Cold rationalism just killed Star Wars for me

mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Mr. Tea said:
I mean, yeah, this is pretty much the point. But people setting out to prove their hypothesis that quantum something-or-other correlates with events that humans consider important are obviously not going to look at events that don't show any correlation.

In fact, coming up with a hypothesis and setting out to 'prove' it is not even how you do science. You're supposed to set up a test that can falsify the hypothesis. So this isn't even science at all, or is at best what Feynman called 'cargo-cult science.' If you'd studied it yourself you would understand this, but - like these 'researchers' - you instead cherry-pick whatever you think backs up your prejudices.
Click to expand...
When it comes to the most attention-grabbing event there's only one cherry so it's hardly cherry-picking.

They've done similar analyses of other events. You need to find the exception to the rule but even then one would have to explain the coincidence of very unlikely RNG behaviour with the other events given.

Here's a paper replicating a similar phenomenon: https://www.researchgate.net/public...an_Thought_on_a_Pseudorandom_Number_Generator.

We haven't even got on to the vast amount of evidence for person-to-person telepathy.
 
mixed_biscuits

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Mr. Tea said:
Doesn't change the fact that they have one (1) data point. That's not evidence, it's an anecdote.

Which they omitted from that paper for good reasons, I'm sure.
Click to expand...
They've written on other events and analysed them, and the other paper presents an experiment showing the same sort of effect.

I'm already repeating myself here...if every scientist was as ultra-conservative as you the Earth would still be considered the centre of the universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top