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 23rd August 2018, 12:27 PM   #161
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: 9,194
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
He's a claimed mathematician
One of so many pretended physicist, engineers, mathematicians, economists, etc that swarm around here but never find their way to argue by providing figures, formulas and graphics.
__________________
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, 01:31 PM   #162
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,938
This video represents the best modern evidence for telekinesis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib2Vl7JEjfc
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet 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 23rd August 2018, 02:02 PM   #163
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,312
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
This video represents the best modern evidence for telekinesis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib2Vl7JEjfc
The analysis used to determine that was a ladle was carried out by a musician and not a qualified chef. Therefore telekinesis.


Eta: Having won this thread and convinced everyone, other than the people who aren't worth my time, I shall now leave it and start a new one next week where I shall prove empirically that Underpants Gnomes exist and hold high positions in government.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

Last edited by P.J. Denyer; 23rd August 2018 at 02:05 PM.
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 24th August 2018, 07:46 AM   #164
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
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.
"My son, George W. Bush, is one of the strongest defenders of the great English literature.'
George H. Bush
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 24th August 2018, 07:49 AM   #165
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
I would like to clarify my yesterday post about the baseline. When I came home from work, I picked up the book, Statistical Mechanics, by Fowler, from my home library (I love my library!) In the book I found formula (1065) on page 356. This formula gives the emission current (the Schottky effect). You can see a simplified version of this formula at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schottky_effect

The original formula is also used to calculate the number of electrons leaving the surface of a metal during electron emission. For a weak electromagnetic field the emission current depends on the temperature and presence of impurities. For a strong electromagnetic field the circuit voltage should be taken into account.

In Chapter XX the authors discusses fluctuations in the emission current parameters at the equilibrium state. Formula (2024) shows that the fluctuations obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics comply with the Poison distribution law, which means that they are random.

Now I return to the Princeton ESP research. Alcock admitted that the researchers made sure that the temperature and electric potential remain constant during the experiment. This means that the electron fluctuation were random and the test runs were properly randomized. For a randomized test the baseline is 0.5 as every scientist knows. But Alcock is a psychologist, and he doesn’t have basic knowledge of mathematical statistics.

In my opinion the discussion is very productive, and I thank the audience for that. To be honest, I started this thread without a specific goal in mind, I just wanted to see the audience’ reaction. My opponents forced me to improve my arguments and now I am planning to submit an article defending the Princeton research to an online scientific magazine.

When it is appropriate I recall my past debates. Year ago I had a debate with a “Christian brother”. One of his sentences made no sense to me, so I asked him to clarify it. He wrote back,” If you are as intelligent as you think you are, you should have no trouble understanding it.” In response I wrote that I am in a good company. Niels Bohr was having a discussion with Podolsky about quantum mechanics. Podolsky said something that Bohr could not understand. When Bohr asked the opponent to explain it, Podolsky said, “If you are a prominent philosopher, you should not ask for a clarification.” Bohr said, I do not understand it because it is gibberish. As my Dad used to say, if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, dazzle them with bs.”

Now I have to submit my fake resume to my imaginary client. I will 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 24th August 2018, 07:57 AM   #166
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 4,073
As an aside, in the US, we normally submit a resume to a potential employer and a CV to a client. Double check what your acronyms represent.
__________________
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 24th August 2018, 08:11 AM   #167
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: 27,376
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
In Chapter XX the authors discusses fluctuations in the emission current parameters at the equilibrium state. Formula (2024) shows that the fluctuations obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics comply with the Poison distribution law, which means that they are random.

Now I return to the Princeton ESP research. Alcock admitted that the researchers made sure that the temperature and electric potential remain constant during the experiment. This means that the electron fluctuation were random and the test runs were properly randomized. For a randomized test the baseline is 0.5 as every scientist knows. But Alcock is a psychologist, and he doesn’t have basic knowledge of mathematical statistics.
Speaking as someone with long experience of electronic devices and measurements thereon, I have to say that this shows a laughably simplistic level of understanding. Microscopic current fluctuations may indeed be considered truly random, but to handwave away the possibility of any systematic effects in the apparatus used to transform those microscopic fluctuations into macroscopically observable results is somewhere between asinine and outright moronic; a minor systematic error in a single piece of equipment could easily skew the statistics. Without actually measuring the distribution of results, it's impossible to say whether the actual measurement being used is a reasonable appriximation to a random sequence, whatever the microscopic origin it's derived from.

But this is a classic example of Buddha reasoning; he wants to believe something, so he looks for a single argument in favour of it and then declares that to be the only relevant argument, and anybody who raises any others to be incompetent. It's confirmation bias on steroids.

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 24th August 2018, 08:36 AM   #168
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: 9,194
"Buddha", we accept your capitulation.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Speaking as someone with long experience of electronic devices and measurements thereon, I have to say that this shows a laughably simplistic level of understanding. Microscopic current fluctuations may indeed be considered truly random, but to handwave away the possibility of any systematic effects in the apparatus used to transform those microscopic fluctuations into macroscopically observable results is somewhere between asinine and outright moronic
Yes, I was about to comment too how it was very "buddha"-esque that he considered that the random nature of the physical phenomenon is enough to guarantee a random output in the device. Especially when you can test the very device and determine that in a direct -and proper- way. That's why "Buddha" have been ignoring Jeffers' for more than three days.

Now he has no time because he has to write a "resume" for a "client". Evidently it's the first time in his life he writes a resume or a CV, hence it's taking so much time of him. Or maybe he starts from scratch every time. Other people (the smart ones) have them already in a file, add what's new and edit out what is irrelevant for the intended target.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
But this is a classic example of Buddha reasoning; he wants to believe something, so he looks for a single argument in favour of it and then declares that to be the only relevant argument, and anybody who raises any others to be incompetent. It's confirmation bias on steroids.
It's epistemological hedonism plus an ill attitude.
__________________
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 24th August 2018, 08:53 AM   #169
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I picked up the book, Statistical Mechanics...
Irrelevant story -- check.

Quote:
But Alcock is a psychologist, and he doesn’t have basic knowledge of mathematical statistics.
Full-blown, utter nonsense. Experimental psychology, in which Dr. Alcock is an undisputed expert, is based on statistics. Specifically, it's based on exactly the branch of statistics that PEAR tried to employ, and would be entirely unsuccessful if its practitioners didn't have expert knowledge of it. In your thread attempting to prove reincarnation, you demonstrated your profound ignorance of empiricism and empirical methods as they are commonly used in science. You are frankly the last person I would consider competent to explain what skills an experimental scientist must have.

But if you want to go down that alley, PEAR's other principal investigator was also a psychologist, and Jahn was an engineer. So by your standards, she can't have had "basic knowledge of mathematical statistics," which -- again by your standards -- makes the statistics in PEAR's research suspect. You are applying a double standard to favor your desired outcome. You're far more obviously biased that James Alcock or John Palmer, the two eminent researchers you tried to claim were biased and not as smart as you are, without having read anything they wrote.

Which brings us down to the unpalatable parts of your performance here, which is that your treatment of the actual evidence never rose very far above your now-familiar mantra that criticism against you must be dismissed because you're so much smarter than the people who raise it. Yet you never seem to demonstrate that purported intelligence. You waffled on about how Dr. Palmer was just trying to fit the facts to his predetermined belief -- an odd thing to claim about someone who makes his living as a researcher into the paranormal. You didn't actually address the criticism Palmer raised in a way that shows you understood it. You insinuated twice that Dr. Alcock -- being a mere psychologist -- can't possibly know enough about statistics to meaningfully criticize the PEAR findings. Yet at no time did you actually explain what was wrong with Alcock's discussion of PEAR's statistics and methods. You simply declared that he "must" have misunderstood, and can't possibly know as much as someone like you. You have to understand that anyone can make such offhand dismissals regardless of what knowledge they actually have. And you should know that we here are well attuned to that sort of bluff and bluster and know not to be fooled by it. We require an actual demonstrate of claimed expertise, if it is to be the basis of an argument. And you are utterly unable to provide one.

Why is it, if you're so smart, that your critics are always the ones best able to give detailed and thorough arguments, while you're never able to do more than gaslight and cast aspersions? You never seem able to actually engage in the topics you claim to be an expert in. This one was right up the alley in which you claim professional credentials and experience, yet your treatment of the statistical criticism -- where you chose to address it at all -- never rose above what one could glean from reading the instruction manual that came with your statistics software. Your evasion of Steven Jeffers' statistical analysis of the baseline measurements was so obvious and comical that we have to conclude you were terrified of exposing your ignorance by trying to understand and refute him. So you just pretended he didn't exist.

Quote:
To be honest, I started this thread without a specific goal in mind...
No. In your opening point you made it clear that your specific goal was to undermine PEAR's critics and assert that their conclusions still hold for lack of effective criticism. Toward that end you assiduously ignored all the criticism your opponents here raised (which you still haven't addressed) and took a straw-man approach that is quickly becoming your signature tactic.

Your attendant goal -- which is the same goal you've followed in all your threads -- is to create the illusion that you're so much smarter and more accomplished than everyone else. There is an ever-growing list of things you have been caught bluffing about, and your only response is to brag about how you are impervious to criticism and correction. In pursuit of this goal you began with the assertion that PEAR's critics (who were actually unknown to you until well into the debate) "don't know what they're talking about." You ignored them until it became obvious you couldn't bluff your way past your critics (again) and pulled your standard dishonest stunt of disavowing any past attempt to actually prove anything.

Quote:
I just wanted to see the audience’ reaction. My opponents forced me to improve my arguments...
Repurposing the thread at the last minute -- check.

And no, you're not some unsung scholarly genius. You fail to do the most basic research before forming your opinions and mounting your argument, because your argument is always to ignore anything you can't handle and bank on a standard bluster of being so very well accomplished that all criticism is unworthy of your attention. You didn't even know who John Palmer was, and you're now trying to posture yourself as someone so well versed in PK research that you can contribute meaningfully to the field?

Quote:
When it is appropriate I recall my past debates.
Another irrelevant story -- check.

You managed to sandwich your standard no-fault resignation between two stories that have almost nothing to do with what you're talking about. What are you trying to hide? Is saving face that important when you interact with people?
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 24th August 2018, 09:16 AM   #170
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: 9,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Buddha"
To be honest, I started this thread without a specific goal in mind...
No. In your opening point you made it clear that your specific goal was to undermine PEAR's critics and assert that their conclusions still hold for lack of effective criticism.
Either he thinks this is a normal dialogue, entirely verbal, with words the wind takes and blows away or he knows that the best way to hide an elephant is within a large herd of elephants and posts rubbish to get lots of replies so he can hide everything in (t)his prevailing confusion.

Originally Posted by JayUtah
Is saving face that important when you interact with people?
That was rhetorical, wasn't it?
__________________
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 24th August 2018, 09:22 AM   #171
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,938
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I would like to clarify my yesterday post about the baseline. When I came home from work, I picked up the book, Statistical Mechanics, by Fowler, from my home library (I love my library!) In the book I found formula (1065) on page 356. This formula gives the emission current (the Schottky effect). You can see a simplified version of this formula at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schottky_effect

The original formula is also used to calculate the number of electrons leaving the surface of a metal during electron emission. For a weak electromagnetic field the emission current depends on the temperature and presence of impurities. For a strong electromagnetic field the circuit voltage should be taken into account.

In Chapter XX the authors discusses fluctuations in the emission current parameters at the equilibrium state. Formula (2024) shows that the fluctuations obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics comply with the Poison distribution law, which means that they are random.

Now I return to the Princeton ESP research. Alcock admitted that the researchers made sure that the temperature and electric potential remain constant during the experiment. This means that the electron fluctuation were random and the test runs were properly randomized. For a randomized test the baseline is 0.5 as every scientist knows. But Alcock is a psychologist, and he doesn’t have basic knowledge of mathematical statistics.

In my opinion the discussion is very productive, and I thank the audience for that. To be honest, I started this thread without a specific goal in mind, I just wanted to see the audience’ reaction. My opponents forced me to improve my arguments and now I am planning to submit an article defending the Princeton research to an online scientific magazine.

When it is appropriate I recall my past debates. Year ago I had a debate with a “Christian brother”. One of his sentences made no sense to me, so I asked him to clarify it. He wrote back,” If you are as intelligent as you think you are, you should have no trouble understanding it.” In response I wrote that I am in a good company. Niels Bohr was having a discussion with Podolsky about quantum mechanics. Podolsky said something that Bohr could not understand. When Bohr asked the opponent to explain it, Podolsky said, “If you are a prominent philosopher, you should not ask for a clarification.” Bohr said, I do not understand it because it is gibberish. As my Dad used to say, if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, dazzle them with bs.”

Now I have to submit my fake resume to my imaginary client. I will be back tomorrow.
That was an irreverent non-sequitur. If the researchers are competent such excuses are not necessary.

If they ran baseline tests and factored those baselines into their final analysis, then it gives strength to their results.

If they did NOT run baseline tests and factor them into their final analysis then their results ARE MEANINGLESS DRIVEL WORTH NOTHING. Medical woo-woo scammers will use the lack of a baseline test to their advantage in selling chelation therapy to people who don't need it. The con is to give them a small dose of a chelation agent and THEN do a heavy metals blood test. It's called a provoked test. Without a baseline of what's normally in their blood, the provoked test will always look scary and urgent.

I would think someone with alleged IT experience such as yourself would understand that an untested process, be it a data backup or random number generator, is a process that cannot be relied upon.

Only a rank moron relies upon an untested process. I've had to clean up after such idiots in IT, in production environments no less. If you haven't tested the process then you are shooting yourself in the head by relying upon it.

Your entire post is a useless and mewling set of excuses, nothing more. You can talk about the underlying theories and ideal situations all you want, but in the REAL world, unless you've TESTED the actual implementations, you are setting yourself up for failure.

To quote the dank meme, "Son, I am disappoint."
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet 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 24th August 2018, 09:28 AM   #172
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Speaking as someone with long experience of electronic devices and measurements thereon, I have to say that this shows a laughably simplistic level of understanding.
And completely out of place for someone who claims academic qualifications in control systems and control theory. Understanding the nature and various causes of noise and its effect in critical controls is bread-and-butter for that.

Quote:
But this is a classic example of Buddha reasoning; he wants to believe something, so he looks for a single argument in favour of it...
Or more circumspectly, he realizes his audience is not being fooled by his bluffery so he looks for something vaguely related that he can quickly research and pontificate upon to remind everyone how very smart and well-read he is. Hopefully the audience will be starry-eyed with admiration at his erudition, and forget that he just lost yet another debate by not being able to keep up with his opponents.
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 24th August 2018, 09:28 AM   #173
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,938
Post

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
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.
"My son, George W. Bush, is one of the strongest defenders of the great English literature.'
George H. Bush
That quote is not a useful response to aleCcowaN's post in any way, shape, or form.

You are ignoring the actual research and criticism that followed PEAR in favor of a fragmentary straw man image of what you wish the evidence against PEAR consisted of. Your denial does not strengthen the PEAR research, it only makes its remaining defenders look bad.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet 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 24th August 2018, 09:33 AM   #174
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,938
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And completely out of place for someone who claims academic qualifications in control systems and control theory. Understanding the nature and various causes of noise and its effect in critical controls is bread-and-butter for that.
I consider it proof positive he is lying about those qualifications. He has made it clear that he does not understand the need to have baseline tests in assessing a system. It's like someone claming to be a taxi driver while insisting there's no need to ever steer.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet 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 24th August 2018, 09:37 AM   #175
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Either ... or ...
Impossible to know, of course. In my experience this pattern of argument comes from people for whom gaslighting has generally been successful. Dismissals such as being "unaffected by criticism" generally coincide with a dogmatic, domineering approach to interpersonal conflict, with the primary approach being browbeating and belittling opponents until they give up. It's difficult to address the roots of these arguments within the confines of the MA. It really comes down to noting that someone is merely gaslighting instead of addressing the points at hand. Delving into why they're gaslighting may be informative, but not really part of a rational exploration of the points at hand.
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 24th August 2018, 09:39 AM   #176
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 28,964
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
But Alcock is a psychologist, and he doesn’t have basic knowledge of mathematical statistics.
Mathematical statistics? As opposed to the statistics you're using?

But actually statistics is a major part of psychology. Alcock assuredly has far more than a basic understanding of the subject.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 10:30 AM   #177
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: 9,194
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Mathematical statistics? As opposed to the statistics you're using?

But actually statistics is a major part of psychology. Alcock assuredly has far more than a basic understanding of the subject.
For instance, in the following paper Alcock shows his proficiency in Statistics:

Factors affecting extraordinary belief
Laura P. Otis & James E. Alcock

«The extent of belief in a wide variety of extraordinary phenomena was examined among people of different educational backgrounds...»
__________________
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 24th August 2018, 10:31 AM   #178
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,347
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
As an aside, in the US, we normally submit a resume to a potential employer and a CV to a client. Double check what your acronyms represent.

That’s why he’s taking so long to sort out the resume: he has to figure out whether he’s a member of the “IEEE (American Society of Electrical Engineers)” or the AIEE, or the ASEE, or the IEE, or whatever.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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 24th August 2018, 10:38 AM   #179
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: 9,194
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
... to remind everyone how very smart and well-read he is.
He doesn't do autobombo (tooting his own horn)...

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I picked up the book... from my home library (I love my library!)



<the "weakestest" argument that followed was snipped>
__________________
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 24th August 2018, 11:17 AM   #180
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,312
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
"My son, George W. Bush, is one of the strongest defenders of the great English literature.'
George H. Bush

Beside the fact that this is totally irrelevant to the discussion, the only hit that Google is returning for that quote is your post.

Misquote or made up?
__________________
"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 24th August 2018, 11:18 AM   #181
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,938
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Beside the fact that this is totally irrelevant to the discussion, the only hit that Google is returning for that quote is your post.

Misquote or made up?
My vote is "made up."
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet 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 24th August 2018, 11:22 AM   #182
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,312
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
As an aside, in the US, we normally submit a resume to a potential employer and a CV to a client. Double check what your acronyms represent.
In the UK (and I'm sure many other countries) we refer to the document we submit to potential employers as a curriculum vitae (CV).

Considering that finding flaws in Buddha's posts is a fish/barrel situation I think we can let that pass.
__________________
"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 24th August 2018, 11:23 AM   #183
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
I consider it proof positive he is lying about those qualifications.
It's evident in all his threads that he's claiming expertise he does not have and expecting that none of his critics will be able to tell he's bluffing. You'd think that after three or four failed threads that unfolded along the same lines, he'd get the hint and find a more gullible audience.

Quote:
He has made it clear that he does not understand the need to have baseline tests in assessing a system.
Which is baffling to me for someone who claims to be employed as a statistical analyst. The t-test for significance is the proper choice here because, as David Rogers notes, there's no way you can establish the distribution for the null hypothesis from theory alone. The mean and standard deviation of Jahn's random-event generator (REG) apparatus are hoped and theorized to confirm to a Gaussian distribution, but aren't known to.

The t-test method for significance testing allows you to take a number of measurements of the machine's performance unaffected by the experimental protocol and, from that, build up a statistical profile against which to measure experimental results. This is what you do when theory can't help you. The baseline, however, has a degree of freedom dictated by how many baseline trials you do.

Let's say you have a baseball pitching machine, and someone tells you he can improve it with his add-on gadget. You decide that the measure of its performance will be how well it distributes its pitches throughout the strike zone without pitching outside it. A pitch down the middle of the strike zone every time becomes too easy to hit. And a pitch outside strike zone doesn't count as a strike. So the closer to the edges of the strike zone, the "better" the pitch.

Now no statistical theory predicts how your machine will fare. So you rightly say that you'll run the machine without the gadget and then again with it, and see if it improves performance according to your metric. If you do 10 trial runs, you have a distribution with a certain mean and standard deviation. And you know that this would only approximate the notion you'd have if you did 10,000 trials, or an infinite number. You know intuitively that the more trials you do, the more closely your empirically-determined baseline would approach a theoretically pure baseline.

That's where degrees of freedom factor in. When your vendor plugs in his gadget, the "test for significance" of its effect will be a computation of the probability that the baseline, as established in your 10 trial runs, can "stretch" to accommodate the results produced by the altered machine. But with only 10 trial runs you have only a crude understanding of what the machine's real baseline performance would be -- certainly not as much as you would know if you had done 10,000 trial runs. And that limits your ability to say "yea" or "nay" to whether your vendor has proven his case. We'd have to admit that wherever the theoretical perfection lay in your machine's baseline performance, it's less likely to lie as close to a 10-trial baseline as to a 10,000-trial baseline. Therefore the fuzzy region surrounding the crude baseline -- that would also probably accommodate the experimental data -- is bigger than it would be for a finely-tested baseline. So when the vendor says his 10 trials with his gadget produced results that were (a) within the strike zone more, and (b) more evenly distributed within the strike zone, a crude baseline would give you more justification to say, "Eh, well, I'm not really convinced you improved over what the machine could do by itself in the long run."

Now the sneaky thing is that those 10 baseline trials form a distribution that itself can be examined for statistical properties. This is what the physicist Steven Jeffers did. He looked at the PEAR results and said, effectively, "Wait a minute! These came from 22 runs of an electronic noise circuit? These seem way too tightly clustered for that." And he verified that with his own statistical meta-analysis using both the baseline and the experimental data. The baseline runs are too correlated among themselves to be the product of actual calibration runs, and this can be known with a fairly convincing amount of statistical certainty.

Buddha has nothing to say about that. Jahn had only slightly more, which was, "Gee, I guess our machine operators are just that good."

What does this mean? Well, it mean that the t-test will be working with an artificially shrunken "fuzzy region" around the baselines. Given only 22 calibration runs, the fuzzy region should have been larger, and therefore more able to "stretch" to accommodate the experimental data. Nothing wrong with the t-test itself, of course. But the old adage "garbage in, garbage out" applies. PEAR's results appeared significant only because what they were being compared to should have been fuzzier. The t-test, having been given an inappropriately "well-defined" baseline, naturally said "Why no, it's quite unlikely that the baseline performance accounts for this outlying data." It reasoned correctly from bad data.

Last edited by JayUtah; 24th August 2018 at 11:27 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 24th August 2018, 11:23 AM   #184
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,550
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Beside the fact that this is totally irrelevant to the discussion, the only hit that Google is returning for that quote is your post.

Misquote or made up?
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet"
George Washington
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 24th August 2018, 12:52 PM   #185
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,340
Telekinesis is real. I can use nothing but my voice and intention to turn my lights off and on, change my television and other forms of manipulation. I do not move a muscle, other than vocal chords. Pretty cool, huh?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 24th August 2018, 01:20 PM   #186
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
That's nothing. I can psychically will my cat to stay put, and he does.
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 24th August 2018, 01:27 PM   #187
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,312
I have a 100% record as a Cat Whisperer. I simply look them in the eye and say, firmly but calmly, "Do whatever the hell you like" and they do!
__________________
"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 24th August 2018, 01:34 PM   #188
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 4,073
Pfft. I can just think 'daughter, do something that will terrify your mother' and voilà!
__________________
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 24th August 2018, 01:37 PM   #189
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,312
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Pfft. I can just think 'daughter, do something that will terrify your mother' and voilà!
__________________
"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 24th August 2018, 02:13 PM   #190
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: 9,194
I just concentrated my thought in making the sun drop below the line of the horizon ... and it did. I had to turn all the lights on.
__________________
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 24th August 2018, 04:14 PM   #191
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,938
Is the Telekinesis Real?

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
I just concentrated my thought in making the sun drop below the line of the horizon ... and it did. I had to turn all the lights on.


This guy can manipulate clouds!

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


Well, not really. He’s apparently insane, but he THINKS he can manipulate clouds.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet 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 24th August 2018, 06:17 PM   #192
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
This guy can manipulate clouds!

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


Well, not really. He’s apparently insane, but he THINKS he can manipulate clouds.
TBF, if some fruit loop chanted 'caloooood, dis-ap-pear. caloooood, dis-ap-pear' around me for a few minutes, my ass would vanish, too.
__________________
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 25th August 2018, 05:19 AM   #193
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,978
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
This guy can manipulate clouds!

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


Well, not really. He’s apparently insane, but he THINKS he can manipulate clouds.
Reminds me of the crazy rainbow lady.
__________________
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 25th August 2018, 07:14 AM   #194
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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
This is not a summary, apparently you haven't read the article or you misunderstood it. The author combined counter-arguments coming from several sources, as he indicated, so this is not a single source. If you pride yourself as a scientist, you should demonstrate that I misrepresented article instead of saying it without providing a single proof of your assessment.
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 25th August 2018, 07:16 AM   #195
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
The Princeton research was done in the early 80s, around about the time when mobile phones looked like this.
https://www.mobilephonehistory.co.uk...rola_8000x.gif

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.
It is a valid remark about the cellphones. However, I do not see how it relates to my post.
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 25th August 2018, 07:24 AM   #196
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.



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.
Actually I like your post, it is very informative, I wish all other post were like yours. However, I didn't say that the Princeton ESP research should be accepted just because it was published in an IEEE magazine. The point I was making is that the researchers used valid experimentation techniques to conduct their observations, otherwise the editors would have rejected their data.

You called the aforementioned psychologist "noted", which is correct. Unfortunately, some members of the board accused me of choosing a weak opponent who, in their opinion, is a straw man. Perhaps, they will pay more attention to your post than the ones that I wrote.
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 25th August 2018, 07:32 AM   #197
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.



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.



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.



Your summary is greatly simplified and incomplete.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.
You wrote a long post and somehow I fell obligated to respond to it, although I do not have time to cover all topics that you have presented.

The Palmer article is my next target. I had to start somewhere, so I started with the Alcock article because it is a summary of all methods of critique of the Princeton ESP research. Palmer covers only statistical aspects of the Princeton research, so his article was not my first target. Once I get to it, I will be happy to discuss statistical aspects with you.
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 25th August 2018, 07:39 AM   #198
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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
Jahn is a member of the Princeton ESP research team. I was asking for the links to the articles of INDEPENDENT researchers who were unable to reproduce the Princeton research results.

You don't have to provide the links if you have none, which could be true in some cases. But please, please, provide the titles of their articles so I would be able to find them at the Columbia University library.

I am asking for the titles. Is it too much to ask for?
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 25th August 2018, 07:43 AM   #199
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by Shuca View Post
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.
To you the results may look unimpressive, but to a mathematician they support the researchers ' claim
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 25th August 2018, 07:44 AM   #200
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 4,073
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
You wrote a long post and somehow I fell obligated to respond to it, although I do not have time to cover all topics that you have presented.

The Palmer article is my next target. I had to start somewhere, so I started with the Alcock article because it is a summary of all methods of critique of the Princeton ESP research. Palmer covers only statistical aspects of the Princeton research, so his article was not my first target. Once I get to it, I will be happy to discuss statistical aspects with you.
....I've heard this before...it's like it's immortal...
__________________
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
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 08:19 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.