Jump to content

Telekinesis, telepathy and their impact on science [Absolutely NONE]


Eldad Eshel
 Share

Recommended Posts

The problem is that experiment can only reveal a small spectra of reality. Indeed, this is how experiment is designed; to exclude everything except the little bit of reality we expect to see.

 

And, again, obviously not true. Otherwise science would not make any progress. Please stop this.

 

The bigger problem is that we extrapolate and interpolate experimental results as the be all end all of reality. We are merely uncovering bits of natural logic rather than all of reality. We mistake our interpolations as all of reality.

 

I don't know who this "we" is that you are referring to, but it certainly isn't scientists.

 

...And religious people see the Virgin Mother in potato chips.

 

More meaningless soundbites.

 

I'm a very good experiment designer so my guess is no one thought of it.

 

You may be a good experimental designer (although I would need evidence of that) but you are clearly pretty ignorant about the state of research into this area.

 

Tomato, tomatoe.

 

Not at all. If you are not doing science (which you aren't) then you are not scientist.

 

 

Science is not static but always progressing.

 

How is that possible if we "can only see what we expect".

 

And you must believe that one plus one equals two and that the Nile River was there yesterday as well because most of what you believe is dependent on such consistencies.

 

Then we may be more in agreement than not.

 

 

 

 

I'm simply of the opinion that we know such a tiny percentage of all of reality that I have far less reason to disbelieve.

 

Science was invented after the Greeks.

 

Science is not static but always progressing. We are always refining how we understand "natural law"; how we interpret reality.

 

I'm simply saying that there's no such thing as "natural law". There is no referent for the term. There is only reality and it is composed of cause and effect and natural logic. What we believe is natural law is actually just extrapolation and interpolation of experiment. This is what we see; something that doesn't even exist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps I misunderstand your terms. These two sentences seem to oppose each other directly. In your view, the paranormal is real, "scientists in general don't even believe in the paranormal, if they found out something about it it would probably be by chance", so you imply they're wrong and more needs to be done to uncover what you think is obvious.

 

You kept saying we need to study this as if we weren't already, then you imply it's not enough because we haven't discovered evidence to back up your belief. I'm trying to warn you how dangerous it is to think this way. You'll always take "no evidence" to mean we haven't studied it hard enough. You need a good critical reasoning mechanism that tells you eventually "no evidence" means you might be wrong.

It is hard to say anything on this subject without assumingly "blaming" science, but this is really not my case. Direct personal experience is something that is very strong, sort of like an individual being abducted by aliens and having direct recollection of it, and then trying to convince others. Of course he/she will not be very successful. Personally I have 6 years experience with telepathy and now this recent experience with telekinesis, my personal experience with the paranormal is large. If I hadn't this experience I would at best "want" it to be real or "hope" for it to be real. But I do have it, so my case is kind of like that individual being abducted by aliens. Again I don't have any slander against anyone, I know how difficult this whole subject is. For scientists it is probably the most difficult, since they need to keep proffesional and be the voice of reason against the frauds (that are so many, only god knows why, that's humanity for you, striving for those 15 minutes of fame).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been mentioned here about science and it's interaction with reality. I'd like to bring up a concept that I have with me since I was teenager about the universe. There is the seen and "visible" universe, and then there is all the rest. All the rest + our universe is what I call The Everything, or a fancier word from hebrew The Clal. Our known universe is a formation in the Clal. Scientific intruments can pick up what is from our "visible" universe, and perhaps more with scientific progress. Our known universe mainly consists of matter and electromagnetic energy, but that is not all that exists. I believe in the Clal there are many worlds or "universes", each existing detached from the other. There is also the metaphysical world I have mentioned, it is hard to say whether this world is a direct part of our universe or something outside it belonging to the Clal. Can science actually interact with anything outside our direct universe ? Maybe in the future, a break through is needed for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you aren't controlling for type 1 error in your experimental design, any results you present are of limited worth.

