the existence of god is a scientific fact

[ecco]

As I've said before in this debate, I make arguments to persuade unbiased, intelligent minds who might happen by and read these posts. I'm willing to let those readers decide on whether your argument was circular or not. I didn't expect you to admit it.

Having much success, are you? I don't see anyone posting "OMG joe, you have convinced me."

 

[ecco]

I gave you a link to more than a humdred links to evidence and you came back in after a quick peek trashing it.

Here is what one of your 100 articles said...

Across 7 experiments (N 3,289), we replicate the procedure of Experiments 8 and 9 from Bem (2011), which had originally demonstrated retroactive facilitation of recall. We failed to replicate that finding. We further conduct a meta-analysis of all replication attempts of these experiments and find that the average effect size (d 0.04) is no different from 0. We discuss some reasons for differences between the results in this article and those presented in Bem (2011).
​

This is the fourth time I have posted this. You can no longer honestly say that there are 100 articles in your link that support psi. If you make that claim again, you are being intentionally dishonest. Of course, one has to wonder why you would continue to make that claim after I first posted the above.

 

[joe1776]

I think I can assume that those who truelly understand how science is done, will agree.
Science is done in the community journals, not in those that only exist because the contents can't get publications in the actual journals.

You are lagging behind in this debate. I posted two articles, one from the Stanford scientist who pioneered the meta-analysis. His study concluded that more than half of the published studies in psychology don't replicate. I also linked a met-analysis of 100 such studies and 64% didn't replicate. In others words, this isn't a very high bar the PSI journals must meet to equal mainstream in reliability.

That's still just an empty accusation. Tell us specifically how "the mainstream" was in the wrong. You're claiming that they weren't fair in their review. How weren't they fair?

My explanation required you to make a logical deduction. If you were unable to do it, I can't help.

What are the "hard sciences" and what makes them "hard"?

In the opening paragraph you implied that you "truely [sic]" understand science. Now it appears that you never heard of the terms hard and soft sciences.

(dictionary.com) hard science --- any of the natural or physical sciences, as chemistry, biology, physics, or astronomy, in which aspects of the universe are investigated by means of
hypotheses and experiments.

You didn't explain anything. You just piled on more claims and accusations

.I gave you credible causes which could explain the effect (bias). That's an explanation. If you had asked for an explanation that you'd be willing to accept, I wouldn't have bothered.

 

[joe1776]

Sounds like you still don't understand.
On top of that, it seems like you don't understand what circular reasoning is either..............................

The 5 points are a comparision between paranormal proponents and creationists / ID-ists.

1. they both can't manage to get published in the mainstream.
2. they both, as a result, accuse the mainstream of "bias", "conspiracy", "arrogance", etc
3. they both then create their own journals where they can publish their stuff and all agree with eachother
4. they both wave with those journals to make it look like they both have publications to make them look "science-y"
5. when questioned, accuse the scientific community again.

I'll also add:

6. when asked to demonstrate this bias / conspiracy in science against their "work", they'll just pile on more accusations and pretend as if those are legit explanations.

It is exactly what creationists do and it is exactly what you have been describing in this thread.

I'll explain this one more time in a different way and then I'll drop it if you still don't understand.

Arguments from analogies should make a point that counters your opponent's arguments by taking HIS arguments and showing him how they would fail in another similar context.

For example, you and I will agree that the creationist claim of bias is unfounded. But you and I will not agree that the PSI claim of bias is unfounded. Yet, in the analogy, you use your position not mine to show a parallel to the creationist claims.

When you imply by analogy that my claim of bias makes the same error as the creationist, that reasoning relies on your own opinion on the bias issue. That's circular reasoning.

 

[joe1776]

Are you aware that as a human, you are extremely capable of experiencing things that never actually happened the way you experienced them?

Ask any alien abductee.

I am aware of that, yes. I also feel completely competent in making judgments on my own experience.

 

[joe1776]

...This was probably the most blatant argument from authority that I've ever encountered.

You don't understand the argument from authority. The question on the table is: "Should telepathy be studied by science?" This is a question that falls in the category of the Philosophy of Science. It doesn't require someone expert in telepathy. So, any acclaimed scientist's opinion should be valued.

Copied and pasted from the link below:

Alan Turing, the pioneering computer scientist, referred to the ‘overwhelming’ statistical evidence for telepathy in a landmark paper on artificial intelligence.

Here's a list of Nobel Prize winners interested in psi. Most of them are/were scientists.



Henri Bergson (1859-1941), philosopher, 1927 Nobel Prize in Literature, president of the Society for Psychical Research and theoretician of psi.29

Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson (1832-1910), 1903 Nobel Prize in Literature, wrote an article about a person said to be psychic.30

Pearl S Buck (1892-1973), 1938 Nobel Prize in Literature, visited JB Rhine’s parapsychology meetings.31

Nicholas Murray Butler (1862-1947), 1931 Nobel Prize in Peace, President of Columbia University, philosopher and diplomat, wrote about psi32 and helped organize the American Society for Psychical Research.

Alexis Carrel (1873-1944), 1912 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, discussed anomalous healing in a book.33

Arthur Holly Compton (1892-1962), 1927 Nobel Prize in Physics, was supportive of psi in his correspondence with JB Rhine.34

Marie Curie (1867-1934), 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics, 1911 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, participated in séances with Eusapia Palladino and wrote of the importance of research in parapsychology.35

Pierre Curie (1859-1906), 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics, participated in séances with Eusapia Palladino and wrote of the importance of research in parapsychology.36

John Eccles (1903-1997), 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, edited a book discussing psi and participated in related conferences.37

Albert Einstein (1879-1955), 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics, wrote the preface to a telepathy book38 and commented, ‘We have no right to rule out a priori the possibility of telepathy. For that the foundations of our science are too uncertain and incomplete.’39

Brian Josephson (1940-), 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics, has written about psi and been a staunch advocate of psi research for decades.40

Maurice Maeterlinck (1862-1949), 1911 Nobel Prize in Literature, wrote on ostensible psi phenomena.41

Thomas Mann (1875-1955), 1929 Nobel Prize in Literature, attended and reported on séances.42

Kary Banks Mullis (1944-), 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, has participated in psi research and spoken in support of it.43

Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958), 1945 Nobel Prize in Physics, discussed with Carl Jung the notion of synchronicity and was believed, by himself and by colleagues, to have an interfering psychokinetic effect on machines.44 (See Otto Stern, below)

Jean Perrin (1870-1942), 1926 Nobel Prize in Physics, was a member of the Institut Général Psychologique’s (IGP) Group of Study of Psychic Phenomena.45

Max Planck (1858-1947), 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics and author of quantum theory, expressed his interest in psychical research in his correspondence.46

Sully Prudhomme (1839- 1907), 1901 Nobel Prize in Literature, participated in the Société de Psychologie Physiologique's committee for the study of telepathy.47

Santiago Ramón y Cajal (1852-1934), 1906 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, researched hypnosis and psi phenomena and wrote a book about them (destroyed during the Spanish Civil War).48

Charles Richet (1850-1935), 1913 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, founded the Annales des Sciences Psychiques, president of the Society for Psychical Research (1905), and of the Institut Métapsychique International (1923).

Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), 1925 Nobel Prize in Peace, reported the paranormal phenomena he observed in Africa and remarked that he would like to carry out psi research.49

Glenn Seaborg (1912-1999), 1951 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the investigation of traunsuranium elements, co-wrote with Margaret Mead a praising statement about a book on parapsychology. 50

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1908-2008), 1970 Nobel prizewinner in literature, mentions precognition as a fact in his work.51

Otto Stern (1888-1969), 1943 Nobel Prize in Physics, is said to have banned Pauli from his lab, for fear that Pauli’s involuntary PK effect would interfere with the machinery there.52

Eugene Wigner (1902-1995), 1963 Nobel Prize in Physics, encouraged research on physics and psi.53

John William Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919), 1904 Nobel Prize in Physics, president of the Society for Psychical Research.54

JJ Thompson (1856-1940), 1906 Nobel Prize in Physics, member of the governing council of the Society for Psychical Research for 34 years.55

Eminent People Interested in Psi | Psi Encyclopedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't understand the argument from authority. The question on the table is: "Should telepathy be studied by science?" This is a question that falls in the category of the Philosophy of Science. It doesn't require someone expert in telepathy. So, any acclaimed scientist's opinion should be valued.

Here's a list of Nobel Prize winners interested in psi. Most of them are/were scientists.



Henri Bergson (1859-1941), philosopher, 1927 Nobel Prize in Literature, president of the Society for Psychical Research and theoretician of psi.29

Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson (1832-1910), 1903 Nobel Prize in Literature, wrote an article about a person said to be psychic.30

Pearl S Buck (1892-1973), 1938 Nobel Prize in Literature, visited JB Rhine’s parapsychology meetings.31

Nicholas Murray Butler (1862-1947), 1931 Nobel Prize in Peace, President of Columbia University, philosopher and diplomat, wrote about psi32 and helped organize the American Society for Psychical Research.

Alexis Carrel (1873-1944), 1912 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, discussed anomalous healing in a book.33

Arthur Holly Compton (1892-1962), 1927 Nobel Prize in Physics, was supportive of psi in his correspondence with JB Rhine.34

Marie Curie (1867-1934), 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics, 1911 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, participated in séances with Eusapia Palladino and wrote of the importance of research in parapsychology.35

Pierre Curie (1859-1906), 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics, participated in séances with Eusapia Palladino and wrote of the importance of research in parapsychology.36

John Eccles (1903-1997), 1963 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, edited a book discussing psi and participated in related conferences.37

Albert Einstein (1879-1955), 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics, wrote the preface to a telepathy book38 and commented, ‘We have no right to rule out a priori the possibility of telepathy. For that the foundations of our science are too uncertain and incomplete.’39

Brian Josephson (1940-), 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics, has written about psi and been a staunch advocate of psi research for decades.40

Maurice Maeterlinck (1862-1949), 1911 Nobel Prize in Literature, wrote on ostensible psi phenomena.41

Thomas Mann (1875-1955), 1929 Nobel Prize in Literature, attended and reported on séances.42

Kary Banks Mullis (1944-), 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, has participated in psi research and spoken in support of it.43

Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958), 1945 Nobel Prize in Physics, discussed with Carl Jung the notion of synchronicity and was believed, by himself and by colleagues, to have an interfering psychokinetic effect on machines.44 (See Otto Stern, below)

Jean Perrin (1870-1942), 1926 Nobel Prize in Physics, was a member of the Institut Général Psychologique’s (IGP) Group of Study of Psychic Phenomena.45

Max Planck (1858-1947), 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics and author of quantum theory, expressed his interest in psychical research in his correspondence.46

Sully Prudhomme (1839- 1907), 1901 Nobel Prize in Literature, participated in the Société de Psychologie Physiologique's committee for the study of telepathy.47

Santiago Ramón y Cajal (1852-1934), 1906 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, researched hypnosis and psi phenomena and wrote a book about them (destroyed during the Spanish Civil War).48

Charles Richet (1850-1935), 1913 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, founded the Annales des Sciences Psychiques, president of the Society for Psychical Research (1905), and of the Institut Métapsychique International (1923).

Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), 1925 Nobel Prize in Peace, reported the paranormal phenomena he observed in Africa and remarked that he would like to carry out psi research.49

Glenn Seaborg (1912-1999), 1951 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the investigation of traunsuranium elements, co-wrote with Margaret Mead a praising statement about a book on parapsychology. 50

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1908-2008), 1970 Nobel prizewinner in literature, mentions precognition as a fact in his work.51

Otto Stern (1888-1969), 1943 Nobel Prize in Physics, is said to have banned Pauli from his lab, for fear that Pauli’s involuntary PK effect would interfere with the machinery there.52

Eugene Wigner (1902-1995), 1963 Nobel Prize in Physics, encouraged research on physics and psi.53

John William Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919), 1904 Nobel Prize in Physics, president of the Society for Psychical Research.54

JJ Thompson (1856-1940), 1906 Nobel Prize in Physics, member of the governing council of the Society for Psychical Research for 34 years.55

Eminent People Interested in Psi | Psi Encyclopedia

No one has denied that people have been interested in psi. What has been pointed out it that you have not been able to provide any reliable evidence for the belief. If there is no scientific evidence for a belief people in the sciences will correctly point out that you idea is unscientific.

This might help you with your search for evidence for psi. To even have scientific evidence for psi one must first have a testable hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a concept that can be tested and refuted if wrong:

What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis

"A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. "

Once you have a hypothesis then you can begin to collect scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

 

[joe1776]

No one has denied that people have been interested in psi.

And to you a list that includes the support of Nobel Prize winning physicists is no match for the opinions of such luminaries as James Randi?

What has been pointed out it that you have not been able to provide any reliable evidence for the belief. If there is no scientific evidence for a belief people in the sciences will correctly point out that you idea is unscientific.

Your opinion that there is "no reliable evidence" should carry zero weight with unbiased minds. I've posted my list of evidence for others to consider. That list hasn't been updated for three years, so I'm sure there's more.

This might help you with your search for evidence for psi. To even have scientific evidence for psi one must first have a testable hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis is a concept that can be tested and refuted if wrong:

The testable hypothesis is dirt simple: The effect exists just as the placebo effect is known to exist --- and it is being tested with limited funds to support the endeavor Moreover, in the case of telepathy it has shown positive results that have been replicated and published in PSI journals because mainstream journals are biased against PSI research. Those journals by the way have published studies in psychology which meta-analysis of 100 were not replicated in 64% of the studies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And to you a list that includes the support of Nobel Prize winning physicists is no match for the opinions of such luminaries as James Randi?

So what?

Your opinion that there is "no reliable evidence" should carry zero weight with unbiased minds. I've posted my list of evidence for others to consider. That list hasn't been updated for three years, so I'm sure there's more.

No, that is a fact. Or I should be able to say that you have not been able to post any. You do not even seem to understand what is and what is not evidence. You did not produce any. What "evidence" do you think that you posted?

The testable hypothesis is dirt simple: The effect exists just as the placebo effect is known to exist --- and it is being tested with limited funds to support the endeavor Moreover, in the case of telepathy it has shown positive results that have been replicated and published in PSI journals because mainstream journals are biased against PSI research. Those journals by the way have published studies in psychology which meta-analysis of 100 were not replicated in 64% of the studies.

How would it be refuted? What observation would demonstrate it to be wrong? You need to be specific. All you are dong is waving your hands but not producing a hypothesis.

 

[joe1776]

How would it be refuted? What observation would demonstrate it to be wrong? You need to be specific. All you are dong is waving your hands but not producing a hypothesis.

If the hypothesis is that there's a bogeyman under the bed. You test for it by looking under the bed. If there's no bogeyman there, the hypothesis has been refuted.

If the hypothesis is that telepathy exists, you test for telepathy, if you get no positive results, the hypothesis has been refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the hypothesis is that there's a bogeyman under the bed. You test for it by looking under the bed. If there's no bogeyman there, the hypothesis has been refuted.

If the hypothesis is that telepathy exists, you test for telepathy, if you get no positive results, the hypothesis has been refuted.

So how do you test for psi? What observation would refute it? By your standard not seeing it in one test would refute the concept. I do not think that is the way that you want to go.

 

[charlie sc]

You're crafting a strawman with that argument.

Let' s remember that you jumped into the middle of my debate with another poster and asked my why I had posted the 64% study. I have explained to you that I was dealing with that poster's claim that PSI journals can be expected to be of a lower quality than mainstream journals. The 64% study was evidence supporting my position that because of the intense scrutiny PSI research gets, PSI journals might even be more reliable for publishing replicated studies than the journals of mainstream psychology.

Most of he rest of your post challenges a position I never took, one that is not relevant to our topic so I won't comment on it. But there is this:

You never took that position because you don't understand how science operates in a meaningful manner.

Sure, please do.

Sure. I picked the Ganzfeld experiments, because you seem to like those.

Braud, L. W., Ackles, L., & Kyles, W. (1984). Free-response GESPperformance during ganzfeld stimulation. In R. A. White & R. S.Broughton (Eds.),Research in parapsychology 1983(pp. 78–80).Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow. Found and massive .65 effect size and was highly significant.

*Roe, C. A., & Flint, S. (2007). A remote viewing pilot study using aganzfeld induction procedure.Journal of the Society for PsychicalResearch, 71,230–234. Whereas, they found -0.01 effect size and was not significant.

Your logic seems to be thus:
P1: Failed replications means the original study was low-quality
P2: Study X failed to replicate study Z
Therefore, study Z is low quality.

You're judging the studies that failed the replication from the 100 replication study as low quality from one failed replication. Each one that failed was a theory in their own right.
Therefore, according to your logic the Braud(1994) study was low quality because Roe(2007) failed to replicate it.

 

[joe1776]

So how do you test for psi? What observation would refute it? By your standard not seeing it in one test would refute the concept. I do not think that is the way that you want to go.

No, that isn't "my standard." I can't imagine how you made that deduction.

It seems that,perhaps for some unfathomable debate strategy, you are straining to find ways to ask questions with obvious answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that isn't "my standard." I can't imagine how you made that deduction.

It seems that,perhaps for some unfathomable debate strategy, you are straining to find ways to ask questions with obvious answers.

Yes, it was. Now you are demonstrating that you are not consistent. That is why I pointed out your error.

Once again, what reasonable test would refute psi? If you don't have one then you do not have a testable hypothesis and you do not have scientific evidence for psi either.

 

[joe1776]

You never took that position because you don't understand how science operates in a meaningful manner.

I never took that position because it's irrelevant to our topic, a concept you seem to be struggling with.

Sure. I picked the Ganzfeld experiments, because you seem to like those.

The autoganzfeld experiments have consistently been the standard in PSI research because they were designed as part of a collaboration between Honorton, a scientist favoring PSI research and Ray Hyman, the leading PSI skeptic

Since the autoganzfeld is used on various kinds of psi research, the cherry-picked results in remote viewing, such as you posted, have no significance on other kinds such as telepathy. In other words, remote viewing might not exist but you can't argue from that fact that telepathy and other kinds of PSI research are bogus.

You're judging the studies that failed the replication from the 100 replication study as low quality from one failed replication. Each one that failed was a theory in their own right.

No. I haven't judged the individual studies at all. That was done by the authors of the study. I used the study showing that 64% of published studies failed to replicate to judge mainstream publishing of psychology as hardly a high bar that PSI journals couldn't match.

 

[joe1776]

Yes, it was. Now you are demonstrating that you are not consistent. That is why I pointed out your error.

Once again, what reasonable test would refute psi? If you don't have one then you do not have a testable hypothesis and you do not have scientific evidence for psi either.

As I recall, the logical fallacy you make here is called "argument by insistence."

 

[charlie sc]

The autoganzfeld experiments have consistently been the standard in PSI research because they were designed as part of a collaboration between Honorton, a scientist favoring PSI research and Ray Hyman, the leading PSI skeptic

Since the autoganzfeld is used on various kinds of psi research, the cherry-picked results in remote viewing, such as you posted, have no significance on other kinds such as telepathy. In other words, remote viewing might not exist but you can't argue from that fact that telepathy and other kinds of PSI research are bogus.

Ugh. Then you pick one study and I'll find a replication that failed. Btw, I got those studies from the meta-analysis: Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008:Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology. I'm not cherry picking.

No. I haven't judged the individual studies at all. That was done by the authors of the study. I used the study showing that 64% of published studies failed to replicate to judge mainstream publishing of psychology as hardly a high bar that PSI journals couldn't match.

No, it's you that's judging them each individually and as a whole, not the authors. Each of the studies that replicated were individual studies in their own right by numerous authors. If the only thing you can demonstrate is the title then you have very little to add to this conversation or to anyone who wants an intellectual conversation.

 

[joe1776]

Ugh. Then you pick one study and I'll find a replication that failed. Btw, I got those studies from the meta-analysis: Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008:Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology. I'm not cherry picking.

Here's a link to Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology from the PSI position.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I recall, the logical fallacy you make here is called "argument by insistence."

No, you do not know how to apply logical fallacies either. I gave you a very good source on what qualifies as scientific evidence. I could find others for you that would say the same thing You have not constructed a proper hypothesis. You could not think of a reasonable way that it could be falsified. Others too have noted that you do not understand how work in the sciences is done.
You do not appear to understand the concept of evidence which definitely hinders your ability to post any reliable evidence. This has been comments on by quite a few others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's a link to Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology from the PSI position.

LOL! How appropriate.. A broken link