The Afterlife Experiments

[Jono]

Dogwood,
yes you are correct I should read the entire book and come back with more background thoughts about the issue of the responses.

Rambling onwards,
I used the word insinuation because in verbal use here in Sweden that is actually used in more expanding circumstances than simply if something is subtle. Also along with the fact that "insinuation" oft in the past was used as a response by nobels when they were accused.
I'm a poet and I experience great joy in writing creativly, out of the current frames of the ordinary, though however understandable.
It also carries the mark of distinctive attention toward something in comparison to the rest of the sentence.

Furthermore I am actually not that skilled in the use of the english language, and I once apologize for the lack of proper spelling at times.

In conclusion, if a word only has one reference in a dictionary, in reality, out here, in truth, it is always creatively adaptable to written and spoken freedom, allthough the boundaries are always discussable, see the book of life chapter philosophy and poetic honesty

 

[Jono]

Randi -- "and though a recent claim that he also believes in the Tooth Fairy"

Gary does not claim to believe in the Tooth Fairy.


"RANDI: If Schwartz were less interested in bragging - endlessly! - about his academic background, and would become more involved in doing real science rather than just doing the cosmetics, I think he might begin to be taken seriously. He is the perfect example of the Ivory Tower resident."

"VERITAS - Most people who know me know that I do not engage in "bragging - endlessly" about my credentials. In fact, when I was a professor at Yale, when I would go to scientific meetings, I typically did not wear a nametag with my Yale affiliation, so people would talk to me as a person rather than talk to my Yale affiliation.
I previously mentioned that the media talk about my credentials because they find them unusual for someone conducting serious scientific research in this area."

I do not know if Gary is a bragging person. Randi does claim to have that perception of him. Is it with merit? Is it relative or simply a drive-by insult? Spurious.

"RANDI: Gary Schwartz has also claimed that his very favorite "medium," Laurie Campbell, is 100% accurate in performing some "highly anomalous" readings."

"VERITAS - No, we claimed that in one experiment, a telepathy-like experiment, Laurie was 100% in guessing the sex, age, and living versus deceased status of the person the experimenter was imagining. We repeatedly state that this was one experiment. And this experiment has not been published (because it was exploratory)."

Is this above a clumpsy statement of factual error from Randi, or a correct one if Randi, by "some highly anomalous readings" mean one experiment.
Any thoughts, comments?

"RANDI: Examine that terminology. Schwartz - as with all these folks - delights in rooting around in the data-base and coming up with names, numbers, initials, anything that he can point to as being highly unlikely to "connect" with the reality of the subject. This is blatant data-searching, one of the most pervasive and destructive aspects of bad science."

"VERITAS - Randi knows that EVERY ITEM is scored. This is not "blatant data-searching" - it is thorough and complete data analysis (to rule out Randi's mistaken claim that our sitters remember the hits and forget the misses) to explore the phenomenon in as much detail as possible. Randi's statements here are erroneous."

Are they erroneous? Thoughts. comments?

"RANDI: One cannot fail, given enough time and opportunity, to find correlations with obscure elements. Pseudoscientists have wasted their entire academic lives finding repeated series of digits in the irrational number "pi" for example, and assigning significance to those discoveries."

"VERITAS - Actually, many distinguished mathematicians have searched for a possible order in the digits of pi - to our knowledge, none has found a repeating order to date. Could it be that pi is random? Or, could it be that we have yet to discover how the digits in pi unfold (the more humble position)?"

Is this above an erroneous statement by Randi? Or does Gary Schwartz express a factual error? Or are they both correct with different experiences in their investigations?


"VERITAS - In the recent Times of London article, Randi claimed that we get millions of dollars a year in support. This is a blatant error of fact, one that is easily documented."

Did Randi claim that they did get millions of dollars in support a year? Or was he misquoated or distorted by the Times of London? Or by Gary?


"RANDI - I notice that the man does not address the crucial question that I have raised: why does he conduct, by his own admission, "experiments" that are not double-blinded?"

"VERITAS - There is no sentence, written to me, or in his commentary, that focuses on why scientists do not typically begin research doing double-blind studies. If Randi knew how medical research operates, he would understand that often drug research operates in Phases. Phase III research involves multi-center, double-blind studies. The reason why this is not Phase I or Phase II is because (1) scientists need to have a good reason to conduct such a massive study, (2) details need to be worked out to make sure that such a massive study is properly conceived and design, and this requires research (Phases I and II), and (3) such studies are expensive and time consuming.
If Randi knew our research history (e.g. had he read Chapter 9 of the Living Energy Universe book and the peer reviewed, published paper reviewed in that chapter), he would know that we have already conducted exploratory double-blind studies with Laurie. This is because with a single medium, in a single setting, it is practical to conduct double-blind studies."

Did Randi know about that Gary concucted his research in accordance to accepted scientific research standards?
Or is his opinion that, with the paranormal or as Gary says "human energy systems", double blind is the only acceptable scientfic start?

Thoughts, comments?

 

[RamblingOnwards]

Also along with the fact that "insinuation" oft in the past was used as a response by nobels when they were accused.

I am afraid I'm not following you here - this isn't a comment on your spelling, I swear! Nobel prize winners, or people of the nobility? And did they use it when the accusation was in no way veiled or open to interpretation?

Furthermore I am actually not that skilled in the use of the english language, and I once apologize for the lack of proper spelling at times.

That was me being snarky, for which I apologise. I wouldn't have made it if I'd realised you weren't an English speaker (although it did strike me more as a misuse of the word than the typos to which I am myself prone).

I'm a poet and I experience great joy in writing creativly .... In conclusion, if a word only has one reference in a dictionary, in reality, out here, in truth, it is always creatively adaptable to written and spoken freedom, allthough the boundaries are always discussable, see the book of life chapter philosophy and poetic honesty

But this is actually my point. The word 'insinuations' always has negative connotations. Always. And that you choose it deliberately for its artistic effect means you do believe that [what appeared to me to be] an honest questioning of your lack of response was somehow rude, underhand, and shameful.

Also, you may want to consider that one of the biggest stumbling block in any intellectual debate is in the definition of the terms. Deliberately using a term 'creatively' is making that obstacle even larger than it needs be.

 

[RamblingOnwards]

Randi -- "and though a recent claim that he also believes in the Tooth Fairy"

Gary does not claim to believe in the Tooth Fairy.

This has been adressed. Schwartz says, in part, that mediums are genuine because his theory supports it. The theory also, however, supports the existence of the tooth fairy. Therefore either:
- the theory is valid, and proves both the validity of mediums and the existence of the tooth fairy,
- the theory is invalid, and proves neither.

This was a clear rhetorical device on Randi's part to illustrate this point. Even if the point is invalid, this statement can not be seen as being the same thing as a factual error.

"RANDI: If Schwartz were less interested in bragging - endlessly! - about his academic background, and would become more involved in doing real science rather than just doing the cosmetics, I think he might begin to be taken seriously. He is the perfect example of the Ivory Tower resident."

"VERITAS - Most people who know me know that I do not engage in "bragging - endlessly" about my credentials. In fact, when I was a professor at Yale, when I would go to scientific meetings, I typically did not wear a nametag with my Yale affiliation, so people would talk to me as a person rather than talk to my Yale affiliation.
I previously mentioned that the media talk about my credentials because they find them unusual for someone conducting serious scientific research in this area."

I do not know if Gary is a bragging person. Randi does claim to have that perception of him. Is it with merit? Is it relative or simply a drive-by insult? Spurious.

Whether Schwartz is or isn't, Randi found him to be so. This is at most a mistaken opinion. Right or wrong this is not a factual error.

"RANDI: Gary Schwartz has also claimed that his very favorite "medium," Laurie Campbell, is 100% accurate in performing some "highly anomalous" readings."

"VERITAS - No, we claimed that in one experiment, a telepathy-like experiment, Laurie was 100% in guessing the sex, age, and living versus deceased status of the person the experimenter was imagining. We repeatedly state that this was one experiment. And this experiment has not been published (because it was exploratory)."

Is this above a clumpsy statement of factual error from Randi, or a correct one if Randi, by "some highly anomalous readings" mean one experiment.
Any thoughts, comments?

Why was it exploratory? Perhaps for the same reason Randi calls it 'highly anomalous'?(in other words, deviating from the normal standard of test carried out). Again, at most, a difference of opinion.

"RANDI: Examine that terminology. Schwartz - as with all these folks - delights in rooting around in the data-base and coming up with names, numbers, initials, anything that he can point to as being highly unlikely to "connect" with the reality of the subject. This is blatant data-searching, one of the most pervasive and destructive aspects of bad science."

"VERITAS - Randi knows that EVERY ITEM is scored. This is not "blatant data-searching" - it is thorough and complete data analysis (to rule out Randi's mistaken claim that our sitters remember the hits and forget the misses) to explore the phenomenon in as much detail as possible. Randi's statements here are erroneous."

Considering the highly controversial natue of that scoring system, and the general tendancy to this is this field, the most we can accuse Randi of in this particular paragraph is not being specific enough in his criticisms. He is, after all, making a general philosophic comment. Again, at most, a difference of opinion.

"RANDI: One cannot fail, given enough time and opportunity, to find correlations with obscure elements. Pseudoscientists have wasted their entire academic lives finding repeated series of digits in the irrational number "pi" for example, and assigning significance to those discoveries."

"VERITAS - Actually, many distinguished mathematicians have searched for a possible order in the digits of pi - to our knowledge, none has found a repeating order to date. Could it be that pi is random? Or, could it be that we have yet to discover how the digits in pi unfold (the more humble position)?"

Is this above an erroneous statement by Randi? Or does Gary Schwartz express a factual error? Or are they both correct with different experiences in their investigations?

Randi's position is simply a little more conservative than Schwartz's. I suggest you read their statements more carefully. Here is a paraphrase:
Randi: Even though there is no pattern to pi (that is the definition of irrational), some people spend their entire lives attaching 'significance' in repeating digits (obviously, the number '1' and all other digits appear multiple times).
Veritas: Genuine scientists have been trying to find actual patterns, but have not to date succeeded.

"VERITAS - In the recent Times of London article, Randi claimed that we get millions of dollars a year in support. This is a blatant error of fact, one that is easily documented."

Did Randi claim that they did get millions of dollars in support a year? Or was he misquoated or distorted by the Times of London? Or by Gary?

You're asking us?

If Randi knew our research history (e.g. had he read Chapter 9 of the Living Energy Universe book and the peer reviewed, published paper reviewed in that chapter), he would know that we have already conducted exploratory double-blind studies with Laurie. This is because with a single medium, in a single setting, it is practical to conduct double-blind studies."

Did Randi know about that Gary concucted his research in accordance to accepted scientific research standards?

Firstly, do we know that Schwartz did conduct his research in accordance to accepted scientific research standards? And are these the results where under discussion when Randi made this comment?

Or is his opinion that, with the paranormal or as Gary says "human energy systems", double blind is the only acceptable scientfic start?

Do you know of any other acceptable scientific start? This is hardly a new field. Heart surgery went from being predicted to be impossible to being a standard operation in less time than mediums have been investigated for. Part of Randi's point is that these studies never seem to get out of the 'exploratory' phase and into the real science phase.

There you go.

 

[Dogwood]

WhiteLion,

Most of the examples you've provided have nothing to do with Schwartz's research, so I guess we're back to the personalities issue. Normally, this subject doesn't interest me. You could spend a lifetime finding exampls of Randi being rude. But this does highlight some of the tactics Schwartz uses in discussion, so here goes.

Randi -- "and though a recent claim that he also believes in the Tooth Fairy"

Gary does not claim to believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Shame on you WL. You didn't quote the whole line. What Randi said was,

"- and though a recent claim that he also believes in the Tooth Fairy, may be somewhat hyperbolized, there is evidence to the contrary, up ahead. "

(emphasis mine)

First paragraph of this page

Bottom line. Schwartz's theory does predict the existance of the Tooth Fairy, and Santa Claus and Superman. This is inescapable. Randi was rubbing it in, sure. But he said nothing inaccurate here. In fact, his use of a qualifier indicates he doesn't wish to misrepresent Schwartz.

I do not know if Gary is a bragging person. Randi does claim to have that perception of him. Is it with merit? Is it relative or simply a drive-by insult? Spurious.

Probably both. Once you've read some more of Schwartz's work, you'll see that he frequently mentions his 400 published papers, and his educational background. Is this bragging? Maybe. Is it deserved? Maybe. Was Randi being intentionally insulting? Probably. Not sure what you mean by spurious unless you're referring to your incomplete reference.

