Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

jt512 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because no evidence has been shown. At best, what you have is a null result, such as the ganzfeld experiments. More commonly you have outright failure.

Admitting that there is evidence is easy. We just don't do it because we have yet to see evidence.

Anecdotes and inconclusive/demonstrably flawed studies are not evidence.
 
jt512 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Evidence for the belief in ESP, and the interpretation of certain experiences as being ESP, sure. But not so much for ESP itself.
 
jt512 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I find the evidence for Bigfoot, alien visitations, demonic possessions, homeopathy, chiropractic, palmreading, and the resurrection of Jesus equally compelling.
 
Nonpareil said:
Because no evidence has been shown. At best, what you have is a null result, such as the ganzfeld experiments. More commonly you have outright failure.
Click to expand...


But the ganzfeld meta-analysis I posted links to didn't have a null result, It found an effect that was both highly statistically significant and strong evidence by Bayesian standards. How can you possibly say that the ganzfeld results are at best null. That's flat-out wrong.
 
Dinwar said:
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.
Click to expand...


They’re hardly credible studies of anything other than that the respondents were incompetent fools. That all of them failed to convince anyone of anything can hardly be a surprise. AFAIC…anyone who attempts such an idiotic challenge is a fraud by definition.

Dinwar said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...


…wrong…what? That others are not making claims, or that I am not. I obviously never denied I was making claims (I made a bunch in that very post), and in your own post you’ve made a bunch. So I don’t know what this is referring to.

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


Don’t know what point you’re referring to?

Dinwar said:
No one has claimed this is axiomatic. This is a lie.
Click to expand...


Nonpareil said:
And there's your answer.
There is a very simple scientific explanation for it.

People make mistakes, lie, or are confused on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Pixel42 said:
Fallible perceptions, fallible memories and cognitive biases are perfectly adequate explanations.
Click to expand...



Dinwar said:
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.
Click to expand...


I never said anyone in particular had to accept the claims at face value. What I’ve said is that, given the enormous statistical incidence of these claims, the indisputable fact that science has absolutely no ability to directly adjudicate subjective experience in order to definitively evaluate their veracity, the very conditional nature of the psychological explanations available, and the indisputable fact that…at the end of the day, human subjective experience takes evidentiary precedence…

…given all of that…in relation to the OP (which is what this whole thing is about) there does exist a measurable ESP probability.

Dinwar said:
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?!
Click to expand...


As you can see from the quotes I’ve included from Nonpareil and Pixel42…there have been claims made that there are explanations for these anecdotes. Presumably, since they’re not prepared to accept that any variety ESP even exists, they will insist that their explanations of some variety of pathology are, in fact, axiomatic (they cover every possible instance in one way or another).

The only claim I ever made was that…if someone says ‘this happened’… then there are more than a few reasons to allow that ‘this’, in fact, did happen. I have listed them above. If you have some reason to dispute any of them, feel free to do so.

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


The papers you submitted do not, and cannot disprove my point. If you wish, I will email their authors and they will confirm this fact. My point is that all the conclusions in all those papers combined cannot establish that what somebody says they have experienced is NOT what they have experienced.

Daylightstar said:
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?
Click to expand...


I see. So in the case of ‘love’, anecdotal evidence is entirely adequate to definitively establish its existence. But in the case of ESP….it isn’t.

…but that’s perfectly ok. I don’t want you to feel like you don’t really know what you’re talking about.


abaddon said:
Should you post that bovine excrement again, I will report your spammage, and you may take the consequenses.
Click to expand...


…be my guest.
 
annnnoid said:
...
Daylightstar said:
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?
Click to expand...

I see. So in the case of ‘love’, anecdotal evidence is entirely adequate to definitively establish its existence. But in the case of ESP….it isn’t.

…but that’s perfectly ok. I don’t want you to feel like you don’t really know what you’re talking about.
...
Click to expand...

So, if in your case "love" is restricted to anecdotal .... I'm sorry to hear about that.

Anyways,
Daylightstar said:
But not demonstrated to actually exist.
Click to expand...
referred to claims for paranormal events, not to something you change it into later.
 
annnnoid said:
...where has 'love' been demonstrated to actually exist?




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




…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).
Click to expand...

If ESP is a real human phenomenon why don't I have it?
 
jt512 said:
But the ganzfeld meta-analysis I posted links to didn't have a null result, It found an effect that was both highly statistically significant and strong evidence by Bayesian standards. How can you possibly say that the ganzfeld results are at best null. That's flat-out wrong.
Click to expand...

We literally just went over this. The ganzfeld meta-analysis went over the numbers and determined that they pointed to something (perhaps psi, perhaps not) happening.

But the meta-analysis is irrelevant. It assumes that the numbers are correct. There is reason to believe they are not.
 
Daylightstar said:
So, if in your case "love" is restricted to anecdotal .... I'm sorry to hear about that.

Anyways,

referred to claims for paranormal events, not to something you change it into later.
Click to expand...


...so where, precisely (besides anecdotally)...has love been demonstrated to actually exist?
 
annnnoid said:
...so where, precisely (besides anecdotally)...has love been demonstrated to actually exist?
Click to expand...

We've been over this.

We can show that emotions exist.

We know that an emotion or collection of emotions with the same broad parameters, reffered to as "love", exists.

This is not hard.
 
Nonpareil said:
We literally just went over this. The ganzfeld meta-analysis went over the numbers and determined that they pointed to something (perhaps psi, perhaps not) happening.

But the meta-analysis is irrelevant. It assumes that the numbers are correct. There is reason to believe they are not.
Click to expand...


Saying that the meta-analysis is irrelevant is simply ignoring evidence. Of course the meta-analysis is relevant to the ESP hypothesis. It's data from ESP studies, studies that were at least as high in quality as typical studies in experimental psychology (not that that exactly sets the bar high). I don't believe the results myself, but I admit they're relevant.
 
Nonpareil said:
We've been over this.

We can show that emotions exist.

We know that an emotion or collection of emotions with the same broad parameters, reffered to as "love", exists.

This is not hard.
Click to expand...


Please establish how we know an emotion called 'love' exists...without using anecdotes.
 
Nonpareil said:
We've been over this.

We can show that emotions exist.

We know that an emotion or collection of emotions with the same broad parameters, reffered to as "love", exists.

This is not hard.
Click to expand...

Many ESP claims are very testable. I can predict x will happen. I can see x remotely. All without resorting to mundane means, which a good experiment must eliminate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom