|
MetaphysicsAddict (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"I think the problems with using Randi is that he will expose your FRAUD."Kent Hovind offered $25,000 to anybody who provided "real evidence" for evolution, and yet nobody ever won the prize. I'm not denying evolution; just making a point. And other reasons for denying the Randi argument can be found in Sheldrake's google talk on the extended mind, available here on youtube. Skip to the Q and A period. Aside from that, I will send you a link via PM to a 2003 lecture that answers critics. cya
MetaphysicsAddict (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Sheldrake has been thoroughly discredited by those observing his methods."That is false. In fact, some of the very skeptics who claimed to have debunked sheldrake actually replicated his findings, including richard wiseman. But so far, nobody has tried to replicate his telephone telepathy data. Can you list the flaws in his data? Have you even read his telepathy papers?
j0hnwi11iams (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
You have claimed 40 percent correlation. That is OVERWHELMING. I think the problems with using Randi is that he will expose your FRAUD.
j0hnwi11iams (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Are you trying to tell me what with a 40 percent correlation you couldn't EASILY pass the Randi Challenge? What exactly keeps you from claiming it? Sheldrake has been thoroughly discredited by those observing his methods. Why aren't these guys cleaning up at the casinos? There's no money in it?
MetaphysicsAddict (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"So significant it would 8 years to claim the Randi Prize. Yeah, right. Color me still skeptical after listening to one guy."Again, he's not the only person doing this kind of research, and the majority of studies described here are *not* his own. He is simply summarizing the results. And btw, meta analysis data produce results that are trillions to one as odds against chance. Further, there are problems with using James Randi as an argument and we can discuss those probems if you would like
MetaphysicsAddict (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Even if by some miracle we could attribute some of it to non-local correlation, there is no cause and effect and no information is transfered"Actually, there *is* a transfer of information in the psi studies (here's one example out of many: Sheldrake's ongoing telephone telepathy research - where chance expectation is 25% but results are usually over 40%...). Have read any of the studies Radin talked about here? Or you are just criticising a particular theory of psi mechanisms?
j0hnwi11iams (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
So significant it would 8 years to claim the Randi Prize. Yeah, right. Color me still skeptical after listening to one guy. Even if by some miracle we could attribute some of it to non-local correlation, there is no cause and effect and no information is transfered with random tests. The problem with quantum mechanics is two fold:1) At the human scale quantum uncertainty vanishes.2) At the quantum scale there is only correlation, no cause and effect.
MetaphysicsAddict (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
re #4: He is not the only one doing experiments. Several independent researchers from other universities have done EEG correlation studies. Some people simply cannot accept the fact that methodologically-sound psi studies keep producing highly significant results.
j0hnwi11iams (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
1) If this work had any practical application he would not be needing any funding, he would be emptying out the casinos.2) If he weren't interested in a theory he would be trying to figure out why the experiment works in some cases and not in others.3) The signal he's looking at is so deep in the noise I don't see how it can be attributed to anything.4) Maybe the guy is just lying.
Goomba4001 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Psi is most likely real, but there are so much phonies, it just labels it with a big FAKE. |
