Existence of PSI a scientific fact

[ImOne]

PSI has been confirmed. The question of whether it's real or not has been answered long ago. ESP exists, precognition, telepathy, and PK exist. The real questions are to what extent these abilities manifest in a particular person or group and what is the mechanism by which it functions.

Repeatedly denying it's existence won't change the facts.

It is appreciated that some of the more vocal criticisms about psi are personal opinions and everyone is welcome to express their opinions.

However, belligerent criticisms occasionally asserted by some skeptics are put forth from such strongly held, prejudicial positions that it is clear the criticisms are being offered not as opinion, but as fact of the matter, as though the opinion is proof of the impossibility of psi.

The only opinion that can be backed up by controlled studies is the opinion that psi is real.

Most of the topics in this forum are either presented as a personal experience, or are inviting others to share particulars about experiences they may have had. In these type of topics there is no value added by posting "There is no such thing" or "That is impossible". The topic starter knows that some people have that opinion. It isn't necessary to register your opinion in each topic.

[blieve]

PSI has been confirmed. The question of whether it's real or not has been answered long ago. ESP exists, precognition, telepathy, and PK exist. The real questions are to what extent these abilities manifest in a particular person or group and what is the mechanism by which it functions.

Repeatedl...

psi has not been confirmed. neither has esp, precognition, ect. People have claimed to have it but it has not been confirmed. I believe in some of that stuff.

[Reader519]

Well would you be so kind as to provide some sort of documentation? It's not that I don't trust every word that you type, but I have no reason to trust you and every reason not to.

[Wayfaerer]

If it had been confirmed there wouldn't still be a debate.

You'd be hard pressed to find a self-respecting scientist/physicist/what-have-you today who would publically support those claims.

"Repeatedly denying it's existence won't change the facts."

Repeatedly accepting it's existence won't make it so, either.

[ImOne]

Well would you be so kind as to provide some sort of documentation? It's not that I don't trust every word that you type, but I have no reason to trust you and every reason not to.

Documentation has been provided many times on this forum. Real studies, by real scientists, with real results.

It seems very easy for people to simply discount out of hand anything that doesn't fit in with their beliefs.

Here is an interesting site. Have a look.

[Tiggs]

The only opinion that can be backed up by controlled studies is the opinion that psi is real.

Any peer reviewed controlled study in particular you'd like to put forward as definitive proof?

[aquatus1]

I think the very essential problem being displayed here is a misunderstanding concerning the process of repeatability.

Repeatability, in regards to proving the validity of a theory, is one of the basics of scientific methodology. Any theory that would be considered credible must have a manner in which it can be reliable repeated by any independant third-party and the results must repeatedly result within the parameters of the claim. Without this, one cannot really claim to have a theory, as one cannot really claim to have an answer to a given phenomena.

But repeatability with results only matter in context of theories. When we are talking about the actual phenomena that theories explain, it is an entirely different matter. Now, it is no longer a matter of statistical acceptance. It is no longer an issue of saying that "This phenomena existed more times than not." Phenomena that seeks to be explained by scientific theories must be shown to exist without question. Not as a statistically possible event. Not as maybe some people have it and some people don't. It MUST be shown to be in continous existance at any time during a given set of circumstance.

This is a bit difficult to understand, so let me give a few examples. Gravity is a phenomena which is in undeniable existance. Anytime time you have objects of mass, there is an undeniable attraction between them. This is not a theory, this is not an experiment; this is merely the simple state of existance of the phenomena that we refer to as gravity. No matter where you go or what you do, as long as there are two objects of mass, there will be an attraction between them. That is repeatability for the existance of a phenomena.

Now, repeatability for a theory would be the experiments that one does to test the rate of fall on Earth (32 ft/s/s). Yes, this rate of descent is a theory (one that has yet to be invalidated), and it can be repeated by pretty much anyone with results that fall into a statistically acceptable range. The theory of gravity must be repeatable within statistically accepted bounds to be valid, but the actual phenomena of gravity must be repeatable without the slightest doubt. If one gets an answer other than 32 ft/s/s for the rate of fall on Earth, it might mean that the theory is oncorrect and needs to be revised; if one gets an effect other than attraction between two objects of mass, it would mean that the phenomena of gravity would not exist.

We see on these threads people repeatedly posting links to studies that allegedly "prove" the existence of psychic powers, some somewhat credible, others downright laughable, but the posting of these studies miss the point entirely, or rather, they attempt to bypass that essential first step: proving the phenomena exists. The existance of the phenomena itself is not up to statistical debate. Gravity, Evolution, chemical reactions, all of these phenomean are, without the slightest doubt, existing phenomena that are seen to occur regularly and, given the specific situations of each, repeatedly. The theories that explain these phenomena are the stuff of studies and statistics, and they may be correct or not, but they do not effect the actual existance of the original phenomena itself.

Until the phenomena of psychic powers (not explanations for it) can be shown to exist repeatedly under a set of given conditions, it cannot be considered a scientific fact.

[ImOne]

It's no different than the fact that aspirin prevents some heart attacks. It's a fact, and has been proven statistically.

[Frosty]

Real studies, by real scientists, with real results.

Sounds like an advertisement for penis enhancement pills: "It really works"

And what journal were these real results, from real studies by real scientist published? In fact, to be more precise, what are real studies, real scientist and real results? I am afraid they all sound like jibberish.

[aquatus1]

It's no different than the fact that aspirin prevents some heart attacks. It's a fact, and has been proven statistically.

Not quite what I am saying. It's a statistic probability. Facts don't use words like "some". Anytime you see that, you are seeing a conclusion, and conclusions (in the realm of science) are based on statistics. What I am trying to emphasize is that there is a difference between the factual existance of a phenomena and the theories that help distinguish it. Theories are statistically based. The existance of the pheomena itself is beyond question. You can find people to argue that aspirin has no effect on heart attacks (regardless of whether they are correct or incorrect), but finding people who can credibly claim that heart attacks do not exist is going to be next to impossible.

[ImOne]

If I'm understanding your position correctly you agree that anomalous effects have been statistically demonstrated. Further, that because we can't trace the cause and effect of these anomalies it is not appropriate to attribute them to PSI.

The difficulty in that regard is that the catalyst is non-physical. We may never have the tools to examine the nuts and bolts of this non-physical phenomena.

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

If I'm understanding your position correctly you agree that anomalous effects have been statistically demonstrated. Further, that because we can't trace the cause and effect of these anomalies it is not appropriate to attribute them to PSI.

The difficulty in that regard is that the catalyst is non-physical. We may never have the tools to examine the nuts and bolts of this non-physical phenomena.

Anomalous effects. Great. I want to see someone use their mind with a pronounced effect. Example: actually move something, with their mind, accurately predict the future, heal a open wound. I want see these things done consistently. Random number generators.

Big deal. If that is the best there is then everyone should give up.

[ImOne]

Anomalous effects. Great. I want to see someone use their mind with a pronounced effect. Example: actually move something, with their mind, accurately predict the future, heal a open wound. I want see these things done consistently. Random number generators.

Big deal. If that is the best there is then everyone should give up.

That's a very short sighted attitude. What you want to see is a personal issue and is not germane to this discussion.

That these phenomena do occur points to a part of reality that has been largely overlooked by science. We can only guess at what miraculous discoveries are waiting if this area of research can overcome the long standing taboos and thereby attract qualified personnel and reasonable funding.

[Avius]

Orgone Radionics went down the path of using technology to manipulate this energy of life, Where there is life there is orgone energy this they have proved. There is enough sh** on google so im not going to provide a link to anything, although they call it orgone energy it is essentially Psi but really just plain energy.

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

That's a very short sighted attitude. What you want to see is a personal issue and is not germane to this discussion.

That these phenomena do occur points to a part of reality that has been largely overlooked by science. We can only guess at what miraculous discoveries are waiting if this area of research can overcome the long standing taboos and thereby attract qualified personnel and reasonable funding.

The government wastes enough money. To waste it on something like this would be a crime. Its just wishful thinking on your part.

[Avius]

they allready waste money on it, radioncs orgone energy.

[kariudo115]

the problem is that these things are not repeatable--there is no formula for creating psionic effects, you cant add a teaspoon of baking powder to sulfiric acid to get psionic effects, which means that not everybody can repeat it--so it is still debatable, there is no undeniable existance if psi or magick-it is all arguable statistics

[ImOne]

... it is all arguable statistics.

Anything is arguable. When it's billions to one the argument is ridiculous.

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

the problem is that these things are not repeatable--there is no formula for creating psionic effects, you cant add a teaspoon of baking powder to sulfiric acid to get psionic effects, which means that not everybody can repeat it--so it is still debatable, there is no undeniable existance if psi or magick-it is all arguable statistics

Good point.

[aquatus1]

If I'm understanding your position correctly you agree that anomalous effects have been statistically demonstrated. Further, that because we can't trace the cause and effect of these anomalies it is not appropriate to attribute them to PSI.

...Sort of...

What you are referring to "anomalous effects", I call statistical occurrance. Because their existance is only do to the magic of numbers, it can be argued that the phenomena either exists or does not exist. The existance of the phenomena, however, should be beyond question. No one denies that lightning occurs. No one denies that earthquakes occur. The only arguments are about the mechanics involved. The actual existance of the phenomena isn't a matter of statistics. In order to create a chemical reaction, one can mix a base with an acid. The phenomena of the chemical reaction is beyond question. It can be repeated by as many people as it takes. It isn't about trying to explain it, or even necessarily about finding the cause and effect of the phenomena (that comes after we have a clearly existing phenomena) but of showing beyond any possible doubt, that the phenomena can occured reliably on a repeatable basis (not statistically probable, but definitely predictable). One must be able to say "When one does X, this phenomena occurs.". Only after one has that repeatability of existance, can one begin to attempt to explain it.

The difficulty in that regard is that the catalyst is non-physical. We may never have the tools to examine the nuts and bolts of this non-physical phenomena.

I don't recommend this line of thought. It is entirely too limiting. Humans have confronted the supernatural on a regular basis, be the catalyst physical or non-physical, and have generally been able to at the very least verify that a given phenomena exists. To say that we may never be able to learn of the phenomena is to not give humans anywhere near the amount of credit deserved for our ingenuity.

[Tiggs]

Anything is arguable. When it's billions to one the argument is ridiculous.

Again. Please post a link to any experiment backing your claim (or at least enough information so that a reasonable person could find it in Google).

[kariudo115]

lol, obviously you havent looked, because he has posted numerous studies that you people have overlooked and cast aside

[Raptor]

lol, obviously you havent looked, because he has posted numerous studies that you people have overlooked and cast aside

I've just looked, and I can only see one link, and it does not contain any studies. Are you speaking about in different threads or have I over looked something?

[Bella-Angelique]

Not everything can be proven in a test tube or a controlled setting.

CONTINENTAL DRIFT

The idea that continents can drift about is called, not surprisingly, CONTINENTAL DRIFT.

When Wegener first put forward the idea in 1912 people thought he was nuts. His big problem was that he knew the continents had drifted but he couldn't explain how they drifted. The old (AND VERY WRONG!!) theory before this time was the "Contraction theory" which suggested that the planet was once a molten ball and in the process of cooling the surface cracked and folded up on itself. The big problem with this idea was that all mountain ranges should be approximately the same age, and this was known not to be true. Wegener's explanation was that as the continents moved, the leading edge of the continent would encounter resistance and thus compress and fold upwards forming mountains near the leading edges of the drifting continents. Wegener also suggested that India drifted northward into the Asia forming the Himalayas and of course Mount Everest.

source

Despite all of the massive amount of evidence that tectonic plate movement was "real", it was not until the 1960s that the majority of the scientific community accepted it as "real".

[aquatus1]

Not everything can be proven in a test tube or a controlled setting.

CONTINENTAL DRIFT

Again, it is the difference between the actual phenomena and the theory that explains it. No one denies that the phenomena of land movement occurs. The only arguments are about the statistical probabilities of the explanations offered.

The actual phenomena exists without question.