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

[Open Mind]

The stage is all yours ......tell the forum why you believe psi doesn't exist.

- Quote evidence that convinced you psi doesn't exist.

Or

- Instead say which prominent skeptic(s) convinced you psi doesn't exist.

Drum roll .....

[Ersby]

Keeping it short, and just resctricting myself to things I've spent some time researching.

Why I don't believe in

Remote Viewing

Lack of operational results. A lot of the big hits I've seen described (the crane in URDF-3, being able to read letters on a document, knowing code names in a military base) weren't backed up by the original documentation written at the time.

Mediumship

Because I was able to largely replicate the results of psychics on phone-in shows with my own cold-reading.

Micro PK

Bad meta-analyses.


Am doubtful about

Ganzfeld

Bad meta-analyses. My own (admittedly amateur) work indicates marginal results in favour of psi.

Interested in

Presentiment

Waiting on further results.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sorry, too much work. Been looking at psi for years.

PEAR: Even more egregiously than the rest of psi, PEAR is nothing but statistical data mining. Instead of RNGs, they could have selected 100 deciduous trees and counted the number of leaves that fall each day in autumn. Deciding what kind of statistical analysis to perform is effectively arbitrary.

~~ Paul

[Miguel]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

The stage is all yours ......tell the forum why you believe psi doesn't exist.

- Quote evidence that convinced you psi doesn't exist.

Or

- Instead say which prominent skeptic(s) convinced you psi doesn't exist.

Drum roll .....

The problem with 'psi' is that it means a lot of different things to different people.
Some may say psi is any sort of anomalous result in a psychological-like experiment. Such results exist, of course. It would be practically impossible for them not to.

[paqart]

This thread is a great idea. Of course I can't answer the question because I'm on the other side of the issue, but I'd much rather read the answers to this question (and others like it) than the sniping that shows up elsewhere.

AP

[sparky]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

The stage is all yours ......tell the forum why you believe psi doesn't exist.

- Quote evidence that convinced you psi doesn't exist.

for me personally , i can not , in all honesty , answer this .
i just was never convinced by the evidence for psi
also this opening statement asks to prove a negative , which is near impossible

so for me stated correctly would be

- quote evidence that didn't convince you psi exists

which would be a very long list

- Instead say which prominent skeptic(s) convinced you psi doesn't exist.

again , to me a bit leading , don't you think ?

the way this is stated implies that everybody is convinced psi exists
except for skeptics and the ones who have their minds poisoned by the evil of "organised skepticism"
which is a cousin of "big pharma"

so i will take the opportunity to vent some objections to the way psi is argued to be existing

but first , i do not have any problem with believe in psi , what anyone believes
is their business
triying to be science is the problem

actualy the way OM starts this thread illustrates something many believers do , and that is reversing the burden of proof
it would be so much easier if in only one case the evidence would be indisputable

there is of course the lack of mechanism , lack of consistency etc...

but the most annoying to me is the lack of curiousity
meaning : believers dispute the existence of one form of psi to a point where magical thinking has to be inserted , consider the argument won or the position held , and then happily go on to the next subject , without any questions about the how and why

imagine for instance a cryptozoologist looking for bigfoot , he finaly succeeds in making a movie that may or may not show a large primate

if scientifically inclined , he litters the place with motion sensitive cameras
to get conformation
wonders if , in case bigfoot really exists , how many there are ? what they eat ? etc...

if operating like the typical psi investigator he considers the dodgy movie to be abolute proof and goes on to look for the unicorn

there just does not seem to be a desire to ad knowledge , only keeping up the status quo, fend of attacks , keep the confabulations alive
and , ironically enough, for that relying on the creative work of science

Drum roll

there are a few more things i would like to contribute in this thread but i am getting maybe a bit ranty now , always agood time to stop

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Ersby

Remote Viewing

Lack of operational results. A lot of the big hits I've seen described (the crane in URDF-3, being able to read letters on a document, knowing code names in a military base) weren't backed up by the original documentation written at the time.

I suppose if you trust the CIA released the best evidence, in their sanitized for release reports. There is reason to question whether the CIA wanted a neutral evaluation of their research.

' ....In the CIA's presentation to Congress, eight separate bulleted points are allotted to Hyman's conclusion while only four are allotted to Utts's, and none are given to Utts's important rebuttal to Hyman ....... It is curious to note that the AIR report does not include the original effort from Hyman but only his response to Utts ...' - Ed May

What did the missing Hyman's original report say '....We both agree that the SAIC experiments were free of the methodological weaknesses that plagued the early SRI research. We also agree that the SAIC experiments appear to be free of the more obvious and better known flaws that can invalidate the results of parapsychological investigations. We agree that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments are too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes. ..'

Mediumship

Because I was able to largely replicate the results of psychics on phone-in shows with my own cold-reading.

Not surprising in that sort of test, as the vast majority of psychics are vague to the point of being meaningless.

