Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Nonpareil]

I have consistently argued that anecdotes / personal observations / whatever-you-want-to-call-them are the foundation of a great deal of our personal and collective lives.

The issue is that you fail to make any distinction between anecdotes and actual observation.

…so because it has been circumstantially (do you know what that word means?) established that in-some-cases memories are fallible and recollections can be ‘polluted’ (whatever that means)… it is scientifically valid to conclude that every single one of the hundreds of millions of reported cases can be thus dismissed.

It has been definitively established that, in all cases, memory is fallible.

Or are you actually going to argue that memory is perfect?

This despite the indisputable fact that science actually has no ability to directly adjudicate the phenomenon (meaning…no more circumstantial BS).

You keep saying this.

Repetition doesn't make it true.

Not to mention…that if you are going to insist that ALL these specific events (hundreds of millions of them) have thus been conclusively rendered invalid on this specific basis…you will have to then question every single memory that anyone ever has anytime.

If you are going to insist on such an assertion then you are going to have to back it up with a bit more than your opinion.

You don't understand what the burden of proof is.

…nice to see you’ve finally admitted that personal observations have evidentiary validity.

And you also can't read.

 

[annnnoid]

If there's no reason to believe something does exist, it's inherently dishonest to entertain the notion. Thus, without evidence for existence, we can dismiss the possibility. Perhaps in math it doesn't allow one to say something doesn't exist, but in every other context (including science) it's considered acceptable to do so.

No one entertains the notion that invisible garage dragons exist, because there's no evidence for them. We can conclude that they don't exist by that lack of data. Same logic applies to ESP, and to universes that don't interact with us in any way.

Strawman. Yet again. We don’t have hundreds of millions of reports of invisible garage dragons.

Do we!

…there are hundreds of millions of reasons to, at the very least, consider the possible validity of psi.

Neither you, nor those papers you submitted, nor anyone here, has come anywhere close to presenting anything that even begins to conclusively explain these reports (note the word conclusively…there may be conditional explanations…but they are very arguably very conditional explanations). Like I said above…you don’t conclusively dismiss hundreds of millions of reports of a phenomenon with nothing more than circumstantial evidence.

That means that they are, at the very least, unresolved. Nobody is insisting you accept anything at face value. But until you can present something scientifically conclusive that explains it, the reports have to be conditionally allowed (because, as I’ve said repeatedly, personal experience invariably takes evidentiary priority).

 

[Dinwar]

What is honest about claiming that gravity leprechauns might be the true explanation?

That's really the heart of it--to entertain a notion that is completely unevidenced is inherently dishonest, as it oversteps the data that one has available. The default is always "This thing doesn't exist"--it's only as we gain evidence that it does that entertaining the notion that it might exist becomes legitimate. Such evidence can be indirect, but there has to be some reason to believe it exists before we can honestly entertain the notion that it does.

Note that "What If" scenarios are completely different. If one wishes to ask "What would society be like if ESP were real?" obviously the lack of evidence isn't a critical factor; you're not addressing reality, per say, but rather exploring the implications of some concept, which is a very different exercise.

If you cannot, even in theory, show that something is true, it is false. That's what false means.

Well....not precisely. Some things can be conclusively proven to be wrong. Early notions about combustion and vacuums are examples of this--it wasn't just shown that the concepts didn't have evidence supporting them, but rather it was shown that the evidence directly contradicted the concepts. Strong Inferrence actually requires this of its working hypotheses--proving one right doesn't just make the others unevidenced, but actually demonstrates that they contradict the data.

So I can see some justification in differentiating between unevidenced ideas and those contradicting data. Still, until you have evidence that something exists it's dishonest to entertain the possibility that it does.

 

[Daylightstar]

It means that I consider *you* to be unworthy of receiving an answer or discussing much with, based on the quality of your previous statements.

Why would you have to let your emotions interfere with the question as quoted below?

... hence why it's not by definition that it doesn't exist if it's not demonstrable.
...

Can you give an example of something that exists but is not demonstrable (not: demonstrated to exist)?

E.T.A.:
Perhaps the bracketed part could be clearer, it means that "not demonstrable" does not equate with "not demonstrated to exist".
Thanks for putting me on to it

 

[Nonpareil]

Strawman. Yet again. We don’t have hundreds of millions of reports of invisible garage dragons.

Do we!

