Michael Britt - The Psych Files - Dr. Daryl Bem and the Parapsychology PSYOP |328|

#61
I would like to keep an open mind to ideas like Sheldrake's and the few others that are willing to think in these type of directions.

If Sheldrake was banned, it's just as well that I'm not a Scientist! I probably got burned at the stake or had my head removed in many previous lives!
Rupert Sheldrake riffs on a theme. He takes his area of specialist knowledge and extrapolates into what-ifs. For some reason that approach is anathema, and critics imagine he's making a statement rather than inviting a discourse on the possibilities. Materialism invites reappraisal, but only if it leaves all the furniture intact. You can move one plate at a time, but Sheldrake offers complete redecoration and has a skip outback to remove the collected junk of ages. He's just too near the bone for people heavily invested in the physical architecture.
 
#62
I think he read it... I think the interesting thing (as you point out) is that it didn't penetrate. It was like a live example of cognitive dissonance playing itself out. He's smart enough... just can't get there because of prior worldview beliefs.
Precisely. It crossed over his 'too crazy' line
 
#65
I think you're right. We should ask a Domodex just to be sure.
However, let's take that idea a bit further, because I don't think anyone here is saying that human consciousness is unique in some way.

I would assume that if we can act as observers in QM, then so can many other animals. I guess when you get to minute creatures such as DF's, the question may be what they can observe - probably only their immediate surroundings - so maybe they just act as observers in that region.

David
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#67
Hahaha...
The podcast starts with the guest being an "expert" in statistics, after all he teaches that stuff in university. But he couldn't answer some pretty basic questions about stats and quickly backpedaled on being an "expert". Reminds me of Susan Blackmore, who still calls herself an expert on NDEs... except when she's taking to Alex.
Asking skeptics to answer basic questions about their STEM knowledge is apparently like throwing water on a witch. ;)
 
#68
I think this "psyopsy" debunking phenomenon is probably just an emergent property of mainstream science. An epiphenomenon, if you will. Pardon the joke, but it might fit the bill. You have probably a majority of "elder scientists", who just know that parapsychological experiments can never have outcomes which seem to confirm an anomalous claim, and that everyone who says different can't be a "real" scientist. And you have eager, younger scientists who see a chance to make a mark in science as a debunker, to shine before this silently indignant crowd of exalted ones. Maybe they want to see these "frauds" and "charlatans" punished, who dare to deviate from what they see as the only way to look at these claims, but I think the main motivation might just be a desire to be recognized. So there probably is a silent group in the background (albeit just in the imagination of the debunker) but it doesn't have to issue any orders or paychecks. Maybe they don't even have conspiratorial meetings.

And, to be fair, I guess, we shouldn't forget to mention that there are charlatans, frauds and terribly silly claims out there who give the debunkers every right to exist.

I had to laugh when Dr. Britt said that he probably was more of a sceptic than he thought. I guess that the expression he should have used was "than I would like to admit", though. Well, at least he did admit to not having read anything about the more than 90 replications of Bem's experiment. But as a pessimist, I doubt that they will change a thing.

Anyways, thanks for another insightful interview and for calling out the zealousness and dishonest behavior in this field. I don't think it's a concerted effort, but it's undoubtedly not just misunderstood good will.
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#69
I think this "psyopsy" debunking phenomenon is probably just an emergent property of mainstream science. An epiphenomenon, if you will. Pardon the joke, but it might fit the bill. You have probably a majority of "elder scientists", who just know that parapsychological experiments can never have outcomes which seem to confirm an anomalous claim, and that everyone who says different can't be a "real" scientist...

...Anyways, thanks for another insightful interview and for calling out the zealousness and dishonest behavior in this field. I don't think it's a concerted effort, but it's undoubtedly not just misunderstood good will.
Definitely some indication of this possibility you mention:

Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?

NBER Working Paper No. 21788
Issued in December 2015
NBER Program(s): PR

We study the extent to which eminent scientists shape the vitality of their fields by examining entry rates into the fields of 452 academic life scientists who pass away while at the peak of their scientific abilities. Key to our analyses is a novel way to delineate boundaries around scientific fields by appealing solely to intellectual linkages between scientists and their publications, rather than collaboration or co-citation patterns. Consistent with previous research, the flow of articles by collaborators into affected fields decreases precipitously after the death of a star scientist (relative to control fields). In contrast, we find that the flow of articles by non-collaborators increases by 8% on average. These additional contributions are disproportionately likely to be highly cited. They are also more likely to be authored by scientists who were not previously active in the deceased superstar’s field. Overall, these results suggest that outsiders are reluctant to challenge leadership within a field when the star is alive and that a number of barriers may constrain entry even after she is gone. Intellectual, social, and resource barriers all impede entry, with outsiders only entering subfields that offer a less hostile landscape for the support and acceptance of “foreign” ideas.
 
#70
I think this "psyopsy" debunking phenomenon is probably just an emergent property of mainstream science. An epiphenomenon, if you will. Pardon the joke, but it might fit the bill. You have probably a majority of "elder scientists", who just know that parapsychological experiments can never have outcomes which seem to confirm an anomalous claim, and that everyone who says different can't be a "real" scientist. And you have eager, younger scientists who see a chance to make a mark in science as a debunker, to shine before this silently indignant crowd of exalted ones. Maybe they want to see these "frauds" and "charlatans" punished, who dare to deviate from what they see as the only way to look at these claims, but I think the main motivation might just be a desire to be recognized. So there probably is a silent grup in the background (albeit just in the imagination of the debunker) but it doesn't have to issue any orders or paychecks. Maybe they don't even have conspiratorial meetings.

And, to be fair, I guess, we shouldn't forget to mention that there are charlatans, frauds and terribly silly claims out there who give the debunkers every right to exist.

I had to laugh when Dr. Britt said that he probably was more of a sceptic than he thought. I guess that the expression he should have used was "than I would like to admit", though. Well, at least he did admit to not having read anything about the more than 90 repilications of Bem's experiment. But as a pessimist, I doubt that they will change a thing.

Anyways, thanks for another insightful interview and for calling out the zealousness and dishonest behavior in this field. I don't think it's a concerted effort, but it's undoubtedly not just misunderstood good will.
that's a reasonable explanation... and was definitely my starting point 6-7 years ago. 9-11 was pivotal for me. took my yrs to fully grock/accept it... now seems obvious.
 
#72
Questioning the prior plausibility of Bem's research is forgivable; we have no familiar everyday phenomena in which information travels backwards in time.

This doesn't really look like hand waving away Bem's work:

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-power-of-replication-bems-psi-research/

Also, Simmons et al demonstrated that a p-value of 0.05 can be created out of negative data 60% of the time.
Your sentimental attachment to statistical flux is touching, Malf.
 
#73
Questioning the prior plausibility of Bem's research is forgivable; we have no familiar everyday phenomena in which information travels backwards in time.
If you are saying that physically encoded signals don't travel back in time (or faster than light speed) - well OK.

However, believing that information from future configurations doesn't "travel" is absurd. Scientists, common folks and living things extract logic-based future configurations as mental predictions. These ideas of future planning exists as a matter of fact. We can predict with confidence the sun's rising point on our local horizon tomorrow morning - even though Hume assures us - it is only our logical inference and propensity (constant conjunction) that enables probable future states to be brought to the present.
 
Last edited:
#74
Questioning the prior plausibility of Bem's research is forgivable; we have no familiar everyday phenomena in which information travels backwards in time.
Depends on how you are defining '...familiar everyday phenomena...',

...but I would say there are phenomena which are consistent with the idea that the 'present' can be interfered with by the 'future', as well as the 'past'.

