Sure, there are a lot fakes out there, but there really are people who have psychic ability. Agree or Disagree? Why or Why not? Base all responses on information from the Internet. If you're feeling especially creative, you can upload text and images.
When doing some research on this topic tonight, Psychic Ability, I found this following site, which focuses on "the most interesting and challenging current ideas on the nature and enhancement of consciousness", to be somewhat interesting. I have always been a skeptic, but this site might be somewhat legitamate to look at. This part of their home page caught my attention, "An important aspect of our research effort is the publication of the Journal of Parapsychology a peer-reviewed scientific periodical that has been published continuously since 1937, and that has consistently offered to the scientific community a large portion of the best theoretical and empirical work that has been done on these problems". Here's the site
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rhine.org/aboutus.htm.
Thoughts?
Monique W
Monique,
ReplyDeleteThanks for starting out the discussion with an interesting webpage. I did a little searching regarding the Rhine Research Institute and have some thoughts regarding it. J.B. Rhine was a scientist (botanist) turned parapsychologist credited for the Zener Test and for dubbing the term "ESP". What I call into question are a few pieces of information on the Rhine Research Site. First, they state they periodically have research reviews. Research review should be a major component of any legitimate "scientific journal". In addition, the reviewers were "happy" with the reviews written and were encouraged to continue to publish in mainstream interdisciplinary journals. To me, there needs to be more raw data and solid conclusions than "happy". What does "happy" entail exactly? Further, the fact that not all reviews are published mainstream makes me question the validity of their claims. Yes, they are peer reviewed, but by whom?
The second piece I bring into question is the argument of parapsychology being a pseudo science. While I do not site any specific pseudo science articles, being a science teacher, I do wonder how some of these tests are interpreted statistically. According to Science, a major science journal publication since its start in 1880, one article abstract describes the statistical problems with ESP testing siting unconscious cues, subject cheating, or induced ESP experiences. These claims call the significance of the results into question. Below are links to the abstract in Science as well as the information page about why Science is a fairly credible source.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/201/4351/131
http://www.sciencemag.org/help/about/about.dtl#section_about-science
Comments?
Jeff V.
Jeff, and Monique, you have both brought about some valid points. I am going to have to agree with JEff on his idea of how some of the tests are interpreted statistically. In every science experiment where observations and data are collected, there is always a chance for human error, and I feel points of view can be somewhat blamed for this. It's the same idea as the glass is half empty, vs. the glass is half full. It depends how you look at things. Scientists can also omit information from tests to have things read the way that they want them to. It is almost like guiding people into thinking what you want.
ReplyDeleteIn the research that I did, I came across a website for the American Society for Psychical Research. On this website there was lots of information supporting the idea of psychic abilities. They investigate and "explore extraordinary or unexplained phenomena" and it appears they tie it to psychic abilities. As you read, you can click on words in red. I clicked on Phenomena and ended up on a page that had books and research to support their claims. However, this is where I feel there is a problem. While some of their sources may be legitimate, I came across a book called Guidelines for Testing Psychic Claims by Richard Wiseman and Robert L. Morris. This made me think about Jeff's concern about how things are interpreted, and how claims are peer reviewed. It appeared to me that the authors of this book have come up with a criteria to determine if something was coincidence, or a psychic moment. I feel that is a bit ridiculous. Who makes this determination. I have had plenty of dreams about things that didn't happen until after I dreamed them, but I am not a psychic. In our daily lives, we see and experience things we may not even be aware of. These experiences may pop up in dreams or de-ja-vu events later on down the road, but again, who determines their explanations? It is easy to read an article, and real "accounts" of what people have experienced, but is it really pyschic abilities, or mere coincidences?
There was also a portion on the site that was a questionnaire. It allowed you to answer questions on a scale. I found this interesting, and was curious as to what they would have told me if I answered the questions "correctly". There were questions about your dreams, near death experiences, predicting things that have not happened etc. I wonder who reads the information and what their criteria are for determining what the person filling it out is experiencing. IF you have a chance, go look on their website. It is in a tab at the bottom of the page.
here's the website:
http://www.aspr.com/who.htm
Laura S.
Group,
ReplyDeleteI just poked around on the ASPR site (Laura's) and I have a few comments. Laura, I see what you mean regarding the questionnaire. It's kind of interesting because this is titled under ONLINE RESEARCH. I clicked on the link and expected to be taken to a page possibly with archived information, journals, etc. When I envision credible sites I imagine that data and research should be accessible through peer reviewed journals and such. The abstracts that I found while searching the site are from 35 years ago, and while significant research was completed in every major field of study further back than that, the expectation is that research is ongoing and available.
I question this online survey as well, Laura. I guess what worries me is the credibility of the people that respond. Is this the main source of individuals for this type of research? If I was a researcher, I would be cautious with what I find on the Internet, including whom. I will continue to look for credible, peer reviewed journals and other resources that can shed greater light on this topic.
Laura, when you said, "It appeared to me that the authors of this book have come up with a criteria to determine if something was coincidence, or a psychic moment", I had the thought, how did they come up with this criteria? Maybe data, that could have been tampered and sided from their own pre-existing ideas/beliefs. Everything we do and report is impacted by own experiences while sometimes subconciously. What we know is from what we have experienced. I found a site that I think will spark some questions and leave people to ponder... The website is http://www.esotericscience.org/. In this site you can read information about the following,"By combining modern scientific facts with ancient spiritual knowledge we begin to uncover the whole truth and bring unity out of the existing duality. There can be only one true reality, but we will never discover the whole truth if we hold on to our preconceived ideas and only look from one perspective." The creater of this site seems to be Lee Bladon. He says he's trying to promote esoteric science and the "whole of reality". Questions I thought about after looking at this site. Is psychic ability hard for us to understand or even fathom because it doesn't seem to fit in with reality? or are we scared to think it exist in some form that we ignore it and just beleive what we told and what we see.
ReplyDeleteMonique W
I am not sure if I mentioned this before, but going off what Monique wrote about where this “criteria” actually originates from, a premise for the report I cited before was that biased opinions and criteria formed from previous experiences was a major flaw in the statistical analysis of psychic abilities too, so I have to agree with both Monique and Laura. Furthermore, MY interpretation of some of the data we’ve looked at so far is that the criteria for some of these so called psychic conditions is definitely flawed.
ReplyDeleteI also think you bring up some interesting points Monique, but I am still skeptical. I believe in the possibility of psychic abilities, I agree that it is hard to understand because we are talking about something with not a whole lot of tangible evidence, something perhaps in the subconscious. Many of us do blindly follow along a path, while others choose no path, no beliefs. The experiences in my life thus far have pushed me towards to science and the belief that empirical evidence rules, and I find things hard to believe without either tangible evidence or strong indirect evidence. But then again as the author of the page brings up, science is a mainstream belief, much like religion and these systems are there for people afraid of knowing the “truth”.
One thing that you stated, which I believe was a quote from the site was the statement of, “One true reality”. I see this as opinion or belief not backed by evidence, because if you want to get technical, probability (and quantum physics) states that the chance of real multiple realities in the universe is more likely than anyone thinks. Sorry I ran off on a tangent…
Thoughts?
Jeff V.
Just a quick blurb, I haven't had a chance to look at the site Monique mentioned in her post, so this is just a personal comment. I had mentioned in my past post the same idea of criteria, and I think it falls back on something that we have all mentioned. There can be studies done, but how you choose to interpret them can change what they mean. This goes hand in hand with psychic abilities. How you choose to interpret a situation can change the meaning altogether.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Jeff's point he made about the chance of "multiple realities". I took physics a long time ago, and some of it is a little foggy, I but I do remember their being talk about more than one reality. It's something for me to look into.
I know that I am on the con side of it, but I do think it could be possible. I think I have the same problem as Jeff in that I am more prone to lean towards the science related side of things in which it is seems to be unlikely. It almost makes me think of the idea of a seeing someone who is dead etc. and scientifically they say that isn't true but there are people who swear that they have. ( In the questionaire on the site I gave, they had questions about near death experiences and seeing people who have passed) I think it truly falls back onto the idea of interpretation. Who knows if we will ever get a solid answer. I too am sorry for the ramble, just some ideas.
Hello all, I am still researching this topic but I thought that I should get something in to this blog. I have read several sites so far and have to say that there is evidence of psychic ability. I have read a site on how to test your psychic ability. I came across several sites that tell you how to increase your psychic ability. I even read an article on CNN that Larry King hosted a debate between a scientist and a psychic. The scientist would pay 1 million dollars if the psychic could pass his test. It was long and drawn out and got boring after the 8th page of arguing.
ReplyDeleteSo, are psychic’s real? A question for the ages. I think that there are moments of “hey I dreamt that”, or “I sense my friend needs help”. We have all had these thoughts. Does that mean that we are all psychic?
I will be looking at some of the sites that you have listed tomorrow. For tonight I leave you with this site that I found: http://the-psychic-dective.com/Are-Psychics-Real.htm take a look.
I am on the pro side of this argument for the assignment. I will say this, I have had those da-zha-voo moments but I do not believe that I am psychic.
I have read the thoughts posted on this page. I think that there is some truth in all of it. Both sides have valid points. How does the testing work and more importantly who does the interpretation of the tests.
Thanks for listening
Todd
Hi all, I just now got a chance to starting researching from a pro standpoint and am struggling to find resources to support psychic ability. I did find a a website of a Global Psychic that gives some compelling examples of her psychic work over the years including her involvement to help detectives solve crimes, murders, and missing persons. If you get a chance, check out the following site and let me know your thoughts on it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.globalpsychics.com/about-global-psychics/shelly.shtml
All,
ReplyDeleteTodd, I think I’ve either heard or read about the scientist/ psychic $1,000,000 challenge you talked about. What I read about that was that the criteria that the scientist had was absolutely impossible for even possible "authentic" psychics to achieve, and while I am arguing the con side, I think that in the above mentioned case, it was a little ridiculous from the scientific side, to be so bold as to offer money to proof of a real psychic.
Looking at the site you left, Todd, I think the idea of interpretation that we all have been kicking around is a legitimate concern, but my concern with this particular site is that 1.) It is a .com website. From the readings this week, credibility can be questioned from .coms. 2.)The page talks more about how to determine if a psychic is real or not and how to find a good psychic, not any hard evidence that can prove the abilities of psychics, and 3.) The page talks about reputation having an important part of the success of a psychic. "Word of Mouth" advertising is important but I don't really see how this can help determine the ability of a psychic or convince me that people do in fact have psychic abilities.
Ann, I also took a look at the site you brought up, and (keep in mind this is just me playing the con side) but I laughed out loud at the picture on the page. How could anybody take this seriously? She does claim to have worked several murder and missing person cases with high levels of accuracy and success, but from the few murder or missing person investigations I have seen/watched/read about from the media, the general idea that I get is that psychics are called in as a last resort. If people have this ability, why is it not the first place police officials go to? Being the empirical, hard-evidence science teacher I am, the site provides no evidence, just claims and services. Just playing the role, so it’s just my take and just my thoughts...anybody?
Jeff V.
Hello All,
ReplyDeleteI have read the artical that had found. Yes I can see that stating that she helps out with cases for the police, and doen't change for them, is a good way to prove her abilities to the world. (remember i have to play the pro side of this) She helps aroudnt he worl and explaines how she can work remotly or in proximity. along with this she need and desires the police involvement to be able to work the best.
About the articel that I posted. We may have read on how to judge a valid and reputable reference. This does non mean that we have to just thoss out all .com references. If someone is trying to make a business out of thier skill or gift and they are using a .com so what. To me that is not a reason to just dismiss what could be a valid reference. Remember we also read to cross reference the sites we read to other sites and other sources. Is the source we are looking at a reference from other sources as well. There is lots to consider before just dismissing a site based on a .com
JAPO (Just Another Personal Opinion)
Thanks for listening
Todd
Hello Group.
ReplyDeleteI added my previous comment last night. Aparently it was done after the hour in which typing was supposed to make sence. So here is it with corrected spelling.
Hello All,
I have read the artical that Ann had found. Yes I can see that stating that she helps out with cases for the police, and doen't change for them, is a good way to prove her abilities to the world. (remember i have to play the pro side of this) She helps around the world and explaines how she can work remotly or in proximity. Along with this she needs and desires the police involvement to be able to work the best.
About the article that I posted. We may have read on how to judge a valid and reputable reference. This does non mean that we have to just toss out all .com references. If someone is trying to make a business out of thier skill or gift and they are using a .com, so what. To me that is not a reason to just dismiss what could be a valid reference. Remember we also read to cross reference the sites we read to other sites and other sources. Is the source we are looking at a reference from other sources as well. There is lots to consider before just dismissing a site based on a .com
JAPO (Just Another Personal Opinion)
Thanks for listening
Todd
END Of CORRECTIONS
So what did we learn from this? Do not sit in your recliner after 10 pm with only a small lamp over in the corner and try to make a posting. As you can see the results are not very good.
Todd
Todd,
ReplyDeleteWell stated. Although I sat opposite you in the discussion, I completely agree with your previous post.
I tried to go to the site Todd posted, but couldn't get through. I will try again tomorrow. I did check out Ann's site at Global Psychics. It was interesting to read about her work with police officers. However, do we have evidence that she did in fact help the police? If so, great, but should the police trust her? Remember, it's my job as the moderator to ask these questions and to keep everyone riled up and to focus on the information from the internet, and not our judgment. Not an easy job:-) This topic is hard to debate when you feel strongly about one side, and when you have a point of view that might interfere with your beliefs.
ReplyDeleteA quick note about what Todd said pertaining to .com sites and their credibility. I do agree that people should use .com sites to cross reference information found in other sites. Sometimes sites that we may hold to be credible because they are not .com might not be as reliable as we might think. Wikipedia for example, gets information from sources that may or may not be skilled or highly qualified in that area, but may have been overlooked. Just a question, is Wikipedia and other research sites monitored regularly and if so how can we tell.
Monique
Monique,
ReplyDeleteFunny you should ask this question about Wikipedia. One of my appreciated reading articles is actually about Wikipedia and its, pseudo "Open Source" title. Anyway, to answer your question about Wikipedia, it was started in 2001 and it is monitored by a small not for profit group of volunteers from Wikipedia, but most of the monitoring and regulation comes from the anonymous Internet public. All you have to do to post is go through a four day waiting period so that you don't do "drive by pranks" (That's for high traffic pages and political officials). No name appears with your edit, just an IP address or screen name. The article is short and sweet from the NY Times. It will be posted later this evening by me under CEP 806 Resources on the PbWiki.
-Jeff V.