Telepathy Debate in London

[Interesting Ian]

As a whole, unfortunately, it suggests gullibility, fraud, ignorance of anything approaching a scientific perspective, amaturishness, playing for the gallery, ignorance of statistics, ignorance of the seamier side of human nature, overall naivite, wishful thinking.

That is, taken as a whole, as you have suggested.

Your comments display either a crass ignorance or a deliberate denial of the truth.

Some of these things are true to a limited extent, and some are not. People will try to cheat with some people being very good at it. Positive results will be obtained by those researchers sympathetic to this phenomena and contrariwise for those hostile (as in every other area of science). But being scientificallly incompentent is not generally a charge which has particular substance, and neither is ignorance of statistics. Or at least (especially going by their suggestions) skeptics ignorance of statistics is certainly no less than parapsychologists, and possibly more.

As I say, taken as a whole, the evidence is solid. So if you reject it you need to provide good reasons why you do so.

 

[Ed]

Your comments display either a crass ignorance or a deliberate denial of the truth.

Some of these things are true to a limited extent, and some are not. People will try to cheat with some people being very good at it. Positive results will be obtained by those researchers sympathetic to this phenomena and contrariwise for those hostile (as in every other area of science). But being scientificallly incompentent is not generally a charge which has particular substance,


cf. Schwartz. Lack of a light amplification instrument makes Scole laughable. How about "inept"? Targ.

and neither is ignorance of statistics.

Targ. Any study that fishes through many results to get "significance" without an adjustment.

Or at least (especially going by their suggestions) skeptics ignorance of statistics is certainly no less than parapsychologists, and possibly more.

As I say, taken as a whole, the evidence is solid. So if you reject it you need to provide good reasons why you do so.

There is nothing that can be demonstrated, period. There is no benchmark effect. An embaressment, actually.

 

[BillHoyt]

Your comments display ... a deliberate denial of the truth.

Look who's talking!

 

[Ed]

Positive results will be obtained by those researchers sympathetic to this phenomena and contrariwise for those hostile (as in every other area of science).

Unmitigated nonsense. Controls are put into place to avoid precisely this problem ... in real science that is.

The fact that you even bring it up illustrates the basic problem: To get results you need sympathy, to get sympathy you need a lousey experiment.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian
Your comments display either a crass ignorance or a deliberate denial of the truth.

Some of these things are true to a limited extent, and some are not. People will try to cheat with some people being very good at it. Positive results will be obtained by those researchers sympathetic to this phenomena and contrariwise for those hostile (as in every other area of science). But being scientificallly incompentent is not generally a charge which has particular substance,

Ed
cf. Schwartz. Lack of a light amplification instrument makes Scole laughable. How about "inept"? Targ.

These are scientists rather than parapsychologists. I do not know if Schwartz and Targ are incompetent. They might well be, they might well not be. But it's not really important about isolated examples of incompetence performed by people who are not even trained in parapsychology. Let's not be silly.

There is nothing that can be demonstrated, period. There is no benchmark effect. An embaressment, actually.

"Benchmark effect"? What's that supposed to mean. There is solid evidence for this phenomena. Why don't you try and address that fact?

BTW, what do you mean by lack of light amplification at scole?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Unmitigated nonsense. Controls are put into place to avoid precisely this problem ... in real science that is.

LOL and they don't work. Doesn't look like science is as objective as some people think it is

 

[Interesting Ian]

Look who's talking!

Do you concede I did not make a gaffe? Answer the question.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Now please decease being a complete pr*ck.

You, of all people telling someone else to stop being a pr!ck. that's funny, perhaps the funniest thing I have read in a long time. You have inspired me though, I think I am going to find someone and tell them to lose some weight.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why do they need to hold a conference on telepathy in London? If telepathy was real, they could just all stay at home.

Right?

 

[CFLarsen]

As I say, taken as a whole, the evidence is solid. So if you reject it you need to provide good reasons why you do so.

I need to see it before I can reject - or, of course, accept it.

Can I see it, yes or no?

 

[BillHoyt]

Do you concede I did not make a gaffe? Answer the question.

On deeper analysis, yes, I do. You did not gaffe.







































































You also did not read the sources. You lied about it. You posted a passage without understanding it. You then were absolutely surprised to hear from me the information you had cut & pasted with neither reading nor understanding. You then lied about that.

But, it cannot properly be called a gaffe.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Why do they need to hold a conference on telepathy in London? If telepathy was real, they could just all stay at home.

Right?

You make some assumptions when you say that "they could all just stay at home" instead of holding the conference (and then hint that since they didn't stay at home, telepathy is not real). You assume:

1. one, let alone 200+ people, can do telepathy at will or effortlessly for 2hrs straight (the length of the conference), all together

2. all people attending the conference are telepathic. Considering this was a debate between supporters and skeptics, your assumption is unfounded

3. you only attend a telepathy conference to talk about telepathy. Unfortunately for your assumption, people go to conferences to also meet people, eat food and drink drinks, sign books, buy merchandise, go to a bar afterwards, etc.

4. they didn't want media attention. Every group wants to spread their word. I'd bet if they all stayed at home no articles would have been written. It was good press for the supporters, the skeptics, and the RSA of London (who were the ones who staged the event!)

5. they didn't want audience interaction. If they all stayed at home, presenting a pro vs con debate about telepathy to an audience and then polling the audience would be more than problematic.

Their main purpose, I take it, was to educate people (free tickets helped) about a controversial subject and not discount or ignore general belief in telepathy and also the evidence and the studies that have and are being done in that area, and present a skeptical viewpoint. From what I've read, it was a fair and balanced presentation, with audience interaction.

It appears the audience was more persuaded by the pro-telepathy evidence. By far.

Better make lists for all of those people.

 

[CFLarsen]

You make some assumptions when you say that "they could all just stay at home" instead of holding the conference (and then hint that since they didn't stay at home, telepathy is not real). You assume:

I assumed that people would see the joke. Apparently, I was wrong.

1. one, let alone 200+ people, can do telepathy at will or effortlessly for 2hrs straight (the length of the conference), all together

Well, why not? Doesn't Sheldrake claim that dogs can know when their owners leave for home? Doesn't he also claim that even a parrot can be in telepathic contact with its owner for a long time?

2. all people attending the conference are telepathic. Considering this was a debate between supporters and skeptics, your assumption is unfounded

Do we know that not all people are telepathic? Who are, who are not?

3. you only attend a telepathy conference to talk about telepathy. Unfortunately for your assumption, people go to conferences to also meet people, eat food and drink drinks, sign books, buy merchandise, go to a bar afterwards, etc.

But if telepathy existed, they could simply have at least a few "attend" telepathically, and have them recount what was going on at the conference. A very simple test, yet this was not tried. Guess I know why.

4. they didn't want media attention. Every group wants to spread their word. I'd bet if they all stayed at home no articles would have been written. It was good press for the supporters, the skeptics, and the RSA of London (who were the ones who staged the event!)

If telepathy existed, and was shown this way, you can rest assured that every news media in the world would clear their front pages. As we know, they did not.

5. they didn't want audience interaction. If they all stayed at home, presenting a pro vs con debate about telepathy to an audience and then polling the audience would be more than problematic.

But scientific evidence is not decided by polling or voting.

Their main purpose, I take it, was to educate people (free tickets helped) about a controversial subject and not discount or ignore general belief in telepathy and also the evidence and the studies that have and are being done in that area, and present a skeptical viewpoint. From what I've read, it was a fair and balanced presentation, with audience interaction.

All very fine. Where is that evidence, then?

It appears the audience was more persuaded by the pro-telepathy evidence. By far.

Again, science is not done by popularity.

Better make lists for all of those people.

Better find some evidence of telepathy. So far, none exist.

 

[Ed]

LOL and they don't work. Doesn't look like science is as objective as some people think it is

OK, Ian. You are right, scientific control does not work.

 

[Interesting Ian]

On deeper analysis, yes, I do. You did not gaffe.







































































You also did not read the sources. You lied about it. You posted a passage without understanding it.

Perfectly wrong on all counts. Indeed, on the contrary, it is quite evident that you fail to understand the source.

 

[shemp]

If there is solid scientific evidence,

It's up to you and other claimants of telepathy to provide such evidence. I've never seen any. Randi has never seen any. Provide the evidence.

and if people throughout human history and across all cultures have believed that they have experienced telepathy,

Anecdotes = evidence? Maybe on Planet Ian, but not on Earth.

then it is incumbent upon those that deny the reality of this alleged phenomenon to argue their case. Not just simply sit back in thier chairs and make ill-informed crass comments.

There is no need to argue against a case that has not been made. All we need is evidence. If Sheldrake et. al. would stop spewing bilge and present firm, proven evidence, then there would be no argument from me or any others. But none has been presented, and none exists.

 

[Garrette]

All quotations from Interesting Ian:

I've never come across any claims being tested which come under the purview of parapsychology. Please name some.

Don’t shift it, Ian. Your original claim was this:

Randi is not primarily interested in testing for parapsychological phenomena

Randi will test anything paranormal. If someone presents a distinct claim, he’ll test it. If they don’t present it, it is not on him to go find them, nor is it on me to do your research.

Yeah, and apparently he's always got an out. But let's forget about that shall we.

Forget about it? I support it! It’s the best out of all: If they can’t do what they claim, they lose.

I repeat, there is no solid evidence to substantiate any claims that paranormal phenomena can be switched on and off at will.

You may or may not like that, but I suggest you deal with it.

Your apparent definition of solid evidence is both loose and inconsistent. According to your standards on this Forum, there is as much solid evidence for Sylvia Browne, John Edward, the huckster medium who occasionally shows up at the Louisville Public Library, and the palm reader down the street as there are for your amorphous and ill-defined body of true paranormalists/parapsychologists or what have you.

You consider and dismiss evidence as it pleases you, with arbitrary abandon and without an ounce of concern for integrity. The only mystery to me is if you are aware of it.

I have absolutely zero interest in people who claim they can reproduce paranormal phenomena at will. As far as I'm concerned they're as big a pr*cks as skeptics.

Why? What evidence do you have to suggest that they are wrong or lying? Their evidence is as solid as any you have presented for any other phenomena.

Or shall we simply replace Occam’s Razor with Ian’s Whim?

I have absolutely zero interest in what simple minded fools or charlatans can claim they can perform.

Then it’s a good thing you don’t run the JREF Challenge. Since it is not the Interesting Ian Challenge, please be so kind as to let it operate under its own rules which, to any detached observer, are far more coherent, consistent, and fair than anything you have presented.

If you want to test something in which you have more than a zero interest, please create your own challenge. At the very least, stop lying about what the JREF Challenge is.

 

[Zep]

If there is solid scientific evidence, and if people throughout human history and across all cultures have believed that they have experienced telepathy, then it is incumbent upon those that deny the reality of this alleged phenomenon to argue their case. Not just simply sit back in thier chairs and make ill-informed crass comments.

Ian, here's an analogue by way of a mind experiment.

Please prove that I cannot play the violin. Show your working.

 

[Lothian]

It is fantastic that the public that decided that telepathy exists. All that remains is for the public to find a single person out of the millions in the world who can demonstrate it. Shouldn’t be too hard.

 

[pillory]

I know it exists.It has been as unpleasant as you would imagine.
but it is possible......