Princeton Nukes ESP Department

[Darat]

I think Dawkins pretty much nailed it on an Amazing Meeting when he asked Randi for him to specify for what he would pay up. Because there is always something that is "perinormal" in science , and if this something is discovered it would be physics and not paranormal anymore, so what is the kind of thing that Randi would pay up? I noticed an expression of worry in Randi´s face (like, "hell what is he asking me?") when he adressed this question to him, and then he quickly change his expression of worry to certainty and said that same old thing: "we would be happy to pay up because then we will be discovering something wonderful and bla bla bla..."

How strange - I was at that TAM and in the conference room for that particular interview (sat directly behind the speakers table) and I didn't see that...

 

[CFLarsen]

If it is worthless (ie. irrelevent to question at hand) evidence, yes, it has no value. The term 'evidence' can still be applied to those findings relevant to the question. So evidence for the question of mediumship includes Roy/Robertson, and the critical literature. All relevant, so evidence.

But why is it relevant as evidence in favor of a paranormal phenomenon? If it is, yet can still be explained naturally, then "evidence" has no meaning.

"Evidence"...of what?

A paranormal phenomenon.

A natural phenomenon.

It can mean both. Ergo, it becomes worthless.

If the evidence ever becomes conclusive not indicative, that is proof,

*BING*

You just shot yourself in the foot. You qualified "evidence". That means you can't just say "evidence", you have to qualify it. Every single time.

the phenomenon in question moves from paranormal to "normal but not entirely understood", and via a sound theory to "normal."

But we have sound theories for everything that is claimed to be paranormal.

Meteorites followed this path - hypnosis is somewhere on it, whatever it may be, (and I am actually personally sceptical of its existence in the popular understanding at least), and "there is a monster in Loch Ness" too - but the vidence is disproving the possibility of the beastie, by becoming proof that is a rational and overwhelming conclusion.

Oh, no. You ignore that, while we had evidence - proof, if we go your way - that meteorites existed, we have no evidence - or, proof, if you like - that the Loch Ness monster exists.

Same reason the syllogism would be. It is in many cases an incredibly useful tool. Yet the application of Occam's Razor alone

*BING*

Who said anything about applying Occam's Razor alone?

does not actually prove a hypothesis - it is a tool, not a guarantee of establishing final truth. '

*BING*

Who said anything about applying Occam's Razor as the tool to establish final truth?

In 1910 Occam's Razor was invoked against Relativity, and logically so.

There is a huge difference between Einstein's theories and claimants of the paranormal. Einstein acknowledged that empirical evidence would be needed to prove his theories right. That came with the eclipse, in 1919.

Claimants of the paranormal say that this "evidence" is already in. It is not. And it sure as hell isn't forthcoming.

Ditto against natural selection.

Why natural selection?

The philosophical tool is useful, but in reality many phenomena arise through the interplay or two or more complicated entities, which give rise to a third situation or event.

I think it is a generally useful diagnostic tool: but in application, it may never be used to demonstrate a conclusion, merely to help decide which hypotheses may be worthy of further enquiry? I certainly endorse its application - I noted the danger of using it uncritically, because I feel that it is not based upon any natural law or principle of the universe, but is merely a useful mechanism or technology. To say otherwise strikes me as to make an almost theological claim for it...

Who has said otherwise?

As I have remarked before, I am battling with a rotten headache and vicious stomach bug, and may be making horrendous logical errors as I suspect I am feverish. Nonetheless, I think I might make some sense?

Get back when you feel better, then.

 

[CFLarsen]

How strange - I was at that TAM and in the conference room for that particular interview (sat directly behind the speakers table) and I didn't see that...

I can verify that. On the contrary, Randi was immediately very enthusiastic about paying the million bucks to something that would be so staggering.

Omegablue, when did this happen? I can provide a video clip of it.

Yeah. I can. And I will. All I need is for you to tell me when it happened.

Not "if".

"When".

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's interesting that believers would rather attack science that make a case for the paranormal.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's interesting that believers would rather attack science that make a case for the paranormal.

That's all they have.

Whiny. Pathetic. I know.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yup reminds me of creationism, they attack evolution instead of making the scientific case for creationism

 

[CFLarsen]

Yup reminds me of creationism, they attack evolution instead of making the scientific case for creationism

Well, T'ai Chi is also a Creationist, so...whaddaya expect?

 

[thaiboxerken]

if it's paranormal he'll defend it. He believes he is champion for the woo cause. the skeptic's bane

I'm still looking for evidence that supports the paranormal

 

[cj.23]

messed up post

 

[thaiboxerken]

And the semantics game is continued....

 

[gnome]

But if paranormal, when done, becomes normal, why would any paranormal rules apply? They'd fail to apply since it is no longer paranormal.

Be clear, T'ai... are you saying that if someone passes the challenge that JREF will refuse to pay because "it's not paranormal"?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Be clear, T'ai... are you saying that if someone passes the challenge that JREF will refuse to pay because "it's not paranormal"?

