Strange....(my theory)

[Guest EnnervateIndustries]

This discussion is undoubtedly fascinating, but I believe the OP does not necessarily appreciate the blatant hijacking of their post. If one of you could please start another thread specifically dedicated this running discussion, that would be great.

 

Also, if the OP has had their question answered, I believe this thread should be locked so that we all remain friends. Milosz1234, are you satisfied with the answer you received?

[Purlox]

I'd agree with you, but the problem is that there should be evidence.

Preliminary 'studies' have been around for almost a century. The idea of ES is, I'm sure, somewhat older. In a population of 7 billion people, it is unreasonable to think that not one can reproduce ES in a lab.

Even if ES is very rare (which, by the way, isn't usually stated in ES communities) then it's ridiculous that it has never been observed in a controlled environment.

 

Let me illustrate:

Adermatoglyphia is a very rare genetic condition that causes the person carrying it to have no fingerprints. It is so rare that there are only four extended families in the entire world that are known to have it. Despite this incredible rarity, the condition has been clinically studied, and identified to be caused by a mutation in SMARCAD1, in 4q22.

 

This demonstrates that something very rare can still be easily studied in a lab. Even if there were 100 people in the world that demonstrably had ES, they could be picked up and studied just like this mutation. It's not just a lack of evidence, but a lack of evidence where there really should be, that discredits ES.

 

It might be rare or it might not be manifested in most people making it look rare, but I don't think that is the primary problem when it comes to getting enough research on Telepathy. The problem is that highly controversial topics and many taboos in science. Stuff related to religion, spiritual stuff and parapsychological phenomenon are part of controversial topics and taboos and Telepathy is one of such topics. As you might imagine not many people want to touch highly controversial topic nor taboos, because their colleagues frown upon people picking these topics and it's highly dangerous as you can easily get discredited (and all your other work) by the mainstream science for touching them etc.

 

As long as there are taboos and reasons to avoid controversial topics, then there will always be topics like Telepathy that will get low amount to no credible research, because almost no-one will want to touch them.

[waffles]

 

It might be rare or it might not be manifested in most people making it look rare, but I don't think that is the primary problem when it comes to getting enough research on Telepathy. The problem is that highly controversial topics and many taboos in science. Stuff related to religion, spiritual stuff and parapsychological phenomenon are part of controversial topics and taboos and Telepathy is one of such topics. As you might imagine not many people want to touch highly controversial topic nor taboos, because their colleagues frown upon people picking these topics and it's highly dangerous as you can easily get discredited (and all your other work) by the mainstream science for touching them etc.

 

As long as there are taboos and reasons to avoid controversial topics, then there will always be topics like Telepathy that will get low amount to no credible research, because almost no-one will want to touch them.

 

Sure, I won't deny that fear of being discredited stops people from initiating studies. However, it shouldn't be much of a problem to reverse that, were ES possible and demonstrable. It wouldn't be all that difficult to convince someone that you were telepathic were that actually the case, and beyond that it's not even a matter of study, and just individual people granting you a ten-second audience.

 

It's only taboo because it's seen as ridiculous; that's only the case because it is. Maybe in the 1930s a study would have been better received; there's no reason why there couldn't have been one then.

 

Besides which, 'almost no-one' isn't cutting it. Look at Dreagar's example; there that particular chemist won the Nobel prize for work that he was previously ridiculed for. If that could be reversed in 19 years by one person, whose work was somewhat more intangible than ESP, then it would not take long (a few years isn't long) for credibility to be established once ESP had been demonstrated.

[Guest Dreagar]

-whose work was somewhat more intangible than ESP-

 

Assumed magic is more believable and tangible than a crystalline structure?

[waffles]

 

Assumed magic is more believable and tangible than a crystalline structure?

 

Someone knocks on the door of your lab. They say they've found a new microscopic crystalline structure under certain conditions. You try to reproduce it and may or may not succeed.

 

Someone knocks on the door of your lab. They tell you that they are telepathic. They tell you to think of a number between one and ten thousand. They then guess it. Again. And again.

If I'm misrepresenting telepathy then I apologise, but I think this is generally thought of as possible in the world of ESP.

 

Which one is more obviously demonstrable? Which is the one that you can prove at a convention with no equipment, personally and intimately with whoever asks?

