Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

[JayUtah]

Why don't let him follow his Benjamin Button path? He's basically jumping now back to 1978, discussing Hasted-like experiments, with the mentality of a 15 y.o.

Yes, that's what he's trying to do. But in a larger sense he's trying to sweep failure under the carpet and move on. Since that's not the sort of thing responsible claimants do, I'm giving him the chance to state his position on the open points before his opponents reach a conclusion on how productive it's like to be to continue the debate.

 

[aleCcowaN]

1)They seem to be purposely set up in order to allow for statistical shenanigans

No, none of them, including Jahn's, do that nor even seem to to that.

I know that it is tempting to break the monopoly """"Buddha"""" has regarding talking about statistics without having any clue, but you must resist that temptation!

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I'm not very good with advanced math and statistics. I can't participate in that discussion. I am more concerned with the practical side of the argument.

I would like to see a demonstration of telekinesis in the real world that cannot happen by slight of hand, hidden apparatuses, air currents, heat transfer, etc. For example, a sealed plexiglass box with a coin or other flat, lightweight object -something that won't roll or move on it's own. Make that object move. Seems pretty simple to set up and hard to fake with the proper safegaurds. That would be something worth looking at.

I just don't see the point of the kinds of experiments that are being described here. 1)They seem to be purposely set up in order to allow for statistical shenanigans and 2)What is the practical value of the effect demonstrated?

I made a similar point waaay back on page one...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12401209&postcount=40

But this is so often the way with paranormal claims, people claim that they can do things, actually do them, then when testing protocols are discussed complain because the odds against it happening by chance are too high!

 

[aleCcowaN]

Yes, that's what he's trying to do. But in a larger sense he's trying to sweep failure under the carpet and move on. Since that's not the sort of thing responsible claimants do, I'm giving him the chance to state his position on the open points before his opponents reach a conclusion on how productive it's like to be to continue the debate.

We can always develop a megapost -or a post "miniseries"- summing up the failure and false pretences of """"Buddha"""", with quotation of his posts and the real words and meaning of Jahn's, Palmer's, Jeffers', etc. All of it with inserts commenting the deceiving techniques he uses, and then move on too.

I, for one, as a closure, am working on a post explaining the one-slit, double-slit experiment, their physics and how they can be used to test psychokinetics. Also the big failings of """"Buddha"""" tackling them.

[By the way, one of my hidden mistakes was mentioning the slits in Jeffers' were 10mm wide and separated 10 mm, I allow """"Buddha"""" a last chance to say why that is wrong from a physical point of view]

It would be a good deal of work straitening al what """"Buddha"""" has twisted, but worth to show this site is more than a place fringe claimants can come to parasite it. Otherwise, you saw, things like xjx388 buying part of what """"Buddha"""" is selling will continue to happen.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

No, none of them, including Jahn's, do that nor even seem to to that.

I know that it is tempting to break the monopoly """"Buddha"""" has regarding talking about statistics without having any clue, but you must resist that temptation!

I don't think you're being entirely fair to this poster, I think the point is that claimants for 'paranormal' powers always claim to have an actual, noticable, effect on the world. Have you ever heard a paranormal claimant say anything along the lines if 'so for no particular reason I read a thousand cards and recorded the results and when I analysed the results I was predicting the correct card 0.5% more accurately than chance'? They believe they have 'the power' before they test (if they ever do).

 

[P.J. Denyer]

“In a session with Nicholas Williams, Hasted (1977) took two strips of
aluminum alloy, folded one around the other, and placed them on a table
inside an empty room. Hasted and Williams waited outside. On this and subsequent occasions, one of the strips was later found to have been twisted
around its vertical axis over part of its length. The effect only occurred
* when no one was watching. Hasted tentatively interpreted the effect as
* involving a rotation of the surface of action”. Palmer, page 182

It seems to me that Palmer implies that there is a possibility that the experiment was rigged. However, to tamper with this experiment is even harder than with the one run by Jahn, the only way to do it is to bring your own samples into the room and insert them into the apparatus. It boggles my mind to think that Hasted didn’t take all necessary precautions to prevent this from happening. Once again, Palmer has shown a complete lack of understanding of general engineering.

Every stage magician ever is laughing at your hubris.

The effect only occurred
* when no one was watching.

ROFLMAO

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm not very good with advanced math and statistics. I can't participate in that discussion. I am more concerned with the practical side of the argument.

I would like to see a demonstration of telekinesis in the real world that cannot happen by slight of hand, hidden apparatuses, air currents, heat transfer, etc. For example, a sealed plexiglass box with a coin or other flat, lightweight object -something that won't roll or move on it's own. Make that object move. Seems pretty simple to set up and hard to fake with the proper safegaurds. That would be something worth looking at.

I just don't see the point of the kinds of experiments that are being described here. <edited out because it's demonstrably false> and 2)What is the practical value of the effect demonstrated?

I made a similar point waaay back on page one...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12401209&postcount=40

But this is so often the way with paranormal claims, people claim that they can do things, actually do them, then when testing protocols are discussed complain because the odds against it happening by chance are too high!

There's a simple question: can anyone, including """"Buddha"""", link here a scientific, peer-reviewed paper, published in any reputable scientific journal, from this decade (conditio sine qua non), that studies telekinesis and uses proper protocols?

Proper protocols about telekinesis experiences are already designed. The One Million Dollar challenge had like 700 claimants. No-one accepted the protocols. The problem is no subject is volunteering to show their powers in properly controlled conditions. Like the "suddenly debilitated" Uri Geller in Carson's I posted in this thread today.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I don't think you're being entirely fair to this poster, I think the point is that claimants for 'paranormal' powers always claim to have an actual, noticable, effect on the world. Have you ever heard a paranormal claimant say anything along the lines if 'so for no particular reason I read a thousand cards and recorded the results and when I analysed the results I was predicting the correct card 0.5% more accurately than chance'? They believe they have 'the power' before they test (if they ever do).

I only criticize what needs to be firmly criticized. The studies discussed here don't have "statistical shenanigans". You may discuss the experiment designs and their purposes. That's a horse of a different colour.

It's worrying to see someone declare "I'm not very good with advanced math and statistics" and immediately suspecting "statistical shenanigans" in line with """"Buddha"""" gaslighting. That's exactly what """"Buddha"""" does (you'll see him soon bragging his supporters start to show).

I understand the poster throwing a litotes about "advanced math" on one side and "statistics (in general)" on the other, and not "advanced (math and statistics)" because, in fact, there's nothing "advanced" in the statistics used here until you start to discuss Bayesian intervals (one of the fishnets Jay threw, I think, and not part of any paper -I'm far from having read them in full-), and statistics is a part of "math" and not two separate items.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I only criticize what needs to be firmly criticized. The studies discussed here don't have "statistical shenanigans". You may discuss the experiment designs and their purposes. That's a horse of a different colour.

It's worrying to see someone declare "I'm not very good with advanced math and statistics" and immediately suspecting "statistical shenanigans" in line with """"Buddha"""" gaslighting. That's exactly what """"Buddha"""" does (you'll see him soon bragging his supporters start to show).

I understand the poster throwing a litotes about "advanced math" on one side and "statistics (in general)" on the other, and not "advanced (math and statistics)" because, in fact, there's nothing "advanced" in the statistics used here until you start to discuss Bayesian intervals (one of the fishnets Jay threw, I think, and not part of any paper -I'm far from having read them in full-), and statistics is a part of "math" and not two separate items.

I think you're misunderstanding the poster's point (of course I also may be, if they return they may clarify), as I understand it the point they are making is that woo slingers claim noticeable real world effects and when challenged retreat into subtle effects that can only be demonstrated (even if we give them the benefit of the doubt) by "advanced math" and "statistics". As I read their post they are definitely not in line with "Buddha", in fact it is the exact opposite.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

There's a simple question: can anyone, including """"Buddha"""", link here a scientific, peer-reviewed paper, published in any reputable scientific journal, from this decade (conditio sine qua non), that studies telekinesis and uses proper protocols?

Proper protocols about telekinesis experiences are already designed. The One Million Dollar challenge had like 700 claimants. No-one accepted the protocols. The problem is no subject is volunteering to show their powers in properly controlled conditions. Like the "suddenly debilitated" Uri Geller in Carson's I posted in this thread today.

Completely agree. By coincidence I was watching Geller's less than incredible appearance on Carson just a couple of days ago.

 

[JayUtah]

I would like to see a demonstration of telekinesis in the real world that cannot happen by [fakery].

