Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

[Startz]

Majority of the science-oriented boards are frequented by the people who have degrees and professional experience in engineering, computer science, chemistry, genetics, economics and architecture. None of these fields requires knowledge of mathematical statistics.

Some part of this debate has been a little hard for me to follow, since I've never read any of the details of the underlying experiments. But the line quoted helped make things clear. Every economist is trained in mathematical statistics. The OP is just making up stuff.

 

[JayUtah]

Some part of this debate has been a little hard for me to follow, since I've never read any of the details of the underlying experiments. But the line quoted helped make things clear. Every economist is trained in mathematical statistics. The OP is just making up stuff.

Indeed. In fact all the fields he named require some degree of formal education in statistics. Economics especially I would describe as applied statistics. Now that he's on the cusp of having to admit the paucity of his knowledge of statistics, he's hastily trying to construct a safety net that means that admission won't be as personally damaging as he fears. "It's okay that I'm a novice when it comes to statistics, because the sciences are really about other things."

It doesn't matter whether he's an expert in statistics. It matters whether he's honest about the level of expertise he does have.

 

[aleCcowaN]

To compare and contrast with some other boards: year ago I joined Christian Forum without researching them first. I thought they are mainstream Christians. Turned out, they are Christian conservatives belonging to marginal denominations, so I lost my appetite for any discussion there.

A "year" ago? You're a lousy story teller. You joined that forum this year, on July 2nd, 6 days after you have joined here . You even bragged about it in your first thread "Jell-O 1-2-3" (remember, the one about some demiurge of yours with the "shake 1, must be false, shake 2, must be false, shake 3, look its lovely colours") on the fact that you have joined here to fulfil certain secret goals and there to fulfil different ones.

I tell you, to be a liar you at least have to have a good memory.

[I have more to say about this, but got called and have to go. See y'all later]

 

[JayUtah]

...leaning on the authority of some impressively-credentialed author explaining the same thing. Tellingly, he is also able to explain in his own words why your links do not support your claims.

Let me be clear -- my presentation leans very heavily on the authority of prominent authors and educators in statistics, as I'm sure you would guess. Just not in the quick-fix, sound-bite fashion Buddha exhibits, which I think is the crux of your contrast. My understanding is based on the instruction of several authors, several instructors, considerable hands-on experience, a host of colleagues, and the professional statisticians in my employ. It's a gestalt of long experience going back decades. I would be hard-pressed to put footnotes on everything I say, because what I say and believe is not merely rote knowledge from some easily-referenced passage.

 

[JayUtah]

The OP is just making up stuff.

Not only is he blatantly making stuff up, he shot himself in the foot. While he once claimed to be a "data analyst," he seems to be walking that back. Now he just says he's a control-system engineer. Well then if engineers don't learn statistics, as he claims, then where did he supposedly get all this "superior" statistical knowledge?

 

[Pooneil]

Majority of the science-oriented boards are frequented by the people who have degrees and professional experience in engineering, computer science, chemistry, genetics, economics and architecture. None of these fields requires knowledge of mathematical statistics.

You just keep digging this hole deeper and deeper. It is not possible to understand economics or finance without a good grounding in econometrics. Which is using statistics to measure economic activity.

Same for the other fields. Even when one is at the level of a consumer of knowledge rather than a producer. A knowledge of statistics and the ability to view what is being studied probabilistically is required. People in those fields can discern who does and who does not have that knowledge.

 

[Hellbound]

You all may remember that he claimed to have written a booklet named "Critique of the Theory of Evolution" by Resource Publications, from Eugene, OR (so he gave away his supposed real name willingly).

Ahhh....

It makes sense now.

Not his arguments, but why he's making them

 

[aleCcowaN]

Currently Jay and I are having a debate that includes our interpretations of mathematical statistics. It is hard for a person with little experience in this field to follow our debate. A person might be exceptionally bright, but if he/she had only a brief exposure to the new field a debate seems difficult to understand, it requires some time to absorb new data...

Oh! The good o'le Soviet Union again and """"Buddha"""" 's Pravda indoctrination.

Don't be ridiculous: you're making a fool of yourself with all your "statistical" nonsense. Your failing at it has been dire and there's no way you can now get over the bad name you have earned for yourself here, in spite of the crocodile tears in your post.

I though you're lowest point in all this "statistical fantasia" of yours was when you declared that Jeffers' double-slip experiment didn't yield a normalizable variable and showed a Fraunhofer diffraction pattern for us to realize that you have confounded the diffraction pattern itself with the variable in the experiment. You later left unanswered every post that pointed to you what the variable was or asked you to define the variable yourself. "Intellectual cowardice" I think that it's called.

 

[JayUtah]

People in those fields can discern who does and who does not have that knowledge.

It's just more gaslighting, obviously. We're a "science-oriented board." And from some orifice he's pulled a list of the professions typical of people he thinks frequent those boards. No data, provided, of course. Just a categorical list of kinds of people he thinks he's dealing with. Then, equally presumptively, he says those people don't receive training in "mathematical statistics." (I wasn't aware there was a non-mathematical kind.) Bottom line is the same thing he's been saying since he got here: nobody in this forum can possibly be smart enough to refute him, so any refutation must automatically be false because they don't understand what he's saying.

He knows full well he's making this argument. He's just gaslighting people in hopes that they won't recognize it for what it is. He's trying to soften it, disguise it, recast it in different forms. But it's still the same old naked claim to intellectual superiority he's been making in every thread. And how dare you be affronted for his having made it! You're so unfair to him.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Ahhh....

It makes sense now.

Not his arguments, but why he's making them

For what I searched, it looks like many people there have in their daily reading list, first, the Bible, second, Twitter's The Real Donald Trump.

 

[halleyscomet]

Ahhh....

It makes sense now.

Not his arguments, but why he's making them

Keep in mind, we have only Buddha's word that he wrote that book, and as we have seen repeatedly in this thread he lies like he breathes.

I recommend checking out the free sample of the Kindle edition of the book. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll pity whoever graduated from the education system that produced the author of that volume.

Both Buddha and the author of the book clearly like beating dead horses. The writing is on the wall, even tough he refuses to accept it.

Creationists have gotten clever, but there's still no debate over evolution

Creationists and intelligent design proponents have gotten clever. Instead of pushing for creationism to be taught in science classes, they're merely asking that schools fairly present 'the scientific evidence' against evolution. The only problem? There isn't any.

 

[theprestige]

Currently Jay and I are having a debate that includes our interpretations of mathematical statistics. It is hard for a person with little experience in this field to follow our debate.

Nope. Jay offered you a debate weeks ago, but you avoided it, and that moment is long past.

Now Jay is giving the rest of us an impromptu seminar in basic concepts of statistical analysis, using your comical misunderstandings as a didactic foil.

And the only one who seems to be having a hard time following along is you.

 

[aleCcowaN]

He knows full well he's making this argument. He's just gaslighting people in hopes that they won't recognize it for what it is. He's trying to soften it, disguise it, recast it in different forms. But it's still the same old naked claim to intellectual superiority he's been making in every thread. And how dare you be affronted for his having made it! You're so unfair to him.

I'm sad to tell that he's argument is now only for the sake of his own ideation and self deception. It's clear he know there's nobody "out there" supporting his botched claims, so he must push quite the act to "remain in the belief".

Now, it's just:

As """"Buddha"""" went to St. Ivesburgh
He met nine Mathematicians who supported him
And every Mathematician had nine compliments for him.
And each compliment was seconded by nine lurkers
And each lurker was a nice forum person for nine reasons, according to him.

 

[JayUtah]

You later left unanswered every post that pointed to you what the variable was or asked you to define the variable yourself. "Intellectual cowardice" I think that it's called.

He tried to split hairs today, which is also telling. He admitted he couldn't "name" the dependent variable and asked me to do it. But he stopped short of conceding that this means he doesn't know how to abstract the research model from the research report, which is the much larger problem in the case he's trying to make. He's so desperately fishing for me to spoon-feed him the answer, but only in a way that lets him spin it post hoc to once again feign competence. He simply won't participate in a debate where he doesn't get to play games.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Let me be clear -- my presentation leans very heavily on the authority of prominent authors and educators in statistics, as I'm sure you would guess...

I guessed. I didn't mean to imply you were a statistics prodigy who independently worked out the whole field for yourself in the course of the thread.

 

[aleCcowaN]

He tried to split hairs today, which is also telling. He admitted he couldn't "name" the dependent variable and asked me to do it. But he stopped short of conceding that this means he doesn't know how to abstract the research model from the research report, which is the much larger problem in the case he's trying to make. He's so desperately fishing for me to spoon-feed him the answer, but only in a way that lets him spin it post hoc to once again feign competence. He simply won't participate in a debate where he doesn't get to play games.

I already presented to him two possible variables in post #711 -one will lead him to the answer in just one simple step of abstraction-.

I was many times tempted to shout at the top of my typing "lungs" the essential statistical knowledge """"Buddha"""" lacks regarding when to use a t-test or a Z-test. I even gave the example of the characteristic strength of concrete in post #661 to try to get his "lightbulb" lit. But everything fails with him because of his lack of basic knowledge in statistics and his compulsion to get away with everything by means of snow jobs instead of careful intellectual processes.

Even with his misunderstood "variable" he should have realized that the "mean" position has a known value and that has consequences for ... I want so much to shout the obvious, but I must refrain myself.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I guessed. I didn't mean to imply you were a statistics prodigy who independently worked out the whole field for yourself in the course of the thread.

I think everybody but one knows here who would think he is such person.

 

[Hellbound]

For what I searched, it looks like many people there have in their daily reading list, first, the Bible, second, Twitter's The Real Donald Trump.

I lived in Portland for a while. Eugene was widely acknowledged as the "Woo Capitol of the World".

I still recall one co-worker (from Eugene) breaking down in tears at work. Why? Bad break-up, death in the family, financial trouble? No, she was convinced the sun was getting closer to the Earth and was going to kill us all, and the government was keeping it secret.

I just smiled, nodded, and backed away slowly.

Keep in mind, we have only Buddha's word that he wrote that book, and as we have seen repeatedly in this thread he lies like he breathes.

I recommend checking out the free sample of the Kindle edition of the book. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll pity whoever graduated from the education system that produced the author of that volume.

Both Buddha and the author of the book clearly like beating dead horses. The writing is on the wall, even tough he refuses to accept it.

Actually, given his stances on the board, I'm inclined to accept that at face value. I see nothing exceptional in believing he would espouse the views from that book, or be from Eugene

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sad to tell that he's argument is now only for the sake of his own ideation and self deception.

Yes. He said straight up today that the goal he's pursuing is to be crowed the superior debater. He's trying to foist those same motives onto me.

My approach is, "Okay, you're criticizing this science supposedly on scientific and mathematical grounds. It doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about, so let's look at the foundation of your expectations to see what we might resolve."

His approach seems to be, "I'm going to show everyone that Jay isn't as smart as me, and then he'll lose all his die-hard followers." His latest self-important screed is practically drooling all over itself with its promises to take me down with his +7 Quotation of Smiting or some such thing.

We're not going to get anywhere until he stops personalizing the debate. Nobody here believes he's a statistical prodigy, so -- since he says such admissions are no big deal for him -- I'm waiting for the admission to issue forth in this case so we can look at what Jeffers and Jahn really did, with the goal of understanding the science, not coming off looking the smartest to laymen.

 

[JayUtah]

...I cannot be sure that he correctly reflected the study documentation.

You said earlier that you read the study. Are you now reversing your position and admitting you did not? As I said, it's one of the best known studies in all the literature. Further, I referred you several times to Zimbardo's recent book in which he spends several chapters giving a detailed retrospective on the famous experiment.