@RzBusterCB87 The problem with the word telekinesis, a.k.a. psychokinesis, is that it is a very ambiguous term. Some people define it as the ability to move objects via your mind while others (especially parapsychologists) define it as an influence of an object or random process. This is why there is so much confusion when it comes to telekinesis/psychokinesis...
These people are retarded, the definition of telekinesis is to move objects without physical contact...
It does not matter if its static electricity or actual mental ability, its being moved without physical contact...
Now if we made technology to perfect this static bond instead of making dum videos saying its a hoax, just think of what we can move just by electric charges and magnetic fields!
This one case can be explained through simple science. But I have a much harder example for you. Explain how a woman I met years ago could move objects as large as a bull moose while being as much as fifty yards away from them. I have seen thousands of little tricks involving wires and mirrors, but I know, because I tested it myself, that in the case of this person I refer to, there were no mirrors or wires involved.
If I may say so, then I think that goes a little far for your science to say.
simple Static electricity like rubbing your body or a straw on something to gain SE, does not have the potential to travel that far, thus be strong enough either, (Just for an e.g, we have this static ball tower attached to a station at school, that we can charge static electricity with, this will create a spark, but it is no where as far as his hands are from the straw)
@alienkilla22 - So you're saying it's fake? :) It's not about being close enough to cause a spark, it's about being close enough for attraction. For example, tear off several small pieces of tissue (the lighter the better) and place it on a table, now comb your hair vigorously with a plastic comb and then move your comb about an inch or less over the pieces of tissue (up and down, side to side), and you will cause movements in the tissues at the distance seen in this video.
@alienkilla22 - Btw, the distance in this video is between the straw and the nearest point of his hand to the straw, which is the tip of his finger, which you'll notice gets to within a inch away. Hence the attraction and hence the movement. :)
And telekinesis is what? If you can move it using static eletricity, isn't that one explanation of how to do it? Or the word should remain with it paranormal concept? If so, then will never be explained.
@Shaidon7 telekinesis is supposed to mean moving things with your mind without touching them. as explained in this video, it wasn not using the mind but by using static electricity. there is no way to directly transfer energy from someone's head to an object without touching it, so telekinesis is not possible under current scientific knowledge. rest assured if there was ever someone who really could move things with their mind, scientists would be all over it to work it out.
@dm9910 But that is my point. If you stuck with the idea of what telekinesis is, then will get nothing.
Moving objects with your mind is already possible, using tools like microchips, electrodes and sensors, that translate the electric impulses of your neurons to a software, and move robotic arms or dots in the screen.
@Shaidon7 when i say "move objects without touching them" i don't just mean with your hands. robotic arms, funnily enough, do constitute contact with the object. telekinesis is definited as transferring "mind energy" (which doesn't exist btw) directly into an object to make it move and is not possible. the term "telekinesis" is actually only good for describing fiction much like the term "lightsaber" :P
I don't understand how this disproves all of telekinesis. You can't use static electricity for objects like paper or glass, or items that are heavier than a few grams.
baboonfish555 "The burden of proof is not on me, you are the claiming it is there- prove it. - A prevalent misconception. While it is true that the burden of proof lies on him/her because of the claim, you're actually possessing the burden of proof too because of the claim you made.. The burden always lies on a person possessing an unjustified claim...
i think i can stop this debate quite easily- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TELEKINESIS, TALKING TO THE DEAD, GHOSTS OR ANY OTHER MUMBO-JUMBO INVENTED BY MAN.
@Mrminnin the burden of proof is not on me, you are the one claiming it is there- prove it. and don't give me that russell's teapot bullshit cos that isn't an argument
@Mrminnin A soul cannot be measured, it can't be seen, it can't be weighed, and it cannot be shown. Souls do not exist because there is ZERO proof of their existance, and anyone with a brain in their head wouldn't believe this folly.
@Mrminnin No. You're wrong. Answers do not come from within yourself. Who taught you to brush your teeth? Who taught you how to ride a bike? Who taught you how to do algebra? Who taught you about the planets? You knew nothing until other people told you.
@Wezdons7 True that, true form of TK is by your mind alone, not needing the help of your hands to "direct energy" It makes it less probable when you use your hands around the object
I want to see them explain all the other vids as that one is obvious, n want them also to explain why we use only part of our brain. Its obvious the pyramids were built with telekinesis, maybe not even human telekinesis as theres quite a bit of evidence of other beings being on this planet before.
of course there is science for every thing but telekinesis is real and there are some people who can use it an example probably the egipts, made pyramids but how did they do it in such little time some belive that they might have used power to move those stones. scienctists says in order to complete the pyramids in that time was to put the stones in every .02 seconds. those stones are not light as a feather they are heavy so how did they do it? I think telekinesis. ^_^ 13
@hanako508 I have no idea where your .02 seconds come from. We have pretty decent understanding of how the pyramids were built. Among other things we have archaeological sites of where the workers were. No indication of telekinesis. And if the ancient Egyptians had telekinesis one would have to wonder why neither their sources nor sources from their neighbors say anything about it.
I've seen quantum entanglement reactions being induced by the human brain work through walls. How else can solid inorganic objects possibly react to a thought? You think we have any idea what the brain is capabile of on the quantum level? Did we create the quantum mechanics of this universe? There are levels beyond levels that we dont even know about.
@jibbity99 The CERN work with neutrinos is very preliminary, likely to be wrong, and doesn't require "infinite energy". If neutrinos or some intermediate decay particle turn out to be tachyons, then that means they will always be going faster than the speed of light. If you do the math, tachyons slow down as they get more energy, going closer and closer to the speed of light. This is consistent with special relativity, (although E=MC^2 is actually not the relevant bit).
@jibbity99 Even if what you claim to have seen is real, it doesn't mean that it has anything to do with quantum entanglement. You are looking at two things you find mysterious, telekinesis and quantum mechanics, and then concluding that because they are both mysterious they should be related. That's fallacious.
@JoshuaZelinsky [The laws of physics do too apply at a quantum level.]
Apparently besides that whole e=mc2 thing afterall the quantum particle should attain infinite mass as it should require infinite energy to surpass the speed of light in a vacuum. Yet it does not. How is it that we know anything about the quantum level? We build theories based on theories of reactions that we can see. we cant even observe the quantum level without inducing reactions by the observer.
Do either of you realize that our laws of physics dont apply on the quantum level? That communication among vast distances happens instantianiously? You can imagine it as a string of data teleporting from one location to another. How is that possible? We dont know. The point is, if quantum teleportation is in fact Real. Why wouldnt you think that quantum communication between a persons brainwaves and a nearby object could exist. Thats all telekinesis is, I told you its not external.
@jibbity99 - And do you realise that where ever there's a void in man's knowledge, it's human nature for some to try to fill the void, and therefore it's a space ripe for ideas relating to religion, the paranormal, aliens, ghosts etc. Hence just because we don't understand something it doesn't mean alternative ideas are true. On the quantum level, it seems that a particle can be in two places at once, but that doesn't mean we can scale it up and suggest a person can be in two places at once.
@jibbity99 - The reason I asked you to take the Randi Challenge is because if your powers of telekinesis is real, then you should have no problems in winning the prize, frivolous or not. Whilst certain people would argue that it's unfair (and I disagree), I don't really see why you would object if you're so confident of your powers. What have you to lose in trying? I'm not calling you a liar, far from it, but you haven't offered any reasons for anyone to take your telekinesis claim seriously.
@jibbity99 The laws of physics do too apply at a quantum level. They just aren't the laws that you learned about in intro highschool physics. Moreover, quantum entanglement does not allow the transportation of data. Moreover, there's nothing special about "brainwaves" that would allow special communication. Human brains are too warm, too wet, and too entangled with their general environment to do anything interesting in a quantum mechanical setting.
I've read several responses on their forum as to what they consider "proof" of telekinesis. Its not enough to make an object move within an air tight container...Thats what they have said....Please explain to me, how a paper object can possible move in an air tight container? magnets dont move paper. if your no where near the container, you cant possibly bump it to make it move...so how is that unacceptable proof? its not...its frivolous denial.
Out of the thousands of people who have probably applied for that challenge, you dont really think i'm the only one telling the truth do you? There is a reason no one has won. Its a frivolous challenge. I'm not interested in being the next person denied frivolously. There is no point in me uploading videos, look to your right, there are many real ones already here.
youtube.com/watch?v=H5NwRfMJgOQ
That video is 100% real. No proof will ever be better than that. I can do exactly the same thing.
@jibbity99 - Sorry but, saying it's real doesn't make it so, that video is no more real than any other. Now if he takes up the $1m challenge and succeeds, THEN that can be considered proof. And on what basis do you call the $1m challenge 'frivolous'? You're using the same kind of excuses that others with so-called psychic powers use, where for some reason they never work under strictly controlled conditions, hence all have failed the Randi challenge despite agreeing to the conditions beforehand.
@jibbity99 - James Randi's challenge began in 1968! Over 40 yrs ago! Someone should have succeeded by now. Sorry if my scepticism offends you, but you don't have a given right to be believed. I can claim to bend spoons and keys and say it's real (unlike the tricks used by Uri Geller and others), and you can't prove otherwise. Hence that doesn't make my powers real, and I shouldn't expect to be believed unless I can demonstrate it under strict controls, like say, those of the $1m Randi challenge.
@MTMind2 Quite intellectually lazy and dogmatic of you for putting your whole faith in James Randi's Challenge without even interrogating and critiquing its methodology like a true-skeptic would do. Why do you believe the challenge is legitimate? Is it because he said so or is it because he's a conjurer who detects trickery and claims to have professional scientists?
You're a skeptic?
More like a pseudoskeptic who masquerades faith-based beliefs and bad arguments as skepticism.......
@IceAges14Aces - There's no need for insults. I've read enough about the Randi challenge over the years to be satified that's it's fair. Besides, do you consider ALL paranormal claims to be true, without exception? If not, then which ones are fake, and how did you decide? I would love the paranormal to be true, I've been fascinated by the subject since I was a kid, however the fact remain that they never hold up to close scrutiny. So until that changes, I will remain sceptical over such claims.
So, you'll still put your faith in the challenge despite the fact that nearly a thousand of applicants have applied for the challenge and none of them have even at least passed the preliminary test? Don't you see the big picture here? Doesn't it baffle you that none of these applicants have passed the former tests? hmm.. I wonder why...
Why do frauds bother you with the paranormal? There's nothing unique with these frauds, really..
@IceAges14Aces - Passed the preliminary test? A little over a thousand have failed the actual challenge itself, for which both sides agreed the terms BEFORE going ahead with it, nothing is forced upon the participants that they didn't agree to. Perhaps you can give examples of how the challenge was unfair to specific individuals who took it? So again I ask, which areas of the paranormal do you consider real and which do you consider fake, or are they all real to you regardless of the evidence?
@MTMind2 You either are an ignorant in the challenge methodology or you had misinterpreted what I said. I've never said they passed the preliminary and for your information, the preliminary test is an aspect of the actual challenge. The actual tests are the formal tests and no applicant has taken it. Of course there are no changes once the protocols are mutually agreed upon; however, when it comes to statistics, there is a double-standard known as P=0.001 (preliminary) and P=0.000001 (formal).
@IceAges14Aces - From my understanding, the Randi challenge is not there to test if something paranormal MAY be happening, but to establish that it HAS happened, hence the odds must be such that any positive result is unlikely to be due to chance alone. The relevance of that probability depends on the power being tested. If it's remote viewing for example, then there's a possiblity of guessing the right answers, but for metal bending, it either happens or it doesn't. Hence I see no problems.
@IceAges14Aces - Once again you choose to be rude, abusive and intolerant, which is unfortunate. And talking about assumptions, where's your proof that all those that took up the Randi challenge were never going to succeed because the challenge is unfair. That's an assumption too. If you're agnostic towards the paranormal, then fine that's your opinion, if you believe firmly in certain paranormal phenomena, again that fine, but it's also fine not to believe, and hence I remain unconvinced.
With enough awareness and research the truth will be made public in due time. You have nothing to worry about, you will understand before your life is over. When you do, you will look back at these days and laugh to yourself.
Its right infront of your eyes yet you refuse to believe it, all the while you yourself can do it. I dont need the given right to be believed...time is on my side. One day you will understand that. I'm not special. Thats why i know that challenge is frivolous.
@MTMind2 How exactly am I being rude, abusive, and intolerant? Is it because I called you an ignorant in Randi's Challenge or what??? Anyway, let's get back to our conversation. Yes, the odds have to be so low that it would hardly happen by chance, but setting the P-Value at 0.001 or 0.000001 is in no way acceptable in statistical standards and has a high probability of commiting a Type II error. P=0.05 or 0.01 is good enough. These double-standards are the main reason why nobody pass by chance.
@IceAges14Aces - The Randi challenge is not a study, it's a competition, hence no-one should win it by chance alone. If we had 10 cards, P=0.001 is the chance of you selecting the same card as me 3 times in a row. How is that being unfair to the 'psychic'? It should be easy! P=0.000001 is the chance of you selecting the same card as me 6 times in a row. The prize is for demonstrating real psychic abilities, not possible abilities, so P=0.05 (i.e. 1 in 20 by chance alone) is far from good enough.
@MTMind2 It's truly baffling how you failed to understand why psi has anything to do with double-standards such as P=0.001 and 0.000001. If you were a knowledgeable person in statistics, you would easily realize just how corrupted and ludicrous it is to set the bar too high. Psi does matter when it comes to these double-standards, especially when it comes to small effect-sizes. Can a person with a really small ESP effect easily get 0.001 and 0.000001 in a really small sample-size? No.....
@MTMind2 There are 50 ESP Cards and the probability of the claimant getting a hit is 1/5, 20%, or 0.2. If the claimant scored 17 or > (Psi-Hitting) 3 or <(Psi-Missing) that would be considered empirical evidence of ESP in hypothesis-testing. If the claimant consitently scored P<0.05, then that would be genuine evidence of ESP and not dumb luck. So, is it neccesary to put 0.001? Nope. The JREF expects a score of 20 to pass the preliminary and 25 for the latter, which is quite frankly unfair.
@MTMind2 You're right, the challenge is not a scientific study, its a challenge for anyone who can demonstrate the paranormal under rigorously controlled condtions; however, the challenge is corrupted by the tests that are involved in statistical applications..
"hence no-one should win it by chance alone."
Where did you get this ignorant nonsense? Put about a million of people in the challenge and I promise you more than half would pass the former and probably one would pass the latter...
@IceAges14Aces - Again you miss the point. The Randi test is not a scientific study, it's a competition, the purpose is not to test an individual or group of individuals to see if the results they achieve are better than chance, and if so, to see if their results are statististically significant compared to chance. In such cases, statistically significant results may suggest a paranormal influence, but it doesn't necessarily rule out other factors, but it does warrent further study.
@IceAges14Aces - Those who take the Randi challenge are those who claim to already have paranormal abilities, and so they shouldn't need to depend on chance to succeed, as you or I would. Sure you may think that's unfair to some, but those are the rules. Those who make their living out of their claimed powers, often conning the vulnerable out of huge sums of money, are never uncertain about their abilities, so forgive me if I don't sympathise with claims that the challenge is unfair to them.
@IceAges14Aces - And regarding your earlier point about the preliminary test. The challenge is open to ALL paranormal claims, hence 1000+ people haven't taken the SAME preliminary test, they would have taken a test specific to their claimed abilities, and hence when you consider of the range of paranormal/psychic powers that would have been tested, there would be a fraction out of that 1000 in each category so far, and so not enough for anyone to get passed the preliminary test by chance...yet.
@IceAges14Aces - "Put about a million of people in the challenge and I promise you more than half would pass the former and probably one would pass the latter"
So how is the test unfair? If someone passes the latter, then they win on the basis of a 1 in a million chance, good enough to strongly suggest their ability is real. You're saying the fact that no-one has passed the former is proof that it's unfair, but it's not, it's proof that 1000 people haven't taken the SAME preliminary test!
@MTMind2 "You're saying the fact that no-one has passed the former is proof that it's unfair, but it's not, it's proof that 1000 people haven't taken the SAME preliminary test!"
I never said that. I said that the double-standards such as P=0.000001 is unacceptable in statistical standards and unfair because that type of score expects more hits much more than what be considered sufficent evidence. In addition, the number of applicants is irrelevant. It's the double-standards that matter.
@MTMind2 "If someone passes the latter, then they win on the basis of a 1 in a million chance, good enough to strongly suggest their ability is real."
That is a justifiable position; however, there is one methodological problem...setting the P-Value that low increases the odds of rejecting a claimant's claim, when in fact, the claim is true (which is known as a Type II error in a statistical sense) This applys to all studies, not just paranormal ones....
@MTMind2 "Those who.... and so they shouldn't need to depend on chance to succeed, as you or I would."
What a bunch of dogmatic and quite frankly ignoramus bullshit. Again, paranormal abilities that involve statistical applications, e.g. telepathy, are completely dependent on double-standards such as P=0.000001. Can an ESP claimant who usually scores P=0.01 get 0.000001 in a single test? Quite unlikely (unless you conduct a meta-analysis).
@IceAges14Aces - "What a bunch of dogmatic and quite frankly ignoramus bullshit" - Look in the mirror my friend. Experiments for pyschic abilities, where they test to see if the results are better than by chance alone, have been happening for over a century! However, there are so many factors that can effect such results, from poor design and errors, to cheating and false assumptions, that any positive results are controversial at best. Hence there is no concensus that ESP has been proven.
@IceAges14Aces - As a result, measurements of psi have yet to produce a concensus view that person A definately has psychic abilities. Given all the studies carried out last century to measure psi, can you name an individual whose psi scores were such that it is generally agreed that, without doubt, he/she MUST have psychic powers? No? Then how can such tests be the basis for determining the winner of a competition where there should be no doubt about the claimed psychic/paranormal abilities?
@MTMind2 First of all, there is no such thing as scientific proof. All scientific concepts are based on hypotheses, theories, and models facilitated by data collection and it is inevitable that these concepts would either be rejected or modified as new empirical evidence becomes available. Second, ESP, as well as PK, are possibly just abstracts created by the mind and they are tentative at best, concrete at worst. Third, there is no such thing as a perfect, fraud-proof psi experiments........
@MTMind2 It is indeed true that early parapsychological studies suffered from systematic biases due to poor experimentation, lack of realism, etc.; however, there are parapsychological experiments that do deserve to be taken under consideration and one of the best experiments are The Ganzfeld, DMILS, Presentiment, etc. These studies were independently replicated, e.g. ganzfeld had been replicated by 88 indepedent studies (32% hit rate) (N=3,145, total hits: 1,008).....
@IceAges14Aces - Yes, however the results of such studies (and meta-studies) are still hotly disputed and debated, hence are more warmly received by parapsychologists than those in other fields. You're right there's no such thing as a perfect psi experiment, but a study will involve lots of individuals and/or lots of repeated experiments, and those results will be analysed for statistical significance, so there are bound to be a few people whose results are way above the mean by chance alone.
@IceAges14Aces - As a result, if you're testing just 1 person for a competition rather than a group study, surely you'll need to either tighten the prob. of success by chance, or have them repeat the same experiment sufficient times for an acceptable statistical analysis of results? I assume the $1m challenge has chosen the former. Interestingly, the challenge website has a log of applicants on it's forum, which specifies the protocol agreed for each. Shouldn't any unfairness be evident there?
@MTMind2 "I assume the $1m challenge has chosen the former."
Congratulations! You have just shown another justifiable reason why the challenge is corrupted. A single experiment does not conclusively support anything since it lacks replication and again, setting the P=0.000001 has a higher risk of commiting a Type II error. The challenge is akin to giving a really ill subject a pill and see if the subject gets better quick. Who the hell does that? That's not how we verify things in science.
@IceAges14Aces - I completely disagree, all it shows is that if anyone does win that challenge, then it's on the basis that it's almost definitely due to their claimed psychic abilities, rather than by chance. That's the challenge and hence the prize. I've been reading criticism of the challenge online, and what stands out is that no-one highlights any case of unfairness, despite the applicants and protocols being available. Perhaps, unlike them, you have an example case you can highlight here?
@IceAges14Aces - Again, the Randi challenge is a competition. If my claim was a 'magic pill' that I sell on the basis that it makes ANY really ill person well again very 'quickly', then my protocol may be to give a pill to 5 really ill people. If they all get better 'quickly', then I win. Sure that's not a scientific study, but that's the principle, where YOU make the claim, hence your claim is tested. So I would be interested to read about unfairness to a specific participant of the challenge.
Here is something interesting: If you really do have ESP or PK, but its effect-size is small, then don't start crying that the JREF labeled you as a bullshiter simply because you failed to reach the P=0.000001 in a really small sample-size.
Go ahead, believe in that dogmatic challenge all you want, I couldn't care less.....
@IceAges14Aces - In otherwords, you and others can't find any example of unfairness.
If your ESP was small, then how would it stand out enough in life for you to consider entering the Randi challenge in the first place? None of the studies you've mentioned have found a person whose ESP was greater than others, much less repeated experiments with that same person obtaining the same result. Instead psi only seems to reveal itself in group experiments, but those results are controversial at best.
@MTMind2 "In otherwords, you and others can't find any example of unfairness."
I provided enough justifiable reasons to justify my proposition that the challenge is unfair. If you can't see them, well that's too bad...
"If your ESP was small,..... challenge in the first place?"
Simple, you get tested under homogeneous experimentation with a large # of sample-size and once analyzed/combined, there will be strong evidence for ESP. Unlike the challenge, they rely on small sample-size...
@MTMind2 "None of the studies you've mentioned have found a person whose ESP was greater than others"
Why the hell does the lack of finding a person whose ESP was greater than others bother you at all? This quote is purely prejudicial and arrogant at best. Whether or not the psi effect is small is irrelevant.
"much less repeated experiments... obtaining the same result."
You're obviously talking out of your own ass. Wrong, they have been replicated by independent researchers...
@IceAges14Aces - Funny, I thought you couldn't care less about whatever I thought ;-)
No you're wrong, I said repeated experiments with the SAME individual, not repeated group experiments. And yes it does matter, because if they can't identify and verify with repeated experiments, psi in ONE individual, then those studies do not form the basis for a competition offering $1m for ONE individual proving him/herself to have psychic abilities. Again, can you provide a specific example of unfairness?
@MTMind2 "Funny, I thought you couldn't care less about whatever I thought ;-)"
Funny, how you failed to grasp on what exactly I couldn't care less about. What was it... oh that's right your belief that the challenge is fair.
"I said repeated experiments with the SAME individual, not repeated group experiments."
You're talking out of your own ass again. There are no repeated experiments in these studies with the same individual. Only ordinary, random people......
@IceAges14Aces - Well done for missing the point (or pretending to). The fact that they can't identify one individual with psi but only a psi effect in groups of people (again, controversial and so not universally accepted as fact), shows the methodology of such studies does not form the basis for testing one person for psychic abilities in a competition. Until you or any of the other critics of the Randi challenge can point to actual cases of unfairness, then your claim remains unfounded.
@IceAges14Aces - Hence you may get anger and red in the face all you like, I'm still enjoying the discussion :-). However, I think we're about to go full circle now (if we haven't done so already), and hence I don't see much point in us continuing this discussion for much longer. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me, hence I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)
@MTMind2 "The fact that they can't identify one individual with psi...in a competition."
You obviously need to take a statistic class. For your information, the statistical significance tests in those studies uses the same conventional significance tests & scientific criteria in other scientific disciplines such as medical, biological, etc. and there is evidence that shows that an overall conclusion from a single study is much less accurate and risk in Type II error than combined studies.
@MTMind2 Ever wonder why these parapsychological studies like the Ganzfeld have never won the prize??? The answer is simple: it's not a cost-effective challenge. Since the effect-sizes of these studies are indeed small, the JREF would need more than a million $ for larger sample-size and experiments if they want to detect these psi effects; otherwise, they have a high probability of committing a Type II Error (This also goes to ordinary studies)
@IceAges14Aces Do you have anything resembling a mechanism that would explain why this would happen in a large scale group setting but no individual would be substantially psychic? Note by the way that the JREF prize is for individual claims, so if any specific person has powers then they can get the prize.
@JoshuaZelinsky The reason why an individual doesn't easily show a psi effect like in a meta-analysis in a single study is because the psi effect-size is quite small, hence it requires more statistical power to detect it, which you would need a larger sample-size to detect this effect. However, a meta-analysis already contains a strong statistical power, i.e. strong at detecting the effect due to the large # of sample-size from indepedent studies. MA is much more accurate than few studies.....
@IceAges14Aces Ah. So no individual human has special powers but everyone has a tiny bit. If all humans have these then why haven't we evolved to use them more effectively? Surely that would help. Also if these powers work at such margins does that mean you don't believe the people in this thread who claim special powers?
Note that meta-analysis easily gives bad results especially when one has a file drawer effect, which is a particular problem in this area.
@JoshuaZelinsky The magnitude of the effect-size is irrelevant to whether or not it exists. If all medicines have a magnitude of 100% effect-sizes, then it is inevitable that all these medical studies will all be positive and will cure all the people, e.g., all the people who take Aspirin will have a 100% chance of not having a heart attack. This type of effect can easily be detected by 1 sample-size. Unfortunately, this is not the case, especially Aspirin.
@IceAges14Aces Missing the point. If one has an actual ability that all humans have then one should expect that evolution would have acted on it to make the ability usable in more circumstances. It is inconsistent with how evolution works that all humans would have an ability but it would only exist on the outskirts.
@JoshuaZelinsky "Note that meta-analysis easily gives bad results especially when one has a file drawer effect, which is a particular problem in this area."
Very true; however, the meta-analyses conducted from parapsychological studies such as Ganzfeld, DMILS, etc. don't suffer from publication bias (file-drawer problem) and this has been confirmed by a statistical method known as a funnel plot
I know other flaws in meta-analses, but none account for the meta-analyses in parapsychology.
@JoshuaZelinsky "Note that meta-analysis easily gives bad results especially when one has a file drawer effect, which is a particular problem in this area."
Very true; however, the meta-analyses conducted from parapsychological studies such as Ganzfeld, DMILS, etc. don't suffer from publication bias (file-drawer problem) and this has been confirmed by a statistical method known as a funnel plot
I know other flaws in meta-analses, but none account for the meta-analyses in parapsychology.
@IceAges14Aces File drawer is only of a variety of problems with meta analyses. They don't take into account issues of some studies having poor controls or deviations from protocols. This is why in the hard sciences meta analysis is not enough to establish a claim generally unless the analysis is very careful. The ideal is an actual experiment (possibly on a larger scale), and one wants something like an actual mechanism to explain how the phenomenon works.
@JoshuaZelinsky That is very true and I agree without a doubt. While a meta-analysis is a good systematic review, it is of course very easy for biases to come in. However, these parapsychological meta-analyses were scrutinized and modified by the criticism and as time went by. Heterogeniety is the most common problem meta-anlyses suffer from. Even Wiseman and Milton's Ganzfeld meta-analysis suffered from heterogeniety due to the lack of the standardness criteria like Honorton's 85 MA.....
@IceAges14Aces - Again, the Randi challenge is a competition not a study. So again I ask, state a specific case of someone who has taken the Randi challenge for which the protocol agreed is unfair. Until you or other critics can provide that, then you're offering nothing but hot air. I've searched online amongst ALL the critics I can find, and yet despite the challenge running for decades with the protocols published and hence available, NONE of the critics identify a single case of unfairness.
@IceAges14Aces - JoshuaZelinsky is echoeing the same point I've raised. So why is it that (according to some studies) psi seems to reveal itself only within a group but not for an individual? No study has identified psi in a particular individual so far. Until studies identifies such an individual using the same methodologies as the group studies, then there's no reason to expect the Randi challenge to do what those studies have yet to achieve, and so there's no basis for suggesting it's unfair.
@MTMind2 "So why is it that (according to some studies) psi seems to reveal itself only within a group but not for an individual?"
Look below
"NONE of the critics identify a single case of unfairness."
I already identified a single case of unfairness, but since you're either too lazy or probably just too stupid to comprehend it, I'm going to say it once:
The challenge is unfair by the tests involve in statistical applications due to that dogmatic, batshit double-standard P=0.000001
@IceAges14Aces - You continue to act like a kid with your insults, but you have not identified a specific case. I ask you to produce an example case, i.e. someone who has taken the Randi challenge and hence we can look at the protocol they agreed to. Give details of the person, their claimed psychic ability and why the protocol they agreed to was unfair. Neither you nor any of the critics have been able to do so, which again means all you have to offer is hot air. All talk but no substance.
@MTMind2 CARINA LANDIN, Swedish of the Dead- JREF Forum.
What will constitue a successful test: "If Ms. Landin is able to identify the gender of the deceased individual who wrote the letters, the test will be considered successful. Ms. Landin must identify 16 out of 20 (P=0.001)correctly."
Even if Ms Landin did scored P=0.001, she would have to beat P=0.000001 in the formal test.
@IceAges14Aces - Which proves you miss the point. Ms. Landin is not some random individual being asked to identify the gender of a deceased individual, she claims to be able to make contact with the dead owner of some article of theirs that she touches most times, and claims she can give specific details about them, such as what they looked like, their cause of death, diseases etc. Hence 16 out of 20 for gender ONLY is fair test given her claimed powers. Hence I see no unfairness there.
@MTMind2 ARRGH!!!!!! I don't give a shit about Ms. Landin's claim and whether or not she is a random individual. Everything you mentioned is completely irrelevant to my point.
My point is that setting the P-Value at P=0.001 (For example, 16 out of 20) and then P=0.000001 (Greater than 19 out of 20) is ridiculous & quite frankly dogmatic batshit. Seriously, who the hell does that? What kind of researcher would get an effect at the P=0.001 level and all of a sudden raise it up to P=0.000001????
@IceAges14Aces - Did you ever consider checking the probability of that test? Or is that irrelevent too? I checked because I think it is relevent (hence the reason for looking at actual cases). I checked it using a binomial probability calculator online (actually, I tried a few just to be sure :-)). And the result? The probability of >=16 out of 20 is 0.0059, i.e. 1 in 169. So p=0.001 is not set in stone as you assume.
And given her claims, I doubt a final test would have been for gender only.
@MTMind2 Yes we did gone through this and you're right that the actual probability is 0.0059; however, 16 out of 20 is 1 step away from 0.001. Maybe the "16" was a typo???
Nevertheless, there are indeed applicants who must reach P=001 to pass the preliminary, e.g. Patrica Putt, 5 out of 10 (P=0.001), Clairvoyant, Pavel Zibrov (P<0.001), UK Skeptics, Test Protocol for Derek Ogilvie (P=0.001), etc.....
@MTMind2 "And yes it does matter, because if they can't identify... then those studies do....offering $1m for ONE individual proving him/herself to have psychic abilities."
Jesus, you're a pain in the ass. So, the fact that it wasn't verify with experiments mean it's bullshit?? Nope, there are many explanations & the most plausible one is the lack of appropriate statistical power, which the JREF suffers from due to the small sample-size..
@MTMind2 Yes, meta-analyses are controversial since they are open to systematic biases & these biases are somewhat prevalent in other meta-studies. In fact, some medical meta-studies that were approved by the FDA were actually flawed due to publication bias. However, some parapsychological meta-studies are very scrutinize in their meta-analyses and believe or not, they have have actually addressed criticism regarding experimentation & statistics. These criticism makes parapsychology rigorous.
@MTMind2 and last, if you're not convinced that the challenge is unfair, then take a look at the results from other scientific independent studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Some or probably most of them failed to reach the P=0.000001 level.
Now take a look at the meta-analyses and look at the difference between the results of independent studies and homogeneous, combined studies....
@MTMind2 and last, if you're not convinced that the challenge is unfair, then take a look at the results from other scientific independent studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Some or probably most of them failed to reach the P=0.000001 level.
@MTMind2 A little over a thousand? Where is the evidence that justify this assumption??? I have seen many prevalent bullshit in the paranormal, yet I remain agnostic toward the paranormal.
By the way, your proposition that no paranormal has stand up under scrutiny is nothing but a ridiculously, ignorant, prejudiced caricature of the truth. To the best of my knowledge, there are only a few cases of the paranormal that deserve further consideration. The Ganzfeld is one of them...
@jibbity99 Sorry to burst your bubble, but your excuse for not taking the challenge is a bunch of BS. You can easily win the challenge simply because there are no statistical applications involved. Even though I don't have any faith nor confidence in unjustified claims, I'm quite certain you have a good chance of passing because I had critiqued its methodology. Actually, the challenge is corrupted only on the statistical side due to the double-standards implied in mutually-agreed protocols.....
@jibbity99 a video isn't really proof. all the circumstances must be examined, any scam artist will show you everything that doesn't hurt the trick. so he might show you what seems to be everything you can think of, which is almost always the simplest explanations. anyone can think it must be magnets or air, but when he shows it's not that, then people go "well, then i don't know, so it must be true." which is a weakness in the human brain.
@jibbity99 i checked the video and it took me very little time to figure out what he did. he's using a hairdryer to make it seem like he's trying to prove that air can not enter the bowl. however what he's actually doing is heating the bowl.the heat of the bowl will make some of the air inside the bowl become warmer than rest of the air, creating air current which moves the paper. thanks and good night.
telekinesis is real. it has nothing to do with static. its not an external force such as static, wind or heat. i can move objects with my mind, in a different rooms. i've stood 20 feet away from objects and controlled the direction of spin. Have fun using elementary physics to try and explain that. We havent even tapped the edge of atomic physics or quantum interaction yet we think we know it all. foolish people.
@jibbity99 - Really, then I suggest you apply for James Randi's $1000000 paranormal challenge. It's simple, all you have to do is prove your telekinesis under agreed conditions and close observation and the money is yours (you don't even have to leave the country). Let's see if you can succeed where hundreds, perhaps thousands, have failed ;-). Let us know how you get on. In the meantime, why not film your telekinesis demonstrations and upload the videos on your channel.
@MTMind2 (ok, no idea why you cant post youtube links in a comment) When you paste that link above, if it doesnt work, take out the dash, its the second to last character in the link after you paste it.
t.k is real it uses static to move objects our brains work on electricity t.k uses static to creat a magnetic field wether its around you or the object is unknown now im not saying everytime you move somthing with static its tk im saying this is the logics of tk its not some super power it is the ability to create more electicity in your brain wich in turn draws a static field towards you static is everywhere if the magnetic pull is stronge enough you can move things
@darklotus1223 Everything you said about telekinesis is oxymoronic at all levels.
Telekinesis is the ability to move, affect, or levitate objects with the mind alone, yet you said it uses static electricity. If it works by static electricity, then it's not telekinesis. It's conventional physics....
First off, dude is reading what he's told to read and he's not very good at making it look like it's from his mind. Kat acts like she's using telekinesis all the time by the way she's holding her hands out like she's got something in them, telekinesis is real, even scienctist believe humans will one day be able to use it, so another science scam video has made science and all of you who like this shit look fucking stupid.
People are stubborn, they'll believe that static electricity is telekinesis. Believe or not, many people can actually influence what you decide, because everybody wants to feel like they belong even though there is evidence they're wrong. The reason is because of probabililty and common sense, if everyone runs outside from a building, your gonna run too even if you don't have proof theres something wrong. So, is it static electricity if everyone believes its telekinesis, no its telekinesis.
Excuses, excuses, everything has a scientific explanation for it, like your "god" but the thing is people wanna have faith and to prove them wrong is to claim "blasphemy" and go to "hell" even if you don't believe one exists and in the old days, you probably get killed or tortured until you converted. So does it matter if everyone believes even though you have proof, no it doesn't matter because people are blinded with faith so to them its real, regardless whether there is scientific proof.
I think these people are trying to explain us ...but ,¿ what the hell they has to explain? It is a fact that in this world, and in the entire universe, there are things that we cannot explain, and things that even the "science" understands. This is just an opinion...
k that was not telikenitis but it still excist, i am not telikenitis but people who don't use youtube can has it
wheatley95 1 day ago
simple bar trick
1821aftershock 5 days ago
yes but what if u dont use a straw. now im gunna go take a shit while u science of scam people think about that.
Sogworld 1 week ago
i could do this after half a second. i just got a straw and it worked perfectly right away :D
Devoti 1 week ago
OMG FUCK OFF YOU ARE PATHETIC WHY SAY NO IT IS NOT REAL... YOU ARE THE FAGS IN LIFE
turkanator123 1 week ago
@RzBusterCB87 The problem with the word telekinesis, a.k.a. psychokinesis, is that it is a very ambiguous term. Some people define it as the ability to move objects via your mind while others (especially parapsychologists) define it as an influence of an object or random process. This is why there is so much confusion when it comes to telekinesis/psychokinesis...
IceAges14Aces 1 week ago
These people are retarded, the definition of telekinesis is to move objects without physical contact...
It does not matter if its static electricity or actual mental ability, its being moved without physical contact...
Now if we made technology to perfect this static bond instead of making dum videos saying its a hoax, just think of what we can move just by electric charges and magnetic fields!
RzBusterCB87 1 week ago
This one case can be explained through simple science. But I have a much harder example for you. Explain how a woman I met years ago could move objects as large as a bull moose while being as much as fifty yards away from them. I have seen thousands of little tricks involving wires and mirrors, but I know, because I tested it myself, that in the case of this person I refer to, there were no mirrors or wires involved.
If I may say so, then I think that goes a little far for your science to say.
WhitewolfRogue 2 weeks ago
God...Please don't reveal secrets!
DarkBirdxFuturistic 3 weeks ago
man, get the fuck out of here with all this damn science. you need to leave things up to mystery. stop trying to solve everything and just lived
localoceans 3 weeks ago
Da it was made i after effects
Saberfx12321 1 month ago
I'd like them present their theory the movement of the paper wheel under a glass bowl.
NoviSoul 1 month ago
simple Static electricity like rubbing your body or a straw on something to gain SE, does not have the potential to travel that far, thus be strong enough either, (Just for an e.g, we have this static ball tower attached to a station at school, that we can charge static electricity with, this will create a spark, but it is no where as far as his hands are from the straw)
alienkilla22 1 month ago
@alienkilla22 - So you're saying it's fake? :) It's not about being close enough to cause a spark, it's about being close enough for attraction. For example, tear off several small pieces of tissue (the lighter the better) and place it on a table, now comb your hair vigorously with a plastic comb and then move your comb about an inch or less over the pieces of tissue (up and down, side to side), and you will cause movements in the tissues at the distance seen in this video.
MTMind2 1 month ago
@alienkilla22 - Btw, the distance in this video is between the straw and the nearest point of his hand to the straw, which is the tip of his finger, which you'll notice gets to within a inch away. Hence the attraction and hence the movement. :)
MTMind2 1 month ago
to answer any poeple asking how people explained how it could be achieved.
First: The manipulations of the objects matter. (don';t know how this is used)
Second: Magnetic fields. (Mainly around your hands)
Third: Manipulations of aura.
Fourth: Electrons in the brain.
alienkilla22 1 month ago
And telekinesis is what? If you can move it using static eletricity, isn't that one explanation of how to do it? Or the word should remain with it paranormal concept? If so, then will never be explained.
Shaidon7 2 months ago
@Shaidon7 telekinesis is supposed to mean moving things with your mind without touching them. as explained in this video, it wasn not using the mind but by using static electricity. there is no way to directly transfer energy from someone's head to an object without touching it, so telekinesis is not possible under current scientific knowledge. rest assured if there was ever someone who really could move things with their mind, scientists would be all over it to work it out.
dm9910 1 month ago
@dm9910 But that is my point. If you stuck with the idea of what telekinesis is, then will get nothing.
Moving objects with your mind is already possible, using tools like microchips, electrodes and sensors, that translate the electric impulses of your neurons to a software, and move robotic arms or dots in the screen.
Shaidon7 1 month ago
@Shaidon7 when i say "move objects without touching them" i don't just mean with your hands. robotic arms, funnily enough, do constitute contact with the object. telekinesis is definited as transferring "mind energy" (which doesn't exist btw) directly into an object to make it move and is not possible. the term "telekinesis" is actually only good for describing fiction much like the term "lightsaber" :P
dm9910 1 month ago
youtube.com/watch?v=L61RptUUEqU&feature=share
bzeliotis 2 months ago
I don't understand how this disproves all of telekinesis. You can't use static electricity for objects like paper or glass, or items that are heavier than a few grams.
TheMerlinMan357 2 months ago
@baboonfish555
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
baboonfish555 "The burden of proof is not on me, you are the claiming it is there- prove it. - A prevalent misconception. While it is true that the burden of proof lies on him/her because of the claim, you're actually possessing the burden of proof too because of the claim you made.. The burden always lies on a person possessing an unjustified claim...
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
I can do telekinesis that trick is just shit and not telekinesis i guess there is like a demon in me that does shit...
smiletehk 2 months ago
i think i can stop this debate quite easily- THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TELEKINESIS, TALKING TO THE DEAD, GHOSTS OR ANY OTHER MUMBO-JUMBO INVENTED BY MAN.
think that settled it :)
baboonfish555 2 months ago
@baboonfish555 Well I believe there is such thing because when the body dies, the physical may die but, the soul does not
Mrminnin 2 months ago
@Mrminnin there is no soul.
baboonfish555 2 months ago
@baboonfish555 There is a soul, why do you think there isn't a soul??
Mrminnin 2 months ago
@Mrminnin the burden of proof is not on me, you are the one claiming it is there- prove it. and don't give me that russell's teapot bullshit cos that isn't an argument
baboonfish555 2 months ago
@Mrminnin A soul cannot be measured, it can't be seen, it can't be weighed, and it cannot be shown. Souls do not exist because there is ZERO proof of their existance, and anyone with a brain in their head wouldn't believe this folly.
josan2964 2 months ago
@josan2964 Well you can believe what you want lol I'm not going to try to convince you cause I don't need proof, all the answers are within
Mrminnin 2 months ago
@Mrminnin The human mind cannot create answers within itself. It's called research and evidence, you dumbass.
josan2964 2 months ago
@josan2964 The mind already knows the things we need to know of course
Mrminnin 2 months ago
@Mrminnin No. You're wrong. Answers do not come from within yourself. Who taught you to brush your teeth? Who taught you how to ride a bike? Who taught you how to do algebra? Who taught you about the planets? You knew nothing until other people told you.
josan2964 2 months ago
@baboonfish555 i agree with all except ghost...i actually seen a ghost go into a wall so lol...but the rest is BS
ramzx22 2 months ago
@baboonfish555 Telekinesis is real. Ghosts, are called Spirits. And MumboJumbo, is what you JUST said, :) I think that freaking settled it. :)
HippoKitten094 2 months ago
@HippoKitten094 lol. good one! ghosts aren't real- grow up.
baboonfish555 2 months ago
@baboonfish555 No. But Spirits are.
HippoKitten094 2 months ago
Comment removed
baboonfish555 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
tbh you can believe what you want as long as it doesn't affect me
baboonfish555 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
She's so hot.
Vispering 3 months ago
funny part about this is that you shouldn't move you hand to do that with tk
Wezdons7 3 months ago
@Wezdons7 True that, true form of TK is by your mind alone, not needing the help of your hands to "direct energy" It makes it less probable when you use your hands around the object
RSAgility 2 months ago
I want to see them explain all the other vids as that one is obvious, n want them also to explain why we use only part of our brain. Its obvious the pyramids were built with telekinesis, maybe not even human telekinesis as theres quite a bit of evidence of other beings being on this planet before.
squidhedman 3 months ago
of course there is science for every thing but telekinesis is real and there are some people who can use it an example probably the egipts, made pyramids but how did they do it in such little time some belive that they might have used power to move those stones. scienctists says in order to complete the pyramids in that time was to put the stones in every .02 seconds. those stones are not light as a feather they are heavy so how did they do it? I think telekinesis. ^_^ 13
hanako508 3 months ago
@hanako508 lool telekenis dint build the pyramid pretty sure that would be harder dan just carrying a brick loll
MrWilliamstar1 3 months ago
@hanako508 I have no idea where your .02 seconds come from. We have pretty decent understanding of how the pyramids were built. Among other things we have archaeological sites of where the workers were. No indication of telekinesis. And if the ancient Egyptians had telekinesis one would have to wonder why neither their sources nor sources from their neighbors say anything about it.
JoshuaZelinsky 3 months ago
magic is science that isnt understood yet
beatstick22 3 months ago
@beatstick22 nope, stop watching thor
TechXMarine 3 months ago
MAGNETS AND BUTTERFLIES YOU CUNT!
LazerChicklets 3 months ago
I've seen quantum entanglement reactions being induced by the human brain work through walls. How else can solid inorganic objects possibly react to a thought? You think we have any idea what the brain is capabile of on the quantum level? Did we create the quantum mechanics of this universe? There are levels beyond levels that we dont even know about.
jibbity99 3 months ago
@jibbity99 The CERN work with neutrinos is very preliminary, likely to be wrong, and doesn't require "infinite energy". If neutrinos or some intermediate decay particle turn out to be tachyons, then that means they will always be going faster than the speed of light. If you do the math, tachyons slow down as they get more energy, going closer and closer to the speed of light. This is consistent with special relativity, (although E=MC^2 is actually not the relevant bit).
JoshuaZelinsky 3 months ago
@jibbity99 Even if what you claim to have seen is real, it doesn't mean that it has anything to do with quantum entanglement. You are looking at two things you find mysterious, telekinesis and quantum mechanics, and then concluding that because they are both mysterious they should be related. That's fallacious.
JoshuaZelinsky 3 months ago
@JoshuaZelinsky [The laws of physics do too apply at a quantum level.]
Apparently besides that whole e=mc2 thing afterall the quantum particle should attain infinite mass as it should require infinite energy to surpass the speed of light in a vacuum. Yet it does not. How is it that we know anything about the quantum level? We build theories based on theories of reactions that we can see. we cant even observe the quantum level without inducing reactions by the observer.
jibbity99 3 months ago
Comment removed
jibbity99 3 months ago
Comment removed
jibbity99 3 months ago
Do either of you realize that our laws of physics dont apply on the quantum level? That communication among vast distances happens instantianiously? You can imagine it as a string of data teleporting from one location to another. How is that possible? We dont know. The point is, if quantum teleportation is in fact Real. Why wouldnt you think that quantum communication between a persons brainwaves and a nearby object could exist. Thats all telekinesis is, I told you its not external.
jibbity99 4 months ago
@jibbity99 - And do you realise that where ever there's a void in man's knowledge, it's human nature for some to try to fill the void, and therefore it's a space ripe for ideas relating to religion, the paranormal, aliens, ghosts etc. Hence just because we don't understand something it doesn't mean alternative ideas are true. On the quantum level, it seems that a particle can be in two places at once, but that doesn't mean we can scale it up and suggest a person can be in two places at once.
MTMind2 4 months ago
@jibbity99 - The reason I asked you to take the Randi Challenge is because if your powers of telekinesis is real, then you should have no problems in winning the prize, frivolous or not. Whilst certain people would argue that it's unfair (and I disagree), I don't really see why you would object if you're so confident of your powers. What have you to lose in trying? I'm not calling you a liar, far from it, but you haven't offered any reasons for anyone to take your telekinesis claim seriously.
MTMind2 4 months ago 10
Comment removed
JoshuaZelinsky 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoshuaZelinsky 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoshuaZelinsky 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jibbity99 The laws of physics do too apply at a quantum level. They just aren't the laws that you learned about in intro highschool physics. Moreover, quantum entanglement does not allow the transportation of data. Moreover, there's nothing special about "brainwaves" that would allow special communication. Human brains are too warm, too wet, and too entangled with their general environment to do anything interesting in a quantum mechanical setting.
JoshuaZelinsky 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoshuaZelinsky 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoshuaZelinsky 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoshuaZelinsky 4 months ago
Comment removed
JoshuaZelinsky 4 months ago
I didn't missed any point, MTMind2.....
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
I've read several responses on their forum as to what they consider "proof" of telekinesis. Its not enough to make an object move within an air tight container...Thats what they have said....Please explain to me, how a paper object can possible move in an air tight container? magnets dont move paper. if your no where near the container, you cant possibly bump it to make it move...so how is that unacceptable proof? its not...its frivolous denial.
jibbity99 4 months ago
Out of the thousands of people who have probably applied for that challenge, you dont really think i'm the only one telling the truth do you? There is a reason no one has won. Its a frivolous challenge. I'm not interested in being the next person denied frivolously. There is no point in me uploading videos, look to your right, there are many real ones already here.
youtube.com/watch?v=H5NwRfMJgOQ
That video is 100% real. No proof will ever be better than that. I can do exactly the same thing.
jibbity99 4 months ago
@jibbity99 - Sorry but, saying it's real doesn't make it so, that video is no more real than any other. Now if he takes up the $1m challenge and succeeds, THEN that can be considered proof. And on what basis do you call the $1m challenge 'frivolous'? You're using the same kind of excuses that others with so-called psychic powers use, where for some reason they never work under strictly controlled conditions, hence all have failed the Randi challenge despite agreeing to the conditions beforehand.
MTMind2 4 months ago
@jibbity99 - James Randi's challenge began in 1968! Over 40 yrs ago! Someone should have succeeded by now. Sorry if my scepticism offends you, but you don't have a given right to be believed. I can claim to bend spoons and keys and say it's real (unlike the tricks used by Uri Geller and others), and you can't prove otherwise. Hence that doesn't make my powers real, and I shouldn't expect to be believed unless I can demonstrate it under strict controls, like say, those of the $1m Randi challenge.
MTMind2 4 months ago
@MTMind2 Quite intellectually lazy and dogmatic of you for putting your whole faith in James Randi's Challenge without even interrogating and critiquing its methodology like a true-skeptic would do. Why do you believe the challenge is legitimate? Is it because he said so or is it because he's a conjurer who detects trickery and claims to have professional scientists?
You're a skeptic?
More like a pseudoskeptic who masquerades faith-based beliefs and bad arguments as skepticism.......
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - There's no need for insults. I've read enough about the Randi challenge over the years to be satified that's it's fair. Besides, do you consider ALL paranormal claims to be true, without exception? If not, then which ones are fake, and how did you decide? I would love the paranormal to be true, I've been fascinated by the subject since I was a kid, however the fact remain that they never hold up to close scrutiny. So until that changes, I will remain sceptical over such claims.
MTMind2 4 months ago
@MTMind2 You considered the challenge fair???
So, you'll still put your faith in the challenge despite the fact that nearly a thousand of applicants have applied for the challenge and none of them have even at least passed the preliminary test? Don't you see the big picture here? Doesn't it baffle you that none of these applicants have passed the former tests? hmm.. I wonder why...
Why do frauds bother you with the paranormal? There's nothing unique with these frauds, really..
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - Passed the preliminary test? A little over a thousand have failed the actual challenge itself, for which both sides agreed the terms BEFORE going ahead with it, nothing is forced upon the participants that they didn't agree to. Perhaps you can give examples of how the challenge was unfair to specific individuals who took it? So again I ask, which areas of the paranormal do you consider real and which do you consider fake, or are they all real to you regardless of the evidence?
MTMind2 4 months ago
@MTMind2 You either are an ignorant in the challenge methodology or you had misinterpreted what I said. I've never said they passed the preliminary and for your information, the preliminary test is an aspect of the actual challenge. The actual tests are the formal tests and no applicant has taken it. Of course there are no changes once the protocols are mutually agreed upon; however, when it comes to statistics, there is a double-standard known as P=0.001 (preliminary) and P=0.000001 (formal).
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - From my understanding, the Randi challenge is not there to test if something paranormal MAY be happening, but to establish that it HAS happened, hence the odds must be such that any positive result is unlikely to be due to chance alone. The relevance of that probability depends on the power being tested. If it's remote viewing for example, then there's a possiblity of guessing the right answers, but for metal bending, it either happens or it doesn't. Hence I see no problems.
MTMind2 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - Once again you choose to be rude, abusive and intolerant, which is unfortunate. And talking about assumptions, where's your proof that all those that took up the Randi challenge were never going to succeed because the challenge is unfair. That's an assumption too. If you're agnostic towards the paranormal, then fine that's your opinion, if you believe firmly in certain paranormal phenomena, again that fine, but it's also fine not to believe, and hence I remain unconvinced.
MTMind2 4 months ago
With enough awareness and research the truth will be made public in due time. You have nothing to worry about, you will understand before your life is over. When you do, you will look back at these days and laugh to yourself.
Its right infront of your eyes yet you refuse to believe it, all the while you yourself can do it. I dont need the given right to be believed...time is on my side. One day you will understand that. I'm not special. Thats why i know that challenge is frivolous.
jibbity99 4 months ago
@MTMind2 How exactly am I being rude, abusive, and intolerant? Is it because I called you an ignorant in Randi's Challenge or what??? Anyway, let's get back to our conversation. Yes, the odds have to be so low that it would hardly happen by chance, but setting the P-Value at 0.001 or 0.000001 is in no way acceptable in statistical standards and has a high probability of commiting a Type II error. P=0.05 or 0.01 is good enough. These double-standards are the main reason why nobody pass by chance.
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - The Randi challenge is not a study, it's a competition, hence no-one should win it by chance alone. If we had 10 cards, P=0.001 is the chance of you selecting the same card as me 3 times in a row. How is that being unfair to the 'psychic'? It should be easy! P=0.000001 is the chance of you selecting the same card as me 6 times in a row. The prize is for demonstrating real psychic abilities, not possible abilities, so P=0.05 (i.e. 1 in 20 by chance alone) is far from good enough.
MTMind2 4 months ago
@MTMind2 It's truly baffling how you failed to understand why psi has anything to do with double-standards such as P=0.001 and 0.000001. If you were a knowledgeable person in statistics, you would easily realize just how corrupted and ludicrous it is to set the bar too high. Psi does matter when it comes to these double-standards, especially when it comes to small effect-sizes. Can a person with a really small ESP effect easily get 0.001 and 0.000001 in a really small sample-size? No.....
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@MTMind2 There are 50 ESP Cards and the probability of the claimant getting a hit is 1/5, 20%, or 0.2. If the claimant scored 17 or > (Psi-Hitting) 3 or <(Psi-Missing) that would be considered empirical evidence of ESP in hypothesis-testing. If the claimant consitently scored P<0.05, then that would be genuine evidence of ESP and not dumb luck. So, is it neccesary to put 0.001? Nope. The JREF expects a score of 20 to pass the preliminary and 25 for the latter, which is quite frankly unfair.
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@MTMind2 You're right, the challenge is not a scientific study, its a challenge for anyone who can demonstrate the paranormal under rigorously controlled condtions; however, the challenge is corrupted by the tests that are involved in statistical applications..
"hence no-one should win it by chance alone."
Where did you get this ignorant nonsense? Put about a million of people in the challenge and I promise you more than half would pass the former and probably one would pass the latter...
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - Again you miss the point. The Randi test is not a scientific study, it's a competition, the purpose is not to test an individual or group of individuals to see if the results they achieve are better than chance, and if so, to see if their results are statististically significant compared to chance. In such cases, statistically significant results may suggest a paranormal influence, but it doesn't necessarily rule out other factors, but it does warrent further study.
MTMind2 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - Those who take the Randi challenge are those who claim to already have paranormal abilities, and so they shouldn't need to depend on chance to succeed, as you or I would. Sure you may think that's unfair to some, but those are the rules. Those who make their living out of their claimed powers, often conning the vulnerable out of huge sums of money, are never uncertain about their abilities, so forgive me if I don't sympathise with claims that the challenge is unfair to them.
MTMind2 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - And regarding your earlier point about the preliminary test. The challenge is open to ALL paranormal claims, hence 1000+ people haven't taken the SAME preliminary test, they would have taken a test specific to their claimed abilities, and hence when you consider of the range of paranormal/psychic powers that would have been tested, there would be a fraction out of that 1000 in each category so far, and so not enough for anyone to get passed the preliminary test by chance...yet.
MTMind2 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - "Put about a million of people in the challenge and I promise you more than half would pass the former and probably one would pass the latter"
So how is the test unfair? If someone passes the latter, then they win on the basis of a 1 in a million chance, good enough to strongly suggest their ability is real. You're saying the fact that no-one has passed the former is proof that it's unfair, but it's not, it's proof that 1000 people haven't taken the SAME preliminary test!
MTMind2 4 months ago
@MTMind2 "You're saying the fact that no-one has passed the former is proof that it's unfair, but it's not, it's proof that 1000 people haven't taken the SAME preliminary test!"
I never said that. I said that the double-standards such as P=0.000001 is unacceptable in statistical standards and unfair because that type of score expects more hits much more than what be considered sufficent evidence. In addition, the number of applicants is irrelevant. It's the double-standards that matter.
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@MTMind2 "If someone passes the latter, then they win on the basis of a 1 in a million chance, good enough to strongly suggest their ability is real."
That is a justifiable position; however, there is one methodological problem...setting the P-Value that low increases the odds of rejecting a claimant's claim, when in fact, the claim is true (which is known as a Type II error in a statistical sense) This applys to all studies, not just paranormal ones....
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@MTMind2 "Those who.... and so they shouldn't need to depend on chance to succeed, as you or I would."
What a bunch of dogmatic and quite frankly ignoramus bullshit. Again, paranormal abilities that involve statistical applications, e.g. telepathy, are completely dependent on double-standards such as P=0.000001. Can an ESP claimant who usually scores P=0.01 get 0.000001 in a single test? Quite unlikely (unless you conduct a meta-analysis).
Ever heard of the psi and baseball analogy????
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IceAges14Aces - "What a bunch of dogmatic and quite frankly ignoramus bullshit" - Look in the mirror my friend. Experiments for pyschic abilities, where they test to see if the results are better than by chance alone, have been happening for over a century! However, there are so many factors that can effect such results, from poor design and errors, to cheating and false assumptions, that any positive results are controversial at best. Hence there is no concensus that ESP has been proven.
MTMind2 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - As a result, measurements of psi have yet to produce a concensus view that person A definately has psychic abilities. Given all the studies carried out last century to measure psi, can you name an individual whose psi scores were such that it is generally agreed that, without doubt, he/she MUST have psychic powers? No? Then how can such tests be the basis for determining the winner of a competition where there should be no doubt about the claimed psychic/paranormal abilities?
MTMind2 4 months ago
@MTMind2 First of all, there is no such thing as scientific proof. All scientific concepts are based on hypotheses, theories, and models facilitated by data collection and it is inevitable that these concepts would either be rejected or modified as new empirical evidence becomes available. Second, ESP, as well as PK, are possibly just abstracts created by the mind and they are tentative at best, concrete at worst. Third, there is no such thing as a perfect, fraud-proof psi experiments........
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@MTMind2 It is indeed true that early parapsychological studies suffered from systematic biases due to poor experimentation, lack of realism, etc.; however, there are parapsychological experiments that do deserve to be taken under consideration and one of the best experiments are The Ganzfeld, DMILS, Presentiment, etc. These studies were independently replicated, e.g. ganzfeld had been replicated by 88 indepedent studies (32% hit rate) (N=3,145, total hits: 1,008).....
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - Yes, however the results of such studies (and meta-studies) are still hotly disputed and debated, hence are more warmly received by parapsychologists than those in other fields. You're right there's no such thing as a perfect psi experiment, but a study will involve lots of individuals and/or lots of repeated experiments, and those results will be analysed for statistical significance, so there are bound to be a few people whose results are way above the mean by chance alone.
