No judgement here friend, sorry if you took it that way. The picture popped into my head as I read your posts, and I followed through by commenting on it.

In my opinion, one should be open-minded ones whole life, there is not statute of limitations. That you have given it up for a fixed belief system (ie, it can't possibly be true becasue the technology and understanding we had 20 years ago couldn't prove it to MY satisfaction) that rules out many differing possbilities about a world, which in actuality we know very little about.

I agree we should follow truth and not lead it, but are you not doing the very thing you are accusing others of?

There is no POINT in discussing these things. There's a point only in carefully REPEATING them. In most cases I've heard about, efforts to repeat have FAILED and typically the originators (like Sheldrake) then complain that the "sceptic mindset" disrupted the "morphgenic field."

Endless discussion about someone's experiment or evidence is USELESS. What's great about science is that experiments that WORK can easily be REPEATED--and the same result is generated.

Quite obviously, these claims are not robustly REPEATABLE, and so they are no compelling (except to those who have a NEED to believe them).

What is wrong with your position, fractal, (and to other "believers" is that you do not INVESTIGATE THE OPPOSING SIDE. Any evidence FOR is very compelling to you, and any evidence AGAINST is...ignored. And the best PRACTICAL "evidence" is the one I keep repeated, and the one you keep failing to acknowledge: these things were given a FULL CHANGE at a relatively OPEN MIND from sceptics and academics--and that chance fizzled.

Certainly, scores of academic professionals ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE, over a period of twenty years, can hash this thing out more completely than WE CAN here in posts. It WAS hashed out, and the outcome was a lack of evidence for the phenomena you would like to believe in.

well..I am not really a believer in anything. I already stated that none of this proves telepathy is real. All I have done is tried more than once now to address the fact that skeptics did repeat Sheldrakes experiments on the relationship between pets and owners and got the same results. I dont know why that makes me a "believer"?

When one researcher, and then skeptics trying to debunk them, find again and again that dogs have an uncanny ability to to respond in a specific way when they're owners, far away from the dog itself are about to come home, and the results are far beyond that of random chance I do think it is worth looking at. Not becasue it means they are telepathic but because noone has any explaination yet.

What you say is foolish. Here's why: Lifetimes are limited.

If I informed you that you would gain complete and utter enlightenment, infinite peace, ultimate wisdom--WHATEVER--and all you had to do was to verbally count to a billion...and you were foolish enough to try it (foolish because there's no REASON to believe it would work), and it didn't work, and I then came along and said "Well, for 95% of people it works the first time, the other 5% need to do it a second time." Would you start counting again?

One has an OPEN MIND. One INVESTIGATES. And then if one finds NO EVIDENCE OF THE PHENOMENON then the only sensible choice is to investigate OTHER PATHS.

Only a fool fails to learn from previous mistakes.

What you DO NOT REALIZE (and what would do you a great deal of good to TRY TO REALIZE) is that you are CHOOSING THINGS YOU WANT TO BELIEVE and then conducting a LIFELONG SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE. And what you're not seeing is that your choices are, at best, ARBITRARY--and that someone ELSE would probably choose SOMETHING ELSE.

A more efficient way to go about things is to REALLY have an open mind, and search for truth NO MATTER WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, instead of FIRST believing things, and THEN searching for them.

Believers, generally, are fools--no matter what they believe, and no matter that occasionally they turn out to be CORRECT. (and by "believer" of course I mean someone who believes something is true IN SPITE OF a lack of real evidence for it).

One does not have to live as a BELIEVER (despite the impression many are given--or derive--as children). One can live as a LEARNER and a PERCEIVER and a THINKER. Trust me, the second alternative is preferable.

1) Give me a reference.
2) Tell me what IT MEANS that MANY OTHER similar experiments were repeated by skeptics and DID NOT produce the same results.

EDIT: And I'll note here, from Sheldrake's OWN WEBSITE, that, according to Wiseman (the skeptic), his repetition of the experiment FAILED to get the same results (even though Sheldrake insists this isn't true). So surely, the concept of "skeptics getting the same results" is questionable--when the skeptic insists he DIDN'T get the same results.

Here is a response to the issue from Wiseman. Besides the specific debunking, Wiseman notes that the dog's (that's right, singular--this entire business rests on fooling around a bit with ONE DOG) actions could easily be described as [my paraphrase] "Going to the porch more often, and staying there longer, the longer his owner was gone."

Given that sort of description (which sounds PERFECTLY reasonable and LIKELY) isn't this really rather a STUPID TOPIC??

Your believing a helluvalot of quick judgements your making on a guy, based on only hearing 10 minutes of an hour + long talk

"1) Give me a reference."
watch more of the video or research some of his books/ideas/talks/ect. There is plenty of experiments discussed.

EDIT: just saw your edit, ill check out the links

Just because me and others find Sheldrakes ideas interesting doesn't mean we are dogmatic believers like you keep assuming..I read his book and there was some interesting evidence and ideas discussed, which i thought was a unique possible model that may in part help understand many of my experiences..although i actually try not to believe in anything, but suspend myself and look at all possibilities..so i completely understand why your raving against 'believers' like this, i've often done the same. But, its funny, while in this frame of mind..to realize that, while we are consciously withholding belief in certain things, we are often completely unaware of other assumptions we are making about reality.

Right. I found such ideas "interesting" too, for MANY YEARS. I'm trying to pass along the experience of someone who did IN FACT find such things "interesting" for many years.

My advice for those who find the ideas interesting:

1) Consider HISTORY. A history of CLAIMS followed by a history of NO SUPPORT.
2) Consider science: A substantial period of quite OPEN MINDED INTEREST among many, leading to a fading of interest over a long period of time.
3) Consider the history of the DATA TYPES: When people were MORE GULLIBLE, claims were made of OUTRIGHT MAGIC, and people who could perform psychic stunts at will. NOW.....a few percentage points unexpected outcome on millions of data points--that could be difficult to analyze vs experimental design--about dogs moving around the house, or people expecting phone calls.

Wiseman did achieve a replication, but said it was a failure because of the experimental method as you have.

I do believe in telepathy as far as one can believe in something. I've had a few experiences inform that belief, and I think I have seen it demonstrated in research. Am I delusional or a fool? perhaps, but anyone could be. People produce beliefs like trees produce leaves. Voltaire said doubt is an uncomfortable position, but certainty is an absurd one. I do believe in these phenomena, but I don't believe in them to exclusion of all other positions. I agree with you SWIMfriend that one must follow truth and not lead it, but to the best of my knowledge that's what I'm doing. I could always be wrong and I remain open to that possibility, but as far as I know telepathy is real.

You keep saying these phenomena have been rejected after many years of open inquiry by academia. From my reading of the history of parapsychology, it was hounded at every turn since its inception, and continues to be. I also disagree with the point that there is no evidence to support such things. Do you have a link or book I could read that show these topics were given a fair hearing in academia as you claim? If you would like to see where I'm getting my information, I recommend "parapsychology and the skeptics" by Chris Carter, "Outside the gates of Science" by Damien Broderick and "The End of Materialism" by Charles Tart. I'm open to your points and willing to look into them, but I need something more than your word that these topics have no evidence behind them despite being giving a fair hearing over a long period of time, and no, you repeating your points constantly doesn't cut it for me. I've read skeptical articles on the topic, but almost universally they seem to have the same kind of repetition that you have been using, namely, that there is no evidence for these things, any positive result must necessarily be a flawed experiment, and people who believe in such things do so because only because they really want to. AutoGanzfeld experiment hit rates hold steady at about 32% with meta-analysis. The other promising experiments are those of presentiment, or the body's unconsciousness mechanisms reacting before an event.

"Why do we not accept ESP as a psychological fact? Rhine has offered enough evidence to have convinced us on almost any other issue... Personally, I do not accept ESP for a moment, because it does not make sense. My external criteria, both of physics and of physiology, say that ESP is not a fact despite the behavioral evidence that has been reported. I cannot see what other basis my colleagues have for rejecting it... Rhine may still turn out to be right, improbable as I think that is, and my own rejection of his view is - in the literal sense - prejudice." -Psychologist Donald Webb

"Believers in psychic phenomena... appear to have won a decisive victory and virtually silenced opposition.... This victory is the result of careful experimentation and intelligent argumentation. Dozens of experimenters have obtained positive results in ESP experiments, and the mathematical procedures have been approved by leading statisticians.... Against all this evidence, almost the only defense remaining to the skeptical scientist is ignorance."
"If, then, parapsychology and modern science are incompatible, why not reject parapsychology? ...The choice is between believing in something "truly revolutionary" and "radically contradictory to contemporary thought" and believing in the occurrence of fraud and self-delusion. Which is more reasonable?" -George Price, University of Minnesota Department of Medicine

I'm curious SWIMfriend, you have posted more than anyone else in this thread and others that deal with similar issues such as the Stephen Hawking and the afterlife thread, what motivates you? I'm asking this as a matter of intellectual curiosity. It seems like you focus on these subjects very strongly and believe very strongly that any non-materialistic position is invariably incorrect. I apologize if that is a wrong characterization of you, but that is the way it seems to me.

^^ I agree that if you have PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and have formed personal beliefs in response, that's a perfectly "reasonable" and acceptable position to have (even though it may turn out to be "wrong," of course). What I have a PROBLEM with is people (including those you quote) insisting that there is RELIABLE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for these phenomena--it's my opinion that is NOT a correct description of the state of study of psychic phenomenon. IMO a proper description would be that there is NOT yet reliable objective evidence of psychic phenomena.

My interest is rather my BOREDOM and frustration with those who seek to be spiritual who ALSO seem to feel that spirituality must involve some manner of "magical thinking." I'd like to enlighten people that spirituality and RATIONALITY (even materialism) are not mutually EXCLUSIVE--not hardly--but in fact go very well together. For example, the best scientific understanding, taken from a wide perspective, goes together VERY WELL with the spiritual idea that "everything is connected" "everything is the same."

I admit to sometimes finding a bit more "sloppy thinking" on the nexus than I'm completely happy about. IMO, if one is going to step into the unknown, one should be prepared to do some GOOD THINKING regarding the experiences.

I've also taken serious notice in the last few years of the advances in cognitive studies--and especially those areas investigating the apparently "instinctive" or "reflexive" ERRORS in cognition that people are all too apt to make. It's my opinion that many who would like to consider themselves serious about life would do well in becoming better acquainted with some of the pitfalls that may be inherent in their approach to information and knowledge.

you're certainly quick on the draw my friend

I want you to know I found your post quite enlightening and I agree with much of what you said.

That being said, I am not devoid of commentary (as per usual ) I have an issue with the proposition that rational explanations are necessarily materialistic ones. With my own experiences, I find sometimes non-materialistic explanations fit them better than materialistic ones, but that's my personal experience that cannot be applied others or effectively relayed to others for that matter, just like describing a DMT trip. I also have an issue with saying that science is inherently materialistic. Science is a method of inquiry and not an ideology, quantum entanglement comes to me mind as a phenomena where a non-material "force" appears to be involved. I'm not sure if that's what you what you were getting at, but it was my interpretation.

As for spirituality and magical thinking, if such phenomena exist as I believe or would like to believe they do, they would not be "magical" but in fact quite a natural part of the world. Things having to do with consciousness are inherently subjective, but just because there isn't a home run in a particular baseball game doesn't mean home runs don't exist.

Everyone should be aware that their beliefs could be wrong. Wisdom is knowing that you don't know and being human is thinking you do anyway.



I can't resist: http://xkcd.com/386/

See...I try to take that a step further, to: Everyone should believe that their beliefs are USELESS.

[and first, spare me the information that "everyone has beliefs, and beliefs are necessary." Yes, I BELIEVE as an American, that when I get in my car tomorrow, that it will still be proper to drive to the right. I won't have to call my state department of transportation to verify that before buckling up.]

But I see people HUGELY OVERUSE belief in their cognitive lives--to an extent that does them no favor. And I say this as someone who has DONE SO myself. It seems to be widespread (it goes beyond culture) that (at least young people) FIRST try to decide "what they believe" and then PROCEED FROM THERE. For example, you could compose a questionnaire with a MILLION QUESTIONS about "what is your belief"...about political parties, gender differences...oh, the list is INFINITE. And EVERYONE would no doubt have their belief VERY HANDY, and offer it up without a moment's thought.

People then TAKE THOSE BELIEFS and go about their business, they USE THEM as a reflector for reality. Sure, once in awhile they'll ponder a bit, and change their minds; but MOSTLY, they go through the day ever-looking for confirmations of their beliefs, and for how they can INTERPRET their perceptions to be IN LINE with their beliefs.

That's really a DEPRESSING state of affairs--yet it is the normal mode of consciousness of most people. Most people run their lives like that (my perceptions and analysis tell me). What's especially depressing is that those beliefs are almost surely ARBITRARY. Yet, unless one has given a lot of thought to the topics of thinking and knowing, that's what they SPEND THEIR LIFE DOING IN THEIR HEAD!

But there's an alternative: it's REJECTING belief as a "cognitive style" and "mental habit." Let me tell you, actually DOING THAT is quite liberating! FIRST, one confronts the fact that they actually know practically NOTHING--and that's scary. But then immediately one sees that they are FREE to try to FIND THINGS OUT! I'll say that, from that perspective, science becomes quite a draw, because it's BUILT so that the information if offers can be VERIFIED.

I'm shocked that people LOVE to think about things like ESP and heaven...and practically don't notice that science does REAL MAGIC ON A DAILY BASIS! People flying through the air--to a different continent in a few hours. Going to the MOON! Instant video and audio communication all over the world. Knowing the CHEMICAL BASIS of heredity and metabolism!

The simple and straightforward ORDINARY THINKING of science (observe, analyze, hypothesize, test, repeat) has done PURE MAGIC--and people take it for granted, and instead would rather amuse themselves giving consideration to whether or not people can know what others are thinking (when a superficial examination suggests straightforwardly that they can't).

But I don't mean to suggest that science is the only thing, or everything. Just an example.

Once you develop the habit of challenging EVERYTHING, ALL THE TIME, you can realize the huge amount of waste you have engaged in by filling your head with CRAP all day long. And instead, gradually, you can actually begin to LEARN THINGS with TRUTH VALUE, that you personally own, because you personally REVEALED the truth value. It's fascinating to me that people BELIEVE they conduct their lives in such a way, BUT DON'T. I give the example of science because that IS the way scientists should think: It should always be a scientist's interest to find ways to DISPROVE his assumptions. "Positive" proofs in science are impossible--one can only add additional evidence. But NEGATIVE results are absolute: Find a white blackbird and you have PROVED that not all blackbirds are black. This is simply NOT the mental state of most people most of the time (or even scientists. I earned a science PhD at a world class research institution--and I'll say that the experience certainly started me on the path toward asking these questions. It's interesting that many really good scientists can apply this mindset to their WORK--and then COMPLETELY switch over to a "belief-type" mind state in their regular lives.)

So, at any rate. What I mean to say is that I've found the THINKING in this thread less than ideal. I've seen believers, who want to believe, and who are HIGHLY interested in supporting evidence, and NEARLY BLIND to discounting evidence. It just bores me, actually. I'm MUCH less interested in the final FACTS of "ESP" (I've considered the evidence, and its milieu, and it fits nicely into "folklore-type" knowledge--things many people believe, yet are unsupported by evidence or testing) than I am in how people come to their opinions and beliefs regarding it. For me, there's much more to learn from that perspective. I suppose you could say that I'm much more interested in understanding WHY people think what they think, rather than in fact what they think (but too often, BOTH things are boring).

That's inevitable in a thread like this--and why shouldn't it be. I think that a considerable part of cognitive life should be spent on determining the truth values of ideas and reports of others (and our own, of course).

Its hard to argue the finer details since they both make alot of claims that we can't verify or deny without the books or the experiments results..Did you even read both the links? Sounds like your just jumping the gun and calling it a stupid topic but didn't even look past wisemans argument..Sheldrake replies to all of their counterpoints..and these tests have been done with many dogs hundreds of times, not just one dog like your saying. Wiseman admits the dog went to the door in a similar pattern as in Sheldrakes experiment with him..but denys this is of significance and says it was because, like you quoted, the dog was "Going to the porch more often, and staying there longer, the longer his owner was gone." (the dog was there an average of 4% of the time during the main period of Pam's absence, and 78% of the time when she was on the way home)..to which rupert replies with
"they suggest that Jaytee may simply have gone to the window more and more the longer Pam was out, and hence been there most when she was on the way home. But a comparison of Jaytee's behaviour during Pam's short, medium and long absences shows that this was not the case (Sheldrake, 1999b). Moreover, in control experiments in which Pam did not come home, Jaytee did not go to the window more and more as time went on (Sheldrake, 1999b, Figure B.2). "
and goes on to say how the dog was actually at the porch most often in the first hour..and also says

"In conclusion, I agree with Wiseman, Smith & Milton (2000, p.49) that my analysis of their data "would not provide compelling evidence of psi ability unless it were supported by a larger body of research." he then references the research. so who knows

Your preaching to the choir with your musings on belief and challenging everything.. I've done this for years .. but can't help but be interested in this kind of thing since i see it all the time and have documented countless cases of syncronistic and possibly telepathic experiences in my life which occur far beyond statistical probabilities. Many are intertwined with psychic processes of great meaning and value, while others are just quirky as hell and seemingly mean nothing on the surface, but nevertheless baffle..

Take this past weekend, for example: just 36 hours ago i headed to my parents house to visit them and some friends..for some reason i choose a batman t-shirt i hadn't worn in 6 months. While on the highway, i notice my old best friend, who lives right next to my parents house, is driving behind me flashing his lights and smiling. coincidence..in a big city there is always a chance of seeing someone you know on the highway.. then i get home and see my brother, who i'd never seen in this shirt, wearing the same exact batman shirt as I. coincidence..then im telling my mother about my roomate, of whom she'd never met, and she gawks at her name- and relates to me that her and alot of our family friends used to party with her parents years and years ago, that they fixed our snowmobiles and even helped build our cabin hundreds of miles up north..was probably purely coincidental..but to make it stranger, it was pure chance that i ended up living with this girl i barely knew and everything fell into place in odd ways.

Then i take off with my friend and head to another close friends house, a girl who i've had countless experiences like this with..she walks out to the car in a batman tshirt. i was appalled, and had never seen her in one. She said she'd just bought it, on a whim, the day before. Later, when talking about this to my sister, she says how she was just with her good childhood friend (who is also my friend), and learned that she is driving to her colleges city tomorrow to sign up for as an extra in the next batman the dark knight film they're shooting there. Odd string of batman ...and, like many of these things,reliably repeating and testing these sorts of experiences is something that almost never works for me, although occasionally it seems to. What does it all mean, and is it purely coincidental? I have no idea.. But i've documented countless cases like this and many far stranger..if not 'true', whatever that means, atleast for the entertainment value

Please, don't be deluded into thinking i interpret this as proof of the phenomena and ramble about belief again..we get it. I try and look at these experiences from as many possible interpretations as i can think of, and not cling to any..i'm just relating why this topic is personally fascinating to me..and saying reality, throughout history, has always been way stranger than most assume

I'm afraid I can't spare you that. Everyone has to live and die with their own stupid beliefs, including you. "Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." -Max Planck. Attempting to turn the masses to your own way or the "correct" way of thinking is the province of evangelicals of any stripe and politicians. Sure, you may convince some, but for the most part, its simply a frustrating exercise that will only end up frustrating you. I'm too much of a hedonist to engage in a futile attempt to make everyone else "see the light" of my way, as it were. I will defend what I believe to be right under certain circumstances because i believe my beliefs deserve a fair defense, but I have no delusions of convincing everyone else, that's their own decision. Always has always will be.

"I ceased in the year 1764 to believe that one can convince one's opponents with arguments printed in books. It is not to do that, therefore, that I have taken up my pen, but merely so as to annoy them, and to bestow strength and courage on those on our own side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us." - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

Based on your post, your beliefs could include: 1. beliefs are useless. 2. Most people go around seeking to support their own belief system. 3. That the previous is a depressing state of affairs 4. The scientific method has accomplished amazing things. 5. There is no evidence for psi. 6. removal of beliefs is liberating. 7. People need to step outside of their belief systems. You may or may not thinking of them as beliefs, but they are, and they appear to be quite strongly held. They are interpretations of reality that can be debated. It's not that I disagree with you on much of what you have said or "believe". Honestly, I find your points quite interesting and I'm glad you posted them, but implying that you are above or mostly above belief is a bit of a stretch for me.

I believe in Psi, but I have not ignored the other side. I don't believe in anything to the exclusion of any other option, thats silly. But almost without exception, this line of thought applies to psi skeptics that I have been in contact with:

1. There is no good evidence for psi throughout the millenia of human civilization and decades of research into the topic. (Since there is substantial anecdotal evidence and psi research attains statistically signifigant results rather frequently, especially with meta-analysis, we move on to step 2)

2. Wherever positive evidence appears, it is necessarily flawed thinking, whether it be flawed people, flawed experiments or flawed researchers. (Therefore)

3. All supposed evidence of psi must be the result of people wanting to believe in it. (Therefore, refer to point 1)

There is always room for criticizing research methods, but if its all you have it begins to look like denial.

I have not seen you or any other "skeptic" including Wiseman, step out of this schema in all that I've read of their material. Essentially, in my opinion, all you have done is repeat the above since you've been in this thread. this approach could be leveled at just about anything in the soft sciences, and as such it does not convince me in the least especially having read the experiments I have and experienced what I have. The controversy over Anti-Depressant functionality could be easily dismissed by such means. Anti-depressents do not work better than placeo, therefore any evidence of them working results from the placebo or researches on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies. QED there is no evidence that they have effects better than placebo.

If you can support the points you made about psi research: that it was given a good chance, failed, and continues to fail, I would very much like to see the documentation that exists apart from your points. I have provided you with leads to find my documentation and I can provide more if you would like to read into it. Frankly, based on your previous post I'm doubting you have anything more to say on the subject than the bullet points I've listed.

Edit: Universecannon: I found your experiences very interesting. I myself have had many, many minor occurrences that strongly suggest the existence of psi. Usually I will jump before a noise startles me. I have often heard the phone or doorbell shortly before it rings. I have also had the inexplicable urge to call someone who really needed my help several times. As a kid, I would sometimes dream of having a breakfast my mom was about to make. I've also dreamt of people in my life before I've met them. I've also witnessed a friend predict the details of a car accident someone close to her had months in advance, including weather and the song that was playing. Was it psi? well, i can't be sure know, but that seems like a better explanation than many.

I agree with universecannon as well, we've all heard quite a bit about challenging authority, including that of your own beliefs. I posted this becuase I thought it was interesting, and I think there may be something to psi. I think the evidence is out there and someone just saying that it isn't and giving their word that they've looked into it deeply doesn't do an iota of anything for me.

"Its hard to argue the finer details since they both make alot of claims that we can't verify or deny without the books or the experiments results..Did you even read both the links? Sounds like your just jumping the gun and calling it a stupid topic but didn't even look past wisemans argument..Sheldrake replies to all of their counterpoints..and these tests have been done with many dogs hundreds of times, not just one dog like your saying. Wiseman admits the dog went to the door in a similar pattern as in Sheldrakes experiment with him..but denys this is of significance and says it was because, like you quoted, the dog was "Going to the porch more often, and staying there longer, the longer his owner was gone." (the dog was there an average of 4% of the time during the main period of Pam's absence, and 78% of the time when she was on the way home)..to which rupert replies with
"they suggest that Jaytee may simply have gone to the window more and more the longer Pam was out, and hence been there most when she was on the way home. But a comparison of Jaytee's behaviour during Pam's short, medium and long absences shows that this was not the case (Sheldrake, 1999b). Moreover, in control experiments in which Pam did not come home, Jaytee did not go to the window more and more as time went on (Sheldrake, 1999b, Figure B.2). "
and goes on to say how the dog was actually at the porch most often in the first hour..and also says"

^that.

Please SWIMfriend if you want to participate is these discussion, at least fully participate rather than comming here commenting on something you never even bothered to fully look into. It is arrogant and makes you look biased and dogmatic. If you cant be bothered to fully research the links you yourself post then I dont see what relevance your post even has? Instead of making it out as if the link is saying something it is NOT, you might as well read all of it so you at least have some idea reguarding what we are even referring to here.

Well...it is denial (but not QUITE in the psychological sense). If the evidence isn't compelling, it's "denied." That's even more true when the subject under discussion is FANTASTIC, and contravenes ALL that we have learned for the last four hundred years--and that has taken us SO FAR.

It's a matter of practicality: one can't spend a LIFETIME investigating any and all claims with energy and intensity. Instead (and this is the practical reality) people who make NEW CLAIMS have to supply relatively EASY and ACCESSIBLE evidence. If they can't, they have to go back to the drawing board (or the lab) and see what they can come up with.

Let's take a practical and real example: People insisting that their loved ones get well when they pray to jesus. That sort of ridiculous claim HAS BEEN STUDIED (more than once) by science! IOW, it's incorrect to say that science is unwilling to investigate far out ideas. AND, it's important to note, the results VARIED between trials; a few FOUND a link, a few DIDN'T, then the final one, supposedly the best and most thorough one, actually found a slight (but statistically defensible) DETRIMENT to intercessory prayer. I think the moral of that story is STOP THE BULLSHIT. If you have a phenomenon, SHOW IT. Show it in a way that is IRREFUTABLE and ACCESSIBLE.

Let's take the case of Stan Prusiner and the prion. When Prusiner first put forward the idea that a simple protein could cause an "infectious" disease, he was laughed at. He CONTINUED to be laughed at--because the idea was contrary to the understanding of the mechanisms of infection. His ideas were ultimately ACCEPTED when his experimental data reached a point where IT COULDN'T BE DENIED. Scientific denial; that's how it works; new ideas (especially ones that contravene EVERYTHING that went before) are DENIED, UNTIL their evidence becomes undeniable.

But evidence for "psi" has trended the other way; if anything it's claims become weaker and weaker as time goes on (and you are NOT seriously acknowledging this in your considerations). There was a time when it was actually accepted by a fair proportion of scientists, that people might VERY WELL be able to move things with their minds, etc. Certainly, many CLAIMED to have this ability, and were eager to demonstrate it. It's only reasonable to take people at their word initially, more or less.

What you're not addressing is the fact that science has only QUITE RECENTLY (say, the last forty years of human history) focused on paranormal claims; and that focus has functioned to DISSIPATE claims--to the point now, where people have to take statistical measurement of where dogs are in the house, and try to come up with convincing numbers. In most cases, when science begins to focus, things are FOUND; but when science began to focus on paranormal realities, reports and evidence began to EVAPORATE.

And...I don't even want to get INTO how ridiculous the "dog experiment" seems (I have the sinking feeling that there wasn't even a true RANDOMIZING of the decision to come home**--and that most returns were probably in "two or three hours" which was the amount of time most owners actually did stay away most times!). But lets ignore the ridiculous and focus on the intellectually FRAUDULENT: Reading Wiseman's critique that I linked to, it seems that decisions were made on the experimental design...AFTER the experiments themselves were finished. As Wiseman tells it, at FIRST the idea was to note when the dog went to a certain place, THEN it was changed to when the dog went to a place and stayed there for a minimum time (which is how it was left between them, and which is the method that Wiseman used in his experiments), THEN apparently Sheldrake decided to change it to CUMULATIVE TIME spent in different places. Wiseman makes the obvious point that probably the dogs KNEW FROM EXPERIENCE the owner wouldn't return immediately--so they didn't even BOTHER to go to the porch to look for the first hour or so. Really, what a joke this entire thing is. What a joke Sheldrake is.

But this is the problem. After MANY YEARS of hope and desire and BELIEF, any "evidence" has been reduced to the kind of crap discussed above. It's that TREND that is telling. The evidence stinks...The evidence is getting STINKIER...And EXTREMELY STRONG evidence is required to turn heads from the EXTREMELY WELL SUPPORTED idea that only physical things affect physical things.

**I mention this because I haven't the slightest doubt that dogs might very well be able to READ from their owner's attitude an impression of how long they might be away. I certainly know that I try to SIGNAL such information to my dogs when I leave--I only say "be good dogs" when I know I'm going to be away all day, for example. My dogs in particular can practically "read my mind." I can be working on my computer, and make a mental decision to take them to the park, and they're ALREADY EXCITED by the time I'm putting the mouse up. It's obvious to me that I give a particular "sigh" when I'm "changing direction" and am going to stop work, and go play. I think people don't consider that, because dogs don't spend time THINKING, they can spend all their time PERCEIVING. My dogs, in particular, give nearly CONTINUOUS examples they can "read my mind," but what they're really reading is my body language.

It's almost a cliche, but I feel I have to bring it up just in case you've never heard of Clever Hans. I'll note that it took some number of years to debunk him by the obvious method of asking a question his HANDLER couldn't answer. That simple method, by the way, was used to debunk facilitated communication, as well--something believed to be valid by a fair number of academic psychologists. And I MENTION these examples to note that science IS OPEN to some fair investigation of claims, and that it often takes a lot of WORK and TIME to step up and DEBUNK such things. But people have to get used to the idea that they can't make unsupported CLAIMS, then insist scientists devote lots of TIME and EFFORT to demonstrate/debunk them, and THEN go around claiming they're true, because scientists haven't shown definitively that they AREN'T true.

So...when I say I was interested in such things for TWENTY YEARS that doesn't get me legitimate entre into the discussion, but when I say I watched only TEN OR SO MINUTES of an hour long video (and while nobody else in the discussion has REPORTED on how much of the video they watched), my presence is illegitimate?




I have no idea what you're talking about. What link have I posted and "made it out" as if the link is saying something it has not?

If you are referring to bird flocks, they are discussed in the video (did YOU watch it??). The video is the topic of discussion, as it is linked in the OP. In your post #16 you asked if I had even LISTENED to the video. I went back and listened some more, and it took only a few minutes to find yet ANOTHER THING to criticize about the video content. I wonder, do you even PERCEIVE arguments or evidence that is against your position? Sometimes it seems you don't.

EDIT: And, btw, the link to "straight dope" that I provided cites direct high-speed video observation of bird flocks in flight, which explains "how the birds do it." I wonder, did you read that far into the link I provided to CONFRONT that evidence?

Hard indeed. Did you note that Wiseman claims that Sheldrake didn't even bother to PUBLISH his experiments in a journal? A reasonable supposition (and one that Wiseman hints at), is that the DETAILS of Sheldrake's work on this wouldn't stand objective scrutiny.


I see reason to believe (from Wiseman's discussion) that Sheldrake likely has invoked post hoc experimental criteria--and BIG no-no. Since Sheldrake chose NOT to publish this work in a peer reviewed journal, but only in a book, I seriously question whether he HIMSELF believes that the work would withstand journal-level scrutiny.


I'm glad you carefully read Wiseman's report of the four experiments he did with the dog. I wonder if you noted that in the LAST TWO of the experiments, the dog FAILED to signal the returns at all? That leaves us with the dog going to the porch for more than 2 minutes TWELVE OR THIRTEEN TIMES since the owner left, in the first two experiments, and not going to the porch AT ALL during the time the owner was returning during the last two experiments. You find that in any way convincing?


Are you considering that his claim in his book that Wiseman's measurements "confirmed" the dog was anticipating his owner's arrival are (as Wiseman says) "misleading" to say the least? Why did Sheldrake not possess the honesty to fully produce Wiseman's experiments and criticism? It's that sort of lack of candor that would tend to make me DISTRUST reports from Sheldrake on fundamental grounds.



This does typify a type of "survivor bias" and "post hoc" analysis that can be cognitively tricky for lots of people. That you have a tendency to note such things suggests to me that your claimed habit of "doubting things" may be not as ingrained as you would like to believe.


Well, you say: "What does it all mean, and is it purely coincidental? I have no idea.. But i've documented countless cases like this and many far stranger"

To me that means you DO interpret such things as "quasi-proof." You take the opportunity to "document" such coincidental occurrences, and they seem to MEAN something to you. Would it really be "delusion" for a reader of this to conclude that you have a tendency to believe that coincidences have special "meaning" beyond coincidence?

I'd like to summarize a bit about Sheldrake and the dogs.

Sheldrake is a very well-trained scientist. If he has evidence of something as earth-shaking as telepathic communication he would SURELY want to convince fellow scientists--which would be the most direct route to general acceptance of the phenomenon. Since he apparently chose NOT to--and instead write a book to sell to the public--it's only reasonable to infer that he felt the work would not be convincing to scientists.

I can't see all the details of the experiments he CLAIMS (after learning more about him I have reason to think that he might not be entirely truthful in reporting results of experiments), but judging from those I CAN see they are problematic. A mere compiling, on ten minute intervals, of total time spent in a particular place does not reflect careful experimental design. I agree with Wiseman that it would be difficult to separate out a difference between the dog's DESIROUS ANTICIPATION of the owner's arrival with the dog's KNOWLEDGEABLE ANTICIPATION of the owner's arrival. Doing so would be QUITE tricky, IMO. And then drawing conclusions from general TIMING, rather than a strict yes/no signal as Wiseman naturally tended to use, would require really a LOT of data--thousands and thousands of trials. I can KNOW that Sheldrake doesn't have such data simply because it would require MANY YEARS to compile--especially if owner returns were truly randomized over sufficiently long time periods (say, ten minutes to twenty hours).

I do take special note of Sheldrake's remark about the bird flocking maneuvers mentioned in the video. It turns out that his impression of "magic" in the bird's responses can be undone simply with high-speed photographic analysis. I have to wonder how strong his scientific mindset is on these issues if he himself never considered that, or never even tried it as a short personal experiment.

I'm not remotely impressed by Sheldrake. His work is poor. I'm MUCH more impressed by the QUALITY of attempts of others. Work with random number generators has been extensive, and a recent meta-analysis claims that a very small, but statistically significant effect can be shown (which can then be discounted from the broader perspective of "publication bias" ). Here a quote from wikipedia:

Major meta-analyses of the RNG database have been published every few years since appearing in the journal Foundations of Physics in 1986.[13] PEAR founder Robert G. Jahn and his colleague Brenda Dunne say that the effect size in all cases was found to be very small, but consistent across time and experimental designs, resulting in an overall statistical significance. The most recent meta-analysis on psychokinesis was published in Psychological Bulletin, along with several critical commentaries.[76][77] It analyzed the results of 380 studies; the authors reported an overall positive effect size that was statistically significant but very small relative to the sample size and could be explained by publication bias.

My personal conclusion is that more work of value has been performed in the last thirty years by cognitive scientists helping us become aware of our deficits investigating tricky and vague phenomena than by psychic researchers. Scientific research on psychic phenomena has WANED as it has been UNFRUITFUL, while scientific work in other areas during the same time period has been EXTREMELY FRUITFUL. What does that suggest?

I am a scientist. If I had evidence of telepathy I personally would not publish it unless I could get a lot of support in private from other leading researchers and they were willing to copublish with me.

In science, academia especially, your reputation is everything. It effects your employment. It effects your ability to get grants. It also effects your future ability to publish since the peer review process is not annonymous. Many researchers shy away from interesting topics because they aren't excepted areas of research.

Also the peer review system is not perfect by a long shot...but it is the best we currently have. There are a few changes that need to be made to bring it back in check like annonimity of the publishingg author. Also research from funds derived from tax dollars should be published in open access journalsm that are freely available...but i should stop there because this could easily be it's own thread.

Anyway just my two cents worth.