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

twitter remote viewing experiment

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

twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby dazsmith » 03 Jun 2009, 21:10

This started yesterday form Richard wiseman:
http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/

daz
User avatar
dazsmith
 
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 May 2009, 22:02






Re: twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby Scepcop » 03 Jun 2009, 22:21

Is that a public remote viewing experiment where a group of RVers try to vote on a target? That is a good idea. But I can't find any results on that page.
“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: twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby leo100 » 03 Jun 2009, 23:50

I don't know, i am very skeptical of Richard Wiseman's just like Michael Prescott is.

You can read in the comments section of Michael Prescott's blog why he is skeptical of Richard Wiseman's research into anything paranormal.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/mich ... piece.html
leo100
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 21 May 2009, 23:22

Re: twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby caniswalensis » 11 Jun 2010, 00:15

The results are in, for better or worse.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/s ... rs/3203657

Any thoughts?
"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: twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby NinjaPuppy » 11 Jun 2010, 01:13

Curious findings. Particularly from this statement:

The experiment attracted a range of participants, with 38% indicating that they believed in the paranormal and 16% claiming that they had some form of psychic ability.

I am curious if they tracks the 16% claiming to have some form of psychic ability vs. the rest of the group. Since only 38% and 16% indicated they believed in the paranormal, am I to assume that the remaining 46% not mentioned did not believe in the paranormal?

I will need to go back and re-read the results.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby NinjaPuppy » 11 Jun 2010, 01:16

Here is why I asked that question...

If 16% claimed to have paranormal talents, is it possible that the 15% that got it right was that specific group?

On another trial I was sitting under an unusual looking canopy but only 15% of the group selected this option, with a majority 24% thinking that I was in a graveyard. The same pattern emerged on all four trials", commented Prof Wiseman.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby really? » 11 Jun 2010, 18:45

NinjaPuppy wrote:Curious findings. Particularly from this statement:

The experiment attracted a range of participants, with 38% indicating that they believed in the paranormal and 16% claiming that they had some form of psychic ability.

I am curious if they tracks the 16% claiming to have some form of psychic ability vs. the rest of the group. Since only 38% and 16% indicated they believed in the paranormal, am I to assume that the remaining 46% not mentioned did not believe in the paranormal?

I will need to go back and re-read the results.


You can't draw any conclusions as to what the 46% non responding participants think.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby NinjaPuppy » 11 Jun 2010, 19:34

really? wrote:You can't draw any conclusions as to what the 46% non responding participants think.

I'm not asking what the 46% think, I'm asking if they tracked 'who' did 'what' here. They stated that 15% got it right and I am wondering if that 15% is the 16% that claims to have paranormal ability.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby caniswalensis » 11 Jun 2010, 20:25

I would like to see a more detailed breakdown of the results myself.

This artical is kinda sparse on details.
"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: twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby NinjaPuppy » 11 Jun 2010, 20:59

I have a bit of time this morning. I'll Google around and see if I can find more info.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby NinjaPuppy » 11 Jun 2010, 21:10

leo100 wrote:I don't know, i am very skeptical of Richard Wiseman's just like Michael Prescott is.

You can read in the comments section of Michael Prescott's blog why he is skeptical of Richard Wiseman's research into anything paranormal.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/mich ... piece.html

After a short bit of reading, I'm with leo100.

IMO, this little 'fun' trial proves nothing.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby caniswalensis » 12 Jun 2010, 00:00

NinjaPuppy wrote:
leo100 wrote:I don't know, i am very skeptical of Richard Wiseman's just like Michael Prescott is.

You can read in the comments section of Michael Prescott's blog why he is skeptical of Richard Wiseman's research into anything paranormal.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/mich ... piece.html

After a short bit of reading, I'm with leo100.

IMO, this little 'fun' trial proves nothing.


Agreed.

It is not possible to definitively prove something does not exist, and this certainly did not prove psi does exist.

I actually like Richard Wiseman quite a bit myself, but most of my knowledge of him comes from his Youtube videos. I suppose I need to do some reading.

Regards, Canis
"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: twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby really? » 12 Jun 2010, 04:33

NinjaPuppy wrote:
leo100 wrote:I don't know, i am very skeptical of Richard Wiseman's just like Michael Prescott is.

You can read in the comments section of Michael Prescott's blog why he is skeptical of Richard Wiseman's research into anything paranormal.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/mich ... piece.html

After a short bit of reading, I'm with leo100.

IMO, this little 'fun' trial proves nothing.


I wonder would you say the same thing if this small trial had a more positive outcome ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby NinjaPuppy » 12 Jun 2010, 19:11

really? wrote:I wonder would you say the same thing if this small trial had a more positive outcome ?

What I am saying is that I would like more information. How can you even begin to evaluate if something is positive or negative without more statistics? As I asked, if only 15% got it right and only 16% claimed to have some 'ability', I'd like to know how that 16% specifically did vs. the rest of the bunch. Did one or two out of 7,000 get it right 100% of the time or did all 7,000 fail equally bad?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: twitter remote viewing experiment

Postby really? » 12 Jun 2010, 20:19

NinjaPuppy wrote:
really? wrote:I wonder would you say the same thing if this small trial had a more positive outcome ?

What I am saying is that I would like more information. How can you even begin to evaluate if something is positive or negative without more statistics? As I asked, if only 15% got it right and only 16% claimed to have some 'ability', I'd like to know how that 16% specifically did vs. the rest of the bunch. Did one or two out of 7,000 get it right 100% of the time or did all 7,000 fail equally bad?


If you are really curious.
You could directly ask Richard in stead of getting a secondhand analysis. http://www.richardwiseman.com/
You could go here and listen to Richard http://www.skeptiko.com/rupert-sheldrak ... man-clash/
You could go here to read
Alex Tsakiris and the Skeptiko Podcast - CRITICAL LOOK AND OVERVIEW.
He [Alex] posts in this thread.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... x+Tsakiris[/color]

Just a word about Micheal Prescott. He has as far as I know no credentials. He's espousing his personal views and opinions like any other blogger. He appears from the cursory examination of his site that he has a definite bias towards the spiritual nature of humans and the transcendent. In my opinion that hardly makes him the go to person that ends the argument.
A quote:

If one believes in an evolution of consciousness then I believe that indeed at some point in our journey we become what some might call gods. So I believe at this time we are indeed gods in the making. But I also suspect as humans we are at the early stages of that process and have many dimensions to travel through before we become gods.

“But I guess still everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe even if what they believe is wrong. ;)

I believe one must be very careful to come to a conclusion that one is wrong. We may not agree with someone but I believe we must always leave a crack in the doorway for new information to find its way.

History is full of people telling someone they are wrong. I.e. the earth is not the center of the universe, heavier than air flight is impossible, flat earth, the list is almost endless. We are attempting to get into the mind of God we might want to be very careful about calling anyone’s beliefs wrong.


I my opinion hanging out on this site or site like this only creates a very parochial point of view.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58


Return to Psychic Phenomena / ESP / Telepathy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron