How many people have looked into psionic research?
For those of you who don't know, Psi is a term referring to the soul, or mind, and refers to "Supernatural" or "Paranormal" activities. So far it's considered a pseudo-science to most, but there are plenty of researchers out there doing their best to try and prove it's real, so they can try to study it as an advancement of science.
I've done a lot of research and have a bit of experience but I'm always interested to see what other people's experiences with this subject are.
(( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psi_%28parapsychology%29 ))
I also suggest you visit www.Psipog.org for all you psychic needs and if you need proof and psipog doesn't satisfy you, try www.fork-you.com .
What researchers are you familiar with who are working in this field ?
What, if any, progress have they made and are there any convincing scientific studies or papers you can share with us ?
There's a website I found out about most of the research and such, it was www.psipog.org
My grandmother worked as a psychic too, but... that's not reliable to base any facts on, so I'd say the person who I know of that did the most research on psi would be Russel Targ of the SRI institute in California.
At the SRI institute in California the main focus for psionic research was Remote Viewing. Where the Viewer tries to detect and draw, or give information about a hidden Target. The average process is the Viewer sites down with a pen and paper, and is being recorded, while another person stands by and inquires about the Target and asks questions of what it is, where it is, and how the person feels of it. These tests are almost always double blind, where the Viewer and other person know almost nothing about the target, other than location.
The outcomes for these experiments are phenominal, though they vary, normally the Viewer gets a first or second place outcome when drawing or explaining the target.
There are three places I guess you could call Ratings, for the Viewer. First being they pretty much described the target completely, second being they described it but were a little off, and third place is they were nowhere near what the target is.
There have also been numerous experiments done by other scientists. Some of the experiments would have a machine that would create a completely random series of numbers, ones and zeros, and a recorder that would record the pattern. The recording was braught to a subject that was told to focus for a desired outcome of either ones or zeros. Astoundingly, whatever the subject's desired number was, the majority of the numbers would become that number, even though the people monitoring him had listened to the recording beforehand and knew what the original pattern was, the subject would actually change the pattern.
There's also plenty of videos and stories of psionics in action on psipog.org, and www.fork-you.com ((don't beleive? well Fork-You!))
I suggest you get the book Limitless Mind by Russel Targ, it has loads of information on this, it's where most of the information on psi I know is based on and where I learned of the experiments.
(all credit to that book)
There's a lot more info I can't remember right now, please forgive me, I'm very tired at the moment and haven't had my daily dosage of caffiene...
I just checked it out. I can't decide (and please don't be offended) whether they are having a laugh, whether they are just stage magicians drumming up interest or whether they are con artists. It's not possible, you see, for them to be genuine as far as I can tell because they have published several videos on the site which they must know are illusions - you cannot accidentally make a video of a magic trick thinking it is psi, either it is done to deceive or it is done for laughs.
You might ask why I completely rule out the possibility that they are genuine. Several reasons.
1) I learned some basic slight of hand and conjuring/juggling years ago for fun and I recognise several moves - particularly the invisible thread moves
2) The videos are, as always in these cases, crappy quality. Why ? Most people have access to technology which can produce far far better images. I have a £30 web cam on the machine here that can do better.
3) If they can do these 'psi' demonstrations on demand for the camera then why not nip up to the Randi foundation, do a quick demo and walk away with a cool million dollars ?
As for Targ...I know a bit about him and his (deceased) daughter. My main problem with RT is based on the fact that his daughter deliberately falsified a scientific experiment (not too long before her death) which claimed to show significant psychic healing ina DOUBLE-BLIND test on Aids patients.
The double-blind part is crucial. Double-blind tests are the gold standard. If someone publishes a double-blind experiment with significant results then it cannot be ignored or brushed-off. It was only after her tragic and very ironic death that one of her co-experimenters spilled the beans and revealed that the test was not double blind. For any scientist to do that is beyond the pale...it is completely unforgivable and would, had she lived, have meant she would have been completely ostracised from scientific communities all over the world - and quite rightly so in my opinion. I havent got my sources on this computer on Elizabeth Targ - they are in bookmarks on another machine so the only source I can offer (from memory) is a little thin but outlines the story. I'll post a more definitive list when I finally drag my other machine back from my nephew.
I have no comment of the father RT since I nothing about his work and have had no reason to look at it other than in passing when I was looking at the paper of his daughter. I do remember, however, reading that Targs work which was published in Nature was later refuted by Victor Stenger in his paper 'Physics and Psychics: The Search for a World Beyond the Senses'. I'll have to read up before I make any more comment on that lest I make unfair or misleading comment.
I don't mean to be insulting here or ridicule your posting in any way. Science is a brutal business and that is one of it's central strengths - remaining determined to prove something wrong is an important part of the peer review 'screening' process which ensures credible results.
I can't take the first website seriously at all I'm afraid and you can put that down to narrow mindedness if you like. Targ, as I say, is worthy of more consideration since he was a good scientist in his time and I'll certainly dig out some more info on RT and post my source material on his daughter when I can.
I completely understand, what you're saying, I thought a few of the videos and pictures were fake... I tried the techniques and after a while I finally got the psi-wheel to move, but I think it must be static electricity so-far.
I had no idea about Elizabeth Targ though, wow... I'm almost in shock..
From what I've read Limitless Mind is one of the most brilliant books I've read, he mostly quotes experiments and gives the source of every single quote, what book, what author, who told him, etc. That book is what made me a believer.
Psipog just made me start looking into psi, and I don't blame you for not trusting it, not many people do anymore, they say peabrain(the admin) went crazy, because he shut down the site, saying he finally had a realization that psi actually is real... it was very odd.
www.Fork-you.com has an interesting video though, the person bends a fork and coils it up. It's something that probably could be faked but there's a lot of interesting pictures, whether they're real or not.
I'm glad you understand that my scepticism is not to be taken personally - many don't.
One of the real strengths of science is the fact that peer-review weeds out unsuccessful theory by refuting it. Refutation is, therefore, central to the enterprise of science and should be seen in that light. Subjecting a new hypothesis to rigorous questioning and probing should be seen as a favour by the genuine theorist.
I make no claim to be qualified to do this myself - peer review is best done by experts in the field concerned - so all I try to do is question postings in the science forum in the spirit of peer review
Exactly, the only time I ever take the rough skeptecism personally is when they tell me not to believe in what I believe and tell me it's all fake with no argument.
For you to say you have personal experiences with the psionic experiment being fake and having something to back it up isn't anything that should be taken offensive by anyone but someone ignorant in the field of science and with no intentions of doing anything other than taking a step backward in science and technology. THAT is what I consider infuriating.