Well, most new science seems crazy, so people who have invested their whole lives into one way of thinking will tend to dismiss it.

Tampering with experiment results is a big no no.
But... doing the experiment is not stupid or crazy.

And I do believe "prayer" works... it's just nobody invented the prayerometer yet.

The placebo effect does exist, right?


In reply to this comment by rembar:
Glad I could catch your attention. I generally just have precious little patience for pseudoscience.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
that's better. more like what i was looking for.

Glad I could catch your attention. I generally just have precious little patience for pseudoscience.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
that's better. more like what i was looking for.

Fair enough. If not the big C, then what faith do you follow?


In reply to this comment by MINK:
ahh, now you said the word "christianity". different thing.

don't worry, i am not in any way flustered, it just sounds like that because discussing on the internet is quite clumsy.

it's anyway interesting to do it, but you don't really get anywhere.

so i am not angry or bitter, maybe more like tired.

you started this with "not to be rude" so i think you knew it was touchy territory! it's just so hard because neither of us know each other.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Wooah! Easy there, MINK. I didn't attack you, let alone argue with you. I'm not trying to beat you down, prove you wrong or change your mind. This is just a regular ole conversation, so pull yourself together.

First of all, I didn't state or imply that Christianity was blissful ignorance, that came purely from your own imagination. The fact that those thoughts are hovering around your brainpan is probably significant.

I agree that language isn't sufficient to fully explain the euphoria of love, hate, fear, sadness, religion, music, dance, psychedelics, etc...... but that doesn't mean you should shut down communication altogether.

I'm not sure what the source of your anger and bitterness is (over-exposure to political propaganda would be my guess?) but having to trudge through your emotional minefield is no fun.

Take a deep breath and relax.....

We're not required to have all the answers....

It's OK to say 'I don't know'.....

There's room enough for everyone's ideas....

PAX

In reply to this comment by MINK:
defensive because you attacked, with your "isn't faith basically happy stupidity" argument.

faith isn't meaningless, your question was meaningless, or at least cannot be responded to meaningfully, because there's no way to describe faith satisfactorily to someone who's already decided it is happy stupidity.

Words are not good enough to debate this topic. They only work for science, not for feelings, emotions, spiritual concepts, music, love.

So if you are arguing science vs faith by using words, the science guys have a big advantage and the stuff the faith guys say sounds meaningless.

Anyway... interesting video here:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Science-of-Remote-Viewers-959

the second half is more interesting.

I am pretty sure science will catch up with god one day and find out that prayer and karma and belief and faith are tangible and important, and scientists will come up with new words for stuff that used to be "impossible" or "unscientific".

So i think we get closer to "proving" faith is sensible rather than "disproving" it as irrational and stupid.

Hope that makes some kinda sense, even though the meanings of the words are not exactly what i think.

Your attitude to the world changes your experience of the world. Having faith in something good can improve your experience of the world. Having faith in existing science is stupid because it will change. Having faith in the scientific method to one day discover everything is not stupid, i think the scientific method is ok. You just need to remember that we might only be 2% of the way on the journey of science, but theology and philosophy uncovered some powerful basic truths a long long time ago.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Why so defensive? I wasn't going to whack you over the head with your answer. Is faith meaningless?



In reply to this comment by MINK:
that question is either loaded or meaningless.

Faith from a scientific standpoint is weak. Science from a faithful standpoint is weak.

Is that quantum enough for you?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What does faith mean to you?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
some people have a willful lack of understanding of faith.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
/\ Not to be rude, but isn't faith - by its very definition - a willful lack of understanding.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
this dude rawks. notice how he has more confidence in his lack of understanding than they have in their faith.

b...b...b...but the bible was inspired by the holy spirit... or sumtin... so... you're like wrong i guess...!

ahh, now you said the word "christianity". different thing.

don't worry, i am not in any way flustered, it just sounds like that because discussing on the internet is quite clumsy.

it's anyway interesting to do it, but you don't really get anywhere.

so i am not angry or bitter, maybe more like tired.

you started this with "not to be rude" so i think you knew it was touchy territory! it's just so hard because neither of us know each other.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Wooah! Easy there, MINK. I didn't attack you, let alone argue with you. I'm not trying to beat you down, prove you wrong or change your mind. This is just a regular ole conversation, so pull yourself together.

