[i]Nevertheless, if there were credible evidence from a credible source, you would be unlikely to listen to it and would still refuse to believe it, preferring to stay with your own pre-conceived notions[/i]Nonsense! If credible peer-reviewed repeatable independently verifiable evidence was produced of psychics, ESP, telepathy (or of the gods, spirits, faeries or wizards) then I would be very interested and my world view would be drastically altered.
But so far such evidence is strangely absent.
I'm glad you said that....
Read this
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html
or watch this
http://videolectures.net/icots2010_utts_awab/
Jessica Utts is a statistics professor at the University of California, Irvine
nudge
"Why are you atheists so angry?"
Perhaps it would be more pertinent to ask "Why is this thread still going?". The bottom line is nobody can prove that God does or doesnt exist. You can use whatever statistics or theological arguments to prove or disprove the likelihood or otherwise of it, but it all comes down, at the end of the day, to what you choose to believe. Threads such as this seem to be more about winning an argument, about one side wanting to impose their views on the other. How about this for a less abstract concept - go out and ride bikes / have sex with your partners / treat one another excellently and generally get on with your lives - you never know, you might actually enjoy it.
jessica utts does not fall into these categories
credible peer-reviewed repeatable independently verifiable evidence
mitch, you're posting on a thread you're not interested in. what does that mean, are you trying to save us?
"Why is this thread still going?".
Because the atheists are so angry
jessica utts does not fall into these categoriescredible peer-reviewed repeatable independently verifiable evidence
Seriously? I mean really? Why not?
Chair, Committee of Presidents of Statistical Societies (COPSS)
Past Chair, Section on Statistical Education, American Statistical Association
Member, Board of Directors, Parapsychological Association
Chair of the Board, Consortium for the Advancement of Undergraduate Statistics Education (CAUSE)
Vice-Chair of the Board, National Institute of Statistical Sciences (NISS)
These are pretty reputable palmares
chutney - it's not that I'm not interested, just not eleven hundred posts of interested. And you're beyond saving, you terrible man. 😀
i'm quite curious to know whether you theists research other religions, you obviously believe in god so do you have a look about to see what the best way of worshipping him is. my experience of christians has always been a blinkered view, they worship in a certain way, their parents worship ina certain way, nothing more necesary. and yes i know there will be examples that this doesn't apply to, but i think the standard applies.
I think this is very important actually. The whole aspect of having a belief is that you have weighed up the evidence and information around you and have chosen to believe in what, to you, seems the most likely choice. I won't claim to have an in depth knowledge of other religions but I have certainly learnt the core beliefs of the major religions to see how they weigh up to Christianity. Taking the example of children following how there parents worship, I think this is where it is most important. For example, I grew up in a Christian family and considered myself to be a Christian. Then I went to Uni and became detached from the church/Christianity. Near the end of my time at Uni when I gave my life back to Christ it was then coming from a place where I had seen a different way of living and realised that, for me, having a life embedded in Christ was the way forward.
This is why healthy discussion (which for the last few pages this has been very good I think) between religions (and including Atheism in this) and real knowledge of what each other believe is very important - just going on blind faith is a little stupid in my estimation.
Okay Charlie, lovely stuff. And here is some peer review to Professor Utts paper:
"Professor Jessica Utts and I were given the task of evaluating the program on "Anomalous Mental Phenomena" carried out at SRI...Professor Utts concludes that "psychic functioning has been well established." She bases this conclusion on three other claims...
...in this report, I will raise questions about her major conclusion and the three supporting claims...
Obviously, I do not believe that the contemporary findings of parapsychology, including those from the SRI/SAIC program, justify concluding that anomalous mental phenomena have been proven. Professor Utts and some parapsychologists believe otherwise."
-- [url= http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/hyman.html ]Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena, Ray Hyman[/url]
Clearly still plenty to be done in that field before you can say there is evidence that meets the criteria I stated.
you haven't watched it or read it have you?
http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/943
Two-thirds of young people and half of the population as a whole do not belong to any particular religion, and the steady decline in religiosity in the UK is set to continue, the 28th report of the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey has found.
appeared on my newsfeed just now...
Ah mr consequence ... I dont want to appear judgemental, but you're against God, against nature, and you will burn. HTH. 😆
erm, peer review, where?
independent verification, where?
i mean really, where??? Seriously.
what does Hyman have to say about jessica utts?
Hyman's report stated that Utts' conclusion that ESP had been proven to exist, "especially precognition, is premature and that present findings have yet to be independently replicated".
he's not necesary right, but it is a directly opposing view, are you going to offer evidence of why she is more right than him, Stargate didn't think so, hence no more funding.
This is why healthy discussion (which for the last few pages this has been very good I think) between religions (and including Atheism in this) and real knowledge of what each other believe is very important - just going on blind faith is a little stupid in my estimation.
liking speed12's work
how aboutCould it be that the human spirit has an inate knowledge that there is a god?
Could it be that the human spirit has an inate desire/need for there to be a god?
81% of the population wrong, can quite easily happen, see Grahams maths thread.
Clearly still plenty to be done in that field before you can say there is evidence that meets the criteria I stated.
I'm not saying there is proof, there never is, but there is credible evidence from a credible source, and you are refusing to engage with it.
Thanks
what does Hyman have to say about jessica utts?
What does Utts say about Hyman?
Not looked because you don't want to engage?
but there is credible evidence from a credible source, and you are refusing to engage with it.
What do you mean by engage with? That you personally find this evidence credible or compelling is not sufficient reason for anyone else to come to the same conclusion.
erm, peer review, where?
at ICOTS-8, at least.
independent verification, where?
It was a meta-study presented at ICOTS, what verification are you looking for?
i mean really, where??? Seriously
No, you're not really serious are you.
why are you inserting the word credible? it does not belong there. evidence doesn't have to be credible. can atheists blaspheme?
and can there never be proof? ever?
just because the study was presented at icot-s does not mean it is verified. vicars state god exists in all sorts of buildings, and guess what, i don't believe them.
you haven't watched it or read it have you?
I read enough of both papers to see that it clearly failed my requirement for consensus through peer review.
You're quite correct that I didn't get into verifying the maths or methodology or following the citations.
I realise you will use this to say I'm closed-minded, but honestly I do have my own work to do 😀
but there is credible evidence from a credible source, and you are refusing to engage with it.[i]What do you mean by engage with? That you personally find this evidence credible or compelling is not sufficient reason for anyone else to come to the same conclusion.[/i]
Not just me, the board and the delegates of the International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics. But I'm sure you think you are better placed to judege.
By engage with it I mean look further instead of dismissing it.
I read enough of both papers to see that it clearly failed my requirement for consensus through peer review.You're quite correct that I didn't get into verifying the maths or methodology or following the citations.
I realise you will use this to say I'm closed-minded, but honestly I do have my own work to do
Thus proving my point.
I read enough of both papers to see that it clearly failed my requirement for consensus through peer review.You're quite correct that I didn't get into verifying the maths or methodology or following the citations.
I realise you will use this to say I'm closed-minded, but honestly I do have my own work to do
Thus proving my point.
Ermloum - Member
>can't we just remove anyone of religion from positions of power? First stipulation of polictics (and sovereignity) no religious types of any sortIts already happening.
cameron CoE
obama christian
berlosconi catholic
merkel protestant
pretty sure our own queen and the head of vatican city state have some religious views too.
All info from wikipedia so usual accuracy rules apply.
sorry i forgot to use the word seriously or engage.
so "seriously, engage":
she says hyman's incorrect too, what's your point? we're after peer review not he said that, she said this.
Not just me, the board and the delegates of the International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics. But I'm sure you think you are better placed to judege.By engage with it I mean look further instead of dismissing it.
What do you mean by look further? You have already decided that I'm not competent to assess the validity of the statistics, so what further examination do you suggest?
Are you suggesting that anyone who "engages" with this research and doesn't conclude that ESP exists is closed minded, because that seems an absurd view to take.
Thus proving my point.
I said I would be interested in "credible peer-reviewed repeatable independently verifiable evidence".
You have shown me evidence that doesn't meet that criteria then criticised me for "not engaging with it".
I am unsure how your point is proved. 😕
By engage with it I mean look further instead of dismissing it.
Sadly I am not a professor of statistics, or psychology, or a clinical trial specialist or an expert on parapsychology.
And I don't have the time to become those things so I can perform my own independent review. I am reliant on others to do this. That is the nature of peer review.
The best I can do in a limited time is look at the peer review and see if there is any consensus.
I assume by your tone that you [i]have[/i] "engaged" with this research and you have objectively examined the trial data, confirmed the statistical analysis, read the citations (and their citations), done the same for all the peer reviews and then concluded that Prof Utts is correct?
IF so, well done, and did you get your paper published?
Not just me, the board and the delegates of the International Conference on the Teaching of Statistics. But I'm sure you think you are better placed to judege.
I skimmed through her ICOTS8 presentation.
Two things:
Firstly, the thrust of her presentation is NOT to prove ESP, it is to show that beliefs can effect how statistical evidence is received. (turns out people are skeptical of things that contradict previously held beliefs. Who'da thunkit?)
Secondly, I must have missed the bit where the delegates of ICOTS said [i]"Well done, we've looked at your evidence and we're all completely convinced that ESP/remote viewing is real."[/i] - so I'm not sure how you can cite them as a peer review?
cameron CoE
obama christian
berlosconi catholic
merkel protestant
pretty sure our own queen and the head of vatican city state have some religious views too.
They're not the sort of people most would refer to as "religious types" though (apart from the bloke at the Vatican, but any power he wields is nothing to do with being a head of state). Do you really think Cameron or Berlosconi base their policies and actions on being a Christian?
The point was that in spite of evidence to support ESP, folks still choose to stick to their beliefsFirstly, the thrust of her presentation is NOT to prove ESP, it is to show that beliefs can effect how statistical evidence is received. (turns out people are skeptical of things that contradict previously held beliefs. Who'da thunkit?)
Secondly, I must have missed the bit where the delegates of ICOTS said "Well done, we've looked at your evidence and we're all completely convinced that ESP/remote viewing is real."
No, but that's not what was asked for, she presented a paper with evidence, through a meta study, at a peer-reviewed conference
So, yes it was peer-reviwed
I said I would be interested in "credible peer-reviewed repeatable independently verifiable evidence".You have shown me evidence that doesn't meet that criteria then criticised me for "not engaging with it".
I am unsure how your point is proved
Because it is peer-reviwed, it is credible. It is a meta-study so, independently verifiable is more difficult, but then again the same could be applied to just about all of the social sciences. So in terms of scientific rigour, it's about as good as it gets.
incidentally, when you say you read both papers, which two do you mean?
Furthermore the original paper was published in the same journal as the Hyman piece and so was peer-reviewed there.
My point is proved by the way you keep looking for reasons to dismiss the research rather then looking a bit further to see if it has any substance.
They're not the sort of people most would refer to as "religious types" though (apart from the bloke at the Vatican, but any power he wields is nothing to do with being a head of state). Do you really think Cameron or Berlosconi base their policies and actions on being a Christian?
Blair and Bush certainly did. They got things done. 😀
And I don't have the time to become those things so I can perform my own independent review. I am reliant on others to do this. That is the nature of peer review.
That's fine but the paper has passed peer-review, in a few versions a number of times
The best I can do in a limited time is look at the peer review and see if there is any consensus.
Where did you see that? other than the one response paper which you cite, was that peer-reviewed?
I assume by your tone that you have "engaged" with this research and you have objectively examined the trial data, confirmed the statistical analysis
Yes I have
, read the citations (and their citations), done the same for all the peer reviews and then concluded that Prof Utts is correct?
No, I have concluded that she has some quite compelling evidence, such that it is not to be dismissed
IF so, well done, and did you get your paper published?
You can't get published just by saying someone else is right!
The point was that in spite of evidence to support ESP, folks still choose to stick to their beliefs
The more general point was that it attempted to measure how peoples existing beliefs could influence their ability to objectively interpret data.
I'm quite happy with that part.
No, but that's not what was asked for, she presented a paper with evidence, through a meta study, at a peer-reviewed conferenceSo, yes it was peer-reviwed
Okay now you're just being silly.
When I say I want a "peer-reviewed paper" I mean I want one where peers have reviewed it by examining its contents, critiquing the methodology, data, references etc then produced their own papers/reports in support of it, ideally by repeating or expanding on the data, analysis or experiments.
Simply presenting a paper at conference is not peer-review.
Making a presentation about a [i]completely different topic[/i] at a conference and just using your paper to illustrate it, is [u]definitely[/u] not peer-review.
Because it is peer-reviwed, it is credible.
So far I have seen one peer-review, Prof Hyman's, and it is highly critical of the credibility.
she says hyman's incorrect too, what's your point? we're after peer review not he said that, she said this.
Why do you not accept that the fact of publication and presentation shows that it was peer-reviewed?
> you have objectively examined the trial data, confirmed the statistical analysisYes I have
Aaah but her own presentation says that you can't possibly objectively examine the trial data and stats because of your existing beliefs 😀
I don't know, it's like the person on a bike vs cyclist debate, if you see someone pedalling along on two wheels are they just nipping down the shops, on the way home from a pootle in the woods or are they a swivel eyed, treehugging, frothing, militant cyclist loon, exponent of the one true way ([b]2 wheels, one rider, no engine[/b], anyone else should be dragged into the forest and burned - using sustainably sourced wood obviously - especially tandemists!)Do you really think Cameron or Berlosconi base their policies and actions on being a Christian?
You just don't know by looking at them do you?
"Because it is peer-reviwed, it is credible...about as good as it gets"
SERIOUSLY???? 😆
sorry just noticed your next post, it was published and presented so it must be true. you're funny.
are they a swivel eyed, treehugging, frothing, militant cyclist loon
Depends, What's their user name?
When I say I want a "peer-reviewed paper" I mean I want one where peers have reviewed it by examining its contents, critiquing the methodology, data, references etc
This is exactly what has happened
then produced their own papers/reports in support of it, ideally by repeating or expanding on the data, analysis or experiments.
This is not part of the peer-review process, if so it would just be self-perpetuating. No, really, It's just not. Go ask an academic
Simply presenting a paper at conference is not peer-review.
Of course presenting a paper is not peer review, but the paper is peer-reviewed before you are allowed to present it, if it is a peer reviewed conference.
Making a presentation about a completely different topic at a conference and just using your paper to illustrate it, is definitely not peer-review.
of course not! But the data / evidence stillstands
Because it is peer-reviwed, it is credible.
So far I have seen one peer-review, Prof Hyman's, at it is highly critical of the credibility.
That was not peer review, it was a response
"Because it is peer-reviwed, it is credible...about as good as it gets"SERIOUSLY????
Yes. Really, yes.
NO.
