Shermer's April SciAm column

[wbeaty]

Is ridicule EVER appropriate?

I just saw Shermer's column in Scientific American for April, about "structured water," where a belly laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms. But... Shermer is showing us all how to prejudge and ridicule crazy claims without suspending judgement and investigating them. Judge a claim sufficiently crazy, then let fly with the ridicule. (Yes, he does check with a chemist first, but never reviews any evidence from those making the claims.)

There was nothing there about reasoning: about being suspicious whenever money and unconventional medical claims are concerned. Nothing about the prevelance of new age hoaxers mixed in with the honest types who at least actually believe in what they sell (unconventional theories aside, will you receive what's advertized, or will you get $15/oz tap water?) Nothing about the long history of quack medical schemes and refusing to buy untested cures. Just belly laughs (ridicule) in place of syllogisms (thinking.)

Yes I'm angry. Shermer was a hero of mine. The "belly laugh" technique he promotes in his latest column looks to me like the psychology of grade school playgrounds. I'm angry because it looks like a game of Let's All "tease the cripple," laugh at the nerd, get some mob psychology going to make us all feel better about our superior selves, feel some camraderie with mob members. That way we don't have to make any effort to craft an airtight and convincing argument, nor make the considerable effort needed to see the world through the eyes of the people we laugh at.

Are the "believers" worthy of ridicule? That's beside the point; it's the sneering laughter itself that's a big problem. It's the opposite of what Skepticism supposedly stands for: it's emotion-based manipulation. Hatred of "inferior" people feels good. That's a problem. It's very tempting to laugh at "inferiors." And seeing the world through the eyes of our opponents feels like weakness, like letting the enemy get inside our heads. (After all, it might make us doubt ourselves; sway us from our certainty that we are in the right.)

In my experience, "belly laughs" don't always convince bystanders to take our side in the fight. They sometimes convince bystanders to side with the victim of the ridicule, and to feel disgust at the ones employing the riducle tactic. Also, ridicule certainly doesn't change the minds of those who believe that "structured water" is real, instead it tends to turn them into enemiles and harden their resolve.

Man, what has happened to Shermer? I've always thought that "Weird Things" was a shining example of impeccably honest and ridicule-free reasoning that defeats the lies and the bogus stuff. And for years his "Skeptic" magazine was a breath of fresh air. Now he publicly recommends tactics that look to me like those of politicial speech writers. Carl Sagan is no longer his model of the proper Skeptic?

"You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." - Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP meeting



PS

On the wet/dry skeptical spectrum below, I'm very "wet," and I see the "wet" end as being the proper stance for anyone doing science. If the "belly laugh" technique is to be used, we must be scrupulously honest, clearly stating that we're intentionally perfoming audience-manipulation and doing "politics" not science.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/skeptic-faq/
Section 0.6.1

DRY: There is no reason to treat these people seriously. Anyone with
half an ounce of sense can see that their ideas are completely
bogus. Time spent trying to "understand their ideas" and
"examine their evidence" beyond that necessary for debunking is
wasted time, and life is short. Furthermore, such behaviour
lends them respectability. If we take them seriously, so will
other people. We must ridicule their ideas so that others will
see how silly they are. "One belly laugh is worth a thousand
syllogisms" (H.L. Mencken, quoted by Martin Gardner).

WET: If we lay into these people without giving them a fair hearing
then we run two risks:
1: We might miss someone who is actually right. History contains
many examples.
2: We give them a weapon against us. Ad-hominem attacks and
sloppy logic bring us down to their level. If we are truly
the rational, scientific people we claim to be then we should
ask for their evidence, and then pronounce our considered
opinion of it.

Oops, new member, edited to remove signature

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's just a belly laugh. I read something ridiculous and I laugh at it. He's not suggesting I start a bell laugh club, stand on street corners and laugh at people, or write letters to the editor with large guffaws in it.

Have we become so concerned with people's view of us that we can no longer simply say "Why, that's just downright silly!"? Do we have to take absolutely everything seriously? If so, we're doomed, because life will become so serious and so laden with precious meaning that we will not be able to put one foot in front of the other without hesitating to offend. When everything is tainted with the politics of impression, that's when I want to get off. When every joke has to be carefully crafted so as not to offend anyone, the humor is gone.

Is the idea that the chemtrail spraying program is managed by aliens really worth more than a belly laugh?

~~ Paul

[T'ai Chi]

Wbeaty, whatever entertains and sells magazines and books! :)

You are correct I believe; we should always suspend things until we get data and analyze the data, and do that process more than once. Only when these tests fail to acheive statistical significance the majority of the time should we consider the idea probably not worthy of further exploration.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You are correct I believe; we should always suspend things until we get data and analyze the data, and do that process more than once. Only when these tests fail to acheive statistical significance the majority of the time should we consider the idea probably not worthy of further exploration.

So, you'd support investigations that:

An albatross flying round a ship in mid-ocean is an omen of wind and bad weather to come?
The hand of a man died on the gallows or have committed suicide has strong curative powers?
Holding a live frog's head in the mouth of a sick person, will get the frog to draw out the disease?
Moonwort can turn mercury into silver?
An umbrella, opened indoors, will bring bad luck?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


So, you'd support investigations that:

An albatross flying round a ship in mid-ocean is an omen of wind and bad weather to come?
Arrrr, ever been to sea, Claus? Me be thinkin' that if you were, you'd never want this nasty bird flyin' round yer ship, arrrrr...
The hand of a man died on the gallows or have committed suicide has strong curative powers?
Cured me of wanting to die in the gallows or commit suicide! That hand was GROSS. Stank, too.
Holding a live frog's head in the mouth of a sick person, will get the frog to draw out the disease?
Duh, it depends on the frog. The tongue has to be able to reach the disease, so some puny frog just won't do.
Moonwort can turn mercury into silver?
Whenever I see mercury in my thermometer, it always looks silver to me, so I don't know why you'd try.
An umbrella, opened indoors, will bring bad luck?
You think it will bring good luck??? Har. That's a good one. It may also poke out an eye. That'd be bad luck for sure.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Arrrr, ever been to sea, Claus? Me be thinkin' that if you were, you'd never want this nasty bird flyin' round yer ship, arrrrr...

Yes, I have. Never seen one of those, though.

Still, people believe it. Ergo, it must be investigated, according to T'ai Chi.

Originally posted by Thanz
Cured me of wanting to die in the gallows or commit suicide! That hand was GROSS. Stank, too.

Still, people believe it. Ergo, it must be investigated, according to T'ai Chi.

Originally posted by Thanz
Duh, it depends on the frog. The tongue has to be able to reach the disease, so some puny frog just won't do.

No, it merely has to breathe (inhale).

Still, people believe it. Ergo, it must be investigated, according to T'ai Chi.

Originally posted by Thanz
Whenever I see mercury in my thermometer, it always looks silver to me, so I don't know why you'd try.

Don't mess with mercury, that's sound advice.

Still, people believe it. Ergo, it must be investigated, according to T'ai Chi.

Originally posted by Thanz
You think it will bring good luck??? Har. That's a good one. It may also poke out an eye. That'd be bad luck for sure.

Still, people believe it. Ergo, it must be investigated, according to T'ai Chi.

[drkitten]

I think the participants in this forum may be indulging in a false dichotomy; it's quite possible to refuse to investigate a claim without necessarily having a "belly laugh" at its expense.

There's no requirement to be rude to a believer of whatever misguided stripe, and the progress of science suggests quite strongly that at least some of what believers currently believe may eventually be proven correct in a modified form.

On the other hand: my time, money, and patience are all quite limited and I don't choose to spend them investigating claims that I (pre)judge to have negligible chances of being true. I also feel no compulsion to be polite to someone whom I (pre)judge to be in the process of trying to defraud. Depending upon the audience, a belly laugh may do much more to dispel a charlatan's claims than a Ph.D. thesis on biochemistry.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, you'd support investigations that:

An albatross flying round a ship in mid-ocean is an omen of wind and bad weather to come?
The hand of a man died on the gallows or have committed suicide has strong curative powers?
Holding a live frog's head in the mouth of a sick person, will get the frog to draw out the disease?
Moonwort can turn mercury into silver?
An umbrella, opened indoors, will bring bad luck?


I said that: "we should always suspend things until we get data and analyze the data, and do that process more than once. Only when these tests fail to acheive statistical significance the majority of the time should we consider the idea probably not worthy of further exploration. "

If you could be much more specific and less vague by what you mean by "bad weather", "curative powers", "draw out the disease", "turning", and "bad luck", yes, these claims could be tested.

I am not aware of any scientific tests on these but they might be out there. If you believe, for scientific reasons, that these claims shouldn't be tested because they either have already been tested or they contradict our current understanding of how the world works, could you 1) give references to the tests that were already done, or 2) give reasons for why we should believe your belief that our understanding of the world can't suddenly change?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally barfed by CFLarsen

Still, people believe it. Ergo, it must be investigated, according to T'ai Chi.
Still, people believe it. Ergo, it must be investigated, according to T'ai Chi.
Still, people believe it. Ergo, it must be investigated, according to T'ai Chi.
Still, people believe it. Ergo, it must be investigated, according to T'ai Chi.
Still, people believe it. Ergo, it must be investigated, according to T'ai Chi.

Can you list even 3 specific people who believe each of those claims you posted?

Anyway, I said that: "we should always suspend things until we get data and analyze the data, and do that process more than once. Only when these tests fail to acheive statistical significance the majority of the time should we consider the idea probably not worthy of further exploration."

I didn't say they "must" be investigated, dippy.

I am not aware of any scientific tests on these but they might be out there. If you believe, for scientific reasons, that these claims shouldn't be tested because they either have already been tested or they contradict our current understanding of how the world works, could you 1) give references to the tests that were already done, or 2) give reasons for why we should believe your belief that our understanding of the world can't suddenly change given new data?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

If you could be much more specific and less vague by what you mean by "bad weather", "curative powers", "draw out the disease", "turning", and "bad luck", yes, these claims could be tested.


