Amazing how much they feel validated when they have GUESSED correctly.

Future scientific consensuses often start as theories on the scientific fringe, but the problem is that at any time there are thousands of ideas on the scientific fringe, and almost all of them turn out to be as unsupported as the scientific mainstream of the time believes them to be.

If we present fringe ideas we believe in as 'renowned,' it makes it looks like we're being fringe activists, when the only way to present fringe theories and maintain our professional reputation for reliable analysis is to state at the beginning that they're fringe theories, and acknowledge that most fringe theories won't pan out.

I learned this myself through experience when I was younger


Studies are notoriously difficult to plan and execute well even for veteran scientists, and scientists who desire one result over another will tend to unintentionally skew their results, sometimes in ways that are difficult to detect.

^This exact criticism was levelled at Rupert Sheldrake when he published his book "Dogs who know when their owners are coming home".

He responded by asking each those scientists who criticised his findings to repeat the experiments for themselves.

Every single scientist produced exactly the same results as Sheldrake.

All of Sheldrake's experiments are designed to be easily understood and replicated by the layman. He is today still a great champion of grass roots science whilst mainstream science continues to lumber in the mud.

Hmmm...

"whilst mainstream science continues to lumber in the mud."

I know! I can't believe all the lame shit they do, like growing new tracheas and kidneys for people, and sequencing the human genome!

If fringe scientists' knowledge is superior to consensus science (that is possible) be proactive and utilize that knowledge advantage to improve your position.

But the greater the claim, e.g. 'human have supernatural powers,' the greater the evidence required to support that claim. You'll weaken your position if moderate scientists see you (rightly or wrongly) as demanding consensus science agree with your interpretation of data.

Isn't there a million dollars, or some ridiculous amount of money, waiting for the person that can prove this type of supernatural power?

*nochannel *scifi *1sttube *music *lies

This video has been removed from all channels (Science, Scifi, 1sttube, Music) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by nibiyabi. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (1sttube, Lies, Music, Scifi) - requested by nibiyabi.

Moving this video to Trancecoach's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*nochannel *scifi *1sttube *music *lies

http://calladus.blogspot.com/2006/09/nutty-professor-dr-rupert-sheldrake.html

This video has been removed from all channels (Science, 1sttube, Music) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by nibiyabi. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (1sttube, Lies, Music, Scifi) - requested by nibiyabi.

So psi phenomena is bogus.

Oh well.

*nochannel *scifi *1sttube *music *lies

This video has been removed from all channels (Science, 1sttube, Music) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by nibiyabi. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (1sttube, Lies, Music, Scifi) - requested by nibiyabi.

Reasonable explanations win 'every' time.
In an experiment such as this, if it was conducted perfectly, then it's tiny ques that our minds pick up on, even unconsciously.
40% is just the kind of stat you might expect from people trying to 'figure out' the answer, rather than just giving a random answer.

from the wiki on sheldrake :
'The non-randomness of test sequences could thus lead to implicit or explicit pattern learning when feedback is provided. When the patterns being guessed mirror naturally occurring guessing patterns. the results could go above or below chance levels even without feedback. Thus significant results could occur purely from non-random guessing.[30] Non-randomization is one of seven flaws in parapsychological research identified by Marks.'
(add confirmation bias and experimenter bias to the list of problems).

>> ^eric3579:
Isn't there a million dollars, or some ridiculous amount of money, waiting for the person that can prove this type of supernatural power?


Yes, James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge! Many have tried, all have failed!

^Wrong.

Krippner (1977), Rao (1984), Targ & Puthoff (1977, pp. 182-186), and Tart (1982b) have all documented glaring errors made by James Randi who has failed on numerous occasions to award the money when he has been proved wrong. Instead, he makes up reasons after the fact about why an experiment failed to meet his criteria.

Dennis Stillings has demonstrated that "Randi is capable of gross distortion of facts" (Truzzi, 1987, p. 89). Randi has been quoted as saying, "I always have an out" with regard to his $1,000,000 challenge (Rawlins, 1981, p. 89). Puthoff and Targ (1977) documented a number of mistakes. In a published, handwritten, signed letter, Randi replied offering $1,000 if any claimed error could be demonstrated (see Fuller, 1979). Fuller proved Randi wrong. In a rejoinder to Puthoff & Targ (1977), Randi reversed himself (for a clear example, see point number 15 in Randi, 1982, p. 223). Randi should have paid the $1,000, but he never did."

Big surprise.

So consensus says psy phenomenon is bunk?

Why does science need limits to what it can study?

A phenomenon exists whether you know it first hand or not. There are people who would hide any inkling of being different in such a serious way, they would not want to be freaks, especially growing up. I've seen firsthand enough to convince me anyway, that theres more than coincidence going on. In history people would be burned for claiming such things, hell, atheism is still a death penalty on this planet, examples here show the contempt for such concepts.

If in human experience something "exists" to some. Whatever that is. I say use science to learn more about it, prove or disprove the experiences as just being "in the mind" ha ha get it...both perceptions of the experiences happen in the mind...I win!

I understand and agree with the "crackpot theory's". They would be out of control, look at religion, seems crackpot but many still believe. We don't have a God detector so we use probability (science anyway) and it's reeeaal low probability that there is an almighty....but possible.

The CIA spent money onsome sort of "far seeing project" in the 60's I think, I'd love to see a video about it
anyway as I ramble...my point is: I am a scientist...in my mind anyway, I wish to see a phenomenon, that fakers have unfortunately helped destroy any credibility that could be sucked from the mud.......is that a real expression?

anyway,I'd like to see a phenomenon that I know exists, (along with what..hundreds of millions of people?) on the planet studied in more detail by "credible" sources. Not poo poo'd as fringe. Thats all I'd like.