Can psychics really see the past/future?

[marysol2103]

I’m sure everyone has seen the signs for “$5 Psychic Readings” in their town or while traveling elsewhere. What I wanted to discuss here were your thoughts on using psychics for more than just personal entertainment, more specifically in police and detective work.

There’s been documented cases in the past where police haven’t been able to solve a crime, at which point they turn to a psychic for help. What I find the most interesting is when the psychics they hire actually solve the case.

What are your thoughts on this? What about using psychics to help solve some of the current investigations (such as the Peterson or Hacking trials?)

I’m not an expert myself on the topic, but I’ve been learning a bit more from a new show on Court TV called Psychic Detectives. It’s on Wednesday’s at 9:30pm in case you want to watch it too.

~ Marysol

[Chronos]

Mary, all the real tests say this is phony. Please stay around and listen to all the people who can explain it better than I. Any real phenomenon requires energy and mass to make things happen. Watch here and learn. There are many nice people who can help. You came to the right place.

[JV]

Right, the psychics are frauds. They are however often smart. They are usually good listeners, and can help the police look at the evidents from a different perspective.

But this does not seem to be a topic for this category

[daveed]

did miss cleo forsee her being arrested?
=P

[turbo]

did miss cleo forsee her being arrested?
=PWhy didn't the psychic network warn us of the 9/11 attack? Certainly, that horrific traumatizing event would have had all "real" psychics screaming. Case closed.

[geometer]

Try this idea out. People have all kinds of talents. Some are good at mathematics, some are good at music. I think there are some people who are good at looking current events and extrapolating from them the most probable future. There is nothing magical, or strange here - just a subconcious assessment of the probabilities of various outcomes.

[Ivan Seeking]

Hi Marysol,

I don't believe in "psychics", esp TV psychics, but I think psychic things may happen. One day these "psychic events" may be explained and given a scientific name. Then we will all agree that there is not and never was such a thing as a psychic event.

In other words, "psychic" implies "magic". Consider that pheromones may in fact explain some of this stuff. And who knows, maybe quantum mechanics will produce other mechanisms for information transfer between two minds; or even a mind and some distant or future event. Also, consider one recent experiment that reportedly shows that people can tell when they are being watched. We do seem to find hints at something real. Your example of police investigations I think is a very good one.

I have seen and read some very compelling "official" police files and reports, and interviews with investigators that definitely imply something real is happening. Still, debunkers will always insists that a psychic event is magic; and there is no such thing as magic. But this is a self fulfilling prophecy. We may find good scientific reasons for peoples experiences that for now only seem like magic; that we call psychic. I think it is painfully obvious that if real, most of these alleged events cannot be produced on demand for science. So I say keep and open mind but not so much that your brains fall out. :biggrin:

[Tom McCurdy]

I’m sure everyone has seen the signs for “$5 Psychic Readings” in their town or while traveling elsewhere. What I wanted to discuss here were your thoughts on using psychics for more than just personal entertainment, more specifically in police and detective work.

There’s been documented cases in the past where police haven’t been able to solve a crime, at which point they turn to a psychic for help. What I find the most interesting is when the psychics they hire actually solve the case.

What are your thoughts on this? What about using psychics to help solve some of the current investigations (such as the Peterson or Hacking trials?)

I’m not an expert myself on the topic, but I’ve been learning a bit more from a new show on Court TV called Psychic Detectives. It’s on Wednesday’s at 9:30pm in case you want to watch it too.

~ Marysol

Psychics don't exist

[Moonbear]

I think psychics are just very talented at observing human behavior. They use subtle cues in the tones of your voice, your posture, your speech pattern, your mannerisms, etc., to guess at what you're thinking. The psychics you find out for entertainment and such start off with some leading questions, not really telling you anything, just getting a feel for how you react until you start to lead them in the right direction of what you want to hear. This same skill at observing human behavior can also help them predict things about how criminals operate. They probably have a knack for criminal profiling and understanding how other people think to help guess at what they've done.

[Kerrie]

i think the term "psychic" is just a fancy word for intuition. take for example, yesterday my husband and i were driving down a busy street to get the grocery store...i remembered a friend telling me he had an accident in the exact spot we were passing through, and then i became a little panicked...i kept saying to my husband who was driving to slow down through all this chaos (he's got a bit of a lead foot)...suddenly, a van pulls in front of us and my husband has to literally slam on the breaks to not hit the van, which left some tire tracks on the road. do you call that being psychic, or just a good intuition? :wink:

[selfAdjoint]

I think psychics are just very talented at observing human behavior. They use subtle cues in the tones of your voice, your posture, your speech pattern, your mannerisms, etc., to guess at what you're thinking. The psychics you find out for entertainment and such start off with some leading questions, not really telling you anything, just getting a feel for how you react until you start to lead them in the right direction of what you want to hear. This same skill at observing human behavior can also help them predict things about how criminals operate. They probably have a knack for criminal profiling and understanding how other people think to help guess at what they've done.

People can be trained to do it. Look up "cold reading".

[Overdose]

Yes you can see the into the future and its well documented, someone mentioned no one foreseeing the 9/11 attacks, well infact many people did, and one man in england even went so far as to paint a picture of the planes hitting the twin towers, and to get the picture dated and verifed at his local bank, and put in storage (to proove that there was no cheating involved).
The guy actually did this on a regular basis and had many premonitions which came to pass; so i learnt from an interesting documentry a year or so ago...

[radagast]

Yes you can see the into the future and its well documented, someone mentioned no one foreseeing the 9/11 attacks, well infact many people did, and one man in england even went so far as to paint a picture of the planes hitting the twin towers, and to get the picture dated and verifed at his local bank, and put in storage (to proove that there was no cheating involved).
The guy actually did this on a regular basis and had many premonitions which came to pass; so i learnt from an interesting documentry a year or so ago...

Can you provide a source of documentation for this?

[Locrian]

It would seem safe to say that he cannot.

[Overdose]

His name is David Mandell, theres unfortunately not much information about him on the web, although i did find the following links...
http://www.trioptimum.co.uk/archives/000262.html
http://www.geocities.com/hairybobby2000/dreammandell.html

[Overdose]

Mary, all the real tests say this is phony. Please stay around and listen to all the people who can explain it better than I. Any real phenomenon requires energy and mass to make things happen. Watch here and learn. There are many nice people who can help. You came to the right place.
Not so atall, this is either disinformation or someone whos just misinformed, theres plenty of compelling evidence for psychic Phenomena being done by reputable people who conform to the most stringent guidelines.

[Locrian]

Yes you can see the into the future and its well documented

And on the web link,

The bottom line was inconclusive: there was no strong evidence that the man’s gifts were real and not imaginary, but there was also no success in uncovering a deliberate hoax or a falsehood.

Your definition of well documented is aparently more lenient than mine. Much, much more lenient. There is no evidence this person saw this specific event prior to its occurence; descriptions of his painting make it abundantly clear that he captured none of the particular details.

[Chronos]

Not so atall, this is either disinformation or someone whos just misinformed, theres plenty of compelling evidence for psychic Phenomena being done by reputable people who conform to the most stringent guidelines.That would explain why James Randi still has that $1,000,000 in escrow.

[Ivan Seeking]

I want to see proof of the money.

[Overdose]

And on the web link,
Your definition of well documented is aparently more lenient than mine. Much, much more lenient.

First of all when i talk about documented evidence bare in mind that im not just talking about this case, this case is just the tip of the iceberg.


There is no evidence this person saw this specific event prior to its occurence; descriptions of his painting make it abundantly clear that he captured none of the particular details.

Well this is the crunch, how much detail needs to be there to be a 'direct hit' ? At what point do you say...right, this is just too much of a coincidence, this person has seen the future; no question. The problem is there never comes a point like this, you can always invoke coincidence...
This is the problem of researching ESP, the seperation of prediction from chance. All you can do is try to statistically work out how likely or unlikey it is that someone could get a prediction right. This in essense is what was done in the Mandell's case, and the conclusion was that he was certainly 'over the odds'.

[Overdose]

That would explain why James Randi still has that $1,000,000 in escrow.

Ah yes a 'test' that has a million dollars at stake if the researcher 'looses'.
I try to keep an eye on research which isnt so odviously biased myself...

[Chronos]

Ah yes a 'test' that has a million dollars at stake if the researcher 'looses'. I try to keep an eye on research which isnt so odviously biased myself...How is that biased? A free million for anyone who can show proof of their paranormal 'powers'? That does not sound very biased to me. The 'Amazing Randi' tossed down the gauntlet and no one has survived the challenge. As far as I know, the offer still stands.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
Money talks and crap walks.

[Ivan Seeking]

Where is the money? Frankly, I don't trust Randi any more than I trust Sylvia Brown. I have doubts that the money even exists. I keep asking for proof but none of his devotees ever produce any.

[Chronos]

Verification in progress, hopefully. Your dual skepticism is acknowledged.

[Overdose]

How is that biased? A free million for anyone who can show proof of their paranormal 'powers'? That does not sound very biased to me. The 'Amazing Randi' tossed down the gauntlet and no one has survived the challenge. As far as I know, the offer still stands.
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
Money talks and crap walks.

You dont understand how thats biased? let me break it down for you..
if esp is proven true then Randi looses a million dollars, and more
than that he would have so much egg on his face he would never be
able to show himself in public again.
Randi does not believe in anything paranormal, he doesnt even leave room for the fact that there may be something in esp. He thinks it's all complete nonsense. Well, thats about as biased as your gonna get i think.

Oh and did you know Rhandi can turn away any potentional subjects for any reason and doesnt have to give an explaination, so if he meets someone who he knows will pass all his tests, he can simply tell them to go away.
Randi is a complete charlatan.

[Chronos]

Where is the money? Frankly, I don't trust Randi any more than I trust Sylvia Brown. I have doubts that the money even exists. I keep asking for proof but none of his devotees ever produce any. I retrieved this quote from Wikipedia

The money is known to exist and is held in a Goldman, Sachs & Company account, and withholding payment would legally constitute fraud on Randi's behalf.

Of course, I cannot vouch for the credibility of this assertion. But, I consider Wikipedia a generally reliable source. For full article see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi

The rules for entering the challenge are posted here.
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html
The rules appear to be quite reasonable. There is no application fee. The only 'catch' is the challenger is responsible for the costs incurred in pursuit of the reward.

I messaged the Randi website for confirmation and received this reply

From : Linda <linda@randi.org>
Reply-To : <linda@randi.org>
Sent : Monday, September 27, 2004 9:43 PM

Subject : Does the reward offer still stand?

yes, it still stands.

[Ivan Seeking]

I find it interesting that Randi's followers demand so little proof - like none at all. A copy of the banknote doesn't seem too unreasonable to ask for considering that he accepts donations and makes a living this way.

Considering that this information is obviously not readily available, doesn't it seem odd that "debunkers" and "skeptics" wave Randi [former magician]around like a flag?

So much for objectivity.

[Ivan Seeking]

Note also that allegely [publicly claimed as such by Ms Brown] Sylvia agreed to accept Randi's challenge IF the money is put into a common trust first. Allegedly Randi either never responded, or he would not agree to her terms. Maybe you can ask him about this.

What caught my attention is that, for the first time to my knowledge, this posed the genuine threat that he might lose control of the money.

[russ_watters]

First of all when i talk about documented evidence bare in mind that im not just talking about this case, this case is just the tip of the iceberg. Well apparently, this case was worth nothing at all. Are all the cases you know of this compelling? Sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me....

...but if you do actually have something unequivocal/conclusive, by all means, post it. I'll make it easy too - you only need one conclusive/unequivocal example to convince me that its real. So why don't you just get right down to it and post only the best one you have. If its as conclusive/unequivocal as you say, it should be more than enough to convince me.

...one caveat though: when I say unequivocal/conclusive, I mean it. Asserting it to be true doesn't make it true. I want to see the actual evidence.

[Overdose]

Sorry, ignore this post i atempted to edit a post and got my tags all mixed up etc......

[Overdose]

Well apparently, this case was worth nothing at all. Are all the cases you know of this compelling? Sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me....
In what way was it worth nothing? any study that doesnt come to a concrete conclusion is worthless?


...but if you do actually have something unequivocal/conclusive, by all means, post it. I'll make it easy too - you only need one conclusive/unequivocal example to convince me that its real. So why don't you just get right down to it and post only the best one you have. If its as conclusive/unequivocal as you say, it should be more than enough to convince me.

...one caveat though: when I say unequivocal/conclusive, I mean it. Asserting it to be true doesn't make it true. I want to see the actual evidence.

I dont know where you got the idea that i said that there existed experimental proof of esp that was conclusive, i never said anything of the kind. Compelling evidence yes, conclusive 'experimental' evidence no.

Im not even sure i know what criteria would have to be reached for esp to be willingly accepted by the scientific community.

But yes when i get round to it i'll be sure to post up some more esp research that resides (somewhere) in my 1000+ favourites folder.

[Overdose]

Note also that allegely [publicly claimed as such by Ms Brown] Sylvia agreed to accept Randi's challenge IF the money is put into a common trust first. Allegedly Randi either never responded, or he would not agree to her terms. Maybe you can ask him about this.

What caught my attention is that, for the first time to my knowledge, this posed the genuine threat that he might lose control of the money.

Yep ive read Randi's list of conditions, one of which if i remember correctly is the right to refuse anyone the undergoing of tests without having to give a reason for it.

[Locrian]

This in essense is what was done in the Mandell's case, and the conclusion was that he was certainly 'over the odds'.

Really? You must read "inconclusive" to mean something different than I do? Since you can't post a reference to the actual picture, we'll just have to go on their descriptions, which suggest an extremely vague production.

As for the evidence required to accept him, I understand your worry about a moving bar. However, enough information to act on is hardly too much to ask.

[russ_watters]

In what way was it worth nothing? any study that doesnt come to a concrete conclusion is worthless?[emphasis added] Of course it is worthless in supporting this: ...theres plenty of compelling evidence for psychic Phenomena being done by reputable people who conform to the most stringent guidelines.[emphasis added] Or are you saying that the only compelling evidence available is inconclusive? :rofl: [/irony] I dont know where you got the idea that i said that there existed experimental proof of esp that was conclusive, i never said anything of the kind. Compelling evidence yes, conclusive 'experimental' evidence no. Sorry, but thats a contradiction. This is a science site, so when you say you have "compelling evidence" you need to be able to provide evidence that is compelling under scientific critereon. To be more blunt: "compelling evidence" is "experimental evidence." If you can't provide something that will stand up to the critereon of scientific investigation, you need to drop the claim that you have "compelling evidence" (or, perhaps, take that claim somewhere where the constraints of science aren't important). Im not even sure i know what criteria would have to be reached for esp to be willingly accepted by the scientific community.

Overdose, the way you are approaching this right now is almost by definition psuedoscience: you are citing papers, using scientific sounding words, but when it comes down to it, you are refusing to apply real scientific standards to what you are discussing. You're pretending to be scientific. Huh? You don't know how scientific investigation would work for ESP? Its not that hard - experimentation with ESP is junior high school science fair simple. In fact, a junior high school girl got a paper on "touch therapy" published in the New England Journal of Medicine (it was conclusive and compelling).

[Overdose]

If you can't provide something that will stand up to the critereon of scientific investigation, you need to drop the claim that you have "compelling evidence" (or, perhaps, take that claim somewhere where the constraints of science aren't important).

You must be the only person on this board with as many posts as you
have that believes that compelling evidence has to be conclusive and irrefutable. It doesnt all it has to do is support a claim well enough to force you to take notice.
Ive tried to break it down as simply as i can..THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR
ESP WHICH MAKES IT WORTHY OF FURTHER STUDY AND ATTENTION.
While i can provide evidence, what i cant do is provide an experiment
which concludes that esp has occured without one shadow of a doubt
or with any room for error or chance.
Or at the very least i do not know of an experiment that conforms to
these expectations.
Russ i will more than happily post evidence which has been compiled
by universities and research centres and which has appeared in nature magazine.
What i wont do is pander to unrealistic requests.

Note: i havent quoted your whole posts as there were too many paragraphs to 'chop up' most of which were just re-stating the same point over and over.

[Chronos]

You must be the only person on this board with as many posts as you have that believes that compelling evidence has to be conclusive and irrefutable. It doesnt all it has to do is support a claim well enough to force you to take notice. Not at all, so far as I am concerned. The evidence need only be statistically valid at the 3 sigma level before it works for me. Devise an experiment that is sound and meets that criteria and I will buy into it [I routinely risk my job at that level of risk on a daily basis].Ive tried to break it down as simply as i can..THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR ESP WHICH MAKES IT WORTHY OF FURTHER STUDY AND ATTENTION. While i can provide evidence, what i cant do is provide an experiment which concludes that esp has occured without one shadow of a doubt or with any room for error or chance. Or at the very least i do not know of an experiment that conforms to these expectations. See above.Russ i will more than happily post evidence which has been compiled by universities and research centres and which has appeared in nature magazine. What i wont do is pander to unrealistic requests.Be sure and include the raw data and controls applied in gathering the data.Note: i havent quoted your whole posts as there were too many paragraphs to 'chop up' most of which were just re-stating the same point over and over.Apply the scientific method, publish your results and see what happens. You are the one who is making unsubstantiated claims. You are relying upon unscientific evidence to make a case that is not supported by facts in evidence.

[russ_watters]

You must be the only person on this board with as many posts as you
have that believes that compelling evidence has to be conclusive and irrefutable. It doesnt all it has to do is support a claim well enough to force you to take notice. Maybe you'll need to start a poll on what "compelling" means. Or at the very least, for this thread elaborate on what "well enough to force you to take notice" means, in a scientific sense. That's a very subjective statement. You can start with explaining why something that you admit is inconclusive should "force [me] to take notice." For a typical scientist, I'd think the response would be: 'come back when you have something conclusive (to scientific standards of proof), and that'll force me to take notice.'

The argument Ivan and I have in another thread over UFOs comes down to, what I consider, an argument over how strict scientific critereon are. It is my opinion that what is accepted as useful/compelling by proponents of against-the-mainstream ideas is far from the level that mainstream require (and have) for their mainstream theories. THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR
ESP WHICH MAKES IT WORTHY OF FURTHER STUDY AND ATTENTION.
That's great! All I asked is to see one such example.

(Note: that's actually a weaker claim than you made before, but I'll accept that too.) While i can provide evidence, what i cant do is provide an experiment
which concludes that esp has occured without one shadow of a doubt
or with any room for error or chance. That's fine too. Nothing in science is that conclusive and suggesting that that's what I'm asking for is a straw-man. Conclusive simply means beyond a reasonable chance of error. Call it 90% certainty. That's what (to me, and I submit to science) "compelling" and "well enough to force you to take notice" means.

And before you complain about my critereon being too strict, consider the level of proof of General Relativity: last I heard it was accurate to something like nineteen (someone correct me) decimal places. That's 99.99999999999999999% certainty that its correct. And NASA still spent several hundred million dollars on a probe to test it and see if it is correct to a couple more decimal places. But hey - against-the-mainstream types will attack GR (more often SR) with even that while pushing their theories that don't even actualy work at all. Note: i havent quoted your whole posts as there were too many paragraphs to 'chop up' most of which were just re-stating the same point over and over. Yeah, that's fine. This is getting redundant. But you can stop it: My request was pretty simple and straightforward. You have chosen, instead, to attack the validity of the request.

[russ_watters]

Perhaps this is the crux of the problem: Well this is the crunch, how much detail needs to be there to be a 'direct hit' ? At what point do you say...right, this is just too much of a coincidence, this person has seen the future; no question. The problem is there never comes a point like this, you can always invoke coincidence...
This is the problem of researching ESP, the seperation of prediction from chance. All you can do is try to statistically work out how likely or unlikey it is that someone could get a prediction right. This in essense is what was done in the Mandell's case, and the conclusion was that he was certainly 'over the odds'. Things like "touch therapy" are easy to analyze statistically. This junior high school girl got 10 touch therapists to sit behind a wall with two holes in it for their hands. She held her hand over one of theirs and they "sensed" which hand hers was over. A 50% hit rate is what you get from completely random answers. The higher the hit-rate and the bigger the sample, the stronger the correlation gets. But remember, there is a real chance that if you flip a coin ten times in a row, it'll come up heads every time.

Now remember what I said before: I want 90%. My statistics is a little thin, so I couldn't tell you how many heads' have to come up in a row before you hit 90% odds against it, but that's what I'm looking for (wait, maybe I can: is it just 1/10=10% odds of it happening?).

Honestly, that wouldn't do it for me for your original claim (that there is compelling evidence ESP is actually happening), but that would be enough on a single test to convince me of your second claim (that evidence is compelling enough that further study is warranted). For your original claim, I'd need something pretty solid: a 90% hit rate 90% of the time on an open-ended basis for the "touch therapy" test, for example, would probably convince me there is a basis for "touch therapy".

For this guy who painted things, its the perfect clarvoyance claim: it is completely subjective and open to vast and wide interpretation that it could mean almost anything. Its exactly like the Nostradamus thing. Utterly, utterly meaningless - except to a true believer. To convince an honest skeptic (as opposed to a closed-minded pseudo-skeptic), you still need something pretty compelling: a hand drawn photo that looks like the cover of a "Time Magazine" that hasn't been printed yet or a drawing of the 19th hijacker good enough to pick him out of a line-up with people who look similar to him. Those are good and would probably convince me (if there was good evidence it wasn't a clever hoax), but I'd still like something a little more concrete: if he can give lottery numbers a few percent of the time, that'd be better.

[Chronos]

That is even a better deal than the Randi offer. Why settle for a measly million when you can win 100M by picking a mere 6 numbers in power ball. You would think the psychic syndicate could make a few bucks selling sell stock in that company.

[Ivan Seeking]

How do you know that they don't?

[matt_chosen]

yes do you know the purpose of their abilitys is to help people know more about them selfs for most people are clueless on their life path and the phycics job is to show the way. you people condem every thing that you dont know about (not to be mean or anything) but thats not right because there are people who do know the truth about it but then you condem them because they know more than you. you could instead ask them questions and learn more about it but you chose to continue mocking. my job is to help im a phycic healer in training my grandma is teaching me the art of healing.and if you mock me your mocking my grandma she is the one teaching me this stuff and i wont be happy

[russ_watters]

yes do you know the purpose of their abilitys is to help people know more about them selfs for most people are clueless on their life path and the phycics job is to show the way. you people condem every thing that you dont know about (not to be mean or anything) but thats not right because there are people who do know the truth about it but then you condem them because they know more than you. you could instead ask them questions and learn more about it but you chose to continue mocking. my job is to help im a phycic healer in training my grandma is teaching me the art of healing.and if you mock me your mocking my grandma she is the one teaching me this stuff and i wont be happy I'll certainly admit that I mock psychics. But its tough not to - you hear the joke about Ms. Cleo? She didn't predict her own arrest for fraud (but then - since she's a fraud, she couldn't predict it, could she?).

But there are a lot of self-labeled psychics out there who honestly do think they are psychic. How do they know? In the example I gave, the "touch therapists" the little girl experimented on really did think they had the power they proclaimed to have. They were utterly convinced of it. And they couldn't believe it when it was demonstrated to them that they couldn't do what they thought they could do. I feel sorry for these people and other people who think without knowing that these powers exist. And what is even more sad is those who acknowledge that there are a large number of frauds out there and still believe the powers exist. Why should I believe you? Do you trust a doctor who doesn't have a degree to perform surgery on you? He seems like a nice guy, so you should just take his word for it?

But in this thread, matt, I've asked repeatedly for evidence. I am asking questions. But I'm not getting answers. That makes me skeptical. Just telling me the powers exist and the evidence exists isn't good enough: show me.

[Chronos]

How do you know that they don't?Good point. Those would be the ones you never hear about because they don't need TV shows, carnival booths or book deals to make a living.

[Ivan Seeking]

Haven't you ever heard of the Secret Society of Rich Psychics? :biggrin:

Funny enough, I guess you would want to keep it quiet. Why ruin a good thing? Seriously though, if some people are "gifted" I would expect that any genuine "psychic" winners wouldn't even know it. They would likely never know that they had a statistical advantage as compared to the average person.

[Overdose]

Maybe you'll need to start a poll on what "compelling" means. Or at the very least, for this thread elaborate on what "well enough to force you to take notice" means, in a scientific sense. That's a very subjective statement. You can start with explaining why something that you admit is inconclusive should "force [me] to take notice." For a typical scientist, I'd think the response would be: 'come back when you have something conclusive (to scientific standards of proof), and that'll force me to take notice.'

Your right it is subjective, which i why i couldnt understand it when you started replying to my posts as if your idea of what constitutes compelling evidence was held by everyone. Personally i dont think evidence has to be conclusive atall to be compelling as ive already established.


The argument Ivan and I have in another thread over UFOs comes down to, what I consider, an argument over how strict scientific critereon are. It is my opinion that what is accepted as useful/compelling by proponents of against-the-mainstream ideas is far from the level that mainstream require (and have) for their mainstream theories. That's great! All I asked is to see one such example.

No you didnt, you asked for conclusive proof, if you made a sensible
request to start with we could have moved on by now.


(Note: that's actually a weaker claim than you made before, but I'll accept that too.) That's fine too. Nothing in science is that conclusive and suggesting that that's what I'm asking for is a straw-man. Conclusive simply means beyond a reasonable chance of error. Call it 90% certainty. That's what (to me, and I submit to science) "compelling" and "well enough to force you to take notice" means.
And before you complain about my critereon being too strict, consider the level of proof of General Relativity: last I heard it was accurate to something like nineteen (someone correct me) decimal places. That's 99.99999999999999999% certainty that its correct. And NASA still spent several hundred million dollars on a probe to test it and see if it is correct to a couple more decimal places. But hey - against-the-mainstream types will attack GR (more often SR) with even that while pushing their theories that don't even actualy work at all. Yeah, that's fine. This is getting redundant. But you can stop it: My request was pretty simple and straightforward. You have chosen, instead, to attack the validity of the request.

Your request was never straight forward it was ill thought out, and deserved to be attacked imo.
But now we finally understand each other's interpretation and evidential standard hopefully we can move on...your standard of proof lies at around 90%, that's perfectly fine and your entitled to demand this level of proof. But bear in mind that my original statement was simply that there is compelling evidence for esp, not there is evidence which compells Russ.
As such i will take note of your request and if i find any research
that fits your criteria i'll post it up, i'll take the liberty of also
adding evidence that is statistically significant (anything over 55% and
above) bracket because personally i find this valid evidence as well.
If that doesnt meet your standard thats fine, feel free to ignore those
posts, but they will be there for the benefit of others.

[selfAdjoint]

I don't think the current paraphysics evidence can even pass the lower standard of evidence common in the life sciences. Physical scientists tend to scorn the kind of evidence that supports IQ or Spearman's g, but those correlations are much more soundly based than the ones, for example, for the Rhine experiments. Big samples, longitudinal sampling and other heavy duty methods are what undergirds life sciences results. Thin samples, shaky experiments and personal opinions are what undergirds paraphychology.

[matt_chosen]

well did you know that in japan you cant go any where with out seeing one phychic and more so the fact that at one time they made an intire langauge out of their abilitys they would crack bones and read the cracks that is also the root of their language it slowly evolved into kanji which takes parts of thier names and puts meanings into them of course there is no meanings in the english langauge because of the langauge barriors and what about tarrot that is a from of reading and i know it works and my grandma is currently teaching me palm reading did you know that palm reading came from the bone reading its called the evolotion of phychics

[selfAdjoint]

Indeed the characters are supposed to be based on the oracle bone cracks, but that occured in prehistoric China, not Japan. Of course Japan got the characters (not the two syllabaries) from China.

[matt_chosen]

my point is we still use it in current day and only way to prove its there is the fact its been here forever and people will belive in phychics until the end there may be no way to prove it but you can belive it or not thats your choice

[arivero]

and one man in england even went so far as to paint a picture of the planes hitting the twin towers,
Ibañez, the spanish author of the comic "Mortadelo y Filemon", also had a picture of a plane crashed into the twin towers, just decoration in one of the *published* comic books. He has not claimed credit for it.

[russ_watters]

Your right it is subjective, which i why i couldnt understand it when you started replying to my posts as if your idea of what constitutes compelling evidence was held by everyone. Not everyone - just scientists. Personally i dont think evidence has to be conclusive atall to be compelling as ive already established. That's fine for you personally, but that isn't good enough for a scientist and you are trying to convince scientists. No you didnt, you asked for conclusive proof, if you made a sensible
request to start with we could have moved on by now. Sensible according to whom? Who is trying to convince who here? If you want to convince me of something, you have to satisfy my criterea! That's the whole problem with the way most against-the-mainstream ideas are presented! They get rejected for being unscientific, then the originators of the ideas attack science for being too scientific! Thats not an argument that can be won. Saying that my criterea are unreasonable doesn't help you convince me of anything. Try using your current tactic to argue against a technical journal and see how far it gets you.

Further, you implied earlier that you could satisfy my criterea: ...theres plenty of compelling evidence for psychic Phenomena being done by reputable people who conform to the most stringent guidelines.[emphasis added] Saying "the most stringent guidelines" on a science bulletin board implies you have a scientific level of proof (ie, my criterea). Do you have it or not? Coninuing to argue that a scientific level of proof is unreasonable isn't going to change the scientific method or the way its applied. ...your standard of proof lies at around 90%, that's perfectly fine and your entitled to demand this level of proof. But bear in mind that my original statement was simply that there is compelling evidence for esp, not there is evidence which compells Russ. Scroll back and reread some of the earlier parts of this thread. Your initial claim was made to Chronos in post #16 and Locrian responded that "Your definition of well documented is aparently more lenient than mine. Much, much more lenient." So that begs the question: if your evdience is not of the sort that would compell Russ or Chronos or Locrian, who would it compel? Do you see the problem now? You make the claim that its compelling without ever saying according to what criterea. In fact, you still haven't laid out your crierea (standard of proof) - all we know so far is its compelling to YOU. But yet you still claimed that what you had was compelling according to "the most stringent guidelines." Clearly, it isn't.

This should be self-evident, but since this is a science forum - that means our criterea/guidlines are for scientific level of proof. So if you're going to claim you have something compelling, it needs to be of that level of proof.

[Overdose]

This should be self-evident, but since this is a science forum - that means our criterea/guidlines are for scientific level of proof. So if you're going to claim you have something compelling, it needs to be of that level of proof.

Saying that this is a science forum therefore any standards that we demand on here must be scientific, sorry complete rubbish. There is no criteria to join this forum, it doesnt even require that you've passed any basic exams in science. So to say that is naive in the extreme. Do you even speak for everyone on this forum? no you are just one lone voice, demanding a level of proof. Nothing more.
My orginal statement was that the evidence for esp is compelling, i think it is, many scientists agree with me, some esp trials have been compelling enough to be printed in nature.
However there is no all-encompasing standard or level of compelling proof which spans all the sciences, nor is what is and isnt compelling entirely objective. I dont feel we are ever going to move forwards if you cant acknowledge this.

[Overdose]

Btw i will be posting up various esp experiments in the weeks to come : p

[russ_watters]

Overdose, clearly there is nothing left to discuss. You can choose to accept the scientific method or not, its up to you - but here, you will find that we hold it in high regard. And for future reference, if you assert that something is "compelling" without stating the critereon (in fact, you still haven't), people will assume that you mean compelling in a scientific sense.

[Fredrik]

Where is the money? Frankly, I don't trust Randi any more than I trust Sylvia Brown. I have doubts that the money even exists. I keep asking for proof but none of his devotees ever produce any.
If you actually believe that the Randi million doesn't exist, why don't you investigate it yourself? Why don't you just ask the James Randi Educational Foundation to prove that they have the money, instead of making ridiculous accusations here? (Their web page clearly states that they will provide the evidence if you just ask them).

[Ivan Seeking]

Why don't you? If you are defending Randi then where's the proof? This is all I have ever asked for from any of his true believers. They just go stomping off and never show up with any proof.

What is most telling is that none of his devotees have even bothered to check. So much for skepticism.

[Chronos]

The most usual criticisms by Randi's detractors is he 'rigs' the testing to ensure no one can pass, and, refuses to accept challenges when he knows the challenger has genuine 'powers'. Given those circumstances, the existence of the million dollars is a rather moot point. Anyways, I'm not sure what would constitute proof. The validity of just about any manner of documentation could be challenged. The prize at one time was $10,000. The million dollar prize was, according to Randi, raised from contributors to his [non-profit] foundation. This was Randi's reply when skeptics challenged whether or not he actually could come up with the million

"Bet me US$1,000 that we don't have the money. Send your check for US$1,000, payable to the Foundation, to any reputable lawyer you choose to name. I'll do the same, sending a US$1,000 check payable to YOU, to that same lawyer.

As soon as I'm informed by the lawyer that both checks have been received, I'll send the lawyer a financial statement, notarized by our bank, which establishes that the prize can be covered. At that point, both checks will be sent to the Foundation. Of course, if I can't, don't, or won't, supply that statement, the lawyer will send both checks to you."

Anyways, it is not even that hard. Randi was just annoyed at that particular whiner when he made the bet. According to the Randi website, a written validation of the account is available from the JREF in return for a stamped, self-addressed envelope. No, I haven't sent for a copy.

I am amused by notion Randi's advocates are "true believers". Believers in what? They're all skeptics. Has Randi elevated skeptiscism to a cult?

[russ_watters]

I am amused by notion Randi's advocates are "true believers". Believers in what? They're all skeptics. Has Randi elevated skeptiscism to a cult? Yes, Ivan stated quite explicitly in another thread that, in essence, there are crackpot skeptics who are mirror images of the crackpot flying saucer advocates. I pointed out the flaw in that reasoning as well.

To point out the obvious (again), the main objection here is that Randi could be lying and therefore could be a crackpot. Ergo, if he's telling the truth that he has the money and telling the truth that he'll evaluate claims openly and scientifically, then he's not a crackpot. The difference between that and the flying saucer and ESP advocates is that they are crackpots whether they are lying or not.

[Fredrik]

Ivan, I think you know that your accusation is false. If you actually believed in it, you would investigate the matter yourself. It's not hard to do.


Why don't you?

Because there are plenty of believers in the paranormal out there, who hate Randi and everything he stands for. These people would love to see him exposed as a fraud. If the $1 million really didn't exist, one of them would have proved it by now.


If you are defending Randi then where's the proof?

At the James Randi Educational Foundation.


This is all I have ever asked for from any of his true believers. They just go stomping off and never show up with any proof.

You're obviously asking the wrong people. If you really wanted to see proof, you would be talking to the JREF.


What is most telling is that none of his devotees have even bothered to check. So much for skepticism.

No, what is most telling is that people like you haven't even bothered to check. Think about it for a while. There must be someone out there who believes in the paranormal and hates James Randi, who has checked. Why don't we ever hear anyone of them saying that the money doesn't exist?

[Chronos]

Yes, Ivan stated quite explicitly in another thread that, in essence, there are crackpot skeptics who are mirror images of the crackpot flying saucer advocates. I pointed out the flaw in that reasoning as well.

To point out the obvious (again), the main objection here is that Randi could be lying and therefore could be a crackpot. Ergo, if he's telling the truth that he has the money and telling the truth that he'll evaluate claims openly and scientifically, then he's not a crackpot. The difference between that and the flying saucer and ESP advocates is that they are crackpots whether they are lying or not.Of course the equivalent of crackpot skeptics to crackpot advocates exist when it comes to such things as ET, bigfoot, ghosts and other 'paranormal' phenomenon. They are usually referred to as scientists. They have this annoying tendency to distract people from the real issues by obscuring them with facts.

[Overdose]

The difference between that and the flying saucer and ESP advocates is that they are crackpots whether they are lying or not.

I think thats the first honest statement youve made in this thread,
For you the data and the facts are completely irrelevant, youve already made up your mind. Which begs the question why are you even posting here?

[Ivan Seeking]

I ask for proof so I get double-talk. I think this makes things pretty clear. When someone claims evidence for ghosts or ESP, do the skeptics go out and get proof to support the claim. No, they demand proof from those who also argue for the claim.

If you are defending Randi then you get the proof. Otherwise, consider yourself a hypocrite.