So you think you can control for those type 1 errors? Say if there was just a 1% chance that the movement was was still in the null hypothesis bell curve.

What can you do to to control for type 1 errors? Say if 99% of the movements of the controlled PSI wheel were greater than movements recorded in the control there is just that 1% chance you have rejected the null hypothesis by mistake.

How do you get over that?

OK you can increase the sensitivity, make it 99.9% chance of making a type 1 error, or increasing the sample size.

Hopefully when EE does his tests on the control there are no movements greater than the forward and backward rocking motions (RB motion) with a close to zero net movement distance.

Measurements in the TK test wheel could be from zero movement right through to multiple rotations (as EE claims) so the mean of the test wheel will be outside of the control (null hypothesis) distribution.

But we will have to wait till the results are in.

 

Interesting thing will be if the control gives movements such that the mean is not near zero.

 

If you aren't controlling for type 1 error in your experimental design, any results you present are of limited worth.

What confidence level do you want to set? 90, 95, 99 or 99.9%

Edited by Robittybob1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think you can control for those type 1 errors?

 

All experimental designs should control for type 1 error. Without some form of control for false positive results, an experiment is hardly worth conducting. In this instance I can see 4 things that would need to be done:

 

1) Isolate the apparatus from confounding perturbations. In this case, isolate the wheel from environmental forces which may spin it, and be falsely interpreted as telekinesis. Putting a glass bowl over it might help somewhat with air currents, but additionally, it should be on a sturdy surface which vibrations do not affect, and away from differential light sources which may cause convective currents, etc.

 

2) Remove confirmation bias by having an observer, or better yet a binary device like a motion detector record results rather than the subject himself.

 

3) Quantify false positives using a control. In this case have the subject do exactly what they do to spin the wheel physically, and get them to not try and spin the wheel. Record movement.

 

4) Replicate to statistically compare the treatment to the control.

 

The OP's experience with limited type 1 control (i.e. the bowl) was reduced treatment effect, which suggests that increased type 1 control is likely to lead to non-significant results.

 

In addition, any convincing case for telekinesis would require a plausible mechanism. This is where the "defies the laws of physics" comes in, as energy would need to be transferred from the subject to the object being moved, somehow.

 

In any case, the current evidence here is not compelling.

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

All experimental designs should control for type 1 error. Without some form of control for false positive results, an experiment is hardly worth conducting. In this instance I can see 4 things that would need to be done:

 

1) Isolate the apparatus from confounding perturbations. In this case, isolate the wheel from environmental forces which may spin it, and be falsely interpreted as telekinesis. Putting a glass bowl over it might help somewhat with air currents, but additionally, it should be on a sturdy surface which vibrations do not affect, and away from differential light sources which may cause convective currents, etc.

 

2) Remove confirmation bias by having an observer, or better yet a binary device like a motion detector record results rather than the subject himself.

 

3) Quantify false positives using a control. In this case have the subject do exactly what they do to spin the wheel physically, and get them to not try and spin the wheel. Record movement.

 

4) Replicate to statistically compare the treatment to the control.

 

The OP's experience with limited type 1 control (i.e. the bowl) was reduced treatment effect, which suggests that increased type 1 control is likely to lead to non-significant results.

 

In addition, any convincing case for telekinesis would require a plausible mechanism. This is where the "defies the laws of physics" comes in, as energy would need to be transferred from the subject to the object being moved, somehow.

 

In any case, the current evidence here is not compelling.

I spent quite a bit of time today understanding "type 1 errors" and your suggestions would all help with the experimental design but do not address type 1 errors.

I envisage 2 identical setups side by side one for the control and the other for TK.

We will just wait to see if the operator will take up the challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent quite a bit of time today understanding "type 1 errors" and your suggestions would all help with the experimental design but do not address type 1 errors.

I envisage 2 identical setups side by side one for the control and the other for TK.

We will just wait to see if the operator will take up the challenge.

 

 

Sound experimental design IS what limits false positive results (i.e., type 1 error). A false positive is simply a measurement that is mistakenly attributed to the treatment being tested - leading to rejection of the null hypothesis, when it arose another source.

 

Statistical analysis - in combination with good experimental design, is used to quantify the potential effects of false positive on an experiment. This is to prevent the overall result of an experiment being misleading, and assuming that a treatment effect is observed when in fact it either isn't, or cannot be determined to have been observed.

 

Sound experimental design explicitly addresses errors of both kinds. If you think that good experimental design and controlling for errors are mutually exclusive, your day of research has provided you with an incomplete understanding.

 

To make it clearer in the example at hand, observing the wheel spinning due to air movement in the room, and falsely attributing that movement to telekinesis would be a type 1 error. by placing a glass bowl over the wheel, you limit (i.e. control for) type 1 error.

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Sound experimental design IS what limits false positive results (i.e., type 1 error). A false positive is simply a measurement that is mistakenly attributed to the treatment being tested - leading to rejection of the null hypothesis, when it arose another source.

 

Statistical analysis - in combination with good experimental design, is used to quantify the potential effects of false positive on an experiment. This is to prevent the overall result of an experiment being misleading, and assuming that a treatment effect is observed when in fact it either isn't, or cannot be determined to have been observed.

 

Sound experimental design explicitly addresses errors of both kinds. If you think that good experimental design and controlling for errors are mutually exclusive, your day of research has provided you with an incomplete understanding.

 

To make it clearer in the example at hand, observing the wheel spinning due to air movement in the room, and falsely attributing that movement to telekinesis would be a type 1 error. by placing a glass bowl over the wheel, you limit (i.e. control for) type 1 error.

You gave us a link to a lesson on Type 1 errors. Before I looked at that I was unaware of the terminology.

 

I doubt if EE will cooperate with the experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can science actually interact with anything outside our direct universe ? .

 

If it has an effect on things inside the universe, then yes.

 

IF these things exist and IF they have an effect (whether that is telekinesis or telepathy or whatever) then they should be detectable and measurable even if they originate "outside the universe".

 

Otherwise, what you are saying is that you (personally) can detect that you are moving the wheel (or communicating with someone) but no one else can. That is indistinguishable from delusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If it has an effect on things inside the universe, then yes.

 

IF these things exist and IF they have an effect (whether that is telekinesis or telepathy or whatever) then they should be detectable and measurable even if they originate "outside the universe".

 

Otherwise, what you are saying is that you (personally) can detect that you are moving the wheel (or communicating with someone) but no one else can. That is indistinguishable from delusion.

These are strange claims. Did I miss the bit where EE says he is the only one who sees the wheel turn?

Edited by Robittybob1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are strange claims. Did I miss the bit where EE says he is the only one who sees the wheel turn?

 

I was not talking about that. I was answering the question about whether things "outside the universe" can be detected. If they have an effect, then obviously they can.

 

The claim is often made that laboratory tests cannot detect these things. If they are not detectable by tests but are only detectable by the person involved (whoever that is) then it is indistinguishable from delusion/hallucination/chance.

 

What I am saying is that if the wheel turns or telepathic communication happens then it must be (objectively) detectable or the claim is meaningless.

 

It is pretty obvious that EE's telekinetic powers are a combination of air movements and confirmation bias. Only objective testing can determine this.

 

However, it sounds like EE will never be convinced, not matter what steps are taken. For example, he says the glass bowl makes it "harder" rather than the more obvious conclusion that it has prevented air movement. If more rigorous experiments stopped the effect completely, I guess he would claim it was because they blocked his "powers" rather than because other effects had been eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus my suggestion of leaving it for half hour or so to let it reach it's equilibrium... Do not start the test until it has settled properly and has stopped moving on its own - the movement in his vid is clearly oscillation (with long slow wavelength) as it is coming to balance... the thing that might fool him into thinking he has moved it is that the 'wheel' seems to settle before it starts moving again... this is just torque unwinding or slight vibrations unsettling the thing from it's precariously balanced position - clearly nothing more.

 

This is also why I suggest the feather instead of the unstable wheel. A feather will not move about 'by its self' by being knocked from its balance by vibrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus my suggestion of leaving it for half hour or so to let it reach it's equilibrium... Do not start the test until it has settled properly and has stopped moving on its own - the movement in his vid is clearly oscillation (with long slow wavelength) as it is coming to balance... the thing that might fool him into thinking he has moved it is that the 'wheel' seems to settle before it starts moving again... this is just torque unwinding or slight vibrations unsettling the thing from it's precariously balanced position - clearly nothing more.

 

This is also why I suggest the feather instead of the unstable wheel. A feather will not move about 'by its self' by being knocked from its balance by vibrations.

Certainly worth thinking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that experiment can only reveal a small spectra of reality. Indeed, this is how experiment is designed; to exclude everything except the little bit of reality we expect to see.

That sounds an awful lot like you design an experiment to get the answer you want, and that's not how proper science is done.

 

The bigger problem is that we extrapolate and interpolate experimental results as the be all end all of reality. We are merely uncovering bits of natural logic rather than all of reality. We mistake our interpolations as all of reality.

 

"We"?

 

I'm a very good experiment designer so my guess is no one thought of it.

Evidence?

 

Science was invented after the Greeks.

And yet you spoke of their science.

 

Science is not static but always progressing. We are always refining how we understand "natural law"; how we interpret reality.

 

I'm simply saying that there's no such thing as "natural law". There is no referent for the term. There is only reality and it is composed of cause and effect and natural logic. What we believe is natural law is actually just extrapolation and interpolation of experiment. This is what we see; something that doesn't even exist!

There's no natural law but there's natural logic? Sounds like you are merely redefining terms for the same thing.

Certainly, yes. Data are interpreted in terms of current theory. Even observation and what we see is dependent on theory and training. Two different people always see two very different things.

Just a short bit ago you were arguing that we see what we expect. Now you are arguing that two people see different things. Even if they expect the same thing?

 

My, my, your position is full of contradictions. Not a sign that it's valid.

 

But you seem to be assuming that all possible hypotheses are always being considered and that someone will see the importance of any that have value.

Only if you didn't actually read an comprehend what I wrote.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth because people all share perspective on many things. Virtually everyone will agree that the cosmos was created by natural law or a Diety but where is it written? Virtually everyone will agree that one apple plus one apple equals two apples (or even one cosmos plus one cosmos equals two cosmos ;) ). But such things aren't real. They are mere semantics. There's no compelling reason to believe reality is beholden to laws or dieties. Everything in the cosmos (including the cosmos ;) ) is unique and hence can't be counted or manipulated in reality. So where does this leave observation and hypothesis that is outside of scientific theory? How can people even formulate an hypothesis that is outside of both religion and science?

Maybe you shouldn't project your argument from incredulity onto other people.

 

The big difference here is I'm not prone to discount people's experience just because it appears to lie outside of anything known. Of course there's a lot of chicanery and quackery about but I see no value in discounting observation in any case and this goes many times over from my perspective.

This thread is not about discounting observations. Nobody has suggested the wheel isn't moving — that's the observation. What we're pointing out is that mundane explanations for the movement have not been eliminated.

 

From my perspective we know nothing about anything and far far far less about how the brain functions and the mind works. Of course there is huge progress being made here but until it's possible to predict a beautiful sunset and how each observer will percieve it then we really don't know much of anything. When science can say whether you should marry Martha or Caroline then we'll be able to say that we know a lot about reality. In the meantime it simply isn't legitimate to say something doesn't exist just because it hasn't been experimentally defined and measured.

That sounds a lot like "if we don't know everything then we don't know anything". Again, please don't project your fallacious thinking onto others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There's no natural law but there's natural logic? Sounds like you are merely redefining terms for the same thing.

 

 

There is some similarity in definition. Both apply everywhere and all the time.

 

But natural logic wasn't handed down from on high and it is no constraint on nature. It is a property of nature and component of reality. Natural logic is nearly more a means for coming to understand reality, while discovering "natural law" is more the objective of experimental science. I could go on but I know we are each different and each have our own definitions of terms and a unique understanding so will leave it at this.

Just a short bit ago you were arguing that we see what we expect. Now you are arguing that two people see different things. Even if they expect the same thing?

 

 

There's no contradiction. We each have different beliefs and see what we expect so we each see something different. An electrician and a lawyer can watch a minor car accident and report just about the same thing if they each had a similar vantage but their assessments and meaning will vary greatly. The electrician worries about a spark setting off the gas and the lawyer worries both parties aren't insured. But if they are looking at something more mundane like the courthouse then the electrician sees how it's connected to the grid and the lawyer sees a place that justice is dispensed. The electrician sees marriage licences and the lawyer sees divorces.

 

Even individuals change over time so what we see changes over time. We see what we believe and over many years will become our beliefs. The best advice for kids is to be careful what they believe.

 

Maybe you shouldn't project your argument from incredulity onto other people.

 

 

I certainly don't understand this perspective. I don't know what argument from incredulity you believe I made.

I'm simply stating there are concepts that don't fall under the perspective of most people; that the universe is dependent on natural law or that it was created and overseen by a diety. It seems to me that telepathy (etc) can very often be thought of to be in this twilight zone. Just because God and natural law can be discerned anywhere at all doesn't bring it into the light.

 

 

That sounds a lot like "if we don't know everything then we don't know anything".

 

 

I love science but when I look at it as a tool and look at the results gleened to date by giants I see something very different than you see because my perspective is so very different. Yes, we are gaining and have gained an excellent format for understanding all of reality. The outline we have could even be mostly correct and we just need to fill in a little more of it and then start working on the details. I find it very impressive that we've gotten as far as we have. But from my perspective I see our knowledge as being far less than .001% of everything there is to know. When I say we know nothing I'm simply rounding it off. I am not suggesting that what we know is "wrong" and I'm not suggesting that what we know is not useful.

 

But I am saying flat out that we are a long way from understanding the nature of the human mind and that we are mostly barking up the wrong tree at this time. The experimental stuff is important and fundamental but it's highly primitive now and the psychological stuff will not be incorporated into the format directly when we know a great deal more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There's no contradiction. We each have different beliefs and see what we expect so we each see something different. An electrician and a lawyer can watch a minor car accident and report just about the same thing if they each had a similar vantage but their assessments and meaning will vary greatly. The electrician worries about a spark setting off the gas and the lawyer worries both parties aren't insured. But if they are looking at something more mundane like the courthouse then the electrician sees how it's connected to the grid and the lawyer sees a place that justice is dispensed. The electrician sees marriage licences and the lawyer sees divorces.

 

I thought we were discussing science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I thought we were discussing science.

 

Science by definition has limitations and these limitations are two fold; they are metaphysics and the nature of scientists.

 

I'm suggesting that both of these limitations make the study of some things virtually impossible at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm suggesting that both of these limitations make the study of some things virtually impossible at this time.

 

And yet you are very obviously wrong. As always. Otherwise science would be unable to make new discoveries.

 

How do you persist in these false beliefs despite all the evidence contradicting them. Could it be, ironically, that you can only see what you want to see?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Science by definition has limitations and these limitations are two fold; they are metaphysics and the nature of scientists.

 

I'm suggesting that both of these limitations make the study of some things virtually impossible at this time.

 

What does the issue of a lawyer and an electrician witnessing an accident have to do with that? Science has rigor – it's a reason that eyewitness recounting as you describe would not be used. It's why two people will not observe two different things; if the screen says 7.2 V, then some other person isn't going to interpret that as 96.5 V.

 

All of this suggests that you simply have no clue as to what you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.