• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
You're wrong. He can't make that argument if he doesn't begin with the premise that the claim of bias is unfounded.

It is unfounded until you found it.

You have yet to post a single shred of evidence that there is such a bias.
A few posts ago, you literally said that you refuse to do so.

If you don't support your claims, then your claims are left unsupported.

So if I wish to use that as a premised, then I'm using perfectly legit premises - since your claims of bias are left unsupported.

Such premises will be shown false the second you actually support your claims.

So.... go ahead.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It is unfounded until you found it.

You have yet to post a single shred of evidence that there is such a bias.
A few posts ago, you literally said that you refuse to do so.

If you don't support your claims, then your claims are left unsupported.

So if I wish to use that as a premised, then I'm using perfectly legit premises - since your claims of bias are left unsupported.

Such premises will be shown false the second you actually support your claims.

So.... go ahead.

If all commentary ceased until he comes up
with something, that would certainly put a stop
to this nonsense.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Then you'll off course understand that nobody reading this will have any reason to accept your accusations at the address of the scientific community.
I don't think you can assume that everyone will agree with you.

You're still free to attempt to actually support your claims though. I suggest you start with one example. Just take the most blatant one. Your BEST example. And we'll see where it goes from there? I'm actually quite interested.
OK, let's go back to the 1950s and the Rhine studies at Duke which showed positive results for ESP. The reaction of mainstream science went well beyond intense scrutiny of the research. It closed down the project and Duke never got involved in funding paranormal research again.

Philosophies and worldviews are challenged constantly whenever big discoveries are made and/or old ideas are overturned. Like steady state theory being displaced by big bang and such. Quantum physics, relativity of time, etc. Many of these are are quite unfathomable and to laymen even kind of "magical" - especially quantum weirdness.
You'r trying to compare apples and oranges. The "hard sciences" are less prone to biases.

ps: now, you've even moved from baseless accusations of bias / conspiracy, the character attacks by calling them all "arrogant" as well

You asked me what causes the bias but criticize me for explaining it in terms of a human failing (arrogance)? How would you explain a bias that wasn't caused by a human failing?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
You made the claim early on that there was no evidence supporting the paranormal. I linked you to one site with over 100 links to research.

Yes. A site with over 100 links to research. None of which you read because you assumed they were articles supporting ESP Woo. But, as I showed, many of the research studies/articles found clear evidence that ESP Woo was just ESP Woo.

I guess I just have to remind you of what I posted in #374.
Abstract & Parapsychology is the scientific investigation of apparently paranormal mental phenomena (such as telepathy, i.e., ‘‘mind reading’’), also known as psi. Despite widespread public belief in such phenomena and over 75 years of experimentation, there is no compelling evidence that psi exists.
...
Moreover, the study included biologically or emotionally related participants (e.g., twins) and emotional stimuli in an effort to maximize experimental conditions that are purportedly conducive to psi. In spite of these characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses—although differences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the expected effects on patterns of brain activation. These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena.

And, finally, one more coffin nail...

Remember this one?
The precognitive abilities reported by Bem (2011) emerged across a range of tasks. As one example, in Experiment 1, Bem (2011) asked participants to select whether a picture would appear on the left side of the screen or the right side of the screen. Participants’ selections were accurate more often than chance would predict when the picture in question was an erotic one (but not a neutral, positive, or negative one), suggesting that people have precognitive abilities to detect where erotic stimuli will appear.​
Here's what researchers found...
Across 7 experiments (N 3,289), we replicate the procedure of Experiments 8 and 9 from Bem (2011), which had originally demonstrated retroactive facilitation of recall. We failed to replicate that finding. We further conduct a meta-analysis of all replication attempts of these experiments and find that the average effect size (d 0.04) is no different from 0. We discuss some reasons for differences between the results in this article and those presented in Bem (2011).​


That pretty much sums up what we have been saying - there is no evidence supporting ESP Woo.

Every time you bring up the site with 100 research articles that you thought supported ESP Woo (because you didn't bother to read any of the articles), I will show everyone, again, how fraudulent your claim is.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
OK, let's go back to the 1950s and the Rhine studies at Duke which showed positive results for ESP. The reaction of mainstream science went well beyond intense scrutiny of the research. It closed down the project and Duke never got involved in funding paranormal research again.
If by "went well beyond intense scrutiny" you mean "could never replicate his results in controlled experiments and found serious flaws in his methodology":

"At the time [1938] of performing the experiments involved I fully expected that they would yield easily all the final answers. I did not imagine that after 28 years I would still be in as much doubt as when I had begun. I repeated a number of the then current Duke techniques, but the results of 3,024 runs [one run consists of twenty-five guesses] of the ESP cards as much work as Rhine reported in his first book-were all negative. In 1940 I utilized further methods with high school students, again with negative results."
SOURCE: Crumbaugh, J. (1966). A Scientific Critique of Parapsychology. International Journal of Neuropsychiatry 5: 521–29

"In 1940, Rhine coauthored a book, Extrasensory Perception After Sixty Years in which he suggested that something more than mere guess work was involved in his experiments. He was right! It is now known that the experiments conducted in his laboratory contained serious methodological flaws. Tests often took place with minimal or no screening between the subject and the person administering the test. Subjects could see the backs of cards that were later discovered to be so cheaply printed that a faint outline of the symbol could be seen. Furthermore, in face-to-face tests, subjects could see card faces reflected in the tester’s eyeglasses or cornea. They were even able to (consciously or unconsciously) pick up clues from the tester’s facial expression and voice inflection. In addition, an observant subject could identify the cards by certain irregularities like warped edges, spots on the backs, or design imperfections."
SOURCE: Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction: Where Real Science Ends...and Pseudoscience Begins. Joseph Henry Press. p. 156

"The methods the Rhines used to prevent subjects from gaining hints and clues as to the design on the cards were far from adequate. In many experiments, the cards were displayed face up, but hidden behind a small wooden shield. Several ways of obtaining information about the design on the card remain even in the presence of the shield. For instance, the subject may be able sometimes to see the design on the face-up card reflected in the agent’s glasses. Even if the agent isn’t wearing glasses it is possible to see the reflection in his cornea."

SOURCE: Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. pp. 119-120​

For the sake of disclosure, I found all the above quotes on Rhine's wiki page:
Joseph Banks Rhine - Wikipedia
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
It's pretty much what you said. I even bolded it.
I didn't say "You either agree with me or you're biased." You wrote that. And that's not a logical deduction from what I said. What I wrote doesn't rule out the possibility that an unbiased mind might disagree with me.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
You: PSI Researchers cannot get funding.
Creationists. ID Scientists cannot get funding.

You: PSI Researchers cannot get published in scientific journals.
Creationists. ID Scientists cannot get published in scientific journals.

You: A year ago, about 100 scientists signed a petition to expose this bias but it won't change anything.
Creationists. 1000 scientists have signed a document stating Evolution if false.
I guess if wasn't for your beloved false analogies, you wouldn't have much to say.
You asserted my analogies were false analogies but have failed to show why.

In any case, I'm not the only one who has pointed out to you that your arguments parallel those of Creationists.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Yes. A site with over 100 links to research. None of which you read because you assumed they were articles supporting ESP Woo. But, as I showed, many of the research studies/articles found clear evidence that ESP Woo was just ESP Woo.

I guess I just have to remind you of what I posted in #374.
Abstract & Parapsychology is the scientific investigation of apparently paranormal mental phenomena (such as telepathy, i.e., ‘‘mind reading’’), also known as psi. Despite widespread public belief in such phenomena and over 75 years of experimentation, there is no compelling evidence that psi exists.
...
Moreover, the study included biologically or emotionally related participants (e.g., twins) and emotional stimuli in an effort to maximize experimental conditions that are purportedly conducive to psi. In spite of these characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses—although differences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the expected effects on patterns of brain activation. These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena.
And, finally, one more coffin nail...

