Global Consciousness Project

[digitalis]

Greetings I am soliciting skeptical comments about this website.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Supposedly random number generators aren't random during periods of strong emotion or something. It says that events such as 9/11 have a physical and mesurable effect.

It seems like science. I guess? Could this be real or is someone making a joke? I saw this first on TV and I'm totally clueless. I need sage advice. Thank you in advance.

C. Redding

[Dragon]

You could start with this Skeptic Report article (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radin2002.htm), by our own Claus Larsen.

[jmercer]

Good article. I'll bet that anyone could assign a signficant event to any spike, as long as it's a global coverage.

Something important's going on somewhere in the world at almost every moment, and since these "eggs" supposedly preface an event (apparently up to an hour is ok, according to the published results - although most of them are at 15 minutes.)

And if, by chance, there's no event you can point to... well... "I don't know why it spiked."

:D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Dragon
You could start with this Skeptic Report article (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radin2002.htm), by our own Claus Larsen.

Or, since that article is just testimony, and doesn't mention statistics at all, which is the very basis of understanding the project, I'd recommend reading the project's website first.

[jmercer]

I did. Want to see the criteria for choosing events?


In keeping with the exploratory nature of the experiment, there is not a unique criterion for accepting proposals as global events. Event selection is subjective and is guided by experience and consultation. Most events are considered global because they involve the attention or activity of many people around the world and figure prominently in news reports. Thus, a local event such as a natural disaster can be considered global if it gains global attention. Other criteria are used. A few astrological events are accepted because of their non-local (therefore, global) character. Certain prayers and meditations that involve relatively modest numbers of people are accepted because there is a global intention such as world peace.


Ok, so lets see. "There is not a unique criterion for accepting proposals as global events", hmm? "Event selection is subjective"... uh, huh... that's scientific... "a local event ... can be considered global because they ... figure prominently in news reports."

How about "A few astrological events are accepted", and "Certain prayers and meditations that involve relatively modest numbers of people are accepted..."

In other words, "If we have a spike, we can assign mathematical relevance to the spike by picking anything we want."

You can prove ANYTHING if your accepted data is completely arbitrary - and that's exactly what they're doing. Seeing a spike and picking something to support their "research". :D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jmercer

In other words, "If we have a spike, we can assign mathematical relevance to the spike by picking anything we want."


Where did that quote come from?


You can prove ANYTHING if your accepted data is completely arbitrary - and that's exactly what they're doing.


They said what constitutes the selection of an event is arbitrary, not the analysis and etc.

[jmercer]

The first sentence beginning with "If we have a spike..." isn't a quote. I put it into quotation marks because I wanted to highlight it as a summary (or perhaps paraphrase) of my POV. I probably should have simply said this is a summary of how I view what they did, instead. So, to clear things up, here's a re-stated summary of my view on it after reading the information on their website:

If they have a spike, they can assign mathematical relevance to the spike by picking any event they want, as long as it happened within 1 hour or less of the spike. (And even some events that are impossible to prove the timing of are included, like random prayer by "relatively modest numbers of people"!)

Regarding your second comment about the selection of the event being arbitrary, but not the analysis... the fundamental hypothesis of this project is that significant events in the world affect random number generators.

By making the definition of significant events completely arbitrary, they are forcing the statistical evidence to support the hypthothesis and it's conclusion.

It's an utterly flawed experiment, deliberately using complex statistical jargon to hide the fact that the data has been intentionally manipulated to achieve a desired outcome.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jmercer

If they have a spike, they can assign mathematical relevance to the spike by picking any event they want, as long as it happened within 1 hour or less of the spike.

They choose the events a priori as far as I am aware.

[RichardR]

From Roger Nelson, Director, GCP (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html)

I want to acknowledge that I like the notion of Global Consciousness, but that this idea is really an aesthetic speculation. I don't think we have real grounds to claim that the statistics and graphs representing the data prove the existence of a global consciousness.

That from the director of the project. What else do you need to know?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by jzs
They choose the events a priori as far as I am aware. I doubt they chose 9/11 a priori.

Funnily enough, the 9/11 spike started (from memory) 2 hours before the attacks and disappeared an hour after. IOW, it was unrelated to the attack.

[jmercer]

I saw no statement about the events being chosen a priori. Where did you see that documented, jzs? And even so - since they control the set of applicable events and can expand it to include anything - I still don't see how choosing one a priori would change what I said.

I will admit this, though - without speculating as to why, it's intriguing that a series of random number generators would "spike" that frequently over a period of time, no matter what the cause.

Granted, there's really no such thing as a true random number generator and yes - statistically speaking, spikes will occur - but this seems like an awful lot of them.

They don't say what the mechanism of the RNG is. All RNG's use a "seed" value to begin their generation from - hopefully they were intelligent enough to use a wide range of seeds. If they did use a wide range, then the "spikes" really are interesting. If not, then using a single seed is a likely culprit for the explanation.

RichardR, thanks for finding that quote... pretty much puts the whole thing in it's proper place. :)

[DangerousBeliefs]

I particularly like how they choose events which clearly had NO global influence and most people in the world both did not know they happened NOR cared.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/turkeytrain.html

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/60secsforpeace.html

So just a couple of thousand people can affect the EGGs? Wouldn't they be popping like popcorn every few minutes?

More goofy "find the hits, please they have to be there!"...

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/results.html

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by RichardR
From Roger Nelson, Director, GCP (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/terror.html)

That from the director of the project. What else do you need to know?

I interpret that to mean he is being cautious in his comments by saying they don't prove the existence. He's not saying that they aren't evidence for the existence.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jmercer
I saw no statement about the events being chosen a priori.


It depends on the event. For regularly scheduled things, like New Years, or Christmas, or similar things.


They don't say what the mechanism of the RNG is.


They do here. (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/reg.html)


RichardR, thanks for finding that quote... pretty much puts the whole thing in it's proper place. :)


If he included what came directly after that quote, you'd see that the director was being cautious in his comments by saying that it doesn't prove a global consciousness, but is evidence.

The full quote


I want to acknowledge that I like the notion of Global Consciousness, but that this idea is really an aesthetic speculation. I don't think we have real grounds to claim that the statistics and graphs representing the data prove the existence of a global consciousness. On the other hand, we do have strong evidence of anomalous structure in what should be random data, and clear correlations of these unexplained departures from expectation with well-defined events that are of special importance to people.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by jzs
If he included what came directly after that quote, you'd see that the director was being cautious in his comments by saying that it doesn't prove a global consciousness, but is evidence. Yes, but only "evidence of anomalous structure in what should be random data", not evidence of global consciousness. Even if the date weren't cherry picked (which they are), correlation is not causation. They have found nothing, really. What a waste of time.

[jmercer]

Thank you again, RichardR, for beating me to it. :) And jzs, the arbitrary nature of what they've chosen to correlate the spikes to makes it trivial to create the illusion of significance.

Regarding your responses to me, jzs:

"It depends on the event" when speaking of choosing things "a priori" simply adds to the arbitrary nature of what they did. There's no consistency.

Thanks for pointing out the mechanism. Since all three RNG types use the same mechanism ("All three use quantum-indeterminate electronic noise"), and there's an unusual number of simultaneous (or near-simultaneous) spikes... I find this a fascinating bit of information. Perhaps quantum-indeterminate electronic noise isn't quite as random as everyone thinks.

Assuming that the spikes aren't statistical artifacts of some kind, trying to link it to some global consciousness nonsense may be obscuring something more fundamentally interesting about our universe.

[Ed]

If you read thru their drek you will find that RNG's are not effected by distance, time, mass of people or intent. That is to say that no control is possible. To explain the effect they must posit these characteristics, if these charactaristics are posited there is nothing.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by RichardR
Yes, but only "evidence of anomalous structure in what should be random data", not evidence of global consciousness.

Evidence of anomalous structure in what should be random data ... which correspond to certain events.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed
If you read thru their drek you will find that RNG's are not effected by distance, time, mass of people or intent. That is to say that no control is possible. To explain the effect they must posit these characteristics, if these charactaristics are posited there is nothing.

Since you have read through the drek, could you show us where they say that the RNG's are not effected by distance, time, mass of people or intent?

And what would a control be in this case, Ed?

[Ed]

Originally posted by jzs
Since you have read through the drek, could you show us where they say that the RNG's are not effected by distance, time, mass of people or intent?

And what would a control be in this case, Ed?

No, I won't read thru it again. Do a search and find one of the many threads here that discuss it.

Some direct quotes are here, do a search:

“These anomalies can be demonstrated with the operators located up to thousands of miles from the laboratory, exerting their efforts hours before or after the actual operation of the devices.�

Distance is not a factor.

These random devices also respond to group activities of larger numbers of people, even when they are unaware of the machine's presence.

Intent is not a factor


Such cumulative deviation graphs are found to be quite operator specific
and hence are referred to as "signatures." Figure 4 shows such signatures for
a few of the many other operators working on this same experiment. Some
operators achieve PK results in only one direction, some in neither, some in
both, and some show inverted results. The PK+ and PK- achievement pattern

Pixie mixa did a deconstruction which I quote in full:

"I've been reading two of the PEAR papers:

Information and Uncertainty: 25 Years of Remote Perception Research and
Evidence for Consciousness-Related Anomalies in Random Physical Systems

I haven't finished yet; the latter paper is only sixteen pages but contains statistical analysis which requires checking, while the former is 74 pages and is heavy on jargon. I can at this point raise a few concerns:

In Evidence for Consciousness:

1. Several key figures are missing from the paper. This may have occurred when it was prepared for the web; whatever the reason, it means the paper is seriously flawed as it stands.
2. The paper discusses a methodology for judging the quality of a parapsychological experiment, and then moves on to drawing conclusions based on this evaluation. The actual results of this evaluation are nowhere to be found.
3. The paper focuses on three studies; the one it finds most interesting is a study performed by Jahn and Dunne. Jahn and Dunne are colleagues of the authors of this paper and have published a number of joint papers. Curiously, the authors, Radin and Nelson, neglect to mention this, even though you find one of these papers referenced in the footnotes.Quite frankly, if the paper had been submitted for publication in this form, any conscientious referee would have rejected it.

