Evidence for God from Science

Here we have a top sceptic in England basically agreeing that remote viewing or the ability to project your consciousness outside your body to be scientifically proven by any area of science .
Guys wanna chime in ?
Hugh your thoughts ?
I know you'll want to see the research . I viewed it a few years ago.
What I remember is that the government spent 20 million on the study , got an independent scientist/mathematician to lookovet the stats and she basically agreed that the stats were to high to be by chance and that remote viewing is proven here . What's strange is thT after a very successful research the government suddenly [poops] the study down .
Hmmm I wonder why ?
Of course this would be a great spy weapon that cannot be stopped if this is for real

I think Richard wiseman is moving the goalposts here .

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/09/s ... s.html?m=1


Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper:
In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected.

Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.

"The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments."

Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists.

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

"If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.

"But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.

"Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."

Thus, a prominent skeptic agrees that (1) the study of remote viewing is an area of science, which should thoroughly obviate the skeptical epithet of "pseudoscience" once and for all. And (2) that when judged against prevailing scientific standards for evaluating evidence, he agrees that remote viewing is proven. The follow-on argument that this phenomenon is so unusual that it requires more evidence refers not to evidence per se, or even to scientific methods or practice, but to assumptions about the fabric of reality.

I agree that remote viewing would be difficult to explain using 17th century ontology, which from today's perspective would be a naive, classical physics view of reality. But I suspect it will be explained through 21st century expansions of those assumptions.

Oh, well.

The Daily Mail article of 2008 refers to an investigation carried out 13 years previously, in 1995, regarding a US project into extra-sensory perception which began in 1978. The two scientists who evaluated the project were Jessica Utts, who thought the project "proved" the existence of ESP, and Ray Hyman, who thought the opposite. Their reports can be read at https://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf and http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/hyman.html. They both have wikipedia pages for further information. The result of their reports was that the project was closed as a waste of time and money.

The main problem, as I see it, was not in the evaluation of the results, which did demonstrate a possible non-random positive response and which evoked Richard Wiseman's somewhat unwise remark, but in the nature of the results themselves. Hyman said that "The overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target. The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating."

Neither of the reports is particularly clear as to the exact nature of the experiments, but they seem to have involved viewers in a laboratory trying to identify scenes, either pictures of scenes or real places. Their responses were then evaluated according to their 'accuracy' in a wholly subjective way. If a picture of Mount Everest is 'remotely viewed' as an Alpine valley, is that a success or a failure? Maybe the subject has picked up the 'mountainous area' theme. Let's call it a hit. And so on.

Yup, a prominent skeptic did indeed say that. How he wishes he hadn't.

Hugh sounds to me that you already made up your mind which I wasn't surprised about . Now are you saying the the skeptic was dead on on his interpretation and Jessica it's was totally incompetent ?
I read both reports a while back and I will be combing through them again
Let's see if your post was balanced and fair to both scientists or was it biased towards one side .

I won't say one way or another until I research this again as its been a while since I have gone through the reports .

I know that dean radon knows his stuff and is known in his circles as being pretty conservative .

As far as Richard wiseman you are absolutely wrong as I saw Otho g that suggested that he wished he hadn't said what he said as from what ivecseen he seems to be saying the same thing now he had said back then .

I hope I don't find any hint of biasm

This is what Hugh said ""They both have wikipedia pages for further information. The result of their reports was that the project was closed as a waste of time and money.""

So you take the governments official word at 100% face value without applying the same scepticism that you use towards anything that canbe construed as an immaterial or paranormal result ? From what I'm reading so far from professor utts it seems to me that they shouldn't be interpreted the way professor hyman believes they should be .

High then goes on to say
""The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating."

Now let's see if this is correct ?

""According to Webster's Dictionary, in law prima facie evidence is "evidence having such a degree of probability that it must prevail unless the contrary be proved." There are a few examples of applied, non-laboratory remote viewings provided to the review team that would seem to meet that criterion for evidence. These are examples in which the sponsor or another government client asked for a single remote viewing of a site, known to the requestor in real time or in the future, and the viewer provided details far beyond what could be taken as a reasonable guess. Two such examples are given by May (1995) in which it appears that the results were so striking that they far exceed the phenomenon as observed in the laboratory. Using a post hoc analysis, Dr. May concluded that in one of the cases the remote viewer was able to describe a microwave generator with 80 percent accuracy, and that of what he said almost 70 percent of it was reliable. Laboratory remote viewings rarely show that level of correspondence.""

Now unless the remote view was experienced at building a microwave generator or had seen one I do t think he could have remote viewed it at this type of accuracy , and I don't believe that the person was given a clue as to what it was he was supposed to describe (I could be wrong but from what I've read so far he wasn't )

""Yup, a prominent skeptic did indeed say that. How he wishes he hadn't.""
I believe that's called speaking for someone . Please show me where professor wiseman regretted saying it

As far as the other targets or the Mount Everest one I haven't read that far yet so I'll reserve my response for a later date . Hopefully high your research into this areas is better then your research on the consensus from the scientific Nde experts .

I normally would have digested both papers in one sitting but as you guys know my time is limited and I'm reading and typing everything from a tiny screen

Bippy123 wrote:Hugh sounds to me that you already made up your mind.

That's hardly fair. On reading your post I followed the link, then looked up the primary sources from which the Daily Mail article was derived, and biographies of their authors. You carefully avoided adding "and other top skeptic doesn't think remote viewing scientifically proven," to your headline, which would have been less biased on your part, if I may say so. Then I attempted to reconcile the undoubted statistical authority of Jessica Utts with the disagreement of Ray Hyman.

As far as Richard Wiseman you are absolutely wrong.

I don't think so. In interviews, essays and books his view is uncompromisingly skeptical. He does not believe that extra sensory perception exists, nor think it proven.

Hugh then goes on to say
"The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating."

No. I was quoting Ray Hyman, as I made clear.

Using a post hoc analysis, Dr. May concluded that in one of the cases the remote viewer was able to describe a microwave generator with 80 percent accuracy, and that of what he said almost 70 percent of it was reliable.

That illustrates exactly what I mean by subjectivity in judging whether a subject really has 'remotely seen' something or not. Try writing a description of a car which is 80% accurate, of which 70% is reliable, yourself. How does it differ from a description which is 50% accurate, but 90% reliable?

I believe that's called speaking for someone . Please show me where professor Wiseman regretted saying it.

So it is. And no I can't. But I bet it's true!

hughfarey wrote:

Bippy123 wrote:Hugh sounds to me that you already made up your mind.

That's hardly fair. On reading your post I followed the link, then looked up the primary sources from which the Daily Mail article was derived, and biographies of their authors. You carefully avoided adding "and other top skeptic doesn't think remote viewing scientifically proven," to your headline, which would have been less biased on your part, if I may say so. Then I attempted to reconcile the undoubted statistical authority of Jessica Utts with the disagreement of Ray Hyman.

As far as Richard Wiseman you are absolutely wrong.

I don't think so. In interviews, essays and books his view is uncompromisingly skeptical. He does not believe that extra sensory perception exists, nor think it proven.

Hugh then goes on to say
"The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating."

No. I was quoting Ray Hyman, as I made clear.

Using a post hoc analysis, Dr. May concluded that in one of the cases the remote viewer was able to describe a microwave generator with 80 percent accuracy, and that of what he said almost 70 percent of it was reliable.

That illustrates exactly what I mean by subjectivity in judging whether a subject really has 'remotely seen' something or not. Try writing a description of a car which is 80% accurate, of which 70% is reliable, yourself. How does it differ from a description which is 50% accurate, but 90% reliable?

I believe that's called speaking for someone . Please show me where professor Wiseman regretted saying it.

So it is. And no I can't. But I bet it's true!

Maybe it is subjectively proven?

I saw that...
-
-
-

Audi when someone described he's something with an 80% accuracy and if it really is 80% then it's more then subjective . For Hugh to say its subjective isn't really intellectually honest . I doubt most people could possibly even kniw whT a microwave generator looks like .

Some people just refuse to let the paranormal in . This is t a paranormal of the gaps argument . It's a science stopper .

Richard wiseman eas playing it safe just in case in the future science finally lets the paranormal in.

bippy123 wrote:Audi when someone described he's something with an 80% accuracy and if it really is 80% then it's more then subjective . For Hugh to say its subjective isn't really intellectually honest . I doubt most people could possibly even kniw whT a microwave generator looks like .

Some people just refuse to let the paranormal in . This is t a paranormal of the gaps argument . It's a science stopper .

Richard wiseman eas playing it safe just in case in the future science finally lets the paranormal in.

Some people see the supernatural everywhere. Who gives a flyin' flip about
"Some" unidentified person somewhere?

If para is real it will hold up to scrutiny over time. Its been claimed so many times
its worse than the discoveries of the ark, a million times over.

If its real, I can be convinced. Meantime, I wont be getting all excited,
nor would any sensible person. Plenty of claims of all sorts are always coming in.
Wait and see. Wanting to believe is a trap.

There are Some things that -- though possible to be done -- are Not in the best interest of Anyone to continue Doing.

bippy123 wrote:Audi when someone described he's something with an 80% accuracy and if it really is 80% then it's more then subjective. For Hugh to say its subjective isn't really intellectually honest

Is it not? Would you like to clarify that, perhaps after reading my comments more carefully? "If it really is...." Well, quite. My point is that deciding the accuracy of a description is wholly subjective. There is no subjective way of saying whether a description is 80%, or 50% or whatever, accurate - and then to claim that of that accuracy, it is 70% reliable, is piling subjectivity onto subjectivity.

It is, in fact, possible to construct an objective scale of recognition - but this is never done by 'remote viewing' adherents, because it invariably results in a complete failure.

I remember the report in the Daily Mail, I didn't pay much attention to it at the time, the Daily Mail isn't exactly what I consider a reliable source (sorry bips)

I've experienced a few "paranormal" events, unexplainable, real and "proven"
One was knowing, somehow, what cards my now husband was looking at. I got 14 of 14. How? Not a clue. I just knew.
One was one evening when I was dozing off and felt myself sitting on his sofa watching him. (We were both alone at our homes) I called him later and described what I saw. It all matched. Exactly.

I can't explain either of those, never done them since.

There could be a perfectly logical explanation, it may just have been chance but I can't discount it as something else, something paranormal.

hughfarey wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Audi when someone described he's something with an 80% accuracy and if it really is 80% then it's more then subjective. For Hugh to say its subjective isn't really intellectually honest

Is it not? Would you like to clarify that, perhaps after reading my comments more carefully? "If it really is...." Well, quite. My point is that deciding the accuracy of a description is wholly subjective. There is no subjective way of saying whether a description is 80%, or 50% or whatever, accurate - and then to claim that of that accuracy, it is 70% reliable, is piling subjectivity onto subjectivity.

It is, in fact, possible to construct an objective scale of recognition - but this is never done by 'remote viewing' adherents, because it invariably results in a complete failure.

We would need to see description . Maybe there was a criteria that all parties agreed upon , but to all it totally subjective would mean that everyone would look at their description and get a different opinion as how close it was to the actual thing song described. .

Let's say for instance that a person was asked to give a description of a device that was planted deep with N the earth and he got extremely close to the actual description and everyone in the study agreed that he got close to it . Some would say he was 70% , others 75% etc .

This part might be partially objective Hugh, but the objective ve part is that he got pretty close to describing it . This is something that can't be ignored and I believe that this is probably why Richard wiseman made the statement in that article .

To nitpick and call it totally subjective is to miss the forest while seeing only the tree.
And to claim that the US government scraped the program because it was useless shows an incredible naivety of how most super power governments work .

Do you think if it was a total success that they would announce to the world that they are going to invest even more money into it and expand the study ?
Hugh we both know that you don't believe it for one second
One thing is obvious about you Hugh , your a deep thinker but your scepticism seems get suspended at times .

Whatever you do Hugh please don't study the jfk assassination or you might have some of us believing that Oswald actually did it

Storyteller wrote:I remember the report in the Daily Mail, I didn't pay much attention to it at the time, the Daily Mail isn't exactly what I consider a reliable source (sorry bips)

I've experienced a few "paranormal" events, unexplainable, real and "proven"
One was knowing, somehow, what cards my now husband was looking at. I got 14 of 14. How? Not a clue. I just knew.
One was one evening when I was dozing off and felt myself sitting on his sofa watching him. (We were both alone at our homes) I called him later and described what I saw. It all matched. Exactly.

I can't explain either of those, never done them since.

There could be a perfectly logical explanation, it may just have been chance but I can't discount it as something else, something paranormal.

Hey anette hope all is well with you my friend .
Yes it could have been chance but whst are the odds of it ?
And can it be replicated ?
I'm just saying that I hope someone other then the government does more research into this .
Oops actually dean radon of the Noetic institute of science is doing something like this (I believe ).