Quote:Laird: Which non-anomalous hypotheses do you think we are left to choose from, and of those, which do you think are most plausible?
Linda: I wouldn't be able to guess at all of them - any/all of the various ways in which the EGGs produce data which doesn't follow a theoretical distribution, including errors and biases
But the RNGs produce data which
does[1] follow a theoretical distribution, which - as the very links you shared demonstrate
[2] - is as expected given both their design
[3] and the experiment's quality control precautions
[4].
A non-anomalous hypothesis then has to explain not just why and how the proposed cause increases RNG network variance
[5] during formally-specified events, but also why this cause does
not during the same periods affect the output of
individual RNGs, which remains at chance expectation.
It also needs to take into account that the project hypothesised, and that its event selection process was predicated on, the existence of a correlation between major world events and RNG network variance
[6], and that the project's results are significantly consistent with this correlation.
Since we are exploring non-anomalous explanations, we cannot dismiss this successful selection process and the resulting correlation by substituting, as does Peter Bancel, an alternative explanation of successful event selection based on a goal-oriented model, an experimenter effect, or decision augmentation theory - and to dismiss it as simply spurious and random would be to essentially take the position that you take here:
(2018-10-20, 08:20 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]All we can say is that a capricious ad hoc selection process has managed to select a slightly biased sample.
In this case, we would have to explain how that capricious, ad hoc selection process managed to select a slightly biased sample whose overall level of statistical significance resampling demonstrates
[7] could be achieved only about one time in 100,000 capricious, ad hoc attempts. Too, that was back in 2008, when the set of events numbered only 212. With the present database of circa 500 events, I would expect that the number of capricious, ad hoc samples required to achieve the present level of statistical significance is much, much higher. Are you aware of a plausible non-anomalous explanation for this?
Without being able to dismiss that correlation, and given that it appears to be causal in nature due to its high level of statistical significance, we have a causal scenario in which not only does the hypothesised non-anomalous cause affect RNG network variance, but (the occurrence of) major world events somehow either (directly or via one or more intermediaries) affects or is affected by the hypothesised non-anomalous cause. This clearly complicates the requirements of the explanation.
Too, if the explanation is that the hypothesised non-anomalous cause affects (the occurrence of) major world events, then, considering that many of the formally-specified events had their times fixed in advance (e.g., New Year's Eve), this would seem to entail that the hypothesised non-anomalous cause must affect the
human scheduling of those events, which seems... pretty anomalous. Arguably, then, the causal relationship would have to go in the other direction: that major world events affect the hypothesised non-anomalous cause.
Other causality-related complications include Peter Bancel's findings, amongst others, that the results for a surrogate set of unregistered major world events were non-significant even though the results for the comparable set of formally-registered major world events were very significant
[8], and that the results using alternative methods of analysis for the same set of formally-registered events were non-significant whereas the results using the formally-registered methods of analysis of the events were highly significant, even though all those methods of analysis were at some point used in formally-registered events
[9] - both of which on a non-anomalous hypothesis are hard to explain, but which for simplicity I have excluded from the below summary.
To sum up, a non-anomalous hypothesis has, as far as I can see, at least three (numbered in parentheses) explanatory requirements:
(1) Why and how the proposed non-anomalous cause increases RNG network variance during formally-specified events (2) without simultaneously causing the output of individual RNGs to deviate from chance expectation, and (3) why and how major world events affect or are affected by the hypothesised non-anomalous cause.
As far as I can see, none of these requirements is met by any of the examples you've provided: "
geomagnetic fields, electro-communications traffic, time of day, location of galactic center, pirate activity".
For a start, we seem to be able to discard the final three of them, at least as ultimate causes: time can't - as far as I can tell - itself be a cause, only a proxy marker for a cause; for pirate activity to be an ultimate cause would clearly be anomalous; and the location of the galactic center as an ultimate cause would also appear to be anomalous, for similar reasons as those for which astrology is considered to be anomalous.
That leaves us with "geomagnetic fields" and "electro-communications traffic", which we can abstract as "electromagnetism" in general. Perhaps you can explain how electromagnetism (in general or in either of these specific cases) fulfills the three explanatory requirements, because I cannot see that or how it does. The researchers themselves say that they "
have excluded reasonable mundane explanations such as electromagnetic radiation, excessive strain on the power grid, or mobile phone use".
[10]
The other candidate cause which you implied by sharing a link is sunspot activity. It does, as
the page to which you linked suggests, appear to be correlated with the cumulative deviation of RNG network variance. This is very intriguing, but it is far from a non-anomalous explanation in and of itself, and the researchers themselves do not seem to think that it can be developed into one. They suggest instead a possible
anomalous elaboration in terms of sunspot activity affecting human psychology and emotion which in turn affect both GCP network variance and world events. Even this seems to me to be quite difficult to make sense of given the complication I mentioned above: this seems to entail that sunspot activity affects the
human scheduling of predetermined events, which even for parapsychology is pretty strange.
In any case, perhaps you can explain how a non-anomalous hypothesis based in sunspot activity as a cause fulfills the three explanatory requirements, because, as for electromagnetism, I cannot see that or how it does.
(2018-10-20, 08:20 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]The most plausible [candidate for a real effect], unfortunately, is the ease with which the selection process can be post hoc.
(Editing note added by me).
Given that the experimenters have been pretty clear that they have not engaged in data mining, I think that this would amount to deliberate fraud. I personally can't rule that out, especially given that all I know of the experiment is what I've read about it online, but I'm assuming honesty for the sake of argument, and because at this point I have no positive evidence of fraud nor compelling reason to expect it. I think if you have any positive evidence you should share it, because what little support you have provided so far is weak:
(2018-10-20, 08:20 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]the data is collected before the hypotheses are registered
It seems likely that for at least a subset of the many formally-registered events which are scheduled or otherwise known in advance, such as New Year's Eve, an hypothesis is registered prior to each event's occurring. I have as-yet been unable to confirm that this is the case though, nor how the significance of the results for those events compares to that for the rest of the events. I would be interested if anybody can point me to a source of information on this.
(2018-10-20, 08:20 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]there is an ongoing graphical representation of the data which conveniently shows you where the deviations are, it is far too easy to select your events of interest post hoc (https://www.heartmath.org/gci/gcms/live-...s-project/).
However, given the earliest possible date at which data became available via that web page, at most only seven of the 513 formally-registered events could have been monitored live.
[11] If the live data was available elsewhere prior to that, then perhaps you can point out where.
In any case, given that events have been excluded from the experiment due to inadvertent data peeking
[12], data peeking seems an unlikely explanation.
(2018-10-20, 08:20 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]There are a handful of "positive" tests, where the variance was significantly correlated - 42 out of 513 on my rough count. But you'd expect 51 "positive" tests due to chance anyways, so I'm not sure what we're supposed to make of that.
51? Isn't that double what we'd actually expect? Wouldn't we expect 0.05 x 513 events, not 0.1 x 513 events?
And, unless I've miscalculated, the one-tailed p-value by the exact binomial test for 42 successes out of 513 trials at a probability of success of 0.05 is 0.001409, which seems not so incongruous.
We can also try another grouping: by my count, 314 out of the 513 events have positive Z-scores whereas chance expectation is only 256.5 such events. And, unless I've miscalculated, the one-tailed p-value for this by the exact binomial test is 2.169 x 10
-07. Again, not so incongruous.
(2018-10-19, 03:17 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I suspect that [the fact that Steve001 and the other skeptics are still here is] more for appearances [sic] sake than an interest in what they have to say, though.
(Editing notes added by me).
I am potentially interested in what skeptics have to say on individual experiments, because, given their general disbelief in anomalous phenomena, they have a motivation to uncover flaws. Informed and careful criticism can be fascinating. Uninformed or specious criticism is... less interesting.
Also less interesting in general when black swans surround us are repetitive claims that all swans are white. And even less so when manipulation and spin are employed. That said, it can sometimes be interesting (or tempting) to debate/discuss these sort of claims with skeptics anyway, partly to clarify issues, partly because in the clash of ideas sometimes - though rarely - genuinely interesting or novel perspectives or possibilities are raised, and partly because on a public forum it can give onlookers some useful food for thought, especially as to why proponents propone despite the skepticking of skeptics.
The idea that the continued presence of skeptics on this forum is for appearance's sake
could suggest something about the appearance of the forum's skeptics... but, of course, that's not what you meant. Regardless, I think it is more the case that the continued presence of skeptics on this forum reflects hopefulness and tolerance - as well as a recognition that socially you (plural) contribute your own personalities, humour, gifts, experiences, etc to the community.
[1] See Table 2 on page 15 and the discussion surrounding it in the 2008 paper by Peter Bancel and Roger Nelson
The GCP Event Experiment: Design, Analytical Methods, Results.
[2] I do not understand why you would share links which weaken rather than strengthen your claim, but somehow that is what you have done.
[3] Systemic variations from chance in individual RNGs are avoided by XOR processing, which eliminates biases potentially caused by the factors you listed (temperature change and electromagnetic fields), as described in the
XOR and
REG design pages which you shared.
[4] Erroneous data is actively monitored for and removed from analysis, and valid data are then corrected and normalised, as described in the
Data and
Known Errors pages which you shared.
[5] Which basically measures the overall correlation between RNG outputs. For details, see pages nine and ten of the paper referenced in
footnote 1 above.
[6] A pedantic acknowledgement: strictly speaking, the project's hypothesis does not reference RNG network variance specifically, but that's the measure that ended up being used most in practice.
[7] As described in Appendix 3 on page 23 of the paper referenced in
footnote 1 above.
[8] See "S.10 Counterfactual test 1: Undesignated surrogate events" in the
Supplementary Materials for Peter Bancel's 2016 paper
Searching for Global Consciousness: A Seventeen Year Exploration.
[9] See "S.11 Counterfactual test 2: Alternate test statistics" in the materials referenced in
the previous footnote.
[10] See
The Global Consciousness Project: a Summary.
[11] Whilst that URL itself
is not archived on the Wayback Machine, it appears that the page was previously located at a slightly different URL,
https://www.heartmath.org/research/globa...live-data/, which now redirects to the current URL. The earliest two archival entries for that previous URL show that live data became available (inclusively) sometime between
27 July 2015 and
5 March 2016, and
only events 507 through 513 occurred after 27 July 2015.
[12] See "Rejected events" under "S.5 Test statistics" in the materials referenced in
footnote 8 above.