fabfor

Fair enough, EP, I accept that you took the trouble to read some of it. Sorry I doubted it. The fact that they were published in reputable journals (I provided a link to wiki to clarify this) means that they were peer reviewed - it's a condition of publication. Yes, as you point out, other possible explanations were mentioned, which hints at some level of integrity- not at all charlatan - esque. And isn't it significant that test after test gave a higher than chance result. Together, they represent evidence- perhaps not conclusive but evidence none the less. I foresee all the facile ripostes to this but so it goes... I'd also like to hear your views on the methodology - loopy or legit, dodgy or daring?

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I really don't think I've insulted you once, if I > have I genuinely apologise. > > If someone could provide some evidence...... I posted a link to peer reviewed research conducted under accepted scientific parameters. That was yesterday at 8.37am. It took you just half an hour to download and study several PDF documents, check that they were reputably published and follow through by rejecting all of them! Could it be that you simply don't want to see evidence? Unfortunately, that's not paranormal!

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sheldrake! He is a pseudo scientist > > http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/11/06 > /the-bbc-and-chopra-buy-into-woomeister-rupert-she > ldrakes-galileo-syndrome/ > > Here's a comprehensive debunking of his telepathic > dogs > > Here's Dr Sheldrake's comprehensive debunking of some of the defenders of the faith. Check out the links on the page too. http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/richard-wiseman-s-claim-to-have-debunked-the-psychic-pet-phenomenon Talk about unscrupulous! Oh, and check out his book "the science delusion" - guaranteed to amaze.:-).

Oh dear, oh dear!! I turn my back for a minute and all hell breaks loose! Which one of you is responsible for the pandemonium? Hands up or you all get punished! Alright then, here's Dr Sheldrake in action. Try to pay attention this time: Maxxi, you weren't wrong...

Here's Wikipedia on one of the scientific journals and on peer review.

Oh dear! This reminds me of the scientists in the planet of the apes who always knew the results before starting the experiments. It's all there and published by various scientific journals (peer reviewed). Poor galileo!!

Any comment on the (peer reviewed) evidence, gents?

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > fabfor Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sorry, no time to expand right now but there is > > clear scientific evidence for telepathy. More > > tomorrow (hopefully). > > > I know what you're thinking fabfor - and it'll > never work. Telepathy right here; QED! More seriously, here's the link to some real research: http://www.sheldrake.org/research/telepathy The thing is, good, solid scientific evidence isn't hard to find. Just Google "telepathy research" and follow your nose (intuition!). We turn science into superstition when we refuse point blank to look at evidence and,instead, resort to character assassination. There's a link to a radio debate on the same page. Here's part of what Dr. Sheldrake had to say about it: Last week I took part in a public debate on telepathy at the Royal Society of Arts in London. My opponent was Professor Lewis Wolpert, a pillar of the science establishment. Prof Wolpert claimed that telepathy did not exist. He provided no evidence for this opinion. He just kept repeating it, implying that those who disagreed with him must have something wrong with them. When I summarised evidence for telepathy from thousands of scientific tests and showed a video of recent experiments he looked away from the screen. He did not want to know. Over 80 per cent of the audience disagreed with him. The great majority had experienced telepathy themselves, particularly in relation to phone calls, thinking of someone who then rang. There is a similar situation in the country as a whole. Most people believe in psychic powers because they have experienced them personally, or seen them in their pets. Yet a minority claim these abilities are impossible, and dismiss them as superstition. Usually they have never taken the trouble to look at the facts. Like Prof Wolpert, they believe they know the truth already. But science is not about dogma, but about evidence. As I have discussed in this column over the last two months, the facts strongly support the existence of psychic abilities. It is scientific to accept these abilities on the basis of evidence, and unscientific to deny them on the basis of ignorance. Of course scepticism is necessary and healthy, and we would be foolish to believe everything we are told. But genuine scepticism is about open-minded enquiry, not denial (see the excellent website www.skepticalinvestigations.org). I can accept that not everyone's interested in this subject but I find it exciting. Scepticism is absolutely essential in all this but cynicism is an inherent blindfold (surely?).

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > fabfor Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sorry, no time to expand right now but there is > > clear scientific evidence for telepathy. More > > tomorrow (hopefully). > > > I know what you're thinking fabfor - and it'll > never work. Tee-hee :-)).

Sorry, no time to expand right now but there is clear scientific evidence for telepathy. More tomorrow (hopefully).

Ok, here I go again. "There is no evidence of paranormal phenomena" someone said. Is that a scientific fact?

You know sometimes this little voice inside is screaming "don't get involved" but you do anyway? Well, the little voice won today... (But only partly).

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is becoming the dinner party conversation from > Storm > > > ri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DHhGuXCuDb1U A big, big thank you for this, taper. I don't share his viewpoint and this is my first "encounter" with Tim Minchin but what a marvellous, witty, talented man. It had me in stitches - Here's to open minds! Hip hip. ..

Anyone genuinely open-minded and interested could do a search for the "Scole experiments" on YouTube. I've never seen a ghost but I have seen enough to leave me in no doubt whatsoever that, in spite of the hysteria (on both sides), there are real (not imagined) intelligent forces that science is just starting to learn about. The flat earth argument reigns at the moment but scientists like Rupert Sheldrake, by exploring the flat earth anomalies, are developing a new paradigm, based on fields rather than matter. As a technologist, I find it so exciting to realise that our marvellous science of TVs, PCs and mobiles is still in its infancy. We've only just begun and I hope I'll still be around when we turn the corner.

Thanks Ted Max. So it's about Chopra, not Sheldrake. A different kettle of fish altogether.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Observer gave that particular Charlatan the > What I Know feature yesterday....I was hoping it > would just be a blank page :) Can't find it online. Did the article denigrate the "charlatan"?

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > fabfor Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Well! Don't know how I managed to miss this > thread > > on a subject so close to my heart. > > All sides of the argument might find this very > > interesting: > > > > > > > > Enjoy! > > Fascinating that Sheldrake is still being touted > as a creditable source of info. > > His ideas on morphic resonance are widely > discredited and the man counts Deepak Chopra as a > fan. With friends like these... Wikipedia: An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[6] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[7] Oh dear! I sincerely hope you're not a fundamentalist. I find his arguments well- reasoned, evidenced and worthy of sober consideration. Fair enough if you don't agree but to launch such a vitriolic attack on the person is ... unreasonable?

Well! Don't know how I managed to miss this thread on a subject so close to my heart. All sides of the argument might find this very interesting: Enjoy!

So loud this morning!

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > fabfor thanks for outlining the details of the 18 > Month Rule. > That's what I got 'em on. > > They wrote a Section 20b about my owing them more > than I'd originally paid, within 18 months. Then > about a year later they wrote an invoice to demand > it, with an extra ?900 odd on top! I got advice > and they took it off. HAD I NOT known about it the > thieving money grabbing amateurs would have got > away with it. "Thieving money grabbing amateurs" - a big Amen to that, Pecks. They also behave like archetypal bullies - rude, vicious, blundering and unapologetic. They had promised to check overcharging me more than 5 years ago but have failed to do so. When I delayed payment in protest, they wrote to my mortgage provider, who, without consulting me, drastically reduced my credit facility! I don't swear but ******!

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Check the Eighteen Month Rule. Get advice from > the Leaseholders CAB. Were you at the LAS meeting > as advertised? You'd have heard about it. But > look them up and call them and try meet them. Here's the18 month rule: Demands for service charges All demands for service charges must be in writing and must contain the landlord's name and address. The service charge is not payable until this information is given and if the landlord's address is outside England or Wales, the demand must contain an address in England or Wales at which notices may be served by the leaseholder. Normally the lease will provide for the service charge to be demanded in advance, but occasions will arise when the demands are issued after completion of the works or provision of the service. In these cases a statutory time limit applies: the landlord must issue the demand within 18 months of his incurring the cost. If the demand is provided later than this, the landlord cannot recover the costs at all, unless a notice is served during the 18 months stating that costs have been incurred and that the tenant will be required to contribute to them by payment of a service charge. Any service charge demand and reminder letter after 1st October 2007 (30th November 2007 in Wales) must be accompanied by a formal summary of rights and obligations whose content and form is prescribed by Parliament.

keyhole Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Get earplugs,very little aircraft noise here.is > this serious,,,,,can't be,someone winding people > up.! Like it. Juvenile Joker Alert! Ignore.

So, it looks like Heathrow or Gatwick; surprise, surprise! For me, the elephant in the room is this: 24 HOUR FLIGHTS OVER LONDON! But, there's always a silver lining and by the time Heathrow's expanded, I'll be either dead or deaf! (p.s. I'm not a Boris fan but, for once, he's talking sense).

So, it looks like Heathrow or Gatwick; surprise, surprise! For me, the elephant in the room is this: 24 HOUR FLIGHTS OVER LONDON! But, there's always a silver lining and by the time Heathrow's expanded, I'll be either dead or deaf! (p.s. I'm not a Boris fan but, for once, he's talking sense).

Anyone had any luck with this yet? I've also had a ?400+ bill for "actuals" and am still challenging this (in spite of threatening letters).