aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
One of so many pretended physicist, engineers, mathematicians, economists, etc that swarm around here but never find their way to argue by providing figures, formulas and graphics.
Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?
- Thread starter Buddha
- Start date
One of so many pretended physicist, engineers, mathematicians, economists, etc that swarm around here but never find their way to argue by providing figures, formulas and graphics.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
This video represents the best modern evidence for telekinesis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib2Vl7JEjfc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib2Vl7JEjfc
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
Last edited:
Buddha
Thinker
"My son, George W. Bush, is one of the strongest defenders of the great English literature.'
George H. Bush
Buddha
Thinker
I would like to clarify my yesterday post about the baseline. When I came home from work, I picked up the book, Statistical Mechanics, by Fowler, from my home library (I love my library!) In the book I found formula (1065) on page 356. This formula gives the emission current (the Schottky effect). You can see a simplified version of this formula at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schottky_effect
The original formula is also used to calculate the number of electrons leaving the surface of a metal during electron emission. For a weak electromagnetic field the emission current depends on the temperature and presence of impurities. For a strong electromagnetic field the circuit voltage should be taken into account.
In Chapter XX the authors discusses fluctuations in the emission current parameters at the equilibrium state. Formula (2024) shows that the fluctuations obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics comply with the Poison distribution law, which means that they are random.
Now I return to the Princeton ESP research. Alcock admitted that the researchers made sure that the temperature and electric potential remain constant during the experiment. This means that the electron fluctuation were random and the test runs were properly randomized. For a randomized test the baseline is 0.5 as every scientist knows. But Alcock is a psychologist, and he doesn’t have basic knowledge of mathematical statistics.
In my opinion the discussion is very productive, and I thank the audience for that. To be honest, I started this thread without a specific goal in mind, I just wanted to see the audience’ reaction. My opponents forced me to improve my arguments and now I am planning to submit an article defending the Princeton research to an online scientific magazine.
When it is appropriate I recall my past debates. Year ago I had a debate with a “Christian brother”. One of his sentences made no sense to me, so I asked him to clarify it. He wrote back,” If you are as intelligent as you think you are, you should have no trouble understanding it.” In response I wrote that I am in a good company. Niels Bohr was having a discussion with Podolsky about quantum mechanics. Podolsky said something that Bohr could not understand. When Bohr asked the opponent to explain it, Podolsky said, “If you are a prominent philosopher, you should not ask for a clarification.” Bohr said, I do not understand it because it is gibberish. As my Dad used to say, if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, dazzle them with bs.”
Now I have to submit my fake resume to my imaginary client. I will be back tomorrow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schottky_effect
The original formula is also used to calculate the number of electrons leaving the surface of a metal during electron emission. For a weak electromagnetic field the emission current depends on the temperature and presence of impurities. For a strong electromagnetic field the circuit voltage should be taken into account.
In Chapter XX the authors discusses fluctuations in the emission current parameters at the equilibrium state. Formula (2024) shows that the fluctuations obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics comply with the Poison distribution law, which means that they are random.
Now I return to the Princeton ESP research. Alcock admitted that the researchers made sure that the temperature and electric potential remain constant during the experiment. This means that the electron fluctuation were random and the test runs were properly randomized. For a randomized test the baseline is 0.5 as every scientist knows. But Alcock is a psychologist, and he doesn’t have basic knowledge of mathematical statistics.
In my opinion the discussion is very productive, and I thank the audience for that. To be honest, I started this thread without a specific goal in mind, I just wanted to see the audience’ reaction. My opponents forced me to improve my arguments and now I am planning to submit an article defending the Princeton research to an online scientific magazine.
When it is appropriate I recall my past debates. Year ago I had a debate with a “Christian brother”. One of his sentences made no sense to me, so I asked him to clarify it. He wrote back,” If you are as intelligent as you think you are, you should have no trouble understanding it.” In response I wrote that I am in a good company. Niels Bohr was having a discussion with Podolsky about quantum mechanics. Podolsky said something that Bohr could not understand. When Bohr asked the opponent to explain it, Podolsky said, “If you are a prominent philosopher, you should not ask for a clarification.” Bohr said, I do not understand it because it is gibberish. As my Dad used to say, if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, dazzle them with bs.”
Now I have to submit my fake resume to my imaginary client. I will be back tomorrow.
Thermal
August Member
As an aside, in the US, we normally submit a resume to a potential employer and a CV to a client. Double check what your acronyms represent.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Speaking as someone with long experience of electronic devices and measurements thereon, I have to say that this shows a laughably simplistic level of understanding. Microscopic current fluctuations may indeed be considered truly random, but to handwave away the possibility of any systematic effects in the apparatus used to transform those microscopic fluctuations into macroscopically observable results is somewhere between asinine and outright moronic; a minor systematic error in a single piece of equipment could easily skew the statistics. Without actually measuring the distribution of results, it's impossible to say whether the actual measurement being used is a reasonable appriximation to a random sequence, whatever the microscopic origin it's derived from.
