quentron.com

[e2matrix]

The person promoting the words of psychics.

You can't deny the truth of the whole article just because of one silly statement quoted from one person in the article.   However here's a little background on the psychologist who made the statement about psychics:
"Susan Blackmore graduated from St Hilda's College, Oxford, with a BA (Hons) degree in psychology and physiology. She went on to do postgraduate study in environmental psychology at the University of Surrey, achieving an MSc degree in 1974. In 1980, she got her PhD degree in parapsychology from the same university, her thesis being entitled "Extrasensory Perception as a Cognitive Process." After some period of time spent in research on parapsychology and the paranormal,[1] her attitude towards the field moved from belief to scepticism.[2] In 1987, Blackmore wrote that she had believed herself to have undergone an out-of-body experience shortly after she began running the Oxford University Society for Psychical Research (OUSPR)"

[sarkeizen]

You can't deny the truth of the whole article just because of one silly statement quoted from one person in the article.

I'm talking about the section on IDP. It's not exactly quoting David Quinne, a self-described psychic so much as plagiarizing him.   Including phrases like "In this study" which makes no sense since no study has been referenced yet.  Whomever wrote that article copied that part almost word-for-word including the erroneous 1883 date for Barbara & Walters from the online version of his article. In what appears to be the original article from The Skeptic magazine it's 1983.

Perhaps if you weren't so desperate for something to confirm your belief that there's something wrong with people who criticize things you would like to believe in (or whatever).  You would have done some checking into the article.  For example Quinne's "study" is crap.  He self-selected seven criteria from some list with no justification,  self-selected ten authors - again with no justification or methodology, published no information on how they were scored except that it's obvious that it was done un-blinded, it's unclear (but seems unlikely) if there was any control group.  If there wasn't there was no mention of what scoring is required to be considered deficient.  Given that the sample size was ten the confidence interval is likely too big to be meaningful. Barbara & Walters, according to Quinne did their study on people using psychological tests.  Quinne simply assumed that the same kind of thing could be done by reading authors and provides no validation as to why this would be so.

While I'm not sure how seriously to take Barbara & Walters (I can't actually find the article) even Quinne admits that his "study" was contradicted by at least one other study which looked at a bunch of skeptics and found no difference between them and the control group with regard to IDP.  I can't find that study either so I'm not sure how seriously to take it either.

Actually the more I read, I'm pretty certain that David Quinne and his article and references are just a joke.  I can only find a tag reference (e.g. cite searcher) to the Barbara & Walters cite.  No record of the actual book.  Black & Decker as well as Brothers who Quinne also cites seem to be from non-existent Journals.  Not to mention that the names are probably parodies of a hardware company, a journalist and a psychologist.  The only real sources he cites have nothing to do with IDP.

Quinne, his article and IDP itself appears to be an invention of the Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York.  Writing an "Ask a psychic" column for their newsletter.  In his column he makes all sorts of outrageous claims and answers questions in sarcastic manner - which often enough appear to be foils to make some joke.  The only instance of actual publication that I can find of this gentleman is from the article in "The Skeptic".  Which might be a joke or they might be in on the joke.  Who knows.

All-in-all. Kind of a poor showing for "Free Energy Truth" isn't it?

...and also...uh...YOU.

[profitis]

@e2matrix,if somebody comes up to you and says 'hey,ive got a perpetuum mobilum but you,re not allowed to touch it and rip it apart and examine it'would you believe them? Skepticism is healthy and necessary part of the evolution process otherwize we dont learn anything.

[lumen]

I like how Philip is updating his web page to keep us up on the events.
It's good to see things moving, whether good or bad.

[orbut 3000]

His updates are welcome, but it would be even better if he maintained some kind of continuity.
He merely replaces the main page instead of updating it.
All the prior announcements, dating back to 2011, are gone and regular visitors are unnecessarily confused.
A persistent stream of updates would certainly improve PJH's and Quenco's credibility.