Jump to content

Recommended Posts

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> fabfor Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Sorry, no time to expand right now but there is

> > clear scientific evidence for telepathy. More

> > tomorrow (hopefully).

>

>

> I know what you're thinking fabfor - and it'll

> never work.


Tee-hee :-)).

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No love. I've made my arguments quite clear.


xxxxxx


No you haven't, sweetie. Or at least, they may be clearly stated, but they are not logical.


But what is clear to me is that there is no point discussing them with you :))


As a postgrad I was a tutor to first and second year psychology undergraduates, and parapsychology was the subject of one of the tutorials.


They were all intelligent people and - strangely enough - not only did none of them call the subject "barking", but they were very well able to discuss the issues rationally, including research methods.

Muslim scholars, theosophists, hell, even scientologists discuss stuff rationally. That doesn't lend it any credibility, it's all based on faith.


And I'm still waiting for the evidence pumpkin.

Without that it's just a faith based position, and more power to you for your quaint beliefs, who am I to belittle them ;-)

maxxi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> fabfor Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Sorry, no time to expand right now but there is

> > clear scientific evidence for telepathy. More

> > tomorrow (hopefully).

>

>

> I know what you're thinking fabfor - and it'll

> never work.


Telepathy right here; QED!


More seriously, here's the link to some real research:


http://www.sheldrake.org/research/telepathy


The thing is, good, solid scientific evidence isn't hard to find. Just Google "telepathy research" and follow your nose (intuition!).


We turn science into superstition when we refuse point blank to look at evidence and,instead, resort to character assassination.

There's a link to a radio debate on the same page. Here's part of what Dr. Sheldrake had to say about it:



Last week I took part in a public debate on telepathy at the Royal Society of Arts in London. My opponent was Professor Lewis Wolpert, a pillar of the science establishment.


Prof Wolpert claimed that telepathy did not exist. He provided no evidence for this opinion. He just kept repeating it, implying that those who disagreed with him must have something wrong with them. When I summarised evidence for telepathy from thousands of scientific tests and showed a video of recent experiments he looked away from the screen. He did not want to know.


Over 80 per cent of the audience disagreed with him. The great majority had experienced telepathy themselves, particularly in relation to phone calls, thinking of someone who then rang. There is a similar situation in the country as a whole. Most people believe in psychic powers because they have experienced them personally, or seen them in their pets. Yet a minority claim these abilities are impossible, and dismiss them as superstition. Usually they have never taken the trouble to look at the facts. Like Prof Wolpert, they believe they know the truth already. But science is not about dogma, but about evidence. As I have discussed in this column over the last two months, the facts strongly support the existence of psychic abilities. It is scientific to accept these abilities on the basis of evidence, and unscientific to deny them on the basis of ignorance. Of course scepticism is necessary and healthy, and we would be foolish to believe everything we are told. But genuine scepticism is about open-minded enquiry, not denial (see the excellent website www.skepticalinvestigations.org).


I can accept that not everyone's interested in this subject but I find it exciting.

Scepticism is absolutely essential in all this but cynicism is an inherent blindfold (surely?).

"We turn science into superstition when we refuse point blank to look at evidence"


A bit arse about face. Superstition is often the stage before science demystifies or quantifies it.

Science never refuses to look point blank at the evidence, because then it wouldn't be science.


He doesn't do himself favours with "Most people believe in psychic powers because they have experienced them personally, or seen them in their pets", most people believe in god after all.


I await the peer reviews of this with genuine interest, though I noticed in yesterday's news that it's already being dismissed in many quarters, I'll hold off judgement until the reaction is a little more measured.


It's like that faster than light neutrino that had us so excited. Experiment proved it, and then they repeated it, nobody else reproduced it and two years later the original team reported faulty equipment had given rise to the result.

Booooo, no trips to Alpha Centauri just yet :(

> Prof Wolpert claimed that telepathy did not exist. He provided no evidence for this opinion


Surely if there is something which has no evidence, and has no rational scientific basis, then it's quite reasonable to say that it doesn't exist. We can't provide hard evidence against the tooth fairy either, that doesn't mean there's a serious debate to be had. I mean, do you remain open-minded about every single ludicrous suggestion out there, from L. Ron Hubbard's accounts of the Galactic Confederacy, to flying spaghetti monsters, to Nessy?


Where/what is Sheldrake's evidence?

There's a place in this world for maverick scientists pursuing unorthodox avenues of thought (admittedly usually in horror films).


I mean I've often wondered about hive intelligence/consciousness myself. Termite nests are staggeringly amazing things and noone has a clue as to how they're able to design air conditioning systems out of mud, or able to have sophisticated tactical responses to threats.


But just because an idea is attractive doesn't make it true, and you can't call people close-minded for not accepting what is essentially a gut notion.


Telepathic dogs though, he may be barking *baddam tish* up the wrong (conscious) tree with that one!

What peer reviewed evidence?


All I see on that site is stuff like this


"Many people report that they know in advance who is on the phone when the telephone is ringing. Sheldrake and Smart [1, 2] conducted experiments where participants had to determine which one of four possible callers is on the phone while the telephone was still ringing. They report highly significant hit rates that cannot be explained by conventional theories."


Sorry, but if you ask me to choose one of four possible callers, I have a 25% chance of getting it right. I also know who the 4 possible callers are. If that is the sort of scientific experiment/research which is supposed to prove the existence of telepathy, then I am unimpressed.

Ok I've dug around. Firstly I can't find his paper on this, though there are similar experiments he's been running since 2001.

Secondly can you provide links to the peer reviews that are happy with the methodoogy and support the outcome.


He's claiming that "telepathy has evolved, like other biological abilities, subject to natural selection". Which sort of goes without saying as any ability would, unless the first single celled organisms had it.


My issue with this is that for an ability to persist in an evolutionary manner it must confer some survival advantages. Given that it's so hard to prove I'd love to know what those advantages are. Guessing who's ringing you probably wasn't much good to Homo Heidelbergensis.


Plus I can correctly predict who's ringing me 98% of the time. It's my wife.

Lots of things get published in journals. It doesn't mean something has been scientifically proven.


You clearly believe, and that's you're right. But the way you're typing reminds me of a couple of full on conspiracy theorists that I see on Facebook. They are absolutely convinced they are right and that the rest of us are just foolish mugs that can't see the truth.


There is nothing on that site that convinces me of anything. That is not to say that he shouldn't continue his research, and I?m certainly not saying that there is no chance that this stuff may go on to be proved correct. But please don't present that stuff like its absolute proof of something when it's definitely not.

Y'see fabfor? I told you it wouldn't work.*





*Forecasts available at reasonable rates.**



**Predicts some will not believe me and think I am taking the piddle - oh you poor, lost souls flailing in the darkness***



***Special sceptics offer - 2 forecasts for a tenner.

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> My issue with this is that for an ability to

> persist in an evolutionary manner it must confer

> some survival advantages.


Is that not assuming we are only here to evolve/survive and ignoring the possibility that there is more to learn about ourselves?

>

> Plus I can correctly predict who's ringing me 98%

> of the time. It's my wife.


Well then explain how you get so many football predictions right. Crystal ball?

"Is that not assuming we are only here to evolve/survive and ignoring the possibility that there is more to learn about ourselves?"


It's not assuming anything and we're not here to do anything according to evolution, it's jusrt that we started at self-replication and we've ended up here. If a mutation gives you an edge it persists, if hinders you it won't. I'm not sure introspection was the goal of existence, merely a byproduct of an evolutionary edge.


"It's all there and published by various scientific journals (peer reviewed)."

Nice exasperation fabfor, but all we're asking is where.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What was he doing on the stage at Glastonbury? Or on the stage at the other concert in Finsbury Park? Grinning like a Cheshire cat whilst pissed and stoned 20 somethings on the promise of free internet sung-- Oh Jeremy Corbyn---  What were his policies for Northern mining towns with no jobs or infrastructure? Free Internet and university places for youngsters. What were his other manifesto pledges? Why all the ambiguity over Brexit?  I didn't like Thatcher, Blair or May or Tony but I respected them as politicians because they stood by what they believed in. I respect all politicians across the board that stick to their principles. Corbyn didn't and its why he got  annihilated at the polls. A socialist, anti imperialist and anti capitalist that said he voted for an imperialist and pro capitalist cabal. He refused to say how he'd vote over and over again until the last knockings. He did so to appease the Islington elite and middle class students he was courting. The same people that were screaming that Brexit was racist. At the same time the EU were holding black and Asian immigrants in refugee camps overseas but not a word on that! Corbyn created and courted a student union protest movement that screamed at and shouted down anyone not on the left . They claimed Starmer and the centre right of labour were tories. He didn't get elected  because he, his movement and policies were unelectable, twice. He turned out not to have the convictions of his politics and died on his own sword.    Reform won't win an election. All the idiots that voted for them to keep out Labour actually enabled Labour. They'll be back voting tory next time.    Farage wouldn't be able to make his millions if he was in power. He's a very devious shyster but I very much doubt he'd actually want the responsibility that governance requires.
    • The purge of hard left members that were part of Corbyn's, Mcdonnel's and Lansmans momentum that purged the party of right wing and centrist members. That's politics. It's what Blair did to win, its what Starmer had to do to win. This country doesn't vote in extreme left or right governments. That's partly why Corbyn lost  We're pretty much a centrist bunch.  It doesn't make it false either. It's an opinion based on the voting patterns, demography and statistics. Can you explain then why former mining constituencies that despise the tories voted for them or abstained rather than vote for Corbyns Labour?  What is the truth then? But he never got elected!!! Why? He should have been binned off there and then. Why he was allowed to hang about is an outrage. I hold him party responsible for the shit show that we've had to endure since. 
    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...