Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why can't a medium PROVE the ability exists?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Well that's a bit silly, and the boldened bit is more evidence of the contempt for science that most of your kind feel simply because the scientific community is not willing to endorse your unproven nonsense.
That's your own interpretation of what I wrote. "Your unproven nonsense"? Russell Targ is a member of the bloody scientific community and he has collected a wealth of proof. Dean Radin is another scientist who has done the same. I don't know what the hell you're harping on about like a hyena with PMS.most of your kind
Excuse me? Now who's silly and contemptuous?Science blogs give a good insight into the conversations that are taking place among scientific researchers and observers, and ignoring them is a good way to keep out of the loop and to miss out on valuable, informed opinions from people in the field.
You like science blogs, I don't. I'm more of a bookworm. That's my choice. DEAL WITH IT.If you didn't disregard science blogs, then you might have an idea of how Bem's research is being received by his colleagues. But, you don't really care about that, do you?
You just want your beliefs endorsed.
I don't require the services of science bloggers to keep abreast of how Bem's research is being received in the field; there have been a plethora of news articles detailing the reaction to the research. You aren't in any position to understand what I do and do not care about. WHO the f uck are YOU (apart from a yoke with a four-letter name ending in an exclamation mark)? You're the pot calling the kettle black by derisively stating that I just want my beliefs endorsed because here you are with your disbelief in PSI, yapping on about how it's all nonsense and doing your sunshine-out-of-your-arse damndest to convince all us poor paranormal-believing feckers of the truth as you see it.No, they've been arguing about these statistical problems for decades; Bem's research is not so ground-breaking that they've had to suddenly change how everything is done to accommodate it. These studies just illustrate the point that many people have been making for a long time.
Yes, but why the hell haven't they already adjusted lab protocols to their exact liking prior to the conduct of research or statistical analysis? Why haven't they acted yet? That was my point.Dunno what you're on about here.
Jesus, we've really arrived in Planksville so.
The hypothesis being referred to is that psi is real. You can't exactly adjust that. The point being made is that, given the implausibility of the existence of psi (given what we already know about the universe), you'd need to adjust your statistical analysis to account for this.
How can you even go about testing the possible plausibility of PSI when you are convinced of its implausibility to begin with? That is utterly pointless. The fact is, more scientists like Bem ought to suspend disbelief temporarily to test and quantify the existence of PSI.Dunno what you're on about again.
God help you then.You don't think it's a good idea to keep track of replication attempts?
I never even said that!Since nobody else has taken up the mantle here, Wiseman has taken on the task. Nobody made him grand daddy of anything -- but if someone wants to help with a meta-analysis of this research, then they can contribute. Pretty simple.
From what I have observed, the science nerds seem to practically worship the man, and Wiseman isn't exactly reticent about thrusting himself forward with his views.This is pretty helpful, because there's something called the file-drawer effect where research that shows a negative outcome will tend to not be published. So if someone were to fail to reproduce this experiment, then they might not bother submitting it for publication, and we'd lose that data. Knowing in advance who is planning to attempt it means we can keep track and preserve the integrity that is sometimes lacking in post-hoc meta-analyses.
There's a place for everybody's research results, positive or negative. Nobody suggested it's invalid or unworthy of attention. But, again, it's just another angle from which to view phenomena like PSI.0 -
-
-
-
-
MrMojoRisin wrote: »That's your own interpretation of what I wrote.
It is an interpretation that is logical, given the words you used. If you meant that you don't hold science in contempt then you have been trying to communicate this in a somewhat misleading way.MrMojoRisin wrote: »"Your unproven nonsense"? Russell Targ is a member of the bloody scientific community and he has collected a wealth of proof. Dean Radin is another scientist who has done the same.
This is where we point out again that you are only looking at the small amount of evidence that supports your view; the vast supply of evidence that rejects it is ignored. This is called confirmation bias.MrMojoRisin wrote: »Excuse me? Now who's silly and contemptuous?
....
like a hyena with PMS.
You are silly; I am contemptuous.MrMojoRisin wrote: »You like science blogs, I don't. I'm more of a bookworm. That's my choice. DEAL WITH IT.
I don't require the services of science bloggers to keep abreast of how Bem's research is being received in the field; there have been a plethora of news articles detailing the reaction to the research.
Science blogs provide helpful insight into the issue you're discussing. You can dislike science blogs if you're so inclined but you need to deal with the fact that this limits the amount of information you're exposing yourself to, reducing the validity of your conclusions.MrMojoRisin wrote: »You aren't in any position to understand what I do and do not care about. WHO the f uck are YOU (apart from a yoke with a four-letter name ending in an exclamation mark)?
It is clear that you care a great deal. Objective, calm and rational people are seldom inclined to engage in this sort of undignified outburst.MrMojoRisin wrote: »You're the pot calling the kettle black by derisively stating that I just want my beliefs endorsed because here you are with your disbelief in PSI, yapping on about how it's all nonsense and doing your sunshine-out-of-your-arse damndest to convince all us poor paranormal-believing feckers of the truth as you see it.
Your reasoning here is absurdly bad. You are looking to confirm your preconceptions, as evinced by the fact that you ignore evidence refuting them while focusing on evidence that supports them. Dave has been doing no such thing - that he is trying to convince you of how he sees things does not show that he is in some way the same as you in this respect.MrMojoRisin wrote: »Yes, but why the hell haven't they already adjusted lab protocols to their exact liking prior to the conduct of research or statistical analysis? Why haven't they acted yet? That was my point.
This isn't really important. It would have been better if lab protocols were changed previously, yes, but this doesn't negate the fact that Bem's research was produced through faulty methodology.MrMojoRisin wrote: »Jesus, we've really arrived in Planksville so.
Insulting people makes you look clever, better carry on!MrMojoRisin wrote: »How can you even go about testing the possible plausibility of PSI when you are convinced of its implausibility to begin with? That is utterly pointless. The fact is, more scientists like Bem ought to suspend disbelief temporarily to test and quantify the existence of PSI.
You obviously have no idea about how science works.MrMojoRisin wrote: »I never even said that!
You said that it was insulting that one scientist disagreed with another. Asserting that scientists should not disagree suggests that you don't like the idea of replication attempts.MrMojoRisin wrote: »There's a place for everybody's research results, positive or negative. Nobody suggested it's invalid or unworthy of attention. But, again, it's just another angle from which to view phenomena like PSI.
You are acting as though fact can be interpreted; this is not the case.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement