tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post2459127027409105609..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Ah, the righteous arrogance of crackpotsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-90613920884959781762009-07-02T11:51:35.572-05:002009-07-02T11:51:35.572-05:00Of course I provided. Here's the proof:
01- h...Of course I provided. Here's the proof:<br /><br />01- http://www.4shared.com/file/44353812/8438fb79/Koren_PMS_2002.html<br /><br />02- http://www.4shared.com/file/39194626/dc1b5dc3/Neurobehavioral_and_neurometabolic__SPECT__correlates_of_paranormal_information_-_involvement_of_the_right_hemisphere_and_its_sensitivity_to_weak_complex_magnetic_fields.html<br /><br />03-http://www.4shared.com/file/44354019/802e4bf0/Persinger_PMS_2002.htmlEnfant Terriblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363106780909274692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-20706440693950327652009-06-29T16:39:53.542-05:002009-06-29T16:39:53.542-05:00You can hardly have called that a defeat when you ...You can hardly have called that a defeat when you never provided anything reasonable to counter Ing with.Qhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094663772039796760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43398747585280209892009-06-27T13:22:21.748-05:002009-06-27T13:22:21.748-05:00Ing defeated. Next skeptic, please.Ing defeated. Next skeptic, please.Enfant Terriblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363106780909274692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75121418903982967932009-06-23T07:52:11.640-05:002009-06-23T07:52:11.640-05:00OK it's really at the point where I'd have...OK it's really at the point where I'd have to repeat myself again and again and you don't get it. So I just politely reject your invitation to join your hallucination.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8100268492217537352009-06-20T21:49:17.112-05:002009-06-20T21:49:17.112-05:0006-Let me compare with a real science process I wa...06-<i>Let me compare with a real science process I was involved in.<br /><br />My advisor works in equine science. His project was finding the math to calibrate NIR spectroscopy devices for personal small buisness use. This would allow farmers the ability to test manure samples at will instead of using costly wet lab analysis. Now, we did not get our data on manure from one pile...nor did we get it from one horse...NOR ONE FARM. We tested over 800 samples, including some that we knew would be outliers and the NIR wouldn't detect right (such as chicken poo and corn silage). We were blind to the actual make up of the samples, all we knew were the number label. For control the samples were tested by wet lab traditional methods to get the accurate read out. Comparing the two data sets we were able to get an equation for the machine that would fit within acceptable perimeters for personal use. One test subject is near useless. A test without a control is worse than useless it's a waste of fucking money.</i><br /><br />Well...<br /><br /><i><b>Neuropsychological Assessment</b><br /><br />Over a three-day period during 1996, the subject completed a thorough neuropsychological assessment. It involved the administration of approximately 100 norm-referenced and standardized tests (Persinger, 1995; 1999; Persinger & Richards. 1995) that we have routinely administered over the last 10 years to about 300 adult patients who had sustained brain trauma or cerebral damage. The tests included both traditional neuropsychological batteries, as well as those developed more recently to identify specific anomalies. The procedure also involved a neurological screening and tests for intelligence, memory, educational achievement, and personality. All raw scores were converted to z-scores. The profile was interpreted from a clinical context by the second author employing the same methods utilized for patients.</i><br /><br />Source: “Neurobehavioral and Neurometabolic (SPECT) Correlates of Paranormal Information: Involvement of the Right Hemisphere and its Sensitivity to Weak Complex Magnetic Fields” International Journal of Neuroscience, Vol 112, No. 2, Feb. 2002, pp. 197-224. Dr. Roll, Dr. Persinger, Dr. Webster, Tiller, Cook.Enfant Terriblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363106780909274692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81211700793494034662009-06-20T21:47:48.107-05:002009-06-20T21:47:48.107-05:0001-Why woudl you do this? This is...moronic. The n...01-<i>Why woudl you do this? This is...moronic. The narratives can easily provide context known from experience on what the picture might be.</i><br /><br />How?<br /><br />02- <i>They might be Sherlock Holmsing it.</i><br /><br />What do you mean by that?<br /><br />03- <i>Why not do something indeed random and isolated? this just invites outside variables into the experiment. </i><br /><br />How?<br /><br />04- <i>And their Control group is?....Seriously. Come on people. Him having any reaction means NOTHING if everyone has that reaction regardless of "super powers".</i><br /><br />Here is their control group:<br /><br /><i><b>Complex Electromagnetic Field Stimulation</b><br /><br />The subject's responses to the application of transcerebral magnetic fields were conspicuous. The average numbers of button presses per min (rounded to the nearest whole number) during the 3.3 Hz, LTP, 1.6 Hz, and burst-firing pattern were 12, 22. 8, and 7, respectively. The responses during the no-field conditions ranged between 5 (first interval) and 10 (last interval) presses per min. For the same paradigm, <b>the average person in our studies has displayed between 0 and 3 button presses per pattern</b>.</i><br /><br />05-<i>Having read and written papers, this is grasping at straws. A weak correlation isn't definitive. If they were serious about it they would have investigated this more, isolating variables until they found a strong correlation. Weak corilations can occur by chance or indicate outside factors are sometimes involved. Bad procedure. </i><br /><br />Not bad. In fact, they did exatly what you wrote!<br /><br /><i>To discern a possible relationship between the degree of accuracy for the comments and the proportion of alpha rhythms over the occipital area during the statements, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were completed for the proportion of alpha rhythms as a function of the four ratings (incorrect to very specific). <b>To verify that any significant relationship between the degree of accuracy and proportion of alpha rhythms was specific to the real time of the occurrence, lag/lead analyses were completed.<br /><br />The 10th lag was calculated for the rating variables and was employed as the independent variable.</b> Lags 1 through 21 were calculated for the proportion of alpha rhythms. As such, lag 10 for the alpha measure was the same real time as the rating for the statement white lag. 5 for the alpha measure occurred 10 s after the centroid of the statement while a lag of 15 would be die alpha measurements 10 s before the centroid of the statement. All analyses involved SPSS software on a VAX computer. Because the measurements were completed on the same source of variance (the subject) and many of the statistical tests assumed independence between conditions, <b>the values were set at less than .001 for statistical significance.</b></i>Enfant Terriblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363106780909274692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79121666679075308322009-06-20T20:18:23.899-05:002009-06-20T20:18:23.899-05:00This protocol is bad and I will explain why.
&quo...This protocol is bad and I will explain why.<br /><br />"In one study we asked 3 different people to supply 10 photographs, each, of single individuals of their family. Mr. Harribance generated narratives while holding each of these pictures, face down. The narratives were then typed and given to the person who supplied the pictures. Under double-blind conditions, the person read each narrative and indicated who he or she thought it might be. Whereas chance expectancy would be 1 out of 10, the participants accurately identified between 6 and 8 of the 10 narratives as the specific people."<br /><br />Why woudl you do this? This is...moronic. The narratives can easily provide context known from experience on what the picture might be. They might be Sherlock Holmsing it. Why not do something indeed random and isolated? this just invites outside variables into the experiment. <br /><br />"The neural mechanism by which this information, which is highly specific, is extracted by Mr. Harribance remains to be identified. What is clear is that when he engages in this behavior there is an increased uptake of tracer as inferred from [99mTc[SPECT within the paracentral and superior lobule of the parietal lobe of the right hemisphere. As first discovered by Cheryl Alexander (unpublished data), focal enhancements of electroencephalographic activity within the alpha band were conspicuous over his right parieto-occipital region during these activities. The ranked accuracy of each statement is weakly but persistently correlated with the proportion of alpha rhythms generated during bipolar measurements over the occipital lobes."<br /><br />And their Control group is?....<br /><br />Seriously. Come on people. Him having any reaction means NOTHING if everyone has that reaction regardless of "super powers". <br /><br /><br />" The ranked accuracy of each statement is weakly but persistently correlated with the proportion of alpha rhythms generated during bipolar measurements over the occipital lobes."<br /><br />Having read and written papers, this is grasping at straws. A weak correlation isn't definitive. If they were serious about it they would have investigated this more, isolating variables until they found a strong correlation. Weak corilations can occur by chance or indicate outside factors are sometimes involved. Bad procedure. <br /><br />Let me compare with a real science process I was involved in.<br /><br />My advisor works in equine science. His project was finding the math to calibrate NIR spectroscopy devices for personal small buisness use. This would allow farmers the ability to test manure samples at will instead of using costly wet lab analysis. Now, we did not get our data on manure from one pile...nor did we get it from one horse...NOR ONE FARM. We tested over 800 samples, including some that we knew would be outliers and the NIR wouldn't detect right (such as chicken poo and corn silage). We were blind to the actual make up of the samples, all we knew were the number label. For control the samples were tested by wet lab traditional methods to get the accurate read out. Comparing the two data sets we were able to get an equation for the machine that would fit within acceptable perimeters for personal use. One test subject is near useless. A test without a control is worse than useless it's a waste of fucking money.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59935451897423025482009-06-20T13:52:27.302-05:002009-06-20T13:52:27.302-05:00The second individual with special abilities we ha...<i>The second individual with special abilities we have examined was Ingo Swann, a middle-aged artist who developed the process of remote viewing. The procedure was very simple. Pictures from magazines were placed in envelopes and stored in another room. One envelope per trial was selected by a person not involved with the experiment and placed on a table in this room. While Mr. Swann was sitting with another experimenter in an acoustic chamber and drawing his images about the hidden stimulus, electroencephalographic activity was recorded. In our experiments over several days, more than 20 stimuli were employed. <br /><br />Blind rankings by other researchers indicated significant congruence between the stimulus and Mr. Swann's drawings and comments. However, from a neuroscientific perspective the more important discovery was the correlation (r's of about 0.6) between the numbers of unusual 7 Hz spike activity over his occipital (primarily right side source) region and the accuracy of the congruence between the stimuli and his comments (Figure 3). These paroxysmal discharges occurred only when he was engaging in "remote viewing." Later magnetic resonance imaging showed anomalous signals, not expected for his age or history, in the subcortical white matter within the parieto-occipital interface of the right hemisphere. </i><br /><br />02-“Neurobehavioral and Neurometabolic (SPECT) Correlates of Paranormal Information: Involvement of the Right Hemisphere and its Sensitivity to Weak Complex Magnetic Fields” International Journal of Neuroscience, Vol 112, No. 2, Feb. 2002, pp. 197-224. Dr. Roll, Dr. Persinger, Dr. Webster, Tiller, Cook.<br /><br />03-Remote viewing with the artist Ingo Swann: neuropsychological profile, electroencephalographic correlates, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and possible mechanisms. Percept Mot Skills. 2002 Jun; 94(3 Pt 1):927-49. Persinger MA, Roll WG, Tiller SG, Koren SA, Cook CM.<br /> <br />04-Disruption of "remote viewing" by complex magnetic fields generated through Windows but not DOS Software around a stimulus site: a pilot study. Percept Mot Skills. 2002; 95: 989-998 PERSINGER, M. A., & KOREN, S. A.<br /><br />Are these studies good enough for you?Enfant Terriblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363106780909274692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57539617894125633402009-06-20T13:50:52.044-05:002009-06-20T13:50:52.044-05:00James,
I think the studies below are exatly what ...James,<br /><br />I think the studies below are exatly what you are asking for.<br /><br />01-The Neuropsychiatry of Paranormal Experiences Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences 13:515-524, November 2001 Michael A. Persinger<br /><br /><i>We have measured two individuals who have been considered the best examples of psychics. The first, Sean Harribance, is a middle-aged man who sustained at least two brain traumas as a child and adolescent. Several neuropsychological assessments have indicated he displays deficits for tasks that typically involve the right parietal and occipital regions. Mr. Harribance states that he perceives quick images, usually in the upper left visual field, about the person with whom he is speaking or the picture that he is touching. The pictures are touched face down. The information, which he reports spontaneously, contains extremely detailed as well as general statements that far exceed a cold reading. <br /><br />In one study we asked 3 different people to supply 10 photographs, each, of single individuals of their family. Mr. Harribance generated narratives while holding each of these pictures, face down. The narratives were then typed and