To All Esp Skeptics: Read It And Weep!

well, not exactly friendly but reasonably civilized, I guess that'll be good enough.

So someone has bettered this probability that is so important to everyone. Can I now assume that the discussion is closed because Persol and you and everybody else has agreed that if someone can do this then there is such a thing as ESP? Or do you now prove yourself to be hypocrites by wanting another hurdle jumped over? You see, this is part of the problem. People say they want this, but then when the evidence is presented to them they dismiss it with a wave of their hand. I have submitted the evidence, so now do you all accept ESP?
Click to expand...

The important word in my response was "repeatable". See, this is how it usually works (for me, at least, to believe something I haven't seen directly). One lab does some tests, then publish their results. This is followed by other labs doing the same tests and seeing if those results are consistent with their findings. This continues, sometimes for years, then comes the really cool part. If it is shown to be consistently achievable the parties start doing more complex testing in attempts to understand the mechanics of the process, in other words, "ok now we know it works, so how does it work?" (personally my favorite part). I didn't mention this part in my post because I assumed it was understood when discussing what entails scientific testing.

Remember cold fusion? that was supposedly proven in a lab too but it couldn't be repeated, that's what matters. Perhaps one day it will be shown as fact but that has yet to happen.

And in terms of what I "say" I can do, I have explained this once, twice and will not repeat it a third.
Click to expand...

i assume you're addressing me here but I never asked 'what you can do' so I'm not sure what your point was.

Are you (not you, buffys, but you in general) asserting that before someone hypothesizes a theory they need absolute proof? That should cut down on this activity. Beside this should be unnecessary as Persol has asked for someone to outgun probability. This has been done already.
Click to expand...

Personally my answer is, hell no! not at all, in fact I strongly encourage study in this area. You obviously have to start with an hypothesis, I'm just saying that until ESP enters the 'fact' stage it will be just one among many, many theories. I don't just say this about the 'paranormal' this goes for things like string theory, panspermia and the millions of other interesting ideas describing us and our universe. I think you have assumed I am anti-ESP and I assure you that is not the case. I would be ecstatic if it were shown to be real, a whole new area of study ... what could be better than that?
 
Originally posted by buffys


...The important word in my response was "repeatable". ...

...i assume you're addressing me here but I never asked 'what you can do' so I'm not sure what your point was.
Click to expand...

Dear buffys:

I will repeat again what was already posted:

"During that period he had participated in tests involving nearly 700 runs through the standard deck of ESP cards, averaging approximately 32% successes as compared with the mean chance expectation of 20%. Nothing like this prolonged series of tests had ever been made up to that time, and Hubert Pearce's performance was recognized even then as highly exceptional."

Hubert Pearce repeated this ability 700 times. I would assume you could read and would have discerned this if it was so important to you.

In terms of your not asking me what I could do, you quoted Persol "asking me" in your post to me. That was what I was responding to.

And I am delighted you are open-minded to the possibility of ESP, but by your own criteria it has been proven. This is the point I attempted to get across in my last post. People say they want one thing, like you saying you want something repeated. So it is repeated "700 times" and you blithely go on saying you wish someday someone would prove something.

Why can't you (again, not you specifically, but it would be a start) explain what evidence you would consider proof and stick to it? Am I to assume you (buffys), want it repeated 700 + 1 times? If you say you want it repeated is not 700 times sufficient?

In terms of it being a process EVERYBODY can repeat, this is just getting ridiculous. It would be requiring everyone beating the 4 minute mile before you believed one person could do it. I believe this is where people are going awry in their thinking. If this a "skill" or "function" like say running, then not everyone can nor can everyone be trained to run or perform at the same level. Therefore, Hubert Pearce submitted to 700 runs of guessing cards. His average was above the level of chance. So he at least proved there is ESP and that he did possess this. Is this not a reasonable assumption? If not, why? Also people perform "extraordinarily" on certain days, it does not mean that someone did not run the 4 minute mile because they cannot ever repeat that feat again.

And, buffys, I will go back to something that you said. It was:

"Some people, either through 'experience' or assumption, know what they know and no evidence is needed"

I submit to you that this is a contradictory statement. For if one knows through experience, then that IS the evidence. Therefore, the evidence has been provided and they have scientifically proven something empirically true.
 
ok, let me be even more specific. When 1 lab does a series of runs whether its 5 times, 50 times, 700 times it still requires equivalent results by other labs. If a lab does 700 runs of the cards that isn't 700 tests, thats 1 test by one lab. It wouldn't be a test if they'd only done 1 run, a number of runs are required to get any reasonable data. Also, keep in mind that he wasnt successful 700 times either or even 300 times, just 32% of the time (slightly above average but hardly proof).

