Discuss General Topics.
23 Nov 2009, 02:19
People who undergo these tests should have reasonable evidence already before they even get tested like this. Just because someone claims they can see through a human body doesn't mean you should test them based on the claim alone. That's a waste of time.
If the individual had a series of reliable documented testimonies from a BUNCH of level-headed no nonsense individuals who had her look through them, and she was accurate, that would be something more sufficient to have the test go through with than someone who just makes a claim without any backing that they can do such a thing, or just a single purported event.
I'm not convinced at all that this person could do what they said they could. One alleged story of her doing it, one, and nothing else except that? Silly.
23 Nov 2009, 10:09
Great, so we are in agreement that this person was confident.
What I find so interesting is that the goat-sheep effect is being extended to include goats being able to interfere with sheep.
I looked over parts of the paper you posted a link to. What is interesting there is the lack of a statement on the problem with testing. Testing is done to a statistical model in which the data can reflect a valid result, a false positive, or a false negative. It's just not psi research that runs into this problem. To claim that the failure to demonstrate psi is evasive is to misrepresent the process and its interpretation.
23 Nov 2009, 11:23
The notion that an observer can interfere with the results of an experiment of course is not new. That is why double blinded experiments are done. What I find interesting here is that despite double blinding it seems that the there is a claim here that results can be affected by third parties.
In testing that I have been involved with there is a realization that it is possible to obtain false results due to the use of statistical methods. If work is done to a 95% confidence interval it still means that 5% of the results are wrong and not due to a failure of the experimenter in doing their work, but rather due to chance. This is considered a reasonable trade off when considering the amount of work that can be invested.
Some times we get a good hit that does not pan out. The field of medicine is strewn with these false leads.
The "candle experiment" described here is odd. It reminds me of work done on people in VE, virtual environments. The idea was to see how often immersion was broken during an experiment. A measurement of immersion was found to be unreliable.
This experiment is clear in stating that it could be one of the 5% of studies.
24 Nov 2009, 02:57
Oh yes she does and so do I.
Just because it hasn't been proven scientifically does not mean that it doesn't exist or is not possible. We can argue all we want about the statement that SOS made: "... so I know psi is real.".
First of all, psi is in fact a real subject.
Secondly, she is stating her personal opinion on a subject that can't be proven or disproven.
Third, no one knows squat about psi from a scientific standpoint other than it hasn't yet been approved by science.
Try telling someone who know the instant their loved one has died, that what they felt was nothing or that the feeling of dread that kept someone from doing something, that saved their life, that it was nothing. Just because a person can't make it work at will doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are too many personal experiences documented to say it doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist in science.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.