Evidence for Psychic Powers

[Diana]

The initial response by most is that there is no evidence. And that it's just fringe science done by some weirdos who cannot possibly understand science. But this is categorically not true. It's decorated scientists connected to reputable universities and research centers. Who publish their research in journals and do peer reviews.

The empirical data produced is enormous. Like I said, purely speaking from the research we're more certain about the existance of psychic phenomenon than we are about the big bang or evolution.

In the fields of science, there are some formulae that serve to measure things, and there are some predictable results that allow us to construct things. We can predict an interference pattern made by waves, for instance, but we have no clue--scientifically--why the wave behaves like a particle when observed. It is quite obvious that we are perceiving a tiny fraction of the whole picture, which makes sense in a linear 3D world nestled with 4D, 5D, 6D and more.

Because we don't see the whole picture, there are variables which cannot be included, and consequently the experimental results will not be consistent because of the unknown variables. This is the limitation of empirical data.

What Ali says is correct: most of what we know about the universe is theory, based on some observable phenomena, such as the Big Bang (which most people take for granted as the truth--it's not; it is theory only). In this way, paranormal phenomena are no different: there is some observable data, and we have theories about it.

To consider the amount of data on psychic phenomena, as Ali says, one must conclude that something is going on. This is also true in the field of extraterrestrial visits--the amount of evidence is overwhelming.

And why wouldn't there be more to the universe outside of limited 3D perception? Just as a two-dimensional being--a square--doesn't understand a sphere or cube; neither do we understand 4D, 5D and beyond phenomena. String theory predicts 11 dimensions mathematically. Within this idea are endless speculations as to what certain things such as coincidences, telepathy, ETs, time travel, and psychic phenomena are.

[3DMonkey]

Metaphysics shouldn't be attempted to be explained by physics. IMO. Metaphysics is supposedly what is beyond physics, so it should be impossible to accumulate enough physical data into a metaphysical box. (they should give it up, take in the moment, and accept the facts of the moment)

[Parsons]

I disagree, I think there is much MORE evidence to conclude that there is some kind of psychic effect going than there is evidence of ET's. I believe in both, of course, but there is much more data and actual scientific experiments involved in trying to suss-out psi-effects. Its no longer a matter of there isnt some kind of interesting effect going on, even the informed skeptics agree that there is some kind of interesting effect going on, they just don't want to admit it could be psi. If you think there is not enough experimentation with air-tight methodology to get enough data to put together to prove this effect, then you are not an informed skeptic. The data is out there, its been collecting since the 1930's. The book I mentioned even includes the data that was gathered by some of the first researchers into this field and they concluded it was false at the time. But if you calculate the odds against chance for just those sets of experiments, the odds against chance are huge; meaning the scientists at the time saw what they wanted to see moved on even though they were sitting on positive results.

---

Anyways, the answers you seek are in the book I mentioned, but I can't force you to inform yourself via that or youtube / google videos.

Moving on, another example: mind matter interactions with random number generators and the global consciousness project:

^^To me, this video explains scientific evidence of prayer/meditation / being a co-creator. Also explains the odd effects random number generators displayed around large worldwide events like 9/11.

---

There is also this if you have the time: it addresses the taboos / skeptics of psi:

[3DMonkey]

I suppose I'm seeking this- what do we want from the evidence that we don't have without the evidence?

[Parsons]

If you dont feel like watching that long video: the odds against chance for the ganzfeld experiments alone, meaning the odds that these experiments were just a coincidence are 29 Quintilian to one. Or 29 billion trillion to one.

[Patrick]

Is anyone here familiar with the Lyricus Teaching Order (i.e. WingMaker material) ?

They call the moment when the scientific community of a planet presents evidence of consciousness existing outside of our brain as The Grand Portal. Because this simple act of science ultimately results in the removal of the veil and begins our multi-dimensional existence. Interesting stuff.

[51/49]

...slightly on topic

3.9 Questioner: I am reminded of the statement—approximately—that if you had faith to move a mountain, the mountain would move. This seems to be approximately what you were saying. That if you are fully aware of the Law of One, you would be able to do these things. Is that correct?

Ra: I am Ra. The vibratory distortion of sound, faith, is perhaps one of the stumbling blocks between those of what we may call the infinite path and those of the finite proving/understanding.

You are precisely correct in your understanding of the congruency of faith and intelligent infinity; however, one is a spiritual term, the other more acceptable perhaps to the conceptual framework distortions of those who seek with measure and pen.

[Patrick]

Is anyone here familiar with the Lyricus Teaching Order (i.e. WingMaker material) ?

They call the moment when the scientific community of a planet presents evidence of consciousness existing outside of our brain as The Grand Portal. Because this simple act of science ultimately results in the removal of the veil and begins our multi-dimensional existence. Interesting stuff.

http://www.lyricus.org/

...
THE FINDINGS OF THE GRAND PORTAL
Notwithstanding the efficacy of these protocols, there are instances where the discovery of the Grand Portal was successfully suppressed by established institutions that foresaw their ruin or replacement in the dawning of this discovery. This fear reaction is a natural result of perceived displacement, which is why Lyricus specializes in the psychology of change management, and why the transmission protocols are so rigorously tested and refined.

The primary findings of the Grand Portal can be reduced to four fundamental knowledge systems. They are:

1. The soul carrier function is muted or diminished in proportional sympathy to the species’ perception of soul.

2. The species is unified at multiple levels that transcend time and place. This unification is essential to its vibrant survival as well as its ascension pathway as a spiritual force that animates and preserves the knowledge defined by the species.

3. The species is innately connected to a vast network of related life forms each based on the biogenetic soul carrier archetype of the Central Race specific to its superuniverse. Collectively, these species represent the cellular structure of First Source, while the individuated consciousness represents the indivisible particle thereof.

4. The individuated consciousness is orchestrated by the species to produce a knowledge path that leads the species to its creator and upholder. It is this return – like a migratory journey enjoined by a fierce tailwind – that is accelerated by the Grand Portal.
The individual is not existential, nor truly independent of the species. The individual is not supreme, nor is it the reward of consciousness. The individual is less an artifact of First Source than it is of the species. The soul carrier is ultimately transformed and fused with the individuated consciousness to the point it is indiscernible as a separate component of consciousness, but the individual remains devoted to the archetype of the species.

IMPLICATIONS AND EFFECTS OF THE GRAND PORTAL
The primary effects of the Grand Portal can be reduced to three major influences. They are:

1. Institutions of science, religion, and culture are reformatted to embrace the science of multidimensional realities as their core, guiding frequency.

2. Government leaders are obliged to restructure their political systems to allow for the integration of new systems of knowledge, specifically of the multidimensional universe and the extended brotherhood of intelligent beings that live therein.

3. Social institutions related to trade and enterprise are reengineered to support the technologies that arise from the discovery of the Grand Portal. These technologies dramatically alter the way of life on a planetary scale. These include soul carrier health, species continuation planning, ecosystem stability, and harmonization of species in service to a planetary educational system.

The areas of resistance to the Grand Portal are predictable if not avoidable. Resistance is largely predicated on three basic factors:

1. Is particle energy used as a weapon and/or an energy resource?

2. Is religion fragmented or unified?

3. Is machine intelligence managed by species’ intelligence?
Socio-Political Resistance

Because particle energy is a core component of the Grand Portal discovery, the species is aware of the inherent power of particle energy before it has discovered the Grand Portal. This awareness can provide unlimited resources for energy production, and it can also be a weapon of coercion to seize control of planetary resources.

If the species is using particle energy as a weapon of intimidation amongst its own members, it is more likely to resist the approach of the Grand Portal because the discoveries of the Grand Portal introduce an indisputable range of intelligent life forms whose relationships are initially uncertain. Because of this perceived shift in the balance of supremacy, the evidence of the Grand Portal is resisted and there is a comprehensive stratagem to conceal it.

Religious Resistance
Among species whose religious and spiritual identities are fragmented, religious leaders are essentially in competition. That is to say, leadership has chosen to define the spiritual worlds and individual purpose therein differently. This is common among species that have partial activation of the soul carrier’s sensorial capacity. This fractional capacity is precisely the cause of discordant views by spiritual leaders, and the resulting rivalry is the primary cause of resistance expressed by spiritual leaders when the Grand Portal is discovered.

The resistance generally takes the form of skepticism initially and evolves into indignation and ridicule. Unlike the social and political leaders who can operate in stealth through well-concealed stratagem, spiritual leaders generally resist the Grand Portal after it is discovered and announced, and do so openly.

Technology Resistance
As the species evolves its communication network, machine intelligence begins to eclipse species’ intelligence. Machines of super-intelligence are built that – if not properly managed by the species – can self-evolve at a velocity greater than organic evolution, overtaking the embedded management protocols and allowing machines to dominate the frontiers of science and technology.

When this occurs, the Grand Portal can still be discovered, but the species itself is not sufficiently prepared to assimilate the findings and apply them in service to the formation of new institutions and the transformation of existing ones. When the Grand Portal is revealed solely by machine intelligence, the discovery is hollow and its propagation is typically reserved for the intellectually elite of the species.

The Grand Portal’s discovery is far less significant than the diffusion and propagation of its findings to the species’ educational institutions and planetary scientific class. The discovery holds the promise of the activation of the soul carrier’s sensorial system, which is an intelligence accelerator of significant value to the species.

Species who have both fragmented spiritual identities and deploy particle energy as weapons are among the most resistant to the Grand Portal evidence. Typically the resistance is twofold:

1. Political operatives predict the dawning of the Grand Portal discovery and a stratagem for its concealment is initiated before the discovery can be adequately corroborated and proven irrefutable.

2. When the stratagem to conceal fails and the evidence is distributed to the network, spiritual leaders offer the next wave of resistance by doubting the motivations of those leaders responsible for its discovery, since all or most do not subscribe to the belief systems defined and/or upheld by the spiritual leaders.

The period immediately preceding the discovery of the Grand Portal is the most critical. This episode of time is known as the Attestation Period, the time when critics will rise with full voice and unrestrained reluctance to resist the implications of the Grand Portal because they are aware – dimly as it may be – that massive change undermines their control impulse. It is a time when spiritual leaders and politicians join forces to repel this intricate and complex metaphysical and scientific revelation.

This is why the protocols are so carefully engineered by Lyricus to ensure that the leaders involved in the Grand Portal discovery operate skillfully to ensure that resistance is met with intelligent countermeasures that bring the proof of the human soul to the network in a way that cannot be censored, altered or restrained. The network itself will reveal the human soul in a way that is unimaginable and therefore indefensible.
...

[AnthroHeart]

...slightly on topic

3.9 Questioner: I am reminded of the statement—approximately—that if you had faith to move a mountain, the mountain would move. This seems to be approximately what you were saying. That if you are fully aware of the Law of One, you would be able to do these things. Is that correct?

Ra: I am Ra. The vibratory distortion of sound, faith, is perhaps one of the stumbling blocks between those of what we may call the infinite path and those of the finite proving/understanding.

You are precisely correct in your understanding of the congruency of faith and intelligent infinity; however, one is a spiritual term, the other more acceptable perhaps to the conceptual framework distortions of those who seek with measure and pen.

I believe sustained thought and emotion for hours each day over time can more slowly accomplish the same miracles.

[zenmaster]

I've been trained in scientific methodology. I hold the degrees. I am technically one of their peers even if I don't do research in parapsychology.

You can't be a peer, even "technically", if you don't do research in their field. You should know that. So no, you are not qualified.

[Ali Quadir]

I've been trained in scientific methodology. I hold the degrees. I am technically one of their peers even if I don't do research in parapsychology.

You can't be a peer, even "technically", if you don't do research in their field. You should know that. So no, you are not qualified.

A peer is someone with a scientific basis and sufficient knowledge about the field.. You do not actually need to do research in the field, though it helps.Let me remind you that the person you pulled up to "demonstrate" that this parapsychologists experiment was incorrectly done, James Randi, has had no official training at all. He quit school to become a stage magician.

I do have relevant training in research methodology, philosophy of science and a somewhat decent working knowledge about the field of parapsychology. I can certainly judge for myself the research performed and the merits of arguments for or against a case.

Again, it's not about showing 'proof and hand waving'. It's about providing a falsifiable explanation of experimental evidence - empirical data. Saying it another way, the objective is not to attempt to bolster the opinion that psychic phenomena exists (as many attempt to do in internet forums, superficially, using 'magical thinking' - intuition supported by vague notions), as if to sway skeptics. It's about creating experimental methods used to explain, in a rigorous and reproducible manner, some hypothesis about the phenomena. The result is typically some measure of utility or an improved understanding of the mechanisms involved.

This is what I responded to. You indicated that it's important to see things from a scientific perspective and step away from opinions and vague notions.

So if you want to talk about the facts and real science, be my guest. Make no mistake, there is overwhelming evidence.

[zenmaster]

I've been trained in scientific methodology. I hold the degrees. I am technically one of their peers even if I don't do research in parapsychology.

You can't be a peer, even "technically", if you don't do research in their field. You should know that. So no, you are not qualified.

A peer is someone with a scientific basis and sufficient knowledge about the field.. You do not actually need to do research in the field, though it helps.Let me remind you that the person you pulled up to "demonstrate" that this parapsychologists experiment was incorrectly done, James Randi, has had no official training at all. He quit school to become a stage magician.

By no means was I appealing to Randi as an authority on the paper, or on the subject - he's not a scientist. I was pointing out the paper's lack of rigor and the degree of attention received.

I do have relevant training in research methodology, philosophy of science and a somewhat decent working knowledge about the field of parapsychology. I can certainly judge for myself the research performed and the merits of arguments for or against a case.

You've basically watered down the whole concept of 'peer' in scientific peer review.

Again, it's not about showing 'proof and hand waving'. It's about providing a falsifiable explanation of experimental evidence - empirical data. Saying it another way, the objective is not to attempt to bolster the opinion that psychic phenomena exists (as many attempt to do in internet forums, superficially, using 'magical thinking' - intuition supported by vague notions), as if to sway skeptics. It's about creating experimental methods used to explain, in a rigorous and reproducible manner, some hypothesis about the phenomena. The result is typically some measure of utility or an improved understanding of the mechanisms involved.

This is what I responded to. You indicated that it's important to see things from a scientific perspective and step away from opinions and vague notions.

So if you want to talk about the facts and real science, be my guest. Make no mistake, there is overwhelming evidence.

I've read over some of the criticisms and am still reading over the paper: 9 experiments. Let's talk. Which experiment do you think was explained adequately? We'll look at that one.

[Ali Quadir]

You've basically watered down the whole concept of 'peer' in scientific peer review.

The 9 experiments article is posted in the "Journal of personality and social psychology" a journal of psychology, not a journal of parapsychology. Which means the available peers are more likely psychologists than parapsychologists. If a well reputed journal can consider psychologists peers to parapsychologists... Then why can't I?

I've read over some of the criticisms and am still reading over the paper: 9 experiments. Let's talk. Which experiment do you think was explained adequately? We'll look at that one.

What do you mean with "explained adequately?" Surely not that the mechanism underlying the measurements is adequately explained?

Why don't you tell me what's wrong with them? The whole paper exists of 9 experiments. Judging the whole thing on one of them would not be right. Just as judging "Evidence of psychic powers" on one experiment alone is not really the proper thing to do.

Also pick one field in science that you consider model science, what you would call: "proper well done science" we may use it as a reference point so that we can compare parapsychology to it in areas of dispute...

[Patrick]

Absolutely anyone can try to replicate a scientific experiment. If your results are accepted and published by your peers, then you just did a peer review.

Simple as that, because in the end the whole process is very subjective.

Of course, nowadays without showing qualifications, your "peers" are not even going to look at you or your work. Which actually is IMHO a big problem of the contemporary scientific community.

[zenmaster]

You've basically watered down the whole concept of 'peer' in scientific peer review.

The 9 experiments article is posted in the "Journal of personality and social psychology" a journal of psychology, not a journal of parapsychology. Which means the available peers are more likely psychologists than parapsychologists. If a well reputed journal can consider psychologists peers to parapsychologists... Then why can't I?

So in psychology, just anyone can peer review someone's experiments? That's broken and goes against the concept of 'expert'. Perhaps they couldn't find any experts and that's why the paper passed got published in the first place?

I've read over some of the criticisms and am still reading over the paper: 9 experiments. Let's talk. Which experiment do you think was explained adequately? We'll look at that one.

What do you mean with "explained adequately?" Surely not that the mechanism underlying the measurements is adequately explained?

'Explained adequately', meaning an explanation of hypothesis, experiment, and results which has sufficient rigour. Offering an explanation of the underlying mechanism would be proposing a theory, which would also demand rigour. The theoretical base in not even necessary, but the explanation which adequately identifies, in a stringent manner, cause and effect from the hypothesis/claim and results is indeed essential. Otherwise, one is necessarily presenting selective or anecdotal evidence - that is the evidence can easily be shown to be biased or sparse, in comparison to what data and criteria were otherwise possible for identification and consideration.

Why don't you tell me what's wrong with them? The whole paper exists of 9 experiments. Judging the whole thing on one of them would not be right.

I disagree, it would be 'right'. This represents his presented evidence, after all.

Just as judging "Evidence of psychic powers" on one experiment alone is not really the proper thing to do.

Apples and oranges, no analogy holds. We're talking about Bem having properly demonstrated sufficient rigour in the explanation of (any and all) experiments of that last paper.

Also pick one field in science that you consider model science, what you would call: "proper well done science" we may use it as a reference point so that we can compare parapsychology to it in areas of dispute...

The field of mathematics. Also computer science.

---

Absolutely anyone can try to replicate a scientific experiment. If your results are accepted and published by your peers, then you just did a peer review.

Simple as that, because in the end the whole process is very subjective.

Of course, nowadays without showing qualifications, your "peers" are not even going to look at you or your work. Which actually is IMHO a big problem of the contemporary scientific community.

But thankfully, that's not how the process is done. We're talking about getting published in the first place. Here, apparently they were not as stringent as they should have been. The field and basically society suffers as a result due to the lack of discernment and scrutiny, because standards are necessarily lowered.

[3DMonkey]

I find the whole "professional" arena hilarious. It's just hierarchy for the sake of hierarchy.

[zenmaster]

I find the whole "professional" arena hilarious. It's just hierarchy for the sake of hierarchy.

That would be hilarious, if that's all it indeed was. Reducing something to absurdity does tend to make it funnier than it otherwise would be.

[Patrick]

Better laugh than cry.

[3DMonkey]

I find the whole "professional" arena hilarious. It's just hierarchy for the sake of hierarchy.

That would be hilarious, if that's all it indeed was. Reducing something to absurdity does tend to make it funnier than it otherwise would be.

Yes, it certainly does. I think this lady's explanation of hierarchy is entirely accurate.

It's about joining the club, and you can't get in where you don't "fit" in.

[Ali Quadir]

So in psychology, just anyone can peer review someone's experiments? That's broken and goes against the concept of 'expert'. Perhaps they couldn't find any experts and that's why the paper passed got published in the first place?

In any science my friend... I'm sorry but peer review is not as absolute and holy as you consider it. It's just better than nothing.

Consider that new articles by definition are about some new insight idea or field, big or small. Often this is so new that the best peers available have very little prior and relevant knowledge.

Take this case.. You send an article to a psychological journal.. Who do you think is going to peer review it? A quantum physicist? A bread baker?

This is incidentally one of the often voiced criticisms against peer review.

The fact that this 9 experiments article got through peer review simply means that the reviewers honestly judged the research methodologically sound and the article was good enough for the standards of the journal. I doubt that they'd all agree with the existence of a psi effects. But their job is not to agree. But to judge the article and experiment so as not to include obvious junk into the journal.

The outcome of an experiment has very little to do with the peer review process.

So in the very least we know that this article and these experiments are good enough in methodology for the high demands of a journal that we know is generally very critical of the articles it publishes.

What do you mean with "explained adequately?" Surely not that the mechanism underlying the measurements is adequately explained?

'Explained adequately', meaning an explanation of hypothesis, experiment, and results which has sufficient rigour.

Well. Since this journal's peer reviewers allowed the article to be published... They judge a lot of articles. The rejection rates of these journals are generally between 60 to 80 percent. We'd have to look up the rejection rate of this particular journal. But I'd wager it's going to be on the high side.. (It's a very high profile journal. Everyone wants to be published in it... so they can afford and even need to be picky)

At any rate, we can conclude that a critical journal has judged the hypothesis experiments and results to be sufficiently sound.

If you disagree. Then tell us what's wrong with the article. By all means... Prove the journal wrong....

Offering an explanation of the underlying mechanism would be proposing a theory, which would also demand rigour. The theoretical base in not even necessary, but the explanation which adequately identifies, in a stringent manner, cause and effect from the hypothesis/claim and results is indeed essential. Otherwise, one is necessarily presenting selective or anecdotal evidence - that is the evidence can easily be shown to be biased or sparse, in comparison to what data and criteria were otherwise possible for identification and consideration.

Ok so this part is irrelevant, we do not try to propose a theory. Neither does mr Bem's article suggest a theory.

Why don't you tell me what's wrong with them? The whole paper exists of 9 experiments. Judging the whole thing on one of them would not be right.

I disagree, it would be 'right'. This represents his presented evidence, after all.

No, his presented evidence is the whole 9 experiments.. Not one of them. Besides, I'm making it easy on you... Giving a bigger target to shoot at. But if you want me to take experiments from the article, lets just take the first 2 for demarcations sake.

What's wrong with either of them?

Just as judging "Evidence of psychic powers" on one experiment alone is not really the proper thing to do.

Apples and oranges, no analogy holds. We're talking about Bem having properly demonstrated sufficient rigour in the explanation of (any and all) experiments of that last paper.

Actually. I consider that we are talking about evidence for psychic powers in general. With Bem as a specific example.

Also pick one field in science that you consider model science, what you would call: "proper well done science" we may use it as a reference point so that we can compare parapsychology to it in areas of dispute...

The field of mathematics. Also computer science.

I suggested you pick a model science, one to compare parapsychology to... Yet you come up with two fields of study which have very little in common with regular empirical science.

Can you explain the role experiments and empirical evidence plays in math and computer science? And to what degree you consider these two fields of study comparable to say biology, physics, psychology, chemistry?

What's wrong with psychology.. If you consider it a valid and proper science. Then surely the methodology involved is sound and if a similar science like parapsychology uses the same methodology then that is a good sign.. Right? Why not use that as an analogy?

[Oldern]

I believe that the idea and the concept of proof is the "solid state society" result, it is basically nothing more than a glorified way of setting up rules and ground ourselves in a very slowly changing state. This state is breaking down since the quantum theories have moved forward - often with a pace where a lot of "old-school" physicists have simply stopped bothering with that field at all!

Regardless, it seems pretty logical to me that ever since our consensus reality does not have much room for a publicly accepted "magical ability", getting proof is de facto impossible to get with the current system. However, with 2012 blowing on full force, I can easily see how the consensus reality will allow more flexibility on this field soon, and suddenly, many of the younger researchers and those that believed all along will find new ways to look at this, and suddenly, "magic" will be able to be a proven "hard cold fact" at one point. Without being hard and cold, obviously : )

A lot of skeptics however, fail to consider the big picture. They are looking at individual studies, power types, UFO sightings, channelings (usually not even reading or listening through these, if they even meet them), and it is easy to dissect all by a case-by-case basis. This one is crazy. There, the whole family is crazy. Here, there is no "proof" that it happened. There, there was a "mass hallucination". Oh, there, it was a weather balloon. There, it was a crazy dude. Oh, another crazy one. Crazy town. Crazy people. Etc....

I say they should turn it around! What system would allow the "crazy ones" to experience something that is so drastically different from what the "radical ones" consider to be the reality? Well, and if there is a system there, could we define it? Could we analyze it? YES! That is the density of the Free Will.

[Ali Quadir]

@Oldern
I would disagree. There is plenty of space in science for so called magical abilities.. Science does not exclude any of it and certainly does not demand proof... Science is merely a systematic methodology of describing the world. If magical abilties are part of the world they get described also. Hence parapsychology.

There is a kind of neo rationalism in the world that came into being around the turn of the previous century. Which presumes a proper way of thinking a proper way in which the world works... But this world view although it pretends to be the scientific view really is not the scientific view.. Evidently it is hard for people to separate the two... But science truly makes no claims about the metaphysical.

Whenever you hear that and look closely it's always one of those neo rationalists. And when you listen closely it's mostly pseudo skepticism.

The problem is that often people who know magick and the spiritual to be real start to reject science as a whole. And those who don't reject the spiritual as a whole. Since both tools are valid ways to explore the world and there is only one world both methodologies should fit like a hand in a glove.

[Oldern]

Ali Quadir: I consider myself "lucky" in a way that I, since being a child, equally preferred art AND mathematics for some "weird" reason. (My teachers did not understand this either, obviously, and my schoolmates definitely thought of me as crazy).

The "magic" is behind the way how mathematics work, definitely. The two things are not inseparable. A healthy balance should bring miracle-like revelations to the field of "religion" and the field of "science" as well. That does not disregard what I was posting above your post, because I was not saying science is inherently bad. I am just saying that we have wished ourselves into a rigid system because of the state of being - but it, as everything, is always subject to change.

But more importantly, to really "include", to really "explain", to really "understand" all that the channeled materials and the inner guides of us have been talking about, about what we are thinking constantly, in a scientifically correct way, one would need to review the WHOLE system, not just include the new revelations. It is not unheard of as a process, but it is definitely subject to resistance if one decides that he is resistant to new ideas.

[zenmaster]

So in psychology, just anyone can peer review someone's experiments? That's broken and goes against the concept of 'expert'. Perhaps they couldn't find any experts and that's why the paper passed got published in the first place?

In any science my friend... I'm sorry but peer review is not as absolute and holy as you consider it. It's just better than nothing.

Consider that new articles by definition are about some new insight idea or field, big or small. Often this is so new that the best peers available have very little prior and relevant knowledge.

Take this case.. You send an article to a psychological journal.. Who do you think is going to peer review it? A quantum physicist? A bread baker?

This is incidentally one of the often voiced criticisms against peer review.

The fact that this 9 experiments article got through peer review simply means that the reviewers honestly judged the research methodologically sound and the article was good enough for the standards of the journal. I doubt that they'd all agree with the existence of a psi effects. But their job is not to agree. But to judge the article and experiment so as not to include obvious junk into the journal.

The outcome of an experiment has very little to do with the peer review process.

So in the very least we know that this article and these experiments are good enough in methodology for the high demands of a journal that we know is generally very critical of the articles it publishes.

No one has been able to replicate, and by now it's not in the journal's best interest to publish replications. The criticism has been on the lack understanding of statistical methodology involved and actually required to provide sufficient support for the claims made, given the type of experiments. Most studies involve a high correlation to hypotheses. However, in the case of 'psi', conducting a proper analysis of the opposite correlation tends to be unfamiliar and affords the author much greater leeway in his methods.

What do you mean with "explained adequately?" Surely not that the mechanism underlying the measurements is adequately explained?

'Explained adequately', meaning an explanation of hypothesis, experiment, and results which has sufficient rigour.

Well. Since this journal's peer reviewers allowed the article to be published... They judge a lot of articles. The rejection rates of these journals are generally between 60 to 80 percent. We'd have to look up the rejection rate of this particular journal. But I'd wager it's going to be on the high side.. (It's a very high profile journal. Everyone wants to be published in it... so they can afford and even need to be picky)

At any rate, we can conclude that a critical journal has judged the hypothesis experiments and results to be sufficiently sound.

If you disagree. Then tell us what's wrong with the article. By all means... Prove the journal wrong....

"By all means....Prove the journal wrong....". myehh, lol

Ok, what was the purpose of the paper. To publish experimental evidence for certain psi powers using statistical methods to show (not account for) anomalous behavior. Remember that one can (knowingly or unknowingly) reduce 'p' by increasing the distance between the expected average and the observed average, by reducing the variability of individual scores, and by increasing the number of trials (to a certain point). So there's a lot of room available for dubious methodology. We must trust Bem's integrity that he did not stop the experiments at the point where the anomalies would be considered in the realm of chance. Also, that all tests conducted were accounted for in the paper.

After all, we've all had 'runs of luck' were, for example, when correctly guessing a playing card type before each card is drawn. That's called 'anecdotal evidence'. It's also merely anecdotal if it can't be reproduced by others. Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence, after all, because no understanding whatsoever, about anything, can come from it.

About the non-reproducibility of his experiments so far (from researchers working in earnest), Bem says "it usually takes several years before enough attempted replications of a reported effect have accumulated to permit an overall analysis (often called a “meta-analysis”) of the evidence—20 years in the example described below. It usually takes busy researchers several months to find the time to design and run an experiment outside their primary research area, and my article was published only a year ago."

So in other words, Bem is claiming that a reasonable time to be sure that a statistically significant set of replications has been conducted will be about 20 years from 1 year ago. To me that's not science and is seriously flawed thinking and demonstrates lack of sufficient evidence. What exactly is the understanding gained from this paper? That's the whole point of a replication process. However, the journal refused to publish the (negative) replications, which were conducted in strict accordance with the original methods used.

Why don't you tell me what's wrong with them? The whole paper exists of 9 experiments. Judging the whole thing on one of them would not be right.

I disagree, it would be 'right'. This represents his presented evidence, after all.

No, his presented evidence is the whole 9 experiments.. Not one of them. Besides, I'm making it easy on you... Giving a bigger target to shoot at. But if you want me to take experiments from the article, lets just take the first 2 for demarcations sake.

What's wrong with either of them?

Statistically significant only given the biased selection criteria used. Basically, he provided weak evidence against the simple null hypothesis of chance (50%) by relying on a small p value alone. What the expert critism suggests for much stronger evidence would be for Bem to have used at least two hypotheses. For example, in comparison to null and in relation to a distribution of his own probabilities created before the study was undertaken. This provides the explanation with an explicit definition for what is considered to be ordinary or extraordinary. This is because, "In Bayesian terms, an extraordinary claim is a hypothesis ("The future made me do it!") that is improbable even before study." (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/one-...-inference). To me, that is not only reasonable, but intuitively the same apprehension while thinking about the problem of claiming something is statistically 'paranormal'. What that improved method provides is an adjusted probability for the results.

Just as judging "Evidence of psychic powers" on one experiment alone is not really the proper thing to do.

Apples and oranges, no analogy holds. We're talking about Bem having properly demonstrated sufficient rigour in the explanation of (any and all) experiments of that last paper.

Actually. I consider that we are talking about evidence for psychic powers in general. With Bem as a specific example.

I thought we were talking about adequacy/inadequacy of Bem's evidence.

Also pick one field in science that you consider model science, what you would call: "proper well done science" we may use it as a reference point so that we can compare parapsychology to it in areas of dispute...

The field of mathematics. Also computer science.

I suggested you pick a model science, one to compare parapsychology to... Yet you come up with two fields of study which have very little in common with regular empirical science.

Can you explain the role experiments and empirical evidence plays in math and computer science? And to what degree you consider these two fields of study comparable to say biology, physics, psychology, chemistry?

Only a small portion of work in those fields involve explanations of empirical evidence, although in some fields, that's the primary work. For example, in math and cs, there is cybernetics, chaos theory, complex adaptive systems, agent-based modelling, etc.

What's wrong with psychology.. If you consider it a valid and proper science. Then surely the methodology involved is sound and if a similar science like parapsychology uses the same methodology then that is a good sign.. Right? Why not use that as an analogy?

That's really a strawman argument. Very simply, if a claim is made in any scientific discipline then the burden is on the researcher to provide strong evidence backing it up. In Bem's case, his experiments were held the idea that what is to be considered paranormal is, under any and all circumstances, a low p with withspect to 50% probability. And, as we know, a low p with respect to 50% probability is what selection bias can create - this is what his paper is trying to show, after all - hence the attempts to replicate.

[Ali Quadir]

So in the very least we know that this article and these experiments are good enough in methodology for the high demands of a journal that we know is generally very critical of the articles it publishes.

No one has been able to replicate, and by now it's not in the journal's best interest to publish replications. The criticism has been on the lack understanding of statistical methodology involved and actually required to provide sufficient support for the claims made, given the type of experiments. Most studies involve a high correlation to hypotheses. However, in the case of 'psi', conducting a proper analysis of the opposite correlation tends to be unfamiliar and affords the author much greater leeway in his methods.

That's not much of an argument. You're making assumptions about the motivations of the journal. Also an experiment like this was actually done before, you could consider Bem's work the replication.
http://www.uniamsterdam.nl/D.J.Bierman/p..._pms97.pdf

"By all means....Prove the journal wrong....". myehh, lol

It is a valid argument... I don't know your credentials, you partly know mine, and we're arguing about professionals... This means you're going to have to come up with strong arguments.

Not that "they did not know the limits of the most commonly used statistical test in existence". That's really assuming the journal is run by a bunch of incompetents. And if the argument is based on such an underlying assumption. Then you should be really be able to guess that you're on the wrong track.

Ok, what was the purpose of the paper. To publish experimental evidence for certain psi powers using statistical methods to show (not account for) anomalous behavior. Remember that one can (knowingly or unknowingly) reduce 'p' by increasing the distance between the expected average and the observed average, by reducing the variability of individual scores, and by increasing the number of trials (to a certain point). So there's a lot of room available for dubious methodology. We must trust Bem's integrity that he did not stop the experiments at the point where the anomalies would be considered in the realm of chance. Also, that all tests conducted were accounted for in the paper.

If you're suggesting he might have manipulated the data by selecting his sets. Then, unless you have actual evidence for that, we're just going to assume he did not do this. It's not normal scientific procedure to call colleagues frauds unless you have solid evidence.

Increasing the number of trials is a valid method of increasing the reliablity of your experiment. More trials is never a problem. Regular psi research goes into millions of trials. It's what you need to do to demonstrate subtle effects.

Though... Bem used 100 test subjects. And (from the top of my head) about 50 trials each. These are normal amounts for social sciences.

Adding measurements cuases the random noise over the whole set to be reduced and thus the signal is going to stand out more clearly.

About the non-reproducibility of his experiments so far (from researchers working in earnest), Bem says "it usually takes several years before enough attempted replications of a reported effect have accumulated to permit an overall analysis (often called a “meta-analysis”) of the evidence—20 years in the example described below. It usually takes busy researchers several months to find the time to design and run an experiment outside their primary research area, and my article was published only a year ago."

He's saying that meta-analysis takes 20 years, this is true, though maybe exaggerated. The point I expect him to be making is that it is incorrect to suggest that an experiment is invalid because the meta-analysis has not been done...

So in other words, Bem is claiming that a reasonable time to be sure that a statistically significant set of replications has been conducted will be about 20 years from 1 year ago. To me that's not science and is seriously flawed thinking and demonstrates lack of sufficient evidence.

No he's countering the argument against his experiment. Suggesting that this is not how science is done. The flawed thinking is not his. The flawed thinking belongs to the person who believes a meta analysis is required before we can draw any conclusions from experiments.

Statistically significant only given the biased selection criteria used. Basically, he provided weak evidence against the simple null hypothesis of chance (50%) by relying on a small p value alone. What the expert critism suggests for much stronger evidence would be for Bem to have used at least two hypotheses. For example, in comparison to null and in relation to a distribution of his own probabilities created before the study was undertaken. This provides the explanation with an explicit definition for what is considered to be ordinary or extraordinary.

The 0 hypothesis is that there is no effect, the main hypothesis is that subjects would be able to identify the position of the erotic stimuli. It's right there in his article. I don't know what expert criticism you refer to. But this is normal methodology. Suggesting that Bem should not use normal methodology is not sound advice without a pretty darn good reason.

I'd be interested to know what other hypothesis you had in mind? I can't actually think of one.

The experiment is extremely straightforward. He demonstrated that erotic pictures caused an effect that should not exist. While regular pictures do not show such an effect. The t-tes he uses is the most ordinary test one can think of. It is regularly used in psychology, medical science and also in your computer science.

There is no reason to indicate he manipulated the data, or repeated the experiments or otherwise selected for an effect. So we're not going to assume that.

There is a 3% chance that his effect was produced randomly.. His conclusions might still have been wrong. However his experiment was sound. This certainty is well within the limits of normal science. In psychologogy and all science this is considered regular practice.

And, I remind you again, the effect has been produced in other similar experiments..

Just as judging "Evidence of psychic powers" on one experiment alone is not really the proper thing to do.

Apples and oranges, no analogy holds. We're talking about Bem having properly demonstrated sufficient rigour in the explanation of (any and all) experiments of that last paper.

Actually. I consider that we are talking about evidence for psychic powers in general. With Bem as a specific example.

I thought we were talking about adequacy/inadequacy of Bem's evidence. [/quote]
I'm not... We're just going into that in detail. The topic title is "Evidence for Psychic Powers".

And your initial argument was not the inadequacy of Bem's evidence. Your intial argument was that the experiment was wrongly done.

Science does not deal in proof. But as it stands now purely from this experiment there's a 97% chance that things are the way he says they are.

Can you explain the role experiments and empirical evidence plays in math and computer science? And to what degree you consider these two fields of study comparable to say biology, physics, psychology, chemistry?

Only a small portion of work in those fields involve explanations of empirical evidence, although in some fields, that's the primary work. For example, in math and cs, there is cybernetics, chaos theory, complex adaptive systems, agent-based modelling, etc.

As a point of interest... How does cybernetics use standard empirical scientific methodology? In what way is agent based modelling comparable to the psi experiment we're speaking about?

What's wrong with psychology.. If you consider it a valid and proper science. Then surely the methodology involved is sound and if a similar science like parapsychology uses the same methodology then that is a good sign.. Right? Why not use that as an analogy?

That's really a strawman argument. Very simply, if a claim is made in any scientific discipline then the burden is on the researcher to provide strong evidence backing it up. In Bem's case, his experiments were held the idea that what is to be considered paranormal is, under any and all circumstances, a low p with withspect to 50% probability. And, as we know, a low p with respect to 50% probability is what selection bias can create - this is what his paper is trying to show, after all - hence the attempts to replicate.

His job was to isolate the effect of psi and then measure if it existed. He did this by excluding all other possible causes... Unless you can suggest a way in which people can predict variables in computer memory we're just going to have to assume he did a good job. He then used a standard test to demonstrate that there was indeed an effect.

He did not do any selection. And the result of the test indicated that there was an effect only on the emotionally effective images. The erotic ones. The neutral images caused no effect.

Not only this, the same effect has been demonstrated in other experiments.


So to summarize.. I see no reason to assume his experiment was in anyway invalid. I do concede that there is a 3% chance that random chance caused him to come to his conclusions in error. However that is well within the range of scientific methodology.

And the effect has been demonstrated in other experiments. I have given you one of them. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Patrick]

You guys realize what happens once you "proved" Psychic Powers right ? It's the end of veiled 3d. Veiled 3d completely loses it's usefulness once everyone is fully aware of metaphysics.

[3DMonkey]

Time/space evidence is for time/space. Space/time evidence is for space/time.


That's an original quote.

[Patrick]

Time/space evidence is for time/space. Space/time evidence is for space/time.


That's an original quote.

Indeed. And while we are on the subject, do you think we are still veiled in 3d time/space?

[3DMonkey]

Time/space evidence is for time/space. Space/time evidence is for space/time.


That's an original quote.

Indeed. And while we are on the subject, do you think we are still veiled in 3d time/space?

Probably, in the sense that we are still limited.

---

Meaning, time/space has its own "aha moments"

[Patrick]

If the Earth is now in 4d time/space while still in 3d space/time, then we are up for a big expansion after this incarnation. Complete lifting of the veil.