binary_star

Is this the thing that looks like a squat totem pole???

computedshorty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > An extra thought for you. > > How do you type a Tick or corection mark into a > message? > As the tick has no key. Does copying and pasting either of these work: ✓ ✔ ?

Administrator Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wouldn't describe the forum's reaction to legal > threats as giving businesses "preferential > treatment", but I know what you mean. > I shall lift the ban to see the effect. Yes, I know what you mean as well but it was always a bit irksome that positive reviews were obviously allowed to remain as it seemed slightly unbalanced. Thanks for the clarification.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > [email protected] Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Please let me know why my recommendations are > > removed shortly after I have posted them > > I suspect all your recommendations for the same > two businesses were moved to the ED businesses, > restaurants & trades section where they belong. I > have to say, the continued re-recommendations are > starting to look a bit suspicious. It is weird...her, the gardener and the plumber seem to have some kind of recommendation triangle going on : http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?30,1151522,1151522#msg-1151522

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks - got that - but Mears have loads of > clients including many councils - there's no > suggestion in the article that Southwark one of > those that paid bankhanders unless I'm missing > something? "Alan Strong, a former regional manager, claims executives were secretly overpaid by corrupt individuals working for their clients...Mr Strong said he was first alerted to the alleged malpractice when he discovered MFS 'overclaiming and overcharging' on its contract with Southwark Borough Council in south London." "MFS clients mentioned in Mr Strong?s witness statement include the London councils of Southwark..." ETA The Independent is requiring you to make a few mental jumps admittedly but they can't name Southwark (or any other council) outright as receiving the backhanders as it's not been proven in law - this is just a report from an employment tribunal. Although it's clear to me what the article is saying.

Siduhe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Having read the article linked - I don't see any > suggestion that Southwark Council paid any such > payments. Only the allegation that Southwark > Council was overcharged for work not carried out > by the contractor. Where does the allegation of > paying backhanders come up? "Senior directors...received cash 'backhanders' in return for contracts...executives were secretly overpaid by corrupt individuals working for their clients, which include a number of councils and housing associations across southern England." So the corrupt individuals were working on behalf of the council but there is no suggestion they included councillors.

In the context of certain local businesses being untouchable and others not...? You have to admit there has been somewhat preferential treatment for those who decided to kick up a legal fuss...

John Brady Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hand crafted tobacco pouches or Moustache Wax are > a must. > > And for the men, maybe a tartan dickie-bow or tub > of organic Shea Butter. Hehe!

It's been mentioned a couple of times on the forum now but I haven't noticed a response from Admin so is the new Defamation Act (since it makes specific provision for website operators) going to make any difference around here? http://www.legislation.gov.uk

"A lingering look between 2 men at a gym in York has sparked concerns from residents living near the River Ouse" https://www.twitter.com/ukipweather

-

Gay marriage to blame for UK floods Everyone said there were lots of lesbians in East Dulwich and now this: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1244524 And this: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1246501,page=1 Coincidence?

"The scheme has seen an 80 per cent reduction in burglary and a 40 per cent reduction in street robbery." If that's true that is not bad at all! I don't know how it competes with 'the birch' though.

This is obviously awful news but boycotting the new business because their landlord is a b*stard? Wrong approach IMO...

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Binary - no i wasn't digging at anybody, just > saying why (probably why) Louisa didn't get what > she originally asked for as OP, i.e. "I wondered > if anyone else had seen or heard of any local > ghostly activities?" Yes it has gone a bit awry but that was bound to happen when people started citing bogus papers and referencing random university departments as if to validate any of this stuff at the expense of any real evidence...you can't do that without expecting a response. And since someone mentioned the Scole Experiments, here's one for the road: http://skeptoid.com/mobile/4179

"Morphic Resonance" What happens when you try to replicate his studies? This: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ruperts-resonance Of course I'll never get to know what being telepathic is really like because according to Sheldrake: "Skeptics dampen the morphic field, whereas believers enhance it." Which basically boils down to only being able to experience something if you believe in it which also boils down to something everyone else calls faith. Which is fine, but faith sure as sh!t ain't science.

After some killer treads, The Cherry Tree keeps coming back to life does that count?

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's already been a thread on actual > experiences, the tone this thread took may have > inhibited further sharing of experiences. If I > have time I'll find the previous thread if your > after actual stories. If I have contributed to the 'tone' inhibiting further sharing, that it wasn't my intention. I do however think its important to remember the distinction between recalled experiences (anecdotal) and scientific evidence. That's not to say that scientific evidence won't be found, but I hope we can agree we're not there yet.

fabfor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would now say "some evidence for telepathy". binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok, fair enough - which of Sheldrake's studies (or any others for that matter) do you think demonstrate "some evidence for telepathy" fabfor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What can I say, other than I note your opinion? I don't know how else to phrase it, I thought it was a pretty direct question. Either you think there is evidence for telepathy or not. If your conclusion is now that there isn't then ok, none (as yet) exists. If you think you have found evidence (even "some") then where is it? It's a genuine question, I had a look at the first two studies, neither of which were evidence by any stretch of the imagination (and by his own admission) but maybe you can pinpoint some other research?

Just bought a red fibre flare to go on the back of my helmet (as a result of applespider's recommendation)! My partner has one of those spokelit led lights - not bad, although I have seen brighter and more impressive ones but never been close enough to ask what they were.

fabfor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Re. "clear evidence for telepathy", after the dialogues I've had with forum members, I take that back. > I would now say "some evidence for telepathy". Ok, fair enough - which of Sheldrake's studies (or any others for that matter) do you think demonstrate "some evidence for telepathy" ? I'm only asking because the Sheldrake studies you linked to could be ripped apart by schoolchildren - literally 15/16yr olds studying GCSE psychology would take issue with his methodology. As said earlier, he seems to have no idea how to actually test for telepathy (or presumably any other parapsychological phenomena). It's impossible to tell if he is just observing known psychological effects (such as the effects of demand characteristics/participant bias) because his approach is so flawed. He should probably take some time to properly eliminate psychological effects before attributing his results as parapsychological 'evidence' for telepathy.

fabfor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'd also like to hear your views on the methodology - loopy or legit, dodgy or daring? The first study listed at the bottom of his page on telepathy: http://www.sheldrake.org/research/telepathy "An Automated Online Telepathy Test" can be downloaded here: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_21_3_sheldrake.pdf Firstly, his participants: "Some of the first participants were SPR members...Further receivers were recruited by R.S. through his web site" and "by encouraging people who attended his lectures" There were other participants from Germany recruited by a colleague (no other details about them) and some school children but that group ended up being discounted. So we're left with members of the society that produces the journal the articled was published in, Sheldrake fans and a bunch of people who believe in telepathy to test the existence of telepathy. Moving on to the methodology. All of the tests appear to have been run unsupervised and: "Cheating could have been possible in several ways" which turn out to be by phoning, texting, or emailing each other during the test (remember the tests were run unsupervised). Third the data analysis. Participants had a chance of guessing the right sender out of four 25% of the time. They were right 29.3%. Apparently statistically significant but it's not exactly mind blowing to be 4.3% more accurate than chance. Lastly his own conclusion: "In these unsupervised tests, the possibility of cheating cannot be ruled out, and so the present data cannot be taken as persuasive evidence for telepathy." So he doesn't even believe this is evidence for telepathy himself. The guy doesn't sound like a charlatan he sounds like an idiot, god knows how he managed to get a PhD from Cambridge and it's no surprise that the only people publishing this crap are not reputable journals at all but wackos peddling pseudoscience.

fabfor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Here's part of what Dr. Sheldrake had to say about it: > Last week I took part in a public debate on telepathy at the Royal Society of Arts in London. > My opponent was Professor Lewis Wolpert, a pillar of the science establishment. > Prof Wolpert claimed that telepathy did not exist. He provided no evidence for this opinion. As skeptic James Randi (the same guy who is offering $1m for evidence of the paranormal) says: "you can't prove a negative". Even if there were a thousand studies in which not one participant demonstrated telepathy the fact remains that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence Propositional logic might lead us to the conclusion that telepathy does not exist but that's the problem with believing that inductive reasoning provides scientific 'proof' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction In any case, the burden of proof should lie with Dr. Sheldrake.

fabfor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > there is clear scientific evidence for telepathy. > The fact that they were published in reputable journals (I provided a link to wiki to clarify this) means that they were peer reviewed - it's a condition of publication. > Any comment on the (peer reviewed) evidence, gents? People request or provide links to "peer-reviewed" articles as if that alone will or should end the debate. Peer review does not serve that function. A couple of quotes from well respected editors of British and American peer reviewed journals: The first is a quote from Richard Horton. Since 1995, he has been the editor-in-chief of one of the oldest and most highly regarded medical journal's, The Lancet. It's a British peer-reviewed journal that is respected globally. The second quote is from Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association. He also happens to be an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Scientists never accept something as a truth just because it's been reviewed by their peers and neither should we. Problems of peer review aside, Fabfor I am interested to know which of those journals you linked to you think is "reputable" and which article/study you believe demonstrates "clear evidence for telepathy"

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You don't embark on research expecting to disprove a hypothesis, at > least not in my experience. If you're following the scientific method the that's exactly what you do. "Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome...the concept of falsification (first proposed in 1934) reduces confirmation bias by formalizing the attempt to disprove hypotheses rather than prove them." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_method&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop I know it's Wikipedia but The Scientiic Method is certainly the one I was taught to use at university for undertaking psychological (including parasychological) experiments and I believe is widely regarded as best practice...? ETA: "Proofs" exist in maths and logic, but not in science. The scientific method will never allow you to arrive at a "scientific proof" - you may be able to disprove the null hypothesis and have high confidence in your experimental one (after data analysis shows statistically significant results for example) but then you just formulate a new hypothesis for further scrutiny.