I just think it's very difficult - at least initially - to become aware of it. Even now, I defer to thinking about most things as past -> present, it's such a well worn way of thinking, and is a perfectly acceptable and useful way to think about most of the objective phenomena I experience.

But subjectively, there are things this way of thinking doesn't really help me with. You'll find there are lots of everyday things we do, which don't really have a very satisfying explanation.

When you allow yourself to entertain the idea that a matching pattern in the future, might interfere with a matching pattern in the present. Then a lot... and I mean a lot... of everyday mundain things that don't have a satisfying explanation, and which go on in our society, suddenly make a great deal more sense.
 
Last edited:
#75
9-11 was pivotal for me. took my yrs to fully grock/accept it... now seems obvious.
What seems obvious to you about 9/11, Alex? I like how our Pabst-beer-drinking, dining-room-set-owning, super-sexy Zebra once put it. But, I'm totally paraphrasing so hope I don't twist his words too bad, but I think he said something like:

Anyone who looks into 9/11 with an open mind should come away with two conclusions:

(1) The official story is total BS
(2) You feel like you are in a strange dream

I totally agree with (1). But, to me, it's impossible to wrap a coherent story around the evidence, at least with as far as it has been investigated to date. Some of the evidence - like the cell phone calls from the airplanes - takes you to really strange places if you ask yourself what does that mean! So, because of (2), 9/11 doesn't seem very obvious to me ... it's almost like a tear in the fabric of reality at times, lol.
 
#76
Some of the evidence - like the cell phone calls from the airplanes - takes you to really strange places if you ask yourself what does that mean!
I admit I haven't really followed the 9/11 stuff, but what is this about - I thought some people were able to ring home - very sad, but nothing of significance.

David
 
#77
I admit I haven't really followed the 9/11 stuff, but what is this about - I thought some people were able to ring home - very sad, but nothing of significance.

David
Given the technology at the time, it is claimed that those calls should not have been able to been made at that altitude for the length of time they were connected, without the very high likelihood of being disconnected (if you could have made the call at all. I know I was never able to make calls from an airplane at 30k back then with my cell phone)

So, let's say that's true. What does that mean? The calls were made from somewhere else? With the original airplane being replaced with a substitute that continued the flight path being tracked? (Incidentally, the government did research just this kind of swap-out out technology/strategy at one time). Did the government then just disappear entire plain loads of passengers after forcing them to make scripted calls to their loved ones?

What possible kind of story can get wrapped around that? It gets strange, really, really quick, the minute you decide to accept those calls could not have been made in the way they were claimed to be
 
#78
Given the technology at the time, it is claimed that those calls should not have been able to been made at that altitude for the length of time they were connected, without the very high likelihood of being disconnected (if you could have made the call at all. I know I was never able to make calls from an airplane at 30k back then with my cell phone)

So, let's say that's true. What does that mean? The calls were made from somewhere else? With the original airplane being replaced with a substitute that continued the flight path being tracked? (Incidentally, the government did research just this kind of swap-out out technology/strategy at one time). Did the government then just disappear entire plain loads of passengers after forcing them to make scripted calls to their loved ones?

What possible kind of story can get wrapped around that? It gets strange, really, really quick, the minute you decide to accept those calls could not have been made in the way they were claimed to be
This is covered here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html
 
#80
Hmm... Maybe we should ask Bem as that quote was lifted from his original paper.

Edit: I think the gist of his comment is clear.
Now that I've read the quote in its context... Bem (and therefore you?) seems to have overlooked holograms as familiar everyday phenomena... which demonstrate the idea of coherent interference - whether quantum or space-time (classical).

It sort of reinforces my point that it is difficult to become aware of such phenomena...

It would perhaps have been more accurate to say 'I', rather than 'We'.

On a side note, there are other incorrect speculations from Bem in that same section of writing which contains the quote... on both ruling out EM effects in telepathy, or the idea that we understand magnetoreception in birds.
 
Top