Jaytee / Pam Smart original german documentary

Cool, will have to look this over.

My understanding is the data was ultimately inconclusive, though as I recall Wiseman apparently BSed his experiments?
 
You might want to read Wiseman's paper rather than the peanut gallery's commentary.

Hahahaha. So the posters here are now just the "peanut gallery"?

The real Arouet seems pretty harsh!
 
Cool, will have to look this over.

My understanding is the data was ultimately inconclusive, though as I recall Wiseman apparently BSed his experiments?

I actually found that Rupert's work with Kane, and particularly Jaytee, as the most interesting work he has produced.

Indeed it's some of the strongest and most suggestive evidence I've ever seen (outside of my own particular out-of-body experience) that something unusual is really going on.

When I look at studies like this which I consider to show positive results, in a totally naturalistic setting, I'm struck by similarities with language acquisition. The spontaneous acquisition of language by children in natural everyday 'doings', which both children and adults find exciting (i.e emotions/feelings).

I look at the work of Sue Savage-rumbaugh with Kanzi, and wonder if it's not somehow pointing us towards some truth about what works, and what doesn't work so well, with these sorts if investigations.
 
Last edited:
You might want to read Wiseman's paper rather than the peanut gallery's commentary.

If you wanted to avoid showing bias, you might have also posted the link to Sheldrake's comments on Wiseman. Just to help people decide, here's the page with the links to the WIseman paper that you urged us to read.

Nonetheless, this subject has had pages and pages of posts in the past and is and will remain polarised. So anyone new to it can follow the links, watch the videos and make up their own minds.
 
Last edited:
Hahahaha. So the posters here are now just the "peanut gallery"?

The real Arouet seems pretty harsh!

Well, when it comes to this study, for the most part yes. You'll notice that few people ever talk about the study in any kind of detail. Most are talking about what they've read about other people talking about it. That's a peanut gallery approach to the study IMO. I've tried to get focus back on the article itself but I tend to get mocked for even suggesting that there might be something of value to actually reading it.
 
The contrast between Wiseman's and Sheldrake's approach is a nice illustration about the strength of testing for prediction vs. association. That might be interesting to discuss. Otherwise, all the debate seems to accomplish is to distinguish people on the basis of whether or not the lines figure 4 (in Sheldrake's paper) look like they are rising over time.

Linda
 
...all the debate seems to accomplish is to distinguish people on the basis of whether or not the lines figure 4 look like they are rising over time...

The lines in Fig. 4 are rising, I don't think there is any room for interpretation there. So if there is any polarization of opinion as you seem to suggest, it must be for some other reason.
 
The lines in Fig. 4 are rising, so if there is any polarization of opinion as you suggest, it must be for some other reason.
Ah, you've just outed yourself as a Psuedoskeptic. Welcome to the Dark Side. :)

Linda
 
If you wanted to avoid showing bias, you might have also posted the link to Sheldrake's comments on Wiseman. Just to help people decide, here's the page with the links to the WIseman paper that you urged us to read.

Nonetheless, this subject has had pages and pages of posts in the past and is and will remain polarised. So anyone new to it can follow the links, watch the videos and make up their own minds.

I'm going to check out that Wiseman paper when I get around to it, thanks. I lost respect for the guy on the way he handeled the Bem "replications", especially in light of the new paper that came out. Just curious to see if a similar style comes through here too ... would say a lot about the guy at that point.
 
I'm going to check out that Wiseman paper when I get around to it, thanks. I lost respect for the guy on the way he handeled the Bem "replications", especially in light of the new paper that came out. Just curious to see if a similar style comes through here too ... would say a lot about the guy at that point.

To be fair to Wiseman, he was pretty honest about his lack of engagement in the staring tests. Given how Psi may show a greater causal role of the Phenomenal letting Sheldrake know about that was pretty useful when compared to the other results - Susan Blackmore, as I recall, got significant results but with a low sample IIRC despite her skepticism.
 
Back
Top