Forbidden Science

[PixyMisa]

The prior thread was discussing a different PEAR paper. I suggest you read the paper that I referenced: "Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program." The summary of that paper states

Blah blah.

Yeah. But we know, by their own admission, no, by their detailed analysis, that every experiment that PEAR runs is poorly designed and that their statistical work is shoddy. All special pleading aside ("skeptic effect" my butt), I see no reason whatsoever to expect that any other study is going to produce results that are both positive and meaningful.

PEAR always claims that they ave found something, and that something always disappears when proper experimental control and statistical methods are introduced. Their current work with the EGGs is an example; it is complete and irredeemable crap from both the perspective of experimental design (no controls; not even the possibility for controls) and statistical methods (cherry-pickers have nothing on these guys).

Why, honestly, why should I even look at this particular paper?

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't subscribe to the theory that anyone who is treated contemptuously by mainstream scientists must be on to something of importance, but why do so many mainstream scientists have such contempt?

Because Velikovsky was an idiot, as has been copiously demonstrated.

Could it possibly be that they are insecure and are worried that their most cherished beliefs are flat out wrong?

No.

Because we know perfectly well that science is not "flat out wrong". If it was, we wouldn't be here (for many different senses of here).

Science is right, because it works. Velikovsky is a nut, and Cayce a fraud, because what they claimed doesn't work.

 

[Mojo]

Velikovsky is only peripherally relevant to this thread. As far as I can tell, the author of "Forbidden Science" -- Richard Milton -- never mentions him on Milton's website -- http://www.alternativescience.com

Apart from here, of course.

At the height of the Velikovsky affair described in the previous chapter...

He's just chosen not to publish the previous chapter of the book on his website.

In any case, according to love, who started this thread, the thread is about his book Forbidden Science (incidentally, there's no book of this title listed on his "Books" page. Is "Forbidden Science" an alternative title for "Alternative Science"?):

I am currently reading a book by Richard Milton called Forbidden Science. Has anyone else here read it?

I think he makes some interesting points.

And what did love think the interesting points in the book include?

Perhaps the most interesting story in the book is about Velikovsky. He actually made several bold predictions, that were regarded as impossible at the time. These predictions were later confirmed by science, yet his theories are still not generally accepted.

 

[Rodney]

Blah blah.

Yeah. But we know, by their own admission, no, by their detailed analysis, that every experiment that PEAR runs is poorly designed and that their statistical work is shoddy. All special pleading aside ("skeptic effect" my butt), I see no reason whatsoever to expect that any other study is going to produce results that are both positive and meaningful.

PEAR always claims that they ave found something, and that something always disappears when proper experimental control and statistical methods are introduced. Their current work with the EGGs is an example; it is complete and irredeemable crap from both the perspective of experimental design (no controls; not even the possibility for controls) and statistical methods (cherry-pickers have nothing on these guys).

Why, honestly, why should I even look at this particular paper?

If your mind is open, you might learn something.

 

[Rodney]

Because Velikovsky was an idiot, as has been copiously demonstrated.


No.

Because we know perfectly well that science is not "flat out wrong". If it was, we wouldn't be here (for many different senses of here).

Science is right, because it works. Velikovsky is a nut, and Cayce a fraud, because what they claimed doesn't work.

If you believe Cayce is a fraud, you are woefully ignorant.

 

[Rodney]

Apart from here, of course.

He's just chosen not to publish the previous chapter of the book on his website.

Sorry, I missed that, and I haven't read Milton's book.

In any case, according to love, who started this thread, the thread is about his book Forbidden Science (incidentally, there's no book of this title listed on his "Books" page. Is "Forbidden Science" an alternative title for "Alternative Science"?):
And what did love think the interesting points in the book include?

Having now looked into this matter a little more, it appears that Love misstated the title of Milton's book. The main point here is that Milton has an extensive discussion of many subjects on his website, but he accords Velikovsky only a passing mention.

 

[kookbreaker]

If you believe Cayce is a fraud, you are woefully ignorant.

Wow...there's stunning proof right there.

 

[kookbreaker]

If your mind is open, you might learn something.

He already did: He learned that PEAR prefers sloppy work so they can get results to trumpet.

 

[UrsulaV]

If you believe Cayce is a fraud, you are woefully ignorant.

Oh, well, now that you've said THAT of course I believe you! All those facts and evidence I was hoping for are just swept away by that brilliant statement!




*RAMPS!*



(ahem.)

 

[Genesius]

If you believe Cayce is a fraud, you are woefully ignorant.

We are talking about the same Edgar Cayce who predicted that Atlantis would rise again in 1968 or 1969. Why yes, obviously he was the real thing! I'm leaving tomorrow on a Carnival Atlantis Cruise, complete with souvenir power crystal!

Never mind pesky things like geology and oceanography telling us that a giant mid-ocean continent never existed. If Cayce said it was there, he must be right!

 

[Hawk one]

Genesius: And wasn't New York and another major city supposed to sink into the ocean as well? And wasn't the poles supposed to shift?


Gee, who could ever doubt the credibility of a person that's so accurate in his predictions?

 

[BillHoyt]

How do you know if you haven't examined Cayce's documented record?

There are far too many woos out there. If we had to respond to each of these challenges we'd never get anything done. If Cayce has a documented record worthy of investigation, then I'd expect it to have attracted enough interest for a researcher to follow up on it. Virginia Beach is home to the Edgar Cayce Foundation, an organization with enough funds to command somebody's attention. For some reason, though, no investigator has come in and found enough evidence for a peer-reviewed paper. It is a wonder, isn't it? What with a publish-or-perish academic world, it is a wonder somebody hasn't made him- or herself full professor with peer-reviewed papers showing strong evidence there really was something to Cayce!

 

[Rodney]

There are far too many woos out there. If we had to respond to each of these challenges we'd never get anything done. If Cayce has a documented record worthy of investigation, then I'd expect it to have attracted enough interest for a researcher to follow up on it. Virginia Beach is home to the Edgar Cayce Foundation, an organization with enough funds to command somebody's attention. For some reason, though, no investigator has come in and found enough evidence for a peer-reviewed paper. It is a wonder, isn't it? What with a publish-or-perish academic world, it is a wonder somebody hasn't made him- or herself full professor with peer-reviewed papers showing strong evidence there really was something to Cayce!

Cayce has been thoroughly investigated by many researchers, past and present, and none of those thorough researchers (as opposed to the Martin Gardners, James Randis, and Robert Carrolls of the world) have concluded that he was a fraud. Sidney Kirkpatrick's 2000 book "Edgar Cayce -- An American Prophet" states at p. 170: "[In December 1911] a . . . thorough investigation [of Cayce] was . . . conducted by Dr. Hugo Munsterberg, the dean of psychology at Harvard University, former president of the American Psychology Association, and a friend and associate of William James . . . There was no question what his intentions were, for he told his students and faculty members at Harvard before he left that the reason for his trip was 'to expose Cayce to the world.'"

At p. 171, Kirkpatrick's book notes that Munsterberg observed a Cayce reading and interviewed the family of Aime Dietrich (a 6-year old girl whom Cayce had cured of a supposedly incurable condition) and Cayce patients over a two-day period. P. 171 states: "At the end of his visit, Munsterberg admitted to Edgar that he had no explanation for what he had seen and heard, but he had to conclude that Edgar was the real thing. He also urged Edgar to continue: 'If you never do another case other than the little Dietrich child, your life has not been in vain,' he said. 'I believe you will go far.'"

 

[PixyMisa]

He already did: He learned that PEAR prefers sloppy work so they can get results to trumpet.

And also that they are honest enough to admit that their work is sloppy, but not honest enough to themselves to admit that this is the only reason they ever get positive results.

The PEAR researchers are, for the most part, deluded like dowsers, rather than out-and-out frauds like, oh, Edgar Cayce, just to pick a name out of the air.

 

[burrahobbit]

At p. 171, Kirkpatrick's book notes that Munsterberg observed a Cayce reading .....

Hows that for direct evidence!!

What if anything did Munsterberg PUBLISH.

 

[bruto]

Hows that for direct evidence!!

What if anything did Munsterberg PUBLISH.

I think Munsterberg published a great deal, because he was a very prominent psychologist. It appears he did not, however, publish anything on his purported investigation of Cayce. Just about every Cayce-related woo site on the net mentions this supposed encounter, but it doesn't add up to much. Without a published report by Munsterberg himself, the entire statement attributed to him is hearsay, and it should be pretty obvious to anyone thinking about it that if the question before us is whether or not Cayce was a charlatan and a liar, this question will not be well answered by his own statements!

Even if Munsterberg did think highly of Cayce it would still not add up to much. If he followed in the footsteps of his mentor William James, it is likely he was pretty non-critical about psychic phenomena. Many people have been. We just might have learned a thing or two in the intervening 95 years, too. In any case, since Munsterberg did not see fit to publish his opinion, we can only guess whether or not it was given as we hear it now, whether it was a considered opinion or just a polite and enthusiastic reaction to a good show, and whether or not he changed his mind later.

 

[BillHoyt]

Cayce has been thoroughly investigated by many researchers, past and present, and none of those thorough researchers (as opposed to the Martin Gardners, James Randis, and Robert Carrolls of the world) have concluded that he was a fraud. Sidney Kirkpatrick's 2000 book "Edgar Cayce -- An American Prophet" states at p. 170: "[In December 1911] a . . . thorough investigation [of Cayce] was . . . conducted by Dr. Hugo Munsterberg, the dean of psychology at Harvard University, former president of the American Psychology Association, and a friend and associate of William James . . . There was no question what his intentions were, for he told his students and faculty members at Harvard before he left that the reason for his trip was 'to expose Cayce to the world.'"

At p. 171, Kirkpatrick's book notes that Munsterberg observed a Cayce reading and interviewed the family of Aime Dietrich (a 6-year old girl whom Cayce had cured of a supposedly incurable condition) and Cayce patients over a two-day period. P. 171 states: "At the end of his visit, Munsterberg admitted to Edgar that he had no explanation for what he had seen and heard, but he had to conclude that Edgar was the real thing. He also urged Edgar to continue: 'If you never do another case other than the little Dietrich child, your life has not been in vain,' he said. 'I believe you will go far.'"

I'm going to hazard a guess that you missed an essential bit of my quote:

For some reason, though, no investigator has come in and found enough evidence for a peer-reviewed paper. It is a wonder, isn't it? What with a publish-or-perish academic world, it is a wonder somebody hasn't made him- or herself full professor with peer-reviewed papers showing strong evidence there really was something to Cayce!

The key here is "peer-reviewed," as in a scientific journal. Not a popular-press book.

 

[Psiload]

If you believe Cayce is a fraud, you are woefully ignorant.

How about we take a quick look at Cayce's legacy, shall we? First, we'll take a peek at Cayce's unique contributions to modern medicine:

-Bupkis

Now we'll go right to the source:

http://www.edgarcayce.org/

Impressive...

-Past life readings, the (neverending) search for Atlantis, astrology charts, etc...

Here's an example of Cayce's legacy of cutting edge medical advice:

"Q. Please give me the cause and cure for the so-called psoriasis with which I am troubled."

"A. The cause is the thinning of the walls of the intestinal system, which allows the escaping of poisons - or the absorption of same by the muco-membranes which surround same, and becomes effective in the irritation through the lymph and emunctory reactions in the body. The conditions that exist through the thinning of the walls of the intestines allow the poisons to find expressions in the lymph circulation; thus producing the irritation to and through the epidermis itself..."

Here is a basic treatment protocol for psoriasis:

SPINAL ADJUSTMENT: One of the primary causes of thinned intestinal walls identified by Edgar Cayce are problems with the spine. Pressures on certain spinal nerves (particularly the mid-dorsal area) can compromise the nerve energy to the intestinal tract. Osteopathic or chiropractic treatment can help correct the misalignment of spinal vertebrae and improve nerve functioning.

Genius. Sheer genius.

 

[Starrman]

When steam trains were invented, it was claimed that man would die if he travelled above 15mph. QUOTE]

This has to be the single dumbest thing I have ever read. I suppose it is possible that this could be something that maybe someone said at some time when the steam trains were first invented (around 1804) - but apparently that person had never heard of people sprinting, riding horses or perhaps rolling on a cart down a hill. Certainly plenty of people thorugh history had already gone that fast and survived just fine. So, did you make that up or what?

Also - you questioned why we believe NASA and not Voaidfasky. NASA just completed shooting a projectile and landing it on a comet based on the mathematics they use. How close do you think they could have gotten using that dude's book?

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...
Also - you questioned why we believe NASA and not Voaidfasky. NASA just completed shooting a projectile and landing it on a comet based on the mathematics they use. How close do you think they could have gotten using that dude's book?

Uhm...
Planet X?