We mentioned this study after the New York Times wrote about it last month–and the reaction–but now here’s more details.
ESP. Extrasensory perception. Despite all the studies done by J.B. Rhine, despite Carl Jung’s writings on the subject, despite the fact that most of us experience it from time to time, it remains an ugly stepchild in the psychological community. But now, an article in a prestigious journal may change all that. Or not.
The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology has agreed to publish an article about nine unusual lab experiments conducted over the last ten years by Daryl J. Bem, a professor emeritus at Cornell. Hard to argue with an academic from Cornell, right? In a nutshell, Bem tested the ability of college students to “accurately sense random events, like whether a computer program will flash a photograph on the left or right side of the screen.” The study included more than 1,000 students. For the nuances of the experiment, click here.
What’s more intriguing than the experiment itself is the resistance from other mainstream psychologists that Bem’s experiment is pro ESP – i.e., that it exists, that it’s real. Quoting from the NY Times article: “It’s craziness, pure craziness. I can’t believe a major journal is allowing this work in,” Ray Hyman, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University Oregon and longtime critic of ESP research, said. “I think it’s just an embarrassment for the entire field.”
Really? An embarrassment? Bem’s article was subjected to peer review by four reviewers in the field. And all four decided that the paper met the journal’s editorial standards, says Charles Judd, the editor of the journal, a psychologist at the University of Colorado. He added: “…there was no mechanism by which we could understand the results.”
We’re not sure what he means by “mechanism,” but this seems to be the bone of contention among those who object to the article. “The problem was that this paper was treated like any other,” said an editor at the journal, Laura King, a psychologist at the University of Missouri. “And it wasn’t.”
Because the paper concerns ESP, a “paranormal” phenomenon, it apparently should be subjected to more rigorous standards. In the end, it all boils down to this: “…if ESP exists, why aren’t people getting rich by reliably predicting the movement of the stock market or the outcome of football games?”
Why does ESP have to translate to wealth and riches? Why is that the bottom line validation for whether it’s real? What about the child who reaches out telepathically to a parent in the middle of a crisis and the contact averts a tragedy? What about the feelings you experience with a partner, a friend, a sibling, those moments when your minds connect in an inexplicable and beautiful way? ESP is as common and ordinary as breakfast.
It’s tough to dismiss someone like Bem – Cornell, Harvard, Stanford, considered to be one of the imminent social psychologists. And maybe that’s why the rebuttals have been so vociferous. The rebuttals seem to be the dying gasp of the old paradigm, no different than the dying beliefs in politics or religion. Change will come regardless of what the naysayers and skeptics say. It will sweep into our lives in such bold, dramatic ways that rebuttals will make us laugh.
you guys got a regular brew ha ha going here, kind of wish I was so informed,, educated, opinionated,, sure it's alll in good clean academic inquistiveness,, me, well he maketh me to lie down in green pastures,, and it's not possible to know nearly all of the way things operate,, just figuring it ain't possible,,,,
high school nickname "Aps",, just can't seem to get away from the stuff
Actually, five of your messages were in spam, Paul, the one you repeated over anv over when you were in a raging fugue. You need to start a blog to promote rational thinking and your books. It could be by invitation only so you wouldn't get anyone who disagreed with you on there. Good luck.
Paul, please send the names of your books to me in a private e-mail. I promise not to publicize them, won't tell a soul. I also promise not to criticize your work or expose your identity.
Who cares who you are? I just want to validate that you're on the up and up, and not just some flame- throwing trouble maker.
If you can accomplish this one reasonable task, you're welcome to post your comments any time.
Send it here: macgregors2@gmail.com
Blogger has enabled automatic spam detection for comments. You should occasionally check the comments in your spam inbox. Learn more about Blogger's spam detection or report issues.
Found in spam
>>BrizDaz, you truly are a voice of reason. I'd love to respond to your comment, but my comments keep inexplicably getting deleted by some unseen force. So I won't waste my time.
Paul
author of several debunking books
**
Thanks, Paul. I guess we can't read your books though, since you won't name them, apparently because you fear criticism. lol
I read this quote at another blog site that I hang around at the moment,and thought of Paul.
"The knowledge of the heart is in no book, and is not found in the mouth of any teacher, but grows out of you like the green seed from the dark earth…But how can I attain the knowledge of the heart? You can attain this knowledge only by living your life to the full…" Carl Jung
So,Paul put down those Maths and Science books for a while and get out and do a spot of gardening.
Give the left side of the brain a rest,and let the right side have some playtime.
…and even science is getting serious about play;
https://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_brown_says_play_is_more_than_fun_it_s_vital.html
The time to live starts NOW.
Be your own experimental guinea pig.Isn't that what true science is all about? Knowledge?
And what better knowledge can there be than to know thyself ?
Start following those coincidences that you find meaningful,and see where that leads you…even only if it's for a few months…but,it seems to me that synchronicity is the real "Game of Life",and it takes a lifetime to play it.
Ready,your spin .-)
To Daz: kissing frogs doesn't turn them into princes. (I've kissed a few frogs in my time and darn it, they never do become handsome men on white horses who carry me off into the sunset!) However, I've seen a few handsome men turn into frogs! Go figure. I was going to check out that youtube on math debates re sychronicity, since I really AM a mathematician. Yes, really, I promise I am! But have decided yesterday was enough debating for awhile so will wait to go there to that site another time. Love the Bueller reference. Was that one fun movie or what!
To T & R: absolutely belly laugh at that wv: "fludg" fudge? Nuff said.
