@Drlb117 your first try you must take it easy man... eyes open think about that one thing make everything else go blank....make that object your whole world
in attesa di una risposta. i read the things you wrote and i hope youre not so upset anymore about the other people.
im travelling arround the world since 5 years i love it,learning languages and get to know other people working here sleeping there.....and i think,that we are living under a little glass bowl = )no time to hate greets
kkpthe floorheating are causing the movements so i tried it here and there in the in the house,always with a needle stucked in a candle and the wheel on top,hands on my knees looking and focusing.today i sat away almost 3 meters from it and i made it turn in one direction for about maybe 20 sec.i was so stoked.that was my experience.in the beginning you think....yeah.... noo wait am i crazy,but its only as the man in the other video says
hey how are you doin,i made this account on youtube actually just to send you a message,and if you like to talk a little bit with you about tk(would be cool)= )
i tryied the psi wheel 3 days ago for the first time and it worked,i first saw the video of the (i dont know is he irish or scottish)man,but hes doin it without covering the wheel,i was allone at home and i tryied it,at first only it was only a little bit bouncing.....then turning but not clearly in a direction.i thought mb my breath or
I know the guy who made this. We hung out in a forum over 10 years ago and a bunch of us would do experiments with PSI and mind abilities. They went on to make the site Psipog and I kinda went my own way and looked for the science behind the phenomena.
Your beef with overly outspoken critics is unfounded. As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and as someone who apparently claimed something as wild as telekinesis the burden of proof is on you. People that claimed that they 'knew' how you did it were simply presenting hypotheses as to the mechanism behind the observed effect. Actively trying to understand the cause behind the effect beats lazy agnosticism any day. That said, I commend on the gimmick. Well played.
now that's how u do it :) most ppl use without the glass bowl which makes it into a heat function only not telekinesis. I practise this method everyday for about 2months now. I'm not super at it. but It's coming on slowly :) I just got one question, how much everyday do u practise?
@JamesCoverley I think what angels was trying to say is simply that people who declare themselves skeptics can be no more than simply close-minded, which is, indeed, another meaning the word is often used in.
Speaking of, the video above is an illustration of true skepticism: someone who doesn't reject "telekinesis" out of hand, yet doesn't trust it because there's no evidence for it.
@porlke its quite hard at first then you get the hang of it just consintrate on the wheel like its just you and the wheel and imagin it spining in the direction you want it to go and keep focusing and it will move you dont even need your fingers that just help you focus on one thing it took me about two days to get the hang of it it was frustrating at first but if you start young its quiet easy because they dont have much on their mind
ps dont let air hit it because it will skrew you up
good work man...ive also started doin this but without the glass container on it cuz i think i can start to build up and then try the glass container on it and i learned to also manipulate its movement if i want it moving clockwise or counterclockwise but i wanna ask u if u know any tips of how to use the energy to move it inside the glass
Are you ladies confusing scientific scepticism with philosophical scepticism? If we're talking the scientific method, it's pretty straightforward. You're sceptical until something can be verified. If it's the philosophical method, well...I'll leave that up to you.....
@JamesCoverley The skepticism we were talking about is pseudoskepticism. Pseudoskepticism is based on dogmatism and special pleading nothing else. Arguing against the reality of a claim (Such as, "X doesn't exist) without referring to scientific studies (if there are any) is a bad constructed argument and a sign of pseudoskepticism (if the person claims he is a skeptic). However, if there are valid reasons/evidence to reject a claim, then that's a different matter, as SexyMelon said.
@angelsssssssssssss Well you can call it psuedoskepticism if you like, to me that comes under philosphy rather than scienctific scetpicism. As long as an experiment fits a pretty simple set of criteria it's results can be added to the scientific landscape. What one shouldn't do, as happens far too often, is to take such results as hard evidence. Rather like picking one tree in a forest and saying this tree is true and all the others are false. This is where scientific scepticism comes in.
@JamesCoverley Another sign of pseudoskepticism is denying the valid scientific evidence of a claim by using rhetorical techniques, such as these experiments are a failure, it's biased, and so on, when it has been proven not to be the case. There are more signs of pseudoskepticism than the ones I have showed. Yes, scientific skepticism keeps us out from delusions and fraudulent claims. Doubting a theory and questioning it is part of scientific skepticism isn't? BTW, I'm not a lady.
@angelsssssssssssss Let me give you an example: Climate scienctists are widely sceptical over claims that climate change is natural and not man-made. There are dozens of studies that have shown climate change to be natural and all are well researched pieces of work. But there are thousands of studies that show it to be man-made, all equally valid. Questioning the validity of an experiment is not really scepticism at all.
@angelsssssssssssss Once you've accepted the validity of an experiment you become entitled to be scientifically sceptical of the results should they prove to be incongruous in the face of other, overwhelming, data. This is not to dismiss the results but to try to look for other explanations that fit the data.
@Explorer15328 If you believe that since there are frauds, such as Uri Geller, then all people who claimed they are telekinetic are fakes, then you had fallen into a logical fallacy called, "Proof by example fallacy" "Uri Geller and Nina Kulagina are fakes; therefore all telekinetics are fakes" is a fallacy.
@SexyMelon I don't think it is possible to absolutely prove psi phenomena under science. Why? Well, it is possible that the outcomes of an ESP test can be influenced by telekinesis, which can cause the results to look like genuine ESP, but actually due to telekinesis. Another one is that what if ESP is not really ESP, but some unknown phenomena? What are your thoughts about these?
First of all, Keith Mayes is a very well educated skeptic with the right mind to disbeleive. He has spent 6 years dealing with bullshit of people making pointless babble to defend Tk existence. Second of all, your hands are near the glass, meaning the heat from them is moving the psi wheel.
@Explorer15328 "Second of all, your hands are near the glass, meaning the heat from them is moving the psi wheel."
Congratulations, you're the exact kind of self-righteous, prejudiced, bigoted, insulting, childish, uneducated, stubborn pseudo-skeptic and pseudo-intellectual that this video is all about, not a iota better than irrational believers in the "supernatural", and in some ways even worse.
@SexyMelon Listen, I researched this stuff for months, honeslty I wanted TK to be real but it just isn't. I wasn't trying to be a hater or anything, only saying what I felt and you responded kinda harsh.
@Explorer15328 Basic etiquette tells me I should apologize, but I just can't. I won't.
Did you actually read the description? The whole point of the experiment was illustrating gullibility of the "believers" in TK, and instead it ended up illustrating how un-skeptical and prejudiced self-professed skeptics can be, going so far as to make baseless and outright wrong claims of knowledge about something they couldn't possibly know.
@Explorer15328 Oh and for, um, "months of research", the notion that the "psi-wheel" can spin from one's hands being near a glass bowl takes approximately five minutes of cutting out a square tinfoil, finding a pin, a glass bowl, and some hot tap water to disprove.
Or, alternatively, basic knowledge behind basis of operation of a glass window.
This isn't how the trick is done, but in light of otherwise display of anti-skepticism this is just nitpicking.
@SexyMelon Ok asshole, when I said months of research I was applying to the overall study of it. I've talked with people on this for months. I did read the description. I had a healthy level of doubt in the beginning without even watching this video, and from what I've gathered, telekinesis is a load of nonsense. So fuck you, I have plenty of reasons to know that telekinesis is fake.
@Explorer15328 I was right in never apologizing, clearly.
Your claim is self-righteous and demonstrably wrong, your judgment is prejudice and preconceived rejection, which you openly admit to, and your proposed research evidently non-existent.
Pseudo-intellectualism and anti-skepticism at their finest. For shame.
@SexyMelon Ok listen, I WILL BELEIVE IN TK IF SOMEONE ACTUALLY MEETS THE STANDARDS TO PROVE IT! The only problem I have with beleiving is out of all the people who say they can do TK, they wont prove it beyond videographic proof. There is a million dollar reward for goodness sake. I can understand that some people wouldn't want to go into that but absoluelty no one at all? Here is my small hope. All things in the universe are energy, even thing from the mind such as thoughts. Contiuing->
@Explorer15328 "Ok listen, I WILL BELEIVE IN TK IF SOMEONE ACTUALLY MEETS THE STANDARDS TO PROVE IT!"
That would be a skeptical approach. You, however, sound like anything but a skeptic.
"There is a million dollar reward for goodness sake."
Creationists, Astrologists, Homeopathists, Conspiracy Theorists, and many other people have their little "challenges" too. This is not, however, how truth is decided.
If this is your standard of proof, you are, again, a pseudo-skeptic.
@SexyMelon Ok, in common courtesy I'll say thank you for making me realize I was going to a total closed mind. Normally what I stand for is keeping an open mind, but I think I had been around Keith Mayes and all so long I was turning the opposite of what I stand for.
@Explorer15328 "Ok, in common courtesy I'll say thank you for making me realize I was going to a total closed mind. Normally what I stand for is keeping an open mind, but I think I had been around Keith Mayes and all so long I was turning the opposite of what I stand for."
Then you're very welcome, and very good luck to you.
Skepticism is about demanding evidence for any claims before you believe them... But it's also believing them the second evidence is provided. It's two sides of one coin.
@SexyMelon Using your minds power as a force, energy, going against your target energy, you can move it. Perhaps their is some unkown law of the universe, or one no one can fathom making it possible. The problem is no one is actually proving it. I beleive that unless TK is a rare gift that very few have, that people are simply just faking this. Perhaps you have a point though, I find myself dumstruck that I utmost completely closed my mind to this.
@SexyMelon What is so ludicrous about pseudoskeptics is that they make a lot of negative claims, but won't even bother to conduct any counterstudies to justify their claims. Darrylsloan has conducted experiments to show that the theory that the psi wheel is due to heat is wrong, but the damn annoying pseudoskeptics still go with their prejudiced bullshit. What is also funny is that they state they are open minded, yet they try to debunk anything that they disagree with based on their prejudice.
@angelsssssssssssss I think there's a term for that in psychology, similar to double-think... When we fail to see in ourselves what we think we're morally above. Just like that, someone who is dead-sure he's a no-nonsense person will discount any evidence while blaming the opposition for doing the same.
"Stupidity, outrage, vanity, cruelty, iniquity, bad faith, falsehood - we fail to see the whole array when it is facing in the same direction as we." - Jean Rostand
@SexyMelon Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sound a lot like, "Special Pleading fallacy." It is when subject(s) accept only the reasons supporting a proposition are supplied, while all reasons opposing it are omitted. It is more like confirmation bias, where subjects only pay attention to only what they think it is important, and ignore the reasons that are opposing to whatever they pay attention to (Argument from one-sidedness).
@angelsssssssssssss Hey, good catch! This probably is indeed special pleading, "Here are all the reasons this is wrong, and I don't want to hear any why it's right..." I think it's also the literal definition of being close-minded, as in not even bothering to consider anything that contradicts your beliefs, and automatically assuming you're right without actually checking.
Of course all these fallacies are interconnected in the grand scheme of things... It's what we call "logic", isn't it?
@SexyMelon Yes, I would call that logic. Isn't logic amazing? WIth logic, you can tell who is ignorant, who is close minded, & detect logical fallacies. Do you agree that some or most scientists are close minded toward new things that challenge their scientific knowledge? I would strongly agree because some or most scientists are theory-driven instead of data-driven, which they accept only the things that follow their theories and ignore things that violate it.
@angelsssssssssssss I'm pretty sure any scientist that has ever actually done any scientific work would learn very early on to keep both an open mind and an extremely skeptical attitude towards everything, because of how many mistakes one will inevitably make, how many theories one will have to discard, and how rigorous the tests and theorems have to be.
However, scientists are still people, still affected by social norms, so those hard-learned lessons will still be discarded in certain cases.
@SexyMelon I agree with you that we always been resistant toward new ideas. For instance, about 2 years ago, my friends from the high school believe in reincarnation, but I was so close minded that I straight out claimed reincarnation is bullshit due to my prejudice. That wouldn't be count as a skeptical position because skeptics doubt positive claims that states what is real and what is not real, correct? You're right! We are all a bunch of close minded assholes. Have a nice happy new year!
@angelsssssssssssss Actually that's a bad example: unless your friend had any proof or reincarnation at that point, you'd be quite right to call bullshit on it based on common knowledge of how the brain works and all that. Maybe our ideas about mind and the brain aren't entirely correct or skeptical, but that's another matter.
Skepticism voids itself by rejecting something out of hand, but if there's a reason for rejecting something, that's another matter. It's a bit tricky that way.
@angelsssssssssssss It's really no secret we've always been resistant towards new ideas, often ideas that we now take for granted, ideas that have advanced our society in pretty grand ways... To think we don't do that today is completely ignorant, but that's what most people believe.
Instead of learning from mistakes of the past we simply shake our heads and then go ahead and do the same thing all over again.
How many technologies have we "banned" without even investigating them?.. Cold fusion, stem cells, esp... What's next, are we going to declare particle physics void if LHC doesn't turn up with anything?..
@SexyMelon He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.
I tried doing this "telekinetic psiwheel thing and did not work for me. Prob need practice, just tried it once, if telekinesis works why is it always the same thing i see in youtube the rotation of the paper. how bout flotation and crimpling or something. it's always the same. there is some trick. I suppose if your brain was diff from a normal human being then i can see how it's possible, but you would not be doing this or would u, u would occupy your precious time with something worthwhile, no?
@Amathos Well, you do need a practice. It's different from one person to another, but you may need a lot. If it just doesn't work, no one's going to blame you for thinking it's bunk, in fact it would be reasonable at that point... You can only try.
The reason "psi-wheel" is used at all is to minimize the amount of effort needed: nudging a paper slightly in one direction can be done just by scratching your nose, whereas levitating it would be quite hard even for a blow-dryer.
@SexyMelon yes i prob need A LOT haha. ah mmk. in other words it has to do with how much trust u put in your abilities, and the easier the work the easier it is to believe in oneself
@Amathos Nay, it has nothing to do with faith, at least not beyond basic placebo effect. You just need to sort of... Persist, I guess. It'll probably get easier with practice though, as most things in life do.
There's really not much else to it, we don't know how it's done or what's the mechanism of it all.
@xxxxfile Thanks... That praise would mean a bit more if you behaved maturely yourself, however.
I definitely understand how obnoxious our resident troll betamale is, but that's no reason to just fly off the rocker. Why would you insult Angels at all though?
@SexyMelon Pay no attention to xxxxfile. He's an idiot who needs to take a chill-pill or he'll go crazy. This fucker has been throwing me ad hominems here and in James Randi Exposes Telekinesis and throwing insults.
@xxxxfile You're the one who is stupid. Critical thinking is a purposeful reflective judgement of concerning what to believe or do. It is also the ability to analyze, reason, and evaluate a claim or an argument and I have that ability. Your arguments about me in James Randi Exposes Telekinesis are pure garbage because it is an ad hominem. Now, get the fuck out of here you pest.
So... It seems the culprit in discussing whether Randi's nonsense is "scientific" or not comes down to a crunch of people simply not knowing what "science" actually is.
Far from the first time I've seen something like that. Can be easily fixed using either Wikipedia, Google, or sixth-grade high-school textbook.
You can't discuss things you don't know, okay? Just common sense.
@betamale3 Ah, Richard Feyman? I heard of him when I had studied quantum physics and other fields of sciences. He got me lost when he claimed that light is a particle, but surely he's joking! LOL. Feyman's experiments follow the scientific method. Feyman's experiments are different than Randi's tests and challenges.
@betamale3 In Quantum Physics, The Double Slit Experiment, which was conducted by physicist Young, was used to see which way the photons or electrons go, but it was more than that, Young found that the photons or electrons were actually behaving as waves and formed an interference pattern. Physicists conducted the experiment and confirmed that the hypothesis of particles behaving as particle and waves were positive. Physicists established the results. That's science.
The single-particle double slit experiments, showed that each photon or electron arrived at the detector as a particle, but over time as the specks accumulated they formed an interference pattern. Thus suggesting that single particles were somehow interfering with themselves, as they passed through the two slits.
Incidentally, This is Richard Feynmans favourite experiment in Quantum Physics.
The wave theory held sway for about 100 years until Einstein's 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect proposed that light was composed of particles. Einstein's predictions were confirmed some 10 years later by Millikan. This led to the wave-particle duality view of light. This was confirmed by single-photon and later single-electron double slit experiments.
Ahh - you are trying to blind me with your VAST knowledge of science, LOL
Unfortunately, you are a little confused, Young's double slit experiment (around 1803) was not to "see which way the photons and electrons go" - electrons were not discovered until 1896, and the word photon didnt exist until 1926. Young's experiment was to decide whether light was composed of waves or particles. Young proved the wave theory.
@betamale3 "It should cause you to question some of your elitist assumptions about "Science"
Angels has made no such assumptions. All what was said is that he understands science to be following scientific method, and that is only as "elitist" in that, as previously established, he knows better than you do.
I think we've already established you're misinformed on the topic, so why exactly are you arguing so positively about things you don't know?
@betamale3 Many people who claim to had experienced psi, or believe they had one are usually due to psychological factors. The problem with anecdotes is that it isn't evidence and it lacks scientific inquiry. However, genuine psi evidence does not come from anecdotes, but from controlled experiments. There is evidence which supports the possibility of mind affecting matter from lab universities. Testing a psychic to see if they had pass or not is nowhere near Science.
@betamale3 A question to Sexymelon and angelssssss: "Do you believe Uri Geller has psychic Powers?"
No, Uri Geller is a fraud, just like the other psychics from the T.V. shows and stages. Uri Geller has never made any scientific establishment and those scientists that claim they had tested Uri Geller are pseudoscientists. I give Randi respect to show how much fraud there is, but I have to admit that his challenges and his investigations aren't scientific.
@betamale3 "Take a look at Richard Feynman's experiment to show how the space shuttles O-rings lost elasticity at low temps - he put it in iced water"
Experiment is part of the scientific method, but not the sole part of it.
You appear to not know what scientific method actually is.
@betamale3 "You know this because Randi had a hand in exposing him on the Johnny Carson show in 1973."
You don't need Randi to figure out Geller was a fraud.
However, as aforementioned, neither I nor angels have any problem with him exposing frauds. This could not possibly make what he does scientific, however.
@betamale3 "Great scientists do not try to deliberately over-complicate things."
Equivocation, weak analogy, argument from authority, argument from ignorance.
That's a lot of fallacies to pack in one sentence.
You're trying to stretch definition of science to ad-hoc things like million dollar challenge in it. This is dishonest and completely unacceptable. Science is already well-defined by virtue of scientific method, and the challenge is no more scientific than those offered by creationists.
@betamale3 "A collection of scientific-sounding phrases..."
/facepalm
They're names of logical fallacies, which you could easily verify - and frankly should not be in a debate if you don't know at least a few of them - using a simple Google search.
In your own words, "You really need to put in a bit more effort."
@betamale3 Randi debunked Uri Geller. What about it? It just proves how much frauds there are in the paranormal. No, it doesn't disprove telekinesis. That's like saying since UFO cases were due to a hoax, then UFO's don't exist. The common fallacy is that UFO are aliens.
@Betamale3 It's obvious that you failed to understand the difference between a test and an scientific test (Hypothesis testing). An scientific test is an experiment in which scientists use to support or reject the null-hypothesis using scientific and statistical standards. Before a scientific claim is accepted, it needs to be measured, independently replicated by many reasearchers & scientist, controlled, and analyzed. Science isn't stupid enough to accept any false claim from any scientist.
@betamale3 Actually, your reply to SexyMelon about the fallacy is bullshit and ignorant. What you just said was an argument of ignorance, which states that if X hasn't been proven, then X must be false and the other one is if X hasn't been disproven, then X must be true, which are both logical fallacies.
@angelsssssssssssss Good catch. It is actually an argument from ignorance, by definition: jumping from "Don't know" to "Know to be wrong".
Oh yeah, this also not to be confused with something *failing* a controlled test, which would be a definite false. Just because something wasn't tested yet, however, doesn't mean it's false.
Well, as I'm guessing you'd know better than anyone. ;)
@Betamale3 The case of Nina Kulagina is controversial. I refused to accept her as genuine because it is anecdotal and anecdotal accounts isn't evidence. I prefer emperical scientific evidence instead of extraordinary stories that brings people interest, such as Paranormal Activity.
@angelsssssssssssss For the record, ditto. Kulagina may have quite a few accounts and even some hard data going for her, but the absence of documentation and controls makes it impossible to declare it true.
I remember someone - maybe you?.. - mentioned previously there was a videotape of her being tested as part of a random visit, under relatively strict controls, but I haven't been able to verify it.
Something like this would probably count as evidence... Not definitive, but still evidence.
@SexyMelon I have seen people taking James Randi's challenge and as a statistician, I found out that the challenge statistical power is very weak because of few trials they use. On the aura test, there were only about 6 or 7 trials. A 6 or 7 trials isn't gonna produce odds against 1 in 1,000,000. I argued that the challenge isn't scientific and contains statistical errors, but the religious nuts freaks spam me, even to you. Anything that goes against their opinions will attack.
There's a great irony there - at least I think it's called "irony" - in that he usually conducts test way too low for scientific standards, yet officially sets standards too high for any reasonable scientific experiment to ever achieve...
So, on one hand, the challenge would not prove anything even if it was ever completed, yet on the other hand most things we know to be true beyond doubt would never pass it.
@SexyMelon Agree, extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence, just as claims requires evidence, in which my critical thinking teacher said.You know, you could go to my channel, scroll all the way down to my favorites and you'll see Nina Kulagina's home videos I think. It's in Russian, so I have no idea what they're saying.
@angelsssssssssssss Unfortunately modern "skepticism" seems to stand more for a set of beliefs of rejecting the supernatural rather than just the attitude of demanding evidence... Or at least that's how it appears to be defined and what it means to most people anymore.
I know I've seen a hundred times over people judging whether someone is a skeptic or not based on what they believe. Quite missing the point there.
Thanks a ton for the links, I'll definitely check it out.
@SexyMelon "Unfortunately modern "skepticism" seems to stand more for a set of beliefs of rejecting the supernatural rather than just the attitude of demanding evidence..."
And a good source for that is the JREF. They hold an opinion so seriously that they'll accept it as a fact. If you go against their opinions, they would defend it by attacking you. Opinions and faith is no fact and evidence. Evidence is what matters the most, not a set of beliefs.
@angelsssssssssssss Oh yeah, I've seen that footage - good god is it old - these appear to be the very first frames filmed of her, what got her famous in the first place, presented as part of a documentary.
Unfortunately, being a random home video, it leaves a ton of room for trickery.
@SexyMelon I remember someone from, "James Randi & Thought Transference" said to you that the burden of proof lies to something and you object. Can you tell me the logic and the ignorance behind the burden of proof, please? I'm familar with logical appeals, justification and what to believe, which my teacher taught me, but not the burden of proof part part.
I'm pretty damn far from expert on these issues, but for what I understand... Burden of proof is very easy, yet indeed often misunderstood even by PhDs (speaking from experience here): every positive claim is what warrants burden of proof.
Namely, a positive claim is claiming whether something IS or ISN'T, contrast to which is only "don't know".
The common fallacy, of course, goes something like this: "You haven't proven your claim true, therefore it is false, and don't tell me I have burden of proof because you're the one making the claim." (Commonly used against ESP, gods, aliens, conspiracies, etc.)
Claiming something *doesn't* exist is just as positive claim as claiming something *does*. The difference there is between "known to be false" and "we don't know if it's true".
It's semantically confusing, basically, hence the fallacy.
@SexyMelon You haven't proven your claim true, therefore it is false, and don't tell me I have burden of proof because you're the one making the claim."
I agree, just because an claim hasn't be proved or justified, hence it doesn't mean that it is automatically false. I have seen people saying that there hasn't been any proof that ghost, ESP, and telekinesis exist because it doesn't exist. If I don't know something does or doesn't exist, I would say I don't know, but not say it doesn't exist.
>>"The common fallacy, of course, goes something like this: "You haven't proven your claim true, therefore it is false, and don't tell me I have burden of proof because you're the one making the claim."<<
This isnt a fallacy, its the logic used to test all drugs that drug companies want to put onto the market.
If they cannot prove their efficacy in a controlled trial, then they are deemed not to work.
@SexyMelon Criticism in scientific controversial theories usually point that there is no evidence that supports the theory. This doesns't mean that the theory is false. Randi is investigating psychic phenomena via frauds and charlatans instead of actually focusing on and doing a scientific investigation of psychic phenomena. The scientific method is better, and accurate to investigate something than investigating it via a debunking and pseudo-skeptical way.
>>Randi is investigating psychic phenomena via frauds and charlatans instead of actually focusing on and doing a scientific investigation of psychic phenomena<<
Randi is testing people who claim to have psychic powers, and are actually willing to be tested.
Its hardly his fault that they all turn out to be frauds and charlatans.
In-depth testing is not required, they all fail the most trivial controlled tests.
@betamale3 In Randi's case it could be unconscious, a simple mistaken... But then, indeed, he consciously does go after people of any merit on the issue of PSI, and indeed chooses to concoct outright lies about them - see: Dean Radin/Dog World fiasco - instead of confronting them in honest testing (nevermind scientific pursuit).
What you get is an unscientific challenge that only tests the easiest cases the author knows would fail, and ignores the strongest.
@betamale3 Have not you read my comment? I had said that in order for something to be considered scientific, it needs to follow the scientific method. Sheesh, this is like what? High school Science. Again, debunking something doesn't make it scientific. You should really get a book about Science.
@betamale3 "Do you think Homeopathy is an easy case?"
Overgeneralization. Homeopathy cannot be a "case", it's a whole field of study (or fraud). A "case" can be a single experiment performed concerning the field.
"Watch the BBC Horizon Documentary, and stop talking arrant nonsense"
Very ironic. You do understand that referencing a TV documentary gives you no right to speak authoritatively on absolutely anything? You do understand there are hundreds of documentaries endorsing homeopathy, right?
>>Irrelevant, not what the discussion is about. The criticisms were his [Randi's] lack of application of scientific method and pseudo-skeptical approach.
Watch BBC Horizon Homeopathy and you will realise that you are comletely wrong.
@betamale3 "Watch BBC Horizon Homeopathy and you will realise that you are comletely wrong."
I suggest you stop referencing a TV documentary as a source, it's the second poorest form of research to just skimming through Wikipedia.
Moreso since this referred to what *this* discussion was about. We were talking about how Randi doesn't apply scientific method and how he's a pseudo-skeptic, and then you went off on this tangent?..
@betamale3 "If they cannot prove their efficacy in a controlled trial, then they are deemed not to work"
No. Don't be stupid.
Again, this is a fallacy as illustrated. You haven't actually brought up a contrary argument, even...
More importantly, this is yet another baseless assumption from you exposing NO research whatsoever on the matter - could at least try a Wiki page?.. "Burden of proof" or something?.. - despite blind conviction.
Does that sound familiar to anything at all? (See: Faith)
@angelsssssssssssss Oh and, from what I can find in comments of that video... We were actually talking about what science owes us, if I remember correctly, to which my answer is: nothing. Science is a tool, it can't owe us anything at all, so, more specifically, it can never owe us explanation as to whether any mystical thing is true or false. It's voluntary.
@SexyMelon People from the JREF are stating that the supernatural or the paranormal doesn't exist. It seems that they had landed to what psychologist called, "Confirmation Bias" The problem with confirmation bias is that it ignores evidence that disconfirms their set of beliefs. This is why the people over there are so arrogant and narrow minded. If they're claiming that it doesn't exist, then they either have evidence that justify their claims or they just holding it as an opinon or belief.
"The problem with confirmation bias is that it ignores evidence that disconfirms their set of beliefs."
I'd say there's a lot more going on than just that, although confirmation bias is certainly part of the problem. Namely, I doubt many have ever looked up any scientific studies...
The thing is, we can all easily identify these fallacies when someone uses them to justify a clearly mistaken belief: skeptics are no different in their beliefs, we're all only human.
@angelsssssssssssss In addition... I think - partially speaking from experience - the reason a lot of people reject these things do so simply because they were told by the likes of Randi that "There's no evidence", and that is something Randi, etc. should be openly blamed for, because they have - ironically - no evidence that there is no evidence.
So no one bothers with research because there are already important-looking people telling them it's wrong.
It's an exact reversal of the reason people do believe in various supernatural things anyone: because their family, their friends, their church, or New York Times told them it's real.
In fact - I'd speculate most likely due to the above - it appears most people in the world are not at all "skeptics" towards the paranormal. Hell, for some people I know it's almost mundane.
It's two sides of the same coin that skepticism would never put in its pocket. Shame, really.
>>how fucking stupid are you.critical thinking bullshit crap,try using commonj sense for a change.<<
Nice try, but you've come to the wrong place for common sense.
This place is patrolled by a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-PSientifc troll, with the IQ of a Melon, but the keyboard-bashing ability of a roomful of monkeys. Sadly, despite evidence to the contrary, he firmly believes that some people have psychic powers. You might as well try to educate a creationist.
please make a vid where the metal pin is colored on one side so that everyone knows there is no trick Great Vid!
loki00700 2 weeks ago
if i perform telekines can i watch it or do i have to keep my eyes open?
Drlb117 3 weeks ago
@Drlb117 your first try you must take it easy man... eyes open think about that one thing make everything else go blank....make that object your whole world
turkanator123 3 weeks ago
@TheYohan98 Um, you do realize that this was just an experiment to tests people's credulity/arrogance right?
IceAges14Aces 1 month ago
Congratulations, Master! I'm trying to move that PSIWheel but I just can move it slowly to right. Sorry for bad English.
kebikebij 1 month ago
Everybody, do us all a favor and READ THE DESCRIPTION.
jperez2579 1 month ago
Nice try. There are two tiny holes in the table that flowing air in both directions.
wozopza 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
YOU ARE NOT MAGIC
bvolsky 2 months ago
in attesa di una risposta. i read the things you wrote and i hope youre not so upset anymore about the other people.
im travelling arround the world since 5 years i love it,learning languages and get to know other people working here sleeping there.....and i think,that we are living under a little glass bowl = )no time to hate greets
lavolpeful 2 months ago
kkpthe floorheating are causing the movements so i tried it here and there in the in the house,always with a needle stucked in a candle and the wheel on top,hands on my knees looking and focusing.today i sat away almost 3 meters from it and i made it turn in one direction for about maybe 20 sec.i was so stoked.that was my experience.in the beginning you think....yeah.... noo wait am i crazy,but its only as the man in the other video says
lavolpeful 2 months ago
hey how are you doin,i made this account on youtube actually just to send you a message,and if you like to talk a little bit with you about tk(would be cool)= )
i tryied the psi wheel 3 days ago for the first time and it worked,i first saw the video of the (i dont know is he irish or scottish)man,but hes doin it without covering the wheel,i was allone at home and i tryied it,at first only it was only a little bit bouncing.....then turning but not clearly in a direction.i thought mb my breath or
lavolpeful 2 months ago
Although this is fake it is still pretty cool watching it :)
UberDorkAndProud 3 months ago
@UberDorkAndProud Elaborate please.
Dynamiteglove 3 months ago
@UberDorkAndProud Nevermind I read the description, I feel like a dumb-ass, good day sir.
Dynamiteglove 3 months ago
@Dynamiteglove Aha never mind, good day to you too
Also, Ima girl :p
UberDorkAndProud 3 months ago
You, sir, have lived through an IRL afterschool-special.
"I think we ALL learned something here."
Cubelarooso 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just wait a tick; doesn't this break the Law of Conservation of Energy?
Chrxstopher 4 months ago
Just wait a tick; doesn't this break the Law of Conservation of Energy?
Chrxstopher 4 months ago
wow, thanks for sharing the trick and not pretending to be psychic!. You sir, are awesome.
zab666 4 months ago
@clarabells22 lol if you read the description of the video, he actually tells you how he did it.
shanmnl 4 months ago
Good job, I can do that from across a room without my hands. Keep practicing.
TheLonetreecreations 5 months ago
Can you please teach me how to do this. Master.
pinealshiva 5 months ago
@clarabells22 "This is totally and completely real. " - You mean apart from the hole in the glass that he's blowing through?
slamdrump 6 months ago
That is why they but a jar around the wheel to prevent the hand's heat to get in and just "scientifically" spin it............
TheYohan98 6 months ago 3
how you do that plz tell iv been praticeing to move a rounded pen
taiheed1 6 months ago
Comment removed
neo200772 7 months ago
Comment removed
neo200772 7 months ago
"social experiments".. lol ¬¬
YOU ONLY CAUSES DESINFORMATION ABOUT THE TRUTH! YOUR IDIOT!
renquer 7 months ago
lmao look at all the people going on about it when the real experiment is on them!
onenut1212 7 months ago
I know the guy who made this. We hung out in a forum over 10 years ago and a bunch of us would do experiments with PSI and mind abilities. They went on to make the site Psipog and I kinda went my own way and looked for the science behind the phenomena.
Zareste 8 months ago
we learnt this in science its body heat its not telekinesis i hate to burst you bubble
alienkilla22 9 months ago
@alienkilla22 body heat doesn't work that way. Check your beliefs if they don't suit the facts
Zareste 8 months ago
the ones with glass on top is more believeable because there could be no air but maybe staic idk but maybe you are real.
cloudcally 10 months ago
Your beef with overly outspoken critics is unfounded. As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and as someone who apparently claimed something as wild as telekinesis the burden of proof is on you. People that claimed that they 'knew' how you did it were simply presenting hypotheses as to the mechanism behind the observed effect. Actively trying to understand the cause behind the effect beats lazy agnosticism any day. That said, I commend on the gimmick. Well played.
eugenerk 10 months ago
now that's how u do it :) most ppl use without the glass bowl which makes it into a heat function only not telekinesis. I practise this method everyday for about 2months now. I'm not super at it. but It's coming on slowly :) I just got one question, how much everyday do u practise?
TheEXpothead 10 months ago
people are stupid....this is rad....
TheLetskate 11 months ago
You made a paper compass! Havn't seen that since grade school science! Cool, im going to make me one!
shazizz 11 months ago
i love playing with my spi wheel
mrmatthew12323 11 months ago
@JamesCoverley I think what angels was trying to say is simply that people who declare themselves skeptics can be no more than simply close-minded, which is, indeed, another meaning the word is often used in.
