Return Home
It is currently Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:12 am

All times are UTC-06:00

Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 3:36 am 
Power Poster
Power Poster

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:19 am
Posts: 349

A question that often comes up-

” Tom is going to need to get some things published if he is to be taken seriously. Several things have been suggested to him, but for some reason he hesitates. As you can imagine, that raised lots of concerns. I would suggest he run some fairly simple tests that he can get peer reviewed and published.”

Answer to the reader with a basic response from Donna and Tom’s input to elaborate:

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).

Donna (with Tom’s comments)

"First of all, let me make one thing perfectly clear. I never explain anything." Mary Poppins

PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:56 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
I offer you also in confirmation the following quotations from Max Planck and comments about him from WikiQuotes.
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (23 April 1858 – 4 October 1947) was one of the most important German physicists of the late 19th and early 20th century, winning the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918; he is considered to be the founder of quantum theory.

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
Where is Science Going? (1932)

New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.
Address on the 25th anniversary of the Kaiser-Wilhelm Gesellschaft (January 1936), as quoted in Surviving the Swastika : Scientific Research in Nazi Germany (1993) ISBN 0-19-507010-0

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Mit einem Bildnis und der von Max von Laue gehaltenen Traueransprache. Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag (Leipzig 1948), p. 22, as translated in Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp. 33–34 (as cited in T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

A paraphrased variant of the last quotation above: Science advances one funeral at a time.


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC-06:00

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited