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

[StringJunky]

 

A type I error (or error of the first kind) is the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis. Usually a type I error leads one to conclude that a supposed effect or relationship exists when in fact it doesn't. Examples of type I errors include a test that shows a patient to have a disease when in fact the patient does not have the disease, a fire alarm going off indicating a fire when in fact there is no fire, or an experiment indicating that a medical treatment should cure a disease when in fact it does not.

 

A type II error (or error of the second kind) is the failure to reject a false null hypothesis. Examples of type II errors would be a blood test failing to detect the disease it was designed to detect, in a patient who really has the disease; a fire breaking out and the fire alarm does not ring; or a clinical trial of a medical treatment failing to show that the treatment works when really it does.^[2]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors

 

[DrP]

QUOTE, RR: "suggested using 2 wheels"...

 

 

But we KNOW the wheels are BS! It is covered in many debunk vids on the net... DO IT WITH A GRAIN OF DUST OR A FEATHER OR SOMETHING THAT ISN'T AS UNSTABLE AS THE PATHETIC, DUMB ASS WHEEL.... sorry for the shouting, but I seem to be ignored.

 

Anything done with the dumb wheel is bull crap, any results attained from it cannot be trusted. Do it properly or not at all. FORGET THE WHEEL.

 

For the last time: - Do it with something stable (not the fdumb wheel). Do it with a bowl covering. Don't cheat or read false positives from the background noise.

QUOTE: RR: " seems impossible that one would move and not the other... can you imagine that situation?"

 

Yes - easily.... because they are so unstable and rest in "metastable" resting/equilibrium points that are not reproducible from wheel to wheel. I would say it is quite probable that this would happen - you see one move while the other is stationary or maybe both or maybe none... thus you need to remove the possibility for this error and ditch the wheel entirely - it is too precarious.

 

 

If it is a genuine phenomenon then the wheel is irrelevant - it would work with ANY mass .... it is NOT a genuine phenomenon though is it? It ONLY works with the wheel because the wheel is too unstable and moves by itself, or through vibration or static or air currents or some other unknown which is different from wheel to wheel.

Edited February 2, 2016 by DrP

[swansont]

If one insists that it must be done with the wheel, and how it seems to work better than with linear motion, then the feathers or polystyrene chips would be a good control, since we know these are susceptible to air currents.

[Arete]

Good point about seeing it move and making it a positive result. That was why I was suggesting having two wheels side by side, one the test subject and the other the control, and both under glass bowls etc. That to me seems so improbable that one would move and not the other. Can you imagine that situation?

 

Absolutely. With a homemade device like a "PSI" wheel, it would be virtually impossible to get the friction coefficients of two wheels identical - meaning they would move different degrees given the same input. Also, in a home setup, it would be virtually impossible to isolate them from every possible source of vibration and air movement. I would therefore argue that it's not only possible, but likely that you would observe some bias when using two separate apparatus to take control and test measurements.

 

As I elaborated earlier - even in a genuine laboratory, using professionally constructed, precision instruments, you would never measure controls and treatments using different instruments. It's an obvious source of error -or at least I would have thought it to be obvious.

 

Ever since Arete started using the term "type 1 error" (seems like a week or more now). I have been trying to get him to define his term.

 

You know posts are time and date stamped, right? I first used the term on "27 January 2016 - 07:52 PM"

 

Furthermore I defined type 1 error the same day:

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...

 

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.

I FURTHER clarified in a subsequent post:

Also, any measurement made during the course of a experiment which is a false positive is a type 1 error, not just rejection of the overall experiment.

Again, to clarify, a type 1 error is any error that leads one to conclude that an experiment has measured a treatment effect, when none is actually present. As statistical tests are specifically implemented to control for both types of error, this often when the concept is first introduced to the student. I mean no offense, but it appears that the issue here is the rote regurgitation of definitions, rather than grasping the actual concept behind them.

A statistical analysis is only as good as the data used to perform it. If your experimental design is flawed, your statistical analysis is worthless, no matter how sophisticated. To provide an in context hypothetical example:

You have a control wheel, and a test wheel. Due to inherent imperfections, the test wheel spins slightly more freely than the control. You have controlled as best you can for external influences, but the hot water pipe under the floor intermittently causes some vibration. As a result, the test wheel moves slightly during the experiment, but the control does not. You perform a t-test on the replicated results, and the effect is significant at the predetermined 95% confidence level. Hurrah! you've proven telekinesis, pass go and collect your Nobel prize... only you haven't, you've made a type 1 error due to flawed experimental design.

The entire purpose of the scientific method is to control for error - experimental design, analysis and interpretation all control for errors and bias. That's why it works.

Is that any clearer? Is anyone else having trouble with comprehension?

Edited February 2, 2016 by Arete

[Phi for All]

Due to inherent imperfections, the test wheel spins slightly more freely than the control.

 

 

As a paper airplane enthusiast, I can attest to a lack of precision when folding paper. Psi wheels are probably like snowflakes.

[swansont]

 

As a paper airplane enthusiast, I can attest to a lack of precision when folding paper. Psi wheels are probably like snowflakes.

 

The claims are, too. In that they melt under the heat of close scrutiny.

[Robittybob1]

If one insists that it must be done with the wheel, and how it seems to work better than with linear motion, then the feathers or polystyrene chips would be a good control, since we know these are susceptible to air currents.

Like are you suggesting putting these below the wheel to pick up air currents? There could well be air currents as the cause for the phenomenon but then we would need to see how these air currents are generated underneath the air tight hoods (glass bowls).

 

We should do this from the start. I agree it should be part of the experimental design.

 

 

Absolutely. With a homemade device like a "PSI" wheel, it would be virtually impossible to get the friction coefficients of two wheels identical - meaning they would move different degrees given the same input. Also, in a home setup, it would be virtually impossible to isolate them from every possible source of vibration and air movement. I would therefore argue that it's not only possible, but likely that you would observe some bias when using two separate apparatus to take control and test measurements.

 

As I elaborated earlier - even in a genuine laboratory, using professionally constructed, precision instruments, you would never measure controls and treatments using different instruments. It's an obvious source of error -or at least I would have thought it to be obvious.

 

 

You know posts are time and date stamped, right? I first used the term on "27 January 2016 - 07:52 PM"

 

Furthermore I defined type 1 error the same day:

I FURTHER clarified in a subsequent post:

Again, to clarify, a type 1 error is any error that leads one to conclude that an experiment has measured a treatment effect, when none is actually present. As statistical tests are specifically implemented to control for both types of error, this often when the concept is first introduced to the student. I mean no offense, but it appears that the issue here is the rote regurgitation of definitions, rather than grasping the actual concept behind them.

A statistical analysis is only as good as the data used to perform it. If your experimental design is flawed, your statistical analysis is worthless, no matter how sophisticated. To provide an in context hypothetical example:

You have a control wheel, and a test wheel. Due to inherent imperfections, the test wheel spins slightly more freely than the control. You have controlled as best you can for external influences, but the hot water pipe under the floor intermittently causes some vibration. As a result, the test wheel moves slightly during the experiment, but the control does not. You perform a t-test on the replicated results, and the effect is significant at the predetermined 95% confidence level. Hurrah! you've proven telekinesis, pass go and collect your Nobel prize... only you haven't, you've made a type 1 error due to flawed experimental design.

The entire purpose of the scientific method is to control for error - experimental design, analysis and interpretation all control for errors and bias. That's why it works.

Is that any clearer? Is anyone else having trouble with comprehension?

 

To overcome the variation that might be possible with the two side by side wheels we were going to assign each of them alternate roles at a defined frequency. So if one had a tendency to move for some weird reason one day it would be the control, next day it would be the test wheel. For the whole time of the experiment neither wheels are touched. In my understanding of physics they may have had some instability to begin with but that will fade with time. I can't see how any difference between the apparatus will persist and always favour the test wheel.

EE has not agreed to the experiment as yet but I would be surprised if one could get either wheel (assignation) to move more than the other under those circumstances.

 

Knowing whether something is a false positive is a bit hard for me to understand. It is like you seem to know the outcome you expect and won't accept any other result.

You might take the view if the test wheel moved more than the control - it must be a false positive result.

I suppose EE would take the opposite view, his false positive would be if the control moved more than the test.

 

I don't have any preconceived notion and all I'm saying is take the measurements.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Robittybob1

[swansont]

Like are you suggesting putting these below the wheel to pick up air currents? There could well be air currents as the cause for the phenomenon but then we would need to see how these air currents are generated underneath the air tight hoods (glass bowls).

 

We should do this from the start. I agree it should be part of the experimental design.

 

Near the wheel, inside the enclosure. Since they are smaller mass and low density they will be more sensitive to air currents but we've already been told that they are not as susceptible to the TK effect that is under investigation. Part of the problem is that an inverted bowl is not an air-tight hood, but merely a restricted air flow hood.

[Eldad Eshel]

The psiwheel isn't BS. I think it is very unscientific to say this. It is a simple "invention" made to take the best of even the weakest TK. It offers the easiest form of TK, to anyone. Still it is not easy to get it going, even though it is the easiest form. Take anything else and it will be harder. A straw on a bottle, is also something very sensitive, and would seem to me to be the next in line, but I cannot move it yet.

 

There seem to be 3 reasons for a mundane cause. Heat from the hands, which I ruled out by moving it without the hands. Then there are the breathing and the air currents, which both I can assure you from my many testings that they aren't the cause. My breathing is steady, and I control it well so not to move the wheel with it, it is certainly not the reason. As for air currents, my small one room apartment is closed shut right now. All the windows and doors are closed, there are no air currents in my apartment, or touching the wheel. The only air currents that do exist are when I am moving around the wheel, but when I am testing and making it spin I am standing still.

[John Cuthber]

How did you independently verify this

"My breathing is steady, and I control it well so not to move the wheel with it, "

" there are no air currents in my apartment,"

Yes there are. If nothing else your body heat will set up thermal currents.

 

Since you have made it clear that you don't even understand where air currents come from, it's clear that you won't have avoided them.

So any "work" you have done is void.

Edited February 2, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Robittybob1]

 

Near the wheel, inside the enclosure. Since they are smaller mass and low density they will be more sensitive to air currents but we've already been told that they are not as susceptible to the TK effect that is under investigation. Part of the problem is that an inverted bowl is not an air-tight hood, but merely a restricted air flow hood.

Darryl removed any chance of air under the rim of the glass bowl by placing the bowl on a towel. I would imagine we could seal the rim-table junction with plasticine or similar for the towel would stop the movement of fine material placed under the bowl.

 

I was thinking of testing the apparatus with a hair dryer to see clearly what effects of outside air currents would have on the wheel.

The psiwheel isn't BS. I think it is very unscientific to say this. It is a simple "invention" made to take the best of even the weakest TK. It offers the easiest form of TK, to anyone. Still it is not easy to get it going, even though it is the easiest form. Take anything else and it will be harder. A straw on a bottle, is also something very sensitive, and would seem to me to be the next in line, but I cannot move it yet.

 

There seem to be 3 reasons for a mundane cause. Heat from the hands, which I ruled out by moving it without the hands. Then there are the breathing and the air currents, which both I can assure you from my many testings that they aren't the cause. My breathing is steady, and I control it well so not to move the wheel with it, it is certainly not the reason. As for air currents, my small one room apartment is closed shut right now. All the windows and doors are closed, there are no air currents in my apartment, or touching the wheel. The only air currents that do exist are when I am moving around the wheel, but when I am testing and making it spin I am standing still.

What happens if you have two wheels out in the open, can you get the effect just to spin one and not the other?

[Strange]

It is a simple "invention" made to take the best of even the weakest TK. It offers the easiest form of TK, to anyone.

 

Or it is particularly sensitive to external influences.

 

 

which both I can assure you from my many testings that they aren't the cause.

 

This is not a personal comment, but as the "subject under test" your opinions are not credible. Especially when you have made it clear that nothing will change your mind. You need to do a blinded test. And you need others to eliminate extraneous causes (or "make it harder" in your parlance).

[DrP]

 

Near the wheel, inside the enclosure. Since they are smaller mass and low density they will be more sensitive to air currents

 

I'm not sure that works either - the wheel might be a larger mass, but, the way it is balanced is pretty unstable. It might take less air movement to get it rocking slightly than it would to move a polystyrene chip.or a feather. Once moved just slightly it could set it off on a small fraction of a turn or something under its own weight then. Does that make sense? Could it be more sensitive than the lighter, lower density pieces to air currents due to its precarious balancing act?

 

You see, even if you put it under a bowl, left the room, filmed it stationary for 45 mins, tiptoed back in with the film still running, stood there for a few mins to show that tip toeing up to the bowl didn't set it off, indicated precicely when you were going to start trying to move it, then moved it, I would be be skeptical...... but I would admit that it was impressive and look at it closer.

[Endy0816]

My own version spun with ease via air currents even with an unsealed container over it. Need to rule all the alternatives. Ventilation is fairly ubiquitous.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Endy0816

[Arete]

Knowing whether something is a false positive is a bit hard for me to understand. It is like you seem to know the outcome you expect and won't accept any other result.

 

Quite the opposite. The experimental design simply needs to minimize the chance that the wheel will move due to something other than telekinesis. The steps I've outlined are actually pretty basic, general experimental practices (minimize confounding outside forces, eliminate subjective bias, eliminate instrumentation error).

 

If you don't design and conduct the experiment properly, it doesn't test the hypothesis at hand and doesn't prove the point. The reason EE's experiments to date are so unconvincing is because they are so uncontrolled. The propensity for external influence and the application of Occam's Razor means that the only scientifically valid conclusion is that there is no evidence of his abilities util such time as a decently devised study is conducted.

 

Conducting a well considered, controlled study is so you can rely on your data to tell you the outcome, and specifically to eliminate bias towards one outcome or the other.

[Phi for All]

The psiwheel isn't BS. I think it is very unscientific to say this. It is a simple "invention" made to take the best of even the weakest TK. It offers the easiest form of TK, to anyone.

 

Did we ever establish a medium for TK? Does the TK move air currents the psiwheel is designed to take full advantage of? Or does the TK actually apply force directly to the object itself, as if you might move it with a mental finger or hand? Or do you think the TK makes things hotter so convection comes into play to move the sensitive psiwheel? Or something else?

 

Answer this, and we can apply some meaningful thought to the question of psiwheel vs other sensitive measuring devices.

[Robittybob1]

 

Quite the opposite. The experimental design simply needs to minimize the chance that the wheel will move due to something other than telekinesis. The steps I've outlined are actually pretty basic, general experimental practices (minimize confounding outside forces, eliminate subjective bias, eliminate instrumentation error).

 

If you don't design and conduct the experiment properly, it doesn't test the hypothesis at hand and doesn't prove the point. The reason EE's experiments to date are so unconvincing is because they are so uncontrolled. The propensity for external influence and the application of Occam's Razor means that the only scientifically valid conclusion is that there is no evidence of his abilities util such time as a decently devised study is conducted.

 

Conducting a well considered, controlled study is so you can rely on your data to tell you the outcome, and specifically to eliminate bias towards one outcome or the other.

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

[StringJunky]

 

Did we ever establish a medium for TK? Does the TK move air currents the psiwheel is designed to take full advantage of? Or does the TK actually apply force directly to the object itself, as if you might move it with a mental finger or hand? Or do you think the TK makes things hotter so convection comes into play to move the sensitive psiwheel? Or something else?

 

Answer this, and we can apply some meaningful thought to the question of psiwheel vs other sensitive measuring devices.

