The "Process" of John Edward

[T'ai Chi]

Because we have a finite amount of resources available to us?

But these are resources that scientists have, not the extremely limited resources of you and I.

Should every scientist, magician, and skeptic give up their 'day jobs' and go around testing every person who makes a paranormal claim?

No, I don't think so, but scientists should test things scientifically, as they are doing with homeopathy and other more questionable medicines.

If you went around testing every proven assumption about the world (gravity, electricity, biology, sociology, mechanics, physics, etc, etc, etc...)before heading out to start your day, you'd never have the time to get anything done.

I agree. One person obviously can't test everything, but many people can.

What I was talking about is that someone said that 'if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then ...' etc.. What I am saying is that if you haven't done any scientific analysis, it is just your opinions and/or the opinions of your peer group.

 

[BillHoyt]

If it is able to be tested, why not?[/B]

Whodini,

Surely you jest. There are an infinite number of hypotheses for any given phenomenon. There are an infinite number of claimed phenomena. On the face of it, this is a preposterous proposition.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Surely you jest.

No, and don't call me Shirley.

There are an infinite number of hypotheses for any given phenomenon.

Prove it. Pick one phenomenon and then list the hypotheses. I think you are exagerating here.

There are an infinite number of claimed phenomena.

Prove it. List the "claimed phenomena". I think you are exagerating here.

On the face of it, this is a preposterous proposition.

On the face of it, that is your opinion. I'm not talking about one ordinary person testing all claims in the world. I'm talking about the science community, who has access to funds and resources, etc., testing reasonable claims. Yes, there are many reasonable claims, but hey, that is their job now isn't it.

I guess I'll answer those statistics questions...

 

[Walter Wayne]

Bill: And don't forget to number them so that we can see there are indeed an infinite number?

T'ai Chi: Anyways, as for testable, many paranormal claims are not "pinned down". Mediums don't make many claims about what they can and can't do, and don't like to give even a general success rate. Doing so would make it a simple matter to discredit them (or proove them).

We can't test that much just due to funds. Randi appears to have many friends, and often has help from stats guys and others who insure his tests are not likely to be passed by chance. Do we expect these guys to give out their services for free all the time so anyone can do test? There are limited scientists and limited funds. It takes a good deal of resources to set up and monitor double blind tests.

The test we discussed here, we used a p=0.05. Could you imagine how often we would hear about new particles being discovered if 1 in 20 experiments performed in particle accelerators found a "new particle". Science very small p values so they can be certain, and this adds even larger sample sizes and/or tighter controls, which also increase experiment cost.

There simply is no way to test all the ideas, a lot of half-descent proposals get tossed out in favour of those which have better potential to bear fruit. If one begins to accept the half-descent proposals and the far-fetched ones ... well budgets can't handle it.

Walt

 

[T'ai Chi]

The test we discussed here, we used a p=0.05. Could you imagine how often we would hear about new particles being discovered if 1 in 20 experiments performed in particle accelerators found a "new particle". Science [needs?] very small p values so they can be certain,

Well, yeah. I mean, .05 is a just a dogmatic cutoff decided upon first by Fisher and then simply accepted by the statistical community, the medical community, the physics community, and the entire scientific community for the most part. (probably because of Fisher's wisdom and authority and because the Z-value corresponding to .05 is near 2, so this makes off-the-cuff calculations easier)

Clearly, and this is something the Journal of Scientific Exploration and parasychological journal articles have acknowledged and explored, we have have a smaller alpha level in the "paranormal" field.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Well, yeah. I mean, .05 is a just a dogmatic cutoff decided upon first by Fisher and then simply accepted by the statistical community, the medical community, the physics community, and the entire scientific community for the most part. (probably because of Fisher's wisdom and authority and because the Z-value corresponding to .05 is near 2, so this makes off-the-cuff calculations easier)

Clearly, and this is something the Journal of Scientific Exploration and parasychological journal articles have acknowledged and explored, we have have a smaller alpha level in the "paranormal" field. [/B]

Most of the scientific community dumped .05 a while ago. IIRC, to disclose a change in standard theory by adding a new particle is now around 6 standard deviations. My impression is some sciences in which it is more difficult to define things in such a hard manner as physics still sometimes accept alpha of 0.05, but for the most part that value remains mainly in textbooks and as the "layman's" myth (though I may be worng (Edit: or even wrong) about that).

Walt

 

[T'ai Chi]

Most of the scientific community dumped .05 a while ago. IIRC, to disclose a change in standard theory by adding a new particle is now around 6 standard deviations. My impression is some sciences in which it is more difficult to define things in such a hard manner as physics still sometimes accept alpha of 0.05, but for the most part that value remains mainly in textbooks and as the "layman's" myth (though I may be worng (Edit: or even wrong) about that).

Walt

I go here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ and enter in, without quotes, "p<.05", and get over 20,000 returns.

For physicists to change a standard theory, they might set alpha lower than .05, but for general evidence to be provided, an alpha of .05 is still quite common I believe.