I completely agree with you, they should at least provide a preview to the research paper if they're gonna write a whole article about it. Was just saying that the paper they're most likely referring to does actually exist, I think Psion was the one that posted it in the LHC thread but I could be wrong.The heart of my furor comes from the CBS article more than anything that might have been published. It makes me fucking rage when news organizations report on science and see fit to not give the reader any way of investigating it for themselves. Honestly, we were lucky to even get the title of the journal. I really shouldn't have to demand they give the title of the aritcle, or its authors, or detail about their methodology and statistical results, but that's just me being logical again.
I sometimes get extended Deja Vu. Its like regular Deja Vu, but longer and I can even say what is about to happen that very moment. Its always events that are very normal or meaningless, but it makes people laugh when it happens. I have no control over it, I usually just say out loud when something will happen or something someone is about to say.
This thread isn't about ESP, it concerns a paper that failled at basic sciences and statistics. If you want to discuss your ESP experiences, make another thread that doesnt involve erroneous studies that shit on sciences.And you hush, Kaylia, we aren't mucking up your LHC thread anymore, this is a ESP thread. You don't like the fact we're talking about ESP in a thread about ESP being real or not, then go back to your sciencey stuff in the LHC thread and don't bother reading this one.
no
They are officially publishing it in April. April's Fool is in April. Think we all got played by a professional trolling magazine
Feel free to believe the paper that implies the existence of psi if you want to believe in magic that badly, it doesnt make it any less stupid and flawed.
Also
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticle...rom_the_future
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1018886/Bem6.pdf
this idiot was just on colbert. the way he explained it is that the experience of seeing the porn travels back in time via quantum mechanics. I chortled
edit: in case this hasn't been explained, he used porn images in the test that got 53% correct
we also would have accepted "tachyons"
more like rackyons
That explains why I jizzed all over the place earlier, I guess I'll be looking at porn later tonight?
I wish my porn would travel through time so I don't actually have to go to the pc to watch it.
The paper was quite funny to read. He waste a good chunk of it proposing ridiculous pseudo-scientifical interpretation of the result...what's the fucking point of this? It's not like it supports or strengthen the actual study.
so you're saying he is an exhibitionist who gets off outdoors. that's a low blow man