• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Richard Wiseman

...snip...

In controlled tests of psi, results have varied, but overall seem to be highly statistically significant. However, there is no smoking gun.

...snip...

(Hadn't noticed this until Geemack quoted it above.)

Rodney can you point me to these studies that show experiments in levitation or telekinesis that have highly statistically significant results?

The reason I am asking is that those are examples of "psi". (And that is not my opinion of what psi is see: http://www.deanradin.com/para1.html#five .)
 
I don't know, but I wouldn't think the NY Times would have just made up that figure.

As usual, I'm struggling to understand what point you think you're making. Is it that because oceanographers did not at one time have evidence confirming the frequency of rogue waves, although they believed they did happen, therefore anything else for which we don't have evidence must exist? They laughed at Charlie Chaplin, you know.
 
(Hadn't noticed this until Geemack quoted it above.)

Rodney can you point me to these studies that show experiments in levitation or telekinesis that have highly statistically significant results?

The reason I am asking is that those are examples of "psi". (And that is not my opinion of what psi is see: http://www.deanradin.com/para1.html#five .)


Telekinesis? That would me PK studies. I'll dig you some out cheerfully enough, what you want? I am unaware of any levitations tudies, but I'll check!

cj x
 
Telekinesis? That would me PK studies. I'll dig you some out cheerfully enough, what you want? I am unaware of any levitations tudies, but I'll check!

cj x


Please do so - I have to admit I am very surprised such results haven't made headlines all over the world, someone moving say a ball bearing with the "power of their mind" would be beyond groundbreaking.
 
Please do so - I have to admit I am very surprised such results haven't made headlines all over the world, someone moving say a ball bearing with the "power of their mind" would be beyond groundbreaking.


There are plenty of claims of this type: what I have never seen is a replicable experiment that works at ma cro-level. Most PK work is on RNG's like Helmut Schmidt's or PEARs. Give me a moment...

Bösch, Holger; Fiona Steinkamp, Emil Boller (July 2006). "Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators--A meta-analysis". Psychological Bulletin 132 (4): 497–523
appears to be the most sensible study to date - 380 experiments - small effect, significant but within margin of file drawer effect.Have a look see what you think?

cj x
 
There are plenty of claims of this type: what I have never seen is a replicable experiment that works at ma cro-level. Most PK work is on RNG's like Helmut Schmidt's or PEARs. Give me a moment...

Bösch, Holger; Fiona Steinkamp, Emil Boller (July 2006). "Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators--A meta-analysis". Psychological Bulletin 132 (4): 497–523
appears to be the most sensible study to date - 380 experiments - small effect, significant but within margin of file drawer effect.Have a look see what you think?

cj x


That wasn't what I was looking for, I was looking for something that followed from the claimed observations of levitation and so on.

(Not experiments that went to search for something they had no idea what effect they were looking for/at.)
 
Ah very good wikipedia entry - this bit may be of interest, but worth reading the whole entry. Not my area really, unless you include "poltergeists" --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis#Published_Papers_on_PK_.2F_TK

cj x


You mean "experiments" like this one: http://jackhouck.com/mdi.shtml

..snip...

At the party, the participants were sitting in chairs arranged in a circle around my living room, joking and laughing. Severin stood up in the center of the circle and proceeded to gave the following instructions:

First Step: Make a mental connection with what you want to affect

"Get a point of concentration above your head. Grab it and bring it down through your head, your neck, your shoulder, down your arm, into your hand and put it into the fork or spoon."

Second Step: Command (intention) what you want to happen

"Command the silverware to bend by shouting BEND, three times."

Third Step: Let go!

"Let go."


After these instructions, a minute or two went by and a 14-year-old boy began screaming that his fork was bending. Everyone could clearly see that the head of his fork was bending over slowly. I noticed that everyone's eyes were huge and I now call that "an instant belief system change." Shortly after that, almost everyone began bending his or her silverware very easily. They were jumping up and down, shouting, and screaming. This was a peak emotional event! They described the silverware getting warm or sticky, with the metal becoming very soft, like rubber, for five to 30 seconds. 19 of the 21 attendees at the first PK Party were able to do what I now refer to as "Kindergarten bending." One of the participants was a woman who had told a friend of hers before the party that she didn't see any sense bending silverware. Unfortunately, she created a mental block for herself. She came to subsequent PK Parties and finally was able to bend metal at the fourth party. I was the other person who did not bend at the first PK Party. I was busy looking around at what people were doing and was trying to analyze what was happening. It also took me four PK Parties to get the PK experience. Later on in the evening at the first PK Party, the same 14-year-old boy bent the large steel rod very easily. The next day I bought the rest of the steel rods the same size from Sears. The head metallurgist at McDonnell Douglas in Huntington Beach, California attempted to bend one of the rods and finally did by straining and using his knee. He was more than twice the size of the young boy.

...snip..

I had thought we were well beyond such naivete.
 
Only reference I can spot is Davies, B. (1916) Experiments on levitation. Light 36, 186-187, 194-195, 202-203. Wonder what that was about? It may have been a spiriualist paper. I'll have a look, sounds fun and pretty crazy!

cj x
 
Only reference I can spot is Davies, B. (1916) Experiments on levitation. Light 36, 186-187, 194-195, 202-203. Wonder what that was about? It may have been a spiriualist paper. I'll have a look, sounds fun and pretty crazy!

cj x

If you could please do so - to be upfront I doubt very much that they will have shown (as Rodney claims) something like levitation to "highly statistically significant results".

If we had discovered something like that everyone, from scientists to criminals would have been all over it by now. And yes I do recognise that opinion can be criticised as an argument from personal incredulity but it is based on observations of how the world appears to works. As an example look at what happened with Fleischmann–Pons cold fusion claims.
 
As usual, I'm struggling to understand what point you think you're making. Is it that because oceanographers did not at one time have evidence confirming the frequency of rogue waves, although they believed they did happen, therefore anything else for which we don't have evidence must exist? They laughed at Charlie Chaplin, you know.
The issue at hand is whether oceanographers believed credible eyewitness accounts and physical evidence of rogue waves prior to 1995. Robin is arguing that at least some mathematical models prior to 1995 permitted the existence of rogue waves on somewhat of a regular basis. If that is the case, then perhaps oceanographers did, at least in some cases, credit accounts of rogue waves. However, a July 2006 New York Times article stated that mathematical models prior to 1995 permitted the existence of rogue waves only about once every 10,000 years, and that oceanographers did not credit accounts of rogue waves.
 
If you could please do so - to be upfront I doubt very much that they will have shown (as Rodney claims) something like levitation to "highly statistically significant results".
I never claimed that there has been a controlled test of levitation showing highly statistically significant results, but only that "in controlled tests of psi, results have varied, but overall seem to be highly statistically significant. However, there is no smoking gun."

So, I was arguing that, generally, results have been highly statistically significant, but not for all psi claims.
 
The issue at hand is whether oceanographers believed credible eyewitness accounts and physical evidence of rogue waves prior to 1995. Robin is arguing that at least some mathematical models prior to 1995 permitted the existence of rogue waves on somewhat of a regular basis. If that is the case, then perhaps oceanographers did, at least in some cases, credit accounts of rogue waves. However, a July 2006 New York Times article stated that mathematical models prior to 1995 permitted the existence of rogue waves only about once every 10,000 years, and that oceanographers did not credit accounts of rogue waves.

I think you are confusing what oceanographers believed with what their models showed. Do you have evidence to show that they believed their models were 100% accurate?

I'm also still failing to see what your point is.
 
I think you are confusing what oceanographers believed with what their models showed. Do you have evidence to show that they believed their models were 100% accurate?

I'm also still failing to see what your point is.
Scientists are conservative and ignore outrageous claims until they see actual evidence therefore they are closed minded.
Since scientists are close minded therefore Rodney's woo is real :boggled:
 
So, I was arguing that, generally, results have been highly statistically significant, but not for all psi claims.
I completely agree that the results are statistically significant.
The results were not due to statistical chance.
So?

I am very curious if Rodney even understands what "statistically significant" even means.
 
Last edited:
I think you are confusing what oceanographers believed with what their models showed. Do you have evidence to show that they believed their models were 100% accurate?

I'm also still failing to see what your point is.
Again, the July 11, 2006 NY Times article stated:

"Enormous waves that sweep the ocean are traditionally called rogue waves, implying that they have a kind of freakish rarity. Over the decades, skeptical oceanographers have doubted their existence and tended to lump them together with sightings of mermaids and sea monsters."

Other sources say the same thing -- most oceanographers didn't believe the many accounts of rogue waves.
 
Again, the July 11, 2006 NY Times article stated:

"Enormous waves that sweep the ocean are traditionally called rogue waves, implying that they have a kind of freakish rarity. Over the decades, skeptical oceanographers have doubted their existence and tended to lump them together with sightings of mermaids and sea monsters."

Other sources say the same thing -- most oceanographers didn't believe the many accounts of rogue waves.

Apart from the fact that I'd disagree slightly with your rewording (does 'skeptical' apply to all oceanographers, or is it identifying a group of oceanographers?), I repeat: And? Will you get to the point, and move your argument on?

Scientists tend to be cautious and wait until they have solid evidence of something. Who coined the term 'rogue wave', anyway? Was it seamen or scientists?
 
So what's your explanation for the results -- poor experimental design, fraud, or what?
Shocking, you do know what "statistically significant" ACTUALLY means. You actually do listen to Linda and have some modicum of intelligence to grasp this simple concept when she tries valiantly to educate you.

Since you know what "results have been highly statistically significant, but not for all psi claims" actually means, what is your purpose in repeating it constantly? Was there some point?

Edit: To answer your question, "YES".
 
I don't know, but I wouldn't think the NY Times would have just made up that figure.
I agree that Broad would probably not have simply invented the number, he appears to be a eputable journalist but he is not a scientist never mind an oceanographer.

He could easily have misunderstood, he might have seen 1 in 10,000 waves in some of the literature and misunderstood.

Non-scientists writing about science in newpapers very frequently get it wrong, even with the best intentions.
 

Back
Top Bottom