• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Princeton Nukes ESP Department

Have they been thoroughly debunked? According to the NY Times article, they were dismissed rather than debunked.
 
Dave1001 said:
Have they been thoroughly debunked? According to the NY Times article, they were dismissed rather than debunked.
Click to expand...

They have admitted themselves that they found nothing:

"Once again, there was reasonably good agreement among the six scoring recipes, but the overall results were now completely indistinguishable from chance."
(PEAR, p227, Distributive Scoring)
Click to expand...

Shapes In The Clouds
A commentary on "Information and Uncertainty in Remote Perception Research", Dunne and Jahn, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR).
Click to expand...
 
Doesn't sound like Princeton did anything. Sounds like the PEAR people simply decided to shut it down.
 
I'm surprised no one actually read what PEAR themselves have said --
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/future.html

Personally I'd say the real victory for reason will be when people actually critique their findings like Hyman and others based on evidence rather than dismissing them based on emotion and simple nay-saying. :) I appreciate the efforts of the many CSI and JREF members who do actually enter in to the debate with the parapsychologists, and make informed decisions. PEAR evidence is in my mind too weak to endorse, too strong to reject. Further research desperately needed?

cj x
 
CFLarsen said:
They have admitted themselves that they found nothing:
Click to expand...

Oh so by citing these 2 references you proved that they admited that the laboratory has to be close because everything that they researched has generated negative results?
 
I get the impression that Princeton made the PEAR people feel unloved.

Perhaps their private funding was also tailing off. It's not like they could just apply to the NSF for grant money.

Oh well, we still have the Rhine Research Center. I see from their Web page that they're giving a lecture on "Quantum Touch Healing" in a few weeks.
 
omegablue said:
Oh so by citing these 2 references you proved that they admited that the laboratory has to be close because everything that they researched has generated negative results?
Click to expand...

If you have evidence of a paranormal phenomenon, let's see it.

Put up or shut up.
 
CFLarsen said:
If you have evidence of a paranormal phenomenon, let's see it.

Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Holy cow , where did I claim that I have evidence in favor of paranormal? I do not, but many researchers and labs do so. Again I cannot understand your point Larsen. And yes you are wrong if you think you proved that PEAR have produced nothing based on that 2 references you cited.
 
omegablue said:
Oh so by citing these 2 references you proved that they admited that the laboratory has to be close because everything that they researched has generated negative results?
Click to expand...

The fact that they have yet to publish any positive results is evidence.
 
The researchers, in a scientific journal. Why haven't they published their positive results and scientific journal?
 
There is lots of evidence for effects which could be paranormal. There is no evidence that excludes a normal explanation for these effects.

Linda
 
thaiboxerken said:
The researchers, in a scientific journal. Why haven't they published their positive results and scientific journal?
Click to expand...


from the link of NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/science/10princeton.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

I think that:

“We know people have ideas beyond the mainstream,” said the sociologist Harriet Zuckerman, author of “Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States” and senior vice president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, ”but if they want funds for research they have to go through peer review, and the system is going to be very skeptical of ideas that are inconsistent with what is already known.”
Click to expand...

and:

Brenda Dunne, a developmental psychologist, has managed the laboratory since it opened and has been a co-author of many of its study papers. “We submitted our data for review to very good journals,” Ms. Dunne said, “but no one would review it. We have been very open with our data. But how do you get peer review when you don’t have peers?”
Click to expand...

...pretty much explains the why. Believe me mf, if they wanted to publish and accept it, they would have already. What would be the short-term gratification and financial interests of funding psi?
 
fls said:
There is lots of evidence for effects which could be paranormal. There is no evidence that excludes a normal explanation for these effects.

Linda
Click to expand...

I agree. But it does not mean that something was debunked because of that. Now if this deserves funding or trashing is a matter of "who´s with who". A way more complex problem regarding the scientific elite interests and focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom