It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Journal’s Paper on ESP Expected to Prompt Outrage

page: 1
23
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Journal’s Paper on ESP Expected to Prompt Outrage


www.nytimes.com

One of psychology’s most respected journals has agreed to publish a paper presenting what its author describes as strong evidence for extrasensory perception, the ability to sense future events.

The decision may delight believers in so-called paranormal events, but it is already mortifying scientists. Advance copies of the paper, to be published this year in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, have circulated widely among psychological researchers in recent weeks and have generated a mixture of amusement and scorn.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Breaking News Forum Submission Guidelines – Please Review This Link.
edit on 1/5/2011 by Mirthful Me because: Title




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I personally believe in ESP, telepathy and the such. I found this fascinating, of course scientists are going to scorn these findings, it discredits their work and beliefs.

We should look a lot more into this, apparently these skills can be developed and practiced.

There have been far too many accurate predictions of the future, from the past, for this study to be scorned. Nostradamus comes to mind...

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 5-1-2011 by sir_slide because: (no reason given)


Mod Edit: Breaking News Forum Submission Guidelines – Please Review This Link.
edit on 1/5/2011 by Mirthful Me because: Title



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

“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.”

The editor of the journal, Charles Judd, a psychologist at the University of Colorado, said the paper went through the journal’s regular review process. “Four reviewers made comments on the manuscript,” he said, “and these are very trusted people.”

All four decided that the paper met the journal’s editorial standards, Dr. Judd added, even though “there was no mechanism by which we could understand the results.”


It still amazes me the narrow-mindedness of some scientists. Refusing to look at evidence because it doesn't fit with what they think they all ready understand sounds more like a belief system than science. If a fact doesn't fit into your model then it is your model that is wrong not the fact.

"Condemnation before investigation is the height of ignorance" - Albert Einstein.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Namaste1001 because: punctuation



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I read a story about a oak tree. Scientist took a seedling for the parent
tree. Planted the seedling tree a mile away. They put sensors on both trees.
They put a flame to the leaf on the young tree. The sensor on parent tree
sensed it immediately.
At times I have good ESP, and other times, I do not. I believe we all have ESP
to some degrees. All living things, are a part of this great universe of energy.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
For those interested, this link seems to be the paper the article refers to:

Feeling the Future
edit on 5-1-2011 by warbird03 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2011 by warbird03 because: (no reason given)


Edit: Also, the thread title would probably be better off being slightly different. While this is evidence towards esp, it's not quite conclusive proof. Not yet, at least. For example, the first test discussed in the paper came up with a 53% hit rate. To me that's just not far enough from pure chance to provide much proof. Don't get me wrong though, I do believe it exists.
edit on 5-1-2011 by warbird03 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 


I don't believe it discredits science... Heck it's a scientific study for goodness sake...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Namaste1001
 


Amen brother!

These people are slowing evolution, how can we understand the true nature of the universe when these tired old fools continue to tell us what is what. So bloody backwards it is!



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


I meant that it discredits some of their work and beliefs, only in the sense that the work they have done was conducted under false pretense, know what I mean?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 
Sorry sir, this is a duplicate thread.

This guy beat you to it by 23 hours: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I agree with you guys completely. Its the antithesis of science to dismiss things before you see the evidence. These opponents are making fools of themselves in front of the progressives and pioneers of the science of tomorrow, seems to happen every time... although they tend not to burn one at the stake today. I have had clairvoyant experiences and know that there was insignificant possibility of chance being the prime factor in those instances.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to www.abovetopsecret.com...]post by OrganicAnagram33

 


Chance and intuition can be confused sometimes but i do believe it exists, however unfortunately despite my rationing being good at times and woeful on others its safe to say i don't possess such skills.
I do however use logic and reason well.
With the research does it matter if it is questionable? - Its not like they can call them out is it so i guess the psychologists were the ones that behaved questionably and you would think they would have realised this.

edit on 5/1/11 by cropmuncher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


My mistake friend, sometimes I forget that ATS is pretty on to stuff like this.....



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_slide
 

Indeed that's true. Almost every time I try to post a thread in breaking news, my search shows someone has beat me to it!


Our fellow ATSers are fast!



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


I meant that it discredits some of their work and beliefs, only in the sense that the work they have done was conducted under false pretense, know what I mean?


Scientists should always be questioning their beliefs....



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 19rn50
I read a story about a oak tree. Scientist took a seedling for the parent
tree. Planted the seedling tree a mile away. They put sensors on both trees.
They put a flame to the leaf on the young tree. The sensor on parent tree
sensed it immediately.
At times I have good ESP, and other times, I do not. I believe we all have ESP
to some degrees. All living things, are a part of this great universe of energy.


That is an area I don't seem to have any talent though I seem at times to have uncanny timing. I have no doubt at all these talents exist and that they perhaps can be developed. The talent that most seems to elude me is the ability to be "normal." I have been working on that all my life and it remains beyond my grasp.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
The outrage just pisses me off. Honestly. If the guy has data, then be open to reviewing it. That is the way it is supposed to work. The outrage just shows the prejudice. That, my friends, is not science. And when i say that science is rubbish, this is exactly what I am talking about.

It isn't like this is news. Hal Puthoff was doing this with his group at SRI in the 80's. The Ingo Swann "Magnetometer Experiment" settled the matter well enough that everyone just kind of walked away and ignored what they say, denied what they KNEW had happened.

Now, all the years later, the prejudiced jerks continue to show their real stripes.

Bastards. They are holding our collective knowledge int the dark ages. And bringing ridicule to genuine research.

For those interested, the Ingo Swann Magnetometer Experiment, in the words of the highly esteemed Dr. Hal Puthoff:



Prior to Swann's visit I arranged for access to a well-shielded magnetometer used in a quark-detection experiment in the Physics Department at Stanford University. During our visit to this laboratory, sprung as a surprise to Swann, he appeared to perturb the operation of the magnetometer, located in a vault below the floor of the building and shielded by mu-metal shielding, an aluminum container, copper shielding and a superconducting shield. As if to add insult to injury, he then went on to "remote view" the interior of the apparatus, rendering by drawing a reasonable facsimile of its rather complex (and heretofore unpublished) construction. It was this latter feat that impressed me perhaps even more than the former, as it also eventually did representatives of the intelligence community. I wrote up these observations and circulated it among my scientific colleagues in draft form of what was eventually published as part of a conference proceedings [4].

In a few short weeks a pair of visitors showed up at SRI with the above report in hand. Their credentials showed them to be from the CIA. They knew of my previous background as a Naval Intelligence Officer and then civilian employee at the National Security Agency (NSA) several years earlier, and felt they could discuss their concerns with me openly. There was, they told me, increasing concern in the intelligence community about the level of effort in Soviet parapsychology being funded by the Soviet security services [5]; by Western scientific standards the field was considered nonsense by most working scientists. As a result they had been on the lookout for a research laboratory outside of academia that could handle a quiet, low-profile classified investigation, and SRI appeared to fit the bill. They asked if I could arrange an opportunity for them to carry out some simple experiments with Swann, and, if the tests proved satisfactory, would I consider a pilot program along these lines? I agreed to consider this, and arranged for the requested tests.2


Excerpted from here.

The "outrage" is nothing but CIA disinfo. Pure and simple. If we can read their minds, what secrets can they keep from us?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The outrage just pisses me off. Honestly. If the guy has data, then be open to reviewing it. That is the way it is supposed to work. The outrage just shows the prejudice. That, my friends, is not science. And when i say that science is rubbish, this is exactly what I am talking about.

It isn't like this is news. Hal Puthoff was doing this with his group at SRI in the 80's. The Ingo Swann "Magnetometer Experiment" settled the matter well enough that everyone just kind of walked away and ignored what they say, denied what they KNEW had happened.

Now, all the years later, the prejudiced jerks continue to show their real stripes.

Bastards. They are holding our collective knowledge int the dark ages. And bringing ridicule to genuine research.

For those interested, the Ingo Swann Magnetometer Experiment, in the words of the highly esteemed Dr. Hal Puthoff:



Prior to Swann's visit I arranged for access to a well-shielded magnetometer used in a quark-detection experiment in the Physics Department at Stanford University. During our visit to this laboratory, sprung as a surprise to Swann, he appeared to perturb the operation of the magnetometer, located in a vault below the floor of the building and shielded by mu-metal shielding, an aluminum container, copper shielding and a superconducting shield. As if to add insult to injury, he then went on to "remote view" the interior of the apparatus, rendering by drawing a reasonable facsimile of its rather complex (and heretofore unpublished) construction. It was this latter feat that impressed me perhaps even more than the former, as it also eventually did representatives of the intelligence community. I wrote up these observations and circulated it among my scientific colleagues in draft form of what was eventually published as part of a conference proceedings [4].

In a few short weeks a pair of visitors showed up at SRI with the above report in hand. Their credentials showed them to be from the CIA. They knew of my previous background as a Naval Intelligence Officer and then civilian employee at the National Security Agency (NSA) several years earlier, and felt they could discuss their concerns with me openly. There was, they told me, increasing concern in the intelligence community about the level of effort in Soviet parapsychology being funded by the Soviet security services [5]; by Western scientific standards the field was considered nonsense by most working scientists. As a result they had been on the lookout for a research laboratory outside of academia that could handle a quiet, low-profile classified investigation, and SRI appeared to fit the bill. They asked if I could arrange an opportunity for them to carry out some simple experiments with Swann, and, if the tests proved satisfactory, would I consider a pilot program along these lines? I agreed to consider this, and arranged for the requested tests.2


Excerpted from here.

The "outrage" is nothing but CIA disinfo. Pure and simple. If we can read their minds, what secrets can they keep from us?


Noam Chomsky has an interesting theory on the media leaning a certain way, and despite journalists believing themselfs to be unbiased and fair, they're actually self censory.

I think it's very applicable to Science as an institution. While most Scientists believe themselves to be indepedendant and only interested in truth, if they didn't believe what they believed they wouldn't be in the position they're in. So there's alot of conscious and sub conscious self censory within the field.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I will wait until I get to read the paper to decide.

But I want to say the entire field of Psychology is already a joke. It has been since Freud wouldn't shut up about his mom....

And it's still chalk full of over-generalizations and bias assumptions.

So I don't see what the fuss is about, do these psychologists actually take themselves real seriously?? What a joke.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
If the guy has data, then be open to reviewing it. That is the way it is supposed to work. The outrage just shows the prejudice. That, my friends, is not science. And when i say that science is rubbish, this is exactly what I am talking about.
I like most of your posts but you totally missed the boat on this one my friend.

Did you read the article or the paper?

The author said on page 49 of the paper that his work like any in this field must be replicated to ensure that it doesn't contain experimenter bias.

And the article says that the first three replication attempts have failed to validate the author's results, and that more replication attempts are underway.

So not only have they reviewed the data, they've attempted to replicate it. And that's one of the most important aspects of science: replication.

Even the author of the paper admits that and makes a point out of it in the paper!



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Here is evidence for ESP of quarks and other subatomic particles. Its uniqueness in the annals of parapsychology is the fact that its consistency with facts of nuclear and particle physics has no conventional explanation of the sort which debunkers of the paranormal always resort to in order to avoid accepting the reality of phenomena that don't fit their materialistic view of the universe:

smphillips.8m.com...

smphillips.8m.com...

This evidence is far more impressive than any meta-analysis of statistical tests of precognition or clairvoyance. Why? Well, all that such analyses reveal is the existence of a level of success in the operation of an alleged, paranormal faculty that exceeds the level of chance. It does not prove that ESP is necessarily the only possible cause because there might be hidden factors that skewered the successful results to a statistically significant degree. This is what critics of these parapsychological experiments and their meta-analyses focus upon. However, in the case of remote-viewing observations going back 115 years, there is no question of fraud or cheating because there was no scientific information available at the time to make it possible for the observations to be concocted so as to be consistent with facts of nuclear and particle physics, whilst there is far too much exact matching for chance and lucky guessing to play plausible roles.

As far as I am concerned, the most convincing, hard proof of ESP ever assembled is not this latest statistical analysis but what can be found at the above website. It has been ignored by most psychologists and parapsychologists (although not by Hal Puthoff) because they don't know enough particle physics to appraise the material (or don't want to get out of their depth and possibly make a fool of themselves), whilst most physicists are too anxious about their reputations to endorse it publicly because they are not supposed to believe in any aspect of the paranormal.
edit on 6-1-2011 by micpsi because: typo corrected



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2 >>

log in

join