Home Forums Deep Time Journey Forum Is the universe a "living system"? Reply To: Is the universe a "living system"?

#4322
Jon Cleland Host
Participant

 

Ed-

 

  Sorry for the long delay – a lot going on in my life.

 

        you wrote:

Personally, I’ve moved past such arguments – there is a TON of evidence regarding anomalous information transfer.  Others can wait for “extraordinary proof” to emerge that will put down even the most extreme skeptic, however I’ve grown impatient as the data mounts in favor of a true anomaly.

 

I don’t see “a TON” of evidence.  We all know that in the 1800’s there were many claims of all kinds of psychic phenomena with very large effect sizes, which, when tested, were found to be either mistakes or outright deception.  Then in the 1900’s , the claims changed name to things like “quantum ESP”, with only a moderate effect size, and when examined closely, these too were found to be either mistakes or outright deception.  Many other claims were made which were debunked, which I’m not mentioning just for space.  Then, in the 1990’s, this paper came out:   http://web.arizona.edu/~vas/358/doespsi.pdf,

which was later again found to be either a mistake or outright deception, as shown here:  http://www.deanradin.com/FOC2014/Milton1999Ganzfeld.pdf

Thanks for the many points to look into about the Bem work, which claimed an even smaller effect.  It seems that a lot of attempts were made at reproducing his work, all of which failed to find any affect – but that many of these were submitted and not published because the Journal doesn’t often publish failed replication experiments.  They finally did so, and here it is: http://deanradin.com/evidence/galak2012.pdf 

 

The trend here seems to me to suggest that the closer anomalous information transfer/quantum ESP/psychic/etc is looked at, the smaller the effect becomes, which is a common trend for things that turn out to simply not exist.  

 

I’m sorry, I simply don’t see the evidence as you described it:  ” as the data mounts in favor of a true anomaly.”

 

“Scientific consensus” is not a priesthood. It’s ok to step outside of prescribed worldviews and try on alternate perspectives.

 

 

No one is suggesting a “priesthood”.  Sure, it’s OK, as long as one is an expert in the field.  Otherwise, we literally don’t know what we are talking about. That’s where the scientific consensus comes in for those of us who aren’t experts.

 

Karen – All good.  

 

OK, gotta go.  Best to all-

 

 – Jon