February Issue of SkepticReport is out [Archive]

CFLarsen

1st February 2004, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Interesting to read through the articles, and you all certainly had a full and varied agenda at TAMII. :)

Yes, indeed. Why didn't you show up?

Originally posted by Clancie
One quibble with the TAM article (which, otherwise, is well-written)

Thank you.

Originally posted by Clancie
was with this phrase: "Penn is the brash, loud, archetypical American....."

Two rhetorical questions: (1) Should a "skeptics' magazine" be perpetuating national stereotyping, and (2) Has anyone -ever- actually met an American as loud and brash as Penn? :confused:

Personally, I don't like any generalization about nationalities....they don't contribute a thing to genuine knowledge or understanding of others, imo.....

First, if they are "rethorical", that means you really don't want answers. So why ask?

Second, it's called "humour". You might look that up.

Third, Penn wore a T-shirt with the American flag.

Fourth, Penn is, I believe, American. So, have anyone met an American as loud and brash as Penn? Well....duh!

Fifth, yes, I have met people who were even louder. New York is full of them.

asthmatic camel

1st February 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

1+1=3? :)

:dl:

sparklecat

1st February 2004, 07:11 PM

Discuss wherever you wish :)

Yahweh

1st February 2004, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Does it ever have anything worthwhile in?
Ian, if the inner-writer in you feels like it, you could probably submit something "worthwhile" to SkepticReport. Give us, the audience, something to read, we crave it.

Zep

1st February 2004, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Cleon

For extremely large values of 1. :) ...or very small values of 3.

T'ai Chi

1st February 2004, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Does it ever have anything worthwhile in?

I like a lot of SR's articles and think overall they are pretty good. Others are silly, and some are simply misinformed.

One that had confusing parts was this one: http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/teresi.htm. Look at the dates of parapsychological research that the author references (not SI articles or other writings upon that research, but the research itself. The latest date I can find seems to be 1994 or 1999. Is that considered accurately reflecting the "current state"? From what I can tell, the author perhaps only gave a picture of a not even current state of criticism against anomalous cognition, but surely not the parapsychological research itself.

I'd be interesting in reading the authors' comments on random number generator experiments and the DAT model if he has any.

CFLarsen

2nd February 2004, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
Ian, if the inner-writer in you feels like it, you could probably submit something "worthwhile" to SkepticReport. Give us, the audience, something to read, we crave it.

Absolutely.

Ian, you are most welcome. However, you have to accept that, whatever you put up there, will be subject to skeptical scrutiny, in exactly the same way your ideas have been scrutinized on this board.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I like a lot of SR's articles and think overall they are pretty good. Others are silly, and some are simply misinformed.

Thank you, that is your opinion, and I would insist that you point out where any article is "misinformed".

One that had confusing parts was this one: http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/teresi.htm. Look at the dates of parapsychological research that the author references (not SI articles or other writings upon that research, but the research itself. The latest date I can find seems to be 1994 or 1999. Is that considered accurately reflecting the "current state"? From what I can tell, the author perhaps only gave a picture of a not even current state of criticism against anomalous cognition, but surely not the parapsychological research itself.

I'd be interesting in reading the authors' comments on random number generator experiments and the DAT model if he has any.

Just how interested are you, really? You see, Scott Teresi has a contact email in the very article itself. There is also a link to his homepage.

He is also a poster on JREF.

So, you have ample opportunity to contact him.

Let us know what he said.

Ersby

2nd February 2004, 02:49 AM

Is it that time already? I feel a little ashamed since I've had an article ready to go on my hard disk for some time, but never got round to sending it. Oh, well. Next month, maybe.

Interesting Ian

2nd February 2004, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]

Absolutely.

Ian, you are most welcome. However, you have to accept that, whatever you put up there, will be subject to skeptical scrutiny, in exactly the same way your ideas have been scrutinized on this board.

WOW! So people will voice a load of non-sequiturs! How thrilling!

CFLarsen

2nd February 2004, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
WOW! So people will voice a load of non-sequiturs! How thrilling!

Are you talking about your own article?

Come on, Ian! If you think SkepticReport is so bad, but can't write something better or even suggest what you want to read.....you know what?

Up yours, Ian. :)

Interesting Ian

2nd February 2004, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Are you talking about your own article?

Come on, Ian! If you think SkepticReport is so bad, but can't write something better or even suggest what you want to read.....you know what?

Up yours, Ian. :)

I have no idea what subject to write about would be acceptable, how long it should be, or anything.

T'ai Chi

6th February 2004, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Just how interested are you, really? You see, Scott Teresi has a contact email in the very article itself. There is also a link to his homepage.

He is also a poster on JREF.

Great. Then he might read my comments and he could possibly address them.

Being as you're the editor/webmaster/whatever and you've read (I assume) the articles and have the final say in their being posted on your page, you could perhaps address my comments too. For example, do you think that article accurately reflected the "current state" of parapsychological research?

Likewise, you only focused on my criticism and apparently forgot that I said: "I like a lot of SR's articles and think overall they are pretty good."

CFLarsen

6th February 2004, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Great. Then he might read my comments and he could possibly address them.

Have you emailed him yet?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Being as you're the editor/webmaster/whatever and you've read (I assume) the articles and have the final say in their being posted on your page, you could perhaps address my comments too. For example, do you think that article accurately reflected the "current state" of parapsychological research?

Depends on what you mean by "current". If we compare to the news, then no, it is not "current". If we compare to the history of parapsychological research, then I hardly think a couple of years are all that important.

If you think Scott's article is terribly out-of-date, why don't you write something more "current"?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Likewise, you only focused on my criticism and apparently forgot that I said: "I like a lot of SR's articles and think overall they are pretty good."

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I should comment on each and every little thing you ever post.

Thank you for liking SR.

Cleopatra

6th February 2004, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Great. Then he might read my comments and he could possibly address them.

Not really, because you expect an eponymous author to reply to an anonymous comment. I suggest you send him an e-mail or a letter using your real name, if you are really interested in the subject.You can also invited him to join the discussion by using your real name and notifying him about the nick-name you use to post here.

This is how things are done in the civilized world.

Being as you're the editor/webmaster/whatever and you've read (I assume) the articles and have the final say in their being posted on your page, you could perhaps address my comments too. For example, do you think that article accurately reflected the "current state" of parapsychological research?

The editor is not responsible for the opinions that are posted in signed articles so in any case if he is a serious editor he is NOT entitled to talk on behalf of the authors of the articles his web-site hosts. All he can do for you is to forward them your questions once you send him an e-mail with your real name.

CFLarsen

6th February 2004, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The editor is not responsible for the opinions that are posted in signed articles so in any case if he is a serious editor he is NOT entitled to talk on behalf of the authors of the articles his web-site hosts. All he can do for you is to forward them your questions once you send him an e-mail with your real name.

Well, I think I'm at least entitled to comment on the articles... ;)

But defend the contents? That's entirely up to the author to do. SkepticReport only hosts the articles.

T'ai Chi - or anyone else - can contact the authors, or write something better.

Cleopatra

6th February 2004, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Well, I think I'm at least entitled to comment on the articles... ;)

Absolutely! Apart from editor you are a reader of the articles too but you cannot reply on behalf of the author or comment the article as an editor the way T'ai Chi asked you to.

T'ai Chi - or anyone else - can contact the authors, or write something better.

Yes. Authors like to receive e-mails and letters from readers even when they contain complaigns, reservations or objections. This is why we write and publish articles, in order to stimulate the discussion over certain issues.

CFLarsen

6th February 2004, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Absolutely! Apart from editor you are a reader of the articles too but you cannot reply on behalf of the author or comment the article as an editor the way T'ai Chi asked you to.