First of all, I didn't state or imply that Christianity was blissful ignorance, that came purely from your own imagination. The fact that those thoughts are hovering around your brainpan is probably significant.

I agree that language isn't sufficient to fully explain the euphoria of love, hate, fear, sadness, religion, music, dance, psychedelics, etc...... but that doesn't mean you should shut down communication altogether.

I'm not sure what the source of your anger and bitterness is (over-exposure to political propaganda would be my guess?) but having to trudge through your emotional minefield is no fun.

Take a deep breath and relax.....

We're not required to have all the answers....

It's OK to say 'I don't know'.....

There's room enough for everyone's ideas....

PAX

In reply to this comment by MINK:
defensive because you attacked, with your "isn't faith basically happy stupidity" argument.

faith isn't meaningless, your question was meaningless, or at least cannot be responded to meaningfully, because there's no way to describe faith satisfactorily to someone who's already decided it is happy stupidity.

Words are not good enough to debate this topic. They only work for science, not for feelings, emotions, spiritual concepts, music, love.

So if you are arguing science vs faith by using words, the science guys have a big advantage and the stuff the faith guys say sounds meaningless.

Anyway... interesting video here:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Science-of-Remote-Viewers-959

the second half is more interesting.

I am pretty sure science will catch up with god one day and find out that prayer and karma and belief and faith are tangible and important, and scientists will come up with new words for stuff that used to be "impossible" or "unscientific".

So i think we get closer to "proving" faith is sensible rather than "disproving" it as irrational and stupid.

Hope that makes some kinda sense, even though the meanings of the words are not exactly what i think.

Your attitude to the world changes your experience of the world. Having faith in something good can improve your experience of the world. Having faith in existing science is stupid because it will change. Having faith in the scientific method to one day discover everything is not stupid, i think the scientific method is ok. You just need to remember that we might only be 2% of the way on the journey of science, but theology and philosophy uncovered some powerful basic truths a long long time ago.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Why so defensive? I wasn't going to whack you over the head with your answer. Is faith meaningless?



In reply to this comment by MINK:
that question is either loaded or meaningless.

Faith from a scientific standpoint is weak. Science from a faithful standpoint is weak.

Is that quantum enough for you?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What does faith mean to you?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
some people have a willful lack of understanding of faith.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
/\ Not to be rude, but isn't faith - by its very definition - a willful lack of understanding.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
this dude rawks. notice how he has more confidence in his lack of understanding than they have in their faith.

b...b...b...but the bible was inspired by the holy spirit... or sumtin... so... you're like wrong i guess...!

Wooah! Easy there, MINK. I didn't attack you, let alone argue with you. I'm not trying to beat you down, prove you wrong or change your mind. This is just a regular ole conversation, so pull yourself together.

First of all, I didn't state or imply that Christianity was blissful ignorance, that came purely from your own imagination. The fact that those thoughts are hovering around your brainpan is probably significant.

I agree that language isn't sufficient to fully explain the euphoria of love, hate, fear, sadness, religion, music, dance, psychedelics, etc...... but that doesn't mean you should shut down communication altogether.

I'm not sure what the source of your anger and bitterness is (over-exposure to political propaganda would be my guess?) but having to trudge through your emotional minefield is no fun.

Take a deep breath and relax.....

We're not required to have all the answers....

It's OK to say 'I don't know'.....

There's room enough for everyone's ideas....

PAX

In reply to this comment by MINK:
defensive because you attacked, with your "isn't faith basically happy stupidity" argument.

faith isn't meaningless, your question was meaningless, or at least cannot be responded to meaningfully, because there's no way to describe faith satisfactorily to someone who's already decided it is happy stupidity.

