View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - A True Skeptic!

Discussions about Psychics and Psychic Phenomena, Extra Sensory Perception, Telepathy, Psi, Clairvoyancy, 6th Sense, Psychokinesis, etc.

Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby Scepcop » 08 Dec 2010, 16:39

Arouet wrote:
Scepcop wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Uh nothing. If you had bothered to follow the link to Darryl's book, you'd know that you can download it for FREE! And if you get it in paperback, he is selling it at virtually cost price, so is making nothing from it.


I have not been able to find the free download. I saw one guy post a link of Scrib but its now no longer available there. Do you have a link to the free book Scepcop?


Darryl has removed the free ebook download. I will send you a copy by PM.

[youtube]Tell you what, Scepcop, let's do this. While I won't read the entire book, you pick the chapter in Sloan's book that you find the most convincing - make it one about something psi related not religion - and you and I (and anyone else who wants to) will analyse it - page by page. What do you say? I won't do it unless you join me.[/youtube]

You have to read the book from the beginning cause he creates a chain of logic that leads up to his hypotheses, which combine science and intuition. Sometimes we know things from intuition and it turns out to be true. Very often in fact, if you can distinguish between knowledge from intuition vs. mere feelings, which you guys lack as you guys are just like programmed machines.

What is the point of posting chapters from his book anyway? You will ALWAYS think of a way to disagree with them and ridicule them, if they don't support what you want to believe. That's obvious by now.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby Scepcop » 08 Dec 2010, 16:46

Arouet wrote:And let me be clear - there is a lot of good stuff on youtube. I've downloaded a number of debates for example (I convert them to Mp3 and listen on my ipod). There is also a lot of good introductory material out there on various subjects. And there may be some very good higher level stuff as well.

However, if all you are doing is watching youtube videos, that means you are not making attempts to verify the information discussed.

For example, you recently posted some videos about the US education system. I haven't watched them. But you mentioned that they are accurate. It is impossible to say that those videos are accurate without doing additional research.


??? Videos talking about school being a prison are obvious to anyone who's been in the public school system. You aren't going to find scientific journals that admit that public schools are no different than prisons. Duh. The fact is they contain all the features of a prison, from the forced servitude, to coercion to bullying, etc. I lived through 12 years of that hell. I don't need any scientific journal to tell me the truth about something that simple, and so have many others. My God. Why are you so dumb? Why do you have no common sense? If it's not in the scientific journals, then it's not true?

And if it is, and you don't like it (Uri Geller's experiments in Nature 1973) then it was botched. Either way, you dismiss what you don't like. Bottom line.

You don't argue with something just cause it's false. You argue for the sake of arguing.

Dude, if I told you that most parents don't want their kids to get kidnapped, would you challenge that and say that there has to be data that supports that from scientific journals for that statement to be accurate? LOL. Sheesh. That's so dumb. No common sense at all.

There is a saying "Never argue with a fool. People might not notice the difference."
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby Scepcop » 08 Dec 2010, 17:32

ProfWag, is this the Michael Shermer you rail about? lol



My God. He is no critical thinker at all. He is annoying and full of fallacies, straw mans, subjective opinions, etc. and starts with fixed assumptions. He is no truth seeker. I'd cream him in a debate. No question about it. He is not even a bright guy. He probably could not even beat the computer at chess on level 1. He has that typical ignorant look that newscasters like Anderson Cooper have that says "Everything outside he box is bullshit" on their face, which is the total antithesis of truth and logic and freethinking. He is so God damn preachy like a fundamentalist. How is he "awake" like ProfWag claims? He doesn't tell you to think for yourself. He tells you what to think. He is not even an intellectual. He is a nonthinking preacher. Nothing more.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby Scepcop » 08 Dec 2010, 17:39

This guy makes far more sense than Shermer.



He quotes from Shermer's book in which he writes "There is no such thing as the supernatural."

GOTCHA SKEPTICS!

You said that skeptics never assert things, they just ask for evidence. Well if Shermer wrote "There is no such thing as the supernatural" in his book, then he gives away his biases and fixed beliefs right there.

SO WHY DO YOU GUYS KEEP DENYING IT?!

Shermer said on TV before that Bigfoot doesn't exist as well. I heard him say that.

So why do you claim that skeptics never make assertions but only ask for evidence?

You say that, but it's not true. Then when it's pointed out to be you, you forget it and repeat the same mantras again!

Do you see now why I don't debate with you? After you lose, you don't concede, but repeat the same lies. What a waste of time.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby Arouet » 09 Dec 2010, 01:41

Scepcop: When I disagree with you, I don't just say: you're wrong. I provide reasons, often with supporting links to established research. I'm not an expert in these areas. Just an interested person. But I do try and back up my points. I make specific arguments with support. I'm not saying that I am right on everything I write, that would be surprising, I have a lot to learn on these topics.

You say that you don't debate with me because when I lose I don't concede, but repeat the same lies. It is impossible for me to have lost a debate with you since you continuously refuse to engage in one. This is mistifying to me since what is the purpose of you posting these videos and articles if you don't want to delve into them at all.

You have called me dumb, but not shown that anything I've said is dumb (I'm sure some of it is).

You've said you'd wipe the floor with Shermer - what would you do, call him dumb and closed minded, then refuse to discuss anything further? That's what I've seen from you.

I'm willing to look through Sloan's book and discuss it, but I need to know that I'm not wasting my time and that you will agree to discuss it with me. I'll be honest and say that I won't read the whole thing, but I'll read the intro chapters that you say set the stage, and then we can pick a latter chapter to go into more detail.

I'm open to being shown that I'm dumb. But you can't just declare you. You need to demonstrate it!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby caniswalensis » 09 Dec 2010, 02:20

Arouet wrote:Scepcop: When I disagree with you, I don't just say: you're wrong. I provide reasons, often with supporting links to established research. I'm not an expert in these areas. Just an interested person. But I do try and back up my points. I make specific arguments with support. I'm not saying that I am right on everything I write, that would be surprising, I have a lot to learn on these topics.

You say that you don't debate with me because when I lose I don't concede, but repeat the same lies. It is impossible for me to have lost a debate with you since you continuously refuse to engage in one. This is mistifying to me since what is the purpose of you posting these videos and articles if you don't want to delve into them at all.

You have called me dumb, but not shown that anything I've said is dumb (I'm sure some of it is).

You've said you'd wipe the floor with Shermer - what would you do, call him dumb and closed minded, then refuse to discuss anything further? That's what I've seen from you.

I'm willing to look through Sloan's book and discuss it, but I need to know that I'm not wasting my time and that you will agree to discuss it with me. I'll be honest and say that I won't read the whole thing, but I'll read the intro chapters that you say set the stage, and then we can pick a latter chapter to go into more detail.

I'm open to being shown that I'm dumb. But you can't just declare you. You need to demonstrate it!

I have to say that this seems like a fair and reasonable offer, couched in a civil and even self depreciating manner.

Good for you, Arouet. I hope that Skepcop will take you up on this.
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby derrida » 09 Dec 2010, 04:01

Scepcop wrote:[

And if it is, and you don't like it (Uri Geller's experiments in Nature 1973) then it was botched. Either way, you dismiss what you don't like. Bottom line.



every time you mention a magician to support your paranormal beliefs you lost the debate
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby ProfWag » 09 Dec 2010, 04:29

Scepcop wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Nothing you say makes any sense. That is why I don't spin these pointless circles to you. You don't make valid points. You just argue with no substance or logic, like a child.

Okay, I'm throwing out the red BS flag here. In another thread this morning Scepcop, you said this: "Craig is here. What you say about him can make him feel bad. It is rude and brings bad vibes here too. And it's unecessary and uncalled for."
Then, you turn around call someone who disagrees with you a child. Talk about unnecessary and uncalled for...
Moderator, I'll be reporting this post of Scepcops and I think he should receive the same punishment that others receive on this board for name calling.


Dude, calling someone "a child" is not the same thing as what Azrael said. No one's feelings get hurt when they are called a child. Get real. Stop making up nonsense. Grow up.

Please re-read what I said. I quoted you as saying "It is rude and brings bad vibes here too. And it's unecessary (sic) and uncalled for." Calling someone a child is rude and brings bad vibes here. It can make people feel bad. It's unnecessary and uncalled for. Period. And saying someone is "dumb" is just as bad. Telling me to "grow up" is unnecessary and uncalled for as well. In my opinion, these words are libel, a defamation of one's character, and do not lend credibility to this website. I'm not saying what was said of Craig and calling someone a child is the same thing, but calling someone a child and/or dumb is rude. Agree or disagree? If you say it's not rude, then let the "childish" name calling begin.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby ProfWag » 09 Dec 2010, 20:10

Scepcop wrote:ProfWag, is this the Michael Shermer you rail about? lol


My God. He is no critical thinker at all. He is annoying and full of fallacies, straw mans, subjective opinions, etc. and starts with fixed assumptions. He is no truth seeker. I'd cream him in a debate. No question about it. He is not even a bright guy. He probably could not even beat the computer at chess on level 1. He has that typical ignorant look that newscasters like Anderson Cooper have that says "Everything outside he box is bullshit" on their face, which is the total antithesis of truth and logic and freethinking. He is so God damn preachy like a fundamentalist. How is he "awake" like ProfWag claims? He doesn't tell you to think for yourself. He tells you what to think. He is not even an intellectual. He is a nonthinking preacher. Nothing more.

Hi Scepcop, could you please provide an example of what you say are fallacies, straw mans, and subjective opinions in Dr. Shermer's presentation? Without giving specific examples, you appear to simply be stating your predisposed opinions of this person's presentation which critically damages your side of a debated issue. Thanks. I'll be waiting for your response so we can maturely debate. Otherwise, without specifics, your post fails miserably.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby derrida » 09 Dec 2010, 23:47

scescop.. shermer´s message is a carbon copy of randi´s...
when someone asks him.. ¨why should we believe you?¨.. his response is always ¨you shouldnt¨

he tells you to think for youself.. that´s the whole point of skepticism which you dont seem to get
darryl sloan is just a charismatic guy with nothing but a vivid imagination
no wonder why he charms you.

the worst thing about it
is that his fix is the moon landing.. i just dont get it
you understand how many people should have to be involved in that to pull it off?
we are talking about major numbers!
we know americans are inept about keeping secrets... why do you think they could pull that off?
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby VAWT » 10 Dec 2010, 16:17

Moon hoax for sure.
User avatar
VAWT
 
Posts: 21
Joined: 01 Dec 2010, 23:50

Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby Scepcop » 10 Dec 2010, 17:07

Arouet,
I sent you a copy of Darryl's book by PM. Here is the portion you asked for about how he did the psi wheel experiment and ruled out conventional causes to the best of his ability. As you can see, he is honest, thorough and logical. His logical deductions MAKE SENSE. Sure you can raise the bar on anything, but Darryl is as honest and logical as they come.

From Reality Check:

My experiments
I set the psi wheel on the desk in front of me and willed it to
move. I decided not to use my hands at all, since Andrew hadn’t
used his hands to move the matchsticks.
Lots of questions occurred to me. Do I focus my attention
on a tiny piece of the psi wheel and imagine a force hitting it?
112
Or do I think of the psi wheel as a whole object and simply
imagine it turning? Does it happen naturally or do I need to
enter some sort of trance? Do I need to strain myself mentally
or gently think about what I want? What exactly do I do with
my mind to make this happen? I didn’t know. So the only thing
to do was play with different approaches and see if anything
gave me results.
I tried for about an hour, to no avail. Then I successfully
focused all my attention on the psi wheel for a period of a few
minutes and I felt the beginnings of that frightening state of
mind I experienced in my teens. But as an adult, I didn’t feel
afraid. This time the altered state of consciousness wasn’t as
profound as what I experienced all that time ago, and was
actually quite slippery to hold on to. In any case, the psi wheel
remained completely still.
It was a few minutes after emerging from that altered state
that I made the wheel move. It gave a bit of a twitch, and
another. I don’t know what I was doing except that I was
pushing on it with my mind. I wondered if my leg against the
table had caused the movement. So I moved it away. Again, I
was able to move the wheel a fraction. I wondered if my breath
was affecting it. I covered my mouth and nose with my sweater,
blew out a couple of big breaths to make sure nothing would
get through the fabric, and nothing did. Sure enough, I was
able to make the wheel move with my mind once again. It was
a difficult experience to quantify, because sometimes it would
work, then a few seconds later it would fail. Then I could get it
to work again. I managed to get the wheel to move about a
centimetre one way, then a centimetre the other way, back and
forth several times in quick succession. I was determined to
do a full counter-clockwise revolution. But I found it hard to
keep the thing going, and also hard to get the direction the
same every time. One of the things I did notice was that when
it would start to go the wrong way, I could instantly stop
concentrating and it would stop moving. Although I didn’t
manage a full revolution, I did manage a one-quarter turn in
113
the direction I intended, in several pushes. After that, I couldn’t
do anything more.
While this was happening, I was thinking about the
possibility of a draft from the door that I had left open behind
me. I didn’t want to get up and close the door during the
experiment, so I decided that I would leave the wheel set up
afterwards to see if any drafts affected it later. The wheel never
moved in the slightest, despite me walking about the house,
opening and closing other doors and causing air currents. When
I got up the next morning, the wheel was in exactly the same
position I had left it the previous night.
During the experiment, the movements had been small and
didn’t always happen when I willed them. It was hard for me
to figure out exactly what I was doing to create the movement.
It didn’t seem to be about willing something really hard. If
anything, when I applied extra mental pressure, that seemed
to stop the wheel working. I didn’t know exactly what “mental
muscle” I was flexing, so to speak, but I was confident that I
was genuinely flexing it.
I was over the moon about this discovery and could barely
contain my excitement. And yet, after a short time, I doubted.
After all, I wasn’t doing this in anything remotely resembling
laboratory conditions, and I hadn’t even taken all the steps I
could have taken to ensure that my environment wasn’t
corrupted by natural forces.
For the next three weeks, I kept trying, and I could get little
or nothing to happen. Maybe the first session was a fluke and
I was only fooling myself? Possibly, but I refused to give up so
easily. Every day, I sat down in front of the psi wheel for the
best part of an hour, determined to get somewhere with this,
wishing I could put my finger on exactly what I had done with
my mind to make it happen the first time.
Finally, after twenty-one days, it happened again, and much
more profoundly. I was holding the psi wheel in my hand,
gripping the eraser between my fingers, and it was simply,
inexplicably, rotating for no good reason – not the sort of
114
revolutions that occur when an object is gradually winding
down to a standstill. There was something perpetual in the
movement. Of course, it should be noted that my hand was
under the psi wheel; the body generates heat, and heat naturally
rises. However, on this occasion I was also able to make the
psi wheel spin by placing it on the table and putting my hand
to the side of it, rather than underneath. Interestingly, I got
very dramatic spin by holding the psi wheel close to my
forehead.
It was important to test all of these results against
conventional science. On another occasion, I placed two
glasses of boiling hot water right beside the psi wheel and
recorded it on a camcorder for twenty minutes while I left the
room. The wheel didn’t budge. I once saw a debunker enclose
a psi wheel in a complete circle of glasses filled with boiling
water, and the psi wheel did spin. He accepted this as proof
that telekinesis was nothing more than an effect of heat. He
didn’t seem to notice that when we do telekinesis, we aren’t
using a ring of hot glasses! Of course heat can move things;
that was never in doubt. But just how much heat does a human
hand produce? If my two glasses of boiling water failed to
move the wheel in the slightest, and yet my much cooler hand
succeeded in moving the wheel dramatically, clearly whatever
I was witnessing was more than a mere thermal effect.
I decided to be similarly rigorous with the matter of air
currents. I started wearing a mask at times when practising. I
would record what I was doing, then allow the tape to continue
recording for twenty minutes after I had finished and left the
room, to verify that natural air currents caused no significant
movement of the psi wheel.
Static electricity was another possibility for a conventional
explanation. If you run a comb through your hair and hold it
close to the psi wheel, you can make the psi wheel move. This
works for paper wheels as much as foil. It even works when
the wheel is covered by a glass bowl. However, the effect
caused by static is quite recognisable: the static pulls the nearest
115
“arm” of the wheel towards the comb and holds it there. It’s a
force of attraction only and it doesn’t generate spin. The only
way you can use static to produce spin is to move the source
of the static about. Even then it’s very difficult. This is one
reason why I advise people not to move their hands about
when doing telekinesis. I’ve successfully jerked a psi wheel
under a plastic cover by simply changing the position of my
fingers, but once I wiped the inside of the cover with a damp
cloth, removing all trace of static, the wheel wouldn’t budge.
Be rigorous with yourself.
Magnetism is another force to consider. When watching an
unrelated documentary on television, I caught a snippet of
information that pricked my ears: the human heart generates a
magnetic force that can be measured by instruments up to six
feet away from the body. I wondered if I had found the natural
explanation for telekinesis. But just like static, magnetism
attracts (or repels). Compass needles do not spin. They find
north and stick with it. How can the magnetism of the body
cause an object on the table in front of me to spin? It doesn’t
make sense.
I took into account every conventional explanation I could
think of – chiefly air, heat, static and magnetism – and all of
them failed to explain the results I was getting from my
experiments. And the longer the experiments went on, the more
dramatic the results became. In the beginning there was little
or nothing. Then I could make the psi wheel spin occasionally.
Then I could make it spin regularly. Then I could make it spin
almost any time I wanted it to. In the beginning, it was difficult
to make the wheel spin in the intended direction, but over
time I seemed to develop better control. In the beginning my
hand needed to be quite close to the psi wheel, but later I
could achieve spin with my hand held further away, and
eventually I could sit a couple of feet away, with my hands in
my lap, and cause the wheel to spin.
Even with all this evidence, there was still a nagging doubt.
I wondered if there might be something conventional that I
116
had missed – perhaps some minor aspect of thermodynamics
that would eventually come to my attention and explain all of
this in terms of known physics.
I finally extinguished the last flames of my personal
scepticism when I got the psi wheel to move under a big glass
bowl. I had been doing telekinesis for nine months before finally
reaching this stage. I started using a big bowl because I had
tried often enough with a little bowl and got nowhere. Whether
size had anything to do with it, I don’t know. All I know is that
finally, for no apparent reason, the psi wheel started rotating
inside the glass. As always, I held my hand completely still on
the outside. On a later occasion, in keeping with my tradition
of being rigorous, I laid a scarf on the desk first, so that the
edges of the bowl would compress the material and prevent
any air whatsoever from entering or escaping. After testing it
with a few good, hard breaths, I repeated the experiment, and
again I was able to make the psi wheel spin. At my current
level, performing telekinesis under a glass cover does appear
to require that “something extra,” as it only works on a semiregular
basis and usually only gives me a quarter turn. I am at
a loss to explain what that something extra is.
The observation “What I couldn’t do earlier I now can”
has been characteristic of this journey into telekinesis from
the beginning and is completely at odds with any conventional
explanation I can think of.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby Scepcop » 10 Dec 2010, 17:12

Arouet,
Here is the chapter in Darryl's book where he described dealing with the closed minded skeptics and the Randi crowd. What he said about their religious denial is very spot on and accurate, regardless of what you say.

From Reality Check:

Scepticism on steroids
In the year since I began doing telekinesis, I’ve uploaded to
the internet several video demonstrations. These have attracted
many responses from both believers and sceptics. I’ve risen to
the challenge of the sceptics’ objections so often that I’ve seen
a definite pattern emerge. It goes like this:
First the sceptic claims that what I’m demonstrating is a
purely conventional force – air and heat are the favourites. He
confidently asserts that I am deluding myself and that what he
117
is seeing is perfectly natural. If, at this point, I say nothing, the
sceptic will walk away supremely confident that he is right,
having done no testing whatsoever to verify his claim.
If, however, I point out the factors that rule out his claim
based on how rigorous I’ve been with my environment, the
sceptic then plays a little mental game of hopscotch, and
immediately jumps to the next conventional explanation, again
believing it without testing. And once more, I point out the
flaws in that theory, and he tries to hop again.
When he eventually realises there’s nowhere left to hop, he
says something like, “Okay, if this is real, why don’t you make
it levitate? Then I will believe.” Well, of course I can’t. He
moves the goalpost so that he can feel justified in dismissing
the anomaly that’s presented to him.
When I press for an explanation for the anomaly at hand,
the sceptic often resorts to saying something like “Well, I’m
sure there’s something perfectly ordinary behind this,” or “If
you’re so sure this is real, how come you haven’t claimed James
Randi’s million dollars, hmm?”
James Randi (www.randi.org) is a stage illusionist who
became a professional sceptic. He does a wonderful job of
exposing the tricks of fraudulent psychics who attempt to pull
the wool over the eyes of the public. His organisation, The
James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) hosts an ongoing
contest that is open to every member of the public: The One-
Million-Dollar Paranormal Challenge. The website says, “We
offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under
proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal,
supernatural, or occult power or event.” The contest has been
active for many years, and to date no one has claimed the
prize.
For me, it’s a strange dilemma to be faced with the reality
of my own small psychic ability and the fact that Randi’s million
is still in his pocket. The reason I personally would never take
the challenge is because I can’t conceive how I could possibly
win where so many have tried and failed.
118
A proper scientific investigation into a psychic phenomenon
should involve ongoing tests and a keen interest in any findings
that are anomalous to conventional explanation, regardless of
how dramatic or miniscule those findings are. The Randi
approach is to have one solitary test under stressful conditions,
with a criteria for passing or failing decided by the organisation.
If the contestant then fails to meet the imposed standard –
which inevitably happens – there is no further interest in his
case, regardless of any anomalies that may have come to light
during the demonstration. That isn’t a scientific investigation.
What’s interesting to note is that sceptics will quote JREF
like it’s the final word on truth, when it’s merely one
organisation with a long-standing reputation for debunking to
defend. I have no interest in stepping into a room where I have
only a few minutes to prove myself, under the gaze of people
who have a vested interest in seeing me fail. Talk about
performance anxiety. In addition, the organisation decides on
exactly what constitutes a paranormal ability, and may demand
a level of ability that I don’t possess. So the small anomalies
that are quite real and defy conventional explanation get ignored
because the organisation requires something bigger, all in the
name of test conditions. And at the end of the day, Randi gets
to claim, “No one has ever demonstrated a genuine paranormal
ability.”
On the other hand, if I were invited to participate in genuine
ongoing lab work by real open-minded scientists who were
interested in looking at the anomalies, I would jump at the
chance.
But get this: scepticism is a good thing. Sceptics are highly
critical of what they call True Believers, and with good reason.
For what is scepticism? It’s your mind’s way of ensuring that
you are not deluding yourself, by demanding that you search
for evidence. Even though I have a highly intuitive way of
looking at life, I am keen to avoid being deceived by others, as
well as avoiding self-delusion. That’s what your critical thinking
mind is for, and it’s something to be treasured. Scepticism
119
cannot help you find what is true, but it can help you see what
is untrue. This is something that is missing from so many people
who are open to intuitive thinking and have an interest in the
paranormal. They go with the right brain and suppress the left
brain, and so they become prey for every “psychic” charlatan
out there, unable to discern the truth-tellers from the liars.
I cannot define myself as a True Believer, because that
says I have given up on critical thinking. And I cannot define
myself as a sceptic, because that says I have given up on
intuitive thinking. I refuse the archetype. A balance of critical
thinking and intuition is the key. Intuition to guide the way
and critical thinking to keep me from going off course.
What the sceptics I have encountered fail to realise is that
they actually demonstrate perfectly the traits of a True Believer.
Their reactions to my telekinesis experiments are loaded with
dogmatism. They make definitive statements like “You’re
blowing on it,” or “That’s just heat, mate,” and then they’re
happy to simply walk away. No further testing needed,
apparently. As long as it fits the “physics is the only reality”
paradigm, they’re happy to believe anything. When I go with
my intuition and step beyond the bounds of science, I willingly
enter the realm of pseudo-science, but the kind of scepticism
I’ve been up against is nothing short of anti-science – a
continual stubborn attempt to fit a square peg into a round
hole.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby Scepcop » 10 Dec 2010, 22:40

ProfWag, you are nuts. Calling someone a child or telling them to grow up does not constitute libel or slander. Dude you are playing games and not serious.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you that making fun of someone handicapped is the same as calling someone a child. If your feelings are that fragile, you should not be participating on forums. If you don't like that, then feel free to go to the http://forums.mind-energy.net forums instead of here.

I thought you said you were taking time out of the forums and focusing on more personal things in your life? Why are you back?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Authentic Telekinesis by Darryl Sloan - The Truest Skept

Postby derrida » 10 Dec 2010, 22:55

Scepcop wrote:ProfWag, you are nuts. Calling someone a child or telling them to grow up does not constitute libel or slander. Dude you are playing games and not serious.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you that making fun of someone handicapped is the same as calling someone a child. If your feelings are that fragile, you should not be participating on forums. If you don't like that, then feel free to go to the http://forums.mind-energy.net forums instead of here.

I thought you said you were taking time out of the forums and focusing on more personal things in your life? Why are you back?


common scescop dont be rude
profwag is one of the reasons i am here
he is the TRUEST SKEPTIC. (with arouet a few steps behind.. but only because he is canadian and finishes every sentence with eh!)
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

PreviousNext

Return to Psychic Phenomena / ESP / Telepathy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron