It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: NthOther
It's only "real" science when it supports the positivist worldview. Anything suggesting that there is "more than meets the eye" is immediately lambasted and ridiculed as heretical. Anything that demonstrates we are all really one consciousness is swept under the rug and ignored to the maximum extent possible.
Science is nothing more than a branch of politics at this point. Like religion always has been.
Science thrives when there is an open, informed discussion of all evidence, and recognition that scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision. This attitude is in stark contrast with reaching conclusions based solely on a previous set of beliefs or on the assertions of authority figures. Indeed, the search for knowledge wherever it may lead inspired a group of notable scientists and philosophers to found in 1882 the Society for Psychical Research in London. Its purpose was “to investigate that large body of debatable phenomena… without prejudice or prepossession of any kind, and in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned inquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems.” Some of the areas in consciousness they investigated such as psychological dissociation, hypnosis, and preconscious cognition are now well integrated into mainstream science. That has not been the case with research on phenomena such as purported telepathy or precognition, which some scientists (a clear minority according to the surveys conducted en.wikademia.org...) dis-miss a priori as pseudoscience or illegitimate. Contrary to the negative impression given by some critics, we would like to stress the following:
Daryl Bem, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Cornell University, USA
Etzel Cardeña, Thorsen Professor of Psychology, Lund University, Sweden
Bernard Carr, Professor in Mathematics and Astronomy, University of London, UK
C. Robert Cloninger, Renard Professor of Psychiatry, Genetics, and Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, USA
Robert G. Jahn, Past Dean of Engineering, Princeton University, USA
Brian Josephson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge, UK (Nobel prizewinner in physics, 1973)
Menas C. Kafatos, Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics, Chapman University, USA
Irving Kirsch, Professor of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Lecturer in Medicine, Harvard Medical School, USA, UK
Mark Leary, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, USA
Dean Radin, Chief Scientist, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Adjunct Faculty in Psychology, Sonoma State University, USA
Robert Rosenthal, Distinguished Professor, University of California, Riverside, Edgar Pierce Professor Emeritus, Harvard University, USA
Lothar Schäfer, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Arkansas, USA
Raymond Tallis, Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester, UK
Charles T. Tart, Professor in Psychology Emeritus, University of California, Davis, USA
Simon Thorpe, Director of Research CNRS (Brain and Cognition), University of Toulouse, France
Patrizio Tressoldi, Researcher in Psychology, Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy
Jessica Utts, Professor and Chair of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, USA
Max Velmans, Professor Emeritus in Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK
Caroline Watt, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Edinburgh University, UK
Phil Zimbardo, Professor in Psychology Emeritus, Stanford University, USA
P. Baseilhac, Researcher in Theoretical Physics, University of Tours, France
Eberhard Bauer, Dept. Head, Institute of Border Areas of Psychology and Mental Hygiene, Freiburg,
To the layperson, with an extremely limited understanding of the principles that this device supposedly derives its use from, it might actually sound plausible.
Belief is a powerful thing. Well, not your belief: your opinions couldn’t be less important. But there is someone, and there always has been someone, who can control the universe by his powers of belief. You see, at any given moment the universe is controlled by what one particular man believes. All things, right down to the laws of physics, are subject to instantaneous change as soon as one dies and another is chosen.
Amelia Earheart? Disappeared when the new Believer couldn’t fathom a female aviator. Ever wonder why Newton’s seemingly obvious laws of motion took so long to come around? Well, for thousands of years all the Believer’s put their stock in Aristotle’s physics. Believers don’t even know about their powers, and it is flat out impossible to tell who is one.
the science behind it hasn't been invalidated or refuted
originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: neoholographic
Well for good or bad or worse we are connected in a way, but changing the colors of a lamp does not prove or do much, and really that is a pretty expensive color changing lamp.
Now do you think if I stare at it long enough and send some mind power vibrations its way that it will come down in price? Not likely right.
Abstract—A consortium of research groups at Freiburg, Giessen, and Princeton was formed in 1996 to pursue multidisciplinary studies of mind/machine interaction anomalies. The first collaborative project undertaken was an attempted replication of prior Princeton experiments that had demonstrated anomalous deviations of the outputs of electronic random event generators in correlation with prestated intentions of human operators...
...The agreed upon primary criterion for the anomalous effect was the magnitude of the HI–LO data separation, but data also were collected on a number of secondary correlates. The primary result of this replication effort was that whereas the overall HI–LO mean separations proceeded in the intended direction at all three laboratories, the overall sizes of these deviations failed by an order of magnitude to attain that of the prior experiments, or to achieve any persuasive level of statistical significance.
This note critically reviews the methodology of the accompanying papers by Roger Nelson and Dean Radin, emphasizing a key limiting feature of the experimental procedure. I personally disagree with the former’s conclusion that anomalous effects have been unequivocally established. The latter’s paper, analyzing the same data, views its results as suggestions to be tested using future data, which for reasons discussed below is the only possible result of exploratory analysis. While I judge the degree of cogency of all of the results in both papers as low, this note is essentially a set of suggestions that I hope will encourage both you, the Reader, to judge for yourself and the researchers in this field to improve their methodology.
For example, RDN finds a result in Figure 1 that is not very significant, so he looks at more data to yield the apparently more significant result in his Figure 2. I do not object to this examination of the data in ‘‘the larger context,’’ but do believe that it should be accompanied by the comment that at this step one is going outside the scope of a pre-defined hypothesis and performing exploratory analysis.
We also provide verification of a separate analysis posted by Dr. Dean Radin, but we differ markedly with regard to the posted conclusions. Using Radin’s analysis, we do not find significant evidence that the GCP network’s EGG’s responded to the New York City attacks in real time. Radin’s computation of 6000:1 odds against chance during the events are accounted for by a not-unexpected local deviation that occurred approximately 3 hours before the attacks.
￼We conclude that the network random number generators produced data consistent with mean chance expectation during the worst single day tragedy in American history.