[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;8394475]
Would one of the folks here who believe horses “communicate” telepathically with strangers over the phone kindly explain to me why, if the horse has that power, why he wouldn’t “communicate” with YOU, standing right there in front of him with the power to fix what’s bothering him?
I mean really, what “powers” have these AC’s got that YOU haven’t got? :winkgrin:[/QUOTE]
Maybe you just aren’t listening…
[QUOTE=JustTheTicket;8396458]
They’re not really facts, though. Prove that someone received “messages”. Don’t just tell me about how someone told you something and you chose to believe. That’s not a fact, that’s an amusing anecdote.
You can be spiritual, that’s great. I am too. But spiritualism really has nothing to do with science, because spiritualism doesn’t have a lot to do with facts. Much like animal communication, it’s just about choosing to believe what you’re told, without proof, unlike science. Ergo, animal communication is not science. It’s more like a fun party trick.[/QUOTE]
With your mindset, how could anyone possibly prove it to you?? You would have an answer to negate everything.
[QUOTE=Countrywood;8396808]
But read my last sentence.
What part of the Savant’s brain is active that is not used consciously by “normal” people?
Could ACs be using a talent/part of the brain most don’t realize exists?
The AC’s may think they are using a talent/part of brain most don’t realize exist, but nobody else can recognize in a factually or demonstrably reliable way they are able to do so.
With a savant child piano player other people can hear the music and verify the fact that the child can play it, even if we can’t understand how or why.
With the AC , all we have is anecdotes which judging by what seen on the board are pretty dependent on the people and have little to do with how a horse actually thinks. That and one verified example of help in finding a lost horse…that’s it?
If the best AC had the talent they claimed, they’d be on TV such as Animal Planet doing readings of pets people email or call in. But apparently, their “talent” can’t hold up to any real scrutiny or wider media exposure.
I think AC are hopefully not deliberate charlatans and they believe they have real abilities. Some might have a few flashes or true intuition here and there…do it long enough and that would happen via luck/ coincidence and that animals/horses have a limited set of common things happen in their lives and common people interaction issues with some bound to be true for X # of horses or dogs they are claiming to read.
.[/QUOTE]
There have been - Sylvia…can’t remember her name was known as the Pet Psychic.
So this nowadays is the New Meme lots of places:
“It is whatever I say, because I say so. I say so because I believe. It doesn’t matter if YOU believe it or not, because I know it’s true, because Reality is whatever I believe it is.”
Welcome to Disneyland. Or Solla Sollew. Or the alternate universe of your choice.
None of this has the slightest thing to do with evidence. Because there IS none.
The plural of anecdotes is not data. Somebody do a double-blind, placebo-controlled diagnostic study using AC, and if they come up with a success rate at a higher probability than could happen at random, maybe there’s something there. Until that day . . . it’s a belief system. And if anyone asks to see the unicorns in MY barn, I’m sending for the guys with the white coats and Velcro. :winkgrin:
[QUOTE=Countrywood;8397196]
BS . If AC truly could receive messages from far away horses, and they cared about horses, they’d tune their internal antennas or mindset to focus, or whatever they do, once a month or so to get messages from horses in dire need/great distress. And the horses could tell them where they are located, like that lost horse supposedly did.
An AC would not have to do it 24/7 but one would think they’d do it once a month at least, and imagine the publicity they could get being a hero.
But seems they are can only get messages from a horse afar whey they are paid (and work with a person). Ae fee aside, it shows they are bouncing “receiving messages from a horse” off of the owner, not able to directly get messages from the horse without an owner’s feedback/involvement.[/QUOTE]
Say they did that and told someone like you - would you really believe them???
[QUOTE=The Crone of Cottonmouth County;8397397]
Simply gainsaying, without evidence, your interlocutor’s point does not “debunk” anything.
It is a custom among many professionals, such as lawyers and doctors, to do pro bono work. Apparently animal communicators are a stingy lot.
There is a reason police wouldn’t take “a psychic lady” seriously. They are aware that there is no such thing as a psychic lady.[/QUOTE]
Why would you assume that without knowing any of them??? Several AC’s I know work on lost pets for free.
[QUOTE=JGHIRETIRE;8397625]
Maybe you just aren’t listening…[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Crone of Cottonmouth County;8397397]1. Simply gainsaying, without evidence, your interlocutor’s point does not “debunk” anything.
It is a custom among many professionals, such as lawyers and doctors, to do pro bono work. Apparently animal communicators are a stingy lot.
There is a reason police wouldn’t take “a psychic lady” seriously. They are aware that there is no such thing as a psychic lady.[/QUOTE]
I’m not trying to debunk anything, I can’t prove it and i don’t care that I can’t. You guys seem way more concerned and upset about it the I am.
Hah. An animal communicator did come to a barn where I kept my horse. I was not the one who “engaged” her. She did her schtick with a couple of horses and then offered a “free” reading on one more horse. Someone decided it would be fun to use my horse. He knew this person and accepted being haltered and led out. He nearly walked over the top of the “animal communicator.” Quoth she, “I sense that she’s (it was a gelding) very aggressive…” No sh*t Sherlock! A sterling example of psychic powers. By the way, she got NOTHING else right about him, other than saying he was stubborn. Um…he was an Appy. Goes with the territory. Nothing unusual about it. ROFLOL
Again, while the conditions have changed somewhat - you can’t just be anyone off the street but would have to have a professional reputation like that “psychic pet lady” that was on tv - the JREF $1 million can be applied for. The test has to be neutral and agreed upon by all parties. Why hasn’t some animal communicator gone for it? Think of all the good they could do with that money (assuming they DON’T want it for themselves.) Why hasn’t any AC taken me up on my offer? Gee, because I would NOT be there on the phone or in person to give feedback? Ya think?
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8397587]
Yup.
The first one was very long and can be boiled down to “maybe there’s something to all this but it requires more research.”
The second was “we think we’ve found potential but nothing solid yet.”
We can summarize both by quoting Dorothy Parker: ‘there is no “there” there.’
G.[/QUOTE]
Excellent!
And the first article-- with the conclusion you give-- is much the same as any other scientific or for that matter, academic research article of any type. The “requires more research” is a very common and in fact important part of research findings. All good research indicates its limitations or the need for further work, if such exists from the findings. That in and of itself does not invalidate ( quite the opposite) the findings.
The second one does the double blind test some people are calling for. The researchers themselves believe that their testing indicates the possibility of telepathy. This is in itself is no small thing. Perhaps it is just a matter of understanding how research is written and presented.
Telepathy forms a core belief of the Freudian psychoanalytical knowledge base. Psychiatrists are highly trained and licensed professionals. They have gone through undergraduate and medical school education, as well as what is necessary to specialize and become qualified as a psychiatrist.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1984-00025-001
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07351692109348926
and particularly this one http://neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/387
offer some interesting insights.
The links between quantum physics as a possible source of a scientific explanation of the occurrence of telepathy understood from a lens of the psychoanalytic process is covered in particular in the third link. It is well worth the read.
As well, the attitude that someone has about the possibilities of telepathy existing may be culturally driven. Some cultures believe in the existence of ghosts or of an afterlife, or of multiple lives, and it is unremarkable in those cultures to hold those beliefs. Other cultures reject one or more of those as errant nonsense.
If you are expecting science to announce without a doubt that telepathy exists, you perhaps do not understand some of the limits of science. Evolution after all, remains only a theory.
Edited to Add
http://www.idpublications.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/IS-IT-POSSIBLE-TO-STOP-REINCARNATIONS.pdf
This is worth a read because it gives a detailed account of the studies done of Swami Rama by the Menninger Foundation in the 1970’s. Do not let the title of the article keep you from what is a very informative read of these studies.
This was a study of the yogic powers of Swami Rama ( yogic powers include things what we would call telepathy but are seen as being of a religious nature not supernatural by those who are practitioners of this religion/set of beliefs). The Menninger Foundation was a highly regarded Freudian based institution.
Read the article-- make of it what you will. It is very interesting.
Some of the naysayers are spouting on about clinical tests. How endearing. 
An ac cannot start communicating willy nilly with animals here, there, and everywhere. First they need to know who they are attempting to contact, on a spiritual level they need to ask permission, and they need to know where they are. A horse doesn’t know it’s address. It can’t give an image of colic and also a street address. Believe what you will, no need to put others in a ignoramus box because they think differently than you.
And the nay sayers do not seem to be familiar with the tenets of published scientific research, either.
I will await responses to the latest article links I posted. 
[QUOTE=Gestalt;8398016]
Some of the naysayers are spouting on about clinical tests. How endearing.
An ac cannot start communicating willy nilly with animals here, there, and everywhere. First they need to know who they are attempting to contact, on a spiritual level they need to ask permission, and they need to know where they are. A horse doesn’t know it’s address. It can’t give an image of colic and also a street address. Believe what you will, no need to put others in a ignoramus box because they think differently than you.[/QUOTE]
The person making extraordinary claims has the burden of proof; and
My proposal was the AC come to the barn where my horse is boarded. I would.wait in the house while they went into the barn and determine which.horse is mine (my.horse knows I am part of his herd) and communicate with it. No AC has been willing to try.
To my knowledge, no AC has won or tried to win the JREF prize. In years past the rules to try were easier. Why have none tried?
Burden of proof is a legal concept, not a scientific one.
Science generally uses a deductive method of hypothesis testing, with careful track kept of the data that is produced.
I have posted some links to scientific consideration of telepathy. If you want to consider the scientific view, have a read.
[QUOTE=Sunflower;8398036]
Burden of proof is a legal concept, not a scientific one.
It’s valid in both.
Science generally uses a deductive method of hypothesis testing, with careful track kept of the data that is produced.
Yes. Before any of that beings, however, there must be something to study.
I have posted some links to scientific consideration of telepathy. If you want to consider the scientific view, have a read.[/QUOTE]
Science is a process, not a series of conclusions. But science DOES produce conclusions.
Bernoulli figured out how the principle that allows heavier than air machines to fly. Engineers for more than a century have applied and refined the applications of that principle. The principle, itself, remains unchanged. Anybody can follow Bernoulli’s trail and replicate his findings. Any engineer with proper training can apply it. Ever notice that airplanes of similar classes are remarkably similar in appearance within their class? That’s because Bernoulli rules in Russia and China and the U.S. and E.U. and everywhere else on Earth.
Why is this relevant? Because if a physical rule is valid in Venue A then it’s valid in Venue B. The articles I read don’t postulate physical rules. They postulate the possibility of physical rules. So, again, we must accept that there is no “there” there.
AFAIK there is not a single case of documented, controlled “extra sensory communication.” In short, unlike Bernoulli who had air and materials to study, the advocates of “extra sensory communication” have nothing to study. How does one postulate a theory of something without having that “something” at hand?
So not only is there no “there” there in theory there is not even a “there” there to study. It seems to me that “burden of proof” begins with establishing that “there.” Then figuring out what it is.
G.
As far as communicating in pictures, there are stroke victims who say that is how communication happens for them.
I have this book but haven’t read it yet. I bought it after I heard her interviewed. She talked about seeing pictures but not being able to actually communicate during and I think after her stroke.
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=104154403
http://www.amazon.com/My-Stroke-Insight-Scientists-Personal/dp/0452295548
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8398085]
Science is a process, not a series of conclusions. But science DOES produce conclusions.
Bernoulli figured out how the principle that allows heavier than air machines to fly. Engineers for more than a century have applied and refined the applications of that principle. The principle, itself, remains unchanged. Anybody can follow Bernoulli’s trail and replicate his findings. Any engineer with proper training can apply it. Ever notice that airplanes of similar classes are remarkably similar in appearance within their class? That’s because Bernoulli rules in Russia and China and the U.S. and E.U. and everywhere else on Earth.
Why is this relevant? Because if a physical rule is valid in Venue A then it’s valid in Venue B. The articles I read don’t postulate physical rules. They postulate the possibility of physical rules. So, again, we must accept that there is no “there” there.
AFAIK there is not a single case of documented, controlled “extra sensory communication.” In short, unlike Bernoulli who had air and materials to study, the advocates of “extra sensory communication” have nothing to study. How does one postulate a theory of something without having that “something” at hand?
So not only is there no “there” there in theory there is not even a “there” there to study. It seems to me that “burden of proof” begins with establishing that “there.” Then figuring out what it is.
G.[/QUOTE]
Burden of proof is a legal term of art if you will. I have never, ever heard that terminology used by scientists to describe their research process. As a legal term of art, it is linked with another term of art, standard of proof, which can range from guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to clear and convincing evidence, to preponderance of the evidence. Someone may have “done” something and yet not have that proven in a court of law. The prosecution has a burden of proof in criminal law proceedings. It is entirely possible to fail to meet a burden of proof under one standard such as beyond a reasonable doubt, but have the ability to meet it under a lower standard such as preponderance of the evidence. Also, if say, you are in court defending a ticket for running a red light, and the policeman issuing the ticket fails to appear as a witness, then the prosecution cannot prove its case. Even though you may have “done” the act. The mixing of legal terminology with scientific process just does not work. At all.
It is not how the scientific process works. Science is based on in large part the testing of a hypothesis through deductive methods. It does not function like an adversarial court process.
As for the rest of your assertions, I take it you did not read the article links I posted in the post that you replied to. Had you done so, you would see that your assertions in fact do not chime with scientific results.
Howsoever you would like the scientific process to work according to legal rules, that is not how it is done.
The studies on Swami Rama in fact have all of the observed results that the AC skeptics are clamoring for. Have a read.
edited to add
http://neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/5
A further article on quantum physics and telepathy.
An ac cannot start communicating willy nilly with animals here, there, and everywhere. First they need to know who they are attempting to contact, on a spiritual level they need to ask permission, and they need to know where they are. A horse doesn’t know it’s address. It can’t give an image of colic and also a street address.
So right here, we have some kind of framework and rule set for how this works…which is the first time I have seen any kind of parameters of practice in this thread. Given this statement, many of the things claimed here wouldn’t be possible for an AC to do. Is this actually how it can be done, for those who believe it, or just another idea of how it might make some logical sense?
Thanks to others for posting articles.
As far as communicating in pictures, there are stroke victims who say that is how communication happens for them.
They are people and thus able to say that communication indeed for them is with pictures. An animal can’t say that to us, can they.
While we may never know precisely how animals communicate with each other,zooligsts/conversationalists/ behaviorists; people who spent decades observing with detailed notes, photos and videos and published books and papers to back up their findings, write about animals communicating through body language, touch, smell, sound, dominance displays etc.
I’ve read books by conservationists and naturalists who spent decades studying animals living among them in the wild with prides of lions or herds of elephants or with chimps and gorillas;, none of them claim the animals communicate with them with messages or pictures. And these people love animals beyond measure; they devote their lives to them, and some lost their lives fighting to protect them.
I suppose it comes down to who you choose to believe.
Animals are inspiring and may touch us spiritually. However the claims of self appointed animal communicators, who are not among the people who devote their lives to studying, saving, or training animals, the idea that somehow only the AC receives special communication/messages is hard to accept…those who accept it , well, they enjoy it so what can one say.
[QUOTE=JGHIRETIRE;8397633]
With your mindset, how could anyone possibly prove it to you?? You would have an answer to negate everything.[/QUOTE]
Just because someone is saying they want to see some proof to believe it, doesn’t mean they won’t change their mind if they see proof.
I’m always willing to change my position if I’m presented with sufficient evidence in support.
Are you?
[QUOTE=Sunflower;8398156]
Burden of proof is a legal term of art if you will. I have never, ever heard that terminology used by scientists to describe their research process. As a legal term of art, it is linked with another term of art, standard of proof, which can range from guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to clear and convincing evidence, to preponderance of the evidence. Someone may have “done” something and yet not have that proven in a court of law. The prosecution has a burden of proof in criminal law proceedings. It is entirely possible to fail to meet a burden of proof under one standard such as beyond a reasonable doubt, but have the ability to meet it under a lower standard such as preponderance of the evidence. Also, if say, you are in court defending a ticket for running a red light, and the policeman issuing the ticket fails to appear as a witness, then the prosecution cannot prove its case. Even though you may have “done” the act. The mixing of legal terminology with scientific process just does not work. At all.
It is not how the scientific process works. Science is based on in large part the testing of a hypothesis through deductive methods. It does not function like an adversarial court process.
As for the rest of your assertions, I take it you did not read the article links I posted in the post that you replied to. Had you done so, you would see that your assertions in fact do not chime with scientific results.
Howsoever you would like the scientific process to work according to legal rules, that is not how it is done.
The studies on Swami Rama in fact have all of the observed results that the AC skeptics are clamoring for. Have a read.
edited to add
http://neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/5
A further article on quantum physics and telepathy.[/QUOTE]
As I said, it’s both.
In the legal world it’s a term of art. In the rest of the world it’s a practical requirement.
The reality of things is that any given project has a resource base to support it. What the project manager expends resources on depends on what kind of “feedback” they are seeing form any given line of inquiry. So what should the manager expend resources on? Those things where evidence demonstrates that there will be a positive rate of return. If two members of a project are advocating two different views the manager will consider the arguments and then allocate resources based upon which advocate has presented the more compelling argument. Put another way, the person who has best carried their burden of proof in the argument will get the resources.
That’s not just how science works it’s how life works.
No, I’ve not read the additional links. The first two demonstrated that there was no “there” there. If you can show me something where this form of communication has been achieved under controlled conditions I’ll read it with a fair eye. But I’m not interested in more studies that demonstrate “potential” or “possibility.” I’ll await something more concrete.
G.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
