The Issue with Modern Day Science

[George-ananda]

Unfortunately, remote viewing cannot be proved because, well... physically speaking... you are literally trapped inside your own body. No one can "join" you in there to witness what you are witnessing, we can't get a video feed of what's being seen through your mind. Every single person's mind is an astonishingly unique specimen of PHYSICAL changes that have taken place to create mental pathways and memories - meaning that even IF I could "jack into" your brain somehow, there is no "key" to decipher its contents except the one YOU have.

I want to comment on your reply to @Serpent Child to point something out about remote viewing.

It is true we can not jump into another's consciousness and study remote viewing in that manner. Science can still show that something paranormal to our current understanding is definitely occurring. I'll give a simplified example. Let's say you or I are asked to remote view a location and then after asked to choose which of five random places we thought we were viewing. We would be correct probably about 1/5=20% of the time just by chance. Now if an allegedly gifted remote viewer consistently scored more than 20% at a rate fantastically beyond chance (p<.01) then although we can't see the person's mechanism, we know beyond reasonable doubt that they are doing something paranormal.

In fact one of the biggest proponents of Remote Viewing (Jessica Utts) was not a parapsychologist at all but a renowned expert in applied statistics.

I will go as far as calling materialist scientists 'science deniers' when confronted with things inconvenient to their materialist paradigm.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Okay, let me first state that I would be absolutely thrilled to find out that people had abilities beyond our physical faculties. It would be really, truly exciting - especially to know that, with practice, certain things would be accessible to anyone - including myself. That would be amazing. So believe me when I say I am truly interested in trying to understand, but I have been disappointed by attempts to understand time and time again in the past. Most often the people attempting to persuade the "truth" of these types of things discredit themselves in terribly obvious ways.

That said, I need to address a problem I find with the following paragraph from your reply:

It is true we can not jump into another's consciousness and study remote viewing in that manner. Science can still show that something paranormal to our current understanding is definitely occurring. I'll give a simplified example. Let's say you or I are asked to remote view a location and then after asked to choose which of five random places we thought we were viewing. We would be correct probably about 1/5=20% of the time just by chance. Now if an allegedly gifted remote viewer consistently scored more than 20% at a rate fantastically beyond chance (p<.01) then although we can't see the person's mechanism, we know beyond reasonable doubt that they are doing something paranormal.

So, if I were asked to "remote view a location" - I assume we're talking some kind of out-of-body viewing here, right? And not viewing a location on-camera or something as droll as that, right? 'Cause guessing a place by viewing it on camera would have definitively real reasons why you might guess right, and why some people may guess more correctly more often than others. So... is this a random location in your example? Am I just trying to "remote view" (that is, again, out-of-body view) for the hell of it? No location in mind? I ask because your next set of sentences then say that the next part of the exercise would be to "choose which of five random places we thought we were viewing." So - can one simply "remote view" without a specific place in mind? How would the researchers involved know that we were viewing one of 5 specific places if WE OURSELVES DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT/WHERE WE'RE REMOTE VIEWING? How could we guess where we were remote viewing from a list of 5 places that the researcher predetermined? How did the researcher predetermine where I might go on my out-of-body viewing experience?? This makes absolutely no sense to me... and so starts the discrediting process. Do you understand why I would feel this way? When you can't even provide a coherent EXAMPLE of some type of research? And example you proclaimed was "simple" at that!

In fact one of the biggest proponents of Remote Viewing (Jessica Utts) was not a parapsychologist at all but a renowned expert in applied statistics.

So, does anyone use their talents for the greater good? Spying on the bad guys to provide spot-on intel to the authorities? If we can prove these things, then would eye-witness testimony from remote viewers hold up in court? Could they be spying on alleged drug dealers, physically abusive people, etc. and then using those eye-witness accounts to put people away who had committed those crimes? If these sorts of accounts wouldn't stand up in court, why do you think that is? Part of a conspiracy? And if these talents aren't used for some good purpose - then what good are they? Does it even matter than anyone can do these things if they can't use them to anyone's advantage?

I will go as far as calling materialist scientists 'science deniers' when confronted with things inconvenient to their materialist paradigm.

It's not at all "inconvenient!" Like I said - it would be incredibly awesome if there were true supernatural talents and people who were using those types of things to actually do something to change the world. I've, honestly, just never heard accounts from people who don't end up discrediting themselves in some way. Even if it is just their insistence that it's all being covered up because CONSPIRACY!! As soon as you try and fit your views into a movie-type plot for public consumption you'll have lost me.

 

[George-ananda]

I gave as I said a simplified example just to make a point about odds against chance. There are more sophisticated protocols you can read about such as these. The key to these experiments is seeing if people can consistently produce significant odds against chance when nothing but chance results would be expected in a materialist framework.

So, if I were asked to "remote view a location" - I assume we're talking some kind of out-of-body viewing here, right? And not viewing a location on-camera or something as droll as that, right? 'Cause guessing a place by viewing it on camera would have definitively real reasons why you might guess right, and why some people may guess more correctly more often than others.

Correct, they are not looking at a camera. They are in a quiet room.

So... is this a random location in your example?

Yes. They have say 10 possible locations and the field worker uses a random number generator that picks one of the ten and the field person goes to that location.

Am I just trying to "remote view" (that is, again, out-of-body view) for the hell of it? No location in mind?

You are trying to view the location the field guy is at.

I ask because your next set of sentences then say that the next part of the exercise would be to "choose which of five random places we thought we were viewing." So - can one simply "remote view" without a specific place in mind? How would the researchers involved know that we were viewing one of 5 specific places if WE OURSELVES DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT/WHERE WE'RE REMOTE VIEWING? How could we guess where we were remote viewing from a list of 5 places that the researcher predetermined? How did the researcher predetermine where I might go on my out-of-body viewing experience?? This makes absolutely no sense to me... and so starts the discrediting process. Do you understand why I would feel this way? When you can't even provide a coherent EXAMPLE of some type of research? And example you proclaimed was "simple" at that!

Ok, read the link I provided if you want to see the details of how the government tested this and got significant results. The protocol is very studiously written, reviewed and followed and you are certainly not going to find any obvious flaws at this point, I guarantee.

So, does anyone use their talents for the greater good? Spying on the bad guys to provide spot-on intel to the authorities? If we can prove these things, then would eye-witness testimony from remote viewers hold up in court? Could they be spying on alleged drug dealers, physically abusive people, etc. and then using those eye-witness accounts to put people away who had committed those crimes? If these sorts of accounts wouldn't stand up in court, why do you think that is? Part of a conspiracy? And if these talents aren't used for some good purpose - then what good are they? Does it even matter than anyone can do these things if they can't use them to anyone's advantage?

The practical use of these abilities is questionable as these viewers do not claim to be perfect either, so it is tricky to work with only possible information. HOWEVER, for my interest the practical applicability is not nearly as important as the knowledge that people can receive information that can not be credited to chance or any known means of information input. This is critical information for anyone interested in the nature of the mind!

It's not at all "inconvenient!" Like I said - it would be incredibly awesome if there were true supernatural talents and people who were using those types of things to actually do something to change the world. I've, honestly, just never heard accounts from people who don't end up discrediting themselves in some way. Even if it is just their insistence that it's all being covered up because CONSPIRACY!! As soon as you try and fit your views into a movie-type plot for public consumption you'll have lost me.

OK, then you would need to explain why these results should not be considered highly important.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes. They have say 10 possible locations and the field worker uses a random number generator that picks one of the ten and the field person goes to that location.

You are trying to view the location the field guy is at.

