Emily Rosa was not doing science? [Archive]

Darat

24th February 2004, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Bad, bad skeptic!!

Bottom line is is that we were talking about ESP and PK; not TT.

We weren't talking about huamn energy fields, we weren't talking about Kirlian photographs, and we weren't talking about UFO's either, Claus.

We were talking about ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments. [/B]

Right so TT is not covered by these definitions?

Anomalous Cognition (AC) — A form of information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are absent. In this process some individuals are able to gain access to information from events outside the range of their senses by a currently not understood mechanism. Several synonyms for this phenomenon are in use: Remote Viewing (RV), Clairvoyance, and ESP.

Anomalous Perturbation (AP) — A form of interaction with matter in which all known physical mechanisms are absent. In other words, some individuals are alleged to be able to influence matter by an as yet unknown process. This phenomenon is also known Psychokinesis (PK).

Anomalous Mental Phenomena (AMP) — A general term that includes AC and AP. This is also known as PSI.

Since it is obvious then that there are different definitions of “psi” being used by different posters please give a specific definition of "psi" that covers the "ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments" you refer to above and please show that this definition is in accordance with what the researchers think they were researching and controlling for.

(Edited to add.)

Looking up what believers in TT say about their "therapy" and what it is I can't see how it isn't a form of PK or ESP using the above definitions.

i.e.

http://healthpsych.psy.vanderbilt.edu/Reiki_Therapy.htm
...snip...
Biofield Therapy is often referred to as “energy healing” or “laying on of hands” and is described as “one of the oldest forms of healing”. Biofield or energy healing involves the transfer of energy from healer to patient and the manipulation of the human body’s energy fields. The energy field is an active “Biofield” that exists within the human body and within an 18-inch perimeter of the body.

The National Institutes of Health Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) classifies Reiki as a Biofield modality “that involves touch or placement of the hands in or through Biofield, the existence of which has not been scientifically proven” (http://nccam.nih.gov./).
...snip...

(Edited to add another reference and sneak in the snips above.)

http://www.wellfx.com/InfoBase/ther_Touch_.htm

...snip...
Mechanism of Action
One explanation for the way TT works involves understanding the interaction between the mind and the body as well as cell biology. According to this theory, the brain stores memories of a physically or emotionally traumatic experience such as an infection, an injury, or a difficult, painful relationship. The pain associated with any one of these experiences manifests in the body, not in the brain. The manifestation on a cellular level blocks gap junctions and gap junction complexes, preventing communication between cells, which thereby interrupts normal function of organs and tissue. TT is thought to restore cellular communication by opening gap junctions through the exchange of healthy energy (Ledwith 2000).

Another theory of how TT works uses quantum physics to try to explain this healing method. According to quantum physics, human beings are "electrical devices that produce magnetism, heat (body temperature), and phosphorescence." Blood circulates in a person, with the iron in hemoglobin producing an electromagnetic field that may be sensed by the TT or HT practitioner. The "aura" that some describe may be phosphorescence produced from electrical properties of the human body; the belief, in terms of quantum physics, is that through the process of evolution most of us lost the ability to see radiant electromagnetic energy surrounding other people, but some individuals develop the ability to sense this light (Slater 1996).
Despite the belief in TT by many practitioners as well as documented beneficial clinical outcomes (see Clinical Applications section), the mechanism of action remains controversial (Redwood 1999). Two studies to date have not been able to demonstrate detectable human energy fields on the part of the TT practitioners. But, as Mehmet Oz, MD, an expert in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), explains, "just because...a phenomenon [cannot be explained] does not mean that it does not exist" (Tanne 1998).

Clinical Evaluation
TT is used in a wide variety of clinical settings, including hospitals, nursing homes, hospice centers, psychiatric wards, childbirth preparation classes, neonatal intensive care units, and labor, surgical, and recovery rooms (Slater 1996). TT sessions last about 20 minutes (O'Mathìna 1999), while HT sessions can last from five minutes to much longer, depending on the clinical circumstance (Slater 1996). In order to detect the flow of life energy, the practitioner enters an altered state of consciousness, a process known as centering (O'Mathìna 1999). The practitioner then assesses the patient's energy fields by passing his or her hands two to four inches above the patient's body. In a procedure known as unruffling, the practitioner sweeps his or her hands along the patient's body to remove congested energy. Next, the practitioner visualizes and transmits life energy to specific areas of the patient's body to correct energy imbalances. Near the end of the session, the practitioner reassesses the patient's energy fields and then facilitates further relaxation as the session comes to a close (O'Mathìna 1999).

...snip...

CFLarsen

24th February 2004, 11:10 AM

Darat

24th February 2004, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
...snip...

So, her results are dismissed by you because:

She's a girl.
She is not a trained scientist.
She did not have a white coat on.
She was not in a lab.

Do you realize how ludicrous your refusal is?

...snip...

At least he is being consistent, remember T'ai Chi, despite the evidence to the contrary, never backed down from his claim:

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures" (for details see http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26073& )

It does seem that T'ai Chi's idea of a scientist is a man in a white coat, probably with a clipboard in a room with the word "laboratory" on the door. Anything else just isn't "science" as far as T'ai Chi is concerned.

CFLarsen

24th February 2004, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Darat
It does seem T'ai Chi idea of scientist is a man in a white coat, probably with a clipboard in a room with the word "laboratory" on the door. Anything else just isn't "science" as far as T'ai Chi is concerned.

You mean, it doesn't matter what the results are, as long as it looks "scientific"?

You're probably right. It will be interesting to see what he thinks was wrong with the experimental design, then.

crimresearch

24th February 2004, 12:41 PM

Was Emily Rosa 'doing science'? Sure, in a 12 year old sort of way.

Would a lab coat wearing, clipboard toting, Ph.D bearing adult have been allowed to publish that basic of an experiment in that journal and received all that hoopla, without being questioned on their methodology, etc?

Hmmmm?

Oh, I see...it's OK to cut a little slack when we are using science to prove a point, isn't it?
Now who wants to conduct some experiments on cold water physiological reactions among the Semetic people?

Just present your Ahnenerbe credentials first.

Paul

T'ai Chi

24th February 2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, her results are dismissed by you because:

She's a girl.
She is not a trained scientist.
She did not have a white coat on.
She was not in a lab.

I never said any of the above. Your attempt at character assasination is a lot lower level than I expected however.

I am dismissing, not her evidence, not her experiment, but the inclusion of all of that in a discussion about the scientific study of ESP, specifically as it has nothing to do with ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments.

Please keep on track. To suggest that abruptly changing gears and suddenly talking about Rosa has anything to do with ESP is patently absurd.

CFLarsen

24th February 2004, 12:58 PM

crimresearch,

I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make.

If you have concrete points of criticism concerning the methods, please state them.

That she was young does not detract from her design.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I never said any of the above. Your attempt at character assasination is a lot lower level than I expected however.

I am dismissing, not her evidence, not her experiment, but the inclusion of all of that in a discussion about the scientific study of ESP, specifically as it has nothing to do with ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments.

Please keep on track. To suggest that abruptly changing gears and suddenly talking about Rosa has anything to do with ESP is patently absurd.

Whoa....no, no, no.... You were dismissing her study because she wasn't - and I am bleedin' quoting you here, OK?

"a scientist in a laboratory."

Please explain why we should disregard her study because of this.

T'ai Chi

24th February 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Darat

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures" (for details see http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26073& )

The formal discipline of science is not concerned with TV ratings, front page headlines, or popularity in general. Science study does not progress by applause signs and pausing for commerical breaks to sell toothpaste and soda.

Are there experiments done on TV? Sure. But Science itself; peer review, experiments, theory, conferences, mathematical analysis, etc.? Bzzz, nope, not all of that, just a puny fraction that, by itself, does not constitute science.

It does seem that T'ai Chi's idea of a scientist is a man in a white coat, probably with a clipboard in a room with the word "laboratory" on the door. Anything else just isn't "science" as far as T'ai Chi is concerned.

Laughable Darat, your belief is really laughable.

You do know what a strawman is, right? Ask Claus if you don't, as he's the expert in the field.

Unless, you or Claus can find where I SPECIFICALLY said girls can't do science, or oly men can do science, or where I mentioned white coats, for example, you're as much of a woo-woo troll as you call others- but you're twice as worse because you have seemed to brainwash yourself into believing you are more rational than those whose tactics you have seemlessly assimilated into your own skill set.

I'll expect your amazing evidence of my supposed claims of girls can't do science and white coats ASAP. Don't stall. Don't quibble about semantics, just provide evidence that I said girls can't do science or that only men can do science.

I'll make a list for you too Darat, to keep you on track and hold you to your claims.

CFLarsen

24th February 2004, 01:11 PM

T'ai Chi,

You were dismissing her study because she wasn't - and I am bleedin' quoting you here, OK?

"a scientist in a laboratory."

Please explain why we should disregard her study because of this.

Please point out what was wrong with her experimental design.

T'ai Chi

24th February 2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Whoa....no, no, no.... You were dismissing her study because she wasn't - and I am bleedin' quoting you here, OK?

Do you retract your claims about me saying that girls cannot do science or that only men can do science?

You have yet to provide evidence for these untruthful and hurtful remarks of yours. You will, won't you?

I'll wait, and add it to my list of questions for you (and to Darat's list).

Please explain why we should disregard her study because of this.

I am dismissing, not her evidence, not her experiment, but the inclusion of all of that in a discussion about the scientific study of ESP, specifically as it has nothing to do with ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments.

TT EXPERIMENTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR DISCUSSION OF GANZFELD, AUTOGANZFELD, OR RNG EXPERIMENTS

I think that would be obvious..

Her study itself is interesting in the study of TT, but not entirely compelling to me. I'd like to see it replicated for starters. Was it replicated, Claus? Was it replicated with a larger sample size? Was it replicated not only by TT skeptics, but by TT believers?

I'd also like to know if she came up with the idea to study TT herself, or if she had some influence from her relatives who are in skeptical socities.

I'd also honestly be more convinced if professional scientists in the field studied it and replicated her results. This is not to say that un-Ph.D people cannot do science or scientifc experiments, it is just to say that all things equal, I'd be more confident in the results of professional scientists than non-professionals, for obivous reasons of familiarity and experience with the theory, methods, and analysis.

So would you accept the results of say, a psi researcher's kid, if they did a study for school that showed a psi effect, and published it?

CFLarsen

24th February 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you retract your claims about me saying that girls cannot do science or that only men can do science?

You have yet to provide evidence for these untruthful and hurtful remarks of yours. You will, won't you?

I'll wait, and add it to my list of questions for you (and to Darat's list).

I am only trying to find out what you mean. Do not complain if your own posts are not all that clear about your intentions, because you have done extremely little to clarify your own position.

OK?

Just give straight answers to straight questions, and we won't be in this situation.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I am dismissing, not her evidence, not her experiment, but the inclusion of all of that in a discussion about the scientific study of ESP, specifically as it has nothing to do with ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments.

TT EXPERIMENTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR DISCUSSION OF GANZFELD, AUTOGANZFELD, OR RNG EXPERIMENTS

I think that would be obvious..

Her study itself is interesting in the study of TT, but not entirely compelling to me. I'd like to see it replicated for starters. Was it replicated, Claus? Was it replicated with a larger sample size? Was it replicated not only by TT skeptics, but by TT believers?

I'd also like to know if she came up with the idea to study TT herself, or if she had some influence from her relatives who are in skeptical socities.

I'd also honestly be more convinced if professional scientists in the field studied it and replicated her results. This is not to say that un-Ph.D people cannot do science or scientifc experiments, it is just to say that all things equal, I'd be more confident in the results of professional scientists than non-professionals, for obivous reasons of familiarity and experience with the theory, methods, and analysis.

So would you accept the results of say, a psi researcher's kid, if they did a study for school that showed a psi effect, and published it?

In this, I see nothing that addresses her experimental design. I also see nothing that adresses why TT is not "psi".

Should we dismiss her experiment, yes or no?

Why is TT not "psi"?

These are very straight-forward questions, T'ai Chi, and I honestly cannot imagine why you don't want to answer them. Do not complain about confusion, because the only one confusing things around here, is

you.

crimresearch

24th February 2004, 01:41 PM

"I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make."

Debunking starts out with a point to make..'X'is bunk.

Science *shouldn't* have such preliminary agendas whether of proving that Jews are inferior, or that TT is bogus.
It should be more scrupulously neutral than mere debunking. And scientists should be prepared to accept the results of neutral research whether they support a particular party line or not.
Sadly, this neutrality is too often ignored, which opens the door for the practice of manipulating the scientific method to achieve the expected results.

IMHO this is to our detriment. And IMHO, by running an entertaining piece on a child debunking something instead of a more rigorously designed study, the journal invites others to view science as a way to support agendas, instead of being a neutral way to sift through phenomenon.

IIRC, didn't Emily say she undertook the study because 'she just knew' that TT 'couldn't be right'? or something to that effect?
If so, how did she just know that? ESP...or parental influence?

I'd rather have seen the space in the journal given to another study, and let Emily's level of science be printed in Weekly Reader.

Paul

CFLarsen

24th February 2004, 01:54 PM

crimresearch,

You are wrong, if you think that science makes the first claim: That no paranormal phenomenon exists. It does not.

The onus is on the claimant: If someone claims evidence of a paranormal claim, they must provide the evidence.

They don't. They can't.

BillHoyt

24th February 2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The formal discipline of science is not concerned with TV ratings, front page headlines, or popularity in general. Science study does not progress by applause signs and pausing for commerical breaks to sell toothpaste and soda.
Ratings, headlines and popularity? These have nothing to do with the question of whether or not science is done on TV, or anywhere else for that matter.
Are there experiments done on TV? Sure. But Science itself; peer review, experiments, theory, conferences, mathematical analysis, etc.? Bzzz, nope, not all of that, just a puny fraction that, by itself, does not constitute science.
Ah, there ya go. Now your making your No True Scotsman maneuver more explicit.
You do know what a strawman is, right? Ask Claus if you don't, as he's the expert in the field.
Do you, T'ai? You seem to have a huge problem properly identifying fallacies.

I am dismissing, not her evidence, not her experiment, but the inclusion of all of that in a discussion about the scientific study of ESP, specifically as it has nothing to do with ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments.

TT EXPERIMENTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR DISCUSSION OF GANZFELD, AUTOGANZFELD, OR RNG EXPERIMENTS

I think that would be obvious..
Not obvious at all. Your exchange with Claus, as a reminder, went like this:

Claus: "We know that when controls are tightened, the effect decreases: Emily Rosa..."

You: ".. has nothing to do with testing psi in a lab. She tested therepeutic touch."

Now stay focused on "testing psi in a lab..."

Claus: "Each time, a claimant comes along, he can perform well, until the moment controls are introduced. That's why Randi still hasn't paid the million bucks."

You: "Great! More of 'nothing to do with testing psi in scientific lab environment'.

See it overhead? It flew right by again. "testing psi in [a] lab..."

Now, first of all, Randi's done no TT claimants that I'm aware of, so, therefore, the focus of your conversation could not have been this TT red herring you toss around now. See how that works?

Then Darat brings up your less-than-stellar TV quip. "Science ain't done on TV." I'm surprised all your shucking and jiving didn't include cries of commercial interests and McDonalds making 'Merica fat, dude, you really put on one village idiot show here. But see, Darat was talking about your posting pattern on JREF. The T'ai-thinks-science-is-only-done-in-a-lab pattern that is clearly evinced by the TV quip, and the repetitions of the "in a lab" claim. This is part of the very clear, broader pattern of your various claims about science and how it is done that quite clearly identify you as a poseur. A games player. A shucking and jiving, fallcy-laden, quick-look-it-up-on-google, disingenuous pretender.

If you'd like to learn something here, I invite you to drop the pretense. Drop the pose. Read. Learn. But don't try to palm yourself off as skeptical or knowledgable about science. You're pegging the bullsh** meters all over the forum.

T'ai Chi

24th February 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I am only trying to find out what you mean. Do not complain if your own posts are not all that clear about your intentions, because you have done extremely little to clarify your own position.

My own posts said NOTHING that even addressed the gender or the attire of a person. You and Darat invented that beauty from out of nowhere.

Provide evidence for it, or retract your hurtful comments, now.

Should we dismiss her experiment, yes or no?

You repeat, I'll repeat. I can and will do this in every response:

I am dismissing, not her evidence, not her experiment, but the inclusion of all of that in a discussion about the scientific study of ESP, specifically as it has nothing to do with ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments.

TT EXPERIMENTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR DISCUSSION OF GANZFELD, AUTOGANZFELD, OR RNG EXPERIMENTS

Her study itself is interesting in the study of TT, but not entirely compelling to me. I'd like to see it replicated for starters. Was it replicated, Claus? Was it replicated with a larger sample size? Was it replicated not only by TT skeptics, but by TT believers?

I'd also like to know if she came up with the idea to study TT herself, or if she had some influence from her relatives who are in skeptical socities.

I'd also honestly be more convinced if professional scientists in the field studied it and replicated her results. This is not to say that un-Ph.D people cannot do science or scientifc experiments, it is just to say that all things equal, I'd be more confident in the results of professional scientists than non-professionals, for obivous reasons of familiarity and experience with the theory, methods, and analysis.

So would you accept the results of say, a psi researcher's kid, if they did a study for school that showed a psi effect, and published it?

CFLarsen

24th February 2004, 02:13 PM

In this, I see nothing that addresses her experimental design. I also see nothing that adresses why TT is not "psi".

Should we dismiss her experiment, yes or no?

Why is TT not "psi"?

These are very straight-forward questions, T'ai Chi, and I honestly cannot imagine why you don't want to answer them. Do not complain about confusion, because the only one confusing things around here, is

you.

T'ai Chi

24th February 2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

(stuff)

Oh goodie! You're not ignoring me. Now, are the letter/name counts independent or not?? Keep running from your claims..

A shucking and jiving, fallcy-laden, quick-look-it-up-on-google, disingenuous pretender.

This from someone who managed to provide low level critiques of high level statistical theory, yet ran from statistical questions addressed to him, and is still running as we speak. -yet at the same time, demands others to do what he isn't doing!

Typical and average, using any statistical measure.

Let me ask you Billy, do you think it was disingenuos or not for Claus and Darat to hint that I believe that girls should not do science, or that only men can do science? YES or NO?

T'ai Chi

24th February 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Should we dismiss her experiment, yes or no?

Why is TT not "psi"?

These are very straight-forward questions, T'ai Chi, and I honestly cannot imagine why you don't want to answer them. Do not complain about confusion, because the only one confusing things around here, is

you.

You repeat, I'll repeat. I can and will do this in every response:

I am dismissing, not her evidence, not her experiment, but the inclusion of all of that in a discussion about the scientific study of ESP, specifically as it has nothing to do with ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments.

TT EXPERIMENTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR DISCUSSION OF GANZFELD, AUTOGANZFELD, OR RNG EXPERIMENTS

Her study itself is interesting in the study of TT, but not entirely compelling to me. I'd like to see it replicated for starters. Was it replicated, Claus? Was it replicated with a larger sample size? Was it replicated not only by TT skeptics, but by TT believers?

I'd also like to know if she came up with the idea to study TT herself, or if she had some influence from her relatives who are in skeptical socities.

I'd also honestly be more convinced if professional scientists in the field studied it and replicated her results. This is not to say that un-Ph.D people cannot do science or scientifc experiments, it is just to say that all things equal, I'd be more confident in the results of professional scientists than non-professionals, for obivous reasons of familiarity and experience with the theory, methods, and analysis.

So would you accept the results of say, a psi researcher's kid, if they did a study for school that showed a psi effect, and published it?

CFLarsen

24th February 2004, 02:19 PM

T'ai Chi,

Why don't you just answer the questions??

Is it detrimental to your existence?

BillHoyt

24th February 2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch
"I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make."

Debunking starts out with a point to make..'X'is bunk.

Science *shouldn't* have such preliminary agendas whether of proving that Jews are inferior, or that TT is bogus.
It should be more scrupulously neutral than mere debunking. And scientists should be prepared to accept the results of neutral research whether they support a particular party line or not.
Sadly, this neutrality is too often ignored, which opens the door for the practice of manipulating the scientific method to achieve the expected results.

IMHO this is to our detriment. And IMHO, by running an entertaining piece on a child debunking something instead of a more rigorously designed study, the journal invites others to view science as a way to support agendas, instead of being a neutral way to sift through phenomenon.

IIRC, didn't Emily say she undertook the study because 'she just knew' that TT 'couldn't be right'? or something to that effect?
If so, how did she just know that? ESP...or parental influence?

I'd rather have seen the space in the journal given to another study, and let Emily's level of science be printed in Weekly Reader.

Paul
That isn't at all how science operates, Paul. Debunking is part and parcel of science. There is no mandate that you don't have an [i]a priori[/a] hypothesis. There is a mandate that you design your experiment neutrally, and that you collect and report your data neutrally. Emily's level of science was JAMA material, your protestations notwithstanding.

T'ai Chi

24th February 2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
T'ai Chi,

Why don't you just answer the questions??

Is it detrimental to your existence?

You repeat, I'll repeat. I can and will do this in every response:

I am dismissing, not her evidence, not her experiment, but the inclusion of all of that in a discussion about the scientific study of ESP, specifically as it has nothing to do with ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments.

TT EXPERIMENTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR DISCUSSION OF GANZFELD, AUTOGANZFELD, OR RNG EXPERIMENTS

Her study itself is interesting in the study of TT, but not entirely compelling to me. I'd like to see it replicated for starters. Was it replicated, Claus? Was it replicated with a larger sample size? Was it replicated not only by TT skeptics, but by TT believers?

I'd also like to know if she came up with the idea to study TT herself, or if she had some influence from her relatives who are in skeptical socities.

I'd also honestly be more convinced if professional scientists in the field studied it and replicated her results. This is not to say that un-Ph.D people cannot do science or scientifc experiments, it is just to say that all things equal, I'd be more confident in the results of professional scientists than non-professionals, for obivous reasons of familiarity and experience with the theory, methods, and analysis.

So would you accept the results of say, a psi researcher's kid, if they did a study for school that showed a psi effect, and published it?

T'ai Chi

24th February 2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Emily's level of science was JAMA material, your protestations notwithstanding.

And the level of science in psi is enough to get published, and if you don't like the journals where, it has also been published in psychology journals, Statistical Science, IEEE, and others, not to mention much $ spent on studies by the US government.

I guess the level is high enough. :)

CFLarsen

24th February 2004, 02:30 PM

T'ai Chi,

Very well.

You dismiss Emily Rosa's experiment. You refuse to say why.

You dismiss Emily Rosa's experiment, because it is not "psi". You refuse to say why.

You dismiss Emily Rosa's experiment, because she wasn't "a scientist in a laboratory". You refuse to say why.

Very interesting.

crimresearch

24th February 2004, 02:36 PM

"The onus is on the claimant: If someone claims evidence of a paranormal claim, they must provide the evidence."

Uhhmm...No, that's more like Randi's test to debunk paranormal claims, it isn't a limiting definition for all scientific research.
They are two different things, and I am left with the impression (perhaps inadvertently) that you are using them as synonyms, which is pretty much the sort of confusion that I objected to initially.

Sometimes science through neutral means will arrive at results which discredit widely held beliefs..sometimes it arrives at conclusions that support unpopular beliefs...in any case, I feel that the neutrality of the process is more useful than the goals of proving or disproving certain points of view, due to the open door/slippery slope I outlined previously. And that neutrality *should* be (but sometimes isn't) upheld by conventions such as those required to be published in a peer reviewed journal.

It seems that some folks want science to be so easy that a 12 year old could do it. :D

Paul

CFLarsen

24th February 2004, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch
It seems that some folks want science to be so easy that a 12 year old could do it. :D

But, what is so unscientific about Rosa's experiment?

crimresearch

24th February 2004, 03:03 PM

Ahh, ahh ahhh...my post started off with these words:

"Was Emily Rosa 'doing science'? Sure, in a 12 year old sort of way.
Would a lab coat wearing, clipboard toting, Ph.D bearing adult have been allowed to publish that basic of an experiment in that journal and received all that hoopla, without being questioned on their methodology, etc?"

whereupon you did not answer my question but proceeded to put words in my mouth, insisting that I criticise her design or her age etc...

My point has consistently been the appropriateness of including a simple debunking in a prestigious journal, TO THE EXCLUSION of other research.

Paul

Darat

24th February 2004, 03:47 PM

T’ai Chi, even though you wont answer many of my questions about your claims I'll give you my answers.

Let’s start at the top,

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

The formal discipline of science is not concerned with TV ratings, front page headlines, or popularity in general. Science study does not progress by applause signs and pausing for commerical breaks to sell toothpaste and soda.

Are there experiments done on TV? Sure. But Science itself; peer review, experiments, theory, conferences, mathematical analysis, etc.? Bzzz, nope, not all of that, just a puny fraction that, by itself, does not constitute science.

Laughable Darat, your belief is really laughable.

You do know what a strawman is, right? Ask Claus if you don't, as he's the expert in the field.

The first two paragraphs seem to be an opinion piece? Did you mean to post it somewhere else?

As to my beliefs, you are quite entitled to find them laughable, any chance you can tell me what beliefs of mine you find laughable? I can't find any reference in your post up to this point.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Unless, you or Claus can find where I SPECIFICALLY said girls can't do science, or oly men can do science, or where I mentioned white coats, for example, you're as much of a woo-woo troll as you call others- but you're twice as worse because you have seemed to brainwash yourself into believing you are more rational than those whose tactics you have seemlessly assimilated into your own skill set.

Took me a bit to unravel this paragraph, seemed very emotional. First of all I’m am under no obligation to provide evidence for any claim that Claus made or makes and I don’t know why you think I should be.

I thought I’d repost the part of my post that I think you are referring to:

“ It does seem that T'ai Chi's idea of a scientist is a man in a white coat, probably with a clipboard in a room with the word "laboratory" on the door. Anything else just isn't "science" as far as T'ai Chi is concerned.”

I said “it seems” and “probably”, which clearly indicates that I was not stating that you had actually said those words. At no point did I ever claim you had said them.

Now amongst your paragraph I think you make a claim about me. That claim is that "you're as much of a woo-woo troll as you call others".

Any chance you could back that claim up? I really don't ever remember calling someone a "woo-woo troll" or even just a "woo-woo" or a "troll". Or was this in fact a backhanded compliment?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I'll expect your amazing evidence of my supposed claims of girls can't do science and white coats ASAP. Don't stall. Don't quibble about semantics, just provide evidence that I said girls can't do science or that only men can do science.

Well once again let me remind you that I did not make the claim you want me to provide evidence for. That is not semantics, it is a fact.

However I do maintain that you have a very restricted view of science that does not seem to be held by scientists generally, for instance you made this statement:

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"

Which I believe shows a limited view of science, you also said:

“I'll stick to labs and journals and thingies, and you can stick to TV, thanks.”

Again I believe that shows a limited view of science, you also said:

“It is certainly true that just because it was on TV, that doesn't make the findings false. But, it does make the findings non-scientific.”

And a final quote from you:

"Science is done in labs and written about in journals."

So from the evidence of your own words I conclude you have a singular and very restrictive view of what science can and can’t be.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I'll make a list for you too Darat, to keep you on track and hold you to your claims.

The relevance of this part of your post escapes me.

Interesting Ian

24th February 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
T'ai Chi, you dismissed Emily Rosa's experiment with Therapeutic Touch (TT), because it had "nothing to do with testing psi in a lab".

I would like to ask you:

What was unscientific about Rosa's experiment? That she was a girl? That she didn't wear a white coat? That she did not have a Ph.D.?

If TT is not "psi", what - precisely - is "psi"? Which paranormal phenomena are "psi", which are not?

What is all this about? What's it got to do with the ganzfeld research, and the RNG research and other parapsychological research. Could anyone let me know?

Interesting Ian

24th February 2004, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Darat
T’ai Chi, even though you wont answer many of my questions about your claims I'll give you my answers.

Let’s start at the top,

The first two paragraphs seem to be an opinion piece? Did you mean to post it somewhere else?

As to my beliefs, you are quite entitled to find them laughable, any chance you can tell me what beliefs of mine you find laughable? I can't find any reference in your post up to this point.

Took me a bit to unravel this paragraph, seemed very emotional. First of all I’m am under no obligation to provide evidence for any claim that Claus made or makes and I don’t know why you think I should be.

I thought I’d repost the part of my post that I think you are referring to:

“ It does seem that T'ai Chi's idea of a scientist is a man in a white coat, probably with a clipboard in a room with the word "laboratory" on the door. Anything else just isn't "science" as far as T'ai Chi is concerned.”

I said “it seems” and “probably”, which clearly indicates that I was not stating that you had actually said those words. At no point did I ever claim you had said them.

Now amongst your paragraph I think you make a claim about me. That claim is that "you're as much of a woo-woo troll as you call others".

Any chance you could back that claim up? I really don't ever remember calling someone a "woo-woo troll" or even just a "woo-woo" or a "troll". Or was this in fact a backhanded compliment?

Well once again let me remind you that I did not make the claim you want me to provide evidence for. That is not semantics, it is a fact.

However I do maintain that you have a very restricted view of science that does not seem to be held by scientists generally, for instance you made this statement:

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"

Which I believe shows a limited view of science, you also said:

“I'll stick to labs and journals and thingies, and you can stick to TV, thanks.”

Again I believe that shows a limited view of science, you also said:

“It is certainly true that just because it was on TV, that doesn't make the findings false. But, it does make the findings non-scientific.”

And a final quote from you:

"Science is done in labs and written about in journals."

So from the evidence of your own words I conclude you have a singular and very restrictive view of what science can and can’t be.

The relevance of this part of your post escapes me.

Ah Darat, there you are. When are you going to answer my question?

Interesting Ian

24th February 2004, 04:08 PM

Could anyone tell me how a charlatan claiming they have a "therapeutic touch" constitutes any evidence against the phenomena studied by parapsychology? :confused:

Interesting Ian

24th February 2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I never said any of the above. Your attempt at character assasination is a lot lower level than I expected however.

I am dismissing, not her evidence, not her experiment, but the inclusion of all of that in a discussion about the scientific study of ESP, specifically as it has nothing to do with ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments.

Please keep on track. To suggest that abruptly changing gears and suddenly talking about Rosa has anything to do with ESP is patently absurd. [/B]

I agree, or at least I'm wholly unable to see any connection. Anyone help me out?

Rolfe

24th February 2004, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I agree, or at least I'm wholly unable to see any connection. Anyone help me out? The technique known as "therapeutic touch" seems to be called "radionics" in Britain - or at least the two things are so close I find it difficult to see the difference.

Radionics is specifically stated to be ESP. (http://www.radionic.co.uk/What_is_radionics.htm)

(By the way, Emily Rosen's account is that her mother was listening to an audiocassette of a nursing journal, with a reference to TT in it. Emily heard, and said, "Mummy, can they really do that?" Then Mummy suggested she might think about it for her school project, as her earlier suggestions had been relatively silly. As far as I recall, that is.)

Rolfe.

Jeff Corey

24th February 2004, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I agree, or at least I'm wholly unable to see any connection. Anyone help me out?
Any time.
The TT people said they could detect an "energy field" extending around the human body. No one else could detect it. Not even using scientific instruments.
With me so far?
Well, if they could detect it and others could find no trace of it, it was extrasensory perception, or what Rhine first termed ESP.
Do you understand that or do I have to explain it further?

BillHoyt

24th February 2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch
Ahh, ahh ahhh...my post started off with these words:

"Was Emily Rosa 'doing science'? Sure, in a 12 year old sort of way.
Would a lab coat wearing, clipboard toting, Ph.D bearing adult have been allowed to publish that basic of an experiment in that journal and received all that hoopla, without being questioned on their methodology, etc?"

whereupon you did not answer my question but proceeded to put words in my mouth, insisting that I criticise her design or her age etc...

My point has consistently been the appropriateness of including a simple debunking in a prestigious journal, TO THE EXCLUSION of other research.

Paul
Paul,

1. Emily was nine at the time of her experiment,
2. Not all published researchers wear lab coats
3. Not all published researchers tote clipboards
4. Not all published researchers have PhDs
5. Emily was not "allowed to publish". Her paper was peer-reviewed as with any other JAMA paper
6.Peer review does question methodology, sir
7. How can somebody "put words in your mouth" about Emily's age when you clearly keep commenting on it?

Zep

24th February 2004, 06:59 PM

Just as an aside, science HAS BEEN DONE on TV (http://www.mountainman.com.au/wyisitso.html), and in this case it was done with verve and character and a whole lot of purity too. A marvelous American character, erudite, educated, and a pleasure to see in action. Would that there were many more of his ilk.

Jeff Corey

24th February 2004, 07:04 PM

Further, an 9 year old, doing a Junior High School science project at a local hospital, would be more likely to be able to recruit the TT RNs than someone as scaringly famous as Randi.
Somewhat reminiscent of Project Alpha, these people let themselvs be tested by a "little girl" rather than the Formidable Randi.
Maybe her mother, a RN and former vice president of those evil Rockey Mountain Skeptics, contacted Randi aforehand, to get some hints.

Darat

24th February 2004, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Ah Darat, there you are. When are you going to answer my question?

I've looked through your posts to me and I can't see any recent question about my claims or statements that I've not answered.

Darat

24th February 2004, 11:08 PM

To make something clear, when I said

"It does seem that T'ai Chi's idea of a scientist is a man in a white coat, probably with a clipboard in a room with the word "laboratory" on the door. Anything else just isn't "science" as far as T'ai Chi is concerned."

I was not claiming that T'ai Chi has ever said those words; I was a painting a caricature (in the sense of comic exaggeration for humorous or satirical effect) based on my opinion of what T'ai Chi believes science is. I formed my opinion based on comments that T’ai Chi made such as :

"Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"

and

“I'll stick to labs and journals and thingies, and you can stick to TV, thanks.”

and

“It is certainly true that just because it was on TV, that doesn't make the findings false. But, it does make the findings non-scientific.”

and

"Science is done in labs and written about in journals."

CFLarsen

24th February 2004, 11:38 PM

crimresearch,

Eh....the answer to your question is "Yes". Why would it be any different?

How was other research excluded?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What is all this about? What's it got to do with the ganzfeld research, and the RNG research and other parapsychological research. Could anyone let me know?

I'm just trying to find out why TT is not psi. Can you tell me the difference? T'ai Chi seems unable to. Or rather...unwilling to.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Could anyone tell me how a charlatan claiming they have a "therapeutic touch" constitutes any evidence against the phenomena studied by parapsychology? :confused:

You seem to dismiss TT as fake. Based on what? Studies? Opinion? Both?

What phenomena studied by parapsychology do you (seem to) accept as evidence of psi?

What is psi anyway?

crimresearch

25th February 2004, 12:04 AM

"...That isn't at all how science operates, Paul. Debunking is part and parcel of science. There is no mandate that you don't have an [i]a priori[/a] hypothesis..."

Uhhhmmm..except that I never said debunking couldn't be *part* of the scientific method, I said that debunking couldn't be the *whole* of scientific research...two different things, with some overlap, but not synonymous...

"...1. Emily was nine at the time of her experiment,..."

Which has exactly what to do with the topic at hand?

"...2. Not all published researchers wear lab coats
3. Not all published researchers tote clipboards
4. Not all published researchers have PhDs'''?

I never said they did. I referenced someone else's description...it is called sarcasm, and often flies over the heads of the pedantic.

"...5. Emily was not "allowed to publish". Her paper was peer-reviewed as with any other JAMA paper..."

You put quotation marks around words that I never said, and attempt to link them to my name...I questioned whether an adult study would have made it into such a journal on the same merits as Emily's. I rather suspect that an adult principal researcher would have been held to a higher standard...just for example, with the paperwork for compliance with human subjects authorization.

"...6.Peer review does question methodology, sir..."

Since you once again link my name to statements that I never made, I will ask you once again, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

"...7. How can somebody "put words in your mouth" about Emily's age when you clearly keep commenting on it?"

The same way you just did... with standard debate sophistry, such as mistating and re-interpreting my actual statements.

I would suggest that you find a nice high school debate club to sharpen your skills in, they bring nothing to this discourse.

Paul

Rolfe

25th February 2004, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by crimresearch
I rather suspect that an adult principal researcher would have been held to a higher standard...just for example, with the paperwork for compliance with human subjects authorization.Emily tested to see if the nurses could detect the presence or absence of her own hand, when their view was obscured by a screen. What has that to do with "compliance with human subjects authorisation"?

And do you know that there were any faults with the paperwork? I scrutineer papers for scientific journals, and I can see no reason at all why that one should have been rejected, no matter who the authors were. And indeed there were adult authors as well as Emily, who presumably were the ones who made sure it was up to snuff as regards the presentation.

Rolfe.

BillHoyt

25th February 2004, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by crimresearch
I started the post by responding to this netwit, point for point, then I got here and lost it laughing at him:

[quote]"...5. Emily was not "allowed to publish". Her paper was peer-reviewed as with any other JAMA paper..."

You put quotation marks around words that I never said, and attempt to link them to my name...I questioned whether an adult study would have made it into such a journal on the same merits as Emily's. I rather suspect that an adult principal researcher would have been held to a higher standard...just for example, with the paperwork for compliance with human subjects authorization.
Words you never said? What is your next ploy, sir, to write that you wrote those words rather than spoke them? Here they are, sir, your words:

Ahh, ahh ahhh...my post started off with these words:

"Would a lab coat wearing, clipboard toting, Ph.D bearing adult have been allowed to publish that basic of an experiment in that journal and received all that hoopla, without being questioned on their methodology, etc?"

You know what? You're right. You didn't say those words. You wrote them. Twice. Twice. Ed, almighty, you dissembling moron. And you have the unmitigated gall to accuse me of sophistry?

Retract your demonstrably false accusations, sir, or go away.

Cynical

25th February 2004, 09:03 AM

OMIGOD, Bill. WILL YOU PLEASE CHANGE THAT AVATAR!

I must admit that I'm sick of Pokemon.:o :o

T'ai Chi

25th February 2004, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Retract your demonstrably false accusations, sir, or go away.

You mean like the claim that the letter/name counts are independent?

Still awaiting your amazing evidence. (this should be good)

CFLarsen

25th February 2004, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You mean like the claim that the letter/name counts are independent?

Still awaiting your amazing evidence. (this should be good)

So, you agree with crimsearch? Or do you merely want to derail the thread?

This should be good.

T'ai Chi

25th February 2004, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, you agree with crimsearch? Or do you merely want to derail the thread?

This should be good.

Waiting for you or Bill to show evidence.

Please provide evidence for your/Bill's claim that the letter/name counts are independent.

Still awaiting your amazing evidence.

T'ai Chi

26th February 2004, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Just as an aside, science HAS BEEN DONE on TV,

Some experiments and education, yes, Science as a formal discipline, nope.

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Waiting for you or Bill to show evidence.

Please provide evidence for your/Bill's claim that the letter/name counts are independent.

Still awaiting your amazing evidence.

Excuse me?? What claim? Please direct me to that.

T'ai Chi

26th February 2004, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Excuse me?? What claim? Please direct me to that.

You are backing Bill's argument up, don't play ignorant. You've said that we should count things like:

'a J-name, Joe, Joseph, Jimmy', as 4 instead of 1, agreeing with Bill, and you've also defended Bill in the 'Cold Reading Demos' thread.

What, you back up Bill and argue against me, Thanz, Clancie and others but you can't provide logical arguments for why you think you and Bill are correct in counting the way you do?

In http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870322525#1870322525 in response to "Would you be up for, you, Bill, analyzing, say 5 transcripts and have Thanz or someone analyze the same transcripts and present their results side by side?", you said:

"I'm up for it."

So, you going to do this, or what, Claus? Think I'd forget?

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 04:36 AM

N'it Wit,

STFU and stop derailing the thread you stupid F.

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You are backing Bill's argument up, don't play ignorant.

T'ai Chi, please don't tell me what I do and don't do. OK?

Originally posted by BillHoyt
N'it Wit,

STFU and stop derailing the thread you stupid F.

Well, in so many words, I agree.

T'ai Chi,

I am asking you to stop derailing this thread, and focus on Emily Rosa's experiment.

Let's try again:

You said very clearly that science can only be done by a scientist in a lab. How so?
Why is TT not covered by the definitions that cover Ganzfeld, AutoGanzfeld and RNG?
If there is nothing wrong with her experimental design, why is it not science?

Those are the questions. Those questions are the reason why this thread exists.

Please answer them.

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Well, in so many words, I agree.

I've had it with these games-playing, cargo-cult trolling, thread derailing, woo-woo-whooping, hollering, knattering knuckleheads of knonsense.

I'd like to get some refreshingly different responses from two of these knuckleheads:

1, crimresearch needs to squarely address his false accusations of words being stuffed in his mouth. That means an apology.

2. T'ai needs to either discuss Rosa or stop flapping his gums. That means he should wipe the spittle from his keyboard.

Thanz

26th February 2004, 08:14 AM

I am not tai chi, and I don't play him on tv, but I'll weigh in here:

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You said very clearly that science can only be done by a scientist in a lab. How so?
Well, I don't think that he said it as starkly as you have been mplying, or that this is what he meant. But, I know you love playing these games so carry on if you wish.
Why is TT not covered by the definitions that cover Ganzfeld, AutoGanzfeld and RNG?
They might all be covered under some broad definition of anomolous cognition, or paranormal, or what ever, but that does not mean that a negative result for TT has any impact or relevance to the other 3 tests. Synchronized swimming and bobsledding are both olympic events, but that doesn't mean that the results of one are relevant to a discussion of the other.

So, the fact that Emily Rosa quite simply showed TT to be bollocks, while interesting in its own right, doesn't have any bearing on the ganzfield experiments.
If there is nothing wrong with her experimental design, why is it not science?
I think that she probably had some help with it from her parents, but it is one heck of a science fair experiment. It sure beats the standard experiments on the effect of light on plants or something. I think she did a great job.

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
So, the fact that Emily Rosa quite simply showed TT to be bollocks, while interesting in its own right, doesn't have any bearing on the ganzfield experiments.

That wasn't the topic. That is the topic as T'ai and you wish to now constrain it in this extended No True Scotsman maneuver. Perhaps you missed this post early on in the original thread:

Originally ejaculated by N'it Wit

BS jj!

He's saying there is no evidence for anything psi, the effect declines with experiment quality, no replication, no serious scientists studying it, and etc., when these things have been shown to be the exact opposite of what he is claiming!

Now if you don't think Rosa's experiment dealt with a psi claim, then perhaps you'd care to expound on the non-psi basis of TT claims.

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 08:36 AM

Thanz,

Why is TT not psi?

Thanz

26th February 2004, 08:40 AM

I don't think that I have ever said that TT was not psi, however you want to define psi. I don't think that it matters.

I don't know how Rosa addresses this quote from Tai, posted by Bill:He's saying there is no evidence for anything psi, the effect declines with experiment quality, no replication, no serious scientists studying it, and etc., when these things have been shown to be the exact opposite of what he is claiming!
Darn - pushed submit too fast by accident.

Pressing ahead:

Tai keeps going on about the ganzfield etc. experiments, which he says shows evidence for psi, replication, serious scientists, etc. The fact that another area of experimentation, which may also be broadly considered "psi" has shown that TT is bollocks doesn't tell me anything about whether the ganzfield experiments are good, bad or indifferent. It may be an example of what Claus is claiming - increased controls leading to lower psi effects - but it still does not address the other experiments.

In short, while Rosa may have shown that there is no basis to believe in TT, that result can't be used to say anything about ganzfield. That is not a "no true scotsman" manouver - it is basic science.

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
In short, while Rosa may have shown that there is no basis to believe in TT, that result can't be used to say anything about ganzfield. That is not a "no true scotsman" manouver - it is basic science.

The question concerned Claus' claim that increased experimental quality has shown, over and again, an extinction of alleged psi phenomena. Rosa's experiment is another example of that.

Darat

26th February 2004, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
...snip...

Well, I don't think that he said it as starkly as you have been mplying, or that this is what he meant. But, I know you love playing these games so carry on if you wish..

Well just one quote from T'ai Chi:

""Science is done in labs and written about in journals.""

Seems pretty clear what he meant.

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

That wasn't the topic. That is the topic as T'ai and you wish to now constrain it in this extended No True Scotsman maneuver. Perhaps you missed this post early on in the original thread:

Now if you don't think Rosa's experiment dealt with a psi claim, then perhaps you'd care to expound on the non-psi basis of TT claims.

Bill, TT is not psi. Psi refers to anomalous cognition and anomalous perturbation. Parapsychology in its turn includes the subjects areas of psi and survival research. I do not believe parapsychology deals with TT (although possibly I might be wrong). Certainly it does not deal with such subjects as witchcraft, astrology, I Ching, the bermuda triangle, numerology etc.

The best guess as to one of the reasons why parapsychologists do not reseach such topics is one of credibility. Consideration of such putative phenomena might severely prejudice parapsychology's already tenuous status as a science in the eyes of the rest of the scientific community.

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

Why is TT not psi?

See my post just above.

Darat

26th February 2004, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Bill, TT is not psi. Psi refers to anomalous cognition and anomalous perturbation. ...snip....

That's only your opinion and one that is not supported by the defintions of AC etc. given by T'ai Chi. Look at the quotes Rolfe and I supplied.

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Bill, TT is not psi. Psi refers to anomalous cognition and anomalous perturbation. Parapsychology in its turn includes the subjects areas of psi and survival research. I do not believe parapsychology deals with TT (although possibly I might be wrong). Certainly it does not deal with such subjects as witchcraft, astrology, I Ching, the bermuda triangle, numerology etc.

The best guess as to one of the reasons why parapsychologists do not reseach such topics is one of credibility. Consideration of such putative phenomena might severely prejudice parapsychology's already tenuous status as a science in the eyes of the rest of the scientific community.

The Parapsychological Association, Inc. (PA) is the international professional organization of scientists and scholars engaged in the study of ‘psi’ (or ‘psychic’) experiences, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, remote viewing, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and precognition.
Try again, Ian. (http://www.parapsych.org/mission_statement.html)
:dl:

Thanz

26th February 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The question concerned Claus' claim that increased experimental quality has shown, over and again, an extinction of alleged psi phenomena. Rosa's experiment is another example of that.
And I have agreed that this is an example of that, along with other things that he posted in the other thread.

It doesn't, however, address the experiments that Tai was talking about. And if Claus is claiming this as a general proposition, he needs to address those other experiments. So far we just have some questionable math and a bald assertion that the vast majority of the gazfield experiments show zero effect.

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Darat
That's only your opinion and one that is not supported by the defintions of AC etc. given by T'ai Chi. Look at the quotes Rolfe and I supplied.

Yes, well...ditto. :)

26th February 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The best guess as to one of the reasons why parapsychologists do not reseach such topics is one of credibility.

Irony meter broken:(

If they had such concerns the general quality of their research would be somewhat better, no? Didn't M. Keen provide Grenard with a list of examplar studies of the paranormal that were severely damaged goods?

I am afraid that their lack of credibility is brought about less by what they study, per se, than how they study it. That and the lack of any benchmark effects, naturally.

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
quote:The Parapsychological Association, Inc. (PA) is the international professional organization of scientists and scholars engaged in the study of ‘psi’ (or ‘psychic’) experiences, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, remote viewing, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and precognition.

Try again, Ian.

Try again, Ian. (http://www.parapsych.org/mission_statement.html)
:dl:

{shrugs}

Parapsychology certainly deals with DMILS ("Direct Mental Interaction with Living Systems" and which I believe in) as it is a branch of anomalous perturbation. But from what I was reading about TT it was going on about energy fields or whatever (which I certainly do not believe in). I still doubt that a parapsychologist would say they deal with TT. It's too contaminated with certain presuppositions.

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Ed
[B]

Irony meter broken:(

If they had such concerns the general quality of their research would be somewhat better, no?

Well, the quality of their research is already better than any other area of science. How good a quality can it realistically attain?

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I still doubt that a parapsychologist would say they deal with TT.

Did you not read the link, Ian? Again?

thaiboxerken

26th February 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

So far we just have some questionable math and a bald assertion that the vast majority of the gazfield experiments show zero effect.

Actually, we have a lack of the believer's showing that that Ganzfield experiments show ANY effect. They are the ones with the claims, they should be the ones giving the evidence. Simply saying "Ganzfield experiments" is not evidence, especially since there has been no credible evidence obtained from such experiments. The believers could prove the skeptics doubt wrong by citing specific examples or replicable and credible evidence of psi..... but they never do.

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well, the quality of their research is already better than any other area of science. How good a quality can it realistically attain?

You are joking, right??

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Did you not read the link, Ian? Again?

Look, could you just paste where it says TT? I'm not prepared to read it all.

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Look, could you just paste where it says TT? I'm not prepared to read it all.

In which case, I don't think you should ever again demand that other people read any reference from you again.

Hm?

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You are joking, right??

Everything I have ever read on the subject confirms this. Do you have any reason to suppose this is not true?

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Everything I have ever read on the subject confirms this. Do you have any reason to suppose this is not true?

I am not "supposing", Ian.

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Look, could you just paste where it says TT? I'm not prepared to read it all.

I already highlighted the phrase "psychic healing." If you think TT is not subsumed under that heading then please explain how this is so.

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I already highlighted the phrase "psychic healing." If you think TT is not subsumed under that heading then please explain how this is so.

It might be, but then the site shouldn't have said "psychic healing" but should have simply stuck with the more neutral term dmils (Direct Mental Interaction with Living Systems). From my brief look it seems there's too much wild theory associated with TT. A parapsychologist is more neutral. But I said that I didn't believe they study TT but that I might well be wrong. So please point to anywhere where it explicitly states that parapsychologists do in fact study TT and I'll be happy to be corrected.

FutileJester

26th February 2004, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Bill, TT is not psi. Psi refers to anomalous cognition and anomalous perturbation.

Hmmm, TT practitioners start by detecting things in a way that cannot be attributed to the known senses. Sounds like anomolous cognition to me. Then they create intentional changes in living systems through no know mechanism. Sounds like anomalous perturbation.

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It might be, but then the site shouldn't have said "psychic healing" but should have simply stuck with the more neutral term dmils (Direct Mental Interaction with Living Systems). From my brief look it seems there's too much wild theory associated with TT. A parapsychologist is more neutral. But I said that I didn't believe they study TT but that I might well be wrong. So please point to anywhere where it explicitly states that parapsychologists do in fact study TT and I'll be happy to be corrected.

Right. Now we're going for the No True Parapsychologist maneuver.

:dl:

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester

Hmmm, TT practitioners start by detecting things in a way that cannot be attributed to the known senses. Sounds like anomolous cognition to me. Then they create intentional changes in living systems through no know mechanism. Sounds like anomalous perturbation.

Let's put it this way. How many parapsychologists subscribe to the theory behind TT? If none whatsoever, could it still be described as a branch of parapsychology? If TT hypothesises a certain theory behind the effect, then it isn't parapsychology. If it doesn't, then that's fine. But I believe the former is the case and therefore cannot be considered to be part of parapsychology.

As I say, touching people might well have an effect on the physiological state of peoples bodies, but this doesn't seem to be TT as one needs to subscribe to this seemingly non-scientific theory.

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 11:17 AM

Ian,

Elizabeth Targ is now the acting director of the Complementary Medicine Research Institute (CMRI). It is part of the California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC), in turn part of the University of California School of Medicine. Her institute is devoted to investigating such alternative forms of healing as acupuncture, acupressure, remote healing, therapeutic touch, herbal remedies, meditation, yoga, chi gong, guided imagery, and prayer. The institute's literature does not mention homeopathy, reflexology, iridology, urine therapy, magnet therapy, and other extreme forms of alternative healing. Apparently they are too outlandish to merit investigation.
Source (http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/fringe-watcher.html)

Your call.

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 11:19 AM

Or how about this one, Ian?

Piero Cassoli was born in Bologna on 25 July 1918. He graduated in Medicine in 1943. He was a University Assistant until 1950. As well as the medical profession, he later devoted himself to Parapsychology and Psychotherapy. His Master was Prof Emilio Serrvadio. He is interested in practically every branch of both practical and theoretical of Parapsychology, especially in the so-called "Healers" (The Therapeutic Touch").

Cassoli (http://www.parapsych.org/members/p_cassoli.html)

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian,

Your call.

Is Elizabeth Targ a parapsychologist?

Thanz

26th February 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Actually, we have a lack of the believer's showing that that Ganzfield experiments show ANY effect. They are the ones with the claims, they should be the ones giving the evidence. Simply saying "Ganzfield experiments" is not evidence, especially since there has been no credible evidence obtained from such experiments. The believers could prove the skeptics doubt wrong by citing specific examples or replicable and credible evidence of psi..... but they never do.
Look at the article linked to by Ian in the other thread (Questions for CFLarsen in Community). It shows that the ganzfield experiments yield statistically significant results.

On the other hand, Mr. Larsen (and now you) are claiming that the experiments show no effect. Well, just point them out. Larsen said the "vast majority" of them "show zero effect". It shouldn't be too hard to point this out.

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Is Elizabeth Targ a parapsychologist?

No, Ian, Targ is Not a True Parapsychologist. Neither is she a True Scotsman.

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Or how about this one, Ian?

Cassoli (http://www.parapsych.org/members/p_cassoli.html)

This makes no difference. It is true to say that parapsycholgy deals with DMILS, but it is exclusively interested in scientific theories behind this phenomenona. Is the theory behind TT scientific?

FutileJester

26th February 2004, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So please point to anywhere where it explicitly states that parapsychologists do in fact study TT and I'll be happy to be corrected.

This is an interesting point on it's own, but it isn't really the central question, it it? The issue is whether Emily studied a psi effect. Surely psi is not defined as only that which parapsychologists study? The definition must include things not studied yet, for whatever reason. TT is all about AC and AP; additionally it's quite clear that anomolous healing in general is considered under the psi umbrella. Short of admitting that psi is actually whatever it is fashionable to call psi at the time, it seems clear that we have to call TT a psi effect.

(You know I've never heard anyone claim that, say, the early concept of the Ether was not physics out of fear that physics would suffer from association with a discredited idea. The Ether was physics that was proven wrong, and physics has survived just fine. To take a discredited idea and claim that it was never part of your field seems pretty disingenuous, at best.)

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 11:26 AM

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester

This is an interesting point on it's own, but it isn't really the central question, it it? The issue is whether Emily studied a psi effect. Surely psi is not defined as only that which parapsychologists study? The definition must include things not studied yet, for whatever reason. TT is all about AC and AP; additionally it's quite clear that anomolous healing in general is considered under the psi umbrella. Short of admitting that psi is actually whatever it is fashionable to call psi at the time, it seems clear that we have to call TT a psi effect.

(You know I've never heard anyone claim that, say, the early concept of the Ether was not physics out of fear that physics would suffer from association with a discredited idea. The Ether was physics that was proven wrong, and physics has survived just fine. To take a discredited idea and claim that it was never part of your field seems pretty disingenuous, at best.)

FJ,

Ian does this a lot. The dualist retreat is his usual hobby horse. But now we must add this psi retreat to his lame ideation repertoire.

FutileJester

26th February 2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Ian does this a lot. The dualist retreat is his usual hobby horse. But now we must add this psi retreat to his lame ideation repertoire.

So I'm not immune from these tactics just because I despise those endless philosophical yawn-fests? Oh well... :p

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester
[B]

This is an interesting point on it's own, but it isn't really the central question, it it? The issue is whether Emily studied a psi effect.

I have no idea who Emily is.

Surely psi is not defined as only that which parapsychologists study?

I'm afraid it is. Psi for unknown. It's a term which was coined purely for use in parapsychology.

TT is all about AC and AP;

Oh?? I thought those who espouse TT subcribe to a theory explaining the phenomenon. If this is so, how can it be anomalous?

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester

So I'm not immune from these tactics just because I despise those endless philosophical yawn-fests? Oh well... :p

We're through the looking glass with Ian. And he rather likes the old door mouse ploy "A word means whatever I want it to mean; nothing more, nothing less." He's now trying to decide if he needs to re-define psi, parapsychologist, TT or maybe even science itself. So many choices.

FutileJester

26th February 2004, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This makes no difference. It is true to say that parapsycholgy deals with DMILS, but it is exclusively interested in scientific theories behind this phenomenona. Is the theory behind TT scientific?

Oh please. There is no compelling scientific theory of any psi effect. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35565) Why hold TT to a higher standard than every other aspect of psi? And Bill is right; I'm not sure I can run fast enough to keep up with those goalposts.

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I have no idea who Emily is.

How about you read the freakin' thread before you stick you foot in your mouth next time?

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 11:45 AM

Jeez, Ian, did you even look at the thread title? Are you PWI again?

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I have no idea who Emily is.

Emily Rosa. You are participating in a thread about her research of TT.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm afraid it is. Psi for unknown. It's a term which was coined purely for use in parapsychology.

Then, how can you say that TT is not psi?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Oh?? I thought those who espouse TT subcribe to a theory explaining the phenomenon. If this is so, how can it be anomalous?

How TT works (if it does) would be paranormal.

Thanz

26th February 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester
The issue is whether Emily studied a psi effect.
Why is this an issue? Who cares? Call it psi, don't call it psi, I really don't care. It has nothing to do with the other experiments in the slightest.

(You know I've never heard anyone claim that, say, the early concept of the Ether was not physics out of fear that physics would suffer from association with a discredited idea. The Ether was physics that was proven wrong, and physics has survived just fine. To take a discredited idea and claim that it was never part of your field seems pretty disingenuous, at best.)
Conversely, why is so much time being spent on this issue? The fact that TT has been shown to be wrong has no effect on other claimed psi experiments. To say otherwise would be like claiming birds can't fly based on your examination of the turkey.

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester
[B]

Oh please. There is no compelling scientific theory of any psi effect. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35565)

That might well be so. But you misunderstand me. Something is not part of parapsychology if a non-scientific theory is provided. However, that does not mean a scientific theory is required for some putative phenomena to be considered part of parapsychology.

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Emily Rosa. You are participating in a thread about her research of TT.

Well, Claus, you know the thread title was cleverly disguised. Next time, you'll have to find something clearer than "Emily Rosa was not doing science?"

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

How about you read the freakin' thread before you stick you foot in your mouth next time?

I merely wished to explain to you what psi means and parapsychology means. It is scarcely my fault that you wished to discuss this with me.

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
To say otherwise would be like claiming birds can't fly based on your examination of the turkey.

Except that turkeys fly, but I won't confuse you with the facts.

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I merely wished to explain to you what psi means and parapsychology means. It is scarcely my fault that you wished to discuss this with me.

Now you need to re-define turkey so as to exclude yourself. Now go away.

Thanz

26th February 2004, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Except that turkeys fly, but I won't confuse you with the facts.
Fine. The emu. Better?

edited to add: while wild turkeys can fly, domesticated turkeys cannot.

I was just thinking of the classic WKRP when they dropped live turkeys from a helicopter: "As God as my witness, I thought Turkeys could fly"

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I'm afraid it is. Psi for unknown. It's a term which was coined purely for use in parapsychology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, how can you say that TT is not psi?

Because I believe TT is not a part of parapsychology (but if I'm wrong about this anyone, please correct me).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Oh?? I thought those who espouse TT subcribe to a theory explaining the phenomenon. If this is so, how can it be anomalous?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How TT works (if it does) would be paranormal.

Parapsychology does not encompass the whole of the paranormal, only a small part of it in fact.

FutileJester

26th February 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I have no idea who Emily is.

:hit:
Have you glanced at the thread title recently?

I'm afraid it is. Psi for unknown. It's a term which was coined purely for use in parapsychology.
What a useless definition: psi is all of those things we've decided to call psi (this year). Of course The Parapsychological Association doesn't seem to use this definition, but I'm sure you've got some resason to prefer your definition over that of the professionals in the field.

Oh?? I thought those who espouse TT subcribe to a theory explaining the phenomenon. If this is so, how can it be anomalous?

Are you kidding? Are you saying that as soon as there is any theory for soemthing is isn't anomolous? Even if the theory is wrong, or unproven, or coexists with other, incompatible, unfalsified theories? You realize that by your definition (psi is AC and AP) this means that there can never be any theory associated with psi, since once there is a theory it ceases to be psi!

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by FutileJester
[B]

:hit:
Have you glanced at the thread title recently?

The thread title is not relevant. I explained to Bill what the term psi means since he seemed to have a mistaken idea in this respect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm afraid it is. Psi for unknown. It's a term which was coined purely for use in parapsychology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a useless definition: psi is all of those things we've decided to call psi (this year).

I recognise that people may wish to alter its definition. I merely point out its original meaning. The reason why the term was introduced.

Of course The Parapsychological Association doesn't seem to use this definition, but I'm sure you've got some resason to prefer your definition over that of the professionals in the field.

{shrugs} I've informed you of its original meaning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh?? I thought those who espouse TT subcribe to a theory explaining the phenomenon. If this is so, how can it be anomalous?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you kidding? Are you saying that as soon as there is any theory for soemthing is isn't anomolous?

That's right. I think you might be getting confused with the distinction between a theory and a hypothesis. If we have a scientific theory which explains the phenomena in question, how could it be considered to be anomalous?

Even if the theory is wrong, or unproven, or coexists with other, incompatible, unfalsified theories?

If the theory is incompatible with other theories, then it is not a scientific theory as scientists generally tend to employ the term. Ones theory cannot be incompatible with everything else in the world.

You realize that by your definition (psi is AC and AP) this means that there can never be any theory associated with psi, since once there is a theory it ceases to be psi!

Yes that's right.

Of course such a theory might inaugurate a scientific revolution.

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The thread title is not relevant.

:hb:

Yes, it is, Ian. It tells you what the thread is about.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I explained to Bill what the term psi means since he seemed to have a mistaken idea in this respect.

But that is only your opinion of what psi means. Why should we accept your explanation?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I recognise that people may wish to alter its definition. I merely point out its original meaning. The reason why the term was introduced.

Huh? Please point to where the "original meaning" of psi is described.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If the theory is incompatible with other theories, then it is not a scientific theory as scientists generally tend to employ the term. Ones theory cannot be incompatible with everything else in the world.

Sure, it can. QM was completely incompatible with the Newtonian model.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Of course such a theory might inaugurate a scientific revolution.

All the more reason to find out if such a theory is supported by evidence.

T'ai Chi

26th February 2004, 12:19 PM

Claus, Bill (Claus' Echo),

I am derailing?? This entire thread is a derail! Your derail!

We were talking about ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments and suddenly, wham, Emily Rosa and TT?? WTF!??

Get real.

Claus, Bill, come answer some questions. Will you or will you not analyze some transcripts. Claus, you said you'd be up for it... now you're running away.. and Bill's been doing that for quite some time.

T'ai Chi

26th February 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Actually, we have a lack of the believer's showing that that Ganzfield experiments show ANY effect.

Saved for posterity.

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 12:25 PM

T'ai Chi,

If you participate in a thread, you cannot later claim that the thread is a derail - and keep your credibility, that is.

You have participated in this thread, which was created solely because you claimed that Emily Rosa did not do science.

So,

You said very clearly that science can only be done by a scientist in a lab. How so?
Why is TT not covered by the definitions that cover Ganzfeld, AutoGanzfeld and RNG?
If there is nothing wrong with her experimental design, why is it not science?

Please answer the questions. Or lose any credibility whatsoever.

FutileJester

26th February 2004, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
{shrugs} I've informed you of its original meaning.

No, actually you haven't. (http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/p/psi.html) The first use of the term was in "The Present Position of Experimental Research into Telepathy and Related Phenomena," (Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 47, part 166, pp. 1-19); at that time they merely mean it to encompass ESP and PK. But feel free to make up your own definitions, I'm sure you will anyway.

That's right. I think you might be getting confused with the distinction between a theory and a hypothesis. If we have a scientific theory which explains the phenomena in question, how could it be considered to be anomalous?

Fair enough, I was speaking colloquially and should really have said hypothesis. I'm not aware of any theories for TT at all. We do have a falsified hypothesis or two.

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]

But that is only your opinion of what psi means. Why should we accept your explanation?

Huh? Please point to where the "original meaning" of psi is described.

I just got a library book out today. A text book on parapsychology "An Introduction to Parapsychology" (3rd edition 1999) by H.J Irwin. I just read the first chapter a couple of hours ago. It tells you in that 1st chapter.

Sure, it can. QM was completely incompatible with the Newtonian model.

Yes but Newtonian theory was already discarded having been supplanted by relativity. I think you mean QM was incompatible with classical physics. Very true, but QM explained everything that CP did, and more, so there was no problem.

Tricky

26th February 2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm afraid it is. Psi for unknown. It's a term which was coined purely for use in parapsychology.
Pretty close to true.
Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?Psi) says
parapsychological psychic phenomena or powers.
The irony here is that if any of the psi phenomena were shown to have a scientific basis, they would no longer be psi.

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I just got a library book out today. A text book on parapsychology "An Introduction to Parapsychology" (3rd edition 1999) by H.J Irwin. I just read the first chapter a couple of hours ago. It tells you in that 1st chapter.

I'm sorry, but why is this the "original meaning" of psi?

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Pretty close to true.
Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?Psi) says

The irony here is that if any of the psi phenomena were shown to have a scientific basis, they would no longer be psi.

True enough, but if such psi phenomena is paranormal, it would lead to a scientific revolution, since our existing understanding of the world precludes most, if not all, that which is called the paranormal.

FutileJester

26th February 2004, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
Why is this an issue? Who cares? Call it psi, don't call it psi, I really don't care. It has nothing to do with the other experiments in the slightest.

Conversely, why is so much time being spent on this issue? The fact that TT has been shown to be wrong has no effect on other claimed psi experiments. To say otherwise would be like claiming birds can't fly based on your examination of the turkey.

I absolutely agree, falsifying TT says nothing about anything else. It's only an issue because it seems so evasive for someone to say it's not psi when it so clearly is. It evokes a natural response to wonder why it's important to push it out of 'psi'. As such, it's an indicator of a deeper problem - the lack of a clear definition of what exactly parapsychologists are studying. Which in turn points to the real problem - the lack of any quantitative, falsifiable hypotheses in the field (which would inevitably lead to more solid definitions).

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 01:06 PM

The problem is this. People make outrageous claims. Let's say someone claims they can explode the Andromeda galaxy simply by thinking about it. Inevitably they fail. Then skeptics claim this somehow mysterious gives evidence against "random number generator" experiments where people apparently manage to psychokinetically influence an RNG's output so that one gets 51% 0's and 49% 1's, and vice versa. But of course, whatever the merits or defects of the RNG experimental protocol, clearly there is just as much evidence for psychokinesis by virtue of this research both before this individual claimed he could explode a galaxy, and after. But it seems that skeptics simply cannot understand this. It seems to be beyond them.

That is unless they are merely pretending not to understand. They can't confront the evidence on honest terms so they resort to dishonest techniques. Indeed I wouldn't put it past a skeptic to make an outrageous claim deliberately so it can then be subsequently debunked and yet give further "evidence" against the existence of any paranormal phenomena whatsoever.

Which of these 2 possibilities pertains I really don't know.

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 01:18 PM

Ian,

Forgive me if I intrude, but why is the reference from "An Introduction to Parapsychology" (3rd edition 1999) by H.J Irwin the "original meaning" of psi?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

26th February 2004, 01:38 PM

Ian, I'm not sure why you think that I think that the exploding Andromeda Galaxy guy's failure has anything to do with the knows how an RNG works and can influence its outcome guy's claim. You must be thinking of people who set a low upper limit on the number of psychokinesis claims that need to be refuted before psychokinesis is considered refuted. My upper limit is quite high. I'm willing to consider at least another 50 years' worth of claims.

~~ Paul

Zep

26th February 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The problem is this. People make outrageous claims. Let's say someone claims they can explode the Andromeda galaxy simply by thinking about it. Inevitably they fail. Then skeptics claim this somehow mysterious gives evidence against "random number generator" experiments where people apparently manage to psychokinetically influence an RNG's output so that one gets 51% 0's and 49% 1's, and vice versa. But of course, whatever the merits or defects of the RNG experimental protocol, clearly there is just as much evidence for psychokinesis by virtue of this research both before this individual claimed he could explode a galaxy, and after. But it seems that skeptics simply cannot understand this. It seems to be beyond them.

That is unless they are merely pretending not to understand. They can't confront the evidence on honest terms so they resort to dishonest techniques. Indeed I wouldn't put it past a skeptic to make an outrageous claim deliberately so it can then be subsequently debunked and yet give further "evidence" against the existence of any paranormal phenomena whatsoever.

Which of these 2 possibilities pertains I really don't know. Ian, I would imagine that the limit of outrageousness is the problem here, versus the scale of the effect claimed. Exploding galaxies for effect is clearly something that seems unreasonable because it is so big and so far away that it defies us on an astronomical scale. Closer to our home scale, lifting multi-tonne boulders by levitation, or even our own bodies for that matter, is equally unreasonable to the vast majority of people, although there are some who believe they or others CAN do this. Influencing electric 1's and 0's is on an even closer scale - electron level. And this seems to be more "achievable" from a practical human level because we can actually do this already, but using known, tried and true techniques.

The issue here is that there are claims that someone can affect the physical world by means that or not rational in any known and understood physical sense. If we forget about the scale of the issue then the silliness of these claims come into focus. Therefore it is just as nonsensical to claim that you can affect electrons using "thought-power" as you can galaxies. And in both cases, the provision of proof remains solidly with the claimant. This is the skeptical approach, not one of "debunking for the sake of debunking".

Incidentally, I feel that the 1's and 0's experiment has simply demonstrated something that has been well-known to computer scientists for decades - it is not possible to construct a truly random random-number generator in software. Other generators not subject to psi-effect have shown entirely similar behaviour.

And the effect on the RNG generators is apparently way smaller than 1% as well - an effect so small that it is only just measureable. But perhaps you could report their results here?

Interesting Ian

26th February 2004, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Zep

Incidentally, I feel that the 1's and 0's experiment has simply demonstrated something that has been well-known to computer scientists for decades - it is not possible to construct a truly random random-number generator in software. Other generators not subject to psi-effect have shown entirely similar behaviour.

People try to increase the output of 1's, it does so, people try to increase the output of 0's, it does so, people don't try one way or the other, and the output is more or less evenly distributed between 0's and 1's. All using the same RNG. This is suggestive of an anomalous effect.

And the effect on the RNG generators is apparently way smaller than 1% as well - an effect so small that it is only just measureable. But perhaps you could report their results here?

No, I have no idea what you're getting your figures from.

And BTW, I agree that small psi effects upsets our understanding of reality as much as very large psi effects. But we know the large psi effects don't occur.

BillHoyt

26th February 2004, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The thread title is not relevant. I explained to Bill what the term psi means since he seemed to have a mistaken idea in this respect.
The thread title is not relevant? Are you totally daft? You said you had no idea who Emily is. Do you recall that or are you still PWI? Shall we point you to your post containnig that question? Have you looked at the thread title yet or are you still PWI? Shall we point out that the title is "Emily Rosa was not doing science?"

Will you ever cease this disingenuous game?

Zep

26th February 2004, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
People try to increase the output of 1's, it does so, people try to increase the output of 0's, it does so, people don't try one way or the other, and the output is more or less evenly distributed between 0's and 1's. All using the same RNG. This is suggestive of an anomalous effect.
The issue you speak of is one of "control". There have been no RNG's placed alongside the ones to be influenced that are supposed to be NOT influenced by psi, but are, in all other respects, identical. This has been suggested, but has been dismissed as unworkable because there is no way (so the testers say) that such control units can be excluded from being influenced - as though the psi-effort was not capable of being selective. The argument is that the psi-effect knows no time or space boundaries, so it is just as likely to affect a "control" unit as the "test" unit.

An alternative of allowing the RNG's to run for a long period of time without any psi-effect being directed at them, and thus getting a baseline to measure from, does not seem to have been done - I will stand corrected if this has though. Although there has been suggestion that even this would be suspect, in that the baleful effect of psi-effort from somewhere in the world may be affecting them anyway - a side-effect, if you will.

However, given that the "effect" measured is actually so slight, and that RNG's do indeed produce a "wavering" stream of bits, I would be seriously considering the above effect to be no more than coincidence. At this time, I have seen no proof to the contrary.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And BTW, I agree that small psi effects upsets our understanding of reality as much as very large psi effects. But we know the large psi effects don't occur. And if scale and distance or no object to psi, as contended by its proponents, then it is reasonable to accept that none occurs at the small scale either.

Tricky

26th February 2004, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Zep
If we forget about the scale of the issue then the silliness of these claims come into focus. Therefore it is just as nonsensical to claim that you can affect electrons using "thought-power" as you can galaxies.
Zep, I'm going to disagree with you here. (Ian, take note!) Psi investigators have been laboring diligently to try to establish any sort of psi effect. The few studies that support its existance suggest that it is, at best, a very weak force, barely able to nudge probabilities over 50%. For that reason, it is reasonable to assume that if the psi effect does exist, that it is capable only of the most minor tweaking of physically determined outcomes. Thus, it would be much more likely that if it exists, it would affect electrons than it would galaxies. I am not saying that there is significant support for either effect, but if there were, even paranormal investigators would have to agree with real scientists that the effect is miniscule, based on the inability to get clear, unambiguous results.

We would notice if a star moved. We would probably not notice an electron.

Zep

26th February 2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Zep, I'm going to disagree with you here. (Ian, take note!) Psi investigators have been laboring diligently to try to establish any sort of psi effect. The few studies that support its existance suggest that it is, at best, a very weak force, barely able to nudge probabilities over 50%. For that reason, it is reasonable to assume that if the psi effect does exist, that it is capable only of the most minor tweaking of physically determined outcomes. Thus, it would be much more likely that if it exists, it would affect electrons than it would galaxies. I am not saying that there is significant support for either effect, but if there were, even paranormal investigators would have to agree with real scientists that the effect is miniscule, based on the inability to get clear, unambiguous results.

We would notice if a star moved. We would probably not notice an electron. I understand where you are arguing from, but there are a number of pertinent points to consider in this:

1. Psi is supposed to be distance-independent (except it if is negatively influenced by skepto-vibes, in which case apparently the inverse-square law applies). That is, it can affect electrons on Mars just as easily as those less than inches away.

This, by the way, is one of the contentious issues with psi that makes it "less selective". For example, how can it be determined whose psi effect, and when, made the variations in the RNG output at any particular time? If some people were trying for a lean towards 1's, wouldn't they be cancelled out by the people trying for 0's on another RNG at the same time?

2. Psi proponents claim that this "tiny, weak" force can be made to perform "strong" effects - levitation of great weights is just one example. So is it cumulative per electron count? Can it be concentrated? What's the go here? Who knows! But again, this is in defiance of all physics as we know and understand it, so it seems the explanation had better be world-shattering.

3. The "tiny" effect on RNG's seems to be indistinguishable from random variations in chance anyway. As I mentioned above, with no baseline to measure from, how are we to know if the tiny variations reported are indeed due to psi? Or to local programming methods? Or bad counting? Or to the heat of the CPU-chip causing random jinks? You name it, possible real-world causes are legion and even measureable, and yet psi is being touted as THE one-and-only cause.

No, sorry, I'm just a long way from being convinced in the first place that RNG variations due to psi are actually that at all.

Tricky

26th February 2004, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Zep
I understand where you are arguing from, but there are a number of pertinent points to consider in this:

1. Psi is supposed to be distance-independent (except it if is negatively influenced by skepto-vibes, in which case apparently the inverse-square law applies). That is, it can affect electrons on Mars just as easily as those less than inches away.
I would say that depends on who you talked to. If all psi researchers believed it were true, then they wouldn't need to bring thier subjects close to them to test them, yet many do. I would hesitate to lump all psi researchers in the same bucket just as much as I would all skeptics.

Originally posted by Zep
This, by the way, is one of the contentious issues with psi that makes it "less selective". For example, how can it be determined whose psi effect, and when, made the variations in the RNG output at any particular time? If some people were trying for a lean towards 1's, wouldn't they be cancelled out by the people trying for 0's on another RNG at the same time?
Very true, but it depends on the type of research being done and/or the type of claim being made. Lots of "Randi Challenge" paranormalists claim negative vibes, but I doubt that all psi researchers do.

Originally posted by Zep
2. Psi proponents claim that this "tiny, weak" force can be made to perform "strong" effects - levitation of great weights is just one example. So is it cumulative per electron count? Can it be concentrated? What's the go here? Who knows! But again, this is in defiance of all physics as we know and understand it, so it seems the explanation had better be world-shattering.
Again, I would point out that not all Psi proponants claim this. Our own Ian believes that the effect is barely measurable, which allows him to accept the tiniest variation above randomness as evidence. I don't think he (or Clancie) believe that psi powers can levitate boulders. There are lots of psi believers out there, ranging from absolute loonies to honest, if unscientific, enthusiasts.

Like you, I would prefer some world-shattering evidence, but I am prepared to accept convincing evidence, even if it shows psi only to be a weak effect. I haven't yet seen any of that either.

Originally posted by Zep
3. The "tiny" effect on RNG's seems to be indistinguishable from random variations in chance anyway. As I mentioned above, with no baseline to measure from, how are we to know if the tiny variations reported are indeed due to psi? Or to local programming methods? Or bad counting? Or to the heat of the CPU-chip causing random jinks? You name it, possible real-world causes are legion and even measureable, and yet psi is being touted as THE one-and-only cause.
Here, we are in general agreement. I have not seen any evidence that would be distinguishable from "background noise" in the psi experiments I have examined. They tend to torture the data with bizarre techniques, like meta-analysis, until it tells them what they want to hear. But it is still possible (and it always will be "possible") even if extremely weak and highly unlikely.

But I disagree that all psi researchers claim psi is the "THE one-and-only cause. I think many of them are hopeful, but honest. I was that way myself once, being a believer in all sorts of stuff (astrology was my specialty). I got better.

Originally posted by Zep
No, sorry, I'm just a long way from being convinced in the first place that RNG variations due to psi are actually that at all.
As am I. My disagreement is only that psi must be proved on a grand scale. I'd settle for any proof at all.

Zep

26th February 2004, 08:37 PM

Hi Tricky,

The experiments with the RNG's (or EGGs, as they are known) involved setting them up around the globe and then seeing if their bit-stream attributes changed as a result of deliberate attempts to do so from many people elsewhere in the world. If this is the example of "serious" psi we are talking about as opposed to the obvious loonies, it would strongly support the contention that psi is distance-independent, because if the inverse-square law DID apply then it would certainly render ANY effect, psi, magnetic, electronic, nuclear, farting, whatever, to be so close to zero as to be ignored (the old 0.9...=1 thing again!). So it does seem to be a common component of the accepted understanding of psi.

As for the "world-shattering" comment, again, this is not to do with size but effect. World-shattering can certainly be microscopic in scale - for example, the Human Genome Project was a giant breakthrough. I certainly don't mean smashing galaxies around is the only proof acceptable!

However please be assured - I am not ruling out the existence of psi, and I support genuine and scientific research into it. But the testing and evidence from such research to date is more strongly refuting psi's existence each and every day.

LFTKBS

26th February 2004, 10:18 PM

Oh, forget it.

S. D. Youngren

26th February 2004, 10:45 PM

One little thing I'd like to clear up: Whether it is psi or not, does anybody still reading this have a problem with Emily Rosa's experiment?

T'ai Chi

27th February 2004, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by S. D. Youngren
One little thing I'd like to clear up: Whether it is psi or not, does anybody still reading this have a problem with Emily Rosa's experiment?

No, and never did.

It just doesn't have anything to do with RNG, ganzfeld, or autoganzfeld evidence.

Zep

27th February 2004, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by S. D. Youngren
One little thing I'd like to clear up: Whether it is psi or not, does anybody still reading this have a problem with Emily Rosa's experiment? No. It was a neat, tidy, simple, non-judgemental and CONCLUSIVE experiment. She deserves the kudos.

T'ai Chi

27th February 2004, 12:16 AM

My main critique is that I'd like to see more control groups (ie no intent, or just let a RNG run with no one knowing about it) used.

Zep

27th February 2004, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
My main critique is that I'd like to see more control groups (ie no intent, or just let a RNG run with no one knowing about it) used. Won't work - read my posts above. Somewhere, someone is trying to influence a RNG, even from the other side of the world and even if they aren't really "trying". This has been one of the standard "escape clauses" for psi testing for some time - it cannot be directed like a laser beam, it just seems to go everywhere.

CFLarsen

27th February 2004, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
No, and never did.

Yes, you did. She was not:
"a scientist in a laboratory."
Remember?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It just doesn't have anything to do with RNG, ganzfeld, or autoganzfeld evidence.

Why not? Why is TT not psi, T'ai Chi?

T'ai Chi

27th February 2004, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Won't work - read my posts above. Somewhere, someone is trying to influence a RNG, even from the other side of the world and even if they aren't really "trying". This has been one of the standard "escape clauses" for psi testing for some time - it cannot be directed like a laser beam, it just seems to go everywhere.

Even if no one knows the RNG is working? That is, set up a program to randomly choose when it starts cranking out the 1's and 0's.

In a scientific experiment, I don't care what goes on on the other side of the world, only what goes on under the umbrella of the experiment.

If a lot of psi researchers claim what you said they do above (and you have yet to provide evidence for this in my opinion), then what they are doing is not science, or at least their explanations for failure are ad hoc. They are free to speculate about psi in those terms if they want though, just outside of the laboratory.

CFLarsen

27th February 2004, 02:04 AM

Why is TT not psi, T'ai Chi?

FutileJester

27th February 2004, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
In a scientific experiment, I don't care what goes on on the other side of the world, only what goes on under the umbrella of the experiment.

The problem is defining that umbrella for an effect which is said to transcend time and space. I have read claims that an observed effect during a time when no one was trying to influence the system were actually instances of projecting the influence backward or forward in time. I would be interested in knowing how one creates a meaningful control under these conditions.

(Note: I would have to guess that not all parapsychologists believe that psi transcends time and space, but I've never heard it said by one. I'd be interested in info on researchers who take this view.)

Edited to add:
T'ai, have you given up on the Theory of Psi thread? I'd still like to explore the differences in our views there.

T'ai Chi

27th February 2004, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why is TT not psi, T'ai Chi?

It just doesn't have anything to do with RNG, ganzfeld, or autoganzfeld evidence.

BillHoyt

27th February 2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

It just doesn't have anything to do with RNG, ganzfeld, or autoganzfeld evidence.
This is what you previously said:
"I am dismissing, not her evidence, not her experiment, but the inclusion of all of that in a discussion about the scientific study of ESP, specifically as it has nothing to do with ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments."

Are you now acknowledging that TT is, in fact, psi, or "ESP" as you called it?

T'ai Chi

27th February 2004, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

This is what you previously said:
"I am dismissing, not her evidence, not her experiment, but the inclusion of all of that in a discussion about the scientific study of ESP, specifically as it has nothing to do with ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments."

Are you now acknowledging that TT is, in fact, psi, or "ESP" as you called it?

I remember that, as I said it what, yesterday or the day before?

I never had any thoughts on TT to begin with. Some consider it psi, some don't. Specifically, in the thread I was talking about ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments, not TT, not Rosa, not the possible connection between psi and TT, which were things your echo brought up.

CFLarsen

27th February 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It just doesn't have anything to do with RNG, ganzfeld, or autoganzfeld evidence.

But why doesn't it have anything to do with RNG, ganzfeld or autoganzfeld? How can you be so sure that it is not the same phenomenon?

Isn't it covered by the definitions of psi?

It seems you are very confused on this issue. Please clarify.

FutileJester

27th February 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It just doesn't have anything to do with RNG, ganzfeld, or autoganzfeld evidence.

It doesn't have anything to do with our interpretation of the results of those experiments; we have to judge them on their own merits. In fact I made just about the same statement a page or two ago, but I'm beginning to suspect that T'ai has me on ignore. But TT might indeed have something to do with those other areas; we just don't know.

Again, I have to say that we're seeing the problem of studying something that is poorly defined. And that the root of this poor definition is a lack of solid theoretical models (a plain language definition in the absence of mathematical relationships is destined to be interpreted in many ways). T'ai was claiming that there are such models, but seems to have abandonded that thread for reasons I won't bother speculating on.

T'ai Chi

27th February 2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

But why doesn't it have anything to do with RNG, ganzfeld or autoganzfeld? How can you be so sure that it is not the same phenomenon?
Isn't it covered by the definitions of psi?
It seems you are very confused on this issue. Please clarify.

I never had any thoughts on TT to begin with. Some consider it psi, some don't. I'm agnostic on the issue, and am only concerned with the scientific issues of studying psi in the lab. Specifically, in the thread I was talking about ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments, not TT, not Rosa, not the possible connection between psi and TT, which were things you brought up.

CFLarsen

27th February 2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I never had any thoughts on TT to begin with. Some consider it psi, some don't. I'm agnostic on the issue, and am only concerned with the scientific issues of studying psi in the lab. Specifically, in the thread I was talking about ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments, not TT, not Rosa, not the possible connection between psi and TT, which were things you brought up.

Whoa....just a second here.

How can you - at first - be so sure that TT is not psi, and that Rosa's work should be dismissed because it was not done in a lab by scientists - your own wording, and now, do a complete turn-about? You've "never had any thoughts on TT", yet you can dismiss Rosa's experiment, just like that?

How do you know that TT is not psi, T'ai Chi? You cannot dismiss it, without explaining why.

Why is TT not psi?

Just explain it, instead of wasting everybody's time. Or perhaps, you spoke too soon?

BillHoyt

27th February 2004, 01:00 PM

27th February 2004, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Even if no one knows the RNG is working? That is, set up a program to randomly choose when it starts cranking out the 1's and 0's.

In a scientific experiment, I don't care what goes on on the other side of the world, only what goes on under the umbrella of the experiment.

If a lot of psi researchers claim what you said they do above (and you have yet to provide evidence for this in my opinion), then what they are doing is not science, or at least their explanations for failure are ad hoc. They are free to speculate about psi in those terms if they want though, just outside of the laboratory.

Just go to the PEAR site, I cited the quotes. Control is precluded, any "theory" is non-falseifyable. They also say that "intent" is not necessary. I am surprised that you would cite this stuff.

T'ai Chi

27th February 2004, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

How can you - at first - be so sure that TT is not psi, and that Rosa's work should be dismissed because it was not done in a lab by scientists - your own wording, and now, do a complete turn-about? You've "never had any thoughts on TT", yet you can dismiss Rosa's experiment, just like that?

How do you know that TT is not psi, T'ai Chi? You cannot dismiss it, without explaining why.

Why is TT not psi?

Just explain it, instead of wasting everybody's time. Or perhaps, you spoke too soon?

I'm only concerned with the scientific issues of studying psi in the lab. Specifically, in the thread I was talking about ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments, not TT, not Rosa, not the possible connection between psi and TT, which were things you brought up.

T'ai Chi

27th February 2004, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Ed

I am surprised that you would cite this stuff.

Well considering they are the largest of the groups that I am aware of that are doing RNG experiments, it seemed logical to cite.

CFLarsen

27th February 2004, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm only concerned with the scientific issues of studying psi in the lab. Specifically, in the thread I was talking about ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments, not TT, not Rosa, not the possible connection between psi and TT, which were things you brought up.

You have simply repeated that TT is not psi. You have not explained why.

Is that because you won't explain it....or you can't?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Well considering they are the largest of the groups that I am aware of that are doing RNG experiments, it seemed logical to cite.

You. Just. Wait.

T'ai Chi

28th February 2004, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You have simply repeated that TT is not psi. You have not explained why.

TT experiments are not ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, or RNG experiments.

You. Just. Wait.

For what exactly, you to make sense?

CFLarsen

28th February 2004, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
TT experiments are not ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, or RNG experiments.

Ok, I think it is obvious that you are not able to say why TT is not psi.

That makes it very difficult - even impossible - to take your criticism seriously.

Why are you here, T'ai Chi? You want to argue in favor of paranormal phenomena, but when the hard questions arise, you dodge them. You ask for other people's statistical credentials, but when you are asked for your own, you refuse. You play coy, when asked direct questions - you know the answer, but won't say it.

Why are you here? To mock? To get "even", as you say?

You sure don't want to really discuss subjects about the paranormal. You seem to prefer personal vendettas. As soon as I was gone from this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35565), you vanished as well.

Go figure.

T'ai Chi

28th February 2004, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Ok, I think it is obvious that you are not able to say why TT is not psi.

Like you are obviously unable to stick to the topic of talking about ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, or RNG experiments.

That makes it very difficult - even impossible - to take your criticism seriously.

This from someone who puts articles up, for example, saying things like Radin using 65% confidence intervals is odd, yet doesn't really want to know why he used them and presumably makes no effort to contact Radin and ask him about it.

Also from someone who has said they aren't interested in discussion. On a board, but not interested in a discussion. Interesting...

Why are you here, T'ai Chi? You want to argue in favor of paranormal phenomena, but when the hard questions arise, you dodge them.

I simply dodged your silly dodge.

We were talking about ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments done in a lab setting, not TT. If you or others think that is psi, that is irrelevant to the specific issues. I personally don't care either way if it is or isn't.

You ask for other people's statistical credentials, but when you are asked for your own, you refuse.

You critique statistical things, but when asked for evidence, you refuse. Hey, I asked Jr. long ago if he wanted to post degrees for comparison; he declined (not to mention refused to answer my statistical questions for him) and now I lost interest in the issue.

Why are you here? To mock? To get "even", as you say?

To learn. Now, what are you here for? To post bully lists, yet at the same time, unable to answer those made for you?

You sure don't want to really discuss subjects about the paranormal. You seem to prefer personal vendettas.

This from someone who claims Clancie is obsessed, yet has more posts to or about her than she does about him.

:i:

*yawn*