What (IYO) is the best evidence for psi/pk type event?

[fls]

Originally Posted by paqart

EXACTLY. I am still amazed that this is not looked at as macro-PK. If you accept dualism, then it has to be psi of some kind because it is non-material consciousness affecting a physical body.

AP

I mentioned that ages ago.

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptik...esis#post74869

Linda

[sbu]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

You're absolutely correct. A big part of the success in my trip to the Rhine Research Center was due to the fact that the researchers looked after me so well. They did everything possible to make me feel at home. We also practised via skype before I got to to NC so I could get used to doing pk for them ahead of time. They created an atmosphere conducive to performance, where I could feel safe.

Sandy, did they publish anything on the back of your visit to Rhine?

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by sbu

Sandy, did they publish anything on the back of your visit to Rhine?

I was just there in Feb 2012, so there hasn't been enough time for that. I've just started to look over the first draft of a report from the people I was working with. I have no idea if anything will be published in a journal from that visit yet.

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by fls

But they didn't go, "that's strange" (or the research article equivalent "the wheel movement remains unexplained, more research is needed"). They said, "our quantitative measurements suggest people displaying these experiences and possible anomalous energies can be viewed clinically and potentially treated", which seems a bit dismissive rather than merely cautious.

When I went to Laurentian the first time, I went because I wanted to be cured of the PK. Roll and Persinger made the goal of that trip to find ways of treating my condition. Not just the pk, but more importantly, the illness I suffer from at the onset of geomagnetic storms. So they were not being dismissive, they were stating that they had come up with possible treatments because that was the objective.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

When I went to Laurentian the first time, I went because I wanted to be cured of the PK. Roll and Persinger made the goal of that trip to find ways of treating my condition. Not just the pk, but more importantly, the illness I suffer from at the onset of geomagnetic storms. So they were not being dismissive, they were stating that they had come up with possible treaments because that was the objective.

Okay.

I still think it would be more interesting for them or the Rhine group to publish about the PK aspects, even if it can't get into a mainstream journal (although one would hope that it could).

Linda

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by fls

Okay.

I still think it would be more interesting for them or the Rhine group to publish about the PK aspects, even if it can't get into a mainstream journal (although one would hope that it could).

Linda

I think one of the issues is that "proving pk is real" isn't the priority among people who already accept that there is evidence for pk. People are interested in studying this stuff for different reasons. The skeptics are being left behind as the really adventurous researchers investigate consciousness as a non-local phenomenon.

[Johann]

It seems more to me like they just don't consider your case as one that would catch the conventional eye; its just too "out there" to be even considered for publication. Maybe a couple thousand trials on micro pk - given the right circumstances - would make it into a big journal, but macro pk? I don't think so. The editor of Science is, I think, much more likely to consider an extensive statistical analysis of some small psi effect than a reported huge anomaly with no chance of skeptical rebuttal. Its like trying to publish the footage of a UFO landing somewhere, with genuine video-taped evidence; there's no way that will ever make it into a prestigious journal! Imagine the loss of reputation! The scandal! The truth! I mean, er, the falsehood!

- Johann

[Pollux]

Originally Posted by fls

But they didn't go, "that's strange" (or the research article equivalent "the wheel movement remains unexplained, more research is needed"). They said, "our quantitative measurements suggest people displaying these experiences and possible anomalous energies can be viewed clinically and potentially treated", which seems a bit dismissive rather than merely cautious. I understand that researchers want to be careful about whether their statements are supported by the results they present, and a claim that PK was witnessed can expect a hostile reception, especially if it isn't. It just would be nice to see this aspect written up as well. There wouldn't be any problem getting that into the JSPR, I would guess. And they should take better advantage of SandyB as a subject - there is tremendous potential there for discovery.

Linda

"More research is needed" is the official "Hmm, that's strange".

Also, I think, as you mention, that they are really careful of stating just about anything with the hostility that surrounds the topic.
The way to go is to present what exactly happened so it is blatantly obvious to anyone who reads it, but end the summary with "We dont exclude a totally natural and materialistic explanation for this in further research".

When in Rome, act like a Roman....and dont mention the war.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

I think one of the issues is that "proving pk is real" isn't the priority among people who already accept that there is evidence for pk. People are interested in studying this stuff for different reasons. The skeptics are being left behind as the really adventurous researchers investigate consciousness as a non-local phenomenon.

But that's my point. When you're trying to study it, it's a big bomus to find someone who can produce it upon demand. And realistically, you get way more resources thrown your way once you offer evidence in a form other researchers are used to seeing.

Linda

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by fls

But that's my point. When you're trying to study it, it's a big bomus to find someone who can produce it upon demand. And realistically, you get way more resources thrown your way once you offer evidence in a form other researchers are used to seeing.

Linda

In all honesty, I'm not sure it will be conventional sources of funding driving any of this. In fact, that seems less and less likely. That article did generate some interest in research, and maybe some more stuff will get published in journals. Personally, I would like that to happen because I have a background in science and that's what I was brought up to believe should happen. But whether or not things are published, I'm pretty sure research is going to continue unless I say no to it.