Ed A call for new open-minded research on psychic phenomena

[JayUtah]

Science is an ever-expanding field.

Yes, but not in the way you appear to imagine.

We are learning new things, and methods, constantly.

No, not really. The basic methods of determining statistical significance have been around for around 100 years. It's been shown time and time again to be mathematically robust and empirically accurate. There is nothing wrong with it and little if any need to revisit it.

We learn new things by applying tried and true techniques to new observations that we are presented with. Thing is, you don't have any new observations.

 

[arthwollipot]

Science is an ever-expanding field. We are learning new things, and methods, constantly. I don't feel it is "deficient", just not finite.

You mean our body of knowledge is expanding. Science itself is a method, and the method is venerable and well-practiced. The same thought processes that led Galileo to conclude that objects with different weights drop at the same speed are the same thought processes we use to discover new things today: hypothesis, experiment, record, repeat, conclusion.

What is it about these thought processes that you believe is so deficient that something new needs to be tried?

 

[Warp12]

are the same thought processes we use to discover new things today: hypothesis, experiment, record, repeat, conclusion.

What is it about these thought processes that you believe is so deficient that something new needs to be tried?

The thought process is fine.

But if I am using it to find camels, while focused on the deep sea, it may not work so well. I already looked in the deep sea for camels, a thousand times...and I had no luck...even with the right thought process.

But, I figure, the next time we are looking for camels, we might as well look in the deep sea, again.

 

[arthwollipot]

The thought process is fine.

But if I am using it to find camels, while focused on the deep sea, it may not work so well. I already looked in the deep sea for camels, a thousand times...and I had no luck...even with the right thought process.

But, I figure, the next time we are looking for camels, we might as well look in the deep sea, again.

Where should we be looking?

Oh, that's right. It's not your job to tell us where we should be looking, is it?

 

[JayUtah]

The thought process is fine.



But if I am using it to find camels, while focused on the deep sea, it may not work so well. I already looked in the deep sea for camels, a thousand times...and I had no luck...even with the right thought process.



But, I figure, the next time we are looking for camels, we might as well look in the deep sea, again.

Explain how this is an analogy to statistical hypothesis testing.

 

[Warp12]

Where should we be looking?

Oh, that's right. It's not your job to tell us where we should be looking, is it?

Obviously we should keep looking in the deep sea, until a camel pops up.

 

[arthwollipot]

Obviously we should keep looking in the deep sea, until a camel pops up.

You know that sarcasm doesn't end well here, Warp. People have a tendency to take you at your word.

 

[JayUtah]

Obviously we should keep looking in the deep sea, until a camel pops up.

You dodge that question every time. It's almost like you don't actually know anything about science and how it's carried out. And you don't want your ignorance exposed.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

The thought process is fine.

But if I am using it to find camels, while focused on the deep sea, it may not work so well. I already looked in the deep sea for camels, a thousand times...and I had no luck...even with the right thought process.

But, I figure, the next time we are looking for camels, we might as well look in the deep sea, again.

But if someone says their pet camel lives in the sea you're a fool if you don't look in the sea.

 

[Warp12]

You know that sarcasm doesn't end well here, Warp. People have a tendency to take you at your word.

I am certain that you, and most others, will grasp my meaning. If not, they are not my intended audience, anyway.

I have made the same basic statements over and over again, minus the sarcasm...but it seems that they are even more hit-or-miss.

 

[Warp12]

But if someone says their pet camel lives in the sea you're a fool if you don't look in the sea.

Unless you have looked for camels in the sea all of your life. Then you would simply be a fool to go through the same exercise again. You might need to more closely examine the next camel you find.

 

[arthwollipot]

Unless you have looked for camels in the sea all of your life. Then you would simply be a fool to go through the same exercise again. You might need to more closely examine the next camel you find.

No. If someone says that their camel lives in the sea, you look for it in the sea.

One of the characteristics of the old JREF Million Dollar Challenge was that the applicant had to state clearly what it was that they could do, and under what conditions. A test was set up according to those conditions, and the applicant was invited to do exactly what they said they could do under those conditions. Not a single one of them succeeded. Over the course of 19 years and over a thousand applicants, none of them could do what it was they said they could do.

Going back to the metaphor, applicants for the MDC said explicitly that their camel was in the sea, and that if we looked in the sea we would find the camel. Well, we looked in the sea, exactly where they told us to look, and we found no camels.

 

[Warp12]

No. If someone says that their camel lives in the sea, you look for it in the sea.

One of the characteristics of the old JREF Million Dollar Challenge was that the applicant had to state clearly what it was that they could do, and under what conditions. A test was set up according to those conditions, and the applicant was invited to do exactly what they said they could do under those conditions. Not a single one of them succeeded. Over the course of 19 years and over a thousand applicants, none of them could do what it was they said they could do.

Going back to the metaphor, applicants for the MDC said explicitly that their camel was in the sea, and that if we looked in the sea we would find the camel. Well, we looked in the sea, exactly where they told us to look, and we found no camels.

I don't think that is true. I am pretty sure that this challenge would be rejected, right away. Because, we already had done enough testing for sea camels, and determined that there is no chance of a positive result. Especially Breatharian Sea Camels.

I'm done talking about the camels, whether land or water dwelling.

 

[xjx388]

They would be asked to leave before that happened, just like card counters sometimes are.

Card counters at blackjack use identifiable patterns in their betting. The casino knows "the count," and therefore can identify players who bet high when the count is high. Card counting is nothing more than an exploitation of the math of blackjack, pure and simple. Once the casino knows the exploit, they can mitigate it. A psychic playing roulette, however, would have no identifiable pattern; there is no math to exploit.

But my larger point is that in a world with genuine psychics in it, casinos cannot exist. Who would dare open a casino in the first place? Even if only 1% of the population were psychic, that's millions of people who could be guaranteed winners, to say nothing of all the people who follow the psychics and piggyback on their wins.

But here we are, in a world where casinos exist and are hugely profitable.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't think that is true. I am pretty sure that this challenge would be rejected, right away. Because, we already had done enough testing for sea camels, and determined that there is no chance of a positive result. Especially Breatharian Sea Camels.

I'm done talking about the camels, whether land or water dwelling.

Have you any idea how many dowsers applied for the challenge? Lots. Lots and lots. Every one of them was invited to participate. Every single one. Of the many who applied, not all of them were able to agree to a protocol. Of those that did, every one was tested. Randi rejected very few serious applicants. At no point did anyone say "well, we've tested enough dowsers now, no need to test any more". If you are a dowser and you apply for any one of the many other challenges that are still running today, then you will be invited to help develop a protocol. As long as your intent is sincere, that is.

 

[Warp12]

Card counters at blackjack use identifiable patterns in their betting. The casino knows "the count," and therefore can identify players who bet high when the count is high. Card counting is nothing more than an exploitation of the math of blackjack, pure and simple. Once the casino knows the exploit, they can mitigate it. A psychic playing roulette, however, would have no identifiable pattern; there is no math to exploit.

But my larger point is that in a world with genuine psychics in it, casinos cannot exist. Who would dare open a casino in the first place? Even if only 1% of the population were psychic, that's millions of people who could be guaranteed winners, to say nothing of all the people who follow the psychics and piggyback on their wins.

But here we are, in a world where casinos exist and are hugely profitable.

Believe me, if you are winning WAY too much in a Casino, especially consistently, they will find a way to get you out of there. They can legally do so.

Your assumption is that someone with psychic abilities could be good at reading every game. It's like saying Michael Jordan would be great at Boxing, because he is a great athlete.

 

[Warp12]

But my larger point is that in a world with genuine psychics in it, casinos cannot exist.

So, the premise is:

"Casinos exist, therefore psychic phenomena cannot."

I can't agree with that logic.

 

[arthwollipot]

Your assumption is that someone with psychic abilities could be good at reading every game. It's like saying Michael Jordan would be great at Boxing, because he is a great athlete.

Michael Jordan would be a better natural boxer than someone who wasn't an athlete. Jordan would have better fitness, balance, movement, timing, physical strength and agility than a couch potato would. If all other factors including the amount of training they have received specifically in boxing were equal, Michael Jordan would beat the couch potato hands down 100% of the time.

 

[Warp12]

Michael Jordan would be a better natural boxer than someone who wasn't an athlete. Jordan would have better fitness, balance, movement, timing, physical strength and agility than a couch potato would. If all other factors including the amount of training they have received specifically in boxing were equal, Michael Jordan would beat the couch potato hands down 100% of the time.

Trying to quantify the capabilities of something that most people here feel does not exist, that has to be the ultimate challenge.

 

[xjx388]

So, the premise is:

"Casinos exist, therefore psychic phenomena cannot."

I can't agree with that logic.

You don’t have to agree, I’m just asking you to look at what the world would be like if paranormal phenomenon were real. Beyond casinos, if there are people who can talk to the dead, how are there still so many unsolved crimes? If dowsing were real, why aren’t dowsers finding oil and precious metal deposits? So many areas where paranormal effects would be revolutionary but no actual evidence of such revolutions.

Instead, we live in a world where the best argument for paranormal powers boils down to, “ok yeah, it has failed every test but maybe we need, like…new tests or something?”