[Agent. Mulder]

Fenrir-sama, on 05 November 2009 - 02:21 AM, said:

To an extent, yes. I don't know if it would actually be called telepathy, but I don't know any other term for it. I'll sometimes get a glimpse into someone's thoughts or memories; be able to see or hear what they're thinking or remembering. As of yet, I have little or no control over it, which can be rather painful if I get a flash of a thought or memory I'd really rather not have seen. I've only been able to control the power twice; and each of those times I ended up with a rather painful migraine headache immediately afterward. As for the uncontrollable flashes, they're random and seemingly only occur when I'm speaking or typing to someone close; or when I'm speaking with someone face-to-face or on the telephone. Doesn't happen too often, but it's strange when it does.

Edit: Forgot to mention - Some of my friends also claim to have heard my voice in their minds, often when I'm thinking about them or something related to them.

well, this is something that could be proven. sooo, i think a test is at hand to prove authenticity.

[Agent. Mulder]

G3N0M3, on 05 November 2009 - 02:34 AM, said:

*Point*

I don't know, maybe the person saying how something CONSTANTLY moving could create a sudden movement in a hanging position?

If you've never heard of how most people start out with telekinesis or moving something with their mind they start with usually making a whole in the cap to a glass jar, then hang a string and pin. In this instance it was a coin, why a pin or coin? Obvious answers wont be needed here...

answers are, people used that because others may have said they made things move like that, yeeears ago, not realizing what we know now about the earth, and how it can move things like that. thats why i replied to them, because they said they tried moving a coin on a string.

[Fenrir-sama]

Agent. Mulder, on 05 November 2009 - 05:45 PM, said:

well, this is something that could be proven. sooo, i think a test is at hand to prove authenticity.

When you come up with some kind of plausible test to prove that I have an ability that I've already stated I cannot control worth crap, let me know. I seriously doubt you or anyone else would believe any testimony of my friends, considering that they ARE my friends; and people would likely claim they're just saying it to make me look good.

[Agent. Mulder]

Fenrir-sama, on 06 November 2009 - 03:49 AM, said:

When you come up with some kind of plausible test to prove that I have an ability that I've already stated I cannot control worth crap, let me know. I seriously doubt you or anyone else would believe any testimony of my friends, considering that they ARE my friends; and people would likely claim they're just saying it to make me look good.

well, since you apparently cant control it, that makes it seem less credible, and lessens the chance of you even having it.
but an easy test for someone who could do this would be to sit them in a room with random people, and read their thoughts. and add some other variables as well.

[Fenrir-sama]

Agent. Mulder, on 06 November 2009 - 03:55 AM, said:

well, since you apparently cant control it, that makes it seem less credible, and lessens the chance of you even having it.
but an easy test for someone who could do this would be to sit them in a room with random people, and read their thoughts. and add some other variables as well.

I'll admit, it doesn't sound credible. If our positions were reversed, I wouldn't believe it either. Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do about that. As of yet, I do not possess the ability to control my "telepathy", if that's still what we're calling it. Should I ever gain full control; you can bet I'll be going public with it, and you can watch any tests I participate in to prove it to the world. Until that day, you'll have to settle for my word.

[Agent. Mulder]

i apologize, as i will not take your word for it, as its over the net. although, its not that i doubt you as a person, and find you decietful. I just do not know you.

[G3N0M3]

Agent. Mulder, on 05 November 2009 - 11:51 AM, said:

answers are, people used that because others may have said they made things move like that, yeeears ago, not realizing what we know now about the earth, and how it can move things like that. thats why i replied to them, because they said they tried moving a coin on a string.

lol, yeah you didn't have to answer that as I said "Obvious answers are not needed..." Which that was an OBVIOUS answer...

First off, yes your right that is what people have said for years, because it IS how people practice it, why glass? why inclosed? so they can see it, and so no other factors could breach such as wind...

Second, the tests that people did were AFTER this "experiment" that you so believe is the answer to all questions with "telekinesis". Also how can the Earth THAT IS CONSTANTLY MOVING all of a sudden cause a minuet change in the position of something a couple inches long????

Third, your "answers" are not entirely knowledgeable in the subject, because the concept behind telekinesis is that we can move METALLIC objects, or something that can hold a charge at least, and THEN perhaps we could move it.

I mean I've only had one encounter with telekinesis and that worked against gravity, so I've got no clue what happened... How could a battery roll upwards? must have been the gravitational pull of the earth? NO, that would go against everything we know about gravity... And when I did it, it was more of a magnetic force was pushing it, and not that I had FULL control of it or was making it spin and go uphill, I had my fingers about an inch from it and with friction it turned on the surface, and without touching it, it was moving away from my fingers, uphill.

[tinieblas]

Agent. Mulder, on 05 November 2009 - 10:55 PM, said:

well, since you apparently cant control it, that makes it seem less credible, and lessens the chance of you even having it.
but an easy test for someone who could do this would be to sit them in a room with random people, and read their thoughts. and add some other variables as well.

More credible Mulder; I think most people think of psychics like some wise old fellow in star embossed robes who can do all kinds of magical stuff on demand.....unfortunately psychic ability is rarely reliable or controllable by the psychic....it appears to control itself and rarely be something you can do on demand. I never see things in the future which I want to see. I cannot summon spirits of suchlike, I have to rely on them coming to me.....it's not reliable, which is why science doesn't like; because science likes to follow the repeat ad nausium approach; if you can't repeat and repeat something and then observe it on multiple occasions without variation, it is not accepted; this is unfortunate but the way it is.....which is why data collected on abilites are so often dismissed or ignored.

[Random-Link25]

okay so ive been practicing TK for te past 4 days now, and i cant move anything! D:< i put my psi wheels under a clear case so i know air curennts or breath isnt a factor, any tips guys?

[Agent. Mulder]

tinieblas, on 07 November 2009 - 03:36 AM, said:

More credible Mulder; I think most people think of psychics like some wise old fellow in star embossed robes who can do all kinds of magical stuff on demand.....unfortunately psychic ability is rarely reliable or controllable by the psychic....it appears to control itself and rarely be something you can do on demand. I never see things in the future which I want to see. I cannot summon spirits of suchlike, I have to rely on them coming to me.....it's not reliable, which is why science doesn't like; because science likes to follow the repeat ad nausium approach; if you can't repeat and repeat something and then observe it on multiple occasions without variation, it is not accepted; this is unfortunate but the way it is.....which is why data collected on abilites are so often dismissed or ignored.

its more credible, because it only happens with their friends, and they cant duplicate it when they want?
you do realize why this would never even come close to passing an scientific test then, right?

[G3N0M3]

Agent. Mulder, on 12 November 2009 - 11:23 PM, said:

its more credible, because it only happens with their friends, and they cant duplicate it when they want?
you do realize why this would never even come close to passing an scientific test then, right?

Before you continue with your hypothisis research what disbelief and other factors do to a psychics ability, your saying we think that we are some superhuman, superhero people who have control over everything... Meanwhile everytime ANYONE tells you about their abilities, and anyone will say that they do not have control of their abilities, anyone who does is more likely to be a fake...

OK, now for a test in your scientific knowledge:

Prove, and show to me and the rest of the world how scientific theory testing could be possible and therefore is quantifiably correct. Or how about the theory of evolution, though it is still a theory it is widespread knowledge that that is where we come from. In conjunction with natural selection and other Darwinian concepts/theories.

My point is your looking to the wrong place, for all the wrong answers... Oh books of science and ultimate knowledge of everything, please show us your unending wealth of information about everything... Serious, there is believing in something because you were told, if you were made to, or if you've experienced something... Which one are you?

[Mattshark]

G3N0M3, on 15 November 2009 - 10:37 PM, said:

Before you continue with your hypothisis research what disbelief and other factors do to a psychics ability, your saying we think that we are some superhuman, superhero people who have control over everything... Meanwhile everytime ANYONE tells you about their abilities, and anyone will say that they do not have control of their abilities, anyone who does is more likely to be a fake...

OK, now for a test in your scientific knowledge:

Prove, and show to me and the rest of the world how scientific theory testing could be possible and therefore is quantifiably correct. Or how about the theory of evolution, though it is still a theory it is widespread knowledge that that is where we come from. In conjunction with natural selection and other Darwinian concepts/theories.

My point is your looking to the wrong place, for all the wrong answers... Oh books of science and ultimate knowledge of everything, please show us your unending wealth of information about everything... Serious, there is believing in something because you were told, if you were made to, or if you've experienced something... Which one are you?

The thing with science is it is not about proving anything, it is just about evidencing.

As for a scientific theory, they never become anything other than a theory. A theory is the pinnacle in science, it is the empirical explanation of how and why formulated from tested hypothesise.

Scientific Method

See Genome, I don't believe in science, you don't need to believe in things that exist. I however, understand that it is the best and least biased method of study there is and that is the aim of the method.

[G3N0M3]

Mattshark, on 16 November 2009 - 06:33 AM, said:

The thing with science is it is not about proving anything, it is just about evidencing.

As for a scientific theory, they never become anything other than a theory. A theory is the pinnacle in science, it is the empirical explanation of how and why formulated from tested hypothesise.

Scientific Method

See Genome, I don't believe in science, you don't need to believe in things that exist. I however, understand that it is the best and least biased method of study there is and that is the aim of the method.

LOL, so untill we witnessed a star being formed since that there was no evidence of stars being created your saying that they were never made, but always were?? I mean there are many theories with things along this scale and people take hypothesis and theories seriously like it is the accurate discription of the event or focal point to the 'problem'.

Also I do not think you even read my post, the first sentance was "Prove, and show to me and the rest of the world how scientific theory testing could be possible and therefore is quantifiably correct." Maybe re-read that just so you get it...

Also I'm not too sure you read that information, because unless you meant for this point to be made I gues you just, ummm, how could we put this...

Quote

Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."


In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have different biases. In addition, different types of experimental setups have different sources of systematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in the community as to which experimental results have stood the test of time.

- http://teacher.pas.r...E.html#Heading5

Sooo, tell me where your reasoning came in where everything that is not already measured by science is not real, and is some other thing that just is not something... I just have no clue how I could make my brain think that something that has been shown, evidenced, witnessed and measured is not a part of science nor is it actually real.

You say there is no evidence, the fact is YOU have not seen evidence and that is why you argue the fact that there is even evidence...

Again, something I have to post here so that you can read and understand what you just linked me, and how I don't see how you proved anything but me being right, in which case thanks for backing me up.

Quote

Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?

While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do you do when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set, the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workings of the phone company? The process you might go through to solve this problem could involve scientific thinking, and the results might contradict your initial expectations.

Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

- http://teacher.pas.r...E.html#Heading7

Oh you know, all this me "showing you up" makes me want to post these links and C/P quotes from the website, I'll even throw in your name so you get credit for helping skeptics understand. Especialy the all important scientific ones.

I mean look at what it says, did you not read the information? Did it not make you understand? Did you read it but not understand it in any way?

I hope this has helped you out in understanding this area better, especialy with your understanding of science being the only answer.

G3N0M3

[Agent. Mulder]

G3N0M3, on 15 November 2009 - 10:37 PM, said:

Before you continue with your hypothisis research what disbelief and other factors do to a psychics ability, your saying we think that we are some superhuman, superhero people who have control over everything... Meanwhile everytime ANYONE tells you about their abilities, and anyone will say that they do not have control of their abilities, anyone who does is more likely to be a fake...

doesnt make sense.
someones likely a fake when they claim they have control over their abilities.
nope. both are far fetched.

G3N0M3, on 15 November 2009 - 10:37 PM, said:

OK, now for a test in your scientific knowledge:
Prove, and show to me and the rest of the world how scientific theory testing could be possible and therefore is quantifiably correct. Or how about the theory of evolution, though it is still a theory it is widespread knowledge that that is where we come from. In conjunction with natural selection and other Darwinian concepts/theories.

My point is your looking to the wrong place, for all the wrong answers... Oh books of science and ultimate knowledge of everything, please show us your unending wealth of information about everything... Serious, there is believing in something because you were told, if you were made to, or if you've experienced something... Which one are you?

MS explained this. if this was a test for your scientific knowledge, you failed.
im looking in all the right places, because im asking for evidence the right way. the only way really.
im neither of the catagories you are trying to pigeonhole me into though.
and please have some basic understanding next time of a scientific theory, and dont say "though it is still a theory".

[G3N0M3]

Agent. Mulder, on 16 November 2009 - 02:28 PM, said:

doesnt make sense.
someones likely a fake when they claim they have control over their abilities.
nope. both are far fetched.

MS explained this. if this was a test for your scientific knowledge, you failed.
im looking in all the right places, because im asking for evidence the right way. the only way really.
im neither of the catagories you are trying to pigeonhole me into though.
and please have some basic understanding next time of a scientific theory, and dont say "though it is still a theory".

Wow, are you just ignorant?

Obviously you did not even read up on the subject so go read something and understand something for the life of you.

Someone IS likely to be fake IF they claim they had total control of their abilities, BEACAUSE thats just not how it works.

Also show to me how I failed at blatently explaining, proving, and denoting what Matt showed... If you are not able to comprehend what was C/P and linked, I have no problem because then obviously it is some type of learning disorder so I won't hold that back on you. If you continue to try and argue with me, try being in grade 9 and being in grade 12 advanced physics classes in your spares, I'm not scientific in anyway, I understand things MUCH deeper than you obviously so maybe once you get at par with me in intelligence than maybe try and argue, otherwise I highly doubt you have above 120 IQ... I mean I was 12 and had an IQ of 110 and the last ime I paid for an IQ test was at 17 and I had 120s and I still did not even believe in the outcome because both times I was not even ready (tired/busy) I'm sure if I took one now it would be even more...

So unless either your flamebaiting or just lurching around being a troll then try and prove for yourself something, not depend on what other people have posted.

LMFAO, far fetched... It was far fetched when they said that they were going to the moon, it was far fetched when they said that there was no water on Mars, they said it was far fetched that global warming was happening... Grow up seriously, how old are you?