New PSI forum

[TheBoyPaj]

Because, if it turns out that they are not the same person as you (and it is only a user name after all, not your real name) then that would be divulging personal information to a third party. I am not prepared to do that.

 

[CFLarsen]

JustGeoff,

Oh, dear.

You simply don't understand science, do you?

Let me give you a crash course in why science is so successful in describing the world around us:

It all fits.

It all fits together, across different fields. Whatever geology tells us, fits very nicely together with what paleontology tells us. Whatever paleontology tells us, fits very nicely together with what evolution - biology - tells us. From biology to chemistry. From chemistry to physics.

It all fits. It is dependent on the different fields. If a basic finding in one field turns out to be wrong, the consequences spreads out to other fields. One could easily make the claim that science is holistic!

So, if staring can influence the electrical current in our nervous systems, then each and every experiment that has ever been made with electricity has to be re-evaluated. Each and every electrical equipment should function in ways other than expected - and observed.

Ergo, we cannot trust Ørsted's experiment, because he could have influenced the electrical current merely by watching it.

Ergo, we should expect TV anchors to be reduced to a mass of blubber. If one person can make you sweat a bit more by watching you on video, then 50 million watching Barbara Walters should leave her in a puddle.

Yes, the experiment contradicts science. It contradicts what we have discovered about the universe, and how it works.

About the experiment itself and the proclaimed results: Let me add a bit of information that Lucianarchy - characteristically - left out:

Collaborative research by Wiseman and Schlitz (1997) using the same methodology, the same equipment, in the same location, at the same time, drawing participants from the same pool, resulted in evidence of a staring detection effect for Schlitz (a psi believer) but not for Wiseman (a skeptic).
Source

Wiseman, on the other hand, in a series of studies (Wiseman and Smith 1994; Wiseman, Smith, Freedman, Wasserman, and Hurst 1995) as well as a study carried out with Schlitz (Wiseman and Schlitz 1997) found no evidence of psychic functioning.
Source

In fact, in a recent study using electrodermal measures (Wiseman and Schlitz 1997), Wiseman, a skeptic, found no evidence of psi whereas Schlitz, a believer, found positive and significant effects.
Source

The only thing that particular experiment showed, was an experimenter effect. No evidence of any paranormal phenomena was found.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't understand why you won't provide me with the IP records of all the applicants who took the test under my name?

This is a very good example of how dishonest you are. You demand other people's IP addresses, but refuse to give up your own.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

The plot thinnens...

I have a had a look at the records. All 5 attempts were made from the SAME IP address.

 

[Lucianarchy]

The plot thinnens...

I have a had a look at the records. All 5 attempts were made from the SAME IP address.

Then definately send me the records of each application.

 

[CFLarsen]

The plot thinnens...

I have a had a look at the records. All 5 attempts were made from the SAME IP address.

Oops.....

 

[UndercoverElephant]

JustGeoff,

Oh, dear.

You simply don't understand science, do you?

Of course Claus, it is that simple. I don't understand science. I wondered how long it would take for that old chestnut to come out. I am looking forward to your explanation of why I don't understand science.

Let me give you a crash course in why science is so successful in describing the world around us:

It all fits.

It all fits together, across different fields.

Poppycock. That is a myth. It should fit, scientists do their very best to make it fit, but the truth is that it doesn't always fit. Right now both cosmology and particle physics are in crisis precisely because many things seem to currently contradict each other. Last weeks New Scientist carried an article about something called a "pentaquark" which many scientists are being forced to acknowledge the existene of, even though it does not fit..

Having said all that, I am total agreement that the aim must always be that not only science fits, but that science also does not clash with other forms of knowledge.

Whatever geology tells us, fits very nicely together with what paleontology tells us. Whatever paleontology tells us, fits very nicely together with what evolution - biology - tells us. From biology to chemistry. From chemistry to physics.

It all fits.

Apart from when it doesn't!

Important progress science is nearly always the result of something turning up which doesn't fit, causing a re-evaluation of something in order to make it fit better.

It is dependent on the different fields. If a basic finding in one field turns out to be wrong, the consequences spreads out to other fields. One could easily make the claim that science is holistic!

This is true, Claus. And it is why I have already said in this thread that people like you find PSI impossible to believe in because it causes a clash with some of the other things you currently believe to be true, because to you PSI doesn't seem to "fit". But what you currently believe to be true may not be 100% correct. I know it looks to you like PSI could not possibly exist. That is why I have accused the skeptics of having already decided all evidence must be fraudulent. You cannot believe any evidence of PSI because you simply do not believe PSI can exist. You claim there is no evidence. The truth is that you would not be able to integrate any evidence into your worldview without something else having to shift. That was my original point, Claus. And guess what, that is why I spent several months on this site trying to explain what else needed to shift in order to make it seem less impossible.

So, if staring can influence the electrical current in our nervous systems, then each and every experiment that has ever been made with electricity has to be re-evaluated. Each and every electrical equipment should function in ways other than expected - and observed.

No, not neccesarily. If the effect is real, we cannot draw any immediate conclusions about the mechanism. It does not immediately imply that electrical theory must change. The mechanism could be something completely unknown to science. QM did not change relativity. Relativity did not change newton. Maybe the possible mechanism behind this effect will not effect existing science. You are jumping to conclusions too easily, because it suits you to do so, because you want to be able to argue that the effect in question is impossible. You are looking for reasons to discount the result.

Ergo, we cannot trust Ørsted's experiment, because he could have influenced the electrical current merely by watching it.

Ergo, we should expect TV anchors to be reduced to a mass of blubber. If one person can make you sweat a bit more by watching you on video, then 50 million watching Barbara Walters should leave her in a puddle.

Yes, the experiment contradicts science. It contradicts what we have discovered about the universe, and how it works.

Who is Orsted? Are you still talking about other experiments, and not the one I am talking about?

Now, why was it again that I don't understand science?

About the experiment itself and the proclaimed results: Let me add a bit of information that Lucianarchy - characteristically - left out:

The only thing that particular experiment showed, was an experimenter effect. No evidence of any paranormal phenomena was found.

Are you accepting the "experimenter effect" exists?

If so, you can move on and discuss what we might imply from the result, instead of going all around the houses trying to manufacture reasons to discount the result.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Then definately send me the records of each application.

Why? If it's your IP then I can only tell you what you already know. And since you have been claiming credit for the only hit in this series (the first attempt) I assume you accept that they ARE all your IP?

Do you share your computer?

 

[Lucianarchy]

Why? If it's your IP then I can only tell you what you already know. And since you have been claiming credit for the only hit in this series (the first attempt) I assume you accept that they ARE all your IP?

Do you share your computer?

There are other possibilities. Someone who knows my IP could be forging it. Claus Larsen claims to know my IP address, and he is someone who has quite a history of deciept and dishonesty. There is also the possibility that you are, in fact lying. Please send the full records of each attempt to my PM and at least let me analyse them.

 

[BillHoyt]

I don't understand why you won't provide me with the IP records of all the applicants who took the test under my name?

Give us all a break or get some pills for your obtuseness. Sheesh.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Give us all a break or get some pills for your obtuseness. Sheesh.

Projection noted.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Well, since you probably know your IP adrdess already (go to www.whatismyip.org if not), then this is all the records consist of:

Round 3: *Your IP*
Round 8: *Your IP*
Round 13: *Your IP*
Round 18: *Your IP*
Round 22: *Your IP*

I can also tell you the approximate dates that those rounds took place:

Round 3: 17-18th March
Round 8: 27-28th march
Round 13: 5-6th April
Round 18: 20th-21st April
Round 22: 28th-29th April

If you'd like to have another go at the test now(which I will remove from the records if you wish), I will confirm if the IP used is the same one as you have now.

(And please, nobody else have a go under Luci's name. That would not be funny. )

(Just noticed an error in an earlier post of mine. The experiment has been running for 4 months, not 8. Stupid american date formatting)

 

[flyboy217]

JustGeoff,

Oh, dear.

You simply don't understand science, do you?

Let me give you a crash course in why science is so successful in describing the world around us:

Okay, but first things first. Mr. Larsen, do you have a background in science yourself? Your understanding of it seems to be blatantly wrong. Especially in the RPKP thread, where you simply refuse to accept or understand basic QM.

It all fits.

It all fits together, across different fields. Whatever geology tells us, fits very nicely together with what paleontology tells us. Whatever paleontology tells us, fits very nicely together with what evolution - biology - tells us. From biology to chemistry. From chemistry to physics.

Is that so? QM fits with relativity? How about string theory? The electroweak force with gravity? The point is, at the limits of our understanding, nothing fits together.

It all fits. It is dependent on the different fields. If a basic finding in one field turns out to be wrong, the consequences spreads out to other fields. One could easily make the claim that science is holistic!

So, if staring can influence the electrical current in our nervous systems, then each and every experiment that has ever been made with electricity has to be re-evaluated. Each and every electrical equipment should function in ways other than expected - and observed.

When Einstein refined Newton through special relativity, did everything change? In a sense, yes. Did it topple all of science? No, not really. Did QM, with its "spooky action at a distance" topple the rest of science? No.

Ergo, we cannot trust Ørsted's experiment, because he could have influenced the electrical current merely by watching it.

Who is Ørsted, and why on earth did you bring him uninvited into this thread? Straw man? Please stop with this nonsense, and evaluate the provided evidence.

Ergo, we should expect TV anchors to be reduced to a mass of blubber. If one person can make you sweat a bit more by watching you on video, then 50 million watching Barbara Walters should leave her in a puddle.

Under whose hypothesis? Can you show me where in the paper the authors came to the conclusion that the effect is linear? Have there been studies even trying to measure cumulative effects? Or are you just making this up for your own enjoyment? I strongly suspect the latter. Why would you do that? It is in terribly poor form.

 

[CFLarsen]

Of course Claus, it is that simple. I don't understand science. I wondered how long it would take for that old chestnut to come out. I am looking forward to your explanation of why I don't understand science.

I don't think you are.

Poppycock. That is a myth. It should fit, scientists do their very best to make it fit, but the truth is that it doesn't always fit. Right now both cosmology and particle physics are in crisis precisely because many things seem to currently contradict each other. Last weeks New Scientist carried an article about something called a "pentaquark" which many scientists are being forced to acknowledge the existene of, even though it does not fit..

Poppycock. You equate unsolved problems with bombs under the whole structure of science. Neither cosmology or particle physics are "in crisis" - they are constantly developing, constantly finding new evidence.

Having said all that, I am total agreement that the aim must always be that not only science fits, but that science also does not clash with other forms of knowledge.

There you go....

Important progress science is nearly always the result of something turning up which doesn't fit, causing a re-evaluation of something in order to make it fit better.

Which is the nature of science. But that doesn't mean that science is in crisis. It doesn't mean we cannot rely on it. It is still by far the most convincing method we have.

This is true, Claus. And it is why I have already said in this thread that people like you find PSI impossible to believe in because it causes a clash with some of the other things you currently believe to be true, because to you PSI doesn't seem to "fit".

No, that is not correct. I have seen no evidence of psi, but I don't find it impossible. There is nothing to "fit"!

But what you currently believe to be true may not be 100% correct. I know it looks to you like PSI could not possibly exist.

I am still waiting for the evidence to show.

That is why I have accused the skeptics of having already decided all evidence must be fraudulent. You cannot believe any evidence of PSI because you simply do not believe PSI can exist.

No, that is not my position.

You claim there is no evidence.

There is none.

The truth is that you would not be able to integrate any evidence into your worldview without something else having to shift. That was my original point, Claus. And guess what, that is why I spent several months on this site trying to explain what else needed to shift in order to make it seem less impossible.

The truth is that the experiment you pointed to showed no evidence of psi.

No, not neccesarily. If the effect is real, we cannot draw any immediate conclusions about the mechanism. It does not immediately imply that electrical theory must change. The mechanism could be something completely unknown to science. QM did not change relativity. Relativity did not change newton. Maybe the possible mechanism behind this effect will not effect existing science. You are jumping to conclusions too easily, because it suits you to do so, because you want to be able to argue that the effect in question is impossible. You are looking for reasons to discount the result.

Whoa...if no conclusions about the mechanism can be made, why does this have to be supernatural?

Who is Orsted? Are you still talking about other experiments, and not the one I am talking about?

You've never heard of Ørsted? The discoverer of electromagnetism? And you wonder why I say you don't understand science?

Now, why was it again that I don't understand science?

That's one very good reason.

Are you accepting the "experimenter effect" exists?

Yes, it seems well documented by now. You could also call it "experimenter bias", which, IMO, is a more suitable term.

If so, you can move on and discuss what we might imply from the result, instead of going all around the houses trying to manufacture reasons to discount the result.

Sure, let's move on: What, in the Wiseman/Schlitz experiment was not due to the experimenter effect? What was so supernatural about it?

 

[Lucianarchy]

Well, since you probably know your IP adrdess already (go to www.whatismyip.org if not), then this is all the records consist of:

Round 3: *Your IP*
Round 8: *Your IP*
Round 13: *Your IP*
Round 18: *Your IP*
Round 22: *Your IP*

Then someone is definately forging my IP.

 

[CFLarsen]

There are other possibilities. Someone who knows my IP could be forging it.

That is a possibility.

Claus Larsen claims to know my IP address

I do? Where do I claim to know your IP address?

and he is someone who has quite a history of deciept and dishonesty.

I challenge you to provide evidence of that.

There is also the possibility that you are, in fact lying.

Indeed. However, it would be the first time, while you have a long, long history - proven, no less - of lies and deceit.

Please send the full records of each attempt to my PM and at least let me analyse them.

What's to "analyze"? They are is 5 identical numbers.

 

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy There are other possibilities. Someone who knows my IP could be forging it. Claus Larsen claims to know my IP address, and he is someone who has quite a history of deciept and dishonesty. There is also the possibility that you are, in fact lying. Please send the full records of each attempt to my PM and at least let me analyse them.

Golly, that's bordering on Paranoia.

To start thinking sombody would undertake illegal activity to spoof your IP address, to record 4 false enties on what has already been identified as a "fun" paranormal test website seems a tad far fetched to me. But then again, compared to some of the claims out there, it actually seems quite rational

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay, but first things first. Mr. Larsen, do you have a background in science yourself? Your understanding of it seems to be blatantly wrong. Especially in the RPKP thread, where you simply refuse to accept or understand basic QM.

I don't have a background in science. I do not need a background in science to understand it. I did neither refuse to accept basic QM or claim to understand it.

Is that so? QM fits with relativity? How about string theory? The electroweak force with gravity? The point is, at the limits of our understanding, nothing fits together.

That different theories exist does not mean that "nothing fits together". Based on the accumulating evidence, one theory will gain support, while others fade away.

When Einstein refined Newton through special relativity, did everything change? In a sense, yes. Did it topple all of science? No, not really. Did QM, with its "spooky action at a distance" topple the rest of science? No.

And nobody expected it to - because QM and Newtonian physics deal with different levels. On "our" scale, Newton works fine. Once we go sub-atomar (or VERY big), QM kicks in. There is no contradiction, it fits.

Who is Ørsted, and why on earth did you bring him uninvited into this thread? Straw man? Please stop with this nonsense, and evaluate the provided evidence.

Oh, my god. You have never heard of him either. Back to Physics 101 you go.

Under whose hypothesis? Can you show me where in the paper the authors came to the conclusion that the effect is linear? Have there been studies even trying to measure cumulative effects? Or are you just making this up for your own enjoyment? I strongly suspect the latter. Why would you do that? It is in terribly poor form.

No, I am not making it up, I am trying to explain the consequences of the proclaimed results. Of which, I might add, there are none, so the examples are a bit redundant...

 

[CFLarsen]

Golly, that's bordering on Paranoia.

Well, now that you mention it...

To start thinking sombody would undertake illegal activity to spoof your IP address, to record 4 false enties on what has already been identified as a "fun" paranormal test website seems a tad far fetched to me. But then again, compared to some of the claims out there, it actually seems quite rational

The problem for Lucianarchy is that this smashes any attempt he has and will made that his psychic abilities yet again have been proved.

He tried 5 times, failed to produce more than one hit, so there has to be someone out to get him.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Golly, that's bordering on Paranoia.

Is it? Or is it being sceptical? Claus has claimed that my IP is "very similar" to one he tries to allude is responsible for some stupid anti-Randi psot he dredged up from elsewhere on the 'net, in order to promote a disgraceful smear campaign agaisnt me. (see his Questions For Lucinanarchy' thread) He has also threatened to follow me and my family everywhere we go on the internet. (see the 'Moderation of 'oo' thread under the 'Transition' Forum) I realise that you are new here, Stitch, but Larsen has a dark, disturbing history fanaticism, deception and trying to re-write history which you would be well advised to research further..