JREF Challenge Statistics

[T'ai Chi]

Then you didn't read the textbooks properly. I just calculated the alpha cutoff for Mike's experiment above, to the degree that it was possible with the information given.

Find one cite that says one calculates alpha.

 

[T'ai Chi]

No, you are not merely raising the idea.

Yes, I am merely raising the idea.

It would definitely be outside the current budget. You want something, but refuse to pay for it. When you don't get what you want, you can continue to criticize JREF.

I am not "refusing to pay for it". Not sure where you got that absurd idea.

Which, I believe, is the sole reason for this thread and your page.

Everyone is entitled to their silly beliefs.

 

[69dodge]

Rhine's lab originally allowed subjects to end trials when they chose; by always ending after a run of successes, the accumulated data could (if compared to the large-N null probability of the accumulated scores) achieve statistical significance.

I don't see how that would work. The coin doesn't know when we've decided to end a trial; it just does what it does. How can we get it to come up heads more often than it otherwise would, just by saying "ok, that was the end of that trial, now we're starting a new trial"?

Or, to put it another way (which is really the same way even though it doesn't sound like it), if we don't stop a trial until it has more than the expected number of successes, some of our trials will turn out to be very long, which will wash out the statistical significance of the excess of sucesses.

I think.

Maybe.

No?

 

[drkitten]

Find one cite that says one calculates alpha.

Me, with an example, a half-dozen posts upthread.

 

[drkitten]

I don't see how that would work. The coin doesn't know when we've decided to end a trial; it just does what it does. How can we get it to come up heads more often than it otherwise would, just by saying "ok, that was the end of that trial, now we're starting a new trial"?

The coin doesn't know, but the person performing the experiment does.

Or, to put it another way (which is really the same way even though it doesn't sound like it), if we don't stop a trial until it has more than the expected number of successes, some of our trials will turn out to be very long, which will wash out the statistical significance of the excess of sucesses.

I think.

Maybe.

No?

No. Because you simply have to wait for a long enough run, which we know will happen eventually (by the Drunkard's Walk theorem). Even if you don't wait that long on this trial, the cumulative effect of a half-dozen positive-but-not-significant experiments might be enough to produce an overall finding of significance in the hands of a sufficiently corrupt statistician.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, I am merely raising the idea.

Bull.

I am not "refusing to pay for it". Not sure where you got that absurd idea.

I have yet to see you state that you are willing to pay for it.

Everyone is entitled to their silly beliefs.

Time will tell. You have tried, again and again, to chip away at skeptics and Randi in particular. I have yet to see any indication that you have honest intentions.

 

[drkitten]

Yes, I am merely raising the idea.

Your previous posting history argues strongly against this.

 

[CFLarsen]

Your previous posting history argues strongly against this.

I would call it evidence.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Me, with an example, a half-dozen posts upthread.

No dude, a stat book.

 

[drkitten]

No dude, a stat book.

No, dude. An example.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Bull.

We disagree.

I have yet to see you state that you are willing to pay for it.

I have yet to state that I'm buying red shoes tomorrow, therefore I am apparently buying red shoes tomorrow.

As mentioned to you, we have no idea of costs. Talking about costs is rather moot.

Time will tell. You have tried, again and again, to chip away at skeptics and Randi in particular. I have yet to see any indication that you have honest intentions.

I'm not interested in your personal beefs and dredging of bulletin board soap operas from the past. If you are threatened and/or feel that asking for stats is "chipping away", there's not much one can do about that.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Your previous posting history argues strongly against this.

Past history says nothing about if I am raising an idea or not here, which I am.

 

[T'ai Chi]

No, dude. An example.

Show me one textbook that says one calculates alpha.

 

[drkitten]

Past history says nothing about if I am raising an idea or not here, which I am.

As the convicted burglar said when they found him in the back garden late at night, with a set of lockpicks and a jemmy in his hand, "Past history says nothing about if I am just ducking out of the wind for a quick smoke or not here, which I am."

 

[CFLarsen]

We disagree.

And you're wrong.

I sincerely hope so. I doubt I am. The evidence all speaks in favor that I am right.

I have yet to state that I'm buying red shoes tomorrow, therefore I am.

As mentioned to you, we have no idea of costs. Talking about costs is rather moot.

I wasn't suggesting that you paid for all of it, just some of it, e.g., by supporting JREF. This, you won't do.

You want others to pay for what you demand. I predict that later, you will complain that JREF didn't do what you wanted, in your continuous efforts to belittle JREF.

Zzz. I'm not interested in your personal beefs. If you are threatened, and feel that asking for stats is "chipping away", I suggest you grow up.

I am not "threatened", Justin, and I sincerely doubt that Randi is, too. If you think your feeble attacks diminish the work and value of skeptics, you are severely deluded.

If you want to "threaten" skeptics, I suggest you start playing honest and try to find some worthwhile issues with some substance.

This seems rather impossible for you. Go figure.

 

[drkitten]

Show me one textbook that says one calculates alpha.

I'm really sorry that your reading comprehension is so poor, but I will not read you a bedtime story.

If you really think that one cannot calculate alpha values, then what did I just calculate for Mike's experiment above?

 

[T'ai Chi]

The evidence all speaks in favor that I am right.

That's an interesting opinion.

This, you won't do.

Says you. I've never said I would or wouldn't.

You want others to pay for what you demand.

I have not "demanded" anything.

I predict that later, you will complain that JREF didn't do what you wanted, in your continuous efforts to belittle JREF.

You should apply for the challenge and see if you can will a million. Really.

I am not "threatened",

You just have some odd need to say I've "demanded" things, that I won't pay for things, and other fairy tales.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm really sorry that your reading comprehension is so poor, but I will not read you a bedtime story.

If you really think that one cannot calculate alpha values, then what did I just calculate for Mike's experiment above?

I'm not sure where you are getting lost here dr. I'm not interested in your math. I've been asking to see even one textbook that says one calculates alpha.

 

[T'ai Chi]

As the convicted burglar said when they found him in the back garden late at night, with a set of lockpicks and a jemmy in his hand, "Past history says nothing about if I am just ducking out of the wind for a quick smoke or not here, which I am."

Of course, someone like you might convict him, not even asking if he is in his own backyard.

 

[drkitten]

I've been asking to see even one textbook that says one calculates alpha.

And I'm telling you that I'm not going to provide you with one, because I provided you with an example of such a calculation instead. I don't care a half cup of warm spit what you think your textbooks say, because it's obvious that you don't understand them, so it would not be a useful way to spend my time tracking down citations.

If you want to convince me that you're worth educating in elementary statistics and logical thinking, first convince me that you're educatable.