It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by stereologistDoes farsight ever try to remote view something that is decidable such as determining if an object is metal, rocks, fruit, or dogs? No. They do not choose decidable issues such as whether or not a closed container is full or empty. The questions cannot be decided by a simple yes or no. That is the failure of their experiments.
a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
While the proponents of this aren't giving some nice empirical findings, neither are the detractors. Both cliam confirmation bias and ancedotal knowledge and use the context of the creation of a story to sell the truth/lie of this claim, provide bad experimental controls, have reasons to lie - and that list are al your good traits.
Originally posted by TheExopolitician
As a test to see how many posters on this thread actually watched the videos in mention, how were the targets assigned by probability and to what were they assigned?
What quote did Brown use of Einstein's?
Actually, detractors do have to. Proving something to be incorrect is the entire basis of the scientific method.
Otherwise all progress and reality could be denied merely by refusing to test it, and making good stories to sell to the public instead.
you also have a long standing practice to speak only your mind........that don't mean squat here ....move out Stereologist draw fire.....
Interesting about the video was the test was blind 5 different ways
Originally posted by RainbowsnUnicorns
reply to post by Aeons
PREACH IT!!! I feel a wave of action. I know who to invite from my community when it all falls apart to farm the small bit of land I am on, to grow some food, to break bread with. I won't be holding my breath or waiting for some Lightless aliens to get my bacon out of the fire as I do not eat meat.
Proving something to be wrong is a version of being falsifiable.
I have no irons in the fire. I find the idea interesting. I think PSI is about how some people process their subconscious information and therefore it won't hurt my feelings for it to be proven to be wrong. If it is one's subconscious, then sometimes with the right information it will be right and sometimes with the wrong information input it'll be wrong. I'm okay with you proving your hypothesis. Go.