It turns out that I can do telekinesis. Who’d have thought. Inspired by an example by correspondent Viktor, I’ve discovered my inner chi.
Its intended as a demonstration of psychic ability, not an illusion.
Its about the same thing I’d do if put on the spot.
I realize its not scientific proof, but still food for thought.
So, here’s my breakthrough performance, except that I’ve upped the degree of difficulty: by turning the folds towards me instead of away, and de-cluttering the desk so you can see there are not wires or levers. Also, I’m not much good at sucking, although many my recent correspondents would think I suck bigtime. In addition, I’ve filmed in high def, and made sure to have some nice solid background shapes to enable the viewed to detect any relative movements in the scene. I think that’s as scientific as it gets.
Anyway, sit back and enjoy the mystical stylings of the amazing TheRationalbrain:
Over the coming months I will be honing my skills and attempting more brazen feats of telekinesis, so stay tuned.
And I’ll be emailing Randi my bank account details later today.
Update for visitors from MyTelekinesis – you’re most welcome to make comments, and I’ll try to get to them all. But be aware we may be in different time zones, so your post may not be published for quite some time, since I read and release each and every item.
Also note that I will not publish abusive emails, as submitted by one of your number already.
Of course, you call all foresee that I would do that.
Here’s a bit of fun.
While surfing that great wonderful world wide web the other day, I came across this marvellous site: MyTelekinesis.
Normally, with a wacky website, one could judiciously select some key aspects of the site to discuss and, where necessary, point out the folly of the arguments or points being made.
But with this amazing site, I wouldn’t bother. Actually, the only challenge is to avoid laughing out loud.
It seems that psychics have a code of ethics, and it’s published by the Australian Psychics Association on their website. It’s entertaining reading, and I couldn’t resist a little light-hearted review:
Subsequent to my earlier article on Bem’s precognition studies, Steve Novella has written an excellent piece on Bem’s research, which explains the issues far more eloquently than I did. This report also reports the concerns of the science community over the publication of his findings.
An important extra dimension raised by Steve is the general issue of how these studies turn up seemingly positive results – and refers to an editorial on the subject entitled ‘Why Psychologists must change the way they analyse their data‘. The gist is worth repeating:
When research finds positive results for an apparently impossible phenomenon, this is probably not telling us something new about the universe, but rather is probably telling us something very important about the limitations of our research methods.
In my opinion, Steve’s post and this last reference tell us everything we need to know about ‘psi research’ and why I believe Randi’s million dollars will never be collected.
While browsing New Scientist the other day, I came across this article – a report on a recent paper by one Daryl Bem, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. It seems Bem is psychologist of some note, but also an amateur magician, who has now moved onto things paranormal after hooking up with a guy called Chuck Honorton (now deceased) who seems to have been one of the major contributors to paranormal research (such as it is).
In his paper, Bem claims to have measured precognition – the ability to perceive future events. Read the rest of this entry »