Looking back on it without the thread fatigue I had last time, I’d say the mistake was mine. I said that the dowsers agreed while signing the terms to have the results combined, and there is no evidence that this happened. I got mixed up in all the odd issues and thought I started the comment over something else. I was wrong on both accounts: You didn’t make a mistake that I tried to defend (in regards to my comment where Peter claims Randi was hding the results), and I did make the mistake of saying that the dowsers agreed to combining the results. Of course at the same time, I was letting peter weasel out of his other false claims, epsecially regarding mathematicians and geologists.
That said, there is no evidence that Randi combining of the results (which occoured in the post-event article and the announcement at the end of the test) had any meaning whatsoever. The dowsers were tested, and their individual scores were announced after the tests were done (according to Mike Hutchinson). While there is no evidence that they agreed to combine the test scores, there is no evidence that they demanded that Randi could not combine the data at the end of the day either. Since no result, individual or combined) was anywhere near the success rate, whatever is done with the data is pretty much irrevelant. Randi makes mention of it in his article and I don’t see why it is inappropriate for him to do so. Peter disagrees, although I don’t know what Randi could have done do satisfy him. The results of the water (and gold and brass) test are also listed, what more could Randi do?
Somehow, with Peter, I suspect there was nothing that Randi could do that was the ‘right thing’. Just examine this answer:
**Me: Soooo, Randi tells people about the 22% figure, announces the results to the dowsers, and yet somehow he’s still hiding it. Riiiiiiight.
Peter: Yes.**
Or this insult to readership:
Peter:Most people reading the report will see and remember the 13.5%, but not notice the 22% unless they are lookin very carefully.
That’s just plain insulting. The individual results are hardly hidden, they appear 3 sentences behind the overall results. These aren’t hidden footnotes were talking about.
Of course, Peter would rather attack Randi over being critical of a pederast than criticize the pederast himself.
No, you are making a claim about the burden of proof. Unless your gonna try to weasel out of this one too.
**
Ok, and my example – which shows that your claim is wrong – was presented in a statistical context.
**
I already quoted you and gave a counter-example which you haven’t denied. This is proof enought that you were wrong.
Your latest attempt at weasling is to claim that your comments were limited to a “statistical context.” So what? My counter-example clearly applied to the same context.
And please don’t bother asking that I repeat my counter-example. Or what your claim was.
**
Earlier, you said the following:
Then when challenged on the point, you said this:
Later, you said this:
Gahhhhhh
That may be so . . . but . . . please stop trying to engage me on this point. It’s not a point I care to debate. If you want to debate that point, debate someone who has taken a position.
It makes no difference how you word it, its still a lie. I have never accused Randi of ‘breaking’ the agreement, of ‘unfaithfullness’ to the agreement, or making an agreement about combininn numbers. I have repeatedly stressed that there WAS no agreement either to combine or not to combine the numbers. Your obsession with this agreement that never existed is ridiculous.
And that is still true. You can argue untill you are blue in the face that “there was no agreement” and “Randi broke an agreement” mean the same thing, I don’t care. You are the one obsessing about the meaning of the phrase, not me.
But when you demand that I prove a statement that I never made then I have to point out yet again that you are lying.
There’s a story about the man who put one hand in the oven, the other hand in the freezer, and said that on the whole he felt fine.
Randi is making the same mistake. If you can’t see what’s wrong with Randi, you won’t see what’s wrong with this either.
What, exactly. is it about Randi that makes him so heroic to his fans? Someone mentioned above that he has saved people from being duped by charlatans. Has anyone posting here, or anyone known to someone posting here, been ready to hand over valuables to a dowser (for example) and been informed, just in time, by Randi of the tricksters wicked ways?
I’m skeptical of the skeptic, and his minions.
Its fair enough to dislike the man, or his 'tude. I can certainly understand why some folks do. But I find Randi to be a breath of fresh air in a world of charlatans like John Edward and his ilk. I don’t know if he has “saved” anyone directly (I would not go that far) but I know that upon reading his works, and the lame replies of his critics, I went from woowoo to skeptic. There are probably much better examples than me.
Bets of all, Randi does it well, and in an entertaining manner. Penn and Teller, as well as our own Ian do so too.
:rolleyes:
Yes, I’m making a claim about the burden of proof. And I’m saying that there being an agreement is relevant. I don’t see the conflict here.
Well, then, looking at it in a statistical context, in your example the test is evidence against paranormal abilities.
All you’ve done is presented a situation in which you think my statement is wrong. That’s it. Hardly “proof enough”.
Yes, I did say that you created the impression of being opposed to combining numbers. And I stand by that.
No, it didn’t. If your example is evaluated in a statistical context, it is evidence against the paranormal. It is only if you look at it in a nonstatistical manner that it is evidence for the paranormal.
Peter morris
That’s the sort of evasive answer that has earned you such disrespect. Whether combining the numbers was the appropriate thing to do is a quite different issue than whether there is a mathematical problem with it. Now what, exactly, is the mathematical problem?
I apologize beforehand if anyone has posted this, as I have not read everything on all the pages, but
We know that signal waves (radio waves, for example) can interfere with eachother.
We know that your brain emits brain waves.
So, in theory, the brain waves emitted by someone else can be sensed as an interruption (caused by the interference with those brain waves and yours) in your mind.
That is the basic principle behind research in reading minds, from what I read in an old (about 7 year old) scientific american article.
So maybe, if you can somehow train yourself, you could in fact sense if someone was close behind you without using one of the 5 basic senses.
Dostromin, around these-a-here parts, podner, a claim like “We know that your brain emits [radio] waves” better be backed up by some pretty darn good evidence. A cite or two or a dozen would not only be a good idea, but pretty much a minimum requirement for a GD discussion.
It sounds like you are confusing EEG electrical pulses with radio frequency emissions. The human brain, I can say with some confidence, does NOT emit radio-frequency waves that can be detected.
The EEG pulses are picked up with skin-contact sensors, and represent low-level electrical currents in the body. The brain does not “broadcast” into the ether.
This pretty much shoots down your derivative theory of interference and mind-reading, doesn’t it?
There’s not necessarily a conflict – the problem is that you’re dancing and dodging and refusing to have your position pinned down.
And please don’t bother demanding that I give quotes showing the above. This game is getting really old.
**
Ok let’s see if I have this straight:
If I tell Randi that I can guess coin flips 90% of the time because of my psychic abilities; and he flips 10,000 coins; and I’m correct 8,500 times out of 10,000 . . . that’s evidence – in a statistical context – against paranormal abilities?
:rolleyes:
**
That’s all the proof I’m gonna offer. I realize that you don’t believe you were wrong and it’s become clear that you prefer mental gymnastics to admitting you were wrong. But you might ask yourself why you’ve been qualifying your earlier statements.
**
It’s a shame when people stubbornly adhere to their beliefs against all evidence rather than admit they were wrong.
My position is that in this case, the burden of proof is on the accuser. I have stated that quite explicitly. “Dancing and dodging” seems to refer to your desire for universal criteria for determining burden of proof, and my refusal to provide them. I have made my position of this issue quite clear, and I see no need to provide you with the ability to divine my position on any other hypothetical situation, nor do I see my refusal in this regard to be “dancing and dodging”.
A test was made of paranormal activities. The paranormal activities failed the test. What more do you want? You can roll your eyes all you want, that won’t change the rules of statistics.
Generally, an admission of error is preceded by some reasoned argument that I am wrong, not merely someone offering the opinion that I am wrong.
Because the word “evidence” is an ambiguous word that depends on context. Perhaps you should ask yourself where you got the ridiculous idea that all words mean the same thing in all contexts.
If you make a claim about burden of proof in one situation and refuse to offer a pricinipled reason for your claim, well, readers can draw their own conclusions.
**
As I said several pages ago, a confirming instance of an hypothesis can still undermine the hypothesis. Not sure if that’s a rule of statistics, but it’s a principle of philosophy.
**
Gah. Spare me your strawman. As I said before, my counter-example was offered in the exact same context.