Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

[Lothian]

The Force is strong in this one!

Wonder if there are cultural reasons why it fades into and out of favour.

Desperation reasons. I think these are being run all the time. The proponents are convinced but feel they are just missing the secret ingredient to regularly pass tests. They make slight variations all the time. The law of averages suggests that running enough, one will show a higher "promising" result. This is the new hope until further testing shows it to be an anomaly.

I recall a buzz quite a few years ago when a study showed playing white noise "helped" people guess zener cards in a Ganzfeld test. A hope that underwent 'Death by repetition.'

 

[MikeG]

No, but we're all trying to bring him back by the power of thought.

Dave

You're doing it wrong. You're involving reasoning.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You're doing it wrong. You're involving reasoning.

Being serious about this for a moment, this is the age-old dilemma we face. Do we ignore absurd claims, thus letting them go unchallenged, do we address them seriously, thus dignifying them with a response, or do we mock their laughable absurdity, thus appearing not to be serious? If you have a fourth alternative, I'd like to see it.

Dave

 

[abaddon]

The Force is strong in this one!

Wonder if there are cultural reasons why it fades into and out of favour.

I wouldn't be surprised if it correlates with SW movies...

 

[Darat]

I wouldn't be surprised if it correlates with SW movies...

I did wonder that, be interesting to know if these "tests" start say 6 to 12 months after a SW movie is released.

 

[Darat]

Being serious about this for a moment, this is the age-old dilemma we face. Do we ignore absurd claims, thus letting them go unchallenged, do we address them seriously, thus dignifying them with a response, or do we mock their laughable absurdity, thus appearing not to be serious? If you have a fourth alternative, I'd like to see it.

Dave

There isn't one way. You may help someone by being calm and very sensible, others may be helped with humour and so on.

Back in prehistory we were forever debunking telekinesis, telepathy, ghosts and so on. It's a shame that folks with such claims are even more insular these days and just communicate with other believers.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Sorry........you people really expect Buddha to return to this thread?

He normally makes a couple of drive-by non-answers to the criticisms of his arguments before unilaterally declaring victory and starting a new cycle.

Yes, he has to do two or three rounds replying what other posters didn't say, declaring victory and claiming he is no longer posting, everything while denouncing everyone else as ignorant, dogmatic and incorrigible. It's very important for him to start threads and to loudly abandon them, as that makes he feel as he is in control, what most probably is the opposite of his real life.

He also needs to build the "pyramid of 'Buddha' ", sort of his personal Borobudur, a hierarchy of posters with the ones he'll ignore in the base, the less he'll reply once in a patronizing way in the second level, the few he'll reply ignoring the real content of the posts he quotes in the third level, and himself at the top as self-appointed bright star.

And the pyramid will always move as a block depending on the result of the "debate": either he is a bright genius, above the "intelligent posters", above the every now and then smart ones, above the average ones, or he is a little silly and uninformed on the subject, above the confused, above those who make little sense, above the hopeless.

 

[Buddha]

Why do you post this on a skeptic board when you plan ahead of time to ignore criticisms of your argument and then declare victory and move on?

To start with, I didn't declare a victory. I end my postings at a thread when my opponents run out of arguments and keep repeating the old ones. I am guilty of the same sin was posting repetitive arguments, but at some time this has to stop.

 

[Buddha]

Telekinesis isn't real, but it would appear that JayUtah is clairvoyant:

When you do not present arguments showing why this research should be rejected, this is not a criticism but a personal opinion.

 

[Buddha]

He's just trolling, guys ..

A spectacular argument to end a thread when there is nothing else to say. To me this sounds like a defeat.

 

[Buddha]

And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou look up the Holy Hypothesis. Then, shalt thou choose three counter-arguments. No more. No less. Three shall be the number thou shalt argue, and the number of the arguing shall be three. Four shalt thou not argue, nor either argue thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy dismissal of thy counter-arguments towards thy foe, who, being constrained to follow the script, shall snuff it."

Dave

Actually, there are more than three counter-arguments, I just chose the most popular ones. If you present more counter-arguments, I will respond to them. The counter-arguments do not have to be your own, you can pick them up from appropriate articles. I am waiting for your response.

 

[Dave Rogers]

To start with, I didn't declare a victory. I end my postings at a thread when my opponents run out of arguments and keep repeating the old ones. I am guilty of the same sin was posting repetitive arguments, but at some time this has to stop.

But, of course, this hasn't got anything to do with what arguments you've actually responded to, because you'll only ever consider a maximum of three counter-arguments, which you make up yourself in any case.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

To start with, I didn't declare a victory.

Yes, you did, in all your other threads. And you do in this one, two posts down from this one.

I end my postings at a thread when my opponents run out of arguments and keep repeating the old ones.

Nonsense. Your end your postings when your critics have obviously prevailed and when you've run out of excuses for ignoring them or trying to change the subject. Then you redeclare the purpose of the thread to save face.

That's why I'm asking you to confirm the purpose of this thread. Is it your purpose to prove that psychokinesis is real? Can you answer that simple question honestly?

 

[JayUtah]

A spectacular argument to end a thread when there is nothing else to say. To me this sounds like a defeat.

No, you don't get to declare victory after two pages of substantive posts that you utterly ignored. Try harder.

 

[aleCcowaN]

To start with, I didn't declare a victory. I end my postings at a thread when my opponents run out of arguments and keep repeating the old ones.

"I didn't declare victory; I declared victory!"

 

[aleCcowaN]

When you do not present arguments showing why this research should be rejected, this is not a criticism but a personal opinion.

Totally unrelated, as your usual style.

JayUtah's clairvoyance was predicting you would base this thread in PEAR.

You're the most predictable creature.

 

[JayUtah]

Actually, there are more than three counter-arguments, I just chose the most popular ones.

Most popular according to whom? You don't get to make up your critics' arguments.

If you present more counter-arguments, I will respond to them.

That's already been done. And you didn't meaningfully respond even to the ones you brought up. You just declared them "nonsensical" without further comment.

I am waiting for your response.

Dr. Jeffers' analysis is waiting for your response. Without even naming the authors of the rebuttals you dismiss, you publicly accused them all of being incompetent, so it's now time for you to put up. Dr. Jeffers is clearly more qualified in statistics than you are, and he has revealed Jahn's smoking gun, as it were. You're on the hook then to give us a thorough treatment of his errors.

Do it, and quit stalling.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Actually, there are more than three counter-arguments, I just chose the most popular ones. If you present more counter-arguments, I will respond to them. The counter-arguments do not have to be your own, you can pick them up from appropriate articles. I am waiting for your response.

I already responded to you. Why aren't you addressing the counter-arguments I offered?

 

[Buddha]

Rather than pulling the argument from authority (misplaced authority at that), describe the methods that were used and explain how they are correctly used in this instance, rather than simply handwaving away the criticism.

Your statement here simply comes across as bloviating, rather than rebuttal.

These methods have been used for almost a century, they were developed in 1920s and withstood the test of time, so they are valid, at least for the mathematicians who use them. This case is no different from a mathematician's point of view.

When you say that a method was used incorrectly, it means that the results of an experiment were misinterpreted. However, the critics didn't bother how to explain that the results were misinterpreted, so the ball is in their court. I am talking about the critics whose responses I read. Of course, I haven't seen all negative responses. If you have seen any explaining how the results were misinterpreted, pleas let me know, and I will respond to their critique.

 

[The Sparrow]

To start with, I didn't declare a victory. I end my postings at a thread when my opponents run out of arguments and keep repeating the old ones. I am guilty of the same sin was posting repetitive arguments, but at some time this has to stop.

so in your proof of God thread when you said this:

This is my last post at this thread. I have reached my objective, now I know what I have to do to convey my ideas in a clear fashion.

What exactly did you mean? Clearly not a single change of your "ideas" occurred. You just used us to 'clarify' ideas that you had no intent of modifying.
In other words, you are utterly convinced you are right and remain so. If that isn't declaring victory (at least to yourself) I'm not sure what is.