Evidence for String Theory!!

[CFLarsen]

Sure. You could have PM'd me. Instead you post it to the JREF community forum. LOL!

Why should I PM you? Why should these answers be secret? You made the claims here, people read your claims. Why can't they see your answers?

The evidence demonstrated in experiments referenced in that book. Do try and understand what you read.

Not answered, then.

Regression were done that showed that experiment quality was NOT associated with decreased effect. How many times will I have to repeat this, dude?

Until you show evidence hereof.

I said all ganzfeld experiments done in a certain time frame. I don't have the book in front of me Claus, but he has an entire section on the ganzfeld and autoganzfeld experiments.

No, you changed it: You added "in a certain time frame".

Wrong. Experiments are the vechicle by which evidence is delivered. The experiment itself is not the physical (or mental) evidence.

Then, why do you keep referring to these experients? We know they were done, so let's focus on the evidence, shall we?

Regression were done that showed that experiment quality was NOT associated with decreased effect. How many times will I have to repeat this, dude?

Until you show evidence hereof.

"Highly significant" ie. as measured by commonly used statistical science. If you reject it in parapsychology, you must necessarily reject it in medicine (where it was used to say that aspirin is related to decrease heart attacks... and the effect in the aspirin study was roughly 5 times SMALLER than the effect in the paraspychology studies!) and other sciences.

Is the aspirin experiment the only experiment that shows this relation?

Look, if the proportion of heads should be 50%, but it is at 51.5% after millions and millions of 'flips', but it is at 50% when the control group is flipping, this should tell you something if you understand probability; namely that the probability of this occuring is incredible.

How exactly many millions?

Attempt at personal smear. Look, just talk about the actual evidence, not me, not Radin, not Puthoff, the evidence, Mmm'kay?

This from you! Look, if Radin believes a guy who believes in Xenu, that is not "personal smear", that means Radin has trouble distinguishing good from bad.

Unrelated to the evidence. Typical routine for you by now.

So, show that evidence!

Uh, the article you have on skepticreport raised doubts about the 65% confidence intervals. If you or the article writer just want to raise doubts but do nothing about it (other than raise doubts) that is fine, but you should ask the author about it and update your critique accordingly. You DO want to figure out why he used 65% CI's don't you?? I merely raised some possible scenarios.

I merely host the article. If you want the author to contact Radin, contact the author.

Name some other times where I've done this, with links to the threads please.

Your very own Questions for T'ai Chi is one. You should focus on that one...

A RNG is the computer method of throwing a die.

And how does it choose the perfectly random data?

Interesting belief, I disagree however.

This strategy is already addressed in another thread.

No, I don't. I do think it is dishonest to keep trying to say I am dishonest, I haven't read the book, mentioning Scientology, etc etc. when those aren't the issues at all, but the evidence presented in the book and references is, so there.

At the end of the day, you are unable to quote from the papers, the book, etc. Dishonest.

I've said, I'm not going to explain the contents of many dozens of articles to you. That is very unreasonable. Go read them yourself.

I HAVE SAID IT SEVERAL TIMES, IT IS NOT MANY DOZENS OF ARTICLES! JUST THE HANDFUL YOU MENTIONED!

You're not dishonest?

You have some work to do on your list, bucko.

Not a problem.

Great! Your questions are no "collated" too! This is fun!

So, go answer them.

It is better for you to read them. You do want to understand the topics, right?

Yes. Now, please explain them. Not the "many dozens", but just the handful.

The issues in them are lengthy; that is why they are articles consisting of many pages. Go read them.

All I am asking for is the evidence. Why is that so dang hard for you to show?

The evidence talked about in Conscious Universe and in the references. Do pretend to keep up. You know, like the combined ganzfeld hitrate being 37% when it should be 25%... the combined autoganzfeld hitrate being 34% when it should be 25%... the combined RNG hitrate being 51.5% when it should be 50%, you know, stuff like that.

Evidence?

Attempted guilt by association. You must know statistics real well because you do like to deviate. Stick to the evidence. So far you've listed Puthoff, Scientology, Radin, me, my honesty etc etc, anything to NOT talk about the hitrates. You're all over the map here Claus.

Not attempting anything here, except pointing out the similarities in methodology.

Good, then you'll have no problem answering fully all the questions I've listed for ya!! We'll see...

I have. Do try to pretend to keep up.....

 

[T'ai Chi]

Until you show evidence hereof.

See The Conscious Universe and references contained therein, please. If you have any questions about what you read in the book or the references, please feel free to ask.

Is the aspirin experiment the only experiment that shows this relation?

I am aware of one other, but please Claus, do try to keep focused. If you have any comments about the aspirin study and the conclusions and meta analysis, please let me know.

If you would like to comment on the fact that the psi effect is roughly 3 to 4 times as large as the aspirin effect, please, let us know also.

This from you! Look, if Radin believes a guy who believes in Xenu, that is not "personal smear", that means Radin has trouble distinguishing good from bad.

It is personal because it has nothing to do with the psi experiments whatsoever!

Do you feel that saying Puthoff likes Scientology has something to do with the evidence for psi?

Do you do read the articles before putting them on your page?

I merely host the article. If you want the author to contact Radin, contact the author.

I find it funny that someone can point to 65% confidence intervals as criticism yet have no interest whatsoever at contacting the author asking him why he chose 65% confidence intervals or why the book says 65% confidence intervals. The article writer or its ok-er (you) should contact Radin and update your page accordingly, if you wanted to that is.

Its like one wants to criticize and not learn...

Your very own Questions for T'ai Chi is one. You should focus on that one...

Claus, you have some work to do still.

And how does it choose the perfectly random data?

Radioactive decay, gates, there are many methods.

At the end of the day, you are unable to quote from the papers, the book, etc. Dishonest.

At the beginning, not to mention at the end of the day, you decide not to persue references that you are given the exact location of. Why is that?

You've admitted you've only read roughly 10 parapsychogical articles in the last year. Why is that?

You're not dishonest?

No. But thank you very much for making my job infinitely easier by resorting to personal diversions so early.

Yes. Now, please explain them. Not the "many dozens", but just the handful.

Don't get ahead of yourself. You've got some dozens yourself...

 

[CFLarsen]

Ta'i Chi,

Let's cut the crap.

If you have evidence of any paranormal phenomenon, please present the studies that show it, and let's discuss the contents of those.

Put up or shut up.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Ta'i Chi,

Let's cut the crap.

If you have evidence of any paranormal phenomenon, please present the studies that show it, and let's discuss the contents of those.

Put up or shut up.

Better yet Claus, answer some questions when you have the time.

IF you can, which I highly doubt at this point.

Also, feel free to address BillH's counting method, specifically why you believe the letter/name counts to be independent.

 

[CFLarsen]

Better yet Claus, answer some questions when you have the time.

IF you can, which I highly doubt at this point.

Also, feel free to address BillH's counting method, specifically why you believe the letter/name counts to be independent.

OK, you don't have any evidence. Or refuse to answer. The result is the same.

You couldn't put up. So shut up.

 

[T'ai Chi]

OK, you don't have any evidence. Or refuse to answer. The result is the same.

You couldn't put up. So shut up.

I'll pass on shutting up, but thanks for your valuable input.

Claus, I guess you couldn't answer some questions.

Specifically, do you believe the letter/name counts to be independent or dependent?

Oh, and for a nice discussion on the evidence for psi, please see The Conscious Universe and the references it references.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'll pass on shutting up, but thanks for your valuable input.

Claus, I guess you couldn't answer some questions.

Specifically, do you believe the letter/name counts to be independent or dependent?

Oh, and for a nice discussion on the evidence for psi, please see The Conscious Universe and the references it references.

Still no evidence. Still no answers.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Let's accept it's "theory" status even though there's been no statistical studies of it and no actual evidence.

Surely all the physicists who accept it, and know how easy and replicable these experiments will be, would be willing to go out on a limb here and show us something, anything, besides more math and theorizing?

 

[Zep]

Have you actually gone and looked for any of their research YOURSELF? Seriously, HAVE you?

 

[wollery]

In response to the thread title -

With any luck, before you actually state what you believe.

 

[The Sopwith Turtle]

http://xkcd.com/c171.html

That is all.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

String theory is like the opposite of psi. With psi, it's all experiments and no theory. With string theory, it's all theory and no experiments.

Maybe with the Large Hadron Collider?

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

Heck, I'd rather have experiments than a theory. At least it is more 'real world'.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The T in DAT is Theory.

But I know, that isn't a scientific theory (in the sense of being shown through experiments). I agree, same with the theory in string theory.

 

[Zep]

Heck, I'd rather have experiments than a theory. At least it is more 'real world'.

So I take it the answer to my question, about whether you have done any research on the topic yourself, is "No".

Fine.

 

[Tearout]

Since the "theory" proposes that strings are far too small to ever be studied directly, is statistical study of "actual evidence" even possible?... ever? I suspect that if experimentation was easy and replicable, we would by now have much more than math and theorizing.

My spider sense tells me that much patience will be required before this area of study will bear edible fruit.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Maybe someone will posit that psi exists in multiverses, somethings else that are unobservable, undetectable, etc. But since they are agreed upon as 'natural', it is OK to do that.

 

[CFLarsen]

Maybe someone will posit that psi exists in multiverses, somethings else that are unobservable, undetectable, etc. But since they are agreed upon as 'natural', it is OK to do that.

You tried the same ruse almost 3½ years ago. And even posted about it in this one, back in October 2003.

Then, you had done nothing to find evidence yourself. Now, you still haven't done anything to find evidence.

Troll.

 

[T'ai Chi]

3 years later looks like the evidence is about hte same. Why aren't psuedoskeptics clamoring to scrap string "theory"?

Do things defined as natural, yet with no observables, have different status as things defined as supernatural?

 

[CFLarsen]

3 years later looks like the evidence is about hte same. Why aren't psuedoskeptics clamoring to scrap string "theory"?

You're going to have to ask them.

Do things defined as natural, yet with no observables, have different status as things defined as supernatural?

You still think you are all that much more clever than anyone else here.

Talk about false beliefs.