Calling All Remote Viewers

[Lucianarchy]

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.



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.



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.

There's the rub. Some people call themselves "skeptic", when they are in fact ,'True Unbelievers'.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This kind of conversation will never get anywhere. Better to debate some actual claim or paper than to argue semantics until our heads explode. Gee, who is more close-minded, a "skeptic" or a "debunker." Gee, who is more credulous, a "believer" or a "woo woo."

The problem is, we can never collect all the information we need to really understand what happened with some psi experiment. So instead we just call each other names. Funny, that.

~~ Paul

 

[bPer]

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

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.

[...]

Biased? Sure. I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it: paranormal abilities 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."

Pyrrho,sorry but I have to call you on this. You have crossed the boundary from skepticism into dogmatism here.

You have made a negative assertion here by saying that paranormal abilities are impossible. That shifts the burden of proof to you. Proving your assertion is something you cannot do, because you lack the tools to do so. By definition, paranormal abilities lie outside the realm of scientific understanding, yet you are trying to use scientific understanding (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics) to support your assertion. That's clearly invalid.

The truth is, all scientific understanding is provisional, even the fundamentals that have been around for centuries. Should some undeniable evidence appear that cannot be explained by existing scientific theories, the theories will have to be modified or discarded in favour of new theories that better fit the entire body of evidence.

You and I can agree that the probability that our fundamental laws of science are going to be overturned by the activities of the paranormal crowd is infinitesimally small, but I am not willing to take the next step that you have taken to assert that that probability is zero. Please rethink your stance on this.

On another note, I am very annoyed at you for posting what you did. It is pretty clear that traveller came here looking to confirm his/her pre-conceived, false notion that skeptics are close-minded and dogmatic. You stepped right into his/her trap. You been here long enough; you should have known better. It's hard enough, fighting the uphill battle against ignorance and irrational thought, without being blind-sided by the someone from your own side. Please be more careful in the future.

Now, to traveller: just as the KKK claims to be Christian, to the great dismay of the vast majority of Christendom, so skeptics like me feel dismay when people like Pyrrho behave as they do. I assure you that these people are misguided, and urge you to look further to see the true nature of skeptics.

Also, don’t take my admonition of Pyrrho as tacit support for your obvious belief in remote viewing. The burden of proof is on you and the rest of the remote viewing advocates to prove that remote viewing exists. You have a daunting task ahead of you; the body of scientific evidence that supports the existing scientific theories is massive, and notwithstanding the possibility that the theories are inadequate, it is overwhelmingly likely that you are wasting your time on a fantasy.

βPer

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

On another note, I am very annoyed at you for posting what you did. It is pretty clear that traveller came here looking to confirm his/her pre-conceived, false notion that skeptics are close-minded and dogmatic.

I'm not trying to generalize that all skeptics are like that I only have a problem with the ones who make statements like that which shows their beliefs that they view this sort of thing as impossible. Those types are the ones a have a problem with.

You stepped right into his/her trap.

True but I wasn't expecting that much of an outright rejection of the paranormal from a so called skeptic.

Now, to traveller: just as the KKK claims to be Christian, to the great dismay of the vast majority of Christendom, so skeptics like me feel dismay when people like Pyrrho behave as they do. I assure you that these people are misguided, and urge you to look further to see the true nature of skeptics.

I agree with that and I don't view all skeptics as being closed-mined or ignorant it wouldn't be right to label them all like that. Both believers and skeptics have thier fanatics and it wouldn't be fair to judge a whole group based on what a few of them think.

Also, don’t take my admonition of Pyrrho as tacit support for your obvious belief in remote viewing. The burden of proof is on you and the rest of the remote viewing advocates to prove that remote viewing exists. You have a daunting task ahead of you; the body of scientific evidence that supports the existing scientific theories is massive, and notwithstanding the possibility that the theories are inadequate, it is overwhelmingly likely that you are wasting your time on a fantasy.

I can't say for certain that remote viewing is real at this point even though in my opinion it seems like a good possibility but I might in the future have to try it out for my self. I understand that the burden of proof is on remote viewers so hopefully if it is real it will be tested much more and the truth will eventually come out.

