• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

THE PARANORMAL: THE EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSCI

Is the evidence in favour of the psi 'effect' existing?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
A

Anonymous

Guest
THE PARANORMAL: THE EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS


.
Jessica Utts and Brian D. Josephson


[...] What are the implications for science of the fact that psychic functioning appears to be a real effect?

These phenomena seem mysterious, but no more mysterious perhaps than strange phenomena of the past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope. What ideas might be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these phenomena into account?

Two such concepts are those of the observer, and non-locality. The observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics, if taken literally, imply a universe that is constantly splitting into separate branches, only one of which corresponds to our perceived reality. A process of "decoherence" has been invoked to stop two branches interfering with each other, but this still does not answer the question of why our experience is of one particular branch and not any other.

Perhaps, despite the unpopularity of the idea, the experiencers of the reality are also the selectors.[...]

extract from:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/tucson.html
 
Just so we are all on the same page Lucianrchy is, I believe, Brian D. Josephson (he did reveal it in another thread so I'm not overstepping the forum rules and as he quotes himself I thought it worth noting).

LA: Sorry I don't really understand what the poll is asking for:

Is the evidence in favour of the psi 'effect' existing?

Something like: "Is there evidence for the Psi Effect?"?

If so there might b evidence for it but the evidence might not be good enough to prove it exists? Its like asking "is there evidence for UFOs?" - yes there is but its the analysis of the evidence that is crucial.

Also fancy reposting the other abstracts you postd in the JREF thread so they are all in one place to make it easier for people to refer to?

Emps
 
perhaps an option should be added to the poll for if you are not enirely convinced one way or the other.
 
whole thing seems to be a wee bit oddly set up? if it's a fun thing like TVQ's stunningly successful Poll on Cometh the hour Cometh the Woman then I have no quibble with it... except why isn't it in chat?

if this is "real" (not excluding fun of course :rolleyes:) then perhaps we could look at, for example:

* the overall thread title.... what is the relationship between the block capitals bit and the contents of the leading msg? Need to explain how answers to /this/ question relate to /that/ title. Which is the meat of the thread? would it be more useful to split them so that no confusion could arise about who supported what when and how?

* there are 4 words in the title which will be contentious. (At least 4 words knowing us as I do - god we're wonderful, I'm so proud of us! :grouphug:)

* what is the relationship between the 1996 paper given in the leading msg and the poll question? obviously one title is the same as the other. Are we to read the paper before or after answering the question? also supportive noises for Emp's point about other relevant material being indicated... if we're meant to take it into account at all of course. was there a response to the real publication that would be interesting?

* if we think back to basics on laying things out to encourage particular responses - I'm thinking about the ordering of multiple choice answers in such a way as to maximise "correct" picks for example - then including a Don't Know as Flash suggests seems an obvious and basic improvement.... unfortunately there are already votes registered. Doesn't matter if it's all for fun and being easy on a sunday morning/afternoon of course :)

maybe if we could define what we are trying to do an obliging mod could adjust the poll? with the current concern over what can be taken as supporting whatevr, it would seem a good way to protect all parties - no? :)

Kath
 
L_FH & sd: All good points.

A bit of history just in case this seems to have come out the blue. LA had been posting abstarcts to research on how quantuum theory (and other things) may have some bearing telepathy and so I suggested he start a new thread:

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349257#post349257

Hopefully we can get the scope and range of this thread better defined ;)

Emps
 
agreed - and perhaps sooner rather than later?

Kath :)
 
Emperor said:
Also fancy reposting the other abstracts you postd in the JREF thread so they are all in one place to make it easier for people to refer to?

Emps

Will do, Emps. I don't think I can edit the title though :(
 
String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal

Brian D. Josephson
Department of Physics, University of Cambridge

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



ABSTRACT


A model consistent with string theory is proposed for so-called paranormal phenomena such as extra-sensory perception (ESP). Our mathematical skills are assumed to derive from a special ‘mental vacuum state’, whose origin is explained on the basis of anthropic and biological arguments, taking into account the need for the informational processes associated with such a state to be of a life-supporting character. ESP is then explained in terms of shared ‘thought bubbles’ generated by the participants out of the mental vacuum state. The paper concludes with a critique of arguments sometimes made claiming to ‘rule out’ the possible existence of paranormal phenomena.
 
FieldREG Anomalies in Group Situations

R. D. Nelson, G. J. Bradish, Y. H. Dobyns, B. J. Dunne, and R. G. Jahn, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, School of Engineering/Applied Science, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544


The following brief description of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Remote Perception program has been prepared at the invitation of the Editor1, in order to augment this special report section of the Journal with information about another substantial database of experiments relevant to those of SRI and SAIC. Given Utts' attention to the importance of replication (Section 3.4), and Hyman's challenge of interlaboratory consistency (Point #3 of his Introduction and Point #2 of his "Suggestions for Future Research"), we submit that the PEAR program has obtained the largest extant body of experimental data that meets their criteria for interlaboratory replication. In point of fact, both the PEAR remote perception program, and the prior studies of Dunne and Bisaha on which it was originally based, were undertaken as formal replications of the SRI experiments of Puthoff and Targ.
 
"To be precise, when we say that "X exists," we mean that the presently available, cumulative statistical database for experiments studying X, provides strong, scientifically credible evidence for repeatable, anomalous, X-like effects.

With this in mind, ESP exists, precognition exists, telepathy exists, and PK exists. ESP is statistically robust, meaning it can be reliably demonstrated through repeated trials, but it tends to be weak when simple geometric symbols are used as targets. Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger, and there is some evidence that ESP on natural locations (as opposed to photos of them), and in natural contexts, may be stronger yet.

Some PK effects have also been shown to exist. When individuals focus their intention on mechanical or electronic devices that fluctuate randomly, the fluctuations change in ways that conform to their mental intention. Under control conditions, when individuals direct their attention elsewhere, the fluctuations are in accordance with chance. " http://www.psiresearch.org/para3.html#twelve
 
"What are the major psi experiments today?
Through popular books and portrayals of parapsychology in movies like Ghostbusters, many people assume that psi experimenters today primarily use the well-known ESP cards. This is a deck of 25 cards, with five repetitions of five cards showing symbols of a square, circle, wavy line, cross, or star. Such cards were developed and used extensively in early psi experiments primarily by J. B. Rhine and his colleagues from the 1930's through the 1960's. ESP cards provided persuasive evidence for ESP, but today they are rarely used by professionals. Four of the most prolific and persuasive of the current experiments are the following:

go to top

PK on random number generators
The advent of electronic and computer technologies has allowed researchers to develop highly automated experiments studying the interaction between mind and matter. In one such experiment, a Random Number Generator (RNG) based on electronic or radioactive noise produces a data stream that is recorded and analyzed by computer software.

In the typical RNG experiment, a subject attempts to mentally change the distribution of the random numbers, usually in an experimental design that is functionally equivalent to getting more "heads" than "tails" while flipping a coin. Of course the electronic, computerized experiment has many advantages over earlier research using, e.g., tossed coins or dice. In the RNG experiment, great flexibility is combined with careful scientific control and a high rate of data acquisition.

A meta-analysis of the database, published in 1989, examined 800 experiments by more than 60 researchers over the preceding 30 years. The effect size was found to be very small, but remarkably consistent, resulting in an overall statistical deviation of approximately 15 standard errors from a chance effect. The probability that the observed effect was actually zero (i.e., no psi) was less than one part in a trillion, verifying that human consciousness can indeed affect the behavior of a random physical system. Furthermore, while experimental quality had significantly increased over time, this was uncorrelated with the effect size, in contradiction to a frequent, but unfounded skeptical criticism.

go to top

PK on living systems
This has also been called bio-PK, and more recently some researchers refer to it as Direct Mental Interactions with Living Systems (DMILS). The ability to monitor internal functions of the body, including nervous system activity using EEG and biofeedback technologies, has provided an opportunity to ask whether biological systems may also be affected by intention in a manner similar to PK on RNGs.

A DMILS experiment that has been particularly successful is one that looks at the commonly reported "feeling of being stared at." The "starer" and the "staree" are isolated in different locations, and the starer is periodically asked to simply gaze at the staree via closed circuit video links. Meanwhile the staree's nervous system activity is automatically and continuously monitored. The cumulative database on this and similar DMILS experiments provides strong evidence that one person's attention directed towards a remote, isolated person, can significantly activate or calm that person's nervous system, according to the instructions given to the starer.

go to top

ESP in the ganzfeld
Ganzfeld ("whole field") technique was developed to quiet this external noise by providing a mild, unpatterned sensory field to mask the noise of the outside world. In the typical ganzfeld experiment, the telepathic "sender" and "receiver" are isolated, the receiver is put into the ganzfeld state, and the sender is shown a video clip or still picture and asked to mentally send that image to the receiver.

The receiver, while in the ganzfeld, is asked to continuously report aloud all mental processes, including images, thoughts, feelings. At the end of the sending period, typically about 20 to 40 minutes in length, the receiver is taken out of the ganzfeld, and shown four images or videos, one of which is the true target and three are non-target decoys. The receiver attempts to select the true target, using perceptions experienced during the ganzfeld state as clues to what the mentally "sent" image might have been. With no telepathy, chance expectation allows us to predict that the correct target would be selected about 1 in 4 times, for a 25% "hit rate." After scores of such experiments, presently totaling about 700 individual sessions conducted by about two dozen investigators, world-wide, the results show that the target image is selected on average 34% of the time. This is a highly significant result, suggesting that telepathy, at least as operationally defined in this experiment, exists.

go to top

Remote viewing
The ganzfeld technique indicates that information can be exchanged mentally after the receiver is placed in an altered state of consciousness (the ganzfeld). The remote viewing experiment, in one of its many forms, investigates whether information can be gained without requiring a special altered state, and without a sender. For example, in one type of remote viewing experiment, a pool of several hundred photographs are created. One of these is randomly selected by a third party to be the target, and it is set aside in a remote location. The experimental participant then attempts to sketch or otherwise describe that remote target photo. This is repeated for a total of say, 7 different targets. Many ways of evaluating the results of this test have been developed, including some highly sophisticated methods. One common (and easy) method is to take the group of seven target photos and responses, randomly shuffle the targets and responses, and then ask independent judges to rank order or match the correct targets with the participant's actual responses. If there was real transfer of information, the responses should correspond more closely to the correct targets than to the mismatched targets.

Several thousand such trials have been conducted by dozens of investigators over the past 25 years, involving hundreds of participants. The cumulative database strongly indicates that information about remote photos, actual scenes, and events can be perceived. Some of these experiments have also been used to successfully study precognition by having a participant describe a photo that would be randomly selected in the future. "
http://www.psiresearch.org/para2.html#eight
 
Lucian talks about PEAR labs’ investigation into remote viewing. To make things easy, I’ll split them into two halves. The first half (dating from around 1979) are the Chicago Trials, and the second half I’ll call the PEAR trials (1980-200something). This is described as being a replication of the SRI and SAIC trials (of which only a tiny fraction of the results have been released*).

The early Chicago trials used physical targets where the sender had to go in order to send, and the judges were given photographs of the target along with three decoys and told to chose which was the target. The success rate was extremely high. Trouble is, the photographs of the target were taken ON THE DAY of the trial, and the remote viewer KNEW WHICH DAY AND TIME OF DAY the viewer would be at the target (it is not made clear if the judges also knew). Thus temporal clues such as season, time of day, weather, could be included in the viewer’s notes. It’s interesting that at the end of the PEAR experiments, some 20+ years after the Chicago trials, the same trials were re-judged. Without any knowledge or memory of what the weather was like over twenty years ago, the judges were not able to agree which were the targets, and the significant results vanished.

The PEAR trials continued using physical locations, and still made it a priority that the viewer should know the time that the sender was present at the target. But this time the judging was replaced by a system of using thirty “yes/no” questions referring to the target. I do not have a list of all thirty, but “Is it inside?”, “Is there water present?” and the like have been given as examples.

Some statisticians, including Jessica Utts, pointed out that there was a method for guessing that could inflate the hit rate, and that the statistical scores for PEAR were overvalued by around 500%. This is interesting to note that this critique was written before PEAR altered the scoring system to a more sensitive version (including “yes/no/maybe” and other versions) and found a marked decrease in the success rate. http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm

As for PEAR being a replication of SAIC, that doesn’t really ring true. It used a different target type (PEAR’s physical locations, SAIC’s photographs) and different judging techniques (PEAR’s binary scoring, SAIC’s target plus four decoys judging).

Then I’d like a little clarification about one of Lucian’s quotes. It’s the one that begins “What are the major psi experiments today?” It’s curious because it makes a definition between “ESP and the ganzfeld” and “remote viewing” which I’d consider one and the same. And under “Remote viewing” it talks about an experiment which, frankly, I’ve never heard of before. One photograph is taken out of hundreds and mixed up with up to seven decoys? And there are THOUSANDS of these experiments? Honestly, I’ve never heard of this protocol. There's a couple of things it kind of sounds like, but these experiments didn't last for thousands of trials. Could I have more details about these, please?
 
You are mistaken, Ersby. I don't know where you did your researcch, was it the 'tricksterbook' website ;)

I can give you the contact details of the those involved in the experiments / research if you like. It's usualy best going to the 'horses mouth' so to speak, when reviewing scientific research, rather than take someone elses word for it.

So if you want the details, just ask. These people are more than happy to help with genuine enquiries.

HTH.
 
Lucianarchy said:
You are mistaken, Ersby. I don't know where you did your researcch, was it the 'tricksterbook' website ;)

I can give you the contact details of the those involved in the experiments / research if you like. It's usualy best going to the 'horses mouth' so to speak, when reviewing scientific research, rather than take someone elses word for it.

So if you want the details, just ask. These people are more than happy to help with genuine enquiries.

HTH.

You're not making any sense. I need you to explain the following points you just made:

Mistaken about what?
I supplied a link in my reply. Why the wink?
I do want details and I did ask. So who did these experiments?

Thanks in advance.
 
It's usualy best going to the 'horses mouth' so to speak, when reviewing scientific research, rather than take someone elses word for it.

If this is serious scientific research, then can you point us to the peer reviews rather than the self testimony?

Also, I presume that as part of the peer review process others have repeated these experiments and independently got a similar result?
 
http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/rvlist.htm

This is a list I made of as many remote viewing experiments as I could find. And amongst these is no mention of the protocol mentioned in the last part of Lucian's last cut and paste.

I really am intruiged that such a large body of evidence should pass me by.
 
Ersby, I have been asked to get you to direct your questions to Dean Radin. [email protected] . Mark it for the attention of 'Dr Radin' and come back and let us know what the answer to your questions are.

HTH.
 
Fair enough. But what was I mistaken about?
 
Psi missing is one of the most startling discoveries of modern parapsychology. At times, certain individuals persist in giving the wrong answers in psi tests. The accumulation of systematically wrong answers can be so flagrant that it suggests something quite different than a mere lack of psi abilities: it is as if people use psi to consistently avoid the target, unconsciously "sabotaging" their own results!

A number of different psychodynamics could conceivably lead to psi missing, but one of the most solidly established is quite simple: belief. In 1942, Gertrude Schmeidler, professor of psychology at City University of New York, set up a questionnaire to explore students' beliefs about psi. She used the term "sheep" to refer to those who were confident about the reality of psi and "goats" for those who doubted its existence or its pertinence in the context of the test. After the questionnaire, she gave the students a classic psi test with ESP cards in which they tried to guess sequences of target- cards. Then Schmeidler compared the results of the psi test and those of the questionnaire. The remarkable conclusion was that the "sheep" had a significant deviation above chance, while "goats" were significantly below it. [...] http://www.psiexplorer.com/belief1.htm
 
Although Luci's managed to get bannified, it seems a shame to let this thread go to waste, and as I can't find any other mention of it here, I'll point out that this week's New Scientist has two articles on parapsychology (and a nice bent spoon front cover image).

The first mentions the sheep/goat effect with the differing results obtained in experiments by Richard Wiseman and Marilyn Schlitz.

The second article isn't so good. It asserts on several occasions that innumerable experiments in psi with excellent design and high statistical significance exist, but doesn't give any details. It then goes on to use Bayes' Theorem to explain why mainstream science refuses to accept psi's existence. Basically, how good does the evidence have to be? The article contends that the bar is set unfairly high for parapsychology compared to medical science, but this seems fair enough to me. One set of results builds on decades of previous work, for which we have ample evidence and mechanistic explanations, the other requires the creation of a whole new model of reality and the supposition of new forces that behave in an entirely different way to anything else previous recorded. It sounds like special pleading to me.

Thoughts from others? If you haven't read the articles, they're worth a look (although you'll have to buy a print issue to read them).
 
James - could you give the actual dates on the cover?

Someone would be hunting for it for me and while a bent spoon out to be fairly noticable I don't especially want a copy of Cutlery Collectors Monthly! :D


Kath
 
JamesM: Yes its certainly worth carrying on with - we might want to try and clarify the prupose of the thread (as I mentioned above) - I linked to it before but this was my suggestion for this thread:

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=349257#post349257

Pos. "The Physics of Telepathy" is too specific - how about changing the title too: "The Science of the Paranormal"? Or something similar. LA posted lot sof interesting stuff about research into the links between the links between Quantuum Pyshics and certain Paranormal aspects like telepathy.

Good spot on the NS front (I'll grab it tomorrow) and thanks for the details as they only offer:

ON THE EDGE OF THE KNOWN WORLD
Why are we no nearer to knowing whether paranormal powers exist? p.32

THE POWER OF BELIEF
Believers in the paranormal are more likely to get good experimental results. Some say this is the ultimate proof; others that it is a fatal flaw p.34

OPPOSITES DETRACT
The better the evidence for ESP gets, the harder opponents dig in their heels p.38

http://www.newscientist.com/inprint/#cover

Emps
 
Re: New Scientist articles

I found the second article interesting as at this very moment on the screen I have the results of a meta-analysis for the benefits of antibiotics in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB) - like the example with streptokinase that they give in the New Scientist article, it's been known for a long time that the treatment seem to be beneficial, but it's been hard pinning it down statistically, as some trials give completely opposite results. It's not till you do the meta-analyses that you can see clearly that there is statistically demonstrable effect.

The meta-analyses of the Ganzfeld (spelling?) experiments showed that something other than chance seems to be at work, but it's exactly what that seems to be the problem.

The parapsychologists claim that it shows a psi effect, the sceptics say it shows an effect that but that it's not psi (systematic error, systematic fraud, plain weird statistical artefacts).

The problem of applying Baysian stats as to which of these is the more likely explanation, is the weighting you apply to the probability of the explanation - the initial assumptions - a parapsychologist would apply a high probability of psi as the explanation, a sceptic would apply high probability to anything but psi - and thus it's possible to get completely opposite statistically valid answers from the same set of data.

Unless someone comes up with a blockbuster experiment that clearly demonstrates psi that's the way it'll stay. And of course you can't prove psi doesn't exist, because you can't prove a negative.

This one will run and run folks.

*EDIT* It would be helpful if the articles, particularly the third were better referenced.

*edit 2* The second reference in Emp's post below looks like it's one of the analyses referred to in NS.

*edit 3* Now, not so sure it is, sorry.
 
A couple of things posted in the other thread that wern't posted here:

Lucianarchy said:
FieldREG Anomalies in Group Situations

R. D. Nelson, G. J. Bradish, Y. H. Dobyns, B. J. Dunne, and R. G. Jahn, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, School of Engineering/Applied Science, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544


The following brief description of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Remote Perception program has been prepared at the invitation of the Editor1, in order to augment this special report section of the Journal with information about another substantial database of experiments relevant to those of SRI and SAIC. Given Utts' attention to the importance of replication (Section 3.4), and Hyman's challenge of interlaboratory consistency (Point #3 of his Introduction and Point #2 of his "Suggestions for Future Research"), we submit that the PEAR program has obtained the largest extant body of experimental data that meets their criteria for interlaboratory replication. In point of fact, both the PEAR remote perception program, and the prior studies of Dunne and Bisaha on which it was originally based, were undertaken as formal replications of the SRI experiments of Puthoff and Targ.

---------------

Lucianarchy said:
" Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud."

- extract from: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR P SYCHIC FUNCTIONING. Professor Jessica Utts, Division of Statistics,
University of California, Davis.

http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

Emps
 
I picked it up as it also has stuff on the Grand Challenge too:

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13891

And I thought this bit from the overview was interesting in regard to the dsicussion:

Between 1995 and 1999 approximately 30 ganzfeld studies were carried out. The results from these studies have been subjected to four different mata-analyses. Two conclude that the findings are significant; two that they are not.

Why the discrepancy? There are many minor differences between the four analyses but one stands out above others: whether or not to include a hugely successful study carried out in 1997 by Kathy Dalton of the University of Edinburgh in the UK. Two meta-analyses left it out on the grounds that its results were so much better than any other that the study should be discounted as an outlier - an acceptable practice in meta-analyses. The other two included it on the grounds that meta-analyses must use all data - again, an acceptable practice. No prizes for guessing which analyses came to which conlcusions.

Altough I appreciate the irony of being punished for one's success and accepting that you do often have to exclude extreme outliers I do find it intersting - Fortean data always seems to be in the tails of the bell curve which gets snipped off (somewhere in the upper or lower 5th percentiles) - its not that ther isn't real anomalous data out there its just that it isn't possible to include a lot of it in studies - esp. when other data suggests much weaker results.

Perhaps this is how the data is doomed to always be treated?

I do wodner what Kathy Dalton was doing right though. but perhaps it is the experimenter effect that is discussed?

Emps
 
I'd need more details to be sure, but I think (THINK, mind you) the article has it wrong.

There have been only two meta-analyses re. the auto ganzfeld. Are the other two analyses the Hyman and Honorton ones?

In Milton and Wiseman's analysis, Dalton's was left out because it was done after the cut off date they'd set. In fact, I don't think it'd been published when they begun their m-a.

The other meta-analysis that included Dalton's work (and a number of other experiments, too) also devised a new criteria by which to decide which experiments to include in their m-a. This criteria "Standardness" conveniently lost a number of unsuccesful experiments from the group of experiments to be assessed.
 
Originally posted by JamesM


The second article isn't so good.

You must be kidding, right?

It asserts on several occasions that innumerable experiments in psi with excellent design and high statistical significance exist, but doesn't give any details.

{shrugs}

Go and do your homework.

It then goes on to use Bayes' Theorem to explain why mainstream science refuses to accept psi's existence. Basically, how good does the evidence have to be? The article contends that the bar is set unfairly high for parapsychology compared to medical science, but this seems fair enough to me.

Emmmmm . . ok . . I read the article. Where does it state the bar is unfairly high?? I don't believe he said this. That would be an extremely contentious position. I believe this is a fabrication on your part. But if you could pinpoint the reference to prove me wrong, that would be fine.

Now you say it seems fair enough to you. You need to justify this. It would take you many thousands of words, and I could rip any so-called "justification" apart. Basically I strongly suspect you are presupposing a materialist based metaphysic. Naughty naughty!

One set of results builds on decades of previous work, for which we have ample evidence and mechanistic explanations, the other requires the creation of a whole new model of reality and the supposition of new forces that behave in an entirely different way to anything else previous recorded. It sounds like special pleading to me.

The mechanistic philosophy was discredited as long ago as the 17th century. It's true that the existence of anomalous cognition requires a whole new model of reality. It is very understandable why scientists do not abandon the current model of reality. I agree with all this. What is patently false, however, is the claim that there is no evidence for parapsychological phenomena. It's there. The reason why we don't embrace it and seek "mundane" explanations is because of scientists prior commitment to the materialist metaphysic.

Thoughts from others? If you haven't read the articles, they're worth a look (although you'll have to buy a print issue to read them).

You can register at their site for free for 7 days. Maybe people can get to read it by that means?
 
Well, I've had my reservations about the meta-analysis results of the 'Out of Africa' genetics theory. Based on observations there, when stats begins to rear its ugly head, it opens the door for Politics to enter. The problem with any experimentation that involves meta analysis is, IMHO, the fact that the experimenter sets an arbitrary measure for 'experimental significance' and how it is weighted within the scheme of things, if included at all, which leave the gate open for any inherent bias to manifest.


The new Scientist article is well worth the cover price :)
 
Back
Top