Telepathy is real say closed minded sceptics

Created: March 26, 2012 Last Updated: March 30, 2012



Recently, journalist Steven Volk was surprised to discover that leading skeptical psychologist Richard Wiseman has admitted that the evidence for telepathy is so good that “by the standards of any other area of science, [telepathy] is proven.” Mr. Volk goes on to write, “Even more incredibly, as I report in Fringe-ology, another leading skeptic, Chris French, agrees with him.”



http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/do...nce-211214.html

Nice try - always best to get the full quote in context.

What he actually said was:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-51...LL-psychic.html

That article was years ago

So what was your point posting the article then?

What do you mean?

Believers in psychic phenomena … appear to have won a decisive victory and virtually silenced opposition. … This victory is the result of careful experimentation and intelligent argumentation. Dozens of experimenters have obtained positive results in ESP experiments, and the mathematical procedures have been approved by leading statisticians. … Against all this evidence, almost the only defense remaining to the skeptical scientist is ignorance.”

This

So we'll be expecting a nobel prize and a complete rewrite of scientific laws. I look forward to the scientific America article.

/not holding breath.

Now, when the afore mentioned article and rewrite of science does not come to be, I'd like you to step up and either acknowledge that you were WRONG or explain why said articles and change in science did not happen. I will keep reminding you of this particular thread until a satisfactory answer is forthcoming.

Feel free to retract your cut and paste comments as facetious or made in humour if you wish.

Are you on the sauce?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-51...LL-psychic.html

i thought it was too good to be true....

Post up the peer evaluated results or retract your nonsense. You constantly post this rubbish that has absolutely no value what so ever and think you can do so without being called into question. You are wrong, back up your spurious claims with good evidence or admit you are either ignorant of the evidence that is claimed or are simply posting waffle that confirms your ignorance and bias. This sort of post does absolutely no favours to those serious about investigating a field they care about and have invested time in.

I thought it was obvious. You posted a quote that was taken from an article which appeared in the Daily Mail in 2008. I posted the full quote showing the context from that original article and you whine that it was written years ago. Do you not see how the (mis)quote you used was also from years ago?

It's a breech of copywrite law to cut and paste someone else's published work without citing credit to the original author. I'm sure you don't want people to think these are your words so kindly post a link to the original and credit the author - otherwise I shall ask the mods to remove this post.