 

[bPer]

I'm not trying to generalize that all skeptics are like that I only have a problem with the ones who make statements like that which shows their beliefs that they view this sort of thing as impossible. Those types are the ones a have a problem with.

Well, as you've seen, a ... er ... I have a problem with them too. I'm relieved to hear that you don't paint all skeptics with the same brush, although I must ask you to forgive me if I remain skeptical of your intentions here.

... I don't view all skeptics as being closed-mined or ignorant it wouldn't be right to label them all like that. Both believers and skeptics have their fanatics and it wouldn't be fair to judge a whole group based on what a few of them think.

Indeed! But too often, skeptical arguments are dismissed by 'believers' (your term) out of hand, simply because they are made by skeptics. That's what I'm reacting to here. I'm reading from this quote that you see that too, and I hope you will treat a skeptical response as a positive thing - a different point of view that is worthy of consideration and analysis.

I can't say for certain that remote viewing is real at this point even though in my opinion it seems like a good possibility but I might in the future have to try it out for my self. I understand that the burden of proof is on remote viewers so hopefully if it is real it will be tested much more and the truth will eventually come out.

Good possibility!? Wow. We’re pretty far apart on that, I’m afraid, unless ‘good possibility’ means a whole different thing to you than me. I’d rate it as ‘highly unlikely’ (putting it mildly), given the evidence I’ve seen so far. It’s good, though, that you have left open the possibility that it is not a real phenomenon.

I’m actually curious about why you think that there is a ‘good possibility’ that RV exists. Perhaps you’d consider posting your reasons/evidence? (probably best in a separate thread) You seem like someone who is open to alternative views, and you’ll certainly get them if you post here. Treat it as an opportunity to examine your reasons and evidence. You never know - it may strengthen your beliefs in RV, or it may show you where your beliefs aren’t warranted. From our side, it never hurts to have an actual ‘believer’ to dialogue with, if only to help dispel any unwarranted stereotypes.

βPer

 

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho,sorry but I have to call you on this. You have crossed the boundary from skepticism into dogmatism here.

You have made a negative assertion here by saying that paranormal abilities are impossible. That shifts the burden of proof to you. Proving your assertion is something you cannot do, because you lack the tools to do so. By definition, paranormal abilities lie outside the realm of scientific understanding, yet you are trying to use scientific understanding (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics) to support your assertion. That's clearly invalid.

The truth is, all scientific understanding is provisional, even the fundamentals that have been around for centuries. Should some undeniable evidence appear that cannot be explained by existing scientific theories, the theories will have to be modified or discarded in favour of new theories that better fit the entire body of evidence.

You and I can agree that the probability that our fundamental laws of science are going to be overturned by the activities of the paranormal crowd is infinitesimally small, but I am not willing to take the next step that you have taken to assert that that probability is zero. Please rethink your stance on this.

I can either tell the truth and state my opinion, which is that paranormal abilities are impossible, or I can lie, and say that they might be. Believers often use the argument that the paranormal lies outside of science, yet also claim that science is about to be overturned. Can't have it both ways. I can either accept the limitations implied by the laws of physics, or I can decieve myself and pretend that the limitations don't apply to certain people. My opinion is that the limitations apply to everyone, and that paranormal abilities do not exist. Nobody has to share my opinion.

On another note, I am very annoyed at you for posting what you did. It is pretty clear that traveller came here looking to confirm his/her pre-conceived, false notion that skeptics are close-minded and dogmatic. You stepped right into his/her trap. You been here long enough; you should have known better. It's hard enough, fighting the uphill battle against ignorance and irrational thought, without being blind-sided by the someone from your own side. Please be more careful in the future.

I knew full well what I was posting and how it might be received. I'm no longer going to play the game of "well, I'll leave this door open just a little bit to prove I'm open-minded". Sorry, but I'm not. I challenge the contention that science and skepticism is dogmatic. I'm tired of that accusation; it's been used as an excuse for far too long. The fundamental question is not whether science and skepticism is dogmatic: it is whether or not there is, as you put it, undeniable evidence that paranormal abilities exist.
There is no such evidence. I am convinced that paranormal abilities do not and cannot exist, and I cannot honestly say otherwise.

