It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Parapsychology, paranormal phenemena, PEAR lab etc.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 04:50 PM
Evidence of precognition

On the taboo of paranormal phenomena and spirituality in the scientific culture-

longer more in depth talking about scientific taboos

Evidence showing Atheism causes people to be more dishonest

Eastern Science vs. Western Science

Merging Science and Spirituality

Philosphpy of Science

Many paranormal phenomena have been scientifically proven, precognition, picking up on other people's thoughts, projecting thoughts to other people, etc. It's even been shown that humans can use their thoughts to affect random particle generation or random number generation to make it not so random.

Here's some info on the science of Parapsychology

In December 1989 Dean Radin of Princeton's Psychology Department and Roger Nelson of the PEAR lab published a paper on the meta-analysis of micro-PK experiments not, as might be expected, in a parapsychology journal but in the respected physics journal Foundations of Physics. Their paper was entitled, 'Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems.' In their analysis, Radin and Nelson tracked down 152 reports describing 597 experimental studies and 235 control studies by 68 different investigators involving the influence of consciousness on microelectronic systems.

From Dean Radin's Blog

I recently had a conversation with an intelligent, highly skeptical scientist who vehemently insisted with unshakable confidence that there is no reason to accept any claims of psychic phenomena because there are no peer-reviewed publications supporting their existence. Thus, any claims to the contrary, even by places like the PEAR Lab, are necessarily flawed or fraud. And further, if there were such evidence, then it would have won the "million dollar prize" by now. Ipso facto, there is no evidence. It's all fraud run by scam artists.

I calmly pointed out that there are in fact hundreds of such publications, most in peer-reviewed journals. The scientist was incredulous, refusing to believe that this could possibly be true, and even if was true, those journals couldn't possibly be any good. I could only sigh. There are tens of thousands of journals. No one can know more than a tiny sliver of information appearing in journals that are not within one's speciality. To assume that because you haven't heard of the information it doesn't exist is the height of hubris. As Prof. Jahn said in the NYTimes piece, “If people don’t believe us after all the results we’ve produced, then they never will.” I'm afraid that is quite true.

From Jessica Utts, Statistician and researcher


Professor Jessica Utts
Division of Statistics
University of California, Davis


Research on psychic functioning, conducted over a two decade period, is examined to determine whether or not the phenomenon has been scientifically established. A secondary question is whether or not it is useful for government purposes. The primary work examined in this report was government sponsored research conducted at Stanford Research Institute, later known as SRI International, and at Science Applications International Corporation, known as SAIC.

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.

Also, the Ganzfeld effect is proven

Articles on Star Wars and Qi-

posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by Hollywood11


many thanks for all that information.

I shall start my trawl and see the 'evidence'.

Although Youtube is not the best way to present evidence... scientifically I mean....

[edit on 1-6-2008 by Jinni]

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:46 AM
i like youtube, it can be pretty cool

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 01:33 PM
Do you have any evidence that consists of peer-reviewed papers, actual lab findings, etc.?

Hint: YouTube might be fun, but it's not evidence.

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 12:43 AM
I just came across PEAR and did a search on here for it, was very suprised at the lack of threads...

does this qualify for proof:


PEAR has now incorporated its present and future operations into the broader venue of the ICRL, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit research organization, in addition to Psyleron—a company that provides Random Event Generator devices to enable the continued exploration of PEAR’s findings by the general public and research communities.
edit on 12-7-2012 by Time2Think because: added info.

new topics

top topics

log in