But this is a classic example of Buddha reasoning; he wants to believe something, so he looks for a single argument in favour of it and then declares that to be the only relevant argument, and anybody who raises any others to be incompetent. It's confirmation bias on steroids.
Dave
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
"Buddha", we accept your capitulation.
Yes, I was about to comment too how it was very "buddha"-esque that he considered that the random nature of the physical phenomenon is enough to guarantee a random output in the device. Especially when you can test the very device and determine that in a direct -and proper- way. That's why "Buddha" have been ignoring Jeffers' for more than three days.
Now he has no time because he has to write a "resume" for a "client". Evidently it's the first time in his life he writes a resume or a CV, hence it's taking so much time of him. Or maybe he starts from scratch every time. Other people (the smart ones) have them already in a file, add what's new and edit out what is irrelevant for the intended target.
It's epistemological hedonism plus an ill attitude.
Yes, I was about to comment too how it was very "buddha"-esque that he considered that the random nature of the physical phenomenon is enough to guarantee a random output in the device. Especially when you can test the very device and determine that in a direct -and proper- way. That's why "Buddha" have been ignoring Jeffers' for more than three days.
Now he has no time because he has to write a "resume" for a "client". Evidently it's the first time in his life he writes a resume or a CV, hence it's taking so much time of him. Or maybe he starts from scratch every time. Other people (the smart ones) have them already in a file, add what's new and edit out what is irrelevant for the intended target.
It's epistemological hedonism plus an ill attitude.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Irrelevant story -- check.
Full-blown, utter nonsense. Experimental psychology, in which Dr. Alcock is an undisputed expert, is based on statistics. Specifically, it's based on exactly the branch of statistics that PEAR tried to employ, and would be entirely unsuccessful if its practitioners didn't have expert knowledge of it. In your thread attempting to prove reincarnation, you demonstrated your profound ignorance of empiricism and empirical methods as they are commonly used in science. You are frankly the last person I would consider competent to explain what skills an experimental scientist must have.
But if you want to go down that alley, PEAR's other principal investigator was also a psychologist, and Jahn was an engineer. So by your standards, she can't have had "basic knowledge of mathematical statistics," which -- again by your standards -- makes the statistics in PEAR's research suspect. You are applying a double standard to favor your desired outcome. You're far more obviously biased that James Alcock or John Palmer, the two eminent researchers you tried to claim were biased and not as smart as you are, without having read anything they wrote.
Which brings us down to the unpalatable parts of your performance here, which is that your treatment of the actual evidence never rose very far above your now-familiar mantra that criticism against you must be dismissed because you're so much smarter than the people who raise it. Yet you never seem to demonstrate that purported intelligence. You waffled on about how Dr. Palmer was just trying to fit the facts to his predetermined belief -- an odd thing to claim about someone who makes his living as a researcher into the paranormal. You didn't actually address the criticism Palmer raised in a way that shows you understood it. You insinuated twice that Dr. Alcock -- being a mere psychologist -- can't possibly know enough about statistics to meaningfully criticize the PEAR findings. Yet at no time did you actually explain what was wrong with Alcock's discussion of PEAR's statistics and methods. You simply declared that he "must" have misunderstood, and can't possibly know as much as someone like you. You have to understand that anyone can make such offhand dismissals regardless of what knowledge they actually have. And you should know that we here are well attuned to that sort of bluff and bluster and know not to be fooled by it. We require an actual demonstrate of claimed expertise, if it is to be the basis of an argument. And you are utterly unable to provide one.
Why is it, if you're so smart, that your critics are always the ones best able to give detailed and thorough arguments, while you're never able to do more than gaslight and cast aspersions? You never seem able to actually engage in the topics you claim to be an expert in. This one was right up the alley in which you claim professional credentials and experience, yet your treatment of the statistical criticism -- where you chose to address it at all -- never rose above what one could glean from reading the instruction manual that came with your statistics software. Your evasion of Steven Jeffers' statistical analysis of the baseline measurements was so obvious and comical that we have to conclude you were terrified of exposing your ignorance by trying to understand and refute him. So you just pretended he didn't exist.
No. In your opening point you made it clear that your specific goal was to undermine PEAR's critics and assert that their conclusions still hold for lack of effective criticism. Toward that end you assiduously ignored all the criticism your opponents here raised (which you still haven't addressed) and took a straw-man approach that is quickly becoming your signature tactic.
Your attendant goal -- which is the same goal you've followed in all your threads -- is to create the illusion that you're so much smarter and more accomplished than everyone else. There is an ever-growing list of things you have been caught bluffing about, and your only response is to brag about how you are impervious to criticism and correction. In pursuit of this goal you began with the assertion that PEAR's critics (who were actually unknown to you until well into the debate) "don't know what they're talking about." You ignored them until it became obvious you couldn't bluff your way past your critics (again) and pulled your standard dishonest stunt of disavowing any past attempt to actually prove anything.
Repurposing the thread at the last minute -- check.
And no, you're not some unsung scholarly genius. You fail to do the most basic research before forming your opinions and mounting your argument, because your argument is always to ignore anything you can't handle and bank on a standard bluster of being so very well accomplished that all criticism is unworthy of your attention. You didn't even know who John Palmer was, and you're now trying to posture yourself as someone so well versed in PK research that you can contribute meaningfully to the field?
Another irrelevant story -- check.
You managed to sandwich your standard no-fault resignation between two stories that have almost nothing to do with what you're talking about. What are you trying to hide? Is saving face that important when you interact with people?
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
Either he thinks this is a normal dialogue, entirely verbal, with words the wind takes and blows away or he knows that the best way to hide an elephant is within a large herd of elephants and posts rubbish to get lots of replies so he can hide everything in (t)his prevailing confusion.
That was rhetorical, wasn't it?JayUtah said:
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
That was an irreverent non-sequitur. If the researchers are competent such excuses are not necessary.
If they ran baseline tests and factored those baselines into their final analysis, then it gives strength to their results.
If they did NOT run baseline tests and factor them into their final analysis then their results ARE MEANINGLESS DRIVEL WORTH NOTHING. Medical woo-woo scammers will use the lack of a baseline test to their advantage in selling chelation therapy to people who don't need it. The con is to give them a small dose of a chelation agent and THEN do a heavy metals blood test. It's called a provoked test. Without a baseline of what's normally in their blood, the provoked test will always look scary and urgent.
I would think someone with alleged IT experience such as yourself would understand that an untested process, be it a data backup or random number generator, is a process that cannot be relied upon.
Only a rank moron relies upon an untested process. I've had to clean up after such idiots in IT, in production environments no less. If you haven't tested the process then you are shooting yourself in the head by relying upon it.
Your entire post is a useless and mewling set of excuses, nothing more. You can talk about the underlying theories and ideal situations all you want, but in the REAL world, unless you've TESTED the actual implementations, you are setting yourself up for failure.
To quote the dank meme, "Son, I am disappoint."
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And completely out of place for someone who claims academic qualifications in control systems and control theory. Understanding the nature and various causes of noise and its effect in critical controls is bread-and-butter for that.
Or more circumspectly, he realizes his audience is not being fooled by his bluffery so he looks for something vaguely related that he can quickly research and pontificate upon to remind everyone how very smart and well-read he is. Hopefully the audience will be starry-eyed with admiration at his erudition, and forget that he just lost yet another debate by not being able to keep up with his opponents.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
That quote is not a useful response to aleCcowaN's post in any way, shape, or form.
You are ignoring the actual research and criticism that followed PEAR in favor of a fragmentary straw man image of what you wish the evidence against PEAR consisted of. Your denial does not strengthen the PEAR research, it only makes its remaining defenders look bad.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
I consider it proof positive he is lying about those qualifications. He has made it clear that he does not understand the need to have baseline tests in assessing a system. It's like someone claming to be a taxi driver while insisting there's no need to ever steer.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Impossible to know, of course. In my experience this pattern of argument comes from people for whom gaslighting has generally been successful. Dismissals such as being "unaffected by criticism" generally coincide with a dogmatic, domineering approach to interpersonal conflict, with the primary approach being browbeating and belittling opponents until they give up. It's difficult to address the roots of these arguments within the confines of the MA. It really comes down to noting that someone is merely gaslighting instead of addressing the points at hand. Delving into why they're gaslighting may be informative, but not really part of a rational exploration of the points at hand.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Mathematical statistics? As opposed to the statistics you're using?
But actually statistics is a major part of psychology. Alcock assuredly has far more than a basic understanding of the subject.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
For instance, in the following paper Alcock shows his proficiency in Statistics:
Factors affecting extraordinary belief
Laura P. Otis & James E. Alcock
«The extent of belief in a wide variety of extraordinary phenomena was examined among people of different educational backgrounds...»
Mojo
Mostly harmless
That’s why he’s taking so long to sort out the resume: he has to figure out whether he’s a member of the “IEEE (American Society of Electrical Engineers)” or the AIEE, or the ASEE, or the IEE, or whatever.
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
Beside the fact that this is totally irrelevant to the discussion, the only hit that Google is returning for that quote is your post.
Misquote or made up?