tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1733988359835604469.post8215047277669127146..comments2023-06-14T04:42:37.404-07:00Comments on Science is a method, not a position: Don't set an impossible bar. . .M.C.http://www.blogger.com/profile/13310971675352307226noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1733988359835604469.post-71443394374355457802007-05-23T18:37:00.000-07:002007-05-23T18:37:00.000-07:00Paranormal results are achieved through nonwestern...Paranormal results are achieved through nonwestern music resonance of electrochemicals or emotions. This is why Betrand Russell was against mysticism -- too emotional. In fact the source of the emotions is achieved by the logic of inference which is what Godel discovered: self-enquiry of the I-thought. Unfortunately Godel was still stuck on science's dependancy in geometric spacetime.<BR/><BR/>We can HEAR the source of the I-thought as formless awareness which then resonates into thoughts, visions, matter, energy, etc. <BR/><BR/>Professor Harry M. Collin's recent essay, Lead to Gold, is an excellent summary of this issue of "null results." Collin states that only with technology can a negative result be used as a limit solution. There is no "pure" science, rather there is a desire by science to transform left-hand based life -- ecology -- into right-hand based silica -- apocalypse. Read Professor David F. Noble's book "The Religion of Technology (1996). He got fired from M.I.T. for detailing how modern science is directed by Freemasonry.<BR/><BR/>drew hempel, MA (google me for more details)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1733988359835604469.post-26225060290203658302007-05-23T08:39:00.000-07:002007-05-23T08:39:00.000-07:00I wonder how much the experimenter effect (in all ...<I>I wonder how much the experimenter effect (in all fields of science) is due to people simply writing up the results in the way that best suits their pre-existing worldview. </I><BR/><BR/>A good question, and one that should be followed up on. . .<BR/><BR/>I would hope that most good science would involve preplanned hypothesis testing rather than after-the-fact data mining. Sometimes the line gets a bit blurry for example with meta-analysis, but any experiment should decide on its statistical tests before conducting the experimental trials.M.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13310971675352307226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1733988359835604469.post-12022776160119817172007-05-23T00:30:00.000-07:002007-05-23T00:30:00.000-07:00I wonder how much the experimenter effect (in all ...I wonder how much the experimenter effect (in all fields opf science) is due to people simply writing up the results in the way that best suits their pre-existing worldview.Ersbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08012602968152264418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1733988359835604469.post-74901162088641440112007-05-22T23:49:00.000-07:002007-05-22T23:49:00.000-07:00Although I can agree that all are biased, I still ...<I>Although I can agree that all are biased, I still think that the goal, as Stephen put it, is not to be. </I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't necessarily call it bias. Simply that the results of all experiments with complex, probabalistic phenomena seem to vary based on different experimenters. Not just psi experiments!M.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13310971675352307226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1733988359835604469.post-33393867079560341852007-05-22T23:47:00.000-07:002007-05-22T23:47:00.000-07:00What I mean is that a certain overearnestness in s...What I mean is that a certain overearnestness in seeking out psi phenomena, often for psychological reasons can sometimes appear to backfire and make the phenomena more elusive. Psi phenomena seems to appear more often when the "witness" or "observing" consciousness is in the forefront, rather than the demanding ego who wants to manifest special and unique abilities.<BR/><BR/>I certainly could be wrong about this, this is a pattern I have observed personally with myself and a few others. YMMV, of course. . . Just some speculations on my part. I certainly can't speak to your own case, but I do feel that this pattern fits Susan Blackmore and Louie Savva fairly well. . .M.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13310971675352307226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1733988359835604469.post-4752023243491761872007-05-22T22:54:00.000-07:002007-05-22T22:54:00.000-07:00Although I can agree that all are biased, I still ...Although I can agree that all are biased, I still think that the goal, as Stephen put it, is not to be. He didn't say it's the reality but that it's the goal. (I've not yet heard Alex's interview yet, so I'm basing on your quote).<BR/><BR/>Also, I didn't quite understand last paragraph. I know that Susie was very pro psi and ended up being very skeptical because she couldn't find any proof. But do you mean by this that anyone strongly looking for Psi won't find it? <BR/><BR/>For example, I tend to believe that Psi exists but I'd like to verify it. I run the online <A HREF="http://psi.mind-energy.net" REL="nofollow">Psi Experiments</A> at my site. Do you say that since I want to prove that psi exists, I actually won't be able to do that and end up being against it?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07124480425701094249noreply@blogger.com