Glad that one is over. I've got to go look at the color of the DOT. In my mind it has become THE DOT, as in all capital letters and said very slowly and dragged out in a low voice….Planetary symptoms on my end seem a bit better today, thus the return of a sense of humor. Am going to travel over to that site you found on debunking UFOs, altho I don't know why, considering my history, with which you are intimately familiar! (What genius said "experience is the best teacher"? My memory fails me there, but I agree wholeheartedly with the precept!)
Happy and beautiful weekend to everybody.
Finally, in searching the Internet for references to UFO debunking books – just in case we have misrepresented Paul and he is indeed an author living in fear that believers will target him –we came across this interesting site about debunkers and extreme skeptics.
https://www.oregonmufon.com/index.php?view=article&catid=46%3Aopinion&id=85%3Aa-guide-to-debunking-and-extreme-skepticism&option=com_content&Itemid=78
And, no, we found no debunking books on UFOs by anyone named Paul. But maybe they were published in secret – like some of my books…or so it seems. 😉 – R
wv: fludg
Daz, Paul got himself in a mess creating false creds for himself. You also didn't see some of his comments that were removed, including one he sent five times telling us to go to some skeptics site, tell our point of view, and leave our names, addresses, and e-mails. Oh, scary skeptics!
Paul's lesson here is that he needs to look inward rather than outward for answers. The rest of us need to learn to ignore people who come here to antagonize. Enuf said.
Love the WV, Daz! And this line,"All I know is what I experience in my own life,and that's where I learn what seems real to me" sums it up.
Whoa!
I missed this one.
I gotta say,Paul,I feel sorry you.
I'm on the opposite side of fence with you on this one,but for what it's worth,I think you got dragged into the ring,when you weren't really looking for a fight.
I know diddly about math,so I don't care about the mathematical theories discussed here.All I know is what I experience in my own life,and that's where I learn what seems real to me.
And when you say;
"you don't learn by blindly accepting what people say. You learn by rational discussion."
I agree with you on the first part,but it's quite obvious just reading through most of the comments here,that "rational discussions" can be as rare as hen's teeth,between two opposing factions.
It might be better saying;
"you don't learn by blindly accepting what people say. You learn by your own experience."
And Marcus,I always seem to miss you when your commenting here…but just in case you read this comment…loved your book.
WV = hentism
(speaking of hen's teeth.-)
Now…what are the odds of that,mathematicians?…anyone?…
anyone?…Bueller ?
Here's a You-tube clip that sums up my feelings on mathematical debates about synchronicity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxPVyieptwA&feature=related
Anyone else feel like this…anyone?…anyone?
Kiss and make up,everyone
…life's too short.
Let's hear it for Da Vinci! (And for the missing-in-action Gypsywoman, of course!) Hee Hee. What a fun WV: "trolly" I swear, this is what it says…as in "troll". Need we say more?
How totally weird is the WV trickster!
gee, all this and i wasn't even present? and all this without my most recent experience to add fuel to the philboy saga!
however, trish and rob, cj, marcus and the other readers responded so appropriately and so well, i will refrain from further comments –
except that my first thought, upon reading philboy comments above, was also a da vinci – "all our knowledge has its origins in our perceptions" –
wv – umparkin
Will do, Rob. Nats, you're the best!
Oh, thanks. I only see it on mine. Glad to know it's there.
I checked out the USGS. Nothing flyin' there except the usual S.CAL
temblors. Could be something relative to the blizzard, maybe. Debra, how are you feeling? Gyps is out of range at the moment so can't asked her. And Vicki? Any unusual symptoms today? Nats? I did see where five people were injured due to the Bowl top collapsing from snow a little while ago, but that isn't it. Something's brewing, dagnabit! Haven't we all had enough for a while?? My specific symptom right now is being on the verge of vertigo, and woke up this morning wide awake at almost 5am…unheard of hour for a non-morning person!, and couldn't go back to sleep. Finally nudged hubby and told him I was getting up and coming downstairs. Been wide awake all day. Antsy. Jittery. Whatever it is, go away!! WV: 'centl'
central??
Nat – perfect quote!
Connie, you should put your question-comment about the dot under the current post. I'm not sure how many are looking here. This one goes back a few days. – R
Avoid the precepts of those thinkers whose reasoning is not confirmed by experience. ~ Leonardo da Vinci
Cj – it's a trash can. Anyone who comments can delete his or her own comments. They all have it.
No comment. Just look at the WV on this blank comment space: "obsoma"
Pretty interesting.
Hey guys, I have a question. At the bottom left side of the bottom of each of my comments is a symbol. Can anyone please tell me what it is and what it means? It doesn't appear on anyone else's comments except mine. Thanks!
Paul has once again lost control of his emotions, as he did in a previous session. He starts out with his cool and collected, logical mind. But eventually, as his comments are challenged, he breaks down and sends the same post over and over. His last one was sent five times.
So Paul, once again, bye, bye.
BTW,anyone can say they've written several books about a subject, and not give the names. We have to assume your so-called credentials are fraudulent.
Wow, that was quite a tirade, there cj. I have nothing to prove and no reason to prove it. You're wrong about who I am, but I don't really care. I'm here to learn, and you don't learn by blindly accepting what people say. You learn by rational discussion.
But it's hard to have a rational discussion with irrational people.
Trish and Rob, how about we put the skids on this person and return to the lovely and loving atmosphere of 'Sun'chronicty and our civil discussions and sharings. He's never going to stop because he apparently gets off on creating such chaos. This is no way to celebrate the second anniversary of MU. Let's end it, guys, and let him do as he pleases. When a child throwing tantrums is ignored, he eventually gets distracted and bored and goes away. Let's get back on track. All in favor say AYE!
Uh, I must make one response to the comment you posted while I was writing. If you are afraid of having rotten eggs thrown at you and nasty phone calls made to you in the middle of the night, how in heck did you publish "several books", since you labor under those kinds of fears?? And if you want MY full name, email address, credentials, resume', go back to your original visit here (which IS relevant), and you'll find it. I DON'T HIDE. You don't scare me with your ridiculous excuses for not posting who you are and your imaginary book titles. Nor are you fooling anyone. If you're so frightened to have your name and contacts out there, how did you gather the courage and nerve to publish several books?? THAT is a legitimate question. You just keep digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole of absurdity and lack of any credibility whatsoever. Case closed.
Call me any name you wish. Rude, childish, silly. None of them is accurate. My opinion of you, and I will speak it loudly and clearly and for the record, is that you are a wannebe intellectual who is afraid to show your name and face because, in short, you're full of it and none of it is real except in your exalted opinion of yourself. I did not attack you in any way, shape, or form. I even SAID to you that I was not being argumentative when I asked you the question. It was you who decided, yet again, to turn and twist everything to suit your apparent need for appearing superior and knowledgable, which brings me to this point: I notice you've acquired some "new" credentials since your last visit. Yes. I went back and re-read the entire post from that visit and it mirrors this one, except you are slipping up on your tales. (Most dishonest folks tend to forget what they've said.) Of course you won't offer the titles of your books. They don't exist. PROVE ME WRONG. I can tell you this: any author who has published material that isn't pornographic or in some other way offensive, is very proud to give out the titles to anyone and everyone. Your refusal to do that on a blog that you say interests you is significant. You hide behind anonymous because that's precisely what you are. Just an anonymous wannebe. Yep. This time you're dead on spot about my animosity. I intended to speak every word I just said. If I'm going to have the name, I'm going to play the game. Since you obviously don't agree with a single soul on this site, even the owners, why don't you pick up your marbles and trudge on home. Otherwise, we await with bated breath for the titles of your books so we can critique them in the same manner in which you insist upon critiquing everyone on this blog. TJ and Rob MacGregor are prolifically published authors, having won prestigious awards in their literary fields. You're barking up the wrong tree, little man. Put up or shut up.
Anyone who is at all familiar with this blog, and with MOST blogs, understands that all they need to do is click onto the name at the top of the comment box and the person's name and additional information will appear on their own blogs. And as far as your desire to "remain anonymous on a forum such as this", to quote you, why are you even here? And considering that in an earlier statement you remarked that you have an interest in discussing these subjects etc etc ad nauseum, why not tell us the titles of your books so we can read them, since you are so intent upon creating chaos (of your own making) here by telling everyone how wrong we are? Are you ASHAMED of your "several books debunking UFOs"? Hummpf. Bolderdash. Pure and simple. I will make no further responses to anything you have to say. Done with you, unless you present your book titles. PROVE ME WRONG. You aren't worth my time and certainly not worth my energy to try to appease. This WV is dead on point:
"scitant"
Okay, will the following people please go to the forums at https://www.skeptics.org and post your real full names and contact information, along with a brief essay explaining your positions on the subject of psychic research.
GYPSYWOMAN
Jen
d page
Vicki D.
whoot
Natalie
Nancy
Sansego
Shadow
Ray
After you do that, let me know how many prank phone calls you get in the middle of the night, and rotten eggs thrown at your house. Then you'll understand why I wish to remain anonymous here.
My name is Paul, and that's all you need to know. Any other information about my credentials was only revealed to make a point, a point which is no longer relevant, and was never relevant to this discussion. That was months ago, so why bring it up now?
You're just trying to change the subject. Why not argue on the facts instead? Defend Bem's conclusions with real math and show me why I'm wrong. I'm willing to listen. Are you?
Hardly irrelevant, Paul, when you say you're an author and don't bother giving titles. Hardly irrelevant when you say you've got initials after your name, but we don't even know what the hell your real name is. You're the only anonymous "maybe Paul, maybe an author maybe a PhD" on this forum.
– Trish
@MacGregor #1 (R): Why is it so hard for you to accept the notion that somebody might wish to remain anonymous in a forum such as this one? Your constant insistence that I reveal my identity is (a) weird, (b) annoying and irrelevant, and (c) unjustified. Why don't you insist that all of your other commenters reveal their identities too? Why single me out? Or are you just trying to change the subject?
@MacGregor #2: To answer your followup question (and thank you for actually responding with a relevant question instead of attacking or changing the subject), when I experience things I can't explain, my answer is "I don't know." That's why I look for answers. To borrow a phrase: Lots of people saw the apple fall from the tree – Isaac Newton asked "why?" That's why I'm here.
@3322mathaddict: I didn't attack anyone. Reread the comments. Mine and yours. Which of us is attacking with insults, and which of us is questioning the results of a scientific study? Again, I don't understand your animosity. And you didn't answer my question, or did you not bother to read it? Your credentials are remarkable, give yourself a pat on the back. But yes, you are being silly, childish and rude. Your comments speak for themselves.
@d page: Your definition of debunkery is biased with loaded words, and amounts to little more than name-calling. UFOs and psychic phenomena are two different things and shouldn't be lumped together by anyone, especially those who believe in both(!) This discussion is about psychic phenomena, don't change the subject. I assure you I have no agenda here except to get to the truth. That's not disinformation. That's not dogma, nor is it fundamentalism. Show me some hard data that supports Dr. Bem's conclusions, and I'm all ears.
If I'm not mistaken, Rob, the "nonsense" subjects of UFOs and ETs have been thrown by debunkers into the broad category of ESP, because the hundreds of thousands of folks who report seeing them and having experienced encounters with them are heaped into the same pile with other forms of metaphysical subjects of Extra-Sensory Perception, ie, telepathy, clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairsentience, pre-cognition, prophesy, etc etc etc. It's just a matter of semantics. Alongside you, I await titles of said published tomes. Evasive techniques are being employed, specifically, attacking an undeserving blogger. But we all have sufficient intelligence to recognize those. I have no need to defend my academic credentials. I do recall offering them in detail during this visitor's previous session. Even Simple Simon remembers that. They're available in public domain, easily accessible for anyone to view, unlike folks who aren't even willing to offer his or her name and whose memories are short-term. Being silly, childish, and rude are new adjectives for me. HHmmmm. Maybe I've missed something here. 🙂
There are "debunkers" and "skeptics" in the arena of the paranormal. Both of these categories are limited by their dogma. The establishment of dogma places them clearly in the realm of fundamentalism. This is NOT true science.
It is well known in the world of UFO research that the difference between the debunkers and the skeptics is this: debunkery involves the spread of dis-information. It is interesting, Dr, that you have admitted (through your carefully chosen words) the nature of your agenda.
Oops, I looked it up. You didn't say three books, you said 'several.'
Here is your comment to cj related to a query about your anonymous ID from the Oct. 8, 2010 post called SHIP.
>>Hey, I'll even give you a hint: I have the letters "PhD" after my name, and I've published several books on UFO debunkery. That makes me an authority in your eyes, does it not?
So maybe you exaggerated and only wrote one. Still, I'd like to read it. – R
Paul – so when you experience these feelings, to what do you attribute them? Randomness? Chaos? If you can't believe in the validity of your own experiences, then how do you function?
You're right, you didn't say you wrote any books attacking psychic abilities. But you said you wrote three books attacking UFOs as nonsense. You have yet to give us a single title. I'd love to read one and give you another sale, and maybe a review on Amazon. But you haven't given us your name or a title.
Inquiring minds want to know! – R
@3322mathaddict: You're going to have to find a specific reference (and link to it, please) where I claimed to have written books "debunking psychics, etc". I made no such claim. I have written a book debunking UFO nonsense, but I don't see how that's germane to this discussion. Please don't make stuff up, it's childish and rude, and it doesn't add anything of value to the discussion.
Do you really believe that most people are able to do statistical analysis? I'm guessing you're just going out of your way to be offended here, since you strike me as one of those types, but let's assume for the moment that you're serious. You do understand that statistics is far more involved than the prob/stat course you took in undergrad, right? Statistics is an entire field unto itself, and most people simply do not have the depth of knowledge required to fully interpret statistical results. If you walk up to the average person on the street and ask them about the predictive density of a posterior distribution, do you really think they'll have any idea what you're talking about? I'm not putting anyone down with that statement, it's just the reality. It's analogous to a statement that most people don't have the knowledge to make a soufflé. I personally don't possess such knowledge, and I certainly wouldn't be offended if a french chef were to point that out. Why on earth would anyone be offended by me pointing out that most people don't understand something as esoteric as statistical analysis? Don't go out of your way to be offended, it undermines your argument and makes you look silly.
I truly don't understand your animosity towards me, but for your own sake I hope you can learn to coexist with people who don't share your faith. There's no reason to get so upset over things like this – it raises your blood pressure, and that's bad for your health. Or so mainstream science would have us believe. But then again, maybe mainstream science is wrong.
For me, this discussion of "science" extends itself into the category of the scientific "fact" that there cannot be intelligent life on any other planetary body. Earth scientists and physicists, and I know quite a few personally and have worked with one of the most renowned astro-physicists in the world, (verifiable background), can't seem to expand their minds towards the comprehension that the laws of physics applicable for supporting life as we recognize it on Earth, ie, H2O, CO2, etc etc, are not necessary to support different kinds of life on other planets or stars. The systems that support life indigenous to our world are not applicable on other worlds. Our scientists want to lump "life" into human species, plants,animals, amoebas, bacteria, on and on and on, with which we are all familiar. They block the potential that life out there would not mimic life here, and therefore the support system, and laws of physics, would differ.
>>Spirituality has no place in science because it doesn't meet any accepted standard of "knowing." You can't measure it. We haven't "killed off" the inner world, we just can't prove that it exists.
The unspoken conclusion: 'Hence, we don't believe it.'
This is a good expression of science in the last minutes of the dark age of materialism. The mainstream struggles over the evolution of consciousness and attempts to hold its ground against an inevitable paradigm shift.
Unfortunately, it appears that mainstream science has taken its cues from the Amazing Randi. There is no way you can beat Randi's test of psychic abilities and win his $1 million. He always has an out. Same with science. In spite of thousands of successful experiments, there's always an out.
Read this Paul.
https://deanradin.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-comments-on-alcocks-comments-on-bems.html
WHOA….most people don't have the
knowledge to evaluate mathematical statistical analysis?? I'm astonished speechless that anyone would make such an assumption, much less than that anyone would have the chuz pah to express it. One final comment to you, Paul, and you won't hear anymore from me. (This is neither argumentative nor debatable. It's FACT.) You stated above that you don't recall having ever claimed to be an authoritative expert in psychic research. That is not true. During your last visit to this site a few months ago, you stated you have written and published several books on "debunking psychics, etc" and that your research for your books is based on "credible evidence". (This is in the archives of the blog, easily accessible.) When the owners of this blog politely asked you, several times, for the titles of your books, you refused to offer them. I think this, and this alone, speaks the volumes that leave absolutely nothing else whatsoever to be said in your regard, or to you. Have a great day, and may you eventually experience the unequaled joys of true spiritual awakenings.
WV: "surenes" serene
Thank you for your valuable and informed snd unbiased dialogue, Dr. Anthony. Your blog brings us a plethora of on-going, current, up-to-date information. (FYI, "Paul", Marcus is a GENUINE PhD with a strong background and continuing legitimate research in these subjects and in the latest developments from myriad sources and schools of thought.) In response to your comments towards me, Paul, they merely served to underscore my observations regarding your occasional visits to this blog…that you enjoy popping in and creating chaos and discord and battles of words, and that you receive perverse gratification from attacking others. Ordinarily I am anything but hostile and argumentative and I honor and respect the opinions and views of others when those opinions and views are presented with a corresponding, mutual sense of honor and respect and awareness of facts; characteristics which define this blog. Everyone here knows me; some know me personally and not simply via the computer. When I am hostile and argumentative, it's distinctly clear. There was nothing in the least hostile or argumentative in my first lengthy comment, nor in my question asked of you. I will note, however, that tracking backwards to review your last visit on this site, I notice that you've since acquired a few new "accolades and abilities". I expect the essential letters following your name are probably B.S. But that isn't an abbreviation for "Bachelor of Science". And oh yes, now THAT was a hostile but astute observation based totally on your behavior here, past and present, although the hostility is tempered by humorous chuckles and a big grin. You left this space a few months ago when the owners of the SYNCHRO blog continued to politely ask you for the titles of the books you persistently claimed to have published that establish your "authority in the fields of science and in debunking psychics, etc". So yes, although in your above statement you said you "don't recall ever presenting yourself as an authority in psychic research", indeed you HAVE presented yourself as an authority, friend. Your memory fails you. You forgot about that, I assume? Trish and Rob made a simple and logical request when they asked for your book titles. You still have not responded to that request. If you were to do so, I fully expect everyone would afford you greater credibility and respect and attention to your debunking. One final remark: all of us here on this blog, some who are regulars and some who come and go as they are able, indulge in numerous conversations and debates on virtually every subject imaginable; some of which are highly controversial. But we never insult each other and we never provoke each other. We are curious and inquisitive and we are seekers of truth….and we respect whatever truth may be to each person here even if we disagree with that truth. You, and you alone, are the one who comes in occasionally and stirs the pot that is otherwise quite congenial and friendly even in the midst of vastly differing ideas and opinions from among the followers here. Have a great night….or day, whichever is applicable in your world. WV: oppla
@MacGregors: To answer your question, of course I have. Haven't we all had such experiences? But science isn't about anecdotes, science is about experimental evidence. And if you really look at the studies that have been done so far, none of them hit the mark. Look at the data for yourself, don't just blindly accept their conclusions because they support your beliefs – look at the methods and data, and analyze the numbers. To do that right, statistical analysis is absolutely required, and most people don't have the mathematical knowledge to do that. But that's what real science does, and that's why the mainstream doesn't accept the conclusions of Dr. Bem and others – we have the knowledge, we have looked at the data, and the conclusions don't fit.
@Marcus: On a related note, it's not about taboo, and it's not about fear. It's about real experimentation using generally accepted standards. If you allow the standards to bend, then you can make any data fit any model you want – that's why we have standards. Spirituality has no place in science because it doesn't meet any accepted standard of "knowing." You can't measure it. We haven't "killed off" the inner world, we just can't prove that it exists. And no scientist will ever (nor should they ever) admit to "knowing" something that can't be backed up with hard data – at least not in scientific circles.
If you discover something that counters existing knowledge, you have to examine your data and your methods very carefully, because others certainly will. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Calling evidence irrufutable doesn't make it irrefutable – it has to stand up to rigorous inquiry. I refer you to 16th century astonomy as an historic example. When Copernicus proposed the heliocentic model, his theory wasn't accepted until it was proven, over a hundred years later, by Galileo and others – with hard data. And Galileo's theory was further refined over the course of the next hundred years by scientists who wanted to know more. All backed by data and experimentation. The point is, nobody believed the Earth wasn't the center of the universe until somebody proved it – using scientific methods and hard data. ESP and other psychic phenomena could follow the same course if someone can prove it. Or not. That probably won't happen in our lifetimes.
Oh, and @3322mathaddict: I'm not a troll looking to start trouble. Y'all have characterized me as such, I guess because it makes it easier for you to throw stones. That's okay with me, but I have a genuine interest in this stuff – I wouldn't be here if I didn't. But I don't just blindly believe whatever I read. I question everything and look for evidence. And when the evidences doesn't support the conclusion, I call a spade a spade. I like to engage in rational discussion about topics that interest me. That's how we learn. Sorry that offends you so much.
Paul
>>Finally, the way to PERSONALLY understand these things is not through reading papers and analysing data, but through direct exploration of the human psyche. An intellectual belief or denial is nothing more than intellectualisation. Direct experience is what grants the knowing.
Well put, Marcus. As long as theory trumps uncomfortable evidence, science will remain in the dark ages when it comes to consciousness exploration. It's safer to study brain synapses than the possibility of spirit contact–a frightening and abhorring thought to mainstream science.
BTW, I remember taking a multi-disciplinary course in futurism in college long ago when the subject was just taking root. It was the same way then. I recall wondering why the futurists only foresaw mechanical, matter-oriented advances. Not a word about development of the mind beyond the five senses. It was puzzling then, and it's sad now to hear that it remains the same. – R
Bravo Marcus.
wv = Ditto
:D:D
Also Paul makes untrue claims about "the mainstream". While Dean Radin points out that less than 1% of university faculty will OPENLY admit to a belief in psi phenomena, other surveys reveal that about 55% in hard sciences believe in telepathy, 65% in social sciences, and over 70% in arts/education etc. This clearly suggests that it is the CULTURE – the psi taboo – within science and acdemia which is central to the current ignorance. Paul is also incorrect to state that the findings of Bem's experiment can be explained away as statistical noise. There are those trying hard to do so, but thus far all such attempts have failed. Finally, the way to PESONALLY understand these things is not through reading papers and analysing data, but through direct exploration of the human psyche. An intellectual belief or denial is nothing more than intellectualisation. Direct experience is what grants the knowing. Unfortunately mainstream science has killed off inner worlds, the intuitive and the body as ways of knowing, and this is one reason why its culture as a whole remains ignorant of realities that many others have a familiarity with. The forefront of understanding of intuitive and spiritual realms long ago passed from mainstream science. It's progress has been retarded by its failure to embrace a broader range of ways of knowing, and the persecution of those who dare to push the boundaries. That won't always be the way, however. In time, science will catch up. Having said that, many people writing and talking about psi related experience in the community could do with familiarising themselves with the science. Both camps have much to teach each other.
Resitance is futile. Unfortunately the taboo regarding psi is so great in mainstream science that many scientists seem absolutely terrified of having anything to do with it. I have just been reading the volume "This Changes Everything" which contains numerous short essays by scientists discussing developments in science which will radically shift science and the future (I'm a futurist). It's amzing to see the ignorance written in the book regarding mental experiences which i consider very normal. One wrote that 'there is nary a skeric of evidence' for telepathy "other than a few stories about dogs knowing when their owners come home". How can they get away with writing such ignorance? There's more than a century of experimentation! Another gave % ratings to developments he thougt could happen in his lifetime. He rated a whole heap of ideas, and gave the second lowest one a 20% chance of occurring. The last one he considerd was ESP, which he then gave a 0.1 (yes, zero-point-one) % chance of being shown to exist! When I read stuff like that I despair at the future of science and civilisation.
Paul- you didn't answer my questions, which aren't argumentative; I'm just curious:
Are you saying you've never had a hunch about anything? Never felt an impulse you couldn't explain? Never felt that your spirit touched another's?
@3322mathaddict: Holy moly, why so much hostility? YOU are being argumentative, not me. I just posted what I thought about Dr. Bem's conclusions and why psychic research in general isn't taken seriously by mainstream scientists. Don't take it so personally.
I don't recall ever claiming to be an authoritative expert in psychic research. I do, however, have a strong background in mathematics, Bayesian statistics in particular. That, among other things, leads me to believe Dr. Bem's conclusions are wrong. I cited Drs. Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, and van der Maas because they happen to agree with me, as do many (most?) other mainstream scientists and mathematicians who have looked closely at Bem's data. You are free to believe otherwise if you so choose, that doesn't bother me at all. I'm not sure why you get so worked up when someone disagrees with your beliefs.
So now I have a question for you: Why are you so quick to defend Dr. Bem's conclusions? Do you believe he's right and the others are wrong because you've objectively analyzed his data, or is it just because his conclusion happens to agree with your personal bias?
If the latter, then you've stumbled upon the reason why good science is so hard to find in this particular field.
Trish and Rob, in all honesty, I have a sense that "Paul" is a computer troll who likes to come onto blogs and get vicious arguments started, then he disappears behind the cyber curtain when the going gets too rough for him. It seems that what he finds interesting here is his ability to mtry to institute controversy. Could be wrong, but I do notice he has ignored my simple question. That he's a troll is just one of those intuitve feelings he rejects as humbug. I think he'd enjoy himself more over at http://www.wellofhighstrangeness.com
Nobody's going to prove it to you, Paul, until you prove it to yourself. As one skeptic said to Dean Radin on telepathy result that he couldn't dispute: "Even if the experiments are valid, I won't believe it."
Since you keep coming back to this site, you must find something interesting here.
Here's something for you, Paul, from another PhD.
https://22cplus.blogspot.com/2011/01/consciousness-of-skepticism.html
Come on over, Nats! You know I'm always up for tea and talk! I wouldn't resist the kidnapping. Have always wanted to visit Australia and might like to stay awhile. But could we put our flying carpet trip off until the floodwaters have receded and the winds have calmed down? I tend to get slightly sea-sick when that magick carpet tilts! WV:
"porshast" You coming to pick me up in a flying Porche?? YeeHaa!
Hmmmm….on looking into my crystal ball, I see that all sceptics and debunkers are going to eat some humble pie really soon.
I want a front row seat to see the look on a certain 'Ray's' face, along with some vigorous sceptics a little closer to home. 🙂
@ CJ ~ You really are an interesting human, I think I might come and kidnap you for a cup of tea and a big chat. 🙂
Dr. Paul, I have one non-argumentative question to ask you, and it is this: what qualifies you as an authoritative expert to determine whether or not information on psychic phenomena is "fatally flawed"? Or is it simply your "opinion" that the fatal flaws are there? That is a fair and obvious question, and a fair and non-oblique response would be appreciated. BTW, I will not indulge your love of battle by getting into a war of words with you on this occasion. You would lose, and I don't have the time or energy to oblige. However, I would like a response to my question, sir. If you would be so kind as to provide the answer….
C'mon, Paul. ou've never had a hunch about anything? Never felt an impulse you couldn't explain? Never felt that your spirit touched another's?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bem's evidence is far from extraordinary, and well within the bounds of statistical noise.
I have read many papers on psychic phenomena, and I have yet to see any research on the subject that isn't fatally flawed. That's why the mainstream doesn't accept it, and that's why I don't accept it. It's not fear or closed-mindedness, it's simply desire for the truth.
I would love to believe that ESP is real, but somebody has to prove it first. I applaud Bem's efforts to do so, but he failed.
Paul
cj – absolutely perfectly stated, lady! and as to the fear factor comments, absolutely perfectly stated, as well –
People criticise when they are feeling uneasy about a possible outcome. It's the fear factor as mentioned in other comments. If ESP is proven it upsets the science apple cart and they don't want this to happen. It will no doubt be generally accepted when the time is right.
I am sure that many debunkers find fault with ESP because it interferes with their beliefs and fears or their desire to always be right and not with science.
Ray
Also, THE CONVOLUTED UNIVERSE by Dolores Cannon. Concerning debunkers who choose ignorance, I pity them the phenomenal aspects of life they are missing. As an aside, Thomas Edison reflects in his autobiographies that when he found himself "stuck" and unable to determine a resolution to a problem or issue of invention, he would take a fifteen minute nap. He took these brief naps frequently during the day. During the naps, the resolution would invariably come to him and when he awakened, he had his answer. This is an illustration of tapping into the deepest sub-consciious levels of Mind where all is known, and this is where the various aspects of ESP may apparently have their sources of existence prior to manifesting into overt, conscious reality. Considering that we use only 1/5 of our organic brain, one must understand that there is another 95% of the brain that is not yet understood, nor are its functions and purposes. Where lies the seat of the subconscious awareness that can be tapped using ESP methods? We don't know, and future generations of open-minded and forward-thinking scientists will eventually perhaps be able to uncover the hidden truths that wait to be discovered in that 95% of gray matter.
Well said, Connie. The scientific method doesn't apply to every aspect of our reality. Some things can not be duplicated in a laboratory, but that doesn't mean they're not real.
For instance, mainstream science did not accept the existence of meteorites – rocks falling from the sky–until well into the 19th century. Yet, there was centuries of anecdotal evidence of such rocks falling from the sky, and most people accepted the anecdotes as true stories.
But with telepathy, the laboratory experiments have been replicated over and over. Sure, there were some errors found in the early experiments. But they continued decade after decade. There is indisputable evidence that telepathy exists.
If Dr. Paul is simply a debunker unwilling to accept any aspect of psychic abilities because of his beliefs, then his position is understandable – though flawed.
If he is open to studying the history of psychic research, he should read Dean Radin's tome, The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena. The facts are laid out clearly. Telepathy exists and has been scientifically proven.
Oh. my goodness. Dr. Paul, PhD. First, and most importantly, there is more than one scientific standard in existence. The scientific standard employed in any given experiment is entirely dependent upon the purpose of the experiment, ie, to prove or disprove a hypothesis; to prove or disprove the efficacy of an untried medication such as an antibiotic or vaccine; to prove or disprove the accuracy of a mathematical theorem or equation; to prove or disprove a law of physics such as the planet is flat or round, etc etc etc. Mathematical statistics are employed in all scientific studies. However, the ratios and percentages used to obtain a positive or negative statistical value vary with the nature of the experiment involved. In the 1970s,
working alone, I "accidentally" stumbled upon a never-before-seen mathematical equation that I could not accept because it negated every conviction in my personal belief construct. However, I spent the interim years in intensive, objective studies trying to DIS-prove the validity of this equation, using well in excess of seven thousand test cases. My decades of research material fill an entire oak file cabinet and the results are indisputable. The equation stands and is correct, against all odds and to my continuing astonishment. As a medical researcher, I am intimately acquainted with the scientific standard(s). As a mathematician, I am intimately acquainted with the scientific standard(s). As a clairvoyant, I am intimately acquainted with PSI, ESP, telepathy,and other mind powers which extend beyond the five physical senses and move into spaces where the scientific standard(s) must expand its parameters because it is dealing with unknown qualities and quantities that cannot be measured with traditional methods of mathematical measurements. I am not a New Age convert, but instead am a science academic and a mystic, which constitutes a dichotomy. Having been born with this innate contradiction in my nature, life has presented me with opportunites and challenges that have allowed me to incorporate known and unknown qualities and quantities in experimental situations. The validity, the reality of ESP has been successfully substantiated and demonstrated by the Russian scientists and military, by our own military factions, by Duke University, by many credible organizations and respected academic institutions. This single article citing and denying the experiments by Bem, and it is only one article, has been selected as a means of disputing the validity and reality of the existence of ESP. There is a disparity between this article and many hundred, if not thousands, of other research experiments conducted by universities and academics worldwide that dispute the disputers of this article. The conclusion must be made, then, that EXPERIENCE constitutes the proof of ESP, and that when such experiences are put on a microscopic slide and viewed dispassionately using mathematical lens and values to determine its existence, one article does not provide sufficient evidential proof in the face of the hundreds/thousands which DO support the hypothesis that ESP is a valid reality. If humanity is to go forward in its evolution, it must learn to think out of the box and to comprehend that our current scientific standards are intentionally limited and restricted by certain researchers who use them as a crutch to support their own pre-conceived ideas and ideologies. Would your parents have believed or accepted, based on the science of their timeframe, that by the end of the last century personal computers would fit into the palm of the hand with multiplicities of available applications? Science would have said, emphatically, IMPOSSIBLE. Science would have been wrong. Yes? Yes.
Thanks for the link, Paul. We'll check it out. As for the peer review, that came from Charles Judd, the editor, not from us.
But you're wrong when you say the paper is being subjected to more rigorous standards than mainstream research. It is being subjected to the exact same rigorous standards as all scientific papers, and it doesn't meet the necessary criteria to be accepted as mainstream science.
Specifically, Bems's statistical analysis does not adequately support his conclusions. Read here for a thorough analysis of Bem's results (there's some pretty deep math in there, but hopefully you can follow the jist of it).
