Princeton Nukes ESP Department

[cj.23]

I
Because I am investigating your claims, that's why.

Which shows have you been on? What places did you have to investigate?

Ghosthunters (UK), Haunted History, Most Haunted Live, Most Haunted (series 4/5), etc. I was a researcher/consultant and occasionally wheeled on as an "expert". The FAQ on the LivingTV forums will confirm this, not that it matters. Hardly relevant to ones arguments about spooks is it?

I have investigated places all over the UK. In the interests of maintaining a little privacy I'll gladly answer any question, but pm them if answering will reveal much personal detail.

We may argue over semantics, Larsen, but I'm no villain. Irritating maybe, and I apologise if so, as I respect your opinions and work, but I'm not a rogue.

cj x

 

[omegablue]

(cough)

You are setting up things here. I said it perhaps was a miss on cold reading. And also, if I said before that I could not imagine and now I could even if with more restrictions than you do, what´s the harm? I said I´m not too resistant on changing my mind and beliefs. So what is your point?

But we are not talking about hitting a ball but seeing a ball. This is information Altea is shown by the dead person.

We are talking about performance, human performance. So hits and misses are part of one´s repertoire, be the person a master or a mediocre, speaking about skill.

Look at the diagram in post #251. Something about a house, which can be moving to a new house, or restoring an old one, or it can be a collapsing roof.

Why is this not inflating the chances?

Yes, this is inflating chances, I have to agree that this specific detail could have been gambling.

Yeah, it's a shame. But that's exactly how cold reading works: King homed in on the hits he thought Altea had gotten and forgot all about the rest.

Look at the diagram again. Consider the many, many options that Altea carves out for herself. Then, consider what she actually got out of it: She guessed the cause of death was cancer (which is the 2nd most common cause of death). The rest was guesses, some wrong, and some which the sitter had to make the connections for.

But still you put as if she have a huge % of guessing something right, when perhaps the chance may have been dimmer. Cancer is the second most common cause, but what is exactly the chance of guessing it right? How many ways a person could have died? This is all sparse info, there´s no way to quantify it. You could raise good points in favor of accepting this but still there´s room to be skeptical. You seem to be sure about cold reading in these cases.

Look at the "who is this for" branch: Altea doesn't want to commit to a specific person coming through, so she opens up a whole range of possibilities. It's very safe to say that at least one of the people made possible by Altea would have died from cancer. And BOOM! Altea has a hit.

Hmm that´s not quite it. What we consider or not to be a hit seems not to be based on anything rather than our personal judgement. I´m most impressed with the hits of numbers of things. That´s where I cannot understand up till now, even with the points made by ersby. Guessing things like: "there are two men in your life." is not the same as saying. "no, she was carrying two roses in his hands when he died", when the sitter said: "she was carrying a rose when died." No, it´s not the same thing!! If you want to convince me on the contrary, go ahead, or let it go. But try not flaming me and my supposed "ignorance" because of that.

Indeed. But, by saying this, you are treating the two differently. If Altea guesses right, you say it can't be cold reading (oh, yes you did!). But if Altea guesses wrong, it is perhaps a miss on cold reading.

Again the distortion identified above, you are making this up. As it is now, I admit to at least imagine how could it be possible, and the 2 rosebushes issue would have to be a overwhelmingly lucky guess....talk about winning a lottery here!

What you are doing here is classic post-hoc reasoning: You focus on the hits and ignores the misses.

Oh yeah?

Name one psychic who has agreed to, and passed, such a test.

Are you really reading what I´m saying?

With this, you are not saying that it is equally possible that psychic abilities exist and that they don't exist.

You are saying that psychic abilities is the default position.

Simply no. I´m trying to say that if you claim this is cold reading than you prove it. You didnt. So it is more tenable saying that you believe this is cold reading and then present your cases. You did, but rather claiming certainty over doubt.

[/QUOTE]

 

[thaiboxerken]

I like how Omega's position is simply "logic is over-rated." It shows that he cares not for facts or evidence, he just has faith.

 

[omegablue]

Again: Altea doesn't say if the extra rosebush was planted, where it was planted or by whom. She lets the caller say all that. Classic cold reading.

Again: I disagree. The caller did not say it. The caller said the gramps was planting 1 rosebush. Hell, how would Altea dare to alter this number just to gamble for a better hit???? It makes no sense, it´s not a good move for a competent cold reader fraud. This is precisely where we do disagree , and you present it as if you were demonstrating how it was possible when you dont!!!!

The crux of the matter is: It is the caller who brings up the rosebush, after which Altea takes the ball and runs with it.

So it was a lucky guess? If it was, wow, lucky lucky Altea (not saying it is impossible). Or she came up with the number two by cold reading? If so, how?

If you want to point to the rosebushes as an indicator that this is really Altea talking to the dead, then you have to explain why the dead guy gave the wrong reason for his own death.

Was it really somebody else, and not the caller's father?

I was not judging whether it was or not a spirit. But if you want to know my opinion, if psi exists, she probably is not obtaining this info through the spirit of the dead person, but rather using telepathic ways. In fact anyone could fool Altea saying that her father died when in fact he did not, and still Altea could come up with psi hits (assuming psi exists), even if the father is still alive. I could call for global consciousness for this, if I were to advocate in favor, which is not the case. It´s fringe to talk about it this way. But answering to your question, the miss would have been a miss on psi abilities and not necessarily the wrong spirit or a spirit telling lies.

 

[omegablue]

I like how Omega's position is simply "logic is over-rated." It shows that he cares not for facts or evidence, he just has faith.

Just words. Where is the logic flaw? Not assuming that there´s none, just show me, instead of just making assumptions.

 

[omegablue]

A bigger pause now, as I´m going for the material presented by Ersby.

 

[fls]

I am not oblivious. Perhaps just being skeptical about the certainty that this is cold reading rather than. Perhaps could reading should explain this. Not agreeing with the points and explanations does not mean I did not understand them. Wouldnt be that a little too pretentious on your part?

No, I just can't understand why something that seems so incredibly obvious to me seems questionable to you. I'm trying to understand the source of the barrier and I thought that perhaps my familiarity with going through this process gave me a false sense of just how obvious it was. I thought that if you were unfamiliar with cold-reading, then becoming familiar would make our demonstrations more clear.

Wait, so are you suggesting that the presented stuff suffices to demonstrate that Altea did cold reading? How? Personal judgements? Or judgement supported by scientific evidence? If it is all personal, then I could not agree more!!!

This all started because you stated that Rosemary's hit was "beyond normal comprehension". All Claus and I demonstrated is that when you put her statements into perspective in order to actually evaluate the probability of the "hit", that it was well within the limits of normal comprehension. Now I will readily admit that my perception of "normal comprehension" is a personal judgement (just like other qualifiers such as "reasonable" or "valuable" or "extreme"), but this example, from my perspective, falls so completely within the bounds of "plausible" that why you still consider it beyond normal comprehension is completely incomprehensible to me. You keep asking me for scientific evidence to back up my claim, but I truly do not have the foggiest idea what you are looking for. I figured the easiest solution was for you to identify the components you find incomprehensible and look for the evidence that would satisfy you, yourself. I really do not know where to even begin - I am not interested in an endless series of "what about this" and "that's not quite what I was looking for".

A debunking show is precisely what the general wants to see when watching TV! Polemic, drama, show! If you think there´s no reason to think they are more open than me is also your call, I say that the contrary seems more likely.

You might be right. But I suspect that the loyal viewing audience for the "Mythbusters" is different from the loyal viewing audience for "Larry King Live".

Were they scientific? Just because psi experiments were repeated a number of times and successfully, does not make psi true, or does it? The argument that every possible normal explanation should have been taken as face value (without having scientific bases) because the competing hypothesis is less likely according to the scientific paradigm seems to me a way of using faith in order to do science. In other words: "I dont believe Psi. It is less likely to be the cause because it defies materialism. There is some natural explanations, even if not scientifically established, that seem to be more plausible to explain the situation other than psi, so I cannot believe psi". Now that´s being scientifically rigorous? Or just letting our biases to take over the control?

