Educating youngsters at an early age.

[Lucianarchy]

I am in the process of compiling information for a book on 'what science can't yet explain', aimed at children 5 - 9 and suitable for junior school study.

The idea is to get children who have not yet been conditioned through misinformation to think for themselves and make their own unprejudiced enquiries about what is currently beyond scientific understanding. True skepticism from an early age.

We already know about the scientific evidence for many of the 'psi' effects, SAIC, PEAR PRP, etc,. Can anyone suggest other areas of the so called 'paranormal which have good evidence to draw from (mediumship, telepathy, PK etc) ?

[Starrman]

We already know about the scientific evidence for many of the 'psi' effects, SAIC, PEAR PRP, etc,. Can anyone suggest other areas of the so called 'paranormal which have good evidence to draw from (mediumship, telepathy, PK etc) ?

Will your book present any of the valid criticisms of this evidence?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Starrman


Will your book present any of the valid criticisms of this evidence?

Sure. What are the valid criticisms of the PEAR PRP replications of the SAIC experiments?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Luci said:We already know about the scientific evidence for many of the 'psi' effects, SAIC, PEAR PRP, etc,. Can anyone suggest other areas of the so called 'paranormal which have good evidence to draw from (mediumship, telepathy, PK etc) ?
Wait. Are you going to state that psi effects are not yet explained by science? So you're going to say "Science has found evidence for psi, but can't explain it"? Doesn't that sound like science might be wrong about the evidence itself, then?

Other things science hasn't yet explained: abiogenesis, the origin of species, chemtrails, crop circles, the birth of stars, astrology, talking with dead people, Hell, the relationship between gravity and quantum mechanics, orbs, Planet X, consciousness.

~~ Paul

[Ed]

PEAR, the fishing expedition? You gotta be kidding.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Luci said:
Wait. Are you going to state that psi effects are not yet explained by science? So you're going to say "Science has found evidence for psi, but can't explain it"? Doesn't that sound like science might be wrong about the evidence itself, then?

Other things science hasn't yet explained: abiogenesis, the origin of species, chemtrails, crop circles, the birth of stars, astrology, talking with dead people, Hell, the relationship between gravity and quantum mechanics, orbs, Planet X, consciousness.

~~ Paul

Yes, there are many things not yet explained by science. The idea is to present a balanced , open minded picture of what is, and is not known. So yes, there is evidence, good evidence, scientific evidence for many of them. For the 'psi' effect, for instance, we can show that the effect is replicable as in SAIC/PEAR PRP. In another, we can show that scientific theory can explain how it is possible for some things to exist in two places at once (QT). We can say that science has found evidence for effects, for which their mechanism of action is as yet unexplained.

The difficulty is explaining this in terms that even a five year old can understand.

[arcticpenguin]

Science cannot explain why some people continue to believe in paranormal phenomena despite an overwhelming lack of credible evidence.

[Starrman]

Well, PEAR was shot down in the Journal of Parapsychology here (http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm) .

Their conclusion:

It is concluded that the quoted significance values are meaningless because of defects in the experimental and statistical procedures.

On SAIC - the one positive result came from a sole judge who was the director of the program. Hardly double blinded.

Please give me a link to the information on the successfull replication of SAIC - I was not aware that it had been replicated.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Starrman
Well, PEAR was shot down in the Journal of Parapsychology here (http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm) .

Their conclusion:



Which has been refuted:

Response to Hansen, Utts, and Markwick
"Statistical and Methodological Problems of the PEAR Remote Viewing (sic) Experiments"
York H. Dobyns, Brenda J. Dunne, Robert G. Jahn, and Roger D. Nelson
Most of the issues raised by Hansen, Utts, and Markwick, including shared descriptor preferences, environmental or temporal cues, and agent encoding, have long been acknowledged, adequately addressed in our experimental designs and analytical techniques, and fully documented in our literature. The remainder of their concerns, including randomization of targets and reference score distributions, trial-by-trial feedback, stacking, and cheating are either misapplied, fundamentally incorrect, or have trivial impact. Additional calculations and derivations, supplementing those previously published, further demonstrate the insensitivity of our matrix scoring methods to target and descriptor dependence from any source. In sum, it is readily shown, both empirically and theoretically, that analytical methods, which remain rigorous and effective methodologies for remote perception research. Thus, the published results and conclusions of our entire 336 trial database are fully reaffirmed.

source: Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
Princeton University - Abstracts publications


Please give me a link to the information on the successfull replication of SAIC - I was not aware that it had been replicated.

I don't have a link, I only have a digital copy of the paper. I posted it here, but Claus Larsen had it removed. It's not a problem, I will be able to use and reference it for teachers in the book.

[CFLarsen]

What to read, what to read...? Oh, there are so many books out there.

The new Madonna kiddie book? Nah...

Any book by Lucianarchy?

Wins, hands down. For entertainment purposes only...

Please, please get this book published! It will be so helpful to skepticism....!!

[voidx]

If you teach kids to be skeptical of everything, something inherent in true science, always trying to prove itself wrong, or update itself as a means of verifying itself, then there's no real need to go into specifics. This to me looks like an agenda in support of paranormal claims, dressed up as a call to raise "true" skepticism. Sure a real kid taught proper skepticism will never completely discount the paranormal as we can't explain it away yet, but I really don't see that as your goal here.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What to read, what to read...? Oh, there are so many books out there.

The new Madonna kiddie book? Nah...

Any book by Lucianarchy?

Wins, hands down. For entertainment purposes only...

Please, please get this book published! It will be so helpful to skepticism....!!

Thank you. It will indeed. I already have some great illustrations - a child poking around inside a 'ghost' with a magnifying glass, and a QT 'magician' pulling the same rabbit out of two hats at once.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I am in the process of compiling information for a book on 'what science can't yet explain', aimed at children 5 - 9 and suitable for junior school study.
Any Developmental Psychologist (or school teacher) is going to tell you that your are aiming at the wrong age group, those kids are entirely too young.

I recommend you aim for something older...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Thank you. It will indeed.

Who is publishing your book?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I already have some great illustrations - a child poking around inside a 'ghost' with a magnifying glass, and a QT 'magician' pulling the same rabbit out of two hats.

Yeah, that's the way to sell books these days. Go tell the publisher: "Oh, I have a great book! I already have som great illustrations!!"

This might be the funniest thing ever.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Any Developmental Psychologist (or school teacher) is going to tell you that your are aiming at the wrong age group, those kids are entirely too young.

I recommend you aim for something older...

Good point. My lover happens to be a child psychologist. ;) It is never too young to learn. It just needs to meet the child's needs. Most five year olds have begun to ask questions about 'ghosts' and such like. There is currently nothing available which provides good answers.

[athon]

This smacks of propaganda. Why? Because children 5-8 have a terrible grasp of anything abstract, such as scientific methodology. Teaching them science is limited to teaching them how to use their senses, how to describe events and how to convey their observations. Concrete analysis - which even then, is limited.

Do you have a grasp of education at all, Luci? Obviously not - selling psi' labelled science to a five year old is as ludicrous as explaining organic chemistry to a pre-schooler: sure, you can give them the pretty pictures and they'll take your word for it, but their grasp of forming a conclusion based on the evidence is non-existant. It's insane if you think you could give them a 'balanced' view (as if you could do that to begin with) and ask them to form their own belief.

Science education has a hard enough time conveying the idea of science to the public without crackpots like you making it harder. Leave it to the professionals and get out of the kiddie pool before you drown.

Athon

[Ersby]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Which has been refuted:

Response to Hansen, Utts, and Markwick
"Statistical and Methodological Problems of the PEAR Remote Viewing (sic) Experiments"
York H. Dobyns, Brenda J. Dunne, Robert G. Jahn, and Roger D. Nelson
Most of the issues raised by Hansen, Utts, and Markwick, including shared descriptor preferences, environmental or temporal cues,

I ended the quote there, because I'm interested in the temporal cues part. In the original Chicago trials (those trials that, throughout the PEAR experiment supplied the most significant results), the judge had four photographs with which to judge the RVer's notes. Since the judge knew the date of the session, and s/he knew that the photo was taken of the target on the day of the session (which was the agreed procedure of the earliest PEAR results) s/he could use seasonal and temporal cues to influence the choice.

The "refutation" was released before those Chicago trials were rejudged. Without a knowledge of the procedure and/or seasonal and weather conditions of a particular day (which would have been 20+ years earlier) the judges had to rely on the RV session notes to make their choice. The results were at chance. That is important, don't you feel? Will it be in your book?

[Flo]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Good point. My lover happens to be a child psychologist. ;) It is never too young to learn. It just needs to meet the child's needs. Most five year olds have begun to ask questions about 'ghosts' and such like. There is currently nothing available which provides good answers.


Propaganda and conditionning, pure and simple ! The same as advocated by the Jesuits: take a kid young enough to be malleable, and even if he "escapes" for a while, you'll have him within your grasp at the end ... :mad:

[Zep]

Luci, PEAR as good as admitted in a paper of their own published EARLY LAST YEAR that summarised their own re-analyses of their own data using more refined methods. These were yielding less and less "RV effect," to the point that there was no effect at all when "properly" analysed.

The authors expressed disappointment...but then resorted to concocting spurious explanations for this by involving mystical flummery like Chi and so on. Unbelievable for supposedly reputable researchers! Truly...

I have posted the link to this quite a few times here before, so I suggest you go look it up yourself on the PEAR website - March 2002.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
True skepticism from an early age.

Ah yes. Luci sceptism. Here is a reminder of a few things that 'sceptic' Luci believes in...

Paranormal powers of Uri Geller
Paranormal powers of Natalia
Dowsing
Esp
Telekenisis
Mediumship
Precognition
Clairvoyance
The ability to predict lottery numbers in advance
Wiccan Magic
Worms on Mars

Did I miss anything?

Or am I doing you a disservice? Anything on the list that you do not in fact belive in?

Care to clarify for us?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Most five year olds have begun to ask questions about 'ghosts' and such like. There is currently nothing available which provides good answers. When I was five years old and I asked my mommy about ghosts, she told me "there's no such thing as ghosts."

That was a good answer for me nearly half a century ago. What's wrong with it today?

[Dazza]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


The difficulty is explaining this in terms that even a five year old can understand.

No. Your difficulty is explaining it terms that a 35 year old can understand. Once you can do that then maybe you can write something for kids. But honestly, I read most of your posts and everytime you've tried to explain the evidence for psi stuff you've completely lost me. Try writing a sentence that that explains what that PEAR stuff was all about aimed at someone who has so far taken no interest in it and is no good at science (someone like me that is). If you can't explain it to me I'm confident you can't explain it to a 5-9 year old.

On another point do you intend this book to be used in schools?. If so, what part of the National Curriculum does it fit with? Or do you intend its use in the RE syllabus agreed by the local SACRE (Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education)?

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The idea is to get children who have not yet been conditioned through misinformation to think for themselves and make their own unprejudiced enquiries about what is currently beyond scientific understanding.

Sounds like a good idea, but how are YOU going to write something unprejudiced? Are you colaborating with a skeptic, or will this book just be a list of unexplained things with no answers offered about them? Ladybrook

[c0rbin]

Lucky, I think you might be duplicating the effort. The sci-fi channel runs pseudo-scince 24-7.

You might as well be writting a book titled: "Watch More TV: How You Can Get the Inside Scoop on Hooey"

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BNiles


Sounds like a good idea, but how are YOU going to write something unprejudiced? Are you colaborating with a skeptic, or will this book just be a list of unexplained things with no answers offered about them?

I am certainly not prejudiced. I am not a believer. I am an experiencer. I am also a skeptic. I will provide the evidence and let the reader decide.

Ladybrook

I guess you want to believe it never happened. It did. You got the real deal there.

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes, you do have to educate youngsters at an early age...

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

I am certainly not prejudiced. I am not a believer. I am an experiencer. I am also a skeptic. I will provide the evidence and let the reader decide.


How is an “experiencer” (???) different than a believer? How does being either one of these not make you prejudice?

We all are guilty of bias, which is why I suggested a balancing through collaborative effort.

P.S. If you’re going to write a book, you might want to work on your grasp of the English language.
;)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BNiles


How is an “experiencer” (???) different than a believer? How does being either one of these not make you prejudice?

