How did it go with the staring experiment?

[paqart]

Let's stop worrying about who is or is not a skeptic. My impression of the OP is that it was more of a statement than a genuine question. If that isn't the impression Swede wanted to make, he should rephrase. If it is the impression he wanted to make--that Sheldrake's work has been conclusively shown to lack credibility--then I'd like to know his reasons for thinking so, because I haven't anything solid on that subject regarding Sheldrake's psi research. His morphic resonance theory is something else, but even that is debated, not "proven" one way or another.

AP

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by Nemo85

To answer the OP:



Thus there seem to be a genuine effect. I suggest people read Sheldrake and His Critics: The Sense of Being Glared At (its content is listed here: JCS Journal of Consciousness Studies 12,6) and Daryl Bem's review of it (attached). I don't have time to participate further - too much work this summer and I have too many irons in the fire, thus have fun.



When you watched American Dad, episode 9, season 5, Rapture's Delight, which included an evil boy named Nemo (the Anti-Christ)

Thanks for the info, Nemo. (Good name, BTW!)

[The Swede]

It just seems to me that many PSI-experiments claim amazing resluts and evidence but then nothing happens with it. Nothing changes the world. No proof. It seems like Gary Schwartz and Co. just say that they have proof then writes a book about it and then link-spam their amazon page.

Sheldrake did a experiment, well. If someone would come up to me and ask, can people know when someone is staring at them?

I would probably say I don't know. But if it were true you would'nt be asking that questions since that would be common sense if it was proved.

I'm just so tierd of all the parapsychology experiment with all the fuzzy results.

[Nemo85]

Originally Posted by The Swede

It just seems to me that many PSI-experiments claim amazing resluts and evidence but then nothing happens with it. Nothing changes the world. No proof. It seems like Gary Schwartz and Co. just say that they have proof then writes a book about it and then link-spam their amazon page.

Sheldrake did a experiment, well. If someone would come up to me and ask, can people know when someone is staring at them?

I would probably say I don't know. But if it were true you would'nt be asking that questions since that would be common sense if it was proved.

I'm just so tierd of all the parapsychology experiment with all the fuzzy results.

Do I smell troll or do I need to take a shower?

[The Swede]

Originally Posted by Nemo85

Do I smell troll or do I need to take a shower?

I'm not a "troll". But hey, listen. Isn't it annoying that after all these experiments concerning NDE's and PSI and all and still there is no proof. What did Moody do all these years? Write books about people experiences, well. I could find thousands of people that have seen aliens but that doesn't prove they exist.

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by The Swede

It just seems to me that many PSI-experiments claim amazing resluts and evidence but then nothing happens with it. Nothing changes the world. No proof.

Parapsychologists can publish articles. What they can't do is force you to read the articles. There is lots of interesting evidence out there, but it requires a bit of work on your part to find it.

Many people report sensing when they are being watched. Sheldrake didn't just decide to investigate this out of the blue. He paid attention to what sorts of experiences people commonly report.

The experiment didn't change the world because for people familiar with these experiences, they aren't all that unique. It's just how things are.

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by The Swede

I'm not a "troll". But hey, listen. Isn't it annoying that after all these experiments concerning NDE's and PSI and all and still there is no proof. What did Moody do all these years? Write books about people experiences, well. I could find thousands of people that have seen aliens but that doesn't prove they exist.

You started the thread by making a blanket assumption about something that turned out to be untrue. Now you are doing more of the same. Read the literature, then ask informed questions.

[The Swede]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

Parapsychologists can publish articles. What they can't do is force you to read the articles. There is lots of interesting evidence out there, but it requires a bit of work on your part to find it.

Many people report sensing when they are being watched. Sheldrake didn't just decide to investigate this out of the blue. He paid attention to what sorts of experiences people commonly report.

The experiment didn't change the world because for people familiar with these experiences, they aren't all that unique. It's just how things are.

But if there is so much evidence for life after death how come I never see under the science section on BBC for an example: "Proof for life after death", "Scientists answers the oldest questions on mankind"..? Because there is no such evidence that suggest that it is like that. Just write a book about NDE accounts and say here is the proof, people experiences, well that's not much of proof or is it?

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by The Swede

But if there is so much evidence for life after death how come I never see under the science section on BBC for an example: "Proof for life after death", "Scientists answers the oldest questions on mankind"..? Because there is no such evidence that suggest that it is like that. Just write a book about NDE accounts and say here is the proof, people experiences, well that's not much of proof or is it?

Your argument is reliant on something completely irrelevant. If darfur is such a travesty, then why do I not see everything in the news relating to darfur. The vast majority of people believe in life after death. So if BBC writes are article stating that the question has been answered, then, well, you're just writing about what most people agree on. If i wrote an article about how laying on razor blades is bad for you, it would be a terrible article. Most people know that laying on razor blades will hurt. If your argument dwells around the question of ' then why doesn't everyone agree? ', then by that merit, the holocaust never happened, we never went to the moon, the earth is still flat, and there are no techtonic plates.

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by The Swede

But if there is so much evidence for life after death how come I never see under the science section on BBC for an example: "Proof for life after death", "Scientists answers the oldest questions on mankind"..? Because there is no such evidence that suggest that it is like that. Just write a book about NDE accounts and say here is the proof, people experiences, well that's not much of proof or is it?

You won't find the word proof used that way in any science. No legitimate scientist will state "The Theory of Evolution has been proven", but you can certainly find various journal articles that attempt to provide evidence to suggest something like evolution may have an effect on life on this planet.

Same goes for something like survival of consciousness. There are articles in peer-reviewed journals that provide evidence to support such an idea. Two lectures that cover some of the evidence can be found online:

https://vimeo.com/11871512

SSE Talks - Is Postmortem Survival A Scientific Hypothesis? - Bruce Greyson