Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 9:28 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Poltergeist
#11
RE: Poltergeist
Well firstly, it does not cover my comments at all. I asked for evidence of poltergeists, not ESP.

Secondly, I'd like to see your math for the "10 million-to-one" chance of it happening. I mean, I wouldn't all myself a math genius but I don't think having results that are twice as successful as chance mean that they have a 10-million-to-one probability of happening by chance (or even 3 times as successful as chance).

Quote:A 2001 study into the validity of the Ganzfeld techniques found them a valid and scientific method.
Can you give me a link to the study? On thing that would have to be securely tested is the method of selecting the card. Does the sender do it? If so, then there is immediate concern for collaboration or even prediction. Does the computer do it? If so, there is also concern that results may not be random at all.

Of course, the other thing about this is that even though 20% is what you would expect if no psychic power exists, anything above 20% does not automatically mean psychic power is the explanation. It's certainly a result that needs explanation, but so far there is no evidence that actual psychic power exists, or how you would even detect this power. To give you an example, someone in the test could have got everything correct by coincidence (it is possible, and it happens), so how would you distinguish between psychic power and pure "luck"? No test that I know of can do this, but maybe you have some way that can.
Quote:Added to this scientific method is the statistic that around 50% of the population will, at some point in their life, have an experience which can be described as ESP.
Meaningless. Around 30% of people have near-death experiences at some point during their life. It was somewhat of a mystery for science until fighter pilots reported having them when they blacked out in a centrifuge (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html). This does not back up any theory you might have that ESP is in some way psychic.
Quote:Scientific, repeatable studies into psychic phenomenon. I changed from the case study because, obviously, it was a field study hence could not be replicated in the laboratory-like most field studies; they sacrifice scientific validity for ecological validity.
Let's keep the topic on Poltergeists. Are you saying there are no case-studies involving poltergeists where scientific methods have been used to determined that poltergeists exist? Surely there must be...if they exist that is.
Reply
#12
RE: Poltergeist
Yes it could be down to chance. However, I have cited 39 experiments which arrived at a higher than expected hit rate. The chances of all of these experiments becoming victims of chance independently of each other is rather ludicrous in my opinion. Indeed Hyman (a noted sceptic) and Honorton both concluded that the chances of all the results of the Ganzfeld experiments being down to chance as unfounded. Perhaps you can tell me why you consider the Ganzfeld experiments all down to chance? Perhaps you have conducted or come across a study I am not aware of which proves Hyman and Honorton wrong?

The method of randomisation varies between experiments. I think the similarities between the results of the different randomisation procedures means that the chance of all the positive hits above the statistical threshold being down to insufficient randomisation are slim to none.

The majority of the studies cited I have read out with the internet hence giving you a link is difficult. The Wikipedia page holds sufficient information to give a brief outline though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment


Hyman's main concern about the experiments was that it was an argument of the missing middle. The quantity of the results meant chance, bias and faulty procedures were eliminated as possible causes for the data produced, but that does not mean that psychic energy is at work. To a large extent he is right. Although the Ganzfeld experiments showed something was (and is) going on beyond our present understanding, this does not show conclusively that that 'something' is psychic energy. However, this seems to be the only viable hypothesis put forward at the present time hence I will go with that until a better theory comes to the fore. Perhaps you have one?

