Establishing a Psychic Studies Institute.

Post Reply New Topic

I'm considering establishing some sort of institute for the scientific study of alleged psychic abilities - one where the Scientific Method, complete with double-blind protocols, would be used to:

1. Validate or invalidate claims for psychic abilities.

2. Determine the parameters of each validated psychic ability.

3. Establish protocols for testing and training individuals for psychic ability.

4. Certify individuals as genuine psychics.

5. Expand on the truth behind claims of psychic ability.

This institute would operate as a non-profit organization, and keep detailed records of every claim.

I am open to ideas and suggestions.

I'm surprised that none of the "real" psychics on this website have responded.

C'mon, people! This is your chance to show everyone just how valid your claims really are!

No excuses.

The independent review that you presented in an earlier thread, regarding the 20 year project star gate concluded that anamalous cognition has been reliably demonstrated within the parameters of research done in project Star gate. You lauded the review as a reliable one. The review suggested that further research whether or not anamalous cognition exists is of little relevance since it was already to determined that it could reliably be demonstrated to exist. Instead they suggested further research on why it exists.

The review you presented along with the details of the research on Project Stargate, convinced me that anamalous cognition exists. I think the only worthwhile endeavor at this point would be to look into the causes of what research suggests already exists before we pursue other potential related phenomenon that has not been validated by research.

Where's the option for "this is a really good idea?"

"I'm in. Where do I sign up?"

By making mine a non-profit institute, there would be no onus to fudge the results so as to make the studies not look like a waste of the taxpayers' money.

On another issue, none of the WP members that claim to be real psychics have posted in this thread. Are they trying to avoid being exposed as frauds?

I think you will be doing a lot of number 1 and none of the other things.

Or you are doing it wrong.

Are you suggesting now that the independent review that you presented on Project Stargate as a reliable one, is no longer reliable?

They provided judgement based on the parts of the research that were reliable and other parts that were not reliable, and concluded that project stargate was not a worthwhile endeavor to continue. Do you disagree with the parts of the review that concluded anamalous cognition as a phenomenon that was reliably demonstrated?

I've experienced anamalous cognition; I've seen it in others, and don't consider myself a fraud or my wife who is the one that has the ability, even at times when she is not aware she is part of the phenomenon. Evidence provided in the review suggests that it is a real phenomenon. As far as I'm concerned it's just evidence that it is part of nature that we don't fully understand.

Have you experienced anamalous cognition? If you haven't does it mean others can't experience it.

This is the problem of proving someone a fraud; it doesn't necessarily happen on demand, and not everyone reports they experience it. Twenty years of research in Project Star gate, top secret, and for official purposes only; we likely will never have an opportunity to study it in that kind of detail in real world circumstances, with people identified as having abilities in this area of study; the research and the review is the most compelling evidence I have seen so far in the scientific demonstration of anamalous cognition.

And no, I still don't know what's in the box, that is the exagerrated aspect of the phenomenon that some people take part of to profit in. The real stuff happens when one least expects it.

In your institute would you study the real stuff or the exagerrated stuff?

Rhine's work with the cards has shown guessing what card is seen on the other side of a barrier is no more reliable than chance.

James Randi can do everything that Uri Geller does except he (Randi) will tell you ahead of time that what he does is a trick.

"Psychic" stuff is stuff and nonsense.



ruveyn