Latent Psychic Ability in the Religious, and Athiest

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.

Absolutely, I am brushing it off and asking you to choose a study that I can focus on and investigate…

My god you are dense.

Uh-huh, but the data must be vetted in it’s manner of collection, you learned that in the trash study you originally posted.

You’re asking me to do more work than the work I’m already doing in this thread. I don’t need, or want to do that.

If you don’t want to look at the evidence I will just assume you don’t want to because it’s not the type of evidence you want to see.

Yeah, choosing a study from an already available list that I would then spend time analyzing is a lot of work on your part.

Can we cut out the ad hom and get to the actual details in question?
I really don’t care if Gobbo is an egotist or an altruist.
I don’t care what credentials anyone has who might be doing the experiment.

I agree that the exact details must be carefully scrutinized to verify the experiment.
I personally don’t care much which details were overlooked, if any, but anyone trying to prove anything must eliminate all possible alternatives else nothing has been proven at all.

Obviously a lot of effort was made to ensure sensory deprivation, which is an issue in itself, but as I said before, if you can show positive results that are valid, you have shown something. If they got negative results, nothing has been demonstrated except that by using sensory deprivation, such ESP effects are usually canceled.

Frankly, I would find it awkward to try to sense anything under such annoying and noisy conditions, but if they can show that someone has higher than 5% significance in detecting particular affects at a hidden or distant scene then they have an interesting story to tell.

So the real question is only whether there was some detail overlooked?

But it is a bit like looking at a magic show and trying to deduce how he did it. The ability to do such magic, regardless of how, is still of interest even to Science.

Just waiting for Gobbo to choose. It just requires a bit of work and hoops to jump through to pry it out of him, for whatever reason.

Did you see some detail overlooked?
Did you see the opening for the trick; the card up his sleeve?