Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

[JayUtah]

Palmer brought unrelated material into his evaluation of the Princeton research program without even bothering to explain what this kind of selection means, and without providing any reference to it.

You still haven't figured out that Palmer is a parapsychologist who, here, is suggesting additional analysis that might be run on the PEAR data to see if a different kind of significance might emerge. Do you not understand that it is common in science to suggest new ways of looking at old data, and that this is not considered a criticism of the original work?

You're still stuck on the notion that John Palmer has some axe to grind against PEAR and has committed all manner of transgression against science to criticize them.

To prove his assertion that the distribution is not true Gaussian, Palmer would have to use a homogeneity test.

No, that's not what homogeneity means.

Unfortunately Alcock’s article, except for the abstract, is not available for free, so I am not going to waste my money on it...

Do you give away your professional services for free? Is your evolution book available for free? Sounds like you don't have a very strong commitment to getting all the information before you write your own defense of PEAR.

Look what I found! Here is the link to Stanley Jeffers’ article https://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_lab_closes_ending_decades_of_psychic_research

You didn't "find" it. It's been posted here several times along with repeated requests for you to deal with it.

The article is written in 2007, in it Jeffers criticizes the PEAR research. However, he didn’t mention his own research that failed to reproduced the PEAR results. It appears that he didn’t do his own research (it cannot be found on the Internet, either); instead he produced a fluff.

Nope. Jeffers wrote several articles for Skeptical Inquirer detailing the results of his work. The links were posted earlier. You don't get to limit your research to stuff you can find for free on the net and then complain that it's not of sufficient scholarly quantity when you have the references to the more extensive work. You live in a city with some of the best libraries in the world. Quit whining.

There was a conference but the Jeffers report is not available. What does it mean? I am going to check if Jeffers’ book is available at Google Books, but right now I do not have time for this.
.

We're not interested in what you don't have time for or what you don't want to pay for. You're making up excuses for why you won't address the critics your opponents here have repeatedly asked you to comment on.

 

[JayUtah]

It would be very helpful if you provide a reference supporting the Palmer interpretation...

It's not Palmer's interpretation. It's your interpretation, which you're trying to shove back into Palmer's mouth and make him responsible for.

I presented a hypothetical case showing that the Palmer interpretation is false (unfortunately, you didn't understand it).

Of course I understand it. What Palmer is talking about is a natural consequence of any probability value. Your waffling about "manufacturing defect' has absolutely nothing to do with that. it's a straw man.

If you want to continue this discussion, you would have to provide...

No, I don't accept any of your foisted terms. If you want to be believed, you will have to show that your desperate guesswork is what Palmer actually meant to convey.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Look what I found! Here is the link to Stanley Jeffers’ article https://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_...ychic_research

Do you mean what SOdhner told you to read in post #17 so you could educate yourself? The same post you replied as if you were on substances in post #88? The very same link I suggested you to read in my post #43 so you could learn something? The very same you said to Shuca that you couldn't find, in your post #135? The very same you claimed nobody had provided, as Pixel42 recriminated you in her post #144?


You are a manufacturer of lies. You're so puerilely transparent. You have so utterly fail here, kiddo.

 

[JayUtah]

Yep, fairly unremarkable narcissism. "It didn't happen until I say it happened."

 

[halleyscomet]

In which the motivations for this nonsense are questioned.

A true sorting model could, however, be applied to Jahn's data

by hypothesizing psi-mediated assignment of "random" run scores to the PK+,
PK-, or baseline categories. The fact that results were better in the "voluntary" mode than in the "instructed" mode could be interpreted as
supporting such an interpretation, since the latter gives the subject more
flexibility and control in selecting the run type. Such selection is
possible in the "instructed" mode but it would require some kind of
psi-mediated selection of the random number which is the direct cause of the
determination of run type, and the decision would then be forced for the
entire 50-run block.” Palmer, page 122

Psi-mediated selection, whatever that means, is used by some parapsychologists to run their tests, However, Jahn and his team did not use it in their research. Palmer brought unrelated material into his evaluation of the Princeton research program without even bothering to explain what this kind of selection means, and without providing any reference to it.

“An important implication of this model is that the total distribution
of scores, irrespective of type, must conform to a true Gaussian. This is met when the run is taken as the unit of analysis, but when the
series is taken as the unit, there are not enough scores in the middle of
the distribution to form a true Gaussian. This latter result, however, is
not necessarily inconsistent with the sorting model.” Palmer, page 122

To prove his assertion that the distribution is not true Gaussian, Palmer would have to use a homogeneity test. However, he presented no analysis supporting his assertion, so it is baseless just like his entire evaluation of the Princeton ESP research.
-------------------------------------------------
“Furthermore, Stanley Jeffers, a physicist at York University, Ontario, has repeated the Jahn experiments but with chance results (Alcock 2003: 135-152). (See "Physics and Claims for Anomalous Effects Related to Consciousness" in Alcock et al. 2003. Abstract.) And Jahn et al. failed to replicate the PEAR results in experiments done in Germany (See "Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium: PortREG Replication Experiments," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 499–555, 2000)” http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html

Unfortunately Alcock’s article, except for the abstract, is not available for free, so I am not going to waste my money on it (I hope some of my staunch opponents are willing to part with their money and buy the article).

Look what I found! Here is the link to Stanley Jeffers’ article https://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_lab_closes_ending_decades_of_psychic_research

The article is written in 2007, in it Jeffers criticizes the PEAR research. However, he didn’t mention his own research that failed to reproduced the PEAR results. It appears that he didn’t do his own research (it cannot be found on the Internet, either); instead he produced a fluff.

:” Stanley Jeffers ran 74 sessions, each consisting of many attempts to influence the pattern. Then he gave up and presented his findings at a conference. After that, the people of the PEAR lab borrowed the device and used it to run 20 sessions.
I do not have the original conference report by Jeffers available to me but was able to find first hand information by Jeffers in the book Psi Wars: Getting to Grips with the Paranormal.” https://barenormality.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/a-physicist-investigates/

There was a conference but the Jeffers report is not available. What does it mean? I am going to check if Jeffers’ book is available at Google Books, but right now I do not have time for this.

.

The original study's author conceded that their baseline was unreliable.

Now, I don't know about the highfalutin academic ivory tower that spat you out, but in the real world a man who draws conclusions from data that's known to be flawed and then STICKS to those decisions even AFTER learning the data is flawed is called things like "idiot," "liar" and "moron."

Do you seriously not understand that bad data cannot be used to get accurate results when you have no reliable way of correcting for the bad data?

Unless you can get hold of the original equipment and generate a new baseline for comparison the data is worthless. Even then the new baseline would be questionable, because there could be variations between your reassembly of the equipment and how it was originally assembled and configured.

 

[halleyscomet]

Yep, fairly unremarkable narcissism. "It didn't happen until I say it happened."

He may be the most transparent and inept gaslighter I've ever encountered.

 

[JayUtah]

He may be the most transparent and inept gaslighter I've ever encountered.

Indeed. "The only way you are allowed to refute me is by this specific method which accepts as true my broken premise, which you challenged." He's literally trying to script both sides of the debate. Unfortunately while he's a pretty inept gaslighter, he's not the most inept I've encountered.

 

[halleyscomet]

Look what I found! Here is the link to Stanley Jeffers’ article https://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_lab_closes_ending_decades_of_psychic_research

My God. A meme has come to our little corner of the Internet.



I can only imagine what it's like when Buddha gets going on other topics.

Look what I found! There's evidence the Earth may be round!

Look what I found! There's this band called "Queen" that you should TOTALLY check out!

Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

 

[halleyscomet]

Indeed. "The only way you are allowed to refute me is by this specific method which accepts as true my broken premise, which you challenged." He's literally trying to script both sides of the debate. Unfortunately while he's a pretty inept gaslighter, he's not the most inept I've encountered.

I'm starting to suspect he has me blocked.

I'm not surprised he's avoiding my comments. In my experience, consultants who exist by spreading BS and lies about obscure points tend to react poorly to having their house of cards knocked down and swept into the trash. You're debating him on fine points of statistics. I'm questioning his commitment to this entire topic.

I expect if he does respond to me now he'll do so in the form of insults but no substance, another common tactic of the kind of consultant he's portrayed himself to be.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

My God. A meme has come to our little corner of the Internet.

[qimg]http://e.lvme.me/ujfxild.jpg[/qimg]

I can only imagine what it's like when Buddha gets going on other topics.

Oh I think we may be witnessing the birth of many a site meme, maybe even to rival "Don't Bob the Thread".

As such I wish to be the first to coin the words "Buddhasplaining" and "Buddhaxplanation" and the phrase "Bugger, I just stepped in a Buddhaxplaination"

Example usage-:

I was going to go through and point out the errors one by one, but by the second paragraph it was obvious it was a Buddhaxplaination and JayUtah had pointed out the flaws several times already

When he claimed to have 'discovered' the link that we'd been asking him to look at for twelve pages we realised he was Buddhasplaining and reasoned argument or facts would do no good

Perhaps he will achieve a kind of immortality through these words, since he's evidently not going to do it by overturning our entire model of reality as he frequently claims to have done.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'm starting to suspect he has me blocked.

Only by mental means (a.k.a "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"). He has already shown that the simplest features in the forum's software are beyond his reach. Maybe that's why "telekinesis" is so attractive to him: the power of will instead of the (dwindling) power of intellect.

 

[JayUtah]

Unless you can get hold of the original equipment and generate a new baseline for comparison the data is worthless. Even then the new baseline would be questionable, because there could be variations between your reassembly of the equipment and how it was originally assembled and configured.

Or simple variations in environment that cannot be controlled for. Jahn realized this, which is why his protocol specified that the calibration runs and the experiment runs be done at the same time and place so that the uncontrollable confounds would reasonably be thought to homogenize across the runs. This is good practice.

Remember when Buddha, in his copious "expertise," told us that this was not valid and insisted that all the calibration data had to be collected ahead of time? Remember when he posted a reference to a description of the t-test that said exactly the opposite and endorsed the way Jahn did it? I don't know that we've seen Buddha discuss any statistical topic that isn't simply parroting what one of his opponents here has said and then restating it, only managing to get it completely wrong in the process.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Perhaps he will achieve a kind of immortality through these words, since he's evidently not going to do it by overturning our entire model of reality as he frequently claims to have done.

Do you mean that his «I also analyzed the Bible and concluded that Jesus is the Messiah, although he is not God. The way I see it, Adi-Buddha created Jesus and everything else, which makes him the Father.» may be false?

[It's in a visitor message addressed to himself -because he couldn't find the way to edit the "about me" section - Will he tell this to the skilled mathematician he's planning to contact next Thursday: Oliver Closoff, Amanda Hugginkiss, Jacques Strap and Al Coholic? ]

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Do you mean that his «I also analyzed the Bible and concluded that Jesus is the Messiah, although he is not God. The way I see it, Adi-Buddha created Jesus and everything else, which makes him the Father.» may be false?

[It's in a visitor message addressed to himself -because he couldn't find the way to edit the "about me" section - Will he tell this to the skilled mathematician he's planning to contact next Thursday: Oliver Closoff, Amanda Hugginkiss, Jacques Strap and Al Coholic? ]

Well, that and 'proved god', 'disproved evolution' etc, etc.

And no cracks about Al Coholic, he's a great guy. He must be, where ever I go people mistake me for him....

 

[aleCcowaN]

Or simple variations in environment that cannot be controlled for. Jahn realized this, which is why his protocol specified that the calibration runs and the experiment runs be done at the same time and place so that the uncontrollable confounds would reasonably be thought to homogenize across the runs. This is good practice.

Remember when Buddha, in his copious "expertise," told us that this was not valid and insisted that all the calibration data had to be collected ahead of time? Remember when he posted a reference to a description of the t-test that said exactly the opposite and endorsed the way Jahn did it? I don't know that we've seen Buddha discuss any statistical topic that isn't simply parroting what one of his opponents here has said and then restating it, only managing to get it completely wrong in the process.

Well, he only discusses the last few things he paid attention to (it's like he has a small buffer). That's why his talking keeps changing in a manner that simulates the evolution of a topic thought it's indeed the opposite of it.

Speaking of buffers, isn't error checking important knowledge in the profession he claims to belong to?

 

[halleyscomet]

Or simple variations in environment that cannot be controlled for. Jahn realized this, which is why his protocol specified that the calibration runs and the experiment runs be done at the same time and place so that the uncontrollable confounds would reasonably be thought to homogenize across the runs. This is good practice.

That's a good point. For example, depending on the apparatus, fluctuations in temperature can impact the equipment, as could variations in how clean the power supply was.

Remember when Buddha, in his copious "expertise," told us that this was not valid and insisted that all the calibration data had to be collected ahead of time? Remember when he posted a reference to a description of the t-test that said exactly the opposite and endorsed the way Jahn did it? I don't know that we've seen Buddha discuss any statistical topic that isn't simply parroting what one of his opponents here has said and then restating it, only managing to get it completely wrong in the process.

Buddha is very adept at taking his uninformed vague notions and declaring them best practices.

Well, he only discusses the last few things he paid attention to (it's like he has a small buffer). That's why his talking keeps changing in a manner that simulates the evolution of a topic thought it's indeed the opposite of it.

That would suggest he could be a Tensorflow implementation being fed a reference document and the last few pages of whatever thread he's been in.

 

[ihaunter]

The "Look what I found" fail is even bigger, everyone. Check the link he posted. It's a short commentary article about PEAR shutting down. It is not the analysis article that he has been REPEATEDLY pointed to.

 

[JayUtah]

It is not the analysis article that he has been REPEATEDLY pointed to.

...and which is referenced in the article he linked. Buddha does not read the sources he cites. This much has been made painfully obvious.

 

[halleyscomet]

The "Look what I found" fail is even bigger, everyone. Check the link he posted. It's a short commentary article about PEAR shutting down. It is not the analysis article that he has been REPEATEDLY pointed to.

I'm starting to think I may have worked with Buddha in the past at some point.

Buddha, do you honk at red lights even when you're the first person in line? If you don't do so now, was it ever your habit to do so?

Did you ever lose a contracting job because you announced during a conference call you didn't know was a conference call that you would, "Smoke a big fat joint, take a huge **** and come right over?"

Did you ever work for a consulting firm that specialized in restaurant efficiency? (That one is less likely, as I'd be shocked if that guy didn't keel over from heart failure before the end of the George W. administration.)

 

[aleCcowaN]

Look what I found! Here is the link to Stanley Jeffers’ article https://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_lab_closes_ending_decades_of_psychic_research

You didn't "find" it. It's been posted here several times along with repeated requests for you to deal with it.

The article is written in 2007, in it Jeffers criticizes the PEAR research. However, he didn’t mention his own research that failed to reproduced the PEAR results. It appears that he didn’t do his own research (it cannot be found on the Internet, either); instead he produced a fluff.

Nope. Jeffers wrote several articles for Skeptical Inquirer detailing the results of his work. The links were posted earlier. You don't get to limit your research to stuff you can find for free on the net and then complain that it's not of sufficient scholarly quantity when you have the references to the more extensive work. You live in a city with some of the best libraries in the world. Quit whining.

There was a conference but the Jeffers report is not available. What does it mean? I am going to check if Jeffers’ book is available at Google Books, but right now I do not have time for this.

We're not interested in what you don't have time for or what you don't want to pay for. You're making up excuses for why you won't address the critics your opponents here have repeatedly asked you to comment on.

It seems "Buddha" failed to use Jeffers' article to find Jeffers' study, the link we suggested him to follow so many times. The study is reference #5 in what "Buddha" linked. And there anyone with a forehead taller than two fingers can find Jeffers' 2003 article. From it, both summary and acknowledgements (highlighted by me):

Summary

Contrary to previous assertions most of the experimental work conducted by physicists concerning claims for psychokinetic effects have yielded no convincing evidence in support of these claims. Proponents of parapsychology typically offer ‘post-’ rather than pre-dictions in contrast to normal scientific practice. An assessment of some of the more credible claims reveals inconsistencies that diminish the impact of these claims.

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the help and generous support he has received from Professor Robert Jahn and his colleagues at the PEAR laboratory during the period that he has taken an interest in the subject of this paper. He has benefited from numerous discussions with members of the PEAR group and also Professor Jim Alcock of Glendon College, York University, Toronto and Professor Morris Freedman of the University of Toronto.

Of course "Buddha" doesn't understand a thing, he's is unwilling to read, he doesn't know how to search things on the Internet, so he simply badmouths Jeffers by saying «instead he produced a fluff»