Howdy Guest!  / Create an account
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I can't get it to work for me
#11
(11-09-2017, 09:02 AM)UglyNRude Wrote: An ouija board is a toy, nothing more. Its been proven what causes the movement over and over. Ideomotor effect. Now use some common sense here, if a device was able to contact the other side why aren't police departments full of them solving unsolved murders? Why isn't the military using them? Its all people and blind beliefs and of course those on drugs who seem to get in trouble using it.

I and some colleagues undertook, some years ago, a piece of experimental research designed to try and get to the bottom of what makes the ouija phenomenon work.   We proved that it is NOT the ideomotor effect, as some of the information we were given was unknown to any of us but found out later to be correct, e.g. the name of a place that a communicator had lived in.
Reply
#12
@Dronfieldman;

Alright, then. I believe that the ouija board is capable of acting as a medium to help communicate with things. There are lots of things that can help, by acting as mediums. However, you've made a universal statement -- claiming that it is not the ideomotor effect -- and I believe that is false.

My reasoning is this:
Even if it was not the ideomotor effect in your case, it is still far more likely that it is the ideomotor effect 9/10 times.
There are also many issues with this "piece of experimental research". In order to conduct meaningful research, you need to repeat it multiple times.
You must have a control. You must have clearly stipulated limitations as to what it cannot tell you. You need to have things laid out about what it could/does tell you.
You need to document it in a way that maintains the integrity of the experiments. Can it happen in other places? With different people?

After all that is done, you need to be able to supply the evidence of that experiment for review. (In this case, us.) So, where's your evidence as to your claim?
And again, I think your phrasing of "We proved that it is NOT the ideomotor effect" is already flawed.


None of this is personal, bud. I just want to make that clear. I'm all for discussion and conjecture, as much as the next supernatural enthusiast. However, it's different when people aim to make objective claims that must be supported. I just don't think that claim was supported.
Furthermore, (as to the phrasing) these experiments wouldn't even "prove" anything. They'd only give us a basis from which to continue searching. Evidence isn't proof. Proofs come from logic. That's why evidence begets the searching of more evidence, in an effort to try and support itself.
Reply
#13
Strictly speaking, you're right in saying that Science can't prove anything - only provide evidence as to what is most likely to be the truth. So my wording needs to be amended to read "We obtained evidence that it is NOT the ideomotor effect." We did indeed repeat the experiment multiple times - about 36 times over three years. I did document a summary of what we did over those three years. It's published at http://www.assap.ac.uk > Articles > Research > Ouija. You are welcome to review the article. I also still have the detailed transcripts of all the actual communications.
Reply
#14
Thank you for the link! I enjoyed the read. I'll leave the more skeptical argument to UnR and those who's wheel-house it is. So, I'll extend an olive branch and go about this with the assumption that what was conducted was legitimate research.

With that assumption, the wording you used above "We obtained evidence that it is NOT the ideomotor effect." still isn't proper. The more accurate claim would be "We obtained evidence that could show it is not always the ideomotor effect."

Logically, the latter phrasing is much more sound. Why?
Well, under the assumption of accurate experimental procedure, all you've shown is that there have been a few instances where the ideomotor effect was not the main contributing factor.
However, there have been many confirmed studies that show the ideomotor effect is the main contributing factor. In itself, that tells us that "there exists evidence that it sometimes is the ideomotor effect".

However, the study has shown something, among the small group of people conducting that experiment "that only certain people have the ability to act as a ouija medium", the number of times a ouija board will yield dependable results is fewer than just "sometimes".

Why is that the case? The ideomotor effect being the more common factor - according to scientific studies- and parts of your study not yielding any results ends up leaving us with the more cogent claim:

Successful communications using a ouija board are most commonly a result of the ideomotor effect.
or
A successful seance is rarely the result of bona fide communication with the supernatural.

Just to be clear, I'm only using "successful communications", because it will exclude the incoherent sessions that yield no fruit. Also, there is a third option there that cannot be measured (because nobody would ever go on record saying it, but it 100% happens):
Sometimes a successful seance is a manufactured positive.

I.E. people want it to work, see that it's not working, and do it on purpose (with a little bit of premeditated research) to doctor the results.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)






About Talk Paranormal Forum

...

              Quick Links

              User Links

             ...

  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...