• 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.

Breaking down telepathy

Kelonaptra, that's a fair answer. I actually would have never thought that I was telepathic if I had experienced what you had, but at least you are hedging that idea.
 
MRC_Hans said:
However, I think we should give Kleonaptra some slack: It is really, really hard to have your rug pulled from under you. Those of us who were originally believers generally took years to give it up. Let it sink in, let her do experiments. I think she has potential.

Hans
Click to expand...

It took me a long time to realize that I could not dowse with a pendulum.
 
Kleonaptra said:
...The majority of flying birds have massive resistance to intestinal worms. I expected to be wrong, because its rare...
Click to expand...
Do you have a cite for this assertion?

The reason I ask is that this is at least the second time you've alluded to this "fact", with the obvious reason to enhance the extraordinary nature of your animal "telepathy".

Without actually understanding the real prevalence of intestinal worms in birdlife, all you are doing is exacerbating your admitted confirmation bias with even more poor evidence.
 
EHocking said:
Do you have a cite for this assertion?

The reason I ask is that this is at least the second time you've alluded to this "fact", with the obvious reason to enhance the extraordinary nature of your animal "telepathy".

Without actually understanding the real prevalence of intestinal worms in birdlife, all you are doing is exacerbating your admitted confirmation bias with even more poor evidence.
Click to expand...
It seems to be incorrect:

http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=15+1829&aid=1560

Kleonaptra, the worst thing you can do here is to make easily verifiable claims that turn out to be wrong.

Google is your friend.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Kleonaptra, the worst thing you can do here is to make easily verifiable claims that turn out to be wrong.
Click to expand...


I would think that's one of the better things that could happen here though, then it just depends on his or her character, the person has a good chance to learn something new, or just reject it and think of excuses. Often times people don't make easily verifiable claims, instead they are many times all over the place and cannot form a testable claim or position.
 
PixyMisa said:
Second, telepathy is impossible. It's perfectly straightforward to communicate silently and invisibly over a great distance; you can pick up a device to do that at the supermarket these days. But there needs to be a signal sent. There is only one way to do that, and that's via the electromagnetic force, and to do that you'd need some kind of antenna to produce and receive the signal. That does not exist, not in the brain, not anywhere in the body, and the signals don't exist either.
Click to expand...

Why are you trying to give a natural explanation as the only explanation of supernatural event? Do you also say prayer can't work because we have no electromagnetic transmitter in our brains? No, prayer doesn't work because there is no evidence supporting it.

I really have an issue with saying its "impossible". "Extreme unlikely" and "no supporting evidence" are better for me.
 
SumDood said:
Why are you trying to give a natural explanation as the only explanation of supernatural event? Do you also say prayer can't work because we have no electromagnetic transmitter in our brains? No, prayer doesn't work because there is no evidence supporting it.

I really have an issue with saying its "impossible". "Extreme unlikely" and "no supporting evidence" are better for me.
Click to expand...
Why choose one supernatural explanation over another?
 
MRC_Hans said:
It seems to be incorrect:

http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=15+1829&aid=1560

Kleonaptra, the worst thing you can do here is to make easily verifiable claims that turn out to be wrong.

Google is your friend.

Hans
Click to expand...
Yes, the claim that worms are uncommon in flying birds does seem to be incorrect. I came up with this link:

Common Parasites In Birds

Apparently "Roundworms are one of the easiest infestations to recognize," and any bird that is allowed outside or otherwise exposed to soil is subject to getting them. Considering that the mynah bird was hit by a car, it clearly spent some time outside. The more you know!

When it comes to the labor question, Kleonaptra, your mother-in-law made an educated guess and came out lucky. Did she not know your due date? Was she not aware that your pregnancy was advanced? This anecdote would have been more impressive if a long-forgotten relative who was previously unaware that you were even pregnant had called you in a similar manner.
 
SumDood said:
Why are you trying to give a natural explanation as the only explanation of supernatural event?
Click to expand...
Because Kleonaptra keeps talking about measuring "energy" and "EMP" and people's "electromagnetic frequency" using SQUIDs.

Do you also say prayer can't work because we have no electromagnetic transmitter in our brains?
Click to expand...
Sure, if you like.

No, prayer doesn't work because there is no evidence supporting it.
Click to expand...
Empirically, prayer doesn't work. There is also no possible mechanism.

I really have an issue with saying its "impossible". "Extreme unlikely" and "no supporting evidence" are better for me.
Click to expand...
Based on all known science, it is actually impossible.

Also, it doesn't happen.
 
PixyMisa said:
Based on all known science, it is actually impossible.
Click to expand...

Do you see how qualified that statement is? I don't understand why you need to go that far. It's not going to convince anyone, and its open to the obvious reply that maybe there are things that current science doesn't know.

Much better, as the above poster said, to say "extremely unlikely" and "no supporting evidence". While the comment may appear weaker at first blush, it is a much more sound statement to make.

The same with psi. You keep saying that there is no evidence in favour of it. Yet parapsychology is filled with evidence. Now, we can dispute interpretations of the evidence, and the strength of the evidence, and the reliability of the evidence. But it's still evidence!

Just like these two poster's statements about their powers is evidence of those powers. It's just extremely weak, extremely unreliable evidence. So we can say the evidence in favour of their using some sort of psi is very very weak. But not non-existant.

It seems like a petty point, but I think just coming in all the time saying things are impossible does not help convince anyone and is uncertain at best. Science is about probabilities and confidence variables - not certainty.
 
Arouet, it's a common verbal shorthand to say "there's no evidence" and mean "there's not sufficient or convincing evidence." It can lead to misinterpretation, though, which is why I prefer the latter, not the former.
 
Arouet, another thought. Let's say a scientist conducts a study that offers evidence for conclusion A. Other scientists examine the study and conclude that the study is fatally flawed, that the evidence does not lead one to conclusion A.

Do we then say that there is evidence for conclusion A? That's the situation with parapsychological research and evidence. You might argue with that conclusion, but if one accepted, for the sake of argument, that all of parapsychological research was fatally flawed, then one wouldn't say that there is evidence of parapsychological effects.
 
Arouet said:
Do you see how qualified that statement is? I don't understand why you need to go that far. It's not going to convince anyone, and its open to the obvious reply that maybe there are things that current science doesn't know.

Much better, as the above poster said, to say "extremely unlikely" and "no supporting evidence". While the comment may appear weaker at first blush, it is a much more sound statement to make.

The same with psi. You keep saying that there is no evidence in favour of it. Yet parapsychology is filled with evidence. Now, we can dispute interpretations of the evidence, and the strength of the evidence, and the reliability of the evidence. But it's still evidence!
Click to expand...
Nope.

If I say that it's possible for gravity to sometimes work upwards, and I claim as evidence that I can throw a ball into the air and it only comes down after a second or two, I'm wrong on both counts. It's impossible and that's not evidence.

Same for telepathy. Same for homeopathy.
 
Paul2 said:
Arouet, another thought. Let's say a scientist conducts a study that offers evidence for conclusion A. Other scientists examine the study and conclude that the study is fatally flawed, that the evidence does not lead one to conclusion A.

Do we then say that there is evidence for conclusion A? That's the situation with parapsychological research and evidence. You might argue with that conclusion, but if one accepted, for the sake of argument, that all of parapsychological research was fatally flawed, then one wouldn't say that there is evidence of parapsychological effects.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Yes, precisely.

If your perpetual motion device only works when it's plugged into mains power, that's not evidence for perpetual motion.

If your paranormal ability only works in situations fully accounted for by normal abilities, that's not evidence for the paranormal.

It's not that it's low-quality evidence, it's not evidence at all.
 
So if someone proved telepathy, would they be considered the starting point in the further evolution of mankind?
 
More generally, observations aren't in themselves evidence. Evidence is only evidence with respect to a specific hypothesis. An observation is evidence for a hypothesis if, when the relevant details are considered, it favours that hypothesis over the null hypothesis.

Thus, there is no evidence for psi. None whatsoever.
 
Sorry all, the bird was a poor example - I meant, its not common for a wild bird to be SICK because of worms because of their resistance to them. Birds have worms like cats do. BTW all those pages refer to pet birds in closed environments, and they cycle their worms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom