The Afterlife Experiments

[Jono]

Yes and that is all good and well Kookbreaker, I did a turnaround in those comments, a simple and obvious one, for what you know about yourself I do not know about you per se.

Wanted to do at leas that surface test to see, as I have perhaps more elaborately done in the past, on how familiar you were with the quotes, I do apologize if I did offend your intelligence or what have you.
It was actually fun. Glad you got suspicious.

 

[jmercer]

You're testing posters rather than justify your arguments?

That's one leaky boat you're sailing in, WL.

 

[Ed]

Metaphors notwithstanding, one cannot rationalize away poor professional performance. For Schwartz to offer up a poetic rationale for incompetance is sad.

 

[Psiload]

Metaphors notwithstanding, one cannot rationalize away poor professional performance. For Schwartz to offer up a poetic rationale for incompetance is sad.

The leaks may be easily patched while underway, but all I see Schwartz doing is drilling more holes in the hull.

 

[kookbreaker]

Yes and that is all good and well Kookbreaker, I did a turnaround in those comments, a simple and obvious one, for what you know about yourself I do not know about you per se.

A clumsy attempt at a 'gotcha' is what it was.

Wanted to do at leas that surface test to see, as I have perhaps more elaborately done in the past, on how familiar you were with the quotes, I do apologize if I did offend your intelligence or what have you.
It was actually fun. Glad you got suspicious. [/B]

You have insulted my intelligence, and you have shown your lack therof. You based this on your constant complaints that we're all just 'cynics' and whatnot. You assumed we didn't actually know what we are talking about, when in fact we know much, much more than you.

 

[Ed]

The leaks may be easily patched while underway, but all I see Schwartz doing is drilling more holes in the hull.

He does not notice holes in the hull in the first place yet purports to be an old salt.

 

[Dogwood]

Yes and that is all good and well Kookbreaker, I did a turnaround in those comments, a simple and obvious one, for what you know about yourself I do not know about you per se.

White Lion,

We really don't need these kind of silly games around here. You keep talking about the investigations you want to do, but you haven't even read the book yet. Which seems especially strange since you concluded early on that Randi was the one in error. How could you honestly make such a conclusion without having completely read the source material? You don't even express much interest in the reported facts about the experiments. Rather, you keep focusing on Randi's rudeness, and now you seem to be trying to make the case that we're a bunch of Randi apologists.

I have news for you. It doesn't matter if we are. It doesn't matter if Randi is the rudest man on the planet. None of that will change the facts regarding Schwartz's research.

Please don't insult our intelligence further with any more of this immature garbage.

 

[Jono]

Kookbreaker.
We choose how we feel, insulted or otherwise.
And I have not stated that you are all cynics and furthermore I also did not assume that people here did not know about the subject or any other that might have been brought to question.

Perhaps I should have had an assumption that you are extremely bright and knowing very very much, much more than me.
Yet I simply do not conduct thought in that manner from the get-go.

Dogwood.
If you feel that way and speak for all in here, or at least the majority than that is of course understandable and I will respect this.
And as far as my observation over the erronous statements I percieved from Randi. I had read parts of the book, looked at the verbal exchange between Randi and Gary Schwartz and simply found Randi to errors and flaws in some of his statements.

This was my main reason for this inquiry, not a pretentious investigation to be published in those proportions.
I actually do have a great interest for the facts about the research, even the reported facts.
Though that may come much later on as this was a simply inquiry that I have gotten a lot from as I experience it. Why not be honest if you experience someone to be erronous. And I just can't abandon that perception because it rhimes badly with other people's views, though those are needed in a further evaluation and investigation.

Jmercer, I have expressed my thoughts about my arguments on this issue. Be it daft, unintelligent or otherwise I felt that it was an issue I could post in this site for extended views and so.
And so I did and as I told Dogwood I believe the responses in general have been helpful.

I will read the entire book and continue on how this perception has altered or remained. Though I would most of all, as many on this site would agree in the desire, to see the raw data and have the slate as it was written and conducted.

 

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by WhiteLion


Dogwood.
If you feel that way and speak for all in here, or at least the majority than that is of course understandable and I will respect this.

I speak only for myself WhiteLion. Please feel free to change the "we" in my first sentence with "I", and the "our" in my last sentence with "my". My apologies to the rest of the forum for my presumption.

And as far as my observation over the erronous statements I percieved from Randi. I had read parts of the book, looked at the verbal exchange between Randi and Gary Schwartz and simply found Randi to errors and flaws in some of his statements.

I still haven't seen a single error of Randi's in the examples you've provided, though perhaps I missed it. Can you please point me to the comments Randi made about Schwartz's research that were factually incorrect and where in the book his criticisms are contradicted? I have my copy right here and I'd like to check for myself.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

jzs said:
Doctors and nurses are lumped in the same group since they are the medical personnell involved with administering the treatment.

And lo! that's what I did:

If that is not the case then in drug trials, for example, we'd have to have quadruple-blind: (1) patients; (2) doctors and nurses; (3) pharmaceutical company representatives; (4) analysts.

Dogwood said:
But in a hospital or a large drug company running several tests at once, it makes sense to have your analytical group blinded, not to the identity of the patients or whether they were in the control group or not, because that's already in place, but to which test they were a part of. That's what triple blinded means.

Then, by golly, typical large drug trials are quadruple blinded, because the analysts are usually employees of a drug trial management company. We also have to blind the pharmaceutical company employees. That means we have the four categories I cited above. I'm a genius!

Anyone for quintuple blinding?

~~ Paul

 

[CFLarsen]

He does not notice holes in the hull in the first place yet purports to be an old salt.

..................what???

 

[Ed]

..................what???

Expanding on the sea metaphor....... he talks about patching holes in the hull, I suggest that as a purported ancient mariner he does not even notice them. old salt=ancient mariner.

 

[CFLarsen]

Expanding on the sea metaphor....... he talks about patching holes in the hull, I suggest that as a purported ancient mariner he does not even notice them. old salt=ancient mariner.

A............ha.

 

[Ed]

A............ha.

Your idiomatic english is so good that you manage to surprise me now and then.

 

[T'ai Chi]

And lo! that's what I did:

Then let me add that "pharmaceutical company representatives" aren't directly involved in the experiments. Do you believe they are?

Then, by golly, typical large drug trials are quadruple blinded, because the analysts are usually employees of a drug trial management company. We also have to blind the pharmaceutical company employees. That means we have the four categories I cited above. I'm a genius!

Anyone for quintuple blinding?

~~ Paul

You can suggest n-tuple blinding if you want. The fact, however, is that triple-blinding is a real thing, a real term, and there is no other group directly involved in the experiment other than the experimenter(s), the subject(s), and the analyst(s).

 

[Dogwood]

The fact, however, is that triple-blinding is a real thing, a real term, and there is no other group directly involved in the experiment other than the experimenter(s), the subject(s), and the analyst(s). [/B]

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?

 

[kookbreaker]

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?

The major point being that Schwartz is using 'triple' blind in the same manner that a child would use 'super/ultra.mega'.

Hmmmm. Super-Ultra-Mega-Mega-Mega-blind!

 

[CFLarsen]

Your idiomatic english is so good that you manage to surprise me now and then.

Who are you calling an idiomat?!?!?!

 

[RamblingOnwards]

A minor point, but one that *I* find interesting:


kookbreaker

Your inquiry has consisted of doing nothing but quoting the VERITAS replies, and ignoring the replies we have made about them.

White Lion:

Kookbreaker, of course I do not agree with your insinuations, or where those actual analystic comments?

I have adressed quotes that I have posted and it has been discussed here of course.

kookbreaker:

No, actually, you have not. You have avoided them or put out one-line replies. Not much of an answer

White Lion:

Kookbreaker, again this insinuation that I am ignoring something that you deem important.
That is of course always possible though it has not been a conscious move on my account.

Note the repeated use of the word 'insinuation'.

Now, to insinuate means:
(www.dictionary.com)

Insinuate:
To introduce or otherwise convey (a thought, for example) gradually and insidiously

Insidiously:
Working or spreading harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner

Kookbreaker's declaration was not in any way gradual, subtle, stealthy, or (in my opinion) harmful. So I'm curious, White Lion, as to why you used that particular word not once, but twice.

Here are the two possibilities I can think of:
a) you don't really know what the word means, and were actually reaching for the word 'accusation'.
b) despite being a clearly improper word, it was the closest one you can find with sufficiently negative connotations.

b) is a classic sign of a dishonest debating style.

P.S. the word in analytic, not analystic.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

jzs said:
Then let me add that "pharmaceutical company representatives" aren't directly involved in the experiments. Do you believe they are?

One would hope as little as possible, but what if there is a dosage problem, for example? I still say blind 'em!

How about prayer experiments? Don't we want to blind the family and friends of the pray-ers and prayees? Quintuple blinding!

I'll shut up now.

Uh oh. From http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Dept/Content.aspx?departmentid=65&PageID=7798:

In a "single-blind" experiment, one participant - usually the subject - is left uninformed. In a "double-blind" experiment two participants - usually the subject and observer - are uninformed, and in a "triple-blind" experiment the subject, the observer, and the person responsible for the actual administration of the drug are left unaware of the nature of the material administered.

Better definition from http://www.soft.com/News/QTN-Online/qtnfeb04.html

Single-Blind Experiment. The subject doesn't know if they're
getting the real medicine or sugar pills.

Double-Blind Experiment. The subject doesn't know what they're
getting and the person who gives out the pills doesn't know who's
getting real pills or sugar.

Triple-Blind Experiment. The subject doesn't what they're getting,
the person handing out the pills doesn't know who got what, and the
person who evaluates the results doesn't know who got what.

~~ Paul