Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

Buddha said:
When you do not present arguments showing why this research should be rejected, this is not a criticism but a personal opinion.
Click to expand...

As usual, no substantive arguments -- just your usual social-engineering nonsense.

You waffled on about reproducibility. Did you forget that PEAR engaged two other universities, who were unable to reproduce PEAR's findings? You tried to hide behind quantum mechanics, but that doesn't explain why PEAR's findings are irreproducible. Since that was the only topic you actually addressed without handwaving, I would have expected you to know this and to have addressed it in your case-in-chief.
 
Buddha said:
Actually, there are more than three counter-arguments, I just chose the most popular ones.
Click to expand...

That is, of course, a blatant lie, because you made no attempt to gauge popularity; you simply chose the three that you believed (with as little foundation, apparently, as all your other beliefs) you could most credibly handwave away.

Dave
 
Buddha said:
When you say that a method was used incorrectly, it means that the results of an experiment were misinterpreted. However, the critics didn't bother how to explain that the results were misinterpreted, so the ball is in their court.
Click to expand...

Please, try to command your English, and cease your infantile attempts at storytelling.

And yes, the "critics" always explained how the results were misinterpreted. As in the paper I've already linked and you're persistently ignoring.
 
JayUtah said:
Yes, they do.



I'm sure you do, but you have established a history of exaggerating or outright fabricating expertise you do not have and cannot demonstrate. The people who rightly criticized PEAR for statistical shenanigans demonstrated themselves to be far more proficient about statistical methodology than you give them credit for.

So no, you don't get to sweep this under the carpet. If your argument is that PEAR's methods were statistically valid despite the well-supported criticism to the contrary, you will have to put your money where your mouth is. That means explain in detail why the criticism is wrong. Show your work. No gaslighting. Assume your audience is capable of understanding as much statistics as you can possibly bring to bear. If you read the attempt of the last guy to prove reincarnation, you will see that this is not an audience you can simply call ignorant and bluff your way past.

Put up or shut up, Buddha.



No, that is not what is meant by reproducibility in empirical study.



No, that is not how logic works. You don't get to speculatively attribute unexplained error to some imagined cause because some error in some other experiment was uncontrolled.

Also -- since you have a habit of restating your purpose at the end of a debate -- please confirm that your purpose in this thread is to prove that PEAR's conclusions are valid. We don't need to proceed if you're simply going to attempt this, fail as usual, and then redfine your purpose to save face.
Click to expand...
40% of American's have either BS or MS in science, engineering, economics, etc. I hardly see my MS in Mechanical Engineering as a reason to glow. On another board I pointed it out to my opponent who said that MS is an equivalent to PhD, and said that he had PhD in Theoretical Physics. Apparently, he didn't have an associate degree and perhaps, even a high school diploma. He kind of remind me of you because my degree and technical career seem to be bothering you. Control systems engineering is not a spectacular occupation, there is noting to brag about although it involves certain amount of research. Data analysis doesn't involve any scientific research, we use the methods that were developed long time ago. The salary is good, though, it might make you envious, specially if you lack higher education.

Enlighten me on the topic of reproducibility. Explain why I am wrong.

"You don't get to speculatively attribute unexplained error to some imagined cause because some error in some other experiment was uncontrolled".
You use big words, but I do not understand your statement. If I do not understand something, I am not embarrassed to say that it is beyond my understanding. Do me a favor and paraphrase your statement in simple terms so I could understand it.
 
Buddha said:
These methods have been used for almost a century, they were developed in 1920s and withstood the test of time, so they are valid, at least for the mathematicians who use them. This case is no different from a mathematician's point of view.
Click to expand...


Stop trying to pad your posts with fluff as if you're reasoning or something.
 
Buddha said:
These methods have been used...
Click to expand...

No, don't regurgitate a hastily-Googled irrelevance to deflect your responsibility. You're claiming to be professionally competent in statistical methods, and you're the one claiming Jahn's critics are incompetent. I require an actual demonstration of your expertise to back that up.

However, the critics didn't bother how to explain that the results were misinterpreted...
Click to expand...

Yes, they did. In detail.

..so the ball is in their court.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. You're the one claiming Jahn's critics are incompetent and that as a result their criticism is invalid. If this isn't just your usual bluff, this implies you know what the criticism is and precisely how it is flawed. But you can't demonstrate any such knowledge. All you can do is your standard bluff-and-bluster. The ball is in your court to identify Jahn's critics you based your opening post one and explain in detail what's wrong with their analysis. But I suspect you can't do it, and so now we'll spend page after page watching you weasel out of any responsibility to do so. You can't put up, and you won't shut up.

You wrote a book on evolution that exposed your ignorance of biology. You tried to prove the existence of God, which ended up showing your ignorance of philosophy. You tried to say that reincarnation was empirically proven, which ended up showing your ignorance of empirical methods. Your sojourn at this forum is a long litany of you claiming expertise you clearly do not have and clearly cannot demonstrate. Why should your critics believe that your claimed expertise in statistical analysis is nothing more than yet another delusion of grandeur that you will be unwilling and unable to support?

Of course, I haven't seen all negative responses.
Click to expand...

Then it was premature for you to claim your critics are incompetent and premature for you to declare victory.
 
SOdhner said:
That's... that's it? That's what you're bringing to the table? This has been thoroughly looked at, many times. They're bad studies. You don't have anything new, or anything more convincing?

Here, educate yourself:

http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy



Okay cool, when are you planning on doing that? Or was that it? Do you consider listing off a few oversimplified bullet points and then dismissing them without actually refuting them "going over them"?

Here's what that would look like if you were a Flat Earther:



Do you see why this is totally worthless analysis? You didn't actually address the specific complaints, complaints which are valid and detailed and which are available with around 30 seconds of Googling.
Click to expand...
I am going to plea ignorance on this one. I joined this group recently. so I didn't know that there are similar threads.
 
Buddha said:
40% of American's have...
Click to expand...

Stop padding your posts with irrelevancy. If you're going to tell us you have only precious little time to post each day, then stop wasting it in this fashion.

Enlighten me on the topic of reproducibility. Explain why I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Already done.

You use big words, but I do not understand your statement.
Click to expand...

Then read it again until you do. You're drawing a false analogy. As I said, logic doesn't seem to be something you do well. No, I won't repeat myself and let you kick the can down the road another day.

If I do not understand something, I am not embarrassed to say that it is beyond my understanding.
Click to expand...

I'll remember that the next time you deflect criticism and dodge questions by asserting that you're so much smarter than your critics.
 
This is my offer to my opponents Provide links to articles that criticize this Princeton research, and I will respond to their authors' criticism. That might take time, but I am willing to discuss their articles because so far I have not seen direct criticism of the research by my opponents, instead they chose to criticize me. I am not complaining because no amount of critique bothers me, but I want to make this discussion fruitful so I am waiting for the links. I'll be back tomorrow.
 
Buddha said:
I am going to plea ignorance on this one. I joined this group recently. so I didn't know that there are similar threads.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with what he posted. It's not a matter of being new to the forum. It's a matter of simple reading comprehension, which seems to be eluding you today.
 
Buddha said:
40% of American's have either BS or MS in science, engineering, economics, etc. I hardly see my MS in Mechanical Engineering as a reason to glow. On another board I pointed it out to my opponent who said that MS is an equivalent to PhD, and said that he had PhD in Theoretical Physics. Apparently, he didn't have an associate degree and perhaps, even a high school diploma. He kind of remind me of you because my degree and technical career seem to be bothering you. Control systems engineering is not a spectacular occupation, there is noting to brag about although it involves certain amount of research. Data analysis doesn't involve any scientific research, we use the methods that were developed long time ago. The salary is good, though, it might make you envious, specially if you lack higher education.
Click to expand...

Where did you "get" such wrong piece of statistics about "American's"? (meaning "next time come up with better BS")

We all are pointing some inadequacy feelings suggested by your posts and how frequently you try the self-aggrandizing path. It's just that. Your English doesn't match the one a foreigner who studies and gets a degree in an American university would show.

Why don't you try to be original and address the arguments in the posts instead of this permanent charade of yours?
 
Buddha said:
This is my offer to my opponents Provide links to articles that criticize this Princeton research, and I will respond to their authors' criticism.
Click to expand...

Since the links have already been provided and you haven't responded to them, your offer isn't looking very credible right now.

Dave
 
JayUtah said:
Why should your critics the people who put up with your shenanigans believe that your claimed expertise in statistical analysis is nothing more than yet another delusion of grandeur that you will be unwilling and unable to support?
Click to expand...

if you don't mind me amending that.

The persistent ways of the likes of "Buddha" always makes one to buy part of his insidious propaganda. "Having critics" is just a component of his self-aggrandizing.
 
Buddha said:
This is my offer to my opponents Provide links to articles that criticize this Princeton research...
Click to expand...

Already done. You even quoted a couple of them without reading or responding to them.

That might take time...
Click to expand...

Which will be better used if you stick to the points raised and stop telling irrelevant stories. It will also be better spent if you read all the responses that have accumulated from the previous day before responding to any of them. That way you can avoid embarrassing gaffes like challenging me to tell you what you got wrong about reproducibility before realizing that in subsequent posts I covered the topic in some appreciable depth. You could have skipped the challenge and gone right to your defense. As it stands, you are already a day behind, and your critics' substantive posts are unanswered.

...so far I have not seen direct criticism of the research by my opponents...
Click to expand...

If you haven't seen any actual criticism of PEAR, then how were you able to determine in your opening post that their authors didn't know what they were talking about? Before publicly accusing people of incompetence, maybe you should actually familiarize yourself with who they actually are and what they have actually written.

...instead they chose to criticize me. I am not complaining because no amount of critique bothers me...
Click to expand...

But for some reason you keep trying to play the victim for rhetorical effect.

...but I want to make this discussion fruitful so I am waiting for the links. I'll be back tomorrow.
Click to expand...

You didn't have to wait. The link to Dr. Jeffers' criticism of PEAR was posted. Twice. You even quoted it in one of your responses.

This is very rude. You were even given links to prior discussions of PEAR here at ISF before you even started this thread. You were directed early yesterday to the material your critics wanted you to address, and you've wasted today implying that you have nothing to respond to.

If you truly want to make this discussion fruitful, then the first thing you need to do is stop blaming your critics for why it's not making headway. We are only three pages in, and you are already delinquent in your responses. Tomorrow you'll be two days behind.
 
Buddha said:
I am going to plea ignorance on this one. I joined this group recently. so I didn't know that there are similar threads.
Click to expand...

Don't make excuses and, mainly, stop lying! You were informed about several of the many threads on this subject by JayUtah before you started this thread. But that wouldn't stop you, would it? You have to have control of the playground so you can fake your way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom