| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> A problem with your 'proof' | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: A problem with your 'proof' |
| Posted By: Woodpecker Posted On: Jun 28, 2006 Views: 1820 | A problem with your 'proof' Keith, you say that all that has to be done to convince the scientific world that pk exists is to walk into a laboratory and demonstrate it. Unfortunately, science doesn't make its decisions on isolated events and even if the telekinetic DOES prove tk under strict scientific conditions, all that will happen is the scientist will record the experiments as one instance in favour of tk existing. The single instance of tk being proved will not satisfy the scientific community, although it may prove interesting to the world's newspapers. |
| Posted By: Dan Posted On: Jun 28, 2006 Views: 1812 | RE: A problem with your 'proof' The whole basis of the scientific method is being able to repeat an experiment and achieve the same results. That's how we know everything we know about how the laws of the universe work. This has been shown to work for a long time, and it's why today we have biology, chemistry, and physics. We don't know everything, but we have a huge body of experimental and thus emperical evidence demonstrating why we know these things to be true. Now occasionally new experiments are devised over time and we achieve unexpected results. If the same experiments can be repeated and the same results can be achieved reliably then we've learned something new. This happens all the time. Scientific knowledge is not fixed, it is constantly changing and simply our best existing explanation of how things work. Science is fundamentally based on what can be observed experimentally, so new phenomena are held in doubt until they can be observed. If something happens once in an experiment, it may be indicative of a possible result, but if it can not be repeated, it could also be a fluke. Now there are many on this site who testify to the existence of telekinesis and other similar phenomena based on personal experience and observation, or faith, which is fine and they're entitled to their beliefs, but without empirical evidence in the form of repeatable, experimental results, these people will of course be unable to convince anyone whose worldview is rooted in science, including most of those who remain skeptical of these claims on these message boards. Finally, your subject line sort of implies a need to prove the non-existence of telekinesis, but of course within the scientific view, those making the extraordinary claims are required to provide evidence, not those refuting the claims. Your primary point was more about a single, non-repeatable experiment demonstrating telekinesis, but I mention this just as an aside for some of the other related posts I've seen about science, belief, and telekinesis in general. Dan |
| Posted By: Woodpecker Posted On: Jun 29, 2006 Views: 1809 | RE: A problem with your 'proof' Yes, I totally agree and you have explained this aspect of science better than I could. I was not trying to prove/disprove telekinesis in this thread, only to point out to Keith the main problem with what he challenges the telekinetics to do. I might include here that there is a huge body of results suggesting the existence of pk, but the difficulty in repeating them and the problem of cutting out the effects of the observers is proving a major hurdle to the parapsychologists. This is stopping the scientists from proving/disproving the existence of pk, and this is the main reason it hangs in limbo. A lot of telekinetics would have to visit labs and 'prove' it in order to make any progress at all and even then there would still be obstacles to overcome. |
| Posted By: Dan Posted On: Jun 29, 2006 Views: 1803 | RE: A problem with your 'proof' I think the problem isn't really with Keith's desire to see telekinesis validated by reproducible experiment before he accepts it. The problem is that Keith and those on these message boards who make these claims are disagreeing about the validity of science as a reliable system for understanding the world, or perhaps a misunderstanding on the part of the telekinesis believers about the nature of the scientific method. I'm not sure to which huge body of results suggesting telekinesis you are referring, but certainly no scientist would agree that such a body exists. If an experiment is not repeatable, there is a high probability something is wrong with the experiment and that some conditions within it are not controlled. These variables can lead to erroneous results and that is why properly devised and carefully controlled experiments are fundamental to scientific principles. Because you mentioned scientists ability to "prove/disprove" telekinesis, I want to reiterate that it is never the responsibility of scientists to disprove something. We can only be sure that thus far, the claim is unproven. That is one of what I believe is the great misconceptions about scientific thought, because this implies a fundamental openness to being wrong and accepting that the rules are not definitive, simply our best understanding of what we know so far. About observers affecting the experiments, given that scientists have figured out ways to demonstrate the existence of atoms, subatomic particles, and the workings of quantum physics, I'm sure they could come up with a way to still prove the existence of these effects if they existed and if the phenomena were properly understood. Lastly, only one telekinetic need visit a lab. The problem is finding one who can actually reproduce the claimed effect. If he can do it once, that means circumstances exist under which he can do it. Those circumstances must be reproducible under controlled circumstances, otherwise perhaps it is not telekinesis after all. |
| Posted By: Mordak Posted On: Jun 29, 2006 Views: 1800 | RE: A problem with your 'proof' "Lastly, only one telekinetic need visit a lab. The problem is finding one who can actually reproduce the claimed effect." All right Dan,tell where and when...will you write an article about it ? You may read the thread "open minded" Mordak Mordak666@hotmail.com |
| Posted By: Dan Posted On: Jun 29, 2006 Views: 1797 | RE: A problem with your 'proof' Hi Mordak, I assume you are referring to your posts in that thread, in which you say that you are able to perform telekinesis reliably or "all the time." You also say though that you prefer to remain unknown, so am I to then understand that you are offering now to go public with your abilities? As far as my writing an article about it, I am not a journalist but of course I'd be very interested in seeing the effect demonstrated. The problem with my writing an article is that I have no credibility so someone is just as likely to read my article and disbelieve it as they are likely to disbelieve your claims. What you really need is a credible source to confirm your claims, such as a well-known newspaper or preferably some scientists in a real research setting like a university or some publically accountable laboratory. Keith suggested this in the aforementioned thread, but you said that you prefer not to subject yourself to skeptical eyes. If you can do it though, surely you'd convince them...I mean, the object either moves or it does not and under controlled conditions, I think this would be somewhat irrefutable. Lastly, you said that you are a scientist I believe, so I was wondering what kind of scientist you are and if you yourself work in a place that might be credible enough to substantiate your claim. What would be the problem with doing that? Any lab is in a much better position than I am to validate your abilities. Also, what exactly can you move? You say 'things' in your post but don't really specify. If you can move any solid object without touching it on any sort of regular basis, I think you should have no trouble convincing anyone of that or getting someone to produce an article or an academic paper about it. When that happens I look forward to reading it. I am happy to continue the discussion, I think I've adequately addressed the reasons why I am not the ideal candidate to confirm or deny your abilities and why there are others, probably local to you, who are in a much better position to do so. |
| Posted By: Mordak Posted On: Jun 29, 2006 Views: 1795 | RE: RE: RE: A problem with your 'proof' Hi Dan, thanks for reply. (french is my first language) First, i prefer to remain unknown but as you know, in experimental research, subjects can remain anonymous. All i want is to contribute to evolution of science and continue to develop that skill. I'am certainly not afraid of skeptical, but i don't want to become a public personality. I'am not sure if society is ready to accept this phenomenon. My opinion is that I would not be treated as "normal". I've done a move recently and send a mail to the professor of the quantum course at my local university...still no answer. Maybe they are not really interested or they are affraid of the reaction of the scientific community. I just don't know. Maybe there are high stakes for doing such experiments. About me : I do epidemiological and sociological research for a national health care organisation. I have no background in the experimental field, nor in clinical field. What i can do is move very light things like: empty soda can, toothpick, straw, "balloun", paper, pencil (pencil is a though one for me now)... So that's it. I understand that you are not a good candidate for going forward with experiments. What I would like to know is how is that working? For now i keep the hypothesis of the perturbation of the magnetic field of objects by electromagnetic waves emited by the body (or the mind). I hope someday we will know better. ciao Mordak |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 1, 2006 Views: 1777 | RE: A problem with your 'proof' So how do you explain how electromagnetic waves, magically generated by the brain, move objects that are not affected by electromagnetic waves? On second thoughts, I rather you didn't bother to explain. |
| Posted By: Mordak Posted On: Jul 3, 2006 Views: 1767 | RE: A problem with your 'proof' Interesting point. Remember that its just an hypothesis or a theory. I dont know what you are refering to when using the word magic. Second, Our senses are not design to perceive electromagnetic waves other than light, witch dosent mean they dosent exist. We can expect objects to be affected by electromagnetic waves, as light generate heat. Ciao Mordak |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 3, 2006 Views: 1763 | RE: A problem with your 'proof' Mordak, I have to say I disagree with you. You cannot, for example, move a cork by bombarding it with electromagnetic waves. You won't move it by shining a light on it either, which is of course part of the electromagnetic spectrum. I referred to these waves being generated by the brain as being 'magic'. This is because the brain does not generate any electromagnetic waves. I'm afraid that theory just doesn't stand up. I am of course fully aware that we have mechanical devices that will rotate when subjected to light, but this is only because heat is generated on side of the plane and not the other. Moving an object by using heat is nothing unusual and is of course not anything to do with TK. If however the human brain could be shown to generate heat that could be focussed to a narrow beam and projected through the skull and then made to move a remote object, I think we would agree that would be a demonstration of TK. However, that has not, to my knowledge, ever happened. And to be serious about it, is very unlikey to happen. The theory would be so easy to test, but nothing like it has ever been discovered. Anyway, even if you heated a pencil it still wouldn't levitate. |
| Posted By: Mordak Posted On: Jul 3, 2006 Views: 1760 | RE: A problem with your 'proof' We finaly agreed in a point, I dont expect heat to levitate objects ! In fact, heat have nothing to do with TK. It can however be a goal to achieve or a side effect. Have you ever thouth about the polarity of earth ? Why is a compass moving ? Why are we unable to perceive such a tremendous force? There are magnetic fields and magnetic waves everywhere. Our senses are definetly not good tools to perceive them. But with proper training, they can do much more than you can expect. « You cannot, for example, move a cork by bombarding it with electromagnetic waves. » Why not ? I would rather use the word manipulate, or ever interact, instead of bombarding. « This is because the brain does not generate any electromagnetic waves. » If you can prove this to me my theory will fall. On what scientific ground are you affirming such a statement ? I remember those experiments in neurology where they deliver electric impulses in the brain and record the effects on the subject mind. How do you think information travel in your head ? Why would it be impossible for the brain to learn to manipulate those electric waves outside the body ? At a certain level (quantum) what seems boundaries for us (shapes, colors, space ) are not necessarily boundaries for electromagnetic waves. Waiting for a scientifically grounded answer. Ciao Mordak |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 3, 2006 Views: 1756 | RE: A problem with your 'proof' "...If you can prove this to me (that the brain does not generate any electromagnetic waves) my theory will fall. On what scientific ground are you affirming such a statement?..." The brain does not generate any electromagnetic waves, if it did it would have been easily detected many years ago. The brain operates by utilising electrical energy that causes chemical changes within the brain. Just go to Google and type in 'brain waves' and see for yourself. Your theory falls. |
| Posted By: Woodpecker Posted On: Jul 3, 2006 Views: 1752 | RE: A problem with your 'proof' No, your response is flawed. "The brain does not generate any electromagnetic waves." "The brain operates by utilising electrical energy." The brain is a massive blob of nerves. Nerves operate using electrical signals which travel between the synapses and up the nerves. Electricity is a form of electromagnetism. Therefore, whenever the brain makes a decision, it creates an electrical signal and hence it creates electromagnetic waves. QED. |
| Posted By: Woodpecker Posted On: Jul 3, 2006 Views: 1751 | RE: A problem with your 'proof' Oh yes, and it has been scientifically proved that the human body has an electrical field around it (as a consequence of having nerves which work by using electricity). So it has been proved that the brain produces electromagnetic waves. |
| Posted By: Mordak Posted On: Jul 3, 2006 Views: 1749 | RE: RE: RE: A problem with your 'proof' Could not have said better. Electricity flow in waves. Why do you think that we call those waves 'electromagnetic'? And, by the way, no answer for the compass ? ciao Mordak |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next Page -> |