Are you interested in the scientific investigation of psi?

[Ninshub]

This thread is in the Extended Consciousness Phenomena forum. It isn't the place for members so inclined in their beliefs to argue against the existence of psi in general. Please review the forum guidelines.

Motivated Reasoning
Cognitive Bias
(avoiding) Cognitive Dissonance 
Principle of Least Effort
Finding meaning (being apart of something greater then themselves. Purpose)
You see the subjects of interest for most members are at their root existential. To dissuade someone that humans don't matter, they personally don't matter is for virtually all humans a bitter pill to swallow. That may be the real reality though.

I'm sorry, but to use a mixed metaphor that's just verbal arm-waving.

An explanation for the results in those terms would involve - it's difficult to put it in different terms - explaining how those concepts could actually produce the results.

I mean in the manner that sceptics like Hansel, Alcock and Hyman used to try to explain how parapsychological findings could have been produced by conventional means. Of course, their explanations often did involve fraud, and some people would argue that they weren't always plausible.

I'm sorry, but to use a mixed metaphor that's just verbal arm-waving.

An explanation for the results in those terms would involve - it's difficult to put it in different terms - explaining how those concepts could actually produce the results.

I mean in the manner that sceptics like Hansel, Alcock and Hyman used to try to explain how parapsychological findings could have been produced by conventional means. Of course, their explanations often did involve fraud, and some people would argue that they weren't always plausible.

Dismissing the underlying psychology as you've done, now that's armwaving, no, better yet an example of all the listed categories above. Think about why for a minute.

 I really don't care what professional skeptics have to say and neither should you. What's important are people equivocating anamolous occurances with psi and spending a great deal of time not finding the equivocation.

Dismissing the underlying psychology as you've done, now that's armwaving, no, better yet an example of all the listed categories above. Think about why for a minute.

 I really don't care what professional skeptics have to say and neither should you. What's important are people equivocating anamolous occurances with psi and spending a great deal of time not finding the equivocation.

The question was whether you could explain how the results of the GPC experiment could be produced by conventional means. Other than by fraud.

The point of my reference to Hansel, Hyman and Alcock is that whether one agrees with their conclusions or not, they did actually address the issues and suggest explanations of the observations. Pretty well the exact opposite of what you're doing just now, I'm afraid.

Their kind of scepticism was worth listening to, even though it was often open to criticism itself. Unfortunately what we see from sceptics here isn't, with a few exceptions.

[Ninshub]

Dismissing the underlying psychology as you've done, now that's armwaving, no, better yet an example of all the listed categories above. Think about why for a minute.

Did you miss my post Steve?

Did you miss my post Steve?

No. For me the possible existence of psi is not an existential question.

[Ninshub]

Well your refusal to follow forum guidelines may determine the question of your existence on this forum in any event.

Congratulations, Steve, you've earned yourself a 2-day ban.

What is science?

Was Patanjali a scientist?

Was Ghazali's "Revival of the Religious Sciences" written by a scientist?

Is dream yoga scientific?

If you are interested in psi there is more than 100 years worth of western "scientific" research, but a personal experience will be more meaningful.