TERR 2

[eclectron]

Authority argument because if I don't know how to use statistics, or don't use statistics, everything I say will be null in your eyes.
As for thermodynamics and that did not prevent me from being right.
Well tell yourself that this is the same, I'm right but I can hardly prove it to you.

The easiest way would be to find the documentary I mentioned above.

I'm just asking you how you checked that there was "no chance" that it was due to chance. .

Well, you're going to go crazy again but another example, I was given energy care at a distance. I saw and felt related things.
One day the "therapist" missed an agreed appointment. I thought he was working and didn't see or feel anything during the 30m. It's long 30 minutes of nothing ....
Whereas when he left I saw and felt things.
So 3 treatments where I saw and felt and 1 missed appointment where I did not see or feel anything.
I'll leave you with your stats, I don't need them.
That plus telepathies, or each time in reception, I pick up elements, more or less.

An example, not one of the best by far but easy to describe.
They gave me that:

and I caught that, plus another related detail but let's move on

Knowing yourself you will tell me no connection.
Except that the transmitter was thinking of "pressure cooker" and not of "pressure cooker".
Why didn't I think of a car, a house, a pigeon, a sun or whatever?

Ditto, I gave him a lemon and he saw it right away but thought that was not the purpose of the transmission and then saw a bunch of unrelated stuff.
The difficulty is to distinguish between the projections of our mind and what we capture.

But otherwise it almost always works, I think it depends on the affinity between the sender and the receiver.
As I tell you, do not expect the perfect image, at least for anvils that are just starting out.

But hey, the youngster of the documentary is much more speaking and well quantified for undecrossable skeptics.
And not even sure that after you believe possible this kind of "exploits".

[1360]

... I gave him a lemon and he saw it right away but thought that was not the purpose of the transmission and saw a bunch of unrelated stuff afterwards.
The difficulty is to distinguish between the projections of our mind and what we capture.

Oh my God !!

It is clear that when a guy writes that while being serious, our bewildered man guided by his fireflies has a bright future ahead of him ...

Frankly, is there nothing that shocks you in what you say? Have you reread yourself?

[eclectron]

Oh my God !!

It is clear that when a guy writes that while being serious, our bewildered man guided by his fireflies has a bright future ahead of him ...

Frankly, is there nothing that shocks you in what you say? Have you reread yourself?

It seems to disturb you that I can be rational while being open to anything beyond the ambient conformism.

In this area, like Saint Thomas, I do not take my word and nothing.
It is in the light of my personal experience that I do not take Sylvain Didelot's words at face value and not based on prejudices.

Admitting that it is possible to converse with "beings of light", I know very well that it is highly probable that his channeling is marred by his own mental projections.

All this without prejudging the value of the content of the book that I have not yet read.

Somewhere it's funny to see some struggling with their limiting fears and prejudices.
We always take things that are beyond us as crazy, it's more reassuring.

[izentrop]

In this area, like Saint Thomas, I do not take my word and nothing.
It is in the light of my personal experience that I do not take Sylvain Didelot's words at face value and not based on prejudices.

Good principle for morale and staying positive, but it is also clinging to your prejudices.
With zetetics we get out of it, but hey, suddenly it's less glamorous and we make a lot less friends, since in general we don't like to be told our 4 truths.

I get confused but I understand myself, if not, drop it it's just a looping reflection.

[eclectron]

In this area, like Saint Thomas, I do not take my word and nothing.
It is in the light of my personal experience that I do not take Sylvain Didelot's words at face value and not based on prejudices.

Good principle for morale and staying positive, but it is also clinging to your prejudices.
With zetetics we get out of it, but hey, suddenly it's less glamorous and we make a lot less friends, since in general we don't like to be told our 4 truths.

I get confused but I understand myself, if not, drop it it's just a looping reflection.

I admit that I don't follow you well and as I know that you have difficulty understanding me *, since you told me,
I will try to clarify my positioning.

* There is nothing pejorative about it, I myself knew a computer teacher at the university who spoke perfect French and I did not understand, so to speak, what she was saying. The others understood her and I understood all the other teachers.
I had never had this problem before.
It is rare but we sometimes meet people that we have trouble understanding, because of the way they express themselves. It's life...

Like our dear president (€€€ $$$), I am enough for the at the same time but not just anyhow.
At the same time, I am open to what is limited in science, such as the paranormal. You have to see and experience.

and at the same time critical on the subject, as on all subjects. In fact the criticism applies after the fact but especially not before.

If you are too critical from the start, there is no risk of discovering something new.

Now it's up to you to clarify.

[izentrop]

Ben personal experience is not enough to get out of his prejudices, unless we eliminate all cognitive or other biases.

For this area as for others, the scientific approach must be applied https://www.scribbr.fr/article-scientif ... entifique/

[moinsdewatt]

I will put this topic in ignored.

[Obamot]

Essay at a critical understanding of what I would call “the two scenarios of the monologue" that Eclectron defines badly (to start with the fact that he sintered with the only ones with whom he could still hope to debate it) (not with me, eh, it's his choice ) and it's slippery ground:

At the same time, I am open to what is limited in science, such as paranormal. You have to see and experience.

1) How to experience something (the paranormal) as an experience which is by definition not reproducible?
2) On the contrary, it is curious that those who despite this insurmountable difficulty, and who claim to study all the same these supposed phenomena - which by definition are neither observable nor explicable, would succeed anyway - refer to this same definition, since having succeeded in bringing the paranormal into normality (without direct proof), they still continue to use the same term, which implicitly proves that they did not succeed (failing to admit it)

and at the same time critical on the subject, as on all subjects. In fact the criticism applies after the fact but especially not before.

How to be critical compared to “nothing” to put in the tooth in relation to compare it? To define that there would be a “before” and an “after”, there would still have to be a “during”, otherwise there is no temporal positioning. Or you already have to be Einstein or Jean-Pierre Petit: but there you have to at least start by exposing that in the form of mathematical theorems. Failing that

If you are too critical from the start, there is no risk of discovering something new.

How to be sure that it is the “beginning” of something with a strong potential that it does not exist? Bis repetita, that's why

Now it's up to you to clarify.

As I have just clarified (in my own way a little above) either try to clarify what cannot be in fact. I find that the term of parapsychology is more appropriate than “paranormal”(Which is very misguided in view of this thread) and this, while waiting for a theory proving the reproducibility of a phenomenon of the desired type to emerge. This includes the “phenomenon of religious practice”.

To clarify one last point: Now there is a margin between that and the approach of the zététicien, who will use the smallest gap to invalidate any research in the name of what I would call a “totalitarian rationality” - for convenience and / or because it reassures him, even for irrational reasons of a political or economic nature - and which leaves no other place than dogma (example, the case of “observational studies”).

And in these cases, there is no debate, there is no need to link the two controversies (paranormal and studies with a minimum of references to be classified ”experimentable”), As I tried (inevitably awkwardly) to set a framework above, and which therefore have nothing to do with each other.

[eclectron]

1) How to experience something (the paranormal) as an experience which is by definition not reproducible?

You have to see it like meteorites:
It is not reproducible
It happens from time to time, without our being there for nothing.
And yet it exists and now it is scientifically understood, it must be said that it is quite simple, for our time ... They had a hard time with the old ones with that ...

For some practitioners, there can be overconfidence and to say that all the pebbles on the ground are meteorites and there we fall into charlatanism.
Because of these charlatans, should we deduce that meteorites do not exist?

In short, the paranormal (you have to use a word and personally I do not attach myself to words but to the meaning, so 4 haircuts, exit , go for parapsychology if you prefer, I don't really care) will one day be scientifically studied but when ???

In short, small paranormal meteorites I have a few, that's all.
And I am really a small player ...

On the other hand I do not accept people who, a priori and therefore know anything about the subject, giggle stupidly, saying that they are inventions of deranged people.

Too bad I can't find the docu ....

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

For this field as for others, it is necessary to apply the scientific approach ...