• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JREF Challenge Statistics

T'ai Chi said:
The person who wants the bird might not be worth the time and effort.

Much more rational to toss them in the Ignore list. :)
Click to expand...
And here's me thinking that you thought statistics are cool and might even discuss the results of the tabled data.

Instead, I get the second threat, today, from you, to ignore me.
 
What the funnel plot shows from what I can see from the published studies, is that the effect fluctuates around 0 with a lot of variation and no consistency. But the psi proponents already say as much.
Click to expand...

The problem with the "capricious, actively evasive nature of psi" (I assume that's what you're referring to) is that it's indistinguishable from "no effect being measured".
 
Ersby said:
The problem with the "capricious, actively evasive nature of psi" (I assume that's what you're referring to) is that it's indistinguishable from "no effect being measured".
Click to expand...

Perhaps.

In same cases if there is a super tiny p-value (what do we have here, 1 x 10^-12 or something?) it is difficult to say without better designed studies.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Perhaps.

In same cases if there is a super tiny p-value (what do we have here, 1 x 10^-12 or something?) it is difficult to say without better designed studies.
Click to expand...
Given the data here, it is not difficult to say. It is impossible to say.

What is it that you find helpful about these data? You have not answered that. What do they help you to understand?
 
Mercutio said:
Given the data here, it is not difficult to say. It is impossible to say.

What is it that you find helpful about these data? You have not answered that. What do they help you to understand?
Click to expand...

Which data are you referring to? EHocking's or my ganzfeld stuff?
 
T'ai Chi said:
Perhaps.

In same cases if there is a super tiny p-value (what do we have here, 1 x 10^-12 or something?) it is difficult to say without better designed studies.
Click to expand...

So from this, can we assume that you've finally accepted JREF tests are not suited to the purpose you desire, and as such you now look elsewhere?
 
petre said:
So from this, can we assume that you've finally accepted JREF tests are not suited to the purpose you desire, and as such you now look elsewhere?
Click to expand...

You, as before, are free to assume what you'd like.

I'm not sure how the above follows.
 
T'ai Chi said:
This has already been addressed when I talked about descriptive statistics.
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no. It still sounded like you wanted to draw inferences to a larger population. Now is when you can demonstrate what it is you really meant, and show I am wrong.

All I can see is a collection of data that would seriously tempt one to ask meaningless questions. For instance, "why are there more X than Y?", when of course the sample self-selection renders that a meaningless question. We have absolutely no control over the representativeness of the sample, no control over sampling variability--any descriptive statistics could not even be said to represent the population of JREF applicants, since we have no reason to believe that the next set of self-selected applicants need follow these percentages!

So, sorry if you think you already addressed the question, but I will ask it again (I hope you can see why): What is it that you find helpful about these data? You have not answered that. What do they help you to understand?
 
T'ai Chi said:
You've already been answered.
Click to expand...
You did write something, yes.

This situation is different. Your "answer" was in the abstract. Now, we have a concrete example. Perhaps my dissatisfaction with your response was due to misunderstanding you in the abstract.

I still do not see any use for these data, nor any reason to compile them together. I would welcome your example showing I am wrong. Saying "you've already been answered" is not advancing anything.
 
T'ai Chi said:
You've been answered.
Click to expand...
No, TC, I have not. I have been rudely dismissed.

I have explained, twice now, why your previous response is not an answer to the current question. I took the time to read what you have written, and I have asked legitimate questions about it. I have taken the time to give you answers to the questions you have asked, when you have asked them. I cannot interpret your refusal to answer as a reaction to my rudeness, because I have not been rude. I have simply persisted in asking legitimate questions for which you have not yet given answers. If persistence offends you, there is a cure: answer the question the first time.

If you truly do not understand why your response is not an answer to my question after both of my explanations, please ask me or someone else to explain it to you more simply. Do not merely dismiss it out of hand. And if you do not want to answer it, just say so, and don't pretend it has already been answered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom