Evidence for String Theory!!

[Darat]

Sure it would. The overwhelming bias in the scientific community is against psi (with good reason, I grant you). It is very unlikely many scientists would jump on the bandwagon at all...unless they absolutely had to. Just as happened with Gamma Ray Bursters.

In other words, any significant positives, would tend to be ignored until it was impossible to do so any longer.

I am not saying this is happening (I wouldn't know)...but it sure could.

I disagree - "Gamma Ray Bursters" are not something that grabs the front page of the national press.

I would have thought (just an opinion) that a solid discovery of "psi" and by this I don't mean some statistical analysis but some clear cut proof of the stuff people claim "psi" is, you know levitation etc. would be more news worthy then cold fusion was.

Cold fusion was also considered totally "left field" by “mainstream” science at the time but got headlines because even the media recognised what a significant discovery it would be. And look at the furore and the numbers of scientists and labs that jumped on that bandwagon because they knew if there was something in it this would be BIG. Don’t you think some “discovery” of “psi” would be equally newsworthy?

 

[Mark]

I am not saying that.

Cool. We're on the same page, then.

Have you read the studies T'ai is quoting? I haven't, but intend to when I have time. Until then I, for one, wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on whether they constitue any sort of "evidence"...or not.

 

[Mark]

I disagree - "Gamma Ray Bursters" are not something that grabs the front page of the national press.

I would have thought (just an opinion) that a solid discovery of "psi" and by this I don't mean some statistical analysis but some clear cut proof of the stuff people claim "psi" is, you know levitation etc. would be more news worthy then cold fusion was.

Cold fusion was also considered totally "left field" by “mainstream” science at the time but got headlines because even the media recognised what a significant discovery it would be. And look at the furore and the numbers of scientists and labs that jumped on that bandwagon because they knew if there was something in it this would be BIG. Don’t you think some “discovery” of “psi” would be equally newsworthy?

GRB's should have made the front pages!

As far as psi...do I think it would make the front pages if significant evidence for it were found? No. And I'll tell you exactly why I think that: the vast majority of people already are convinced it exists! Including, I'll bet (I have not conducted a poll) most journalists. It just wouldn't be news to most people!

Would it make the front pages of the mainstream scientific journals? Not a chance; they are very conservative (and should be); the evidence on this topic would have to be so overwhelming as to be painfully obvious to anyone.

 

[CFLarsen]

Cool. We're on the same page, then.

17.

Have you read the studies T'ai is quoting? I haven't, but intend to when I have time. Until then I, for one, wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on whether they constitue any sort of "evidence"...or not.

I've read Radin's book, and found it....let's be nice and say "more than wanting". I've met Radin (I am fairly certain he remembers me as well...although perhaps not for altogether "positive waves" ) and he does seems sincere, but terribly, terribly biased.

The rest? Nope, only the online abstracts. I would love for T'ai Chi to explain what the real articles said, but somehow, for some reason, he doesn't seem all that inclined.

Strange, given that they contain evidence of such groundshaking evidence....

GRB's should have made the front pages!

Science isn't decided by what people think....sorry, couldn't resist!

As far as psi...do I think it would make the front pages if significant evidence for it were found? No. And I'll tell you exactly why I think that: the vast majority of people already are convinced it exists! Including, I'll bet (I have not conducted a poll) most journalists. It just wouldn't be news to most people!

Then, why do the magazines carry articles about the supernatural? Any article about the supernatural is sure to be read.

You are right that quite a lot of people believe in woowoo stuff - but that does not mean it is not news.

Would it make the front pages of the mainstream scientific journals? Not a chance; they are very conservative (and should be); the evidence on this topic would have to be so overwhelming as to be painfully obvious to anyone.

Whoa, now you are entering the Land of Paranoia, as well as ignoring the blind ambition that some of the "young" scientists have. If any of these Einstein wannabe's saw the slightest chance of shooting to the top, they'd take it.

And I think you are wrong about the need for overwhelming evidence. In this day and age, any scientific find seems to attract investors - nobody can be ignorant of the financial possibilities of talking to the dead.

I mean, really talk to the dead. Not just a fake like John Edward.

 

[Mark]

I mean, really talk to the dead. Not just a fake like John Edward.

I talk to the dead all the time; they just never answer, the jerks.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I am not "ignoring all the evidence". So far, I have seen none.

