People that sit on the both side what do you think about the propnet and skeptic?

Get this. I was not a commentary towards his character.
Mystery leads nowhere if that's all one desires. In my life I've known people whom only want mystery. They know nothing more about those mysteries  today than they did decades ago.
Yes, bias....

Fair enough Steve, I misunderstood you then.

I think I could agree with you on if Mystery vs Truth, then Truth should always win out, if somehow it came to that, and if it was that binary a decision.

Sometimes I used to enjoy teasing her... I'd be about 11 years old, one day we had a lot of thunder and lightning, and knowing she was interested in and terrified of the idea of ball lightning (she used to close all the windows in case ball lightning came in through a window :-) ).

My mum wasn't quite that bad. But she did tell of one of her neighbours, years earlier, who used to always open the door during a thunderstorm - regardless of the rain which came in, just in case a ball of lightning came down the chimney, and it could roll out of the door.

I've attempted to coach every statement I have made on this forum, as my opinion, or within the parameters  of my experience.
I'm some what confused about how either one of those quantifications can be construed  as narcissistic.

That's the crux for belief. It's really a narcissistic perspective.

How hoping that there will always be unknowns to discover and unknowables to ponder, somehow translates to egomaniacal self-obsession, is certainly a mystery to me.

As to the starting topic of the thread: my perspective is that most of the most prominent and vocal skeptics challenging psychical research come off as arrogant, dismissive, and unfamiliar with a significant amount of the material they're criticizing, while a significant number of proponents (supporters more than researchers, though there's some of that too) often appear credulous and what we might call politically naive. That's at least the perspective I have from looking at the average back-and-forth on psi.

As to the starting topic of the thread: my perspective is that most of the most prominent and vocal skeptics challenging psychical research come off as arrogant, dismissive, and unfamiliar with a significant amount of the material they're criticizing, while a significant number of proponents (supporters more than researchers, though there's some of that too) often appear credulous and what we might call politically naive. That's at least the perspective I have from looking at the average back-and-forth on psi.

I think that impression might be true for the internet debate on psi in general (and perhaps you do mean the internet in general). It tends to descend into factionalism with each side eager to cling to any story which seems to bolster their side. I do think, however, that proponents here on this forum have been openly critical of poorly researched evidence and sensationalism. I also think that, as Oleo points out above, people here are careful to offer opinions rather than assertions. The glaring exception to that is Steve001 who habitually makes assertions from a position of little to no expertise. IMHO, there is little point in discussing ideas with someone who is pathologically unable to venture beyond his/her own prejudice.

I think that impression might be true for the internet debate on psi in general (and perhaps you do mean the internet in general). It tends to descend into factionalism with each side eager to cling to any story which seems to bolster their side. I do think, however, that proponents here on this forum have been openly critical of poorly researched evidence and sensationalism. I also think that, as Oleo points out above, people here are careful to offer opinions rather than assertions. The glaring exception to that is Steve001 who habitually makes assertions from a position of little to no expertise. IMHO, there is little point in discussing ideas with someone who is pathologically unable to venture beyond his/her own prejudice.

The problem I have with proponents is that they, sometimes, seems to defy logic or rationality.

The case of the spoons is clearly a fake. In dacades, not a single spoon bending was certified in a controlled environement. Rationally, one must deduce that the researchers are unwilling to test them or the claimants refuse to be tested. Either way, the answer is clear: nobody did the test because they know it would fail.

After being tricked by magicians for decades, even hundreds of years, can we please have a truly skeptical and rational approach? I know we would all like to see some true superpowers, but they don't seem to exist. And you can't just go the Radin route and tell "I don't have an explanation", because you have it and it is conjuring tricks. If somebody spoon bends in a controlled setting, then you can say you don't have an explanation. The rest is wishful thinking.

[Laird]

The case of the spoons is clearly a fake. In dacades, not a single spoon bending was certified in a controlled environement.

You state this confidently and assertively. On what basis do you believe it to be true?

Here's something that might give you pause to reconsider. On Skeptiko a few years back, Smithy quoted from the book, Superminds. I haven't read this book nor tried to confirm this information and whether or not it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but in any case, here's what Smithy quoted from that book:

Two unexpected events were responsible for the change. The first of these was a three-hour visit to my laboratory by Uri Geller on 20 June 1974. It produced results which enormously widened the range of phenomena, and gave a very clear validation of Geller's ability to distort a wide range of materials.

