Reiki Rubbish

[Guest]

----
Note that, when challenged to actually facilitate a JREF challenge to be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, Whodini declines the challenge.
----


Note that I never said I'd facilitate anything.

Just because someone proposes an idea, doesn't mean they have to help carry it out.


----
It would seem that he is not as anxious to see the JREF results published in a peer-reviewed journal as he would like us to believe.
----


Unas/Ken, that doesn't even follow logically.

 

[Guest]

They don't. Whodini has thrown up this smoke screen to avoid dealing with the results of the challenges themselves. It is worth noting that Whodini's original claim was that the results simply were not being made available; he created the "peer-reviewed journal" red herring after it was pointed out just how poorly his assertion correlated with reality.

Unas/Ken,

You're wrong.

My first post, in the 'JREF Science' thread, was

(emphasis mine)
----
JREF Science
One aspect of scientific endeavors is that the specifc data, methods, and analyses are made available to all who are interested.

The results of the Challenge clearly don't apply.

I can understand the legal matters, which is why we only get tidbits of vague happenings, but to be taken seriously by the entire scientific community (as opposed to a small subset), wouldn't JREF's case be better served if they had some type of peer reviewed journal their findings were published in??

I believe that is why a lot of people have a hard time taken the JREF proceedings as anything other than mildly interesting and entertaining.
----

 

[Guest]

Why does Whodini expect us to take him seriously when he claims that the results of the JREF challenges "clearly" are not made available to all who are interested?

Unas, exactly how many dowsers has the JREF tested?

What is the breakdown of number of tested per year, by claim type?

Unas, please show us graphs of all.

Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Crickets?

Unas?

Ken?

You still there?

Can you get me a big data base of results?

Cmon.

It should be so easy.

But you'll say it is my claim, therefore you are excused for being lazy.

 

[Unas]

Unas, exactly how many dowsers has the JREF tested?

What is the breakdown of number of tested per year, by claim type?

Unas, please show us graphs of all.

Whodini has made the assertion that the results of the JREF challenge "clearly" are not made available to all who are interested.

It is Whodini's responsiblity to back up that assertion with facts.

 

[Unas]

Unas/Ken,

You're wrong.

My first post, in the 'JREF Science' thread, was

(emphasis mine)
----
JREF Science
One aspect of scientific endeavors is that the specifc data, methods, and analyses are made available to all who are interested.

The results of the Challenge clearly don't apply.

I can understand the legal matters, which is why we only get tidbits of vague happenings, but to be taken seriously by the entire scientific community (as opposed to a small subset), wouldn't JREF's case be better served if they had some type of peer reviewed journal their findings were published in??

I believe that is why a lot of people have a hard time taken the JREF proceedings as anything other than mildly interesting and entertaining.
----

I stand corrected on the chronology. However, there is still no evidence to support the claim that the JREF data is not available.

 

[Unas]

But you'll say it is my claim, therefore you are excused for being lazy.

It is Whodini's claim. If he is unwilling to support it, I see no reason why anyone else should be excoriated for Whodini's own intellectual laziness.

 

[Guest]

I stand corrected on the chronology. However, there is still no evidence to support the claim that the JREF data is not available.

Evidence to support something is not... hehe, like proving god(s) doesn't exist.

LOL.

Fine Ken, then you find us all a list of all the dowsers tested, when, where, and the results from each test, meaning the number of trials and the number of hits.

You still there?

 

[Guest]

It is Whodini's claim. If he is unwilling to support it, I see no reason why anyone else should be excoriated for Whodini's own intellectual laziness.

Show me the data set Unas.

We're all waiting.

Make us a simple chart showing us the number of applicants over the years.

That has to be the simplest task in the world.

Can you do it?

Why not?

Do you not have the data?

Email JREF? Will they give it to you?

 

[Guest]

It is Whodini's responsiblity to back up that assertion with facts.

We've already covered that on Ken.

 

[Unas]

We've already covered that on Ken.

Not really. Whodini has already demonstrated that he is unwilling to accept the responsibility of backing up his own claims. He has shown that he prefers to employ evasion rather than evidence.

 

[Guest]

Not really. Whodini has already demonstrated that he is unwilling to accept the responsibility of backing up his own claims. He has shown that he prefers to employ evasion rather than evidence.

Thaiboxerken,

Is there a reason why you don't respond directly to me but rather speak "at" me?

The fact that one even has to ask the JREF (through email or in person) to see their data IS evidence that it is not freely available to everyone. It is not in the public domain, like walking into a library and getting it and making photocopies, etc.

Create a simple graph like the following, using real data from JREF. See if you can get your Cheeto-ed hands on it if it is so easy:

 

[Unas]

Is there a reason why you don't respond directly to me but rather speak "at" me?

It is not possible to conduct a worthwhile discussion with someone who is intellectually dishonest. Whodini falls into this category; his persistent refusal to back up his claims regarding the JREF challenge results is evidence of this.