We all are guilty of bias, which is why I suggested a balancing through collaborative effort.

P.S. If you’re going to write a book, you might want to work on your grasp of the English language.
;)

Thank you for your concern.;) I will be working with a ghost writer.

In respect of prejudice, this will be overcome by allowing the child to follow the evidence and by using skepticism, asking further questions, etc,. they will learn how to make up their own mind.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

The idea is to get children who have not yet been conditioned through misinformation to think for themselves and make their own unprejudiced enquiries about what is currently beyond scientific understanding. True skepticism from an early age.

We already know about the scientific evidence for many of the 'psi' effects, SAIC, PEAR PRP, etc,. Can anyone suggest other areas of the so called 'paranormal which have good evidence to draw from (mediumship, telepathy, PK etc) ?

If it truly is a book on how to think critically and has fair and balanced views from both sides, I think it would be a good book.

I agree that there is some good evidence for some psi-related effects, obtained through the discipline of statistics, but also feel that they need to be examined more.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Thank you for your concern.;) I will be working with a ghost writer.

In respect of prejudice, this will be overcome by allowing the child to follow the evidence and by using skepticism, asking further questions, etc,. they will learn how to make up their own mind.

"Ghost Writer"...no pun intended :D

It is the presentation of "the evidence" that is in question with regards to bias. What you have considered evidence, as posted on these threads, is a perfect example of your bias. You post examples of experiments, and then someone else shows us that they were debunked. Then you post a refutation of the debunking, and someone else shows that it was refuted before all the facts were known. Yet somehow you intend to write a book for a child, which explains all of this in a nonbiased manner.

What are you going to include as fact? I hope you understand that what you claim as fact as an "experiencer" is only hearsay and anecdotal evidence. How are you going to explain anecdotal to a 5 year old?

I’ve got a good title for the book.
Skeptical Experiencer: The oxymoron experiment

[hgc]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...

The idea is to present a balanced , open minded picture of what is, and is not known.

...Balancing knowledge with *****. Why is that desirable?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BNiles


"Ghost Writer"...no pun intended :D

It is the presentation of "the evidence" that is in question with regards to bias. What you have considered evidence, as posted on these threads, is a perfect example of your bias. You post examples of experiments, and then someone else shows us that they were debunked. Then you post a refutation of the debunking, and someone else [...]

...and then someone else. Yes, there is always someone else. The point here is that there are many thousands of 'psi effect' experiments. The point skeptimaniacs get to is the ridiculous hair-splitting about what is, or isn't acceptable, to them. The liklihood of each and every single 'psi effect' in human history being due to fraud, delusion, error or flaw is so remote that it fails The Razor. The simplest explanation is that the complete body of evidence demonstrates exactly what it purports to show, an effect in nature which is not yet understood by science. The effect indicates that consciousness can act on a non-local basis. There is also theory which supports the nature of non-local behaviour.

[TLN]

BNiles, I hope you can see how Luci addresses none of your post, but still wants to think of himself as a skeptic.

Save your words for a wall somewhere.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


If it truly is a book on how to think critically and has fair and balanced views from both sides, I think it would be a good book.

I agree that there is some good evidence for some psi-related effects, obtained through the discipline of statistics, but also feel that they need to be examined more.

Indeed. Those effect measurements are being replicated, that is why it is time to generate fresh thinkers into an exploration of the nature, development and implications of this effect, in society / culture and science.

[Zep]

T'ai Chi and Lucianarchy, you could start your "book" out with a list of all the scientifically valid evidence indicating positive for any psi-related phenomena. Then at the bottom of the first page you could explain why the top of the first page is blank...

[Ratman_tf]

Now Lucianarchy is into child abuse. How sad.

[Pyrrho]

Not to worry, folks. 5-year-olds typically are told all kinds of fairy tales and lies, such as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Usually they outgrow their innocent beliefs, and learn that adults lie. Lucianarchy's effort is just another set of lies and fairy tales, and most kids will outgrow such nonsense beliefs.

Or is this just another trademark Lucianarchy effort to rile up them irascible skeptics? Looks like it worked. :rolleyes:

"See Lucy. See Lucy laugh. Laugh, Lucy, laugh!"

Now, if this is indeed an honest effort, just how are you going to explain the arcane, convoluted statistical methods used by the PEAR professors to arrive at their conclusions?

"See the numbers. See all the numbers. See the man. See the man count the numbers. Count, count, count."

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...and then someone else. Yes, there is always someone else. The point here is that there are many thousands of 'psi effect' experiments. The point skeptimaniacs get to is the ridiculous hair-splitting about what is, or isn't acceptable, to them. The liklihood of each and every single 'psi effect' in human history being due to fraud, delusion, error or flaw is so remote that it fails The Razor. The simplest explanation is that the complete body of evidence demonstrates exactly what it purports to show, an effect in nature which is not yet understood by science. The effect indicates that consciousness can act on a non-local basis. There is also theory which supports the nature of non-local behaviour.
This, class, is a classic example of the "Appeal to Ignorance" informal logical fallacy, as well as the "Appeal to Popularity" logical fallacy. They, among many other fallacies, were first identified around the time of Aristotle.

We look upon the quaint usage of such fallacies as we do old friends...the kind of old friends who stop by the house without first calling, who loaf around eating and watching TV while remaining completely useless, bringing nothing interesting to the conversation, such as it is.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
This, class, is a classic example of the "Appeal to Ignorance" informal logical fallacy, as well as the "Appeal to Popularity" logical fallacy. They, among many other fallacies, were first identified around the time of Aristotle.

We look upon the quaint usage of such fallacies as we do old friends...the kind of old friends who stop by the house without first calling, who loaf around eating and watching TV while remaining completely useless, bringing nothing interesting to the conversation, such as it is. True.

In addition, Luci demonstrates his lack of understanding of Occam's Razor. Some skeptic (and some sceptic).

Isn't there some redundancy in the title of the thread?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Not to worry, folks. 5-year-olds typically are told all kinds of fairy tales and lies, such as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Usually they outgrow their innocent beliefs, and learn that adults lie. Lucianarchy's effort is just another set of lies and fairy tales, and most kids will outgrow such nonsense beliefs.



As a father of a 7 year old (already very skeptical, I might add, and very much into science), I think this book is a good idea, but I'd position it slightly differently. More of a warning, showing these are all the misguided beliefs people can latch onto when they don't get a proper education, particularly in the sciences.

I'd buy it ;)

[athon]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


If it truly is a book on how to think critically and has fair and balanced views from both sides, I think it would be a good book.

I agree that there is some good evidence for some psi-related effects, obtained through the discipline of statistics, but also feel that they need to be examined more.

Is everybody insane? We're talking about five year olds here! I teach teenagers that barely have the ability to grasp the notion of anything too abstract - and we're asking five year olds to be able to rationalize and and weigh up an 'unbiased' argument?

Luci, again, give it up. First of all I'd be surprised if it sold at all - educational texts for five year olds sell easily, but are cost intensive. Secondly the whole idea (not even going into your inability to look at two sides of a coin, let alone an argument) is based on typical nonsense. Teaching children science is limited to simple observations etc. And even that I have my opinions on.

Luci wrote: I will be working with a ghost writer.

Anybody else find this funny?

If you want to play author, aim your propaganda at the early teens. They love good fiction.

Athon

[reprise]

I have a horrible feeling that I just posted my reply to this thread in the reply box for another messageboard...

Yep, my kid can read the book - it will give me an indication of how successful I've been in teaching her to apply critical thinking skills. :D

[Ersby]

I can't help thinking that Lucian's having us on, and is using this as an excuse to strut about and do a bit of trolling. Ratman's tasteless jibe will allow Lucian to add self-righteous indignation to his replies, which'll make the whole thread a non-event.

By the way, is it PEAR PRP or PEAR RPR? I've seen official Princeton repots that use both. I think it's RPR if you're referring to the whole 25 year fiasco, but can't be sure. Anyone know for certain?

Actually, don't answer that. I just realised how geeky I sound.

[glee]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I am in the process of compiling information for a book on 'what science can't yet explain', aimed at children 5 - 9 and suitable for junior school study.


Well education is a worthy objective.
However, especially when dealing with children, it is vital to give the facts and not have any bias.
Your title instantly implies that a) there is something mysterious out there, b) science can't currently explain it and c) all will be revealed someday.
What evidence do you have for any of this?

Apparently there is a 25 year old study, which has been refuted, resurrected, challenged and now claimed to prove something. No practical trials, no repetition by other scientists and no demonstrations of psi.
In about the same time-frame e-mail and mobile phones (for example) have gone through the entire scientific method. Theory, gathering of evidence, testing, refining of theory, practical demonstration and finally on sale to the public. Everyone here believes in the science behind these two inventions.
Yet you seem to think that psi belongs in the same category. Why? When, for example, is the first public demonstration of psi powers due?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The idea is to get children who have not yet been conditioned through misinformation to think for themselves and make their own unprejudiced enquiries about what is currently beyond scientific understanding. True skepticism from an early age.


Again you make several assumptions:

- children as young as 5 have been given misinformation about psi
- reading your book will clear all that up
- you are not prejudiced in favour of psi
- psi exists, but is beyond current scientific method (inlcuding being observed!)
- skepticism is what you say it is (rather than using the proven scientific method)

Can you prove all the above?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
We already know about the scientific evidence for many of the 'psi' effects, SAIC, PEAR PRP, etc,


Who is this 'we'?
Where is the world-wide replication of psi experiments?
Where is the discussion of how it works and how we can refine and improve it?
Why do most people on this message board not agree with you?
I can use a mobile phone, or e-mail all over the World. Why can't I use psi powers similarly? When will I be able to?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Can anyone suggest other areas of the so called 'paranormal which have good evidence to draw from (mediumship, telepathy, PK etc) ?

Again with an assumption 'there are already areas of psi with good evidence'. No, there aren't.

Look, suppose mobile phones were like mediumship....
You would be able to buy a phone from a TV personality for a lot of money. Only these people would know how it 'worked'. Everything they did would be replicated by magicians, but this would not matter, because 'true believers' would know that it was all true.

Look, mobile phones and e-mail work whether you 'believe' in them or not.
But the only people who say psi exists are believers. They are NOT sceptics!

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by RonSceptic


Ah yes. Luci sceptism. Here is a reminder of a few things that 'sceptic' Luci believes in...

Paranormal powers of Uri Geller
Paranormal powers of Natalia
Dowsing
Esp
Telekenisis
Mediumship
Precognition
Clairvoyance
The ability to predict lottery numbers in advance
Wiccan Magic
Worms on Mars

Did I miss anything?

Or am I doing you a disservice? Anything on the list that you do not in fact belive in?

Care to clarify for us?



As expected, no reply.

I guess it's only the 5 year olds, or those with a mental age of 5, who are likely to take Luci's posts seriuosly these days.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by TLN
BNiles, I hope you can see how Luci addresses none of your post, but still wants to think of himself as a skeptic.

Save your words for a wall somewhere.

Yes, I have noticed this trend. I logged on to check the replies last night when I got home, and immediately began banging my head on the keyboard.

Then, like a flash of light & shooting pain, I realized that Luci is just a cage rattler. So I drank half a bottle of scotch and drifted into a deep & peaceful sleep.

I’ve tried polite reasoning, cold logic, and finally began to resort to petty name calling. I will not stoop so low again. I guess Luci will call this "Psirony".
:hb:

[Ed]

You will never get a reply.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Ed
You will never get a reply.

You would have thought she might at least have had a swipe at my spelling mistakes?

[glee]

I was thinking some more about the inevitable implications of teaching psi powers to children.

In Maths, we explain arithmetic. We can draw diagrams to show fractions.

In Science, we do simple experiments (making acidity indicators and seeing how vinegar reacts).

In English, we see how to use grammar to make sentences, and what sort of language to use when reporting an event or giving an inspiring description.

And now for Psi 101.

"OK, children, today we're going to see how a world-wide conspiracy has suppressed the evidence for the paranormal.

Well, Norman, a conspiracy is when a lot of people do something naughty together. Yes (sigh) Norman, like the boys having a farting competition.
And suppresses means to squash. No, Albert, you may not show how you squash Victoria.
The paranormal is things that are unusual, and hard to believe.

