[extropy-chat] Movie: WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW!?

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 02:19 PM 11/25/2004 -0800, Adrian wrote:
> >all attempts to
> >change things - at least, outside one's own body -
> by
> >willpower alone, with no corresponding physical
> >actions, have failed under laboratory conditions,
> even
> >when conducted by the most sincere of believers
> 
> This is simply incorrect, as stated. You might wish
> to assert that it 
> *must* be so, and that those who publish claims of
> lab PK or other psi 
> (believers and uncommited alike) are mistaken or
> lying--but you can't say 
> that the claims don't exist.

Okay, okay, I'll give the long (and less convenient,
but more technically accurate) version, since you
requested it:

The vast majority of attempts to recreate these
phenomena under conditions of scientific testing have
failed.  While there have been a few successes, most
of these have been shown to be flawed, given enough
time (and people who care about the research) enough
for the specific study's flaws to be revealed.
Furthermore, given the many many experiments that
have been conducted, it is expected that a few would
show anomalous results, even just among the legit
ones.  This is why repeatability is one of the
hallmarks of scientific investigations - and most
attempts to independently repeat the study, under the
exact conditions the study details, have failed.  (So
if there is something there, the successful studies
have so far universally failed to give accurate
descriptions of how to recreate it - which means they
might not truly understand how they got the results
they got, even if the results are legit.)

So, although the claim can not be entirely ruled out
at this time, it is far from an established scientific
fact at this time, so far as any theory can ever
become an "established scientific fact" (like
evolution, or Newtonian mechanics for
non-quantum-scale events).  To claim that these claims
of conscious manipulation have that level of
scientific justification already is factually
incorrect, and the level of that incorrect statement
that the movie presented was a level that I, as a
scientist, found to be offensive.

Note that there is an exception for changing things
within one's body.  However, even here, it has been
shown that the effects seem to be entirely related to
the brain's control over the body's autonomic systems
- which do, perhaps, have potential to do things that
human beings can not ordinarily do, but not on the
level of fundamentally editing reality (which would
allow one to, say, make gold appear out of thin air,
or alter the path of a basketball after it leaves your
hands without causing anything else to act upon the
ball) as the movie suggested was possible.

> Before anyone rushes to point out possible design
> flaws--maybe the Ss *saw* 
> the balls, maybe the numbers *feel* different,
> etc--give a moment's 
> consideration to the possibility that the
> experimenters have thought of 
> these child-obvious problems and dealt with them in
> advance.

The problem is, there have been so many experiments
that didn't, that the time and energy to refute each
and every single study is overwhelming - especially if
each person must refute them all independently of
others' efforts.

> Preferably, 
> find and assess more complete accounts of the trials
> on Suitbert's site.

Or better yet, on some independent sites whose
maintainers not only have practice in reviewing
claims of this nature, but who also dedicate their
time to reviewing them so the rest of us can spend our
time the way we wish to.  (E.g. in my case, spending a
few hours to refute this claim is not more important
than sitting down with my family for Thanksgiving
dinner - and similar if lesser problems arise if I
postpone the claim to review at a later date.)  The
claim might merit review by people such as myself
after it has been reviewed by said independent sites,
but so long as the only documentation is on Suitbert's
site, the probability of it being yet another flawed
claim is so high as to not be worth bothering with.

(I am well aware of the paradox, BTW, in case Suitbert
actually has found something and wishes to promote it.
In that case, getting independent others to review his
work and publish their opinions is the best - possibly
only - way to get the word out.  This is not quite
what you're doing, BTW: you're presenting his claim,
but for example you do not state that you yourself
have actually critically analyzed it for possible
flaws.  I, myself, am working on something that might
be as fantastic if it were true - my Casimir device
work - so I have spent some time thinking how I would
get people like myself to accept the claim if it is
true.)