Wouldn't we all. In accordance with what several people noted early on, when someone says "psychokinesis" I think of "Accio beer!" or something like that that's both dramatic and useful. In Buddha's case, since evidence on his profile suggests he actually is a believing Buddhist, I would expect something like the classic demonstrations of psychokinesis that are supposed to attend higher levels of Buddhist enlightenment -- levitation etc. His previous two threads have tried to supply secular proof for elements of Buddhism, so I gather his interest in psychokinesis is compatible with that.

But no, we just get small effects that are difficult to measure. And, as Buddha has written the thread, we aren't even really talking about the science. It's just his pompous attempts to dismount various critics, with little rhyme or reason toward any other end.

I just don't see the point of the kinds of experiments that are being described here. 1)They seem to be purposely set up in order to allow for statistical shenanigans and 2)What is the practical value of the effect demonstrated?

The purpose seems to be achieving a more victory. Or perhaps a Pyrrhic one, since the only way they can achieve a significant result seems to be to reduce the level of significance down to something that has negligible effect at almost any scale of observation.

As far as the statistics go, they're really not as runic as Buddha or this discussion makes them out to be. Significance testing is normally straightforward, and none of the studies we've looked at in these threads is outright lying or erring in their statistics. What we see mostly is irregularity and/or deficiency in the controls, designs, and protocols. This relates to the statistical analysis by allowing for confounds. They may not be measuring what they think we're measuring, but we need not accuse the experimenters of "shenanigans" in order to offer meaningful criticism.

But I agree with the sentiment behind your comment. It would be nice to see effects that are more macro in scope, something that doesn't require a numerical microscope to see.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I think you're misunderstanding the poster's point

I admit I may be, but also...

I just don't see the point of the kinds of experiments that are being described here. 1)They seem to be purposely set up in order to allow for statistical shenanigans and 2)What is the practical value of the effect demonstrated?

The purpose seems to be achieving a more victory. Or perhaps a Pyrrhic one, since the only way they can achieve a significant result seems to be to reduce the level of significance down to something that has negligible effect at almost any scale of observation.

... I see merit in those studies. Maybe Jahn's conclusions are a little bit "augmented" but they have still a place in this whole argumentation:

Further careful study of this formidable field seems justified, but only within the context of very well conceived and technically impeccable experiments of large data-base capability, with disciplined attention to the pertinent aesthetic factors, and with more constructive involvement of the critical community.

Experiments like Jahn's or Jeffers' are very important in one aspect: they (may be) are replicable -I'm not talking of the results- and they set an extremely low bar. And there's merit in such low bars: There may be a redesigned Jahn's-like apparatus, with frequent calibrations, and Jeffers' equipment continually available for individuals and groups to be tested. Other experiences (like moving a dead ant, as I mentioned yesterday) too. If someone passes the one inch bar, no matter it's a random variation, the experiment can be repeated, and if passed within a certain loose margin, the claimant can be directed to the two-inch bar experiment, and so on. And if all of these claimants fail to, as we say here, "mover el amperímetro" (to get a reading in the ammeter) then, quel dommage! there's nothing there.

I think the research in this kind of subject is totally lacking financing. And it's very likely that the nuclear superpowers, back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, invested large sums of money with military goals in mind trying to find something there and as they couldn't they turned their backs on this.

And that speaks volumes: nobody is financing this. I don't say that eventually a billionaire won't throw some millions to test this instead of building a wooden airplane or buying jars to keep his urine in check; but we all know that will be BS. With a world GDP of around 100 trillion dollars ppp, with several trillions being invested in public education worldwide, I think it's not a big deal to get a billion collected each year from everywhere and everyone to test this and another hundred woo-things, so people will learn how to stop being so darn stupid like some out there, a laudable goal.

 

[halleyscomet]

ROFLMAO

http://mysterymen.wikia.com/wiki/Invisible_Boy

 

[JayUtah]

Jahn's comments are informative. Keep in mind that he was no obscure academic seeking to eke out some degree of recognition and resorting to the fringe to do so. He was a very well respected aeronautical engineer who had a long and productive career at Princeton. It's obvious he had more than a passing interest in psychokinesis and remote viewing, but then again so did one of the men who walked on the Moon, a man I considered a friend and mentor until he departed our dimension.

With all that in mind, we see the true travesty of Buddha's performance here. He's trying to portray the interplay between these scientists as if they were mere Keyboard Warriors like himself, lobbing petty accusations at each other and obsessed with questions of reputation and standing. Jahn was conscientious enough to admit he hadn't arrived at proof for psychokinesis and conscientious enough to accept the criticism of his peers. I wish we could see that level of discussion from Buddha.

 

[aleCcowaN]

With all that in mind, we see the true travesty of Buddha's performance here. He's trying to portray the interplay between these scientists as if they were mere Keyboard Warriors like himself, lobbing petty accusations at each other and obsessed with questions of reputation and standing.

Well, he's falling back ... in time! He was discussing papers from 2003 or 1998, now he's in 1982 or earlier. By page 30 of this thread he'll be showing old photos of teleplasm (ectoplasm), defending Mary Marshall and telling Eric Dingwall had hidden intentions.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

And that speaks volumes: nobody is financing this. I don't say that eventually a billionaire won't throw some millions to test this instead of building a wooden airplane or buying jars to keep his urine in check; but we all know that will be BS. With a world GDP of around 100 trillion dollars ppp, with several trillions being invested in public education worldwide, I think it's not a big deal to get a billion collected each year from everywhere and everyone to test this and another hundred woo-things, so people will learn how to stop being so darn stupid like some out there, a laudable goal.

Sadly, I don't think it matters, you can test these things every day and continue throwing good money after bad, but the people who want their magic powers will take no notice, turns out it's easier to feel special if you don't do the legwork. There's a marvellous XKCD about "if psychic powers were real" but I'm on my tablet, away from home and drunk so sadly I won't be posting it. But you probably know the one I mean.

With a few rare exceptions support for these beliefs isn't based on evidence, experiment or statistical analysis, it's ego and warm fuzzy feelings. You've been around long enough to remember the Million Dollar Challenge days and how few claimants were willing to test themselves, even when (as was usually the case) low to zero cost private 'at home' pre-pre-tests were suggested.

 

[xjx388]

No, none of them, including Jahn's, do that nor even seem to to that.

I know that it is tempting to break the monopoly """"Buddha"""" has regarding talking about statistics without having any clue, but you must resist that temptation!

Fine, maybe it's not "statistical shenanigans" they are designed to allow. The point I'm trying to make is that the effects are only detectible through some kind of data analysis. You can't "see" the effect on an electronic component until you look at the "runs" of data and see if there was deviation from chance or whatever. So the procedures, protocols, etc allow for manipulation of the results.

You can't hide that as easily when you are dealing with, say, an object in a clear box that either moves or doesn't move.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Fine, maybe it's not "statistical shenanigans" they are designed to allow. The point I'm trying to make is that the effects are only detectible through some kind of data analysis. You can't "see" the effect on an electronic component until you look at the "runs" of data and see if there was deviation from chance or whatever. So the procedures, protocols, etc allow for manipulation of the results.

You can't hide that as easily when you are dealing with, say, an object in a clear box that either moves or doesn't move.

Right. They have failed to provide significant evidence of psychokinesis a any level, macro to quantum. These experiments just show that lack of evidence at one end of that spectrum.

The whole point of """"Buddha"""" 's badmouthing campaign (until he started talking of Hasted, what anticipates that a lot of clowns are gonna emerge from that car) was proving that operator 010 in Jahn's was a gifted person and not a regular cheater or an epistemological hedonist as he is. In his mind, the fact that she was always available to be tested again but wasn't bears no consequence.

 

[Buddha]

Yes, that's what he's trying to do. But in a larger sense he's trying to sweep failure under the carpet and move on. Since that's not the sort of thing responsible claimants do, I'm giving him the chance to state his position on the open points before his opponents reach a conclusion on how productive it's like to be to continue the debate.

Unfortunately, these are the only articles about metal bending that I could find. I rather discuss new ones, but I cannot find them. Would you kindly find them for me? I will be more than happy to discuss them. On the other hand, we should not be discussing quantum mechanics either because it was originated in 1920s

 

[Buddha]

No, none of them, including Jahn's, do that nor even seem to to that.

I know that it is tempting to break the monopoly """"Buddha"""" has regarding talking about statistics without having any clue, but you must resist that temptation!

But you could not resist the temptation when you promoted yourself from lab instructor to associate professor. Now yu claim that you hold monopoly on linear programming.