3 ms·

There's no proof because we don't yet have the framework to prove it; But all of them have been verified in laboratory. They could not be reproduced consistentl

There's no proof because we don't yet have the framework to prove it; But all of them have been verified in laboratory. They could not be reproduced consistently so those experiments have been mostly ignored by the Community;

dkersten 7y ago
> They could not be reproduced consistently I can perform a series of fair coin flips and have it land on heads 100% of the time (at very low probability). Unless it can be reproduced consistently, it proves nothing. There is always a random chance that something unexpected can occur, but that doesn't mean that there's some supernatural force at work. > But all of them have been verified in laboratory. Show me the peer reviewed papers. I've yet to see anything that holds up under scrutiny. Besides, if its not consistent, then how is it in any way useful? I believe the same thing about string theory: its a fun thought experiment, but until it can be used to make predictions or otherwise tested in the real physical world, its little more than a nice idea.
- rafaelvasco 7y ago
  It won't hold under scrutiny and not reproduced consistently because the entities being examined were human, and thus, fallible. If you had psychic abilities and was being examined in a lab, trust me, you would not give results 100% of the time. That's the problematic, and that's why Science will keep ignoring this until much later;
  - MauranKilom 7y ago
    There is a concept called "statistical significance". You don't have to give results 100% of the time. But you have to give results better than chance.
  - dkersten 7y ago
    > because the entities being examined were human, and thus, fallible. That's the entire point of the scientific method, to account for this and prove while removing biases. > trust me No, the burden of proof is on you, the person making extraordinary claims. I won't trust you without evidence. So far, you have provided ZERO. You have not provided citations for the lab experiments you claimed verified it and you have not provided any peer reviewed publications or any experiments which I could try at home. You're basically just making shit up and telling me I should believe you. > you would not give results 100% of the time It doesn't have to be 100% of the time, it just has to be statistically significant. You're making lofty claims and saying "well yes it won't work in tests because reasons" and saying I should trust your belief without any proof. That's basically quackery and the kind of bullshit we need to be rid of. There are lots of nice sounding ideas that won't work in tests and won't hold up under scrutiny. None of these things should be treated seriously and certainly not taken as fact. If the quality of evidence required were really that weak, then I have an offer for you: I have a pill that I can sell you for $1000 dollars that will prevent you from ever getting sick. I don't have evidence, it doesn't work 100% of the time in test situations nor does it work consistently when tested, but TRUST ME, it works. If you truly believe what you say, then you should take me up on this offer.
jccalhoun 7y ago
[citation needed]

dkersten 7y ago

> They could not be reproduced consistently I can perform a series of fair coin flips and have it land on heads 100% of the time (at very low probability). Unless it can be reproduced consistently, it proves nothing. There is always a random chance that something unexpected can occur, but that doesn't mean that there's some supernatural force at work. > But all of them have been verified in laboratory. Show me the peer reviewed papers. I've yet to see anything that holds up under scrutiny. Besides, if its not consistent, then how is it in any way useful? I believe the same thing about string theory: its a fun thought experiment, but until it can be used to make predictions or otherwise tested in the real physical world, its little more than a nice idea.

rafaelvasco 7y ago
It won't hold under scrutiny and not reproduced consistently because the entities being examined were human, and thus, fallible. If you had psychic abilities and was being examined in a lab, trust me, you would not give results 100% of the time. That's the problematic, and that's why Science will keep ignoring this until much later;
- MauranKilom 7y ago
  There is a concept called "statistical significance". You don't have to give results 100% of the time. But you have to give results better than chance.
- dkersten 7y ago
  > because the entities being examined were human, and thus, fallible. That's the entire point of the scientific method, to account for this and prove while removing biases. > trust me No, the burden of proof is on you, the person making extraordinary claims. I won't trust you without evidence. So far, you have provided ZERO. You have not provided citations for the lab experiments you claimed verified it and you have not provided any peer reviewed publications or any experiments which I could try at home. You're basically just making shit up and telling me I should believe you. > you would not give results 100% of the time It doesn't have to be 100% of the time, it just has to be statistically significant. You're making lofty claims and saying "well yes it won't work in tests because reasons" and saying I should trust your belief without any proof. That's basically quackery and the kind of bullshit we need to be rid of. There are lots of nice sounding ideas that won't work in tests and won't hold up under scrutiny. None of these things should be treated seriously and certainly not taken as fact. If the quality of evidence required were really that weak, then I have an offer for you: I have a pill that I can sell you for $1000 dollars that will prevent you from ever getting sick. I don't have evidence, it doesn't work 100% of the time in test situations nor does it work consistently when tested, but TRUST ME, it works. If you truly believe what you say, then you should take me up on this offer.

jccalhoun 7y ago

[citation needed]