Quote from: qwik2learn on November 10, 2017, 09:20:26 PM

Quote from: Astargath on November 10, 2017, 08:43:28 PM

They claim they did but that doesn't mean it's true,

You are using a double standard:
On the one hand, you claim that experts concluded that PK is not real, so you trust the experts...
Yet when I cite experts who concluded that these PK tests are methodologically sound, you reject the opinion of these experts, even though I am pointing to experts on BOTH sides of this debate.
The use of double standards by skeptics is a common practice, but it is fallacious reasoning, just like when you move the goalposts for this thread:

Quote from: Astargath on November 10, 2017, 08:43:28 PM

again if you believe so strongly in telekinesis and it really exists it shouldn't be too hard to provide a real life example, no?

A scientific test is not a real-life example? What about the Eisenbeiss case; how is that not a real-life example? Consciousness cannot be directly measured, observed nor verified, yet these results show a statistical anomaly that deserves explanation. Just admit that I showed you the evidence and move on; stop trying to argue around it when you obviously did not even read up on it. IF these tests are not methodologically sound, then YOU should have no problem finding an expert who supports your opinion with hard evidence. Your links claim that a test is not valid unless the researcher has a certain philosophical beliefs and also include other fallacious comments that do not address what is in this paper. You simply wish to ignore the reality that is being pointed out by experts because you think you know everything already.

I trust the opinion of the majority of experts not just 2 guys. The majority of experts/scientists have clearly said that telekinesis is not real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis

From 1996 to 2015, James Randi, magician, escape artist, and skeptic, offered $1,000,000 to anyone who could demonstrate, under conditions he and the claimant agreed upon, any paranormal powers including psychokinesis. The prize was never claimed. There are similar offers around the world.

There is a broad scientific consensus that PK research, and parapsychology more generally, have not produced a reliable, repeatable demonstration.

The ideas of psychokinesis and telekinesis violate several well-established laws of physics, including the inverse square law, the second law of thermodynamics, and the conservation of momentum.[15][27] Because of this, scientists have demanded a high standard of evidence for PK, in line with Marcello Truzzi's dictum "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".[10][28] The Occam's razor law of parsimony in scientific explanations of phenomena suggests that the explanation of PK in terms of ordinary ways by trickery, special effects or by poor experimental design is preferable to accepting that the laws of physics should be rewritten.

A 1952 study tested for experimenter's bias with respect to psychokinesis. Richard Kaufman of Yale University gave subjects the task of trying to influence eight dice and allowed them to record their own scores. They were secretly filmed, so their records could be checked for errors. Believers in psychokinesis made errors that favored its existence, while disbelievers made opposite errors. A similar pattern of errors was found in J. B. Rhine's dice experiments, which were considered the strongest evidence for PK at that time.

In 1984, the United States National Academy of Sciences, at the request of the US Army Research Institute,[ambiguous] formed a scientific panel to assess the best evidence for psychokinesis. Part of its purpose was to investigate military applications of PK, for example to remotely jam or disrupt enemy weaponry. The panel heard from a variety of military staff who believed in PK and made visits to the PEAR laboratory and two other laboratories that had claimed positive results from micro-PK experiments. The panel criticized macro-PK experiments for being open to deception by conjurors, and said that virtually all micro-PK experiments "depart from good scientific practice in a variety of ways". Their conclusion, published in a 1987 report, was that there was no scientific evidence for the existence of psychokinesis.