Jon Cleland Host

  Sorry for not checking back sooner.   Ed wrote:

Great to see the conversation continuing…

Thanks for the great contribution to the discussion.   Your last post is very helpful.    

Philosophically then, the universe IS alive because WE are alive and we are inseparable from the universe.

  Yes.  In that way, I agree.      

So in this spirit, my…

[Read more]

 Sorry for not checking back sooner. Ed wrote:

Great to see the conversation continuing…

Thanks for the great contribution to the discussion.   Your last post is very helpful.  

Philosophically then, the universe IS alive because WE are alive and we are inseparable from the universe.

 Yes.  In that way, I agree.   

So in this spirit, my suggestion (as…

[Read more]

 Thanks, Michael!  A lot of the stuff that Ursula and I thought was unhelpful had to do with making claims that go beyond the evidence, and with the use of reductionism as a reason to reject science.  Regarding reductionism, it’s important to be aware of the difference between methodological reductionism and ontological (or philosophical) r…[Read more]

<p> </p><p>Duane, your selective quote of 148 words from a 900 word essay is not evidence, and worse, similar portions are taken out and used on all kinds of quack sites on the internet, to support all kinds of pseudoscience.  The essay itself is simply personal musings, not evidence – that’s why it’s in the essay section of Nature, not the r…[Read more]

Duane, that document makes many of the same failures to distinguish methodological naturalism from epistomological naturalism, referring to unproven stories as evidence, and false claims that many of us here have pointed out earlier in this thread.  Further, it seems to suggest that having a list of Ph.D. signatories at the end shows that it is…[Read more]

Duane, that document makes many of the same failures to distinguish methodological naturalism from epistomological naturalism, referring to unproven stories as evidence, and false claims that many of us here have pointed out earlier in this thread. Further, it seems to suggest that having a list of Ph.D. signatories at the end shows that it is…[Read more]

 Jim-        The ease at which quotes can be picked to give a false impression was also pointed out much earlier in this discussion.  I’ll look back and see if I find it.   Thanks, Ursula, for re -posting that timely and relevant point about matter. About the Gaia hypothesis – a friend recently blogged about this very point – that there are sever…[Read more]

  Ed-    Thanks for all that, and for the interesting and productive conversation.  You are indeed a builder of bridges.I look forward to seeing what the future holds.Best-              -Jon 

 Ed-Thanks for the clear and helpful response.  You wrote: 

Thanks for replying, Jon. You’ve raised some questions that I can address.    ….. ….. I am only trying to justify the research topic itself. You are dismissing it as frivolous. 

I’m not quite dismissing it as frivolous, but as an area that seems to have less promise than many other…[Read more]

 Edyou wrote:

Jon – To me, your arguments seem to come from a need to fit everything into a particular worldview – one that assures us that there is “nothing out of the ordinary.”

 No, quite the opposite.  I’d love to find out about things that are unknown or not explained – in fact, I’m sure that such things exist.  My need is fairness/r…[Read more]

Hi Duane –    You wrote:

My experiences come from these years of laboratory experiments (for example, many with strip chart printouts — not fabricated memories) to show the results.    

The reports on this work had access to all the data.  Those reports concluded that nothing substantial was found.

   you so completely diminish and dismiss fi…

[Read more]

Hi Duane –  You wrote:

My experiences come from these years of laboratory experiments (for example, many with strip chart printouts — not fabricated memories) to show the results.  

The reports on this work had access to all the data.  Those reports concluded that nothing substantial was found.  you so completely diminish and dismiss first-…[Read more]

  Ed-        Thanks for the response, and sorry about my slow reply (busy, as always).  You wrote:    

While I still do not see the “diminishing effect” over time that you mentioned,

  In the post that I referenced, I mentioned the strong effect claimed for “information transfer” in the 1800s and 1900s in ways such as clairvoyance, ESP, etc.  Compar…[Read more]

Hi Duane-   You wrote:

I could send along statistics to you (perhaps next week)

 I’d be happy to look at them, but think about this from the view of anyone else for a second.  The data could well show the 65% accuracy claimed in the early SRI data (after all, those data exist as well).  What would that mean? To answer that, think of how this go…[Read more]

  Ed wrote:

however your claim that “that the closer these possible effects are looked at, the smaller and more elusive they become” is not substantiated in the citations I gave (as far as I can see). 

  Yes, it is substantiated.  If you look at the table on page 17 of the Bem “90” pdf, you can see that even with hundreds to thousands of experiments…[Read more]

 Ed wrote:

however your claim that “that the closer these possible effects are looked at, the smaller and more elusive they become” is not substantiated in the citations I gave (as far as I can see). 

  Yes, it is substantiated.  If you look at the table on page 17 of the Bem “90” pdf, you can see that even with hundreds to thousands of experiment…[Read more]

  Duane, you wrote:

I accept that these are your views but you will certainly find sharp disagreement from skilled biologists working with these organisms. Professor Brian Leander of the Laboratory of Marine Organismal Diversity & Evolution at the University of British Columbia concludes this article with the following:But…

[Read more]