(2017-09-17, 12:11 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]If your claiming a non-physical effect, or a new force... you got to remove all known sources of physical effects.. and control the experiment properly. Radin doesn't do that. I gave you an example of how I would expect to see a really good experiment run which is investigating an anomalous behavioral effect, for which we have no satisfactory mechanism. I like Sheldrakes Jaytee experiments too. It's not like a don't believe there is something new we need to understand going on behind these commonly reported anomalous phenomena... I just don't think Radin is demonstrating the effects he suggests might be responsible for his results, and further, one has to question whether he is aware of this himself. People are entitled to their own opinion you know Roberta, even if you don't like it.
Yes he does, he literally told you himself. And you can have a different opinion, you can just be nicer about it, and more humble when you are corrected. Just a suggestion.
(2017-09-17, 12:15 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ][Y]ou can have a different opinion.
I'm not sure about that, but yes, to a point. Opinions though are more for things like which flavour of (coconut-milk-based) ice cream is best. When it comes to empirical studies, the facts speak for themselves. In the case under discussion, I think one either has to say, "OK, Dean has satisfactorily addressed my [Max's] concerns, so I am compelled to accept the results of his experiment", or, "Dean is lying, and therefore i cannot accept the results". I don't think there's room for a third-way "opinion" that "Dean hasn't satisfactorily addressed my [Max's] concerns", because he quite manifestly has.
(2017-09-17, 12:34 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I'm somewhat bemused, but not surprised anymore, when people offer an opinion, then claim that theirs is the final word on the matter, without the studying the papers in question...
One doesn't need to study the papers to recognise that Dean satisfactorily addressed your concerns.
(2017-09-17, 12:34 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I'm somewhat bemused, but not surprised anymore, when people offer an opinion, then claim that theirs is the final word on the matter, without the studying the papers in question...
How about the people that did the studies and wrote the papers?
(2017-09-17, 12:44 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]
Max, I think you're a smart guy with a sharp mind who picks up interesting details that others might have missed. And I like that you formulate theories and objections. But what I find difficult is that when your theories are shown to have defects, and when your objections are met, you resort to repetitive non-responses and dodges, rather than openly admitting, "Oh, hey, yeah, that is a problem for my theory/objection. Let me rethink".
To be honest, that dynamic of yours really sucks for other people on the forum.
(2017-09-17, 12:11 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]If your claiming a non-physical effect, or a new force... you got to remove all known sources of physical effects..
Not possible as far as I can see. And I don't just mean in this situation but all others that come to mind.
Especially if you include the entire EM frequency spectrum and all possible applications of it.
I mean , give me an example where you theoretically have eliminated ALL possible physical effects, and I will respond with one you haven't considered.
And then do it again, and I will do it again,
and,,,,
(2017-09-17, 12:58 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Not possible as far as I can see. And I don't just mean in this situation but all others that come to mind.
Especially if you include the entire EM frequency spectrum and all possible applications of it.
I mean , give me an example where you theoretically have eliminated ALL possible physical effects, and I will respond with one you haven't considered.
And then do it again, and I will do it again,
and,,,,
Yes. I think it's fine to point to aspects of any experiment that could be better controlled and better characterised. But I think it's important to make a distinction between things that are capable of giving rise to a false positive result, and things that aren't.
With the GCP, we're in the situation where Max thinks the departures from non-ideality of the RNGs might explain the results, but can't demonstrate a specific mechanism by which they could. For myself, I can't see how they could, but I can't say it's impossible that there's some subtle mechanism that no one has spotted.
But really, I think in that situation, the conclusion has to be that more study is needed (only to be done by those who want to do it, naturally!), not that there's nothing there worth studying.
(2017-09-17, 12:50 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Max, I think you're a smart guy with a sharp mind who picks up interesting details that others might have missed. And I like that you formulate theories and objections. But what I find difficult is that when your theories are shown to have defects, and when your objections are met, you resort to repetitive non-responses and dodges, rather than openly admitting, "Oh, hey, yeah, that is a problem for my theory/objection. Let me rethink".
To be honest, that dynamic of yours really sucks for other people on the forum.
Actually it really sucks for Max himself.
- It lowers his status.
- It reduces his credibility.
Both mean any genuine concerns raised are likely to pass unnoticed by others. What I see is a form of self-harm going on.
(2017-09-17, 10:21 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]I'd rather not try and find the one example that can't be refuted. Not that it doesn't exist (for me), but that there will always be a crack in any example of anything. And since I've spent enough time talking about the individual size and shape of those cracks, however small, I'm talking about a different, larger view of it.
My point really was that there is also a great weight cast by virtue of the vast array of examples, the shear number and variety of them, all pointing at different aspects of the nature of things, all reinforcing the same basic theme of non-physicality.
In this view, it's not about the merits of a particular one, but the weight of the whole. And whether it is reasonable that by some odd quirk of fate, the evidence for each would have a different flaw that would discount it. Seems like a long and therefore unlikely string of apparent coincidences to me.
Well, this is also what you'd expect to see - a vast array of examples reinforcing the same themes - in the setting of cognitive and methodological biases, etc. So I'm not sure that helps you. I don't see why these same flaws wouldn't be relevant in any case (rather than a string of different flaws in different cases).
Linda