"RANDI: Gary Schwartz has also claimed that his very favorite "medium," Laurie Campbell, is 100% accurate in performing some "highly anomalous" readings."

"VERITAS - No, we claimed that in one experiment, a telepathy-like experiment, Laurie was 100% in guessing the sex, age, and living versus deceased status of the person the experimenter was imagining. We repeatedly state that this was one experiment. And this experiment has not been published (because it was exploratory)."

Is this above a clumpsy statement of factual error from Randi, or a correct one if Randi, by "some highly anomalous readings" mean one experiment.

Note that Schwartz's reply does not contradict Randi's statement. It confirms it.

"RANDI: Examine that terminology. Schwartz - as with all these folks - delights in rooting around in the data-base and coming up with names, numbers, initials, anything that he can point to as being highly unlikely to "connect" with the reality of the subject. This is blatant data-searching, one of the most pervasive and destructive aspects of bad science."

"VERITAS - Randi knows that EVERY ITEM is scored. This is not "blatant data-searching" - it is thorough and complete data analysis (to rule out Randi's mistaken claim that our sitters remember the hits and forget the misses) to explore the phenomenon in as much detail as possible. Randi's statements here are erroneous."

Are they erroneous? Thoughts. comments?

Note that Schwartz does not address Randi's criticism. Randi did not claim that some items weren't scored. He's saying that Schwartz has a tendency to mine his data for the results he wants to find. And he does. You'll see this when you read the book. You'll also see that the sitters do tend to remember the hits and forget the misses.

"RANDI: One cannot fail, given enough time and opportunity, to find correlations with obscure elements. Pseudoscientists have wasted their entire academic lives finding repeated series of digits in the irrational number "pi" for example, and assigning significance to those discoveries."

"VERITAS - Actually, many distinguished mathematicians have searched for a possible order in the digits of pi - to our knowledge, none has found a repeating order to date. Could it be that pi is random? Or, could it be that we have yet to discover how the digits in pi unfold (the more humble position)?"

Is this above an erroneous statement by Randi? Or does Gary Schwartz express a factual error? Or are they both correct with different experiences in their investigations?

They are both correct because Schwartz's reply, once again, does not contradict Randi's point. Which was about looking for patterns and significance in patterns that don't exist. It wasn't really about pi.

"VERITAS - In the recent Times of London article, Randi claimed that we get millions of dollars a year in support. This is a blatant error of fact, one that is easily documented."

Did Randi claim that they did get millions of dollars in support a year? Or was he misquoated or distorted by the Times of London? Or by Gary?

I don't know. I can't find it at The Times web-site. You'd probably have to e-mail Schwartz for the reference. But good questions.

"RANDI - I notice that the man does not address the crucial question that I have raised: why does he conduct, by his own admission, "experiments" that are not double-blinded?"

"VERITAS - There is no sentence, written to me, or in his commentary, that focuses on why scientists do not typically begin research doing double-blind studies. If Randi knew how medical research operates, he would understand that often drug research operates in Phases. Phase III research involves multi-center, double-blind studies. The reason why this is not Phase I or Phase II is because (1) scientists need to have a good reason to conduct such a massive study, (2) details need to be worked out to make sure that such a massive study is properly conceived and design, and this requires research (Phases I and II), and (3) such studies are expensive and time consuming.
If Randi knew our research history (e.g. had he read Chapter 9 of the Living Energy Universe book and the peer reviewed, published paper reviewed in that chapter), he would know that we have already conducted exploratory double-blind studies with Laurie. This is because with a single medium, in a single setting, it is practical to conduct double-blind studies."

Did Randi know about that Gary concucted his research in accordance to accepted scientific research standards?
Or is his opinion that, with the paranormal or as Gary says "human energy systems", double blind is the only acceptable scientfic start?

Thoughts, comments?

A few points first. Schwartz is not doing medical research. He is not doing drug research. He is not doing anything so massive that requires multi-phase trials. He is listening to people talk. This is not complicated stuff. There is also a large history and body of work in mediumship research for him to refer to. He doesn't have to go very far to see how flawed previous experiments were. Putting proper controls in place for this type of work is very simple. And given the history (of fraud) in this type of work, why anyone would bother doing a study that wasn't properly blinded from the beginning is beyond me.