We do, actually. Or, at least, we have hundreds of millions of reports of Nessie, Bigfoot, the faerie folk, ghosts and so on.

And those anecdotes are not evidence, either. They are reason to investigate - but when the investigations turn up nothing, the anecdotes do not have any weight on their own.

…there are hundreds of millions of reasons to, at the very least, consider the possible validity of psi.

Consider, yes.

And then discard.

Neither you, nor those papers you submitted, nor anyone here, has come anywhere close to presenting anything that even begins to conclusively explain these reports (note the word conclusively…there may be conditional explanations…but they are very arguably very conditional explanations). Like I said above…you don’t conclusively dismiss hundreds of millions of reports of a phenomenon with nothing more than circumstantial evidence.

You do if none of the investigations bear them out.

That means that they are, at the very least, unresolved.

Only in the same way that the question of Nessie is "unresolved".

Hint: for all practical purposes, the question of Nessie is resolved.

Nobody is insisting you accept anything at face value. But until you can present something scientifically conclusive that explains it, the reports have to be conditionally allowed (because, as I’ve said repeatedly, personal experience invariably takes evidentiary priority).

You have said a lot of things repeatedly.

Very few of those things are true.

Well....not precisely. Some things can be conclusively proven to be wrong.

It's the same thing, approached from the other direction.

If something is incorrect, you can't prove it to be true. That doesn't mean you can't prove it wrong.

 

[Dinwar]

Strawman. Yet again. We don’t have hundreds of millions of reports of invisible garage dragons.

Do we!

Okay. Ghosts. Or fairies. Trolls. Dragons. Elves. All had millions of reports, none exist.

The number of alleged sightings doesn't mean anything. One person can claim to have seen a new species, and if they rigorously and systematically study it it will be accepted. A billion people can claim to see the Virgin Mary in the Sun, without it being even slightly true.

note the word conclusively

Oh, I always try to note your weasel-words. Any evidence I give will be dismissed as not conclusively disproving all of them, so I'm not going to bother trying anymore. It's obvious that you are fitting your evidence to your a priori conclusions, and your use of weasle-words is proof of that.

But until you can present something scientifically conclusive that explains it, the reports have to be conditionally allowed

Nope. Not how it works. If I get called into court I don't get to say "You can't prove I didn't do what I say I did". I need to document that I did, and provide proof that I did. Thus, it's not necessary for me to conclusively disprove every claim in one fell swoop, which isi what you are demanding--THEY need to prove the validity of their claims. Thus far, that has not been done. Thus far, these anecdotes do not rise to the level of scientific evidence. Thus, we can dismiss them.

I'm going to say this again because you are ignoring it: The person making the claims needs to substantiate them. I don't need to accept them merely because I can't disprove them all at once; THEY need to PROVE them.

Those are the rules. I do not make them, nor do I have any say in them--I get to follow them, because I am a scientist. If you wish to be taken seriously in a sceintific discussion, so do you. The fact that you flat-out refuse to do so demonstrates that you wish to NOT be taken seriously. Your idea is not a special little snowflake; it gets the same level of analysis as anything else. Don't like it? Cry to someone else.

 

[Dancing David]

You are correct. However, you have missed the most important part when you use Bayesian calculus in science. It must be rational or there must be evidence. I can't express this often enough.

You can't calculate the probability of Nebraska suddenly leaping up into the air and doing a tango with a giant purple cheese filled moon. The probability is 0%. Things like that are ridiculous and are not part of science in any way shape or form. ESP is like that as well. UNTIL you come up with a rational hypothesis and/or evidence.

The set that includes ESP is 0.
The set that includes Advanced life is 1.
1 is always larger than 0.
1/x > 0 where x is any form of probability calculation.

The probability of advanced alien civilization is greater than the probability of ESP at our current level of knowledge and understanding of both.

QED

You want to change that function? I'll need either evidence, or a rational scientific hypothesis. Oh and BTW, simply claiming there is evidence is not the same as actual evidence.

Earlier you claimed that a 0 prior wasn't in Bayesian probabilities because if the prior was zero then the result would always be 0. That actually is a good point. It is a very good built in safety factor for Bayesian probability calculations. Best described as a way to avoid garbage in > garbage out. With Bayesian calculus, garbage in > zero out. Everything is zero until it is rational and/or has evidence. Stops a whole lot of woo.

Nice

 

[Sideroxylon]

…there are hundreds of millions of reasons to, at the very least, consider the possible validity of psi.

