Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[annnnoid]

But not demonstrated to actually exist.

...where has 'love' been demonstrated to actually exist?

(snip)
Happy reading.

That is the first time anyone has presented any evidence to support their conclusions. Much obliged.

That's not how it works. It is ENTIRELY sufficient for us to demonstrate that there is insufficient data to support your conclusion--once we do that, our job is 100% completed. YOU are making the claim--one which would require a fundamental alteration of our entire understanding of the universe--so YOU get to defend it. Thus far, you've failed. You've admitted that the evidence is anecdotal (meaning that it's not rigorous and does not meet the criteria for scientific evidence), and your continued refusal to demonstrate the validity of the data in your pet blog post demonstrates that you can't do so. Even if your posting style wasn't specifically designed to drive away all potential allies, there's nothing substantive, from a scientific perspective, in your posts. We CANNOT agree with you, not if we value honesty and integrity (two of the cardinal virtues in science). It's your job to provide enough evidence that we can. Again, you've failed.

…nope. I am not the only one making all sorts of claims here. Lots (of claims) have been made about what it is that explains these experiences, about how it is possible to establish whether they do…or do not occur. You are the first one who has presented anything at all to substantiate their claims.

My claims are simply:
…That these experiences are very very widely reported and that anecdotal evidence is a valid form of evidence (with conditions)
…That science has absolutely no ability to directly and definitively adjudicate subjective experience to establish what is, or is not, actually occurring and thus conclusively resolve the matter.
…that until some way to conclusively resolve the issue is established, the possibility that these experiences are authentic has to be allowed (because subjective experience is our primary ontology)
…Lacking the above capacity, all science can do is adjudicate external symptoms. Circumstantial evidence it is called. It is not irrelevant…but in no way shape or form can it be said to be conclusive. I have no doubt…no doubt what-so-ever…that if I were to contact the authors of each of those studies that you supplied, they would all have to admit that whatever their conclusions about human behavior those conclusions do not, and cannot, establish that what an individual says they experience is not, in fact, what they experienced.

I personally know practicing and teaching psychologists / psychiatrists who, when encountering an individual who experiences such phenomenon, simply allow that the individual does actually experience exactly what they say they are experiencing. The assumption of some variety of pathology is not, as everyone here insists, axiomatic (far from it). Each case is considered individually and ‘unknown’ is still a credible answer to many issues.

I also claim that the studies that have been done present a conditional confirmation of the ESP position. There is not much point in arguing that. I can present opinions that support the findings…and opinions that challenge the findings. It is inconclusive (again, despite what everyone here insists). It is a very complex subject and, like many issues in science it is simply unresolved.

You constantly insist the burden of proof is upon me. It is not (except if I am going to insist that the studies are conclusive...and I've never suggested they are). I am merely stating the facts. According to available statistics, reports of these experiences number in the hundreds of millions.

They are evidence of ‘something’. You are the ones who are CLAIMING (conclusively, definitively, or otherwise) to be able to explain what is happening (they're lying, they're on drugs, they're psychotic, etc. etc.). I am simply accepting the anecdotes at face value.

People’s first instincts are always to trust their conclusions (to do otherwise would be blatantly dysfunctional). Insisting that some pathology of ‘human nature’ accounts for all these conclusions is nothing more than speculation, however robust the clinical documentation (and psychology is far too circumstantial a science to have anything remotely resembling sufficient explanatory power in this matter). Neither you, nor any scientist alive, can establish a direct measurable link between such an event and some manner of neurosis or psychosis. It just can’t happen. And even in cases where there is a blatant psychosis, it is still utterly impossible to establish that what an individual claims to have experienced is not, in fact, what they have experienced.

People lie, people misjudge and misrepresent, people are biased and prejudiced, people suffer from all manner of physical and psychological ailments…but does that, explicitly and specifically explain this case, or that case, or that case. Does that even establish that the event, or recollection of it, is fraudulent? And how could it be established? To what degree? Not conclusively…and usually not even close to conclusively.

…but that is the position that everyone seems to take here. These are the CLAIMS that are being made: “ People are prone to all sorts of neurosis / psychosis….therefore that explains these phenomenon (it's not even conditional...everyone is absolutely certain).” This despite the utter and complete lack of any quantifiable direct causal link. IOW…does the fact that people lie establish that in each individual case that is what is happening? Not even close. It is speculation, pure and simple. There are valid reasons to speculate in such a direction, but that does not make it any less speculative.

Until science has the capacity to directly adjudicate subjective human experience, it cannot conclusively resolve this question. Period. Short of that capacity, subjective human experience has evidentiary precedence… because any other position is not just dysfunctional, it is both illogical and inconsistent (given that our entire epistemological foundation is built on that very basis).

 

[jt512]

I'm really not sure where anyone could have honestly justified that you said anything to the contrary of that.

That did seem odd but, then, this is the Internet.

You could equally argue that since you have no reason to believe that they are equally likely, the logical conclusion must be that one is larger than the other! I do not see the "logical necessity" of your argument here.

I justified the uniform prior in the examples I gave in that post, showing how the prior odds can actually be derived from the experimenter's conclusions after the experiment was run. In particular, if the experimenter's conclusions do not take into account any information exterior to the experiment, then we can show by Bayes' Theorem that their prior was uniform over the hypotheses. You need to think more carefully about this.

 

[The Norseman]

There isn't any. In paleontology, we make no such assumption--if we have no way to determine which hypothesis is more likely, we say "I don't know." Since there is a logical alternative (we can support this conclusion with evidence, typically by pointing to specific data gaps that prevent us from making any conclusions), it is therefore demonstrably NOT logically necessary to assume that all outcomes are equal.
It's useful to do so if you don't want to admit you don't know something, but that hardly makes the conclusion a logical necessity.

When we've been talking about BT, there is no assumption that all outcomes are equal but only that certain inputs can be, based on legitimate reasons.

 

[jt512]

So.....still no actual evidence for ESP. Continued evasions. And repetitions of "It's true because I say so" (which is what "I'm convinced the data are valid" actually means in this context).

Ignoring the brain/mind issue, there's still precisely zero reason for a scientist to take ESP seriously. And with >175 failed attempts to replicate the results, any scientist who values their intellectual integrity is obliged to reject it.

What about the 45 double-blind studies in the meta-analysis that I posted? How do you manage to hand-wave those away?

 

[jaydeehess]

If anecdotes are evidence then we also have the anecdotal evidence of advanced alien life forms. There is a large number of claimants saying they were taken into a ship of some non- terrestrial origin and subjected to experimentation at the hands of nonhuman beings.

So, in any comparison of the two subjects, alien life, and ESP, if one wishes to determine relative probabilities then the anecdotal evidence factors in the equation are a wash.
Next!

 

[Dinwar]

That is the first time anyone has presented any evidence to support their conclusions. Much obliged.

It's also vastly more than anyone on the "pro" side has provided. The BEST you have provided is a blog post.

The statement is also a lie. The evidence from the MDC has been presented, repeatedly. The fact that you dislike it is not evidence that it is wrong.

nope. I am not the only one making all sorts of claims here.

Wrong.

My claims are simply:

Thank you for proving my point. Please provide a level of research equal to what I have provided for every one of those points.

The assumption of some variety of pathology is not, as everyone here insists, axiomatic (far from it).

No one has claimed this is axiomatic. This is a lie. What has been claimed is that claims for ESP are not supported by sufficient evidence to justify their acceptance, and that ESP claims follow a very specific pattern of failure when analyzed rigorously. Both have been fully documented.

They are evidence of ‘something’. You are the ones who are CLAIMING (conclusively, definitively, or otherwise) to be able to explain what is happening (they're lying, they're on drugs, they're psychotic, etc. etc.). I am simply accepting the anecdotes at face value.

Uh....huh. So refuting a claim is a claim, but the original claim isn't. Seriously--that is the logic you are using here!!! And you have the audacity to lecture US on how to conduct scientific investigations?!

Until science has the capacity to directly adjudicate subjective human experience,

You have a nasty habit of ignoring things that disprove your point. It makes trying to communicate with you an exercise in futility.

 

[Dinwar]

When we've been talking about BT, there is no assumption that all outcomes are equal but only that certain inputs can be, based on legitimate reasons.

I've been questioning the viability of using BT in this case, and raising specific issues. Those issues have only been addressed by one poster thus far.

 

[Nonpareil]

What about the 45 double-blind studies in the meta-analysis that I posted? How do you manage to hand-wave those away?

Assuming that you are talking about the ganzfeld meta-analyses, we've been over this. The numbers show something odd, but there are reasons to believe that the numbers are invalid.

As for annnnoid's post, we've also already been over how we can establish that love exists, why anecdotes are not evidence, the fact that our inability to read minds is not an obstacle for proving that supernatural occurrences are not in fact occurring, the concept of reasonable doubt and his own double standards for evidence, and the fact that there are no studies that have turned up evidence of psychic phenomena - because even the few and far between that don't turn up diddly are inconclusive at best.

There's no point in repeating it any more. A big pile of nothing is all he's got, but he'll run around in circles moving goalposts, pretending anecdotes are evidence, and demanding that we satisfy his unreasonable standards indefinitely. He doesn't understand or care about the burden of proof, so there's really nothing else to say.

 

[jt512]

Assuming that you are talking about the ganzfeld meta-analyses, we've been over this. The numbers show something odd, but there are reasons to believe that the numbers are invalid.

"Reasons to believe that the numbers are invalid"? In other words you have a vague recollection that somebody once criticized the studies, and that's a good enough reason to dismiss the evidence.

 

[Dinwar]

Assuming that you are talking about the ganzfeld meta-analyses, we've been over this. The numbers show something odd, but there are reasons to believe that the numbers are invalid.

That was my stance: Others have addressed it, I don't need to. It's not incumbant upon me to disprove every claim made in this thread; the fact that the claim has been shown to be flawed is sufficient.

Oh, and one of my links addresses those experiments. So no hand-waving, just more ignoring of the data on the opposition's side.

 

[Daylightstar]

...where has 'love' been demonstrated to actually exist?
...

So,now you change the list of 175 failed paranormal claims into "love"?
Or do you find it impossible to show/demonstrate any love for a significant other?

 

[abaddon]

...where has 'love' been demonstrated to actually exist?

Shakespeare. And he wasn't the first to do it.

That is the first time anyone has presented any evidence to support their conclusions. Much obliged.

Yet you still steadfastly refuse to produce any at all.

…nope. I am not the only one making all sorts of claims here. Lots (of claims) have been made about what it is that explains these experiences, about how it is possible to establish whether they do…or do not occur. You are the first one who has presented anything at all to substantiate their claims.

Whereby you tacitly admit you have presented no evidence at all.

My claims are simply:
…That these experiences are very very widely reported and that anecdotal evidence is a valid form of evidence (with conditions)

Specify the conditions.

…That science has absolutely no ability to directly and definitively adjudicate subjective experience to establish what is, or is not, actually occurring and thus conclusively resolve the matter.

Yes it can.

…that until some way to conclusively resolve the issue is established, the possibility that these experiences are authentic has to be allowed (because subjective experience is our primary ontology)

No it doesn't.

…Lacking the above capacity, all science can do is adjudicate external symptoms. Circumstantial evidence it is called.

Wrong.

It is not irrelevant…but in no way shape or form can it be said to be conclusive.

Yet here you are offering conclusion. What may we conclude from that?

I have no doubt…no doubt what-so-ever…that if I were to contact the authors of each of those studies that you supplied, they would all have to admit that whatever their conclusions about human behavior those conclusions do not, and cannot, establish that what an individual says they experience is not, in fact, what they experienced.

Why is it that you have not contacted them?

I personally know practicing and teaching psychologists / psychiatrists who, when encountering an individual who experiences such phenomenon, simply allow that the individual does actually experience exactly what they say they are experiencing. The assumption of some variety of pathology is not, as everyone here insists, axiomatic (far from it). Each case is considered individually and ‘unknown’ is still a credible answer to many issues.

That is standard practice. If I went to a therapist and claimed that the voices in my head stated that I should go forth and assassinate all mermaids I could find, I pretty sure the therapist would say "Yes, I understand"

I also claim that the studies that have been done present a conditional confirmation of the ESP position. There is not much point in arguing that. I can present opinions that support the findings…and opinions that challenge the findings. It is inconclusive (again, despite what everyone here insists). It is a very complex subject and, like many issues in science it is simply unresolved.

But you have explicitly declined to present any evidence at all. For some reason, your claim morphed from "I can provide evidence" to "I will not provide any evidence at all". This is an unconvincing position, at best.

You constantly insist the burden of proof is upon me. It is not (except if I am going to insist that the studies are conclusive...and I've never suggested they are).

The burden of proof sits squarely on your shoulders. You are making the claim. Pretending that it is not yours is disingenuous.

I am merely stating the facts. According to available statistics, reports of these experiences number in the hundreds of millions.

No. You are inventing "facts" which suit you.

They are evidence of ‘something’.

The only thing they are evidence of is gullible crap and the willingness of the LCD to buy it.

You are the ones who are CLAIMING (conclusively, definitively, or otherwise) to be able to explain what is happening (they're lying, they're on drugs, they're psychotic, etc. etc.). I am simply accepting the anecdotes at face value.

Then that is plain wrong.

People’s first instincts are always to trust their conclusions (to do otherwise would be blatantly dysfunctional). Insisting that some pathology of ‘human nature’ accounts for all these conclusions is nothing more than speculation, however robust the clinical documentation (and psychology is far too circumstantial a science to have anything remotely resembling sufficient explanatory power in this matter). Neither you, nor any scientist alive, can establish a direct measurable link between such an event and some manner of neurosis or psychosis. It just can’t happen. And even in cases where there is a blatant psychosis, it is still utterly impossible to establish that what an individual claims to have experienced is not, in fact, what they have experienced.

You post this, and then

People lie, people misjudge and misrepresent, people are biased and prejudiced, people suffer from all manner of physical and psychological ailments…but does that, explicitly and specifically explain this case, or that case, or that case. Does that even establish that the event, or recollection of it, is fraudulent? And how could it be established? To what degree? Not conclusively…and usually not even close to conclusively.

And then

…but that is the position that everyone seems to take here. These are the CLAIMS that are being made: “ People are prone to all sorts of neurosis / psychosis….therefore that explains these phenomenon (it's not even conditional...everyone is absolutely certain).” This despite the utter and complete lack of any quantifiable direct causal link. IOW…does the fact that people lie establish that in each individual case that is what is happening? Not even close. It is speculation, pure and simple. There are valid reasons to speculate in such a direction, but that does not make it any less speculative.

Until science has the capacity to directly adjudicate subjective human experience, it cannot conclusively resolve this question. Period. Short of that capacity, subjective human experience has evidentiary precedence… because any other position is not just dysfunctional, it is both illogical and inconsistent (given that our entire epistemological foundation is built on that very basis).[/QUOTE]
Regardless of whether or not of whether you realise it or not, this is a big piling steam of fecal matter.

Should you post that bovine excrement again, I will report your spammage, and you may take the consequenses.

 

[Daylightstar]

What about the 45 double-blind studies in the meta-analysis that I posted? How do you manage to hand-wave those away?

Could you specify which 45 double-blind studies you refer to.

 

[Nonpareil]

"Reasons to believe that the numbers are invalid"? In other words you have a vague recollection that somebody once criticized the studies, and that's a good enough reason to dismiss the evidence.

No. Many people are on record as criticizing the methodology as flawed. Pixel42 posted a link above going over many of the most common complaints. And even allowing that the numbers are not flawed, again, the ganzfeld experiments contained no mechanism to actually establish that psychic phenomena were the cause of their results as opposed to literally anything else.

Read the thread before accusing others of brushing evidence aside.

 

[jaydeehess]

Could you specify which 45 double-blind studies you refer to.

Not the ones showing a decline in ganzfeld effect.

 

[Daylightstar]

Not the ones showing a decline in ganzfeld effect.

Those are the meta analyses ..... studies

 

[jt512]

That was my stance: Others have addressed it, I don't need to. It's not incumbant upon me to disprove every claim made in this thread; the fact that the claim has been shown to be flawed is sufficient.

Oh, and one of my links addresses those experiments. So no hand-waving, just more ignoring of the data on the opposition's side.

Ah, the Milton and Wiseman meta-analysis, in which they computed the average effect size using a statistically inefficient estimator, and hence failed to find a significant effect. Although I think her method is also flawed, Utts shows that if the data are combined in a more efficient manner, that there is a significant effect (for what that's worth).

Dinwar, you appear to have believes a criticism that you don't understand on the basis that it confirmed your belief.

 

[jt512]

No. Many people are on record as criticizing the methodology as flawed. Pixel42 posted a link above going over many of the most common complaints. And even allowing that the numbers are not flawed, again, the ganzfeld experiments contained no mechanism to actually establish that psychic phenomena were the cause of their results as opposed to literally anything else.

I agree that ESP has not been established. What I disagree with is the common belief among skeptics that there is no evidence for it. Why is it so hard to admit that there is evidence, but that the evidence isn't compelling?

 

[jaydeehess]

Those are the meta analyses ..... studies

And then there is this http://www.csicop.org/si/show/evidence_for_psychic_functioning_claims_vs._reality/ concerning Utts

 

[Dinwar]

Dinwar, you appear to have believes a criticism that you don't understand on the basis that it confirmed your belief.

The fact that you believe something is flawed in no way demonstrates my lack of understanding.

Yet more poor logic, yet more unscientific arguments. That is all that has been presented in the pro-ESP side.

Why is it so hard to admit that there is evidence, but that the evidence isn't compelling?

Well, the fact that the amount of evidence is inversely proportional to the rigor of the study is one reason....