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 21st August 2018, 05:49 AM   #81
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,595
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
A spectacular argument to end a thread when there is nothing else to say. To me this sounds like a defeat.
...and therefor you are declaring victory....again.

Last edited by The Sparrow; 21st August 2018 at 05:55 AM.
The Sparrow 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 21st August 2018, 05:50 AM   #82
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,168
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
When you do not present arguments showing why this research should be rejected, this is not a criticism but a personal opinion.
As usual, no substantive arguments -- just your usual social-engineering nonsense.

You waffled on about reproducibility. Did you forget that PEAR engaged two other universities, who were unable to reproduce PEAR's findings? You tried to hide behind quantum mechanics, but that doesn't explain why PEAR's findings are irreproducible. Since that was the only topic you actually addressed without handwaving, I would have expected you to know this and to have addressed it in your case-in-chief.
JayUtah 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 21st August 2018, 05:52 AM   #83
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: 27,903
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
Actually, there are more than three counter-arguments, I just chose the most popular ones.
That is, of course, a blatant lie, because you made no attempt to gauge popularity; you simply chose the three that you believed (with as little foundation, apparently, as all your other beliefs) you could most credibly handwave away.

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 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 21st August 2018, 05:59 AM   #84
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: 9,397
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post

When you say that a method was used incorrectly, it means that the results of an experiment were misinterpreted. However, the critics didn't bother how to explain that the results were misinterpreted, so the ball is in their court.
Please, try to command your English, and cease your infantile attempts at storytelling.

And yes, the "critics" always explained how the results were misinterpreted. As in the paper I've already linked and you're persistently ignoring.
__________________
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 21st August 2018, 06:01 AM   #85
Buddha
Thinker
 
Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 249
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes, they do.



I'm sure you do, but you have established a history of exaggerating or outright fabricating expertise you do not have and cannot demonstrate. The people who rightly criticized PEAR for statistical shenanigans demonstrated themselves to be far more proficient about statistical methodology than you give them credit for.

So no, you don't get to sweep this under the carpet. If your argument is that PEAR's methods were statistically valid despite the well-supported criticism to the contrary, you will have to put your money where your mouth is. That means explain in detail why the criticism is wrong. Show your work. No gaslighting. Assume your audience is capable of understanding as much statistics as you can possibly bring to bear. If you read the attempt of the last guy to prove reincarnation, you will see that this is not an audience you can simply call ignorant and bluff your way past.

Put up or shut up, Buddha.



No, that is not what is meant by reproducibility in empirical study.



No, that is not how logic works. You don't get to speculatively attribute unexplained error to some imagined cause because some error in some other experiment was uncontrolled.

Also -- since you have a habit of restating your purpose at the end of a debate -- please confirm that your purpose in this thread is to prove that PEAR's conclusions are valid. We don't need to proceed if you're simply going to attempt this, fail as usual, and then redfine your purpose to save face.
40% of American's have either BS or MS in science, engineering, economics, etc. I hardly see my MS in Mechanical Engineering as a reason to glow. On another board I pointed it out to my opponent who said that MS is an equivalent to PhD, and said that he had PhD in Theoretical Physics. Apparently, he didn't have an associate degree and perhaps, even a high school diploma. He kind of remind me of you because my degree and technical career seem to be bothering you. Control systems engineering is not a spectacular occupation, there is noting to brag about although it involves certain amount of research. Data analysis doesn't involve any scientific research, we use the methods that were developed long time ago. The salary is good, though, it might make you envious, specially if you lack higher education.

Enlighten me on the topic of reproducibility. Explain why I am wrong.

"You don't get to speculatively attribute unexplained error to some imagined cause because some error in some other experiment was uncontrolled".
You use big words, but I do not understand your statement. If I do not understand something, I am not embarrassed to say that it is beyond my understanding. Do me a favor and paraphrase your statement in simple terms so I could understand it.
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 21st August 2018, 06:01 AM   #86
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: 9,397
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
These methods have been used for almost a century, they were developed in 1920s and withstood the test of time, so they are valid, at least for the mathematicians who use them. This case is no different from a mathematician's point of view.

