Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
5 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2010 - 9:24AM #11
BeerLover
Posts: 1,342

Mar 23, 2010 -- 2:13PM, inthemidstwest wrote:


Erey~


 


Blu's right in the sense that ESP has to be classified as paranormal, as no branch of science can consistently prove that there is a distinct cause for (or lack of) extra sensory perception.


 


However, some of the studies on ESP or acknowledment of government entities using remote viewing during the 1950's is mindboggling.


 


If you're more science based, you might google The Ross Institute, or www.rossinst.com


 


~Science doesn't come to a screaching halt because one theory can't be proven.


 



Au contraire, science is all about formulating hypotheses (not theories) and designing experiments to prove them.  Paranormal phenomena are not "non-scientific," they just can't be explained by our current understanding of the physical world. 


Dr. Ross may very well be able to shoot an energy beam out of his eyes.  We can see the effect, but we haven't yet designed and built an instrument capable of detecting that energy beam.  This discussion reminds me of the state of understanding of electromagnetic radiation in the 19th century.  We knew visible light existed.  We could percieve it with our senses, and had instruments to measure it.  We knew there were other forms of light which we couldn't see or detect with instruments.  Sientists at the time called these forms of energy "hot light" and "chemical light."  Hot light could make objects warmer; chemical light could make certain chemicals decompose.  With the advent of elelctrical instruments in the 20th century, we were able to detect and understand the nature of these types of light now known as infrared and ultraviolet light. 


But I can imagine the ability melt something without using heat or visible light would be described as paranormal at the time.  One can dismiss chi or ESP as superstition, or one can bring science and the scientific method to bear on it.  Unfortunately, biology, physiology, and the human mind are not as cut and dried as physics.  F=MA (force = mass * acceleration) will always work the same way every time.  Studying human behavior or even the reaction to a particular biologically active compound requires statistics and the statistical method.  Expose five different people to a barking german shepard and you might get five different responses, yet we still consider psychology a science, not paranormal.


I firmly believe much of what is now considered paranormal will become part of the ordinary world by the end of this century.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2010 - 1:42PM #12
inthemidstwest
Posts: 136

???


Thus the category 'paranormal'.  Doesn't mean something doesn't exist, just that there are no consistent tests to prove a theory THUS FAR.


Like you, I hope many things can be proven by the end of this century or sooner.


The Ross Institute has also done testing on trauma patients, hoping to find a link between trauma and ESP.


Until then, I guess we'll just have to form our own hypotheses Wink


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 28, 2010 - 1:19PM #13
teilhard
Posts: 51,888

Mar 24, 2010 -- 2:03PM, teilhard wrote:


Mar 23, 2010 -- 6:08AM, Blü wrote:


Erey


I am interested in the concept of it being more a natural phenomenon that we realize and it not being exactly paranormal


Leaving aside that ESP has never been satisfactorily demonstrated, no one reports any standard physical causes associated with it under controled conditions - electromagnetic emission or sensitivities &c - so it has to be paranormal.




Or ... maybe our Standard Definitions need revisiting and revising ...





Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 31, 2010 - 1:31PM #14
BeerLover
Posts: 1,342

I did a bit of web research on this topic over lunch and found a link to the study I had read about a while ago.  A researcher took a group of 63 volunteers.  Each volunteer gave the test administrator the names and numbers of four friends.  The administrator then had one of the four call the volunteer, and they were right 45% of the time compared to 25% which would be random chance.  The odds of this being concidence in such a large group was calculated to be 1 trillion to one.  Link:  www.naturalnews.com/020312.html


 


Here is another good summary of scientific study of ESP in the 20th century:  www.psychic-experience-for-you.com/


Do I uncritically accept these findings as proof of ESP?  No, but neither do I reject them out of hand like some scientists have.  From the article, "Scientists are reluctant to accept the idea of psychic ability because the concepts involved seem to break the scientific laws which they believe govern our whole existence."  In other words, "It must be bunk because it doesn't fit my concept of the universe."  I've heard this idea stated before in different ways.  Proof?  No, not really proof, just evidence in favor- not 100% correlation, but "statistically significant" results. 


Have a look, follow the links, google the names involved.  There has actually been a great deal of scientific research done already.


I see a beer in my future,


BeerLover the precognitive


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 01, 2010 - 1:55PM #15
teilhard
Posts: 51,888

Mar 31, 2010 -- 1:31PM, BeerLover wrote:


I did a bit of web research on this topic over lunch and found a link to the study I had read about a while ago.  A researcher took a group of 63 volunteers.  Each volunteer gave the test administrator the names and numbers of four friends.  The administrator then had one of the four call the volunteer, and they were right 45% of the time compared to 25% which would be random chance.  The odds of this being concidence in such a large group was calculated to be 1 trillion to one.  Link:  www.naturalnews.com/020312.html


 


Here is another good summary of scientific study of ESP in the 20th century:  www.psychic-experience-for-you.com/


Do I uncritically accept these findings as proof of ESP?  No, but neither do I reject them out of hand like some scientists have.  From the article, "Scientists are reluctant to accept the idea of psychic ability because the concepts involved seem to break the scientific laws which they believe govern our whole existence."  In other words, "It must be bunk because it doesn't fit my concept of the universe."  I've heard this idea stated before in different ways.  Proof?  No, not really proof, just evidence in favor- not 100% correlation, but "statistically significant" results. 


Have a look, follow the links, google the names involved.  There has actually been a great deal of scientific research done already.


I see a beer in my future,


BeerLover the precognitive


 



"Beer" -- The "Wort of God" in a Bottle ... !!!

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2010 - 8:46AM #16
BeerLover
Posts: 1,342

The Wort of God???


Slightly sacreligious but I like itSmile

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2010 - 12:51PM #17
teilhard
Posts: 51,888

Apr 4, 2010 -- 8:46AM, BeerLover wrote:


The Wort of God???


Slightly sacreligious but I like it



see: various Parables ( reportedly ) told by The Historical Lord Jesus of Nazareth, in which "Fermentation by Yeast" is a Theme about GOD's Activity ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2010 - 2:56AM #18
Blü
Posts: 25,191

BeerLover


As to the experiment you mention (by Rupert Sheldrake, something of a fringe figure, but that wouldn't matter if his experiments were repeatable) -


I give you the phone numbers of four of my relatives.


You (a third person) ask them to ring me.


I think I'd have a chance well above average of guessing who of the four was ringing, based on my sense of which of them is most likely to respond to such an invitation.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook