|
|
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
panlives Inner circle 2087 Posts |
"The 73-year-old Bem has defied the norm throughout his intellectual life, burning every dogma he’s encountered in the pyre of his logic. Now, in the twilight of his career, he has committed what may be his most daring act of sacrilege: claiming the existence of precognition, the ability to sense future events. Maybe this time, his colleagues say, Daryl Bem has gone too far.
Even in the context of a career of irreverence, there was little to suggest that Bem would end up defending the possibility of extrasensory perception, or ESP, which most mainstream scientists consider unworthy of serious inquiry. Through most of his career, he was as dubious about telepathy (mind reading) or precognition (seeing the future) as any of his colleagues." http://discovermagazine.com/2012/mar/09-......sion-esp
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Daryl Bem, a long time member of the PEA and a colleague, has produced very persuasive evidence in his latest research.
Even the late Marcello Truzzi, original editor of the CSICOP journal, conceded that by normal standards of scientific proof the case for remote viewing had been made. I don't expect pseudo skeptics to be persuaded, but then again, most of them aren't the least bit familiar with the actual research in the field. Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
Steve_Mollett Inner circle Eh, so I've made 3006 Posts |
We continue to evolve.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth. - Albert Camus |
|||||||||
Jeff J. Special user Connecticut 787 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 15:50, mastermindreader wrote: Remot viewing was a government funded fad in the 60's on up, but it was proven to be not valid, and all funding was cut off. |
|||||||||
Randwill Inner circle 1914 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 15:50, mastermindreader wrote: Speaking of actual research in the field, it should be noted that the article concludes that Bem's experiments have not been successfully replicated by his peers who have attempted to do so. Not that this will dissuade the gullible. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Randwill-
Like I said, pseudo skeptics who are not familiar with the research will refuse to recognize anything that may contradict their preconceive notions. Even Dr.Susan Blackmore, former parapsychologist and reknowned skeptic (of the legitimate kind), has pointed out this serious problem among pseudo skeptics and their organizations. Since you seem to include Marcello Truzzi among the "gullible" I seriously question your open mindedness on this issue. Finally, you have misstated the reasons behind the defunding of RV research by the government. It was NOT defunded because RV was found to be invalid, but because the results were not deemed reliable enough to use practically for military purposes. |
|||||||||
Randwill Inner circle 1914 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 16:30, mastermindreader wrote: I don't know about "pseudo skeptics" but critical thinkers and scientists will ask for the experiments of one researcher to be duplicated by peer researchers before they take them seriously. This is, humorously (to me), sometimes referred to as "moving the goal posts" by the gullible. Quote:
Since you seem to include Marcello Truzzi among the "gullible" I seriously question your open mindedness on this issue. I do not include Marcello Truzzi among the gullible. And you know the quote about open mindedness as well as I do. Quote:
Finally, you have misstated the reasons behind the defunding of RV research by the government. It was NOT defunded because RV was found to be invalid, but because the results were not deemed reliable enough to use practically for military purposes. That wasn't me. The article was interesting but there wasn't anything there to persuade me. And certainly anybody who reads it an concludes that it proves that ESP exists is about as gullible as they come. |
|||||||||
panlives Inner circle 2087 Posts |
The definition of "proof" comes into play.
Add to this the ongoing research of Rupert Sheldrake.
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." "The dog did nothing in the night-time." "That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes. |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quixote - same guy who was so deluded he pretended a (woman of ill repute) was a princess and went to fight giants by attacking windmills? Yes, that's about the right comparison IMHO.
Here's the paper: http://www.dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf IMHO he loses credibility with his first sentence: "The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are currently unexplained...". To date there are no published or reported experimental designs which when performed demonstrate any such phenomena beyond the confidence limits set forth as part of the design as due to chance or effects of "anything but" what is being measured, evidence for the null hypothesis rather than anything in particular. Start with reality and what you can measure. If you have a verifiable result that can be parametrized - maybe you have a phenomenon to name. Maybe. Or you might just have n-rays.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Randwill- I apologize for attributing Jeff's comment about remote viewing research to you. In any event, he was incorrect in his characterization of why the research was terminated.
I'm glad that you agree with Marcello on the importance of maintaining an open mind. And I agree with you that anyone who thinks that the encouraging results obtained by Bem constitute definitive proof of psi is either greatly overstating the case or is, in fact, gullible. The results, however, do indicated the need for further research to determine what appears to be either evidence of psi or some unexplained anomaly. My beef is with those who have made it clear that NO PROOF will ever be sufficient to establish psi, because they have decided, a priori, that psi cannot possibly exist. That is the definition of pseudo-skepticism and the attitude permeates most pseudo-skeptic forums in which studies are routinely ridiculed by those who haven't even bothered to read them. Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 17:57, mastermindreader wrote:...My beef is with those who have made it clear that NO PROOF will ever be sufficient to establish psi, because they have decided, a priori, that psi cannot possibly exist. ... My beef is with anyone who proffers such a fable as the only possible myth to account for such experiences as they may have and go around discussing the possible phenomena as if such were as established (both verifiable and predictable in effect) as gravity. Experimental design is about contriving circumstances where the hypothesis being tested is not just one possible way a thing could occur but the only way it could occur, that not just "something" but nothing but the model and its prediction are what is being verified. Maybe one of the gods is doing it? Maybe it's due to magnetism? Let's find out. Much more to find out.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Jeff J. Special user Connecticut 787 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 17:57, mastermindreader wrote: Your comment on people who claim that "no proof" will ever be sufficient isn't correct. There may be a few people out there who feel that way, but most of us are more than willing to be persuaded by facts and evidence, rather than conjecture. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 18:14, Jonathan Townsend wrote: Could be! But I'm glad to see that, unlike pseudo skeptics, you agree that there is "much more to find out." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
How did the recall go? Not as well as hoped (it was, after all, nearly impossible to overcome the effects of the vast amount of corporate money that poured in from out of state to support Walker), but the Democrats at least have now retaken control of the Wisconsin Senate.
And on another front - once Citizens United is overturned via the current Montana case before the court, or by a constitutional amendment, perhaps we can cut back considerably on the growing corporate control of government. |
|||||||||
Jeff J. Special user Connecticut 787 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 18:33, mastermindreader wrote: I'm confused. You seem to have Democratic views on the the state senate, but I'm not sure if you your view on government is Republican in nature (reduce government), or if it's one specific thing you have a beef with. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Actually, I had a synapse lapse there and posted my previous message in the wrong thread. That was intended to be in the Scott Walker thread. I'm getting old, cut me a break.
But to answer your question anyway - as most of the folks here already know, I'm a democratic progressive across the board. (But I still like most of the guys on the other side - they're just misguided. ) |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 16:14, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote: Are you quite sure you don't mean it was "not proven" to be valid?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 18:29, Jeff the Unamazing Hack wrote: Of course the comment is correct, because that is the very definition of "pseudo skeptics" which was who I was referring to. If you don't feel that way and are actually willing to maintain and open mind and a willingness to be persuaded by facts and evidence, you would simply be a legitimate skeptic, with whom I have no quarrel. Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
Jeff J. Special user Connecticut 787 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 19:13, mastermindreader wrote: My apologies. You are correct. I missed the part about "pseudo skeptics". I should have read your post more carefully. |
|||||||||
Randwill Inner circle 1914 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-06-09 19:09, mastermindreader wrote: See there. Even though we are often at cross purposes here, I knew there was something I liked about you. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » One Influential Scientist's Quixotic Mission to Prove ESP Exists (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |