How important is it to convince the scientific community that psi exists?

Jeffery Mishlove's, book the P.K. Man. Strikes me as a cautionary tale.
D.D Home,
Stephen Ossowiecki,
The Phillip group.
It's not as though were bereft of examples

I'm not in any way saying that there wouldn't be risk, or that it might not be a terrible experience for the practitioner. I'm just questioning why there isn't even one of the many macro PK practitioners worldwide who wants to gain the fame and recognition, risks be damned. 

But perhaps the real (read not scam) macro pk practitioners are much lower in number, and it's really only 10-20 in the world, in which case it might be realistic to think that they would all behave in lockstep when it comes to their attitudes about testing and disclosure.

So here's a question I'd love to hear feedback on: How many macro PK practitioners do you think there are in the world who could offer repeatable PK under reasonable, skeptical conditions? Forget the logistics. Just how many people do you think can actually perform macro PK in a repeatable and significant way? Is it 5? 20? 100? 10,000?

Like, just one of the things I’m working on the ability to create solid “matter” out of energy, matter that persists even after I let go of it. It’s something that a skilled practicioner could use to literally build themselves a house. It’s also something a skilled practicioner could use to build themselves a knife, or a gun, or whatever.

How far along are you on this path? Are you manifesting any "matter" out of energy?

How far along are you on this path? Are you manifesting any "matter" out of energy?

I did a tiny bit. Back at the end of february 2017 I did a thing I called the Rose Rune that I detailed on skeptiko.

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/th...rune.3953/

I've been trying since then to get that type of thing to happen without having to project/poltergeist for it. Because until I can get it to happen in my hand, at will, it's useless. So far I've managed to get unstable pops and pressure ripples from energy but I've yet to get it to stabilize into a solid ball. I'm getting closer though and I'm pretty excited and freaked out about it.

Doing this is the equivalent of compressing air without a container. It's very, very finicky and is affected by the tiniest mental state. Getting over my mental/emotional baggage bit by bit has been the greatest contributer to my progress thus far as a result. I don't think I have enough raw energy to compensate for the lack of efficiency. If I did those pops and ripples alone would be plainly audible and visible. Well technically they're slightly visible with a faint blueish purple border or "horizon" or whatever which I find very interesting. But that's only from what Dreamsoap tells me since I don't have the sight to see things that faint. All I know is they're plainly tangible. But that stuff is way too weak for me to try submitting as evidence so I'll keep training until I get something much stronger and more practical that's worth showing off.

Chris Carter (at least I think so)  composed this piece on Professor Chris French. I wonder what our resident sceptics feel about it. 

Chris French, Ph.D.  

Chris French is the editor of Skeptic magazine, a publication of British and Irish Skeptics, produced and distributed by CSICOP. He often appears on British radio and TV in the role of an “informed skeptic”.
French is head of the Psychology Department of Goldsmith’s College in the University of London, where he is also head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit. The purpose of this unit is primarily to investigate “why people believe in the paranormal” and it has “only a secondary interest in whether psi may, on rare occasions, naturally operate.”

French is under no illusions as to the prejudices of many of his colleagues. “Most psychologists could reasonably be described as uninformed skeptics – a minority could reasonably be described as prejudiced bigots – where the paranormal is concerned” (Skeptic 14(1)). He is also more self-aware than most skeptics about his own prejudices. As he wrote in Skeptic (14(4)): “I am biased in my approach to evidence relating to the paranormal … I make no claim to be a neutral assessor of the evidence”.

He takes the view that the on-going debate about the existence of psi “is more consistent with the notion that psi is a powerful illusion rather than the idea that it is real and we are making progress in understanding it”. Nevertheless, he concedes that: “Many of the most sophisticated experimental designs within parapsychology are easily on a par with the best psychological studies. Furthermore, some parapsychologists appear to produce evidence in support of the existences of paranormal forces even from such apparently well-controlled experiments.” In the end, he concludes, “only time will tell”.

Chris Carter (at least I think so)  composed this piece on Professor Chris French. I wonder what our resident sceptics feel about it. 

Chris French, Ph.D.  

Chris French is the editor of Skeptic magazine, a publication of British and Irish Skeptics, produced and distributed by CSICOP. He often appears on British radio and TV in the role of an “informed skeptic”.
French is head of the Psychology Department of Goldsmith’s College in the University of London, where he is also head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit. The purpose of this unit is primarily to investigate “why people believe in the paranormal” and it has “only a secondary interest in whether psi may, on rare occasions, naturally operate.”

French is under no illusions as to the prejudices of many of his colleagues. “Most psychologists could reasonably be described as uninformed skeptics – a minority could reasonably be described as prejudiced bigots – where the paranormal is concerned” (Skeptic 14(1)). He is also more self-aware than most skeptics about his own prejudices. As he wrote in Skeptic (14(4)): “I am biased in my approach to evidence relating to the paranormal … I make no claim to be a neutral assessor of the evidence”.

He takes the view that the on-going debate about the existence of psi “is more consistent with the notion that psi is a powerful illusion rather than the idea that it is real and we are making progress in understanding it”. Nevertheless, he concedes that: “Many of the most sophisticated experimental designs within parapsychology are easily on a par with the best psychological studies. Furthermore, some parapsychologists appear to produce evidence in support of the existences of paranormal forces even from such apparently well-controlled experiments.” In the end, he concludes, “only time will tell”.

Seems utterly reasonable!

Seems utterly reasonable!

Berkelon said > "Seems utterly reasonable!"

French > “Most psychologists could reasonably be described as uninformed skeptics – a minority could reasonably be described as prejudiced bigots – where the paranormal is concerned”

He is also more self-aware than most skeptics about his own prejudices.

French > “I am biased in my approach to evidence relating to the paranormal … I make no claim to be a neutral assessor of the evidence”.

Furthermore, some parapsychologists appear to produce evidence in support of the existences of paranormal forces even from such apparently well-controlled experiments.”

Thanks Berkelon, your honesty does you justice !  If only some of the other "sceptics" on here would openly admit such a stance.

He is also more self-aware than most skeptics about his own prejudices.

To my mind, he seems more open-minded than the people at both the extremes of the debate. When was the last time you heard one of the keener proponents say "only time will tell" who is right about the paranormal?

To my mind, he seems more open-minded than the people at both the extremes of the debate. When was the last time you heard one of the keener proponents say "only time will tell" who is right about the paranormal?

I think most proponents would admit there is no certainty. I've often said that only dying provides that certainty (or it provides oblivion). But that doesn't mean there's no point in looking at the evidence and there is, from what I can see, a lot of it. I'm not just talking about experimental evidence (which I suspect will never give us the smoking gun) but more so the anecdotal evidence which is often dismissed a priori by skeptics because it is anecdotal.

Scientists and skeptics have come to use the word “anecdotal” as a derogatory dismissal of certain kinds of weak evidence – and with good reason. Believers in the paranormal and unscientific healing modalities chafe at this and have rushed to the defense of anecdotal evidence, as it is often the only substrate out of which they construct their fantasies and attempt to pass them off as science.

Unfortunately, this includes almost all NDE reports and testimonies of things like terminal lucidity, deathbed visions, childhood reincarnation accounts - well, this list goes on and it is a list waved away by the pejorative assertions contained in that Novella quote.

I think one thing about Chris French is that his main interest isn't in debunking the paranormal per se, but in studying the reasons why people mistakenly interpret normal events as paranormal. Undoubtedly people often do that in any case, so his research would remain valid (assuming he's done it right) even if the scientific consensus shifted to acceptance of the paranormal. So I don't think he has a vested interest in rejecting psi in the same way as someone who has made their name through arguing that it doesn't exist (mentioning no names).