Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

The Scientific Method and discourse in PSI

Discussions on UFOs, ghosts, myths etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

#1  Postby NESW » May 13, 2013 3:48 pm

Hey guys, this is my first post here and I usually was a hard nosed skeptic. I think it's because of the fact that claims of the paranormal/ufo/conspiracy theories really made me uncomfortable because it really messes with my belief systems and also casts a shadow of doubt in many of the things I know and want to be true.

Whenever there are conspiracy theories, or claims of the paranormal, I usually discredit it because I don't want to believe it. However, whenever there is new knowledge about science etc by accredited scientists, I am the first to absorb it. I don't have any problems whenever mainstream science popularisers say something, no matter how crazy it sounds (for example, that we are living in a simulation-proposed by a NASA physicist. I don't 'believe' it but at least I take account of its possibility). Whenever there is something that sounds off key from unknown sources, I am the first one to search on Google: X phenomena (followed by) skeptic. For the past few years this is how I have gone by with unsolved mysteries and academia that I have no knowledge about- for example charlatans making use of quantum theory such as Deepak Chopra and many others promoting new age pseudoscientific new age quantum spirituality claims. It always provided me with comfort since I trusted the skeptics and I had the belief that the skeptics were the smart guys and they had the most rational naturalistic explanations.

However, I was listening to Joe Rogan Experience Podcast(He thinks along the same lines as me and I've only just become a fan of him recently. He is truly an amazing individual). He did a podcast with Stanley Krippner, a supposed parapsychologst and a respected one at that. I listened to him (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s1Wp5ucnYU) and what was so surprising was that he researched into the field of parapsychology for many decades and he came across startling conclusions. I have read some of his work from http://stanleykrippner.weebly.com/--articles.html more specifically, http://stanleykrippner.weebly.com/a-pil ... -dead.html

Now, I wouldn't even have been motivated to see his articles if it weren't for his respect by both skeptics and parapsychologists alike. Do a little research about him and you can see that even James Randi respects him and admits he is a truly honest scientist.
I don't think he is a charlatan. If you view the whole 3 hour podcast with Stanley Krippner, you'd realize that he is a down to earth, scientist and comes from a very honest non biased point of view, just like any scientist. He does not claim to have any psychic powers nor does he try to prove his point in an aggressive manner. He just states what he finds and he says that he has come to some conclusions that
are statistically significant which implies that he was observing some dream telepathy phenomena beyond chance levels. Of course, it's not a proof. However, I think that with things like these, it's hard to always repeat. For example gravity can be tested again and again to be true so it's replicable. However, with PSI phenomena, it's always a hit and miss. Scientists don't even know what causes it nor is there a consensus among parapsychologists about the theories of PSI phenomena. I can understand that. What I can't comprehend is that there are conclusive results where things like these happen 'beyond chance levels'.
If PSI were no real phenomena, it should almost always come up short ie no results which are in the 'beyond chance levels'.

Many of phenomena in this world are unfalsifiable such as the thousands of cases where Dogs are able to find their way home even if lost in an unfamiliar territory. There are even hundreds of reported cases where dogs and cats found their way home navigating hundreds/thousands of miles. Of course, all such evidence is anecdotal. However, it is a significant number of cases that cant be all dismissed as coincidence(that they just happened to go the right way) or as lies or some other rational explanation (such as, it's not the same dog/cat but it looks remarkably similar to the dog they lost etc and the pet owner and the pet just 'happen' to click like they knew each other for years)

Using the scientific method, I think is very useful for things such as creating new drugs and finding it's efficacy etc. However, for many of life's elusive phenomena, it cannot always be repeatable.

My question is, being prudent and giving the power to sceptics, I know that many parapsychologists 'may' be charlatans. However, out of that large number, there would be some that are honest. There are respectable scientists that continue to try to find it, despite many things such as disproval/loss of respect from mainstream scientific community. Why would honest respectable researchers try and go into and spend decades of their life trying to find these things?

How can anybody account for our pets' supposedly psychic phenomena?

I know that scientists have tried and tried again using state of the art technology such as MRI scans to experiment if there is any flow of energy that flows out during telepathy. Sure, it's extremely unlikely that scientists still haven't been able to measure an 'unknown' energy, as we so far we have documented the EM spectrum, gravity and other 'invisible phenomena', yet they were all measureable.

What can be said about these statistically significant results? I know many parapsycholists are frauds and conduct shitty experiments but from respectable people like Krippner? Really? I don't think his methods were flawed. What about other ‘credible’/ ‘respected’ parapsychologists? Like that guy endorsing animal psi abilities. You just can’t assume everyone is a fraud or is stupid. By probability alone, we can attest that there are people with legit degrees and intellectually honest and sound.

I was very disappointed by Dr Victor Stenger whom has been the comfort and source for debunking quantum quackery. However, in a Skeptiko interview(I realised Skeptiko is not a skeptic site at all), Victor called Krippner a charlatan. This really was uncalled for because as a respected Skeptic, I would have assumed he's done some research into Krippner, like Randi. It seems like Stenger just is a pseudoskeptic because he just dismisses and assumes without honest research.

The problem with Randi’s $1m prize is that, it assumes that, if people had these psychic abilities, that they would want to be found. If I had telepathic abilities or any other psi abilities, I would keep it a secret. If I expose myself to the public, I could either be killed or snatched by the government for their own use or saying it’s a threat to national security. I could make a lot more money by using cunning methods vs Randi’s measly $1million which comes at the cost of worldwide attention.

With our current understanding of knowledge about Neruoscience and Quantum Mechanics, my conclusion is that we should be more open minded about things that are plausible, not just dismissing every claim that currently doesn't hold with our current scientific knowledge and consensus.
I see that the scientific method is too rigorous and harsh for such things such as PSI/supernatural/ufos etc. You can’t have the ghosts seriously conform to science’s standards to say that the ghost come out whenever we call for it. It’s not up to scientists (not saying I believe in ghosts, although a possibility) and since it can’t be falsified, science will call it pseudoscience. There are things like homeopathy which we can call pseudoscience of course. I think science can really study and observe phenomena such as the PSI, however, we would have to really relax the scientific method and not just be so adamant that it belongs to the same observable and testable phenomena as, gravity for example. I am not against science and I believe the majority of the scientific community is open, as can be said for the discovery of the placebo effect. It seems ludicrous when we think about it. Even with the placebo effect, it’s a hit and miss although it has been shown time and time again that statistically significant results prove the existence of the placebo effect. However, for the case of dream telepathy, if it were completely false, we should have absolutely zero conclusive results that have any statistical significance.
What do you guys think?
NESW
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jace
Posts: 13

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

#2  Postby THWOTH » May 13, 2013 4:00 pm

Welcome to the forum NESW :)



via Tapuaptap
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37116
Age: 56

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

#3  Postby tolman » Jun 12, 2013 12:41 am

NESW wrote:Whenever there are conspiracy theories, or claims of the paranormal, I usually discredit it because I don't want to believe it.

Personally I'm quite cynical about governments, and I don't have a great emotional investment in governments and security services being squeaky-clean organisations only looking to the public good.
I typically find conspiracy theories difficult to give credence to not because I want to disbelieve them, but because they're very much of a pattern which seems highly unlikely to be true - some supposedly highly powerful conspiracy organising things in ways which are essentially retarded, yet somehow managing to get away with it while supposedly leaving more than enough circumstantial 'evidence' to convince any right-minded person of their existence

NESW wrote:However, whenever there is new knowledge about science etc by accredited scientists, I am the first to absorb it. I don't have any problems whenever mainstream science popularisers say something, no matter how crazy it sounds (for example, that we are living in a simulation-proposed by a NASA physicist. I don't 'believe' it but at least I take account of its possibility).

When it comes to something which is counter-intuitive, but which has good evidence supporting it, it might be unexpected but I wouldn't think of it as crazy.
When it comes to science which is currently-unprovable speculation, I'm not sure what the point is in doing more than filing it away as 'potential science' and waiting to see if it ever gets any further.

As for psi, if someone does actually manage to find a psi effect which they can reliably demonstrate exists, I'm sure I'll hear of it, so I'm not at all sure how much time it's worth me spending trying to seek out such things before they can be reliably demonstrated.
I'm not in a hurry to be one of the first to believe in something which, given the nature of the world and the kinds of things which get publicity, would be likely to come to my attention sooner rather than later once it is clear that it is something rather than nothing.

My rational conclusion is that if I actively looked for such things I would be likely to waste valuable time which wouldn't be compensated for simply by the chance of finding something a bit earlier than I was going to do anyway.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

#4  Postby TheUltimateBlitz1 » Aug 22, 2013 3:08 am

Always remember that results of tests have to be repeatable. Thats the one problem with parapsychology is that the results are never attempted to be repeated by other groups and the results are never peer-reviewed.
TheUltimateBlitz1
 
Name: Lucas Knight
Posts: 3

Country: U.S.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

#5  Postby jerome » Dec 02, 2013 5:24 pm

TheUltimateBlitz1 wrote:Always remember that results of tests have to be repeatable. Thats the one problem with parapsychology is that the results are never attempted to be repeated by other groups and the results are never peer-reviewed.



I just saw this and have to challenge it. Parapsychology has a very high rate of replication compared with other disciplines, and some experiments such as the Ganzfeld or Zener Cards for instance have been repeated over a hundred times, in many different labs. Also, there is a large peer reviewed parapsychological literature. You can download EJP issues here for free - http://ejp.wyrdwise.com/

It is no longer published, but the JSPR, PSPR, JASPR (I think), ANOMALY and RiP are all going strong as our various other journals.

cj x
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

#6  Postby MrFungus420 » Dec 04, 2013 5:24 pm

jerome wrote:
TheUltimateBlitz1 wrote:Always remember that results of tests have to be repeatable. Thats the one problem with parapsychology is that the results are never attempted to be repeated by other groups and the results are never peer-reviewed.



I just saw this and have to challenge it. Parapsychology has a very high rate of replication compared with other disciplines, and some experiments such as the Ganzfeld or Zener Cards for instance have been repeated over a hundred times, in many different labs. Also, there is a large peer reviewed parapsychological literature. You can download EJP issues here for free - http://ejp.wyrdwise.com/

It is no longer published, but the JSPR, PSPR, JASPR (I think), ANOMALY and RiP are all going strong as our various other journals.

cj x


That's nice.

That's as convincing as pointing to Creationist journals to say that Creationism is peer-reviewed.

Zener Cards are pretty much a joke. Ever hear of the "Decline Effect"? Someone would have a good run (significantly better than chance) early on, but have worse results as the testing goes on. Rather than just accepting those numbers (which would bring the overall results back down to the pure chance range), they decided that it was because psychics gradually lose their abilities under testing.

And, if you look at Ganzfeld experiments, the only ones accepting them as supporting psi already believe in it. Independent examination reveals substantial and consistent flaws both in methodology and statistical analysis.
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Re: Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

#7  Postby ElDiablo » Dec 05, 2013 12:22 am

:popcorn:
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3125

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

#8  Postby jerome » Dec 05, 2013 7:01 pm

MrFungus420 wrote:
That's nice.

That's as convincing as pointing to Creationist journals to say that Creationism is peer-reviewed.


Really? Evidence? The mainstream parapsychological journals are just that - mainstream. There you can read there the work of Chris French and Richard Wiseman, Susan Blackmore, and other noted sceptics just as much as the believers. Might I ask if you are actually familiar with the journal literature? I posted a link to the EJP. Have a look and explain to me why it compares to a Creationist journal? [/quote]

MrFungus420 wrote:
Zener Cards are pretty much a joke. Ever hear of the "Decline Effect"? Someone would have a good run (significantly better than chance) early on, but have worse results as the testing goes on. Rather than just accepting those numbers (which would bring the overall results back down to the pure chance range), they decided that it was because psychics gradually lose their abilities under testing.


Of course. Are you aware said decline effect is by no means limited to parapsychology? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010 ... act_lehrer

Whether the decline effect holds true for any given parapsychological experiment I can't say, because my area of expertise is apparitions and poltergeists. However this is a MUCH larger issue in contemporary science than a parapsychology thing.

MrFungus420 wrote:
And, if you look at Ganzfeld experiments, the only ones accepting them as supporting psi already believe in it. Independent examination reveals substantial and consistent flaws both in methodology and statistical analysis.


This is 'not even wrong', it's completely untrue and silly. Take sceptics like Richard Wiseman -- who stated that by normal scientific standards it is 'proven', but extraordinary claims etc, etc, and of course Ersby, the best commentator on the Ganzfeld certainly a sceptic and member of this forum whose History of Psi in the Ganzfeld was carried in Sceptic Report and is available to read here. http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=316

I'm bored by these things, but I have a pretty good grounding in the facts.

j x
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

#9  Postby tolman » Dec 05, 2013 8:14 pm

jerome wrote:This is 'not even wrong', it's completely untrue and silly. Take sceptics like Richard Wiseman -- who stated that by normal scientific standards it is 'proven', but extraordinary claims etc, etc, and of course Ersby, the best commentator on the Ganzfeld certainly a sceptic and member of this forum whose History of Psi in the Ganzfeld was carried in Sceptic Report and is available to read here. http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=316

Well, among other things, that report does conclude:
So my conclusion? Well, anyone who asserts that the ganzfeld has been proven by scientific standards is wrong. The field’s reliance on incomplete meta-analyses seems to be cause for concern. Why Honorton chose certain experiments for his 1985 ganzfeld analysis hasn’t really been addressed...
.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

#10  Postby MrFungus420 » Dec 07, 2013 9:00 am

jerome wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:
That's nice.

That's as convincing as pointing to Creationist journals to say that Creationism is peer-reviewed.


Really? Evidence?


Evidence of what??

That I don't find it convincing when a pseudo-science makes up its own journals so that they can claim to be peer-reviewed?
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Re: Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

#11  Postby campermon » Dec 07, 2013 1:23 pm

NESW wrote:
With our current understanding of knowledge about Neruoscience and Quantum Mechanics, my conclusion is that we should be more open minded about things that are plausible, not just dismissing every claim that currently doesn't hold with our current scientific knowledge and consensus.


I knew the quantum wibble would be in there somewhere.

How tiresome.

:coffee:

BTW - welcome to the forum!
:beer:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17438
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

#12  Postby jerome » Dec 08, 2013 4:23 pm

MrFungus420 wrote:
jerome wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:
That's nice.

That's as convincing as pointing to Creationist journals to say that Creationism is peer-reviewed.


Really? Evidence?


Evidence of what??

That I don't find it convincing when a pseudo-science makes up its own journals so that they can claim to be peer-reviewed?



What criteria for pseudoscience are you applying? As in in which of the various definitions and epistemologies? You are aware that parapsychology scores better than most "mainstream" sciences in many categories using standard definitions when analysed? (See Holt et. al 2012) On replication and controls for instance parapsi scores very well indeed, as in degree of critical discussion in the journal literature?

I will happily educate you if not.
:)
j x
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

#13  Postby MrFungus420 » Dec 08, 2013 7:28 pm

jerome wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:
jerome wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:
That's nice.

That's as convincing as pointing to Creationist journals to say that Creationism is peer-reviewed.


Really? Evidence?


Evidence of what??

That I don't find it convincing when a pseudo-science makes up its own journals so that they can claim to be peer-reviewed?



What criteria for pseudoscience are you applying?


Magical bullshit combined with poor methodology resulting in no predictions or applications and offering no mechanism.
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Re: Joe Rogan Experience - Stanley Krippner (Dream Telepathy)

#14  Postby jerome » Dec 08, 2013 8:27 pm

Right. Magic would be non-science agreed - because it would break the axiom of methodological naturalism. Parapsychology does not deal with magic however. You claim parapsychology's methodology is poor - no more or less than say Physics, Medicine or Biology. Some papers in any given discipline apply poor methodological standards - that is a given. Parapsychology on independent review scores higher than most disciplines for methodological rigour -- simply because the discourse has strongly divided opinions, and the methodological issues are so heavily scrutinised. Parapsychologists developed file drawer analysis weighting, and used double (and triple) blinding decades before it was common in most disciplines, and so forth - ask any of the critics of parapsychology and they will tell you it was way ahead of the game here, because of the contentious nature of the results and constant presence of sceptics and critics in the research community. The Hyman Honorton concordat meant even null results are written up and published (often with critique) to reduce the size of file drawer, and methodological rigour is a central concern of the parapsi community. A glance at the literature should reveal competing hypothetical mechanisms and research communities pursuing lines of enquiry, building upon predictions from existing work. Media reporting is often poor, but even Bem's much vaunted and equally criticized precognition stuff (big a couple of years back) built upon a decade or so of earlier work. If you are going to generalise about parapsychology and call it pseudoscience (and hence skip round the whole vexed issue of the Demarcation Debate) best give specific examples?

j x
Yours sincerely, Jerome -- a threat to reason & science

I am an Anglican Prejudice declared - My blog: http://jerome23.wordpress.com/
User avatar
jerome
 
Name: CJ
Posts: 2047
Age: 52
Male

Country: UK
Denmark (dk)
Print view this post


Return to Paranormal & Supernatural

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest