Telepathy Gets Academic Seal of Approval

[matcom]

<snip>

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden's Lund University, one of the oldest seats of learning in Scandinavia, will take a leap into the unknown by appointing northern Europe's first professor of parapsychology, hypnology and clairvoyance.

Almost 30 candidates, including a self-professed Indian medium and an American named Heaven Lord, applied for the post, financed by a donation, whose holder the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet has joked will be a "Ghost Professor."

The first professor, to be appointed by Lund University Dean Goran Bexell, is expected to start work in 2004, faculty secretary Kerstin Johansson told Reuters.

Hypnology is the science of the phenomena of sleep and hypnosis.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=573&e=1&u=/nm/20030908/od_nm/odd_sweden_telepathy_dc

[Dookus]

1. maybe they can

recruit someone from Hogwarts School of Wizardy.

[TlalocW]

2. I guess

Sweden has too much money to spend since they're willing to waste it on crap like this.

TlalocW

[matcom]

3. well, they aren't about to spend 87 Billion

on a phony war i bet.

[qb]

4. Someone should really clue them in...

"Rose Red" was a work of fiction.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

5. This is really nuts...

everybody knows that there is no such thing as clairvoyance!

I mean its not like there were a bunch of "predictions" of the WTC attack, is there? You know like album covers with images on them that almost EXACTLY matched the second WTC crash, or TV programs about hijacked airliners being crashed into the WTC.

I mean that sort of thing just DOES NOT HAPPEN.

Edited to add:

You see, this:



Never happened. This CD cover was NOT designed months before Sept 11, and was NOT due to begin being printed ON Sept 11, even if Wired says it was:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,46771,00.html

I mean, who could believe that a band called "COUP" could have had an album cover showing the WTC towers being blown up in almost EXACTLY the same way as they REALLY were blown up.

Nope, this sort of thing just does not happen, and even thinking of studying these sorts of things is crazy :crazy:

[Dookus]

7. And you really think....

that album cover is a case of clairvoyance, not coincidence? Dammit, why didn't they WARN anybody?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

12. I didn't say it was ANYTHING...

I merely pointed out that it was crazy to think that something like repeated references to attacks on the WTC in many different media, but all with a similarity to what eventually actually happened should be studied, because it's not like we don't KNOW EVERYTHING already...

No, clairvoyance is impossible. How dare anyone study the possibility? They should be burned at the stake.

[Dookus]

22. You make it seem as if...

the fields in question have never been studied.

They have. They've been found to have no basis in fact.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

23. Not at all!

I know these crazy things were studied in the past, and I know that REAL scientists did everything they could to shut down parapsychology departments for having the audactiy to suggest such crazy things may be real, regardless of any evidence that may have been found.

They, like us, no that NO amount of evidence is enough because these things can't happen, unlike time travel which of course IS possible, at least in one direction, because a theory says so, and we have some supporting evidence that shows that some of the things this theory says are true.

Oh, and lets' not forget teleportation a la Star Trek. Yes, we realistic people have found that teleportation may in fact be possible.

But you see, even though at one time these two things were said to be impossible, having studied the issue we know that they are possible. But this is completely different to parapsychology where we know its impossible and we refuse to even allow anyone to study it because it is an insult to science.

Only crazy people would dare go against scientific dogma and look into such crazy and impossible things as telekinesis or telepathy.

How dare they?

[Dookus]

24. This is the argument that makes no sense.....

any scientist who can demonstrate a new force, such as ESP, telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc., will become one of THE most famous scientists of all time. A Nobel prize is assured. Fame and fortune is guaranteed.

Most great scientific breakthroughs knock the "current understanding" on its side.

Why is parapsychology the only field where scientists "suppress themselves"?

An idea doesn't need to "popular" to be accepted. Darwin is a great example. Do you really believe scientists conspire to suppress the existence of clairvoyance, telekinesis and telepathy?

If you do believe this, what are their motives?

[aneerkoinos]

26. response

"any scientist who can demonstrate a new force, such as ESP, telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc., will become one of THE most famous scientists of all time. A Nobel prize is assured. Fame and fortune is guaranteed."

It doesn't work like that. Phenomena like "telepathy" of ESP have been shown to be real, but they are not understood, and also the laymans idea on these things is pretty badly distorted. For a scientist to get Nobel prize on parapsychology he should have at least a rudimentary understanding of these things, not just that they happen. It's not great sciense to prove that apples drop from trees, but why they drop, and in parapsychology there's a long way to that. If it is evidence you need, I've provided link to Sheldrakes site elsewhere on this thread.


"Why is parapsychology the only field where scientists "suppress themselves"?"

And how do you now it is only such field? :D

"An idea doesn't need to "popular" to be accepted. Darwin is a great example. Do you really believe scientists conspire to suppress the existence of clairvoyance, telekinesis and telepathy?
If you do believe this, what are their motives?"

There is no conspiracy, but of course they suppress stuff they think is "too wild", reacting just like you. They are also human beings, if you don't believe read some history of sciense. Morover, a lot is at stake, the whole current materialistic paradigm, our intrinsic belief in Newtonian world and Aristotelian causativity. The reluctance to accept these phenomena as relevant field of study is closely related to the reluctance to go deeper into the more challenging implications of quantum theory in the larger scientific community.

[Dookus]

29. no...

somebody can win a Nobel simply by proving the EXISTENCE of a phenomenon. You really think scientists are sitting on empirical evidence that ESP exists, but they don't publish it only because they don't have a mechanism? I don't believe that.

Why do you think I haven't read anything about the history of science? It was exactly such reading that educated me about the non-reality of parapsychology. I used to believe those things until I made a concerted effort to learn more.

Finally... "is closely related to the reluctance to go deeper into the more challenging implications of quantum theory in the larger scientific community. " is hogwash.

Quantum theory is revolutionizing science. It is VERY well accepted. I maintain that ALL demonstrable truths are well-accepted in science when you can prove them.

[psychopomp]

41. Limits of the known

Some very interesting research continues at Princeton:

Princeton Engineering Anomolies Research - study of consciousness-related physical phenomena

Also, scientists admit that they cannot explain more than a tiny fraction of the phenomena that comprise existance. Ninety-six percent of the universe is composed of so-called "dark matter" and "dark energy." Nobody knows what is.

The implications of our understanding of quantum reality are, ever so slowly, making an impact on mainstream science. It will be a long time before it is all packaged in a way that 21st century minds will readily accept.

[Dookus]

43. "our understanding"

is being fully defined by naturalistic scientists.

There is NOTHING in quantum science that relies on the supernatural.

And I'll repeat my assertion that quantum "reality" is not being recieved reluctantly - it's being received very very enthusiastically.

But we're moving away from the main discussion.
Where's the evidence that psi exists?

[psychopomp]

47. Quantum science renders the supernatural

commonplace. In my post I wrote about the limits to human knowlege. Sometimes, if you believe something to be true (faith) you can move mountains. How does this work? Is there some connection between consciousness and the "physical" world that we can learn more about? Probably so.

This is one article to help you acquaint yourself of the mystery:

New Scientist's Guide to the Quantum World

[TrogL]

58. working link

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/

[Devils Advocate NZ]

42. Exactly!

You see, people like us know that scientists can do no wrong, and if a scientist says something is impossible, even though he has never studied it, then that is enough for me.

Now some kooks may say "how can something be proven if it is not even studied?", but I say bollocks! We don't need to study such things, because even without study we KNOW.

The mere idea of attempting to study such things is unscientific and should be laughed at and mocked, because we KNOW that such things are impossible.

Yes, we KNOW it all!

[TrogL]

59. time travel already possible

through quantum entanglement and "spooky connections".

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/spooky.jsp

I propose that synchronistic events may use a similar methodology.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

83. Not to mention Relativistic Time Dilation...

which says that the faster you go, the slower time goes for you. Thus if you were to leave Earth at extremely high speed - say half the speed of light and then come back, although only one year may have elapsed for you, the Earth would have gone through ten years of existence. Thus you would have jumped nine years into the future. (all the figures I gave are merely an example, but in reality they can be calculated very precisely)

But let's not go there, because before Relativity, TRUE SCIENCE had decided that time travel was impossible - and we all know that TRUE SCIENCE can never be wrong.

[TheRedMan]

84. Yet the means by which time dialation became an accepted fact escapes you

Namely, it was proven. In multiple ways. (By examining the half-life of high-velocity muons in particle accelerators, and measuring atomic clock slowdown on satellites, off the top of my head) Science used to believe the universe was permeated by undetectible ether, whose oscillations create the EM phenomena we know today (light, radio, etc.) Michelson and Morley performed an extraordinary test to prove otherwise (showing no ether wind by measuring light propagation in orthogonal directions). Further, you also ignore that relativisitic mechanics reduces to classical mechanics in common situations, so Einstein was not saying Newton was full of crap, just that Newton's theory did not apply in all situations. And really, the only thing you need, to get to Eistein from Newton, is the knowledge that the speed of light is finite.

Repeatedly science has happily shifted its equilibrium, when confronted with PROOF. Is that so hard to understand?

So, why does parapsychology get ruled out? Because MANY MANY attempts to show its existence have all consistently failed. This chair in Sweden is privately funded, meaning some batshit millionaire beleives in parapsychology, and gave the university money to prove it. Let's see what happens. If he can show any sort of ESP in any person, I am eager to change my thought on this. Until then I will sit on the overwhelmin evidence on my side.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

85. So, explain the CSICOP admission that telepathy is real...

on an unconcious level?

Refer to my other posts for a link, but the EXACT SAME process occured in regards to Sheldrake's theory as was carried out for Einstein's theory, and the result was that an impossible subconcious physiological reaction occured in people who were unknowingly stared at, and these findings were replicated in a study done by an independant group of scientists.

For the sake of accuracy I will also point out that two other studies failed to replicate this finding, but both of them were carried out by a professional skeptic who had long denied that Sheldrake's theory could be true, even though TWO of his other studies replicated Sheldrake's findings.

All of this information comes straight from CSICOP, the professional skeptics, who were forced to qualify their denial of telepathy to say "concious telepathy" in order to gloss over these findings.

The funny thing is, YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE that telepathy doesn't exist, you merely have claims that there is no evidence that telepathy EXISTS. That would have the same effect, IF it weren't for the studies I refer to above that DO show evidence of telepathy.

If your refusal to accept that telepathy is possible is based on a lack of evidence, then that lack has been rectified - there is now evidence. Will you accept the evidence or stick to your unsupported beliefs?

On edit: Guess what I just found out? All of the studies done that show NO replication of Sheldrakes findings were done by fellows of CSICOP or close associates. Only ONE of the studies was not done by a fellow, but that study was done by someone who had previously debunked Sheldrakes findings in an article with a CSICOP fellow.

I have already shown that CSICOP is not above misleading people as to what their findings were, so should it be any surprise that the only non-replicating experiments were carried out by people closely associated with CSICOP?

The question is, how many of the other scientists who carried out experiments that DID replicate Sheldrake's findings were closely associated with him?

[LuLu550]

6. I had an intuative feeling

that all of you would say exactly what you posted here! :evilgrin:

[lazarus]

8. Interestingly

One doesn't have to attend to get a degree. Just think about it really really hard, and the diploma will appear in the post.

[DemExpat]

9. At the end of the article.....

"Utrecht University in the Netherlands and Scotland's Edinburgh University also have chairs in parapsychology"

So they (Sweden) are not the first?

DemEx

[Blue_Chill]

10. Cool glad to see they aren't as rabidly close minded

as most Duers who seem to take anything that you can't see measure or control is a direct threat to thier well being.

[Character Assassin]

11. Would you like to buy my Yeti pelt? I got it from the Elohim.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

14. Yeah, and time travel is impossible!

Oh, no hang on, we can go into the future, we just can't come back to the present or go into the past... or maybe..

[lazarus]

13. I'm completely open minded

And will be more than happy to admit the existence of telepathy or telekinesis just as soon as I see some evidence.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

15. Evidence?

We don't need no stinking evidence! That is why studying such things is crazy, and why smart people like you and me mock such things as parasychology departments at universities!

It's all crazy!

[redeye]

16. That's because you guys are cranks...

...who refuse to write articles in peer-reviewed magazines, and when you do, they get rejected and you think there's a conspiracy against you.

I put you guys in the same category as the creationists.

And no, you shouldn't be burned at the stake, just barred from teaching anywhere until you become mroe serious.

[aneerkoinos]

21. Whose a crank?

It is true there are lot's of charlatans and kooks, but there are also serious scientists whose articles sometimes are published in peer-reviewed magazines and sometimes not, not because of conspiracy but because sciense is a social field and paradigm shifts take time.

You obviously know very little about the field, Rupert Sheldrake's experiments should satisfy even your rigorous scientific standards: http://www.sheldrake.org/

[lazarus]

33. actually

Sheldrake doesn't. Since none of his research on "being stared at", etc., has been duplicated.

Not to mention that he's a proponent of the ludicrous "hundredth monkey" hypothesis.

Plus there's some question about a randomization error in his methodology.

Anyone who bases his career on accusing the rest of science of being "dogmatic" because scientists won't just accept that telepathy exists is to be looked at askance, in my opinion.

[Blue_Chill]

34. DUPE

BLAH

[Blue_Chill]

36. Duplicated

How do you know such things can be duplicated? We don't understand a thing about such odd events and you think that all things must be able to be duplicated?

[lazarus]

37. If it can't be duplicated

It can't be measured scientifically. It's that simple.

That's how one ensures there aren't other factors that could be affecting the measurements.

[Dookus]

40. yes....

all real phenomena, given the right conditions, can be duplicated. Pure water at sea level will boil at 100 degrees centigrade. It's repeatable. All TRUE scientific advancements are repeatable given the same conditions. This is decidedly NOT true of parapsychological claims.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

46. That's right! Unless a TRUE SCIENTIST can duplicate your findings...

it didn't really happen! And when they DO duplicate your findings, if they can think up some excuse, it didn't really happen! And if they can't think up an excuse and just ignore it, it didn't really happen!

That is how TRUE SCIENCE works!

You see, there is nothing in TRUE SCIENCE that says that we have to actually admit we are wrong when your crazy parapsychology mumbo jumbo is proven. Oh no, we can just say I don't care how many times the exprimental results are duplicated, there must be something wrong with the experiment and the experimentors themselves (even when we are the experimentors), because we all KNOW that such poppycock isn't real - TRUE SCIENCE tells us so.

[lazarus]

51. LOL

"Proven"? How, pray tell, is something "proven" if it can't be duplicated? We're just supposed to take your word for it?

The requirement that experiments be replicable is what discredited those cold fusion fools a few years ago, remember? It's a basic scientific practise.

And I'd like some proof that scientists ignore or excuse away findings that can be duplicated and are "proven". You've made the assertion, burden of proof is on you.

Most scientists and skeptics I know would be beyond excited if something like this could be proven, because it would open up new realms of research. The vast majority of scientists are truth seekers and want to learn. The key that most people are unhappy about is that they only want to learn facts.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

55. It HAS been duplicated - but that is irrelevant, let's not go there!

After all we TRUE SCIENCE supporters know that no amount of duplication is enough to prove these crazy theories!

You see, this quote from CSICOP's debunking of Sheldrake's staring theory does not mean a thing:

Explanations in terms of sequence randomness would not account for the positive results obtained by Braud, Shafer, and Andrews (1993a, 1993b). This research used a setup similar to that of Williams (1983), except that the measure of detection was physiological-spontaneous phasic skin resistance response (SSR), which measured sympathetic autonomic nervous system arousal. However, the robustness of Braud et al.'s findings is open to question, since some replications have found the effect (Schlitz and LaBerge 1997), while others have failed (Wiseman and Smith 1994; Wiseman et al. 1995). Collaborative research by Wiseman and Schlitz (1997) using the same methodology, the same equipment, in the same location, at the same time, drawing participants from the same pool, resulted in evidence of a staring detection effect for Schlitz (a psi believer) but not for Wiseman (a skeptic). Possible reasons for these experimenter effects are discussed, though no firm conclusions are drawn, and further research on this experimenter effect is recommended.

However, as both Colwell, Schroder, and Sladen (2000) and Baker (2000) point out, the detection of staring at a subconscious level provides no support for claims by Sheldrake and others of a conscious awareness of being stared at in the absence of normal sensory information. Baker's recent research, which included "informal staring" at individuals in everyday situations before asking them if they had been aware of being stared at, and laboratory sessions in which subjects acted both as starers and starees, provided no empirical support for a conscious ability to detect unseen staring.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html

Just because Braud, Shafer, and Andrews dicovered a physiological reaction that supports Sheldrake's theory DOESN'T mean that his theory is true, Oh no. You see, the subconcious ability to detect something that should be indetectable is VERY different from the concious ability to detect the same thing, even though the conscious ability may simply come from recognising these subconcious signs.

NO, Sheldrake's theories CAN'T be true, because we TRUE SCIENCE believers know that no amount of supporting evidence can EVER prove such phony "theories"!!!

[Blue_Chill]

60. lol nice

Scientific method in dealing with the paranormal

1- Say its laughable, demand proof
2- If proof is provided, demand duplication even if it's very nature makes it outside of human controls
3- If duplication occurs make up some moronic theory like group hypnosis to explain it away
4- If that doesn't work ignore it and insult those that seek to proivde further evidence

[lazarus]

62. So

Basically, you're quoting an article which states that deficient methodology explains all but one study. Which leaves us with one study. Now, once again, we need more than one study.

How is that so difficult to understand?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

66. Yes, that's right! It was ONLY one study that shows this phony effect!

It's kind of like mathematics, the studies that replicated the effect are cancelled out by the studies that didn't, and thus the original theory must be fake!

It is CRAZY to suggest that becuase the TWO studies that were carried out that failed to find the effect were run by a known skeptic that there just might be a bias in those TWO studies! After all, we KNOW that no TRUE SCIENTIST would bias his studies in order to find the results he already expected to find!

No, it is much more believeable to suggest that the THREE studies that were carried out by totally unconnected "scientists" were faked to find something that they expected to find. You see there is so much money and respect to be found by claiming to have found proof of telepathy that NO ONE could resist falsifying their studies!

But you see, this is all IRRELEVANT! We KNOW that such things are impossible, so why should we even STUDY such things? That is why TRUE SCIENTISTS like you and me laugh and mock the idea that a university would set up a department to study such things!

[lazarus]

70. nice try

But the sarcasm is just wee bit too thick.

You totally misread it. Only one of the studies doesn't show the error in methodology. So there's only one study, nonreplicated.

Universities also have theology departments. Should you also use that as proof of the existence of god?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

78. You started it!

Your very first post to this thread was a sarcastic comment. What's the matter, you can dish it but can't take it?

No, I DIDN'T misread, YOU DID. Read the CSICOP page I linked to earlier - even though they try to gloss over it, they show TWO studies (at least) that they do not claim had any methodological errors (in fact one was carried out by a CSICOP Research Fellow) that replicated Sheldrakes effects, and ONE that went further and showed an ACTUAL PHYSICAL REACTION to being unknowingly stared at - that neither CSICOP nor any one else has been able to gloss over.

In fact they use the cop out (or at least try to) that the fact that we can do something "impossible" on a subconcious level does not support the idea that we can do the same thing on a concious level!

By the way, when have I ever used the existence of parapsychology departments to prove the existence of telepathy? Or are you just trying to create a straw man?

In fact if you read my posts from the very beginning, you will see that all I have been arguing is that parapsychology and other such departments should be created to study this sort of thing - to determine the existence of paranormal events, one way or the other.

It is the TRUE SCIENTISTS that are trying to suppress research because they have predetermined the outcome without supporting evidence.

Sheldrake MAY be wrong, but without further study, how can we know? Yet as I said, your very first post on this thread was pure sarcasm at the very idea of setting up a department in a University to study such things. Yep, that is what TRUE SCIENCE is all about.

[DemExpat]

81. Total agreement with you here, DA......

I also think it is a positive thing for Universities to research and study these fields.
The more, the better, I say.

:kick:
DemEx

edit: the title of the article IS a bit misleading, though, stating that telepathy has the academic seal of approval.....should have said research, or study......

[lazarus]

86. lol

I started it with a joke? So sorry.

So, you think an entire university department is required to study stuff? I guess we should set up departments to study everything, right? Any concept anyone can come up with? No filters whatsoever?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

88. Filters? Is that your way of saying 'ignoring stuff we don't like'?

I have shown time and again on this thread that in the case of one specific claim - the staring effect - that the "skeptics" have lied and ignored data and you have not shown ONE single piece of evidence that any of the experiments that have been carried out that replicate Sheldrake's findings has in any way been false, yet you claim that all you are doing is 'filtering'.

No, what you are doing is EXACTLY what you accuse people like Sheldrake of doing: ignoring evidence that does not fit in with your theory of how the universe works.

For example, you have talked about the claim that Sheldrake's experiments have faulty methodology related to the randomness of the tests. You could have EASILY found out that the very faults that were criticised by one CSICOP researcher were only introduced because another CSICOP researcher said that the original method was wrong - too bad that the original method is the SAME as what the second CSICOP researcher said is the correct way to do it!

Sheldrake did it one way, which was criticised, so he did it the way he was recommended to, which was AGAIN criticised. It seems that CSICOP will not accept that an experiment is valid if it shows something they refuse to believe, EVEN IF THEY WERE THE ONES THAT RECOMMENDED THE METHODOLOGY!

Now THAT is what I call filtering! They filter the truth by manipulating studies to FORCE their chosen outcome. If their manipulation STILL shows what they don't want it to show, they IGNORE the fact that THEY were the ones who designed the experiment!

Just go to the CSICOP page and you will see what I am talking about. Their response to Sheldrake's criticism is simply astounding, and amounts to nothing more than "Yeah well, I still say it's impossible!"

TRUE SCIENCE in action!

[Dookus]

72. I agree with Lazarus...

If you want to persuade us, extreme sarcasm isn't the way to do it.

Present your points fairly and openly, then we can discuss them.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

77. That's funny...

because the TRUE SCIENTIST uses NOTHING but sarcasm and ridicule.

For example, here is what Lazarus said on his very first post to this thread (#8):

One doesn't have to attend to get a degree. Just think about it really really hard, and the diploma will appear in the post.

Of course! I should have remembered, one of the identifying features of a TRUE SCIENTIST is the ability to dish it, but not take it!

But OK then, I will drop the sarcastic attitude as long as everyone agrees to do the same.

So, let's review this thread:

I have posted many supporting links - even one to the CSICOP page that supposedly debunks the staring theory, and shown that:

1) these experiments HAVE been replicated by many other scientists

2) Some of those replications have come from pofessional Skeptics such as Wiseman (who by the way is a Research Fellow for CSICOP and is a Consultant Editor of The Skeptical Inquirer)

3) that MOST of the studies that failed to replicate the Sheldrake experiments were carried out by Wiseman, who has been accused of manipulating the data to find what he wanted to find.

4) that at least one skeptical study that managed to reproduce the finding of a physical reaction to being stared at without the staree's knowledge has been written off because "the detection of staring at a subconscious level provides no support for claims by Sheldrake and others of a conscious awareness of being stared at in the absence of normal sensory information". In other words even though something that should be impossible by current science - the subconcious detection of being stared at - occurs, the claim that subconcious PHYSICAL reaction may be picked up at the concious level is unsupported.

Now what have the detractors shown, and where is their supporting evidence?

Lazarus has merely repeated over and over again that the experiments have not been replicated, even though I have shown this claim to be false. When confronted with this, he has claimed that these experiments must have been flawed, without showing any evidence of this.

And, he has dropped back into where he started - by ridiculing those who suggest that repeated experiments that duplicate Sheldrakes findings, and point to the fact that even the CSICOP skeptics have been forced to admit, at least partially, that this points to at least a subconcious telepathic ability.

Of course, it must be ME that is not discussing this fairly and openly!

Like I said - TRUE SCIENCE doesn't need to defend its beliefs, it KNOWS everything already!

[JackDragna]

73. You have an interesting method.

People ask for evidence and you attack them. Nobody who asked for repeatable evidence said they were a "true" scientist.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

79. Attack them? I was agreeing with them!

And showing that all that evidence that I provided doesn't prove a thing!

No, I totally agree with TRUE SCIENTISTS... there is no point to studying paranormal phenomena, because we KNOW they can't be real, no matter how much evidence might suggest they are!

[aneerkoinos]

50. Sheldrake does

His experiments (e.g. stared at) have been duplicated hunreds of times, why do you say otherwise?

The "randomization error" critisism he has answered and shown that it is not valid: http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/marks.html

And which scientist does not accuse his colleagues being dogmatic? ;)

[lazarus]

52. thatq

was one of the most dishonest things I have ever read. He spent basically pages talking about how they discovered methodology errors, then said the methodology errors didn't exist, and that they found the same results he did.

So, where else are these "hundreds" of duplications listed? What papers in what journals?

And how many scientists accuse their colleagues of being dogmatic because they won't just believe what he believes without proof?

[aneerkoinos]

54. What you call dishonest

is how sciense is done. Debating alledged flaws in methodology is not dishonest but the essence of scientific process. What really is dishonest is to refute Sheldrakes answer just by calling him dishonest (not even the most dogmatic Skeptics question his honesty - sanity maybe), instead of showing the fault in Sheldrakes methodology and reasoning, if there is one. Your answer shows that you don't understand nor respect scientific process.

Sorry, I have no time to do your bibliographical work for you, you must do that yourself if you are really interested, or ask help from somebody else.

How many scientists? I don't know, maybe there are lot's of such bad scientist, but since we are discussing the validity of the proof Sheldrake has presented your question must be about somebody else than Sheldrake.

[lazarus]

63. sigh

It was dishonest because it didn't answer the dispute at all, but in summary, claimed to have. That's all.

And I don't need to "get help" from anyone. It's clear what's going on. Once again, someone has made a claim that flies in the face of science, that isn't supported by the evidence, but skeptics are attacked for failing to leap over ourselves in a mad dash to believe it. I've seen it too many times before. It's getting tiresome.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

67. Yes! It FLIES IN THE FACE OF SCIENCE!!!

And we all KNOW science is never wrong, and we already KNOW everything about how the universe works. TRUE SCIENCE never has to revise its theories because they are ALWAYS right!

Even though I posted a link to the CSICOP page which talks about all of the studies that have been done that replicated Sheldrakes findings, and even gone beyond them, that in no way means that it is the TRUE SCIENTISTS and not Sheldrake that are being dishonest!

Oh no, becuase you see, Sheldrake is making an outlandish claim, and it is IMPOSSIBLE that he could be honest and make such claims.

No, no matter how much the TRUE SCIENTISTS have to lie to cover up the fact that they found the same things Sheldrake did, it is Sheldrake that is the LIAR!

His crazy theory FLIES IN THE FACE OF TRUE SCIENCE, and we know what that will get him - ostracised and ridiculed, regardless of what the evidence shows!

No, we TRUE SCIENTISTS are sick of defending our beliefs - after all, defending your beliefs has nothing to do with TRUE SCIENCE! We KNOW what the truth is, so quit trying to prove us wrong - it is heretical!

As Sir John Maddox said in an interview broadcast on BBC television in 1994:

"Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned in exactly the language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reason. It is heresy."

Now that is what I call a TRUE SCIENTIST!

[redeye]

17. I am god

Trust me. The best evidence you can find is that there is no evidence - I destroyed it all to test everyone's faith in me.

[Blue_Chill]

35. Funny!

Now go prove that we came from a virus and leave me alone.

[lazarus]

38. We have evidence of evolution

There is no evidence of creationism. So far, that means evolution is winning. As soon as you come up with some evidence of creationism, feel free to present it.

[Dookus]

39. leave YOU alone?

you came into a thread and posted. We replied.

Who's bothering whom?

Christ-on-a-stick, bluechill, you need to learn some basics about rhetoric and argument.

[Dookus]

25. I'm very open-minded about this....

show me compelling, repeatable evidence that such things exist, and I'll change my view that they do not.

What will it take to change YOUR mind?

[aneerkoinos]

27. Sheldrakes experiments

Check the link I gave elsewhere on this thread.

[Dookus]

30. hrmm...

well, from looking at his website, he publishes mostly in the Journal of the Society of Psychical Research and the Journal of Parapsychology. I consider this a strike agains thim. But I'll look into him a little more, but this is NOT an auspicious start.

[Dookus]

31. ok...

regarding the staring phenomenon:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html

this article says the "animal knowing when its owner is coming home" work by Sheldrake was not reproducible:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-11/pet-psychic.html


I'll keep looking for more.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

45. Wsieman shows us what TRUE SCIENCE is all about!

This is what CSICOP said:

An example is the report by Richard Wiseman et al., "Can animals detect when their owners are returning home? An experimental test of the 'psychic pet' phenomenon," published in the British Journal of Psychology.

The researchers responded to a suggestion by Rupert Sheldrake that just such a study be undertaken, and it followed a formal test of the alleged phenomenon by an Austrian television company. That test focused on an English woman and her dog and seemed successful. Wiseman et al. (1998) conducted four experiments designed to rule out the pet's responding to routine or picking up sensory cues (either from the returning owner or from others aware of the expected time of return), as well as people's selective memories and selective matching, and other possible normal explanations.

In all four experiments the dog failed to detect accurately when her owner set off for home, contradicting claims made on the basis of the previous (Austrian TV) study. The experiments suggested "that selective memory, multiple guesses and selective matching could often have sufficient scope to give an owner the impression of a paranormal effect."

And this is Sheldrake's reply:

In Sepember 1996 I met Wiseman and pointed out that his data showed the same pattern as my own, and that far from refuting the effect I had observed, his results confirmed it. I gave him copies of graphs showing may own data and the data from the experiments that he and Smith conducted with Jaytee. But he ignored these facts. He reiterated his negative conclusions in a paper he submitted to the British Journal of Psychology together with Smith and Julie Milton. This paper appeared in August, 1998, with a fanfare of skeptical publicity in the British media, initiated by a press release accompanying the publication of the paper. (Wiseman, R., Smith, M and Milton, J. Can animals detect when their owners are returning home? An experimental test of the 'psychic pet' phenomenon. British Journal of Psychology 89, 453-462)
http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/wiseman.html

Yep, that his how REAL scientists are supposed to work - If the data doesn't fit, ignore it! But Let's continue:

1. They say that the pattern of behaviour whereby Jaytee was at the window most when his owner is on the way home could be because he simply went to the window more and more as time went on.

2. They say the my analysis of their data "was clearly post hoc and would not provide compelling evidence of psi ability unless it was supported by a larger body of research."

3. They justify their failing to mention my own research with Jaytee on the grounds that it had not yet been published when they submitted their paper to the British Journal of Psychology, and add that "the experiments appear to contain design problems (Blackmore, 1999)". They also object to the way I reported their research in my book Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home.
http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/wiseman.html

Excellent! Sheldrake claims that a certain pattern occurs - Wiseman denies it. Sheldrake proves that Wiseman's data shows the same pattern, Wiseman says well, that may be so, but there has to be some other reason!

Brilliant! That is TRUE SCIENCE at work. When the data doesn't agree with your hypothesis, discard the data! Oh, and don't forget to accuse Sheldrake of being unscientific by LOOKING AT and COMPARING the data of two similar experiments! No, unless he can prove them wrong without refering to the data, he is not practising TRUE SCIENCE!

[lazarus]

64. brilliant

This is true crackpottery. When a scientist finds a problem with your methodology, instead claim the problem doesn't exist,and obfuscate the situation with as many bizarre claims as you can make.

Simply continue to claim that scientists "ignore" your facts. Ignore completely the fact that scientists would be excited to find a new phenomenon to study, no, the crackpot theory of science dictates that science must deny any new concepts. That's how quantum mechanics arose, after all. :eyes:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

68. You really are a TRUE SCIENTIST!

Even when I post evidence that Wiseman ignored his own findings, you manage to totally overlook this evidence and call it "true crackpottery"! I bow down before a TRUE SCIENTIST!

I would never have thought of defending claims of ignoring evidence by ignoring the evidence! The audacity to try and pull off such a scheme, I don't know how you do it!

You are truly a genius and should receive the Nobel prize for this amazing piece of TRUE SCIENCE!

[TrogL]

57. Then why are people writing books about it?

I signed one out of the library yesterday.

Hell, I've seen it happen. My father would come home at erratic times. The dog would be nowhere near the door. Five minutes before he hit the driveway, the dog would be whining at the front door.

[TrogL]

61. Because it's Sheldrake's book

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0609805339/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/103-8385784-7487835

*sighs* oh well

[TrogL]

18. Finally somebody will take a formalized approach

to these fields.

Parapsychology is a bad name for the field of endeavour surrounding telepathy and telekenesis. These are actually synchronistic events and have long been explored by Jung and others.

[aneerkoinos]

20. Rupert Sheldrake

has been studying among other things "telepathy" for years, and the proof of his very simple and repeatable experiments is, well, kinda hard to refute... though many have tried, of course.

http://www.sheldrake.org/

What comes to the field of SCIENSE called parapsychology, the scientific community has been for quite a time beyond proving that the very elusive phenomena they study are real, but understanding and explaining those phenomena is still far of. Guestimate shared by many (including Sheldrake) is that explanatory link between standard natural sciense and parapsychology is to be found in quantum physics.

[Archae]

32. Sheldrake is an idiot with a degree.

Just like Duane Gish.

http://www.skepdic.com/morphicres.html

[Devils Advocate NZ]

49. Yes!

And even though the CSICOP page that the site you linked points to shows that Sheldrakes claims are repeatable and have never been truly debunked, it is clear that for Sheldrake to continue to claim that his experiments are evidence for telepathy is just crazy!

Let's list the studies done that show the "Staring Effect" is real:

Rupert Sheldrake (1994)
Titchener (1898)
Coover (1913)
Williams (1983)
Braud, Shafer, and Andrews (1993a)
Schlitz and LaBerge (1997)

Now lets see the list of studies done that show that the "Staring Effect" is not real:

Colwell, Schroeder, and Sladen (2000)
Baker (2000)
Wiseman and Smith (1994)
Wiseman et al. (1995)
Wiseman and Schlitz (1997)

Now, for the sake of TRUE SCIENCE we'll just ignore the fact that three of the debunking studies were carried out with one common principal - Wiseman - and we'll ignore the fact that one of the studies (Wiseman and Schlitz) did show that the "Staring Effect" was real unless a skeptic was doing the staring, and we'll ignore the fact that two of the debunking studies showed that subconcious detection of staring was real:

However, as both Colwell, Schroder, and Sladen (2000) and Baker (2000) point out, the detection of staring at a subconscious level provides no support for claims by Sheldrake and others of a conscious awareness of being stared at

You see, these five studies PROVE that TRUE SCIENCE is always right, even if TRUE SCIENTISTS have to just ignore their experimental findings!

[lazarus]

53. All this proves

Is that you don't understand what science is or what replicating experiments means.

If Titchener was able to replicate Sheldrake's experiments back in 1898, I think we have a whole new phenomenon to get excited about here.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

56. Perfect!

I would never have thought to say that an older study was replicating a newer study - I would just have refered to the newer study as a replication of the older study!

You are definately better at TRUE SCIENCE than I!

Of course replicating experiments in TRUE SCIENCE does not mean carrying out similar experiments to see if they also show the same effect - after all, that might actually prove that such things are true, and we KNOW they are not!

No, in the case or parapsychology, there is no such thing as a replicable experiment! All experiments stand on their own and do not in any way reinforce each other, no matter how similar they are nor how similar their results!

If two such experiments show the same thing, then the experiment must be faulty (we KNOW they can't be true, so what else is there?) - and if we TRUE SCIENTISTS happen to have been the ones who carried out the experiment, then the data must be misleading and should be ignored!

[lazarus]

65. sigh

If an experiment can't be replicated, it's not science. Good luck, and have fun.

That's why it's called pseudoscience.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

69. Yes!

If an experiment is replicated but shows evidence of telepathy then it is not TRUE SCIENCE! Your mastery of ignoring the number of experiments that replicated Sheldrakes findings, even some by professional Skeptics, is amazing! You should receive a Nobel prize for your defence of TRUE SCIENCE!

I try to be as good at you at ignoring facts, but I just don't seem to be able to pull it off... Perhaps I need more lessons in TRUE SCIENCE?

Hell, even when the professional skeptics organisation admits that there is a measurable physiological reaction to being stared at without knowledge, you still manage to ignore it and call it pseudoscience!

Hey everyone! We are in the presence of a master of TRUE SCIENCE!

We're not worthy, we're not worthy!

[lazarus]

71. once more

The experiments can't be replicated, therefore they are not science. All the snarky sarcasm in the world won't change that fact.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

80. Yes!

All those replications don't exist! Even CSICOP is lying, there are NO experiments that repicated Sheldrakes experiments, ESPECIALLY ones carried out by a Research Fellow of CSICOP!

Nope, I don't care how many you show me, they don't exist!

See, here is the proof:

Explanations in terms of sequence randomness would not account for the positive results obtained by Braud, Shafer, and Andrews (1993a, 1993b). This research used a setup similar to that of Williams (1983), except that the measure of detection was physiological-spontaneous phasic skin resistance response (SSR), which measured sympathetic autonomic nervous system arousal. However, the robustness of Braud et al.'s findings is open to question, since some replications have found the effect (Schlitz and LaBerge 1997), while others have failed (Wiseman and Smith 1994; Wiseman et al. 1995).
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html

And don't even dare suggest that Wiseman may have a reason to falsify his findings, even though he IS a professional skeptic and Research Fellow of CSICOP, and regardless of the fact that one of his experiments DID replicate Sheldrakes findings.

Nope these replications just DON'T exist!

[lazarus]

87. I see

You're accusing Wiseman of falsifying his data? That requires some substantiation, you know.

I didn't say none existed, I said no valid ones had been done. There are many many questions about the methodology. Heck, I could come up with some methodology questions myself.

Regardless, what in all of this makes this subject valid enough for an entire university department? It's not even an established phenomenon yet.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

89. No, I am accusing Wiseman of falsifying his FINDINGS...

His DATA shows the EXACT SAME EFFECT as Sheldrake's data, but Wiseman, a Research Fellow of CSICOP and Consultant Editor of The Skeptical Enquirer - in other words a professional skeptic - IGNORED his data and reported that he had not found the same effect.

When he was confronted about this he IGNORED it.

So, tell us what methodology errors have you found? I bet I can prove them all false! The ONLY methodolgy error that CSICOP has ever pointed to was the balanced pseudo-random sequence of tests in one series of Sheldrake's experiments.

What they fail to point out is that Sheldrake adopted this balanced pseudo random sequence because Wiseman RECOMENDED it! You see, HE claimed that the truly random sequence biased the results of earlier Sheldrake experiments.

SO when the methodology recommended by CSICOP's Wiseman showed the SAME affect, ANOTHER CSICOP researcher blamed the pseudo-random sequence that was orginally recommended by Wiseman!

As far as CSICOP are concerned, Wiseman is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't!

By the way, did you know that there are MANY studies by many different UNCONNECTED scientists that replicate Sheldrakes findings, BUT ONLY SCIENTISTS CONNECTED TO CISCOP have failed to replicate Sheldrake's findings in their studies?

I find it interesting that only scientists who want to prove that telepathy is not real have ever failed to repicate Sheldrake's findings, and even then at least two of THEIR studies DID replicate Sheldrake's findings!

Don't you think that their bias MIGHT have something to do with their failure to find what they claim is impossible? How would it look if CISCOP managed to PROVE telepathy? Goodbye magazine sales - goodbye television and other media appearances - CSICOP failed...

Nope, they have a VERY GOOD REASON to falsify their findings.

[lazarus]

90. Too late

Had you shown the slightest hint that you had any interest in actually discussing this, at any point on this thread, I'd be happy to point out all of Sheldrake's flaws.

As it is, you just go on believing that scientists are all evil and closeminded. I'm sure you'll be giving up your computer and internet, since they were produced by science, which surely can't do anything right.

[aneerkoinos]

91. LOL

That's beyond lame. Come on, you lost the debate, why don't you just fess up instead of repeating your strawmen attacks etc. You can be better person, give it a try!

[aneerkoinos]

92. LOL

That's beyond lame. Come on, you lost the debate, why don't you just fess up instead of repeating your strawmen attacks etc. You can be better person, give it a try!

[Devils Advocate NZ]

93. Hahaha! You can't do it can you? You've got NOTHING!

Just like CSICOP, you have nothing that shows errors in any of Sheldrakes studies, so you will just turn to attacking the messenger!

I have shown PLENTY of evidence, and all you do is take the CSICOP line of saying "Yeah well, I still say I'm right!"

You seem to be a little upset at the ridicule and sarcasm I heaped on you. I wonder if you now know what it feels like to be someone like Sheldrake - except you haven't proven YOUR claims - or any other scientist who produces evidence of paranormal phenomena.

You see, people like Wiseman NEVER accept truth when that truth goes against their beliefs. When they can't use "science" to prove claims wrong, they use ridicule and sarcasm, just like I did.

I get SICK of seeing supposed scientists BASTARDISE science to try an protect their pathetic little beliefs, rather than EMBRACING such claims - even when wrong - as a proof of the scientific process.

Yes, that is right, even when we are wrong we learn things, but left to people like Wiseman, ALL learning would stop and we would instead be subject to INDOCTRINATION. As far as they are concerned, you aren't supposed to THINK, you are supposed to just shut up an accept THEIR "wisdom".

Well, I read both sides of the story, and the only crazy unscientific claims I saw were coming from Wiseman and his biased pals at CSICOP.

I am still open to argument though, so if you can show in any way that CSICOP are not LYING to protect their "reputation", I'll be happy to consider it. I won't hold my breath though.

As for believeing "all" scientists are "evil and close minded", may I remind you that Sheldrake is a SCIENTIST! Or have you editted him out of the equation? What about all the OTHER scientists that have replicated his findings? Do they not count either?

Is agreeing with you the requirment to be called a scientist? If so, you can now see why I called them "TRUE SCIENTISTS". These are the people who have slowed down the advancement of science since it began. They have their set views, and NOTHING will ever change their minds. That is NOT science, that is RELIGION.

If you want to have a REAL discussion of this issue, why don;t we start with this:

Explanations in terms of sequence randomness would not account for the positive results obtained by Braud, Shafer, and Andrews (1993a, 1993b). This research used a setup similar to that of Williams (1983), except that the measure of detection was physiological-spontaneous phasic skin resistance response (SSR), which measured sympathetic autonomic nervous system arousal. However, the robustness of Braud et al.'s findings is open to question, since some replications have found the effect (Schlitz and LaBerge 1997), while others have failed (Wiseman and Smith 1994; Wiseman et al. 1995). Collaborative research by Wiseman and Schlitz (1997) using the same methodology, the same equipment, in the same location, at the same time, drawing participants from the same pool, resulted in evidence of a staring detection effect for Schlitz (a psi believer) but not for Wiseman (a skeptic). Possible reasons for these experimenter effects are discussed, though no firm conclusions are drawn, and further research on this experimenter effect is recommended.

However, as both Colwell, Schroder, and Sladen (2000) and Baker (2000) point out, the detection of staring at a subconscious level provides no support for claims by Sheldrake and others of a conscious awareness of being stared at in the absence of normal sensory information.

<SNIP>

The evidence reviewed here provides no support to the claim that people can consciously detect unseen staring.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html


That shows that even CSICOP has admitted there is evidence of subconcious telepathy, and that there is evidence that experimentor effects can bias studies carried out by "Skeptics" (even though they bastardise that term as much as the term "science").

Notice that they admit that in a JOINT study using EXACTLY the same methodology showed that when the "skeptic" Wiseman was doing the staring, the tests failed, but when a "psi believer" was doing the staring the test replicated Sheldrake's findings.

This suggests that Skeptics somehow bias the result. Why do I say this? Well, seeing as we are studying telepathy, it is much easier to believe that someone who DOESN"T WANT the subject to detect the stare would NOT be detected than someone who DOES WANT the stare to be detected could somehow cause themselves to be detected, without doing anything different, and under the watchful eyes of the skeptic, without using telepathy!

There you go, I have just used the Skeptics OWN experiments to show that there is evidence of telepathy.

What can you come up with?

[lazarus]

94. last comment

Once more. You have failed to support your allegation that a respected scientist falsified his findings. And you have shown no interest in actually having a debate. You keep posting the same things over and over, despite the fact that the points you think you're raising have already been answered. If it makes you feel better to think you've won this debate, go ahead, believe you've won it.

In the meantime, I'll still be here in the rational universe, where telepathy doesn't exist, and dogs have better hearing than humans.

It's not up to me to prove that CSICOP isn't lying, it's up to you to show that they are. That's not just science, it's logic.

Scientists spend plenty of time attacking each other's papers. That's what journals are for. Shame Sheldrake can't get into any of the reputable ones, but they do have standards.

I'm done with this.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

96. I DID prove that CSICOP were LYING! Even though you prefer to ignore it!

For you, I'll post it again:

Collaborative research by Wiseman and Schlitz (1997) using the same methodology, the same equipment, in the same location, at the same time, drawing participants from the same pool, resulted in evidence of a staring detection effect for Schlitz (a psi believer) but not for Wiseman (a skeptic).

CSICOP says "resulted in evidence of a staring detection effect" then they say in their conclusion:

The evidence reviewed here provides no support to the claim that people can consciously detect unseen staring

THAT IS A LIE!

Within three paragraphs of admitting that there was evidence of staring detection, CSICOP says there is no evidence of staring detection.

Just how do YOU define the word LIE?

You have addressed NONE of the arguments I have presented, you have ignored ALL of the evidence I have presented. CSICOP lied, and you can't handle it. I have PROVEN you wrong, and you go running off into the sunset with your fingers in your ears.

Now THAT is a TRUE SCIENTIST!

On edit: I just reread your post, and I see that you were asking about my assertion that Wiseman had falsified his findings. I misread the first time and thought you meant my other assertion that CSICOP had lied.

Wiseman was proved to have misrepresented his findings by Sheldrake, and Wiseman has never denied that fact. Go to Sheldrakes page, and you can see the data sets that I refered to that were graphed by Sheldrake (but not by Wiseman). He claims that the data shows, and I agree, that Wisemans data showed the complete opposite of what he was claiming in his conclusions, much the same as I show CSICOP doing above.

His data showed one thing, Wiseman concluded another, thus he falsified his findings (not his data, his findings).

Based on the fact that both Wiseman and the CSICOP page do the same thing, and that Wiseman is a senior member of CSICOP, I see a trend developing...

[aneerkoinos]

100. What is rational?

Why is telepathy necessarily irrational? Is it irrational to be open to the possibility that for example consciousness has some "quantum-like" non-local aspects?

Is a priori "knowledge" that telepathy cannot exist rational?

How can you consider yourself "rational" when all you can do is present your personal beliefs as unfalsifiable truth and deny even the possibility that scientific evidence that goes against your belief system might be accurate?

No sirree, I wouldn't say that the universe you choose to live in is rational...

[Az]

97. The problem with studies like these

In science a single study does not win the day. You may recall a pair of scientists whose careers were destroyed not to long ago because they claimed to have created fusion in a test tube. The problem in scientific research is that anamolies can arise. The reason for large numbers in sampling is to try to eliminate randomness. Even when we take large samples though the odds are that occaisionally a random slanting of test results will show up. For this reason a test has to be duplicatable.

A claim is made. A scientist tests it. If their test is succesful they explain how they did it and other scientists attempt to duplicate it. If they cannot duplicate it further research on the original test is done to see if there was a flaw in the testing method. This is simply science.

So when studies such as this are replicable then we may have some evidence. Until then as with any such study it is highly suspect. Science is rigorous and unforgiving.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

99. Have you even followed this thread? We are NOT talking about ONE study!

We are talking about MULTIPLE studies carried out by different scientists (including skeptics) that duplicate Sheldrakes findings!

Everything you said is true, so why do people refuse to accept MULTIPLE DUPLICATED experiments if they show evidence of telepathy?

Even CSICOP was forced to admit that there was evidence of at least subconcious telepathy, even though they denied that this could possibly be supporting evidence of concious telepathy.

Let me make this clear:

There have been multiple experiments structured in many different ways, as well as exact copies of Sheldrakes own experiments, that showed evidence of telepathy. Even a study done by a CSICOP research fellow showed evidence of telepathy.

Ther have also been studies done by people connected to CSICOP that did not show evidence of telepathy, but they all have a few common factors:

1) they were carried out by skeptics with a conflict of interest
2) they all showed evidence of telepathy until manipulated by the skeptics to FORCE the desired outcome, which was not always successful
3) they all ignore the possibility that a skeptic will not make a good telepathic projector because he or she doesn't WANT to be detected.

One study showed clear evidence (even CSICOP admitted this) of experimentor bias because a skeptic and "believer" obtained markedly different results with EVERYTHING else being the same EXCEPT the bias of the starer.

If you go through the CSICOP studies, you find that in each case a detection was made with an unbiased starer, and then the skeptic manipulated the experiment, claiming a methodological error or some such thing, BUT ALSO changing the starer to a biased skeptic, thus failing to demonstrate the effect.

This AFTER it had been shown that experimenter bias can have an affect. If they were being honest about the experiment why change who the starer was? Why not leave EVERYTHING but what they claimed was the cause unchanged? Could it be that they knew by changing the starer to a biased skeptic they could ENSURE the failure of the experiment?

[BlueJazz]

19. I think the best and strongest reason I (personally)...

...think Physic prediction is a bunch of crap is because of the fact that the Power-ball "rolls over" all the time.

I mean, if physics really knew the future, at least ONE of them would get the damn numbers right!

[noiretextatique]

75. who said psychics "know the future?"

besides you? i do think there is much more to human consciousness and ability than our culture (and the cult of rationality) can explain. most are completely ignorant about it, but some have certainly learned to listen to their intuitive intelligence. for example, if i had an overwhelming "feeling" that i should not get on a particular plane, i would damn well act on it.

i've had all kinds of experiences that cannot be explained. i remember once being awakened by the sound of a friend's voice calling my name...it was so real, i got out of bed and looked out my window, fully expecting to see her there. i was so startled, i called her on the phone...it was about 2am. she was at home...and comtemplating suicide...i had no idea she was even depressed. we talked all night, and i helped her through the worst of it. can somebody tell me what THAT was? coincidence? i don't claim to have any extra-special abilities, but i am open to the possibility.

[lazarus]

76. and was it not likely

That you subconciously knew that she was depressed, and so thoughts of her were running through your mind?

I've had bizarre feelings that something bad was about to happen, or something good, many times. On the rare occasion, a bad or good thing does indeed happen. But that's just random chance.

The human mind is prone to forget the misses and remember the hits. One blatant example of this is to watch a cold reader or "psychic" at work. They throw out what are essentially educated guesses rapid fire, using responses to mold the followup questions, and do it so quickly and are so facile at it, most people never notice all the misses.

I used to do this stuff myself. I could do a Tarot reading that would scare the crap out of you, convince you I was the Real Thing. And I never once would tell you anything that you hadn't just told me yourself. It's not that hard to do, and many people end up doing it to themselves without knowing about it.

It all goes back to evolution. We're predators, and the predatory brain is a pattern-seeking brain. So our brains are constantly looking for patterns, and discarding "useless" information. This is also why we can see shapes in clouds, and the figure of Jesus in the rutabaga I cut open last week. :-)

The human brain is a wonderful thing, but it's got some weird kinks to it.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

82. Yes the human brain is amazing!

For example, look at how the TRUE SCIENTIST can try and fool himself into NOT believing what his own research shows.

For example, Sheldrake claims that we humans have a telepathic ability to detect when someone is staring at us. Sheldrake's furthest reach on his claim is that we can CONCIOUSLY do the impossible.

But CSICOP knows better! As far as they are concerned we can't CONCIOUSLY do the impossible, even if we can UNCONCIOUSLY do the impossible:

Explanations in terms of sequence randomness would not account for the positive results obtained by Braud, Shafer, and Andrews (1993a, 1993b). This research used a setup similar to that of Williams (1983), except that the measure of detection was physiological-spontaneous phasic skin resistance response (SSR), which measured sympathetic autonomic nervous system arousal. However, the robustness of Braud et al.'s findings is open to question, since some replications have found the effect (Schlitz and LaBerge 1997), while others have failed (Wiseman and Smith 1994; Wiseman et al. 1995). Collaborative research by Wiseman and Schlitz (1997) using the same methodology, the same equipment, in the same location, at the same time, drawing participants from the same pool, resulted in evidence of a staring detection effect for Schlitz (a psi believer) but not for Wiseman (a skeptic). Possible reasons for these experimenter effects are discussed, though no firm conclusions are drawn, and further research on this experimenter effect is recommended.

However, as both Colwell, Schroder, and Sladen (2000) and Baker (2000) point out, the detection of staring at a subconscious level provides no support for claims by Sheldrake and others of a conscious awareness of being stared at in the absence of normal sensory information.

<SNIP>

The evidence reviewed here provides no support to the claim that people can consciously detect unseen staring.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html

Notice that CSICOP are FORCED to accept the reality of the UNCONCIOUS ability to detect something that is IMPOSSIBLE to detect WITHOUT telepathy, but alters their conclusion not to say that telepathy has been SHOWN and REPLICATED under rigorous conditions, but to suggest that that has no bearing on whether we can do it CONCIOUSLY.

So as far as CSICOP are concerned UNCONCIOUS TELEPATHY is the same as NO TELEPATHY at all!

Gotta love that brain - it is so good at making excuses!

[Az]

98. The brain truly is amazing

It can find trains in clouds. It can find faces on the backs of crabs. It can find patterns where there are none. The brain is a pattern recognition device of extroridnary ability. It evolved out of a need to discern patterns in nature that presented a threat to our ancient ancestors. It has become amazing at discovering patterns.

The question is, is it evolutionarily better to find patterns that do not exist or to limit the pattern recognition to only that which is there. Imagine a believer and a skeptic caveman. Both standing in the dark. The believer suddenly sees a fleeting glimpse of something in the woods. Their mind quickly fits the image to that of a saber tooth tiger and informs the rest of the body to prepare for high speed running. The skeptic see the same glimpse of something in the jungle and decides that further investigation is required at about the same time his believing friend turns and runs and the tiger starts chewing on his leg.

Studies have shown that there does seem to be a difference between a believers pattern recognition ability and a skeptics. When shown a series of images, some with patterns and some without, the believers report seeing more patterns than the skeptics. The believers have a higher rater of false positives while the skeptics typically have a lower rate of false negatives.

The reinforcement of seeing patterns that may not be present is going to have a strong effect on believers. Particularly when confronted with something as insignificant as facts. This is not sarcasm. Simply put our brains are not wired for facts to override belief. Reason and the scientific principal are learned processes. Pattern recognition is experienced first hand. The fact that are brains may be firing on false patterns does not change the fact that the brain recorded the pattern as true. Thus the recognition of a pattern will not be overridden by somebody telling us it is false. Words vs experience lose every time. We trust that which happens to us more than what someone else tells us happaned to us.

[Deja Q]

28. No comment

:P

[Spider Jerusalem]

44. Well...

most universities have professors of theology, too. Adding another utterly bogus discipline shouldn't make much difference.

[Gore1FL]

48. Psi Corp

The Corp is mother The Corp is father.

Trust the Corp.

[JackDragna]

74. Some things I just picked up in his paper.

Sheldrake claimed he had the lookers flip a coin, yet I see no data in the 1998 paper on what percentage of the trials when he flipped a coin were looking or not looking. Omitting that data is not good.

I also see that he instructed his lookers to tell his subjects whether their answers were correct. That is a serious scientific no-no. You're inviting the looker to pick up on verbal cues when you do something like that.

[Az]

95. Everyone that believes in telepathy raise my right hand <n/t>