Words are not good enough to debate this topic. They only work for science, not for feelings, emotions, spiritual concepts, music, love.

So if you are arguing science vs faith by using words, the science guys have a big advantage and the stuff the faith guys say sounds meaningless.

Anyway... interesting video here:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Science-of-Remote-Viewers-959

the second half is more interesting.

I am pretty sure science will catch up with god one day and find out that prayer and karma and belief and faith are tangible and important, and scientists will come up with new words for stuff that used to be "impossible" or "unscientific".

So i think we get closer to "proving" faith is sensible rather than "disproving" it as irrational and stupid.

Hope that makes some kinda sense, even though the meanings of the words are not exactly what i think.

Your attitude to the world changes your experience of the world. Having faith in something good can improve your experience of the world. Having faith in existing science is stupid because it will change. Having faith in the scientific method to one day discover everything is not stupid, i think the scientific method is ok. You just need to remember that we might only be 2% of the way on the journey of science, but theology and philosophy uncovered some powerful basic truths a long long time ago.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Why so defensive? I wasn't going to whack you over the head with your answer. Is faith meaningless?



In reply to this comment by MINK:
that question is either loaded or meaningless.

Faith from a scientific standpoint is weak. Science from a faithful standpoint is weak.

Is that quantum enough for you?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What does faith mean to you?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
some people have a willful lack of understanding of faith.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
/\ Not to be rude, but isn't faith - by its very definition - a willful lack of understanding.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
this dude rawks. notice how he has more confidence in his lack of understanding than they have in their faith.

b...b...b...but the bible was inspired by the holy spirit... or sumtin... so... you're like wrong i guess...!

defensive because you attacked, with your "isn't faith basically happy stupidity" argument.

faith isn't meaningless, your question was meaningless, or at least cannot be responded to meaningfully, because there's no way to describe faith satisfactorily to someone who's already decided it is happy stupidity.

Words are not good enough to debate this topic. They only work for science, not for feelings, emotions, spiritual concepts, music, love.

So if you are arguing science vs faith by using words, the science guys have a big advantage and the stuff the faith guys say sounds meaningless.

Anyway... interesting video here:
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Science-of-Remote-Viewers-959

the second half is more interesting.

I am pretty sure science will catch up with god one day and find out that prayer and karma and belief and faith are tangible and important, and scientists will come up with new words for stuff that used to be "impossible" or "unscientific".

So i think we get closer to "proving" faith is sensible rather than "disproving" it as irrational and stupid.

Hope that makes some kinda sense, even though the meanings of the words are not exactly what i think.

Your attitude to the world changes your experience of the world. Having faith in something good can improve your experience of the world. Having faith in existing science is stupid because it will change. Having faith in the scientific method to one day discover everything is not stupid, i think the scientific method is ok. You just need to remember that we might only be 2% of the way on the journey of science, but theology and philosophy uncovered some powerful basic truths a long long time ago.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Why so defensive? I wasn't going to whack you over the head with your answer. Is faith meaningless?



In reply to this comment by MINK:
that question is either loaded or meaningless.

Faith from a scientific standpoint is weak. Science from a faithful standpoint is weak.

Is that quantum enough for you?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What does faith mean to you?

In reply to this comment by MINK:
some people have a willful lack of understanding of faith.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
/\ Not to be rude, but isn't faith - by its very definition - a willful lack of understanding.

In reply to this comment by MINK:
this dude rawks. notice how he has more confidence in his lack of understanding than they have in their faith.

b...b...b...but the bible was inspired by the holy spirit... or sumtin... so... you're like wrong i guess...!

As a Ph.D. candidate in Transpersonal Psychology who has taken classes in parapsychology under well-respected parapsychologists, Charles Tart and Russell Targ, I would like to chime in here to say that the research that suggests remote viewers are capable of scoring statistically better than chance in their operation is pervasive in the literature.

First of all, I'm cursing because it keeps me amused and at least mildly interested, which I certainly wouldn't be if I were to boringly negate every argument that psychic powers are real. Nothing against you personally. I just call bullshit when I see bullshit, and this one is dripping with the foul appearance of human filth.

Second, if you think your bullshit detector is well-tuned, think again. You don't have anything real for your detector to work off of. Like I said, you're working off third-hand reports and you're drawing inaccurate conclusions from them. And yes, the "Oh they might exist or they might not exist" wishy-washiness is a conclusion, whether you acknowledge it or not. Again, parallels with intelligent design arguments, only without the modern relevance.

The funny thing is how you say you're not a scientist and don't have the capability nor interest to become one, then proceed to tell me exactly what a true scientific mind should be. I mean...I've got nothing against that, even if I'm not particularly interested in discussing what it means to have a scientific mind, but I find that ironic, no?

Finally: An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications, come back and negate the conclusions and then I'll be interested. In particular, I'd like to see you address the issue of methodological faults (we're going to ignore the statistical analysis issues for now), and we can discuss this: "Particularly troublesome from the perspective of the application of paranormal phenomena is the fact that the remote viewers and project managers reported that remote viewing reports were changed to make them consistent with know background cues. While this was appropriate in that situation, it makes it impossible to interpret the role of the paranormal phenomenon independently."

If we can deal with those problems, then we can move on to the ultimate conclusions, where "Remote viewing, as exemplified by the efforts in the current program, has not been shown to have value in intelligence operations", and "Continued support for the operational component of the current program is not justified."

Happy New Year, and good luck.

Rembar, all compelling arguments, and I'll concede that much of it might be true. Still, bullshit and deception has a way of getting vetted after enough intelligent and skeptical people examine the issue. If psychic powers were *complete* nonsense, then we should be able to disprove them eventually... which appears not to be the case after you watch the video. What the remote viewer does in the video is simply too coincidental to dismiss as rubbish, which is why the government funded more research into remote viewing.

I'm *not* saying with certainty that psychic powers exist, only that after doing research, I'm not convinced that they don't exist, either.

Someone had better publish this video simply to promote the discussion!

Of course, the only way to be sure is to ask the scientists at Princeton directly, but I'd expect them to have been smart enough to take that into account.

I'm *really* not a believer in psychics, fortune tellers, ghosts, vampires or anything which appears on the X-files... but when you look at the research, as I have -- and this is research done by the CIA, the military and the government, typically a jaded lot when it comes to any "new age nonsense" -- even I am unwilling to categorically say it's "stupid crap".

I understand and can even relate to your skepticism. Yet I would ask that your suspend disbelief until you read the book Remote Viewers, written by a highly skeptical journalist. After his extensive research, he concluded that there wasn't enough data to ignore the results:

"Remote Viewers is a bit of an odd book for Jim Schnabel, a science writer who has previously published work that could be described as highly skeptical of some things "out of the ordinary." In fact, when Mr. Schnabel was doing his research for this book he asked me for an interview, which I refused to give him because I considered him a "knee-jerk debunker." Considering the outcome of his research, this turns out to be a fortuitous endorsement of Mr. Schnabel's claim of objectivity. In the best traditions of investigative journalism, Schnabel takes an open mind and tunnels into much of the military remote-viewing community, revealing that the remote-viewing phenomenon was considered very real by the U.S. intelligence services, and a phenomenon worthy of high-level funding and research..."
http://www.courtneybrown.com/reviews/BookReviews/SchnabelRV.html

ok. This woman's bank security is pathetic. My bank, only has you type in the login. The password is displayed in a small window with all the numbers scrambled randomly everytime you log in, and you input the password by clicking with the mouse. Much safer.
Of course you could also be monitered with some sort of remote viewer that could see whatever is displayed in your desktop, but at least this way is much safer.