Science
Science
Out of context: Reply #292
- Started
- Last post
- 1,010 Responses
- Morning_star0
The results were jaw-dropping, with 'hits' such as 100% accuracy on two random numbers, one eight digits and the other nine; 60 to 100% accuracy on three of the five-letter nonsense words; 100% accuracy on six out of twelve equations with 15 to 19 digits each; and between 81 to 100% accuracy on sentences of between 18 and 35 letters. The video and audio surveillance showed no evidence of cueing or fraud.
- bwaaahahahahaa, and? I am on the edge of my seat waiting for the point you're making with thismonospaced
- http://uproxx.files.…ApeRobot
- Thank, you've made my point for me. You are so certain that this cannot be real you dismiss it without investigation. An that's called belief.Morning_star
- called belief.
Morning_star - if you think this study is actual evidence, then you have to get your head checked, sorry bromonospaced
- It's a series of tests that show a phenomenon that cannot be explained and requires further investigation. Or are you claiming to be able to explain the results.Morning_star
- to be able to explain the results, oh great one ;)Morning_star
- monospaced has spoken. listen to his wisdom. incredible.fadein11
- I'm saying those tests are weak at best. No need to make fun of someone just because they're right. It's bad science. Period.monospaced
- You are not right, by any stretch of the imagination. Even when shown anomalous evidence that challenges the materialist paradigm, you KNOW it's wrong? In the face of contrary evidence your blind faith is impressive to say the least.Morning_star
- you KNOW the truth. Yet, you never offer contrary evidence, just narrow minded opinion. Your blind faith is impressive to say the least.Morning_star
- the least.Morning_star
- Ever heard the the saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?ukit2
- When it is some "researcher" who already belongs to the Parapsychological Organization and went in believing this stuff, natural reaction is to be suspicious.ukit2
- and the story is published in some sketchy looking psychic news site, natural reaction is to be suspicious that what they are claiming is true.ukit2
- claiming is true. After all there are many ways to fake the results of an experiment.ukit2
- Do you believe in ghosts too?
Hey look, "evidence"...
http://www.dailygrai…ukit2 - < Some guy said it, it must be trueukit2
- I've already given links to hundreds of experiments and peer reviewed papers by reputable labs. Is your position so weak that you have to criticise the people rather than the results. As for 'extraordinary claims etc' it's a bullshit statement. 'Exatraordinary' has a subjective meaning, what is extraordinary to you may be perfectly ordinary to me. It's a tricksy way of bringing subjectivity into scientific method. Look at the data, analyse it then share your results. Simple and scientific.Morning_star
- so weak that you have to criticise the people rather than the results. As for 'extraordinary claims etc' it's a bullshit statement. 'Exatraordinary' has a subjective meaning, what is extraordinary to you may be perfectly ordinary to me. It's a tricksy way of bringing subjectivity into scientific method. Look at the data, analyse it then share your results. Simple and scientific.Morning_star
- bullshit statement. 'Exatraordinary' has a subjective meaning, what is extraordinary to you may be perfectly ordinary to me. It's a tricksy way of bringing subjectivity into scientific method. Look at the data, analyse it then share your results. Simple and scientific.Morning_star
- to me. It's a tricksy way of bringing subjectivity into scientific method. Look at the data, analyse it then share your results. Simple and scientific.Morning_star
- your results. Simple and scientific.Morning_star
- Not really, the links you provided are all to people like Dean Radin who make a living out of being the go to psychic expertukit2
- In the video you posted, Radin stated he believes the entire universe is made up of consciousness. How he jumped all the way to that conclusion not sure, but not exactly neutral.ukit2
- all the way to that conclusion based on some anomolous test results not sure, but gives you an idea of his extreme bias on this issue.ukit2
- A truly scientific approach would be to not assume any particular explanation, but to try to uncover the mechanism by which this stuff is supposedly occurring.ukit2
- And the problem with that is? What exactly is wrong with Dean Radin and the labs and experiments he's involved with. Again, criticise the results all you like but attacking the people is just weak.Morning_star
- stuff is supposedly occurring. Instead of jumping to these pre-conceived new age ideas.ukit2
- Again, criticise the results all you like but attacking the people is just weak.Morning_star
- It's not preconceived. His analysis is based on decades of results. He's an expert in his field, of course he's going to have a bias. As long as he approaches his experiments with neutrality, which he does, then what's the problem. Are you suggesting that Dawkins should twat on about the selfish gene because he's an expert in genetics?Morning_star
- have a bias. As long as he approaches his experiments with neutrality, which he does, then what's the problem. Are you suggesting that Dawkins should twat on about the selfish gene because he's an expert in genetics?Morning_star
- Are you suggesting that Dawkins shouldnt twat on about the selfish gene because he's an expert in genetics?Morning_star
- It's pretty easy to self-declare yourself an "expert" in a non-existent field. If someone claims to be a Bigfoot expert and spent their life looking for Bigfoot, do you believe them over everyone else?ukit2
- their life looking for Bigfoot, and gets funding from people on that basis, do you believe them over everyone else?ukit2
- There is an audience of people who want to believe in this psychic powers stuff, and people like Radin tell them what they want to hearukit2
- want to hearukit2
- It comes down to the evidence. I don't care if it's Bigfoot, ESP or the Higgs Boson, if the evidence is collected with scientific rigour and stands up to scrutiny then it has to be considered, until, someone can prove otherwise. Claiming truth is dependent on the person who delivers it is idiotic.Morning_star
- and stands up to scrutiny then it has to be considered, until, someone can prove otherwise. Claiming truth is dependent on the person who delivers it is idiotic.Morning_star
- the person who delivers it is idiotic.Morning_star
- It's not idiotic because everyone defers to authority to some extent. If you read something in the National Inquirer, especially a ridiculous far-fetched claim, you are less inclined to believe it than if read in the Guardian or BBC (I hope).ukit2
- ridiculous far-fetched claim, you are less inclined to believe it than if read in the Guardian or BBC (I hope).ukit2
- Previously you said you thought Deepak Chopra was a fraud, which I completely agree with. Well if that's true doesn't it raise a few questions as to why Radin allows him to publish his books and even write the introduction to his latest book?ukit2
- question as to why Radin allows him to publish his books and even write the introduction to his latest book?ukit2
- This is getting too long, my reply is down there.Morning_star
- a kid hears a different horn outside one day, and they call that ESP evidence? c'mon...scarabin
- this site is the westboro baptist church of "science"scarabin