any empirical evidence for paraphsychology?

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

I have been contaminated with confusing contradicting bias data on the evidence.
Esp
Psychokinese
Poltergeists
OBE
NDE
PSI
can any of this be scientifically verified?

 

[Jet Black]

nope.

 

[Siliconaut]

Not that I know. So far, there has never been a series of experiments that proved without a shadow of a doubt that any "extrasensory perception" and related PSI phenomena had any ground in reality. At all.

Honestly, I won't rule out the sheer possibility of any of those hypotheses being valid - but the current evidence strongly suggests they're no more real than Santa.

Sometimes, claims are made that laboratory conditions and the presence of skeptics inhibit these phenomena. Tell-tale...

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

I can think of one example that gets me thinking about the possibility that maybe some aspect of this is true........
A few years ago I was working night shift, on the way home there was a van in front of me ( the back of the van covered with hundreds of bumper stickers) , a cop pulled over the van, as I was driving behind it.......

So when I get home, I wake my wife up and before I talk to her she tells me of a dream in which I was riding in a police car that was covered with bumper stickers.........

 

[PhantomLlama]

But think of all the billions of people in the world who come home and discover that their wife has in fact not been dreaming about events related to their own lives.

It had to happen to someone.

Many proffesional 'mystics' and similar refuse to perform if they know that a group of conjourors are watching.

Conjourors do the same tricks, but are honest about the deception. Professional mystics are most often swindlers.

 

[Arikay]

Ive been trying to find a report I read (and thought I bookmarked) along time ago about a study that found a very small percentage of people tested were able to perform much better at psychic type guessing game, then others.

There are also some people who are studying "ghosts" using science. Most will never say they have evidence that ghosts are souls or people, only that there is some strange evidence that needs to be looked into more. Like unexplainable photos and EVP recordings. Unfortunatly the small amount of real researchers and real evidence are overwhelmed by PseudoScientists and Bad evidence, like photos that are definatly not ghosts but a basic camera error, etc.

I like Mysticism but unfortunatly it majorly hurts any serious study of some of these unexplained things.

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

But think of all the billions of people in the world who come home and discover that their wife has in fact not been dreaming about events related to their own lives.

It had to happen to someone.

.

I suppose your probably right, I wonder what the probablity is that she would dream about a police car that was covered with bumperstickers. I know that when I got home, I made no mention of it, nothing that would plant that thought in her head. In fact I said nothing to her but good morning before she told me her dream.
I wish I would win the lottery.

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

Ive been trying to find a report I read (and thought I bookmarked) along time ago about a study that found a very small percentage of people tested were able to perform much better at psychic type guessing game, then others.

There are also some people who are studying "ghosts" using science. Most will never say they have evidence that ghosts are souls or people, only that there is some strange evidence that needs to be looked into more. Like unexplainable photos and EVP recordings. Unfortunatly the small amount of real researchers and real evidence are overwhelmed by PseudoScientists and Bad evidence, like photos that are definatly not ghosts but a basic camera error, etc.

I like Mysticism but unfortunatly it majorly hurts any serious study of some of these unexplained things.

The only book I have been able to find that seems to
be objective is "Para psychology, the controversial Science" By Richard S Broughton. Phd the director of research at the Istitute for parasychology in Durham, NC. He shows satistics that some people have a higher percentage sucsess rate, like you mentioned. But there are people who refute the claims saying you can manipulate the satistics to appear that way. I dont know math well enough to know understand the way they do it.

 

[foolsparade]

yeah I don't buy any of it, at least not yet. Just imagine what the implications of there being actual ghosts would be!

 

[psycmajor]

I did a Powerpoint presentation on this like, 3 years ago [my partner was such an idiot; she defined it as "paranormal ghosts"...the presentation was not the greatest quality...why do I always get the dumbest partners...anyway--]. But I'll be darned if I can remember much about it, as it's very controversial.

The major problem is, people have BIG misconceptions about what parapsychology IS.

I think the vast majority of stuff considered "paranormal" can be explained by natural phenomenon and human error and beliefs. However, some of it is a little more difficult to disprove.

Parapsychology IS scientific in that these "phenomenon" are studied carefully, hypotheses are made, tests are done to replicate the phenomenon, observations are done, etc. There are only about 30 full-time parapsychologists in the world.

So don't discount it out of ignorance. The field has validity, you just have to know the real stuff that goes on. Sadly, I think there are still many that think that plain psychology is not a science.

Here are some links for you:

http://www.psiresearch.org/
http://www.mdani.demon.co.uk/para/parintro.htm
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/basuyaux/parapsy_eng/links/index.html
http://www.amasci.com/weird/wpara.html



[Oh, and beware of those online so-called "psychic" tests...hmmmm...]

 

[psycmajor]

Oops, didn't answer the question.

Is there empirical evidence for it?

Well, I myself haven't delved extensively into it, but I'd say that it hasn't gone too far. I'm not saying that empirical evidence for it CANNOT exist. I think people are just afraid to touch it for fear that they'll lose credibility as social scientists. So the field doesn't get much research done, and it stays stigmatized. I've looked for different places that have courses in parapsyc, and there are very few that teach it. One of the reasons why is what I've already said above just now, and another reason (which I've also already said, but earlier) is probably because there's not a lot of work for parapsychologists. I guess they figure, "Why teach it, then?"
=================
Edit: I have another hypothesis about why parapsyc might not be taken seriously.

