Ghosts and paranormal activity in ED & PR

[fabfor]

Sorry, no time to expand right now but there is clear scientific evidence for telepathy. More tomorrow (hopefully).

[maxxi]

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.

[fabfor]

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 :-)).

[Sue]

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.

[El Pibe]

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 ;-)

[fabfor]

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?).

[El Pibe]

"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 :(

[Jeremy]

> 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?

[El Pibe]

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!

[david_carnell]

I suppose none of them are interested in the money?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prizes_for_evidence_of_the_paranormal

[fabfor]

Any comment on the (peer reviewed) evidence, gents?

[Otta]

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.

[El Pibe]

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.

[El Pibe]

cross-post!

uncanny, telepathy perhaps?

[fabfor]

Oh dear! This reminds me of the scientists in the planet of the apes who always knew the results before starting the experiments.

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

Poor galileo!!

[Otta]

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.

[fabfor]

Here's Wikipedia on one of the scientific journals and on peer review.

[maxxi]

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.

[Alan Medic]

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?

[El Pibe]

"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.

[El Pibe]

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

She fell through a wormhole and rings them through from the future.

[TE44]

Whether science believes there is proof or not, i think artificial/

Synthetic telepathy gives some idea what there concept of it is.

[El Pibe]

that or go 0-0, 1-0, 0-1, 1-1, 2-1, 1-2 and never waver.

[El Pibe]

I'm thinking sheldrake is a troll's wet dream, just* enough institutional credibility to hide behind, just enough woo to spur ire.

*juuuuuuuuuuuust

[*Bob*]

(*hides under white sheet*)

"ooooooooooo-OOOOOOoooOOOO------ooooooooooooOOOO..."