Immortal4life Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) Parapsychology Here is a site with tons of information about what Parapsychology is. The Parapsychological Assosciation, which is a branch of the AAAS, the American Association for the Advancement of Science. One of the most prestigous scientific organizations- http://www.parapsych.org/section/36/frequently_asked_questions.aspx Videos- Evidence of precognition YouTube - Super "fighter" pilots or..........Precognition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On the taboo of paranormal phenomena and spirituality in the scientific culture- YouTube - Dean Radin - Woo-woo Taboo's longer more in depth talking about scientific taboos Evidence showing Atheism causes people to be more dishonest Eastern Science vs. Western Science Merging Science and Spirituality Philosphpy of Science Many paranormal phenomena have been demonstrated scientifically. Precognition, picking up on other people's thoughts, projecting thoughts to other people, etc. It's even been shown that humans can use their thoughts to affect random particle generation or random number generation to make it not so random. Here's some info on the science of Parapsychology Alternativescience.com - vacation memberships Resources and Information. This website is for sale! In December 1989 Dean Radin of Princeton's Psychology Department and Roger Nelson of the PEAR lab published a paper on the meta-analysis of micro-PK experiments not, as might be expected, in a parapsychology journal but in the respected physics journal Foundations of Physics. Their paper was entitled, 'Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems.' In their analysis, Radin and Nelson tracked down 152 reports describing 597 experimental studies and 235 control studies by 68 different investigators involving the influence of consciousness on microelectronic systems. From Dean Radin's Blog Entangled Minds: PEAR Lab I recently had a conversation with an intelligent, highly skeptical scientist who vehemently insisted with unshakable confidence that there is no reason to accept any claims of psychic phenomena because there are no peer-reviewed publications supporting their existence. Thus, any claims to the contrary, even by places like the PEAR Lab, are necessarily flawed or fraud. And further, if there were such evidence, then it would have won the "million dollar prize" by now. Ipso facto, there is no evidence. It's all fraud run by scam artists. I calmly pointed out that there are in fact hundreds of such publications, most in peer-reviewed journals. The scientist was incredulous, refusing to believe that this could possibly be true, and even if was true, those journals couldn't possibly be any good. I could only sigh. There are tens of thousands of journals. No one can know more than a tiny sliver of information appearing in journals that are not within one's speciality. To assume that because you haven't heard of the information it doesn't exist is the height of hubris. As Prof. Jahn said in the NYTimes piece, If people dont believe us after all the results weve produced, then they never will. I'm afraid that is quite true. From Jessica Utts, Statistician and researcher AIR : An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning : Jessica Utts AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR P SYCHIC FUNCTIONING Professor Jessica Utts Division of Statistics University of California, Davis ABSTRACT Research on psychic functioning, conducted over a two decade period, is examined to determine whether or not the phenomenon has been scientifically established. A secondary question is whether or not it is useful for government purposes. The primary work examined in this report was government sponsored research conducted at Stanford Research Institute, later known as SRI International, and at Science Applications International Corporation, known as SAIC. Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud. Also, the Ganzfeld effect is scientifically proven- meta-analysis and psi Edited February 18, 2011 by Immortal4life Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Immortal4life Posted February 18, 2011 69 views, that may be the lowest rated thread I ever did on here. Wasn't expecting this thread to perform that poorly.....hmmm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Immortal4life Posted February 21, 2011 I was planning on making quite few threads in the next while about the mind and mental abilities, I may have to alter that and go in a different direction..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
manitou Posted February 22, 2011 Immortal - your idea about making a thread about the mind and its abilities would be stupendous. Please do it?? I think the only problem with this thread is the amount of research required to understand the point you're making. It's just too much stuff to look at - I clicked on the first link and I could see that it was going to be an awfully long video. I think that for someone to truly see what you're getting at, they'd have to be willing to sit at their computer for an hour or so and click on all the links. Is there any way you could paraphrase what you're getting at here? Put it in your own words, rather than making us do all the research.... I would love to participate in a thread such as that - Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelerner Posted February 22, 2011 69 views, that may be the lowest rated thread I ever did on here. Wasn't expecting this thread to perform that poorly.....hmmm It's a good subject, but I find the posts that really take off are based on a question, not long statements. In other words, a poll then posting a proof or two makes more sense and add in the ones later. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Immortal4life Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) My thinking is that, as far as the amount of content, online you get to choose what to read, what to click on, and what to skip. How many people sit down for several hours to watch a football game? How easy is to watch an hour of Jersey Shore without realizing it? The way I see it, is it's on me to find topics that will draw people and draw hits, and present them in a way that will be interesting. In that way, it's all on me. However, I will consider your suggestions, especially in presenting threads as questions rather than purely info packets. Edited February 23, 2011 by Immortal4life Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
