I’ve been distracted lately.
My small amount of blogging time has, in the past couple of weeks, been soaked up responding to comments following the little article I wrote about the MyTelekinesis site.
It all started when I ridiculed the MyTK site (as its followers call it). I didn’t actually set out to ridicule it, but just to have some fun examining some of the way out claims made on it. But the more I looked, the more it deserved ridicule, sorry.
The curious thing was that, is that in addition to the ‘you’re so closed-minded, man’ comments, there were also comments from MyTK members who AGREED that there’s a lot of rubbish on their site, and that moderators needed to clean things up. So, I guess I feel vindicated in drawing attention to some of the more obvious nonsense on the site.
The comments also had a nice mix of polite and abusive comments. For those who haven’t been following the exchanges, there is quite a nice series of comments back and forth after the articles to which I linked earlier, from a well-meaning correspondent known as Fro-G-irrafe, (whose peudonym sounds a bit like that other evolutionary myth, the croc-o-duck, doesn’t it? If it’s not a pseudonym, my apologies go to Mr. Irrafe).
Anyway, Fro seems very keen for me to believe, and has been been sending me video as proof, as well as quotes from people like Einstein, just to make sure I pay attention.
In one exchange in this article, Fro presented two videos which were particularly lame, so I tried to explain how I would do them. I then decided to actually do one myself, and proceeded to present the remarkable demonstration you see in that article.
But Fro is not deterred. He insists it is up to me to prove that telekinesis doesn’t exist.
And my response has been consistent – here is an excerpt from that thread:
As I’ve said before, the challenge is for you to prove tk exists, not for me to disprove.
In the absence of ANY information to the contrary, I can only conclude that someone made it up – wishful thinking. How do I conclude this? After decades of research there is not even one confirmed effect or demonstration. Not one. So what are you asking me to believe in, or even disprove? Are you asking me to disprove what people claim they can do in private but not in controlled conditions? Are you asking me to explain how the videos are done – I can do that. So what’s left to disprove?
Thanks for touching on astrophysics. Yes, there are billions of things we don’t know, not just in astrophysics, but every discipline. Now listen closely.
When we don’t know, we investigate. We make observations.
When we have enough observations, we construct a hypothesis, which we test. Over and over again.
And we refine it. If it fails, we discard it, or modify it.
Eventually, the hypothesis may become a theory. And we keep testing – just like the theory of relativity, and gravity, and germ theory etc.
Yes, we don’t know if parallel universes exist, or how the big bang happened, but, instead of just being lazy and saying ‘god did it’ for example, we construct a hypothesis and test it, even if it’s only thought experiments – at least we are proposing something and comparing that to our experience.
The difference with tk is that there are no observations. I ask you a simple question: what prompted man to hypothesise tk as a phenomenon?
Did they observe things moving with no explanation? If so, tell me when this happened and who identified it.
If not, IT WAS JUST INVENTED, because is sounds fun and romantic.
You can play around with words like closed-minded all you like – call me whatever you like. What you call ‘closed-minded’ is just me saying that I can’t believe something for which there is not even a phenomenon which can be explored. And that’s just boring.
So, until we have some killer demonstration of telekinesis, I’m afraid it’s case closed. If and when that killer evidence happens, I’ll be glad to say I was wrong. But I’m prepared to say that if I had to bet my life one way or the other, I’m betting against telekinesis.
But I will no doubt continue to have conversations with Fro. At least it helps me refine my thoughts on pseudoscience.