given to the person who supplied the pictures. Under double-blind conditions, the person read each narrative and indicated who he or she thought it might be. Whereas chance expectancy would be 1 out of 10, the participants accurately identified between 6 and 8 of the 10 narratives as the specific people. <br /><br />The neural mechanism by which this information, which is highly specific, is extracted by Mr. Harribance remains to be identified. What is clear is that when he engages in this behavior there is an increased uptake of tracer as inferred from [99mTc[SPECT within the paracentral and superior lobule of the parietal lobe of the right hemisphere. As first discovered by Cheryl Alexander (unpublished data), focal enhancements of electroencephalographic activity within the alpha band were conspicuous over his right parieto-occipital region during these activities. The ranked accuracy of each statement is weakly but persistently correlated with the proportion of alpha rhythms generated during bipolar measurements over the occipital lobes. <br /><br />Additional experiments have shown that Mr. Harribance, like many individuals who report paranormal experience, valid or otherwise, shows a marked sensitivity to application of complex magnetic fields over the right hemisphere. Harribance attributes his experiences to a spiritual deity whom he senses as a presence. The repeated application of a complex magnetic field over the right hemisphere, without his awareness, was associated with an increase and decrease in the numbers of these intrusions. During these periods there was a transient increase in power within the gamma band (of comparable magnitude) over the left and the right parietal lobes, resulting in a marked attenuation of the usual hemispheric asymmetry. <br /><br />The sensitivity of this man's brain to complex magnetic fields that have been shown to enhance long-term potentiation in hippocampal slices and to affect hippocampally mediated learning and memory in rats43 can be seen in Figure 2. During the presentation of the long-term potentiation pulses over the right hemisphere, the proportion of alpha rhythms was reduced, but it returned to the previous level when the field was terminated. After several presentations of the field, the response habituated. We also found that the accuracy of his images, as ranked by independent experimenters, decreased when these fields were present and returned to baseline when they were removed. </i>Enfant Terriblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363106780909274692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21674119527870118312009-06-20T10:19:58.960-05:002009-06-20T10:19:58.960-05:00We cited a few damn few with the scientists who wo...We cited a few damn few with the scientists who worked with him or redid the experiments.<br /><br />Here's the thing, you are judged as a reputable scientist not by how much you publish but by where it's published and even less well known, how much your paper is cited by others. It's citement as a source is a judgement of it's viability in its feild. Psi research does not contribute to the rest of its scientific studies. It doesn't fit into it's feilds. I mean...we listed why there are problems with its evidence and methodology. There are ample ways you can prove it but don't. That's the problem. Until they find a way to convince people who are skeptical with evidence it's not good science. <br /><br />Here's an example. If psionics are part of the brain's natural process, it should be detected by MRI or similar nerial activity monitoring. Someone who makes guesses using clarvoyance and precognicance should have a) better than chance "hits" (significantly so) and b) parts of his brain lighting up that people just guessing do not have. If he's just imagining it like non-precogs do and pretending to see answers than the brain should work the same way as the guesser. To double blind it, there are three groups, Fraudes (actors), pre-cogs (people who think they are pre-cogs), and random sampling (non-precog, non-actors). Proctors do not know who is what group. Idealy the results should not be viewed until all subjects are tested to further blind proctors to any possible bias. If our hypothesis is correct and psionics are a product of the brain we can expect those with snigifcant higher than adverage hit rates should show different mental activity than people either acting or guessing. If someone shows higher hit rate and no different mental activity it can be assumed that this is either a) luck/stastical outlier, b) supernatural or c) cheating; either of which mean it is not evidence for psionics. <br /><br />The actual experiment should be repeated at least, (either 3 different tests or 3 different subject sets). Let's say one test has the classic, square, triangle, circle, wave cards. The next is guessing playing card draws, the third is a placebo trick like where the card 'drawn' does not change at all and is the same each time. A possible 4th study for additional data may be to do each test twice, one with the proctor shielded from the testee behind a screen the other face to face to see if precognitive ability has any connection to body language reading. <br /><br />Most psionic studies are NOT air tight and go under the presumption of psy, rather than testing whether it is true. No statistics have been better than chance and the better the experiment the less the chance of finding 'evidence' for psi is.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-51355254585157001602009-06-19T23:35:36.083-05:002009-06-19T23:35:36.083-05:00James,
the peer review of those studies DO NOT sh...James,<br /><br />the peer review of those studies DO NOT shot down his conclusions. Can you show the references that support your claim?Enfant Terriblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363106780909274692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26024138482658031572009-06-19T23:04:52.400-05:002009-06-19T23:04:52.400-05:00And the peer review of those studies shot down his...And the peer review of those studies shot down his conclusions. That's how it goes. The point of publishing is to convince your critics not give your supporors weight. Psi studies have failed to do that and rather than rise to the occasion and address criticisms in their methodology or the contrary conclusions in recreations bitch about it. That's not good, not good.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63167308331961948392009-06-19T21:19:30.184-05:002009-06-19T21:19:30.184-05:00James,
all the journals in the list have impact f...James,<br /><br />all the journals in the list have impact factor. They are all journals of the mainstream. If a journal of the mainstream is not reputable, nothing is.Enfant Terriblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363106780909274692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63665223549163950382009-06-19T18:56:30.347-05:002009-06-19T18:56:30.347-05:00Most of what you put are not what we call reputabl...Most of what you put are not what we call reputable Journals.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77165955418502574972009-06-19T16:00:29.050-05:002009-06-19T16:00:29.050-05:00Publish in the Journal of Neuroscience or I'd ...<i>Publish in the Journal of Neuroscience or I'd even accept the Journal of Psycology (soft science though it may be). Why won't he publish in any journal that doesn't assume he's right?</i><br /><br />Sheldrake published one of his research in a scientific journal with impact factor:<br /><br />Testing a Return-Anticipating Dog, Kane. Anthrozoös, (2000) 13, 203-212 <br /><br />Now, if you want paranormal phenomena with extensive replication published in a neuroscientific journal, or Nature, or Science... here it go!<br /><br />01. DUANE, T. D. & BEHRENDT, T. Extrasensory electroencephalographic induction between identical twins. Science, v. 150, p. 367, 1965;<br /><br />02. WALLACE, R. K. & UNDRITH, G. S. Intersubject EEG coherence: is consciousness a field? International Journal of Neuroscience, v. 16, p. 203-209, 1982<br /><br />03. REBERT, C. S. & TURNER, A. EEG spectrum analysis techniques applied to the problem of psi phenomena. Behavioral Neuropsychiatry, v. 6, p. 18-24, 1974;<br /><br />04. TARG. R. & PUTHOFF, H. Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding. Nature, v. 251, p. 602-607, 1974.<br /><br />05. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM, J. & RAMOS, J. Patterns of interhemispheric correlation during human communication. International Journal of Neuroscience, v. 36, p. 41-53, 1987.<br /><br />06. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM, J.; DELAFLOR, M.; SANCHEZ, M. E. & GUEVARA, M. A. Human communication and the electrophysiological activity of the brain. Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine, v. 3, p. 25-43, 1993;<br /><br />07. GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM, J.; DELAFLOR, M.; ATTIE, L. & GOSWAMI, L. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox in the brain: the transferred potential. Physics Essays, v. 7, p. 422-428, 1994;<br /><br />08. RICHARDS, T. & KOZAK, L. Evidence of correlated functional MRI signals between distant human brains. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, v. 9, p. 122-128, 2003<br /><br />09. WACKERMANN, J.; SEITER, C.; KEIBEL, H. & WALLACH, H. Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects. Neuroscience Letters, v. 336, p. 60-64, 2003.<br /><br />10. STANDISH, L. J.; KOZAK, I.; JOHNSON, L. C. & RICHARDS, T. Electroencephalographic evidence of correlated event-related signals between the brains of spatially and sensory isolated human subjects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, v. 10, p. 307-314, 2004;<br /><br />11. RADIN, D. L Event-related EEG correlation between isolated human subjects. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, v. 10, p. 315-324, 2004.<br /><br />12. STANDISH, L. J.; KOZAK, I.; JOHNSON, L. C. & RICHARDS, T. Replicable Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence of Correlated Brain Signals Between Physically and Sensory Isolated Subjects The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Dec 2005, Vol. 11, No. 6: 955-963<br /><br />Is it good enough for you?Enfant Terriblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363106780909274692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77456865841374944062009-06-19T04:58:53.865-05:002009-06-19T04:58:53.865-05:00Wasnt really clear about Wiseman critisisim on the...Wasnt really clear about Wiseman critisisim on the the experiment, so did some googling. Found a very interesting podcast over at Skeptiko.<br /><br />"Dr. Steven Novella and Dr. Richard Wiseman on "Dogs That Know" Research"<br /><br />http://www.reason9.com/podcast/index.php?id=45<br /><br />Wiseman seems to be talking out of hes ass also.Skibahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06627190017005535665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56848084103383110642009-06-18T15:00:21.749-05:002009-06-18T15:00:21.749-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Skibahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06627190017005535665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43192766925055145222009-06-18T14:59:13.469-05:002009-06-18T14:59:13.469-05:00@Martin
I'm not trying to convert you or anyt...@Martin<br /><br />I'm not trying to convert you or anything. Im merely pointing out your biased outlook on the subject. Not even taking the time to look at the data of what your arguing against....well it says alot.<br /><br />"Well, where's the paper, and the proof that JT was psychic? What controls were in place to show JT wasn't responding to any of a hundred other outside stimuli?"<br /><br />Again all the controls are explained in the paper. Ofcourse its possible that the same "uncontrolled stimuli" occurred every time when the owner was coming home, it's unlickely but possible. The final conclusion is that it's statistically significant, nothing more. <br /><br />As for Wiseman, cant really comment. If he showed a few minutes of video where the dog goes to the window randomly, what does that prove? The dog goes to the window in Sheldrakes experiments too. Because it's statistics, you measure how many minutes spent at the window when the owner was coming home vs. the rest of the time spent at the window. The graphs are on the paper also.Skibahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06627190017005535665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21183156088878126012009-06-18T13:59:18.619-05:002009-06-18T13:59:18.619-05:00Martin, you don't understand, she varied her t...Martin, you don't understand, she varied her time home by as much as 15 minutes!!!!!!! That is huge, HUGE, I tell you!!!!!!BeamStalkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17772110446629492132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76156020535853981252009-06-18T09:09:06.863-05:002009-06-18T09:09:06.863-05:00@ Robert
..."using science to try and determi...@ Robert<br />..."using science to try and determine our morals, political or economic systems, is not appropriate, and trying to use science to prove your position on those things is an act of scientism"...<br />Yes, but...<br />In law, ethics, political and economical decision making, there is a factual base for claims that are the foundation of the decision. These facts are what science is about (description of reality) The decision is directly dependant on the economic model and ethical or legal system.<br />So, science might be what it takes to make an argument in favour of a posture, especially if one wants it to be sound and valid.Alexander Baezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16009581733964632566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17273382340686001712009-06-18T00:06:28.852-05:002009-06-18T00:06:28.852-05:00I actually had a major point/thought to post again...I actually had a major point/thought to post against the parapsycology people, but was sort of sitting on it due to thinking i might do my own blog thing...but you know what, screw it I'll leave that to the experts like Martin, etc and just focus on my true love of mocking media.<br /><br />Ahem...psionic defenders. The main thing that separates psuedoscience from real stuff is that real scientific work is meant to convince skeptics. The idea is to present your data and results in such way as to make an airtight case against your critics. You in fact welcome the criticism and invite it. A major part of a good scientific paper is to write possible criticisms you expect to get, and explain what steps you took to ensure your experiment takes that into account. You state what could have caused a skew in your results, and if possible say why that is unlikely. Psionic research does not take into account the possibility of such problems. They do not address criticisms in their own work. They do not invite criticism or skepticism. Unlike real science they are offended by it and get personally defensive. A psion studies typically do not state WHY their results cannot be due to experimental problems, bias or statistical flubbing. It's cargo cult science, they're going through the motions but forgetting the important parts of it.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24751776981157416442009-06-17T17:15:04.719-05:002009-06-17T17:15:04.719-05:00Posted free online? Well, that's more impressi...Posted free online? Well, that's more impressive than in a peer reviewed journal, for sure. (Oh, I forgot, that whole conspiracy by the Skeptic Mafia and all.) Well, where's the paper, and the proof that JT was psychic? What controls were in place to show JT wasn't responding to any of a hundred other outside stimuli? And why, if, as Sheldrake has claimed, Wiseman duplicated his protocols and got his exact same results, does Wiseman's video show the exact opposite? Still not sold on psychic dogs here, sorry.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88040621792267133392009-06-17T16:42:52.563-05:002009-06-17T16:42:52.563-05:00@Martin
"So if Jaytee was accustomed to her ...@Martin<br /><br />"So if Jaytee was accustomed to her owner coming home from work every day at around the same time, then yes, you would see her becoming more antsy and excited as that time of day approached. Does this prove she's psychic? Well...no. What does it prove? That she's a frakkin' dog! :-D"<br /><br />It really wouldn't hurt to look at the actuall paper. It's free online. If your already made up your mind then thats fine, but you should be talking out of your ass and making silly assumptions like that.<br /><br />"In a pre-planned series of 12 experiments with randomly selected return times, Jaytee was left at<br />PS parents' flat and PS did not know in advance when she would be returning. Nor were her<br />parents informed. In all these experiments, PS travelled in her own car.<br />PS was beeped on a telephone pager when it was time to set off home. On most occasions, the<br />random selection of the times and the beeping of PS were done by RS, who was in London, over<br />300 km away. On two occasions (on 19 November 1996 and 1 July 1997) the selection of random<br />times and the beeping was done by another person in London who was unknown to PS or Jaytee"<br /><br />"to check that Jaytee was not reacting to the sound of PS's car or other familiar<br />vehicles, we investigated whether he still anticipated her arrival when she traveled by unusual<br />means: by bicycle, by train and by taxi."Skibahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06627190017005535665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-42033615549180476422009-06-17T14:20:50.953-05:002009-06-17T14:20:50.953-05:00@Mike TheInfidel
Ing, that last post was fucking d...@Mike TheInfidel<br /><i>Ing, that last post was fucking delicious.</i><br /><br />Absolutely. Bravo, Ing.maddogdeltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17657824720032887242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-64720662307841613372009-06-17T13:13:15.291-05:002009-06-17T13:13:15.291-05:00@asdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16398586...@asdf<br /><i> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16398586?dopt=Abstract </i><br /><br />Your 'evidence' is an article, from 2005 from the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine? Do you have any <b>credible</b> sources? JACM is well known for publishing articles which have absolutely no scientific basis for the conclusions reached in the article.<br /><br />On top of that, you posted the link to an abstract. I guess posting the actual article might reveal that the methodology is as flawed as Sheldrake's.<br /><br />So, you don't understand what "quantum" means, yet you claim that the brain is a "quantum" computer.... um..do you know what a computer is? I mean, like, how it works... with logic gates, truth tables and all that. Do you understand that the way that a computer functions, and the way the brain functions are two very dissimilar items? That when cognitive psychologists use computer analogies to study the brain, they are just that <b> analogies</b>, not precise models?<br /><br /><i>But seeing as you don't have data for that, you can STFU.<br /></i><br /><br />STFU? That is the best you have? Someone points out your complete, breathtaking ignorance when you open your mouth and your solution is to tell that person to STFU? <br /><br />Protip: The best way to cure ignorance is to become educated. By telling those who are debating you to STFU demonstrates intellectual capacity on the level of Bill O'Reilly.<br /><br />Yes, that is meant to be an insult.maddogdeltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17657824720032887242noreply@blogger.com