Global Consciousness Project

athon · May 3, 2005

No offence to anybody here, but I am surprised this is still going. No...literally none...nada...zip...progress has been made in pages. Justin cannot understand science, and evades the questions he has no means of answering. He has already said he does not understand what a negative control is or what it is needed for, and since he has demonstrated an unwillingness to understand it...well, as a teacher I can tell you it is futile trying to discuss an issue with somebody who has not the means to understand what it is you are discussing.

For the most part it's been educational, but now it is simply wasted pixels.

Athon

CFLarsen · May 3, 2005

athon said:
No offence to anybody here, but I am surprised this is still going. No...literally none...nada...zip...progress has been made in pages. Justin cannot understand science, and evades the questions he has no means of answering. He has already said he does not understand what a negative control is or what it is needed for, and since he has demonstrated an unwillingness to understand it...well, as a teacher I can tell you it is futile trying to discuss an issue with somebody who has not the means to understand what it is you are discussing.

For the most part it's been educational, but now it is simply wasted pixels.

Athon

Wise words.

T'ai Chi · May 3, 2005

athon said:
Justin cannot understand science,

People (like universities and employers and myself) disagree with your purposefully malicious statement.

He has already said he does not understand what a negative control is or what it is needed for,

I said I have never heard those terms used like that. That is a big difference between not understanding or not being able to understand.

, as a teacher

As a strip club bouncer, I'll say that is irrelevant.

CFLarsen · May 3, 2005

jzs said:
People (like universities and employers and myself) disagree with your purposefully malicious statement.

Do you take any criticism of you as a "purposefully malicious statement?

Are you really that thin-skinned?

athon · May 3, 2005

jzs said:
People (like universities and employers and myself) disagree with your purposefully malicious statement.

[/b]

I said I have never heard those terms used like that. That is a big difference between not understanding or not being able to understand.

As a strip club bouncer, I'll say that is irrelevant. [/B]

Wow, quick off the mark when it comes to somebody suggesting you lack the ability to understand science (BTW, do you really think it is purposefully malicious if it is true? I don't comprehend Japanese tea rituals. If somebody accused me of that, I don't think it is malicious. And I was making an observation based on your reluctance to answer certain questions).

So, why aren't you so quick to answer Claus' or Stimpy's questions? Easier to defend your personality than your claims, maybe?

And honestly, people have tried to explain negative controls to you, which are essential in any experiment. Yet you do not see this as relevant. Ergo, you do not understand them. That's ok, but you continue to ignore the help people offer. That's not ok if you wish to continue debating something you do not understand. I make this claim as a teacher due to experience helping others come to a conclusion by learning new skills.

WTF does being a bouncer have to do with anything?

Athon

T'ai Chi · May 3, 2005

CFLarsen said:
Do you take any criticism of you as a "purposefully malicious statement?

Are you really that thin-skinned?

Only the ones that are purposefully malicious statements.

T'ai Chi · May 3, 2005

athon said:
Wow, quick off the mark when it comes to somebody suggesting you lack the ability to understand science

Liar. You didn't "suggest" it, you stated

"Justin cannot understand science, "

If you state something purposefully malicious, where the information is available to all, including you, to show that this is patently false, expect the thug tactics to be pointed out.

athon · May 4, 2005

jzs said:
Liar. You didn't "suggest" it, you stated

"Justin cannot understand science, "

If you state something purposefully malicious, where the information is available to all, including you, to show that this is patently false, expect the thug tactics to be pointed out. [/B]

Whatever. I could not be bothered having this sort of argument.

Now, answer Claus' questions or I think we can safely conclude that they are too difficult and this debate has run its course and it has been shown that this experiment's results have no merit.

Athon

CFLarsen · May 4, 2005

athon said:
Now, answer Claus' questions or I think we can safely conclude that they are too difficult and this debate has run its course and it has been shown that this experiment's results have no merit.

Athon

jzs,

Here they are, in case you forgot:

If the GCP data tends to be improbable, then why are they simultaneously explainable by science?
What does the analysis say, when they include the whole dataset?
Is "assured" different from "guaranteed"?
What negative claim is Stimpy making?
How exactly do you propose that Stimpy look at long sequences of output from the REGs which were made during periods in which it is known that no external influences were present?
Do you agree that if they want their experiments to give meaningful results, they need to make sure the experiment is controlled properly?
If you think there is a mistake in the derivation where Stimpy showed that is argument is analytically correct, can you point it out?
If you are concerned about Stimpy's arguments, could you respond to them?

CFLarsen · May 5, 2005

Bumped for jzs.

athon · May 5, 2005

CFLarsen said:
Bumped for jzs.

Claus, you do realise that to make the djinni appear, you have to insult him three times. You know, insinuate that he doesn't understand something, or that he's stupid, or that science is as inaccessible to his pea brain as speech is to a goat's.

Otherwise, any calls into the ether quickly fade into silence. I'll bet all the lint in my left pocket that my post will get a response before yours.

Athon

T'ai Chi · May 5, 2005

athon said:
Whatever. I could not be bothered having this sort of argument.

Oh well. I'm sure your rebuttal would have been marvelous!

T'ai Chi · May 5, 2005

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If the GCP data tends to be improbable, then why are they simultaneously explainable by science?

Ooh! Switching into clausian mode to answer questions with twice as many questions.

Don't you think that is a meaningless question? Don't you agree that something can be improbable and also explainable by science? Why is this an issue for you?

What does the analysis say, when they include the whole dataset?

What is "the" analysis you are speaking of? The GCP results for the formal hypothesis registry? Or are you talking about another dataset? What do you mean by an analysis saying something? The statistics? The conclusion of the authors?

Is "assured" different from "guaranteed"?

Could you get a dictionary? And use it? Then report back?

How exactly do you propose that Stimpy look at long sequences of output from the REGs which were made during periods in which it is known that no external influences were present?

Do you believe it is up to me to figure out how to make his critique hard-hitting? Shouldn't it up to him?

Do you agree that if they want their experiments to give meaningful results, they need to make sure the experiment is controlled properly?

Will you ever define the phrase 'proper control'? Why do you think their results are not meaningful? Could you reveal your secret to make "sure" any experiment is properly controlled?

If you think there is a mistake in the derivation where Stimpy showed that is argument is analytically correct, can you point it out?

Don't you think he should point out any serious flaws first?

If you are concerned about Stimpy's arguments, could you respond to them?

Could you repeat your questions again?

T'ai Chi · May 5, 2005

Stimpson J. Cat said:
What negative claim am I making?

My claim is that if they do not establish that the output of the REGs will, in the absence of external influences, be sufficiently close to their model, that nothing can be inferred from statistically significant results of their analysis.

But forgot our main disagreements for now.

Could you just reveal to us how any experiment can be absent of external influences as you are demanding?

Thanks.

CFLarsen · May 6, 2005

jzs said:
Ooh! Switching into clausian mode to answer questions with twice as many questions.

Don't you think that is a meaningless question? Don't you agree that something can be improbable and also explainable by science? Why is this an issue for you?

Question not answered.

jzs said:
What is "the" analysis you are speaking of? The GCP results for the formal hypothesis registry? Or are you talking about another dataset? What do you mean by an analysis saying something? The statistics? The conclusion of the authors?

Question not answered.

jzs said:
Could you get a dictionary? And use it? Then report back?

Question not answered.

jzs said:
Do you believe it is up to me to figure out how to make his critique hard-hitting? Shouldn't it up to him?

Question not answered.

jzs said:
Will you ever define the phrase 'proper control'? Why do you think their results are not meaningful? Could you reveal your secret to make "sure" any experiment is properly controlled?

Question not answered.

jzs said:
Don't you think he should point out any serious flaws first?

Question not answered.

jzs said:
Could you repeat your questions again?

Question not answered.

Athon, you are quite right. We can safely conclude that the questions are too difficult and this debate has run its course and it has been shown that this experiment's results have no merit.

T'ai Chi · May 6, 2005

C "Bully" Larsen said:
Question not answered.