the existence of god is a scientific fact

[Subduction Zone]

Your speculation has no application at all to my experiences

It is not "speculation" it is what is commonly observed when claims such as yours are investigated.

 

[joe1776]

That is only because you are heavily biased.

I define a bias as a preexisting belief strong enough to send a judgment off its true course. On this topic, I'm not at all biased because I know that telepathy and precognition exist. To me, these are facts.

You probably use poor search techniques. For example on the claim that Einstein wrote the forward for a book on telepathy, he did. All you needed were proper unbiased search terms. I used "einstein forward book telepathy" and found quite a few sources that supported that claim:

Oh, how marvelous! But I didn't search for it because I never doubted the source as you did.

Unfortunately one finds that the book was not very reliable if one reads some of those articles.

How does your opinion of the book alter the fact that Einstein favored research into telepathy?

By the way, if a site reports poorly on psi it does not mean that they are biased. That is the sort of mistake that creationists make. If one is terribly biased unbiased sources tend to look biased to you.

That would explain why you trashed some very good sources I offered.

 

[joe1776]

It is not "speculation" it is what is commonly observed when claims such as yours are investigated.

I know you made that up because claims like mine are never-to-rarely investigated so there's nothing "commonly observed."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I define a bias as a preexisting belief strong enough to send a judgment off its true course. On this topic, I'm not at all biased because I know that telepathy and precognition exist. To me, these are facts.

But you do not know. You have demonstrated this. All you have is belief. You are terribly biased and have shown so time after time. Your attacks on Randi, your illogical accusations against, your inability to support your claims all scream of intense bias.

Oh, how marvelous! But I didn't search for it because I never doubted the source as you did.

You should. And if you had looked you would have seen that the book is not well respected at all. You would probably not have mentioned it. By the way, using the Einstein claim was am appeal to authority fallacy. In this matter Einstein is far from being an authority.

How does your opinion of the book alter the fact that Einstein favored research into telepathy?

Did he? I don't remember him saying that.

That would explain why you trashed some very good sources I offered.

Perhaps. or more likely I am not biased and merely accept reality. I think that it would be very interesting if something like psi were true. But the more we look, the more it is not there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know you made that up because claims like mine are never-to-rarely investigated so there's nothing "commonly observed."

BS, they are merely not scientifically observed because they tend to fall apart so rapidly. Here is a caller quite like you that called into the Atheist Experience:

He only counts the "hits" many of which he had to reinterpret after the fact. People's memories do change. I can support that claim. It is why your sort of beliefs fall apart when investigated.

Here is a way that one could do it. Keep a clear log of one's dreams. If one "sees" something it is written down immediately. Then it is not so easily changed after the fact. Then one can see if one is merely reinterpreting dreams or if they are real prophecies. Guess what we do not see in the real world when more stringent methods are applied?

 

[joe1776]

No, it is quite accurate. If you actually "knew" you could show how you know. Your story of "visions" falls flat and is hopelessly tainted by confirmation bias. That is why all you have is belief. Now if you said that you believed something no one would doubt you. When you say that you know and cannot support your claim you refute yourself.

You are alone in the woods between 9 AM and noon. In that time period your hated enemy is murdered and you are charged with the crime.

According to your theory, the prosecution could argue that if you actually knew you were in the woods at that time, you could show how you know. Based on your argument he tells the jury that you must be lying about your alibi because you can't prove it. Do you agree with his reasoning?

Sorry, you do not know what a hypothesis is because those are not needed.

Oh my goodness!. Emmanuel Kant just turned over in his grave ."All knowledge begins with the senses." You never heard that?

 

[joe1776]

But you do not know. You have demonstrated this. All you have is belief. You are terribly biased and have shown so time after time. Your attacks on Randi, your illogical accusations against, your inability to support your claims all scream of intense bias.

You're offering opinions and not logical arguments.

You should. And if you had looked you would have seen that the book is not well respected at all. You would probably not have mentioned it. By the way, using the Einstein claim was am appeal to authority fallacy. In this matter Einstein is far from being an authority.

The book had nothing to do with Einstein's opinion. It's irrelevant.

Albert Einsten is an authority on science. The topic he comment on was the scientific value of telepathy.

Perhaps. or more likely I am not biased and merely accept reality. I think that it would be very interesting if something like psi were true. But the more we look, the more it is not there.

Albert Einstein isn't qualified to offer his opinion on a question of science , but you are?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are alone in the woods between 9 AM and noon. In that time period your hated enemy is murdered and you are charged with the crime.

According to your theory, the prosecution could argue that if you actually knew you were in the woods at that time, you could show how you know. Based on your argument he tells the jury that you must be lying about your alibi because you can't prove it. Do you agree with his reasoning?

Please, no foolish strawman arguments that only demonstrate that you do not understand the legal system as well. Try again.

Oh my goodness!. Emmanuel Kant just turned over in his grave ."All knowledge begins with the senses." You never heard that?

Yes, but that does not contradict my claim. You do not understand the sciences. Or logic. You should be trying to figure out how you are going wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're offering opinions and not logical arguments.

Please, you know that is not the case.

The book had nothing to do with Einstein's opinion. It's irrelevant.

Then why even mention it.

Albert Einsten is an authority on science. The topic he comment on was the scientific value of telepathy.

No, that is not what he said or implied.

Albert Einstein isn't qualified to offer his opinion on a question of science , but you are?

Einstein is not qualified to offer an opinion on a branch of science where his education is almost zero. If one wants an authority one goes to those that study that topic. You keep making quite a few logical errors. Once again you should be trying to learn why you are wrong. You might be able to figure out how to approach this problem rationally.

 

[ecco]

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.
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.

And, finally, one more coffin nail...

Remember this one?
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.Here's what researchers found...

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).

That pretty much sums up what we have been saying - there is no evidence supporting ESP Woo.

You are repeating the content of your cherry-picked, slanted evidence that I've already countered.

MY cherry-picked, slanted evidence? Did you already forget that you posted the link to the site as EVIDENCE FOR PSI? I quoted from two of your 100. Both of which clearly state that the evidence points to no evidence for PSI. If you think I cherry-picked the only two articles that say this, then it should be easy for you to quote from any of the remaining 98 to show evidence for PSI. Are you too lazy to do that? Or have you, belatedly, tried and found that all of them say PSI is BS?

You've countered nothing. But if you want to keep insisting that your link presented 100 pieces of evidence for PSI, I have no problem with continuing to embarrass you by showing how wrong you are.

Just think, you could have avoided all this by just taking the time to read a few of the articles before posting that link. Then you would have known they don't support your argument.

 

[Thief]

It's an analogy OF YOUR LOGIC. It's the logic YOU were using, not the logic they were using to discredit psi research.

such is debate
how do you not get this?

 

[ecco]

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.

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.

I guess you believe the dozen or so other skeptic sites that are offering awards for proof of PSI are also fraudulent.

Additonally read some of the 100 articles in the link you posted believing it was 100 cases of evidence for PSI - it wasn't.




What do you mean by unbiased? Anyone over the age of thirty probably has already seen the "evidence" on both sides of the argument.

I don't think you really understand what the word "biased" means.

bi·ased
/ˈbīəst/
adjective

1. unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something.
   "we will not tolerate this biased media coverage"

Notice the words "unfairly prejudiced"? People who have researched this topic and have come to a conclusion are not "biased".

 

[ecco]

It explains to others why I sound like I know the truth on this topic.

What others do you think believe that you sound like you know the truth on this topic?

 

[ecco]

It's scary to think that you might actually believe that your opinions are facts.

That's downright funny.

 

[ecco]

I know why they haven't been published. Mainstream science is biased against the paranormal. In previous posts, I've given likely reasons for the bias.

See post #512 and try to understand the word "bias". That way you won't keep misusing it.

 

[ecco]

Eminent People Interested in Psi | Psi Encyclopedia

Your post is another example of the similarities between PSI Woosters and Creationists.

You cut and pasted if from a PSI website. Had you bothered, you could have Googled "We have no right to rule out a priori the possibility of telepathy. For that the foundations of our science are too uncertain and incomplete."
You would have seen it came from a book - here...
The Science of Premonitions

Had you bothered to do even that little bit of research, you would have seen that the quote is very out of context.





As I said your post is another example of the similarities between PSI Woosters and Creationists.






ETA: It always amazes me that people think quoting Einstein supports their case. Fundamentalist Christians do it even after having been told that Einstein thought Christianity was a childish belief.

 

[charlie sc]

I hope they do a better job than the mainstream journals since a long-term meta-analysis of 100 studies found that 64% of Psychology studies failed to replicate.
Scientists Tried to Replicate 100 Psychology Experiments And 64% Failed

The people who conduct the experiments are scientists, the statisticians are qualified, they go through the very same review process.

I hope they do a better job than the mainstream journals since a long-term meta-analysis of 100 studies found that 64% of Psychology studies failed to replicate.
Scientists Tried to Replicate 100 Psychology Experiments And 64% Failed

 

[joe1776]

Your post is another example of the similarities between PSI Woosters and Creationists.

Your juvenile attempts to ridicule my argument by repeating the same rude nonsense is a sure sign that your well-mannered attempts have failed and you know it.

 

[joe1776]

Einstein is not qualified to offer an opinion on a branch of science where his education is almost zero. If one wants an authority one goes to those that study that topic.

Whether or not telepathy should be researched is not a question to be asked of a scientist expert in telepathy. It's a question to be asked of respected scientists who aren't experts in telepathy. Einstein qualified.

You keep making quite a few logical errors.

Once again you should be trying to learn why you are wrong. You might be able to figure out how to approach this problem rationally.

In the future, I'll not reply to any post of yours that includes insulting comments like these.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whether or not telepathy should be researched is not a question to be asked of a scientist expert in telepathy. It's a question to be asked of respected scientists who aren't experts in telepathy. Einstein qualified.

Please, your quote was out of context and you appealed to Einstein as an authority incorrectly. Admit your failure and move on.

In the future, I'll not reply to any post of yours that includes insulting comments like these.

There was no insult there. Only the most insecure take rational advice as insult.