I think part of it is just the nature of the field attracts craziness and credulity, and it takes a lot of internal mental balance and strength to be able to sort through it all, and see if there is any real effect underneath all the fakes, frauds, coincidences, noise, and mistakes.
But someone's gotta do it.
Also, to really grind out any last bit of that silly "Psi disappears when you use proper controls" argument, here's one more doozie:
Here's a basic overview of the controls employed:
1. Subjects had no idea it was a psi test (no chance of fraud/magicians)
2. Material was rated using a standardized rubric for several parameters
3. Full randomization of target selection, plus post-hoc analysis of thoroughness of the randomization and balance
4. The entire process was done on computers, this eliminates the "VHS wear and tear" issue entirely, as well as automating the process, further removing the experimenter from the experiment, and recording all the data automatically
5. Rooms with subjects were isolated (obviously), physically, acoustically, and electromagnetically
6. After the experimenter begins, the only connection between the rooms is by digital communication between computers and closed-circuit TV
7. Experimenters communicate with each other through phone calls, and controlling experimenters never directly interacted with any subjects at any point.
What is your retort to that, really??
Statistics: Posted by NucleicAcid — 31 Mar 2010, 12:14
]]>
is because some parapsychologist have been tricked and have been cheated
so many times since they are looking for positive results,
all the way back to J.B. Rhine his testes were flawed and some people cheated
then again..
it happened with uri geller
and it happened again with banachek and john edward in the alpha project hoax
so yeah..
dont blame people for being skeptics of parapsychology
since is their own fault
by the way..
i saw once a link to a study in radin´s blog
it was a study done by YOGA MAGAZINE to this guy that had psychic powers..
the idiots were doing the test to GERARD SINEHI a known mentalist.. what a bunch of dummies
so.. i kind of lost interest in Radin since i saw him supporting the study. he didnt care of doing reserch to know the background of the guy being tested just like parapsychologist dont admit how easily they get fooled.
Statistics: Posted by ciscop — 31 Mar 2010, 05:25
]]>
There are also literally thousands of papers out there, which is why I like to stick to the few big ones that are most rigorous and relevant. If you are interested in just gobs and gobs of large-scale studies, I highly suggest Entangled Minds by Dean Radin (you can rent it from almost any public library). It comes across as a tiny bit apologetic, but Radin has dealt with a lot of harsh criticism over the years. And the science is solid. He talks very in-depth about controls. The field of parapsychology has known for at least a hundred years that the primary types of threats to internal validity are sensory leakage and fraud, and have been controlling against those strongly from the get-go. A century of constructive criticism has led parapsychology to constantly refine their methods, pretty much to the point of air-tightness. Your typical parapsychology experiment, whether it be Ganzfeld, feeling of being stared at, EEG correlation, etc, isolates the subjects on opposite sides of a building in a sound-proof, electromagnetically shielded vault (more or less, don't worry, the subjects can get out if they need to
). People think of psi experiments as this:
In reality, they look like this:
(that's a standard EEG lab)
Except parapsychology labs are much more comfortably furnished, with plants, artwork, etc, so it actually feels like a room, rather than a laboratory. People feel much more comfortable when they don't feel like a guinea pig in a stark white room
Statistics: Posted by NucleicAcid — 31 Mar 2010, 04:30
]]>
it can be proven beyond chance
the claim is so extraordinary, it needs extraordinary data to confirm is validity
but right now as it is
it isnt conclusive :-s
so any other studies you want to post that support parapsychology?
Statistics: Posted by ciscop — 31 Mar 2010, 03:29
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
The first time I attempted PK, I tried to knock down a piece of paper rolled into a tube. I made sure the heat was off and I locked myself in my computer room. I sat there for about 20 minutes staring at this thing, and then it fell over. I've refined the technique a bit since then, though I haven't practiced in a while because I haven't had time. I used to be able to really control the psi wheel - it's sort of like a pinwheel, just search for it (there are also lots of fake videos out there too, and ones that there is no PK effect and merely wind or drafts going on)- really well, in ways that can't be explained by drafts or convection (E.g. I'll have someone watch and call out "Left...okay now stop it....now right" and follow it pretty well).
I have seen dumbbells set on their end fall over after being left stationary for several hours to make sure they are stable. Repeatedly.
One of the most talented people on the net with regards to (legitimate) PK is a user by the name of ShirakOmegaX. I realize a video is just a video and ALL of this could be faked. But I've Skyped with him and he's been able to influence sensitive equipment on MY end...so yeah, I know no manner of magic trick that can affect someone in the US from Australia. So just watch it with an open mind and a grain of salt:
I'm currently trying to come up with neat ways to test macro-PK in the lab.
Note that if you end up hopping around YouTube, 80% of the videos are going to be fake. The ones I have a high degree of confidence that they aren't tricks are ShirakOmegaX, mindfreak419666 , Peabrain, Not Important, Machina labs, Macbethlondon, Darryl Sloan, and that's about it right now.
Statistics: Posted by NucleicAcid — 30 Mar 2010, 02:36
]]>
like moving objects with the mind?
i have never seen anybody capable of doing it for real
have you?
Statistics: Posted by ciscop — 30 Mar 2010, 02:23
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>