I'm curious about what people who are strictly skeptic or even undecided think about the results of modern labratory tests which have given strong evidence for the existance of
various phenomena. I'm obviously referring to tests done in labratories at Universities such as Duke (although presently mainly in the British Isles), are conducted in labratory settings, and adhere to scientific method or observation so far as I can tell. While no longer associated with Duke, the Rhine Center was founded there, and www.rhine.org has records of their various tests of the paranormal.

I don't want to hurry and put up an example experiment in which I myself can find flaws in the methodology, so I would simply like to ask: what would it take to be convinced of a given paranormal phenomenon? Would you hold the same level of standards for a theory to be proven in science or for a medicine to be deemed safe?



Well, I cited an experiment, for those of you who are interested, which doesn't seem like very many, it's on p.7 of "where's the evidence?" by Replacement100

I am not a sceptic but i am trying to prove for myself that there is something wich can not be explained by science jet.

Alot of people say they have a psychic ability to many to not be true or else the intire world would be lying.

And further more sceptics just try to find an explanation for everything exept it being psichic i don't think every thing should be psichic but Sceptics should all try to get something done for themselves if they have tried for more then lets say 3 months withouth anything happening then MAYBE they are right but they can not say it is not true it can not exist if they have not tried for them selves.

I posted a topic with paranormal research on this forum not so long ago. See how many people responded...dont bother I will tell you...just one...Chris V. You know why? I only made the thread to prove my point. None one of the so called believers are actually interested in the truth. The all go blah blah blah about it but in the end they are nothing more than bickering children that like only to daydream.

People who try so hard to be different deserve only pity for not appreciating the gift of being.

I would like to believe, and I am not a sceptic. I just want see things with my own eyes. When you here so many stories some are hard to believe, or do not present me with enough evidence, so you naturally become sceptical, human nature.

Believers can be sceptical also.

Even your post gives the description 'strong evidence' That sais to me that nothing was actually proved beyond all doubt. Do you see what I am trying to say.

Yes indeed some stories i read i think yehh right, but other things i think ,if you are a little bit openminded, yes it could be true.
so like is said many times
I am gonne try it for myself and if nothing happens i will belive less stories but still think some could be true

That magician guy has had a million dollars up for grabs for years to anyone that can prove to him paranormal activity...Nobody has claimed the million, and many have tried.

Oh for F%&K's sake people!!!

What is a Skeptic?
What does it mean to be skeptical, or a skeptic? Some people believe that skepticism is denial or rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse "skeptic" with "cynic" and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. Nothing could be further from the truth. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of science to any and all ideas-no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claimant might be right. When we say we are "skeptical" we mean that we must see evidence before we believe. Skeptics are from Missouri-the "show me" state.

Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece when Socrates observed: "All I know is that I know nothing." But this position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you are skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying sub-atomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which gathers data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena, and where a claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to change, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

The key to science and skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the scientific method to help navigate through the treacherous straights between pure Socratic "know nothing" skepticism, and unmitigated "anything goes" credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic Rene Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum-I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, causal-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think. To paraphrase Descartes: Sum Ergo Cogito-I Am Therefore I Think.
Michael Shermer

source - http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1010

Now to the question. Is wanting to have proof of these ridiculous claims really that bad, huh??

I am skeptical of the existence of metaphysics, I would gladly look at any scientific evidence.

What in this world has been proved beyond all doubt? Newtonian physics? Quantum physics? We're years from even getting "strong evidence" for String theory etc because our technology or facilities aren't advanced enough. Most of what we assume to be "proved beyond all doubt" is really just the only hypothesis CONSIDERED that fits all the data at hand. Anyways, I'm genuinely curious as to what we would all consider to be "proven beyond a doubt"

I think what you're asking for, however, is the recording of manipulation of some type of substance or energy that is measurable. To my knowledge "dark matter" has only been noticed in space because of it's byproducts, things that cannot (easily) be explained away by another hypothesis. I'm guessing that untill we can prove string theory real (and only if it, or something like it turns out to be real) and likely even well after that, we will not be able to test for such an energy directly. There are surely other ways to find a smoking gun (if there is one), but I don't know exactly how much smoke you require, so I say "strong evidence" not the extremely rare, if existant, "proven beyond all doubt"



I'm sure that you're right with a number of the believers who post here. Out of curiosity, did you start the topic or was it listed under something that wasn't directly related? When you say that they're not interested in the "truth", and nearly acting in hubris by implying that you certainly are, what truth are you referring to? The true reason for their husband cheating on them, the reason why they got fired from a job....no, obviously you're not talking about those.

