[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8399315]
Since you seem to care so much about this testing, why not set up a study yourself?
I know, I know, the burden of proof is somehow on me to come up with something. But that would require me caring enough about this to bother.[/QUOTE]
You said you were a scientist and I figured that made you an expert. If you don’t care enough to “bother” then I guess we can draw our own conclusions from that.
G.
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8398988]
A court room and a laboratory have a lot in common. In both places facts are averred and then tested. We can argue about semantics but the reality is that there is little difference between the two.
Cloaking AC and other perceived methods of non-physical communication in the raiment of “science” and using the terminology of “science” does not make it “science.”
And worse, it does nothing for the horse, that allegedly is the Object of the Exercise.
Again, there has yet to be any proof that there is a “there” there. All there has been are links to places that have proved nothing and long diatribes on how those who reject the content of those links have “closed minds.” That’s just a combination of table pounding and ad hominem.
The hard fact is that AC beyond the normal interaction of horse and handler has been postulated but never, as in NEVER, proven.
G.[/QUOTE]
But scientific methodology and a court of law have very little in common. If you were more familiar with either, you would see that this is a rather uninformed postulation.
Science is based on a particular methodology, but it is this methodology that you reject, and want to replace with (your own understanding of) court room argument and persuasion.
But no science will ever be conducted according to your rules. It will always be conducted by its own methodology, the one you reject. So in very circular reasoning, you assure that you will always reject science, as science, done according to science, as not science.
I have posted information, from the studies done by the Menninger Foundation on Swami Rama to the more recent published works by Tressoldi, et al.
Are you familiar with the role peer reviewed journals in the publication of scientific results?
In fact, I could continue to post links, as there is a wealth of work, but I was afraid it might become overwhelming if you were in fact trying to read and understand the information.
The field is actually very interesting-- starting with the pioneering studies at the Menninger Foundation, to the present day, with the inclusion of quantum physics.
The fact is that these studies show and explain the existence of the occurrence of telepathy, psychokinesis, and even precognition, in neurological terms. And are done according to the postulates of science. Which, makes them science.
If you choose to reject scientific evidence, which has been done according to requirements of rigorous scientific methodology on the basis that it is not science, because it is not run according to the rules you deem to create science, of course, that remains your prerogative. But the basis of your rejection is invalid, not the information you reject.
“Therefore
this study appears to confirm the very real possibility of creating a type of 'connection’ between
the minds – and thus between the brains – of two subjects who know each other, even when far
8
apart, and of doing it methodically by way of the procedures we have developed over time up to
this level of reliability and repeatability.
The results of our studies therefore show that the theory of Quantum Entanglement of particle
physics can similarly be applied to consciousness. Given two people who have some sort of tie as
either acquaintances or friends and in a given period of time have their thoughts oriented towards
each other, then if one’s mind receives an emotionally strong chunk of information (creating a
response in the brain), there is a high probability of a simultaneous activation in the other person
(friend or acquaintance).” From the Tressoldi, et al, studies. http://www.evanlab.org/?p=323&lang=en
Emphasis added.
Just a snippet.
Here is a scientific result being presented in scientific terms. There is detail in the rest of the paper on the methodology, but here it is pointed out that there is reliability and repeatablity, which are necessary elements in accepted scientific work. The work is also done methodically. The results are linked to a particular theory. The way in which the work was done, and the data upon which the results are made is included in some detail in the paper.
That is science and that is how it works.
And thus science has provided a basis for explaining the occurrence of telepathy using neurological evidence and quantum physics theory.
If this is not sufficiently clear to the issue of AC, telepathy is the terminology given to the process by which an AC might receive information, in layman’s terms, this is “mind-reading.”
[QUOTE=Sunflower;8399471]
“Therefore
this study appears to confirm the very real possibility of creating a type of 'connection’ between
the minds – and thus between the brains – of two subjects who know each other, even when far
8
apart, and of doing it methodically by way of the procedures we have developed over time up to
this level of reliability and repeatability.
The results of our studies therefore show that the theory of Quantum Entanglement of particle
physics can similarly be applied to consciousness. Given two people who have some sort of tie as
either acquaintances or friends and in a given period of time have their thoughts oriented towards
each other, then if one’s mind receives an emotionally strong chunk of information (creating a
response in the brain), there is a high probability of a simultaneous activation in the other person
(friend or acquaintance).” From the Tressoldi, et al, studies. http://www.evanlab.org/?p=323&lang=en
Emphasis added.
