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: 2
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


bigfatfurrytexan is still right you know, the outrage and outright scorn shows the prejudice.
The fact that there is outrage alone should tell you how biased the scientific community can be.
They can't even fathom the possibility that they're wrong about something as fundamental as this..

Special rules should apply if the experiments doesn't add up with their materialist dogma, cause that's precisely what it is, and we'll all know it sooner or later.

Foolish mortals.




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
bigfatfurrytexan is still right you know, the outrage and outright scorn shows the prejudice.
The fact that there is outrage alone should tell you how biased the scientific community can be.
They can't even fathom the possibility that they're wrong about something as fundamental as this..
That's not it at all. They can fathom it, they just don't see the evidence for it. If people could predict a 50% chance outcome with 53% accuracy they could beat the 51.5% house edge in roulette and make a lot of money, but it doesn't happen. So the reasons are not denial but scientific and statistical, and these are described in the article. For example:


Many statisticians say that conventional social-science techniques for analyzing data make an assumption that is disingenuous and ultimately self-deceiving: that researchers know nothing about the probability of the so-called null hypothesis.

In this case, the null hypothesis would be that ESP does not exist. Refusing to give that hypothesis weight makes no sense, these experts say; if ESP exists, why aren’t people getting rich by reliably predicting the movement of the stock market or the outcome of football games?

Instead, these statisticians prefer a technique called Bayesian analysis, which seeks to determine whether the outcome of a particular experiment “changes the odds that a hypothesis is true,” in the words of Jeffrey N. Rouder, a psychologist at the University of Missouri who, with Richard D. Morey of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, has also submitted a critique of Dr. Bem’s paper to the journal....

So far, at least three efforts to replicate the experiments have failed.
If you're not a statistician, and I assume most ATSers are not, then that may be over your head. But it's a valid observation.

I suspect you and the Texan fell victim to reading the catchy headline and didn't read the article, or the paper. I guess we can't fault journalists for writing attention-grabbing headlines, as that's part of their job. But we have to read past the headline to figure out the truth.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Namaste1001
 

Science can only deal with theories that are testable and extra sensory perception is difficult if not impossible to test.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Have you read up on the SRI experiments and program? Conducting these tests is VERY difficult. There are myriad considerations that most scientists do not even consider. Things like the prejudice of a participant in the tests (even with a minor role) can greatly skew results.

So what it boils down to: there IS tangible, provable evidence of something happening. What it is? That is unknown. But the ruckus seen every time it is brought up does nothing but make science look closed minded and predetermined.

It is like they forget that you study things until you find an explanation, instead of ignoring things that are hard to explain. To continuously chalk it up to "superstition" is narrow minded, at best. And at worst, it presumes some sort of intellectual superiority over countless people that the scientist has never even met as their experiences are discounted as superstition.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
It saddens me to see scientists so opposed to scientific studies. At one point air planes were thought impossible, we didn't have a way to prove the existence of the atom did that make them non existent, and countless others. Just because you can't look through a microscope and see exactly what is causing something as it is happening does not mean that it is not happening. It simply means that you have yet to expand your intelligence enough to figure out how to measure what is already happening.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Why are people so anal on these boards about pointing out double threads?

As for the story, I'll have to take a look at it before I give my two cents.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
What most consider to be "science" is no longer science. it has become a religion

All beliefs must be integrated



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I find it hilarious how topics like ESP and SRV (Scientific Remote Viewing) are always labeled "pseudoscience" by the mainstream scientific community while at the same time we had top secret government projects like "Project Stargate" that had a pretty high success rate according to those that have come forward.

We know of 10 people that were involved in project stargate, alone.


The Stargate Project was the umbrella code name of one of several sub-projects established by the U.S. Federal Government to investigate claims of psychic phenomena with potential military and domestic applications, particularly "remote viewing": the purported ability to psychically "see" events, sites, or information from a great distance. These projects were active from the 1970s through 1995, and followed up early psychic research done at The Stanford Research Institute (SRI), The American Society for Psychical Research, and other psychical research labs.


They're like "Psychic spying? Ridiculous!" then they get funding from the U.S.Government to research it in secret to gather intelligence.

My first run-in with remote viewing, the first time I really heard about it, was in a book entitled "Cosmic Voyage" which was written by a guy with a PHD named Courtney Brown. Brown is, basically, taught the fundamentals of SRV by an ex-psychic spy. After that, Courtney Brown gets more curious about the universe in general so he decides to apply SRV to find the truth about UFO's, life in the universe, etc..

It's a book I recommend if you're interested in the subject.

In a bizarre twist, SRV has actually been applied for domestic applications (legal cases).. Below is also from wikipedia..


In regards to Domestic Applications of what would become Remote Viewing, various field testings in remote viewing was done in the mid-1970s. In a particular well known serial crime incident, a single lone suspect in question was later captured by law enforcement and put into prison. About twenty years later the original lone suspect changed his confession, and verified almost exactly to what was remote viewed by those domestic remote viewer(s). On the eve of reopening this case, the FBI stepped in, and asked that the case be put on hold. This case has been upgraded to Classified, with no indication at this time that it will be reopened. This noted case has been published and later suggested by name in the movie Suspect Zero.


IMO, "pseudoscience" is a term thrown around by those who claim a phenomenon is false when they haven't done the research, themselves, to prove anything one way or another out of fear. Fear of being being labeled by their peers, fear of losing big $$$ grants from their institutions, etc..

That's why when people like Michio Kaku are asked "is the paranormal real?", all they can do is make baseless arguments that neither support nor refute their personal positions on the subject and, if nothing else, their arguments prove how remarkably ignorant our educational institutions have become.

Michio Kaku sais the paranormal isn't real because those advocating the phenomenon are the same people making money off of it. But the only reason that's happening is because acadamea nor any institution, for that matter, will touch anything involving the paranormal with a 30 foot pole.

Ghost Hunters end up being plumbers and window washers.. And they're the ones actually out in the field doing the real research. Shouldn't they be the ones to blaze a trail for the future if acadamea disassociates itself with it altogether? If anyone should be writing a book about the paranormal it should be the people actually out there doing the actual research. Not some overpaid astrophysicist with his own radio talk show.

-Chris



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
Michio Kaku sais the paranormal isn't real because those advocating the phenomenon are the same people making money off of it. But the only reason that's happening is because acadamea nor any institution, for that matter, will touch anything involving the paranormal with a 30 foot pole.
If academia won't touch it, how is it that you're posting in a thread about how academia published a paper on it?

The author of the paper has good academic credentials.

And yes money has been invested in research. but that's not really a testimony to how good the subject of the research is. Tons of money is spent researching many drugs that never make it to market because they don't pass all the safety tests. So the fact that money is spent researching a topic is no sign the topic yielded a successful avenue of research.

There are many problems with ESP and PSI research, the author of this paper notes many of them, even though he does it alongside his positive results which he says must be confirmed by replication to endure their validity, and guess what? The first three attempts at replication have failed, probably because his paper was exploratory rather than confirmatory. Inability to replicate favorable results is a common problem with papers on PSI research, and so far this paper is no exception.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Because research into the paranormal is viewed more like a circus sideshow than an area worthy of true scientific inquiry by nearly the entirety of the world's academic institutions. This isn't speculation. It's just the way it is.

Publications by paranormal researchers come out all the time. They're written by people doing field research, field experiments, people looking for answers and have found them. These people usually aren't associated with acadamea because for the most part acadamea doesn't involve themselves with anything that might be considered "pseudoscience".

This new paper on ESP probably won't prompt outrage. IMO, it will be ignored and written off. Just like many other books and publications, written by people that have researched the paranormal for decades, have been written off and ignored. I'm not saying this new ESP paper isn't "scientifically valid". I'm saying that even if it is, it isn't likely to be percieved as a major scientific leap forward by most people.

All we can do is hope that someday we'll begin to scientifically understand things like ESP, SRV, hauntings, etc. Maybe this paper is a step in the right direction. IMO, what needs to happen is acadamea and mainstream science, in general, need to take the paranormal a little more seriously. That's a pretty big roadblock to understanding these kinds of things.

-ChriS



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   

for extrasensory perception, the ability to sense future events.


How can you sense future events, the future hasn't happened yet, so it cannot be known.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 



If that is true, then we must have an exceptionally hard time discerning how electrons have been observed to flow in reverse time.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


bigfatfurrytexan is still right you know, the outrage and outright scorn shows the prejudice.
The fact that there is outrage alone should tell you how biased the scientific community can be.
They can't even fathom the possibility that they're wrong about something as fundamental as this..

Special rules should apply if the experiments doesn't add up with their materialist dogma, cause that's precisely what it is, and we'll all know it sooner or later.

Foolish mortals.


I wholeheartedly agree with you. But as far as special rules needing to be applied, I'm not so sure that would even work. What would work though is a more open-minded approach when it comes to understanding the universe in general.

So many times scientific concepts in the fields of astrophysics, cosmology, etc.. end up being considered fact simply because of a consensus that it's the best answer out there. And so many times the status-quo that is turned right on its head and disproven scientifically because of new breakthroughs, new discoveries and more advanced technology.

Sometimes, understanding the universe better is only possible if scientists come forward to challenge the status quo and turn classical science on it's head. These kinds of breakthroughs in science are only made possible because people are willing to challenge the status quo along with the majority of their peers.

One major roadblock is funding. The handful of academic institutions in the world that have parapsychology "groups" or "departments" always have limited resources to do their research. It's not like the National Science Foundation is gonna start throwing out huge grants into paranormal research anytime soon. In other fields of scientific research that are deemed more "down to earth", grants come from all sorts of public and private institutions.

This is one big reason that paranormal research groups end up being completely independent from acadamic institutions. But then, even if such a group uses scientific methods and approaches to their research, their results can always be ignored and written off because they aren't scientists.

Those in acadamea that take the field of paranormal/parapsychology seriously are trying to break through the dogmatic principles of science to make their case that this stuff really does exist and they're doing this with almost no funding at all. It's an up-hill battle just to get academic institutions to take parapsychology seriously.

Anytime a scientist publishes such a paper, it represents a huge gamble on his/her part and the possibility that, eventually, phenomenon such as ESP might be proven one day. So I think the majority of us agree that if academic institutions are willing to fund such research under their own departmental programs, scientists working on such research should be able to publish their findings and it should be taken just as seriously as any other scientific publication. This is a positive step. But we all know it is likely to be disputed, written off, and just generally not taken seriously.

However, academic institutions must know that there is not only a growing curiosity in the U.S. regarding paranormal phenomenon but that there is a growing number of people willing to pay money to research this kind of phenomenon scientifically in a degree program because of the growth and popularity of certain TV shows and radio programs that openly explore paranormal phenomenon.

I think we're getting closer to unlocking some of the more bizarre mysteries of our universe. I think if we can better understand things like ESP, SRV, etc.. We can then better understand the mechanisms behind them and possibly gain a better understanding of how our world really works.

Could you imagine if we could scientifically prove the existence of ghosts and/or hauntings? It would not only create a revolution in scientific thinking but it would act as a foundation from which we could start understanding the mechanisms behind how it works and why. It could lead to all kinds of scientific breakthroughs and possibly even new technologies.

-ChriS



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
When I was an undergraduate we heard of an esteemed paraitologists wife who had written a paper on a new species of tapeworm. When in fact the tapeworm simply had a mangled head and was therefore misidentified. We the undegrads thought that this would be fun to read and ran off to the library to see academic Schaudenfreude. The journal had pulled the paper and had been removed from the bound copies.

If this paper is published but ultimately found to be wrong it will be pulled. Pure science should be open minded.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   
I once heard a guest on the internet talk show program The Veritas Show say, one of the most widely cited Psychologists of the 20th century, Stanley Schachter, had written in some private letters that there was a conspiracy by Academia to discredit ESP research, and that in fact some prestigious Universities such as Columbia has conducted research showing there is really such a thing as ESP, and that the powers that be, had classified the topic and pushed the research into the black world.

After I heard about it, I tried to find more about what this Psychologist had said, and why he believed there was a conspiracy to suppress the truth, but I couldn't find much about it on the internet.

I haven't read this new research paper. But like the topic of UFOs, it strikes me as odd how everyone in Academia "knows" that ESP is BS, and so any paper taking the subject seriously, let alone affirming anything strange, must be flawed somehow. Never mind the fact that the CIA has put psychics on its payroll.

edit on 23-1-2011 by Schaden because: spell



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join