Quote from: qwik2learn on November 11, 2017, 10:46:38 AM

Quote from: Astargath on November 11, 2017, 12:29:30 AM

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.

If your experts did not address these specific tests then your whole argument about experts is a non-sequitor. The real experts in this instance are those who are fully appraised of the particular evidence at hand.
Nowhere in your post did you address the paper by Radin, et al. Earlier you had cited the paper by Bosch, et al which admits that these particular tests are of high methodological quality, and I see nothing in your post to contradict that earlier citation. So you have made a straw man argument.

Quote from: Astargath on November 11, 2017, 12:29:30 AM

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

According to evidence reviewed by Bosch, et al, these tests are of high methodological quality, and the data is heterogeneous; they tried to explain the heterogeneity of the data with a computer simulation. Radin, et al give a better explanation of this data and showed how the "File Drawer" effect alleged by Bosch, et al is not a viable explanation. Since these experts (Bosch, et al) actually took the time to review the evidence, their specific conclusion has more weight than the vague and incorrect claim that the effects of these tests are not repeatable.

Quote from: Astargath on November 11, 2017, 12:29:30 AM

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.

You did not provide an ordinary explanation that could be backed up by specific data; you cited Bosch, et al who gave it their best shot with their "File Drawer" explanation, later refuted by Radin, et al. Then you put forth a straw man by citing Wikipedia on PK and avoiding these papers.

Quote from: Astargath on November 11, 2017, 12:29:30 AM

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.

What is your point in referencing tests with poor methods? Your own source has admitted that the methods used in these tests were of high quality!

Quote from: Astargath on November 11, 2017, 12:29:30 AM

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.

Again you are contradicting the claim of your own source about these methods because you wish to abstract away from the specific evidence at hand. You are building a straw man since neither of the papers in question were mentioned anywhere in your post.

Your "copypasta" and straw man arguments were totally ineffective, you will definitely want to review this paper again:
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Radin2006reexaminingPK.pdf

Don't ignore the most important. 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.

If your ''experts'' really want so hard to convince people, why not do it and win a lot of money as well, why haven't they claimed all the prizes? They could not only be rich but also prove everything they want to prove, yet we haven't seen them do it.