Am I OT?

[Mimsey Borogrove]

You can subjectively and philosophically believe what you want to all day long but defending that subjectivity as objective fact contrary to critical thinking & valid scientific methodology is when I disagree.

The only fact I am asserting is it happened to me. Moi. Comprendez? I am stating nothing else. Like I said, you don't have to believe it.

I am however trying to say, that just because modern science can't explain it, doesn't make it invalid.

Ask Galileo Galilei about challenging assertive dogma sometime. I'm sure he has an opinion about critical thinking in his experience, that refuses to look beyond it's world view.

Mimsey

 

[Free Being Me]

.

Taxi Driver Movie:
You [STRIKE]talkin'[/STRIKE] looking at me?

​

 

[strativarius]

Taxi Driver Movie:
You [STRIKE]talkin'[/STRIKE] looking at me?

​

This reminds me of the first question in the pub quiz round my way. 'What the fuck are you lookin' at?'

 

[uncover]

.....
Oh, Mimsey, poor thing - you are deluded as the day is long. I have offered the book to Emma, Hellofahoax and [STRIKE]Stradivarius[/STRIKE] and yet, no takers. Hum. What does that say?
.....

It tells us non-OT's that part I can be downloaded from Sheldrakes site:
www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/JCSpaper1.pdf

and the rest can be read at google books:
https://books.google.com/books?id=T...heldrake the sense of being stared at&f=false

 

[uncover]

This reminds me of the first question in the pub quiz round my way. 'What the fuck are you lookin' at?'

Here is the answer - goats:

 

[Free Being Me]

The only fact I am asserting is it happened to me. Moi. Comprendez? I am stating nothing else. Like I said, you don't have to believe it.

I am however trying to say, that just because modern science can't explain it, doesn't make it invalid.

Ask Galileo Galilei about challenging assertive dogma sometime. I'm sure he has an opinion about critical thinking in his experience, that refuses to look beyond it's world view.

Mimsey

You do know Galileo is as dead as that stapler so it's rather difficult asking him anything, right? When it comes to modern science and explanations you haven't asked so write up your stapler experience into a paper for scientific review then please share the replying results. lol.

For some reason the O.P changed removing the original content of the people quoted and responding claims in post #1 which has contextually altered the thread now.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

You do know Galileo is as dead as that stapler so it's rather difficult asking him anything, right? When it comes to modern science and explanations, write up your stapler experience into a paper for scientific review then please share the replying results. lol.

For some reason the O.P changed removing the original content of the people quoted and responding claims in post #1 which has contextually altered the nature of the thread now.

It musta got moded. Poor Galilo. I wonder who he is being right now? How can we find him? Maybe a seance? Channeling? Ouiji board? A telex to target 2? Hubble? No, he's dead also. I wonder if he's still a Catholic? Maybe he's on lines at Flag? I wish i knew.

Mimsey

 

[uncover]

So we are talking now about: "The Sense of Being Stared at"

That is yesterday's news. Today we should better discuss:

"The Sense of Being Pinned at"

​

Therefore I have already prepared a so called "Mimsey-doll" for our experiment. Mimsey, can you feel it ?

​

 

[Hypatia]

Sure, it's anecdotal and by the time someone is describing their unusual experiences, it's past and no way to witness or verify anything. You can't really know.

I have an answer to this dilemma but it's pretty woo woo.

I personally think we were supposed to be psychically and emotionally connected to each other but that this did not happen. Without that connection, how can anyone's anecdote resonate with other people? We are left with very few resources to tell the charlatans from the earnest but delusional from the real deals.

We're on our own.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

A comment before I go eat dinner. One of the points Sheldrake makes in his book is this: His line of research gets constantly attacked. It has been attacked for over a hundred years by many, many critics. So, the researchers in his field have responded by going way overboard in trying to make the experiments duplicable by others, they used double blind techniques, the gamut of rigorous documentations, such as video tapings, trying to keep any possibility of external influences out of the experiments, and yet scientists and non-scientists alike dismiss the research out of hand.

Though I tried to badger HH into looking any further than a cursory internet search, he refuses. I had hopes he would take the challenge, but I didn't expect he would. His response is all too typical of the persistent bias.

Check this out:

Controversies and Debates With Skeptics

Healthy skepticism plays an important part in science, and stimulates research and critical thinking. Healthy skeptics are open-minded and interested in evidence. By contrast, dogmatic skeptics are committed to the belief that "paranormal" phenomena are impossible, or at least so improbable as to merit no serious attention. Hence any evidence for such phenomena must be illusory. Several such Skeptics have attacked my research on morphic resonance, the unexplained powers of animals, the sense of being stared at and telepathy. Click on their names if you want to know what they said, and to read my replies. Most of them are associated with CSI, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly called CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), an organization devoted to debunking evidence for "paranormal" phenomena, and to promoting skeptical claims in the media. CSI publishes the Skeptical Inquirer, 'the magazine for science and reason'. For more about these and other skeptics, go to www.skepticalinvestigations.org.

If you go to this link, where this quote came from - he has a list of critics and his responses to them. http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/controversies

Now, James Randi's name is bandied about in ESMB re his $1 million dollar prize and frankly - I doubt he has one million bucks to hand out any way, but how about his vaunted criticism of Sheldrake?

James Randi

Conjurer and the former Principal Investigator of CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. He was named "Skeptic of the Century" in the January 2000 issue of The Skeptical Inquirer. Read about Randi's attempts to debunk Rupert's conclusions.

Also see Rupert's comments on the disappointing interview with James Randi by Chris French.

The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests.

I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too.

I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so."

Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.

Mimsey

 

[George Layton]

Maybe you are correct. All I am saying is that is what happened to me. You don't have to believe me. In fact it would probably be better if you didn't. Your basic premise is flawed though. Of course it doesn't have a brain. Why does it have to have a brain to have a viewpoint? The animism concept has nothing to do with brains, it has to do with spiritualism. Why do they call ships She's? Does a ship have an innate feministic beingness? The way it flows through the waves, the curves of the prow?

Yes - it is probably best you look at life as a soulless chaos. It is so much less challenging.

Mimsey

How many trees (Living trees that, because they were alive may have had an awareness as living trees go) died to make that ship?

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

So we are talking now about: "The Sense of Being Stared at"

That is yesterday's news. Today we should better discuss:

"The Sense of Being Pinned at"

​

Therefore I have already prepared a so called "Mimsey-doll" for our experiment. Mimsey, can you feel it ?

​

Is that why my shoulder is messed up? Ouch. I thought it was from my falling and putting out my hand to break my fall, which watching Rhonda Rousey, is a no no. I can feel it as-ising already.

Thank you for that spot on indication.

Mimsey

From 4:47 on
[video=youtube;CuJggRWUAfQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuJggRWUAfQ[/video]

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

How many trees (Living trees that, because they were alive may have had an awareness as living trees go) died to make that ship?

I boarded the Hermione when she came to the Phili harbor last year, and she cost the French $22 million to build:

This project was conceived by members of the Centre International de la Mer in 1992, and construction began in 1997, envisaging a launch in April 2015 (as compared to the original, which took less than a year to build).

That was a truly beautiful ship as was the HMS Surprise which I have also visited, which is a scaled down version of the original - you have seen her in the pirate of the Caribbean movies Mimsey

 

[Hypatia]

Is that why my shoulder is messed up? Ouch. I thought it was from my falling and putting out my hand to break my fall, which watching Rhonda Rousey, is a no no. I can feel it as-ising already.

Thank you for that spot on indication.

Mimsey

From 4:47 on
[video=youtube;CuJggRWUAfQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuJggRWUAfQ[/video]

Lets make voo doo dolls of each other and give them neck rubs, chocolate, wrap fleecy robes around them...

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Right on! Mimsey

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

Oh, whatever. A pass is a pass however you care to justify it.

You are simply opting for someone else's viewpoint because it isn't worth your while to look any further. This is why Scientologists stay in the cult. They believe the doctrine of Hubbard without inspecting further.

Seriously? LOL

I "opt for someone else's viewpoint"?

I'm "justifying it"?

You're the one that posted already debunked pseudoscience without even qualifying it or naming the researcher or linking the studies you are relying on. I went the extra step to help you out with a tiny bit of research--and I very quickly learned that you did no research whatsoever.

Yet you post condescending dismissals when I find the false claims that you should have known about if you had spent even a minute doing a little due diligence.

Sorry if you are embarrassed and trying to deflect to some imagined malfeasance on my part, but you should take a little more care before you throw a bunch of junk science at people and demand that they "believe" it.

Dude, do a little homework next time and...moar clay!

 

[George Layton]

The only fact I am asserting is it happened to me. Moi. Comprendez? I am stating nothing else. Like I said, you don't have to believe it.

I am however trying to say, that just because modern science can't explain it, doesn't make it invalid.

Ask Galileo Galilei about challenging assertive dogma sometime. I'm sure he has an opinion about critical thinking in his experience, that refuses to look beyond it's world view.

Mimsey

There can be a difference, sometimes a vast difference, between the experience and someone's definition of the experience. the philosophy of scientology is an example of a series of definitions that are built to mislead. Can something spiritual come from the mind or does the mind try to make sense of a spiritual experience? That being said are there both spiritual and mental experiences and who is the authority on the difference of the two? By the way research into both mental and spiritual experiences differ from research into physical laws.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

..

Seriously? LOL

I "opt for someone else's viewpoint"?

I'm "justifying it"?

You're the one that posted already debunked pseudoscience without even qualifying it or naming the researcher or linking the studies you are relying on. I went the extra step to help you out with a tiny bit of research--and I very quickly learned that you did no research whatsoever.

Yet you post condescending dismissals when I find the false claims that you should have known about if you had spent even a minute doing a little due diligence.

Sorry if you are embarrassed and trying to deflect to some imagined malfeasance on my part, but you should take a little more care before you throw a bunch of junk science at people and demand that they "believe" it.

Dude, do a little homework next time and...moar clay!

The references are in the book. I am offering to send it to you for free. Or you can read it on line if you wish. I stand by my statements that you are apparently unwilling to read the book, and are thus displaying your bias. You read my post, then you go on a search of the internet, read some negative comments about him and refuse to go further, stymied by the conflict.

Either you are going to read his book and make an honest effort and comment on it's worth, or you are not going to invest the time.

You, sir, are well respected on this site, and frankly, I am dumbfounded by your refusal. You are dismissing it as junk science yet you have not read the book or any of it's references. Perhaps you should join James Randi in his ivory tower. He feels just as you do.

The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests.

I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too.

I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so."

Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.

My apologies for coming across as condescending.

Mimsey

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

I have offered the book to Emma, Hellofahoax and[STRIKE] Stradivarius[/STRIKE]and yet, no takers. Hum. What does that say?

It says that HelluvaHoax knows:

1. --how to quickly research a pseudoscientific study by learning what scientific peers have published about the controversial claims.

2. --how to not waste time on further studying the claimant's book until and unless they are first able to address the serious challenges that top professionals in that field have already raised.

3. --that it is a further waste of time to try to "prove a negative" (i.e. that the claimant's assertions/conclusions are not true); rather, it is much more productive to establish whether the claims are in dispute or not. If they are besieged by professional's who dismiss their protocols or conclusions, then one can simply conclude that the claimant has failed to make a compelling case. And with that, one no longer has to worry about whether in the future it will be proven true or false--because that's the responsibility of the claimant, not the reader.

With the sheer volume of subjects that I have researched over the past four decades, one learns to not waste time chasing dead ends and frivolous foo-foo.

The game of research is in finding the answer efficiently or even quickly.

If I knew as a teenager what I know now about research, I would have saved a couple decades of chasing Hubbard's pseudoscientific bullshit.

Mimsy, I don't mind if anyone posts questionable or even pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo on the internet, but then they should expect a robust examination and discussion to ensue. After someone takes the care to research it a little bit is not a good time for you to start throwing around condescension and insults--because you're the one that started the conversation in the first place.

If you don't want a conversation (i.e. TWO or more people talking about the subject) then just create a blog and lock out all comments. Otherwise, don't attack the messenger who brings research to the table, it looks silly.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

.


It says that HelluvaHoax knows:

1. --how to quickly research a pseudoscientific study by learning what scientific peers have published about the controversial claims.

2. --how to not waste time on further studying the claimant's book until and unless they are first able to address the serious challenges that top professionals in that field have already raised.

3. --that it is a further waste of time to try to "prove a negative" (i.e. that the claimant's assertions/conclusions are not true); rather, it is much more productive to establish whether the claims are in dispute or not. If they are besieged by professional's who dismiss their protocols or conclusions, then one can simply conclude that the claimant has failed to make a compelling case. And with that, one no longer has to worry about whether in the future it will be proven true or false--because that's the responsibility of the claimant, not the reader.

With the sheer volume of subjects that I have researched over the past four decades, one learns to not waste time chasing dead ends and frivolous foo-foo.

The game of research is in finding the answer efficiently or even quickly.

If I knew as a teenager what I know now about research, I would have saved a couple decades of chasing Hubbard's pseudoscientific bullshit.

Mimsy, I don't mind if anyone posts questionable or even pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo on the internet, but then they should expect a robust examination and discussion to ensue. After someone takes the care to research it a little bit is not a good time for you to start throwing around condescension and insults--because you're the one that started the conversation in the first place.

If you don't want a conversation (i.e. TWO or more people talking about the subject) then just create a blog and lock out all comments. Otherwise, don't attack the messenger who brings research to the table, it looks silly.

Fair enough. You want answers to #2 - go here: http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions He defends his work against many critics. Research it to your heart's content. That's a good place to start.

Mimsey