Calling All Remote Viewers

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Traveller said:

. . . I can't stand idiots like you who pretend to be skeptics then just outright reject everything which does not go along with your little world view in that way.

You know what? Instead of ragging on us because we're close-minded, as if that makes a damn bit of difference, why don't you go hassle so remote viewers to do something useful with their earth-shattering skills? "Ooh, I can see all over the place with my amazing sixth sense. Of course, I can't see anything useful at all, so instead I just give poor slobs false hope in the face of horrific events in their lives. Is it a problem that not a single one of us has ever helped a single person in need of our services?"

It's so sickeningly grotesque that my close-mindedness pales to utter insignificance in the face of it. Wake up, people! You can't see anything remotely. Stop making up crap that you can.

~~ Paul

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Traveller said:
You know what? Instead of ragging on us because we're close-minded, as if that makes a damn bit of difference, why don't you go hassle so remote viewers to do something useful with their earth-shattering skills? "Ooh, I can see all over the place with my amazing sixth sense. Of course, I can't see anything useful at all, so instead I just give poor slobs false hope in the face of horrific events in their lives. Is it a problem that not a single one of us has ever helped a single person in need of our services?"

It's so sickeningly grotesque that my close-mindedness pales to utter insignificance in the face of it. Wake up, people! You can't see anything remotely. Stop making up crap that you can.

~~ Paul

I was pointing out that idiots like that shouldn't be considered real skeptics unless if true skepticism is about flat out labeling paranormal claims bull **** which is a belief based thing to do. I don't disagree that remote viewers should try to help others if they have the ability and if they choose to. If I could rv I would try to help others with it but I doubt there are many hard-core skeptics willing to try it out themselves instead of speculating against it because of their already set views.

 

[Pyrrho]

If I could rv I would try to help others with it but I doubt there are many hard-core skeptics willing to try it out themselves instead of speculating against it because of their already set views.

Been there, done that, came to my senses and stopped lying to myself. My woo-woo days are done.

Besides, it isn't about "set views". Impossibilities such as remote viewing violate the laws of physics, which do not change regardless of our opinions.

If people claim to be able to perform remote viewing, they had better be prepared to be challenged on that claim.

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Been there, done that, came to my senses and stopped lying to myself. My woo-woo days are done.

Why not keep trying or do you let your views about it get in the way? If it does exist it would probably take a lot of effort and wouldn't work for everyone. Whether if it exists or not the way people view it has no real effect on it. Since skeptics spend so much time investigating the paranormal you would think as investigators that they would try some of it out instead of jumping to conclusions and speculating about it.

Besides, it isn't about "set views". Impossibilities such as remote viewing violate the laws of physics, which do not change regardless of our opinions.

This would be a whole other debate but the laws of physics are not set in stone. Science is always changing even though some people get dogmatic about it and fear or try to supress change this has no effect on reality whatever it may be.

If people claim to be able to perform remote viewing, they had better be prepared to be challenged on that claim.

Sure it should be tested more.

 

[bPer]

we already know what so called skeptics are going to come up with when confronted with any evidence [of remote viewing]

Well, I'm not sure who you mean by 'we'. I can tell you what this skeptic would 'come up with':

Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that somebody comes forward and tells us all where to find this missing teenager, and proclaims that (s)he knew where she was by using remote viewing. My reaction would be to say that there are three ways that the 'RVer' came up with the location:

1. By luck (guesswork),
2. By inside knowledge (e.g prosaic detective work), or
3. By remote viewing.
   [/list=1]
   Surely you cannot argue with that reaction, whether you call yourself a skeptic or not. To accept anyone's word without question is simply being gullible and leaves you open to exploitation by charlatans.
   
   So, what next? This skeptic says you look for proof that option (3) is actually at play here. Construct a test to allow the RVer to prove his/her ability, eliminating the possibilities of guesswork and inside knowledge.
   
   And if the RVer passes (and the test is repeatable and passes examination by others), what then? This skeptic would say "Neat - here's something new that we never thought possible!" That's a big IF, though.
   
   So am I the only open-minded skeptic there is? Not a chance! All of the people you have been talking to here would react the same way. That's what skepticism is, not the phony strawman you present.
   
   One other thing, traveller. You've been registered here for a week. I don't know if you lurked before then, but you seem to have a pretty set opinion of skeptics, given this and the rest of your posts. It won't get you anywhere calling people 'idiots' just because they don't share the same beliefs as you. Lose the attitude, or you'll be quickly labelled a troll and ignored.
   
   βPer

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Well, I'm not sure who you mean by 'we'. I can tell you what this skeptic would 'come up with':

Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that somebody comes forward and tells us all where to find this missing teenager, and proclaims that (s)he knew where she was by using remote viewing. My reaction would be to say that there are three ways that the 'RVer' came up with the location:

1. By luck (guesswork),
2. By inside knowledge (e.g prosaic detective work), or
3. By remote viewing.
   [/list=1]
   Surely you cannot argue with that reaction, whether you call yourself a skeptic or not. To accept anyone's word without question is simply being gullible and leaves you open to exploitation by charlatans.

1. 
   
   I agree with that and being skeptical about claims like this would be important.
   
   

   So, what next? This skeptic says you look for proof that option (3) is actually at play here. Construct a test to allow the RVer to prove his/her ability, eliminating the possibilities of guesswork and inside knowledge.
   
   And if the RVer passes (and the test is repeatable and passes examination by others), what then? This skeptic would say "Neat - here's something new that we never thought possible!" That's a big IF, though.
   
   So am I the only open-minded skeptic there is? Not a chance! All of the people you have been talking to here would react the same way. That's what skepticism is, not the phony strawman you present.

   
   I'm only against skeptics who completely reject the paranormal explanation all the explanations that you gave should be considered without jumping to conclusions from either side and yes this sort of thing should be tested as much as possible.
   
   

   One other thing, traveller. You've been registered here for a week. I don't know if you lurked before then, but you seem to have a pretty set opinion of skeptics, given this and the rest of your posts. It won't get you anywhere calling people 'idiots' just because they don't share the same beliefs as you. Lose the attitude, or you'll be quickly labelled a troll and ignored.

   
   Yes I have lurked here a lot but I say that because I just can't stand when people who are supposed to be skeptics clearly show that they have already made their minds up about the nature of paranormal. I have no problem with open-minded skeptics but I don't think people who show their bias by jumping to pre-determined conclusions should be considered real skeptics.

 

[Pyrrho]

Why not keep trying or do you let your views about it get in the way? If it does exist it would probably take a lot of effort and wouldn't work for everyone. Whether if it exists or not the way people view it has no real effect on it. Since skeptics spend so much time investigating the paranormal you would think as investigators that they would try some of it out instead of jumping to conclusions and speculating about it.

Believing in the paranormal and practicing nonsense kept me in ignorance and denial, while some very real factors in my life were neglected. I could easily switch back to indulging in the "exploration of my paranormal abilities", but I choose not return to those days of mental and emotional illness. Perhaps your own views get in the way of thinking critically about what you believe to be true. I know that my views got in the way of my own rationality, before I returned to skepticism.

Again, even if we were to "experience" paranormal ability, our experiences can be deceptive. What seems real may not be.

This would be a whole other debate but the laws of physics are not set in stone. Science is always changing even though some people get dogmatic about it and fear or try to supress change this has no effect on reality whatever it may be.

Hmm. Our understanding of the laws of physics may change, but we do know quite a bit. What we do know precludes such things as remote viewing. Sorry, but it's a myth that skeptics fear change or try to suppress it.

Sure it should be tested more.

No, I do not agree it should be tested more. Enough's enough.

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Believing in the paranormal and practicing nonsense kept me in ignorance and denial, while some very real factors in my life were neglected. I could easily switch back to indulging in the "exploration of my paranormal abilities", but I choose not return to those days of mental and emotional illness. Perhaps your own views get in the way of thinking critically about what you believe to be true. I know that my views got in the way of my own rationality, before I returned to skepticism.

You are welcome to your preconceptions about the paranormal which are not supported by fact but again personal views have no effect on reality.

Again, even if we were to "experience" paranormal ability, our experiences can be deceptive. What seems real may not be.

Some experiences could be deceptive but if you were able to gain a paranormal ability then you could learn to replicate it for yourself and others. Besides actual experience is how we learn different things and is really the best way to know.

