Paranormal & Physics: Evidence or Weird Interpretations?

[pallidin]

Is there even a single thread of evidence for paranormal phenomenon? Or is that whole subject just some weird interpretations of ordinary events?

 

[Integral]

Pretty much by definition, there is no, nor can there ever be any direct evidence of Paranormal phenomena.

Simply because as soon as we have physical evidence it is no longer paranormal.

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by pallidin
Is there even a single thread of evidence for paranormal phenomenon? Or is that whole subject just some weird interpretations of ordinary events?

There is not a single smidgen, hair, thread, ounce, bibble, getty, crumb, fragment, scrap, bit, shread, tittle, or remotest iota of evidence for paranormal phenomena.


Evidence for the paranormal comes in at least 4 forms:

Fabricating evidence. (See Crop Circles.)

Misinterpreting evidence. (Such as Near Death Experiences being "proof" of an afterlife.)

Ignorance of evidence. (See Parapsychologist Charles Tart.)

Anedotal evidence. (While its not always proper form to dismiss all anecdotal evidence out of hand, if there is no valid evidence to support the anecdote, it essentially cannot be used to establish anything.)


For resources, see:
Skepdic.com
Skeptic Report
James Randi Educational Foundation
QuackWatch
Australian Skeptics
http://www.badastronomy.com/
CSICOP
Snopes.com - A catalogue of Urban Legends
UrbanLegends.com

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Yahweh
There is not a single smidgen, hair, thread, ounce, bibble..."

Might I impose upon you, please, to define the word "bibble"?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Yahweh
There is not a single smidgen, hair, thread, ounce, bibble, getty, crumb, fragment, scrap, bit, shread, tittle, or remotest iota of evidence for paranormal phenomena.

What would you consider evidence; say for instance in the case of an alleged ghost?

Also, consider claims of ESP. If this exists but cannot be repeated on demand, then how do we gauge the claims? There are examples in the public record, especially with police investigations, in which the police will tell you that some particular person did help in a case allegedly by using ESP. The problem is that most any skeptic cries "random luck" in all such cases; no matter how unlikely this may be. He can't prove this, which means that your argument is out the window, but instead of realizing that we only have evidence, and not proof, many still claim incorrectly that we have no evidence for such things. This fallacy is an example of pseudoscience.

Note that one of the most famed "psychics", Jean Dixon, gained fame by publicly warning Kennedy not to go to Dallas or he would be assasinated. This was general knowledge [in the press] at the time. Was this just luck? Maybe. Is it evidence for ESP? Yes. Is it proof? No.

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Note that one of the most famed "psychics", Jean Dixon, gained fame by publicly warning Kennedy not to go to Dallas or he would be assasinated.

Considering the shear number of "psychics" and their "predictions," it's little wonder that some of them will get significantly lucky.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by SkinWalker
Considering the shear number of "psychics" and their "predictions," it's little wonder that some of them will get significantly lucky.

This is no proof that all hits are luck; thus evidence does exist. This is the difference between evidence and proof.

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is no proof that all hits are luck; thus evidence does exist. This is the difference between evidence and proof.

As I see it, the only evidence that exists is that some so-called psychics will get "hits." The fact that, to date (as far as I know), there has been no substantiated claim of any "hits" being frequent enough to rule out random probability.

Though it was my word first, "luck" was perhaps a poor choice since this relates to superstition, which is but another supernatural concept in itself. "Chance" would have been a better choice.

Regardless, I would suggest that the number of "hits" is likely to be along what might be expected by random probability, but that kind of math gives me a headache. If you know of someone with a higher frequency of "hits" than could be mathmatically expected, perhaps you could share.

Dixon wouldn't be a very good example, particularly with regard to Kennedy. That was a very tumultuous period and an especially risky one for a President with as many enemies as JFK. That kind of prediction would almost be expected.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for the TV psychics and such, I give little to no credence to these as a rule; I was quite surprised to learn about Dixon. I had never heard of any such seemingly accurate and public prediction, but again, there is no way to filter any potential hits from the noise.

It seems to me that by now it has been established that genuine ESP, if it exists, is not repeatable on demand; except perhaps for extremely small perturbations about the norm. I have noticed that the most compelling anecdotal stories often involve extreme events such as the death of a loved one. This is a little difficult to duplicate in the lab. Still, even if we all practice ESP everyday without realizing it, it may well be constrained within the noise and can only be understood within the subjective interpretation of context.

For example, if a psychic tells the police to look for the body of a murder victim in "the lake", this may not mean much. If they say to look at this particular place in the lake and they find the body, this may be another matter altogether. Still, the statistics don't allow for this sort of special credit. I suspect that this happens because the interpretation of such extenuating circumstances is often subjective beyond use. This could speak more to the limits of our analysis rather than to that of the alleged phenomenon.

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Might I impose upon you, please, to define the word "bibble"?

(I made up a definition for "getty" also... :D )

 

[Doc Al]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Note that one of the most famed "psychics", Jean Dixon, gained fame by publicly warning Kennedy not to go to Dallas or he would be assasinated. This was general knowledge [in the press] at the time.

Not exactly, see http://skepdic.com/dixon.html.

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What would you consider evidence; say for instance in the case of an alleged ghost?

Well, if the ghosts never interacted the physical world, I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate any empirical evidence for their existence.

However, as its been reported that the temperture drops in the presence of a ghost, I would definitely consider an infrared of a something walking around, in combination with a low-light or other camera to verify that there is nothing walking in front of the camera. (Assuming the camera footage is legitimate.)

Or perhaps a documented experience of Skeptics and Scientists asking a spirit to throw something across the room, then a cup flies across the room.

Note: The "orbs" you see in pictures are not evidence of anything except faulty photography.

Of all things people think are paranormal, orbs are perhaps the most fun. Dust never caused so much trouble.

"Orbs" are photographs of dust motes. They commonly appear when photographers use small cameras that have the flash unit close to the lens. Most small digital cameras fall into that category.

You can make your own orbs by shaking a dusty towel in front of your camera, a diagram is at the bottom of this post...

Also, consider claims of ESP. If this exists but cannot be repeated on demand, then how do we gauge the claims?

That is one hurdle which is impossible to get across.

However, if ESP cannot be repeated or verified (such as a once in a lifetime event), then there is nothing that can be said about it. However, in the Skeptical Community, claims that sound like "I can't reproduce my power for such and such reason" is usually seen as an ad hoc. In any case, its not justifyable as evidence.

There are examples in the public record, especially with police investigations, in which the police will tell you that some particular person did help in a case allegedly by using ESP. The problem is that most any skeptic cries "random luck" in all such cases; no matter how unlikely this may be. He can't prove this, which means that your argument is out the window, but instead of realizing that we only have evidence, and not proof, many still claim incorrectly that we have no evidence for such things. This fallacy is an example of pseudoscience.

I want to quickly make a comment...

Yes, the police have in fact used Psychics. However, while mysteries have been solved with Psychics along side, the Psychics really don't do anything. That might sound a bit undermining and cynical, but it is true.

I don't believe psychics solve crimes by "Random Luck" because they don't help at all, they waste the police's time.

From http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101006.htm:

But what about testimonials from experienced homicide detectives who have actually used psychics? Most reported successes appear to be like the one that a New Jersey police captain attributed to Dorothy Allison. Her predictions "were difficult to verify as initially given," he said. "The accuracy usually could not be verified until the investigation had come to a conclusion." Indeed, this after-the-fact matchingóknown as "retrofitting"óis the secret behind most alleged psychic successes. For example, the statement, "I see water and the number seven," would be a safe offering in almost any case. After all the facts are in, it will be unusual if there is not some stream, body of water, or other source that cannot somehow be associated with the case. As to the number seven, that can later be associated with a distance, a highway, the number of people in a search party, part of a license plate number, or any countless other possible interpretations.

Other explanations for psychics' reputed successes include the following:
(1) Some psychics exaggerate their successes, even claiming positive results in cases that were failures or that never existed. (2) Psychics may use ordinary means of obtaining information which they then present as having been psychically obtained. For example, psychics have been accused of impersonating police and even of bribery of police officers in order to gain information. In one instance the psychic, unknown to a detective, had actually been briefed on the case by others.
Shrewd psychics can brief themselves by studying newspaper files or area maps, and some make use of the fortune tellers technique of "cold reading" ( a technique in which the psychic fishes for information while watching the listener's face for reactions that suggest correctness or error.) (3) Another potential explanation for psychic's apparent successes is faulty recollection of what was actually said. The fallibility of memory is well known, and many stories of psychic success get better as they are told and retold. (4) Many psychics deal in vague generalities: for example, one psychic reported perceiving, "the names 'John' or 'Joseph' or something like that." (5) And there are social and psychological factors that may influence people to accept the accuracy of information. Obviously their own belief system will have an effect.

The Bottom Line

Except in the extremely rare case in which a psychic was actually involved in the crime or had apparently received secret information (as from a tip), psychics rarely lead police to concealed bodies or unknown assailants. Of course they may use their own logical skills, or they may benefit from luck or perseverance, but there is no credible scientific evidence that psychic power ever solved a crime. Instead, crimes are invariably solved by police who search crime scenes, interview witnesses, and perform all of the myriad tasks necessary to locate a missing person or to convict a criminal.

...

Actually, the case against psychics is worse than just their inability to provide information that actually solves crimes. A far more serious problem exists with regard to the wasted resources of police departments who expend precious time and human activity in following up on a psychic's meaningless "clues." In one instance, the Nutley, New Jersey, police spent the whole of an afternoon in digging up a drainage ditch that Dorothy Allison mistakenly thought contained a missing boy. In another case, the fire department pumped the water from the flooded basement of an abandoned building in a fruitless search for a boy's remains that eventually were discovered across town. Even worse, psychics have wrongfully accused persons of committing crimes, a memorable example being that of Peter Hurkos, "the man with the radar brain," who mistakenly identified an innocent man as the notorious Boston Strangler. These examples answer the question that is often asked by those who defend the use of psychics, "what harm can it do?" Another argument defenders use is that, on occasion, a psychic's pronouncements prompted further search efforts, resulting in the discovery of the missing person's body, even though the psychic did not actually identify the location.
But surely police should not have to rely on psychics to urge them to do more thorough work.

In brief, knowledgeable police officials resist the temptation to employ psychics. They know that psychic claims lack any scientific verification and that, in fact, psychics do not solve crimes. No longer should police solve crimes and let publicity-seeking occult pretenders take the credit.

I am also aware that in Greece, psychic's are allow to act as valid witnesses for serious crimes such as murder (the idea is to get any information they can by any means). However, after every instance of a crime involving psychic testimony, the defendant sues the psychic for lying under oath (the psychic testimonies are quite rare for that reason).

Note that one of the most famed "psychics", Jean Dixon, gained fame by publicly warning Kennedy not to go to Dallas or he would be assasinated. This was general knowledge [in the press] at the time. Was this just luck? Maybe. Is it evidence for ESP? Yes. Is it proof? No.

Evidence for ESP? No. Here is why:

I am fairly certain this event was just this psychic's lucky day (I see someone else has already linked the Skepdic.com article). However, interpreting that luck as evidence for the paranormal would be at error.

Consider precognition. About 6 billion people fall asleep in 24 hours. Is it at all amazing that a few people's dreams might unfold the way it did in the dreams? Not at all, in fact its expected.

Psychics make predictions all the time, but people have a habit of counting the hits and neglecting the misses.

If its any consolidation at all: Psychics have been predicting the deaths of Presidents for years. President Bush made a trip to Omaha, Nebraska a few years ago, various psychics predicted that there was a conspiracy to kill the president. Well, I guess there wasnt.

Psychics are notorious for leaving their "predictions" extremely vague. For instance, if I said "the life of a political figure will end in the near future", what does it mean? Which political figure? Does "life ending" mean die naturally or get killed? What is the time span of "near future"?

At least to me, I think telling the President not to act out of security ordinance for personal appeal is commonsense.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Doc Al
Not exactly, see http://skepdic.com/dixon.html.

This does not account for the several people I have seen interviewed that confirm Dixon's effort to contact the president. From what I saw, the linked explanation does not account for the actual events.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Well, if the ghosts never interacted the physical world, I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate any empirical evidence for their existence.

However, as its been reported that the temperture drops in the presence of a ghost, I would definitely consider an infrared of a something walking around, in combination with a low-light or other camera to verify that there is nothing walking in front of the camera. (Assuming the camera footage is legitimate.)

