by bohm 30 Replies latest jw friends
If the experiments are created such a way that a very, very weak bias can be introduced, and you do the experiment long enough so noise can be neglected, you DETECT your very small bias (along with whatever signal there is). That aint Psi, thats bias.
Thats why i made the thought experiment. I want to see if you are aware of the problem with bias and how subtle it is in statistics. its an interesting discussion, i think.
Uh, as I said, you can report all these details and let the reader decide. It doesn't matter anyway because some unknown bias will always be suspected and the results ignored, even if you do. Extraordinary means 30, 40, 50, 100 years of results under conditions no one will ever fund.
Cold Fusion results as to input and output illustrates the problem. Evidence doesn't matter and "extraordinary" is endlessly asserted and the development doesn't get funded properly.
I don't think Cold Fusion critics ever own up to what their endless skepticism suggests: that real science is nearly impossible because scientists all over the world are incompetent or frauds after 20 years of various replications.
metatron
metratron: Your scared of the simple thought experiment are you not?
Why not discuss the actual problem, namely the bias situation? Its the key to understanding the critisism of Psi research and determining if its valid or not - that is what you are trying to do here right, i mean, determining if the critisism is valid or not?
And extraordinary means something like p=0.001 with controlled bias (im not very fond of p-values myself, but lets leave that aside for the moment). controlled does not mean none, it mean exactly that you have a good estimate of it and it can come from relatively few sources. IF such an experiment is made, that would be very, very convincing to me.
The experimental situation is damn hard because the signal-to-noise ratio is so poor. You *really* got to know your statistics and your sources of bias to make meaningfull estimates in such a situation. I wont say i am (even with my training) able to do that in a definite way, and i must admit i am surpriced you believe you have such a good grasp of the potential problems. If that is the case, i also wonder why you seem so unwilling to specify what you would do in the simple experimental situation i outlined above.
hmm. I must say i dont understand how some can be so convinced by a statistical argument on some data that is hotly debated by top statisticans, and at the same time be unwilling to discuss the real statistical problem - as i am quite sure the researcher at the PEAR project will agree with me is - namely handle the situation of bias in signals with a very bad signal-to-noise ratio.
And i think i prefer to keep cold fusion out of this. The problem of Cold fusion is not really statistical and quite different from the Psi experiments.
Bohm : this was interesting until you accused Metatron of being 'scared'. Why make ad hominem remarks?
Gromit, yah, i got caught up when i wrote it and regretted it half an hour after i wrote it. didnt want to edit it though because it didnt seem honest.
The thing that got me worked up was that i wanted to have a factual discussion. Thats why i made the thought experiment - its more fun to actually produce something than just copy-paste some boilerplate critisism from wikipedia or a blog (i hate it when others do that).
I wrote scared because of certain remarks Metatron made that i felt was an attempt to distract the conversation. First this reply:
d) Something else.
You do 28 years worth of statistical trials and have it ignored. You could report various results with qualifications explained in regard to individual problems. Over more than 2 decades, such variances might be swallowed up in statistical noise. NOT THAT IT MATTERS, ANYWAY.
"it will be definite proof one way or the other". No, it won't. It will be ignored and forgotten in a few years.
Well, Metatron surely does not choose the scientific concensur per default, and i think its unfair to assume i do so as well. I would like to believe i choose what i see the most evidence for. So thats it. It DOES matter, at least to me, and its ME who he is debating. Asserting i wont be moved by the evidence at all, while at the same time not wanting to discuss the real difficulties, well it annoyed me.
Then it gets worse. In the context of cold fusion (and apparently a critisism that also apply to Psi research):
Do we ruin our oceans, bankrupt our national economies and empower Mid East terrorists because a virtual priesthood of 'science' refuses to accept evidence that it doesn't like? After 20 years? Ignoring a potentially endless energy source?
Ok, it isn't ESP ............. but it illustrates the danger I believe we collectively face when 'religious' behavior takes control of what should be science.
It does not get more personal than that i think. I consider myself a researcher, i have a topic i do research in for my thesis and i take some pride in the work i do, so that critisism apply to me and all the guys down the hall.
A priesthood, WTF? Does he mean we go to church and have secret meetings?
And what is up with accusing scientists from everything from bankrupting our national economy, empowering terrorists and ruin oceans out of some uknown motive? If i wrote i felt all religious people or all Psi-researchers had such a vile and evil motive, i think that would raise some eyebrows! One does speculate what he is going to do about it - is he just going to sit by and idle watch them ruin the earth or rebel and kill these evil people? I think the most obvious conclusion is that he does not really believe in the existence of a priesthood of scientists who want to ruin the earth for no obvious reasons, which make the comment all the more puzzling.
The next post continue down the original path:
Uh, as I said, you can report all these details and let the reader decide. It doesn't matter anyway because some unknown bias will always be suspected and the results ignored, even if you do. Extraordinary means 30, 40, 50, 100 years of results under conditions no one will ever fund.
Again, i want to have a sober debate on psi research. i do that because i believe metatron to is making up his mind based on facts and not what he want to be true. When i see something like the above, i think he is making a judgement regarding what i believe is sufficient evidence that is completely unwanted for.
Back to cold fusion and the ad-hominem that made me loose my temper:
I don't think Cold Fusion critics ever own up to what their endless skepticism suggests: that real science is nearly impossible because scientists all over the world are incompetent or frauds after 20 years of various replications.
Metatron is again accusing scientists all over the world of being incompetent and frauds.
So yah, i am sorry that i said metatron was scared. it is to hars a word. However, i think that when he repeatly shy away from opening the technical discussion the subject really require (and in my oppinion deserve!) to understand it, and instead draw a (in my oppinion) strained parallel to cold fusion, accuse scientists in general of wanting to ruin the world, support terrorism, etc., accuse scientists of being part of a sect of sorts, and repeatly stating evidence does not matter - well, it got on my nerves.
If this is for your own interest, fine. If for a thesis, just give them what they want, it's futile.
AGAIN, the continuing tragedy of Cold Fusion shows a blind and stubborn attitude, facts or replication be damned. As it continues and tends to dominate worldwide, research that conflicts with an established paradigm is almost futile.
No, I do not feel that Cold Fusion researchers are lying or incompetent, that's my point.
metatron
metatron: let me get this straight:
Researchers who find that the evidence support cold fusion: honest and competent.
Researchers who find the evidence does not support cold fusion: Dishonest members of a secret scientific priesthood who want to (scroll up) ruin the oceans, bankrupt the nation and empower the terrorists due to some religion they practice which apparently move them to want those 3 things.
hmmmmmm.
I guess there are two things you need to convince me of: First off your amazing background in solid state physics that give you the expert knowledge that allow you to judge pretty much the entire scientific communite as dishonest hacks. thats a pretty damn large claim. I take it you have the equivalent of a PhD in several of the relevant fields and an extensive experimental background to be so certain on an otherwise difficult subject?
The second thing: The existence of the priesthood and a secret scientific religion noone knows about except you and (possible?) a few others. What documentation do you have for that claim? How do you know they want to both ruin the ocean and empower terrorists, and not just one of the two?
Normally i would say you were off topic and trying to derail the debate, but i guess the existence of such an evil religious group should take priority..
I’m not any kind of PSI follower, but with the reading I have done, it seems to me that PSI research is by its very nature susceptible to the “strong will” of disbelievers. Physicists and the scientific community at large have no problem with the behavior of quantum particles. Fire a particle from an emitter and as it “travels” across space it behaves as a wave. If you try to measure it in its course, you’ll get a particle not a wave – but the effect of the unmeasured particle is wavelike. I think that once we try to measure PSI, it “decoheres” and is no longer (or barely) measurable. It’s quite even possible that the “unbiased” measurement can collapse the PSI effects from the “wave into a finite particle” – and render the “magic” immeasurable. At least until we get a better way to analyze the PSI phenomenon, we're doomed (in my humble opinion) to have very little to go on.
darthfader
darthfader - i am only addressing claims on effects that can be measured, ofcourse.
the wave/particle nature of light can actually be measured with a pair of polaroid sunglasses, Psi is unfortunately not so easy :-D
