Peter Morris and Randi

[FinnAgain]

Well, I can say that his obsession with Randi has brought the JREF to my attention, and I learned a lot about it while I hadn’t known earlier. That’s always useful.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

As I wrote, the study wasn’t structured in that manner.

But according to that article, if a man guesses which women is in their fertile period based on how attractive he finds them, he will pick a higher percentage accurately than he would based on chance. Obviously, he would still be very far from perfect.

Can’t you think of anything else that varies with fertility cycle, and would be related to how attractive a woman would be to a man?

[Valgard]

@acsenray

In that video, Randi showed how, while he was talking to you, he could bend a key by jamming it against the edge of the table in front of him.

My skills are so incredible that I don’t need expensive professional magician gear like “tables”.

I must be legit.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@kaylasdad99

I think there’s something kinda weird about an actuary using a word like “zillions.”

Wait, wait, wait; back up a minute.

**Fotheringay-Phipps **is claiming to be an actuary? Like, what, he took a couple community college classes on stats 20 years ago? Because there’s *no way *that someone with an actual bachelor’s in actuarial science who’s an ASA (or FSA), MAAA, and/or EA is *this fucking ignorant *about statistics.

[FinnAgain]

Ooooh, pissing contest about actuarial science.
Shit just got real.

[Musicat]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Because if there really is something in any of these paranormal phenomena, it’s likely to be a rather weak effect. (Otherwise they would manifest themselves a whole lot more.) So for my own purposes, the entire question is not really being addressed by these tests, and people have the incorrect impression that it is.

And if there really is NOT something to paranormal phenomena, it is also likely to be a weak effect. So how can we tell the difference? The lower the effect, the more it will get lost in noise.

We are now into the realm of pathological science, which I suggest you read up on. It is often the last refuge of those who haven’t a leg to stand on. It’s not real science, but if often looks like it at first.

Pathological Science was coined by Irving Langmuir, and some of the characteristics are:[ul][li]The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.[]The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.[]The effect disappears as controls are tightened, suggesting that any effect ever detected was only due to sloppy observational work.[/ul][/li]As far as the female article, check out this recent thread which addressed the study that you cite, or something like it.

[Princhester]

So FP, upthread I issued you with a direct challenge to put up a cite to support your basic underlying factual premise about what Randi says and the basis upon which he says it.

You’ve now participated in this thread signficantly since my last post and you have put up nothing.

Can we take it as read that you accept that your basic premise is some shit you made up and move on already?