Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 321 - 340 of total 477 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Nov 5, 2010 - 09:02pm PT
ed, i wouldn't use the term "gold standard"--not my approach to science, and i doubt yours either. there are no real standards in science, only models which are continually re-thought. ne c'est pas? you physicists have a "standard model" these days in talking about the particle garden, but i doubt anyone considers it gold.

i will talk about thelma moss a little, who i think was a turning point in modern attitudes. thelma was a child of the 60s, had her share of emotional problems, and got involved in drug use when it was the fashion, especially LSD. eventually, however, she became scientifically interested in paranormal matters, an outgrowth of that experience, and established a major research effort at ucla. her book the probability of the impossible is a survey of the ground she covered. the investigation of an extended paranormal event in culver city, undertaken with her graduate students, was eventually made into a movie, the entity. it's scary, well-documented and thoroughly witnessed. the movie takes some liberties, indulging in the scientismic wet dream of bringing the entity into a modern laboratory, something i don't think thelma ever did.

it's true that paranormal research goes on, probably more enthusiastically than before, without the fetters of academia, one reason you haven't found much published since the 90s. sadly, discipline is lacking as well, making it more vulnerable to the usual criticisms.

here's a taste of it, for what it's worth. i'm not a researcher myself and don't feel the need to pursue it, but it'd be a good way of turning a corner here.

from The Probability of the Impossible by Thelma Moss

p. 133 and ff.

LEVITATION IN OUR LABORATORY

Occasionally the lab will receive an excited phone call from someone who has attended a "sitting" and has seen "with his own eyes" a table lift all four legs from the ground. In the early days, we would pay house calls on such seances. When such a seance would begin, usually nothing at all would happen. Sometimes we could observe the table performing little jumping movements, and on rare occasions, we have seen a table tilt so that it was perched daintily on one leg, remaining there when no one was touching it. But none of these observations satisfied the criterion that all four legs must be off the ground at the same time. Whatever else it might be, such movement is not levitation. There is, though, a simple demonstration which suggests that levitation might not be so paranormal or "occult" as it might seem on reading Batcheldon's account. (Why not try it and see for yourself? The directions folow.)

AN EXERCISE IN LEVITATION

1. Any five people may serve as the subjects, and one more acts as the experimenter.

2. The largest and heaviest subject sits on a small chair, preferably one without arms.

3. The four other people stand around the seated person, two behind him and two a little forward on either side, adjacent to his knees.

4. The experimenter gives the following instructions:

"The seated person simply remains seated where he is, and not to do anything: not cooperate, not resist, not become active in any way. The four participants must perform a specific set of movements, in a rhythm which will be called out by me. The movements are simple and are divided into two parts.

"Person 1, at the seated person's right, places his right hand on top of the head of the person who is sitting down. Person 2, right rear, then places his right hand on top of Person 1's right hand. Person 3, left rear, places his right hand on top of Person 2's right hand, and Person 4, left front, places his right hand on top of the others."

There are now four hands, one on top of the other. Continuing, the experimenter tells Person 4 to place his left hand on top of the pile of hands, and Person 1 and Person 2 to do likewise. These movements should be practiced until each person moves in an easy, rhythmic, flowing manner.

5. After a rhythm has been achieved, in this movement, the participants must make another set of rhythmic movements in unison. When the experimenter calls out, "Lift!" all will move their hands from the seated person's head, extend the forefingers of each hand, palm down, and place these fingers as follows:

Person 1 will place his forefingers under the right knee of the seated person; Person 2 will place his under the right armpit; Person 3 will place his under the left armpit; and Person 4 will place his under the left knee.

These movements should be practiced until they are effortless and smooth. Then the experimenter should explain: "When I say "Lift' you will move to this last position (under armpits and knees) and you will easily lift the seated person up into the air."

Usually when this statement is made all five participants will laugh, because the idea is absurd. It is. To show how absurd it is, suggest that the four persons all place two fingers in the designated places under knees and armpits and try to lift the person seated in the chair. It will be obvious that it takes an enormous amount of effort to lift the seated person (if they can) by so much as an inch.

6. The success of the experiment is in the rhythm with which these simple movements are carried out. The experimenter chooses the tempo. It can be as slow or as fast as he wishes, provided the rhythm is maintained. Keep rehearsing until the flow is nice and easy. When it is, the experimenter should count out the rhythm until everyone is in the correct position and then cry, "LIFT!" At this point, in unison, each person moves to the next position and lifts.

It is to be expected that the first three or four attempts will be unsuccessful. People will laugh, movements will be out of synch, and the ridiculousness of the movements will cause embarrassment. But if you persevere, after three or four false starts, the group will become cohesive and rhythmical. When the experimenter cries "LIFT!" the seated person will be lifted from two to four feet into the air, without any effort being experienced by the lifters. Usually, the participants are astonished, and the seated person experiences a sensation of lightness and exhilaration.

I have included this demonstration in several parapsychology classes I have taught and have met only once with failure. Therefore, it is with confidence that I offer the experiment. Furthermore, when some skill has been obtained (and this is easily achieved by having each of four lifters become, in turn, the seated person), you may find it is no longer necessary to go through the procedure of placing the hands on top of the head. All that seems necessary is for the four persons to chant a phrase in unison five or six times. Any phrase will do, provided it is done in rhythm. We have used with repeated success the phrase "chocolate cake". Another good phrase is "hot fudge sundae". "Abracadabra" doesn't seem too successful.

What happens in this simple process that enables a hefty man to be raised several feet in the air, supported by the backs of eight fingers? Lifting him that way, without the rhythm, is almost impossible. Done with rhythm, there is little sensation of energy being expended.

This apparently age-old experiment, which can be done by just about anyone, may be a variant of the extraordinary feat performed by 123-pound Mrs. Maxwell Rogers who, in 1960, lifted one end of a 3,600-pound automobile which, after the collapse of a jack, had fallen on her son. She was not aware, during that stress, that she had done anything remarkable. While performing this experiment, there is no sensation of anything remarkable.

(I am permitted a delicious side note here. The publisher of this book, a reasonable and conservative gentleman, was loath to print this recipe for Instant Levitation without proof that it worked. At first, he refused to attempt it; but eventually, without my being present, he did attempt it with wife and friends and found that it was [as he told me brusquely, with averted eyes] "simple, very easy". Shortly after his experiment was successfully concluded, he was visited by a physicist friend, who was immediately asked to supply a reasonable, mechanical explanation for the phenomenon. The physicist answered that he himself had performed the experiment but was at a loss to explain how it happened.)

Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Nov 5, 2010 - 09:16pm PT
Fructose-

I think most in the West who continue to have a spiritual life will in a few centuries, be following either an Eastern tradition or a scientific one such as you describe. Even those who keep with Christian traditions will have members so heavily influenced by both science and eastern thought as to be un-recognizeable to traditional western Christianity.

Rather than rejecting religion altogether, I personally practice several. I find mixing both East and West gives me balance and after living in Asia all these years, I have no problem with the concept of the unity of opposites. To do that however, one has to concentrate on the mystical level of it all, about as far from fundamentalism as one can get.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 5, 2010 - 11:24pm PT
I wasn't ticked off, Werner, but I just had to respond like I was...

...I don't take it personally

and I too still love you!
Crodog

Social climber
Nov 5, 2010 - 11:57pm PT
Foil


In fiction, a foil is a character who contrasts with another character (usually the protagonist) in order to highlight various features of that other character's personality, throwing these characteristics into sharper focus.

A foil's complementary role may be emphasized by physical characteristics. A foil usually differs drastically. For example in Cervantes' Don Quixote, the dreamy and impractical Quixote is thin in contrast to his companion, the realistic and practical Sancho Panza, who is fat. Another popular fictional character, Sherlock Holmes, is tall and lean; his right-hand man Doctor Watson, meanwhile, is often described as "middle-sized, strongly built." The "straight man" in a comedy duo is a comic foil. While the straight man portrays a reasonable and serious character, the other portrays a funny, dumb, or simply unorthodox one.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Nov 6, 2010 - 01:04am PT
Please Tony, that is a trite example and not levitation

Definition of LEVITATION

: the act or process of levitating; especially : the rising or lifting of a person or thing by means held to be supernatural

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/levitation

what you described was not supernatural, but very natural... though it seems surprising and not "common sense," which is exactly what happens when you encounter something like that and say to yourself "gee, I don't understand it, it must be supernatural!"

The fact of the matter is, there are no good examples of this supernatural stuff which is supported by any significant experiment. The statistical significance of the tests is very very weak.

In this study by Bem and Honorton "Does Psi Exist?"
http://www.dina.dk/~abraham/psy1.html

they provide a statistic for a series of ganzfeld experiments (then the "gold standard" of psi research):

As Table 1 shows, there were 106 hits in the 329 sessions, a hit rate of 32% (z = 2.89, p = .002, one-tailed), with a 95% confidence interval from 30% to 35%.

where 25% "hit rate" is expected by random chance. This is not a very convincing "signal" and all it says is that the "hit rate" was higher for the assumed statistical analysis of that experiment, NOT that the ganzfeld was explained by some paranormal mechanism... the reason for departure could be due to poor experimental design.

In physics we'd go back and design a better experiment, correct the oversight in the past experiment and if the effect were real, it would come in with a higher statistical significance. For instance, when we do an experiments which discover new particles, we require a signal of at least "6 sigma" significance, that is, 3 chances in a million... but not only that, the particle has to "act" like a particle in our analysis, it should probably have an anti-particle, it should have various properties that can be explained in the context of our "standard model" as Tony so kindly reminded me....

...when that does not happen, that that particle cannot be explained in our "standard model" we then go into high gear and try to figure out what is happening. That was the case in 1973 when a particle was discovered, simultaneously, at SLAC and at BNL. It took a full year of everyone in particle physics working hard to understand the results. And what we learned changed our view of particle physics to a version of what we now accept as the "Standard Model."

If the original discoveries had been incorrect (as a particle reported in 1976 by a Fermilab group, which was not there, in the end, even though it's statistical significance was much larger than the psi results reported above) we would have figured it out and rejected the measurement, seeking to understand the data and the models better in other situations.

Oh, and the significance of the discovery of those particles was recognized with the awarding of a Nobel Prize in Physics to the main proponents of the experiments.

If the "psi" experiments were correct, they consequences would be more profound than the particle experiments. On the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment

http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/MetaFreeResp010.pdf

The interesting plot is of their "meta-analysis" of all of the results:

which does not show a very robust result, over 35 years. Apparently we are not learning very fast in that field. Note that the entire literature of particle physics has changed, as the result of the experimental work starting with that particle discovery in 1973....

So we what are we to conclude? Things are not getting better for ganzfeld research. It is possible that this is not a productive avenue of research because there is NO EFFECT.

It is an unfortunate waste of time for smart people to pursue a line of research, for decades, that probably should have been abandoned long ago.

That is what Feynman means when he warns us "dont' fool yourself!"
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

he writes in 1974:
"Another example is the ESP experiments of Mr. Rhine, and other people. As various people have made criticisms--and they themselves have made criticisms of their own experiments--they improve the techniques so that the effects are smaller, and smaller, and smaller until they gradually disappear. All the parapsychologists are looking for some experiment that can be repeated--that you can do again and get the same effect--statistically, even. They run a million rats no, it's people this time they do a lot of things and get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don't get it any more. And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?

This man also speaks about a new institution, in a talk in which he was resigning as Director of the Institute of Parapsychology. And, in telling people what to do next, he says that one of the things they have to do is be sure they only train students who have shown their ability to get PSI results to an acceptable extent-- not to waste their time on those ambitious and interested students who get only chance results. It is very dangerous to have such a policy in teaching--to teach students only how to get certain results, rather than how to do an experiment with scientific integrity."
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Nov 6, 2010 - 08:39am PT
ed, i really think you're intellectually challenged in this department. you dismiss moss's report as "trite", then you take recourse to an arbitrary definition of levitation involving some concept of the "supernatural", then you go back, like a worrier to his wart, to 1930s esp experiments and the attendant mountain of statistics.

let's put it this way. this stuff is dependent upon mood. the attack of laboratory rationalists affects mood, an uncontrolled factor in all those ganzfeld experiments. a paranormal scientist would suggest that energies for the levitation derive from the action of the several living human bodies involved. somehow, they overcome the normal action of the gravitational field of the entire planet. esp is an entirely different matter, and most will agree that it's a talent which some have far more than others, and that even for the gifted it works differently at different times. that'll trip up the ganzfeld herd in no time. the reason people like radin have gotten involved in this little sidelight of paranormality is that the real interesting stuff, such as moss dealt with, has be driven out of respectable academia.

i've never tried moss's experiment, but it seems simple enough to do if you get a little group together willing to give it a go. assuming this "trite" thing works the way she predicted, please explain to us in down-to-earth physics the mechanism involved. according to moss, that other physicist could not.

while you're at it, you might check out the story of joseph of cupertino, the famous italian levitating saint of the 17th century. to mix a little shakespeare with a little feynmann, don't fool yourself, horatio.
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Nov 6, 2010 - 08:41am PT
"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First you guess. Don't laugh, this is the most important step. Then you compute the consequences. Compare the consequenses to experience. If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it's wrong. That's all there is to it."
~Richard Feynman


"The human understanding is no dry light, but receives an infusion from the will and affections; whence proceed sciences which may be called "sciences as one would." For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride, lest his mind should seem to be occupied with things mean and transitory; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless, in short, are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding."
~Francis Bacon
rrrADAM

Trad climber
LBMF
Nov 6, 2010 - 08:58am PT
let's put it this way. this stuff is dependent upon mood. the attack of laboratory rationalists affects mood, an uncontrolled factor in all those ganzfeld experiments. a paranormal scientist would suggest that energies for the levitation derive from the action of the several living human bodies involved. somehow, they overcome the normal action of the gravitational field of the entire planet. esp is an entirely different matter, and most will agree that it's a talent which some have far more than others, and that even for the gifted it works differently at different times. that'll trip up the ganzfeld herd in no time. the reason people like radin have gotten involved in this little sidelight of paranormality is that the real interesting stuff, such as moss dealt with, has be driven out of respectable academia.
This is the very same arguments many of the "faithful" use regarding their being convinced of their expeiriences as "proof" that God exists, and works in their lives, when skeptics question their "proof"... They say that only those who believe in, and accept God can experience Him. That people who have already decided have effectively cut themselves off from experiencing this evidence.

Do you agree with them? If not, then why does that argument work for you in this situation, but not for them in theirs?



i've never tried moss's experiment, but it seems simple enough to do if you get a little group together willing to give it a go. assuming this "trite" thing works the way she predicted, please explain to us in down-to-earth physics the mechanism involved. according to moss, that other physicist could not.
Well, since you are convinced it works, AND you are "in the mood", then you should try this, and report back. Because, you are convinced of something based on authority of the author (see above quote from Bacon), because it supports and reinforces what you belive. BUT, again, oyu have not doen this "simple" experiment to verify whether or not it works... You just take it as a "proof", yet you haven't verified this.

Problem is, as I read that, it only says, on her authority, that physicists witnessed it (the positive result) and can't explain it, but it doesn't list them, nor their own words of what they said. Therefore, ALL of the above is "according to her".

See... Your confidence does not equal the evidence, and you even have the opportunity to verify, for yourself, the veracity of what you present as evidence, but choose not to do so... Why is that? Perhaps that you are not all that confident that it will work, and where would that leave you?



Why you, and not me? Because you have already pre-accounted for the null result that I might get (see above regarding belief in God required to experience God), by saying that I lack the "mood" to perform the experiment... You, however, believe it, thus have the appropriate "mood".

But you aren't gonna do it, are you?


Edit: Damn... I fat fingered the hell out of that... Please bear with me.
Tony Bird

climber
Northridge, CA
Nov 6, 2010 - 09:51am PT
i think experience is important, rrradam. after all, it's all any of us have. if we take to believing in something like truth--and i think everyone going to bat here does--it comes to sorting through our experiences to find something which underlies them--an understanding. admit it, you have your own beliefs and moods, like everyone else. from what i know of you here, you're better at some times than you are at others. :-D (reminds me of a joke my grandpa used to tell.)

you're right, i should try moss's experiment. it isn't convenient for me to do so right now, but maybe i will someday. but i find her book rather credible, though a bit hard to get ahold of these days. you should get her book and read it.

thelma was a tenured, established professor at ucla in her day and a leader in her field. this was before i spent any time there, but i think she's to be taken seriously. i guess i gave her a worse rap than she deserves on her earlier life too. she was a successful screenwriter and underwent lsd therapy for depression, back before it became the illegal drug it is now. the depression was occasioned by the death of her husband, and she fought it for quite some time until she got into her scientific career.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
Nov 6, 2010 - 11:34am PT
Crodog- I've been coming to terms lately: Science (including science edu) is always going to be an uphill battle in this entropic universe. Lately, I've been making peace with (ecological) succession. In the wake of learning more about Peak Oil, Overshoot, and the likely collapse of industrial civilization. Recently saw the latest Robin Hood starring Russell Crowe, it featured an interesting motto: "Rise and rise again." I'm guessing you're British.
FRUMY

Trad climber
SHERMAN OAKS,CA
Nov 6, 2010 - 12:17pm PT
pope - hawking = what is the difference.
pope = let there be light ----- bang and there was light.
hawking = the big bang theory ----- and there was light.
Crodog

Social climber
Nov 6, 2010 - 12:23pm PT
Hawking = Infinity Universes
Pope = 1 Universe
Infinity - 1 = Infinity = Hawking

Inifinity - 1 = a big difference (Inifinity)

Presentation as before but in one block:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=98a_1194232512&p=1

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44LF7Aqc8so


See def. #3
FRUMY

Trad climber
SHERMAN OAKS,CA
Nov 6, 2010 - 12:30pm PT
infinite universe = one universe
or is that math to hard
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
Nov 6, 2010 - 07:04pm PT
So get this:

"I will argue that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science."

Sam Harris
The Moral Landscape, c2010

Wow, pretty interesting stance, I think.
Food for thought.
Crodog

Social climber
Nov 6, 2010 - 08:35pm PT
“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” —Eleanor Roosevelt - discussing people
Captain...or Skully

Big Wall climber
Transporter Room 2
Nov 6, 2010 - 09:04pm PT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYYFjQS5m_o&feature=related
FRUMY

Trad climber
SHERMAN OAKS,CA
Nov 6, 2010 - 09:41pm PT
infinite universe if its infinite includes everything it's infinite
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
Nov 6, 2010 - 09:53pm PT
Here's another Sam Harris piece that was interesting:

"In the fall of 2006, I participated in a three-day conference at the Salk Institute entitled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival. This event was organized by Roger Bingham and conducted as a town-hall meeting before an audience of invited guests. Speakers included Steven Weinberg, Harold Kroto, Richard Dawkins, and many other scientists and philosophers who have been, and remain, energetic opponents of religious dogmatism and superstition. It was a room full of highly intelligent, scientifically literate people—molecular biologists, anthropologists, physicists, and engineers—and yet, to my amazement, three days were insufficient to force agreement on the simple question of whether there is any conflict at all between religion and science. Imagine a meeting of mountaineers unable to agree about whether their sport ever entails walking uphill, and you will get a sense of how bizarre our deliberations began to seem."

The Moral Landscape, c2010
.....

By the way, this Beyond Belief 2006 seminar is available on the internet as video. Highly recommended.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Nov 6, 2010 - 10:07pm PT
Imagine a meeting of mountaineers unable to agree about whether their sport ever entails walking uphill, and you will get a sense of how bizarre our deliberations began to seem.
As we don't agree on whether or not mountaineering is a sport (it's not), why should that be a surprise?
Crodog

Social climber
Nov 6, 2010 - 10:38pm PT

A Multiverse consists of Universes such as where there is a Pope.
Messages 321 - 340 of total 477 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta