I found other, more appropriate definitions:
(https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=golf clap).
It is obvious that the sentence:
doesn't have a sarcastic nature.
New telepathy test, the sequel.
- Thread starter Michel H
- Start date
-
- Tags
- telepathy telepathy test
It is obvious that the sentence:
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
Like what? Please give an example of a psychological difference between two people’s thoughts that enabled you to deem one female and the other male.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I do it to learn the truth, even if the truth is discouraging. In my case, people's lives literally depend on my ability to discover real truth, and I am legally liable for the strength of my findings. I doubt this applies to you.
It's your job to do physics research. This isn't physics. You seem utterly oblivious to what constitutes proper controls for this kind of research and why they must exist.
No. Your posts are filled with bitter rancor against those who find a reason not to accept you as a "thought projector." Your methods are patently ill-suited to any publishable theory, as they are completely irreproducible. Nothing about what you're doing counts as science.
Writing a paper about this alleged thing may not be best for privacy protection.
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
Nevermind, your inability to recognise sarcasm has been covered quite enough already.
Last edited:
Startz
Muse
Well I certainly got that wrong, as you demonstrate. Comes from typing faster than thinking. Do you happen to know the right formula (with whatever assumptions about independent trials are convenient)?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah, it really does.
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
What privacy? You claim that we can all hear your thoughts. If that is the case, then that ship has well and truly sailed.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
If you were utterly convinced that Experiments A and B were so congruent that their results could be aggregated, then you would go back to the original data and compute a combined p-value according to a proper statistical model, using all the data put together. But we don't really do this. There's nothing wrong with your formula. It's just not the right way to think about the p-value in science as an expression of outcome versus a null hypothesis.
In my prior example, I contrived the p-values to be very similar. Similar p-values, whatever their value, convey the notion that the experiment is stable. That is, it is well designed and well controlled. If Experiment A has a markedly different p-value than Experiment B, we would suspect that there's an uncontrolled confounding variable that behaved differently in one case but not the other, or that some ambiguity in protocol led to its being conducted differently. That speaks to things like reproducibility.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
So if these are not findings you're going to publish, for whatever reason you want to name, what's your real reason for conducting this "research?"
I think that telepathy, or extra-sensory perception should be more recognized and better understood. If other scientists suddenly decide to become more honest and to show interest for my ESP work, this could make a big difference.
I can gather data for a long time, and then publish (or try to publish) in a science journal those which seem to be of best quality (to me), at a time which seems right. I am currently annoyed because I don't have enough data about the effect of travelling on voices. If I don't have these data, this means that an article about my own telepathic experiences would be incomplete.
I am working on a research project in Physics also, that I don't want to neglect too much. It's about the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It's been studied extensively, peaking in about the 1980s, using real science. Under controlled conditions, no such effects were observed.
Well, there we are: the convenient excuse for why no effects were observed. Everyone's being dishonest except, apparently, for you. People who show reasons to disagree with you are ipso facto liars. And everyone must recognize Michel as among the few, if not the only, honest researchers. That's all very self-serving. Not really science, more of an "Everyone look at me!" strategy.
The "data" you're gathering have no scientific value.
I agree with the others; you should probably stick with that. You show no aptitude for research in psychology or parapsychology. And it's clear this is more about your ego than about finding scientific truth.
So far, I have not had a submitted paper refused, and I have received a lot of praise for my work (see above, which are just some examples).
I have also been criticized (especially on this forum) by individuals who seem more remarkable by their self-confidence and contempt than by their competence and hard-working nature.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
On what subjects? Using what data?
You were being ridiculed, and you seem to lack the ability to detect this.
You know absolutely nothing about my "competence and hard-working nature." The criticism you've received has been supported by fact and argument, which you generally do not address. Instead you prefer, as you are doing now, to crow about imaginary, unverifiable successes which you seem to believe makes you superior to everyone here.
Repeatedly calling your critics incompetent liars when they are showing you the facts and presenting you with competent reasoning is just further evidence of a bias that will preclude you being taken seriously on this subject.
University science departments receive crank letters and papers from time to time. I remember once, decades ago, when a physics professor at the U of Colorado Boulder brought me (me! the humble proposals wallah in the Research Support Office! I suppose I should've been flattered) a letter he'd found in his mail that sounded, well, familiar in tone to what some posters here create. The prof and a few of his colleagues wondered how to respond. I think they felt uneasy about getting their department and hence the university into some kind of trouble.
Luckily, I recalled something I'd seen in a Harvey Pekar comic (time for another ! ), a little episode of a librarian brushing off an amateur poet: "Sir, we don't feel qualified to evaluate this material. Perhaps you should approach an appropriate journal." I suggested using that style of brush off. The physics prof liked the idea and went away, and I heard no more about it.
Maybe addled minds are also busy minds. Perhaps they try to control their eddying thoughts and thought fragments by imagining their own science and mathematics, or rather their own theater of those disciplines.
Hell, I may be imagining my own theatre of headshrinking. Time to stop.
Luckily, I recalled something I'd seen in a Harvey Pekar comic (time for another ! ), a little episode of a librarian brushing off an amateur poet: "Sir, we don't feel qualified to evaluate this material. Perhaps you should approach an appropriate journal." I suggested using that style of brush off. The physics prof liked the idea and went away, and I heard no more about it.
Maybe addled minds are also busy minds. Perhaps they try to control their eddying thoughts and thought fragments by imagining their own science and mathematics, or rather their own theater of those disciplines.
Hell, I may be imagining my own theatre of headshrinking. Time to stop.
junkshop
Otto's Favourite
Rude.
I am talking here about my work on telepathy. I have never had a submitted paper on this topic refused.
If you want to contribute usefully to this thread, I think that you should try to be more specific in your criticism, for example by pinpointing an answer to a test, where "obviously" (sic) I said an answer was not credible when it was or, conversely, where I said an answer was credible when "obviously" it wasn't.
You might want to take a look at my latest test on Spiritual Forums: https://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=141734.
I suspect the so-called attempts to "ridicule" me have been far more ridiculous than the posts which were targeted.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
That is a very vague and ambiguous statement.
Have you submitted any papers on this topic to a credible journal? If so, and since the paper wasn't refused, which journal and when was the paper published?
If you have submitted a total of zero papers, then I have to wonder why are you intentionally misleading people.
If you have submitted papers to journals that perhaps do not meet the common understanding for respected academic publications, why is this of any importance?
Last edited:
I have never submitted a paper about telepathy to any science journal.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
But you have been published in physics journals, yes? Do you have links to those papers?