>>You might say that those people have negative ESP, because many >>unbelievers actually have negative results that are FAR less than >>chance, indicating that there is the possibility that their minds can >>successfully avoid teh correct answer.
This is very interesting.... By your wording in the above statement I have a few questions.
Are these negative results that are "FAR less than chance", greater in number or magnitude than the positive results? If this indicates, as you say, that they are successfully avoiding the correct answer, then possibly they are lying?. This might be taken a bit further than this... This could mean that the skeptics are really "psychic", and don't want anyone to know. Or maybe their minds are not letting them know that they are "psychic". Very interesting...
Were the people that got the extremely negative results known or determined to be skeptics before or after the results were tallied?
rei...@pmafire.inel.gov (Steve Reiser) writes: > And that is what I said - negative results are significant!
> Do you have any references by more than one investigator?
> YES!
Names, please?
> >By ANY investigator?
> YES!
I said, 'Names, PLEASE?'
> >Can you describe reproduceable experiments?
> YES!
Okay, one last time: "NAMES, PLEASE?!?"
> Steve
> -- > Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
That one doesn't count.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Brian Siano, Delaware Valley Skeptics Rev. Philosopher-King of The First Church of the Divine Otis Redding re...@Cellar.UUCP "Ecrasez l'enfame!" - Voltaire """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
sdb%hotmo...@uunet.uu.net (Scott Ballantyne) writes: >In article <1991Aug16.115459.2...@verifone.com> ed...@verifone.com >writes: > In any case, more scientific research, and more _careful and > thoughtful_ scientific research is needed. >So the `care' in the scientific research is the need to eliminate >doubters from the loop? Probably a good idea to eliminate any serious >criticisms of experimental protocols too, since such criticisms `have >been shown to interfere' with PSI?
Well put. In fact, psi researchers should prevent skeptics from reading their papers, as this has been shown to produce flaws in their expermental method. Paranormal means will not suffice, as these don't work on skeptics (Next time Randi is on TV, invite a skeptic over and your spoons will stay unbent). Do you think we could shut down faith healers if we all watch their TV shows and doubt hard enough? Or does the lack of effect from the presence of skeptics in the audience demonstrate that it is not a paranormal effect that is being observed?
I'll leave you with this signature -- /|/-\/-\ The entire world Jerusalem |__/__/_/ is a very strange carrot |warren@ But the farmer / worlds.COM is not worried at all.
In article <91229.100216DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>, DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
> Ed L'Esperance says:
>>We need to get beyond proving that PSI exists, and start trying to >>uncover the mechanisms behind it. If, as some psychics claim, that the >>presence of doubters inhibits their ability (not an unreasonable claim >>if the nature of PSI is transmission of unconscious thoughts via _any_ >>means) then we need to eliminate doubters from the experimental process.
> A typical Ed L statement. The only skeptics that the psychics object to are > those (like Randi) who expose their frauds. They are perfectly willing > to perform their tricks in front of an audience, so why can't they detect > the presence of doubters by the failure of their methods? It seems, Mr Ed, > that it is the *KNOWLDEGE* of the presence of the doubters that makes the > tricks fail, not their presence itself. This routinely happens to Uri > Geller, isn't that interesting?
Gee, Dr. J. Seems to me that you are assuming that _all_ psychics are frauds. By extrapolation, then, I suppose I can assume that _all_ scientists employed at Stanford are crooks? Whether or not it is true in your case, it is faulty logic.
Fact is, until we discover the nature of what causes PSI phenomenon (and I admit it may be to purely mundane reasons, but I don't believe it), we should explore every avenue, leave no stone unturned. Seems like you are a bit too eager to ignore a bunch. This is science?
Your statement about the knowledge of the presence of doubters inhibiting PSI may be true, or it may be the presence. We don't know until we find some way to test for it. "Scientists" such as yourself seem too eager to jump to unfounded conclusions -- I smell a rat, and it's coming from your direction.
-- *************************************************************************** * Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. * * Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, etc. -*- UUCP%"Ed...@VeriFone.Com" * * Disclaimer: Opinions Copyright 1991 Ed L'Esperance. HANDS OFF! * * Opinion #1: "Are you trying to tell me that these people are SERIOUS?" * * #2: "What do you mean 'just opinions?' -- that's all anyone has!" * * #3: "'It's not my fault!'" (Quoted from Han Solo, Star Wars I, 1977) * ***************************************************************************
In article <1991Aug19.154015.17...@ncsu.edu>, h...@ccvr1.cc.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
> In article <91230.180549DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes: >> ... >>I have not seen any statements for six monthsthat I've been >>participating in this greoup that "we _shouldn't research PSI." >>Nevertheless, Ed L brings up this point in about half of his posts. >>Does he have a need to feel persecuted? > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Apparently so.
> --henry schaffer n c state univ > :-)
Oh yes, whip me, beat me. Just don't infer things that aren't true by taking me out of context like this self-proclaimed doctor does....
And in any case, if ignoring and rejecting the possibility of PSI is not anti-psi-research, than it is pro-psi-research?
I should know better than to even listen to people who call themselves reverends or doctors on a computer network -- I suspect that they only do so because it is something they are denied in real life. Get real.
-- *************************************************************************** * Ed L'Esperance - P.O. Box 4635, Kane`ohe, Hawai`i 96744 U.S.A. * * Anthropologist, Writer, Editor, etc. -*- UUCP%"Ed...@VeriFone.Com" * * Disclaimer: Opinions Copyright 1991 Ed L'Esperance. HANDS OFF! * * Opinion #1: "Are you trying to tell me that these people are SERIOUS?" * ***************************************************************************
>DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes: >>>I have not seen any statements for six monthsthat I've been >>>participating in this greoup that "we _shouldn't research PSI." >>>Nevertheless, Ed L brings up this point in about half of his posts. >>>Does he have a need to feel persecuted? >Oh yes, whip me, beat me. >Just don't infer things that aren't true by taking me out of context like >this self-proclaimed doctor does....
In article <1991Aug21.121548.2...@verifone.com>, ed...@verifone.com says:
>DOCT...@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes: >>> ... >>>I have not seen any statements for six months that I've been >>>participating in this greoup that "we _shouldn't research PSI." >>>Nevertheless, Ed L brings up this point in about half of his posts. >>>Does he have a need to feel persecuted?
>Oh yes, whip me, beat me. >Just don't infer things that aren't true by taking me out of context like >this self-proclaimed doctor does....
I challenge you to show me how I am taking you out of context. Unfortunately, I'm not.
By the way, it has been about four months now since several of us requested information from you about your claimed persecution (by the Bay Area Skeptics) of someone who wanted to teach about the paranormal at the U of Hawaii. Are you planning to respond? Or is this just another one or your "you skeptics are persecuting us" smokescreens?
In article <1991Aug21.164411.26...@pmafire.inel.gov>, rei...@pmafire.inel.gov (Steve Reiser) writes...
Steve Reiser ... I've been reading your entries for awhile now and I have to tell you that you are absolutely correct in everything you are saying.
You know. --- Mary Stanley (INTERNET,UUCP) stan...@verga.enet.dec.com (UUCP) ...!decwrl!verga.enet!stanley (INTERNET) stanley%verga.e...@decwrl.dec.com ---
I'm not going to dig up all my references of research, but will suggest the "Handbook of Parapsychology" as a starting place. Then use the bibliographies in there and it will lead you in hundreds of directions to all sorts of research, names, dates, etc.
Steve
-- Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
Kit Pedler, a Ph.D. physicist in the California bay area, had a weekly program for the past year called "Mind Over Matter". The entire series was focused on a scientific approach to the paranormal. The final program lastnight discussed recent experiments in which it was found that if you take two particles (didn't say what - electron?, proton?) and project them from a particle gun with a particle spin on each and then pass one through a magnteic field to reverse it's spin, the other particle going in the opposite direction, without any outside field simultaneously changes direction of it's spin. The implication is that somehow particles separated by a large space from each other still communicate with each other. This experiment has been repeated eight times, with six verifying the results, causing physicists to have to do some serious rethinking about the whole basis of physics and our understanding of matter and energy.
It appears that two objects separate from each other in space can communicate faster than the speed of light without any direct transfer of energy between the two.
Are particles psychic?
Steve
-- Steve Reiser (rei...@pmafire.inel.gov or !uunet!pmafire!reiser)
