Reiki Rubbish

[Unas]

LOL Unas, you think that was an ad hominem?

I know that it was an ad hominem attack. Accusing one's opponent of being irrational is a very old, and quite lame, ad hominem attack.

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

That is not the definition of 'public domain'. Whodini is deliberately misusing the term, and then attempting to backpedal by claiming that the definition was a private one when his misuse is exposed for what it is. The attempt at deception is obvious.

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

It is a fact that the data is not in the public domain. However, it is not a fact that the data is not "easily obtainable". Whodini has yet to support that claim with evidence.

It is further a fact that the obtainability of the data has no bearing on its integrity, its validity, or its scientific value.

 

[Unas]

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

Then Whodini should do the work of constructing the graphs himself.

It is evident, however, that he prefers to whine about the absence of these graphs, rather than exert the effort to construct that which he so much desires.

 

[rwald]

Unas, though I generally agree with you, that's a bad argument. Whodini does want to make the graphs, but he doesn't have the data sets to work with. That's what he wants: the data sets.

I still say he plans on using the data sets to create a meta-analysis, and claim it as proof that the paranormal exists, but he's been careful to not actually admit this, and will probably deny what I'm saying.

 

[Unas]

Unas, though I generally agree with you, that's a bad argument. Whodini does want to make the graphs, but he doesn't have the data sets to work with.

That appears to be the result solely of Whodini's unwillingness to put forth any effort to acquire the data sets.

Since the acquisition of the data sets is a prerequisite to creating the graphs Whodini wants, lack of effort to acquire the underlying data sets is equivalent to a lack of effort to create the graphs.

 

[DrBenway]

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

I didn't say I felt sorry for you Whodini. I said I was sympathetic toward what you were arguing initially. Don't you remember that I made a couple of posts saying, yes, it would be nice to have a summary of JREF challenge events in one convenient place?

What is the big deal here? If you're not happy with the info available in the weekly commentaries, then write to Linda asking for the details you want.

 

[Guest]

Unas,

Please stay on topic. The topic isn't the validity of Whodini. The topic is the validity of Whodini's arguments.

 

[Guest]

----
Then Whodini should do the work of constructing the graphs himself.
----




So I make a suggestion and therefore I have to carry it out from beginning to end? Huh?

C'mon fellow skeptics. Point out the holes in Unas's logic.

Gee whiz!

 

[Unas]

Please stay on topic. The topic isn't the validity of Whodini. The topic is the validity of Whodini's arguments.

Since I have not made any arguments referencing "the validity of Whodini", I can only assume that this is yet another diversionary tactic.

I have been discussing the validity of Whodini's arguments. Whodini has yet to provide evidence for his original claim.

 

[rwald]

C'mon fellow skeptics. Point out the holes in Unas's logic.

I tried, but then he reminded me that there actually wasn't a hole in his logic (see his reply to my comment).

 

[Unas]

So I make a suggestion and therefore I have to carry it out from beginning to end?

Whodini has already stated that he wants to see the patterns that the graphs would supposedly reveal.

If Whodini is unwilling to make the effort to create the graphs himself, then it is reasonable to assume that he does not want to see those patterns quite so much as he would have us believe.

 

[Guest]

----
I still say he plans on using the data sets to create a meta-analysis, and claim it as proof that the paranormal exists, but he's been careful to not actually admit this, and will probably deny what I'm saying.
----


I will definitely deny what you are saying Rwald, because you have no clue what you are talking about in this instance.

The only thing I've explicitly stated that I'd like to see is some descriptive statistics and graphical summaries created from the raw data.

I, for one, think that a graph of, say, 300 dowsers' scores, all within the 'significant' bounds, accompanied by a writeup of the failure of dowsers to do what they claim they can do, would be infinitely more powerful than just the writeup.

I have no idea where you are getting that I want to do a meta analysis, and I REALLY have no idea where you are then saying that I'd say that such a meta analysis would prove the paranormal. I don't think any of that.



Because I did deny it, maybe that will prove to you that I will do a meta analysis and then claim that that prove the paranormal. LOL.

 

[rwald]

Basically, I got that impression from the way that you discussed meta-analysis in a previous thread. It really is not scientific for me to hold this belief, but that's what my "gut instinct" says. Go figure.

 

[DrBenway]

Something about this conversation reminds me of the "horizontal vs. vertical prayer" metaphor. There's a difference between a genuine investigation of a topic fueled by curiosity, vs. someone just wanting to come across as really "sciency."

 

[Guest]

----
I can only assume that this is yet another diversionary tactic.
----


Interesting, considering I have more on topic posts than you do in this thread.


----
Whodini has yet to provide evidence for his original claim.
----


You admit one can't prove a negative, oh, unless one is claiming something that you disagree with, then that person is required to prove one.

Unas, maybe you could help me, considering I'm so lazy and all...
I'm looking for a breakdown of the types of claim per year the JREF gets.

Gee, I can't seem to find this information anywhere.

Maybe you can help me Unas?

 

[Guest]

----
Whodini has yet to provide evidence for his original claim.
----


You admit one can't prove a negative, oh, unless one is claiming something that you disagree with, then that person is required to prove one.

Unas, maybe you could help me, considering I'm so lazy and all...
I'm looking for a breakdown of the types of claim per year the JREF gets.

Gee, I can't seem to find this information anywhere.

Maybe you can help me Unas?

 

[Guest]

Basically, I got that impression from the way that you discussed meta-analysis in a previous thread. It really is not scientific for me to hold this belief, but that's what my "gut instinct" says. Go figure.

I've studied meta analysis in some detail in several statistical methods classes.

I'm its bulldog when people connect it automatically with "woo-woo", especially when they know little about meta analysis.

 

[rwald]

When it comes to claims, the question of who needs to prove what doesn't come down to who has the "negative" claim. It comes down to whose claim represents the null hypothesis. In this case, since Unas's claim (that there somewhere exists some data on the JREF experiments) is less "extraordinary" than Whodini's claim (that there does not exist any data on the JREF experiments), Whodini is the one who needs to prove his claim.

 

[Guest]

This is my last post to you Thaiboxerken. You "win".


----
Whodini has already stated that he wants to see the patterns that the graphs would supposedly reveal.
----


That is typically what people do with graphs.



----
If Whodini is unwilling to make the effort to create the graphs himself, then it is reasonable to assume that he does not want to see those patterns quite so much as he would have us believe.
----


That's not reasonable to assume at all.

How can I make any graph when I or no one else has access to the data?

Don't you get it?

 

[rwald]

If you really want to, you can go through the commentary and make a check mark whenever Randi mentions a claim he's testing. There's your data. It's sitting right there, waiting for you to harvast it.

 

[Unas]

I'm looking for a breakdown of the types of claim per year the JREF gets.

Whodini should contact JREF and ask for the data.

Gee, I can't seem to find this information anywhere.

That would indicate a lack of effort.