Stop trying to pad your posts with fluff as if you're reasoning or something.
__________________
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 21st August 2018, 06:02 AM   #87
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,168
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
These methods have been used...
No, don't regurgitate a hastily-Googled irrelevance to deflect your responsibility. You're claiming to be professionally competent in statistical methods, and you're the one claiming Jahn's critics are incompetent. I require an actual demonstration of your expertise to back that up.

Quote:
However, the critics didn't bother how to explain that the results were misinterpreted...
Yes, they did. In detail.

Quote:
..so the ball is in their court.
No, it isn't. You're the one claiming Jahn's critics are incompetent and that as a result their criticism is invalid. If this isn't just your usual bluff, this implies you know what the criticism is and precisely how it is flawed. But you can't demonstrate any such knowledge. All you can do is your standard bluff-and-bluster. The ball is in your court to identify Jahn's critics you based your opening post one and explain in detail what's wrong with their analysis. But I suspect you can't do it, and so now we'll spend page after page watching you weasel out of any responsibility to do so. You can't put up, and you won't shut up.

You wrote a book on evolution that exposed your ignorance of biology. You tried to prove the existence of God, which ended up showing your ignorance of philosophy. You tried to say that reincarnation was empirically proven, which ended up showing your ignorance of empirical methods. Your sojourn at this forum is a long litany of you claiming expertise you clearly do not have and clearly cannot demonstrate. Why should your critics believe that your claimed expertise in statistical analysis is nothing more than yet another delusion of grandeur that you will be unwilling and unable to support?

Quote:
Of course, I haven't seen all negative responses.
Then it was premature for you to claim your critics are incompetent and premature for you to declare victory.
JayUtah 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 21st August 2018, 06:04 AM   #88
Buddha
Thinker
 
Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 249
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
That's... that's it? That's what you're bringing to the table? This has been thoroughly looked at, many times. They're bad studies. You don't have anything new, or anything more convincing?

Here, educate yourself:

http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_...act_or_fallacy



Okay cool, when are you planning on doing that? Or was that it? Do you consider listing off a few oversimplified bullet points and then dismissing them without actually refuting them "going over them"?

Here's what that would look like if you were a Flat Earther:



Do you see why this is totally worthless analysis? You didn't actually address the specific complaints, complaints which are valid and detailed and which are available with around 30 seconds of Googling.
I am going to plea ignorance on this one. I joined this group recently. so I didn't know that there are similar threads.
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 21st August 2018, 06:07 AM   #89
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'
Posts: 14,036
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
Enlighten me on the topic of reproducibility. Explain why I am wrong.
Again?
Lothian 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 21st August 2018, 06:08 AM   #90
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,168
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
40% of American's have...
Stop padding your posts with irrelevancy. If you're going to tell us you have only precious little time to post each day, then stop wasting it in this fashion.

Quote:
Enlighten me on the topic of reproducibility. Explain why I am wrong.
Already done.

Quote:
You use big words, but I do not understand your statement.
Then read it again until you do. You're drawing a false analogy. As I said, logic doesn't seem to be something you do well. No, I won't repeat myself and let you kick the can down the road another day.

Quote:
If I do not understand something, I am not embarrassed to say that it is beyond my understanding.
I'll remember that the next time you deflect criticism and dodge questions by asserting that you're so much smarter than your critics.
JayUtah 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 21st August 2018, 06:08 AM   #91
Buddha
Thinker
 
Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 249
This is my offer to my opponents Provide links to articles that criticize this Princeton research, and I will respond to their authors' criticism. That might take time, but I am willing to discuss their articles because so far I have not seen direct criticism of the research by my opponents, instead they chose to criticize me. I am not complaining because no amount of critique bothers me, but I want to make this discussion fruitful so I am waiting for the links. I'll be back tomorrow.
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 21st August 2018, 06:09 AM   #92
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,168
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I am going to plea ignorance on this one. I joined this group recently. so I didn't know that there are similar threads.
This has nothing to do with what he posted. It's not a matter of being new to the forum. It's a matter of simple reading comprehension, which seems to be eluding you today.
JayUtah 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 21st August 2018, 06:14 AM   #93
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: 9,397
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
40% of American's have either BS or MS in science, engineering, economics, etc. I hardly see my MS in Mechanical Engineering as a reason to glow. On another board I pointed it out to my opponent who said that MS is an equivalent to PhD, and said that he had PhD in Theoretical Physics. Apparently, he didn't have an associate degree and perhaps, even a high school diploma. He kind of remind me of you because my degree and technical career seem to be bothering you. Control systems engineering is not a spectacular occupation, there is noting to brag about although it involves certain amount of research. Data analysis doesn't involve any scientific research, we use the methods that were developed long time ago. The salary is good, though, it might make you envious, specially if you lack higher education.
Where did you "get" such wrong piece of statistics about "American's"? (meaning "next time come up with better BS")

We all are pointing some inadequacy feelings suggested by your posts and how frequently you try the self-aggrandizing path. It's just that. Your English doesn't match the one a foreigner who studies and gets a degree in an American university would show.

Why don't you try to be original and address the arguments in the posts instead of this permanent charade of yours?
__________________
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 21st August 2018, 06:14 AM   #94
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: 27,903
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
This is my offer to my opponents Provide links to articles that criticize this Princeton research, and I will respond to their authors' criticism.
Since the links have already been provided and you haven't responded to them, your offer isn't looking very credible right now.

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 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 21st August 2018, 06:18 AM   #95
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: 9,397
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You can't put up, and you won't shut up.
I that pretty much summarizes the "Buddha" way.
__________________
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 21st August 2018, 06:23 AM   #96
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: 9,397
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Why should your critics the people who put up with your shenanigans believe that your claimed expertise in statistical analysis is nothing more than yet another delusion of grandeur that you will be unwilling and unable to support?
if you don't mind me amending that.

The persistent ways of the likes of "Buddha" always makes one to buy part of his insidious propaganda. "Having critics" is just a component of his self-aggrandizing.
__________________
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 21st August 2018, 06:25 AM   #97
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,168
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
This is my offer to my opponents Provide links to articles that criticize this Princeton research...
Already done. You even quoted a couple of them without reading or responding to them.

Quote:
That might take time...
Which will be better used if you stick to the points raised and stop telling irrelevant stories. It will also be better spent if you read all the responses that have accumulated from the previous day before responding to any of them. That way you can avoid embarrassing gaffes like challenging me to tell you what you got wrong about reproducibility before realizing that in subsequent posts I covered the topic in some appreciable depth. You could have skipped the challenge and gone right to your defense. As it stands, you are already a day behind, and your critics' substantive posts are unanswered.

Quote:
...so far I have not seen direct criticism of the research by my opponents...
If you haven't seen any actual criticism of PEAR, then how were you able to determine in your opening post that their authors didn't know what they were talking about? Before publicly accusing people of incompetence, maybe you should actually familiarize yourself with who they actually are and what they have actually written.

Quote:
...instead they chose to criticize me. I am not complaining because no amount of critique bothers me...
But for some reason you keep trying to play the victim for rhetorical effect.

Quote:
...but I want to make this discussion fruitful so I am waiting for the links. I'll be back tomorrow.
You didn't have to wait. The link to Dr. Jeffers' criticism of PEAR was posted. Twice. You even quoted it in one of your responses.

This is very rude. You were even given links to prior discussions of PEAR here at ISF before you even started this thread. You were directed early yesterday to the material your critics wanted you to address, and you've wasted today implying that you have nothing to respond to.

If you truly want to make this discussion fruitful, then the first thing you need to do is stop blaming your critics for why it's not making headway. We are only three pages in, and you are already delinquent in your responses. Tomorrow you'll be two days behind.
JayUtah 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 21st August 2018, 06:27 AM   #98
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: 9,397
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I am going to plea ignorance on this one. I joined this group recently. so I didn't know that there are similar threads.
Don't make excuses and, mainly, stop lying! You were informed about several of the many threads on this subject by JayUtah before you started this thread. But that wouldn't stop you, would it? You have to have control of the playground so you can fake your way.
__________________
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 21st August 2018, 06:29 AM   #99
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: 9,397
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
This is my offer to my opponents Provide links to articles that criticize this Princeton research, and I will respond to their authors' criticism.

Already done yesterday and reminded to you today more than once, and you conveniently ignored it, so, stop lying your way.
__________________
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; 21st August 2018 at 06:37 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 21st August 2018, 06:32 AM   #100
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,168
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
We all are pointing some inadequacy feelings suggested by your posts and how frequently you try the self-aggrandizing path.
It wouldn't be a Buddha thread without his copious mentions of how accomplished he is.
JayUtah 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 21st August 2018, 06:33 AM   #101
tinribmancer
Hasbarian NWO Templar Cattle
 
tinribmancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,626
Is Telekinesis Real?

Sure, I've seen people clapping their hands in a room and then the lights go on. And when they clap their hands again, the lights go out. Amazing!
__________________
"Bravery Is Not A Function Of Firepower." - JC Denton

"And belief in conspiracy theories is not the function of a higher intellect." - BStrong
tinribmancer 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 21st August 2018, 07:20 AM   #102
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,474
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Because telekinesis (really psychokinesis) is more broadly defined. It is defined as the ability of someone to influence a remote physical system using only thought. ("Remote" meaning, of course, not connected to the brain. Obviously thoughts control the physical system of the organism the thoughts arise in.)

Commonly we define psychokinesis as the ability to move things with the mind,
Yeah, sorry. I thought that, given the name teleKINESIS, it would have something to do with movement.

kinesis comes from the Greek "movement"

Sounds like a bait-and-switch by the woo crowd to me. Go back to the levitators bouncing around on mats, and calling it "levitation."

We can levitate!!!!
You are just bouncing around.
Well, levitation includes bouncing around.
No, it doesn't. That's not levitation.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold 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 21st August 2018, 07:25 AM   #103
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,168
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
Data analysis doesn't involve any scientific research, we use the methods that were developed long time ago.
Employ those methods, if you think they are applicable, in this thread to demonstrate how Jahn's critics got their analysis wrong. Don't talk about the methods. Anyone with access to Google can do that. Use them, please. Otherwise your critics will probably be compelled to conclude that statistical modeling as used in the experimental sciences is just one more body of understanding you're bluffing about knowing.

Quote:
You use big words...
I use the words I feel are appropriate to the discussion. You'll need to come up to speed if you find that a challenge.

Quote:
Do me a favor and paraphrase your statement in simple terms so I could understand it.
No. Someone who so often accuses his critics of being ignorant and stupid -- especially when they clearly aren't -- gets no such quarter. Nor will I, as a matter of principle, allow any claimant to dictate in what way or to what extent I must formulate my responses to him. You don't get to script the debate.

The statement you find so perplexing says that you're trying to draw a false analogy between PEAR's research and double-slit experiments that reveal quantum effects. Had you bothered to read yesterday's posts through to completion -- which you admit you didn't -- you would have seen that I went into some depth about the difference between the double-slit phenomenon and other experimental methods that have nothing to do with quantum mechanics. I even expressed the difference in statistics terms, which you claim to be proficient in. There is really no excuse for your lack of understanding at that point, and certainly no justification for your insinuation that I need to explain myself further, or in different terms.
JayUtah 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 21st August 2018, 07:36 AM   #104
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: 9,397
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
You use big words, but I do not understand your statement. If I do not understand something, I am not embarrassed to say that it is beyond my understanding. Do me a favor and paraphrase your statement in simple terms so I could understand it.
And you have the nerve to say this? In the end you will be asking this thread to be in Russian.

And you are indeed embarrassed, otherwise you would have listed each phrase you didn't understand for us to comment on those until you finally get them.
__________________
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 21st August 2018, 08:13 AM   #105
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I am going to plea ignorance on this one. I joined this group recently. so I didn't know that there are similar threads.
1. That's incorrect, someone helpfully posted a bunch of links to other discussions on this topic for you once you announced it would be your next thread.

2. That's not what I was saying anyway - I was saying that you clearly hadn't done the bare minimum of research on this topic and were bringing nothing new to the table.

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
This is my offer to my opponents Provide links to articles that criticize this Princeton research, and I will respond to their authors' criticism.
I did that, you quoted it, and you didn't reply. Here it is again:

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post

Last edited by SOdhner; 21st August 2018 at 08:14 AM.
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
Old 21st August 2018, 08:57 AM   #106
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,168
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Yeah, sorry. I thought that, given the name teleKINESIS, it would have something to do with movement.
It does. Adding heat to something, for example, means getting the molecules to move faster. Bending a spoon, which implies softening the metal artificially, I think necessitates causing movement. But for Buddha's presentation we can't limit the phenomenon to making objects slide dramatically across the table. The experiments he's citing involve a much more subtle claim.

Quote:
Sounds like a bait-and-switch by the woo crowd to me. Go back to the levitators bouncing around on mats, and calling it "levitation."
I think it's bait-and-switch because you're right when you insinuate that most people think psychokinesis means the dramatic, visible movement of objects, leaving no doubt that a physical effect has occurred. And in Buddhism, psychokinesis is certainly tied to such feats as levitation, which is supposed to be evidence of having achieved a level of spiritual awareness. So when we expect dramatic -- or at least unquestionably evident -- effects, it's disappointing to see the "scientific" proof for it occur in the form of barely detectable influence over an already chaotic system. If the limit of scientifically detectable psychokinesis only appears under a statistical microscope with Vaseline on the lens, then it's still parsimonious to explain the more dramatic feats as parlour magic or doctored video. I know how Criss Angel does his street levitation trick; it's stupidly simple.
JayUtah 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 21st August 2018, 10:51 AM   #107
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,593
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It wouldn't be a Buddha thread without his copious mentions of how accomplished he is.
Which is yet another unevidenced claim attracting a great deal of skeptism.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer 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 21st August 2018, 12:30 PM   #108
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,474
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
If the limit of scientifically detectable psychokinesis only appears under a statistical microscope with Vaseline on the lens, then it's still parsimonious to explain the more dramatic feats as parlour magic or doctored video. I know how Criss Angel does his street levitation trick; it's stupidly simple.
I like the description of it as the "telekinesis of the gaps." As our tests get better and better, and there is nothing there, then what is meant telekinesis gets less and less visible.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold 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 22nd August 2018, 03:21 AM   #109
Shuca
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Croatia
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The Force is strong in this one!

Wonder if there are cultural reasons why it fades into and out of favour.
Well, I don't know...

It seems that when parapsychology community find some new theory which could account as an explanation of PK or some other anomalous phenomena they try to back it up by some 'new' methods and research. Anyway, I look forward seeing what results will they get.

When a large scale replication of PEAR experiment followed in several laboratories, the results were negative:

"If the claims are credible, it should be possible for other groups to replicate them. To their credit, the PEAR group did enlist two other groups, both based at German universities (Jahn et al. 2000) to engage in a triple effort at replication. These attempts failed to reproduce the claimed effects. Even the PEAR group was unable to reproduce a credible effect.", source: https://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_...act_or_fallacy

I just wonder are random number generators truly random or are prone producing results that observers could interpret as anomaly?
Shuca 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 22nd August 2018, 04:00 AM   #110
Shuca
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Croatia
Posts: 28
Regarding the more recent ‘PK’ experiments with ‘talented’ persons, I have found an experiment with a guy named Ariel Farias which was conducted in Argentina. There are some videos, so we can evaluate them properly.

In short, this guy was tested if he can ‘levitate’ a table without using muscles. He didn’t succeed in moving table and other smaller objects without placing hands on them. However, he somehow moved table up and down with only placing hands on the table. It seems that ‘PK’ works only when hands are touching an object.
It is interesting to note that magicians who were shown the video said it was just a friction, but researchers object to that remark by saying that the flor was slippery, and they couldn’t reproduce what the test subject did, source: https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/a...s/ariel-farias (the article was written by S. Braude, a PSI proponent, the original paper can be found online)

Here is video 1 with Braude comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stoi27PugKI

Here is video 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfWwb5L1PpM

More can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpCS...thWFAR5gHTKCLc

I am not a professional conjurer or magician, but it seems that this guy uses a hands-on technique for moving the table.

It is also interesting to note that researchers didn’t allow skeptics to attend testing:

The only thing that seemed to reverse the decline in Ariel’s phenomena was the occasional visit from a ‘VIP’, or at least from certain of them. Ariel could clearly anticipate how the attitude of the visitor would influence his will and temper. We had requests from professional magicians, orthodox scientists, and professed skeptics (actually psi-deniers) certain from the start either that Ariel’s phenomena were fraudulent or that his investigators had committed some kind of error which they were determined to uncover. Previous encounters with members of that latter group had been unpleasant and inhibiting for Ariel. So further requests from that group were indefinitely delayed. On the other hand, when the visitor showed respect for and knowledge of the evidence for macro-PK and arrived with an open but critical mind, Ariel considered the situation to be a positive challenge. Indeed, these occasions often yielded some of his best results in terms of intensity and duration of the phenomena.”, source: https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/a...s/ariel-farias

So, this is one of the best PK evidence for Braude produced in a laboratory.

I just wonder what would happen if the researchers put baby powder on hands of the test subject or a piece of paper between his hands and the table… Or if the table had four legs and not three...

Last edited by Shuca; 22nd August 2018 at 04:04 AM.
Shuca 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 22nd August 2018, 04:20 AM   #111
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,911
That is meant to be the best?

I could and can do that if I'm allowed to touch the table with my hands and arms.

Also note he never attempts to put his hands in the middle of the table and lift all three legs off the floor.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 22nd August 2018, 04:26 AM   #112
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,911
Is that really foxing any one with any critical facilities? How could anyone be fooled by that performance?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 22nd August 2018, 04:52 AM   #113
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,644
Some people want to be fooled ..
Dr.Sid 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 22nd August 2018, 05:03 AM   #114
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: 27,903
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
Some people want to be fooled ..
... and they're apparently the only kind allowed to witness these phenomena.

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 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 22nd August 2018, 06:13 AM   #115
Buddha
Thinker
 
Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 249
FYI

IEEE (American Society of Electrical Engineers) had published several articles written by the Princeton ESP scientists, I can give a link to at least one of their articles. Even though I am a mechanical engineer, I am an IEEE member because I like their magazines on control systems and AI. B y the way, anyone can join IEEE as long as they pay its yearly fee, do there is nothing to brag about.

IEE follow the highest standards of publications on a par with the Physical Review standards, all submitted articles are subjected to peer reviews. This tells something about the professional level of the Princeton research team, doesn’t it?
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 22nd August 2018, 06:17 AM   #116
Buddha
Thinker
 
Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 249
The right way to discuss the Princeton research is to read the articles written by its critics. Here is the link to the article written by one the most outspoken critics of the research

http://www.nap.edu/read/778/chapter/7#640

Basically, it says that the Princeton research group gave incorrect interpretation of their research results because their results are below the significance level, although the group claims the opposite.

How could this happen? The researchers used a standard version of two-sided t-test to draw the conclusion, while the critic (he is not the author of the article, but the author sited his work) transformed the results to fit, as he says, the same t-test. The newly interpreted test shows the results that are below the significance level.

The way I see it, the critic “massaged” the data to fit it into his version of truth, as Guilianni put it while defending his client, Trump. This technique might work in the world of politics, but it is not acceptable in the world of science.

This is part1 of the article, the next one deals with the randomization process used by the research group. Unfortunately, I do not have time to discuss it today (it took me more than an hour to read the article and prepare response to it; today I do not have time to respond to my opponents’ posts, but I will do it tomorrow).

I am trying to be thorough and push this discussion in the right direction rather than responding to useless personal attacks. (Personal stuff doesn’t bother me at all, but I see it as a waste of time).
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 22nd August 2018, 06:25 AM   #117
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,911
Buddha many of us have been over this time and time again. I suggest you use the forum's search function for the past very long and very detailed threads. If you then have anything *new* to add I'm sure folk would be happy to discuss it. I suspect many folk are not very interested in rehashing the same old stuff again.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 22nd August 2018, 06:35 AM   #118
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: 9,397
Look how he is ignoring tens of posts pulverizing his shenanigans, as usual.

Originally Posted by Buddha
Even though I am a mechanical engineer, I am an IEEE member because I like their magazines on control systems and AI.
Your qualifications keep changing.

And Linkedin profiles match part of what you have told about yourself when you combine several people

Originally Posted by Buddha
This tells something about the professional level of the Princeton research team, doesn’t it?
You obviously know nothing about this forum. It's countless the "peer reviewed" garbage we have debunked here.

Besides, it's obvious your collection of fallacies includes argumentum ad verecundiam.
__________________
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 22nd August 2018, 06:36 AM   #119
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 4,927
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
FYI

IEEE (American Society of Electrical Engineers) had published several articles written by the Princeton ESP scientists, I can give a link to at least one of their articles. Even though I am a mechanical engineer, I am an IEEE member because I like their magazines on control systems and AI. B y the way, anyone can join IEEE as long as they pay its yearly fee, do there is nothing to brag about.

IEE follow the highest standards of publications on a par with the Physical Review standards, all submitted articles are subjected to peer reviews. This tells something about the professional level of the Princeton research team, doesn’t it?
Just for clarity, are you citing the American Society of Electrical Engineers (ASEE), or the American institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE), or the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers (IEEE), or what?
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal 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 22nd August 2018, 06:53 AM   #120
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: 9,397
Originally Posted by "Buddha" View Post
The right way to discuss the Princeton research is to read the articles written by its critics.
And that's why by so far ignoring three "articles" that discuss "the Princeton research" you have acknowledged them to be right.


Originally Posted by "Buddha" View Post
Here is the link to the article written by one the most outspoken critics of the research

http://www.nap.edu/read/778/chapter/7#640
Outspoken according to who? Wouldn't it better be one of the worst articles so you can try your way to say something about it?

Originally Posted by "Buddha" View Post
How could this happen? The researchers used a standard version of two-sided t-test to draw the conclusion, while the critic (he is not the author of the article, but the author sited his work) transformed the results to fit, as he says, the same t-test. The newly interpreted test shows the results that are below the significance level.
If you were familiar with peer reviewed papers -they're not called articles- at least you would know it is "cited" and not "sited".

And it looks you managed to get something written for a third party so, that's not the way to discuss criticism on the subject. That is the way you're driving traffic towards marginal content about which you have replies already prepared.

I hope nobody falls in your dialectical trap.
__________________
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
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 06:32 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.