I understand that it takes a certain dogmatic mindset to be a theist, which I actually quite admire. But you’re on another level. Which kind of makes this discussion pointless. I’m out.

Folks seem to be missing the point here. I’m not saying there is proof of ESP. There is very proof of anything in the social sciences. There is certainly evidence which supports the existence of ESP. The data, even Hyman agrees, shows that results from a large number of studies shows that there is a higher correspondence than chance would produce. The effect sizes are as high as those used to support medical interventions or acceptance of drugs. There is no question about the integrity of the research method, Hyman agrees there are no obvious flaws.

So, the effect is there, it looks like ESP. So, it is at least evidence, so all you empirical atheists, who would only consider the existence of a god or any other phenomenon, if you saw some evidence need to consider the existence of ESP, instead of just dismissing it with ad hominem attacks on Utts and questions about the research which demonstrate your own lack of understanding rather than any flaws in the research. I’m not trying to convince you that ESP exists, only that good evidence for it exists.

I understand that it takes a certain dogmatic mindset to be a theist, which I actually quite admire. But you’re on another level. Which kind of makes this discussion pointless. I’m out.

But thanks for your very worthwhile contribution. You clearly have quite a dogmatic mindset too, so much so that you refuse to consider evidence, you’ll become a theist soon

There’s quite a lot of evidence missing for such an extraordinary claim though, isn’t there. Maybe God puts the thoughts in our brains and we mistake that for ESP.

This is just clutching at straws now.

Oh – so you are suggesting that meta-studies are exempt from the sort of repeated analysis which other science is subjected to before it is accepted? Or are you just unable to argue the point?

I’m sure you wouldn’t have stopped at that.

I might well have done – because as I pointed out in my last, it’s your assertion that her paper meets the criteria Graham was after. Given the immediately obvious existence of a dissenting opinion (which would tend to suggest it doesn’t meet those criteria), it’s up to you to provide evidence to support that assertion if you want it to be taken seriously.

Oh dear

Well you really are surpassing yourself in the standard of intellectual argument in your latest reply. I could point out that my comment about the conference is the most trivial thing for you to provide evidence for, and I was rather hoping you might provide more than that. But then again, I’m getting the impression you think the conference being peer-reviewed is somehow obvious – I’ve presented scientific papers at conferences and they most certainly weren’t peer reviewed (not that they were rubbish or anything…), so why should I assume that? Or do you expect me to dig down and find out more information about the conference when you could so easily provide the details you presumably already have given your assertions…

Your assertions, you provide the evidence for them.

There’s quite a lot of evidence missing for such an extraordinary claim though, isn’t there

Really? Why do you say that? We’ve operationalised ESP in terms of that which is demonstrated here. Then we observe evidence aligned with that operationalisation. What else do you want to call it?

Well you really are surpassing yourself in the standard of intellectual argument in your latest reply

just matching like with like.

just matching like with like.

Oh – so you are suggesting that meta-studies are exempt from the sort of repeated analysis which other science is subjected to before it is accepted? Or are you just unable to argue the point?

ok, are you really suggesting that this professor of statistics made a mistake when collating the results, then didn’t notice it when she checked it over and over again, and none of the colleagues she passed it to for a look over noticed it and none of the peer-reviewers noticed it and the only critic you have found (Hyman) agrees that there are no obvious flaws in the technique and that he even agrees that the results do show a significantly higher than chance outcome. Yet, you think she might have made a mistake? What mistake is it you think she made? do you have some evidence of that mistake?

ok, are you really suggesting that this professor of statistics made a mistake when collating the results, then didn’t notice it when she checked it over and over again, and none of the colleagues she passed it to for a look over noticed it and none of the “peer-reviewers” noticed it

Plenty of precedent in scientific studies.

Given the immediately obvious existence of a dissenting opinion (which would tend to suggest it doesn’t meet those criteria)

How does a dissenting opinion mean it doesn’t meet the criteria? you made a big point about repeatable results.
The fact that it is a meta-analysis answers this, yet you ignore this.

Plenty of precedent in scientific studies

Right, so all academic evidence is flawed then?

You think she made a mistake? now you show the evidence

Really? Why do you say that?

Just because that’s what I think.

I could point out that my comment about the conference is the most trivial thing for you to provide evidence for, and I was rather hoping you might provide more than that

It’s because it is so trivial that i say ‘oh dear’. It’s an academic conference, academic conferences are peer-reviewed. You’ll be asking for evidence that it actually happened next!

Just because that’s what I think.

You’ll have noticed in this thread, that is not enough

academic conferences are peer-reviewed

All of them? Including the ones I’ve presented at?

You’ll have noticed in this thread, that is not enough

You’ve mistaken me for someone who has read the thread.

You think she made a mistake? now you show the evidence

Not my assertion.

All of them? Including the ones I’ve presented at?

if they weren’t, they weren’t academic

if they weren’t, they weren’t academic

Ah – define academic conference for me then (a non-circular definition would be preferable).

peer-reviewed, that’s what makes it academic

tell you what, have a look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_conference

You think she made a mistake? now you show the evidence
Not my assertion.

looks like it here

aracer – Member

and it’s not possible to make a mistake when collating those results – a mistake which wouldn’t be repeated if somebody else also looked at those results?

Spit out the hook, aracer. 🙂

peer-reviewed, that’s what makes it academic

tell you what, have a look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_conference

Ah – as I suspected, a circular definition. In which case how do I know that conference was an “academic conference” as opposed to the one of the sort I presented at?

