solacefox wrote:
Sorry, but you entirely missed point about the ‘magical unicorn animal’ example: it was not regarding whether or not evidence is physical...it was to illustrate how people tenaciously cling to illogical beliefs and blind themselves to other suggestions.
But such an unicorn would be physical, right?
So it's much like the bigfoot, where there's no evidence of it's existance.You’re still clearly missing the point here. It doesn’t matter if the evidence is physical or not. I’ve already explained this issue twice now.
Quote:
The extended mind seems to appear only if it is in favour of his data, it seems.
Well science doesn't really deal with consciousness much. So it's not really well understood.
For example science cannot explain the near-death experiences which apperently is a profound experience. They also can't explain out of body experinces, which can be, unlike the near-death, brought about by certian conditions that do not involve (almost) dying lol.. Alas, floating out of your body is not really a profound experience.
They try to explain it away that "it's all happening in the brain because of yadda yadda yadda, but that's just a theory as well." MRI’s and the like have shown changes in brain activity during these events.
Quote:
No, actually, it’s just a number of people who hold a belief, and many people once believed anecdotally that the earth was flat, remember? Large numbers of people’s story’s does not make it true simply by the volumes who believe it.
Sure, the only problem with this theory that nobody thought people to believe there is a 'sense of being stared at', yet many people experience it. So, it has nothing to do with a belif system, but everything to do with subjective personal experience.Succesful replications have been created to show how such
apparent “subjective personal experience” is mistaken as some sort of supernatural experience.
Quote:
His example of cats ‘sensing’ when they’re going to be taken to the vets...cats are just picking up on nonverbal body communication (tension in body language that is out of the norm) and tonal inflections which may not come out and say “vet visit time” but indicate that ‘something is up’ and the cat responds to that.
lol.. yeah right. The cat is a real psychiatrist.The picking up of subtle non-verbal cues has already been explained more than once, it has nothing to do with psychiatry.
Quote:
He speaks of the synchronized movements of birds and fish as ‘social fields’ concernin movement, and tries to link this with telepathic fields.
I don't think he said telepathic, but it does seem like they're part of the same field, cus otherwise it's no way that they could move like that without bumping into each other.The only ‘field’ is a bunch of animals who are attuned to picking up the physical cues of their school or flock mates.
Quote:
Sheldrake tries to use an unknown departure time to assess this telepathy as well: it is easy to read into the dogs or cats behaviour that they are ‘anticipating’ their owner’s arrival, such as by the measurements of time by the window, but Sheldrake also dismisses any lack of anticipatory behaviour as ‘disinterest’?! How convenient!
I'm not sure what you're talking about. The time when the owner starts going home is randomly selected. And by some strange coincidence the dog starts to wait at their waiting place within minutes the owner starts driving towards home.
And they've repeated that, again and again and they find out the same things.And again, the randomly selected time compared to the times the dog/cat goes to the window are a desperate weaving together of coincidences. The times that the dog/cat go to the window at other times are conveniently ignored, as usual. And again, the “findings” aren’t that of proving telepathy, only flawed data and its interpretation.
Here is the classic example of misinterpreting data and findings and also the proper manner to conclude:
Did you know that the increase of ice cream corresponds with higher rates of drowning? Does this mean that ice cream causes drowning? No...it just correlates that the times that people increase their ice cream consumption with drowning, nothing more. There is no cause and effect, and the relationship is simply that people eat more ice cream in summer, and also swim more, so therefore the chances of drowning incidents also increases.
Pretty much common sense, too, I’d say.
Quote:
He also tells us that animals know when they’re being stared at and can sense presence...how can this be possible when the human race has survived so well because of hunting them? You’d think their telepathy and sensitivities of ESP or telepathy would have saved them, no?
He's not proposing that telepathy is happening 100% of the time when being stared at, nor does his data support it.
You also dissmised security people and certian killers that know this sense is a fact. No, but if his data was so correct, the hunting rate would be a heck of a lot less lower, don’t you think? And, no, I did not dimiss the ‘security people and certain killers who “know” this sense is a fact”. Again, it is very clear that those are nothing more than more anecdotal evidence...just more ‘flat earth’ believers.
Quote:
Regarding his mentioning breastfeeding mothers as an example: We must remember that all breastfeeding mothers are going to let milk one way or another, and often, as are baby’s becoming fussy frequently, it’s pretty much symbiotic (engorged boobs HURT! Lol!), not telepathy needed.
Isn't it a strnge coincidence that it starts hurting when their baby starts crying.Again, more flawed logic. No, it’s not a strange coincidence. A mother is hardwired by nature to lactate and engorge when she hears her baby crying...ANY baby crying for that matter, even one’s that aren’t her own. Nothing more than mother nature at work.
Quote:
He says that Wiseman doesn’t agree with the replicated results, but admits that Wiseman’s is a successful replication, but then tries to save himself by saying that Wiseman doesn’t agree with his interpretation.
I guess this was the skeptic that's done it? He's come with almost identical results as Sheldrake, although he disagrees with Sheldrake's theory, that doesn't mean there's nothing happening, beause the study points otherwise.The study only points to the easy misinterpretation of data. This see the ‘ice cream’ example above. Sheldrake himself admits that Wiseman has an interpretation which differs from his own. Wiseman is trying to tell Sheldrake that ice cream isn’t causing the drownings!
Quote:
Again, the animals are just waiting at the window due to habituation, and possibly boredom.
They don't wait at their waiting spot unless their owner is coming home. That's what his study showed. No it doesn’t actually. You need to watch the video again if that’s what you think.Quote:
Same with the strangers calling, the participants still have a frame of reference to work with, knowing the habits of their friends versus that of strangers.
It has nothing to do with habits - time is be picked randomly and they still get a above chance results.This ‘randomness’ and ‘above chance results’ has been explained over and over as to how it’s been exposed as faulty.
Quote:
Then he tells us to do this experiment with friends...now he’s advising others to indulge in pseudoscience, yet he says that research needs to be done with large amounts of samples. Self contradiction again.
This caller experiment is just that - an experiemnt. If it can be proven in large samples it can surley be tested in a group of 5 people.No, anyone who knows even the basics of proper experimental design knows that too small of a sample size and the type of participants used can greatly flaw an study as it does not accurately reflect the general population. You’re thinking of this backwards and it discludes any sort of sample from the get go.
Quote:
He admits that chance comes as a caveat, but still doesn’t present any reliable evidence for telepathy. His experiment results are not valid, as in they do not measure what they are supposed to measure, as shown by Wiseman’s replication.
Didn't Wiseman got almost idential results? lol
We got the data, it's only the interpretation that was different.And again...Wiseman got the same numbers, but it still doesn’t support Sheldrake’s claims, and Sheldrake tries to gloss over this. He’s still trying to save drowning victims by denying them ice cream, so to speak.
Quote:
Indeed, I did watch, and from begining to end
Well done Yes, I watched every moment of it (nearly two hours and it took forever to buffer it onto my tiny little laptop) as I said I only thought this would be fair to you. I think that perhaps you’ve not looked at the links I provided, from the skeptic’s dictionary to the Randi’s response to Sheldrake?
As someone who would like a fair discussion, I don’t think it’s unfair to ask you to peruse my sources as I have yours, considering that this is a debate forum. Otherwise, it’s all only unfairly one-sided and not worth the bother.
Refusing to look beyond your own POV and insisting that you are right is not only pointless, (especially considering that you not only initiated the topic but where you did on the forum), it also says “It’s my way or the highway, so THERE!”. Isn’t this exactly what you accuse the “ideological sceptics” of doing? Frankly, I don’t see any sceptics doing there here...I see myself, as a skeptic, taking what you say into consideration, but with all due respect, you’re plugging your ears and going ‘la la la la’ when anyone disagrees with you.
Quote:
I’d like to see Randi’s response to this, because Sheldrake certainly has a manner of decontextualizing any angle he can, it seems.
Me too.Links to Randi’s response to Sheldrake were provided with two different links. That remark was only leading up to them. Randi’s response was very clear, and your response clearly indicates that you didn’t even look at them.
Quote:
As you can see, he uses ad hominem arguments when it suits him.
That's not true -most of these ideological sceptics won't even look at the data and attack Sheldrake instead. This tired point has already been addressed a number of times and is cleary not true of sceptics. You obviously don’t know what a sceptic is if you think this.
Quote:
Can we not see Randi respond to this “emailing”, or Sheldrake’s dog experiments for that matter?, for I believe he admits to an error which may be taken out of context, but he also asks if he can test any of Sheldrake’s claims...it doesn’t seem to me as thought he is shutting Sheldrake out at all here.
Well I'll be waiting for the Amazing Randi's results.I really don’t think you know much about Randi or his approach, that much is clear so far.
Quote:
Another matter of taking something out of context wouldn’t surprise me here. And as well, if Sheldrake is so confident in his experiments as revealing telepathic ability, what does he have to lose by entering in the bid Randi has offered with a $1,000,000 jackpot.
Sheldrake has addressed this.No, he hasn’t...he’s just made weak excuses as he’s not confident in his own work. Anyone can see that.
Quote:
I don’t see this at all...all I see is a man who attacks anyone who criticizes him or who he thinks will criticize him. He doesn’t address anything head on which exposes him, and just seems to point fingers with ad hominems, red herrings and straw men. He’d not need such devices if his studies truly stood for themselves.
Quote:
From the sounds of it, Dawkins was capable to debating evidence and science (bearing in mind that the methods are standard in all fields), but time constraints wouldn’t allow.
Of course time constraints wouldn't allow - Dawkins isn't interested.When you’re in the middle of multiple projects, as Dawkins often is, why should you have to explain research methods or experimental design to a full grown man who should have learned this stuff in high school or first/second year college at that? Really! He’s not a babysitter.
Sheldrake only embarrassed himself, and made himself look even more incompetent when he was desperately raving about how he claims he “got one up” on Dawkins. All, apparently, over an honest mistake by an assistant, according to his own recanting. Pretty sad, I’d say.
Quote:
No one is trying to beat up Sheldrake and his friends, as he seems to claim. He only need to remove his fingers from his ears, stop crying in his cornflakes over being 'picked on', learn some proper experimental models, research ethics, and statisitical analysis and maybe he'd come up with something that is worth some regard.
Yeah sure - if he comes up with results that don't support currect science, he's either a fool or a liar.
I'm not drikning that kool-Aid.More tears in the morning cereal. People shouldn’t try to do science if you can’t even get the basics straight and then have the nerve to call it ‘science’. He can expect to be called on it when he claims to be a professional academic.
Quote:
Well, that’s certainly enough for one sitting. I’ll take a boo at the Randi link in the next day or two, I’m pooped today.
I've got more. I’m sure you do.
Your stubborn insistence on believing in magic almost inspires me to become a tarot reader or medium of some sort. Nice to see that I’d be able to make a quick buck with minimal effort. Mind you, my own consciousness stops me, as I could never, ever bamboozle anyone like this, despite how apparently easy that seems to be.
You're aware that these so called 'telepathists' and their ilk prey on people, right? I could never take their money and hand them a pile of crap...or especially use warped 'studies' to justify it.
The one's who think this stuff is real because of this so-called data or pseudo-scientific study is just as head-shaking.
Like the old saying goes..."Who's the bigger fool, the fool that leads or the fool that follows?"