Design a double-blind experiment

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Luci said:

(a). Would mean that a candidate for a KSM had demonstrated a KSM, or had been lucky.

(b). would mean a candidate for a KSM had failed to demonstrate a KSM, or had been unlucky.

The more trials you run the easier it becomes to make an informed decision as to whether the likelihood of a KSM or a 'normal' medium (as in means of communication) is, or is not responsible for the results. If it is not a likelihood, then the case for the information coming via a 'para' normal medium becomes stronger.

We test a bunch of "real mediums" and somehow decide what "results" they produce. Note that the only way we know these people are "real mediums" is because they say so. We then somehow quantify the results so we can compare them to the results of other people.

Now we test some other people claiming to use a KSM and they come up with the same results. The null hypothesis is accepted. What does that tell us about the real mediums?

Then we test additional people and they come up with inferior results. The null hypothesis is rejected. What does that tell us about the real mediums?

~~ Paul

 

[Lucianarchy]

As I thought, you didn't understand it.

Yes I did. You, evidently, are unable to quantify your "enough".

 

[BillHoyt]

Yes I did. You, evidently, are unable to quantify your "enough".

Science doesn't work that way, Luci. The first paper to find a new, intriguing result is usually met with a collection of response papers. Each such paper takes a different tact. Some repeat the hypothesis, tighten the controls and try to replicate. Some offer an alternative hypothesis and alternative protocol. The results will not always agree. Then the next wave of papers begin, each refining the hypotheses or protocols. Finally, the protocol kinks get worked out. All the original flaws are smoothed out to an acceptable level and the papers begin to converge on an answer

 

[Lucianarchy]

Science doesn't work that way, Luci. The first paper to find a new, intriguing result is usually met with a collection of response papers. Each such paper takes a different tact. Some repeat the hypothesis, tighten the controls and try to replicate. Some offer an alternative hypothesis and alternative protocol. The results will not always agree. Then the next wave of papers begin, each refining the hypotheses or protocols. Finally, the protocol kinks get worked out. All the original flaws are smoothed out to an acceptable level and the papers begin to converge on an answer

So you still can't quantify your claim, Billy. Assuming the tests are replicated, and there's no need to alter controls, protocols etc, how many replications will settle the issue for you, Billy?

 

[BillHoyt]

So you still can't quantify your claim, Billy. Assuming the tests are replicated, and there's no need to alter controls, protocols etc, how many replications will settle the issue for you, Billy?

It isn't up to me, Luci. The question for you, however, is: do you want to truly understand how science works or simply to pretend to understand? Do you really want assistance in defining a test protocol or do you simply want to use the form of science without the substance? Your assumption that a single paper ever decides an issue evinces a fundamental lack of understanding. Your demand for a predetermined number of papers to decide an issue further evinces ignorance.

Now you can either elect to try to understand or simply retreat to your cargo cult and make laboratories from bamboo stalks, and chant and dance and pray for your preconceived conclusions to be borne out.

Cheers,

 

[Lucianarchy]

It isn't up to me, Luci.

You can't make up your own mind for yourself?

 

[BillHoyt]

You can't make up your own mind for yourself?

What possibly causes you to ask that? Have you not read enough of my posts to understand that a) I most certainly can make up my own mind and b) I am undeterred by the cacophonous protestations of the militantly ignorant and the woefully wooful?

I have made my point and quite clearly. I will summarize one more time:
o there is no set number of papers that determine when an issue is settled
o there is a convergence that becomes clear after the protocol kinks, mistakes and alternate hypotheses have all been ironed out.

I am sorry for you that your view of science is so hopelessly twisted that you can't see either the beauty or clarity of this. Now, would you care to discuss the issue or would you prefer to keep insinuating some inability of mine?

Cheers,

 

[Lucianarchy]

What possibly causes you to ask that?

The fact that you, evidently, cannot give a quantifiable answer to your claim. All I am asking is when the issue would be settled for you. Perhaps you just don't know, and that's fair enough, but it'd be clearer if you just said so. Is it the fact that you just don't know, Billy?

 

[BillHoyt]

The fact that you, evidently, cannot give a quantifiable answer to your claim. All I am asking is when the issue would be settled for you. Perhaps you just don't know, and that's fair enough, but it'd be clearer if you just said so. Is it the fact that you just don't know, Billy?

 

[Lucianarchy]

Since you failed to answer the question, your evasion can be rationally deduced to mean that you do not know the answer to your own claim and that you rely on others to make conclusions for you. That's OK, Billy, it's just not skeptical. Not at all.

 

[TLN]

Since you failed to answer the question, your evasion can be rationally deduced to mean that you do not know the answer to your own claim and that you rely on others to make conclusions for you. That's OK, Billy, it's just not skeptical. Not at all.

Billy answered your pointless question already. Your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method is not Billy's fault or problem to deal with.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Luci,

Since you failed to answer the question, your evasion can be rationally deduced to mean that you do not know the answer to your own claim and that you rely on others to make conclusions for you. That's OK, Billy, it's just not skeptical. Not at all.

Are you even aware that you are making a complete ass out of yourself? You are asking for an answer to a meaningless question.

Dr. Stupid

 

[BillHoyt]

Since you failed to answer the question, your evasion can be rationally deduced to mean that you do not know the answer to your own claim and that you rely on others to make conclusions for you. That's OK, Billy, it's just not skeptical. Not at all.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Luci,



Are you even aware that you are making a complete ass out of yourself? You are asking for an answer to a meaningless question.

Dr. Stupid

It is only meaningless to pseudo-skeptics like Billy and you, Stupid. It is meaningless because you rely on vague, shifting standards and the opinion and authority of those in whom you have invested far more than you can afford. In case you hadn't noticed, there is no divine god of science who decrees proof. All I am asking is that you quantify your beliefs with substance.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Lucianarchy,

It is only meaningless to pseudo-skeptics like Billy and you, Stupid. It is meaningless because you rely on vague, shifting standards and the opinion and authority of those in whom you have invested far more than you can afford. In case you hadn't noticed, there is no divine god of science who decrees proof. All I am asking is that you quantify your beliefs with substance.

No, it is a question about scientific methodology that is scientifically meaningless. You can attack my credibility, question my motives, and invent scientistic conspiracies until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day you are still wrong, and anybody who actually understands how the process of science works, knows it.

You would know it too, if you actually read Billy's explanation, and attempted to understand it, rather that simply looking desperately for anything that could potentially be taken out of context and used to try to discredit him, and attract attention away from the actual points that were being made.

Dr. Stupid

 

[TLN]

Let's summarize:

How many then?

Science doesn't work that way, Luci. The first paper to find a new, intriguing result is usually met with a collection of response papers. Each such paper takes a different tact. Some repeat the hypothesis, tighten the controls and try to replicate. Some offer an alternative hypothesis and alternative protocol. The results will not always agree. Then the next wave of papers begin, each refining the hypotheses or protocols. Finally, the protocol kinks get worked out. All the original flaws are smoothed out to an acceptable level and the papers begin to converge on an answer.

Which part of this would you like explained to you Luci?

 

[Lucianarchy]

Lucianarchy,



No, it is a question about scientific methodology that is scientifically meaningless. You can attack my credibility, question my motives, and invent scientistic conspiracies until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day you are still wrong, and anybody who actually understands how the process of science works, knows it.

Dr. Stupid

Stupid, your level of comprehension befits the name which belies your title. You can't think for yourself. Your willingness to rely on "anybody who actually understands" (like, no doubt, Billy), demonstrates you level of gullibility and lack of critical thought process quite well.

Dr Stupid indeed

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Stupid, your level of comprehension befits the name which belies your title. You can't think for yourself. Your willingness to rely on "anybody who actually understands" (like, no doubt, Billy), demonstrates you level of gullibility and lack of critical thought process quite well.

How many scientific publications do you have, Luci?

You don't know what you are talking about, and everybody here knows it.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Lucianarchy]

How many scientific publications do you have, Luci?

You don't know what you are talking about, and everybody here knows it.

Dr. Stupid

Your appeal to authority and projection is noted.

Hypothesis:

Known scientific mechanisms can replicate the same results as Laurie Campbell, John Edward, Suzane Northrop, George Anderson and Anne Gehman, collectively known as 'research mediums' for the HESL, under the conditions and protocols of the research of Dr Schwartz.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Luci,

Your appeal to authority and projection is noted.

An appeal to authority fallacy is when somebody cites the statements of a person as evidence that his position is correct, rather than present an argument himself. That is not what I have done here. What I have done is address your direct claim that I am ignorant of how the scientific process works with respect to publication, by posting a link to my own publications. Likewise, this directly addresses your implication that I am simply going along with Billy because I think is an expert, but do not understand the issues myself.

As to your dispute with Billy, my link has nothing to do with that. That issue has already been explained to you. The fact that you do not, or will not, get it, is your problem.

Hypothesis:

Known scientific mechanisms can replicate the same results as Laurie Campbell, John Edward, Suzane Northrop, George Anderson and Anne Gehman, collectively known as 'research mediums' for the HESL, under the conditions and protocols of the research of Dr Schwartz.

That is not a null-hypothesis. It is a direct prediction about what the results of a specific experiment will be. That is backwards and nonsensical. You seem to think that science works by dreaming up experiments, figuring out what you think the results should be if the claim you are trying to support is true, and then accepting results that agree with your prediction as evidence that the claim is valid. That isn't how it works. That is pseudo-science.

In real science, you start with a hypothesis, which must be falsifiable. Your null-hypothesis comes directly from that. Then, and only then, do you construct an experiment to test that null-hypothesis.

Let me give you a hint here. The null-hypothesis never ever says something like "when doing this experiment we will see these results". Anytime you see such a null-hypothesis, it is a clear indication that the researcher is simply trying to come up with some way to read significance into an experiment whose outcome he is already confident on, or worse yet, whose outcome is already known.

Dr. Stupid