Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )

I want to comment on your previous post. A lot of people involved in the paranormal seem to cheat. There is a problem in setting up properly conducted experiments .... in fact, there are many problems, one being that a truly dependable piece of research would be extremely expensive. I once worked out what is necessary. In the real scientific world, the experiments need to be conducted in such a way that there is systematic observation of all the participants and also of the observers and yet the experiment must be conducted in a way that actually allows the phenomena under investigation. Many experiments have been performed in order to *debunk* paranormal claims and unfortunately they may easily inhibit the phenomena, which are not repeatable at will.

As a one time enthusiast (curiously we are not uncommon in hard science circles) for the possible existence of paranormal phenomena, I am aware that most experiments are done by people who would like to prove something exists. It is the exception that is otherwise.>>>

Not so sure. The Amazing Idiot Randi inspired some negative testing .... you should see their methodology. AS for me, I didn't really experiment to prove it exists because what I wanted to know was what it was, how far it extends, how to control it. 

I worked out about ten years ago that it would cost two or three million pounds to conduct a series of experiments and nowadays it would be far more. The procedures would last a long time: maybe two years or more, because a lot of training is necessary, especially of those conducting the experiments and of those observing.

Sounds a lot, but clinical trials are very expensive for whatever reasons. I should know why, much of my younger brother's career was involved in these.

So I don't think proper experiments will ever be carried out in today's climate. Academia is notoriously difficult and full of ego conflicts and so hiring someone like me to oversee it would of course be a no-no. So an experiment is never going to be properly conducted and given that, there is a lot of temptation to cheat. Obviously if a series of experiments succeeded, the designer would become very famous and very rich.

If the odds are good and the rewards are great, the investment would be justified. All you would need to do would be to convince an investor or two.

I know, I know, and maybe at the right time it would have worked but that was back in the early to mid 70s.

Considering these things, the failure of experiments is to be expected and foul play is in no way an indication that these things are not genuine.

Now on to your post to me. I'm afraid that all experimental data is "anecdotal" but in many cases of course, it's highly confirmed too.

No, formal studies to carefully designed protocols are not anecdotal.

We would have to define anecdotal and sometimes I think it's "anything that those arguing with me do".

I referred to your (you would surely agree) vague report of your own success. How many people? What were the medical problems? Was there any predefined concept of success? Was there any control (clearly single or double blind controls would be out of the question?) How does this compare to the testing of a new treatment and how reliable are the conclusions?

If you'd read more carefully, I was discussing symptoms. But I'm sorry, I won't discuss it with you further than I have already, for various reasons. You would have to show that you're receptive.

You may have been rigorously scientific in stated objectives, conditions, controls, objective independent assessment, but I would be surprised.

Science always follows subjective models. I tend towards Victorian models and away from anything involving a statistical approach to large samples. That's because I want to understand phenomena rather than catalogue them.

But using the word anecdotal conveys obvious hostility to ideas if not to people so, if you wish to be taken seriously, never use that word.

This is a widely used term in scientific discussions: "evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony."

I don't accept that is meaningful. The paranormal ..... basically isn't normal. Different methods have to be used and the scientific community doesn't understand them. I think what is very important is personal respect and trust, whereas the scientific community epitomises the reverse of that with its built-in scepticism. So when applied to this subject, which is misunderstands, it misapplies scepticism. That much has been very obvious to me from discussions with many people in the science community online, who trot out words like "anecdotal", showing that they even misunderstand normal science.

I do understand what hypotheses are, believe it or not.

I have no doubt of that.

Again, I'm afraid you've fallen into your own trap, which you set for yourself. I believe I made it completely clear that I was stating my own opinion all the way though this.

I have never suggested anything else, but I am interested in the objective facts and have discussed those. It's what we do here.

And I'm very impressed. Objectivity .... the attempt to bring in all criteria and assess it in a systematic and orderly manner. The attempt, mark you!

My posts weren't specifically aimed at you and I'm sorry that you've missed the obvious in an attempt to distance yourself from your previous comments. If you were prone to severe mood swings, I would understand, because they (or something!) show in your comments and always have done. I have no responsibility for your misinterpretation of my comments. I can clarify that I am unusually level headed and detached: it is my nature.

Umm. I'm sorry I was too personal. But there was quite a difference between your more honest and open post from earlier and the post you made as a reaction to it! I thought perhaps you aren't as level-headed as all that.

Never mind. Please try to continue to be positive. I know it's a struggle but you don't need to impress other people. Only me.

I have expressed my own scepticism (I would hope you are not hostile to such opinions?) and explained how it could hypothetically be overcome by objective evidence and that it has not been thus far. The ball is in your court.

I have studied this sort of the thing in the past and expressed excessively positive conclusions similar to those you have quoted from Bem (with whom I am familiar for a very long time). But I find I cannot justify them when I am more rigorous (even though doing so is appealing).

Let's leave this there? Perhaps we can come to understand each other more.