|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are visions from God, or the Devil or indigestion? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I understand there's a phenomenon called the "Ganzfeld"(sp?) effect where people experiencing sensory deprevation have greater-than-chance success at "recieving" pictures and messages mentally from senders in the next room who concentrate really hard.
Of course it smacks of pseudoscience so it's hard to attract funding. Plus no one's been able to put forth any kind of mechanism or explanation for the effect. But it's certainly not "talking to the dead", or reading minds, or any John Edwards stuff. Just what I've heard, anyway. ------------------Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
You may want to peruse this site for information on this effect.
Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: ?
quote: I am sure of this, too, despite there being a $1,000,000 prize to anyone demonstrating their stated abilities under standard wxperimental protocols.
quote: No, it is often very well-understood if examined critically. They are observed in the act of cold-reading. Their subjects remember the hits and disregard the misses, and also feed the cold-reader information which helps them. It is a very-well understood phenomena that illusionists and magicians have used for a long time, and charlatans and the self-deluded have also used for a long time. Just because every single self-proclaimed psychic has not been tested doesn't mean they are all self-deluded or frauds. However, the fact that not a single one who has been tested has been able to do what they said they could do, combined with the fact that cold-reading can appear as psychic ability when controls are not in place, tends to weigh heavily against the idea that psychic ability is real. See this for more information: cold reading - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com Error 404 - Australian Skeptics Inc
quote: Yes, I have heard of remote viewing, and it has not been demonstrated to be a real phenomena under controlled conditions. Governments are filled with politicians, not scientists nor skeptical thinkers, so it does not surprise me that some would be attracted to RV. See this for more info: remote viewing - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
That's more evidence that doctors are not scientists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: There are lots of problems with the Ganzfield experiments: ganzfeld - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
quote: It's not pseudoscience, exactly. It's more like sloppy science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
The 'reflected back part' was a reference to your
immediate 'It's not real' response. You say things like 'How do you know?' which is equally well directed back to you as a question of whether or not you know otherwise. Yes I know about cold-reading, and have observed it first hand. I have also seen self-proclaimed mediums drawing completeblanks from audience members, and then found non-targetted audience members who admit afterward that the refernces seemed familiar to them. (Coincidence maybe, who knows?) Since there is little well performed research in the area,all I am saying is that we cannot have sufficient information at present to make the determination. Just because we are taught that something is (or isn't) thecase, doesn't mean it is ... does it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Peter,
Although I agree that "absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence", on the other hand it provides no support for the claim, either. Anecdotal evidence or testimony - as you well know from your posts on this board on creationist nonsense, for instance - is insufficient in and of itself to validate a claim. Especially a claim about capabilities and energies for which there is no other empirical support, and which tend to disappear under controlled conditions, or apparently even in the presence of skeptics like stage magicians. Reading your exchange with Schraf, I don't think she's dogmatically asserting that the capabilities DON'T exist. After all, as Shakespeare put it, "there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy". She IS, however, stating that the evidence thus far provides no support for the claim of their existence. It isn't up to the skeptic to disprove a claim such as remote viewing. It's up to the advocates to provide unambiguous, replicable evidence of its existence. Otherwise, it's just a belief...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
My line was just that we cannot know at present,
and I often get a little carried away when I see statements that appear to be closed on any subject. Re-reading schraf's posts I think I tend to agree thatshe is simply stating that at present there is no formal evidence to suggest that such powers exist. Which is OK by me
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Just out of curiosity, what are the standard control
conditions used to test psychics?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
techristian Member (Idle past 4103 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
Mr. Pamboli
It sparks my curiosity, sure enough, but doesn't strike me as spiritual. How's the music, btw? Still going strong? Yes I'm about to release a new CD OUT OF THIS WORLD OK I posted a new title here about Cold Reading because a few people mentioned it. I want to know how good YOU ALL are at cold reading. I'm not talking about a PSYCHIC experience here, (or you may think that I am) When you meet someone new , does something in their face trigger a repulsive, positive or neutral response? Why. After you get to know them better was your first instinct correct? As I get older, I find that I get better at this but I still get surprises sometimes. Are we reading the AURA?, the EYES?, FACE or the gestures? If the administrator wants to start a new topic on this, I hope that I can find it ! Dan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
have you read witgenstein? you should. on certainty is entirely about that statement you just made.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024