Nope. I wonder why T'ai Chi wants to drag me into his qualm with Scott.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yes. Authors like to receive e-mails and letters from readers even when they contain complaigns, reservations or objections. This is why we write and publish articles, in order to stimulate the discussion over certain issues.

They love it!

Ersby

6th February 2004, 04:53 AM

Oh, I've lost the email address to send things to.

Claus, could you PM it to me again. It's the thing about remote viewing you asked for ages ago.

Cheers.

CFLarsen

6th February 2004, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by Ersby
Oh, I've lost the email address to send things to.

Claus, could you PM it to me again. It's the thing about remote viewing you asked for ages ago.

Cheers.

webmaster@skepticreport.com

6th February 2004, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Fourth, Penn is, I believe, American. So, have anyone met an American as loud and brash as Penn? Well....duh!

Benny Hill, oh, he's a brit, nevermind

(to those people who live to offer corrections, I know he is morte)

6th February 2004, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Well, I think I'm at least entitled to comment on the articles... ;)

But defend the contents? That's entirely up to the author to do. SkepticReport only hosts the articles.

T'ai Chi - or anyone else - can contact the authors, or write something better.

Well, don't you really do a bit more than host? Don't you sort of give an imprimataur by the act of publishing? I am not being argumentitive, I am suggesting that to a certain extent the medium is the message. If one is at square one after reading the article, then one is faced with the task of discovering if the piece is ***** from the gitgo, an onerous task. I mean, that for a publication to be taken seriously it must serve as a filter in some way.

CFLarsen

6th February 2004, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Ed
(to those people who live to offer corrections, I know he is morte)

Crossed over. :D

HarryKeogh

6th February 2004, 05:52 AM

Claus, you and your crew put together another fine issue. I really enjoy it!

T'ai Chi

6th February 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If you think Scott's article is terribly out-of-date, why don't you write something more "current"?

Non sequitor.

T'ai Chi

6th February 2004, 02:45 PM

CFLarsen

7th February 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
Claus, you and your crew put together another fine issue. I really enjoy it!

Thank you. :)

......"crew"??

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Non sequitor.

So, all you want to do is complain. You don't want to contact the author, you cannot come up with something better yourself.

OK.

T'ai Chi

7th February 2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, all you want to do is complain. You don't want to contact the author, you cannot come up with something better yourself.

OK.

Uh, I'm not complaining, it is called being skeptical.

When an article tries to tell me that it is portraying the current state of parapsychological research, but none of the references are current, I'm a bit skeptical for some bizarre reason. :)

CFLarsen

7th February 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Uh, I'm not complaining, it is called being skeptical.

When an article tries to tell me that it is portraying the current state of parapsychological research, but none of the references are current, I'm a bit skeptical for some bizarre reason. :)

I explained why I thought it was not an inappropriate title. Do you have some newer research you would like to share?

T'ai Chi

7th February 2004, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I explained why I thought it was not an inappropriate title.

All you said anywhere near relevant was:

"Depends on what you mean by "current". If we compare to the news, then no, it is not "current". If we compare to the history of parapsychological research, then I hardly think a couple of years are all that important."

Gee, how about if you compare it to parapsychological studies published in the last few years perhaps? :)

Do you have some newer research you would like to share?

Non sequitor.

I was simply pointing out that 'current' is not the same as '7 to 10 years ago', no matter what field of study one is in.

Ersby

8th February 2004, 01:38 AM

Maybe it should've been clearer that the article was written (updated, to be exact) in 2000.

CFLarsen

8th February 2004, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
All you said anywhere near relevant was:

"Depends on what you mean by "current". If we compare to the news, then no, it is not "current". If we compare to the history of parapsychological research, then I hardly think a couple of years are all that important."

Gee, how about if you compare it to parapsychological studies published in the last few years perhaps? :)

And those are??

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Non sequitor.

I was simply pointing out that 'current' is not the same as '7 to 10 years ago', no matter what field of study one is in.

In your opinion, yes.

Originally posted by Ersby
Maybe it should've been clearer that the article was written (updated, to be exact) in 2000.

Well, it does say "This paper was last updated in Jan. 2000.".... maybe not bent in neon.... ;)

BillHoyt

8th February 2004, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I was simply pointing out that 'current' is not the same as '7 to 10 years ago', no matter what field of study one is in.
Really? No matter what field of study? Really? Then you should be able to provide the following citations for us:

o One paper from a peer-reviewed physics journal from the last fifty years providing a new, corrected general relativity equation.

o One paper from a peer-reviewed cytology journal from the last fifty years questioning the existence of double phosphobilipid cell walls in prokaryotes.

o One paper from a peer-reviewed biochemistry journal from the last forty years revealing a previously undiscovered and unpairable DNA base nucleotide in humans.

o One paper from a peer-reviewed astronomy journal from the last two centuries suggesting the moon is not really in orbit about the earth.

o One paper from a peer-reviewed astronomy journal from the last two centuries questioning the heliocentric model of our solar system.

T'ai Chi

8th February 2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Really? No matter what field of study? Really? Then you should be able to provide the following citations for us:
(snip)

Non sequitor.

CFLarsen

8th February 2004, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Non sequitor.

You seem to favor that invalid excuse lately.

It is actually relevant, T'ai Chi. You complain about the article not being current, as if that in itself was enough to disqualify it.

Therefore, Hoyt's questions are very relevant.

BillHoyt

8th February 2004, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Non sequitor.

o There have been NO papers from any peer-reviewed physics journal from the last fifty years providing a new, corrected general relativity equation.

o There have been NO papers from any peer-reviewed cytology journal from the last fifty years questioning the existence of double phosphobilipid cell walls in prokaryotes.

o There have been NO papers from any peer-reviewed biochemistry journal from the last forty years revealing a previously undiscovered and unpairable DNA base nucleotide in humans.

o There have been NO papers from any peer-reviewed astronomy journal from the last two centuries suggesting the moon is not really in orbit about the earth.

o There have been NO papers from any peer-reviewed astronomy journal from the last two centuries questioning the heliocentric model of our solar system.

Now tell us again how that post was a non sequitur.

T'ai Chi

8th February 2004, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

o There have been NO papers from any peer-reviewed physics journal from the last fifty years providing a new, corrected general relativity equation.

There have been recent papers about physics in general.

o There have been NO papers from any peer-reviewed cytology journal from the last fifty years questioning the existence of double phosphobilipid cell walls in prokaryotes.

There have been recent papers about cytology in general.

o There have been NO papers from any peer-reviewed biochemistry journal from the last forty years revealing a previously undiscovered and unpairable DNA base nucleotide in humans.

There have been recent papers about biochemistry in general.

o There have been NO papers from any peer-reviewed astronomy journal from the last two centuries suggesting the moon is not really in orbit about the earth.

There have been recent papers about astronomy in general.

o There have been NO papers from any peer-reviewed astronomy journal from the last two centuries questioning the heliocentric model of our solar system.

There have been recent papers about astronomy in general.

Now tell us again how that post was a non sequitur.

Because there have been recent papers about parapsychology issues in general.

Unless you too consider 1994, or whatever, the current state (even for the year 2000). :)

So what do you say Claus' Echo, what exactly do you think current means?

BillHoyt

9th February 2004, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
There have been recent papers about physics in general.
...
Because there have been recent papers about parapsychology issues in general.

Unless you too consider 1994, or whatever, the current state (even for the year 2000). :)

So what do you say Claus' Echo, what exactly do you think current means?
Your point, then, is as irrelevant as you. You point, then, is as much of a joke as you. Your point, then, is as useless as your continued tr'olls and continued inability to defend your inane assertions.

