quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I bet she was an Islamist terrorist.

Was she any good at science?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

His brand of idiocy must be confronted and challenged. Otherwise he'll keep on peddling his bullshit "psi is real and prayer does stuff" nonsense. As well as rejecting pretty much all of modern science. He's already thrown out all of physics

Nobody has demonstrated less respect for science than you and your cadre of dogmatic priests.

A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness...

(1) Research on parapsychological phenomena (psi) is being carried out in various accredited universities and research centers throughout the world by academics in different disciplines trained in the scientific method (e.g., circa 80 Ph.D.s have been awarded in psi-related topics in the UK in recent years). This research has continued for over a century despite the taboo against investigating the topic, almost complete lack of funding, and professional and personal attacks (Cardeña, 201). The Parapsychological Association has been an affiliate of the AAAS since 1969, and more than 20 Nobel prizewinners and many other eminent scientists have supported the study of psi or even conducted research themselves (Cardeña, 2013).

(2) Despite a negative attitude by some editors and reviewers, results supporting the validity of psi phenomena continue to be published in peer-reviewed, academic journals in relevant fields, from psychology to neuroscience to physics e.g., (Storm et al., 2010; Bem, 2011; Hameroff, 2012; Radin et al., 2012).

(3) Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses (Sherwood and Roe, 2003; Schmidt et al., 2004; Bösch et al., 2006; Radin et al., 2006; Storm et al., 2010, 2012, 2013; Tressoldi, 2011; Mossbridge et al., 2012; Schmidt, 2012).

(4) These meta-analyses and other studies (Blackmore, 1980) suggest that data supportive of psi phenomena cannot reasonably be accounted for by chance or by a “file drawer” effect. Indeed, contrary to most disciplines, parapsychology journals have for decades encouraged publication of null results and of papers critical of a psi explanation (Wiseman et al., 1996; Schönwetter et al., 2011)...

(5) The effect sizes reported in most meta-analyses are relatively small and the phenomena cannot be produced on demand, but this also characterizes various phenomena found in other disciplines that focus on complex human behavior and performance such as psychology and medicine (Utts, 1991; Richard and Bond, 2003).

(6) Although more conclusive explanations for psi phenomena await further theoretical and research developments, they do not prima facie violate known laws of nature given modern theories in physics that transcend classical restrictions of time and space, combined with growing evidence for quantum effects in biological systems (Sheehan, 2011; Lambert et al., 2013).

Source: Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

His brand of idiocy must be confronted and challenged. Otherwise he'll keep on peddling his bullshit "psi is real and prayer does stuff" nonsense. As well as rejecting pretty much all of modern science. He's already thrown out all of physics

Nobody has demonstrated less respect for science than you and your cadre of dogmatic priests.

A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness...

(1) Research on parapsychological phenomena (psi) is being carried out in various accredited universities and research centers throughout the world by academics in different disciplines trained in the scientific method (e.g., circa 80 Ph.D.s have been awarded in psi-related topics in the UK in recent years). This research has continued for over a century despite the taboo against investigating the topic, almost complete lack of funding, and professional and personal attacks (Cardeña, 201). The Parapsychological Association has been an affiliate of the AAAS since 1969, and more than 20 Nobel prizewinners and many other eminent scientists have supported the study of psi or even conducted research themselves (Cardeña, 2013).

(2) Despite a negative attitude by some editors and reviewers, results supporting the validity of psi phenomena continue to be published in peer-reviewed, academic journals in relevant fields, from psychology to neuroscience to physics e.g., (Storm et al., 2010; Bem, 2011; Hameroff, 2012; Radin et al., 2012).

(3) Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses (Sherwood and Roe, 2003; Schmidt et al., 2004; Bösch et al., 2006; Radin et al., 2006; Storm et al., 2010, 2012, 2013; Tressoldi, 2011; Mossbridge et al., 2012; Schmidt, 2012).

(4) These meta-analyses and other studies (Blackmore, 1980) suggest that data supportive of psi phenomena cannot reasonably be accounted for by chance or by a “file drawer” effect. Indeed, contrary to most disciplines, parapsychology journals have for decades encouraged publication of null results and of papers critical of a psi explanation (Wiseman et al., 1996; Schönwetter et al., 2011)...

(5) The effect sizes reported in most meta-analyses are relatively small and the phenomena cannot be produced on demand, but this also characterizes various phenomena found in other disciplines that focus on complex human behavior and performance such as psychology and medicine (Utts, 1991; Richard and Bond, 2003).

(6) Although more conclusive explanations for psi phenomena await further theoretical and research developments, they do not prima facie violate known laws of nature given modern theories in physics that transcend classical restrictions of time and space, combined with growing evidence for quantum effects in biological systems (Sheehan, 2011; Lambert et al., 2013).

Source: Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

His brand of idiocy must be confronted and challenged. Otherwise he'll keep on peddling his bullshit "psi is real and prayer does stuff" nonsense. As well as rejecting pretty much all of modern science. He's already thrown out all of physics

Nobody has demonstrated less respect for science than you and your cadre of dogmatic priests.

A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness...

(1) Research on parapsychological phenomena (psi) is being carried out in various accredited universities and research centers throughout the world by academics in different disciplines trained in the scientific method (e.g., circa 80 Ph.D.s have been awarded in psi-related topics in the UK in recent years). This research has continued for over a century despite the taboo against investigating the topic, almost complete lack of funding, and professional and personal attacks (Cardeña, 201). The Parapsychological Association has been an affiliate of the AAAS since 1969, and more than 20 Nobel prizewinners and many other eminent scientists have supported the study of psi or even conducted research themselves (Cardeña, 2013).

(2) Despite a negative attitude by some editors and reviewers, results supporting the validity of psi phenomena continue to be published in peer-reviewed, academic journals in relevant fields, from psychology to neuroscience to physics e.g., (Storm et al., 2010; Bem, 2011; Hameroff, 2012; Radin et al., 2012).

(3) Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses (Sherwood and Roe, 2003; Schmidt et al., 2004; Bösch et al., 2006; Radin et al., 2006; Storm et al., 2010, 2012, 2013; Tressoldi, 2011; Mossbridge et al., 2012; Schmidt, 2012).

(4) These meta-analyses and other studies (Blackmore, 1980) suggest that data supportive of psi phenomena cannot reasonably be accounted for by chance or by a “file drawer” effect. Indeed, contrary to most disciplines, parapsychology journals have for decades encouraged publication of null results and of papers critical of a psi explanation (Wiseman et al., 1996; Schönwetter et al., 2011)...

(5) The effect sizes reported in most meta-analyses are relatively small and the phenomena cannot be produced on demand, but this also characterizes various phenomena found in other disciplines that focus on complex human behavior and performance such as psychology and medicine (Utts, 1991; Richard and Bond, 2003).

(6) Although more conclusive explanations for psi phenomena await further theoretical and research developments, they do not prima facie violate known laws of nature given modern theories in physics that transcend classical restrictions of time and space, combined with growing evidence for quantum effects in biological systems (Sheehan, 2011; Lambert et al., 2013).

Source: Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

K.

This is real simple, when exposed to real science done by serious researchers not intent on defrauding suckers, there are no psi phenomena.

The above even admits it "phenomena cannot be produced on demand" 
 
You see, unlike some idiots, I've read the studies that claimed to have found "psi phenomena" and there were always major flaws in the experimental design. Not just minor flaws that always happen but huge flaws that injected enough bias into the outcome to completely discredit the outcome. Or for instance in the Duke prayer study the preliminary results were announced as positive but when the study was finished the study found nothing at all. The initial result was simply a statistical blip.
 
And this yet another error by Kirata. The classic appeal to authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Just because he found some obscure guy or group of guys who agrees with him doesn't make him right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

Some things defy logic and reasoning. It's what you can't put in an equation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

This is real simple, when exposed to real science done by serious researchers not intent on defrauding suckers, there are no psi phenomena.

The above even admits it "phenomena cannot be produced on demand"

You see, unlike some idiots, I've read the studies that claimed to have found "psi phenomena" and there were always major flaws in the experimental design. Not just minor flaws that always happen but huge flaws that injected enough bias into the outcome to completely discredit the outcome.

Firstly, you're making shit up again. Secondly, you cannot claim that something which has been repeatedly observed is not real because it does not occur reliably. Thirdly, many effects do occur reliably.

Unconscious Perception of Future Emotions: An Experiment in Presentiment

quote:

And fourthly, just to be complete, your inflated claim to a knowledge of experimental design methologies merits no credit. Your history of this claim consists entirely of you making shit up. A couple of examples from a topic you chose to link earlier in this thread will suffice to make the point.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3673726
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3675304

Thanks for playing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Yes I did. The sequential labeling of the samples. The failure to produce equivalent numbers of ice crystal photographs from both the experimental and control samples. The fact that a tech involved in the experiment chose which crystals to photograph and at what magnification.

Okay look, let's not repeat outselves. I've already responded to your claim about the labeling, and explained why it is not a design flaw. I've pointed out that the fact that the treatment condition produced more crystals is a result, not a flaw. I've responded to your claim that the tech "chose" which crystals to photograph by pointing out that all crystals were photographed -- and I'll add that the magnification options were preset, to be determined by the size of the particular crystal.

Since repeating your claims does not make them true, how about explaining the basis for the assertions you've made that the tech knew which samples were which and selected which crystals to photograph. Specifically, how any random order of labels, sequential or otherwise, would enable someone who did not know which samples were which to obtain that information, and why the treatment condition must necessarily produce a nearly equal number of crystals absent tampering or deception.

With regard to the design you propose in your post, the beauty of a crystal is independent of size. So I see no benefit to the stationary camera with fixed field of view and magnification. And in my opinion, the rating of the images was more than sufficiently independent in the original study. I do think, however, that the possibility of accidental contamination (dust) introduces an interesting angle. I'm not sure how that would play in the ratings, but it might offer an alternative explanation for why more crystals formed in the treatment group. Thanks.

K.

You can handwave away the flaws but they remain serious flaws. A study might survive a single serious flaw but 3 serious flaws? No way.

The purpose of a double blind study is to remove all possible bias from the experiment. Any choice by anyone at any point in the process is a serious problem. Care must be taken to prevent bias from affecting the choices. I've already explained that more crystals were formed than they claimed. The sequential labeling is a problem. Choosing at what magnification to photograph each crystal is another possible injection of bias.

Now I've produced a better protocol with no significant effort which is fairly obvious in all details which casts extreme doubt on the study's design. All in all the study is useless and could never make it through peer review in a legit journal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
His brand of idiocy must be confronted and challenged. Otherwise he'll keep on peddling his bullshit "psi is real and prayer does stuff" nonsense. As well as rejecting pretty much all of modern science. He's already thrown out all of physics

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Psychological_characteristics_of_trolls
Psychological characteristics of trolls

Two studies published in 2013 and 2014 have found that people who are identified as trolls tend to have dark personality traits and show signs of sadism, antisocial behavior, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. [36] [37]

The 2013 study suggested that there are a number of similarities between anti-social and flame trolling activities[36] and the 2014 study suggested that the noxious personality characteristics known as the dark triad of personality should be investigated in the analysis of trolling.[37] Their relevance is suggested by research linking these traits to bullying in both adolescents and adults. The 2014 study found that trolls operate as agents of chaos on the Internet, exploiting hot-button issues to make users appear overly emotional or foolish in some manner. If an unfortunate person falls into their trap, trolling intensifies for further, merciless amusement. This is why novice Internet users are routinely admonished, "Do not feed the trolls!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
His brand of idiocy must be confronted and challenged. Otherwise he'll keep on peddling his bullshit "psi is real and prayer does stuff" nonsense. As well as rejecting pretty much all of modern science. He's already thrown out all of physics

Could you walk me through how playing into his hand is going to stop his "bullshit" because I've got to tell you I don't see it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Psychological_characteristics_of_trolls
Psychological characteristics of trolls

Two studies published in 2013 and 2014 have found that people who are identified as trolls tend to have dark personality traits and show signs of sadism, antisocial behavior, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. [36] [37]

The 2013 study suggested that there are a number of similarities between anti-social and flame trolling activities[36] and the 2014 study suggested that the noxious personality characteristics known as the dark triad of personality should be investigated in the analysis of trolling.[37] Their relevance is suggested by research linking these traits to bullying in both adolescents and adults. The 2014 study found that trolls operate as agents of chaos on the Internet, exploiting hot-button issues to make users appear overly emotional or foolish in some manner. If an unfortunate person falls into their trap, trolling intensifies for further, merciless amusement. This is why novice Internet users are routinely admonished, "Do not feed the trolls!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

Some things defy logic and reasoning. It's what you can't put in an equation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

Some things defy logic and reasoning. It's what you can't put in an equation.

Then it isn't real. Physics may be weird and it may be hard to think about but it does conform to mathematics and the entire universe is an application of the laws of physics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
Some things defy logic and reasoning. It's what you can't put in an equation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

Some things defy logic and reasoning. It's what you can't put in an equation.

Then it isn't real. Physics may be weird and it may be hard to think about but it does conform to mathematics and the entire universe is an application of the laws of physics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

Just because we can't currently understand it, it doesn't mean it isn't real. We will work it out, if we continue to advance scientifically and don't get bogged down by religious fear mongers, or side tracked by the bogus science that K puts forward due to his own "religious" beliefs

Oooo, another player. And that "bogus science" would be what exactly?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

Some things defy logic and reasoning. It's what you can't put in an equation.

Wrong.

Some things currently defy logic and reasoning. It's what we can't currently put in an equation.

That's why we have to keep looking and experimenting to find the logic, to understand and progress