..
Interesting thread.
But, what I am about to post might be upsetting to those here offering "Scientific Studies" that validate psi powers.
Before I say anything further, let me confide that as a human being I too have experienced abnormal phenomena of unknown and apparently inexplicable origins. Being "abnormal", one might rhetorically slip into identifying them as "paranormal"--inferring psi-related powers. But, those are two distinctly different subjects.
I could tell a thrilling example but it's not my point. Rather, I would prefer to remain satisfied that these events are not psychic powers, but what I would term UHE (Unidentified Human Experiences). Well, with that now said, let's embark on what might be, to some, a very controversial and unpleasant little post, LOL.
I read Mimsy's post that cited various scientific studies that established very credible statistical proof confirming the existence of certain paranormal abilities. My first instinct was, "Wow, I never ran into those scientific proofs/studies in my own research!"
By the end of Mimsy's post I began to wonder about those scientific studies which were not identified.
That's when the skeptic in me began to work overtime. I quickly remembered that everyone on this board (other than 'never-ins') was fully taken in by reknowned scientist, doctor and nuclear physicist L Ron Hubbard. Dr. Hubbard also published scientific studies that validated the existence of paranormal powers (called OT, exactly what this thread seeks to discuss, so I am discussing, lol)
Moments later I Googled "scientific experiments that prove ESP" and came up with a vast list of such material. Frankly, I was a little shocked that so much in the way of scientific proof/studies existed that I had, over the decades, somehow missed.
But as I read the individual search results, I quickly realized that nearly all of them were articles debunking pseudoscientific "studies" and "proof". That was consistent with my own extensive research over the many years that I have studied these subjects. But then---
--to my shock, I saw one of the search results was by the prestigious Dr. Bern from Cornell and his lifelong scientific studies that overwhelmingly validated statistical proof that psi powers existed. I felt conflicted that this discovery made me feel uneasy and instantly wondered if I have an answer bias that prevents me from seeking and accepting scientific data which bears conclusive proof of hidden human psychic powers. So, I Googled and began to read a number of articles about Dr. Berns work. Impressive was the first word that came to mind!
But, I learned a little from my experience with Dr. Hubbard and his "modern sciences", so I keep reading. I then actively searched for "debunk" material related to Dr. Bern; and very quickly found that too.
It seems that Dr. Bern's work is steeped in controversy, particularly from peer scientists who claim foul in his experiments' protocols. Some others directly label his work "badly flawed" and objected to it even being published.
In a nutshell, once he was able to find a tiny statistical anomaly (advantage), he would end off his study and publish. It was generally claimed by debunkers that he was fearful that if his sampling was larger the statistical anomalies would have ironed out and there would have been nothing whatsoever to report.
Let me describe this in more colorful layman's terms. If I was conducting scientific experiments about "LUCK" and testing if some people were "LUCKY", we might find ourselves in a Las Vegas casino. If one fellow bucked all the odds and won $10,000,000, we could prove that he did the statistical impossible, unless he was "lucky" at playing the slot machines. That small sampling (his 24 hour gambling binge) would not continue to produce the same results if we kept following that same gambler for the next 5 years. And, even worse, if we factored in the previous 5 years of his slot machine history. In short, by only capturing a small window of time, we could "scientifically prove" that he had psi powers.
I am willing to wager a friendly penny that the un-named scientific studies that Mimsy offers will not hold up well to a Google search that includes the name of the researcher (and/or studies)
and the word "DEBUNK".
As a person who has done inordinate amounts of research on a very wide spectrum of subjects (over my life), I am constantly astounded that very intelligent people conduct their research without ever bothering to "dig up the dirt" by actively seeking out de-bunks of the same material and researchers.
I once had a partner in the creative world who would occasionally send me email warnings about various viruses and malware infecting computers en masse. Being a wonderfully friendly person, my then-partner just wanted to help by alerting me to ("never open any email that contains the word ______", or some version thereof). Those trojan horse warnings were always met by me with doing a 10 second search that included the word "hoax" and "debunk". One hundred percent (100%) of them were, of course, hoaxes.
I would let my partner know (sent him email) that it was a hoax. I would also ALWAYS included a little friendly note suggesting that before he send or forward these scary alerts to me (and others) that he try to do a 5 second Google search and use the word "hoax" or "debunk". He never once did such a search. It was, apparently, antipathetic to his new-agey view of life. That was a couple decades ago, but I would imagine that he is still as gullible.
What do I conclude from all of the above? Not too much, just that nobody has any proof of psi powers, even after the last 100 years of science has tried everything they could think of to confirm it.
To be honest, I regard all this as a bad hangover from Scientology. To wit, the acceptance (small or great) of pseudo-science because it is packaged to look like actual science.
I suppose it is fitting that I go out of this post in a blaze of suppressive glory by commenting specifically on Sheldrake and his book.
Sheldrake is a widely known and debunked pseudo-scientist. He has a whole series of books that cannot stand up to the scrutiny of real scientific protocols. Again, a 5 second search that included the words "hoax" and "debunk" would have revealed his poor standing in the community of real scientists.
In a way, I can understand how a Scientologist (or believer) would regard looking for "debunks" as a kind of cynical logical fallacy in itself. It would be labeled "entheta" or "enemy line" or even "suppressive", wouldn't it, if someone in an org even mentioned any one (1) of the major debunks that have exposed Hubbard as a charlatan.
So, I am suggesting that if Mimsy or anyone wants to throw down "scientific proof" of the psi kind, they also include the specific name of the study and the name of the researcher and any links.
And, again, before posting it, I very strongly recommend searching for debunks of that person/study--otherwise it can get pretty embarrassing to promote already-debunked junk science. Hey, I learned a valuable lesson from Dr. Hubbard, didn't I? LOL