Whether you implicitly *know* ESP exists or not, mainstream science will never (and should never) accept it as fact until it is proven by reasearch that meets valid scientific standards. The fact that this paper was peer reviewed prior to publication means only that four (yes, *4*) scientists read it and did not catch the statistical errors in his analysis. Once it was read by a larger audience and subjected to more rigorous study, the errors were pointed out, and the research summarily dismissed by the mainstream. That's just how science is done.
Paul
i ignore the skeptics, esp exists for me, has proven accurate enough, often enough, end of story! so, why ignore a sense you have and that can be useful. not everything needs to be explain scientifically.
I'm going through that now on Facebook. A friend of mine is OBSESSED with living life by pure reason / rationality / Scientific method. He believes that "faith" is a delusion, as well as any thing that cannot be proven by the scientific method. Its difficult getting him to understand that I've had so many experiences that DEFY logic / reason / statistical odds.
I feel sad for people who are so closed minded to anything that they can't explain through science. Life by purely rational logic is no life at all. Sometimes, I think its a symptom of an out of control ego. People are afraid to be "conned" into believing something they cannot prove.
wv: eughha (Ug, ha ha?)
Beautifully said! I can't add a thing to this – you hit the nail right on the old paradigm's head!
Fear cuts a lot of people off from the real mysteries!
At first I may chuckle at how ludicrous the naysayers are – but then I feel really sad for them. They are cutting themselves off from their birthright, the Divine gifts yet to be unwrapped by many of them,just because of fear.
wv =grand 🙂
to a comment made yesterday by one Mickey D. as to why science seems so "scared",, thinking that was the word that was used,,, well guess maybe they figure it's their job to NO….
w.v. "unspirdi"
synchros like……….
w.v. changed to "refoce" Eye Donut No
When my daughters were young, my pediatrician told me that after several times of me being correct about what I "felt" was wrong, that he would ask me first what I thought was wrong and save time because I was almost always correct.
One day when I had been at my therapist we had done a past life regression, trying to help me with some issues around my fear of publishing my writing. One life I went to I was a landowner and well liked because I loved the land and nature and was generous with my subjects. I was visiting a family who had large baskets of apples outside of their thatched home. It was so beautiful and peaceful. They told me to have some apples.
There is more but it is not impt. at this time.
When I got home my daughter showed me a picture she had drawn while I was away…….. a thatched cottage with 2 baskets by the front door with apples in them.
I could not believe it.
Yes, I still have the picture.
And the picture of the landscape with two suns.
We also had to be careful when she was at school because we really scared the nurse one day when I walked into her office because I knew my daughter was ill, and she was sitting there with the phone in her hand calling me.
I made up an excuse but my daughter looked knowingly at me and we went home.
You get used to it, although my husband still gets a little weirded out sometimes.
Jen – love that story! Megan and I used to play that game with colors. One of us would be the sender, the other the receiver.
Adele – you said it well!
Terri – now i LIKE that idea lot. Get ride of the extra, forget sensory, just perception.
I always chuckle at the defense that if something was real it would generate wealth in the form of cash. ESP does generate wealth in the form of knowledge and compassion and curiosity and so much more.
I look forward to the day when it's just SP and the "Extra" is dropped for good. Then we can drop the "sensory" and just add "perception" to our biological six senses. 😀
Since I have experienced scorn on this subject from immediate members of my family I am all too familiar with this negative attitude towards anything that is not linear thinking. So I have come to the conclusion that the people who deride any possibility of a paranormal experience never experience such a thing and it makes them uncomfortable. They aren't simply indifferent, but hostile. And of course if you take the position that such things can't happen, even if they do, such people will block it out of mind. Pathetic!
I don't understand why certain academicians insist on denying the obvious, the proven. Why do they want to go backwards??? Is it fear? Is it that they can't own something, put a price on it, and then allow only a chosen few access to it?
My daughters' doctor documented 2 years of powerful "mother's intuition".
I read this article last week and felt that the critics were really off-base, and just showing how far behind they really are in their thinking. I felt bad for them.
When my sister and I were little we used to play a game where I would think of an object in my mind and she would guess what it was. She pretty much always got it. It never failed to surprise me though!
To this day my mother always says EXACTLY what I am about to say, down to the exact wording. It's sort of annoying. 😉
CJ – love that story!
Yes to that bold dramatic change!
well, as usual, your assessment of this entire thing is right on, macgregors – point by point – and you are right about the dying gasp of the old paradigm – i cannot wait for that bold dramatic change to sweep into all our lives –
like cj's beautiful story, we have all had such moments of pure clarity with ourselves/others and having experienced, we already "know" the realities possible –
great post – i always always love reading here [in synchronicity] of things i might otherwise not be aware of or take the time to search for on my own – thanks so much!
Here's a lovely ESP story to share, since we're in the midst of so much turmoil. When my youngest son Carey was only five, we were in the car going to the store near our country home outside Atlanta. Carey was standing behind me. (No seatbelts or kiddie-seats then.) I was driving. No one else was in the car. I had a dear young friend named Phillip was was a quadraplegic, from a truck crash. I was thinking about Phillip and was trying to decide whether or not to stop by his house to see if he needed anything. However, these were only thoughts. I didn't say a word. From behind me, Carey said, "Mom, Phillip really is a nice boy, isn't he!" I almost wrecked from surprise! My 5-year-old child was inside my mind. No doubt about it. This became common between Carey and me and persists to this day, but that experience was simply beautiful. Stunning, but beautiful,and definitely ESP. (Telepathic exchange, in that incident, which falls into the ESP category.) No one could deny that reality!