Cardin,
This is the main reason that very extraordinary claims are left to be openly discussed here in the Pseudoscience forum without Editing. I usually don't moderate the discussions even though sometimes people do tend to be quite rude to each other and forget civility. The main reason for that is that some people treat what ever lands in Pseudoscience as a joke, in some instance it's right to do so but in others it should be more about explaining logical fallacies to attempt to get people to realise the error in their reasoning.
This doesn't always work out though since "Nah nah nah nan Nah! I'm right, You're wrong!" isn't The best way of proving/disproving someones thoughts/theories.
The main problem with any topic though is the Attitude of posters. It should be understood that there will always be someone that knows more about a subject than yourself and it's human to Err. So with that in mind occasionally people get things wrong and they have to re-integrate their new 'findings' thanks to someone pointing something out into their own nest of thoughts.
Admittedly the problem that tends to occur here is when you have too many Alpha characters who are only too willing to argue that Black is White because they just can't handle backing down or re-assessing their claims based upon new evidence.
Something further still is the use of Strawman arguments when a person is hindered by their knowledge on the subject but still wants to become apart of the overall discussion. Namely asking someone to answer a simple question in a particular field might be the right thing to do if you were generating an Aptitude test for entry into an establishment but it's not the way to deal with the question, theory or argument that's been posed, since it tends to send the overall thread's off-topic/off-track.
On topic with the initial post:
People before accidents like car crashes can 'Brace for impact'. It doesn't involve a sudden jump in regards to when events are going to occur, but a logical decision made in seconds prior to impact. In the instance of their experiment, the experimentee might not know what image is going to be shown but will know that an image will be shown because of the time elapse of previous images. Basically the experiment is flawed because their was no randomisation of the time period between image insertions, which if addressed with results from electrical stimulus would be a little more conclusive. That's conclusive to the evidence supplied in that experiment but no means conclusive to the following statement since it's only one experiment and conclusions of such a nature would require many outcomes confirming the overall conclusion.
The problem with thisstatement logical fallacy is that it's more a Leap of Faith, rather than Scientific Method. In essence the nature of the original post would suggest rather than attacking one another the discussion of how to better such experiments and lessen claims based on leaps of faith would be far more constructive, unfortunately not everybody is here to accomplish that sort of goal.
This is the main reason that very extraordinary claims are left to be openly discussed here in the Pseudoscience forum without Editing. I usually don't moderate the discussions even though sometimes people do tend to be quite rude to each other and forget civility. The main reason for that is that some people treat what ever lands in Pseudoscience as a joke, in some instance it's right to do so but in others it should be more about explaining logical fallacies to attempt to get people to realise the error in their reasoning.
This doesn't always work out though since "Nah nah nah nan Nah! I'm right, You're wrong!" isn't The best way of proving/disproving someones thoughts/theories.
The main problem with any topic though is the Attitude of posters. It should be understood that there will always be someone that knows more about a subject than yourself and it's human to Err. So with that in mind occasionally people get things wrong and they have to re-integrate their new 'findings' thanks to someone pointing something out into their own nest of thoughts.
Admittedly the problem that tends to occur here is when you have too many Alpha characters who are only too willing to argue that Black is White because they just can't handle backing down or re-assessing their claims based upon new evidence.
Something further still is the use of Strawman arguments when a person is hindered by their knowledge on the subject but still wants to become apart of the overall discussion. Namely asking someone to answer a simple question in a particular field might be the right thing to do if you were generating an Aptitude test for entry into an establishment but it's not the way to deal with the question, theory or argument that's been posed, since it tends to send the overall thread's off-topic/off-track.
On topic with the initial post:
People before accidents like car crashes can 'Brace for impact'. It doesn't involve a sudden jump in regards to when events are going to occur, but a logical decision made in seconds prior to impact. In the instance of their experiment, the experimentee might not know what image is going to be shown but will know that an image will be shown because of the time elapse of previous images. Basically the experiment is flawed because their was no randomisation of the time period between image insertions, which if addressed with results from electrical stimulus would be a little more conclusive. That's conclusive to the evidence supplied in that experiment but no means conclusive to the following statement since it's only one experiment and conclusions of such a nature would require many outcomes confirming the overall conclusion.
The problem with this