See the discussion and references in Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge. for starters.

You forget completely, that outside the lab, these "effects" are not close to zero.

We are only concerned with 'outside the lab' for motivation and interesting stories. 'Inside the lab' is science, which is what I'm concerned with.

It is - seemingly - very easy for psychics, dowsers, astrologers, what-have-you, to claim that paranormal "effects" are readily reproducible. People make a goddamn living from reproducing these "effects", T'ai Chi. Why can't they simply do them in a controlled environment?

Again, see Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge. There are many scientists who have done many controlled experiments.

What "psi ganzfeld effect" are you talking about? Since you don't mention any specific experiment, do I take it you mean all Ganzfeld experiments ever?

Yes. The effect shown in the cumulative database of ganzfeld and autoganzfeld experiments is well above chance. Chance predicts 25%. The effects are around 37% and 34% respectively, with huge odds against chance.

No, you don't have to win a Nobel prize just to have evidence, but you are guaranteed to get one, if you find evidence of a paranormal phenomenon. You are guaranteed to clear the front pages of every scientific publication - nay, every publication as such, if you find it.

So... really you're saying that talking about a Nobel was just your distraction then. Who are you to say to certain and matter-of-fact that one would get a Nobel if you show evidence of psi?

Examples?

You asked me the question, you provide the examples.

Under what circumstances?

You asked me the question, you provide the circumstances.

Actually, you have not answered any of them. You have misrepresented what I asked, and "answered" something I did not ask.

And you're continuing playing your silly game of 100 questions.

Discuss this with BH. It's between you and him. Do try to keep focused and do try not to derail threads.

Right, so you asked me to provide you with a definition, then when I did, you still didn't answer? Hello??

 

[T'ai Chi]

Yes, it would bloody well "make a wave or two"!!! It would clear all front pages on every newspaper in the world. It would send shockwaves not just through every scientific department, it would also shake the foundations of every religion on this planet.

I guess you can predict the future. You should apply for the prize!

Anyway, very often research does not make headlines, especially if it is controversial or not a main topic of science. Second, science is not about popularity.

So, if it only makes a wave in a publication devoted to paranormal research, then you can be pretty damned sure that it is not compelling at all.

Non sequitor.

 

[T'ai Chi]

..let's be nice and say "more than wanting".

How so? And please, your criticism had better be more than semantics, definition games, or endless lists of irrelevant questions.

You'll have to address fully the cumulative database of results from many experiments.

I've met Radin (I am fairly certain he remembers me as well...although perhaps not for altogether "positive waves" ) and he does seems sincere, but terribly, terribly biased.

Yeah, let me guess here, you're not biased a bit. Got any evidence?

The rest? Nope, only the online abstracts. I would love for T'ai Chi to explain what the real articles said, but somehow, for some reason, he doesn't seem all that inclined.

See them listed in Radin's book. For some reason, for someone who has supposedly read the book, you missed where these references were or are unwilling to find the actual full journal articles. The mind boggles.

Strange, given that they contain evidence of such groundshaking evidence....

'evidence of groundshaking evidence'... yeah... whatever.

How about highly statistically significant results of replicated experiments that show chance is not a viable explanation.

 

[CFLarsen]

See the discussion and references in Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge. for starters.

I am not interested in discussions. I am interested in evidence. Why is that so dang hard for you to show us?

We are only concerned with 'outside the lab' for motivation and interesting stories. 'Inside the lab' is science, which is what I'm concerned with.

Really? Try to read Radin's book again. Does he focus entirely on lab research?

Again, see Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge. There are many scientists who have done many controlled experiments.

I did not ask for experiments, I asked for evidence. Those are not the same. You seem to think so.

Yes. The effect shown in the cumulative database of ganzfeld and autoganzfeld experiments is well above chance. Chance predicts 25%. The effects are around 37% and 34% respectively, with huge odds against chance.

All Ganzfeld experiments?? Can you direct me to the study that includes all Ganzfeld experiments??

So... really you're saying that talking about a Nobel was just your distraction then. Who are you to say to certain and matter-of-fact that one would get a Nobel if you show evidence of psi?

You are saying, that discovering that each and every single scientific experiment made is null-and-void is not ground-breaking news?

You asked me the question, you provide the examples.

No, you provide the examples of when you equate "highly significant results" with "evidence". How the hell should I know??

You asked me the question, you provide the circumstances.

How can I know? You state that under certain circumstances, "anomalous" equates "paranormal phenomenon". I can't know those circumstances, only you do.

And you're continuing playing your silly game of 100 questions.

No, it is not a silly game. Those questions are pivotal to the claims you make.

How so? And please, your criticism had better be more than semantics, definition games, or endless lists of irrelevant questions.

Read the articles.

You'll have to address fully the cumulative database of results from many experiments.

Where can I find this "cumulative database"?

Yeah, let me guess here, you're not biased a bit. Got any evidence?

Read the articles.

See them listed in Radin's book. For some reason, for someone who has supposedly read the book, you missed where these references were or are unwilling to find the actual full journal articles. The mind boggles.

I didn't ask for the list, I asked you to explain what these articles said. Why can't you tell us that?

Listen, if you cannot debate honestly, then let's just come to that conclusion and be done with it. Don't play games, don't evade question, and don't f*cking misinterpret what people say!

Whenever you are ready to engage in honest, open-minded debate, let me know. Until then, you have just made it big time.

 

[Mark]

Claus, I have said this before: your tactic of posting a huge list of questions that no one could possibly have time to answer is annoying and does not serve your purpose well. It is a clear intimidation tactic...particularly when you almost always steadfastly refuse to answer any questions that are put to you in response.

Please don't do this. I am finding this discussion very interesting, and I think T'ai Chi is making every effort to engage in intelligent debate. And so were you up until now...now you are back to your king-of-the-hill type intimidation game. It's lame.

Please, let's take it one or two points at a time and keep this discussion going.

Or are you only interested in playing king of the hill?

 

[CFLarsen]

Mark,

I've tried taking one or two points at a time with T'ai Chi, so many times, and so have others. Doesn't work. Look through his replies. He does not answer direct, tough questions.

If you feel like I do not answer questions put to me, open your own thread about this.

Thing is, I am so f*cking tired of not getting answers. Making these lists make it obvious who makes the claims, but dodge the answers.

We are here to investigate paranormal claims, and to think critically. Personal status has nothing to do with it, I do not claim to be "king of the hill". That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. That does not make it true.

We need answers, first and foremost. Don't ever, for a moment, think that this board is for nice, cozy debate about fuzzy things. If you want that, go to any believer's board.

If we can find evidence of any kind of paranormal phenomenon, it would be immensely gratifying just to BE on the very board where it was revealed. If, on the other hand, no such evidence were to be shown, that would be pretty important, too.

And, finally, if charlatans were to be exposed, I would really like to hear your argument why this should not be pursued to the fullest.

Drop your petty personal attacks. Focus on the evidence.

 

[Chad Noles]

posted by CFLarsen
We are here to investigate paranormal claims, and to think critically..... If we can find evidence of any kind of paranormal phenomenon, it would be immensely gratifying just to BE on the very board where it was revealed.

One wonders why there is no area of the forum for listing predictions and the like,that could be time stamped,and archived.How much investigation of paranormal claims actually goes on?It seems like most inquiries desolve into name calling and the ever present my question,no your question, stalemates.This board often appears to be the last place any investigation would go on.I don't see much change comming any time soon.

 

[Mark]

Mark,

Drop your petty personal attacks. Focus on the evidence.

Stop that. It wasn't a petty personal attack and you know it.

You derailed a perfectly good debate, Claus. Oh, well.

 

[CFLarsen]

Stop that. It wasn't a petty personal attack and you know it.

"King-of-the-hill"? Several times? Hm?

You derailed a perfectly good debate, Claus. Oh, well.

I can't answer your posts to me now without being accused of derailing a thread?

Focus on the evidence. Or not.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I am not interested in discussions.

Contradictory blather. Why did you post a list of questions for me then? LOL!

I am interested in evidence. Why is that so dang hard for you to show us?

Great! Then see the evidence talked about in Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge and the references in it. It has a lot of pretty graphs too.

I did not ask for experiments, I asked for evidence. Those are not the same. You seem to think so.

You seem to be wrong, a lot. The results of experiments are considered evidence.

[/quote][/b]
All Ganzfeld experiments?? Can you direct me to the study that includes all Ganzfeld experiments??
[/quote][/b]

Yeah, some meta analyses talked about and referenced in Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge. (all ganzfeld and autoganzfeld experiments done in a certain period, of course)

You are saying, that discovering that each and every single scientific experiment made is null-and-void is not ground-breaking news?

You believe that each and every psi experiment is null and void? I think you have some explaining to do with the ganzfeld and RNG experiments, to name a few.

No, you provide the examples of when you equate "highly significant results" with "evidence". How the hell should I know??

Highly significant results are evidence, especially when replicated. I thought the connection would be obvious.

Read the articles.

From the article on the review of Conscious Universe:

"The accessibility of the book has the consequence that the readers isn’t given details, and therefore actually can’t judge for themselves"

Well, yeah, books are like that, else books would regularly be thousands of pages. However, all the references are there in the back, where references usually are, so one can get all those details if they really want to.

I enjoyed the lame attempt at guilt by association by saying Radin likes Puthoff, who likes Scientology.

I'll address the 'Statistics' part of it, since I have experience in that area. It is one thing for a skeptic to posit a 'file drawer'. That, by itself, shows absolutely nothing. You have to produce the actual non-significant studies that weren't published.

The part about the 65% confidence interval, I agree with. Why did Radin use that? Were they really 95% CI's and a typo that didn't get corrected? Were they really 65% CI's? Was the comparison between groups not essential? Was it to reduce clutter in a graph? You should ask Radin and get back to us and updated the article.

The article writer asks: "However I fail to see why we should expect the same effect sizes in these two types of experiment. A RNG is, after all, radically different from a die."

Well, the RNG experiments evolved from the dice experiments, so it seems reasonable. A RNG is just a computer die, so its not really too different in flavor.

There might not be confidence intervals on Puharich's moon study graph because it might have been done with single people. You should look at the reference and/or ask Radin about it, get back to us, and update the article if necessary.

I wonder, have you or the article writer sent these questions to Radin? If so, please tell us the results.

I didn't ask for the list, I asked you to explain what these articles said. Why can't you tell us that?

You desire me to explain what many many dozens of articles said? LOL. That is very unreasonable. Go read them yourself.

Listen, if you cannot debate honestly, then let's just come to that conclusion and be done with it. Don't play games, don't evade question, and don't f*cking misinterpret what people say!

Pot, kettle is calling ya.

Whenever you are ready to engage in honest, open-minded debate, let me know. Until then, you have just made it big time.

'Big time' means a bully list from you? Why am I not surprised.

I'm not impressed. Please stick to the issues and actually address the evidence for psi that is presented in the book.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I've tried taking one or two points at a time with T'ai Chi, so many times, and so have others. Doesn't work. Look through his replies. He does not answer direct, tough questions.

You do not ask very relevant questions at times.

I say I've read some articles on psi (nothing extraordinary here). You ask for the articles. I give general subject areas. You ask for the specific articles. I give the place where you can obtain many references. You ask me to explain the content of each and every one of them for you.

Are you for real? Do you think that is reasonable?

Thing is, I am so f*cking tired of not getting answers.

I'm not really amazed that you are getting so emotional about it.

Making these lists make it obvious who makes the claims, but dodge the answers.

It is pretty clear; you told me that you don't want a discussion, but then you make a list of questions for me. Therefore, the purpose of your lists is clearly not for discussion.

Drop your petty personal attacks. Focus on the evidence.

So... will you address the evidence presented in the book?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Not to mention the few PEAR studies I did mention (not even sure anymore if it was in this thread) are all available on the PEAR webpage as .pdf files.
(and no, not just the abstracts, the entire paper)

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publist.html

 

[T'ai Chi]

Whenever you are ready to engage in honest, open-minded debate, let me know. Until then, you have just made it big time.

Claus, I'm shaking in my boots, really.

 

[CFLarsen]

Contradictory blather. Why did you post a list of questions for me then? LOL!

To get some answers.

Great! Then see the evidence talked about in Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge and the references in it. It has a lot of pretty graphs too.

What evidence?

You seem to be wrong, a lot. The results of experiments are considered evidence.

What do the results tell you? The stronger the controls, the weaker the effect, right?

And you weren't talking about the results, you were talking about the experiments themselves. Try to keep those two concepts apart.

Yeah, some meta analyses talked about and referenced in Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge. (all ganzfeld and autoganzfeld experiments done in a certain period, of course)

Not "all" Ganzfeld experiments, then. What page, please?

You believe that each and every psi experiment is null and void? I think you have some explaining to do with the ganzfeld and RNG experiments, to name a few.

Again, you equate doing an experiment on psi with finding evidence of psi.

Highly significant results are evidence, especially when replicated. I thought the connection would be obvious.

"Highly significant"? It's an extremely weak effect that dwindles, the more controls you have. What does that tell you?

From the article on the review of Conscious Universe:

"The accessibility of the book has the consequence that the readers isn’t given details, and therefore actually can’t judge for themselves"

Well, yeah, books are like that, else books would regularly be thousands of pages. However, all the references are there in the back, where references usually are, so one can get all those details if they really want to.

Wrong. Books on real science is not "like that". It is highly questionable, if Radin does not give details.

I enjoyed the lame attempt at guilt by association by saying Radin likes Puthoff, who likes Scientology.

It does raise questions about Radin's ability to judge evidence, doesn't it?

Puthoff does not just "like" Scientology, he is a scientologist. Xenu, OK? Not a good sign.

I'll address the 'Statistics' part of it, since I have experience in that area. It is one thing for a skeptic to posit a 'file drawer'. That, by itself, shows absolutely nothing. You have to produce the actual non-significant studies that weren't published.

The part about the 65% confidence interval, I agree with. Why did Radin use that? Were they really 95% CI's and a typo that didn't get corrected? Were they really 65% CI's? Was the comparison between groups not essential? Was it to reduce clutter in a graph? You should ask Radin and get back to us and updated the article.

You raise questions, and you want me to send them to Radin? You do this all the time, T'ai Chi: You push the hard work away from you. You lob the ball over in the other guy's court.

The article writer asks: "However I fail to see why we should expect the same effect sizes in these two types of experiment. A RNG is, after all, radically different from a die."

Well, the RNG experiments evolved from the dice experiments, so it seems reasonable. A RNG is just a computer die, so its not really too different in flavor.

It most certainly is not "just a computer die". You ignore the serious issues about generating real random numbers on computers. It is doubtful that you have read Radin's book at all: E.g. the "eggs" that are used in the GCP are not even calibrated (because how can you do that??). You see a problem here?

There might not be confidence intervals on Puharich's moon study graph because it might have been done with single people. You should look at the reference and/or ask Radin about it, get back to us, and update the article if necessary.

Again, you try to push it away from you. Just take one question at a time.

I wonder, have you or the article writer sent these questions to Radin? If so, please tell us the results.

You have to ask the author if he has. I have contacted Radin a couple of times, but he never answers.

You desire me to explain what many many dozens of articles said? LOL. That is very unreasonable. Go read them yourself.

See how dishonest you are? I asked if you could explain the contents of the handful of articles you have listed. All you do is tell me to read them myself.

That's not an explanation, that's an evasion.

Pot, kettle is calling ya.

The list of questions is calling ya.

'Big time' means a bully list from you? Why am I not surprised.

I'm not impressed. Please stick to the issues and actually address the evidence for psi that is presented in the book.

I am most certainly sticking to the issues here: Since you have not answered the questions, they are now collated.

You do not ask very relevant questions at times.

That may be so. Please point out an irrelevant question from the list, and I'll remove it.

I say I've read some articles on psi (nothing extraordinary here). You ask for the articles. I give general subject areas. You ask for the specific articles. I give the place where you can obtain many references. You ask me to explain the content of each and every one of them for you.

Are you for real? Do you think that is reasonable?

Again, you misrepresent: I asked if you could explain the content of the handful, not each and everyone. That's not unreasonable at all.

You were asked to explain why you find the evidence for psi so convincing. You point to some articles, but you refuse flat-out to explain the contents.

That's unreasonable.

I'm not really amazed that you are getting so emotional about it.

Perhaps not. We were discussing your evidence of psi, not my emotional state.

It is pretty clear; you told me that you don't want a discussion, but then you make a list of questions for me. Therefore, the purpose of your lists is clearly not for discussion.

It is meant to get some answers.

So... will you address the evidence presented in the book?

What evidence?

Not to mention the few PEAR studies I did mention (not even sure anymore if it was in this thread) are all available on the PEAR webpage as .pdf files.
(and no, not just the abstracts, the entire paper)

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publist.html

Calm down. Just explain the handful of papers first.

You know, Steve Grenard does this, too. He really thinks that he can flood a discussion with many, many papers, and think that nobody discovered that these papers show nothing.

