2019-01-17, 09:41 AM
2019-01-17, 05:41 PM
In terms of competing hypotheses, one must be that, once presented with colossal amounts of noisy data, mathematics can always produce some statistical significance.
If Bancel’s comments can be trusted we know the one thing the GCP is not measuring is GC.
It might be helpful if others suggested their favoured hypotheses in the next few posts?
If Bancel’s comments can be trusted we know the one thing the GCP is not measuring is GC.
It might be helpful if others suggested their favoured hypotheses in the next few posts?
Chris
2019-01-17, 05:59 PM
(2019-01-17, 05:41 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]In terms of competing hypotheses, one must be that, once presented with colossal amounts of noisy data, mathematics can always produce some statistical significance.
Not if the hypotheses were fixed in advance, as is stated to have been the case.
It is really frustrating to see this suggestion over and over again, when it's incapable of explaining the observations.
Of course, if people want to suggest the hypotheses weren't fixed in advance they can. But in that case they need to be clear that's what they are suggesting.
2019-01-17, 06:31 PM
(2019-01-17, 05:59 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Not if the hypotheses were fixed in advance, as is stated to have been the case.
It is really frustrating to see this suggestion over and over again, when it's incapable of explaining the observations.
Of course, if people want to suggest the hypotheses weren't fixed in advance they can. But in that case they need to be clear that's what they are suggesting.
Event selection necessitates some flexibility. The researchers admit that:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/pred_formal.html
Another variable left hanging is the direction (+/-) of the deviation from ‘normal’. I seem to remember you being frustrated by that previously. There have been concerns raised over the durations and timings of ‘events’ also.
But no matter. I specifically asked for better hypotheses than the lame one I’ve proposed
2019-01-17, 08:44 PM
(2019-01-17, 08:43 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]A few other responses to Linda's most recent post:
So, why did you even remark on the number of events in the extreme 10% then if you thought that assessing that number would not anyway be valid?
Two different things...commenting on the distribution of events within their threshold for "extreme" events is different from looking at how a shift in the curve changes the number of events within that threshold.
Quote:Please let us know exactly what you're referring to.
Seriously?
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-c...=bem+linda
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2013/11/me...emony.html
Quote:That's a non sequitur: the definition of deliberate fraud does not entail anybody levelling any charge.
However, if other parapsychologists/psychologists are aware of their actions, yet carry on as though the results are valid, it certainly suggests that this particular form of dishonesty is not regarded as fraud.
Quote:Oh? Can you justify that claim?
https://szociologia.tk.mta.hu/uploads/fi...l_2012.pdf
Quote:That is incorrect, for reasons detailed in my original lengthy response to you (again, post #213).
I don't know which post you are referring to (the link takes me to an unrelated post, plus post #213 is one of mine, plus I don't remember you addressing this particular point). However, Bancel demonstrated this clearly under the "counterfactual tests" section in his paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication...xploration). He showed that, rather than considering every Peace Day and Earth Day, the selected set included in the formal event listing returned a "significant" result, while the remainder did not (fortuitous for the researchers - what if they had selected the 'wrong' selected sample?). Similarly, when a choice of outcome measure was available, the researchers fortuitously chose the one which returned a "significant" result when choosing the other would have returned an insignificant result. Regardless of whether or not you believe this was done unconsciously, it demonstrates that the effect is "fortuitous event and outcome measure selection", rather than an effect related to Global Consciousness.
Linda
Chris
2019-01-17, 09:15 PM
(2019-01-17, 06:31 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Event selection necessitates some flexibility. The researchers admit that:
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/pred_formal.html
For about the twentieth time - the claim is that the hypothesis for each event was fixed before the data were examined.
And it gets more frustrating every time that has to be explained.
2019-01-17, 09:52 PM
(2019-01-17, 09:15 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]For about the twentieth time - the claim is that the hypothesis for each event was fixed before the data were examined.
Can you explain what you mean by ‘hypothesis’ in this sentence?
Chris
2019-01-17, 10:08 PM
(2019-01-17, 09:52 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Can you explain what you mean by ‘hypothesis’ in this sentence?
OK, if you want to be pedantic - the claim is that for each event they pre-defined a statistic that could be used to test the null hypothesis.
2019-01-18, 02:53 AM
Linda, I notice that you ignored the most significant part of my post: the explanation based on unsynchronised XOR masks as to why we seem to be able to rule out a non-anomalous hypothesis. You are of course free to do that, I just want to note it.
That doesn't answer my question.
Perhaps I can give you a better idea of what I mean by "exactly". It might look something like this:
You list, in your response in this thread, the experiments in which you claim that Bem, Radin, and others have been caught changing their hypotheses after the fact. For each of your claims, you state the prespecified hypothesis, quoting it exactly with a checkable reference, and then you state the changed, after-the-fact hypothesis, quoting it exactly with a checkable reference. Then you quote directly, with a checkable reference, the person who "caught" this change. If there was a response to the accusation by the researcher(s) in question, then you directly quote that response with a checkable reference.
There are two questions here:
So, there are basically three parts to your claim:
That paper doesn't even begin to justify the first part of your claim: reading the abstract, it deals with the field of psychology, not of parapsychology - the word "parapsychology" does not even appear in the paper.
I doubt it. I've tried it in three scenarios: logged in under my ordinary administrative account, logged in under a test, non-admin account, and not logged in. It takes me to the same (correct) post each time.
Yes: unfortunately, when there are soft-deleted posts, which are counted in the numbering for admins but not for non-admins, post numbering differs when viewing the forum under an admin account versus when viewing under a non-admin account. This is why I provided a link every time I referred to a numbered post, because the links work no matter what. Perhaps in future I'll simply avoid numbers and use links something like "in this post".
If in that context by "fortuitous" you mean something like "serendipitously guided by some anomalous force, entity, or other phenomenon" - which I think is the sense in which Peter Bancel intends his explanation - then I can accept the possibility of "fortuitous selection" after all.
The sense of "fortuitous selection" which I think has been ruled out in this experiment is something like "occurring by a random process of blind luck". The post to which I linked explained one way by which it has been ruled out: a resampling analysis in 2008 demonstrated that results with the same level of significance could be obtained only once in 100,000 attempts (2008 was well before the experiment ended, so the likelihood is that the figure would have been even higher by the end).
To this, you responded: "I don't think anyone disagrees that the event samples are improbable under random sampling. The question is whether they would also be improbable if samples were drawn for other goals". The problem with this, as I discussed at length in the post to which you were responding, is that it implies that there is some causal mechanism at work which relates the goals (selection criteria) to an effect - but we seem to be able to rule out non-anomalous causal mechanisms, and you agree that we can rule out blind luck, so we continue to be left then with the one hypothesis that we can't rule out: that the results were obtained anomalously (including the possibility of "fortuitous selection" in the sense of "serendipitously guided by some anomalous force, entity, or other phenomenon").
And, again, this is all based on the conditional: if everybody involved is being basically honest, then how can we explain these results? Any argument for dishonesty is a separate issue.
Quote:Laird: So, why did you even remark on the number of events in the extreme 10% then if you thought that assessing that number would not anyway be valid?
Linda: Two different things...commenting on the distribution of events within their threshold for "extreme" events is different from looking at how a shift in the curve changes the number of events within that threshold.
That doesn't answer my question.
Quote:Linda: Bem and Radin (as well as others) have been caught changing their hypotheses after the fact
Laird: Please let us know exactly what you're referring to.
Linda: Seriously?
https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-c...=bem+linda
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2013/11/me...emony.html
Perhaps I can give you a better idea of what I mean by "exactly". It might look something like this:
You list, in your response in this thread, the experiments in which you claim that Bem, Radin, and others have been caught changing their hypotheses after the fact. For each of your claims, you state the prespecified hypothesis, quoting it exactly with a checkable reference, and then you state the changed, after-the-fact hypothesis, quoting it exactly with a checkable reference. Then you quote directly, with a checkable reference, the person who "caught" this change. If there was a response to the accusation by the researcher(s) in question, then you directly quote that response with a checkable reference.
Quote:Laird: That's a non sequitur: the definition of deliberate fraud does not entail anybody levelling any charge.
Linda: However, if other parapsychologists/psychologists are aware of their actions, yet carry on as though the results are valid, it certainly suggests that this particular form of dishonesty is not regarded as fraud.
There are two questions here:
- Does changing a prespecified hypothesis after the fact amount to deliberate fraud?
- Do (para)psychologists regard such a thing as deliberate fraud?
Quote:Linda: Why do you think scientists in other fields don't take this seriously? Because they are aware that this [changing prespecified hypotheses after the fact] is what researchers do
Laird: Can you justify that claim?
Linda: https://szociologia.tk.mta.hu/uploads/fi...l_2012.pdf
So, there are basically three parts to your claim:
- Parapsychologists change prespecified hypotheses after the fact.
- Scientists in other fields are aware of this.
- It is because of this awareness that scientists in other fields don't take parapsychology seriously.
That paper doesn't even begin to justify the first part of your claim: reading the abstract, it deals with the field of psychology, not of parapsychology - the word "parapsychology" does not even appear in the paper.
(2019-01-17, 08:44 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]the link takes me to an unrelated post
I doubt it. I've tried it in three scenarios: logged in under my ordinary administrative account, logged in under a test, non-admin account, and not logged in. It takes me to the same (correct) post each time.
(2019-01-17, 08:44 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]post #213 is one of mine
Yes: unfortunately, when there are soft-deleted posts, which are counted in the numbering for admins but not for non-admins, post numbering differs when viewing the forum under an admin account versus when viewing under a non-admin account. This is why I provided a link every time I referred to a numbered post, because the links work no matter what. Perhaps in future I'll simply avoid numbers and use links something like "in this post".
(2019-01-17, 08:44 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]He showed that, rather than considering every Peace Day and Earth Day, the selected set included in the formal event listing returned a "significant" result, while the remainder did not (fortuitous for the researchers - what if they had selected the 'wrong' selected sample?). Similarly, when a choice of outcome measure was available, the researchers fortuitously chose the one which returned a "significant" result when choosing the other would have returned an insignificant result. Regardless of whether or not you believe this was done unconsciously, it demonstrates that the effect is "fortuitous event and outcome measure selection", rather than an effect related to Global Consciousness.
If in that context by "fortuitous" you mean something like "serendipitously guided by some anomalous force, entity, or other phenomenon" - which I think is the sense in which Peter Bancel intends his explanation - then I can accept the possibility of "fortuitous selection" after all.
The sense of "fortuitous selection" which I think has been ruled out in this experiment is something like "occurring by a random process of blind luck". The post to which I linked explained one way by which it has been ruled out: a resampling analysis in 2008 demonstrated that results with the same level of significance could be obtained only once in 100,000 attempts (2008 was well before the experiment ended, so the likelihood is that the figure would have been even higher by the end).
To this, you responded: "I don't think anyone disagrees that the event samples are improbable under random sampling. The question is whether they would also be improbable if samples were drawn for other goals". The problem with this, as I discussed at length in the post to which you were responding, is that it implies that there is some causal mechanism at work which relates the goals (selection criteria) to an effect - but we seem to be able to rule out non-anomalous causal mechanisms, and you agree that we can rule out blind luck, so we continue to be left then with the one hypothesis that we can't rule out: that the results were obtained anomalously (including the possibility of "fortuitous selection" in the sense of "serendipitously guided by some anomalous force, entity, or other phenomenon").
And, again, this is all based on the conditional: if everybody involved is being basically honest, then how can we explain these results? Any argument for dishonesty is a separate issue.
2019-01-18, 05:37 AM
(2019-01-17, 09:15 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]For about the twentieth time - the claim is that the hypothesis for each event was fixed before the data were examined.
And it gets more frustrating every time that has to be explained.
But I was specifically talking about the flexibility for event selection, not ‘the (non) hypothesis for each event’.
And we know from Bancel that that is where the ‘magic’ happens.