Remember this one?
The precognitive abilities reported by Bem (2011) emerged across a range of tasks. As one example, in Experiment 1, Bem (2011) asked participants to select whether a picture would appear on the left side of the screen or the right side of the screen. Participants’ selections were accurate more often than chance would predict when the picture in question was an erotic one (but not a neutral, positive, or negative one), suggesting that people have precognitive abilities to detect where erotic stimuli will appear.​
Here's what researchers found...
Across 7 experiments (N 3,289), we replicate the procedure of Experiments 8 and 9 from Bem (2011), which had originally demonstrated retroactive facilitation of recall. We failed to replicate that finding. We further conduct a meta-analysis of all replication attempts of these experiments and find that the average effect size (d 0.04) is no different from 0. We discuss some reasons for differences between the results in this article and those presented in Bem (2011).​
That pretty much sums up what we have been saying - there is no evidence supporting ESP Woo.​
Every time you bring up the site with 100 research articles that you thought supported ESP Woo (because you didn't bother to read any of the articles), I will show everyone, again, how fraudulent your claim is.
You are repeating the content of your cherry-picked, slanted evidence that I've already countered.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I didn't say "You either agree with me or you're biased." You wrote that. And that's not a logical deduction from what I said. What I wrote doesn't rule out the possibility that an unbiased mind might disagree with me.
You wrote:

"What I've done in this debate is make an argument that I think will persuade unbiased minds that they should ignore self-proclaimed skeptics and their ridicule of the subject of the paranormal."​

The implication being that you think that if people aren't persuaded by your argument, they are biased. That's the implication when you say that you "think" you argument "will persuade unbiased minds", you must also "think" that people who aren't persuaded have a bias.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I don't believe you. I think you made it up, because you refuse to actually demonstrate this experience is valid and denigrate the very scientific method which could do so.
Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant.

The fact that I had those experience helps unbiased readers understand why I'm not a skeptic.

Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade readers that the paranormal exists, I'm waging war on those who claim it doesn't and instead believe that such things as Randi's Prize prove their case.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
You wrote:

"What I've done in this debate is make an argument that I think will persuade unbiased minds that they should ignore self-proclaimed skeptics and their ridicule of the subject of the paranormal."​

The implication being that you think that if people aren't persuaded by your argument, they are biased. That's the implication when you say that you "think" you argument "will persuade unbiased minds", you must also "think" that people who aren't persuaded have a bias.
No. Your deduction is illogical but if you still don't understand why it's illogical after my explanation in Post 449, then think what you want.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant.

The fact that I had those experience helps unbiased readers understand why I'm not a skeptic.
It's not a fact that you had those experiences - as of now, it is just a claim that nobody has any good reason to believe is true. In fact, I believe it's false.

Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade readers that the paranormal exists, I'm waging war on those who claim it doesn't and instead believe that such things as Randi's Prize prove their case.
And you're doing so very poorly, by making baseless accusations, personal judgements that are irrelevant, and outright refusing to present actual evidence. And what little you actually DO present is refuted easily.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
No. Your deduction is illogical but if you still don't understand why it's illogical after my explanation in Post 449, then think what you want.
Your explanation made no sense. You don't have to "not explicitly rule something out" in order for the implication to be present.

If I wrote "I have formulated an argument that I think will persuade any non-stupid person to conclude that blue is the best colour", I must NECESSARILY consequently believe "if a person is not persuaded by my argument, I think they are stupid".
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
This is easily tested.

Begin with this premise:

Psi researcher indeed can't get their papers published because the mainstream journals are biased against publishing them.

Now, try to make your argument.
Ugh. Look, you're mis-reading what they wrote and misunderstanding the point of it. It's an analogy OF YOUR LOGIC. It's the logic YOU were using, not the logic they were using to discredit psi research.

How do you not get this?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
It's not a fact that you had those experiences - as of now, it is just a claim that nobody has any good reason to believe is true. In fact, I believe it's false.

It's a claim to you but a fact for me. It explains to others why I sound like I know the truth on this topic.

As for your disbelief. Why do you think that matters in this debate?

And you're doing so very poorly, by making baseless accusations, personal judgements that are irrelevant, and outright refusing to present actual evidence. And what little you actually DO present is refuted easily.

Please explain why you think your opinion on how the debate is going, rather than argument, should be persuasive to any reader of this debate.
 
Top