Claus, I'm shaking in my boots, really.

I'm not.

 

[T'ai Chi]

To get some answers.

Sure. You could have PM'd me. Instead you post it to the JREF community forum. LOL!

What evidence?

The evidence demonstrated in experiments referenced in that book. Do try and understand what you read.

What do the results tell you? The stronger the controls, the weaker the effect, right?

Regression were done that showed that experiment quality was NOT associated with decreased effect. How many times will I have to repeat this, dude?

Not "all" Ganzfeld experiments, then. What page, please?

I said all ganzfeld experiments done in a certain time frame. I don't have the book in front of me Claus, but he has an entire section on the ganzfeld and autoganzfeld experiments.

Again, you equate doing an experiment on psi with finding evidence of psi.

Wrong. Experiments are the vechicle by which evidence is delivered. The experiment itself is not the physical (or mental) evidence.

"Highly significant"? It's an extremely weak effect that dwindles, the more controls you have. What does that tell you?

Regression were done that showed that experiment quality was NOT associated with decreased effect. How many times will I have to repeat this, dude?

"Highly significant" ie. as measured by commonly used statistical science. If you reject it in parapsychology, you must necessarily reject it in medicine (where it was used to say that aspirin is related to decrease heart attacks... and the effect in the aspirin study was roughly 5 times SMALLER than the effect in the paraspychology studies!) and other sciences.

Look, if the proportion of heads should be 50%, but it is at 51.5% after millions and millions of 'flips', but it is at 50% when the control group is flipping, this should tell you something if you understand probability; namely that the probability of this occuring is incredible.

It does raise questions about Radin's ability to judge evidence, doesn't it?

Attempt at personal smear. Look, just talk about the actual evidence, not me, not Radin, not Puthoff, the evidence, Mmm'kay?

Puthoff does not just "like" Scientology, he is a scientologist. Xenu, OK? Not a good sign.

Unrelated to the evidence. Typical routine for you by now.

[/I] raise questions, and you want me to send them to Radin?

Uh, the article you have on skepticreport raised doubts about the 65% confidence intervals. If you or the article writer just want to raise doubts but do nothing about it (other than raise doubts) that is fine, but you should ask the author about it and update your critique accordingly. You DO want to figure out why he used 65% CI's don't you?? I merely raised some possible scenarios.

You do this all the time, T'ai Chi: You push the hard work away from you. You lob the ball over in the other guy's court.

Name some other times where I've done this, with links to the threads please.

It most certainly is not "just a computer die". You ignore the serious issues about generating real random numbers on computers.

A RNG is the computer method of throwing a die.

It is doubtful that you have read Radin's book at all:

Interesting belief, I disagree however.

See how dishonest you are?

No, I don't. I do think it is dishonest to keep trying to say I am dishonest, I haven't read the book, mentioning Scientology, etc etc. when those aren't the issues at all, but the evidence presented in the book and references is, so there.

All you do is tell me to read them myself.

I've said, I'm not going to explain the contents of many dozens of articles to you. That is very unreasonable. Go read them yourself.

The list of questions is calling ya.

You have some work to do on your list, bucko.

I am most certainly sticking to the issues here: Since you have not answered the questions, they are now collated.

Great! Your questions are no "collated" too! This is fun!

Again, you misrepresent: I asked if you could explain the content of the handful, not each and everyone. That's not unreasonable at all.

It is better for you to read them. You do want to understand the topics, right?

You were asked to explain why you find the evidence for psi so convincing. You point to some articles, but you refuse flat-out to explain the contents.

The issues in them are lengthy; that is why they are articles consisting of many pages. Go read them.

What evidence?

The evidence talked about in Conscious Universe and in the references. Do pretend to keep up. You know, like the combined ganzfeld hitrate being 37% when it should be 25%... the combined autoganzfeld hitrate being 34% when it should be 25%... the combined RNG hitrate being 51.5% when it should be 50%, you know, stuff like that.

You know, Steve Grenard does this, too.

Attempted guilt by association. You must know statistics real well because you do like to deviate. Stick to the evidence. So far you've listed Puthoff, Scientology, Radin, me, my honesty etc etc, anything to NOT talk about the hitrates. You're all over the map here Claus.

I'm not.

Good, then you'll have no problem answering fully all the questions I've listed for ya!! We'll see...