Best scientific evidence for Psi?

[Arouet]

Hi folks, new member. Skeptic. Things seem slow around here so thought I'd toss out a topic.

Proponents: please link to what you would consider to be the best scientific evidence for psi. Let's limit this for the time being to articles which are publicly available on the internet, rather than ones that require subscriptions to journals or paid sites.

I'm not a scientist, and admit to getting lost in the stats. But I do find it interesting to delve into this stuff to evaluate for myself whether I think there's something too it. Then we can look at it together, critique it, and see how well it withstands scrutiny. Hopefully there are some stat guys on this site who can help with the math!

Any takers?

[ProfWag]

Sure! I'll play! The best evidence for psi I have found is at the following website:
http://www.caveofmagic.com/results1.htm

[Craig Browning]

[ProfWag]

[Arouet]

[ProfWag]

[Arouet]

[ProfWag]

[NinjaPuppy]

QuantumParanormal had an online 'test' for psi. Let me see if I can find it. I'm waiting for him to return to our little forum with some data.

[NinjaPuppy]

FOUND IT!

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=526

[ProfWag]

[Craig Browning]

As to my being "item specific"... it's never been something I was good at. Partly due to actual brain damage in my younger days and no, how much worse that damage has gotten with age I really do miss my mind

I do know that the CSICOP group got caught a number of years ago, changing data on a study they were sponsoring because the information was supporting the psychic side of things. CSICOPs aren't alone in this, we can find other such instances including but not limited to some of the requisites sat down in so-called "Scientific Studies" by certain fanatical cults out there (that are headed up by grumpy old disowned Canadian closet-cases), not to mention literal physical abuse, the encouragement by such groups and their affiliates to harass local Readers and more.

UNDERSTAND AROUET, that as someone who holds a belief toward such things and not being too abashed about saying so, I've been the paddle boy for many an ardent skeptic... or, I should say, armchair experts. Amazingly, I actually get along great with a good number of the more noted personalities of that world including Rick Maue and Banachek. But part of the reason for this centers on two things; the venom by which I go after the con-artists and cult types that are being predatory; and the fact (as I said before) that my goal is to create a bridge between the world of the believer and that of the non-believer in that BOTH have a good deal of validity when it comes to their position with things.

Nothing is more frustrating than going to a New Age function and hearing all the airheads spew pure horse pucky rather than dealing with something resembling reality. Just as I ripped into the cynics in my previous post, I apply an even hand when it comes to the fools that choose to walk blind and with cotton in their ears. This is why I try to spoon feed them in ways that help them take off the rose tinted glasses they were handed when first getting to the party... it's no easy task, especially when you're one of the very few doing it (and of course, breaking all kinds of traditional "laws" in the process; information I share is typically reserved for the "elders" and the more learned of such societies).

So yes, I get on the defensive when I see a post such as yours. So please don't think I'm attacking you personally, just the essence of the question and how it was stated. My retort being more of a condensed overview and "explanation" on things; insight to factors typically ignored, overlooked or never before considered by the skeptical.

My apologies for coming off so calloused, I hope you can understand.

[ProfWag]

[Arouet]

[NinjaPuppy]

OK, I PM'd QP, RE: PSI.

If you can understand that sentence, then you've been on this forum too long.