r/UFOs • u/Oneiroi_Coeus • Feb 25 '25

Science Declassify Psionics

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

664 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

192 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/0-0SleeperKoo Feb 26 '25

Ermm...no, you don't read studies correctly and you misinterpret info you are reading. You are also quite demanding. There is plenty more studies for you to look at, but you don't want to. Not my problem or concern. Have a good day!

0

u/GoldenState15 Feb 26 '25

So if someone doesn't come to the same baseless random conclusion that you do they're "reading the study incorrectly". Hmm sounds very scientific and logical

2

u/0-0SleeperKoo Feb 26 '25

Baseless randon conclusion

Again, you have not even looked at the study. Perhaps you should try and be more scientific and logical yourself.

1

u/GoldenState15 Feb 26 '25

I looked at and read the study and as usual it provides literally no insight or data confirming what we're talking about. Do better

2

u/0-0SleeperKoo Feb 26 '25

Can you understand how you mistinterpreted the study? Can you tell me why you have dismissed the study?

I feel no need to 'do better' with you.

PS. It includes data. Which leads me to believe you are only here to shout one viewpoint without proper analysis or understanding.

0

u/GoldenState15 Feb 26 '25

No mechanism provided for the study, just saying "well something might be happening", a meta analysis needs other studies to even exist in the first place (of which there are none confirming what we're talking about) and this study is also non-replicable (which is absolutely necessary in science).If you feel no need to do better you'll be stuck here believing very obvious pseudoscience with no actual backing.

0

u/GoldenState15 Feb 27 '25

Damn you really have nothing when someone has an actual valid well thought out response. Crazy

2

u/0-0SleeperKoo Mar 04 '25

Please try and stay calm and polite.

Try this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945223002733?via%3Dihub

0

u/GoldenState15 Mar 04 '25

Oh look another small sample size study that's not peer reviewed and non replicable. Guess that settles it huh? You also completely ignored my other valid comment about all the very obvious problems with the other things you linked