Quote from: qwik2learn on November 09, 2017, 03:52:27 PM

Quote from: Astargath on November 09, 2017, 10:43:59 AM

So that's the problem, the problem is you interpreting wrong these papers,

Not true, I interpret them according to how the authors interpret their own results AND according to how they reply to criticism. You do not interpret these tests at all, you only read the tangential commentary of skeptics who, like you, have never read these papers and never did any experiments on this particular subject either. It's easy to say that I'm wrong but more difficult to specifically state why a particular experiment is wrong.
For example, in this paper that I linked you to, the skeptics are refuted in their interpretation of the evidence. Where is your reply?
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

Quote from: Astargath on November 09, 2017, 10:43:59 AM

the problem is you not expanding your views, you only read articles that are FOR telekinesis and magic, try to read articles against them and comeback here and tell us if you get a sense that they are important or true.

I have done that, and I found that skeptics like you are typically using misdirection, such as making the fanciful claim that because the researcher "believes in God also", then his research is not credible.--similar to the skeptical claim that is examined in the above-linked paper. It is you who is not reading any scientific literature, as a matter of FACT. The researchers I pointed to have replied to skeptics, yet you are going to use the skeptics' outdated, ill-informed, and tangential commentaries to form the basis of your opinion without any further inquiry? That is a very shallow analysis and you are in no position to tell me that I did not do my homework; you did not read the primary material and now you continue to make excuses.

Quote from: Astargath on November 09, 2017, 10:43:59 AM

if you are not a scientist, stop acting like one, why is your opinion more important than all the scientists that said telekinesis and paranormal stuff is pseudoscience?

I pointed out some solid research which is repeatable, skeptics took no action. This thread is about experimental research, so why must you tell me to stop posting science articles? What is needed is for you to come clean about who has actually taken the time to reply specifically to these tests. I have no need to read material which fails to address the specific evidence at hand.

Quote from: Astargath on November 09, 2017, 10:43:59 AM

If you are not a scientist then you should not act like one, quit telling me about tests and articles you found, I can find just as easily hundreds of articles against what you claim is true, bottom line is the scientific consensus, and they all agree on this, is that there is not sufficient evidence for these claims.

If that is true then you should easily find skeptics who directly critique these papers since that is the norm in science. I already pointed out that skeptics of Orch-OR have been robustly refuted by Hameroff and Penrose, yet you persist in claiming that Orch-OR is pseudoscience, merely because you have read some outdated skeptical commentary and accepted it without further reading.

I already made all of these claims earlier, yet you persist in your intellectual laziness by appealing to authority.

Quote from: qwik2learn on October 24, 2017, 01:39:52 AM

Quote from: Astargath on October 23, 2017, 11:26:58 PM

Yeah well I just like to post the links because I know it makes him mad and can't even respond to them, keep trolling, we wont convince him anyways.

Can I convince you with test results?
I like to post these tests that you refuse to address or even look at.
Scientists discuss evidence to reach a conclusion, ignoring evidence is unscientific. An appeal to authority simply will not suffice when these repeatable test results are available.
https://www.quora.com/Is-telekinesis-scientifically-true/answers/17777933

And I pointed out that the scientific community said it's not real, the tests are not repeatable. ''If that is true then you should easily find skeptics who directly critique these papers since that is the norm in science.''
No I don't, I don't have to find anything, you can search for it yourself. Real scientists are not interested in this anymore, there was a huge debate about telekinesis and this stuff long ago, they did experiments and tests and they came to the conclusion that it's not real. Scientists can't be bothered to read and examine all your ridiculous ''tests'' or ''evidence''. You know how many people claim to have discovered something like magic, aliens, ghosts. There is no time to examine all the ridiculous claims.

''yet you persist in claiming that Orch-OR is pseudoscience, merely because you have read some outdated skeptical commentary and accepted it without further reading.''

Quit talking about ''skeptics'' This is the scientific consensus not just some random internet skeptics.

''An appeal to authority simply will not suffice when these repeatable test results are available.'' You claim they are but what background do you have to claim that? If you are not a scientist or an expert in any of this then what right do you have to claim the tests are enough or good?

I would rather listen to real scientists and experts in the field than some random dude on the internet.