|
Bending spoons (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Flyboy217 |
This seems like a reasonable response:
| quote: |
Interviewer:
Do you still "believe" or participate in the spiritual experiences you had in Travels? What is your take on your views then, in todays world? Such as talking to plants, seeing/healing/ cleansing auras, spoon bending.... I respect your work so much but, I guess one needs to experience spoon bending himself to believe it!
Crichton:
No, I have not continued that interest very much, but I tend to drop a topic once I finish a book. I felt satisfied with what I had learned. My mind hasn't changed, in the years since.
Of all the things I wrote about, spoon bending seems to stick in the rationalist throat. It just bugs people. I don't know why.
I don't know why spoon-bending occurs. I have no explanation. I can't describe it any better than I did in the book. But I have no doubt that it occurs. More than seeing adults bend spoons (they might be using brute force to do it, although if you believe that I suggest you try, with your bare hands, to bend a decent-weight spoon from the tip of the bowl back to the handle. I think you'd need a vise.)
But to see a little kid of 8 or 10 running around with a thick bar of aluminum that he has bent-not a lot, but enough so that if you roll it on a table, it doesn't roll flat-is to realize that whatever is going on, it's not brute force. I think that spoon bending is not "psychic" or bugga-bugga. It's something pretty normal, but we don't understand it. So we deny its existence.
|
|
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by {b.s.e.}
i don't think the human brain could generate that much energy..
|
Actually, I heard quite the opposite...I thought that we humans only use a certain percentage of our brains. Maybe we haven’t fully evolved yet, and just haven’t learned how to put that part to use:) Maybe that part is the part that will eventually allow us to make things move with our minds.
Imagine sitting on the couch, and not wanting to get up to get the remote control on the table, so you just focus on it, and make it fly to your hand. That would be cool. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by u4ea:[soulstar]
im just neutral but curious. i am more curious about how systems work than believing or disbelieving. i place responsibilty on me. if i can't find compliant studies, i will figure out a theory, find the people, and apply it if possible.
the answer to why is that you're dealing with many unknown variables when you're using people. an experiment success may not be repeatable with the same people due to lack of knowledge/theory in this field to properly pre-screen them and measure attempts for success and failures.
the alternative is the study should be done over time with the same limits (only 1,4 or 6 elite spoon benders) to test for success repeatability.
why 1,4 or 6? well, there is a certain numerological implication with the quantity in meo(my educated opinion.
also, this paranormal event is situated around psychology of subconscious, visualization, and mental focus and will. So not everyone is equal to the task nor has the capability either.
another thing, this is about getting grants. the funders frowns on sciences deemed on the fringe. and it takes ballz for a researcher
to play the devil's advocate in a darwinian scientific community. a prof would be laughed out of his/her career if he/she tried for a grant here.
as for dowsing, I spent roughly 5 months with the theory designing protocols, methodology, and applying it. what i found was similar theto the above issues: unpredictable variables result in accuracy problems. this was due to the complexity of the inquisition also. but the phenonemon is real due to successful attempts.
Some aspects I found interesting was being near EMF transmissions, crossing my legs together, or wearing a watch on the dowsing arm messes up the dowsing, greatly. even certain crystals will wiggle out the accuracy. :haha:
another is who/what is the dowser establishing communication with and what limits are their knowledge. there is no room for generalities. dowsing should be very technical and methodical much like software program coding, in my case, to ensure as much less glitches as possible.
simply asking "I want to get rich on the stock markets" may prove as prelude to a hilarious glitch and shows a dowser's inappropriate consideration of limitations. there many variables to consider for its particular individual. dowsing is very sensitive to energetic impressions that are imperceivable to some of us.
this is the main reason dowsing theory is difficult to prove and standardized, publicly. my ventures are good enough to satisfy me as proof though. |
Flyboy217, this was an excellent critical response to those studies, and I would be very interested in hearing your rebuttal. I have the same amount of healthy skepticism as u4ea:[soulstar], primarily because Crichton's work and many of this studies do not pass the basic "snuff" tests of scientific research: repeatability of tests, elimination of unpredictable variables, falsifiable hypotheticals, sound methodology, etc. etc. Having one individual make a claim that he can bend spoons is one thing, repeatability under a controlled experimental environment is another story. Validation is crucial here, and these psychic experiments have failed to produce reliable results time and again.
Now there are some interesting studies involving brain wave activity that are still poorly understood (in some of the links you provided), but this is nothing terribly unusual when we are discussing neurology. Although we have uncovered a great deal from neurological research, there is still a great mystery involving the human brain.
To tie these unknowns directly to psychic activity without the rigors of controlled and repeatable testing, however, is a fallacious leap. If other sciences "frown" upon psychic research, it is precisely because of its lack of validity, and nothing more.
The Raelians made a claim over a year ago that they successfully cloned a human baby, yet failed to reveal their methodology.
A number of years ago a small group of scientists claimed to have successfully fused atoms for energy purposes, yet repeatable tests failed to produce the same results.
Intelligent Design Creationists make claims that biochemical processes and organisms are deliberately designed, rather than undergo the evolutionary processes (random mutation and natural selection). Yet they have no positive, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence to support such claims.
Can you demonstrate how psychic phenomena is any different from the 3 examples mentioned? |
|
|
| Flyboy217 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Flyboy217, this was an excellent critical response to those studies, and I would be very interested in hearing your rebuttal. I have the same amount of healthy skepticism as u4ea:[soulstar], primarily because Crichton's work and many of this studies do not pass the basic "snuff" tests of scientific research: repeatability of tests, elimination of unpredictable variables, falsifiable hypotheticals, sound methodology, etc. etc. Having one individual make a claim that he can bend spoons is one thing, repeatability under a controlled experimental environment is another story. Validation is crucial here, and these psychic experiments have failed to produce reliable results time and again.
|
Actually, I read u4ea:[soulstar]'s response as an explanation of why it's hard to replicate in the lab. I didn't quite follow the numerology stuff, so I left it alone. But you do bring up a good point. In this case, Crichton was not trying to prove anything scientifically (in fact, check out my most recent post on his puzzlement and apathy). That's why there are no controls or methodology, and that's why nobody should accept his claim at face value.
From what I understand, Geller has been tested under strict scientific protocols, and has still performed the feats. I haven't read rebuttals of all of the studies. The trouble is, I do believe that he also cheated many times. Geller is first and foremost a showman. Much of what he says is nonsense. If what Houck says is true, and 85% of people at the parties can bend spoons, then Geller is just a normal human. As such, he's liable to cheat, lie, etc. as much as anyone else. But that alone is insufficient cause to discard the scientific studies that showed favorable results.
That is to say, I think it's at least still open for debate.
| quote: |
Now there are some interesting studies involving brain wave activity that are still poorly understood (in some of the links you provided), but this is nothing terribly unusual when we are discussing neurology. Although we have uncovered a great deal from neurological research, there is still a great mystery involving the human brain.
|
Are you speaking of the PEAR link? It says nothing of brain wave activity. All it claims is that REGs (random event generators) are showing statistically significant deviations from chance. I think the essential feature of any psi research should be its emphasis on empiricism, not theory. The empirical data on the fluctuation of the REGs has not been satisfactorily explained, by anybody (either PEAR or anyone else).
| quote: |
To tie these unknowns directly to psychic activity without the rigors of controlled and repeatable testing, however, is a fallacious leap. If other sciences "frown" upon psychic research, it is precisely because of its lack of validity, and nothing more.
|
I agree completely. I, too, would like to find a better explanation than merely "psychic powers" for experiments like PEAR. But until the data are accepted or refuted, no work can begin on explaining the cause.
Similarly, it would be silly to assume that Crichton's or Radin's experiences indicate psychic functioning. Instead, I would like to first validate the empirical evidence. They each claim they can definitely not bend the head of a spoon with their bare hands, and yet, at these wacky-sounding "PK parties," they do. The most I can say is that "something interesting" is going on.
Whether that "something interesting" is that respected researchers are lying, that they're being hypnotized so that they have extreme strength, that they've been otherwise conned, or that they really are bending solid spoons has not been satisfactorily explained by anyone. James Randi's best explanation is that they just don't realize how hard they're pushing. Trouble is, like I said, they claim that they are simply not strong enough to do this with their hands alone.
| quote: |
The Raelians made a claim over a year ago that they successfully cloned a human baby, yet failed to reveal their methodology.
A number of years ago a small group of scientists claimed to have successfully fused atoms for energy purposes, yet repeatable tests failed to produce the same results.
Intelligent Design Creationists make claims that biochemical processes and organisms are deliberately designed, rather than undergo the evolutionary processes (random mutation and natural selection). Yet they have no positive, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence to support such claims.
Can you demonstrate how psychic phenomena is any different from the 3 examples mentioned? |
There is one crucial difference. The PEAR group has offered all their methodology and results to the public at large. It is done as openly as possible, for the very reasons you describe. In the 20+ years they've been in operation, they have addressed every complaint leveled at them, and yet, the data keep rolling in.
I think it's important to push as hard as possible on the methods and controls used by PEAR. If that can be explained away, we'll have gotten closer to ending the debate.
Similarly, I think it's important to discover the "interesting" thing happening at these spoon-bending parties. Nobody has yet given a satisfactory answer--Randi's is laughable at best, and the "they're being somehow conned" argument is really the only one left to test. As such, I'd like to give it a go myself to see if I can explain it. The purpose of this thread was to see if anyone else had tried it and to hear their experiences. |
|
|
| Flyboy217 |
My friends (one a Ph.D. student in CS, one in Biology, and one of their girlfriends) visited one of Mr. Houck's parties on Friday night. All are highly intelligent, skeptical people. They brought their own spoons, and reported their experiences.
Their consensus: "something very interesting" is going on. The spoons are turning soft, like Crichton and Radin (and many other respected people) have noted.
They were later unable to unbend the spoons they had bent, and were unable to perform the same feats on identical spoons by normal physical strength.
Strange. |
|
|
| GelatinPufF |
| Flyboy: I don't know whether to laugh at your in depth analysis of this so called "phenomenon", or whether to laugh at your igonorance over the fact you don't know how easily it's done. |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
anybody see that streetmagic show called THEM on NBC?
the possessed guy in the elevator had to be the best. |
|
|
| Flyboy217 |
| quote: | Originally posted by GelatinPufF
Flyboy: I don't know whether to laugh at your in depth analysis of this so called "phenomenon", or whether to laugh at your igonorance over the fact you don't know how easily it's done. |
GelatinPufF, that is a mighty arrogant response, considering you don't know me. I would venture to guess I am *considerably* smarter than you (without having to mention the number of grades I've skipped, or the award-winning papers I've published in the field of quantum computing ;)). I am also a member of the James Randi Educational Forums, where skeptics debate these things in great depth. If it is so easily done, I invite you to bend the head of a stainless steel spoon.
So I suggest you consider a third option: I'm very well aware of how "tricks" are done, and that the audience members are not magicians; I've done considerable research on the possible methods of fraud; my friends are skeptics who brought their own spoons, researched the claim (including methods of deception and fraud), and still obtained results; the results occurred as reported, and we don't know everything about science.
Down, Fido. |
|
|
| th0m |
Hey Flyboy217,
Instead of repeatedly giving the "why don't you give an intelligent response", why don't YOU give an intelligent explanation as to why you would be able to bend a spoon with the tip of your finger or even with your mind.
On one of those website I read that you have to think that there's a golden ball inches above your head with limitless energy.
NOT exactly an intelligent explanation if you ask me. |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
Actually, I heard quite the opposite...I thought that we humans only use a certain percentage of our brains. Maybe we haven’t fully evolved yet, and just haven’t learned how to put that part to use:) Maybe that part is the part that will eventually allow us to make things move with our minds.
Imagine sitting on the couch, and not wanting to get up to get the remote control on the table, so you just focus on it, and make it fly to your hand. That would be cool. |
u gotta use the force/ |
|
|
| th0m |
| quote: | Originally posted by Flyboy217
GelatinPufF, that is a mighty arrogant response, considering you don't know me. I would venture to guess I am *considerably* smarter than you (without having to mention the number of grades I've skipped, or the award-winning papers I've published in the field quantum computing ;)). I am also a member of the James Randi Educational Forums, where skeptics debate these things in great depth. If it is so easily done, I invite you to bend the head of a stainless steel spoon.
|
But you ARE mentioning the fact you did, which makes you an attention whore. Also, skipping grades means nothing really. And about your award-winning papers, what does field quantum computing have to do with bending spoons? |
|
|
| th0m |
| quote: | Originally posted by Flyboy217
My friends (one a Ph.D. student in CS, one in Biology, and one of their girlfriends) visited one of Mr. Houck's parties on Friday night. All are highly intelligent, skeptical people. They brought their own spoons, and reported their experiences.
Their consensus: "something very interesting" is going on. The spoons are turning soft, like Crichton and Radin (and many other respected people) have noted.
They were later unable to unbend the spoons they had bent, and were unable to perform the same feats on identical spoons by normal physical strength.
Strange. |
And ofcourse, you can prove all of this. |
|
|
|
|