There a great many reasons to consider our interpretations of events to be falible and therefore to apply the scientific method to determine causality.

We live in a pragmatic society. If ESP claims and tests had provided a sniff of validity there would be enormous amounts of research from industry. Imagine for example the impact of members of society with even weak precognition ability and casinos.

 

[Donn]

Strawman. Yet again. We don’t have hundreds of millions of reports of invisible garage dragons.

We do: they're all psychic reports that are subjectivly experienced and thus totally real! I have anecdotes that could D.O.S your inbox all generated by an AI Python script.

…there are hundreds of millions of reasons to, at the very least, consider the possible validity of psi.

"Reports" do not equal "reasons". You dis dragon reports, but "*reasons* for psi"? Totally cool.

And what does quantity have to do with it? There are hundreds of millions of people dreaming of flying, therefore they must have flown.

Oh, and where are these h.o.m's of reports? There's the scrappy set of tawdry 60/70/80/90's psi rubbish by the usual suspects. Where's the rest?



Methinks the spoon doth bend too much.

 

[Dancing David]

That is a very serious allegation. If it is true, then there are people posting on the Internet who don't know what they are talking about.

I understand Bayesian statistics, I just question the application.

One can look for life outside the solar system, one can test for ESP.

So Bayesian statistics are un-needed.

 

[Dinwar]

I understand Bayesian statistics, I just question the application.

One can look for life outside the solar system, one can test for ESP.

So Bayesian statistics are un-needed.

That's one of the more sensible things anyone's said about Bayesian statistics in this thread.

 

[Donn]

Nobody knows what ‘love’ is. .. Just cause we have some words that make some attempt to explain / describe it does not mean it is understood..

This is the dry field where is played footloose-ball. The fuzzy patch between what each person thinks love is and your own notion. Where you can dribble and dazzle and dance about, leaving defenders behind as you scurry up your own estimation.

Quick! Define it sciencely! Can't manage? Aha, love conquers All The Things. Score!

Defined it? Fail! That is not love by my book! Oh no. You must admit impediment! Shakespeare. Shakespeare!

 

[Lorentz]

There's the possibility that life exists elsewhere. ESP is also possible. If you're claiming ESP is impossible, the burden of proof lies with you, just as if I were to claim alien life is impossible, the burden of proof is on me.

Life is defined; we know what it is. We are it.

ESP is undefined, so undefined that you might as well call it 'magic'.

Proving that something doesn't exist when we don't know what 'it' is, is not merely difficult, it's impossible.

Indeed, we can not disprove the existence of gods either. Like ESP however, I see no reason to find their existence in any way probable.

 

[Dinwar]

Life is defined; we know what it is. We are it.

I would say we know at least one definition of life. The potential for other definitions to exist hasn't been tested yet. At least, not rigorously--there was some data from Titan that's certainly interesting, but not conclusive. That's another place in the solar system I really, really, REALLY want to put boots on the ground on. Gimme five minutes and I'll answer the question (given the estimated size of the organisms, I'll know within seconds, but I'm gonna geek out for the first few minutes if I find 'em ).

In contrast, we have no firm definition for ESP. The definition seems to shift every time we try to pin it down.

 

[jt512]

I understand Bayesian statistics...

That claim is incompatible with your previous post.

 

[jt512]

ahhh , I see. OTOH he discusses both Honorton and Utts.

Your ad hominem argument is about on par for quality with the others in the last few pages.

 

[jaydeehess]

Your ad hominem argument is about on par for quality with the others in the last few pages.

????? What was ad hominem about my post?


From the article I linked to:

These consisted of 42 experiments (by Honorton’s count) of which 55 percent had been claimed as producing significant results in favor of ESP. My meta-analysis and evaluation of these experiments showed that this database did not justify concluding that ESP was demonstrated. Honorton’s meta-analysis and rebuttal suggests otherwise. Utts naturally relies on Honorton’s meta-analysis and ignores mine. In our joint paper, both Honorton and I agreed that there were sufficient problems with this original database that nothing could be concluded until further replications, conducted according to specified criteria, appeared.

 

[annnnoid]

It has been definitively established that, in all cases, memory is fallible.

I suppose I shouldn’t find it surprising that your skeptic cohorts consistently fail to insist on evidence for your extraordinary claims…but for the slightest suggestion of mine there must be incontrovertible proof!

You have just insisted that it has been definitively established that in ALL cases memory is fallible.

