Do you think Alex could score an interview with Uri Geller?

[K9!]

This is 100% the problem. The lack of people able to demonstrate clear abilities is in bleak contrast to the ubiquitous claims of the parapsychology community to "know" people that have them and can easily demonstrate them. If you listen carefully claims of extreme abilities, who has them and how they work, are tossed about with reckless abandon.

This clip for example of Sheldrake claiming he has a friend with a super ability. Is he being hyperbolic? Or do words matter? Can people really become better at the staring effect with practice? Everyone knows a ton of people with amazing abilities, right? Well where are they all? Why aren't parapsychologists working constructively with these people to shatter the paradigm?

Do you agree that if Geller's abilities are real as demonstrated at SRI then it's important? That parapsychologists should be working harder to demonstrate these abilities clearly? What's not to like about that?

It doesn't sound like much of a super ability to stare at people and have them notice. And there are tests being done with people who have unusual abilities, but it's done quietly. Most people do not want publicity.

All Geller demonstrated at SRI was that he could remote view, which is something they had other people doing as well. He was only there for a short time. Joe McMoneagle was with the Stargate program for years (and is still involved with psi research).

I think parapsychologists are working on understanding psi, but every time they go public they have to deal with a lot of flack. It's worse for the people who are being studied if they come forward. Being a lab rat isn't a fun job, you don't get paid for it, and no matter how well you do there are going to be people who will say it's not real. I'm amazed anyone would consider getting involved as a test subject.

Anyway, have fun talking to yourself, bishop.

 

[David Bailey]

Do you agree that if Geller's abilities are real as demonstrated at SRI then it's important? That paraposychologists should be working harder to demonstrate these abilities clearly? What's not to like about that?

The biggest problem is that the rest of science takes no notice when evidence is put right under their noses. Sheldrake did the series of experiments with dogs - do you know why they produced the signal that they did if it wasn't ψ? Neither does Weisman or anyone else in the science community, nor do they seem to care.

Or take Dean Radin's presentiment experiment. He has repeated that experiment many times, and others have repeated it too, but the science community simply ignores it!

Alex demonstrated in his podcast (and in his book) how one particular psychic detective produced amazing documented results, which were trashed by a sceptic who deliberately lied about the case. Again, the rest of the science community could not care.

I think the problem is that anyone in the non-ψ science community who wants to investigate one of these phenomena finds themselves in a no-win situation.

If they succeed in validly debunking the work, they just get a small pat on the back, but if they validate the claims, they are instantly accused of carelessness or fraud, and that seriously impacts on their careers.

David

 

[bishop]

It doesn't sound like much of a super ability to stare at people and have them notice.

Really? In all sincerity I do not understand how someone could casually dismiss this. After all Sheldrake has said and done, putting himself in the spotlight, is it reasonable to say it wouldn't make sense for him to test someone like that with a simple and elegant protocol and publish the result? Is it reasonable to say that a test like that wouldn't matter, when so many issues come down to statistical results? Why would anyone think that? Isn't the point of studying a phenomenon in a scientific setting to maximize its potential while maintaining strong controls?

And there are tests being done with people who have unusual abilities, but it's done quietly. Most people do not want publicity.

If this is the case then people should not be surprised, at all, at a skeptical position. Are you suggesting some kind of underworld of explosive evidence, i,e, tests that show extreme abilities clearly?

All Geller demonstrated at SRI was that he could remote view, which is something they had other people doing as well.

It's impossible to have watched the video and come to this conclusion. The video clearly demontrates all kinds of tests beyond remote viewing, including but not limited to sensing hidden water and ball bearings and producing magnetic effects.

I think parapsychologists are working on understanding psi, but every time they go public they have to deal with a lot of flack. It's worse for the people who are being studied if they come forward. Being a lab rat isn't a fun job, you don't get paid for it, and no matter how well you do there are going to be people who will say it's not real. I'm amazed anyone would consider getting involved as a test subject.

You can't have it both ways. It's totally illogical. If scientists are willing to come out with studies that show paranormal effects, which of course they do, then there is no logical reason at all they shouldn't come out as strong as they can. Are you really saying that paranormal abilities of the magnitude we're discussing here don't make sense to study, and that's why we don't see a lot of research on it?

 

[bishop]

The biggest problem is that the rest of science takes no notice when evidence is put right under their noses. Sheldrake did the series of experiments with dogs - do you know why they produced the signal that they did if it wasn't ψ? Neither does Weisman or anyone else in the science community, nor do they seem to care.

Ok, the first step here is to compare the types of tests we're talking about. Do you see any difference between the dog test and a potential test Sheldrake could run with his friend who can make make people feel his stare on demand? Those are HIS words, not mine.

Or take Dean Radin's presentiment experiment. He has repeated that experiment many times, and others have repeated it too, but the science community simply ignores it!

Give me an example of an extreme ability that can clearly be demonstrated repeatedly, as Sheldrake says in that video, and then let's speculate how it might be received.

Alex demonstrated in his podcast (and in his book) how one particular psychic detective produced amazing documented results, which were trashed by a sceptic who deliberately lied about the case. Again, the rest of the science community could not care.

We shouldn't get into that, it's a complete mess and I think it was bad on both sides.

I think the problem is that anyone in the non-ψ science community who wants to investigate one of these phenomena finds themselves in a no-win situation. If they succeed in validly debunking the work, they just get a small pat on the back, but if they validate the claims, they are instantly accused of carelessness or fraud, and that seriously impacts on their careers.

While there is truth in this, parapsychology marches on daily. Do you want the whole field to pack it in and call it a day? To roll over and die and stop trying?

 

[bishop]

Bengston's healing studies show a big effect. Mice that should have died became cured. Cancer didn't go into remission, it was cured. So why aren't you getting excited about that study? Why isn't everyone?

I don't know anything about the Bengston study except from the basic overview. I'm a layperson when it comes to scientific data, but I don't see why people should not be excited by this research. What's going on with it right now?

This gets away though from the simple elegance of a test that Sheldrake could set up with his friend, or a test that shows clearly that the staring effect can be increased with practice. They're apples and oranges. Why is Sheldrake dedicating so much time to collecting statistical data on the staring effect when he could go for the gold? What is he doing?

 

[Saiko]

This is 100% the problem.

Only for those who are habituated to seeking what they think of as knowledge by subscribing to the opinions of the priest of the Holy Temple. For others it is both a boon and the viable path. And many (most?) of those others couldn't care less how long you spin on the merry-go-round. That thing about horse to water comes to mind. ;)

 

[bishop]

Watch the video. You asked for a big effect, then you ignore it? There is no need for a knowledge of stats.

I didn't ignore anything. We're talking about Geller here. Did you watch the SRI video?

 

[bishop]

Only for those who are habituated to seeking what they think of as knowledge by subscribing to the opinions of the priest of the Holy Temple. For others it is both a boon and the viable path. And many (most?) of those others couldn't care less how long you spin on the merry-go-round. That thing about horse to water comes to mind. ;)

Man, go easy on the metaphors. Could you rephrase this in a way that states a point?

 

[bishop]

Yes, and more importantly, I've read the published papers. Nothing more amazing than Joe McMoneagle, Ingo Swann or Pat Price have done.

What about the water/ball bearing tests, magnetism and others?

Anyway, this is becoming a lame conversation.

Agreed. No one is forcing you to participate.

You want to make Geller out to be more than any scientific article seems to support.

Where are you coming from on this? Do you not believe the SRI video ?

You asked for a big effect, so I gave you one.

This is annoying. People always want to change the subject to something else that will get us mired in some other debate. It's clear that I'm talking about the claims of individuals who have readily available abilities that can be demonstrated on demand. And if you think that's some stupid notion of how it's "supposed" to work, please feel free to explain what the heck Rupert Sheldrake is talking about in that video I posted.

 

[David Bailey]

Ok, the first step here is to compare the types of tests we're talking about. Do you see any difference between the dog test and a potential test Sheldrake could run with his friend who can make make people feel his stare on demand? Those are HIS words, not mine.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but the dog experiments produced really clear results - we don't need to speculate about how hypothetical tests would be received, we can see how they are received!

While there is truth in this, parapsychology marches on daily. Do you want the whole field to pack it in and call it a day? To roll over and die and stop trying?

My feeling is that science generally has been badly corrupted in recent years. I think the time will come when a number of high profile scientific 'discoveries' turn out to be moonshine. The whole system will then hopefully come under more scrutiny. When that point comes, I think parapsychology will get a real chance to enter the mainstream of science.

Parapsychology runs on a minute budget - so for example, it couldn't afford to screen people en mass for ψ abilities. That means that it tends to produce results which are:

A) Based on a few very exceptional individuals - who are then accused of fraud!

