Latent Psychic Ability in the Religious, and Athiest

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.

You know I’m right, you know that “statistical evidence” means shit for invalid experiments, and you know that when one of the subjects of the experiment runs the equipment it is not blind.

Do blather on, though, please.

Alright, so moving on.

Even such arrangements wouldn’t work.
You cannot strongly change the normal environment of an event, especially concerning living entities, and expect them to not be affected. That is one of the very many errors that psychologists and scientists do wrong. Just as the Hiesenburg principles clearly display, any attempt at measure can destroy the effort to measure.

In such a case as a dog and an owner, if cameras are to be used, they must be present and active before the experiment is to begin long enough for the dog and owner to get accustom to them being there. After that point, it must still be evident that the behavior is still in effect. Any altered behavior for sake of the experiment must become or be seen as “normal”, not intentionally formed for the sake of measure. That means that the owner must have a reason for randomly preparing to go home that is not based in the experiment.

The end effect, if you really want a good experiment for such things, is that you must already be recording and discover an event that meets the minimum standard for significance else you cannot form a truly “Scientific experiment” and draw confident conclusions.

The original observation of the owner was the only thing that even came close to that stipulation and thus only the owner’s testimony can be accepted as relevant data even though it is quite possibly biased for any number of reasons. The problem is that if a science minded individual were to try to note the same behavior in his own pet, he is likely to cause the entire effort to fail merely because he is attending to it with critical eyes and presumptions in judgment. Those are his tools, thus he cannot even do the experiment.

It must be observed after the fact so that critical analysis of the undisturbed recorded data can be assessed with scrutiny. But if a camera is viewing everything people are doing, do you really think people will behave “normally”? Not a chance. If people even think they are being watched, they respond differently and often in the opposite direction of their incentives. But thinking that one can secretly observe people without affecting them is a presumption… and a false one. Thus again, the experiment as a valid experiment cannot be done.

This is one of the many things which Science cannot examine or determine other than merely presume and declare “Truth” (as they so often do).

Yep, validity isn’t an absolute thing. Kudos, really, this is quite a zing. I mean, you figured out that science has fallibility built in. How can we go on? Oh yeah, validity as used in science is aware of its own limitations.

Wut. The owner isn’t observing the dog.

Man, I really wish people would just read the studies before talking.