It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Where is this reasoning you refer to coming from? I accept both Telekinesis and 'Street Magic' to be true. I don't believe one is false. I've already stated, the two subjects are separate.
But keep on telling me how sure you all are that this is all just 'magic' and has not even a shred of validity in real life, or how there is no scientific data or research at all regarding Psychokinesis.
I do have a logical reason to believe these videos because I already have a belief that telekinesis is real.
And you can't be certain that it is not a demonstration of telekinesis.
I'm saying they're real, provided my opinion for said claim, then asked you provide a rebuttal to my conclusion.
You see, using the same intuitive judgment I watch this video and cannot accept this as real evidence.
Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by americandingbat
I was going by your quote so took his “you” to be a general “you”. But either way it’s obvious he wants someone to believe him, whether it’s the OP or established believers. To be honest his post reads more like “hey look at me and my advanced mental powers!”
But that’s beside the point; your question was why someone should be obligated to explain the reasoning behind their expressed opinion.
As I said before I think it is common decency, or perhaps a better word would be etiquette. Without people feeling an obligation to articulate their reasoning if asked then a discussion degenerates into two or more stubborn pillars with one side saying it is and the other saying it isn’t.
To go back to what I originally said, if someone makes a thread saying “what is the more likely cause of movement in a psi wheel, convection or telekinesis?” and someone simply posts “telekinesis” but refuses to say why then that is not a discussion. Similarly if it was a discussion about the nature of spirituality you saying “I think there's a patterning force to the universe of some sort, but no God” is of no more worth than me saying “it’s shellfish, all of it!!”; it’s the reasoning behind it that gives it value. You may not be able to prove your point of view but you must have a reason for thinking that way.
People are entitled to their opinions of course but if they don’t back it up with something it is, in itself, worthless.
On the other hand, there are areas of study where ruling out experience and subjectivity as valid means of exploration seems like shooting oneself in the foot; including paranormal studies.
Originally posted by Mike_A
In your example you agree that if someone asked you why you think there’s a purpose you can and would answer them.
You can debunk any individual act of "telekinesis". You can provide alternative mechanisms, either hoax/sleight-of-hand or physics. But that doesn't debunk telekinesis altogether.
Absolutley, I wouldn’t suggest otherwise but it does give a reason to question anything that claims to be telekinesis (as I’ve been trying to explain to Tgautier13).
On the other hand, there are areas of study where ruling out experience and subjectivity as valid means of exploration seems like shooting oneself in the foot; including paranormal studies.
I would rule it out in all areas but in something like telekinesis it’s not a valid position to say that a video looks genuine to me therefore it is.
I would, but it would be purely subjective and illogical, along the lines of "because it seems like there should be," which is not something I'd want to build a hypothetical bridge based on.
True, if you need a reason to question everything
No, unless one is a video expert looking at original footage I suppose.
But having a person say "I focused on spinning the wheel and it spun; I can make it stop and spin the other way" is valid evidence to take into consideration.
Originally posted by Mike_A
True, if you need a reason to question everything
Why wouldn’t you question everything?
Even then a video analyst could only tell you that it wasn’t edited. They couldn’t tell you whether the action is just a trick; in fact no one would be able to say it wasn’t a trick because there is no way of examining all the relevant aspects through a screen.
But having a person say "I focused on spinning the wheel and it spun; I can make it stop and spin the other way" is valid evidence to take into consideration.
It can only be cause for further investigation not evidence of the phenomenon in itself.
If the goal is to confirm the existence of telekinesis it must be observed under controlled conditions and be repeatable. Science doesn’t add a new species to the list because a few people claim to have seen it, but they will act upon these claims and investigate.
Who is making the claim may influence how seriously it is taken but not to what extent it can be considered evidence. While I’m sure if your dad sincerely said he could move things with his mind you would take him seriously but would you really believe him without a demonstration?
Maybe I have trust issues but I wouldn’t; there are still too many factors in play, is he tricking me, is it a well acted joke, has he gone mad? You would have to go through many much more plausible explanations before you get to real telekinesis.
At the end of the day this just isn’t a personal issue, it’s not a piece of art where it is up to you whether you think it’s good or not. It’s a supposed physical ability that must fit, somehow, into the laws of the universe.
What if he said he had done it accidentally and couldn't repeat it, but was sure?
That's where we disagree. It's not sufficient evidence to prove the phenomenon in question, but it is evidence of it.
But why can't you weigh telekinesis in with the other possibilities?
Essentially, it's about keeping my mind wide open to all possibilities so that I don't miss one that just happens to be further out in left field than most people are looking.
Or our understanding of the laws of the universe must accomodate it. Always examine the inverse.
Originally posted by Mike_A
Btw I’m looking at this in a scientific context which demands evidence be both empirical and rigorously documented/confirmed. From a scientific stand point someone saying that they can move things with their mind is only really evidence that they believe they can move things with their mind.
But how can that be the case when there are so many other explanations and mitigating factors in play? Everything from hoaxes to delusions to wishful thinking taints testimonials to the point that they cannot be relied upon to make an inference towards a solid conclusion, save for there being something worthy of investigation happening. That in itself is not evidence towards telekinesis. You can take it as evidence that there may be something to telekinesis but not that telekinesis is real if you see what I mean.
Also, the number of people making the claim is of no real relevance to determining something’s scientific validity; if that were the case then you’d believe in every god going.
Essentially, it's about keeping my mind wide open to all possibilities so that I don't miss one that just happens to be further out in left field than most people are looking.
I do keep an open mind; it may be possible but without evidence then there is no reason to believe it is real. It might sound like a bit of a copout to say maybe it is maybe it isn’t but it’s probably the most truthful position to take.
Or our understanding of the laws of the universe must accomodate it. Always examine the inverse.
Ok that was badly written but I did write it at five in the morning!
But the point still stands, it isn’t something you can say “it’s real to me”, if it exists within our reality it’s either real or it’s not.
As I said in my last post (I think), to a scientific mindset you are right. Maybe my major point is that that is not the only, and may not be the most useful, mindset in which to examine paranormal phenomena.
We may be just arguing semantics, at least to an extent. I mean, I think we both agree that if enough people say they can move a psi wheel with nothing but their minds, that is evidence of something worthy of investigation. And I think we both agree that no matter how many people come forward to say that, even if they all take lie detector tests and are proven to be telling the truth as they understand it, it is still not conclusive evidence that telekinesis exists.
Perhaps the difference lies in how interesting we find the gray area in between those two. And whether we call something a possibility by default or whether it has to meet some standard before consideration as a possibility.
But it is certainly relevant to how interesting and significant the claim is; how worthy of study and investigation. Maybe not by physicists, but by anthropologists and metaphysicians
And it is my position also. Maybe it is maybe it isn't. But I'm assuming it's a legitimate possibility until I find out otherwise whereas (I think) you're demanding that it prove itself to be a legitimate possibility.
I think it's possible for something to be real to me and not real in "our reality". And when something that's not real in "our reality" is nevertheless real to a whole bunch of people, I think that's maybe the most interesting of all