Global Consciousness Project

[T'ai Chi]

Not if the flaw in the methodology is so obvious that there's no need to do the research -

So, what is it?

why haven't they published their findings for peer review?

That's a good question. You should email them and ask them directly and see what they say. I know they have published technical articles in the Journal of Scientific Exploration and the Foundation of Physics Letters. I'm not sure where else.

The only downside to publishing is if your project is found to be flawed. So... why haven't they published after almost 5 years of work,

I'm not sure if that is true or not. But even if it were, I'm interested in actually looking at their claims and making a decision, not saying 'oh they haven't published', or 'they've published in sub-par areas' and 'therefore their claims are invalidated'.

They don't expect the findings to stand up under scrutiny in the scientific community.

With your mindreading talents you should apply for the Challenge money.

That's certainly true enough. However, in this particular instance the structure exists because the data's been chosen carefully to create it.

What specifically was chosen?

You, on the other hand, have made speculative statements such as "Having p-values implies they have a null hypothesis". I'd say that you have some work to do.

Really? P-values are calculated based on assuming a null hypothesis is true.

 

[T'ai Chi]

JZS is a person named T'ai C'hi

correction: jzs is a person named Justin who had, at one time, other accounts, and is now using his real name and information.

But thanks for calling me a "person". Our relationship is making great strides Ed.

Though, could you please stay on the topic at hand? Talking about me doesn't make your argument any stronger (or strong at all).

Incidentially, on can compute a p value in vacuo,

Please provide an example so I can see what you mean.

 

[Ed]

Ed, if you could stay on topic that would be great.

The transcripts? Your "analysis" of that silly paper you cited?

 

[Ed]

correction: jzs is a person named Justin who had, at one time, other accounts, and is now using his real name and information.

But thanks for calling me a "person". Our relationship is making great strides Ed.

Though, could you please stay on the topic at hand? Talking about me doesn't make your argument any stronger (or strong at all).



Please provide an example so I can see what you mean. [/B]

Google p and statistics.

You can't hide style, T'ai. Why did you run away?

 

[T'ai Chi]

The transcripts? Your "analysis" of that silly paper you cited?

And that has what exactly to do with the GCP... ?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Google p and statistics.

I just now typed p and statistics into Google. I'm not sure what you want me to see here.

You can't hide style, T'ai. Why did you run away?

Hiding and running away is me being here right now, and deciding to use real information? Interesting look at it, Ed.

Would you like to get off talking about me and actually talk about the GCP?

 

[jmercer]

Not if the flaw in the methodology is so obvious that there's no need to do the research -

So, what is it?

You want me to repeat myself? Again? Sorry, I don't have the time or the inclination to do your work for you. Re-read the thread. Aside from my stating the flaw multiple times, others have, too.

I know they have published technical articles in the Journal of Scientific Exploration and the Foundation of Physics Letters. I'm not sure where else.

Oh? You have proof of this? Please produce it - I used to work in publishing. Proving they did this should be simple enough.

The only downside to publishing is if your project is found to be flawed. So... why haven't they published after almost 5 years of work,

I'm not sure if that is true or not. But even if it were, I'm interested in actually looking at their claims and making a decision, not saying 'oh they haven't published', or 'they've published in sub-par areas' and 'therefore their claims are invalidated'.

And where did that quote 'therefore their claims are invalidated' come from?

I certainly never said their claims were invalid because they didn't publish. I've maintained that their claims are invalid because their process is flawed, and they know it - which is why they haven't published.

Nice try at putting words in my mouth, but it ain't gonna work.

With your mindreading talents you should apply for the Challenge money.

Ah... resorting to Ad Hom. Running out of alternatives?

What specifically was chosen?

A second request to repeat myself? I think not, especially after the above comments you've made.

Re-read the thread if you can't remember what I said. I already gave you the list, pasted directly from their site.

Really? P-values are calculated based on assuming a null hypothesis is true. [/B]

I see. And that's the only way P-values are calculated, hmm? Fascinating - please, provide the technical proof or the references to the proof of your claim. This ought to be interesting.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You want me to repeat myself? Again? Sorry, I don't have the time or the inclination to do your work for you.

Forget me. You apparently don't have the time or inclination to do your work for you.

Oh? You have proof of this? Please produce it - I used to work in publishing. Proving they did this should be simple enough.

Prove they had articles in the JSE and in the Foundations of Physics Letters? Um... that is simple enough:

JSE
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v16n4a2.php

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v16n4a1.php

Foundations of Physics Letters
Correlations of Continuous Random Data with Major World Events
By: R. D. Nelson; D. I. Radin; R. Shoup; P. A. Bancel
Found in: Volume 15, Issue 6, Dec 2002
Pages: 537-550

They've also published in the

Journal of Parapsychology
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/GCPJP.pdf

So do you have anything to add, besides asking me for 'proof of my claims' ?

Ah... resorting to Ad Hom. Running out of alternatives?

Saying you have mindreading talents is not an ad hom. You should really find out what ad hom means.

I said

Really? P-values are calculated based on assuming a null hypothesis is true.

you said

I see. And that's the only way P-values are calculated, hmm? Fascinating - please, provide the technical proof or the references to the proof of your claim. This ought to be interesting.

I'll do better than a "technical proof". I'll post a picture of my bookshelf which has several introductory (and graduate) books which all tell you something like

' the p-value is the probability of getting a value of the test statistics as favorable or more favorable to the alternative hypothesis than the observed value (if Ho were true)'

On the right-hand side of my shelf, going down, we have

p. 126 of In All Likelihood: Statistical Modelling and Inference Using Likelihood
p. 41 of Statistical Sleuth: A Course in Methods of Data Analysis
p. 58 of Design of Experiments: Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis
p. 431 of Mathematical Statistics with Applications
p. 302, of General Statistcs
p. 429 of Understanding Basic Statistics
p. 441 of Introduction to the Practice of Statistics

That is the definition of a p-value, afterall.

Now, if you'll check back, the one making the extraordinary claim is Ed, who said

Incidentially, on can compute a p value in vacuo, the act of computation means absolutely nothing.

Where is his evidence? Where are both of your evidences if you are saying that p-values can be computed without null hypotheses?

 

[CFLarsen]

Or, since that article is just testimony, and doesn't mention statistics at all, which is the very basis of understanding the project, I'd recommend reading the project's website first.

I did point to Radin's statistics. Read the article.

 

[CFLarsen]

I interpret that to mean he is being cautious in his comments by saying they don't prove the existence. He's not saying that they aren't evidence for the existence.

That was pathetic.

 

[CFLarsen]

Evidence of anomalous structure in what should be random data ... which correspond to certain events.

This is not correct. E.g., the 9-11 data does not correspond with the 9-11 event.

 

[CFLarsen]

I won't do your work for you.

Hey, you wrote an article about it. Shouldn't you know?

I was asking if you knew. You don't, obviously. So, how can this be falsified? How can GCP be proved wrong? How do you calibrate the "eggs"?

Lots of questions, T'ai....

 

[CFLarsen]

JZS is a person named T'ai C'hi who posted exactly the same sort of insinuating stuff a while back. This individual never commits itself to anything and tries to make others do so. The current post is a good example. There was a "study" that this person was working on, recruited people, supposedly was putting together a database. Nothing. Beware the trolls....

Let's not forget that T'ai also flatly refused to let anyone see the transcripts he had gotten others to collect for him. Thoroughly dishonest.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I did point to Radin's statistics. Read the article.

I did read the article. It was testimony.

 

[T'ai Chi]

That was pathetic.

That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

The cautious thing to do is say in an article is to be tentative (note: not anal retentative, Claus) that it is evidence, not proof. That is what a scientist would do.

 

[T'ai Chi]

So, how can this be falsified? How can GCP be proved wrong? How do you calibrate the "eggs"?

Yes, you have some questions. Have you mailed the researchers involved and ask them? They'd be the ones to actually know.

My guesses are that if no significance is acheived in the window of time, for the majority of events in the formal registry, over the length of the project, then it will be scrapped.

As far as the eggs, they are just the client sites with rng machine. There's really no mystery with the rng machine. What do you specifically mean by "calibrate"?

You'd have to ask the actual researchers I'd guess if you want real answers. You will do that, and report back, won't you?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Let's not forget that T'ai also flatly refused to let anyone see the transcripts he had gotten others to collect for him. Thoroughly dishonest.

