Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Are ESP researches really having statistically significant results?

Believers in parapsychology are saying, that ESP researches are having so much positive, statistically significant, convincing results, that if ESP would not be a paranormal phenomena, it would be accepted by science, and is rejected, just because "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence".

Is this true? Is science discriminating so much the paranormal, or is just the believers lie?

Oh... and sorry for my english! ;)

7 Answers

  • 8 years ago

    Actually the field of parapsychology is accepted as a field of science in the USA for one thing. For another, the researchers who make the comments are actually repeating what was basically said back in the 1960's by a mainstream scientist, although his actual comment was not about extraordinary claims but rather referenced generally accepted scientific principles which would have to be rethought to accept the phenomena.

    As for statistically significant results, scientists are generally willing to accept something as proven when a predicted result is achieved with a odds against chance of 750 to 1. ESP research has resulted in odds against chance exceeding 10 million to 1 multiple times, but that is not good enough. Do you think that is discrimination?

  • 8 years ago

    Science cannot accept anything without proof. there are devices to measure emgs, temps and whatnot but these are the physical aspects only.

    ESP is not a physical activity; that is why it is termed Extra Sensory Perception. One must have the sensitivity and extra awareness to be able to be:

    clairvoyant (seeing beyond the physical)

    clairaudient (hearing beyond the physical)

    clairsentient (feeling beyond the physical)

    Because these are all aspects of a differing dimension it cannot be measured nor understood with hopelessly limiting scientific apparati and physical tests. The scientists are eternally inadequate beyond their own limiting belief systems.

    It is other dimensional and cannot be proven by physical means.

    Those of us who have the sensitivity generally keep quiet about it. u would be amazed and shocked at what we perceive. It is not for the faint-hearted. We do not have the choice of whether to "see" or not tho constant suppression over years can have some effect.

    Therefore, science will never be able to give credence to ESP because they simply do not understand that it is not of the physical dimension. I feel rather sorry for those folk who surround themselves in fortresses of concrete belief systems.

    It is like being blind, deaf and unfeeling. Logic is a physical/mental attribute and is woefully inadequate when not combined with intuition which is that extra sense that all folk have and can develop throughout life.

  • 8 years ago

    Yes, there is extensive ESP research that has produced both prima facie and highly-statistically-significant results in very carefully done experiments that do rule out fraud or flaws as plausible explanations. Here are examples from just three of the many kinds of parapsychology experiments that have produced results (as of 2009 -- several more experiments have been added since then):

    Presentiment experiments: 23 conducted, 12 of which were statistically to highly statistically significant, with three others not reaching significance but in the positive direction. (By chance only one should have been significant.) Since my investigation wrapped, another three experiments have been published -- all of which produced significant effects. These experiments were conducted among at least eight different unaffiliated labs in two countries.

    DMILS experiments: At least 68 studies conducted, 40 were significant (where only three could be expected by chance), another 6 were significant but had mixed results (eg, joint skeptic/proponent experiments run by Schlitz & Weisman, etc.), and eight were positive but non-significant. (Among the 11 failed replications were a number testing the boundary conditions of the phenomena in question and therefore not conducted according to formula.) These experiments were conducted among an even larger number of labs in at least three different countries.

    Remote Viewing: The total number of replications (numbering in the thousands) is difficult to tabulate. But one benchmark is from 1984: 28 published studies, with more than half (15) statistically significant (where only 1 in 20 should be by chance). 18 unpublished studies were found, of which 8 were statistically significant. Of importance here is that a large number of the non-significant "replications" actually strayed considerably from the original model, and so it was unsurprising that they failed. A 1989 comprehensive review ordered by the Defense Intelligence Agency (as required by congressional oversight) reported 25,449 remote viewing trials in 157 experiments performed by 227 different individual participants yielding successful results to the tune of p = 6.12 X 10^-14 (the results were broken down more finely than this, but would take too much space to lay out here).

    There are several other successful ESP research categories that have also produced significant results, including the PEAR lab work and the long series of Ganzfeld experiments.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    Straight out I would just want to say ESP abilities and things like spirits are just way to advance for people like science and researchers.

  • 8 years ago

    There has never been a single case of anyone producing repeatable evidence of any such ability in a test that rules out fraud... and the field of believers is riddled with fraud and sloppy research.

  • 8 years ago

    Not that I have heard of... I would say NO

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.