Šarlatanstvo na prodajnih policah

[nitsnls]

Torej Sean je Sean Caroll: ateist, materialist. Kdo je shrink?
Za razliko od tebe on omenjenih znanstvenikov ni označil za šarlatane.

[shrink]

Torej Sean je Sean Caroll: ateist, materialist. Kdo je shrink?

A imaš probleme s spominom, zeleni spranec? Obnova samo zate (drugič):

Hah, na tem forumu smo več ali manj vsi anonimni. Če je sedaj zeleni spranec, ki samo spama in nasilno replicira, stopil na plano, mu to ne daje nikakršne kredibilnosti. Zelenega spranca, ki citira "lovce na poltergeiste" in podobne, pač v nobenem primeru ni za jemati resno.

Izpostavljanje identitete nima pomena, predvsem ker ne gre za osebne obracune ampak soocenja argumentov in logike.
A teh pri tebi ne vidim.. sorry.

Za razliko od tebe on omenjenih znanstvenikov ni označil za šarlatane.

Ne izmišljuj si, zeleni spranec. Za šarlatane sem označil le člane parapsihološkega združenja (in njihove simpatizerje) ter nikogar drugega:

Ja, člani parapsiholoških združenj so že po definiciji ŠARLATANI.

"Parapsihološka zveza" (Parapsychological Association) je ZDRUŽENJE ŠARLATANOV in fizik Wheeler si je prizadeval, da bi ga izključili iz AAAS (jasno, zakaj: ker je parapsihologija psevdoznanost - šarlatanstvo).

Zato priporočam, da prenehaš z natolcevanji, ker se s tem zgolj smešiš.

In ravno tako jih označuje Caroll, kajti parapsihologija je psevdoznanost, ki je de facto šarlatanstvo in kdor se ukvarja s parapsihologijo, je CENZURA. A ti bo to že enkrat kapnilo v tvojo zelenosprano glavo?

[Roman]

Nima pomena tebi karkoli razlagat

Nasprotno, ima pomen, ampak ti ničesar ne razlagaš.

če te kaj zanima zadevo sam razišči in si ustvari svoje mnenje.

Načelno da, ampak če bi hotel znanstveno raziskati vsako para trditev, bi moral imeti celo vojsko neodvisnih strokovnjakov, laboratorijev in neskončno mnogo časa, da bi nazadnje ugotovil to, kar že danes vem. In šarlatanom tudi to ne bi zaleglo, kajti ti razumejo samo svoje "dokaze", tistih, ki njihovemu poslu škodujejo, pa sploh ne. Ljudje kljub ugotovitvam termodinamike še vedno izumljajo perpetuum mobile. Ljudem se pač ne da nič dopovedati.

[nitsnls]

Načelno da, ampak če bi hotel znanstveno raziskati vsako para trditev, bi moral imeti celo vojsko neodvisnih strokovnjakov, laboratorijev in neskončno mnogo časa, da bi nazadnje ugotovil to, kar že danes vem.

In kaj ti veš?

Očitno nič:

če te zanima sam razišči stvari in si ustvari svoje mnjenje

Kadar imam priložnost, to tudi naredim. Žal sem v veliki večini primerov odvisen od drugih, zato njihova poročila berem kritično.

[nitsnls]

In ravno tako jih označuje Caroll

To ne bo držalo, pokaži, kje je se je to zgodilo, kje je on te znanstvenike imenoval za šarlatane, citiraj članek.

Shrink strahopetec si upa žaliti vsepovprek, na osebnem nivoju, sam pa bi rad ostal anonimen.
Ti si ne samo sramota znanosti oz. znanstvenikom ampak verjamem tudi ateistom.

[Roman]

Očitno nič

Torej si mnenja, da ni dobro brati kritično? Saj imaš prav, za vero v paranormalno to res ni dobro.

[Motore]

In ravno tako jih označuje Caroll

To ne bo držalo, pokaži, kje je se je to zgodilo, kje je on te znanstvenike imenoval za šarlatane, citiraj članek.