B) Statistical results, which should convince, but seem to induce endless quibbling.

C) Anecdotal results, which are just ignored!

So many other areas of science must have looked a bit like that before they were heavily researched - think of electricity. Those bits of paper attracted to a comb by static electricity - couldn't they REALLY be stuck by grease on the comb? Now we would answer no - because the paper actually jumps on to the comb, but imagine the situation if intensive research had not been done, and sceptics wanted to attack the claim - "Rubbish - the paper fragments don't jump, they get blown by drafts and then get stuck on the grease - nothing of interest here!

I think Rupert Sheldrake is absolutely honest, and I am sure he does know someone with those powers. However, suppose YOU had a power like that, are you sure you would want to exhibit it? If the guy did offer himself for testing, I am pretty sure someone would traduce his skills one way or another - as happened in this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Demkina

I am pretty confident that ψ does exist in some forms - and indeed that consciousness is not confined to the brain. A lot of that confidence is based on the seeming impossibility of explaining consciousness physically.

David

 

[bishop]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but the dog experiments produced really clear results - we don't need to speculate about how hypothetical tests would be received, we can see how they are received!

I'd like to remain focused on people who claim to have the extreme abilities, such as Geller, or claim to casually know people who have the extreme abilities such as Sheldrake in the video I posted.

My feeling is that science generally has been badly corrupted in recent years. I think the time will come when a number of high profile scientific 'discoveries' turn out to be moonshine. The whole system will then hopefully come under more scrutiny. When that point comes, I think parapsychology will get a real chance to enter the mainstream of science.

Maybe! Do we agree then that parapsychology should not lay down and die?

Parapsychology runs on a minute budget - so for example, it couldn't afford to screen people en mass for ψ abilities. That means that it tends to produce results which are:

A) Based on a few very exceptional individuals - who are then accused of fraud!

The point I made earlier David is that casual claims of knowing people who have extreme abilities seems ubiquitous if you look for it. In the link I posted Sheldrake explained clearly that he has a friend who can, on demand, make other people feel his stare. He further goes on to explain that this staring ability is something that can INCREASE with practice. These claims are made all the time, but for some reason these people are not studied. Could you comment on Sheldrake's statements? Don't you think he could take some leaps by forming a study around his friend?

B) Statistical results, which should convince, but seem to induce endless quibbling.

Yes, EXACTLY! Which is why I'm suggesting Parapsychologists look more towards people like Geller and Sheldrake's friend and all the other people everyone is always talking about.

So many other areas of science must have looked a bit like that before they were heavily researched - think of electricity. Those bits of paper attracted to a comb by static electricity - couldn't they REALLY be stuck by grease on the comb?

.
Ok, so what happened next? What happened next in the process that led to our present understanding about the paper on the comb, which is not that it's grease?

I think Rupert Sheldrake is absolutely honest, and I am sure he does know someone with those powers. However, suppose YOU had a power like that, are you sure you would want to exhibit it? If the guy did offer himself for testing, I am pretty sure someone would traduce his skills one way or another - as happened in this case:

.
Yes, I know. Testing people leads to bad things for those people. Well if that's the case and no one with extreme abilities wants to be tested than parapsychology is busted. Surely there are people that are ok to be tested?

I am pretty confident that ψ does exist in some forms - and indeed that consciousness is not confined to the brain. A lot of that confidence is based on the seeming impossibility of explaining consciousness physically.

I'm not making an argument that any of this is not true. I'm beyond that. I want to understand what the disparity is between claims of extreme abilities and the lack of ability of parapsychologists to work with it.

 

[Saiko]

Man, go easy on the metaphors. Could you rephrase this in a way that states a point?

If you don't get the point that's fine with me. I guess that merry-go-round can be fun. ;)

 

[Kai]

This conversation is a variant of the "deep issue" with all psi rhetoric that I have brought up in other threads. To paraphrase it for those who don't want to bother with those threads. "The paranormal is something that appears to exist only so long as you view it from a distance, but it evaporates when you attempt to examine it close up." Bishop is on exactly the right track here.

 

[Larry]

This conversation is a variant of the "deep issue" with all psi rhetoric that I have brought up in other threads. To paraphrase it for those who don't want to bother with those threads. "The paranormal is something that appears to exist only so long as you view it from a distance, but it evaporates when you attempt to examine it close up." Bishop is on exactly the right track here.

Or you could say – parapsychology is a phenomenon that exists in nature and manifests in certain highly charged emotional situations and is not likely to occur in laboratories the design of which eliminates the very conditions in which the phenomenon manifests

 

[bishop]

This conversation is a variant of the "deep issue" with all psi rhetoric that I have brought up in other threads. To paraphrase it for those who don't want to bother with those threads. "The paranormal is something that appears to exist only so long as you view it from a distance, but it evaporates when you attempt to examine it close up." Bishop is on exactly the right track here.

Well thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm not even sure what track I'm on yet. :)

I don't know that the paranormal evaporates exactly, but I do find the claims to action ratio deeply unsettling. There is a very real gap between what experts claim is all around us and what we see coming out of parapsychology, and I don't know why or what it is that is happening. I don't feel comfortable with certain responses, such as no one with readily available abilities would ever want to be researched. I could believe that, but that's not what the people making the claims say. It seems too casual, i.e. "oh Ted can do that, I love it when he predicts 12 digit numbers".

My first step would be to ask these questions to researchers like Sheldrake or people with super abilities like Geller who have participated in studies, which is why I thought Alex could start pushing guests harder. The attack on the materialist paradigm feels hollow somehow, and it lacks a solid forward momentum. But I'm not ready to give up on the vastness of reported/researched phenomena.

 

[bishop]

Or you could say – parapsychology is a phenomenon that exists in nature and manifests in certain highly charged emotional situations and is not likely to occur in laboratories the design of which eliminates the very conditions in which the phenomenon manifests

This is not what happens though. Sheldrake for example reports that after thousands of submissions from random contributors there is a statistical result that shows that the staring effect is real. He also said in that clip I posted that with practice one can become better at the staring effect. And then there is his friend who is remarkable with the staring effect. Why don't you think that Sheldrake could capture a more robust result with people that have practiced or people like his friend? What's the blockade?

 

[Kai]

Well thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm not even sure what track I'm on yet. :)

I don't know that the paranormal evaporates exactly, but I do find the claims to action ratio deeply unsettling. There is a very real gap between what experts claim is all around us and what we see coming out of parapsychology, and I don't know why or what it is that is happening. I don't feel comfortable with certain responses, such as no one with readily available abilities would ever want to be researched. I could believe that, but that's not what the people making the claims say. It seems too casual, i.e. "oh Ted can do that, I love it when he predicts 12 digit numbers".

My first step would be to ask these questions to researchers like Sheldrake or people with super abilities like Geller who have participated in studies, which is why I thought Alex could start pushing guests harder. The attack on the materialist paradigm feels hollow somehow, and it lacks a solid forward momentum. But I'm not ready to give up on the vastness of reported/researched phenomena.

It's not just the *people* though; it's the phenomena themselves. The entire thing is deeply evasive to close examination, and as I've said in other threads, there are really only two plausible types of explanation for that 1) these things are not what they appear to be, and are trying to disguise this fact, 2) They are real phenomena and are resistant to the entire structure of scientific examination, for whatever supposed reason.

 

[bishop]

I1) these things are not what they appear to be, and are trying to disguise this fact

Just need clarification here. Who/what is doing the disguising?

 

[Kai]

Just need clarification here. Who/what is doing the disguising?

Well, that's the six million dollar question, to be honest. Under option one (above) it could be all of a) deliberate fraud, b) unconscious self-deception, c) cultural "playing along" with the desire to perpetuate the rumors that these things have literal reality.

Under option 2, it depends on how conspiratorial you want to get. I certainly think there would have to be a good REASON why these phenomena could actually be real, and yet behave in this pervasively self-concealing way. Thus option one simply seems the more likely.

 

[bishop]

Well, that's the six million dollar question, to be honest. Under option one (above) it could be all of a) deliberate fraud, b) unconscious self-deception, c) cultural "playing along" with the desire to perpetuate the rumors that these things have literal reality.

Ah, ok. When you wrote "these things are not what they appear to be, and are trying to disguise this fact" I wondered if you meant the things themselves (the phenomena) were aware, and trying to hide themselves. I thought that was intriguing. :)

I certainly think there would have to be a good REASON why these phenomena could actually be real, and yet behave in this pervasively self-concealing way.

That's exactly the kind of question I hope Alex can begin to ask to his guests.

Generally speaking, your two options (and their variants) do generally cover the crux of the problem as I see it.