Timeline for Does telepathy exist?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2013 at 7:01 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | let us continue this discussion in chat | |
| Jun 10, 2013 at 6:47 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | "Finally, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a real telepath would want to keep their head down. " - It is not perfectly reasonable to assume that all telepaths want to keep their head down. You are still somehow assuming that there would be only one telepath, which is patently absurd. "Assuming they are rare enough they are likely to get caught unless they say something" - Get caught!? Are there now yet another global secret society, but one that hunts telepaths? This is beyond ridiculous. | |
| Jun 10, 2013 at 6:45 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | You repeating your nonsense does not make it better. Also you are now clearly making a big effort into intentionally not understanding what I'm saying. "defend your position in a scientifically rigorous manner!" - I am. It doesn't become otherwise because you claim so. Learn the basics of how science works, please. If you are a telepath, and you want the money, getting a media presence is trivial. The MDC is not a general testing area for you to test if you maybe have psychic power. | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 19:32 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | If telepathy existed, there would be many telepaths. And people do step forward all the time because they believe they are telepaths. But they fail when tested. They just think they are telepaths but they are deluding themselves, like dowsers etc. Why would real telepaths be different and not step forward? That makes no sense. The only way that could happen is through the worlds largest conspiracy ever, with a secret underground society of telepaths, who evidently are related since they know not to step forward even as childs. Harry Potter anyone? | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 19:32 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | @RobZ: No, you are wrong on all counts. The meta study did not disagree with my standpoint. I had misread it, however, and it also did not support it, so it made things less clear. For the question of evidence of existence, please look up "Pastafarianism". For a more in depth treatment, see "The logic of scientific discovery" by Karl Popper. Until there is any indication that telepathy exists, the only intellectually honest thing to do is to assume that is does not exist. | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 15:37 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | This is all fundamental principles of science: If there is no evidence or reason for the existence of X, then is must be assumed that X does not exist. This is the case with telepathy: There is not a smidgen of evidence that it exists. Even the "anomaly in need of explanation" is not an indication that telepathy exists. The explanation can be simply bias amongst studies, or a mistake in that meta-study. The amount of reason to believe in telepathy is zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nul. Nothing. Conclusion: It does not exist. It's that easy. | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 15:34 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | @RobZ: You are right, I misread that. It doesn't change that the vast majority of studies find no effect, and that no reliable indication has been found that telepathy exists. 2) No, there are no reasonable explanations. You are assuming that amongst all the billions of people there is one or a few that are clearly and demonstrably telepathic, while most people are not telepathic at all. Nothing else works like that. If telepathy existed, there would be telepaths that are good at it, some average and some bad. One of these would have stepped forward. They haven't. | |
| Jun 9, 2013 at 15:29 | history | edited | Lennart Regebro | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 116 characters in body
|
| Jun 9, 2013 at 4:53 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | @RobZ: 1. " It is concluded that the overall evidence indicates that there is an anomalous effect in need of an explanation." You can't just take one bit out of context and then claim that the conclusion is the direct opposite of what they actually concludes. 2. Utter nonsense. | |
| Jun 8, 2013 at 21:26 | history | edited | rjzii | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Updated Million Dollar Chanenge link and rmed bold text
|
| Dec 26, 2012 at 20:58 | vote | accept | Joseph Weissman | ||
| Nov 30, 2012 at 11:10 | comment | added | Jase | I agree with this; it should've occurred to me when I was writing the post. Apologies. | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 11:06 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | It's not so much the double post. You could have said "Your claim" or "that claim" or "this claim" or "the claim" but you said "what you have claimed" which is hard to interpret at one specific claim, and implies that all I claimed is false. With or without the double post, any of these variations would have implied that you objected to one specific thing, not all of it. | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 11:02 | comment | added | Jase | I believe the confusion arose from my double post. In my second post, when I said "you've claimed", I was talking very specifically about the claim that I quoted in my previous post, and not your whole position in general. | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 10:57 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | No, you said "what you've claimed is completely false". That reasonably means all of it. Maybe you should be more careful in how you formulate things. Such as not saying that I'm completely wrong, when you don't mean it. So we don't have to have nonsense meta-discussions like this. | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 10:49 | comment | added | Jase | I said that your claim that the "vast majority of studies do not (see a statistically significant effect)." is false, based on my previous reading of the literature. This does NOT imply that I then believe that telepathy exists (which is what you've suggested when you said that I'm claiming that "available research proves the existence of telepathy"). These studies having overall significant results could be the result of (i) file drawer effect, (ii) publication bias, (iii) foreign journal bias, (iv) poor experimental design. | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 10:40 | comment | added | Jase | @Lennart Nowhere did I state that I think that telepathy exists. I said "unmoved" as in I didn't shift from a position of dis- or non-belief to a position of belief after having read the literature. I was asking for a reference for your claim that the vast majority of studies find statistically insignificant results. Most major meta-analyses come away with incredibly small p-values which is the basis of my request for a reference (not that I think it exists!). | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 10:32 | history | edited | Lennart Regebro | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Sources
|
| Nov 30, 2012 at 10:27 | comment | added | Jase | I ask this because, based on my reading of the literature (a while ago), what you've claimed is completely false. I still came away from it unmoved because they I don't think they've dealt with publication bias, foreign journal bias or the file drawer effect, but that's a separate question. | |
| Nov 30, 2012 at 10:19 | comment | added | Jase | Do you have a reference that conducts a review of the relevant literature and finds, as you claim, that the "vast majority of studies do not (see a statistically significant effect)."? | |
| Jul 30, 2011 at 3:35 | vote | accept | Joseph Weissman | ||
| Sep 16, 2011 at 6:56 | |||||
| Jul 30, 2011 at 3:35 | vote | accept | Joseph Weissman | ||
| Jul 30, 2011 at 3:35 | |||||
| Jul 23, 2011 at 11:38 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | I don't consider it broken. Neither does the voters. | |
| Jul 23, 2011 at 10:10 | comment | added | Sklivvz | @len I know this answer is very old, but can you consider fixing it? It's a broken window now... | |
| Jul 18, 2011 at 22:09 | comment | added | vartec | that's only because Runciter’s inertials were around. ;-) | |
| S Mar 26, 2011 at 3:02 | history | suggested | TessellatingHeckler | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
grammar edit
|
| Mar 26, 2011 at 2:36 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 26, 2011 at 3:02 | |||||
| Mar 5, 2011 at 19:00 | vote | accept | Joseph Weissman | ||
| Jul 28, 2011 at 3:49 | |||||
| Mar 5, 2011 at 6:50 | history | answered | Lennart Regebro | CC BY-SA 2.5 |