Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
stevemagegod

James Randi $1,000,000 Foundation Prize

74 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

JesseCuster

“The recent focus on meta-analysis in parapsychology has revealed that there are small but consistently nonzero effects across studies, experimenters and laboratories . . . It may be that the nonzero effects observed in the meta-analyses can be explained by something other than ESP . . . Nonetheless, there is an anomaly that needs an explanation.”

Dr. Jessica Utts - Statistician

Source: http://carlossalvara...ogical-studies/

I've never been impressed with this line of argument. I acknowledge I'm not a statistician and thus don't claim to understand more than the statistician quoted above, but it doesn't bode well for the field of parapsychology that in order to reveal that there is something to it, people need to resort to meta-analysis of various studies in order to show a "small but consistent nonzero effect".

Is that the best that can be said for ESP? That it is a "small nonzero effect"? Colour me unimpressed.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1

I will disagree, I think that new developpements in mathematics and statistic can be very helpful in various field of researches and can potentially bring them to new levels. I do not claim to have a good understanding of it, far from it actually. That's why I refer to experts of these topics. Physics come to mind as well, in which non-observable phenomenon (as yet) are heavily based on mathematics and statistic (quantum physics, string theory for exemple)

For more in the role of meta-analysis in parapsychology: http://jeksite.org/psi/jp13a.pdf

Yet, we do not know, if parapsychology, as a science is in it's infancy or not. Experiments are carried according to our current technology and understanting. Many parapsychologists feels that a range of paranormal phenomenon may have a strong connection with quantum physics. (http://philpapers.or...ive/CLAANQ.pdf and http://www.boundaryi...ary_6-22-11.txt

At any rate, if these small but consistent non-zero effect are one day to be proved as genuine extrasensory perception, it would mean a lot. It's a confirmation that certain paranormal phenomenon have been scientifically demonstrated, consistently and coherently by experiements and analysis.

Edited by sam_comm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

And yet extraordinary depends enterily on what you consider to be as such. If one does not know that it can snow in winter, doubtless it would be extraordinary for him to see a snowfall at that time of the year. That is the problem with the Carl Sagan quote: extraordinary depends on one's perception and there is no universal criteria for it.

Good Grief. You don't spot the difference between the two? Can you not simply go outside when it snows and feel the stuff falling on your head, then take some inside and analyse it? ANY claim of any worth can be verified by proper analysis. If it is a claim that has no physical manifestation, then it's not of all that much interest. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that a claim that it snows in Canada is the same as the claim that say, someone can remotely read minds. The simple fact that you CAN easily verify one to the satisfaction of any reasonable mind, means that one is NOT extraordinary. There is no problem whatever with Sagan's statement.

“The recent focus on meta-analysis in parapsychology has revealed that there are small but consistently nonzero effects across studies, experimenters and laboratories . . . It may be that the nonzero effects observed in the meta-analyses can be explained by something other than ESP . . . Nonetheless, there is an anomaly that needs an explanation.”

- Dr. Jessica Utts, Statistician

Even more ridiculous. Yes, it can be explained by something other than ESP, and anyone who knows how to design a PROPER rigorous experiment can look into the nature of the carefully cherry-picked experiments to see that they are NOT, NOT, NOT properly controlled, and in most cases do not use any of the real methodologies that are needed for any genuine experiment, and instead use absolutely ridiculous subjective judgments. Yes, the anomaly needs explanation - how could these people pretend to be scientists with such an abysmal knowledge of how to run a decent experiment and apply proper controls? The fact that in this quote, Ms Utts didn't even mention any other possibility, tells you all you need to know.

What is even sadder is that sometimes these tests get published, normally by pseduo-scientific non-peer-reviewed pretenders, but on a couple of occasions even credible publishers have been suckered.

If anyone here SERIOUSLY thinks these meta statistics show something anomalous, I offer a simple challenge. No million dollars from me, but if you can do it, then Randi awaits..

Just point us all to the best documented, best run experiment that clearly shows the 'anomaly'. That must include ALL of its methodology and ALL of its raw data, along with all of the criteria and judging techniques. That will obviously include their coverage of topics like controls, blind/double blind testing, how they addressed and tested the null hypothesis and falsifiability, etc. Yeah, you know, the sort of stuff that REAL researchers do when they present REAL research.

This alleged 'anomaly' is handwaving of the worst kind, and is also a terrible abuse of metastatistics. I'd LOVE to see real proof of paranormal powers - just imagine how different the world could be! So show me the ACTUAL tests that show it exists.

Instead, all we have are fakers or incompetents who may well convince themselves by running shabby tests. If they were so sure of their methods, why not distill something down into a simple verifiable test for Randi? The rules are simple - why couldn't a decent scientist do it? It's not because the rules are too onerous, it's because the claimants have every excuse in the book and as soon as they are required to come up with FAIR tests that have proper controls and do NOT allow subjectivity (AKA cheating), they know that the 'powers' will vanish. Funny about that...

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1

Good Grief. You don't spot the difference between the two? Can you not simply go outside when it snows and feel the stuff falling on your head, then take some inside and analyse it? ANY claim of any worth can be verified by proper analysis. If it is a claim that has no physical manifestation, then it's not of all that much interest. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that a claim that it snows in Canada is the same as the claim that say, someone can remotely read minds. The simple fact that you CAN easily verify one to the satisfaction of any reasonable mind, means that one is NOT extraordinary. There is no problem whatever with Sagan's statement.

Someone who knows little or nothing will find anything to be extraordinary. Until he discovers more and more of his environment and consider that, some things are or are not not that much extraordinary. That was my point and you seem to have missed it. What you define as extraordinary depends entirely on what you know, believe and your own perceptions. Until an universal standard can be applied to any individual, my opinion is that this quote should not be taken at face value.

Also, it is very much influenced by the scientific and cultural paradigm of the time. Our grandsirs once thought that rocks falling from the skies were extraordinary phenomenon or indeed even impossible. There was no extraordinary evidence to be found, as the rocks desintergrated in the atmosphere or produced only fragements that couldn't be properly analyzed. Today, it's natural, normal and proved scientifically.

In America in the 1800's if an afro-american was educated and occupied a high founction in the society it was considered extraordinary.

Let us remember the definition of this word relevant to this discussion:

1.

beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established: extraordinary costs.

2.

exceptional in character, amount, extent, degree, etc.; noteworthy; remarkable: extraordinary speed; an extraordinary man.

3.

(of an official, employee, etc.) outside of or additional to the ordinary staff; having a special, often temporary task or responsibility: minister extraordinary and plenipotentiary.

Source: http://dictionary.re...e/extraordinary

I do not think that ''extraordinary claims'' means something that cannot be observed in the usual fashion. Rather something that seems to defy our comprehension, of what we are currently used to. But that can change, history tells us. Of course, any such claims and ideas should hold to high standards of evidence in order to be accepted as real and accurate, just like any concepts and ideas in science. After all, these claims, if proven true could turn our current understanding upside down. Any kind of evience has it's worth, if it can lead us to further our understanding and comprehension in science.

Paranormal claims are not immune to that, we need solid evidence, we need proof that can be consistently observed and verified. It need not be extraordinary though, if the nature of these phenomenon are not as such. Perhaps there are not any to be found and there is no reality to them. That's a real possiblity. Time, further researches and expriments (in various field of research such as physics, neruoscience for exemple) will tell.

Even more ridiculous. Yes, it can be explained by something other than ESP, and anyone who knows how to design a PROPER rigorous experiment can look into the nature of the carefully cherry-picked experiments to see that they are NOT, NOT, NOT properly controlled, and in most cases do not use any of the real methodologies that are needed for any genuine experiment, and instead use absolutely ridiculous subjective judgments. Yes, the anomaly needs explanation - how could these people pretend to be scientists with such an abysmal knowledge of how to run a decent experiment and apply proper controls? The fact that in this quote, Ms Utts didn't even mention any other possibility, tells you all you need to know.

I do not share your pessimism, It's your opinion and you are entitled to it but I think that it is a very innacurate view of the practice and standards in laboratories of parapsychology. It suggest to me that you are not well informed on this topic. You will hardly find a lab with higher standard than parapsychology. The reason is simple: Parapsychologists know that their detractors and critics will not miss a single chance to criticize and dismiss it's experiments and findings and it can be a good thing actually, as it push researchers even more to take extra precautions.

What is even sadder is that sometimes these tests get published, normally by pseduo-scientific non-peer-reviewed pretenders, but on a couple of occasions even credible publishers have been suckered.

The fact that you don't even seem to know the name of the Journal of Parapsychology let alone his standards and contents is a strong indication that you speculate according to your prejudice of parapsychology.

Just point us all to the best documented, best run experiment that clearly shows the 'anomaly'. That must include ALL of its methodology and ALL of its raw data, along with all of the criteria and judging techniques. That will obviously include their coverage of topics like controls, blind/double blind testing, how they addressed and tested the null hypothesis and falsifiability, etc. Yeah, you know, the sort of stuff that REAL researchers do when they present REAL research.

I have already done so many times. You can start by reading Parapsychology: A controversial Science by Richard S.Broughton for a summary of what parapsychology is about and how these experiments and researches are carried.

Also here is an interesting document: Can Parapsychology Move Beyond The Controversies Of Retrospective Meta-Analysises? by Dr. Jessica Utts published in the Journal Of Parapsychology

http://jeksite.org/psi/jp13a.pdf

Edited by sam_comm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JGirl

who really gives a damn about this guy's million dollars?

if you had the ability that would get you the prize you sure don't need his money, you could be out there making your own and in a big way.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

The Magnetic Ballast needed for the HID (high intensity discharge) bulb is faulty causing intermittent operation.The photo resistor located on top of the lamp that controls whether the lamp turns on, or off for day, or night is faulty.

Either of these conditions make the lamp shut off, and restart the ballast.Meanwhile the faker times it to make it look like his/her presence is causing this, because the lamp with these conditions becomes predictable to when it shuts off.

Also, the older lights get hot. They turn off to cool down, then re-start. I can not count how many times I rode by lights going off in Sparks,Nevada. Same thing, you could easilly time this, and film it.

As for Randi's site, I have been reading it ( and quoting ) for years.......Love it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

who really gives a damn about this guy's million dollars?

if you had the ability that would get you the prize you sure don't need his money, you could be out there making your own and in a big way.

Exactly !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

Not really considering a lot of people on this forum always use the James Randi prize foundation as a type of "insult" when people make claims in the Psychic Ability section of the website. I just thought we could have a healthy discussion on the actual website itself since people on here are always directing people to it.

I don't really see how it's an insult. Man has been searching for "proof" of such abilities for thousands of years. Being able to show that such abilities exist would literally stand the world as we know it on its head and bring about a new age of existence for humanity.

If one is convinced they possess these abilities, don't they have an obligation to Mankind to come forward? Not to mention, that $1 million (and the other such prizes being offered around the world-upwards of $3-$4 million at last count) could be put to very good use helping humanity understand and accept such powers. If nothing else, take the money and set up a school (ala the X-Men) to help those struggling with such abilities to master them.

Why wouldn't someone want to do that? Frankly it seems very selfish and self-centered to not want to do that.

Edited by Rafterman
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

The problem with this platform is that it's objectivity and true purpose can be questionned and doubted. Is there really a scientific curiosity to prove and explore the implication of these paranormal claims or the intention is merely to debunk and dissmiss to satisfy a conviction? As much as I respect James Randi and his collegues, they do not hide the fact that they already consider every claim of paranormal phenomenon to be frauds, mesinterpretations, wishful thinking ect. The organisations does not met the objectivity criteria that any sound and serious research should have. One has to convince them of the contrary to gain a prize, according to their standards of evidence.

That may be true, but since the challenger is 100% involved in developing the test, approves of the parameters ahead of time, and agrees to what is considered a successful test, then what would it matter?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1

That may be true, but since the challenger is 100% involved in developing the test, approves of the parameters ahead of time, and agrees to what is considered a successful test, then what would it matter?

But for that to be factual and not only on paper, a canditate would have to pass the preleminary tests and that has never been the case after 10 years according to the James Randi Educational Fondation.

The agreements and approval of the participant to protocols is no insurance that the tests are fair on a scientific standpoint. With the money at stakes, doubtless their standard are very high perhaps even beyond what can be considered scientific. If you do not find agreements on the protocols with the JREF, your application is as good as rejected.

Dr Michael Sudduth of San Francisco State University also pointed out to me a wonderful irony in one of the rules. Challenge rule #3 states: "We have no interest in theories nor explanations of how the claimed powers might work." As Sudduth puts it: “Curiously, Randi's challenge itself is saddled with assumptions of this very kind. The challenge makes little sense unless we assume that psi is the sort of thing that, if genuine, can be produced on demand, or at least is likely to manifest itself in some perspicuous manner under the conditions specified by the challenge.”

Source: http://www.dailygrai...challengeSource

I have to agree with this.

Edited by sam_comm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

But for that to be factual and not only on paper, a canditate would have to pass the preleminary tests and that has never been the case after 10 years according to the James Randi Educational Fondation.

The agreements and approval of the participant to protocols is no insurance that the tests are fair on a scientific standpoint. With the money at stakes, doubtless their standard are very high perhaps even beyond what can be considered scientific. If you do not find agreements on the protocols with the JREF, your application is as good as rejected.

Dr Michael Sudduth of San Francisco State University also pointed out to me a wonderful irony in one of the rules. Challenge rule #3 states: "We have no interest in theories nor explanations of how the claimed powers might work." As Sudduth puts it: “Curiously, Randi's challenge itself is saddled with assumptions of this very kind. The challenge makes little sense unless we assume that psi is the sort of thing that, if genuine, can be produced on demand, or at least is likely to manifest itself in some perspicuous manner under the conditions specified by the challenge.”

Source: http://www.dailygrai...challengeSource

I have to agree with this.

#3 is pretty clear to me - don't tell us why or how it works. Just show us. As we know around here, you can fill volumes with pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, but until you can actually demonstrate something, that's all it is - mumbo jumbo. I can 10th dimension, third eye, inner aura you to death, but if I can't walk out in that field and find a bucket of water with these two sticks, it's nothing but "cool story bro".

Seems pretty straight forward.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari

But for that to be factual and not only on paper, a canditate would have to pass the preleminary tests and that has never been the case after 10 years according to the James Randi Educational Fondation.

The agreements and approval of the participant to protocols is no insurance that the tests are fair on a scientific standpoint. With the money at stakes, doubtless their standard are very high perhaps even beyond what can be considered scientific. If you do not find agreements on the protocols with the JREF, your application is as good as rejected.

Dr Michael Sudduth of San Francisco State University also pointed out to me a wonderful irony in one of the rules. Challenge rule #3 states: "We have no interest in theories nor explanations of how the claimed powers might work." As Sudduth puts it: “Curiously, Randi's challenge itself is saddled with assumptions of this very kind. The challenge makes little sense unless we assume that psi is the sort of thing that, if genuine, can be produced on demand, or at least is likely to manifest itself in some perspicuous manner under the conditions specified by the challenge.”

Source: http://www.dailygrai...challengeSource

I have to agree with this.

Am I confused?

Patricia Putt has applied for the Challenge (and met all requirements) with a claim of psychic ability.

Ms. Putt would like to develop a test based on readings for random individuals. Ms. Putt suggested a test wherein she would read for individuals and simply ask how accurate the readings were.

That protocol has been declined. We suggested that, instead, Ms. Putt read for a variety of individuals and write the readings down. After all are complete, all the individuals Ms. Putt read for will be given copies of all readings and asked to identify their own.

Ms. Putt has agreed that this is a workable protocol, and we are moving forward with specific negotiations.

Above is only one of many examples....And

Christopher French and Richard Wiseman are carrying out the test of Patricia Putt in the near future.

The test will be conducted on 6 May. Keep an eye on Swift for more details.
None of the volunteers in Patricia Putt's test were able to correctly identify their readings.

In order to pass the preliminary challenge, Mrs. Putt was required to get a minimum of five out of ten.

Mrs. Putt's challenge file has been closed.

That is the short version....

There is a data base of entrants, and what they did or did not do.

http://forums.randi....isplay.php?f=43

Not to mention, Randi is not the only person offering money.....So, people need excuses for all of these also.

List did not copy well, go to below link....

http://en.wikipedia...._the_paranormal

...

Edited by Sakari
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1

Thanks Sakari, and yes I have been able to see this list on the JREF forum.I would also suggest anyone interested to know more about the appliants and their claims to take a look at it though not all are followed-up. However, I can't say I agree with all of it's views on the subject of paranormal phenomenon.

According to KRAMER (username), one former challenge faciliator:

''The JREF Million Dollar Challenge is a very important tool, and one of the best methods the JREF has of showing the world that paranormal claims are devoid of substance.''

Source: http://forums.randi....ead.php?t=32776

While there is no doubt that James Randi and his collegues have exposed many unfounded claims as investigators, I have my own reserve as to the ultimate pretention of this 1 million$ contest. To me, a serious research is about uncovering truths, in our natural world, and make all the necessery efforts to supress bias and other commitments. Clearly, that is not the case here.

Not to mention, Randi is not the only person offering money.....So, people need excuses for all of these also

I am not arguing for the authenticity of these claims. For all I know, all the appliants of the JREF contest and other participants in challenges proposed by skeptic organisations might not have the least bit of paranormal abilities. However, and I hope you'll understand my position, I will not based my opinion on a contest which does not take in consideration various aspects of paranormal phenomenon and in which I have serious doubts as to it's objectivity and pretention.

Edited by sam_comm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

There seems to be some confusion here as to the nature of Randi's million dollar challenge.

I keep hearing complaints about how unscientific it is, or not objective, or ultimately meaningless in an academic context. Here's the thing, though:

The Randi Challenge isn't a scientific research study. It is an in your face, put up or shut up, you talked the talk, now walk the walk call on a millenia long bluff. Yes, the primary purpose of it is to debunk these sorts of extraordinary claims.

That doesn't make it incorrect.

No, they don't follow strict research protocols. People who do that don't even bother with these claims unless they are soon-to-be graduates working on their final papers. They follow a much, much, lighter, much, much, more flexible and forgiving set of standards. And that is just for the preliminary (which, again, no one has yet passed). People really don't understand that the focused might of the academic world isn't really needed for these claims; a simple objective test is enough to debunk nearly all of them. The claimants really have no sense of proportion in regards to the intellectual value of the claim they make.

Even if someone passed the preliminary, and even if they passed the actual scientifically credible secondary test, it still wouldn't be over. Heck, it would barely be the beginning. People would be pouring over the secondary test with a fine-toothed comb, attempting to replicate it. The claimant would be offered many, many things in return for further testing. And guess what? This still wouldn't be the stage where a given power is accepted as a scientific fact (much less a blanket acceptance of all such claims). All the secondary test of the Randi Challenge would do is give the claim enough credibility to warrant interest by the scientific community.

The Randi Challenge isn't a job offer. It's not even a job interview. It's a recommendation from a good friend that you sort of feel obliged to. And even if you are hired, you are still expected to show results.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

The following article was posted on UM in 2008. Personally, I have my doubts about the fairness of Randi's challenge, and after reading the following article, I have my doubts about Randi's character too. I think he is blowing smoke up all the skeptic's asses. A skeptic that blindly believes all other skeptics is just as bad as a believer that believes all other believers.

http://dailygrail.co...ollar-challenge

http://www.unexplain...s.php?id=120381

They seem poor reasons to doubt a mans character, the comments reflect both sides of the argument.

Have you ever seen how Randi ousted Peter Popoff? If that's not a genuine, good, and honest community service, I honestly do know know what is. We could use more people in the world like this.

[media=]

[/media] Edited by psyche101
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

They seem poor reasons to doubt a mans character, the comments reflect both sides of the argument.

Have you ever seen how Randi ousted Peter Popoff? If that's not a genuine, good, and honest community service, I honestly do know know what is. We could use more people in the world like this.

[media=]

[/media]

Jesus people actually believed that guy... that almost makes me want to turn atheist lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JesseCuster

Have you ever seen how Randi ousted Peter Popoff?

Randi's book 'The Faith Healers' is an excellent read that deals with faith healers in general but focuses on Popoff in particular.

It's a fantastic insight into the methods employed by charlatans like faith healing evangelists.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

After I asked for any link to the FULL experimental data and methodology from ANY of these experiments, instead I got this:

I have already done so many times.

Oh, right you are then. But ....... you conveniently couldn't manage it THIS TIME, could you, instead handwaving to a book.

No, that won't do, Sam_comm. Metastatistics mean LESS than nothing UNLESS the experiments and data are sound. All I asked for was ONE example of such an experiment, including documentation and all raw data.

Just ONE. But you couldn't be bothered? No, let's be honest, you ran from the challenge because you know only too well that these experiments are ridiculously flawed, not properly documented, and use subjective techniques to get hits.

Also, funny how Jessica Utts keeps coming up here - that would be the Jessica Utts who has no bias :td:, and who is, coincidentally, a Director of the highly non-profit (of course) International Remote Viewing Association...

I've taken an in-depth look at some of Utts' material, and in many places she gives the game away. She intensely hates using truly random data (like jumbled letters or random numbers) in her chosen experiments, as it apparently suffers from 'too much signal to noise'. She doesn't explain what that means - perhaps Sam can help? Jumbled letters and random numbers, if used properly, would of course give OBJECTIVE results. But Jessica doesn't like those.. I suspect the 'signal to noise' factor is that she has seen such tests show NO statistically significant effect. You can bet your firstborn none of those got into her metastatistics...

So what techniques does she like? Ah yes, no surprises here - she likes Ganzfeld type tests, where supposedly random (hogwash!) sets of images are shuffled around and then the 'remote viewers' are invited to draw images from supposed ESP sources to see if they can get a hit. Someone then decides (often in the presence of the remote viewer!) "oh yes, that's definitely a hit!!!!". Gee, the criteria seems a little vague, and gee, that sort of methodology doesn't leave much room for any biased results, does it? Forgive my sarcasm.

Even right from the start, the tests are biased. The images for her most often referred examples are randomly taken from .. National Geographic. Now being a photographer, I can tell you that already you have narrowed down your likely subjects significantly - but, not a word about that in the experiments... Then she gives obviously carefully cherry-picked examples of hits.. Fine - but where is the actual DATA. Where are all the fails? Who picks the hits and on what specific criteria?

And not that I want to put the boot in too much, but where does she get her papers published? The 'esteemed' JSE, or Journal of Scientific Exploration, and the Journal of Parapsychology. These are not exactly the most selective publishers, to be extremely kind..

For those of us who have done real research and real tests and gathered real data, the flaws in all this are like a very fat elephant not only IN the room, but also squeezing the life out of anyone else in it..

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

They seem poor reasons to doubt a mans character, the comments reflect both sides of the argument.

Have you ever seen how Randi ousted Peter Popoff? If that's not a genuine, good, and honest community service, I honestly do know know what is. We could use more people in the world like this.

[media=]

[/media]

That's an excellent point. While Randi's challenge may not be 100% scientific and folks may question the methods, he is not causing any harm nor costing anyone any money. Compare that to the charlatans who claim paranormal abilities who are preying on folks at their weakest and bilking them of millions upon millions of dollars.

Edited by Rafterman
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DKO

Someone who knows little or nothing will find anything to be extraordinary. Until he discovers more and more of his environment and consider that, some things are or are not not that much extraordinary. That was my point and you seem to have missed it. What you define as extraordinary depends entirely on what you know, believe and your own perceptions. Until an universal standard can be applied to any individual, my opinion is that this quote should not be taken at face value.

In America in the 1800's if an afro-american was educated and occupied a high founction in the society it was considered extraordinary.

We're talking about something that can be scientifically proven. Not an individuals knowledge.

Moving something with your mind or speaking to the dead is something extraordinary in the general scientific community.

But anyway, you're making out like the powers are just waiting to be found. When it's the opposite.

These wackos go out of their way to make these claims but never back it up. EVER.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coldethyl

Well it's not really nice to call them wackos. They may truly believe they have the ability until they fail. Well not all of them wackos anyway. Depending on what they believe they can do.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DKO

Well it's not really nice to call them wackos. They may truly believe they have the ability until they fail. Well not all of them wackos anyway. Depending on what they believe they can do.

Yeah I shouldn't have used wacko, especially for the people that actually believe they have powers. But the people that know they have no powers are a much worse word than wacko. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coldethyl

Yeah I shouldn't have used wacko, especially for the people that actually believe they have powers. But the people that know they have no powers are a much worse word than wacko. :)

I forgive you lol. And I agree. Some of these people could be semi delusional and actually believe they can beat the challenge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1

We're talking about something that can be scientifically proven. Not an individuals knowledge.

Moving something with your mind or speaking to the dead is something extraordinary in the general scientific community.

But anyway, you're making out like the powers are just waiting to be found. When it's the opposite.

These wackos go out of their way to make these claims but never back it up. EVER.

I was refering to the Carl Sagan's quote in the Cosmos series: ''Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'' which Hideout made use of in his post.

As I pointed out earlier, what makes a claim extraordinary is entirely a matter of knowledge, beliefs and perception. There is no unviersal standard that defines what an ''extraordinary claims'' should be and can be applied for all. This quote should not be taken at face value.

Why would claim of psychic ability required an extraordnary evidence more than any other scientific inquiry? Any kinf of evidence have a value if it can lead to further researchers and more evidence which would allow us to confirm the existence of such phenomenon.

Personally, I do not know if these phoenomenon exist or are waiting to be found. I've not see any proof or evidence of such ability as mental control, distortion of matter, communication with the dead ect. There is interesting experiences and researches carried in paraspcyhology which I find interesting but more devoleppement is required for ESP, PK for instance to be accepted.

Edited by sam_comm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coldethyl

I was refering to the Carl Sagan's quote in the Cosmos series: ''Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'' which Hideout made use of in his post.

Personally, I do not know if these phoenomenon exist or are waiting to be found. I've not see any proof or evidence of such ability as mental control, distortion of matter, communication with the dead ect. There is interesting experiences and researches carried in paraspcyhology which I find interesting but more devoleppement is required for ESP, PK for instance to be accepted.

I agree with this a lot. I loved Carl Sagan. My lab that passed away a few years ago was named after him.

Anyway, I am glad there is parapsychology research going on and people just haven't given up on it. I sincerely hope they find something. Until they do, I'll be leaning more towards the rational side of the fence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.