The Paranormal

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Bodie Minster:
As the Loch is over 20 miles long, in your 60 Nessie scenario, you would see one surfacing every minute only if they were all taking turns breathing like an orderly bunch of monsters, and only if they were all hanging out in a single viewable area of the loch just waiting for their turn to breathe. This scenario is even less likely than the existence of the monster itsself.
Although I concede that Nessie is not likely to exist, I maintain that the existence of a large, unidentified creature in Loch Ness is POSSIBLE, however unlikely. I am not a believer in the unexplained. I am a person that thinks the unexplained should not be dismissed off hand. It should be studied and explained. If a bunch of people think that they are seeing something, what are they really seeing?

The fact is that there logical explanations (deliberate lies, confusion about what is being seen due to weather, fog, and lighting conditions, etc) and these explanations have been widely reported and published in book form available at your local library or book store ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573921785/electricporkchop/107-9341918-8592515 ). Amazingly these books sell poorly compared to books that ignore the facts and push "Nessie" and "Bigfoot" on a gullible public.
Whether one Nessie surfaces every minute or 60 Nessies surface every hour, either way the number of sightings on the Loch which is probably the most carefully studied body of water on the planet would be astronomical compared to the occasional sightings from far away that we have. How could any large air-breathing predator avoid detection in Loch Ness?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:

Poppycock and hogwash (to borrow an idiom)
Tell me what of physics would have to be violated for there to be ghosts?
What would telekinetics violate?
What would psychometry violate?
What would remote viewing violate?

Ghosts would violate just about every law of physics. How could something invisible see anything? Light would pass through it thus making it blind.
Telekinetics violates the principal of conservation of energy.
Psychometric powers would require that an inanimate object somehow absorb information about its surroundings and then be "read" by a psychic. Psychics claim to be able to tell us the emotions of the person who possessed something but there is no way that the information could actually be stored in a scarf. So this would require a violation of the conservation of energy as well as instantaneous communication across distances.
Remote viewing would violate quantum physics since it would require instantaneous communication across distances.
Also, predicting the future would violate the one-way requirements of time in quantum physics.
[This message has been edited by Thomas Paul (edited August 23, 2001).]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Lance Finney:
Thomas,
With your strong reliance on science, I'm curious what your result would be on the test in this forum: http://www.javaranch.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/000931.html
I would guess Secular Humanist or Athiest/Agnostic, but I recognize I could easily be wrong.

Strangely enough, Roman Catholic came out as my highest choice.

[Sahir Shibley]

Post moved to a new thread.
Please see
http://www.javaranch.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/000937.html

[This message has been edited by Sahir Shibley (edited August 23, 2001).]

[Thomas Paul]

I have deleted this post at the request of Sahir Shibley.
[This message has been edited by Thomas Paul (edited August 23, 2001).]

[Cindy Glass]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Ghosts would violate just about every law of physics. How could something invisible see anything? Light would pass through it thus making it blind.

Why do ghosts have to see - like with physical eyes? I was under the impression that they sensed the presence of the "spirit" of others in some fashion.

[Andrew Shafer]

Ghosts would violate just about every law of physics. How could something invisible see anything? Light would pass through it thus making it blind.

That's not good science. That is an assertion followed by an assumption about the nature of ghosts. (do you know something you aren't telling us?) You also assume the only type of energetic perception must be with that oh so small band of the electro-magnetic spectrum we call light.

Telekinetics violates the principal of conservation of energy.

An assertion with no foundation, in what way does it violate this principle?

Psychometric powers would require that an inanimate object somehow absorb information about its surroundings and then be "read" by a psychic. Psychics claim to be able to tell us the emotions of the person who possessed something but there is no way that the information could actually be stored in a scarf. So this would require a violation of the conservation of energy as well as instantaneous communication across distances.

I agree with your assessment of what psychometry would require, but then you go crazy and assert that there is "no way". Then more assertions, how pray tell does this violate the conservation of energy? Instantaneous communication across distances? First, that isn't a law of physics, second, physics experiments with particles would appear to violate this principle. Futhermore, there is nothing in science that precludes the existence of energies that we have yet perceive or quantify scientifically.

Remote viewing would violate quantum physics since it would require instantaneous communication across distances.

Quantum physics is not a law, it is a predictive model based on probabilistic mathematical models of observation. Instantaneous communication has been addressed.

Also, predicting the future would violate the one-way requirements of time in quantum physics.

Quantum physics is a model, not immutable law. Don't confuse the symbols you use for the things they represent. I didn't mention predicting the future, figured there was enough on your plate already.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:

Quantum physics is a model, not immutable law. Don't confuse the symbols you use for the things they represent. I didn't mention predicting the future, figured there was enough on your plate already.

Right so if you are going to ignore everything that we have proven about science and assert that anything is possible then yes anything is possible. But you are merely restating your own hypothesis. My daughter doesn't understand how the presents get under the Christman tree so she has proof that Santa Claus exists.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:
You also assume the only type of energetic perception must be with that oh so small band of the electro-magnetic spectrum we call light.

It wouldn't matter because any form of "vision" would require the absorbtion of energy. Which means that a ghost would be visible using some part of the energy spectrum. Whether it was radio waves, infrared, or the ultraviolet, a haunted house would show its spooks using the right equipment.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
Why do ghosts have to see - like with physical eyes? I was under the impression that they sensed the presence of the "spirit" of others in some fashion.

If you are talking about the "supernatural" then they are beyond science and are in the realm of science fiction. One might as well debate about angels dancing on pins.

[Lance Finney]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Strangely enough, Roman Catholic came out as my highest choice.

Is that accurate? If so, do you accept the miracles that Catholicism supports?
BTW, I agree with you on the paranormal. I'm just curious.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:
Instantaneous communication across distances? First, that isn't a law of physics, second, physics experiments with particles would appear to violate this principle.

Actually it is a well understood aspect of quatum mechanics. The experiments do not violate this principle because the principle deals with probabilities. Quantum mechanics shows that probability fields can not be used to send messages.
As to why telekinesis violates the conservation of energy, the answer is simple. The amount of energy required to move a rock a certain distance is well understood. The brain is incapable of manufacturing that much energy and transmitting it across a distance without heating itself up to the boiling point.
As to whether there are unknown powers that can be used, it could be that the brain is calling up little angels that move the object with their wings. But barring any scientific evidence that little angels exist there really is no point to it. If you want to go beyond science and claim that it is "supernatural" then you are making a claim that contradicts science and the laws of science. In that case it falls upon believers to offer some proof other than that Uncle Harry once saw a ghost in his room or Uri Geller bent a spoon.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Lance Finney:
Is that accurate? If so, do you accept the miracles that Catholicism supports?

I believe that all miracles have explanations in science... which is exactly how God wants it to be. If God came down and made a large deposit in a Swiss bank account in my name, belief would be quite easy. But God plays by the rules of science (which He created) in order to make belief in Him a challenge.

[Andrew Shafer]

Right so if you are going to ignore everything that we have proven about science and assert that anything is possible then yes anything is possible.

I'm ignoring nothing about science. Science is pretty much what I do. Considering quantum mechanics, there is a possibility that any object could jump 2 feet in the air, spin around 3 times while hovering, then land back where it started. It is possible, just improbable. The quantum mechanical model, being based on uncertainty and probability, seems like a poor choice to use for proof that something is certainly impossible.

My daughter doesn't understand how the presents get under the Christman tree so she has proof that Santa Claus exists.

That you lie to your children is another topic. (Thomas, I mean that as a joke)
Seriously, I'm not trying to prove that there are any of these phenomenon, but you can't discount them as possibilities based on the science of today.

[Lance Finney]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I believe that all miracles have explanations in science... which is exactly how God wants it to be. If God came down and made a large deposit in a Swiss bank account in my name, belief would be quite easy. But God plays by the rules of science (which He created) in order to make belief in Him a challenge.

Fair enough. I did the BeliefNet test two ways - what I think now and what I thought before I went to college. I moved from Liberal Protestant to Secular Humanist.
Your explanation is about what I would have given to the same question a few years ago.

[This message has been edited by Lance Finney (edited August 23, 2001).]

[Andrew Shafer]

Actually it is a well understood aspect of quatum mechanics. The experiments do not violate this principle because the principle deals with probabilities. Quantum mechanics shows that probability fields can not be used to send messages.

Well understood aspect of quantum mechanics is an oxymoron. What do you think of the quantum computers some people are working on? Isn't the whole concept based on the non-localized quantum phenomenon giving instantaneous communication over a distance.

As to why telekinesis violates the conservation of energy, the answer is simple. The amount of energy required to move a rock a certain distance is well understood. The brain is incapable of manufacturing that much energy and transmitting it across a distance without heating itself up to the boiling point.

The amount of energy required (the force times the distance) to move a rock is understood well enough, but the leap in logic that gets you to brain boiling is a bit much. Energy and heat are not the same. There are some things we do not understand, the only thing a true scientist knows with certainty. 100 years ago levitating magnets with superconductors would have been a feat of magic. Was this impossible then? Only in the minds of those who had yet to experience it and have the chance to explain it.
Honestly, I don't believe in the "paranormal" or "supernatural", I just think our understanding of what is normal and natural are very limited at this point.

[Andrew Shafer]

Thomas,
If you want to take a crack at explaining the unexplainable, take a swing at this.
http://www.javaranch.com/ubb/Forum34/HTML/001360.html http://www.javaranch.com/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000198.html
Andrew

[Jim Yingst]

> Remote viewing would violate quantum physics since it would
> require instantaneous communication across distances.
Eh? Why would remote viewing have to be instantaneous? Couldn't it involve some signal propagating at the speed of light or less instead?
As for invisible ghosts, what if the ghosts can turn their vision on and off somehow? So that they only see when they want to (very possibly in frequencies not usually seen by humans), and they're smart enough to lay low on the rare occasions that someone comes along with equipment capable of detecting them?
Frankly I do think ghosts, remote viewing, and the like are grossly improbable, but I can't resist the urge to look for loopholes when something is deemed "impossible".

[Anonymous]

Thomas,
Regarding God's methods and the performance of miracles:
Well spoken.
I took the belief-o-matic test and it nailed my faith as my 100% choice! Evidently I am fully indoctrinated.

[Thomas Paul]

Please note that what I said was that these things would violate the laws of science. I did not say that they are impossible. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Claiming ghosts exist because you and your friends saw one ("and we didn't have more than 2 or 3 6-packs at the time") can not constitute proof.

[Andrew Shafer]

I'm with you Thomas, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Everyone have a good weekend. (if you get to take one)
Weekends meant so much less when I was unemployed,

[Peter Lyons]

This is all pretty interesting... I haven't read all of every post, but I do remember in particular Bodie's ghost story. Nobody else's skepticism will every change Bodie's mind of what happened that day. What may likely happen is that in his own mind the years will weather that memory, and he'll start rationalize and explain away what was once a very potent experience. It doesn't sound like that has happened yet. As for those of us who have never experienced such a thing, the most convenient thing is to say "hey, I'm sure it was all very real to Bodie, but he was just a kid, and that was years ago." And of course there may be some truth in that argument. But really, in my opinion, we all need to have some place in our brain where we can file away all that stuff that we've experienced that just doesn't fit. I mean, I don't really know Bodie, so it's easy for me or most anyone else here to discount his story. But what if you were his wife? No doubt she is inclined to believe what he says. But still, if she's never experienced such a thing herself, it's gonna have to go in that "don't know where to file this" folder. Another thing that may go in that same folder, for someone who believes that God is alive and well and hasn't forgotten us, and is, in fact, good... what do you make of it when an old friend's two year old child dies in her sleep of bacterial pneumonia, when it was supposed to be just a cold? Or if your spouse is killed in a car wreck and leaves you with a few young kids to raise by yourself? Or if you get inoperable cancer in your 40's?
Well, maybe I drifted a little, but my point is just that I think it's okay to not be able to explain everything, and I'd imagine it would about drive someone crazy if they had to find some rational explanation for everything. A lot of things just don't seem to fit.
Just my $.02

[Sandra Lavigne]

i totally believe in paranormal. now nessie and bigfoot are not exactly paranormal, they're just creatures that may or may not exist that haven't been discovered by science yet. if you think about it, new species are being discovered all the time in the Rainforests, etc, so i imagine there are lots of creatures out there that haven't been seen yet.
but anyway.. how do ghosts see? they're on a different plane, the spiritual plane. the planes overlap in a way i don't quite understand, but they can see us, and some of us can see them. see, i believe everyone has some spiritual/psychic ability, it's just a matter of developing it. there are mediums, who speak to spirits, and then there are psychics, who see things without spiritual guidance, the past present and sometimes future.
everyone has spirit guides, wether they know it or not. these are spirits who stay with you and try to guide you through life. sometimes they speak to you and you probably hear them without knowing it, it's like a second thought train in your head that you may not even know is not your own thoughts.
i've had readings done, the first was by a close friend of the family. she called one day and said i had to go over to her place, so i did. she said "someone" was trying to tell her they needed to talk to me, so she used the ouija board to call them forth. well it ended up being my father and he had lots to say. he talked about things that nobody else knew about me, nobody.
anyway, a week or so ago i had another reading by a medium, she found out some things from my guides and then spoke to my father as well, and again lots of things were said that nobody could know. she knew that someone had stolen money from me but she couldn't see who it was.
a couple days later i spoke with a psychic reader and she was able to give a full description of the thief, there's no mistaking who it was now. she described her right down to the colour of her backpack. it was a person at work, i knew that much already, so when she described the only female who was working that day besides me, it was obvious cause she described her to a tee.
anyways, the last 2 readings were in a chatroom, yeah they can even do reading via internet, i go to that room a lot and just watch readings and chat with the mediums and psychics. it's a wonderful place, they are all very nice people and will answer any questions you might have. go to www.psychics.co.uk
you don't even need to register and it's completely free to chat.

[Manku Thimma]

Ok I'm back!
>But God plays by the rules of science
That's correct. But the problem is, we don't know all the rules; and with those rules we are aware of, we don't know all the limitations, exceptions and corollaries. So, you see, there is scope for God to do the inexplicable - while it's perfectly rational for Him, we just cannot understand it!
>Actually you have it exactly backwards. Your kind of belief system is what held people in the the thrall of magic and astrology and kept civilization in the Dark Ages.
Hmmm, I think B.M. had it right - because you, like these Dark Ages people you talk about, refuse to have an open mind towards the unexplained, because you flatly state that There is no such thing as the paranormal so there is nothing to "accept". Doesn't your position resemble that of the Roman Catholic Church when they flatly refused to accept Copernicus and Galileo's findings?
You see, I am not a "believer" in the paranormal - I am as much as a skeptic as you are - BUT, I have an open mind. From my personal experiences, and from the narration of experiences from (assumably) trustworthy sources like Bodie (who obviously hadn't had a 6-pack when he witnessed what he's described), and most importantly from the scientific research done in universities and labs around the world, I think there's surely something we don't know; and these phenomena definitely deserve further investigation.
Over the centuries our knowledge of the world around us has increased, but arrogance has always been a detractor. When we can approach the unknown with earnestness and willingness to unlearn/relearn what we know, only then is progress possible.
So, T.P., chill out As you are reading this, realize that the working of the brain processing these letters and making you understand what I'm saying, is perhaps the greatest unknown that you've already accepted as real!

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Manku Thimma:
You see, I am not a "believer" in the paranormal - I am as much as a skeptic as you are - BUT, I have an open mind.

See, you confuse what having an open mind is. If someone were to come with real proof of the paranormal than I would be willing to investigate and possibly revise my position based on my findings. But that doesn't mean I can't say that the paranormal doesn't exist. If someone came to me and claimed the moon was made of green cheese I would simply blow them off. However, that does not mean that I will not accept proof of a cheese moon if proof was produced.
I do not believe in the paranormal. It violates what we know of science. Every test ever done to prove the paranormal has turned up empty. It doesn't exist.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Manku Thimma:
Hmmm, I think B.M. had it right - because you, like these Dark Ages people you talk about, refuse to have an open mind towards the unexplained, because you flatly state that There is no such thing as the paranormal so there is nothing to "accept". Doesn't your position resemble that of the Roman Catholic Church when they flatly refused to accept Copernicus and Galileo's findings?

No, you see the Church refused to accept Galileo's findings in spite of actual proof. Galileo didn't just make some spurious claims and then whine like a baby when no one would believe him. He offered actual scientific evidence. As difficult as proving a negative is, 50 years of scientific research on the paranormal has proven that there is no such thing.

[Andrew Shafer]

Here we go again. . .
First, science has not made 50 years of serious inquiry into the existence of the paranormal. Second, (and something that should be well established at this point in the discussion) there has been no proof that these things do not exist, nor can there be.
Philosophically, you have to address the dynamics of power involved in controlling belief and information. Those in control are not quick to admit that their understanding is not complete. There is much more money in the "Science is God" camp than generated by the "psychic" industry. (not that I'm a fan of divination, but thats another topic)
If I'm a PhD and my lifes work rests on the pedestal of "science as we know it", how quickly am I going to be willing to accept anything that threatens my work and authority?
New science always comes from the fringes.
Most of what passes for science now days is just coloring between the lines that someone else draws for you.

[Sandra Lavigne]

anyway just thought i'd add some advice as it's in my nature to give advice at every possible chance for some reason.
if you ever encounter something that you think could be paranormal (wether you believe in it or not) you can protect yourself. it's quite easy, and will protect you from any negative energy. generally, spirits are good and will not harm you, but sometimes negative energy or negative spirits find their way to people. SO... there are two ways i know of: one is grounding: imagine roots growing out of your feet into the earth. if you really concentrate you'll feel your feet are actually stuck to the floor, it's pretty cool, and it brings about a sense of peace (for me anyway)
the second is called protecting: imagine a white light enveloping you.
pretty simple, but it's recommended that you do both before doing anything related to spirits or paranormal activity, they both protect you from negative energy.
sounds silly to the skeptics i'm sure, but i just wanted to get that out there, it's good to know in case you ever need to use it.
incidently, if your house is haunted by a spirit, if you protect yourself, then imagine sending the spirit into the white light and ask it to leave, chances are it will

[Jamie Robertson]

imagine roots growing out of your feet into the earth. if you really concentrate you'll feel your feet are actually stuck to the floor, it's pretty cool

I do this every Friday night to Sunday once I sit down in my lazy boy. How do I modify this technique to make people go away?

Jamie
p.s. for some reason I pictured you as a spiritual person?? all this paranormal activity is making me paranoid!

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:

Here we go again. . .
First, science has not made 50 years of serious inquiry into the existence of the paranormal. Second, (and something that should be well established at this point in the discussion) there has been no proof that these things do not exist, nor can there be.

This goes to the "yellow crow" theory. I can claim that there are yellow crows. Science can't disprove this except by pointing out that no one has ever seen a yellow crow. I can claim anything but unless I can offer proof I am just blowing smoke. And you are right that science hasn't been seriously investigating the paranormal for 50 years. It actually has been closer to 150 years.

[Andrew Shafer]

Sir Doubting Thomas
Or maybe I could claim that time is relative to velocity and we wouldn't have the the technology to explore my hypothesis.
If there has been 150 years of serious inquiry, where are all the papers? Names and places, who did the study? Hypothesis? Data? Interpretation? Sounds like a yellow crow to me.
Dismissing is not the same as disproving.

[Manku Thimma]

>Every test ever done to prove the paranormal has turned up empty
You are obviously unaware of the research studies which have established the presence of repeatable psychic phenomena. Here's a brief listing:
The Ganzfeld Phenomena: This experimental procedure was the first to promise repeatable demonstration. Here a sender, in an insulated room concentrates on a target - which is a picture or videotaped sequence. In a seperate room, the receiver thinks out loud for about 30 minutes, providing a continous report of all the thoughts, feelings, and images that pass through his or her mind. At the end of this period, the receiver is presented with several pictures (usually four) and, without knowing which one was the target, is asked to rate the degree to which each matches the thoughts and images experienced.
If four pictures were used, and one of them was the correct target, the hit rate expected by chance is 25%. Across 42 studies in 10 laboratories, the receivers achieved an average hit rate of 35%. Statistically this result is highly significant: The odds against getting a 35 percent hit rate across that many studies by chance are greater than a billion to one. (Musicians were particularly successful, in one study: 75% of them successfully identified their targets.)
Links: Does Psi Exist?, Ganzfeld Phenomena
And have you read about the studies conducted at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab? In one particular experiment, a human observer could influence the behavior of a mechanical device. Read more about it here.
And have you read about the Out-of-Body-Experience experiment by Dr Charles Tart, Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis? Here's a summary. And here's the original paper.
This one's anecdotal, but true: Annette Martin, a psychic, has helped the police solve murder mysteries. Read about her in this article: Psychic For Cops.
I will post more links to "scientific" studies when I can find them - the above links should convince you that inexplicable phenomena do exist.

[This message has been edited by Manku Thimma (edited August 27, 2001).]

[Thomas Paul]

Notes on the Ganfeld studies:
http://www.csicop.org/si/9911/lilienfeld.html

Although some critics, like Ray Hyman, found statistical anomalies in the Bem and Honorton data set suggesting the possible existence of subtle but damaging experimental artifacts (see Hyman, R., Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 1996; and Hyman, R., Psychological Bulletin, 1994), Bem and Honorton's meta-analysis was regarded by many as offering the most compelling laboratory evidence to date for the existence of ESP.
This is essentially where things stood until a few months ago, when Julie Milton of the University of Edinburgh and Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire published an updated meta-analysis of thirty recent Ganzfeld studies not reviewed by Bem and Honorton. Milton and Wiseman's findings, which were published recently ("Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process at Information Transfer," Psychological Bulletin 125(4): 387-391), stand in stark contrast to those of Bem and Honorton and raise serious questions concerning the replicability of the Ganzfeld findings. Specifically, Milton and Wiseman reported a mean effect size across all thirty studies of .013, which corresponds to essentially chance performance and can most charitably be described as negligible.
Moreover, Milton and Wiseman failed to replicate Bem and Honorton's findings that a previous history of ESP-like experiences and the use of dynamic targets predicted enhanced Ganzfeld performance. (Because of insufficient information in the studies, Milton and Wiseman were unable to directly examine Bem and Honorton's other predictors, such as extroversion.) In contrast, Milton and Wiseman did find that previous participation in a mental discipline among novices predicted enhanced Ganzfeld performance. Ironically, however, a re-examination of Bem and Honorton's analyses revealed that this predictor was incorrectly identified as statistically significant in their original article, suggesting that the overall findings for the mental discipline variable in fact amount to another replication failure. In the words of baseball hall-of-famer Yogi Berra, Milton and Wiseman's findings appear to be a case of "deja vu all over again." Seemingly replicable parapsychological findings have again proven to be disconcertingly elusive, and the experimental ESP literature has again proven to be consistently inconsistent.

What your links show me is that many people are unqualified to do research in the paranormal because they are easily fooled or do not understand the statistical effects of randomness over many experiments.

[Thomas Paul]

Information about Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research:
http://skepdic.com/pear.html

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:
If there has been 150 years of serious inquiry, where are all the papers? Names and places, who did the study? Hypothesis? Data? Interpretation? Sounds like a yellow crow to me.

From the sci.sceptic faq:

. According to a recent National Research Council report,
there is a 130 year history of scientific research, albeit with no clear
conclusion that the classical psi effects, telepathy, clairvoyance,
psychokinesis, precognition, have been demonstrated. Most knowledgeable
scholars would date the advent of controlled research later, to the early
1930's when J. B. Rhine began his work with McDougall in Duke University's
psychology department.

[Andrew Shafer]

So let me get this straight. . .
One researcher starting 70 years ago, somehow translates into 150 years of serious scientific inquiry?
I think this thread is starting to wear out, but for the sake of argument, don't you think the skeptical inquirer might have a certain bias? Maybe, just maybe?

[Johnson Chong]

I belief in panaroma. Its actually brain wave interference. A branch of science to intrigue people of the future. Just like when people hullucinate or when they see virgin Mary, its actually a kind of brain wave interference. This intereference effect optic nerve and cause visions.

[Manku Thimma]

>that many people are unqualified to do research
Tsk tsk tsk - if you read the whole article, you will realize how desperate they are to make a negative statement. From 1974 to 1997, 2549 Ganzfeld sessions have been held, with an overall hit rate of 33.2%. The odds of this happening by just pure chance is a million billion to one. Having conveniently ignored that fact, the CSICOP article tries to give this Milton and Wiseman team's 30 Ganzfeld sessions their 15 minutes of fame by claiming that these had a hit rate closer to that of pure chance. For all that we know, these sessions could have been botched up, and therefore causing an anamolous result - anamolous because an overwhelmingly greater number of successes have been reported in all other experiments from around the world.
In fact the same page says:

It seems likely that Milton and Wiseman's meta-analysis will not be the final word on the Ganzfeld technique, and the question of whether this technique will prove to be the replicable paradigm long sought by parapsychologists or merely another tantalizing will-o'-the-wisp is far from conclusively resolved.

So you see, he's admitting that the minuscule amount of negative evidence is definitely not significant enough. I conclude that this fellow is just hell-bent on nitpicking.
>Information about Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
Sure, but it doesn't say anywhere that their research findings are incorrect - only offers guesses about what could influence such experiments. So, essentially, no one has been able to disprove PEAR's experiments. I say 'no one' because, even if one crackpot garage scientist claimed to have disproved an experiment, CSICOP and Skepdic and their cronies would give him all the free publicity they could - simply to support their case.
In my opinion, CSICOP and Skepdic and similar sources offer extremely biased views - afterall, they are out to disprove the existence of the paranormal, so why would they ever support or bring to light any positive findings? But they do serve a useful purpose: their smugly smirky attitude can only inspire the true researcher to delve deeper into understanding the unknown. Someday, we'll discover something new, and those heady skeptics will have their tails between their legs

[This message has been edited by Manku Thimma (edited August 28, 2001).]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:

So let me get this straight. . .
One researcher starting 70 years ago, somehow translates into 150 years of serious scientific inquiry?
I think this thread is starting to wear out, but for the sake of argument, don't you think the skeptical inquirer might have a certain bias? Maybe, just maybe?

That wasn't from the skeptical inquirer but from sci.sceptic. In fact, that particular article was written by one of the founders of PEAR.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Manku Thimma:
But they do serve a useful purpose: their smugly smirky attitude can only inspire the true researcher to delve deeper into understanding the unknown. Someday, we'll discover something new, and those heady skeptics will have their tails between their legs

Until that day, why don't you just go sit in the corner and play with your tarot cards and leave the rest of us alone.
[This message has been edited by Thomas Paul (edited August 29, 2001).]