pjrv : Messages : 3923-3938 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3923?)
16:20:49
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#3923
From: "pjgaenir"
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:21 am
Subject: On Wiseman and 'Luck' pjgaenir
Richard Wiseman is, in the UK, nearly the equiv of James Randi in the
US, except better educated.
He's been involved in several RV situations where he has behaved...
in a way that doesn't surprise psychics.
Perhaps this is his version of AIR report's Ray Hyman who said about
RV, 'There is an effect here... but I choose not to call it psi.' He
inferred fraud. Now Wiseman has 'luck'. Interesting.
Reminds me of Joe McMoneagle once saying the CIA had decided, rather
than admitting psi, to consider him the luckiest SOB to ever walk the
planet. :-)
PJ
Reply | Forward
#3925
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:04 pm
Subject: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' docsavagebill
Hi Palyne,
What you say is quite true. However, the anti-psi
bias in much of his work is secondary to the
amazing results he found of merely "feeling lucky" . I
suspect that he originally thought there would be NO
SUCH THING as a luck effect. Of course he tries to
rationalize the cause as all mundane ..but eventually
I think a psi linke will be found. The more psychic
one is the more important this is IMO. Negative psi
can be calamatous to a person. Especially in ARV
experiments..G
Best Regards,
bill
------------
or in life. :-) PJ
Reply | Forward
#3927
From: "Scott"
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' scottrver
But what is negative psi? I would postulate that it is a sabotaging
subconscious that simply takes psi as one more input. That is to some
degree what Wiseman was saying (without the psi component). I think
the jury is still out on the cause(s) of psi missing in ARV and
wouldn't necessarily attribute it to negative psi.
Scott
> Negative psi
> can be calamatous to a person. Especially in ARV
> experiments..G
Reply | Forward
#3930
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 1:28 am
Subject: Re: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' docsavagebill
Perha0ps not Scott..
I wasn't making accusation..just a bad joke..G
Best Regards,
Bill
> I think the jury is still out on the cause(s) of psi missing
> in ARV and wouldn't necessarily attribute it to negative psi.
Reply | Forward
#3933
From: Penny Zingery
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:22 am
Subject: Re: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' pzingery
Hi, PJ,
*** I know there are many who already know what I'm talking about a lot
of times, when I write. I guess it's due to my legal background to "lay
out the facts." So, forgive me if I seem to be "preaching to the choir"
at times, ha. I'm just trying to explain my position.
> I've actually nothing against skeptics, on fair terms.
> The thing is, the most genuinely skeptical guy I know, also happens
> to be the one of the world's leading psi researchers. There's a
> difference between having a strong critical mind and refusing to do
> anything except recognize data and even doubt that like crazy
> (never 'believe'), vs. simply scoffing, evading, etc., the 'scoffers'
> or 'pseudo-skeptics' as Truzzi called them.
*** Yeah, that does happen to be true. You'll find skepticism mixed in
with a belief in psi. Speaking from my own personal experience, enough
of my former beliefs have been smashed, and I've seen enough to tell me
that I need to be careful in the conclusions that I choose to embrace.
And it's important, from my perspective, anyway, to take care in the
way that ideas are presented, as I don't want or need to present what I
think from a perspective based largely on belief. Especially among
those who are critical, or even among the more credulous. One of the
researchers I know is a mentalist, too. Which gives him an edge in
dealing with those who are the "pseduo-skeptical," as he knows that
they know, and they know that he knows, when the deck is stacked.. He's
also able to present ideas from a different angle, that others wouldn't
be able to get across, which earns them more credibility in the eyes of
skeptics. So, there's a little dance that's always involved, with some
give and take.
> Wiseman is slicker, smarter, and smoother than most of the skeptics,
> which in many ways IMO makes him more insidiously dangerous to real
> science. If I'd felt he was all that honorable in past RV stuff he's
> been involved in, I wouldn't have such a view.
