If PEAR labs, with their historical association with Princeton University, can't get anything published in a mainstream science journal with a dozen highly credentialed PhDs using expensive laboratory measurement and recording equipment, what exactly is expected of Tom (who, as an applied physicist, is not associated with any university)? If a publication is not in a mainstream physics journal, then no credibility in the physics community is generated. There have been hundreds of excellent scientific experiments that have already been published (many of them at leading universities) that have demonstrated the existence of psi (e.g., Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ’s work at Stanford U – I suggest you have a conversation with Dean Radin about this, he is probably aware of most of this work since it is a topic he often writes about) and none of it has ever been taken seriously by mainstream science. Why do you think Tom doing an experiment would make any difference at all to how seriously he is taken? The most likely result of such experiments, no matter how carefully they are done or how dramatic the results are, would be to generate widely reported dismissive ridicule from mainstream science and material reductionists in general. That is simply how science and public opinion works in our culture (and the way it has historically worked).
Another experiment that scientifically shows psi to be a real phenomenon will make absolutely no difference. The problem is not a lack of evidence, (there is lots of good quality hard scientific evidence) but rather that evidence that runs counter to present scientific belief is automatically discounted no matter who does it, where it is done, or how rigorously the scientific method and protocols were. It is easily dismissed as “sloppy science” not because anyone examines how it was done, but simply because it “must be sloppy science” because its results are impossible according to current scientific belief – no need to bother looking into it. In fact, the mere act of seriously looking into it could easily jeopardize a serious scientist’s career.
The scientists at PEAR labs had an open invitation to other scientists to come in and inspect the quality of their science – all to no avail. Those who did quietly look couldn’t find any errors but in public they concluded that although they could find no problems, there must be some unknown error since the results were clearly impossible. Those who never looked into PEAR’s scientific quality hypothesized that because the PEAR results were so small, they didn’t count (couldn’t be significant) – a blatantly illogical and completely unscientific comment. Measured results are meaningful if they are much larger than the possible measurement errors. The results of careful and conservative error assessment at PEAR was over a billion to one that the psi effects they measured were real… that is about a million time more rigor (higher statistical significance) than good science generally demands.
Since Pear labs was humiliated (taken LESS seriously, not more seriously) because of the derisive comments that were publicly directed at PEAR labs research by the mainstream physics community in denial, what do you think would happen to Tom Campbell’s scientific reputation when his proposed research validating psi was published? What you envision as a great leap forward for the credibility of Tom’s work, would more likely be a big step backward after those in denial and those who simply don’t understand were done vilifying and ridiculing Tom for claiming the impossible.
Major paradigm shifts generally take place from the ground up, not from the top down. The top is always heavily invested in the status quo. Eventually mainstream scientists will see the bigger picture that Tom presents. Shouting matches and name calling won’t make that day come any sooner. The scientists will come along when they are ready….and not before.
The need for more “proof” is an imaginary issue. Dean Radin in his interview with Tom said "Proof is about alcohol, I have evidence". Anyone having a credibility problem with MBT or Tom Campbell because there is not any good published research to back it up is simply out of touch with reality --- caught in a cultural belief trap. Like the scientists, they will come along when they are ready (after prevailing cultural opinion assures them that it is OK).
All experience is subjective, thus "Proof" must be in the eye (awareness generated by experience) of the beholder. Because consciousness is personal, experience is personal, and thus “Proof “ is personal. There is no, can be no, direct physical proof of nonphysical (consciousness) phenomena — although there can be indirect (e.g., statistical) proof). The subsystem cannot logically describe the system. The tiny little piece called a minor subset cannot prove or disprove the content of the entire set. Denying that the complete set exists (or that it has content that is greater than what exists within the tiny little subset) because the content of the complete set cannot be derived from the limited content of the subset is illogical — and obviously so. The common belief that Psi (nonphysical) phenomena do not exist because they cannot be scientifically (physically) proven —is irrational nonsense even though it represents a common belief of the majority. I have no personal experience of psi, thus Psi (nonphysical) phenomena may or may not exist since conventional hard science (physical verification) is theoretically unable to directly prove or disprove its existence — that is NOT an illogical statement even though it is a bit naive and not exactly true.
PMR is an objective reality:
If there is NO such thing as an intent based placebo effect. If no one has ever actually experienced precognition (dream or otherwise) and all fortune tellers are always wrong when predicting the un-guessable. If the Stanford University physics dept validation of remote viewing (Puthof and Targ) and published in the IEEE journal NEVER happened. If all the experiments that have been done by top tier university scientists demonstrating reverse causality and mental intent biasing random data have NEVER happened. If telepathy, empathy at a distance, mothers who know the moment their children get hurt away from home, and people being able to both hurt and heal others with their mind's (intent), have NEVER happened. if only mentally ill, the uneducated gullible, and the not too bright have paranormal experiences instead of much of the entire population (well educated actually has a positive correlation for such experiences). If the Readiness Potential had NEVER been demonstrated and measured at a dozen research institutions. If no one had ever had the consistent ability to predict (better than chance would allow) which card will be shown next in psi experiments. If particles were actually particles instead of probability distributions . etc.. If all the "if statements" listed above were known facts, then one would know that reality COULD BE (was likely to be) objective, rather than virtual (logic would require one to allow for the possibility of any of the above thing happening sometime in the future.
But if any one of the above things that all clearly violate objective causality ever actually existed or happened EVEN to one individual ONCE in the history of mankind, then logic would tell you that this reality absolutely could not possibly be objective. It takes only one violation of an absolute rule to shatter it absolutely. Of course, fact is: Such violations of the assumption of an objective reality have always happened and been experienced, recorded, witnessed and studied in every culture in every time throughout all human history. Violations of objective reality have been proven with careful valid studies over and over again by literally hundreds of scientists using immaculate protocols over the last century. We don't need (logical process does not require) more "proof". Establishing "proof" has long since become an irrelevant non-issue except to the uninformed and those described below.
So you see, it is really not difficult to tell if this reality is objective or not --however, it is exceedingly difficult for those who possess the following two characteristics: 1) They must be in complete denial of the facts (care to dispute the placebo effect or the Princeton PEAR labs experiments, or the Stanford research or the Duke research or the Temple U research to name a very few) and 2) are fanatical "true believers" in objective physical causality as the only possible cause of anything. (i.e., A "true believer" holds to their belief against all reason and rationality). Furthermore they know for sure that none of the above listed things are real or ever happened - all have been imagined in the minds of the gullible and deceitful and can be rationalized away by any true believer in a heartbeat because they are simply, by definition, impossible -- and that is all you need to know.
One can never change a true believer's mind with a rational argument or with scientific evidence because belief is not rational. The people who say "why don't you just prove what you say is true with a demonstration and everyone then would know it is true and accept it -- you would change science over night if the proof were irrefutable" are very naive and don't understand how our culture or our science works. Speaking about naïve, this line of reasoning is always good for a laugh: “If PEAR labs has done all that, why haven’t they collected the “Randy prize” for scientifically proving that the paranormal exists?” The randy Prize is not a genuine offer; it is what is commonly called a publicity stunt or a propaganda campaign -- a sham to discredit the infidels and attract and trap more believers. With PEAR labs, we have not just an individual on the fringe but a Princeton University team of scientists with tons of irrefutable evidence and they can't get it published in the standard journals. Critics blow off uninformed hot air, and are taken seriously. Point made. Rational scientific evidence does not trump cultural and scientific belief no matter how irrefutable the evidence is.
I believe that what I said (or at least intended to say) was that we (early explorers at Monroe labs) did hundreds of evidential tests, one of which was reading numbers from a blackboard in another room. Experiments involving the reading of numbers that were written on the board or describing pictures being looked at by the person in the control room were done successfully many times but also were two of the most problematical of the tests we performed. We would be startlingly correct sometimes (one chance in several million of succeeding with a random guess) and oddly off other times (report seeing a number that was the target number divided by two or with each digit shifted by a constant), and flat out wrong other times. Practice didn't seem to improve the situation very much. There seemed to be something inhibiting the process -- something intentional -- sometimes even with a twist of humor or irony. It was from these experiences and later corroborating research that I began to formulate the psi uncertainty principle to make sense out of the data collected. That certain types of data are problematical had a certain consistency to it that eventually led to a general understanding of why that was so.
There are also several pages in MBT that discuss why psi research is often problematical. There are research results with strong scientific protocols that evidence psi. Duke did Psi research for decades with some clear results. I mention several books in MBT that will provide both scientific data and further references. To prove that it is possible for a bird to fly, one only needs to scientifically demonstrate one bird flying one time. The rest is only about prying egos away from their belief traps. The hard scientific evidence of psi is almost as common as birds flying; however, prying egos away from their beloved belief traps must occur one individual at a time. A high quality scientific report on psi has little effect beyond those who did the research.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2728&p=3503&hilit=p ... iple#p3503