Speaking of, the video above is an illustration of true skepticism: someone who doesn't reject "telekinesis" out of hand, yet doesn't trust it because there's no evidence for it.
SexyMelon 11 months ago 11
how do you do it
porlke 11 months ago
@porlke its quite hard at first then you get the hang of it just consintrate on the wheel like its just you and the wheel and imagin it spining in the direction you want it to go and keep focusing and it will move you dont even need your fingers that just help you focus on one thing it took me about two days to get the hang of it it was frustrating at first but if you start young its quiet easy because they dont have much on their mind
ps dont let air hit it because it will skrew you up
funnyman1995103 9 months ago
people it is like sience and it is editing work man omg
porlke 11 months ago
Comment removed
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
Comment removed
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
Comment removed
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
good work man...ive also started doin this but without the glass container on it cuz i think i can start to build up and then try the glass container on it and i learned to also manipulate its movement if i want it moving clockwise or counterclockwise but i wanna ask u if u know any tips of how to use the energy to move it inside the glass
colinmoras 1 year ago
Yup, me again! *sigh*
Are you ladies confusing scientific scepticism with philosophical scepticism? If we're talking the scientific method, it's pretty straightforward. You're sceptical until something can be verified. If it's the philosophical method, well...I'll leave that up to you.....
JamesCoverley 1 year ago
@JamesCoverley The skepticism we were talking about is pseudoskepticism. Pseudoskepticism is based on dogmatism and special pleading nothing else. Arguing against the reality of a claim (Such as, "X doesn't exist) without referring to scientific studies (if there are any) is a bad constructed argument and a sign of pseudoskepticism (if the person claims he is a skeptic). However, if there are valid reasons/evidence to reject a claim, then that's a different matter, as SexyMelon said.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss Well you can call it psuedoskepticism if you like, to me that comes under philosphy rather than scienctific scetpicism. As long as an experiment fits a pretty simple set of criteria it's results can be added to the scientific landscape. What one shouldn't do, as happens far too often, is to take such results as hard evidence. Rather like picking one tree in a forest and saying this tree is true and all the others are false. This is where scientific scepticism comes in.
JamesCoverley 1 year ago
@JamesCoverley Another sign of pseudoskepticism is denying the valid scientific evidence of a claim by using rhetorical techniques, such as these experiments are a failure, it's biased, and so on, when it has been proven not to be the case. There are more signs of pseudoskepticism than the ones I have showed. Yes, scientific skepticism keeps us out from delusions and fraudulent claims. Doubting a theory and questioning it is part of scientific skepticism isn't? BTW, I'm not a lady.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss Let me give you an example: Climate scienctists are widely sceptical over claims that climate change is natural and not man-made. There are dozens of studies that have shown climate change to be natural and all are well researched pieces of work. But there are thousands of studies that show it to be man-made, all equally valid. Questioning the validity of an experiment is not really scepticism at all.
JamesCoverley 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss Once you've accepted the validity of an experiment you become entitled to be scientifically sceptical of the results should they prove to be incongruous in the face of other, overwhelming, data. This is not to dismiss the results but to try to look for other explanations that fit the data.
JamesCoverley 1 year ago
Thats how its done! good work.
shadowfex5000 1 year ago
break the glass with your mind, i saw people do it
mrzwerus 1 year ago
@Explorer15328 If you believe that since there are frauds, such as Uri Geller, then all people who claimed they are telekinetic are fakes, then you had fallen into a logical fallacy called, "Proof by example fallacy" "Uri Geller and Nina Kulagina are fakes; therefore all telekinetics are fakes" is a fallacy.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@SexyMelon I don't think it is possible to absolutely prove psi phenomena under science. Why? Well, it is possible that the outcomes of an ESP test can be influenced by telekinesis, which can cause the results to look like genuine ESP, but actually due to telekinesis. Another one is that what if ESP is not really ESP, but some unknown phenomena? What are your thoughts about these?
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
First of all, Keith Mayes is a very well educated skeptic with the right mind to disbeleive. He has spent 6 years dealing with bullshit of people making pointless babble to defend Tk existence. Second of all, your hands are near the glass, meaning the heat from them is moving the psi wheel.
Explorer15328 1 year ago
@Explorer15328 "Second of all, your hands are near the glass, meaning the heat from them is moving the psi wheel."
Congratulations, you're the exact kind of self-righteous, prejudiced, bigoted, insulting, childish, uneducated, stubborn pseudo-skeptic and pseudo-intellectual that this video is all about, not a iota better than irrational believers in the "supernatural", and in some ways even worse.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Listen, I researched this stuff for months, honeslty I wanted TK to be real but it just isn't. I wasn't trying to be a hater or anything, only saying what I felt and you responded kinda harsh.
Explorer15328 1 year ago
@Explorer15328 Basic etiquette tells me I should apologize, but I just can't. I won't.
Did you actually read the description? The whole point of the experiment was illustrating gullibility of the "believers" in TK, and instead it ended up illustrating how un-skeptical and prejudiced self-professed skeptics can be, going so far as to make baseless and outright wrong claims of knowledge about something they couldn't possibly know.
And here you are, doing the exact same thing.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Explorer15328 Oh and for, um, "months of research", the notion that the "psi-wheel" can spin from one's hands being near a glass bowl takes approximately five minutes of cutting out a square tinfoil, finding a pin, a glass bowl, and some hot tap water to disprove.
Or, alternatively, basic knowledge behind basis of operation of a glass window.
This isn't how the trick is done, but in light of otherwise display of anti-skepticism this is just nitpicking.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Ok asshole, when I said months of research I was applying to the overall study of it. I've talked with people on this for months. I did read the description. I had a healthy level of doubt in the beginning without even watching this video, and from what I've gathered, telekinesis is a load of nonsense. So fuck you, I have plenty of reasons to know that telekinesis is fake.
Explorer15328 1 year ago
@Explorer15328 I was right in never apologizing, clearly.
Your claim is self-righteous and demonstrably wrong, your judgment is prejudice and preconceived rejection, which you openly admit to, and your proposed research evidently non-existent.
Pseudo-intellectualism and anti-skepticism at their finest. For shame.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Ok listen, I WILL BELEIVE IN TK IF SOMEONE ACTUALLY MEETS THE STANDARDS TO PROVE IT! The only problem I have with beleiving is out of all the people who say they can do TK, they wont prove it beyond videographic proof. There is a million dollar reward for goodness sake. I can understand that some people wouldn't want to go into that but absoluelty no one at all? Here is my small hope. All things in the universe are energy, even thing from the mind such as thoughts. Contiuing->
Explorer15328 1 year ago
@Explorer15328 "Ok listen, I WILL BELEIVE IN TK IF SOMEONE ACTUALLY MEETS THE STANDARDS TO PROVE IT!"
That would be a skeptical approach. You, however, sound like anything but a skeptic.
"There is a million dollar reward for goodness sake."
Creationists, Astrologists, Homeopathists, Conspiracy Theorists, and many other people have their little "challenges" too. This is not, however, how truth is decided.
If this is your standard of proof, you are, again, a pseudo-skeptic.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Explorer15328 "All things in the universe are energy, even thing from the mind such as thoughts."
For someone who doesn't believe in TK you do have weird ideas about what thoughts are...
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon It comes from a different theory outside of TK, its kinda hard for me to understand but I think its quite interesting
Explorer15328 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Ok, in common courtesy I'll say thank you for making me realize I was going to a total closed mind. Normally what I stand for is keeping an open mind, but I think I had been around Keith Mayes and all so long I was turning the opposite of what I stand for.
I owe ya one, and sorry for being an ass.
Explorer15328 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Explorer15328 "Ok, in common courtesy I'll say thank you for making me realize I was going to a total closed mind. Normally what I stand for is keeping an open mind, but I think I had been around Keith Mayes and all so long I was turning the opposite of what I stand for."
Then you're very welcome, and very good luck to you.
Skepticism is about demanding evidence for any claims before you believe them... But it's also believing them the second evidence is provided. It's two sides of one coin.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Using your minds power as a force, energy, going against your target energy, you can move it. Perhaps their is some unkown law of the universe, or one no one can fathom making it possible. The problem is no one is actually proving it. I beleive that unless TK is a rare gift that very few have, that people are simply just faking this. Perhaps you have a point though, I find myself dumstruck that I utmost completely closed my mind to this.
Explorer15328 1 year ago
@SexyMelon What is so ludicrous about pseudoskeptics is that they make a lot of negative claims, but won't even bother to conduct any counterstudies to justify their claims. Darrylsloan has conducted experiments to show that the theory that the psi wheel is due to heat is wrong, but the damn annoying pseudoskeptics still go with their prejudiced bullshit. What is also funny is that they state they are open minded, yet they try to debunk anything that they disagree with based on their prejudice.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss I think there's a term for that in psychology, similar to double-think... When we fail to see in ourselves what we think we're morally above. Just like that, someone who is dead-sure he's a no-nonsense person will discount any evidence while blaming the opposition for doing the same.
"Stupidity, outrage, vanity, cruelty, iniquity, bad faith, falsehood - we fail to see the whole array when it is facing in the same direction as we." - Jean Rostand
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sound a lot like, "Special Pleading fallacy." It is when subject(s) accept only the reasons supporting a proposition are supplied, while all reasons opposing it are omitted. It is more like confirmation bias, where subjects only pay attention to only what they think it is important, and ignore the reasons that are opposing to whatever they pay attention to (Argument from one-sidedness).
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss Hey, good catch! This probably is indeed special pleading, "Here are all the reasons this is wrong, and I don't want to hear any why it's right..." I think it's also the literal definition of being close-minded, as in not even bothering to consider anything that contradicts your beliefs, and automatically assuming you're right without actually checking.
Of course all these fallacies are interconnected in the grand scheme of things... It's what we call "logic", isn't it?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Yes, I would call that logic. Isn't logic amazing? WIth logic, you can tell who is ignorant, who is close minded, & detect logical fallacies. Do you agree that some or most scientists are close minded toward new things that challenge their scientific knowledge? I would strongly agree because some or most scientists are theory-driven instead of data-driven, which they accept only the things that follow their theories and ignore things that violate it.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss I'm pretty sure any scientist that has ever actually done any scientific work would learn very early on to keep both an open mind and an extremely skeptical attitude towards everything, because of how many mistakes one will inevitably make, how many theories one will have to discard, and how rigorous the tests and theorems have to be.
However, scientists are still people, still affected by social norms, so those hard-learned lessons will still be discarded in certain cases.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon I agree with you that we always been resistant toward new ideas. For instance, about 2 years ago, my friends from the high school believe in reincarnation, but I was so close minded that I straight out claimed reincarnation is bullshit due to my prejudice. That wouldn't be count as a skeptical position because skeptics doubt positive claims that states what is real and what is not real, correct? You're right! We are all a bunch of close minded assholes. Have a nice happy new year!
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss Actually that's a bad example: unless your friend had any proof or reincarnation at that point, you'd be quite right to call bullshit on it based on common knowledge of how the brain works and all that. Maybe our ideas about mind and the brain aren't entirely correct or skeptical, but that's another matter.
Skepticism voids itself by rejecting something out of hand, but if there's a reason for rejecting something, that's another matter. It's a bit tricky that way.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss ...Oh and, happy new year to you too. Granted that's a rather superstitious thing to say. ;)
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss It's really no secret we've always been resistant towards new ideas, often ideas that we now take for granted, ideas that have advanced our society in pretty grand ways... To think we don't do that today is completely ignorant, but that's what most people believe.
Instead of learning from mistakes of the past we simply shake our heads and then go ahead and do the same thing all over again.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
How many technologies have we "banned" without even investigating them?.. Cold fusion, stem cells, esp... What's next, are we going to declare particle physics void if LHC doesn't turn up with anything?..
Good god we're a bunch of close-minded assholes.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
WICKED!
Thewaterofthepool 1 year ago
cool, you can spin a piece of paper under a plastic container...did you already choose your superhero name?
WyldeJakk 1 year ago
@WyldeJakk lol your saying that but then you type in tk in in the search bar?
Redboyjp 1 year ago
@Redboyjp actually it was in "most viewed videos today"...and that's sad, don't you think?
WyldeJakk 1 year ago
@WyldeJakk people have dreams, besides you never know what is true or not.
Redboyjp 1 year ago
yea just listen to the wannabe experts!they cant do it them selves but their going to tell you how to do it!
xxxxfile 1 year ago
I have a psi wheel, called Egely Wheel. I can move the wheel with my mind, not just only my hand. There is a description about this: egelywheel[.]net
csabuj 1 year ago 6
@csabuj ..with you fart?
cloudcally 10 months ago
good video but ur psi wheel fails :D
martin43to 1 year ago
I tried doing this "telekinetic psiwheel thing and did not work for me. Prob need practice, just tried it once, if telekinesis works why is it always the same thing i see in youtube the rotation of the paper. how bout flotation and crimpling or something. it's always the same. there is some trick. I suppose if your brain was diff from a normal human being then i can see how it's possible, but you would not be doing this or would u, u would occupy your precious time with something worthwhile, no?
Amathos 1 year ago
@Amathos Well, you do need a practice. It's different from one person to another, but you may need a lot. If it just doesn't work, no one's going to blame you for thinking it's bunk, in fact it would be reasonable at that point... You can only try.
The reason "psi-wheel" is used at all is to minimize the amount of effort needed: nudging a paper slightly in one direction can be done just by scratching your nose, whereas levitating it would be quite hard even for a blow-dryer.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon yes i prob need A LOT haha. ah mmk. in other words it has to do with how much trust u put in your abilities, and the easier the work the easier it is to believe in oneself
Amathos 1 year ago
@Amathos Nay, it has nothing to do with faith, at least not beyond basic placebo effect. You just need to sort of... Persist, I guess. It'll probably get easier with practice though, as most things in life do.
There's really not much else to it, we don't know how it's done or what's the mechanism of it all.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@xxxxfile 'Sniff sniff' I smell bullshit from you
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
Comment removed
xxxxfile 1 year ago
@xxxxfile Thanks... That praise would mean a bit more if you behaved maturely yourself, however.
I definitely understand how obnoxious our resident troll betamale is, but that's no reason to just fly off the rocker. Why would you insult Angels at all though?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Comment removed
xxxxfile 1 year ago
Comment removed
xxxxfile 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Pay no attention to xxxxfile. He's an idiot who needs to take a chill-pill or he'll go crazy. This fucker has been throwing me ad hominems here and in James Randi Exposes Telekinesis and throwing insults.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss you can dish in out but you cant take it punk!if its too hot in the kitchen get the hell out!
xxxxfile 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss Oh great. Haven't seen one of those folk in... The last three minutes or so. Duly noted.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@xxxxfile You're the one who is stupid. Critical thinking is a purposeful reflective judgement of concerning what to believe or do. It is also the ability to analyze, reason, and evaluate a claim or an argument and I have that ability. Your arguments about me in James Randi Exposes Telekinesis are pure garbage because it is an ad hominem. Now, get the fuck out of here you pest.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
Comment removed
xxxxfile 1 year ago
So... It seems the culprit in discussing whether Randi's nonsense is "scientific" or not comes down to a crunch of people simply not knowing what "science" actually is.
Far from the first time I've seen something like that. Can be easily fixed using either Wikipedia, Google, or sixth-grade high-school textbook.
You can't discuss things you don't know, okay? Just common sense.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Unlike Randi's test.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@betamale3 Ah, Richard Feyman? I heard of him when I had studied quantum physics and other fields of sciences. He got me lost when he claimed that light is a particle, but surely he's joking! LOL. Feyman's experiments follow the scientific method. Feyman's experiments are different than Randi's tests and challenges.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss
I'm glad you appreciate Feynman - you should watch the Documentary about Feynman, called "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out"
It should cause you to question some of your elitist assumptions about "Science"
Its available online somewhere
betamale3 1 year ago
@betamale3 In Quantum Physics, The Double Slit Experiment, which was conducted by physicist Young, was used to see which way the photons or electrons go, but it was more than that, Young found that the photons or electrons were actually behaving as waves and formed an interference pattern. Physicists conducted the experiment and confirmed that the hypothesis of particles behaving as particle and waves were positive. Physicists established the results. That's science.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss
>>That's science<< NO, thats garbage (part 3)
The single-particle double slit experiments, showed that each photon or electron arrived at the detector as a particle, but over time as the specks accumulated they formed an interference pattern. Thus suggesting that single particles were somehow interfering with themselves, as they passed through the two slits.
Incidentally, This is Richard Feynmans favourite experiment in Quantum Physics.
betamale3 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss
>>That's science<< NO, thats garbage (part 2)
The wave theory held sway for about 100 years until Einstein's 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect proposed that light was composed of particles. Einstein's predictions were confirmed some 10 years later by Millikan. This led to the wave-particle duality view of light. This was confirmed by single-photon and later single-electron double slit experiments.
betamale3 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss
>>That's science<< NO, thats garbage (part 1)
Ahh - you are trying to blind me with your VAST knowledge of science, LOL
Unfortunately, you are a little confused, Young's double slit experiment (around 1803) was not to "see which way the photons and electrons go" - electrons were not discovered until 1896, and the word photon didnt exist until 1926. Young's experiment was to decide whether light was composed of waves or particles. Young proved the wave theory.
betamale3 1 year ago
@betamale3 "It should cause you to question some of your elitist assumptions about "Science"
Angels has made no such assumptions. All what was said is that he understands science to be following scientific method, and that is only as "elitist" in that, as previously established, he knows better than you do.
