[ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology
ismirth at gmail.com
Thu Oct 21 15:04:05 UTC 2010
It seems that you are jumping down my throat because I am skeptical about
the processes that they are coming up with. I read it until it was obvious
to *me* that it was easily fakable in the results, and then why bother
continuing. Also, their conjecture is flawed.
And in no way have I stated anything that is a 'preordained' description
(stating I have doubts, doesn't preordain a single thing). Perhaps you need
to ask yourself why you are so touchy (defensive) about someone being
skeptical about results that don't actually appear to prove anything?
If you want to believe these results means something, then by all means,
believe. I am not telling you to believe, or not believe. I was simply
joining in on the conversation.
I had thought this would be a forum that would WANT people to create higher
standards for 'proof' and thus create a higher level of credibility for
these 'fringe' things that we are interested in. I don't want to be attacked
for stating we had higher standards, showing how the standards are lacking,
and feeling that most experiments that people come up with to try to prove
these things have too many loop holes in them.
Now that I see that one may download the programs I will go see about
downloading them, and giving them a try. If it is truly possible, then it
should be possible to improve with practice, right? Well, I am up for it.
Let's just have a look-see. I invite everyone to download it and have at it
too. Wouldn't we all like to be able to read the future?
I am serious. We should all try it.
"Any person who says 'it can't be done' shouldn't be interrupting the people
getting it done."
"Do every single thing in life with love in your heart."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat