cladking Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 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? I only see what I expect to see just like everyone else. It is slightly different for me because unlike almost everyone else I try to expunge beliefs so I'm at least a little less likely to see my beliefs (I believe ). You see evidence contradicting them because you are extrapolating and interpolating scientific knowledge so you don't see that my "beliefs" don't fly in the face of experiment, they merely fly in the face of interpolation. Even more to the point you don't see that our primary difference isn't so much science as it is perspective. Ideas like one plus one equals two have no referent in reality you find repugnant because from your perspective you know nothing if you are required to apply your knowledge to a reality. Welcome to the club. "Reality" isn't even defined by modern science except as the result of experiment. And yet you are very obviously wrong. As always. Otherwise science would be unable to make new discoveries. Modern experimental science doesn't need anything to progress except the possibility of making new observation and the capability of designing new experiment to test hypothesis. I believe progress is so dreadfully slow because we see what we expect and see the world in terms of our beliefs. This makes observation of anomalies and things we don't understand far more difficult. There are ways to mitigate all these problems but until we admit there is a problem they can't be addressed at all.
Arete Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) I envisage 2 identical setups side by side one for the control and the other for TK. 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. Edited January 28, 2016 by Arete
Robittybob1 Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 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. Swansont's solution was to switch from one set to the other. If the two wheels setup were not touched, and also alternated daily, (alternated from control to TK) then the effects you speak of surely will be eliminated. I keep on feeling we are getting close to setting up a simple yet effective design. I bet EE is wondering if his abilities will be exposed as fraudulent. Edited January 28, 2016 by Robittybob1 -1
Arete Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) Swansont's solution was to switch from one set to the other. If the two wheels setup were not touched, and also alternated daily, (alternated from control to TK) then the effects you speak of surely will be eliminated. With all due respect to you and SwansonT, if I were designing this experiment I would argue strongly against using two sets of equipment - Alternating between measuring treatment and control on the same setup would be simpler (which comes from a background in experimental evolution, where experimental designs tend to get out of hand quickly). All this is rather moot without some sort of proposed mechanism, and I think we can all be fairly certain what the results of a properly designed experiment would be... but hopefully someone out there has learned something about designing sound experiments along the way Edited January 28, 2016 by Arete
Phi for All Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 All this is rather moot without some sort of proposed mechanism, and I think we can all be fairly certain what the results of a properly designed experiment would be... but hopefully someone out there has learned something about designing sound experiments along the way The more I think about this, the more I realize how right swansont and Arete are. Tom argued that this whole experiment would be much more credible if it didn't use a paper wheel designed to take advantage of air currents, and Arete is saying this current setup to eliminate air currents won't be valid either. What about this? A grain of sand weighs about a thousand times less than your psiwheel (sheet of A4 paper = 4.5 grams, grain of sand = 4.4 milligrams). Put a grain of sand on top of a layer of graphite (just to show contrast and movement). Try to move the grain of sand with your mind. It should be a thousand times easier to move with a mental force if it exists, and the contrasting graphite will show any movement (kind of like putting flour down on the kitchen floor to see if you have cockroaches - they'll leave trails in it without eating it). Keep the bowl over the whole thing, since you still have to worry about air currents.
Eldad Eshel Posted January 28, 2016 Author Posted January 28, 2016 The psiwheel is called a psiwheel because it apparently has some kind of special sensitivity to "special" powers. Also I want to point out something, when the wheel is being moved by air it rocks and jumps around asymmetrically, when I spin it it with my mind the motion is very solid, smove and "un-jumpy". When I look at it from a distance it is not moving at all, then I approach it, "do my thing" and it spins steadily and symmetrically. It is not breathing either, I stand over it breath steadily with the intention of not moving it with my breath and I see it is not moving.
John Cuthber Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 The psiwheel is called a psiwheel because it apparently has some kind of special sensitivity to "special" powers. Also I want to point out something, when the wheel is being moved by air it rocks and jumps around asymmetrically, when I spin it it with my mind the motion is very solid, smove and "un-jumpy". When I look at it from a distance it is not moving at all, then I approach it, "do my thing" and it spins steadily and symmetrically. It is not breathing either, I stand over it breath steadily with the intention of not moving it with my breath and I see it is not moving. I also want to point out something. What you have their is observer bias, rather than evidence.
Mordred Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) The psiwheel is called a psiwheel because it apparently has some kind of special sensitivity to "special" powers. Also I want to point out something, when the wheel is being moved by air it rocks and jumps around asymmetrically, when I spin it it with my mind the motion is very solid, smove and "un-jumpy". When I look at it from a distance it is not moving at all, then I approach it, "do my thing" and it spins steadily and symmetrically. It is not breathing either, I stand over it breath steadily with the intention of not moving it with my breath and I see it is not moving.I find it extremely humorous that even a forum for psionics don't find the psiwheel valid. http://psionguild.org/forums/showthread.php?p=63709 A quick research on the psiwheel shows that it's been around since 1967. So I wouldn't bother taking this test to a university. Just saying.... Edited January 28, 2016 by Mordred
swansont Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Swansont's solution was to switch from one set to the other. Can you point me toward where I suggested that?
Robittybob1 Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) Can you point me toward where I suggested that? it was from memory only. Wasn't it you who suggested that the wheel was changed between control and TK every 10 minutes? Sorry if I was incorrect but I thought it was you. Edited January 28, 2016 by Robittybob1
Strange Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 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. I think this is one of the most important criteria. Even without getting rid of external influences, eliminating confirmation bias will make the "effect" disappear. The psiwheel is called a psiwheel because it apparently has some kind of special sensitivity to "special" powers. Or because it is particularly sensitive to stray air movements and vibration.
swansont Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 it was from memory only. Wasn't it you who suggested that the wheel was changed between control and TK every 10 minutes? Sorry if I was incorrect but I thought it was you. It was not me, but that is not a suggestion to switch to a different apparatus. It's to use the same apparatus, but only attempt TK for specific intervals. Please take better care in your attributions. It's one of the functions of the quote tags.
Strange Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 I bet EE is wondering if his abilities will be exposed as fraudulent. "Fraudulent" implies some kind of deliberate deception. I think that is rather unfair.
Robittybob1 Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) "Fraudulent" implies some kind of deliberate deception. I think that is rather unfair. I'd have to get the dictionary definition to be really certain. It seems to be covered in the second part. The Google definition: Fraudulent adjective obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception. "fraudulent share dealing" unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities. "fraudulent psychics" synonyms: dishonest, cheating, swindling, corrupt, criminal, illegal, unlawful, illicit, against the law; It was not me, but that is not a suggestion to switch to a different apparatus. It's to use the same apparatus, but only attempt TK for specific intervals. Please take better care in your attributions. It's one of the functions of the quote tags. Was that alternative your suggestion? Whoever made the suggestion when I read it I thought it rather a nightmare to operate an experiment like that. So I left it at that, but the idea of switching the apparatus from one role to the other seems to have merit as long as it wasn't done at such a high frequency. The same apparatus is used but also the alternative is being done alongside as well. Edited January 28, 2016 by Robittybob1
John Cuthber Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Deceiving one's self is not normally called fraud.
Robittybob1 Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Deceiving one's self is not normally called fraud. He has made the claims on the forum as well.
Phi for All Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 The psiwheel is called a psiwheel because it apparently has some kind of special sensitivity to "special" powers. Thanks for the quote marks around "special". It's a "specially" folded piece of paper, balanced on the head of a toothpick, weighing around 4.5 grams. Unless you're claiming that telekinesis operates by making the air move? I take it you don't think you can move a grain of sand? Why do you think it wouldn't be a thousand times easier? 1
Strange Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 He has made the claims on the forum as well. Because he believes them to be true. I do not think he is being dishonest.
