You know few sites claim that proof beyond any shadow of doubt exist with respect to the paranormal but in relation to what is attached my impression is that they make clear that to them this is not a game.


I would ask that skeptics be real clear because to be honest I am prepared to estabish they are wrong and this article is right....



http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/tucson.html

Any thoughts?

Yes, the evidence is available to anyone that takes an honest look. The pathological skeptics will just need to find one other person that says "questions have been raised about the procedures" and that will allow them to hold on to their belief systems.

Most people have already accepted that psychic phenomena is a reality. These pathological skeptics are just a very vocal minority.

The study focuses on telepathy and utilises the established method of the cards with the 4 symbols. Although it claims that there is a statistical indication about "psi", here are some points I disagree.

1) The study indicates the results in terms of statistical significance. I quote directly from another site in regards to what that actually entails.

"It is easy to read far too much into the word significant because the statistical use of the word has a meaning entirely distinct from its usual meaning. Just because a difference is statistically significant does not mean that it is biologically or clinically important or interesting. Moreover, a result that is not statistically significant (in the first experiment) may turn out to be very important."

The rest of the article is there for you to read on this link.

http://www.graphpad.com/articles/interpret...es/stat_sig.htm

There is also another one that deals with the subject on a more simple basis via an example here:

http://www.surveysystem.com/signif.htm

I find it suspect that the research you link to has no mention of any P or a values mentioned (as it would be expected from a proper scientific article). But even if you are to accept their findings I still have a problem which brings me to the my next point.

2) This a direct abstract from your link:



The success rate of 27% and that is from the most "gifted" amongst them. Anyone else thinks that the rest 73% is actually more significant than the 27%??? The are right only in 1 out of 4 roughly. That is HARDLY evidence. In my book it signifies that probably these people have developed a system to predict the cards in a more successful fashion. Not that they are psychic. Its like poker. I am sorry to hear that an entire goverment bought into this if in fact they have.

3)The article concludes that the findings are HIGHLY SPECULATIVE. So this pretty much confirms what I have pointed out to you thus far and more. Again what you consider evidence, I see as a poor effort to prove a phenomenon (that apparently does not conform to science) with useless statistics that still show that nothing is set in stone.

Nice try

^


I very much doubt that. Even the believers are having trouble with this "honest look" when it comes to proving why they feel this belief is a FACT of existence. That's because the data simply isn't there.


No skeptic needs another. Every question is raised individually and others may agree. The same applies with believers.


Maybe "many", but not "most". Skeptics are far from being a minority.

I disagree with this opinion.

Yes, I partially agree with this. I am a skeptic too. Even us skeptics should be able to accept the facts.

When I said "Most people have already accepted that psychic phenomena is a reality" I was including skeptics in that group.

The minority is the Pathological Skeptics that automatically refuse all evidence.

And the facts being...?? Nothing is fact until proven true. If these "facts" you speak of are nothing more than the statistical data, then those "facts" aren't facts, but merely speculative evidence. Unless I am mistaken... So which is it?

Mindfreak, your definition of Facts would prevent you from accepting anything as true unless you have first hand experience. Until that happens evidence is all you will get.

You are mistaken. You read it to say what you need it to say, not what it says.

The SPECULATION is in reference to the mechinisms that could explain how it's possible, not the fact that it is possible. This is where most people are spending their enegy. It's no longer a question of IF, the question is HOW.

The number of people still holding on to beliefs that psi is not real is shrinking. It looks like there will always be some though.

Ok then... What was it that persuaded you to accept these "facts"?

BTW, my definintion of 'fact':

Something objectively verifiable.
Something with a demonstrable existance.
A proven statement.

^ If you think of a fact as anything other than those (or close to those), then I'm afraid it would be your definition that is flawed.

You're almost right, I most likely won't accept anything as fact unless I have witnessed it first-hand, or understand it is common knowledge that everyone has come to terms believing. I rarely let faith make my beliefs manifest. I consider this a very effective way of reasoning.
I always give the people I disagree with a chance to make me believe otherwise, but the fact remains, as far as mainstream science, none of this is proven. I will not go so far as to say that it hasn't been proven at all, because I, personally, can't say that. I always keep in mind that things can be true, but only when they have a good amount of evidence to back it up do I start to take it seriously. I haven't personally seen any of this evidence so, using my reasoning I am inclined to think that psychic abilities have a slim chance of existing. I am very open minded, and would gladly except any contradictory evidence, but at this point in time, that's where I stand.

The trouble with "evidence" is that it is subjective.
In a court of law a civil case is different than a capital case.
In the first example there is only the need to show a "proponderance" of evidence that the act occurred.
In the latter, the crown must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt".
The trouble with skeptical thinking is that they demand "beyond a reasonable doubt"
That is impossible in current human consciousnesses development.
There is a vast amount that could lead to a preponderance of evidence, and science is coming up with more and more all the time.
The goal of human kind was not in the status quo, of human consciousness, but to think the unthinkable, do the undooable, reach for the stars, believe in the human spirit to understand, and evolve.
IMO skeptical thinking is negative thinking.
Thank God that we didn't listen to the boo birds a hundred years ago that kept telling us the earth was flat, or that the sun rotated around the earth, or that a mission to the moon was an impossibility.
It is the proponderance of evidence that drives the human spirit (thank-god)
Tally ho!
The great thing to witness is when the proponderance of evidence turns into empirical evidence.
It is only then that the skeptic then goes nana nana nana I told you so

So if I told you your mom was abducted by aliens, it would be negative thinking if you thought it was a little unlikely? It would be negative thinking, if you thought that it was a little questionable that people could talk to each other without speaking words of using body language? It is very difficult to believe everything I hear, because frankly I hear A LOT of BS. Some things I do consider possible, and others I won't consider until there is more put forth to support them. You must understand that a lot of skeptics (which by definition, I am not) aren't skeptical because they are negative, it's because they are actually more thorough in filtering out questionable claims. One can debate all day over which side of view is better. But neither side can disagree (logically) that it is utterly idiotic to believe everything you hear without any kind of verifiable information or... The 'E' word, evidence.

Evidence.

That's all good except "A proven statement". I don't care to argue through the semantic meanings of "proof". Suffice it to say that in absolute terms evidence is not proof.

I respect your thinking (except the part about common knowledge which in my experience is the source of most flawed knowledge).

This is only true after you are selective about who is considered mainstream. Too often mainstream means the people that support a certain belief.

Fair enough. To see some evidence click on the link that Triad provided. If you don't think that is evidence by itself there is no reason to seek more.

I doubt anyone would throw away a new cancer cure if it was found to only be able to cure one out of four terminally ill diagnosed patients, as worthless and insignificant.

This is what excites me about human nature.
It is precisely this type of attitude that drives humans to know more.
Without the skeptic, their would be no yang to counter the ying.
Your attitude DRIVES me. It FEEDS me. It NOURISHES my soul to know more, do more, think higher, look for that expanded vista and prove it for you!
The skeptic is just as important as the "believer" and both are opposites that create the whole.
Long live skeptics!!!!
You drive us pioneers!!!

I'm not a skeptic. Just because I don't believe certain things too easily doesn't make me a skeptic. I am a logical thinker. Nothing less. I don't know what you are trying to prove by saying "your attitude drives me" "it feeds me"... It just makes you look a little foolish, because my attitude is very little, if in any way, flawed.
Again, I am not saying that Psi doesn't exist. I am saying that I am not convinced it does. It is very frusterating trying to explain your reasoning to someone who will, regardless of what you say, turn it around, and make you out to be against them... That is not the case at all. Being a grown man, you should know that. I am asking specifically what is it that makes you so sure that it is true? I am completely sincere when I ask this. Other people just say "evidence" or "personal experience", but I am asking you, what is it exactly? Is it faith? Is it personal fact (something that you have witnessed)? Or is it just the fact that you want to believe?

SPECIFICALLY...
If you can't answer this, then you should understand why I have a hard time believing.

Which is why I don't believe in this. I just consider it very possible.

By common knowledge I mean 2+2=4... Trees' leaves change color in fall. Dogs bark... Etc. etc. Without common knowledge, we would still be like cavemen.

Mainstream just means generally excepted, more or less...

That is evidence. But purely speculative. It could be interpreted in different ways to fit each persons view. You know that, and obviously I know that.

I never said your attitude is in any way flawed , and I relish the opportunity to look foolish. because that means I am asking questions.

PSI is not my forte, NDE is, although they are both related.
I have personally had an NDE experience, as you are well aware.
What drives my pursuit of the truth (which is yours as well), is that some tell me that it was just a dream, or a hallucination, or a product of the brain, or a bad drug trip....whatever.
Some could take my experience on merit as proof of an afterlife, or alternate reality, but others look for more profound truth and proof, something concrete, something they can hold in their hand, study dissect, in effect material.
I wish I could give you the same experience I had, but I can't.
Therefore you have to take my word that their is something vast out there, something I can't even explain, yet because it is now apart of me, I endeavour to seek out explanations myself as to the root causes, triggers, and understandings of what occurred to me.
What starts the road to discovery is the experience itself.
In understanding the NDE one first looks into brain function, which leads to psychol;ogy, which leads to quantum physics which leads to zero Point Gravity, which leads to alchemy, which leads to ancient traditions, which leads to religious history and ancestral knowledge which leads bringing this knowledge together, throwing away what doesn't resonate with you, compiling what does. It is the map of future understandings and how discoveries are made and future truths are discovered.

In all honesty, the truth you seek is to fluid for you.
One truth leads to another truth and so on.
A truth is the truth only until someone comes along and updates it.
The truth you seek which will satisfy you is not yet discovered. Evidence is mounting, but still you are not convinced.
The truth(proof) of today, leads to the truth of tomorrow which will eventually lead to the truth that you seek.
Because the proof you seek is not readily available to you, you dismiss it, which is fine.
All I say is that i would rather look foolish in seeking the next truth instead of defending the flawed present one.

This is all very philosophical, but when it comes down to it...Zilch.

That was not very philisophical as is all your other posts ....zilch

My post was not meant to be philisophical?

It is just that I have noticed when 'believers' are asked for evidence by whoever, when there is nothing credile to give, everyone falls back onto long winded philosophy.

OH... NDE... That's a whole 'nother story... I do believe people who describe NDEs, some of them at least. I don't necessarily believe what they said happened actually happened, but I believe that they believe it happened... Sadly, that's the best I can do until i've been through it myself... As you now know...

What about Psi? Anybody?

Just as you have 4644 times with the same line, telling "believers" to prove it, when you yourself don't have the drive to seek out your own answers through study and investigation, and are just patiently sitting back while we do the work for you.

I don't think he lacks so much the drive as the interest. After all, he has his own priorities as to how he spends his time. If you wish to make a claim to him, why should he go out of his way to prove your claim? At most, you can request some polite attention and review for your case, but if your case isn't enough to persuade another, you really have no base to demand they do their own research. It is you trying to support the claim, not anyone else.

Statistics also says that the more times a trial is attempted, the lesser chance for error.

For all of those who think that the smart path is the pathological skeptical path my best friend is a world class programmer with a huge IQ and he believes in Psychics.

Booyah Grandma!


For some things in life there is no proof, but that doesnt mean they dont exist!

If you rely totaly upon proof(not evidence) to believe you will definatly miss out on the benifits of believing!


Evidence is everywhere! Read something Buddhist if you seek evidence!





I really enjoyed your words, thanks!

It's not whether it's a smart path or not. It's whether it's the appropriate path or not. To be skeptical at first is essential. If not, you are setting yourself up for either a letdown, or feeling like an idiot when it turns out you were wrong. People will believe what they will, I am not here to make people change their minds on what they believe in. I am here to learn, and to disect every claim made that I find interesting, and expose that claim for what it really is. Whether it be a lie, or truth.

When I ask questions to people who are supposedly "gifted", and they reply with a very vague, or ambiguous answer, I am inclined to lessen their credibility in my view. Now when someone gives me a strong, straight-forward answer, and realizes why it is I am so damn inquisitive, then I will start to believe that person a little more.
Instead of "choosing sides", answer our questions. I have no bad intentions on here. I know of a few people here who can seem very intense with their skepticism, but wouldn't it be nice to prove them wrong? If indeed you can, that is...

It gets rediculous after a while. If this stuff is in fact true, then why all the secretive replies? Why all the dodgy answers? If you are telling the truth, there is nothing to hide. I am not a naturally skeptical person, so for this side to come out in me, should say something...

I would like to know that there are psychics and Indigo children, and Star children, and telekenetics and so forth, but just because I would like to know it, doesn't mean thats the way it is. Which is why I am skeptical of certain things. I would believe in PSI, and the like, but most people won't even try to help explain why they believe in it, or anything. And the ones that do, they're not verifiable. The way I see it, if this stuff were in fact true, there would be people able to show their abilities without question. Hundreds, even thousands, maybe even millions of people. But, it doesn't look that way. It looks like an awful lot of claims with nothing solid to back them up.

IF YOU REALLY HAVE POWERS OR ANYTHING EXTRAORDINARY... PROVE IT. FOR THE SAKE OF HUMANITY...

^ cause that's what you guys want, right? To benefit humanity?

We dont provide any evidence and speak in vague metaphors because we are a secret group of nerds looking to boost our egos via telling people we have mystical powers over the internet.

Also I only believe in Telapathy and Empathy besides that I am not researched. I am skeptical too of alot of things! This I have first hand experience with so its a little hard to not believe.

See the proof is in me but you dont believe it!

Dude we have provided you with evidence so many times its countless. I keep telling you to go read books and we keep posting links!

EDIT: it was a snippy post@@

You said it, not me... Just kidding But, explain why it hasn't been proven yet...?? I can read all I want... I want to hear it from the source... That being you. And just because I don't believe in Psi doesn't mean I don't consider a possible reality. 'Believe' is a powerful word. It requires one to put all there faith into something. That doesn't happen with me, unless I can experience it, or see it for myself... Or again, if it's common, verifiable knowledge.

If you were skeptical of a lot of things then you would understand where I am coming from. That doesn't seem to be the case... Or is it? But, I understand that if it was a personal experience it would be rather hard to do anything except explain what it was. So, have at it!

Countless amount of evidence? Yeah... ok...
Where are the videos?
There are none.
Where are the pictures?
There are none.

I wouldnt believe me either if I hadnt read a ton of plus I cant not believe.

It has not been proven because we cant prove it, we can only provide evidence. I can say though if I knew you I could prove it to you! I can guess some of your thoughts and most of your emotions when were interacting. I hear everyones thoughts, just sometimes its not at the moment they are thinking them. Put it this way: everyone I know lives in my mind and they talk to me as if they were outside my mind.

I used to live in Toronto (big city) and I dont want to move back there because the psychic sh** I have to put up with is too strong and negative! Seriausly my main problem is how little I actually get to think for myself when I am surrounded by people all the time!

Man I am not a scientist and I have no other way of proof for you!

You either believe me or you dont !

I don't . Never will.

Alright then. Than you should know that it's not that I dis-believe, it's that I am not convinced, and therefor can't believe, due to the fact that I need personal verification to be swayed... That's just fine. I am not here to get proven whether or not stuff exists, I'm here to pick out the BS from the gold

Well, I don't. Nothing personal. I have explained why I don't believe. Remember, I don't dis-believe, I just am not able to believe at this point in time...

If your saying that you can read people's thoughts, I have no reason to think you are lying. But I also have no reason to believe you... Do you see what I mean?

I would hold your same point of view if in your position.

The wheels on the bus go round and round

This is where we disagree. It is not purely speculative it is statistically significant.

It's positive evidence.

but contraversial evidence...

It goes without saying that all evidence for psi is controversial due to pathological skeptics. So what you are in effect saying is that all evidence for psi can be discounted out-of-hand because there will always be some people who refuse to accept it.

Ok, but at least you know there is evidence when you're ready for it.

If someone makes a claim, and another person reading the claim really wants to know if this claim is true or not, they should research it themselves in my opinion. It also doesn't hurt to ask the person for links or references to evidence, but it's not NECESSARY.

Sometimes I make a claim and I'm too lazy to dig up my links to suppor the claim, so I'll just tell whoever to research it themself, that the evidence IS out there. If they can't find it, oh well they don't need to believe me, if they do, good for them also.

It's an entire different story though, if you're trying to convince someone, or trying to PROVE the existance of something. Then, you should do your best to support your claim.

Seems strange to request more from parapsychology than from psychology... Why is it that people seem to insist upon it being a science when even the name shows that it's on the abstract (for lack of a better word) edge of psychology. Psychology is either a "soft" science, or not a science, depending on who you're talking to and I always find it amusing when people somehow deem it appropriate to want something from parapsychology that even its legitimate bedfellow cannot conjure. If you don't want to believe parapsychology results as being important (not specifically referring to mind freak) then don't. Just don't pretend like you're being fair and balanced when you really are setting standards that are absurdly high.

On the topic of reproducibility, anyone read about the professor who allegedly produced fusion? Was in the New York Times on March 9th, that's all I know.



lol, Raven, I believe you!!! That is to say that I believe you're entirely closed minded, but nevertheless....

Maybe you owe to have another look on that article before you eat your own words. The research specifically states statistics on successful guesses of the 4 symbols.



Hardly. Otherwise this will not be talked to in the unexplained and metaphysics forum. It would have been included in your school's curriculum. Then again it doesn't look like you attend that anyway.



A cancer treatment works with variable success rates because the treatment works on an individual basis according to the physiological, genetic and circumstantial factors that influence its effectiveness.

Being unable however to guess symbols, with a sucess rate that will demand some attention, is hardly comparable to such scenario. Believers need to stop comparing bananas to electric shavers, because believe it or not...they are not the same. If you have something to say on this case (with an argument to go with it), then post. Otherwise I would refrain from making a fool of myself.



Seeing how religion screwed this world many times over...I think I will give believing a miss. Other than that, you are free to think what you like. Don't expect people to pay attention though.



Again I have to point out how important is to read a post in its entirety. I have posted a link to explain adequately to all what "statistical significance means". Perhaps now its a good time for you to put some ketchup on that monitor and stop biting...

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I realize it may be impossible for you to understand how you could be wrong but the rest of us are not having that problem.

And on the other side of the coin, it doesn't mean they do exist either.


But CONSISTENT and CREDIBLE evidence can lead to proof. Proof can then lead to belief. The problem, so far, is that there is only what you consider to be a consistent and credible amount evidence. There simply isn't enough there to tag this with proof. Not yet anyway.

The fact that you, yourself (a believer), is failing to provide proof suggests that this may not actually exist.

So far, this "evidence" is only based on statistical results. This shows nothing in a way of swerving a belief. Okay, it may work for some, but not all - myself included. It's not that I'm saying that this DOESN'T exist. All I'm saying is, there isn't enough there to make this - as MF said - common knowledge.

speculative
Dictionary
spec·u·la·tive (spĕk'yə-lə-tĭv, -lā'-) pronunciation
adj.

1. Of, characterized by, or based upon contemplative speculation. See synonyms at theoretical.
2.
1. Given to conjecture or speculation.
2. Marked by inquisitive interest: raised a speculative eyebrow.
3.
1. Engaging in, given to, or involving financial speculation: speculative brokers; speculative stocks.
2. Spent in speculation: speculative funds.
3. Involving chance; risky: speculative business enterprises.

Want mustard instead?

I was just pointing out that the "facts" he was referring to, aren't facts at all... Nothing more, nothing less.
I am being fair and balanced (whether you were specifically referring to me or not). It's not too much to ask for them to back up their claims with something concrete. If they can do what they say can, that's awesome... The more to 'em. But, unless they can show me something irrefutable, I won't believe it. It's not a matter of being a skeptic (which I'll say again, i'm not one), it's a matter of choosing to believe someone when they can't offer anything to verify their cliams. I won't do it. You may call it closed-minded (which I'm not), but I call it waiting for the appropriate conditions to be met before I can consider this stuff objective reality. Until then, all I can do is exactly what I've been doing, ask questions, ask more questions, and explain I am not a skeptic, I am a logical thinker..It pays off to be skeptical, there are a lot of false claims out there. So, in order for me to take something into careful consideration, it needs to have the "paper work" to back it up... What I have see as far as evidence, isn't enough to sway my belief.

I'm not one of them. I accept it as evidence. It's just not enough for me to say "yup, this psi stuff is real... These statistics say so..."

Of course. There is evidence. That is why I even consider this stuff a possibility. I just won't believe it, until my conditions are met.. Whether unreasonable or not, that's the way it is...

There are no scientific facts used in psychology. It is based upon case studies and statistical probability only. It deals with emotional illness as opposed to psychiatry which deals with mental (brain) illness.
Much of psychiatry is based upon scientific facts but much of it like psychology is still based upon case studies and statistics. An example would be the study of multiple personalities that is a blend of both.

lol, that's approximately what I said, and I think you summed it up better, but I would like to hear a skeptics response to this FACT. Speaking of which, a little note to mind freak: I quite enjoy your presence on the board because you are a rational person, skeptic or whatever you label yourself (I'd say you're a skeptic, but that most people on this board who claim to be are simply closed minded). I have to point out that video is likely more emotionally convincing, but generally easier to fake than stats if the stats were come to in the proper conditions. I'm not saying you've seen such stats, just seems like you're asking for emotional rather than rational validation of these things in this case.

Emotional validation??? What ?

I'm glad you enjoy my presence on here, but you got that part^ wrong... I would just like to see something convincing. I haven't seen anything of the sort, yet. Maybe one day that will change, but until then, I will not believe something based on faith, and a little evidence. I believe something when I know undisputedly, it is correct. That is not the case with this phenomena, so I just keep on keepin on...

Oh, the thing about the video... I agree it would be easy to fake... But doesn't that tell you something? If they are so easy to fake, then we should have a ton of videos, and sh**, should we not? This doesn't prove anything, but is one of the reasons I remain unconvinced about these things. I remain open minded, and consider this stuff possible, but just because it's possible doesn't mean it's true. I need to see more to believe... Simple as that.

Yeh I like your attitude Mind Freak. Personaly though I rely on my intuition more than anything. You may think thats silly but its always been 100 percent accurate in the past. Its that feeling. So basicaly if you fully believed in the power of intuition you would believe in psychics because I know your intuition is telling you to believe but you rationalize instead. Maybe try listening to you gut, have faith.

Thats what I do in situations like yours and I always turn out right!