First of all, I think that there is a possibility that there is such a thing as psi phenomenon. Under the assumption that it exists [I won't say it definitely does or does not, for the purposes of being objective], I believe that it is not consistent. So while some people have an ability some of the time, nobody has it all of the time. When the person with the alleged psi abilities screws up, the skeptics jump all over them, saying that this is PROOF that the psi phenomenon DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL. Fatalistic, huh.

 

[Siliconaut]

@ReusablePhoenix:

... By Richard S Broughton. Phd the director of research at the Istitute for parasychology in Durham, NC. He shows satistics that some people have a higher percentage sucsess rate, like you mentioned.

There's the rub. Do we believe the Institute for Parapsychology would continue to be funded if it couldn't even tweak statistics to show there might at least be some value in parapsychological claims?

In an sufficiently large number of subjects, you'll always have a random few who defy the odds - be it at cards, bingo or coin-tossing. Unless those same people can reproducibly do this again and again under laboratory conditions, they're statistical errors.

 

[Siliconaut]

@psycmajor:

First of all, I think that there is a possibility that there is such a thing as psi phenomenon. Assuming that it exists, I believe that it is not consistent. So while some people have an ability some of the time, nobody has it all of the time. When the person with the alleged psi abilities screws up, the skeptics jump all over them, saying that this is PROOF that the psi phenomenon DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL. Fatalistic, huh.

I think that paints the real situation too black & white: It doesn't matter if you cannot dance all of the time. There may be days when your head hurts, or you trip over your feet. What you have to do is demonstrate that at least on average, you can dance better than the overall population average, in order to be taken seriously. You cannot succeed by saying "I can dance only when no-one is looking", unless you target your claims at the gullible.

That's the problem with parapsychology: It only "works" if no-one is looking too hard. That makes it unusable as a tool as well as unfalsifiable as a theory. If not at least *some* claims can be proven, what does that say about the general subject?

 

[Arikay]

Thats also one of the big problems. Some of the possible people who can Dance while someone else is looking, and the people wanting to study them, get drowned out by slimy scam artists and those who want to believe so much that they checked their skepticism at the door.

@psycmajor:
I think that paints the real situation too black & white: It doesn't matter if you cannot dance all of the time. There may be days when your head hurts, or you trip over your feet. What you have to do is demonstrate that at least on average, you can dance better than the overall population average, in order to be taken seriously. You cannot succeed by saying "I can dance only when no-one is looking", unless you target your claims at the gullible.

That's the problem with parapsychology: It only "works" if no-one is looking too hard. That makes it unusable as a tool as well as unfalsifiable as a theory. If not at least *some* claims can be proven, what does that say about the general subject?

 

[psycmajor]

siliconaut,

How do you know if they're "tweaking" statistics? It's not fair to accuse someone of doing something that you have no evidence that they are doing. If you were put on trial for a crime and jurors based their judgments on assumptions about you, I think you'd be pretty upset.

Furthermore, I wouldn't say that psi phenomenon "only" happens when people aren't looking too hard. I'm saying that I believe that IT CANNOT NECESSARILY BE INVOKED AT WILL. Period.

Think of it this way: you know wind exists, but you don't always feel it blowing. So because it's not always blowing, does that mean it NEVER existed?

----
Agreed, Arikay.

 

[psycmajor]

Siliconaut,

By the way, in any kind of science, NOTHING is "proven." You can find support or evidence for something, but never proof. Just something you should know.

 

[Siliconaut]

siliconaut,
How do you know if they're "tweaking" statistics? It's not fair to accuse someone of doing something that you have no evidence that they are doing. If you were put on trial for a crime and jurors based their judgments on assumptions about you, I think you'd be pretty upset.

Of course, that's an assumption. I haven't seen the alleged statistics, so I can't even be sure they exist at all. If someone could give me a link or show me where these stats are published, I'll do some research and re-evaluate my opinion.

Why I am skeptical of these institutes is simply that I don't know how far you can trust them. They have an obvious agenda (meaning they *must* return astounding results to remain funded) and thus have good reasons not to be too skeptical... so even if their statistics are right, we have to question the difference between them and the same experimentation results as found by skeptical researchers.

Furthermore, I wouldn't say that psi phenomenon "only" happens when people aren't looking too hard. I'm saying that I believe that IT CANNOT NECESSARILY BE INVOKED AT WILL. Period.

That wouldn't explain the different results between "believing" and "skeptical" researchers - the question of whether or not PSI can be willingly invoked wouldn't even enter the equation. And, of course, your argument can be seen as just another "I can only dance if no-one is watching" escapism - if PSI can't be invoked, how can you test it? The only way would be nailing people to chairs - and that goes against certain rights...

Think of it this way: you know wind exists, but you don't always feel it blowing. So because it's not always blowing, does that mean it NEVER existed?

Totally beside the point: Wind can be measured, recorded, tested. I'm not asking for PSI to work all of the time - I would like someone to show me it worked *at all*. Definition of working: Be correct more often than statistical average and errors would suggest. If you can repeatedly score better than blind chance, you're either definitely on to something or a good scammer.

PS: I know very well theories cannot be "proven" - but I thought it was obvious from the context that I was referring to the simple demonstration of working at all...

 

[Psyber freek]

Wouldn't biophotons and consciousness help explain psychic phenomona? After all, psychic abilities and consciousness do seem related to me.

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

sorry I dont have links, I shoul search the web for it I only have a book written by Richard S Broughton Phd, he is prez of International Parapsychogical Association.
The people who claim he tweaked satistics in his favor was also in a book and not on the web...skeptic mag I think. Ill post links if I find more

 

[Siliconaut]

@PsyberFreak: What exactly are "biophotons"? And how do you define consciousness? In my book, consciousness means your brain is working and you're consciously reacting to stimuli...