Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Daylightstar]

I’d suggest you check out this link.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.c...ke-on-esp.html

Written by a theoretical physicist. As I said earlier, he described his conclusions thus:
...

According to that post, the guy is a graduate student, studying theoretical physics.

The guy assumes but doesn't show that the data for the experiments he mentions is valid. His alternative take on ESP is therefore useless.
I wouldn't believe in ESP just because he does and writes a convoluted post reflecting that belief.

He apparently believes in ESP but can not demonstrate it exists.

 

[Slowvehicle]

According to that post, the guy is a graduate student, studying theoretical physics.

The guy assumes but doesn't show that the data for the experiments he mentions is valid. His alternative take on ESP is therefor useless.
I wouldn't believe in ESP just because he does and writes a convoluted post reflecting that belief.

He apparently believes in ESP but can not demonstrate it exists.

Sounds familiar...

 

[Daylightstar]

Sounds familiar...

Very

 

[jaydeehess]

There's a lot of anecdotal evidence, and some interesting results from some scientific studies, but my point has always been that the probability of alien life is on par with ESP. There is so little evidence to go on, that the existence of one is as likely as the existence of the other.

In other words, if Princeton University conducts PEAR2, and conclusively finds that some humans have an ability to influence random trials to a very small degree (say to the extent of 1 coin flip for every million flips), I would be as surprised as if we found alien life on Europa, which is to say, not really surprised at all.

As I have said in the past though, the question requires that you include the entire universe. Its not 'is there advanced life beyond Earth', its 'is there another advanced life form'. Excluding the known example is self serving parsimony.
There IS one. This universe is demonstrably capable of producing an advanced life form. The human race is NOT demonstrably capable of producing an individual with precognition or any other form of ESP.

Your continued insistence that your own race be excluded as evidence of the significant probability that a similar race of beings is greater than the probability of something not established to have ever occurred, is puzzling.

 

[Darwin123]

Your continued insistence that your own race be excluded as evidence of the significant probability that a similar race of beings is greater than the probability of something not established to have ever occurred, is puzzling.

Equally puzzling is that you don't understand the woo-woo position claim. I also disagree with them. However, I try to understand their assumptions.

The woo-woo's claim that ESP has been established to occur. They cite all sorts of studies that prove to them that ESP exists. Given one believes that ESP has been proven to occur at least once, then one should believe that it has a nonzero probability of occurring more than once. That is your argument for ETs, after all.

You have read their claims. Yet, you haven't challenged the validity of their studies. I believe that ESP is not well enough defined to make their studies valid, even if I believed the statistical conclusions.

A correlation is not a cause. The best these studies have done is prove a weak correlation.

A better comparison would be between ETs and real ghosts.

Is the probability of finding advanced life on another planet better than finding out that there is life after death?

There is just a little slop in the word dead. Would you found a wraith ghost, reincarnation, a traditional zombie, a carnivorous zombie or a possession evidence of an afterlife. Or maybe a person brought back by CPR after their heart stops?

Basically, that is not so hard to define at least. It is basically a Turing test applied to an later organism long after original organism in question has been annihilated. My grandfather's body has been in a grave for 30 years. If I find an organism or spirit with his memories that my grandfather had, then I will say that the soul of my grandfather has been brought back from death. Not likely, not even likely to prove, but easily defined. Easier to define than ESP.

Of course, even more woo-woos also believe in an afterlife than ESP. There are all those seances, hypnotic regression, and other techniques for talking to the undead. The New Testament is full of such 'studies'.

So which is more probable? Finding a true to undead ghost or finding an extraterrestrial alien?

I don't believe in ghosts either. However, I would be more careful in saying 'why' I don't believe in ghosts. Ghosts are better defined than ESP.

 

[annnnoid]

According to that post, the guy is a graduate student, studying theoretical physics.

The guy assumes but doesn't show that the data for the experiments he mentions is valid. His alternative take on ESP is therefore useless.
I wouldn't believe in ESP just because he does and writes a convoluted post reflecting that belief.

He apparently believes in ESP but can not demonstrate it exists.

He’s got a master’s in theoretical physics (currently a teaching assistant at a Nebraska university). Presumably describing him as a ‘theoretical physicist’ is, therefore, not improper.

If you read the extensive responses to the post (did you?) you will find they echo what is all too common in this field. Bias, prejudice, and ill-informed conclusions. Maaneli dispatches every critique easily and with far more patience than many of them deserve.

The conclusion is very very simple: There is vast amounts of anecdotal evidence that supports the ESP position. There is absolutely no definitive explanation for how these anomalous events occur (not even close actually). Skeptics simply dismiss them, ignore them, or pretend they don’t happen.

