Reiki Rubbish

[Kimpatsu]

Greetings, folks. I'm at it again, debating a (different) woo-woo on e-budo. (http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15432) (Where do they all come from?) After the no-touch KO debacle, which thread the moderator actually deleted because the woo-woo just descended into calling me all sorts of vile names (note that, unlike JREF, profanity is banned on e-budo), I thought the woo-woos might give it a rest, but no, here's a guy charging people money for therapeutic touch ("reiki"), and claiming he's curing them of sickness.
Come on over to e-budo (http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15432) and join in the fun!

[edthedoc]

I like your posts there: keep up the gentle pressure, asking for specific answers to your questions, don't rise to their offensive posts.

However, like most self-deluded woo-woos you're probably ultimately banging your head against a brick wall.

It's interesting that they're complaining about the cost of the courses: serves them right for being so stupid but someone else is clearly making a lot of money out of this. It's been pointed out before that there's little money to be made out of being a skeptic but losts to be made if you're a quack. Being a skeptic is much better fun because these woo-woo quacks are so easy to wind up.

Go for it, and if I have the time I'll register and start posting as well.

[scotth]

Good stuff there.

I am inclined to join you there as well. Is there a way to make a decent living at this kind of thing (trying to keep woo woos in check)?

[Kimpatsu]

Thanks for the support, folks. Unfortunately, you don't get paid for being a skeptic. I'm a scientific translator by profession, though, and work in a laboratory. I'd be willing to establish protocols for testing this guy. Interesting how he's resorted to calling me "stupid" though, don't you think?

[scotth]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Interesting how he's resorted to calling me "stupid" though, don't you think?

About as interesting as franko, UCE, and MM calling me stupid.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by scotth
About as interesting as franko, UCE, and MM calling me stupid.
Scott, you and I are on course to become fast friends. We think alike.
Geez... you mean that everything MM, Franko, and their ilk write isn't true? Say not so! :D

[scotth]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Scott, you and I are on course to become fast friends. We think alike.
Geez... you mean that everything MM, Franko, and their ilk write isn't true? Say not so! :D

I wouldn't go that far.

I have seen Franko say we are made of atoms. I don't argue with that. I generally run into trouble a couple statements later though.

My biggest problem with MM was deciphering exactly what the intended meaning of his posts were. The composition was so poor that I was generally hesitant to refute them as I wasn't sure (and sometimes had no idea) what was being claimed.

At least with franko, I was sure what he was claiming.

Of course I read the sarcasm in your statement. None the less, I felt a serious answer was useful anyway.:)

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by scotth
Of course I read the sarcasm in your statement. None the less, I felt a serious answer was useful anyway.:)
Not sarcasm; satire. The great British contribution to humour. ;)

[scotth]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Not sarcasm; satire. The great British contribution to humour. ;)

What is a Brit doing in Tokyo? Must be a good story in there somewhere.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by scotth
What is a Brit doing in Tokyo? Must be a good story in there somewhere.
Degree in Japanese from London University; MA in Japanese history from Kyoto University. Intended to stay 2 to 3 years after that; still here 12 years later.

[Thought Harvester]

A good effort! A site like that, you're bound to find at least a couple of lurkers on the fence. THAT's where the payoff is.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Thought Harvester
A good effort! A site like that, you're bound to find at least a couple of lurkers on the fence. THAT's where the payoff is.
Exactly my intent. The woo-woos are pretty much a lost cause, but maybe I can reach a lurker out there, somewhere, and turn them from the Dark Side.
Best,

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Exactly my intent. The woo-woos are pretty much a lost cause, but maybe I can reach a lurker out there, somewhere, and turn them from the Dark Side.
Best,



IMO you are the one looking like an unreasonable goof. Your first post was incredibly abrasive, and so far this guy's post are more reasonable than yours.

Like I've said, the JREF challenge is a challenge, but it is not peer reviewed science, so why do you expect anyone but the bulk of tithing skeptics to consider it as more than interesting entertainment?

For example, this is a great post of yours Kimpatsu, which shows how ingrained your beliefs are:

----
This is also a tactic of quacks put on the spot: Use ad hominem rather than supply evidence for their claims.
----


You call him a quack, a woo-woo, and say he should be arrested for fraud, and then call him out for using an ad hom.
:rolleyes:

[Ladewig]

Darn you to heck, Kimpatsu. You've gone and made me agree with Whodini. Your approach is mighty aggressive for a believers' forum. They'll hear the name calling instead of the facts. If you are trying to influence the fence-sitters, I would suggest asking the strong believers how to distinguish between good Reiki practictioners and bad ones. You can then build on however their definition of bad ones to include all of them or gently point out fallacies in the distinguishing process.

Also, keep in mind that even if the Reiki healing stuff that they claim is all placebo effect, they still removed the subjective symptoms more quickly.

I'd also add that even if the brain tumor disappearred, the cancer could have metastasized and grown to a fatal level despite the "disapparence" of the tumor, or, as is so often pointed out in investigative news stories, the person may not have had a tumor in the first place. Ask if the before and after MRIs could be posted somewhere on the web for all to see.

[Kimpatsu]

You just don't get it, do you, guys?
This man is selling snake oil. That's deliberate fraud, and he has to be shut down. If you think I'm abrasive, you really don't understand the issue at hand here.
But what else could I expect from Whodini? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
[B]You just don't get it, do you, guys?
This man is selling snake oil. That's deliberate fraud, and he has to be shut down. If you think I'm abrasive, you really don't understand the issue at hand here.



C'mon Kimpastu,

If people like you ruled the world, there would be witch hunts (minus the killing probably).

You automatically call him a fraud. That is hardly a skeptical stance. Guilty until proven innocent in your eyes.

You say that because him or no one else has passed the JREF challenge. However, why do you expect people to take it seriously when the results aren't published in a peer reviewed journal? Why do you determine that it is more than interesting entertainment?

I like it when you then jump on the backs of the people in that thread who showed interest in reiki. :D

----
But what else could I expect from Whodini? :rolleyes:
----


Oooh, I'm hurt.

Your threads are out there for everyone to read and make up their own mind about.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Whodini
If people like you ruled the world, there would be witch hunts (minus the killing probably).
No, not witch hunts. Witches don't exist. I'd just silence all dissent, like Robert Mugabe.
Originally posted by Whodini
You automatically call him a fraud. That is hardly a skeptical stance. Guilty until proven innocent in your eyes.
It's not him who's on trial; it's the art of reiki. And that's been disproven countless times.
Originally posted by Whodini
You say that because him or no one else has passed the JREF challenge. However, why do you expect people to take it seriously when the results aren't published in a peer reviewed journal? Why do you determine that it is more than interesting entertainment?
Because the tests are subject to proper scientific protocols. Tell you what, get them to agree to a reiki test, and I'll write up the results for any suitable peer-reviewed journal you care to nominate.
Originally posted by Whodini
I like it when you then jump on the backs of the people in that thread who showed interest in reiki.
It's true that I don't suffer fools gladly.
Originally posted by Whodini
Oooh, I'm hurt.
Ask a reiki practitioner to make it better.
Originally posted by Whodini
Your threads are out there for everyone to read and make up their own mind about.
No, my threads are for everyone to do as I tell them.
You are feeling sleepy... You will send me all your money... I can prove to you how this quackery works... :cool:

----
I'd just silence all dissent,.
----


Scary Kimpatsu... that is scary.


----
It's not him who's on trial; it's the art of reiki.
----


You are talking to HIM when you say "fraud" and "come prove yourself by taking the JREF challenge". You aren't talking to an entity named Reiki.


----
I'll write up the results for any suitable peer-reviewed journal you care to nominate.
----


Why? You know that JREF doesn't do that. :)


----
You will send me all your money...
----


I have a Ruby Red grapefruit drink. Will that do?

:)

Originally posted by Woo-dini


I have a Ruby Red grapefruit drink. Will that do?

:)

You already owe it to me, remember?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Whodini
Scary Kimpatsu... that is scary.
Good. Be afraid; be very afraid.
Originally posted by Whodini
You are talking to HIM when you say "fraud" and "come prove yourself by taking the JREF challenge". You aren't talking to an entity named Reiki.
True, but he's taking money for this snake oil. That very definitely is fraud.
Originally posted by Whodini
Why? You know that JREF doesn't do that.
It doesn't matter. I'm offering to do it.
Originally posted by Whodini
I have a Ruby Red grapefruit drink. Will that do?
No. I also expect your firstborn child. :D

[gnome]

Why do Randi's results need to be in a peer-reviewed journal to have any importance?

The result of the test is not a scientific conclusion (though he may very well make a scientific analysis after the fact)... the result of the test is success or failure at what the claimant and JREF agreed would be performed. If designed according to the rules, the result is clear without scientific analysis, for example, a ball is under a cup or it isn't.

Surely from this you can conclude that the claimant was unable to perform as he claimed, without peer review?

Do you need a symposium to settle a coin toss?

(edited to add additional comments)

[Kimpatsu]

True, but it would be an interesting exercise to publish the protocol in such a journal.

[gnome]

Oh, I agree completely, I just think that the lack of such publication doesn't mean the results are insignificant.

[Ladewig]

You just don't get it, do you, guys?
This man is selling snake oil. That's deliberate fraud, and he has to be shut down. If you think I'm abrasive, you really don't understand the issue at hand here.

I do get that there is not a scintilla of evidence in favor of Reiki producing anything other than a placebo effect. I do get that there is no possible mechanism for it to work that does not require re-writing physics, biology, and medicine. I do get that sick people may forego helpful treatments and waste time and money having someone wave his or her hands. But, I also do get that using words like quack, criminal, and fraud will not convince anyone reading a believer site. Such terms will only make them dig their heals in harder.

If your goal is to convince the people reading that site to reconsider, then reconsider your approach. If your goal is to prevent snake oil salespeople from harming sick people, then you are posting to the wrong site. Until it is outlawed, people will offer it and people will pay for it. Try approaching state or federal governments. Try educating the media. Try educating young people in critical thinking skills. Ranting on a believer site is as effective as ranting in a foreign language.

Lastly, let me say that I could be completely wrong - your approach may be working. Simply go back to the site and ask for a quick show of hands as to who has been converted. If you have changed any opinions, then I'll eat my post; otherwise, take a breath and remember the old saw about honey and vinegar.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Whodini

However, why do you expect people to take it seriously when the results aren't published in a peer reviewed journal?
Didn't we cover this issue in the other "JREF Science" thread?

Whodini, you may be shocked to learn that in addition to the fact that you won't find discriptions of JREF challenge events in a "peer reviewed journal," you also won't find the American Dental Association's official seal of approval on any of them. Yet even my toothbrush has that, fer chrissakes!

Originally posted by sundog

You already owe it to me, remember?


I drank that one.

:)

I have some seltzer and Guiness in the fridge though.

(and squid jerky)

Ish is mad tasty. :)

The idea of being published in a peer reviewed journal is that:

1) other people check your methodology- else you are just doing what you do in a vacumn, with no input from other professionals

2) your results are all in a place that people can check and reference. The only way currently is to hopefully pick out some info from the archives, email Randi, or physically go to the JREF and politely ask to go through their files. The only way to reference their work is to say "Check out www. ...", which isn't really authoritative or useful at all.

3) ?

There are probably a lot of other benefits of the peer review process. Right now I ate too much jerky and can't think.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Ranting on a believer site is as effective as ranting in a foreign language.
This isn't a believer site; there are many lurkers sitting on the fence. MA tends to be top-heavy with frauds and charlatans (Kateda, or Yellow Bamboo, anyone?), so I'm targeting the waverers who read the thread. Joe Reiki is a lost cause, but if I can prevent a sick person from wasting their time and money going to him, I've achieved something.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Whodini
I ate too much jerky and can't think.
This must hold true all the time... :D

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by gnome
The result of the test is not a scientific conclusion (though he may very well make a scientific analysis after the fact)... the result of the test is success or failure at what the claimant and JREF agreed would be performed.

The JREF challenge is assisted by independent parties who know something about science. The challenge is done scientifically.


Do you need a symposium to settle a coin toss?

Exactly. And the results of a coin toss aren't published in a "peer review journal," because those results are un-interesting. Likewise, if a dowser fails to show any ability to dowse, that information isn't getting into a journal --not because the experiment to test dowsing was unscientific, but because the results are uninteresting.

You can still read about the preliminary tests of applicants and decide for yourself about the validity of the test. Just read Randi's commentaries right here on this web site. Most of them are a riot.

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

This must hold true all the time... :D


Watch it there big guy. I wouldn't want you to stoop to my level.

;)

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Whodini
Watch it there big guy. I wouldn't want you to stoop to my level.
I don't think I could ever get quite that low... :D

----
And the results of a coin toss aren't published in a "peer review journal," because those results are un-interesting. Likewise, if a dowser fails to show any ability to dowse, that information isn't getting into a journal --not because the experiment to test dowsing was unscientific, but because the results are uninteresting.

You can still read about the preliminary tests of applicants and decide for yourself about the validity of the test. Just read Randi's commentaries right here on this web site. Most of them are a riot.
----


Would you like to have a nice big journal with a lot of JREF challenge results in it to look through?

That would be NEAT-O-RIFFIC!

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

I don't think I could ever get quite that low... :D


You can do anything if you put your mind to it. Just try a little harder.

I'll train you to be my protege'. Here are some basic methods:

1) disagree with everything

2) follow this formula for post content:

45% confusing
20% serious and thoughtful
15% funny
10% abuse of emoticons
9% misc
1% mean

3) post a lot of serious posts too just to keep people on their toes

4) somehow bring religion into every post. Examples:

Q: What is that new game by ID?
A: You fundamental Christian! PROVE ID!

Q: Did you see that gymnastics meet the other night on ESPN? The way people can twist their bodies like that! What athleticism!
A: Cho' mama! That guy got into an Iron Cross on the rings. CROSS! You fundamental Christian!

Q: Does anyone have any educational theories on how to best raise children?
A: Don't teach them to color, else you will being up the word KORAN!

5) occasionally speak in a combination of foreign languages (only using 1st year knowledge, of course) Example:

Es la verdad que wode baba y mi papa (wode baba) hablan que wo yoh er dianhao en mi casa.

Lastly,

6) speak gangsta. Ya dig that foo? Shizzle my nizzle. Fo' I bust a cap. Blaaaooo!!! 2 ta ya dome! Freestyle:

Chillin on the JREF, foos tryin to take me to da mat
Come home, chizzeck the mail, BILLS-- no time ta pay dat!
Pour a 40 fo' my homies, eyo don't tattle
who would win: Rwald vs Chessman in an acne battle?
PEACE out!
Fresh for 2003, you succckkkaassss!

[Kimpatsu]

Whodini, you are in need of serious psychological help. Are you allowed crayons where they're keeping you? And how do you type wearing that straight jacket? ;)

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Whodini, you are in need of serious psychological help. Are you allowed crayons where they're keeping you? And how do you type wearing that straight jacket? ;)


I need psychological help yet you are the one debating reiki people.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

I do like coloring though. It is relaxing.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

No, not witch hunts. Witches don't exist. I'd just silence all dissent, like Robert Mugabe.


Heck of a roll model.

As has been stated many times before, you can't test everyhing, and if something hasn't been tested, or refuses to be tested, then you can't draw any conclusions. If something has been tested several times, and failed consistently, then it is usualy safe to say it will continue not to work.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
You say that because him or no one else has passed the JREF challenge. However, why do you expect people to take it seriously when the results aren't published in a peer reviewed journal?Why does Whodini expect us to take him seriously when he claims that the results of the JREF challenges "clearly" are not made available to all who are interested?

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I'll write up the results for any suitable peer-reviewed journal you care to nominate.Why? You know that JREF doesn't do that. Note that, when challenged to actually facilitate a JREF challenge to be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, Whodini declines the challenge. It would seem that he is not as anxious to see the JREF results published in a peer-reviewed journal as he would like us to believe.

[Unas]

Originally posted by gnome
Why do Randi's results need to be in a peer-reviewed journal to have any importance?They don't. Whodini has thrown up this smoke screen to avoid dealing with the results of the challenges themselves. It is worth noting that Whodini's original claim was that the results simply were not being made available; he created the "peer-reviewed journal" red herring after it was pointed out just how poorly his assertion correlated with reality.

----
Note that, when challenged to actually facilitate a JREF challenge to be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, Whodini declines the challenge.
----


Note that I never said I'd facilitate anything.

Just because someone proposes an idea, doesn't mean they have to help carry it out.


----
It would seem that he is not as anxious to see the JREF results published in a peer-reviewed journal as he would like us to believe.
----


Unas/Ken, that doesn't even follow logically.

Originally posted by Unas
They don't. Whodini has thrown up this smoke screen to avoid dealing with the results of the challenges themselves. It is worth noting that Whodini's original claim was that the results simply were not being made available; he created the "peer-reviewed journal" red herring after it was pointed out just how poorly his assertion correlated with reality.


Unas/Ken,

You're wrong.

My first post, in the 'JREF Science' thread, was

(emphasis mine)
----
JREF Science
One aspect of scientific endeavors is that the specifc data, methods, and analyses are made available to all who are interested.

The results of the Challenge clearly don't apply.

I can understand the legal matters, which is why we only get tidbits of vague happenings, but to be taken seriously by the entire scientific community (as opposed to a small subset), wouldn't JREF's case be better served if they had some type of peer reviewed journal their findings were published in??

I believe that is why a lot of people have a hard time taken the JREF proceedings as anything other than mildly interesting and entertaining.
----

Originally posted by Unas
Why does Whodini expect us to take him seriously when he claims that the results of the JREF challenges "clearly" are not made available to all who are interested?


Unas, exactly how many dowsers has the JREF tested?

What is the breakdown of number of tested per year, by claim type?

Unas, please show us graphs of all.

Thanks.

Crickets?

Unas?

Ken?

You still there?

Can you get me a big data base of results?

Cmon.

It should be so easy.

But you'll say it is my claim, therefore you are excused for being lazy.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
Unas, exactly how many dowsers has the JREF tested?

What is the breakdown of number of tested per year, by claim type?

Unas, please show us graphs of all.Whodini has made the assertion that the results of the JREF challenge "clearly" are not made available to all who are interested.

It is Whodini's responsiblity to back up that assertion with facts.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini



Unas/Ken,

You're wrong.

My first post, in the 'JREF Science' thread, was

(emphasis mine)
----
JREF Science
One aspect of scientific endeavors is that the specifc data, methods, and analyses are made available to all who are interested.

The results of the Challenge clearly don't apply.

I can understand the legal matters, which is why we only get tidbits of vague happenings, but to be taken seriously by the entire scientific community (as opposed to a small subset), wouldn't JREF's case be better served if they had some type of peer reviewed journal their findings were published in??

I believe that is why a lot of people have a hard time taken the JREF proceedings as anything other than mildly interesting and entertaining.
---- I stand corrected on the chronology. However, there is still no evidence to support the claim that the JREF data is not available.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
But you'll say it is my claim, therefore you are excused for being lazy. It is Whodini's claim. If he is unwilling to support it, I see no reason why anyone else should be excoriated for Whodini's own intellectual laziness.

Originally posted by Unas
I stand corrected on the chronology. However, there is still no evidence to support the claim that the JREF data is not available.


Evidence to support something is not... hehe, like proving god(s) doesn't exist.

LOL.

Fine Ken, then you find us all a list of all the dowsers tested, when, where, and the results from each test, meaning the number of trials and the number of hits.

You still there?

Originally posted by Unas
It is Whodini's claim. If he is unwilling to support it, I see no reason why anyone else should be excoriated for Whodini's own intellectual laziness.


Show me the data set Unas.

We're all waiting.

Make us a simple chart showing us the number of applicants over the years.

That has to be the simplest task in the world.

Can you do it?

Why not?

Do you not have the data?

Email JREF? Will they give it to you?

Originally posted by Unas

It is Whodini's responsiblity to back up that assertion with facts.


We've already covered that on Ken.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
We've already covered that on Ken. Not really. Whodini has already demonstrated that he is unwilling to accept the responsibility of backing up his own claims. He has shown that he prefers to employ evasion rather than evidence.

Originally posted by Unas
Not really. Whodini has already demonstrated that he is unwilling to accept the responsibility of backing up his own claims. He has shown that he prefers to employ evasion rather than evidence.


Thaiboxerken,

Is there a reason why you don't respond directly to me but rather speak "at" me?

The fact that one even has to ask the JREF (through email or in person) to see their data IS evidence that it is not freely available to everyone. It is not in the public domain, like walking into a library and getting it and making photocopies, etc.

Create a simple graph like the following, using real data from JREF. See if you can get your Cheeto-ed hands on it if it is so easy:

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
Is there a reason why you don't respond directly to me but rather speak "at" me?It is not possible to conduct a worthwhile discussion with someone who is intellectually dishonest. Whodini falls into this category; his persistent refusal to back up his claims regarding the JREF challenge results is evidence of this.
Originally posted by Whodini
The fact that one even has to ask the JREF (through email or in person) to see their data IS evidence that it is not freely available to everyone. It is not in the public domain, like walking into a library and getting it and making photocopies, etc.And the intellectual dishonesty continues. Note the continually mutating form of Whodini's claims: First the JREF results are not to be taken seriously because they are "clearly" not made available. Then it seems that the real problem is that the JREF results are not published in a "peer-reviewed journal". Now, suddenly, the problem is that the results are "not in the public domain".

Whodini's entire case is based on the welll-known logical fallacy of "style over substance" (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/style.htm). He would have us believe that the JREF results are not valid because they are not presented in precisely the right way, or in precisely the correct forum. The fact that Whodini's assessment of exactly what is wrong with the results keeps changing, as documented above, merely demonstrates just how poorly thought out his argument is.

Unas,

You're still not talking to me.

You can use whatever excuse you want, but you're still not being rational.


----
And the intellectual dishonesty continues. Note the continually mutating form of Whodini's claims: First the JREF results are not to be taken seriously because they are "clearly" not made available. Then it seems that the real problem is that the JREF results are not published in a "peer-reviewed journal". Now, suddenly, the problem is that the results are "not in the public domain".
----


They are all the same thing Unas. If you can't get ahold of them, they aren't in the public doman. Peer reviewed things are in the public domain and are easy to get a hold of- just go to the library.


----
He would have us believe that the JREF results are not valid because they are not presented in precisely the right way, or in precisely the correct forum.
----


Unas, you are talking out of your butt. I never ever said the JREF results aren't valid or important!

I said they aren't having the effect they could be having on the bulk of non-skeptics. If they were published in a peer reviewed journal, I believe, the results would be more authoritative, and more people would consider it serious instead of interesting entertainment.

Unas, try to make a graph like this, using real JREF data. You won't do minimal research, because it is my claim though. ;) That is your excuse.

Or one like this with real JREF data:

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
You're still not talking to me.

You can use whatever excuse you want, but you're still not being rational.Logical fallacy: argumentum ad hominem (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm).
Originally posted by Whodini
They are all the same thing Unas. If you can't get ahold of them, they aren't in the public doman.Does not follow. Bookstores and libraries are both chock full of texts that are easily obtainable, yet are not in the public domain. "Public domain" is not a synonym for "easily obtainable".
Originally posted by Whodini
Peer reviewed things are in the public domain...Incorrect. The vast majority of peer-reviewed scientific journals are copyrighted.
Originally posted by Whodini
If they were published in a peer reviewed journal, I believe, the results would be more authoritative, and more people would consider it serious instead of interesting entertainment.Whodini is welcome to his opinion. His original claim, however, was that the JREF results were not being made available.

He has yet to support that claim with any facts.

[rwald]

Whodini, would you be satisfied if the JREF just published their claims in a yearly report, with the types of claims, a simple outline of the procedure, etc.?

As has been pointed out numorous times, the fact that dowsing doesn't work isn't "interesting" enough to be published in a scientific journal.

[DrBenway]

Whodini,

I started out feeling sympathetic toward you. I had the impression you just wanted an easy way to look over some JREF challenge events.

But the way you go on and on, now wanting pie charts 'n sh*t --you must be trolling. Why do you care how many silly dowsers per year there were? The point is, none of them could do anything.

Really, if you're interested in these things, read Randi's commentaries. The info is in there. And they're hilarious.

My favorite one has the parable of Clarence, the lovable blue two-headed giraffe.

Style over substance. That's good. Have to remember that one.

LOL Unas, you think that was an ad hominem?

hehehe!


----
Does not follow. Bookstores and libraries are both chock full of texts that are easily obtainable, yet are not in the public domain. "Public domain" is not a synonym for "easily obtainable".
----


By public domain I mean easily obtainable and out there for ANYONE (like at a library, on the web, etc.).

I didn't mean the technical term for public domain.


----
He has yet to support that claim with any facts.
----


It is a fact that the data isn't in the public domain or easily obtainable.

Can you reproduce any of those graphs (with real JREF data) that I asked for, for example?

No?

Why not?

DrBenway.


----
But the way you go on and on, now wanting pie charts 'n sh*t --you must be trolling. Why do you care how many silly dowsers per year there were?
----


You feel sorry for me, how cute and utterly irrelevant, like when Sylvia Browne tells Randi that she feels sorry for him.

The specific graph isn't too relevant here. The fact is that we have NONE, and you or I, or my grandma, or anyone else can't obtain data to construct such graphs and summary statistics.

I understand that you may not be interested in how many "silly dowsers" per year there were, but others are because they like to see the trends and to try to explain the dips and spikes and etc.


----
Really, if you're interested in these things, read Randi's commentaries. The info is in there. And they're hilarious.
----


I agree that the commentaries are great sources of info, but a commentary is much different than the raw data from which it was produced.

I and others would like to see the patterns for ourselves.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
LOL Unas, you think that was an ad hominem?I know that it was an ad hominem attack. Accusing one's opponent of being irrational is a very old, and quite lame, ad hominem attack.
Originally posted by Whodini
By public domain I mean easily obtainable and out there for ANYONE (like at a library, on the web, etc.).That is not the definition of 'public domain'. Whodini is deliberately misusing the term, and then attempting to backpedal by claiming that the definition was a private one when his misuse is exposed for what it is. The attempt at deception is obvious.
Originally posted by Whodini
It is a fact that the data isn't in the public domain or easily obtainable.
It is a fact that the data is not in the public domain. However, it is not a fact that the data is not "easily obtainable". Whodini has yet to support that claim with evidence.

It is further a fact that the obtainability of the data has no bearing on its integrity, its validity, or its scientific value.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
I and others would like to see the patterns for ourselves.Then Whodini should do the work of constructing the graphs himself.

It is evident, however, that he prefers to whine about the absence of these graphs, rather than exert the effort to construct that which he so much desires.

[rwald]

Unas, though I generally agree with you, that's a bad argument. Whodini does want to make the graphs, but he doesn't have the data sets to work with. That's what he wants: the data sets.

I still say he plans on using the data sets to create a meta-analysis, and claim it as proof that the paranormal exists, but he's been careful to not actually admit this, and will probably deny what I'm saying.

[Unas]

Originally posted by rwald
Unas, though I generally agree with you, that's a bad argument. Whodini does want to make the graphs, but he doesn't have the data sets to work with. That appears to be the result solely of Whodini's unwillingness to put forth any effort to acquire the data sets.

Since the acquisition of the data sets is a prerequisite to creating the graphs Whodini wants, lack of effort to acquire the underlying data sets is equivalent to a lack of effort to create the graphs.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Whodini

You feel sorry for me, how cute and utterly irrelevant, like when Sylvia Browne tells Randi that she feels sorry for him.


I didn't say I felt sorry for you Whodini. I said I was sympathetic toward what you were arguing initially. Don't you remember that I made a couple of posts saying, yes, it would be nice to have a summary of JREF challenge events in one convenient place?

What is the big deal here? If you're not happy with the info available in the weekly commentaries, then write to Linda asking for the details you want.

Unas,

Please stay on topic. The topic isn't the validity of Whodini. The topic is the validity of Whodini's arguments.

----
Then Whodini should do the work of constructing the graphs himself.
----


:confused:

So I make a suggestion and therefore I have to carry it out from beginning to end? Huh?

C'mon fellow skeptics. Point out the holes in Unas's logic.

Gee whiz!

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
Please stay on topic. The topic isn't the validity of Whodini. The topic is the validity of Whodini's arguments. Since I have not made any arguments referencing "the validity of Whodini", I can only assume that this is yet another diversionary tactic.

I have been discussing the validity of Whodini's arguments. Whodini has yet to provide evidence for his original claim.

[rwald]

Originally posted by Whodini
C'mon fellow skeptics. Point out the holes in Unas's logic.I tried, but then he reminded me that there actually wasn't a hole in his logic (see his reply to my comment).

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
So I make a suggestion and therefore I have to carry it out from beginning to end?Whodini has already stated that he wants to see the patterns that the graphs would supposedly reveal.

If Whodini is unwilling to make the effort to create the graphs himself, then it is reasonable to assume that he does not want to see those patterns quite so much as he would have us believe.

----
I still say he plans on using the data sets to create a meta-analysis, and claim it as proof that the paranormal exists, but he's been careful to not actually admit this, and will probably deny what I'm saying.
----


I will definitely deny what you are saying Rwald, because you have no clue what you are talking about in this instance.

The only thing I've explicitly stated that I'd like to see is some descriptive statistics and graphical summaries created from the raw data.

I, for one, think that a graph of, say, 300 dowsers' scores, all within the 'significant' bounds, accompanied by a writeup of the failure of dowsers to do what they claim they can do, would be infinitely more powerful than just the writeup.

I have no idea where you are getting that I want to do a meta analysis, and I REALLY have no idea where you are then saying that I'd say that such a meta analysis would prove the paranormal. I don't think any of that.

:confused:

Because I did deny it, maybe that will prove to you that I will do a meta analysis and then claim that that prove the paranormal. LOL.
:rolleyes:

[rwald]

Basically, I got that impression from the way that you discussed meta-analysis in a previous thread. It really is not scientific for me to hold this belief, but that's what my "gut instinct" says. Go figure.

[DrBenway]

Something about this conversation reminds me of the "horizontal vs. vertical prayer" metaphor. There's a difference between a genuine investigation of a topic fueled by curiosity, vs. someone just wanting to come across as really "sciency."

----
I can only assume that this is yet another diversionary tactic.
----


Interesting, considering I have more on topic posts than you do in this thread.


----
Whodini has yet to provide evidence for his original claim.
----


You admit one can't prove a negative, oh, unless one is claiming something that you disagree with, then that person is required to prove one.

Unas, maybe you could help me, considering I'm so lazy and all...
I'm looking for a breakdown of the types of claim per year the JREF gets.

Gee, I can't seem to find this information anywhere.

Maybe you can help me Unas?

----
Whodini has yet to provide evidence for his original claim.
----


You admit one can't prove a negative, oh, unless one is claiming something that you disagree with, then that person is required to prove one.

Unas, maybe you could help me, considering I'm so lazy and all...
I'm looking for a breakdown of the types of claim per year the JREF gets.

Gee, I can't seem to find this information anywhere.

Maybe you can help me Unas?

Originally posted by rwald
Basically, I got that impression from the way that you discussed meta-analysis in a previous thread. It really is not scientific for me to hold this belief, but that's what my "gut instinct" says. Go figure.


I've studied meta analysis in some detail in several statistical methods classes.

I'm its bulldog when people connect it automatically with "woo-woo", especially when they know little about meta analysis.

[rwald]

When it comes to claims, the question of who needs to prove what doesn't come down to who has the "negative" claim. It comes down to whose claim represents the null hypothesis. In this case, since Unas's claim (that there somewhere exists some data on the JREF experiments) is less "extraordinary" than Whodini's claim (that there does not exist any data on the JREF experiments), Whodini is the one who needs to prove his claim.

This is my last post to you Thaiboxerken. You "win".


----
Whodini has already stated that he wants to see the patterns that the graphs would supposedly reveal.
----


That is typically what people do with graphs.
:rolleyes:


----
If Whodini is unwilling to make the effort to create the graphs himself, then it is reasonable to assume that he does not want to see those patterns quite so much as he would have us believe.
----


That's not reasonable to assume at all.

How can I make any graph when I or no one else has access to the data?

Don't you get it?
:confused:

[rwald]

If you really want to, you can go through the commentary and make a check mark whenever Randi mentions a claim he's testing. There's your data. It's sitting right there, waiting for you to harvast it.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
I'm looking for a breakdown of the types of claim per year the JREF gets.Whodini should contact JREF and ask for the data.
Originally posted by Whodini
Gee, I can't seem to find this information anywhere.That would indicate a lack of effort.

Rwald,


I understand the structure of claims.

You have my claim entirely wrong. I'm not saying that 'no data exists on JREF experiments'.

I AM saying that 'the raw JREf data is not made available in the public domain or in any peer reviewed journal'.

Should it be? I don't know, but it is a suggestion so people could analyze it, and so much more people would take it more seriously, that is, more than interesting entertainment.

And it isn't just me who would like to see the data. A lot of people would find it interesting.

Rwald, maybe you could help me..

For starters, I'm looking for a breakdown of the types of claim per year the JREF gets.

I can't seem to find this information anywhere.

Maybe you can help me?

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
How can I make any graph when I or no one else has access to the data?Whodini has yet to provide any evidence for this assertion. Mere repetition of the accusation does not suffice as evidence.

[rwald]

I just said, look in the commentary. It's right there.

[TechHead]

Originally posted by Unas
The vast majority of peer-reviewed scientific journals are copyrighted.

In the US, copyrights are automatic, for all published material, whether it is explicitly stated or not. So, I expect that all (US) journals are copyrighted.

Whodini is welcome to his opinion. His original claim, however, was that the JREF results were not being made available.

He has yet to support that claim with any facts.

I brought up a specific Randi test in the original thread (JREF Science) for which the results are not available. I've even spoken to Randi directly about this. It is the only case I know of, but it is an example of what you asked for.

But it is not the sole reason for getting JREF tests published in an easily accessible manner. Having the test data online would be quite useful for a number of reasons and, going forward, would be quite effortless.

Originally posted by rwald
I just said, look in the commentary. It's right there.


Could you please reproduce even one of those sample graphs for us all ?

All the data is "right there" for you to do it with.

[rwald]

I never said that I wanted to see the graphs. You did.

You'd need to basically go through all the commentaries to get the data. Yes, it's tedious. But if you're not willing to do the work, than why should the JREF?

Originally posted by rwald
I never said that I wanted to see the graphs. You did.

You'd need to basically go through all the commentaries to get the data. Yes, it's tedious. But if you're not willing to do the work, than why should the JREF?


LOL, exactly what I thought Rwald.

And you're right, one would need to go through all the commentaries, and even then, you'd only be getting partial information.

That isn't exactly the same as all the raw data available to anyone in a convenient manner.

Surely you understand that. :)

----
I never said that I wanted to see the graphs.
----


Does it matter if you want to or if you don't want to? The point is that you can't because not all the data is available for anyone to do it in the first place!

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
The point is that you can't because not all the data is available for anyone to do it in the first place! Again: Repeating the claim does not make it true. Whodini appears to have difficulty grasping this simple concept.

It has been suggested to Whodini that he make an attempt to obtain the data he speaks of. He has declined to do so. It becomes more and more difficult to avoid drawing the conclusion that Whodini does not actually want the data -- he would appear to be much more interested in complaining about the data's alleged unavailability.

Last time I'm telling you this Unas, then you are on ignore until you talk to me. :(


a) Because I suggest the data should be available, does not in any way imply that I have to be the one to make it available. And that does not in any way imply that I don't want the data.


b) I have looked over ALL the Commentaries and there is 95% commentary (as expected) and 5% data. One can get great experimental design, but very very minimal statistics. Commentaries are words about the data, not the data.


c) You are clueless as to what attempts I have made to get the data in question. You have assumed that I haven't made any, which very clearly shows your bias.


d) The fact that I request utterly simple graphs, and no one here can reproduce any of them with real data, does suggest that the data is unavailable to people on a large scale in a practical manner. The fact that I am making the claim has nothing to do with the other fact that if the data was available, then you and others should be able to obtain it easily.

Should it be made available? Is it legally something the JREF can do? Do they even keep very detailed records? I don't know the answer to any of those questions, but Hal Bidlack will get back to me sometime in the future on this topic, and I'll share the results with you.

Until then Unas, please point out the errors I've made.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Whodini
Because I suggest the data should be available, does not in any way imply that I have to be the one to make it available.No one has suggested that Whodini should be the one to make the data available. It has, however, been suggested that Whodini should determine whether or not the data is available before making the claim that it is not.
Originally posted by Whodini
And that does not in any way imply that I don't want the data.Whodini's repeated rejection of the suggestion that he should attempt to obtain the data most certainly does imply that he does not want the data.
Originally posted by Whodini
Commentaries are words about the data, not the data.Agreed. How does this fact support Whodini's claim that the data is not available?
Originally posted by Whodini
You are clueless as to what attempts I have made to get the data in question.And that would be because Whodini hasn't bothered to provide information on such attempts, if any.
Originally posted by Whodini
The fact that I request utterly simple graphs, and no one here can reproduce any of them with real data, does suggest that the data is unavailable to people on a large scale in a practical manner.Suggestions are not evidence. It is worth noting that Whodini's requests for these "utterly simple graphs" was a rather obvious ploy to distract attention from the lack of evidence for his original claim.
Originally posted by Whodini
The fact that I am making the claim has nothing to do with the other fact that if the data was available, then you and others should be able to obtain it easily.Whodini continues to insist that it is the job of others to disprove his claim. His argument is an example of the argumentum ad ignorantiam (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm), or argument from ignorance: because he does not know whether the data is available, he assumes that it must not be.
Originally posted by Whodini
Until then Unas, please point out the errors I've made. That's simple, and I have been doing so all along. The chief error that Whodini has repeatedly made has been making a claim that he cannot support with a single fact.

[garys_2k]

So, Whodini, have you requested copies of some of the test submissions or other data directly from JREF? I assume you did, so please share their replies with us.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Greetings, folks. I'm at it again, debating a (different) woo-woo on e-budo. (http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15432) (Where do they all come from?) After the no-touch KO debacle, which thread the moderator actually deleted because the woo-woo just descended into calling me all sorts of vile names (note that, unlike JREF, profanity is banned on e-budo), I thought the woo-woos might give it a rest, but no, here's a guy charging people money for therapeutic touch ("reiki"), and claiming he's curing them of sickness.
Come on over to e-budo (http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15432) and join in the fun!

Back to the topic of this thread....
University of Michigan Medical Center is devoting research funds to a Center for the Study of Complimentary And Alternative Medicines. To this day, a public University of Michigan web site declares Reiki a "new therapy". A recent copy of the University Record had a full-page cover photo showing a middle-age Asian lady in a white lab coat gesticulating around a patient, and the accompanying article described this research project--without any sign of criticism that this is a gross misuse of medical center resources and prestige.

And yes, we are still required to carry Verizon pagers with hourly-updated Horoscope maildrops on them.

Kimpatsu, how are your challenges going?


Kimpatsu posted:


----
Fine, *******. You want to challenge me, come here. I'm a Shorinji Kenshi, and I can wipe the floor with you. Come to Japan and find out. Coward. You duck the challenge, and I bet you'll duck this. If I'm ever in New Zealand, you are in serious trouble.
----

----
So give the prize money to charity. You keep ducking that point too, as if I hadn't made it many times. You are a liar, a fraud, a cheat, and a coward. I look forward to meeting you, so I can prove it in person. Coward.
----


Not too good apparently. Perhaps you aren't coming off too friendly and sincere?

I guess your martial arts training is paying off.

:rolleyes:

[-=Vagrant=-]

My first contact with Reiki was this:

Dad and I were working in our store, when a young man came and asked for permission to stamp an advertisement to our window. It was about a Reiki instruction class. One course for only 120€. That's a BARGAIN!!!
Anyways, he offered to make a demonstration with my dad. Dad sat on a chair and the man put his hands on my dads shoulders, knees and chest. This took about 10 minutes. He talked about the weather, and how some people think reiki is just a hoax. ;)
He got the permission to put his advertisement on our window.
He left our store.
And daddy said something that I liked: "********!" Translated from Finnish.
He ripped the advertisement off.