the existence of god is a scientific fact

[Audie]

The later experiments, that tried to remove confounding variables, found even less effect sizes and continual non-significance. The only reason their most praised meta analysis shows significance is because they included all the horribly designed ganzfield experiment. This topic is a joke among academia, so scientists don’t want to use up resources pandering to hopeful parapsychologists who are trying to prove their theories. However, this not how science works. It’s always the data that leads them. It’s such a wasteful topic.

No data, nothing to see there.

I personally am satisfied to stand by (not on one foot)
and see if anyone can ever demonstrate anything.

If so, terrif. If not, no surprise. Kinda like with
flying saucers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you explained why my evidence would not persuade you. And I explained why persuading you isn't my goal.

Wrong, I explained why your so called evidence failed. You relied largely upon the glamour press. It is not taken seriously in the world of science. I set a reasonable goal and you could not meet it. That is of articles good enough to make it in a well respected peer reviewed journal. That is hardly unreasonable.

 

[charlie sc]

No data, nothing to see there.

I personally am satisfied to stand by (not on one foot)
and see if anyone can ever demonstrate anything.

If so, terrif. If not, no surprise. Kinda like with
flying saucers.

The only evidence for flying saucers are the ones that have been thrown and the only evidence for psi powers is watching the weather channel and then telling someone your prediction, but even they get it wrong

 

[Audie]

Wrong, I explained why your so called evidence failed. You relied largely upon the glamour press. It is not taken seriously in the world of science. I set a reasonable goal and you could not meet it. That is of articles good enough to make it in a well respected peer reviewed journal. That is hardly unreasonable.

Honestly, people who try to make it your fault
that their "data" is worthless!

It is a sure sign of a woo woo pusher.

The defining characteristic of believers is,
they believe things. Divers dive, painters paint,
believers believe things.

Believers can even believe this really is
Sodom and / or Gomorrah.
sodom and gomorrah - Google Search:

 

[sealchan]

There are other names too for making things
up and pretending they are true, some not
as nice as in your list.

Well, at least I know I am "wrong" by admitting that I am speculating.

Its funny how often the most confident have made the greatest blunders.

 

[Audie]

Well, at least I know I am "wrong" by admitting that I am speculating.

Its funny how often the most confident have made the greatest blunders.

It is, yes. Not odd, but, funny.

Much good is to be said for those who do
not think they are perfect.

 

[sealchan]

It is, yes. Not odd, but, funny.

Much good is to be said for those who do
not think they are perfect.

There is a lot of fun to be had in speculating and educated guessing and all that actually.

So long as one doesn't deny what is demonstrable I feel one is free to speculate beyond the boundaries of what is as well as consider how we might not see what we think we can see.

 

[joe1776]

Wrong, I explained why your so called evidence failed. You relied largely upon the glamour press. It is not taken seriously in the world of science. I set a reasonable goal and you could not meet it. That is of articles good enough to make it in a well respected peer reviewed journal. That is hardly unreasonable.

You have changed your claim to one that is true.

If you and others had from the beginning in this thread claimed that there was no research supporting psi in the mainstream journals of science, I would have agreed with you because that claim is a fact. It's true because the standard of proof for psi research is much higher in those journals than other kinds of research.

Replicated studies of the auto-ganzfeld research has proven that telepathy is a real phenomenon. The fact that mainstream journals won't publish that research is evidence on its face that those journals yield to the pressure applied by philosophical materialists. Yet according to a long-term meta-analysis of more than 100 studies, more than half of the research they publish fails to replicate.

 

[sealchan]

It is, yes. Not odd, but, funny.

Much good is to be said for those who do
not think they are perfect.

Consider the possibilities, both good and bad, for influencing the human mind via language and concepts in such a way as to promote better psychological health and better social adaptability and realize that this does not precisely equate to demonstrable truths. Creativity and innovation start with mere possibilities and become realities only through effort and experience and the risk of being wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have changed your claim to one that is true.

If you and others had from the beginning in this thread claimed that there was no research supporting psi in the mainstream journals of science, I would have agreed with you because that claim is a fact. It's true because the standard of proof for psi research is much higher in those journals than other kinds of research.

Replicated studies of the auto-ganzfeld research has proven that telepathy is a real phenomenon. The fact that mainstream journals won't publish that research is evidence on its face that those journals yield to the pressure applied by philosophical materialists. Yet according to a long-term meta-analysis of more than 100 studies, more than half of the research they publish fails to replicate.

I did not change my claim. I said from the start that the first article that I clicked on was not from a well respected peer reviewed journal. I told you that I did not have time to go through your source and see if there were any reliable articles in it. I did not say that there were not any. That may be the case. But since this is your claim the burden of proof to provide reliable sources is upon you. It is not up to us to finish your homework for you.

 

[joe1776]

The later experiments, that tried to remove confounding variables, found even less effect sizes and continual non-significance. The only reason their most praised meta analysis shows significance is because they included all the horribly designed ganzfield experiment. This topic is a joke among academia, so scientists don’t want to use up resources pandering to hopeful parapsychologists who are trying to prove their theories. However, this not how science works. It’s always the data that leads them. It’s such a wasteful topic.

Susan Blackmore and Ray Hyman have spent years criticizing the ganzfeld and auto-ganzeld research. They didn't do that because they thought the topic a joke among academics.

Blackmore's latest opinion: "The only honest reaction to the claims of psi in the ganzfeld is for me to say "I don't know but I doubt it."

 

[Audie]

Consider the possibilities, both good and bad, for influencing the human mind via language and concepts in such a way as to promote better psychological health and better social adaptability and realize that this does not precisely equate to demonstrable truths. Creativity and innovation start with mere possibilities and become realities only through effort and experience and the risk of being wrong.

All true and fine I think.

Of course, it can cut both ways as you
noted.

My concern is with those who make up
stories about such as a god, with an attendant
set of absolutes.

 

[Audie]

I did not change my claim. I said from the start that the first article that I clicked on was not from a well respected peer reviewed journal. I told you that I did not have time to go through your source and see if there were any reliable articles in it. I did not say that there were not any. That may be the case. But since this is your claim the burden of proof to provide reliable sources is upon you. It is not up to us to finish your homework for you.

Ah, and you just let this one go by-

the standard of proof for psi research is much higher in those journals than other kinds of research.

But maybe so much red meat would just give ya indigestion.

 

[charlie sc]

Susan Blackmore and Ray Hyman have spent years criticizing the ganzfeld and auto-ganzeld research. They didn't do that because they thought the topic a joke among academics.

Blackmore's latest opinion: "The only honest reaction to the claims of psi in the ganzfeld is for me to say "I don't know but I doubt it."

Oh no. We had this discussion before. Yes, psychologists will take it seriously when they’re critiquing any theory and/or experiment. However, parapsychology has only become more fringe science because it’s taken less and less seriously. Unless they can give extraordinary evidence, parapsychology will die out. I don’t know how many scientists would want to replicate a study that found 28% of guessing correctly out of 25% which is random. Then, they find negligible results.

Yes, it’s a joke.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What do you think?

I think that science exists because of God.

The apex of all understanding is the knowledge of God, without using the source, science can not progress. Science is a gift to be used for the good of all, not against each other.

Regards Tony

 

[sealchan]

I thought I would breakout my sources for my thoughts on this post...all of this is a response to the notion that god has been or ever can be "proven" except as a self-referential point of rational philosophy or in a rarified psychological experience which defies reproducibility...

God, as the creator of all, is also the destroyer. Gods creation is amoral. If we give up the notion that God is all-powerful, then God might be moral.

My common sense interpretation of the Bible's stories...with a touch of Hinduism for seasoning.

God creates complex, adaptive systems poised on the edge of chaos. The only way, in our Universe, order survives is in it can withstand some measure of chaos. In fact all natural order arises from a dance with chaos. Artificial order is only as permanent as the next encounter with chaos.

Sort of a Stuart Kauffman Reinventing the Sacred meets John Briggs Turbulent Mirror

So it is not so much fascinating that a cosmic constant here and there is miraculously tuned for our dance, but rather that our universe's particular dance is likely to be one of many possible though mostly unimaginable universes if all universes are the result of such a dance.

Just me turning the idea that fortuitous physical quantities and constants have an analogy any time one looks back at an actual history through a complex, adaptive space. In one's own life as in the life of the development of the Universe, subjective things happen that become objective reference points for future progressions. Order shakes out of possibility into ways that create new constants which guide behavior going forward. Over time one forgets (or has not yet discovered) that such early events were themselves accidental and arbitrary even as they become foundational and essential to one's current understanding.

And we should be careful to note that no creation seems likely to be witnessed except by some mirror which can arise within it composed of some small portion of that universes own stuff and also participating in a similar dance between order and chaos, knowledge and mystery.

Should we be amazed if the Universe is the way it is given that only amazing Universes could produce self-aware beings who could make such an assessment?

The knower reflects the known to the extent that its imperfect mirror allows it to. The knower is also one with the known and shapes it often unknowingly with it's own glass.

What we see is also what we are. We think as if objective knowledge is possible in some perfect way. We are enmeshed and compromised by the fact that we are always looking at something of ourselves whenever we decide to look. Our brains take a limited, continuous range of electromagnetic radiation and create a tri-chromatic discontinuous re-presentation of that radiation thereby changing what is into what we know.

So it is also always true that we see our own intelligence in every form of order we describe. Sometimes we think like a scientist and wonder "what a clever boy am i?" Sometimes we think like a believer "what greatness is our God?" But the two thoughts are opposite sides of the same coin.

The knower cannot be fundamentally separate from the known. If we see something is great then we elevate our own ability to know greatness by a self-referential appeal to our own authority.

 

[joe1776]

I did not change my claim. I said from the start that the first article that I clicked on was not from a well respected peer reviewed journal.

Yet, in a post before that one you wrote: "There is no bias against the paranormal, there is just no reliable evidence for it." That was your first claim

That statement doesn't warn reasonable minds that your standard for "reasonable evidence" would ultimately be upgraded and limited to being published in peer reviewed journals. In fact, it's silly to claim that there's no bias and then demand proof from the journals that hold the bias.

 

[joe1776]

Oh no. We had this discussion before. Yes, psychologists will take it seriously when they’re critiquing any theory and/or experiment. However, parapsychology has only become more fringe science because it’s taken less and less seriously. Unless they can give extraordinary evidence, parapsychology will die out. I don’t know how many scientists would want to replicate a study that found 28% of guessing correctly out of 25% which is random. Then, they find negligible results.

Yes, it’s a joke.

38% not 28% and on a large sample size of randomly selected subjects.

 

[charlie sc]

38% not 28%

I was speaking generally. What study found 38%?

 

[charlie sc]

38% not 28% and on a large sample size of randomly selected subjects.

Oh I checked the link. It’s the meta analysis that included all the studies with methodological flaws.

Yeah, ok lol