• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, 11 years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Prominent psych journal to publish evidence of human esp.

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

The NYT is basically a glorified National Inquirer. Move along folks... nothing more to see here.
 
The Pair of Cats said:
James Randi is rolling in his grave and he isn't even dead yet!!!:)
Click to expand...

When the science is there, skeptics like Randi do not criticize. Show me an example of where he has if I am wrong.
This is an interesting study that uses sound science by a well respected psychologist. It is not showing ESP in the classic sense of the word, but it is showing something that we did not think was initially possible. Extremely interesting. I think the one criticism there is against it is that there is apparently no control group. Still, it's in a selective and peer reviewed journal. He seems to have discovered an interesting phenomenon.

If you think that this means that people are predicting lottery numbers, make sure you read the study so that you can calm down. There's a whole discussion going on at the JREF forums about it if you're interested in looking it up.

---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------
pixelsmith said:
The NYT is basically a glorified National Inquirer. Move along folks... nothing more to see here.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Where do you go for unbiased news?
 
Angel of Ioren said:
When the science is there, skeptics like Randi do not criticize. Show me an example of where he has if I am wrong.
This is an interesting study that uses sound science by a well respected psychologist. It is not showing ESP in the classic sense of the word, but it is showing something that we did not think was initially possible. Extremely interesting. I think the one criticism there is against it is that there is apparently no control group. Still, it's in a selective and peer reviewed journal. He seems to have discovered an interesting phenomenon.

If you think that this means that people are predicting lottery numbers, make sure you read the study so that you can calm down. There's a whole discussion going on at the JREF forums about it if you're interested in looking it up.
Click to expand...

Angelo. Didn't you notice my smiley?:)
I think it's great. Finally some scientific study on a subject that is sure to stir up the orthodoxy.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
When the science is there, skeptics like Randi do not criticize. Show me an example of where he has if I am wrong.
This is an interesting study that uses sound science by a well respected psychologist. It is not showing ESP in the classic sense of the word, but it is showing something that we did not think was initially possible. Extremely interesting. I think the one criticism there is against it is that there is apparently no control group. Still, it's in a selective and peer reviewed journal. He seems to have discovered an interesting phenomenon.

If you think that this means that people are predicting lottery numbers, make sure you read the study so that you can calm down. There's a whole discussion going on at the JREF forums about it if you're interested in looking it up.

---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------



Are you serious? Where do you go for unbiased news?
Click to expand...

Are you serious that NYT is unbiased?
 
pixelsmith said:
Are you serious that NYT is unbiased?
Click to expand...
My academic formation is in the area of journalism and I can safely say that no newspaper I've ever read anywhere is unbiased (the same applies to TV channels/radio stations). The question here would be the validity of Dr. Daryl Bern's experiments, a subject outside the realm of the New York Times or any other generalist outlet. The study was published on The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a peer reviewed publication (what that means is that the tests and results were methodologically valid and nothing else, because further replication has to be done before conclusions can be achieved). Its best that those interested (me included) find the time to actually read the paper and try to make some sense of it.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
When the science is there, skeptics like Randi do not criticize. Show me an example of where he has if I am wrong.
This is an interesting study that uses sound science by a well respected psychologist. It is not showing ESP in the classic sense of the word, but it is showing something that we did not think was initially possible. Extremely interesting. I think the one criticism there is against it is that there is apparently no control group. Still, it's in a selective and peer reviewed journal. He seems to have discovered an interesting phenomenon.

If you think that this means that people are predicting lottery numbers, make sure you read the study so that you can calm down. There's a whole discussion going on at the JREF forums about it if you're interested in looking it up.

---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------



Are you serious? Where do you go for unbiased news?
Click to expand...

The New York Times isn't biased? LMMAO.
 
pixelsmith said:
Are you serious that NYT is unbiased?
Click to expand...

I was more referring to the fact that you said it's no better than a tabloid - the NYT seems to be on the up and up. I can't say I use it as my sole news source. I like the CBC. I also like NPR and the BBC.

I ask again Pixel - Where do you go for unbiased news?
 
Angel of Ioren said:
I thought the smiley was for the rolling in his grave remark. But yes, it's a great study.
Click to expand...

Well it was! lol.:) I was just being facetious. But what the appearance of this paper has done is caused a stir amongst the various members of the psychology fraternity which kind of points to some of the reasons why scientists or psychologists/psychiatrists stay clear of the study of subjects such as psi.
 
;) Well lets not forget that Randi is not a scientist. Neither is Mikey shermer but he is a scientific historian. Still, that doesn't stop ole jimmy r from arguing with acutal Scientist if they don't toe his line. Even a Nobel Prize winner: No lightweight. Brian Josehpson Nobel winner who said of ole jimmy r.:

Let me make the point, that there is actually a difference between a conjuring show and a scientific experiment. Now if James Randi is so certain that it can all be done by conjuring, I think the challenge is now up to him, to go along to a scientific laboratory where this is being investigated and get perfect results in telepathy, instead of about 20% better than you'd expect by chance. 8)
 
tyder001 said:
;) Well lets not forget that Randi is not a scientist. Neither is Mikey shermer but he is a scientific historian. Still, that doesn't stop ole jimmy r from arguing with acutal Scientist if they don't toe his line. Even a Nobel Prize winner: No lightweight. Brian Josehpson Nobel winner who said of ole jimmy r.:

Let me make the point, that there is actually a difference between a conjuring show and a scientific experiment. Now if James Randi is so certain that it can all be done by conjuring, I think the challenge is now up to him, to go along to a scientific laboratory where this is being investigated and get perfect results in telepathy, instead of about 20% better than you'd expect by chance. 8)
Click to expand...

You really have something against those guys. If you think they are so terrible, ignore them. I ignore the people I think are cranks.
In my opinion, Randi and Shermer are brilliant.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
I was more referring to the fact that you said it's no better than a tabloid - the NYT seems to be on the up and up. I can't say I use it as my sole news source. I like the CBC. I also like NPR and the BBC.

I ask again Pixel - Where do you go for unbiased news?
Click to expand...

Depends on the subject. Then it goes through my brains common sense filter.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
You really have something against those guys. If you think they are so terrible, ignore them. I ignore the people I think are cranks.
In my opinion, Randi and Shermer are brilliant.
Click to expand...
The problem is that they have personal agendas that they try to push on everyone else. They have preconceived ideas about the subjects they rail about and that contaminates their results. That was made clear when Shermer tried to debunk Astrology. He got caught out. Either he proved Astrology had some merit or he is a bad scientist, something he has a personal beef about. And if the during the production of that show he was aware of which way the producers wanted to run it and didn't agree, then why didn't he refuse to continue?
They are not content with "to each their own", letting people believe what they want, their agenda is getting people to believe what they want.
 
Back
Top