Definitively established where, how, by who?

Why don’t we play a little game. Why don’t we ask everyone here to list the things they remember doing today. The things they remember doing yesterday. The previous day. The previous week, month, etc.

Then we ask…how many of these things can their authors be categorically sure actually occurred.

I will absolutely guarantee you…that just about everyone will categorically insist that their recollection of today’s listed events will be 100% accurate…probably yesterday’s as well…probably most of the events that are actually recollected…to whatever degree they are recollected.

…but you have the audacity to actually insist that there is not a single memory that anyone can rely on. And no one…anywhere…challenges you on it.

Here, I’ll begin:

This morning I ate a bagel for breakfast. I did not eat a banana as I usually do because I had none. After that I visited a business client. After that I visited and had a conversation with my daughter. Yesterday morning I also visited and had a conversation with my daughter. Three days ago I and my children were considering going out to see a movie and have dinner. We ended up staying home and watching Allan Partridge. Last week on Thursday I spend two hours with a musical group which was missing one member due to illness.

…and I could go on, and on, and on, and on. I can categorically insist that every single one of those statements is 100% accurate.

I also know for an indisputable fact that every single individual who is posting here could produce a similar list…and also conclude that it is 100% accurate.

Thus your claim…as usual…is 100% BS (unless you have some means of establishing that it isn’t…and since you provided, as usual, not a shred of substantiation, we may reasonably conclude that there simply isn’t any).

…but don’t let that stop you from refusing to retract it.

Or are you actually going to argue that memory is perfect?

…and my father, who died not long ago, suffered from Alzheimer’s. He would often relive childhood memories. Quite a number of which could be conclusively confirmed through written records and photographs.

…but…according to your utterly unsubstantiated drivel…ALL memories are flawed.

I guess that’s what we call a genuine anecdote. Zero validity!

You keep saying this.

Repetition doesn't make it true.

Ah, but you see…the difference between me and you is that I can actually produce evidence that supports my claims. I can produce statements from numerous accredited neuroscientists that clearly describes the current limits of neural scanning technology (and it is very limited). You produce nothing except excuses for why you produce nothing.

You don't understand what the burden of proof is.

Darat CLAIMED his explanation resolved the issue.

His CLAIM…his EVIDENCE.

T
And you also can't read

You admitted personal observation is valid evidence. Much obliged.

Okay. Ghosts. Or fairies. Trolls. Dragons. Elves. All had millions of reports, none exist.

I will explain the blindingly obvious (...no apologies necessary…).

Everything that you listed there…and that others have listed (as if they’d produced some manner of revelation)…does NOT fall under the category of psi / esp / anomalous psychological phenomena (the very things that comprise those enormous statistics). You would know this if you had the slightest interest in finding out what any of this is actually about. The fact that you continue to make these blatant and elementary mistakes is not my fault. If you want to find out what you are actually arguing against, what you have summarily dismissed as resolved…here are a couple of links for you to read. Actual scientific papers, rigorously presented and researched. Just the kind of thing a capable scientist such as yourself can relate to.

http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/Baptista et al Handbook.pdf

http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/Meta_Baptista14.pdf

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Consciousness+and+the+Source+of+Reality.-a0320731649

The number of alleged sightings doesn't mean anything. One person can claim to have seen a new species, and if they rigorously and systematically study it it will be accepted. A billion people can claim to see the Virgin Mary in the Sun, without it being even slightly true.

…and we have an entire planet full of people who will categorically insist that ‘love’ is real. Show me where this has been proven, other than anecdotally.

Oh, I always try to note your weasel-words. Any evidence I give will be dismissed as not conclusively disproving all of them, so I'm not going to bother trying anymore. It's obvious that you are fitting your evidence to your a priori conclusions, and your use of weasle-words is proof of that.

I see. So asking for something more than circumstantial evidence to explain a phenomena reported by hundreds of millions of people is somehow questionable.

Please explain how this is so?

Keep in mind that this is YOUR claim. Not mine. You (and others) are claiming that all of these events can be completely and conclusively explained by what you presented in those papers….when all that is in those papers is circumstantial evidence.

I have no doubt that were I to contact the authors of each of those papers they would HAVE to conclude that they cannot even begin to conclusively explain each and every case nor can their conclusions establish that what someone says they experienced is NOT what they they experienced.