With Information and Uncertainty, the problems are slightly different. Even in the abstract we are bombarded with jargon; for a moment I thought I was reading Alan Sokal's Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity again.

quote: The possibility that this increased emphasis on objective quantification of the phenomenon somehow may have inhibited its inherently subjective expression is explored in the contexts of contemporary signal processing technologies and ancient divination traditions.

Well, many scientific papers are hard to read; this is not to say they may not be valuable. But one soon begins to wonder if the experimenters are deliberately trying to produce bad science:

quote: The agents, who in all the formal experiments were known to the percipients...

In other words, the test was not blinded in any way.

quote: While no explicit tactical instructions were given, an attitude of playfulness was encouraged and emphasis was placed on enjoyment of the experience, rather than on achievement per se.

Playfulness having been well-demonstrated as a useful experimental too.

quote: No systematic records were maintained on the relative effectiveness of the various personal strategies deployed by the participants in their approach to the task, or on any of their psychological or physiological characteristics.

Not keeping records also being a popular tool of experimental science.

Here's a doozy:

quote: Furthermore, although limiting the extracted information to the 30 specified binary descriptors minimized the reporting task for the participants, it precluded utilization of other potentially relevant information in the transcripts, such as specific colors, textures, architectures, or any other details not covered by the questions. These shortcomings were partially offset by the continued requirement that percipients first generate free-response descriptions from which the descriptor responses were then derived. In this way, the data were preserved in a format suitable for subsequent human judge evaluation as a complementary method of assessment; it also was intended to retain the spontaneity of the PRP experience. Nonetheless, it became evident that after several experiences with the descriptor utilization, many participants tended to limit their attention and descriptions to those features that they now knew were specific to the questions. Despite these acknowledged limitations, the program continued to collect additional data, and also instituted means of assessing the effectiveness of the individual descriptors in constructing the scores. This was accomplished by incorporating a variety of subroutines into the scoring algorithms that compounded descriptor performance in the form of sums of the number of the times each descriptor was correctly answered “yes� and how many times it was correctly answered “no,� again adjusted for a priori probabilities of occurrence.

In other words, the experiment was not proceeding the way the experimenters wished, so they changed the rules and kept going! Then things start to get really bad:

quote: The failure of the FIDO experiments to enhance the declining PRP yield prompted the PEAR researchers to look elsewhere for the source of the problem. One of the laboratory’s human/machine studies had indicated that operator pairs of opposite sex, working together with a shared intention, produced stronger effects than same-sex pairs or individual operators. This, in turn, had led to a comprehensive examination of nine of PEAR’s human/machine databases, which were found to display significant gender-related differences in individual operator performance.

The old grasping-at-straws approach, as exemplified by Galileo and Milliken.

quote: Although there was reasonably good agreement among the six scoring recipes, the overall results of these distributive data were totally indistinguishable from chance, despite the fact that from an impressionistic standpoint several of the individual trials appeared to be successful.

In other words: nothing was happening, even though it looked like it was if you had no understanding of probability or experimental method.

quote: The substantial difference between the yields of the ex post facto and ab initio data, however, did raise some concern that the former, on which the descriptor questions and methodology initially had been based, could have introduced a spurious score inflation into the composite database.

But, even with these concerns:

quote: Given the systematic deterioration of the experimental yield,

that is, as they tightened the experimental protocol, the number of positive hits dropped off

quote: further generation of data was suspended pending a clearer understanding of the underlying problem. Our approach to this challenge was to return to the original ex post facto data, which had survived the onslaught of a battery of human judges and an armada of analytical methods without appreciable damage, and use it as a basis for comparing the relative effectiveness of the various encoding and analytical techniques on the apparent yield of a given set of trials.
Since the high-quality data doesn't bear out their expectations, they decide to use to low-quality data instead. They also seem to be surprised that subjectivity affects the result:

quote: If anything, the subjectivity inherent in the distributive encoding actually appeared to be confounding the experimental yield without benefit to the analytical process.

Or possibly not. Can anyone tell me with any certainty what that sentence is supposed to mean?

quote: It also is curious that these three judges agreed on the correct match of only one of the 31 trials.

Yes, "curious" is one term for this result. Here's the worst I've found so far:

quote: The evidence acquired in the early remote perception trials had raised profound questions in the minds of the PEAR researchers, similar, no doubt, to those of the countless others who, over the course of history, had experienced first-hand the validity of Paracelsus’ remarkable claim.

This simply has no place in anything purporting to be a scientific paper. But despite this alarming bit of brain-failure, they proceed:

quote: The possibility that ordinary individuals can acquire information about distant events by these means, even before they take place, challenges some of the most fundamental premises of the prevailing scientific world view. Yet, difficult as it may be at times, the true spirit of science requires humility in the face of experimental evidence, even when, or especially when, that evidence suggests that our existing models of reality may be wrong, or at least incomplete.

In other words, they are assuming the existence of the effect they have set out to test. This is not generally regarded as helpful. Actually, maybe the "Paracelsus" quote wasn' the worst. Here's something that brought me up short:

quote: Yet, like so much of the research in consciousness-related anomalies, replication, enhancement, and interpretation of these results proved elusive. As the program advanced and the analytical techniques became more sophisticated, the empirical results became weaker. It appeared as if each subsequent refinement of the analytical process, intended to improve the quality and reliability of the “information net,� had resulted in a reduction of the amount of raw information being captured. This diminution of the experimental yield prompted extensive examination of numerous factors that could have contributed to it, but after exploring and precluding various possible sources of statistical or procedural artifact, we concluded that the cause of the problem most likely lay somewhere in the subjective sphere of the experience.



In other words:

1. We performed an experiment with lousy controls and indifferent analytical methods and got a strong positive result.
2. Every time we tighten the controls or refine the analysis, the result gets statistically weaker.
3. Therefore the problem lies "somewhere in the subjective speher of the experience".

I dunno. Ya think? You don't think it may indicate that the positive results are somehow related to poor experimental control and poor analytical methods? Evidently not:

quote: As we pondered this paradox, we became cognizant of a number of subtler, less quantifiable factors that also might have had an inhibitory effect on the experiments, such as the laboratory ambience in which the experiments were being conducted. For example, during the period in which the FIDO data were being generated, we were distracted by the need to invest a major effort in preparing a rebuttal to an article critical of PEAR’s PRP program. Most of the issues raised therein were irrelevant, incorrect, or already had been dealt with comprehensively elsewhere, and had been shown to be inadequate to account for the observed effects. Notwithstanding, preparation of a systematic refutation deflected a disproportionate amount of attention from, and dampened the enthusiasm for, the experiments being carried out during that time. Beyond this, in order to forestall further such specious challenges, it led to the imposition of additional unnecessary constraints in the design of the subsequent distributive protocol. Although it is not possible to quantify the influence of such intangible factors, in the study of consciousness-related anomalies where unknown psychological factors appear to be at the heart of the phenomena under study, they cannot be dismissed casually. Neither can they be interpreted easily.

In other words: while we were busy addressing our previous stuff-ups, our latest experiment went to Hell. Further, tight experimental control places "unnecessary constraints" on our research, and this "intangible factor" is inhibiting the "phenomena under study" .No, look, I'm sorry, you're wrong. If this is supposed to be an example of good parapsychology, the bad stuff must be truly mind-boggling!

__________________Read my shiny new blog! It's still utterly pointless and boring, but it looks much nicer. Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
12-13-2002 08:56 PM"


Frankly, a paper (or papers) as willfully opaque as the ones produced in connection with this work are an embaressment.


I have no idea how you control for anything given their charactarization of the nature of the effect.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by jzs
Evidence of anomalous structure in what should be random data ... which correspond to certain events. When the so-called “anomalous� data are cherry picked they are meaningless. Check out how the data are chosen, and what "anomalous data" are ignored. And even then, they don’t match the events. Check out 9/11 – the “anomalous data� were observed 2 hours before the first attack, and ended one our after it.

And even if they weren’t cherry picked, “anomalous� just means “deviating from the normal�. Until you know why they deviate from the normal, the results are meaningless. You are trying to draw conclusions from a lack of knowledge – you can’t do that, I’m afraid.

[jmercer]

Well said, RichardR and Ed. :)

[Ed]

Originally posted by jmercer
Well said, RichardR and Ed. :)

Thank you on behalf of RichardR (who could not be here this evening due to a prior engagement) and myself.

Princeton does come across like a NJ oil for food deal on this one. Wonder how many dollars that I could have fruitfully used for my own hobbies were spent on this tripe.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed
Wonder how many dollars that I could have fruitfully used for my own hobbies were spent on this tripe.

What the $ spent on the Global Consciousness Project (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/) has to do with your hobbies is beyond me. :)

Since they make their data available for analysis, has any skeptical group, organization, or individual, actually analysed their data? I know May, Spottiswoode, Scargle, and several others, have written skeptical articles, articles where they actually analyze the GCP data, but has anyone else?

To return to


If you read thru their drek you will find that RNG's are not effected by distance, time, mass of people or intent.


I found a presentation on the GCP site (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/pdf/GCP.SSE.04.pres.pdf) that says that

-there is modest evidence that closer eggs show bigger effect

and

-the number of people paying attention has a substantial effect

[Ed]

Originally posted by jzs
What the $ spent on the Global Consciousness Project (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/) has to do with your hobbies is beyond me. :)

Since they make their data available for analysis, has any skeptical group, organization, or individual, actually analysed their data? I know May, Spottiswoode, Scargle, and several others, have written skeptical articles, articles where they actually analyze the GCP data, but has anyone else?

To return to



I found a presentation on the GCP site (http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/pdf/GCP.SSE.04.pres.pdf) that says that

-there is modest evidence that closer eggs show bigger effect

and

-the number of people paying attention has a substantial effect [/B]

It appears that both their data and their writeups are, how shall I put it, plastic perhaps. Like the bible, we can find alternate points of view that are contrdictory and we can support them with scripture. Does this sound like science to you?

[Zep]

FYI, I wrote a Skeptic Report article last year on PEAR's 25 Years of Research paper.

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/shapesintheclouds.htm

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed
It appears that both their data and their writeups are, how shall I put it, plastic perhaps. Like the bible, we can find alternate points of view that are contrdictory and we can support them with scripture. Does this sound like science to you?

The Bible doesn't sound like science, I agree.

I'll repeat my main question

Since they make their data available for analysis, has any skeptical group, organization, or individual, actually analysed their data? I know May, Spottiswoode, Scargle, and several others, have written skeptical articles, articles where they actually analyze the GCP data, but has anyone else?

[Ed]

Originally posted by jzs
The Bible doesn't sound like science, I agree.

I'll repeat my main question

Since they make their data available for analysis, has any skeptical group, organization, or individual, actually analysed their data? I know May, Spottiswoode, Scargle, and several others, have written skeptical articles, articles where they actually analyze the GCP data, but has anyone else?

No idea. Why would one wish to spend the time? Where would one start? What defines an "event", a priori? What would be a suitable control given the somewhat mystical nature of the effect? What, specifically, defines an "effect", a priori? Would the period immediately preceeding and "event" serve? Suppose there is an "effect" there too? Do we say there is no "effect" or do we posit "precognition"?

Define a null hypothesis and then we can discuss it further. Failing that, you have your answer.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by jzs
The Bible doesn't sound like science, I agree.

I'll repeat my main question

Since they make their data available for analysis, has any skeptical group, organization, or individual, actually analysed their data? I know May, Spottiswoode, Scargle, and several others, have written skeptical articles, articles where they actually analyze the GCP data, but has anyone else?

You know, jzs, that's a wonderful point. Given the amazing claim, why wouldn't other universities or scientific organizations jump on the bandwagon? I mean - if true - this would be a bombshell in the scientific community! Why hasn't this happened?

And there's no need for the EGG Project to passively wait for someone to do this. All they need to do is write a submission for publication in one of the many academic scientific forums, which is the established and usual way to announce scientific findings. (In fact, most scientists feel a great pressure to publish as soon as possible - or they risk their discoveries being credited to someone else in their field.)

The paper would be peer-reviewed prior to publication, and if no obvious flaw in the procedure, math, etc., is found, the paper would then published for the scientific community to read and review independently.

Even preliminary results - when startling enough - are often published with disclaimers about the "rawness" of the information in this fashion. And I would think that potential proof of "global consciousness" would meet the criteria of startling news, wouldn't you?

Obviously, the lack of willingness to publish for peer review isn't due to any kind of attempt at secrecy. So, what could it be - lack of data?

Well, a lack of data being the motivation doesn't seem reasonable. They've been collecting and analyzing data since August of 1998... almost 53 months ago. And they're obviously willing to draw conclusions in public based on their data... Also, they have a comprehensive web-site, and are offering their data upon request.

Could it be because the structure they cite in their data is an artifact of the process, rather than a reflection of information from the data? You know, like we've been saying all along here?

Yep, that's it, all right. :D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jmercer
I mean - if true - this would be a bombshell in the scientific community! Why hasn't this happened?


If true. It might not be true. That is why study is needed; to provide evidence either way, wherever it may lead.


Could it be because the structure they cite in their data is an artifact of the process, rather than a reflection of information from the data?


It certainly could be, yes. In fact, it is know that looking at cumulative things (means, etc.) adds structure to things, structure that is not in the data, but that artifically added from the cumulative process.


You know, like we've been saying all along here?


Just saying it and claiming to be right doesn't amount to much. You have to show your work for it to count.

[CFLarsen]

jzs,

What is the null hypothesis for GCP?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed
No idea. Why would one wish to spend the time?


To like be skeptical and stuff, I suppose actually analyzing the data is a good start.


What defines an "event", a priori?


If I were them, and maybe they have done this, I don't know, I'd start just looking only at events that we know are going to happen at a certain knowable time: New Years, an Innaguration, someone's birthday or anniversary of it, the known date of an implosion of a famous building, anniversary of some horrible or good event, dates of the full moon, and so on, and specify a window of time for each event that is the same for all events, say 10 min before and 10 min after, or whatever.


What would be a suitable control given ...


They resample from non-specified data to get a control distribution.


What, specifically, defines an "effect", a priori?


Say a p-value that is below a certain amount, say, .001 ? Maybe lower?


Suppose there is an "effect" there too? Do we say there is no "effect" or do we posit "precognition"?


I'd say no effect if it falls outside of the prespecified window. But we have to be careful. We can calculate how many significant spikes we expect to see for a given window, so the number of spikes in that window, to be significant, should a) exist, and b) be greater than the expected number to a point of being improbable at a certain level.


Define a null hypothesis and then we can discuss it further. Failing that, you have your answer.

Having p-values implies they have a null hypothesis.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What is the null hypothesis for GCP?

I won't do your work for you.


Hey, you wrote an article about it. Shouldn't you know?

[Ed]

Oh God. It's Tai whoosie face.

Where IS your analysis of the transcripts?


Originally posted by jzs


To like be skeptical and stuff, I suppose actually analyzing the data is a good start.

[/b]

If I were them, and maybe they have done this, I don't know, I'd start just looking only at events that we know are going to happen at a certain knowable time: New Years, an Innaguration, someone's birthday or anniversary of it, the known date of an implosion of a famous building, anniversary of some horrible or good event, dates of the full moon, and so on, and specify a window of time for each event that is the same for all events, say 10 min before and 10 min after, or whatever.

[/b]

They resample from non-specified data to get a control distribution.

[/b]

Say a p-value that is below a certain amount, say, .001 ? Maybe lower?

[/b]

I'd say no effect if it falls outside of the prespecified window. But we have to be careful. We can calculate how many significant spikes we expect to see for a given window, so the number of spikes in that window, to be significant, should a) exist, and b) be greater than the expected number to a point of being improbable at a certain level.



Having p-values implies they have a null hypothesis. [/B]

[jmercer]

Originally posted by jzs
If true. It might not be true. That is why study is needed; to provide evidence either way, wherever it may lead.


Not if the flaw in the methodology is so obvious that there's no need to do the research - which is exactly what I and others have maintained throughout this thread. And I noticed that you totally ignored the main point of my post - why haven't they published their findings for peer review?

That's the absolute best way to get further study done. There's a saying in science and academia - "Publish or perish". Aside from being able to claim the discovery rights to something, publishing successfully (without being found wrong) about something as fundamentally new as Global Conciousness would be would ensure more funding for EGG and the replication of EGG's testing in other institutions. And, of course, it would publicly validate the project's current findings.

In other words, it would generate exactly the kind of attention and research you're saying is needed on this to provide evidence either way.

The only downside to publishing is if your project is found to be flawed. So... why haven't they published after almost 5 years of work, even though they're willing to share data and create an elaborate website about their claims?

The answer is self-evident. They don't expect the findings to stand up under scrutiny in the scientific community.

Originally posted by jzs
It certainly could be, yes. In fact, it is know that looking at cumulative things (means, etc.) adds structure to things, structure that is not in the data, but that artifically added from the cumulative process.


That's certainly true enough. However, in this particular instance the structure exists because the data's been chosen carefully to create it.

Originally posted by jzs
Just saying it and claiming to be right doesn't amount to much. You have to show your work for it to count.

Actually, I don't have to show any work to point out a self-evident flaw in a process - especially since I and others have quoted the project itself regarding said flaw.

You, on the other hand, have made speculative statements such as "Having p-values implies they have a null hypothesis". I'd say that you have some work to do. :)

[Ed]

Originally posted by jmercer

You, on the other hand, have made speculative statements such as "Having p-values implies they have a null hypothesis". I'd say that you have some work to do. :)

JZS is a person named T'ai C'hi who posted exactly the same sort of insinuating stuff a while back. This individual never commits itself to anything and tries to make others do so. The current post is a good example. There was a "study" that this person was working on, recruited people, supposedly was putting together a database. Nothing. Beware the trolls....

Incidentially, on can compute a p value in vacuo, the act of computation means absolutely nothing.

[jmercer]

Thanks, Ed... I'd actually heard that he was T'ai C'hi as I went through other, older posts.

I usually don't feed the trolls, but this one is so needy... :D

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Ed
JZS is a person named T'ai C'hi ... jzs is T'ai C'hi, alias Sherlock Holmes, alias Whodini?

Really?

:D Thanks for the heads-up.

[Ed]

Originally posted by jmercer
Thanks, Ed... I'd actually heard that he was T'ai C'hi as I went through other, older posts.

I usually don't feed the trolls, but this one is so needy... :D

It's like feeding a VMH lesioned rat: there is no satiation.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed
Oh God. It's Tai whoosie face.

Where IS your analysis of the transcripts?

Ed, if you could stay on topic that would be great.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jmercer
Not if the flaw in the methodology is so obvious that there's no need to do the research -


So, what is it?


why haven't they published their findings for peer review?


That's a good question. You should email them and ask them directly and see what they say. I know they have published technical articles in the Journal of Scientific Exploration and the Foundation of Physics Letters. I'm not sure where else.


The only downside to publishing is if your project is found to be flawed. So... why haven't they published after almost 5 years of work,


I'm not sure if that is true or not. But even if it were, I'm interested in actually looking at their claims and making a decision, not saying 'oh they haven't published', or 'they've published in sub-par areas' and 'therefore their claims are invalidated'.


They don't expect the findings to stand up under scrutiny in the scientific community.


With your mindreading talents you should apply for the Challenge money.


That's certainly true enough. However, in this particular instance the structure exists because the data's been chosen carefully to create it.


What specifically was chosen?


You, on the other hand, have made speculative statements such as "Having p-values implies they have a null hypothesis". I'd say that you have some work to do. :)

Really? P-values are calculated based on assuming a null hypothesis is true.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed
JZS is a person named T'ai C'hi


correction: jzs is a person named Justin who had, at one time, other accounts, and is now using his real name and information.

But thanks for calling me a "person". Our relationship is making great strides Ed.

Though, could you please stay on the topic at hand? Talking about me doesn't make your argument any stronger (or strong at all).


Incidentially, on can compute a p value in vacuo,

Please provide an example so I can see what you mean.

[Ed]

Originally posted by jzs
Ed, if you could stay on topic that would be great.

The transcripts? Your "analysis" of that silly paper you cited?

[Ed]

Originally posted by jzs


correction: jzs is a person named Justin who had, at one time, other accounts, and is now using his real name and information.

But thanks for calling me a "person". Our relationship is making great strides Ed.

Though, could you please stay on the topic at hand? Talking about me doesn't make your argument any stronger (or strong at all).



Please provide an example so I can see what you mean. [/B]

Google p and statistics.

You can't hide style, T'ai. Why did you run away?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed
The transcripts? Your "analysis" of that silly paper you cited?

And that has what exactly to do with the GCP... ?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed
Google p and statistics.


I just now typed p and statistics into Google. I'm not sure what you want me to see here.


You can't hide style, T'ai. Why did you run away?

Hiding and running away is me being here right now, and deciding to use real information? Interesting look at it, Ed.

Would you like to get off talking about me and actually talk about the GCP?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by jzs

Originally posted by jmercer
Not if the flaw in the methodology is so obvious that there's no need to do the research -

So, what is it?


You want me to repeat myself? Again? Sorry, I don't have the time or the inclination to do your work for you. Re-read the thread. Aside from my stating the flaw multiple times, others have, too.

Originally posted by jzs
I know they have published technical articles in the Journal of Scientific Exploration and the Foundation of Physics Letters. I'm not sure where else.



Oh? You have proof of this? Please produce it - I used to work in publishing. Proving they did this should be simple enough.

Originally posted by jzs
Originally posted by jmercer
The only downside to publishing is if your project is found to be flawed. So... why haven't they published after almost 5 years of work,


I'm not sure if that is true or not. But even if it were, I'm interested in actually looking at their claims and making a decision, not saying 'oh they haven't published', or 'they've published in sub-par areas' and 'therefore their claims are invalidated'.



And where did that quote 'therefore their claims are invalidated' come from?

I certainly never said their claims were invalid because they didn't publish. I've maintained that their claims are invalid because their process is flawed, and they know it - which is why they haven't published.

Nice try at putting words in my mouth, but it ain't gonna work. :)

Originally posted by jzs
With your mindreading talents you should apply for the Challenge money.


Ah... resorting to Ad Hom. Running out of alternatives?

Originally posted by jzs
What specifically was chosen?


A second request to repeat myself? I think not, especially after the above comments you've made. :)

Re-read the thread if you can't remember what I said. I already gave you the list, pasted directly from their site.

Originally posted by jzs
Really? P-values are calculated based on assuming a null hypothesis is true. [/B]

I see. And that's the only way P-values are calculated, hmm? Fascinating - please, provide the technical proof or the references to the proof of your claim. This ought to be interesting.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jmercer

You want me to repeat myself? Again? Sorry, I don't have the time or the inclination to do your work for you.


Forget me. You apparently don't have the time or inclination to do your work for you.


Oh? You have proof of this? Please produce it - I used to work in publishing. Proving they did this should be simple enough.


Prove they had articles in the JSE and in the Foundations of Physics Letters? Um... that is simple enough:

JSE
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v16n4a2.php

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v16n4a1.php

Foundations of Physics Letters
Correlations of Continuous Random Data with Major World Events
By: R. D. Nelson; D. I. Radin; R. Shoup; P. A. Bancel
Found in: Volume 15, Issue 6, Dec 2002
Pages: 537-550

They've also published in the

Journal of Parapsychology
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/GCPJP.pdf

So do you have anything to add, besides asking me for 'proof of my claims' ?


Ah... resorting to Ad Hom. Running out of alternatives?


Saying you have mindreading talents is not an ad hom. You should really find out what ad hom means.

I said


Really? P-values are calculated based on assuming a null hypothesis is true.


you said


I see. And that's the only way P-values are calculated, hmm? Fascinating - please, provide the technical proof or the references to the proof of your claim. This ought to be interesting.

I'll do better than a "technical proof". I'll post a picture of my bookshelf (http://www.martini.nu/justin/books.JPG) which has several introductory (and graduate) books which all tell you something like

' the p-value is the probability of getting a value of the test statistics as favorable or more favorable to the alternative hypothesis than the observed value (if Ho were true)'

On the right-hand side of my shelf, going down, we have

p. 126 of In All Likelihood: Statistical Modelling and Inference Using Likelihood
p. 41 of Statistical Sleuth: A Course in Methods of Data Analysis
p. 58 of Design of Experiments: Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis
p. 431 of Mathematical Statistics with Applications
p. 302, of General Statistcs
p. 429 of Understanding Basic Statistics
p. 441 of Introduction to the Practice of Statistics

That is the definition of a p-value, afterall.

Now, if you'll check back, the one making the extraordinary claim is Ed, who said


Incidentially, on can compute a p value in vacuo, the act of computation means absolutely nothing.


Where is his evidence? Where are both of your evidences if you are saying that p-values can be computed without null hypotheses?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Or, since that article is just testimony, and doesn't mention statistics at all, which is the very basis of understanding the project, I'd recommend reading the project's website first.

I did point to Radin's statistics. Read the article.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I interpret that to mean he is being cautious in his comments by saying they don't prove the existence. He's not saying that they aren't evidence for the existence.

That was pathetic.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Evidence of anomalous structure in what should be random data ... which correspond to certain events.

This is not correct. E.g., the 9-11 data does not correspond with the 9-11 event.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I won't do your work for you.

Hey, you wrote an article about it. Shouldn't you know?

I was asking if you knew. You don't, obviously. So, how can this be falsified? How can GCP be proved wrong? How do you calibrate the "eggs"?

Lots of questions, T'ai....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
JZS is a person named T'ai C'hi who posted exactly the same sort of insinuating stuff a while back. This individual never commits itself to anything and tries to make others do so. The current post is a good example. There was a "study" that this person was working on, recruited people, supposedly was putting together a database. Nothing. Beware the trolls....

Let's not forget that T'ai also flatly refused to let anyone see the transcripts he had gotten others to collect for him. Thoroughly dishonest.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I did point to Radin's statistics. Read the article.

I did read the article. It was testimony.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That was pathetic.

That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

The cautious thing to do is say in an article is to be tentative (note: not anal retentative, Claus) that it is evidence, not proof. That is what a scientist would do.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, how can this be falsified? How can GCP be proved wrong? How do you calibrate the "eggs"?


Yes, you have some questions. Have you mailed the researchers involved and ask them? They'd be the ones to actually know.

My guesses are that if no significance is acheived in the window of time, for the majority of events in the formal registry, over the length of the project, then it will be scrapped.

As far as the eggs, they are just the client sites with rng machine. There's really no mystery with the rng machine. What do you specifically mean by "calibrate"?

You'd have to ask the actual researchers I'd guess if you want real answers. You will do that, and report back, won't you?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Let's not forget that T'ai also flatly refused to let anyone see the transcripts he had gotten others to collect for him. Thoroughly dishonest.

The people involved had direct links to them in their entirety. Those not involved in the project, did not (because they weren't involved).

I think if you don't have all the information straight, Claus, you shouldn't speak. Try it.

Now, if you and Ed could try your hardest to actually stay on the topic of the GCP, that would be great. I don't consider your self control to be that well, controlled, so I won't hold my breath..

[Ed]

The topic is whatever is discussed.

So, you can start by commenting on pixie's deconstruction. If you cannot then GCP is dead.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by jzs


Forget me. You apparently don't have the time or inclination to do your work for you.




Forget you? Well, I won't make any promises, but I'll work on it if you insist... :)

Originally posted by jzs


Prove they had articles in the JSE and in the Foundations of Physics Letters? Um... that is simple enough:


JSE
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v16n4a2.php

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v16n4a1.php

Foundations of Physics Letters
Correlations of Continuous Random Data with Major World Events
By: R. D. Nelson; D. I. Radin; R. Shoup; P. A. Bancel
Found in: Volume 15, Issue 6, Dec 2002
Pages: 537-550

They've also published in the

Journal of Parapsychology
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/GCPJP.pdf

So do you have anything to add, besides asking me for 'proof of my claims' ?



Not until I review the documents provided, but thank you for the links! I'll certainly provide my comments (good or bad) after reading them. Unfortunately, I won't be able to access the Foundations of Physics Letters as easily as the others, so my comments on that particular piece might take a bit of time.

Originally posted by jzs

Saying you have mindreading talents is not an ad hom. You should really find out what ad hom means.


Ah, a further gratuitious insult and ad hominem attack - now you're implying that I'm illiterate as well as a "woo". :) Perhaps you should be the one reviewing the definition of ad hominem. To save time, I've looked it up for you:

Merriam-Webster Online

Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made



Accusing someone of having psychic abilities in a skeptic's forum is indeed an ad hominem attack. It's an attempt to discredit your opponent's character,rather than reply to a presented argument. In fact, it could also be characterized as appealing to prejudices as well, since people in skeptics forums tend to react strongly to people who claim to have psychic abilities.

And, of course, you've now performed a further ad hominem attack by implying that I'm so illiterate that I don't know the correct meaning of "ad hominem", yet I'm willing to use it - another attempt to attack my crediblity, rather than address my arguments.

Pretty much textbook examples of ad hominem, in my experience. And while I'm not particularly sensitive about such things, I'm certainly not going to let your efforts to attack my credibility (regardless of how ineffectual they are) go unremarked. :D

Originally posted by jzs

I'll do better than a "technical proof". I'll post a picture of my bookshelf (http://www.martini.nu/justin/books.JPG) which has several introductory (and graduate) books which all tell you something like

' the p-value is the probability of getting a value of the test statistics as favorable or more favorable to the alternative hypothesis than the observed value (if Ho were true)'

On the right-hand side of my shelf, going down, we have

p. 126 of In All Likelihood: Statistical Modelling and Inference Using Likelihood
p. 41 of Statistical Sleuth: A Course in Methods of Data Analysis
p. 58 of Design of Experiments: Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis
p. 431 of Mathematical Statistics with Applications
p. 302, of General Statistcs
p. 429 of Understanding Basic Statistics
p. 441 of Introduction to the Practice of Statistics

That is the definition of a p-value, afterall.


So, are you a professional statistician? If so, then I accept your contention that the only way to have a p-value is by having a null hypothesis. If not... well, I can show you an equally impressive bookshelf containing all sorts of reference material and texts on physics, quantum physics and astronomy. But I'm certainly not a physicist.

Originally posted by jzs

Now, if you'll check back, the one making the extraordinary claim is Ed, who said (snipped)

Where is his evidence? Where are both of your evidences if you are saying that p-values can be computed without null hypotheses?

A valid point, and I stand corrected - Ed made the claim, and therefore should provide the proof.

Having said that, please show me where I claimed that p-values can be computed without a null hypothesis? All I'm guilty of is asking you to provide proof for Ed's assertion, when I should have been asking Ed to support his statement. :)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by jmercer
All I'm guilty of is asking you to provide proof for Ed's assertion, when I should have been asking Ed to support his statement. :)

I misstated the last sentence (above) in my reply - it should be:


All I'm guilty of is asking you to provide proof for your assertion that p-values can only be computed with a null hypothesis, when I should have been asking Ed to support his statement.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I did read the article. It was testimony.

And had you read it, you would know that I do talk about Radin's statistics.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

The cautious thing to do is say in an article is to be tentative (note: not anal retentative, Claus) that it is evidence, not proof. That is what a scientist would do.

Evidence of what? If you equate anomalous with paranormal, then the white sock in my black sock drawer is paranormal.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Yes, you have some questions. Have you mailed the researchers involved and ask them? They'd be the ones to actually know.

They won't reply to me. Must be that "skepticreport.com" suffix.

Originally posted by jzs
My guesses are that if no significance is acheived in the window of time, for the majority of events in the formal registry, over the length of the project, then it will be scrapped.

Which is why I call you a woowoo: You are doing exactly the same thing that e.g. astrologers do: Scrapping the data that shows the theory wrong. You can't do that, you have to include the experiments that failed.

Originally posted by jzs
As far as the eggs, they are just the client sites with rng machine. There's really no mystery with the rng machine. What do you specifically mean by "calibrate"?

I'll explain this otherwise simple concept.

If you want to know if a ruler shows the correct measurements, you need to measure it against something you know the length of.

One meter is the distance traveled by a ray of electromagnetic (EM) energy through a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 (3.33564095 x 10-9) second.
Source (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci523539,00.html)

But if the eggs used in GCP cannot be shielded off from this whatever-it-is, then you have no way of knowing if the output is truly random. Ergo, the output will always be wrong.

You would know this, if you had an inkling of scientific training. Obviously, you don't.

Originally posted by jzs
You'd have to ask the actual researchers I'd guess if you want real answers. You will do that, and report back, won't you?

I've tried, but have gotten no reply. I thought perhaps you would know, since you are so well-versed in this. As usual, you have no answers.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
The people involved had direct links to them in their entirety. Those not involved in the project, did not (because they weren't involved).

I think if you don't have all the information straight, Claus, you shouldn't speak. Try it.

How can I have "all the information", when you refuse to let me have it? There is absolutly no reason that you refuse to make your data public, other than your insistence that people dance to your tune.

You excluded people who were undecided on whether psi existed or not. You insisted that they either were for or against psi, or they wouldn't be allowed in. Yet, you yourself claim to be undecided. What a total hypocrite you are.

Can anyone "involved" please tell me if T'ai ever gave these links? Who should I ask, T'ai? Or is that secret, too?

Originally posted by jzs
Now, if you and Ed could try your hardest to actually stay on the topic of the GCP, that would be great. I don't consider your self control to be that well, controlled, so I won't hold my breath..

Falling back on the personal snide remark, whenever you are in trouble, eh? Nobody is preventing you from discussing GCP.

[jmercer]

I have reviewed the JSE articles you provided. They essentially contain the same information as is listed on their website.

However, I did find this interesting response in JSE to the articles written:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v16n4a3.php

The author makes some very interesting points, especially - in my opinion - when he speaks about "data fiddling", as he calls it. (The author is Jeffrey Scargle of the NASA Ames Research Center.) Clearly Larsen, Ed and I are not the only ones with serious misgivings about how the project is being executed.

I'll be reading the third article soon, and will provide my remarks on that particular one afterward.

[Ed]

Originally posted by jmercer
A valid point, and I stand corrected - Ed made the claim, and therefore should provide the proof.

Having said that, please show me where I claimed that p-values can be computed without a null hypothesis? All I'm guilty of is asking you to provide proof for Ed's assertion, when I should have been asking Ed to support his statement. :)

That any arbitrary data can be shoved into any arbitrary formula is self evident. To interpret the result is another story.

I am curious to hear any contribution from T'ai on the question of this thread. It would be a novel experience.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
I am curious to hear any contribution from T'ai on the question of this thread. It would be a novel experience.

You won't get it. People like T'ai never step up to the plate. Their egos are far to fragile to risk such a thing.

He will whine about people being so nasty to him, but he will not tell you what he thinks.

He is nothing but an empty shell.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by jmercer
I'll be reading the third article soon, and will provide my remarks on that particular one afterward.

I've read the third article. Since it's essentially a rephrasing of the website and other two articles, there's no value in me commenting on it other than to say that the assumption of significance to the spikes is STILL due to the deliberate assignment of meaningful events. In other words, manipulating the data to support the conclusion.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You won't get it. People like T'ai never step up to the plate. Their egos are far to fragile to risk such a thing.

He will whine about people being so nasty to him, but he will not tell you what he thinks.

He is nothing but an empty shell.

I do not think that he has posted a declarative sentence on any woo subject. It is all insinuating and passing the buck. What about the analysis of the paper that he trolled ...errr...promised once others gave there POV? Basically dishonest.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jmercer

Ah, a further gratuitious insult and ad hominem attack - now you're implying that I'm illiterate as well as a "woo". :)


Not at all. That is your interpretation of what I said. I can say that you have an active imagination.


So, are you a professional statistician?


Come 3/05, yes. My college education is in statistics. But that is all besides the point. Does one need to be a professional statistician to know and understand the definition, that is found in basic statistics texts, of a p-value? I don't think so.


If so, then I accept your contention that the only way to have a p-value is by having a null hypothesis. If not... well, I can show you an equally impressive bookshelf containing all sorts of reference material and texts on physics, quantum physics and astronomy. But I'm certainly not a physicist.


Physics is your attempt at a distraction. Please, let's get back on p-values. I'm waiting for anyone to actually show me how to calculate one without a null hypothesis, Ed or you if you still think that. If not, then Ed, can you show us how to calculate one in vacuo, or at least explain what you mean by in vacuo?


Having said that, please show me where I claimed that p-values can be computed without a null hypothesis?


If you don't think that, I'm asking W(hy)TF are you going after me to prove to you that one needs a null hypothesis to calculate p-values?


All I'm guilty of is asking you to provide proof for Ed's assertion, when I should have been asking Ed to support his statement. :)

I don't think you're guilty; you don't need to confess your sins to me. I just think it was odd of you asking me to prove something that is defined to be calculated from a null hypothesis.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And had you read it, you would know that I do talk about Radin's statistics.

Again, I have read it, and, again, it is your testimony of you attending his lecture.

"Radin showed a graph..."

"When I then pointed out..."

and etc. Of course, your memory is not fallible we are to assume?

But, you do say

"Whether it is flawed research or a real phenomenon is still out."

and I agree. Which is why more study is needed, right?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Evidence of what? If you equate anomalous with paranormal, then the white sock in my black sock drawer is paranormal.

But who's doing that? I'm not. I think the word paranormal is fairly loaded anyway.

I'm saying if there is an anomaly, study it.

You sum it up nicely

"Whether it is flawed research or a real phenomenon is still out."

So study it and find out, I say.

[Ed]

Still no contribution. Batting 1.000

[T'ai Chi]

Which is why I call you a woowoo:


Which is why I call people like you a pseudoskeptic, a scoffer, and so on. You misunderstand, often, f'd up at least one analysis that I know of, then lecture others on critical thinking. I'll gladly keep calling you what you actually are.


You are doing exactly the same thing that e.g. astrologers do:
Scrapping the data that shows the theory wrong.


So when you make an inference to the population of all astrologers, from a convenience sample of 7, you aren't being sloppy with data?


, you have to include the experiments that failed.


If you have evidence they aren't including failed experiments, show it. Don't just conjecture it and expect us to believe you.


But if the eggs used in GCP cannot be shielded off from this whatever-it-is, then you have no way of knowing if the output is truly random.


If a rng is creating 200 1's and 0's, say each second, we'd expect, from theory, 100 1's and 100 0's with a certain spread. We then run the rng's and see if the observed numbers are close to what theory says it should be close to. They at the GCP have in fact done this. There are tests for nonrandomness, a lot, that the rngs (all rngs, in general) go through.

The rngs pass all the tests and have expected output. Except sometimes, which is what the GCP is studying I'd say.


You would know this, if you had an inkling of scientific training. Obviously, you don't.


Obviously I do, and obviously, you didn't fully get the point why I was asking you what you meant by calibration in this specific case. You are invited, as always, to show me your "scientific training".

The universities I graduated from and my employer seem to disagree with your innacurate assessment... I'll trust them over you any day.


I've tried, but have gotten no reply.


Most likely you probably called them a woo woo, then demanded data and responses, and then were flabbergasted when you didn't get a response. Claus, will you download their data and analyze it for yourself?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How can I have "all the information", when you refuse to let me have it?


Oh so now I refused you? And you get on my case for saying that you refused me...

Anyway, if you were involved in the project, you got links. If you didn't, you didn't.

Get over it already!


public, other than your insistence that people dance to your tune.


And you keep dancing, quite nicely I may add. But the music has long since stopped.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jmercer

The author makes some very interesting points, especially - in my opinion - when he speaks about "data fiddling", as he calls it. (The author is Jeffrey Scargle of the NASA Ames Research Center.) Clearly Larsen, Ed and I are not the only ones with serious misgivings about how the project is being executed.


Yes, I agree. I never said that there aren't any skeptics of the GCP. Of course there are.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You won't get it. People like T'ai never step up to the plate. Their egos are far to fragile to risk such a thing.

He will whine about people being so nasty to him, but he will not tell you what he thinks.

He is nothing but an empty shell.

More personal stuff. You and Ed keep hurting my e-feelings..!

Would you like to debate with me any skeptical topic that involves statistics? Wiill you step up to the plate?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed
I do not think that he has posted a declarative sentence on any woo subject. It is all insinuating and passing the buck. What about the analysis of the paper that he trolled ...errr...promised once others gave there POV? Basically dishonest.

You hurt my e-feelings...

So what is your contributions Ed? Saying "Me too!!" whenever Claus posts?

Amaze me. Do something unexpected.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How can I have "all the information", when you refuse to let me have it?


Yeah, better for you to make it up and say I withheld info.

Do you have the data from every, say, ongoing medical study Claus? NO?!! Why not? It is because you are not a part of the study in no way, shape, or form! You are simply not entitled to it, at all.

After the study, sure. The transcript study never got off the ground, and was scrapped long ago. So what is your point again?

[T'ai Chi]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed
That any arbitrary data can be shoved into any arbitrary formula is self evident. To interpret the result is another story.
[/quopte]

Well that is a whole other issue.

The issue at hand was are we able to calculate p-values without a null hypothesis, and the answer is no, we are not able to.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed

So, you can start by commenting on pixie's deconstruction. If you cannot then GCP is dead.

If I cannot respond to everything then it is dead? If I don't know how to respond or am unaware of the specifics of the GCP or am unfamiliar with some methods they used then GCP is dead? That is really poor critical thinking there Ed, I must say. You really need to review what you wrote above and find the flaws in it.

What pixie wrote is long. Feel free to select a small portion of it, just one thing at a time, and I could try.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jmercer
The author makes some very interesting points, especially - in my opinion - when he speaks about "data fiddling", as he calls it. (The author is Jeffrey Scargle of the NASA Ames Research Center.) Clearly Larsen, Ed and I are not the only ones with serious misgivings about how the project is being executed.


In addition, there is a good skeptical article by May and Spottiswoode. Not sure what issue it is in, or if it was just privately circulated, but it is out there.
(googling commencing...)

Ah here it is

http://www.jsasoc.com/docs/Sep1101.pdf

They make some very good points, many of which I agree with.

I'm curious: when the GCP folk produce a result and Claus cried something like 'the rngs are impossible to calibrate!', what does Claus conclude about the calibrate-ability of the rngs when other analysts conclude nothing special is going on and things are operating as we'd expect by chance?

[jmercer]

I wouldn't say that the other analysts say that nothings going on in a sense of calibration. The guy I referenced made an interesting point about how the rng remained at a random "noise" level until you applied sliding windows. Then by playing with the windows, spikes become more frequent because the amount of data being processed is less.

So if you take the rng stuff at a "macro" level, it's what it's supposed to be - random. But when you reduce the amount of data being sampled, spikes appear... and thats when he got into "fiddling with data", or manipulating the data to generate the end result desired.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jmercer
I wouldn't say that the other analysts say that nothings going on in a sense of calibration. The guy I referenced made an interesting point about how the rng remained at a random "noise" level until you applied sliding windows. Then by playing with the windows, spikes become more frequent because the amount of data being processed is less.


In Radin's article he explored the reasonable critique of choosing a fortuitous window. Radin happened to choose (a priori) a window of 6 hours for smoothing and got significant results.

He has a graph (Fig. 8) of significance for windows from 5 minutes to 12 hours. The optimal window length turned out to be 8 hours, but basically any window length over 10 minutes resulted in significant correlation for the 9/11 data.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
Still no contribution. Batting 1.000

True. But this is interesting:

Originally posted by jzs
Come 3/05, yes. My college education is in statistics. But that is all besides the point. Does one need to be a professional statistician to know and understand the definition, that is found in basic statistics texts, of a p-value? I don't think so.

Yet, he has criticized others for not having a background in statistics, when they talked about statistics.

Add hypocrisy to insinuating and passing the buck.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
True.


What does Ed mean by "contribution" specifically? What is your contribution? What is Ed's contribution?


Yet, he has criticized others for not having a background in statistics, when they talked about statistics.


One doesn't need to be a professional statistician to know and understand the definition, that is found in basic statistics texts, of a p-value. Anyone can talk about statistics, sure. What is your point?

I criticize others that get statistics wrong and/or have the gall to lecture others about it. For example, you constantly telling me I select data, have no background in it, etc., when you amateurishly inferred to the all astrologers based on a convenience sample of 7! (not 7 factorial, just 7). You simply goofed, then lectured others. Or BillHoyt, for example, who threw every stat question at me he could, I answered all of them, then he accused me of pulling my answers off the internet and having a cracker-jack degree and etc. When counter-challenged, he ran and is still running. I deal with these types of people all the time it seems. All talk.

That is the difference, and it is a big difference that one day I hope you comprehend.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
What does Ed mean by "contribution" specifically? What is your contribution? What is Ed's contribution?

My contribution is consistently challenging proponents of paranormal phenomena to produce some evidence. I investigate paranormal claims and explain them from a scientific point of view. I also run SkepticReport.com as both editor and contributor, as well as being a board member of Skeptica and NYASk.

How would you describe your contribution?

Originally posted by jzs
One doesn't need to be a professional statistician to know and understand the definition, that is found in basic statistics texts, of a p-value. Anyone can talk about statistics, sure. What is your point?

Why do you chastize others for talking about statistics? E.g. you ask BillHoyt for his credentials in statistics?

Originally posted by jzs
I criticize others that get statistics wrong and/or have the gall to lecture others about it. For example, you constantly telling me I select data, have no background in it, etc., when you amateurishly inferred to the all astrologers based on a convenience sample of 7! (not 7 factorial, just 7). You simply goofed, then lectured others. Or BillHoyt, for example, who threw every stat question at me he could, I answered all of them, then he accused me of pulling my answers off the internet and having a cracker-jack degree and etc. When counter-challenged, he ran and is still running. I deal with these types of people all the time it seems. All talk.

That is the difference, and it is a big difference that one day I hope you comprehend.

What advice am I talking about in the article? General advice or compatibility charts?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by jzs
If you don't think that, I'm asking W(hy)TF are you going after me to prove to you that one needs a null hypothesis to calculate p-values?

I don't think you're guilty; you don't need to confess your sins to me. I just think it was odd of you asking me to prove something that is defined to be calculated from a null hypothesis.

God, I hate the way this forum doesn't include nested quotes. Oh, well.

I retracted that request when you correctly pointed out that Ed made the claim that a null hypothesis wasn't required, and so the burden of proof was on him. Didn't you read my acknowledgement of that, and my retraction of my request for proof from you?

Regarding confessing any sins... it's amusing how you try to introduce a religious overlay to a simple colloquialism in a skeptics forum... I'm wasn't confessing to anything. I was pointing out that YOU were mistaken when you claimed that I asserted that a null hypothesis wasn't required for a p-value, and I asked you to show me where I did so.

I notice that you haven't you retracted your claim about this or shown me where I asserted that a null hypothesis wasn't needed for a p-value.

Also, regarding having an active imagination and your ad hom commentary... since I seem to have "mis-interpreted" your meaning, please go right ahead and clarify it for me. :)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jmercer
I notice that you haven't you retracted your claim about this or shown me where I asserted that a null hypothesis wasn't needed for a p-value.


I said a null hypothesis is needed to compute a p-value. You were incredulous and demanded proof that this was the only way.

After showing you the definiton of a p-value, you responded


So, are you a professional statistician? If so, then I accept your contention that the only way to have a p-value is by having a null hypothesis


Why would you demand proof of, or accept my "contention" if you already thought a null hypothesis was needed to compute a p-value? That would be a little odd.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
My contribution is consistently challenging proponents of paranormal phenomena to produce some evidence. I investigate paranormal claims and explain them from a scientific point of view. I also run SkepticReport.com as both editor and contributor, as well as being a board member of Skeptica and NYASk.

How would you describe your contribution?


That's a sweet deal: every article you contribute the editor approves.

This empty shell has academic, professional, consulting, and recreational background in mathematics and statistics which allows me to respond efficiently to numerical stimuli...which are present in science.

My background in actual science and multidisciplinary numerical areas has cultivated my critical thinking skills. The skeptical topics that interest me, naturally, are the ones involving statistical issues.

I try and encourage people to be more numerically aware when I can.


Why do you chastize others for talking about statistics? E.g. you ask BillHoyt for his credentials in statistics?


As I've explained, Bill attempted to challenge me in statistics by asking me questions (which is entirely OK). I answered them all, yet he still went on, and even accused me of getting the answers off of a webpage. Common courtesy should allow me to ask him questions and he address them. Yet he didn't answer any of them I, nor admit he couldn't.. but he still took jabs at me. To put it simply; if he is saying I am absolutely wrong on a question or an issue, he has to have some background in the area we are talking about to allow him to even make such a statement.


What advice am I talking about in the article? General advice or compatibility charts?

It doesn't matter. You made inferences to a population when it wasn't warranted:

“So, a third of the time, the advice you will get from your astrologer will be completely random."

How do you know about my (hypothetical of course) astrologer, from your convenience sample of 7? Perhaps you could explain.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by jzs
I said a null hypothesis is needed to compute a p-value. You were incredulous and demanded proof that this was the only way.

Why would you demand proof of, or accept my "contention" if you already thought a null hypothesis was needed to compute a p-value? That would be a little odd.

I was not incredulous. (Or is it my turn to suggest that you should take Randi's challenge as a mind-reader?)

You (as well as Ed) made an assertion. I asked you for proof of your statement - and I should have also been asking Ed for the same thing.

However, as I said, I never asserted anything abput p-values one way or the other. I simply asked for proof.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jmercer

However, as I said, I never asserted anything abput p-values one way or the other. I simply asked for proof.

So you either did not know (about p-values being dependent on their null hypotheses) and were asking for proof, or you knew and were asking for proof anyway for some reason.

Which was it?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
That's a sweet deal: every article you contribute the editor approves.

Sure. If you think it's a problem, perhaps you can suggest ways to avoid such a "sweet deal"?

Originally posted by jzs
This empty shell has academic, professional, consulting, and recreational background in mathematics and statistics which allows me to respond efficiently to numerical stimuli...which are present in science.

My background in actual science and multidisciplinary numerical areas has cultivated my critical thinking skills. The skeptical topics that interest me, naturally, are the ones involving statistical issues.

I try and encourage people to be more numerically aware when I can.

You point to your education (and yet, you screw up in the most basic statistics), but you don't say what you are doing - apart from "encouraging" people to be more "numerically aware". Judging from your posts here, you are not much of a teacher.

Originally posted by jzs
As I've explained, Bill attempted to challenge me in statistics by asking me questions (which is entirely OK). I answered them all, yet he still went on, and even accused me of getting the answers off of a webpage. Common courtesy should allow me to ask him questions and he address them. Yet he didn't answer any of them I, nor admit he couldn't.. but he still took jabs at me. To put it simply; if he is saying I am absolutely wrong on a question or an issue, he has to have some background in the area we are talking about to allow him to even make such a statement.

"Common courtesy"? "Anyone can talk about statistics, sure". One set of rules for you, another for everyone else.

Originally posted by jzs
It doesn't matter. You made inferences to a population when it wasn't warranted:

It doesn't matter?? Of course it matters! You claim I made inferences to a population when it wasn't warranted, and I ask you what population I am talking about. Of course it matters!

Originally posted by jzs
“So, a third of the time, the advice you will get from your astrologer will be completely random."

How do you know about my (hypothetical of course) astrologer, from your convenience sample of 7? Perhaps you could explain.

Trying to turn the tables yet again. It won't work, T'ai. Please explain which population I was talking about: Those who used these charts, or the general population of astrologers.

It matters, you know.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Sure. If you think it's a problem, perhaps you can suggest ways to avoid such a "sweet deal"?


I challenge you to get any writing of yours actually peer reviewed. Or have you?

I have not. The only thing I have in anything technical is a calculus problem (http://www.martini.nu/justin/688.htm).

I'm thinking about writing a 'statistics in skepticism' type of article for SI however, in moments of free time, to stress the role that Statistics plays in critical thinking and examining claims that involve statistics. I have a few ideas.


You point to your education (and yet, you screw up in the most basic statistics),


Ah, these fantasy screw ups that I have. Besides a few typos that were corrected, could you show me actual examples of screw ups in basic statistics that I supposedly made? I challenge you to do this too.

I have provided an actual example (http://www.martini.nu/justin/astro.html) of you doing so, on the other hand.

Someone who incorrectly inferred to a population from a convenience sample of 7, talking about other peoples' screwups in basic statistics?


"Common courtesy"? "Anyone can talk about statistics, sure". One set of rules for you, another for everyone else.


No, same rules. If Bill can ask me questions, I can ask him questions. I'll answer them, however. Again, if Bill can say I am wrong about something in statistics, he has to have some knowledge in the area we are discussing in order to say that. He, of course, had no actual reason to say I copied my answers, got my degree from a crackerjack box, etc., other than to be a sore loser.


It doesn't matter?? Of course it matters! You claim I made inferences to a population when it wasn't warranted


Not just me, Claus. Basic statistics books "claim" it is not warranted. It is a fact of Statistics, since your sample was not chosen in a scientific manner.

Your inference, no matter what population you were talking about, was not warranted. You simply are not justified in making an inference to a population from a convenience sample of 7. None of your wordplay or diversions will get rid of that basic fact.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I challenge you to get any writing of yours actually peer reviewed. Or have you?

No. I have not claimed that my articles are scientific. How do you suggest that my articles appear in SkepticReport, without it being a "sweet deal"?

Originally posted by jzs
I have not. The only thing I have in anything technical is a calculus problem (http://www.martini.nu/justin/688.htm).

Great. Completely irrelevant to skepticism.

Originally posted by jzs
I'm thinking about writing a 'statistics in skepticism' type of article for SI however, in moments of free time, to stress the role that Statistics plays in critical thinking and examining claims that involve statistics. I have a few ideas.

Great. But nothing so far. This is merely one of your projects that never get anywhere. You promise to deliver, but never do.

Originally posted by jzs
Ah, these fantasy screw ups that I have. Besides a few typos that were corrected, could you show me actual examples of screw ups in basic statistics that I supposedly made? I challenge you to do this too.

Jeff Corey pointed one out to you.

Originally posted by jzs
I have provided an actual example (http://www.martini.nu/justin/astro.html) of you doing so, on the other hand.

Based on the wrong assumption that I am talking about all astrologers, when I am clearly not.

Originally posted by jzs
Someone who incorrectly inferred to a population from a convenience sample of 7, talking about other peoples' screwups in basic statistics?

Am I talking about all astrologers or those astrologers who use these charts?

Originally posted by jzs
No, same rules. If Bill can ask me questions, I can ask him questions. I'll answer them, however.

This is not correct. You have a long history of avoiding questions. Especially the tough ones.

Originally posted by jzs
Again, if Bill can say I am wrong about something in statistics, he has to have some knowledge in the area we are discussing in order to say that. He, of course, had no actual reason to say I copied my answers, got my degree from a crackerjack box, etc., other than to be a sore loser.

All you need to do is prove him wrong. There is no need to ask him for his credentials.

Originally posted by jzs
Not just me, Claus. Basic statistics books "claim" it is not warranted. It is a fact of Statistics, since your sample was not chosen in a scientific manner.

Your inference, no matter what population you were talking about, was not warranted. You simply are not justified in making an inference to a population from a convenience sample of 7. None of your wordplay or diversions will get rid of that basic fact.

You are weaseling away from your false assumption that I was talking about all astrologers. I wasn't. There are absolutely no wordplay or diversions from my side: I have constantly asked you which group of astrologers I was referring to. You claim it "doesn't matter".

From the article:

A paltry 31, which means that they only agreed 21.5% of the time. However, there were no less than 47 points where they were completely divided, 3 against 4. That's 32.6%, almost one in three!

So, a third of the time, the advice you will get from your astrologer will be completely random.

WHAT ADVICE AM I TALKING ABOUT?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No. I have not claimed that my articles are scientific.


Peer review applies to more than just science articles Claus.


Great. Completely irrelevant to skepticism.


It implies critical thinking, which is part of skepticism, and actually getting something in a real publication. Tell Gardner that mathematical thinking is irrelevant to skepticism..


Great. But nothing so far. This is merely one of your projects that never get anywhere. You promise to deliver, but never do.


Let's make a bet: I'll get a technical article published in SI before you do. Care to play?


Jeff Corey pointed one out to you.


No, Jeff really didn't. He focused on me reading of the wrong line of a table and didn't address the actual issues at hand even after I corrected the numbers.


Based on the wrong assumption that I am talking about all astrologers, when I am clearly not.


Again, it doesn't matter. You infer to a population based on a convenience sample of 7 which is not warranted.


All you need to do is prove him wrong. There is no need to ask him for his credentials.


You've got it backwards. Why would it be up to me to prove him wrong? It is up to him to provide evidence he is correct. Can he provide evidence my degree is from a crackerjack box, or evidence that I copied all of my answers from a webpage? Or evidence he can answer the questions I posed to him. Nope.


You are weaseling away from your false assumption that I was talking about all astrologers. I wasn't.


Say you were talking about astrologers who just use charts; my point still stands regardless of what group you were trying to infer to. you aren't scientifically justified in making an inference to a population based on a convenience sample of 7.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Peer review applies to more than just science articles Claus.

That's nice. Do you have any suggestions or not?

Originally posted by jzs
It implies critical thinking, which is part of skepticism, and actually getting something in a real publication. Tell Gardner that mathematical thinking is irrelevant to skepticism..

So, you getting a mathematical article published suddenly nullifies everything I ever did? Is that the gist of your argument?

Originally posted by jzs
Let's make a bet: I'll get a technical article published in SI before you do. Care to play?

If you were a skeptic, you would know not to gamble. This isn't a competition, T'ai. I am not competing with you, I am asking about your skeptical endeavors.

Originally posted by jzs
No, Jeff really didn't. He focused on me reading of the wrong line of a table and didn't address the actual issues at hand even after I corrected the numbers.

Deny reality all you like.

Originally posted by jzs
Again, it doesn't matter. You infer to a population based on a convenience sample of 7 which is not warranted.

No, no, no: You claimed that I referred to all astrologers. I provided evidence that I did not.

Originally posted by jzs
You've got it backwards. Why would it be up to me to prove him wrong? It is up to him to provide evidence he is correct. Can he provide evidence my degree is from a crackerjack box, or evidence that I copied all of my answers from a webpage? Or evidence he can answer the questions I posed to him. Nope.

It would be devastating to Bill Hoyt if you could prove him wrong. It should be simple for you, yet you choose to make a personal attack instead. Go figure.

Originally posted by jzs
Say you were talking about astrologers who just use charts; my point still stands regardless of what group you were trying to infer to. you aren't scientifically justified in making an inference to a population based on a convenience sample of 7.

Is this your way of admitting that you were wrong? You admit that I was not talking about all astrologers?

Just yes or no.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, you getting a mathematical article published suddenly nullifies everything I ever did? Is that the gist of your argument?


No, but then I never said it did. It does, however, demonstrate critical thinking skills on my part, at least in mathematics, and ability to pass stages of review in a real publication.

As my webpage shows, anyone can put up a webpage, and then miraculously put their own articles and content on it. :)


If you were a skeptic, you would know not to gamble.


"If" I was... right. More veiled insults from Claus.

Skeptics don't gamble? That is probably not true. I'm sure some of the skeptics at the recent TAM did in fact gamble, wouldn't you agree?

I'd hope a skeptic wouldn't gamble for investment purposes. I think a skeptic would realize that his/her expected "winnings" are negative, and that they are gambling for enjoyment.

Afterall, a lot of probability theory, which is the tool used in science to numerically assess, originated from messing around with gambling.


Deny reality all you like.


Please just show me were Jeff actually pointed out a real, relevant issue in that thread or anywhere else, that demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic statistics. Not me reading the wrong line of a table, but an actual real misunderstanding of the issues at hand. I won't stand for your wordplay and evasion.


No, no, no: You claimed that I referred to all astrologers. I provided evidence that I did not.


Yes yes yes. You refered to a larger population. You cannot make an inference to the larger population (any larger population) based on a convenience sample of 7.

You analyzed some very speficailly chosen data, then concluded by talking about "your astrologer" and "astrologers", ie. a larger population of astrologers than the 7 your analysis came from.


It would be devastating to Bill Hoyt if you could prove him wrong.


You have the burden backwards still. It is not up to me to prove him wrong, but for him to provide evidence he is correct. Where is his evidence my degree is from a cracker jack box, and where is his evidence that I copied my answers from a webpage? But this is moot as Bill refuses to answer, or even communicate for that matter.


You admit that I was not talking about all astrologers?


You made an inference to a larger population, as I've said, it doesn't matter exactly what that population is; it still wasn't scientifically warranted.

If you had randomly sampled, then, your inference to a larger population would have been justified.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
No, but then I never said it did. It does, however, demonstrate critical thinking skills on my part, at least in mathematics, and ability to pass stages of review in a real publication.

As my webpage shows, anyone can put up a webpage, and then miraculously put their own articles and content on it. :)

Yeah. And as my web site shows, it take a lot more to get other people to put their articles on it. How many people have you persuaded to put their articles on your web site, T'ai?

None.

Originally posted by jzs
"If" I was... right. More veiled insults from Claus.

Not at all. You are not a skeptic, by anyone's standard.

Originally posted by jzs
Skeptics don't gamble? That is probably not true. I'm sure some of the skeptics at the recent TAM did in fact gamble, wouldn't you agree?

I'd hope a skeptic wouldn't gamble for investment purposes. I think a skeptic would realize that his/her expected "winnings" are negative, and that they are gambling for enjoyment.

Sure, some may have gambled. Did they think they would win? No. You want to bet, because you think you will win. Skeptics might bet, but they do it for entertainment. That's why you are not a skeptic.

Originally posted by jzs
Please just show me were Jeff actually pointed out a real, relevant issue in that thread or anywhere else, that demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic statistics. Not me reading the wrong line of a table, but an actual real misunderstanding of the issues at hand. I won't stand for your wordplay and evasion.

No evasion or wordplay. Jeff showed that you are wrong. End of story.

Originally posted by jzs
Yes yes yes. You refered to a larger population. You cannot make an inference to the larger population (any larger population) based on a convenience sample of 7.

You analyzed some very speficailly chosen data, then concluded by talking about "your astrologer" and "astrologers", ie. a larger population of astrologers than the 7 your analysis came from.

You are fighting a losing battle here. I specifically referred to those astrologers who use these charts. Deny this all you like - you are the fool for doing so.

Originally posted by jzs
You have the burden backwards still. It is not up to me to prove him wrong, but for him to provide evidence he is correct. Where is his evidence my degree is from a cracker jack box, and where is his evidence that I copied my answers from a webpage? But this is moot as Bill refuses to answer, or even communicate for that matter.

All you have to do is flick your wrist, and prove him wrong. Shame him, T'ai, exactly like you have been shamed before. Golly, people would think you would have picked up on how it's done by now.

Originally posted by jzs
You made an inference to a larger population, as I've said, it doesn't matter exactly what that population is; it still wasn't scientifically warranted.

If you had randomly sampled, then, your inference to a larger population would have been justified.

Still trying to evade your claim, eh? Did I speak about astrologers in general, or was I speaking about those astrologers who use these charts?

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by jzs
Evidence of anomalous structure in what should be random data ... which correspond to certain events.

Only if you loosely define "evidence," "anomalous structure," and "random."

Evidence should be concrete and repeatable, this is not.

Anomalous structure would be a structure that we don't expect or is outside the norm. We expect ANY strucutre in a truly random sequence. Given an infinite number of mathematical structures, at any moment any string of data will conform to one of them. It's only a matter of finding the "right" mathematical strucutre.

But none of these numbers are "random," they are the cumulative result of an infinite amount of complex physical and mathematical phenomina. There is some kind of quantified measurement that is producing these numbers. In other words, patterns may be evolving in their data from some unmeasured effect. If they're finding perterbations of some kind, it might just be their two neighbors used their microwave ovens 1.5 meters away from their computer during a solar flare while their monitor was 80% the color blue, etc. etc. etc. It might be that a transistor in their computers is located close to the processor fan.

Data intentionally decoupled from reality-> infinite analysis tools -> whatever you want

There is no way to completely control this experiment BY DESIGN!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Evidence of anomalous structure in what should be random data ... which correspond to certain events.

And therein lies the big problem: The "eggs" are not calibrated, because they can't be shielded from this "global consciousness".

Every bit that comes out of those contraptions means nothing. They are trying to measure the temperature of a pot of water with a stick of wood, instead of a thermometer.

[WhiteLion]

As Carl Sagan did put it once.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

[jmercer]

Exactly, although I realize you were replying to CF's remarks in a sarcastic manner.

The Global Crap Project hasn't produced any evidence. What they've done is taken the sliding window of spikes and sags and reduced it until they start seeing unusual spikes. (Relative to the other spikes in the window.)

Then they've gone out and arbitrarily picked world events to allocate to the spikes. (Usually if it was 15 minutes either way, although at least one was allocated up to an hour away from the spike.) When they were stymied, they threw in "prayer groups" and similar generic "events" that would affect the RNG. Occasionally, they simply said "We don't know."

The people who chose these events were all sorts of folks... including astrologers. This is classical (and intentional, I believe) cherry-picking for results.

[WhiteLion]

Exactly, although I realize you were replying to CF's remarks in a sarcastic manner.

Looking at this discussion (or debate?) it was not my intention to promote anymore sarcasm.
Simply stating the written double-edged sword of Carl Sagan.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by WhiteLion
Looking at this discussion (or debate?) it was not my intention to promote anymore sarcasm.
Simply stating the written double-edged sword of Carl Sagan.

Ah - my error, and I apologize. I stand by the rest of my commentary, however. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Did I speak about astrologers in general, or was I speaking about those astrologers who use these charts?

Bump for jzs.

[Dragon]

Bump, for everyone.

[CFLarsen]

Bump for T'ai Chi/jzs/Whodini/whatever...