I see James Randi et al is still offering $1,000,000 for proof of any psychic/ESP etc power.
The research group with the evidence should claim immediately - it will no doubt help their funding.
Can't see them in the "under consideration" list though.
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.
Except her presentation wasn't actually about remote viewing was it?
She just used a topic that many people are sceptical of to illustrate how existing scepticism or belief alters how people react to data.
That was the premise of her presentation and I have no quarrel with that.
She could have made the same point by talking about how different people reacted to data from a study that showed fairies were real. Accepting that presentation wouldn't mean that ICOTS believed in fairies! 🙄
That was not peer review, it was a response
He is her peer, no? He reviewed her paper, no?
She could have made the same point by talking about how different people reacted to data from a study that showed fairies were real. Accepting that presentation wouldn't mean that ICOTS believed in fairies!
No, but I'm not suggesting that ICOTS believed in ESP, only that her research methodology, analysis and conclusions were valid.
He is her peer, no? He reviewed her paper, no?
Is this what you mean by peer-review? Because, most people who use the term mean the same as i do.
Because, most people who use the term mean the same as i do.
What do you mean by peer review exactly?
No, but I'm not suggesting that ICOTS believed in ESP, only that her research methodology, analysis and conclusions were valid.
Valid. Yes. FOR A DIFFERENT SUBJECT!!
She made a presentation about social factors biasing acceptance of stats.
Some statisticians peer-reviewed THAT presentation and approved of its methodology.
Is this what you mean by peer-review? Because, most people who use the term mean the same as i do.
I think most people apply it to publication in a peer-reviewed journal, ideally a respected one. Where the paper is scrutinised before publication to ensure certain standards are met.
...and the relevance of all this to why are you atheists so angry is....?
...and the relevance of all this to why are you atheists so angry is....?
Let me summarise:
Charlie claims atheists dismiss scientific evidence of God.
I claim I'm an open-minded atheist who would accept "credible peer-reviewed repeatable independently verifiable evidence".
Prof Utts presentation says your scepticism/beliefs influence how persuaded you are by the same statistical evidence.
Charlie believes in remote viewing and is persuaded by evidence in Prof Utts Remote Viewing paper.
I don't and I'm not.
"I see," said the blind man.
Thanks Graham. Meanwhile....
I think most people apply it to publication in a peer-reviewed journal, ideally a respected one. Where the paper is scrutinised before publication to ensure certain standards are met.
That's right, and that happens at conferences too. It does make me wonder why you were presenting Hyman's work as peer review.
Valid. Yes. FOR A DIFFERENT SUBJECT!!She made a presentation about social factors biasing acceptance of stats.
Validity of the evidence and methods does not vary across subjects. The point is she presented data on the evidence for ESP. If this evidence was not robust, her conclusions about people's beliefs would not be valid. The evidence for ESP was robust regardless of the point being made.
Charlie claims atheists dismiss scientific evidence of God.
No, I didn't say that did I.
I said that folks who claim that they base their beliefs on evidence, in fact only do so when the evidence is aligned with their beliefs. You calimed this was rubbish and if you were shown evidence of ESP you would engage with it. I did, you dismissed it, repeatedly, without good reason.
Charlie believes in remote viewing and is persuaded by evidence in Prof Utts Remote Viewing paper
Wrong again
I believe that remote viewing might be possible, because statistical analysis of the evidence across a number of studies indicates that results are better than chance and in some sub-groups, much better than chance. It wasn't the paper which changed my mind, it was the evidence presented in the ICOTS presentation.
I don't and I'm not.
because you chose not to explore the evidence presented to you, because it is not aligned with your own prior belief system. Like I said
What do you mean by peer review exactly?
academic peer-review
Validity of the evidence and methods does not vary across subjects. The point is she presented data on the evidence for ESP. If this evidence was not robust, her conclusions about people's beliefs would not be valid. The evidence for ESP was robust regardless of the point being made.
Completely disagree. That wasn't the thrust of her presentation at all.
She could have made the exact same presentation by quantifying the shift in opinion of people data who were shown entirely fictional but apparently convincing data on ESP (or fairies, homeopathy, contrails etc).
You calimed this was rubbish and if you were shown evidence of ESP you would engage with it. I did, you dismissed it, repeatedly, without good reason.
I have given you plenty of good reasons - the main being that it doesn't meet the criteria I set out when I said good evidence!
because you chose not to explore the evidence presented to you, because it is not aligned with your own prior belief system. Like I said
I choose not to explore it because it doesn't meet my reasonable standards. There are a million nutbags out there with a million nutty theories.
I have no intention of spending my life examining the evidence of each of them regardless of how credible that evidence is.
because you chose not to explore the evidence presented to you, because it is not aligned with your own prior belief system. Like I said
Whereas you swallowed it whole, despite peer criticism and dubious publication, because it does align with your belief system.
Like she said.
Are the atheists still trying to prove how much cleverer they are than everyone else by claiming God does not in any way exist?
One observation I've made from threads such as this, is that there's a hardcore group of 'regulars' who always pop up on them, who are always trying to seem somehow more intelligent and superior to those who might possibly believe in something beyond what Science can explain.
It's almost as though they need to attack the views of others in order to make themselves feel better about their own beliefs. In fact, by far the biggest amount of zealousness always comes from the atheists. Always.
If you're so clever and intelligent, and secure in your own beliefs, why in the name of God do you have to constantly keep trying to denigrate others, and denounce their views as 'nonsense', etc?
Serious question.
Cos ultimately it's not about Right versus Wrong, is it? What it comes down to, is the fact that you need to be 'better' than others. Why?
Are the atheists still trying to prove how much cleverer they are than everyone else by claiming God does not in any way exist?
Nope. Move along Elf.
Answer my question first. And don't tell me to 'move along'. How arrogant.
Just cos you can't prove Big Bang Thingy. Don't start getting all arsey with me.
I did answer your question. Nope, atheists (well this one anyway) are not trying to prove how much cleverer they are than everyone else by claiming God does not in any way exist.
Completely disagree. That wasn't the thrust of her presentation at all.She could have made the exact same presentation by quantifying the shift in opinion of people data who were shown entirely fictional but apparently convincing data on ESP
Yes, she could. But instead she used completely real and legitimate data on ESP. Why do you have a problem with her data and her analysis in that domain?
I have given you plenty of good reasons - the main being that it doesn't meet the criteria I set out when I said good evidence!
It's peer-reviewed, published and from a reputable source. What more do you want? Evidence from a number of studies, hence the 'repeatability' and it was a meta-study, summarising evidence from a large number of sources. What else do you want?
I choose not to explore it because it doesn't meet my reasonable standards. There are a million nutbags out there with a million nutty theories.
Your standards appear to be higher than those of most academic journals then.
Whereas you swallowed it whole, despite peer criticism and dubious publication, because it does align with your belief system.
Where do you get this from?
Nope, atheists (well this one anyway) are not trying to prove how much cleverer they are than everyone else by claiming God does not in any way exist.
Yes they are. Trust me, from where I'm sitting, you are. Constantly. You can deny this, but you speshly Graham are someone who needs to be 'right' in arguments on here, much more than others. Hence why you spend so much time on such topics. like the maffs one; I was having a laugh, yet you just coon't let go, could you?
And I'm wondering why?
Not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand Human Behaviour is all. I'm seeing a lot of parallels between those from religious groups, and your behaviour.
So, why do you spend so much time trying to prove you're right?
I think this thread will run until hell freezes over...
Yes, she could. But instead she used completely real and legitimate data on ESP. Why do you have a problem with her data and her analysis in that domain?
No "problem" but my point is her presentation on bias was the subject of the peer-review for the conference NOT the data (fictional or real) which she used to expose that bias.
Her methodology and data supporting her premise about bias would presumably have been subject to the peer review. I'm not convinced her ESP data was.
It's peer-reviewed, published and from a reputable source.
Are you claiming that the Journal of Scientific Exploration is reputable? Is it widely accepted and respected in the scientific community?
From their website:
[i]"the JSE has published original research on consciousness, quantum and biophysics, unexplained aerial phenomena, alternative medicine, new energy... On the matters of interest to the Society for Scientific Exploration, however, consensus does not prevail. Therefore, the JSE necessarily publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than in some mainstream disciplinary journals. Nevertheless, those observations and explanations must conform to rigorous standards of observational techniques and logical argument."[/i]
If that is a "good as it gets" credible peer-reviewed Journal for you then why do you dismiss Hyman's contradictory paper which was [url= http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/articles.html ]published in the same volume of the same journal[/url]?
Yes they are. Trust me, from where I'm sitting, you are.
