Remote Viewing (Page 12)

lori100:

bonzono: wow, i jus used youtube to prove humans can walk on water.!

bonzono: lori, im all for people showing things are possible, but youtube does not qualify as an intelligent or defensible way to demonstrate something.

As I said, I'm quite willing to actually do the actual test, in a controlled, safe and defensible way.
I'm sure you know people in my part of the world, get in touch with them and we can do a test.
I'm quite genuine.

ghostgeek: If remote viewing can give me next weeks lottery numbers then I'm a believer. Otherwise I'm a sceptic.

bonzono: gonna reiterate my offer - anyone who wants to actually demonstrate remote viewing, we'll be in a position to publish the results in peer review literature after a decent demonstrated study.

again, I'm very genuine, I just dont know why there seem to be no takers..
(or.. maybe we do know why there are no takers...)

GeraldtheGnome: It’s better for something about remote viewing to be proven or at least for it to be shown that it might be possible, that will never be guaranteed by a peer review investigation of it. One way is shown to be true or where the person with independent thought can work out what might be true. If it is peer reviewed then no matter what the peer review group either find or guess is true and are wrong about it then all that matters is what the peer review group believes is certainly true about it even if none of them can prove it.

I’m for Ghostgeek’s way of thinking on this one, in regards to remote viewing that is.

bonzono: exactly.

I'm offering to contribute to a blind or double blind study.
I can even contribute or lead authorship if it gets to that.

....all we need are the people who can show RV actually.

where are they?

GeraldtheGnome: I will put it this way to make a sentence of mine a bit clear. All that matters to the peer reviewers, not to those with an independent way of thinking, who have more have more chance of being right than any peer review group, in this case about remote viewing, is whatever the peer review group, even if they have no proof, have agreed upon unanimously.

The blind leading the blind is an extremely likely outcome when it comes to peer review.

lori100:

bonzono: "who have more have more chance of being right than any peer review group,"

on what basis do they, or you, make that claim?

GeraldtheGnome: Whether it’s Lori with her remote viewing or you with your religious like worship of peer review, both of you should use some common sense. If you both don’t want to use independent thought and rely on an agreed upon group void of independent thought and proof then that is the problem with both of you not with me. Don’t repeat the words of others. Find out if just made a false claim or if I am right. After all it is you not me that thinks that peer reviewed results are better than that of independent research and independent thought.

bonzono: "religious like worship "
Heh, perhaps you should find out the meanings of words before you use them. It really should be hyphenated too.


I'm not sure what you're babbling on about here.
but do let me know of anything you use in your life that doesn't make extensive use of peer review.


edit - actually, you might make use of 'nutrient suppliments' or 'herbal medicine'. If so - do let me know how that goes for you.

GeraldtheGnome: I know what it means. Maybe you could find out if your right about things that you come out with, I will not hold my breath over that though. No one needs to waste time doing a peer review to find out what is needed to be known about peer reviews. Stop repeating the words of others, stop crapping on about babbling and that of other false accusations that you have made about me, Zanjan, Sir Loin. Lori and so on just because you don’t have the decency and mental maturity to be critical yet fair. Be civil and fair. Leave out the insults, false accusations and false claims.

Let’s agree upon something that no one has most likely proven, that is what you want me to agree with you about. Fine, at least show that you might be right. This is not ‘babbling’ as you rudely put it, it’s reality. Something you should accept. No, the hyphen is not necessary, if you want it then you can have it. Everything that you do is right according to you, if you had proof that everything that you think is right then I would agree with you. You don’t have that though. If you are insulting or off the subject then Lori, me and anyone else has the right to delete whatever you have that is inappropriate. Do not go off at myself and others over that any more. Freedom of expression is fine so long as it is not used to insult anyone or for anyone to come out with anything inappropriate. Your whatever it is about sentences about medicine do not apply to me. If everything becomes based on peer reviewed assessments then everyone is stuffed. Enjoy the internet, it wasn’t brought about due to a peer review and it wasn’t made for you to troll anyone.

GeraldtheGnome: To Lori. Feel free to delete Bonzono’s inappropriate messages. That one deserves that.

bonzono: gerry is upset because I debunk and refute him so easily.

gerry - here is what religion means:
"religion
/rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/
noun
noun: religion

the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods"

not sure what deity you're talking about there.

but I notice you've skipped my challenge, which implies you're aware of your fraudulent claim.

rest assured, little gerry - your life is a shrine to peer review.

GeraldtheGnome: I know what religion means, Religion means more than just what you told me, you at least partially right, atheist. You have, for quite a while, restricted yourself to narrowed down meanings. The only challenge that is worthwhile is questioning one’s own thoughts, try it. I never literally talked on here. I did not make a fraudulent claim, thank you for falsely accusing of doing so though. Stop the little Gerry, which starts with a capital by the way, the little creationist to any of my creationist and false creationist opponents, with which you have not worked out from one another, little this and little that to those that you can not even disagree with without belittling and insulting.

You have not done what you claimed to have done, as it is use better suited words next time. I’m not upset, saddened that you are unable to deal with a fair and critical assessment of what you have done wrong and might have done wrong. Sure you have been right about some things at times on this or that forum. Now let’s just consider a hypothetical here that would be in Lori’s favour. In the hypothetical one person found a way to prove that remote viewing is not something that is made up, only he or she has that proof. Now if that is the case then does what that person independently have mean nothing if there is no peer review of it or if a peer review group has decided that it is false ?

bonzono: no idea what you're blathering on about now.

... but let me know if you can think of any aspect of your life that is not contingent on peer review.

GeraldtheGnome: One, I didn’t blather, two, you didn’t even try to work any of it out. You were too busy trying to find what way you can insult and belittle me. Have an independent way of thinking for once, one that makes sense. There is not a peer review group about your general practitioner beliefs for example. Something must not be true because there is no peer review agreement to tell you what to think or peer review group around at all ? That’s not a valid reason to go against remote viewing or anything else.

I have to go on just what I believe or what a group believes is true is not a way to be certain about anything. If you’re lucky with any of that then you and/or a group will be right just by sheer luck only. I have more luck with just telling myself that it is going to rain one day.. Eventually I am going to be right if I tell myself that every single day. Use better suited words from now on.

How is my life changed due to peer review ? Well by peer review fans thinking that a peer review proves their point about whatever they believe is true is one example and then coming on this site and telling me that I am wrong because I don’t worship their favourite peer reviewers who they worship like they are gods and goddesses.

bonzono: no, not 'changed by', 'contingent on'.
even the air you breath is modulated by the results of science and peer review.

tell me something in your life that is NOT contingent on peer review.

GeraldtheGnome: I wasn’t mentioning anything to do with your favourite word, one of which there are better suited words for, stop thinking that you know how I think. You clearly have no idea whatsoever. Even then you chose another word that there are better suited words for. Oh dear me, you are a worry. You don’t get it, peer review, no matter what word or words you attach to it, is not reliable. I mean that you cannot guarantee that a group that has agreed upon anything, whether that has anything to do with science or something else, are correct.

I don’t give a stuff about your peer review silliness. Inventions and so on were not brought about by peer reviews and they never will be. Independent thought and the implementation of what independent thinkers brought about is what brought about everything that is in our lives. Everything that is independently thought about is now to be dismissed in order for peer reviewers and their fans to dominate. Remote viewing needs to be independently researched rather than researched by peer reviewers. Peer reviewers are for these are the only ways that something should be investigated. The independent investigators who don’t use bias find out if they are wrong and use every way to find out what is true no matter if it goes against what they believe. I am right because without proof I know that I am right and/or because my favourite peer reviewed told me what is so (according to them without proof of what is true) is not the way to think.

I’m interested in what is true, what is possibly true and what is false, the ideology of peer review fans does not interest me. I just edited this to add this sentence, there is no need for any word to be completely in capitals.

bonzono: "I don’t give a stuff about your peer review silliness."
well, you dont think you do..
but as I said, your life is a shrine to it.


you'd likely be dead without it

GeraldtheGnome: No it isn’t. Ego, pride and vanity is more important to you than anything else. Stop repeating the words of mine. Paraphrase if there is any reason to do that. No one would be dead without any peer review and no one has a shrine to it. In a sense you have said nothing on here.

The subject is remote viewing, you just want to score some ‘brownie points’ over me. Congratulations, you champion peer reviews, live with the consequences of doing so. A peer review group didn’t bring about fire making, cooked meat, farming, polymers, the wheel, writing, clothing, transportation, science itself, philosophy, including that of the philosophy of science, houses, buildings and the list goes on including whatever electronic device you are using, the internet, whatever you drink and the toilet that you deliver some of your crap to.

Maybe I should see my local general practitioner. Does he think of me as an animal and is he for evolution ? I wonder why I have brought that up ? Did Blackshoes/Bob or Zeffur/Bac77 ever get told that about any general practitioner of theirs ? If so then who told at least one of them that ? They are questions that can so easily answered by you. I will not be surprised if you change the subject. Remote viewing can only be proven or disproven by a peer review group ? Everyone who does not agree with a favoured review group is wrong ? Is that what you believe ?