And this is why I can't take it seriously. The two parties involved - field-guy and remote-viewer - have at their disposal ALL possible outcomes. And you seriously consider the results valid? Show me, instead, a test where field-guy goes to a remote, random location UNKNOWN to the remote-viewer and then have the remote-viewer describe field-guy's surroundings to a sufficient degree. Show me that test. Not a multiple-choice. Never a multiple-choice. Supernatural ability based on multiple-choice is a bad, bad joke. Even the kid who guesses "C" on all responses on his state-test is bound to get some of them right. Who cares? If you think the setup I propose for the test would be unreasonable, then I think you need to take a hard look at why you might think that way. If someone can "remote view" then they can do it. And if they can't, they can't. There is no need to "stack the deck" in someone's favor if they can actually do what they say they can.

OK, then you would need to explain why these results should not be considered highly important.

I don't need to explain, you already explained it for me:

The practical use of these abilities is questionable

 

[George-ananda]

And this is why I can't take it seriously. The two parties involved - field-guy and remote-viewer - have at their disposal ALL possible outcomes. And you seriously consider the results valid? Show me, instead, a test where field-guy goes to a remote, random location UNKNOWN to the remote-viewer and then have the remote-viewer describe field-guy's surroundings to a sufficient degree. Show me that test. Not a multiple-choice. Never a multiple-choice. Supernatural ability based on multiple-choice is a bad, bad joke. Even the kid who guesses "C" on all responses on his state-test is bound to get some of them right. Who cares? If you think the setup I propose for the test would be unreasonable, then I think you need to take a hard look at why you might think that way. If someone can "remote view" then they can do it. And if they can't, they can't. There is no need to "stack the deck" in someone's favor if they can actually do what they say they can.

I question your understanding of probability and statistics by your comments.

Of course they could easily do the experiment you described and people have done that experiment (with Ingo Swann in particular) but the problem would then be it would have to be SUBJECTIVELY scored. The whole purpose of this experiment's design is to produce an OBJECTIVE scoring system to produce statistical evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The design must remove all subjectivity in the scoring process.

Think about it a bit, please.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I question your understanding of probability and statistics by your comments.

Of course they could easily do the experiment you described and I am sure people have done that experiment but the problem would then be it would have to be SUBJECTIVELY scored. The whole purpose of this experiment's design is to produce an OBJECTIVE scoring system to produce statistical evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Think about it a bit, please.

Think about it like this... I'm fine with the objective scoring bit, sure. Let's make it 100 locations then. Why not? What's the problem with 100 locations as opposed to 10? I can tell you... the PROBABILITY that anyone guesses the right one goes down drastically. And I guarantee you would see markedly lower results from ALL subjects - including those that could supposedly "remote view" in the 10 location test. My point being, no matter the number of locations, a person who can "remote view" at a 90% success rate should see that success rate no matter the location sampling size. Again, I guarantee that wouldn't hold.

I work in Market Research, and analyzing data for statistical anomalies comes with the territory. Take, for instance, a grid of questions/statements. We know it is very unlikely that someone who is engaged and paying attention to the various questions would rate all of them of the same importance level, given the variations in the statements and variation in people's opinions. So, when we see someone rate all statements on a question with the same value, we flag them and will likely ignore their responses to the study. Now, do I know with 100% certainty that someone answering the same response to all portions of the question wasn't legitimately their opinion? No... I can't know that. It may have been. Statistically speaking, this is unlikely, and so we flag them. But there is always that level of uncertainty. The same sort of uncertainty exists in the test as formulated by these researchers, especially considering the low sample size of locations sitting at 10. Is it possible that someone guesses right 9 out of 10 times? Yes. Improbable, but possible. It is also possible that they do so multiple times in a row. The probability of their doing so decreases with each iteration, obviously, however there still exists the possibility.

Now, surround a blind-folded "field-guy" with obscure, random, unknown (unknown to both the field-guy and the remote-viewer) objects that an unbiased party selects AFTER the field-guy enters the room - remaining blind-folded. What is the probability that the "remote viewer" guesses one of those objects out of the billions of possible objects that exist in the world? That's the sort of test I could get behind, and is still as objective, if not more so, than the 1 in 10 "locations" test. The objects are of a finite number, and the more the remote-viewer correctly identifies, the more obvious the correlation. I guarantee you would never see one of these tests performed this way, however. And that is another thing you should ask yourself the reasons for.

 

[George-ananda]

Think about it like this... I'm fine with the objective scoring bit, sure. Let's make it 100 locations then. Why not? What's the problem with 100 locations as opposed to 10? I can tell you... the PROBABILITY that anyone guesses the right one goes down drastically. And I guarantee you would see markedly lower results from ALL subjects - including those that could supposedly "remote view" in the 10 location test. My point being, no matter the number of locations, a person who can "remote view" at a 90% success rate should see that success rate no matter the location sampling size. Again, I guarantee that wouldn't hold.

I work in Market Research, and analyzing data for statistical anomalies comes with the territory. Take, for instance, a grid of questions/statements. We know it is very unlikely that someone who is engaged and paying attention to the various questions would rate all of them of the same importance level, given the variations in the statements and variation in people's opinions. So, when we see someone rate all statements on a question with the same value, we flag them and will likely ignore their responses to the study. Now, do I know with 100% certainty that someone answering the same response to all portions of the question wasn't legitimately their opinion? No... I can't know that. It may have been. Statistically speaking, this is unlikely, and so we flag them. But there is always that level of uncertainty. The same sort of uncertainty exists in the test as formulated by these researchers, especially considering the low sample size of locations sitting at 10. Is it possible that someone guesses right 9 out of 10 times? Yes. Improbable, but possible. It is also possible that they do so multiple times in a row. The probability of their doing so decreases with each iteration, obviously, however there still exists the possibility.

Now, surround a blind-folded "field-guy" with obscure, random, unknown (unknown to both the field-guy and the remote-viewer) objects that an unbiased party selects AFTER the field-guy enters the room - remaining blind-folded. What is the probability that the "remote viewer" guesses one of those objects out of the billions of possible objects that exist in the world? That's the sort of test I could get behind, and is still as objective, if not more so, than the 1 in 10 "locations" test. The objects are of a finite number, and the more the remote-viewer correctly identifies, the more obvious the correlation. I guarantee you would never see one of these tests performed this way, however. And that is another thing you should ask yourself the reasons for.

The mathematics behind this is not questioned even by skeptics. Do you understand what 'odds against chance' means (p in statistics). And do you understand that in a materialist world only chance results should occur.

If someone says there is a 100,000 to 1 odds against chance, it is getting close to certain that the results didn't happen by chance but that some other factor is involved.

The subjective experiments with some of the most famous remote viewers have produced astonishing things (you could research this and look at you-tube videos all day). But people still want something where all subjectivity is removed.

 

[George-ananda]

Think about it like this... I'm fine with the objective scoring bit, sure. Let's make it 100 locations then. Why not? What's the problem with 100 locations as opposed to 10? I can tell you... the PROBABILITY that anyone guesses the right one goes down drastically. And I guarantee you would see markedly lower results from ALL subjects - including those that could supposedly "remote view" in the 10 location test. My point being, no matter the number of locations, a person who can "remote view" at a 90% success rate should see that success rate no matter the location sampling size. Again, I guarantee that wouldn't hold.

I work in Market Research, and analyzing data for statistical anomalies comes with the territory. Take, for instance, a grid of questions/statements. We know it is very unlikely that someone who is engaged and paying attention to the various questions would rate all of them of the same importance level, given the variations in the statements and variation in people's opinions. So, when we see someone rate all statements on a question with the same value, we flag them and will likely ignore their responses to the study. Now, do I know with 100% certainty that someone answering the same response to all portions of the question wasn't legitimately their opinion? No... I can't know that. It may have been. Statistically speaking, this is unlikely, and so we flag them. But there is always that level of uncertainty. The same sort of uncertainty exists in the test as formulated by these researchers, especially considering the low sample size of locations sitting at 10. Is it possible that someone guesses right 9 out of 10 times? Yes. Improbable, but possible. It is also possible that they do so multiple times in a row. The probability of their doing so decreases with each iteration, obviously, however there still exists the possibility.

