- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
In Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, the White Queen tells Alice that in her land, "memory works both ways." Not only can the Queen remember things from the past, but she also remembers "things that happened the week after next." Alice attempts to argue with the Queen, stating "I'm sure mine only works one way...I can't remember things before they happen." The Queen replies, " Read More
Yeah
Time is strange, gravity doesn't make sense, and matter is mostly empty space. I just smile and nod. One day we might figure this all out, but not in my lifetime.
I like it, heh.
I like it, heh.
:) Actually, we might not be
:)
Actually, we might not be that far off. There are theories that explain both gravity and time with dimensions. An interesting blog on this: http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/
The answer...
There is no such thing as time.
It's just a tool to measure the movement of the planets.
Everything, what we call past, present and future, is happening in the Now. The tracking of the movement is what fools us.
It's our way of relating to the physical world we live in.
Hard to understand? Of course. So is Quantum physics.
Doesn't make it wrong, or not real.
If you're not capable of understanding these things, that doesn't make it wrong either.
Would this meet Randi's Challenge criteria?
Uhm...the skeptics are not going to like this.
If I was Dr Bem I would seriously consider taking James Randi up on his million dollar challenge.
Imagine how much more research can be done with all that funding... :)
If you don't know what I am talking about you can read more about Mr Randi's impossible challenge here: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
Debunking is not science
I would hope that all the close-minded skeptics who grovel at the old codger's magician's cape would actually learn and understand what the scientific method is all about.
James Randi's challenge is a debunking and publicity tool meant to accomplish one thing, and one thing only, to justify and promote the humanist/materialist point of view that all religion and spirituality is crap and that the mind/brain relationship is a non-dual existence, limited to individual experience.
In other words, Randi's challenge is straw man argument analogous to Fox News claim of "Fair & Balanced." No one really believes it... except you and other non-scientific extremists.
You're wrong. On several
You're wrong. On several points.
Skepticism isn't close-minded, it's open-minded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Additionally, the challenge isn't a debunking tool. It's a bar, much like the saying Carl Sagan made. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Ahh - but skeptics aren't
Ahh - but skeptics aren't close-minded, quite the opposite.
For example, in the case of this article the writer (and perhaps the researcher) have said "Here is proof of psychic powers" and ceased inquiry. The skeptic will maintain an open mind and see if there are other, perhaps more mundane, explanations.
I agree that true skepticism
I agree that true skepticism is not close-minded, but what too often passes for skepticism today is. Many, if not most, self proclaimed skeptics that you find now are only selective believers, as they dismiss, debunk, and really only question claims that are in conflict with their own beliefs. That which is in accord is usually quickly accepted as validation, if not vindication, of their bias. A true skeptic also questions that which supports their views, because without doing this, how are they being open-minded and impartial? Using your example of those who would claim that this is proof of “psychic powers” and end their inquiry, the same extends to these supposed skeptics, only their inquiry is ended by disbelief instead of belief. Disbelief is just a negative belief, and is just as blinding to an honest and impartial inquiry. For this reason, I find it laughable that many of today’s self-proclaimed skeptics cite arguments like “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, as one who is truly impartial does not need to overcome their disbelief with such “extraordinary evidence”. Evidence is evidence, whether or not it is in agreement with one’s beliefs and prejudice. True skeptics are as open-minded as they are rare.
Alas.. there are no true
Alas.. there are no true sceptics!
You do understand that the
You do understand that the sceptics are only doubting whether the evidence is credible, don't you?
If this study is repeated and its results verified, there'll be few sceptics saying it's hokum.
Until then I, for one, think it's interesting, but unlikely to be true...
Where have I heard this before . . .
You sound like me about fifteen years ago, steeped in magical-thinking and righteous indignation. I so hated Randi and Sagan for being "snowman melters" and closed-minded. Turned out it was my mind that was closed. Critical thinking has changed my life for the better and provided me with the sense of the liberation I always sought through the paranormal. Most likely you express such vitriol towards Randi because deep down inside, as I once did, you're afraid he's right . . . and he is.
James Randi will be the first
James Randi will be the first to encourage Bem to take his challenge. According to the rules of the challenge, Bem will design the experiment and submit it to Randi. Randi will confirm that the experiment is sufficiently double blind and that there is a specific 'success' result that is better than chance and unambiguous. What could be more fair than that?
The truth is studies like these happen every so often and they can never be replicated in other labs by other scientists. I believe we all agree that the scientific method requires repeatability. Maybe Bem is on to something. Much more likely either the testing conditions were somehow improper (not a true double blind study), or the results were not statistically meaningful. I think the latter is likely, but a statistician could say for sure.
This is an incredible claim by any standard, does anyone really advocate accepting it at face value without corroboration? If its as simple and straightforward as the article describes, it should be replicated in other labs very easily right?
statistically significant or not is the key
the post priming is especially intriguing, how long does the effect last? can you post prime 5 seconds after, or is it limited to .5 seconds after. Maybe this phenomena is very short lived ... but exists. However, I've known psychologists and math is not their strength, I assume they had degreed statisticians back their claim. Also, what someone constitutes 'significant' may not be strong enough for someone else - I recall a Randi test of the 'girl with the x ray eyes' who actually seemed to do quite well on the face of it - but they agreed beforehand that 7 matches would be needed for a 'positive' result and she only obtained 6 (I think those were the figures). But this new result will at least get some discussion going again.
Glad you brought that
Glad you brought that up:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,199773,00.html
"Randi's explanation of Natalia's earlier success was simple. He had noticed an unusual concavity in the bridge of her nose and discerned, from the sideways turning of her head, that she was using her right eye to look left — or the left eye to look right — through tiny, hairline gaps between the blindfold and her distinctive nose. By placing duct tape over the bridge, he had, so to speak, unmasked Natalia's (and Komissarov's) deception"
Once Randi placed tape over the bridge of the girl's nose, her success rate plummeted to below chance.
This is a great example because having a person trained in deception is very useful in a way that life-long scientists simply are not equipped to deal with. People assume, for instance, that children dont lie and cheat. In reality, kids can be quite adept at it. Randi approached this experiment with the air that very likely there was cheating going on, and he just had to find it. Too often even established scientists approach this kind of thing with an air of being on the cusp of a great discovery, and they lose sight of the fact that it is VERY much more likely that there is cheating going on instead of a grand new discovery that will turn the world on its head. Occam's Razor is an invaluable tool.
Bem's Math Skills
I'd agree that most psychologists are probably not mathematicians, but if you look at Dr. Bem's home page, you'll see that he has a BA in physics and has done graduate work in physics at MIT. Obviously, this isn't proof that his psi studies are on sound scientific footing, but it would lead me to believe that his skills in mathematics are (much) better than the average psychologist.
yeaa i agree with ur
yeaa i agree with ur point,,its all a game of mathematics and intutution.
there is a story somewhere i read about the indian mathematcian called ramanajum and had cancer.so when some foreign people come to see him,he was looking at the number of their car and told them there is a secret there..and eventually those people later somehow figured something..
physics and maths is a deadly combination
:)
This coincides with this
This coincides with this article
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future
which I just so happen to be reading a week earlier after a friend mentioned it to me. Are we on the verge of some life-changing theories? I think we're due.
Also, good on James Randi.
Spooky action at a distance
Fascinating article, but I feel compelled to point out that Einstein used the term "spooky action at a distance" to MOCK the idea of quantum entanglement, because he did NOT believe in it. He turned out to be wrong, and quantum entanglement has been experimentally verified.
The only error here, really, is throwing in Einstein's name, which I can only assume was done to make things sound more "sciencey."
I'm being overly pedantic, aren't I?
@Doug no you're not being
@Doug
no you're not being overly pedantic. this kind of uncritical "appeal to authority" is a rhetorical device far too often encountered in popular science writing.
Improper use of appeal to authority fallacy
She mentioned Einstein's name in the context of the history of the discovery of quantum entanglement. An appeal to authority is "quantum entanglement is true because Einstein said so."
@Doug no you're not being
@Doug
no you're not being overly pedantic. this kind of uncritical "appeal to authority" is a rhetorical device far too often encountered in popular science writing.
Spooky action at a distance
Doug beat me to it.
Come, let us pedant together!
Unfortunately errors like this in a scientific article can make the whole thing suspect. Not that I believe it to be suspect; but think what your reaction might be if you were reading a thesis and the author used "your" where the appropriate word (contraction, technically) would be "you're".
Point made, methinks.
Amen. As soon as I hit that
Amen. As soon as I hit that line I groaned inside.
And, since we're already having a pedant party, let me add that microorganisms and a round earth are not at all analogous to newly discovered and seemingly supernatural phenomena. Both ideas have been floating around for millennia, and, while counter-intuitive, they don't appear to violate natural laws.
I think that you make a valid
I think that you make a valid and relevant point, but I’m not so quick to assume that you are correct in your assumption that the writer of the article was in error. Yes, Einstein was resistant to accepting the reality of such non-localized behavior in the universe, partly because it seemed to violate his understanding of causality (due to the speed limit of light), which is essentially the very premise of the article. If someone as learned and respected as Einstein could dismiss evidence merely because it seemed to violate causality, then is it so strange to see this happening again by today’s scientific minds in relation to this and other studies? As you point out, he was wrong.
Is it possible that the writer of the article wasn’t just trying to sound "sciencey", and might have had a good reason to mention Einstein‘s bias overriding the evidence?
Here we go again
I'll believe it when's it's replicated, as should you (if you're really a scientist).
Here we will have gone again for the first time
If it is replicated, imagine all the funny things it will do to language.
Also, we'll probably need to alert the philosophy department so they can help us conceptualize causality more accurately, because this is going to have broken my head someday.
Take away the randomness
What if you take away the randomness? Here are two more experiments to run:
1) Flash the picture of the kitten, and see how long it takes for the person to respond. If they respond quickly, show the word "cute". If they respond slowly, show the word "ugly".
2) Flash the picture of the kitten, and see how long it takes for the person to respond. If they respond quickly, show the word "ugly". If they respond slowly, show the word "cute".
I think it would be interesting to measure the overall distribution of response times for 1, 2, and the randomized case. Especially since (2) generates data that directly contradicts the expectations that the future can "prime" the present. People will respond very quickly when being primed from the future with words that should have slowed them down.
That would be like crossing
That would be like crossing the beams in ghost busters. Very bad things happen
That was an absolutely
That was an absolutely beautiful comment. The question is, were you subliminally “primed” to make it after seeing Bill Murray portraying Dr. Peter Venkman in the picture in the article? ;)
Post new comment