And yes, double blind is the only acceptable way to do this. From the start? Ideally yes. Why waste time? Again, this is not drug testing. This is, at a minimum, two people, two chairs, two rooms and a tape recorder.

 

[Jono]

Thank you Dogwood and Rambling Onwards for your thoughts and comments on the issue.

Rambling Onwards,
Very heavily in the elderly theatrical world that very word was used as a comic or sarcastic veil on oneself in response to accusations. (insinuation)

As for my use of it in this way on this forum in this thread, how unscientific it may be and counterproductive to any form of serious expression, I simply can not escape this sometimes poetic pattern of my language that conveys.

Dogwood,
One or two factual errors are likely in the response from Randi, the rest might simply be a sort of rude, crude way of Randi's speculation thoughts.
I do enjoy his research though as a former journalist I would perhaps shape off the edges, or perhaps again this is what makes Randi... Randi.

As I know you might or probably believe I am a Gary Schwarts "yes-sayer" I am however nothing until I have read the raw data and/or visited him to witness this research first hand.
I do hope that Randi and Gary might find time and temperence to discuss further.

Also what could you tell me about a, especially for the skeptics, controversial character named Victor Zammit?
I heard he had some sort of counter-challenge about refutting evidence instead of proving it?

I wish not to just discuss this with as you refer to as "woos".
What does the other side of the coin think, believe or state about this?

 

[RamblingOnwards]

As for my use of it in this way on this forum in this thread, how unscientific it may be and counterproductive to any form of serious expression, I simply can not escape this sometimes poetic pattern of my language that conveys.

In other words you fully intended to be rude to kookbreaker, and this is how you expressed that ill-will. Fair enough.

One or two factual errors are likely in the response from Randi,

One ot two factual errors are likely in any piece of work. However, which ones actually occured? Do you agree that none of the ones you have posted to date are in fact factual errors? And if not, why not? By not addressing this you come across as if you are saying:

"The facts may all be on your side, but I'm going to continue to believe in my side anyway. Because of ... err .... other facts. Which I refuse to discuss with you. But are completely irrefutable. So there."

As I know you might or probably believe I am a Gary Schwarts "yes-sayer" I am however nothing until I have read the raw data and/or visited him to witness this research first hand.

I am interested in why you refer to Gary Schwartz as 'Gary', but James Randi as 'Randi', and why you would assume as a default position that Randi had made factual errors.

 

[Jono]

Rambling Onwards.

I did not intend to be rude toward Kookbreaker, in simple terms, give me a break from that kind of wordtwisting per se.
I wrote the word insinuation with an uplifting touch as I interpret it as it was quite comic yet still remaining in issue.

And no I do not agree that some of the ones weren't factual errors.
And will I have to state some of them again, again and again???

Gary is easier to write, as well as Randi, not as many letters

 

[RamblingOnwards]

And no I do not agree that some of the ones weren't factual errors.
And will I have to state some of them again, again and again???

What you need to do is tell us why you disagree with the arguments we have made. Do we have to state all our objections over and over again?

Gary is easier to write, as well as Randi, not as many letters [/B]

'James' is exactly the same number of letters as 'Randi'. Try again.

 

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by WhiteLion

Also what could you tell me about a, especially for the skeptics, controversial character named Victor Zammit?
I heard he had some sort of counter-challenge about refutting evidence instead of proving it?

I was going to refer you to the "Challenge to The Skeptics" thread but I see you've already found it. The 1st reply by new drkitten is the response I would have given you, through probably not as eloquently. I'd suggest following the link that jambo provided to Zammit's page and reading his challenge requirements. That pretty much says it all.

 

[MESchlum]

"RANDI: One cannot fail, given enough time and opportunity, to find correlations with obscure elements. Pseudoscientists have wasted their entire academic lives finding repeated series of digits in the irrational number "pi" for example, and assigning significance to those discoveries."

"VERITAS - Actually, many distinguished mathematicians have searched for a possible order in the digits of pi - to our knowledge, none has found a repeating order to date. Could it be that pi is random? Or, could it be that we have yet to discover how the digits in pi unfold (the more humble position)?"

Is this above an erroneous statement by Randi? Or does Gary Schwartz express a factual error? Or are they both correct with different experiences in their investigations?

[begin math mode]

Schwartz is wrong here, as far as pi goes.

First, some background:

It has been proven (repeatedly ) that pi is irrational. This means that there is no regular repeated series of digits in pi.

Let me try to be clearer: pick any finite series of digits (314). You will find it somewhere in the digits of pi (here, right at the start, for instance), and further down. However, the distance between the occurances of the series will change. You could have 1000 digits go by - in fact, if you wait long enough, you *will* have 1000 digits go by exactly before 314 repeats.

One thing that is certain is that you will never have your series repeat at the same interval forever (so you won't have 314 happen every 296 digits after the millionth digit, for instance).

At the same time, pi is defined, and is not random (pi is never 4, despite what some people may claim).In fact, there are formulas that can be used to compute pi, to any desired number of digits, relatively quickly. It's one of the common tests for computing power.

End of background.

Claims:

Randi states that pseudoscientists have looked for repeated digits and assign meaning to them.

For instance, "1" is the 2nd and the 4th digit of pi, so a pseudoscientist could somehow link "oneness" with 2 and 4 (or some convoluted computation based on this). This is meaningless pattern seeking, and can be used to prove anything - because pi is irrational, so any series you desire will occur.

If your proof requires that pi contains the series "101001", it will occur, because every finite series will occur. Period.

Hence Randi's statement (that by studying pi you *will* find patterns, though they are meaningless) is correct.

Schwartz does not contradict Randi's statement, and says that mathematicians have looked for an order to the digits of pi, without finding a repeating order.

This is dishonest reasoning. First of all, the proof that pi is irrational is fairly old, and since it was made, only cranks have tries to find repeating series in pi (i.e. a series, say "12" that occurs at regular intervals). Second, devising faster ways to compute the digits of pi is an interesting mathematical and computational challenge, so mathematicians have been working on it. The dishonesty lies in implying that studying pi is the same as looking for repeated series.

Schwartz then establishes a false dichotomy, between pi being random (it isn't, or it would sometimes be equal to 4), and us being unable to predict the digits of pi yet (we can - it just takes computing power, and we can only find a finite number). Both of the positions he suggests are wrong, which implies that his knowledge of mathematics is pretty low.

To summarise, in this case, Schwartz has shown blatant ignorance of mathematics, and used at least two fallacious arguments when trying to make a point. Advantage: Randi.

[/end math mode]

[begin stats mode]

And this brings me to one of my favorite anecdotes (experienced by yours truly, rather than word of mouth).

My first econometrics class, the professor told the tale of an experiment: a group of researchers created 20 random, independent series with 1000 elements each (so the value of one is unrelated to the value of the other), and then tried to find correlations between them, by expressing one series as a linear combination of two others. Something along the lines of A = 2B - C, where A, B and C are distinct series.

In 75% of the cases, they found a strong correlation, though by definition and design, there shouldn't have been any.

The moral?

Use enough variables (here, express one series as a linear sum of two others, rather than as a multiple, or offset, from one), you will "find" correlations even if they don't actually exist.

And that's what Randi was saying.

[/end stats mode]

 

[drkitten]

May I introduce some perhaps pedantic corrections into the math here? I think that both Randi and Schwartz are wrong in the discussion above -- most likely they're both out of their depth mathematically speaking.

It has been proven (repeatedly ) that pi is irrational. This means that there is no regular repeated series of digits in pi.

This is EXACTLY true, but your following explanation is not.

Let me try to be clearer: pick any finite series of digits (314). You will find it somewhere in the digits of pi (here, right at the start, for instance), and further down. However, the distance between the occurances of the series will change. You could have 1000 digits go by - in fact, if you wait long enough, you *will* have 1000 digits go by exactly before 314 repeats.

The number .1101001000100001000001... (notice that the number of zeros between successive ones continually increases) is also an irrational number, but there are are digit sequences (for example, 314) that will not appear anywhere in the continued [decimal] expansion of this number.

Similarly, the number 31.11411151912161... (notice that I just stuck ones between each of the digits of pi) is also irrational, but contains a repeating sub-series -- every other digit is a 1.

The concept you're really going for here, I think, is the what Borel called a 'normal' number. Although it's been proven that almost all real numbers are normal (formally, the set of non-normal number has measure zero), no number has ever been proven to be normal.

In particular, pi has not been proven to be normal. It's possible (although extremely unlikely) that if you carry pi out far enough, you will get the following pattern:

(Conjecture 1) Pi = 3.1415926.....01001000100001000001...
(notice that this is just a finite random-seeming sequence prepended to the irrational, non-normal number presented above.)

As you might expect, the question "is pi normal" is considered a relatively important open question among the people concerned with such things, and a number of very good mathematicians have, in fact, looked into this. I suspect that Schwartz was misunderstanding this when he wrote that "many distinguished mathematicians have searched for a possible order in the digits of pi - to our knowledge, none has found a repeating order to date. Could it be that pi is random? Or, could it be that we have yet to discover how the digits in pi unfold (the more humble position)?" We do know pi to be irrational, but we do not know that it is "random" (by which read, "normal").

Randi is correct that a lot of people have indeed wasted a lot of time trying to interpret the random-seeming patterns in pi, but at the same time, I could easily make a career (and obtain a nice tenured sinecure at any math department in the world) by proving [or disproving] Conjecture 1 above. Research time often can't be known to be wasted until the research is complete.

 

[Ed]

[begin math mode]

[begin stats mode]

And this brings me to one of my favorite anecdotes (experienced by yours truly, rather than word of mouth).

My first econometrics class, the professor told the tale of an experiment: a group of researchers created 20 random, independent series with 1000 elements each (so the value of one is unrelated to the value of the other), and then tried to find correlations between them, by expressing one series as a linear combination of two others. Something along the lines of A = 2B - C, where A, B and C are distinct series.

In 75% of the cases, they found a strong correlation, though by definition and design, there shouldn't have been any.

The moral?

Use enough variables (here, express one series as a linear sum of two others, rather than as a multiple, or offset, from one), you will "find" correlations even if they don't actually exist.

And that's what Randi was saying.

[/end stats mode]

Which is exactly where the Prayer wankers f up by taking some arbitrily large number of health variable and doing data mining to find "significance". Here the problem is that if one expects that something will only occur by chance 5% of the time and you look enough times you will find that case. It means nothing.

On pi

http://pi.nersc.gov/

The industrious (and crooked) among you might use this to form a new religion or contact aliens or something odd.

As a hoot, I have prooven my godhood.....

search string = "edgod"
25-bit binary equivalent = 0010100100001110111100100

search string found at binary index = 169981356
binary pi : 0101000000101001000011101111001000000010001111111001000110000101
binary string: 0010100100001110111100100
character pi : .kau-:ezmdf_jbpedgod_q:rfbypblephegjuf
character string: edgod

 

[MESchlum]

May I introduce some perhaps pedantic corrections into the math here? I think that both Randi and Schwartz are wrong in the discussion above -- most likely they're both out of their depth mathematically speaking.

Thanks!

Corrections accepted, and hopefully assimilated. It's a bit sad to see how rusty I am - but not too much so, I hope.

I still feel Randi's claim is correct (that people will *assign* unjustified meanings to percieved patterns in pi), though perhaps I'm interpreting it too much. Studying pi is fine, and fun.

I also fail to see how a reinterpretation of Schwartz' s claim could make it correct, so there I go. If he meant normal when he said random, and was trying for clarity to non-experts (a laudable goal), I fail to see why undiscovered non normality is more humble than so far apparent normality. And we know how the digits unfold - at least, we can get computers to tell us (to any finite point).

Of course, Randi and Schwartz don't seem to be talking about the same things, which makes the response even less relevant.

 

[CFLarsen]

jzs,

You're right, triple-blinding is a real thing and Randi missed it. But here's something I hope you'll add to your ledger on this matter.

In the near four years since Randi made that comment, Schwartz still hasn't published a triple-blind experiment, and to my knowledge, only one double-blind experiment (which produced results expected by chance).

Now I dislike sloppiness probably more than the next guy, but do you really think this off-the-cuff comment of Randi's is really that note-worthy in light of the years of bad research by Schwartz?

jzs,

Any comment?

 

[CFLarsen]

Bump for jzs.

 

[Ausmerican]

Anyone see the irony of following up a statement like "I do not engage in "bragging - endlessly" about my credentials." with one like; "In fact, when I was a professor at Yale"??

 

[omegablue]

No Ausamerican, honestly i can´t see this irony nor contraditions on these statements.