Who do you consider to be “we”, and what exactly do you have at stake?
Unfortunately, if one’s results do not achieve statistical significance, they don’t mean anything. It’s not a matter of “one side claims this, the other disagrees, who’s to say who’s right?”
Another logical fallacy leaps to its death.
In an example I gave earlier a 4% greater than random chance was considered insignificant if looked at from the point of view of one researcher doing a small set of trials, but considered significant by another when it consistently appeared across ~33k trials.
You’re right obviously in the big picture that data are either significant or not, but in the context from which you quoted we were talking about one posters opinion of what is ‘underwhelming’, not a review of any actual data or specific studies.
As I quoted someone saying earlier, the only thing that is significant at the end of the day are the data. Not whether or not our current understanding of things would allow for it, because our current of understanding of things changes over time. Not whether past attempts have proven successful. Just whether or not the data supports the hypothesis being tested right now.
I entered this thread making no claim about how often or to what degree data in these studies supported any hypothesis, but when pressed to produce an opinion for whatever reasons, I did a quick review of some of the work and some of it does actually indicate to me the potential for further research. I welcome whoever has the money and guts to pursue an interest they have in it to try. And for those I don’t really see a lot of value in further research, why would I care if someone else does?
By “those years” are you referring to the infamous period of time Harold Putoff and Russell Targ of SRI promoted Uri Geller and other frauds?
I’m just here to fight the ignorance, part of which is the “If there are two sides to an argument, both sides must be given equal consideration” fallacy, which is bullshit if one side has facts on its side and the other side doesn’t.
33k trials mostly by the same researcher. Rupert Sheldrake. Who’s a crap scientist.
That isn’t the point, again. As you yourself pointed out a later trial done by Radin and a skeptic collaborator couldn’t reproduce the same results anyway. I was offering that as an example - when one of them saw a 4% variance he considered it to be insignificant but when another saw the same variance across 33k trials in a meta study he considered it highly significant - in response to Jackmanni saying "It’s not a matter of “one side claims this, the other disagrees…” Using it as an example of how researchers might argue the significance of the same data wasn’t an attempt to support however they arrived at that 4% figure, whether or not it was accurate, or whether or not is was actually significant - just that they had differing opinions of it’s significance despite them both believing it to be accurate at the time.
Well if someone makes that argument go get 'em. I haven’t.
I’m referring to the years the US Government funded studies in psi. I think that included the crew you mention as well as a lot of other research in a large variety of areas.
And yet again, I am not even considering the merit of those studies or their results, much less defending either, when I simply answer a posters claim that they “dwarf any research than Radin has ever done” with the fact that it was Radin who did them.
The point is that you keep offering crap as examples.
“What about this?”
“That so-called research you gave us turned out to be full of mistakes and/or fraud!”
“But that’s not the point!”
You given us Radin, who most legitimate scientists rightfully disregard because of his sloppy methodology, a pile of research, the sum total of which adds up to bupkiss, and SRI, infamous for promoting frauds and fakes. To tell the truth, you’ve almost made the point that ESP and other woo doesn’t exist better than any of us.
You don’t “consider the merit of those studies” because you know that those studies failed, and that doesn’t promote your agenda. By not ever telling the whole story(the results of the studies and research you are promoting), you are taking a side.
This stands as a perfect example of pretty much every argument that has been made against my posts in this thread. You and naita are taking a simple statement of fact like ‘this research exists’ and somehow putting words in my mouth that I am saying "and it is right, and I want to defend it’. Or “this argument happened about the statistical significance of a result two researchers thought they were getting” to mean “and the data was right and I want to defend it.”
If you could please stick to arguing the things I actually write instead of the motives you are incorrectly assigning to them or grossly misunderstanding, I might be interested in responding. But as it stands nobody arguing seems either willing or capable of doing that.
This is quickly turning into a “who’s on first” routine and it has gotten extremely tiresome.
I don’t consider the merit of the studies because we were discussing who did them, not whether they deserve merit.
My only agenda is to discuss valid scientific research in ESP. Valid research does not have to produce results that support a hypothesis. Failed experiments are valid research.
It’s not an original quote (it’s been said before in this thread), but I going to say it again here: “I knew that was going to happen”.
Then quit promoting crappy research done by sloppy scientists that leads nowhere, and give is one good example(that wasn’t already followed up on and found to be crap by someone else, of course.) That’s really all the OP was asking for. What you are doing is tiresome, because we have to run down the results of the piles of junk you throw at us because you seem to think that “quantity=quality”.
How can you determine if the studies are valid without considering their merits, whether they are done on the up-and-up, whether the people doing them have a record of doing tight or sloppy research? :smack:
OK I’ll type this slowly.
Someone says “The paintings in the Sistine chapel dwarf anything that Michelangelo ever painted.”
I reply that Michelangelo is who painted the Sistine chapel.
Can you pick out any part of that exchange where the quality of the painting would be relevant to the discussion? Is there any need to consider the merits of the work? Is there any indication to you that I am a fan of the painting or a critic of it?
If quality was not an issue, then this would had been acceptable in the Sistine chapel.
One can try to dismiss it, but what Radin has done is seen by the experts as what that lady made to that painting. And so do many others that do look at the “artwork” made so far.
That story is still hilarious. And still not the point.
I’m saying Michelangelo painted the Sistine chapel in response to someone saying that it dwarfs anything Michelangelo ever did. Not that it was good painting. I’m not trying to spread Christianity. I am not even thinking about the visual image of the paintings at all and yet I can still correct an ironically incorrect statement about them and who painted them.
Somehow I just knew that Crazyhorse wouldn’t be willing to cut his losses and move on.