Princeton Nukes ESP Department

[drkitten]

And why are you useing proof out side of its accepted proper mathmatical meanings?

Possibly for the same reason he uses "normal" outside of its accepted proper mathematical meanings.

Because "mathematics" isn't the world. Mathematics isn't even a particularly large or important subset of the world, and the number of people who have to communicate using the standard definitions of the word dwarf the number of mathematicians out there. The American Heritage dictionary lists nine separate definitions, of which only one is the mathematical one....

 

[ponderingturtle]

Possibly for the same reason he uses "normal" outside of its accepted proper mathematical meanings.

Because "mathematics" isn't the world. Mathematics isn't even a particularly large or important subset of the world, and the number of people who have to communicate using the standard definitions of the word dwarf the number of mathematicians out there. The American Heritage dictionary lists nine separate definitions, of which only one is the mathematical one....

And that is why he is failing to get that the average uses of words he is insisting on are not used for how he wants them to be for good reasons.

A proof in physics is not evidence, it is what a theorist does to show how their conclusion follows from first principles. Now he want some evidence to be classified as proof.

He is choosing to try to play around science, but just like the creationists is mixing up what sets of definitions he chooses.

 

[drkitten]

A proof in physics is not evidence, it is what a theorist does to show how their conclusion follows from first principles.

Um,.... I don't know what physicists you talk to, but "experimental proof" comes up all the time among the ones that I talk to. For example, the SuperKamiokande has provided "experimental proof" of the non-zero mass of neutrinos, and this paper specifically refers to the experimental evidence as "proof," down to the title.

Most of the physicists with whom I am familiar have no problem referring to the numbers that come out of CERN or SLAC as "proof" of various experimental hypotheses, despite the fact that they're nothing of the sort -- and they even regard the areas in which they disagree with accepted theories as "disproof" of the theory, despite the abstract possibiliity that their numbers might be entirely in error.

You're demanding that cj be held to higher standards of scientific writing than scientists themselves use. That's at best hypocritical and at worst downright rude....

 

[thaiboxerken]

The point is, he already knows what WE mean by evidence, he's nitpicking and would rather have us say "proof" instead. It doesn't really matter. If he already knows what we're trying to communicate, there is no point in arguing the semantics of the words. He's just derailing the discussion.

The reality is, PEAR did not come up with anything substantial to say that there is ANY paranormal effect happening.

 

[Kage]

I've put PEAR lab as a possible topic for mythbusters to tackle on their message boards:

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9701967776/m/2771958968

 

[omegablue]

OOhh hell no! This thread is advancing too quickly for my spare time and english skills. I guess I will have to spend all night here to respond at least to the ones that interests me most.

As I´m out of time right now, actually Larsen and Linda made a good point of that cold reading issue. But one thing still bogs me. If you are so sure it is cold reading, can I make a consultation with both of you as an experiment of cold reading?? Would you 2 act as a psychic having me as the "caller"? I mean, you are so sure that Altea is a fraud that i´m almost sure you can perform as well as her. If not, you might know someone who can. I would love them obtaining a hit if I ask something about a dear person of mine who died a long time ago. Well the first clue is off. "a long time ago".

I promise to answer to the other good points later when I have time. I´m currently working here.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Would you 2 act as a psychic having me as the "caller"? I mean, you are so sure that Altea is a fraud that i´m almost sure you can perform as well as her.

If you can get Altea in on the experiment as a control, I'm sure some protocols could be established such as:

All readings done in text. You pick which one is the "real" reading.

It might work, if only we could get a psychic to participate. It won't if not, because you already know that there is no "psychic" giving a reading. Cold-readings only work on people who believe they are talking to a real psychic or medium.

 

[drkitten]

As I´m out of time right now, actually Larsen and Linda made a good point of that cold reading issue. But one thing still bogs me. If you are so sure it is cold reading, can I make a consultation with both of you as an experiment of cold reading?? Would you 2 act as a psychic having me as the "caller"?

Why should you expect that Larsen and Linda personally have the relevant skills?

As a simple example, I can watch Beckham kick goals and know exactly what he's doing, but I certainly couldn't do it myself. I can watch Randi and know exactly how and where he uses sleight-of-hand, but I can't do it myself. I can watch Eric Clapton play the guitar and know what he's doing, but I can't do it myself.

Why do I have to be as skilled as Clapton in order to critique his guitar style?

 

[omegablue]

Why should you expect that Larsen and Linda personally have the relevant skills?

As a simple example, I can watch Beckham kick goals and know exactly what he's doing, but I certainly couldn't do it myself. I can watch Randi and know exactly how and where he uses sleight-of-hand, but I can't do it myself. I can watch Eric Clapton play the guitar and know what he's doing, but I can't do it myself.

Why do I have to be as skilled as Clapton in order to critique his guitar style?

You could say to me: "well this is playing guitar, I cannot do it, but a friend of mine does". And then I ll go and see him playing.

Ah come on, Beckham?? huahua even I can do what he can, he´s lame.. now if it was Zidane or Ronaldinho now it would be a deal. (just kiddin)

Anyways these examples are not well related to this cold reading issue. They are sure Altea was cheating and it is not clearly quite verifiable as watching a football game or Clapton´s show. Randi should have done better if he himself would do it on that program. He would receive a call, producing a hit, and prove that Altea was cheating, which he did not. Even the good arguments raised here against the psi hypothesis in this issue (Altea) are not clearly demonstrated in practice up till now. I think when someone claim that this is due to cold reading, the burden of proof is theirs. If Randi could cold read me like Altea does, then ill be convinced that:

- In fact Randi is right and Altea is a quack;
- Randi has also paranormal powers and disguise it as cold reading (j.k.)

Basically i´m pretty skeptical that it could be just cold reading. Fraud would be more suitable I think. Still i´m not sure while the skeptics are sure that it is because of cold reading, so where is the proof? Sorry about that.

 

[cj.23]

Don't be silly. I am talking about a supernatural phenomenon that we can find evidence of - or not.
An example would be the miraculous regeneration of an amputated leg.

In the event this admittedly unlikely event occurred would it actually be supernatural, if it happened in this natural universe? I am assuming it would be naturalistic, as it happened within space/time, and therefore presumably obeys natural laws. Anything that happens in nature is natural, as Hume argued I think --the supernatural is a priori impossible? I dunno you might be right -- I honestly don't know. I think I said as much before...

Evidence is just data - no more no less.

Whoops. We stop here.

Data isn't evidence. Data are facts which you use to reach a conclusion based on rationality.

evidence
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence[/qoute]

Er, the difference is?

That conclusion is called evidence. Once the mountain of evidence is big enough, you have proof.

When you refer to "data" and call it "evidence" of a paranormal phenomenon, you elevate data to something it is not.

Well at least I understand our argument now - before I thought we were talking past one another. No evidence is not a conclusion based on data. Evidence is the data. If we deal with a crime, the murder weapon is evidence. The surmise it belonged to Reverend Green is a surmise, or hypothesis. It is not evidence. I see your point, but data is pretty much synonymous with evidence; evidence is data relevant to a particular question.

Evidence has to be in favor of, or against, something. It cannot be for and against something at the same time.

evidence
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence[/qoute]

So you see, the evidence is evidence-- you can argue for or against using the same evidence in some circumstances.

In your black and white ball example, I actually argued for several different hypotheses based from the same evidence.

That's what you are trying to do: Make it seem as if there is "evidence" in favor of a paranormal phenomenon, when all you have is data that have natural explanations.

OK, cool! At last we are getting somewhere! Firstly, I have said there is evidence sure. That is what we are arguing about. There is evidence. There is no proof. Having flipped through a few dictionaries I can't find any basis for your differentiation between data and evidence - maybe its used in your field, or a peculiarity of American English? Evidence is just data relevant to an enquiry. If the evidence has naturalistic explanations it can be ruled irrelevant??? Sure - if its not evidence at al, its irrelevant. So lets look at Robertson/Roy again. Assume you decide it's experimental error, despite the confident conclusion of Skeptic Report it was methodologically sound - if that can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that it is worthless - that is proved to be so - clearly it is not evidence. Fine. CAn you demonstrate that? No. So it remains evidence.

When we have a natural explanation, we don't need a paranormal one. Still yes, if you can prove the evidence is worthless its irrelevant and not evidence. You can't.

Paranormal phenomena are presumably natural phenomena, just outside the scope of current science. Dawkins calls them perinormal as I recall, though i have also heard praeternatural employed. All the same thing though really.

No. Believers such as yourself play the game of semantics because you like to obscure what you are saying. You don't seek clarification, but obfuscation.

Woo. I have bothered to explain, repeatedly, what evidence is. I have quoted from dictionaries, demonstrated repeatedly that I am correct, and the best you can manage is ad hom. crap? V. funny, but rather depressing. I expected better -- FLS, Ersby and Zep have spoiled my by intelligent critique?

Wow. I can only assume you are still misreading me.
cj x

 

[Fnord]

“I don’t believe in anything Bob is doing, but I support his right to do it,” said Will Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton.

Let the woosters have their toys and their play-time. Let them waste their money and the money of hopeful seekers.*

Then let them be arrested, tried, and convicted for every possible charge of practicing medicine without a license or other quackery.

In the meantime, there'll still be a plethora of storefront psychics, fortune-tellers, and flim-flam artists getting away with inflicting grief and other emotional trauma on those trusting and gullible souls that are either too ignorant of real science to know the difference, or too desperate to care.

I'm glad that the Princeton name will no longer be used to imply legitimacy to lies and validity to fraud.

Good riddance.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

(* - There's a seeker born every minute.)

 

[omegablue]

Another quick point:

Why Randi is credited to state that Geller is a hoax? Because he knows the tricks. I cannot say Geller is a hoax because I suck at doing tricks. I mean, if someone point out that Altea is a hoax, then they fit to any of the following categories:

- They trust people who do possess the same or more abilities than her (like Randi);
- They themselves knows all the secrets behind Altea´s tricks by being capable themselves of reproducing it.

As a curiosity. Any good links on Randi scaring people with his cold reading techniques?

 

[omegablue]

If you can get Altea in on the experiment as a control, I'm sure some protocols could be established such as:

All readings done in text. You pick which one is the "real" reading.

It might work, if only we could get a psychic to participate. It won't if not, because you already know that there is no "psychic" giving a reading. Cold-readings only work on people who believe they are talking to a real psychic or medium.

So if a skeptic calls a psychic, the psychic will not be able to cold read? I mean even if the skeptic does not try to prevent cold reading from happening.

 

[cj.23]

The point is, he already knows what WE mean by evidence, he's nitpicking and would rather have us say "proof" instead. It doesn't really matter. If he already knows what we're trying to communicate, there is no point in arguing the semantics of the words. He's just derailing the discussion.

No: the statement there is no evidence for the paranormal hypothesis is misleading. There is no proof. I could have said it was a lie. I was kind, and I said it was probably a misunderstanding of what "evidence" and "proof" mean in English.

I know what you mean by evidence, and I've used the phrase in that sense myself many times - but then I realised last night I was misusing it. And to do so is to make a strong claim, which can not be substantiated...

The reality is, PEAR did not come up with anything substantial to say that there is ANY paranormal effect happening.

I agree as it happens - Zep showed me an excellent article, and I was already critical of it. I have not suggested any paranormal evidence is conclusive - and much strikes me as weak. You decided I was a paranormalist because I am involved in the parapsychological debate and assumed I was pushing something I'm not.

I think PEAR may have produced a very weak positive - I am trying to suss out if the attempted replications showed any thing significant or not. Is it proof? Absolutely not. Very very weak evidence? yeah... I was not convinced. It remains evidence however.

I'm arguing this because I really can't see where i am wrong? The thing is that the statement "there is no evidence for the paranormal" implies very strongly that is pointless to even consider such claims. The statement there is no proof for the paranormal, apart from satisfying my pedantic tendencies, does not mis-state the case to make it sounds stronger, which sounds like a tactic more worthy of Creationists than sceptics...

cj x

 

[cj.23]

A proof in physics is not evidence, it is what a theorist does to show how their conclusion follows from first principles. Now he want some evidence to be classified as proof.

He is choosing to try to play around science, but just like the creationists is mixing up what sets of definitions he chooses.

Actually I admitted both uses of proof were legitimate. From my opening post, which you may have forgotten...

I can show you vast amounts of evidence for proposed psychic claims. What I can't show you is any proof whatsover.

proof n.1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2. a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.

3. a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof

The bit in pink.

cj x

 

[thaiboxerken]

So if a skeptic calls a psychic, the psychic will not be able to cold read? I mean even if the skeptic does not try to prevent cold reading from happening.

That's pretty much true. Cold reading only works if you believe the reader has some power, at that point, you start to give the reader more and more information about yourself and then they feed it back to you as if they came up with it. You really should do some research on cold-reading techniques.

 

[omegablue]

That's pretty much true. Cold reading only works if you believe the reader has some power, at that point, you start to give the reader more and more information about yourself and then they feed it back to you as if they came up with it. You really should do some research on cold-reading techniques.

If I was Larsen I would say to you:

Is there any evidence to support this claim? Present your case and i´ll take a look. Put up or shut up.


hhahaa but I´ll simply ask if you can back up this claim with some good one.

 

[CardZeus]

PEAR's Published Results

I haven't had time to read this entire thread, so apologies if this has been covered already. Just wanted to point out that PEAR has published some 'results' in the auspicious "Journal of Scientific Exploration' (Vol 17, No 2 pp 207-241, 2003)

Here are some gems mined from the above publication:

"Yet, like so much of the research in consciousness-related anomalies,
replication, enhancement, and interpretation of these results proved elusive."

"the remote perception process qualifies as an example of a ‘‘sensitive nonlinear system with a weak fluctuating signal’’ that exhibits a certain degree of chaos, and that the participants in these experiments function
as ‘‘two otherwise independent random oscillators.’’"

"Insights can also be derived from a quite different realm of human experience, namely, the practice of certain mystical divinatory traditions where anomalous relationships between signal and noise are also evident."

"Another ancient oracle, still widely used, is the Chinese ‘‘Book of Changes,’’
or I Ching, a divination process that involves generation of a sequence of
random binary events, the results of which are represented as two ‘‘trigrams.’’
These are referred to a table, or matrix, that identifies each of the 64 possible
combinations, or ‘‘hexagrams,’’ with a specific text that is then consulted to
obtain a response to the original query. Notwithstanding the subjective nature of the interpretation of the texts, a vast body of evidence accumulated over many millennia testifies to the efficacy of the I Ching in producing accurate and consequential results."

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/IU.pdf



ETA: The PEAR site provides a link to the following site: http://www.psyleron.com/info/products/

Harness the Power of Intention

The Psyleron REG-1 package is your gateway to the exploration of direct mind and matter effects. The package includes the only PEAR certified Random Event Generator, a USB Cable, Software, and the "Psyleron Basics" training manual. The included software will allow you to explore the way that your mind affects your ability to achieve outcomes related to your goals. It will cause you to confront the way that your attitudes, feelings, and beliefs influence your ability to affect the world around you. The package also contains our FieldREG software, which allows you to measure the influences of consciousness at various events in your life. Run it during business meetings, parties, or group discussions and retreats to see if your group is affecting the physical world. Our package also gives you a life-time membership to the Psyleron online community, where you can download updates, share your data and experiences with others, and much more.

Price: $379*

*Student discount available

"A comprehensive overview of the PEAR program, including five lectures, a virtual tour of the lab, and many other features that capture the unique spirit and substance of the PEAR enterprise."

Price: $50

 

[Flange Desire]

Thanks for that CardZeus.

Truly amazing!
And so depressing to know that so many believe this stuff.

 

[Philip]

There was a segment on NPR's All Things Considered about the closing of PEAR including an interview with the lab's manager:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7371765