Telephone Telapathy

by lonelysheep 43 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  skyking

  Skeptic2 the article you posted for a rebuttal is a ridiculously stupid article. The article gives absolutely not one sound reason to prove the study wrong for example:

  Seven to eight minutes before each trial, the experimenter sent an e-mail to the randomly selected e-mailer saying that he had been chosen, asking him to think about the participant and then send an e-mail at exactly the specified time, with a copy to the experimenter.”uhm … hang on a minute. So … you tell one of my mates he’s the chosen one at 10.02, and then I have to guess which mate it is by 10.09? I’m not sure, but I have a hunch I might be able to manage that. Are me or my friend kept in isolation from … well … our mobiles?“The participants used their own computers at home or computers at their place of work or study.”Fuck me! And Sheldrake is surprised he gets results as high as 45% - I’m surprised it was as low as that. I bet me and my mates could get 100% with controls on the experiment like that. Even with only two mates and two unfamiliars who wouldn’t text me and say “Uh … it’s me”, I could get better than 50%.

  Can you follow the reasoning here? THE PERSON AT THE COMPUTURE DOES NOT KNOW! ONLY THE PERSON SENDING THE EMAIL KNOWS WHOM HE IS TOLD TO SEND IT TO. You still only have 25% chance because the person guessing has four people to chose from, the person guessing had no clue which one of the four was going send the email.

  Skeptic I am not saying there is not some unknown reason the study is unsound but the article you posted does not prove in any way study was slanted to get a desired answer.
• 

  under_believer

  I doubt I need to tell anybody what I think of this "research."
• 

  skyking

  I do say this about the study it was way to small of a study. Take a quarter out of your pocket and start flipping it, I will bet if you flip 100 times you will never get 50 times heads and 50 time tail. It will either be more heads or more tails. So that small of a study means nothing to me. Once to prove that I could control the flip of the coin, I said in advance I could flip heads at least 75% to the time. Guess what I did, I flipped heads 76 times out of a hundred.

  The test need to be retest over and over again.
• 

  skeptic2

  You still only have 25% chance because the person guessing has four people to chose from, the person guessing had no clue which one of the four was going send the email.

  A hypothetical situation:

  At 10:02am my friend John receives an email from Rupert Sheldrake saying he is to email me at 10:10am.

  John sends me an email straight away to tell me.

  At 10:08am I send an email to Mr. Sheldrake saying I think John will email me.

  At 10:10am John emails me, cc-ing the message to Rupert Sheldrake.

  There is absolutely nothing in the experimental protocol to prevent cheating, the whole thing is a farce.

  Even in the second round, groups of friends from the first round are picked who did well. This positively selects anyone who has cheated. Then in the video round the whole thing is wide open to cheating again. Did I say the whole thing is a farce?

  You would think Rupert Sheldrake would now repeat the experiment with a stricter protocol and a larger number of people, but last I heard he was moving onto text messaging... did I say the whole thing is a farce?
• 

  skyking

  How do you know that Skeptic2? I read the NEWS article you are assuming they had to cheat. That is why I said the test needs to be verified. By that way this is not the first test that seams on the surface to prove telepathy. Only one amongst the many.

  I do not know if any of the tests prove anything if you get right down to it, but, there are many other test that claim to prove the same thing. I like the fact that tests need to be proved 100%. Way too many tests in the past have been prove inaccurate after investigation. ONLY time will prove this one correct or incorrect.
• 

  skeptic2

  By that way this is not the first test that seams on the surface to prove telepathy. Only one amongst the many.

  Yes one amongst many, but none of them ever actually led to anything more concrete did it? Why do you continue to believe in the face of a complete lack of evidence after decades of 'research'? It is almost childishly simple to prove that someone has telepathic powers, but it has never been proved. There are always just badly constructed experiments that 'point' towards something.
• 

  skyking

  I do not believe the study but I can not disprove it either that is all I am saying.

  Once again you have jumped to a conclusion, this is what is wrong with your thinking you think, so then you assume.

  By the way many tests I reffer too have not been proved wrong only those with close minds say BS so they die out and fade away but not proved wrong.The US government uses remote viewing does it not. If you do some research that is one of the Sources for the US going to WAR in Iraq. {THEY WERE WRONG THAT TIME BUT THE GOVERNMENT STILL USED THE INFORMATION FOR ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE WAR} Have you ever looked at the declassified report of what this program has done in the past?

  I will restate it one more time I do not believe any of it but. I AM NOT AROGANT TO ASSUME THAT I AM ALWAYS CORRECT. I will keep a open mind. I will respect others that want to look at test like this one and realize maybe I am wrong.
• 

  skeptic2

  skyking - I do assume from reading your posts that you believe in telepathic powers. Otherwise I cannot think why you would still have such an active interest after decades of failed research. The US governments' research program also failed to prove anything and was shut down. There an infinite number of things that have not been proved or have failed to have been proved. If we kept an open mind on them all we would be intellectually paralyzed, that's why we ask for evidence.

  Keep an open mind yes, but not so open your brains fall out.
• 

  skyking

  Boy you have all the answers don't you. I wish I did. The things I could be doing instead of sitting in front of this computer typing a reply to some one I do not even know.

  Was it really shut down? This make me laugh when Our Government stated one of the reasons for war was because of the Remote Viewers and what they saw. The funny thing is it was supposed to have been shut down long before the war ever was thought of. This did not go unnoticed by the world. Several Internet news sites reported the obvious irony of the statement made by the White house News reporter. I was a lurker here on this site way back then and there was even a thread about this here.

  So I say BS the government still has the program. As does many, many, other country's today.
• 

  under_believer

  skeptic2, at a certain point you just have to nod your head, smile, and back away. The forces of blind credulity will always trump the forces of logic.
  
  skyking, seriously, you just go and believe whatever you want. Ghosts, telepathy, you name it. Have a nut. You'll be happier in your life if you don't ask too many questions or demand evidence for what you believe. BTW the Witnesses are recruiting in your area. They have an excellent belief system. It should be right up your alley, they don't give any proof for their claims either.