tkforums.com - a real psi forum?

[smudge]

Can you lot cut the spelling digs? Please! You are making some of us feel bad...

I have plenty to ponder as it is...
Is the universe a mirror reflecting just me, or is it reflecting all of us?! How often does this mirror need cleaning? Who's responsibility is this cleaning? What effect will it have if left uncleaned? Does it matter?

How will I sleep?

[Croydon Bob]

How will I sleep?

Just like the rest of us skeptics sleep? On piles of money surrounded by beautiful men/women (delete as appropriate).

[xowoot]

don't flame pls

[xowoot]

Also, they seem to track posts of people who are interested in their sites and try to convince them. I wonder why.

[Janot]

Just like the rest of us skeptics sleep? On piles

(the rest deleted as requested)

[scroll33]

Also, they seem to track posts of people who are interested in their sites and try to convince them. I wonder why.

Pfff, well they don't seem to be tracking me much although the final poster seemed to have his head screwed on. :)

http://www.tkforums.com/index.php?topic=1210.0

[blondie101010]

First, I have agree with others on the fact that many people believing something doesn't make it true.

We've seen that so many times in history where the majority of people believed totally wrong concepts, like the Earth being flat, for example.

That said, I personnally believe in the existence of some form of psychic abilities.

From my research on the subject, I found that many serious experiments had statistically significant results, but many scientists refuse to acknowledge them because they're afraid of being labelled for it and have it affect their perceived objectivity.

These experiments seem to follow pretty rigorous protocol, but the biggest reason I can see why they were not accepted by the general public is the level of significance.

Most people understand basic probabilities, but never heard of real statistical analysis like use of Chi squared calculations to determine if there was a significant statistical effect.

Even though I believe in PSI, I doubt that someone could become so good at it to get a significant outcome in less than a few thousand trials, otherwise they would be winning the lottery every 2 months. This makes it really hard for the general public, and even some pretty intelligent people to understand the outcome of this kind of research.

There are simple tests that can be used, like one I made on Facebook: http://apps.facebook.com/psychic-test. That can actually be good for skeptics too, as you'll be able to notice how picking 4 good cards out of 5 is not significant (chi squared: 9; 0.1 > p > 0.05), even though someone who would get it is either very lucky or does have some kind of skill.

Last year I read about a poll that showed that anonymously, many scientists do believe in some form of psychic phenomenon. Being open minded is actually essential in science, otherwise there would never be any kind of progress.

There are definately things that exist that are unknown or misunderstood by current science, and that'll probably always be the case.

[Admin]

From my research on the subject, I found that many serious experiments had statistically significant results, but many scientists refuse to acknowledge them because they're afraid of being labelled for it and have it affect their perceived objectivity.

These experiments seem to follow pretty rigorous protocol, but the biggest reason I can see why they were not accepted by the general public is the level of significance.

Which studies are you thinking of?

There's plenty of research which gives positive results for PSI effects. It's the fact that these results cannot be reliably reproduced that is the problem.

Most people understand basic probabilities, but never heard of real statistical analysis like use of Chi squared calculations to determine if there was a significant statistical effect.

Lay people, yes; but most scientifically trained people are well aware of inferential statistics - especially researchers.

Even though I believe in PSI, I doubt that someone could become so good at it to get a significant outcome in less than a few thousand trials, otherwise they would be winning the lottery every 2 months. This makes it really hard for the general public, and even some pretty intelligent people to understand the outcome of this kind of research.

So what you're saying is that PSI effects occur below the threshold normally set for statistical significance?

If so, then how can you determine a real PSI result from a false positive?

Last year I read about a poll that showed that anonymously, many scientists do believe in some form of psychic phenomenon. Being open minded is actually essential in science, otherwise there would never be any kind of progress.

Believing in PSI doesn't necessarily mean you're 'open minded'.

There are definately things that exist that are unknown or misunderstood by current science

How do you know?

If something is unknown how do you know it's unknown?