*** I have to agree with that. But, he's also considered a considerable
force to be dealt with. Luckily, there are those on the other side who
are able to counter what he does.
*** And I'll have to get back to answering the rest of this later, or
I'll be late for work.
Penny
Reply | Forward
#3934
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:29 pm
Subject: Re: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' docsavagebill
Hi Penny and PJ,
I didn't realize the Wiseman was such a debunker type.
Most of those don't even want to believe in a
subconcious effect. But that does give Wiseman more
leverage in trying to explain away psi..but really the
facts are the fact. No one can explain away what Joe
does.
bill
------------------
Easy debunkers say, "It's a hoax!" Debunkers who are slick say, "I would love
to believe this. I think it might be so. Yet I am looking and looking and
golly gee, I just cannot seem to find anything." Even slicker ones say, "There
does seem to be an effect here. But I just cannot bring myself to call it psi."
That is despite having no reason not to besides their own inability to come to
terms with the idea; and it's okay that they don't, as maybe there IS some
different factor at work, but leaving it hanging like the real effect is fraud,
or working it into something else, like, it's not psi, it's luck!--give me a
break, sheesh. It's really kinda vomitable. Wiseman giving a seminar about
luck is interesting, but just a few steps to the right of Dames giving a seminar
about what he calls RV. Why a matter of fact consideration of psi is so
difficult for so many people, I just don't understand. :-) PJ
Reply | Forward
#3936
From: Penny Zingery
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:16 pm
Subject: Re: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' pzingery
*** Ok. Maybe I can take the time now to write out what I'd like to say
a little better than before. I noticed I used the word
"self-relational" last night, too, haha. Doh! I meant "self-referential."
> Wiseman is slicker, smarter, and smoother than most of the skeptics,
> which in many ways IMO makes him more insidiously dangerous to real
> science. If I'd felt he was all that honorable in past RV stuff he's
> been involved in, I wouldn't have such a view.
>
> > And while many of his ideas are sound,
> > (and can be valid as explanations
> > a good deal of the time, in a lot of cases),
> > the only problem is, many
> > others think that they can't and don't
> > explain everything.
*** I guess one more thing I'd like to say about Richard Wiseman, is
that even though he might do things in a way that can infuriate us, he
has earned a certain amount of respect from researchers in both camps.
He's a "worthy adversary," as his ideas can and do hold water in a lot
of instances. Also, the parapsychological ghost researchers that I
know, do value the input of those that are (truly) critical and/or
skeptical, and they'll collaborate with them on certain projects, as I
know you know.. It's in everyone's best interest to do that, at times.
*** A lot of the problems that I have with (very enthusiastic and
well-meaning) amateur ghost hunters, who claim they're "doing things
scientifically," just because they're using a camera, or other
instrumentation that they have little to no clue about how it works or
what it's designed to measure, and within what parameters, (or how or
why instrumentation is used in field research), is that I see little to
no critical thinking being applied. Most are simply out there looking to
confirm or "prove" what they already believe. So, when people contact
me wanting to know "what's the next step," in the grand "profession" of
ghost hunting, I suggest that they learn something about parapsychology.
Most of the time, I never hear from them again. And, people like this,
in my experience, have the capability of causing a lot of damage. With
one tv show. Or with one newspaper article. Or with one website. More
than your average Joe-Blow skeptic might wish they could do, working
with the same medium.
> At base, I suspect the issue here isn't just the detail of psi or
> ghosts or whatever, but rationalism vs. real life.
*** For most people, I think it's more about the experiential.
> There is some deep psychological need evidenced by some people to
> reduce all human experience down to something known, understandable,
> safe--and "logical". They don't mind that humans have irrational
> experiences, as long as the human can be deemed irrational, so that
> they, as rational people, will never have to worry about such
> frighteningly inexplicable things themselves.
*** I've been taught by several of the researchers that I know, that we
all have a psychological need to make sense of what we don't understand.
(I forget what the terminology for that is, exactly.) I'd think it's a
matter of degree, for each person individually, regarding how much
ambiguity each can tolerate; or what one's issues might be along the
lines of what's "acceptable," or "the norm;" or, how much of an
"illusion of control" we might feel we need over any given situation (as
if that's actually possible a lot of times, haha.); or how much
personal responsibility one is willing to accept, too. Or, how
"invested" we are with our beliefs. Those kinds of things. And for some
people, it can be almost pathological, regarding the way in which they
react to ideas that make them uncomfortable. The book, "The Conscious
Universe" is brilliant, in the way that it explains skeptics and
skepticism, if you've never read that.
> They do not want to find 'the real answer' for all of science, as
> many of them as scientists are much brighter stars when they're not
> in the field of their denial, and would be more objective; they want
> to find ANY answer that will allow their own psychology to dismiss
> it, a criteria that carries far less need for genuine science or
> covering the bases than actual science would.
>
> Why is it that so many psychologists themselves are in such obvious
> need of psychotherapy.
*** That's very true. As for psychologists who need psychotherapy,
well... I think many are drawn to the field in order to work through
their own issues. But, I know policeman can become policemen for the
same reason. As can lawyers, or teachers... or hookers... mothers...
whatever, ha. (Actually, I think "retired" would help me work out my
issues, haha.)
> It is the approach to psi which dismisses it as something else,
> because something else has turned out to be the case sometimes, that
> is one of the most common debunker approaches and IMO disingenious.
*** I see it as a form of intellectual dishonesty, too.
> To me, this is like saying that lots of college students get caught
> cheating on tests, which only proves that you (person X) got your
> degree through foul play. It's ridiculous. Yet that same logic is
> applied to psi and other anomalies fields constantly.
*** It's not very logical, is it? Logically, psi would be the simplest
explanation, so many times.
> > There are some interesting ideas, too, regarding
> > how the environment,
> > mind and body might interact with each other.
> > Like a feedback loop of some kind.
>
> I actually feel that a great deal has been learned in the attempt to
> disprove psi, ghosts, and other anomalies. And funny enough, many of
> the people most into psi, are also interested in human potential, and
> so very interested in how the mind/body works, the subtle senses etc.
> I've experienced that a lot of esoteric stuff is as subjective as it
> comes; whether this is invalidates it is a totally different argument.
*** Yeah. And I don't think that the fact that some experiences are
subjective invalidates them as "real." Not by a long shot. That would
be a materialistic way of looking at things, and a negation of the
mind/matter ideas. That's not what I think.
> To me, the problem is that this kind of theory and research is never
> presented truly scientifically, simply that, "I hypothesize humans
> may have XYZ experience in XYZ situation." Rather, it always starts
> out as, "Humans claiming XYZ are probably frauds and I suspect
> they're deluded 'cause it's just that XYZ situation is in place, and
> I'm going to try and prove it." Granted, nearly by accident we've
> learned a lot this way. But it would be so much easier to find
> interest if such approaches were not psychological "justifications"
> of someone's belief system, and were instead simply an interesting
> scientific query.
*** Yeah, like it can be "nothing but" fraud, or deception, or delusion,
or hallucination, or ignorance, or swamp gas, or mental defect...
whatever reason du jour that works, in order to settle their own unease.
And darn it, I was looking for a quote that I ran across that I think
"nails" the reason behind pseudo-skeptical thinking, but I can't find it.
> Penny
Reply | Forward
#3937
From: "pjgaenir"
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:38 pm
Subject: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' pjgaenir
Hi Penny,
> value the input of those that are (truly)
> critical and/or skeptical, and they'll
> collaborate with them on certain projects,
Yes. Of course, finding a so-called skeptic who is not a rabid
drooling maddog is so rare that it might be that perhaps our
standards in so-called skeptics are a tad low. :-)
It is Wiseman's work with some things in RV that I have disliked. He
does not behave like with hostility like Randi (thank God for small
favors); Wiseman is a cordial, intelligent and professional man.
It hardly helps to invite a skeptic to be part of a project if they
are not merely skeptical, but actually detrimental to the fairness of
it--or, despite getting far more than the result they even were
hoping for to disprove their view, they walk away acting like nothing
happened.
Someone moves those goal posts back, and back, and manages the whole
situation so they're in total control, and then when it comes through
and works times ten, they shrug it off? They don't tell anybody?
They just move on quietly for the next challenge so someone has to
jump through that damn hoop all over again? What is that, if not a
form of intellectual dishonesty?
I don't want to diss the fellow without cause, and I respect his
position, but from the layman's point of me as Jane Smith off the
street looking in, he looks like another debunker to me, who is just
very, very slick.
I might add that this stuff plays out over and over. France is very
anti-psi, for example. The leading vocal critic there, the year that
the PA prez was also French, teamed with the PA prez to do an RV
challenge to be televised. They got McMoneagle. He blew them out of
the water. The guy promptly sued to keep it off the air. It didn't
show until over a year later on a different channel. I mean, it's
that kind of thing, over and over. It's just wearying. Especially
for the people on the firing line like Joe, I'd imagine.
> amateur ghost hunters, who claim they're "doing things
> scientifically,"
Yeah, similarly, I was saying in something earlier today, that since
academia has basically made psi research heresy and forbidden, the
results are many. One result is that even when scientists in other
fields decide to have the courage or money to spend a little time on
something in the psi arena, they totally screw it up!
They are so ignorant, they don't know they're ignorant. They just
assume there is 'nothing to know'--a subtle dis-education of their
academic experience. They won't deign to ask a real psi scientist
because they figure anybody studying the topic must be an idiot or a
fraud I suppose--except them, of course. ;-)
There is so little money, jobs, opportunity. But there used to be
funding and so, over the last few decades, there's so many important
little things that have been learned. Without controlling for or
including those, there's no point to wasting time.
It's so darn tragic when someone actually gets a little money for
research, and then they just blow it on stupid stuff that were this
any other topic, even a high school senior would have known better.
But academia, aka The New Church, forbids the study. So nobody knows
anything about it, unless they work in the field itself. But you
can't work in the field anymore, because since it's not considered
legit in academia, it gets no funding, so there are no jobs.
And since it's not in school, there aren't even internships really.
There are a tiny number of sort intern-job-things (similar to being
overworked at a summer camp from what I understand ;-)) associated
with some institution, which if you are near/in it, might allow you
to someday do a tiny bit of research if God smiles (such as RhineRC);
such positions, probably paying a secretary's wages, have a whole
field of starving professionals and PhDs to compete for them.
Not to mention that when you reduce a whole field, even a small one,
to unemployment, you get a wolf-pack mentality where they'll fight
each other for what little food's available.
Through some of the websites I've had a hand in, I can't tell you how
many emails I've seen from people, from graduate students to PhDs all
over the world, who are fascinated with and willing to basically
slave for minimum just for a chance to study psi. There is basically
no place for them to go, nothing for them to do, no jobs for them to
work toward, no college study that will include it. It's like, glad
you're interested. Too bad. Geez.
> people like this,
> in my experience, have the capability of
> causing a lot of damage. With
> one tv show. Or with one newspaper article.
> Or with one website. More
> than your average Joe-Blow skeptic might wish
> they could do, working
> with the same medium.
Yes, we have Ed and Courtney (and the latter thanks to the former)
among others (also usually spawned by Ed) to thank for 'representing'
RV, and doing it more damage than even James Randi on his best could
have dreamed of.
> > At base, I suspect the issue here isn't just the detail of psi or
> > ghosts or whatever, but rationalism vs. real life.
> *** For most people, I think it's more about the experiential.
That's what I mean. I meant rationalism being thinking about life
and it being logical; real life being the living, experiencing it.
One is making sense of things; one is experiencing them. The making
sense may or may not happen.
> all have a psychological need to make
> sense of what we don't understand.
