Jump to content

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


Eldad Eshel
 Share

Recommended Posts

Further thoughts regarding control:

 

Micro airflow could be restricted by using silicon grease around the seal of the bowl? Like when sealing a desicator.... from using vacuum lines and other gas lines I can say that even this isn't going to keep every molecule out, but should step up the control further and eliminate further air flows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Controlled and blinded experiments. Of course. Although, obviously, EE will never accept the results. He will just think that it makes it "too hard".

 

I'm afraid you're right, and that really does mean anything rational from us is wasted effort on Eldad. He doesn't have a mechanism for accepting the null hypothesis, and in fact has set up a situation where he never has to accept results that don't match up with his 100% concrete belief that he's doing this with his mind.

 

There's no point to this, except to point out to others how flawed reasoning kills knowledge if it's not properly validated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will do these blind tests at the university if they take me seriously. We will probably do all kinds of testing, like the kinds you offered. This ability grows with time, and so I have been able to move it a little bit covered with the bowl, and been able to move it with no hands. Moving it normally is easy for me now, and I am about ready to show the university this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First you want to isolate - I would do it like this. and leave for an hour before attempting anything

 

post-32514-0-35201400-1454519900_thumb.jpg

 

Second I would randomise attempts - ie coin toss heads try and move it

 

Third I would remove possibility of regular movement confounding test - ie roughly for every minute spent trying to move it spend one minute (coin toss tails) doing nothing

 

Fourth - I would not be able to check on the movements of the psiwheel - curtain or board in front of it

 

Fifth - I would not check the results myself. Slight more involved

 

a. Set up camera on constant record of psiwheel - should also be able to see clock

b. you set your watch to same as clock

c. at 1500hrs you toss a coin, note H (heads) or T (tails) result against 1500, and either try to move or dont dependant on coin toss

d. at 1501hrs you repeat

e. keep this up as long as you can be bothered

f. a friend (who has no access to your notes and is previously uninvolved) looks at video only and makes a note against 1500 for whether there was a noticeable sustained movement (Y) or not (N) , and for 1501, and for 1502, and for .... as long as he can be bothered

 

 

Sixth - you find a nice experimentalist who will know the best way of determining statistically whether you have significant results - you give him ONLY the two lists of times and notes and ask if there is a statistically significant correlation between H / T on your notes and Y / N on your friends

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever claimed they can switch the effect on and off in 1 minute intervals? That sounds far too frequent. From what I had understood it would need to be daily. So every other day do the TK and see if the rotation is greater on TK days (the analysis as you describe).

Darryl mentions it took 9 months of practice to get the wheel to move under the bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is wrong with the experimental design I have proposed? There would have to be independent verification.

 

 

Just another tip on experimental design: the above suggestion is flawed. One should never measure controls and treatments using different equipment, due to the potential for confounding effects of differential calibration: different scales, ph meters, balances, spectrometers, etc all generally produce slightly different measurements of the same samples, potentially introducing type 1 error.

 

In the case at hand, EE is using entirely uncalibrated, homemade devices, so the resulting measurements of "telekinetic forces" is likely to be highly variable between wheels.

 

Another important aspect I should have included in the previous list of suggestions is to conduct the study with the subject blind - conduct the experiment so that the subject cannot see the wheel, and have them tell you when they are, and are not spinning the wheel (or direct them when start and stop) further eliminating confirmation bias.

 

If you're still intending to use separate devices to measure control and treatment, and not blind the subject from the result, I would personally consider the experiment flawed to the point of worthlessness.

 

Using a piece of paper balanced on a pin as a measuring device is questionable at best, and probably still pretty dismissable even under optimal conditions - my participation here is really to talk about experimental design in general, as trying to control the "psi wheel" experiment is kind of trying to polish a turd, for lack of a better phrase. EE would be much better served by using a device less susceptible to confounding forces, as has been suggested by others.

 

Ultimately we're talking about an exceptional claim, which requires exceptional evidence. It's much less easy to explain, say a mustard seed moving about in an enclosed vessel using known phenomena, than it is to explain a piece of paper, balanced on the point of a needle moving about using known phenomena. Occams razor would appear to be the curse of the psi wheel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arete - two identical wheels side by side on a table.

