User talk:MachinaLabs

Welcome to my talk page! Like the edits that I do? Let me know! Have constructive criticism for me? Give me feedback!

Remember, be polite, sign your name with four tildes, and if you're going to make claims, substantiate them in something! :)

Constructive Criticism
I found it interesting that Bem was confident about Old Testament Biblical prophecy. This seems to be a very common error among laymen. This is not the stand of modern Catholic Biblical scholars. per their term vaticinium ex eventu. The correct casino winning odds are different for EACH kind of game. Not 53.1 percent across the board. I would think that Bem's experiment could be easily duplicated using shuffled card decks including both the same number of erotic playing cards and blank playing cards. (Dean Radin stated that casino gambling odds are affected by phases of the moon. Winnings on slot machines rise 2 percent during a full moon.) Seeking psi in the casino. Radin, C.I. & Rebman, J. M. (1998), Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 62 (850), 193-219 Kazuba (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that parapsychology is bunk. We are learning about influence and belief systems and what we can and cannot do with our minds. But from what I have witnessed and examined in the past 45 years I do not think parapsychology has enough value to be considered controversial. Kazuba (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I know where are you going with the vaticinium ex eventu. I decided to take it out because I did not interpret that Bem was saying the Bible was evidence of precognition, thus putting the issue into a gray interpretive area, and that just seems like original research at that point. It seemed to methat he was stating that the Bible has examples of precognition and premonition mentioned. It just seemed too speculative and specious, definitely in the gray area of potentially original research, and really just not worth mentioning in my opinion, good or bad. Given the size and scope of the page, I don't think a few comments in an interview warrant a discussion of their validity. Just my $0.02. Cheers :) MachinaLabs (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

==I put that Biblical stuff in there because it gives an illustration of how Bem has been influenced and has reached conclusions about predictions. As you must know a great number of Biblical texts were copied by hand for centuries. In doing so Catholic scholars noticed pecularities in the earlier texts and also in the margins. Today in Old Testament studies at Catholic Universities prophets do NOT reveal the future. Statements that are being made are about incidents and characters of their own time which were misunderstood and many times taken out of context by later generations who desired predictions. The Bible is not a magic book. Though the ancient peoples in it certainly believed in magic and supernatural powers. Since Vatican 2 Catholic Biblical scholarship has become very respected in the theological world. There is an old story that when Jewish scholars were challenged by Christians pertaining to Old Testament predictions about Jesus, Christians told Jewish scholars that they could not read their own language. Christians MUST to be correct for ONLY they were divinely inspired. Only recently archaelogy carried out in Biblical lands is no longer used to prove the Bible. Archaeology is for archaeology's sake. There have been surprises, well to some people. The archaeological school of William F. Albright was very mistaken and a product of its time. New generations present new ideas. I think this a great part of parapsychology's popularity. We want to challenge the past and the old guard. Each new generation must learn for themselves. Statically significant does not impress me. It only means beyond chance (as we know it under perfect conditions.) There is a story that J. B. Rhine became interested in parapsychology after hearing a speech by Arthur Conan Doyal about spiritism. I think there is a link between the desire for immortality and parapsychology. I remember speaking long ago to Milbourne Christopher and saying, " They (parapsychologists) are looking for proof of immortality." If that is so it is very likely parapsychology will go on and on and on. Kazuba (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

===Parapsychology is definitely driven by a sense of non-materialism, and definitely an implicit sense of survival after death or universal connectedness. I think the mystery in general is what really fascinates people about parapsychology and draws them in. I agree with you that statistical significance does not have very much emotional impact. But it is very, very difficult to isolate and make on demand the more dramatic paranormal occurrences, such as extremely detailed ESP, objects moving, and other bizarre occurrences (I've witnessed these things personally). It can be very frustrating and elusive at times, trying to study it. That's also what makes it so exciting as well. MachinaLabs (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Re. MachinaLabs/Pseudo
This may interest you Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Crackpots
There have to be scientists with delusions in all fields of science. Parapsychologists are only human like the rest of us. Kazuba (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah. Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, is apparently now starting to jump onto the homeopathy bandwagon. But if he can present his ideas in a cogent, scientific manner, I don't see the problem with exploring (almost) any field. That's how the scientific method works. Sure, you occasionally come to the wrong conclusions, like N-Rays and Phlogiston, but that's all part of the process. The scientific method is very similar to the formal process of learning, which is essentially applied Bayesian inference. It works well at describing an ambiguous and constantly changing environment, but at the expense of occasionally making gaffes and foibles.MachinaLabs (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fire breather's pneumonia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atomization. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)