Evidence proving telepathy does not exist. (poll as well)

[shaman_]

Read: I said with such a high rate it's improbable to be by chance or coincidence.

.. and I am explaining why the rate is probably not so high after all.

Our memories are not the most reliable devices for working out if these events occur greater than exected by chance. We have a tendency towards selective thinking and subjective validation. If you are looking for coincidences you more than likely find them. How can you be sure that the occurrences are greater than chance?

And these tests are where?

Off the top of my head the more organised or popular psi research has been done by the Stanford Research Institute, the Scientific Applications International Corporation, JB Rhine, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research labs, Dr Gary Schwartz. ** edit - and the Ganzfeld and Autoganzfeld which I see have been discussed here a bit lately.

If you want more specific links then that will take time.

Generally speaking there has been some positive results here but the work was been overshadowed by flawed test protocols, questionable use of statistics and failure to repeat the successes. What we are left with is a situation where these results are enough for believers but not nearly enough to convince skeptics.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

.. and I am explaining why the rate is probably not so high after all.

Our memories are not the most reliable devices for working out if these events occur greater than exected by chance. We have a tendency towards selective thinking and subjective validation. If you are looking for coincidences you more than likely find them. How can you be sure that the occurrences are greater than chance?

I've nearly eidetic memory when it comes to observing daily occurrences. They do happen very frequently, especially since I've chat logs of it happening numerous times.

But yes, I too would prefer scientific validation.

Off the top of my head the more organised or popular psi research has been done by the Stanford Research Institute, the Scientific Applications International Corporation, JB Rhine, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research labs, Dr Gary Schwartz. ** edit - and the Ganzfeld and Autoganzfeld which I see have been discussed here a bit lately.

If you want more specific links then that will take time.

Generally speaking there has been some positive results here but the work was been overshadowed by flawed test protocols, questionable use of statistics and failure to repeat the successes. What we are left with is a situation where these results are enough for believers but not nearly enough to convince skeptics.

As I said, I want a scientific attempt. It's obvious they're not being too accurately scientific about it (or reasonable, given your summarization) when it's that impossibly screwed up.

 

[grover]

all in all, I merely wish there would be some major scientific attempt to prove, once and for all, whether or not such a phenomenon is capable by human beings. And I'm referring to the scientific, not spiritualistic, aspect of it.

As Shaman pointed out many studies have already been done confirming the existence of psi. After the studies are done "scpetics" come along and find possible methodological errors in the studies. There is nothing strange about possible methodological errors in studeis - it happens in every branch of science, and is in fact a part of the scientific process. What is strange when it comes to psi is that the sceptics seem to think that merely spceulating somehow is proof that the studies are worthless. What happens in actual science is the sceptics would actualy redo the study eliminating the possibble methodological errors. If the test results are different the study has been falsified. End of debate, end of controversy. Interestinlgy though this necessary step is one which the sceptics have refusen to take.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

Hold your tongue. I'm a skeptic myself, yet I practice the stuff. If I'm skeptical, I either set out to prove it correct or not myself. personal attempts are far better at this then eyeing a report and giving a biased opinion.

 

[grover]

What do you mean? Do you believe in telepathy or not? It sounds like you are not sceptical towards telepathy because you have seen enough evidence to be convinced.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

What do you mean? Do you believe in telepathy or not? It sounds like you are not sceptical towards telepathy because you have seen enough evidence to be convinced.

Not really telepathy, but other things.

Quite frankly, I'm only convinced in the sense personal experiences are my evidence, but being avid in psychology and other things, I can't not be skeptical about my own experiences.

That is what I meant.

 

[shaman_]

As Shaman pointed out many studies have already been done confirming the existence of psi.

Well that was not my conclusion.

After the studies are done "scpetics" come along and find possible methodological errors in the studies. There is nothing strange about possible methodological errors in studeis - it happens in every branch of science, and is in fact a part of the scientific process. What is strange when it comes to psi is that the sceptics seem to think that merely spceulating somehow is proof that the studies are worthless.

In a field where people desperately want to see positive results these flaws are important. Experimenter bias is always a potential issue with psi research.

The methodological errors found are more than just mere speculation. They are possible explanations for the small, unreliable and unrepeatable effects observed.

What happens in actual science is the sceptics would actualy redo the study eliminating the possibble methodological errors. If the test results are different the study has been falsified.

.. or possibly believers will explain those results away as the 'experimenter effect' where a skeptic will cause the results to be negative. We have discussed this before though.

End of debate, end of controversy. Interestinlgy though this necessary step is one which the sceptics have refusen to take.

I know that Dr Richard Wiseman has tried to replicate some tests with negative results.

 

[grover]

Well that was not my conclusion.

As far as I can tell you don't dispute the fact that there are reputable tests which support the existence of psi. You just don't think its been conclusively proven. Is that a fair assessment of your position? Or do you think all the tests done on psi are just trash?

In a field where people desperately want to see positive results these flaws are important. Experimenter bias is always a potential issue with psi research.

Where does this assumption come from that people desperately want to see positive results?
Of course experimenter bias is a potential issue. Its a potential issue with all research. Thats why it is necessary that methodologically sound tests that can be done by anyone be done by both those convinced by the already existing evidence and those sceptical of existing evidence. Until that happens the controversy will continue.

The methodological errors found are more than just mere speculation.

The ones I've seen have been mere speculation.

They are possible explanations for the small, unreliable and unrepeatable effects observed.

Possible. Sceptics need to actually falsify the results with science instead of speculating.

.. or possibly believers will explain those results away as the 'experimenter effect' where a skeptic will cause the results to be negative. We have discussed this before though.

It boils down to this: you are not convinced by the scientific evidence. I am convinced by the scientific evidence. This will remain a controversial topic until sceptics start doing actual science of their own instead of acting like speculation is proof.

I know that Dr Richard Wiseman has tried to replicate some tests with negative results.

I'll google him. But I have a preconceived idea that anything he says can't possibly true so I have little doubt that I'll be able to concoct some possible methodological question mark that will prove beyond all doubt that his science is not sound.

 

[shaman_]

As far as I can tell you don't dispute the fact that there are reputable tests which support the existence of psi. You just don't think its been conclusively proven. Is that a fair assessment of your position? Or do you think all the tests done on psi are just trash?

I don’t think that the testing done so far confirms the existence of psi. The small, occasional effect recorded could be psi or it could be poor test methodology.

Where does this assumption come from that people desperately want to see positive results?

It is a fairly safe assumption to say that people would like psi to be real.

Of course experimenter bias is a potential issue. Its a potential issue with all research. Thats why it is necessary that methodologically sound tests that can be done by anyone be done by both those convinced by the already existing evidence and those sceptical of existing evidence. Until that happens the controversy will continue.

So if a team of skeptics test for psi and then announce that the tests were negative do you think that will end the controversy?

Nope.

The ones I've seen have been mere speculation.

The work done by people like Ray Hyman and Susan Blackmore is a lot more than just speculation. Blackmore visited the labs during the original Ganzfeld tests. Hyman’s detailed analyses are constructed with all the available data. It appears that he even has the respect of many parapsychologists who have taken note of his criticism.

Due to your bias it is probably easy to discard the testing flaws as unimportant just like Christians ignore the problems with Genesis.

It boils down to this: you are not convinced by the scientific evidence. I am convinced by the scientific evidence. This will remain a controversial topic until sceptics start doing actual science of their own instead of acting like speculation is proof.

I will not be convinced until we have more reliable, repeatable results from tests with tighter controls.

 

[grover]

I don’t think that the testing done so far confirms the existence of psi. The small, occasional effect recorded could be psi or it could be poor test methodology.

Agreed (although I have yet to see an article that conclusively proves that psi tests have poor methodology).

 

[kwhilborn]

I think tests done by skeptics may by their very nature achieve negative results. I think telepathy is on the same level as sunconscious suggestion, so if the people inside the experiment BELIEVE they will not achieve results, this suggestion to the brain may be enough to thwart accurate results.

Kudos Jeremyhf. I was also a skeptic until I started achieving good results from telepathy experiments. Now it is a given as far as I am concerned.

 

[Tnerb]

What the fuck are you guys talking about? Telepathy does not exist, because the defination I recieved from a very reliable source has been that telepathy involves using your senses. As I see it, it is impossible for any of what you are saying to be true, because your senses are the prime investigator. You are talking bullshit nonsense, and you will not quit talking bullshit non-sence until you demonstrate that using telepathy is possible!

Therefore, the very obvious conclusion in my vote is a very simple no.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

What the fuck are you guys talking about? Telepathy does not exist, because the defination I recieved from a very reliable source has been that telepathy involves using your senses. As I see it, it is impossible for any of what you are saying to be true, because your senses are the prime investigator. You are talking bullshit nonsense, and you will not quit talking bullshit non-sence until you demonstrate that using telepathy is possible!

Therefore, the very obvious conclusion in my vote is a very simple no.

I also know from a Very Reliable Source that you're a retard that doesn't know what he's talking about.

Therefore, the Very Obvious Conclusion is simply that you are.

Nevermind that I never provided any sources, and that I've confused telepathy with body-language reading and such.

Now I'm done being insulting and sarcastic. (Honestly, I don't mean to be so insulting. it's a joke really. just a mockery.)

 

[Tnerb]

Hah! You don't like my nonsence jokes?

 

[The Devil Inside]

I also know from a Very Reliable Source that you're a retard that doesn't know what he's talking about.

Therefore, the Very Obvious Conclusion is simply that you are.

Nevermind that I never provided any sources, and that I've confused telepathy with body-language reading and such.

Now I'm done being insulting and sarcastic. (Honestly, I don't mean to be so insulting. it's a joke really. just a mockery.)

ive been tempbanned for less than this.
tread lightly.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

..tempbanned for pointing out how immensely flawed a type of reasoning is by reversing it while being super sarcastic?

You're joking.

 

[Stryder]

There is evidence to support Artificial Telepathy you only need to brush the field of cybernetics for this.

There is question as to Natural Telepathy as being real but only as far as a persons neurons generating references of activity in regards to stimulation of nearby regions of the brain, where actual connections between the clusters don't exist but they manage to pick on a very low yield transmission.

This however doesn't mean that Naturally (Without the usage of Technology) that a person can sit miles (even feet) away from someone else and either read their thoughts or put thoughts into someones head, with nothing more than a thought.

Thats why there is no simple YES or NO but a number of YES's and NO's

 

[Tnerb]

This mother fucker can be all idiotic as he wants, it does not matter to me, he isn't quite wrong and hasn't really replied to my post. It just shows how stupid he is, and I don't mind that of course.

And by telling me how "immensely flawed my way of reasoning is" is really quite stupid. It doesn't bother me infact it just makes me stronger. Maybe I should report him to allow him to feel as bad as he made me feel...? I think I will do this.

Anyway, there's a lot of discussion to be made about this issue of if telepathy exists, the actual defination of telepathy (which as I see it is one of the major problems....), etc, which I sorta burped out with my previous post. Anyway, he doesn't know me and I'm going to report him, so continue your discussion about how telepathy does/doesn't exist, I'll be proud when someone actually gets around to clarifying some of this.

 

[Tnerb]

Nice stryder, didn't see your post.

As I said it appears the one thing we're missing is clarifying what telepathy actually means. ...

 

[Jeremyhfht]

This mother fucker can be all idiotic as he wants, it does not matter to me, he isn't quite wrong and hasn't really replied to my post. It just shows how stupid he is, and I don't mind that of course.

And I don't mind your limited vocabulary, either. "You stupid stupid fucking stupid motherfucking stupid stupid!". Yeah. You really showed me.

And by telling me how "immensely flawed my way of reasoning is" is really quite stupid. It doesn't bother me infact it just makes me stronger. Maybe I should report him to allow him to feel as bad as he made me feel...? I think I will do this.

Oh yes. Makes you stronger. Lets forget about wondering whether or not our reasoning is actually flawed. OR perhaps wondering if you expressed your reasoning in a flawed manner...or perhaps that I've not broken any Rules that are never pointed out or listed in a thread excepting a few sections of the forum.

I think I need not say anything beyond that...

Oh yes, to stick to the topic: Stryder, I don't think it's much of a bunch of "YES/NO". Try a bunch of "YES/NO/MAYBE".