| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Statitistcal "proof" | Start A New Topic | CLOSED |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Statitistcal "proof" |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 15, 2007 Views: 1169 | Statitistcal "proof" There are a lot of people out there who just don't understand statistics and probability and because of this think they have found proof of this that or the other, when in reality they haven't. Lets keep it simple and use tossing a coin as an example. If I publish results that show I achieved a run of 22 heads and only 3 tails out of 25 tosses, many people would consider that very surprising. If I added that I was trying to make them all heads people would be impressed, but should they be? The answer is no. It may have been that I have been running this same test for years, every single day, and this is the only time that happened. If I then publish ALL the results it would be seen that the results overall are as expected, 50% heads and tails. Even if that result was the FIRST test it would still mean nothing because given a large enough run it would even out to 50%. Out of interest, if I had a run of 30 heads in a row what are the odds of it being heads again? The answer is 50%. Don't be fooled by stats, think about what you are being told, and even more about what you are NOT being told. If the crazy claims made by those cranks who say they can prove that remote viewing, mind reading, telekinesis, etc, etc, were real, then the scientific community would accept it, proof cannot be denied. The fact that these things ARE denied tells you all you need to know (providing you have a fully functioning brain) that the so called "proof" is nothing of the sort. Its just good enough to fool those that want to believe, but nowhere good enough to fool a scientist! |
| Posted By: Nerd of the Universe Posted On: Dec 15, 2007 Views: 1166 | RE: Statitistcal "proof" It's true Keith, one has to be stupid to believe,and that's why I believe in Jesus. Science needs logic,reason and proof,and that's why I love science,and it quite bothers me when some want to mix up(their)believe with science. I hope they'll understand,and stop doing so because it's pretty ridiculous. Best regards |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 15, 2007 Views: 1164 | RE: Statitistcal "proof" It's true that there is a huge difference between fact and belief. A belief in Jesus cannot be tested, you either believe or you don't, its your choice and pointless to argue against it, or for it. Science however, as you say, is very different. If a claim is made it can be tested and either proven or disproven. If the scientific community say that remote viewing or telekinesis has not been proven, then that is most certainly the case. Those that choose to disregard the advice of every scientist in the world and continue to believe in a myth because they want to, then that is up to them. I have no argument with that, people can believe in whatever they want. It is however, a very different matter when those same people try to claim their belief is a fact. A thing only becomes a fact when scientists have tested the claims and verified that they are correct. If on the other hand only a few cranks say a thing is a fact and the rest of the world laughs at it, then its time to sit up and take notice and join in the laughter. Either that or accept the fact that its you they are laughing at and stop trying to convince others who are not in the least interested in the nonsense you happen to believe in. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Dec 15, 2007 Views: 1159 | RE: Statitistcal "proof" very true keith but what about when the results are far beyond explanation with chances of 1 in a million at times that cannot be due to statisical probability or luck well not when its consistent yes statistics can be manipulated but when other people get similar or the same results it does go to show you some i repeat some of these effects are real and inexplicable to science |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 15, 2007 Views: 1156 | RE: Statitistcal "proof" cj, You still don't get it do you. What is your problem? Are you really as stupid as you comments suggest? I happen to feel certain that you are. If we really had "proof" of "one in a million" probability, and that this had been duplicated elsewhere, how do you explain the rather obvious fact that NO ONE accepts it? Proof, evidence, cannot be denied, proof is proof and that is the end of the matter. So how do the entire world's scientists manage to ignore all this amazing "proof" you keep referring to but never back up with any shred of evidence? I have asked you this question a number of times and you have never answered it. Its obvious why you haven't, so why waste our time with your stupid nonsense. I am sick and tired of your pathetic comments that lack not only logic but even the most basic requirements of grammar, punctuation, sentence construction and meaning. Grow up! |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Dec 16, 2007 Views: 1149 | RE: Statitistcal "proof" this is my point keith as dean radin pointed out the reason mainstream science hasnt granted this as fact is because most of the scientific community doesnt hear about research in esp because of people like you no offense there is a significant effect i know i sound like a parrot but when there actually is data showing a effect we have to take it a bit more seriously scientifc community admits there is weak evidence supporting esp.further research is neccessary dont you agree |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Dec 16, 2007 Views: 1145 | RE: Statitistcal "proof" I see. So, according to you, the reason that scientists the world over treat rv as a joke is only because they don't get to hear about all the amazing results. Go away. You are too stupid to bother with Thread closed. |