tkforums.com - a real psi forum?

[Admin]

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

I'd say...

An open-minded person is someone who is willing to consider ideas, opinions and arguments purely on their merit. If an idea can be shown to be correct then an open-minded person will alter, or add to, their world-view with this new-found knowledge. If the new idea does not stand up to scrutiny however, it will be rejected.

Having an open-mind does not mean embracing all kinds of weird ideas and uncritically accepting them no matter how bizarre or unsupported by evidence they are. The actual word used to describe a person who will believe in absolutely anything is: credulous.

[blondie101010]

I'd say...

An open-minded person is someone who is willing to consider ideas, opinions and arguments purely on their merit. If an idea can be shown to be correct then an open-minded person will alter, or add to, their world-view with this new-found knowledge. If the new idea does not stand up to scrutiny however, it will be rejected.

Having an open-mind does not mean embracing all kinds of weird ideas and uncritically accepting them no matter how bizarre or unsupported by evidence they are. The actual word used to describe a person who will believe in absolutely anything is: credulous.

Then we're on the same wave length here. If you really knew me, you'd know I'm far from being credulous.

I just don't have the proof you would need to show you that PSI is real, but my personnal experience seems to tend towards that, and I would be a fool not to believe in myself.

[panama]

I just don't have the proof you would need to show you that PSI is real, but my personnal experience seems to tend towards that, and I would be a fool not to believe in myself.

If you don't have proof of your assertion why should anyone believe it? What personal experience have you had that has convinced you? Your senses can be misled so you might be a fool if you DO believe in your own physical experience uncritically. For example do you believe David Copperfield really made an aeroplane just disappear?

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.

Please show this research.

[blondie101010]

If you don't have proof of your assertion why should anyone believe it?

I'm not asking you to believe it. I simply started to point out the tendancy most skeptics have to just dismiss without trying gather any information.

Your senses can be misled so you might be a fool if you DO believe in your own physical experience uncritically.

I agree and this is why the subject remains of interest to me and I try to take the most scientific approach that I possibly can. Like I said, I don't have facts to prove anything as of yet.

So I wouldn't say that all you skeptics are fools for not believing in PSI because I am not 100% sure it does exist. And to answer the next question, I won't spend my life trying to prove something that doesn't exist, but I feel minimal effort is justified to gather more information on the subject.

For example do you believe David Copperfield really made an aeroplane just disappear?

I don't like magic shows because I actually spend all my time trying to figure out how they do it and it makes them boring as hell, especially when you know that they have colleagues in the audience to trick everyone else.

[smudge]

I just don't have the proof you would need to show you that PSI is real, but my personnal experience seems to tend towards that, and I would be a fool not to believe in myself.

Please share any experiences you have had which lead you to believe in PSI.

I'm not asking you to believe it. I simply started to point out the tendancy most skeptics have to just dismiss without trying gather any information.
I agree and this is why the subject remains of interest to me and I try to take the most scientific approach that I possibly can. Like I said, I don't have facts to prove anything as of yet.
.

Skeptics just won't believe blindly. Evidence is needed. You have agreed that you have "no proof" and that your "senses can be misled". What then leads you to "tend towards Psi"?
I'd love to believe Psychic powers were real. Show me the evidence.

[Harryprice]

The problem with some psi experiments is not the stats. That's just basic number crunching that software can do for you. The problem is that the odds against a chance answer are often not what the experimenters assume them to be. That comes down to experimental design. Working out odds accurately really IS a mind-bending problem in all but the simplest card guessing protocols.

[Admin]

I just don't have the proof you would need to show you that PSI is real

Yes, I know.

[blondie101010]

The problem with some psi experiments is not the stats. That's just basic number crunching that software can do for you. The problem is that the odds against a chance answer are often not what the experimenters assume them to be. That comes down to experimental design. Working out odds accurately really IS a mind-bending problem in all but the simplest card guessing protocols.

Well it remains a statistical complexity nonetheless.

Finding a good experimental protocol that would be able to show statistical significance, even if the impact is very low, normally requires large samples. If PSI does exist, then it would be understandable that the subjects would be affected by fatigue which would also reduce significance.

Another factor that comes to mind is self confidence. If it exists, until PSI is proven, most subjects would face self-doubt which would negatively impact their results.

Writing that actually gave me an idea though. That hypothesis could potentially be easier to prove than simply trying to prove PSI itself.

We would need to look for a trend between self-perceived confidence level and results. This way, if there is a real impact, then it would be statistically noticeable more easily with a correlation test.

As you'll all notice, I put a lot of "ifs" in my sentence, to hopefully avoid dismissive answers and possibly get more constructive feedback on the experimental approach.

[Admin]

As you'll all notice, I put a lot of "ifs" in

Or 'multiple get out clauses' as I call them!

What sort of PSI do you mean? ESP, PK?

If you can state what it is you're wanting to investigate then there are probably already established ways of doing it - if not, it's usually quite easy to think up a test protocol.

[Harryprice]

Well it remains a statistical complexity nonetheless.

Not really. When people write a paper, they make a quick assumption about the odds, without looking at it in detail, and then mechanically churn out the stats. I have no problem with the stats, it's the easy bit. The problem with sorting out odds is conceptual and few people even notice it.

Finding a good experimental protocol that would be able to show statistical significance, even if the impact is very low, normally requires large samples. If PSI does exist, then it would be understandable that the subjects would be affected by fatigue which would also reduce significance. Another factor that comes to mind is self confidence. If it exists, until PSI is proven, most subjects would face self-doubt which would negatively impact their results.

How do you know fatigue would 'reduce significance'? Or that self confidence 'negatively impacts' results? What evidence has led you to these hypotheses?

If you think psi exists, how do you imagine it might affect our everyday lives?

[Croydon Bob]

Well it remains a statistical complexity nonetheless.

Finding a good experimental protocol that would be able to show statistical significance, even if the impact is very low, normally requires large samples. If PSI does exist, then it would be understandable that the subjects would be affected by fatigue which would also reduce significance.

Another factor that comes to mind is self confidence. If it exists, until PSI is proven, most subjects would face self-doubt which would negatively impact their results.

Writing that actually gave me an idea though. That hypothesis could potentially be easier to prove than simply trying to prove PSI itself.

We would need to look for a trend between self-perceived confidence level and results. This way, if there is a real impact, then it would be statistically noticeable more easily with a correlation test.

As you'll all notice, I put a lot of "ifs" in my sentence, to hopefully avoid dismissive answers and possibly get more constructive feedback on the experimental approach.

You're trying to reinvent the wheel. This is all old hat. People have investigated/are investigating exactly the sorts of things you are talking about. Check out the work of Richard Wiseman for instance.

[blondie101010]

How do you know fatigue would 'reduce significance'?

Do you know any repetitive task that doesn't cause fatigue?

Or that self confidence 'negatively impacts' results? What evidence has led you to these hypotheses?

I'm simply saying that when you're not self-confident about something, you can rarely succeed in it, unless you get extremely lucky.

If you think psi exists, how do you imagine it might affect our everyday lives?

I think it probably already does, but we just can't clearly determine that effect.

At this point I really don't feel like debating for years with all of you, so I won't advance more details on the way I see it because you'll start confronting every other word I write.

I'll probably be back in a few months.

[blondie101010]

You're trying to reinvent the wheel. This is all old hat. People have investigated/are investigating exactly the sorts of things you are talking about. Check out the work of Richard Wiseman for instance.

What a reference!

I agree that he seems to have some credibility and that what he says has good scientific basis, but he obviously didn't do that kind of research.

I agree that many researches get biased and I'm not looking for falsified information.

I know about selective memory and similar concepts. If I was to do a research on the subject, I would ensure my protocol was fine beforehand to ensure the possibility of finding statistically significant results in the event PSI existed, but wouldn't dismiss any subject or data just to cheat in the outcome.

As a brilliant person could have noted from my writings, I'm not the one debating with you the existence of PSI. You guys are simply debating every single word you read, no matter what the sentence says.

[Harryprice]

Do you know any repetitive task that doesn't cause fatigue?

But how do you know fatigue doesn't ENHANCE psi?

I'm simply saying that when you're not self-confident about something, you can rarely succeed in it, unless you get extremely lucky.

And how do you know self-confidence doesn't INHIBIT psi?

My point is, we're dealing with something unknown so how do we know it obeys the 'usual rules' at all? Some people even claim it is 'beyond science'. So you'd need some sort of evidence one way or the other to form any kind of testable hypothesis. And where does that evidence come from?

I think it probably already does, but we just can't clearly determine that effect.

My point is, the kind of tests parapsychologists do don't obviously relate to any normal human activity, except gambling perhaps. So how would you recognise someone who had good psi abilities - lucky at gambling maybe?

[Admin]

At this point I really don't feel like debating for years with all of you, so I won't advance more details on the way I see it because you'll start confronting every other word I write.

What you write needs confronting!

There are a lot of flaws and assumptions in what you say and having people address them will help you clarify your thinking and lead you to a clearer and more coherent position.