Moderated Is the Telekinesis Real?

[P.J. Denyer]

Or we can choose an arbiter to get our pay stubs and then publish snapshots of them simultaneously.

I'd happily volunteer.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'd happily volunteer.

Great, I'm gonna get one of my stubs from the time I was in the position I claimed to be while talking about that simplex program (I got all in my files because I need them when the moment to get my pension arrives). There will be no problems with my identity as my user name is the nickname my family gave me to keep Alejandro for my grandfather (I don't use it locally because they tend to call me Alex instead) and my real family name***. """"Buddha"""" will have to provide evidence he's the person named in the stub. There won't be problems with my salary as in that time the ar$ was tied to the us$, so what you read will be a salary in dollars paid back in 199x in a Third World country, so you will be able to judge if it matches the position or what.

Let's wait what """"Buddha"""" have to say about it, so we can coordinate the moment to simultaneously send you the documentation.


[*** and for that reason I pay for my phone to be no longer available in the phone book as I got threat calls from angry forum members the YouKnowWho like kind back in 2007]

 

[JayUtah]

In case my intent is not clear, I'm holding Buddha's latest post in abeyance in the hope that he'll give a meaningful response to this one. If and when it becomes clear he isn't going to address it, I'll take up his latest. Rest assured it's as full of misunderstandings and misconceptions as you've come to expect from his previous offerings.

 

[Buddha]

The name of the "other variables"? I'd rather say you're a person very restricted in knowledge. You don't even know the "simplex method" and you allow yourself the buffoonery of voir diring me?

How deeply hurt you are, caught in the open in the full horror of your ignorance!

Neeners, neeners and I-dare-yous won't hide what you've already written: your failure addressing all these subjects.

For instance:



You don't have the slightest idea about the physics behind the equipment either. You're basically suggesting the need of dealing with a Poisson distribution to examine the problem of the total number of clients served by all tellers in all branches in all banks in all countries during the whole century.

You don't even know the slit width nor the times involved in Jeffers' or "your" modified Jeffers' (clearly specified by Jeffers' from the beginning), otherwise you would've refrained yourself of writing down such statistical tomfoolery.



That's just another piece of paranoid thinking we're so accustomed to read in your posts and the vanity press booklet you claim authorship.

"You don't have the slightest idea about the physics behind the equipment either. You're basically suggesting the need of dealing with a Poisson distribution to examine the problem of the total number of clients served by all tellers in all branches in all banks in all countries during the whole century."

Saying that I suggested something is a bold statement for a humble lab instructor because I didn’t supply enough material to imply anything. I just showed the audience two pictures: one of a normal distribution and the other one of a double-slit experiment, and asked the audience to compare them.

You and Jeffers think that the double-slit picture is the example of a bell-shaped distribution, I do not think so, and no one else does. As they say, picture is worth a thousand words.

I also understand that for a lab instructor this material may be a bit too advanced, but there is no simpler way to present it.

 

[JayUtah]

You and Jeffers think that the double-slit picture is the example of a bell-shaped distribution...

No, that's not what we think.

I do not think so, and no one else does.

That's why only you think you're making meaningful criticism about it. The rest of us know what the actual variables in the study were. You're not coming off sounding smart here. You're coming off like a blithering idiot, because you think the graph of the underlying physical process is what's being analyzed statistically.

 

[Buddha]

Frantic appeals to Wikipedia don't cure the problem. You have no idea what the t-test is, how it works, or what it's used for.



Yes, and in Jeffers' experiment the scaling factor is unknown. But the real problem is that you don't know what variable in Jeffers' experiment the t-test was applied to. You niavely think it was the deposition of particles through the slit. That's not the variable Jeffers applied the t-test to. You fundamentally don't understand Jeffers' experiment design.



You simply copied what other people said without delving any deeper. Yes, people criticized Jeffers after the fact, nit-picking away at this or that. None of that criticism is valid, and it all came after he got the "wrong" answer. But more importantly, after he vetted his methods and apparatus with would-be critics.



Avoiding criticism was not his goal. I pointed out what he stated his goal to be. You're trying to shoehorn it into something else.



The kind of scientist who carefully states his goals and carefully explores alternative protocols to determine the potential confounds.

If you say that Jeffers was not referring to the deposition of particles as a randomization process, you should say what he was referring to; otherwise your remark is meaningless. What kind of process he was using to randomize the output? You totally misunderstood my presentation, so I will repeat it for you in simpler form -- I said that t-tests cannot be used to draw conclusions about tests that were not properly randomized. Jeffers test was not properly randomized because the distribution of particles is not a Gaussian process.

This is a topic that I gladly debate with you because it doesn't involve your fantasy ideas about mathematical statistics. I am waiting for your response to this post.

This is your chance to show that audience that you can participate in a scientific discussion.

 

[Buddha]

Indeed, he seems to think we can't see the pattern of someone initially denying a thing, and then slowly trying to come to terms with it and educate himself. Today, however, he seems to just be cherry-picking whatever passages he can Google that mention "normal distribution" in the same breath as "t-test."

For those of you playing at home, whatever underlying physical process is producing the output the subject is supposed to be manipulating with his, that's an independent variable in the experiment. It can follow whatever distribution it wants, but it's generally a good idea if it follows a normal distribution (i.e., is a random variable). What matters, however, is that it defies the subject's ability to predict by ordinary means. The dependent variable in the experiment is the degree to which the subjects' can actually change the behavior of that underlying process. That's supposed to follow a normal distribution.

In your mind, this is what I am trying to do. Unfortunately, you cannot get out of your fantasy world and understand what the others are talking about.

One of your supporters wrote that I use the cut and paste too much. Well, you made me do it. I haven’t used this tactics before because my previous opponents were cautious enough not to say something so outlandish that even a fifth grader would laugh at. But you are different, with your extravagant interpretations of mathematical statistics you painted a huge target on your back, figuratively thinking (as a humorless person, you might take my remark literally; I do not want a misunderstanding between us). The opportunity to expose your mathematical illiteracy presented itself, and I took full advantage of it.

But I am the least of your problems. As it always goes, there are three groups of board members: one is your adoring fans, the other one is your adversaries, and the third one is the independents. My tactic alienates you from the independents because they see you as someone who lives in a fantasy world. This means that your reputation is steadily going down. You saw this process of alienation before, you are not its first victim.

But the bad news doesn’t stop here – soon your supporters will be abandoning your ship. They still like you, but they have to protect their own reputation. Being openly on your side negatively reflects on their standing at this board. At some point they will decide that their reputation is more important than yours. Need I remind you that I have a negative reputation here, so I do not have to bother defending it?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Speaking as a professional physicist, I have to say I'm finding this double-slit discussion utterly hilarious, and it's not JayUtah or aleCcowaN I'm laughing at.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

If you say that Jeffers was not referring to the deposition of particles as a randomization process...

I don't say that.

What kind of process he was using to randomize the output?

Already explained in a previous post.

I said that t-tests cannot be used to draw conclusions about tests that were not properly randomized.

Not relevant to your problem.

Jeffers test was not properly randomized because the distribution of particles is not a Gaussian process.

That's not how statistical modeling works.

This is a topic that I gladly debate with you because it doesn't involve your fantasy ideas about mathematical statistics.

Translation: I'm in over my head when it comes to statistics, so I desperately need to change the subject.

I am waiting for your response to this post.

I'm sure you are, but as I promised we're going to continue talking about your inability to identify the dependent variable in these studies. If you can't do that, then it doesn't matter how much pseudo-engineering you think you can bring to the table. You will still fail fundamentally to understand this science, and therefor to offer valid criticism.

You don't know anything about experiment design. And by "experiment design" we don't mean the machine. We mean the statistical modeling and empirical controls. Those are the things you've set about criticizing up to now. So we're going to continue exposing your ignorance of those things until you can see them yourself and admit your error.

This is your chance to show that audience that you can participate in a scientific discussion.

Gaslighting. Inept gaslighting, too.

 

[Buddha]

But I did answer your question! It's in the italicized words. Not that you are educated to notice it. You don't know what the simplex method is and how a problem solved with it looks like.





You, name dropper, and your imaginary library. Sure, it's not the point (the point is after the non sequitur)



You are right in not considering the possibility I'm unwilling to follow your ridiculous "commands", why else are the "either... or..." in web forums made for ? Remember, we don't work for you. You work for us providing entertainment in exchange of you having a place where to blog your fantasies, including false achievements, jobs and possessions you could be proud of if real.



Then emigrate to Argentina -you're used to emigrate-. They give salaries and pension plans based on fantasies written on web forums . Or we can choose an arbiter to get our pay stubs and then publish snapshots of them simultaneously.

It was not a command but a request. You do not have to fulfill it. But failure to respond reflects negatively on your reputation, few board members will see you as a smart debater. On the other hand, you could ask me about any of past projects, and I will describe them. The audience will see a clear difference between our levels of professionalism.

 

[Buddha]

I don't say that.



Already explained in a previous post.



Not relevant to your problem.



That's not how statistical modeling works.



Translation: I'm in over my head when it comes to statistics, so I desperately need to change the subject.



I'm sure you are, but as I promised we're going to continue talking about your inability to identify the dependent variable in these studies. If you can't do that, then it doesn't matter how much pseudo-engineering you think you can bring to the table. You will still fail fundamentally to understand this science, and therefor to offer valid criticism.

You don't know anything about experiment design. And by "experiment design" we don't mean the machine. We mean the statistical modeling and empirical controls. Those are the things you've set about criticizing up to now. So we're going to continue exposing your ignorance of those things until you can see them yourself and admit your error.



Gaslighting. Inept gaslighting, too.

What exactly did you say? You totally misunderstood my critique of the Jeffers experiment. In this case I let the audience judge for themselves who is right and who is wrong. The way I see it, you are not ready for even a quasi-scientific discussion.

 

[JayUtah]

In your mind...

Bwhahaha! You quoted the post where I explain what the dependent variable is in these studies and how you got it so very wrong. How did you respond? Three paragraphs of frantic social engineering and claiming victory. Pathetic.

 

[JayUtah]

What exactly did you say? You totally misunderstood my critique of the Jeffers experiment.

No, I didn't. Your "critique" is based on a comically wrong misunderstanding of what the dependent variable is in the study and how it is properly treated statistically.

In this case I let the audience judge for themselves who is right and who is wrong.

They already have.

The way I see it, you are not ready for even a quasi-scientific discussion.

Gaslighting.

 

[Buddha]

And what about the independent variables?

This is why the t-test is not fundamentally built upon a normal distribution, but upon a hyperbolic distribution. The dependent variable in this case is PK ability. I agree in a normal human population, properly sampled, it should form a normal distribution. But in this case it is confounded with other factors, not the least of which in Jeffers' case is the specific expectation of behavior in the double-slit apparatus. You yourself admitted early on that some processes, all told, do not result in a normal distribution. When they do not, or when they do but cannot be properly parameterized by synthesis, then we must use the t-test.

it's interesting now that you admit the PK ability variable should be normally distributed. That rather flies in the face of your prior protests against excluding Operator 010 data because it did not fit an expected distribution. You told us we couldn't predict its expected distribution due to speculative factors. So which is it?

Apparently, you cannot understand the material that I quoted, it says nothing about hyperbolic distribution. You draw your own conclusion based on imaginary data. Well, in the world of elves and warlocks everything is possible.

 

[JayUtah]

Apparently, you cannot understand the material that I quoted, it says nothing about hyperbolic distribution.

That's because the few sources you hastily consulted don't discuss the mathematical basis of the t-distribution. That doesn't mean it's not general knowledge among statisticians that the t-distribution is a hyperbolic distribution. I explained why it's that way several posts ago, in one of the lengthy posts you dismissed as "irrelevant." Do you think it's really wise to pretend things don't exist just because your impromptu attempt at learning them didn't turn it up?

You draw your own conclusion based on imaginary data. Well, in the world of elves and warlocks everything is possible.

Do you really think the gaslighting and insults are working for you?

 

[Buddha]

He's still obviously trying to pretend he's in good company. He keeps referring to all the other people who have also criticized Jeffers, and believes that he would be endorsed and vindicated by them. Curious thing, though. He can't really speak to what those critics actually say. Or make his criticism consistent with theirs.

If Buddha is to be believed, Jeffers is making elementary errors in statistics. So, apparently, was Palmer. Buddha expressed his disbelief that these people could be making such glaring mistakes. So you'd expect Buddha's other critics to pick up on that, right? Especially York Dobyns, PEAR's resident statistician who thought enough about it to write it up and publish it. Does Dobyns note all the same egregious statistical offenses Buddha tries to lay at Jeffers' feet? In fact he does not. You'd think that someone who found it advisable to publicly defend his group's work wouldn't mess around with the statistical esoterica that we read in Dobyns' published commentary. You'd think that he'd come right out and say stuff like, 'He can't use the t-test for significance here," just as Buddha has said. If that were the right answer, that is. But Dobyns seems to miss all the basic "blunders" that Buddha has found. Williams too. Also Alcock, who had plenty of chances to comment on the method before the study was even run. And somehow Jeffers' peer reviewers missed it all too. How did so many well-equipped, well-motivated people miss the very simple errors Buddha says he sees in Jeffers' original research?

Well, there's another possibility. They aren't really errors -- at least not on Jeffers' part. The myriad other reviewers and critics miss Buddha's "obvious" accusations because they're misunderstandings on Buddha's part.

You mentioned scientists who think that Jeffers, Alcock and Jeffers are right. I could mention scientists who think that the trio is wrong; actually, a posted a link to the article whose author criticized Jeffers' experiment. We have a difference of opinions here. which happens in many branches of science. For example, there are dozens of theories of evolution of the universe that contradict one another. But no one except for you makes a big deal out of it. Now, regarding my critique of the trio's work -- I am not the only one who exposed their errors, there are many others who did the same. But I prefer to do an analysis of my own, so I didn't quote them except for one.

 

[JayUtah]

You mentioned scientists who think that Jeffers, Alcock and Jeffers are right.

No, I didn't.

I could mention scientists who think that the trio is wrong; actually, a posted a link to the article whose author criticized Jeffers' experiment.

Yes, and I discussed them at length. And you've ignored that discussion entirely.

We have a difference of opinions here. which happens in many branches of science.

Yes, but not for the reasons that are operative here. Other differences of opinion happen in science because the interpretation is not clear, or the data are not conclusive, or reasons that rational people can legitimately disagree on. The disagreement here is due to your ignorance of statistical modeling and your criticism based on pidgin concepts for how it "must" work.

I am not the only one who exposed their errors, there are many others who did the same. But I prefer to do an analysis of my own, so I didn't quote them except for one.

No, they didn't do the same because they didn't base their criticism on egregiously wrong presumptions of experiment design. I've pointed out what's wrong with their analysis and I've pointed out what's wrong with your analysis, and those are very separate things.

You point out errors you say are egregious and obvious. My question is why -- if you want to be included among the illustrious critics of Jeffers et al. -- they didn't seem to see the same egregious and obvious errors as you did. If they are legitimate errors, we would expect the other critics to have noticed them and exploited them to make their points as strongly as possible.

The conclusion is that the "errors" you note are not legitimate errors. They are, upon closer examination, based on your fundamental misunderstanding of statistical modeling. In your ignorance you think Jeffers was trying to do a certain thing, and you point out how that would be a silly thing to do. You're projecting your own ignorance and error onto others. And then you cite other people who took a completely different approach to their criticism as evidence that you must somehow be on the right track.

 

[halleyscomet]

Do you really think the gaslighting and insults are working for you?

I suspect it works well for him in meat space.

 

[theprestige]

I suspect it works well for him in meat space.

John Gabriel's Greater Internet ******* Theory suggests that he probably doesn't even try it in meat space.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Saying that I suggested something is a bold statement for a humble lab instructor because I didn’t supply enough material to imply anything. I just showed the audience two pictures: one of a normal distribution and the other one of a double-slit experiment, and asked the audience to compare them.

No, you didn't!
​