spiritnl

I find it hard to believe, that good quality videos can be edited that fast and still look real. How about doing the OK sign with your hands, and make the levitating paper ball pas through?

How about some mirrors near it in different angles, (so one can view the paper ball in the mirrors from different angles, and see the little paper ball in one mirror via another mirror) wouldn't that exlude video-editing?

Ok, let's say someone is capable of levitating a little paper ball, nothing more. He only has a camera and the the only person in the room is the person levitating the little ball of paper. Whát would you guys want to see to make the video convincing?

Where did I say I expect people to accept this as evidence. I mearly said: If you are interested, take a look. And yes, the object swings, but there are no strings. Why do you want videos debunked?

There is no string. I don't think you wasted time on this discussion either.

Not taking anything to personal over here. I respect everyone's opinions. And yes, I realise the burden of proof is right on my shoulders, because I started this discussion. If someone is interested, here is some levitation of a friend: http://youtube.com/watch?v=x1MQJesgJP0

Just a question: If everyone won’t believe and consider anything they don’t have evidence for, how is science suppost to develop? Why bother with an idea unsupported by any evidence? Because I came to this forums to share my experiences and opinion, and because psychokinesis is truelly amasing. I will try to make people wonder via forums and start considering it until I find another medium to convince people (maybe the scientific medium one time). No. Think about it; people believe in all sorts of weird stuff' date=' ranging from CIA mind control satellites to big men in the clouds who control everything, that doesn't make them right. I can't just take people's word for things, or I'd have to also give credence to the rantings of the local homeless guys.[/quote'] I am not asking you to take my word. Are you willing to give 15 minutes of your time? I wan’t to try something. In that case' date=' you need an unbiased outside observer, someone who's a skeptic and won't feel a subconscious desire to simply confirm his beliefs.[/quote'] Ok. Regards, Me

It would be nice if you tell me a little bit more about those experiences, either here or in a PM. Yes, I am aware of consequenses that proving this ability may have, and I have been thinking about that a lot.

Please do; it would be a truly remarkable discovery. But from where I'm sitting' date=' it's much more probable that those clips are fake than real, and I see no compelling evidence or logic to illustrate otherwise. [/quote'] ‘Much more probable’. BUT, that doesn’t mean you should spred it like a fact. As I said earlier, it is not and will not be efidence, but to myself. I disagree' date=' and I'd need to see the full experimental paper before I could conclude either way. See, this is why we're so keen on scientific journals; a journal article gives the whole details of the method, so that any flaw can be clearly seen. Without such a detailed account, we're left guessing and taking it on faith, which I, nor any other scientist, does.[/quote'] Agreed. I said *real* results. Those results are *not* significant' date=' and are so poorly laid out that nothing can be concluded. Some info on science: much of science involves doing the same thing over and over and over again, taking all of those measurements, and running stats on them. It also involves extensive control of outside variables, and, in this case, double-blind testing would be appropriate. None of those were followed. I also not the site casually dismisses multiple initial failures. That's shitty science right there, plain and simple. You cannot throw out data for *any* reason other than something plainly obvious like equipment malfunction.[/quote'] Ok, agreed. Why not? No' date=' seriously, why not? Why should I give credence to a wildly improbable claim that lacks evidence, rather than dismissing it? If I'm at a used car dealer, and he tells me the car he wants to sell me gets 10000 miles per gallon, but offers no proof or evidence, why shouldn't I dismiss his claims?[/quote'] I’ve told you why not. Because you don’t know wether it’s false by looking at the history. You can only assume it. You can disagree. But for me it remains a fact that I have the knowlegde and you have the opinion, that’s because I am not lying. I am not lying, it is easily said, but hard to prove, I know. Show me calculations of those probabilities. Quote: My mindset' date=' by which this is extraordinary, is the default: since we do not see telekinesis regularly, or anything like it in day to day life, it is *not* ordinary, and thus must be treated as an extraordinary claim.[/quote']Yes. No, it doesn’t need to be, but your missing the point. Psychics have shown it and have tried to prove it. See' date=' this is the problem: you're ignoring the next steps. We *have* considered the possibility. In doing so, we asked for evidence. Since there is none, we say no reason to continue consideration. You can't simply ask us to keep considering a possibility in the total absence of evidence; that's faith, not science.[/quote'] You asked for evidence, I will try to provide some. But that doesn’t mean that you should stop considering the fact it might be real untill I come with some evidence. Aren’t my words some sort of evidence to you (not suggesting scientific evidence). On a tangent' date=' because I believe it's essential for any educated person to understand statistics and probability. If people understood how stats worked, politicians wouldn't be able to get away with half the shit they do. Also, if, as you claim, you are trying to prove this scientifically, you will *need* stats to do it, and the right tests. It's a vital part of experimental design. For instance, consider a psychic trying to guess cards. All answers are either right or wrong, and they don't get 100%. What's significant? You can't just say they got some right, so it works, since that could be chance. You need a Pearson's chi-squared (I think; I don't use non-parametric stats often) to tell you whether the results are different from chance. And that's just scratching the surface. If you're serious about this, read up on experimental design; there are problems that can arise that you'd never notice without a good stats background, but can tank your experiment.[/quote'] My main focus is macro-psychokinesis. If at anytime probability will start playing a role, I will do my homework. No need for proof, a magician DOES fake PK. One should NEVER' date=' EVER start an experiment assuming the hypothesis is correct. In fact, the best way is to assume the opposite. Consider it false, and ask what it would take to convince you otherwise. Consider all possible flaws, every possible objection. Starting by assuming things are correct is precisely what went wrong with Project Alpha.[/quote'] Your missing one essential point. We need that faith in order to perform psychokinesis. That does not mean we won’t look at flaws though. He has some articles in official magazines. And has done research. Up to the next one: Wow. He's never done real science' date=' has he? My experiment has 3 factors, and works fine; it's called a multi-way ANOVA test. This is what I mean by reading up on experimental design. that quote above is how science was done 200 years ago. Thing are much, much more sophisticated now.[/quote'] Sorry if I confused you. That was a quote of mine. Although I am pretty sure that it contains essential and correct information.

Actually, my reference is that page too. Read wikipedia -> it IS a discussable matter. Uploading short documentary, edit:

True, we will find a way. And besides, the geiger counter is just one of the thousands things to do. Watch out. You know wikipedia isn't a scientific source. Have you ever seen the documentary on Nina Kulagina? It's quite interesting. I'll see if I can upload it for you.

Don't worry, he is a science teacher. 'And experiment should have 1 variable and no outside factors.' I'll try. But I was refering to psychics who showed their ability under scientific conditions, like Nina Kulagina.

I will continue my practice in this amasing ability. And when I think I am ready, I well definitly set up an experiment using 'the scientific method'. Don't worry, you will hear from me. Now you'll just have to do it with some stupid Youtube videos. As I mentioned earlier, I guess, I am already experimenting with a science teacher. The next step will be the geiger counter. See if I can get that working. Discussable matter.

No, your pointing out that I suck ass at probability because I am 'one of those psychics'. Besides, I am not a psychic. I am a scientist (or a scientific person) who practices and researches psychic phenomena. I see a difference. Any magician could do psychokinesis? Not really, any magician could do fake psychokinesis. But I get your point.