The Absence Of Evidence

[Altria]

Well that's pretty cool! Obviously it's not easy to tell how old you are on an internet forum.


Growl = Where would you recommend I look into this implanted artifacts business. Because I'm not mocking alien abduction, I do find the subject's analogies with fairy abductions really interesting.

I was born in March 16 1954,

 

[Afton Sinclaret]

Most supernatural phenomena fits in the "apparition" category, which people have many theories about but ultimately is something that appears and disappears. They are experiences, and people who are affected by such things are the evidence, such as it is. Carl Jung often wrote of ideas being of equal or higher power than what exists, because an idea can manifest in ways that affect all of us: Nazism, nuclear weapons, etc.

The most important evidence to my own interest in these subjects is the recurrent motif of a) bright/blinding light, b) group or individual has a vision or encounter that is literally "unreal," c) the light vanishes (often in a pinpoint) and the witnesses are left with feelings of awe, bewilderment and/or fear.

This is the consistent thread, from Moses to St. Paul to our modern-day sightings of UFOs, Bigfoot, etc. The occurrences are rare but consistent, and the old cliches of children and empathic adults being more likely to experience such things is well documented. The ultimate *reality* of the things hardly matters. Did the hundreds at Fatima literally see the historical Mother of Jesus in the sky? Certainly not. But they saw dazzling lights, and felt "regular time" had briefly changed, as if there was a layer over our expected reality.

For the first time in my era, "serious science" does appear to be touching these Fortean subjects with the vague promise of quantum theory, along with some interesting directions in plasma and electromagnetic research often done by defense departments. What we will ultimately learn from entanglement and other theories is, of course, unknown. But when I take the "long view," the great scientists and inventors have always tended towards the examination of the paranormal, with an eye towards *understanding* and appreciating the phenomena. Alexander Graham Bell, Tesla of course, Edison, and other storied names were convinced of the reality of such phenomena, just as they seemed quite capable of understanding the dual human needs of "evidence" and trickery/fraud.

 

[Afton Sinclaret]

The crucial factor in these experiences so often linked to religion, myth, war, and destiny is that they are rare. "Wonders" in the sky have been described as long as people could tell stories. Over time, it has become rather simple to distinguish between natural or man-made wonders (comets, planes, satellites, meteors, eclipses, etc.) and the "weird" experiences such as Fatima or large-scale UFO "flaps" that leave observers baffled. My favorite example of the latter is the consistent visits to nuclear-missile silos and nuclear-power facilities by mystery lights that hover, race around at absurd speeds, and appear/disappear at will. That the experiences happened are not in doubt: there are reams of detailed eyewitness reports over decades.

The evidence is abundant, in such cases, yet the evidence is of the *experience* and the mystery remains. What does one make of the 1989 Voronezh encounters in Russia? Here we have ample evidence: many adult and child witnesses, daytime encounters with "craft" and "humanoids," classic magic/fairy features such as a teenaged boy briefly disappearing before an agitated outdoor crowd in a park, detailed drawings by witnesses, police and government interest, strange physical traces, etc. I mention this case specifically because it recently came up in another discussion with a Russian friend about the social anxiety that accompanied Glasnost and the dissolution of the USSR, which corresponded with many bizarre cases of the kind. Was it the new (and relative) freedom of state-controlled media that brought such things to light, or did they increase with global tensions? This is often a relevant question as world wars (both hot and cold) have produced the greater share of such reports around the world.

Interpretation of these events is, to me, one of the more fascinating aspects. In mythic and religious times, they were always seen as encounters with various gods and their cohorts (angels, demons, elves, goblins, monsters, etc.). In mostly secular times (even in America of today!), we seem to split into opposing camps: those seeking "evidence" and answers from a database or spectrum analysis, and those ignorant/indifferent to science who apply a filter of understanding based on their new-age or Hollywood-inspired beliefs.

I am still convinced that John Keel, Philip K. Dick, Robert A. Wilson, William S. Burroughs and other counter-culture/paranormal figures of the 1950s/1960s/1970s made breakthroughs in understanding these experiences as both connected to ancient accounts and of great modern importance, perhaps as data streams through a "superspectrum" (Keel's term) that allows sensitive individuals at certain moments and in certain places to "see" a kind of message or realistic scene. Of course many paranormal encounters are ridiculous and absurd, which is equally important, I think, and directly linked to the "trickster" in mythology and religion.

Will we one day discover that these experiences are collectively generated on a shared-conciousness level and then manifested for brief moments in time, as Carl Jung strongly suspected? Perhaps. I try to steer clear of any kind of orthodoxy on these topics, but a sober study of the piles of reports we have suggests something that is consistent with the oldest accounts: peeks into another, different realm that does not have the *power* to fully exist alongside of us ... except for these brief, baffling moments of (maybe?) energy manifesting itself into briefly visible (and occassionally physical) outrages that inspire and sometimes terrify us.

 

[Altria]

Altria:

In the research you (and / or others) did on the KLKN incident, did you get any solid info on the location / altitude (above street level) / direction of aim for that Towercam?

We had all the technical data,the station was very forthcoming in providing that at first.

 

[notdej]

The evidence is abundant, in such cases, yet the evidence is of the *experience* and the mystery remains.

define evidence in this context--evidence as in a story told to you? that's how i'd define it or am i wrong?

 

[notdej]

Well...notdej is usually referring to ufos when this comes up......no other reason than that.

yep ... that is why you referred to ufos when replying to me

 

[Afton Sinclaret]

define evidence in this context--evidence as in a story told to you? that's how i'd define it or am i wrong?

Like I plainly said, "The evidence is abundant, in such cases, yet the evidence is of the *experience* and the mystery remains."

The only evidence there can be of an apparition is the same evidence we use to convict people of murder: eyewitness testimony.

 

[notdej]

Isn't that an observation about yourself rather than about the evidence?

good attempt at going all freudian but it wont work>>>no, it's about the evidence

 

[gattino]

good attempt at going all freudian but it wont work>>>no, it's about the evidence

I wasn't being remotely "freudian". You said there was not one shred of evidence for these subjects that would make "a now-sceptic like my good self" think again. That's surely an observation about your outlook, interpretation and responses to the material - what you do or don't find sufficient to please you, rather than the material itself since there appears to be an abundance of it to make person B think again and person C be a fully fledged believer as incredulous of your disbelief as you are of their belief. The material is the same for all. So whether or not you consider it worthwhile or convincing is indeed a reflection of you (or I or whoever) more than the evidence itself.

 

[notdej]

I wasn't being remotely "freudian". You said there was not one shred of evidence for these subjects that would make "a now-sceptic like my good self" think again. That's surely an observation about your outlook, interpretation and responses to the material - what you do or don't find sufficient to please you, rather than the material itself since there appears to be an abundance of it to make person B think again and person C be a fully fledged believer as incredulous of your disbelief as you are of their belief. The material is the same for all. So whether or not you consider it worthwhile or convincing is indeed a reflection of you (or I or whoever) more than the evidence itself.

fair enough

 

[Eponastill]

define evidence in this context--evidence as in a story told to you? that's how i'd define it or am i wrong?

Yes, one story is just that - a story. But when you have lots of stories talking about similar things (ufos, ghosts, whatever), then you can go through them and start to categorise them, start to pull out similar aspects of those experiences as a whole. That's not exactly "evidence" in the sense of a physical trace, but it's starting to look like you've got a phenomenon that's worth investigating, because it's throwing up the same sorts of witness statements repeatedly. You might be able to think up an experiment that could look into one or more of those aspects. I suppose it's not always possible. But (for example) if people experience Weird Things in a particular spot, you could then look into the types of things that might cause those sensations and whether they're acting at that spot and not other spots.

I've been reading about psi experiments recently (such as people guessing visual targets like zener cards or the subject of video clips) and there DOES seem to be evidence that people can do this above chance (a tiny bit above chance). Now that sort of thing could be the sort of thing that Gattino's referring to above. That although lots of people would like to carry on saying 'there's no shred of evidence', actually there IS a shred of evidence and more than a shred. But it's not just about accepting the evidence, because parapsychological subjects have got pariah status, and if you're a Scientist and you accept the 'fringe' (so you think) scientists' findings, then you're putting your own reputation at risk. The threshold for 'whether it's worthwhile or convincing' is much higher for these subjects than acceptable ones. But it should really be the same. All contra-fraud/unconscious deception/ plain old mistakes taken into account. As with all scientific experiments.

 

[notdej]

I've been reading about psi experiments recently (such as people guessing visual targets like zener cards or the subject of video clips) and there DOES seem to be evidence that people can do this above chance (a tiny bit above chance).

No it DOES not! People can either do these kinda things or they can't. Sitting people down guessing cards etc; picking up on the fact that some might guess slightly better than coincidence is not evidence! It's a ridiculous approach...

In my opinion this approach is desperately trying to make something out of nothing..........

 

[Min Bannister]

No it DOES not! People can either do these kinda things or they can't. Sitting people down guessing cards etc; picking up on the fact that some might guess slightly better than coincidence is not evidence! It's a ridiculous approach...

In my opinion this approach is desperately trying to make something out of nothing..........

YES it does. That is science. In fact pretty much the whole of modern medicine is based on finding a tiny effect of a drug when you look at it from a certain angle in a good light.

Then when someone else looks at it, they don't find that effect..

 

[gattino]

Sitting people down guessing cards etc; picking up on the fact that some might guess slightly better than coincidence is not evidence! It's a ridiculous approach...

No, without the spin of a loaded phrase like "some might guess", it's science. The whole point of such studies is to rule out guessing and other standard explanations. Whether its the best way to demonstrate "psi" as people claim to experience it in the real world is a different matter. But it most definitely is science and it most definitely is evidence.

Here's a useful list of published studies.
http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

 

[Yithian]

no shit.. really!? when you find it let me know

yeah funny. ok if someone said it to me...you know what i meant! i didn't feel the need to state the bleeding obvious!
carry on trying to be clever or attempt an adult discussion? your choice my friend-either one suits me

Such posts come across as rude.

Tone is often conveyed poorly via text, so perhaps that was not your intention.

You will find that a smidgen more amiability proves a fillip to the receptivity of other members; you could even make some new friends here.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Some natural phenomena aren't amenable to absolutely definitive testing on demand, and probabilistic approaches are employed to attempt to demonstrate a suggestive tendency or trend where a clear 'yes / no' conclusion isn't feasible.

Psychologists and other non-hard-scientists are practically forced to rely on such probabilistic methods.

This approach is sensitive to indications of relative results, but is almost completely mute when it comes to specifying, much less reliably 'proving', the causal underpinnings for differential outcomes.

A probabilistic approach is also akin to walking on thin ice, insofar as it requires reliance on assumptions about metrics / measurements (e.g., scoring) and the baseline model used to analyze the results. The most fundamental assumption in such psi research cases is that whatever-it-is-we're-testing-for can be assumed to be distributed throughout the population in accordance with an idealized 'normal distribution' (e.g., a Bell Curve).

 

[notdej]

YES it does. That is science. In fact pretty much the whole of modern medicine is based on finding a tiny effect of a drug when you look at it from a certain angle in a good light.

Yes of course; <<finding a tiny effect of a drug>> this kind of science works with things that exist.

If they find nothing they move on. How long have people been trying to <<find a tiny effect regarding the supernatural>>??

A hundred years> or more? And what have we got after all this time effort & no doubt money??

It's 2017 & folk are still grasping to the so called feeble evidence Eponastill put forward!

IMO this IS a good example of:

<the absence of evidence can only mean evidence of absence>

if you want to know the truth I'd suggest this could be it=== there's nothing to find!

I just say it as I see it- nothing more, nothing less


Peace.

dej...

 

[notdej]

Such posts come across as rude.

Tone is often conveyed poorly via text, so perhaps that was not your intention.

You will find that a smidgen more amiability proves a fillip to the receptivity of other members; you could even make some new friends here.

Yep, my apologies, Yit....

Just a little tongue in cheek adult banter that gets misunderstood. I never lean... No disrespect meant.

 

[Min Bannister]

Yes of course; <<finding a tiny effect of a drug>> this kind of science works with things that exist.

If they find nothing they move on. How long have people been trying to <<find a tiny effect regarding the supernatural>>??

In many, many cases they don't exist and they do not move on. Too much money involved. I recommend Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre if you don't want to take it from me. You will be shocked. In many cases, a small positive (or indeed, negative) effect of a drug can only be found once many clinical trials have been done and then a meta-analysis of all those trials have been done. Rather like doing many many psi tests over and over again.

 

[notdej]

In many, many cases they don't exist and they do not move on. Too much money involved. I recommend Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre if you don't want to take it from me. You will be shocked. In many cases, a small positive (or indeed, negative) effect of a drug can only be found once many clinical trials have been done and then a meta-analysis of all those trials have been done. Rather like doing many many psi tests over and over again.

Fair enough but be honest with me:

yourself as an intelligent logical person; are you not (deep down) in your logic thinking:

'hmmm, doing many many psi tests over and over again for at least 100 years & this subject is STILL a phenomenon'

don't you ever think like this for a few minutes? This is what I don't get with people like your good self.

 

[Min Bannister]

Fair enough but be honest with me:

yourself as an intelligent logical person; are you not (deep down) in your logic thinking:

'hmmm, doing many many psi tests over and over again for at least 100 years & this subject is STILL a phenomenon'

don't you ever think like this for a few minutes? This is what I don't get with people like your good self.

Not really because science is much less scientific than is sold to us.

Compare and contrast :
- very little evidence that expensive drug X works. And then only if you move the goalposts in order to make sure it has that effect. Drug X gets packaged up and sold to the masses as a wonderdrug.

- very little evidence that psi works. But there is some. But there is no money in it. And it is heresy. Psi remains out in the cold.

The problem with science is that it is carried out by people. People with agendas, shareholders, grant applications to write and so on. And people with dogmatic views. Psi doesn't fit into the dogma, therefore it doesn't exist. Even though there is some (even just a little) evidence for it. This is the world we live in.

 

[notdej]

And it is heresy. Psi remains out in the cold.

& no doubt over time= frozen solid. though it will probably take another hundred years for it to freeze as folk slowly realise there's nothing there

 

[dr wu]

It seems, and I'm not speaking for notdej here, that his position is more about anecdotal evidence than actual hard physical data or evidence and I can understand that. It's easy to accept, for the most part, something tangible that one can hold in their hand- a ray gun, piece of a ufo, an alien eyeball, etc...it's much harder to accept anecdotal material from a witness who says a ufo landed on his lawn and a short weird alien walked out pointed a metallic wand at him and then flew away.
There is a great deal of anecdotal material over many decades and even centuries if one looks at some of the old reports that Dr Vallee and others have written about.....but very little objective physical evidence that does anything to prove the ET theme on a scientific level.
I accept some anecdotal material as being genuine reports...but for me the question has always been ...what exactly are people experiencing? Is this extraterrestrial or something else?

 

[Ermintruder]

I accept some anecdotal material as being genuine reports...but for me the question has always been ...what exactly are people experiencing? Is this extraterrestrial or something else?

Whilst it is an over-used science fiction trope (well, I say that, yet cannot positively-identify even a single example) I cannot shake-off the gut feeling that, somehow, a proportion of sightings of UFOs, and certain other phenomena could be Us, looking at ourselves, from the future.

It's very easy to say that such a proposition is absolutely ridiculous. But: the vast majority of people that read what I am typing, now, will agree with me- it not possible to say such technologies will never eventually exist.

Clarke's Three Laws

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[notdej]

The problem with anything like this is one first needs to work out (somehow) if the 'claim/story' is genuine before anything else/ the next stage if you like.

This has never been done, & that's why (in any strange phenomenon category) it hasn't gone to the next stage, which is= working out what it is.

Science can not work with stories. Until there is something science can get it's teeth into (as in for some reason it's gone to the next stage) then discussion like this will go on forever! Perish the thought!

 

[Eponastill]

folk are still grasping to the so called feeble evidence Eponastill put forward!

But it's evidence, statistically valid evidence. What more would you like to convince you? I've suggested two books where metaanalyses of many hundreds (thousands) of experiments are discussed, along with discussion of non-paranormal reasons why they might be skewed. But the effect seems to remain. Have you read about these sorts of things? Or is your knee-jerk reaction that you can't explain it and it sounds mad so it must be false? Or are you saying that the only evidence you'll accept is if I can guess 100% of the cards all the time? 75%? 55%? 26%? What would be your cut off for acceptability?

Also you throw back this phrase:
"doing many many psi tests over and over again for at least 100 years & this subject is STILL a phenomenon"
- but surely that's precisely the point? The tests have been done repeatedly with the methods increasingly refined. And there's still something inexplicable going on. Therefore, an intelligent logical person might well conclude there IS something to explain, possibly something we call 'psi' for want of a better word.

If you don't want scientific proof, what other sorts are there?

Ultimately if you haven't and don't want to read the research or someone's summary of it, then how can we all even have a discussion, because you can't really know what we're talking about. You're just dismissing it without having looked into it. Sorry if that's rude.

Also, I'm not sure you're right that you have to prove 'authenticity' before you look into the process. I think with something like ghosts, you can certainly start thinking about the process and how to test for it, before you prove they're "real". In fact it might hellp you with proving their reality/unreality?

 

[notdej]

Also you throw back this phrase:
"doing many many psi tests over and over again for at least 100 years & this subject is STILL a phenomenon"
- but surely that's precisely the point? The tests have been done repeatedly with the methods increasingly refined. And there's still something inexplicable going on. Therefore, an intelligent logical person might well conclude there IS something to explain, possibly something we call 'psi' for want of a better word.

you can't test something like this via people guessing cards with the hope that it's NOT a guess!!

if you picked 75% then how will they know it's psi or just a good guess??

for them to come to the conclusion it is psi then someone must be capable of doing it on a regular basis!
if there really is such a person then we would know about him/her by now...

 

[notdej]

Or is your knee-jerk reaction that you can't explain it and it sounds mad so it must be false?

A knee-jerk reaction is a quick reaction that does not allow you time to consider something carefully..... I've been listening to this utter poppy-cock for over 50 long years mate..

AND still listening to it now all due respect

 

[gattino]

you can't test something like this via people guessing cards with the hope that it's NOT a guess!!

if you picked 75% then how will they know it's psi or just a good guess??

Because of a consistent above chance level effect over hundreds and thousands of trials. That's how it works.

Such tests are by and large not carried out on people claiming to have special out of hte ordinary powers - ie "psychics" - but on everyday people. Relying on the effect being multiple thousands of lucky "guesses" to do away with the results is not something even the most dedicated professional sceptic has ever attempted. Yours is certainly a novel development.

 

[notdej]

Because of a consistent above chance level effect over hundreds and thousands of trials. That's how it works.

who sets the above chance level? how can anyone possibly know this level?

Maybe a ridiculously low level is set to make it look good- how do you know this is not the case?