• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

TED - and Censorship

Mr Spinkles

Mr Spinkles

Mr
By the way here is what CNN reported, correctly, about the OPERA experiment which measured faster-than-light neutrinos back in 2011:

CNN said:
You might think it was a one-off event. Nope! This was repeated at least 15,000 times, which, in ordinary circumstances, would make this a formal discovery. But this is such earth-shattering, mind-bending stuff that scientists have called for help to explain what in the universe is going on. Is this all a big calculation error or are neutrinos traveling back and forth in time? ... Scientists are still cautioning that the results still need to be duplicated in another lab, and confirmed.
Click to expand...
Source.

That is how good science works. And it is consistent with what Richard Wiseman was trying to say in the quote Open_Minded enjoys cherry-picking:

Richard Wiseman (qtd. by Open_Minded) said:
“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do... Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions."
Click to expand...

Guess what? It later turned out the OPERA experiment was wrong. A faulty cable connection caused the 70 nanosecond error. So that measurement which would have been a formal discovery under "ordinary circumstances" was actually a goof. And good scientists correctly suspected it could have been a goof all along. That is why the bar of evidence is raised in science on extraordinary claims. Because when you see something which contradicts previous results, the simplest (and most likely) explanation is that you made a goof.

That same standard of raising the bar of evidence on extraordinary claims should apply to parapsychology just as much as particle physics or any other legitimate scientific field. Wiseman gets it. People like Sheldrake and the Skeptico interviewer apparently do not. IOW they don't get how good science works.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top