Tr'olldini, you keep up this cargo cult approach to attempting to counter skepticism. You follow the form, with no understanding of the content. You play games, attempting to mimic skeptics, thinking you are throwing it back in their faces. But, you simply build bamboo planes and bamboo control towers.

To wit, this piece of drivel. When you hear currency criticisms from skeptics there is an important bit of information back behind it. That bit is the knowledge that there have since been significant discoveries that are being overlooked. That kind of response is often trotted out when creationist cretins, for example, discuss the writings of biologists from 1878, thinking they point to a current controversy.

But you, of course, went further, out to the outlandish assertion that "'current' is not the same as '7 to 10 years ago', no matter what field of study one is in." Balderdash. I pointed out the obvious to you; that issues in science do get settled, and that there is no more to say about them after they have been settled. That 'current' relative to the issue of the double phosphobilipid layer was settled decades ago. That the heliocentric nature of our solar system was settled centuries ago.

Games, tr'oll, that's all we get from you. Games. And badly played at that.

T'ai Chi

9th February 2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Your point, then, is as irrelevant as you. You point, then, is as much of a joke as you. Your point, then, is as useless as your continued tr'olls and continued inability to defend your inane assertions.

Glad to know I'm on your mind.

Tr'olldini, you keep up this cargo cult approach to attempting to counter skepticism.

Huh? I'm for skepticism. :)

Skepticism includes, as someone seems to ignore, being skeptical of anything, if it warrants it, and not letting bias or politics get in the way of that.

That kind of response is often trotted out when creationist cretins, for example, discuss the writings of biologists from 1878, thinking they point to a current controversy.

'Guilt by association' fallacy.

But you, of course, went further, out to the outlandish assertion that "'current' is not the same as '7 to 10 years ago', no matter what field of study one is in." Balderdash.

A current state of research is not a decade ago, Jr.

That the heliocentric nature of our solar system was settled centuries ago.

Only later it was found out that even our solar system itself is moving around something, right? then it was found that even our galazy is moving around something. More current research in astronomy has been done since. There is astronomical research published this very month of this very year.

You seem to want to downplay these obvious facts.

Games, tr'oll, that's all we get from you. Games. And badly played at that.

Interesting belief.

xouper

9th February 2004, 01:24 PM

T'ai Chi: blah blah blah ... A current state of research is not a decade ago, Jr. ... blah blah blahOnce again, WhodiniChi misses the point.

BillHoyt

10th February 2004, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Huh? I'm for skepticism. :)

Skepticism includes, as someone seems to ignore, being skeptical of anything, if it warrants it, and not letting bias or politics get in the way of that.
Cargo cult.

'Guilt by association' fallacy.
No, twitdini, that was an example. Read it again.

A current state of research is not a decade ago, Jr.
Poppycock. The state of research includes both issues under investigation and those settled. As xouper said, you once again miss the point.

Only later it was found out that even our solar system itself is moving around something, right? then it was found that even our galazy is moving around something. More current research in astronomy has been done since. There is astronomical research published this very month of this very year.

You seem to want to downplay these obvious facts.
And this somehow alters the state of the settled issue? It is little wonder you have problems understanding the epistemology of science.

UnrepentantSinner

10th February 2004, 06:21 PM

Claus, Ian Rowland wasn't thrilled about a photo of his newspaper trick being posted to the forum. Did you get his permission to post it to PS?

Great review and great edition btw.

T'ai Chi

10th February 2004, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by xouper
Once again, WhodiniChi misses the point.

Which is... ?

That Bill, Claus, and possibly some others believe that stuff even 1 year old is "current research" ?

T'ai Chi

10th February 2004, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Cargo cult.

Skepticism includes, as someone seems to ignore, being skeptical of anything, if it warrants it, and not letting bias or politics get in the way of that.

Sorry, if it bothers or disturbs you that skeptics can be skeptical of other skeptics and their conclusions if they warrant it.

Poppycock. The state of research includes both issues under investigation and those settled.

There have been many new things since 1994 or whatever. You'd think they would be mentioned.. ?

CFLarsen

10th February 2004, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Claus, Ian Rowland wasn't thrilled about a photo of his newspaper trick being posted to the forum.

Really? Odd, I haven't heard from him. Where did you hear this?

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Did you get his permission to post it to PS?

(To what? :) )

No, and I don't need it. There was no rule that you couldn't take pictures, and I can post my own pictures anywhere I want it. Technically, it's not even posted on the forum, but on my own site.

He need not be alarmed that the trick is revealed, since I haven't the foggiest idea how he did it. I was sorry that I didn't offer to buy the two paper "rings" (mo'money 4 JREF), so I could investigate them further. Bad skeptic, me!

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Great review and great edition btw.

Thank you! :)

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Gee, how about if you compare it to parapsychological studies published in the last few years perhaps?

Which studies, please? What is the result of that comparison? What has changed, what has not?

What is "current"?

UnrepentantSinner

10th February 2004, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Really? Odd, I haven't heard from him. Where did you hear this?

(To what? :) )

No, and I don't need it. There was no rule that you couldn't take pictures, and I can post my own pictures anywhere I want it. Technically, it's not even posted on the forum, but on my own site.

He need not be alarmed that the trick is revealed, since I haven't the foggiest idea how he did it. I was sorry that I didn't offer to buy the two paper "rings" (mo'money 4 JREF), so I could investigate them further. Bad skeptic, me!

In the (now apparently pruned) "I met Ian Rowland" thread he requested that personal photos of the trick being performed in California (think it was SoCal Skeptics) be removed and insinuated it was a copywrite violation to post it.

I argued that him requesting the removal was fine, but the insinuation of copywrite issues was over the line. Hal removed the photo (IIRC) at Ian's request. As you pointed out it is on your website so internal JREF considerations won't apply.

Unfortunatly the prime rib Thursday made me sick and I spent the whole evening in my room missing his presentation. I wish I'd beeen there.

CFLarsen

11th February 2004, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
In the (now apparently pruned) "I met Ian Rowland" thread he requested that personal photos of the trick being performed in California (think it was SoCal Skeptics) be removed and insinuated it was a copywrite violation to post it.

Ah, that one...yes.

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I argued that him requesting the removal was fine, but the insinuation of copywrite issues was over the line. Hal removed the photo (IIRC) at Ian's request. As you pointed out it is on your website so internal JREF considerations won't apply.

Nope. And I quite agree that, since no announcement was made that pictures were forbidden, he cannot afterwards say that they were.

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Unfortunatly the prime rib Thursday made me sick and I spent the whole evening in my room missing his presentation. I wish I'd beeen there.

Being a glutton is sinful.... ;)

T'ai Chi

11th February 2004, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Which studies, please?

Ones newer than 1994 and ones published in places other than SI, like actual parapsychological journals, for starters, to be fair.

What is "current"?

New. This year hopefully.

CFLarsen

11th February 2004, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Ones newer than 1994 and ones published in places other than SI, like actual parapsychological journals, for starters, to be fair.

If you want to make a claim that there are newer studies that invalidates the ones you complain about in Teresi's article,, please name them. Then explain what has changed.

To be fair.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
New.

So, you explain "current" with "new". I can use a thesaurus as well.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
This year hopefully.

Which is only 42 days long. Please point to those studies that have been published this year (2004) that invalidates the studies in Teresi's article.

To be fair.

BillHoyt

11th February 2004, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Skepticism includes, as someone seems to ignore, being skeptical of anything, if it warrants it, and not letting bias or politics get in the way of that.

Sorry, if it bothers or disturbs you that skeptics can be skeptical of other skeptics and their conclusions if they warrant it.
The only things that bother me are your pretense at skepticism and these persistent woo attempts to spin skeptical issues into political issues.

There have been many new things since 1994 or whatever. You'd think they would be mentioned.. ?
What relevant "things" do you have in mind? Until you cite them, you have yet another hollow woo howl. But I see your assertion grew more inane when you expressed your hope that the article would cover this forty-two-day year. Combined with your previous assertion about current research, I presume you can delight us with the following:

o One paper from a peer-reviewed physics journal from the last forty-two days providing a new, corrected general relativity equation.

o One paper from a peer-reviewed cytology journal from the last forty-two days questioning the existence of double phosphobilipid cell walls in prokaryotes.

o One paper from a peer-reviewed biochemistry journal from the last forty-two days revealing a previously undiscovered and unpairable DNA base nucleotide in humans.

o One paper from a peer-reviewed astronomy journal from the last forty-two days suggesting the moon is not really in orbit about the earth.

o One paper from a peer-reviewed astronomy journal from the last forty-two days questioning the heliocentric model of our solar system.

Clancie

11th February 2004, 07:24 AM

Posted by Whodini

There have been many new things since 1994 or whatever. You'd think they would be mentioned.. ?
A decade is a long time. If there's been research during that time, the results should be mentioned. In the unlikely event there has been nothing, that should be noted too ("Surprisingly, the last decade has seen no added research into this question...")

Of course, that would require the author to -know- whether there has been any research in the last decade...and my guess is that he doesn't have the faintest idea one way or the other. :(

BillHoyt

11th February 2004, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Of course, that would require the author to -know- whether there has been any research in the last decade...and my guess is that he doesn't have the faintest idea one way or the other. :(
My guess is neither you nor tr'olldini have the faintest idea either. So show me the evidence. Not lame claims that it isn't current. Remember, Tr'oll's universal assertion about currency is clearly toast. The evidence you show must be more current research specifically dealing with topics covered by the article in question and, more specifically, bringing into question suggestions or conclusions drawn by the author.

voidx

11th February 2004, 07:50 AM

Seems to me that there is not really an arguement that there is possible "new" research. I think the point here is that while there may be "new" research, it may in fact do nothing to further, or advance the "current" held opinions in that field. Someone might have written something last year, it just doesn't do anything to challenge or further the opinions and conclusions reached since 1994 or 2000 or whatever the date is here you're arguing about. To me this is the semantics obstacle you're stumbling over.

CFLarsen

11th February 2004, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by voidx
Seems to me that there is not really an arguement that there is possible "new" research. I think the point here is that while there may be "new" research, it may in fact do nothing to further, or advance the "current" held opinions in that field. Someone might have written something last year, it just doesn't do anything to challenge or further the opinions and conclusions reached since 1994 or 2000 or whatever the date is here you're arguing about. To me this is the semantics obstacle you're stumbling over.

True. To argue that something isn't "current" without giving newer examples, is a worthless point.

Clancie

11th February 2004, 08:20 AM

Posted by voidx

Seems to me that there is not really an arguement that there is possible "new" research. I think the point here is that while there may be "new" research, it may in fact do nothing to further, or advance the "current" held opinions in that field. Someone might have written something last year, it just doesn't do anything to challenge or further the opinions and conclusions reached since 1994 or 2000 or whatever the date is here you're arguing about. To me this is the semantics obstacle you're stumbling over.

Hi voidx,

Well, I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think the issue of a decade's worth of research is semantics at all. Its basic thoroughness re: one's subject matter to -know- whether or not there has been research on your subject during the last decade, what it demonstrated, and what that means.

And, as I said before, if there's been -no- research in ten years, an author should know that, too, and acknowledge it to the reader. That fact also would be of interest.

Not knowing one way or the other what has been done during the last ten years is a huge informational gap.

CFLarsen

11th February 2004, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think the issue of a decade's worth of research is semantics at all. Its basic thoroughness re: one's subject matter to -know- whether or not there has been research on your subject during the last decade, what it demonstrated, and what that means.

And, as I said before, if there's been -no- research in ten years, an author should know that, too, and acknowledge it to the reader. That fact also would be of interest.

Not knowing one way or the other what has been done during the last ten years is a huge informational gap.

Try to read the article, before you criticize it, Clancie. There are references to material from 1999.

voidx

11th February 2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi voidx,

Well, I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think the issue of a decade's worth of research is semantics at all. Its basic thoroughness re: one's subject matter to -know- whether or not there has been research on your subject during the last decade, what it demonstrated, and what that means.

And, as I said before, if there's been -no- research in ten years, an author should know that, too, and acknowledge it to the reader. That fact also would be of interest.

Not knowing one way or the other what has been done during the last ten years is a huge informational gap.
I wasn't making it in reference to the article. I was making it in reference to the conversation between T'ai Chi, Hoyt and Larsen as it appeared on some level they were talking past one another. In that case, and reading my point carefully its exactly an issue of semantics. Whether there is new research out there or not, and whether the author realizes this or not, does not change the fact that the opinion reached in the 1994 era of research might still be the most valid...get my point? Basically the existence of new research is not a guarantee that previous conclusions and research are invalid, and so therefore, are still "current".

Say that in 1994 I thought apples were Red according to research I had done. In 2000 new research was done into the colour of apples, but did not come up with anything conclusive or new compared to my previous research and so the "current" conclusion is that apples are still Red. I think Larsen and Hoyt mean "current" in this fashion, while T'ai Chi merely pointed out that the 2000 research was the last research done, or rather, the most "current" research done. I could be wrong there however.

T'ai Chi

11th February 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The only things that bother me are your pretense at skepticism and these persistent woo attempts to spin skeptical issues into political issues.

I fail to see how saying that current research means current research is political.

Until you cite them, you have yet another hollow woo howl.

Me listing specific examples of current research is irrelevant to my criticism of the article being somewhat inadequate by not having any recent research from parapsycholgical sources.

But you know that. :)

But I see your assertion grew more inane when you expressed your hope that the article would cover this forty-two-day year.

"This year hopefully."
This year, last year, whatever; those still count as recent I'd say.

10 years ago is not on the other hand, at least I don't consider anything really over 5 years old as recent or current.

o One paper from a peer-reviewed physics journal from the last forty-two days providing a new, corrected general relativity equation.

Since you repeated, Jr., I'll do the same:

There have been recent papers about physics in general.

o One paper from a peer-reviewed cytology journal from the last forty-two days questioning the existence of double phosphobilipid cell walls in prokaryotes.

There have been recent papers about cytology in general.

o One paper from a peer-reviewed biochemistry journal from the last forty-two days revealing a previously undiscovered and unpairable DNA base nucleotide in humans.

There have been recent papers about biochemistry in general.

o One paper from a peer-reviewed astronomy journal from the last forty-two days suggesting the moon is not really in orbit about the earth.

There have been recent papers about astronomy in general.

o One paper from a peer-reviewed astronomy journal from the last forty-two days questioning the heliocentric model of our solar system.

There have been recent papers about astronomy in general.

T'ai Chi

11th February 2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Try to read the article, before you criticize it, Clancie.

You should read it too, Claus. :)

There are references to material from 1999.

Let's examine those:

The first one is a Skeptical Enquirer article on dowsing that analyzed data from around 1990. Most parapsychologists, as far as I know, primarily study 'esp' issues, not dowsing so much.

The second one is a skeptical article of Ganzfeld experiments which analyzed data from 1987 to 1997. At least this was more on topic.

Neither of these present recent findings, or present the side of the parapsycholgical researchers from their point of view, which is important.

Clancie

11th February 2004, 02:24 PM

Posted by voidx

Say that in 1994 I thought apples were Red according to research I had done. In 2000 new research was done into the colour of apples, but did not come up with anything conclusive or new compared to my previous research and so the "current" conclusion is that apples are still Red
Yes, fine. But the 2000 research is still more recent and should be mentioned.

Beyond that, if research has been done past 1994, regardless of the conclusions reached, imo, the author has an obligation to mention the research and the conclusions, even if its just to say, "This was confirmed again by the most recent experiments of so-and-so in 2002".

There's an obligation to know what's been done and inform the reader of it...and ten years, in terms of research data, can be a very long time to omit.....

voidx

11th February 2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, fine. But the 2000 research is still more recent and should be mentioned.

Beyond that, if research has been done past 1994, regardless of the conclusions reached, imo, the author has an obligation to mention the research and the conclusions, even if its just to say, "This was confirmed again by the most recent experiments of so-and-so in 2002".

There's an obligation to know what's been done and inform the reader of it...and ten years, in terms of research data, can be a very long time to omit.....
I never said it shouldn't be mentioned. Hence me commenting on the conversation and trying to help it along with a suggestion, rather than making a comment on the article (which I've not read) itself.

BillHoyt

11th February 2004, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Yes, fine. But the 2000 research is still more recent and should be mentioned.

The management of Clancie's Home Journal regrets to inform you that its seventieth issue will, once again, be delayed. More recent articles that absolutely change nothing were published as we went to press and we have requested the authors update their manuscripts. We would also like to update you that our first through sixty-ninth issues are experiencing similar problems. We are in the process of re-writing those as well.

Oh, we've just received a letter notifying us that another article was published somewhere that doesn't alter the facts of anything we published. Nonetheless, this will, of course, necessitate further delays.

We've just been informed that two of the authors of articles for our first and second issues have recently passed. We will attempt to find replacements who can update those manuscripts

CFLarsen

13th February 2004, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Me listing specific examples of current research is irrelevant to my criticism of the article being somewhat inadequate by not having any recent research from parapsycholgical sources.

It is not only relevant, it is pivotal to your criticism. You were asked to point to more "current" articles.

You were unable to. That makes it very hard to take your criticism seriously.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
10 years ago is not on the other hand, at least I don't consider anything really over 5 years old as recent or current.

Moving the goalposts. Now it is 5 years that is not "recent" or "current".

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You should read it too, Claus. :)

I did. You, obviously, did not.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Let's examine those:

The first one is a Skeptical Enquirer article on dowsing that analyzed data from around 1990. Most parapsychologists, as far as I know, primarily study 'esp' issues, not dowsing so much.

The second one is a skeptical article of Ganzfeld experiments which analyzed data from 1987 to 1997. At least this was more on topic.

So, now you admit that the article is up to 1997. But, as you changed your stance to, this is not "recent" either. Funny how you change your story, depending on the facts.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Neither of these present recent findings, or present the side of the parapsycholgical researchers from their point of view, which is important.

Moving the goalposts: Now, 1997 is not "recent" either.

Next time, read the friggin' article before you criticize it. And stick to your story.

13th February 2004, 05:44 AM

There is a difference between stuff that is published "currently" with the current state of the art. If things have changed in the teeming world of parapsychology since the last reference of the author then he is a bad boy, if it is same old same old then what is the difference? Current thinking might very well be represented by work published a decade ago. The question is, "has anything changed?". I suspect not, I suspect that there have been more anecdotes published and more stuff on the meaning of vanishingly small effects. I guess where I come out on this latest tempest in a teapot is to ask T'ai what "current" work of any enhanced import is missing. If there are not a couple of examples forthcoming (with some sort of explination of why anyone should give a rat's ass beyond "an interesting work") than the author deserves a spanking.

T'ai, why not write an article for Claus' rag on the current state of current work in this area? Focus on, say the last 4 years. Call it ""Research since the millenium". Since you clearly think stuff has happened, you must know what that stuff is. Write it up and stop whining.

BillHoyt

13th February 2004, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by Ed
Write it up and stop whining.

"It is better to whine good than to think good."

-with apologies to Billy Crystal

CFLarsen

13th February 2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Ed
T'ai, why not write an article for Claus' rag on the current state of current work in this area?

My what?

Originally posted by Ed
Focus on, say the last 4 years. Call it ""Research since the millenium". Since you clearly think stuff has happened, you must know what that stuff is. Write it up and stop whining.

T'ai Chi will refuse. It is "irrelevant", you see. Only vapid comments are "relevant".

T'ai Chi is not a person who will step up to the plate. It is far easier to criticize others than to actually do something himself.

T'ai Chi

13th February 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Ed

T'ai, why not write an article for Claus' rag on the current state of current work in this area? Focus on, say the last 4 years. Call it ""Research since the millenium". Since you clearly think stuff has happened, you must know what that stuff is. Write it up and stop whining.

Why people counter critisicm with the 'yeah, then you write something better!!' is beyond me, because it is irrelevant to the criticism, as my writing was never in question to begin with.

13th February 2004, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Why people counter critisicm with the 'yeah, then you write something better!!' is beyond me, because it is irrelevant to the criticism, as my writing was never in question to begin with.

I countered the critisism. I suggested that you be explict regarding what is missing in your own critisism. I ssimply pointed out that if there is new stuff you might wish to contribute.

Noting a termination date for references with no indication of why that is a problem is whining and not terribly productive.

So, what iss worth looking at over the past few years, and why?

Clancie

13th February 2004, 04:55 PM

So, Bill,

If today you sat down to read an article titled, "The State of Current Research in Quantum Mechanics" and you found that the research was all 5 to 10 years old...would that be perfectly acceptable to you as having been correctly represented by the word "current"?

T'ai Chi

13th February 2004, 11:25 PM

Well there's recent RNG experiments, REG, global consciousness, the DAT model, M5 model, recent Ganzfeld experiments, metaanalyses, for starters.

CFLarsen

13th February 2004, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Well there's recent RNG experiments, REG, global consciousness, the DAT model, M5 model, recent Ganzfeld experiments, metaanalyses, for starters.

References, please. What has been published this year, 2004?
For starters.

T'ai Chi

14th February 2004, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

References, please. What has been published this year, 2004?
For starters.

They're all recent publications (2001-2003) except DAT.

T'ai Chi

14th February 2004, 12:38 AM

I like how the majority of the 'current parapsychology research' seems to be CSICOP articles, as if the parapsychologists themselves just aren't writing anything.

CFLarsen

14th February 2004, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
They're all recent publications (2001-2003) except DAT.

Do you understand what "references" mean, T'ai Chi? That means that you present titles, authors. Try again.

None from 2004? Well, gee, that rules them out, right?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I like how the majority of the 'current parapsychology research' seems to be CSICOP articles, as if the parapsychologists themselves just aren't writing anything.

Then stop whining and show them!

T'ai Chi

14th February 2004, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

None from 2004? Well, gee, that rules them out, right?

More recent than your "current" ones... that's for sure. :D

Here's a small sampling, not that you really want them:

ArtREG: A Random Event Experiment Utilizing Picture-Preference Feedback. J. Scientific Exploration, 14, No. 3, pp. 383-409, 2000.*

Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium: PortREG Replication Experiments. J. Scientific Exploration, 14, No. 4, pp. 499-555, 2000.*

The MegaREG Experiment: Replication and Interpretation (Revised Edition). Tech. Note 2002.03, October 2002 (91 pages).

Information and Uncertainty: 25 Years of Remote Perception Research. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 17, No. 2, 2003.*

Contributions to Variance in REG Experiments: ANOVA Models and Specialized Subsidiary Analyses. J. Scientific Exploration, 14, No. 1, pp. 73-89, 2000.*_

Overview of Several Theoretical Models of PEAR Data. J. Scientific Exploration, 14, No. 2, pp. 163-194, 2000._

A Modular Model of Mind/Matter Manifestations (M5). J. Scientific Exploration, 15, No. 3, pp. 299-329, 2001.*

M*: Vector Representation of the Subliminal Seed Regime of M^5. J. Scientific Exploration, 16, No. 3, pp. 341-357, 2002.*

Statistical Consequences of Data Selection. Tech. Note 2003.02, April 2003 (18 pages)._

Problems of Reproducibility in Complex Mind-Matter Systems._ J. Scientific Exploration, 17, No. 2, pp. 243-270, 2003.*

Bem, D. J., Palmer, J., Broughton, R. S. (2001). Updating the Ganzfeld Database: A Victim of Its Own Success? Journal of Parapsychology, 65, 207-218.

Geomagnetic Factors in Subjective Precognitive Dream Experiences
S. Krippner, A. Vaughan, S. James P. Spottiswoode, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 64.2 (2000).

Global Consciousness Project: An Independent Analysis of The 11 September 2001 Events.

Methodological Issue in the Study of Correlation between Psychophysiological Variables.
Edwin C. May &_ S. James P. Spottiswoode. Proceedings of the_ Parapsychological Association 44th Annual Convention, New York, (2001).

Geomagnetic Factors in Subjective Precognitive Dream Experiences
S. Krippner, A. Vaughan, S. James P. Spottiswoode, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 64.2 (2000).

Global Consciousness Project: An Independent Analysis of The 11 September 2001 Events.
Edwin C. May &_ S. James P. Spottiswoode

A Search for Alpha Power Changes Associated with Anomalous Cognition.
Edwin C. May, S. James P. Spottiswoode, Laura V. Faith. Proceedings of the International Society of Psychophysiology, Sydney, Australia (2000).

The Correlation of the Gradient of Shannon Entropy and Anomalous Cognition:_ Toward an Anomalous Cognition Sensory System.
Edwin C. May, S. James P. Spottiswoode, Laura V. Faith. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14 No. 1 pp. 53-72, (2000).

Radin, D. I. (2002)_ Preliminary Analysis of a Suite of Informal Web-Based Psi Experiments_
A summary of the first full year of our on-line experiments. Extended version submitted to J. of Scientific Exploration.

Radin, D. I. (2000)_ Time-reversed human experience: Experimental evidence and implications

Radin, D. I. & May, E. C. (2000)_ A dog that seems to know when his owner is coming home: Effects of geomagnetism and local sidereal time_

Radin, D. I. & Nelson, R. D. (2000)._ Meta-analysis of mind-matter interaction experiments: 1959 - 2000.

Can Population Growth Rule Out Reincarnation? A Model of Circular Migration
David Bishai
Volume 14, Number 3, page 411, 2000, JSE

The Mars Effect Is Genuine: On Kurtz, Nienhuys, and Sandhu's Missing the Evidence
Suitbert Ertel, Kenneth Irving
Volume 14, Number 3, page 421, 2000, JSE

Bulky Mars Effect Hard to Hide: Comment on Dommanget's Account of the Belgian Skeptics' Research
Suitbert Ertel
Volume 14, Number 3, page 431, 2000, JSE

CFLarsen

14th February 2004, 01:21 AM

T'ai Chi,

Thank you. I can't see why that was so hard.

Now, please explain what, in these papers, make Scott Teresi's article not "current". What new discoveries do they describe, as compared to what Teresi writes about.

....you have read all these articles, right?

CFLarsen

14th February 2004, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
More recent than your "current" ones... that's for sure. :D

Nevertheless, according to you, they are not "current".

T'ai Chi

14th February 2004, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Nevertheless, according to you, they are not "current".

Nevertheless, according to any reasonable definition of "current research in parapsychology", they are current.

T'ai Chi

14th February 2004, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
T'ai Chi,
Thank you. I can't see why that was so hard.

I can't see what it is so hard for you to acknowledge there has been significant parapsychological research since 1994 or whatever.

Now, please explain what, in these papers, make Scott Teresi's article not "current". What new discoveries do they describe, as compared to what Teresi writes about.

You'll have to read them. That's what you wanted the references for, right??

....you have read all these articles, right?

You probably haven't, that's pretty clear.

CFLarsen

14th February 2004, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Nevertheless, according to any reasonable definition of "current research in parapsychology", they are current.

You mean, your definition of "current research". A definition we have seen change over just a few days.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I can't see what it is so hard for you to acknowledge there has been significant parapsychological research since 1994 or whatever.

Not hard at all. All I asked was for you to show them.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You'll have to read them. That's what you wanted the references for, right??

What kind of snooty answer is that? Since these are your references, you must know what they are about.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You probably haven't, that's pretty clear.

Again, please refrain from these arrogant evasions, and answer the questions put to you.

T'ai Chi

14th February 2004, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You mean, your definition of "current research". A definition we have seen change over just a few days.

What's your definition of current research? Surely you must have one to have accepted a paper with that as the main topic... Do let us know. (you won't)

What kind of snooty answer is that? Since these are your references, you must know what they are about.

Yes, I do. You cannot learn by me summarizing, so you'll have to read them yourself. I presented references with the main hope you do read them. Shocking, I know!!!

Again, please refrain from these arrogant evasions, and answer the questions put to you.

You see, for current, the years of the references have to be fairly close to the present year. In addition, at least some of the research shown has to be from the actual parapsychologists.

14th February 2004, 07:22 AM

For "current" research to be relevant it must add something. Do these papers add anything or is it same old same old?

Have any of these people actually found any clear evidence for anything paranormal or are they 1) making excuses 2) Rationalizing the latet woo spin (effects in the 17th decimal place) or 3) Elaborating on variation on effects that have not been demonstrated?

If the aabove points hold then the currency is, indeed, fairly old.

Just beating a dead horse again does not make research current, it is simply a tired recapitulation. Unless, there is something there. Is there?

CFLarsen

14th February 2004, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
What's your definition of current research? Surely you must have one to have accepted a paper with that as the main topic... Do let us know. (you won't)

I already have: This thread, on 02-06-2004 04:42 AM.

Do try to keep up, T'ai Chi....

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yes, I do. You cannot learn by me summarizing, so you'll have to read them yourself. I presented references with the main hope you do read them. Shocking, I know!!!

Nice attempt at diverting focus: I asked what the content was and what new results were found, so you could show why Teresi's article was so terribly out-of-date. Again, you avoid answering that.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You see, for current, the years of the references have to be fairly close to the present year. In addition, at least some of the research shown has to be from the actual parapsychologists.

Ooooh, wobbling like frantic here: Now, you are saying "fairly close"....what ever will be next?

So...let's get back on track here: You haven't read these articles, have you? You have no idea what new findings they present?

T'ai Chi

14th February 2004, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I already have: This thread, on 02-06-2004 04:42 AM.

Do try to keep up, T'ai Chi....

Good, then you should have no problem telling us in your very next post what your definition of current is then.

So...let's get back on track here: You haven't read these articles, have you? You have no idea what new findings they present?

Go read them.

T'ai Chi

14th February 2004, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Ed
Do these papers add anything or is it same old same old?

Current research, by being current research, alone adds something to the picture.

Have any of these people actually found any clear evidence for anything paranormal or are they 1) making excuses 2) Rationalizing the latet woo spin (effects in the 17th decimal place) or 3) Elaborating on variation on effects that have not been demonstrated?

There are some interesting models presented, as well as some significant experiments and conclusions from them.

CFLarsen

14th February 2004, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Good, then you should have no problem telling us in your very next post what your definition of current is then.

Already did.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Go read them.

So, you haven't read them, then. You point to studies that you know nothing about. Great!

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Current research, by being current research, alone adds something to the picture.

Typical woowoo-argument: The experiment itself is taken as evidence of progress. Sorry, T'ai Chi, only results count. Got any?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
There are some interesting models presented, as well as some significant experiments and conclusions from them.

How do you know? What models, what experiments, what conclusions?

T'ai Chi

14th February 2004, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Already did.

You already did in your very next post? WTF? Apparently you had severe problems complying with:

"you should have no problem telling us in your very next post what your definition of current is then."

The mind boggles why a superior critical thinker such as yourself is having such a hard go at copying and pasting your supposedly already stated definition of 'current research'.

So, you haven't read them, then.

Interesting belief.

I said I hadn't read them?

You point to studies that you know nothing about. Great!

Another interesting belief. It makes me wonder what else you take on faith.

Typical woowoo-argument:

Typical name-calling.

You'll have to address the actual parapsychological studies themselves to possibly be taken seriously.

The experiment itself is taken as evidence of progress.

The experiments have been continually refined based on past criticism, they've been replicated, and significant results have still been obtained. If that isn't progress, I frankly don't know what is.

How do you know?

I read.

What models,

DAT, influence, M5, some others.

what experiments,

RNG, REG, Ganzfeld, some others.

what conclusions?

Anomalous cognition is real, some others.

CFLarsen

15th February 2004, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You already did in your very next post? WTF? Apparently you had severe problems complying with:

Apparently, you have severe problems finding a specific post, even though it is handed to you.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The mind boggles why a superior critical thinker such as yourself is having such a hard go at copying and pasting your supposedly already stated definition of 'current research'.

Thank you for calling me a "superior critical thinker" - I try.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I said I hadn't read them?

I have asked you several times what the content was. Since you have declined every time, I deduct that you have not.

If, on the other hand, you do know the content, you are - for some reason only you know - merely evading. I have no idea why you do this, because it makes you look foolish.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Typical name-calling.

Not at all: It is a typical woowoo-argument.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You'll have to address the actual parapsychological studies themselves to possibly be taken seriously.

I have asked you to tell us the content. You refuse every time.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The experiments have been continually refined based on past criticism, they've been replicated, and significant results have still been obtained. If that isn't progress, I frankly don't know what is.

What are those "significant results"??

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
DAT, influence, M5, some others.
...
RNG, REG, Ganzfeld, some others.
...
Anomalous cognition is real, some others.

Yes, you claim this. You don't show evidence.

T'ai Chi

15th February 2004, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Apparently, you have severe problems finding a specific post, even though it is handed to you.

"you should have no problem telling us in your very next post what your definition of current is then."

Anytime you're ready dude.

for calling me a "superior critical thinker" - I try.

"Try" is the key word there. ;)

I have asked you several times what the content was. Since you have declined every time, I deduct that you have not.

Your 'deduction' is absurd. Try again.

If, on the other hand, you do know the content, you are - for some reason only you know - merely evading. I have no idea why you do this, because it makes you look foolish.

You'll have to read the journal articles. You have the references. Some are available on the internet even. I cannot spoonfeed it to you much more than this. Here comes the airplannee Clausssiieeee!!!

Not at all: It is a typical woowoo-argument.

And that is a typical pseudoskeptical comment. You'll have to address the actual issues. Saying 'woo-woo' means nothing.

I have asked you to tell us the content. You refuse every time.

Because the articles themselves obviously do a much better job. Duh.

What are those "significant results"??

Read the articles.

Yes, you claim this. You don't show evidence.

I gave references. You pretended not to know what to do with them. :D

davefoc

16th February 2004, 11:31 AM

I stopped reading about a page ago, so I might embaress myself here, but what a crock.

If T'ai Chi believed in fairies, LGM, the loch ness monster and angels that doesn't mean that he isn't right sometimes. He made what seemed like a relatively minor comment that one of the articles about current paranormal research didn't talk much about current research.

Nobody presented any evidence that it did. There was lots of noise and some talk about how current research into relativity could be 50 years old and still be current or some crap like that. There were miscellaneous rude attacks on T'ai Chi. Why? because any criticism, right or not, by T'ai Chi is an excuse to jump on the dump on the T'ai Chi bandwagon.

Couldn't CFL have just said something like, thanks for your input, the title of that article was a little misleading.

The reason that this thing annoyed me was that there was a whole e-zine out there with several articles that I found interesting and CFL's thread on his new issue got bogged down with crap like this.

CFLarsen

16th February 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
"you should have no problem telling us in your very next post what your definition of current is then."

Anytime you're ready dude.

If you cannot read, then there are classes.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
"Try" is the key word there. ;)

Instead of your personal attacks, could you point out where I am wrong?

No? Guessed so.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Your 'deduction' is absurd. Try again.

Don't just tell me that it is "absurd". Explain why. You are very quick to dismiss things, without giving valid reasons.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You'll have to read the journal articles. You have the references. Some are available on the internet even. I cannot spoonfeed it to you much more than this. Here comes the airplannee Clausssiieeee!!!

It's not about you "spoonfeeding" me, it's about you being unable to explain what is in your own references.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
And that is a typical pseudoskeptical comment. You'll have to address the actual issues. Saying 'woo-woo' means nothing.

Take something out of context is a lousy way to argue.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Because the articles themselves obviously do a much better job. Duh.

Hey, I am not saying anything else. It is....curious...how you are completely unable to at least give a brief summary of what they are about.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Read the articles.

Yes, fine. You have no idea what they contain. You merely post something and hope the hard issues go away.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I gave references. You pretended not to know what to do with them. :D

Rrrrrrrrrrright.

alfaniner

16th February 2004, 12:05 PM

Perhaps it should have been "the latest research".

T'ai Chi

21st February 2004, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If you cannot read, then there are classes.

Personal jab.

Claus, you really make my responses so much easier. Good job!

Instead of your personal attacks, could you point out where I am wrong?

No? Guessed so.

Wrong.

I pointed out where you have been are are being wrong. You claim psi effects decrease with quality of the study; I pointed out that this is not so, for starters.

It's not about you "spoonfeeding" me, it's about you being unable to explain what is in your own references.

It is not up to me to explain well over 10 references to you. I provided you with the references and it is up to you to claim your education and read the actual full papers.

Take something out of context is a lousy way to argue.

Saying 'woo-woo' means nothing Claus. With me, you'll have to stick to the issues. I'll be here to help keep you on track.

Hey, I am not saying anything else. It is....curious...how you are completely unable to at least give a brief summary of what they are about.

It is curious how you ignore what I say. So I'll repeat for you:

It is not up to me to explain any references to you. I provided you with the references and it is up to you to claim your education and read the actual full papers like any skeptical researcher would do. Moreover, I can imagine you attempting to pick my descriptions apart claiming that they aren't what the paper says. :rolleyes: Do everyone a favor; quit stalling and read the actual papers, then rejoin the thread and debate the issues contained in the papers.

Yes, fine. You have no idea what they contain. You merely post something and hope the hard issues go away.

I'll repeat again:

It is not up to me to explain any references to you. I provided you with the references and it is up to you to claim your education and read the actual full papers like any skeptical researcher would do. Moreover, I can imagine you attempting to pick my descriptions apart claiming that they aren't what the paper says. :rolleyes: Do everyone a favor; quit stalling and read the actual papers, then rejoin the thread and debate the issues contained in the papers.

