Why is ESP lumped with less credible phenomena?

[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.