SCEPCOP Forum

Once again you are showing your emotional bond with wanting so much for psi to be real. You deny and deflect the obvious points I have made to try to underline my view. You make these long, drawn out, critical posts in hopes that people reading this with think you know what you are talking about and believe in what you profess. You can call me immature all you like. Perhaps others have bowed down to your lengthy ramblings, however, your posts do not intimidate me in the least. Online debates can be seen by others who make their own decisions based on the material presented. I am quite confident in what I have posted, regardless of what you attempt to point out as false.
I’m not sure why you are wanting to fight me on this. Parapsychology, in any form (this includes, but is not limited to telephathy, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis), has not been shown to exist above a reasonable doubt. It is a field that has NOT YET been accepted by science and academia. PEAR worked alongside the auspices of Princeton for 29 years, yet when they shut their doors, Princeton had "no comment." That tells me something, even if they (Princeton) didn't. Many, many theories and experiments HAVE been proven to exist that have been generally accepted by the scientific and academic communities. Parapsychology is NOT one of them.
You stated in an above post:
“3) Show me where in Radin's book he claims "it [psi] has not been proven." You are making bold claims. Please re-read what I said about Radin: "Additionally, Radin himself never states "psi has been proven ..."
Quantum, if Radin never states “psi has been proven,” then logic and common sense states that psi has not been proven, according to both you AND him. If it has been proven, then he would make that proclamation for further study, research, and experimental replication. That’s what scientists do. Neither Dean Radin, you, nor any other scientist in the world (that I am aware of) have made the claim that they have proven parapsychology with replicated experimentation from outside, unbiased scientists. Psychics (using the term in the context you used in your opening post) is a form of parapsychology. It is not the only one as you well know. I am confident that I have read a statement by Radin himself that psi has not been proven. I will continue to look for it, though reading his words does little to stimulate my entangled and conscious mind..
You have stated “I respect your opinion, although I can assure you my supposed "bias" is based on empirical data and evidence, not preconceptions or unsubstantiated beliefs.” I would like to add my own statement. I respect your opinion QP, although I can assure you my non-belief in psi is based on empirical data and evidence, or lack thereof, and not my preconceptions or unsubstantiated beliefs. Sorry. Perhaps a mature individual can accept a person disagreeing with them.
Finally, you challenge me to find other arguments to backup my claim. Although my earlier claim is perfectly legitimate and I believe would be widely accepted by anyone reading this with the exception of yourself, I accept your challenge.

1.Parapsychology. Vernon R. Padgett, Steven Cody, Science, New Series, Vol. 223, No. 4640 (Mar. 9, 1984), p. 1014
2. Normal Explanations of the Paranormal: The Demarcation Problem and Fraud in Parapsychology
• Trevor J. Pinch
• Social Studies of Science, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Aug., 1979), pp. 329-348
• Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
3. (This is interesting in that Utts is pro-parapsychology and her conclusion is that there is an “anomaly” worthy of further study. Anomaly is something “different,” but certainly not proof of anything acceptable)
• Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology
• Jessica Utts
• Statistical Science, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Nov., 1991), pp. 363-378
• Published by: Institute of Mathematical Statistics
4. Parapsychology Fraud
• Jerome Liebelson
• Science News, Vol. 106, No. 12 (Sep. 21, 1974), p. 179
• Published by: Society for Science & the Public
5. Battling Pseudoscience
Henri Broch The Futurist. Washington: Nov/Dec 2000. Vol. 34, Iss. 6; pg. 12, 1 pgs
6. Psychology Today
Where's the science in Psi?
Ray Hyman. Psychology Today. New York: Jul/Aug 2000. Vol. 33, Iss. 4; pg. 49, 2 pgs

These are just a few of the articles that have led me to believe that parapsychology has not been proven and is a pseudo-science. I would ask for your impirical data that has led you to your conclusions, but I don't believe you have anything but Dean Radin's questionable works.

great post
a lot of interesting information

i already asked for the ¨overwhelming psi evidence¨
and all i got was a love letter

oh well

yep
i am yet to feel overwhelmed by psi evidence
looking forward to it!
is such an amazing rush when you get that kind of info
(i get it all the time by reading new methods/principles on mentalism)

but i guess all we are going to get
is attack threads on skeptics and how ¨subjective the wow factor is¨

long way to go before the party starts

QP, Based on our PM, I have decided that your blatant support of psychic mediums, pet psychics, astrologers, and other fields of the paranormal that encourage fraud, deception, and potentially criminal activities, coupled with the fact that so few people are actually reading our debate, I'm not going to waste my time wih this subject any longer. Your rambling posts that deflect rather than accept simple facts are obviously a desparate attempt to advertise a field of study that has simply not been accepted by mainstream science or academia. Period.
Have a good day.

do you really have links to pet psychics in your myspace?
wow !!!

And the most gullible award goes to...


(oh, i found a link in your myspace to paranormal pets, is that it?.. pet psychics are way funnier..¨your dog has serious issues... he is telling me.. his mom was a bitch¨ .. ooh and i am reading the links on your website mickey!.. lots of interesting stuff).