How is faith a virtuous and reasonable attribute?

[George-ananda]

Well if they leave to trace, what is thereto verify?

My point exactly. That does not mean then spontaneous event didn't happen.

Agreed. Absolutely correct! And one must not confuse anecdotes for evidence.

Have you ever heard the term 'anecdotal evidence'? It's not 'proof'.

No, those experiments have not suceeded in scientifically proving telepathy, in fact no scientific research into telepathy has done so. There is no proof of telepathy known to modern science.

Wrong. Because skeptics claim no proof does not mean proof does not exist. I am genuinely interested in parapsychology so I actually get my information from both sides.

 

[Bunyip]

My point exactly. That does not mean then spontaneous event didn't happen.

Have you ever heard the term 'anecdotal evidence'? It's not 'proof'.

Of course. But not in the scientific context as I said.

Wrong. Because skeptics claim no proof does not mean proof does not exist. I am genuinely interested in parapsychology so I actually get my information from both sides.

So am I, and so do I. Proof must be KNOWN about to count. If there is proof of supernatural things that is not yet known - that presents no challenge whatsoever to my skepticism. If proof exists it is knowable.

 

[George-ananda]

But ... consistent, independent replication of ganzfeld experiments has not been achieved.[2][3][4][5][6] (wiki)

Wrong. You have to look beyond Wikipedia articles which are currently being battled over between hard skeptics and parapsychologists.

 

[Bunyip]

Wrong. You have to look beyond Wikipedia articles which are currently being battled over between hard skeptics and parapsychologists.

I have read the research, the wiki page Sapiens gave you refers to the real research articcles and scientific responses to them. The general scientific view is that the results can not be consistently replicated - are you contesting that?

 

[George-ananda]

Of course. But not in the scientific context as I said.

I said I was fine with science moving slowly. But I, in forming my worldview, consider things hard science has no way of addressing. Anecdotal evidence can be intelligently analyzed looking at things like quantity, quality, consistency, etc. of the anecdotal data.

 

[George-ananda]

I have read the research, the wiki page Sapiens gave you refers to the real research articcles and scientific responses to them. The general scientific view is that the results can not be consistently replicated - are you contesting that?

I am absolutely contesting that. Do you consider what proponents like Dean Radin and Chris Carter have to say about the objections. A famous skeptic Ray Hyman had to admit he had no explanation for the ganzfeld data properly reported.

 

[Bunyip]

I am absolutely contesting that. Do you consider what proponents like Dean Radin and Chris Carter have to say about the objections. A famous skeptic Ray Hyman had to admit he had no explanation for the ganzfeld data properly reported.

Yes. I have considered their views carefully. As I said, the problem is that the results can not be replicated consitently and so the experiment is a dud. Not having an explanation is not a problem, the argument from ignorance fallacy is not used in science. What is needed is an experiment in which telepathy is the explanation.

 

[Bunyip]

I said I was fine with science moving slowly. But I, in forming my worldview, consider things hard science has no way of addressing. Anecdotal evidence can be intelligently analyzed looking at things like quantity, quality, consistency, etc. of the anecdotal data.

Absolutely. Could not agree more. But anecdotal evidemce must not be confused formscientific evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes. I have considered their views carefully. As I said, the problem is that the results can not be replicated consitently and so the experiment is a dud.

Wrong. If you actually look further there has been many studies repeated in multiple institutions in at least three continents.

Not having an explanation is not a problem, the argument from ignorance fallacy is not used in science. What is needed is an experiment in which telepathy is the explanation.

The experiments do show that they are getting statistically significant results not explainable as experimental error.

 

[George-ananda]

Absolutely. Could not agree more. But anecdotal evidemce must not be confused formscientific evidence.

So then you agree it is rational for me to consider anecdotal evidence in forming my personal worldview which reaches beyond what hard science can study.

 

[Bunyip]

Wrong. If you actually look further there has been many studies repeated in multiple institutions in at least three continents.

I did look further - and am not wrong. The results have been repeated in three continents - but not consistently, and so the experiment is invalid.

The experiments do show that they are getting statistically significant results not explainable as experimental error.

Sure, but that is not evidence of telepathy at all. Something unexplainable is why almost all sceince is conducted, what you need is an experminet in which telepathy is the explanation. Until then you have nothing more than the starting point for almost all scientific research - an unknown.

 

[Bunyip]

So then you agree it is rational for me to consider anecdotal evidence in forming my personal worldview which reaches beyond what hard science can study.

Of course. Just don't confuse it with scientific evidence. Science is the study of the natural world, a tool - nothing more.

Something unexplainable is where science begins, not where it ends.

In terms of the Gandsfield experiments, the unknown indicated is where the real science begins. When the explanation for that unknown has been established - then you have a result.

 

[George-ananda]

I did look further - and am not wrong. The results have been repeated in three continents - but not consistently, and so the experiment is invalid.

If you are interested check out Dean Radin's meta-analysis which refutes the above.

Sure, but that is not evidence of telepathy at all. Something unexplainable is why almost all sceince is conducted, what you need is an experminet in which telepathy is the explanation. Until then you have nothing more than the starting point for almost all scientific research - an unknown.

The first step is admitting something interesting is going on here. This would be a major step.

 

[Bunyip]

If you are interested check out Dean Radin's meta-analysis which refutes the above.

I did so before I commented on it.

The first step is admitting something interesting is going on here. This would be a major step.

I have been interested in this stuff all my life.

 

[George-ananda]

Of course. Just don't confuse it with scientific evidence. Science is the study of the natural world, a tool - nothing more.

I understand that.

 

[George-ananda]

I did so before I commented on it. I have been interested in this stuff all my life.

You couldn't have found a flaw that quickly that escaped Dean Radin's laborious efforts and thought.

 

[Bunyip]

You couldn't have found a flaw that quickly that escaped Dean Radin's laborious efforts and thought.

Of course i could. The flaw is the same that all of the principle reviewers identified - that the results can not be consistently replicated and HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. Nothing Radin argues can meaningfully address those two issues. How do you address them?

Radin argues for a statistically significant result nothing more - certainly not proof of telepathy as you appear to believe (my apologies if I have misunderstood you). He does not explain the results, other than that they are significant.

My reading of your comments was that telepathy had been proven experimentally, but Radin makes no such claim. Please correct me if I misread.

 

[George-ananda]

Of course i could. The flaw is the same that all of the principle reviewers identified - that the results can not be consistently replicated and HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. Nothing Radin argues can meaningfully address those two issues. How do you address them?

By saying he shows how they HAVE been consistently replicated and that those claims that they haven't been replicated are false. It's out there if you want to look.

 

[Bunyip]

By saying he shows how they HAVE been consistently replicated and that those claims that they haven't been replicated are false. It's out there if you want to look.

Yes, I know what he says. I told you, I read his articles. He is wrong, the results have not been consistently replicated, the rest of the research and reviews makes that clear.

He is also only claiming statistically unlikely anomalies, not proof of telepathy. He has no results, other than unexplained statistical anomlalies - he is at the point wherethe research begins, not whereit reaches its limits.

He may have replicated the results, the point is that scientists in the broader community have not been able to. I never challenged his claim to have replicated them.

 

[Bunyip]

George

In regards to your many comments along the lines of 'it's all there if you want to look', there is an inference of bias and ignorance.
May i ask if you could resist simply dismissing anything I say as ignorance. I have told you that I have read the research and have a deep interest in the topic.

Unless I am very much mistaken, you were referring to proof of telepathy - the Ganzfield experiments have done no such thing. Radin has not made such a claim, he is claiming results that show statistically significant anaomalies, not proof of telepathy.

If he does claim proof of telepathy please quote him.

My understanding was that you claimed reproducible proof of telepathy. To be honest I don't see the connection to the supernatural - if science proved telepathy it would be natural. So I am unsure of what it is you think I am biased against or skeptical of.