Posted: Apr 11, 2013 9:25 pm
Vinncent wrote:"That's an enormous leap to the side. I am not referring to that at all, I am simply pointing out that people should not conflate phenomena (or alleged phenomena) with testing for or of that phenomena."
In what way is that an "enormous leap?" They have controlled for literally everything that is not conscious influence. If you want to claim that there is an alternative mechanism which would explain the results, unrelated to conscious intention, I would love to hear it... as such an explanation would simplify physics to a great extent, without having to require conscious phenomena to be taken into account.
Like the last posts... the ball is entirely in your court. You are making the claim that there is an alternative explanation that does not rely on remote conscious interference (telepathy) between individuals. All known physical mechanisms of information transfer have been accounted for. The only loose variable is the "sender" "telepathically" sending information to the target. By whatever mechanism this takes place, which causes an unexpected hit rate to occur... this is PSI. A type of information exchange which we are still trying to figure out.
You must provide an alternative explanation, which relies on known methods of information transfer, in accordance with the experimental parameters, if you are to claim that there is an alternative method of information transfer which is well understood by science.
If there is not, it deserves further exploration, and is the nature of scientific progress, the necessity to change our scientific models in light of new evidence about reality. Like it or not, this is science; the method of modeling and predicting reality based on experimental evidence, regardless of your own personal biases.
edit: simply=simplify.
I am making no such claims- why do you keep going off on tangents?
The most obvious problem with the Ganzfeld experiment is that it cannot produce a negative or falsifying result.
Think about it from the viewpoint of someone who is convinced telepathy is real and that the Ganzfeld apparatus does indeed make the reciever more receptive.
In any anecedotes of (apparent) telepathy from everyday life (I have some myself), was the reciever in an isolated environment, wearing headphones feeding white noise, with halves of ping-pong balls strapped to their peepers?
As immediately pointed out by my nine-year-old son, if telepathy were a real phenomenon and you rendered a telepathic reciever yet more sensitive, they would surely be overwhelmed with information. The chances of recieving a clear message in such a din would be lessened, not increased.
The Ganzfeld experiments could conceivably demonstrate that telepathy might be a real phenomenon, but you can always think of a reason why their failure to do so fails to rule out the reasonable possibility of telepathy.
At the quick of the heart of science lies modus tollens. Look it up.