Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal

  • Thread starter pftest
  • Start date
  • #126
308
0
Wagenmakers response to Bems response:

He claimed... what... that IF one interpreation of QM is correct then retrocausality could... what? I'm not clear that a concept based in the mathematics of QM is so easily subverted to transmit information, encode it, and decode it on the other end.
 
  • #127
363
4
I personally dismiss the notion until evidence of it's existence is proven.

I've never understood this mindset.

If you dismiss everything until evidence proves it's existence, you'll personally never come up with anything. Somebody else will do it for you.

If everybody followed this logic, we'd stagnate, as a species. We'd summarily dismiss everything.

Let's dismiss String Theory and cease all work on it right now, right? After all, there is no evidence for it.

Since when does evidence always come first? Since when has science stopped trying to explain observations?

Also, if you just dismiss only certain things until evidence comes around, or until something shows up in a journal, that means you're biased. And, those biases are usually a result of societal/cultural conditioning.

The greatest discoveries were made by men who thought "outside the box", outside societal conditioning, and had the courage to come up with new ideas, despite controversey, and despite hard evidence for their existence. They found the evidence, for something they intuited.
 
  • #128
308
0
I've never understood this mindset.

If you dismiss everything until evidence proves it's existence, you'll personally never come up with anything. Somebody else will do it for you.

If everybody followed this logic, we'd stagnate, as a species. We'd summarily dismiss everything.

Let's dismiss String Theory and cease all work on it right now, right? After all, there is no evidence for it.

Since when does evidence always come first? Since when has science stopped trying to explain observations?

Also, if you just dismiss only certain things until evidence comes around, or until something shows up in a journal, that means you're biased. And, those biases are usually a result of societal/cultural conditioning.

The greatest discoveries were made by men who thought "outside the box", outside societal conditioning, and had the courage to come up with new ideas, despite controversey, and despite hard evidence for their existence. They found the evidence, for something they intuited.

In what way is this necropost relevant to the OP, and not just a personal rant about JarednJames, which is absolutely not OK by the guidelines?
 
  • #129
2,745
22
I've never understood this mindset.

Precisely. You don't understand it and the rest of your post outlines the fact you don't.

Everything below the line above is ridiculous and doesn't follow my mindset at all.
 
  • #130
187
1
I've never understood this mindset.

If you dismiss everything until evidence proves it's existence, you'll personally never come up with anything. Somebody else will do it for you.

If everybody followed this logic, we'd stagnate, as a species. We'd summarily dismiss everything.

Let's dismiss String Theory and cease all work on it right now, right? After all, there is no evidence for it.

Since when does evidence always come first? Since when has science stopped trying to explain observations?

Also, if you just dismiss only certain things until evidence comes around, or until something shows up in a journal, that means you're biased. And, those biases are usually a result of societal/cultural conditioning.

The greatest discoveries were made by men who thought "outside the box", outside societal conditioning, and had the courage to come up with new ideas, despite controversey, and despite hard evidence for their existence. They found the evidence, for something they intuited.

The problem with this rant is it's possible to dismiss something and still work on getting evidence for it. Scientists can still play the "what if?" game without personally thinking something is true.

Part of the undergraduate research I'm doing (or rather, helping my advisor with) involves extra-dimensional dark-matter candidates, such as Kaluza-Klein gravitons. Neither of us is some sort of "true-believer" that these things exist, but we're both exploring "what if these things were to exist, what would be the consequences?" Now, if the consequences match up exactly with observation and it is able to predict new observations, perhaps then we'd argue that these things really exist.

Until then, I'm content to argue that these things could possibly exist, but I'd still dismiss the notion that they do exist until the evidence comes out.
 
  • #131
308
0
The problem with this rant is it's possible to dismiss something and still work on getting evidence for it. Scientists can still play the "what if?" game without personally thinking something is true.

Part of the undergraduate research I'm doing (or rather, helping my advisor with) involves extra-dimensional dark-matter candidates, such as Kaluza-Klein gravitons. Neither of us is some sort of "true-believer" that these things exist, but we're both exploring "what if these things were to exist, what would be the consequences?" Now, if the consequences match up exactly with observation and it is able to predict new observations, perhaps then we'd argue that these things really exist.

Until then, I'm content to argue that these things could possibly exist, but I'd still dismiss the notion that they do exist until the evidence comes out.

Yep, I'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who'd stick String Theory into anything except "Beyond The Standard Model", but that doesn't mean it can't be valuable, or eventually groomed into a full theory.

What we have in dm4b is the classic failure to understand both the scientific method, skeptical philsophy and mindset, and a tinge of cracpot "anyone can be Einstein" horse dung.
 
  • #132
363
4
In what way is this necropost relevant to the OP, and not just a personal rant about JarednJames, which is absolutely not OK by the guidelines?

It's absolutely relevant. And it wasn't meant to be personal. This mindset is not unique to JarednJames' post - it is a common "belief" out there.

It's relevant to the OP, because the OP announces a paper that was recently submitted to a main stream journal and my response was in regards to a post that said the topics considered in that paper (psychic ability) should be dismissed.

I disagree, and stated my reasons on why the reasoning leading to that conclusion are wrong.

Are we not allowed to challenge our views? Are we not allowed to examine if certain mindsets and certain paradigms cause us to come up short on our conclusions? Isn't that part of what science is all about ....

I doubt JaredNJames will lose any sleep over my post.
 
  • #133
2,745
22
I disagree, and stated my reasons on why the reasoning leading to that conclusion are wrong.

Your "reasoning" is incorrect. Your reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with the view I expressed. Put simply, you tried to 'fill in the blanks' and did so very badly (as jack and nismar point out).
Are we not allowed to challenge our views? Are we not allowed to examine if certain mindsets and certain paradigms cause us to come up short on our conclusions?

Certainly challenge our views, but do it properly and don't make things up.
Isn't that part of what science is all about ....

You keep saying that but the only non-scientific view here was your own - where you drew a false conclusions based on your own misguided ideas behinds others ideology.
I doubt JaredNJames will lose any sleep over my post.

Actually it bothers me that you can misrepresent and twist what I said into that non-sense.

EDIT: No sleep lost.
 
Last edited:
  • #134
308
0
It's absolutely relevant. And it wasn't meant to be personal. This mindset is not unique to JarednJames' post - it is a common "belief" out there.

It's relevant to the OP, because the OP announces a paper that was recently submitted to a main stream journal and my response was in regards to a post that said the topics considered in that paper (psychic ability) should be dismissed.

I disagree, and stated my reasons on why the reasoning leading to that conclusion are wrong.

Are we not allowed to challenge our views? Are we not allowed to examine if certain mindsets and certain paradigms cause us to come up short on our conclusions? Isn't that part of what science is all about ....

I doubt JaredNJames will lose any sleep over my post.

I doubt that he will either, nor is it, unfortunately, grist for thought or discussion. While I'm sure your personal diatribe is very meaningful to you, and therefore relevent in all ways, you may want to include some specifics. Right now, we're either faced with tearing your "logic" to unkind shreds, waiting for a mentor to talk to you, or for you to offer something meaningful.

Read the guidelines, they are your friend.

And maybe this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
and this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
 
  • #135
363
4
The problem with this rant is it's possible to dismiss something and still work on getting evidence for it. Scientists can still play the "what if?" game without personally thinking something is true.

Part of the undergraduate research I'm doing (or rather, helping my advisor with) involves extra-dimensional dark-matter candidates, such as Kaluza-Klein gravitons. Neither of us is some sort of "true-believer" that these things exist, but we're both exploring "what if these things were to exist, what would be the consequences?" Now, if the consequences match up exactly with observation and it is able to predict new observations, perhaps then we'd argue that these things really exist.

Until then, I'm content to argue that these things could possibly exist, but I'd still dismiss the notion that they do exist until the evidence comes out.

