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

Jon Cleland Host

<p> </p><p>Duane wrote:</p>

<p>This conversation feels tediously contentious</p>

<p> </p><p>Please let me know if I ever insult someone, miss a question asked of me, or am otherwise impolite.  At the same time, I hope we can get away from things like stating a view is “cartoonish” even after a rich description like the experience in the stone circle is given (did you read it?), and I hope, as in any polite conversation, we can answer questions asked us.  I asked you about Paul’s personal experience, and more importantly about your views of the approaches (1-6) to personal experience (post 4511).  Would you like me to cut and paste those again?</p><p> </p>


<p>You are basing your conclusions about the SRI research on very incomplete information. I am sitting here with the original SRI reports and original data sheets and what is found online (in the public record) is missing a great deal of information (I cannot tell you why  …..  If we were to gather together, in person, and I could lay out — on paper — the actual results of these years of experiments,…..  they were not conducted under double-blind conditions but rather were of an open, exploratory nature (which I’m sure you would completely dismiss). </p>

<p> </p><p>Duane, if someone presented unpublished data with no other support to you, would you not be correct in asking for actual, peer-reviewed and replicated data?  Because if unpublished, unverified data is acceptable, then we have to accept all kinds of contradictory data, such as the “Heaven is for real” information, and so on.  If we did that, would we really be surprised when everyone else dismissed our work as gullible and unreliable?</p><p> </p>


<p>Are you saying you have never heard of scientists doing secret research “cooking the books” for public consumption? Where have you been living?</p>

<p> </p><p>

While I’ve only published a dozen or so peer-reviewed papers (one in Nature), Ursula has many, many more.  The upshot is that peer review has often shown me errors I made, which I could fix, and is why published results are often reliable and reproducible.  In the scientific process, finding something unexpected is a golden ticket to fame, fortune, and best of all, tenure.  Scientists everywhere are desperately looking for new and unexpected results that are real (because they’ll have to stand up to confirmation).  In that real world environment, suggesting that researchers would conspire to hide results that show a real effect is like suggesting that some homeless people would conspire to hide a winning lottery ticket.   Do you think homeless people would conspire to hide a winning lottery ticket?</p><p> </p><p>


 I also cannot I tell you why this would be one of their longest running research programs if nothing of value was emerging)   ……..  Russell Targ, one of the two key researchers that I worked with during these three years</p><p> </p><p>


Reading the history of this work, it looks like you answered your own question.  Russel Targ and others continued to promise rigorous results without delivering them.  Since then, Russel Targ has published and profited from book after book on this stuff, even though his methods clearly suffer from confirmation bias and other well known ways that will give incorrect results.  Russel Targ’s methods are detailed in this book:  http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility/dp/0029117062  </p><p> </p><p>


I understand how powerful an experience can be (such as the stone circle experience).  At the same time, I try to treat everyone’s experience as a useful starting point in looking for information, and try to treat all experiences the same – not treating my own as better or more worthy than anyone else’s.  Do we agree that no one person’s experiences are worth more than than anyone else’s?</p><p> </p><p>Best – </p><p> </p><p>           -Jon</p><p>

 </p><p>P. S.  Davidson – nice video!</p><p> </p><p> </p>