(2018-10-18, 04:06 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I think the null hypothesis can reasonably be rejected with respect to the GCP. The problem you are describing, I think, is that there are a plethora of alternative hypotheses left to choose from, most of which are not anomalous.
Linda
This is their hypothesis.
Quote:Our purpose is to examine subtle correlations that may reflect the presence and activity of consciousness in the world. We hypothesize that there will be structure in what should be random data, associated with major global events that engage our minds and hearts.
The null would be consciousness cannot influence classical reality. With that in mind the plethora including the null still remain viable. A longtime ago I saw an art project which used many battery operated blinking traffic construction caution lights. All blinking randomly. However, if one watched long enough synchronization between the lights would happen for a few blinks then return to randomness. What to make of that? Under the hypothesis of the GCP the synchronicity would be interpreted as meaningful proving the alternative hypothesis, but in truth the null hypothesis would be the correct interpretation. That being patterns can happen naturally. On this one our points of view differ I think. For me to except their hypothesis the evidence needs to significantly more robust.
(2018-10-18, 08:48 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]This is their hypothesis.
The null would be consciousness cannot influence classical reality.
The null they tested, however, was that the data would follow theoretical expectations for randomly generated data.
Linda
(2018-10-18, 09:52 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]The null they tested, however, was that the data would follow theoretical expectations for randomly generated data.
Linda
Looking over I agree that is also part of their hypothesis. But still this project is a widget detector. They still have no firm evidence what might be causing these eggs to respond together as they sometimes do.
Quote:Standard caveat
It is important to keep in mind that we have only a tiny statistical effect, so that it is always hard to distinguish signal from noise. This means that every success might be largely driven by chance, and every null might include a real signal overwhelmed by noise. In the long run, a real effect can be identified only by patiently accumulating replications of similar analyses.
I'll wait for firmer evidence.
(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.
I have never felt more amply justified in any statement I've ever made in my life.
Chris, you can always put those particularly block-headed forum members on your ignore list.
(2018-10-19, 06:49 AM)Valmar Wrote: [ -> ]Chris, you can always put those particularly block-headed forum members on your ignore list.
Shame you for helping to turn this forum into just another echo chamber.
If this were really an "echo chamber", all of the skeptics would have been banned by now.
But, the others and you, are still here.
(2018-10-19, 12:05 PM)Valmar Wrote: [ -> ]If this were really an "echo chamber", all of the skeptics would have been banned by now.
But, the others and you, are still here.
I suspect that’s more for appearances sake than an interest in what they have to say, though.
Linda
(2018-10-18, 11:50 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I have never felt more amply justified in any statement I've ever made in my life.
I think this reflects the frustration the project engenders. It's difficult to know what we're meant to support, defend, constructively criticise, or engage with in any way. It looks like a (never ending) exercise in maths rather than recognisable science. I'm not surprised "serious skeptics" aren't that interested.
(2018-10-17, 01:29 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]"Albeit mathematically significant" is kind of grudging respect for results over seven standard deviations from the norm, don't you think? Seems pretty Michael Jordan-like to me...
From where do you get the claim "
over seven standard deviations from the norm" ?