If PSI becomes proven/accepted by science to be real what would be your reaction?

[Ashles]

Could you quote the relevant part please which justifies your claim that she no longer would chastise Randi for simply dismissing all paranormal phenomena? Thanks.

What relevance does what one person thinks about another persons opinion of paranormal phenomena have to anything?

And Randi isn't a scientific researcher and has never claimed to be.

Susan Blackmore doesn't think these things exist, nor does Randi.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make Ian.

I end up typing that last sentence so often these days I'm thinking of setting it up as a little macro.

 

[Interesting Ian]

What relevance does what one person thinks about another persons opinion of paranormal phenomena have to anything?

LMAO! None at all really. I just like to challenge the claims of sKeptics Psiload is making out that Sue Blackmore is a sKeptic, but arguably she is more like a sceptic. I've heard her recently state that she very much welcomes parapsychological research. Compare that sentiment to those expressed on here!

 

[Psiload]

Could you quote the relevant part please which justifies your claim that she no longer would chastise Randi for simply dismissing all paranormal phenomena? Thanks.

I never said that S.B. chastised J.R. for being dismissive of ALL paranormal phenomena.

I guess I worded it poorly... it would have been more accurate to say that S.B. took Randi to task for being critical of certain claims of psychic powers... specifically, in the case of the video, the claims of an astrologer.

Randi did the double blind test where audience members tried to match themselves to horoscopes the astrologer had cast for them specifically... with the obviously predictable results.

S.B.- pointed out (correctly) that this did not constitute proof that all astrology was bogus, and further study was needed to determine the validity of astrological and paraspsychological phenomena.

However, if you'd still like a relevant passage from S.B.'s "resignation letter" which outlines her subsequent change of heart , I'd say this sums it up pretty well...

...happily, I have given up

 

[Ashles]

LMAO! None at all really. I just like to challenge the claims of sKeptics Psiload is making out that Sue Blackmore is a sKeptic, but arguably she is more like a sceptic. I've heard her recently state that she very much welcomes parapsychological research. Compare that sentiment to those expressed on here!

It is an interesting problem.

Personally I have nothing against continued research into paranormal phenomena. We're never going to know for sure one way or another without continued research.

But the problem is who should do it?

Sceptical scientists are unlikely to want to spend their time researching something they don't believe exists.

And scientists who believe the phenomena exist don't have a great track record in providing all their data or tight experimental protocol. They basically want to find a result (in the same way that some sceptical scientists may not be strict enough because of their desires to debunk).

So we are likely to be left with scientists who are believers carrying out the research which will have to be very closely analysed and picked apart by the sceptics.

It's hardly an ideal arrangement, but if convincing real evidence is ever found then it will stand up to repeated scrutiny.

We await that time. As it stands at the moment it seems a perfectly logical position to assume the phenomena likely don't exist as there is no credible evidence towards that position.

I don't see why you have such a problem with this position Ian.

 

[Interesting Ian]

.

S.B.- pointed out (correctly) that this did not constitute proof that all astrology was bogus, and further study was needed to determine the validity of astrological and paraspsychological phenomena.

Yes she is perfectly correct. And you claim that she has now changed her mind and she now thinks it is proof that there is nothing to astrology?

 

[Interesting Ian]

It is an interesting problem.

Personally I have nothing against continued research into paranormal phenomena. We're never going to know for sure one way or another without continued research.

But the problem is who should do it?

Sceptical scientists are unlikely to want to spend their time researching something they don't believe exists.

And scientists who believe the phenomena exist don't have a great track record in providing all their data or tight experimental protocol.

Could you substantiate this assertion please?

It's hardly an ideal arrangement, but if convincing real evidence is ever found then it will stand up to repeated scrutiny.

Even if something like psi is capricious and intermittent?

 

[Psiload]

LMAO! None at all really. I just like to challenge the claims of sKeptics Psiload is making out that Sue Blackmore is a sKeptic, but arguably she is more like a sceptic. I've heard her recently state that she very much welcomes parapsychological research. Compare that sentiment to those expressed on here!

Ian... please provide a list of these "sKeptics". These people that are vehemently opposed to any and all parapsychological research. Keep in mind that criticism is not the same as opposition... I know you like to blur that line.

I'm sure you'll find people who think parapsychological research is a waste of time and money, and who would protest public funding of such research, but that's a far cry from demanding that all research be deemed verboten.

I take a "Go ahead... knock yourself out, but not on my dime." stance on PSI research.

So I guess I'm not a sKeptic, right?

 

[Psiload]

Yes she is perfectly correct. And you claim that she has now changed her mind and she now thinks it is proof that there is nothing to astrology?

No... she seems to think that there is insufficient justification to compel her to devote further effort to searching for said proof.

Note: She may have given up, but Randi hasn't. Perhaps it's time that Randi takes S.B. to task for being too critical of PSI?

 

[Moose]

Psiload is making out that Sue Blackmore is a sKeptic, but arguably she is more like a sceptic.

So you think she's British, then?

 

[Interesting Ian]

So you think she's British, then?

Non-sequitur, but yes she is British.

 

[Ashles]

Could you substantiate this assertion please?

Ian you know full well we have been over that umpteen times on this board.

Here's a thread on it
And another one
And another
And another

In fact this has been discussed over and over again. Just search around.

This is hardly a new issue Ian. Denying the existence of fraud, incompetence and deception in the field of paranormal research would be your most ludicrous claim yet.

Even if something like psi is capricious and intermittent?

So indistinguiishable from chance then?

Then its existence will always remain a matter of faith with those who wish to believe in its existence for their own personal reasons.

Much like now in fact.

 

[Moose]

Non-sequitur, but yes she is British.

Hardly a non-sequitor, unless you also think there's a significant difference between color and colour, other than regional flavor. Armor and armour? Bull.... and bollocks?

 

[P.S.A.]

LMAO! None at all really. I just like to challenge the claims of sKeptics Psiload is making out that Sue Blackmore is a sKeptic, but arguably she is more like a sceptic. I've heard her recently state that she very much welcomes parapsychological research. Compare that sentiment to those expressed on here!

It's yet another classic Interesting Ian thread I see;

1.) Make an original claim
2.) Refuse to back up original claim
3.) Argue irrelevant points attacking the straw man you've made up in your mind ("materialism/SKeptics") which you don't even care about
4.) When people point out you aren't even flailing against said strawman very well, such as that if SB is a "sceptic", and she says your original claim is bollocks, then your attacks on "skeptics" are clearly crap too because both C and K agree your original claim was false... make up even more gibberish!
5.) Insist you are still right
6.) Insist you are leaving
7.) Come back and ignore anyone who points out you just said you were leaving
8.) Goto 1.

Remind us again about this brilliant mind and amazing intellectual honesty you supposedly have eh, Ian?

Oh, and you've still not proved you aren't using Open Mind as a sock puppet; those smilies just increase suspicion... Disprove a negative Ian, go on, disprove it!

For gawd's sake, some one just find the Guide To Interesting Ian thingy thread and post that as a reply to him instead; It'd be more sensible than giving this dishonest psi-wit anything even approaching a relevant reply, because he admits he's not even trying to be relevant.

 

[Open Mind]

Open Mind,

I trust that you simply forgot about these questions:

............
............

Yes, I am looking for answers. Nothing extreme in that.

Well, I didn't think the questions were that interesting, if you insist ......

Do you agree that something either exists, or it doesn't? Just yes or no.

I don’t think a simple yes or no answer is possible. Something that currently exists (or doesn’t exist) may (or may not) have existed in the past or future. When the Dodo existed the television didn’t. If you are implying science is universal truth that never changes, I don't think even that can be proven, all it would take is for our (unexplained) mathematical constants to shift very slowly or not be always perfectly constant.

Or are you arguing that a paranormal phenomenon only exists 99%? Just yes or no.

I don’t understand the question. Are you implying only consistent, strong, predictable phenomena can be real?

Do you agree that Targ, Puthoff and the parapsychologists behind "Project Alpha" were easily fooled? Just yes or no.

Alpha Project, of course, yes …… Targ/ Puthoff? They didn’t confirm Geller’s metal bending, so I don’t think they were necessarily ‘easily’ fooled.

However I do think anyone can be fooled, even magicians, this should not just draw doubt over parapsychology but doubt over all scientific claims that are too expensive for many to easily reproduce..

What will you do to stop the frauds?

I don’t have time to reply to such a complex question in this topic.

How will you investigate paranormal claims?

I have personally .... it would be anecdotal to you .... nor do I have time to reply to such a complex question in this topic.

Do you agree that your two anecdotes are unverifiable? Just yes or no.

Only verifiable in that they are real life cases, however it is not evidential to medical science who would probably opt for another explanation ….. something like ‘his complete vision loss in that eye was not due to purely physical causes, his brain had stopped registering what little vision remained ….. the return of vision upon visiting the healer was coincidence or merely helped him to see what he was always potentially capable of seeing ….And that is just one possible explanation, the fraud explanation can explain anything. It is hard to disprove any fraud claim.

My point is that if the law bans healers, they might be banning the odd miracle here and there.

What should we believe in, science or superstition?

Same reply as I gave earlier

Is it really your contention that parapsychology and psychical/paranormal research are as good as what science has brought us? Just yes or no.

Are you implying parapsychology and psychical/paranormal research must be unscientific?

[*]Do you really think it is OK to scam a lot of people, making millions, if only you scam each person a small amount of money? Just yes or no.

Of course it is wrong to ‘scam’, but that wasn’t your original question, you mentioned ‘worthless’ medication ….. first you need proof it is a scam or worthless, second you need proof that the placebo effect is worthless (in the case of drugs like Prozac, the placebo effect is a major factor in the total effect, greater than the actual active ingredient effect)

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian you know full well we have been over that umpteen times on this board.

Here's a thread on it
And another one
And another
And another

In fact this has been discussed over and over again. Just search around.

Peoples' assertions on here do not constitute any evidence whatsoever for your claim. You're going to have to do much much better than that. Now can you back up your assertion or not?

This is hardly a new issue Ian. Denying the existence of fraud, incompetence and deception in the field of paranormal research would be your most ludicrous claim yet.

Indeed, as in any scientific field. However, this does not justify your statement (reproduced below):

Ashless
"And scientists who believe the phenomena exist don't have a great track record in providing all their data or tight experimental protocol"

which suggests the preponderance of the evidence is of such a nature. So please substantiate this assertion. Or (as I suspect) are you unable to do so?

quote:Even if something like psi is capricious and intermittent?

Ashless
So indistinguiishable from chance then?

No. It means that psi is not something which can be switched on and off at will (in much the same way that a person cannot put himself in a certain mood, or to feel in a certain way, at will).

Then its existence will always remain a matter of faith with those who wish to believe in its existence for their own personal reasons.

One believes in it due to all the evidence.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don’t think a simple yes or no answer is possible. Something that currently exists (or doesn’t exist) may (or may not) have existed in the past or future. When the Dodo existed the television didn’t. If you are implying science is universal truth that never changes, I don't think even that can be proven, all it would take is for our (unexplained) mathematical constants to shift very slowly or not be always perfectly constant.

Nevertheless, both the dodo and television has, at some point, existed.

I don’t understand the question. Are you implying only consistent, strong, predictable phenomena can be real?

No, I am saying that either a psychic can talk to the dead, or he can't. He cannot be talking to the dead 99%. Either a dowser can spot water, or he can't. He can't spot water 99%. Either a faith healer can cure someone, or he can't. He can't cure them 99%.

Now, can a psychic be talking to the dead 99%? Yes or no?

Alpha Project, of course, yes …… Targ/ Puthoff? They didn’t confirm Geller’s metal bending, so I don’t think they were necessarily ‘easily’ fooled.

Read up on the literature. They were fooled easily.

However I do think anyone can be fooled, even magicians, this should not just draw doubt over parapsychology but doubt over all scientific claims that are too expensive for many to easily reproduce..

No problems there.

I don’t have time to reply to such a complex question in this topic.

All you need to do is give a few quick examples of how you will stop the frauds.

I have personally .... it would be anecdotal to you .... nor do I have time to reply to such a complex question in this topic.

All you need to do is give a few quick examples of how you have investigated paranormal claims.

Only verifiable in that they are real life cases, however it is not evidential to medical science who would probably opt for another explanation ….. something like ‘his complete vision loss in that eye was not due to purely physical causes, his brain had stopped registering what little vision remained ….. the return of vision upon visiting the healer was coincidence or merely helped him to see what he was always potentially capable of seeing ….And that is just one possible explanation, the fraud explanation can explain anything. It is hard to disprove any fraud claim.

We are not talking about disproving fraud. We are talking about proving paranormal claims. Your anecdotes were clearly unverifiable.

My point is that if the law bans healers, they might be banning the odd miracle here and there.

Not at all: If you can actually heal, you can do all the miracles you want. If not, you can't claim that you can heal. Precisely the way we regulate medical doctors.

Same reply as I gave earlier

Refused to answer the question, then.

Are you implying parapsychology and psychical/paranormal research must be unscientific?

No. Answer the question: Is it really your contention that parapsychology and psychical/paranormal research are as good as what science has brought us? Just yes or no.

Of course it is wrong to ‘scam’, but that wasn’t your original question, you mentioned ‘worthless’ medication ….. first you need proof it is a scam or worthless, second you need proof that the placebo effect is worthless (in the case of drugs like Prozac, the placebo effect is a major factor in the total effect, greater than the actual active ingredient effect)

No, I don't need proof that it is a scam or worthless, you need to prove that it isn't. It is not up to skeptics to disprove a claim, it is up to the claimant to prove that the claim is real.

 

[Ashles]

Peoples' assertions on here do not constitute any evidence whatsoever for your claim. You're going to have to do much much better than that. Now can you back up your assertion or not?

Well well. A first. Suddenly assertations don't constitute any evidence whatsoever. That's a bit of a change from how you normally think about anecdotal evidence Ian.
Very interesting indeed. Expect me to be quoting that again.

Anyway this has been discussed in detail over and over again with links and data.
I'm not going over it again. There was ample information in the links I provided (which were not just people's assertaions on here, and those that were backed up their assertations).

which suggests the preponderance of the evidence is of such a nature. So please substantiate this assertion. Or (as I suspect) are you unable to do so?

What evidence?

No. It means that psi is not something which can be switched on and off at will (in much the same way that a person cannot put himself in a certain mood, or to feel in a certain way, at will).

And how is this disinguishable from chance?
I have 200 dreams. One of them matches what happens the next day.
It is either psi or it is random chance. Please explain how we tell the difference?

One believes in it due to all the evidence.

Once again, what evidence?
You keep mentioning evidence randomly yet never mention what evidence you are talking about.

Is it hidden in that legendary 3500 page book that no-one has read?