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 25th August 2018, 07:46 AM   #201
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
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?
I will take a look at these articles after I finish with the Alcock article and Palmer article. Tank you for bringing these articles to my attention. It looks like this is going to be a long thread.
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, 07:53 AM   #202
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
...although I do not have time to cover all topics that you have presented.
Your standard excuse. I don't believe you. I think you're avoiding a detailed response because in order to do it you would have to expose the same ignorance we've seen in your previous threads. You're "responding" only so people think you're actually engaged in the debate, when in fact you're doing your best to avoid it.

Quote:
The Palmer article is my next target. I had to start somewhere, so I started with the Alcock article...
You could have started with what your critics asked you about first, which you still haven't done. Steven Jeffers' critique was linked several times, both before and after you solicited links from your opponents. His articles will require you to demonstrate actual expertise in statistical analysis, not just handwaving dismissals and vague claims of superiority.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 08:06 AM   #203
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
To you the results may look unimpressive, but to a mathematician they support the researchers ' claim
Then you should be able to cite the opinions of independent mathematicians who support the researchers' claims and can refute the criticism leveled by others. Please do so.

You are not a mathematician. Or at least you are unwilling to demonstrate any proficiency in statistics here. And we are naturally wary, because in your other threads and in your work outside this forum we have seen you happily claim expertise you obviously don't have and can't demonstrate when required. So we have every reason to believe you're lying now too. And you have further assured us that you are impervious to criticism and therefore unteachable. We simply don't believe your ongoing, unsubstantiated claims to relevant expertise, and we certainly don't accept them as an argument-from-authority in lieu of actual direct responses.

You still seem to maintain that the professional experimental scientists who have reviewed PEAR's work are somehow unqualified to do so. You are unwilling to address the disparity in your standards, nor the actual qualifications of real experimental scientists. If your claim is that these researchers have erred because they lack appropriate qualifications, then you should be able simply to identify their errors and show where such errors contradict easily-discovered facts. As it is you're simply insinuating that you're smarter than anyone else who has discussed the PEAR research. That is not an adequate claim, but it is typical for you.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 08:07 AM   #204
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
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; 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
At least you confirmed that the fluctuation are truly random, which is a gigantic step forward. Now, about the hardware -- as you said, a single improperly functioning piece of equipment could distort the results. It is left to the observers to make sure that a malfunction doesn't happen. Since neither Alcock nor any other critic provided evidence that a malfunction, indeed, happened, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

But let's say for the sake of argument that you're right, there was a malfunction. Alcock suggests to establish the baseline by running the equipment without a subject. But if there is a malfunction, it would be impossible to establish the baseline for the same reason.

Unfortunately, my argument applies to all experiments involving some kind of equipment -- if the possibility of malfunction is not excluded, it would be impossible to assert anything and the science would stop dead in its tracks. For this reason it is always assumed that an experiment is flawless if certain rules are followed. It seems to me that the Princeton group complied with all those rules.

My friend develops software for the signal processing applications; their group use the same technique for generation of white noise. Their equipment is much more complicated than the apparatus used by the Princeton group. So far there were no complains about their software, which means that their equipment functions properly.

Anyway, it is nice to meet someone at this board whose experience is somewhat similar to my own. I will pay more attention to your posts than to the posts made by some other members.
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, 08:08 AM   #205
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I will take a look at these articles after I finish with the Alcock article and Palmer article.
As you have done for the past couple of days, you are dealing only with the straw men you have chosen to represent Jahn's critics. You have utterly failed to address a single critic your opponents here have asked you to look at. You are trying to script both sides of the debate so that you can avoid material you known you can't answer.

Quote:
It looks like this is going to be a long thread.
Is it your goal to prolong the thread unnecessarily in hopes that it will appear to be productive despite your evasion?
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 08:15 AM   #206
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
At least you confirmed that the fluctuation are truly random, which is a gigantic step forward.
That's not at all what he said.

Quote:
Since neither Alcock nor any other critic provided evidence that a malfunction, indeed, happened, there is no reason to believe otherwise.
No, that's not how experiment design works. The experimenters are responsible for discovering and controlling for anomalies. When we note that the experimenters failed to do that, we cannot be assured no such anomalies must have occurred.

Quote:
But let's say for the sake of argument that you're right, there was a malfunction. Alcock suggests to establish the baseline by running the equipment without a subject.
That's not why Alcock suggests running the baselines without a subject present.

Quote:
Unfortunately, my argument applies to all experiments involving some kind of equipment -- if the possibility of malfunction is not excluded, it would be impossible to assert anything and the science would stop dead in its tracks.
But you aren't a scientist and you admitted you were ignorant of empirical controls. Just because you can't figure out how to do science doesn't mean others are similarly hobbled.

Quote:
I will pay more attention to your posts than to the posts made by some other members.
Every fringe theorist tries to find excuses to not have to pay attention to his critics. You are no different.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 08:21 AM   #207
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
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.
Ad hoc revision.

Quote:
I am asking for the titles. Is it too much to ask for?
After having been given the reference describing the attempts to reproduce -- including 50 pages of their data -- you revised your request to ask for them in a form you either know or suspect doesn't exist, just so you can try to make a big deal out of their supposed absence.

If you suspect they don't exist, or that they have been misrepresented in some way, then why would PEAR's principal researcher invent a story that works against him? Robert Jahn was quite content to admit that other researchers using his method could not reproduce his results. If you're going to insinuate some sort of bias or misrepresentation, can you explain why the supposed bias works in the direction that which would be expected from Jahn?

Or maybe you didn't realize that Jahn himself published the putatively reproduced results. Did you think one of Jahn's critics published it, and supposedly doctored it?
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 08:43 AM   #208
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,347
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
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 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 25th August 2018, 08:53 AM   #209
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I will take a look at these articles after I finish with the Alcock article and Palmer article.
Did you take the time to realize these were the links to the independent attempts to verify PEAR's findings? You know, those things you specifically asked for today?
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 09:53 AM   #210
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 have no time to read "Buddha"'s pathetic excuses.

Let me guess: he keeps ignoring Jeffers'; he claims to be an accomplished something (statistician, mathematician, etc.) instead of a being full of complexes; his replies have little to do with the posts he's quoting; his replies are mainly repetitive; and he argues he has not enough time.
__________________
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 25th August 2018, 10:18 AM   #211
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,978
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post

I am asking for the titles. Is it too much to ask for?
Again? What are the chances that you might actually read them this time? Nil.

Your MO is to ask for links, have them provided, ignore them and then proceed to claim the links were never provided.
__________________
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, 10:26 AM   #212
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,978
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I will take a look at these articles after I finish with the Alcock article and Palmer article. TankThank you for bringing these articles to my attention. It looks like this is going to be a long thread.
Fixed "speelunk".

And pigs might fly. You know that you will read nothing. We know that you will read nothing.

That's just how you rock.

I am not the first to link such studies, but you have ignored all of the previous links and even claimed that they do not exist. What are the chances you will follow mine? Bob Hope and no hope.
__________________
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, 10:28 AM   #213
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
The Palmer article is my next target.
Except that you already pre-rejected him.
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
The way I see it, the critic [Palmer, quoted in Alcock] “massaged” the data to fit it into his version of truth...
This was before you even knew who he was and assumed he was some biased skeptic. Clearly you're not approaching the criticism with an open mind.

Quote:
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.
No, it isn't. As you keep noting, Alcock doesn't bring up everything that can be seen as problematic in the PEAR research. He doesn't even bring up everything discovered by Palmer, the author on whom he relies the most in his summary. You're trying very hard to make it seem like Dr. Alcock is all you have to answer, and that if he didn't bring up a thing, you're not responsible for it. You brought up Alcock only because you dashed to Wikipedia to learn belatedly what the criticisms actually were against PEAR and latched onto him. This is the essence of the straw-man fallacy, especially since you lied outright about no other critics having been referred to you.

Quote:
Palmer covers only statistical aspects of the Princeton research...
No, that's false. He is the discoverer of the "Operator 010" phenomenon, which is less about statistics and more about empirical controls.

Quote:
...so his article was not my first target.
But your claim to fame is as a statistician. By rights that would be the only thing you would be remotely qualified to discuss, since you proved in your reincarnation thread that you have absolutely no knowledge of or experience with the empirical side of experimental science. A significant criticism against PEAR is, in fact, that they got their statistics wrong. So for you to ignore that and delve into stuff you don't know anything about is very suspicious and disappointing.

Specifically, you were led immediately to the review by Dr Steven Jeffers, who found exactly the kind of statistical problems in Jahn's work that a statistician should be able to discuss off the top of his head, as I did in my posts you keep sidestepping. And you've been directed several times a day to that. Again, since we've caught you several times professing expertise you could not demonstrate, and demanding acquiescence on the basis of nothing more than those professions, we have every reason to skeptical of your claim to be a competent statistician and thus able to simply declare your critics are wrong.

Quote:
Once I get to it, I will be happy to discuss statistical aspects with you.
We're six pages in and you haven't done any of that. Your argument -- laid out by you in your opening post -- is essentially that all those critics must somehow be wrong because you say so, and you're a mathematician and they're not so what you say goes, and you can't be bothered to explain the details because you're so busy. You start the thread by focusing on the criticism of the statistics, then you seem to drop it like a hot potato when it becomes apparent you can't bluff your way through it. This is not convincing, nor is it encouraging for your promised exhibit. You're simply inventing a private reality and demanding we all accept it without objection.

Last edited by JayUtah; 25th August 2018 at 10:37 AM.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 10:44 AM   #214
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,978
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Is it your goal to prolong the thread unnecessarily in hopes that it will appear to be productive despite your evasion?
I invoke my career as a graduate engineer. Shall we put our effort into a solution which demonstrably works, or one which demonstrably does not?

Buddha would have us chose the latter. In my experience, such round table discussions can ramble on for days or even weeks. The shortcut is the simple word "No".

Now, personally, I put my engineers hat on and am as brief as possible while conveying the meat of the topic. In contrast, you, Jay, are willing to compose lengthy responses. I buy that concept having been an engineering educator in the past. I simply lack the patience for it. For my students? Sure, I had endless patience. For Buddha? Not so much.
__________________
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, 12:29 PM   #215
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,938
I must say I am disappointed. Normally the woo slingers at least change up their routine when they change topics. This is just sad.

I’m reminded of the series of Happy Birthday songs Richard Simmons sang to the same tune. It’s entertaining the first few times you hear one, but it gets repetitive fast. Buddha threads are becoming more formulaic than a Harlequin Romance novel.

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
__________________
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 25th August 2018, 01:11 PM   #216
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
In my experience, such round table discussions can ramble on for days or even weeks.
Or years ( *cough* Jabba *cough* ).

Quote:
In contrast, you, Jay, are willing to compose lengthy responses.
I write to educate, but also to demonstrate. Buddha is desperately hoping his bluster and gaslighting will work. In order for it to work, there would have to be a vacuum of thorough, correct exposition from his opponents. I fill that vacuum. Not everyone has to commit to filling it, but it must be filled to defuse his blustery rhetoric. "You guys just don't understand" falls flat when there is a demonstration of understanding he has to deal with. "I'm so much smarter than you all" falls flat when he can't deal with the demonstrations. More people will read your posts than mine. Mine don't have to do much more than exist, than be on the record. You stand a greater chance of reaching an audience.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 01:16 PM   #217
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,347
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Enough with goddamn "Is this random nonsense with zero evidence that's already been debunked a million times real?" threads.

No. We need to add Betteridge's Law of Headlines to the MA in regards to thread titles.
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
To be honest, I started this thread without a specific goal in mind, I just wanted to see the audience’ reaction.

Just Asking Questions, eh?
__________________
"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 25th August 2018, 01:20 PM   #218
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,312
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Just Asking Questions, eh?
Sounds more like the definition of trolling.
__________________
"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 25th August 2018, 04:22 PM   #219
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Sounds more like the definition of trolling.
Which he admitted he used to do whenever he debated elsewhere.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2018, 10:11 PM   #220
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,978
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Which he admitted he used to do whenever he debated elsewhere.
We are all constrained by the MA. Otherwise, I would happily make my feelings known in no uncertain fashion and in rather robust language.
__________________
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 27th August 2018, 05:55 AM   #221
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
One of my opponents produced a very informative post, I really appreciate that. He/she also wrote that the IEEE article that I mentioned earlier is an invited paper. I didn’t know much about the invited papers, so out of curiosity I contacted my college friend who works as an editor for IET Science, Measurement & Technology magazine. According to her, usually invited papers are written by the leading experts in the field.

See also https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/invitedpapers and https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-inv...ntific-journal

In rare instances invited papers deal with controversial topics. In this case the editors ask the researchers’ permission to inspect their lab. If permission is granted, two or three engineers check the equipment to make sure that there is no fraud.

Now I return to the discussion.

“Palmer draw attention to the fact that there no documentation regarding measures to prevent data tampering by subjects, and this is of some considerable importance since the subject was left alone in the room during the formal sessions along with the REG and recording equipment” Alcock.

Palmer is not an engineer, so he has no idea what such tampering entails. To start with, you would have to obtain the equipment documentation, which is very difficult to achieve, although not impossible. Them you would have to decide what to do next.

The equipment consists of three parts: the apparatus, the recording device and the connecting cable. Obviously, it is extremely difficult to make changes to a shielded cable without damaging it.

The recording device is a digital circuit. To change its state you would have to interact with it directly. But you cannot do that without special equipment and instructions written by its manufacturing team. However, you do not have access to their documentation, and they won’t send it to you upon the request because they do not want to reveal its design to their competitors.

The apparatus itself has weak points and you could try exploit them. But to do that you would have to identify them first, which is not easy, most likely its schematics do not provide the appropriate details because they are very general.

But let’s assume you had identified all possible entries of fraudulent data. So you make the changes and it appears that you have achieved the goal. But the results would be so outlandish that it would be very easy to spot them. To do a good tampering of the data you would have to experiment with the device, which takes time and effort. But all your attempts will be recorded, which makes tampering virtually impossible.

But let’s assume that you have achieved the desired results during the first trial. This is not enough, after you finish altering the data you would have to return the apparatus to its original state; otherwise all following experiments with other subjects will produce unrealistic results that contradict previous recordings. Once again, you would have to experiment with the device, which is unlikely to go unnoticed.

Next time I will be discussing the Palmer article.
Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 06:14 AM   #222
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,978
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
One of my opponents produced a very informative post, I really appreciate that. He/she also wrote that the IEEE article that I mentioned earlier is an invited paper. I didn’t know much about the invited papers, so out of curiosity I contacted my college friend who works as an editor for IET Science, Measurement & Technology magazine. According to her, usually invited papers are written by the leading experts in the field.

See also https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/invitedpapers and https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-inv...ntific-journal

In rare instances invited papers deal with controversial topics. In this case the editors ask the researchers’ permission to inspect their lab. If permission is granted, two or three engineers check the equipment to make sure that there is no fraud.
Once again, you assume that you are so very brilliant that nobody else here knows what invited papers are.

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
Now I return to the discussion.
Oh, joy.

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
“Palmer draw attention to the fact that there no documentation regarding measures to prevent data tampering by subjects, and this is of some considerable importance since the subject was left alone in the room during the formal sessions along with the REG and recording equipment” Alcock.

Palmer is not an engineer, so he has no idea what such tampering entails. To start with, you would have to obtain the equipment documentation, which is very difficult to achieve, although not impossible. Them you would have to decide what to do next.
He doesn't need such expertise. All he needs to do is identify an obvious point of failure in the procedure. And he did.

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
The equipment consists of three parts: the apparatus, the recording device and the connecting cable. Obviously, it is extremely difficult to make changes to a shielded cable without damaging it.
Wrong. Flat out wrong. And you cannot conceive how.

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
The recording device is a digital circuit. To change its state you would have to interact with it directly. But you cannot do that without special equipment and instructions written by its manufacturing team. However, you do not have access to their documentation, and they won’t send it to you upon the request because they do not want to reveal its design to their competitors.
Correction. You simply lack the imagination to figure out how it could be achieved. That is an archetypical argument from ignorance fallacy.

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
The apparatus itself has weak points and you could try exploit them. But to do that you would have to identify them first, which is not easy, most likely its schematics do not provide the appropriate details because they are very general.
And so is that.

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
But let’s assume you had identified all possible entries of fraudulent data. So you make the changes and it appears that you have achieved the goal. But the results would be so outlandish that it would be very easy to spot them. To do a good tampering of the data you would have to experiment with the device, which takes time and effort. But all your attempts will be recorded, which makes tampering virtually impossible.
Stage magicians spend countless hours practicing. So do con men.

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
But let’s assume that you have achieved the desired results during the first trial. This is not enough, after you finish altering the data you would have to return the apparatus to its original state; otherwise all following experiments with other subjects will produce unrealistic results that contradict previous recordings. Once again, you would have to experiment with the device, which is unlikely to go unnoticed.
And back you go to an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
Next time I will be discussing the Palmer article.
Oh yet more joy.
__________________
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 27th August 2018, 06:28 AM   #223
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 Buddha
One of my opponents produced a very informative post, I really appreciate that. He/she also wrote that the IEEE article that I mentioned earlier is an invited paper. I didn’t know much about the invited papers, so out of curiosity I contacted my college friend who works as an editor for IET Science, Measurement & Technology magazine. According to her, usually invited papers are written by the leading experts in the field.

See also https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/invitedpapers and https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-inv...ntific-journal

In rare instances invited papers deal with controversial topics. In this case the editors ask the researchers’ permission to inspect their lab. If permission is granted, two or three engineers check the equipment to make sure that there is no fraud.

Now I return to the discussion.

“Palmer draw attention to the fact that there no documentation regarding measures to prevent data tampering by subjects, and this is of some considerable importance since the subject was left alone in the room during the formal sessions along with the REG and recording equipment” Alcock.

Palmer is not an engineer, so he has no idea what such tampering entails. To start with, you would have to obtain the equipment documentation, which is very difficult to achieve, although not impossible. Them you would have to decide what to do next.

[blah blah, blahblahblah]

[blah blah, blahblahblah]
Jeffers' !!! You can't manage Jeffers' !!!

[singsongily]You can't manage Jeffers' !!!!!![/singsongily]
__________________
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 27th August 2018, 06:28 AM   #224
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I didn’t know much about the invited papers...
Correct, which is why you wrongly assumed it was peer-reviewed and therefore was endorsed as valid science.

Quote:
Now I return to the discussion.
After not having addressed the issue. You Googled up a bunch of irrelevant material to make it seem like you weren't as ignorant as you clearly are about scholarly practice. You claim to have a master's degree and yet you don't know about how writing happens in journals? Jahn's article was not peer-reviewed, as you originally claimed, and it was not published by IEEE with the intent to let it stand as science. You're trying to distract from having to admit you made a mistake about what we could infer from the circumstances of publication.

Quote:
Palmer is not an engineer, so he has no idea what such tampering entails.
Whereas you somehow do? The men you're accusing of incompetence had long, highly visible careers as professional scholars and experimenters in fields that invariably involve apparatus, while you're a lowly data analyst with no demonstrable understanding of experimental science and a history of professing knowledge you don't have.

No, this is just your standard claim of being so much smarter than everyone else. Everyone who challenges you somehow never seems to have just the right credentials, despite their ability to argue rings around you and/or be published on the world stage. We discovered in the reincarnation thread that you are the one who knows little if anything about empirical controls and nothing at all about human-subjects research. Your argument from (pretended) authority has grown so very thin.

Quote:
To start with, you would have to...
Straw man.

The controls suggested by Dr. Palmer and echoed by Dr. Alcock would have been appropriate regardless of how easy or difficult you imagine the process of tampering to be. The problem for the empiricism is that their protocol does not allow them categorically to reject such things as tampering in order to explain the data. Since they didn't control for it, it is a confounding variable, whether you can figure out how it may have been done or not. Controls preclude possibilities entirely so that we don't have to speculate about method.

And as to your speculation of method, it boils down to you simply declaring that it would be too difficult for anyone to figure out how to do according to the few ways you can imagine. I can think of more, but it's not my job to think of them. It was Jahn and Boone's responsibility to apply proper empirical controls so that my ability or yours to imagine scenarios that would affect the integrity of the data are entirely irrelevant to the outcome of their experiment. They failed to do that, so there is a limit to what they can attribute the measured variance to.

Quote:
But the results would be so outlandish that it would be very easy to spot them.
Another straw man. Dr. Steven Jeffers did spot the outlandish results in the baseline and reported on them. As usual you ignore him entirely, probably because you don't have the expertise to challenge his statistics. Palmer notes that the variance PEAR reports is attributable to only one subject, Operator 010, whose results were more significant than all the other twenty-one subjects combined. This can be considered an "outlandish" result. There was no variance in the non-volitional trials. The correlation to a seemingly minor variable could be seen as "outlandish." You agree such results should be expected in tainted experiments, but when they are actually observed you switch to attacking the people who observed them.

Quote:
Next time I will be discussing the Palmer article.
Please discuss the Jeffers review instead, since it has been brought to your attention a number of times and directly relates to what you're discussing today. You say tampering would leave evidence. Jeffers discovered that evidence. Refute him, if you can.

Last edited by JayUtah; 27th August 2018 at 06:59 AM.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 06:44 AM   #225
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,982
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
“Palmer draw attention to the fact that there no documentation regarding measures to prevent data tampering by subjects, and this is of some considerable importance since the subject was left alone in the room during the formal sessions along with the REG and recording equipment” Alcock.

Palmer is not an engineer, so he has no idea what such tampering entails. To start with, you would have to obtain the equipment documentation, which is very difficult to achieve, although not impossible. Them you would have to decide what to do next.

The equipment consists of three parts: the apparatus, the recording device and the connecting cable. Obviously, it is extremely difficult to make changes to a shielded cable without damaging it.

The recording device is a digital circuit. To change its state you would have to interact with it directly. But you cannot do that without special equipment and instructions written by its manufacturing team. However, you do not have access to their documentation, and they won’t send it to you upon the request because they do not want to reveal its design to their competitors.

The apparatus itself has weak points and you could try exploit them. But to do that you would have to identify them first, which is not easy, most likely its schematics do not provide the appropriate details because they are very general.

But let’s assume you had identified all possible entries of fraudulent data. So you make the changes and it appears that you have achieved the goal. But the results would be so outlandish that it would be very easy to spot them. To do a good tampering of the data you would have to experiment with the device, which takes time and effort. But all your attempts will be recorded, which makes tampering virtually impossible.

But let’s assume that you have achieved the desired results during the first trial. This is not enough, after you finish altering the data you would have to return the apparatus to its original state; otherwise all following experiments with other subjects will produce unrealistic results that contradict previous recordings. Once again, you would have to experiment with the device, which is unlikely to go unnoticed.

Tampering with the REG hardware isn't the only, and probably isn't even the most likely, way of tampering with the experiment.

For instance, when and how did subject record which measure of the REG outcome they were attempting to influence in a given session? Given the nature of hardware at the time (typically, stand-alone units programmed for one specific task), this probably wasn't done using the REG recorder itself. I wouldn't be surprised if it were a paper log book instead. All a subject would need to be able to do is wait until the end of the session, after the actual results were seen, to record which parameter they had been trying to influence. Or alternatively, alter that record after the fact.

A surfeit of zeros? That's what I was trying for. A surfeit of ones? That's what I was trying for. A surfeit of repeated digits? That's what I was trying for. Runs of non-repeated digits? That's what I was trying for... Under those conditions after several trials, it wouldn't be hard to reach a spurious statistical significance.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 27th August 2018 at 06:45 AM.
Myriad 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 27th August 2018, 08:08 AM   #226
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,938
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
One of my opponents produced a very informative post, I really appreciate that. He/she also wrote that the IEEE article that I mentioned earlier is an invited paper. I didn’t know much about the invited papers, so out of curiosity I contacted my college friend who works as an editor for IET Science, Measurement & Technology magazine. According to her, usually invited papers are written by the leading experts in the field.



See also https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/invitedpapers and https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-inv...ntific-journal



In rare instances invited papers deal with controversial topics. In this case the editors ask the researchers’ permission to inspect their lab. If permission is granted, two or three engineers check the equipment to make sure that there is no fraud.



Now I return to the discussion.



“Palmer draw attention to the fact that there no documentation regarding measures to prevent data tampering by subjects, and this is of some considerable importance since the subject was left alone in the room during the formal sessions along with the REG and recording equipment” Alcock.



Palmer is not an engineer, so he has no idea what such tampering entails. To start with, you would have to obtain the equipment documentation, which is very difficult to achieve, although not impossible. Them you would have to decide what to do next.



The equipment consists of three parts: the apparatus, the recording device and the connecting cable. Obviously, it is extremely difficult to make changes to a shielded cable without damaging it.



The recording device is a digital circuit. To change its state you would have to interact with it directly. But you cannot do that without special equipment and instructions written by its manufacturing team. However, you do not have access to their documentation, and they won’t send it to you upon the request because they do not want to reveal its design to their competitors.



The apparatus itself has weak points and you could try exploit them. But to do that you would have to identify them first, which is not easy, most likely its schematics do not provide the appropriate details because they are very general.



But let’s assume you had identified all possible entries of fraudulent data. So you make the changes and it appears that you have achieved the goal. But the results would be so outlandish that it would be very easy to spot them. To do a good tampering of the data you would have to experiment with the device, which takes time and effort. But all your attempts will be recorded, which makes tampering virtually impossible.



But let’s assume that you have achieved the desired results during the first trial. This is not enough, after you finish altering the data you would have to return the apparatus to its original state; otherwise all following experiments with other subjects will produce unrealistic results that contradict previous recordings. Once again, you would have to experiment with the device, which is unlikely to go unnoticed.



Next time I will be discussing the Palmer article.


Good Christ I hope you never do any work that involves any form of security. Gaping security holes escape your notice thanks to a sad obsession with imagining real world implementations magically match your ideals.

I’d wager any system you designed is riddled with incursions that remain undetected until someone more competent comes along.

My statements are not insults. They are merely observations about your laughable professional claims in light of your demonstrated ineptitude. Clearly, you are either lying about your professional credentials and experience, or your REAL expertise is in fooling clients long enough to get paid and leave someone else to clean up the mess you left behind.
__________________
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 27th August 2018, 08:50 AM   #227
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Good Christ I hope you never do any work that involves any form of security.
Or safety.

Quote:
They are merely observations about your laughable professional claims in light of your demonstrated ineptitude.
Indeed, he is no "control systems engineer." He may have a smattering of understanding about the mechanical aspects of such machinery, but he has obviously never worked in the field. Endemic to the design of any automation is not merely the evasion of undesirable paths of operation but also the preclusion of undesirable results regardless of how they are envisioned to arise. Or more precisely, because we cannot possibly envision all the different ways they could arise. Boeing ties their hydraulic actuators to the relevant control surfaces with fuse pins to accommodate a stuck actuator. They do not declare the actuators immune from jamming simply because they have taken such great pains to eliminate previously know failure modes.

But empirical methods in experiment design go far beyond simply being practically effective. The science is largely worthless, epistemologically speaking, without them. The significance testing merely establishes that the baseline behavior of a certain variable cannot stretch to explain the experimental results. It doesn't establish what does explain them. That happens instead by controlling for all the other possible variables -- not just the mechanisms by which they could possibly arise, but by simply precluding the result.

Buddha is obsessing over the machinery likely because until today it has been something he hasn't already been caught bluffing about. He probably has enough hands-on experience with computers and data-collection equipment to throw around a few sciency-sounding terms ("Hacking a shielded cable..." etc.). But whether he can hold is own in a discussion like that is irrelevant. The problem is not whether some part of the REG is hackable. The problem for the science is that inadequate controls were in place, and that the experiment protocol was not sufficiently expounded in order to create confidence in the conclusion held after the null was rejected. Buddha doesn't understand that the controls are what allows you to draw the conclusion, not whether PEAR's critics were justified in whatever he imagines to have been their actual fears.

He doesn't get how science works.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 09:21 AM   #228
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Tampering with the REG hardware isn't the only, and probably isn't even the most likely, way of tampering with the experiment.
Just like tampering with voting machines is not the only, or even remotely the best, way of affecting the results of an election. A far more effective and vulnerable point of attack is the tabulator. Which is why that's what Fancy Bear goes after.

Quote:
A surfeit of zeros? That's what I was trying for. A surfeit of ones? That's what I was trying for.
Let's be clear what the actual anomalies in the data are.

First, the baselines. These are the runs that supposedly established the unaffected behavior of the REGs such that putatively affected runs would have empirically strong data to compare against. This is, as I mentioned before, an example of good empirical control. Rather than compare the experimental results to some theoretical expectation, they were compared against a measured expectation. But the problem is that the calibration runs were too closely correlated to have credibly come from actual equipment. Dr. Steven Jeffers provides the statistical argument establishing this. As I explained at length earlier, baselines that are "too good to be true" will amplify any variance in experimental data.

As an aside, this anomaly was brought to Jahn's attention, and his explanation is cause for concern. He opined that the operators performing the calibration runs unconsciously willed them to have exceptionally good performance. If so, then they are not unaffected runs and have no value as a baseline. This is where the controls suggested by various reviewers would have been useful. Jahn essentially admits that the calibration runs may have been affected by the subjects being present at the time of the calibration. That alone justifies the controls and invalidates his results.

Second, Operator 010. All the data responsible for significant variance in the experimental data was produced by a single subject, whose purported effect was greater than all the other subjects combined. We do not have to propose that all 22 subjects discovered a way to falsify data. Only one subject produced data that was at all interesting, and that's the one subject we should look more closely at. Nefarious suspicious aside, if one subject displays the purported ability in spades and 21 don't at all, that's a red flag for anomalous data no matter how you suspect it happened. You want more variance across subjects.

Third, volitional control -- which is what you touch on above. The effect only appeared (and keep in mind it ever only appeared for Operator 010) when the subject got to choose which of several available experimental protocols to attempt. If the choice of which to do was taken away from the subject, the ability to affect the REG disappeared entirely. Again, if we think pessimistically, this merely suggests that that was the only protocol Operator 010 had discovered how to subvert. This is an example of an empirical control doing its job. When the effect correlates perfectly to a control variable, you know that the basis underlying the control variable is what's explaining the data. "Operator 010 could affect the REG, but only if she got to choose how the experiment that day would be conducted."

Again, it doesn't matter whether we can imagine how Operator 010 got those results to happen. What matters is that the data point much more strongly to anomalous empirical outcomes that were either uncontrolled, or controlled but ignored in the analysis by diluting them with the aggregation.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 09:39 AM   #229
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,938
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post

As an aside, this anomaly was brought to Jahn's attention, and his explanation is cause for concern. He opined that the operators performing the calibration runs unconsciously willed them to have exceptionally good performance. If so, then they are not unaffected runs and have no value as a baseline. This is where the controls suggested by various reviewers would have been useful. Jahn essentially admits that the calibration runs may have been affected by the subjects being present at the time of the calibration. That alone justifies the controls and invalidates his results.

That’s a critical point. The test results are contaminated and invalid regardless of if telekinesis is real or not. There is no defense left for the research.
__________________
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 27th August 2018, 09:42 AM   #230
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,938
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Or safety.

Christ on a cracker. That right there is nightmare fuel.

“Crumple zones and seat belts are unnecessary because anyone in perfect health driving at a safe distance at or under the speed limit and under ideal driving conditions will be able to easily avoid any possible accidents.”
__________________
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 27th August 2018, 10:04 AM   #231
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 11,996
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
“Those gifts paid for a small staff and a gallery of random-motion machines, including a pendulum with a lighted crystal at the end; a giant, wall-mounted pachinko-like machine with a cascade of bouncing balls; and a variety of electronic boxes with digital number displays.

… snipped for brevity …

The same applies to this telekinetic experiment, so its data and the scientists’ conclusion are valid.
It is an almost certain that telekinesis is not real.

After all, if telekinesis were real, then there would be people making millions of dollars per year simply by going to casinos and using their powers to rig games like roulette and craps to their benefit. Or these people would periodically win big on Powerball Games and other such things which involve random chance objects.

And since there are no such people, even though such forms of gambling have abounded for many, many, many centuries, therefore it is quite safe that real telekinesis is highly unlikely.
__________________
On 28 JUN 2018 'yuno44907' said: "I am god and you have to help me."
On 03 JUL 2018 'yuno44907' got banned from the Forum.

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow 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 27th August 2018, 10:30 AM   #232
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,550
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
It is an almost certain that telekinesis is not real.

After all, if telekinesis were real, then there would be people making millions of dollars per year simply by going to casinos and using their powers to rig games like roulette and craps to their benefit. Or these people would periodically win big on Powerball Games and other such things which involve random chance objects.

And since there are no such people, even though such forms of gambling have abounded for many, many, many centuries, therefore it is quite safe that real telekinesis is highly unlikely.
Vegan police would take the power from you if you would misuse it .. and anything can be covered up, look at the Moon landing.
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 27th August 2018, 11:06 AM   #233
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
It is an almost certain that telekinesis is not real.
It doesn't even have to be that conclusory. I find it amusing that Buddha happily believes people can affect machines with the power of their minds, but at the same time finds it impossible that a clever subject can figure out how to rig the data in a poorly-controlled experiment conducted in a controversial field its practitioners admit is fraught with prior malfeasance. His opinion of what's a priori feasible is pretty far off in the fringe sigmas.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 05:51 AM   #234
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Then you should be able to cite the opinions of independent mathematicians who support the researchers' claims and can refute the criticism leveled by others. Please do so.

You are not a mathematician. Or at least you are unwilling to demonstrate any proficiency in statistics here. And we are naturally wary, because in your other threads and in your work outside this forum we have seen you happily claim expertise you obviously don't have and can't demonstrate when required. So we have every reason to believe you're lying now too. And you have further assured us that you are impervious to criticism and therefore unteachable. We simply don't believe your ongoing, unsubstantiated claims to relevant expertise, and we certainly don't accept them as an argument-from-authority in lieu of actual direct responses.

You still seem to maintain that the professional experimental scientists who have reviewed PEAR's work are somehow unqualified to do so. You are unwilling to address the disparity in your standards, nor the actual qualifications of real experimental scientists. If your claim is that these researchers have erred because they lack appropriate qualifications, then you should be able simply to identify their errors and show where such errors contradict easily-discovered facts. As it is you're simply insinuating that you're smarter than anyone else who has discussed the PEAR research. That is not an adequate claim, but it is typical for you.
I already promised you that I will discuss the Palmer report, and I am planning to do it tomorrow. I am looking forward to start a mathematical discussion with you on Thursday. Tomorrow I will present my critique of some topics covered in that report.

I am not a professional mathematician, although I have BS in Applied Math. You may not accept my credentials at this moment, but it doesn't matter because you would participate in the upcoming debate if you want to show me how competent you are.

Some mathematicians dispute the research's validity, but, as always, there is no complete agreement about it; some mathematicians support it. Well, I am not going to quote them because I am quite able to analyze it myself.

I am looking forward to pout debate. Unfortunately, I do not have time to present my argument and respond to my opponents on the same day. Please be patient.
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 28th August 2018, 05:54 AM   #235
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
As you have done for the past couple of days, you are dealing only with the straw men you have chosen to represent Jahn's critics. You have utterly failed to address a single critic your opponents here have asked you to look at. You are trying to script both sides of the debate so that you can avoid material you known you can't answer.



Is it your goal to prolong the thread unnecessarily in hopes that it will appear to be productive despite your evasion?
One of the members of this group called Palmer a "noted" psychologist, I take his word for it. You already made a reference to the Palmer article, which means that you do not see him as a straw man.
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 28th August 2018, 06:00 AM   #236
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
Vegan police would take the power from you if you would misuse it .. and anything can be covered up, look at the Moon landing.
Maybe some people are making money at the casinos the way you described it but for obvious reason they are silent about that. Unfortunately I am not one of them, although I occasionally play poker online.

The purpose of the Princeton study, as I understand it, was to show that so called everyday people have occasional sparks of telekinesis, but they cannot sustain their telekinetic abilities for long; this is the reason why they chose statistical methods to analyze their results.

Then there is Uri Geller, who claims that he has tested telekinetic abilities, but he is a conman who made millions demonstrating his "gift"
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 28th August 2018, 06:08 AM   #237
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Tampering with the REG hardware isn't the only, and probably isn't even the most likely, way of tampering with the experiment.

For instance, when and how did subject record which measure of the REG outcome they were attempting to influence in a given session? Given the nature of hardware at the time (typically, stand-alone units programmed for one specific task), this probably wasn't done using the REG recorder itself. I wouldn't be surprised if it were a paper log book instead. All a subject would need to be able to do is wait until the end of the session, after the actual results were seen, to record which parameter they had been trying to influence. Or alternatively, alter that record after the fact.

A surfeit of zeros? That's what I was trying for. A surfeit of ones? That's what I was trying for. A surfeit of repeated digits? That's what I was trying for. Runs of non-repeated digits? That's what I was trying for... Under those conditions after several trials, it wouldn't be hard to reach a spurious statistical significance.
Please read my post carefully. I already explained why the methods of data tampering that you described wouldn't work. I suspect that, unlike one of my opponents, you are not an engineer so I think it would take some time for you to understand my post, but I am sure you can do it. I am not being sarcastic, you might be an accomplished writer, musician, artist, etc. But you are not an engineer, which makes it a bit harder for you to participate in a technical discussion. But this doesn't mean that you are not an intelligent person, it simply means that you are in a unfamiliar field.
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 28th August 2018, 06:10 AM   #238
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
I already promised...
None of this has anything to do with what I posted. You claimed that mathematicians would accept Jahn's findings and reject those of his critics, supposedly as being mathematically unsound. I asked you to cite actual mathematicians who could back up your assertion. I certainly didn't ask you to pontificate further on those claims from your own pretense of authority.

Quote:
Some mathematicians dispute the research's validity, but, as always, there is no complete agreement about it; some mathematicians support it. Well, I am not going to quote them because I am quite able to analyze it myself.
No. I don't accept you as an authority. If you claim that properly qualified people support your claim, but are unwilling to name them, I have to conclude that you're lying. You're trying to boil down the argument once again to demanding that everyone accept you as an expert in whatever field you choose to bring up today. You've demonstrated broad incompetence in all of them in your previous threads, so no that's not going to happen.

Name the experts who support you or withdraw the claim that anyone does.

Quote:
I am looking forward to pout debate. Unfortunately, I do not have time to present my argument...
I've been waiting six pages for a debate, and instead I'm treated to excuse after excuse for why you can't do it today. No one asked you to analyze Palmer. They only pointed out that you pre-rejected his claim because you were ignorant of who he is and what he does. You have assiduously ignored treatment of all the critics your opponents here have cited. I have stated point-blank that i want you to discuss Jeffers, and that predated all your straw men.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 06:13 AM   #239
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15,982
Originally Posted by Buddha View Post
....which means that you do not see him as a straw man.
You brought up Palmer, whom you dismissed as biased. I pointed out that such a dismissal runs counter to the facts. Bringing up Palmer -- however qualified -- when I've asked you several times on a daily basis to address Jeffers makes it a straw-man argument. When you, not your critics, decide what argument you're going to rebut, that's a straw man. You're choosing what criticism to address and ignoring what your opponents want you to address.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 06:15 AM   #240
Buddha
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New York City
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
I have no time to read "Buddha"'s pathetic excuses.

Let me guess: he keeps ignoring Jeffers'; he claims to be an accomplished something (statistician, mathematician, etc.) instead of a being full of complexes; his replies have little to do with the posts he's quoting; his replies are mainly repetitive; and he argues he has not enough time.
For what ever reason you do not understand some, although not all, my responses. As for being repetitive, I agree with you. I try to respond to some posts that I find interesting, although they may contain similar data.

You might be a retiree , but I am not, so I do not have time for everything I would like to do. Yes, I know, I have repeated some stud that I wrote before, but I find your post interesting so I respond to it on a personal basis.
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
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 08:29 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.