If something is misunderstood by science, how do you know it is?

[blondie101010]

Which studies are you thinking of?

There's plenty of research which gives positive results for PSI effects. It's the fact that these results cannot be reliably reproduced that is the problem.

Lay people, yes; but most scientifically trained people are well aware of inferential statistics - especially researchers.

Well most people are not, obviously.

So what you're saying is that PSI effects occur below the threshold normally set for statistical significance?

Not at all, but the degree of influence is rather small, so large samples are needed.

Believing in PSI doesn't necessarily mean you're 'open minded'.

Believing in something you can't see definately requires to be open-minded. You obviously exaggerate in your negativity.

If something is unknown how do you know it's unknown?

If you know everything, then what are you waiting for to share your great knowledge with the world, like remedies for all illnesses for starters. Of course we don't know everything!

If something is misunderstood by science, how do you know it is?

Normally it's either unknown to everyone or almost everyone until someone comes up confronting it with necessary proof.

I am not trying to prove the existence of PSI, especially to a group of skeptics who don't know anything about scientific research. My point was simply not to stupidly deny everything blindly.

That kind of thinking is exactly the same as the people who accepted that the Earth is flat because they couldn't see the curve. If that wasn't enough, they killed many who confronted their point of view.

[Admin]

Believing in something you can't see definately requires to be open-minded.

No it doesn't. It requires credulity - not the same thing!

You obviously exaggerate in your negativity.

Yes, obviously.

If you know everything, then what are you waiting for to share your great knowledge with the world, like remedies for all illnesses for starters. Of course we don't know everything!

Who said anything about knowing everything?

I asked you how you can know that something is unknown. If it's unknown how can you know?

See the flaw in your assertion?

I am not trying to prove the existence of PSI, especially to a group of skeptics who don't know anything about scientific research.

I bet you that the skeptics on here are a great deal more knowledgeable than you are when it comes to scientific research. Many people on here are scientists or scientifically qualified and some are even active researchers into the paranormal!

My point was simply not to stupidly deny everything blindly.

Who's doing that?

I think you're arguing against your own stereotype of what a skeptic is rather than engaging with the skeptics on here.

That kind of thinking is exactly the same as the people who accepted that the Earth is flat because they couldn't see the curve. If that wasn't enough, they killed many who confronted their point of view.

No one thought the earth was flat - it's a myth.

Those who persecuted people with real-world scientific perspectives were the religious. i.e. people who believed in something they couldn't see (you might even call them 'open minded' ).

[Croydon Bob]

Believing in something you can't see definately requires to be open-minded.

No. Believing in something for which there is no evidence is being close-minded.

especially to a group of skeptics who don't know anything about scientific research. My point was simply not to stupidly deny everything blindly.

Your point seems to be to troll mindlessly. Knocking the scientific credentials of the people on this forum just exposes you for the idiot that you obviously are. A pathetic effort, you couldn't even stay polite for two posts could you?

[blondie101010]

No. Believing in something for which there is no evidence is being close-minded.

Being open-minded means to accept the possibility that we don't know everything and there may exist something that we're not aware of.

Your point seems to be to troll mindlessly. Knocking the scientific credentials of the people on this forum just exposes you for the idiot that you obviously are. A pathetic effort, you couldn't even stay polite for two posts could you?

I partially agree. I was a little harsh on that part and I'm sorry for that. I realize there are intelligent people who like to debate and that's very respectable, it was just not my perception from what I read.

[Admin]

Being open-minded means to accept the possibility that we don't know everything and there may exist something that we're not aware of.

No it doesn't.

The open mind.

[blondie101010]

No one thought the earth was flat - it's a myth.

Now that's interesting! At least I learned something today.

Of course I didn't blindly believe you, but a quick search on the subject does confirm your point.

Thanks for that information!

[blondie101010]

No it doesn't.

The open mind.

It's not because you have 5222 that you can claim something without any justification.

What do you think it means to be open-minded then?