(2019-01-19, 12:53 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I’m going to bring this up, because I think it’s related. When I saw that Malf and Linda had donated to psiencequest, I realised that this might present a potential problem for the founders. Lol... Ian and Laird had already decided to defray their past expenses with the first donations, I thought that was an unwise decision for themselves, as that was their original stake in the site. (I should note I don’t have a problem with it). But when I later saw Malf and Linda’s contributions, I realised Laird might feel a little constrained by the donations. There is likely to be a bit of conflict going on in people’s minds in trying to reconcile the situation. I’m aware that - even unconsciously - the resurrection of this old thread targeting past posts from Linda and myself, might be connected in a somewhat unconscious reaction to the uncomfortable issue raised by skeptical donations, to a psi forum.
I have to say, when I saw Laird’s long, and very detailed post which must have taken some considerable effort and time, dissecting all my comments over 23 odd pages of a thread from months ago... my alarm bells went off.
I decided to only respond with a short note registering my disagreement, and leave it there, as it looked like it had come out of nowhere, but clearly something had motivated such a long post.
Now that I’ve seen how the thread has suddenly descended to name calling, I feel vindicated in staying out of it. However, I’m interjecting here to warn Malf, Linda, and Laird, that I suspect I’m seeing behaviour that is related to dealing with the fallout of Skeptical donations.
I would rather this was out in the open, so everybody can think about it, and decide how to deal with it, because it is a potential issue, rather than dealing with it indirectly... as I think I’m seeing here.
I'm sure I'm not the only one not clear about what you are saying here Max so please re-state your point, perhaps in a new thread, so that we can all understand your point. On first reading, it looks to me like you are saying that, because of donations, Linda and Malf (and, apparently yourself too) should get special consideration. What, exactly, is wrong with posting a very detailed post addressing your comments? Isn't that what you should hope for? Doesn't that show respect for your point of view because of the very considerable time taken to compose a reply? The same with Laird's responses to Linda which, from what I can see, were treated with disrespect by obfuscation and spin, as Laird points out. Then, as is her usual tactic, she cries victim when he gets fed up with her game playing.
Donations don't buy a free ride but that seems to be what you are suggesting. If not, please clarify.
(2019-01-19, 06:37 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]No, malf, the question is whether you understand what I'm telling you - that the statistical tests, including the times of the events, are claimed to have been fixed before the data were examined?
And if so, do you understand that if that is true, that rules out your hypothesis "that, once presented with colossal amounts of noisy data, mathematics can always produce some statistical significance."
That is what I'm asking you to clarify, please.
I understand that but you’re not addressing who chooses which events to include and which to ditch.
Given that the project doesn’t appear to be measuring what it set out to, the ‘experimenter psi’ explanation will undoubtedly lead to the suspicion of ‘face saving’ in some quarters.
There are ways to tighten things up. Independent (computer algorithm?) selection of events, timings, sign (+/-) and duration would be a start. And more nodes I guess. Has the study addressed any of this?
(2019-01-19, 06:56 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]I understand that but you’re not addressing who chooses which events to include and which to ditch.
Given that the project doesn’t appear to be measuring what it set out to, the ‘experimenter psi’ explanation will undoubtedly lead to the suspicion of ‘face saving’ in some quarters.
There are ways to tighten things up. Independent (computer algorithm?) selection of events, timings, sign (+/-) and duration would be a start. And more nodes I guess. Has the study addressed any of this?
It took
nine posts to get you to acknowledge the obvious fact that the hypothesis you suggested would be ruled out by the stated protocol.
I'm sorry, but I don't have that kind of time to waste.
(2019-01-19, 07:05 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]It took nine posts to get you to acknowledge the obvious fact that the hypothesis you suggested would be ruled out by the stated protocol.
I'm sorry, but I don't have that kind of time to waste.
well I’ve asked you several questions and had no replies!
(2019-01-19, 07:20 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ] well I’ve asked you several questions and had no replies!
And you still haven’t addressed event selection.
(2019-01-19, 07:20 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ] well I’ve asked you several questions and had no replies!
Seriously, malf. You really can't expect people to go to the trouble of answering your questions when you waste so much of their time by behaving as you have today.
(2019-01-19, 07:35 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Seriously, malf. You really can't expect people to go to the trouble of answering your questions when you waste so much of their time by behaving as you have today.
Part of the problem here is when I said ‘event selection’ you thought I meant ‘timing selection’ or ‘duration selection’ or something. In fact I meant ‘event selection’...
My (ignored) questions:
1. What do you think is going on? Bancel’s ‘experimenter psi’, Radin’s ‘love’ affecting distant arbitrary electronic devices, or some sort of ‘p-hacking’?
2. Does anyone know if the protocols and hypothesis analysis have been through any sort of peer review?
3. Who chooses the ‘event’?
Only if you’ve enough time, obv.
malf
Just to be clear - I am not going to respond to your posts from now on. I said it last October, and I was a fool to go back on it.
(2019-01-16, 09:42 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Jeffrey Mishlove has a one-hour interview with Roger Nelson about the Global Consciousness Project in his "New Thinking Allowed" series:
In case anyone is interested, the 1989 paper by Dean Radin mentioned by Mishlove, in which he claimed to have trained a neural network to recognise the "signatures" of difference experimental subjects - using data from random number generator studies done in the PEAR lab - can be found here:
http://deanradin.com/articles/1989%20neu...rk%201.pdf