| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> About Professor Radin's Video | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: About Professor Radin's Video |
| Posted By: xeoncat Posted On: Dec 16, 2007 Views: 1751 | About Professor Radin's Video Keith Mayes wrote: "However, what Dean Radin said in his opening remarks IS VERY TRUE! He says that research shows that the more educated a person is the less likely they are to believe in the paranormal, and the more uneducated a person is the more they will believe in the paranormal. In other words the more stupid you are the more you will believe in the paranormal. No surprises there then, I have said that all along." ----- He was quoting the skeptics argument. Although it might be true in some scope, in the whole scope it isn't. How you managed to use the words of the most respected scientist in the parapsychological field to suite your arguments I don't know. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Dec 16, 2007 Views: 1748 | RE: About Professor Radin's Video wow your amazing you have now just disproven the whole phenomenon u want a cookie?what does that actually have todo with the data?yes there are dumb people who believe anything i know this being a magician i was a skeptic so really keith drop those remarks and present your data debunking |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 17, 2007 Views: 1731 | RE: About Professor Radin's Video Stop being stupid cj. You know very well it is not possible to prove a thing does not exist. You cannot prove me wrong if I claim to be able to flap my ears and fly. Those that make stupid claims are the ones that need to prove it. SO WHERE IS ALL THIS AMAZING "EVIDENCE" THAT "REQUIRES FURTHER INVESTIGATION". I have never seen ANY! So please, give us a link, the one that convinces you its all true. The indisputable DATA. Not a geek talking about the data, but the actual DATA. Come on stupid, GIVE US THE DATA!!!!!!!!!!! Is this too difficult for you to follow cj? Despite numerous repeated requests, this mysterious data of yours remains a secret known only to you. I wonder why? Duh! |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 17, 2007 Views: 1728 | RE: About Professor Radin's Video xeoncat, "...respected scientist in the parapsychological field..." Respected....scientist...parapsychology...? Huh!!! What's it like on your planet? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 18, 2007 Views: 1725 | RE: About Professor Radin's Video xeoncat, In all my life, in all my reading, research and study, I have never, not ever, come across a single, noted and respected scientist, who believes in remote viewing or telekinesis. I have met, on the other hand, many poorly educated individuals who have no understanding of science, statistics or how to research or differentiate between fact and falsehood, who do believe in those things. That tells me all I need to know. In summary then, only ignorant people believe in the paranormal. Those that are better educated do not. You have a problem with that? |
| Posted By: xeoncat Posted On: Dec 18, 2007 Views: 1722 | RE: About Professor Radin's Video lol. you hang out with the wrong type of people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson for example |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 18, 2007 Views: 1719 | RE: About Professor Radin's Video I checked out the link you provided and found this conclusion on that page. "Scientists such as psychologists Ray Hyman and James Alcock, among others, are critical of both the methodology used and the results obtained by parapsychology. Skeptical researchers suggest that methodological flaws provide the best explanation for apparent experimental successes, rather than the anomalistic explanations offered by many parapsychologists. Some critics have also argued that parapsychology crosses the line into pseudoscience.[6] To date, no evidence has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community as establishing the existence of paranormal phenomena." In other words, the only people that take any of these paranormal findings seriously are the very people that promote it. That really should give you a bit of a clue. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Dec 18, 2007 Views: 1715 | RE: About Professor Radin's Video altho possible it is very very unliky these results are due to chance like i said results can be 1 in a million at times and if it was all just due to chance this effect would not be as consistent as it is |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 19, 2007 Views: 1711 | RE: RE: About Professor Radin's Video Give it up cj. Forget all your talk, where are the facts? We are still waiting for you to show us all this amazing data, this 1 in a 1,000,000. So where is it? Or is that you read about it somewhere, some one talking about it and you believe it although you have never seen it for yourself? That sounds about right for you. "I read it on the Internet so it must be true". Put up or shut up cj, we are tired of your nonsense. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Dec 19, 2007 Views: 1703 | RE: About Professor Radin's Video um its simple keith goto google okay then search dean radins work or any other institute,university studying and then look at there data you keep asking but you know the awnser if you rele wanted to see the data i speak of you would have already mkay |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Dec 19, 2007 Views: 1701 | RE: About Professor Radin's Video and just for the record at 2 19 he clearly says this is not true (stupidity hypothesis) pay attention ! |
| Posted By: Emilio Posted On: Dec 19, 2007 Views: 1699 | RE: About Professor Radin's Video OMG you guys seriously need to stop. My opinion is that this arguing is pointless. I loose iq points by reading these posts. Neither one of you are going to convince the other that any of this stuff is real. Personally i believe its al bull**** but that doesnt mean im right. Im open to other view but to argue those view int he matter at which ALL of you are doing is not productive. Keith be mor open minded and cj don talk about evidence and junk show it dont be like a wise man one sed... my first question would be who was the wise man. Noone should say anything without supporting it with evidence. and the reason the scientific community hasnt accepted any of this is becuase its so contrivesial not because its not possible. It is the fact that the possibility is so slim that not respectible scientist wants to risk his career by going along with it. in the futur pointless banter like this is just entertainment for you people if you want to have an educated debate organize yourself your facts and your position!!! |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Dec 19, 2007 Views: 1694 | RE: About Professor Radin's Video Ray Hyman's report of September 11, 1995, written partially in response to my report of September 1, 1995 elucidates the issues on which he and I agree and disagree. I basically concur with his assessment of where we agree and disagree, but there are three issues he raises with regard to the scientific status of parapsychology to which I would like to respond. 1. "Only parapsychology, among the fields of inquiry claiming scientific status, lacks a cumulative database (p. 6)." It is simply not true that parapsychology lacks a cumulative database. In fact, the accumulated database is truly impressive for a science that has had so few resources. While critics are fond of relating, as Professor Hyman does in his report, that there has been "more than a century of parapsychological research (p. 7)" psychologist Sybo Schouten (1993, p. 316) has noted that the total human and financial resources devoted to parapsychology since 1882 is at best equivalent to the expenditures devoted to fewer than two months of research in conventional psychology in the United States. On pages 4 and 5 of their September 29, 1994 SAIC final report, May, Luke and James summarize four reports that do precisely what Professor Hyman claims is not done in parapsychology; they put forth the accumulated evidence for anomalous cognition in a variety of formats. Rather than dismissing the former experiments, parapsychologists build on them. As in any area of science, it is of course the most recent experiments that receive the most attention, but that does not mean that the field would divorce itself from past work. Quite to the contrary, past experimental results and methodological weaknesses are used to design better and more efficient experiments. As an example of the normal progress of inquiry expected in any area of science, the autoganzfeld experiments currently conducted by parapsychologists did not simply spring out of thin air. The original ganzfeld experiments followed from Honorton's observation at Maimonides Medical Center, that anomalous cognition seemed to work well in dreams. He investigated ways in which a similar state could be achieved in normal waking hours, and found the ganzfeld regime in another area of psychology. The automated ganzfeld followed from a critical evaluation of the earlier ganzfeld experiments, and a set of conditions agreed upon by Honorton and Professor Hyman. The current use of dynamic targets in autoganzfeld experiments follows from the observation that they were more successful than static targets in the initial experiments. The investigation of entropy at SAIC follows from this observation as well. This is just one example of how current experiments are built from past results. 2. "Only parapsychology claims to be a science on the basis of phenomena (or a phenomenon) whose presence can be detected only by rejecting a null hypothesis (p. 8)." While it is true that parapsychology has not figured out all the answers, it does not differ from normal science in this regard. It is the norm of scientific progress to make observations first, and then to attempt to explain them. Before quantum mechanics was developed there were a number of anomalies observed in physics that could not be explained. There are many observations in physics and in the social and medical sciences that can be observed, either statistically or deterministically, but which cannot be explained. As a more recent example, consider the impact of electromagnetic fields on health. An article in Science (Vol. 269, 18 August 1995, p. 911) reported that "After spending nearly a decade reviewing the literature on electromagnetic fields (EMFs), a panel of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) has produced a draft report concluding that some health effects linked to EMFs such as cancer and immune deficiencies appear real and warrant steps to reduce EMF exposure... Biologists have failed to pinpoint a convincing mechanism of action." In other words, a statistical effect has been convincingly established and it is now the responsibility of science to attempt to establish its mechanism, just as in parapsychology. As yet another example, consider learning and memory, which have long been studied in psychology. We know they exist, but brain researchers are just beginning to understand how they work by using sophisticated brain imaging techniques. Psychologists do not understand these simple human capabilities, and they certainly do not understand other observable human phenomena such as what causes people to fall in love. Yet, no one would deny the existence of these phenomena just because we do not understand them. In any area involving the natural variability inherent in humans, science progresses by first observing a statistical difference and then attempting to explain it. At this stage, I believe parapsychology has convincingly demonstrated that an effect is present, and future research attempts should be directed at finding an explanation. In this regard parapsychology in on par with scientific questions like the impact of electromagnetic fields on health, or the cross-cultural differences in memory that have been observed by psychologists. 3. "Parapsychology is the only field of scientific inquiry that does not have even one exemplar that can be assigned to students with the expectation that they will observe the original results (p. 18)." I disagree with this statement for two reasons. First, I can name other phenomena for which students could not be expected to do a simple experiment and observe a result, such as the connection between taking aspirin and preventing heart attacks or the connection between smoking and getting lung cancer. What differentiates these phenomena from simple experiments like splitting light with a prism is that the effects are statistical in nature and are not expected to occur every single time. Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, but we can predict the proportion who will. Not everyone who attempts anomalous cognition will be successful, but I think we can predict the proportion of time success should be achieved. Since I believe the probability of success has been established in the autoganzfeld experiments, I would offer them as the exemplar Professor Hyman requests. The problem is that to be relatively assured of a successful outcome requires several hundred trials, and no student has the resources to commit to this experiment. As I have repeatedly tried to explain to Professor Hyman and others, when dealing with a small to medium effect it takes hundreds or sometimes thousands of trials to establish "statistical significance." In fact, the Physicians Health Study that initially established the link between taking aspirin and reducing heart attacks studied over 22,000 men. Had it been conducted on only 2,200 men with the same reduction in heart attacks, it would not have achieved statistical significance. Should students be required to recruit 22,000 participants and conduct such an experiment before we believe the connection between aspirin and heart attacks is real? Despite Professor Hyman's continued protests about parapsychology lacking repeatability, I have never seen a skeptic attempt to perform an experiment with enough trials to even come close to insuring success. The parapsychologists who have recently been willing to take on this challenge have indeed found success in their experiments, as described in my original report. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 20, 2007 Views: 1692 | RE: About Professor Radin's Video cj, What part of the following is too difficult for you to understand? "Where is the data? Show us the data." All you do is talk and quote what other people talk about, and all totally without any facts to support all the talk. Talk, talk, talk, yawn, talk..... You are wasting my time with your stupidity. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Dec 20, 2007 Views: 1690 | RE: About Professor Radin's Video the data is a click away lazy like i said if you were truly interested in be informed of the truth you would have been already |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next Page -> |