Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

[JayUtah]

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-.

As did I, probably 200 posts before that. Strangely enough, all Buddha can seem to accomplish is repeating his same, "I compared these two pictures and they don't look anything alike." I'm not getting the impression he believes that any sort of abstract thought is necessary here.

 

[aleCcowaN]

We're not going to get anywhere until he stops personalizing the debate.

Then, we're not going to get anywhere. How can you ask the mosquito not to bite?

But in his defence, because of his posts this thread was already going nowhere, even before he started his personal attacks.

 

[Pooneil]

It's just more gaslighting, obviously.

Quite clearly. But sometimes what he says is so jaw droppingly ignorant, I just can't help but feed the trolls. I'm actually bit surprised he hasn't gone down in flames yet by exercising the ban option so he can save whatever shreds of his persona's dignity remain.

"mathematical statistics." (I wasn't aware there was a non-mathematical kind.)

My recollection is that "mathematical statistics" was taught in the math department because the students were required to do other worldly things like prove of the central limit theorem. Those of us that took statistics and econometrics, could just accept the proofs and move on.

Not that Buddha actually cared. But in some sophomoric, hair splitting way he may be gloating inside.

 

[aleCcowaN]

My recollection is that "mathematical statistics" was taught in the math department because the students were required to do other worldly things like prove of the central limit theorem. Those of us that took statistics and econometrics, could just accept the proofs and move on.

Is some Statistics taught outside the math department? (I'm used to universities with large student populations and divided in "watertight" schools, each one with its own departments, though I followed another career in a small private university without departments)

The only elements of Statistics I had taught to me in a course not belonging to the math department were the Maxwell-Boltzmann, Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein distributions and other few subjects taught within my fifth and sixth semesters of Physics.

I always thought "Estadística Matemática" was a high falutin name given to a highly theoretical course I had to follow. I liked better Probability & Statistics, and Inferential Statistics, both the right balance between theory and practice.

But some topics are deeply revisited in higher courses, like Research and other thesis related courses.

 

[Startz]

Is some Statistics taught outside the math department? (I'm used to universities with large student populations and divided in "watertight" schools, each one with its own departments, though I followed another career in a small private university without departments)

In many universities, statistics is taught in the Department of Statistics.

It's also common to have what are effectively serious statistics courses taught in economics departments and no doubt other departments as well.

 

[JayUtah]

Is some Statistics taught outside the math department?

Yes, but only if special topics are indicated.

The consensus between the two statisticians I talked to is that "mathematical statistics" is probably what we would more commonly call in English, "statistical probability." Ironically that's the most commonly required kind of statistics study among the fields Buddha named earlier. It doesn't really have much to do with the analytical and inferential statistics we're talking about here with respect to the psychology studies. It's not a big deal; I just thought it was a curious turn of phrase.

 

[Garrette]

In many universities, statistics is taught in the Department of Statistics.

It's also common to have what are effectively serious statistics courses taught in economics departments and no doubt other departments as well.

My wife has a doctorate in Education and took a lot of statistics for that (she does quantitative research). The courses she took, however, were not taught in the Education but in the Mathematics Department.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Yes, but only if special topics are indicated.

The consensus between the two statisticians I talked to is that "mathematical statistics" is probably what we would more commonly call in English, "statistical probability." Ironically that's the most commonly required kind of statistics study among the fields Buddha named earlier. It doesn't really have much to do with the analytical and inferential statistics we're talking about here with respect to the psychology studies. It's not a big deal; I just thought it was a curious turn of phrase.

For all these topics """"Buddha"""" follows what Wikiwad tells him. There's an article in English about "mathematical statistics". It started in 2004 and evolved in a way it now refers to a slightly different thing, expanded to include stochastic processes and whatnot.

Surprisingly, """"Buddha"""" 's knowledge, acquired during the last 35 years, always matches the last version of every Wikiwad article, and more (he says)! but always curiously revolving around the last version in Wikiwad. What an amazing coincidence. Even more, what a cutting edge education! or, what an ability to foresee the future!


[Do you think he believed it?]

 

[aleCcowaN]

By the way, I found the paper with Jeffers experiment on telekinesis using a single slit. It's very interesting. It's how I intuitively had developed the experiment, but there are certain potential problems with the setting that make much better his double slit version.

In this experiment the variable is almost one of two I offered for """"Buddha"""" to confirm or deny (Jeffers' gives it a proper name that I omitted), and follows a normal distribution, undoubtedly. A test is performed for obvious reasons. Is it a t-test or a Z-test? Mystère et boule de gomme.

I already sent the link to Jay. Anyone else who'd like to have this link sent, just let me know here or by PM.

 

[JayUtah]

For all these topics """"Buddha"""" follows what Wikiwad tells him. There's an article in English about "mathematical statistics".

Hm. Now I just took it initially to be one of those curious turns of phrase we sometimes see from Buddha. But now that I read the article, I'm inclined to agree to your interpretation. He seems to be groping for buzzwords and impressive-sounding concepts, staying fairly close to the Wikipedia landscape.

But what's more interesting is that there's nothing in the Wikipedia article that isn't already a foundational concept covered in exisitng statistics courses. There's nothing magical or obscure there at all. I don't see why the set of fundamentals gets its own name.

Buddha appears to be struggling to split another hair. I think he's coming around to the notion that he can't succeed with a direct bluff. Just like Jabba had to come up with "holistic thinking" as the all-important magical process that he'd mastered and no one else could, Buddha is casting about for something he can still claim to be expert in while acknowledging the inescapable fact that his opponents here are statistically savvy. So he latches onto "mathematical statistics" and tries the gambit: "Yes, this is the kind of statistics you need to know, and I know it and none of you guys do."

Good catch.

No, of course he doesn't know it. He doesn't yet know what a distribution fundamentally represents. That's not a shortcoming he can sustain while pretending to be so very enlightened regarding theory.

 

[Pooneil]

Is some Statistics taught outside the math department?

The business schools I've attended taught statistics and regression analysis with in the school. The Economics department also taught stat and regression as econometrics, which is what you needed for the PhD program in Finance. One business school had a course in stochastic calculus taught through the quantitative management program because that was the profs speciality. It attracted mostly physics PHD students that wanted to go on to work as quants in financial or industrial companies.

As a finance TA, I was introduced to the term "mathematical statistics" while working with a math TA to help a football player pass his classes.

 

[JayUtah]

In this experiment the variable is almost one of two I offered for """"Buddha"""" to confirm or deny...

Effectively it is one of the ones you suggested. And Jeffers states a number of times what the dependent variable is whose distribution he studies. It's not the normalized distribution of the photon hits themselves.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Thank you all for the interesting information about how are high studies organized in the States. I did 60% of my studies in the UNBA (National University of Buenos Aires) when it had just 240,000 students. Now it has only 320,000 because many other national universities were settled in the Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires to avoid student overpopulation. Otherwise it'd have some 600,000 students.

 

[Buddha]

Do lies that flagrant work for you in real life?

I ask out of curiosity. Does your tendency to waver between insults of varying degrees and feigned concern / respect actually FOOL the people you know in real life? It's not working here.

Your scientifically illiterate posts devolved into insults and nonsense quite some time ago. Pretending otherwise is fooling nobody, especially as this forum has a time limit on how long you can edit posts. This prevents you from tossing your past errors into a memory hole.

Regardless of your answer, should you give one (which I doubt) I suggest you invest in a dictionary. Your odd insistence that an insult must cause actual emotional distress to be an insult is an absurdity unique to you.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insult


Note how both the noun and the verb forms of the word lack any hint of your qualifier that the insult must "hurt" the person being insulted. I warn you, while I am a computer programmer and DBA today, I was an English major in college. Venturing into queer definitions for words in posts of yours I actually read could get you a tongue lashing the like of which aleCcowaN and JayUtah have yet to deliver to your childish drivel regarding statistics. Playing at Alice's Humpty Dumpty may fly with the people subjected to your presence in meat space, but it simply won't do here. Yes, language evolves (R.I.P. the useful definition of "literally") but flagrantly lying about the common meaning of words is something I will not tolerate young man / girl / non-binary person / and so on.



Alice may have been too puzzled to take the egg shaped stuffed shirt to task, but I'm watching you now. Not very closely mind. I'm only skimming the thread at this point.

I think you should ask Jay if he thinks that his replies to my posts do not fit the definition of insults.

 

[Buddha]

Do lies that flagrant work for you in real life?

I ask out of curiosity. Does your tendency to waver between insults of varying degrees and feigned concern / respect actually FOOL the people you know in real life? It's not working here.

Your scientifically illiterate posts devolved into insults and nonsense quite some time ago. Pretending otherwise is fooling nobody, especially as this forum has a time limit on how long you can edit posts. This prevents you from tossing your past errors into a memory hole.

Regardless of your answer, should you give one (which I doubt) I suggest you invest in a dictionary. Your odd insistence that an insult must cause actual emotional distress to be an insult is an absurdity unique to you.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insult


Note how both the noun and the verb forms of the word lack any hint of your qualifier that the insult must "hurt" the person being insulted. I warn you, while I am a computer programmer and DBA today, I was an English major in college. Venturing into queer definitions for words in posts of yours I actually read could get you a tongue lashing the like of which aleCcowaN and JayUtah have yet to deliver to your childish drivel regarding statistics. Playing at Alice's Humpty Dumpty may fly with the people subjected to your presence in meat space, but it simply won't do here. Yes, language evolves (R.I.P. the useful definition of "literally") but flagrantly lying about the common meaning of words is something I will not tolerate young man / girl / non-binary person / and so on.



Alice may have been too puzzled to take the egg shaped stuffed shirt to task, but I'm watching you now. Not very closely mind. I'm only skimming the thread at this point.

Just like Jay, you do not have sense of humor. "I care about his feelings" is a sarcastic remark. I really do not care about his feelings, but the joke was lost on you.

 

[Buddha]

Yes, they were a failure in design -- egregiously so. Buddha thinks that's all fixed by machinery. I wonder how he would fare critiquing an experiment that had no electrical apparatus for him to say was properly built and therefore the experiment must have worked. To listen to him, psychology research is just a matter of inventing a machine, and if you get the electromechanical design right, you're all set. But in addition to comically gullible experiment design, Hasted also failed to provide a statistical argument for his claims of significance and non-correlation to the controls. He didn't show his work, therefore he doesn't get credit. As all those pretty casinos in Las Vegas demonstrate, people are very inaccurate when they try to estimate probability intuitively.



Hence why he has to admit publicly that he's stumped on the double-slit question. How many times have we given the answer, and Buddha follows up with a flurry of links to show he's hastily post-Googled that answer and now wants to pretend he already knew all about it? Not this time. Before he gets the answer he has to go on the record saying he doesn't know it, or asserting that there is none.

I tried really hard to understand your interpretation of my posts, but failed. Your thoughts are so complicated that even Palmer and Jeffers would be baffled by them. Why are trying so hard to impress me instead of offering your defense of Palmer's article? You rare going in circles instead of addressing real issues instead of imaginary ones?

 

[JayUtah]

I think you should ask Jay if he thinks that his replies to my posts do not fit the definition of insults.

Ad hominem.

Just like Jay, you do not have sense of humor. "I care about his feelings" is a sarcastic remark. I really do not care about his feelings, but the joke was lost on you.

Ad hominem.

I tried really hard to understand your interpretation of my posts, but failed. Your thoughts are so complicated that even Palmer and Jeffers would be baffled by them. Why are trying so hard to impress me instead of offering your defense of Palmer's article? You rare going in circles instead of addressing real issues instead of imaginary ones?

Admission of ignorance, putatively excused by an ad hominem.

As for why I'm waiting, you know the answer. You have to admit publicly and unequivocally that you aren't able to abstract the statistical models from the papers you've read, that this is a skill you do not possess. I explained the reasons for needing to do this. So either make the required admission or explain why the reasons are invalid.

 

[Buddha]

And I already explained that all you have to do is admit right here in this thread that you don't know how to form a statistical model, and you'll earn the right to be taught. That's it. How hard can that be? Look at how many other people in this thread have said they don't understand the statistics. They're being treated respectfully and courteously. Why? Because they are honest.

See, when you tried to compare the picture of the interference pattern with the picture of the normal distribution and suggested this prevented statistical analysis, everyone who took even one year of statistics laughed their asses off. And rightly so. The mistake you're making is colossally ignorant. You can't recover from it. No one at this point believes you know much of anything about statistical analysis. So now your only hope is to demonstrate to this forum that you have a shred of honesty about you. So as soon as we have in hand your sincere, unqualified public admission that you don't know how these models work, then we can begin the teaching process. But as long as you're still going to rely on bluff and bluster, you can't and won't learn anything and I'll just be wasting more time on you than I already have.

Or...​

You could survey the thread and see where I already explained it. You're fond of ignoring practically every attempt I've already made to teach you. No, not ignoring it -- blatantly crapping all over it. You're frankly hostile to learning. I see no evidence that you're even trying to understand what any of your critics are telling you. It's just knee-jerk denialism. So that has to change before we try -- yet again -- to correct your misunderstanding.

Or...​

You could respond to where aleCcowaN already explained it. It's not as if this is obscure information.

Or...​

To that end you could pick up literally any introductory statistics text and learn how to construct a distribution from any process that has an expected outcome. The key property of the double-slit apparatus -- or any process -- is not that its product is immediately bell-shaped. Instead the property that allows us to treat those things statistically is that its outcome is predictable from theory or empirically observable for long enough to establish baseline behavior. It doesn't matter what that outcome physically looks like.

But no :--

What we get instead is the same feeble attempts as always to script the debate away from your own failures and weaknesses and dictate the form and footing of the answer. The rest of us are trying to arrive at a cogent understanding of the problems and pitfalls of scientifically testing controversial claims. You're trying to arrange a Keyboard Warrior cage match instead.

Oh, by the way, whoever predicted that Buddha would start trying to pick and choose who the spokesman would be for his opponents just won whatever we give out for things like that.

Too much rhetoric, especially the part of "teaching" a superior opponent like me. Sometimes it takes so much effort to get through the muddy waters of your posts that I seek inspiration in the music. I listen to one of my favorite albums, The Dark Side of the Moon. I like this line:

"There is a lunatic in my head, but he's not me"
Pink Floyd

 

[halleyscomet]

I think you should ask Jay if he thinks that his replies to my posts do not fit the definition of insults.

If you can't stand the heat, stop posting crap on a skeptic's forum. Your posts are full of ignorance and bluster. Everyone here knows it. You've repeatedly lied about your education and work experience. Calling you out on this is not insulting you.

You're doing a lot of flailing in a sad, desperate effort to save face. It's not happening. You're not wining anyone over to you in this thread. You've spouted too much ignorant nonsense and told too may lies. I suggest that you either seriously rethink your goals in this thread and focus on them, or you abandon it. At this point you're a catnip mouse and JayUtah is the cat playing with you.

 

[Buddha]

Are you drunk? I cannot fathom how an allegedly sober person could come to such an absurd conclusion. It is a bald faced lie steeped in hubris. You are quite literally the only person in this thread, perhaps the only person on the planet, making such a nonsensical claim.

At least I drink a superior French cognac. Before you write your incoherent posts you get stoned with Long Island iced tea.