|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
18th November 2011, 08:48 AM | #1 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,273
|
Testing Telekinesis
A friend and I recently tossed back and forth on a hyptotheical issue.
Let's say you are an organization like the JREF and you test people who claim to have psychic abilities. What protocol would you advise for a test of telekinesis? Here's the issues: 1)The test has to be fair both ways. Neither the applicant nor the testing organization should be able to cheat the other. If you test telepathy, the applicant is usually required to bring his own volunteer, so that he won't have an out claiming that the JREF cheated him by getting their volunteer to simply lie. But how does that work with telekinesis? Either party who doesn't supply the given object can claim the other side tampered with it somehow. 2)How does one evaluate statistical probability on the test? |
18th November 2011, 08:55 AM | #2 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 4,754
|
You think JREF can provide object which is tempered with so it cannot be move with telekinesis ?
|
18th November 2011, 08:59 AM | #3 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,829
|
Will all the people in the room claiming to have telekinetic powers please raise my hand.
|
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane! |
|
18th November 2011, 09:02 AM | #4 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 524
|
GrandMasterFox, this is why everyone involved has to agree to the protocols ahead of time.
|
18th November 2011, 09:06 AM | #5 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
|
18th November 2011, 09:07 AM | #6 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,632
|
The actual test is proposed by the claimant. So the basic setup would be up to them. It is reviewed by JREF, and any changes are agreed on by both parties.
That said, a simple test could be as follows: The object to be moved is placed in a sealed glass container (an old-fashioned anniversary clock dome would be nice), the container on a sturdy table, the table on a stable floor. The claimant sits or stands near the table, but not touching it. Cameras run watching the object, the claimant and the rest of the room. The claimant attempts to move the object. Obvious items to check: The object should be non-ferous, have no internal mechanisms, and is examined and approved by both parties. The claimant can have no devices to influence the object. |
18th November 2011, 09:27 AM | #7 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,594
|
|
__________________
Vote like you’re poor. A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite |
|
18th November 2011, 09:44 AM | #8 |
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 14,588
|
Well, if one has telekinetic powers, then why bother with JREF at all?
Because if I had such powers, then I would just visit various Roulette tables around the world and scoop up and extra few grand here and there, then move on to some other place before they got wise. It would be easy to do and I could get in a great deal of good travelling to boot. |
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma. |
|
18th November 2011, 11:43 AM | #9 |
red-shirted crewman
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,661
|
|
__________________
Aurora Walking Vacation "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding."--Marshall McLuhan |
|
18th November 2011, 01:12 PM | #10 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,273
|
Just to make sure nobody even thinks otherwise, no I do not think telekinesis is a real thing. It's just a random "what if" (hence why it is in this forum and not the actual MDC)
The question I was pondering it is possible to establish an item to be moved without either party capable of claiming was tampered with. I suppose AvalonXQ suggestion of having a 3rd party deliver it is quite reasonable. Though I would love to hear the following conversion: Claiment: We waited four hours and you didn't show up! Amazon Customer Support: Oh, we're sorry. We had a schedueling issue. We hope there was no inconvinient Claiment: You just cost me $1,000,000!!!! As for the issue of statistics, isn't the whole point that the MDC goes by greater than chance probability? If I remember correctly, that's 1 in 1000 for the preliminary test. Is it fair to claim a test with no probability? Or does one have to determine such thing? Example: Roll a roulette and the claiment has to make sure it sets on a specific spot. |
18th November 2011, 01:26 PM | #11 |
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 168
|
The point of the MDC is to prove that ANY type of paranormal or supernatural powers or beings exist. Probability only matters in cases where random chance plays a part.
With telekinesis, moving ANYTHING, even just once, by using only the mind would be phenomenal. That type of test would be a simple PASS/FAIL. |
18th November 2011, 01:30 PM | #12 |
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
|
The odds are only important when the test involves something that could happen randomly.
That's why it's up to the claimant to make their claim. If they say they can move something then the test should be that they move something. Agreeing to the protocol should be easy. The object itself should be pretty easy to agree upon since there's no such thing as telekinesis it just has to be something that's not moved by light and the heavier the better. If the object is something that can't be move by a regular house fan, then you don't have to put a glass dome or other barrier between the claimant and the object. Of course, they would not be allowed to touch it. If it can be moved by a house fan, then something should be between the claimant and the object and a house fan could be used to test whether the object is susceptible to wind currents. |
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black. Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon |
|
18th November 2011, 02:57 PM | #13 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,753
|
|
18th November 2011, 04:19 PM | #14 |
I lost an avatar bet.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 28,781
|
I agree with all the comments and insights, but to be very pedantic about it all: the starting place on such speculations must always be an actual stated claim.
|
18th November 2011, 04:28 PM | #15 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
Laboratory balance in an airtight Faraday cage in a damped 'balance room',
If someone can influence its measurement then I'll be willing to concede telekinesis, |
19th November 2011, 07:15 PM | #16 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 133
|
Just out of interest, has anyone actually claimed to be able to do it and had a preliminary test so far?
|
19th November 2011, 08:47 PM | #17 |
Unimpressed Female
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 8th level of Hell - Maleborgia
Posts: 3,267
|
Have a trusted 3rd party create a clear, completely airtight acrylic (or glass) hollow cube with a non-magnetical piece of material inside it. Place on table. Move the non-magnetical piece of material without touching table or cube.
|
__________________
If anyone told you that I'm a nice person, they were either from a different level of existance, lying through their teeth or mentally instable. "We? That better be you and that invisible aardwarck in your pocket you are talking about, because I KNOW you are not stupid enough to open a giant can of whoop ass by claiming you know what I think." Stop Sylvia Browne |
|
20th November 2011, 01:46 AM | #18 | |||
Metaphorical Anomaly
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brownbackistan
Posts: 8,054
|
Seems like I remember a video of a news show or something with someone who supposedly was turning the pages of a telephone book with the "power of his mind" ... Randi was there, and suggested he was doing it by blowing and put some controls in after the guy's initial demonstration... not sure if it was a MDC or not though.
(edit) Found it... it was actually on "That's My Line" and is actually quite old. I think it might have been from before the MDC, though I didn't re-watch the entire thing to see if the MDC was mentioned.
|
|||
20th November 2011, 02:02 AM | #19 |
post-pre-born
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
|
Another way to handle selection of the object would be to have it picked from a very large number. For example, supposed the claimant says he can move a paper clip. Then the protocol could be to go to a paper clip manufacturer where there are millions of paper clips and then let a third party pick one.
ETA: I was going to post that video too. Yes, the MDC is mentioned in the first minute or two ... back when it was $10K. |
20th November 2011, 02:40 AM | #20 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
I don't think the challenge subforum lists all applicants ever, but a quick scan of the thread titles shows three applicants who have claimed telekinetic ability:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=97889 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=41604 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=30119 None got as far as taking a preliminary test, but all are of some interest with regard to what kind of test protocol JREF would consider appropriate. I like the idea of hanging several items from strings and asking the applicant to move just one of them. |
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett |
|
20th November 2011, 03:52 AM | #21 |
Guest
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,290
|
One thing I learned from this thread. Using only the power of my mind, I can move on to the next thread.
Goodbye. |
20th November 2011, 06:59 AM | #22 |
Goddess of the Glowing Sunsets
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 466
|
|
__________________
Epiphanette (a very small epiphany): that kind of tingly, excited feeling of realizing that you were wrong, and that you have to adjust your world view accordingly. - With thanks to Weak Kitten and Blue Sock Monkey. I am 100% confident all professional psychics and mediums are frauds. The rest might be sincere but are still deluded. |
|
20th November 2011, 11:57 AM | #23 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
21st November 2011, 05:42 PM | #24 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
Rather than a simple 'one item', 'one movement' test, I'd prefer to see a kind of pin-ball rig where multiple wooden balls fall down a tilted board, bouncing off wooden pins, into a number of collection slots. This would allow an isolated set up, remote activation (running balls down a tube to the top of the board or similar), multiple runs to calibrate in the absence of telekinesis, and multiple runs in the presence of telekinesis. If the claimant could influence the cumulative trajectory of the balls over multiple runs to fall into different slots at a significantly greater than random chance, they'd have demonstrated their influence.
|
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
21st November 2011, 06:35 PM | #25 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,661
|
Robert Park covered this nearly a dozen years ago.
[i]f the mind can influence inanimate objects, why not simply measure the static force the mind can exert? Modern ultramicrobalances can routinely measure a force much less than a billionth of an ounce. Why not just use your psychokinetic powers to deflect a microbalance? [...] The reason, of course, is that the microbalance stubbornly refuses to budge.Quote-mined from here. RayG |
__________________
Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio |
|
21st November 2011, 07:01 PM | #26 |
post-pre-born
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
|
|
22nd November 2011, 07:08 AM | #27 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
I don't think it's a complicated test. It allows a baseline control comparison which makes set up and replication relatively easy. It also seems to me reasonably robust against claims of deceitful manipulation (cheating )
I haven't yet heard a protocol for a yes/no test that seems sufficiently robust against claims of deceitful manipulation. I don't feel particularly strongly about it - I just thought it worth consideration. |
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|