Hmm. Our understanding of the laws of physics may change, but we do know quite a bit. What we do know precludes such things as remote viewing. Sorry, but it's a myth that skeptics fear change or try to suppress it.

Our understanding of physics could stay the same, slightly change, or be completely change but at this point there is no telling what may later be discovered. Only considering and getting dogmatic about currently accepted laws will not help in discovering the truth.

No, I do not agree it should be tested more. Enough's enough.

translation: I want evidence of the the paranormal but I don't want it to be tested.

This is hypocritical to demand further evidence then claim it should not be tested anymore and this is a perfect example of closed views. If you look at it this way then what is the point of being a skeptic since you won't take it into consideration and don't want it tested?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Believing in the paranormal and practicing nonsense kept me in ignorance and denial, while some very real factors in my life were neglected.

I'm just thankful that people can study and investigate paranormal subjects and still have a good grasp on reality. I guess some people just can't do that.

No, I do not agree it should be tested more. Enough's enough.

I'd rather stay scientific and actually do scientific tests.

 

[Pyrrho]

You are welcome to your preconceptions about the paranormal which are not supported by fact but again personal views have no effect on reality.

That applies equally to all parties concerned, doesn't it?

Some experiences could be deceptive but if you were able to gain a paranormal ability then you could learn to replicate it for yourself and others. Besides actual experience is how we learn different things and is really the best way to know.

Our understanding of physics could stay the same, slightly change, or be completely change but at this point there is no telling what may later be discovered. Only considering and getting dogmatic about currently accepted laws will not help in discovering the truth.

It isn't dogmatism; it's simple acceptance of what scientists have learned over the past centuries. These realities are not subject to change. Nobody can learn paranormal abilities. They can, however, quite easily become delusional.

translation: I want evidence of the the paranormal but I don't want it to be tested.

This is hypocritical to demand further evidence then claim it should not be tested anymore and this is a perfect example of closed views. If you look at it this way then what is the point of being a skeptic since you won't take it into consideration and don't want it tested?

The point of being a skeptic is to stand up for sanity and rational thinking in the face of continued promulgation of nonsense and wishful thinking. It's my opinion that the paranormalists have had their day, and have wasted enough time and resources chasing fantasies. If I demand evidence, it is for the purpose of rubbing the believers' noses in their consistent failures and, ultimately, their own denial. People claim, "I have special powers," but when challenged, the only power they seem to have is the ability to generate excuses.

 

[Zep]

See my sig line?

 

[Pyrrho]

I'm just thankful that people can study and investigate paranormal subjects and still have a good grasp on reality. I guess some people just can't do that.

Sure they do. Sooner or later the reality that they're ignoring will bite them in the ass.

I'd rather stay scientific and actually do scientific tests.

The problem is, the tests devised so far tend to take unnecessary convoluted twists and turns. What should be a simple demonstration of ability under carefully controlled conditions always becomes secondary to intricate protocols and/or meta-analyses that require true experts to decipher, and even then, no two experts can agree. We're left with unavailable data, ambiguous evidence, unfalsifiable hypotheses, and a few temporarily popular books which the authors and their fans tout as the foundations of bold, new, world-changing paradigms. Nothing ever moves past that point.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I've read most of the PEAR paper Information and Uncertainty in Remote Perception Research. At one point they are discussing the fact that they were distracted by having to write a response to an analysis of their research, and that this may have reduced the effect of current experiments. They say:

Beyond, this, in order to forestall further such specious challenges, it led to the imposition of additional unnecessary constraints in the design of the subsequent distributive protocol. Although it is not possible to quantify the influence of such intangible factors, in the study of consciousness-related anomalies where unknown psychological factors appear to be at the heart of the phenomena under study, they cannot be dismissed casually. (emphasis mine)

What an odd thing to say.

~~ Paul

 

[Martin]

Our understanding of physics could stay the same

Yes...

slightly change

...yes...

or be completely change

...yes...

but at this point there is no telling what may later be discovered

...and no. Whatever we discover in the future, it'll have to fit in with what we already know.

 

[CFLarsen]

Paul,

It's very easy to understand. The mere act of responding to an analysis indicates that critical voices are present.

And you know that paranormal phenomena never works in the presence of critical voices....