But some mediums do beat cold reading at times ..... e.g. one specifically gave me (1) unusual surname with (2) unusual street name (3) with the number of people of that surname who lived there on that street (4) from a dead young man ... .all correct and coherent, he lived on that street name until he died in accident, I had attended his funeral years earlier. (The psychic lived 200 miles away) . That sort of detail from a medium is very rare though.

Micro PK

Bad meta-analyses.

I agree it isn't the most compelling lab effect as it is such a small effect that requires many, many attempts to be shown as significant. But why assume it doesn't exist?

And even if PK doesn't exist ... other types of physical phenomena such as witnesses reports of physical objects mysteriously moving, should not be automatically assumed to be macro-PK, as most witnesses do not claim 'I did that with my mind or will power' .... it is more often a claim of witnessing something moving regardless of their intention, of course it isn't lab evidence but these reports aren't like magicians on the make either.

Ganzfeld

Bad meta-analyses. My own (admittedly amateur) work indicates marginal results in favour of psi.

Well you have at least some reason to believe Remember, die-hard skeptics (I don't mean you) have to claim there is something wrong with the meta-analysis, what else can they claim?

Presentiment

Waiting on further results.

And again more of a reason to believe than disbelieve?

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by sparky

so for me stated correctly would be

- quote evidence that didn't convince you psi exists

OK, I see your point but my point is that most skeptics believe psi doesn't exist ...it is not a passive 'I don't know' ... they don't believe it ... I am asking the reason why are they so sure?

the way this is stated implies that everybody is convinced psi exists
except for skeptics

No... but I do think most skeptics in here sounds convinced it doesn't exist (with the exception of Ersby, there is a degree of doubt there)

I am not 100% convinced either .... I feel about 70-90% convinced depending on my mood. I read something skeptical, it dips, I check out if they are correct and my confidence tends to pop back up again

and the ones who have their minds poisoned by the evil of "organised skepticism"

I am no fan of organized belief ... whether that is organized skepticism or organized religion .... let people makes their own minds up, encourage them to look at both sides of the debate.

actualy the way OM starts this thread illustrates something many believers do , and that is reversing the burden of proof

If a skeptic expresses it like 'I doubt it, personally don't believe it' ... sure, there is no burdern of proof ... but if they say 'that is nonsense' or 'that did not occur' ... they are obliged to provide evidence to support their claim.

there is of course the lack of mechanism , lack of consistency etc...

Yes. But the same problem is there in most sciences of the mind.

Your comments about big foot and unicorns I will ignore.

there are a few more things i would like to contribute in this thread but i am getting maybe a bit ranty now , always agood time to stop

Well everyone rants some days

[David Bailey]

OK, now that the main skeptics here have said their piece, I'd like to say why I am more inclined to believe - say 70% - that psi exists. Some of you have heard this before of course

I used to be 100% skeptical. One big reason why I started to change my views was that I watched a TV program in which a skeptic (I don't remember who now) said, "There is no scientific evidence that PSI phenomena exist". This was a very bald headed statement with no qualification of any sort, and I knew that some papers existed in the literature that claimed the contrary. I realised that these 'experts' were promoting a cause, rather than providing a dispassionate summary of the evidence.

Sheldrake's experiments also contributed to my change, because of my own experience with our cat.

Perhaps the biggest issue for me, however, was the problem of explaining consciousness in purely physical terms. I'd felt that gap for a long time, but the abject failure of the expensive push to develop Artificial Intelligence (AI) crystallized in me a sense that consciousness was never going to be explained in that way.

I suppose many people who did science, like to feel that they have a rough understanding of science in a broader sense. Foe example, I have a rough understanding of biology - the structure of DNA, and how it is transcribed into RNA, which then directs the formation of proteins, etc. etc.

I have no rough understanding of how the physical brain produces consciousness, and I am damn nearly sure nobody else does either.

If we really don't know what consciousness is, we can't really say what its limitations might be, so people who claim such and such a mental ability is "contrary to science" are really talking nonsense.

That is kind of how I got to where I am now on these issues.

David

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I suppose if you trust the CIA released the best evidence, in their sanitized for release reports. There is reason to question whether the CIA wanted a neutral evaluation of their research.

My scepticism of the remote viewing project has nothing to do with the AIR report (although appendix D is far more damaging than Hyman’s rather vague dismissal). Also, to imagine that there is better evidence being hidden from us veers very close to conspiracy theories. The bottom line is that in the cases I mentioned above, the successes reported in books and articles written long after the event do not match the documents written at the time. This makes me sceptical.

Also I read a series of reports of their attempts at remote viewing hostages in the Middle East. It was kind of sad to read, since it was clear that the viewers were saying what they thought people wanted to hear. The case of Lt Higgins was particularly poignant, as they repeatedly said he was in good spirits, and physically well, and would be released in a couple of weeks. He never was released and was murdered by his captors.

Not surprising in that sort of test, as the vast majority of psychics are vague to the point of being meaningless.

And the majority of psychics can probably point to some testimonies from satisfied customers and readings which “beat cold reading”.

I agree it isn't the most compelling lab effect as it is such a small effect that requires many, many attempts to be shown as significant. But why assume it doesn't exist?

Because the evidence for it isn’t very good.