| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Why Keith's Science Is Flawed | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 15, 2005 Views: 276 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 15, 2005 Views: 272 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 15, 2005 Views: 269 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed Before posting on this thread, take a look at the new thread. I would kindof like all of this one debate to go in one thread. That seems logical to me... |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 257 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 246 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed Nick, I have answered your post here under the thread "Keith's logic debunked" as you seem to like repeating yourself under different threads for some illogical reason. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 244 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed Placebo, That was a long post. I sense you are getting a bit touchy. I honestly think it best if you just stick with ppsociety and go there immediately for a virtual group hug to make yourself feel better. I think this is all getting too much for you, it might even set your TK back again. |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 242 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed Thank you for doing as I asked and only replying in one thread Keith, (sarcasm)... |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Feb 17, 2005 Views: 235 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed turd on the way that wastes my time to wipe off >>I sense you are getting a bit touchy. >>I honestly think it best if you just stick with ppsociety and >>go there immediately for a virtual group hug to make yourself feel better. >>I think this is all getting too much for you, it might even set your TK back again Bah. Yet another sidestep. Well done again Ignoring the argument is one pretty good way of avoiding them *turd wiped off* |
| Posted By: DataTek Posted On: Feb 17, 2005 Views: 229 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Feb 17, 2005 Views: 212 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed I would like to apologise for the turd comment - it wasn't my 'style', and was unnecessary. In addition, I have done a lot of thinking and I feel my attitude has changed a bit. Keith, I can fully understand your reasons for not believing in the paranormal. And your enthusiasm to show up nutcases (like me?) is a worthwhile exercise in the drive to truth. But I also feel that your biases have left you to be brash and cruel in your responses - as it has for many sceptics. That is your prerogative on how to handle these discussions, and perhaps it is inevitable for people such as yourself. I have found your personal attacks to be incredibly vexing - perhaps they did get me a bit hot under the collar. I find it quite interesting how you managed it. It is clear that we are unable to come to any sort of agreement, or form a worthwhile result of these discussions. Mainly because it is impossible by the nature of these forums. As such will no longer be doing so (again ? :P) My opinion on TK thus far (changed a little perhaps) : Thus far I believe that what I am doing is TK. I did not always believe so strongly about it, and have evolved to it. Of course, I have no hard proof, and as such cannot expect critical persons to accept it without sensible reason or evidence. Thus perhaps I can fall into Keith's 'believer' box - it matters not. There are a lot of fakers, wackos, woo-woos and fluffbunnies - and it is a honourable exercise to defend 'truth'. In that box of what we know as 'truth', TK has yet to be substantiated, and there is no reason to assume it is true until such time that it is. I also believe that TK does exist, and that their community needs cultivation too. Unfortunately many of them are sloppy thinkers, and perhaps downright frauds. But I believe a large number of them are geniune too. Unfortunately these two communities are seen as enemies, by their very natures :\ I feel it is healthy in the long run, but unpleasant in appearance I believe TK exists, but I have no reason to expect others to accept it as truth. For those determined to argue why TK exists - don't. Show a kindly scientist. The only way to present it's existence (should you believe it) is to demonstrate it to the scientific and sceptical community I continue to practice TK, and will apply scientific criticism to it as I can. When I feel can do it any justice, I will follow my own advice and seek a university lab. In the meantime, I do not presume to expect others to believe me, and am willing to be labelled as a whacko. I have no hard evidence to explain my behaviour. I applaud your goal of showing up those that would threaten sane thought, but still question your choice of methods. Have fun :) |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 17, 2005 Views: 200 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed Datatek, Thanks for the lyrics. I think it would work a lot better with the music, but I appreciate the effort you put into it. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 17, 2005 Views: 199 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed Placebo, Well done on your last posting, by far and away the best in a long while from anyone. Good one. Yes, we do tend to end up knocking lumps out of each other, but as you say it is probably unavoidable. However, this free-for-all no-holds-bared confrontational approach, that as you know I love so much, does serve a useful purpose, despite what many may think. Even poor Nick is going to have to start actually thinking about my replies sooner or later. I bet that when you start composing your replies to me you are forced to think about the subject in a way that perhaps otherwise you wouldn't. As I am also forced to. It was as a direct result of challenges to my 'objectiveness' that I undertook all those tests, as you well know, and It has been interesting to all concerned parties. You wonder why some of my comments annoy you so much? I will tell you why, and in doing so I am not trying to annoy you (this time). It is because the comments I make are an expression of your own doubts. You do have these doubts because otherwise you would have no interest in testing your abilities, you would just blindly accept them as some do. But it is annoying when someone picks at it like a scab! However, out of respect for our previous joint efforts, I will refrain from commenting about your site on this board. I may though be tempted to post on your board now and again, if that is allowed? And I won't call you a turd. |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Feb 18, 2005 Views: 187 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed Keith : "I bet that when you start composing your replies to me you are forced to think about the subject in a way that perhaps otherwise you wouldn't." True although it does cause distractions for me when I'm practicing TK By that, I don't imply that being critical of my practices is a bad idea... only that it needs to be a bit balanced I suppose. The only way to feel happy that I'm doing myself justice with TK is to be critical and sceptical of what I do. But too much of that, and my thoughts are sabotaged. "It is because the comments I make are an expression of your own doubts. You do have these doubts because otherwise you would have no interest in testing your abilities, you would just blindly accept them as some do" In times where I have not practiced in a few days, I do find myself doubting It is short lived though and only needs me to look at my videos and to have a successful practice again. The reason I test my abilities is not only for my own sake, but the sake of people who question my methods. Another reason is that the tests can glean information about what is truly going on. I believe the real reason that you angered me was because of the statement that wrote me off as 'one of them whackos' You know, the one about (1) me being on deeply into TK, (2) on ppsociety, and (3) all TKers are unobjective - (4) I'm a TKer and thus (5) My tests are useless At the time you gave no reasonable explanation and it seriously ****ed me off I guess I do not like being generalised as an idiot based on an unfair assumption "I may though be tempted to post on your board now and again, if that is allowed?" No, go ahead. I don't mind :) I suppose all I really wanted from the start is some constructive criticism about my methods - both testing and otherwise I assure you that I do not want to 'fool' myself into wasting my time, so criticism is helpful There might need to be more detail into what I do in order to receive decent responses though And should you reply in an insulting way, you would only be making yourself look a crass fool :) I've decided not to be offended by it Placebo |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 18, 2005 Views: 180 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed |
| Posted By: Endothermal Torahs Posted On: Feb 18, 2005 Views: 177 | RE: Why Keith's Science Is Flawed Keith you have missed my point which I thought was very clear, no hard feelings but here it is again:- You based your TK tests on the claims of tk'ers. Yet all along you call the claims of tk'ers daft/stupid or whatever. So I guess my question is, why did you bother? If you honestly felt the claims were so ridiculous what made them, in your mind, worthy of any scientific study or analysis? Some might say that perhaps you were starting to believe in TK ( but I would never make such a claim!) |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next Page -> |