Rrrrrrrrrrright.

And again:

It is not up to me to explain any references to you. I provided you with the references and it is up to you to claim your education and read the actual full papers like any skeptical researcher would do. Moreover, I can imagine you attempting to pick my descriptions apart claiming that they aren't what the paper says. :rolleyes: Do everyone a favor; quit stalling and read the actual papers, then rejoin the thread and debate the issues contained in the papers.

Why won't you read the references, Claus? Could it be, as you've admitted, since you've only read 10 or so parapsychology papers in the last year reading more than 10 in less than a years time could short cicruit your brain?

T'ai Chi

21st February 2004, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by davefoc

Couldn't CFL have just said something like, thanks for your input, the title of that article was a little misleading.

Oh he could have.

For example, in another article the article writer critiques Radin for using a 65% confidence interval. So, what is the article writer or Claus going to do about it?

Nothing apparently.

Merely mentioning it in passing is good enough for inquiry. Forget contacting Radin and asking him about the 65% CI and then updating the article accordingly. Nah!!

(Now post and ask me why I haven't contacted Radin about the 65% CI? Answer; I didn't write the article or OK it, now did I? Moreover, I have my own statistical thoughts on why he did.)

CFLarsen

21st February 2004, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Oh he could have.

Yes. A lot of people could have done a lot of things differently. But just because they fail to live up to your expectations does not mean that they fail.

We've seen other believers in the paranormal pull exactly the same trick: The point of criticism is that somebody didn't do what they wanted. Clancie, Steve Grenard, Karen Boesen. Just to mention a few.

Puerile.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
For example, in another article the article writer critiques Radin for using a 65% confidence interval. So, what is the article writer or Claus going to do about it?

Nothing apparently.

Again, you ignore the answer given to you, and repeat the accusation. Dishonest.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Merely mentioning it in passing is good enough for inquiry. Forget contacting Radin and asking him about the 65% CI and then updating the article accordingly. Nah!!

(Now post and ask me why I haven't contacted Radin about the 65% CI? Answer; I didn't write the article or OK it, now did I? Moreover, I have my own statistical thoughts on why he did.)

So, you hold other people to higher standards than yourself, even though you are the one who claims that evidence of paranormal phenomena exist?

The onus is on you, Ta'i Chi.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2004, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

We've seen other believers in the paranormal pull exactly the same trick: The point of criticism is that somebody didn't do what they wanted. Clancie, Steve Grenard, Karen Boesen. Just to mention a few.

Highly obvious attempted guilt by association. I thought you could do better.

Look Claus, come and answer some questions in my 'Questions for CFLarsen' thread.

Again, you ignore the answer given to you, and repeat the accusation. Dishonest.

You've ignored a lot of questions over in your question thread. You've ignored looking at the evidence presented in The Conscious Universe. You've ignored reading the references contained in it. You've ignored providing evidence why you believe BillH's letter/name counts to be independent.

When will you address these issues?

So, you hold other people to higher standards than yourself, even though you are the one who claims that evidence of paranormal phenomena exist?

The onus is on you, Ta'i Chi.

You're the one who claims to be a skeptic; you should know how to present evidence for your claims and argue coherently.

Darat

21st February 2004, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Highly obvious attempted guilt by association. I thought you could do better.

Er no - he was substantiating his claim - not surprised you didn't recognise that!

Clancie

21st February 2004, 02:12 PM

CFLarsen, quoted above

We've seen other believers in the paranormal pull exactly the same trick: The point of criticism is that somebody didn't do what they wanted. Clancie, Steve Grenard, Karen Boesen. Just to mention a few.
Posted by T'ai Chi

Highly obvious attempted guilt by association. I thought you could do better.
Posted by Darat

er, no, he was substantiating his claim - not surprised you didn't recognise that!
Hi Darat,

Well then my question won't surprise you either. I see my name mentioned. Could you please explain what Claus means that the point of criticism is that someone didn't do "what (I) wanted"?

How does this have anything to do with the fact that the title of the article says "Current Research" and that it is clearly not very current at all? How is he "backing up his claim"?

How is CFL's defense of this--or anything else in this thread, come to think of it--"substantiated" (in your words) by what he wrote about me in that sentence? I don't get it. :confused:

Darat

21st February 2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi Darat,

Well then my question won't surprise you either. I see my name mentioned. Could you please explain what Claus means that the point of criticism is that someone didn't do "what (I) wanted"?

How does this have anything to do with the fact that the title of the article says "Current Research" and that it is clearly not very current at all? How is he "backing up his claim"?

How is CFL's defense of this--or anything else in this thread, come to think of it--"substantiated" (in your words) by what he wrote about me in that sentence? I don't get it. :confused:

You seem to have read a lot more into my post then I wrote!

Let me expand.

Tai'Chi stated that by using your name (and others) Claus was using a fallacy often called here "guilt by association". I pointed out that Claus wasn't doing that.

Claus made an claim/accusation/allegation, call it what you may, that "We've seen other believers in the paranormal pull exactly the same trick: ... ".

He then goes on to say " ...The point of criticism is that somebody didn't do what they wanted. Clancie, Steve Grenard, Karen Boesen. Just to mention a few.

So as I stated rather then just using a generalisation Claus provided names of posters ("the substantiated his claim") that some "believers" have done "X".

I never mentioned was he correct or not or if I agreed with him or not.

I’m not bothered about having a squabble about whether my commas were in the right place, I have explained my intent I have no further comments on the matter.

CFLarsen

21st February 2004, 02:38 PM

Clancie

21st February 2004, 02:59 PM

Posted by Darat

So as I stated rather then just using a generalisation Claus provided names of posters ("the substantiated his claim") that some "believers" have done "X".

I never mentioned was he correct or not or if I agreed with him or not.
Well, then, let me say that I don't agree with him. And I disagree with you that by mentioning Steve and me he was "substantiating" -any- point he was making to T'ai Chil. In fact, I think the reference was totally irrelevant (not to mention, imo, totally untrue ).

And I think Claus -was- attempting "guilt by association", since T'ai Chi (and the point he's making in this thread) have nothing whatsoever to do with me or Steve Grenard or whatever we've argued about elsewhere. He's just trying to discredit T'ai Chi as "another woowoo like them".

How "substantiated" is that?

Interesting Ian

21st February 2004, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Why don't you just ask me what I meant, Clancie?

She has you on ignore Claus. How many times must you be informed of this? :rolleyes:

CFLarsen

21st February 2004, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, then, let me say that I don't agree with him. And I disagree with you that by mentioning Steve and me he was "substantiating" -any- point he was making to T'ai Chil. In fact, I think the reference was totally irrelevant (not to mention, imo, totally untrue ).

And I think Claus -was- attempting "guilt by association", since T'ai Chi (and the point he's making in this thread) have nothing whatsoever to do with me or Steve Grenard or whatever we've argued about elsewhere. He's just trying to discredit T'ai Chi as "another woowoo like them".

How "substantiated" is that?

I'm right here, Clancie. If you are really interested in what I meant, you have to ask me directly. You don't even gotta ask me nicely.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
She has you on ignore Claus. How many times must you be informed of this? :rolleyes:

I am perfectly aware that she claims to have me on ignore, officially because she is not interested in what I am saying. Now, apparently, that has changed. Still, she expects one poster to be able to answer for another one. Maybe she thinks Darat is psychic....

If she really wants to know what I meant, she will have to ask me directly.

If not, she is accusing me of attempting "guilt by association", without having to listen to any argument I might have.

Dilemma.