| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Question | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Question |
| Posted By: Apollo Posted On: May 11, 2006 Views: 767 | Question What is it that makes you rule out all possibilities of telekinesis existing? I have not seen anything of that sort yet. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 12, 2006 Views: 758 | RE: Question Sorry, but I don't understand your question. What haven't you seen? |
| Posted By: Woodpecker Posted On: Jun 8, 2006 Views: 721 | RE: RE: Question Alright, I'll interpret Apollo's question for you. You say that you do not accept TK as existing, and claim that you have researched the topic. Well, we haven't seen any references to your research, only your conclusions (except for your videos of course, which only show that it CAN be faked not that it IS faked). Actually, I think a lot of the people here would appreciate it if you could provide some links or book titles that you have read. Now, a couple of problems I have with your arguments. Firstly, Randi (this is not my opinion btw - I have read it in print) has been shown to exclude anyone with any hint of genuine abilities from his shows and competitions. Nobody will claim that prize, not because it is impossible (although it might be) but because if people could do tk and they demonstrated it, Randi would disqualify them. Secondly, you say you want to see a reputable scientist research the existence of tk and prove it. Well, who do you consider a reputable scientist? If you are going to use this argument, please provide a name. Many scientists have studied in this field, as you will know from your research. There are also records of various psychic abilities (including tk) being done in laboratories under test conditions that would satisfy a university. The problem is that other universities and scientists have not been able to repeat the experiments and get the same results. This in itself provides an interesting topic for study, but does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that tk does not exist. Another problem with getting a reputable scientist to study parapsychology is that many of them are intimidated. It is not a topic for the light-hearted because many careers and names have been besmirched with bad results in this field. In addition, there are many other fields of research which have higher potentials for results, and at a smaller cost (both in financial and reputation terms) for the scientist. Thirdly, you dismiss experiments done thirty or more years ago as not able to stand up to modern levels of scrutiny. That may be true. However, the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) researched hypnotism when it was first formed, in addition to pk, telepathy and so forth. Today it is widely accepted that hypnotism exists, many people visit hypnotists every year and even the police have been known to use them. I am pretty certain that the proof of hypnosis has been around for more than thirty years. Hypnotism itself provides its own problems in that the subject has to gain a rapport with the hypnotist in order for hypnosis to take place. It is possible that a similar rule applies to pk and there is evidence to support this - the New Scientist occasionally does articles on psychic abilites and this came up in one of them. Finally, here is a classic case of you contradicting yourself on your homepage: "The fact that I have been able to duplicate these two popular TK stunts does not of course prove that TK does not exist." Followed in the next paragraph by: "I can't help but wonder how many so called TK stunts I would have to duplicate before TKers finally accepted that it is not TK?" So, firstly you say your videos do not prove that tk doesn't exist, only that it can be faked. Then you say that if a large enough number of videos proving tk could be faked was provided, that would constitute proof that tk was fake. I'm sorry, but you have to decide which stance you are going to take before any discussion can take place. I look forward to your response. |