View Active Topics          View Your Posts          Latest 100 Topics          Switch to Mobile

New study reveals paranormal investigators winning...

Discuss Science, Alternative Science and Suppressed Research.

Re: New study reveals paranormal investigators winning...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 27 Oct 2012, 22:59

really? wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
really? wrote:
Really !? Surprising how easily you believe what the government says about a government run project when it's something you believe in yet disregard what the government says is true when it's not something you believe.
These are not impressions these are facts. Studying the role beliefs play for how people determine what is true is interesting, informative and on a personal level directly relates at getting to the real true.

Depends on whether the govt has a need to lie or not. Of course I read it in wikipedia and everything in wikipedia is true.

The possibilities are that the govt was lying, or that the source of information is fictitious.

The claim that a significant effect was found needs to be tested -- instead of you going off to do even one scintilla of research on that, you've instead reached for the pseudoscep playbook and tried to pick little holes in reasoning. Your reasoning is 'the govt sometimes lies about some things, therefore the govt always lies about everything'. As though every part of the govt is somehow interconnected in one giant web of miasmic untruth. The illogic or unlikelihood of your premise should be immediately obvious.

It seems you've have a tiny prick of discomfort in your tidy belief system, and a pseudoscep cannot feel discomfort.


You should have stated the bold text in the first place. But you didn't; instead you stated:
The Stargate Project found a significant psi effect.

I've been interested in this long before you were a twinkle in you daddy's eye and far less impressed by unverified claims which remain unverified.

So have significant psi effects been found in the Stargate Project? Don't keep us all in suspense...
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: New study reveals paranormal investigators winning...

Postby Arouet » 28 Oct 2012, 00:45

Syd - correct me if I'm wrong but I thought you said in another thread that if it comes from a government source you wouldn't trust it. I think really was pointing out that it seemed odd here for you to be citing it approvingly.

If your position is: government reports must be skeptically scrutinized just like any other report - that's a sound position. You previously seemed to indicate that if it was from the government it was likely false (or at least so untrustworthy as to be virtually worthless).

That's the impression I got from you in any event.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: New study reveals paranormal investigators winning...

Postby really? » 28 Oct 2012, 07:41

really? wrote:Really !? Surprising how easily you believe what the government says about a government run project when it's something you believe in yet disregard what the government says is true when it's not something you believe.
These are not impressions these are facts. Studying the role beliefs play for how people determine what is true is interesting, informative and on a personal level directly relates at getting to the real true.

SydneyPSIder wrote:Depends on whether the govt has a need to lie or not. Of course I read it in wikipedia and everything in wikipedia is true.

The possibilities are that the govt was lying, or that the source of information is fictitious.

The claim that a significant effect was found needs to be tested -- instead of you going off to do even one scintilla of research on that, you've instead reached for the pseudoscep playbook and tried to pick little holes in reasoning. Your reasoning is 'the govt sometimes lies about some things, therefore the govt always lies about everything'. As though every part of the govt is somehow interconnected in one giant web of miasmic untruth. The illogic or unlikelihood of your premise should be immediately obvious.

It seems you've have a tiny prick of discomfort in your tidy belief system, and a pseudoscep cannot feel discomfort.


really? wrote:You should have stated the bold text in the first place. But you didn't; instead you stated:
SydneyPSIder wrote:The Stargate Project found a significant psi effect.

really? wrote:I've been interested in this long before you were a twinkle in you daddy's eye and far less impressed by unverified claims which remain unverified.

SydneyPSIder wrote:So have significant psi effects been found in the Stargate Project? Don't keep us all in suspense...

Why are you asking me ? It was you that stated Startgate found significant psi effects.

In reply to the italicised. I first have to laugh at the naivete of such a statement then shake my while tsk tsking it's absurdity. I don't know of any skeptical persons ever voicing any fears, angst, trepidation and sleepless nights and any other words describing discomfort over the discovery of psi. Your not the first person I've heard stating such a utterly false notion.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: New study reveals paranormal investigators winning...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 28 Oct 2012, 09:09

ah, OK, given the lack of any conflicting evidence from you, I stand by my first assertion according to the cited report: the Stargate Project found a significant psi effect.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: New study reveals paranormal investigators winning...

Postby really? » 28 Oct 2012, 22:25

SydneyPSIder wrote:ah, OK, given the lack of any conflicting evidence from you, I stand by my first assertion according to the cited report: the Stargate Project found a significant psi effect.


You said significant psi has been found. That's a declarative statement. Furthermore it is a scientifically verified statement. A scientifically declarative statement requires a follow up with *facts by many independent and credible sources which you have not done. I said really ? That's a question; not an assertion, which requires no explanation or fact checking. I'm certain you don't understand your argument. It is the student asking the teacher. Now the teacher must provide the facts. Not the student.

* To avoid confusion over what scientifically verified fact means I've provided this definition: Scientific fact is something that can be verified time after time and accepted as true.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: New study reveals paranormal investigators winning...

Postby SydneyPSIder » 29 Oct 2012, 13:54

really? wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:ah, OK, given the lack of any conflicting evidence from you, I stand by my first assertion according to the cited report: the Stargate Project found a significant psi effect.


You said significant psi has been found. That's a declarative statement. Furthermore it is a scientifically verified statement. A scientifically declarative statement requires a follow up with *facts by many independent and credible sources which you have not done. I said really ? That's a question; not an assertion, which requires no explanation or fact checking. I'm certain you don't understand your argument. It is the student asking the teacher. Now the teacher must provide the facts. Not the student.

* To avoid confusion over what scientifically verified fact means I've provided this definition: Scientific fact is something that can be verified time after time and accepted as true.


Well, what does the report say, and is it credible? I'm sure if an effect was found it happened time after time in the course of the entire project, otherwise it would not have had sufficient power to be statistically significant. Bear in mind I have a science degree, plus training in stats, biostats, experimental design and epidemiology, statistical significance, the use of α and β in defining significance and power of an experiment, effect size, probability, regression, analysis of covariance, etc etc, so I'm not interested in putdowns or captious picky remarks going on and on claiming someone doesn't 'understand scientific method' etc, I understand it very well. So forget about the nit-picking and carping about semantics and get down to brass tacks on the actual conduct of the experiments in the project if you know how to do that.

e.g. from the AIR report:

An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning
Dr. Jessica Utts
Division of Statistics, University of California, Davis
September 1, 1995
ABSTRACT
Research on psychic functioning, conducted over a two decade period, is examined to determine
whether or not the phenomenon has been scientifically established. A secondary question is
whether or not it is useful for government purposes. The primary work examined in this report
was government sponsored research conducted at Stanford Research Institute, later known as
SRI International, and at Science Applications International Corporation, known as SAIC.

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning
has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is
expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the
experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in governmentsponsored
research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the
world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.

The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social
scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be replicated in
properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run statistical results
needed for replicability.


Expr Title Trials Effect Size p-value
7 Remote observation 48 .361 +/- .144 0.006

If you (perhaps understandably) don't take the findings at face value, this is the reputation of SRI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRI_International
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Previous

Return to Science / Alternative Science / Suppressed Research

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests