Skeptic Project

"For a detailed account of how easy it is to demonstrate incompetence and to commit fraud in this area, read James Randi's account of the Uri Geller experiments designed and executed by Targ and Puthoff. See either chapter 7 of Flim-Flam! or The Truth About of Uri Geller. "

Flim-Flam! is in the mail, yay.

I'm a big fan of James Randi and the like.

Very skeptical me :-)

Even about myself..

> If you really hear disembodied voices, you need to seek the help of a
> medical professional.

Luckily I don't.

> There is no telepathy

There is nothing until we can prove otherwise..

So, if I can prove to you there is, will you believe me then ?

I would have thought the nature link might have made you at least think twice..

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v251/n5476/abs/251602a0.html</p>

> WE present results of experiments suggesting the existence of one or more
> perceptual modalities through which individuals obtain information about their
> environment, although this information is not presented to any known sense.

It reminds me of lottery prediction, apparently impossible, maybe my software just keeps gettting lucky...

> If your lottery prediction software works why are you not minted ?

Well, it makes me a little bit of money ;-)

> I dont understand that logic Nanos, because if it was functioning as you say it
> was then surely you would need no donations already ?

It does better than chance from what I can see, but not by much, so its not like it can win millions every week.

Here is an example of what it managed on the same week Derren Brown did his predictions.. (Interesting perhaps that my software prediction managed quite well, perhaps Derran uses something simliar..)

http://www.prediction4lottery.com/lotto.jpg</p>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2009/sep/11/derren-brown-lottery-trick</p>

This bit peaked my interest:

> So get 24 people together, get them to work out which numbers they think should
> be drawn, add their answers together and then divide by 24. And that's the lottery
> numbers. But only if you don't do it for profit. Conveniently - given that most
> people would be doing it for profit, one presumes.

Now its just possible that this is actually true..

I can quite imagine my software acting like 24 people doing the same thing.. (Only my software doesn't mind doing it for profit.. maybe it would do better if I didn't buy a ticket eh?!?)

After all, this followed, now had did that happen..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1214143/Bulgaria-lottery-picks-numbers-consecutive-weeks-Who-needs-Derren-Brown.html</p>

Its not impossible:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-142457/Five-trillion-Punter-scoops-second-lottery-win-numbers-By-David-Wilkes.html</p>

But still, deeply suspicious that it happened, can you not just predict lottery numbers, but actually influence them..

Sounds worth studying doesn't it :-)

And I reckon I can run a business off the idea too, so people can win money, and we can collect some statistical data to more easily peer into the nature of prediction and test some theories.

> Sorry man I dont buy this at all "can you not just predict lottery numbers,
> but actually influence them" not even in the slightest.

I don't particularly buy it, but I don't usually discount a theory without at least testing it if I can..

A reason I'm also tinkering with fusion, as that also has areas that people are told cannot possibly work according to the laws of physics, but what if we don't fully understand those laws and some of them are wrong..

Only experiments will find that out for sure!

"There is nothing until we can prove otherwise.."

Horseshit.

That's like saying I can fly until you can prove otherwise.

> That's like saying I can fly until you can prove otherwise.

What I was trying to say is, like your flying example is, if you say you can fly, whilst it is true for you to know, it isn't for us, and we would need proof for that.

Without proof, nothing is considered real and only based on probability of truth based on known truthes. (Eg. if you say dropping a fridge 100 ft onto concrete breaks it, even though we haven't done that ourselves, we reckon its probably true based on our experiences of dropping things and them breaking. But if I say something like ghosts are real in some form, thats a long way removed from known facts and much harder to believe as likely to be true.)

I'm not a great believer in ghosts myself, but I do wonder what I saw, or think I saw..

Just where did the information come from..

Do I have some ability in being able to pick up things from people by thought alone, because my other senses are also very sensitive, maybe, makes a bit of sense that.

Can I enhance it with focusing tools like perhaps a parabolic dish, I don't know, but it would be worth experimenting with wouldn't it..

After all, new discoveries are sometimes made my experiments into the unknown.. (And learning from accidents..)

I do enjoy experiments and looking at the fringe of known knowledge, its exciting to tinker with something that few see too.

> Bunch of woo.

At least we have a better idea of what you mean now.

If I understand you correctly, anything below actual physical progress is considered woo, is that correct ?

Your answers help strengthen my understanding of what the general public consider as proof of concept, as you so well put into words that which so few will bother to speak of.

> vague talk about using parabolic dishes to harness the powers of telepathy is woo.

Thats what scientists do, they come up with hypothesis to test.

Being that the only time (in 40 years..) I've ever had a sudden urge to ring someone was when I was standing inside a large aerial, I reckon thats enough of a bit of evidence to suggest trying a dish.

Also, vaguely connected is that you can use a piece of cheese as an aerial too, I got 3 miles range using just a cheese triangle! (Minus the foil..)

But that is more about the physical qualities of cheese than telepathy.. (But still, few people I imagine would think to try a piece of cheese..)

I like to play a lot of, what if games..

It is, after all, how we make progress.

If we all just sat around saying woo to everything, we might never have built the wheel..

Nanos, I don't mean this the wrong way, but comparing yourself to scientists is a bit of stretch.

> comparing yourself to scientists is a bit of stretch.

Why not ?

I've done ameatur science experiments for the last 35+ years, I think that counts for something!

> There could be several reasons:

Good, always nice to examine other theories.

Matt, I was wondering if you (or anyone) knew of any good debunking articles/sites/books for just this type of thing? I've read up on it enough that I agree with you, but it would be nice to get some real, case-by-case reasons why Person A felt this way, saw this thing, etc. It would be nice to have in a debate.

I'll do some Internet searching and see what I can find. Maybe I'll even look at my local library!