The second was the appearance of two new subjects, both boys and aged ten and sixteen years, who had very strong powers as metal-benders, the elder one even rating as highly as Geller himself. The sixteen-year-old was, for example, able to bend a straight strip of aluminium, about 18 centimetres long and sealed securely in a perspex tube about 2 centimetres in diameter, into an S-shape: quite impossible, it would appear, without taking the strip out of the tube and then bending it mechanically. Yet careful scrutiny showed that the seals on the tube had not been tampered with.

This further proof of the Geller effect helped to convince some of my scientific colleagues, especially because these `miraculous' results were obtained on a number of occasions. But how it was done remained a mystery, and only when tests were made for other powers, in particular moving objects and not just bending them, was new light thrown on the Geller effect. At the same time it was revealed that the human control over materials was much more powerful than had been expected; even the possibility that objects could be removed from sealed boxes had to be seriously considered.

Geller only gave me twenty-four hours' notice, but since I already had various experiments prepared for other subjects this caused little bother. In an office at King's College I had set up several experiments designed to measure the pressure applied by Geller during metal-bending. The two principal ones were very simple. The essential apparatus for one of them was a balance of the type used to weigh letters and parccls, sensitive enough to measure weights to a quarter of an ounce. A brass strip about 20 centimetres long was taped horizontally to the platform of the balance. The major portion of the strip extended out from the platform, and Geiler stroked the top surface of it while I measured, both directly by reading the scale, and using an automatic recording device, the pressure he was applying. At the end of the test the strip had acquired a bend of 10 degrees although Geller had at no time applied more than half an ounce (20 grammes) of pressure. It was out of the question that such a small pressure could have produced that deflection. What is more, the actual bending occurred upwards—against the pressure of the finger. Earlier another subject gave a similar result, producing a smaller upward deflection on a strip of copper with less than an ounce of downward pressure.

While Geiler was doing this experiment, it was a little disconcerting, to say the least, to have the needle indicating the amount of pressure on the letter balance, also bending as it did through 70°. This didn't seem to upset the operation of the balance, though it did make the reading of the scale a little difficult. But the more devastating was yet to come.

The apparatus for the other test was a small cylinder embedded in a strip of aluminium in such a way that one end of the cylinder, covered by a pressure-sensitive diaphragm, was flush with the surface of the strip. When pressure was applied to the diaphragm in rubbing the strip gently with a finger, an electric current of amount proportional to this pressure was generated by a device installed inside the cylinder. This pressure measuring device had been used with various subjects, but no bending had been achieved. In Geller's case the consequences were drastic. While holding the strip in one hand he made it bend in the appropriate region so that the pressure could be measured. But as the bending occurred the mechanism in the cylinder suddenly stopped functioning. I took the apparatus from Geller and observed, to my horror, the pressure-sensitive diaphragm begin to crumble. A small hole appeared in its centre and spread across its whole surface till the diaphragm had completely disintegrated ; the entire process only took about ten seconds. After another three minutes the strip in which the cylinder was embedded had bent a further 30 degrees . The Geller effect had been validated, but at the tost of £200 worth of equipment !

Attempt to influence objects without contact yielded more information. Geller held his hands over a plastic container in which had been placed a small crystal of lithium fluoride; within ten seconds the crystal broke into a number of pieces. There was absolutely no chance of Geller having touched the crystal : throughout the experiment I could see a gap between his hands and the container holding the crystal. He also buckled a small disc of aluminium, again inside a plastic container, while I held my hands between Geller's and the container in order to prevent any possibility of his directly manipulating the disc.

There's more from the book quoted by Smithy in this post, though the quoted material doesn't deal with laboratory experiments per se.

You had stated before that:

The problem I have with proponents is that they, sometimes, seems to defy logic or rationality.

If what I've quoted turned out to be true, would you accept that belief in the power of (at least some) humans to bend metal via psychokinesis is logical and rational?

The problem I have with proponents humans is that they,  sometimes often, seem to defy logic or rationality.

You state this confidently and assertively. On what basis do you believe it to be true?

Here's something that might give you pause to reconsider. On Skeptiko a few years back, Smithy quoted from the book, Supermind. I haven't read this book nor tried to confirm this information and whether or not it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but in any case, here's what Smithy quoted from that book:


You had stated before that:


If what I've quoted turned out to be true, would you accept that belief in the power of (at least some) humans to bend metal via psychokinesis is logical and  rational?

I would have preferred somebody to tape such miracolous events, but it's better than nothing. Now, one of the most important questions: were the materials provided by the researchers?

Edit: also, who is the author of the book? Can we trust him?

I've attempted to coach every statement I have made on this forum, as my opinion, or within the parameters  of my experience.
I'm some what confused about how either one of those quantifications can be construed  as narcissistic.

It's simply not holistic.