| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> psi | Start A New Topic | CLOSED |
| Post Info | TOPIC: psi |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 5, 2007 Views: 596 | RE: psi cj, You just don't understand stats or test procedures. The stats are not credible. On many of the 'tests' they even gave the 'viewer' a choice of 5 answers to select from! That isn't remote viewing its a lucky dip. The results are flawed, even the statistician from the site that you recommend says so! If they had reliable stats then remote viewing would be a proven fact. It wouldn't matter if scientists were unable to understand it, a fact is a fact. No one understand how quantum mechanics works but it is a fact, based mainly on reliable and repeatable stats. If stats is all you have then you have nothing because the stats for remote viewing are meaningless, that is why remote viewing is not accepted. Why can't you understand that? Why do you think it isn't accepted? If they had the stats they would be. I can see I am wasting my time, you are never going to get it. You will just reply that they are cleverer than me and I am wrong. Wise up and stop being dumb for a change. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 6, 2007 Views: 591 | RE: psi It is clear tthat anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria.do u not get that .in has beeen repeated in more then a few labs it works .your so wrong and a srry person i will no longer post here seeing is how im wasting my time trying to defend somthing that already has been shown to exist under scientific conditions if you had 1 of the 100s of experainces ive had keith there no doubt ud be a beliver and you talk from opinion not research.and u twist things around to make your self sound right.the results are not flawed and ruled out the chance of deception,and statisical probability if there wasnt ne thing to this we wudnt be testing it these people are smarter then you and they no what they are talkin about and you dont |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 6, 2007 Views: 583 | RE: psi From my previous post... "I can see I am wasting my time, you are never going to get it. You will just reply that they are cleverer than me and I am wrong." Got that right didn't I. I do not twist your words around. All I have said is that the one source of statistical information you have given is worthless, its a Joe Doe web page with no credentials. It may have impressed you but that part was obviously easy, its a heap of s h i t to anyone who understands these things. Its a pity you don't. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 6, 2007 Views: 579 | RE: psi its not about whos more clever what are you 5 .its about who acually presents facts and not opinons im a skeptical believer i do not believe in ne thing silly and you ARE wrong when it come to rv i never once stated i was more clever then you but i did state you twist words around now dont you ,and i wudnt belive in rv if it wasnt for the fact its been demonstrated in a more then 1 lab at a statisiclal rate far beyond chan ceand its a reality .stick to tk yoour doin fine .but you gotta accept the fact that rv is real and is uxexplained and occurs more then it should and for w.e silly reason you dont accept it thats fine .im done let the people decide for themselves . |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 6, 2007 Views: 577 | RE: psi 1)"i never once stated i was more clever then you" I never said you did, read my last posts again, I referred to the ones carrying out the tests not you, obviously 2 "i did state you twist words around" Show me where I have twisted any of your words around, I defy you to. 3) "i wudnt belive in rv if it wasnt for the fact its been demonstrated in a more then 1 lab" No it hasn't. It has been tested in more than one lab but never established as happening in any of them. 4) "you gotta accept the fact that rv is real and is uxexplained and occurs more then it should " There you again. It is not a fact. The stats are totally unreliable as the statistician you recommended said so herself! Why do you choose to ignore that part? 5) "its about who acually presents facts and not opinons" All you have presented is your opinion, over and over, that it is real and you have not been able to supply one single fact. The stats are false and that is all you have. I have not given an opinion, I have given facts. I have given a factual explanation of why the stats are rubbish. You have been unable to supply any other stats that are meaningful, just the one site that says the stats are unreliable! 6) "im done let the people decide for themselves ." I'm glad you are done. All you have supplied to support your argument through all your comments on all those threads is one web site where the owner says the stats are unreliable! That is all you have given, apart from your opinion over and over again. Bit of waste of your time wasn't it? For the future: Research the subject properly. If you recommend a site first make sure it supports your argument rather than cast doubt upon it, otherwise you make yourself look silly. Give facts not opinions. Saying things like remote viewing is a fact is merely your opinion, if it were a fact we would not be having this discussion. Learn the important but sometimes subtle difference between a fact and an opinion. Do not accuse me of giving opinions when I am giving facts. For example, when I say that site casts doubt on the stats that is a fact, it says so right there on the site. Do not accuse me of twisting your words without giving clear examples of where I have done that. Finally, try and type better constructed posts. This is not because that is the way I prefer it, but because your grammar is so appaling it is often almost impossible to figure out exactly what it is you are attempting to say. If English is not your first language or you are severely dyslexic, or both, then I apologise, but you should have explained that when I first mentioned your poor grammar. Goodbye, I hope you have better luck finding your 'proof' because so far you have nothing, even though I understand that you are convinced by what you have. |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 7, 2007 Views: 574 | RE: psi look back thro your post keith first there was no connection between rv and tk then there was no testing done i got it out of a comic book then .the testing was flawed,and now ur just straight up lieng .its has been demonstrated in more then 1 lab .bye lets talk about tk becuase i dont want to hear your opinions |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 7, 2007 Views: 571 | RE: psi I am tired of your same old opinions and distinct lack of facts. If remote viewing "has been demonstrated in more than one lab" then show us the proof. Give us the sites where you claim to have got all this amazing 'proof'. So far all you have supplied is one site that casts doubt on the stats that you rely on! Doh!!! |
