the PEAR experiment debunked (again)

[jj]

There's a very nice thread over at skepticforum in the science section on the PEAR experiment and some of the problems in its design.

I know we've hashed that one to death here, so I won't bother to repeat any of the arguments, but it's worth a visit if you want to see a more compact thread with less shouting and hollaring that brings to light a (not the only, but it only takes one) fatal flaw in the PEAR design.

 

[jmercer]

Awww, c'mon, jj, I'm lazy. Link it? Please?

 

[jj]

Awww, c'mon, jj, I'm lazy. Link it? Please?

I'm not sure what terms that skepticforum puts on external links, and I really didn't want to be the first to ask.

Sorry. I guess I could PM it to you.

 

[jmercer]

No problem - I got off my lazy posterior and found it myself.

 

[jmercer]

BTW, jj, you're right about the thread, but I think you may have understated it. "Nice" is a good word, but "masterful" is a lot closer to the mark, methinks.

That thread provides an concise (and possibly irrefutable) identification of a fatal flaw in PEAR's usage of the xor. I know how xor works and some of the uses for it - anyone who's ever programmed in assembly language or C does. However, xor's use in PEAR for stastistical purposes was always beyond me; I had to rely on the textual explanations of how they "chose" data, to determine that they were cherry-picking.

This thread takes that issue to a whole new level by pointing out that the use of xor by PEAR actually... well, let let others read the thread. It's the best way to really get at the meat of it.

Thanks for pointing it out!

 

[Tricky]

No problem - I got off my lazy posterior and found it myself.

...and by golly, if you had to go find it, so do we...

 

[jj]

BTW, jj, you're right about the thread, but I think you may have understated it. "Nice" is a good word, but "masterful" is a lot closer to the mark, methinks.

Well, in my view, it's just one of the many fatal flaws. It, by itself, is telling, of course, but so are several other issues, including the calibration issue, the question of what is a "world event" and how one can falsify that in any real sense, and a few others.

 

[Darat]

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=207

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm not sure what terms that skepticforum puts on external links, and I really didn't want to be the first to ask.

I would like to see what prevents anyone from linking to a specific thread on any forum.

 

[jmercer]

Well, in my view, it's just one of the many fatal flaws. It, by itself, is telling, of course, but so are several other issues, including the calibration issue, the question of what is a "world event" and how one can falsify that in any real sense, and a few others.

Heh... yeppers, I agree. Plus how many fatal flaws does it take? Hmm... how many stakes in the heart of a vampire... let's see:

"So, Doctor, the victim was shot to death?"

"Yes, that's the case. One shot to through the right frontal lobe of the brain, and the other one to the left frontal lobe."

"And which shot killed him?"

"????"

 

[jj]

I would like to see what prevents anyone from linking to a specific thread on any forum.

Good manners.

 

[geni]

Good manners.

I think they died out on the net sometime around 1990.

 

[Aoidoi]

I think they died out on the net sometime around 1990.

I blame AOL.

 

[geni]

I blame AOL.

Most people do.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I know we've hashed that one to death here, so I won't bother to repeat any of the arguments, but it's worth a visit if you want to see a more compact thread with less shouting and hollaring that brings to light a (not the only, but it only takes one) fatal flaw in the PEAR design.

A "fatal flaw" which Stimpy still has not presented anything but theory for.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

jzs,

A "fatal flaw" which Stimpy still has not presented anything but theory for.

You clearly don't understand what the word "theory" means.

I did not present a theory. I presented a mathematical derivation of what the XOR operation as they are applying it will do. I have already challenged you in that thread to either explain what the flaw in my derivation is, or explain why the derivation I have provided does not justify my conclusions. You have done neither. Instead you simply insist, without explaining why, that what I have presented is insufficient. You have not even given me a counter-argument to respond to.

I can only conclude that you either do not understand my derivation, or you understand it, know that I am right, and do not want to admit it.

Either way, your continued insistence that I have only presented a "theory", or as you put it before, a "made up story", simply makes you look foolish to anybody who has read and understood the thread.


Dr. Stupid

 

[jj]

Re: Re: the PEAR experiment debunked (again)

A "fatal flaw" which Stimpy still has not presented anything but theory for.

He's shown a fatal mathematical flaw. Theory has nothing to do with it.

Either find an error in his informal proof or retire.

 

[jmercer]

Either way, your continued insistence that I have only presented a "theory", or as you put it before, a "made up story", simply makes you look foolish to anybody who has read and understood the thread.
Dr. Stupid

I'm sorry, Stimpy, but the above phrase is simply inaccurate. You have to either put "increasingly" in front of "foolish", or add "once again" after it for your comment to reflect reality.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Does anyone understand why I see everything on the Skeptic Forum pages except for the text of the posts?

~~ Paul

 

[jj]

Does anyone understand why I see everything on the Skeptic Forum pages except for the text of the posts?

~~ Paul

No, does it work now? Works fine where I sit.