Collective apparitions: evidence life after death?

[cj.23]

At the time?
I strongly doubt that telepathy has ever been considered scientific by scientists... there being no evidence for its existence.

I really really must do a Skeptics in the Pub on the "Myth of No Evidence". Of course there was evidence for ESP - tons of it. Much of it scrupulously double blind - Richard Wiseman is on record as saying it is "proven by normal scientific standards." If you don;t believe me, drop him an email and ask him.

In 1894 Telepathy was looking experimentally proven, and was fairly widely accepted in the UK and USA Scientific communities. A number of Royal Society members were experimenting with it. Then some of Gurney's experiments, almost immediately before his death, were shown to have been fraudulently performed by the participants (using a dog whistle of all things to communicate) and debunked. Increasing theoretical knowledge in particular the understanding of file drawer effects, long before they entered mainstream science, led to increasing doubts.

Then we have Rhine, and his experiments. They did not replicate consistently, seeming to be reliant as i recall on star subjects. In the 1950's we have Einstein writing the introduction to Sinclair's Mental Radio, and once again a growing consensus on ESP being real, broken by the scandal over Soal's results (uncovered by Goldney and the parapsychologists). ESP belief declines again.

Then in the 1970's and early 80's, we have an upsurge of belief in ESP, especially among physicists. Again we seemed to have a scientific culture supportive of the idea: then it decline sagain through the 80's until consistent replications in Ganzfeld suggest there might be something it it. If you have never read JREF member Ersby's excellent analysis of the Ganzfeld database, I really suggest you do.

Belief in ESP is culturally defined, and in science by the scientific culture of the period. It stands completely independent of the results, like belief in any scientific phenomena. In the USA parts of the scientific world still resist Evolution in a way almost unheard of here in Britain. The beliefs of scientists on any issue are pretty irrelevant - it is the actual facts which are important.

cj x

 

[vmf214]

Found that article yet? I was really looking foward to reading it. Not sure if you forgot about us or couldn't find it.

thanks, and best

LOL!

A little of both. I have to travel occasionally for work. Spent the last week in London - love the city and people, but the food always kills me...

I saw your post and grabbed all of my back-up drives. I am a pack-rat and keep everything. I'm sure it's in there somewhere - hopefully not just a link to something that no longer exists. Remind me again if I don't post something in a few days.

 

[Stray Cat]

I really really must do a Skeptics in the Pub on the "Myth of No Evidence". Of course there was evidence for ESP - tons of it. Much of it scrupulously double blind - Richard Wiseman is on record as saying it is "proven by normal scientific standards." If you don;t believe me, drop him an email and ask him.

In 1894 Telepathy was looking experimentally proven, and was fairly widely accepted in the UK and USA Scientific communities. A number of Royal Society members were experimenting with it. Then some of Gurney's experiments, almost immediately before his death, were shown to have been fraudulently performed by the participants (using a dog whistle of all things to communicate) and debunked. Increasing theoretical knowledge in particular the understanding of file drawer effects, long before they entered mainstream science, led to increasing doubts.

Then we have Rhine, and his experiments. They did not replicate consistently, seeming to be reliant as i recall on star subjects. In the 1950's we have Einstein writing the introduction to Sinclair's Mental Radio, and once again a growing consensus on ESP being real, broken by the scandal over Soal's results (uncovered by Goldney and the parapsychologists). ESP belief declines again.

Then in the 1970's and early 80's, we have an upsurge of belief in ESP, especially among physicists. Again we seemed to have a scientific culture supportive of the idea: then it decline sagain through the 80's until consistent replications in Ganzfeld suggest there might be something it it. If you have never read JREF member Ersby's excellent analysis of the Ganzfeld database, I really suggest you do.

Belief in ESP is culturally defined, and in science by the scientific culture of the period. It stands completely independent of the results, like belief in any scientific phenomena. In the USA parts of the scientific world still resist Evolution in a way almost unheard of here in Britain. The beliefs of scientists on any issue are pretty irrelevant - it is the actual facts which are important.

cj x

Considering the possibility of ESP is not the same as ESP being accepted as scientific fact (enough to use as a causation explanation for a theory).

As you rightly point out, every single look into it that science has had the open mindedness to perform has resulted in no evidence for it's existence.

 

[cj.23]

Oh evidence, just not compelling evidence. Look at this, 7 parts by our very own Ersby. There is plenty of evidence - http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=316 - and significantly so. I don't happen to believe in psi (and am one of the most vociferous critics of telepathic theories of apparitions as it happens, not that it matters) but you can't say this is not evidence. Indeed as Wiseman points out, it is by normal scientific standards equal to that normally required for acceptance of a claim. My own reservations are rather complex, so I won't bore people with them here.

cj x

 

[Stray Cat]

Oh evidence, just not compelling evidence.

Which really is the only type of evidence we ask for when we make the claim; There is no evidence.

Of course, there's loads of really crappy evidence. We know that, we read it all the time.

 

[cj.23]

Which really is the only type of evidence we ask for when we make the claim; There is no evidence.

Of course, there's loads of really crappy evidence. We know that, we read it all the time.

Yep Do read Ersby's analysis though. I recall his discussions with FLS about it here, and have met him and know he was absolutely sincere and to my mind produced the best metaanalysis of the Ganzfeld dataset to date. And it seems to show a real effect. That effect might well be underdetermined, but it's hard to refute. And as you know, Ersby is no woo! I admire Wiseman's honesty in addressing it.

cj x

EDIT: And once again I must stress I do not personally believe in psi. If I did, it would be because of Ersby's paper.

 

[Stray Cat]

Yep Do read Ersby's analysis though. I recall his discussions with FLS about it here, and have met him and know he was absolutely sincere and to my mind produced the best metaanalysis of the Ganzfeld dataset to date. And it seems to show a real effect.

An effect shows up as "real" without anyone actually ever demonstrating the effect.
Aren't meta analysis great!

That effect might well be underdetermined, but it's hard to refute. And as you know, Ersby is no woo! I admire Wiseman's honesty in addressing it.

Anything that is "undetermined" is impossible to refute.
Who'd know what to refute?

 

[cj.23]

Well it seems generally to be accepted (by people who have read it all, including several of the biggest name sceptics) that the effect has been demonstrated? It is the causes where the controversy is now?

cj x

 

[Stray Cat]

Well it seems generally to be accepted (by people who have read it all, including several of the biggest name sceptics) that the effect has been demonstrated?

By meta analysis, not by a person performing feats of ESP/PSI.

It is the causes where the controversy is now?

Which of course would be lessened if someone could actually demonstrate ESP/PSI beyond chance. Because then it could actually be investigated objectively.

 

[cj.23]

By meta analysis, not by a person performing feats of ESP/PSI.


Which of course would be lessened if someone could actually demonstrate ESP/PSI beyond chance. Because then it could actually be investigated objectively.

But many experiments have demonstrated it. And others not. Given the variables are unknown, that is exactly what we might expect to find? Critique of another Wiseman CSI article by me here goes in to considerable detail - http://jerome23.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/1187/

And don't miss the challenge I just posted in the poltergeist thread!

cj x

 

[Stray Cat]

But many experiments have demonstrated it.

And each of those experiments has included flawed methodology.

And others not. Given the variables are unknown, that is exactly what we might expect to find?

"Unknown variables" haven't prevented great leaps forward in every other scientific endeavor.

Critique of another Wiseman CSI article by me here goes in to considerable detail - http://jerome23.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/1187/

Every bit of it ignoring the fact that no one has shown an ability in ESP/PSI higher than chance.

And don't miss the challenge I just posted in the poltergeist thread!

There is no challenge.
See my response.

 

[cj.23]

And each of those experiments has included flawed methodology.


"Unknown variables" haven't prevented great leaps forward in every other scientific endeavor.


Every bit of it ignoring the fact that no one has shown an ability in ESP/PSI higher than chance.

Show me the flawed methodology. French can't find it. Wiseman can't point to it. Hyman hasn't noted it. Evidence please.

Secondly, many double blind experiments have seen results higher than chance. I linked to Ersby's paper. Have a look at the dataset. Or do you think Ersby has become one of "THEM"?

cj x

 

[Stray Cat]

Show me the flawed methodology.

Assuming the conclusion is flawed methodology.
Wiseman pointed out flaws, you made excuses for them.
File drawer, non blinding, not ensuring cheating was ruled out have all featured in many of the most written about experiments.
I certainly have never read about one which was carried out under strict scientific test condition where anyone has been found to have ESP powerz.

French can't find it. Wiseman can't point to it. Hyman hasn't noted it. Evidence please.

No, sorry, don't shift the burden of proof. Show me someone who has ESP powerz.

Secondly, many double blind experiments have seen results higher than chance.

Which ironically is what we may expect just by chance. However, you are talking about statistical analysis and not someone who consistently actually demonstrates ESP above chance.

I linked to Ersby's paper. Have a look at the dataset. Or do you think Ersby has become one of "THEM"?

What I want to see is a person who has ESP.... you got one of those?

 

[cj.23]

Assuming the conclusion is flawed methodology.
Wiseman pointed out flaws, you made excuses for them.
File drawer, non blinding, not ensuring cheating was ruled out have all featured in many of the most written about experiments.
I certainly have never read about one which was carried out under strict scientific test condition where anyone has been found to have ESP powerz.

Really? In all of the dataset? REALLY? You seriously believe this? I think you should message Ersby and ask his opinion. given the very many monyths that went in ot his research. Or Wiseman. Or Hyman. Or indeed anyone who has read the actual research? How about Professor Chris French?

EDIT: Give me three examples of the above in any of the experiments post 1990? Specific examples. You are the one making the claim here, that the research was flawed. Please demonstrate it with factual evidence.

Have a look at French et al Anomalistic Psychology (2012) where in chapter 5 the question of whether parapsych is a pseudoscience is addressed and roundly dismissed. In fact while it performs slightly less well in some of the categories, it performs far better than mainstream sciences do in many, simply because of the active involvement of scepotics and the constant critical scrutiny of research, and the high level of awareness of methodological issues. File drawer effects have been understood in parapsi for decades for example, long before understanding of the issue entered mainstream research.

And anyway, the poltergeist raps await your analysis!
cj x

 

[Stray Cat]

So I'll take that as a "No" then to the request to present one person who has ESP powers.

All the bluff and bluster aside, that's the bottom line.

 

[Stray Cat]

And anyway, the poltergeist raps await your analysis!

There are no poltergeist raps.
There are some noises that no one knew where they came from.

That some unknown source noises have different acoustic properties from some noises that we know where they came from is not surprising to me. This does not point toward a cause in any way what-so-ever.

 

[cj.23]

So I'll take that as a "No" then to the request to present one person who has ESP powers.

All the bluff and bluster aside, that's the bottom line.

Why do you assume ESP (which I don't believe in) would be consistent? Come on, just give me three examples of the flaws you claim permeate the dataset, from specific experiments. Why is everyone so unwilling to back up their assertions with actual evidence?

cj x

 

[Stray Cat]

Why do you assume ESP (which I don't believe in) would be consistent? Come on, just give me three examples of the flaws you claim permeate the dataset, from specific experiments. Why is everyone so unwilling to back up their assertions with actual evidence?

cj x

The tests claim to show ESP powerz.
And yet fail to show a single example of anyone with these powerz.

Showing that sometimes, some people can guess correctly, is chance.
Using statistical analysis to excuse this is dishonest.

Again we descend from "proof for life after death" to some poor statistical significance of people sometimes being able to guess some things some times.

 

[23_Tauri]

No, sorry, don't shift the burden of proof. Show me someone who has ESP powerz.

I have.

 

[Stray Cat]

I have.

I knew you were going to say that.