Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

pgwenthold said:
Why in the heck does a demonstration of telekinesis need a statistical analysis?

Show me something that moves by thoughts. Even if it's an undersea, unexplained mass sponge migration. Either something moved, or it didn't.
Click to expand...



Goes back to the fact that this is not why people believe(d) in telekinesis in the first place, the claims were that people could levitate, move macro-scale objects e.g. balls, pencils and so on. If this effect was real there is nothing to tie it into telekinesis.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
A number of finely balanced 'targets' in an isolated container. One is selected at random and is moved within an agreed period, the others remain untouched. Designed properly the required force could be tiny, less than that required to change the course of a ball bearing for example.
Click to expand...



But why, the claims are not at that scale.
 
Buddha said:
“Those gifts paid for a small staff and a gallery of random-motion machines, including a pendulum with a lighted crystal at the end; a giant, wall-mounted pachinko-like machine with a cascade of bouncing balls; and a variety of electronic boxes with digital number displays.
In one of PEAR’s standard experiments, the study participant would sit in front of an electronic box the size of a toaster oven, which flashed a random series of numbers just above and just below 100. Staff members instructed the person to simply “think high” or “think low” and watch the display. After thousands of repetitions — the equivalent of coin flips — the researchers looked for differences between the machine’s output and random chance.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/s...princeton.html

This article is intended for general audience.
Click to expand...

Already debated here

Buddha said:
Here is the link to the original article which is intended for the professionals with engineering and scientific background.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...00010004-6.pdf
Click to expand...

Ooohhh! A "CIA" article! Trying to suggest a bit of secrecy around it?

Well, it always was available to the general public. Here is a well scanned version of it.

Buddha said:
There are several objections to this research; I am going to go over them:

1. Incorrect statistical methods were used to analyze the data.

2. The methods of analysis are correct, but the results were interpreted incorrectly

3. The results of the experiment are irreproducible.
Click to expand...

No, you are not to invent what the objections were. If you learnt of any real objection, link them here before throwing away the grain and keeping the chaff in order to manufacture your strawmen.

If you want to deal with real objections, for instance read this and comment on its content.
 
Buddha said:
The same applies to this telekinetic experiment, so its data and the scientists’ conclusion are valid.
Click to expand...

As other posters commenter, where do you find this to be related to "telekinesis"?

Is this another "Buddha" moment when you say "it could be A, it could be B, but I rejected those for mnknkkmlhkl reasons ... it's C!"?
 
Darat said:
But why, the claims are not at that scale.
Click to expand...

It's Telekinesis of the Gaps. Obviously, claims that people can move objects around by power of the mind alone are nonsense, but maybe telekinesis is hiding in the last vestige of statistical significance before it's swallowed up by the noise level, because a few people really, sincerely, desperately want to believe in it.

Dave
 
Finally! It just was another struggle between "Buddha" and the English language.

What "Buddha" intended in this thread is discussing the more encompassing PK (psychokinesis) also known as psychoenergetics. As Jahn explains in the above mention paper «PK (occasionally termed telekinesis, or psychoenergetics) refers to a palpable influence of consciousness on a physical or biological system. The interaction may be deliberate or spontaneous, and the energy transfer involved may range from microscopic disturbance of atomic-level processes, through macroscopic distortion or levitation of objects, up to some very drastic “poltergeist” effects. Psychic healing and man- plant interactions would be two examples of PK in biological systems.» [page 139]
 
Darat said:
But why, the claims are not at that scale.
Click to expand...


It’s the usual, isn’t it? Claims of effects so great as to be self-evident in anecdotal accounts, reduced to the level of statistical ‘noise’ by the use of a controlled experiment.
 
aleCcowaN said:
No, you are not to invent what the objections were.
Click to expand...

But how else is he supposed to make headway in the debate if he can't script what the criticism of his claim should be? He listed three straw men and dodged two of them by saying, "No, no, that's nonsense because I'm very smart."
 
JayUtah said:
But how else is he supposed to make headway in the debate if he can't script what the criticism of his claim should be? He listed three straw men and dodged two of them by saying, "No, no, that's nonsense because I'm very smart."
Click to expand...

In other words, a typical "Buddha" thread. I bet he will continue with tons of words but he won't find his way to provide any formula or graphic to discuss or back his "thoughts" (in spite of the ton of parchment universities have given him in the fields of engineering, computing, etc)
 
aleCcowaN said:
If you want to deal with real objections, for instance read this and comment on its content.
Click to expand...

And by "comment on its content," we don't mean "dismiss it without comment with the accusation that its author doesn't know what he's talking about."

Buddha :-

Your claim is that Dr. Jeffers, among others, is wrong, and wrong because he's incompetent. That is your burden to prove, and you will need to do so by dissecting his analysis (among that of others) and showing by rigorous statistical proof why his analysis fails, or -- since you argue incompetence -- the elements of statistical analysis he's leaving out that apply to his work.

No, we won't be satisfied with chest-beating. We won't be satisfied by excuses that you're too busy or that your critics and your audience are too stupid to understand. Impress us.
 
Darat said:
But why, the claims are not at that scale.
Click to expand...

I'm not a believer, I was just trying to give an example of how it is possible to come up with something that would detect as weak as possible but wouldn't be explainable as statistical noise. If the people who claim to be looking for it really wanted to eliminate the randomness that is.
 
Sorry........you people really expect Buddha to return to this thread?
 
It seems to me that in the last several years the PEAR experiment is re-appearing in sort of a re-branded shape, this time experimenters use random number generators to produce fractals and a seater tries to influence their shape:

https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/porta...is(c062e0b1-d6ef-4dc8-90c6-1fc71bb18f11).html

However, there is also a negative replication of the revived experiment:

https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/31/jse_31_2_Grote.pdf

It seems to me that history repeats itself, again...
 
Shuca said:
It seems to me that in the last several years the PEAR experiment is re-appearing in sort of a re-branded shape, this time experimenters use random number generators to produce fractals and a seater tries to influence their shape:

https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/porta...is(c062e0b1-d6ef-4dc8-90c6-1fc71bb18f11).html

However, there is also a negative replication of the revived experiment:

https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/31/jse_31_2_Grote.pdf

It seems to me that history repeats itself, again...
Click to expand...

The Force is strong in this one!

Wonder if there are cultural reasons why it fades into and out of favour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom