Richard Wiseman

[fls]

But, as you are aware, criticism of early parapsychology experiments by outsiders led to improvements in experimental design, and yet results continued to be statistically significant. So, what you appear to be left with is that most parapsychology experiments have not used control groups, which I'm not sure explains the results.

Yeah, reducing the effects of a few of the biases removed 'the effect' which had been presumed to represent psi. So we are left with a residual 'effect' in the presence of additional biases. You can see why anyone who wants to cling to that residual 'effect' would avoid using experimental designs which could eliminate what is left.

Linda

 

[Darat]

I never claimed that there has been a controlled test of levitation showing highly statistically significant results, but only that "in controlled tests of psi, results have varied, but overall seem to be highly statistically significant. However, there is no smoking gun."

So, I was arguing that, generally, results have been highly statistically significant, but not for all psi claims.

So you use a different definition for psi than the one I linked to? If so can you please provide your definition.

 

[Rodney]

The cite for the 1971 study is in the references of Massel's book. Are you suggesting that he is lying about the 1971 study?

The 1971 study was not written after 1996.

I have shown a documented study in 1971 which measures 76 foot waves and predicts 118 foot waves - that is not sufficient?

How do I obtain this study?

You have not provided a single instance of an oceanographer doubting the existence of extreme waves or any good reason to believe that they did.

And yet you will continue to believe it.

Yes?

I'm just trying to understand why there is such a consensus among reputable journalists that oceanographers did not believe in rogue waves prior to 1995. Also, given the number of articles that say that, prior to 1995, oceanographers relegated rogue waves to the same category as mermaids and sea monsters, I would think an oceanographer or two would have set the record straight by citing a pre-1995 statement by an oceanographer or two stating that they believed in the existence of rogue waves.

 

[Mojo]

I'm just trying to understand why there is such a consensus among reputable journalists that oceanographers did not believe in rogue waves prior to 1995.

Possibly because "oceanographers did not believe in rogue waves prior to 1995" makes for a snappier story than "the model generally accepted prior to 1985 predicted that rogue waves were much rarer than they actually are".

If you want to know what oceanographers actually thought, you would be better off asking oceanographers than journalists.

 

[paximperium]

Possibly because "oceanographers did not believe in rogue waves prior to 1995" makes for a snappier story than "the model generally accepted prior to 1985 predicted that rogue waves were much rarer than they actually are".

If you want to know what oceanographers actually thought, you would be better off asking oceanographers than journalists.

Let me guess.
Using his logic, there must be controversy of Evolution within the realm of biology?
Using his logic, there must be controversy of Global Warming within the realm of Climate Scientists?

 

[Mojo]

Let me guess.
Using his logic, there must be controversy of Evolution within the realm of biology?
Using his logic, there must be controversy of Global Warming within the realm of Climate Scientists?

Well what would oceanographers know about oceanography? Ask a journalist.

 

[Rodney]

So you use a different definition for psi than the one I linked to? If so can you please provide your definition.

My definition is any type of paranormal activity, which would include telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis, among other things. So, for example, if you were convinced that the statistically significant results of the Ganzfeld experiments cannot be explained by any non-paranormal means, you would believe that psi exists. However, that does not necessarily mean that you would believe in levitation or palm-reading.

 

[paximperium]

My definition is any type of paranormal activity, which would include telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis, among other things. So, for example, if you were convinced that the statistically significant results of the Ganzfeld experiments cannot be explained by any non-paranormal means, you would believe that psi exists. However, that does not necessarily mean that you would believe in levitation or palm-reading.

Why is that?

 

[Rodney]

Well what would oceanographers know about oceanography? Ask a journalist.

Your logic is about as compelling as asking a financial advisor today if s/he predicted the financial meltdown that occurred in 2008: "Of course, I did. I may not have actually said it was coming, but take my word for it, I predicted it."

 

[paximperium]

Your logic is about as compelling as asking a financial advisor today if s/he predicted the financial meltdown that occurred in 2008: "Of course, I did. I may not have actually said it was coming, but take my word for it, I predicted it."

Really? Do tell.
How is your example the same?

So do you have a point? Any intelligent point or are you still desperately trying to show how close minded scientists are?

Still desperately trying to get anecdotes accepted huh?

 

[GeeMack]

My definition is any type of paranormal activity, which would include telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis, among other things. So, for example, if you were convinced that the statistically significant results of the Ganzfeld experiments cannot be explained by any non-paranormal means, you would believe that psi exists. However, that does not necessarily mean that you would believe in levitation or palm-reading.

Well, do keep in mind that your qualifications to actually understand the meaning of the term "statistically significant" have been challenged, and you have been unable to show that you possess any such qualifications. So if you were convinced that some accident, lucky guess, or coincidence had some statistical significance, you'd be wrong. As you have been before. And likely will be again as long as you are so ill qualified to understand the meaning of the term and so insistent on arguing from a desperate desire for psychic phenomena to be real.

 

[Rodney]

Really? Do tell.
How is your example the same?

So do you have a point? Any intelligent point or are you still desperately trying to show how close minded scientists are?

Still desperately trying to get anecdotes accepted huh?

No, my pseudoskeptical friend, I just don't believe that an oceanographer claiming today that he always believed in rogue waves means squat.

 

[Rodney]

Well, do keep in mind that your qualifications to actually understand the meaning of the term "statistically significant" have been challenged, and you have been unable to show that you possess any such qualifications. So if you were convinced that some accident, lucky guess, or coincidence had some statistical significance, you'd be wrong. As you have been before. And likely will be again as long as you are so ill qualified to understand the meaning of the term and so insistent on arguing from a desperate desire for psychic phenomena to be real.

And your "qualifications to actually understand the meaning of the term 'statistically significant'" are what exactly?

 

[GeeMack]

No, my pseudoskeptical friend, I just don't believe that an oceanographer claiming today that he always believed in rogue waves means squat.

So you admit that you're making an argument from incredulity. Okay.

 

[GeeMack]

And your "qualifications to actually understand the meaning of the term 'statistically significant'" are what exactly?

I'm not making any claim that some coincidence, accident, or fluke of luck is statistically significant, as you are, so it's irrelevant. Your qualifications to understand the term, however, have been challenged, and you've failed to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. Therefore, when you fling the term around as if you do understand, you are being dishonest.

 

[paximperium]

No, my pseudoskeptical friend, I just don't believe that an oceanographer claiming today that he always believed in rogue waves means squat.

Pseudoskeptical? Was that suppose to be an attempt at an insult? It was rather amateurish and pathetic. You see my woo-mongerer, you have nothing but failure after glorious failure. You believe in pathetic fraudulent prophets(what was the name of that alternative med failure who pushed dangerous woo based crap again?) and all sort of garbage. I'd take your definition of "pseudoskeptic" over whatever Failure-based garbage you believe in.

An oceanographer claimed to have ALWAYS believed in rogue waves? Where?
So you have no point with this derail at all? Why am I not surprised.

PS: You still haven't presented similarities between your dishonest red herring false analogy yet. At least try?

 

[paximperium]

So you admit that you're making an argument from incredulity. Okay.

It's closer to Denialism. His claim to scientist ignoring rogue waves is nonsense. He is desperate to save his woo belief.

 

[paximperium]

And your "qualifications to actually understand the meaning of the term 'statistically significant'" are what exactly?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...snort.
Are you sure you want to play this game against Linda, Robin or myself my uneducated fraud-worshipper?

 

[paximperium]

Okay Rodney. Let's play your game to the end.

Oceanographers purposefully ignored eyewitness accounts and some circumstantial evidence of these Rogue Waves and believed in their models.
So? Get to your point already. It's getting really really boring.

 

[Rodney]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...snort.
Are you sure you want to play this game against Linda, Robin or myself my uneducated fraud-worshipper?

Regarding knowledge of statistics, not against Linda (or Beth) and I'm not sure about Robin. (I think Robin has done some good research regarding rogue waves, but I don't think it proves the point he is trying to make. What Robin knows about statistics is unclear.) My knowledge of statistics is good, but I'm not a statistician. But against you and GeeMack? Absolutely, because I fail to see how either of you have demonstrated more than an elementary knowledge of statistics.