(2017-09-04, 05:35 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]This Dean Radin doesn't apparently remember his own papers accurately... he definately doesn't use headphones for all these studies. Dunno why he would mention the different remote study, when that's not the one we're discussing. As for Guerrer's study, he finds no significant statistical difference between experiments when a subject is in the room, or when they run the identical controls after they have left, and the test room is empty.
I don't get the point of the sweeping statement. Why is the result of "all these studies" relevant? IMO, only those that actually influenced the setup of Guerrer's study should be, at least for the purpose of this thread.
(2017-09-04, 05:35 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]This Dean Radin doesn't apparently remember his own papers accurately... he definately doesn't use headphones for all these studies. Dunno why he would mention the different remote study, when that's not the one we're discussing. As for Guerrer's study, he finds no significant statistical difference between experiments when a subject is in the room, or when they run the identical controls after they have left, and the test room is empty.
He definitely doesn't? You're sure of this? Why should we take your word over his?
You mean in the relax condition vs the control condition? Or are you now claiming that there's no difference at all between humans and the control and that the results are made up?
(2017-09-04, 05:35 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]This Dean Radin doesn't apparently remember his own papers accurately... he definately doesn't use headphones for all these studies. Dunno why he would mention the different remote study, when that's not the one we're discussing. As for Guerrer's study, he finds no significant statistical difference between experiments when a subject is in the room, or when they run the identical controls after they have left, and the test room is empty.
He's mentioned the distance experiment as there's was no sound equipment in the room with the measuring device but the results were still significant. Face it, you're criticisms and nasty insinuations of fraud are false.
(2017-09-04, 05:35 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]As for Guerrer's study, he finds no significant statistical difference between experiments when a subject is in the room, or when they run the identical controls after they have left, and the test room is empty.
If I understand correctly, in Guerrer's study the baseline drifts quite a lot during each session (participant or control), and this drift has to be removed before comparisons can be made. So he can't compare measurements within different sessions. In particular, he can't compare the participant sessions with the control sessions - he can only compare the participant "intention" condition with the participant "relax" condition, and the the control "intention" condition with the control "relax" condition. He finds a significant difference for the first comparison, and a non-significant difference for the second.
(2017-09-04, 07:57 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]If I understand correctly, in Guerrer's study the baseline drifts quite a lot during each session (participant or control), and this drift has to be removed before comparisons can be made. So he can't compare measurements within different sessions. In particular, he can't compare the participant sessions with the control sessions - he can only compare the participant "intention" condition with the participant "relax" condition, and the the control "intention" condition with the control "relax" condition. He finds a significant difference for the first comparison, and a non-significant difference for the second.
What I wonder is isn't the goal when setting up a control to have the two sessions be identical except for the variable being investigated?
What about an experiment where the control involves the same person but they are given a different task instead of concentrating on the double slit. Say instruct them to memorize a word list. The instructions for both could be given on a computer screen rather than audio headphones to avoid those problems. The experimenter could even be blind as to which session is which.
It would be interesting to see if a blind judge, or a computer analysis could figure out which was which.
Another version could be the computer assigns the subjects randomly to either concertrate on 1 or 0, or up or down whatever the case may be. With the experimenter blind to which. And again a blind analysis to see if can correctly ascertain which was which.
I'm sure it's more complicated, the point being to design the experiment so only 1 variable is changed between subject and control.
(2017-09-04, 05:35 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]This Dean Radin [...]
If you are implying that "this" Dean Radin is not the real Dean Radin, then I can assure you that you are categorically wrong. At another member's request, I contacted Dean by email on his publicised email address (
.org) to let him know about your criticisms in this thread and he (Dean) confirmed in an email reply that he had posted his response to the forum.
(2017-09-04, 08:39 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]You might be right, I know nothing about statistics so can't interpret those. But I'm struggling to find the part in the paper again where he mentions the insignificant result.
It's the one that's just described in the abstract as "statistically equivalent samples" for the control sessions. Obviously that has to be a comparison between two things, and for some time I couldn't work out what was being compared. Then the penny dropped that the whole control session is like the participant session, with "intention" and "relax" conditions alternating, and in each case the author is comparing those two conditions. But I don't think it's clearly described.
(2017-09-04, 08:39 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]You might be right, I know nothing about statistics so can't interpret those. But I'm struggling to find the part in the paper again where he mentions the insignificant result.
However, why no mention of vibration from sound (air pressure) anywhere in the paper, it's one of the three major sources of vibrations?
I'm concerned about why they are using active noise cancelling headphones? What environmental sound are they trying to cancel out? These designs have a tuned external port, which is a potential problem.
There is no monitoring of subjects, and they are left to use their own experience to influence the results... although they have an odd request made to breath deeply three times, and not to get tired. How do we know that subjects ain't doing some sort of Zen chanting or making resonant noises in the meditation phase? The paper suggests the researchers have no access to the internal state of the experimental room during testing.
OK. So I am staying out of the detailed discussion about the test procedure because honestly the damn report is just too detailed and convoluted (no dis on the report, apparently just my capacity for grasping it
) for me to get a clear understanding of the thing. So I'll shut up on that matter. BTW: would love a layman's explanation of the thing w/o all the jargon. Hint hint... : )
But on the other hand- am I correctly understanding that Max is at this point suggesting that ambient noise in the room is potentially affecting the test results?
I really wonder whether Max and people who share his feelings about this version of the DS test also feel that the traditional DS test setup should be taking into account ambient sound levels? You know, the test that has been used for, let's see,,, about 100 years, to prove the basis of QM? You know: the most famous, verified, and indisputable test in all of science? Yeah, that one.
Am I missing something? I can't recall ever hearing ambient sound as being a point of contention,, what with the huge variety of DS tests that have been run over the years. Why now? Is it because is it because this is an "extraordinary claim" so it must be subjected to extra scrutiny?
Please tell me that's NOT what's going on here! If so, I may just melt down into: I don't know,,, a puddle of ectoplasm or something.
I still want to know why anyone here is continuing to take Max's 'concerns' seriously. Radin has answered his comments and he refuses to answer my questions. If sound is the reason for the results as Max claims, why do meditators get a much better result then non meditators? Surely there would be no difference if sound/vibration was responsible for the results?
(2017-09-04, 10:22 AM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]I still want to know why anyone here is continuing to take Max's 'concerns' seriously. Radin has answered his comments and he refuses to answer my questions. If sound is the reason for the results as Max claims, why do meditators get a much better result then non meditators? Surely there would be no difference if sound/vibration was responsible for the results?
I get what you are saying but,,, here's the way I look at it.
It's not good enough to ignore the posts. If claims are outrageous they need to be clearly and repeatedly pointed out as so, if only for the benefit of others who are trying to absorb all this information, and make decisions about what to allow into their world-view.
This is important stuff to MANY people. They are discarding old, long held beliefs and replacing them with new "strange" ones. The deserve to have the benefit of other critical minds looking at what's being said and commenting.
This is the real value of a place like this. They can go anywhere on the web and find bizzaro theories. They will come here because the claims are being well vetted from ALL SIDES, and they will be able to compare and decide.
We are ALL doing important work here I think.