PEAR remote viewing - what the data actually shows

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now we're talkin':

http://members.aol.com/jebco1st/Paraphysics/search3.htm

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

At some point you have to come up with a theory of psi so that you can derive hypotheses from the theory and then test them.

There are theories. I'm saying you can call it whatever label you'd like it doesn't change the fact that something might be there.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

[quote="T'ai]
There are theories. I'm saying you can call it whatever label you'd like it doesn't change the fact that something might be there.[/quote]
Agreed, but that's not what I was arguing with. I was arguing with "... just study effects, if any." At some point you gotta stop just studying effects and figure out what the heck is actually going on. And if you don't feel confident after 150 years that you can elicit the effect at will in order to study it, you might consider that the "if any" is false.

If a bunch of parapsychologists are confident they can elicit an effect, they should pick a promising theory and test it. First they have to decide whether to pick a theory of remote viewing, RPK, or precognition.

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

I was arguing with "... just study effects, if any." At some point you gotta stop just studying effects and figure out what the heck is actually going on.

I guess they have to study the effect to see if anything is there in the first place.

And if you don't feel confident after 150 years that you can elicit the effect at will in order to study it, you might consider that the "if any" is false.

Possibly. But I'm not sure why you strongly believe a length of time has any bearing on the Truth? Some whiz-bang experiment could be just right around the corner, or some incredible hypothesis that illuminates the science. Of course, this applies to any scientific endeavor.

 

[Zep]

Er...no. For example, Newton never observed an aeroplane and many many people, prior to advent of working airplanes, claimed it wasn't possible because they thought it would violate everything they knew about how the world worked. But it's not paranormal. Like every other definition of paranormal given in this thread, it doesn't exclude things that are obviously NOT paranormal.

The "many people" were simply arguing from popularity - not a good start. In fact, the principles of (winged) flight were known well before Newton; just that the technology was not fully understood or worked out. It was a work in progress, shall we say.

As mentioned above, the issue is that of building on what we do know. Tetraneutrinos are "feasible" in the sense that neutrinos do exist and the mechanism to make them into tetraneutrinos is based on what we know about matter, and the results predicted would tend to be "realistic" with regard to that technology and concepts. Therefore it is not paranormal per se, and it can technically be subject to objective analysis. That tetraneutrinos are achievable, and actually worth the effort of pursuing, is likely a vanishingly small probability, which leads to the jaundiced responses in regard to such claims.

Whereas paranormal claims would have us ignore, reverse, or even discard what we do know, right from the outset. Therefore there is very little real objectivity involved - the ideas posited come out of someone's mind in the form of imaginative fancies - it is fiction - ergo subjective.

 

[Zep]

I guess they have to study the effect to see if anything is there in the first place.



Possibly. But I'm not sure why you strongly believe a length of time has any bearing on the Truth? Some whiz-bang experiment could be just right around the corner, or some incredible hypothesis that illuminates the science. Of course, this applies to any scientific endeavor.

Of course - Einstein was not hailed as a genius immediately.

But it is up to the proponents of any new hypothesis to ensure that it is confirmed on solid reliable testable results. That's the problem PEAR has had all along - its protocols (testing designs) have been as soft and soggy as oatmeal. So it's very hard to get excited about any of their claims.


PS. THIS IS MY 18K POST!

 

[CFLarsen]

Some whiz-bang experiment could be just right around the corner, or some incredible hypothesis that illuminates the science. Of course, this applies to any scientific endeavor.

Following that argument, we should spend time searching for fairies.

After all, the evidence for fairies is far stronger than the evidence for psi.

 

[davidsmith73]

Update on the subjective variation of the definition of "paranormal":

Claus:

definition 1 (post 69) - not scientifically explainable
definition 2 (post 184) - not yet explained by science
definition 3 (post 204) - an observable and replicated phenomenon not yet explained by science
definition 4 (post 254) - an phenomena that does not build on earlier knowledge.


Yahzi:

definition 1 (post 241) - things that science will never validate because they are stupid.
definition 2 - (post 241) Phenomena that overturn old theory.


Zep:

definition 1 (post 265) - claims that would have us ignore, reverse, or even discard what we do know, right from the outset.


Each definition is different and each is prone to subjective interpretations of what is covered by the definition.

 

[CFLarsen]

Update on the subjective variation of the definition of "paranormal":

Claus:

definition 1 (post 69) - not scientifically explainable
definition 2 (post 184) - not yet explained by science
definition 3 (post 204) - an observable and replicated phenomenon not yet explained by science
definition 4 (post 254) - an phenomena that does not build on earlier knowledge.


Yahzi:

definition 1 (post 241) - things that science will never validate because they are stupid.
definition 2 - (post 241) Phenomena that overturn old theory.


Zep:

definition 1 (post 265) - claims that would have us ignore, reverse, or even discard what we do know, right from the outset.


Each definition is different and each is prone to subjective interpretations of what is covered by the definition.

You know, when you leave out the explanations, you show that you are not interested in an honest debate.

 

[Cuddles]

Update on the subjective variation of the definition of "paranormal":

Claus:

definition 1 (post 69) - not scientifically explainable
definition 2 (post 184) - not yet explained by science
definition 3 (post 204) - an observable and replicated phenomenon not yet explained by science
definition 4 (post 254) - an phenomena that does not build on earlier knowledge.


Yahzi:

definition 1 (post 241) - things that science will never validate because they are stupid.
definition 2 - (post 241) Phenomena that overturn old theory.


Zep:

definition 1 (post 265) - claims that would have us ignore, reverse, or even discard what we do know, right from the outset.


Each definition is different and each is prone to subjective interpretations of what is covered by the definition.

Well, all the definitions are different in the sense that Claus' 4th one, both of Yahzi's and Zep's are all the same. And correct. Paranormal things are called that for the simple reason that they are not normal, and are not compatible with anything that is normal. No scientific theory has overturned another scientific theory. Newton was correct, on the scale on which he measured things. Einstein did not overturn Newton, he extended the theory to other scales which Newton was incapable of observering. Newton never said that flight as impossible, and anyone saying this was clearly either an idiot or had never seen a bird.

The paranormal does not require us to say "Newton wasn't quite right", it requires us to say "Newton was wrong". The difference is simple - in the first case all observations that support Newton are still valid, although there may be other observations that require extra explanation. In the second case, all observations since Newton must be considered, at best, flawed, since they support a theory that is now known to be wrong.

Which is more likely to be wrong, every scientist since Newton, or a few people who often aren't even scientists playing in a field that they cannot define, looking for effects that all evidence says don't exist?

 

[CFLarsen]

Paranormal things are called that for the simple reason that they are not normal, and are not compatible with anything that is normal. No scientific theory has overturned another scientific theory. Newton was correct, on the scale on which he measured things. Einstein did not overturn Newton, he extended the theory to other scales which Newton was incapable of observering. Newton never said that flight as impossible, and anyone saying this was clearly either an idiot or had never seen a bird.

The paranormal does not require us to say "Newton wasn't quite right", it requires us to say "Newton was wrong". The difference is simple - in the first case all observations that support Newton are still valid, although there may be other observations that require extra explanation. In the second case, all observations since Newton must be considered, at best, flawed, since they support a theory that is now known to be wrong.

Exactly. Newton had no idea (not because he was a dimbo, but because he had no chance of knowing) what would happen, when we approach the speed of light. Based on subsequent knowledge, Einstein showed that something...weird (in a Newtonian sense)...happened, when the speed becomes very high. And, because of observations in the field (e.g., the eclipse in 1919), Einstein was proved right. But Newtonian physics still apply.

And if you don't believe me, let me drop an apple on your head...

Which is more likely to be wrong, every scientist since Newton, or a few people who often aren't even scientists playing in a field that they cannot define, looking for effects that all evidence says don't exist?

That, Yorick, is the question.

But: It is crucial to understand that this is not an appeal to authority. We are not pointing to all these scientists because we think the number of scientists make the claim true. We are pointing to the body of evidence that make the claim true.

What David is doing, is burying the discussion in obfuscations, redefining on-the-fly anything that will prove him wrong, point to an effect that is indistinguishable from chance, and still claim there is evidence of what he refuses to call "paranormal", but firmly believes in.

 

[Yahzi]

Each definition is different and each is prone to subjective interpretations of what is covered by the definition.

Actually, Zep and I's definitions are exactly the same.

Claus' are irrelevant, since he's not a skeptic.

The difference between paranormal and science is whether or not it is compatible with science; that means, whether or not it requires the overturning of observations.

Arguably, at some point in the past, things we consider science now might have been classed as paranormal. But so what? Science changes. We know a lot more now than we used to. We've even fixed a few mistakes. Is there any value in a definition of paranormal that works as well for Ancient Greece as for modern physics?

If your argument is that we will always be wrong, then Iaasic Asimov covered that in "The Relativity of Wrong." With that out of the way, it's quite clear what everyone means by "paranormal."

 

[Beth]

Well, all the definitions are different in the sense that Claus' 4th one, both of Yahzi's and Zep's are all the same. And correct.

And ALL of them have a subjective component - which is, I believe, why David uses other terminology.

No scientific theory has overturned another scientific theory.

NEVER? ... so the theory of continental drift didn't overturn another scientific theory. The theory of evolution didn't overturn any other scientific theory. They were both considered to be refinements of existing theory?

The paranormal does not require us to say "Newton wasn't quite right", it requires us to say "Newton was wrong". The difference is simple - in the first case all observations that support Newton are still valid, although there may be other observations that require extra explanation. In the second case, all observations since Newton must be considered, at best, flawed, since they support a theory that is now known to be wrong.

Which is more likely to be wrong, every scientist since Newton, or a few people who often aren't even scientists playing in a field that they cannot define, looking for effects that all evidence says don't exist?

When you define the paranormal in the ways it has been defined here, this is a given. I presume this is also why David chooses not to use the term.

Personally, I think there are non-paranormal ways to explain ESP type effects that are either relatively weak or not controllable.

For an example, see Kelly's thread on "what happened here?" http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66638

Now, I beleive that this type of experience is what most people will label psychic or psi. However, I don't think that believing it occurred (I don't think Kelly was lying) requires us to reject all of Newtons theories anymore than the airplanes do.

Now, if you relabel her experience as 'non-psychic' because non-paranormal explanations exist (keep in mind, no one can state with certainty what the true explanation is) you are essentially redefining psychic to be that which has no known scientific explanations and you have created a subjective tautaulogy for psi and paranormal.

On the other hand, if you keep the label of 'psychic' for the experience and accept that non-paranormal explanations are adequate to explain it, then you no longer have the problem of psi invalidating all scientific observations to date.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now, if you relabel her experience as 'non-psychic' because non-paranormal explanations exist (keep in mind, no one can state with certainty what the true explanation is) you are essentially redefining psychic to be that which has no known scientific explanations and you have created a subjective tautaulogy for psi and paranormal.

On the other hand, if you keep the label of 'psychic' for the experience and accept that non-paranormal explanations are adequate to explain it, then you no longer have the problem of psi invalidating all scientific observations to date.

But then psi or psychic becomes a synonym for some weird things we can't explain right now. Is that what people want those words to mean? Don't they want the words to mean paranormal mental activities?

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

But then psi or psychic becomes a synonym for some weird things we can't explain right now. Is that what people want those words to mean? Don't they want the words to mean paranormal mental activities?

As mentioned, you can put any label you'd like to on it. And those actually doing the experiments and coming up with theory can put whatever labels they'd like to.

 

[Beth]

But then psi or psychic becomes a synonym for some weird things we can't explain right now.

No. Lots of weird things happen that we can't explain right now but aren't termed psi. For example, many UFO sightings would fit that definition, but they are not termed psi or psychic.

Is that what people want those words to mean? Don't they want the words to mean paranormal mental activities?

~~ Paul

Well, obviously not everyone likes the term "paranormal". Clearly psi and psychic do refer to mental experiences and I think Kelly's experience qualifies. The phrase "anomolous transfer of information" is sometimes used, but it's a long mouthful.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No. Lots of weird things happen that we can't explain right now but aren't termed psi. For example, many UFO sightings would fit that definition, but they are not termed psi or psychic.

Exactly, which is why you don't want to do what you said:

On the other hand, if you keep the label of 'psychic' for the experience and accept that non-paranormal explanations are adequate to explain it, then you no longer have the problem of psi invalidating all scientific observations to date.

If you use psychic for all sorts of experiences that have mundane explanations, it loses its meaning. Seems to me you want to stick with experiences that have no apparent mundane explanation. (Maybe I misunderstood what you meant.)

Well, obviously not everyone likes the term "paranormal". Clearly psi and psychic do refer to mental experiences and I think Kelly's experience qualifies. The phrase "anomolous transfer of information" is sometimes used, but it's a long mouthful.

And leaves us wondering what the person thinks anomalous covers, and whether the person understands that anomalous things happen all the time.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

As mentioned, you can put any label you'd like to on it. And those actually doing the experiments and coming up with theory can put whatever labels they'd like to.

When they come up with a theory, I'll be all ears.

~~ Paul

 

[Beth]

Exactly, which is why you don't want to do what you said:

If you use psychic for all sorts of experiences that have mundane explanations, it loses its meaning. Seems to me you want to stick with experiences that have no apparent mundane explanation. (Maybe I misunderstood what you meant.)

You misunderstood. Probably because I didn't make it clear. Sorry.

And leaves us wondering what the person thinks anomalous covers, and whether the person understands that anomalous things happen all the time.

~~ Paul

Yes. We have the same problem with paranormal.

 

[CFLarsen]

As mentioned, you can put any label you'd like to on it. And those actually doing the experiments and coming up with theory can put whatever labels they'd like to.

Not if they aim to be understood.