Forum Skeptics Explain Why They Believe Psi Doesn't Exist ...

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Ersby

.

Why I don't believe in

Remote Viewing

What do you think of Ed May et al.'s experiments? Richard Wiseman and Julie Milton wrote a critique (not without its own flaws in my opinion) about one of the SAIC experiments. But have you read May's latest paper "Advances in Anomalous Cognition Analysis: A judge-free and accurate confidence calling technique"? He uses data from a previous experiment and puts it through this new automated analysis which, as the title says, doesn't involve any judge and is apparently able to predict, in advance, which trials are going to be the successful ones based on the content of the transcripts. These trials are then run through the usual rank analysis (which does use a judge) to see how many hits they generated. The results were spectacular. I can pm you the paper if you're interested.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

These trials are then run through the usual rank analysis (which does use a judge) to see how many hits they generated.

I tell a lie. This bit was automated too.

[David Bailey]

I think one problem is that there is obviously a lot of "New Age" vague ideas about, horoscopes, etc. etc. Skeptics tend to think this represents the whole field, but it is important to remember that chemistry and alchemy coexisted for a while - until a clear body of knowledge is established, this is inevitable.

I also think that some phenomena - such as mediumship - just don't lend themselves easily to scientific study. That does not necessarily mean that they are totally invalid.

David

[tux0]

I guess I believed psi might have been real when I was a kid. but I grew out of it.

all the arguements I would make are summed up in Alex's appearance on the SGU

[paqart]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I think one problem is that there is obviously a lot of "New Age" vague ideas about, horoscopes, etc. etc. Skeptics tend to think this represents the whole field, but it is important to remember that chemistry and alchemy coexisted for a while - until a clear body of knowledge is established, this is inevitable.

I also think that some phenomena - such as mediumship - just don't lend themselves easily to scientific study. That does not necessarily mean that they are totally invalid.

David

This is a very important point, and one that applies to religion as well. It is too easy to discount Ian Stevenson because of the corner Gypsy palm reader's shop, and God because of the various ways religions have been implemented throughout history. That these things are not as closely related as they are purported to be is an important factor to keep in mind when evaluating psi.

For instance, I used to live a couple blocks away from the Parapsychology Foundation on the upper east side of New York, and dipped into their library frequently. I found that there were shelves packed with books on "paranormal" subjects that were in my opinion entirely worthless, with only a handful of genuine value. The best books I managed to find on one wall were the huge Stevenson studies on reincarnation, Adam Crabtree's "Multiple Man", Frederick Myers books, Colin Wilson's, and a couple about Rhine. The rest were Erich von Daniken, Hans Holzer, vampires, "magick", etc.

The librarian was aware of the variable quality of the books, but the library purposely buys almost every book published that has a parapsychology connection so that the library remains comprehensive. What this does is to make it very easy to see the ratio of serious books to the rubbish. As a guess, it seemed to be about 1:12 or so, maybe worse.

AP

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

I think one problem is that there is obviously a lot of "New Age" vague ideas about, horoscopes, etc. etc. Skeptics tend to think this represents the whole field, but it is important to remember that chemistry and alchemy coexisted for a while - until a clear body of knowledge is established, this is inevitable.

I don't think this is the case with skeptics who are actually paying attention. As in any field, there will always be whackos, but I don't think that's all there is.

However, I think some of the explanations for psi are pretty New Agey. Talk of various supernatural realms, akashic records, QM, morphic fields, "energy" of all makes and models, and so forth. Even some tenuous philosophy gets brought into the mix. I have yet to hear a coherent definition of libertarian free will, for example.

~~ Paul

[P_Synthesis]

However, I think some of the explanations for psi are pretty New Agey. Talk of various supernatural realms, akashic records, QM, morphic fields, "energy" of all makes and models, and so forth

Always makes me laugh when I hear people say stuff like that. There are energy systems out there that could have you feeling energy most likely within a day, and there are OBE systems out there now that could get you out of your body in a few weeks.

It's experience that changes belief systems.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

However, I think some of the explanations for psi are pretty New Agey. Talk of various supernatural realms, akashic records, QM, morphic fields, "energy" of all makes and models, and so forth.
~~ Paul

My overwhelming hunch is that if psi is real, the explanation will be BIG - up there with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and will come with a real explanation of consciousness.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by P Synthesis

Always makes me laugh when I hear people say stuff like that. There are energy systems out there that could have you feeling energy most likely within a day, and there are OBE systems out there now that could get you out of your body in a few weeks.

I can "feel energy" simply by making a mood of doing so. I can leave my body by taking the appropriate drugs. So I agree with you that there are systems for doing these things.

Now, let's hear an explanation that doesn't sound New Agey.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

My overwhelming hunch is that if psi is real, the explanation will be BIG - up there with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and will come with a real explanation of consciousness.

I'm inclined to agree.

~~ Paul