Latent Psychic Ability in the Religious, and Athiest

Being educated in formal psychology, I unfortunately learned that by in large psychologists are some of the worst at providing accountable experimentation. So those stories are meaningless to me. Although the Psy dept loved having an engineer in their midst to help with the effort to become more scientific, the differences in real science experimentation and the average PhD psychology mindset was much too great. I got more tests thrown out and theories dismissed in my short tenure than they had approved during the prior ten years. The Army has a much better and advanced program (thanks to your tax dollars). But of course, the Army only has one use for psychology - to get more of your dollars.

I got into a conversation somewhat like this on KT, and I’ll say the same thing I said there. There is nothing “supernatural” or “creepy” about psychic ability. It’s nothing more than energy manipulation.

I also used these examples on KT – when I lived in Wisconsin, there would be times when I was driving down a dark road in the middle of the night, going up a hill or coming around a corner, and suddenly I’d know without question that I needed to slow down. The certainty was such that my reaction was automatic – step on that break peddle, and I’d get around that corner or come over the top of the hill, and there’d be a deer standing in the middle of the road. This happened to me several times.

Sometimes when my phone rings, especially if it’s a member of my family, I know who it is before I even look at the phone. My mother does the same thing, and the end result is – ringringringring…“Heeeey, I knew it was you!” I don’t talk to anyone in my family regularly enough to be expecting them to call me at any given time. I suppose you might call it “psychic”, but just the word implies something supernatural about it. I’m nearly certain, having seen some experiments myself, that these things may not yet be able to be scientifically explained, but they can absolutely be measured, and there is nothing all that extraordinary at work.

Blurred: I suppose you might call it “psychic”, but just the word implies something supernatural about it.

The word doesn’t imply supernatural, though. I mean…no one een said that. It’s just the word you use to describe those things. You’re sensing beyond the traditional 5. It’s ESP. Psychic.

(I’m on a phone so I cannot do quotes.)

Gobbo, I understand what you’re saying, I do, but in a conversation the word “psychic” generally brings to mind all kinds of creepy supernatural b.s. I know that’s not the definition, I’m talking about the way the word is commonly percieved.

Maybe if the people are children, or the elderly. Regardless, in a thread where I am obviously trying to change the way people use the word, what is the reason you are bringing up this point? It’s like being with gay people and saying ‘you know, for some people gay men are called faggots.’

Why even say anything?

lol

[tab][/tab]

inb4it’saconspiracy

Even the word “supernatural” doesn’t connote supernatural, but rather magical.
“Psychic” merely means “purely mental”.
“Extra-Sensory-Perception” merely refers to the psychic ability to “sense” via mental clarity more than simple sensing would reveal. Using instruments does that same thing via physical enhancements. But as usual, the more one art gets practiced, the more the other art atrophies.

Sherlock Holmes is the psychic revealed. “Idiot savants” are another example of extra perception supplied by the mind.
Materialists are the atrophied effects revealed - from too much instrumentation being used in an effort to explain all things.

You can’t leave the mind out of the game if you want to make real progress.
And you can’t presume that materialists can experimentally measure mental capability.
In any case, you can’t let the inmates run the Asylum.

All you did was read half of the article and omit the second half which refutes the part you quoted. Obviously I linked this for a reason. It’s to show the progression of acceptance towards the hypothesis. He does the experiment again to their specifications and demonstrates the correlation again.

Maybe you wanted to find a conclusion, scanned until you found it, and then felt that was enough. Maybe that is what happened. I don’t know.

Wow, you really have a problem with the idea that not everyone fits into the pretty little boxes you paint for them, don’t you? The fact that you would say something like “Only children and old people believe psychic powers are supernatural” shows that you’re pretty far out of touch with the average person and probably shouldn’t be speaking for them. That most people are idiots and you assume yourself to be above them reinforces this even more, you should know better.

Anyway, I wasn’t the one who started talking about how atheists who are able to tap into their psychic abilities often align themselves with some higher power. Hellooooooo, supernatural content anyone?

LOL

lol. You guys cannot even read to the end of an article before letting your emotion get the better of you. You’re accusing me of what you are far more guilty of: wanting to see a particular conclusion.

No one has presented a counterargument that makes sense if you simply read the article I presented in its entirety. I doubt anyone will, unless they have their own studies they conducted. So, I think it’s time to move onto the next of many studies I have to share.

You’re right, I didn’t read the web article, I read the published articles of the experimenters.

The whole opensourcescience page is published articles of experimenters.

I think that’s kind of the point with that website…? So I’m not sure what your point is. Explain to us why you don’t need to read the other published experiments please.

Umm, the page you linked was a synopsis, and for all I know it was written by you.

I read the articles it referenced.

You clearly didn’t read all of them.

Anyways you’re right. The page on opensourcescience.com could have been written by me. That’s smart to be wary of that possibility.

Actually I did, not my fault that you didn’t. If you had you would have seen that the last article with Jaytee was the most uncontrolled out of the lot. The scientists were not even present, the environment was wide open, and the owner and her parents did everything.

Seeing as how wiseman’s criticism of RS’s methodology went unanswered in RS’s response(as per my first post), and the RS’s next papers were based on the same trash methodology(this time conducted by a layman), only someone that is either a fool or hasn’t bothered to read any of the actual articles would conclude a positive correlation between departure time and Jaytee.

Same people, same methodology, same problems.

Dude, this isn’t that hard. If you want a valid experiment have the fucking dog and owner live in a soundproof windowless room until the dog starts going to the door, or whatever, when it is anticipating the return of the owner. Then run the experiments.

Use your brain for once instead of posting a trash articles and trolling everyone because you’re too complacent to think critically about things that affirm your POV.

In all the studies presented there has been OVERWHELMING statistical evidence to support the thesis which, after the first round, were conducted in randomized, completely blind trails. So if you have a qualm with the methodology why don’t you state specifically where you see the flaw in the experimentation.

Oh, there it is:

That’s retarded. The experiments attempt to mimic the natural conditions the dog/owners exist in. You cannot run an experiment involving animals in the manner you’re suggesting. It would be pointless. It would likely panic and behave completely differently.

That aside, it wouldn’t make it valid; it would make it more valid (in the mistaken way you are suggesting.) There is no threshold point where a study becomes ‘valid.’

Anyways, we’re going to get to the windowless rooms and all that stuff when I move on to the other studies. This is one of many.