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 22nd August 2018, 06:56 AM   #121
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: 9,215
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
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?
It looks like something from a typical person who doesn't know when to stop lying.
__________________
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, 07:41 AM   #122
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: 27,392
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
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.
That's so inadequate a summary of the discussion as to indicate that you're either unable to comprehend the text, or deliberately lying. We're all very well trained to recognise the strawman fallacy round here, and one of the classic strawman techniques is to limit your discussion to a single source of counter-argument, misrepresent that source, then handwave away your own misrepresentation. Do you really think you're helping your case by doing that?

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 22nd August 2018, 08:21 AM   #123
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
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).
The Princeton research was done in the early 80s, around about the time when mobile phones looked like this.


Given the development in mobile phones you would expect wonderful developments in TK. There have been none. In fact there has been regression. The 80's model has never worked since. Even Princeton couldn't get it to work. No other model has been developed that works either.

All this can easily be found out if you use your phone.
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 22nd August 2018, 08:50 AM   #124
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,990
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
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.
Someone else already linked the article yesterday, and I (and probably several others too) read it. You don't need to explain IEEE. Anyone who is even remotely involved in STEM fields is well familiar with who they are and what they do. I daresay most of us in the field are members too and read their publications.

Quote:
IEEE 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?
No, you're asking your audience to accept the validity of PEAR research on something other than its actual merits. "Their research must be correct because it wouldn't be published in a peer-reviewed journal otherwise." Well, no, the research is incorrect for the reasons given, which you have not addressed. Specifically, you have been directed several times to Dr. Jeffers' critique of the very article you are now trying to cite.

Only the one article that someone else linked yesterday appeared in IEEE journals, not "several" as you erroneously report. The only other publication of PEAR research in a mainstream journal was in Foundations of Physics. All the rest of PEAR's research was published in Journal of Scientific Exploration, a decidedly non-mainstream journal that reports on scientific study of the paranormal. It was certainly never published in physics, neurology, or social science journals. Since those would have been logical fields to publish in, the absence of PEAR's findings in any of them is telling.

Publishing outside one's field is another pseudoscience technique. Jahn piggy-backed on the prestige of Princeton University to give his group undeserved credibility. It would be attractive to say that he tried to piggy-back on IEEE for the same reason, but that's not what happened here.

IEEE is a professional and technical organization. They generally do not publish the kind of science Jahn and his colleagues do. But because the specific article deals heavily with the design and operation of PEAR's equipment, it falls under IEEE interest even if the use to which he is putting it ordinarily would not. Contrary to your characterization, Jahn's paper in Proceedings of the IEEE was an invited paper, followed up four issues later by an invited critique from a noted psychologist. Invited papers are generally not reviewed for methodological rigor as a condition of publication, usually because, as summary or report papers, they do not describe a methodology. Here the purpose was to illustrate to readers what a bad methodology looks like.

The problems with PEAR's research are contained in the research itself. They are not mitigated by the prestige of who hosted them or who published them. If you are not willing to discuss the research you cited on its merits, then we're done here.
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 22nd August 2018, 08:55 AM   #125
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,315
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
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?
Or the IEE (last reference) a nolonger separately existent British body the Institute of Electrical Engineers (I was a runner up in their Faraday Award competition many many years ago).

You'd think he'd know what institution he's a member off...
__________________
"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 22nd August 2018, 11:58 AM   #126
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
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
Oh good, it's the part of the discussion where Buddha tells us the correct arguments to use so he can use his pre-determined talking points.
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 22nd August 2018, 01:30 PM   #127
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,315
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Oh good, it's the part of the discussion where Buddha tells us the correct arguments to use so he can use his pre-determined talking points.
Yep, we're on schedule for a declaration of victory and advanced notification of the next steaming pile of subject this weekend and a new separate thread next weekend.

I wonder what it will be, maybe mermen since we know that neither believability nor previous discussion are grounds for exclusion.
__________________
"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 22nd August 2018, 05:16 PM   #128
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,990
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
The right way to discuss the Princeton research is...
Now hold on a minute. You don't get to tell your critics what the "right way" is to refute your claims. Your critics are correct to reject your attempts to script their side of the debate and quite justified in taking you to task personally for doing it.

Quote:
...is to read the articles written by its critics.
Notwithstanding the above, I agree that you are responsible for addressing what has already been written as criticism of the sources you cite. Toward that end, I supplied you with links to previous discussions of PEAR claims here at ISF. You did not read them, as evidenced by your attempt simply to replay a decade-old debate as if it were somehow fresh and new.

You were further supplied -- several times -- with links to Dr. Jeffers' detailed criticism of Jahn's article in Proceedings of IEEE and asked to comment on it. You haven't done that, either. That's deeply troubling, since you started out by accusing these people of being incompetent. You seem unwilling to support that accusation.

Quote:
Here is the link to the article written by one the most outspoken critics of the research...
With due respect to my colleague, I will accept Dr. Alcock as a prominent critic of PEAR. However, you would have been better off reading and addressing Dr. Jeffers first, because he goes into greater detail about the calibration issues that Dr. Alcock alludes to.

Quote:
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.
Your summary is greatly simplified and incomplete.

Quote:
How could this happen?
Did you actually read the passage in the book? Dr. Alcock went into great detail describing how it could happen. If you have to ask that question, you either didn't read or didn't understand Dr. Alcock's criticism.

Quote:
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)...
You mean "cited." Along with "IEE" instead of iEEE, this doesn't seem to be your day for accurate writing.

Quote:
[Palmer] 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...
That's a pretty unfair treatment of the Palmer summary. You should have read Dr. Palmer's actual commentary before concluding he was biased. John Palmer, PhD, was the principal investigator in the Parapsychology Laboratory at the University of Utrecht. In his summary of Jahn et al. he is generally complimentary on their methods, noting that he improved over his predecessors in several ways. He does note that there are methodology concerns in Jahn's research, which Alcock discusses in summary, but if you mean to insinuate that Palmer's goal was trying to discredit or undermine PEAR, then you are completely misrepresenting it.

What did Palmer and Alcock do? Well, first they noted that PEAR had miscoded some of the data contrary to PEAR's own method. In the PK- study, a miss should have been classified as in accordance with the "operator's" (subject's) desires. PEAR misclassified it as contrary, which was the pro-psychokinesis outcome in that run. When the data were properly classified according to PEAR's rules, the proposed PK effect was no longer significant.

Now that may have been an innocent error, the kind that would be caught by a reviewer eventually. But Jahn et al. generally didn't publish in rigorous journals. When PEAR's findings were finally set before a more mainstream audience in Proceedings of the IEEE, the error was discovered and corrected by other researchers. It's pretty disingenuous of you to tout the virtues of the review process in ensuring accuracy, but then accuse reviewers of bias as soon as they discover the errors reviewers are supposed to look for.

As for massaging, here's what really happened. Alcock, reporting Palmer, noted that all the significance in the data was accounted for by a single subject, "Operator 010." Operator 010's acumen at "affecting" the random-event generator was significantly higher than all the other subjects put together. Normally in this sort of research, a number of subjects are used in order to control for individual variation. The mean outcome is considered indicative of the population. But in this case it clearly was not. One subject was clearly outlying, and that one person's effect was responsible for all the purportedly significant variance. Homogeneity of the sample is not just hokum. It's something any good analysis must account for. Reporting the results as an aggregation of 22 subjects misleads the reader into thinking a certain amount of the 22 were able to produce the effect to a greater or lesser degree. In fact, minus Operator 010, the other 21 subjects were unable to produce an effect greater than chance. That's a clear case of anomalous data that should be further explored, not simply lumped together with data that otherwise cluster around a much stronger predictor. "Massaging" the data to exclude obvious anomalies is also a common technique. It's why process variables for control systems are often filtered -- you don't want an anomalous sensor reading producing an unwanted control signal.

But it gets worse. The PEAR team tried several different variations on the basic method. Notably, only the runs in which Operator 010 participated showed any statistical significance. When the effect follows a certain subject rather than a more reliable prediction, that subject should be the focus of particular attention. When the PEAR team's data were reviewed in more detail than their initially reported aggregates, a pattern clearly emerged that violated the presumption of an acceptable distribution of effect among the subjects.

This is almost certainly why the two other teams that tried to reproduce PEAR's findings were utterly unable to do so. They didn't have the magical Operator 010. But there is one curious exception to the case of Operator 010. Even Operator 010's ability to affect the machine largely disappeared when the method let the REG select which affective mode was to be used for that run. It seems that Operator 010 could only succeed when she was able to choose how her test run that day would instruct her to affect the machine's behavior.

These are major red flags, and both Alcock and Palmer note that Jahn and his colleagues didn't seem to apply some of the standard empirical controls to prevent such possibilities as data tampering by the subjects. Subjects were left alone, unmonitored, in the room with the REG and were put on their honor to perform their duties honestly. Now none of the critics outright accuses PEAR of hoaxing the data. There's no evidence the data were actually hoaxed. But because the proper empirical controls were not put into place, and because the details of their actual practical methods never made it into any of their publications, there is no basis to exclude subject tampering or fraud as a cause for the significance.

While you note correctly that a standard t-test was used to test for significance, you sidestep entirely what the real problem was in the analysis. The t-test is one of several analysis-of-variance techniques used to compare populations. Jahn et al. used an empirically-determined baseline as the basis for comparison. In effect, he compared what the subject-affected runs produced with what the REG was measured to produce if (presumably) unaffected. The t-test is appropriate, but the results are interpreted as if the subject-affected runs were against theoretical chance. That depends on whether the REG baseline corresponds to chance.

To be sure, it does. Too well. This is why you need to read Dr. Jeffers and comment on that too. Alcock notes the suspiciously favorable calibration runs, but Jeffers goes into detail about what, statistically speaking, makes the reported calibration results suspicious. What's even more telling is what Jahn said when challenged on the calibration data that was just too good to be true: He speculated that the subjects must have unconsciously willed the machine to produce a good calibration run. That's a red flag so big it would have embarrassed even Krushchev.

No, your dismissal of PEAR's critics is comically naive. You're approaching the problem as if science were a matter of straightforward analysis with standardized tools. That may be how you approach statistical analysis, and may be all that's required in your job, but we've already established that you don't really know anything about how science is actually done. You can't speak intelligently about experiment design or empirical controls or any of the parts of the scientific method that ensure correctness and ensure the integrity of the central inference in any study. As such you skip the forest fire to focus on one innocent tree. It's as if you tell us the terrible food we get at some restaurant can't be all bad because the chef used a well-known brand of kitchen knife to prepare it.

Quote:
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;
No.

The relevant section of Alcock's book can be read in less than 15 minutes, and Palmer's chapter on PEAR can be read in less than half an hour, and is adequately summarized in Alcock. You read Alcock and wrote a brief, dismissing response. No one is buying that you're too busy to adequately address your critics, or that your contribution to this forum is so burdensome. You want to put these topics out there for discussion and debate, but you suddenly "don't have time" to address them. Your behavior is more consistent with simply dumping material out there that you yourself haven't read, and hoping your critics will think they have to accept it and won't read it to discover how badly you've misunderstood and misrepresented it.

Quote:
...today I do not have time to respond to my opponents’ posts, but I will do it tomorrow.
And this is very rude. Yesterday you told us that if your critics posted links to the topics they most wanted you to address, you would do so. Having not read the previous day's posts in their entirety, you were unaware that this had already been done before you made the offer. Instead of making good on your promise and dealing with the half dozen or so links your critics had already posted, you decided you were simply going to follow your own path and choose for them what you would talk about. And then you tell us you don't have time to even fully spell that out.

We have little choice but to conclude you were lying when you promised to address what your critics would supply to you, and that you plan to continue this dishonest and evasive approach.

Quote:
I am trying to be thorough and push this discussion in the right direction...
You're trying to steer the debate in a direction you think you're most prepared to travel, irrespective of what the actual questions an comments are. This is a well-established pattern with you. When you get stuck you try to change the subject.

Your behavior is not consistent with someone trying to have an honest and thorough discussion. You simply declare you're too busy to behave politely and responsibly. If you have the time to present your side of the story, but no time to address responses, then your behavior is more consistent with wanting a pulpit, which you are using mostly to trumpet your own accomplishments.

Quote:
...rather than responding to useless personal attacks. (Personal stuff doesn’t bother me at all, but I see it as a waste of time).
Yet you repeatedly keep spending time complaining about it instead of answering your critics, an exercise you say you lack time to do. Stop tying to play the victim. We're well attuned to your childish attempts at social engineering. You are not being mistreated.

Personal attacks are against the Member Agreement. If you believe you have been personally attacked, report the article for moderation so that another party can properly judge the validity of that claim. Do not instead claim victimhood for rhetorical effect or to conjure up excuses to ignore your critics. If you are unwilling to submit your complaints to moderatorial judgment, I don't want to hear them -- ever.
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 22nd August 2018, 05:41 PM   #129
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,990
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Do you really think you're helping your case by doing that?
He's hoping we won't actually read it, and that we'll be satisfied responding to his hasty summary instead of what the authors actually say. It's hilarious that he's trying to write off Palmer as an enemy of paranormal beliefs and the research that attempts to validate them. You're right that it shows how very little he has actually read on the subject. Palmer concluded at the time of his writing that despite the errors in methodology exhibited by all the projects he reviewed, they had produced findings worth at least further study.

Alcock (p. 44) concluded similarly to Palmer. He allowed there was "a mystery here," but felt that PEAR's methodological errors were grave enough that he could see no good reason to conclude that the mystery had a paranormal cause.

Jeffers, reporting on PEAR's closure in Skeptical Inquirer, noted that he had contacted and received the cooperation of PEAR's principal researchers in preparing his commentary. This is not a move customarily associated with nefarious intent.

No. Buddha the Claimant, being largely ignorant of PEAR's actual critics and the facts of the criticism, is simply doing his best to poison the well and hope he won't get caught doing 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 22nd August 2018, 05:43 PM   #130
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: 9,215
In line with the previous posts

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
If you want to deal with real objections, for instance read this and comment on its content.
I posted this more than 48 hours ago and you, "Buddha", persistently ignored it. It's short, simple and right to the point. And it says it all in just one paragraph. I selected that among other suitable papers and articles because it's simple and bite-sized, even for unwilling mouths.


If you can't deal with it, you can't deal with anything.
__________________
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, 06:00 PM   #131
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,990
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Outspoken according to who?
Thank you for holding Buddha the Claimant's feet to the fire over his straw-man approach. However in this case I feel he has accidental merit. "Outspoken" is perhaps the wrong word, or perhaps too strong. But Dr. James Alcock is not a bad source for the most effective criticism of PEAR. True, he relies heavily on John Palmer's analysis, but he accurately reports and summarizes Palmer. And Palmer's analysis is fair and even-handed and decidedly unbiased.

Buddha wants us to believe that Alcock, Palmer, Jeffers, and others are biased and dismissible simply because they dare to criticize Jahn et al. There is no animus whatsoever in any of these critics' writings. I have to conclude Buddha is unfamiliar with ordinary scholarship and unaware that criticism such as that produced by the authors I named is the lifeblood of science. It's formulated dispassionately and delivered with the aim of improving science as a whole. Buddha wants to believe that scientific discourse and debate follow the same trench-warfare tactics that he and others have employed here on the Internet. That's because -- I think -- he wants to believe that all this online fracas he's embroiled himself in is somehow just as valid as real science.
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 22nd August 2018, 06:21 PM   #132
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: 9,215
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Buddha wants to believe that scientific discourse and debate follow the same trench-warfare tactics that he and others have employed here on the Internet. That's because -- I think -- he wants to believe that all this online fracas he's embroiled himself in is somehow just as valid as real science.
Exactly that. For them, Perry Mason was a scientist. The Internet has empowered everyone and in some that power went to their heads. They can surf the web so they think they rule its vast ocean, but in the end they show a methodical absence of method which in turn speaks of a limited education and leaves their lively egos as the only noteworthy characteristic of theirs. Jabba, yrreg, "Buddha"; so different and yet so alike.
__________________
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 23rd August 2018, 01:34 AM   #133
Shuca
Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Croatia
Posts: 26
Well, there is an online 'retro pk' experiment going on for more than 20 years… here are the results:

Total experiments: 389151
Number of subjects: 34595
Total tries: 398490624
Total hits: 199247513
Overall z: 0.2205 standard deviations

Source: http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/summary/

So, the results are unimpressive… something you get just by a chance… if my understanding of statistics is correct.

Evidence presented for existence of PK shown at this thread are not so impressive and good as some would wish them to be.
Shuca 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 23rd August 2018, 05:20 AM   #134
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Since the links have already been provided and you haven't responded to them, your offer isn't looking very credible right now.

Dave
The links were
provided, you are about that. But they lead to this website. I was asking for the links to original articles written by the scientists who criticized the Princeton RSP program. Since no one has provided them, I am going to do it myself. See my latest posts.
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 23rd August 2018, 05:24 AM   #135
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by Shuca View Post
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?
I would like to see the articles written by the scientists who reproduced the Princeton research. So far I have found none, but you might be right about that. Anyway, I will respond to their articles if you provide the links.
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 23rd August 2018, 05:24 AM   #136
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,963
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Sorry........you people really expect Buddha to return to this thread?


I don’t. He’s already scampered off, tail between his legs, declaring victory.

At least Caligula had an actual army when he allegedly had them stab the ocean to attack the sea.
__________________
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 23rd August 2018, 05:40 AM   #137
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: 27,392
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I would like to see the articles written by the scientists who reproduced the Princeton research. So far I have found none, but you might be right about that. Anyway, I will respond to their articles if you provide the links.
You clearly need to learn how to read a scientific reference. What do you imagine the "(Jahn et al. 2000)" part of the quote you rjust eproduced to mean, and what relation might it possibly have to the footnote "Jahn, R., et al. 2000. Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium: PortREG replication experiments. Journal of Scientific Exploration 14(4): 499-555" at the bottom of the CSICOP page?

(And please don't pull the old "If it isn't on the WWW it doesn't exist" gambit.)

It might also be more honest to replace "reproduced the Princeton research" with "failed to reproduce[d] the results of the Princeton research" in your post.

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 23rd August 2018, 05:40 AM   #138
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,990
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I was asking for the links to original articles written by the scientists who criticized the Princeton RSP program. Since no one has provided them...
Links to Dr. Jeffers' original articles were posted several times, even before you asked for them. But you admit you "don't have time" to read and respond to them, so now you're just making excuses for your delinquent performance.
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 23rd August 2018, 05:44 AM   #139
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,990
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I would like to see the articles written by the scientists who reproduced the Princeton research.
They did so at the behest of PEAR and were published in PEAR's research. You don't know your own sources. Although technically what you're asking for doesn't exist. No scientists were able to reproduce PEAR's findings. They attempted and failed, just as PEAR itself attempted and failed without the superlative talent of Operator 010.

Quote:
Anyway, I will respond to their articles if you provide the links.
No, you clearly won't. You keep telling us you "don't have time." At this point we have to conclude that this promise is a deliberate lie.
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 23rd August 2018, 05:57 AM   #140
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I would like to see the articles written by the scientists who reproduced the Princeton research. So far I have found none, but you might be right about that. Anyway, I will respond to their articles if you provide the links.
Freiburg Anomalous Mind/Machine Interaction project (FAMMI)

Giessen Anomalies Research Project (GARP)

Shall I read them aloud to you, or can you manage that yourself?
__________________
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 23rd August 2018, 05:57 AM   #141
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: 27,392
By the way, the failed replication paper is here. It makes a fascinating study in itself, in that the authors note that they have failed by an order of magnitude to achieve a statistically significant result, but that they have noted "a substantial pattern of structural anomalies related to various secondary parameters, to a degree well beyond chance expectation and totally absent from the calibration data." I'm a little reluctant to plough through 54 pages to divine what these structural anomalies are, but at best they fall foul of the well-known problem of testing hypotheses suggested by the data.

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 23rd August 2018, 05:58 AM   #142
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,963
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Links to Dr. Jeffers' original articles were posted several times, even before you asked for them. But you admit you "don't have time" to read and respond to them, so now you're just making excuses for your delinquent performance.
I'm reminded of old Westerns, where at one point the villain pulls his gun and shoots at a person's feat yelling "Dance! Dance!"

Our Pseudo-Buddha has proven time and again he doesn't read the sources we provide. I suspect this is by design. As soon as we overtly give up and stop responding with sources he'll never read or respond to he'll go to wherever he's crowing about these exchanges and declare that "The skeptics couldn't provide a singe source to refute me!"

That or he just enjoys dropping a deuce and running.
__________________
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 23rd August 2018, 06:03 AM   #143
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,990
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It might also be more honest to replace "reproduced the Princeton research" with "failed to reproduce[d] the results of the Princeton research" in your post.
From the horse's mouth (and ninja'ed by mere minutes).
"As far as the replication results themselves are concerned, we are left with an empirical paradox. Whereas the prior PEAR experiments clearly displayed anomalous secular trends in REG output distribution means in correlation with operator intention, the three-laboratory replications, which employed essentially similar equipment and protocols, failed by an order of magnitude to replicate the primary correlations." Jahn, et al., op. cit., p. 538.
Buddha :-

With nothing more than a standard scholarly citation, two of your opponents here were able to locate and skim the article. In my case it took me less than it did for my Keurig cup to brew. So let's have no more talk about how pressed for time you are and how others must do all your research for you, on both sides of the question. It's been clear for some time you have done very little actual reading regarding Robert Jahn and pear, while -- you should have gleaned from the links to previous ISF discussions I posted before you even opened this thread -- your critics are far more familiar with the research, its sources, and its problems.

Last edited by JayUtah; 23rd August 2018 at 06:07 AM.
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 23rd August 2018, 06:25 AM   #144
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,487
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
The links were
provided, you are about that. But they lead to this website. I was asking for the links to original articles written by the scientists who criticized the Princeton RSP program. Since no one has provided them, I am going to do it myself. See my latest posts.
The hilighted is a barefaced lie, SOdhner posted them twice.

First time was in post #17:

Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 23rd August 2018, 06:31 AM   #145
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: 9,215
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
Since no one has provided them, I am going to do it myself. See my latest posts.
How puerile (look it up in the dictionary) of you to declare it doesn't exist what has been provided to you in abundance.

Well, we accept your surrender. Part of your tasks now is learning what an article is (you have been mixing up peer-reviewed scientific and technical publications with the Reader's Digest)
__________________
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 23rd August 2018, 06:39 AM   #146
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 205
For their research the Princeton group used random noise produced by the electronic circuits. There is nothing unusual about this choice of a generator of random numbers; my friend, who develops signal processing software, told me once that this method is quite common. Besides, the Princeton researchers took appropriate measures to eliminate the bias, and Alcock raised no objections to that. However, he wrote that the researchers didn’t establish the baseline for the equipment when it runs without human intervention.

Apparently, he doesn’t understand what the baseline means in this case – the chance that a positive or a negative run appears is 0.5 within a margin of error depending on the confidence interval. Nevertheless, he doesn’t argue with the results of evaluation done by the ESP group, which seems to indicate that he accepted their baseline. The author is a psychologist, not a mathematician, so his confusion is understandable.

The author suggests that the researchers should use a random sequence of controlled runs and experimental runs to randomize the process. This is an idiotic suggestion akin to the suggestion to make a subject intake a medication and the other day intake a placebo during clinical drug trials.

I’ll return to the article tomorrow. One more thing – one of my opponents asked me a sarcastic question – do random events generators are truly random? The question is valid, but it doesn’t apply to the Princeton ESP research. In several ESP studies so called random numbers algorithms were used to run the ESP equipment. Technically speaking these algorithms are called generators of pseudo-random numbers, which explains their limitations. However, if a process could be interrupted, they produce random numbers. This is an interesting topic, I might return to it in a future. But, as I said, it is irrelevant to the Princeton research
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 23rd August 2018, 06:40 AM   #147
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: 9,215
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
... two of your opponents here were able to locate and skim the article.

Please, don't feed "Buddha" hypertrophied ego even more. If anything, he's owned here on a daily basis.
__________________
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 23rd August 2018, 06:40 AM   #148
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
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?
IEEE
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 23rd August 2018, 06:44 AM   #149
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 205
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
And that's why by so far ignoring three "articles" that discuss "the Princeton research" you have acknowledged them to be right.



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?



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.
\Please check the Wikipedia article on Princeton ESP research to see that I mentioned a well-known critic. If this doesn't satisfy you, I don't know what else will. Thatnk you for correcting my typo.
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 23rd August 2018, 06:44 AM   #150
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: 9,215
Talking solo again? Why don't you save yourself the embarrassment and read Jeffers'?
__________________
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; 23rd August 2018 at 06:51 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 23rd August 2018, 06:44 AM   #151
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,990
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
I'm reminded of old Westerns, where at one point the villain pulls his gun and shoots at a person's feat yelling "Dance! Dance!"
Great, now I've got the image in my head of Michael J. Fox moonwalking.

Quote:
I suspect this is by design.
Yes. In order to refute Jeffers our Buddha will have to display more knowledge that simply selecting "t-test for Significance" from the menu of his canned statistical analysis package. He will have to demonstrate an actual understanding of the mathematics -- which, I strongly suspect he cannot do. The telltale evidence is his cargo-cult vision of how statistical methods work in science. He can't fathom how any of the criticism works. He thinks the only way the results could have been compromised is if the experimenters had used some one-oiff, homegrown algorithm, or if the standard t-test algorithm had somehow malfunctioned. He doesn't seem to realize that problems can creep in before you ever get to the test for significance, and that any such test will be susceptible to uncontrolled variables such as homoegeneity of the data or anomalies in the baseline.

The technique here is to let the machine run by itself for a while and build a statistical profile of its output when supposedly not affected by the subject. This is the empirical baseline. That is, the baseline behavior of the machine is measured, not guessed at by extrapolating from how it works or assumed from theory. The idea is that any quirks in that particular machine will be accounted for without knowing precisely what causes them. It's actually good methodology compared to previous PK researchers. Then the subject restarts the machine and applies one of several available protocols to attempt to influence the machine, and the results of that are compared to the previously-measured baseline for that machine. The t-test for significance, among other things, comes up with a probability that the baseline behavior accounted for the experimental results. You want that to be a very low probability, less than 0.05.

Separately, the baselines are compared to theoretical random distributions (Gaussian, if memory serves) and shown to conform suitably. That's the empirical control that shows the machine is truly a random number generator to within some tolerance -- again measured statistically. And that's what lets you say the experimental results compare validly to chance.

What Jeffers did is to show that the baselines reported -- the standard against which the experimental results were measured for significance -- were suspiciously correlated with each other and with theoretical distributions. In other words, the empirically measured baselines were "too good" to be the product of the actual machines. Poor Dr. Jahn had only a comically feeble explanation for how that could have occurred. Variance in the calibration runs to establish the baselines did not correlate with variance across other variables in the experimental runs such as which subject was operating the experiment at the time. While many subjects exhibited no ability whatsoever to influence the random-event generator, they all somehow exhibited an uncanny ability to achieve near-perfect calibration runs.

Of course a t-test for significance will tell you that the baseline mean has a low probability of explaining experimental means if the baseline mean is not accurate. The test for significance has no way of verifying that either of the data sets it's looking at is really what the analyst purports it to be. Jahn's critics were charitable. Having no evidence of outright fraud, they simply noted that his experiment lacked the empirical controls to ensure the integrity of either the calibration runs or the experimental runs and suggested ways in which that could have been achieved. They remained dispassionate and scientific, despite Buddha's ongoing attempts to poison the well.

Quote:
As soon as we overtly give up and stop responding with sources he'll never read or respond to he'll go to wherever he's crowing about these exchanges and declare that "The skeptics couldn't provide a singe source to refute me!"
If he remains true to form he'll rewrite the purpose of this thread. In all his other threads he has closed off the discussion by saying he succeeded in some other goal than to prove his claim. He'll claim he just wanted to see people's reactions, or study some irrelevant issue. This is, I suspect, why he ignored my request at the beginning of this thread to state clearly what his intent was in starting it and participating in it. He claimed in his opening post that Jahn's conclusions were valid and should still stand. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that vindicating Jahn and PEAR won't have the slightest to do with his eventual declaration of "victory."
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 23rd August 2018, 06:48 AM   #152
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
\Please check the Wikipedia article on Princeton ESP research to see that I mentioned a well-known critic. If this doesn't satisfy you, I don't know what else will. ThatnkThank you for correcting my typo.
You're welcome.

Read all those papers yet? Or are you going to pretend you didn't see them? Again.
__________________
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 23rd August 2018, 06:48 AM   #153
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: 9,215
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
\Please check the Wikipedia article on Princeton ESP research to see that I mentioned a well-known critic. If this doesn't satisfy you, I don't know what else will. Thatnk you for correcting my typo.

Already clarified by JayUtah yesterday.


Thank you for feigning you read other people's posts and care about 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 23rd August 2018, 06:50 AM   #154
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,990
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
Please check the Wikipedia article on Princeton ESP research to see that I mentioned a well-known critic.
You mentioned a well-known critic, but then proceeded to demonstrate almost no knowledge of what he wrote and no understanding of the basis of his criticism. You further declared that you "didn't have time" to discuss it. If you must resort to Wikipedia to inform you of the criticism against PEAR then we have to conclude you have done too little research to know who his critics are and what they say.

This is especially disturbing when we see that you started off this thread with a blanket accusation that all Robert Jahn's critics were incompetent. You clearly aren't familiar enough with them to make that judgment.

Quote:
If this doesn't satisfy you, I don't know what else will.
If you don't know what else will satisfy your opponents here, then you are deliberately ignoring them. I want you to respond and comment in detail about Steven Jeffers' analysis of the problematic baselines. This will require you to demonstrate more skill in statistics than merely mentioning the names of common techniques.

Links were posted the first day of your thread and again subsequently. They were posted again after you asked for links to criticism. They were reposted again today, and yet you still claim no one has supplied you with references to criticism that they want you to evaluate and that therefore you must choose for them and supply your own instead. At this point we have to conclude you are deliberately lying in order to evade your critics. Further, a thorough treatment of your foisted critic was provided, but you ignored that as well. Your evasion of meaningful discussion is not correlated with whether you or your critics supply the rebuttals.

Last edited by JayUtah; 23rd August 2018 at 07:02 AM.
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 23rd August 2018, 07:15 AM   #155
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: 9,215
As this is Jabba's and yrreg's all over again, I suggest we put in place the Jabba-yrreg protocol.

Let's do a provisional outline

1-"Buddha" chooses a pseudo-logical or pseudo-scientific topic related with his personal religion.
2-"Buddha" starts a thread on the topic of choice.
3-The OP is called "an article" and contains a badly argued word-saladish piece that basically says he's right about it
4-"Buddha" ignores all criticism and accuses who he call "his opponents" of saying what they didn't and not understanding what they didn't mention but "Buddha" wants to insist about in order to give the false impression of an ongoing debate
5-"Buddha" ignores all further criticism and calls to follow a reasonable and logical path. He replies isolated bits of other participants' post in order to insist in his previous points and he declares what is the correct way for dealing with the topic at hand (for "correct" meaning what places the embers closer to his marshmallow)
6-"Buddha" ignores the avalanche of criticism, and declares victory.
7-"Buddha" ignores that he has lost the debate from its very beginning, insist in the facts that his repetitive posts have been ignored and the debate has come to a stop because of his "opponents" ' stubbornness
8-"Buddha" makes some protocolar appearances, declare victory again, declare his goals achieved and leaves the thread .


May you embetter this?
__________________
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 23rd August 2018, 08:10 AM   #156
Didymus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 250
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
For their research the Princeton group used random noise produced by the electronic circuits. There is nothing unusual about this choice of a generator of random numbers; my friend, who develops signal processing software, told me once that this method is quite common. Besides, the Princeton researchers took appropriate measures to eliminate the bias, and Alcock raised no objections to that. However, he wrote that the researchers didn’t establish the baseline for the equipment when it runs without human intervention.

Apparently, he doesn’t understand what the baseline means in this case – the chance that a positive or a negative run appears is 0.5 within a margin of error depending on the confidence interval. Nevertheless, he doesn’t argue with the results of evaluation done by the ESP group, which seems to indicate that he accepted their baseline. The author is a psychologist, not a mathematician, so his confusion is understandable.

The author suggests that the researchers should use a random sequence of controlled runs and experimental runs to randomize the process. This is an idiotic suggestion akin to the suggestion to make a subject intake a medication and the other day intake a placebo during clinical drug trials.

I’ll return to the article tomorrow. One more thing – one of my opponents asked me a sarcastic question – do random events generators are truly random? The question is valid, but it doesn’t apply to the Princeton ESP research. In several ESP studies so called random numbers algorithms were used to run the ESP equipment. Technically speaking these algorithms are called generators of pseudo-random numbers, which explains their limitations. However, if a process could be interrupted, they produce random numbers. This is an interesting topic, I might return to it in a future. But, as I said, it is irrelevant to the Princeton research
A pseudorandom number generator can, within certain limits, produce sequences of bits that are equivalent to Gaussian random numbers. One of those limits is that the number of bits in an output number must be fewer than that of the shift register generating the pseudorandom sequence. One can extract seemingly random numbers having more bits from the generator's continuous bit output but the result will have a lop-sided distribution.
During a visit to PEAR I discovered that they were counting and attempting to influence the number of ones in a series of 200-bit numbers. The 200-bit numbers were extracted from the output of a 31-bit generator. One result is that the mean number of ones would inherently not be 100.
Didymus 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 23rd August 2018, 08:50 AM   #157
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,990
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
...the Princeton researchers took appropriate measures to eliminate the bias, and Alcock raised no objections to that.
The Princeton researchers claimed to have taken appropriate measures, and that was good enough for Alcock, who chose to focus his attention elsewhere. Palmer did not, and you still haven't addressed that. And Jeffers noted that the report of those measures was suspicious for reasons he laid out in his own articles. That's why we've been trying for three days to get you to address that, posting links every day with that hope in mind. If you're going to foist your own choice of straw-man critic on the discussion and ignore all the others, you don't get to read significance (specifically an insinuation of correctness) into what he omits -- especially when that was not omitted by the other critics your opponents have asked you to evaluate.

Quote:
However, he wrote that the researchers didn’t establish the baseline for the equipment when it runs without human intervention.
He noted that there were no empirical controls in place to ensure that the subjects could not interfere -- consciously or unconsciously -- with the calibration runs. This comes from his extensive experience in human-subjects research, in which Jahn was a novice. And since anomalies did arise in the calibration runs, that seems a prudent suggestion.

Quote:
The author is a psychologist, not a mathematician, so his confusion is understandable.
No. You haven't shown that he's confused, only that you don't understand his criticism. Dr. Alcock is an expert in an empirical science that relies heavily on experimentation with human subjects. He can be assumed to understand what empirical controls must attend such research. In contrast, prior to PEAR, Robert Jahn was an engineer and had no experience in human-subject experiments. As such, he failed to take the appropriate precautions. Most notably, when some of his errors were corrected in his own attempts to reproduce his results, he failed to duplicate his own previous findings. That's fairly strong evidence that Jahn, not Alcock, is the party in error.

And none of the PEAR team were mathematicians, so if you're going to hold Jahn's critics to that standard then you will have to reject all of PEAR's analysis as commensurately uninformed. Statistics is a pervasive branch of mathematics. It is applied mathematics, and as such has its most vital role when it is, you know, actually applied.

Quote:
The author suggests that the researchers should use a random sequence of controlled runs and experimental runs to randomize the process. This is an idiotic suggestion akin to the suggestion to make a subject intake a medication and the other day intake a placebo during clinical drug trials.
Your name-calling does not address the reasons Alcock gave for suggesting the revision. And since you have already admitted ignorance of the notion of empirical controls, your offhand dismissal bolstered by an inapt analogy falls flat.

Since the measured variance exhibited a clear preference for the subject getting to choose how to try to influence the machine, how that choice is made became an obviously confounding variable in the experiment. And in Jahn's protocol it was uncontrolled, so it remains confounded in his original result as a placebo effect. The data correlated to it when, according to Jahn's null, it should not have. Drug trials rely on a cumulative effect, so each trial is not independent. That is not true for requiring the PEAR subject not to know ahead of time what kind of run was on deck or whether he would it would be volitional. Those are discrete events, and in fact must be in the context of the experiment. You don't understand the experiment design. And since there was a suspicious correlation in the calibration runs that was not present in the experimental runs (even absent a PK component), then whether a run was a calibration run or an experimental run was also an uncontrolled confounding variable that leads to a correlation it should not have. Therefore it should also have been outside the subject's influence.

You are a mathematician (or so you claim), not an empirical researcher, so your confusion is understandable. But not excusable.

Quote:
The question is valid, but it doesn’t apply to the Princeton ESP research.
It most certainly does, because it's the basis for determining that the baseline calibration runs were too good. They should have exhibited more variance than PEAR reported they did. Jahn had no rational explanation for it. And neither do you.

Quote:
This is an interesting topic, I might return to it in a future. But, as I said, it is irrelevant to the Princeton research
No, it's the basis of the criticism we've been trying to get you to face up to for three days now. You are steadfastly claiming it was never supplied to you. Now you're changing horses and claiming it's inconsequential or irrelevant. As usual, you're simply making up increasingly feeble excuses for why you don't have to address the most damaging criticism against your claim. When it becomes too onerous for you to maintain the ineffective gaslighting, I predict you'll change the "real" purpose of this thread and declare victory.

Last edited by JayUtah; 23rd August 2018 at 09:17 AM.
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 23rd August 2018, 09:30 AM   #158
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,990
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Talking solo again? Why don't you save yourself the embarrassment and read Jeffers'?
His only substantive post in today's offering is just a slightly wordier version of the blustery claim that his critics don't understand are aren't competent, without giving any details. He's a claimed mathematician, so we're just supposed to take his judgment at face value even though there's no actual demonstration of mathematical expertise behind it. Pure gaslighting, just like all his other threads.
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 23rd August 2018, 12:18 PM   #159
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,963
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Pure gaslighting, just like all his other threads.


Quote:
Extra! extra! Entire skeptic forum gets gas poisoning from woo-woo slinger's posts! - Newspaper boy
__________________
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 23rd August 2018, 12:22 PM   #160
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: 9,215
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
This is a post that "Buddha" will quote and thank.
__________________
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 09:28 PM.
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.