Post Reply
Page 1 of 8  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Extrasensory Perception: Pure Craziness?
4 years ago  ::  Jan 12, 2011 - 10:19PM #1
solfeggio
Posts: 9,184

A paper to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology this year will feature a paper in which the author presents strong evidence for extrasensory perception, or the ability to sense future events:


www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp...


One scientist calls extrasensory perception 'craziness, pure craziness,' and another thinks this sort of thing is 'an embarrassment.'


Of course, over the years, many researchers have done endless experiments with ESP and other so-called 'paranormal' abilities, and skeptics have always denied that such research is genuine. 


And this time around, the skeptics are no different.  But, the author of the article, Professor Daryl J. Bem of Cornell, has accused critics of 'misunderstanding his paper' and speaking from their own bias.


Whether or not Dr. Bem is onto something here, the topic is a fascinating one nevertheless, and worth looking into.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 12, 2011 - 10:48PM #2
Erey
Posts: 18,651

I liked a book by a scientific journalist called The ESP Enigma, you might like that.


One of the researchers made this connection between people with ESP and savants.


Savants are typically people who are sort of incapable, they can't do basic math, can't take care of themselves yet they are able to know the right answer and they describe it as just comming to them.  Like for instance a Savant might be able to look at a large jar of toothpicks on the floor all in a pile and tell you instantly the exact number of toothpicks.  It is not like this guy can just count extremely fast - he is a savant and can't do that.  Or you can say a date randomly like April 10, 1649 and immediately he will tell you what day of the week that was.  It is not like he has the brain of a computer and can dash through the calculations that quickly.  There was one guy featured in the news several years ago blind, severely mentaly retarded who could make these incredible beautiful animal sculptures and very realisticaly.


So there are real people that have amazing abilities already in the world and when you ask them how they do it they don't know, it just comes to them.  A few of the savants have said that the answer appears to them sort of flashing in thier brain - they don't do any figuring.


So there is this idea that the knowledge is out there but certain people are able to access it. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 12, 2011 - 11:49PM #3
mountain_man
Posts: 39,265

Jan 12, 2011 -- 10:19PM, solfeggio wrote:

A paper to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology this year will feature a paper in which the author presents strong evidence for extrasensory perception, or the ability to sense future events...



I have absolutely no doubt that this "paper" will contain all the same mistakes, faulty protocols, and outright lies, that all of the "papers" about ESP have had. I also have absolutely no doubt that no matter how much this guy is proven to be absolutely wrong, the believers will still believe. Nothing can change their beliefs.


One scientist calls extrasensory perception 'craziness, pure craziness,' and another thinks this sort of thing is 'an embarrassment.'



It is. There is, never was, anything to this but pure beliefs.


Of course, over the years, many researchers have done endless experiments with ESP and other so-called 'paranormal' abilities, and skeptics have always denied that such research is genuine.



That the believers  have failed miserably at offering any kind of proof, or even evidence, what so ever speaks loudly. It's just that some refuse to listen.


And this time around, the skeptics are no different.  But, the author of the article, Professor Daryl J. Bem of Cornell, has accused critics of 'misunderstanding his paper' and speaking from their own bias.



Which is exactly what one would expect him to say.


Whether or not Dr. Bem is onto something here, the topic is a fascinating one nevertheless, and worth looking into.



Not really. It just encourages more BS masquerading as science.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 12, 2011 - 11:49PM #4
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

I think some people have those abilities.


I don't know what all the fuss is about.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2011 - 2:59AM #5
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Jan 12, 2011 -- 11:49PM, mountain_man wrote:


I have absolutely no doubt that this "paper" will contain all the same mistakes, faulty protocols, and outright lies, that all of the "papers" about ESP have had.



I think you're wrong here. This time, the guys doing the research seem to have followed all the appropriate procedures.


So, if they find something, it should be attributable to the 'file drawer problem' of having numerous similar, unpublished studies that were just not published because they were not getting any results.


I.o.w., this particular research is likely to be a chance result, and replications of exactly the same experiment should prove that. The nice thing about science is that there is a community with shared procedures, and no single researcher's claims and results ever amount to convincing evidence.


For those interested in the science and statistics, here (for some links: again - as they were linked in the NYT article as well) the relevant texts:


here a link to Daryl Bem's original study:
      www.dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf


here a critique of the statistical techniques used, by some colleagues from Amsterdam:
      www.ruudwetzels.com/articles/Wagenmakers...


here another crtique by Jeff Rouder and Richard Morey:
      pcl.missouri.edu/sites/default/files/rou...


and here a failed replication attempt by Jeff Galak and Leif Nelson:
      papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract...


On a personal note, I don't think this kind of stuff is "fascinating" at all. Bem's strategy of mixing primeval pornographic motivation with esoteric future-knowing is too similar in its ingredients to Marion Zimmer Bradley type new age fuzziness to have any positive connotation for me.


tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2011 - 9:00AM #6
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Jan 12, 2011 -- 10:19PM, solfeggio wrote:


A paper to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology this year will feature a paper in which the author presents strong evidence for extrasensory perception, or the ability to sense future events:


www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp...


One scientist calls extrasensory perception 'craziness, pure craziness,' and another thinks this sort of thing is 'an embarrassment.'


Of course, over the years, many researchers have done endless experiments with ESP and other so-called 'paranormal' abilities, and skeptics have always denied that such research is genuine. 


And this time around, the skeptics are no different.  But, the author of the article, Professor Daryl J. Bem of Cornell, has accused critics of 'misunderstanding his paper' and speaking from their own bias.


Whether or not Dr. Bem is onto something here, the topic is a fascinating one nevertheless, and worth looking into.





 


I KNEW you were going to start this thread.Wink

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2011 - 11:34AM #7
mountain_man
Posts: 39,265

Jan 13, 2011 -- 2:59AM, CharikIeia wrote:

I think you're wrong here. This time, the guys doing the research seem to have followed all the appropriate procedures.



Apparently they didn't. If they had they would not have come to the conclusion they did.


So, if they find something, it should be attributable to the 'file drawer problem' of having numerous similar, unpublished studies that were just not published because they were not getting any results.



Not getting any results is a result. The problem is that some people want to believe this and when it's a researcher that desire shows up in their results.


I.o.w., this particular research is likely to be a chance result, and replications of exactly the same experiment should prove that. The nice thing about science is that there is a community with shared procedures, and no single researcher's claims and results ever amount to convincing evidence.



Hundreds, if not thousands, of such claims by researchers in this area have been found lacking as has the latest claim.


For those interested in the science and statistics, here (for some links: again - as they were linked in the NYT article as well) the relevant texts:


here a link to Daryl Bem's original study:
      www.dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf


here a critique of the statistical techniques used, by some colleagues from Amsterdam:
      www.ruudwetzels.com/articles/Wagenmakers...


here another crtique by Jeff Rouder and Richard Morey:
      pcl.missouri.edu/sites/default/files/rou...


and here a failed replication attempt by Jeff Galak and Leif Nelson:
      papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract...



All support what I've been saying.


On a personal note, I don't think this kind of stuff is "fascinating" at all. Bem's strategy of mixing primeval pornographic motivation with esoteric future-knowing is too similar in its ingredients to Marion Zimmer Bradley type new age fuzziness to have any positive connotation for me.



I don't find anything in this field to be fascinating except for the psychology involved in the need for some people to believe this stuff. No method has been found where information can travel through time or across distances yet some people firmly believe it can. All I can say is show me proof.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2011 - 11:41AM #8
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

The proving of a "scientific test" isn't a function of one person, one time, getting a certain set of results.


 


It is that any person, anytime, and in any place, can repeat that test and expect to get the same results.


If you can't replicate the test, at will, it isn't a true finding.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2011 - 4:24PM #9
Yavanna
Posts: 3,149

Jan 13, 2011 -- 11:41AM, Christianlib wrote:


The proving of a "scientific test" isn't a function of one person, one time, getting a certain set of results.


 


It is that any person, anytime, and in any place, can repeat that test and expect to get the same results.


If you can't replicate the test, at will, it isn't a true finding.





Absolutely. Show me the replication. Cool

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

For ancient king and elvish lord
There many a gloaming golden hoard
They shaped and wrought, and light they caught
To hide in gems on hilt of sword.
- J.R.R. Tolkien
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2011 - 4:44PM #10
Erey
Posts: 18,651

well that is the problem these kinds of paranormal things don't lend themselves very well to replication.  I think there have been some pretty incredible findings in some studies but it is hard to reproduce those studies

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 8  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook