Latent Psychic Ability in the Religious, and Athiest

It’s possible to be original.

That’s funny you think it isn’t.

Prove it. Say something original, right now. Something that has never been thought or spoken of before. Ready…GO.

I don’t have to deal with it. You do.

Why don’t you keep editing your post, see how many more "brilliant’ things you can think of that you imagine will sufficiently tell me off.

I’ll make you a deal, if you stop derailing this thread with off-topic nattering, I’ll post another thread where I say something original.

As for me being wrong, when was I proven wrong in this thread?

I posted the progression of studies which, after the first round, were criticized. The people doing the study did it again, according the specifications suggested by the critics, got the correlation again, and then did it again with a completely different group.

So why should I act like I was wrong here when clearly I wasn’t. XCZ didn’t read the article. Woobly didn’t either, and then maybe did, but still failed to see the relevant points, and just kept harping on the issues which were resolved after the first study.

Nothing has happened with regards to this issue except Wobbly and James talking about science for a while. So we’re moving on. I just can’t find the next study. If the Canucks weren’t playing in game 7 today I would be looking to find it.

What the hell kind of deal is that? Like I give a fuck if you actually attempt to say anything original. How about this – if you will acknowledge my on-topic posts seriously rather than feel that it is necessary to make some kind of asinine, asshole-ish comment to try to assert your assumed superiority over me, I will refrain from continuing the off-topic trend that you, yourself, set.

Tell me Gobbo, what are the relevant issues?

Here little guy, my problems with the study laid out as overtly as you seemingly need:

  1. Neither the Jaytee nor the Kane experiments were properly controlled. The dogs were left to be influenced by the environment. In fact, had you read the study, you would know that Sheldrake mentions environmental influence on the dogs behaviors throughout the studies, but inexplicably never controls for them. This invalidates the data.

  2. In every Jaytee study the humans around Jaytee were uncontrolled for. The equipment was run by the participants(smart and her parents) in an overwhelming majority of Jaytee experiments. This instantly invalidates the conclusion about Jaytee, as the majority of the data is untrustworthy.

  3. The conditions of success were arbitrarily defined, and were adopted after the failure of the first experiments. This is data dredging…data dredging creates a bias in analysis by influencing the conditions of success. This invalidates the studies.

  4. The Kane study was only 10 experiments, this is not a large enough sample to make any conclusions whatsoever. The fact that Sheldrake does make a conclusion based off of such a small sample size calls into question his competency as an experimenter. The conclusion of the Kane study must be rejected because of the inherent limits of such a small sample size.

Sidenote 1:

Sheldrake misrepresented the Wiseman study in his response, and uses the Wiseman study as part of his body of data. The wiseman study, even as Sheldrake pointed out, was methodological suicide. They changed goal posts, varied the environment arbitrarily, and imposed no controls on Jaytee’s interactions with the humans involved in the experiment. Sheldrake knows the data must be thrown out for these reasons, he mentions it in his response, but he still integrates it into his data during the subsequent study. This seriously calls into question the integrity of Sheldrake’s data and techniques. No reasonable person can any longer “trust” that he did what he said he did, and his conclusions must be abandoned.

You’re proposing experimental conditions that are ridiculous. I don’t see a problem with this particular study not being double blind. If you bring in a stranger to watch the dog it’s going to act differently. You want to put them into a metal room with no windows. My issue is you’re not taking bunch of seemingly relevant things into consideration.

Anyways, I started with the weakest study. Let’s move on to a couple studies that are a bit harder to discredit, shall we?

So basically this study is testing whether, in a sense-deprivation setting, one person can receive the thoughts/images from another individual.

anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

5.3 Conclusions about External Replication

The results shown in Table 3 show that remote viewing has been conceptually replicated across a number of laboratories, by various experimenters and in different cultures. This is a robust effect that, were it not in such an unusual domain, would no longer be questioned by science as a real phenomenon.

Round 2.

So you’re done defending that trash? And what relevant things are you talking about. What you are criticizing me for was an “on the fly” 1 sentence description that I explained and refined in my next posts. Do you object to what I actually hand in mind, or do you just want to trade zings by making up stuff like “metal room”? What would you do different.

A cursory glance at the new link showed that it is a synopsis of of the literature written by a statistician. It is unsatisfactory in this thread. We need the actual studies with clear descriptions of the methodology and manor of experimenting. Choose one from the meta-article to focus on.

“We should close the Patent office because clearly all things have been invented.”
“There is no longer need to question, fore all answers have been given.”
“There is no need for philosophy, because Science/Religion has the means to all knowledge.”

“Existence is determined by Affect.”
Just try to find that one from anyone else anywhere.

Statisticians cannot preform scientific inquiry…

Now I know I have you on the ropes.

You are going to run into one inherent problem in all such studies;
“If I eliminate all possible means to know of something, then that something cannot be known.
If you know of it, it can only be because I hadn’t yet removed all possible means.”

Scientists in general don’t seem to understand the higher concepts in what they do. They think in terms of psychic ability as something which is totally independent of anything else. Is chemistry independent of physics? Is a mind independent of the brain?

One cannot remove all possible means of knowing something and expect to ever have it known. In effect, by such measure, the conclusion is being tailored by the premise so as to ensure it. What would be the point?

Psychic processes function by typically mysterious, but knowable means. If they were not knowable, then no science effort would be able to do anything with them anyway because they would not be reliable enough to utilize. If anything is not consistent, it is random. If it is random, it is not usable except to randomize. If it is consistent, then its consistency is what forms it principles and the very make of knowledge.

A report of the statistics is not sufficient to study the experiment. I think that was his point, to which I agree.
The details of the actual experiment need to be seen in detail (the devil is always in the detail).

But again, all that can be ever proven is that “we haven’t yet eliminated all of the means by which a mind can sense reality. But when we DO, we will then prove that no mind can do anything unless it has something with which to do.”

They explain the details. They go through the methodology. You just have to read the entire study.

I’m starting to think your guys’ form of argumentation here is ‘Well I didn’t read that part.’

I’m aware, at least to someone like Woobly, there is absolutely no way I will convince him through the citing of experiments.

I’m fully aware of that.

Push the limits. Discussion.

That might be because I have been “arguing” [pointing out] the issues of the very theories involved in any such studies.

The second experiment you have posted is far more interesting. And I am not at all surprised by the conclusions. I have no doubt that I could “mysteriously” cause the conclusions to change in any pre-determined direction. Every mind functions by specific causes in all it does. But that doesn’t take away from the intriguing and fascinating way a mind can know things that no one would think possible to know.

Fucking bizarre.

A report of the statistics is not sufficient to study the experiment. I think that was his point, to which I agree.
The details of the actual experiment need to be seen in detail (the devil is always in the detail).

Are you saying they don’t go over the methodology in study I posted?

That they only mentioned the statistical outcomes?

Is that what you’re saying? If so, it’s wrong.

Dude, it is an overview, do you know what that means…It is a description of various studies, and does not talk about the specifics of data collection.

Put your power-ego-boner away and choose one.

So…? They still lay out, in detail, the methodology. If you want all the specifics go look at the individual studies. She includes the summaries from them anyways.

If you want to say, ‘She is a statistician, and because I haven’t read all the details, it immediately invalidates everything presented’ that is a ridiculous statement. As far as I can tell, that is what you’re saying.

Why? It’s better to use the data collected from more than one study, as opposed to just one.