The people involved had direct links to them in their entirety. Those not involved in the project, did not (because they weren't involved).

I think if you don't have all the information straight, Claus, you shouldn't speak. Try it.

Now, if you and Ed could try your hardest to actually stay on the topic of the GCP, that would be great. I don't consider your self control to be that well, controlled, so I won't hold my breath..

 

[Ed]

The topic is whatever is discussed.

So, you can start by commenting on pixie's deconstruction. If you cannot then GCP is dead.

 

[jmercer]

Forget me. You apparently don't have the time or inclination to do your work for you.

Forget you? Well, I won't make any promises, but I'll work on it if you insist...

Prove they had articles in the JSE and in the Foundations of Physics Letters? Um... that is simple enough:


JSE
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v16n4a2.php

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v16n4a1.php

Foundations of Physics Letters
Correlations of Continuous Random Data with Major World Events
By: R. D. Nelson; D. I. Radin; R. Shoup; P. A. Bancel
Found in: Volume 15, Issue 6, Dec 2002
Pages: 537-550

They've also published in the

Journal of Parapsychology
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/GCPJP.pdf

So do you have anything to add, besides asking me for 'proof of my claims' ?

Not until I review the documents provided, but thank you for the links! I'll certainly provide my comments (good or bad) after reading them. Unfortunately, I won't be able to access the Foundations of Physics Letters as easily as the others, so my comments on that particular piece might take a bit of time.

Saying you have mindreading talents is not an ad hom. You should really find out what ad hom means.

Ah, a further gratuitious insult and ad hominem attack - now you're implying that I'm illiterate as well as a "woo". Perhaps you should be the one reviewing the definition of ad hominem. To save time, I've looked it up for you:

Merriam-Webster Online

Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Accusing someone of having psychic abilities in a skeptic's forum is indeed an ad hominem attack. It's an attempt to discredit your opponent's character,rather than reply to a presented argument. In fact, it could also be characterized as appealing to prejudices as well, since people in skeptics forums tend to react strongly to people who claim to have psychic abilities.

And, of course, you've now performed a further ad hominem attack by implying that I'm so illiterate that I don't know the correct meaning of "ad hominem", yet I'm willing to use it - another attempt to attack my crediblity, rather than address my arguments.

Pretty much textbook examples of ad hominem, in my experience. And while I'm not particularly sensitive about such things, I'm certainly not going to let your efforts to attack my credibility (regardless of how ineffectual they are) go unremarked.

I'll do better than a "technical proof". I'll post a picture of my bookshelf which has several introductory (and graduate) books which all tell you something like

' the p-value is the probability of getting a value of the test statistics as favorable or more favorable to the alternative hypothesis than the observed value (if Ho were true)'

On the right-hand side of my shelf, going down, we have

p. 126 of In All Likelihood: Statistical Modelling and Inference Using Likelihood
p. 41 of Statistical Sleuth: A Course in Methods of Data Analysis
p. 58 of Design of Experiments: Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis
p. 431 of Mathematical Statistics with Applications
p. 302, of General Statistcs
p. 429 of Understanding Basic Statistics
p. 441 of Introduction to the Practice of Statistics

That is the definition of a p-value, afterall.

So, are you a professional statistician? If so, then I accept your contention that the only way to have a p-value is by having a null hypothesis. If not... well, I can show you an equally impressive bookshelf containing all sorts of reference material and texts on physics, quantum physics and astronomy. But I'm certainly not a physicist.

Now, if you'll check back, the one making the extraordinary claim is Ed, who said (snipped)

Where is his evidence? Where are both of your evidences if you are saying that p-values can be computed without null hypotheses?

A valid point, and I stand corrected - Ed made the claim, and therefore should provide the proof.

Having said that, please show me where I claimed that p-values can be computed without a null hypothesis? All I'm guilty of is asking you to provide proof for Ed's assertion, when I should have been asking Ed to support his statement.

 

[jmercer]

All I'm guilty of is asking you to provide proof for Ed's assertion, when I should have been asking Ed to support his statement.

I misstated the last sentence (above) in my reply - it should be:

All I'm guilty of is asking you to provide proof for your assertion that p-values can only be computed with a null hypothesis, when I should have been asking Ed to support his statement.