Hey comment # 55 !
My response is to the original post that is already making some fairly wild claims about predicting the future. I was referencing some other studies in fields that could be compared to the article’s claim, not trying to convince you it’s true.
I find FR to have a wide variety of informed readers who, though I knew I’d probably get flamed by a few, also thought would turn up someone sharing similar works in these areas where I might get pointed to some new good reading material.
My comment on TM was (....“group think experiments” that resulted in some success; the concept of Gestalt Psychology from the early 1900’s Germany and The 1% factor from Transcendental Meditation in the 1970’s) See my words “Some success” There Was some success but their testing methods I agree were questionable.
However, there are still several groups pursuing this line of experimentation. I hope someone gets lucky !!
In the research done by Stanford and Princeton, especially the PEAR Project, on Non local consciousness and remote viewing they are aware there are many who scoff at their results. I was impressed at the extent they went to to try and set rigid test parameters. This is an incredibly difficult subject to study much less have test parameters that are completely bullet proof.
I have followed their work for years and am impressed with the statistics they have been able to produce even if the statistical results are rather slight in some instances.
The work Rene Peoche did with the baby chickens was I think, remarkable. Many others agree and I see more science thumbs up then down in that experiment even though it was a bit silly.
By the way, how do you know you’re real? Please explain
Everyone serious scoffs at PEAR. Among many -- and a decent summary: http://www.skepdic.com/globalconsciousness.html
By the way, how do you know you’re real? Please explain
A poster responding to appeals for sanity suggests that his critic's arguments may be baseless because the critic cannot prove his own existence. This surely wins you this weekends's Gormless Irony For The Entire Internet Award®. Congratulations! You have demolished Descartes: "I answer you, therefore you do not exist."
Or something.
This kind of confused, magical thinking is entirely representative of people who believe the kinds of things you do. [And of people who believe this article is actually reflective of anything other than cherry-picking the definition of "successful prediction."]