Or perhaps a documented experience of Skeptics and Scientists asking a spirit to throw something across the room, then a cup flies across the room.

In fact there is no proof that could be offered that would ever satisfy science; unless the ghost is willing to perform tricks on queue. If our alleged ghosties are less cooperative, then any testimony, film or video, any measurement, or any live broadcast or sound recording is effectively useless. So it seems to me that science demands evidence that is not allowed by the intrinsic nature of the phenomenon. Also, skeptics who change their minds are called true believers. I offer UFOs and Allen J. Hynek as evidence.

Note: The "orbs" you see in pictures are not evidence of anything except faulty photography.

Yup; dust, rain, and fine particulates look like orbs on a photograph. However, at the least there is one variety of large glowing orbs called ball lightning. Meteorologists now generally agree that this does exist, so not every glowing orb need be dust.

That is one hurdle which is impossible to get across.

However, if ESP cannot be repeated or verified (such as a once in a lifetime event), then there is nothing that can be said about it. However, in the Skeptical Community, claims that sound like "I can't reproduce my power for such and such reason" is usually seen as an ad hoc. In any case, its not justifyable as evidence.

I think that if ESP happens, in nearly all cases it cannot be controlled. So for me this rules out at least most pop “psychics” and claims. Also, if science can offer no viable means to test a phenomenon, then we are left with anecdotal evidence for guidance; and the skeptics really have nothing to say. This is why I am bothered by so many skeptical websites and arguments; the only explanation for the only evidence that we CAN have is that all experiencers [sic] are wrong or lying. It can't be proven as such, but we should all assume so because this makes more sense.

I don't consider this to be balanced perspective. To me this only says that since we can offer no answers, you all [the believers and "experiencers"] are nuts and liars.

Yes, the police have in fact used Psychics. However, while mysteries have been solved with Psychics along side, the Psychics really don't do anything. That might sound a bit undermining and cynical, but it is true.

I don't believe psychics solve crimes by "Random Luck" because they don't help at all, they waste the police's time.

There are cops who will tell you that this is ridiculous. What else can I say? The most impressive cases that I am aware of seem to leave little doubt that the psychic provided exactly the information needed. On at least one occasion the information was so impressive that the psychic was arrested and held for a time.

Evidence for ESP? No. Here is why:

I am fairly certain this event was just this psychic's lucky day

?

(I see someone else has already linked the Skepdic.com article). However, interpreting that luck as evidence for the paranormal would be at error.

Prove it was luck.

Psychics are notorious for leaving their "predictions" extremely vague. For instance, if I said "the life of a political figure will end in the near future", what does it mean? Which political figure? Does "life ending" mean die naturally or get killed? What is the time span of "near future"?

At least to me, I think telling the President not to act out of security ordinance for personal appeal is commonsense.

You seem to focus on TV psychics. Who on TV is credible; psychic or not? The really interesting stuff comes from personal experiences. It is hardly fair to point to the pop media for anything genuine in any subject. Heck, in my experience the evening news can't even be trusted.

It seems to me that weather prediction is about as accurate as Jean Dixon.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It seems to me that weather prediction is about as accurate as Jean Dixon.

Of course, most people tend to remember when a psychic makes a correct prediction, and forget the failures.

But with weather predictions this tends to happen the other way around. Nobody goes "wow, the weatherman was right, it rained today".



As for abilities that fail when they receive rigorous testing...well, if someone tells you that they are in fact a really good doctor, but they never got a degree because their ability didn't work when they had to write medical exams...

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by pallidin
Is there even a single thread of evidence for paranormal phenomenon? Or is that whole subject just some weird interpretations of ordinary events?

Define paranormal. Would a yeti or other cryptid species be a paranormal event? If so, then there are footprints, footage, photos, hair samples resempling but not matching those of any known primate and many testimonies of bigfoot creatures.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
Define paranormal. Would a yeti or other cryptid species be a paranormal event? If so, then there are footprints, footage, photos, hair samples resempling but not matching those of any known primate and many testimonies of bigfoot creatures.

If you simply consider these to be ordinary animals, then I wouldn't consider it to be paranormal. The paranormal usually starts to creep in when people try to explain away their failure to actually find such a creature.

For example, some people seem to think that that Loch Ness monster is somehow invisible to all sonar. The idea that the monster might not exist doesn't seem to occur to them.

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by master_coda
If you simply consider these to be ordinary animals, then I wouldn't consider it to be paranormal. The paranormal usually starts to creep in when people try to explain away their failure to actually find such a creature.

For example, some people seem to think that that Loch Ness monster is somehow invisible to all sonar. The idea that the monster might not exist doesn't seem to occur to them.

People actually think that the loch ness monster is undetectable by radars? I've never heard anything like that before.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
People actually think that the loch ness monster is undetectable by radars? I've never heard anything like that before.

It's only an explanation that I heard once. It was just part of a chat I had with someone on MSN. Their views weren't exactly "mainstream", even for fans of nessie.

I was only trying to give an example of what I think it takes for something to be paranormal.

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by master_coda
It's only an explanation that I heard once. It was just part of a chat I had with someone on MSN. Their views weren't exactly "mainstream", even for fans of nessie.

I was only trying to give an example of what I think it takes for something to be paranormal.

Oh, so bassically you're saying something paranormal has to defy the current understanding of phyical possibility?

 

[SkinWalker]

As I understand "paranormal" in the context we are discussing, it is that which is outside the established norm of science. That is to say outside the bounds of physics, testable, reproducible, able to predict results of hypotheses, etc.

As to alleged creatures such as the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, et al, weren't they largely shown to be hoaxed?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0729_030729_lochness.html

http://www.csicop.org/sb/9603/nessie.html

http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/pstory/0,3382,19344,00.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Jane Goodall, the worlds leading expert on large apes, believes a Bigfoot creature does exist.

http://www.bfro.net/news/goodall.asp

There are also more and more professionals in various fields coming forth with their own evidence; a couple of forensics experts were the most recent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3152468.stm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html

As for Loch Ness, this should not be considered paranormal, nor should any alleged Bigfoot for that matter. The large apes were once thought to be only rumor and wild stories until a few were finally captured and brought back to europe.

How about this wild theory? If a Loch Ness monster does exist, which I doubt that it does, then it could be hiding from the SONAR in cracks and crevices, or under some other cover in the lake. If I was Nessie, and I saw a fleet of boats coming at me making strange sounds[such an animal might well hear SONAR], I might hide as well.

What really gets me about this so called conclusion - that the SONAR sweeps prove that Nessie does not exist - is that it ignores such an obvious possibility. IMO, It is shameful that this opinion is touted as a "scientific opinion".

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What really gets me about this so called conclusion - that the SONAR sweeps prove that Nessie does not exist - is that it ignores such an obvious possibility. IMO, It is shameful that this opinion is touted as a "scientific opinion".

Sonar sweeps don't prove that Nessie doesn't exist. But they are evidence against the existence of Nessie.

People have been searching the loch for a long time, and haven't found any evidence to support the idea that Nessie exists. Based on all the knowledge we currently have, it is reasonable to conclude that Nessie does not exist. Of course we haven't proven that Nessie doesn't exist. No matter how much evidece we have, we can't really prove that Nessie doesn't exist.


Yet when it comes to the sonar sweep, we are somewhat on the same page. I agree that a single sweep of the loch is hardly proof that the monster doesn't exist. But it is "scientific evidence".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, as for the Wallace Bigfoot film; he never publicly admitted to any hoax; and his family stands to make a lot of money by claiming such. One thing about the film that has always struck me is that Bigfoot has boobs! I have never even seen an anatomically correct female monkey suit. If you watch closely, you can also see what appear to be muscles flexing in the legs. The detail always struck me as being beyond [at least] most hoaxes.

I am still unconvinced about this film either way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by master_coda
Sonar sweeps don't prove that Nessie doesn't exist. But they are evidence against the existence of Nessie.

I say drain the lake!

That would yield proof beyond a doubt.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What would you consider evidence; say for instance in the case of an alleged ghost?

Also, consider claims of ESP. If this exists but cannot be repeated on demand, then how do we gauge the claims?

He's probably talking about scientific evidence. If an experiment is not repeatable, it fails scientifically. The claims are thus judged scientifically invalid.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
He's probably talking about scientific evidence. If an experiment is not repeatable, it fails scientifically. The claims are thus judged scientifically invalid.

This is not to be confused meaning that the claims are untrue. It only means that scienctists have not been smart enough to figure out better tests.

 

[wahoo q]

Just my two cents...most people involved in paranormal research are putting the cart before the horse, they are concerned with proving the existence of "ghosts", while the possibility of surviving human consciousness has not even been proved yet. This, coupled with most paranormal researchers lack of knowledge of the scientific method is the downfall of the community. Researchers look at too broad of a spectrum and fall short when their hypotheses fail to be reproducible. The ONLY way for the paranormal to ever be scientifically accepted is through science itself. As far as the calirvoyance and e.s.p. mentioned earlier look up "The Afterlife Experiments" by Dr. Gary Schwartz Ph.D of the University of Arizona, they are very interesting.

 

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
As for Loch Ness, this should not be considered paranormal, nor should any alleged Bigfoot for that matter.

You mean a giant leviathan living in a loch that cannot support it with enough biomass for food, much less the twenty or so in a breeding population that would be the minimum needed to allow the species to survive for many generations?

I'd say that would make it paranormal. A normal beast of that size would deplete the food source in a few days.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by SkinWalker
You mean a giant leviathan living in a loch that cannot support it with enough biomass for food, much less the twenty or so in a breeding population that would be the minimum needed to allow the species to survive for many generations?

I'd say that would make it paranormal. A normal beast of that size would deplete the food source in a few days.

But I would still say that it isn't paranormal until you start trying to explain away such problems with ad hoc theories. Really, really ad hoc theories.

I guess what I was trying to say is that it isn't really the idea of an undiscovered animal that is paranormal, so much as the wild hypotheses that are generated to explain away evidence against their existence.

 

[wahoo q]

In my mind alleged creatures like nessie and sasquatch are totally removed from the paranormal and belong in the cryptozoology category.

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by wahoo q
In my mind alleged creatures like nessie and sasquatch are totally removed from the paranormal and belong in the cryptozoology category.

Yep.

Paranormal events are beyond the range scientific explanation.

Yetis, Nessies, Champs, Sasquatches, Aliens, Gnomes, Pegasuses, Unicorns, Smurfs, could all very well exist in perfect accordance of scientific law, they are not paranormal.

As for Yetis, that was a translation error. The word "Yeti" is a local dialect for the word "meti", meaning "bear".

As for Nessies, farewell Nessie, we never knew ye...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is not to be confused meaning that the claims are untrue. It only means that scienctists have not been smart enough to figure out better tests.

Maybe. But I have to invoke burden of proof again: Its not up to anyone to prove ESP doesn't exist (insert the obvious caveat about proving a negative), its up to those who claim ESP does exist to prove it. Scientifically. Until they do, their claims must be assumed to be false.

In another thread you seemed to suggest that only a test that scientists consider unscientific could prove a certain ESP effect and complained about the catch-22 it put you in. I won't budge on that. If an ESP proponent is going to have any chance of convincing a scientific body of the existence of ESP, they will need a test that passes scientific scrutiny. Period. The scientific method cannot be weakened to allow what are now considered flawed tests to be used as real evidence.

You may be interested in a thread in the philosopy forum on the scientific method and why we use it.

Yetis, Nessies, Champs, Sasquatches, Aliens, Gnomes, Pegasuses, Unicorns, Smurfs, could all very well exist in perfect accordance of scientific law, they are not paranormal.

No, I would agree they are not paranormal. But they do fall into the same larger category of pseudoscience as ghosts and ESP.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Maybe. But I have to invoke burden of proof again: Its not up to anyone to prove ESP doesn't exist (insert the obvious caveat about proving a negative), its up to those who claim ESP does exist to prove it. Scientifically. Until they do, their claims must be assumed to be false.

This however is not a declaration of truth. It is an artificial construct to define the accepted standards of science. To imply that something that can't be tested can't be or is not true is to make philosophy or even a religion of science. Science cannot be proven to be comprehensive - and even more the case without a TOE.

Note that we can't test String Theory either. Why don’t we put subject in the Philosophy Forum, or the S&D forum? Where's the evidence for String Theory? So far, it sounds like philosophy to me.

In another thread you seemed to suggest that only a test that scientists consider unscientific could prove a certain ESP effect and complained about the catch-22 it put you in. I won't budge on that. If an ESP proponent is going to have any chance of convincing a scientific body of the existence of ESP, they will need a test that passes scientific scrutiny. Period. The scientific method cannot be weakened to allow what are now considered flawed tests to be used as real evidence.

I have never suggested that we use an unscientific test to obtain scientific evidence. I argue that we may not have conceived tests that are proper for the task. Really this is the same as to say that most psychics are fake; I don't think this stuff can be done on demand, and I think the evidence would support this assertion. So, until we can conceive of a better test or measurement for transient and unpredictable experiences, or until we conceive a mechanism to explain claims of ESP, science can claim neither truth nor falseness. We can only say that no scientific evidence exists thus science can draw no conclusions.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You know that!

The work of science is for scientist - not psychics. John Edwards and such, these people really do not interest me. Beyond these are the experiences of people everyday, all over the world, that seem to indicate that some kind of ESP does exist.

You may be interested in a thread in the philosopy forum on the scientific method and why we use it.

Thanks, I already read about that 25 years ago. You need to pay closer attention to what I say; and not what you want to hear.

No, I would agree they are not paranormal. But they do fall into the same larger category of pseudoscience as ghosts and ESP.

Pseudoscience is any improper method of doing science; not a personal claim, and surely not honest investigation of these claims.

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This however is not a declaration of truth. It is an artificial construct to define the accepted standards of science. To imply that something that can't be tested can't be or is not true is to make philosophy or even a religion of science. Science cannot be proven to be comprehensive - and even more the case without a TOE.

You have inadvertantly created a strawman. The underlined part is the strawman.

If there is no evidence that a certain thing exists, we can assume that it exists for the purposes of hypothesis and experimentation (such as Quark Theory), but if repeated experimentation and/or observation fails to show evidence that the thing exists, we can be fairly certain that it just ain't there.

One must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that because there is no evidence that something does not exist, that it might exist.

There are a few different ways people try to get around this:
1. You scientists are too narrow-minded
2. You scientists know you're wrong, you just won't admit it
3. You scientists wouldn't accept evidence even if it was shoved in your face
4. There is no evidence that would satisfy you scientists.
5. [Insert Conspiracy Theory Here]
6. Science hasnt come far enough to prove such-and-such
7. Science can't explain everything

All of those are strawmen.

Just a test: What would you say doesn't exist.

Can you prove it?

Note that we can't test String Theory either. Why don’t we put subject in the Philosophy Forum, or the S&D forum? Where's the evidence for String Theory? So far, it sounds like philosophy to me.

String Theory has a bit more credibility (i.e. Math and generally accepted laws to back it up), its not comparable to that of the paranormal. Dont try to put String Theory in the same boat with metaphysics.

I have never suggested that we use an unscientific test to obtain scientific evidence. I argue that we may not have conceived tests that are proper for the task. Really this is the same as to say that most psychics are fake; I don't think this stuff can be done on demand, and I think the evidence would support this assertion. So, until we can conceive of a better test or measurement for transient and unpredictable experiences, or until we conceive a mechanism to explain claims of ESP, science can claim neither truth nor falseness. We can only say that no scientific evidence exists thus science can draw no conclusions.

Another test:

I say I can build a machine that produces an infinite amount of energy (not all once, of course). Would you care to prove me wrong (or correct for that matter)?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You know that!

Repeat for dramatic effect:

If there is no evidence that a certain thing exists, we can assume that it exists for the purposes of hypothesis and experimentation (such as Quark Theory), but if repeated experimentation and/or observation fails to show evidence that the thing exists, we can be fairly certain that it just ain't there.

One must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that because there is no evidence that something does not exist, that it might exist.

The work of science is for scientist - not psychics. John Edwards and such, these people really do not interest me. Beyond these are the experiences of people everyday, all over the world, that seem to indicate that some kind of ESP does exist.

"Evidence" of the paranormal comes in a few forms:
Fabricating evidence. (See Crop Circles.)

Misinterpreting evidence. (Such as Near Death Experiences being "proof" of an afterlife.)

Ignorance of evidence. (See Parapsychologist Charles Tart.)

Anedotal evidence. (While its not always proper form to dismiss all anecdotal evidence out of hand, if there is no valid evidence to support the anecdote, it essentially cannot be used to establish anything.)

Pseudoscience is any improper method of doing science; not a personal claim, and surely not honest investigation of these claims.

Pseudoscience is not a method. Pseudoscience is a word that means "theory or facts put down as scientific when they are clearly not scientific".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Yahweh
You have inadvertantly created a strawman. The underlined part is the strawman.

If there is no evidence that a certain thing exists, we can assume that it exists for the purposes of hypothesis and experimentation (such as Quark Theory), but if repeated experimentation and/or observation fails to show evidence that the thing exists, we can be fairly certain that it just ain't there

.

I clarified that this references on demand, repeatable ESP. This is a far cry from random, transient events. Are you saying there is no difference? It could well be that we have no evidence for genuine ESP because we have never conceived of a good test. We have anecdotal evidence. Your argument assumes that ESP does not exist, therefore no evidence can ever be had for transient, random events. Your conclusion that mine is a strawman is without any basis. I am not aware of any effort to test for random, transient, ESP events. For example, perhaps one day the lie detector technology, or even advanced brain imaging techology will be made so accurate that such claims can be better evaluated with a high degree of certainty.

One must be careful not to confuse a lack of creativity with someone elses potential strawman.

One must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that because there is no evidence that something does not exist, that it might exist.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, but where no scientfic tests are yet possible. I don't call people liars because I can't think of a test.

There are a few different ways people try to get around this:
1. You scientists are too narrow-minded
2. You scientists know you're wrong, you just won't admit it
3. You scientists wouldn't accept evidence even if it was shoved in your face
4. There is no evidence that would satisfy you scientists.
5. [Insert Conspiracy Theory Here]
6. Science hasnt come far enough to prove such-and-such
7. Science can't explain everything

Funny, I never said any of these things, except that the last could be true. Certainly we don't have a complete theory by which we may gauge what is and is not possible beyond any doubt.

The rest of your reasoning excludes human experience completely. This may be fine for formal definitions, but that's all. It may have no practical value beyond that formalism.

Prove to a blind person that color exists.

[qutoe]String Theory has a bit more credibility (i.e. Math and generally accepted laws to back it up), its not comparable to that of the paranormal. Dont try to put String Theory in the same boat with metaphysics.[/quote]

Until it can be tested, or at least offer the promise of such, its Philosophy; by definition.

At least one well known physicist has declared String Theory "forever safe".

Its Philosophy!

Pseudoscience is not a method. Pseudoscience is a word that means "theory or facts put down as scientific when they are clearly not scientific".

well, actually it is this:

noun: an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions

Claimed personal experiences are not pseudoscience; nor is the investigation of such claims. Your statements have no bearing on mine.

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Your argument assumes that ESP does not exist, therefore no evidence can ever be had for transient, random events.

I believe I've already explained that when you experiment for something, and nothing comes up, then its reasonable to say it doesn't exist. That make the method of "assuming that ESP does not exist" different from the process I embrace which is "demonstrating that ESP does not exist". You can't assume things exist when you demonstrate the falsity of the claim.

I am not aware of any effort to test for random, transient, ESP events.

I am aware that the JREF Organization perform 100s of tests for anything paranormal. The preliminary tests are set up and arranged by the people who are performing the tests themselves. The folk fail their own tests. A great deal more effort is involved in trying to prove the claim true, but it just doesn't happen. Of course, these are "ESP on demand" types, so it may not apply.

Here is a story called UNLV unplugs program on human consciousness from ReviewJournal.com . Bigelow, a wealthy Las Vegas businessman with a penchant for funding paranormal research, gave nearly US$4 million to UNLV in 1997 to teach courses on such subjects as dreams, meditation, hypnosis, out-of-body experiences, telepathy, and the ever-popular subject among college students, drug-induced altered states of consciousness. Bigelow pulled the plug on the program in 2002. No explanation was given but perhaps the fact that in five years the program had produced nothing of interest might have had something to do with it. After 5 years, they tested everything (including what is called "spontaneous perturbation", or random events of ESP).

There is a whole field of (pseudo)Science call Parapsychology which has been an established field of paranormal research since 1882. Virtually all things paranormal have their origins from the field of Parapsychology.

Quite a bit of research has gone into Parapsychology.

To say "ESP doesn't occur on demand" is an ad hoc. From Skepdic.com - Ad hoc:

Finally, rejecting explanations that require belief in occult, supernatural or paranormal forces in favor of simpler and more plausible explanations is called applying Occam's razor. It is not the same as ad hoc hypothesizing. For example, let's say I catch you stealing a watch from a shop. You say you did not steal it. I ask you to empty your pockets. You agree and pull out a watch. I say, "Aha!, I was right. You stole the watch." You reply that you did not steal the watch, but you admit that it was not in your pocket when we went into the store. I ask you to explain how the watch got into your pocket and you say that you used telekinesis: you used your thoughts to transport the watch out of a glass case into your pocket. I ask you to repeat the act with another watch and you say "ok." Try as you will, however, you cannot make a watch magically appear in your pocket. You say that there is too much pressure on you to perform or that there are too many bad vibes in the air for you to work your powers. You have offered an ad hoc hypothesis to explain away what looks like a good refutation of your claim. My hypothesis that the watch is in your pocket because you stole it, is not an ad hoc hypothesis. I have chosen to believe a plausible explanation rather than an implausible one. Likewise, given the choice between believing that my headache went away of its own accord or that it went away because some nurse waved her hands over my hand while chanting a mantra, I will opt for the former every time.

It is always more reasonable to apply Occam's razor than to offer speculative ad hoc hypotheses just to maintain the possibility of something supernatural or paranormal.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, but where no scientfic tests are yet possible. I don't call people liars because I can't think of a test.

From Testimonials:

Testimonials and vivid anecdotes are one of the most popular and convincing forms of evidence presented for beliefs in the transcendent, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. Nevertheless, testimonials and anecdotes in such matters are of little value in establishing the probability of the claims they are put forth to support. Sincere and vivid accounts of one’s encounter with an angel, an alien, a ghost, a Bigfoot, a child claiming to have lived before, purple auras around dying patients, a miraculous dowser, a levitating guru, or a psychic surgeon are of little value in establishing the reasonableness of believing in such matters. Such accounts are inherently subjective, inaccurate, unreliable, and biased. They are on par with televised accounts of satisfied customers of the latest weight loss program or the tastiness of margarine.

The testimonial of personal experience in paranormal or supernatural matters has no scientific value. If others cannot experience the same thing under the same conditions, then there will be no way to verify the experience. If there is no way to test the claims made, then there will be no way to tell if the experience was a delusion or was interpreted correctly. If others can experience the same thing, then it is possible to make a test of the testimonial and determine whether the claim based on it is worthy of belief.

Testimonials regarding paranormal experiences are scientifically worthless because selective thinking and self-deception must be controlled for.

...

Finally, it should be noted that testimonials are often used in many areas of life, including medical science, and that giving due consideration to such testimonials is considered wise, not foolish. A physician will use the testimonies of his or her patients to draw conclusions about certain medications or procedures. For example, a physician will take anecdotal evidence from a patient about a reaction to a new medication and use that information in deciding to adjust the prescribed dosage or to change the medication. This is quite reasonable. But the physician cannot be selective in listening to testimony, listening only to those claims that fit his or her own prejudices. To do so is to risk harming one’s patients. Nor should the average person be selective when listening to testimonials regarding some paranormal or occult experience.

Funny, I never said any of these things, except that the last could be true.

... I don't believe I claimed you said any of those things...

Certainly we don't have a complete theory by which we may gauge what is and is not possible beyond any doubt.

I think its helpful to note that there is no such thing as "proof beyond any doubt". There is no such thing as "100% proof", however high degrees of certainty can be achieved so that we can say that something is "true" or "untrue". If didnt, we'd never be able to get on with our lives.

The rest of your reasoning excludes human experience completely. This may be fine for formal definitions, but that's all. It may have no practical value beyond that formalism.

Prove to a blind person that color exists.

Color doesn't exist (in the concrete sense).

You are continually shifting the burden of proof, as well as shifting the integrity of is defined as "proof". Those are not good skills to maintain.

A blind person could never experience color. [simplified]When you are a baby and experiencing things, you brain wires itself to understand and comprehend those things. But if you never experience something like the sensation of color, the part of the brain which processes visual information (the Occipital Lobe) is underdeveloped, and will forever remain underdeveloped. (there are a few cases - Hellen Kellar for example - but the medical reasons beyond those are well understood and don't apply in this situation).[/simplified] So its quite meaningless to prove to a blind person that color exists when they have no concept of what it is.

And again, you are lumping "personal experience" as a form of establishing proof, however I will contend that Parapsychologist Charles Tart is blinkered beyond repair for understanding the mechanism of "human curiosity" vs. "human fallibillity" (there is a famous story of Charles Tart mistaking a clearly well understood physical phenomena - call sound traveling through the ground - for solid evidence of the Paranormal). However, there are differing degrees of scientific integrity for establishing claims of ESP (i.e. Paranormal claims are held at a higher standard).

Until it can be tested, or at least offer the promise of such, its Philosophy; by definition.

By definition, its "Theoretical Physics".

Materialism is an example of what is defined as a Philosophy.

Philosophy does not mean "things which cannot be tested".

well, actually it is this:

Claimed personal experiences are not pseudoscience; nor is the investigation of such claims. Your statements have no bearing on mine.

I'm afraid I don't understand why my statements have no bearing on yours.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Until it can be tested, or at least offer the promise of such, its Philosophy; by definition.

Making predictions that cannot yet be tested is one of the neatest things about theoretical physics. A great number of the predictions of Relativity and QM could not be tested until recently (and some still can't be). The fact that these predictions, once testable, verified the theories is one of the neatest aspects of science.

Also, just to be clear, there is a difference between "inherrently un-testable" and "un-testable with today's technology." The first points to pseudoscience, the second is just highly theoretical science.

An example of something that is inherrently untestable are the ESP tests you gave in another thread where you conceded that only a test which scientists consider scientifically flawed could verify the hypothesis. To science, that makes the hypothesis untestable.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You know that!

Ivan, a failed test is evidence and you know that! Ie, if a test for an effect fails enough times, you can draw a scientifically valid conclusion that the effect isn't there. Certainly, you can think up a new test, but if that yields no effect, then you have strengthened the body of evidence that suggests the effect isn't there. Sooner or later, you have to conclude that to a reasonable scientific burden of proof, the effect does not exist. The cold fusion debacle is a great example of some scientists accepting that reality while others clung to a false hope.

Yahweh, your posts fit with my opinion (and I think that of the scientific community) and you make your points very well. Nice posts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I believe I've already explained that when you experiment for something, and nothing comes up, then its reasonable to say it doesn't exist. That make the method of "assuming that ESP does not exist" different from the process I embrace which is "demonstrating that ESP does not exist". You can't assume things exist when you demonstrate the falsity of the claim.

You seem to keep ignoring that I'm not talking about the results that you cite.

I am aware that the JREF Organization perform 100s of tests for anything paranormal. The preliminary tests are set up and arranged by the people who are performing the tests themselves. The folk fail their own tests. A great deal more effort is involved in trying to prove the claim true, but it just doesn't happen. Of course, these are "ESP on demand" types, so it may not apply.

This is the case. My most profound interests lie in the experiences of people I have known and other compelling testimony e.g. that given by some police investigators.

To say "ESP doesn't occur on demand" is an ad hoc. From Skepdic.com - Ad hoc:

No, again you only think so because you assume that no spontaneous ESP exists. My reasoning comes from claims of human experience; this is not used to dodge other results. I addressed those results and admit that little to nothing is found.

.. I don't believe I claimed you said any of those things...

fair enough.

I think its helpful to note that there is no such thing as "proof beyond any doubt". There is no such thing as "100% proof", however high degrees of certainty can be achieved so that we can say that something is "true" or "untrue". If didnt, we'd never be able to get on with our lives.

True, and most people choose to believe their own experiences and upbringing, and those experiences of friends and family, over the present understanding possible through science. In fact, any true belief requires a leap of faith on some level; including any belief that we have in the assumptions of, and surely the completeness of mathematics and physics.

You are continually shifting the burden of proof, as well as shifting the integrity of is defined as "proof". Those are not good skills to maintain.

No, you fail to address my statements in their proper context. How many paragraphs have you dedicated to that which I dismissed outright; the failure of ESP to be produced on demand. Then you try to disqualify my position by claiming that an honest evaluation of the anecdotal evidence is an ah-hoc argument. Your position is riddled with false assumptions.

A blind person could never experience color. [simplified]When you are a baby and experiencing things, you brain wires itself to understand and comprehend those things. But if you never experience something like the sensation of color, the part of the brain which processes visual information (the Occipital Lobe) is underdeveloped, and will forever remain underdeveloped. (there are a few cases - Hellen Kellar for example - but the medical reasons beyond those are well understood and don't apply in this situation).[/simplified] So its quite meaningless to prove to a blind person that color exists when they have no concept of what it is.

Well, then we will consider the exceptions in this case.

And again, you are lumping "personal experience" as a form of establishing proof,

now you are way over the line. I never said any such thing. We can use anecdotal evidence to yield clues about how to obtain any potential scientific evidence.

By definition, its "Theoretical Physics"

It must be testable to be science. Name one test that we even hope for here. You can’t dance on both sides of the street...science requires evidence. Presently, there is more evidence for ESP than string theory.

Philosophy does not mean "things which cannot be tested"

Yes, it does; when a conclusion is made by means of logic and mathematics, but when no physical evidence to support such conclusions. The statement was: “String Theory is forever safe”. That is a very damning accusation for a “scientific theory”. Perhaps you forget that physics is a special branch of philosophy.

I'm afraid I don't understand why my statements have no bearing on yours.

I do not submit anecdotal evidence as scientific evidence, nor do I refer to the obvious failures of “on demand” ESP for proof of anything. I think we might soon be able to test whether or not a person tells what he believes to be the truth. If and when we can nail this technology down, my suggestion is that claims of spontaneous ESP events could be evaluated. This is no dreamier than hoping for a test for String Theory. Clearly there is no mathematical model to predict ESP as there is for ST, but we do still discover much of the world without the ability to predict those discoveries. Strong anecdotal evidence is sufficient to justify a scientific interest without drawing any conclusions.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Comments made in the last post address comments from Russ as well.


By the way Russ, as I remember, you actually believe in ESP don't you?

Edit:
I should respond to this:

Ivan, a failed test is evidence and you know that! Ie, if a test for an effect fails enough times, you can draw a scientifically valid conclusion that the effect isn't there.

However, this is limited to the interpretation of the alleged effects that we seek, and the assumptions made in the experiment. As I have said, there is very little evidence to support ESP as defined, but the subject is much broader than something we can do in a lab. For example, some of the most compelling claims come from the families of persons killed or seriously injured. Many, many, many accounts are found where the mother allegedly knew instantly that her son was killed, or that a daughter knew her father needed help, or that a mother knew her baby was in trouble. In these extreme situations the emotions and personal significance must be considered as potentially significant [scientifically] to the alleged phenomenon. I am quite sure that we didn't kill people to see if their mothers could sense it. So this is only one example of many situations that may be impossible to simulate and that must be evaluated by some other means. I have read enough cases to know that if true, types of cases exist where family members and friends could be tested for the truth of their claims, and this would yield proof or not for ESP to within the accuracy of the lie detector.

 

[justjohn]

No evidence? PLEASE read The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin Ph.D.
The effectiveness of many new pharmaceuticals hailed as "miracle drugs" have been proven far less, statistically, than many types of psi phenomena.

Why is it that the specific cases that "debunkers" usually cite when they practice their craft are culled from the pages of National Enquirer, etc? No one can deny that that there are a great many bogus claims made about "paranormal" events. We don't NEED anyone to help us realize that Elvis' ghost didn't really father some woman's baby. Using the analogy of a playground, anybody can pick on the little kids...and those who are lacking in character usually do. I want to see you guys go take a swing at the big kids (see first paragraph).

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
By the way Russ, as I remember, you actually believe in ESP don't you?

No, I don't, but I once convinced my sister I was telepathic when I guessed her thoughts correctly 3 times in a row.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was thinking that in the "What do you believe" thread you had indicated otherwise. My mistake. However many of the rest of your beliefs still surprised me. Transdimensional beings?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3977

How do you distinguish between communication to or from God through prayer, and ESP? Is there mortal to divine ESP, but no mortal to mortal ESP?

Also, how can you be sure that you didn’t read your sister’s mind? Were these guesses based on your familiarity with her, or do you believe in luck?

I don't know Russ...I think we might have a psychic on our hands here...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I was thinking that in the "What do you believe" thread you had indicated otherwise. My mistake. However many of the rest of your beliefs still surprised me. Transdimensional beings?

I'm still not sure what a "transdimensional being" is, but in any case, I probably should have answered YES to the Loch Ness/other one, since its VERY broad. Ever hear of the megamouth shark? And maybe should have answered NO to the spirits one. I was probably linking that to the concept of a soul.

For most of the others, be careful not to make any logical leaps: those categories are broad and open to interpretation. I believe in ET for example, but that doesn't mean I think he's been here. Indeed, I think odds are by the end of my lifetime we may prove he exists, but we won't ever have direct contact with him. And the first 5 can be loosely connected to just about any religion, but that again doesn't mean anyone's ever seen a demon or angel.

Maybe I'm a little more open minded than you think though.

How do you distinguish between communication to or from God through prayer, and ESP? Is there mortal to divine ESP, but no mortal to mortal ESP?

Communication with God would be one way and would simply be a matter of his omniscience. If he knows everything he knows our thoughts - our prayers. ESP applies only to humans.

Also, how can you be sure that you didn’t read your sister’s mind? Were these guesses based on your familiarity with her, or do you believe in luck?

I of course can't be sure I didn't read her mind, but the guesses were pretty obvious - the first thing she was thinking was "you're full of ---." And luck (probability) isn't something to believe in or not, its a property of data.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I'm still not sure what a "transdimensional being" is, but in any case, I probably should have answered YES to the Loch Ness/other one, since its VERY broad. Ever hear of the megamouth shark? And maybe should have answered NO to the spirits one. I was probably linking that to the concept of a soul.

megamouth shark? Only in a fossilized format. Why?

For most of the others, be careful not to make any logical leaps: those categories are broad and open to interpretation. I believe in ET for example, but that doesn't mean I think he's been here. Indeed, I think odds are by the end of my lifetime we may prove he exists, but we won't ever have direct contact with him. And the first 5 can be loosely connected to just about any religion, but that again doesn't mean anyone's ever seen a demon or angel.

Interesting. I agree that the categories are very broad and ET does not mean ET in UFOs, at least not necessarily, but your comment about angels surprises me. What about biblical encounters?

Maybe I'm a little more open minded than you think though.

Boy now we need some serious debunking here!

Really, closed minded is not the right expression. I knew that you had some religious beliefs. That puts you in a very different class than many skeptics [no insult intended in either case]. I think you and I butt heads over formalisms more than belief systems.

Communication with God would be one way and would simply be a matter of his omniscience. If he knows everything he knows our thoughts - our prayers. ESP applies only to humans. I of course can't be sure I didn't read her mind, but the guesses were pretty obvious - the first thing she was thinking was "you're full of ---." And luck (probability) isn't something to believe in or not, its a property of data.

By similar reasoning, omnipotence means two way communications. Once we open the door to the divine, anything God desires is possible.

As for luck, I believe in perturbations from the norm. Whether or not these perturbations are random are questions of predestination and divine intervention.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
megamouth shark? Only in a fossilized format. Why?

Linky Its a rare, but contemporary species. 14 examples have been seen since discovery in 1976. Now, the poll question said "Loch Ness or other unidentified lake creatures." Pretty broad and the megamouth would fit if it were a fresh water fish. Its certainly possible that there are unknown species in some remote and deep lakes.

your comment about angels surprises me. What about biblical encounters?

I probably should have qualified it a lttle - I certainly do believe biblical accounts, but modern accounts, no. Too many people see what they want to see and the Virgin Mary is not going to make a cameo as a water spot on a building.

As for luck, I believe in perturbations from the norm. Whether or not these perturbations are random are questions of predestination and divine intervention.

Also the basis for most of what I've seen of ESP (and my buddy with the gambling fixation). A lot of people lose a lot of money by convincing themselves they can defeat the math of probability.