Though then again, it would appear not:

Some disciplines require presenters to submit a paper of about 6–15 pages, which is peer reviewed by members of the program committee or referees chosen by them.

and it’s not possible to make a mistake when collating those results – a mistake which wouldn’t be repeated if somebody else also looked at those results?

Hmm, now lets see. An assertion or a question?

Though it’s kind of irrelevant, given I’m simply querying your original assertion.

Nice selective quoting there aracer, the line previous

Prospective presenters are usually asked to submit a short abstract of their presentation, which will be reviewed before the presentation is accepted for the meeting.

Hmm, now lets see. An assertion or a question?

really? using that back door? Ok it is not possible given the level of review such a paper and its other version would have gone through.

Let me ask you then, do you think she made a mistake in collating the data?
Do you think it is the likely reason for the results showing a higher than random correspondence?

Prospective presenters are usually asked to submit a short abstract of their presentation, which will be reviewed before the presentation is accepted for the meeting.

Yep – my presentations were subject to that. Note the lack of the use of the word “peer”, or any suggestion of the selection of a panel of referees.

Ok it is not possible given the level of review such a paper and its other version would have gone through

You should tell that to some of the other scientists who’ve published peer reviewed papers which have subsequently been found to have flaws. Or are we back to the “something special” about this particular paper?

Let me ask you then, do you think she made a mistake in collating the data?
Do you think it is the likely reason for the results showing a higher than random correspondence?

I’d consider that in the absence of anybody else having done a similar study that there’s certainly a possibility.

Note: that’s quite a long way from being an assertion in case you were wanting to try that one again. It’s just a reasonable level of doubt.

Yep – my presentations were subject to that. Note the lack of the use of the word “peer”, or any suggestion of the selection of a panel of referees.

Who on earth do you think they ask to review it if not peers?

Who on earth do you think they ask to review it if not peers?

Like Prof Hyman?

Reviewing by peers != peer-reviewed

You should tell that to some of the other scientists who’ve published peer reviewed papers which have subsequently been found to have flaws. Or are we back to the “something special” about this particular paper?

No, I think the special and rare ones are the ones which are flawed and go through. They are in the very small minority. Do you think this paper has something special about it? not only is it one of the flawed ones that got through, but it is even rarer in that it has not been found out yet, despite being very controversial and counter to most peoples understanding.

Like Prof Hyman?

Reviewing by peers != peer-reviewed

WTF? Hyman said the data research techniques were fine.

Hyman did not review the paper, he responded to it.

not only is it one of the flawed ones that got through, but it is even rarer in that it has not been found out yet

Interesting. Do you have numbers for how many flawed papers haven’t been found out yet?

Look, it’s all very well playing these games, but you gotta know when it is over. Arguing that Utts might have made a mistake is just silly. yes, it is possible, but it seems pretty unlikely, given how often this work has been published, even with an adversarial partner, who agrees that the data is ‘right’.

The assumption of academic publishing is that if it gets through the review process, then it is ok. Now the onus is one you to show that it is not. If you think there was no mistake then concede that point. I’ll wait for that before we resume. Keep in mind that if you question this, then you pretty much have to ignore just about all academic research

Arguing that Utts might have made a mistake is just silly. yes, it is possible, but it seems pretty unlikely

I think your position has moved a little?

You also seem to have expended quite a lot of effort defending your assertion, given how obviously wrong I am.

The assumption of academic publishing is that if it gets through the review process, then it is ok. Now the onus is one you to show that it is not.

Not if you’re arguing that there’s no need for anybody to repeat the work – the usual standard for scientific work to be widely accepted.

Have you seen any pots around here, elf?

Pots? Plenty of posts, but no pots. 🙂

Universe still expanding, largely because it has to in order to contain elfins ego….

My ego remains at a constant size. It’s your awareness and awe of it what is expaynding… 😉

Where GrahamS he is? Frightened?

Funny, cos he told me to move along, but then he’s gawn and disappeared. 😐

Maybe he’s thinking up an answer to my question. Yes, that’ll be what he’s doing.

You also seem to have expended quite a lot of effort defending your assertion, given how obviously wrong I am.

Well it is tiring answering silly questions, yes.

Actually, the last statement helped me to see what i need to do here

Lets see what some of history’s great scientists have to say:

“Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us … the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words.” (Lord Kelvin)

“I am a Christian … I believe only and alone … in the service of Jesus Christ … In Him is all refuge, all solace.” (Johannes Kepler)

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God.” (Louis Pasteur). Pasteur strongly opposed Darwin’s theory of evolution because he felt it did not conform to the scientific evidence.

Robert Boyle believed in Jesus Christ’s “Passion, His death, His resurrection and ascension, and all of those wonderful works which He did during His stay upon earth, in order to confirm the belief of His being God as well as man.”

“Order is manifestly maintained in the universe … the whole being governed by the sovereign will of God.” (James Prescott Joule)

“There are those who argue that the universe evolved out a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?” (Werhner Von Braun)

“Almighty Creator and Preserver of all things, praised be all Thou has created.” (Carl Linnaeus)

“I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.” (Sir Joseph Lister)

“Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” “The true God is a living, intelligent and powerful being.” (Sir Isaac Newton)

Michael Faraday was careful to “Thank God, first, for all His gifts.”