ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags statistical analysis , statistical methods , telekinesis

Reply
Old 6th September 2018, 05:35 AM   #361
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,267
"Buddha" trying to get attention again...


Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
As always. plenty of unrelated data and complete lack of knowledge of the concept of randomness. Just stop pretending that you know something about statistics and follow this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sequence

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


From what kind of CliffNotes do you get your vocabulary and "knowledge"?
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 05:42 AM   #362
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,267
At last, "Buddha" has admitted his defeat in the field of statistics (in a grumpy way, to save face)

Now we can devote our time to "exorcize" this thread of its unscientific content.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 06:11 AM   #363
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,267
Let's dissect one of the last train wreck from "Buddha" 's so you get a notion of how his mind works

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
This post shows that you have no idea how clinical trials are conducted. Well, you put your ignorance on full display. To start with, categorical variables are not used in clinical trials. The collected data consists of the analysis results of the subjects' blood, as it was in the leukemia clinical trials that I described.
Yes, categorical variables, such as blood type or having previously received a complete course of chemotherapy, an incomplete one or none, are not used in clinical trials.


ETA: "Buddha", I got an idea. Why don't you include the threads you started here as part of your resume/CV? Your potential employers/clients will be shocked by the proficiency you show.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.

Last edited by aleCcowaN; 6th September 2018 at 06:13 AM.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 06:12 AM   #364
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 219
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Bwahahaha! You must have been sick the day they taught multivariate analysis in statistics. With a wave of your hand, you simply disregard an entire field of statistics, and one of the most important techniques in experimental research that guarantees the independence of the one variable you were give data for.

What's even worse is that I described in detail how they are used in research of the type PEAR conducted, and incidentally in medical research. They are invaluable in ensuring the integrity and applicability of the study, and I took great effort to explain why. Do you address my detailed description at all? No, you simply announce that I'm wrong and give a highly simplified description of the one part of some clinical trial you may have been incidentally involved with, and then wrongly concluding that's all the statistical work that was ever done or needed to be done.

You keep proving time and again that you are unwilling to expand your knowledge to fit the problem. You keep trying to pare away the parts of problems that don't fit your existing understanding. And hubristically you try to call other people stupid when they point out your oversimplifications and errors. What kind of a "consultant" does that?



But you're not an authority on what is "usually" done in experiments. In the thread where you gave us empirical anecdotal evidence for reincarnation, you both illustrated and admitted that you didn't know what empirical controls were. Do you really expect us to forget about these things from day to day?



A subject pool is first established, usually from volunteers out of the general human population. This is true both for physiology research and for psychology research. A common source of psychology research subjects is undergraduate students, who must participate in order to get credit in the psychology classes they take. From this subject pool are drawn the subjects for some particular study based on their demographic conformance to the general population, or to the parameters of the study -- sometimes both. Usually the results are hoped to generalize to the population at large, so the sample is desired to differ as little as possible from what is known about the general population. Often the study is limited to subjects of a certain category, such as to women who have had at least one child. Obviously the men and childless women must be filtered out in that case. Sex is a category. Number of children is a category. The latter especially may be one of the proposed correlates.

Drawing at random often works because subjects often naturally fall into a representative (or desired) demographic distribution naturally. A random sample of a representative pool would also be representative to within a certain amount. Another method is to score each member of the subject pool according to how closely he fits the general population (or study parameters) and then take only N of the top scorers.

Randomness here is not the end goal. The end goal is conformance to the parameters of the study. Randomness is only a proxy for that, and not even always the best proxy.

So with an appropriately shaped subject sample in hand, what happens next? Well, as I explained previously, it's separated into the control and variable groups. In a clinical trial, the control group gets the placebo. In a psychology experiment there may be no control group, the sample having been homogenized against the general population. Where the bifurcation occurs, it is best done randomly to avoid experimenter bias. However it's done, the goal is to ensure that all the pertinent categorical variables are equally distributed on both sides of the divide. This is to ensure that the two groups are otherwise independent, besides the thing you're going to do to one group but not the other.

This is measured by looking at the pertinent categorical variables and determining whether the values those variables take on is related to which group they were randomly placed it. Here too, randomness per se is not the end goal. The end goal is homogeneity between the two experiment groups. Randomization is merely one way to achieve it.

Regardless of how it's achieved, it will never be perfect. Neither randomization process produces a sample that's perfectly aligned with the population from which it's drawn, nor a pair of groups that's exactly equally divided among potential confounds. It just avoids a particular sort of bias. But the groups will always differ a measurable amount in all the ways the matter for the experiment, and the sample as a whole will always differ a measurable amount from the population they are meant to represent.

The point here is that we can measure it. This is what statistics, at its heart, is all about. We'll come back to this.



Total hogwash.

Data are retrospectively excluded from studies all the time for reasons such as measurement error, subjects' failure to follow the protocol, experimenter error, the death or withdrawal of the subject, and so forth. In any sufficiently large study it is practically unheard of for all the subject data to make it to the end of the study. Now perhaps in the data you were given, those inappropriate data had already been culled. Once again you continue to misunderstand why your particular suggestion for removing data was invalid. Because you were challenged (correctly) on that particular reason, you seem to have evolved this childlike belief that no data may ever be excluded from analysis. If your concept of science were true, think of how many studies would have to be terminated, after years of work and funding, because one data point became unusable for whatever reason. No science would ever get done.



Emphatically no, and it illustrates just how little you really understand what statistics are for. Randomness is not itself the desired end. It is the means to other ends, and those ends are not disserved by the departure of one subject's data after the randomization process has done its thing, nor are they incorrigible. Statistics is about confident reasoning in the face of uncertainty. Your view is that a proper scientific study is a perfectly balanced house of cards that can't tolerate the merest jiggle of the table without crashing down in its entirety. That's as anti-statistical a sentiment as there ever could be. Statistics is about what you can do with what you know, even if it's not perfect.

Those subjects were never perfectly aligned anyway, randomness notwithstanding. There was always a need to measure how aligned they were to the population and to each other and to develop a confidence interval to describe how much those groups' behavior could be considered useful. When one subject departs, the confidence interval changes. But it doesn't just go up in smoke. That's what it means to reason statistically. Now if your N is too small, then one subject gone may change the confidence interval to the point where significance of effect is hard to measure. But that's not even remotely the same thing as the naive all-or-nothing fantasy you've painted.

You told me I hadn't provided an example of these things. That's a lie, because I've referred twice now to Dr. Philip Zimbardo and one of the most famous psychology experiments of all time, the Stanford prison experiment. You may recall this was formulated as an experiment to determine the effect of imposed roles on cruel behavior, and is most infamous for having developed astonishing levels of brutality before it was belatedly terminated. In his most recent book, The Lucifer Effect, he gives a retrospective of the experiment interleaved with copious mea culpa for not realizing what was going on. Naturally it's all in the original paper, which is easily available. But in Lucifer he takes you through it in detail, assuming you aren't a research psychologist.

So the first thing Zimbardo had to do was get reasonably suitable subjects. He described his recruiting efforts; most ended up being undergraduates at Stanford University, for obvious reasons. They weren't randomly sampled from the entire U.S. population, but they reasonably varied in demographics as much as college students can be expected to vary.

Then he administered a set of standard psychometric instruments to them to determine where they fell according to various variables he knew or suspected would lead to brutal behavior. He describes the variables and shows how his sample scored as a group along all these dimensions. He also compared their scores with distributions of scores from a the wider population. It's obvious that Zimbardo's sample was not perfectly representative of the U.S. population in all respects. For starters there were no girls, owing to the practical limits of human-subjects testing on this particular experiment. But it doesn't largely matter because he merely needed to establish by psychometry that they were representative enough in the ways that applied to his study.

Then he randomly divided the sample into Guards and Prisoners and showed how the psychometric evaluations were distributed between the two groups. Specifically he showed that in each of those categories the distribution of the psychometric variables was so similar between the two groups that they could be considered equivalent in terms of their predisposition to violence and brutality. Not identical, of course. There was variance. But one of the things the t-test sort of analysis can give you is a comparison between two population means, knowing the confidence interval that applies. While the groups were not identical, the confidence interval was broad enough that it could contain the (unknown) theoretical mean score for all the subjects. This is what we mean by homogenization. Unless you do it, you can't independently attribute effects to the imposed cause.

Zimbardo planned to impose different roles on the two groups, and he needed them to be otherwise as similarly as possible, so that any differences he observed could be properly attributed to the imposed role, not the emergence of some latent property that was skewed in one group versus the other. Hypothetically, if all the people with measured aggressive tendencies were somehow in the Guard group, it would be hard to chalk up a beat-down to the imposed role and not the predetermination. Or in contrast, if all the non-white people were in the Prisoner group, you couldn't separate the Guard-Prisoner dichotomy from the race category and say that everyone's behavior would be the same even if all the prisoners had been white.

All the things I've been talking about are in the book.

The rest of the experiment is history. Zimbardo let it run far too long, up to and past the point of inflicting severe emotional distress on the participants. He spent quite a lot of time cleaning up the mess. But what has emerged over time is that he has maintained contact -- and even professional relationships (some of them became psychologists themselves) -- with the former subjects. And it emerged that one member of the Guard group developed his own agenda that was not necessarily compatible with the goals and protocols of the experiment. For the quantitative part of the experiment Zimbardo had to decide whether to include that data.

A simpler example suffices. Suppose there is a drug trial and subjects are prohibited from drinking alcohol for the duration of the study. Now let's suppose the experimenter discovers that one subject is having his daily glass of wine at dinner, in contravention of the protocol. According to you, we would have to include his data in the final result even though he broke the experimental protocol and confounded whatever results he may have had from the drug with the result of drinking alcohol. That's what would affect the study, not booting him out. If we boot him out of the study, whichever group he was in -- placebo or drug -- has its N-value decremented by one, and his contribution to the homogenization check is removed. And for all we know, his departure might make the groups more homogeneous. This retains the integrity of the study because the remaining subjects (who are presumed to follow the protocol) are exhibiting the behavior it was desired to study.



No, that's not even remotely close to what Palmer suggests.



No. As explained above, randomization is the means we use to achieve various ends which are then not affected by culling bad data in a way that statistical analysis cannot overcome. Randomization is not an end unto itself. This is your pidgin-level knowledge of statistics and experimentation, against which you're trying to measure the behavior of the published experts. You're literally trying to tell career scientists "they should have known better," when you have already both demonstrated and admitted you don't know their science or its methods.
This Zimbardo experiment has nothing to do with my request to provide an example of a psychological test with a rejected outlier. Apparently, there was no such rejection during the Zimbardo experiment the way you described it. On the other hand, it is possible that your description of his experiment is incorrect, and there was an outlier. In this the case?
Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 06:16 AM   #365
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 219
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, why don't you correct the errors in your previous presentations before pontificating further.



Oh, this is hilarious. I talk about homogenization and you dismiss it as "irrelevant." Now here you are regurgitating what I said earlier and pretending it's you who's teaching it. What a fraud.



You haven't shown that your understanding of statistical analysis rises above what you might read in a software instruction manual. Sorry, you need to stop suggesting you're so much smarter than everyone else. You just aren't.



No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote that there are significance tests that use an empirically-determined baseline, and I specifically identified it as one of the non-Poisson types you referred to. You rejected the entire idea as impossible, because you did not then know about the t-test and believed that every such analysis must be against an ideal distribution. Your whole point was that no number of empirical runs could confirm which distribution should be used. This is entirely ignorant of the t-test, which always uses the t-distribution.



Yeah, so quit doing it. You can't seem to come up with an argument that's not just accusing your critics of one thing or another. How tedious.



I already addressed this multiple times.



Oh, look, here you are again trying to "teach" stuff I already taught, after you already showed your ignorance of it. This constant face-saving is ridiculous.



No, that's not what I wrote.



Oh, calm yourself. 48 hours ago you had no idea what a t-test for significance was. Now you're frantically doing damage control.



No. Not everyone else is ignorant just because you are.



No, that would be your imagination going wild. I made no such statement.
You don’t even know the purpose of homogeneity tests, but you expect me to continue a serious discussion with you! Your misinterpretations of the t-tests and the theory of optimal stopping are so obvious that anyone with a basic knowledge of mathematical statistics would laugh at.

The difference in our debate tactics is clear – I have backed up my presentation with the references to the textbooks and articles, but you have not provided any printed material supporting your homegrown views of statistics that have nothing to do with reality. The Zimbardo experiment doesn't count because it doesn't have an outlier, you didn't fulfill my request to provide one. I consider further debates with you under current conditions a waste of time.

If you want to continue debates with me you would have to accept my conditions. Actually, there is only one condition – you would have to back up your outlandish ideas about mathematical statistics with references to books and articles. You might not have links to some books that you want to quote, but this is fine with me as long as you provide a book’s title and a quotation from it.

If you fail to meet my condition, I will ignore your posts and will continue responding to the posts of the other opponents. I am in no mood to spend my time responding to the posts of a person who has no understanding of the basics of the probability theory and mathematical statistics.

Keep in mind that debates with me are much more important for you than for me. Judging by the volume of your posts, you have a reputation here as a sophisticated and intelligent debater, while I am a stranger with a negative reputation who doesn’t have to defend it. Now you are under tremendous pressure to defend your reputation. No matter what you say, your supporters will applaud you, and you will score many points with them. But I am pretty sure that I am not your first opponent, you had many in the past. Now they see you as an intellectual weakling, and will gladly take on you in a near future. I think it would be wise on your part to accept my condition.

I still have time before my next client interview, but I want to spend it wisely by studying Palmer’s article.
Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 06:18 AM   #366
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,982
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
As always. plenty of unrelated data and complete lack of knowledge of the concept of randomness. Just stop pretending that you know something about statistics and follow this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sequence
Wow.

He schooled you repeatedly and in great detail and your response is a slightly more age appropriate version of sticking your fingers in your years and chanting, "LALALA! I can't hear you! You're a poopie head!""

It's like responding to a copy of a modern biology textbook about evolution with "You're just too stupid to realize GODDIDIT!" Come to think of it, that's pretty much what was done in the abysmal and ignorant anti-science book you claim to have written.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

Last edited by halleyscomet; 6th September 2018 at 06:40 AM.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 06:24 AM   #367
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,267
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
This Zimbardo experiment has nothing to do with my request to provide an example of a psychological test with a rejected outlier. Apparently, there was no such rejection during the Zimbardo experiment the way you described it. On the other hand, it is possible that your description of his experiment is incorrect, and there was an outlier. In this the case?

"Buddha", before you bid farewell, can you list the hypothesis to be tested in Jahn's paper?
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.

Last edited by aleCcowaN; 6th September 2018 at 06:25 AM.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 06:25 AM   #368
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,982
Question In which Buddha's Wikipedia inspired statistical ohanism is questioned

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
You don’t even know the purpose of homogeneity tests, but you expect me to continue a serious discussion with you!
What's your point in all of this prattle?

In the end you have one test subject in the employ of the tester who displayed what appears to be a feeble ghost of a possible ability that, due to the experimental design and the questionable baseline collection, falls well within the study's margin of error.

Endless wankery about statistics does nothing to deal with the fact that the study was crap and found nothing to suggest telekinetic powers were real.

What, exactly, are you hoping to accomplish?
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 06:28 AM   #369
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,406
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
As always. plenty of unrelated data and complete lack of knowledge of the concept of randomness. Just stop pretending that you know something about statistics and follow this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sequence
An interesting bluff, this. The idea, I suppose, is to hope that either nobody follows the link or that nobody who follows it understands it, leaving the impression that Buddha's scored a telling point.

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
You don’t even know the purpose of homogeneity tests, but you expect me to continue a serious discussion with you! Your misinterpretations of the t-tests and the theory of optimal stopping are so obvious that anyone with a basic knowledge of mathematical statistics would laugh at.

The difference in our debate tactics is clear – I have backed up my presentation with the references to the textbooks and articles, but you have not provided any printed material supporting your homegrown views of statistics that have nothing to do with reality. The Zimbardo experiment doesn't count because it doesn't have an outlier, you didn't fulfill my request to provide one. I consider further debates with you under current conditions a waste of time.

If you want to continue debates with me you would have to accept my conditions. Actually, there is only one condition – you would have to back up your outlandish ideas about mathematical statistics with references to books and articles. You might not have links to some books that you want to quote, but this is fine with me as long as you provide a book’s title and a quotation from it.

If you fail to meet my condition, I will ignore your posts and will continue responding to the posts of the other opponents. I am in no mood to spend my time responding to the posts of a person who has no understanding of the basics of the probability theory and mathematical statistics.

Keep in mind that debates with me are much more important for you than for me. Judging by the volume of your posts, you have a reputation here as a sophisticated and intelligent debater, while I am a stranger with a negative reputation who doesn’t have to defend it. Now you are under tremendous pressure to defend your reputation. No matter what you say, your supporters will applaud you, and you will score many points with them. But I am pretty sure that I am not your first opponent, you had many in the past. Now they see you as an intellectual weakling, and will gladly take on you in a near future. I think it would be wise on your part to accept my condition.

I still have time before my next client interview, but I want to spend it wisely by studying Palmer’s article.
And this is Trump level stuff, a precise inversion of reality that commits the exact wrongs it accuses of.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 06:32 AM   #370
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,267
Originally Posted by "Buddha"
You don’t even know the purpose of homogeneity tests, but you expect me to continue a serious discussion with you! Your misinterpretations of the t-tests and the theory of optimal stopping are so obvious that anyone with a basic knowledge of mathematical statistics would laugh at.

"Buddha", guess what those of us having more than a basic knowledge and having (or having had) endowed professorships are laughing about?
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 06:42 AM   #371
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,267
Originally Posted by "Buddha"
blah blah


The difference in our debate tactics is clear – I have backed up my presentation with the references to the textbooks and articles, but you have not provided any printed material supporting your homegrown views of statistics that have nothing to do with reality. The Zimbardo experiment doesn't count because it doesn't have an outlier, you didn't fulfill my request to provide one. I consider further debates with you under current conditions a waste of time.


blah blah

"Buddha", before you say your definitive goodbye, what's your "expert" () opinion on this


Detection of Outliers Due to Participants’ Non-Adherence to Protocol in a Longitudinal Study of Cognitive Decline
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 06:43 AM   #372
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,007
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
This post shows that you have no idea how clinical trials are conducted. Well, you put your ignorance on full display.
Projection, because...

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
To start with, categorical variables are not used in clinical trials.
Is a honking great lie.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 06:48 AM   #373
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,267
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Wow.

He schooled you repeatedly and in great detail and your response is a slightly more age appropriate version of sticking your fingers in your years and chanting, "LALALA! I can't hear you! You're a poopie head!""

It's like responding to a copy of a modern biology textbook about evolution with "You're just too stupid to realize GODDIDIT!" Come to think of it, that's pretty much what was done in the abysmal and ignorant anti-science book you claim to have written.

and pretty much



this is the way this thread ends, not with a whimper but with a bang
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 06:53 AM   #374
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,012
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
You don’t even know the purpose of homogeneity tests...
False. I explained their purpose at length. You tried to declare them "irrelevant," then backpedaled and tried to suggest you're the one who introduced them to the discussion once you belatedly discovered their relevance.

Quote:
The difference in our debate tactics is clear – I have backed up my presentation with the references to the textbooks and articles...
No, you threw out a couple of cited passages from books it's obvious you haven't read and don't understand, hoping to convince the audience that you weren't trying to play catch-up. I pointed out how your own cited sources contradict claims you've made in this debate. That's how I proved you didn't read them and didn't know them.

Quote:
The Zimbardo experiment doesn't count because it doesn't have an outlier...
The Zimbardo experiment had an outlier, and all the other features of a psychology experiment I've been talking about.

Quote:
If you want to continue debates with me you would have to accept my conditions.
No. You are the claimant. You do not get to dictate the terms by which your claims are tested.

Quote:
Actually, there is only one condition – you would have to back up your outlandish ideas about mathematical statistics with references to books and articles.
Seeing as how I've backed them up from time to time with references to your cited sources, maybe you should just accept the fact that what you're trying to talk about in this thread is something that I and others know from deep and long experience, not something we're frantically Googling for on a daily basis.

No, here's my counter proposal. You started off this thread with the blanket assertion that no one who criticized PEAR could possibly know what they were talking about, and that you were expert enough to address all that criticism yourself. So we're going to keep testing those claims in the manner we've used so far, which seems to be quite effective.

Quote:
If you fail to meet my condition, I will ignore your posts...
But that won't stop me from writing them and exposing your ignorance to all who might read this forum. By all means run away, if that's what you feel you must do. Your audience is already convinced you can't answer my posts, so they won't accept your excuses for avoiding them.

Quote:
...the posts of a person who has no understanding of the basics of the probability theory and mathematical statistics.
I'll leave it to the audience to determine who has the appropriate knowledge. And I'm not responding to the whining and self-important drivel that forms the rest of your post.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 07:01 AM   #375
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,012
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
Apparently, there was no such rejection during the Zimbardo experiment the way you described it.
My, how carefully worded your answer is. You mean you're claiming to be an expert in how to design experiments and evaluate data in psychological research, and you don't know how the Stanford prison experiment turned out? It's only one of the most famous psychology experiments of all time.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 07:01 AM   #376
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 7,882
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Thirded. It's also a treat to read the eloquent dissection of the claim and its evidence, as well as the systemic critique of the argumentative tactics.
Fourthed! or Forthed!

It's pleasure to read the contributions of real experts!
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 07:49 AM   #377
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,982
Speaking of Buddha's anti-reality book:

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/we-are-here
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 08:41 AM   #378
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,053
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
As always. plenty of unrelated data and complete lack of knowledge of the concept of randomness. Just stop pretending that you know something about statistics and follow this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sequence
Translation: "I know you are, but what am I?"
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 09:02 AM   #379
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,012
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
As always. plenty of unrelated data....
Except that's not true. Twice now you've dismissed my thorough coverage of a topic with these one-liner deflections, then you come back a day or so later and try to regurgitate that same coverrage, which is now somehow relevant again. Only you try to pretend you're the one teaching it, as if it were something you knew all along. Do you really think people don't see through these obvious stunts?

Quote:
...and complete lack of knowledge of the concept of randomness. Just stop pretending that you know something about statistics and follow this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_sequence
Yes, any beginning student is familiar with what a random sequence is. What I displayed, and what you obviously cannot understand, is how the constructs of randomness are actually used to achieve the desired ends in the statistical control of data collection and analysis, and how the randomization itself becomes moot once the ends are met. Further, in your rush to present an elementary concept as if it were some great cosmic truth, you have ignored what I said about the nature of randomness and how it applies to your assertion that "randomness" prevents any data from ever being removed from a dataset.

The sine qua non of randomness is independence. What makes a sequence truly random is the property that the value of any number in the sequence is wholly independent of any other value. Wikipedia doesn't really get into that, and that seems to have limited your understanding of the subject. If we say that no two elements in a random sequence can depend in any way upon each other, then this severely limits what we can say about relationships within and among sets suggested by any rule we invent as functions of such a sequence. That we sometimes assign meaning to those sequence values for one purpose or another does not suggest that the properties which attach to those purposes somehow trickle back to the numbers themselves and must remain faithful.

Random variables that generate such sequences stand in for quantities we do not know, or cannot observe, but about which we know some things generally. A sequence of values generated by a fair die, for example, is expected to be a random sequence governed by the rule that each of the six possible values can occur with equal probability at each roll, independent of any prior or subsequent roll. That's something we know generally about a fair die, and stands in for the complex Newtonian dynamics behavior we know actually determines the outcome. That we play various games with dice in which we assign different meaning to those outcomes does not violate the randomness of the underlying process. The random sequence serves the process of game play. That's not to say that all other elements of game play must also adhere to randomness. The rules of game play are entirely separate from the properties of Newtonian dynamics, and from the random sequence that represents them.

In the empirical sciences, a sequence produced by a random variable stands in for quantities the experimenter should not know, because if he knew them he might apply an unconscious bias and skew the results. Zimbardo tossed a coin to determine whether any given subject should be a Guard or a Prisoner. That process stood in for what he or the other experimenters might have thought about the propriety of such an assignment. All the variables that could have contributed, consciously or unconsciously, to the assignment of role were deliberately set aside. Zimbardo didn't get to say things like, "Hm, I think Harry would be a good guard," or "I think it would be interesting to see how the big Hispanic guy fares as a prisoner."

But then of course once the random sequence had done its job, the rest of the experiment was governed by the rules invented to apply to Guards and Prisoners, one of which was that Guards had to honestly pretend to be guards. Similarly, once the dice are rolled, the rules of craps determine what happens next. If the player breaks one of those rules and is dismissed from the game, it doesn't change the random process that provided the antecedent to that rule. This is where it's very important to understand independence. The assignment of role -- Guard or Prisoner -- doesn't create any sort of new dependence within the group, or new independence between the groups, that the prior randomness cares about. Tom and Dick may both have been assigned as Guards, but that doesn't mean that Tom and Dick's coin tosses are now somehow dependent. They are related only by the contrived rule that was driven by a random variable, not any property of the variable itself. Nor, if Harry is a prisoner, does this mean that any sort of dependent disjunction now exists between him and either Tom or Dick. Indeed, even if Dick gets hit by a bus and killed, his consequential withdrawal from the Guard group has bugger-all to do with the independence of the coin toss that put him there in the first place. Indeed the independence property says we can remove any arbitrary element from a random sequence and the sequence will remain random. It's vitally important that this property hold. Contrary to your assertion, randomness says we must be able to remove any arbitrary element of the sequence without the sequence collapsing into non-randomness.

The key concept there being any arbitrary element. We can't remove a number based on its value or a relationship of its value to any other value. "Remove every third element" is okay. "Remove all the even numbers" is not, because a random sequence must be able to produce an even number at equal probability with an odd one. "Remove each number that is greater in value than its predecessor" isn't okay, because that would constrain the value of every item according to its place in the sequence. "Remove the first N elements" is valid. In your rush to pontificate, you forgot that Jahn's REG used a shift register that happily discarded some of the random bits, not based on their value but upon where the digit occurred in the sequence whatever its value. Commensurately, Zimbardo classified one of his subjects as an outlier based not upon which group he belonged to -- not upon whether the coin came up heads or tails in his case -- but upon violation of the rules of the experiment. That in no way affected the randomness of the remaining Guard group. The coin tosses that drove the rule that placed them there was still a random sequence of coin tosses, because their tosses were completely independent of the tosses that put the outlier in that group.

Similarly Palmer chose to disregard Operator 010 not based on whatever process selected her as a subject from the pool, but upon the conformance of her subsequent data to the expected distribution of results and upon suspicion of violation of a control protocol (i.e., the volitional variable, which seemed to defeat even Operator 010 every time). The chastisement you received for wanting to withdraw data was not because it violated randomness but because it violated homogeneity. I explained this previously. Initially, random sequences are used to achieve homogeneity. Thereafter, homogeneity is the property the experimenters endeavor to preserve.

Your knowledge of statistics is limited to elementary concepts you frantically Google for the day of, combined with your arrogant-yet-simplistic theorization for how things "must" work. And as such you can't possibly deal with an actual informed discussion of the topic, so now you're propping up all the standard excuses for why you don't have to deal with your most competent critics. Your act is nothing but bluff-and-bluster and gaslighting. Good luck finding an audience who will endure that, or even be fooled by it for very long.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 09:03 AM   #380
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,267
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The Zimbardo experiment had an outlier, and all the other features of a psychology experiment I've been talking about.
Were you talking of the Stanford Prison Experiment? In it, one of the guards was a outlier.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 09:36 AM   #381
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,982
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Except that's not true. Twice now you've dismissed my thorough coverage of a topic with these one-liner deflections, then you come back a day or so later and try to regurgitate that same coverrage, which is now somehow relevant again. Only you try to pretend you're the one teaching it, as if it were something you knew all along. Do you really think people don't see through these obvious stunts?
It certainly seems consistent with the kind of consultant he's been painting himself to be.

I'm reminded of a past job where I'd been advocating for a major server upgrade for years. Since I was a "tech" and not a "manager" my recommendations were ignored. Fast forward a couple years and a new manager is brought in to run IT. He takes my plan, which I've been working on for two years, slaps his name on it and gets it approved.

In an interesting twist, the VP, who'd been hearing nothing but crap about me from the manager, came in during the weekend upgrade. He demanded to know why I was the one telling everyone what to do. In no mood for being politic, I replied with, "Because we're implementing a plan I've been working on for two years. I know what we're doing because I designed the new infrastructure."

The VP looked over to the manager who'd rubber stamped my plan. He was lounging in a corner drinking a cola, largely ignoring all the work going on around him.

That VP took to getting more input from me after that.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 09:43 AM   #382
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,007
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
It certainly seems consistent with the kind of consultant he's been painting himself to be.

I'm reminded of a past job where I'd been advocating for a major server upgrade for years. Since I was a "tech" and not a "manager" my recommendations were ignored. Fast forward a couple years and a new manager is brought in to run IT. He takes my plan, which I've been working on for two years, slaps his name on it and gets it approved.

In an interesting twist, the VP, who'd been hearing nothing but crap about me from the manager, came in during the weekend upgrade. He demanded to know why I was the one telling everyone what to do. In no mood for being politic, I replied with, "Because we're implementing a plan I've been working on for two years. I know what we're doing because I designed the new infrastructure."

The VP looked over to the manager who'd rubber stamped my plan. He was lounging in a corner drinking a cola, largely ignoring all the work going on around him.

That VP took to getting more input from me after that.
Frankly, Buddha's insults to Jay are risible. It is plain that I know vastly more that Buddha, and I pale into insignificance compared to the sheer breadth and scope of Jay's knowledge.

The only reason I have been quiet in this thread is simply because I could not reliably hold my tongue at the absolute buffoonery being spouted in this and previous threads by some participants.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 09:46 AM   #383
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,012
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Good example, thank you. Also that's the field my father was a scientist in for most of his career.

It's too bad Buddha insists on his comically dogmatic statement that no outliers may ever be removed from the data without some theoretically insurmountable consequence. We could otherwise have a good discussion on the nature of outliers. However, in the case of PEAR the discussion is mostly academic. The distributions produced in the independent attempts to replicate the results confirm that Operator 010 was an anomaly, and Dr. Jahn was gracious enough to admit the substance of that conclusion.

One can debate endlessly whether it's advisable -- either in theory or in practice -- to exclude outliers, but your example shows where it's not only advisable but practically mandatory. Adherence to the experimental protocol is essential to avoiding confounds, and where the protocol is known to have been broken it must be assumed the data for those subjects are confounded regardless of their actual values. If one argues that Operator 010 was prematurely disregarded based on nonconformance to expected distributions of PK proficiency, one still has to contend with the anomalous performance according to the volition variable. That could have functioned as an empirical control if the experimenters had been conscientious in their design. Since they weren't, we can't eliminate tampering as a confound. Sadly, dereliction in applying enough controls to detect impropriety in outlying data doesn't translate into being given the benefit of the doubt regarding outliers that appear. That's not how science works.

So then replication becomes the order of the day. Outliers did not appear in the three other studies (two of them independent) using the same design. We have two strong reasons and one moderately strong reason to disregard Operator 010, and only pedantic and conjectural reasons for retaining her. And that's only one of several reasons given by one of PEAR's critics, and only one of PEAR's critics, and only one study alleging to prove psychokinesis. "Is Telekinesis Real?" has devolved into the typical inconsequential nitpicks.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 11:00 AM   #384
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,012
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Were you talking of the Stanford Prison Experiment? In it, one of the guards was a outlier.
Everyone who professes some interest in psychology research should be aware at least of the landmarks, one of them being the Stanford prison experiment. He seems to be waiting for me to give away the ending, even though it's not at all difficult to find the actual reported results or consult the book I repeatedly referred him to.

This is why it's proper to reject his proposed requirement of documentation as a condition of his attention. Well, first it's absurd on its face. It is not necessary to provide a reference every time a fact is stated. He purports to be an expert in statistics, and I've demonstrated my expertise. If it's a conversation between experts, then it should mostly be a discussion from the top of the head. Only one of us is demonstrating expertise.

But his reaction to documentation already provided, either by him or by me, is disappointing. He keeps insisting documentation wasn't provided when it clearly was. He doesn't read or comment on the sources he acknowledges exist. He doesn't even read his own sources, as we discovered Yes, I left the description vague on purpose to see if he would research it on his own from the citations. He didn't. He expects me to tell the whole story, which is at odds with his insinuation that it is improper for me to do so and that I must defer to published authority. To justify his request, he has belatedly tried to set the stage by providing a few cursory citations himself. But the texts at the other end don't say at all what Buddha says they do. Sometimes they merely mention topics he has drawn conclusions about, the implied argument being "This concept exists, therefore I am right about it." That's the cargo-cult approach we've seen him exhibit when he tries to discuss other subjects in which he has purported to be an expert. He's evidently aiming at the common perception that if an article has footnotes, it must be properly researched and reasoned.

This reaction is not mere indifference. Buddha clearly knows how to use the forum quote function, but his desire to do so seems to evaporate entirely when reporting what I say. A couple of days hence, Buddha will write "One of my critics has said..." without saying who said it or where and when. This deprives the reader of the ability (or at least the desire) to confirm the accuracy of the quote. In other words, this gives him the means to lie about what I say in ways that would be more difficult to detect than if he had quoted in the customary fashion. And lie he has. We've seen in his other debates that he relies heavily on straw men. This is just one more example.

So no, someone who shows such a callous disregard of -- if not outright hostility towrd -- the culture of documented responses doesn't get to suddenly impose it on others as a condition of his continued participation. That's entirely dishonest and self-serving.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 11:09 AM   #385
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,012
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
Fourthed! or Forthed!

It's pleasure to read the contributions of real experts!
Thanks, it's appreciated. But of course Buddha is well prepared for this. He's convinced you're all my toadies and that your opinion of his performance therefore shouldn't matter. By his own admission Buddha is impervious to criticism. Here we see one of the ways he achieves this. He simply invents a conspiracy theory to explain sentiment that doesn't go his way.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 11:34 AM   #386
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,012
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
It certainly seems consistent with the kind of consultant he's been painting himself to be.
It's not hard to write a catalogue of deceptive and dishonest arguments Buddha has attempted. Like every other person who tries them, he thinks he's getting away with it. Straw men, well poisoning, divide-and-conquer -- we've seen this all several times before. It's all social engineering. It has nothing to do with psychokinesis or statistics or scientific methodology. All those topics were exhausted pages ago. Now it's just gaslighting and insults.

I'm not soured on the whole concept of consultancy. But I agree that it seems to attract a larger proportion of dishonest practitioners who rely on exactly this sort of browbeating to defray criticism.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 11:48 AM   #387
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,982
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I'm not soured on the whole concept of consultancy. But I agree that it seems to attract a larger proportion of dishonest practitioners who rely on exactly this sort of browbeating to defray criticism.
I've worked with some spectacular consultants. My current employer has entire lines of business that exist thanks to healthy relationships with consultants who got us bootstrapped on some new technology.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 12:16 PM   #388
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,267
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Everyone who professes some interest in psychology research should be aware at least of the landmarks, one of them being the Stanford prison experiment. He seems to be waiting for me to give away the ending, even though it's not at all difficult to find the actual reported results or consult the book I repeatedly referred him to.
Don't worry, he'll eventually google that Zimbardo's is a no-no from a "modern" point of view -I don't want to reveal anything about it- and then he'll tell he was the first one in expressing concern about it.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
He keeps insisting documentation wasn't provided when it clearly was.
Repeatedly, indeed. But he'll continue to do it as, what else could he do to avoid falling flat on his face? Put yourself in his lapti.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes, I left the description vague on purpose to see if he would research it on his own from the citations. He didn't. He expects me to tell the whole story, ...
That why I've been cultivating vagueness here since 2011, after two years of finding that any polished explanation comes back to you in even more warped ways.

You should reply in style sometimes, adding some hogwash to that effect -and hiding hints pointing the keenest minds that you know what you're talking about-. If they want to know, let them get some education.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
This reaction is not mere indifference. Buddha clearly knows how to use the forum quote function, but his desire to do so seems to evaporate entirely when reporting what I say.
He makes walls of text using your own posts. I suggest you not to enable such distractive behaviours and doing that by splitting your messages in as many posts the bits you quote from "Buddha" determine.

Your long posts allows "Buddha" to ignore 90% of their content. He making lies of the remaining 10%, you won't be able to avoid it.

Your long, well reasoned, craved-by-everyone posts are to be written as standalone pieces, not as a reply to "Buddha" 's tomfoolery. Let him quote your original work instead of you quoting his tosh.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
A couple of days hence, Buddha will write "One of my critics has said..." without saying who said it or where and when. This deprives the reader of the ability (or at least the desire) to confirm the accuracy of the quote.
Yes, he plays dirty. Knowingly. It's what survivalists of their own made tragedies do. "Buddha" 's hogwash doesn't deserve but short replies and teaching moments. Let's set that as the standard of every thread involving "Buddha" 's. [if abaddon agrees]
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.

Last edited by aleCcowaN; 6th September 2018 at 12:21 PM.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2018, 04:17 PM   #389
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,503
Demonstrations of telekinesis under laboratory conditions seem pretty unlikely. However, it is possible that there are people with telekinesis who simply avoid being tested.

The judgement of the likelihood of the latter will be affected by one's fundamental beliefs about reality. I believe this is probably all a dream, so telekinesis would not be surprising to me. Materialists would probably consider it very unlikely, except those materialists who consider it a real possibility that we're in a simulation. Because if we're in a simulation, then pretty much anything is possible.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 6th September 2018 at 04:20 PM.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 04:08 AM   #390
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,007
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Yes, he plays dirty. Knowingly. It's what survivalists of their own made tragedies do. "Buddha" 's hogwash doesn't deserve but short replies and teaching moments. Let's set that as the standard of every thread involving "Buddha" 's. [if abaddon agrees]
Anything for you, honey.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 04:25 AM   #391
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,407
I've been reading this thread, but with only a couple of college courses on statistics under my belt (that I haven't had to use for so long I've probably forgotten most) I don't have anything to contribute that posters like JayUtah can't say much much better.

I would like to submit that I googled Zimbardo, and he looks exactly like I would expect a guy named Zimbardo to look.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 05:03 AM   #392
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,267
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Anything for you, honey.

Thank you, luv.


Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
I've been reading this thread, but with only a couple of college courses on statistics under my belt...

That is probably one or two courses more than "Buddha" 's, if we judge from the skills shown.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.

Last edited by aleCcowaN; 7th September 2018 at 05:10 AM.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:42 AM   #393
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 219
Intuitive Data Sorting
Up to this point, we have assumed that if the REG data are ultimately
explainable by some paranormal principle, that principle implies some causal
influence on the REG; i.e., it involves PK. An alternative interpretation
is suggested by a model called "intuitive data sorting" (IDS) proposed by
* May, Radin, Hubbard, Humphrey, and Utts (1985) to account for REG PK data
generally. According to this model, significance occurs because of a
psi-mediated selection of the starting point of the sequence of random
events so as to capture locally "biased" subsequences. For example, if
significance is defined as p<.05, one of every 20 sequences from a truly
random source should be significanIntuitive Data Sorting
Up to this point, we have assumed that if the REG data are ultimately
explainable by some paranormal principle, that principle implies some causal
influence on the REG; i.e., it involves PK. An alternative interpretation
is suggested by a model called "intuitive data sorting" (IDS) proposed by
* May, Radin, Hubbard, Humphrey, and Utts (1985) to account for REG PK data
generally. According to this model, significance occurs because of a
psi-mediated selection of the starting point of the sequence of random
events so as to capture locally "biased" subsequences. For example, if
significance is defined as p<.05, one of every 20 sequences from a truly
random source should be significantly "biased." If such sequences were
captured more frequently than I in 20 times, a cumulatively significant
deviation could result. An attractive feature of the IDS model is that it
seems to account better than competing causal models for the failure o
.. significance to increase as N increases, a trend that is evident
in the actual data base (May et al., 1985). It is also noteworthy that
Schmidt had considered a similar hypothesis several years earlier (see
p. 98).” Palmer, page 212

Thus is the title of May’s article, Psi Experiments with Random Number Generators: an Informal Model.

It seems strange that Palmer used this article to support his analysis because May and his colleagues wrote it in favor of the telekinesis. I suspect that Palmer distorted the authors’ evaluation of telekinesis because his interpretation invalidates their research. However, the article is not available on the Internet, so I will be criticizing Palmer’s interpretation of it.

In theory, you can choose a locally “biased” sequence if you try hard enough. However, this is not how things work in real world. If Palmer interpretation is correct, nothing can be inferred in all other applications that use statistical methods of data analysis.

Suppose, you have determined in advance the length of a sequence of samples of electric circuits you have to take to decide that the number of defective ones exceeds specified limit indicating that something is wrong with the manufacturing process. For whatever reason that only Palmer has knowledge of, you might decide that the process had produced a “biased” sequence, and continue sampling. Then a new sequence would indicate that the manufacturing process is fine, and stop sampling. But Palmer will tell you that your new sequence is, actually, a “biased” subsequence, and you must go on with the sampling. This means that, if Palmer is correct, a sampling never ends. This nonsense implies that all statistical methods are at fault no matter what application you choose.
In reality, you use certain statistical methods to determine the length of a sampling sequence in advance, and then use the results of a sampling to draw a conclusion.

