Psience - Comments

Louie: What if "The Secret" were true?

nospam@example.com (Louie) — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:17:46 -0400

Funny post. Like the Team America reference.

Nadime Nadi: Non-fossil Evidence Supporting Evolution

nospam@example.com (Nadime Nadi) — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 05:22:19 -0500

- since 100 million fossils cataloged of 250 thousand species, besides basic fossil formations almost fully excavated, isn't it weird that there could be found only 50 species of so called-transitianal form? (in the link you have given above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil)
Just 50 transitional form versus 249.950 unchanged or extinct species!?
- And what about these 50 transitional forms one for wing, one for pedestrians etc. is it possible emergence of a complex organ (like wings or eyes etc.) in only one mutation If not where are the other semi-transition forms which must be plenty for every organ.
- And what about "cambrian explosion" which is a very short time over which this diversity of complex forms (like today's animals) appears suddenly in the fossil records_without any transitional form?
- And as you argued "Disproving one theory is not sufficient to prove an alternate theory", if invalidity of evolution is proved with the lack of evidences and in the lights of technological discoveries, what might be the third theory(an explanation other than creation) for life? Aliens comes from other planets or evolution in other planets brings life to earth???

Louie: A Closer Examination of Sheldrake's Trial Sequences

nospam@example.com (Louie) — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:23:58 -0500

Hey Rudis.

You wasted 2 days, but I wasted a lot longer running a remote staring study. What did I find? People can't detect staring.

I've discussed Sheldrake and staring detection before on my blog.

My advice is give up. Because nobody is that interested in hearing it's all made up!!

Matthew: Rupert Sheldrake and Being Stared At

nospam@example.com (Matthew) — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 11:57:34 -0500

There are lots of independent replications. For example:

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2007/01/but-what-about.html

Andrew: Dean Radin, Parapsychology, and Science

nospam@example.com (Andrew) — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:47:01 -0500

Dave,

Susan Blackmore had a drug overdose? She doesn't describe it that way herself - what source are you using for that assertion? And as for "did not change her outlook on life", in her essay "The Elusive Open Mind" she writes: "I had an experience that was to have a lasting effect on me—an out-of-body experience (OBE). "

So, not an NDE at all. Unless you're referring to something else, in which case, you'll need to supply more details.

Then you said "I find it interesting that he finds that the paranormal question is boring. This is a prime example of someone who has already made up his or her mind about the validity of the paranormal." Are people not allowed to chose what they find boring? I have been in several conversations with believers about the ganzfeld experiments. It starts with them saying they believe it is evidence for psi, and after I've pointed out a number of mistakes they've made, they say "actually, I don't find the ganzfeld that interesting at all" and stop the argument! See - it works both ways.

Leo MacDonald: The Curiously Pseudo-critical Mind

nospam@example.com (Leo MacDonald) — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:10:05 -0500

Rudis you have not done your research have you? rude remarks are the best you closed-minded people can do? by the way reincarnation is not pseudoscience it's based on lots of scientific evidence from Professor Ian Stevenson.

dave: Dean Radin, Parapsychology, and Science

nospam@example.com (dave) — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:02:14 -0500

I read your comments with interest. After 16 years of research into the paranormal I become interested in how beliefs can overwhelm our rational minds. I started my research into the paranormal as a skeptic and materialist. Illogical religious beliefs made me lean in the direction of atheist/agnostic but after years of research I began slowly to realize that there is more to this world than meets the eye.

One thing I have noticed: once a person has a deeply held belief they make comments about beliefs outside their paradigm based on opinion rather than research and if the person doing the research has strongly held beliefs that research is very suspect. An example is above with you not taking the time to read radin's book, which I did and was not all that impressed with it but I also have the cd and was impressed with his approach to doing research on the paranormal. I think his treatment of the paranormal on the cd is excellent.

Now as for Susan Blackmore. She had a drug overdose and I suspect did not have a valid NDE or she is part of the two per cent that did not change their outlook on life after having a NDE. On the bright side of the need for skeptics we need to be skeptical as new age claims can be as illogical as traditional religious claims. I think one advantage I had in my research was that no religious beliefs were indoctrinated into my life at an early age.

It appears to me if we can get a child indoctrinated at an early age we have most of them for life with an exception, sometimes when some children grow up they begin to realize that they have been duped and swing the other way to pure materialism. A completely open mind is impossible and those that think they have a completely open mind is as delusional as Cheney is on the progress of the Iraq war.

“The paranormal question is, like the god question and the life-after-death question, ultimately boring because the answer is so very obvious. No, No, and unfortunately no.”

I noticed that Louie had a comment as I was replying and I find it interesting that he finds that the paranormal question is boring. This is a prime example of someone who has already made up his or her mind about the validity of the paranormal. If they believe that “the answer is obvious and no no and unfortunately no” this is a sign of what Joel barker would call paradigm paralysis. All research is suspect and Louie’s is no exception.

Louie: Dean Radin, Parapsychology, and Science

nospam@example.com (Louie) — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:14:40 -0500

Nice article. I actually ran over 200 participants in 2 presentiment studies. Didn't find anything paranormal. I also tried replicating a few other of Radin's previously successful methodologies. What did I find overall. To quote Susan Blackmore: wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud.

The paranormal question is, like the god question and the life-after-death question, ultimately boring because the answer is so very obvious. No, No, and unfortunately no.

william: The Curiously Pseudo-critical Mind

nospam@example.com (william) — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:30:59 -0500

“It is interesting that people who seem so intelligent and logically-minded are unable to see their own fallacious thinking, when they can see it so clearly in others.”

This quote says it all. When a person picks (ESP, acupuncture, and reincarnation) as examples of pseudoscience then I suspect they qualify for Prescott’s CLM status. Rudis does not have a clue he is describing himself in the above quote.

Michael Prescott: The Curiously Pseudo-critical Mind

nospam@example.com (Michael Prescott) — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:27:28 -0500

Hi Rudis,

Thanks for linking to my blog, and for your interesting commentary. I think we would disagree on the meaning of the term "unscientific." To me, an unscientific belief is one that's not supported by empirical evidence. Both ESP and reincarnation are supported by a good deal of empirical evidence, as a close study of these topics will reveal. (See books by Dean Radin, Ian Stevenson, et al.)

When people say an idea is unscientific, they often mean that it does not fit the materialist paradigm. But this is a philosophical issue, not an issue of evidence.

I do understand the reluctance to take such ideas seriously, or even to read the relevant research. For a long time I resisted any "New Age" concepts, rejecting them out of hand. I thought I was being "rational," but actually I was only rationalizing. I had a worldview that was comfortable, albeit narrow, and I didn't want it to be threatened by ideas that were outside the box. Eventually, however, curiosity got the better of me!

Exploring such ideas can lead us to begin to disidentify with the ego. As we ponder the nature of consciousness, we may begin to see the ego as a construct, a persona, which is constantly changing, while the "real me" is something distinct and more permanent. I think part of the reason we cling to the materialist outlook is that the ego fears the prospect of its own diminishment.

All of which may sound like so much gobbledygook to you. I would have felt the same way ten years ago. Just file it away at the back of your mind, and possibly in the future you may find that it starts to make some sense.

That's when you should really be worried!

Rudis: Drawing the Line on Religious Freedom

nospam@example.com (Rudis) — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 10:02:24 -0500

An update to the sextuplet story:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/01/sextuplet-transfusion-070201.html

Three of the four surviving babies were seized by hospital workers and given blood transfusions. The parents are suing now, saying that their rights were violated. In reality, I feel it was they who were violating the baby's rights by forcing their own religious nonsense on them, and the hospital absolutely did the correct thing.