Evidence for String Theory!!

[CFLarsen]

If the membership criteria is "Are you sceptical about string theory?" then I think you'll need a rather large clubhouse!

No, you just need a club......

 

[Dancing David]

Since string theory is an attempt to build a theory of physics totaly from the ground up, it is good to be sceptical. It seems to be an attempt to describe the behavior of things without any of the usual reverse engineering.

At this point the only predictions it has made involve supersymetry and something i can't remember.

But saying that string theory has no evidence and therefore we should believe in psi reseach is a bit of a strech.

String theory will have predictions that can be verified or disproven, psi has already been disproved.

Eos of Eons

BillyBob is a common nickname for a Beer Belly Bumpin Bubba, what was called a Hick from the Sticks in the past.

 

[Mark]

String theory will have predictions that can be verified or disproven, psi has already been disproved.

Eos of Eons

BillyBob is a common nickname for a Beer Belly Bumpin Bubba, what was called a Hick from the Sticks in the past.

From a strictly pedantic standpoint, wouldn't it be more accurate to say psi lacks evidence, rather than "has been disproved." Scientific method and all that.

 

[Dancing David]

From a strictly pedantic standpoint, wouldn't it be more accurate to say psi lacks evidence, rather than "has been disproved." Scientific method and all that.

Quite right, except I mean that all the evidence i have seen is some bogus manipulation of the data or outright fraud, I might have to search for the articles that Tai mentions.

 

[CFLarsen]

From a strictly pedantic standpoint, wouldn't it be more accurate to say psi lacks evidence, rather than "has been disproved." Scientific method and all that.

Depends...people have tried to find it for more than a century, and the closer they look, the less they find.

I'd say that's pretty "disproved", even from a scientific POV...

 

[Mark]

Depends...people have tried to find it for more than a century, and the closer they look, the less they find.

I'd say that's pretty "disproved", even from a scientific POV...

I knew you were going to say that. My goldfish told me.

 

[CFLarsen]

I knew you were going to say that. My goldfish told me.

You need a doctor, then.

No, seriously: When we speak of something "scientifically proved", that means that we have found so much evidence that the theory is considered sound. If we keep finding evidence that support e.g. evolution, we say that evolution is not just a theory, it is a theory supported by fact.

It works the other way, too: We can actually say with just as great confidence that there is no such thing as unicorns. Why? We've searched the Earth, and found nothing.

So, in that fashion, I do think we can speak of something being disproved. I'm not talking about something that hasn't been examinated very well here. I'm talking about abilities that have been tested for so long that we can say with growing confidence that psi - or unicorns - do not exist.

Sure, the possibility exist that both unicorns and psi exist, but we need solid evidence. So far? Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. And it's not for lack of trying...

 

[Mark]

You need a doctor, then.

No, seriously: When we speak of something "scientifically proved", that means that we have found so much evidence that the theory is considered sound. If we keep finding evidence that support e.g. evolution, we say that evolution is not just a theory, it is a theory supported by fact.

It works the other way, too: We can actually say with just as great confidence that there is no such thing as unicorns. Why? We've searched the Earth, and found nothing.

So, in that fashion, I do think we can speak of something being disproved. I'm not talking about something that hasn't been examinated very well here. I'm talking about abilities that have been tested for so long that we can say with growing confidence that psi - or unicorns - do not exist.

Sure, the possibility exist that both unicorns and psi exist, but we need solid evidence. So far? Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. And it's not for lack of trying...

Well, I'm still not confortable with "disproved." The recent flap over gamma ray bursters is a good example. It was "proven" that they had to be reatively close to us...to be as far away as they seemed to be would require more energy than the entire universe generates. Or so they thought. Turns out their nature was misunderstood and they really are very far away at the edge of the universe. The professor who originally made the claim was (at the time) considered a nut case. But he was correct after all.

Point being, I am very uncomfortable with "disproved" as opposed to lacks evidence. I know you and I disagree on this.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Depends...people have tried to find it for more than a century, and the closer they look, the less they find.

I'd say that's pretty "disproved", even from a scientific POV...

Really?

Maimonides dream experiments, Ganzfeld experiments, autoGanzfeld experiments, RNG experiments? The highly significant results from these disproves something??

 

[CFLarsen]

Really?

Yes, really. I don't see any Nobel prizes, I don't see any universities knocking down the doors of these people, I don't see any headlines.

Is this because:

1) All the smartest people in the world are just too stupid to see this fantastic discovery?

or

2) It is a world-wide conspiracy to keep this fantastic discovery locked up?

or

3) People are "just not ready" for this fantastic discovery?

How do you explain why this "evidence" does not seem very compelling to real scientists?

Maimonides dream experiments, Ganzfeld experiments, autoGanzfeld experiments, RNG experiments? The highly significant results from these disproves something??

We were talking about "evidence", T'ai Chi. Not "highly significant results". Or do you equate "highly significant results" with "evidence"?

While we are at it, do you equate "anomalous" with "paranormal phenomenon"?

And do you acknowledge, that in experiments of increased complexity, there will be an increase of "noise"?

Questions I seriously doubt you will answer.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Sure, the possibility exist that both unicorns and psi exist, but we need solid evidence. So far? Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. And it's not for lack of trying...

Only if you ignore all the evidence.

Maimonides dream experiments, Ganzfeld experiments, autoGanzfeld experiments, and RNG experiments, to name a few, using commonly accepted scientific methodology, have obtained highly statistically significant results.

Effects small? So? If the effects are there that is what matters. Maybe they are large in groups? Maybe they can be practiced and can be large one day? Maybe researchers can discover under what conditions they are small/large?

There was a small effect talked about in the BMJ in 1988 about reducing heart attacks and aspirin. The aspirin effect was declared to be real, and the study was stopped because it was considered unethical to keep people on placebos. The conclusion? Taking aspirin reduced the probability of getting a heart attack by only .008.

The corresponding effect size was one third to one fourth the size of the psi ganzfeld effect.

Yeah, no evidence.

 

[CFLarsen]

Point being, I am very uncomfortable with "disproved" as opposed to lacks evidence. I know you and I disagree on this.

"Disproved" means, of course, until contradicting evidence pops up. Precisely the way "proved" works.

I don't see the problem, really.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Yes, really. I don't see any Nobel prizes,

So you have to win a Nobel to have evidence? Are you for real?? An incredibly large percentage of scientists lack Nobel prizes.

I don't see any universities knocking down the doors of these people, I don't see any headlines.

Huh? Science isn't a popularity contest. If you think it is, you need a reality check.

How do you explain why this "evidence" does not seem very compelling to real scientists?

Real scientists are studying it. Unless, that is, you confuse the methods of science with the current topics of science.

We were talking about "evidence", T'ai Chi. Not "highly significant results". Or do you equate "highly significant results" with "evidence"?

It can be.

While we are at it, do you equate "anomalous" with "paranormal phenomenon"?

As I've already said, it can.

And do you acknowledge, that in experiments of increased complexity, there will be an increase of "noise"?

It depends on the specifics of the experiment.

Questions I seriously doubt you will answer.

See above.

By the way, will you EVER answer: Are the letter/name counts independent or dependent? Any time you're ready. I'll wait.

 

[Mark]

We were talking about "evidence", T'ai Chi. Not "highly significant results". Or do you equate "highly significant results" with "evidence"?

I do. Don't you? Aren't they semantically equal?

I am not weighing in on this particular issue (psi), but rather on the bias you seem to be displaying. Only something (what exactly?) from Nobel Prize winners will be accepted as evidence, otherwise it is just "highly significant results."

Whaaaaa?

 

[CFLarsen]

Only if you ignore all the evidence.

I am not "ignoring all the evidence". So far, I have seen none.

Maimonides dream experiments, Ganzfeld experiments, autoGanzfeld experiments, and RNG experiments, to name a few, using commonly accepted scientific methodology, have obtained highly statistically significant results.

Already commented.

Effects small? So? If the effects are there that is what matters. Maybe they are large in groups? Maybe they can be practiced and can be large one day? Maybe researchers can discover under what conditions they are small/large?

But they are not large "in groups". What do you base this assumption on? Experiments have been made with "groups", but they don't show any "evidence".

You forget completely, that outside the lab, these "effects" are not close to zero. It is - seemingly - very easy for psychics, dowsers, astrologers, what-have-you, to claim that paranormal "effects" are readily reproducible. People make a goddamn living from reproducing these "effects", T'ai Chi. Why can't they simply do them in a controlled environment?

Please don't dodge that one.

There was a small effect talked about in the BMJ in 1988 about reducing heart attacks and aspirin. The aspirin effect was declared to be real, and the study was stopped because it was considered unethical to keep people on placebos. The conclusion? Taking aspirin reduced the probability of getting a heart attack by only .008.

The corresponding effect size was one third to one fourth the size of the psi ganzfeld effect.

Yeah, no evidence.

What "psi ganzfeld effect" are you talking about? Since you don't mention any specific experiment, do I take it you mean all Ganzfeld experiments ever?

So you have to win a Nobel to have evidence? Are you for real?? An incredibly large percentage of scientists lack Nobel prizes.

No, you don't have to win a Nobel prize just to have evidence, but you are guaranteed to get one, if you find evidence of a paranormal phenomenon. You are guaranteed to clear the front pages of every scientific publication - nay, every publication as such, if you find it.

Don't you realize just how fantastic such a discovery would be???

Huh? Science isn't a popularity contest. If you think it is, you need a reality check.

Who said anything about popularity? Universities and scientific publications do not work by popularity.

Real scientists are studying it. Unless, that is, you confuse the methods of science with the current topics of science.

I am not talking about studying it, I am talking about the results not being compelling. You seem to equate "studying" with "positive results". Wrong.

It can be.

Examples?

As I've already said, it can.

Under what circumstances?

It depends on the specifics of the experiment.

Pick any of your own examples. Then tell me if this is possible or not.

See above.

Actually, you have not answered any of them. You have misrepresented what I asked, and "answered" something I did not ask.

By the way, will you EVER answer: Are the letter/name counts independent or dependent? Any time you're ready. I'll wait.

Discuss this with BH. It's between you and him. Do try to keep focused and do try not to derail threads.

I do. Don't you? Aren't they semantically equal?

Nope. "highly significant results" can point to something, "evidence" is much more unambiguous.

I am not weighing in on this particular issue (psi), but rather on the bias you seem to be displaying. Only something (what exactly?) from Nobel Prize winners will be accepted as evidence, otherwise it is just "highly significant results."

Whaaaaa?

That's not what I meant, as I explained to T'ai Chi. I did not say "only", did I?

 

[Darat]

I do. Don't you? Aren't they semantically equal?

I am not weighing in on this particular issue (psi), but rather on the bias you seem to be displaying. Only something (what exactly?) from Nobel Prize winners will be accepted as evidence, otherwise it is just "highly significant results."

Whaaaaa?

Isn't Claus just making a point here that discovering and providing evidence and theory for “psi" (whatever that means) would be so significant for the scientific community that it would make a wave or two.

It would not be reported as a footnote in some obscure publication.

 

[Mark]

Nope. "highly significant results" can point to something, "evidence" is much more unambiguous.

I'm confused. You seem to be saying that "evidence" equals "conclusive proof." Is that what you are saying? If so, then I am afraid you are incorrect.

I have not seen T'ai Chi's studies, so I am not commenting on them directly. But if you are saying there can be no evidence for his viewpoint until there is conclusive proof, then I have to say you are holding him to a much higher standard than is accepted for use of the scientific method.

 

[FutileJester]

From my limited understanding, string theory makes a few predictions, like supersymmetry and the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant was way off, and we don't have the tools yet to verify supersymmetry. I have serious doubts that it will be turn out to be correct, but it does make observable predictions. The problem is that these observations are very hard to make in practice.

String theory, for me, is perhaps a bit tainted as well by the seeming appeal it has in the popular press, far out of proportion to any successes with the theory. Appeal to popularity when something is still seriously debated within the field just smells kinda bad. But it does have a chance to prove itself; I seem to remember reading that in the next few years some experiments may be able to falsify/verify supersymmetry. We'll see.

 

[Mark]

Isn't Claus just making a point here that discovering and providing evidence and theory for “psi" (whatever that means) would be so significant for the scientific community that it would make a wave or two.

It would not be reported as a footnote in some obscure publication.

Sure it would. The overwhelming bias in the scientific community is against psi (with good reason, I grant you). It is very unlikely many scientists would jump on the bandwagon at all...unless they absolutely had to. Just as happened with Gamma Ray Bursters.

In other words, any significant positives, would tend to be ignored until it was impossible to do so any longer.

I am not saying this is happening (I wouldn't know)...but it sure could.

 

[CFLarsen]

Isn't Claus just making a point here that discovering and providing evidence and theory for “psi" (whatever that means) would be so significant for the scientific community that it would make a wave or two.

It would not be reported as a footnote in some obscure publication.

There's that British understatement thingie again....you guys are really good at that...

Yes, it would bloody well "make a wave or two"!!! It would clear all front pages on every newspaper in the world. It would send shockwaves not just through every scientific department, it would also shake the foundations of every religion on this planet.

So, if it only makes a wave in a publication devoted to paranormal research, then you can be pretty damned sure that it is not compelling at all.

I'm confused. You seem to be saying that "evidence" equals "conclusive proof." Is that what you are saying? If so, then I am afraid you are incorrect.

I am not saying that.