So what does "supernatural" actually mean?

[Mountainmike]

Online sources said "pain."

The forensic reports say "inflammation response" and "trauma"
Its why you should look at the source forensic reports.
Its how you avoid misunderstandings.
Science is what I trust.

Seemingly I am the only one on this forum.

I really am wasting my time here!

 

[tas8831]

It will not surprise you there was a chain of custody managed by a solicitor. Forensic labs have to do it! Their day job is criminal evidence! That is why the sample was handed blind but carrying an ID tag.

It will surprise me quite a bit, since this was not a crime, no forensic lab would require such a thing.

YOu have something in common with Joe Nickell then
He thinks his opinion on what blood samples looks like trumps lab reports of what what science saystoo!

The lab reports are truly irrelevant, seeing as how many of them seem dubious, and seeing as how the hoaxers that put blood on the wafers or put cardiac muscle on the wafer hid it pretty well - add in the fact that Catholics seem to really want to believe in such miracles, we have to consider their mental state.

You are in a prison of prejudice of your own making.
Most atheists are.

I prefer science.
Farewell.

No, you really don't.

If you did, you would answer my question regarding 'white cells' with no DNA...

"Indeed whilst confirming human origin cells, there was no reproducible DNA."

From the thread you had closed.

No 'reproducible' DNA, no "white cells."

 

[tas8831]

The forensic reports say "inflammation response" and "trauma"

So?

Its why you should look at the source forensic reports.

I am not going to waste money on some miracle book. You are so convinced, with your "molecular genetics" business and all, why no DNA?

Its how you avoid misunderstandings.
Science is what I trust.

LOL!

Funny - I was searching for a particular statement you mad,e and came across some of your year+ old posts where you write things about evolution.

No, you don't trust science.

Seemingly I am the only one on this forum.

I really am wasting my time here!

Yes, you are - it is hard to sway people that are not easily swayed by tall tales, religious pleading, etc.

BYE.

 

[tas8831]

The 'science lover' wrote this in the now closed thread:

So If these are so - it is evidence of life from no life (ie bread) in the eucharist.

If that is true it triggers the test that Darwin HIMSELF said invalidated his theory.
He said if any life occurred other than by small progressive differences, it would invalidate his theory!​

No, he really didn't. If that is indicative of the level of care you put into your arguments, then you are in worse shape than I concluded from your other posts.

 

[Mountainmike]

Origin of species chapter 6
Look it up.
You really dont check anything do you?
Ill bet youve never read that either , before decide what is and is not in it!

As for forensic labs not needing robust chain of custody of samples....that is ridiculous. ITs the first thing a defence attorney checks. Contract test labs are obliged to be accredited to GMP which demands traceability too.

I give up! you are beyond hope!

Suggestion for life. Do not make base attacks on others without checking your soruces first. It will land you in the libel courts. Which will be a very expensive outcome when all you did was guess and defame someone on that basis. I couldnt care less about what people say. But many others do, and shoot first , check later is headed for a fall..

I prefer evidence and science to atheist prejudice!

But I will seemingly have to go somewhere else to discuss it.

The 'science lover' wrote this in the now closed thread:

So If these are so - it is evidence of life from no life (ie bread) in the eucharist.

If that is true it triggers the test that Darwin HIMSELF said invalidated his theory.
He said if any life occurred other than by small progressive differences, it would invalidate his theory!​

No, he really didn't. If that is indicative of the level of care you put into your arguments, then you are in worse shape than I concluded from your other posts.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Does it?

Problem is that makes a lot of main stream science supernatural: like wave function collapse , dark matter, distant galaxy rotation speeds because they can't be explained. Indeed Marie curies darkened films would then be supernatural prior to the development of the science of radiation. So on.

Once the evidence is repeatable by an experimenter , seems to me the phenomenon is natural, whether or not it can be explained. Problem is that definition makes telepathy natural!

Exactly....

The problem is dark matter has not been repeated in any lab..... Black holes.... the natural phenomenon break down at the event horizon, so it is beyond nature i.e. supernatural.... Neutron stars, also beyond the known laws of physics.....which turned into strange matter (unknown by the laws of nature) when pulsars got up to millisecond range.....

Cosmology is littered with the supernatural.... Yet people accept it without hesitation simply because they have been fooled into believing it is scientific, because someone said so......

Think about it...... if all the laws of known physics break down at the event horizon, then what you are discussing is supernatural, not natural......

And cosmological redshift is not caused by some strange form of unknown matter.... it is a natural event caused by the state of matter that makes up 99.9% of the universe......

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

 

[Mountainmike]

Exactly....

The problem is dark matter has not been repeated in any lab..... Black holes.... the natural phenomenon break down at the event horizon, so it is beyond nature i.e. supernatural.... Neutron stars, also beyond the known laws of physics.....which turned into strange matter (unknown by the laws of nature) when pulsars got up to millisecond range.....

Cosmology is littered with the supernatural.... Yet people accept it without hesitation simply because they have been fooled into believing it is scientific, because someone said so......

Think about it...... if all the laws of known physics break down at the event horizon, then what you are discussing is supernatural, not natural......

And cosmological redshift is not caused by some strange form of unknown matter.... it is a natural event caused by the state of matter that makes up 99.9% of the universe......

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

I Love the acronym in your signature!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I give a couple of examples in the post above.

One of the big problems with all of this is science inbuilds an impossible test.

The idea you can repeat an experiment exactly.

Reality is even if you could get funding for repeats ( you can't- as a condition of grant funding) you could never publish it anyway - journals won't accept repeats. Cash poor research departments cannot afford to do work they can neither fund nor publish. So in practice it rarely if ever happens ( even on mainstream science)

So things are modified enough to say it is new research. The problem with that is if you don't know the cause, you can't say what it is safe to modify, without losing results.

There's only been one claim of a repeat of Sheldrakes Nolan sisters. But they didn't repeat it anything like exactly, and changed several things and it didn't show the same results so what did it prove?

The metastudies of such as Utts on large quantities of data give high significance.

In general, replication doesn't have to be exact in all respects; it should be possible to replicate using the published methodology.

If initial attempts at replication fail, it may be worth trying a more exact replication, depending on the details of the experiment, but a basic 'reasonableness' assumption is made - that the published methodology is considered, by the experimenters that published it, to be sufficient to test their main hypothesis, i.e. it's an experimental hypothesis - that if you try to make observation X using methodology Y you should expect (or not expect) to see result Z.

If replication following the published methodology does not achieve similar results, it's an indication that the experimental hypothesis was false, and that the main or general hypothesis, i.e. what the experiment was devised to test, may also be false. But it should be seen primarily as a falsification of the experimental hypothesis, which is a good experimental result, indicating that the testing requirements are more specific than previously thought (the experimental hypothesis is incomplete), or that there is a methodological error to be ironed out, or that the main hypothesis is false - putting the onus on the original publisher to take another look at their work and modify their published methodology or revise their main hypothesis appropriately.

 

[Mountainmike]

True.

But the problem is if all you have is correlation, as yet no conjectured mechanism. (Eg does a rock cloud aphotographic film prior to curie, or do you know who is ringing) you cannot be certain of what are significant or trivial changes.

On sheldrake.
Do time intervals matter?
Are sisters critical?
Distance?
Location?
Fatigue on length of trial?
And it's hard to test even a subset of variables and still have a statistically significant population in each subgroup.

So the first advisable test is pure duplication, on bigger scale , and that is what funding and journals prevent .

Sure a few variables, but make sure a subset is duplication. To confirm the original correlation. The 1000 trials I understand Sheldrake used are already a problem for participant fatigue and duration even with 2 minutes per test.

In general, replication doesn't have to be exact in all respects; it should be possible to replicate using the published methodology.

If initial attempts at replication fail, it may be worth trying a more exact replication, depending on the details of the experiment, but a basic 'reasonableness' assumption is made - that the published methodology is considered, by the experimenters that published it, to be sufficient to test their main hypothesis, i.e. it's an experimental hypothesis - that if you try to make observation X using methodology Y you should expect (or not expect) to see result Z.

If replication following the published methodology does not achieve similar results, it's an indication that the experimental hypothesis was false, and that the main or general hypothesis, i.e. what the experiment was devised to test, may also be false. But it should be seen primarily as a falsification of the experimental hypothesis, which is a good experimental result, indicating that the testing requirements are more specific than previously thought (the experimental hypothesis is incomplete), or that there is a methodological error to be ironed out, or that the main hypothesis is false - putting the onus on the original publisher to take another look at their work and modify their published methodology or revise their main hypothesis appropriately.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly....

The problem is dark matter has not been repeated in any lab..... Black holes.... the natural phenomenon break down at the event horizon, so it is beyond nature i.e. supernatural.... Neutron stars, also beyond the known laws of physics.....which turned into strange matter (unknown by the laws of nature) when pulsars got up to millisecond range.....

Physics does not need to be done in the laboratory. We have never got an item to orbit another in a laboratory either. We have to go to the real world for that. And the evidence for black holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, is all observable and repeatable. It is far from being supernatural. Yes, to those without an education in the sciences it may appear that way. But that is only because you are too limited in how you approach physics.

Cosmology is littered with the supernatural.... Yet people accept it without hesitation simply because they have been fooled into believing it is scientific, because someone said so......

Think about it...... if all the laws of known physics break down at the event horizon, then what you are discussing is supernatural, not natural......

And cosmological redshift is not caused by some strange form of unknown matter.... it is a natural event caused by the state of matter that makes up 99.9% of the universe......

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

No, people do not accept it without hesitation. All of the concepts have been tested again and again. And no, the laws of physics do not break down at the event horizon. That area is well understood with both relativity and quantum dynamics. Those models break down at the singularity. That is where the laws run into some trouble, though I have heard that aspects of quantum mechanics can deal with it.

Lastly you found an outlier in the world of physics. He has no following. Probably because he could not support his claims. Relativity has been tested countless times and it works perfectly well in all areas but singularities. In fact you probably rely on it every day to some degree. Quantum mechanics is the same.

There is less evidence for Dark Matter and Dark Energy and they are not well understood. That is why they are called "Dark". Not only can't they be directly observed, but there is a lot not known about them. That is an area of quite a bit of study these days. We may have a break through some day and we may not. That does not mean that we throw what we do know away, which is what you seem to desire.

 

[Kaon]

Physics does not need to be done in the laboratory. We have never got an item to orbit another in a laboratory either. We have to go to the real world for that. And the evidence for black holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, is all observable and repeatable. It is far from being supernatural. Yes, to those without an education in the sciences it may appear that way. But that is only because you are too limited in how you approach physics.

All science needs to be done in a way such that a layperson can read your laboratory notes, follow the same procedure, and reproduce the same results (or not). Physics does need a laboratory to test the theory of dark matter such that the results can be reproduced according to the parameters of the conditions first studied. In other words, unless you can recreate a laboratory that is the same dynamical system as the alleged universe (with all of its phenomena), you cannot say with certainty how the universe as we know it interacts with itself, and the rest of matter with respect to discrete origin points.


This is the problem with academia, and this is why several scores of scientists just go along with academic trends, and/or refuse to present any progressive thought and advancement toward the next generation(s). Academia is ridiculously fraternal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All science needs to be done in a way such that a layperson can read your laboratory notes, follow the same procedure, and reproduce the same results (or not). Physics does need a laboratory to test the theory of dark matter such that the results can be reproduced according to the parameters of the conditions first studied. In other words, unless you can recreate a laboratory that is the same dynamical system as the alleged universe (with all of its phenomena), you cannot say with certainty how the universe as we know it interacts with itself, and the rest of matter with respect to discrete origin points.


This is the problem with academia, and this is why several scores of scientists just go along with academic trends, and/or refuse to present any progressive thought and advancement toward the next generation(s). Academia is ridiculously fraternal.

Why are you using a computer? Why are you using cell phones? The physics necessary for those cannot be understood by a layman. The GPS in your cell phone relies on Einstein's General Relativity. There is no duty at all to do the very restricted science that you are proposing. If the lay person wants to understand higher level physics he is going to have to invest in an education.

 

[Mountainmike]

1/ This is my thread and the subject is definitions of the supernatural - stick to that.

2/ Stop misleading. Dark matter - dark energy - zero point energy are all names given to gaps in knowledge and errors in prediction of present model and are conjecture used to fill gaps. Einstein considered the cosmological constant his greatest blunder, which in essence was a fudge factor to try to make the sums from the real world add up which they dont. So your assertion is simply wrong. They are not observable. Only errors in present models are observable. All these concepts are as yet unidentified and unattributed.All the projected models for dark matter - wimps, machos, axion, kaluza klein etc have defied observation or in some cases failed to account for the anomalies they seek to rectify. Just as postulated models of dark energy such as quantum fields give wrong predictions for such as cosmological constant and so on. In short they are names for errors in models and pure conjecture on how they might be filled.

3/There is no "we" about it. As far as you are concerned it is "they". And as a one time director of an astrophyics facility I am part of the "they" that disagrees with your assertions.

So to get back on thread:

My main comment is stick to the thread. What is a definition of supernatural that works?
In my view it is a subjective word. If nature does it , it is natural.

Whether or not it can fit in the model is specious - it is after all just a model - or whether or not it offends your idea of how the world should work.

I use telepathy as an example in which many establishment scientific figures seem more interested in their apriori opinion than studying the evidence to decide. Dawkins behaviour on it is scandalous. And sagan - dawkins - use of the phrase "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" is just such subjective bar they raise agains things they dont "like"

The attempt to define supernatural as either the unobserved or unexplained or (presently) inexplicable or offends causality, determinism and such like, or as in dawkins case defining it as anything that just offends your paradigm of how the universe works, such definitions all end up making a lot of mainstream science supernatural.

It also demonstrate faith in concepts : you clearly believe in dark matter because of assertions you make. Only because you would rather not let go of the present model of matter, so label a hole in that theory "dark"... it has to be there, because otherwise your modelof matter is conceptually wrong, and you refuse to accept that possibility. That matter is just a model, that doesnt work everywhere.

Hawking accepted the limitations of models with his concept of "model dependent reality" It is the logical and philosophical deathknell of the "universal theory of everything" - but he never drew that obvious conclusion

Physics does not need to be done in the laboratory. We have never got an item to orbit another in a laboratory either. We have to go to the real world for that. And the evidence for black holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, is all observable and repeatable. It is far from being supernatural. Yes, to those without an education in the sciences it may appear that way. But that is only because you are too limited in how you approach physics.



No, people do not accept it without hesitation. All of the concepts have been tested again and again. And no, the laws of physics do not break down at the event horizon. That area is well understood with both relativity and quantum dynamics. Those models break down at the singularity. That is where the laws run into some trouble, though I have heard that aspects of quantum mechanics can deal with it.

Lastly you found an outlier in the world of physics. He has no following. Probably because he could not support his claims. Relativity has been tested countless times and it works perfectly well in all areas but singularities. In fact you probably rely on it every day to some degree. Quantum mechanics is the same.

There is less evidence for Dark Matter and Dark Energy and they are not well understood. That is why they are called "Dark". Not only can't they be directly observed, but there is a lot not known about them. That is an area of quite a bit of study these days. We may have a break through some day and we may not. That does not mean that we throw what we do know away, which is what you seem to desire.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1/ This is my thread and the subject is definitions of the supernatural - stick to that.

If you can do so yourself, then so will I.

2/ Stop misleading. Dark matter - dark energy - zero point energy are all names given to gaps in knowledge and errors in prediction of present model and are conjecture used to fill gaps. Einstein considered the cosmological constant his greatest blunder, which in essence was a fudge factor to try to make the sums from the real world add up which they dont. So your assertion is simply wrong. They are not observable. Only errors in present models are observable. All these concepts are as yet unidentified and unattributed.All the projected models for dark matter - wimps, machos, axion, kaluza klein etc have defied observation or in some cases failed to account for the anomalies they seek to rectify. Just as postulated models of dark energy such as quantum fields give wrong predictions for such as cosmological constant and so on. In short they are names for errors in models and pure conjecture on how they might be filled.

They are observable. Just because you may lack understanding of these concepts does not make it so. Let's take Dark Matter. It can be observed by its effects. But then all things are observed by their effects, most often we rely on how an object reflects visible light to see it. But there are clear exceptions to that. For distant aircraft radar was invented to "see" planes that could not be seen by eye. That still uses light but in the radio wave region. For submarines we invented sonar which does not use light at all but sound to "see" the foe. Dark matter does not seem to affect light at all. We can "see" dark matter by its gravitational effects. This is testable and repeatable. It is not supernatural.

3/There is no "we" about it. As far as you are concerned it is "they". And as a one time director of an astrophyics facility I am part of the "they" that disagrees with your assertions.

I have serious doubts about this. Your opposition to science is often based upon an apparent inability to understand the scientific method or the concept of evidence. And when you deny what is accepted by the vast majority of physicists you put a heavy burden of proof upon yourself. Mere handwaving is not good enough to refute the experts in the field.

So to get back on thread:

My main comment is stick to the thread. What is a definition of supernatural that works?
In my view it is a subjective word. If nature does it , it is natural.

Whether or not it can fit in the model is specious - it is after all just a model - or whether or not it offends your idea of how the world should work.

I use telepathy as an example in which many establishment scientific figures seem more interested in their apriori opinion than studying the evidence to decide. And sagan - dawkins - use of the phrase "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" is just such subjective bar they raise agains things they dont "like"

The attempt to define supernatural as either the unobserved or unexplained or (presently) inexplicable or offends causality, determinism and such like, all end up making a lot of mainstream science supernatural.

And here again you demonstrated a lack of scientific training or rigor. You only found anecdotes and a far from respected "scientific" journal. Why should anyone take any of your claims about the supernatural seriously? When investigated it tends to disappear. I know that believers in this hate him, but the Amazing Randi did offer a prize that was to be based upon a test designed by the person that supposedly had an ability and it was only limited to eliminate the possibility of cheating. It was never claimed. No one even came close.

It also demonstrate faith in concepts : you clearly believe in dark matter because of assertions you make. Only because you would rather not let go of the present model of matter, so label a hole in that theory "dark"... it has to be there, because otherwise your modelof matter is conceptually wrong, and you refuse to accept that possibility. That matter is just a model, that doesnt work everywhere.

Once again just because you disagree with other scientists that does not make their conclusions faith based. The present model is not perfect, but it beats anything else out there right now. And that is the way that science works. One knows that ones ideas will never be perfect, but the goal is to be able to explain more and more of the world that we live in. Giving up and saying "God did it" has never led to any new ideas.[/quote]

 

[Mountainmike]

For the last time, drop the normal mixture of adhominems , insults, non sequiturs, straw men and off topic

And give me YOUR precise defintion of supernatural.

I am genuinely interested.

Let us see if it survives critical thinking or whether it dismisses a lot of mainstream science as supernatural.

If you can do so yourself, then so will I.



They are observable. Just because you may lack understanding of these concepts does not make it so. Let's take Dark Matter. It can be observed by its effects. But then all things are observed by their effects, most often we rely on how an object reflects visible light to see it. But there are clear exceptions to that. For distant aircraft radar was invented to "see" planes that could not be seen by eye. That still uses light but in the radio wave region. For submarines we invented sonar which does not use light at all but sound to "see" the foe. Dark matter does not seem to affect light at all. We can "see" dark matter by its gravitational effects. This is testable and repeatable. It is not supernatural.



I have serious doubts about this. Your opposition to science is often based upon an apparent inability to understand the scientific method or the concept of evidence. And when you deny what is accepted by the vast majority of physicists you put a heavy burden of proof upon yourself. Mere handwaving is not good enough to refute the experts in the field.



And here again you demonstrated a lack of scientific training or rigor. You only found anecdotes and a far from respected "scientific" journal. Why should anyone take any of your claims about the supernatural seriously? When investigated it tends to disappear. I know that believers in this hate him, but the Amazing Randi did offer a prize that was to be based upon a test designed by the person that supposedly had an ability and it was only limited to eliminate the possibility of cheating. It was never claimed. No one even came close.



Once again just because you disagree with other scientists that does not make their conclusions faith based. The present model is not perfect, but it beats anything else out there right now. And that is the way that science works. One knows that ones ideas will never be perfect, but the goal is to be able to explain more and more of the world that we live in. Giving up and saying "God did it" has never led to any new ideas.

[/QUOTE]

 

[VirOptimus]

I wonder how many last posts and goodbyes we will get this time?

 

[Mountainmike]

I wonder how many last posts and goodbyes we will get this time?

Once in a while somebody actually posts on topic response, and as the creator of the thread I owe them a response.

Where is your definition of supernatural?
if you dont want to discuss your own or other definitions butt out of my thread.

The ratio of useless posts (as this of yours ) ever more convince me there is no possibiilty of a serious scientific discussion on this forum - only atheist prejudice.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I Love the acronym in your signature!

Thanks. And that Fairie Dust is thick in cosmology and evolution....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Physics does not need to be done in the laboratory. We have never got an item to orbit another in a laboratory either. We have to go to the real world for that. And the evidence for black holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, is all observable and repeatable. It is far from being supernatural. Yes, to those without an education in the sciences it may appear that way. But that is only because you are too limited in how you approach physics.

We get objects to orbit one another in the lab every day. We just use the strongest force in the universe instead of the weakest.....

No it is not observable. Ptolemy had observable and mathematical data that confirmed his epicycles belief that the earth was the center of the solar system..... You confer by ad-hoc belief that your observations are actually what you believe them to be, just as Ptolemy conferred by ad-hoc belief that his observations were exactly what he thought them to be.....

None of your observations can be explained by any known physics.... supernatural.... Every one of the observations you mention require things not observable according to the known laws of physics.... supernatural......

Agreed, those who don't understand science often are willing to accept Fairie Dust in order to make their beliefs fit observations..... being they are too limited in how they approach physics and ignore the strongest force in the universe and only consider the weakest.....

No, people do not accept it without hesitation. All of the concepts have been tested again and again. And no, the laws of physics do not break down at the event horizon. That area is well understood with both relativity and quantum dynamics. Those models break down at the singularity. That is where the laws run into some trouble, though I have heard that aspects of quantum mechanics can deal with it.

There you go, accepting the supernatural without hesitation, while claiming you understand science.....

How do black holes break the laws of physics? | Socratic

"Black holes are extreme objects which can't be fully explained by the laws of physics as we know them."

"Our current thinking about a black hole is that there has to be a singularity inside it. A singularity is a point of infinite density and infinite curvature of space time. The singularity simply can't be described by any physics as we know it.

The second problem with black holes is the information paradox. If something falls into a black hole and is destroyed. The information about its state is lost. This is not permitted by physics as we know it. Stephen Hawking is working on a theory that the information is somehow encoded in the event horizon which may solve this problem.

So, two ways by which black holes break the laws of physics as we know them are the singularity and the information paradox."

Also take your pick....

LIGO black hole echoes hint at general-relativity breakdown

"In the standard picture, this leaves nothing at the event horizon, and someone unlucky enough to cross it wouldn’t notice any sudden change in the environment. But in 2012, physicists based in California realized that if quantum physics is correct, then the event horizon should be replaced by a firewall, a ring of high-energy particles that would burn any matter that passes through to a crisp — and that contradicts general relativity. The alternative is that black holes are firewall-free, but this would imply that quantum theory is wrong."

Lastly you found an outlier in the world of physics. He has no following. Probably because he could not support his claims. Relativity has been tested countless times and it works perfectly well in all areas but singularities. In fact you probably rely on it every day to some degree. Quantum mechanics is the same.

Relativity has been tested countless times, to an accuracy of 99.8%. Then you go right ahead and ignore that accuracy and willingly add 95% Fairie Dust ad-hoc explanations to it to make it work outside the solar system where it has been tested to that accuracy. Don't talk to me of accuracy when you are so willing to abandon its accuracy and add 95% ad-hoc theory to what you already claim to understand is 99.8% accurate without it..... Pure contradiction in claims and belief....

There is less evidence for Dark Matter and Dark Energy and they are not well understood. That is why they are called "Dark". Not only can't they be directly observed, but there is a lot not known about them. That is an area of quite a bit of study these days. We may have a break through some day and we may not. That does not mean that we throw what we do know away, which is what you seem to desire.

We have already had the breakthrough, they just ignore it... because it would require they give up the Fairie Dust beliefs.....

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Yes, I know, you think science is a popularity contest...... I see no objections being able to be made against his paper.... In fact, no one has ever been able to contradict anything in his paper...... What prevents it from becoming recognized is it destroys their belief in their Fairie Dust......

 

[tas8831]

I didnt say so.

You didn't need to. Your unabashed enthusiasm and repeated insistence that everyone watch a video about it did that for you.

The word was "evidence".

Having run a molecular genetics lab and owned a telescope once, does 'evidence' produced with N=1 really count? Do you think anecdotes are evidence?

Provided there were no holes in method, it is clearly evidence of more than chance.

N=1

And that is the problem with science establishment. You cannot get funding for repeats.

How much money does a phone call cost?

Grant agencies wont fund it, and journals wont publish them Check out journal terms.

When it was repeated by an independent group too many changes were made to consider the results comparable.[/quote]
Right. Like when they used controls and such.

But it is not the only experiment. See for example this:
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Sheldrake2003-2.pdf
It seems to matter how well callers know each other.

Well, what a coincidence. My oldest siblings are identical twins. They used to get accused of cheating in school, despite sitting on opposite sides of the classroom, because they would frequently write the same answers on tests. Telepathy? Or maybe it was because they were twins....

Back to your supernaturalist echo chamber.