Global Consciousness Project

[CFLarsen]

I did read the article. It was testimony.

And had you read it, you would know that I do talk about Radin's statistics.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

Evidence of what? If you equate anomalous with paranormal, then the white sock in my black sock drawer is paranormal.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

They won't reply to me. Must be that "skepticreport.com" suffix.

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.

Which is why I call you a woowoo: You are doing exactly the same thing that e.g. astrologers do: Scrapping the data that shows the theory wrong. You can't do that, you have to include the experiments that failed.

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"?

I'll explain this otherwise simple concept.

If you want to know if a ruler shows the correct measurements, you need to measure it against something you know the length of.

One meter is the distance traveled by a ray of electromagnetic (EM) energy through a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 (3.33564095 x 10-9) second.
Source

But if the eggs used in GCP cannot be shielded off from this whatever-it-is, then you have no way of knowing if the output is truly random. Ergo, the output will always be wrong.

You would know this, if you had an inkling of scientific training. Obviously, you don't.

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?

I've tried, but have gotten no reply. I thought perhaps you would know, since you are so well-versed in this. As usual, you have no answers.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

How can I have "all the information", when you refuse to let me have it? There is absolutly no reason that you refuse to make your data public, other than your insistence that people dance to your tune.

You excluded people who were undecided on whether psi existed or not. You insisted that they either were for or against psi, or they wouldn't be allowed in. Yet, you yourself claim to be undecided. What a total hypocrite you are.

Can anyone "involved" please tell me if T'ai ever gave these links? Who should I ask, T'ai? Or is that secret, too?

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..

Falling back on the personal snide remark, whenever you are in trouble, eh? Nobody is preventing you from discussing GCP.

 

[jmercer]

I have reviewed the JSE articles you provided. They essentially contain the same information as is listed on their website.

However, I did find this interesting response in JSE to the articles written:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v16n4a3.php

The author makes some very interesting points, especially - in my opinion - when he speaks about "data fiddling", as he calls it. (The author is Jeffrey Scargle of the NASA Ames Research Center.) Clearly Larsen, Ed and I are not the only ones with serious misgivings about how the project is being executed.

I'll be reading the third article soon, and will provide my remarks on that particular one afterward.

 

[Ed]

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.

That any arbitrary data can be shoved into any arbitrary formula is self evident. To interpret the result is another story.

I am curious to hear any contribution from T'ai on the question of this thread. It would be a novel experience.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am curious to hear any contribution from T'ai on the question of this thread. It would be a novel experience.

You won't get it. People like T'ai never step up to the plate. Their egos are far to fragile to risk such a thing.

He will whine about people being so nasty to him, but he will not tell you what he thinks.

He is nothing but an empty shell.

 

[jmercer]

I'll be reading the third article soon, and will provide my remarks on that particular one afterward.

I've read the third article. Since it's essentially a rephrasing of the website and other two articles, there's no value in me commenting on it other than to say that the assumption of significance to the spikes is STILL due to the deliberate assignment of meaningful events. In other words, manipulating the data to support the conclusion.

 

[Ed]

You won't get it. People like T'ai never step up to the plate. Their egos are far to fragile to risk such a thing.

He will whine about people being so nasty to him, but he will not tell you what he thinks.

He is nothing but an empty shell.

I do not think that he has posted a declarative sentence on any woo subject. It is all insinuating and passing the buck. What about the analysis of the paper that he trolled ...errr...promised once others gave there POV? Basically dishonest.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Ah, a further gratuitious insult and ad hominem attack - now you're implying that I'm illiterate as well as a "woo".

Not at all. That is your interpretation of what I said. I can say that you have an active imagination.

So, are you a professional statistician?

Come 3/05, yes. My college education is in statistics. But that is all besides the point. Does one need to be a professional statistician to know and understand the definition, that is found in basic statistics texts, of a p-value? I don't think so.

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.

Physics is your attempt at a distraction. Please, let's get back on p-values. I'm waiting for anyone to actually show me how to calculate one without a null hypothesis, Ed or you if you still think that. If not, then Ed, can you show us how to calculate one in vacuo, or at least explain what you mean by in vacuo?

Having said that, please show me where I claimed that p-values can be computed without a null hypothesis?

If you don't think that, I'm asking W(hy)TF are you going after me to prove to you that one needs a null hypothesis to calculate p-values?

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 don't think you're guilty; you don't need to confess your sins to me. I just think it was odd of you asking me to prove something that is defined to be calculated from a null hypothesis.

 

[T'ai Chi]

And had you read it, you would know that I do talk about Radin's statistics.

Again, I have read it, and, again, it is your testimony of you attending his lecture.

"Radin showed a graph..."

"When I then pointed out..."

and etc. Of course, your memory is not fallible we are to assume?

But, you do say

"Whether it is flawed research or a real phenomenon is still out."

and I agree. Which is why more study is needed, right?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Evidence of what? If you equate anomalous with paranormal, then the white sock in my black sock drawer is paranormal.

But who's doing that? I'm not. I think the word paranormal is fairly loaded anyway.

I'm saying if there is an anomaly, study it.

You sum it up nicely

"Whether it is flawed research or a real phenomenon is still out."

So study it and find out, I say.

 

[Ed]

Still no contribution. Batting 1.000

 

[T'ai Chi]

Which is why I call you a woowoo:

Which is why I call people like you a pseudoskeptic, a scoffer, and so on. You misunderstand, often, f'd up at least one analysis that I know of, then lecture others on critical thinking. I'll gladly keep calling you what you actually are.

You are doing exactly the same thing that e.g. astrologers do:
Scrapping the data that shows the theory wrong.

So when you make an inference to the population of all astrologers, from a convenience sample of 7, you aren't being sloppy with data?

, you have to include the experiments that failed.

If you have evidence they aren't including failed experiments, show it. Don't just conjecture it and expect us to believe you.

But if the eggs used in GCP cannot be shielded off from this whatever-it-is, then you have no way of knowing if the output is truly random.

If a rng is creating 200 1's and 0's, say each second, we'd expect, from theory, 100 1's and 100 0's with a certain spread. We then run the rng's and see if the observed numbers are close to what theory says it should be close to. They at the GCP have in fact done this. There are tests for nonrandomness, a lot, that the rngs (all rngs, in general) go through.

The rngs pass all the tests and have expected output. Except sometimes, which is what the GCP is studying I'd say.

You would know this, if you had an inkling of scientific training. Obviously, you don't.

Obviously I do, and obviously, you didn't fully get the point why I was asking you what you meant by calibration in this specific case. You are invited, as always, to show me your "scientific training".

The universities I graduated from and my employer seem to disagree with your innacurate assessment... I'll trust them over you any day.

I've tried, but have gotten no reply.

Most likely you probably called them a woo woo, then demanded data and responses, and then were flabbergasted when you didn't get a response. Claus, will you download their data and analyze it for yourself?

 

[T'ai Chi]

How can I have "all the information", when you refuse to let me have it?

Oh so now I refused you? And you get on my case for saying that you refused me...

Anyway, if you were involved in the project, you got links. If you didn't, you didn't.

Get over it already!

public, other than your insistence that people dance to your tune.

And you keep dancing, quite nicely I may add. But the music has long since stopped.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The author makes some very interesting points, especially - in my opinion - when he speaks about "data fiddling", as he calls it. (The author is Jeffrey Scargle of the NASA Ames Research Center.) Clearly Larsen, Ed and I are not the only ones with serious misgivings about how the project is being executed.

Yes, I agree. I never said that there aren't any skeptics of the GCP. Of course there are.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You won't get it. People like T'ai never step up to the plate. Their egos are far to fragile to risk such a thing.

He will whine about people being so nasty to him, but he will not tell you what he thinks.

He is nothing but an empty shell.

More personal stuff. You and Ed keep hurting my e-feelings..!

Would you like to debate with me any skeptical topic that involves statistics? Wiill you step up to the plate?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I do not think that he has posted a declarative sentence on any woo subject. It is all insinuating and passing the buck. What about the analysis of the paper that he trolled ...errr...promised once others gave there POV? Basically dishonest.

You hurt my e-feelings...

So what is your contributions Ed? Saying "Me too!!" whenever Claus posts?

Amaze me. Do something unexpected.

 

[T'ai Chi]

How can I have "all the information", when you refuse to let me have it?

Yeah, better for you to make it up and say I withheld info.

Do you have the data from every, say, ongoing medical study Claus? NO?!! Why not? It is because you are not a part of the study in no way, shape, or form! You are simply not entitled to it, at all.

After the study, sure. The transcript study never got off the ground, and was scrapped long ago. So what is your point again?

 

[T'ai Chi]

That any arbitrary data can be shoved into any arbitrary formula is self evident. To interpret the result is another story.
[/quopte]

Well that is a whole other issue.

The issue at hand was are we able to calculate p-values without a null hypothesis, and the answer is no, we are not able to.