4 ms·

I have only read the introduction and the conclusion (page 61) out of boredom and to find out what this was about. I have no idea what "psi" is (EDIT: seems to

I have only read the introduction and the conclusion (page 61) out of boredom and to find out what this was about. I have no idea what "psi" is (EDIT: seems to be short for "psychic") - might be in the earlier pages, and I have no desire to find out. Their introduction basically says that collecting intelligence is hard - to summarize the many sentences in one phrase - and therefore looking into alternative methods of "parapsychology" is worth it. > Conclusion: > Following on the heels of thousands of years of human experience, decades of well-conceived and increasingly scrupulous experimentation are finally providing compelling evidence for the existence of at least some forms of psi including remote viewing. > The cognitive dissonance this evidence engenders within the larger scientific community mirrors in form and function that which has been created by the paradigm-changing pressures quantum physics continues to bring to bear on the modern scientific edifice. > Simply put, reality is far stranger than classical physics could possibly imagine. Given the increasingly sharp lens through which modern physics views our reality, it grows increasingly likely that there will be established a theoretical framework capable of rationally explaining the existence of psi. Riiiight.....

ben_w 2y ago
Thanks for saving me time. Especially this part: """The cognitive dissonance this evidence engenders within the larger scientific community mirrors in form and function that which has been created by the paradigm-changing pressures quantum physics continues to bring to bear on the modern scientific edifice.""" Where my reaction was "Oh for crying out loud". QM is many things, including "very difficult", but it's not cognitive dissonance — well, once you get past the "lies for kids" version told in pop science, at least.
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  Back when it was first introduced it was quite controversial for a long time. However "continues to bring to bear" is a fairly inexcusable thing to say.
InsideOutSanta 2y ago
This part is funny: One of the most difficult elements reported by viewers involved in the U.S. RV program was the nearly complete lack of feedback received following operational taskings. According to viewers, feedback is essential in helping them to acquire the inner insight needed to differentiate accurate impressions from inaccurate ones (...) tasking agencies should be required to provide the AE with not only a list of the key questions being asked, but also with all the related data currently possessed I can guess exactly how old you are, but only if you tell me your date of birth.
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  I think it's saying that you're supposed to tell them how old you really are after they make the guess.
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    Yeah, the first part says "after I make a prediction, tell me exactly how far off I was so I can predict it again." The second part seems to say "I can only predict your age if you tell me everything you know about your age."
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- krapp 2y ago
  Cold reading - sorry "ESP" - is always easier with data to work from. It's just good science.
jcranmer 2y ago
> I have no idea what "psi" is Psi is the theorized ability in parapsychology for any sort of conventionally impossible ability. Telekinesis, mind reading, etc., it's all psi. The thing about parapsychology is that there is a very barely statistical evidence for it. But if you dig into it, the strongest predictor of whether or not a study will find evidence for psi is... if the experimenter believes in psi. As I've heard someone else put it, parapsychology is a natural test of the scientific method--it's something which is impossible by the rest of science, so we should find no evidence for it, and if we're finding systematic evidence for it, it indicates a failure of the scientific method to weed out statistically random hypotheses.
- filoeleven 2y ago
  Attempting to study psi leads to a paradox: > (1) if the existence of psi is proven in a classical scientific setting, then it demonstrates retroactively that this setting is inappropriate because psi implies that there is no clear “cut” between the observer and the observed. (2) So, if this assumption of the scientific setting is inappropriate (because of psi), then this setting cannot be used to prove the existence of psi. But, then, as psi cannot be proven, the scientific setting itself appears as being still appropriate! If psi exists, then it's unsurprising that experimenters who believe in it find evidence for it, because their belief influences the experiment. Same goes for skeptics and negative results. The paper describes how this problem carries up through any levels of blinding and meta-analysis: there can be no independent observer. They reference something called "Correlation Matrix Method" as a possible solution to the paradox, but I didn't follow the references as my interest is fairly casual. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.562992/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10....

ben_w 2y ago

Thanks for saving me time. Especially this part: """The cognitive dissonance this evidence engenders within the larger scientific community mirrors in form and function that which has been created by the paradigm-changing pressures quantum physics continues to bring to bear on the modern scientific edifice.""" Where my reaction was "Oh for crying out loud". QM is many things, including "very difficult", but it's not cognitive dissonance — well, once you get past the "lies for kids" version told in pop science, at least.

fc417fc802 2y ago
Back when it was first introduced it was quite controversial for a long time. However "continues to bring to bear" is a fairly inexcusable thing to say.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago

This part is funny: One of the most difficult elements reported by viewers involved in the U.S. RV program was the nearly complete lack of feedback received following operational taskings. According to viewers, feedback is essential in helping them to acquire the inner insight needed to differentiate accurate impressions from inaccurate ones (...) tasking agencies should be required to provide the AE with not only a list of the key questions being asked, but also with all the related data currently possessed I can guess exactly how old you are, but only if you tell me your date of birth.

fc417fc802 2y ago
I think it's saying that you're supposed to tell them how old you really are after they make the guess.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  Yeah, the first part says "after I make a prediction, tell me exactly how far off I was so I can predict it again." The second part seems to say "I can only predict your age if you tell me everything you know about your age."
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
krapp 2y ago
Cold reading - sorry "ESP" - is always easier with data to work from. It's just good science.

jcranmer 2y ago

> I have no idea what "psi" is Psi is the theorized ability in parapsychology for any sort of conventionally impossible ability. Telekinesis, mind reading, etc., it's all psi. The thing about parapsychology is that there is a very barely statistical evidence for it. But if you dig into it, the strongest predictor of whether or not a study will find evidence for psi is... if the experimenter believes in psi. As I've heard someone else put it, parapsychology is a natural test of the scientific method--it's something which is impossible by the rest of science, so we should find no evidence for it, and if we're finding systematic evidence for it, it indicates a failure of the scientific method to weed out statistically random hypotheses.

filoeleven 2y ago
Attempting to study psi leads to a paradox: > (1) if the existence of psi is proven in a classical scientific setting, then it demonstrates retroactively that this setting is inappropriate because psi implies that there is no clear “cut” between the observer and the observed. (2) So, if this assumption of the scientific setting is inappropriate (because of psi), then this setting cannot be used to prove the existence of psi. But, then, as psi cannot be proven, the scientific setting itself appears as being still appropriate! If psi exists, then it's unsurprising that experimenters who believe in it find evidence for it, because their belief influences the experiment. Same goes for skeptics and negative results. The paper describes how this problem carries up through any levels of blinding and meta-analysis: there can be no independent observer. They reference something called "Correlation Matrix Method" as a possible solution to the paradox, but I didn't follow the references as my interest is fairly casual. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.562992/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10....