malf
As to whether it's meaningless or not, perhaps that question belongs in the philosophy forum.
But as to whether it's "an exercise in producing overwhelming amounts of noise, and pulling patterns from that noise" or "More unconscious bias/desperation for positive results than outright fraud", it's plainly neither of those.
As I said, what they claim is that they fixed before looking at the data a series of about 500 formal hypotheses, and the results were collectively extremely significant. Either they didn't do what they said they did, or it's a genuine anomalous effect, or else there's some extremely subtle methodological flaw that no one has ever managed to spot.
It's one of the pieces of evidence that sceptics find it convenient to ignore.
(2018-10-09, 07:19 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]malf
As to whether it's meaningless or not, perhaps that question belongs in the philosophy forum.
But as to whether it's "an exercise in producing overwhelming amounts of noise, and pulling patterns from that noise" or "More unconscious bias/desperation for positive results than outright fraud", it's plainly neither of those.
As I said, what they claim is that they fixed before looking at the data a series of about 500 formal hypotheses, and the results were collectively extremely significant. Either they didn't do what they said they did, or it's a genuine anomalous effect, or else there's some extremely subtle methodological flaw that no one has ever managed to spot.
It's one of the pieces of evidence that sceptics find it convenient to ignore.
I think we both agree that when it comes to the global consciousness project, the one thing it isn't measuring is global consciousness. Having looked at the data, Bancel came to a conclusion that is about as polite and forgiving as it can be. Nobody can claim fraud as we don't have the equivalent of the video evidence that we have in the Powell case (i.e. the video evidence of them fixing the hypotheses in advance, or of some subtle elasticity in the interpretation of the data (or the hypotheses criteria) that nobody has thought of).
What are the formal conclusions of those undertaking the project?
(This exchange should be moved to the GCP thread I guess
)
(2018-10-09, 10:03 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]I think we both agree that when it comes to the global consciousness project, the one thing it isn't measuring is global consciousness.
No. I suspend judgment on what they've measured/not measured. Peter Bancel has made some strong arguments in favour of experimenter psi rather than global consciousness, but he had previously made what appeared to be equally strong arguments pointing in the other direction. Perhaps it's not cut and dried.
(2018-10-09, 10:03 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Having looked at the data, Bancel came to a conclusion that is about as polite and forgiving as it can be.
I really don't know why you should say "forgiving". I've never read anything to suggest that Bancel thinks there is anything to "forgive". He seems perfectly clear that he believes this is a psi effect.
(2018-10-09, 10:03 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody can claim fraud as we don't have the equivalent of the video evidence that we have in the Powell case (i.e. the video evidence of them fixing the hypotheses in advance, or of some subtle elasticity in the interpretation of the data (or the hypotheses criteria) that nobody has thought of).
I think if people are going to suggest there is elasticity in the interpretation of the data, it's reasonable to ask them where it is. If a hypothesis is stated, it's not much help to say "I can't see any elasticity in it, but maybe there's some subtle elasticity I can't see".
As for formal conclusions, as far as I can see, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the formal hypotheses is that observations like these are extremely unlikely to occur on the null hypothesis.
(2018-10-09, 11:12 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]No. I suspend judgment on what they've measured/not measured. Peter Bancel has made some strong arguments in favour of experimenter psi rather than global consciousness, but he had previously made what appeared to be equally strong arguments pointing in the other direction. Perhaps it's not cut and dried.
And you're criticising "skeptics" for not engaging with the data? I think at the very least it needs to be "cut and dried" before anyone is going to be that interested.
Quote:I really don't know why you should say "forgiving". I've never read anything to suggest that Bancel thinks there is anything to "forgive". He seems perfectly clear that he believes this is a psi effect.
Charitable then, given examples like I gave with the two aviation incidents. The fact that the data as a whole doesn't support a link between incidents and non-random outputs, yet their predetermined sample does, is worringly convenient. Does that not concern you at all?
Quote:I think if people are going to suggest there is elasticity in the interpretation of the data, it's reasonable to ask them where it is. If a hypothesis is stated, it's not much help to say "I can't see any elasticity in it, but maybe there's some subtle elasticity I can't see".
Given there isn't a graspable hypothesis on test here I sense a big "meh" from the skeptical community when it comes to the GCP. That and the scant prior plausibility means that it fails the critical thinking sniff test for them. I'm not saying I agree with that btw, I'd like to see more examination of the question, and a non psi friendly replication.
Quote:As for formal conclusions, as far as I can see, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the formal hypotheses is that observations like these are extremely unlikely to occur on the null hypothesis.
Yes, with the variable of psi sympathetic researchers.
malf
Thanks for your response, but your comments really don't make much sense to me, and as you say, the GCP is off-topic here.
(2018-10-09, 10:03 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ](This exchange should be moved to the GCP thread I guess )
Done given the lack of objection from Chris or anybody else. You might want to edit for context your now
post #153 in this thread.
(2018-10-10, 07:57 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Done given the lack of objection from Chris or anybody else.
The only mystery remains why malf should have posted an off-topic comment, and then asked for it to be moved - together with the replies it generated - because it was off-topic.
Perhaps I should just stop taking seriously what passes for "sceptical" comment on this site.
We have 20 years of data gathering that wouldn’t pass for science in any other branch of acadaemia.
Nobody, including the researchers involved, seem to have any clue what they’re actually measuring. What’s a serious critic meant to say about that?
Any conclusions pulled from this ‘study’ are extremely vague and lacking in detail. I feel comfortable in dismissing them in exactly the same fashion.
(2018-10-10, 03:52 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]The only mystery remains why malf should have posted an off-topic comment, and then asked for it to be moved - together with the replies it generated - because it was off-topic.
Perhaps I should just stop taking seriously what passes for "sceptical" comment on this site.
In my defence, I thought the GCP was measuring the effect of thought, emotion and love on sensitive componentry in pieces of electronics. That the researchers predicted that would happen misled me to think they had an idea about the electromagnetic forces involved to cause the fluctuations from random.
My discussion with Chris has clarified that isn’t what is happening in the GCP (despite how it is presented to the public) and I thank him for that.
(2018-10-10, 05:19 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody, including the researchers involved, seem to have any clue what they’re actually measuring. What’s a serious critic meant to say about that?
Frankly, I don't give a damn what people say, so long as their statements aren't factually inaccurate and misleading. Yours were both inaccurate and misleading, so the question of your being a "serious critic" doesn't arise.