There is also a great deal of obviously biased and flawed research in this field… on both sides of the question. Maaneli had this to say about it:

When I initially became interested in this research area, I heavily relied on the skeptical community's lay literature regarding ESP research (e.g. Robert Carroll's Skeptics Dictionary entry on the Ganzfeld, Marks and Kamman's book, The Psychology of the Psychic, Hyman's essay's in Skeptical Inquirer, etc.). But once I learned enough of the statistics and research design methodology necessary to understand the peer-reviewed, published papers pertaining to the Ganzfeld (which admittedly took several years to do), I quickly found that the skeptical lay literature on this topic is - and I hate to say it - grossly misleading and inaccurate. So, with this hindsight, I would say that, for a controversial topic like this one, it seems to me that the fairest position a lay skeptic can take is one of agnosticism about the merits of Ganzfeld research (and ESP research more generally), until that lay skeptic is willing to acquire the skills and expertise necessary to properly and directly evaluate the literature for themselves.

So…in relation to the OP…we are left trying to adjudicate the issue of ESP based on skeptical lay literature which is (according to Maaneli) “ grossly misleading and inaccurate”. I'd say his conclusions are, at the least, reasonable.

 

[Daylightstar]

He’s got a master’s in theoretical physics (currently a teaching assistant at a Nebraska university). Presumably describing him as a ‘theoretical physicist’ is, therefore, not improper.
...

It was however used by you to increase his supposed authority.

...
If you read the extensive responses to the post (did you?) you will find they echo what is all too common in this field. Bias, prejudice, and ill-informed conclusions. Maaneli dispatches every critique easily and with far more patience than many of them deserve.
...

... but does not demonstrate the validity of the data for these experiments he referred to.

...
The conclusion is very very simple: There is vast amounts of anecdotal evidence that supports the ESP position.
...

Anecdotal evidence:

...
(the plural of anecdote is "anecdotes")

...
There is absolutely no definitive explanation for how these anomalous events occur (not even close actually). Skeptics simply dismiss them, ignore them, or pretend they don’t happen.
...

Let's first get an actual demonstration of an actual anomalous event, before we look for explanations, shall we?
Not anecdotes.

...
There is also a great deal of obviously biased and flawed research in this field… on both sides of the question. Maaneli had this to say about it:

When I initially became interested in this research area, I heavily relied on the skeptical community's lay literature regarding ESP research (e.g. Robert Carroll's Skeptics Dictionary entry on the Ganzfeld, Marks and Kamman's book, The Psychology of the Psychic, Hyman's essay's in Skeptical Inquirer, etc.). But once I learned enough of the statistics and research design methodology necessary to understand the peer-reviewed, published papers pertaining to the Ganzfeld (which admittedly took several years to do), I quickly found that the skeptical lay literature on this topic is - and I hate to say it - grossly misleading and inaccurate. So, with this hindsight, I would say that, for a controversial topic like this one, it seems to me that the fairest position a lay skeptic can take is one of agnosticism about the merits of Ganzfeld research (and ESP research more generally), until that lay skeptic is willing to acquire the skills and expertise necessary to properly and directly evaluate the literature for themselves.

So…in relation to the OP…we are left trying to adjudicate the issue of ESP based on skeptical lay literature which is (according to Maaneli) “ grossly misleading and inaccurate”. I'd say his conclusions are, at the least, reasonable.

Ah, the 'you are not a real skeptic' card.
Still no planck length closer to showing the data for the experiments he referred to being valid.

E.T.A.: As far as the ESP from the OP is concerned, it's problem is still utter lack of actual occurrence.

 

[Slowvehicle]

He’s got a master’s in theoretical physics (currently a teaching assistant at a Nebraska university). Presumably describing him as a ‘theoretical physicist’ is, therefore, not improper.

If you read the extensive responses to the post (did you?) you will find they echo what is all too common in this field. Bias, prejudice, and ill-informed conclusions. Maaneli dispatches every critique easily and with far more patience than many of them deserve.

The conclusion is very very simple: There is vast amounts of anecdotal evidence that supports the ESP position. There is absolutely no definitive explanation for how these anomalous events occur (not even close actually). Skeptics simply dismiss them, ignore them, or pretend they don’t happen.

There is also a great deal of obviously biased and flawed research in this field… on both sides of the question. Maaneli had this to say about it:

When I initially became interested in this research area, I heavily relied on the skeptical community's lay literature regarding ESP research (e.g. Robert Carroll's Skeptics Dictionary entry on the Ganzfeld, Marks and Kamman's book, The Psychology of the Psychic, Hyman's essay's in Skeptical Inquirer, etc.). But once I learned enough of the statistics and research design methodology necessary to understand the peer-reviewed, published papers pertaining to the Ganzfeld (which admittedly took several years to do), I quickly found that the skeptical lay literature on this topic is - and I hate to say it - grossly misleading and inaccurate. So, with this hindsight, I would say that, for a controversial topic like this one, it seems to me that the fairest position a lay skeptic can take is one of agnosticism about the merits of Ganzfeld research (and ESP research more generally), until that lay skeptic is willing to acquire the skills and expertise necessary to properly and directly evaluate the literature for themselves.

So…in relation to the OP…we are left trying to adjudicate the issue of ESP based on skeptical lay literature which is (according to Maaneli) “ grossly misleading and inaccurate”. I'd say his conclusions are, at the least, reasonable.

One of these things is not like the other .

Got links?

 

[annnnoid]

It was however used by you to increase his supposed authority.

His ‘supposed authority’ !!!! The issues directly relate to physics, mathematics, and statistical analysis. Please explain how the fact that he is a theoretical physicist is not relevant?

... but does not demonstrate the validity of the data for these experiments he referred to.

Did you actually read the rest of the post? If you are still so eager to establish the validity of the data (which I sincerely doubt…but feel free to prove me wrong), I’ll give you Maaneli’s email address and you can challenge him directly on the conclusions that he came to.

Anecdotal evidence:

…which…if you haven’t noticed…is the exact same variety of evidence that you (and everyone) depend on to make every single minor and major decision of your life. But it’s worthless.

Let's first get an actual demonstration of an actual anomalous event, before we look for explanations, shall we?
Not anecdotes.

Since it has obviously escaped your scrutiny it seems necessary to remind you that what we are talking about here are subjective experiences. Please enlighten us if you have some secret science that has the capacity to, even remotely, directly adjudicate subjective experience.

No…didn’t think so.

Thus…anecdotal evidence is, by default, a legitimate form of evidence.

Ah, the 'you are not a real skeptic' card.

So why do so many skeptics find it necessary to resort to creationist tactics?

E.T.A.: As far as the ESP from the OP is concerned, it's problem is still utter lack of actual occurrence.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that something does not occur unless it can be scientifically adjudicated.

Yes…or no.

One of these things is not like the other .

So when someone says “I love you’ we may all justifiably dismiss the claim because they cannot support it with any variety of objectively falsifiable evidence.

Got links?

I just gave you a link. Why don’t you actually go and read it. If you still don’t believe what Maaneli wrote, I’ve got his email address. You can send him an email and complain that he’s a fool. Doubtless he would dismantle you just as easily as he dismantled all the others on that page who challenged his conclusions.

 

[jt512]

However, observation of how science works reveals that it is inherently Bayesian.

If you push hard enough you can fit anything into any mold you wish, I guess.

And if you ignore the examples I gave (arsenic-DNA and superluminal neutrinos), you can always just flippantly accuse me of anything you want.

Likewise, science has not accepted the existence of ESP in spite of the large body of experiments (of which skeptics are mostly unaware) showing highly statistically significant effects.

Nope. We don't accept it because in properly controled experiments it does no better than chance.

But hey, there's a million bucks on the line--let's see that "large body of experiments".

Proponents of ESP make two complaints about skeptics: (1) they aren't aware of the research that has been done, and (2) they say that there isn't any, anyway. Congratulations on confirming both stereotypes using just two sentences.

As for experiments supporting ESP, I think the best the proponents have are those that feature the ganzfeld methodology, in which one subject, a "receiver" placed in mild sensory deprivation conditions, tries to guess which one of four images another subject, the "sender," is viewing. The null hypothesis that the proportion of correct target identifications, or "hits," over a large number of subjects will be .25 is tested against the alternative hypothesis that the proportion is greater than .25.

In 2010, Storm et al published a meta-analysis of the ganzfeld and other free-response studies in Psychological Bulletin, a well-respected peer-reviewed journal in experimental psychology. Subsequently, the paper was criticized by Rouder et al (2013). Agreeing with some of the criticisms, the original authors, joined by statistician Jessica Utts, published a rejoinder and reanalysis [Storm et al (2013)]. The original analysis is here; the critique and rejoinder, here (in reversed order).

The reanalysis included 45 studies that employed a method of noise reduction: 29 ganzfeld and 16 non-ganzfeld. The null hypothesis was rejected with p-values of 3 × 10^–8 and .0008 for the ganzfeld and non-ganzfeld studies, respectively. In an alternative, Bayesian, analysis in which the two groups of studies were combined, the Bayes factor was 14,708:1 in favor of the ESP hypothesis over the null. (That is, the data were about 14,700 times more likely if the ESP hypothesis were true than if the null hypothesis were true).

These studies appear to be every bit as rigorous, if not more rigorous, than studies typically published in experimental psychology. Given that experimental psychologists generally believe a study's results if the p-value is merely less than .05, isn't it remarkable that ESP is not accepted as a scientific fact in experimental psychology? If the studies themselves are at least as rigorous as most studies in the field, and the statistical evidence stronger, why isn't ESP believed to be true? The answer, my friend, isn't blowing in the wind. The answer is that the prior probability for ESP is too low to be overcome by what would be considered overwhelming evidence for any novel, but otherwise ordinary, hypothesis.

Science doesn't work by statistics.

Actually, experimental psychology is totally dependent on statistics. Hypotheses are generally considered confirmed when the p-value is less .05; sometimes, to strengthen the support for a hypothesis, investigators will report results from three or four replication attempts together in one paper. Here we have the results of 45.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip for focus>
Did you actually read the rest of the post? If you are still so eager to establish the validity of the data (which I sincerely doubt…but feel free to prove me wrong), I’ll give you Maaneli’s email address and you can challenge him directly on the conclusions that he came to.

1. Your link is inoperative:

This webpage is not available

...does not comprise an argument.

2. You, personally, advance the claim that

The conclusion is very very simple: There is vast amounts of anecdotal evidence that supports the ESP position.

...to which my response is, and will continue to be, "What studies have you read, what evidence do you have, that has led you to your belief?"

…which…if you haven’t noticed…is the exact same variety of evidence that you (and everyone) depend on to make every single minor and major decision of your life. But it’s worthless.

Praps you should stand that person of straw, pockets stuffed with pale pink sprats, over there under that windmill, with the other ones.

Anecdotal evidence is, in fact, a dandy way to develop, or support, an opinion.

Where you do err is in your apparent assertion that your opinion becomes fact if you collect enough anecdotes. This is much of a muchness with believers' opinions about their 'gods'.

<snip for space>Thus…anecdotal evidence is, by default, a legitimate form of evidence.

Odd. You seem to be playing the "If you only believed as I believe, you would come to understand why you should believe as I believe," card.

As long as you are seeking to form, or support, or enhance, or validate, an opinion, subjective experience is a great place to start.

For determining objective fact? Not so much.

So why do so many skeptics find it necessary to resort to creationist tactics?

Praps you'd be so kind as to demonstrate who has done so? It may be that when you construct your arguments in the same way believers construct theirs, you get similar responses...

So let me get this straight. You are saying that something does not occur unless it can be scientifically adjudicated.

Yes…or no.

¡Que linda su Verónica Grande!

No, that is not at all what was said. Consider responding to what is actually posted, instead of what you wished had been posted, or hoped would be posted.

So when someone says “I love you’ we may all justifiably dismiss the claim because they cannot support it with any variety of objectively falsifiable evidence.

When my partner says, "I love you," or when I tell my partner that my partner's smile causes my heart to make a sound like thirty couple hounds a'questin', I believe my partner, and believe that my partner believes me; neither of us would be so foolish as to claim that either statement comprises objective proof that we love each other. When my partner brings me a glass of Indian Wells Orange Blossom Amber Beer out of the clear blue sky ('scuse me while I take a sip..."Here's to us!/Who's
like us?/Damned few, and they're all dead, 'god' help 'em!"), that is not objective evidence that we love each other, nor is the fact that I wake my partner with coffee adulterated to spec every single morning objective evidence.

OTH, I am content, and consider us to be far out on the right-tail of the married happiness curve. I would not be so foolish as to speak of my love as an objectively-demonstrated fact.

I do not confuse subjective opinion with objective evidence.

I just gave you a link. Why don’t you actually go and read it. If you still don’t believe what Maaneli wrote, I’ve got his email address. You can send him an email and complain that he’s a fool. Doubtless he would dismantle you just as easily as he dismantled all the others on that page who challenged his conclusions.

4. The link (http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.c...ke-on-esp.html/) you "just gave me" does not work.

5. Interesting attempt to reverse, or avoid, the onus.

6. I did, in fact, ask you, personally, for sources for what you, personally, find so believable.

7. Why do you make free to put words in my mouth? "Fool" is your unique contribution to what I have actually said.

 

[Fudbucker]

belief =/= evidence

Yes, and water is wet. Did you have a point to make?

(the plural of anecdote is "anecdotes")

This is often said by people who don't understand how evidence works. Anecdotes are indeed evidence, and can be quite powerful evidence. In fact, you can summon a whole medical team to your house just by calling a certain number and anecdotally reporting chest pains and shortness of breath.

More recently is the case of Bill Cosby, scumbag rapist. If one woman had accused him, he might have OK, but as the anecdotal evidence piled up... well, it hasn't gone too well for him.

 

[tsig]

Yes, and water is wet. Did you have a point to make?



This is often said by people who don't understand how evidence works. Anecdotes are indeed evidence, and can be quite powerful evidence. In fact, you can summon a whole medical team to your house just by calling a certain number and anecdotally reporting chest pains and shortness of breath.

More recently is the case of Bill Cosby, scumbag rapist. If one woman had accused him, he might have OK, but as the anecdotal evidence piled up... well, it hasn't gone too well for him.

Every day hundreds of thousand experiments are conducted determining whether humans have the power to foresee future events.

The fact that these laboratories of experiments called casinos make money proves humans do not have this power.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yes, and water is wet. Did you have a point to make?

Why yes, as a matter of fact. It was stated right there, in my post. Did you read it?

Your subjective experience of a "message from beyond" may increase your own belief in ghost stories. It is not, however, objective evidence that your "prophetic dream" indicates that you "received knowledge" beyond demonstrated methods of "perception".

Your own belief is, at best support for your own "belief"; it is not "evidence".

This is often said by people who don't understand how evidence works. Anecdotes are indeed evidence, and can be quite powerful evidence. In fact, you can summon a whole medical team to your house just by calling a certain number and anecdotally reporting chest pains and shortness of breath.

More recently is the case of Bill Cosby, scumbag rapist. If one woman had accused him, he might have OK, but as the anecdotal evidence piled up... well, it hasn't gone too well for him.

...and this kind of thing is often said by people who do not understand the difference between "evidence" and "suspicion". If all it takes to indicate guilt is a growing collection of anecdotal accusations, then all those witches and heretics deserved to be put to the question, no?

 

[John Jones]

belief =/= evidence

(the plural of anecdote is "anecdotes")

This promises to be an amazing thread.

I can't wait for the evidence...

 

[Slowvehicle]

This promises to be an amazing thread.

I can't wait for the evidence...

Well,

....one time? At band camp...?

 

[Dinwar]

???

"Grue" is an undefined term. If "grue" was another word for "wood", would you "bet all your life savings" there's no "grue" in your house?

In this, you make a critical error. Grue IS a defined term--you just don't know the definition. I would confidently not only bet my life savings, but my LIFE that there is no grue in my house. I actually do so on a regular basis. For that matter, I bet my wife's life and that of my infant son. To me, that ranks as "I know there is no grue", not just "I'm 0.XXXX confident there is no grue".

And that's my point about this Bayesian statistics stuff: you are confusing your knowledge with the limits of the system. Your math says NOTHING about the reality of the system itself; it merely describes YOUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the system--in a way that's obtuse, and which displays literally infinitely more precision than your knowledge of the system warrants.

The conclusion is very very simple: There is vast amounts of anecdotal evidence that supports the ESP position.

The difference between paranormal "research" and actual scientific research is that paranormal research stops at the hypothesis-formulation stage. I'm willing to grant that an anecdote is sufficient evidence to formulate a hypothesis; however, it is NOT sufficient evidence to TEST a hypothesis. To test a hypothesis requires an experiment that is reproducible, which controls all known variables that can affect the outcome, etc. In this case, the standard is a double-blinded experiment.

Do you have any reports of double-blinded experiments conducted that demonstrate ESP to work? If not, we are forced to conclude that the anecdotes are based on some other cause than an unknown thing that violates the known laws of physics. Potential causes are nearly innumerable, ranging from outright fraud (the seances of previous centuries) to common mental errors (remembering hits, ignoring misses, that sort of thing). In actuality a rigorous scientific study would test for those prior to allowing the anecdotal evidence in, and would only accept those stories for which alternative causal mechanisms aren't in evidence, but I'm overly willing to get my hands dirty and measure the fish, as it were.

Without double-blinded trials showing a higher rate of success than chance, repeatedly, you don't actually have any evidence. You have stuff that can be used to formulate a hypothesis, but that's the least-rigorous aspect of science--you can have a dream and formulate a hypothesis, or get so drunk you can't keep the beer in a can and formulate one (both revolutionized their fields). It's the rigorous testing that makes a methodology that's the critical aspect. Otherwise, cognitive errors creep in and we suddenly find ourselves hanging women because they're witches.

 

[Fudbucker]

Why yes, as a matter of fact. It was stated right there, in my post. Did you read it?

Your subjective experience of a "message from beyond" may increase your own belief in ghost stories. It is not, however, objective evidence that your "prophetic dream" indicates that you "received knowledge" beyond demonstrated methods of "perception".

Your own belief is, at best support for your own "belief"; it is not "evidence".

Of course my belief is not evidence. My belief is changed by evidence. Evidence is anything that makes a belief more or less likely. Having prophetic dreams over and over again will, indeed, change one's belief in precognition, unless one is a fanatic or complete idiot.

You're conflating the inability to convince you of my experiences with my own reevaluation of my belief system based on my own personal experiences.

If I flipped a coin heads one hundred times in a row, I will no longer believe the coin is fair, although you may continue to believe so if you didn't witness the events (or don't trust my account of it).

I suggest you start here, and scroll down to "subjective probability".
http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/mks/statmistakes/probability.html

...and this kind of thing is often said by people who do not understand the difference between "evidence" and "suspicion". If all it takes to indicate guilt is a growing collection of anecdotal accusations, then all those witches and heretics deserved to be put to the question, no?

You're still not getting it.

What is your belief, on a given day at work, that your house is on fire? Very low. What would happen to the probability of your belief "my house is on fire" if your wife calls and tells you "the house is on fire!"?

So yes, anecdotes are evidence and anecdotes can be very powerful evidence, especially if they're reported by people we know and trust. They can also be very weak forms of evidence, if the person is completely unreliable or the claim being made is fantastical. Just as scientific observations can be very weak evidence if the equipment is unreliable (faster than light neutrinos, anyone?).

The above example can be explained by Bayes Theorem. The probability of the evidence (the anecdotal account from your wife that the house in on fire), is so surprising to you that the probability of your belief that the house is on fire (H) goes through the roof. As Pr(E) drops, Pr(H/E) rises.

You need look no further than Bill Cosby. One woman accusing him could have been explained away. Over 20 women, though? And all this happening AFTER the statute of limitations has expired? Are you going to claim that your belief that Bill Cosby is a serial rapist hasn't changed at all over the last six months? Do you also believe the Catholic Church got a bum rap from all those anecdotal accounts of child molestation?

Anyway, it's surprising enough evidence to ensure that Cosby's reputation will never recover from this. He'll remain a pariah the rest of his life. He's extremely lucky all these accusations happened after the statute of limitations expired.

As usual, Bayes Theorem comes to the rescue. If 20+ women accusing a person of raping them constitutes surprising evidence, the belief that the person is a rapist will receive confirmation. The more surprising one considers the evidence to be, the greater the confirmation will be. As Pr(E) drops, Pr(H/E) rises.

Again, this is a case of subjective probability. If, for some odd reason, you don't assign any particular importance to a huge number of women accusing a person of raping them decades after the fact, your belief in Cosby's innocence or guilt won't change much.

It's no different than 20 adults coming forward and saying Father O'Malley molested them when they were kids. And we saw what that did to the Catholic Church's reputation and rightfully so.

 

[annnnoid]

(snipped…for endless repetition)

….where, precisely, did I say that anecdotal evidence is the equivalent of objective fact?

Consider responding to what is actually posted, instead of what you wished had been posted, or hoped would be posted.

What I said…was that anecdotal evidence is legitimate evidence. Of what, exactly, is another matter entirely. In relation to anomalous psychological phenomena there are vast numbers of reported incidents. Given both the paucity of any scientifically credible explanations and the growing body of substantiating studies…it is reasonable for any skeptic to, at the least, take an agnostic position in relation to the issue.

When my partner says, "I love you," or when I tell my partner that my partner's smile causes my heart to make a sound like thirty couple hounds a'questin', I believe my partner, and believe that my partner believes me; neither of us would be so foolish as to claim that either statement comprises objective proof that we love each other. When my partner brings me a glass of Indian Wells Orange Blossom Amber Beer out of the clear blue sky ('scuse me while I take a sip..."Here's to us!/Who's
like us?/Damned few, and they're all dead, 'god' help 'em!"), that is not objective evidence that we love each other, nor is the fact that I wake my partner with coffee adulterated to spec every single morning objective evidence.

OTH, I am content, and consider us to be far out on the right-tail of the married happiness curve. I would not be so foolish as to speak of my love as an objectively-demonstrated fact.

I do not confuse subjective opinion with objective evidence.

…perhaps you should quit while you’re behind.

You do realize what you’re desperately trying to avoid saying here. Don’t you? You’re saying that, though you love your wife, there is no reason for either you or her to trust this conclusion.

I’ll leave you to investigate the absurdity of this position.

If you’re wanting actual evidence supporting the ESP proposition you can explore the link (no idea why it doesn’t work…it worked for Daylightstar). Maaneli reviews some of the exact same varieties of Ganzfield material that jt512 refers to in his / her post and very effectively demolishes the criticisms (which, to be fair, are rather pathetic to begin with).

…so…at the end of the day, and re: the OP…it might be said that ESP may be taking a probability lead over alien life.

This promises to be an amazing thread.

I can't wait for the evidence...

Right. What jt512 produced above…that wasn’t evidence.

The difference between paranormal "research" and actual scientific research is that paranormal research stops at the hypothesis-formulation stage. I'm willing to grant that an anecdote is sufficient evidence to formulate a hypothesis; however, it is NOT sufficient evidence to TEST a hypothesis. To test a hypothesis requires an experiment that is reproducible, which controls all known variables that can affect the outcome, etc. In this case, the standard is a double-blinded experiment.

Do you have any reports of double-blinded experiments conducted that demonstrate ESP to work? If not, we are forced to conclude that the anecdotes are based on some other cause than an unknown thing that violates the known laws of physics. Potential causes are nearly innumerable, ranging from outright fraud (the seances of previous centuries) to common mental errors (remembering hits, ignoring misses, that sort of thing). In actuality a rigorous scientific study would test for those prior to allowing the anecdotal evidence in, and would only accept those stories for which alternative causal mechanisms aren't in evidence, but I'm overly willing to get my hands dirty and measure the fish, as it were.

Without double-blinded trials showing a higher rate of success than chance, repeatedly, you don't actually have any evidence. You have stuff that can be used to formulate a hypothesis, but that's the least-rigorous aspect of science--you can have a dream and formulate a hypothesis, or get so drunk you can't keep the beer in a can and formulate one (both revolutionized their fields). It's the rigorous testing that makes a methodology that's the critical aspect. Otherwise, cognitive errors creep in and we suddenly find ourselves hanging women because they're witches.

So you’re saying that because we can’t do an experiment that can confirm / falsify the anecdotes, we must conclude that they are fraudulent????

…perhaps you might want to consider just how much of subjective human experience science currently has the capacity to definitively confirm.

….the number sits at a great big fat zero!

As for violating the known-laws-of-physics…that’s just BS! Where have the known-laws-of-physics arrived at an explanation for consciousness? Nowhere that I can see (actually…not even close). Where have the k.l.o.p explained the existence of this universe (what it is, where it comes from)? Nowhere. Where have the k.l.o.p. explained how you come to produce even the smallest fraction of the post you’re formulating in response to this one. Absolutely nowhere. Where have the k.l.o.p. arrived at even a fraction of an explanation for the k.l.o.p. Absolutely nowhere.

Sorry dude…there are just way too many gaps in the k.l.o p. to insist that we know enough to know what can, or cannot, occur in the human mind.


Personally I can’t say that I have taken the time to study the field, not for a while at least. I have taken the time to locate and review what I believe to be credible individuals who have studied the field ( a couple of years back I submitted links; at the time there were at least a few dozen…haven’t been following it for a while so can’t locate them now).

There are a couple of conclusions that they all come to:

One is that it is (not surprisingly) a very controversial field.
Another is that anyone studying the field is going to have a hard time getting any legitimate funding.
Another is that anyone admitting to studying the field is often going to have to learn to deal with various forms of professional ostracism (with all that entails…most scientists prefer having a bed to sleep in and food on the table).
Another is that an awful lot of the studies that have been done by so-called skeptics are, as Maaneli noted, grossly misleading and inaccurate.
Another is that there is an almost inverse ratio between the rate of study and the rate of incidence. Meaning that…for a phenomena with what would, in any other field, be regarded as well above epidemic levels of occurrence…there is a notable inadequacy of virtually any legitimate study.
Another is that the issues in question are very likely some of the most complex that exist (what actually is consciousness, how does it occur, and what is it capable of) and that a resolution of the questions revolving around anomalous psychological phenomena may very well require an entirely new scientific paradigm.

Taken together…the above conclusions amount to a very unique area of study. There are studies though, and they have come to conclusions. In relation to the OP…these conclusions might support some variety of probability beyond that of alien life (depending upon how that particular probability is arrived at).

 

[Fudbucker]

In this, you make a critical error. Grue IS a defined term--you just don't know the definition. I would confidently not only bet my life savings, but my LIFE that there is no grue in my house. I actually do so on a regular basis. For that matter, I bet my wife's life and that of my infant son. To me, that ranks as "I know there is no grue", not just "I'm 0.XXXX confident there is no grue".

Grue is indeed a defined term, just not the way that either one of us defined it:

"grue noun \"\
Full Definition of GRUE

1
: a fit of shivering :"

So if you're willing to bet your life that's there no grue in your house... well I hope the heater is on and no one is watching a scary movie

In any case, just replace "grue" with "hdshajdfshajk". The point is just as easily made.

And that's my point about this Bayesian statistics stuff: you are confusing your knowledge with the limits of the system. Your math says NOTHING about the reality of the system itself; it merely describes YOUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the system--in a way that's obtuse, and which displays literally infinitely more precision than your knowledge of the system warrants.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Are you complaining that Bayes Theorem is too subjective? That would make no sense, since Bayes Theorem is used to calculate subjective probabilities. Given your science background, I think you're making an objection to the whole notion of subjective probability in the above paragraph.

The difference between paranormal "research" and actual scientific research is that paranormal research stops at the hypothesis-formulation stage.

It certainly doesn't stop there. The PEAR program at Princeton conducted experiments for about 30 years. That's just one of many experimental protocals that have been done over the years. Just recently, the AWARE study placed signs on high shelves to test if veridical OBE's were really happening.

I'm willing to grant that an anecdote is sufficient evidence to formulate a hypothesis; however, it is NOT sufficient evidence to TEST a hypothesis. To test a hypothesis requires an experiment that is reproducible, which controls all known variables that can affect the outcome, etc. In this case, the standard is a double-blinded experiment.

This isn't true either. Suppose we put a card on a high shelf in an ER room with the numbers 74823473289472389 on it. And on another shelf is a quarter and an old pen. After CPR, patient John Doe is in the recovery room and says, "why is there a card with the numbers 74823473289472389 on it? I saw that when I was looking down at my body. I also saw a quarter from 1973 on another shelf, next to a blue BIC pen".

That one anecdotal account from John Doe would be huge confirming evidence for the existence of genuine OBE experiences.

Also, reproducibility is nice, but not necessarily required. Suppose president Obama gives a press conference and states that he had a vision that a month from now, a 7.3 magnitude earthquake would strike L.A. at 8:35 in the morning, and he urges everyone to stay off the roads and head to safe areas. And a month later, at 8:35, a 7.3 earthquake strikes L.A.

There would be no need to reproduce what happened (although it would be nice). The phenomena of precognition (of some sort) would be solidly confirmed from that one press conference. No one would believe that what happened was just a coincidence.

So you're wrong here: an anecdote can be a hugely confirming piece of evidence and so can a one-off event that can't be reproduced.

Do you have any reports of double-blinded experiments conducted that demonstrate ESP to work? If not, we are forced to conclude that the anecdotes are based on some other cause than an unknown thing that violates the known laws of physics.

We're not forced to conclude that because double-blinded experiments aren't required, as the examples I just gave illustrated. Double-blinding a Zener card test wouldn't even make any sense. It's perfectly acceptable that the tester knows what the cards are.

Potential causes are nearly innumerable, ranging from outright fraud (the seances of previous centuries) to common mental errors (remembering hits, ignoring misses, that sort of thing). In actuality a rigorous scientific study would test for those prior to allowing the anecdotal evidence in, and would only accept those stories for which alternative causal mechanisms aren't in evidence, but I'm overly willing to get my hands dirty and measure the fish, as it were.

To go back to the Obama example, a rigorous scientific study wouldn't be required at all. There would be only two explanations for an extremely accurate prediction of a future event: chance, or some kind of knowledge of the event before it happens. As the specificity of the prediction increases, the chance hypothesis becomes less believable.

Suppose you went to a psychic and the psychic makes 80 extremely precise statements of things only you could possibly know about. Stuff you've never shard with anyone. And 75 of those predictions are correct. What would you conclude? That it was chance? I guess you could, but suppose the person made 95 out of 100 extremely accurate statements? I'm not talking about "I see something with the letter B". Stuff like "you remember the time the ferris wheel got stuck when you were at the top 30 years ago, and you had a panic attack?" At some point, you would ditch the chance hypothesis. What else could you conclude, other than something paranormal is going on? I guess you could conclude you're the biggest cold-reading sap in the world, but if the information is highly specific, you wouldn't conclude that either.

Without double-blinded trials showing a higher rate of success than chance, repeatedly, you don't actually have any evidence. You have stuff that can be used to formulate a hypothesis, but that's the least-rigorous aspect of science--you can have a dream and formulate a hypothesis, or get so drunk you can't keep the beer in a can and formulate one (both revolutionized their fields). It's the rigorous testing that makes a methodology that's the critical aspect. Otherwise, cognitive errors creep in and we suddenly find ourselves hanging women because they're witches.

I suggest you read up on how paranormal testing is actually done.