And there are no women on the internet.
Thus you call me buddy. 
psychic chess masters
Sort:
corrijean wrote:
And there are no women on the internet.
Thus you call me buddy.
Keep it in your pants, it's just a figure of speech.
May 23, 2013
0
#224
You could watch the longer video I posted. It shows their techniques.
Plus I agree with Randi's statement about 2/3 of the way through: I also can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist.
May 23, 2013
0
#225
reflectivist wrote:
corrijean wrote:
And there are no women on the internet.
Thus you call me buddy.
Keep it in your pants, it's just a figure of speech.
That's kind of rude.
reflectivist wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:
"Anecdotes are not evidence, sorry. Thanks for playing."
You quoted all of that stuff up above, just to keep that stupid trolling alive? Your buddy (the guy you are so infatuated with) cited a statistic, a percentage of a number none of us knows or has any solid data on, so there's no conclusive evidence of anything presented by anyone. And I'm just saying my evidence is the best because it's something most people have experienced and can relate to - a very common statistically improbable kind of coincidence that typically makes people wonder if there's more to it than coincidence. If you want to troll it like a baby all night and keep recopying pages of text pointlessly go ahead, but that's on you. I tried to reset the whole thing and forget it.
I must have missed the reset, all I caught was how you were trying to assert invisible anecdotes as proof of something.
And sorry, i don't know who my buddy there is. I am too lazy to scroll back a page.
May 23, 2013
0
#227
-UFOs, coincidences, and intuition are real, Mr. Reflectivist
-Hilarious video, corrijean!
Ubrick42: "I must have missed the reset, all I caught was how you were trying to assert invisible anecdotes as proof of something." Show me where I claimed it proved anything... I didn't. And you and the poster you're defending proved nor disproved anything. You're not comprehending anything that's written. You're just trolling like an infant now. Drop it. It's over.
Estragon wrote:
"Psychics" are all frauds. NONE have ever been able to demonstrate any powers at all under controlled conditions, even when they were allowed to dictate the conditions. It's fraud, bunkum, a scam.
So, NO.
STOP INVENTING BULLSHIT... !! You want proofs?
from: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld
Entre 1974 et 1981, suffisamment de réplications de l'expérience par des équipes indépendantes (10 laboratoires) sont rassemblées pour permettre une première réponse5,6,7. Sur 28 études, 23 présentent des résultats positifs et 12 sont statistiquement significatives. La probabilité pour que ces résultats soient dus au hasard est donc inférieure à 10-10 (score Z de Stouffer : 6,6)8.
In english, it means: Between 1974 et 1981, a sufficiant amount of replications of the experience (Ganzfeld) by independent teams (10 laboratories) grouped together for a first answer. On 28 studies, 23 show positive results and 12 are statistically significant. The probability that these results come from hasard is less than 0.0000000010. (So, there are 0.00000010% chance that this doesn't come from hasard...)
To be honest, I'm sure psychic players exist but they don't show because of ignorant people. And don' t ask me what I base my certainty on, I won't answer because this'll only make people talk for nothing and say useless things about things they don't know.
Sorry for my bad english, I'm french ...
NEW YORK TIMES:
PENTAGON IS SAID TO FOCUS ON ESP FOR WARTIME USE
THE Pentagon has spent millions of dollars, according to three new reports, on secret projects to investigate extrasensory phenomena and to see if the sheer power of the human mind can be harnessed to perform various acts of espionage and war - penetrating secret files, for example, locating submarines or blowing up guided missiles in midflight.
Further, one of the reports says concern about a psychic arms gap has reached as high as the White House in at least one instance. In 1977, by this account, President Carter ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct a high-level review of psychic research behind the Iron Curtain in an attempt to assess a possible Soviet threat.
The Pentagon denies that it is spending money on psychic research. The assertions to the contrary appear in a trio of new books, one just published and two scheduled to be released this spring, and in a series of interviews in which past Pentagon officials and scientists who study the paranormal have discussed what they contend is the military's decades-long psychic quest.
What emerges is a picture of both superpowers trying to master such esoteric arts as ESP (extrasensory perception), telepathy (thought transfer), clairvoyance (seeing things that are out of sight), and psychokinesis (mental influence over objects or events) - all in the name of the national defense.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/10/science/pentagon-is-said-to-focus-on-esp-for-wartime-use.html?pagewanted=all
reflectivist wrote:
Ubrick42: "I must have missed the reset, all I caught was how you were trying to assert invisible anecdotes as proof of something." Show me where I claimed it proved anything... I didn't. And you and the poster you're defending proved nor disproved anything. You're not comprehending anything that's written. You're just trolling like an infant now. Drop it. It's over.
Sure I take up the challenge:
I cited anecdotal evidence that nearly everyone can relate to - everyone has experienced such phenomena inumerable times in their lives (and by that I mean, it has happened many times to most people, by their own recollection, I assert).
All I ever claimed is what most people can vouch for. If you want to argue against the memory and common sense of just about everyone, go ahead, but it won't get you anywhere. I'm saying something we all basically know is true and happens too often to be generally thought of as coincidence.
Not only are anecdotes not evidence, this isn't even an anecdote.
I have no reason to drop anything, I know it may be uncomfortable for you to twist in the wind, but skepticism and critical thinking is a hobby of mine and an important cause to me. There is far too much gullibility in the world today, as well as innumeracy. Its a cause worth fighting (for).
Take home points:
1. Anecdotes are not evidence. The plural of anecdote is not "data".
2. Coincidences happen. Even rare ones. In fact, what would be surprising is if they did not occur.
3. People have selective memory, they can remember their prediction "successes", but the failures are easy to forget.
People remember the tornando survivors who says they prayed and were saved. No one rememebers the ones who prayed and were swept away, and surely no one will remember this one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/21/wolf-blitzer-atheist-tornado-survivor_n_3316312.html
reflectivist wrote:
NEW YORK TIMES: PENTAGON IS SAID TO FOCUS ON ESP FOR WARTIME USE
THE Pentagon has spent millions of dollars, according to three new reports, on secret projects to investigate extrasensory phenomena and to see if the sheer power of the human mind can be harnessed to perform various acts of espionage and war - penetrating secret files, for example, locating submarines or blowing up guided missiles in midflight.
Further, one of the reports says concern about a psychic arms gap has reached as high as the White House in at least one instance. In 1977, by this account, President Carter ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct a high-level review of psychic research behind the Iron Curtain in an attempt to assess a possible Soviet threat.....
And how is all that working out for them now? I suppose the ESP crew was on the hunt for Bin Laden. That will explain why it took 10 years to find him.
trysts wrote:
Ha! I love it! Wolf Blitzer is so awful! That woman is a hero!
Yes she is!
Ubik42 wrote:
Take home points:
1. Anecdotes are not evidence. The plural of anecdote is not "data".
=============
- reflectivist responds: Anecdotal evidence is a figure of speech, not a claim that anecdotes are scientific proof.
2. Coincidences happen. Even rare ones. In fact, what would be surprising is if they did not occur.
=============
- reflectivist responds: That is as statistically vague and meaningless as that which you implicitly suggest it rebukes. You'll have to set a better example, as a so-called skeptic. You can't fight religion with religion and claim you're a secularist.
3. People have selective memory, they can remember their prediction "successes", but the failures are easy to forget.
==========
- reflectivist responds: That is anecdotal evidence. Christ, are you trying to build a new case against yourself that you're a hypocrite?
"For nearly two years after her disappearance Amanda Berry's mother, Louwana Miller, held out hope that her daughter would be found alive and returned to her: Maybe Amanda ran away from home and would come back some day, or was in an accident and somehow lost her memory. Miller endured the terrible limbo of not knowing, holding out hope against the odds but not wanting to believe the worst.
Berry reportedly broke through a door where she had been held captive and called for help; two other missing women, Gina DeJesus and Michele Knight, were also rescued from the home. The home's owner, Ariel Castro, and his two brothers have been arrested in connection with the case.
But before the seeming miracle ending, "Plain Dealer" writer Stephan Hudak noted, "Desperate for any clue as to Amanda Berry's whereabouts, and tired of unanswered questions from authorities, Miller turned to a psychic on Montel Williams' nationally syndicated television show. The psychic said what the FBI, police and Miller hadn't. 'She's not alive, honey,' Sylvia Browne told her matter-of-factly. 'Your daughter's not the kind who wouldn't call.' With those blunt words, Browne persuaded Miller to accept a grim probability that has become more likely with each passing day."
Miller returned home devastated, and she died two years later, believing that her daughter was dead."
http://www.livescience.com/29394-psychic-claimed-amanda-berry-dead.html
Despicable. Someone really wants to defend scum like this?
Ubik42 wrote:
"For nearly two years after her disappearance Amanda Berry's mother, Louwana Miller, held out hope that her daughter would be found alive and returned to her: Maybe Amanda ran away from home and would come back some day, or was in an accident and somehow lost her memory. Miller endured the terrible limbo of not knowing, holding out hope against the odds but not wanting to believe the worst.
Berry reportedly broke through a door where she had been held captive and called for help; two other missing women, Gina DeJesus and Michele Knight, were also rescued from the home. The home's owner, Ariel Castro, and his two brothers have been arrested in connection with the case.
But before the seeming miracle ending, "Plain Dealer" writer Stephan Hudak noted, "Desperate for any clue as to Amanda Berry's whereabouts, and tired of unanswered questions from authorities, Miller turned to a psychic on Montel Williams' nationally syndicated television show. The psychic said what the FBI, police and Miller hadn't. 'She's not alive, honey,' Sylvia Browne told her matter-of-factly. 'Your daughter's not the kind who wouldn't call.' With those blunt words, Browne persuaded Miller to accept a grim probability that has become more likely with each passing day."
Miller returned home devastated, and she died two years later, believing that her daughter was dead."
http://www.livescience.com/29394-psychic-claimed-amanda-berry-dead.html
Despicable. Someone really wants to defend scum like this?
First of all, No one is defending your red herring strawman anecdotal arguments. You're making strawmen, beating them up, and then pretending it's relevant to anything anyone claimed or is defending, when it isn't. Or at least, I'm not.
reflectivist wrote:
Ubik42 wrote:
Take home points:
1. Anecdotes are not evidence. The plural of anecdote is not "data".
=============
reflectivist responds: Anecdotal evidence is a figure of speech, not a claim that anecdotes are scientific proof.
2. Coincidences happen. Even rare ones. In fact, what would be surprising is if they did not occur.
=============
reflectivist responds: That is as statistically vague and meaningless as that which you implicitly suggest it rebukes. You'll have to set a better example, as a so-called skeptic. You can't fight religion with religion and claim you're a secularist.
3. People have selective memory, they can remember their prediction "successes", but the failures are easy to forget.
==========
reflectivist responds: That is anecdotal evidence. Christ, are you trying to build a new case against yourself that you're a hypocrite?
You just said anecdotal evidence is a figure of speech, not a claim that anecdotes are scientific proof. You are contradicting yourself in one post.
I offered no anecdotes.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote)
Selective memory, fortunately, has been studied scientifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
I suggest reading, and learning, instead of arguing. Confirmation bias happens. Learning all the silly things your brain does won't prevent all occurences of it, but it is a start.
And you seemed awfully defensive about my post above, which I didnt even name you in. I guess it just hits close to home.
Ubik42 wrote:
You just said anecdotal evidence is a figure of speech, not a claim that anecdotes are scientific proof. You are contradicting yourself in one post.
I offered no anecdotes.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote)
Selective memory, fortunately, has been studied scientifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
I suggest reading, and learning, instead of arguing. Confirmation bias happens. Learning all the silly things your brain does won't prevent all occurences of it, but it is a start.
And you seemed awfully defensive about my post above, which I didnt even name you in. I guess it just hits close to home.
Where did I contradict the statement I made that "the expression anecdotal evidence is not scientific proof"? Where did I say anecdotal evidence is scientific proof? Show me the quote.
You cited articles that told a story. That's anecdotal evidence, not scientific proof. I'm not denying that not everyone who claims to be psychic or had a psychic experience is psychic or did have a genuine psychic experience. And you're not proving that everyone who claims to be psychic or claimed to have a psychic experience didn't. That's the bottom line. No proof of anything, like I said many posts ago when you should have dropped it. No one is convincing anyone of anything. I tried to move the whole thread back to a spirit of playfulness and you just wanted to troll, and rekindle the debate and then accuse me of argumentativeness.
You said anecdotal evidence is a figure of speech, then you accused me of using anecdotal evidence. I am just pointing out your contradictions. Don't blame the messenger.
And no, the article cited scientific studies. You do have to learn quite a bit about the difference between "scientific study" and "anecdote".
Again, I blame the schools. They did a rather poor job on your behalf, I am afraid.
corrijean posted:
<video of Long Island Medium in previous post>
lol. That's sad. BTW: She was on Dr. Oz the other night. He thought she was a phony and said so, but then they had a brain doctor take an EEG of her brain when she was going into a trance, and she showed the response of the kind of brain activity quiescence that has been associated with psychic phenomena and meditation that there's no way to fake. Most people simply cannot generate EEGs that quiet, on demand. But I agree, it's tough to listen to her and not be embarrassed for her, cringe and think she's a chalatan.
So, hey, you got it buddy! That right is conclusive proof that the paranormal, esp, telepathy, telekenisis, UFOs, coincidences, intuition, and intelligent statements by Rush Limbaugh don't actually exist.