> (I forget what the terminology for that
> is, exactly.) I'd think it's a
> matter of degree, for each person
> individually, regarding how much
> ambiguity each can tolerate;
This is of course a major issue in developing viewers, as well.
> The book, "The Conscious
> Universe" is brilliant, in the way that
> it explains skeptics and
> skepticism, if you've never read that.
Yes, I read that shortly after it came out. I ought to reread it as
it's just sitting on the shelf. No, wait, it is probably sitting in
my box of a zillion psi books I'm going to e-Bay. :-)
> It's not very logical, is it? Logically, psi would
> be the simplest explanation, so many times.
That's probably what I find most confusing. I mean, you look at
stuff like McMoneagle can do; and much of that is in protocol
situations where even the most suspicious mentalist would have to
admit there is no way he could know the target (which sometimes does
not even exist yet when he does the session, or he's out alone on an
island with a videocamera on him while one of many options are being
chosen blind by a producer back in the city) -- I mean, what amount
of pathology does it take to deny this kind of thing?
True, I can't put psi in a test tube, but there's lots of human
experience that can't be and it's still real (though subjective and
unique to each individual, and unpredictable). Sometimes, it is so
patently apparent, it seems stupid to even debate it.
It's a lot less 'faith' required to look at human history over the
last 2000 years, and believe in some degree of psi, than to believe
in the amount of stupid excuses given.
It's like the UFO field as an example. You consider stuff like
hundreds of separate videos of a single large event, and the excuse
is 'mass hallucination'. Well heck, I find videos easier to believe
than mass hallucination. You consider stuff like NORAD and radar and
visuals by pilots, and the excuse is, weather balloons, swamp gas,
Venus on the horizon. Personally, I find it easier to believe there
was just something, we don't know what, tracked on the machines and
by the pilots. I don't have an answer, but it's much less a stretch
to accept what seems evident, and begin real investigation from
there, than to make up huge excuses to explain away the obvious.
Some 'skeptics' I know of have more faith than even the fundies.
PJ
Reply | Forward
#3938
From: Penny Zingery
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:40 am
Subject: Re: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' pzingery
If you could have read some of the emails that I'd read regarding what
people thought after that article (and other articles) about the Vaults
and Hampton Court Palace, you might see the influence he's able to
exert, along the lines of reducing apparent psi or unusual experiences
down to natural causes, only. As he's not only an academic, which of
course, carries a lot of weight with many people. He also uses the
media to his advantage, and gets a lot of press whenever he researches
any public place (which is no fluke, by the way, or simply because what
he does is so interesting... it's planned), as do so many skeptics. And
what I thought was "timely", too, was that video of the "ghost" of
Hampton Court Palace that surfaced at the end of last year. My opinion
of that was that it was more likely either a hoax, or some schmuck
caught in a costume, out on a smoke break, when he should not have been
doing so. But I have to wonder about why it was released in the first
place, as it was filmed in during October of that year, as I remember.
People have been known to do strange things in order to counter negative
publicity regarding what's dear to them, or if it might affect their
pocket book. But what would have been more effective, wouldn't have
been to use a very questionable "ghost" video, if that's the case. Now
you have a lot of people who're convinced that's a ghost of Hampton
Court Palace, when no apparition of that kind (or haunting that involved
a "ghost" opening a fire door, for Chrissake) has ever been seen before,
as I understand. (And of course, most don't know about the issues
involved with "ghosts on film" in the first place.) So, the issue just
became more convoluted and confused, and, once again, people aren't
being given accurate information about these kinds of experiences. (Not
to mention the fact that a possibly hoaxed video doesn't help the case
for paranormal phenomena in the eyes of many.)
Bill Pendragon wrote:
> No one can explain away what Joe does.
Oh, but it's done every day.
Penny
Reply | Forward
#3928
From: Penny Zingery
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:55 pm
Subject: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' pzingery
Hi, Bill and PJ,
Yes, the research that Richard Wiseman conducts can be kind of like a
double-edged sword. While there is a lot of value that can be found in
his theories, he does lean towards the skeptical end of the spectrum.
More than just a tad.
In the way of ghost research, here's an article that some may have seen
from awhile back.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3046179.stm
Now that he's researched the Edinburgh Vaults and Hampton Court Palace,
what he'd like to do is to build an experimental, artificial "haunted
house" that would test his (psychological) theories regarding ghostly
phenomena.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0%2C12243%2C1005295%2C00.h\
tml
And while many of his ideas are sound, (and can be valid as explanations
a good deal of the time, in a lot of cases), the only problem is, many
others think that they can't and don't explain everything. Like, as
only a few examples, how can different people at different times
experience and report the same haunting, with no prior knowledge
regarding what others have experienced in the same location; or, how
can more than one person see the same apparition at the same time?
There are some interesting ideas, too, regarding how the environment,
mind and body might interact with each other. Like a feedback loop of
some kind. Suggesting that some apparitional experiences might be more
than purely subjective. Dean Radin built a high-tech psychomanteum to
test that kind of theory, after a visit to a castle in Sweden with some
other researchers in 1996. (Raymond Moody and William Roll). During a
later visit to the castle with William Roll, Andrew Nichols also
reported an anomalous experience in the same place. Each person had an
experience in the same location, independent of the others. And even
though each person's experience was self-relational in a way, each
experience also seemed to have an "energetic" aspect to it.
Apparitional and haunting experiences have been shown to be too complex
to fit a one-size-fits-all, purely psychological, physical and/or
physiological (etc.) explanation. Even though each of those different
perspectives can be relevant as avenues to pursue in an effort to
understand what might be occurring. Richard Wiseman, though, I highly
suspect, would be more than happy to see any number of ideas put to
rest, once and for all.
Penny
Reply | Forward
#3931
From: "pjgaenir"
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:52 am
Subject: Re: On Wiseman and 'Luck' pjgaenir
Hiya Penny,
> he does lean towards the skeptical end of the spectrum.
> More than just a tad.
I've actually nothing against skeptics, on fair terms. (I just heard
the weirdest sound ever outside. It's like something out of a UFO
movie. It's 2:25am and I'm not going outside though! They will have
to abduct my neighbors I guess.)
The thing is, the most genuinely skeptical guy I know, also happens
to be the one of the world's leading psi researchers. There's a
difference between having a strong critical mind and refusing to do
anything except recognize data and even doubt that like crazy
(never 'believe'), vs. simply scoffing, evading, etc., the 'scoffers'
or 'pseudo-skeptics' as Truzzi called them.
Wiseman is slicker, smarter, and smoother than most of the skeptics,
which in many ways IMO makes him more insidiously dangerous to real
science. If I'd felt he was all that honorable in past RV stuff he's
been involved in, I wouldn't have such a view.
> And while many of his ideas are sound,
> (and can be valid as explanations
> a good deal of the time, in a lot of cases),
> the only problem is, many
> others think that they can't and don't
> explain everything.
At base, I suspect the issue here isn't just the detail of psi or
ghosts or whatever, but rationalism vs. real life.
There is some deep psychological need evidenced by some people to
reduce all human experience down to something known, understandable,
safe--and "logical". They don't mind that humans have irrational
experiences, as long as the human can be deemed irrational, so that
they, as rational people, will never have to worry about such
frighteningly inexplicable things themselves.
They do not want to find 'the real answer' for all of science, as
many of them as scientists are much brighter stars when they're not
in the field of their denial, and would be more objective; they want
to find ANY answer that will allow their own psychology to dismiss
it, a criteria that carries far less need for genuine science or
covering the bases than actual science would.
Why is it that so many psychologists themselves are in such obvious
need of psychotherapy.
It is the approach to psi which dismisses it as something else,
because something else has turned out to be the case sometimes, that
is one of the most common debunker approaches and IMO disingenious.
To me, this is like saying that lots of college students get caught
cheating on tests, which only proves that you (person X) got your
degree through foul play. It's ridiculous. Yet that same logic is
applied to psi and other anomalies fields constantly.
Viewers will provide damn near blueprint level trace-quality sketches
of a target, and scoffers will default to 'luck' to explain it. We're
not talking a 1-of-4-gestalts here, but great detail. The target
could have been anything on earth but it's just 'luck' that every
detail ended up in the sketch. I mean the odds against this are so
astronomical that it's an act of faith far superseding religion to
believe that.
Accusations of fraud used to be big, until the best mentalists in the
world were made part of the scientific oversight committees and
worked with the scientists to the point where the protocol made
anything they could dream up impossible. Still there were doubts, so
they finally went to having the viewer do the session before the
target pool was even randomly chosen, which was yet before the actual
target was chosen from the pool. So they quit looking at that, now
having no way to disclaim it.
Joe's been challenged I don't know how many times by skeptics,
including Wiseman more than once, and has worked hard to stand up and
prove it despite what seem actual efforts to insidiously wreck the
process so the answer cannot be acceptable. Yet despite more than
proving out the demands, nothing is ever said in the way of, "He met
the demands." No, people like Wiseman just walk on, like nothing
happened at all, and wait a short time till the memory of the locals
has dimmed, and then start all over again with the same schtick.
It's like the UFOlogy argument: because SOME people see Venus and
think that it is a UFO, therefore, UFOs are simply something normal
mistaken for something unusual. Of course, that doesn't address the
people who had a triangle fly 50' over their car for half a mile and
then all spent time in a hospital from radiation burns. That doesn't
explain radar tracking something moving at Mach14 and doing right
angle turns that is chased by jet pilots briefly who all have it in
their visual range from way up there. That doesn't explain hundreds
of people getting a South American "hallucination" on videocameras
from every angle. All such stuff is carefully excluded from
consideration because it can't be whitewashed away. So they will
look for some account that clearly suggests the person saw Venus, or
a weather balloon, or swamp gas, and use this as the 'example' they
can 'debunk'.
People can write off statistics all they want, but if half a dozen
people the Japanese version of the FBI has been looking for, for
decades, have been found, all because McMoneagle, from his living
room in Virginia, sketched out details on the region, the city, the
things nearby, unique elements, the likely building they live in,
even down to the floor and apartment, and what they did for work or
other details, and you can see how right on this is clearly, and so
they found the person (or in a couple cases, found where the person
had been literally days before they arrived), this is nothing short
of evidential, in the engineering sense: it WORKS. Regardless of
whether someone can construe a situation so they can be the sole
judge, and then deliberately try and judge in a way as to prevent
success, you can't deny success in the real world like that. One
can, however, ignore it, and continue suggesting that people who
believe in psi, or UFOs, or other unprovable things, are victims of
their own hallucinations, the swamp-gas of the mind. :-)
> There are some interesting ideas, too, regarding
> how the environment,
> mind and body might interact with each other.
> Like a feedback loop of some kind.
I actually feel that a great deal has been learned in the attempt to
disprove psi, ghosts, and other anomalies. And funny enough, many of
the people most into psi, are also interested in human potential, and
so very interested in how the mind/body works, the subtle senses etc.
I've experienced that a lot of esoteric stuff is as subjective as it
comes; whether this is invalidates it is a totally different argument.
To me, the problem is that this kind of theory and research is never
presented truly scientifically, simply that, "I hypothesize humans
may have XYZ experience in XYZ situation." Rather, it always starts
out as, "Humans claiming XYZ are probably frauds and I suspect
they're deluded 'cause it's just that XYZ situation is in place, and
I'm going to try and prove it." Granted, nearly by accident we've
learned a lot this way. But it would be so much easier to find
interest if such approaches were not psychological "justifications"
of someone's belief system, and were instead simply an interesting
scientific query.
PJ
|