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

Let's switch to undetectable, impossible to refute due to how statistics work micro PK. It can't be really proven or disproven, that is why researchers are so fond of it.

If you're saying that you're not willing to accept any evidence whose nature is statistical, that's a pretty extreme position - which, of course, would also imply the rejection of much of the evidence on which mainstream science is based.

Is that really what you are saying?

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

Why should people conform within such limits where the universe appears not always to do so?

Why should people conform within such limits where the universe appears not always to do so?

Because if you put claimants under true controlled conditions, they all fail. At least regarding macro PK.

Micro PK is in my opinion incredibly tricky. I'm an hardcore wargamer, and I've seen absurd spikes in RNG during games. According to parapsychology, were they an effect of consciousness?

[Laird]

He got tricked

It doesn't seem so black-and-white as that - even Wikipedia states only that "many" of the results could be explained by fraud, credulity, fantasy and sensory cues. What about the rest?

his subjects failed to replicate what they did under seriousl controlled condition.

Assuming that this is true, it is indeed a problem.

But since I haven't read the books myself, I won't try to discuss them.

It doesn't seem so black-and-white as that - even Wikipedia states only that "many" of the results could be explained by fraud, credulity, fantasy and sensory cues. What about the rest?


Assuming that this is true, it is indeed a problem.

But since I haven't read the books myself, I won't try to discuss them.

You don't really need to read the whole book to know the outcome. Just read a recap. This man found out that he was being tricked, and changed his mind.

Why don't you read what I quoted and realise why your question makes no sense?

Tell how to replicate a testimonial that took place decades ago?

[Laird]

You don't really need to read the whole book to know the outcome. Just read a recap. This man found out that he was being tricked, and changed his mind.

If you reread the quote I shared, you might find, as I do, that it is difficult to see how a trick could have been played - there are, for example, cases where objects were affected without Uri's contact - even where John had his hand between Uri and the object to prevent contact - and there are also cases where the applied force was measured, and not only that but where the object bent in the opposite direction to the force. So, if the explanation is trickery (and I don't know that that is exactly what John Taylor later claimed - it's not clear from Wikipedia), then it is not reasonable to be satisfied with that assertion alone. I'd want to see an explanation of how the trick was performed.

You don't really need to read the whole book to know the outcome. Just read a recap. This man found out that he was being tricked, and changed his mind.

The recap Raf quoted from Wikipedia cited as its source a review of Taylor's book in New Scientist by Peter Evans, which is available here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BKny...&lpg=PA297

I think one would have to read the book to decide how fair the summary is, and - perhaps more importantly - the extent to which Taylor's conclusions were based on the failure to detect electromagnetic fields in association with paranormal phenomena . The review says "His starting point is that if psychic energy is anything it must be electromagnetism which ought to be measurable." I think these days most people familiar with the literature would view that as a rather wild and old-fashioned assumption, and would be sceptical about any conclusions drawn from the failure to detect electromagnetic signals. But after all, we are talking about a book published nearly forty years ago.

Of course, Wikipedia always needs to be treated with caution, particularly if people are depending on it to give an accurate "recap." In this case it's a recap of a review, rather than of the book itself. And even then, it omits the reviewer's mention of the areas that Taylor (presumably on his own account) was unable to explain:
"At the end of the day very little of the paranormal is left undemolished. What has not been explained away by fraud and the laws of nature is too thinly documented anyway. But there are two problem areas, two two allegedly supernatural phenomena that Taylor the scientist has not yet been able to explain: psychic healing and that terrifying autodestruct mechanism known as spontaneous human combustion. Perhaps here is the seed of another book?"

The recap Raf quoted from Wikipedia cited as its source a review of Taylor's book in New Scientist by Peter Evans, which is available here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BKny...&lpg=PA297

I think one would have to read the book to decide how fair the summary is, and - perhaps more importantly -  the extent to which Taylor's conclusions were based on the failure to detect electromagnetic fields in association with paranormal phenomena . The review says "His starting point is that if psychic energy is anything it must be electromagnetism which ought to be measurable." I think these days most people familiar with the literature would view that as a rather wild and old-fashioned assumption, and would be sceptical about any conclusions drawn from the failure to detect electromagnetic signals. But after all, we are talking about a book published nearly forty years ago.

Of course, Wikipedia always needs to be treated with caution, particularly if people are depending on it to give an accurate "recap." In this case it's a recap of a review, rather than of the book itself. And even then, it omits the reviewer's mention of the areas that Taylor (presumably on his own account) was unable to explain:
"At the end of the day very little of the paranormal is left undemolished. What has not been explained away by fraud and the laws of nature is too thinly documented anyway. But there are two problem areas, two two allegedly supernatural phenomena that Taylor the scientist has not yet been able to explain: psychic healing and that terrifying autodestruct mechanism known as spontaneous human combustion. Perhaps here is the seed of another book?"

I get that the forum I'm going to link is biased, but Taylor statements and history with his miracolous children is still there:
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=22091

"Taylor was forced to acknowledge he had been fooled when scientists at Bath University tested six of his metalbending children. The observer in the room had been instructed to relax observation after 20 minutes. Watched through one-way mirrors, the children were seen to take advantage of the lapse to bend the metal objects using the most normal of means. They simply used their hands and feet and bent them.

These results were reported in Nature, the most prestigious of scientific journals (volume 257, 4 September 1975). Taylor later retracted his electromagnetic theories, again in Nature (volume 276, 2 November 1978). He also explained how slight air currents from a heater in the room had caused
movement in a needle, while electrostatic effects had caused a compass needle to move. When stricter protocols were put in place on other experiments, the ‘paranormal’ effects disappeared. In a subsequent article in Nature (volume 279, 14 June 1979), Taylor and a colleague wrote: ‘We can only conclude
that the existence of any psychic phenomena we have considered is very doubtful’. Yet Superminds is still available in large numbers in second-hand bookshops. It is still held up by believers as the evidence of a scientist."

and also this shows how absurd sometimes pararesearcher bias can get:

"Taylor went on to establish a research program into psychokinesis in which he identified hundreds of British children who could bend metal by paranormal means. Unfortunately the bending never seemed to happen while he was watching. He coined the term ‘the shyness effect’ to explain the failure of psychokinesis to happen when being observed."

The shyness effect? Really? Oh give me a break, they are tricking you can't you see?