to the conclusion of what is going to happen.
This is analogous to the solution to a problem suddenly appearing in consciousness (Eureka!), or to the "mystical" origin of creative impulses which generate art and literature. These predictions, solutions and inspirations arise from the brain, but the consciousness does not have access to the underlying processes, only to the results.

I commend the military for recognizing the importance of unconscious processing and its relationship to intuition, and for attempting to train soldiers to use their brains more effectively and to trust their intuitions in stressful conditions.

Of course authors like Annie Jacobsen, believers in psi, and possible even members of the pentagon staff will want to misinterpret this natural phenomenon as "extrasensory" or as evidence of psi.

Remember, intuition of this kind is not infallible, but of course the number of instances where a soldier "feels something", and acts, only to find nothing was there is not reported. Only the "few" "occasional" amazing positive results are reported and leave a lasting impression.
Sound familiar?
 
Remember, intuition of this kind is not infallible, but of course the number of instances where a soldier "feels something", and acts, only to find nothing was there is not reported. Only the "few" "occasional" amazing positive results are reported and leave a lasting impression.
Sound familiar?

Sounds very familiar. Makes me wonder why you'd commend the military to operate by those standards when you can define it as "not psi" but probably wouldn't when you can define it as "psi" - even though it's the same standard. Besides, they talk about a sixth sense through which the information about things they could not know about is provided to them, which would make it extrasensory perception. It's basically psi without calling it psi.
 
Nope. A skeptic's working assumption is that we don't know whether the claim is true or false. You're just doing the believer thing but from the other side.

A: "psi does not exist."
Skeptic: "is there evidence of that claim?"
A: "no."
Skeptic: "then the claim is assumed to be false, ie psi is assumed to exist."

See the problem?

That's not how belief works at all.

The null position is that unless evidence exists for X then it is not reasonable to accept any claims about X.

Belief is being fervid to one side of the equation despite any evidence that may come.
 
The null position is that unless evidence exists for X then it is not reasonable to accept any claims about X.

Not really but close.

Belief is being fervid to one side of the equation despite any evidence that may come.

A bit further away now. If a belief is adjusted in response to evidence does that make it stop being a belief?
 
Not really but close.



A bit further away now. If a belief is adjusted in response to evidence does that make it stop being a belief?

1: k...

2: Yes. That was easy.


Now for my question, Let's say 100 people upload video's entitled 'Psi powers move keys' and in each one sure enough without touching the keys people are moving them and let's make it even more interesting will say each video is done with scientific rigor; No strings, camera tricks etc.

Would that be proof of psi?
 
Last edited:
1: k...

2: Yes. That was easy.

If "I believe the Earth is round" is not a belief then what is it? Note that I'm willing to change it, should sufficient evidence be provided otherwise, so by your definition it can't be a belief.

Now for my question, Let's say 100 people upload video's entitled 'Psi powers move keys' and in each one sure enough without touching the keys people are moving them and let's make it even more interesting will say each video is done with scientific rigor; No strings, camera tricks etc.

Would that be proof of psi?

No. Why would you think it would?
 
Last edited:
Sounds very familiar. Makes me wonder why you'd commend the military to operate by those standards when you can define it as "not psi" but probably wouldn't when you can define it as "psi" - even though it's the same standard. Besides, they talk about a sixth sense through which the information about things they could not know about is provided to them, which would make it extrasensory perception. It's basically psi without calling it psi.

Could you quote that part? I missed it.
 
If you think that was unsuccessful then you shouldn't, it'd be too boring, and you'd probably get annoying pretty fast with things like implying that 1 + 1 equals 3 or such - because that's what JayUtah's latest in that thread implies, among other things.

Believers never do. Interestingly, I haven't been able to catch JayUtah in any such "believer errors", it's just that his math is so deplorably bad. Over 5 years of this you'd think the guy would've bothered reading a damn probability textbook.
My degree is in Mathematics, I will use my own judgement as to whose Maths is "deplorably bad".
 
If "I believe the Earth is round" is not a belief then what is it? Note that I'm willing to change it, should sufficient evidence be provided otherwise, so by your definition it can't be a belief.



No. Why would you think it would?


The earth is round is a factual statement and in my case, It's something I accept because of the preponderance of evidence for it.

I'm glad you said that I was going to point out, That all we could say is an event is happening and the cause is still unknown until further investigation happens.
 
Could you quote that part? I missed it.

“These reports from the field often detailed a ‘sixth sense’ or ‘Spidey sense’ that alerted them to an impending attack or I.E.D., or that allowed them to respond to a novel situation without consciously analyzing the situation.”

Those are clearly claims of extrasensory perception.
 
My degree is in Mathematics, I will use my own judgement as to whose Maths is "deplorably bad".

Usually it's the one whose maths implies that 1 + 1 equals 3. It's a dead giveaway really.

Either way, your judgement counts for nothing unless you can produce proof.
 
Last edited:
The earth is round is a factual statement and in my case, It's something I accept because of the preponderance of evidence for it.

What is a factual statement other than a belief which accounts for the available evidence?

I'm glad you said that I was going to point out, That all we could say is an event is happening and the cause is still unknown until further investigation happens.

What event is happening?
 
“These reports from the field often detailed a ‘sixth sense’ or ‘Spidey sense’ that alerted them to an impending attack or I.E.D., or that allowed them to respond to a novel situation without consciously analyzing the situation.”
Those are clearly claims of extrasensory perception.


No, those are claims of "respond...without consciously analyzing". As I said the processing is unconscious, only the result is conscious. Yes, the soldier reports "feeling" a 6th sense. That feeling, in the rational interpretation, is based on what their brain is doing with the sensory information at hand, combined with their past experience and training. It is quite well explained in this way, no need to invoke esp or psi, as I described previously. That's why the Pentagon calls it "a motivated continuous effort to understand connections (which can be among people, places, and events) in order to anticipate their trajectories and act effectively". Nothing supernatural about it.
Is there another example showing where "information about things they could not know about is provided to them, which would make it extrasensory perception"??
 
“These reports from the field often detailed a ‘sixth sense’ or ‘Spidey sense’ that alerted them to an impending attack or I.E.D., or that allowed them to respond to a novel situation without consciously analyzing the situation.”


No, those are claims of "respond...without consciously analyzing".

It literally claims another sense which alerted them.

As I said the processing is unconscious, only the result is conscious. Yes, the soldier reports "feeling" a 6th sense. That feeling, in the rational interpretation, is based on what their brain is doing with the sensory information at hand, combined with their past experience and training. It is quite well explained in this way, no need to invoke esp or psi, as I described previously.

Are you claiming it is rational to train an army to use their gut instincts merely because a couple of soldiers claim to have extrasensory perception? In a way that's even less rational than training them to use this extra, unevidenced, sense.

Is there another example showing where "information about things they could not know about is provided to them, which would make it extrasensory perception"??

Not that I know of.
 
What is a factual statement other than a belief which accounts for the available evidence?



What event is happening?

It's a factual statement backed up by evidence, What is unclear about that?

I am aware other people use the word belief differently than I and will concede that the term is interchangeable in some instances.

In the hypothetical I set up, unknown, But what I don't get to do is randomly assign an explanation to it; IE: Invisible Pixies moved the keys.
 
It literally claims another sense which alerted them.
No, it claims that soldiers report feeling a 6th sense. I have had that feeling myself, and I believe most of us have. Its part of how the human brain works. Unless you can offer a compelling example of a soldier or anyone else who has received "information about things they could not know about" then I will continue to believe the rational explanation.
Are you claiming it is rational to train an army to use their gut instincts merely because a couple of soldiers claim to have extrasensory perception? In a way that's even less rational than training them to use this extra, unevidenced, sense.
No, that is your own straw man to defend if you wish.
I am claiming that relying on your gut instinct in tense dangerous situations is a tricky business, and some training for those who might be able to save lives is a good idea.

Not that I know of.
In that case I will stick to the rational explanation, as there appears to be no evidence of psi here.
 
It's a factual statement backed up by evidence, What is unclear about that?

I am aware other people use the word belief differently than I and will concede that the term is interchangeable in some instances.

In the hypothetical I set up, unknown, But what I don't get to do is randomly assign an explanation to it; IE: Invisible Pixies moved the keys.

And how exactly is this relevant again?
 
And how exactly is this relevant again?

The hypothetical?

I set it up to see if you understand that evidence claiming X is happening isn't the same as proving X is happening.

That aside; Without evidence should I accept a claim at its face value?
 
No, it claims that soldiers report feeling a 6th sense. I have had that feeling myself, and I believe most of us have. Its part of how the human brain works. Unless you can offer a compelling example of a soldier or anyone else who has received "information about things they could not know about" then I will continue to believe the rational explanation.

And? Clearly these soldiers don't believe it.

No, that is your own straw man to defend if you wish.
I am claiming that relying on your gut instinct in tense dangerous situations is a tricky business, and some training for those who might be able to save lives is a good idea.

It's irrational and a good idea? It is irrational to train soldiers to use their "precognitive skills" merely because a couple of them think they have extrasensory perception, right?

In that case I will stick to the rational explanation, as there appears to be no evidence of psi here.

Again, and?
 

Back
Top Bottom