Just a snippet.
Here is a scientific result being presented in scientific terms. There is detail in the rest of the paper on the methodology, but here it is pointed out that there is reliability and repeatablity, which are necessary elements in accepted scientific work. The work is also done methodically. The results are linked to a particular theory. The way in which the work was done, and the data upon which the results are made is included in some detail in the paper.
That is science and that is how it works.
And thus science has provided a basis for explaining the occurrence of telepathy using neurological evidence and quantum physics theory.
If this is not sufficiently clear to the issue of AC, telepathy is the terminology given to the process by which an AC might receive information, in layman’s terms, this is “mind-reading.”[/QUOTE]
Your theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind
Here is one rebuttal:
If you don’t like my very basic examples, find your own.
I am not a scientist, obviously, but have a friend that is a neurobiologist doing research now and am familiar with the debates about what consciousness may and may not be.
Funny to see this applied to this topic.
[QUOTE=Sunflower;8399468]
But scientific methodology and a court of law have very little in common. If you were more familiar with either, you would see that this is a rather uninformed postulation.
In fact I’m rather familiar with both.
Science is based on a particular methodology, but it is this methodology that you reject, and want to replace with (your own understanding of) court room argument and persuasion.
Complete mis-statement. Science is based upon evidence; so are court room proceedings. I’m looking for credible evidence of a cause and effect which is exactly what any scientific researcher worth their salt does.
But no science will ever be conducted according to your rules. It will always be conducted by its own methodology, the one you reject. So in very circular reasoning, you assure that you will always reject science, as science, done according to science, as not science.
It will never be conducted by people who profit from a lack of research.
I have posted information, from the studies done by the Menninger Foundation on Swami Rama to the more recent published works by Tressoldi, et al.
Are you familiar with the role peer reviewed journals in the publication of scientific results?
Yes.
In fact, I could continue to post links, as there is a wealth of work, but I was afraid it might become overwhelming if you were in fact trying to read and understand the information.
The field is actually very interesting-- starting with the pioneering studies at the Menninger Foundation, to the present day, with the inclusion of quantum physics.
The fact is that these studies show and explain the existence of the occurrence of telepathy, psychokinesis, and even precognition, in neurological terms. And are done according to the postulates of science. Which, makes them science.
There is no peer reviewed evidence of any of these things in the links provided. There are claims of “potential” or “suspected” or “possible” but none of actuality. To date there is no “there” there.
If you choose to reject scientific evidence, which has been done according to requirements of rigorous scientific methodology on the basis that it is not science, because it is not run according to the rules you deem to create science, of course, that remains your prerogative. But the basis of your rejection is invalid, not the information you reject.[/QUOTE]
Wrapping wishful thinking and speculation in the garb of “science” does not make it science.
G.
I don’t know why this subject irritates me, but it does. I suppose the people who believe it would believe similar out there stuff so take away AC and they’d invent it. Somebody has to tell people what they want to hear so might as well be AC folks who charge what seems to be modest fees.
The claims of science are laughable. On a par with those who claim to see UFO’s, but somehow, they are always in the middle of nowhere when nobody else can see them and of course have invisible rays around them so nobody can actually document with verifiable photos. Psychics, mediums, and so on all fall in this category. Yes, people can have flashes of intuition or similar thoughts with those they know VERY well, such as family members. That is to be expected and not unusual. Transposing that to other people, dead people, and animals on a demand basis far away etc is when it becomes really questionable.
I think what irritates people are the claims from these folks to have special communication with an animal the owner can’t . YOU are the best communicator to and from your own animal. Develop your own intuition from watching how they react and act and maybe trying a different training method than the one that has not worked in the past 5 years. How about that , or really researching the cause of an issue. Or make some phone calls and go on FB etc and try to find out what actually happened in your horses past .
[QUOTE=Sunflower;8399468]
But scientific methodology and a court of law have very little in common. If you were more familiar with either, you would see that this is a rather uninformed postulation.
Science is based on a particular methodology, but it is this methodology that you reject, and want to replace with (your own understanding of) court room argument and persuasion.
But no science will ever be conducted according to your rules. It will always be conducted by its own methodology, the one you reject. So in very circular reasoning, you assure that you will always reject science, as science, done according to science, as not science.
I have posted information, from the studies done by the Menninger Foundation on Swami Rama to the more recent published works by Tressoldi, et al.
Are you familiar with the role peer reviewed journals in the publication of scientific results?
In fact, I could continue to post links, as there is a wealth of work, but I was afraid it might become overwhelming if you were in fact trying to read and understand the information.
The field is actually very interesting-- starting with the pioneering studies at the Menninger Foundation, to the present day, with the inclusion of quantum physics.
The fact is that these studies show and explain the existence of the occurrence of telepathy, psychokinesis, and even precognition, in neurological terms. And are done according to the postulates of science. Which, makes them science.
If you choose to reject scientific evidence, which has been done according to requirements of rigorous scientific methodology on the basis that it is not science, because it is not run according to the rules you deem to create science, of course, that remains your prerogative. But the basis of your rejection is invalid, not the information you reject.[/QUOTE]
I would automatically reject “data” involving a “Swami” ANYBODY because it’s already rotten with confirmation bias due to the participant’s obvious self-identity with a certain belief system.
[QUOTE=Countrywood;8399593]
I don’t know why this subject irritates me, but it does. I suppose the people who believe it would believe similar out there stuff so take away AC and they’d invent it. Somebody has to tell people what they want to hear so might as well be AC folks who charge what seems to be modest fees.
The claims of science are laughable. On a par with those who claim to see UFO’s, but somehow, they are always in the middle of nowhere when nobody else can see them and of course have invisible rays around them so nobody can actually document with verifiable photos. Psychics, mediums, and so on all fall in this category. Yes, people can have flashes of intuition or similar thoughts with those they know VERY well, such as family members. That is to be expected and not unusual. Transposing that to other people, dead people, and animals on a demand basis far away etc is when it becomes really questionable.
I think what irritates people are the claims from these folks to have special communication with an animal the owner can’t . YOU are the best communicator to and from your own animal. Develop your own intuition from watching how they react and act and maybe trying a different training method than the one that has not worked in the past 5 years. How about that , or really researching the cause of an issue. Or make some phone calls and go on FB etc and try to find out what actually happened in your horses past .[/QUOTE]
Its a different kind of communication, and it doesn’t take away from anything with the owner-- it enhances that connection because the owner has more info from the horse. THAT IS THE POINT OF DOING THE WORK!
And yes, most people do use vets, chiros, etc and investigate the past of the horse-- this is all not mutually exclusive.
I do believe we all have intuition, not always the same level as ACs, but I have mentioned here a few times that the “prove it” tone of these posts will shut down the gift, at least in my opinion. Think of the state in which one paints a picture-- the best results are with a creative mind taking things more as they come, not “this will have to work out this certain way”. That is never fun for anyone, specifically a horse.
I think people on this thread are questioning, fine, but it might be a bit of fear of the unknown. We like life in a nice little package. The ideas of ACs are NOT like those of UFOs, really not at all, but the idea that science can’t show everything might scare some people. It’s not all tied up in a nice tidy package…
It’s just one tool to understand your horse more, it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
Ask me 5 yrs ago, I was like you guys here. I didn’t believe it, it was all for the hippies and weirdos…
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8399563]
Wrapping wishful thinking and speculation in the garb of “science” does not make it science.
G.[/QUOTE]
Except that I am not sure you agree with science about what the definition of science is.
Science is not about the art of persuasion in a court of law.
It is about hypothesis testing, about verifiability and repeatability, among other things, with observed data.
You say that articles to which I have posted links are not peer reviewed. Yet, have you actually bother to verify that?
http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/about/submissions#onlineSubmissions
Quite clearly, this describes the peer review methods of the journal.
Intuition, Telepathy, and Interspecies
Communication:
A Multidisciplinary Perspective** published in http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/399/386
And again, in your circular reasoning, you reject science as not science for following the language and postulates of science. Which hardly makes any sort of valid assertion at all. But keep going— you are hardly making your own points credible with that.
[QUOTE=Bluey;8399328]
Kind of hard to ask anyone to prove what is not there?
Makes more sense for those that think there is something to prove it is there.
If they really believe it is, they ought to be able to prove it, if it really is there.
If not, well, it is not there.[/QUOTE]
Of course you can prove a negative. It’s the same experiment, just different hypothesis.
[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;8399721]
I would automatically reject “data” involving a “Swami” ANYBODY because it’s already rotten with confirmation bias due to the participant’s obvious self-identity with a certain belief system.[/QUOTE]
That is too bad, then. You reject several studies done in controlled conditions with verified data on physical measured responses. Have you read the studies to in fact understand how they were conducted and what the results are? Are you at all familiar with the Menninger Foundation-- which is not a religious affiliated organization?
If you in fact had read the studies, you might realize that your outright rejection of them because the person being observed was a Swami is groundless. While the person being observed was a Swami, the people recording the data and making the observations were not. If you give me a moment, I will post their professional and academic credentials. Then explain, if you might, what sense your “automatic rejection” of a study done of someone with the title “Swami” makes.
Perhaps the question we should be asking is:
Why do so many people feel a NEED to believe in something so sketchy?
[QUOTE=Sunflower;8399468]
But scientific methodology and a court of law have very little in common. If you were more familiar with either, you would see that this is a rather uninformed postulation. …[/QUOTE]
:lol:
You aren’t familiar w/ Guilherme, are you?
[QUOTE=Guilherme;8399362]
You said you were a scientist and I figured that made you an expert. If you don’t care enough to “bother” then I guess we can draw our own conclusions from that.
G.[/QUOTE]
In realizing this is how you are thinking about this-- I realize why this conversation isn’t working. you just don’t understand about research and specialities- you can’t just hop between fields and expertise.
Elmer Green, one of the leading researchers on Swami Rama.
“1942. B.Physics. University of Minnesota.
1946. Graduate student, Dept. of Physics, UCLA (no degree).
1947-1955. Physicist, Naval Weapons Center (NWC), China Lake, California, in optics, electronics, and computing.
1955-1957. Supervisory Physicist. Assessments Division, NWC.
1958-1962. Ph.D. Biopsychology. University of Chicago.”
from http://www.healthy.net/Author_Biography/Elmer_Green_PhD/56
But if you wish to persist in insisting that you want to automatically reject his work because the participant was a Swami, by all means, it is your prerogative to do so.
[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;8399751]
Perhaps the question we should be asking is:
Why do so many people feel a NEED to believe in something so sketchy?[/QUOTE]
because it provides a lot of information from the horse
Nor, in fact, is it sketchy. Quantum physics is an amazingly interesting and complex field. But it is far from sketchy. And, of course, as a field of science, it is not a matter of belief, but of following scientific principles.
[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8398969]
Extraordinary claim? how so?
Haven’t any of you had “gut feelings”? a weird vibe about someone that you can’t explain? this is nothing more than an expansion of those ideas. It’s just getting a feeling from another spirit.
that is all this is, not some weird woo woo stuff.[/QUOTE]
ROFLOL. It is EXACTLY “weird woo stuff.” Please: Gut Feelings. You ARE aware of the human tendency to confirmation bias? So you get a “bad” feeling, and OMG, the next day someone calls and your great-aunt Sally has passed. OMG, you KNEW it!!! (But somehow you forget the 300 times you had a “gut feeling” and NOTHING happened.)
I’m late to the party, so maybe this all ready came up.
The man who calls himself “The Amazing Randy” has done many experiments with the paranormal, fortune telling, esp, etc.
One experiment, he presented a group of students each with a very detailed personal horoscope based on their birthday. They were told to keep it secret.
Then when asked how accurate it was, without exception, they were all amazed at how personal and accurate their horoscope was, and how it was just eerie and miraculous how it pertained to them so personally, etc, etc.
Then he told them they had been duped. They had all been given the same horoscope. Not only that, but they had been given the horoscope of none other than the sociopath Jeffrey Dahmer!
[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;8399721]
I would automatically reject “data” involving a “Swami” ANYBODY because it’s already rotten with confirmation bias due to the participant’s obvious self-identity with a certain belief system.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention that this particular Swami’s estate (presumably) had to pay up $2 million in the late '90s as a result of a sexual abuse case. Guess he didn’t “intuit” that might happen.
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
