rick@iddic.UUCP (Rick Coates) (11/03/84)
<> I know that this (net.crypt) is not the correct newsgroup, so I am also posting to net.sci. Chuq writes: > I agree, there is no scientifically hard evidence for ESP > these days, but the lack of evidence doesn't prove the lack of the ability. I do not want to get into a heated controversy (Chuq seems like a good guy); but the lack of evidence is, indeed, the only possible proof of a lack of ability. I can prove the existence in a variety of ways, but the only proof of non-existence is a lack of evidence. The lack may be very thorough (as in the case of psi phenomena), but it is still a lack of evidence. This is not a nit-picking issue -- the nature of the proof is important in evaluating how valid a claim is. The periodical "Free Inquiry" has a very good article about the nature of scientific proofs in the current issue. "The Skeptical Inquirer" is an excellent source of information on paranormal phenomena. Rick Coates ...!tektronix!iddic!rick
james@denelcor.UUCP (James Torson) (11/04/84)
> > I do not want to get into a heated controversy (Chuq seems like a good guy); > but the lack of evidence is, indeed, the only possible proof of a lack of > ability. I can prove the existence in a variety of ways, but the only > proof of non-existence is a lack of evidence. The lack may be very thorough > (as in the case of psi phenomena), but it is still a lack of evidence. > > This is not a nit-picking issue -- the nature of the proof is important in > evaluating how valid a claim is. > The nature of the proof certainly is important. And, the nature of the lack of evidence is important also. Some people are fond of saying things like "there is no evidence that <x> is harmful to the public." Sometimes the reason that there is no evidence is that there has not been a valid study. Saying "there is no evidence" is quite different from saying "there was a valid study and the results were negative"! Jim Torson Denelcor, Inc. Aurora, CO (hao, brl-bmd, nbires, csu-cs, scgvaxd) !denelcor!james
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (11/06/84)
X From: rick@iddic.UUCP (Rick Coates)
X Chuq writes:
X
X >I agree, there is no scientifically hard evidence for ESP
X >these days, but the lack of evidence doesn't prove the lack of the ability.
X
X I do not want to get into a heated controversy (Chuq seems like a good guy);
X but the lack of evidence is, indeed, the only possible proof of a lack of
X ability. I can prove the existence in a variety of ways, but the only
X proof of non-existence is a lack of evidence. The lack may be very thorough
X (as in the case of psi phenomena), but it is still a lack of evidence.
X
X This is not a nit-picking issue -- the nature of the proof is important in
X evaluating how valid a claim is.
What if you are trying to decrypt some information, and no matter what
you have done, you have been unable to obtain anything meaningful.
Does that mean there is no message? All you can decide about the
contents is whether you want to stop looking.
(I have no proof that you have a nose. Therefore, you don't have one.)
To >prove< non-existence of something, you would have to do something like
prove 1> that the something produces a symptom,
and that the symptom is not present. (that is, if said symptom is a
known, measurable thing, or countable, if it is encrypted stuff)
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
^ ^jlg@lanl.ARPA (11/09/84)
> X From: rick@iddic.UUCP (Rick Coates) > X Chuq writes: > X > X >I agree, there is no scientifically hard evidence for ESP > X >these days, but the lack of evidence doesn't prove the lack of the ability. > X > X I do not want to get into a heated controversy (Chuq seems like a good guy); > X but the lack of evidence is, indeed, the only possible proof of a lack of > X ability. I can prove the existence in a variety of ways, but the only > X proof of non-existence is a lack of evidence. The lack may be very thorough > X (as in the case of psi phenomena), but it is still a lack of evidence. > X > X This is not a nit-picking issue -- the nature of the proof is important in > X evaluating how valid a claim is. > > What if you are trying to decrypt some information, and no matter what > you have done, you have been unable to obtain anything meaningful. > Does that mean there is no message? All you can decide about the > contents is whether you want to stop looking. > (I have no proof that you have a nose. Therefore, you don't have one.) > > To >prove< non-existence of something, you would have to do something like > prove 1> that the something produces a symptom, > and that the symptom is not present. (that is, if said symptom is a > known, measurable thing, or countable, if it is encrypted stuff) > > Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp > ^ ^ I have no proof that you have a nose - therefore I don't BELEIVE that you have one (Tycho Brahe didn't). If you try to decode a message, and no matter what you do you can't get sense out of it, then you can't conclude ANYTHING about the message that is encoded there. It may, in fact, not exist (noise on the data channel). Indeed, if you've tried eveything you know, you may as well stop looking since whatever the message is, you can't find it. The same is true of ESP. Lack of evidence is sufficient reason to stop looking (at least stop looking in the places that have yielded no evidence). It's not beyond the realm of possibility that future researchers will have a better idea where to look, and may even find something. But quit pointing to the same bankrupt anecdotal evidence that has not yielded anything in the past, and certainly quit theorizing about the nature of something that has yet to be reliably observed.
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (11/11/84)
> The same is true of ESP. Lack of evidence is sufficient reason to stop > looking (at least stop looking in the places that have yielded no > evidence). It's not beyond the realm of possibility that future > researchers will have a better idea where to look, and may even find > something. If one lived in the middle ages, and set upon a quest to find a computer programmer, one would surely fail. The ability to program was not yet developed, matured, practiced, etc. If one is alive now (how else but by ESP would you read this?), and sets upon a quest to find an ESPer, one will often fail, as the ability is not yet developed, matured, practiced as widely as it will be in the future. If one goes to the back reaches of outer nowhere, and searches for computer programmers even today, one could STILL conclude that programmers don't exist. Yet, to some of us, the existance of programmers is VERY real. It is far easier today to find a lack of ESP than a lack of programmers. IN the furture, this may reverse. For those of us who have experienced ESP, there can be no question of it's existence, but only a question of, how do I learn and develop this phenomena so that I can use it at will, rather than merely experiencing it in a non-reproducible manner. I can never prove to you it exists, or that I experienced it. But there is NO doubt in my mind that it happended. I just wish I knew how to develop the ability to use this form of communication. Just as it would have done me little good in the middle ages to dream of machines which "thought" on their own, so it is today, that it does us little good to "wish" we could all communicate telepathically. Time is required yet. If you can't find the existence of programmers, you're probably not living in silicon valley, where they abound. If you can't find evidence of ESP, you're not looking in the right place. Does anyone know where I should look? Where IS ESP central? Oh... I didn't want to have to die first and return to the spirtual world to find it. I believe we are all spirits incarnated in the material world. I believe ESP is of the spiritual world. Perhaps the "noise" of the material world tends to block ESP (spirit to spirit) communication? Is anyone else interested in searching for more ESP, rather than redundantly trying to "prove" it's current scarcity? I believe people when they say that ESP doesn't exist in their lives. So do I believe when someone claims to have experienced it. The real question is how to experience it more often, by more people, not how many bytes we can waste showing it hasn't happened here. -- mail ucbvax\!sun\!sunny decvax\!sun\!sunny ihnp4\!sun\!sunny<<EOF EOF