Loving the Lump
Yesterday I wrote....
I was hoping for a nice nasty surprise from RIMM, but they had blowout earnings and their stock is way, way high in after hours trading. I wouldn't drop dead of shock if they ended the day down tomorrow. It's just a hunch. Maybe a completely stupid hunch, but a hunch nonetheless. I'm hanging on to these March puts.
Well, well, well. The hunch was right. RIMM was in record high territory after hours yesterday. Once reality started to sink in, the gains diminished, and the stock fell on the day. Let me be clear here: for a stock to go down significantly on a day when blow-out earnings are reported, blow-out projections are made, and record highs are made prior to the open........well, sweet dreams are made of this.
I also still like the look of MCK. Maybe my hunches have a bit more credibility now. Plus the Fib fans.
Bank of America isn't going to have a Google-sized (anticipated) fall. It's a major bank, after all. But I think the best days of this stock are through.
$XAU has a lot of room left to free-fall.
And although I'm not in an $MSH position (I'm in $NDX), this is a good prospective put purchase. Very toppy.
This has nothing to do with trading, but I loved the Lisa Lampanelli bit of the William Shatner roast. As a lifelong Trek fan (of the Original Series......please!) I found the entire event a kick. You froo-froo types, don't bother. But if you want a good laugh and don't mind the raunch, here you go.....
Oh, and Merry Christmas, everyone. Let us look forward to a year of delivering lumps of coal to bulls - both naughty and nice - in the year ahead.
29 comments:
Not to many comments today. This should make it easier for Tim to notice my InvesTools wish lists.
I have been using InvesTools since 2002. I do not use StockCharts or BigCharts. I would to see some more features added to InvesTools.
INVESTOOLS PROPHETCHARTS WISH LIST
1) CandleStick Pattern Recognition
2) Advanced Elliott Wave Analysis
3) Swing Indicator: Test of Top/Make or Break
4) Price Headley's Acceleration Bands
INVESTOOLS SEARCH WISH LIST
1) Ability to search for stock with three closes below 50 day moving average in a six month period.
2) Ability to search for stock option with 2 consecutive closes above 10 day EMA or 1 close below 10 day EMA.
3) Ability to search for stock which meets potential Test of Top/Make or Break swing criteria.
4) Ability to search for stock which has closed above or below its upper Acceleration Band.
cwo
"I would like to pound in the head a few of the bullish anonymous posters who come here and declare that 1987 will never happen again!
Well, your right 1987 won't as that year has passed, but please don't be blind enough to think that a 20% one day drop WILL NEVER HAPPEN. What makes you so confident a-hole?"
~~~~
First of all, being bullish does not mean being a permabull. But being bullish DURING the uptrend does mean 'most' long trades in the right stocks have been highly profitable for the past few months. That's all that matters. Up/Down/Sideways, I don't care where the market goes, as long as I make money - UNLIKE some permabears AND permabulls out there.
Secondly, I may be brash in calling that a one day 20% fall will NEVER happen again, BUT I know that it is a HIGHLY IMPROBABLE event. In trading, life or gambling, I NEVER BET ON THE HIGHLY IMPROBABLE. Why do I say it is highly improbable? Because such a significant fall has happened less than 10 times in the past 100 years.
If the market fell 20% in one day, that is a sign of panic selling and the stock supply quickly dries up over one or several days. On Oct 19th 1987, the market fell from ~2200 to ~1700 in one day. The next day, the market rallied to a high of ~2160 before settling at ~1850. I bet that if a 20% fall does occur, you don't have the guts to short the market on a longer term basis after such a move, and I bet most smart bears would be covering on such a day while some bulls would be snapping up bargains - which would support the market to a certain extent.
What I believe is unimportant and will not affect or shape the market - just like your opinions you twat. I don't see why you need to 'pound my head in' unless you are just angry because you've been losing money for the past few months. If you're hoping that a 20% one day fall will teach me a 'lesson' for being bullish, then you'll be sad to hear that I've closed 2/3rds of my long positions, and am looking to short the market sometime in the near future.
And Jan Allen, you sound no different to those idiot bubblehead permabulls on CNBC or Cramer. What the hell are you going to do when the market falls to zero. I mean, congratulations, you've doubled up (assuming you're unleveraged/not trading derivs), then what? Blow up the planet?
I apologize if I sounded crude here.
Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all.
After 1987 circuit breakers were installed.
Trading stops. Trading stops. Trading stops. Trading stops.
The third circuit breaker phase was designed to sever trading in all U.S. major exchanges. These regulations have been modified so that a 350-point fall would spur a thirty minute stop in trading and another 200-point fall would evoke a one hour suspension of the market.
z-stock
I would like to get your opinion on RIMM for the next 2 weeks. I have some Jan 140 Calls and was expecting a run-up. Even at the open IV dried up and these were still well below what I paid for them. Help...
"I would like to get your opinion on RIMM for the next 2 weeks. I have some Jan 140 Calls and was expecting a run-up."
Ummm. I have no advice for someone who is long calls on RIMM.
I wouldn't take Richard Dawkins too seriously. He is kinda like Ann Coulter, the ultra conservative blonde we see on tv so often. They tend to be outrageous to get attention and to sell more books. The "smart money" do not take them seriously, but the "dumb money" does and buy their books.
Don't believe the Bible because it was written by men to control men. But do believe that there is Universal Intelligence - "God" if you will. The creationists are correct believing that there is universal intelligence. Universal intelligence (God) can be observed indirectly. Look at everything around us. The living plant, the planetary cycles, equations in physics, are observable events that cannot be due to randomness. There is order, and where there is order there is universal intelligence at work. There is just no way around that. The truly most intelligent people on the planet do believe in a God, such as Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and many others. Very few of them are creationists in the strictest since; in fact, they do not believe in a Biblical God but they believe in a Universal Intelligence that is manifest throughout the universe. Where the strict creationists (the church goers) run into problems defending themselves is when they start introducing the Biblical God. The creationists have enough common sense to realize that it is impossible for pure randomness to run everything around us. But they don't have enough common sense to realize that much of the bible was written by men to control men.
That's how evolutionists like Richard Dawkins can argue against the creationists and can stand a fighting chance. The evolutionists like Darwin and Dawkins are correct about their evolutionary theories. Most people who believe in Universal Intelligence (God) would agree that evolution is responsible for the origin of different species. (Most creationists also agree. Again, where the creationists get in trouble is when they talk about a Biblical God.) Between Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins is very limited in his thinking and a little bit confused because he's mixing evolutionary theories with creation of life, whereas Charles Darwin never did. What Richard Dawkins (please don't confuse Richard Dawkins with Stephen Hawking, who is alot smarter than Dawkins) doesn't realize is that evolution explains the ORIGIN of species - that is how species came to be and how they evolve, but evolutionary theories (as proposed by Darwin's Theory of Evolution) were NOT meant to explain how a living being came about! Evolutionary theories as proposed by Darwin explain how one species can end up creating a NEW SPECIES thru natural selection. Even Charles Darwin himself shied away from talking about the origin of a living organism (as opposed to a species), because he knew he couldn't explain it with evolutionary theories and without introducing some form of Universal Intelligence! Charles Darwin knew it would totally confuse the "scientists" if he did, and likely his theories would not have been accepted. To this day, our school system have altogether neglect the discussion of how a living being came about. Instead, our biology books make a one liner claim that somehow we were created by all the inorganic elements somehow randomly bumping into each other for millions of years in some sort of "primordial soup". Bunch of jokers!!! lol... Common sense, probability/statistical theories, and the physical sciences know that is a total impossbility.
The creationists are half right (because of their biblical god) and the evolutionists (because of their confusion in what evolutionary theories can and cannot explain) is also half correct. Like everything else, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Evolution and Universal Intelligence (God/Mother Nature) are not mutually exclusive. Universal intelligence is expressed in the cycles of the planets, in every living being, in the inorganic elements, laws of gravity and inertia, in evolution, in everywhere. Go with Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein! Their life's work eventually allowed them to appreciate Universal Intelligence. Don't go with Richard Dawkins, who is just plainly confused.
Beanie
Can you say WEIRDO!!! Dude what crack pipe have you been smoking? You are about as loony as Richard Dawkins and the rest of the quaks of the world!!! Go back to sleep now and dream of la la land......
Call me Reality Check or RC for short.
Back to the market.nasd closed below 50dma. Im looking for a nice short sqeeze tuesday. Happy birthday jesus. Thats all I got....
For more of my discussions on Richard Dawkins and atheism, please visit the Richard Dawkins forum at http://richarddawkins.net/home
my moniker: beanie11111
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=14 (Topic: i kinda feel bad for the true atheists. Really.)
Beanie
Beanie,
I agree with you more or less except the part about evolution theories explaining the emergence of new species. To my knowledge there is no evidence of macroscopic evolution from one specie to the next. Theory of evolution is just a 'theory'.
Your bit about the scientifically improbable biblical creation story and men controlling men using the bible is right on the money though.
Personally I am a strong believer in God or 'Universal intelligence' as you would like to call it and shun all forms of organized religion. This includes atheism.
AS
To the strict atheists (on the opposite spectrum of religious zealots):
I know it's very difficult for pseudo-scientists like Richard Dawkins to admit they may be wrong. It's really hard to take when you know that your world view had been shattered. Some will quietly move on and change their ways, but some will continue to stick to their own dogma. I know that admitting that one is wrong is very hard to do, just like in families (i know you know what i mean). But as they said in Alcohol Anonymous, admitting the truth is the first step in healing.
The science behind Prayer is so mind changing that it bears repeating here: (Incidentally, i went to visit a relative in a hospital about a year ago. Surprising and shockingly, i saw a huge statue of Mary in a prayer stance right behind the front desk!)
Prayer and Science.
Here it is. But if you want the actual scientific articles, i will charge you a bundle if i go to Medline and copy them for you.
http://www.plim.org/PrayerDeb.htm
Here are some references:
# Byrd, R.C. 1988. Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population. Southern Medical Journal 81: 826-829. [online paper]
# Harris, W.S., Gowda, M., Kolb, J.W., Strychacz, C.P., Vacek, J.L., Jones, P.G., Forker, A., O’Keefe, J.H., and McCallister, B.D. 1999. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit. Arch Intern Med. 159:2273-2278. [PDF version]
# Leibovici, L. 2001. Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 323, 1450-1451
Krucoff, M. W., et al. 2005. Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study. Lancet 366:211-217.
Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, Lam P, Bethea CF, Carpenter W, Levitsky S, Hill PC, Clem DW Jr, Jain MK, Drumel D, Kopecky SL, Mueller PS, Marek D, Rollins S, Hibberd PL. 2006. Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. Am. Heart J. 151:934-942.
Another thing about scientific studies that you folks must realize is that there are conflicting studies in many topics. Some studies are plainly done wrong. Others, because the researchers want the results to corroborate with their views (or the views of the people who fund the research) they might do a little bit of manipulation with the data. That happens all the time.
The book you must read is 'The Body Electric', which takes you into the rude world or research and research funding.
When i do research into health for example, i don't restrict myself to just the research done in the United States, i look into the research done in other countries such as Britian, Germany, Japan, etc. The reason is that our American society is so incredibly capitalistic that often times the people who fund the research actually have special interest in the results and too many bad results can hurt an entire industry. (ie. drug industry). That's why alot of research, they use the words 'inconclusive' or 'lack of evidence because it is inconclusive' all the time. The keen observer can figure out what it really means, but the majority of the general public can't because they think that 'inconclusive' mean the results are false or that there is no evidence. (There is a quote that is very important to keep in mind when doing research: Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence.) . That's why alot of the drugs even though they went thru rigorous doubleblinded studies still ended up hurting people and get pulled off the shelves. Why were they in the market in the first place? Because the studies say that the side effects were 'inconclusive' .
lol
Ahhh. the world of drug research. Baffling. lol
The neat thing about scientific research into prayers or psychics is that if the research SUPPORTS these phenomena, it's a really big thing because no researcher has any incentives to have these phenonmena proven right (in fact, they would prefer these phenomena to be proven wrong so they can move on with their lives). Most people have a prejudice about these weird mysteries. So i am tellin ya it is HUGE, when prayer is proven to have a scientific basis!!!
Rock on!
Beanie/hum
Like i say, not believing everything written in the bible is one thing, but trying to disapprove all of spirtuality is way too much for one man like Richard Dawkins to do. He is way out of his league.
25 years ago, Albert Einstein thought that prayer in healing was rubbish. I wonder what he thinks today if he were alive. lol
Hmm, with so many studies already done of prayer, why did mr. Richard Dawkins chose to use only one study to support his views, without including many of the positive studies?
Not good and certainly not a thorough scientific analysis on his part.
I'm tell ya, it's too much for one man to take on.
It's why many people don't take him too seriously and he certainly haven't convinced much of the "other" side to change their views, if any. It's why i'm calling him the next Ann Coulter (you know, the ultra conservative we see on tv all the time), making outrageous claims and selling books.
Beanie
A true scientist looks at all the available research right in front of them (and also allow for the possibility that new research may come in the future as our technology and science grows). A true scientist will look at all the information in front of them and then draw a hypothesis, test that hypothesis and then draw a logical conclusion.
A pseudo-scientist is one that looks at only the research they want to see and draw the conclusion they want to draw to fit their own world views.
Both sides can use "pseudo-science" whether you're one one side of the spectrum or the other, atheist or religious.
For instance, a long time ago, the medical profession in their research declared that smoking was safe and did not cause lung cancer. Yikes! I don't know what the hell these guys were doing, but they weren't doing true science even though their supposedly research said smoking did not cause cancer. (Of course, from what i read, the American Medical Association were friends with the tabacco industry. When you have that kind of a setup, it's hard not to do pseudo-science! lol)
Bruce Lipton, PhD, has taken the concept of evolution to a whole new level! http://www.brucelipton.com/
He, in my opinion, is the only biologist who has bridged the gap between Biology and God (Consciousness). Unfortunately he will not likely be recognized in his lifetime for his groundbreaking work. Maybe in another 100 years he will be recognized.
In my opinion, Bruce Lipton is to Richard Dawkins as a automobile to a chariot.
Beanie
Beanie well said. I agree with most of what you wrote. As a physicist I believe a universal intelligence laid down the laws but does not interact in day-to-day change, ie no 'miracles', just the beauty of the physical laws that contain both deterministic and stochastic effects.
As for the markets, looking for a spx target of 1445 and then ready to ride the ski slope down. It would be nice to see the VIX over 15 again.
gamma
Before Richard Dawkins go about attacking everybody else, he should first start looking into his backyard first.
should first start looking into his own backyard.
The way some of the atheist folks are dissecting about Jesus' existence is a little amateurish. Have you considered dissecting the concept of evolution the same way? You see, many of us who read anthropology books believe in Lucy - supposedly the first prehistoric upright ape. But does Lucy really existed? Did you do a serious study into Lucy?
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/bias.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm
The debunkers of Jesus or any other phenomenon tend to use the easy way out by "there is no evidence". Absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence.
I don't take the translation of the bible too literally, but i believe he existed, as a man of high enlightenment, rather than a God.
There was a reason he was killed. He was too influential. Would it be too surprising that anyone who wrote about him in that society were killed? Whatever information passed on about Jesus would have to be underground. Remember that even in our modern democratic society, people get ostracized for speaking out against the Iraq War.
I am pretty shocked that some people want alot of people (historians) to have written about Jesus in order to believe he existed. (Richard Dawkins thought Jesus was made up. lol..) He may not be a god, but certainly he was a very enlightened man that existed.
What was society like at the time? It wasn't much of a democracy then like the democracy we have now. In those days, book writers get killed for saying things the prevailing emperor doesn't like!
In China a long time ago, for instance, alot of astrologers who said bad things about the king ended up dead. Heck, even in China today, students can get murdered by the government for saying things the government doesn't like!!!
Is it too surprising that we don't see much historical records of Jesus?
C'mon people, a little bit of common sense goes a long way.
Beanie
Tim,
Surprised to see your Bear Trading Blog site has turned into a safe haven for weirdos and zealots!!! You may want to reconsider allowing the anom posters back on again. Anyway it is your blogsite so do what you may. I will no longer visit. If I ever wanted to read this trash then I would go to those types of Blogsites - NOT!!!
JC
I think bears still have control.
Q’s will correct to form a double bottom at 41.5. Much more likely though, support is 42.1/42.5. Considering the increase in the 50 day over the past 3 weeks, the latter numbers seem more of a mathematical probability.
The Iwm, at 74.2, a double bottom, seems highly unlikely. 75.1 / 75.4 seems like the more probable support.
z-stock
Hey JC, don’t leave the site! I might get my next trading idea from something you post. All the regular’s will be back on Tuesday, and these current Jerry Springer wanna-bees, will have to “put up” a stock trade / with reasons, “or shut up.”
Well, Tim did mentioned that when he wrote the piece about Bears and Atheists he would likely open up a can of worms. No surprise there. lol
Tim, i like you man, but stick to the charts.
Beanie
Oh, almost forgot to post the Evidence in Support of Psychics, yet another Achilles Heel to mr. Richard Dawkins' assertions. (Last post i promise).
Interestingly, the Church knew psychicism was a real phenomenon several hundred years ago, even before we had scientific research done on it. They call that witchcraft and proceeded to burn them witches at the stake because they consider that the work of the Devil. (Horrible way to die, by the way.)
Hmm... in wikipedia, they only list about 3 official police responses regarding using psychics for the investigations. Man, psychics have been used in alot more places!!!
The fact they even use psychics in the first place should tell ya something doesn't it? Uh huh uh huh, it sure does! No police department wants to be embarressed for working with psychics!
C'mon, United Kingdom police department, admit it! You did, didn't ya? The truth shall set ya free! lol
"United Kingdom
"Scotland Yard never approaches psychics for information. There are no official police psychics in the UK. The Yard does not endorse psychics in any way. There is no recorded instance in the UK of any psychic solving a criminal case or providing evidence or information that led directly to its solution." (Inspector Edward Ellidon)
217.216.2.6 13:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Despite this official denial, however, British police do maintain a database of psychics "who in the past have been helpful" in criminal investigations, at the National Crime Faculty, and several well-known "psychic detectives" are known to have assisted in a number of high profile investigations. While reiterating that Scotland Yard has no official position on the use of psychics in criminal investigations, it has on a number of occasions publicly - that is, in the press - acknowledged the involvement of psychics in police cases. In the case of the Notting Hill Rapist, for instance, Scotland Yard publicly acknowledged that it had enlisted the help of Irish psychic, Zak Martin [8] On this occasion, a Scotland Yard spokesman told the London Standard they had "a completely open mind" on the subject, and went on to acknowledge that they were "providing Mr. Martin with some materials and the like which were used by the assailant", for him to "psychometrize". The spokesman concluded by saying that "there is no specific policy on the use of clairvoyants. We do not employ them or pay them and the only time we work with them is if we consider them to be of value" The involvement of "psychic detective" Nella Jones in police investigations in the UK was also publicly acknowledged on a number of occasions. It seems, therefore, that while Scotland Yard does not officially employ psychics, individual detectives in charge of police investigations have a certain amount of discretion in this area, and are free to approach psychics if they believe they may be able to help with cases. Kate Lennon "
-----
Now i got something for you to ponder over....
1) Why does police department in their right mind started working with psychics in the first place? That's like Richard Dawkins going to visit a fortune teller! lol
2) Oh, take at look and read all of this wikipedia regarding psychic phenomena. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychic_phenomena
"For example, Cambridge physicist Brian Josephson who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1973 told The Observer "'Yes, I think telepathy exists,' [...] 'and I think quantum physics will help us understand its basic properties.' [...] 'I think journals like Nature and Science are censoring such research,' he said. 'There is a lot of evidence to support the existence of telepathy, for example, but papers on the subject are being rejected - quite unfairly.'"[15]"
"A survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figure for psychologists was only 34%. Moreover, an equal number of psychologists declared ESP to be an impossibility, a view expressed by only 2% of all other respondents (Wagner; Monnet, 1979)."
"A number of Nobel Laureates have been of the belief that the field of parapsychology is worthy of funding and study. Among these are Brian Josephson, Kary Mullis,[16] and Wolfgang Pauli.[17] Many eminent scientists from a variety of fields also support parapsychology research, such as Hans Eysenck,[18] Robert G Jahn,[19] Daryl Bem[20] and Rupert Sheldrake.[21]"
"Truzzi also stated that
Over the years, I have decried the misuse of the term "skeptic" when used to refer to all critics of anomaly claims.[...]Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than [dis]belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label. In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved.[...]Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic.[...]Thus, if a subject in a psi experiment can be shown to have had an opportunity to cheat, many critics seem to assume not merely that he probably did cheat, but that he must have, regardless of what may be the complete absence of evidence that he did so cheat and sometimes even ignoring evidence of the subject's past reputation for honesty. Similarly, improper randomization procedures are sometimes assumed to be the cause of a subject's high psi scores even though all that has been established is the possibility of such an artifact having been the real cause.[...]Evidence in science is always a matter of degree and is seldom if ever absolutely conclusive.[28][29](On Pseudo-Skepticism by Marcello Truzzi)"
"Parapsychology is also disturbing to those who believe that to admit that psi exists would encourage religion, superstition, and psychic frauds, as all these are based either on manifestations of psi, or on reports which are hard to distinguish from it. Skeptics wonder if this would undermine the foundations of science and reason.[33]"
----
Studies on psychism? Again...
"There have been a huge number of parapsychological experiments performed under controlled laboratory conditions. According to Dr. Dean Radin,
In 1993, the parapsychologist Charles Honorton, from the University of Edinburgh, considered what skeptics of psi experiments used to claim, and what they no longer claimed. He demonstrated that virtually all the skeptical arguments used to explain away psi over the years had been resolved through new experimental designs. This does not mean the experiments conducted today are “perfect,” because there is nothing perfect in the empirical sciences. But it does mean that the methods available today satisfy the most rigorous skeptical requirements for providing “exceptional evidence.” As we’ve seen, such experiments have been conducted, with successful results.[5](Radin 1997:208-209)
Many of these experiments have been done with the aid of skeptics of parapsychology, and also with the aid of professional conjurors, in order to eliminate as much as possible all controversies concerning the analysis of the data gathered, and to prevent fraud on the part of the subjects. Dean Radin quotes parapsychologist George Hansen as saying that
Although the public tends to view magicians as debunkers, the opposite is more the case. Birdsell (1989) polled a group of magicians and found that 82 percent gave a positive response to a question of belief in ESP. Truzzi (1983) noted a poll of German magicians that found that 72.3 percent thought psi was probably real. Many prominent magicians have expressed a belief in psychic phenomena. …. It is simply a myth that magicians have been predominantly skeptical about the existence of psi.[5](Radin 1997:207)
Concerning a series of computer-controlled ganzfeld experiments done by the parapsychologist Charles Honorton in the 1980s, magician Ford Kross, an officer of the Psychic Entertainers Association wrote that
In my professional capicity as a mentalist, I have reviewed Psychophysical Research Laboratories' automated ganzfeld system and found it to provide excellent security against deception by subjects.[34][5](Radin 1997:86)
"
-----
More evidence to blow your mind!!!