I think we've already established you're misinformed on the topic, so why exactly are you arguing so positively about things you don't know?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@betamale3 Many people who claim to had experienced psi, or believe they had one are usually due to psychological factors. The problem with anecdotes is that it isn't evidence and it lacks scientific inquiry. However, genuine psi evidence does not come from anecdotes, but from controlled experiments. There is evidence which supports the possibility of mind affecting matter from lab universities. Testing a psychic to see if they had pass or not is nowhere near Science.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago 10
A question to Sexymelon and angelssssss:
Do you believe Uri Geller has psychic Powers?
betamale3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@betamale3 "Do you believe Uri Geller has psychic Powers?"
Hell no.
"Well this is an improvement, you didnt resort to your "fucking retard" response."
Well, that's not the third time I had to repeat myself in response to something really, really stupid, is it?
"Have you seen the BBC Horizon Homeopathy programme?"
/facepalm
Well, if you think BBC documentaries are the main arbitrator of science... What about homeopathy anyway? We're talking about skepticism, aren't we?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@betamale3 A question to Sexymelon and angelssssss: "Do you believe Uri Geller has psychic Powers?"
No, Uri Geller is a fraud, just like the other psychics from the T.V. shows and stages. Uri Geller has never made any scientific establishment and those scientists that claim they had tested Uri Geller are pseudoscientists. I give Randi respect to show how much fraud there is, but I have to admit that his challenges and his investigations aren't scientific.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss
>>No, Uri Geller is a fraud<<
You know this because Randi had a hand in exposing him on the Johnny Carson show in 1973.
Randi advised Carson on the controls that were required. They were very simple controls, but were perfectly adequate.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler" Albert Einstein,
Great scientists do not try to deliberately over-complicate things.
Snake oil salesmen do.
betamale3 1 year ago
@betamale3 "Take a look at Richard Feynman's experiment to show how the space shuttles O-rings lost elasticity at low temps - he put it in iced water"
Experiment is part of the scientific method, but not the sole part of it.
You appear to not know what scientific method actually is.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
>>You appear to not know what scientific method actually is.<<
I think you would agree that Richard Feynman does know though.
His little experiment clearly demonstrates the problem.
This experiment could be expanded to include a range of temperatures, and exact measurements of elasticity etc,
And you could produce a nice paper with lots of numbers, tables, graphs and equations. With an Abstract, Results, Conclusions, References etc.
and then presumably you would call it "Science"
betamale3 1 year ago
@betamale3 "His little experiment clearly demonstrates the problem."
Did you get my answer the first time? Experiment is PART of the scientific method, but not the SOLE PART of it.
"And you could produce a nice paper with lots of numbers, tables, graphs and equations..."
Yes, you have no understanding of scientific method... Which begs the question why the hell are you talking about it?
Please do yourself a favour and at least consult Wiki on the subject.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@betamale3 "You know this because Randi had a hand in exposing him on the Johnny Carson show in 1973."
You don't need Randi to figure out Geller was a fraud.
However, as aforementioned, neither I nor angels have any problem with him exposing frauds. This could not possibly make what he does scientific, however.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@betamale3 "Great scientists do not try to deliberately over-complicate things."
Equivocation, weak analogy, argument from authority, argument from ignorance.
That's a lot of fallacies to pack in one sentence.
You're trying to stretch definition of science to ad-hoc things like million dollar challenge in it. This is dishonest and completely unacceptable. Science is already well-defined by virtue of scientific method, and the challenge is no more scientific than those offered by creationists.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
>>Equivocation, weak analogy, argument from authority, argument from ignorance.
<<
A collection of scientific-sounding phrases, does not make much of an argument, I'm afraid.
You really need to put in a bit more effort.
betamale3 1 year ago
@betamale3 "A collection of scientific-sounding phrases..."
/facepalm
They're names of logical fallacies, which you could easily verify - and frankly should not be in a debate if you don't know at least a few of them - using a simple Google search.
In your own words, "You really need to put in a bit more effort."
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@betamale3 Randi debunked Uri Geller. What about it? It just proves how much frauds there are in the paranormal. No, it doesn't disprove telekinesis. That's like saying since UFO cases were due to a hoax, then UFO's don't exist. The common fallacy is that UFO are aliens.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@Betamale3 It's obvious that you failed to understand the difference between a test and an scientific test (Hypothesis testing). An scientific test is an experiment in which scientists use to support or reject the null-hypothesis using scientific and statistical standards. Before a scientific claim is accepted, it needs to be measured, independently replicated by many reasearchers & scientist, controlled, and analyzed. Science isn't stupid enough to accept any false claim from any scientist.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@betamale3 Actually, your reply to SexyMelon about the fallacy is bullshit and ignorant. What you just said was an argument of ignorance, which states that if X hasn't been proven, then X must be false and the other one is if X hasn't been disproven, then X must be true, which are both logical fallacies.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss Good catch. It is actually an argument from ignorance, by definition: jumping from "Don't know" to "Know to be wrong".
Oh yeah, this also not to be confused with something *failing* a controlled test, which would be a definite false. Just because something wasn't tested yet, however, doesn't mean it's false.
Well, as I'm guessing you'd know better than anyone. ;)
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Betamale3 The case of Nina Kulagina is controversial. I refused to accept her as genuine because it is anecdotal and anecdotal accounts isn't evidence. I prefer emperical scientific evidence instead of extraordinary stories that brings people interest, such as Paranormal Activity.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago 10
@angelsssssssssssss For the record, ditto. Kulagina may have quite a few accounts and even some hard data going for her, but the absence of documentation and controls makes it impossible to declare it true.
I remember someone - maybe you?.. - mentioned previously there was a videotape of her being tested as part of a random visit, under relatively strict controls, but I haven't been able to verify it.
Something like this would probably count as evidence... Not definitive, but still evidence.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon I have seen people taking James Randi's challenge and as a statistician, I found out that the challenge statistical power is very weak because of few trials they use. On the aura test, there were only about 6 or 7 trials. A 6 or 7 trials isn't gonna produce odds against 1 in 1,000,000. I argued that the challenge isn't scientific and contains statistical errors, but the religious nuts freaks spam me, even to you. Anything that goes against their opinions will attack.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss Basically, yeah.
There's a great irony there - at least I think it's called "irony" - in that he usually conducts test way too low for scientific standards, yet officially sets standards too high for any reasonable scientific experiment to ever achieve...
So, on one hand, the challenge would not prove anything even if it was ever completed, yet on the other hand most things we know to be true beyond doubt would never pass it.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Agree, extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence, just as claims requires evidence, in which my critical thinking teacher said.You know, you could go to my channel, scroll all the way down to my favorites and you'll see Nina Kulagina's home videos I think. It's in Russian, so I have no idea what they're saying.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss Unfortunately modern "skepticism" seems to stand more for a set of beliefs of rejecting the supernatural rather than just the attitude of demanding evidence... Or at least that's how it appears to be defined and what it means to most people anymore.
I know I've seen a hundred times over people judging whether someone is a skeptic or not based on what they believe. Quite missing the point there.
Thanks a ton for the links, I'll definitely check it out.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "Unfortunately modern "skepticism" seems to stand more for a set of beliefs of rejecting the supernatural rather than just the attitude of demanding evidence..."
And a good source for that is the JREF. They hold an opinion so seriously that they'll accept it as a fact. If you go against their opinions, they would defend it by attacking you. Opinions and faith is no fact and evidence. Evidence is what matters the most, not a set of beliefs.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss Oh yeah, I've seen that footage - good god is it old - these appear to be the very first frames filmed of her, what got her famous in the first place, presented as part of a documentary.
Unfortunately, being a random home video, it leaves a ton of room for trickery.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon I remember someone from, "James Randi & Thought Transference" said to you that the burden of proof lies to something and you object. Can you tell me the logic and the ignorance behind the burden of proof, please? I'm familar with logical appeals, justification and what to believe, which my teacher taught me, but not the burden of proof part part.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss Not quite sure what you're talking about, sorry...
I'm pretty damn far from expert on these issues, but for what I understand... Burden of proof is very easy, yet indeed often misunderstood even by PhDs (speaking from experience here): every positive claim is what warrants burden of proof.
Namely, a positive claim is claiming whether something IS or ISN'T, contrast to which is only "don't know".
SexyMelon 1 year ago
The common fallacy, of course, goes something like this: "You haven't proven your claim true, therefore it is false, and don't tell me I have burden of proof because you're the one making the claim." (Commonly used against ESP, gods, aliens, conspiracies, etc.)
Claiming something *doesn't* exist is just as positive claim as claiming something *does*. The difference there is between "known to be false" and "we don't know if it's true".
It's semantically confusing, basically, hence the fallacy.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon You haven't proven your claim true, therefore it is false, and don't tell me I have burden of proof because you're the one making the claim."
I agree, just because an claim hasn't be proved or justified, hence it doesn't mean that it is automatically false. I have seen people saying that there hasn't been any proof that ghost, ESP, and telekinesis exist because it doesn't exist. If I don't know something does or doesn't exist, I would say I don't know, but not say it doesn't exist.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@SexyMelon - you say
>>"The common fallacy, of course, goes something like this: "You haven't proven your claim true, therefore it is false, and don't tell me I have burden of proof because you're the one making the claim."<<
This isnt a fallacy, its the logic used to test all drugs that drug companies want to put onto the market.
If they cannot prove their efficacy in a controlled trial, then they are deemed not to work.
betamale3 1 year ago
@betamale3 "This isnt a fallacy, its the logic used to test all drugs that drug companies want to put onto the market."
/facepalm
Uh, no, that's because we can't put drugs on the shelves with effectiveness rating of "Don't know".
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Criticism in scientific controversial theories usually point that there is no evidence that supports the theory. This doesns't mean that the theory is false. Randi is investigating psychic phenomena via frauds and charlatans instead of actually focusing on and doing a scientific investigation of psychic phenomena. The scientific method is better, and accurate to investigate something than investigating it via a debunking and pseudo-skeptical way.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss
>>Randi is investigating psychic phenomena via frauds and charlatans instead of actually focusing on and doing a scientific investigation of psychic phenomena<<
Randi is testing people who claim to have psychic powers, and are actually willing to be tested.
Its hardly his fault that they all turn out to be frauds and charlatans.
In-depth testing is not required, they all fail the most trivial controlled tests.
betamale3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@betamale3 "Its hardly his fault that they all turn out to be frauds and charlatans."
Actually it's completely and fully his fault. It's called "selection bias" and it's the most basic form of dishonesty.
This is no different from racists using only the worst examples of their particular hate-group to justify their bigotry.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@betamale3 In Randi's case it could be unconscious, a simple mistaken... But then, indeed, he consciously does go after people of any merit on the issue of PSI, and indeed chooses to concoct outright lies about them - see: Dean Radin/Dog World fiasco - instead of confronting them in honest testing (nevermind scientific pursuit).
What you get is an unscientific challenge that only tests the easiest cases the author knows would fail, and ignores the strongest.
It's a sad thing is is respected.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
>>that only tests the easiest cases the author knows would fail<<
Do you think Homeopathy is an easy case?
In the UK, France and Germany the Homeopathy industry is worth close to £500 Million. How much it rakes in around the world I cant imagine.
Randi put up $1million to expose this industry as fraudulent.
Watch the BBC Horizon Documentary, and stop talking arrant nonsense.
betamale3 1 year ago
@betamale3 Have not you read my comment? I had said that in order for something to be considered scientific, it needs to follow the scientific method. Sheesh, this is like what? High school Science. Again, debunking something doesn't make it scientific. You should really get a book about Science.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss
I'm a bit disappointed with your response. You use the words "science" or "scientific" no less than 5 times, like a mantra.
You use the word "debunk" to belittle someones achievements, you could have said "disproving someone's claim".
I dont think you are qualified to pontificate on what is and what is not "Science".
And just repeatedly saying that something is not science is not an argument against anything. Its just an ad hom attack.
betamale3 1 year ago
@betamale3 "I dont think you are qualified to pontificate on what is and what is not "Science"
What? Whether something is or is not science is not a matter of authority, it's a matter of knowing the definition.
Again, I suggest you educate yourself on what the hell "science" is before trying to debate about it.
"Its just an ad hom attack."
No, it's not an ad hominem. You also look what an "ad hominem" up is very easily.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@betamale3 "I'm a bit disappointed with your response. You use the words "science" or "scientific" no less than 5 times, like a mantra."
But that's what the argument is about? Whether Randi's challenge is scientific or not?
"You use the word "debunk" to belittle someones achievements, you could have said "disproving someone's claim"
It is a silly word, it is of silly substance, and it does belittle anyone's achievements compared to the highly rigorous process of science.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@betamale3 "Do you think Homeopathy is an easy case?"
Overgeneralization. Homeopathy cannot be a "case", it's a whole field of study (or fraud). A "case" can be a single experiment performed concerning the field.
"Watch the BBC Horizon Documentary, and stop talking arrant nonsense"
Very ironic. You do understand that referencing a TV documentary gives you no right to speak authoritatively on absolutely anything? You do understand there are hundreds of documentaries endorsing homeopathy, right?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@betamale3 "In-depth testing is not required, they all fail the most trivial controlled tests."
Irrelevant, not what the discussion is about. The criticisms were his lack of application of scientific method and pseudo-skeptical approach.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon
>>Irrelevant, not what the discussion is about. The criticisms were his [Randi's] lack of application of scientific method and pseudo-skeptical approach.
Watch BBC Horizon Homeopathy and you will realise that you are comletely wrong.
betamale3 1 year ago
@betamale3 "Watch BBC Horizon Homeopathy and you will realise that you are comletely wrong."
I suggest you stop referencing a TV documentary as a source, it's the second poorest form of research to just skimming through Wikipedia.
Moreso since this referred to what *this* discussion was about. We were talking about how Randi doesn't apply scientific method and how he's a pseudo-skeptic, and then you went off on this tangent?..
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@betamale3 "If they cannot prove their efficacy in a controlled trial, then they are deemed not to work"
No. Don't be stupid.
Again, this is a fallacy as illustrated. You haven't actually brought up a contrary argument, even...
More importantly, this is yet another baseless assumption from you exposing NO research whatsoever on the matter - could at least try a Wiki page?.. "Burden of proof" or something?.. - despite blind conviction.
Does that sound familiar to anything at all? (See: Faith)
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon "Namely, a positive claim is claiming whether something IS or ISN'T, contrast to which is only "don't know"."
I thought the only positive claim was the person claiming something to exist.
"Claiming something *doesn't* exist is just as positive claim as claiming something *does*."
So, if I see someone claiming that ESP, aliens, ghost don't exist, then I have the right to tell them the burden of proof lies on them, correct?
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss Oh and, from what I can find in comments of that video... We were actually talking about what science owes us, if I remember correctly, to which my answer is: nothing. Science is a tool, it can't owe us anything at all, so, more specifically, it can never owe us explanation as to whether any mystical thing is true or false. It's voluntary.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon People from the JREF are stating that the supernatural or the paranormal doesn't exist. It seems that they had landed to what psychologist called, "Confirmation Bias" The problem with confirmation bias is that it ignores evidence that disconfirms their set of beliefs. This is why the people over there are so arrogant and narrow minded. If they're claiming that it doesn't exist, then they either have evidence that justify their claims or they just holding it as an opinon or belief.
angelsssssssssssss 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss Amen.
"The problem with confirmation bias is that it ignores evidence that disconfirms their set of beliefs."
I'd say there's a lot more going on than just that, although confirmation bias is certainly part of the problem. Namely, I doubt many have ever looked up any scientific studies...
The thing is, we can all easily identify these fallacies when someone uses them to justify a clearly mistaken belief: skeptics are no different in their beliefs, we're all only human.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@angelsssssssssssss In addition... I think - partially speaking from experience - the reason a lot of people reject these things do so simply because they were told by the likes of Randi that "There's no evidence", and that is something Randi, etc. should be openly blamed for, because they have - ironically - no evidence that there is no evidence.
So no one bothers with research because there are already important-looking people telling them it's wrong.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
It's an exact reversal of the reason people do believe in various supernatural things anyone: because their family, their friends, their church, or New York Times told them it's real.
In fact - I'd speculate most likely due to the above - it appears most people in the world are not at all "skeptics" towards the paranormal. Hell, for some people I know it's almost mundane.
It's two sides of the same coin that skepticism would never put in its pocket. Shame, really.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Comment removed
xxxxfile 1 year ago
@xxxxfile LOL
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@xxxxfile
>>how fucking stupid are you.critical thinking bullshit crap,try using commonj sense for a change.<<
Nice try, but you've come to the wrong place for common sense.
This place is patrolled by a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-PSientifc troll, with the IQ of a Melon, but the keyboard-bashing ability of a roomful of monkeys. Sadly, despite evidence to the contrary, he firmly believes that some people have psychic powers. You might as well try to educate a creationist.
betamale3 1 year ago
Comment removed
xxxxfile 1 year ago