That is my claim. I have no problem establishing that it is correct. I have done far more than that on these threads in the past (just ask Nonpareil how much his argument was demolished by Dr. Rees).

Nope. Not how it works. If I get called into court I don't get to say "You can't prove I didn't do what I say I did". I need to document that I did, and provide proof that I did. Thus, it's not necessary for me to conclusively disprove every claim in one fell swoop, which isi what you are demanding--THEY need to prove the validity of their claims. Thus far, that has not been done. Thus far, these anecdotes do not rise to the level of scientific evidence. Thus, we can dismiss them.

Excuse me…the vast majority of what passes for individual and collective activity on this planet would utterly cease to occur if that standard were imposed.

Are you going to argue that this is not the case ?!?!?!?

If I am explaining experiences, events, activities, thoughts, feelings…just about anything to anyone anytime anyhow…I do not expect to have provide ‘documentation / proof’ for my statements.

Not…ever. And anyone who argues that this is what occurs probably does not have too many friends.

We are dealing with evidentiary validity. There are hundreds of millions of reports of these events. Science can do no more than provide a very conditional explanation. Until science has the ability to provide a conclusive explanation, the reports have some validity. However disagreeable you may find this. Why is this the case? Because of something I’ve mentioned numerous times. Personal subjective experience has evidentiary priority. It is the foundation of our existence. Do you know what that means? If not, I suggest you consult any practicing psychologist (since I'm doubting you'll be asking me to explain it).

The simple fact is, you cannot even conclusively disprove a single claim. All you can do is circumstantially / conditionally disprove claims. When I get my replies from the authors of those studies, this will be very clearly, and dramatically, demonstrated.

I'm going to say this again because you are ignoring it: The person making the claims needs to substantiate them. I don't need to accept them merely because I can't disprove them all at once; THEY need to PROVE them.

…and I’m going to say this again because you keep ignoring it.

You are the ones who claim to have conclusively explained these phenomena.

I am not making any claims! I am, very clearly, pointing to the facts.

Hundreds of millions of people report these experiences (not trolls, bigfoot, Elvis Presley, alien abductions, and a million other varieties of nonsense).

Science can do no more than very conditionally explain them (this will be clearly established once I get my replies). Thus, the claims have some evidentiary validity in relation to the OP.

When science has the ability to conclusively explain them, then you will have more than reasonable grounds to dismiss them.

At this point in time (as I will establish when I get my replies from the authors), science is nowhere near that point.

Those are the rules. I do not make them, nor do I have any say in them--I get to follow them, because I am a scientist. If you wish to be taken seriously in a sceintific discussion, so do you. The fact that you flat-out refuse to do so demonstrates that you wish to NOT be taken seriously. Your idea is not a special little snowflake; it gets the same level of analysis as anything else. Don't like it? Cry to someone else.

…and if you wish to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion then you need to, for one, be familiar with what you are arguing against (which is very obviously not the case). Secondly, if you are going to present a scientific explanation for a phenomenon, you have to be able to establish to what degree the explanation is valid (you presented all those papers as an explanation). You have not done this. All you (and everyone else) has done is assert that ALL of these events can be explained by various forms of neurosis or psychosis.

As I will indisputably establish when I get my replies, the explanations you have produced are…and can be nothing but…very far from conclusive. Therefore the experiences represent conditionally valid data. Don’t like it…no doubt there are no shortage of snowflakes.

Life is defined; we know what it is. We are it.

ESP is undefined, so undefined that you might as well call it 'magic'.

Proving that something doesn't exist when we don't know what 'it' is, is not merely difficult, it's impossible.

Indeed, we can not disprove the existence of gods either. Like ESP however, I see no reason to find their existence in any way probable.

Life is ostensively defined. Life is not scientifically defined. Not…even…close. I wonder why so many here find that fact so hard to digest?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
This morning I ate a bagel for breakfast. I did not eat a banana as I usually do because I had none. After that I visited a business client. After that I visited and had a conversation with my daughter. Yesterday morning I also visited and had a conversation with my daughter. Three days ago I and my children were considering going out to see a movie and have dinner. We ended up staying home and watching Allan Partridge. Last week on Thursday I spend two hours with a musical group which was missing one member due to illness.
...

What exactly else did you do between eating a bagel for breakfast and visiting a business client?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Life is ostensively defined. Life is not scientifically defined. Not…even…close. I wonder why so many here find that fact so hard to digest?

How about ESP?