Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
Not sure if you got this, but he spelled it right the first time. Plural of hypothesis is hypotheses.
|
Dude you are either really slow or don't realize when I'm trying to make light of a situation. Wake up & smell a bit of teasing......
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
I don't know what all this stuff is about squeebs and viruses, but have a point to make here.
Nobody can say categorically that ESP does not exist, any more than someone can categorically say that Thor the Norse god of thunder does not exist (or to use a less trite example, that pyramids don't have the power to sharpen razorblades). You can't prove a negative, as we all know.
The fact is, however, that despite various efforts to detect such an effect, no peer-reviewed study has found any evidence that ESP is real phenomenon. Is it possible that ESP exists but simply has never been reproduced in a study? Yes. Does that mean you should believe it exists? Up to you, but as has been pointed out already, if all the evidence you need that something is real is that nobody's proven it isn't, then you should be believing all sorts of wacky ideas. So, putting the question back to you - why do you believe in ESP when there is no proper evidence to support it? Why this phenomenon and not others?
Martian is absolutely dead on about your misunderstanding of the scientific method.
You do realize that there is a difference between something being "impossible" and nobody knowing how to do it (or even to think about doing it) right? Radio waves - I'd have to check but I suspect nobody knew they even existed for very long (relatively speaking) before Marconi figured out how to transmit information over them.
|
All you've done is repost whats already been said, and taken on the same superior attitude.
You do realize that is a perfectly logical argument to assume that science will evolve and that our current testing methods are insufficient to study this phenomenon???
I also hope you realize it is also a perfectly logical argument to to state that most scientific theories
are not 100% infallible, scientific theories are simply our current best guess,
whether you realize that or not.
So proving a positive beyond any shadow of any doubt seems to be a tad difficult too....
Quote:
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF ESP AND PARANORMAL
1. THE PRINCETON PEAR LAB AND OTHER LABORATORIES HAVE CONDUCTED LARGE SCALE STATISTICAL STUDIES OF ESP, REMOTE VIEWING AND PSYCHOKINESIS (PK OR MIND OVER MATTER). THEY FIND HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE FOR REALITY OF THESE PHENOMENA. ODDS AGAINST CHANCE ARE MILLIONS OR BILLIONS TO ONE.
2. THE GRAPH ABOVE SHOWS EVIDENCE COLLECTED OVER MANY TRIALS IN WHICH SUBJECT TRIES TO MAKE A RANDOM NUMBER CHANGE IN A DESIRED DIRECTION. THIS IS ANALOGOUS TO MAKING A COIN ALWAYS LAND HEADS BY WILLING IT. GRAPH SHOWS THAT WHEN OPERATOR WANTED NUMBER TO GO HIGH, IT DID SO ON THE AVERAGE. LIKEWISE, WHEN GOING LOW WAS DESIRED, THE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR COMPLIED. THIS HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN DOZENS OF LABS AROUND THE WORLD. (DATA FROM PRINCETON PEAR LAB)
|
http://www.synchronizeduniverse.com/...PARANORMAL.htm
There are also several other studies showing the existence of ESP, there was a 25% chance of choosing the correct target by "luck", yet the studies yield a 38% hit rate. I may dig them up, but it seems pointless since no matter what studies I post the detractors will always say the data is flawed. Its just much safer to agree with the majority, and maintain the status quo.