Improbability Theory

May I ask anyone who responded here and more, why should I not accept such an explanation for the paranormal and parapsychology in total? The whole probability thing just goes straight over my head

May I ask anyone who responded here and more, why should I not accept such an explanation for the paranormal and parapsychology in total? The whole probability thing just goes straight over my head

I would still say what I said before. The purported explanation applied only to psi effects such as precognition and telepathy that occur "in the wild", when it's difficult to rule out a chance coincidence as the explanation. It doesn't apply to experiments in which the results can be compared statistically with what would be expected by chance.

I'm actually puzzled by the experiences "in the wild" - what I would term, "everyday life". I know all of us are different, some are good at sports, some good at music, possibly some are good at 'psi'. That seems reasonable enough to me. What really puzzles me is that sports and music and all the other talents are commonplace in their own right, though in any individual they may be rare. It is my opinion that psi too is commonplace, perhaps even more so than the other talents, since they are closer to our nature, just as having blood in our veins is an everyday part of our nature.

So here's the puzzle, which I find hard to grasp. Why are scientific tests concentrating on relatively tiny effects, it is as though they just bought a delicious cake, get it home and then spend weeks studying the cellophane wrapper, and never even look inside at the cake, or get to taste it at all.

It is questions such as that which make me feel a bit of a misfit in these discussions, discussing the cellophane wrapping doesn't fire me up.

I'm actually puzzled by the experiences "in the wild" - what I would term, "everyday life". I know all of us are different, some are good at sports, some good at music, possibly some are good at 'psi'. That seems reasonable enough to me. What really puzzles me is that sports and music and all the other talents are commonplace in their own right, though in any individual they may be rare. It is my opinion that psi too is commonplace, perhaps even more so than the other talents, since they are closer to our nature, just as having blood in our veins is an everyday part of our nature.

So here's the puzzle, which I find hard to grasp. Why are scientific tests concentrating on relatively tiny effects, it is as though they just bought a delicious cake, get it home and then spend weeks studying the cellophane wrapper, and never even look inside at the cake, or get to taste it at all.

It is questions such as that which make me feel a bit of a misfit in these discussions, discussing the cellophane wrapping doesn't fire me up.

It would seem to me that parapsychology has shown an effect exists, and the "wild" occurrences of psi show it's fullest extent and regularity in nature. It would seem to me the fallacy this guy commits is thinking that psi events are rare. When I've come to think they are far from it.

No clue how to contact him but Andrew Paquette would probably have a lot to say about that through his studies of precognitive dreams and so forth. He also, like Chris, is better at statistics then I

I'm actually puzzled by the experiences "in the wild" - what I would term, "everyday life". I know all of us are different, some are good at sports, some good at music, possibly some are good at 'psi'. That seems reasonable enough to me. What really puzzles me is that sports and music and all the other talents are commonplace in their own right, though in any individual they may be rare. It is my opinion that psi too is commonplace, perhaps even more so than the other talents, since they are closer to our nature, just as having blood in our veins is an everyday part of our nature.

So here's the puzzle, which I find hard to grasp. Why are scientific tests concentrating on relatively tiny effects, it is as though they just bought a delicious cake, get it home and then spend weeks studying the cellophane wrapper, and never even look inside at the cake, or get to taste it at all.

It is questions such as that which make me feel a bit of a misfit in these discussions, discussing the cellophane wrapping doesn't fire me up.

I'm certain your analogy is not accurate.

It would seem to me that parapsychology has shown an effect exists, and the "wild" occurrences of psi show it's fullest extent and regularity in nature. It would seem to me the fallacy this guy commits is thinking that psi events are rare. When I've come to think they are far from it.

No clue how to contact him but Andrew Paquette would probably have a lot to say about that through his studies of precognitive dreams and so forth. He also, like Chris, is better at statistics then I

I have no idea how regularly psi occurs in the wild or even if it does, no one knows so he's wrong to make that claim. It's an assumption that strange events are psi.

Google his name, you'll find him. Sam Clemens popularized this phrase: There are lies, damned lies
and statistics. Andy has far too much emotion invested in his work to honestly evaluate it. That evaluation should be left to others that do not.

So here's the puzzle, which I find hard to grasp. Why are scientific tests concentrating on relatively tiny effects, it is as though they just bought a delicious cake, get it home and then spend weeks studying the cellophane wrapper, and never even look inside at the cake, or get to taste it at all.

Sorry, but I really don't understand this. I can't believe experimental parapsychologists are deliberately concentrating on weak effects, if there are stronger ones to be had.

Sorry, but I really don't understand this. I can't believe experimental parapsychologists are deliberately concentrating on weak effects, if there are stronger ones to be had.

That's what Radin does. That's what the PEAR group did. It's far easier to claim success.

That's what Radin does. That's what the PEAR group did. It's far easier to claim success.

You think that Radin and PEAR deliberately sought weak effects rather than strong ones? Why do you think that?

You think that Radin and PEAR deliberately sought weak effects rather than strong ones? Why do you think that?

I do not know. However, it's much easier to do millions of trials to tease out what you want to find. With that much data one can mine it statistically rather than relying upon gross demonstration of mind over matter. Have you heard of a man named Basava Premanand? If not look him up. He's relevant to this topic and psi in general.