MTMind2 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - As a result, if you're testing just 1 person for a competition rather than a group study, surely you'll need to either tighten the prob. of success by chance, or have them repeat the same experiment sufficient times for an acceptable statistical analysis of results? I assume the $1m challenge has chosen the former. Interestingly, the challenge website has a log of applicants on it's forum, which specifies the protocol agreed for each. Shouldn't any unfairness be evident there?
MTMind2 4 months ago
@MTMind2 "I assume the $1m challenge has chosen the former."
Congratulations! You have just shown another justifiable reason why the challenge is corrupted. A single experiment does not conclusively support anything since it lacks replication and again, setting the P=0.000001 has a higher risk of commiting a Type II error. The challenge is akin to giving a really ill subject a pill and see if the subject gets better quick. Who the hell does that? That's not how we verify things in science.
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - I completely disagree, all it shows is that if anyone does win that challenge, then it's on the basis that it's almost definitely due to their claimed psychic abilities, rather than by chance. That's the challenge and hence the prize. I've been reading criticism of the challenge online, and what stands out is that no-one highlights any case of unfairness, despite the applicants and protocols being available. Perhaps, unlike them, you have an example case you can highlight here?
MTMind2 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - Again, the Randi challenge is a competition. If my claim was a 'magic pill' that I sell on the basis that it makes ANY really ill person well again very 'quickly', then my protocol may be to give a pill to 5 really ill people. If they all get better 'quickly', then I win. Sure that's not a scientific study, but that's the principle, where YOU make the claim, hence your claim is tested. So I would be interested to read about unfairness to a specific participant of the challenge.
MTMind2 4 months ago
@MTMind2 *facepalm*
Here is something interesting: If you really do have ESP or PK, but its effect-size is small, then don't start crying that the JREF labeled you as a bullshiter simply because you failed to reach the P=0.000001 in a really small sample-size.
Go ahead, believe in that dogmatic challenge all you want, I couldn't care less.....
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - In otherwords, you and others can't find any example of unfairness.
If your ESP was small, then how would it stand out enough in life for you to consider entering the Randi challenge in the first place? None of the studies you've mentioned have found a person whose ESP was greater than others, much less repeated experiments with that same person obtaining the same result. Instead psi only seems to reveal itself in group experiments, but those results are controversial at best.
MTMind2 3 months ago
@MTMind2 "In otherwords, you and others can't find any example of unfairness."
I provided enough justifiable reasons to justify my proposition that the challenge is unfair. If you can't see them, well that's too bad...
"If your ESP was small,..... challenge in the first place?"
Simple, you get tested under homogeneous experimentation with a large # of sample-size and once analyzed/combined, there will be strong evidence for ESP. Unlike the challenge, they rely on small sample-size...
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@MTMind2 "None of the studies you've mentioned have found a person whose ESP was greater than others"
Why the hell does the lack of finding a person whose ESP was greater than others bother you at all? This quote is purely prejudicial and arrogant at best. Whether or not the psi effect is small is irrelevant.
"much less repeated experiments... obtaining the same result."
You're obviously talking out of your own ass. Wrong, they have been replicated by independent researchers...
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - Funny, I thought you couldn't care less about whatever I thought ;-)
No you're wrong, I said repeated experiments with the SAME individual, not repeated group experiments. And yes it does matter, because if they can't identify and verify with repeated experiments, psi in ONE individual, then those studies do not form the basis for a competition offering $1m for ONE individual proving him/herself to have psychic abilities. Again, can you provide a specific example of unfairness?
MTMind2 3 months ago
@MTMind2 "Funny, I thought you couldn't care less about whatever I thought ;-)"
Funny, how you failed to grasp on what exactly I couldn't care less about. What was it... oh that's right your belief that the challenge is fair.
"I said repeated experiments with the SAME individual, not repeated group experiments."
You're talking out of your own ass again. There are no repeated experiments in these studies with the same individual. Only ordinary, random people......
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - Well done for missing the point (or pretending to). The fact that they can't identify one individual with psi but only a psi effect in groups of people (again, controversial and so not universally accepted as fact), shows the methodology of such studies does not form the basis for testing one person for psychic abilities in a competition. Until you or any of the other critics of the Randi challenge can point to actual cases of unfairness, then your claim remains unfounded.
MTMind2 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - Hence you may get anger and red in the face all you like, I'm still enjoying the discussion :-). However, I think we're about to go full circle now (if we haven't done so already), and hence I don't see much point in us continuing this discussion for much longer. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me, hence I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)
MTMind2 3 months ago
@MTMind2 "The fact that they can't identify one individual with psi...in a competition."
You obviously need to take a statistic class. For your information, the statistical significance tests in those studies uses the same conventional significance tests & scientific criteria in other scientific disciplines such as medical, biological, etc. and there is evidence that shows that an overall conclusion from a single study is much less accurate and risk in Type II error than combined studies.
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@MTMind2 Ever wonder why these parapsychological studies like the Ganzfeld have never won the prize??? The answer is simple: it's not a cost-effective challenge. Since the effect-sizes of these studies are indeed small, the JREF would need more than a million $ for larger sample-size and experiments if they want to detect these psi effects; otherwise, they have a high probability of committing a Type II Error (This also goes to ordinary studies)
This is not an excuse, it's plain statistics.
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces Do you have anything resembling a mechanism that would explain why this would happen in a large scale group setting but no individual would be substantially psychic? Note by the way that the JREF prize is for individual claims, so if any specific person has powers then they can get the prize.
JoshuaZelinsky 3 months ago
@JoshuaZelinsky The reason why an individual doesn't easily show a psi effect like in a meta-analysis in a single study is because the psi effect-size is quite small, hence it requires more statistical power to detect it, which you would need a larger sample-size to detect this effect. However, a meta-analysis already contains a strong statistical power, i.e. strong at detecting the effect due to the large # of sample-size from indepedent studies. MA is much more accurate than few studies.....
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces Ah. So no individual human has special powers but everyone has a tiny bit. If all humans have these then why haven't we evolved to use them more effectively? Surely that would help. Also if these powers work at such margins does that mean you don't believe the people in this thread who claim special powers?
Note that meta-analysis easily gives bad results especially when one has a file drawer effect, which is a particular problem in this area.
JoshuaZelinsky 3 months ago
@JoshuaZelinsky The magnitude of the effect-size is irrelevant to whether or not it exists. If all medicines have a magnitude of 100% effect-sizes, then it is inevitable that all these medical studies will all be positive and will cure all the people, e.g., all the people who take Aspirin will have a 100% chance of not having a heart attack. This type of effect can easily be detected by 1 sample-size. Unfortunately, this is not the case, especially Aspirin.
This is the same as psi......
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces Missing the point. If one has an actual ability that all humans have then one should expect that evolution would have acted on it to make the ability usable in more circumstances. It is inconsistent with how evolution works that all humans would have an ability but it would only exist on the outskirts.
JoshuaZelinsky 3 months ago
Comment removed
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@JoshuaZelinsky "Note that meta-analysis easily gives bad results especially when one has a file drawer effect, which is a particular problem in this area."
Very true; however, the meta-analyses conducted from parapsychological studies such as Ganzfeld, DMILS, etc. don't suffer from publication bias (file-drawer problem) and this has been confirmed by a statistical method known as a funnel plot
I know other flaws in meta-analses, but none account for the meta-analyses in parapsychology.
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@JoshuaZelinsky "Note that meta-analysis easily gives bad results especially when one has a file drawer effect, which is a particular problem in this area."
Very true; however, the meta-analyses conducted from parapsychological studies such as Ganzfeld, DMILS, etc. don't suffer from publication bias (file-drawer problem) and this has been confirmed by a statistical method known as a funnel plot
I know other flaws in meta-analses, but none account for the meta-analyses in parapsychology.
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces File drawer is only of a variety of problems with meta analyses. They don't take into account issues of some studies having poor controls or deviations from protocols. This is why in the hard sciences meta analysis is not enough to establish a claim generally unless the analysis is very careful. The ideal is an actual experiment (possibly on a larger scale), and one wants something like an actual mechanism to explain how the phenomenon works.
JoshuaZelinsky 3 months ago
@JoshuaZelinsky That is very true and I agree without a doubt. While a meta-analysis is a good systematic review, it is of course very easy for biases to come in. However, these parapsychological meta-analyses were scrutinized and modified by the criticism and as time went by. Heterogeniety is the most common problem meta-anlyses suffer from. Even Wiseman and Milton's Ganzfeld meta-analysis suffered from heterogeniety due to the lack of the standardness criteria like Honorton's 85 MA.....
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - Again, the Randi challenge is a competition not a study. So again I ask, state a specific case of someone who has taken the Randi challenge for which the protocol agreed is unfair. Until you or other critics can provide that, then you're offering nothing but hot air. I've searched online amongst ALL the critics I can find, and yet despite the challenge running for decades with the protocols published and hence available, NONE of the critics identify a single case of unfairness.
MTMind2 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - JoshuaZelinsky is echoeing the same point I've raised. So why is it that (according to some studies) psi seems to reveal itself only within a group but not for an individual? No study has identified psi in a particular individual so far. Until studies identifies such an individual using the same methodologies as the group studies, then there's no reason to expect the Randi challenge to do what those studies have yet to achieve, and so there's no basis for suggesting it's unfair.
MTMind2 3 months ago
@MTMind2 "So why is it that (according to some studies) psi seems to reveal itself only within a group but not for an individual?"
Look below
"NONE of the critics identify a single case of unfairness."
I already identified a single case of unfairness, but since you're either too lazy or probably just too stupid to comprehend it, I'm going to say it once:
The challenge is unfair by the tests involve in statistical applications due to that dogmatic, batshit double-standard P=0.000001
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - You continue to act like a kid with your insults, but you have not identified a specific case. I ask you to produce an example case, i.e. someone who has taken the Randi challenge and hence we can look at the protocol they agreed to. Give details of the person, their claimed psychic ability and why the protocol they agreed to was unfair. Neither you nor any of the critics have been able to do so, which again means all you have to offer is hot air. All talk but no substance.
MTMind2 3 months ago
@MTMind2 CARINA LANDIN, Swedish of the Dead- JREF Forum.
What will constitue a successful test: "If Ms. Landin is able to identify the gender of the deceased individual who wrote the letters, the test will be considered successful. Ms. Landin must identify 16 out of 20 (P=0.001)correctly."
Even if Ms Landin did scored P=0.001, she would have to beat P=0.000001 in the formal test.
Such ludicrously and idiocy indeed....
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - Which proves you miss the point. Ms. Landin is not some random individual being asked to identify the gender of a deceased individual, she claims to be able to make contact with the dead owner of some article of theirs that she touches most times, and claims she can give specific details about them, such as what they looked like, their cause of death, diseases etc. Hence 16 out of 20 for gender ONLY is fair test given her claimed powers. Hence I see no unfairness there.
MTMind2 3 months ago 5
@MTMind2 ARRGH!!!!!! I don't give a shit about Ms. Landin's claim and whether or not she is a random individual. Everything you mentioned is completely irrelevant to my point.
My point is that setting the P-Value at P=0.001 (For example, 16 out of 20) and then P=0.000001 (Greater than 19 out of 20) is ridiculous & quite frankly dogmatic batshit. Seriously, who the hell does that? What kind of researcher would get an effect at the P=0.001 level and all of a sudden raise it up to P=0.000001????
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
@IceAges14Aces - Did you ever consider checking the probability of that test? Or is that irrelevent too? I checked because I think it is relevent (hence the reason for looking at actual cases). I checked it using a binomial probability calculator online (actually, I tried a few just to be sure :-)). And the result? The probability of >=16 out of 20 is 0.0059, i.e. 1 in 169. So p=0.001 is not set in stone as you assume.
And given her claims, I doubt a final test would have been for gender only.
MTMind2 3 months ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@MTMind2 Yes we did gone through this and you're right that the actual probability is 0.0059; however, 16 out of 20 is 1 step away from 0.001. Maybe the "16" was a typo???
Nevertheless, there are indeed applicants who must reach P=001 to pass the preliminary, e.g. Patrica Putt, 5 out of 10 (P=0.001), Clairvoyant, Pavel Zibrov (P<0.001), UK Skeptics, Test Protocol for Derek Ogilvie (P=0.001), etc.....
IceAges14Aces 2 months ago
@MTMind2 "And yes it does matter, because if they can't identify... then those studies do....offering $1m for ONE individual proving him/herself to have psychic abilities."
Jesus, you're a pain in the ass. So, the fact that it wasn't verify with experiments mean it's bullshit?? Nope, there are many explanations & the most plausible one is the lack of appropriate statistical power, which the JREF suffers from due to the small sample-size..
Inappropriate statistical power=Type II error.
IceAges14Aces 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MTMind2 Yes, meta-analyses are controversial since they are open to systematic biases & these biases are somewhat prevalent in other meta-studies. In fact, some medical meta-studies that were approved by the FDA were actually flawed due to publication bias. However, some parapsychological meta-studies are very scrutinize in their meta-analyses and believe or not, they have have actually addressed criticism regarding experimentation & statistics. These criticism makes parapsychology rigorous.
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@MTMind2 and last, if you're not convinced that the challenge is unfair, then take a look at the results from other scientific independent studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Some or probably most of them failed to reach the P=0.000001 level.
Now take a look at the meta-analyses and look at the difference between the results of independent studies and homogeneous, combined studies....
Now you see why that P=0.000001 is ridiculous???
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@MTMind2 and last, if you're not convinced that the challenge is unfair, then take a look at the results from other scientific independent studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Some or probably most of them failed to reach the P=0.000001 level.
Now you see why that P=0.000001 is ridiculous???
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@MTMind2 A little over a thousand? Where is the evidence that justify this assumption??? I have seen many prevalent bullshit in the paranormal, yet I remain agnostic toward the paranormal.
By the way, your proposition that no paranormal has stand up under scrutiny is nothing but a ridiculously, ignorant, prejudiced caricature of the truth. To the best of my knowledge, there are only a few cases of the paranormal that deserve further consideration. The Ganzfeld is one of them...
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@jibbity99 Sorry to burst your bubble, but your excuse for not taking the challenge is a bunch of BS. You can easily win the challenge simply because there are no statistical applications involved. Even though I don't have any faith nor confidence in unjustified claims, I'm quite certain you have a good chance of passing because I had critiqued its methodology. Actually, the challenge is corrupted only on the statistical side due to the double-standards implied in mutually-agreed protocols.....
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@jibbity99 a video isn't really proof. all the circumstances must be examined, any scam artist will show you everything that doesn't hurt the trick. so he might show you what seems to be everything you can think of, which is almost always the simplest explanations. anyone can think it must be magnets or air, but when he shows it's not that, then people go "well, then i don't know, so it must be true." which is a weakness in the human brain.
Devoti 1 week ago
@jibbity99 i checked the video and it took me very little time to figure out what he did. he's using a hairdryer to make it seem like he's trying to prove that air can not enter the bowl. however what he's actually doing is heating the bowl.the heat of the bowl will make some of the air inside the bowl become warmer than rest of the air, creating air current which moves the paper. thanks and good night.
Devoti 1 week ago
people are in for a rude awakening.
telekinesis is real. it has nothing to do with static. its not an external force such as static, wind or heat. i can move objects with my mind, in a different rooms. i've stood 20 feet away from objects and controlled the direction of spin. Have fun using elementary physics to try and explain that. We havent even tapped the edge of atomic physics or quantum interaction yet we think we know it all. foolish people.
jibbity99 4 months ago
@jibbity99 - Really, then I suggest you apply for James Randi's $1000000 paranormal challenge. It's simple, all you have to do is prove your telekinesis under agreed conditions and close observation and the money is yours (you don't even have to leave the country). Let's see if you can succeed where hundreds, perhaps thousands, have failed ;-). Let us know how you get on. In the meantime, why not film your telekinesis demonstrations and upload the videos on your channel.
MTMind2 4 months ago 16
@MTMind2 (ok, no idea why you cant post youtube links in a comment) When you paste that link above, if it doesnt work, take out the dash, its the second to last character in the link after you paste it.
jibbity99 4 months ago
Would they be able to explain the mystery of my existence?
NYtassu 4 months ago
t.k is real it uses static to move objects our brains work on electricity t.k uses static to creat a magnetic field wether its around you or the object is unknown now im not saying everytime you move somthing with static its tk im saying this is the logics of tk its not some super power it is the ability to create more electicity in your brain wich in turn draws a static field towards you static is everywhere if the magnetic pull is stronge enough you can move things
darklotus1223 4 months ago
@darklotus1223 Everything you said about telekinesis is oxymoronic at all levels.
Telekinesis is the ability to move, affect, or levitate objects with the mind alone, yet you said it uses static electricity. If it works by static electricity, then it's not telekinesis. It's conventional physics....
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces no beause your still using the powr of the mind to focus it
darklotus1223 4 months ago
@darklotus1223 Ok, believe whatever you want to believe........
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
@IceAges14Aces do some actual research instead of watching youtube videos and my explanation was a theory
darklotus1223 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IceAges14Aces do some actual research instead of watching youtube videos and my explanation was a theory
darklotus1223 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@darklotus1223 do some actual research instead of watching youtube videos and my explanation was a theory
darklotus1223 4 months ago
just watch t.k under glass bowl proove that wrong
darklotus1223 4 months ago
LA NEGRA ESTA SE CREE MUY VIVA Y ESTA REPENDEJA . CLARO ESTA PAGADA . QUE MAS
danieloleinad 4 months ago
@danieloleinad Esta mujer piensa que ella exponer las falsedades de telequinesis con la ciencia, pero en realidad, es un prejuicio.
IceAges14Aces 4 months ago
First off, dude is reading what he's told to read and he's not very good at making it look like it's from his mind. Kat acts like she's using telekinesis all the time by the way she's holding her hands out like she's got something in them, telekinesis is real, even scienctist believe humans will one day be able to use it, so another science scam video has made science and all of you who like this shit look fucking stupid.
WuffPakk7 4 months ago
People are stubborn, they'll believe that static electricity is telekinesis. Believe or not, many people can actually influence what you decide, because everybody wants to feel like they belong even though there is evidence they're wrong. The reason is because of probabililty and common sense, if everyone runs outside from a building, your gonna run too even if you don't have proof theres something wrong. So, is it static electricity if everyone believes its telekinesis, no its telekinesis.
SmokingJoePot 4 months ago
Excuses, excuses, everything has a scientific explanation for it, like your "god" but the thing is people wanna have faith and to prove them wrong is to claim "blasphemy" and go to "hell" even if you don't believe one exists and in the old days, you probably get killed or tortured until you converted. So does it matter if everyone believes even though you have proof, no it doesn't matter because people are blinded with faith so to them its real, regardless whether there is scientific proof.
SmokingJoePot 4 months ago
telekinesis is real that is fake but its real
Ninjaxfrog 5 months ago
What about people that move objets inside a glass? without any wind?
madafakaGNR 5 months ago
I want "Kat" to explain me this watch?v=X6Ksr20DRiE
WargoDsssss 5 months ago
The problem is that no matter how real it can be, any display is going to look fake. I made a 5 min. TK tape and it looked fake even to *me.*
DoctorOrion1 5 months ago
Comment removed
SY4173 5 months ago
@SY4173 So what if he is? He's hot as hell, and can mind-fuck me any day ^_^
HyenaBride 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
go get a brain! brown! come back! and we can talk properly
SY4173 5 months ago
Thats kool
takakonobe 5 months ago
I just watched the video and I can confirm what they did was a scam!
2007UFO 5 months ago
hahahahahahah fuck off.... i think this program is stupid, they just wanna make people beleave their scams theory aplying cience
jjnomjqg 5 months ago
A SCAM THAT THEY THEMSELVES INVENTED TO PROVE THEMSELVES THAT THEY WERE... Scamming... People... Using... Science..?
Either way, of course it was a scam... YOU MADE IT!
Alvsyn 5 months ago
I think these people are trying to explain us ...but ,¿ what the hell they has to explain? It is a fact that in this world, and in the entire universe, there are things that we cannot explain, and things that even the "science" understands. This is just an opinion...