-Shaman, here is the link:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/...oy/delanoy.pdf
Like I've said. I think the science speaks for itself.
Found it using google. I will read it after this post.
-That criticism you cite of Radin's work has been thoroughly and unambigously discredited. The criticism rests on a flawed criticism by the magazine Nature.
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/doubtsregood.html .
No the criticism I posted a link to was not the one from Nature. I.J Good’s review was a lot more positive than the one I posted a link to.
You are not convinced by Radin's work for the same reason Creationists are not convinced by Darwin's.
Are you actually comparing the evidence for evolution to the evidence for psi? Come on Grover. Not only is evolution confirmed by an enormous amount of evidence, it is confirmed by evidence from different fields of science. Your evidence for psi relies on results that can’t be repeated, tests with questionable controls and the use of dubious meta-analysis.
I am not saying that all these results are worthless but do not compare it to evolution.
And how dishonest and fraudulent of these people to be citing a discredited article (at the very least they are incompetent). .
The article from skepticreport did not cite that article. I could just as easily say that you are incompetent because it appears that you didn’t even read the article which I posted a link to and you keep confusing it with another one… I don't think that btw.
The csicop article only made one reference to Good's review. Are you going to discard the whole article?
Perhaps you are going to disregard all future criticisms of Radin, no matter who they are from, because of a dispute between him and Nature.
-You said: "I think you greatly underestimate the desire to believe that psi exists. The fact that it has been researched for over a hundred years and the best evidence produced so far comes from highly criticised studies that cannot be replicated is pretty damning."
I think you underestimate the desire not to believe in psi. It is so strong that sceptics cite magazine articles that have been thoroughly discredited and then consider the fact that they have highly criticised the study to be proof that the study has been highly criticised. The criticisms are bullshit and the studies can and have been replicated thousands of times.
See above comments.
The studies have been replicated? Thousands of times? With positive results? What are these studies? Why are we arguing about the meta-analysis of negative results if psi has been confirmed by thousands of tests already?
-And for the last fucking time: SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT RANDI. Think about it for a split second, if psi does exist then why can't Randi be influencing the results? .
Randi is not at all the tests himself. I assume you think that the jref representative is having the same effect. While it is possible we are talking about something that hasn’t been conclusively proven somehow negating itself every time that it counts. That sounds like a convenient ad hoc hypothesis to me.
So how do you tell when the failure to get results isn't actually an example of the phenomenon? It seems quite circular.
That's part of the reason the scientific method is used is to get rid of the influence of the person performing the experiment (think about how much more important that principle is when the phenomena in question is psi).
What you are suggesting is that only people who believe in psi can get positive results. That doesn’t sound like a very good situation if you want psi to be confirmed using science. The scientific method is used to remove experimenter bias, fraud, weak protocols ect and it sounds like you want science to lower its standards just so you can get some sort of result.
Perhaps this could be tested. Have someone hidden behind a curtain next to a person that is being tested. The person behind the curtain can be a believer or an evil, close-minded psuedo sceptic. See if the results obtained are different.
Funny, how you hypocrites have no qualms whatsoever of ignoring the scientific method whenever you think it supports your belief. Like all fundamentalists you are an intellectually dishonest hypocrite.
Name calling is not a substitute for an argument. How am I ignoring scientific method? It seems to me that you don't want to hear any criticism of psi testing.
It may sound like I have made my mind up when it comes to psi. Perhaps I have. However if there was some more credible evidence I could be certainly be swayed. That is all I want to see. I would love to believe it exists. However the results so far are simply not covncincing. There may be something there but there also may be many other problems that can account for the very small, and unreliable effect seen.
Do you at least agree that it hasn’t been
conclusively proven?