|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:40 am
In essence Daryl Bem, a physics major gone psychology, has run many experiments with over a 1000 people, and has begun to publish his work showing evidence for precognitive activity. Mind you, he was originally interested in this work when he was asked to determine the flaws in another positive-results experiment on extrasensory perception. The links provided are (1) The Cornell university's newspaper, and (2) the pfd document[readable in adobe reader or Mozilla Firefox] in which Bem records his data, abstract, and etc. "Precognitive Approach and Avoidance The presentiment studies provide evidence that our physiology can anticipate unpredictable erotic or negative stimuli before they occur. Such anticipation would be evolutionarily advantageous for reproduction and survival if the organism could act instrumentally to approach erotic stimuli and avoid negative stimuli. The two experiments in this section were designed to test whether individuals can do so." - [from the pfd doc] Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect Pg. 6 (1) http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Dec10/BemStudy.html 'Evidence for Psychic Activity Found" (2) http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf_________________________________________________________ I just wanted to make sure this information spreads.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:02 pm
I did a blog post on this a while ago, and then one with my general opinions about a week ago. I'm not optimistic that this will change anything. It was an interesting paper though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:19 pm
Change occurs in increments or in great bursts.
It also seems that you are consistently my only responder.
It'll take more stumped scientists to reverse the paradigm, but here's hoping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:06 pm
Ephemeral Lazarus Change occurs in increments or in great bursts. It also seems that you are consistently my only responder. It'll take more stumped scientists to reverse the paradigm, but here's hoping. Looking at the failed attempts to replicate it so far, I'm not optimistic. It is probably the best protocol I've seen for that kind of experiment though. I really do think that the sheep/goat effect will keep us from getting any good replications on this stuff though. I just don't worry about it too much anymore. The good stuff is macro-PK. If someone can do that under laboratory conditions then that will be the end of the debate on psi, at least the "Does it exist?" part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:02 am
Parapsychology has been studied for decades, with their findings published. No one pays attention to it, however, because they pick out flaws in design and execution (though every study has them). The thing is, the scientific community, and particularly hard sciences such as biology, want the experiments done on their terms before they'll ever believe it. That's the simple fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:42 pm
Azana Brown Parapsychology has been studied for decades, with their findings published. No one pays attention to it, however, because they pick out flaws in design and execution (though every study has them). The thing is, the scientific community, and particularly hard sciences such as biology, want the experiments done on their terms before they'll ever believe it. That's the simple fact. There's also prejudice towards fields like parapsychology. So much so that they seem to be held to a much higher standard than the mainstream sciences. The same power of effect that is treated as coincidence in a psi study is treated as healthcare breakthrough when it's about aspirin preventing heart attacks. Never mind that some psi studies have shown more robust statistics than the aspirin studies ever did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:48 pm
Exactly, Obscurus. 3nodding As I said, they want it on their terms, and even then it may be dismissed. Scientism isn't ready to accept things like psi. It might never be, since it has been relegated to the realms of superstition and psychopathology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:07 am
I don't see the Scientific Consensus as an impenetrable wall, but more so a mighty dam. Science itself of course accepts anything that can be positively proven, until it can be disproven, it has no favourites for gravity or light or anything that we as humans might assume to be set in stone.
Case in point, the faster than light neutrino work. The methodology seems to be robust enough to not be dismissed out of hand. A lot of people say that it's not true simply because it overturns too much of our current understanding, but enough people are reasonable enough that presented with such a result, they're open to it. A trickle through the dam in place after place and sooner or later, it breaks, and what was once canon is now an antiquity.
Perhaps psi, researched in such a way that it receives more and more validity and acceptance will build up enough to change understanding in some way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:23 pm
Joshua_Ritter I don't see the Scientific Consensus as an impenetrable wall, but more so a mighty dam. Science itself of course accepts anything that can be positively proven, until it can be disproven, it has no favourites for gravity or light or anything that we as humans might assume to be set in stone.
Case in point, the faster than light neutrino work. The methodology seems to be robust enough to not be dismissed out of hand. A lot of people say that it's not true simply because it overturns too much of our current understanding, but enough people are reasonable enough that presented with such a result, they're open to it. A trickle through the dam in place after place and sooner or later, it breaks, and what was once canon is now an antiquity.
Perhaps psi, researched in such a way that it receives more and more validity and acceptance will build up enough to change understanding in some way. It's not really science that's the problem, it's the bias of people claiming to practice it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:40 am
Obscurus Joshua_Ritter I don't see the Scientific Consensus as an impenetrable wall, but more so a mighty dam. Science itself of course accepts anything that can be positively proven, until it can be disproven, it has no favourites for gravity or light or anything that we as humans might assume to be set in stone.
Case in point, the faster than light neutrino work. The methodology seems to be robust enough to not be dismissed out of hand. A lot of people say that it's not true simply because it overturns too much of our current understanding, but enough people are reasonable enough that presented with such a result, they're open to it. A trickle through the dam in place after place and sooner or later, it breaks, and what was once canon is now an antiquity.
Perhaps psi, researched in such a way that it receives more and more validity and acceptance will build up enough to change understanding in some way. It's not really science that's the problem, it's the bias of people claiming to practice it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:55 pm
Joshua_Ritter Obscurus Joshua_Ritter I don't see the Scientific Consensus as an impenetrable wall, but more so a mighty dam. Science itself of course accepts anything that can be positively proven, until it can be disproven, it has no favourites for gravity or light or anything that we as humans might assume to be set in stone.
Case in point, the faster than light neutrino work. The methodology seems to be robust enough to not be dismissed out of hand. A lot of people say that it's not true simply because it overturns too much of our current understanding, but enough people are reasonable enough that presented with such a result, they're open to it. A trickle through the dam in place after place and sooner or later, it breaks, and what was once canon is now an antiquity.
Perhaps psi, researched in such a way that it receives more and more validity and acceptance will build up enough to change understanding in some way. It's not really science that's the problem, it's the bias of people claiming to practice it. I'm not really concerned with leading people in any direction. My primary goal is fighting for freedom of choice. I don't really care if a person beliefs in werewolves or fairies; they have the right to choose those beliefs. To counter the nearly-inevitable posting of whatstheharm.net from some random atheist that you get after stating something like that I'll say that there is harm in everything, not just irrational beliefs. I'm going to cut this off before it becomes a tirade though. Bottom line: Freedom to choose. That freedom of choice still comes with consequences like any choice does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