Then you're clearly not even reading the current discussion with Charlie which isn't about God.
you speshly Graham are someone who needs to be 'right' in arguments on here, much more than others.
I sometimes wonder if you have any self-awareness at all Elf. 😯
So, why do you spend so much time trying to prove you're right?
I'm debating. I enjoy it. It is an intellectual workout that sometimes my work day lacks.
Sorry if that offends.
(which reminds me, I really need to go home now...)
Are you claiming that the Journal of Scientific Exploration is reputable? Is it widely accepted and respected in the scientific community?
It's where the Hyman paper was published isn't it? I don't dismiss it. I say it is a counter, not a peer review.
Utts paper has been published and presented in a number of outlets. Including ICOTS where folks would have knocked her down if her data was not robust, regardless of where it came from.
Good as it gets in Social Sciences is peer reviewed, reputable institution, meta-study. Repeatability, as in the physical sciences is pretty much impossible. This work is as good as any in this domain.
I sometimes wonder if you have any self-awareness at all Elf.
No, you don't 'wonder'; you're making a veiled accusatory statement about my 'self awareness', in an attempt to shift the focus of attention away from yourself, onto me. An interesting diversionary tactic, oft employed by those who struggle to answer difficult questions asked of themselves.
It's ok. I expected such a response. Just part of my own little investigation, you see?
You smell.
[i]No, you smell...[/i]
Etc.
You repeat that the data was not peer-reviewed, of course it was, the whole methodology was peer-reviewed. If you watch the video, you'll see she has rebutted many of the common criticisms. If you have some new ones, then fine.
I say 'as good as it gets' because i don't know what else you could ask for in terms of academic validity.
You should at least give it a chance, after all, even if it doesn't meet your higher than academic standards, it must be better than rumour and snake oil.
At least watch the whole video.
Still tell me which two papers you read 'enough of'?
He's run off home, Mung Bean. It all got a bit too uncomfortable for him. 😐
One observation I've made from threads [s]such as this,[/s] on STW is that there's a hardcore group of 'regulars' who always pop up on them, who are always trying to seem somehow more intelligent and superior
FTFY
Have you seen any pots around here, elf?
Well, a quick gander over the last few pages and from what I remember of the parts of this thread I've read it would seem that GrahamS is bloody everywhere, almost omnipresent, which is a quality usually attributed to God.
Soooo...I put it to you, sir, that you are infact God. But, because you don't actually believe in yourself, you lack the confidence to demonstrate this in any worthwhile way.
No, wait...
I said I would be interested in "credible peer-reviewed [b]repeatable[/b] independently verifiable evidence".
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.
I don't think it's been pointed out, that irrespective of anything else, and no matter how much you might argue that it's peer-reviewed etc. (personally I see no evidence for peer review endorsing it in the generally accepted sense, but I'll let that pass), you Utts evidence still fails to meet one of Graham's criteria. I've tried to help you out with little clue...
It's a meta-study!!!!!
personally I see no evidence for peer review endorsing it in the generally accepted sense, but I'll let that pass
What? where are you looking? How do you think it gets accepted for conference?
Meta-studies / Meta-analyses are based on a large number of experiments, so it's not as if this is a one off. The evidence is gathered from a large number of experiments on the same basis
Universe still expanding, largely because it has to in order to contain elfins ego....
It's a meta-study!!!!!
Ah - so that excludes it from the criteria used to judge other science? Even when the report published by the other member of the panel her report was produced for directly contradicts her conclusions?
Ah - so that excludes it from the criteria used to judge other science?
What? No, it means its made up of results from lots of repeated studies.
Even when the report published by the other member of the panel her report was produced for directly contradicts her conclusions?
But she addressed those, are you just guessing at possible arguments?
What? No, it means its made up of results from lots of repeated studies.
and it's not possible to make a mistake when collating those results - a mistake which wouldn't be repeated if somebody else also looked at those results?
But she addressed those
Did she?
where are you looking?
On this thread. Where else would I look? Your assertion that it was peer-reviewed - you provide some evidence to back up that assertion (and no, asserting that another paper discussing it was presented at a peer-reviewed conference is not evidence - for a start we only have your word that the conference was peer-reviewed).
and it's not possible to make a mistake when collating those results - a mistake which wouldn't be repeated if somebody else also looked at those results?
This is just clutching at straws now.
[i]But she addressed those[/i]
Did she?
Yes, you'll be aware of that, since you were interested enough read her stuff or watch the video then go and read Hyman's stuff. I'm sure you wouldn't have stopped at that.
(
and no, asserting that another paper discussing it was presented at a peer-reviewed conference is not evidence
What? where is this from are you just making it up? When did I do this?
-
for a start we only have your word that the conference was peer-reviewed
Oh dear
perhaps you should look at why the stargate project was terminated. It's not hard to find.
perhaps you should look at why the stargate project was terminated. It's not hard to find
Why don't you tell us?
It wasn't because the evidence or analysis was flawed.
I understand that it takes a certain dogmatic mindset to be a theist, which I actually quite admire. But you're on another level. Which kind of makes this discussion pointless. I'm out.
Folks seem to be missing the point here. I'm not saying there is proof of ESP. There is very proof of anything in the social sciences. There is certainly evidence which supports the existence of ESP. The data, even Hyman agrees, shows that results from a large number of studies shows that there is a higher correspondence than chance would produce. The effect sizes are as high as those used to support medical interventions or acceptance of drugs. There is no question about the integrity of the research method, Hyman agrees there are no obvious flaws.
So, the effect is there, it looks like ESP. So, it is at least evidence, so all you empirical atheists, who would only consider the existence of a god or any other phenomenon, if you saw some evidence need to consider the existence of ESP, instead of just dismissing it with ad hominem attacks on Utts and questions about the research which demonstrate your own lack of understanding rather than any flaws in the research. I'm not trying to convince you that ESP exists, only that good evidence for it exists.
I understand that it takes a certain dogmatic mindset to be a theist, which I actually quite admire. But you're on another level. Which kind of makes this discussion pointless. I'm out.
But thanks for your very worthwhile contribution. You clearly have quite a dogmatic mindset too, so much so that you refuse to consider evidence, you'll become a theist soon
There's quite a lot of evidence missing for such an extraordinary claim though, isn't there. Maybe God puts the thoughts in our brains and we mistake that for ESP.
This is just clutching at straws now.
Oh - so you are suggesting that meta-studies are exempt from the sort of repeated analysis which other science is subjected to before it is accepted? Or are you just unable to argue the point?
I'm sure you wouldn't have stopped at that.
I might well have done - because as I pointed out in my last, it's your assertion that her paper meets the criteria Graham was after. Given the immediately obvious existence of a dissenting opinion (which would tend to suggest it doesn't meet those criteria), it's up to you to provide evidence to support that assertion if you want it to be taken seriously.
Oh dear
Well you really are surpassing yourself in the standard of intellectual argument in your latest reply. I could point out that my comment about the conference is the most trivial thing for you to provide evidence for, and I was rather hoping you might provide more than that. But then again, I'm getting the impression you think the conference being peer-reviewed is somehow obvious - I've presented scientific papers at conferences and they most certainly weren't peer reviewed (not that they were rubbish or anything...), so why should I assume that? Or do you expect me to dig down and find out more information about the conference when you could so easily provide the details you presumably already have given your assertions...
Your assertions, you provide the evidence for them.
There's quite a lot of evidence missing for such an extraordinary claim though, isn't there
Really? Why do you say that? We've operationalised ESP in terms of that which is demonstrated here. Then we observe evidence aligned with that operationalisation. What else do you want to call it?
Well you really are surpassing yourself in the standard of intellectual argument in your latest reply
just matching like with like.
just matching like with like.
[img]
[/img]
Oh - so you are suggesting that meta-studies are exempt from the sort of repeated analysis which other science is subjected to before it is accepted? Or are you just unable to argue the point?
ok, are you really suggesting that this professor of statistics made a mistake when collating the results, then didn't notice it when she checked it over and over again, and none of the colleagues she passed it to for a look over noticed it and none of the peer-reviewers noticed it and the only critic you have found (Hyman) agrees that there are no obvious flaws in the technique and that he even agrees that the results do show a significantly higher than chance outcome. Yet, you think she might have made a mistake? What mistake is it you think she made? do you have some evidence of that mistake?
ok, are you really suggesting that this professor of statistics made a mistake when collating the results, then didn't notice it when she checked it over and over again, and none of the colleagues she passed it to for a look over noticed it and none of the "peer-reviewers" noticed it
Plenty of precedent in scientific studies.