Yes he thinks that is James Randi's ultimate "out."

 

[cj.23]

But why is it relevant as evidence in favor of a paranormal phenomenon? If it is, yet can still be explained naturally, then "evidence" has no meaning.

"Evidence"...of what?

A paranormal phenomenon.

A natural phenomenon.

It can mean both. Ergo, it becomes worthless.

Nope, owing to a simple error in your logic. This may apply if
paranormal is not equal to natural

You are confusing supernatural - above, beyond, or an arbitrary exception to the laws of nature

with paranormal - a phenomenon not explicable in the light of any generally recognised scientific hypothesis, yet assumed to be naturalistic, and hence within the purview of science.

It is completely pointless for science to attempt to study supernatural claims. I am not sure supernatural even makes sense as a concept.

However, one would expect natural explanations to appear in evidence for naturalistic paranormal phenomena.

What I assume you mean is what we addressed before -- that the evidence is better explained away as irrelevant, as its actually not evidence at all, but "mistaken identity". It can be ruled irrelevant. However, and I will for now maintain the example we have been discussing - Roy/Robertson's 3rd paper - sure, you can offer some alternative explanations, but none which reach the level of compelling evidence, that is proof, that there research is flawed.

Therefore the paper remains evidence for the paranormal hypothesis. Not conclusive evidence (proof) - which moves something from paranormal to normal by definition - but evidence.

So there remains evidence for the paranormal.

Originally Posted by cj.23
If the evidence ever becomes conclusive not indicative, that is proof

You just shot yourself in the foot. You qualified "evidence". That means you can't just say "evidence", you have to qualify it. Every single time.

What? Why? why do I have to qualify it?

I am saying, let me clarify this - evidence has three possible conditions

* relevance - is the evidence appropriate to the question?
* evidence - those facts which are indicative of the truth or falseness of a hypothesis.
* conclusive evidence - also known as proof.

so we have
1. irrelevant facts
2. evidence
3. proofs

Bong! I see no qualifications?

But we have sound theories for everything that is claimed to be paranormal.

That is a confident assertion, and probably true. Nonetheless, it has no impact whatsoever on the existence of, or value of the evidence.

Oh, no. You ignore that, while we had evidence - proof, if we go your way - that meteorites existed, we have no evidence - or, proof, if you like - that the Loch Ness monster exists.

Correct, because I don't believe the Loch Ness monster exists, based on the evidence, which seems compelling against it. Why you regard evidence as only being facts in support of a case baffles me? I have repeatedly used Hyman's work as an example of evidence. Evidence can effectively disprove a hypothesis by providing overwhelming proof or a demonstrable alternative.

Let us assume they hypothesis that I am a ghost. Any evidence offered would be against this - and one would soon develop a proof I was not. It's still evidence. Now for the paranormal there is some evidence supportive of the hypothesis, and some opposed, but that in no way denies the existence of the evidence.

*BING*

Who said anything about applying Occam's Razor alone?

Neither of us did. I'm confused why you are binging? You asked --

Why do you think applying Occam's Razor is a dangerous practice in Science?

I replied explaining why. It can and has been misapplied. I never stated it was always dangerous or untrustworthy - far from it. While i have in the past argued on this forum with those who seem to believe it is a natural law or universal truth, I don't think either of us hold that.

I think the Occam's Razor discussion is really irrelevant, as i can't imagine how we can disagree here. If we do, let me know...

 

[strathmeyer]

What would you call "something"? Accepted scientific proof?

So you call them liars? They claim that they are very open about their data. This Is it? They are liars?

This is it, guys, you're discoursing with someone who is flim-flamming the meaning of the word something.

Here it is for you omega: a group of people say they can influence random numbers. So they produce lots of numbers and try to influence them. Then they look at the numbers and figure out that they can't influence them. But nobody will pay any attention to them if they say that they can't influence random numbers, so they say that they can.

They take this delusion to full extremes, pulling others like you in with them and making you repeat their lie.

I like it when Robert G. Jahn says, "If people don’t believe us after all the results we’ve produced, then they never will"” When I read this, I read, "We've produce nothing. If, after all the nothing we've produce, you think we're producing something, you're never going to think that we're producing nothing."

Seems like he's talking to you, omegablue.

 

[omegablue]

In otherwords, they have to believe in order to be able to see the evidence.

Gotcha. Investigating the paranormal is a faith-based method to you, only believers have any chance of making it happen.

It is not about faith in the way you put, like every researcher in this field is a "woo". You have to agree with me that explaining to a skeptic person who is blind since birth, that I can trace the routes of some particles in a particle accelerator, his experiencing, knowledge and acceptance of this particular phenomenon would be way less complete than mine, as he cannot see it directly (burnt on film) and I do can. He would have to rely on anecdotal evidences and theory alone.

This is just an example to illustrate that if someone cannot even recognize that the phenomenon might exist in first place by having experiencing it with his/her senses, he/she have to rely on other´s anecdotal evidences or lab studies. Speaking of lab studies in this situation, if you do not believe the thing cuz you never seen it or experienced it, how can you be easily convinced by that? That is a big problem regarding claims that involves mind. It is not like being a believer and credulous, but just by having experienced something that could convince you that is in fact mysterious and strange. Many of the aspects of mind and these claims are possible for everyone to test them if they are allowing themselves for some curiosity to do so. The problem is that there are people out there that mock all claims about mind. In fact many of them mocks mind per se. An illustration to this is Randi´s opinion about altered states of mind. He has a very materialistic position, and this I think is a personal and philosophical position assumed by him based on what he believes or wants to believe. Convincing a person like this to induce some OBE´s or to practice meditation in order to check for himself what he is able to experience is almost an impossible task. He will argue that in first place people will have to prove it to him, which is convenient. And the thing goes on and on and hence this war between materialistic and idealistic views that we face. So I think ignorance on what is being tested and how it should be properly tested according to the claims can in fact profoundly impair the advancements towards discovering what the heck is really going on. I think this problem is way too complex but is not an impossible barrier to be overcame. It depends on how science is right now and what are the standards which the elite dictates. Anything outside the current framework will be obviously faced with great skepticism, and it sometimes goes beyond comon-sense and even beyond a logical fashion, as humans are always imperfect and biased on judgement.

 

[omegablue]

Yes, you come to this forum to accuse Randi of being a fraud and the JREF challenge of being a scam, yet you call everyone else a troll. You really should take your toys and go home.

I´m not accusing Randi of being a fraud, others do, many people. I´m just stating that Randi is a trickster and i´m always skeptical about people like this. May I? Or I am not in the right of being sceptical of someone´s claims? And I guess anyway, I have my rights to think that someone is a fraud, if I will. I have the rights to have this suspicion. Proving that is not what I´m claiming that I can do. Ok, if I have stated Randi is a fraud, then it would be fair of me trying to prove this.

1. You have no evidence of the paranormal.
2. You have no evidence that Randi is a fraud
3. You have no evidence that the challenge is a scam

I did not come here to prove this. So I think putting it this way is a boring rhetorical artifice. You remind me of CFLarsen right now.

 

[omegablue]

Anecdotal evidence is evidence - it's anecdotal evidence. The clue is in the name. It's not proof. It may not be admissible in court, or in science. It is clearly however evidence.

You want evidence of the paranormal? OK, PEAR, The Scole Report, Radin's various psi meta-analysis, the Rosenheim Poltergist film, Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation by Prof Ian Stevenson, Ray Hyman's critiques, James Randi's tests (where the experiment has occurred) -- all evidence. No proof. There is plenty of evidence on the paranormal. Much of it is perfectly valid scientific evidence. Some is pro, some con, but its all evidence. There is no proof.

cj x

That is precisely what amazes me about this self-declared skeptics. Sigh... They think/disguise/pretend evidence is proof. And they distort anything starting from this tremendously huge mistake or pretention. Holy cow...

 

[omegablue]

What doesn't seem well understood in this thread is the million dollar challenge is a dare.

Is a dare like: "See if you can fool me with your claim."

When people claim something like "I can twirl a paper on a pin with my mind power" Randi says, essentially, "I dare you to demonstrate that, under conditions which won't allow any intentional or unintentional cheating. If you succeed, I will give you a million dollars." Randi's only use of his talent as a magician is in eliminating ways the claimant may cheat. Some scientific procedures and safeguards may be in place, but the challenge is not a scientific experiment that attempts to prove any scientific fact.

But the contrary is what is being "sold out" as fact. When you discuss anything about paranormal, there is always the one with come up with "so apply for the million challenge." In general, be honest, this is a great pillar to materialistic convictions and beliefs, it helps a lot to hold the conviction among the believers in Randi´s million show that no thing such as paranormal exist because everyone runs away from Randi´s show.

So , it´s not science at all... it´s just a show, entertainment. The battle between Randi and people who he´s sure that are less competent cheaters than him. Not worth of being taken seriously for someone interested in the scientific truth of paranormal.

Back on the subject of the thread:

The positive findings of PEAR were so faint they were indistinguishable from findings that no paranormal phenomena occured. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

This is your opinion...come on! You think they are faint compared to which standards?

 

[omegablue]

It is not valuable evidence, thus it is insignificant.

It´s insignificant for YOU and your beliefs. You did forget this again. And this was more than a little bias. First no evidence, second, "not valuable" evidence...according to which standards?

All debunked and found flawed. I'm still waiting for valid evidence.

Ahhh, a more objective statement. Where can I see it all debunked?

 

[omegablue]

It's only hard for the believers. Then again, they never let the facts bother them anyway.

what a laugh.