Jack, I basically agree with what you said, except I wouldn't use the word dismiss where you did. So, like many disagreements along these lines, much may be boling down to semantics. However ......

To me (and Webster) dismiss, implies to reject or discard. That is where I was coming from when I heard that word. Rejected and discarded theories don't usually get a lot of research funding.

But, with psychic phenomenon such as ESP, it goes much further than that. As JaredNJames also stated in his original post, most in the scientific community "believe" that ESP, and other psychic phenomenon, are myths - in the negative meaning of the word myth .... as in, not true. And ESP, as well as other psychic phenomenon, is often deemed "unworthy" of scientific investigation.

So, if you guys are telling me that ESP is not taboo in the scientific community, who are you kidding? ESP is typically dismissed in the ultimate sense of that word - meaning totally rejected and ignored.

To reject ESP is scientifically dishonest. Let's ignore the fact that there are some observations that indicate there may be something to ESP (Bem's paper being an example), and take it from another perspective. ESP is, at the very least, an important study in psychology. There may very likely be nothing to ESP physically, but it is still a prevalent phenomenon in the psyche of man in the world today. But, interestingly enough, the pyschology community is the most statistically likely to reject anything to do with ESP (see Bem's paper on that). Hmmmmm, more bias at play here? More cultural conditioning?

Also, many scientific fields outside of psychology, would hardly view a study of ESP as a mental phenomenon as "real science".

So, don't tell me that the scientific world is totally objective and unbiased. It ain't. Scientists are human like everybody else and suffer from the same faults.
 
  • #136
363
4
Yep, I'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who'd stick String Theory into anything except "Beyond The Standard Model", but that doesn't mean it can't be valuable, or eventually groomed into a full theory.

Did I say it can't be valuable? I'm currently studying String Theory.
 
  • #137
308
0
Did I say it can't be valuable? I'm currently studying String Theory.

Good for you.

Now, you dislike the "myth" of ESP, because that leads to a lack of exploration and funding, fair? How do you think that that ESP came to reside in the realm of (largely) pseudoscience?

Hint: Lots of research and no positive results.

Nobody has rejected ESP, by the same token it's not being accepted either. It's less accepted in general because the preponderance of evidence is against it, but it's still a subject of research.

I think ESP got quite a good break with major government funding and research in Russia and the USA during the Cold War... far more than most pipe dreams. It's not taboo, but it isn't respected either because the most basic tests for it fail to show anything.

In addition, the rejection in this thread is a rejection of the methods and conclusions of the paper presented, that is not a rejection of ESP as a whole. You really should be less dramatic and more grounded, even when engaging in a semi-directed diatribe.

Oh, and psychology isn't a science.
 
  • #138
308
0
Did I say it can't be valuable? I'm currently studying String Theory.

By the way, when you say studying, do you mean you're in grad school and this is your focus, that you're reading something by Brian Greene, or something in between? Please, now that you've raised this, in what context are you studying this?

I'm curious what you think String Theory (whichever you ascribe to) has to say about ESP.
 
  • #139
363
4
Good for you.

Now, you dislike the "myth" of ESP, because that leads to a lack of exploration and funding, fair? How do you think that that ESP came to reside in the realm of (largely) pseudoscience?

Hint: Lots of research and no positive results.

Well, here is how I see the state of affairs.

There has been lots of research, but it's been done by guys like J.B. Rhine and Dean Radin. In other words, proponents of ESP, but outside the mainstream scientific community. The typical complaint here is that the research was not done correctly. So, their positive results they obtained in almost all (maybe all?) cases need to be discarded.

I personally know of no other research being reported in respectable scientifc journals on ESP, except the ones associated with Dayrl Bem's recent paper, that show negative or positive results.

If there is some, please provide references, because I would be interested in reading more on that.
 
  • #140
308
0
Well, here is how I see the state of affairs.

There has been lots of research, but it's been done by guys like J.B. Rhine and Dean Radin. In other words, proponents of ESP, but outside the mainstream scientific community. The typical complaint here is that the research was not done correctly. So, their positive results they obtained in almost all (maybe all?) cases need to be discarded.

I personally know of no other research being reported in respectable scientifc journals on ESP, except the ones associated with Dayrl Bem's recent paper, that show negative or positive results.

If there is some, please provide references, because I would be interested in reading more on that.

I would turn you again towards the fruitless work on remote viewing and more by the first two superpowers, and subsequent investigation. The paucity now, in my view, reflects a lack of new approaches and a lack of anything substantial to find. It's true, you can't prove a negative, but you'll note that (not GR) Aether is not exactly finding a ton of funding either.

Sometimes it's bias, and sometiems it's a storied history of failure, as with ESP.
 
  • #141
363
4
I would turn you again towards the fruitless work on remote viewing and more by the first two superpowers, and subsequent investigation. The paucity now, in my view, reflects a lack of new approaches and a lack of anything substantial to find. It's true, you can't prove a negative, but you'll note that (not GR) Aether is not exactly finding a ton of funding either.

Sometimes it's bias, and sometiems it's a storied history of failure, as with ESP.

I don't see a storied history here (of success, or failure).

I don't really know what came of the remote viewing stuff with the government, since the majority of the work is still classified. I'm not saying that points to success, I'm just saying I'm reserving judgement on the matter until I see "all the data".

Once again, I see no research being done, and more importantly published, by the mainstream scientific community. (except, of course, the Bemster).

That doesn't mean anything either, really. You won't find a lot of papers published on General Relativity in the 1700's. It may be that ESP is an emergent phenomenon that appears as consciousness evolves, and we just don't understand it nearly enough yet. It may be that it's nothing but a psychosis. However, there are observations that need to be explained, that haven't been to the extent I would like to see. We'll all disagree on that point though, I'm sure.

In the meantime, I won't dismiss the possibility there is something to ESP. But, that's just me.
 
  • #142
363
4
By the way, when you say studying, do you mean you're in grad school and this is your focus, that you're reading something by Brian Greene, or something in between? Please, now that you've raised this, in what context are you studying this?

I'm reading a book called The Compete Idiots Guide to String Theory.
 
  • #143
308
0
I'm reading a book called The Compete Idiots Guide to String Theory.

Seriously?! That's the kind of thing I'd say as a gag, but I've been overly literal before...
 
  • #144
2,745
22
I don't see a storied history here (of success, or failure).

It failed. I was under the impression that was common knowledge?
Once again, I see no research being done, and more importantly published, by the mainstream scientific community. (except, of course, the Bemster).

Published doesn't mean the research isn't getting done. It could very well be that the research is being done but it isn't being done correctly (or whatever other reasons block papers being published, it's your choice).
That doesn't mean anything either, really. You won't find a lot of papers published on General Relativity in the 1700's.

Apples and oranges. Completely ridiculous and fallacious example.
 
  • #145
2,745
22
I'm reading a book called The Compete Idiots Guide to String Theory.

You're [what birds do on my nice clean car] me?

In that respect I'm studying muggles and gringots bank right now. :uhh:

Looking into, maybe. But studying? Really?
 
  • #146
363
4
C'mon Jared. At least nismaratwork suspected it was a gag.
 
  • #147
308
0
C'mon Jared. At least nismaratwork suspected it was a gag.

Jared can be quite literal, and you DID do the internet version of a "deadpan" delivery. By the same token, you have to understand that as claims go, studying the "Idiots guide to String theory" is not even CLOSE to weird on this forum.

When you have a few dozen people tell you about death-stars and being fondled by little gray men, you lose your sense of freewheeling fun right-quick.
 
  • #148
2,745
22
C'mon Jared. At least nismaratwork suspected it was a gag.

I didn't suspect it (and I still don't). :rolleyes:

Perhaps one day I'll see something to change my mind...

(Can't blame me, seeing as your intro here went straight for the kill.)
 

Related Threads on Precognition paper to be published in mainstream journal

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
634
Replies
12
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Top