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.
Also gotta love how they are the only ones to pick and choose what is considered a legitimate 'source'.
While I was at Surrey I was lucky enough to be given the chance to teach a parapsychology class. It attracted more than a hundred students. so I had plenty of subjects for my experiments. I began three kinds of tests. First, I predicted a positive correlation between ESP and memory. That is, if memory and ESP are aspects of the same process, then the same people should be good at both of them. I did many tests of this kind (Blackmore 1980a). Second, I predicted that the best target materials for ESP should not be those that are easy to perceive, but those that are easy to remember. I did a series of experiments with different target materials (Blackmore 1981a). Third I predicted that the errors and confusions made in ESP should more closely resemble those made in memory than those made in perception. I had high hopes for this method since the study of errors has always been so useful in psychology, for example, in the study of visual illusions. I also did many experiments to test this (Blackmore 1981b). However, the only noteworthy thing about all of the results was the number that were not significant.
After a long series of experiments I had no replicable findings and only a large collection of negative results. Clearly they could not answer my original questions. nor test my special theory. Some of you may already be protesting: What an idiot. Why didn’t she just give up and do something useful instead? But I would have responded: This could be useful! If ESP exists, it could be one of the most important findings for science; and in any case you can never tell in advance what research will be useful in the end. You may also be thinking, as many people said at the time: "Oh but this is just what you’d expect. She has only shown that there is no psi." But of course I hadn’t done that, and couldn’t do that. No amount of negative results can prove the nonexistence of psi. Psi might always be right around the next corner, and there were plenty of corners to look around.
I can conclude that all my negative results did teach me something. Or am I perhaps only trying to get my 50-cents worth? A few years ago I read an article in the British Psychological Society Bulletin about the "Royal Nonesuch of Parapsychology." The author, H. B. Gibson (1979), described Mark Twain’s wonderful story of cognitive dissonance, about the show that never was. Many people were lured into paying 50 cents to see a nonexistent show, but instead of decrying the fraud they went out and persuaded others to see it and pay their 50 cents too. Gibson was reminded of this tale, he said, by a conference paper given by a woman who had spent two years in fruitless research on parapsychology. He suggested that parapsychology is only kept going by the "very human tendency to try to get one’s 50-cents worth after one has been misled . . . by an unkind fate which has led one into an immense expense of effort in a blind alley."
The Elusive Open Mind: Ten Years of Negative Research in Parapsychology
Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by BlueMule
Some people just can't help but attempt to force the same dogmatic beliefs down the throats of others...Sharing your opinion is one thing, attempting to be a mouthpiece through which to brainwash everybody into following said opinion is an entirely different matter all together...
force the same dogmatic beliefs down the throats of others.......attempting to be a mouthpiece through which to brainwash everybody into following said opinion...
Originally posted by atlasastro
The OP's statements and claims have been contradicted by the very studies he was linking in order to present the belief that telepathy and PSI have been scientifically proven.
The OP continues to ignore this fact.
Originally posted by BlueMule
It's not a fact, darling.
The way it works in science is some experiments are positive, some are negative. No single experiment or handful of experiments can settle the issue.
Only when considering the entire body of parapsychological evidence as a unit, which has been accumulating for over a century, can one get an idea of how overwhelmingly in favor of the psi hypothesis the massive body of evidence is. Not by isolating a few negative studies.
But why should I bother explaining something that should be obvious?
mindset that the paradigmatic assumptions of science
will ultimately need to be revised to accommodate the
study of transpersonal and parapsychological phenomena
While there has been a tendency of researchers
(at least within the mainstream) to differentiate and
compartmentalize spiritual/transpersonal and parapsych-
ological data, there is growing theoretical and empirical
literature to support the integration of the two with
parapsychological data being subsumed as an emergent
part of spiritual development (e.g., Beauregard &
O’Leary, 2007; Braud, 2004; Griffin, 1997; Levin, 2001).
Originally posted by Kokatsi
Telepathy is part of the human software. But researchers have it mostly wrong. You are asked to identify particular details which mean nothing to your soul like Zener cards. The score will drop after a while because Zener cards are deadly boring.
That's not what the astral is good about, with the exception of Remote Viewing protocols that you can certainly try to get a methodical approach of a pre-posted target only known by numbers.
It is far more interesting to zoom in on another person and try to get their thoughts and feelings in general. And some non-verbal emotional stuff that is basic to their mode of existence... And you can do this with your friends, your child, your grandma, the shopkeeper etc.
By whatever regime, develop it end exercise it because then you will get a far more interesting next life instead of getting to Plastic Heaven - the corporate version of the afterworld...