V članku je parapsihologijo jasno poimenoval psevdoznanost, kdor se ukvarja s psevdoznanostjo je psevdoznanstvenik aka CENZURA. Mimogrede če prebereš spodaj komentarje lahko zaslediš da jih je Caroll pimenoval še huje, za fašiste.

Shrink strahopetec si upa žaliti vsepovprek, na osebnem nivoju, sam pa bi rad ostal anonimen.

Reči nekomu CENZURA je ekvivalentno reči nekomu kapitalist, vernik, ateist, belec, ... pač ni žalitev. Kar se pa tiče anonimnosti, nevem zakaj te toliko zanima kdo daja argumente, argumenti sami pa očitno manj.

Ti si ne samo sramota znanosti oz. znanstvenikom ampak verjamem tudi ateistom.

Kakšno vezo imajo pa ateisti v tej temi?

[nitsnls]

Motore, kaj lahko razložiš kaj ima fašizem opraviti s to debato oz. kaj ima fašizem z omenjenimi znanstveniki?

Ne izgovarjaj se sedaj, če ti nimaš razčiščenih pojmov je to tvoj problem, dejstvo je, da je oznaka CENZURA žaljivka, kar poglej si SSKJ.

[castaneda]

ZERODIET BIO-MAGNETNA TERAPIJA

(Upam, da nisem zgrešil teme... )

Ampak:
-kakšni so biomagneti?
-zakaj nerabljeni ostanejo "dobri" neskončno časa, ob uporabi pa jim moč pada?
-kako ne uplivajo na magnetne kartice, če pa so magneti?

Mogoče pa res vplivajo na težo...(So namreč dragi!)

[Motore]

Motore, kaj lahko razložiš kaj ima fašizem opraviti s to debato oz. kaj ima fašizem z omenjenimi znanstveniki?

Tisto o fašistih sem omenil zgolj kot dodatek h temu kako Sean Caroll poimenuje te psevdoznanstvenike. Citat:

The FAQ on the parapsycology page is great. Apparently, they don’t believe in ghosts! According to the FAQ, that would be “clearly nonsense.” Clearly!

They don’t believe in ghosts? What, do they think science already knows everything? Are they trying to suppress investigation into unconventional ideas?

Fascists.

Ne izgovarjaj se sedaj, če ti nimaš razčiščenih pojmov je to tvoj problem, dejstvo je, da je oznaka CENZURA žaljivka, kar poglej si SSKJ.

Pa poglejmo kaj piše v SSKJ-u:
šarlatán -a m (ȃ) slabš. 1. kdor se dela, da je strokovnjak, čeprav za to nima znanja, sposobnosti; 2. goljuf, slepar
Oznaka slabš. ne pomeni žaljivke temveč bolj preziranje, medtem ko za žaljivko je primerna oznaka vulg. ali nizk.
Moji pojmi so kristalno čisti, CENZURA pač ni žaljivka.

ZERODIET BIO-MAGNETNA TERAPIJA

(Upam, da nisem zgrešil teme... )

Castaneda ta produkt je zgolj še en šarlatanski izdelek, tako da nisi zgrešil teme. Noben znanstveni izsledek ne podpira povezave med temi magneti in izgubo teže.

[shrink]

In ravno tako jih označuje Caroll

To ne bo držalo, pokaži, kje je se je to zgodilo, kje je on te znanstvenike imenoval za šarlatane, citiraj članek.

Pa dobro, zeleni spranec: si bebav ali se delaš bebavega? NI GOVORA O NOBENIH ZNANSTVENIKIH, AMPAK O "Parapsychological Association". In to združenje je ZDRUŽENJE ŠARLATANOV. In Caroll je jasno označil parapsihologijo kot PSEVDOZNANOST, PSEVDOZNANOST pa je ŠARLATANSTVO.

Nehaj že enkrat natolcevati in si izmišljevati!

Shrink strahopetec si upa žaliti vsepovprek, na osebnem nivoju, sam pa bi rad ostal anonimen.

Žalitve vidi samo ZELENOSPRANI CENZURA, ki sam žali in nasilno replicira. Naj ga spomnim (ker ima očitno kratek spomin):

6.9.2011 7:38, 6.9.2011 11:51, verjetno še v delovnem času, res si frajer! not

Pop prepuščam tebi shrink (ajde še Pionir zbirko...), kar pa se znanstvenih testov tiče pa si lahko mnenje nekega ped*a o njih nekam zatakneš!

Ti se kar delaj budalo prokleti šalabajzer!

Roman je šel na dež ti bedak greš pod kap!

Skrite se v mišje luknje!

sem ti že povedal enkrat: skrij se v mišjo luknjo!

Hah, in potem zeleni spranec očita ostalim žalitve in ad hominem (seveda je to dvoje moč najti samo pri njem).

Sicer pa si oznako zelenospranega šarlatana povsem zasluži, saj že par mesecev spama po forumu v stilu zelenega aktivista, sedaj pa še fanatično brani PARAPSIHOLOŠKE ŠARLATANE. In to ni nikaršna žalitev, ampak dejstvo.

Glede anonimnosti pa spet obnova samo za zelenega spranca (tretjič):

Hah, na tem forumu smo več ali manj vsi anonimni. Če je sedaj zeleni spranec, ki samo spama in nasilno replicira, stopil na plano, mu to ne daje nikakršne kredibilnosti. Zelenega spranca, ki citira "lovce na poltergeiste" in podobne, pač v nobenem primeru ni za jemati resno.

Izpostavljanje identitete nima pomena, predvsem ker ne gre za osebne obracune ampak soocenja argumentov in logike.
A teh pri tebi ne vidim.. sorry.

Ti si ne samo sramota znanosti oz. znanstvenikom ampak verjamem tudi ateistom.

Sram naj bo raje ZELENOSPRANEGA ŠARLATANA, ki je zmožen zgolj spamanja, nasilnega repliciranja in žalitev. V splošnem pa ga je lahko sram, ker fanatično brani goljufe tipa Geller.

Ne izgovarjaj se sedaj, če ti nimaš razčiščenih pojmov je to tvoj problem, dejstvo je, da je oznaka CENZURA žaljivka, kar poglej si SSKJ.

Daj, zeleni spranec, poglej raje sam v SSKJ pomen besede "CENZURA":

1. kdor se dela, da je strokovnjak, čeprav za to nima znanja, sposobnosti: dokazal je, da ni ne CENZURA ne nevednež; šarlatani in frazerji
2. goljuf, slepar: imajo ga za šarlatana; politični šarlatani

in še pomen besede "psevdoznanost":

lažno, navidezno znanstven: psevdoznanstvene metode

Psevdoznanost je lažna znanost in zato povsem ustreza definiciji šarlatanstva (v obeh pomenih). Da parapsihologija tudi povsem ustreza drugemu pomenu šarlatanstva, je menda očitno iz zgodovine parapsihologije, saj je "oče" parapsihologije Rhine sam večkrat zalotil sodelavce, ki so goljufali. Pa da razkrinkanega goljufa Gellerja niti ne omenjam.

[nitsnls]

Oznaka CENZURA je žaljivka, obtožuje človeka nepoštenosti, sleparije, goljufanja, shrink je v tej temi vse naslednje ljudi označil za šarlatane, mnoge znanstvenike, med njimi Nobelove nagrajence:

Dr Peter Bander,
Dr Julie Beischel,
Professor John Bockris,
John Logie Baird,
Professor J.W. Crawford,
Dr Robert Crookal,
Professor Arthur Ellison,
Dr Peter Fenwick,
Professor Festa,
Dr Edith Fiore,
Professor David Fontana,
Dr Amit Goswami,
Professor Gustav Geley,
Professor Ivor Grattan-Guinesss,
Professor Stanislav Grof,
Dr Arthur Guirdham,
Dr Glen Hamilton,
Professor Charles Hapgood,
Professor Sylvia Hart-Wright,
Professor James Hyslop,
Professor William James,
Dr Elizabeth Kubler-Ross,
Drs Jeff and Jody Long,
afterlife investigator Mark Macy,
Engineer George Meek,
Dr Raymond Moody,
Dr Melvin Morse,
Dr Morris Nertherton,
Dr Karlis Osis,
Dr Peter Ramster,
Lawyer Edward C Randall,
Dr.Konstantine Raudive,
Drs J.B. and Louisa Rhine,
Nobel Laureate Professor Charles Richet,
Dr Kenneth Ring,
Lawyer Dr Aubrey Rose,
Professor Archie Roy,
Dr Michael Sabom,
Dr Hans Schaer,
Professor Marilyn Schlitz,
Dr Ernst Senkowski,
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake,
Judge Dean Shuart,
Dr Ian Stevenson,
Dr Claude Swanson,
Emmanuel Swedenborg,
Dr Charles Tart,
Professor Jessica Utts,
Dr Jan W Vandersande,
Dr Pim Van Lommel,
Professor Wadhams,
Prof. Alfred Wallace,
Dr Helen Wambach,
Dr Carl Wickland,
Dr Carla Wills-Brandon.


Alexander, Cheryl
Alvarado, Carlos
Baker, Ian S.
Ballard, John A.
Bauer, Eberhard
Beischel, Julie
Bem, Daryl
Berger, Rick E.
Borges, Valter
Braud, Lendell W.
Braud, William G.
Braude, Stephen E.
Broughton, Richard S.
Brown, Courtney
Burns, Jean
Caratelli, Giulio
Cardeña, Etzel
Carpenter, Jim
Carr, Bernard J.
Cassoli, Mignani Brunilde
Castro, Jalmir F.
Cohn-Simmen, Shari A.
Cousins, Wendy E.
Delanoy, Deborah
Dilley, Frank B.
Dinicastro, Michele
Don, Norman S.
Drewes, Athena A.
Drucker, Sally Ann
Edge, Hoyt
Ellis, David
Fantoni, Bruno A.
Feather, Sally R.
Felici, Maria Luisa
Filgueira, Ronaldo
Fontana, David
French, Christopher C.
Gauld, Alan
Giesler, Patric V.
Giuditta, Antonio
Greyson, C. Bruce
Hagio, Shigeki
Haraldsson, Erlendur
Hastings, Arthur
Heath, Pamela R.
Heseltine, Gary
Holt, Nicola J.
Hövelmann, Gerd H.
Hubbard, G. Scott
Irwin, Harvey J.
Kahn, S David
Kanthamani, H.
Keane, Patrice
Khilji, Anjum
Kozak, Leila
Kittenis, Marios
Kramer, Wim H.
Krippner, Stanley
Lucadou, Walter Von
Luke, David
Lumsden-Cook, James
Machado, Fatima Regina
Maher, Michaeleen
Mayer, Gerhard
McMahon, Joanne D. S.
McMoneagle, Joseph
Mishlove, Jeffrey
Moddel, Garret
Moreira-Almeida, Alexander
Mulacz, Peter
Nahm, Michael
Nelson, Roger D.
Neppe, Vernon
Onda, Akira
Otani, Soji
Palmer, John A.
Parra, Alejandro
Pasricha, Satwant
Powell, Diana
Puthoff, H. E.
Quider, Robert-Peter F.
Radin, Dean I.
Reichbart, Richard
Reinsel, Ruth Anne
Rockwell, Theodore
Roe, Chris A.
Roig, Miguel
Roll, William G.
Roxburgh, Elizabeth
Schmidt, Stefan
Schwartz, Stephan A.
Schwarz, Berthold E.
Severi, Bruno
Sheldrake, Rupert A.
Sherwood, Simon J.
Shiah, Yung-Jong
Simmonds-Moore, Christine
Smith, Paul H.
Solfvin, Jerry
Sondow, Nancy
Stanford, Rex G.
Stevenson, David
Stokes, Douglas M.
Storm, Lance
Sturrock, Peter A.
Taetzsch, Robert
Targ, Russell
Tart, Charles T.
Taylor, Robin
Tressoldi, Patrizio E.
Utts, Jessica M.
Varvoglis, Mario P.
Ventola, Annalisa M.
Watt, Caroline A.
Xiong, Jesse Hong
Yung-Jong, Shiah
Zangari, Wellington
Zingrone, Nancy L.

Amadou, Robert
Beloff, John
Cassoli, P.
Honorton, Charles
Hynds, Frances J.
Marabini, Enrico
McConnell, R. A .
Morris, Robert L.
Rhine, J. B.
Rush, Joseph H.
Schmeidler, Gertrude
Thalbourne, Michael
Truzzi, Marcello
Walker, Evan Harris
White, Rhea

Norma L. Bowles
Eileen Coly
Lisette Coly
Robert Franklin
Alexander Imich
Luís Portela
Walker, Evan Harris
White, Rhea

Apostol, Andrei
Auerbach, Loyd M.
Azuma, Nagato
Bermudez, Patricio
Bierman, Dick
Biondi, Massimo
Boccuzzi, Mark
Boldyreva, Liudmila
Braeunig, Matthias
Brusewitz, Göran
Chevako, Robert J.
Claudewitz, Kaare
Cooper, Christopher
Cooper, Rachel
Curry, Leon Estese
da Silva, Fábio Eduardo
Dalkvist, Jan
Di Corpo, Ulisse
Eisenberg, Howard
Ertel, Suitbert
Erwin, Stephen R.
Espinoza Paul, Luis S.
Everist, William G.
Faul, Tilmann
Gaynor, Kerry
Gerding, J. L. F.
Gissurarson, Loftur R.
Goulding, Anneli
Graff, Dale E.
Hartmann, Holger
Hayssen, Gail
Hinterberger, Thilo
Hornaday, Judith Ann Stewart
Hough, Michael J.
Jack, William H.
Jacobs, Jeff
Jenkins, Hannah B.
Klimo, Jon
Kruth, John G.
Knörles, Stephan
Kokubo, Hideyuki
Lambrecht, Ingo R.
Lapuerta, Miguel A. Romero
Macias, Pierre
Mainieri, Roberto
Mannsaker, Jon
Markwick, Betty
Masluk, Todd J.
Matthis, George C.
McCarthy, Donald
McConnell, Tron
Meir, Rivka
Modestino, Edward J.
Morris, Joanna D.
Mossbridge, Julia
Nichols, Andrew
Olson, Pamela
Patrut, Adrian
Pilkington, Rosemarie
Rabeyron, Paul-Louis
Richards, Douglas G.
Roney-Dougal, Serena M.
Ruiz, Joyce G.
Ruiz, Manuel Gómez
Schilling, Sergio
Schriever, Friederike
Shen, Dong
Si Ahmed, Djohar
Snel, F.W.J.J.
Sotina, Nina
Sprinkle, R. Leo
Stahl, Stephanie
Taylor, Jon
Tierney, Ian R.
Timm, Ulrich
Vannini, Antonella
Warfield, Michelle
Westerlund, Joakim
Winsper, Ann

[shrink]

Oznaka CENZURA je žaljivka, obtožuje človeka nepoštenosti, sleparije, goljufanja, shrink je v tej temi vse naslednje ljudi označil za šarlatane, mnoge znanstvenike, med njimi Nobelove nagrajence:

Ja, vsi, ki so člani šarlatanskega združenja "The Parapsychological Association", so šarlatani. In seznam ravno navaja člane tega šarlatanskega združenja, izvzemši prvi del seznama. Ampak, kolikor sem videl, so tudi imena iz prvega dela povezana s parapsihologijo in tisti, ki se tako ali drugače ukvarjajo s parapsihologijo, so šarlatani (tudi nobelovec Charles Richet, ki je med pokojniki že od leta 1935, a tega zeleni spranec očitno ne ve ) in to ni nobena žaljivka (naj si ZELENOSPRANI CENZURA še enkrat ogleda SSKJ ).

[nitsnls]

"Science and the taboo of psi" with Dean Radin

Do telepathy, clairvoyance and other "psi" abilities exist? The majority of the general population believes that they do, and yet fewer than one percent of mainstream academic institutions have any faculty known for their interest in these frequently reported experiences. Why is a topic of enduring and widespread interest met with such resounding silence in academia? The answer is not due to a lack of scientific evidence, or even to a lack of scientific interest, but rather involves a taboo. I will discuss the nature of this taboo, some of the empirical evidence and critical responses, and speculate on the implications.

Speaker: Dean Radin
Dean Radin is a researcher and author in the field of parapsychology. He is Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences and four-time former President of the Parapsychological Association. He holds an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and a masters degree in electrical engineering and a doctorate in educational psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He has worked at AT&T Bell Labs and GTE Labs, mainly on human factors of advanced telecommunications products and services, and held appointments at Princeton University, Edinburgh University, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, SRI International, Interval Research Corporation, and Boundary Institute. At these facilities he was engaged in basic research on exceptional human capacities, principally psi phenomena.

video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

After studying these phenomena as a scientist for about 30 years, I've concluded that some psychic abilities are genuine, and as such, there are important aspects of the prevailing scientific worldview that are seriously incomplete. I've also learned that many people who claim to have unfailingly reliable psychic abilities are often delusional or mentally ill, and that there will always be reprehensible con artists who claim to be psychic and charge huge sums for their "services." These two classes of so-called psychics are the targets of celebrated prizes offered by magicians for demonstrations of psychic abilities. Those prizes are safe because the claimed abilities of these people either do not exist at all, or they're much weaker than sincere claimants may wish to believe. There is of course a huge anecdotal literature about psychic abilities, but the evidence that convinced me is the accumulated laboratory performance by people who do not claim to possess special abilities, collected under controlled conditions and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

There is ample room for scholarly debate about these topics, and I know a number of informed scientists whom I respect who have reached different conclusions. But I've also learned that those who assert with great confidence that there isn't any scientifically valid evidence for psychic abilities just don't know what they're talking about. In addition, the rants one finds in various online "skeptical" forums appear to be motivated by fundamentalist beliefs of the scientistic or religious kind, and not by a rational assessment of the relevant literature.

[Motore]

Uf pa replicirajmo (Wikipedia):

In 1988, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a report on the subject that concluded that "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."

The studies at the PEAR lab, recommended for monitoring by the report, have since concluded. These studies likewise failed to elicit a positive response by the scientific community despite numerous trials. A 2008 study tested participants repeatedly for 90 minutes in a magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) environment and showed no detectable psi effect, no baseline measure outside of the fMRI was collected for comparison.

Additionally, the methods of parapsychologists are regarded by critics, including those who wrote the science standards for the California State Board of Education, to be pseudoscientific.

Some of the more specific criticisms state that parapsychology does not have a clearly defined subject matter, an easily repeatable experiment that can demonstrate a psi effect on demand, nor an underlying theory to explain the paranormal transfer of information.

James E. Alcock, Professor of Psychology at York University has asserted that few of parapsychology's experimental results have prompted interdisciplinary research with more mainstream sciences such as physics or biology, and that parapsychology remains an isolated science to such an extent that its very legitimacy is questionable, and as a whole is not justified in being labeled "scientific".

Many in the scientific community consider parapsychology a pseudoscience as they claim it continues to explore the hypothesis that psychic abilities exist despite a century of experimental results that fail to conclusively demonstrate that hypothesis.

Richard Wiseman has criticized the parapsychological community for widespread errors in research methods including cherry-picking new procedures which may produce preferred results, explaining away unsuccessful attempted replications with claims of an "experimenter effect", data mining, and Retrospective data selection.

Komentarji pod blogom Seana Carolla:

In parapsychology, typically someone performs an informal, poorly-controlled exploratory study. They find something that interests them. When the experimental controls are tightened sufficiently to eliminate sources of error, including cheating, the results fail to continue. Frequently the proponents continue to insist that the early, poorly-controlled results still count. In parapsychology, the experiments have been done, and replicable results have failed to appear.

How long can the search for fairies be considered legitimate, respectable inquiry, worthy of public support and funding? Fairies and leprechauns. I’ve never seen a single study conclusively refuting leprechauns either. Is it unfair to keep the Association of Leprechaunology out of the AAAS?