Now, surround a blind-folded "field-guy" with obscure, random, unknown (unknown to both the field-guy and the remote-viewer) objects that an unbiased party selects AFTER the field-guy enters the room - remaining blind-folded. What is the probability that the "remote viewer" guesses one of those objects out of the billions of possible objects that exist in the world? That's the sort of test I could get behind, and is still as objective, if not more so, than the 1 in 10 "locations" test. The objects are of a finite number, and the more the remote-viewer correctly identifies, the more obvious the correlation. I guarantee you would never see one of these tests performed this way, however. And that is another thing you should ask yourself the reasons for.

Earlier in this thread I mentioned how a highly regarded Professor of Applied Statistics was asked to evaluate the results. Here's the paper.

Here's the conclusion:

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria. The phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures. The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar across
24 experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it would require an equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger number of subjects.

What is not so clear is that we have progressed very far in understanding the mechanism for anomalous cognition. Senders do not appear to be necessary at all; feedback of the correct answer may or may not be necessary. Distance in time and space do not seem to be an impediment. Beyond those conclusions, we know very little.

I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look for proof. No one who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a collective whole, has been able to suggest methodological or statistical problems to explain the ever-increasing and consistent results to date. Resources should be directed to the pertinent questions about how this ability works. I am confident that the questions are no more elusive than any other questions in science dealing with small to medium sized effects, and that if appropriate resources are targeted to appropriate questions, we can have answers within the next decade.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Modern science cannot take into account the larger scope of reality because it is confined to physicality and to the materialist paradigm. This has been enforced for centuries by the various factions that aim to keep humanity in a state of degeneration and anti-evolution. Why? Because a man that can fend for himself and stand upon his two feet doesn't make a very good state-dependent slave. The materialist attitude It is the same reason as why imagination nor thoughts can be proven or explained properly, because we lack the critical understanding of the human psyche. Materialist science will never be able to uncover why and how remote viewing works, because it doesn't use physicality to work. This is all deliberate. The contemporary scientific community is grounded to physicality as we lack the innate senses to assess and perceive subtle energy - which for sake of ease, we'll call the "counterpart" of dense (physical) energy. Here's the thing. Everything is energy, every single part of our universe. Not all of these are either physical, and certain types of energy can pass through physicality with ease. Now here is the catch; not all of these are physically observable to our physically oriented senses. But they very much are to our subtle energy senses. These however, are under constant attack and have been for the past few ages.

Here's an example of the subtle senses. There's a recent study done that demonstrated conclusively that the human body can sense imagery and events before it happens. The participants weren't informed, and momentarily before they were shown a series of images, their body had already responded to types of images that would show up. If memory serves me well, these ranged from sexual images to "begin" images that illicit no natural response.
That studies shows it is testable and observable. But can it be properly explained by the materialist physical paradigm? No, it cannot, because it doesn't take into account the subtle, non-physical counterpart of nature and reality.
Access to these subtle energies used to be a conscious ability of ours. However, because of the thousands of years of spiritual neglect and corruption, this ability has completely watered down and gone dormant. Think about the "dark ages", or how the church systematically murdered those who DID have the ability to interface and manipulate subtle energies. Millions were murdered because of this. Gifted bloodlines needed to be eradicated so that the malevolent established order could continue its reign over the non-spiritual man.
The mentioned study;
Predicting the unpredictable: critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity

This is also a Banned Ted Talk talking about the flaws of modern day science:

The vast majority of people agree with you, pop-science media has always made certain simplistic materialistic beliefs appear very widely accepted, when they are in fact very small minority beliefs among free thinking humanity.

The primeval atom (Big Bang), Quantum Mechanics, for example, were considered 'supernatural' by academia, while Piltdown man, Canals on Mars, Phrenology, global cooling/warming were touted as undeniable 'science'. As often as not the word is a red flag, a label used in lieu of the method to achieve an air of credibility, and this goes back thousands of years, as long as politics has existed- and to the degree that the 'science' label was useful.

Ironically the most important thing about the actual method: is not having to take anybody's word for it- least of all people who have more theoretical/academic than practical/ demonstrable experience and knowledge. Most people of the latter kind, are aware that there is something beyond our superficial observations of reality- the simplest explanation is always the most tempting in theory

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

... the simplest explanation is always the most tempting in theory

And the most complex explanations involve extremely high levels of make-believe until PROVEN otherwise.

This is the way things work. For years people thought the Earth was flat - because the observable facts fit that model to their level of knowledge at the time - it was not, necessarily, make-believe - it was simply an incorrect conclusion using the observables at hand.

Now, there could have been all manner of detractors saying the world was comprised of 11 distinct levels, the bottom most was hell and the top most the gateway to heaven, or that the world was poised on the back of a giant tortoise - or was suspended in space by cords made of stars. All of that is make-believe. None of it really fits the observable facts - not like "the Earth is flat" did. And then, of course, we update our ideas once there is greater proof that the Earth is a sphere, and then we realize that this is what fits the observable details even better, and clears up a few remaining questions on some things that were perplexing under the "Earth is flat" model.

So, saying you have knowledge that there is a spiritual realm, or that you know any details about this realm, at the moment, is make-believe. Due to the millions of unanswered questions and many, many points that don't fit any observable details that assertions about a spiritual realm leave you with, it is not an idea that is "best-fit". And to claim that this realm is simply not observable, and that is the reason we can't fit any of your details to it? Well, to that I would just say congratulations - your imagination is functioning in top form.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Earlier in this thread I mentioned how a highly regarded Professor of Applied Statistics was asked to evaluate the results. Here's the paper.

Here's the conclusion:

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria. The phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures. The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar across
24 experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it would require an equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger number of subjects.

What is not so clear is that we have progressed very far in understanding the mechanism for anomalous cognition. Senders do not appear to be necessary at all; feedback of the correct answer may or may not be necessary. Distance in time and space do not seem to be an impediment. Beyond those conclusions, we know very little.

I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look for proof. No one who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a collective whole, has been able to suggest methodological or statistical problems to explain the ever-increasing and consistent results to date. Resources should be directed to the pertinent questions about how this ability works. I am confident that the questions are no more elusive than any other questions in science dealing with small to medium sized effects, and that if appropriate resources are targeted to appropriate questions, we can have answers within the next decade.

Believe me, all of this sounds very sober and cogent, and I would like to see the results of their examinations of "how this ability works." Once they have that nailed down, then they should be able to reproduce results at 100% correlation - meaning without fail. 'Cause that is the only way this is going to go anywhere - if it has no possibility of failure. "I can do it sometimes, and other times it's fuzzy" isn't going to cut it. Can you imagine if we based progress on that sort of success rate?

"We have figured out teleportation!"
"Really?! That's great!"
"Well... to be honest, it only works 90% of the time."
"What happens the other 10%?"
"Hahahahahahaha... dunno."
"I think I'll take the bus."

In the end I have no incentive to believe in it. I can't do it myself, I can't witness anyone doing it with absolute certainty that that is truly what is going on, and as you said, it has little to no practical value. I don't need there to be an afterlife, nor do I need there to be a "oneness" to all material of the universe, nor do I need there to be any form of "God" in existence. As far as I have seen and experienced, these items are all inconsequential. If they ever actually become of consequence, that's when I will deal with them. Until then, making guesses about it is the same as taking shots at a minuscule object, out of range of my gun, in the dark. Now... does that sound like a good use of ammunition to you?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Interesting, personally I'd rather find out for myself, with observation or experiment, than to rely on the so called wisdom and knowledge of others.

Never underestimate the power of the cult of personality on susceptible individuals. Many people confuse affectation and presentation with substance. Of course, these types of individuals tend away from strict rationalism and empiricism.

 

[gnostic]

Well, as these things are claimed to be beyond the matter and energy within the physical range of current science, the problem becomes how does current science investigate? Just like Dark Matter (95% of the matter in the universe), science can not directly detect this stuff.

No, not 95%.

According to the Planck space probe in 2013, it estimated Dark Matter just shy of 27%, while Dark Energy at about 68%.

 

[Erebus]

Modern science cannot take into account the larger scope of reality because it is confined to physicality and to the materialist paradigm.

Good.

I'd like the people who make my medicine to carry on as they are. Materialism seems to have worked for them.

In the meantime I'm perfectly happy to try and work out if I'm just a brain in a jar by myself.

 

[gnostic]

All of the studies and experiments done by highly qualified parapsychologists (like Sheldrake) and many others showing results that don't make sense in a materialist worldview are wrong you say?? As well as all the anecdotal evidence??

Anecdotal evidence means that Sheldrake is not using Scientific Method.

Sorry, George, but do you really think anecdotal evidence beats empirical evidence in any branch or field in science?

May be anecdotal evidence could win in psychology. Or perhaps it could win in parapsychology and the paranormal, but neither paranormal, nor parapsychology, were ever considered science.

Anecdotal evidence is far from being reliable, no matter how highly qualified you believe these people to believe, because how do you tell if any of them are telling the truth.

 

[George-ananda]

Anecdotal evidence means that Sheldrake is not using Scientific Method.

Please re-read. I never said Sheldrake does not do experiments.

Sorry, George, but do you really think anecdotal evidence beats empirical evidence in any branch or field in science?

May be anecdotal evidence could win in psychology. Or perhaps it could win in parapsychology and the paranormal, but neither paranormal, nor parapsychology, were ever considered science.

Anecdotal evidence is far from being reliable, no matter how highly qualified you believe these people to believe, because how do you tell if any of them are telling the truth.

I understand mainstream science can not use anecdotal evidence. And that is fine. It needs remain conservative on what it knows.

But I, personally use anecdotal evidence all the time. When someone tells me their experiences, I consider them (meaning neither blindly accepting nor blindly rejecting them) using reason. We all do that. I form an opinion on paranormal things for example, based on my reasoned assessment of the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence.

 

[blü 2]

Sheldrake's talk was curious for one outstanding quality ─ all hypothesis, no evidence.

Do crystals really grow more quickly the second time they're made? That's a falsifiable claim. Has anyone reputable tried to test it and what did they find?

And his ten 'false assumptions' misrepresent the views of science. For example, (1) quantum physics doesn't think the universe is machinelike. (2) Brain physiologists think matter is essential for consciousness and so far it also appears sufficient (3) Whether the rules of nature are invariable is a live topic which has been tested on numerous occasions. (4) That energy can neither be created nor destroyed is confirmed by all our experiments but is nonetheless one of those questions that gets reexamined from time to time. (5) If nature, as distinct from animals, has a purpose or purposes, why did he not state what they are and how he knows? (6) If genetics and epigenetics are insufficient to describe reproduction and the missing element is 'resonance', where's his demonstration that this is true? (7) Experiments supporting current theories of memory show that memories are indeed stored in the (material) brain (8) Your 'mind' is the product of brain functions and your brain is in your head, but no one pretends it exists and functions independently of the body. (9) Psychic phenomena have been explored endlessly by scientists and great sums expended, and no demonstration of eg telepathy has resulted. (10) And modern medicine is not simply committed to 'mechanical medicine' and stresses the importance of a good mental condition to recovery from illness.

It's good for fringe dwellers to take a swing at the establishment occasionally, but I can't say I found Rupert persuasive when he behaves like a showman instead of a scientist.

 

[Ponder This]

Believe me, all of this sounds very sober and cogent, and I would like to see the results of their examinations of "how this ability works." Once they have that nailed down, then they should be able to reproduce results at 100% correlation - meaning without fail. 'Cause that is the only way this is going to go anywhere - if it has no possibility of failure. "I can do it sometimes, and other times it's fuzzy" isn't going to cut it. Can you imagine if we based progress on that sort of success rate?

"We have figured out teleportation!"
"Really?! That's great!"
"Well... to be honest, it only works 90% of the time."
"What happens the other 10%?"
"Hahahahahahaha... dunno."
"I think I'll take the bus."

In the end I have no incentive to believe in it. I can't do it myself, I can't witness anyone doing it with absolute certainty that that is truly what is going on, and as you said, it has little to no practical value. I don't need there to be an afterlife, nor do I need there to be a "oneness" to all material of the universe, nor do I need there to be any form of "God" in existence. As far as I have seen and experienced, these items are all inconsequential. If they ever actually become of consequence, that's when I will deal with them. Until then, making guesses about it is the same as taking shots at a minuscule object, out of range of my gun, in the dark. Now... does that sound like a good use of ammunition to you?

Engineer: "We've figured out flying!"
Person: "Really?"
Engineer: "Well, no, it turns out the Navier-Stokes equations that govern flying haven't been solved yet."
Person: "What?!?"
Engineer: "Yeah, basically, we just make a really, really good guess... and it just sort of works. We've been doing it this way for years now. It's close enough, so who cares?"
News: "One in every 1.2 million flights crashes."
Person: "So... it's not completely safe?"
Engineer: "Well... no."
Person: "I think I'll take the bus..."
News: "About 63,000 buses are involved in an accident each year..."

 

[Twilight Hue]

Modern science cannot take into account the larger scope of reality because it is confined to physicality and to the materialist paradigm. This has been enforced for centuries by the various factions that aim to keep humanity in a state of degeneration and anti-evolution. Why? Because a man that can fend for himself and stand upon his two feet doesn't make a very good state-dependent slave. The materialist attitude It is the same reason as why imagination nor thoughts can be proven or explained properly, because we lack the critical understanding of the human psyche. Materialist science will never be able to uncover why and how remote viewing works, because it doesn't use physicality to work. This is all deliberate. The contemporary scientific community is grounded to physicality as we lack the innate senses to assess and perceive subtle energy - which for sake of ease, we'll call the "counterpart" of dense (physical) energy. Here's the thing. Everything is energy, every single part of our universe. Not all of these are either physical, and certain types of energy can pass through physicality with ease. Now here is the catch; not all of these are physically observable to our physically oriented senses. But they very much are to our subtle energy senses. These however, are under constant attack and have been for the past few ages.

Here's an example of the subtle senses. There's a recent study done that demonstrated conclusively that the human body can sense imagery and events before it happens. The participants weren't informed, and momentarily before they were shown a series of images, their body had already responded to types of images that would show up. If memory serves me well, these ranged from sexual images to "begin" images that illicit no natural response.
That studies shows it is testable and observable. But can it be properly explained by the materialist physical paradigm? No, it cannot, because it doesn't take into account the subtle, non-physical counterpart of nature and reality.
Access to these subtle energies used to be a conscious ability of ours. However, because of the thousands of years of spiritual neglect and corruption, this ability has completely watered down and gone dormant. Think about the "dark ages", or how the church systematically murdered those who DID have the ability to interface and manipulate subtle energies. Millions were murdered because of this. Gifted bloodlines needed to be eradicated so that the malevolent established order could continue its reign over the non-spiritual man.
The mentioned study;
Predicting the unpredictable: critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity

This is also a Banned Ted Talk talking about the flaws of modern day science:

There's always going to be physicality involved. Otherwise how do you know yourself what you are implying if there was no interaction taking place that catches your attention or fancy?

 

[Skwim]

Modern science cannot take into account the larger scope of reality because it is confined to physicality and to the materialist paradigm.

In other words, you know for a fact that there is a larger scope of reality. Care to tell us how you came upon this knowledge: Meditation? Candle burning? Ouija board? Oming? Tarot cards? Ancient texts? Not so ancient texts? Wishful thinking?

The mentioned study;
Predicting the unpredictable: critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity

From your linked study:

"A recent meta-analysis of experiments from seven independent laboratories (n = 26) indicates that the human body can apparently detect randomly delivered stimuli occurring 1–10 s in the future"​

Apparently adverb us /əˈpær·ənt·li, -ˈper-/

according to what seems to be true or what is likely, based on what you know.

.​