Another way to look at it is to establish the amount of work/energy required to do the same thing remotely with various beam technologies we do have and we then should be able to assess what rate of work our bodies would need to generate to perform it 'paranormally'. My guess is it would be well outside what we would be capable of generating from some arbitrary distance.

Edited February 2, 2016 by StringJunky

[Eldad Eshel]

 

Did we ever establish a medium for TK? Does the TK move air currents the psiwheel is designed to take full advantage of? Or does the TK actually apply force directly to the object itself, as if you might move it with a mental finger or hand? Or do you think the TK makes things hotter so convection comes into play to move the sensitive psiwheel? Or something else?

 

Answer this, and we can apply some meaningful thought to the question of psiwheel vs other sensitive measuring devices.

Out of those 3 you offered I believe it is the second, applying direct force to the object. I believe it is metaphysical energy of our existence coming into interaction with matter. Anyway the question "Did we ever establish a medium for TK?" is very interesting, and kind of the reason I posted on a science forum, so it could be investigated seriously and maybe some definite answers could be given. I think from a perspective of a scientist this subject is very interesting as it offers a new world to explore and maybe to add to science.

[Robittybob1]

Out of those 3 you offered I believe it is the second, applying direct force to the object. I believe it is metaphysical energy of our existence coming into interaction with matter. Anyway the question "Did we ever establish a medium for TK?" is very interesting, and kind of the reason I posted on a science forum, so it could be investigated seriously and maybe some definite answers could be given. I think from a perspective of a scientist this subject is very interesting as it offers a new world to explore and maybe to add to science.

Why would you choose that one. From what we see it is more like the first one - air currents.

[Phi for All]

Out of those 3 you offered I believe it is the second, applying direct force to the object.

 

OK, stick with this and forget the metaphysical existence energy angle. Whatever it is or wherever it comes from, you believe it moves the psiwheel like you pushed it with a mental finger, rather than causing an air current event through motion or convection, or vibrations from the environment.

 

Now testing with the foam chips and feathers takes on new meaning. Pushing the psiwheel with your mental finger won't affect the foam and feathers. If you move the wheel alone (after it's settled as much as possible) without moving the chips and feathers, it's strong support that you're right about it being a "mental finger force". BUT, if all the bits in the experiment area move when you try just to move the psiwheel, it's a strong indicator that an air current event is taking place, or possibly vibrations affecting the whole.

[Eldad Eshel]

Air currents make the thing bounce and jump around. I can make it spin very steadily for long periods of time. I think you should really leave this air currents theory, it is not it. Also If it was air currents I would see it moving sometimes randomly from far, which I don't.

[Robittybob1]

Air currents make the thing bounce and jump around. I can make it spin very steadily for long periods of time. I think you should really leave this air currents theory, it is not it. Also If it was air currents I would see it moving sometimes randomly from far, which I don't.

You missed what I mean, just like the push you think of I imagine the air molecules do the pushing, but this is still under mind control.

This is said as pure imagination for I have never experienced anything like TK.

For a push as in a finger would make it rock and bounce around as well. When I looked intently at the motion in Darryl's videos there was no sudden push, generally the movement starts virtually imperceptibly but you look at it again and it has moved.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Robittybob1

[John Cuthber]

Air currents make the thing bounce and jump around. I can make it spin very steadily for long periods of time. I think you should really leave this air currents theory, it is not it. Also If it was air currents I would see it moving sometimes randomly from far, which I don't.

Since you are the most likely cause of air currents (see my earlier post which you seem to have ignored) it is no surprise that you don't see the wheel move when you are far from it.

 

Could you address the other points I made please?

[Robittybob1]

You missed what I mean, just like the push you think of I imagine the air molecules do the pushing, but this is still under mind control.

This is said as pure imagination for I have never experienced anything like TK.

For a push as in a finger would make it rock and bounce around as well. When I looked intently at the motion in Darryl's videos there was no sudden push, generally the movement starts virtually imperceptibly but you look at it again and it has moved.

Have a look and see how slowly the wheel moves from 1:50 into the video to 3:30.