Dean Radin -Podcast and Spoon Bending

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What Arouet said.

Iyace, I do hold off on a "formal" opinion, because this is a backwater Internet forum, not a peer-reviewed journal. Meanwhile, I can have an informal opinion.

If the proponents followed the rules you appear to require, then no one would ever say something was psi, either. We'd all just look around at one another and be bored to tears.

~~ Paul

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Iyace

That's not what he's saying, though. He's saying that because we have no known mechanism as to how it's possible, then the default position is that it is in somehow, someway, mundane.

Well, in a way - YES. Or at least eliminate the KNOWN mechanisms before jumping to mechanisms that are unknown.

When my daughter started doing 'magic' - it involved having me shut my eyes while she did her magic. KNOWING several mechanisms by which she could have performed the trick - I was going to stick with those vs. any real magic. Though I did let her have fun with the game. It also did not take her long to know when I was doing the same. I am sure she picked it up from me playing with her in fact.
This is a very simplified example - but it works.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

If there is no evidence to suggest the known mechanism is the correct one, then dismissing other possibilities out-of-hand is arrogant and ill-advised. Good scientists are open to the possibilities.

So then any event for which a known mechanism has not been documented is supposed to be treated as a possible scientific discovery? Can't we ever just assume it was a mundane event, even though we don't have evidence one way or the other?

For example, Ray Hyman's assertion that some psi experiments must be flawed only on the basis that he doesn't like the data is intellectually dishonest and just plain silly. If an experimental design is flawed, he should be able to point out the flaws, not claim they are there based on the issue of the data not supporting his belief system.

Perhaps, but this is different from seeing some guy bend a spoon.

~~ Paul

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

If there is no evidence to suggest the known mechanism is the correct one, then dismissing other possibilities out-of-hand is arrogant and ill-advised. Good scientists are open to the possibilities.

For example, Ray Hyman's assertion that some psi experiments must be flawed only on the basis that he doesn't like the data is intellectually dishonest and just plain silly. If an experimental design is flawed, he should be able to point out the flaws, not claim they are there based on the issue of the data not supporting his belief system.

That assumes that there is enough information to make that determination.

If someone reports seeing Bigfoot - you might be able to use the limited information available to explain what was seen. You might only be able to give much more likely options than Bigfoot. In general you could confidently say that without some extraordinary evidence to the contrary 'they did not see a Bigfoot'. The reason extraordinary evidence is needed is because of the lack of the evidence that would exist if Bigfoot was real, the amount of hoaxes and misinterpretations in the history of this issue. Yes, Bigfoot might exist, they might have seen one - It is just going to take a lot more than a sighting, blurry picture, a couple footprints, or a suit in a freezer to convince me otherwise.

As for Ray Hyman's assertion.
I will say that the report of someone bending a spoon with their mind, for me would start with the trickery position from a historical and scientific perspective. Anyone can be fooled, magicians are great at getting the audience to be paying attention to 'A' while the trick is at 'B'. Or they specifically show you how it is not being done with 'C' while they do it with 'D' and then show you how it is not being done with 'D' while they do it with 'C' or 'E'. Depending on how it is reported it may be clear what they controlled for in which trials - it may not. They may think they did better than they thought. This is another reason replication can be so critical - with different individuals as well - even slightly different conditions.

[gabriel]

Originally Posted by Scott

In general you could confidently say that without some extraordinary evidence to the contrary 'they did not see a Bigfoot'.

If Bigfoot is a relic hominid, the possibilities of such a creature existing are reasonably high. RHs have been seen in various remote parts of the world by scientists, explorers and continually sighted by the indigenous population.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by gabriel

If Bigfoot is a relic hominid, the possibilities of such a creature existing are reasonably high. RHs have been seen in various remote parts of the world by scientists, explorers and continually sighted by the indigenous population.

What? Even if somehow, somewhere, we find real evidence of Bigfoot (other than blurry photos and silly anecdotes), I would not say that the possibility of such a discovery is "reasonably high." I would say that it is "stunningly low."

A "reasonably high" probability event is something like the possibility that I might go to the local deli for a cup of coffee today.

~~ Paul

[Quantumfog]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

What? Even if somehow,
A "reasonably high" probability event is something like the possibility that I might go to the local deli for a cup of coffee today.

~~ Paul

For me, that would be "stunningly low".

[larry4444]

Originally Posted by gabriel

If Bigfoot is a relic hominid, the possibilities of such a creature existing are reasonably high. RHs have been seen in various remote parts of the world by scientists, explorers and continually sighted by the indigenous population.

I don’t think comparing big foot or the lochness monster to the existence of psi is useful except to discredit it. Psi is hard to test for because of the subjective factors and the way the phenomenon exists in nature and does not manifest easily in lab conditions. Big foot is a physical object (if it exists as such) like any other animal. It seems highly unlikely a hominid could avoid being conclusively identified in the modern world especially when it appears to manifest in so many different locations. imo

[Scott]

Originally Posted by gabriel

If Bigfoot is a relic hominid, the possibilities of such a creature existing are reasonably high. RHs have been seen in various remote parts of the world by scientists, explorers and continually sighted by the indigenous population.

Distant sightings and fuzzy pictures do not make convincing evidence. Populations of such creatures would leave more of a trace of their existence.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by larry4444

I don’t think comparing big foot or the lochness monster to the existence of psi is useful except to discredit it. Psi is hard to test for because of the subjective factors and the way the phenomenon exists in nature and does not manifest easily in lab conditions. Big foot is a physical object (if it exists as such) like any other animal. It seems highly unlikely a hominid could avoid being conclusively identified in the modern world especially when it appears to manifest in so many different locations. imo

You can make lab conditions similar to what ever conditions needed. The fact that the psi has extreme difficulty being observed in controlled settings suggests other explanations. Even being able to test how the differences in normal to lab conditions affect psi would be big discovery. It is this kind of missing data that give these excuses little validity. If I suggest that left handed researchers interfere with some experiment - That is very easy to design a protocol to test that hypothesis.

I used the Bigfoot example to not try and pick on someones pet belief - and not raise walls.