(2019-01-22, 11:47 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]But that avoids the key point which my analogy makes plain: that there shouldn't be any rabbits in these top hats in the first place! That is where the real "magic" is; not in the selection process (though there might be something anomalous going on there too, as Peter Bancel argues). I was hoping you'd get it but either you don't or you're pretending not to.
From the GCP website:
Quote:But when a great event synchronizes the feelings of millions of people, our network of RNGs becomes subtly structured. We calculate one in a trillion odds that the effect is due to chance.
Are the rabbits or the hats or malf's chickens the RNG, the feelings of millions or the one-in-a trillion? In other words, how exactly do these analogies relate to the data?
(2019-01-22, 11:47 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]But that avoids the key point which my analogy makes plain: that there shouldn't be any rabbits in these top hats in the first place! That is where the real "magic" is; not in the selection process (though there might be something anomalous going on there too, as Peter Bancel argues). I was hoping you'd get it but either you don't or you're pretending not to.
The rabbits are just events right? The top hats are put on the rabbits by the experimenters by some selection process that nobody has explained.
The fact that sometimes the chickens are squawking louder (or softer) than average at some times more than others is normal.
The magic appears to be in aligning the correlations in a fortuitous way.
I’ve lost track of what you’re arguing for... Are you supporting the researchers in their claim that ‘love’ is peaking (or troughing) these electronic devices?
If so, I need to quote the question posed by the contemporary philosopher Tina Turner: “What’s love got to do with it?”
(2019-01-23, 01:02 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Are the rabbits or the hats or malf's chickens the RNG, the feelings of millions or the one-in-a trillion? In other words, how exactly do these analogies relate to the data?
The hats are the events (defined by their start and end time and method of analysis). There's "a rabbit in the hat" when the outcome of the analysis of the RNG data (inter-RNG correlations) for the event is in the predicted direction and is either statistically significant or close to it.
It's not a perfect analogy in this respect because rabbits are discrete whereas statistical significance is continuous, and because whilst the cumulative one-in-a-trillion odds are obviously very significant, many of the individual events which contribute to those odds aren't significant in themselves or even go in the opposite direction than predicted. It's more like we find a bunch of "rabbit parts" in the hats that we select rather than full rabbits, if you'll pardon that grisly metaphor.
I'll leave it to malf to explain what he meant by the chicken analogy - it's not quite clear to me.
So I was justified in asking the question then?
Malf: "The rabbits are just events right?"
Laird: "The hats are the events..."
(2019-01-23, 01:07 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]The rabbits are just events right?
No - see my reply to Kam above.
(2019-01-23, 01:07 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]The magic appears to be in aligning the correlations in a fortuitous way.
The real magic is why there happen to be so many rabbits that their overall significance is at the type of odds cited by Kam.
(2019-01-23, 01:07 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve lost track of what you’re arguing for
I'm simply arguing that these data can't be explained in any conventional way (ETA: other than experimenter fraud), including by "fortuitous selection" (and I'm still waiting for somebody in this thread to lay out the case for such an explanation in detail). I'm not committed to any particular anomalous explanation.
(2019-01-23, 01:16 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]So I was justified in asking the question then?
Malf: "The rabbits are just events right?"
Laird: "The hats are the events..."
Wait... you're malf?
ETA: Never mind that poor attempt at humour: yes, you were justified.
(2019-01-23, 01:18 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]No - see my reply to Kam above.
I thought your analogy could be improved. Mine is better at showing where the magic is happening (IMO).
Quote:The real magic is why there happen to be so many rabbits that their overall significance is at the type of odds cited by Kam.
That is not what Bancel is saying. Kam is quoting the GCP's own calculations, I guess question is about
how they are arriving at their calculations, given Bancel's conclusions.
Quote:I'm simply arguing that these data can't be explained in any conventional way, including by "fortuitous selection" (and I'm still waiting for somebody in this thread to lay out the case for such an explanation in detail). I'm not committed to any particular anomalous explanation.
I thought I was the one being vague?
(2019-01-23, 01:35 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]That is not what Bancel is saying.
Well, for a start, Peter Bancel accepts that the results are anomalous and can't be explained in conventional terms, so your appealing to him for support is not necessarily the wisest of choices. To provide you with a citation for that, he asserts in his 2017 paper to have "
shown that the observed result is consistent with goal-oriented psi" (emphasis mine).
But secondly, his hypothesis of a "goal-oriented" effect (GO) leaves somewhat open the exact (anomalous) nature of the mechanism - in that same 2017 paper, he writes of GO that (footnotes elided) "
Proposals include precognitive intuitions that might preferentially select events at times when natural statistical deviations happen to fluctuate toward hypothesis confirmation, and psychokinesis, a mind-matter interaction that acts to perturb the network."
Note in particular that he is not suggesting anyway that any preferential selection would/could be "fortuitous" in the sense of "a happy and lucky random coincidence", but that it would be based on some sort of psi functioning ("
precognitive intuitions").
(2019-01-23, 01:57 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Well, for a start, Peter Bancel accepts that the results are anomalous and can't be explained in conventional terms, so your appealing to him for support is not necessarily the wisest of choices. To provide you with a citation for that, he asserts in his 2017 paper to have "shown that the observed result is consistent with goal-oriented psi" (emphasis mine).
But secondly, his hypothesis of a "goal-oriented" effect (GO) leaves somewhat open the exact (anomalous) nature of the mechanism - in that same 2017 paper, he writes of GO that (footnotes elided) "Proposals include precognitive intuitions that might preferentially select events at times when natural statistical deviations happen to fluctuate toward hypothesis confirmation, and psychokinesis, a mind-matter interaction that acts to perturb the network."
Note in particular that he is not suggesting anyway that any preferential selection would/could be "fortuitous" in the sense of "a happy and lucky random coincidence", but that it would be based on some sort of psi functioning ("precognitive intuitions").
We live in a world where conscious/unconscious bias (normally for positive outcomes) in such scenarios is well documented.
I like Radin. He seems like a good guy. He is very invested in finding ‘love’ and ‘magic’ in nature and that’s sweet. He invariably and unnervingly finds it too.
There’s an imbalance here. You want me to explain in detail some ‘conventional’ explanation, whilst remaining cagey over unconventional options. Fair enough I guess, nobody knows what’s going on here*. Hopefully you understood my reference to Hennacy-Powell’s study. The point of Bancel’s Work is that he has looked at the data and has completely altered the scope of the exercise. He’s rejigged a new hypothesis to fit the data because the original one (love affecting electronic devices) doesn’t appear to work. Surely, it’s time to pull the plug on this and redesign a study that zeroes in on what is going on?
*I’m surprised by the traditional proponent support in some quarters for this fiasco. They should be demanding much better.
(2019-01-23, 07:24 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]We live in a world where conscious/unconscious bias (normally for positive outcomes) in such scenarios is well documented.
So, basically, you're unable to justify your contention that selection bias can explain the results, but that's not going to stop you from repeating it ad nauseam. It's probably best to leave it at that then.