The criticism that there is no reliably reproducible demonstration of psi

I'm pointing out how pk would be the least complicated of all psi to demonstrate if it's real.

Is this, itself, truly an empirical statement of fact?  I get what you're saying and my sense would be the same as yours.  However, since I do not directly believe in PK, have never witnessed it that I am aware of, nor have any understanding of the supposed phenomena it would be very difficult, if not incoherent, for me to make the statement you made.

Is this, itself, truly an empirical statement of fact?  I get what you're saying and my sense would be the same as yours.  However, since I do not directly believe in PK, have never witnessed it that I am aware of, nor have any understanding of the supposed phenomena it would be very difficult, if not incoherent, for me to make the statement you made.

With pk the object moves or it does not. No need for statistical analysis, subjective interpretation. Compare that to any other psi claim. Can you think of one as simple?

I was listening to some podcast and this was brought up. That is, how those old school 'boring' statistical experiments of doing a million throws of dice, etc.
The person pointed out that while statistical anomalies appeared as 'non exciting' tiny percentages, that they are in fact highly significant because they should not even be occurring in the first place.

Now whether that claim is actually true or not I don't know.

With pk the object moves or it does not. No need for statistical analysis, subjective interpretation. Compare that to any other psi claim. Can you think of one as simple?

I'm afraid it isn't as simple as that, Steve. The setup for pk seems to either involve physical contact with a larger object, or a ultra-lightweight object which is subject to movement on its own. Then there are endless arguments over whether the physical contact was insufficient to tip the table or the psi wheel wasn't going to undergo one of its sporadic movements at that point. 

Linda

With pk the object moves or it does not. No need for statistical analysis, subjective interpretation. Compare that to any other psi claim. Can you think of one as simple?

You're reducing the realm of controls and evidence to currently known science.  I start there (and pretty much stay there) myself.

My point is that if PK is an actual thing it likely goes beyond our current understanding of reality.  Thus, your assertion of a simple, binary test condition is potentially naïve; perhaps deeply so.

I'm afraid it isn't as simple as that, Steve. The setup for pk seems to either involve physical contact with a larger object, or a ultra-lightweight object which is subject to movement on its own. Then there are endless arguments over whether the physical contact was insufficient to tip the table or the psi wheel wasn't going to undergo one of its sporadic movements at that point. 

Linda

Not all cases of pk involve contact. I've read accounts of spoons bending after they were touched.  Those that do need continued contact indicate something else and not pk is involved. Psi wheel setups can easily be control for extraneous outside forces. Setting up a physical force experiment might involve some complexity to eliminate anticipated commons causes of movement but in the end the result is binary.

You're reducing the realm of controls and evidence to currently known science.  I start there (and pretty much stay there) myself.

My point is that if PK is an actual thing it likely goes beyond our current understanding of reality.  Thus, your assertion of a simple, binary test condition is potentially naïve; perhaps deeply so.

Your getting a little ahead of what I'm saying. I'm not asking what is the nature of pk. If it's actually a thing it does go beyond our current understanding, but it's a thing according to some and therefore it can be investigated if it's real that is. Like many mysterious physical phenomena, pk is a part of this universe and amenable to examination.

Your getting a little ahead of what I'm saying. I'm not asking what is the nature of pk. If it's actually a thing it does go beyond our current understanding, but it's a thing according to some and therefore it can be investigated if it's real that is. Like many mysterious physical phenomena, pk is a part of this universe and amenable to examination.

You need to define what you mean by "part of this universe". Do you mean subject to the same physical laws that material objects or known forces such as gravity or electromagnetism are subject to? If so, then you are making a materialist assumption that might not be warranted. 

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.

I wouldn't consider myself especially talented in any way but even I have had those "in the zone" moments such as evenings playing pool when I seemed to be playing at a level far above my normal skills and when I just knew I could and would sink the next ball. Or runs of good luck where the universe seemed to conspire to set everything to my advantage (indeed, the reverse can be true too).

No doubt that some statistician could come up with the numbers to explain all of those "coincidences" but I knew that I had a different feeling and a different frame of mind at that point. I cannot, however, reproduce that feeling at will and I have no idea what "forces" were at play.

"Forces at play " might be the best description of wild talents I have encountered. Many thumbs up .

You need to define what you mean by "part of this universe". Do you mean subject to the same physical laws that material objects or known forces such as gravity or electromagnetism are subject to? If so, then you are making a materialist assumption that might not be warranted. 

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.

I wouldn't consider myself especially talented in any way but even I have had those "in the zone" moments such as evenings playing pool when I seemed to be playing at a level far above my normal skills and when I just knew I could and would sink the next ball. Or runs of good luck where the universe seemed to conspire to set everything to my advantage (indeed, the reverse can be true too).

No doubt that some statistician could come up with the numbers to explain all of those "coincidences" but I knew that I had a different feeling and a different frame of mind at that point. I cannot, however, reproduce that feeling at will and I have no idea what "forces" were at play.

I really don't  but I will.The Universe is the sum total of all Spacetime,  material, energy, laws, the govern itself and its constituent parts. Are we on the same page now?
It's the only assumption that gives a foundation upon which phenomena can be tested. The alternative does not.
An interesting phrasing. "the very act of subjecting people" as if the participants were forced against their will. I've heard this expressed differently, but meaning the same. Always used after the fact when test subjects fail. Certainly people have off days, however,  we know people can do those normal things. That's not a good excuse.