free remote viewing magazine - issue 3

[really?]

[Craig Browning]

[NinjaPuppy]

Craig - Once again, an excellent post! Thank you!!!

[dazsmith]

[really?]

[ProfWag]

I actually believe this is a great thread with some good comments and information.
Daz, your quote concerning Hyman is accurate, but further reading clearly states he disagrees with the findings of Utts. Who do we believe? That's up to the reader as to which is more credible in their opinion. As mentioned, I have no reason to feel that you don't believe in what you are saying and what you do. I am pretty confident that you believe you are helping police and have an ability that most of the rest of us have not tapped into. I wish I had a passion in something as you appear to have with RV. Nothing wrong with that at all and I applaud your professionalism and eagerness to share your stories. It does stimulate good discussion and thought. (How's that Ninja?)

Craig, a lot of information that I just don't have time to comment on each and every statement, but I'll try to summarize anyhow. As for the comment I made about psychics do more harm than good, I did preface that with "I believe." That's just an opinion that I have not researched. You know, as well as I, that there are many fraudulent psychics out there that take your money at the drop of a hat (and many people's life savings). There are the Sylvias and others that tell parents their kids are dead when they are actually alive. Are there credible psychics? My belief based on my research is that there aren't any real psychics, hence, none of them are credible. If we find out later that there aren't any "real" psychics, does that mean their advice was not worthy of taking? I don't know the answer to that either, but as you alluded to, if the psychic isn't "real," you would be just as well off taking the advice of your bartender. To summarize my opinion on that statement, fraudulent psychics are criminal. If psychic abilities are not "real," then those that practice it, whether they believe in what they are doing or not, are only supporting those that are fraudulent and increasing their profitibility. So, that's how I have reached my conclusion that psychics do more harm than good. Once again, I don't have the scientific answer to this statement, but I just have never met anyone who was successful in life that gives credit to a psychic, though there may be someone out there I'm unaware of. They get to where they are based on hard work, personal commitment, and desire. Again, just my opinion based on my readings and personal experiences (to include experiences with psychics and astrologers.)
I've stated this several times before, but I'll say it again. The FBI states that no psychic has ever solved a crime. The National Academy of Science says no further research in parapsychology is warranted, and the results from the strong supporters of psi to include Utts, Radin, et. al, all claim that there is evidence of psi, but not yet conclusive and they all continue that more research should be done (not disagreeing with that). Those conclusions seem pretty convincing to me about parapsychology and unless I'm given something more concrete, I just don't see how I can become a believer at this point in time(though how much I wish it were true.) Other than that, I don't know what to tell you. I'm really not a bad person, I promise. But when you criticize "skeptics" or "pseudo-skeptics," you are actually criticizing a personallity. My life experiences have led me to being a skeptic. I used to believe in everything people tell me, until I got burned on several occasions. I now can no longer believe in things without questioning it. I not only do this with the paranormal, but I do it with the news, with my work groups, with my wife, with politicians, etc. If that makes me a bad person or someone with a trait that you feel you have to write a book about, then so be it. Shermer wrote a book entitled "Whhy People Believe Weird Things," so I guess a book about skeptics and their facilities is only fair.
Please note, that until this sentence, I did not use the word "proof" or "prove."

Last edited by ProfWag on 17 Mar 2010, 09:30, edited 1 time in total.

[Nostradamus]

Some interesting discussion here. It makes me think about a lot of issues. Thanks for all for the effort put out here.

[NinjaPuppy]

[Nostradamus]

I suppose we need to look at the report and see what the reasoning was behind this statement.

[really?]

In my list of paranormal and skeptical links I have Ms. Utts's site bookedmarked http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/
The last time Ms.Utts seems to have done any research into the paranormal was 1995. If the meta-analysis Daz would have us believe was so conclusive why has she [Utts] not done any further research ?

[ProfWag]

[NinjaPuppy]

Thanks ProfWag. I did an Evelyn Wood quickie of that book as they call it and it's very interesting. Not to mention, from what I read, I can understand it.

[Nostradamus]

Thanks for the link. I'm reading through the book and it is pretty interesting.

It's not too surprising to learn that the statistical method was accepted - today that's not too surprising. It's also not interesting to learn that as some experiments were tightened up that the results began to look more and more like chance. That's rather typical. Sometimes I've seen where better experimental methods actually make differences observable.

[Nostradamus]

Those are interested in remote viewing might want to read the information referred to by ProfWag. Info begins on p616.

[dazsmith]