iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

olit123's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
huffingtonpost entry

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Commented Jun 28, 2013 at 06:49:34 in Science

“Oh wow this is still going on! Anyway back to the subject at hand... Dakkona if psi is non existant you have to ask yourself, why have so many experiments ended in positive results? From Dean Radins ganzfeld experiments and previous ones conducted he concluded that the chances of some kind of subtle information transfer not existing between humans is 300,000,000,000 to 1. Although the evidence is clear to me personally, I'm not asking that everyone should accept psi is real and get on with their lives. I think it just warrants a lot more well funded research that should be replicated and replicated.”
huffingtonpost entry

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Commented Jun 17, 2013 at 18:56:24 in Science

“Yes there is a difference between saying you've debunked something to it actually being debunked.”

jamenta on Jun 17, 2013 at 22:06:16

“Targ has not been debunked by credible psi researchers. Only in the fantasy wishes of fundamentalist Skeptics.”
huffingtonpost entry

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Commented Jun 16, 2013 at 06:55:26 in Science

“What other facts are we abandoning here to acknowledge the existence of psi? The "fact" that conciousness emerges from electrical processes in the brain? Can't think of a lot else.”

dsws on Jun 16, 2013 at 12:41:50

“If the world runs on woo instead of physics, what keeps airplanes up? 

I didn't say we're abandoning FACTS if we turn to woo.  I said we would be abandoning THEORY that explains countless facts.  If the world runs on woo, and its apparent adherence to physics turns out to all have been just a big prank by god-or-whoever, the facts are the same.  Airplanes still stay up.  We just have no explanation for it.”
huffingtonpost entry

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Commented Jun 16, 2013 at 06:49:55 in Science

“"Evidence can be either positive or negative. I list both to avoid the problem of selective reporting.

From the super-skeptical perspective there is *no* positive evidence for psi. That is clearly not true, as demonstrated by some of the articles on that page. But it is also true that sometimes evidence is not found, and it is only proper to reveal that too."”

DakkonA on Jun 16, 2013 at 16:56:25

“Yes, there is possible positive evidence. Show large effect sizes in well-controlled studies.”
huffingtonpost entry

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Commented Jun 15, 2013 at 19:57:53 in Science

“Sorry /evidence/evidence.htm”
huffingtonpost entry

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Commented Jun 15, 2013 at 19:56:56 in Science

“Go to deanradin.com/evidence . Nice long is of peer reviewed studies on psi for you.”

Bob Metcalfe on Jun 16, 2013 at 17:45:03

“It took me a while to look at some of these articles, and I see someone has replied in my absence :-). You seem to have missed that not all of these articles in fact support psi, and some of them such as the Targ and Puthoff papers were debunked years ago. Plus what he said :-).”

DakkonA on Jun 15, 2013 at 23:47:06

“Ugh, I'm not even going to bother with the rest. The science being done is so poor and lacks rigor, and you wouldn't believe me anyway.”

DakkonA on Jun 15, 2013 at 23:44:04

“Yeah, really strong evidence there:

"Distance healing"
Astin 2000 - "The methodologic limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing."

Leibovici 2001 - A dramatic demonstration that statistical significance does not mean biological significance, and that differences in the control and intervention groups is probably the overriding factor, given that the control group was across the board sicker, if slightly, than the intervention group, and just happened to also have barely longer hospital stays and fever duration. I could do the same thing and have people bang sticks together at a distance and claim that was healing people.

Radin 2008 - I am extremely unimpressed with the lack of information on the variability. That only means are being shown suggests variability was quite high, and that he is hiding the data to confuse the reader. Not to mention it is published in a journal for quacks and by quacks.”
huffingtonpost entry

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Commented Jun 15, 2013 at 19:50:44 in Science

“Why would you bother doing research to see if there is any research? Because you just stated that there is no research and it's good to back up your claim ;)”

stevep44 on Jun 16, 2013 at 10:27:18

“I made no such claim - nothing to back up. ”
huffingtonpost entry

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Commented Jun 15, 2013 at 19:41:21 in Science

“How dogmatic. That is EXACTLY the attitude that has not allowed psi to get a foothold in mainstream science, despite many experiments confirming it's reality. There is your answer to the standard sceptical question "if it isn't real why isn't everyone talking about it?"”
huffingtonpost entry

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Commented Jun 15, 2013 at 19:35:41 in Science

“That doesn't make any sense.. If you are getting a positive result for something you shouldn't ignore it because you can't figure out how it works... That said there are many theories that try to explain psi phenomena. The one that makes the most sense to me is that conciousness is the basis of reality and is more fundamental than the universe. Something like.. we are living in a virtual reality and the computer is conciousness.”

dsws on Jun 15, 2013 at 21:41:26

“There's always noise.  People make mistakes.  People lie.  Measurements aren't perfectly precise, nor perfectly accurate.

It makes no sense to abandon an understanding that explains countless well-verified facts, because of a handful of putative facts that aren't well verified and don't suggest a better theory.”
huffingtonpost entry

Science vs. Pseudoscience

Commented Jun 15, 2013 at 19:26:27 in Science

“Wut... I don't think that's what they are arguing for.”