See the problem is as long as the results are not seen elsewhere and consistantly it's an anomoly at best, and barely that.

It would be requiring everyone beating the 4 minute mile before you believed one person could do it.
Click to expand...

As far as a four minute mile goes that doesn't conflict with our understanding of the human body, biology allows for very fast runners. No physical 'rules' are being broken in that case. Unlike running fast, ESP makes claims that defy everything we understand about physics, biology, cause and effect, etc. I don't really see why it suprises you that very definitive proof is required for me to believe something so earth shattering.

I submit to you that this is a contradictory statement. For if one knows through experience, then that IS the evidence. Therefore, the evidence has been provided and they have scientifically proven something empirically true.
Click to expand...

In a sense you're correct it IS evidence but only to that person. Like 1 lab achieving a result, that doesn't help me nor does it make it imperically true (except to the person who experienced it). Had I personally seen ESP displayed or done it myself I would believe it, but I certainly wouldn't expect anyone else to just based on my word. Too many of these claims are directly contradictory, if 10 people say one thing is a fact and 10 others say the opposite where can I go from there? In these cases consistent, repeatable evidence is my only option.

ps - I promise there is no need to repeatedly quote yourself, I assure you I read it the first two times.
 
Originally posted by buffys
ok, let me be even more specific. When 1 lab does a series of runs whether its 5 times, 50 times, 700 times it still requires equivalent results by other labs. If a lab does 700 runs of the cards that isn't 700 tests, thats 1 test by one lab. It wouldn't be a test if they'd only done 1 run, a number of runs are required to get any reasonable data. Also, keep in mind that he wasnt successful 700 times either or even 300 times, just 32% of the time (slightly above average but hardly proof).

Click to expand...

Dear buffys:

In all due respect, this is where the arguments of "skeptics" and "scientific" types breaks down and reveals you flat out will NOT believe anything nor your own eyes. For this has been my contention all along and it has been denied, but fortunately you have put it into print. I am not picking on your nor making this personal, so please don't take it that way. It's just that you have responded and finally we have arrived at the place where you have put the message I was looking for in print.

Note you say:

"Also, keep in mind that he wasnt successful 700 times either or even 300 times, just 32% of the time (slightly above average but hardly proof)"

This is a far cry from the original assertion that someone merely had to beat probability. Even a 1% difference is considered evidence and proof in most scientific testing. But now suddenly a 12% (the difference between chance which is 20% and the result which was 32%) is hardly proof. So there you have it. The reason why no one in their right mind would consent to testing. For the parameters for proof seem to vary wildly when we come to evidence of ESP. Suddenly what science uses as proof (A DIFFERENCE) is no longer proof. And 700 runs are actually 1 run. Amazing! Simply amazing!

In terms of other labs doing the testing, the problem comes again with the personal type of testing this involves. If you have no problem with the statistical evidence of probability than you would have no problem accepting that someone beating this statistic has proven that there is ESP and that he has ESP.

And you see from the quoted article on tarot readers how someone can "tell" everyone how it is that tarot readers "cold read" someone without having any proof or any evidence of how it is actually done. Why is it the "experts" on debunking can do this with no proof and they are not challenged? That too is wondrous. And as for what is said, I could have saved myself a lot of time by not memorizing the cards and doing hundreds of readings to hone my little talent by simply following this man's advice. Of course the fact that was over the telephone talking to someone I had never met would seem to blow apart his little theory. But why let logic creep into the conversation for we are discussing ESP and you can represent yourselves fraudulently as "scientific" when you are actually just resistant to the idea. I submit most skeptics are just this.

This is where the problem lies. For if I "submitted" to a test of tarot, and predicted a couple would marry by the end of the year, someone would say that this is not proof as it was a "guess" that came true because I followed the odds. What odds are those that say a couple that is not together will marry? I don't know. I suppose if we take a stab at how these foolish statistics are put together we can say a one in two chance since they will either stay together or break up. Forget all the variables attached to the situation.

I remember the story of Edgar Cayce submitting to scientific testing. Seems the experts didn't "believe" he was really asleep and so one of them pulled out his fingernail as proof. Edgar Cayce had absolutely no reaction until he woke up. Of course, even though they had done this, they still weren't convinced and wanted to do more testing. Cayce said he would never agree to anymore testing after that and was true to his word.

I suggest you skeptics all get together and decide on what you REALLY want. What proof it is you are really looking for and just hold firm to that which you state. So if you want a 100% success rate, just state that and at least be honest. If you want 3,000,000 people to demonstrate 100% accuracy then state that also. Otherwise you are the ones that are "lying" and making things up. Perhaps you are also the ones in a thought bubble that remains unattached to reality.

Sat Nam,


NEMESIS
 
i never said 700 runs was 1 run, I said 700 runs was 1 test.

Lets say a test is being done to discover if french fries cause acne. If you're test looks at one kid at mcdonalds and she's fed 700 small orders of fries of a few months, that's not a test. You use 500 kids, or better 50,000. You can't derive any useful data from 1 ... do u understand? And no matter what the result is from that single testing period science doesn't jump up and say aha! now we know the answer! They have other groups repeat it many times before anyone regards it as conclusive. How many ways can I say this?

This is a far cry from the original assertion that someone merely had to beat probability
Click to expand...

I never asserted that, I think you're confusing me with another poster.

now I refer you you back to your point about the 4 minute mile, I believe that is possible WITHOUT stringent testing because I can run personally. Not that fast it's true but running is something MY body can do. The claims of ESP are beyond my experience completely and as I said defy everything I 'know'. I'm not saying its impossible but seriously, is it so hard to appreciate why this requires consistent evidence for me to believe?

Lets take an even more mundane angle, dieting for example. I've heard with equal vigor that carbohydrates must be reduced and protein intake increased for successful weight loss (tons of studies to back this up) on the other hand I've heard more carbohydrates and less protein is really the key (also, backed up with many studies). You see the problem? Until a clear consensus is found I won't know, and this is just weight loss for god's sake. My goal in life isn't to yell LIAR! at every claim that defies my present understanding of the world but why is it so hard to fathom my need for proof? Or that a study by one lab doesn't tell us anything conclusive?

It's a cliche but its true, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Have aliens landed? Is there a God? Is ESP possible? We're not talking about people running fast or what entails a good diet here. I'm being asked to believe that my entire understanding of the world is incorrect, I'm not saying it can't be, I'm just saying one guy guessing 32% of the cards in 700 tries isn't nearly enough. Seriously now, is that really so hard to fathom, is it that unreasonable?

I'm not an ESP skeptic, I'm an everything skeptic. If I'd personally experienced ESP, god, aliens or ghosts I'd believe it without OTHER evidence but i certainly wouldn't expect you to. Why is this so hard to understand?
 
First things first -

Originally posted by Persol
Science doesn't care if it works 100% of the time. That's what probability is for. Nobody who claims to have esp abilities has demonstrated above guessing average.

If you are effectivly 'lying' half the time and telling the truth the other half, the ability is worthless.
Click to expand...

This is what I was referring to with the reference to lying. Persol maintains he was not mocking anyone, but he did effectively call everyone liars.


Originally posted by buffys
i never said 700 runs was 1 run, I said 700 runs was 1 test.

Lets say a test is being done to discover if french fries cause acne. If you're test looks at one kid at mcdonalds and she's fed 700 small orders of fries of a few months, that's not a test. You use 500 kids, or better 50,000. You can't derive any useful data from 1 ... do u understand? How many ways can I say this?
Click to expand...

Dear buffys:

I will try this once again. I feel like I am hitting my head against a brick wall. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO DISCOVER A CURE FOR ACNE. WE ARE TRYING TO PROVE IF "ONE" PERSON HAS ESP. WE CAN MOVE ON FROM THERE TO SEEING IF IT IS WIDESPREAD. THEREFORE YOUR ASSERTION THAT 700 ORDERS OF FRENCH FRIES ARE FED TO ONE CHILD IS RIDICULOUS. THIS IS NOT AN ANALOGOUS SITUATION NOR PROPER NOR FAIR. HOWEVER, YOU WOULD FEED FRENCH FRIES TO THE ONE CHILD IF YOU WERE TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER FRENCH FRIES WERE CAUSING ACNE IN THAT ONE CHILD. IF WE FOUND OUT THAT FRENCH FRIES WERE CAUSING ACNE IN HIM, THEN WE WOULD NOT NEED TO FEED FRENCH FRIES TO ANYBODY ELSE! AND WE WOULD NOT NEED TO REPEAT IT 700 TIMES!

I will unlock my Key Caps now. Therefore, your methodology is flawed from the get go. Whether one million people have it or one person has it is not the point nor should it be. Proving there is ESP is like proving someone can break the four minute mile. ONE person did this to prove it could be done. It doesn't matter if you or your mother can do it. It was enough proof that one time.

I do not understand your frustration since you are blissly unaware of what the heck I am trying to say. It leads me down that very opportunistic road of personally insulting you, but I am trying not to. I really am. However, if you still do not understand, please do not reply because frankly I cannot make this any more simplistic.

And if you don't understand my frustration then reread Persol's comment. He says:

Originally posted by Persol
Science doesn't care if it works 100% of the time. That's what probability is for. Nobody who claims to have esp abilities has demonstrated above guessing average.

If you are effectivly 'lying' half the time and telling the truth the other half, the ability is worthless.
Click to expand...

Note he says: NOBODY WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE ESP ABILITIES HAS DEMONSTRATED ABOVE GUESSING AVERAGE. I have just given you someone who did this. His average is better than probability after 700 runs. And still, Persol does not concede when his very own criteria is met. And you still talk about curing acne?
 
Originally posted by NEMESIS
This is what I was referring to with the reference to lying. Persol maintains he was not mocking anyone, but he did effectively call everyone liars.
Come on, I know you aren't this dumb. If you are predicting the future, but have no idea which predictions are right, you ARE lying when you predict false things. This does not equate to calling 'everyone liars'. This only means people who do not know when they are right (but claim they are anyway) liars.

THEREFORE YOUR ASSERTION THAT 700 ORDERS OF FRENCH FRIES ARE FED TO ONE CHILD IS RIDICULOUS.
Typing in all caps like a child is also ridiculous. The point is that a person getting 32% when the odds say 20% is NOT better then probability. If you have 1000 coins, and flip each 700 times, one will almost certainly be heads 70% of the time. This does not make it some magical coin, and is evidence that it will be heads in the future. 700 is nowhere near a large enough sample to assume it isn't a statistical fluke.

I will unlock my Key Caps now.
Thank you.

Whether one million people have it or one person has it is not the point nor should it be.
His point was that this is not a statistically valid test. He tried to phrase this simply so that you would understand it, but that doesn't seem to have worked.

Proving there is ESP is like proving someone can break the four minute mile.
No. A four minute mile is repeatable. This is not. Otherwise a statisically valid sampling would be taken.

Note he says: NOBODY WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE ESP ABILITIES HAS DEMONSTRATED ABOVE GUESSING AVERAGE.
You know very well what I meant. If I flip a coin once, and it is heads then I can't say that the coin is heads 100% of the times, and is better then average. Your sample size is meaninglessly small. Read up on probability and randomness, then try arguing your point.
 
Originally posted by NEMESIS
Persol maintains he was not mocking anyone, but he did effectively call everyone liars.
Click to expand...
Funny, you also maintained that I was not mocking anyone:

And I did note that the mocking came from the woowoo MRC Hans and not you.
Click to expand...
 
NEMESIS sez:
Even a 1% difference is considered evidence and proof in most scientific testing.
Click to expand...

In tests like this the variance is going to be more than 1% between different people. Don't play dumb. The large number of trials helps to approximate, but it doesn't necessarily work.

To draw a trivial example... what if each of these trials is, say, three cards? The only possible outcomes are: 0%, 33%, 66%, or 100% success.

So, I will detail an experiment. How about this:

I expose a person to 100 trials. Each trial consists of 3 Rhine cards concealed from them in a box. The cards have the usual 5 shapes on them, and there is no way the person can see the cards. They record their guesses and the guesses are then compared against the cards by an observer.

Since there are three cards, there are 4 possible outcomes.
They get none (0%) of them right.
They get one (33%) of them right.
They get two (66%) of them right.
They get all (100%) of them right.

The chance that a person will get each of these results:
0% - 4/5 * 4/5 * 4/5 = 64/125
33% - 1/5 * 4/5 * 4/5 (x3) = 48/125
66% - 1/5 * 1/5 * 4/5 (x3) = 12/125
100% - 1/5 * 1/5 * 1/5 = 1/125

So by guessing, a person has a 61/125 = 48.8% chance of getting a 33% OR HIGHER result in the three card test. This means that in any given group that you test with one trial of the three-card test, approximately half of them will test above "chance".

Until I see the numbers, the apparatus, and the nature of the experiment, I will not believe a scientific study whose probability is so easily misunderstood by most people...

The numbers for a 25-card deck are pretty large and I imagine you can do them yourself... I hope you understood the preceding, and the importance of STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
 
Last edited:
EDIT
I appologize for my necromancy.... I completely forgot this was a month old post until I had replied. Just ignore what I've said and let it bury itself again like it should have....


Nemesis, let me start off by saying that I read both of your accounts and found them interesting (and yes I'll believe them). Especially the part about the cats, as I have cats myself. I'm not sure if they exhibit the same behavior, but I wouldn't be surprised as they are always at the door when I get home from my erratic schedules:)

However, these people are right. This one test done isn't enough proof that esp exists. First off, if you are to show me the back of the card and I correctly guess it, that's not a test of psychic ability, but a lucky guess. Now, with 700 cards, and I show 32% chance of success, this is a successful test that shows that I am in fact defying chance. However, this alone is not proof. Why? Haven't you ever had just pure lucky streaks before? Like someone else said, if I flip a 1,000,000 coins 700 times each and record the results, eventually one of them is going to exhibit a 70% success rate rather than a 50% success rate. Is this proof that that coin is now special and lands on heads more than it should? No. Then what is? By doing another test with the same coin, and probably a few more just to be sure. If that coin continually exhibits a 70% success rate, then you know that the makers probably put too much metal on the tails side of the coin.

In the same token, one guy out of millions getting a few extra cards (84) right isn't enough. Sure it seems amazing, but there's still the possibility that he got really really lucky. People have fallen from 15,000 feet up and walked away without an injury. I'm sure if you were to drop them a few more times, they will surely end up dead.

So, to prove that this guy is special, you do a few more tests with him and see if he still exhibits this 32% success rate, and if he does, you know he was not lucky, but moderately psychic.
 
I think ESP has always been documented as being something that physicists are interested in, as some of the experiments done in physics can have weird events occur afterwards that can only be described as ESP.

For instance one example version of ESP was the theoretical Experiment that Erwin Schrodinger came up with named Schrodingers cat, to which Eugene Wigner developed a "humanised" version which was known as Wigner's Friend.

Both experiments were about a better understanding of atomic theory, and a better understanding of the universe around us.

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/W/Wigner's-friend.htm
 
Just as the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment was trying to bring quantum effects up to the scale of the real world, Wigner was trying to bring an intermediary observer into the thought experiment in order to highlight the need for an observer in collapsing waveforms. In the present interpretation (if I understand correctly), observation by any conscious thing is enough to collapse the waveform.
 
NEMESIS said:
Dear Persol:

I, myself, have demonstrated it many times. I think what you want is a scientific test. I don't even know how you would construct one. Also (if we are being serious about this) is the problem that ESP may occur in a random pattern. In other words, not a light switch that is either off or on. So I think this also may cast someone truly psychic in a bad light and cause a test to conclusively prove they are NOT psychic when in fact they are.
Click to expand...
Here's a test. I'm thinking of a word when I think of you. What is that word?
 
NABISCO

Either it is Nabisco, or it isn't. So, there is a 50% chance that I am right and a 50% chance that I am wrong.

There is also a 50% chance that each of the next guesses is right:
Sub-lunar
Calcareous
Demonolatry
Porifera
Tofurkey
Procrustes
Shambling
Shackled
Pastry

Was it any of these words? No, you say?

I scored 0% - significantly below chance! I am a nega-psychic!

Yes yes YEEEEEEEEES! POWER IS MINE!
 
Kinetic Spirit said:
Do you believe in psychic abilities? Yes or No? End of Discussion....
Click to expand...
Well, it's not. If someone can demonstrate it then the answer changes. That's what this is about.
 
Hi all!

For a very good IMO scientific treatment of the "psychic pet" phenomenon visit here: http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Animals/index.html
specifically for those who think there is no evidence of the "paranormal".

Also, I could be wrong, but I think the above example refers to 700 runs or 50 cards each yielding a 32% success rate. Ie a 32% average success rate on 35,000 guesses where probability is approx. 20%.

Cheers, :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top