Critical look at zetetics

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Was this experiment carried out in front of a bailiff? Double blind? Otherwise, you and your 80% can go play marbles!

[Janic]

humus

on the other hand the testimonials of scientists,

it is better to avoid saying DES or LES concerning specialties, otherwise this implies unanimity total of these, which never happens.

[izentrop]

You have not understood. 80% is the success rate for the guy guessing what's in closed envelopes.

In this case it is necessarily rigged. Often an agreement with one or more associates.
In a video we can make you swallow anything, especially in this kind of chain https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-wX8y ... gs_Vy_eBlg
I only looked at the beginning and I immediately understood the genre you like

[Janic]

izymentrop

In this case it is necessarily rigged. Often an agreement with one or more associates.

everything can be rigged obviously, even in broad daylight, as for the vaccines and cronies like you and the funny ones who want to make believe that their sleight of hand is real. Fortunately, we also have our magicians to show the deceptions.
It just goes to show that the supposed rationales of the pseudo-zetetic remain the most naive, the most credulous, which balances beliefs.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

You betrayed Broch, you have become sectarian buffoons, in short, the complete opposite of what Zetetics was for a time and which is only a shadow of itself: a logo, a gimmick for pretentious " who knows better and more than the others because he hides behind the words science and scientist ". You have become crooks in the same way as those that your "creator" denounced in the past.
https://leblogduradis.com/2019/04/01/ze ... -soi-meme/

[ABC2019]

You have not understood. 80% is the success rate for the guy guessing what's in closed envelopes.
already if you find it fair, for one, I say hats off!

I haven't watched the video, there are some fake magic videos on the internet, but I take your word for it.

So how do you choose to order by increasing or decreasing probability:

* this video is not faked, these powers are real, and either he's the only guy in the world who can do that, or there have been plenty of them since the dawn of time but none have come forward to win a prize which went up to € 200

* these powers do not exist, which explains why no one has ever been able to win the prize of € 200, but of course that does not prevent little comedians or conjurers from putting videos on youtube to screw the gogos .

Which one do you think is probable, improbable, and why?

[ABC2019]

Just watch the documentary and the testimony scientists.

seriously, do you believe what all the doctors interviewed on bfm tv say?

[Obamot]

And if that doesn't produce any, it's just in the realm of belief, manipulation, and misinterpretation of coincidences.

No, it's wrong, that's the specificity of “healers”! From which we do not expect the “repetition” of the experience ...
The HUG take them anyway, as long as they, with their science, can no longer do it.

You're trying to hijack what I said. A classification of the healers to whom they appeal is undoubtedly established if the HUG has seen repetitions of a certain success, that does not necessarily mean that these repetitions were obtained in the same cases of species ...

[ABC2019]

as I said, there is a methodology well known in science to attest to the reality of a phenomenon, which is simply to test if what we observe can be simply the fruit of chance, that is to say conforms to the simple laws of probabilities of random phenomena, or else leaves these probabilities which is the mark of a "real" effect. It does not require to understand the effect, for example one demonstrated the radioactivity without knowing at all to what it was due, but its effects were observable.

So my simple question was whether these "paranormal" phenomena were measured by significant deviations, or not;

If so, for me it becomes science, even if we do not know how to explain it, at least it is attested (see radioactivity).

If not, it does not exist or at least, the existence is not proven.

But phenomena which "would exist", but without being proven by statistical tests, for me, it cannot exist.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

But nobody cares what is or is not "for you", moron!