Forum menu
TJ you've lost the plot. My parents are both Christians as is my wife and they've never proselytised to anyone and they aren't feeble minded. I don't they're right but I don't have a patent on the truth and neither do you. Yes lots of people commit horrible crimes and prejudice in the name of god but you seem to be saying that because a few have then they are all guilty.
Honestly TJ you've been really offensive in this thread. You've offended me because you're being so utterly derrogotary towards people I care about and I can't believe you have the temerity to come on here and shout about equality and tolerance in other threads and then here throw stones at one group just because of their beliefs.
TJ you're a hypocrit.
TJ you're a hypocrite.
Amen to that, and I think Ton would agree.
Ok, but I doubt you would treat it with the same academic rigour as those who have already reviewed it
Had a quick read....couldn't find any reference to playing cards?
Belief in supernatural beings without any evidence is not a rational position.
Religion and teh religious cause such huge problems in our society thena they are only a to be pitied and despised for the3 harm they cause.
skim read it not many references for some reason
Are you aware of the james randi educational trust and their $1 million dollar prize- no one has proven anything under empirical conditions.7
My favourite was a woamn who said she could make you wee by the power of her mind and jesus gave her this power 😯
there is a list of challenges and correspondence for all challengers and outcomes somewhere as well
Geetee - theere is no bigotry or hypocrisy in my position.
Had a quick read....couldn't find any reference to playing cards?
Ok, but just try to focus on the evidence and see if you change your mind
Some discussion of Dr Utts [url= http://www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html ]here[/url].
Hardly credible science. Of course if it was a real effect it would be easy for other researchers to duplicate the results...?
it does soemwhat undermine the argument that people who believe in god / gods are feeble minded doesn't it
Also proves they believed in stupid things so it depends...the evidence supports both views here I would say
there is intolerance though. let people believe whatever they want so long as it don't hurt nobody, so what!. Live and let live.
I genuinely fail to understand why very bright people actually believe in god.
Keep ramming the same message/s to enough people, allow sufficent time and generations and eventually you'll get a few takers - then a critical mass will develop - then it's becomes the norm.
TJ you're making assumptions about all religious people based on the acts of a fraction of all religious people.
That's the very definition of prejudice.
Some discussion of Dr Utts here.Hardly credible science. Of course if it was a real effect it would be easy for other researchers to duplicate the results...?
Did you read it? I t was a meta-study! The whole point was that lots of researchers have duplicated the results! The worst i saw on a skim of that site was that she was a believer in ESP. Yes, because she used a statistical approach to analysing the evidence and it left no alternative.
I'll accept intolerance - the problem is religions and belief in god causes so much pain and suffering. It is not a harmless delusion.
Geetee - no it is not and that is not what I am doing.
I have friends I care deeply about that believe in god.
she was a believer in ESP. Yes, because she used a statistical approach to analysing the evidence and it left no alternative
Sounds interesting, I'll take time to read it - sometime.
The whole point was that lots of researchers have duplicated the results
It's all research from a single site. Allegedly she was a believer in ESP before conducting the study.
Also proves they believed in stupid things so it depends...the evidence supports both views here I would say
No, they could not have achieved what they achieved if they were feeble minded. Unless of course we have different definitions of 'feeble-minded'
Religion and teh religious cause such huge problems in our society thena they are only a to be pitied and despised for the3 harm they cause.
Well which is it? It cannot be both, especially if there is "theere is no bigotry or hypocrisy in [your] position"
I have friends I care deeply about that believe in god.
Are they feeble minded as well? Do you loathe them?
It seems to me a belief in God centralizes religous thinking whereas the notion of ESP does not.
Now that's a statement I can agree with TJ. It does cause a lot of pain and suffering although so do a lot of thing and many of them are opposites like capitalism and socialism, democracy and dictatorship. The opposite of one wrong or flawed ideology is not inherently correct. Indeed in many cases it is equally as flawed usually because the doctrine is touted with the same fervour and unswerving belief that this is the one true way.
It's all research from a single site. Allegedly she was a believer in ESP before conducting the study.
You have to read it really, if you want to comment on it.
Also, she is a well respected statistics researcher. Keynote speaker at stats conferences, on tis topic amngst others. so the [i]ad hominem[/i] stuff really doesn't wash
the problem is religions and belief in god causes so much pain and suffering
but it also alleviates pain and suffering, yet you never make any mention of that
Also, she is a well respected statistics researcher.
The stats aren't the issue.
The stats aren't the issue.
No, really, they are. You have to read the paper.
Charlie - does anyone else back her? I have never seen another piece of research that shows any evidence for ESP. Was it peer reviewed?
You have to read the paper.
You cannot estimate the validity of any of the experimental work that the statistical study is based upon by reading that paper, so I'm not sure what you imagine anyone would achieve by doing so.
Charlie - does anyone else back her? I have never seen another piece of research that shows any evidence for ESP. Was it peer reviewed?
Yes, and it's not a one off, she has published and presented work in preparation of that paper.
[b]pypdjl [/b] Just what is it you are questioning? You mean the component studies in her meta-study are unsound?
What are you looking for?
I have friends I care deeply about that believe in god.
Didn't Jim Davidson have a black mate called Chalky?
Charlie - what peer reviewed journal was it published in then?
Proceedings of ICOTS-2010, as per video link
Exploring Psychic functioning: Statistics and Other Issues
- 1996 - STATS
An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning
- Journal of Parapsychology, 1995
Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology
- Statistical Science, 1991
and others, no doubt
There is nothing random about the responses generated in anomalous cognition experiments; in other words, there is no way to define what they would look like "by chance."
Notice that standard statistical methods cannot be used in these cases because there is no standard for probabilistic comparison. But evidence gained from applied remote viewing cannot be dismissed as inconsequential just because we cannot assign specific probabilities to the results
In other words they don’t seem to have an appropriate control or base measure to compare this to and yet they talk about chance but accept they cannot fully establish it.
They further compound this by using [after time] people who are better at this than other people [ they are therefore no longer a random selection of the population] then measure them compared to other normal people. Surprisingly this is significant. Surprising that isn’t it. Take people who can perform above chance and lo they perform above chance. We could debate why [ would be quite interested as to what is happening here tbh why would people be better at a seemingly random task - they dont seem to offer an explanation ]. Other than a vague description of what sort of experiments [ types not individual details]were performed there is not enough information to comment on individual methodology but they seem to have been very aware about reducing cues /task demands etc/
It may be worthy of study as to how the people perform above average but finding people who perform above average at random is not that surprising.
Interesting will have a re –read tomorrow as quite heavy going for this late on a Sunday I am about half way through who knows if it will sway me but I am open enough to read it.
They further compound this by using [after time] people who are better at this than other people [ they are therefore no longer a random selection of the population] then measure them compared to other normal people. Surprisingly this is significant. Surprising that isn’t it. Take people who can perform above chance and lo they perform above chance.
Sure, but just what is it they are better at? If you are not surprised that some people are better at remote viewing than others, then maybe you already believed in ESP.
the very fact that there are people who can perform above chance is evidence in itself.
Some of these people who perform above do so in a statistically consistent way. They don't specifically say 'so it must be ESP' because as statisticians, that is not their role. TBH I think they are just being coy and forcing us to use that word, because no other will do.
Interesting will have a re –read tomorrow as quite heavy going for this late on a Sunday I am about half way through who knows if it will sway me but I am open enough to read it
And that is why I have respect for you, despite just about always disagreeing with you
evidence that people can perform above chance is evidence of a bell shaped curve.
Good subject V average control = difference
no shit
I could take 2 SD's above the mean for anything and show you significance between then and the average control in anything.
It would be interesting to know why we would get get a spread of results for this task but I assume you accept that random will give us a bell shaped curve - do a large enough sample do we actually score above average at this...we may be quite good at guessing/predicting stuff but i cannot see how we would be reading someone remotely tbh.
they also accepted that no individual could do it every time. Compared it to baseball and saying you could not guarantee a hit just that they hit more often. Again interesting to know why it would be so unreliable. An explanation of why this would occur would be nice as well as it is just a description of what happens though i have not finished the article.
What happened if the sender did not try did this affect the good people as well did they try that?
EDIT:cheers for the above personally I think there is little point debating if you are not willing to be swayed in your view or consider other viewpoints and look into them. yes we rarely agree but we dont fall out either.
evidence that people can perform above chance is evidence of a bell shaped curve.
Good subject V average control = difference
no shit
I could take 2 SD's above the mean for anything and show you significance between then and the
Yes, but why are the subjects good? It's not as that subjects are just those from the RHS of the curve in this experiment. These guys are consistently on the RHS of the curve.
Again interesting to know why it would be so unreliable.
Well, i guess because it's hard to do. And the effect is a weak one, but the point made in other publications is that we approve medical treatments based on weaker effects than the ones demonstrated here.
So, heart medicine is not 100% effective, yet we believe in its efficacy well enough to call it medicine
An explanation of why this would occur would be nice as well as it is just a description of what happens though i have not finished the article.
Hmmm, i prefer if they leave it open. Ultimately, there is no know effect so for them to call it ESP might be presumptuous, especially as that is so poorly defined. I guess the thing is you call it what ever concept you have that fits the bill.
seems clear the stats suggest we perform above "average" [ or they measure above it] but i have issues with the measure but accept it will be hard to establish a base line for the norm.
will ead the links if i get a slow day at work
seems clear the stats suggest we perform above "average"
we?
But i guess you knew I would say that.
edit: The video is easier to watch, it also shows that even statisticians are sceptical when the evidence contradicts their beliefs
TandemJeremy - Member
Geetee - I [b]loathe and despise[/b]religion and [b]the religious[/b], I believe all people who believe in god(s) are feeble minded.
TandemJeremy - Member
Belief in supernatural beings without any evidence is not a rational position.Religion and [b]teh religious[/b] [sic] cause such huge problems in our society thena [b]they are only a to be[/b] pitied and [b]despised[/b] for the3 harm they cause.
TandemJeremy - Member
I'll accept intolerance - the problem is religions and belief in god causes so much pain and suffering. It is not a harmless delusion.Geetee - no it is not and that is not what I am doing.
[b]I have friends I care deeply about that believe in god[/b].
Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you loathe and despise the people you care deeply about?
Or are you so "feeble minded" that you can't even keep track of what you're saying?
You are a bigot, and worse that that, you are a bully, which given how much you've complained about others bullying you on here, makes you a hypocrite as well.
I used to feel somewhat sorry for you and the flak you sometimes take on here. Now I see why it happens.
There's a lot of truth in what you say Kenny Senior, but there is nothing particularly new concerning TJ's hypocrisy and deeply insulting attitude towards people who have religious convictions. In that respect he isn't much different to Woppit's obsessive intolerance, other than Woppit is probably more honest and less insulting than TJ.
Last year I posted this :
[i]"You judgemental arrogant ****.
I have worked with and known people with a whole range of religious beliefs ..... Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, more obscure Christian denominations, etc. I have found talking to them about their religion absolutely fascinating.
I wouldn't dream of taking the piss out of them.
And you have to be some sort of idiot if you think you have the right to do so."[/i]
In response to this comment by TJ :
[i]"I find ALL religious views contemptible, ridiculous and offensive. If you express them you will find the piss taken from you."[/i]
Yes he is prepared to mock ridicule and insult, people who 'express religious views', but he is deeply intolerant of those who mock ridicule and insult him.
That baptazia vid always puts a smile on my face 🙂
TJ, either you're about to declare the Edinburgh defence, or you're just a bigot. I'd like to think that it's the former, but sadly I don't believe that's the case.
I've been one of those who's supported you and refrained from commenting even when I thought you were wrong. No longer.
For someone who works in one of the caring professions, you display quite astonishingly intolerant views. There's nothing wrong with opinion, but the sheer forcefulness of your incessant desire to prove everyone else wrong is simply unedifying. I can only hope that you're not as unpleasant off-screen, and wonder (in all seriousness) whether you need some professional help.
You took a break from here a little while back, and when you returned you seemed a little more reserved, a little less eager to criticise. That was a much more pleasant TJ; if I see you on a thread I simply look away now. I urge you to take another break and ask yourself whether you really need to be so combative to everyone, on pretty much every subject.