The contributions of the sciences to Religion

[Ben Dhyan]

you have shown the whole "ESP is self evident" is a bold faced lie.

nice try.
But it is against to rules to call a member a liar.
Regardless of how many lies they tell.

Hmmm...which member lied?

 

[McBell]

Hmmm...which member lied?

you really should brush up on your boredom relieving bull ****.
you look like a rank amateur.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

you really should brush up on your boredom relieving bull ****.
you look like a rank amateur.

C'mon.....be honest...are you accusing me of lying or not?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Shad....read the papers I posted above and get back to me....there is no lack of evidence that ESP exists.

There absolutely is. As I've said before, I've served as a consultant on research methods and analysis on a few parapsychology studies. This is because it is well known that the "peer-reviewed" papers on ESP and so forth get published in journals created solely to be able to publish experiments that are shoddy in support of such views, that the researchers manipulate data and experimental design in order to get the results they want, and that their findings are at best questionable and usually trash. Some researchers in these fields, however, really DO want to produce quality research and so try to hire statistical consults, outside scientists, etc., to help design studies that could pass real peer-review and be taken seriously. Unfortunately, when this is done the findings are either inconclusive or simply don't support the hypotheses. In several studies I was consulted regarding, the experiments didn't show anything resembling the evidence hoped for, but instead of publishing a paper documenting failure to find evidence of parapsychological theories, the researchers simply decided to bury these attempts and start anew. In two other instances, the researchers massaged the data, hid key components of their research, and published what amounted essentially to lies.
True, the failure to report failures is ubiquitous in the social & behavioral sciences, and has been growing elsewhere. But not only are these unscientific habits taken to extremes in research on things like ESP, even in the sympathetic journals created to allow shoddy research to be published we find subpar methods reported (and goodness knows what failures and problems unreported).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There absolutely is. As I've said before, I've served as a consultant on research methods and analysis on a few parapsychology studies. This is because it is well known that the "peer-reviewed" papers on ESP and so forth get published in journals created solely to be able to publish experiments that are shoddy in support of such views, that the researchers manipulate data and experimental design in order to get the results they want, and that their findings are at best questionable and usually trash. Some researchers in these fields, however, really DO want to produce quality research and so try to hire statistical consults, outside scientists, etc., to help design studies that could pass real peer-review and be taken seriously. Unfortunately, when this is done the findings are either inconclusive or simply don't support the hypotheses. In several studies I was consulted regarding, the experiments didn't show anything resembling the evidence hoped for, but instead of publishing a paper documenting failure to find evidence of parapsychological theories, the researchers simply decided to bury these attempts and start anew. In two other instances, the researchers massaged the data, hid key components of their research, and published what amounted essentially to lies.
True, the failure to report failures is ubiquitous in the social & behavioral sciences, and has been growing elsewhere. But not only are these unscientific habits taken to extremes in research on things like ESP, even in the sympathetic journals created to allow shoddy research to be published we find subpar methods reported (and goodness knows what failures and problems unreported).

I am well aware of shoddy papers in science...particularly in social sciences...but it is everywhere to some extent. So far as ESP research is concerned, while some papers may be shoddy, they are not all, and even then, they are a long way from understanding the 'mechanics' behind it...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am well aware of shoddy papers in science...particularly in social sciences...but it is everywhere to some extent.

True.

So far as ESP research is concerned, while some papers may be shoddy, they are not all, and even then, they are a long way from understanding the 'mechanics' behind it...

1) ESP research is published in journals that are designed to allow shoddy research on ESP to be published.
2) Even "good" papers on ESP do not reflect the research that went into yielding the results (this, again, is true of research more generally, but not anywhere near to the extent found in parapsychology research).
3) Scientists seeking to reproduce experiments published in journals created to allow ESP and similar studies to be published can't replicate such findings.
4) The standards adhered to by ESP and similar studies differs qualitatively and markedly from research in the social & behavioral sciences more generally (and I say this knowing full well the extent to which such research is riddled with problems, from NHST to the problem of constructs).

If you would like to go over the details of a particular study you find convincing, perhaps that would be more productive than me saying things I have found to be true and you doing the same, with neither of us having enough in the way of common ground.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

True.

1) ESP research is published in journals that are designed to allow shoddy research on ESP to be published.
2) Even "good" papers on ESP do not reflect the research that went into yielding the results (this, again, is true of research more generally, but not anywhere near to the extent found in parapsychology research).
3) Scientists seeking to reproduce experiments published in journals created to allow ESP and similar studies to be published can't replicate such findings.
4) The standards adhered to by ESP and similar studies differs qualitatively and markedly from research in the social & behavioral sciences more generally (and I say this knowing full well the extent to which such research is riddled with problems, from NHST to the problem of constructs).

If you would like to go over the details of a particular study you find convincing, perhaps that would be more productive than me saying things I have found to be true and you doing the same, with neither of us having enough in the way of common ground.

I don't have the math skills to follow this paper but the peer reviewers passed it and the conclusions say the evidence is there... I'm not convinced though that you make an honest broker in this as you have shown your materialistic bias on all threads dealing with subjects like this...but by all means have a look and voice your opinion..

Utts (1996). An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm not convinced though that you make an honest broker in this as you have shown your materialistic bias on all threads dealing with subjects like this

Interesting:

"It is fitting that physics--the science that gave rise to materialism--should also signal the demise of materialism...I'm not a dualist partly because at this point it isn't even clear to me what being a materialist means given that our best models of physics involve causally efficacious entities nonetheless called "virtual particles", that many prominent physicists believe information, not particles, are the most fundamental component of reality, and the increasing reliance on mathematics to discover aspects of reality without experimentation and to both design and interpret experiments.

There is nothing physical; this is perhaps the most basic "postulate" or "axiom" of quantum mechanics. There CANNOT be anything physical, or the entire theory falls apart.

A great deal of progress in the sciences and in particular physics and consciousness research has been the result of assuming materialism is false.

Not to mention my use of quotes from others here:

"Quantum Mechanics has taught us that we must change our way of thinking about “realism”, and that this cannot be synonymous of “materialism”."
D’Ariano, G. M. (2015). It from Qubit. In It From Bit or Bit From It? (pp. 25-35). Springer.

“Materie nicht aus Materie aufgebaut ist”
Dürr, H-P. (2009). Warum es ums Ganze geht: Neues Denken für eine Welt im Umbruch. oekom verlag.

"The notion of Physical Object is Untenable”
D’Ariano, G. M. (2015). It from Qubit. In It From Bit or Bit From It? (pp. 25-35). Springer.

"It is generally believed that quantum physics refutes realism, materialism, determinism, and perhaps even rationality. These beliefs, central to the so-called Copenhagen interpretation, were held by the very fathers of the new physics, particularly Niels Bohr (1934), Max Born (1953), Werner Heisenberg (1958), and Wolfgang Pauli (1961)."
Bunge, M. (2012). Does Quantum Physics Refute Realism, Materialism and Determinism?. In Evaluating Philosophies (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science) (pp. 139-149). Springer.
ad infinitum

My "materialistic" bias is nil, as shown by multiple threads in which I have argued that materialism is fundamentally wrong, that the materialism/physicalism I believe to be accurate (both as an individual and a scientist) is radically different than the general conception of either physicalism or materialism, that both physicalism and materialism have been largely abandoned (and with good reason) within mainstream physics, etc.
More importantly, my "bias" is at best equal with your own. The difference is that one of us has worked on the studies you point to and can

...but by all means have a look and voice your opinion..

I have already voiced my general opinion regarding the shoddy nature of the studies you link to. However, I am prone to error like anyone else, and am therefore interested in a critique of my readings of those studies I have not been directly involved in; in particular, how my analyses might be flawed. I can't very well propose the ways in which I believe that my understanding of the studies is not how I should understand them. But I can respond to your critical analyses of these and you could respond to mine, helping us determine the veracity, validity, and soundness of these studies.
But apparently:

I don't have the math skills to follow this paper

So you can't assess the validity of the evidence you muster, and rely on a "peer-review" process that is essentially the creation of journals to subvert peer-review. Or at least that is my reading of the situation. How am I wrong?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Interesting:



Not to mention my use of quotes from others here:

"Quantum Mechanics has taught us that we must change our way of thinking about “realism”, and that this cannot be synonymous of “materialism”."
D’Ariano, G. M. (2015). It from Qubit. In It From Bit or Bit From It? (pp. 25-35). Springer.

“Materie nicht aus Materie aufgebaut ist”
Dürr, H-P. (2009). Warum es ums Ganze geht: Neues Denken für eine Welt im Umbruch. oekom verlag.

"The notion of Physical Object is Untenable”
D’Ariano, G. M. (2015). It from Qubit. In It From Bit or Bit From It? (pp. 25-35). Springer.

"It is generally believed that quantum physics refutes realism, materialism, determinism, and perhaps even rationality. These beliefs, central to the so-called Copenhagen interpretation, were held by the very fathers of the new physics, particularly Niels Bohr (1934), Max Born (1953), Werner Heisenberg (1958), and Wolfgang Pauli (1961)."
Bunge, M. (2012). Does Quantum Physics Refute Realism, Materialism and Determinism?. In Evaluating Philosophies (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science) (pp. 139-149). Springer.
ad infinitum

My "materialistic" bias is nil, as shown by multiple threads in which I have argued that materialism is fundamentally wrong, that the materialism/physicalism I believe to be accurate (both as an individual and a scientist) is radically different than the general conception of either physicalism or materialism, that both physicalism and materialism have been largely abandoned (and with good reason) within mainstream physics, etc.
More importantly, my "bias" is at best equal with your own. The difference is that one of us has worked on the studies you point to and can



I have already voiced my general opinion regarding the shoddy nature of the studies you link to. However, I am prone to error like anyone else, and am therefore interested in a critique of my readings of those studies I have not been directly involved in; in particular, how my analyses might be flawed. I can't very well propose the ways in which I believe that my understanding of the studies is not how I should understand them. But I can respond to your critical analyses of these and you could respond to mine, helping us determine the veracity, validity, and soundness of these studies.
But apparently:

So you can't assess the validity of the evidence you muster, and rely on a "peer-review" process that is essentially the creation of journals to subvert peer-review. Or at least that is my reading of the situation. How am I wrong?

LOM....I don't rely on other people's research for the validity of ESP....I experience it...so keep that in mind and don't imagine for a moment that second hand anecdotes...even those in a science paper is something I accept out of hand. Now apart from acknowledging that many people who claim to experience ESP are suffering some psychic problems, and therefore sometimes apt to draw conclusions of ESP where some rational explanation would suffice....you asked for me to suggest a paper which I did, I was not able to refute the conclusions... If you otoh find the conclusions questionable, the please go ahead and write up your refutation and we will see where we can go from there..

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LOM....I don't rely on other people's research for the validity of ESP

Yet you ridicule others for their supposed ignorance of said research

I would be disturbed if individuals generally read and kept up with "said research". My problem is with people like you who aren't familiar with the research in general, are aware of the titles of an incredibly select subset of papers you haven't read and have admitted to being incapable of understanding, yet you use as evidence somehow against the research you aren't aware of (and, like the research you cite, can't evaluate) as if this meant anything. You can't defend the papers you cite, you don't know the papers that do address the pervasive errors in the research you support without reading, and in general you don't display even an ability to evaluate the research you seek to support, let alone any knowledge of more general research on these topics.
However, I'm always willing to be proved wrong. Which is why I asked you to explain and defend the sources you cite.
Apparently, you can't

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I would be disturbed if individuals generally read and kept up with "said research". My problem is with people like you who aren't familiar with the research in general, are aware of the titles of an incredibly select subset of papers you haven't read and have admitted to being incapable of understanding, yet you use as evidence somehow against the research you aren't aware of (and, like the research you cite, can't evaluate) as if this meant anything. You can't defend the papers you cite, you don't know the papers that do address the pervasive errors in the research you support without reading, and in general you don't display even an ability to evaluate the research you seek to support, let alone any knowledge of more general research on these topics.
However, I'm always willing to be proved wrong. Which is why I asked you to explain and defend the sources you cite.
Apparently, you can't

I am not concerned with your SOP whinging, hand waving, and general obfuscation...I do not like time wasters.. You have not completed the refutation of the paper I asked about in my post #387 Utts (1996). An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning Now get on with it and we will proceed from there...

 

[Shad]

Yimmie...your post shows how ignorant you are about science....and how shallow and biased you are that you have not only not read peer reviewed science research papers on ESP....you didn't even know there were any.....

Targ & Puthoff (1974). Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding

.

Puthoff & Targ (1976). A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distance: Historical perspective and recent research

Research failed to be reproduced by others thus the studies were flawed or researchers were biased. Heck both of these support Gellar who has shown to be a fraud

Eisenberg & Donderi (1979). Telepathic transfer of emotional information in humans

.

Worked for Harvard which closed down the very department he (Eisenbergy) worked in due to lack of evidence. Now he worked outside of academy, as does Doneri. Also you study is from the 70s when people took telepathy seriously. This is not the case now.

Bem & Honorton (1994). Does psi exist?

Hyman (1994). Anomaly or artifact? Comments on Bem and Honorton

Bem (1994). Response to Hyman

Failed to be reproduced by others, errors were found to show these papers were wrong

Milton & Wiseman (1999). Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer

A rebuttal to work by Bem and Honorton. You didn't read it

Sheldrake & Smart (2000). Testing a return-anticipating dog, Kane

.


Sheldrake & Smart (2000). A dog that seems to know when his owner to coming home: Videotaped experiments and observations.

Percentages fall into random chance. Inconclusive finding. Failed to be reproduced even when overseen by Shelddrake



I am going to stop here as the first 9 examples you provided have been refuted or failed to be reproduced. You didn't fact check your list, you accepted it at face value, nothing more. I checked each of your "studies" and found counters for each be it errors, bias, flawed experimental controls, etc. Your evidence is lacking still as the "peers" refuted these studies. Peer review is only matter when research is continued and experiments do not fail when reproduced by others.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Research failed to be reproduced by others thus the studies were flawed or researchers were biased. Heck both of these support Gellar who has shown to be a fraud



Worked for Harvard which closed down the very department he (Eisenbergy) worked in due to lack of evidence. Now he worked outside of academy, as does Doneri. Also you study is from the 70s when people took telepathy seriously. This is not the case now.


Failed to be reproduced by others, errors were found to show these papers were wrong



A rebuttal to work by Bem and Honorton. You didn't read it


Percentages fall into random chance. Inconclusive finding. Failed to be reproduced even when overseen by Shelddrake



I am going to stop here as the first 9 examples you provided have been refuted or failed to be reproduced. You didn't fact check your list, you accepted it at face value, nothing more. I checked each of your "studies" and found counters for each be it errors, bias, flawed experimental controls, etc. Your evidence is lacking still as the "peers" refuted these studies. Peer review is only matter when research is continued and experiments do not fail when reproduced by others.

There are peer reviewed science papers in existence that Yimmie claimed did not exist...yes?
So therefore he could not have read any....yes?

 

[Shad]

There are peer reviewed science papers in existence that Yimmie claimed did not exist...yes?

Some are reviewed, some are not.

So therefore he could not have read any....yes?

Obvious not granting the parameters above.

 

[Shad]

Not all of them of course...they were posted because gnostic and Shad (and probably you) had no idea that there even were peer reviewed science papers on ESP.... I have been reading Sheldrake's research for over twenty years...and Puthoff for about over ten years..

I saw the list already as the same user which linked the list to you did so with me already. I already addressed the same issues with this list over a month ago.

 

[Shad]

I am not concerned with your SOP whinging, hand waving, and general obfuscation...I do not like time wasters.. You have not completed the refutation of the paper I asked about in my post #387 Utts (1996). An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning Now get on with it and we will proceed from there...

A paper reviewed by it's own author is to include bias in the review. Did you read your own reference? It shows the flaws of the previous references, namely Targ and Puthoff. Again you cite a source that undermines your other sources since you do not bother to read what you cite. Also note that Utts was part of the now dead Stargate project which was terminated after Utt's report which says a lot.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I saw the list already as the same user which linked the list to you did so with me already. I already addressed the same issues with this list over a month ago.

Acknowledged...fine...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Some are reviewed, some are not.




Obvious not granting the parameters above.

Agreed.....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A paper reviewed by it's own author is to include bias in the review. Did you read your own reference? It shows the flaws of the previous references, namely Targ and Puthoff. Again you cite a source that undermines your other sources since you do not bother to read what you cite. Also note that Utts was part of the now dead Stargate project which was terminated after Utt's report which says a lot.

That was directed to LOM....my post referenced the Utts paper...not Targ and Puthofff...And fwiw....of course there is going to be skepticism about any research for which there is no known 'mechanics' to explain it....Until the 'mechanics' can be scientifically explained...the ESP observations....ie.anecdotes, synchronicities, coincidences, correlations, etc..etc... will not be enough for scientific proof.

 

[Shad]

That was directed to LOM....my post referenced the Utts paper...not Targ and Puthofff...And fwiw....of course there is going to be skepticism about any research for which there is no known 'mechanics' to explain it....Until the 'mechanics' can be scientifically explained...the ESP observations....ie.anecdotes, synchronicities, coincidences, correlations, etc..etc... will not be enough for scientific proof.

The problem is that these researchers jump to ESP for any anomaly even errors. Also your listed researchers have been discredited such as Targ and Utts