(2018-10-10, 06:14 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]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.
Where am I being inaccurate or misleading? Do you know what is being measured? (And, rest assured, I was referring to a ‘serious critic’ in the third person, not the first
. Consider me the village idiot!)
(2018-10-10, 06:55 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Where am I being inaccurate or misleading?
The stuff about "pulling patterns from the noise". And that was in direct answer to my post in which I'd pointed out that they said their hypotheses were fixed in advance!
Anyhow, it was my mistake to think your post on the other thread was anything but a silly bit of sarcasm. I'll ignore your comments in future.
(2018-10-10, 07:17 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]The stuff about "pulling patterns from the noise". And that was in direct answer to my post in which I'd pointed out that they said their hypotheses were fixed in advance!
Anyhow, it was my mistake to think your post on the other thread was anything but a silly bit of sarcasm. I'll ignore your comments in future.
The fact that they're pulling patterns out of the noise seems irrefutable. The only question is
how they're doing it (experimenter psi, or something else).
(2018-10-10, 07:17 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]The stuff about "pulling patterns from the noise". And that was in direct answer to my post in which I'd pointed out that they said their hypotheses were fixed in advance!
Anyhow, it was my mistake to think your post on the other thread was anything but a silly bit of sarcasm. I'll ignore your comments in future.
I think the root question that should be asked is why these people think consciousness is so important it has the power to affect reality?
(2018-10-10, 11:38 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the root question that should be asked is why these people think consciousness is so important it has the power to affect reality?
The problem is, if it can, this project isn't really helping.
(2018-10-10, 11:38 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the root question that should be asked is why these people think consciousness is so important it has the power to affect reality?
This is an irrelevant question that has nothing to do with the methodology of the study or what potentially could be gleaned from it.
(2018-10-11, 12:25 AM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]This is an irrelevant question that has nothing to do with the methodology of the study or what potentially could be gleaned from it.
The question has everything to do with the assumption human consciousness can affect reality. If consciousness does not, than all of their conclusions are merely demonstrations of bias. You see Dante, they're trying to build a widget detector but they don't know what a widget actually is that gives them many degrees of freedom to mistake random patterns for evidence. With no hypothetical constraints they're naturally bound to find what they seek.
Consider too this project is a continuation of their work at Princeton University where after millions of pk trials over almost 30 years they really didn't find anything that rose above the margin of error and no other research group was ever at that time and still hasn't replicated their research conclusions. Also factor this quote by the director of the GCP.
Quote:According to The Age, Nelson concedes "the data, so far, is not solid enough for global consciousness to be said to exist at all. It is not possible, for example, to look at the data and predict with any accuracy what (if anything) the eggs may be responding to.
Here's an overview.
Quote: The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) was a research program at Princeton University that studied parapsychology.[1] Established in 1979 by then Dean of Engineering Robert G. Jahn, PEAR closed in February 2007, being incorporated into the "International Consciousness Research Laboratories" (ICRL).[2] The program was controversial.[3]
PEAR's primary purpose was to engage in parapsychological exercises on topics such as psychokenesis (PK) and remote viewing.[4][5] The program had a strained relationship with Princeton and was considered an embarrassment to the university.[2][6][7][8] PEAR's activities have been criticized for lack of scientific rigor, poor methodology, and misuse of statistics,[9][10]-11][11] and have been characterized as pseudoscience.[1]
Parapsychological experiments with random event generators
PEAR employed electronic random event generators (REGs) to explore the ability of test subjects to use psychokinesis to influence the random output distribution of these devices to conform to their pre-recorded intentions to produce higher numbers, lower numbers, or nominal baselines.[12] Most of these experiments utilized a microelectronic REG, but experiments were also conducted with "a giant, wall-mounted pachinko-like machine with a cascade of bouncing balls".[2]
In 1986 associates of PEAR published data collected over the course of seven years from a group of subjects attempting to influence random number generators across millions of trials.[9] In all cases, the observed effects were very small (about one tenth of one percent), and despite metastudies of the experiments demonstrating so-called statistically significant deviations from chance behavior, this finding has been thoroughly disputed.[9] The baseline for chance behavior used did not vary as statistically appropriate (baseline bind). Two PEAR researchers attributed this baseline bind to the motivation of the operators to achieve a good baseline and indicates that the random number generator used was not actually random.[13] It has been noted that a single test subject (presumed to be a member of PEAR's staff) participated in 15% of PEAR's trials, and was responsible for half of the total observed effect.[9]
James Alcock in a review mentioned various problems with the PEAR experiments such as poor controls and documentation with the possibility of fraud, data selectionand optional stopping not being ruled out. Alcock concluded there was no reason to believe the results were from paranormal origin.[12]
The psychologist C. E. M. Hansel, who evaluated Jahn's early psychokinesis experiments at the PEAR laboratory, wrote that a satisfactory control series had not been employed, that they had not been independently replicated, and that the reports lacked detail. Hansel noted that "very little information is provided about the design of the experiment, the subjects, or the procedure adopted. Details are not given about the subjects, the times they were tested, or the precise conditions under which they were tested."[14] Physicist professor Milton Rothman has noted that Jahn's experiments at PEAR started from an idealistic assumption, ignored the laws of physics and had no basis in reality.[15]
PEAR's results have been criticized for deficient reproducibility.[16] In one instance two German organizations failed to reproduce PEAR's results, while PEAR similarly failed to reproduce their own results.[13] An attempt by York University's Stan Jeffers also failed to replicate PEAR's results.[9]
http://[/url][url]https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Princeton_...search_LabouTube Vide]]os – Princeton Engineering Anomalies
So after all this will you still say the assumption has no relevance?
I'm afraid this has finally convinced me that it's not appropriate to try to discuss the science of parapsychology in an online forum like this one. It's a waste of effort. I'm not going to try to do it any more.
(2018-10-11, 05:39 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I'm afraid this has finally convinced me that it's not appropriate to try to discuss the science of parapsychology in an online forum like this one. It's a waste of effort. I'm not going to try to do it any more.
Could the reason be you see there's more wrong with its methodologies leading to claimed discoveries?
(2018-10-11, 05:39 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I'm afraid this has finally convinced me that it's not appropriate to try to discuss the science of parapsychology in an online forum like this one. It's a waste of effort. I'm not going to try to do it any more.
That would be a shame. I’ve genuinely appreciated your reflections over the years. You don’t fit neatly into either ‘camp’ and that is to your credit. You appear to be more emotionally invested in this project than others you’ve approached.
I’m still happy to go through why you think this study is important and what you think it demonstrates. (I’m away in conference for a few days so may not be able to reply as briskly)