12
   

Does ESP exist?

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 12:30 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Incontrovertible examples? I don't think so.

Turning around, upon having the sense that someone is staring at you and finding this to be the case is hardly proof of ESP. The mere action of turning around is liable to draw a "stare" from someone and so is looking to the right or left or even just up.

A dog anticipating the arrival of his owner? How on earth do we know what the dog is thinking first of all, and given their incredibly more powerful senses of smell and hearing how do we know they are not picking up smells or sounds that give them their clue, but which we can't sense?

We often believe what we want to believe and if we want to believe something because it provides us with a sense of excitement or even just something to talk about, we do. When my wife became pregnant two years after we adopted our first child, I can't tell you how many time people would say to me "Isn't that always the way." So I did some research on it and in fact, no it is not always the way by a long shot, but it does happen enough, and it is a dramatic enough event that people draw the conclusion that it happens all the time.

I am amazed over how gullible people can be about even the most blatant hum-buggery. So called Mediums and Fortune Tellers are perfect examples. "How did they know the things they told me?" is usually the basis for their investing credibility in these frauds. If these charlatans have any talent at all it is in their ability to question people and read body signals so that they can tell the mark what he or she wants to hear. All the while the mark fails to remember the incorrect information provided or the numerous times the fraud has changed direction. Even more amazing is how many people buy into the "powers" of TV Humbugs like the "Long Island Medium;" completely disregarding the editing process that has been a God Send for these TV fakes.

Never mind that none of these frauds have ever been able to reproduce their "success" under laboratory conditions, and will invariably cite the dampening effect of negative skepticism as the reason. Not surprisingly, Sheldrake has claimed that skeptics dampen the "morphic field."

Sheldrake is a most appealing New Age guru for people like yourself because of his legitimate scientific credentials, however the mere fact that someone has studied science extensively and been engaged professionally in its practices doesn't mean that any and all of their "scientific" conclusions and theories are credible or even based on accepted scientific principles.

There are many cogent and detailed peer criticisms of Sheldrake's theory of "morphic resonance" out there that are available to you so there's no need for me to recite the gist of them here. I doubt you would be receptive in any case.

In addition, Sheldrake isn't even suggesting the existence of many of the paranormal abilities you're promoting and certainly not at the level's you seem to believe exist.

I'm open to the notion that they might exist in "some almost imperceptible" ways, but Sheldrake doesn't offer convincing evidence that they do, or that "ESP" is a superior explanation for phenomena to any other.

I am sympathetic to the premise behind his concept of Scientific Delusion, but asserting that the established scientific community may be too wed to dogma is not the same as denying the basic sense and effectiveness of the scientific method, and that he raises it is uncomfortably convenient for his controversial theories.

"Conventional" scientists are subject to the same risk of bias and experimental pitfalls that Sheldrake is and there are many examples of if not "group-think" than a desire of many "scientists" (and there are many of the intelligent, professional but not particularly brilliant among them) to be on the "right" or "accepted" side of an issue, and this can lead to a vehement and often nasty regard for those deemed heretics. Although, generally speaking they work the hardest among professionals to avoid its influence, they are still subject to human nature. Still, I see no reason to believe the general criticism of Sheldrake's theory is rife with influences that should call it into question.

I would not at all be surprised to learn of how numerous taxpayer funded experiments on ESP actually are. I am highly skeptical of the claim that they have "validated ESP on so many levels." However if so many exist, you should be able to provide us with evidence to support your claim.

Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 01:03 pm
Yawn..boring....


Quote:
I would not at all be surprised to learn of how numerous taxpayer funded experiments on ESP actually are. I am highly skeptical of the claim that they have "validated ESP on so many levels." However if so many exist, you should be able to provide us with evidence to support your claim.


yes

I haven't read your whole post, too tiring and boring.
And enormous logical flaws!~You just don't know what you are talking abouit, you have no clue at all!

Anyway ESP exist and there are even people who can communicate with
animals ( when they are a distance away)
As there is more than enough proof people still exist after their body dies.
If you see all th evidence and still think it is not true, your nuts.



But..Yawwwwwn..... your not really interested that is for sure.

You already have made up ypur mind, WITHOUT, looking at all available evidence.

Where are these people coming from????
Finn dAbuzz
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 06:04 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Ha!
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 07:14 pm
HEY Q!!!...Im still waiting....ok just ask her for Wed. Lotto numbers for NY and send them to me, ok?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 07:33 pm
@giujohn,
He probably found you boring too.

It's about as convincing an argument for not wanting to respond to criticism as "The skepticism of your negativity drives the Spirits away."
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 07:34 pm
@giujohn,
stats say that most lottery winners are "machine picked" numbers. SO the lotto sales machines are clairvoyant?
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 07:35 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Me boring??????? Surprised
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 07:37 pm
@farmerman,
Well it's possible...but just in case I stroke the machine lovingly as it spits out mty ticket.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 07:38 pm
@farmerman,
I read somewhere that you are better off not using Quick Pick and selecting the numbers yourself. Whether or not this says anything about States messing with the results, it just has to be proof of the power of the "morphic field."
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 07:40 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quahogs view of "incontrovertible evidence" is a somewhat strange trip. Buying Sheldrake without even a simple question like,
"why have his "recommended experiments" been unable to be repeated on a basis greater than mere chance"?
(when done in controlled environments and not based upon mere anecdotal reporting).

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 07:42 pm
@farmerman,
Sheldrake is the 80's guru of a pop concept that , today, has been replaced by these whackadoos that assert that our technology through history was given us by aliens.
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 07:44 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Actually the reason is if you play the same number week after week every time it's not picked it increases the chance of it being picked next time...not so with the quick pick; a different number every time.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 07:44 pm
@farmerman,
Now farmerman, you're dampening the morphic field. You probably just cost some poor bastard who filled out his lottery ticket a few million dollars.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 07:45 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
given us by aliens.


Japaneese or Germans?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 07:47 pm
@giujohn,
Infinitesimally perhaps.

Of course the other reasons I stated were not serious offerings.
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 07:49 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Infinitesimally? Really?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 07:57 pm
@giujohn,
Yes.

While your already astronomically low chance of winning a lottery may be improved by selecting your own numbers and sticking with them (as opposed to using Quick Pick) the improvement would be negligible.

I play the stupid thing, but it's vastly worse than a fool's bet.

I saw once that your chances of getting eaten by dogs (that's eaten, not bitten) is higher than your winning the lottery.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 08:17 pm
For Qs edification (and others who believe in this ESP nonsense) The Amazing Randi's $1,000,000 challenge is still in affect...so far no one has claimed the money.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 09:08 pm
@giujohn,
Great point.
giujohn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 09:11 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I'll also thow in a yellow 73 chevy vega station wagon to sweeten the deal!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Did he break up with me because of the ESP? - Discussion by Mariceloverthere
ESP and your pet - Discussion by Algis Kemezys
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does ESP exist?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/28/2024 at 10:20:23