[Guest Dreagar]

Someone knocks on the door of your lab. They tell you that they are telepathic. They tell you to think of a number between one and ten thousand. They then guess it. Again. And again.

 

Someone knocks on the door of your lab. They tell you that they are here to talk about a man named Jesus. They tell you to say he doesn't exist. They then retort your argument (badly). You argue against that. They argue for it. Again, and again.

 

404 science not found.

 

On a serious note,

If I'm misrepresenting telepathy then I apologise-

 

Some (very few) could probably do that, I call bullshit when people say they can have conversations across the planet; at best I can get vague shapes with basic colours. Mind you, it's probably even harder when the other isn't projecting their thought into your head. And lastly,

 

>>

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/ <<

 

This guy is seriously fucking scary, but you wouldn't accept him, even though he's achieved a similar trick. I wouldn't bother; I'd still be

in the

.

 

Call bullshit if you want, but this guy is a wonderful example of ESP mastery, whether he believes it's such or not, there's something going on.

---

Hmm, a happy compromise may be possible. I've never doubted the power of the subconscious, and thinking over it, there's evidence it's merely

. Still mind reading, just with the bullshit cut out. I'm happy with that; I've never claimed I know how it works. Regardless, if it's as such, then yes. Telepathy is possible, and if the cues are strong and deep enough, they could influence other people subconsciously.

 

[/thread]

(inb4 "but that's not clinical!" No, it isn't, but this argument's going no where, fast.)

[Purlox]

Sure, I won't deny that fear of being discredited stops people from initiating studies. However, it shouldn't be much of a problem to reverse that, were ES possible and demonstrable. It wouldn't be all that difficult to convince someone that you were telepathic were that actually the case, and beyond that it's not even a matter of study, and just individual people granting you a ten-second audience.

 

It's only taboo because it's seen as ridiculous; that's only the case because it is. Maybe in the 1930s a study would have been better received; there's no reason why there couldn't have been one then.

Let's look at an example of much more easily proven phenomenon that is also highly controversial and could be argued that it's a taboo (at least for now). The example is Dissociative Identity Disorder or Multiple Personality Disorder. Multiplicity in both disordered and healthy forms has been here for quite a while and is easier to prove then a ESP is. Statistically between 0.1% and 1% of the general population have DID/MPD (might be counting healthy multiplicity as well), so it shouldn't be hard to find subjects for research. And yet when I try to look up some research papers on it I can only find 10-15 papers. Out of those 10-15 all of them were done only with very few subjects in mind, so neither of them could be considered good.

 

So if multiplicity and DID/MPD in particular can have no research paper that could be considered good, then it could be expected that something even more controversial like Telepathy doesn't have any good ones either.

 

Besides which, 'almost no-one' isn't cutting it. Look at Dreagar's example; there that particular chemist won the Nobel prize for work that he was previously ridiculed for. If that could be reversed in 19 years by one person, whose work was somewhat more intangible than ESP, then it would not take long (a few years isn't long) for credibility to be established once ESP had been demonstrated.

It's true that there are people that will risk it and go against what the current general population or scientists. These people are often remembered for not giving up even when people ridicule their work even though it's later found out it's true. But my point still stands as these people are very rare.

[waffles]

Some (very few) could probably do that, I call bullshit when people say they can have conversations across the planet; at best I can get vague shapes with basic colours. Mind you, it's probably even harder when the other isn't projecting their thought into your head.

>they can't do it because I can't

That's shaky basis for denying a phenomenon, even if we are talking ESP

 

 

And lastly,

 

>>

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/ <<

 

This guy is seriously fucking scary, but you wouldn't accept him, even though he's achieved a similar trick. I wouldn't bother; I'd still be

in the

.

 

Call bullshit if you want, but this guy is a wonderful example of ESP mastery, whether he believes it's such or not, there's something going on.

 

No. Bullshit. Derren Brown is a goddamned TV magician.

 

---

Hmm, a happy compromise may be possible. I've never doubted the power of the subconscious, and thinking over it, there's evidence it's merely

. Still mind reading, just with the bullshit cut out. I'm happy with that; I've never claimed I know how it works. Regardless, if it's as such, then yes. Telepathy is possible, and if the cues are strong and deep enough, they could influence other people subconsciously.

 

[/thread]

(inb4 "but that's not clinical!" No, it isn't, but this argument's going no where, fast.)

That's not telepathy then, is it? While it may well explain some evidence that appears to be telepathy as standard perception, it just weakens the basis for actual telepathy.

 

Let's look at an example of much more easily proven phenomenon that is also highly controversial and could be argued that it's a taboo (at least for now). The example is Dissociative Identity Disorder or Multiple Personality Disorder. Multiplicity in both disordered and healthy forms has been here for quite a while and is easier to prove then a ESP is. Statistically between 0.1% and 1% of the general population have DID/MPD (might be counting healthy multiplicity as well), so it shouldn't be hard to find subjects for research. And yet when I try to look up some research papers on it I can only find 10-15 papers. Out of those 10-15 all of them were done only with very few subjects in mind, so neither of them could be considered good.

 

So if multiplicity and DID/MPD in particular can have no research paper that could be considered good, then it could be expected that something even more controversial like Telepathy doesn't have any good ones either.

 

It's definitely not taboo to study DID in a way that is comparable to ESP.

 

The figure there won't include healthy multiplicity; it doesn't show up on figures because people don't report it, and it's not really the same as DID anyway.

 

I don't know where you are looking for papers, but a quick Google Scholar search brings up a shit-ton of scientific papers, articles and studies. Even the Wikipedia page has 80 citations on it. DID is a well-studied condition.

 

It's true that there are people that will risk it and go against what the current general population or scientists. These people are often remembered for not giving up even when people ridicule their work even though it's later found out it's true. But my point still stands as these people are very rare.

Regardless, it only takes one. When ESP would be so easily demonstrated it wouldn't be too hard to move someone to work.

[Guest Dreagar]

>they can't do it because I can't

 

I consider myself a scientific man by nature, if I can prove it, then it exists in some form. If I can't, and the claim is extraordinary, then I doubt it.

 

No. Bullshit. Derren Brown is a goddamned TV magician.

 

Beleive as you will, but I invite you to search deeper then his work on Channel4; by your statement, you're assuming it's all a trick fabricated to deceive the viewers, and by mine that it isn't. Ah, the fallacy of ASS U ME -ing~

 

That's not telepathy then, is it? While it may well explain some evidence that appears to be telepathy as standard perception, it just weakens the basis for actual telepathy.

 

Like with every good debate, a good debater (myself in this case) injects a definition of what's being debated, in order to remove needless semantics and misunderstandings.

 

It's definitely not taboo to study DID in a way that is comparable to ESP.

 

Agreed, to an extent; depends on the populace.

 

The figure there won't include healthy multiplicity; it doesn't show up on figures because people don't report it, and it's not really the same as DID anyway.

 

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory

People don't realise they have ESP most the time either, and if they do, they dismiss it. Very few can't escape it.

 

Regardless, it only takes one. When ESP would be so easily demonstrated it wouldn't be too hard to move someone to work.

 

It doesn't only take one; to call something a true discovery, it needs a 6-sigma repeatability. Or at least far more repetitions and replications to be accepted. It would be hard to move someone onto it, see Purlox's contributions.

 

Regardless, this conversation's getting old and repetitive. Let's wait for science to grow some balls before we continue this, eh?

[Purlox]

It's definitely not taboo to study DID in a way that is comparable to ESP.

It's not exactly a taboo, but it's still highly controversial. A quote from Wikipedia (which is backed by few psychologists that you can find in the footnotes part): "DID is the most controversial of the dissociative disorders, and among the most controversial disorders found in the DSM-IV-TR."

 

I don't know where you are looking for papers, but a quick Google Scholar search brings up a shit-ton of scientific papers, articles and studies. Even the Wikipedia page has 80 citations on it. DID is a well-studied condition.

I don't know if you just looked at the number that Google throws at you when you search for something and thought that is tons of scientific papers, articles and studies, but if you did then you should read this.

 

Regardless, it only takes one. When ESP would be so easily demonstrated it wouldn't be too hard to move someone to work.

But this person's findings also need to get accepted. Not to mention that you also need such people that tested it, you need them to test it in a controllable environment on some respected institute, but most won't want to do it because they could hurt their reputation, or else it will be easily dismissed just because of where it was done. Doesn't this make it seem rather hard to do, thus potentially explaining why there is so few good research on it?