| Posted By: cj Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 565 | RE: psi A psychologist from Cornell University reported yesterday what he said was the best evidence yet for the existence of a form of ESP, or extrasensory perception, gathered from a detailed new analysis of 39 studies that were done in the 1970s and 1980s. While a person in one room stared at a picture or video clips of anything from a Bugs Bunny cartoon to a crashing tidal wave, another person in a room isolated from the first described whatever popped into his or her mind. Far more often than could be explained by chance, the "receiver" described images very similar to what the "sender" was watching, said psychologist Daryl J. Bem of Cornell University, who was a coauthor of the study. Surveys have shown that most people believe in the likelihood of some ESP phenomena -- such as telepathy, or reading the thoughts of another person; clairvoyance, or "seeing" something in a distant place; or precognition, which is knowing something before it happens -- are real. Even among natural scientists, one survey showed 55 percent think the reality of some ESP experiences is established or likely. But among psychologists, only 34 percent think so, and research on the subject is almost never reported in mainstream psychological journals. In an unusual departure from that trend, the analysis of the experiments has been accepted for publication by the American Psychological Bulletin, which Robert Rosenthal, chairman of the psychology department at Harvard University, describes as "the most prestigious journal in psychology." Results of earlier experiments that claimed to show evidence for ESP have often been only slightly above the level of chance, but in the latest analysis "the probability that the results could have occurred by chance is less than 1 in a billion," says Bem, who presented the results in Boston at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Bem, a coauthor of the study with Charles Honorton, who was a parapsychologist at the University of Edinburgh [sic]. Honorton died last November. Rosenthal said in an interview he was "quite persuaded" by Bem's results. He had been "an agnostic" about the existence of ESP, he said, but "the statistical evidence [in Bem's analysis] is quite clear to me that there is a phenomenon there that does require explaining." In the experiments Bem studied, a sender in one room focused on a photograph, art reproduction, or video segment that had been randomly selected by a computer, while a receiver sat in another room with his eyes covered with Ping-Pong ball halves and earphones blocking any sounds with a steady "white noise." The receiver then described his or her mental impressions during the time the sender was viewing the image. The setup was designed to isolate the receiver from any ordinary sights, sounds, or sensations on the theory that ESP impressions may be so faint that they are easily swamped by the ordinary sights and sounds. Also, the images used for the experiment were chosen to be more interesting than the simple geometrical symbols often used in many earlier ESP experiments. Subjects often became bored and did not do well. Later, the receiver was shown four or more different images, including the one the sender had been looking at and asked to pick the one that most clearly matched what they experienced during the test period. With four choices, the subject had a 25 percent chance of choosing the correct one. "Strong Evidence" But in a total of 330 tests, the overall "hit" rate was 32 percent -- "the largest effect we know of," Bem said -- in any experiment on ESP. It is a rate that Donald B. Rubin, chairman of the department of statistics at Harvard, said yesterday would provide "strong evidence that the effect is real," assuming that the experimental procedures were valid. Two psychologists performed independent reviews in 1985 of a similar set of experiments, to assess any possible flaws in the methods used. They concluded at the time that the statistical effect in those tests was overwhelming, but disagreed on the possibility of flaws in the procedures. They then jointly signed a statement suggesting how the procedures could be tightened to make the results clearly valid. One of those researchers was Honorton, who went on to set up experiments specifically designed to overcome every criticism that had been leveled at the earlier experiments. Bem, who performs magic acts in his spare time, was brought in to check the procedures to guard against any possibility of fraud or inadvertent communication. Magicians are often used to check experiments in ESP as a safeguard against trickery. Creative edge noted In the most recent experiments, Bem also found evidence to support the widely held belief that creative people are more receptive to ESP. Twenty students from the Juilliard School of Music participated in the experiment, and their results were even more striking than those of other subjects. Compared to the 25 percent chance rate, the students scored 50 percent. And the musicians in that group did even better -- a 75 percent hit rate. Ray Hyman, a psychologist at the university of Oregon who wrote the critical review of these experiments in 1985, remains skeptical, Bem said. But Rosenthal, who was called in by a professional journal to referee the debate between Hyman and Honorton in 1985, said "the numbers are so clear now that it's really incumbent on the critics to try to explain these and make them go away." Rosenthal said that one of the things that makes the new study especially credible is that Bem "is one of the true agnostics in the field, who came to it without preconceived ideas" of whether the phenomenon was real. "He had the right background," Rosenthal said. Bem said the safeguards used in the recent experiments as a result of the 1985 critique "rule out, for me, all other reasonable nonpsi explanations that have been suggested." Psi is another term for ESP phenomena. Bem is conducting another set of such experiments to add to the body of evidence on the subject. The latest results are clear enough, Rosenthal said, that "I think it'll make it a little more socially acceptable to do such research." |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 563 | RE: psi OK, so you know how to copy and paste from some one's article from somewhere. Well done you! I am still waiting for you to provide EVIDENCE of all these amazing stats you keep going on about. WHERE are these stats so that we can all read them for OURSELVES? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 8, 2007 Views: 561 | RE: psi cj, I am forced to close this thread as well because you are again doing multiple posts. I do not intend to hop around from thread to thread to be faced with the same posts. What is the point in that? We can continue with the "Scott" thread as that is where you have repeated your post. |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 ] |