(2017-09-19, 03:49 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]http://netwerknde.nl/wp-content/uploads/...ureman.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Near-Death-Experi...077345103X
http://iands.es/bibliografia/Sartori_Fenwick.pdf
The advantage of the hidden target is that we get to forego these kinds of arguments, where proponents want to restrict our sensory capacity and skeptics don't. None of the cases jkmac mentioned would be remarkable with some sensory function, whereas spotting a hidden target would be remarkable even with full sensory function.
Linda
Which link is for which claim Linda?
Haha not sure what you're talking about with the last paragraph, a man receiving CPR wouldn't have the same sensory function as a fully functioning conscious human, same as the lady who heard a conversation in a different room, they are in an impaired state, not a normal one. This is just the way things are, you want to grant people at least normal sensory function in an impaired state, a higher state of conscious awareness with what should be an impaired brain state, and the ability to recall these events in great detail.
(2017-09-19, 04:00 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]He's not talking about the level of evidence that I brought up earlier. He only said that it was on par with some psychology research, which I'd agree with. As has been discovered, some psychology research also suffers from low quality.
Not really. Lots of research is done with the expectation that the results will be negative. The question is whether someone will change their mind if it's not.
Don't you think there must be a very strong selection bias there? By and large, people who conduct parapsychology research who become skeptical about that research probably leave the field, leaving behind mostly just those who believe.
I agree it's not popular. I'm suggesting that there are good ways to make it more popular.
Really? Even though I very specifically said otherwise?
Where are you getting that from? Among people who seem well-informed there seems to be a wide range of acceptance, from full acceptance to skepticism or even cynicism.
Linda
1) He said according to the normal standards of science, regardless other claims of a similar level of evidence are accepted without question, but psi isn't - this is because of the subject. We've had improvements in research before where skeptics said they'd change their mind, but they didn't. The Honorton, Hyman autoganzfeld research comes to mind.
2) Do other fields have people specifically trying to debunk when conducting an experiment? Rarely if at all.
3) Not really, the field has always been small. I'm just stating that if the evidence was as bad as you claimed, I doubt Radin et al would carry on wasting their time. You know that the majority of Parapsychologists historically, and those who are informed today, are proponents. Most skeptics do not conduct experiments and/or are not familiar with the literature.
4) I agree things could be done to make it popular, and that the evidence could be improved. Hardly anybody as informed as you states that the research is of a low quality, infact many people who read the literature are surprised by the high quality of the research.
5) If you said otherwise I apologise if I missed it, I'll ask actually, what is your view on the existence of psi?
6) I didn't say that they weren't any skeptics/cynics who are well informed, just that most well informed people at least lean towards psi. Many skeptics, such as Blackmore, aren't even up to date with the research anymore.
(2017-09-19, 03:32 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]OK. Although I disagree with just about every assertion you are making, it is nice to at least hear the details.
Thank-you for that Linda.
The reason I have been asking this sort of case specific question is to get to these sorts of nitty-gritty details explained in a nice simple format.
I would guess that it is unlikely that a case will come along that will comply with the level of proof you seek. But at least now I have a better idea of what that is. It's helpful for me to envision why someone would not be convinced of what I see as obvious and overwhelming evidence at this point.
Yes, there are ways in these cases that it is just barely POSSIBLE to justify not accepting the story. It just comes down to how thin the story is that you will allow yourself to grasp on to, to support the denial. Is see these arguments as extremely thin, especially because there are literally a thousand other stories waiting that I could bring up. However I am quite sure now, based on the types of arguments I am seeing, that most, if not all of these, would allow similar and equally improbable scenarios that one could bring to bare.
I want to be really clear though and say that I don't think you are being disingenuous at all about this in the least. Seems like you are being very genuine and reasonable in your desire to discuss this and explain your position.
Well, this problem is so pervasive that it is difficult to overcome it even when you try (let alone when you don't). Even Sartori, who was a careful researcher, fed her subjects information about their resuscitation in multiple cases, despite being on guard against this. So it seems a bit silly to me to regard this as "barely possible". At best, it seems like it's barely possible that there is a case or two out there where it hasn't happened.
Linda
(2017-09-19, 04:03 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Sure,,,, if it ever happens.
But also you don't think there will be some other improbable argument like: hey, wait a minute, maybe the person overheard someone else who had just checked the system and knows the secret code? That COULD have happened right? You know, extraordinary claims, and all that,,,
No it will not be accepted by all, if it ever occurs.
Also this assumes the hidden code is readable from the astral. Evidence I've mentioned here says that it is usually not, according to Jurgen Ziewe.
I am also doubtful that it could happen (just because the descriptions of what people remember wouldn't compel it), but it is at least an example of what you asked for. I can imagine some untidiness in the circumstances which would cast doubt on the process, but let's say that the experiment was running as planned for the sake of our hypothetical.
Linda
(2017-09-19, 04:15 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]Which link is for which claim Linda?
Haha not sure what you're talking about with the last paragraph, a man receiving CPR wouldn't have the same sensory function as a fully functioning conscious human, same as the lady who heard a conversation in a different room, they are in an impaired state, not a normal one. This is just the way things are, you want to grant people at least normal sensory function in an impaired state, a higher state of conscious awareness with what should be an impaired brain state, and the ability to recall these events in great detail.
The links should be in order.
I wasn't claiming anything about anybody's sensory state, because we don't know anybody's sensory state in those cases. I just wanted to make the point that whether or not the cases are remarkable depends upon the individual's sensory state, and we don't know what that is. Whereas a hidden target is remarkable regardless of anybody's (unknown) sensory states.
However, research looking, for example, at learning while under anesthesia, shows us that we shouldn't be making assumptions about what people can't do while unconsciousness.
Linda
(2017-09-19, 04:44 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]The links should be in order.
I wasn't claiming anything about anybody's sensory state, because we don't know anybody's sensory state in those cases. I just wanted to make the point that whether or not the cases are remarkable depends upon the individual's sensory state, and we don't know what that is. Whereas a hidden target is remarkable regardless of anybody's (unknown) sensory states.
However, research looking, for example, at learning while under anesthesia, shows us that we shouldn't be making assumptions about what people can't do while unconsciousness.
Linda
Thanks I'll check them out!
We don't know for sure, but we have a good idea based on the fact they were receiving CPR etc, so their sensory state according to our current knowledge should be non existent, if not at least hugely impaired.
We shouldn't make assumptions, so why did you tell me you could hear 60 feet away as if that means Anita (sorry if wrong name) could? It has no bearing because as you said - we don't truly know their sensory states.
(2017-09-19, 04:29 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]
1) He said according to the normal standards of science, regardless other claims of a similar level of evidence are accepted without question, but psi isn't - this is because of the subject. We've had improvements in research before where skeptics said they'd change their mind, but they didn't. The Honorton, Hyman autoganzfeld research comes to mind.
2) Do other fields have people specifically trying to debunk when conducting an experiment? Rarely if at all.
3) Not really, the field has always been small. I'm just stating that if the evidence was as bad as you claimed, I doubt Radin et al would carry on wasting their time. You know that the majority of Parapsychologists historically, and those who are informed today, are proponents. Most skeptics do not conduct experiments and/or are not familiar with the literature.
4) I agree things could be done to make it popular, and that the evidence could be improved. Hardly anybody as informed as you states that the research is of a low quality, infact many people who read the literature are surprised by the high quality of the research.
5) If you said otherwise I apologise if I missed it, I'll ask actually, what is your view on the existence of psi?
6) I didn't say that they weren't any skeptics/cynics who are well informed, just that most well informed people at least lean towards psi. Many skeptics, such as Blackmore, aren't even up to date with the research anymore.
1) That was a long time ago when we knew a lot less about where the normal standards of science (which he clarified later as in reference to his field) would take us. There has been tremendous progress in the last 25 years, which is what I have been referring to.
2) They do it all the time in medicine.
3) Like I said, a highly selected sample. Kennedy and Wackermann are fairly doubtful parapsychologists. Wiseman, Alcock, Hyman, and French are skeptical parapsychologists. Saava and Blackmore left the field altogether. Radin has the production of positive results down to an art, so why wouldn't he stay?
4) I said at the beginning where my perspective comes from. I don't know who you're talking about, but medicine is ahead of the game when it comes to understanding levels of evidence and how they inform the validity of your results.
5)
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-28...ml#pid5975
6) I don't see how you would know about the well-informed people who don't lean towards psi.
Linda
(2017-09-19, 04:49 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks I'll check them out!
We don't know for sure, but we have a good idea based on the fact they were receiving CPR etc, so their sensory state according to our current knowledge should be non existent, if not at least hugely impaired.
We shouldn't make assumptions, so why did you tell me you could hear 60 feet away as if that means Anita (sorry if wrong name) could? It has no bearing because as you said - we don't truly know their sensory states.
I referenced research as to level of awareness during CPR (i.e. "our current knowledge") which suggests otherwise, in my post to jkmac.
I got the impression that the claim was that nobody could hear the conversation under those circumstances - that's why I did the test. I'm wasn't assuming she could hear, just testing the assumption that she couldn't have.
Linda
(2017-09-19, 04:39 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I am also doubtful that it could happen (just because the descriptions of what people remember wouldn't compel it), but it is at least an example of what you asked for. I can imagine some untidiness in the circumstances which would cast doubt on the process, but let's say that the experiment was running as planned for the sake of our hypothetical.
Linda
So I'm afraid that even if the experiment worked according to the hypothetical, my feeling it is STILL wouldn't satisfy most skeptical, supposed "scientific" demands for evidence.
I have always assumed that if most competent people were well versed in most of the available evidence, and were reasonably objective, they would be compelled to agree. I am finding now that is not even close to being the case.
Nice to know I guess,, albeit surprising to me.
I'm not one to keep at it when I have my answer already, so consequently, I think I'll just move on from this train of inquiry.
I think it would be of more benefit to focus on those who are trying to assemble and weigh the evidence, and NOT those who have comprehensively weighed the evidence and found it lacking, because those people are probably of the same mind-set I am finding now. I had been thinking they were just under-informed or not critical thinkers, but the problem is more confounding than that.
(2017-09-19, 04:57 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]1) That was a long time ago when we knew a lot less about where the normal standards of science (which he clarified later as in reference to his field) would take us. There has been tremendous progress in the last 25 years, which is what I have been referring to.
2) They do it all the time in medicine.
3) Like I said, a highly selected sample. Kennedy and Wackermann are fairly doubtful parapsychologists. Wiseman, Alcock, Hyman, and French are skeptical parapsychologists. Saava and Blackmore left the field altogether. Radin has the production of positive results down to an art, so why wouldn't he stay?
4) I said at the beginning where my perspective comes from. I don't know who you're talking about, but medicine is ahead of the game when it comes to understanding levels of evidence and how they inform the validity of your results.
5) http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-28...ml#pid5975
6) I don't see how you would know about the well-informed people who don't lean towards psi.
Linda
1) There has, and Parapsychology has progressed too. I would say Parapsychological research is of a higher standard generally then mainstream psychology(some of it strays more into Physics anyway).
2) Examples please.
3) Kennedy believes in psi, does he not? The rest are pretty much all the skeptical Parapsychologists, so there are definitely more proponents then skeptics.
4) I think you need to be more honest about the issues in medicine research, it can be of a very high standard, but it has many issues, such as funding, and how that affects the results. There's also many prescribed medicines with low effect sizes out there.
5) Thanks for your view, goes against the grain of most informed skeptics here . It's interesting that as Parapsychology research has got better, the effect hasn't gone away, yet you're more skeptical. Intriguing!
6) I don't know them all, I don't consider myself that well informed, but on this forum etc nearly everybody is a proponent. And in my experience most skeptics are not well informed, I've debated these guys and been on their forums - part of the issue is how they take each others word for granted etc. I've seen you say you're not part of the skeptical community, I can see why.