An honest question.

[LordArt]

My tone has not once been mocking.

Ok, belittling then. Smug would be another word. And I quote "This may come as news to you..." is simply one example.

You are technically correct in your discussion of proofs. I spoke in haste.

This is just one example of why I feel this is bad science. I'm glad I could educate you in how science is done. I'm glad you agree with me.

You are incorrect in your assessment of where the burden of proof lies. It lies with the claimant.

I claim the sky is blue when it's daytime and there aren't any clouds in the sky. Do I really need to be responsible for burden of proof for that? Or is it already status quo and therefore considered "self-evident". The Scientific community is still the "old boys" network. Even something like global warming which has been researched for decades they still can't agree on. Science as far as the results being accepted is just as much about popularity as it is about the hard science itself. Fortunately, enough hammering with results usually over time gets people to accept what they don't wish to, but people will always find a way to pick apart an experiment so it doesn't disprove what they already believe or find ways to make it go they way they want it to. Good science is impartial, but rarely are the people doing it so we make do.

Come now, Art... who is using a mocking tone now? Also, at what point did I say I was alone? I never did.

You were given an opportunity to say so after my first message and choose not to. So you were being deceptive perhaps. Unfortunately, by saying you belong to a group doesn't mean anything more than your poker friends could be that group.

What you don't seem to understand is that if you had come in here saying "I belong to X research firm (here's the website) and we are conducting inquiries into the paranormal and are interested in Omnimancy", you would have gotten a very different response and more positive response than from the way you approached it. Instead you approached as "Hi, I'm no-one special out of the blue and I don't believe in what you say is true. I want you to do experiments with me to my satisfaction because I want you to and you should for no other reason than to satisfy my personal curiosity and I told you to do it". The cloak and dagger routine doesn't help your position let alone the superior attitude. Respect will get you a long way, where smugness won't.

If you think that what I am proposing is bad science...

I think how you are handling this is bad science. I think that the fact I have to correct you on standard precepts about scientific logic doesn't bode well for the rest of what is to come, which is my concern. I feel if this how it starts, how will it end? How easily will your proofs and experimental guidelines be picked apart by your peers and therefore make the experiment useless, like so many others in the past others have done.

There is no shame in ignorance, but there is being arrogant about your ignorance. There is in intolerance in another person's ideas simply because you don't agree with them. I perfectly understand your skepticism and would agree with it if I was in your position. However, I know what I know and do what I can do. I respect your position, can you honestly say the same about mine?

I must ask where you got your definition of faith and what exactly makes it "official"?

I don't keep a personal dictionary handy, but I used dictionary.com. And if a dictionary isn't an official source then there is no source and language is useless. Isn't that the whole point of a dictionary to actually look up a meaning of a word? I think most linguists would disagree that a dictionary isn't a source of authority on a particular language. But believe what you like.

[skeptic1]

Oh, dear,

You have not educated me at all, I am afraid. You have done nothing other then correct a bad turn of phrase on my part. If you can show why the following constitutes bad science, please do so.

1. The hypothesis is that a particular person is able to effect the fall of dice in some currently unknown way.

2. The hypothesis will be tested by having the person create the effect.

3. Control will be provided by the same dice being rolled in the same environment when the individual is not trying to effect the rolls.

4. The results will be statistically analyzed to determine the results.

It is simple science, but it is real science.

I am stunned by your claim that had I presented myself differently the response from this group would have been different. If that is so, this group is collectively guilty of a classic ad hominum by dismissing the argument based on the source rather then the content. Is that what you have done?

Cloak and dagger routine? Hardly. I won't give personal details on a public forum. If you think that simple precaution is cloak and dagger, I can only express puzzlement and move on.

I bypass your attempts at moralizing at me for intolerance when I have demonstrated none. Disagreeing with someone is not intolerance. I do respect you and your right to believe what you will. I simply think you are wrong.

As to the last thing, there a lot of dictionaries out there with a lot of different definitions. For instance, with one search I find faith defined as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." on the site freedictionary.com. Is this definition, different from the one you cited more or less "official" or correct?

[Syntax]

Your ranting is very amusing. Enjoy your Scooby Snack. It was well earned by your performance.

Thank you. So I am clever. ^__^

Sadly, there was little content of value. For instance, my admittedly improper use of the word "truth". You are attempting to extract meaning that isn't there. You do so amusingly, of course. but you are quite wrong.

Not true. (See what I did there.) I had plenty of content in my banter. It just seems like you missed it. As far as picking on your truth statement, how am I trying to extract meaning that isn't there? You yourself mentioned its possible hokeyness. I would assume you said it with some thought. Am I wrong? You indicated some apprehension in using it in the first place. I'm just giving some credence to your fears. It is hokey, and really has no place in a discussion that does not move towards some spiritual goal. Being that it is one of the primary drives you have (I'm assuming you have others), I think there is ample reason to poke at it.

By the way, a Power Ranger? Why on earth would I want that. How very silly.

It stuns me that you even commented on that. Still, isn't there something very sexy about running around in tights and doing cool martial arts moves? Or maybe that's just me. I call red by the way.

You are also very mistaken in your claim that Atheism is a faith.

This is highly debated actually. Since we are hot in the midst of another conversation, I'll not derail it to that one. Anyways, I'm sure you can google it and find both mine and your responses.

This may come as news to you, but it is impossible to prove a negative.

Really, can I see your proof of that.

In all seriousness, I am familiar with the phrase. It was embedded in my last post, you just missed it. If you go over what I wrote and read it again, I think you will catch it. It was actually quite clever I thought.

I'm not stuffy. I just think those sorts of things on cars are idiotic.

That is not up for debate or discussion. It is quite clear that you are very very stuffy.

Perhaps you did mean it in good fun. I have no real way of knowing either way.

Sure you do. Here, I'll make it quite obvious for you. I mean it all in good fun. See. That was a way of knowing.

Also, I would like to address your repeated concern about giving out personal information. No one has asked you to do so. We are all quite aware of who you are and where you live. (That was in good fun.)

What I'm trying to say is that giving out very simple things like group affiliation and even marital status does not constitute personal information that would expose your real world identity. I even gave you the location of the university that I currently attend along with my major. Either answering the rest of the questions I presented you with or simply giving a group affiliation would not compromise you. The former would give us a better understanding of you while the later would help legitimize you. You are being evasive with how you are presenting yourself. That is what Art is conveying by saying the cloak and dagger thing. Just be more open. You can still disappear in the night without anyone being the wiser. You still have all the protections of anonymity.

Also, if you were really interested in getting a study going, why didn't you just email or pm Art? What was the purpose of drawing it out in the open and having the drama?

[LordArt]

If you can show why the following constitutes bad science, please do so.

The experiment itself is flawed as far as dice rolling goes. The Ganzfeld experiments that have been going on since the 70s has the same problem. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment is one of many links)

While they found evidence, one of the issues that was presented to debunk the experiment was:

"The psi assumption — The assumption that any statistical deviation from chance is evidence for telepathy is highly controversial, and often compared to the God of the gaps argument. Strictly speaking, a deviation from chance is only evidence that either this was a rare, statistically unlikely occurrence that happened by chance, or something was causing a deviation from chance. Flaws in the experimental design are a common cause of this, and so the assumption that it must be telepathy is fallacious. This does not rule out, however, that it could be telepathy"

The bold part is what applies to this situation. The point I've been making all along is if the experiment is to hold any water against the countless other experiments that have come before it (which many HAVE had positive results I might add), it has to be better organized. If a flaw is known in the experiment that would make the data questionable, but the experiment is done anyway, wouldn't that be bad science because it isn't proving anything?

I'm not saying it's not science, but I presume (which I might be wrong about since you didn't actually say it) that you intend to present the evidence to the scientific community and if isn't air tight they'll pick it apart in a heartbeat. And if they can pick it apart, I'm sure you'll be able to pick it apart, and then what was the point?

I am stunned by your claim that had I presented myself differently the response from this group would have been different. If that is so, this group is collectively guilty of a classic ad hominum by dismissing the argument based on the source rather then the content. Is that what you have done?

You are making a jump in logic here. Ducks float, wood floats, ducks are made of wood doesn't work. Dismissing you had nothing to do with the arguement that you presented and I think you are smart enough to know that. Dismissing you had everything to do with "why should I bother, what is in it for me?" Perhaps your nature is just to be focused on what you are doing and not seeing outside of what you are focusing on. Its like you came up to us and went "I want you to give me your car because I need one" and then claiming classic ad hominum because we didn't give you a car because your arguement was "I need one" was valid. It has nothing to do with you needing one or not. You didn't offer anything in return/in trade. A person representing a firm could either 1) pay the participating in the experiment, 2) If the experiment was successful, by putting the experiment in a scientific journal, it could act as free PR and perhaps open up other oppertunities for this tradition. Neither of which is offered by some random person off the street which is how you presented yourself (and still are presenting yourself as).

Cloak and dagger routine? Hardly. I won't give personal details on a public forum. If you think that simple precaution is cloak and dagger, I can only express puzzlement and move on.

You are using a generic screen name and your email can be hidden from the public (or you could use a public email which you are anyways). Personal details is like a home address or your real name or your personal numbers. Saying you work for a firm and your inquiry is on THEIR behalf isn't a simple precaution and works to your detrement. If that even is what is actually going on since that hasn't been established yet.

I do respect you and your right to believe what you will. I simply think you are wrong.

Well, I'm glad that is established.

As to the last thing, there a lot of dictionaries out there with a lot of different definitions. For instance, with one search I find faith defined as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." on the site freedictionary.com. Is this definition, different from the one you cited more or less "official" or correct?

It is different but still applies. Meaning, you don't have any material proof that there isn't a more powerful being out there. (I can't believe I'm arguing this point considering my points of view). Even if you consider there is no other life in the universe other than Earth, and Earth can eventually be traced back to the Big Bang...The question must be asked, where did that superdense particle come from that made the Big Bang possible? Now you can make an argument that maybe it doesn't give a shit about us down here, but that is still just philosophy and doesn't mean that the being doesn't exist or multiples of them. I hate the word faith for myself too, so don't sweat it.

[skeptic1]

Syntax,

I think you are overestimating the amount of thought I'm giving you. Responses in this thread that dont concern my end goal I basically write as quickly as I can type with no editing. I corrected my statement. You can keep harping on it if you wish. It has no value if you do.

The fact that Atheism is not a faith is denied by a lot of people who make very poor arguments why it is. I suppose that does make is debated, but one side is right and one side is wrong. Atheism is not a faith.

So, you think I'm stuffy. Fine.

I still have no way of knowing your intentions. I only have your word, which I am choosing to take for now.

I am stunned that the members of this group think I'm being evasive. I said I would be completely open with anyone who takes my offer and I will.

Th reason I made an open offer was that I thought that there were more members of this group the Art who are free to accept, decline, or ignore me on their own.

[skeptic1]

Art,

In fact my simple structure removes one of the three main complaints about the Ganzfield experiments, that of randomness. With 36 possible outcomes and the best random number generator ever devised by man, that complaint is dismissed.

Isolation is not a factor, so that complaint is meaningless.

Of course, you only cite one of the three most popular objections and it is the most applicable. It is true that causation (magic or otherwise) can't be shown but the presence of an effect can be shown and that is my only goal.

I also wonder where you got the idea that any organization more well funded and of known reputation then a group of volunteers would bother with omnimancy? No offense, but it doesn't appear to me that you or your group are of such importance.

What I would be happy to provide is a copy of the films when the test is done with Oyama. If it shows the presence of an effect, post it for the world to see. Rest assured that if a positive result is acheived, I will be showing it to everyone I can.

[StormSeeker]

Syntax, you do rock.

skeptic: http://www.parapsych.org/rng_and_feedback.htm this may be of interest to you.

I found the second paragraph particularly interesting. You may want to look at PEAR's research, apparently they have done a lot and lead the way in psi research with RNGs.

I also wonder where you got the idea that any organization more well funded and of known reputation then a group of volunteers would bother with omnimancy? No offense, but it doesn't appear to me that you or your group are of such importance.

Not to steal Art's glory of replying to this but true, funded organizations, such as PEAR or the SRI, do not seek out individuals to test. Or groups. Not unless they hit the headlines like Uri Geller. What they normally do is conduct research via universities, psychology labs, and online, and put the word out there that they're running such experiments and invite those interested to come along and participate.

In the past, I've participated in testing through the Stanford folks, and the University of Kent which run the RetroPK website. Never once was I approached; I always found them. That's how large organizations work. Unless you hit the headlines or gather a cult following, and therefore come to their attention, they don't have the time or resources to seek individuals or groups out.

The only exception to that which I've seen is when they're conducting specific experiments targeting groups such as trained remote viewers, spiritualists/mediums, and the like. There may be others, but I can only attest to what I've seen.

1. The hypothesis is that a particular person is able to effect the fall of dice in some currently unknown way.

2. The hypothesis will be tested by having the person create the effect.

3. Control will be provided by the same dice being rolled in the same environment when the individual is not trying to effect the rolls.

4. The results will be statistically analyzed to determine the results.

It is simple science, but it is real science.

This reminds me of the high school science formula for conducting expeirments. Which is simplistic and straightforward and seems sound enough, but once you hit university level, they have you think about this stuff and you realize it's not as full-proof as it first seemed.

Whilst what you've listed here seems correct, it assumes things that, if the scientist didn't want their information picked apart, they'd do better not assuming.

For example, the assumption that observations recorded during the experiment which are outside statistical or expected possibility, are in fact, indicative of an effect on the dice produced by the psychic/mage.

(This may not be true at all. The reason we cannot say is because we cannot account for all the variables, as we don't understand or know them. We can only account for the ones we know. Therefore, whilst the procedure sounds straightforward, it has holes plain and simple. The hypothesis is not tight enough to be tested under controlled, strict conditions.)

Also the understanding of the conditions the dice rolls are being tested under is also flawed. Simply inputing the quantum observer effect into the equation means that the influence of the person reviewing the results, will have an impact on what results come into being. Whether it is the control, or whether it is the actual experiment.

The only thing PEAR has ever attested to for example, through their experiments with RNGs etc, is that when they introduce a supposed psychic into the equation, there does seem to be a difference between the results obtained without the psychic's presence and with the psychic's presence.

They do not assume or say that the psychic is doing something; only that it "appears" that the dice "conform" to the subject's wishes. To say anything other than "it appears" would be bad science. It would also be bad science to assume that since there is a difference between the results, that the difference is due to the psychic.

This is my issue with the experiment and approach you've so far been taking.

(ps. I've noticed you've done a lot of ignoring of valid things people have commented back with, only to comment on stuff you have issue with. If you do reply back to this post, I am really only interested in your response to what I said regarding how PEAR presents their pov and the difference between that accredited scientific research organization, and how your approach is coming over.

I'm all for testing and exploring the realm of parapsychology and the ability of people to influence reality in observable ways, but the science HAS to be as solid as possible, otherwise it's pulled apart by hardcore skeptics.)

[skeptic1]

Stormseeker,

I don't care what kind of response you want. You will get the response I choose to give you.

I am unconcerned with your assesments of how I present my offer. You don't like it, don't take it.

Your issue was covered in a previous post. I realize that casaulity can't be shown. I am curious to see if any kind of effect can be produced.

Shall I now direct you as to what kind of response you may or may not make? No, I don't think I will. that would be rude and arrogant.

[Syntax]

Gosh Stormseeker,

It seems the skeptic1 is ignoring valid points and requests. Oh well, how are you today?

[skeptic1]

Syntax,

Keep telling yourself that you or stormseeker have valid points, if that makes you feel better. It's cute. Really.

One person has made a valid point. To his credit, it was Art and I acknowledged it. None of the rest of you who have been active have said much of anything.

While all this witty banter has been a consummate joy, I fear that I must withdraw for a few days. Other matters intervene. Oyama, I will be in touch.

[LordArt]

I also wonder where you got the idea that any organization more well funded and of known reputation then a group of volunteers would bother with omnimancy? No offense, but it doesn't appear to me that you or your group are of such importance.

Fortunately, that isn’t your call. You’d be surprised at the inroads we’ve made over time, and the interest we’ve generated. Your own presence here is partial proof of that. We aren’t that big compared to other groups to be sure, but our secular nature makes us more appealing to the majority of people as well as our more unique approach. In person (such as lectures and conventions) we put our money where our mouth is so to speak. Word spreads, more people get interested, and it continues. There even have been people that have flown in from Europe to see my lectures. (Yes, I’m proud of that).

What I would be happy to provide is a copy of the films when the test is done with Oyama. If it shows the presence of an effect, post it for the world to see. Rest assured that if a positive result is acheived, I will be showing it to everyone I can.

I appreciate the offer, unfortunately it will be considered like every other video on Youtube with a 15 year old spinning a psi-wheel. Meaning it will be taken as a joke or a fake or at best insignificant proof. The only difference is you probably have access to better cameras.

Ok, I think this thread is winding down. At this point people are just shouting at the wind. So let’s sum up.

Skeptic1 is going to believe what he wants to believe regardless of what anyone says. He wants his pound of flesh without anything in return for giving it, which is obviously his choice and doesn’t care if people feel that is fair or not. It’s his terms. He likely doesn’t have anything to give, so doesn’t have much of a choice that way; however I think he should work on his people skills if he wants free things from people in the future. His interests are in simply seeing an effect that shouldn’t happen in his worldview and nothing more. He isn’t interested a grander scientific proof despite his efforts. While via my own investigations and inside information he does work for a company that after a stretch could be interested in such things as this, the approach he’s taking also shows it isn’t likely an official request, and this is more likely a pet project of his and his lunch buddies to prove to a co-worker that we are fake and move on. (Think ghost hunters, it isn’t their day job to check out ghosts or wasn’t originally) If he happens to be wrong, he’ll likely present the video to his bosses (or not) and see if it goes any further. The company is small/medium sized and isn’t a university or think-tank, but does deal with media (which as far as I will go since I’m not trying to expose his privacy).

Nothing more is to be gained by showing the flaws in his experimental approach. He doesn’t care about what we would care about in such an experiment (which is larger scientific acceptance, that isn’t his goal). If whatever criteria he uses in the experiment that would show a significant enough unexplainable change is shown, his group might then try to do something better controlled (this is my best guess, not anything more). This is probably a preliminary filter run at best, or a “I told you they are fake” run to prove he was right to a co-worker who believes in magic at worst.

If he actually flies out to where Oyama is, I might make an appearance since he’s going all that way based on where he works just for curiosity’s sake since I only live a hour or so away.

It's unfortunate that he doesn't understand what magic does or does best, so could design a better suited experiment. He is only interested in what is classically termed as "Vulgar Magic" (ie. shooting fireballs and chucking cars), which looks great in movies, but normally doesn't work that way in real life. Magic works best far more like how the One Ring works in Lord of the Rings, behind the scenes and creating events or synchronicity. When Vulgar magic is perfected (or what we term as Physical Magic), there are a lot of reasons not to let the public know about it for safety reasons covered in another thread. ( http://www.omnimancy.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1118 )

[elfmaiden]

Many, many apologies. I now understand that this trouble followed me here, and I am so very sorry to have been a part of this.

Thank you for being courteous and instructive, but for now it's probably better if I make a graceful exit. Maybe sometime in the future I'll be able to approach you again without causing (inadvertently!) so much conflict.

[Jhalmer]

hey I don't know if this should go here but I thought ole skeptic there might find interesting there are other articals on it but i lost them some time ago but if you look around I'm sure you'll find em, like try wiki for example http://nostradamus.time-loops.net/Experiment_Philip.htm
anyways its a cool bit of stuff not that it validates magic or anything like that. but its ok though I don't believe in scientists because they don't believe in wizards. (forgive my newbness I suppose)