The Global Consciousness Project

malf

I am genuinely trying to understand what you are getting at here. That's why I asked the question in my last post. It's a question the answer to which would help me to know what's in your mind. Please could you have a go at answering it? Thanks.

malf

I am genuinely trying to understand what you are getting at here. That's why I asked the question in my last post. It's a question the answer to which would help me to know what's in your mind. Please could you have a go at answering it? Thanks.

I don’t think I can be any clearer.

You want to keep the ‘event selection’ seperate from the statistical analysis. I don’t think you can do that given the key importance of the ‘event selection’. Does that help?

I don’t think I can be any clearer.

You want to keep the ‘event selection’ seperate from the statistical analysis. I don’t think you can do that given the key importance of the ‘event selection’. Does that help?

I don't know whether you're even reading what I'm writing.

Let me repeat:
It doesn't mean that for each individual event the statistic wasn't fixed in advance of looking at the data. What they say is that the definition of the statistic, and of course the times covered by the event, were always fixed before they looked at the data.

I don't know whether you're even reading what I'm writing.

Let me repeat:
It doesn't mean that for each individual event the statistic wasn't fixed in advance of looking at the data. What they say is that the definition of the statistic, and of course the times covered by the event, were always fixed before they looked at the data.

Who chooses the event?

Who chooses the event?

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’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.

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?

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.

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!

well I’ve asked you several questions and had no replies!

And you still haven’t addressed event selection.