TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The bias can be explained
Your empty and unsupported accusation of bias, is not "explained" with even more empty and unsupported claims.
You don't support a claim by piling on unsupported claims.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The bias can be explained
It's your logic.
You're wrong. He can't make that argument if he doesn't begin with the premise that the claim of bias is unfounded.
That's not a logical deduction.
It is unfounded until you found it.
You have yet to post a single shred of evidence that there is such a bias.
A few posts ago, you literally said that you refuse to do so.
If you don't support your claims, then your claims are left unsupported.
So if I wish to use that as a premised, then I'm using perfectly legit premises - since your claims of bias are left unsupported.
Such premises will be shown false the second you actually support your claims.
So.... go ahead.
I don't think you can assume that everyone will agree with you.Then you'll off course understand that nobody reading this will have any reason to accept your accusations at the address of the scientific community.
OK, let's go back to the 1950s and the Rhine studies at Duke which showed positive results for ESP. The reaction of mainstream science went well beyond intense scrutiny of the research. It closed down the project and Duke never got involved in funding paranormal research again.You're still free to attempt to actually support your claims though. I suggest you start with one example. Just take the most blatant one. Your BEST example. And we'll see where it goes from there? I'm actually quite interested.
You'r trying to compare apples and oranges. The "hard sciences" are less prone to biases.Philosophies and worldviews are challenged constantly whenever big discoveries are made and/or old ideas are overturned. Like steady state theory being displaced by big bang and such. Quantum physics, relativity of time, etc. Many of these are are quite unfathomable and to laymen even kind of "magical" - especially quantum weirdness.
ps: now, you've even moved from baseless accusations of bias / conspiracy, the character attacks by calling them all "arrogant" as well
You made the claim early on that there was no evidence supporting the paranormal. I linked you to one site with over 100 links to research.
If by "went well beyond intense scrutiny" you mean "could never replicate his results in controlled experiments and found serious flaws in his methodology":OK, let's go back to the 1950s and the Rhine studies at Duke which showed positive results for ESP. The reaction of mainstream science went well beyond intense scrutiny of the research. It closed down the project and Duke never got involved in funding paranormal research again.
I didn't say "You either agree with me or you're biased." You wrote that. And that's not a logical deduction from what I said. What I wrote doesn't rule out the possibility that an unbiased mind might disagree with me.It's pretty much what you said. I even bolded it.
You: PSI Researchers cannot get funding.
Creationists. ID Scientists cannot get funding.
You: PSI Researchers cannot get published in scientific journals.
Creationists. ID Scientists cannot get published in scientific journals.
You: A year ago, about 100 scientists signed a petition to expose this bias but it won't change anything.
Creationists. 1000 scientists have signed a document stating Evolution if false.
You asserted my analogies were false analogies but have failed to show why.I guess if wasn't for your beloved false analogies, you wouldn't have much to say.
You are repeating the content of your cherry-picked, slanted evidence that I've already countered.Yes. A site with over 100 links to research. None of which you read because you assumed they were articles supporting ESP Woo. But, as I showed, many of the research studies/articles found clear evidence that ESP Woo was just ESP Woo.
I guess I just have to remind you of what I posted in #374.
Every time you bring up the site with 100 research articles that you thought supported ESP Woo (because you didn't bother to read any of the articles), I will show everyone, again, how fraudulent your claim is.And, finally, one more coffin nail...Abstract & Parapsychology is the scientific investigation of apparently paranormal mental phenomena (such as telepathy, i.e., ‘‘mind reading’’), also known as psi. Despite widespread public belief in such phenomena and over 75 years of experimentation, there is no compelling evidence that psi exists.
...
Moreover, the study included biologically or emotionally related participants (e.g., twins) and emotional stimuli in an effort to maximize experimental conditions that are purportedly conducive to psi. In spite of these characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses—although differences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the expected effects on patterns of brain activation. These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena.
Remember this one?
Here's what researchers found...The precognitive abilities reported by Bem (2011) emerged across a range of tasks. As one example, in Experiment 1, Bem (2011) asked participants to select whether a picture would appear on the left side of the screen or the right side of the screen. Participants’ selections were accurate more often than chance would predict when the picture in question was an erotic one (but not a neutral, positive, or negative one), suggesting that people have precognitive abilities to detect where erotic stimuli will appear.
That pretty much sums up what we have been saying - there is no evidence supporting ESP Woo.Across 7 experiments (N 3,289), we replicate the procedure of Experiments 8 and 9 from Bem (2011), which had originally demonstrated retroactive facilitation of recall. We failed to replicate that finding. We further conduct a meta-analysis of all replication attempts of these experiments and find that the average effect size (d 0.04) is no different from 0. We discuss some reasons for differences between the results in this article and those presented in Bem (2011).
You wrote:I didn't say "You either agree with me or you're biased." You wrote that. And that's not a logical deduction from what I said. What I wrote doesn't rule out the possibility that an unbiased mind might disagree with me.
Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant.I don't believe you. I think you made it up, because you refuse to actually demonstrate this experience is valid and denigrate the very scientific method which could do so.
No. Your deduction is illogical but if you still don't understand why it's illogical after my explanation in Post 449, then think what you want.You wrote:
"What I've done in this debate is make an argument that I think will persuade unbiased minds that they should ignore self-proclaimed skeptics and their ridicule of the subject of the paranormal."
The implication being that you think that if people aren't persuaded by your argument, they are biased. That's the implication when you say that you "think" you argument "will persuade unbiased minds", you must also "think" that people who aren't persuaded have a bias.
It's not a fact that you had those experiences - as of now, it is just a claim that nobody has any good reason to believe is true. In fact, I believe it's false.Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant.
The fact that I had those experience helps unbiased readers understand why I'm not a skeptic.
And you're doing so very poorly, by making baseless accusations, personal judgements that are irrelevant, and outright refusing to present actual evidence. And what little you actually DO present is refuted easily.Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade readers that the paranormal exists, I'm waging war on those who claim it doesn't and instead believe that such things as Randi's Prize prove their case.
Your explanation made no sense. You don't have to "not explicitly rule something out" in order for the implication to be present.No. Your deduction is illogical but if you still don't understand why it's illogical after my explanation in Post 449, then think what you want.
This is easily tested.No.
My argument has no such premise.
nope
Ugh. Look, you're mis-reading what they wrote and misunderstanding the point of it. It's an analogy OF YOUR LOGIC. It's the logic YOU were using, not the logic they were using to discredit psi research.This is easily tested.
Begin with this premise:
Psi researcher indeed can't get their papers published because the mainstream journals are biased against publishing them.
Now, try to make your argument.
It's not a fact that you had those experiences - as of now, it is just a claim that nobody has any good reason to believe is true. In fact, I believe it's false.
And you're doing so very poorly, by making baseless accusations, personal judgements that are irrelevant, and outright refusing to present actual evidence. And what little you actually DO present is refuted easily.