The truth you seem to be (forgive me if I'm off target) looking for is "proof" of the existance of various paranormal phenomena. You want methodology and statistics that have worked in biology (I assume), and various other controls that take out any variables. This is commendable but somewhat limited. The progress in such a field is limited by claims against the legitimacy of paranormal as an academic subject, leading to less funding than it might otherwise recieve, although I'm sure that by this point there's millions flowing into it. The other limiting factor is accuracy of description. Not only is a phenomena sought after, but the exact mechanics are exaustively searched for. All this means that the grand claims of psychic healing being a possibility and ESP might actually exist!!! These, believe it or not, are not likely to make the average believer here blink.

The value of parapsychology to the believer is in it's ability to discern certain peculiarities and nuances that the practitioner of a given technique may not know. A good example of this is that in the tests conducted in "Mind Over Matter", the results were better based on when they took place, measured in sidereal, not regular time. This could clue in someone trying to contact their "spirit guide" that they ought to do it around a certain time. This is the nature of what they can get out of parapsychology, and the rest is just confirming what they've already known and probably don't think is worth commenting on anymore as it's so obvious. While the parapsychologists figure out grammar and spelling details, at least some believers are perfecting their script.



script 1.b. A style of writing with cursive characters.

First a question to Mr Ed, are you skeptical or cynical? This is a major problem on these boards. I try to be skeptical fairly ofen, which has meant that before this year I wouldn't bother posting on these boards, especially not on the believers side. But my level of skepticism has led me to the conclusion that the theories that best fit all the information and data that I've seen reported (in reliable, "skeptically tested" ways) are actually put forward but the believers. Then there are the fanatics...they can be off their rocker...

In the person you quote, ESP is listed as having being "not valid". Amusingly, directly after that is the mention of black holes as being on the "inconclusive" list. Remember those two as a pair ten years from now, and you'll have learned much. In the meantime, do you agree with him and disagree with LABRATORY EXPERIMENTS which have quite often given positive results? I do not know good links to where to find the results for ESP experiments other than www.rhine.org but please think for yourself and look at the data. If you still don't believe in it I want to understand why not. My post in the first place probably should've been called "skeptics or cynics", as I wanted to know if parapsychology experiments were simply not acknowledged by the cynics who lurk here, or if the skeptics had a direct and logical response to why the results only seemed positive. Let me know when you've figured it all out

I feel most skeptics do perform experiments to prove or disprove a theory. Most to the parnormal is based of theories, ideal, and beliefs. I myself try to varify what I am experiencing and feel that it gives me a healthy outlook on myself.

My topic was marked ESP research and I invited everyone who had articles of paranormal research to post it as a library for later discussion.

As far as the truth goes, I am interested in understanding paranormal phenomena in terms of what we already understand of the world (physics, biology etc.). Maybe our current knowledge is not enough and maybe academia has a way of retarding new concepts, however that is preferable to just assuming things that have no substance. ESP research never really lacked funding despite of the fact that its not "generally" acceptable as a proven science. The many projects over the years indicate an interest to actually make it into a proper field of investigation by pairing it with existing fields of research like biochemistry and quantum physics. Kids claiming they can make psi balls and able to start fires, countless so called psychics and noumerous charlatans, are the true blow to paranormal investigation. With so many false claims going around it is no surprise that everyone is apprehensive about the subject. Unfortunately many people in this forum seem unable to grasp that concept. I wont argue there are incidents that defy explanation at this point in time, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one. Even paranormal occurances move within the realm of natural laws.

In everyday life many things, images can be projected from one side of the world to the other, machines can fly in the sky, crops genetically modified, just this week a human face transplant has been carried out.

okay, so we are not talking about metaphysics here, but 1,000 yrs ago, these things would have been just as hard to understand then, than metaphysics is today.

It is just that we all know this now, and we all expect answers immediately. Our world has grown technically, intellectually and scientifically so quickly in recent years, that we know that the answer to many questions are just around the corner. How many years = a corner, who knows?

ONly time will tell technicaly time travel and space travel at the speed of light can be just a matter of jears maybe tomorrow the make the discovory on how to do it we will just have to wait

so psichic abilities / metaphisics might also be discoverd today tomorow next year and maybe never
only time wil tell

I'm skeptical about things that I haven't experienced, or seen yet. I'm what you might call a "skeptical believer". That's not to say that I don't acknowledge the fact that there is a possibility for it to be true, I just don't "believe" it until there is a reasonable amount of evidence to sway me. Now the way I see it, there aren't just one kind of skeptic, there are many. Some skeptics try to disprove a theory they don't believe in, by finding websites, and stuff that agree with them. But when someone gives them a website that says the contrary, they say that the person is a "crackpot" (that's the term I hear a lot). That may be the case, for some cases. Other skeptics will try to attack the claim-maker's credibility, which is an effective way to convince others, but kind of ignorant (the past is the past, maybe they're telling the truth now... maybe ). I'd say the kind of skeptic with the best possibility of progression, is the kind that keeps an open mind to new explanations, and possibilities, but don't let their imaginations run away with their reasoning.







Mind Freak has spoken!

I think you have a very good point Mind freak and you are not the only sceptical beliver i am one 2

i want to experiance things to and if i feel something or "see" something i will post it and see what sceptiacal people say. but only the ones open to the idea there could be something couse they have most of the time the best resources and can becouse of knowing of both sides explain allot.

so far no psi ball created

will keep trying

Woooo! Go Blackice!
----

Skeptics vs. Parapsychology?

Will this one 'Parapsychology' try to rebut our points, or will he hide in a cloud of 'unbelievability', and let us carry out a one sided argument?

I will prove you wrong

might take me a few years but i will

Well, I was talking about the skeptics on this websites response to the field of parapsychology, and cynics would've been the better term as I was talking about the most closed minded of you, that probably being Mr Ed. Oddly enough, I do not happen to be the field of parapsychology, though I'm honored and baffled that you would think so.

I wanted to also hear, on the productive end, the response of legitimate skeptics on the findings of parapsychology. I haven't really seen any answer so I'll assume you don't have one but instead ignore the tests etc. If I actually HAVEN"T given you a link to or a post title where there's a recorded experiment as well as a link to www.rhine.org, let me know. I haven't researched that many parapsychology organizations on the internet as their goals of proving the paranormal often lead to mundane results to the mind of those who already believe in the paranormal.

Mr Ed, closed minded?

We're closed minded to kinetic ability,
You're closed minded to logical thinking.

What's your point?

If wanting evidence is close minded that I rather be sceptic than a raving idiot.

Well, this thread's quickly deteriorating, but I would like to re-iterate the initial intent: what is the response of the die-hard skeptics to the well thought out research in the field of parapsychology? Some of it followed poor methodology etc and can be thrown out, but some doesn't have that as an easy explanaition. Bio-Mages post likely has the most links to sights on the topic.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...=parapsychology

I was actually trying to get some of the logical counter-arguements to the data which strongly suggests or proves, depending on your standards, the existance of paranormal phenomena. At the moment there have been approximately zero responses to this. There have been some bad and some good responses to the general position of a given skeptic is a skeptic, but no responses detailing the flaws with parapsychology and it's data.

There has been no data that has been able to withstand scientific study that proves paranormal ability.

I feel like that's the most on topic post in this thread...thanks. I wish there was more detail, but if what you say is true, I understand why you wouldn't feel compelled to list every failed experiment.

I'm sceptical when not presented with evidence. When I am presented with it, I examine, and draw the logical conclusions.

I am only cynical when dealing with those whom put forth these claims, yet, when asked for simply evidence supporting them, they call you sown to the dirt saying "stupid scetics, don't believe anything".

I think that blind believers with a lack of evidence are more dangerous then sceptics who request such evidence.

Could you clarify that for me. Are you saying that any scientific data that is supportive of the paranormal has been found to be falsifiable.




Again to clarify, are you seeking good suggestive evidence of the paranormal or will only proof do. I say that not to attack you but to point out the difference between a skeptic and a cynic. Good evidence will make the true skeptic at least entertain the possibility of psi, if not accept it but the cynic demands evidence then when he's given it demands proof before he'll jettison his own dogmatism, even if he's given irrevocable proof he merely moves the goal posts and says it's the wrong kind of proof. What a cynic/debunker will never do is accept the possibilty of the existance of something outside his own world veiw.

thats a good explaination spectral i think you are absolutely right i am a half sceptic i am trying to learn psychic but still i want proof of people i don't belie every thing a person says

One of the reasons why you might get that reaction is because people will often ask for advise on how to further a given matter and then will be berated for it never existing. Threads that start out asking for help with an issue quickly turn into "prove it", and with or without a please, the person posting was not originally trying to convert the non-believer, but simply to try and gain insight on a skill which they believe to exist.

yes you might be right for those persons it can be quet anoying becouse they don't want that they want answhers. wel to those people: go to psychic abilities forum there sceptics may not flame

I have made the offer before, and it still stands: I am perfectly willing to help anyone design a valid experiment to test any sort of ability they wish to, all in keeping with the principles of scientific methodology.

Dont take this personally aquatus but none of us here have (or can validate) the credentials to design anything towards that end. I always insist people try to locate a university or other establishment that deals with fields of research that may help them establish their case. In my opinion it would take several experts on a number of fields to formualte an experiment that considers most if not all the variables.

If people just want the steps of basic scientific principles I am sure they can read a textbook instead...

If people read the textbooks, most of the ideas presented here wouldn't be presented in the first place.

I make no claims to academic greatness or scientific omniescence. My credibility and validity can be judged by my past posts and reputation in this forum, and if you decide that I do not merit credibility, then that is your choice to make.

The simple fact of the matter is that very few people here are interested in delving into the field of academic research and the life-long commitment that it would involve. They have questions concerning phenomena they believe to be valid and would like some form of testing to validate it. They are not looking for a laboratory or to write a thesis for Nature magazine. I am offering people guidance for effective and valid experiments that would assuage their curiousity and perhaps even ignite an interest in science that might lead them to the universities in their turn.

In the meantime, however, I offer the simple experiments they can perform in their own homes that will begin their rudimentory introduction to the scientific process. There is absolutely no reason why simple experiments needs to be kept as a mystery.

I agree fully with your advise, although I'm guessing that a number of peoople wouldn't go through those steps (going to university or reading book+thinking through an experiment). So while I agree that aquatus' plan isn't nearly ideal, maybe it'll at least get some of the people posting closer to understanding their skills, or realizing they don't have them. I suppose it wouldn't likely enhance their credibility on these boards, but that'd be asking for a lot anyways....

Aquatus vs. Bio-Mage....

*runs*

Scary!

Yup!

Not at all replacement. As you saw it was just a difference of approaches but I have to agree with aquatus on this one. Not a lot of people are interested to do this in way they scrutinise themselves, if nothing else for their personal benefit.

The Amazing Randi? He's a fraud! If he were legitimate, he would give that money to a third party, a group with scientific training, with proof of their open-ness to ideas not in the textbook. I don't believe he has a million dollars.

~~~Cebrakon

Oh phew, I started trying to produce offspring in case I didn't survive

Just prove something to him, he'll find a million dollars

There are 6 billion of us on this planet....have mercy...

I'd like to be in heaven watching little retarded versions of me running around though.

Heaven as in paradise or your mothership???

Paradise in my mothership?

You don't have to. Just as is said on the website, the money is being held by a third party and verification of its existance can be gotten by contacting them directly for a financial report. Randi, incidentally, is not one of the judges. The judges consist of an independent panel of scientists and magicians, all of whom are on record and can be checked out at your leisure for credibility.

In short, everything that you have accused him of is wrong. Either you did not bother to read the challege, in which all of this is clearly explained, or you did, but chose to say the exact opposite.

Which is it? Ignorance or deception?