The fact that one even has to ask the JREF (through email or in person) to see their data IS evidence that it is not freely available to everyone. It is not in the public domain, like walking into a library and getting it and making photocopies, etc.

And the intellectual dishonesty continues. Note the continually mutating form of Whodini's claims: First the JREF results are not to be taken seriously because they are "clearly" not made available. Then it seems that the real problem is that the JREF results are not published in a "peer-reviewed journal". Now, suddenly, the problem is that the results are "not in the public domain".

Whodini's entire case is based on the welll-known logical fallacy of "style over substance". He would have us believe that the JREF results are not valid because they are not presented in precisely the right way, or in precisely the correct forum. The fact that Whodini's assessment of exactly what is wrong with the results keeps changing, as documented above, merely demonstrates just how poorly thought out his argument is.

 

[Guest]

Unas,

You're still not talking to me.

You can use whatever excuse you want, but you're still not being rational.


----
And the intellectual dishonesty continues. Note the continually mutating form of Whodini's claims: First the JREF results are not to be taken seriously because they are "clearly" not made available. Then it seems that the real problem is that the JREF results are not published in a "peer-reviewed journal". Now, suddenly, the problem is that the results are "not in the public domain".
----


They are all the same thing Unas. If you can't get ahold of them, they aren't in the public doman. Peer reviewed things are in the public domain and are easy to get a hold of- just go to the library.


----
He would have us believe that the JREF results are not valid because they are not presented in precisely the right way, or in precisely the correct forum.
----


Unas, you are talking out of your butt. I never ever said the JREF results aren't valid or important!

I said they aren't having the effect they could be having on the bulk of non-skeptics. If they were published in a peer reviewed journal, I believe, the results would be more authoritative, and more people would consider it serious instead of interesting entertainment.

Unas, try to make a graph like this, using real JREF data. You won't do minimal research, because it is my claim though. That is your excuse.

 

[Guest]

Or one like this with real JREF data:

 

[Unas]

You're still not talking to me.

You can use whatever excuse you want, but you're still not being rational.

Logical fallacy: argumentum ad hominem.

They are all the same thing Unas. If you can't get ahold of them, they aren't in the public doman.

Does not follow. Bookstores and libraries are both chock full of texts that are easily obtainable, yet are not in the public domain. "Public domain" is not a synonym for "easily obtainable".

Peer reviewed things are in the public domain...

Incorrect. The vast majority of peer-reviewed scientific journals are copyrighted.

If they were published in a peer reviewed journal, I believe, the results would be more authoritative, and more people would consider it serious instead of interesting entertainment.

Whodini is welcome to his opinion. His original claim, however, was that the JREF results were not being made available.

He has yet to support that claim with any facts.

 

[rwald]

Whodini, would you be satisfied if the JREF just published their claims in a yearly report, with the types of claims, a simple outline of the procedure, etc.?

As has been pointed out numorous times, the fact that dowsing doesn't work isn't "interesting" enough to be published in a scientific journal.

 

[DrBenway]

Whodini,

I started out feeling sympathetic toward you. I had the impression you just wanted an easy way to look over some JREF challenge events.

But the way you go on and on, now wanting pie charts 'n ◊◊◊◊ --you must be trolling. Why do you care how many silly dowsers per year there were? The point is, none of them could do anything.

Really, if you're interested in these things, read Randi's commentaries. The info is in there. And they're hilarious.

My favorite one has the parable of Clarence, the lovable blue two-headed giraffe.

Style over substance. That's good. Have to remember that one.

 

[Guest]

LOL Unas, you think that was an ad hominem?

hehehe!


----
Does not follow. Bookstores and libraries are both chock full of texts that are easily obtainable, yet are not in the public domain. "Public domain" is not a synonym for "easily obtainable".
----


By public domain I mean easily obtainable and out there for ANYONE (like at a library, on the web, etc.).

I didn't mean the technical term for public domain.


----
He has yet to support that claim with any facts.
----


It is a fact that the data isn't in the public domain or easily obtainable.

Can you reproduce any of those graphs (with real JREF data) that I asked for, for example?

No?

Why not?

 

[Guest]

DrBenway.


----
But the way you go on and on, now wanting pie charts 'n ◊◊◊◊ --you must be trolling. Why do you care how many silly dowsers per year there were?
----


You feel sorry for me, how cute and utterly irrelevant, like when Sylvia Browne tells Randi that she feels sorry for him.

The specific graph isn't too relevant here. The fact is that we have NONE, and you or I, or my grandma, or anyone else can't obtain data to construct such graphs and summary statistics.

I understand that you may not be interested in how many "silly dowsers" per year there were, but others are because they like to see the trends and to try to explain the dips and spikes and etc.


----
Really, if you're interested in these things, read Randi's commentaries. The info is in there. And they're hilarious.
----


I agree that the commentaries are great sources of info, but a commentary is much different than the raw data from which it was produced.

I and others would like to see the patterns for ourselves.