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

That applies equally to all parties concerned, doesn't it?

Yes both sides can be equally ignorant.

It isn't dogmatism; it's simple acceptance of what scientists have learned over the past centuries. These realities are not subject to change. Nobody can learn paranormal abilities. They can, however, quite easily become delusional.

Science is always changing and you can't say for sure that the laws of physics will hold up forever. I would like to know how where exactly you get the information that nobody can learn paranormal abilities and what evidence backs this claim up since you are making the claim. This is why some skepics are are thought to closed-minded and cynical. Of coarse they can be delusional but so can you hardcore skeptics.

The point of being a skeptic is to stand up for sanity and rational thinking in the face of continued promulgation of nonsense and wishful thinking. It's my opinion that the paranormalists have had their day, and have wasted enough time and resources chasing fantasies. If I demand evidence, it is for the purpose of rubbing the believers' noses in their consistent failures and, ultimately, their own denial. People claim, "I have special powers," but when challenged, the only power they seem to have is the ability to generate excuses.

Yes we all know that you skeptics are saving us all from being irrational. It could be said that this is wishful thinking on your part because you don't want the paranormal to even be considered since it goes against your little narrow views of how things are. You can't see past what you see in your mind as rational and irrational and that is strictly your narrow opinion. At least you can admitt that your completely biased against it and view the paranormal as impossible.

 

[Pyrrho]

Yes both sides can be equally ignorant.

True, but this side doesn't take ignorance and make it an argument for the existence of impossibilities.

Science is always changing and you can't say for sure that the laws of physics will hold up forever. I would like to know how where exactly you get the information that nobody can learn paranormal abilities and what evidence backs this claim up since you are making the claim. This is why some skepics are are thought to closed-minded and cynical. Of coarse they can be delusional but so can you hardcore skeptics.

The laws of physics are what they are. They preclude the existence of paranormal abilities. I need only point to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence for this.

Yes we all know that you skeptics are saving us all from being irrational. It could be said that this is wishful thinking on your part because you don't want the paranormal to even be considered since it goes against your little narrow views of how things are. You can't see past what you see in your mind as rational and irrational and that is strictly your narrow opinion. At least you can admitt that your completely biased against it and view the paranormal as impossible.

Nope, I'm not saving anyone but myself. I said it before, my woo-woo days are done. I'm not in the healer business anymore, and I'm much, much healthier.

Biased? Sure. I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it: paranormal abilites are impossible. To say that they are possible is indulgence in ignorance. I would prefer that such beliefs be kept in their rightful place in fantasy land and not be given serious consideration, because, as Harlan Ellison once said, "It keeps people stupid."

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

The laws of physics are what they are. They preclude the existence of paranormal abilities. I need only point to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence for this.

Again they are not set in stone and are subject to change even if some want to use wishful thinking to believe that they will absolutely stay around forever.

Nope, I'm not saving anyone but myself. I said it before, my woo-woo days are done. I'm not in the healer business anymore, and I'm much, much healthier.

But you must save all us stupid irrational people who need someone else like you and CSICOP to think for us since you are the king of rational thinking.

Biased? Sure. I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it: paranormal abilites are impossible. To say that they are possible is indulgence in ignorance. I would prefer that such beliefs be kept in their rightful place in fantasy land and not be given serious consideration, because, as Harlan Ellison once said, "It keeps people stupid."

I doubt whether if he agrees with you or not that Randi himself would not even dare to publicly say anything like that. As always your welcome to your materialistic fantasy land of how things should be but your views don't shape reality. Some people just can't see past what they personally see as rational but that is strictly opinion. Since you admitt to believeing it's impossible then you are admitting to being a closed-minded skeptic.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Claus, what I found odd about that paragraph was that the researchers thought the protocol changes were unnecessary, yet also think that those changes cannot be dismissed as a cause of the diminution in effect. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the changes may have plugged a leak in the protocol.

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

The laws of physics are what they are. They preclude the existence of paranormal abilities. I need only point to the second law of thermodynamics as evidence for this.

heh, rrriiiggghhhht. You really don't live up to your namesake. The laws of physics preclude some things, but surely they don't preclude the existence of paranormal abilities, as you wish/hope/believe is the case.