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

[Robittybob1]

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.

It will depend on whether EE can control one wheel that he is doing TK at the same time have a control wheel in the same area.

 

 

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...

We will be using the same wheel to do the control and test measurements but you have never given us any idea how you expect us to "design the experiment so that control and test measurements are taken using the same device".

Of course it could be just the operator choosing, but I proposed it done by a set time period e.g. daily change. OK that frequency could be hourly but I thought 10 minutes was too frequent but I'm not the person doing the TK. It will depend on what EE feels he is able to do.

[Eldad Eshel]

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...

The mustard seed is not easier to move. If you blow on it it will not necessarily move, while the psiwheel will definitely move.

[Strange]

We will be using the same wheel to do the control and test measurements but you have never given us any idea how you expect us to "design the experiment so that control and test measurements are taken using the same device"..

 

I have in my first post and in my last post explaining the meaning of blind vs double blind.

[Phi for All]

The mustard seed is not easier to move. If you blow on it it will not necessarily move, while the psiwheel will definitely move.

 

But you told us all earlier that this ability was more like pushing mentally, rather than creating air currents with it. A mustard seed weighs a fraction of your psiwheel. This tells me you're wrong, it's all about air currents pushing on a medium designed to take maximum advantage of any air current.

[Robittybob1]

 

I have in my first post and in my last post explaining the meaning of blind vs double blind.

It was Arete's method I was more interested in, sorry Strange.

 

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.

This is the post you speak of. It depended on what you mean by moving it. Do you mean trying to move it?

[Arete]

you have never given us any idea how you expect us to "design the experiment so that control and test measurements are taken using the same device".

 

Actually I did around ~150 posts ago.

3) Quantify false positives using a control. In this case have the subject do exactly what they do to spin the wheel physically, and get them to not try and spin the wheel. Record movement.

[Strange]

This is the post you speak of. It depended on what you mean by moving it. Do you mean trying to move it?

 

Of course. (I was being generous: EE is convinced he is moving it. So I assume he will say "I am moving it now" rather than "I am trying to move it now".)

 

But the words don't matter. The important thing is that a different person records when the attempts are made and when movement occurs.

[Robittybob1]

 

 

Actually I did around ~150 posts ago.

[Quantify false positives using a control. In this case have the subject do exactly what they do to spin the wheel physically, and get them to not try and spin the wheel. Record movement.]

 

OK I have seen that been done before, so they go through the actions, if there were any, but have no mental intention (or possibly thinking "don't move" and at other time "Move". Compare the two. It is really difficult not to think in some form. In fact I have been seeing some YT discussion which proved the brain is generating the ideas before you are conscious of it. EEGs were showing the action potential for up to a second before the subject was conscious of their thought.

[John Cuthber]

OK I have seen that been done before, so they go through the actions, if there were any, but have no mental intention (or possibly thinking "don't move" and at other time "Move". Compare the two. It is really difficult not to think in some form. In fact I have been seeing some YT discussion which proved the brain is generating the ideas before you are conscious of it. EEGs were showing the action potential for up to a second before the subject was conscious of their thought.

OK, so think about something else- try to remember your seventeen times table or something.

[Robittybob1]

 

Of course. (I was being generous: EE is convinced he is moving it. So I assume he will say "I am moving it now" rather than "I am trying to move it now".)

 

But the words don't matter. The important thing is that a different person records when the attempts are made and when movement occurs.

I understand you now. It wasn't that he needed to know it was moving but just that he felt (conscious) he was willing it (trying to make it) move at that time.

OK, so think about something else- try to remember your seventeen times table or something.

That would definitely make my brain heat up! A hot brain could create air currents in the room. You would need to virtually to have no thought at all.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Phi for All]

You would need to virtually to have no thought at all.

 

A recurring theme in this thread.

[John Cuthber]

 

That would definitely make my brain heat up! A hot brain could create air currents in the room. You would need to virtually to have no thought at all.

Actually, the brain is horribly inefficient- it barely uses any more energy while you are thinking about something than when you are asleep.

 

Nice try at avoiding actually doing the experiment though.

[Robittybob1]

Actually, the brain is horribly inefficient- it barely uses any more energy while you are thinking about something than when you are asleep.

 

Nice try at avoiding actually doing the experiment though.

I wasn't trying to pull out of the experiment. I'm not the TK practitioner but I was just limiting possible excuses if the experiment is claimed to have a type 2 error.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Robittybob1

[imatfaal]

I wasn't trying to pull out of the experiment. I'm not the TK practitioner but I was just limiting possible excuses if the experiment is claimed to have a type 2 error.

 

A type 2 error is the mistake of not rejecting a false null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that the movement is caused by air current and vibrations etc. We would reject this if we were able to show that this explanation is unlikely. We would be wrong in not rejecting the null (a type 2) if we had evidence that should have persuaded us of another hypothesis but instead we kept the null.

 

Every proper experimental refinement improves the power and significance of the test - but on the whole something that rules out other potential causes of movement of the psiwheel would rule out type 1 errors not type 2

[Robittybob1]

 

A type 2 error is the mistake of not rejecting a false null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that the movement is caused by air current and vibrations etc. We would reject this if we were able to show that this explanation is unlikely. We would be wrong in not rejecting the null (a type 2) if we had evidence that should have persuaded us of another hypothesis but instead we kept the null.

 

Every proper experimental refinement improves the power and significance of the test - but on the whole something that rules out other potential causes of movement of the psiwheel would rule out type 1 errors not type 2

The reason I said it would be a Type 2 error in this case would be the air currents developed while reading the control would be greater than during reading the test from the "hot head" subsequent to doing the difficult mental arithmetic.

This was discounted as a significant cause of heating but it is still one that EE could claim if the null hypothesis is accepted.

 

I understood the null hypothesis to be "that there will be no statistical difference in the degree of rotation between the test and the control PSI wheels". We are not looking into air currents or vibration at this stage but these need to be eliminated from the experimental design for they could contribute to Type 1 or Type 2 errors.

The skeptics will only claim there was a Type 1 error (for they expect the null hypothesis to be accepted) whereas the TK practitioners will only claim a Type 2 error (for they want the null hypothesis to be rejected).

 

EE has alway said it was "harder" to do the test under the bowl. I have tried to define what he means by harder but in my language any task that is harder takes more energy and hence more heat is produced.

So developing an argument for the TK skeptics they could also claim that the wheel turns due to the air currents produced from the practitioner's body because more energy is being used up during the times he is doing the TK test than the times he is relaxed doing the control phase.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Arete]

The skeptics will only claim there was a Type 1 error (for they expect the null hypothesis to be accepted) whereas the TK practitioners will only claim a Type 2 error (for they want the null hypothesis to be rejected).

 

and the scientists will let the data tell them the answer.

[Robittybob1]

 

and the scientists will let the data tell them the answer.

Well we will see if your prediction is correct once EE does the experiment.

[John Cuthber]

Is there any actual evidenced reason why this thread should continue?
It's been made clear that EE won't do an experiment that might prove him wrong...

[Robittybob1]

Is there any actual evidenced reason why this thread should continue?

It's been made clear that EE won't do an experiment that might prove him wrong...

I don't recall EE saying anything like that. I am waiting for EE to tell us whether he can operate two PSI wheels at the same time, one being the test subject and the other the control. I assumed he was practicing doing this before getting back to us.

[Rajnish Kaushik]

Telekinesis is just pure science and illusion just like magic...atleast that's what i think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BIWhNh5V6Q

Well, watch this video it explains everything properly

Edited February 6, 2016 by Rajnish Kaushik

[Strange]

Telekinesis is just pure science and illusion just like magic...atleast that's what i think

 

That doesn't make much sense.

[Rajnish Kaushik]

 

That doesn't make much sense.

well.....sorry but i don't believe in telekinesis and i believe it can be easily explained with science

[StringJunky]

 

That doesn't make much sense.

Pure science: I think he means there's a rational or mundane explanation for what is observed

[Strange]

well.....sorry but i don't believe in telekinesis and i believe it can be easily explained with science

 

OK. You original sentence was very ambiguous - it could have meant the exact opposite!

[Endy0816]

Yeah, stage magic. Even saw videos showing various ways to create the effect.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Endy0816