• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

Buddha

Thinker
Buddha
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
249
Location
New York City
“Those gifts paid for a small staff and a gallery of random-motion machines, including a pendulum with a lighted crystal at the end; a giant, wall-mounted pachinko-like machine with a cascade of bouncing balls; and a variety of electronic boxes with digital number displays.
In one of PEAR’s standard experiments, the study participant would sit in front of an electronic box the size of a toaster oven, which flashed a random series of numbers just above and just below 100. Staff members instructed the person to simply “think high” or “think low” and watch the display. After thousands of repetitions — the equivalent of coin flips — the researchers looked for differences between the machine’s output and random chance.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/science/10princeton.html

This article is intended for general audience.

Here is the link to the original article which is intended for the professionals with engineering and scientific background.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001100010004-6.pdf

There are several objections to this research; I am going to go over them:

1. Incorrect statistical methods were used to analyze the data.

2. The methods of analysis are correct, but the results were interpreted incorrectly

3. The results of the experiment are irreproducible.

The first two objections are nonsensical, people who raised them do not know what they are talking about. As a data analyst, I use similar, although not exactly the same, methods to analyze stock market data, manufacturing data, advertisement campaigns data, etc., (I work for a consulting company)

The third objection deserves more attention. Statistical methods are used to analyze experiments that cannot be reproduced exactly the way they happened. Take, for example, the famous two-slit experiment with a beam of electrons coming out of the electron gun and forming interference pattern on the screen. If you run this experiment for some time, then stop, recharge the gun, change the screen and run second experiment, the results won’t be exactly the same. However, the interference pattern will remain unchanged.

The same applies to this telekinetic experiment, so its data and the scientists’ conclusion are valid.
 
Enough with goddamn "Is this random nonsense with zero evidence that's already been debunked a million times real?" threads.

No. We need to add Betteridge's Law of Headlines to the MA in regards to thread titles.
 
Telekinesis isn't real, but it would appear that JayUtah is clairvoyant:
JayUtah said:
Buddha v. Popper, since that seems to be where all his threads head -- with due acknowledgement that his choice of user name makes conversation awkward. Since the telekinesis thread is guaranteed to hit PEAR@Princeton heavily, and since the decades-old debunking of that nonsense requires understanding the ins and outs of practical empirical methods, I'm sure "But I think Popper is garbage" is probably going to be a fairly common deflection.

For those who don't want to read the previous threads, PEAR was one guy's labor of love at Princeton, largely privately funded but using Princeton's facilities and prestige to maintain altitude for that guy's useful career. It purported to show a weak statistical significance for a hypothesis of telekinesis. Most of that unraveled when meta-analysis showed the purported effect was attributed almost entirely to one subject, thought to be one of PEAR's staffers. When that subject was eliminated, the "telekinesis" effect shrank back into the statistical noise. Further criticism pointed to papers that were long on hype but short on descriptions and validations of its methodology and controls -- stuff that Buddha the Claimant would find familiar.
Click to expand...
 
Why do you post this on a skeptic board when you plan ahead of time to ignore criticisms of your argument and then declare victory and move on?
 
Anyway, I'm, like, a super busy business person who is also an expert in multiple fields and widely liked for both his sunny demeanor and slightly above average beard, so you see, that's why I can't really respond to any of the issues you've raised. I'll look at the thread tomorrow and I'll respond to the posts that I think I can use to further inflate my ego are worthy of my time, because I'm so busybusybusy.

Anyway, stay tuned for my thread about OOBEs, UFOs and Intelligent Design!
 
Buddha said:
There are several objections to this research; I am going to go over them:

1. Incorrect statistical methods were used to analyze the data.

2. The methods of analysis are correct, but the results were interpreted incorrectly

3. The results of the experiment are irreproducible.
Click to expand...

And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou look up the Holy Hypothesis. Then, shalt thou choose three counter-arguments. No more. No less. Three shall be the number thou shalt argue, and the number of the arguing shall be three. Four shalt thou not argue, nor either argue thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy dismissal of thy counter-arguments towards thy foe, who, being constrained to follow the script, shall snuff it."

Dave
 
It is real, you just have to believe.

So sit down and concentrate on moving something. The first time it might take a few months, but whatever you do, don't move or break concentration. Not even for an instant.

Report back on your success.
 
Buddha said:
1. Incorrect statistical methods were used to analyze the data.

