Why is ESP lumped with less credible phenomena?

[delta001]

I assure you that I use 100% of mine and I have no psychic powers. The brain is a very complex organ, that takes a lot of oxygen to function.
We have an enormous brain, that gives us a great advantage over all other life forms in the planet. Why would evolution develop such a large organ if not for total use?

I don't think anyone uses 100% of their brain: do you even know scientifically that you do? If you got like an MRI or something that proves we use 100% then I'd believe you.

 

[SGT]

I don't think anyone uses 100% of their brain: do you even know scientifically that you do? If you got like an MRI or something that proves we use 100% then I'd believe you.

I don't have any MRI of my brain and if I did, you would not see it all lighted. We use all parts of our brains, but not simultaneously. In this moment, I am at my chair typing this answer. Of course, the part of my brain that controls my leg muscles is not working. When I walk those neurons fire, but the ones needed for my math skills will be off.
One indication that we use all of our brain is that all brain injuries cause some impairment. If we used only 10% of our brains, 90% of brain injuries would be harmless.

 

[BillJx]

The simple answer is that other phenomena seem less credible to you, only because you think that ESP is credible.

 

[Smurf]

from an evolutionary perspective, ESP simply has no reason to 'already exist'.

Things we don't simply don't become species-wide phenomena. We have a pancreas because we used to use it, so if we had ESP then there'd be an entire history of human civilization that it should be recorded in, but it's not, it's really not. (i'm not talking about witches and warlocks, I mean, there'd be schools for developing your Mental powers in Ancient Greece and **** if this existed, but there arn't!)

Now, the whole X-Men idea circumvents this by saying that it's new. It just popped up. In which case, the people who first get it are using it, so it would undoubtedly become a species-wide phenomena.

 

[setAI]

BUMP-

I am bumping this because there has been an epidemic of anti-psi rhetoric by the PF admin lately- they are blatantly ignoring peer reviewed research that unambiguously demonstrates psi phenomena and bullying those of us who hold them accountable to their own rules- they deleted my recent replies wrt the knee-jerk 'extraordinary claims' rhetoric and references to Dean Radin's published work-

the only reason I am pushing this is because I find it offensive that a forum that claims to promote mainstream peer reviewed science is so anti-science on the subject of psi-

no one can ever claim I am a crackpot- I agree with and support mainstream science and the peer review process- as anyone can check- professionally I work for the largest scientific research organization on earth: The University of California- I work as a budget administrator for all of our research efforts and deal with billions in funding every year- so I am not some overzealous blogger with a chip on my shoulder-

I am sure this will be cut now too- and they will probably ban me after several years as a member- but it is more important for people who come here to at least have a CHANCE of reading about what is actually going on than worry about my rather unimportant desire to continue to be a member at PF-

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps you could post some published papers. I know of no such papers. The only thing that I 've seen are extremely weak indictors of phenomena and only when viewed through the lens of meta-analysis. I have never seen direct evidence in a scientific paper that has been published in a respectable journal.

 

[ZapperZ]

I can, however, claim the other way, that people who are pushing for the validity of this are the ones who are ignoring scientific evidence to the contrary. Why? I had already posted this references to what I believe to be THE most comprehensive study to-date on this so-called phenomenon, by the National Academy of Sciences. I posted the reference and an excerpt of the conclusion in this post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1444547&postcount=45

Yet, this study continues to be ignored.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Zapper, to be fair, that only seems to test for remote viewing which is a specific technique - it is claimed that anyone can do it with training. And then they dismiss results from what they say was a credible study [the only one that wasn't flawed!]. Also, I guess this is not available online?

 

[ZapperZ]

It's the same type of "phenomena" that Radin and SetAI are pushing for rabidly, and they both seem to claim that these things are credible. How can anyone fool themselves into saying that when the most respected and comprehensive study ever conducted so far on this thing gives a conclusion like that?

And "one" possible valid evidence out of hundreds (or even thousands) doesn't say much, and it certainly doesn't point to it being accepted, mainstream, or even credible. If this were high energy physics, it is not even a 1-sigma event.

Zz.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I saw Michael Shermer do a RM test on a so called expert. Shermer had a photo of a galaxy hidden in a folder and challenged the viewer to draw it. Of course the viewer had not seen the photo.

He ended up drawing spirals that he described as whirlpools as representations of what he claimed to see. I thought it was either a direct hit or damned close! Shermer completely dismissed it, which I took to be highly biased. IMO this shows that people like Shermer are never interested in possible results. I've seen Randi do the same thing when he tested so called psychics. I agreed that most people seemed like cranks, but he brushed right over anything that seemed like a hit. And these are the people who effectively represent science in the public mind.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's the same type of "phenomena" that Radin and SetAI are pushing for rabidly, and they both seem to claim that these things are credible. How can anyone fool themselves into saying that when the most respected and comprehensive study ever conducted so far on this thing gives a conclusion like that?

It is talking about one technique, not all so called psi phenomenon. This is like saying that since cold fusion doesn't work, all of nuclear physics is flawed. And no matter the signficance, it is evidence. It seems that by your contribution here we must allow this conclusion wrt remote viewing.

Also, we don't know how many tests didn't pass muster and how many were examined. Nor do we know how many may have produce results if done properly. There is not nearly enough information posted to allow any conclusions about the signficance of this study.

 

[ZapperZ]

It is talking about one technique, not all so called psi phenomenon. This is like saying that since cold fusion doesn't work, all of nuclear physics is flawed. And no matter the signficance, it is evidence. It seems that by your contribution here we must allow this conclusion wrt remote viewing.

Also, we don't know how many tests didn't pass muster, and how many were examined. There is not nearly enough information posted to allow any conclusions about the signficance of this study.

No, the study covers remote sensing, ESP, psychokinesis, etc. So I'm not sure what single "technique" that you are referring to.

It's too bad it isn't available online. I'm guessing it is available as a hard copy at libraries. But it is there, and unless someone can come up with a more comprehensive review, this is the only one that I know of. I don't ever remember any NAS studies that does not cover something very thoroughly, so you can bet that almost everything on this phenomenon that was published at that time would have been fair game.

Zz.