John Shop <quack...@outlook.com> wrote: > > There is no solid evidence for it. Second, I am sure that if does exist, > it is natural, because so many other things people used to think are > supernatural or inexplicable turned out to be explicable. > > I am amazed that you have the gall to trot out the usual "there is no > evidence" right in the face of the very clear evidence that I pointed out > and called "mind blowing"! >
I said "no solid evidence." You quoted me saying that, right there. There is evidence, but it is not solid -- meaning widely replicated at a high signal to noise ratio. My experience with cold fusion has taught me that evidence has be very solid before you can believe it. There are many, many claims in cold fusion that I think are mistakes. The fact that something is mind-blowing is not evidence that it is real. That is only a measure of your attitude toward the claim. I do not consider those videos evidence for anything. I need to see replicated laboratory experiments with data. Arthur Clarke spent a lot of time looking into supernatural and telepathy. He was well connected and he could get the best information available. He found nothing. That is what he concluded in the end. It is sad that bigotry is so prevalent among people that supposedly > espouse the scientific method of determining truth. > It is not bigotry. It is of the lessons of cold fusion. Most claims by most scientists are mostly wrong. Especially in psychology, which is approximately where this claim would fall. Over half of the conventional claims in experimental psychology cannot be reproduced. If conventional claims are so unreliable, it is likely that unconventional "mind blowing" claims are even worse. See: "Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test Largest replication study to date casts doubt on many published positive results." http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 - Jed
