the existence of god is a scientific fact

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You could have easily shown me to be wrong. My claim was from my personal experience. That you failed to support your claims only showed that my claim probably was right.

If you like I can reword it to make it correct:

No believer in the paranormal has ever shown me any reliable evidence of found a reliable source when debating with me.

And you are making a false claim about bias that you cannot support. That is the same sort of ill informed claim that creationists make. It does not work for them and it does not work for you.

 

[exchemist]

As to the "weak" results, bear in mind that the subjects were ordinary people and not a group selected for their ability. Taken individually, participants in the group would range from zero to 100%..If the high scorers were isolated and tested, we would expect results better than 38%

Why hasn't anybody put that to the test?

 

[joe1776]

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

Oh, in your expert opinion there were flaws in the method or you don't know squat but you chose to accept the opinion of those who criticized the study that there were laws in the methods?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Boy oh boy! How did I miss that one? If a claim could cause colon cancer that one definitely would do it.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Yes, it may be an example of "zombie science", a term I encountered in some of the criticisms of cold fusion (an unpopular cause also taken up by Josephson, as it happens).

But so long as there are few interested parties, and it does not eat up a lot of precious research grant money, it is worth letting people see if they can overcome the objections. At least that way the room for doubt is narrowed, one way or the other.

 

[joe1776]

Why hasn't anybody put that to the test?

(1) It's not necessary. Logically, if. we know the average overall effect, we can deduce that the ability occurs in a range just as all other abilities.

(2) Studies done on college students paid five bucks to participate are easily and inexpensively replicated. Remember, funding is scarce.

 

[joe1776]

You could have easily shown me to be wrong.

I did easily show that your original claim was false. That caused you to upgrade your claim to require publication in a mainstream journal.

If your original claim had been that no mainstream journal has published psi research, I would have agreed with you (although it's likely we would have disagreed on the reason.

 

[charlie sc]

Oh, in your expert opinion there were flaws in the method or you don't know squat but you chose to accept the opinion of those who criticized the study that there were laws in the methods?

I’m speaking from memory, but I do recall parapsychologists admitting numerous flaws in their methodology. Once they were fixed, effect sizes went down and so did significance. This begs the question what is actually being measured and its importance as a scientific endeavour.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did easily show that your original claim was false. That caused you to upgrade your claim to require publication in a mainstream journal.

If your original claim had been that no mainstream journal has published psi research, I would have agreed with you (although it's likely we would have disagreed on the reason.

No, you didnt. You strawmanned it is all.

And my claim stands. No reliable evidence has been posted yet for your beliefs.

 

[ecco]

You want evidence that I am Supergirl?

I don't need it. I can tell from your superior intellect.

 

[exchemist]

(1) It's not necessary. Logically, if. we know the average overall effect, we can deduce that the ability occurs in a range just as all other abilities.

(2) Studies done on college students paid five bucks to participate are easily and inexpensively replicated. Remember, funding is scarce.

Well from these studies we do not know the effect is even real, so far. And the science community in general does not believe it is real. That is plain.

So replication, along the lines you suggest, to get a stronger correlation, would seem to be research crying out to be done, by the advocates of it. The funding issue for research of this sort is pretty modest and I am in no doubt that some sympathetic philanthropist could easily be found, if funding were an issue.

 

[ecco]

RE: Lack of evidence...

Two or three of my opponents have made that very claim.

ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/

noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The available body of facts or information regarding ESP et/ al. overwhelming agrees that ESP et. al is nonsense.

To be factual, something must be repeatable.

Even you cannot replicate your own example.

 

[exchemist]

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.

No they have not. You have just provided me with the details and it is quite clear it is nowhere near proven.

 

[charlie sc]

would seem to be research crying out to be done, by the advocates of it.

I know I'm kicking a dead horse, but oh well. A big concern from parapsychology opponents are the lack of failed psi experiments that haven't been published. Failure is a necessary part of science, but I don't think parapsychologist realise this I think they've been a lot more studies than we realise.

 

[Audie]

I’m speaking from memory, but I do recall parapsychologists admitting numerous flaws in their methodology. Once they were fixed, effect sizes went down and so did significance. This begs the question what is actually being measured and its importance as a scientific endeavour.

It is a lot simpler than that, dont you think?

Really, it is put up or shot up. Alexander G. Bell
was able to show his telephone worked.

The para-people cannot show anything.

 

[joe1776]

No, you didnt. You strawmanned it is all.

And my claim stands. No reliable evidence has been posted yet for your beliefs.

How can my interpretation be a strawman when the two versions of your claims don't match? Which one have I misrepresented?

In the original you claimed "no reliable evidence." In the upgraded version of your claim you require publication in mainstream journals.If you'd like to say that you always intended "reliable evidence" to mean that publication in a mainstream journal was required, then we have a simple misunderstanding and we've wasted our time.

If publication in a mainstream journal isn't what you intended with your original claim, then you've been proved wrong.

 

[Audie]

I know I'm kicking a dead horse, but oh well. A big concern from parapsychology opponents are the lack of failed psi experiments that haven't been published. Failure is a necessary part of science, but I don't think parapsychologist realise this I think they've been a lot more studies than we realise.

Even a tiny chance of really doing something is worth
pursuing. IF someone actually did it, they'd be world
famous soon enough.

 

[ecco]

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.

Please show some evidence that supports your assertion that "the standard of proof for psi research is much higher in those journals than other kinds of research".

Perhaps you meant to say "the standard of proof for psi research is much higher in those journals than for publication in the tabloid press".

 

[charlie sc]

It is a lot simpler than that, dont you think?

Really, it is put up or shot up. Alexander G. Bell
was able to show his telephone worked.

The para-people cannot show anything.

Yes, though I wouldn't past them for trying.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It is a lot simpler than that, dont you think?

Really, it is put up or shot up. Alexander G. Bell
was able to show his telephone worked.

The para-people cannot show anything.

Samuel Morse proved his invention worked as well. He knew and acknowledged where his knowledge came from in the first ever message that opened up modern communications. He electrically transmitted his famous message 'What hath God wrought?' from Washington to Baltimore on May 24, 1844.

Indeed what hath God wrought, as on the day before the world was changed forever.

Regards Tony