|
 nice1
Not the droid your looking for
Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 9,126
Loc: earth
Last seen: 2 hours, 22 minutes
|
 Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments)  1
#15691598 - 01/20/12 05:43 AM (4 months, 7 days ago) |
|
|
http://www.sheldrake.org/
Links to all his peer reviewed science papers are on his site.
He has run a lot of tests for telepathy using repeatable scientific tests to rule out any possible cheating or mundane explainations.
He has tested animals abilities to know when their owner is coming home and peoples abilities to know who his going to be phoning them and has show that theres a definite effect far beyond all statistical chance. The tests have been repeated by universities and skeptics world wide and the data has been replicated proving there is a definite and measurable effect. the tests are very precise and leave little room for error making it diffcult for skeptics to claim everyone is misinterpreting the data.
The tests have been reproduced and his papers are open for peer review. You can't get any more legit than this.
Edited by nice1 (01/20/12 10:10 AM)
|
 DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,841
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
 Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: nice1]
#15692072 - 01/20/12 08:59 AM (4 months, 7 days ago) |
|
|
What peers reviewed them?
|
ivander
LEAR. SPEC. SILO.
Registered: 11/01/08
Posts: 1,223
Last seen: 1 day, 5 hours
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: nice1]
#15692173 - 01/20/12 09:25 AM (4 months, 7 days ago) |
|
|
More input nice1 pls.. before this this one gets locked 
--------------------
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. - Nietzsche
I've never faked a sarcasm in my life. True story.
|
nice1
Not the droid your looking for
Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 9,126
Loc: earth
Last seen: 2 hours, 22 minutes
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: ivander]
#15692189 - 01/20/12 09:29 AM (4 months, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Hes had 25 published studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals, one of which was the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
I'm trying to find out which jounals from his site but its a lot of info to read through...
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,841
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: nice1]
#15692200 - 01/20/12 09:32 AM (4 months, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Yea, I went to his site too but I got bored and left. 
Ive never heard of The Journal of Scientific Exploration. I bet its a crackpot journal for crackpot ideas and researchers...
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 152,735
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck 
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: nice1] 1
#15693949 - 01/20/12 03:48 PM (4 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nice1 said:
Hes had 25 published studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals, one of which was the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
I'm trying to find out which jounals from his site but its a lot of info to read through...
how about linking to the studies in said journals
anyway, you debunk it, I'm not your bitch
--------------------
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 152,735
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: DieCommie] 1
#15693982 - 01/20/12 03:54 PM (4 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Yea, I went to his site too but I got bored and left.
Ive never heard of The Journal of Scientific Exploration. I bet its a crackpot journal for crackpot ideas and researchers...
some of their papers, not crack potty in the slightest
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/articles.html
Alterations in Recollection of Unusual and Unexpected Events
Toward a Quantitative Theory of Intellectual Discovery
Physical Interpretation of Very Small Concentrations
A Case of Severe Birth Defects Possibly Due to Cursing
Common Knowledge About the Loch Ness Monster
this is serious science, the loch ness monster reviews UFO papers
looks like Nice1 debunked this without even trying
--------------------
|
sloantbone
Stranger from the Cosmos
Registered: 02/15/11
Posts: 423
Loc: Canada 
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: nice1]
#15695644 - 01/20/12 10:28 PM (4 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Thanks for the heads-up on this.
I've been following quite a bit of this subject through-out my life and this was a very interesting video to watch.
|
nice1
Not the droid your looking for
Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 9,126
Loc: earth
Last seen: 2 hours, 22 minutes
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: Prisoner#1] 1
#15696012 - 01/21/12 01:04 AM (4 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Another great example of Pris logic - throw the baby out with the bath water.
Hey look a pirate DVD. That means all DVDs are pirate and originals cannot possibly exist.
In science Pris, you check the method and then try the experiment then formulate a hypothesis.
A medium is a medium not a source. A news story can come through a respected journal and also one thats not respected. Your logic is to point out 1 of the mediums and use that to disregard the entire source and experiment. 
|
Visionary Tools
I <3 Thomas Jefferson
Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 5,462
Last seen: 1 day, 9 hours
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: nice1]
#15697400 - 01/21/12 12:04 PM (4 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Not here to debunk it, just a nice find. A lot of plausible information that makes a lot of sense. I'm still watching this now.
--------------------
|
sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer
Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 880
Last seen: 17 minutes, 42 seconds
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: Visionary Tools]
#15698800 - 01/21/12 05:43 PM (4 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
If the cut-off for a significant p-value is <.05, then around 1 in 20 experiments will find significant when no real effect exists.
Also, this should give you pause about results like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias.
Same thing I said last time. 
This guy reminds me of Harold Burr, who was a prof at Yale who studied what he called L-Fields
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,298
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: nice1] 1
#15700012 - 01/21/12 10:22 PM (4 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
What exactly are we supposed to debunk? You've not even referred to any scientific claim or paper. I recall you doing stuff like this before- making some vague refrence to a person's life work and demanding it be debunked when I don't have any clue what your talking about.
Presuming this guy is a scientist, that doesn't mean everything he says is scientific, of course, but if there is something you wish to advance, your going to have to identify it and the scientific basis for the thesis.
Quote:
nice1 said:
In science Pris, you check the method and then try the experiment then formulate a hypothesis.
What are you talking about here?
Did you cite or refer in any way to any method, experiment, or hypothesis?
Anyways, as for your methodology claim, how are you supposed to design a useful experiment if you don't allready have a hypothesis? Rigid claims about how "science is done" are almost bound to be wrong, and this particular example doesn't make a whole lot of sense. How could you know what to test for, what to control for, and so on without having predetermined the hypothesis?
Looking for the "telepathy" evidence, the first paper I looked at was a writeup where the sole source of data was an unsupervised experiment where people signed up on the guy's website, listed three contacts, wrote an email to one of them, and then the contact was sent a message automatically telling them they had a mesage and asking them to guess who the author was- after which they were able to retrieve the message.
This is crap. Beyond dishonesty and collusion, the protocol did not randomize the recipient or author of the message, so the statistical analysis of the results was premised on a false premise- that the author selected a random recipient. More likely, people sent the message to the person they liked best or to whom they talked about telepathy with the most (such as a friend they knew to be into it). The reciepient in these cases would have good reason to guess the correct author based on their knowledge of the other people's nature (who would be most likely to test their telepathy powers). There's no guarentee that I can see that all four people actually all existed, so if three people wanted to test their telepathy but didn't have a fourth person who would participate, they could have still ran the test, it seems.
Where is the evidence for telepathy, Nice1?
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 152,735
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: nice1]
#15700367 - 01/22/12 12:54 AM (4 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nice1 said:
A medium is a medium not a source. A news story can come through a respected journal and also one thats not respected. Your logic is to point out 1 of the mediums and use that to disregard the entire source and experiment.
and yet you've not posted up the respectable peer reviewed journals
that these guy is published in so until then, sasquatch and the loch
ness monster will be thumbing their noses at this
--------------------
|
nice1
Not the droid your looking for
Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 9,126
Loc: earth
Last seen: 2 hours, 22 minutes
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: nice1]
#15700696 - 01/22/12 04:29 AM (4 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Over the last few years we have investigated telephone telepathy experimentally (Sheldrake & Smart 2003a, 2003c). In our tests, a participant received a call during a prearranged period from one of four potential callers.
Participants were asked to choose callers from among their friends or family members. Callers and participants were usually several miles away from each other, and in some cases thousands of miles apart. On a given trial, the participants knew who the potential callers were but did not know which one would be calling. The caller was picked at random by the experimenter. When the telephone rang, the participant guessed who was calling before the other person spoke. The guess was either right or wrong. By chance, participants would have been right about one time in four. For a total of 571 such trials on telephone telepathy, involving 63 participants, the average hit rate was 40%, significantly above the 25% expected by chance. The effect size was 0.35 (Sheldrake & Smart, 2003a).
We then carried out a second series of tests under more rigorous conditions, with the participants videotaped continuously. Their guesses were recorded before they picked up the telephone. In a total of 271 trials, 45% of the guesses were hits (effect size .45) (Sheldrake & Smart, 2003c). In a recent replication at the University of Amsterdam the hit rate was also significantly above chance (Lobach & Bierman, 2004). In a test filmed for a British television show, the hit rate was 50%) (Sheldrake, Godwin, & Rockell, 2004).
In this paper, we describe a series of tests for telepathy in connection with e-mails following similar procedures. Our primary objective was to find out if hit rates were at or above chance levels. Our secondary objective was to investigate whether there was a difference in hit rates with familiar and unfamiliar e-mailers. Surveys have shown that telepathy mainly occurs between family members and close friends. In our experiments on telephone telepathy, hit rates were significantly higher with familiar than with unfamiliar callers (Sheldrake & Smart, 2003a, 2003c).
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/
http://www.sheldrake.org/Articles&Papers/papers/telepathy/index.html
|
zzripz
Stranger
Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 1,792
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 1 month, 8 days
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: nice1]
#15700769 - 01/22/12 05:27 AM (4 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
checkout this brilliant talk given by Dean Radin
"Science and the taboo of psi" with Dean Radin
|
nice1
Not the droid your looking for
Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 9,126
Loc: earth
Last seen: 2 hours, 22 minutes
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: zzripz]
#15700911 - 01/22/12 07:13 AM (4 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Have you heard about RAN as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab
People can effect random number generators with thought or high emotion against all probability.
They've even tried using RANs in different locations in the world and noticed that when a big event happens both rans will correlate.
|
nice1
Not the droid your looking for
Registered: 09/26/09
Posts: 9,126
Loc: earth
Last seen: 2 hours, 22 minutes
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: Prisoner#1] 2
#15700915 - 01/22/12 07:16 AM (4 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
and yet you've not posted up the respectable peer reviewed journals
I'm not questioning the guys legitimacy or judging his work based on what other people think though.
I have independent thought and research.
If you don't believe in this stuff then you read the papers, replicate the experiment and find a better way of explaining the observed phenomena.
I don't buy this burden of proof shit. I'm just a messenger - I already accept his papers as reasonable and likely to be observing a real phenomena. I'm not here to prove it to you. I'm challenging you to question you preconceived notions. So you only have a choice to try it yourself or ignore it else your not qualified to pass any judgment either way.
I don't care what medium the information comes through either. if its a youtube video or whatever doesn't bother me. I understand that the branding of the medium bares no relevance at all to the source of the information.
Even science, as much as I love it, cannot grasp everything. To think otherwise turns it into a faith. Science only deals with things we can quantify, so we should only use it to the extent that we can and understand its limitation.
Edited by nice1 (01/22/12 07:25 AM)
|
sonamdrukpa
Wayfarer
Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 880
Last seen: 17 minutes, 42 seconds
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: nice1]
#15701920 - 01/22/12 12:20 PM (4 months, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nice1 said:
Have you heard about RAN as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_Engineering_Anomalies_Research_Lab
People can effect random number generators with thought or high emotion against all probability.
They've even tried using RANs in different locations in the world and noticed that when a big event happens both rans will correlate.
This is where you're wrong. The PEAR lab found that, at most, about 2-3 in 10,000 randomly-generated numbers would be "affected" when they had people trying to influence the outcomes, a result that no other group anywhere was able to replicate.
What constitutes a "big event" is highly subjective and those trials were not in any sense meaningful.
For reasons just like these, PEAR shut down a couple years ago. There has been no talk of resurrecting it.
--------------------
Edited by sonamdrukpa (01/22/12 12:25 PM)
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,298
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: nice1] 2
#15702866 - 01/22/12 03:34 PM (4 months, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nice1 said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
and yet you've not posted up the respectable peer reviewed journals
I'm not questioning the guys legitimacy or judging his work based on what other people think though.
I have independent thought and research.
So what? How is that relevant?
Quote:
If you don't believe in this stuff then you read the papers, replicate the experiment and find a better way of explaining the observed phenomena.
What experiment? You continue to make these refrences to something that you've yet to identify. What experiment is this you keep mentioning?
In any case, I've allready done what you ask with regards to the first paper found in the telepathy section of his website- it seems like crap. The results do not seem to support any telepathic power at all, and, at best, seem to stand for the proposition that people can judge who amongst a known group of their contacts is likely to contact them about paranormal topics- hardly surprising. (this presumes there was no dishonesty on the part of the subjects, which is not possible to determine from the methodlogy).
If there is some evidence of telepathy your going to have to identify it. Constantly making refrences to some evidence you've not presented will not help.
Quote:
I don't buy this burden of proof shit. I'm just a messenger - I already accept his papers as reasonable and likely to be observing a real phenomena. I'm not here to prove it to you. I'm challenging you to question you preconceived notions. So you only have a choice to try it yourself or ignore it else your not qualified to pass any judgment either way.
Where exactly are you challenging anyone? All you've done is claimed some guy has evidence of various paranormal phenomena. Nowhere have you attempted to back that up at all, nor have you responded to any criticisms except to reject them for unclear reasons. What does whether your a messenger have to do with "burden of proof shit"? I fail to see any relevance to this comment or fact.
Quote:
I don't care what medium the information comes through either. if its a youtube video or whatever doesn't bother me. I understand that the branding of the medium bares no relevance at all to the source of the information.
What information? You've presented nothing other than an appeal to authority, and then argue the contrary- that the nature of the authority is irrelevant. Make up your mind. Either the guy's work is convincing because its published in "peer reviewed" journals or it doesn't matter. And you've still not cited a single article in support of your claims.
Quote:
Even science, as much as I love it, cannot grasp everything. To think otherwise turns it into a faith. Science only deals with things we can quantify, so we should only use it to the extent that we can and understand its limitation.
Back that up, please. How is this true? Seems pretty dubious- qualitative analysis is done all the time without any quantitative aspects being used. Sounds like another dubious criticism of science- irronically from the same person who claims some scientific evidence exists for 'something' (not quite clear what).
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 152,735
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Debunk This 2 (peer reviewed telepathy experiments) [Re: nice1]
#15704911 - 01/22/12 10:10 PM (4 months, 4 days ago) |
|
|
yes... his own website is super credible 
--------------------
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
