Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

[JayUtah]

Of course "Buddha" doesn't understand a thing, he's is unwilling to read, he doesn't know how to search things on the Internet, so he simply badmouths Jeffers by saying «instead he produced a fluff»

It looks like he's trying to translate his inability or unwillingness to locate and obtain the appropriate sources into a declaration that the sources are simply not available, or that the authors are somehow derelict. He's only willing to acknowledge sources he can handwave away, and this somehow absolves him from having to address the substantial parts of the criticism.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It looks like he's trying to translate his inability or unwillingness to locate and obtain the appropriate sources into a declaration that the sources are simply not available, ...

Of both Googles, it's evident he's searching the wrong one. Besides, he has no access to a periodicals library from a university as many of us do.

 

[JayUtah]

Of both Googles, it's evident he's searching the wrong one. Besides, he has no access to a periodicals library from a university as many of us do.

But New York has many fine libraries he could consult, both public and academic. Being without access to the published literature is not a tenable situation for someone who claims to be a consultant in a technical field.

 

[halleyscomet]

But New York has many fine libraries he could consult, both public and academic. Being without access to the published literature is not a tenable situation for someone who claims to be a consultant in a technical field.

That assumes he’s telling the truth about where he works.

 

[Buddha]

Were you talking of the Stanford Prison Experiment? In it, one of the guards was a outlier.

Would you please provide a quotation from Prison Experiment article showing this outlier? I read it but found none. An outliner would be a person whose experimental data was excluded from the study. If his data was not excluded, then he/she was not an outlier.

 

[Buddha]

That assumes he’s telling the truth about where he works.

It is true, I could have gotten these books from the Columbia University library, I use it sometimes. But you would have to read all these books in order to find a right quotation.

 

[JayUtah]

An outliner would be a person whose experimental data was excluded from the study. If his data was not excluded, then he/she was not an outlier.

That's not the definition of an outlier. Not all outliers are automatically excluded. Did you read the source I cited? I already explained the timeline regarding Zimbardo. Did you read Alec's study showing how to detect and remove outliers who violate the experiment protocol?

 

[Buddha]

It seems "Buddha" failed to use Jeffers' article to find Jeffers' study, the link we suggested him to follow so many times. The study is reference #5 in what "Buddha" linked. And there anyone with a forehead taller than two fingers can find Jeffers' 2003 article. From it, both summary and acknowledgements (highlighted by me):

Of course "Buddha" doesn't understand a thing, he's is unwilling to read, he doesn't know how to search things on the Internet, so he simply badmouths Jeffers by saying «instead he produced a fluff»

I did my best trying to find this article because I assumed, if it exists, it is inadequate and it would not take me too long to demolish it. But I couldn't find it. Now, be a nice person and provide a link to it rather than simply mentioning it. You would love to see me unable to give a coherent response to the article, wouldn't you? Just for the sake of defeating me, give me that link!

 

[JayUtah]

I did my best trying to find this article...

Why didn't you simply follow the links that were already given?

...because I assumed, if it exists, it is inadequate and it would not take me too long to demolish it.

Your problem is often that you characterize sources before having read them, and then trap yourself into having to support that erroneous preconception regardless of the facts. You wrongly assumed John Palmer was a mainstream scientist with an axe to grind, and managed to get quite a few laughs by trying to rewrite his praise of PEAR as if it were criticism.

 

[JayUtah]

It is true, I could have gotten these books from the Columbia University library, I use it sometimes. But you would have to read all these books in order to find a right quotation.

Yes, you would actually have to read the sources to know as much as we do about them.

 

[Buddha]

Do you mean that his «I also analyzed the Bible and concluded that Jesus is the Messiah, although he is not God. The way I see it, Adi-Buddha created Jesus and everything else, which makes him the Father.» may be false?

[It's in a visitor message addressed to himself -because he couldn't find the way to edit the "about me" section - Will he tell this to the skilled mathematician he's planning to contact next Thursday: Oliver Closoff, Amanda Hugginkiss, Jacques Strap and Al Coholic? ]

Frankly. I do not understand the purpose of your post. If you're trying to say that my misuse of the visitor message shows that am not a mathematician then you're right --I never called myself a mathematician, I called myself a control systems engineer. Majority of the data analysts are not mathematicians, although they have some knowledge of mathematical statistics.

 

[Buddha]

I'm starting to suspect he has me blocked.

I'm not surprised he's avoiding my comments. In my experience, consultants who exist by spreading BS and lies about obscure points tend to react poorly to having their house of cards knocked down and swept into the trash. You're debating him on fine points of statistics. I'm questioning his commitment to this entire topic.

I expect if he does respond to me now he'll do so in the form of insults but no substance, another common tactic of the kind of consultant he's portrayed himself to be.

Unfortunately I do not have time respond to all posts, so I select the most interesting and substantive ones. I didn't block you on purpose, I just do not find your posts challenging enough. As for the insults, I learned from my mistake that they are not tolerated at this website; now the mods do not see my posts as offensive, and I trust their judgement

 

[Buddha]

The title of the book that purportedly has an article by Jeffers proving that the Princeton research program is irreproducible is, Psi Wars: Getting in Grips with the Paranormal. The book is edited by Alcock, it contains articles written by the scientists who deny every kind of paranormal abilities, including telekinesis.

This is the link to the website that contains a synopsis of Psi Wars:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Psi+Wars:+Getting+to+Grips+with+the+Paranormal.-a0132354432

There is no reference to the Jeffers’ experiment negating the Princeton research results. The way I see it, Jeffers did not conduct any telekinesis research; for some reason some people believe he did, although he didn’t say that.

In his article Palmer criticized the telekinesis research done by Schmidt. I haven’t heard about this research before, tomorrow I will take a look at the original article and then will expose mistakes in Palmer’s evaluation; I am sure his critique is patently inadequate . It takes time to read the Schmidt article, so I will be back on Thursday.

 

[JayUtah]

I never called myself a mathematician...

You claim to have a bachelor's degree in applied mathematics and you've said you are a "consultant" doing data analysis. Further, in attempting to undermine critics such as Alcock you claimed it would take a mathematician to properly understand their errors. You implied you had such understanding.

To exactly what degree are you claiming expertise in mathematics?

I called myself a control systems engineer.

Yet you weren't able to accurately characterize how that field works either, when you tried to make it relevant to this thread. We've caught you several times trying to profess expertise that you simply don't have.

Majority of the data analysts are not mathematicians, although they have some knowledge of mathematical statistics.

To what degree are you claiming expertise in mathematics by virtue, say, of your undergraduate degree in applied mathematics? You are quoting statistics texts and claiming that you understand them while assuming they will go over your opponents' heads. You are clearly trying to claim some form of expertise, but that form seems to shift depending on how you are questioned.

Statistics is a widely applicable branch of mathematics. One can therefore expect a great number of people to be conversant and proficient in it regardless of their nominal training. There is no science I can name that does not use statistical methods to reach its conclusions. Therefore your arguments sound very hollow when you repeatedly accuse everyone else of having no understanding of the subject.

Further it is you who cannot demonstrate a proficient knowledge of even basic descriptive statistics. You are constantly trying to fake it by hastily researching words and concepts your critics mention and posting largely irrelevant introductory passages from convenience sources, implying that you understand them while no one else here does.

 

[JayUtah]

...now the mods do not see my posts as offensive, and I trust their judgement

The moderators don't address posts generally unless they are reported, and generally only when the post is a clear violation. Personally I have reported none of your posts, but they are still insulting to a greater or lesser degree. I've advised you several times that you need to find a better argument than simply calling everyone else stupid. I'll repeat that advice again.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I did my best trying to find this article because I assumed, if it exists, it is inadequate and it would not take me too long to demolish it. But I couldn't find it. Now, be a nice person and provide a link to it rather than simply mentioning it. You would love to see me unable to give a coherent response to the article, wouldn't you? Just for the sake of defeating me, give me that link!

Sure. Start by following the links here:

Look what I found! Here is the link to Stanley Jeffers’ article https://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_...ychic_research

Do you mean what SOdhner told you to read in post #17 so you could educate yourself? The same post you replied as if you were on substances in post #88? The very same link I suggested you to read in my post #43 so you could learn something? The very same you said to Shuca that you couldn't find, in your post #135? The very same you claimed nobody had provided, as Pixel42 recriminated you in her post #144?


You are a manufacturer of lies. You're so puerilely transparent. You have so utterly fail here, kiddo.

Then you will be able to find the reference to that article there and find it in the Journal of Consciousness Studies using the periodicals library of your academic institution of choice.


And don't accuse me of kicking you while you're down.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I did my best trying to find this article...

Why didn't you simply follow the links that were already given?

...because I assumed, if it exists, it is inadequate and it would not take me too long to demolish it.

Your problem is often that you characterize sources before having read them, and then trap yourself into having to support that erroneous preconception regardless of the facts. You wrongly assumed John Palmer was a mainstream scientist with an axe to grind, and managed to get quite a few laughs by trying to rewrite his praise of PEAR as if it were criticism.

Look at his wording "I assumed, if it exists, it is inadequate and it would not take me too long to demolish it"


Exactly as you described.



He "assumes" that talking about non-existent articles is "common practice" in "academic environments". It's like Khrushchev mocking the Usaians because they had "machines to get the juice from lemons for their teas", just because he couldn't fathom extremely precious fruits like oranges -for his Sovietic mentality- could be used just to get juice. "Buddha" shows the utmost lack of familiarity with academic life.


The use of "would" and "not too long" can't hide enough his self-image of comic book superhero "demolishing" the villains. A very sad thing.

 

[JayUtah]

This is the link to the website that contains a synopsis of Psi Wars:
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Psi+Wars:+Getting+to+Grips+with+the+Paranormal.-a0132354432

There is no reference to the Jeffers’ experiment...

Why would you argue that it doesn't exist because it's not mentioned in one summary web page? Is this how you did your master's degree research?

The way I see it, Jeffers did not conduct any telekinesis research; for some reason some people believe he did, although he didn’t say that.

We believe it because we've read it, despite your insistence that it must not exist. I was able to summarize it in one of those posts you dismissed with a wave of your hand as "irrelevant." Are you accusing me of just making all that up?

On the first day of this thread you were given links to Jeffers' articles for Skeptical Inquirer in which he reported in some detail his work with PEAR. It was one of the footnotes in the article you yourself linked. It absolutely boggles the mind that you're now going to double-down on your claim that it doesn't exist.

In his article Palmer criticized the telekinesis research done by Schmidt. I haven’t heard about this research before...

You're professing expertise in PK research and you don't know about Schmidt? Well, that's not surprising because you don't know who Palmer is either. You're clearly a newcomer to this, which is disappointing considering I gave you fair warning even before you started that this was ground we all here already know well.

I will take a look at the original article and then will expose mistakes in Palmer’s evaluation; I am sure his critique is patently inadequate.

And this is your ongoing problem. You draw your conclusions before reading the material. You haven't read Palmer's critique but you are already certain what it must contain. Is there any argument in anything you've tackled that doesn't amount to making the facts appear to fit your preconception?

After being told several times that Palmer is a parapsychologist who believes in PK, don't you think it would have been wise to look up his easily-discovered c.v.? Did it ever occur to you that you initially drew the wrong impression of him? You seem to be operating from the simplistic assumption that anyone who criticizes pro-PK research must automatically be anti-PK, and that you can fall back on that characterization to argue bias. That is emphatically not true in Palmer's case (nor is it the common case in science that criticism belies ideology), but you already put your cards on the table and claimed he "must" be of a certain stripe. Now you're stuck having to stay consistent with that premature conclusion even when the facts say otherwise.

It takes time to read the Schmidt article, so I will be back on Thursday.

No one asked you to read Schmidt. No one asked you to read Palmer. We've asked you to read Jeffers, and provided link after link to the relevant material in the first few pages of this thread. Instead you've stooped to comically deluded lengths to assure the audience that your opponents' desired sources don't exist and that therefore you must soldier on with the straw-man source you've selected.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Frankly. I do not understand the purpose of your post. If you're trying to say that my misuse of the visitor message shows that am not a mathematician then you're right --I never called myself a mathematician, I called myself a control systems engineer. Majority of the data analysts are not mathematicians, although they have some knowledge of mathematical statistics.

You. Always trying to escape by the fringes.


The purpose was to point the overall lack of connexion with reality in your whole posting here. How you puerilely think that being categorical in your assertions gives them credibility and hides the inherent ridiculousness in many of them. How you show a clumsy use of the forum software, Internet search engines, Internet forums, Statistics, Logic and everything you praise yourself of managing or making a living out of it. And that you won't really contact any mathematicians to enticed them to participate here but you just upped the ante in the verbal front, the only thing you have shown to clearly have abilities to do.


So, you were right. It was criticism.

 

[Dave Rogers]

NM