2. The methods of analysis are correct, but the results were interpreted incorrectly

3. The results of the experiment are irreproducible.

The first two objections are nonsensical, people who raised them do not know what they are talking about. As a data analyst, I use similar, although not exactly the same, methods to analyze stock market data, manufacturing data, advertisement campaigns data, etc., (I work for a consulting company).
Click to expand...
Rather than pulling the argument from authority (misplaced authority at that), describe the methods that were used and explain how they are correctly used in this instance, rather than simply handwaving away the criticism.

Your statement here simply comes across as bloviating, rather than rebuttal.
 
Buddha said:
The first two objections are nonsensical, people who raised them do not know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do.

As a data analyst, I use similar, although not exactly the same, methods to analyze stock market data...
Click to expand...

I'm sure you do, but you have established a history of exaggerating or outright fabricating expertise you do not have and cannot demonstrate. The people who rightly criticized PEAR for statistical shenanigans demonstrated themselves to be far more proficient about statistical methodology than you give them credit for.

So no, you don't get to sweep this under the carpet. If your argument is that PEAR's methods were statistically valid despite the well-supported criticism to the contrary, you will have to put your money where your mouth is. That means explain in detail why the criticism is wrong. Show your work. No gaslighting. Assume your audience is capable of understanding as much statistics as you can possibly bring to bear. If you read the attempt of the last guy to prove reincarnation, you will see that this is not an audience you can simply call ignorant and bluff your way past.

Put up or shut up, Buddha.

...the results won’t be exactly the same. However, the interference pattern will remain unchanged.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what is meant by reproducibility in empirical study.

The same applies to this telekinetic experiment, so its data and the scientists’ conclusion are valid.
Click to expand...

No, that is not how logic works. You don't get to speculatively attribute unexplained error to some imagined cause because some error in some other experiment was uncontrolled.

Also -- since you have a habit of restating your purpose at the end of a debate -- please confirm that your purpose in this thread is to prove that PEAR's conclusions are valid. We don't need to proceed if you're simply going to attempt this, fail as usual, and then redfine your purpose to save face.
 
Hey, what luck!
Telekinesis is my one area of expertise where I can impress professors with my knowledge and practical demonstrations.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
Your statement here simply comes across as bloviating, rather than rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Indeed, his attempt to prove the existence of God devolved into trying to show he knew more about logic and philosophy than everyone else -- which, it was shown, he didn't. His attempt to prove reincarnation empirically devolved into trying to show he knew more about empirical methods than everyone else. And, true to form, he didn't. Predictably, this attempt to prove telekinesis immediately took the form of claiming to know more about statistical methods than everyone else. The outcome is equally predictable.
 
Buddha said:
In one of PEAR’s standard experiments, the study participant would sit in front of an electronic box the size of a toaster oven, which flashed a random series of numbers just above and just below 100. Staff members instructed the person to simply “think high” or “think low” and watch the display. After thousands of repetitions — the equivalent of coin flips — the researchers looked for differences between the machine’s output and random chance.”
Click to expand...

That's... that's it? That's what you're bringing to the table? This has been thoroughly looked at, many times. They're bad studies. You don't have anything new, or anything more convincing?

Here, educate yourself:

http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy

Buddha said:
There are several objections to this research; I am going to go over them:
Click to expand...

Okay cool, when are you planning on doing that? Or was that it? Do you consider listing off a few oversimplified bullet points and then dismissing them without actually refuting them "going over them"?

Here's what that would look like if you were a Flat Earther:

1. Methods of measurement used from the surface of the earth confirm it is not flat.

2. The flat earth model does not explain observable phenomena in a satisfactory way.

3. The Earth has been observed to be roughly spherical

The first two objections are nonsensical, people who raised them do not know what they are talking about. As someone who has studied geometry and uses many forms of measurement in my daily life, I use similar (though not exactly the same) steps to determine the size and shape of things.

The third objection deserves more attention. Things can sometimes look rounder than they are from the wrong angles or through distorted viewing apparatuses. For example, if you go to a funhouse at a carnival you may find mirrors that distort your shape and size.

The same applies to this "round earth" observation, so the flat earth theory is still valid.
Click to expand...

Do you see why this is totally worthless analysis? You didn't actually address the specific complaints, complaints which are valid and detailed and which are available with around 30 seconds of Googling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom