PK parties

[Ed]

This is the problem you see; you're simply not interested are you. Bollocks to all the peer reviewed scientific research. If one cannot pass Randi's tests which he determines what is required to pass these tests, then no paranormal phenomena exists whatsoever. People on this board are simply not interested in getting to the truth. This is why I despise the people on here.

Yet you remain. Does make an elequent statement about your self image. Funny.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm not sure how you plan on "seeing" my friends investigate further.

I will believe that they are investigating, when I see something tangible from them.

How would writing up their report in a formal fashion change it from being an unverifiable anecdote? Why wouldn't it be more prudent to investigate further first, and only then publish a report?

Hey, by all means! So, are they? How are they going to investigate? When can we see something?

As long as I am convinced that the story is accurate and honest, I should have no problem with Luci mentioning it as an anecdote, should I?

You just wait and see how Lucianarchy can distort a story like yours. Then you will see how much damage he does.

 

[flyboy217]

I will believe that they are investigating, when I see something tangible from them.

Okay. It is of no importance to me if anyone believes they are investigating or not, after all.

Hey, by all means! So, are they? How are they going to investigate? When can we see something?

I'll let you know when I discover more on how they're investigating. The initial stages are simple: try to reproduce what happened at the party, outside the party. If they cannot do even this, there may be no need to go further.

You just wait and see how Lucianarchy can distort a story like yours. Then you will see how much damage he does.

Any story can be exaggerated and distorted. I don't see why this should prevent me from recounting what I believe to be an honest and accurate anecdote.

 

[Interesting Ian]

The problem with your stories is that people like Lucianarchy gobble them up and take them as evidence of paranormal phenomena.

You mean proof not evidence. Clearly they constitute evidence.

Now it is true that many believers uncritically accept such stories. They just "gobble them up" as you put it. It is also true that all Skeptics automatically reject such stories (this is true by definition by virtue of how I define Skeptic). There are just a few people like me who are genuine seekers of the truth. Sad but true.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


This is the problem you see; you're simply not interested are you. Bollocks to all the peer reviewed scientific research. If one cannot pass Randi's tests which he determines what is required to pass these tests, then no paranormal phenomena exists whatsoever. People on this board are simply not interested in getting to the truth. This is why I despise the people on here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yet you remain. Does make an elequent statement about your self image. Funny.

WOW! That was funny Ed. Hee hee

 

[Mercutio]

This can very easily be tested. One should be able to bend spoons after a while at home. If they could bend a particular spoon at this party, but could not do so afterwards by applying the same pressure, then what you say simply doesn't stand up.

Thanks, Ian. But (and this is just my ignorance about metal talking) suppose that working metal in this fashion somehow tempered it, such that it was easy to do the first time, but more difficult in following times (again, I have no idea if this might happen, but if it did, it would explain the phenomenon). In that case, is there still a difference between spoons bent by psi-advocates and those bent in a similar (multiple small stresses plasticising the metal) fashion by machine? Again, the key seems to be the necessity of touching, by hand specifically. Do any of the psi advocates suggest that a machine-manipulated spoon, if they are there to concentrate on it, will behave differently from a machine-manipulated spoon which they ignore?

 

[JPK]

Hello Ian,

It's not one single anecdote which is particular persuasive, it is anecdotes of similar phenomena, and similar psychological states precipitating such phenomena, occurring throughout the history of mankind, and across differing cultures. If such is reported then at least something interesting is going on.

In my opinion, there are all kinds of evidence. Anecdotal is very week evidence. Adding week evidence together doesn't make it stronger evidence. The interseting thing going on here might be nothing more then an entertaining party act. Nothing from what I've read here leads to people having actually viewed a paranormal event. Proper investigation is needed in order to determine if the event was actually paranormal. Of course no investigation is needed if you just want to sit back and enjoy the show.

People on this board are simply not interested in getting to the truth. This is why I despise the people on here.

Ouch. That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with...


JPK

 

[Interesting Ian]

Hello Ian,




In my opinion, there are all kinds of evidence. Anecdotal is very week evidence. Adding week evidence together doesn't make it stronger evidence.

Absolute nonsense. I suspect you're just repeating what other people have said without really thinking about it.

Let's consider Lucid dreams; you know, those dreams where you actually realise you're dreaming whilst in the dream state. Now 100 years ago they weren't supposed to exist according to orthodox thought.

If we had lived then would it have been reasonable to accept orthodox "wisdom"? I would suggest that if there had only ever been one anecdote from one individual that he had been aware that he was dreaming whilst in the dream state, and no-one else had ever reported a lucid dream, then the evidence for the reality of lucid dreaming would have been very weak. Now compare that situation to the reality. Most people have experienced lucid dreams. Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that the vast majority of us have experienced lucid dreams constitutes no more evidence for their reality than if only one person ever had reported a lucid dream?? Come now, let's not be silly. It would have been rational to reject orthodox opinion. In other words it would have been rational not to be a Skeptic regarding this phenomenon.

The interseting thing going on here might be nothing more then an entertaining party act. Nothing from what I've read here leads to people having actually viewed a paranormal event.

People bent their spoons without using the appropriate force necessary. Moreover, these were not special spoons, but spoons brought from home and which they did not relinquish for anyone to tamper with. This is prima facie evidence for macro-psychokinesis. I'm not saying that it did occur, I simply don't know; but it is evidence.

 

[JPK]

Absolute nonsense. I suspect you're just repeating what other people have said without really thinking about it.

Your suspicions are wrong.

Let's consider Lucid dreams; you know, those dreams where you actually realise you're dreaming whilst in the dream state. Now 100 years ago they weren't supposed to exist according to orthodox thought.

If we had lived then would it have been reasonable to accept orthodox "wisdom"? I would suggest that if there had only ever been one anecdote from one individual that he had been aware that he was dreaming whilst in the dream state, and no-one else had ever reported a lucid dream, then the evidence for the reality of lucid dreaming would have been very weak. Now compare that situation to the reality. Most people have experienced lucid dreams. Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that the vast majority of us have experienced lucid dreams constitutes no more evidence for their reality than if only one person ever had reported a lucid dream?? Come now, let's not be silly. It would have been rational to reject orthodox opinion. In other words it would have been rational not to be a Skeptic regarding this phenomenon.

Lucid dreaming? How did we get here? Most people have experienced lucid dreaming? Sorry I'm not aware of that.
Anacdotal evidence is very weak. The majority of the people once thought the Earth was the center of the universe. Didn't make it so. I think I undertand what you are tring to argue but I don't see how it applies. Something other than anacdotal evidence to collaborate with it helps strengthen the evidence.

People bent their spoons without using the appropriate force necessary.

People "claimed " they bent their spoons without using appropriate force nessessary. And what exactly is the appropriate force nessessary? That is a hard thing to estimate. Most people don't spend there time bending spoons with thier hands. Take a small box. Fill it with lead. Ask someone to lift it without telling them whats in it. They will usually underestimate the force needed. The next time they go to lift it, it will feel easier. In between lifts, sell them some magic strenght potion and you might get them to believe it was responsible.

Moreover, these were not special spoons, but spoons brought from home and which they did not relinquish for anyone to tamper with. This is prima facie evidence for macro-psychokinesis. I'm not saying that it did occur, I simply don't know; but it is evidence.

I agree it is evidence. But what is it evidence of? I am not saying a paranormal event didn't take place. We don't know anywhere near enough about it. Until controls are put in place to remove non-paranormal possibilities, you can't rule out deception. I would imagine this will not get that far. I wish it would .

It must really suck for people with the gift of psychokinesis. They have one of the most incredible abilities in the world and the best they can do with it is bend spoons. Oh yeah, and get people to pay to watch them.

JPK

 

[Interesting Ian]

Absolute nonsense. I suspect you're just repeating what other people have said without really thinking about it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Your suspicions are wrong.

I'm pretty sure I've heard other Skeptics say the same thing. You mean they each independently come to this utterly preposterous conclusion?? Anyway, I believe I have adequately shown its stupidity. You have said nothing in this post to defend it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Let's consider Lucid dreams; you know, those dreams where you actually realise you're dreaming whilst in the dream state. Now 100 years ago they weren't supposed to exist according to orthodox thought.

If we had lived then would it have been reasonable to accept orthodox "wisdom"? I would suggest that if there had only ever been one anecdote from one individual that he had been aware that he was dreaming whilst in the dream state, and no-one else had ever reported a lucid dream, then the evidence for the reality of lucid dreaming would have been very weak. Now compare that situation to the reality. Most people have experienced lucid dreams. Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that the vast majority of us have experienced lucid dreams constitutes no more evidence for their reality than if only one person ever had reported a lucid dream?? Come now, let's not be silly. It would have been rational to reject orthodox opinion. In other words it would have been rational not to be a Skeptic regarding this phenomenon.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Lucid dreaming? How did we get here? Most people have experienced lucid dreaming? Sorry I'm not aware of that.
Anacdotal evidence is very weak. The majority of the people once thought the Earth was the center of the universe. Didn't make it so.

What anecdotal evidence was there to make them think that we're at the centre of the Universe? Also, what do you mean in holding that we're not at the centre?

 

[JPK]

Good morning Ian,

I'm pretty sure I've heard other Skeptics say the same thing.

Perhaps you have heard this before. I gave it some thought.

You mean they each independently come to this utterly preposterous conclusion??

[/B]

This you find hard to believe, yet individuals that experience something that they can't explain attributing it to the supernatural strengthens the evidence for paranormal events? I don't follow that.

Anyway, it would seem that we both said the same thing about the spoon bending party with one small exception.
The story: Two guys go to a spoon bending party. Claiming to be skeptical they, bring their own spoons. The spoons were bent. The partygoers can't explain how it happened.

From this, I think we all agree further investigation would be required to draw any conclusions. If I read you right, you felt that this adds to a growing body of evidence to support the supernatural. If in fact the spoons were bent by supernatural powers, you would be right. I think the fact that the witnesses saw something that they couldn't explain doesn't necessarily mean it is evidence of supernatural. If the cause was mundane then it is not supporting evidence of the supernatural at all.
By the same token, if it was trickery, self-deception, it is not evidence against supernatural events.

The story is only slightly different then people going to a magic show. Often the magician will ask for a personal object from the audience to add credibility to the stunt. To the person who lends the item, the trick has even more significance. The only difference in this story is the performer isn't claiming to use supernatural powers.

Anyway, I know this party story has moved to a new thread, but I wanted to get back to you. I was unable to post to the forum the past two days.

JPK

 

[billydkid]

Horsecrap

A nice intelligent response as per usual Billy

This is what I'm always saying about Skeptics; it doesn't matter how compelling the evidence is, they still will not believe. How rational is that?

What compelling evidence would you be referring to? If a solid, stainless steel spoon melted in my hand or even in the hand of a person sitting next to me - that might be evidence. If someone would display this ability in a controlled environment and the phenomenon was documented by unbiased and experienced observers - that would be evidence. Someone going onto an internet forum and claiming people bent spoons with their minds in their living is not evidence. Apparently, from the accounts, it doesn't require any special ability to do this - to bend metal with your mind (although why you should have to touch it at all escapes me) - so why isn't that old lady or any of the assortment of people who have demonstrated this ability running out and scooping up that million bucks? Certainly sounds like a safer bet than the lottery.

 

[billydkid]

Horsecrap

A nice intelligent response as per usual Billy

This is what I'm always saying about Skeptics; it doesn't matter how compelling the evidence is, they still will not believe. How rational is that?

What compelling evidence would you be referring to? If a solid, stainless steel spoon melted in my hand or even in the hand of a person sitting next to me - that might be evidence. If someone would display this ability in a controlled environment and the phenomenon was documented by unbiased and experienced observers - that would be evidence. Someone going onto an internet forum and claiming people bent spoons with their minds in their living room is not evidence. Apparently, from the accounts, it doesn't require any special ability to do this - to bend metal with your mind (although why you should have to touch it at all escapes me) - so why isn't that old lady or any of the assortment of people who have demonstrated this ability running out and scooping up that million bucks? Certainly sounds like a safer bet than the lottery.

 

[billydkid]

Horsecrap

A nice intelligent response as per usual Billy

This is what I'm always saying about Skeptics; it doesn't matter how compelling the evidence is, they still will not believe. How rational is that?

What compelling evidence would you be referring to? If a solid, stainless steel spoon melted in my hand or even in the hand of a person sitting next to me - that might be evidence. If someone would display this ability in a controlled environment and the phenomenon was documented by unbiased and experienced observers - that would be evidence. Someone going onto an internet forum and claiming people bent spoons with their minds in their living is not evidence. Apparently, from the accounts, it doesn't require any special ability to do this - to bend metal with your mind (although why you should have to touch it at all escapes me) - so why isn't that old lady or any of the assortment of people who have demonstrated this ability running out and scooping up that million bucks? Certainly sounds like a safer bet than the lottery.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Re: Horsecrap

so why isn't that old lady or any of the assortment of people who have demonstrated this ability running out and scooping up that million bucks? Certainly sounds like a safer bet than the lottery.

Since when has a biased 'challenge', owned by the challenger who will always have the final say, which is not arbitrated by an an independant arbiter, which is not published in a peer reviewed journal, a scientific test? Let alone a fair and unbiased one.

If you are letting 'the challenge' decide things for you, then you need to take a reality check. It is for catching nuts, scams and for providing publicity. It is not a proper scientific test. You really need to understand that.

 

[steenkh]

Re: Re: Horsecrap

If you are letting 'the challenge' decide things for you, then you need to take a reality check. It is for catching nuts, scams and for providing publicity. It is not a proper scientific test. You really need to understand that.

I do not recall that anyone has said that the JREF challenge is a scientific test. Nor should it be. Obviously, a scientific test would be more rigorous. But if the "old lady" has got hold of the million I would believe her chances of passing a scientific test would be that much higher.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

I do not recall that anyone has said that the JREF challenge is a scientific test. Nor should it be. Obviously, a scientific test would be more rigorous. But if the "old lady" has got hold of the million I would believe her chances of passing a scientific test would be that much higher.

?? Aren't you skeptical of a 'challenge' where the challenge owner's $1m is at stake? The bottom line is the 'challenger' always has the final say on what is or isn't acceptable. There's your 'out'. It's a good publicity tool. I don't think it's of much use for anything else though.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

?? Aren't you skeptical of a 'challenge' where the challenge owner's $1m is at stake? The bottom line is the 'challenger' always has the final say on what is or isn't acceptable. There's your 'out'. It's a good publicity tool. I don't think it's of much use for anything else though.

This is patently false.

1. The money is not Randi's. He cannot touch them, ever.
2. Randi does not have the final say on what is or isn't acceptable. I refer you to the terms of the challenge:

"All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant."
Source

1. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.

2. (...) We consult competent statisticians when an evaluation of the results, or experiment design, is required.

4. No part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without the agreement of all parties concerned. JR may be present at some preliminary or formal tests, but will not interact with the materials used.
Source

You are once again spreading your lies, Lucianarchy. I simply cannot understand why you think you can get away with it.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

This is patently false.

1. The money is not Randi's. He cannot touch them, ever.
2. Randi does not have the final say on what is or isn't acceptable. I refer you to the terms of the challenge:

Indeed.

[...]applicant and JREF will agree upon[...]

Whoah, there! Did you see that, Claus? What's to stop the challenger just saying "I don't agree."?! If you were responsible for a million bucks and thought you'd loose it, what would you say, Claus?

Don't bother. I'm psychic.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Horsecrap

Indeed.

Whoah, there! Did you see that, Claus? What's to stop the challenger just saying "I don't agree."?

Florida's statute against frauds and misleading advertisements for one. If Randi tried this trick against someone with a lawyer who knows his business, that person would own the JREF in very short order....