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.

 

Science is FINALLY recognizing something supernatural!

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   

The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a 45-year-old monthly magazine that's one of the psychology world's most respected journals, will soon publish a paper presenting strong evidence for extrasensory perception -- the ability to sense future events -- reports The New York Times. And it's causing outrage among peers in the scientific world.


BS, the "peers" who are upset, need to realise that if you find facts on something, or at least probable evidence, then it's worth reporting. Scientists are mearly upset because that can't fathom something being true that you cant get physical evidence of.

 
Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
edit on 13/1/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
NY TIMES SCIENCE REPORT

I find this extremely interesting, hopefully they get funded for futher research, maybe find something more then just people guessing stuff correctly. Maybe even find that pineal gland is used for more then they think.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Wrong just on grounds of logic.

If science recognises something, it is no longer supernatural..its just natural. Now, psychology is not really "hardcore science", but I am just splitting hairs here.

Interesting that it may start slowly gaining ground to investigate some other "subjects of the odd" beyond a ridicule fest.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by iSHRED
 


Great find!

I have been waiting forever to get those scientist brains to click into the truth.

The truth is that science was created for people to discover.

Along with everything else.

I have never understood why so-called great brains could not make the connection.

Maybe that makes me a great brain? Or just loony (or both).



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


"Science is FINALLY recognizing something that was ONCE deemed supernatural!" Is that a better thread title for ya?




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by iSHRED
 


There's no support for any of your assertions as to why the scientists are upset. My guess is that it's something mundane, like the research being reported to the press before being properly peer reviewed.



“Several top journals publish results only when these appear to support a hypothesis that is counterintuitive or attention-grabbing,” Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, a psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, wrote by e-mail. “But such a hypothesis probably constitutes an extraordinary claim, and it should undergo more scrutiny before it is allowed to enter the field.”


Source

Certainly an interesting article but let's not throw caution to the wind and mud-sling those scientists who want to remain skeptical until all the evidence is in. If scientists are being skeptical about the results than we should be doubly skeptical of them.
edit on 13-1-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
the thing with bloody scientists is that they have an invested interest on everything thats already here,done or proven
simple as that. any new information makes them haveto go over their old/existing information.
they are always going to be fighting a losing battle when you think of it.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
The bible tells about the supernatural 2000 yrs., ago.
Now scientists, just beginning to see the light!



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by iSHRED
Scientists are mearly upset because that can't fathom something being true that you cant get physical evidence of.
You misspelled "merely" but that's not why they're upset. They're upset because incorrect statistical methods were used, they claim the author should have used Bayesian statistics instead.

Also, the author admits the study may be flawed, and needs to be replicated to be proven, and so far the first three attempts at replication have failed, which would suggest that the author hasn't published a valid study.

However there are further replication efforts in progress. Don't be too surprised if they fail too. One of the problems with this paper is application of the "Sharpshooter Fallacy" which is like shooting at the side of a barn, then painting a target around the spot you shot, and then claiming you hit the bullseye of your target. That's what this paper did, and it's flawed logic.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
If scientists are being skeptical about the results than we should be doubly skeptical of them.
The article the OP linked to says the first three attempts at replication have failed. Isn't that some cause for skepticism? At least until some replication efforts are successful?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
When you think of it; why should perception be limited to senses?
The brain is electric, it's wired with both chemical and electromagnetic receptors!

The body works out of the principle of bioelectromagnetism, and as we know electromagnetic signals can pass trough air....



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by nakiel
 


You do know that action potentials are purely biological, just a tide of ions crossing a membrane? That's not bio-electromagnetism, that's just biochemistry, or, at best, bio-electrics.

We DO have some magnetoreception, but thus far results have indicated that our magnetoreception is nothing when compared to pigeons, and can't reliably get us to head in the right direction.

As to the study - wasn't Rupert Sheldrake's study on the psychic dog "super"natural? Because that was significant*, and replicated.


[size=-3] *depending upon how you interpret the data - the owner was not significantly leaving work when the dog was at the window, because 8% of the time that it was at the window, the owner was not leaving work, but it was at the window significantly more when she was leaving work/coming home than when she wasn't, despite them randomising the time of day when she left work.
edit on 13/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)

edit on 13/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


Try to explain the guy with the phantom pain... [bad joke]

An ion is zero-charged, but produces electromagnetic radiation when moved, and so on...

English is not my language, I really was not putting much weight into the magnetic part of electromagnetism...

-I have much experience with working with electromagnetic shielding; related to worker health environment and safety. In that context I have become aware of many "phenomenons" caused by electric fields; most which are unconsciously affecting the worker. There is no question that electric/electromagnetic fields can influence a persons perception of things, but the interesting part is; if there can be proven a similar effect from person to another person.

My cat has a theory it can, but who is he to discuss human relations... [another bad joke]

A MRI can view the energy emitting from a brain; it would possible for another brain to receive that very energy (just like any old analog audio-equipment) if it was not for the filtering.
If a man has a injury to his head and damages this filter, he may pick up and perceive as sound; vague bits and pieces from people's thoughts, but at the same time the noise will interfere with his voice-recognitional brain-circuits -and he will imagine himself voices that are not there, just as schizophrenics do).

I believe that even if it is possible to experience access to a remote person by brainwaves, it is unpractical because of the error to error ratio, caused by the very fact that neither individuality nor integrity is compatible with transmission standards...
edit on 13-1-2011 by nakiel because: wrong doings



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
From the data I have seen it is beyond reasonable doubt that something is going on. While all attempts are not 100% successful it is above that of chance alone. The only way we will work it out is to let science go for it, let the debates rage and the numbers decide. If we are to move into space travel and the unknown then it would be a very handy skill indeed. For those interested, the double blind scientific methodology has withstood the most stringent peer review in this area.
edit on 13-1-2011 by kwakakev because: added sentence about double blind



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I noticed in the NY Times article they used a tired old excuse...

"if ESP exists, why aren’t people getting rich by reliably predicting the movement of the stock market or the outcome of football games?"

I always see it this way. If you could would you go around telling everybody?

NO

There has been plenty of research into esp. They know it exists. They just dont want it in the public domain.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


"Science is FINALLY recognizing something that was ONCE deemed supernatural!" Is that a better thread title for ya?



Naa, that wouldn't work either considering at any given point, almost everything was considered supernatural.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by 19rn50
The bible tells about the supernatural 2000 yrs., ago.
Now scientists, just beginning to see the light!



Talk about cherry picking

The bible (and every single other religion past and present) identifies everything as supernatural.

Supernatural = beyond natural. If it exists and is measurable, it is just natural, even if it means by saying the right word, you can fly. Science is in the business of smashing the super part of supernatural out of the equasion. So, another force is being targetted...and sure, its about time.

Maybe in 50-100 years, we can start creating electronic devices that can make use of this new uncovering



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by kode
I noticed in the NY Times article they used a tired old excuse...

"if ESP exists, why aren’t people getting rich by reliably predicting the movement of the stock market or the outcome of football games?"


Actually, I ridicule such thinking with equal nonsense

"If there was such things as painters, why are tree's not blue?"

At first, they think I am just being an idiot...I push it
"Seriously, if there are people whom paint things, why don't these painters design a tree that grows blue leaves?"

They will say (if they are at all educated), that thats not a painters job, thats more for genetic engineering

and my general response is...and ESP is not fortune telling in the same respect.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I find the title misleading and the entire research they are using for this 'idea' to be unsound.

When you have a experiment that is either black of white...choose a or b...choose triangle or square..without a madrid of other choices in between to choose from....we can not excuse coincidence or happenstance...we can not say that for sure with any valid assertion that this proves anything of 'ability to predict' something at all.

With the whole 'side of the screen/picture' experiment....it would be more valid divide the screen into 25 squares...and then pick the square where the picture will show up at ahead of time. Giving just 'two options' in the experiment....is not good enough to say with any certainty that someone is predicting anything. They have a 50% chance to get it right and 50% chance to get it wrong.

I also, aside from such experiments....dont believe in predictions. I believe we can look at certain past and present situations and 'figure' out possibilities that could occur due to things we already know.....but I think the future has many 'lines/paths' that are possible and we can 'figure' or even take a 'guess' at some of those possibilities.

My disbelieve in predictions out of the clear blue sky without using any former 'figuring'....has nothing to do with the faulty research I feel the article is showing. Show me someone that can predict the next 5 earthquakes down to the city, size of the quake, and the exact time....then Ill consider such possibilities more.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by iSHRED
 


I think all of us can perceive events before they happen. Police officers and detectives probably develop this sense to some extent. The ability to non consciously assemble observations, feelings, and thoughts in an instant to come up with a probable expectation I believe is possible. Accuracy of such predictions though depends on the development of a person. It is easy to sit in a stream of events and feel what the probabilities are. At least this seems possible to me. Extrasensory perception means that a person can identify probabilities without any facts to support that. Many people do this on a daily basis. It is how we navigate the world, and which I believe if we used the sense more often could create a better world. Think of what we would like, and find a path out of darkness.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join