Remote viewing does it happen

I find it hard not to react with equal rudeness to certain posters who reject every subject with the same dogmatic certainty about any subject that does not conform to their highly valued scientific principles. This is a philosophical look at subjects that are more than pure scientific truths. I dont mind scrutiny or even opposing views but they must be respectful and not be discounted with this brash bully boy attitude. Is it their intention that everything not confirmed by science, not be debated?..I think the value of this forum is the sceptic has not the crude reputation other forums exhibit. Why not discount every religious subject as the act of a mad men , if this is the intention.

I find it hard not to react with equal rudeness to certain posters who reject every subject with the same dogmatic certainty about any subject that does not conform to their highly valued scientific principles. This is a philosophical look at subjects that are more than pure scientific truths. I dont mind scrutiny or even opposing views but they must be respectful and not be discounted with this brash bully boy attitude. Is it their intention that everything not confirmed by science, not be debated?..I think the value of this forum is the sceptic has not the crude reputation other forums exhibit. Why not discount every religious subject as the act of a mad men , if this is the intention.

However, the strong force, which holds together subatomic particles, was thought to adhere to the law of parity, at least under normal circumstances. Now this law appears to have been broken by a team of about a dozen particle physicists,
...
The results were so unexpected that Sandweiss and his colleagues waited more than a year to publish them, spending that time searching for an alternative explanation. The physicist is still quick to point out that the effect only suggests parity violation - it doesn't prove it - but the STAR collaboration has decided to open up the research to scrutiny by other physicists.
"I think it's a real effect, but we'll know more in the upcoming years," Sandweiss says.

This is a philosophical look at subjects

I dont mind scrutiny or even opposing views but they must be respectful and not be discounted with this brash bully boy

I have a sceptical attitude to many subjects and may oppose fervent beliefs, its not the scrutiny, its the arrogant responses that I see exhibited on occassions that makes me question their intentions. The sweeping statements that brush away certain subjects as if not worthy of debate. Im not pointing you out for example.

Oh, but "We" are insignuating!
:poke-eye:

I have a sceptical attitude to many subjects and may oppose fervent beliefs, its not the scrutiny, its the arrogant responses that I see exhibited on occassions that makes me question their intentions. The sweeping statements that brush away certain subjects as if not worthy of debate. Im not pointing you out for example.

I see no grounds for thinking anyone can do anything of the sort. There's certainly nobody who can do such things reliably, as that would be easy enough to demonstrate; and if the ability can't be demonstrated to give someone an edge over someone guessing, then what good is it? Furthermore, why would you believe that person? After all, the James Randi Educational Foundation is offering a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate a "supernatural" ability. All you have to do is reliably beat chance.

Hi guys and xris I am busy with a remote viewing exercise on another forum, have a look if you want to!!

Well the man himself is a fraud he has been proven wrong and refused to accept it.

It said he was correct more than once but Randi never persued his claims for fear of loosing his money.

Why do you think such things are possible if nobody can reliably beat chance? You can mock the expectation of that all you want, but asking someone to beat someone guessing on a consistent basis seems perfectly reasonable, given that without that, there's no reason to suspect anything out-of-the-ordinary is occurring. An Olympic athlete, for example, can reliably beat an average person at the sport to which they've trained. We can imagine someone defending medication that doesn't work better than a placebo, by saying you can't expect it to work all the time; but it's still no better than a placebo, and if ESP were possible, it would be no better than a guess.



The terms of the prize clearly state that anecdotes don't count. Anyone can make a guess that turns out correct.

But he set the test up, it was his instigation not the dowsers. Your saying that it does not matter what he does it will only ever be chance

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The YouTube video was too long for me to bother watching. Perhaps you can explain the situation in more detail. In any case, was the dowser simply claiming to have been correct during a trial, or does he claim to have succeeded in the trial by the standards he agreed upon to establish as much?

Just watch the last bit. He succeeds in doing whats requested of him. Now I do believe he repeated the request but it was never commented on, aired on TV or ever mentioned again.

Im not saying these events are ever conclusive but should we expect them to be so precise with obviously a question of abnormality about them. We should be more open minded and give them a bit more rope. It appears opinions are well entrenched on both sides of the argument.

Why do you believe this?

This is correct, it is surprising but not conclusive that the man picked one square out of 24. But I disagree with your definition of open minded. To be open minded is to be willing to consider not willing to accept new ideas. To be close minded would be to see the man repeat the dowsing several times and still dismiss it out of hand. That would be entrenched.

Given the extraordinary claims and lack of evidence, why do you make the people entrenched in their opinion that the abilities are genuine equivalent to the people entrenched that they abilities are not? The latter is much more reasonable.