"Interpretation of the evidence
Scientists who support parapsychology research hold that there is at least a small amount of data from properly controlled experiments that can be trusted for a small number of psi phenomena. Some of these scientists hold that this evidence is not definitive, but suggestive enough to warrant further research [4]. Others believe that a great deal of evidence has been collected, which, if it addressed more conventional phenomena, would be sufficient to provide proof.
Some experiments have tested the ability to use ESP to get above-average scores when guessing targets such as cards, pictures, or videos. Other experiments have tested the ability to foretell future events, both consciously, and unconsciously by using electrodes to measure galvanic skin responses to future stimuli. There have also been many ganzfield experiments testing the ability to influence random number generators. Many of these experiments have had positive results, with subjects scoring significantly above chance. This significance, when analyzed using statistics, has often been astronomically high.[5](Radin 1997:84) However, such results only seem impressive to those educated in statistics, because the results have been only a few percentage points above chance. For instance, where chance = 25%, a psychic might score, on average, between 33% and 37%.[5](Radin 1997:83-8Cool Some of the studies have returned results which are not significantly above chance (often defined as a 95% confidence interval).[5](Radin 1997:78-84) When results of these studies are combined in meta-analyses, they return astronomically high results in favor of the existence of psi (or some unknown factor). This is so even when common statistical tools are used to rule out "file drawer" cases which might occur when insignificant results are not reported. Other experiments aimed at detecting psi, especially those performed by experimenters and subjects who disbelieve in psi, have scored significantly below chance (this is called psi-missing).[5](Radin 1997:108-109) Despite the extremely positive results of psi experiments, however, parapsychology remains highly controversial, partially due to the lack of a theory which explains its results.[5][36]"
-----
Like i've said before, debunkers are usually dishonest people in general. No research? No proof? C'mon man, the truth shall set you free!
I guess the above experiments don't count? Somehow it's a fraud? C'mon, play fair, my man!
If the "scientific" community in general weren't so biased against psychism, they would except the results as it stands right in front of them. That's what true scientist do. Only the pseudo-scientist will accept research only if it fits their own world view, kinda like Richard Dawkins.
-----
Read this profound statement:
"Scientists who support parapsychology research hold that there is at least a small amount of data from properly controlled experiments that can be trusted for a small number of psi phenomena. Some of these scientists hold that this evidence is not definitive, but suggestive enough to warrant further research [4]. Others believe that a great deal of evidence has been collected, which, if it addressed more conventional phenomena, would be sufficient to provide proof. "
Again, the last part,"...if it addressed more conventional phenomena, would be sufficient to provide proof"
Play fair, my friends, play fair. Be a true scientist!
Beanie
I REALLY hope this creationsim/evolution debate goes away on Tuesday because I grew out of it when I was 20.
Anunakki ( forgot to sign in )
Tim,
Come quick.... you let the riff-raff in!!! They have taken over and are in control of our site. Kinda like the Twilight Zone - Do not attempt to adjust your TV......
Be back next year - maybe the crazies will have crawled back into the ocean.
Everyone.......I hate the junk posts as much as you do, but let me acquaint you with the scroll bar on the right side of your window.........it's not like you HAVE to read this stuff!!!
So you condone it and have turned your site over to the "agenda driven" wackos? Have a great new year - alone.
I am sure this site will continue to be frequented by open minded traders who don't mind reading a little whacko stuff one in a while!
AS
"So you condone it and have turned your site over to the "agenda driven" wackos? "
I have not "turned it over"
It's a compromise. The more restrictive I am with comments, the higher quality (and fewer) there will be. The looser I am, the more comments, many of which are good.
You just can't make everyone happy.
Toshi--seems like too many have drunk from the "I-take-myself-too-seriously cup".
I took the liberty of elfing you (your wife would approve), and I hope that you'll take the time to see Tim dancing in his elf-gear hear. Tim, watch this with your kids. They will laugh! Happy New Year to all!
http://www.elfyourself.com/?userid=89af04557da81eafc978992G06122610
God bless tim and family for this wonderful site to talk markets only please.
Post a Comment