Psi Text Resources Thread

Yes - but proponents don't get off lightly either. For example, this review, entitled "Wrong About Almost Everything", deals with a book by one A. Tsakiris:
http://pelicanist.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/wrong.html

There are plenty of glaring problems in that review. Not that I need defend Alex, he can do that for himself. But it sounds more like someone telling his readers what to think, not how to. Now where did I hear that before?

There are plenty of glaring problems in that review. Not that I need defend Alex, he can do that for himself. But it sounds more like someone telling his readers what to think, not how to. Now where did I hear that before?

If I were feeling mischievous, I'd start a thread for discussion of that review. [why is there no devil emoticon?]

It seems that some (or at least one) of the reviewers might not be immune from a little personal bias either if you read the comments section of this review:

http://pelicanist.blogspot.co.nz/2017/03....html#more

It seems that some (or at least one) of the reviewers might not be immune from a little personal bias either if you read the comments section of this review:

http://pelicanist.blogspot.co.nz/2017/03....html#more

It's interesting that that's the same reviewer who criticised "Why Science is Wrong ..."

Consciousness-related interactions in a double-slit optical interferometer

Gabriel Guerrer*
Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil

August 24, 2017

Abstract

Motivated by a series of reported experiments and their controversial results, the present work investigated if volunteers could causally affect an optical double-slit system through mental efforts alone. The participants task alternated between intending the increase of the (real-time feedback informed) amount of light diffracted through a specific single slit and relaxing any intention effort. The 160 data sessions contributed by 127 volunteers  revealed a statistically significant 6.37 sigma difference between the measurements performed in the intention versus the relax conditions (p = 1.89 × 10−10, es = 0.50 ± 0.08), while the 160 control sessions conducted without any present observer resulted in statistically equivalent samples (z = −0.04, p = 0.97, es = 0.00 ± 0.08). The results couldn’t be simply explained by environmental factors, hence supporting the previously claimed existence of a not yet mapped form of interaction between a conscious agent and a physical system.

The full paper can be viewed or downloaded here:
https://osf.io/zsgwp/

(Thanks to K9! for her post about this study in the Skeptiko forum.)

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page, here's a rather poor sceptical article on psychokinesis by Benjamin Radford:
https://www.livescience.com/28119-telekinesis.html
and here's quite a good response by Bryan J. Williams:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/bryan-j-w...864747050/

I hadn't seen this before - Spooky Geology by Sharon A. Hill: "a science-based look at mysterious earth phenomena, geologic anomalies, and the endless weird ideas about rocks and the earth that are a bit abnormal, paranormal, or supernatural":
http://spookygeology.com/

On her blog she says she's swinging away from scepticism and is now "slightly left of center – in sympathy with the paranormal crowd":
http://sharonahill.com/at-the-crossroads...aranormal/

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page, here's an article on Julia Mossbridge at The Epoch Times, focussing on precognition:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/uplift/neu...62702.html

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page, here's an article on Julia Mossbridge at The Epoch Times, focussing on precognition:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/uplift/neu...62702.html

"compassionate robots" ?

"compassionate robots" ?

Yes, apparently teaching AIs about love is one of her big research interests. More here: