Psychic abilities and phenomena: the scientific/skeptic analysis
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, August 26, 2006 22:49
VIEWED: 10059
PAGE 5 of 11
CUNKNOWN
No, clown boy, you were NOT polite, which is why I called you out. Your opening statements here again clearly show you believe you know more about science than anyone posting. That's NOT polite, it's bloody RUDE, and also not true.
I showed you a tiny fraction of what you'd need to look at if you wanted to learn anything, but clearly you can't be bothered to look stuff up. Therefore I will attempt to show you nothing whatsoever. Your ignorance is indeed profound, and glaringly obvious in light of your not being able to decipher what exactly I was pointing out to you. It's a pity you don't understand your comments add NOTHING to the discussion.
FINN, you made good points. However, science in fact does ignore that which goes against its long-established tenets, because to buck such facts and go where no one has gone before is to negatively affect FUNDING. Therefore science does not have a truly free agenda. It must follow the direction those who fund it want it to pursue. A century ago some physicists/mathematicians simplified some equations about electromagnetics to eliminate non-symmetry. In so doing, EVERY "scientist" since then has ignored what is essentially free energy. Tesla knew about it, and today so does Col. Tom Bearden, who has a patent on a working model of a free-energy device (MEG). Do other scientists of today embrace these concepts? No, not even Stephen Hawking, because to do so would be to essentially put themselves out of business through cut funding.
Yes, "science" is indeed very much afraid of accepting new or barely understood items. And for the record, the DOD/CIA funded that Stanford research for OVER 20 YEARS. The fact that it ceased does not necessarily imply that it didn't work, but equally implies they no longer wanted people to know just how well it works. The stated conclusions support the latter.
And finally, What the hell are people afraid of? Why do non-believers insist they can't pick up radio or TV signals without a radio? Clearly the signals are out there, and clearly some people have the ability to tune in to them without a radio or TV. As I posted a long time ago, on two separate occasions I heard a question posed to me by another party, even though no words were spoken. Here's one: I was sitting on a couch next to a friend. Her brother was in the room, in conversation with us. At one point my friend asked me a question, as I was looking away from her. I repeated her question verbatim, using her odd phrasing, and answered it. I then looked at her and her brother, both of whom were staring at me with a stunned look on their faces. When I asked what was the problem, my friend said she had intended to ask the question but had not done so. I told her I clearly heard her, in her exact manner of speaking. Her brother confirmed she had not said a word.
If that is not a psychic phenomena I would very much like to know what it was. Ditto my conversations with a wild fox in Alaska, who perfectly understood my every unspoken thought, and ACTED on them. My old dog is deaf and has lost much of her ability to smell, and her vision is extremely poor. Yet she knows when I'm thinking of her and ACTS on it, much as an old cat I had did. There can be no hidden agenda, no precognition, no "it's time for this or that," because NOTHING here is done by a set schedule. Ditto with the old cat. And I also KNOW without a doubt when they have problems that need my attention, though no SIGNALS are given, It''s totally what we call "psychic" phenomena.
To conclude, those who dismiss psychic phenomena are very limited individuals with closed minds and with miniscule world experiences. I will not share one more thought with any of them. To attempt to explain myself further to those who don't have the mental capacity to recognize that things happen that THEY can't possibly understand, is to suffer fools. I don't suffer fools.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I respectfully disagree. Psychologists study these sorts of things, where behavior is highly influenced or obstructed by subjective desire, all the time. It is hard, but not impossible. You have to design an experiment where your subject is conned into thinking something else. Well, psychics might be harder to con than others, but that itself would be an interesting result to analyze.
Originally posted by citizen:
This isn't like most things, our subjective beliefs and desires can effect our results more than in other experiments/observations.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I respectfully disagree. Psychologists study these sorts of things, where behavior is highly influenced or obstructed by subjective desire, all the time. It is hard, but not impossible. You have to design an experiment where your subject is conned into thinking something else. Well, psychics might be harder to con than others, but that itself would be an interesting result to analyze.
I was thinking of the scientists themselves...
We all bring our own agendas to the table, no matter who we are.
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Please do not judge "science" because scientists are flawed, self-interested human beings. I know it is commonplace to use science and scientists synonymously. In this case, there really is a distinction.
Originally posted by Ruxton:
Yes, "science" is indeed very much afraid of accepting new or barely understood items.
I am passionate about science. I was trained as a scientist. My husband is professional research scientist. We talk about science all the time, because we love it. I don't want "science" to get a bad rap because its practioners are sometimes short-sighted fools.
So let me say this once and for all:
1) Science is not afraid of studying anomalies like psychic phenomena.
2) Science is absolutely capable of studying complex, subjective human behaviors like psychic phenomena.
The reason psychic phenomena isn't studied more extensively has nothing to do with the limitations of *science*, but of the *scientists*. Please, let's not confuse the two. Thank you.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cavalier,
Your words ring true. I've been involved with psychic phenomena and its study and application for about 40 years, more than many of our posters have been alive. I've found no doubt whatsoever to all the manifestations of what we call psychic phenomena, so much so that I can easily dismiss those who fail to be able to see the obvious "fish in the punch bowl."
As stated, I won't discuss all the things I've seen and made happen in my life, but will state for your edification they include my home, job, skills, and everything good (and bad!) in my life. I have brought them, each and all, here through the application of what most would label "psychic phenomena." (My early experiences with influencing the actions of other persons not in close contact with me scared me so much that I quit those experiments entirely.) Most of what I have would be the envy of many a person; I don't mean to brag, just make a point. The fact that I am still alive is due entirely to psychic phenomena, but I will never be able to discuss that. Suffice to say I agree wholeheartedly with all your well-chosen words on this most arcane subject.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS, You are correct, of course. What we commonly call "science" is in fact the accepted theories of scientists. I stand corrected. And it is of course these scientists who are in danger of losing their jobs if they buck the status quo with any overt intent of altering it to a significant degree without the okay from their supporters.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Yeah, there is a neat little paradox in that if a genuine psychic wanted to prove his powers and yet self-interest deactivates them, he'd be unable to do so. The only option I can see is having scientists find a supposed psychic who is trying to conceal his powers, abduct him, run tests on him that punish him for failing to be psychic until they get some readings one way or the other.
That's why I suggested Gitmo as the place to start that study. Or you could put it on t.v. as the next generation of Fear Factor. I'm fairly certain the Nazis carried out experiments exactly as you describe.
My spidey sense detects a note of sarcasm with the "neat little paradox" line. Y'see, when you encounter the non-human intellegences you are confronted with practicalities which from our human perspective look like ethics and morality. In a very real sense Love really does make the world go round.
BTW, if anyone wants to make a study of me, I won't stop them.Quote:
Derren Brown is a magician/illusionist/psychologist/conman (his own description) who does lots of things you'd get from your average psychic like picking out someone's name, address, their first girlfriend's name, what object they'd pick out in a room of 150 objects, what path someone will take in a supermarket to buy a particular item that he's put into their subconscious.
I've been doing psychic readings for over 20 years and I've never done any of that crap (well, I have known a very few clients names just from looking at them, but there were special circumstances, but addresses? What about the next winning lottery numbers and did you know you'll be winning a red convertible very soon?). That stuff is proof of charlatanry, pure and simple. Parlor tricks. If you go to a psychic for that kind of crap information, you need more help than you think.
Quote:
I'd urge anyone who has witnessed an apparently inexplicable phenomenon to watch his shows (he's apparently even better live) and see whether the feats he performs are even more baffling.
Stage magic is pretty, but that kind of misdirection stuff rarely ever works on me. There is a huge difference between that and the real thing. Seriously. You ever read Flatland? The stuff you're talking about is like a two dimentional simulation of a sphere. To someone who can see an actual sphere, that stuff is just silly.
Quote:
Of course, there's now a movement that claims he actually is a psychic and his real con is persuading people that he isn't...
Thing is, at some point he's prolly used genuine intuition to get information, prolly many times, 'cause we all have it in us, but just as he's willing to abuse and confuse the intuitive faculty in others, he surely dismisses his own experiences as dumb luck and "gee, I'm better at this than I thought!"
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But they probably weren't persuaded, went away thinking coincidence?
Not all of them, and those who did, not entirely. Consciously perhaps, but conscious reality represents just the tiniest speck of who we really are. The truth resonates throughout the person whether they like it or not. It invades their dreams and makes everything seem just a little more possible than before.
Quote:
I think theres extensive records and evidence of a man named Jesus Christ being executed by crucifixtion. My problem with christianity is, and always has been Gods 'human' portrayl, and whether or not Christ was infact the son of God.
Back when I was researching this stuff, I recall discovering that the great majority of recorded history of the man Jesus comes to us by way of the Christian scribes who copied the original Greek and Latin manuscripts. These guys were big into interpolating little details like the presence of their Lord and Savior into the works they were copying.
I remember a persian document that non-Christian scholars accept, but that's about it. BTW, you folks who are big into scientific analysis, what do you make of most of history, seeing as it's mostly anecdotal and neither double blind nor repeatable?
As for Christ's divine nature as God's "only begotten Son," thank the Gospel of St. John. None of the synoptic gospels, Luke, Mark & Matthew have anything conclusive to say on the subject of Jesus's divinity. Synoptic means "seeing with the same eyes" and these three books give pretty much the same story in pretty much the same order. John's gospel is very different. All that "first there was the Word and the Word was" stuff is pure John. "Only begotten son?" Only John. John's gospel was the most popular with the early Christian power brokers because it reflected a pleasingly heirarchical pyramid of divinity. Several non-canonical gospels, most notably Thomas's, presented a very human Christ who preached that divinity dwelled in every human heart; that the way to God was an inner journey, which effectively cut out the middle man, a.k.a. the priest class. So in the first few hundred years of the Faith, the priest class had those versions excised.
One of my favorite verses in all of Christian literature is this from the Gospel of Thomas on the subject of who's in charge:Quote:Gotta love that last sentence!
Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and you are poverty."
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
And finally, What the hell are people afraid of? Why do non-believers insist they can't pick up radio or TV signals without a radio? Clearly the signals are out there, and clearly some people have the ability to tune in to them without a radio or TV. As I posted a long time ago, on two separate occasions I heard a question posed to me by another party, even though no words were spoken. Here's one: I was sitting on a couch next to a friend. Her brother was in the room, in conversation with us. At one point my friend asked me a question, as I was looking away from her. I repeated her question verbatim, using her odd phrasing, and answered it. I then looked at her and her brother, both of whom were staring at me with a stunned look on their faces. When I asked what was the problem, my friend said she had intended to ask the question but had not done so. I told her I clearly heard her, in her exact manner of speaking. Her brother confirmed she had not said a word.
If that is not a psychic phenomena I would very much like to know what it was. Ditto my conversations with a wild fox in Alaska, who perfectly understood my every unspoken thought, and ACTED on them. My old dog is deaf and has lost much of her ability to smell, and her vision is extremely poor. Yet she knows when I'm thinking of her and ACTS on it, much as an old cat I had did. There can be no hidden agenda, no precognition, no "it's time for this or that," because NOTHING here is done by a set schedule. Ditto with the old cat. And I also KNOW without a doubt when they have problems that need my attention, though no SIGNALS are given, It''s totally what we call "psychic" phenomena.
First up, of course you can pick up radio signals without a radio. Did you make a cat's whisker when you were younger? Same principle for those that are picking up the signal; there's something in the body that's vibrating alone to the frequency.
As regards to your story about the question not being asked; first why did the brother stare at you? I understand why the sister would stare at you "with a stunned look" but why would the brother? Surely from his perspective, you'd just asked yourself a question and then answered it. Secondly, why did you repeat her question before answering it? Is that something you usually do? Third, was this some completely unrelated question to the topic you were previously discussing or did it follow naturally on?
As far as the animals go, they rely on body language and natural rhythms. As you say, your dog can see you (albeit it badly) and you can't really be sure what her level of hearing/smell is like. Plus of course, you could just need the company of a dog at certain times of the month, a pattern to which most animals would become accustomed. Why not try an experiment like putting your dog in another room, telling her to stay, walking into another room (that the dog can still access but with a door separating you) and then mentally summoning her 52 minutes later (you can't pick the time, it has to be done by someone else).
There are lots of interesting experiments that have been performed with animals (all right, mostly concerning shampoo testing but the occasional "animal instincts" one too), this isn't a field science is ignoring.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Thing is, at some point he's prolly used genuine intuition to get information, prolly many times, 'cause we all have it in us, but just as he's willing to abuse and confuse the intuitive faculty in others, he surely dismisses his own experiences as dumb luck and "gee, I'm better at this than I thought!"
He's worked out how to be very good at what he does by careful studying and practice. He knows exactly how good he is and regularly puts it to work on stage shows (TV shows you can do umpteen takes until you get it right but stage shows, different story). There's no luck involved, no more than it's luck when the lady turns out not to be the card that the punter picks.
What sort of
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Science can only prove, not disprove. It can only prove that giraffes exist. It can't disprove the existence of unicorns." Science provides two answers - false and not yet false. A SINGLE failure will disprove a hyothesis even in the face of billions of positive results, any number of positive results can support a hypothesis, but not prove it. That is why when real scientific experiemnts are set up, the "null" hypothesis is tested to see if it can be disproven.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME