|
Post by mightydrunken on Oct 6, 2010 15:02:48 GMT 1
I can understand how people may desire solace with the idea that there is life after death. How the connection they feel to others is actually more than just a feeling. However the evidence for Psi is so very weak. I'm not sure that conducting psi experiments in such a controlled and paranoid atmosphere is very conducive to attaining the optimum mental state that is required for psi functioning. How convenient. All those checks and removing all bias from an experiment and suddenly the experiment is not conducive to a psi effect! How does anyone know what the "laws of psi" are? If an experiment shows a deviation from chance why is it automatically thought to be psi (in a psi experiment) when there could be many other biasing factors? If psi was to be of any use then you would hope you wouldn't need to perform the feat many times to have it appear. Shouldn't once be enough? Anyway, thank you for responding and I don't think there is much more we can say. I think this is one of those areas where you are either a believer or non-believer. I would suggest there are those who want to believe and those that look at the evidence dispassionately.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 6, 2010 15:21:55 GMT 1
Well, as psi seems to work on some 'mental' level the mental states of the participants in any artificial experiment are of crucial importance and in a standard scientific set-up there will always be a good deal of skepticism present. This might be the reason psi has been so elusive of scientific confirmation, i.e. that it is the very experimental set itself that is working against the operation of paranormal functioning. I did provide a link in an earlier post which cites a scientific study conducted in the nineties by Professor Jessica Utts: Quote: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established." Perhaps you missed it. www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html
|
|
|
Post by mightydrunken on Oct 8, 2010 12:37:32 GMT 1
Ray Hyman who worked with Professor Jessica Utts to review the Stargate project came to a different conclusion. www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.htmlThe problem with psi research has been that the effect is very nebulous. So the only evidence we have other than anecdotal is statistical. Over many runs there is a slight deviation from chance. The problem is, is that deviation down to psi or some other factor?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 8, 2010 13:21:47 GMT 1
Ray Hyman who worked with Professor Jessica Utts to review the Stargate project came to a different conclusion. www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.htmlThe problem with psi research has been that the effect is very nebulous. So the only evidence we have other than anecdotal is statistical. Over many runs there is a slight deviation from chance. The problem is, is that deviation down to psi or some other factor? I appreciate that Prof. Utts' conclusions have been hotly disputed, however, answer me this: How can a world renowned statistician be so completely off the mark within a field she is an expert in? Isn't this a case of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater?"
|
|
|
Post by helen on Oct 8, 2010 15:15:26 GMT 1
Suggest you read The Mind Parasites by Colin Wilson. Here was a guy who, in the fifties, opened the door to the wider world of the concept of metaphysics. Mind Parasites is a novel and Wilson, acclaimed psychoanalyst and talented philoligist was lumped in with the other Angry Young Men of the fifities such as Osbourne and Amis; however, he ploughed a different furrow. With the tools we have at hand the manifestations of parapsychology cannot be measured scientifically so is not something that can regarded as science. Wilson studied in depth the work of Tom Lethbridge; scientist and archaeologist who gave up his 'science' to investigate dowsing. I've tried Lethbridge's method and found it to be pretty effective but it's really difficult to make double blind tests so it's a different sort of science. I've traced the path of discarded sewer pipes across my lawn and a blind gas riser using his pendulum method. I traced, with a suitably adjusted pendulum, the extent of a barytes/silver vein on Kit Hill in Cornwall. It's quite interesting but so difficult to test! I've a day off work today so I'm back to Gardeners Question Time. How do I introduce a link into message like this, the usual methods go pfuffff Wanted to add this midst the text but it wouldn't work www.tc-lethbridge.com/friends/?id=74 Let's see how it goes!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 8, 2010 19:08:21 GMT 1
It worked, Helen, and made a very interesting read. Thank you.
|
|