Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed previously moderated content and response
.

The ball is in your court. I have written four comprehensive posts offline. The first one takes the reader through a simple example of deriving a continuous, normally-distributed dependent variable from independent non-continuous process variable (a binary variable, in fact). It serves as an introduction to basic statistical modeling. The second gives an example of a more complicated derivation, where the process variable is continuous but the constitutive relationships are parameters to a likelihood function such that the expected values are themselves a derived distribution. The third explains the process Stanley Jeffers followed in deriving and normalizing a continuous, normally-distributed variable for his single-slit experiment. The fourth does the same for Jeffers' double-slit experiment.

Naturally I'm not going to post them right away. Experience has shown that as soon as I do, you'll latch onto a few technical terms extracted from them and post a bunch of hastily-Googled elementary definitions and discussion about them, hoping to convince the reader after the fact that this was something you knew about all along. And in that way, you evade the necessity of admitting you were underinformed. To preclude that particular bit of dishonesty on your part, they'll be posted when you admit publicly and unequivocally that you lack the skill to discern the statistical modeling process used in these scientific papers, and the skill to describe the dependent variables these authors derived.

Alternatively, of course, you can provide your own explanations. You have, in a way; you claimed the experiments were wholly invalid by design, in the process showing how far off the mark your understanding really is. The invitation here is to come clean and be honest about your actual foundation of knowledge. Your argument defending PEAR and proving the reality of psychokinesis consists of nothing but measuring a couple of their critics against your own professed expertise and saying they must be wrong because they obviously aren't as smart and qualified as you. Therefore we're examining your knowledge, since it's the only premise you gave us to work with. You are simply wrong about the statistics. I'm letting you choose the frame in which the audience will see proof of it. I'm giving you the chance to say, "Okay everyone, I'm sorry, I overstated my expertise in statistics and therefore probably shouldn't have made the arguments I did regarding PEAR, Palmer, and Jeffers. Will you please show me where I went wrong?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, I had time to look at Wood’s article. The paper also contains Hasted’s response. He wrote that the experiment conditions were improved after the publications of Wood’s paper/ I will give my own review of Wood’s article.

Here is the link to it

https://archive.org/stream/NotesonS...teOnMechanicsJsprVolume51_pg246to252_djvu.txt

In the first part of the article Wood criticizes the table-levitation experiments that were not a part of haste’s research, so I will skip it.

“Resistance gauges are excellent, but only if the magnitude of strains, relative to
the yield strain, are kept in mind. Unfortunately all Hasted’s strains are
published as millivolt signals, with nowhere a strain (extension divided by
original length) mentioned at all. Those signals purporting to show ‘metal
churning’ (Figure 2, Ref. 1) are about ±3 mV. On enquiry I was kindly given the
calibration 1 mV = 1-6 X lO -7 strain, and since yield strains are commonly of the
order 1*5 X 10~ 3 , we are here recording about 1/3000 of the yield strain. Having
spent a lifetime testing and analysing real metal structures, I would expect an
elastic response, and would not believe any such erratic strain-diagrams unless
some deliberate bending could first demonstrate linear strain bending diagrams
at such small strains. (Quite recently a Professor of Civil Engineering told me
that recorded strains of less than order 10 -6 can not be trusted.) Moreover
statements such as ‘signals correspond to quasi-forces of about 20 gm weight’
mean nothing to a stress-man, and simply mislead the reader.
Resistance gauges are excellent, but only if the magnitude of strains, relative to
the yield strain, are kept in mind. Unfortunately all Hasted’s strains are
published as millivolt signals, with nowhere a strain (extension divided by
original length) mentioned at all. Those signals purporting to show ‘metal
churning’ (Figure 2, Ref. 1) are about ±3 mV. On enquiry I was kindly given the
calibration 1 mV = 1-6 X lO -7 strain, and since yield strains are commonly of the
order 1*5 X 10~ 3 , we are here recording about 1/3000 of the yield strain. Having
spent a lifetime testing and analysing real metal structures, I would expect an
elastic response, and would not believe any such erratic strain-diagrams unless
some deliberate bending could first demonstrate linear strain bending diagrams
at such small strains. (Quite recently a Professor of Civil Engineering told me
that recorded strains of less than order 10 -6 can not be trusted.) Moreover
statements such as ‘signals correspond to quasi-forces of about 20 gm weight’
mean nothing to a stress-man, and simply mislead the reader.” Wood

Years of experience do not mean much if one fails to take the nature of a metallic specimen into account. In some metals it could be elastic bending, but this doesn’t
mean that it should be observed in all cases.

“recorded strains of less than order 10 -6 can not be trusted.)”

Wood forgot to mention that the degree of precision depends on the equipment unless
the sizes are so small that the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle comes into play.
But in this case the size of the specimen is not microscopic, so the uncertainty
Principle doesn’t apply. I am sure that the aforementioned professor was talking about his experimental setup and nothing more, but Woods made a silly generalization.

I will return to the article tomorrow.
 
Buddha said:
Actually, I had time to look at Wood’s article.

I will return to the article tomorrow.
Click to expand...

No, Buddha, we're not finished with PEAR, Palmer, and Jeffers. Your claim to statistical expertise -- the basis of your rejection of Palmer and Jeffers -- has been seriously undermined by your colossal error in guessing at what the dependent variable is in these various experiments. You don't get to sweep that under the carpet and forge ahead, straw-man fashion.
 
"""Buddha""" said:
To this reviewer's knowledge, no comprehensive critiques of Hasted's
research have yet been published. Perhaps the closest approximation is a
review of The Metal Benders by Stokes (1982). Wood (1982) raised technical
objections to the interpretations Hasted placed upon his "strain" signals,
expressing particular concern about their small magnitude. He also
*questioned Hasted's assumption that the extension and contraction vectors
should be equal for the metal disc experiment (p. 184), and he noted that
the rotation effect (p. 182) could be produced normally because such twists
are caused by shear rather than by extension forces. Hasted had assumed the
latter in arguing for the effect being paranormal. Hasted replied to Wood's
criticisms in the same article.” Palmer, page 187.

Wood, R.H. (1982). On the importance of correct mechanics in paranormal
research. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 51, 246-249.
Tomorrow I will take a look at Wood’s article. Hopefully, I will find it on the Internet.

Perhaps someone more intelligent than Jay will join this debate.
Click to expand...

Let's dissect this buddhapost:

First part, an error-ridden random quotation of Palmer's to make it look like he's still discussing something (notice how he had inserted newlines according to his screen, because all screens in the world are like his :rolleyes:)

Palmer said:
To this reviewer's knowledge, no comprehensive critiques of Hasted's research have yet been published. Perhaps the closest approximation is a review of The Metal Benders by Stokes (1982). Wood (1982) raised technical objections to the interpretations Hasted placed upon his "strain" signals,expressing particular concern about their small magnitude. He also questioned Hasted's assumption that the extension and contraction vectors should be equal for the metal disc experiment (p. 184), and he noted that the rotation effect (p. 182) could be produced normally because such twists are caused by shear rather than by extension forces. Hasted had assumed the latter in arguing for the effect being paranormal. Hasted replied to Wood's criticisms in the same article.
Click to expand...

then, a paper, he expects to find .Is it in the periodicals library of any serious university? I doubt it. This is the table of content of the last available or those journals. Very interesting, especially the "Phenomenological and Exploratory Study of Channelling" :rolleyes:

He's just proposing to keep the woo among the woo digests, where he feels comfortable.

And finally, the seed of the excuse why he's leaving here soon.
 
Buddha said:
Actually, I had time to look at Wood’s article. The paper also contains Hasted’s response. He wrote that the experiment conditions were improved after the publications of Wood’s paper/ I will give my own review of Wood’s article.

Here is the link to it

https://archive.org/stream/NotesonS...teOnMechanicsJsprVolume51_pg246to252_djvu.txt

In the first part of the article Wood criticizes the table-levitation experiments that were not a part of haste’s research, so I will skip it.

“Resistance gauges are excellent, but only if the magnitude of strains, relative to
the yield strain, are kept in mind. Unfortunately all Hasted’s strains are
published as millivolt signals, with nowhere a strain (extension divided by
original length) mentioned at all. Those signals purporting to show ‘metal
churning’ (Figure 2, Ref. 1) are about ±3 mV. On enquiry I was kindly given the
calibration 1 mV = 1-6 X lO -7 strain, and since yield strains are commonly of the
order 1*5 X 10~ 3 , we are here recording about 1/3000 of the yield strain. Having
spent a lifetime testing and analysing real metal structures, I would expect an
elastic response, and would not believe any such erratic strain-diagrams unless
some deliberate bending could first demonstrate linear strain bending diagrams
at such small strains. (Quite recently a Professor of Civil Engineering told me
that recorded strains of less than order 10 -6 can not be trusted.) Moreover
statements such as ‘signals correspond to quasi-forces of about 20 gm weight’
mean nothing to a stress-man, and simply mislead the reader.
Resistance gauges are excellent, but only if the magnitude of strains, relative to
the yield strain, are kept in mind. Unfortunately all Hasted’s strains are
published as millivolt signals, with nowhere a strain (extension divided by
original length) mentioned at all. Those signals purporting to show ‘metal
churning’ (Figure 2, Ref. 1) are about ±3 mV. On enquiry I was kindly given the
calibration 1 mV = 1-6 X lO -7 strain, and since yield strains are commonly of the
order 1*5 X 10~ 3 , we are here recording about 1/3000 of the yield strain. Having
spent a lifetime testing and analysing real metal structures, I would expect an
elastic response, and would not believe any such erratic strain-diagrams unless
some deliberate bending could first demonstrate linear strain bending diagrams
at such small strains. (Quite recently a Professor of Civil Engineering told me
that recorded strains of less than order 10 -6 can not be trusted.) Moreover
statements such as ‘signals correspond to quasi-forces of about 20 gm weight’
mean nothing to a stress-man, and simply mislead the reader.” Wood

Years of experience do not mean much if one fails to take the nature of a metallic specimen into account. In some metals it could be elastic bending, but this doesn’t
mean that it should be observed in all cases.

“recorded strains of less than order 10 -6 can not be trusted.)”

Wood forgot to mention that the degree of precision depends on the equipment unless
the sizes are so small that the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle comes into play.
But in this case the size of the specimen is not microscopic, so the uncertainty
Principle doesn’t apply. I am sure that the aforementioned professor was talking about his experimental setup and nothing more, but Woods made a silly generalization.

I will return to the article tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Let me make it clear that I will make this one post only on this topic so as not to create a means for you (Buddha) to continue avoiding JayUtah's thread. Despite your protestations, he has the right of it, and you would do well to respond in depth to him. {ETA: I will make further posts to continue the discussion with Buddha if he so wishes AFTER he has completed the JayUtah topic; I don't want it thought I don't have the strength of my convictions here}

That said, your post here is more in my bailiwick. I was a member of the JSPR for many years, receiving their publications and invitations and frequently communicating via email by the publications' authors.

My meta-findings were twofold:

1. There are some sincere believers who publish such papers, but there are also the incompetent who strive only to make a name for themselves by selling an expertise they do not possess

2. Whether sincere or not, none of the papers proffered as the final proof of this or that paranormal phenomenon withstood scrutiny.

For your specific paper it is an all-too-common example of what happens in the JSPR, i.e., they spend a lot of time on the impressive-sounding "how" without ever establishing "if."
 
Last edited:
Buddha said:
Actually, I had time to look at Wood’s article. The paper also contains Hasted’s response. He wrote that the experiment conditions were improved after the publications of Wood’s paper/ I will give my own review of Wood’s article.

Here is the link to it

https://archive.org/stream/NotesonS...teOnMechanicsJsprVolume51_pg246to252_djvu.txt

In the first part of the article Wood criticizes the table-levitation experiments that were not a part of haste’s research, so I will skip it.

I stopped reading at this point...

I will return to the article tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, I am intelligent enough for you to point out this one obvious fact ...

Considering that this 36 year old source of yours actually believed that one could use psychic powers to levitate tables, then it is difficult to take the work of such a person seriously.
 
JayUtah said:
As long as he keeps pretending it doesn't exist, he won't be responsible for reading it, interpreting it, and discussing it.
Click to expand...


Yes, and I reiterate my offer: those who don't believe in woo can ask me the link to that article, either here of by PM. Two of them already did and got it. One of them just wrote back to me and managed quite well to determine what the dependent variable is.
 
aleCcowaN said:
One of them just wrote back to me and managed quite well to determine what the dependent variable is.
Click to expand...

The hemorrhoid?

Poor Buddha made a major statistics gaffe in not being able to constitute the dependent variable properly -- at all -- in any of the experiments from Jahn, his colleagues, or critics. That's a show-stopper right there. He made an additional physics gaffe in thinking the Fraunhofer model of diffraction generally produces a single-node bell curve of intensity from a single slit. (Hint: it doesn't.)

You can see why Buddha is desperately trying to press on. He's trying to distract from those unrecoverable failures by doing his customary drive-by bluster on new material. He never addresses the responses to the drive-bys, at least not in any material way. It reminds me of the time Bart Sibrel tried to take questions at a screening of his film. Each person got exactly one question and no follow-ups, so that there was no chance to expose the hogwash answer Sibrel gave for each question.

Same deal here. The Palmer book (it's a book-length review of then-current research, written for the U.S. Army) is his straw man. He trash-talks Palmer on point after point, addressing the content only to say how meager it is compared to his own superior intellect. Or, these days, he just quotes a bit of Palmer and then writes some irrelevant ad hominem slur at one of his critics. As soon as there's any meaningful discussion that he can't bluff his way past, he comes up with some excuse -- he doesn't have time, or his critics are too stupid and therefore not worth his attention.
 
JayUtah said:
I have to protest this off-topic excursion into the reality of telekinesis. Anyone who's read the thread can see its subject is Buddha's superior intelligence and debate skills. I'm going to have to ask you to stick to the subject.
Click to expand...

Why don't you just stop us from typing anything off-topic by freezing the keys with the power of your mind?

Oh, yeah, I remember. Because there's no such thing as telekinesis.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom