(2019-01-07, 01:28 PM)Krm Wrote: [ -> ]I just dont understand how come the first time he replicated it looked like the sigma was very high and then suddenly the results seems giving no evidence of the original Dean Radin study.
Based on the replication alone, nothing weird happened at all or anyway something weird has been noted?
The problem was that in the original version the statistical tests were formulated after the experimental results were known, and actually included an element of optimisation, which artificially produced the appearance that they were highly significant.
(2019-01-07, 12:23 PM)Krm Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry for my ignorance, i have no real scientifc knowledge but i am interested in this replication. Whats the conclusion, in simple words, of the last paper published on march 9?
Quote:"These results provide partial support for the previously claimed existence of anomalous interactions between conscious agents and a physical system."
has been replaced by
"While the pre-registered analysis did not support the existence of the investigated phenomenon, the post hoc findings warrant further investigation to formally test the bi-directional hypothesis."
It means *Radin recognized he made a gross mistake, he jumped to a conclusion not warranted. Check the meaning of "post hoc" which is short for "post hoc ergo proctor hoc".
(2019-01-07, 01:38 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]It means Radin recognized he made a gross mistake, he jumped to a conclusion not warranted. Check the meaning of "post hoc" which is short for "post hoc ergo proctor hoc".
We're not talking about Radin's work. We're talking about work by Gabriel Guerrer.
Post hoc just means "after the event". "Post hoc ergo
propter hoc" is the logical fallacy of concluding that because something happened after something else, it's caused by that something, but that's not relevant here. The preprint we're discussing is just distinguishing a post hoc hypothesis from one fixed in advance, and acknowledging that it's necessary to test post hoc hypotheses by further experiments.
(2019-01-07, 01:44 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]We're not talking about Radin's work. We're talking about work by Gabriel Guerrer.
Post hoc just means "after the event". "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is the logical fallacy of concluding that because something happened after something else, it's caused by that something, but that's not relevant here. The preprint we're discussing is just distinguishing a post hoc hypothesis from one fixed in advance, and acknowledging that it's necessary to test post hoc hypotheses by further experiments.
I read the conclusion given by Gabriel. He does conclude Radin jumped the gun.
(2019-01-07, 04:17 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I read the conclusion given by Gabriel. He does conclude Radin jumped the gun.
The conclusion section in the preprint we're discussing (on p. 26) runs to five lines, and is as follows:
The four pre-registered experiments combined resulted in a statistically null difference between the data collected in intention and relax conditions. A post hoc combination of the formal experiments’ scores using sign independent statistics, however, provided statistically significant results favoring the existence of anomalous interactions between conscious agents and a physical system. Further studies are warranted to formally test the post hoc hypothesis.
If you are saying that somewhere else than in the conclusion section Gabriel Guerrer is criticising something that Dean Radin said, please can you quote the part you're referring to?
(2019-01-07, 06:02 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]No worse than any of Radins 'studies' I've looked at... same rubbish, different researcher.
I have very little respect for a researcher who fails to mention acoustic vibration as a possible factor affecting the results in his paper, and who does not make any measurements for acoustic vibration at all... when he has designed his experiment using a measuring device which is exquisitely sensitive to acoustic vibration.
Well, as discussed above, Gabriel Guerrer had the headphones lying there producing their acoustic vibration (presumably having a stronger effect, if any, than when they were clasped around the subject's head).
My impression is that Guerrer in his experiments went to greater lengths to exclude artefacts than Radin did. But until these experiments can produce predictable, replicable results, it's not clear what's going on.
(2019-01-07, 04:17 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I read the conclusion given by Gabriel. He does conclude Radin jumped the gun.
Just for the record, I checked, and Guerrer says no such thing.
I'm honestly curious about something but the thread is 33 pages....so can anyone let me know if they contacted the researchers in question w/ complaints?
If not Radin has sometimes replied to me in the past, I could try asking him?
(2019-01-07, 11:23 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]I'm honestly curious about something but the thread is 33 pages....so can anyone let me know if they contacted the researchers in question w/ complaints?
Yep. And Dean graciously visited our forum and this thread in person to respond, in posts
#56,
#59, and
#93. I confirmed in post
#69 that this was the real Dean Radin, not an imposter, as it was me who invited him by email.
Oops, forgot to note that Gabriel Guerrer also responded in person in the thread, in post
#174 - again, can confirm that this was the real Gabriel as I had also been in email contact with him.