I wish I could have a link to May’s article to see what the authors wrote themselves, without the idiotic Palmer interpretation of their words.
Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 07:47 AM   #394
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,267
Hey Jay, as "Buddha" is gonna ignore it for ever, why don't you tackle Jeffers or any other interesting paper or article suggested here? It would be better that replying to the copypasta of the usual suspect.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:04 AM   #395
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,012
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
It seems strange that Palmer used this article to support his analysis because May and his colleagues wrote it in favor of the telekinesis.
It seems strange you don't know that Palmer believes in psychokinesis and was one of the prominent researchers in favor of it. That doesn't stop him from being a conscientious peer reviewer, of course, but you're so intent on vilifying him you don't even know who he is or what he does.

Quote:
However, the article is not available on the Internet...
Why should that stop you? Are you merely an armchair scholar?

Quote:
This means that, if Palmer is correct, a sampling never ends. This nonsense implies that all statistical methods are at fault no matter what application you choose.
Here's a tip. When you draw a conclusion that seems to invalidate an entire well-established field, it's probably your conclusion that's wrong and not the whole field. That's how the real world works. The conclusion you're trying desperately to cram into Palmer's mouth is your conclusion, not his. Statistics is not at all hampered by the consequences of not actually being able to achieve infinity. It is, in fact, empowered by it.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:15 AM   #396
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,982
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
(Irrelevant statistics onanism clipped for brevity)
Seriously dude, what are you trying to achieve here? The study has been proven to be garbage. Even the study's original author conceded the baseline was crap and blamed it on telekinetic powers. Do you have anything better than this study or are you going to keep beating that dead horse?

__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:20 AM   #397
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,012
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Hey Jay, as "Buddha" is gonna ignore it for ever, why don't you tackle Jeffers or any other interesting paper or article suggested here? It would be better that replying to the copypasta of the usual suspect.
I already summarized the gist of Jeffers' argument in one of my previous lengthy threads, where I talked about the answer to "Pick a number between 1 and 10" as either an integer or a real number.

Inasmuch as Buddha seems to want no more than to use this forum as a pulpit from which to preach his own greatness (and borrow the expertise of other posters to do so) I'm not going to fuel that fire in that way. When and if Buddha ever gets around to Jeffers, I don't want him regurgitating my analysis and pretending he thought of it. I wouldn't deprive the forum of the amusement of watching Buddha fumble through it. Remind me again after Buddha re-purposes this thread and flounces, as we know he will.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:32 AM   #398
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,982
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Remind me again after Buddha re-purposes this thread and flounces, as we know he will.
He's holding onto this one with a lot more tenacity than he has previous threads. I suspect your successful exposing of his ignorance about statistics hit a bit too close to home for his taste. He may very well make this the hill he dies on, morphing this into a true Jabba thread.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:35 AM   #399
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,267
Originally Posted by "Buddha"
Intuitive Data Sorting
Up to this point, we have assumed that if the REG data are ultimately
explainable by some paranormal principle, that principle implies some causal
influence on the REG; i.e., it involves PK. An alternative interpretation
is suggested by a model called "intuitive data sorting" (IDS) proposed by
* May, Radin, Hubbard, Humphrey, and Utts (1985) to account for REG PK data
generally. According to this model, significance occurs because of a
psi-mediated selection of the starting point of the sequence of random
events so as to capture locally "biased" subsequences. For example, if
significance is defined as p<.05, one of every 20 sequences from a truly
random source should be significanIntuitive Data Sorting
Up to this point, we have assumed that if the REG data are ultimately
explainable by some paranormal principle, that principle implies some causal
influence on the REG; i.e., it involves PK. An alternative interpretation
is suggested by a model called "intuitive data sorting" (IDS) proposed by
* May, Radin, Hubbard, Humphrey, and Utts (1985) to account for REG PK data
generally. According to this model, significance occurs because of a
psi-mediated selection of the starting point of the sequence of random
events so as to capture locally "biased" subsequences. For example, if
significance is defined as p<.05, one of every 20 sequences from a truly
random source should be significantly "biased." If such sequences were
captured more frequently than I in 20 times, a cumulatively significant
deviation could result. An attractive feature of the IDS model is that it
seems to account better than competing causal models for the failure o
.. significance to increase as N increases, a trend that is evident
in the actual data base (May et al., 1985). It is also noteworthy that
Schmidt had considered a similar hypothesis several years earlier (see
p. 98).” Palmer, page 212
That is a misquoting of Palmer's.

Quote:
Thus is the title of May’s article, Psi Experiments with Random Number Generators: an Informal Model.
It's Psi Experiments with Random Number Generators: an Informational Model, clumsy you. It's included in "Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention with
Random Number Generators. A Meta-Analysis
" by Bösch, Steinkamp and Boller

Originally Posted by "Buddha"
<snipped>
Really?
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2018, 08:46 AM   #400
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
“ An opportunity to test the optional-stopping hypothesis is suggested by the fact that the degree to which optional
stopping was potentially operative seems to have varied from series to
series. In 24 of the series, the number of runs in the PK+ and PK- modes
was identical. In 23 of these, the number of runs per type was either 2500
or 5000; in the remaining series it was 3000 runs. It is very unlikely
that optional stopping was a factor in these series. Thus, if the
optional-stopping hypothesis were correct, one would expect lower scoring in
these series than in the other 37.” Palmer, 120

This is bald-faced lie,
??????

That statement you quoted is just common sense - how is it a "bald-faced lie"? If points out that some of the series the numbers are identical and also nice and round, and therefore they likely didn't do anything shady like deliberately stop at a good point.

So if you want to test if they did that elsewhere, you can compare to these tests and see if there's a difference in favor of tests where they stopped at a suspicious point. If they're way better than these ones that's something that might imply there's some shenanigans going on.
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:34 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.