Robittybob1 Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) Because he believes them to be true. I do not think he is being dishonest. It is a matter whether it fits the definition "unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities." I have not questioned his beliefs but whether he is justified making the claims of special powers. It is a matter whether it fits the definition "unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities." I have not questioned his beliefs but whether he is justified making the claims of special powers. I also object to the way EE links his so called knowledge to his ability. Edited January 28, 2016 by Robittybob1
Eldad Eshel Posted January 28, 2016 Author Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) Thanks for the quote marks around "special". It's a "specially" folded piece of paper, balanced on the head of a toothpick, weighing around 4.5 grams. Unless you're claiming that telekinesis operates by making the air move? I take it you don't think you can move a grain of sand? Why do you think it wouldn't be a thousand times easier? It does't seem to be easier. I tried to move a spec of dirt on my black laptop. So far I have been unable to. But then again I tried to blow on it hard and it wouldn't move also. Edited January 29, 2016 by Eldad Eshel
DrP Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 It does't seem to be easier. I tried to move a spec of dirt on my black laptop. So far I have been unable to. Been then again I tried to blow on it hard and it wouldn't move also. Then try the feather or something REALLY light that can be blown easily, then, put it under the bowl and try to move that. It will remain stationary. The wheel thing moves about because it is unstable.. I saw some in an art display recently. The wheels were inside light bulbs so no air could get in, but they were all spinning randomly, some at different speeds and directions and some not at all.... then some start up, seeminly randomly. Would be cool if we could do TK - I think it would improve my putting average at golf.
Phi for All Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 It does't seem to be easier. I tried to move a spec of dirt on my black laptop. So far I have been unable to. Been then again I tried to blow on it hard and it wouldn't move also. That the speck of dirt might be semi-adhered to the laptop surface is a type 1 error. You can control for that, if you're serious.
DrP Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) Are you referring to my videos or the ones linked by Robitty ? The one with the bowl. You put the foil on the stick and it spins off in one direction and wobbles... it sort of comes to a stop as the system is gaining torc for the reverse spin... it settles for a bit and then as it starts to turn back in the opposite direction (as you might expect it to do as it goes past it's equilibrium point, of which there could be many) - you then claim this as TK. After 10 mins by the heater the system comes to a complete rest and moves no more (that is when you should be trying the TK, although, as I said, the wheel is so unstable that even vibration could set it in a spin again).... so, had you done the video with out trying TK I am saying that the wheel would have moved anyway. Thus my suggestion for the feather, or something very light. It should be easier than the wheel to move due to weight and you can rule out movement from vibrations through the precariously balanced system of the wheel. Put it under the bowl, or people will accuse you of blowing it. If you can move that, without cheating and using static, then show us the vid. I am certain you will not be able to move it, not because there is something special about the wheel which is susceptical to TK powers, but because, as I think you will find and probably know deep down, that there is no suck thing as TK that has ever been demonstrated to anyone on earth by anyone ever so far in the history of all mankind. EDIT - in case my point is not clear... you have to try to move an object which will not move on it's own anyway.... which the wheels do. Edited January 29, 2016 by DrP
Eldad Eshel Posted January 29, 2016 Author Posted January 29, 2016 The one with the bowl. You put the foil on the stick and it spins off in one direction and wobbles... it sort of comes to a stop as the system is gaining torc for the reverse spin... it settles for a bit and then as it starts to turn back in the opposite direction (as you might expect it to do as it goes past it's equilibrium point, of which there could be many) - you then claim this as TK. After 10 mins by the heater the system comes to a complete rest and moves no more (that is when you should be trying the TK, although, as I said, the wheel is so unstable that even vibration could set it in a spin again).... so, had you done the video with out trying TK I am saying that the wheel would have moved anyway. Thus my suggestion for the feather, or something very light. It should be easier than the wheel to move due to weight and you can rule out movement from vibrations through the precariously balanced system of the wheel. Put it under the bowl, or people will accuse you of blowing it. If you can move that, without cheating and using static, then show us the vid. I am certain you will not be able to move it, not because there is something special about the wheel which is susceptical to TK powers, but because, as I think you will find and probably know deep down, that there is no suck thing as TK that has ever been demonstrated to anyone on earth by anyone ever so far in the history of all mankind. EDIT - in case my point is not clear... you have to try to move an object which will not move on it's own anyway.... which the wheels do. The videos with the bowl are the ones linked by Robitty and are not mine. If you want mine search "Eldad Eshel Psi Wheel" on youtube.
DrP Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 The videos with the bowl are the ones linked by Robitty and are not mine. If you want mine search "Eldad Eshel Psi Wheel" on youtube. Can you link me to your one with the bowl then? I only saw without the bowl, which is a well explained phenomenon.
Recommended Posts