July 2004 Issue of SkepticReport is out

[CFLarsen]

July 2004 Issue of SkepticReport is out

Articles this month:

Roger and me...
By Hans Egebo

Experimental Protocol: Therapeutic Touch
By Observatoire Zététique

Isaac Newton and Astrology
By Robert H. van Gent

The many faces of the Bagua chart
By Claus Larsen

Microcryptozoologist Stalks Quantum Fleas
By John Reese

SkepticReport.com (http://www.skepticreport.com/general/index.htm)

Enjoy!

[T'ai Chi]

I liked the tt article. You need to have more articles like this on SR, Claus. :)

"A total of 100 attempts would be undertaken. The number of successful "hits" by Mr. Z. would have to exceed 65 in order to be deemed statistically significant."

a) What was the rationale for choosing alpha = .001 ?

I don't disagree with it, or the results; just curious.


The protocol’s results, however, can be added to a succession of experiments that, since the 18th century, have never yielded a positive result. Accordingly, we can hardly claim to be surprised.


And I would be interested in seeing a meta-analysis of these experiments so we can see all the experiments as whole, instead of in isolated bits. I personally doubt it would show any statistical significance, but it would be nice to see.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

I have told you many times that questions regarding the articles must be directed at the authors.

You seem to have a hard time understanding that.

[T'ai Chi]

This is a discussion board.

I can bring up this for discussion.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
This is a discussion board.

I can bring up this for discussion.

Sure you can. But when you ask a question that only the authors can answer:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
a) What was the rationale for choosing alpha = .001 ?

then you should direct that question to the author.

Who else do you expect can answer that?

[T'ai Chi]

So when I suggest to you to ask Radin, authors of the Ganzfeld studies, etc., for specifics on their experiments and data that you constantly ask about here, you should have no problems contacting those authors, right??

FYI, you do not know if I didn't email those authors of the study. You just assume I didn't, and proceed onward, as usual.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Who else do you expect can answer that?

I brought up the question for discussion, not necessarily for answering, as you imply.

Could someone else answer it? Sure, why not? If someone has good reasons someone choosing alpha = .001 in this type of experiment, or in experiments in general, they can put them forth.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So when I suggest to you to ask Radin, authors of the Ganzfeld studies, etc., for specifics on their experiments and data that you constantly ask about here, you should have no problems contacting those authors, right??

You don't have to - I'm way ahead of you. Radin doesn't like me much, it seems - he doesn't reply to my emails. I can't understand why. Perhaps it is the email "@skepticreport.com" that has something to do with it.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
FYI, you do not know if I didn't email those authors of the study. You just assume I didn't, and proceed onward, as usual.

No, I know that you didn't email those authors of the study, because you would have absolutely no reason to ask your question here, if you had.

Don't think people are fools, T'ai Chi.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I brought up the question for discussion, not necessarily for answering, as you imply.

Could someone else answer it? Sure, why not? If someone has good reasons someone choosing alpha = .001 in this type of experiment, or in experiments in general, they can put them forth.

But it would have absolutely no relevance to the actual study. And you asked specifically to that study.

If you want a general discussion for choosing this alpha value in particular, open your own thread.

[Gregory]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Could someone else answer it? Sure, why not? If someone has good reasons someone choosing alpha = .001 in this type of experiment, or in experiments in general, they can put them forth.

Isn't .001 a pretty standard choice for alpha values? That, .01, or .05. I'd think it would be more worthy of note if an alpha value other than one of those was used.

[Nyarlathotep]

I think this was a pretty good issue. Personally, I liked the article on Newton the best. I have always wondered how much truth there was to the claims that Newton was into Alchemy and Astrology, and this article was a good starting point, I think.

THe article on the "Microcryptobiologist" gave me a good chuckel too.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I have told you many times that questions regarding the articles must be directed at the authors.



I have a question that I believe can be addressed to the author in this forum. (evil grin) The BaGua diagram derives of course from Chinese tradition and as such is "only" a translation of a very complex thought and association system. Even the name "Ba Gua" is an inaccurate translation of the name, since there are several different ways of pronouncing/spelling it.

Who did the translations that you used of the extremely metaphorical concepts that ended up as "wealth, "career," "family," and so forth? Are you looking at the effects of bad translation (of which God knows there are enough, particularly from the 18th and 19th centuries) or a real inconsistency in the underlying traditions?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by drkitten
I have a question that I believe can be addressed to the author in this forum. (evil grin)

Please follow this with a suitable "BUWAHAHAHAAAA", echoes and all... :)

Originally posted by drkitten
The BaGua diagram derives of course from Chinese tradition and as such is "only" a translation of a very complex thought and association system. Even the name "Ba Gua" is an inaccurate translation of the name, since there are several different ways of pronouncing/spelling it.

Oh, you have no idea....

Originally posted by drkitten
Who did the translations that you used of the extremely metaphorical concepts that ended up as "wealth, "career," "family," and so forth? Are you looking at the effects of bad translation (of which God knows there are enough, particularly from the 18th and 19th centuries) or a real inconsistency in the underlying traditions?

That is a good question. Given the lack of feedback from the owners of the various websites, I have to go with what I can read on the pages. I have seen very little interpretation of the various metaphors, but have noticed that "family" and "children" seem generally (judging from my subsequent studies, not just from the sites, but also whatever literature I have been able to dig up) detached - for some reason.

To me, it seems as if one can put whatever one chooses into these "concepts", as you quite accurately name them. This is nothing but a run-of-the-mill superstition, replete with references to "ancient knowledge", but without making it clear to the (paying!) customers that what the customers are paying for is nothing else but the website-owners' own version of this "ancient knowledge".

Until the proponents of this architectural fantasy are able to produce convincing evidence that their particular chart can be effectively used to improve the lives (whatever that means) of their costumers, I have no problems with making my point clear. They are frauds, they are deluded, and their bagua-charts mean nothing.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I brought up the question for discussion, not necessarily for answering, as you imply.

Could someone else answer it? Sure, why not? If someone has good reasons someone choosing alpha = .001 in this type of experiment, or in experiments in general, they can put them forth.

Stalking, stalking, stalking.
T'ai Chi, chi in his tan t'ien, follows Claus around.
Claus is annoyed, T'ai Chi delights, counts.
Even his counting is crooked.
Does the crookedness keep out the evil spirits?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jj
Stalking, stalking, stalking.
T'ai Chi, chi in his tan t'ien, follows Claus around.
Claus is annoyed, T'ai Chi delights, counts.
Even his counting is crooked.
Does the crookedness keep out the evil spirits?

Despite your lousy poetry (only Mercutio is worse, which is no praise for either of you), you do have a point.

It would be nice to see T'ai Chi for once clearly state his stance on paranormal matters, and actually engage in real, honest and open-minded debate, instead of merely taking potshots at others, and inviting people to discuss himself and his petty wars.

While tedious to point out, it nevertheless serves a purpose: T'ai Chi is not an asset to this forum, except when pointing out how a real, honest and open-minded debate should not take place.

[jj]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Despite your lousy poetry (only Mercutio is worse, which is no praise for either of you), you do have a point.

A touch! I do declare it!

[CurtC]

I liked the cryptomicrozoologist report.

[Mr. Skinny]

Claus,

I noticed in Hans' article on Coghill that he mentions the JREF message board at the beginning of the article.

I think it's common practice to spell out the meaning of an acronym the first time it is used. Some of your readers may not be familiar with this message board.

Perhaps you may want to edit the article.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny
Claus,

I noticed in Hans' article on Coghill that he mentions the JREF message board at the beginning of the article.

I think it's common practice to spell out the meaning of an acronym the first time it is used. Some of your readers may not be familiar with this message board.

Perhaps you may want to edit the article.

I hear ya. I do point to the specific thread, though.

But I'll think about a way of making it more clear.

[Mr. Skinny]

Well, I totally missed the sidebar with the link, Claus.

Guess I was too engrossed in the article. :)

[CFLarsen]

Mr. Skinny,

Better? :)

[Lucianarchy]

No. It's still a biased, tin-pot vanity site.:rs:

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
No. It's still a biased, tin-pot vanity site.:rs:

You claim it to be biased yet you refuse to submit something of your own there. If you believe it to be biased, then why don't you try to do something about the bias you perceive?

[Lucianarchy]

I have. Claus now has been given some links ( for free ) for the site. I won't hold my breath though.

[geni]

I wounder is saying that newton was not able to get to alchemy to work would be any use as an argument.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

Stalking, stalking, stalking.
T'ai Chi, chi in his tan t'ien, follows Claus around.
Claus is annoyed, T'ai Chi delights, counts.
Even his counting is crooked.
Does the crookedness keep out the evil spirits?

I don't believe in ch'i, at least not probably your conception of it, or spirits, so I couldn't tell ya.

Anyway, my questions still stand and are reasonable for anyone interested in the actual statistical issues.

I got a response back from the author and he essentially said that since the person being tested lives far away, and the trials were done in the evening, they choose .001 because of the time constraint involved, 100 trials only.

Regarding my meta-analysis question, he replied that meta-analysis is problematical because, he claims, most of the past experiments have been done using different protocols.

FYI, jj, chi and ch'i are entirely different. Ch'i is supposedly in the tan-t'ien, not chi. You should know that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I have. Claus now has been given some links ( for free ) for the site. I won't hold my breath though.

No, I won't hold my breath for you to write an article for SkepticReport. Merely passing on links is not good enough.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Anyway, my questions still stand and are reasonable for anyone interested in the actual statistical issues.

Not in this thread, please.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Not in this thread, please.

I beg to differ.

My questions were directly about articles from SR.

This thread is perfect for them, then, and I've already posted the answers I received.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I beg to differ.

My questions were directly about articles from SR.

This thread is perfect for them, then, and I've already posted the answers I received.

This thread is for discussing the contents of the articles on SkepticReport. If you want a general discussion of alpha values, take it to another thread.

I refer you to your own post:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
If someone has good reasons someone choosing alpha = .001 in this type of experiment, or in experiments in general, they can put them forth.
(Emphasis mine)

You got your answer to the first part. Now please respect the intentions of this thread.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

This thread is for discussing the contents of the articles on SkepticReport. If you want a general discussion of alpha values, take it to another thread.


The artile on your site mentioned alpha and had some statistical issues in the article.

I am going to keep discussing it, as it is on topic. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, that is fine.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The artile on your site mentioned alpha and had some statistical issues in the article.

I am going to keep discussing it, as it is on topic. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, that is fine.

Who is "discussing"? You? I don't see you discussing anything here.

All you do is ask for other people's opinions. You don't bring something to the table yourself. You are not interested in debate about issues, you are interested in attacking other people's points.

Let's see you start a discussion with something else than "What do people think of X?".

Let's see you start a discussion with "Here's my take on X:"

Go on.

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I don't believe in ch'i, at least not probably your conception of it, or spirits, so I couldn't tell ya.



My conception of it? What's that, pray tell?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I liked the tt article. I liked it as well but can't help feeling that the experiment would have been a lot more successful if the experimenters could have left a slight gap in the screen between the therapist and the subject.

[deBergerac]

I liked the article about Newton’s interest in astrology or rather his lack there of.

But actually I am a bit disappointed. I have always regarded the astrologers’ frequent use of Newton as an example of a well-known scientist who studied astrology as bad debating skill on their part.
If such a great scientist as Newton could not find solid evidence for astrology might it not be the case that astrology does not work?
The long list of scientists that made a living from astrology and the fact that it is still not accepted as a science should indicate that it simply has no merit.
The more of the great minds that have studied astrology the better it is from the sceptical point of view.

Though I suppose that there is something to be won from the quote that Newton after a brief encounter with astrology was “soon convinced of the vanity & emptiness of the pretended science of Judicial astrology”.

[nikoteen]

Hello all,

I'm one of the authors of this report about TT.

- My english is not fluent and my scientific english is even worse (which is the reason why I asked for help here to get the document translated into english).

- I have no time in order to google those days

the experiment would have been a lot more successful if the experimenters could have left a slight gap in the screen between the therapist and the subject.
Can you pleace give more details ? What you would, what would be the result and why ?

---
Nicolas Vivant

[MRC_Hans]

Hi nicoteen! That was no doubt meant as a joke. With a small gap, the "therapist" would have been much more successful in "sensing" the subject :rolleyes:.

Hans

[Lothian]

Originally posted by nikoteen
Hello all,

I'm one of the authors of this report about TT.

- My english is not fluent and my scientific english is even worse (which is the reason why I asked for help here to get the document translated into english).

- I have no time in order to google those days


Can you pleace give more details ? What you would, what would be the result and why ?

---
Nicolas Vivant Nicolas, As Hans said it was a joke.

I have no complaints about your method or the success of your experiment, well done.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

My conception of it? What's that, pray tell?

I said at least not probably your conception of it, jj. For example, you mentioned ch'i in the tan t'ien, something I don't believe.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I said at least not probably your conception of it, jj. For example, you mentioned ch'i in the tan t'ien, something I don't believe.

But to have such an opinion, you must know what jj's conception is.

If you don't know what his conception is, then your post makes no sense at all, unless it was meant as a personal attack.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I have. Claus now has been given some links ( for free ) for the site. I won't hold my breath though.

All I can say is that if :

1) I felt a publication or website was biased and

2) I held an opposing viewpoint to the bias I percieved and

3) the person responsible for the publication publicly invited me to submit an article for his publication and

4) I felt comfortable enough in my writing skills and knowledge of the subject to do so

I would jump on that invitation in a heartbeat. You seem to fill all four of those criteria, so why don't you jump on it?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

But to have such an opinion, you must know what jj's conception is.


No. I said probably. It wasn't an attack at all. Please quit your tiresome overreacting to every little thing.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

All you do is ask for other people's opinions.


Why wouldn't I ask, inquire, and question? I wouldn't tell someone about how to choose alpha = .001, because I am asking them why/how they chose it. I can come up with my own ideas, opinions, sure. But I don't want to armchair theorize, I want to know why/how they did it, so I ask.

You're the one who told me to ask the authors of the article, right? Is it consistent to then criticize me for asking?


You are not interested in debate about issues, you are interested in attacking other people's points.


I've at least raised the questions and contacted the authors, and reported their answers here. That is being interested in the actual issues.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Lothian
I liked it as well but can't help feeling that the experiment would have been a lot more successful if the experimenters could have left a slight gap in the scren between the therapist and the subject.

LOL. :)

Yeah, I really liked the experiment. It was very well done.

I would be interested in the possibility of a meta-analysis if data from similar binary experiments with good controls could be located.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
No. I said probably. It wasn't an attack at all. Please quit your tiresome overreacting to every little thing.

So, what did you think his conception is?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Why wouldn't I ask, inquire, and question? I wouldn't tell someone about how to choose alpha = .001, because I am asking them why/how they chose it. I can come up with my own ideas, opinions, sure. But I don't want to armchair theorize, I want to know why/how they did it, so I ask.

No, you did not merely ask the authors, you wanted to turn it into a general discussion about alpha values. Only I don't see any discussion from you.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You're the one who told me to ask the authors of the article, right? Is it consistent to then criticize me for asking?

What are you going to do with that information? You want to discuss alpha values?

What is your take on alpha values? What made you ask your question? Why did you bring this up?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, what did you think his conception is?


He mentioned ch'i in the tan-t'ien, so he can tell us if he wants to.


What made you ask your question? Why did you bring this up?

The authors didn't mention in their article why they choose it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
He mentioned ch'i in the tan-t'ien, so he can tell us if he wants to.

I'm sure he will, if he wants to. However, you had an idea what it was. Please tell us, so we can understand why you made your post.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The authors didn't mention in their article why they choose it.

Fair enough. What is your take on alpha values?

[jj]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I said at least not probably your conception of it, jj. For example, you mentioned ch'i in the tan t'ien, something I don't believe.

So what's my conception of it? For that matter, what are you asserting I think "it" is.

I know a lot about the bible, too, T'ai Cheat, but that doesn't mean I believe a word of it.

[jj]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If you don't know what his conception is, then your post makes no sense at all, unless it was meant as a personal attack.

Well, to give him some credit, he's claiming he can isolate a difference between what I said and what he believes. Of course, that kind of nitpicking ignores the scorn aspect of what I said, and is pure disingenuity, and we all know that, BUT the last part of your sentence is, I think, dead on.

[jj]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I'm sure he will, if he wants to. However, you had an idea what it was.


Now, Claus, that could be the problem, eh?


Please tell us, so we can understand why you made your post.



Fair enough. What is your take on alpha values?

Alphaville was an interesting movie, entertainmentwise, I suppose.

[Chemical_Penguin]

Oh wow, a free skeptic e-zine?! Man where have I been?

Good work CFLarsen!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

What is your take on alpha values?

My views an alphas in general, or how I think the authors chose it?

If it is the latter, I can't read minds, and the authors already explained why.

If the former, you'll have to be more specific with your question.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

So what's my conception of it? For that matter, what are you asserting I think "it" is.


I don't know, and I'm not. I said at least not probably your conception of it, jj.

I'll leave it up to you to inform us what you meant by your poem if you wish. You wrote it, you can explain what you meant by it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Chemical_Penguin
Oh wow, a free skeptic e-zine?! Man where have I been?

Good work CFLarsen!

Thank you! :)

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
My views an alphas in general, or how I think the authors chose it?

If it is the latter, I can't read minds, and the authors already explained why.

If the former, you'll have to be more specific with your question.

It seems you have a reading problem. I specifically asked for your take. Not what anyone else thought.

Just explain what you think of alpha values. Don't stall, don't evade. Just answer the question.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Just explain what you think of alpha values. Don't stall, don't evade. Just answer the question.

And I asked you what do you mean? What do you mean what do I think about alpha values? Your question is incredibly vague.

As I said, "If the former, you'll have to be more specific with your question." Don't expect me to answer until you tighten up your question by making it not so vague. You've essentially asked me what I think in general about a statistical concept.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
And I asked you what do you mean? What do you mean what do I think about alpha values? Your question is incredibly vague.

As I said, "If the former, you'll have to be more specific with your question." Don't expect me to answer until you tighten up your question by making it not so vague. You've essentially asked me what I think in general about a statistical concept.

Look, you were the one who wanted a general discussion on alpha values. Let's hear what you have to say about it.

[Ceinwyn]

CFLarsen: Tell us what you mean Tai Chi.

Tai Chi: What I mean? What do you mean?

jj: Yes, in that last post, what was your basis for blah de blah?

Tai Chi: Basis? What basis?

Everybody else: Hey Tai Chi, do you ever just answer a fu**ing question?

Tai Chi: Question? There was a question? I think that posters here don't understand questions, they just like to badger people, know what I mean? Do you? Huh?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
CFLarsen: Tell us what you mean Tai Chi.

Tai Chi: What I mean? What do you mean?

jj: Yes, in that last post, what was your basis for blah de blah?

Tai Chi: Basis? What basis?

Everybody else: Hey Tai Chi, do you ever just answer a fu**ing question?

Tai Chi: Question? There was a question? I think that posters here don't understand questions, they just like to badger people, know what I mean? Do you? Huh?

Exactly.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Look, you were the one who wanted a general discussion on alpha values.

Uh, no. My question was very specific: "What was the rationale for choosing alpha = .001".

Since the author has answered it.. why are you still droning on?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
CFLarsen: Tell us what you mean Tai Chi.

Tai Chi: What I mean? What do you mean?

jj: Yes, in that last post, what was your basis for blah de blah?

Tai Chi: Basis? What basis?

Everybody else: Hey Tai Chi, do you ever just answer a fu**ing question?

Tai Chi: Question? There was a question? I think that posters here don't understand questions, they just like to badger people, know what I mean? Do you? Huh?

Ceinwyn, I asked a very specific question about why the authors chose the alpha value they did in the paper, then Claus asks me a vague question about what I think about alpha. If he made his question more specific, I'd try and answer it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Uh, no. My question was very specific: "What was the rationale for choosing alpha = .001".

Since the author has answered it.. why are you still droning on?

Uh, yes:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
If someone has good reasons someone choosing alpha = .001 in this type of experiment, or in experiments in general, they can put them forth.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I am going to keep discussing it, as it is on topic. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion, that is fine.

So, do you want to have a general discussion about alpha values or not?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Ceinwyn, I asked a very specific question about why the authors chose the alpha value they did in the paper, then Claus asks me a vague question about what I think about alpha. If he made his question more specific, I'd try and answer it.

Again, you were the one who wanted a general discussion on alpha values.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, do you want to have a general discussion about alpha values or not?


"If you want a general discussion of alpha values, take it to another thread."

You don't, but yet you continue on?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Again, you were the one who wanted a general discussion on alpha values.

And as I've said, what are you specifically asking me about alpha values? What do you mean when you ask 'what is your take' on alpha values? I could write a book on that, so you'll have to be more specific, please. What about alpha values specifically, Claus.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

If you want a discussion about alpha values, nobody is holding you back. Go on, let's hear your opening statement.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If you want a discussion about alpha values, nobody is holding you back. Go on, let's hear your opening statement.

Claus please, you'll have to be more specific. What about alphas specifically are you asking me about? You are essentially asking me something like 'what do you think about the number 5?'

Are you asking me why I think the authors chose alpha = .001? I've already got their response, so there is no need for me to put forth my belief about that.

"If you want a general discussion of alpha values, take it to another thread."

I guess you changed your mind... ?

You may ask me specific questions about alphas, but not this general 'let's hear your take' stuff, and I'll be happy to respond.

[CFLarsen]

Still no opening statement. You still want input from others, before you start chipping away at that, while refusing to state anything yourself.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Who is "discussing"? You? I don't see you discussing anything here.

All you do is ask for other people's opinions. You don't bring something to the table yourself. You are not interested in debate about issues, you are interested in attacking other people's points.

Let's see you start a discussion with something else than "What do people think of X?".

Let's see you start a discussion with "Here's my take on X:"

Go on.

Damn, I hate being right all the time...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Still no opening statement.


*sigh* Oepning statement about what exactly?

"If you want a general discussion of alpha values, take it to another thread."

I guess you changed your mind... ?

You may ask me specific questions about alphas, but not this general 'let's hear your take' stuff, and I'll be happy to respond.

[Brickroad]

How many months in a row now has T'ai Chi successfully derailed the SkepticReport thread? :rolleyes:

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Still no opening statement. You still want input from others, before you start chipping away at that, while refusing to state anything yourself.



Damn, I hate being right all the time...


Wow, you two are funny :)

Let's try this:

T'ai, how would you pick alpha values for that study?

(Surely you two actually intend to go somewhere with this?)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Brickroad
How many months in a row now has T'ai Chi successfully derailed the SkepticReport thread? :rolleyes:

How can one "derail" a thread thats opening posts just lists articles and their titles, by asking questions about the content of one of the articles listed?

:)

That's what happened the July 04 thread.

The June 04 thread I didn't even post in.

The May 04, yes, one can claim, with evidence, I derailed that one by posting nothing of substance in my opening post.

The April 04 thread I posted in a handful of times, not even the 2nd poster in the thread, and didn't derail it.

The March 04 thread I posted, again, directly about an article that was advertised..

The February 04 thread, ditto. I talked about an article on the site.

The January 04 thread? Nope. I didn't post in it.

The December 03 thread? I posted several times, didn't derail.

The September 03 thread? Nope. I didn't post in it.

The March 03 thread? Nope. I didn't post in it.

So to answer your question of: "How many months in a row now has T'ai Chi successfully derailed the SkepticReport thread?", with actual evidence: 0 times in a row, and only 1 time in the past.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by flyboy217

T'ai, how would you pick alpha values for that study?


Wow!! That is a specific question! Please learn this skill, Clauzzz.

There is only one value, not values.

But anyway, I'd pick it low, because the claim being tested goes against what is understood by science on how the world works, etc., so we'd want to be sure it significant results aren't due to chance but to skill. .001 seems reasonable, or even to go lower.

I'd like to have seen this test repeated, and I hope it will be in the future.

[Cleopatra]

Awww the pleasures of summer. Waking up early in the morning, grabbing a mug of coffee and a bowl of cherries and enjoying Skeptic Report in the garden.

July's issue is very good Claus congratulations!I'd say that it's the most interesting issue of the last months.

Hans great article.I am mentining you in particular because I followed the thread of Bioelectromagnetics from start.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Wow!! That is a specific question! Please learn this skill, Clauzzz.

You are doing yourself a great disservice by resorting to this infantile name-calling. You sound like a 4-year old. But, hey, it's your choice...

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
There is only one value, not values.

But anyway, I'd pick it low, because the claim being tested goes against what is understood by science on how the world works, etc., so we'd want to be sure it significant results aren't due to chance but to skill. .001 seems reasonable, or even to go lower.

I'd like to have seen this test repeated, and I hope it will be in the future.

........that's it? That's your idea of opening a discussion on alpha values?

No wonder you always wait for others to start.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Awww the pleasures of summer. Waking up early in the morning, grabbing a mug of coffee and a bowl of cherries and enjoying Skeptic Report in the garden.

....nursing a heavy case of hangover, too, from all those post-soccer parties...?

Originally posted by Cleopatra
July's issue is very good Claus congratulations!I'd say that it's the most interesting issue of the last months.

Thank you. We try... :)

[Yahweh]

I very much enjoyed Han's article. Although I possess much knowledge in the art of sleeping and making delicious sandwiches, I know next to nothing in electricity or magnetism (what is a galvanic field by the way?). Some material I could readily identify and understand, but for a great deal of the article I am quite happy with Han's annotation and explanations.

An usual choice, but for some reason I think I like that Microcryptozoologist article, it read almost as satire.
For greater readability, Markbotch says, he avoids the use of upper-case letters and punctuation.
:D :D :D

[Stitch]

I concur, the "Microcrypto-
zoologist Stalks Quantum Fleas" article was outstanding it had me in fits of laughter.