The idea of psychic energy is related to the poltergeist phenomenon hence has a place in this thread. Poltergeist seem to come into being around children and young people when they are still in their formative period. I think that in this formative and ever changing period of life our brains/psyche change along with our bodies and this can sometimes create a poltergeist. However, the theory hinges on the existence of some form of psychic energy hence by presenting evidence for one I help the case of the other.
Reply
#13
RE: Poltergeist
(July 2, 2009 at 12:29 pm)dagda Wrote: Yes it could be down to chance. However, I have cited 39 experiments which arrived at a higher than expected hit rate.
No, you have stated without evidence that 39 experiments arrived at a higher than expected hit rate. Citing involves actually referencing the experiments.
Quote:The chances of all of these experiments becoming victims of chance independently of each other is rather ludicrous in my opinion. Indeed Hyman (a noted sceptic) and Honorton both concluded that the chances of all the results of the Ganzfeld experiments being down to chance as unfounded. Perhaps you can tell me why you consider the Ganzfeld experiments all down to chance? Perhaps you have conducted or come across a study I am not aware of which proves Hyman and Honorton wrong?
I don't consider them all down to chance, I just questioned your math that led to a 10 million to 1 chance that people could get have a 2/5 score rather than a 1/5 score. If these studies are true then there is evidently something other than chance happening. Whatever that something is, is unknown. It still takes a massive leap to go from this to "psychic energy exists". Unless you know of an empirical experiment that can demonstrate psychic energy.
Quote:The method of randomisation varies between experiments. I think the similarities between the results of the different randomisation procedures means that the chance of all the positive hits above the statistical threshold being down to insufficient randomisation are slim to none.
Or...all the randomness methods could have the same flaw. You still didn't answer my question, which was what randomness methods were involved.
Quote:The majority of the studies cited I have read out with the internet hence giving you a link is difficult. The Wikipedia page holds sufficient information to give a brief outline though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment
Up until now you have not cited anything. If the studies you have stated are on the internet, then I would have thought that giving a link would have been quite easy? The Wikipedia page is very useful, because it gives a nice debunk similar to what I have stated (about the experiments not proving anything, and the effectiveness of randomness procedures)
Quote:However, this seems to be the only viable hypothesis put forward at the present time hence I will go with that until a better theory comes to the fore. Perhaps you have one?
Viable hypothesis? You have no reason other than preconceptions. There is literally no evidence that it even exists. You then decide that this hypothesis is a theory, and yet a theory is an explanation of the fact. Psychic is not an explanation, it is as useless as saying "God did it" to explain the origins of life. It's a non-answer.
Quote:The idea of psychic energy is related to the poltergeist phenomenon hence has a place in this thread. Poltergeist seem to come into being around children and young people when they are still in their formative period. I think that in this formative and ever changing period of life our brains/psyche change along with our bodies and this can sometimes create a poltergeist. However, the theory hinges on the existence of some form of psychic energy hence by presenting evidence for one I help the case of the other.
I'm still waiting for the evidence for Poltergeists, and if the "theory" (which it is not) relies on the existence of psychic energy, then you will need to provide the evidence of psychic energy as well. So far, you cited experiments that only show that something else might be at work. This isn't evidence of anything.
Reply
#14
RE: Poltergeist
'No, you have stated without evidence that 39 experiments arrived at a higher than expected hit rate. Citing involves actually referencing the experiments.'

Surely I cited Kathy Dalton? I described her sample and results. The paragraph before I described her method. The other experiments are pretty similar with just a few minor alterations (e.g. larger sample, different demography, longer test period etc.). What more do you want? A diagram?


'You still didn't answer my question, which was what randomness methods were involved.'

Yes I did. I said 'it varies from experiment to experiment'. In other words both methods were used.


'This isn't evidence of anything. '


Correction, it is evidence of something, just perhaps not psychic energy. However, the working hypothesis is that this 'something' is psychic or brain energy. Perhaps I am right, perhaps I am wrong. Your critique of why it might not be psychic energy is good, but you have failed to provide an alternative. Perhaps you feel that you do not have to, but I would be interested to learn what you think the something in the Ganzfeld experiments is?
Reply
#15
RE: Poltergeist
(July 2, 2009 at 2:52 pm)dagda Wrote: Surely I cited Kathy Dalton? I described her sample and results. The paragraph before I described her method. The other experiments are pretty similar with just a few minor alterations (e.g. larger sample, different demography, longer test period etc.). What more do you want? A diagram?
The keyword in my sentence was "evidence". I have only your word that she did this experiment, that she used this method, that there were other experiments, etc. Link me to her study so I can read it. I'm not going to place my entire opinion of the existence of ghosts/poltergeists in the hands of someone who has provided no evidence for them. It's like me trying to convince someone that Hitler existed by repeatedly saying "Hitler invaded France and Poland using tanks and infantry" to them. The Wikipedia page you gave does not mention her at all; only some studies by Hyman.
Quote:Yes I did. I said 'it varies from experiment to experiment'. In other words both methods were used.
I'm sorry, but "it varies from experiment to experiment" was neither an answer to the question "what randomisation methods were involved", nor a confirmation (as you just did) that my two guesses at randomness methods were the ones that varied. Saying "it varies from experiment to experiment" tells me nothing unless you say which methods vary.
Quote:Correction, it is evidence of something, just perhaps not psychic energy.
Agreed. I mistyped, meant to put "this is not evidence of psychic energy".
Quote:However, the working hypothesis is that this 'something' is psychic or brain energy.
It's hardly a working hypothesis. It's been talked about for years and nobody has ever come up with a scientific experiment that can confirm it, or even show what psychic energy is. It's a guess, nothing more. A hypothesis should make some experiments to help it reach the level of theory, and your failure to provide any just shows how it is far from a "working" hypothesis.
Quote:Your critique of why it might not be psychic energy is good, but you have failed to provide an alternative. Perhaps you feel that you do not have to, but I would be interested to learn what you think the something in the Ganzfeld experiments is?
I have no idea. This is the difference between a believer and a skeptic. I don't leap onto the nearest idea just because it sounds good. I certainly don't pretend to know a thing about how the brain works, or how most of physics works, so I admit that I cannot produce anything that would explain it. That doesn't mean I am going to believe in the most popular idea even though it has no evidence, it means I am going to wait for someone to come up with an idea and test it to get the evidence. Only then will I state my support for an explanation.

This is the peak of open-mindedness, not just blindly accepting ideas because other people with degrees have said they might be the answer. The evidence should speak for itself, and if it doesn't, you don't have a very good answer.

Anyway, can we move onto Poltergeists? I want to see some case studies and video clips Big Grin All this talk about Psychic energy is all very well and good, but you seemed to suggest that there was actual evidence for poltergeists in video / photo form, which I am very interested in.
Reply
#16
RE: Poltergeist
There is no verifiable evidence for either ghosts or poltergeists ... next?

Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!

Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Reply
#17
RE: Poltergeist
Kyu, your comment is no more valid that if I said 'Ghosts are real, end of discussion'. Either enter into the spirit (no pun intended) of the debate or do not post at all.


Adrian, I would like to mention the psychic phenomenon one last time. I am aware I may come across as a 'believer' who takes everything at face value. I sincerely hope not! Anyway I would just like to reveal why I think psychic energy exists and can act upon the world given the right circumstances.

First I would like to say that my definition of psychic energy is the mind being able to manipulate or change the material world without the use of the limbs. This includes manipulation of both living and non-living materials.

I think Dr. William A. Tiller's experiments are the most groundbreaking in indicating that this 'psychic' energy is a distinct possibility. He has (or claims) managed to change the pH value of a solution without adding chemicals. The change has come about due to the power of the will. In other words, the pH value changes because someone wills the pH value to change. This has been replicated several times under lab conditions. The links can be found below:

http://www.tillerfoundation.com/model.php

http://www.visionmagazine.com/archives/0...ealth.html


Another study influential in shaping my opinion was the Toronto Society of Psychical Research's efforts in creating a ghost. They invented the character Philip and, after months of 'willing' Philip into existence, their efforts were rewarded. In the mock seances the Society conducted, Philip began to answer. This fascinated many members of the Society, and they went on to summon the equally fictitious character of Lilith. A more in-depth review of the study is provided below:


http://www.pararesearchers.org/Ghosts/Ar..._five.html

There is also the 1924 account of Alexandra David-Neel (in her book Magic and Mystery in Tibet) in which she claims to have been able to create a 'monk' with the power of her mind. This monk was witnessed by several others and-over a period of months-began to exhibit poltergeist-like behaviour before she managed to will it out of existence.


Anyway, onto the poltergeist case. I have chosen to concentrate on the Rosenheim Poltergeist case (1967) because of the sheer volume of witnesses to the 'poltergeist' activity.

In 1967 the law practice of one Sigmund Adam began experiencing some strange activity. The 4 office phones would ring at the same time, and, when answered, would cut-off as abruptly. This was put down to some elaborate prank, but when the same phones began to cut-off when the office staff were in mid-call, Mr. Adam decided to have the phones replaced, thinking it must be due to a technical error.
The replaced phones exhibited the same malfunction as their predecessors. At this point Mr. Adam brought in the telephone repair people, hoping they would be able to fix the problem. They could find nothing wrong with the phones and nothing to explain the malfunction.

Latter in the same year the lights began to malfunction. The lights would switch themselves off and on and the sockets would swing of their own accord. Mr. Adam now called in the power company. They recorded everything as working fine. The phenomenon were left unexplained.

The final straw came when the photocopier began to leak. Mr. Adam ordered the power to be cut to the office and the equipment to be run using the back-up generator. The phenomenon continued unabated.

At this point two Physicists decided to investigate the strange electrical phenomenon. After several trips to the office they came up blank, concluding that the phenomenon was beyond their scope of understanding.

Enter Hans Bender. He decided to investigate the small office. He discovered that the phenomenon only ever happened when the teenager Anne-Marie Scaberl (AM) was in the office. After several interviews Hans concluded that AM was highly strung, had a deep dislike for her job and did not care for Mr. Adam. As time went on the activity intensified with heavy objects moving around rooms and calenders being ripped off walls. In mid-January 1968, AM left her job and the phenomenon ceased.


With all poltergeist cases we must first look at the power of suggestion as a possible and probable cause. I discounted this because of the sheer number of credible witnesses and, of course, the photographs. The photos may not be perfect (this was the 1960's after all) but they do indicate that it was not totally the power of suggestion-say what you like but I do not think that suggestion can move lamps or cause dents in walls.

This leaves fraud. This may be the answer to the Rosenheim riddle but to establish this as a viable cause we must first answer the three important questions; who, why and how?


http://www.ghosttheory.com/paranormal-ca...-haunting/

http://ghosts-hauntings.suite101.com/art...haunts_law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1LjrnsH144
Reply
#18
RE: Poltergeist
(July 3, 2009 at 3:29 pm)dagda Wrote: Kyu, your comment is no more valid that if I said 'Ghosts are real, end of discussion'. Either enter into the spirit (no pun intended) of the debate or do not post at all.

First don't tell me what to fucking do and second it was an entirely valid comment.

Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!

Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Reply
#19
RE: Poltergeist
(July 1, 2009 at 3:57 pm)Samson Wrote: Poltergeist and Ghost have one main thing in common......They are both equally made up.......

You're a big fan of "Ghost Hunters" aren't you???

Hey, one thing is for sure....I love the 80's flick Poltergeist...."THERE HEREEEEEEEE".......

I love "Ghost Hunters", but I still think it's all bullshit. Being a photographer I know how easy it is to manipulate an image, still or video, to get it to look like you want it so there is no photograph out there that will make me believe just by looking at it. But it's still good TVSmile
binnyCoffee
Reply
#20
RE: Poltergeist
(July 4, 2009 at 11:05 am)binny Wrote: I love "Ghost Hunters", but I still think it's all bullshit. Being a photographer I know how easy it is to manipulate an image, still or video, to get it to look like you want it so there is no photograph out there that will make me believe just by looking at it. But it's still good TVSmile

That's a very healthy attitude and not one I can adopt because I detest with a passion all reality TV.

Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!

Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)