(2017-08-26, 01:55 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]What utter crap, Steve. You do scrape the barrel when you come up with your objections don't you? The term "subject" in such an experiment is just plain and correct English.
Want to check? Not that you ever bother to check anything you say. Try Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_participant
I know participants are called "subjects". I stated specifically it was your phrasing in quotation marks and the fact that you made an allowance for poor performance because they were
subjected, not subjects. Here are some synonyms for the word
subjected > dominating, domination, overpowering, subduing, subjugation. As you can clearly see subjected has a different meaning.
At least you didn't take exception (fingers crossed) with my definition of the universe.
Good times! We're back
I couldn't be happier... It's like the last 6 months were just a bad dream
(2017-08-25, 03:27 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]With pk the object moves or it does not.
Steve, just curious. Have you taken a look at Sean McNamara's videos?
(2017-08-26, 02:23 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I know participants are called "subjects". I stated specifically it was your phrasing in quotation marks and the fact that you made an allowance for poor performance because they were subjected, not subjects. Here are some synonyms for the word subjected > dominating, domination, overpowering, subduing, subjugation. As you can clearly see subjected has a different meaning.
At least you didn't take exception (fingers crossed) with my definition of the universe.
As I said previously, there comes a point when it is pointless to continue with you. Mercifully, that point usually comes quickly.
(2017-08-26, 02:50 AM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Steve, just curious. Have you taken a look at Sean McNamara's videos?
No, but I've seen vids like it. I suspect that what's actually happening is the same as what happens with a Crookes radiometer. He's constructed a crude Crooke's radiometer.
Poking around I find a vid with an explanation, one that has also occurred to me.
Â
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja5TtsRF-UQ
(2017-08-26, 03:18 AM). Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]As I said previously, there comes a point when it is pointless to continue with you. Mercifully, that point usually comes quickly.
Let me point out something to you. This is what you wrote
: "We don't know what is at work here. We don't know whether, for example, the very act of subjecting people to tests in order to "prove" their abilities might actually have a negative effect on that ability. We don't know what conditions are conducive to positive results. Sports people and other talented people talk about "being in the zone" which appears to be some mental state where they are at peak performance and, strangely, where external circumstances seem to align to produce exceptional results.
How it sounded in your mind as you typed is different than how it reads. Here's another buzz phrase: " Or runs of good luck where the universe seemed to conspire to set everything to my advantage (indeed, the reverse can be true too)." This type of expressing I've seen many times before; it reads like a setup to handwave away failure. Which bring us back to why psi isn't taken more seriously. There seems to be more failure than outright success and those times when there seems to be success luck was a lady.
(2017-08-26, 11:29 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]No, but I've seen vids like it. I suspect that what's actually happening is the same as what happens with a Crookes radiometer. He's constructed a crude Crooke's radiometer.
Poking around I find a vid with an explanation, one that has also occurred to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja5TtsRF-UQ
Of course it's fair enough to suggest alternative explanations in particular cases, but I think the general point people are making is that even with macroPK things aren't going to be simple and uncontroversial.
(2017-08-26, 03:36 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Of course it's fair enough to suggest alternative explanations in particular cases, but I think the general point people are making is that even with macroPK things aren't going to be simple and uncontroversial.
This is the question I'm not seeing asked. Why after 120 years of research is there not one established psi thing?
I'm going to go put on a limb and suggest it's because the majority of posters, find that statement unrealistic.
(2017-08-26, 05:06 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]This is the question I'm not seeing asked. Why after 120 years of research is there not one established psi thing?
That question is really the topic of this thread.
I asked what people thought about it. The failed replication of the PEAR experiments which you raised is actually an excellent example of what I was thinking about. I think there are three possible responses to failures of replication:
(1) That the failure to replicate shows that the original results were owing to chance, flaws in experimental design or questionable research practices (i.e. psi doesn't exist).
(2) That the failure to replicate is owing to a lack of power in the experimental design, perhaps owing to a misinterpretation of or unwarranted assumptions about previous studies, or the omission of some vital but misunderstood feature (i.e. psi is well-behaved but we don't understand it well enough yet).
(3) That the failure to replicate is owing to some inherent feature of psi that makes it elusive, such as experimenter effects, other difficulties in shielding psi experiments from the influence of the rest of the universe, a "trickster" element, a Blinovitch limitation effect, or whatever (i.e. psi is badly behaved).