Telepathy, afterlife theories cause uproar

[UM-Bot]

Scientists claiming to have evidence of life after death and the powers of telepathy triggered a furious row at Britain’s premier science festival yesterday. Organisers of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (the BA) were accused of lending credibility to maverick theories on the paranormal by allowing the highly controversial research to be aired unchallenged.

View: Full Article | Source: Times Online

[CandyBlo0d]

no place in a scientific meeting?! hahah science is soo lackingggg AHH!!!!! telepathy does existt i know from life experience... it exists of every level of consciousnesss... but i do wonder what level of consciousness they speak of when supposedly having proof of consciousness after death??? HMMMMM anyone?

[Bella-Angelique]

Perhaps the accurate deathbed visions they have documented are those in which the patients were resussitated and who brought back accurate verfiable information.

[snuffypuffer]

God help me for siding with believers here, but why the uproar? If there is scientific evidence, any kind of scientific evidence, for life after death or telepathy, wouldn't it be worth looking into. From reading this article, the uproar is over these scientists not being properly rebuked. Had any of them actually taken a look at the evidence? That's hardly scientific.

I've known who was calling me countless times over the years. I guess I'm telepathic, then.

[liokee]

I agree - why is this such a big deal? Why are they so determined to dismiss the ideas held by so many people? The idea of life after death isn't new, and it isn't hurting anyone, so why is it so important that it be proved or disproved? People have been believing in an afterlife for longer than modern science has been trying to disprove it.

Modern scientists believe in things that they haven't proven, just based on 'informed guesses'. The purpose of a black hole, for instance. Why is it okay for them to decide that a black hole is scientifically feasible, based only on their guesses, but reject the idea of an afterlife just because it's generally based in faith?

I bet when one of their loved ones dies, they throw their 'scientific principles' out the window and pray for an afterlife. No one wants to think that the people they love are just worm food.

[UconnHusky]

If you read any first person account of someone who experienced a Near Death Experience (NDE) every single one of them will say they communicated telepathically to angels, souls, God, etc. In every account I've ever read they've said they were able to communicate in this way.

Edited September 8, 2006 by 420

[ROGER]

The nay Sayer's do seem to be a narrow minded bunch. For any one who's been on the UM for a while knows one of the first things said by new members is "I never believed in the Paranormal UNTIL--". Seems personal experience is a prerequisite for belief and then study. Any thing out side the accepted norm is called "Poppycock"! This attitude in its self is restrictive of proper scientific methodology. IMO.

[Johnny Truant]

At least we know that telepathy is one step closer to being brought out into the light. It's been looked down upon for too long; people dismiss it at once, claiming that the evidence found for it has been anything but.

We're seen as crazies, but soon those close-minded physically-grounded "intellectuals" will see the truth.

rude awakening

[Bella-Angelique]

At least we know that telepathy is one step closer to being brought out into the light. It's been looked down upon for too long; people dismiss it at once, claiming that the evidence found for it has been anything but.

We're seen as crazies, but soon those close-minded physically-grounded "intellectuals" will see the truth.

rude awakening

They will fight it to the last trench.

The obvious consideration to follow is that some form of God consiousness may exist, and even worse, one which they cannot control through rituals, candles, and waving incense around while singing in terrible off key voices.

[Startraveler]

Why is this problematic? You have loads of people reading a Reuters article picked up by CNN, Yahoo, and others that says the British Association for the Advancement of Science has listened to proof of telephathy provided by a scientist "whose research is funded by the respected Trinity College, Cambridge." The only hint that this is questionable research or is being questioned is a brief note that the sample size of the experiments was small and "only four subjects were actually filmed in the phone study and five in the email, prompting some scepticism."

By not questioning/debating/checking this the BAAS effectively allowed this shall we say "out there" research to bypass the scientific process and endorsed it.

More:

Critics including Lord Winston and Sir Walter Bodmer, both past presidents of the BA, expressed particular alarm that three speakers who think paranormal phenomena are real were allowed to hold a press conference without challenge from sceptics. Some said telepathy has already been found wanting in experiments, and has no place at a scientific meeting.

Other scientists said that while discussion of the subject was acceptable, the panel’s lack of balance was like inviting creationists to address the prestigious meeting without an opposing view from evolutionary biologists. Several members of the BA said that they would raise the matter with its ruling council.

Sir Walter, a geneticist and cancer researcher, said: "I’m amazed that the BA has allowed it to happen in this way. You have got to be careful not to suppress ideas, even if they are beyond the pale, but it’s quite inappropriate to have a session like that without putting forward a more convincing view."

The session on the paranormal featured three pieces of research, each of which claims to find evidence for phenomena that most scientists consider impossible under the laws of physics. . .

[jcb33]

Why oh why do they take such a stand against such research, while more excited about proving that there is life after death, in my eyes, if they could prove that there is such a thing, then no one would fear death, the world would change for the better, murdering someone would not be worth it, wars would acheive nothing......

As for telepathy, I beleive in this, although we as humans dont seem to use it very well, If we can prove its real, we can work on using it, One universal communication media.... think of the posibilitys.

If research like this continues, then the future of humanity will be very exciting, as opposed to being doomed!

[sugardady11203]

Scientists claiming to have evidence of life after death and the powers of telepathy triggered a furious row at Britain’s premier science festival yesterday. Organisers of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (the BA) were accused of lending credibility to maverick theories on the paranormal by allowing the highly controversial research to be aired unchallenged. Leading members of the science establishment criticised the BA’s decision to showcase papers purporting to demonstrate telepathy and the survival of human consciousness after someone dies. They said that such ideas, which are widely rejected by experts, had no place in the festival without challenge from sceptics. The disputed session featured research from Rupert Sheldrake, an independent biologist who is funded by Trinity College, Cambridge, that claims to have found evidence that some people know telepathically who is calling them before they answer the telephone.

Other presentations came from Peter Fenwick, a doctor who thinks deathbed visions suggest that consciousness survives when people die, and from Deborah Delanoy of the University of Hertfordshire, whose work suggests that people can affect the bodies of others by thinking about them. Critics including Lord Winston and Sir Walter Bodmer, both former presidents of the BA, expressed particular alarm that the three speakers were allowed to hold a promotional press conference. Some said telepathy has already been found wanting in experiments, and had no place at a scientific meeting.

View: Full Article | Source: Times Online

look the reason why scientist reject those two topics is becauce they have no why of measuring them!

[Mysterious Molecules]

I for one KNOW that visions on the deathbed are not fiction. I know this because i've seen it happen with my own eyes.

When my grandma passed away from cancer, just in her final moments, she was in a very happy state talking bout that her old friend was there and they were in a garden.

This stuff could be dreams. A simple mechanism to soothe the dying mind.

But then again as she died, her old grandfather clock stopped working at the exact time of death and our family who was with her all reported flashes of light.

This is some of the stuff that keeps be believing, but like Sugardaddy says, there is no way of measuring it or prooving it. The way it is now, we can only thereorise.

[Nadal]

I for one KNOW that visions on the deathbed are not fiction. I know this because i've seen it happen with my own eyes.

When my grandma passed away from cancer, just in her final moments, she was in a very happy state talking bout that her old friend was there and they were in a garden.

This stuff could be dreams. A simple mechanism to soothe the dying mind.

But then again as she died, her old grandfather clock stopped working at the exact time of death and our family who was with her all reported flashes of light.

This is some of the stuff that keeps be believing, but like Sugardaddy says, there is no way of measuring it or prooving it. The way it is now, we can only thereorise.

She said that because the nerves in her brain sent a message which received a past memory of her life.

[RollingThunder06]

Maybe I am reading the article wrong, but what comes across to me is that they were upset because these topics hadn't been read by the skeptical. Meaning that those who were skeptical at the convention didn't have time to come up questions to debunk them.

[Tokoyo]

God help me for siding with believers here, but why the uproar? If there is scientific evidence, any kind of scientific evidence, for life after death or telepathy, wouldn't it be worth looking into. From reading this article, the uproar is over these scientists not being properly rebuked. Had any of them actually taken a look at the evidence? That's hardly scientific.

I've known who was calling me countless times over the years. I guess I'm telepathic, then.

It's a big deal partially due to prejudice such as that professed in this article by Professor Peter Atkins:"Although it is politically incorrect to dismiss ideas out of hand, in this case there is absolutely no reason to suppose that telepathy is anything more than a charlatan’s fantasy." The first half kind of implies that he is admitting that he dismissing the idea of telepathy on principle......anyways, enough ranting.

The LEGIT arguement against the way the material was presented, is there was no room for critique and counter-arguement. I find this strange because in the field of parapsychology there's generally a lot of response to critiques. Not that the people critiquing are going to listen to a response, but they do have a place for questioning the methods employed, the analysis of data etc.