 

[Pyrrho]

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.

By all accounts, my namesake had no use for smug intellectuals who pretended to have complete understanding of things. His opinion was that nothing in this world could be known with complete certainty, but I do not think he would have extrapolated uncertainty into belief that anything was possible.

 

[Pyrrho]

There's the rub. Some people call themselves "skeptic", when they are in fact ,'True Unbelievers'.

Fine with me. I truly do not believe, thus I am skeptical of all claims that require belief. I cannot honestly pretend otherwise.

 

[bPer]

I can either tell the truth and state my opinion, which is that paranormal abilities are impossible, or I can lie, and say that they might be. […] My opinion is that the limitations apply to everyone, and that paranormal abilities do not exist. Nobody has to share my opinion.

Oh now it’s just your opinion. It would have been nice if you’d stated up front that you were expressing an unsupportable opinion, and not a scientific assertion. Especially when addressing a believer who’s looking for dogmatic skeptics.

Believers often use the argument that the paranormal lies outside of science

I’ve got news for you, Pyrrho. It’s not just believers. That’s the definition of ‘paranormal’ for everybody!. Sheesh!

Believers often use the argument that the paranormal lies outside of science, yet also claim that science is about to be overturned. Can't have it both ways.

Well, of course science won’t be ‘overturned’ by evidence of the paranormal. In fact, if some paranormal phenomenon is scientifically proven, it will cease to be paranormal, and will become part of the body of scientific knowledge! A few scientific theories may be modified or discarded for improved ones in the process, but science won’t disappear. That’s merely absurd, wishful thinking on the part of some of the more ignorant believers we face.

I can either accept the limitations implied by the laws of physics, or I can decieve myself and pretend that the limitations don't apply to certain people.

Nobody’s asking you to deceive yourself. The limitations of the laws of physics apply to everyone, but you have to understand that the laws of physics are our current best guess at the underlying phenomena and mechanisms. If we have it wrong, there will be phenomena that are inexplicable by the current set of physical laws. The believers rest their hope in that possibility, and you and I cannot deny them that hope without abandoning the principle of falsifiability. I am not willing to do that, for that destroys one of the foundations of the scientific method. You evidently don’t care about that, and thus you are nothing but a dogmatic believer (of science). It’s time you admit that.

I knew full well what I was posting and how it might be received. I'm no longer going to play the game of "well, I'll leave this door open just a little bit to prove I'm open-minded". Sorry, but I'm not. I challenge the contention that science and skepticism is dogmatic. I'm tired of that accusation; it's been used as an excuse for far too long.

I challenge the contention too, but I don’t do it by girding myself in the mantles of science and skepticism and then throwing dogma at the believers! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

The fundamental question is not whether science and skepticism is dogmatic: it is whether or not there is, as you put it, undeniable evidence that paranormal abilities exist.

“As I put it”! If that’s some kind of veiled question of my beliefs, let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. Are you?

I am convinced that paranormal abilities do not and cannot exist, and I cannot honestly say otherwise.

Fine. Nobody’s forcing you to say anything. But when a paranormal believer comes here bent on finding dogmatic skeptics to use as scapegoats for their failing pseudoscience, do us all a favour and keep your unscientific, dogmatic opinions to yourself.

βPer

 

[bPer]

I am skeptical of all claims that require belief.

Really? Let's examine this, shall we?

paranormal abilities are impossible

Prove it.

If you can't, and yet you continue to assert that claim, then you are relying on blind faith. Are you skeptical of your own beliefs?

βPer

 

[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.

Your claim rivals the unscientificness of the hardcore Creationists who say that the second law of thermodynmaics prevents evolution from occuring.

 

[Lucianarchy]

B'per,

What do you find wrong with the SAIC evidence reviewed by Hyman?

What do you find wrong with the PEAR PRP replications which Hyman called for in his conclusion of the SAIC review?

 

[Pyrrho]

Oh now it’s just your opinion. It would have been nice if you’d stated up front that you were expressing an unsupportable opinion, and not a scientific assertion. Especially when addressing a believer who’s looking for dogmatic skeptics.

I thought it was a given that most everything on this board is opinion.

I’ve got news for you, Pyrrho. It’s not just believers. That’s the definition of ‘paranormal’ for everybody!. Sheesh!

Yes, it is.

Well, of course science won’t be ‘overturned’ by evidence of the paranormal. In fact, if some paranormal phenomenon is scientifically proven, it will cease to be paranormal, and will become part of the body of scientific knowledge! A few scientific theories may be modified or discarded for improved ones in the process, but science won’t disappear. That’s merely absurd, wishful thinking on the part of some of the more ignorant believers we face.

Agreed.

Nobody’s asking you to deceive yourself. The limitations of the laws of physics apply to everyone, but you have to understand that the laws of physics are our current best guess at the underlying phenomena and mechanisms. If we have it wrong, there will be phenomena that are inexplicable by the current set of physical laws. The believers rest their hope in that possibility, and you and I cannot deny them that hope without abandoning the principle of falsifiability. I am not willing to do that, for that destroys one of the foundations of the scientific method. You evidently don’t care about that, and thus you are nothing but a dogmatic believer (of science). It’s time you admit that.

Yes, but some of these purported abilities contradict even the best understood physical laws. I'm not willing to ignore how the world works in order to accomodate the idea that something might exist that condradicts how the world works.

I challenge the contention too, but I don’t do it by girding myself in the mantles of science and skepticism and then throwing dogma at the believers! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

“As I put it”! If that’s some kind of veiled question of my beliefs, let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. Are you?

It was not a veiled reference, was not intended as insult or sarcasm, it was merely giving you credit for the statement, which I found to be useful.

If ever I'm proven wrong on this, I'll freely admit it.

Fine. Nobody’s forcing you to say anything. But when a paranormal believer comes here bent on finding dogmatic skeptics to use as scapegoats for their failing pseudoscience, do us all a favour and keep your unscientific, dogmatic opinions to yourself.

βPer

You can count on it. I've had enough of these so-called discussions.

 

[bPer]

B'per,

What do you find wrong with the SAIC evidence reviewed by Hyman?

What do you find wrong with the PEAR PRP replications which Hyman called for in his conclusion of the SAIC review?

Lucianarchy,

It's bPer, or βPer if you can manage the lower-case beta.

I'm not prepared at this time to debate these topics with you. Sorry. My only reason for posting was to try to address the issue of 'dogmatic skeptics'.

βPer

 

[Lucianarchy]

Lucianarchy,

It's bPer, or βPer if you can manage the lower-case beta.

I'm not prepared at this time to debate these topics with you. Sorry. My only reason for posting was to try to address the issue of 'dogmatic skeptics'.

βPer

OK, it's just that you made the following claim;

[...]let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong.

I provided the evidence and in light of your claim I just assumed that you'd therefore be "willing" to back up your claim, or modify it. You may not regard it as proof, but it is evidence, highly credible and compelling evidence.

 

[alfaniner]

So, have any psychics found this girl yet? No? Thought so. And they won't.

Any results in this case will be brought about by the police, and those who deal in the real world.

 

[bPer]

Yes, but some of these purported [paranormal] abilities contradict even the best understood physical laws. I'm not willing to ignore how the world works in order to accomodate the idea that something might exist that condradicts how the world works.

Well, I’ve tried twice now to explain to you why you don’t need to deny the current state of scientific understanding, and yet can acknowledge that the paranormal might someday be proven, so I give up.

It was not a veiled reference, was not intended as insult or sarcasm, it was merely giving you credit for the statement, which I found to be useful.

In that case, I apologize for taking your comment in the wrong way. It was ambiguous, and such statements are often used to undermine the positions of opponents, and I felt I had to address that possibility. Oh, and I’m glad you found the expression useful.

I've had enough of these so-called discussions.

Oh dear. Looks like I’ve made an error in judgment here. I did not intend to try to shut down discussion. Let me explain.

You’re one of the posters who I have always enjoyed reading. We all form our opinions of each other here, and when you posted the message I objected to, it truly was a blind-side, because my impression of you was quite different from what you wrote. I went back over the previous posts, and noticed that you said that you had once been a believer, but had discarded those beliefs in favour of science. I read that (rightly or wrongly) as meaning that you had abandoned the beliefs but not the practice of belief. I thought, with the best of intentions, that I might be able to nudge you one step further away from your past. It looks like that effort has failed, probably because of my ham-fisted, aggressive style. This aggressiveness is not my normal style. I tried it in your case because my impression was that you use and respond well to such a style. I guess that was a mis-calculation. I apologize.

The real bummer is that now, due to my ineptitude, I have likely lost one, and perhaps more allies in the fight against ignorance and irrational thought.

bPer

 

[Starrman]

Your claim rivals the unscientificness of the hardcore Creationists who say that the second law of thermodynmaics prevents evolution from occuring.

No - the creationists are wrong in their understanding and application of the second law. Pyrrho is not.

 

[bPer]

OK, it's just that you made the following claim;

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]let me assure you that I don’t ever expect any evidence of paranormal phenomena to ever appear. But I’m willing to be proven wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I provided the evidence and in light of your claim I just assumed that you'd therefore be "willing" to back up your claim, or modify it. You may not regard it as proof, but it is evidence, highly credible and compelling evidence.

Oh, I see what you meant. Yes, that was careless phrasing on my part. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Of course, I acknowledge that evidence of paranormal phenomena has been produced. Anecdotal evidence, for example, is nonetheless evidence, although not at all convincing or compelling. And using the word 'proven' was laziness on my part. I was merely trying to do two things: (1) assure any readers on the skeptical side of the fence that I was one of them (since I’m a relative newbie here and people may not know that about me) and (2) restate the point that I am willing to see well-established scientific theories modified or replaced in the face of proof of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Better?

As for your reports, they are part of the continuum of debate on the issue. I frankly have had very little interest in remote viewing, and have not been following it to the level where I can debate with you at a worthy level. If in the future I am motivated to investigate RV further, I will of course evaluate your evidence and join in the debate. In the event that I don‘t become motivated to actively join in the debate, I will await the day when scientific studies have been published in reputable scientific journals, fully debated and critiqued, and a scientific consensus has been formed that RV is a real phenomenon. Until that day, my position will be that RV is an unproven conjecture.

bPer

 

[Lucianarchy]

Oh, I see what you meant. Yes, that was careless phrasing on my part. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Of course, I acknowledge that evidence of paranormal phenomena has been produced. Anecdotal evidence, for example, is nonetheless evidence, although not at all convincing or compelling. And using the word 'proven' was laziness on my part. I was merely trying to do two things: (1) assure any readers on the skeptical side of the fence that I was one of them (since I’m a relative newbie here and people may not know that about me) and (2) restate the point that I am willing to see well-established scientific theories modified or replaced in the face of proof of the existence of paranormal phenomena. Better?

As for your reports, they are part of the continuum of debate on the issue. I frankly have had very little interest in remote viewing, and have not been following it to the level where I can debate with you at a worthy level. If in the future I am motivated to investigate RV further, I will of course evaluate your evidence and join in the debate. In the event that I don‘t become motivated to actively join in the debate, I will await the day when scientific studies have been published in reputable scientific journals, fully debated and critiqued, and a scientific consensus has been formed that RV is a real phenomenon. Until that day, my position will be that RV is an unproven conjecture.

bPer

OK, I got you now. I'd take issue with your last bit though. Please by all means get up to speed with SAIC / Hyman and the PEAR PRP replications which he called for. But you may not be aware that SAIC was peer reviewed by Hyman and Utts under part of the AIR contract with the CIA. You can go and look this stuff up on the 'net, it's no secret anymore. The PEAR PRP paper can be found in the JSE (Journal of Scientific Exploration), a peer reviewed scientific journal. I could give you some links if you want, but it's best if you do your own research first.

Anyway, thanks for your comments and best wishes to you.