I do not think the question was "Could they be tested?", the question was "Should they be tested?". In short, are some things so far "out there" that they fail to warrant any sort of serious investigation from the beginning?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I said that: "we should always suspend things until we get data and analyze the data, and do that process more than once. Only when these tests fail to acheive statistical significance the majority of the time should we consider the idea probably not worthy of further exploration. "

And? Does this not mean that they should be investigated?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
If you could be much more specific and less vague by what you mean by "bad weather", "curative powers", "draw out the disease", "turning", and "bad luck", yes, these claims could be tested.

But should they?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I am not aware of any scientific tests on these but they might be out there. If you believe, for scientific reasons, that these claims shouldn't be tested because they either have already been tested or they contradict our current understanding of how the world works, could you 1) give references to the tests that were already done, or 2) give reasons for why we should believe your belief that our understanding of the world can't suddenly change?

I am asking you: Should these beliefs be investigated?

Yes or no?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Can you list even 3 specific people who believe each of those claims you posted?

Why do you suddenly move the goal posts, by coming up with this ridiculous claim? My source was Radford's "The Encyclopedia of Superstitions". You really think they made this up?

[drkitten]

Actually, T'ai Chi, we do have a well-developed theory of what causes transformations from one substance (chemical element) to another, and the idea that moonwort might transform mercury into silver does contradict that theory. We've similarly got absolutely no evidence to support the idea that moonwort might accomplish that transformation other than the bare statement itself.

You're missing out on the third reason for not wanting to investigate the issue --- in all likelihood, it's a "wombat," a "Waste Of Money, Brains, and Time." Perhaps there's someone out there with all three to spare who would like to check it out, but for myself, I'm comfortable dismissing the possiblity out of hand.

[wbeaty]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
It's just a belly laugh. I read something ridiculous and I laugh at it. He's not suggesting I start a bell laugh club,

On the contrary, I took his article as being part of "Recommended Skeptic Techniques."

Also, belly laughs at water-sellers, chemtrails and aliens, etc., aren't humor as I understand it. They're ridicule. That's the point I was trying to make when mentioning "lets all laugh at the nerd" playground incidents.

During a skeptic meeting, laughter at such things is perfectly fine. It discharges anger. It builds camradery. But laughter in public has a very big down side.

All the many people who BELIEVE in chemtrails etc., what will laughter do? It will convince them that the laugh-ers are hopelessly biased and untrustworthy. I used to be a new-ager type. I know what this sort of laughter does to peoples opinions.

If you want to have any hope of changing the minds of the vast population who believes in these things, you'd better immediatly remove laughter and any other form of ridicule from your list of approved debating tactics. On the other hand, if you love to laugh, then you'd better distance yourself from rational people who want to change public opinion, since you'll only interfere with the good work they're doing.




Is the idea that the chemtrail spraying program is managed by aliens really worth more than a belly laugh?

Do you have any idea how many people believe in chemtrails? The moment they hear you laugh, you've lost them. They'll correctly see you as irrationally prejudiced, never trust you again, and most important, ignore everything you say as being tainted by dishonesty. To convince them, you have to become a teacher, not a "hurler of ridicule." You have to meet the audience at their current level, see through their eyes, then show them the steps that take them out of ignorance. And if done right, often it's the student who teaches the teacher as well.

Try directing hostile laughter at their current beliefs instead, see how far that gets you.

[Pyrrho]

Claus, T'ai Chi, desist with the jabs at each other, or take it to a thread elsewhere.

[wbeaty]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


So, you'd support investigations that:

An albatross flying round a ship in mid-ocean is an omen of wind and bad weather to come?
The hand of a man died on the gallows or have committed suicide has strong curative powers?
Holding a live frog's head in the mouth of a sick person, will get the frog to draw out the disease?
Moonwort can turn mercury into silver?
An umbrella, opened indoors, will bring bad luck?


Are these current issues, contemporary beliefs in the western world? Maybe the last one is.

And yes, I'd support Skeptics taking all so called "crazy claims" seriously. Truly adopt an open mind, then let the real world display its realness. Obviously scientists need not spend time on such things. But members of skeptic orgs are different, it's presumably our job to reach people.

Those who believe in "chemtrails" etc., ...treating them as enemies needing defeat is useless, since we can only make them close their ears to our message. Treating them as simply being wrong, no hostile laughter involved, that's the way to reach them. Or even better: treat them as adults and their beliefs as open questions, then engage them and thoughtfully investigate these issues. (I'm not saying such things are easy! I'm just saying that alternatives like belly laughs do not work.)

[wbeaty]

Originally posted by drkitten
I also feel no compulsion to be polite to someone whom I (pre)judge to be in the process of trying to defraud. Depending upon the audience, a belly laugh may do much more to dispel a charlatan's claims than a Ph.D. thesis on biochemistry.

That's a good point. Ridicule does sway audiences. If you're trying to convince a large group of staunch new-agers to ask hard questions before spending money on "structured water," ridicule is probably going to be counterproductive. Who says that this water has magic properties? Are they trustworthy? Can the water be tested in some way? Etc.

But if your audience is half doubtful already, a single "ridiculer" can act like the child in Emperor's New Clothes: give everyone else permission to start laughing as well.

My original question was: is ridicule EVER appropriate?

My opinion can be swayed. (Perhaps even swayed by emotional tactics.) :)

[wbeaty]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I do not think the question was "Could they be tested?", the question was "Should they be tested?". In short, are some things so far "out there" that they fail to warrant any sort of serious investigation from the beginning?

Professional scientists doing the work? Or skeptic org members?

I see this as a matter of public education. If a hundred people believe that NASA moon landing is a hoax, leave them alone (or even use ridicule.) If a hundred thousand people believe the same thing, then it's time to do an investigation. The number of people involved is one deciding factor. The possible harm done by the wrong belief is another.


I think that behaving with lack of prejudice and with an honest desire to get to the bottom of things (i.e. behaving as a scientist) is a good way to go. Show them "skeptic" in action, show them that it means unbiased investigator/questioner, and that it doesn't mean "closed minded scoffer" or "belly-laugher." Our public behavior communicates as much as our words do.

Note that I'm not suggesting that we be dishonest. Skeptics who feel revulsion at pretending that Moon landings could have been hoaxed, those who could never adopt an unbiased stance where the hoax becomes a real possibility; these members need not get involved in an openminded investigation into "moon hoax." Better to recruit current moonhoax believers and new skeptics who have recently lost moonhoax belief. That way there is no hidden prejudice, and also the two groups won't necessarily be at each others' throats.

[Kopji]

wbeaty
Hi and welcome. I think your question is well phrased but I'm not sure what the answer is. There seems a 'battle for minds' going on in the world. Is our side winning? :D

There is a similar 'jolt' technique used by cult de-programmers intended to initially destabilize someone so they start thinking in new patterns. Perhaps 'ridicule' serves this purpose, I tend to leave it to some of the eminent skeptics like Mr Randi, Shermer, or Larsen. Ridicule might be a tool used in a specific way to achieve a result, but a downside is that I want to leave room for someone to agree with me. Making fun of someone makes that less likely.

I may not be seeing the 'battle' as a big picture, just little skirmishes. A larger 'skeptic team' view supports a mixture of techniques to 'wake up' people, if that is indeed a goal.

I agree though, that not all ideas require or deserve careful consideration. Is this foolishness? Believers in 'whatever' are certainly welcome to show me what a fool I am by producing evidence. I love a good laugh at myself.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by wbeaty
Are these current issues, contemporary beliefs in the western world? Maybe the last one is.

You would be surprised what is believed today, and not just by people outside the western world. And we shouldn't rely completely on the western world always being right. :)

Originally posted by wbeaty
And yes, I'd support Skeptics taking all so called "crazy claims" seriously. Truly adopt an open mind, then let the real world display its realness. Obviously scientists need not spend time on such things. But members of skeptic orgs are different, it's presumably our job to reach people.

Absolutely. However, I don't think that we should take each and every claim equally serious. We have a backbone of real knowledge to fall back on, built by scientific discoveries. However, if someone comes along and wants to be tested for their paranormal abilities, then we should be ready to step in.

But it is a waste of time to start investigating from A-Z. We need a real phenomenon to investigate.

Originally posted by wbeaty
Those who believe in "chemtrails" etc., ...treating them as enemies needing defeat is useless, since we can only make them close their ears to our message. Treating them as simply being wrong, no hostile laughter involved, that's the way to reach them. Or even better: treat them as adults and their beliefs as open questions, then engage them and thoughtfully investigate these issues. (I'm not saying such things are easy! I'm just saying that alternatives like belly laughs do not work.)

Well, yes and no. Public ridicule can be a very effective tool (ask Dan Quayle!!) in getting people to understand just how silly a belief is. However, it shouldn't be the only tool we use: Simply laughing at each and every claim and belief that comes along will most certainly not work. But treating obvious silly beliefs seriously does not work, either.

Take a look at the UFO phenomenon: The moment "Project Bluebook" came out, UFO-believers could say: "Hey, they take it seriously! There must be something to it!" Same goes with the US- and USSR-backed psychic research during the Cold War: The mere fact that government research was looking into it was - and still is - taken as evidence that there is "something to it".

We even see it today, here in Denmark: We have a government-backed organization that - supposedly seriously - looks into whether a (get ready, for it is truly silly!) herbal cigar's burning end, pointed at a certain reflexologically important spot on a pregnant woman's toe, will turn the embryo around, so the head is pointing the right way.

I'm not kidding you.

We will never sway any hard-core believer. But we can work to reach those, that can still be reached. A good laugh, straight from the heart, can do wonders.

(Did I say "wonders"...?? :))

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

And? Does this not mean that they should be investigated?
But should they?
I am asking you: Should these beliefs be investigated?


I am not aware of any scientific tests on these but they might be out there. If you believe, for scientific reasons, that these claims shouldn't be tested because they either have already been tested or they contradict our current understanding of how the world works, could you 1) give references to the tests that were already done, or 2) give reasons for why we should believe your belief that our understanding of the world can't suddenly change?

I'm waiting..


Why do you suddenly move the goal posts, by coming up with this ridiculous claim? My source was Radford's "The Encyclopedia of Superstitions". You really think they made this up?

So you CANT list even 3 people in each category. I thought so.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by drkitten
Actually, T'ai Chi, we do have a well-developed theory of what causes transformations from one substance (chemical element) to another, and the idea that moonwort might transform mercury into silver does contradict that theory. We've similarly got absolutely no evidence to support the idea that moonwort might accomplish that transformation other than the bare statement itself.


Ok, then we shouldn't investigate that claim. Would you happen to have references to studies of this?


You're missing out on the third reason for not wanting to investigate the issue --- in all likelihood, it's a "wombat," a "Waste Of Money, Brains, and Time." Perhaps there's someone out there with all three to spare who would like to check it out, but for myself, I'm comfortable dismissing the possiblity out of hand.

My main point is how do you ascertain "likelihood' here? Are you doing it from scientific studies or some theories and your beliefs? I don't disagree with you, I'm just curious.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Ok, then we shouldn't investigate [the claim that moonwort can change elemental mercury to elemental silver]. Would you happen to have references to studies of this?

My main point is how do you ascertain "likelihood' here? Are you doing it from scientific studies or some theories and your beliefs? I don't disagree with you, I'm just curious. [/B]

I'm not sure that you quite understand, T'ai Chi. The inability of chemical processes to convert one chemical element to another is well-understood, and indeed the very foundation of much of modern chemistry. References can be found in any sixth-grade science textbook, or certainly any freshman chemistry book. It's also well-known to any practitioner in the field. If you're looking for primary references, the original documents are well over three hundred years old and locked away in Rare Documents collections of major research libraries. It's a "waste of money, brains and time" for me even to find them for you.

There's correspondingly no evidence to support the possibility except for notoriously unreliable affidaivits -- the UNSUPPORTED word of the people who believe it.

Similarly, we have a well-established body of results and theories regarding weather prediction --- and seabirds don't appear to play a major causal role in the results. ON the other side, we have a handful of anecdotes, countermanded by a well-established body of psychological results and theories establishing the existence of confirmation biases, supersitions, and other forms of common but fallacious reasoning. Scientific results can explain no only that albatrosses don't cause bad weather, but also why (some) people believe that they do.

Yes, it's possible for "conventional wisdom" to be wrong, but it happens a lot less often than you think, and usually there are at least some experimental hints or theoretical anomolies to foreshadow those events.

So, yes, I'm dismissing the likelihood of this kind of event occuring out of hand, based on my beliefs, which are in turn based upon theories, but which are in turn based upon a body of scientific studies. Laws such as the conservation of atoms do not spring forth out of nowhere.

I might be wrong. The laws themselves might be wrong. "And monkeys might fly out of my butt." I know which side the evidence has been supporting, and I know which side I will place my bet on. And I'm comfortable doing so.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by drkitten

I'm not sure that you quite understand, T'ai Chi. The inability of chemical processes to convert one chemical element to another is well-understood, and indeed the very foundation of much of modern chemistry. References can be found in any sixth-grade science textbook, or certainly any freshman chemistry book. It's also well-known to any practitioner in the field. If you're looking for primary references, the original documents are well over three hundred years old and locked away in Rare Documents collections of major research libraries. It's a "waste of money, brains and time" for me even to find them for you.


Heh, ok. At least you are making your decision based on scientific results. :)

I'm curious though, if someone said they have changed element X to element Y, would you look at their results, or just brush it off before seeing their results by saying it is not possible, it is a waste of time, etc., and move on?


Similarly, we have a well-established body of results and theories regarding weather prediction --- and seabirds don't appear to play a major causal role in the results.


Our knowledge of how things work changes all the time. Who'se to say that someone overlooked the usefulness of sea birds in predicting the weather?

Without doing a study, you really just don't know, despite how confident you seem to be.

[Darat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
...snip...

Our knowledge of how things work changes all the time. Who'se to say that someone overlooked the usefulness of sea birds in predicting the weather?

Without doing a study, you really just don't know, despite how confident you seem to be.

Even after doing a study one would still be able to say, "Without doing further studies, you really just don't know, despite how confident you seem to be."

One can always ask for "just one more" study after all just because a million studies haven't provided proof doesn't mean the million and one study won't.

That is just the nature of empirical knowledge.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Darat

Even after doing a study one would still be able to say, "Without doing further studies, you really just don't know, despite how confident you seem to be."


Well sure, I understand that, but you're one step closer than doing no studies at all.

[Darat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Well sure, I understand that, but you're one step closer than doing no studies at all. [/B]

Let me ask you to expand on that then.

How does one determine how many studies are necessary before one can say "Not worth continuing to study"?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Darat


Let me ask you to expand on that then.

How does one determine how many studies are necessary before one can say "Not worth continuing to study"?

There is no magic number.

If the majority of tests fail to acheive statistical significance, it is usually dropped by the community studying it for good reason.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
There is no magic number.

If the majority of tests fail to acheive statistical significance, it is usually dropped by the community studying it for good reason.

What if the community does not drop studying it after a majority of tests fail to acheive statistical significance?

How would you describe such a community?

[Darat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


There is no magic number.

If the majority of tests fail to acheive statistical significance, it is usually dropped by the community studying it for good reason.

If you do not know of any "magic number" how can you be certain of your view (bold by me) i.e. "...snip... we should always suspend things until we get data and analyze the data, and do that process more than once. Only when these tests fail to acheive statistical significance the majority of the time should we consider the idea probably not worthy of further exploration. ...snip..."?

It seems you want to demonstrate there is a bias in how some people choose to give credence to certain claims/beliefs - is this correct? If so what is the bias that you think is shown?

It also seems you want to make the point that we should treat all claims/beliefs or explanations as equal – is this correct?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


What if the community does not drop studying it after a majority of tests fail to acheive statistical significance?

How would you describe such a community?
Human. How would describe your behavior in this community?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Darat

If you do not know of any "magic number" how can you be certain of your view (bold by me) i.e. "...snip... we should always suspend things until we get data and analyze the data, and do that process more than once.


If you don't have actual data, you only have theory. Theory might be the deciding factor in the abstract realms of mathematics, for example, but not so much in real life. And more than once is necessary for the desired property of replication. That is, was the statistical significance (or non-significance) a fluke, or is there something really there? Replication reduces this uncertainty.


It also seems you want to make the point that we should treat all claims/beliefs or explanations as equal – is this correct?
[/quote][/b]

I'm not saying all claims or beliefs are equal, but rather they should be all given equal opportunity to be proven/negated in reality by experiment.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I am not aware of any scientific tests on these but they might be out there. If you believe, for scientific reasons, that these claims shouldn't be tested because they either have already been tested or they contradict our current understanding of how the world works, could you 1) give references to the tests that were already done, or 2) give reasons for why we should believe your belief that our understanding of the world can't suddenly change?

I'm waiting..

I was asking you. If you cannot answer, just say so, so we can move on with the discussion.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So you CANT list even 3 people in each category. I thought so.

Please keep on track here. There is no need to invent these new, irrelevant demands.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
If you don't have actual data, you only have theory.

But we have data in the examples I listed: People have reported that it works. Should we dismiss these reports as anecdotes?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Replication reduces this uncertainty.

The beliefs I listed have been replicated throughout the times. Do you agree that this reduces the uncertainty that e.g. an albatross flying round a ship in mid-ocean is an omen of wind and bad weather to come?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm not saying all claims or beliefs are equal, but rather they should be all given equal opportunity to be proven/negated in reality by experiment.

OK, great: Then you do agree that this also includes the beliefs I listed.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


If you don't have actual data, you only have theory.



But theory almost always comes from actual data. Big theories, like gravity or atomic
theory, come from a lot of actual data.

I'm not going to abandon a well-tested theory until I have evidence that it's wrong. And I don't have any responsibility to look for something -- such as counterevidence -- that I don't think is there. Life is too short for me to waste it designing unicorn detectors just because someone else thinks that there "might" be a unicorn in my sock drawer.

[Darat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


If you don't have actual data, you only have theory. Theory might be the deciding factor in the abstract realms of mathematics, for example, but not so much in real life. And more than once is necessary for the desired property of replication. That is, was the statistical significance (or non-significance) a fluke, or is there something really there? Replication reduces this uncertainty.




(I'm glad you've dropped maths out of this.)

Isn't this a bit topsy-turvy? Without data why do you have a theory? What is the good of a theory if there is no data for it to explain? Why would anyone do research when there was no data to begin with?

"Replication reduces this uncertainty." Reduces, perhaps but with empirical knowledge it can never quite remove the uncertainty, after all the sun may not "rise" tomorrow.

With that in mind I am still very curious how you would determine if enough research has been done (as far as one can with the limitation of empirical knowledge)?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I'm not saying all claims or beliefs are equal, but rather they should be all given equal opportunity to be proven/negated in reality by experiment.

But if they aren't all equal why should we treat every single possible claim by anyone with equal credence? It seems that you accept some claims are (by whatever personal criteria you use) less credible then others so surely you would consider some claims should be higher on the list to be researched then others?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wbeaty said:
Do you have any idea how many people believe in chemtrails? The moment they hear you laugh, you've lost them. They'll correctly see you as irrationally prejudiced, never trust you again, and most important, ignore everything you say as being tainted by dishonesty. To convince them, you have to become a teacher, not a "hurler of ridicule." You have to meet the audience at their current level, see through their eyes, then show them the steps that take them out of ignorance. And if done right, often it's the student who teaches the teacher as well.
That's too condescending. I'd rather have a good belly laugh.

Seriously: I've spent many patient hours talking to chemmies. It doesn't matter, because they are paranoid. I'm just part of the conspiracy. However, if you know of a chemtrail forum where you think there is a chance of injecting some rationality, let me know. I'm willing to devote some additional hours of patience and understanding.

As is often the case, I think you picture skeptics as laughing and guffawing from the get-go, never giving the claim any chance, dismissing it out of hand. That's not the way things are.

~~ Paul

[wbeaty]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

That's too condescending. I'd rather have a good belly laugh.

Seriously: I've spent many patient hours talking to chemmies.
<snip>

As is often the case, I think you picture skeptics as laughing and guffawing from the get-go, never giving the claim any chance, dismissing it out of hand. That's not the way things are.


Chemtrail believers are a good example of a group that probably can't be convinced, since conspiracy theories are self-reinforcing closed loops. But maybe SOME of the people in those groups would be interested in analyzing conspiracy theories in general, and discussing the dangers of getting sucked in, and the benefits of evidence-based thinking versus gut-feel intuitive thinking.

Also, I thought I was clear about guffawing. I think that the full blown "DRY SKEPTICS," as detailed in my first message, are hypocrites riding on the coatails of scientific skepticism. Dry skeptics are a subset of skeptic org. members... and obviously most of us of us have some "dry skeptical" tendencies. I just see these tendencies as sin, as anti-science and anti-reason. But also they're the driving force behind debunkery (and there's lots of criminal bunk out there needing debunking.) A pure version of a scientist-type skeptic has little to say about fraudulent televangelists, other than pointing out the errors. A "debunker" has lots to say. But a "debunker" is not a "scientist," and shouldn't pretend to be one, a "debunker" is more like a soldier or policeman.

What is a Skeptic? A policeman bringing down criminals? Or a scientist who wants to investigate claimed anomalies? It's VERY hard to be both, and one side drags down the other. And I think that skeptic organizations hurt themselves by being both, or by trying to project a public image of being both.

A few years ago I had hopes that Shermer's "Skeptic" magazine might take on the role of the 'scientist' side, while Skeptical Inquirer then is free to swing much farther towards 'debunker."

[Darat]

Originally posted by wbeaty
...snip...

What is a Skeptic? A policeman bringing down criminals? Or a scientist who wants to investigate claimed anomalies? It's VERY hard to be both, and one side drags down the other. And I think that skeptic organizations hurt themselves by being both, or by trying to project a public image of being both.

...snip...

Why try to create a "sceptic"? Why not just say there are people who are sceptical, or there are people who have a sceptical approach to life/claims/beliefs?

I'm always sceptical of the worth of trying to narrowly define people into sub-groups; I actually think it is something to be avoided.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Darat

"Replication reduces this uncertainty." Reduces, perhaps but with empirical knowledge it can never quite remove the uncertainty, after all the sun may not "rise" tomorrow.
[/b]

I agree, but without any experimentation you have more uncertaintly then with experimentation.


With that in mind I am still very curious how you would determine if enough research has been done (as far as one can with the limitation of empirical knowledge)?


How many times must I say there is no magic number. Take experiments to test Einstein's predictions of curvature of something or other. Many were conducted over the years. Some, most, statistically significant, a few not. The confidence intervals got smaller and smaller. Finally, the scientific community as a whole stopped testing it. They decided that it acheived significance much more than not, and the confidence level was very high. They did not determine the amount of research to do before they obtained data; they let the data guide them.


But if they aren't all equal why should we treat every single possible claim by anyone with equal credence?


We shouldn't. We should, however, give every claim the opportunity to be tested if it can be in a reasonable fashion.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
How many times must I say there is no magic number. Take experiments to test Einstein's predictions of curvature of something or other. Many were conducted over the years. Some, most, statistically significant, a few not. The confidence intervals got smaller and smaller. Finally, the scientific community as a whole stopped testing it. They decided that it acheived significance much more than not, and the confidence level was very high. They did not determine the amount of research to do before they obtained data; they let the data guide them.

Please find us the papers here, T'ai. Either that, or correct this claim.

[Darat]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I agree, but without any experimentation you have more uncertaintly then with experimentation.



But one is still left with a subjective judgement on whether enough research has been done.


Originally posted by T'ai Chi

How many times must I say there is no magic number. Take experiments to test Einstein's predictions of curvature of something or other. Many were conducted over the years. Some, most, statistically significant, a few not. The confidence intervals got smaller and smaller. Finally, the scientific community as a whole stopped testing it. They decided that it acheived significance much more than not, and the confidence level was very high. They did not determine the amount of research to do before they obtained data; they let the data guide them.



You have misunderstood my last post - I did not ask you to name a particular number, just how you determine when enough is enough. What I said was:

"With that in mind I am still very curious how you would determine if enough research has been done (as far as one can with the limitation of empirical knowledge)?"

How do you determine if enough research has been done into a particular claim to either prove or disprove it within the limits of empirical knowledge?

Can you also explain why you believe research should be undertaken before there is any data?


Originally posted by T'ai Chi


We shouldn't. We should, however, give every claim the opportunity to be tested if it can be in a reasonable fashion.

Does this mean you do not want any kind of judgement to be passed on the relevance of any research? Since resources are finite how would you propose these resources are allocated, on a first claimed, first researched scheme?

[Eos of the Eons]

I have to say wbeaty has very sound arguments and really knows where he/she is coming from. I admire the effort for the message being put forth.

Hi and welcome!

I feel that all crazy beliefs need a sound rational reason alongside to show how that crazy belief cannot be in any way true. Then that removes the legs the 'believer' has to stand on.

This usually illicits a reaction. I judge that reaction and go from there.

If someone gets angry I ask why. If that makes them angrier I can't do anything about it and refrain from ridicule. Why piss them off more? That is usually a person who truly believes.

If they tell me I'm an idiot, then I may or may not resort to ridicule depending on the reason the person is professing the crazy belief. If they are doing it to fleece me, then I may resort to that if they are being particularly nasty and ridiculing me for not jumping on their bandwagon. This is rare, since I usually just tell them I know what they are up to, and leave it at that. I push back if I am pushed too far.

The reaction is rarely "tell me more". I leave it to them to mull it over.

I've had the reaction once in a blue moon and it was great. I provided more information and I actually got a "thank you".

I'm reading wbeaty's posts and remembering back to when I started to learn how to check out any claims. It's hard to remember what that was like soooo long ago. I appreciate the reminder and am trying to learn how to rationlize without make the other person angry.

That is the toughest part. How to show the facts without appearing condescending. It's particularly tough on message boards when people can't hear the tone of your message. That's when mud starts to fly.

Must start some signatures to present tone:

Thankfully,

Eos

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Please find us the papers here, T'ai. Either that, or correct this claim.

Edited to remove namecalling.

I'd be glad to.

Wait, will you EVER admit you were wrong when you said that it is only called skew????

Here http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870355519#1870355519 you said:


BTW, just because the waterloo text says "skewness" in the first few references doesn't mean the metric is called "skewness." It isn't. It is called "skew." Here, an actual course or textbook, rather than Google, might be your friend.

Provide evidence for your claim, or retract it immediately,

Edited to remove namecalling.

Here's my end of it:

C.M. Will, General Relativity at 75: How Right Was Einstein?, Science 250 (November 9, 1990): 770-75.

I said:


How many times must I say there is no magic number. Take experiments to test Einstein's predictions of curvature of something or other. Many were conducted over the years. Some, most, statistically significant, a few not. The confidence intervals got smaller and smaller. Finally, the scientific community as a whole stopped testing it. They decided that it acheived significance much more than not, and the confidence level was very high. They did not determine the amount of research to do before they obtained data; they let the data guide them.


based on memory. Allow me to elaborate now that I have a book that summarizes C.M. Hill's paper:

The data are estimates and confidence intervals from y, the deflection of light around the sun, predicted by Einstein's general relativity theory (specifically, GR predicts y = 1. Newtonian physics predicts y = 0). The data is from 20 experiments, from different scientists, from years ranging from 1919 to 1985.

Some of the CI's from the experiments failed to include 1, but most did include 1, especially in the later years. All CI's failed to include 0. The measurments of light from quasar groups passing near the sun lead to very large improvements with accuracy, as evident by the narrower confidence intervals in the later years.

Experiment consistently denied the theory y = 0. The scientists didn't come up with a magic number of experiments to do until they dropped the idea y = 0.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Darat

But one is still left with a subjective judgement on whether enough research has been done.


So? Subjective does not equal bad, or flawed, or inferior, especially when it is a subjective judgement based on objective results.

If experiments consistently deny something, the rational community studying it as a whole decides it is not worth it to test further. There has to be a converge of evidence.


How do you determine if enough research has been done into a particular claim to either prove or disprove it within the limits of empirical knowledge?


Are the experiments consistently denying the hypothesis and is the experimental error getting smaller? Are the estimates of whatever you are estimating converging on something? Do these results match up with results from experiments in other fields? If all of these are 'Yes', then that is a good indicator to not plan more experiments.


Can you also explain why you believe research should be undertaken before there is any data?


To get data to see how things really are. To get out of that comfy armchair.

[Pyrrho]

T'ai Chi, please read the rules for the Critical Thinking forum. You can be sarcastic elsewhere on this board, but not in this part of it.

[hammegk]

Regarding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillHoyt

Please find us the papers here, T'ai. Either that, or correct this claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I see the critical part. Can you help me find the "thinking" part?

Or is it only T' C' who adheres to guidelines?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
C.M. Will, General Relativity at 75: How Right Was Einstein?, Science 250 (November 9, 1990): 770-75.




based on memory. Allow me to elaborate now that I have a book that summarizes C.M. Hill's paper:

The data are estimates and confidence intervals from y, the deflection of light around the sun, predicted by Einstein's general relativity theory (specifically, GR predicts y = 1. Newtonian physics predicts y = 0). The data is from 20 experiments, from different scientists, from years ranging from 1919 to 1985.

Some of the CI's from the experiments failed to include 1, but most did include 1, especially in the later years. All CI's failed to include 0. The measurments of light from quasar groups passing near the sun lead to very large improvements with accuracy, as evident by the narrower confidence intervals in the later years.

Experiment consistently denied the theory y = 0. The scientists didn't come up with a magic number of experiments to do until they dropped the idea y = 0. [/B]
I should have been more specific in my request, T'ai. I asked you to "find us the papers here." By that, I did not mean for you to cite a review article. The topic here is how research is done, and, most specifically, the "stopping criterion." You cited the example of GR and the deflection of light. You claimed "They decided that it acheived significance much more than not, and the confidence level was very high."

I am not looking for a review paper's conclusions, after the fact, about CI. I am looking for the individual physics papers that, according to your claim, used statistical hypothesis testing to reach these conclusions about the predictions of GR.[/i]

[wbeaty]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
We even see it today, here in Denmark: We have a government-backed organization that - supposedly seriously - looks into whether a (get ready, for it is truly silly!) herbal cigar's burning end, pointed at a certain reflexologically important spot on a pregnant woman's toe, will turn the embryo around, so the head is pointing the right way.

I'm not kidding you.

What were the results?

:)

A large portion of the newage community sees science as being simply another belief system. A competing religion. They entirely miss the core principles of science: being scrupulously honest and fair, staying unbiased, and actually testing things to see if they work.

If we claim to be scientific, but then we tell the public that Reflexology is bogus because it's obviously silly (to whom?) or because it goes against contemporary sci/med findings, then we're being "religious;" we're trying to remove reflexology and replace it with our own beliefs, and perhaps as an afterthought showing that our beliefs are true (or at least an improvement.)

Some reflexology-believers may respond positively to this, but most others will just see us for what we are: interloper belief-supporters with an agenda. But what if we drop our anti-Reflexology agenda, and instead actually give Reflexology claims some fair tests to see if they work?

Doing it that way will let science itself defeat reflexology, rather than having a group of science-believers try to talk the reflexology-believers out of their beliefs.

Doing it that way will also directly teach what science really is. Such lessons are nonverbal, but very powerful. I don't see them very often on TV, etc.

As far as actually starting some sort of testing program, I have doubts over the number of reflexology-believers. If that population is tiny, then a testing program will spend much time and energy for little result. If only one person believes that you can fly to the moon by smearing yourself with goose grease, then they need to go to the back of the line for getting claims tested in a major public hearing. But if there are tens of thousands of reflexology believers pointing herbal cigars at acupuncture points, then get them together and say "put up or shut up."

Of course if some reflexology claims are actually true, that fact would come out. FAIR testing is extremely important, and if we try to fix things so our side wins, the audience will see this and disregard all our efforts.

[wbeaty]

Originally posted by Darat


Why try to create a "sceptic"? Why not just say there are people who are sceptical, or there are people who have a sceptical approach to life/claims/beliefs?

I don't understand. What do you mean by "sceptical?"

Acting as a policeman bringing down criminals, versus acting as a scientist fairly testing a claim; these are two very different things, with many opposite characteristics, and I think the word "skeptical" becomes half meaningless when it's used as the label for both.

And going back to something from my original message: ridicule has no place in the doing of science, but it's an acceptable (or at least effective) part of public debunking. What then should be our policy on ridicule? Accepting it makes us unscientific, rejecting it might lose us some battles.

There are other differences too: science is partly based on self doubt and tenativeness, and upon the exposure of our own mistakes and flaws. These things seriously hurt a debunker or 'warrior' type who's trying to expose scam artists. And a 'warrior' type can ruin a scientific test by trying to make sure the results come out in our favor.

The goal of winning a battle is often opposite to the goal of seeking the truth.

Now that I'm writing this stuff, I think I understand why skeptic groups have so few members (we could have thousands of times more!) The "scientists" are disgusted by the behavior of the "warriors", and vice versa. A group that tries to be both at the same time will have far fewer members than two separate groups; each one devoted to each of the incompatible goals. Yet if the two halves are TOO separate, then we have scientists being misled by tricks any magician would spy instantly... and warriors utterly confident that their beliefs are correct, with no self-doubts or desire to seriously investigate "crazy" claims.

[wbeaty]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
That is the toughest part. How to show the facts without appearing condescending. It's particularly tough on message boards when people can't hear the tone of your message. That's when mud starts to fly.

A useful concept from eastern religion: "the stench of enlightenment." That's when someone is acting superior and handing down tidbits of knowledge from their high position... as opposed to going back down in the dirt with fellow students and trying to find the fuzzy and twisted path that got them up there in the first place.

It's very appropriate to organized skepticism:

A. I know that ghosts don't exist. Here's the facts, and
you'd better believe them or there's something wrong
with you.

B. Do ghosts exist? Here are suggestions for how to find
out, and for how to think about such questions.


More warrior vs. scientist, no? In "B" the audience might end up deciding that ghosts do exist! But in "A" the audience has to trust the speaker; must assume that they're not biased and possibly hiding info that might weaken the case against ghosts.

That makes "B" look good, but that's because ghosts are a "scientist" issue. But then apply this to a "warrior" issue such as Creationism infecting schools, or bogus faith-healers taking your grandparents savings. Do you want to spend years giving them a fair hearing, since perhaps they are right?


Huh. Maybe that's the key to the Shermer article. Probably he assumes that the water-sellers are scam artists, and that it becomes a "warrior" situation. But maybe the water-sellers are honest new-agers who wouldn't object to fair testing of the special water. In that case, "belly laughs" are totally the wrong response.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I should have been more specific in my request, T'ai. I asked you to "find us the papers here." By that, I did not mean for you to cite a review article.


The article has references to what it is reviewing. Surely you know how such things work.

Moreover, if you expect me to understand what you want, you need to be more specific the first time. You can't say: "Please find us the papers here," and then only after I reply be more specific and tell me what you 'really' meant.

I simply said:

"How many times must I say there is no magic number. Take experiments to test Einstein's predictions of curvature of something or other. Many were conducted over the years. Some, most, statistically significant, a few not. The confidence intervals got smaller and smaller. Finally, the scientific community as a whole stopped testing it. They decided that it acheived significance much more than not, and the confidence level was very high. They did not determine the amount of research to do before they obtained data; they let the data guide them."

Nowhere in the above did I claim anything about individual papers proving anything themselves as you erroneously claim, but for some reason you've now focused on individual papers.


I am looking for the individual physics papers that, according to your claim, used statistical hypothesis testing to reach these conclusions about the predictions of GR.[/i] [/B]

I never ever claimed the individual papers did that. If I did, you are welcome to provide this thread exactly where I said that. If you can't provide such evidence, retract that claim of yours immediately.

How can one paper do that anyway? It is an accumulation of evidence, something that only happens as many studies are done.

Let me know when you read the paper.

Aside: are you going to retract your claim that it is only called skew or provide evidence? Or will you keep ignoring it and hope no one notices?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by wbeaty
What were the results?

The study is "under way".

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The article has references to what it is reviewing. Surely you know how such things work.
I'm sure it does, T'ai, but equally sure that is irrelevant.

Moreover, if you expect me to understand what you want, you need to be more specific the first time. You can't say: "Please find us the papers here," and then only after I reply be more specific and tell me what you 'really' meant.

I simply said:

"How many times must I say there is no magic number. Take experiments to test Einstein's predictions of curvature of something or other. Many were conducted over the years. Some, most, statistically significant, a few not. The confidence intervals got smaller and smaller. Finally, the scientific community as a whole stopped testing it. They decided that it acheived significance much more than not, and the confidence level was very high. They did not determine the amount of research to do before they obtained data; they let the data guide them."

Nowhere in the above did I claim anything about individual papers proving anything themselves as you erroneously claim, but for some reason you've now focused on individual papers.
I was going overboard to be gracious when I suggested "I should have been more specific in my request." Let's get down to brass tacks about your claim. I put certain passages in blue to underscore the problem. Inspect each of those blue passages, please, to find the clear referent is the original papers. Also please recall the subtopic that this thread is on: namely, stopping criteria. A review paper that is, by defintion, after the fact, was clearly not your referent.

I am asking you to cite the original papers, and the request is not frivolous, sir. Your claim is flat-out wrong because of a simple fact: Physicists rarely ever use statistical hypothesis testing. It is almost absent from their vocabulary. The individual papers, sir, reported measurements. There were no statistical populations measured. There were no alphas set a priori. There were no rejections or acceptances of the null hypothesis. Your entire passage, quoted above, claims that those original papers reported such things, and that, such things constituted the stopping criterion for research on Einstein's curvature prediction.

So please provide the original paper citations, or take this opportunity to correct the claim.

I never ever claimed the individual papers did that. If I did, you are welcome to provide this thread exactly where I said that. If you can't provide such evidence, retract that claim of yours immediately.
See above, please.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by hammegk
Regarding


I see the critical part. Can you help me find the "thinking" part?

Or is it only T' C' who adheres to guidelines?
We all adhere to the rules on this forum. The last I knew, calling for a claimant to marshall the evidence is well within the rules on a skeptics forum.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I'm sure it does, T'ai, but equally sure that is irrelevant.


You believe a paper which reviews and references the original papers, as well as contains the original data is irrelevant???


I put certain passages in blue to underscore the problem. Inspect each of those blue passages, please, to find the clear referent is the original papers.


You believe that is the case. In fact, you didn't highlight in blue this "Finally, the scientific community as a whole stopped testing it." clearly referring that I was talking about the scientific community making the decision after many experiments were done.


Also please recall the subtopic that this thread is on: namely, stopping criteria. A review paper that is, by defintion, after the fact, was clearly not your referent.


Bill, you are confused a little here. I'm not saying the paper I offered decided anything. I'm saying the paper reported on what was decided collectively from the experiments.


I am asking you to cite the original papers, and the request is not frivolous, sir.


I don't have the original papers. I gave you a reference that does have references to the original papers and data. I'm not sure why you believe I have to post them, when I gave you a direct way to find them.


Your claim is flat-out wrong because of a simple fact: Physicists rarely ever use statistical hypothesis testing. It is almost absent from their vocabulary.


Have you read the paper? Let me ask you this, Bill, do you know of any other way to analyze data besides using statistics?


The individual papers, sir, reported measurements. There were no statistical populations measured. There were no alphas set a priori. There were no rejections or acceptances of the null hypothesis.


For pete's sake Bill; measurements contain error and statistics studies that.


Your entire passage, quoted above, claims that those original papers reported such things, and that, such things constituted the stopping criterion for research on Einstein's curvature prediction.


That is a flat out lie. Quit it.

The collective experiments themselves guided the scientific community.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

We all adhere to the rules on this forum. The last I knew, calling for a claimant to marshall the evidence is well within the rules on a skeptics forum.

I agree (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37789). As a claimaint yourself, are you going to adhere to these same rules and provide your evidence for your claim?

[T'ai Chi]

Please see this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37812) for a recreation (ie drawing) of a graph created from the data from the C.M. Will, General Relativity at 75: How Right Was Einstein?, Science 250 (November 9, 1990): 770-75 paper so people can see what I am basically referring to.

[wbeaty]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


The study is "under way".

PS

I'm gone for a week, be back next sunday.

Primitive conditions w/no laptop!

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by wbeaty


A useful concept from eastern religion: "the stench of enlightenment." That's when someone is acting superior and handing down tidbits of knowledge from their high position... as opposed to going back down in the dirt with fellow students and trying to find the fuzzy and twisted path that got them up there in the first place.

It's very appropriate to organized skepticism:

A. I know that ghosts don't exist. Here's the facts, and
you'd better believe them or there's something wrong
with you.

B. Do ghosts exist? Here are suggestions for how to find
out, and for how to think about such questions.


More warrior vs. scientist, no? In "B" the audience might end up deciding that ghosts do exist! But in "A" the audience has to trust the speaker; must assume that they're not biased and possibly hiding info that might weaken the case against ghosts.

That makes "B" look good, but that's because ghosts are a "scientist" issue. But then apply this to a "warrior" issue such as Creationism infecting schools, or bogus faith-healers taking your grandparents savings. Do you want to spend years giving them a fair hearing, since perhaps they are right?


Huh. Maybe that's the key to the Shermer article. Probably he assumes that the water-sellers are scam artists, and that it becomes a "warrior" situation. But maybe the water-sellers are honest new-agers who wouldn't object to fair testing of the special water. In that case, "belly laughs" are totally the wrong response.

I like to stay in the middle somewhere. These are facts, take it or leave. Any questions? You don't have to believe little ol me, but please look into it some more. Doesn't make me smarter than you, or better, just here it is in a nutshell.

I don't make a very good teacher because I'm not very good at "B" in one area: "Here are suggestions for how to think about such questions".


I can point to how to find out, but most believers don't care to look into it. They prefer to rant on about strawmen instead. Calling me the close minded one, and saying I think I'm better when all I do is state my opinion and provide why that is my opinion.

When trying to educate someone, I do "B" all the way. Doesn't stop a believer from slinging mud, and doesn't even get their curiosity up enough to look at the information of sources of information provided.

Those are the two sides. The one where there are defensive believers that don't care if there is ample proof there are no flying purple puppies. There are still flying purple puppies. You are just too closeminded to believe it. I've been told to join their cause, but if you don't, then don't give information. Take it or leave. So I leave it. Then they send yet another email to support their cause. Can't leave a sleeping dog lie, cause I'm the one who is deluded, not them. I'm the one who is brainwashed, and I'm the idiot for not joining their fight against the mainstream.

I find it rare to find the curious believer, the second side. I sure don't want to scare them away with acting smug. Thus I test the waters.

I find most believers come to defend their stance in a middle of a thread that addresses a subject rather than the believers of the subject. They fling a few stones, put up a few strawmen, and then get mad when anyone tries to counter their actions with any type of reason.

So you can accuse skeptics of acting mightier than thou, but so do the believers, because skeptics are going to hell, ha ha, and believers are going to heaven and have morals. Skeptics corrupt. Believers save or 'know the truth'-be damned with 'facts'.

You mix the believers who hate skeptics with skeptics that are sick of strawmen, then you see the results.

That isn't always the case. One side is never better than the other, and not all skeptics are use the "A" approach most of the time. "A" comes into play after "B" is thrown back in the skeptic's face along with a lecture on how scientists are just believers in science and closeminded to all else.

I can't name one skeptic that just runs around with the "A" approach. Thus, dividing skeptics into just two groups is not a fair depiction of the reality.

Does anyone really know Shermer's experience with the water sellers? I'd really like to hear Shermer's side of the story when it comes to belly laughing. Maybe he does know they are not just innocent believers putting forth what they believe is a good cause.

Or maybe it's like me. Behind every scam is one person at least that knows it is a scam. Take that snake oil seller Mr. Young. I know he is con artist, but I know people that would defend this schmuck to the death. And Wakefield. He knows he is full of it.

Their supporters will not take 'belly laughing' at them. I don't care. Get offended. I'm offended that their supporters are defending their harmful schemes. You can present all the information and proof in the world. You can present it in the "B" method all the way, and you will still be the bad one for even suggesting they are what they are. I've been banned for just posting a link that shows why they say what they say is impossible. You can even agree and go along with all the hero worship, but post one link and you're gone, because suddenly you have questionable intentions.

It's give and take. It's also obvious when this will not be the case. That is when I laugh. I would think this is when Shermer laughs. Tell me that I have to eat YOUR broccoli because all others are unsafe, and I laugh because I already know this scheme. If a supporter sees me laugh, they don't ask me why I'm laughing. They just buy into the scam all the more because the scammer told them there would be "people like me".

Why do I have to walk on eggs around every scam artist so that I don't offend their supporters that are being fleeced? If everyong finally put their foot down and didn't put up with the nonsense, then the believers might finally realize the scammer is going on the defence because they are running scared.

I see this happening with Wakefield. People are finally saying enough is enough. The defenders, and there are less now at least, still go on about conspiracies. These people will never respond to the "B" method of information presentation and provision.

So yeah, don't scare away the folks who truly want to know why someone or something is untrue. But don't back off when a believer refuses to find out the truth. They are going to hate you anyways. So go ahead and laugh.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I said that: "we should always suspend things until we get data and analyze the data, and do that process more than once. Only when these tests fail to acheive statistical significance the majority of the time should we consider the idea probably not worthy of further exploration. "That appears to be a rather strong shifting of the burden of proof.

Anyone making a claim is required to provide proof that is available to scrutiny. Your methods are strikingly similar to those erroneously believed to be capable of proving a negative.

[Eos of the Eons]

Shermer's article:

Some claims are so preposterous, in fact, that there is only one rejoinder: "One horselaugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms." I call this "Mencken's maxim," and I find that it is an appropriate response to preposterous claims made about magic water sold on the Web. I offer as a holotype of Mencken's maxim the following: Golden 'C' Lithium Structured Water(www.luminanti.com/goldenc.html).

Mencken says to laugh.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=00072032-3B02-1052-BB0283414B7F0212

The stone "contains more lithium than any other stone on the planet" and "emits a signature one-of-a-kind healing energy."

Isn't lithium a powerful and dangerous drug with tons of warnings that is used to treat mental illness?

Oh wait...

Just below the order button a warning label reads: "Note: no actual lithium is in the water. Only the energetics of lithium and the other minerals is contained in the water." Maybe that explains another disclaimer, perhaps written with attorneys in mind: "No therapeutic, drug or healing claims related to the physical body are made in the use of Golden 'C' Lithium Structured Water." One is advised, however, to keep it refrigerated.


Okay, I'm gonna laugh, cause I just can't hold it in any longer!!!

The truth: "exposing ordinary water to lithium crystals, or any other crystals for that matter, cannot fundamentally alter the molecular structure of the water. The chemical structure within the water molecule, as defined by bond length and orientation, doesn't change. The claim that the chemical structure of liquid water changes because of exposure to a relatively insoluble crystal is nonsense."

Okay, we have the ridiculous claim and the proof on why it is ridiculous. If anyone tries to sell it to me with a straight face, I won't be able to keep a straight face-and that is why I could never sell it. I will accuse the person selling it of being able to keep a straight face because they have the gift of "con artist", and not that they believe it can actually work.

Who sells this anyway??

www.luminanti.com/goldenc.html


Spray above your head and as the mist descends you are immediately surrounded with a golden aura of protection. According to a researcher, "This aligns your chakras, aura and meridians. It also balances the positive and negative ions around the body. The mist refreshes, relaxes and dissipates negativity while it builds up a positive force field by bringing in more healing light.

If these are new agers trying to push something they feel is a necessity then I'm a purple flying puppy.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Take experiments to test Einstein's predictions of curvature of something or other. Many were conducted over the years. Some, most, statistically significant, a few not. The confidence intervals got smaller and smaller. Finally, the scientific community as a whole stopped testing it. They decided that it acheived significance much more than not, and the confidence level was very high. They did not determine the amount of research to do before they obtained data; they let the data guide them.How can you ask Claus for names of people who believe claims he did not even make himself, only quoted from a named source, and fail to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims of your own? Please explain this double standard you have applied to this discusssion.

[Eos of the Eons]

There are many crystals in the market place being sold as Golden 'C', so buyers beware. These stones are regular kunzite because they DO NOT have the element of gallium in them, and therefore do not have the same healing properties as documented here.


Ohhh, yeah! The usual "mine is the only one to buy because only mine works" claim.

For more on how to detect quackery, there are awesome guidelines here:


http://www.pathguy.com/lectures/quackery.htm

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Hazelip
How can you ask Claus for names of people who believe claims he did not even make himself, only quoted from a named source, and fail to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims of your own? Please explain this double standard you have applied to this discusssion.

Hazelip, CL said in reference to each of those beliefs that:
(bold mine)


Still, people believe it. Ergo, it must be investigated, according to T'ai Chi.


and he said he has a reference. I find it odd that he can't name even 1 person that believes such things. Oh well.

Speaking of double standards, please see this (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37789).

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Hazelip
That appears to be a rather strong shifting of the burden of proof.

Anyone making a claim is required to provide proof that is available to scrutiny. Your methods are strikingly similar to those erroneously believed to be capable of proving a negative.

I said:


we should always suspend things until we get data and analyze the data, and do that process more than once. Only when these tests fail to acheive statistical significance the majority of the time should we consider the idea probably not worthy of further exploration.


You haven't convinced me that that is a shift in the burden of proof at all. Why do you believe it is??

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

I did not merely say that I have a reference, I gave the reference. Please have the courtesy not to misrepresent what I said.

Such an encyclopedia is not likely to name specific persons, and that's not the object: The object is to list the superstitious beliefs that people have. That's it.

You knew this, of course, but had to make up this extra claim, in order to avoid addressing the issue. I have no idea why you want names, and you haven't given your reasons either. I can only assume that your request was an evasion, which has been noted, so there is no reason to continue this.

And please refrain from change the subject of this thread into one of your many personal vendettas. Linking to threads about your beef with Bill Hoyt is such an attempt.

Take it elsewhere, and at least try to back up your own claims here. If nowhere else.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The individual papers, sir, reported measurements. There were no statistical populations measured.


Do you deny there is such a thing as measurement error???

:confused:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Do you deny there is such a thing as measurement error???

:confused: [/B]

You don't call that a shift of burden? Why don't you just simply address Hoyt's points, instead of trying to turning the tables?

[ingoa]

From the scientist perspective:

Somebody makes a ridiculous claim (almost always involving the terms "potential", "energy", "fields", "crystals", "quantum", which have all a clear scientific definition).

So what should one do?

- investigate the claim? Deviate your limited resources to figure something out that provides no initial data (except for the claim itself)?

- shake your head (or weep) about the gullibility of people and end up in a major depression?

- shake your head and have a good laugh?

I take the last one. I am not investing my resources to debunk a senseless collection of buzzwords. Without data it is just that.

Take the "enhanced" water. The "theory" behind it is just blabla. Doen't make sense at all. So nothing worth of investigation. Now, if the producer would provide data that would support their claims of effects, THEN it would be worth of investigation. You do this or that to water and then you have a reproducible effect. Well that's something worth of my resources. The theory comes after the data. Without data you have nothing to start with.
Scientists are open to "new science", but they (mostly) will not start by throwing away centuries of established science.

Take "cold fusion". Pons and Fleischmann made claims that were testable. It was immediately taken up by "main-stream science" and tested. Although you could show with a back of the envelope calculation that the environment was several orders of magnitude off of the one needed for fusion. It was tested nevertheless, because it could.

But how do you test the claim:
This aligns your chakras, aura and meridians. It also balances the positive and negative ions around the body. The mist refreshes, relaxes and dissipates negativity while it builds up a positive force field by bringing in more healing light

There is NOTHING to be tested! It's like many claims of the cosmetic industry. :-) At some point you just have to decide whether to weep or to laugh. I am a laughing person, not a weeper.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
and he said he has a reference. I find it odd that he can't name even 1 person that believes such things. Oh well.The reference was the book title given.
Speaking of double standards, please see this (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37789). You are introducing something that has nothing to do with this topic of discussion by linking to that thread. Please, don't do that.

You have indicated repeatedly that you think all claims should be investigated/tested. Is that, or is that not a fair assessment of your position?

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You haven't convinced me that that is a shift in the burden of proof at all. Why do you believe it is?? Requiring everyone but the claimant to perform the testing is shifting the burden of proof. Any paranormal or scientific claim must be accompanied by proof. That proof can then be analyzed, or the steps required to achieve the same results may be performed.

Your whole attitude gives the impression that skeptics are required to perform rigorous testing of any and all claims before denouncing said claims. Is this a fair assessment of your opinion of the matter or not?

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by ingoa
From the scientist perspective:

Somebody makes a ridiculous claim (almost always involving the terms "potential", "energy", "fields", "crystals", "quantum", which have all a clear scientific definition).

So what should one do?

- investigate the claim? Deviate your limited resources to figure something out that provides no initial data (except for the claim itself)?

- shake your head (or weep) about the gullibility of people and end up in a major depression?

- shake your head and have a good laugh?
Why even consider testing someone else's claims at all? This whole thread is based upon a false premise. It is not the duty of the skeptic to test claims. It is everyone's duty to review the evidence presented by the claimant. No evidence, no justification whatsoever to take said claims seriously.

Skepticism should work more like peer review.
Take the "enhanced" water. The "theory" behind it is just blabla. Doen't make sense at all. So nothing worth of investigation. Now, if the producer would provide data that would support their claims of effects, THEN it would be worth of investigation. EXACTLY!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Have you read the paper? Let me ask you this, Bill, do you know of any other way to analyze data besides using statistics?
Yes, T'ai. Physicists rarely use statistical inference testing. They simply make the measurement and report both that measurement and the measurement error. No alphas are set. No statistical population assumptions. No inference testing, T'ai.



That is a flat out lie. Quit it.

The collective experiments themselves guided the scientific community.
Yes, the collective experiments guided the scientific community. I never said otherwise. Those experiments did not, however, report any statistical inference tests, as you are claiming. Physics is not done that way, T'ai.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Please see this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37812) for a recreation (ie drawing) of a graph created from the data from the C.M. Will, General Relativity at 75: How Right Was Einstein?, Science 250 (November 9, 1990): 770-75 paper so people can see what I am basically referring to.
Thank you for posting that, T'ai. It completely demonstrates my point. Those are simply measurements with error bars. There were no statistical populations to distinguish between. No inference tests made, and at no time did any of the papers involved report any alpha level and any results as statistically significant.

They measured the value, calculated the error in the measurement and reported both. None of those papers posed a null hypothesis in statistical inference terms, none of them reported that the experiment either refuted or failed to refute the null hypothesis.

There was no difficulty distinguishing between Newtonian and Einsteinian predictions. There was not a single measurement whose error bars got anywhere close to the Newtonian-predicted value. There was no need for inference testing. Period. Look at your own graph, T'ai, to see that this transparently true. If you are still unconvinced, then please bring us one of the original papers and point out where such inference testing was done, sir.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Hazelip

Your whole attitude gives the impression that skeptics are required to perform rigorous testing of any and all claims before denouncing said claims. Is this a fair assessment of your opinion of the matter or not?

No, that's an entirely unfair assessment of my opinion on the matter.

The original question was not about who should test, but if anyone should consider testing claims in general.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The original question was not about who should test, but if anyone should consider testing claims in general.

But why do you require to know the names of 3 people who has a supernatural belief, before you would consider a test worthy of testing? The believers are not the ones creating the phenomenon, are they?

Do you have additional demands? I thought I'd ask, to prevent a never-ending string of new conditions, once the old have been met.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Yes, T'ai. Physicists rarely use statistical inference testing. They simply make the measurement and report both that measurement and the measurement error. No alphas are set. No statistical population assumptions. No inference testing, T'ai.


Say someone measures something, anything. Each time you measure it you'll get some different number. These numbers can be said to form a sample from the population of all measurements.

Why you seek to confine 'statistics' to classical hypothesis testing is beyond me. I certainly don't.

So physicists rarely use statistical inference? 1) I won't believe you without you showing evidence. 2), "rarely" is not the same as "never". 3), I don't know what you are trying to demonstrate by first saying they "rarely use statistical inference", then at the end of your above quote saying "no inference testing". That is contradictory, s'ir. Maybe you could explain?


Yes, the collective experiments guided the scientific community. I never said otherwise. Those experiments did not, however, report any statistical inference tests, as you are claiming. Physics is not done that way, T'ai.

If there is measurement error (there is), statistics is, has to be, involved.

If there is no measurement error, then... well...I don't know, because I've never seen anything with no measurement error.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Say someone measures something, anything. Each time you measure it you'll get some different number. These numbers can be said to form a sample from the population of all measurements.

Why you seek to confine 'statistics' to classical hypothesis testing is beyond me. I certainly don't.

So physicists rarely use statistical inference? 1) I won't believe you without you showing evidence. 2), "rarely" is not the same as "never". 3), I don't know what you are trying to demonstrate by first saying they "rarely use statistical inference", then at the end of your above quote saying "no inference testing". That is contradictory, s'ir. Maybe you could explain?



If there is measurement error (there is), statistics is, has to be, involved.

If there is no measurement error, then... well...I don't know, because I've never seen anything with no measurement error. [/B]
T'ai,

This is being evasive, sir. You made the claim that some of the papers were "statistically significant, a few not." You made the claim that "they decided that it achieved significance much more than not." Provide the evidence, please.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

at no time did any of the papers involved report any alpha level and any results as statistically significant.


Perhaps. I assume you've read them all to make that statement with such certainty?

The point is that it is the cumulative weight of all the evidence, not anything in any individual paper.


They measured the value, calculated the error in the measurement and reported both. None of those papers posed a null hypothesis in statistical inference terms, none of them reported that the experiment either refuted or failed to refute the null hypothesis.


For now, we'll pretend you've read all 21 of those papers to make such statements.

But, I'm not going to pretend that because a physicist didn't specifically explicitly state their problem in statistical terms in a paper that one cannot do that or that statistics aren't involved. And again, please don't try to confine 'statistics' to classical hypothesis testing.


There was no difficulty distinguishing between Newtonian and Einsteinian predictions. There was not a single measurement whose error bars got anywhere close to the Newtonian-predicted value.


Well yeah, but you don't know that for sure, or if y = 1 seems likely until you actually see, and analyze, the data from experiments. Since the experiments got better over time, these conclusions became more stronger.


There was no need for inference testing. Period. Look at your own graph, T'ai, to see that this transparently true.


I disagree. It might seem "transparently true", but science needs to be treated scientifically.

If the CI's are generally decreasing in width, that means something to me. It means we're less likely to reject that y = 1. There is also a direct relationship between CI's and hypothesis testing. A CI containing y = 1 contains the possible estimators of y such that when their p-value is calculated (based on the sampling distribution of the errors), the null hypothesis is not rejected.


If you are still unconvinced, then please bring us one of the original papers and point out where such inference testing was done, sir.

As I've already said, s'ir, it is the cumulative weight of all the experiments, not any one paper.

There were recently two more experiments, VLBI and Cassini, also with very small CI's, which gives even greater weight to y = 1 and the argument of cumulative evidence being the guide.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by ingoa
From the scientist perspective:

Somebody makes a ridiculous claim (almost always involving the terms "potential", "energy", "fields", "crystals", "quantum", which have all a clear scientific definition).

So what should one do?

- investigate the claim? Deviate your limited resources to figure something out that provides no initial data (except for the claim itself)?

- shake your head (or weep) about the gullibility of people and end up in a major depression?

- shake your head and have a good laugh?

I take the last one. I am not investing my resources to debunk a senseless collection of buzzwords. Without data it is just that.

Take the "enhanced" water. The "theory" behind it is just blabla. Doen't make sense at all. So nothing worth of investigation. Now, if the producer would provide data that would support their claims of effects, THEN it would be worth of investigation. You do this or that to water and then you have a reproducible effect. Well that's something worth of my resources. The theory comes after the data. Without data you have nothing to start with.
Scientists are open to "new science", but they (mostly) will not start by throwing away centuries of established science.

Take "cold fusion". Pons and Fleischmann made claims that were testable. It was immediately taken up by "main-stream science" and tested. Although you could show with a back of the envelope calculation that the environment was several orders of magnitude off of the one needed for fusion. It was tested nevertheless, because it could.

But how do you test the claim:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This aligns your chakras, aura and meridians. It also balances the positive and negative ions around the body. The mist refreshes, relaxes and dissipates negativity while it builds up a positive force field by bringing in more healing light
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is NOTHING to be tested! It's like many claims of the cosmetic industry. :-) At some point you just have to decide whether to weep or to laugh. I am a laughing person, not a weeper.


***cheers and claps***

Common sense. Thank you!

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
No, that's an entirely unfair assessment of my opinion on the matter.

The original question was not about who should test, but if anyone should consider testing claims in general. If you don't think skeptics should be the ones performing the tests, yet you think that testing needs to be performed before skeptics can denounce any and everything, and you state nothing about a burden of proof for any of the claimants, who else would it be reasonable to think you wish to perform the testing?

If you are as resolute in your thinking that every claim is to be tested, who should perform the testing? The claimants, as evidence to be submitted for review and analysis, or the skeptics in what would surely become portrayed as a farcical attempt at proving a negative?

[ingoa]

T'ai Chi
As I've already said, S'sir, it is the cumulative weight of all the experiments, not any one paper.

Nothing is more convincing than a diagram. :rub: It IS actually a big problem in physics. Meta-Analysis isn't used in (High Energy) Physics [my field of expertise] because there is no stringent or even convincent foundation for it. If you look at the Review of Particle Properties (http://pdg.lbl.gov/) (the Bible of Particle Physics) you will be surprised. To make a long story short, combined results are weighted with the reputation of the experiment (well it's not stated that way, but... :-)

I stated errors in my thesis for my results. Statistical errors are trivial. But systematic errors are a pain in the ass. Have a look at the historical measurements of the speed of light during the 20th century. You will see that about 40 years of measurements are biased by a person! Michelson was considered the best experimentator of his time, but he was wrong. It took a generation of physicists to move slowly from his value of c to a better one.

So you have a convincing diagram. I could get the conclusion that Einstein is correct from it in a few seconds. But it is meaningless without an evaluation of the underlying experiments. To be honest: we take a diagram like yours, remove the experiments we don't trust and have a look again. Et voila, new discoveries are made.... I've got publications in the best scientific (refereed) journals that I would prefer to forget. But with 70 co-authours you cannot easily retract as a single contributor. In short, a collection of data points (even with error bars) is 'per se' meaningless.
[Actually I know the underlying data of the diagram. I think is it is good, but this relies on MY qualifications. But this is hearsay only. Because I could be the smart thrashman of the Dilbert cartoons or ha PhD in Particle Physics or a McD patty flipper]

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

T'ai,

This is being evasive, sir. You made the claim that some of the papers were "statistically significant, a few not." You made the claim that "they decided that it achieved significance much more than not." Provide the evidence, please.

No again.

I made the claim that the cumulative weight of the experimental results and the scientific community's beliefs towards them decided the matter.

While we're on the topic of claims and statistics, are you going to address this (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37789) for us?

[T'ai Chi]

So you have a convincing diagram. I could get the conclusion that Einstein is correct from it in a few seconds. But it is meaningless without an evaluation of the underlying experiments.


I agree with that.

The diagram is simply a quick look at the numerical outcomes of many experiments. If one wants specific information, they'll have to seek out the reference (and the references it references) of course. :)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


No again.

I made the claim that the cumulative weight of the experimental results and the scientific community's beliefs towards them decided the matter.

Okay, it is as I thought. T'ai doesn't have the evidence to support his original assertion. Good day.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
While we're on the topic of claims and statistics, are you going to address this (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37789) for us? Stop referring to matters outside this discussion, please.

I refer you to the rules of this moderated forum here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37395).

The focus here should be on topics and issues, not people.

[Pyrrho]

I agree with Hazelip. Linking to threads focused on individual posters will be interpreted as an attempt to sidestep the rules for this Forum. Any more links to such threads will be removed.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Okay, it is as I thought. T'ai doesn't have the evidence to support his original assertion. Good day.

You have thought incorrectly then, sir.

You have also said "Physicists rarely use statistical inference testing." then you went on to say "No inference testing,". I'm wondering if you'll make up your mind. Which is it, rarely or none?

I made the claim that the cumulative weight of the experimental results and the scientific community's beliefs towards them decided the matter (that y = 1, and that there is no strong evidence for y = 0).

No amount of their theoretical reasoning made the case. None of their individual papers did. No predetermined stopping rule did. There is no magic number, as I also said to Darat.

The cumulative weight of the evidence, which was very heavy indeed, is the only thing that did, which I presented.

I said:

"They did not determine the amount of research to do before they obtained data; they let the data guide them."

No one who endorses these supposed stopping rules have presented ANY evidence whatsoever for their position.

I wonder why that is.

Thanks.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

I am asking this for the second time (in this thread). If you don't answer it this time, I will simple have to assume that you refuse to answer.

Why do you require to know the names of 3 people who has a supernatural belief, before you would consider it worthy of testing? The believers are not the ones creating the phenomenon, are they?

Do you have additional demands? I thought I'd ask, to prevent a never-ending string of new conditions, once the old have been met.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I made the claim that the cumulative weight of the experimental results and the scientific community's beliefs towards them decided the matter (that y = 1, and that there is no strong evidence for y = 0).
That is what happened with these papers. That is not, however, what you wrote.

This, again, is what you wrote, T'ai, again with the most salient sections in blue, and, this time, bolded as well:

How many times must I say there is no magic number. Take experiments to test Einstein's predictions of curvature of something or other. Many were conducted over the years. Some, most, statistically significant, a few not. The confidence intervals got smaller and smaller. Finally, the scientific community as a whole stopped testing it. They decided that it acheived significance much more than not, and the confidence level was very high. They did not determine the amount of research to do before they obtained data; they let the data guide them.

o Please explain your use of the phrase "statistically significant" if you did not mean inference testing was used,

o Please cite the papers that were not "statistically significant" under whatever definition you mean,

o Please explain your use of the phrase "achieved significance" if you did not mean inference testing was used.

I refer you and the readers of this thread to Mathworld's definition of Significance (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Significance.html).

[Eos of the Eons]

The believers are not the ones creating the phenomenon, are they?

Umm, many times, yes. LOL!

[CFLarsen]

Bump.

[T'ai Chi]

Bill, have you read any of the papers, Yes or No?


I refer you and the readers of this thread to Mathworld's definition of Significance (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Significance.html).

...and I've referred you to their page on skewness (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Skewness.html)

You comment on that first.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

I have asked you this twice, and you haven't answered it. I will simple have to assume that you refuse to answer these questions:


Why do you require to know the names of 3 people who has a supernatural belief, before you would consider it worthy of testing?
The believers are not the ones creating the phenomenon, are they?
Do you have additional demands?

Since you haven't answered, there is unfortunately no way we can prevent a never-ending string of new conditions, once the old have been met.

But we can still point it out, when you do it.

[EvilYeti]

Interesting thread.

I'm a bit of a nihilist when it comes to promoting critical thinking. I feel that no matter how hard one tries it is impossible to shake an individual of religious beliefs. The individual must first make the choice themselves to open their mind to the possibility they are engaging in an irrational belief system.

So whether we ridicule them or not is irrelevant, every action is an equal waste of time. At least in this case we engage in some levity at their expense.

That said, one should be EXTRA careful when ridiculing a fictious belief system to not make any errors yourself. You'll end up losing the respect of your skeptical peers in the process. For example, I lost alot of confidence in P&T after their Bullsh!t episode on environmental hysteria. After ridiculing the leftist environmental orgs they made some trivial science-related mistakes of their own. Then followed up with junk sources to reinforce their position.

Another point I would like to make is that its not the responsibility of scientists, or anyone else, to debunk claims. The burden of proof is and always has been on the claimant! Until they can present their claim in a verifiable and repeatable manner it will remain forever anecdotal and therefore meaningless. They have to convince us, not the other way around.

I think its more productive to try and educate people to think in this manner, i.e. be skeptical by default, rather than try and tackle each and every claim individually.

[Pyrrho]

The question has come up, so I'll answer it.

Linking to an offsite web page is not a violation of any of the rules for the Critical Thinking forum, unless said web page is derogatory, etc. or violates one of the other general Forum rules.