It is inaccurate to characterize normal explanations as being without scientific basis. By their very nature, normal explanations are supported by science. Garrette expanded on this in a previous post. We are not operating in a vacuum when it comes to judging plausibility.

If you do not understand my point (i dont mean agreeing) makes me so frustrated that I can´t think that I can communicate something properly in English.

I understand your point. You think Rosemary's claim must be disproved before it can be considered implausible. And by disproved, you don't mean that "alternate plausible explanations exist" (the scientific approach), but that "alternate plausible explanations have been proven to be plausible to me and have been demonstrated to be acting in this particular situation". What you don't understand is that that is not the typical standard used in science, for a number of reasons. I don't think it does you much good to complain that we are not being scientific because we are offering you a scientific approach.

I ask about evidence to back up your claim and you send me go for it? Ohh now that´s reasonable!

You can insist that you find cold-reading implausible, but like I said before, I haven't the foggiest idea why. If I send you for the information, then there won't be any excuses that it isn't what you were looking for. Also, is it not reasonable to suggest that you should take responsibility for your own education?

The same thing as we consider scientific proof, in general. Up till now you were all explaining to me how cold reading should have been behind that. But it was not tested under close scrutiny, replicated and peer reviewed.

Did you not read the references Ersby was kind enough to provide? Or were they not what you were looking for?

Originally Posted by fls
This thread is 7 pages long. I have expended a lot of time and effort to feed you information and references to answer your questions. I think it's time for you to take responsibility for your own ignorance and look for the information that will answer your questions yourself.

Flaming only weakens your points.

Huh??? How is that flaming?

I cannot spot scientific evidences on cold reading being behind psychic readings. I have to call bullbleep over you too, sadly. Again, you did raise some arguments in favor of your claims, which stands without scientific back up. Of course, it could be done by cold reading..but was it? It´s quite an accusation that is not being back up by evidence other than the general bla bla bla, and assumptions. Thats far too sloppy. Some arguments are cute and bla bla, but it does not cuts out the psi hypothesis. Hell, so hard to understand?

Incomprehensible.

Linda

 

[fls]

Again you are being silly, and I call bullbleep over you again. You precisely use of your ignorance to dismiss things. You choose methods of dismissing things that are more convenient for you, that´s all, and we can have a conversation. Face it like this or be a troll.

These are very serious accusations to me. Please provide an example where I used ignorance to dismiss something. Please provide an example where I dismissed something out of convenience. I will always face up to anything I say.

Linda

 

[T'ai Chi]

Ghosthunters (UK), Haunted History, Most Haunted Live, Most Haunted (series 4/5), etc. I was a researcher/consultant and occasionally wheeled on as an "expert". The FAQ on the LivingTV forums will confirm this, not that it matters. Hardly relevant to ones arguments about spooks is it?

I have investigated places all over the UK. In the interests of maintaining a little privacy I'll gladly answer any question, but pm them if answering will reveal much personal detail.

We may argue over semantics, Larsen, but I'm no villain. Irritating maybe, and I apologise if so, as I respect your opinions and work, but I'm not a rogue.

cj x

cj, it is interesting that you are being asked about. I'd have thought responsible skepticism would ask only about your claims, if you've made any.

 

[cj.23]

Yes, there are many things we do not fully understand. Some people have selected an arbitrary subset of these things, applied some magical thinking and declared them paranormal. But from my perspective, they fit right in with all the other inherently odd and weird things I observe.

Yep, no dispute there. The idea of a separate area designated of as paranormal does strike me as inherently bizarre - String Theory, Dark Matter, are they not paranormal by the usual definition? The existence of the Giant Squid was a paranormal issue (and indeed often appeared in books on "the paranormal") till recently. Now Giant Squids are normal.
Well maybe not normal!

I love mysteries and enigmas, but unlike many paranormalists I find them a challenge to be solved not something to savour. I want to explain them, preferably in naturalistic ways. I can't be doing with supernatural claims in this regard: the problem is "paranormal" phenomena attract considerably hostility, so its hard to actually see what lies underneath the experience. I have just described to Larsen above an odd experience i had - I have no explanation as to how it happened. Conjuring trick? misperception? faulty memory of much more mundane event? All are possible. What I think I'd find hardest to swallow is "dead guy" - simply because it would be a very odd thing for any deceased person to do, and utterly pointless. So I think we can safely say there is a naturalistic explanation - and I will keep working on it till I find it.

So why not just call them normal? That is what science investigates, after all - stuff that seems weird. Lots of "paranormal" stuff is much less weird than the other stuff science investigates. I am reminded of one of my favourite Asimov quotes "the most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, "hmm.... that's funny...."

Aren't they normal? Sure. The thing is that parapsychology actually deals with a very small group of experiences and "purported faculties of humans". Most paranormal stuff is way outside that. I suppose I'm Fortean in my general interest in anomalies, but I have most experience in dealing with ghosts. You can see my methods here -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74627

However you make an excellent point - why isolate these phenomena? I guess its because many people doubt if they even exist (with just cause). My problem is I regard myself as scientifically illiterate, and therefore I do not have much to bring to the scientific debate - I can however ask questions, and do field research, but that is all. How does the "paranormal" fit in to the wider discourse of science? Well i guess I'll hold to my "clearing house" analogy I proposed back in my '96 essay...

And I still disagree that those who promote the idea of the paranormal are operating under the assumption that these phenomena will fall under normal science, once understood (especially if I consider the vehement rejection of any normal science explanations for these phenomena by paranormal researchers and practitioners). It seems that "violates laws of nature" is the key characteristic of their ideas. I probably have not been exposed to a representative sample, though. You probably have a better idea of the general attitude.

There is no one type of paranormal advocate. Some are pushing "new religions" and have positively supernatural claims. Some are out to make money - some are just in to entertain or for the fame, and I'd guess the majority are genuine in their beliefs - ie. they believe what they say they believe. In fact I tried to train as a medium, despite profound objections to the practice, to see if I was taught a new linguistic structure, a new way of looking at the world. (I did not get very far!) My thinking here is influenced by Tanya Luhrmann's excellent book Persuasions of a Witches Craft - sadly under read, or at least rarely cited --
http://humdev.uchicago.edu/luhrmann.htm

Among Ghosthunters alone you get the following rough categories I have observed --

1. The Legend Trippers - like to go to spooky places and get scared
2. The Techno Safari - laden down with cameras weird science gizmos they are out to catch the ghost! Often talk about science a lot.
3. The Psychodramatist - psychics out to "save" the earthbound spirit, often providing romantic legends to "explain" events. Often talk about "Energy" a lot
4. the Gnostic - seeks personal proof of life after death or some supernatural sign.

All these groups tend to prefer the vigil, that is sitting around preferably in the dark waiting for the beastie to appear. That is not my preferred mode of research at all, but paranormal TV in the UK has made that the "common sense" way these things are done. Hardly any emphasis at all is placed upon actually checking the records, interviewing and recording witness statements and trying to reconstruct events. The entire emphasis is on personal experience, and "24 hours in a haunted location" - an approach which is fine for TV, but as an investigative methodology...

But not all anomalies are called paranormal. In fact, most anomalies are not taken up under the paranormal umbrella. And much of what gets called paranormal is not anomalous.

There is no particular characteristic that makes a phenomenon paranormal. Events I consider quite normal get brought into that category by others. It seems to consist of a hodge podge of normal events and a few anomalies to which magical thinking is applied when considering an explanation. The label paranormal doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with the actual events, and everything to do with the person considering the situation.

I'm suggesting that paranormal, as a category, serves only to describe the person talking about the phenomenon. It does not serve to describe any particular characteristic(s) of the phenomenon itself.

I think you have a valid and very important point, and one which deserves much wider consideration. As I have said for many years - paranormal is a negatively defined term, a junk yard or clearing house - yet the term itself may well be damaging. Yes I think I agree. As I said earlier, paranormal phenomena if they are real should be susceptible to normal proof by normal scientific procedures...

The problem with continuing to refer to the paranormal and to consider parapsychology a separate field of study, is it gives the false impression that there exists a set of phenonomena that are fundamentally different from what is studied by normal science.

As you may have gathered I do not believe that is so.

That lumping these phenomena together implies that they share important characteristics. And that the characteristic "science cannot explain these phenomena" actually refers to a coherent, consistent, and real quality. Instead, what falls under paranormal is a small selection of the things that current science does not yet fully explain and a bunch of stuff that is readily explained (but the explanations are unpalatable to those who believe in magic).

I don't think we disagree here: the term is difficult and potentially better done away with. No objection...

I think that when we talk about the paranormal, it should be made clearer that what we are really talking about is how beliefs can frame your perspective - that "paranormal" is a characteristic of a person, not a characteristic of any particular phenomenon.

Well that's paranormal belief, yes, and the new parapsychology i suggest in my '96 essay. I think there is a huge amount of work to be done there. I come from a Philosophy of Religion background, and am keen to make some progress here, but not much interest from Theology departments in funding it, and psychology generally has bigger fish to fry...

You refer to both supernatural and paranormal fairly interchangeably throughout the article, bolstering my position that there isn't any real difference between the two, in the way that they are generally used.

Agreed: I am far more careful these days, but why fight popular usage? I may as well concede. I usually do. Occasionally I make a pedantic joke, like the psychic/psychical one on the BadPsychics challenge - but it was clearly a joke. (I use psychic in the "paranormal sense all the time..)

I completely agree with your criticism about Dawkin's comment about needing a psychiatrist. That is a very wrong way of thinking about it. It is far more revealing and enlightening to science to realize that people as normal as you and I )) can have these experiences.

Helping them understand those experiences appeals greatly to me. Thats my clinical past speaking...

Your criticism about Occam's Razor was based on a misapplication. Occam's Razor would not choose the "economical" explanation of "the medium is genuine" over "elaborate fraud". "The medium is genuine" requires a new (not proven independent of the example) entity - psi or some other force - in order to explain the results. "Elaborate fraud" is a known entity. Therefore, Occam's Razor would choose the parsimonious "elaborate fraud" and any claims by supporters of the paranormal that Occam's Razor supports paranormal explanations, on that basis, would be fallacious.

Linda

Yeah I know. I think I said "Careful; some nut might claim..." about OR did I not? I'd just had a row with a UFOlogist who reckoned OR favoured abductions when writing that essay. I'm not sure even then I misunderstood OT that badly, though I still get things wrong all the time.

Fun talking to you (and Larsen) as always. Lots to think about on whether paranormal as a category is actually a really really misleading concept. I like that premise, but need to think it threw - thanks for that. Is it your own critique?

cj x

 

[cj.23]

cj, it is interesting that you are being asked about. I'd have thought responsible skepticism would ask only about your claims, if you've made any.

Ah, well not bothered really. I mentioned I was a ghosthunter and Larsen decided to check me out. Possibly wants to make sure I am not making money off poor misguided folks -- fair enough, I'm not. I was a bit miffed to start with, and pointed him to folks who can confirm what I said, but really I don't mind. Larsen has always been pretty straight with me,and while we argue a lot on here, he produces the always fascinating Skeptic Report - which I admire and enjoy. What I want to know is why he trusts the word of me ( a self professed ghosthunter!) rather than just asking fellow sceptics about me?

Anyway no harm done. I enjoy the discussions to much to resent anything.
cj x

 

[fls]

Yes, principle, theory, ok, not theory, a principle. What I said is that you place too much weight to this occam´s razor thing than just having this as a tool. But rather, using as THE tool, and it does not make it so, also.

You have not provided any evidence that I give it too much weight.

Perhaps statistical significance is a overwhelmingly useful tool, and occam´s razor , not quite it. The blade is often use in support of reductionism and rejecting things that are outside the current framework , in order to keep things working the way this paradigm is suggesting. It´s justa matter of personal choice.

Can you provide examples where the use of parsimony has led to the rejection of an idea prematurely?

Calling people ignorant because they did not agree with your points, is flaming.

Ignorant is not an insult since all people are ignorant about something - i.e. nobody has complete knowledge. I did not call you ignorant. And I did not call you ignorant because you did not agree with my points.

You stated (or implied) that you were ignorant of the research on cold-reading and asked me for evidence. I told you that it was time that you took responsibility for your own state of knowledge on that issue (ignorance). And earlier, I referred to taking responsibility for my ignorance, which also indicates that I do not consider it insulting.

AAAhh, now, a more tenable explanation, it is your opinion about it rather than what it actually is. So this issue seems to be resolved.

More accurately "it is your opinion about it rather than what is my opinion about it".

Using Occam´s Razor to evaluate psi will eventually leads to psi being cut off from scientific interest, as you might know. But , is this the tenable way of looking at psi? And again, attributing parsimony to significance may be a dangerous step, but ok, if now it´s clear that it´s not some kind os scientific truth but rather your opinion. No harm at all!

Where are you getting this? Is everything I say assumed to be a scientific truth unless I specifically state otherwise? I should be flattered, I suppose.

Linda

 

[Darat]

Yep, no dispute there. The idea of a separate area designated of as paranormal does strike me as inherently bizarre - String Theory, Dark Matter, are they not paranormal by the usual definition?

No. (See below)

The existence of the Giant Squid was a paranormal issue (and indeed often appeared in books on "the paranormal") till recently. Now Giant Squids are normal.
Well maybe not normal!

...snip..

Encarta dictionary has a rather short and simple definition of paranormal as :

"impossible to explain scientifically: unable to be explained or understood in terms of scientific knowledge

Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved."


What is your definition?

 

[cj.23]

No. (See below)



Encarta dictionary has a rather short and simple definition of paranormal as :

"impossible to explain scientifically: unable to be explained or understood in terms of scientific knowledge

Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved."


What is your definition?

Some unproven purported phenomenon beyond any generally agreed scientific explanation, yet naturalistic, and hence within the scope of future science - as opposed to supernatural. If the Encarta definition added one word "currently" after the colon I'd agree with it.

Mine is a common philosophy of religion usage. However yours is obviously correct in terms of English, so no argument there at all. I don't believe in the reality of the paranormal as defined by Encarta, as you may have gathered...

cj x

 

[Darat]

Some unproven purported phenomenon beyond any generally agreed scientific explanation, yet naturalistic, and hence within the scope of future science - as opposed to supernatural.

...snip...

Doesn't your definition require a ...er... supernatural ability i..e the ability to know the future?

 

[cj.23]

Doesn't your definition require a ...er... supernatural ability i..e the ability to know the future?

Nah. You see, lets take I dunno, a Goblin sighting. If goblin sightings are subsequently explained to only occur to drunks, well thats cool. It was still a paranormal claim. Science has still explained goblins - the phenomena has been explained "away", but its explained. It is paranormal no more. I'd guess 99.9% of these "paranormal phenomena" will be explained away in similar ways...

cj x

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's obvious that Omega doesn't care for evidence or logic.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Cj can you give a list of supernatural claims or phenomena as compared to a list of paranormal ones?

 

[cj.23]

Cj can you give a list of supernatural claims or phenomena as compared to a list of paranormal ones?

Sure. I'll have a go, though I may be talking rubbish...

Supernatural
"the witch turned me in to a newt. I got better"
"God has three persons who exist both within and without this universe"
"I passed outside of time and space and appeared over here from over there. I can't do it again."
"An angel told me that I am important..."
"the world was created in seven days, with fossils etc in place"
"Multiple Universes exist"

These claims are outside of science, and unlikely to be substantiated?


Paranormal
"I saw a ghost"
"I think I can predict the next random number drawn"
"I think I can produce a measurable effect on a dice throw by thinking"
"Bigfoot exists"
"I saw a UFO"
"Another level of determinacy underlies quantum mechanics - we just don't understand it yet"

All these can be tested by science, and will be accepted or discarded... I'm not sure if multiple universes are in any way testable, so they may a paranormal claim one day?

cj x

 

[thaiboxerken]

How is "I saw a ghost" and "I saw a UFO" any more testable than your supernatural list?