Now gather round children and I'll prove to you that telepathy exists. Telepathy is reading someone else's thoughts.
Robert, look into Penny's eyes. Penny, write down what you're thinking about - but don't show anyone!
Robert, what is she thinking?
Penny, are you thinking about chips?
No? Oh, well, let's try again....

....

All right children, that's the end of our paranormal lesson. it was a shame we didn't see anyone levitate or read minds.
Never mind, I'm sure you've all learnt a lot about how those wicked scientists don't believe in such things.
Well we've finished that a few minutes early, so does anyone need to phone their parents to come and pick them up?
Susan? Here you are dear, use my mobile. While we're waiting, class, let's think about how wonderful it is that Susan can speak to her parents from this classroom - wherever they are!
Remember too, it's only a matter of time before we will all be able to use telepathy to do that - well that's what it says in this book....

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by glee
I was thinking some more about the inevitable implications of teaching psi powers to children.Now gather round children and I'll prove to you that telepathy exists. Telepathy is reading someone else's thoughts.

.......snip.......

Robert, look into Penny's eyes. Penny, write down what you're thinking about - but don't show anyone!
Robert, what is she thinking?
Penny, are you thinking about chips?
No? Oh, well, let's try again....


Oh dear, children. It looks like one of those evil sceptics must be blocking our psi with negative thoughts. Otherwise it would work. Honest.

Sure I could win $1,000,000 from JFEF by reading your mind. No problem. It's just that I don't want to right now.:rolleyes:

[KelvinG]

Luci, we are all eagerly awaiting the publication of your book. I'm sure when it is available you will share us the title and where we can purchase it.

Unless this is all a big lie and you have no intentions of writing a book. But would Luci lie to us? Would Luci try to deceive us?

Anyways, please list the information regarding this book when it is available. If we never hear back from you on this subject we can just assume this is another one of your lies.

Cheers

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Luci, we are all eagerly awaiting the publication of your book. I'm sure when it is available you will share us the title and where we can purchase it.

Unless this is all a big lie and you have no intentions of writing a book. But would Luci lie to us? Would Luci try to deceive us?

Anyways, please list the information regarding this book when it is available. If we never hear back from you on this subject we can just assume this is another one of your lies.

Cheers

Do a search at Amazon.com, but make sure you specify 'fantasy' in the selection criteria.:cool:

[Starrman]

And the title contest for Luci's new book begins:

The Ladybrooke Affair. How to Prove PSI Powers by Typing a Single Word

How to Ruin Your Children

Why Science Can't Explain Things that Don't Exist

The Irrefutable Evidence for the PSI Effect; Volume 0

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by glee
...
And now for Psi 101.


Now gather round children and I'll prove to you that telepathy exists. Telepathy is reading someone else's thoughts.
Robert, look into Penny's eyes. Penny, write down what you're thinking about - but don't show anyone!
Robert, what is she thinking?
Penny, are you thinking about chips?
No? Oh, well, let's try again....

....
and for scenario 2:

Robert, look into Penny's eyes. Penny, write down what you're thinking about - but don't show anyone!
Robert, what is she thinking?
Penny, are you thinking about candy?
You are? Amazing!

Lucianarchy: (pointpointpoint) See! Absolute proof!!!!

[glee]

Originally posted by alfaniner
and for scenario 2:

Robert, look into Penny's eyes. Penny, write down what you're thinking about - but don't show anyone!
Robert, what is she thinking?
Penny, are you thinking about candy?
You are? Amazing!

Lucianarchy: (pointpointpoint) See! Absolute proof!!!!

and for scenario 3:

Penny, look into Robert's eyes. Robert, dear, don't look at Penny like that. Stare at the poster on the wall - the one with a pink hippopotamus. Robert, write down what you're thinking about - but don't show anyone!
Penny, what is he thinking?
Robert, are you thinking about a pink hippopotamus?
You are? Amazing!

Well there we are children. Although our first attempt didn't work, that must have been a glitch.
So now we have proved telepathy works.
Now next week we're going on a field trip. I want you all to take this form home and get your family to give permission.
Yes, Johnny, Mars is a long way away. But with our special powers, we can go there and back in a morning.
Won't that be fun!