Choose by coin flip which one is control and test subject.

Next day reverse the designation and without repositioning anything do the experiment again.

Continue this for a month.

Compare the total rotation in the test to the control.

So we are using the same equipment for the test and the control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arete - two identical wheels side by side on a table.

 

As previously explained - no two wheels are exactly identical - you're simply switching the bias with each replicate. Maybe that will even out over enough replicates, maybe it won't. A much better experimental design would use SAME one to measure test and control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As previously explained - no two wheels are exactly identical - you're simply switching the bias with each replicate. Maybe that will even out over enough replicates, maybe it won't. A much better experimental design would use SAME one to measure test and control.

You still can't use the one wheel for test and control at the same time. My design is using the same apparatus as test and control serially, and having another nearly identical version operating parallel but in the opposite phase to pick up any environmental effects.

 

Personally I find it a very thorough test. You could graph the amount of movement over time to see if stability (settling down on the pivot point) had any part to play. I would expect, if this was the case, that any movement to occur in either the test or control in the first day or two but little to no movement for the rest of the month.

 

I wonder if EE will experiment to see if two wheels could be used at the same time. Can he split his focus to only one of a pair of PSI wheels?

@EE - could you try this out in the uncovered situation please?

Edited by Robittybob1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still can't use the one wheel for test and control at the same time. My design is using the same apparatus as test and control serially, and having another nearly identical version operating parallel but in the opposite phase to pick up any environmental effects.

 

Personally I find it a very thorough test. You could graph the amount of movement over time to see if stability (settling down on the pivot point) had any part to play. I would expect, if this was the case, that any movement to occur in either the test or control in the first day or two but little to no movement for the rest of the month.

 

I wonder if EE will experiment to see if two wheels could be used at the same time. Can he split his focus to only one of a pair of PSI wheels?

@EE - could you try this out in the uncovered situation please?

I can try this, the result just seems obvious to me. But I will try it nontheless. Even though obvious the result is still interesting. Give me some time as I need to buy 2 erasers, to stick the toothpicks in them. probably tomorrow I will do this.

By the way, this guy Darryl Sloan seems rather convincing to me. Seems like more or less what I have to offer but more progressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can try this, the result just seems obvious to me. But I will try it nontheless. Even though obvious the result is still interesting. Give me some time as I need to buy 2 erasers, to stick the toothpicks in them. probably tomorrow I will do this.

By the way, this guy Darryl Sloan seems rather convincing to me. Seems like more or less what I have to offer but more progressed.

If it was possible to split the TK effect just to one of a pair, you then could try having two PSI wheels under the same bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

I heard how Susan Blackmore set up double bling trials but in this case I can't see how you could apply it to the PSI wheel situation.

It definitely didn't imply blocking the view of the PSI wheel. In her case they were proving whether these amulets had special powers.

The manufacturer supposed made "fake" amulets that looked like "real" ones, and Susan was trying to show there was no significant benefits in wearing them. The distribution of the amulets were double blinded in that neither the wearer or the interviewer knew the status of the amulet. Everyone was able to see the amulet. It wasn't as if you were not aware that you were wearing it.

Edited by Robittybob1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard how Susan Blackmore set up double bling trials but in this case I can't see how you could apply it to the PSI wheel situation.

It definitely didn't imply blocking the view of the PSI wheel. In her case they were proving whether these amulets had special powers.

The manufacturer supposed made "fake" amulets that looked like "real" ones, and Susan was trying to show there was no significant benefits in wearing them. The distribution of the amulets were double blinded in that neither the wearer or the interviewer knew the status of the amulet. Everyone was able to see the amulet. It wasn't as if you were not aware that you were wearing it.

 

In this case a blinded trial would be one where EE could not see the wheel but announces to to experimenter, "OK I am moving it now" or "I am not moving it". The experimenter notes how often his claim is correct.

 

A double blind trial would be one in which EE silently records when he is moving it or not. And the experimenter silently notes whether the wheel is moving or not. This could be done with a third person using a clock and, at intervals. saying things lie "Test 32; 10:11AM". EE notes whether he is moving it. The experimenter notes whether the wheel is moving or not. Later the two records are compared.

 

The advantage of the double blind trial is that it removes confirmation bias (for or against) by the experimenter.

There could, of course, be other ways of doing a blind or double-blind trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In this case a blinded trial would be one where EE could not see the wheel but announces to to experimenter, "OK I am moving it now" or "I am not moving it". The experimenter notes how often his claim is correct.

 

A double blind trial would be one in which EE silently records when he is moving it or not. And the experimenter silently notes whether the wheel is moving or not. This could be done with a third person using a clock and, at intervals. saying things lie "Test 32; 10:11AM". EE notes whether he is moving it. The experimenter notes whether the wheel is moving or not. Later the two records are compared.

 

The advantage of the double blind trial is that it removes confirmation bias (for or against) by the experimenter.

There could, of course, be other ways of doing a blind or double-blind trial.

Interesting, but you are assuming the person is aware it is moving as if there is some sort of feedback other than the visual confirmation. There was very little suggestion that this was the case, even though I do recall Darryl mentioning some sort of gut reaction. Does EE confirm any feeling that he associates with success?

Are you sure that happens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was blinded I could not say if it was moving or not. I am not that "pro" at this yet. Or did you mean trying to move it ?

You could try that blindfold test anyway. It would be worth knowing if there is any need to have it in sight. We are only guessing as to what is causing it, so trying different things will help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, but you are assuming the person is aware it is moving as if there is some sort of feedback other than the visual confirmation.

 

If there is no sense that the subject is attempting to move it versus not attempting to move it then all we are left with is confirmation bias: it moved, therefore I was trying to move it. It didn't move, therefore I wasn't trying.

If I was blinded I could not say if it was moving or not. I am not that "pro" at this yet. Or did you mean trying to move it ?

 

Obviously the latter. You need to be able to say "I am trying to move it now" or "I am not trying to move it now".

In the double blind trial, these should be randomized so there is no pattern to be detected. (People are amazingly good at detecting non-random patterns in tests like this.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If there is no sense that the subject is attempting to move it versus not attempting to move it then all we are left with is confirmation bias: it moved, therefore I was trying to move it. It didn't move, therefore I wasn't trying.

 

Obviously the latter. You need to be able to say "I am trying to move it now" or "I am not trying to move it now".

In the double blind trial, these should be randomized so there is no pattern to be detected. (People are amazingly good at detecting non-random patterns in tests like this.)

I think the tests we are going to apply will pick up if it ever moves when the person is not trying. If the amount of movement when he is not trying comes close to what happens when trying the statistical analysis will tell us its likelihood of being just a chance effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I would accept the argument that he can't do it blind and needs to see it... as long as he is clear about when he is using TK and when not. No little wobbles and then quickly saying "I'll move it now" as it rolls off for a turn. That can be worked around whilst still applying decent controls.

 

 

QUOTE RR:"statistical analysis will tell us the likelihood of being just a chance effect"

 

I would say it is a given that it is a chance effect until proven beyond doubt that it is TK. Even a successful experiment which appears to demonstrate TK will need to be rescrutanised and assumptions must be made that we made an error and we are to look for it.... unless you want to put your head in the sand and not understand what is going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

double bling trials ...

 

56464337.jpg

 

Levity aside, you're now confounding two issues:

 

1) You simply can't reliably use two different psi wheels to take measurements and expect to generate a useful dataset. You need to design the experiment so that control and test measurements are taken using the same device.

 

2) The concept of a blind trial has been explained many times - it doesn't literally mean "blind", it means that the subject isn't self reporting. Human brains are great at finding correlations even when they don't exist - EE is doing it in this thread - wheel is moving = "It must be my TK"; wheel is still = "something must be blocking my TK". You need to eliminate such cognitive bias to generate a result of any worth.

 

A third issue is the psi wheel itself. It's a poor measurement device due to it's propensity to be perturbed by external influences. Combine that with poorly controlled "experiments" and the cognitive bias that people convinced they have psychic abilities inherently display, and it's no wonder it's a favorite device.

In theory, a mustard seed in a jar with the lid screwed on would be lighter and therefore require less energy to move - and be much better controlled than anything you can devise with the wheel. However, no one uses such a device to demonstrate their psychic ability... funny that...

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.