innerfire
Author
Respected Member
--Unknown--
Posts: 399
|
Post by innerfire on Jan 19, 2007 13:08:34 GMT -5
Ok, for the love of God edit that or something, I've been trying to follow this topic but that last post doesn't make any sense in any remotely conceivable way.
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Jan 19, 2007 14:48:19 GMT -5
Leek, actually listen to yourself. There are no separate 'laws of psionics.' Psionics follows the laws of physics. We don't know everything they're talking about. This isn't a matter of 'turning the other cheek' which is a specific BIBLICAL reference that has become a cultural one for NOT seeking retribution on the people who have injured you.
Perhaps you should be thanking gravity for 'turning the other cheek' to you. (Dripping sarcasm.)
Do you have ANY idea how rediculous you're being? Are we limiting ourselves by taking practical OBSERVATIONS (what part of OBSERVATION is in anyway unclear?) and using it to BUILD the details we need to determine where these limits are and what rules psionics follow. If you're going to reject scientific method this thoroughly, get out of this discussion. You don't belong here. If you are going to actually offer evidence that CONTRADICTS the obeservations made here, do so or shut up and go away. YOu're making an abject fool of yourself. Come back when you've bothered to actually look into what you're talking about and are willing to use logic and common sense or at the VERY least a good philosophical argument. You haven't bothered to put forth the effort to actually formulate a good argument yet. Until you're willing to do so, be silent. If you want to believe in the great and almight Light Bulb of Oz that is outside of the natural order, go ahead, meanwhile I am going to continue going about this scientifically, which means actually paying attention to my own observations and the observations of others, not discounting them becuase I find them unpleasant. Which is what you're doing. You don't like it, no one's agreeing with you so you just toss out wordy, poorly thought out posts that are utterly meaningless and only go to show you're not even paying attention to what's actually being posted here. How do you think we are going to GET facts if we do not sit down and make observations based on our own experiences, and compare them with others, and follow up on the similarities and investigate the differences? Do you really expect to be HANDED a complete instruction manual for Psionics with a signed note from whatever almighty being you believe in that says Irrefutably what psionics does and does not do with no effort on your part? If you're going to pull this kind of idiotic claim, at least have the common decency to actually do some research. But no, that would require effort on your part, and you're not into that are you?
For your information the scientific method is:
1) Make observation. 2) Draw conclusion to test. 3) Make more observations on the subject either in the field or through experimentation. 4) Draw confirm, modify, or draw a new conclusion... repeat. Until when? Well given they're still messing with gravity and the initial theories of that are over 100 years old, you tell me.
~The Devil's Advocate, who is starting to realize how Galileo felt when trying to get the inquisition to look through his telescope and see the moons of Jupiter orbit something other than the Earth.
|
|
R.
Junior Member
Posts: 85
|
Post by R. on Jan 20, 2007 3:12:42 GMT -5
Poor Galileo. Well then, go for it and see if anything comes of it. Shame we don't have any handy device to help us with it.
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Jan 20, 2007 10:36:33 GMT -5
No we don't but we do have independant observation. And in the case of precognition: Random number generators. Edited to add: The lack of direct ways of measuring psi is a massive issue in trying to determine the full details of how it works. We are left with indirect measurements and subjective observations. That is why I keep emphasizing the independant corroborations I have run into. Each one gives a little more credibility to the conclusions I drew from my own experience. I am not saying they are perfect, but they give us a place to start for research. If anyone has experiences that would counter or add to these observations I am more than willing to listen. The more data we have the more accurate anything we DO conclude will become. I wanted to clarify what I was trying to say here. ~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by confuded92 on Jan 21, 2007 0:36:11 GMT -5
DA quick question. Is there any way found of measuring psi? & Does everything "conduct" psi? (not like electricity)
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Jan 21, 2007 1:20:34 GMT -5
There is currently (no pun intended) no way of directly detecting psi without the use of Psie (ie scanning). There are indirect methods, like what I am doing with the Precognition experiement. Take the results and compare them to what statistically SHOULD happen or what happens when you average a 'normal' sampling of the population. (Which should approach the statistical average.) One set of really good results can be a fluke. Consistent results that do not eventually approach the baseline are grounds for a conclusion and further investigation if a different set of testing criteria can be devised. (Simpliefied version: If the odds are 1 in 5 and you've got someone consistently nailing 2 out of 3, there's proabbly something else at work there. Start eliminating possibilities.) In our case, the Hexatron thing does a great deal of the limiting. Conversely all posted scores are completely dependant upon the honesty of the individuals reporting them, which makes them inadmissable in a scientific paper... they are, however, quite useful in an informal experiment for determining if there's something here or if I'm just crazy.
The limits of these methods are you rarely actually manage to get TO the actual boundries of what is possible. YOu can keep narrowing it down but it's never as precise as a direct measurment.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by confuded92 on Jan 21, 2007 16:22:04 GMT -5
I have a thought about this. I think I heard this from you DA, but in extreme cases Psionics work on full power. Like in Leeks case, when he stopped a ball when it was flying at him in his face. So if you put a gun to somebody and tell him to make the probability 5 out of 5, THEORETICALLY he will get 5 out of 5. But since I don't have a gun and not going do do this to anyone I will find an extreme case. Like turn on my sell phone during a flight and make the plane loose altitude and try to make it fly again (lol just kidding). I will try to take this THEORY to something PRACTICAL. I'll try to make my subconsciousness to think that I really need to make this hexatron thing 5 out of five .
|
|
innerfire
Author
Respected Member
--Unknown--
Posts: 399
|
Post by innerfire on Jan 21, 2007 18:25:46 GMT -5
While the concept is workable, I think you've seen too many movies, while granted there are people with repressed powers, not everyone is going to have an astounding greater ability when put under pressure, and even if the subconcious aligns and one really wants things to work, the body just might not be able to handle what's being asked of it. In that case someone can blow a serious fuse -_-
|
|
|
Post by confuded92 on Jan 21, 2007 19:06:08 GMT -5
Thats why I am trying to test it out . The olny problem I have now is how...
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Jan 21, 2007 21:52:02 GMT -5
The only way to test this is to gather stories from trustworthy psions about how they functioned under desparate circumstances... For the moment until we know what the norm IS, I recomend we focus on things that are a little more mundane. Like figuring out what score actually IS indicative of something beyond 'he's lucky'.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|