Is There Credible Evidence Supporting Psychic Phenomena?

[FlexGunship]

What laws would it violate?

While it would be impossible to make definitive statements about which laws actual psychic ability could violate, I think it's reasonable to say that its genuine discovery would significantly alter our understanding of whatever medium that ability uses for transmission.

Even if it didn't specifically violate any laws, it would still be (at minimum) a weird legal loophole.

 

[Calrik]

While it would be impossible to make definitive statements about which laws actual psychic ability could violate, I think it's reasonable to say that its genuine discovery would significantly alter our understanding of whatever medium that ability uses for transmission.

Even if it didn't specifically violate any laws, it would still be (at minimum) a weird legal loophole.

True but at the least you'd have to prove it no?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While it would be impossible to make definitive statements about which laws actual psychic ability could violate, I think it's reasonable to say that its genuine discovery would significantly alter our understanding of whatever medium that ability uses for transmission.

Even if it didn't specifically violate any laws, it would still be (at minimum) a weird legal loophole.

There is also the remote possibility of something hiding in plain sight - all the pieces are there but no one has ever put it all together. However, there seems to be little doubt that such a discovery would be a paradigm changer.

As you indicated, it is impossible to speculate about violations of physical laws without a suggested mechanism for a particular form of ESP. I am not aware of any physical laws that ESP would necessarily violate, in principle.

 

[FlexGunship]

As you indicated, it is impossible to speculate about violations of physical laws without a suggested mechanism for a particular form of ESP. I am not aware of any physical laws that ESP would necessarily violate, in principle.

Well, right. Observing ESP would not be, for example, grounds for overthrowing general relativity. However, if Z bosons were found to carry ideas and intuition, then we would have to strongly revise our understanding of the weak nuclear force.

The same would certainly be true of any force carrier.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, right. Observing ESP would not be, for example, grounds for overthrowing general relativity. However, if Z bosons were found to carry ideas and intuition, then we would have to strongly revise our understanding of the weak nuclear force.

The same would certainly be true of any force carrier.

Again, we have no basis for speculation. So, yes, by definition it is hard to imagine how it could happen. However, if it does happen, I'm quite sure no laws are violated.

 

[FlexGunship]

Again, we have no basis for speculation. So, yes, by definition it is hard to imagine how it could happen. However, if it does happen, I'm quite sure no laws are violated.

That's like begging the question without asking a question. Not a tautology... there must be a name for this particular linguistic riposte.

Yes, also by definition, if it happens then no laws are violated.

 

[TERR0RBYTE]

"such a discovery would be a paradigm changer."

this is the big issue, to be totally frank I wouldn't believe it, it flies in the face of what we know about the world. To actually do a U-turn on not believing it works and its probably a scam to believing it works is very difficult, I however did this and it was not easy. Just to demonstrate this: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1454382 it was either this paper or the one Targ et al published before it was published and well received in most scientific circle's as it was assumed some electromagnetic mechanism in the brain, like radio which conformed to physical laws, so for the next experiments they took the viewer in a sub deep in the ocean to see if anything could block it as they hypothesised it should. When it didn't and it appeared to work anywhere in the world equally as well no matter the distance the was widespread denial and refusal from many mainstream journals.
I saw a TV show on discovery channel about operation stargate, the remote viewing program the government ran, I was so bored one night and feeling in the mood I thought what the hell i will give it a try, got some double blind targets of the web some paper and did about 10 of them. Nailed all of them on basic gestalt and most details, one them actually named it. Totally freaked me out and excited me at the same time, i did more after that for the next few years, have many solid double blind targets which i have named outright, some really unsual stuff like millimeter wave weapons targeting radar etc, stuff which the is no ambiguity. But the point is only personal proof is good enough for most people, I WOULD NOT, believe it unless i had either myself or someone else work many targets for me which were double blind, because i think we all can agree here real or not its pretty far out there. One guy who does do SOLID parapsycholgy research is Ed May, he's probably the best place to look if your looking for evidence, as well as joe mcmoneagle, probably the best living real psychic in the world. (he was in the DIA program, and the only way skeptics can actually explain away how he does its is fraud, and other people in on it as well not just him).

And as for the skeptics, some are real honest guys trying to get to the bottom of it as the are a lot of frauds around, hell even i think 99.9% TV psychics are frauds. I know derran brown can do what they do so why shouldn't they be.
However most media skeptics are just pushing there own agenda and don't seem to be interested in the truth much just getting rid of something that does not fit in with there worldview. Wiseman has been voted of some societies for alledgedly because his behaviour was not consistent with commonly accepted standards of scientific integrity. Randi also has his problems in that he has no credibility, his challenge is a joke, I could have the same rules and challenge people to prove to me that the sea is blue and they would still never win. Thats not to say that people who can remote view don't make crazy claims either, that the is no way they can live up to or complete i think it attracts a certain type of person, because i think to actually believe it works right of the bat you have to be a bit, well batty, as its not rational to believe this stuff works without some decent personal evidence, because of this the are a lot of nuts in the remote viewing field, as well as the more grounded people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We have been able to explain a huge number of things through science and show that they arent Magic or Demons or anything else other than a natural process or sheer coincidence. There is NO reason to think this is different.

Again, we have no basis for speculation. So, yes, by definition it is hard to imagine how it could happen. However, if it does happen, I'm quite sure no laws are violated.

That's like begging the question without asking a question. Not a tautology... there must be a name for this particular linguistic riposte.

Not at all. I was reflecting back on the strawman argument that ESP claims amount to magical claims. While we have no expectation that ESP is possible, that does not exlude the possiblity that some claims have a basis in unrecognized processes; or in the most extreme case, new physics. To argue that a phenomenon exists is not the same as claiming magic - that the laws of physics are necessarily violated. The allusion to magic is a classic dodge used to discredit the suggestion that there might be something we don't understand.

Yes, also by definition, if it happens then no laws are violated.

Yes. Like Einstein's spooky action at a distance, if some form of ESP is found to be genuine, it will be considered natural, not magic. In fact, if you ask me, Quantum Entanglement is no less mystifying than the discovery of ESP would be. Of course the former was predicted, not discovered, but how it happens is still magic to me.

 

[FlexGunship]

Yes. Like Einstein's spooky action at a distance, if some form of ESP is found to be genuine, it will be considered natural, not magic. In fact, if you ask me, Quantum Entanglement is no less mystifying than the discovery of ESP would be. Of course the former was predicted, not discovered, but how it happens is still magic to me.

Isn't that kind of a huge difference, though? Quantum entanglement came from theory: tested and verified. Isn't it compelling that there just seems to be no room for ESP? I'm not actually arguing that there couldn't be some form of ESP, I'm merely trying to suggest that there just doesn't seem to be room for it anymore.

In my view of ESP as a natural phenomenon it would have to be something that predates the existence of the human brain: a force-carrier particle/wave that our brains have evolved to use as a type of additional sense. The type of information that a single espion (yes, I just made that up) would be considered one quanta of the ESP force/field. Our brains would have to be laced with espion receptors and probably espion transmitters.

Again, I'm not arguing that our brains are not populated by espion transmitters and receivers, but isn't it a little compelling that no theory has suggested the existence of these? Furthermore, what could it mean for an espion to carry one quanta of "intuition"?

These are just questions to help generate some critical thought on the topic.

 

[nismaratwork]

ESP is a catch-all term that is misleading in my view. After all, does one mean that this is a psychic sense, as is normally implied, or that a subliminal gestalt actually works sometimes and we guess right?

Either way, for ESP to exist in any meaningful form would require either new physics, or new brains and bodies; ours aren't built for long-range transmission or reception, never mind that we'd need part of our brain to interpret the input. I think ESP, like the expectation of seeing a legendary winged dragon... is moving from, "Hath any man seen so much of the world that he, challenging god almighty, would say what does not exist?"... to... "It's ****ing magic, or it doesn't exist."

If by magic, we accede either to the traditional definition, or the Arthur C. Clarke definition that is.

 

[pftest]

Its important to realize that ESP doesn't merely concern brains, but also experiences. So there is not just the physical component, on which we can apply the different ideas in physics (i don't believe there is "no room", even without QM there are ideas in physics that get rid of our common sense ideas of time and space), but there is a mental component to ESP also.

The mental component (consciousness) makes it more an issue of philosophy/metaphysics. Thinking about consciousness in physical terms often makes no sense at all. For example, how far is the color red removed from the smell of onions? Just eat some onions while looking at something red and see if you can answer the question. I am not talking about neurons here, I am talking about the actual experiences. They exist in such a way that it is meaningless to describe them in physical terms. Is it really any easier to answer the question when it is 2 people on opposite sides of the world that are doing the onion-smelling and red-seeing?

So long as we don't know what consciousness is (whats the neural correlate, does it even have one?), where it came from, how long its been around, etc. the sky is the limit wrt the existence of ESP.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You are all confusing positing a phenomenon, with a claimed phenomenon. We all know there is no scientific expectation for ESP. However, people claim it happens. In many cases, there is no way to falsify these claims.

Flex, we can never dismiss the possibility that something happens that we don't understand. No, we can never exlude the possibility of discovery. In fact that is anti-scientific. The point is not that we can or can't imagine how it would happen, the point is that people claim it happens. If it does happen, we agree that we don't know how to explain it. It would be a shocking revelation to the scientific world if it did. But one can never argue that discovery is impossible. Even if we had a TOE, which we don't, which may also leave the door open to discovery, by definition we can never know that all discoveries have been made. To argue such is a logical fallacy.

Nismar, your argument is only valid within its domain. Again, by definition we don't know how it could happen. So we can say that there is no known scientific model that could account for ESP claims. But that is not proof that it doesn't happen.

It is pointless to speculate about how likely ESP might seem. Unless someone suddenly produces a physical model predicting the existence of some form of ESP, in the end, the only thing that matters is whether an acceptable test can be designed and applied, to test the claim directly. If not, then the claim or class of claims cannot be falsified. We can never state for a fact that the claim is false. If it [a class of claims] can be tested but hasn't been, then we still can't say the claim is falsified; whether we expect to find anything or not. Some claims have been tested ad infintum with no accepted significant results, such as in the PEAR project. So it would seem that at least many of those types of claim are reasonably debunked. That is not proof that these things never happen, but we have a fair amount of experimental evidence suggeting there is nothing to it. [It is claimed that there are very slight indications for phenomena in some some cases, that are only seen using meta-analysis, but as yet, no paper describing these results has been accepted for publication in a mainstream journal.

There are logical limits to what we can and cannot state as fact, no matter how confident we might be. At the same time, no matter what we might discover, no matter how strange the universe may be, we still expect all real phenomena to act according to physical laws.

 

[FlexGunship]

Its important to realize [...] etc. the sky is the limit wrt the existence of ESP.

(The post is just above, please see for further detail.)

You posit experiences that aren't products of chemical and electrical interactions in the brain. That's a very extreme luxury you take with your interpretation. What could it mean for a person to experience something but not to do so with their brain?

 

[FlexGunship]

Flex, we can never dismiss the possibility that something happens that we don't understand. No, we can never exlude the possibility of discovery. In fact that is anti-scientific. The point is not that we can or can't imagine how it would happen, the point is that people claim it happens. If it does happen, we agree that we don't know how to explain it. It would be a shocking revelation to the scientific world if it did. But one can never argue that discovery is impossible. Even if we had a TOE, which we don't, which may also leave the door open to discovery, by definition we can never know that all discoveries have been made. To argue such is a logical fallacy.

Granted... without reservation. I simply take the position that history has shown that it is wiser to act on skepticism than to act on belief. I will resist the urge to elaborate for fear of getting overly specific.

EDIT: Ivan, I find that we often disagree on the minutia of a topic, but rarely on the larger concepts. Discovery and experimentation are the cornerstones are human advancement and I would never suggest that "discovery" is impossible. The discovery of ESP would be amazing! But our excitement about that possibility is what ruins our objectivity. I maintain the position that the chances of it existing are essentially negligible, but I welcome proof (I, however, will spend my time on more concrete matters)!

 

[nismaratwork]

You are all confusing positing a phenomenon, with a claimed phenomenon. We all know there is no scientific expectation for ESP. However, people claim it happens. In many cases, there is no way to falsify these claims.

Flex, we can never dismiss the possibility that something happens that we don't understand. No, we can never exlude the possibility of discovery. In fact that is anti-scientific. The point is not that we can or can't imagine how it would happen, the point is that people claim it happens. If it does happen, we agree that we don't know how to explain it. It would be a shocking revelation to the scientific world if it did. But one can never argue that discovery is impossible. Even if we had a TOE, which we don't, which may also leave the door open to discovery, by definition we can never know that all discoveries have been made. To argue such is a logical fallacy.

Nismar, your argument is only valid within its domain. Again, by definition we don't know how it could happen. So we can say that there is no known scientific model that could account for ESP claims. But that is not proof that it doesn't happen.

It is pointless to speculate about how likely ESP might seem. Unless someone suddenly produces a physical model predicting the existence of some form of ESP, in the end, the only thing that matters is whether an acceptable test can be designed and applied, to test the claim directly. If not, then the claim or class of claims cannot be falsified. We can never state for a fact that the claim is false. If it [a class of claims] can be tested but hasn't been, then we still can't say the claim is falsified; whether we expect to find anything or not. Some claims have been tested ad infintum with no accepted significant results, such as in the PEAR project. So it would seem that at least many of those types of claim are reasonably debunked. That is not proof that these things never happen, but we have a fair amount of experimental evidence suggeting there is nothing to it. [It is claimed that there are very slight indications for phenomena in some some cases, that are only seen using meta-analysis, but as yet, no paper describing these results has been accepted for publication in a mainstream journal.

There are logical limits to what we can and cannot state as fact, no matter how confident we might be. At the same time, no matter what we might discover, no matter how strange the universe may be, we still expect all real phenomena to act according to physical laws.

What I responded to was the notion of ESP being magic, above all, and really... nothing you've said makes it any less so. If ESP is real, it just means that's a kind of magic that's real... still magic though. As Flex pointed out to pftest, in accepting the possibility of ESP divorced from the body and brain is to essentially posit dualism (at least), or entertain it. It doesn't have to be a religious or spiritual dualism in this case, but if there's ESP, then something beyond our biology is at work, and it mysteriously evades confirmation in a world of fMRIs and other imaging techniques. At some point the lack of confirmation, given the potency of such an ability, is its own kind of dissuading factor, if not falsification.

 

[FlexGunship]

...but if there's ESP, then something beyond our biology is at work...

I think you went one iota too far here. I would say that "if there's ESP, then its an aspect of biology we have no means of measuring." What could it mean for there to be ESP that has no biological component?

...and it mysteriously evades confirmation in a world of fMRIs and other imaging techniques...

Which is a serious criticism.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think you went one iota too far here. I would say that "if there's ESP, then its an aspect of biology we have no means of measuring." What could it mean for there to be ESP that has no biological component?



Which is a serious criticism.

ESP, even if it operated through magical means, would still require processing in the brain to be of any use to us. I think that the world of human biology has been tacked down well enough that if we acted as encoders, transmitters, receivers, decoders, PLUS we filter other "esp" not intended for us or useful as sensory input... well, if we had that kind of machinery it would show. If there are means by which the body as a whole can provide a meaningful extra sense of the 'ESP' variety, there should be a shred of evidence.

Now, you'd be justified in challenging this assertion, as you have, and it IS an assertion that comes perilously close to assuming a negative. Let's work through this however: ESP would require either interaction with known forces in SOME way, and using that to carry information (so no FTL) even if it's passive. It's true that receiving a signal wouldn't take energy, but filtering it, interpreting... would. If you're transmitting, then ESP becomes even more absurd if you search for a biological basis... hell, you'd have people burning through calories like mad for... what?

That's the final critique: ESP would have had to evolve, and to stick around it would have to confer an advantage. What advantage does another sense that apparently virtually everyone is unaware of confer that makes up for its carrying cost, and cost to use? Remember, we have the animals kingdom to study, and they seem to be doing well enough with 5 senses, often with several greatly amplified and attenuated for focus. Someday... someday people will accept that barring actual evidence to START the concept, ESP doesn't have any biological footprint on the body or brain.

If I told you I thought with my toenails... you'd laugh, so what part of the brain or body deals with another sense? Hence, I call magic on this.

 

[FlexGunship]

ESP, even if it operated through magical means [...] I call magic on this.

Nismar, I fully agree with you. In fact, I noticed you borrowing some of my earlier post about there being no ESP force carrier ("espion" as I called it). I'm with you. Totally.

However, if something we recognized as qualifying as "ESP" were actually discovered, we would have to admit it's not magic. It's just some physical property of the universe.

However, again, and I reiterate, additionally, for one last time... I don't for a moment believe that this property exists. Enough is known about reality to state "it just doesn't fit."

 

[pftest]

(The post is just above, please see for further detail.)

You posit experiences that aren't products of chemical and electrical interactions in the brain. That's a very extreme luxury you take with your interpretation. What could it mean for a person to experience something but not to do so with their brain?

Im just pointing out that materialism is one of the different metaphysical positions. Thats not my interpretation, its a reality for everyone. I just brought it up to address the "there is no room for ESP" bit. Just take a look at idealism and you see how much room there is.

What I responded to was the notion of ESP being magic, above all, and really... nothing you've said makes it any less so. If ESP is real, it just means that's a kind of magic that's real... still magic though. As Flex pointed out to pftest, in accepting the possibility of ESP divorced from the body and brain is to essentially posit dualism (at least), or entertain it.

He didnt point this out to me, i pointed it out to him that there are other metaphysical options. Dualism is one of them, but it is not so that non-materialism implies dualism. Materialism is a type of monism, but there are other types of monism (for example neutral monism, panpsychism, idealism).

Btw you mention ESP evading fMRI and other scans, but no experience has ever been seen on fMRI or any other measuring device.

I think you went one iota too far here. I would say that "if there's ESP, then its an aspect of biology we have no means of measuring." What could it mean for there to be ESP that has no biological component?

If we can't measure it, then why would you call it biological (or physical), which are terms that refer to the observed properties of bodies? They arent container-terms that one can fit everything into.

 

[FlexGunship]

If we can't measure it, then why would you call it biological (or physical), which are terms that refer to the observed properties of bodies? They arent container-terms that one can fit everything into.

Uhh... ESP is by definition a measurable phenomenon (if it exists in any sense). Otherwise there would be no way to differentiate between non-ESP and ESP.

If ESP didn't ultimately culminate in a biological response then there would be absolutely no reason to suggest its existence.

I'm not actually sure how to be more clear than that.

 

[pftest]

Uhh... ESP is by definition a measurable phenomenon (if it exists in any sense). Otherwise there would be no way to differentiate between non-ESP and ESP.

If ESP didn't ultimately culminate in a biological response then there would be absolutely no reason to suggest its existence.

I'm not actually sure how to be more clear than that.

But we can't even measure sensory perception. The difference between ESP and SP would be inferred. For example, when all senses are blocked and the subject still receives information, it could not be SP.

 

[FlexGunship]

But we can't even measure sensory perception. The difference between ESP and SP would be inferred. For example, when all senses are blocked and the subject still receives information, it could not be SP.

I'm not sure I agree with the test parameters specifically, but I do agree with you that ESP would be easy to test for.

 

[nismaratwork]

Nismar, I fully agree with you. In fact, I noticed you borrowing some of my earlier post about there being no ESP force carrier ("espion" as I called it). I'm with you. Totally.

However, if something we recognized as qualifying as "ESP" were actually discovered, we would have to admit it's not magic. It's just some physical property of the universe.

However, again, and I reiterate, additionally, for one last time... I don't for a moment believe that this property exists. Enough is known about reality to state "it just doesn't fit."

See, this is the thing, if there WERE an ESPion... that wouldn't be so odd. OK, it would be really odd, but maybe an ESPion is just what we're calling another super-pair in the E8 group? Even then, if you interact with the ESPion field, just as we evolved means to navigate EM fields, and the geometry of Gravity (seeing, walking and talking, etc) we could interact with that. Of course, just as with a person who can inexplicably see further into the IR or UV realm than the average, I should be able to look at your retina and note rods and cones of sizes not expected.

When I say anything not rooted in biology here is magical, you're getting what I mean, I think. The existence of a field or boson doesn't mean that we can interact with it, even indirectly in a comprehensible fashion. Maybe our body as a whole acts as an ESPion antenna, but even then if we interpret that ESP through the lens of our normal feelings and senses, we should see that activity. Realistically as you pointed out, the entire ESPion concept is as generous as ESP gets in physics, and biology really kills the notion of us using something other than our voices and body language to communicate over distances.

Anyway, we do agree in terms of our opinions as to the existence of ESP (doesn't fit), but this is of course nowhere near good enough. Don't think that I mistake your arguments as PRO, I see them as good arguments, period.

pftest: To your point about MRIs... yeah, that's my POINT. If you could demonstrate a psychic talent, the means to see WHATEVER is happening in terms of blood-flow to given regions. That... doesn't... happen. In fact, if you put someone who TRULY believes they're psychic, much as someone suffering from 'Hysterical Blindness' is convinced of their inability to see... you see a BIG difference:

-The person who can see, but doesn't KNOW it:
1.) We see reactions in the brain up to the point of CONSCIOUS visual processing, but we can see that the person is unconsciously processing visual data.
2.) They don't lie about what they're seeing or not.

-The person who claims to be psychic:
1.) Just looks like someone telling a story if they really believe it.
2.) Partial Complex Seizures or other abnormalities: their 'psychic' power is just aura.
3.) NOTHING.

That doesn't prove a negative of course, but like advocates for the Aether... it's not encouraging. You also mentioned sensory deprivation tests, which have been done to DEATH, and don't produce or reveal psychics AFAIK. You claim that we can't measure sensory perception... I call BS. What do you think it means to watch as blood moves from one area of the brain to another when presented with stimuli? Hell, you can measure it, just as we know the nm range of EM radiation = visual light for humans.

 

[FlexGunship]

You also mentioned sensory deprivation tests, which have been done to DEATH, and don't produce or reveal psychics AFAIK.

How many times to you ask a person the same proverbial question before you conclude they don't know the answer?

What's the capital of Wyoming? Bismark
What's the capital of Wyoming? Concord
What's the capital of Wyoming? East Indiana
What's the capital of Wyoming? Bismark
What's the capital of Wyoming? Maine
What's the capital of Wyoming? Yes
What's the capital of Wyoming? Mauve
What's the capital of Wyoming? THE KRAKEN!

I'm with you Nismar.

 

[pftest]

You also mentioned sensory deprivation tests, which have been done to DEATH, and don't produce or reveal psychics AFAIK.

Can you mention some of these sensory deprivation tests?

 

[nismaratwork]

Can you mention some of these sensory deprivation tests?

Yes... but I'll be honest, they're old studies back when this was being seriously explored. I'll have to check some archives, but I'll link to a few.

FlexGunship: LOL... The Kraken... although my favorite answer is still mauve.

 

[FlexGunship]

Yes... but I'll be honest, they're old studies back when this was being seriously explored. I'll have to check some archives, but I'll link to a few.

Here's a Wiki about some tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment). You'll notice they suffer very strongly from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You can just go ahead and paint that target anywhere you like.

 

[pftest]

Here's a Wiki about some tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment). You'll notice they suffer very strongly from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You can just go ahead and paint that target anywhere you like.

Heres a quote from the wiki:

Parapsychologists such as Dean Radin and Daryl Bem say that ganzfeld experiments have yielded results that deviate from randomness to a significant degree, and that these results present some of the strongest quantifiable evidence for telepathy to date.[4] Critics such as Susan Blackmore and Ray Hyman say that the results are inconclusive.In 1982, Charles Honorton presented a paper at the annual convention of the Parapsychological Association that summarized the results of the ganzfeld experiments up to that date, and concluded that they represented sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of psi.

The PRL trials continued until September 1989. Of the 354 trials, 122 produced direct hits. This 34% hit rate was statistically similar to the 37% hit rate of the 1985 meta-analysis. These experiments were statistically significant with a z score of 3.89, which corresponds to a 1 in 45,000 probability of obtaining a hit rate of at least 34% by chance (mean chance expectation is 25%).[16][18]

The ganzfeld procedure has continued to be refined over the years. In its current incarnation, an automated computer system is used to select and display the targets ("digital autoganzfeld"). This overcomes many of the shortcomings of earlier experimental setups, such as randomization and experimenter blindness with respect to the targets [23]

In 2010, Lance Storm, Patrizio Tressoldi, and Lorenzo Di Risio analyzed 29 ganzfeld studies from 1997 to 2008. Of the 1,498 trials, 483 produced hits, corresponding to a hit rate of 32.2%. This hit rate is statistically significant with p < .001. Participants selected for personality traits and personal characteristics thought to be psi-conducive were found to perform significantly better than unselected participants in the ganzfeld condition.[24]

So these tests don't really fit in the category of a ones that "have been done to DEATH, and don't produce or reveal psychics".

 

[FlexGunship]

So these tests doesn't really fit in the category of a ones "have been done to DEATH, and don't produce or reveal psychics".

You want to try again? Selective quoting works both ways. As far as it not being "done to death" we are bordering on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. "That test isn't a good enough test for ESP." How many negative results do we need to accumulate before we conclude that the positive results are noise?

To see if other, post-Joint Communiqué experiments had been as successful as the PRL trials, Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman carried out a meta-analysis of ganzfeld experiments carried out in other laboratories. They found no psi effect, with a database of 30 experiments and a non-significant Stouffer Z of 0.70.[19]

Same source. Unfortunately, it seems that when you allow an unbiased analysis of the data, the effect disappears.

 

[pftest]

You want to try again? Selective quoting works both ways. As far as it not being "done to death" we are bordering on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. "That test isn't a good enough test for ESP." How many negative results do we need to accumulate before we conclude that the positive results are noise?

This doesn't make any sense. If the test isn't good enough and many think it had positive results, then why try to pass it off as a negative result?

Thats like quoting someone who says he's seen a ghost, and then say that this indicates ghosts don't exist.

 

[FlexGunship]

This doesn't make any sense. If the test isn't good enough and many think it had positive results, then why try to pass it off as a negative result?

Thats like quoting someone who says he's seen a ghost, and then say that this indicates ghosts don't exist.

The quote I offered was about a meta-analysis; an analysis of the analysis. In addition to revealing that the test was often "not sterile" it also showed that the data that was still recorded did not yield the statistically significant results that were claimed.

It's like quote someone who says he's seen a ghost, and then saying that his description of the ghost is uncannily similar to that of an armchair, and going on to conclude that 1) there are significant problems with his ghost-observing process, and 2) that we still have no evidence of ghosts.

 

[pftest]

The quote I offered was about a meta-analysis; an analysis of the analysis. In addition to revealing that the test was often "not sterile" it also showed that the data that was still recorded did not yield the statistically significant results that were claimed.

It's like quote someone who says he's seen a ghost, and then saying that his description of the ghost is uncannily similar to that of an armchair, and going on to conclude that 1) there are significant problems with his ghost-observing process, and 2) that we still have no evidence of ghosts.

And a second meta-analysis showed positive results, but that's not the point here. The point is that the ganzeld experiments do not clearly offer negative results (as indicated by my quotes). There is a gigantic amount of ESP studies with positive results. No matter how sloppy these studies have been done, you cannot claim that they are an accumulation of evidence for the non-existence of ESP.

 

[nismaratwork]

The quote I offered was about a meta-analysis; an analysis of the analysis. In addition to revealing that the test was often "not sterile" it also showed that the data that was still recorded did not yield the statistically significant results that were claimed.

It's like quote someone who says he's seen a ghost, and then saying that his description of the ghost is uncannily similar to that of an armchair, and going on to conclude that 1) there are significant problems with his ghost-observing process, and 2) that we still have no evidence of ghosts.

HA!

To take a line from DevilsAvocado:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5CWIIoSf4nw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5CWIIoSf4nw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

"Well, I called me wife and I said to her, 'Will you kindly tell to me, Who owns the coat upon the door, Where my ol' coat should be?'"



pftest: The tests that Flex linked to are some of the best that HAVE been done to death. Without taking that phrase to its literal extreme, those tests are a dry socket, and if they were not do you think someone wouldn't snap up Randi's 1mil USD?

You end your last post in a way that seems as though you're trying to demand that Flex or I need to DISprove the EXISTENCE of this phenomenon? Burden. Of. Proof.

 

[pftest]

pftest: The tests that Flex linked to are some of the best that HAVE been done to death. Without taking that phrase to its literal extreme, those tests are a dry socket, and if they were not do you think someone wouldn't snap up Randi's 1mil USD?

Many ganzfeld tests have been done, with many positive results. See my earlier quotes.

 

[nismaratwork]

Many ganzfeld tests have been done, with many positive results. See my earlier quotes.

...And FlexGunship just finished explaining why and how that statement is false. This isn't a site where you can make unsubstantiated claims, especially in the face of contradictory evidence.