The Telepathy Tapes

Surely from a theoretical point of view what matters is the extreme cases - obviously brain damage will often be just destructive, but if we don't examine what these people are capable of because most brain damaged kids are not like that, we are obviously missing something.

I am not saying to not examine ~ why would I even suggest that? What I've been saying is that we need more rigorous testing.

If even one of these people has high level telepathic skills, then that in itself rules out scientific theories that do not permit telepathy.

So none of the high-profile telepathy studies from parapsychology matter in this regard...? If pseudo-scientists could ignore them, they can ignore this.

Sure, just so long as the reasoning is actually rational.

I agree ~ but first there needs to be an independent reproducing of studies like this, for obvious reasons.

I agree ~ but first there needs to be an independent reproducing of studies like this, for obvious reasons.

I have come to realise that there never will be. The 'scientists' can always tighten their demands until any investigation is wrecked - look at what Weisman did to Rupert Sheldrake's study of telepathy between dogs and their owners.

Fundamentally they deem certain concepts - such as consciousness separated from the body - as irrational. Ultimately it is their irrationality that drives some to claim that consciousness itself is an illusion.

I mean, when science originally developed it didn't start by asserting that certain things were impossible, and only certain kinds of evidence were acceptable.

There are gigabytes and gigabytes of evidence from people who have had an NDE,  denying all of that is analogous to those who would not look through Galileo's telescope.

Try (re)reading Rupert Sheldrake's books. He started out as a Cambridge University scientist, and he has pointed out all sorts of faults with science. Our modern 'scientists' don't even bother with him any more, because they know he is a tough nut to tangle with.

David

I have come to realise that there never will be. The 'scientists' can always tighten their demands until any investigation is wrecked - look at what Weisman did to Rupert Sheldrake's study of telepathy between dogs and their owners.

Fundamentally they deem certain concepts - such as consciousness separated from the body - as irrational. Ultimately it is their irrationality that drives some to claim that consciousness itself is an illusion.

I mean, when science originally developed it didn't start by asserting that certain things were impossible, and only certain kinds of evidence were acceptable.

There are gigabytes and gigabytes of evidence from people who have had an NDE,  denying all of that is analogous to those who would not look through Galileo's telescope.

Try (re)reading Rupert Sheldrake's books. He started out as a Cambridge University scientist, and he has pointed out all sorts of faults with science. Our modern 'scientists' don't even bother with him any more, because they know he is a tough nut to tangle with.

David

I am not arguing against telepathy here whatsoever ~ nor any other paranormal phenomena, of which I have experienced some myself. So please don't get the wrong idea here.

I am merely arguing that certain significant claims need more rigorous evidence ~ that a particular group has a particular condition that supposedly enhances telepathy. Something that cannot and should not be just believed ~ we should not tend to the opposite extreme of the pseudo-skeptics. We should aspire to rigorous testing that cannot be cheaply or easily denied or dismissed on any grounds, and I fear a study like this is poorly designed, and falls right into traps that the pseudo-skeptics will find easy to attack.

If we want an excellent example of studying telepathy... Sheldrake knows how to conduct such studies ~ such as with his study of dogs who know when their owners are coming home.

[Laird]

Something that cannot and should not be just believed

Who's saying "just believe"? There is plenty of strong evidence presented in The Telepathy Tapes. That's what justifies belief. If you have specific criticisms of any of that evidence, then please go ahead and make them. At this point, it seems you're incapable of doing so, because you're not aware of the evidence in full: you stopped listening to the podcast prematurely (just how prematurely you've failed to say) because the conclusion it led to rubbed you up the wrong way (your words).

Of course we'd all welcome more testing and more rigorous testing, but that alone doesn't justify dismissing the existing evidence.

@Laird @Valmar ->

Honestly I think at this point debating the podcast without going through episodes isn't fruitful.

I'll try and get into the first episode this week, maybe today depending on timing. 

I will admit going in that I am expecting something that has the promise of absolutely proving telepathy but being wary given the concerns of Powell's past work.

That being said, I am glad - as previously noted - the site itself acknowledges the need for more rigorous research:

The tests in [i]The Telepathy Tapes library were conducted by director Ky Dickens and a small film crew in the homes of non-speakers and their families. These were “proof-of-concept” sessions aimed to authenticate telepathic claims and assess the viability of a documentary. Their results underscore the need for deeper exploration and rigorous scientific study with tighter controls.[/i]

I've listened to four episodes.

One of the big challenges for me is listening to accounts of tests felt less compelling than just listening to parents and kids/teens describe their experiences.

I can't tell you how good a test went without seeing a video, just that people in the room were convinced by what they saw.

The kids/teens + parents also sound sincere, but again I wish we could see their faces.

As I've said before, I accept Psi on the following grounds:

1. I think there are strong a priori reasons to accept Psi is possible.
2. I think it beggars belief every account is made [by] a liar or fool.
3. There seems to be, across history, the acceptance of certain Psi research at least warranting further investigation. I've looked at some of the data and discussions around it but I don't believe I have the expertise to make a clear assessment on statistical data alone.
4. I've had a variety of experiences I'd classify as "Deep Weird", with some being almost definitely paranormal ...save for occurring at such a young age it's hard for me to fully trust them.

That said, for these particular tests it is hard for me to gauge what to make of evidence that cannot be witnessed b/c it's all recounting through audio...so I'll say more on that front after watching the videos behind a paywall.

The general idea I got from the podcast is that [the] key claim is these children are telepathic & clairvoyant, and this then allows them to meet in a kinda of space with other such kids. This reminds me of the claim I've seen that some DID patients' personalities can meet in a shared space.

The podcast also seems to lean toward a functional dualism, as at least one child said they didn't even realize they had a body for a long time. 

I will say more after finishing the remaining episodes. I also need to go over the episodes I listened to again in addition to watching the paywalled videos...

It's a pretty easy listen, so I urge people who want to discuss this further to go ahead and start. 

Who's saying "just believe"? There is plenty of strong evidence presented in The Telepathy Tapes.

I'd also like to point out that the first time someone claims a new psychic phenomenon - say that saying a particular magic word makes you invisible for an hour - it is totally rational for a skeptic (or indeed a non-sceptic) to demand the highest possible level of proof.

If, however, this phenomenon has been observed time after time, it would be unreasonable to demand anything more than the normal level of proof.

I would claim that telepathy has been observed a large number of times, and so it is unreasonable to demand a super-high level of proof just because telepathy is involved.

David

I'd also like to point out that the first time someone claims a new psychic phenomenon - say that saying a particular magic word makes you invisible for an hour - it is totally rational for a skeptic (or indeed a non-sceptic) to demand the highest possible level of proof.

If, however, this phenomenon has been observed time after time, it would be unreasonable to demand anything more than the normal level of proof.

I would claim that telepathy has been observed a large number of times, and so it is unreasonable to demand a super-high level of proof just because telepathy is involved.

David

Based on the podcast alone I'm hesitant to say the normal level of scientific proof has been shown, since we can't see the tests due to it being just audio.

I do think talking to teachers, parents, caregivers, and the kids/teens themselves is very useful as it does at least begin to hit the threshold of witness testimony being too big to ignore. And with more rigorous testing - which is noted by the podcast itself as being necessary - they might finally provide the "Holy Grail" parapsychology is waiting for....time will tell...

they might finally provide the "Holy Grail" parapsychology is waiting for....time will tell.

Tell me in what sense Dean Radin's presentiment experiment isn't the "Holy Grail" experiment you long for!

It is a beautifully clean experiment that is relatively easy to reproduce.

David

Tell me in what sense Dean Radin's presentiment experiment isn't the "Holy Grail" experiment you long for!

It is a beautifully clean experiment that is relatively easy to reproduce.

David

What's the replication rate and statistical success rate?

The claim here is a 95%+ success rate.