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

Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Discussions about the James Randi Educational Foundation and its Million Dollar Challenge.

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby Frank Lee » 12 Sep 2009, 01:10

You guys would have to define your terms before continuing. What would constitute proof that the MDC is "legit"?
Frank Lee
 
Posts: 39
Joined: 29 Jul 2009, 01:23






Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby quantumparanormal » 12 Sep 2009, 01:16

Frank Lee wrote:You guys would have to define your terms before continuing. What would constitute proof that the MDC is "legit"?


Well, I can't speak for others, but for me, a notarized bank statement showing the latest account balance (let's say, past 6 months), specifically showing a million or more dollars. That would take care of the enough-money claim and would satisfy me. Perhaps this evidence already exists?

Again, I don't care if it's legit or illegitimate either way. I just want to see the empirical data that can demonstrate what is true either way.

However, one could further argue that the rules and methods in place are so stringent that, perhaps, it's "impossible" for anyone to be able to win the challenge, but I'm not arguing this, just stating it for completeness' sake. I simply want to know if the money is there or not. Simple.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby ciscop » 12 Sep 2009, 03:02

quantumparanormal wrote:
Frank Lee wrote:You guys would have to define your terms before continuing. What would constitute proof that the MDC is "legit"?


Well, I can't speak for others, but for me, a notarized bank statement showing the latest account balance (let's say, past 6 months), specifically showing a million or more dollars. That would take care of the enough-money claim and would satisfy me. Perhaps this evidence already exists?

Again, I don't care if it's legit or illegitimate either way. I just want to see the empirical data that can demonstrate what is true either way.

However, one could further argue that the rules and methods in place are so stringent that, perhaps, it's "impossible" for anyone to be able to win the challenge, but I'm not arguing this, just stating it for completeness' sake. I simply want to know if the money is there or not. Simple.


im not sure if you have noticed
but the last ¨evidence¨ showed here
was an optical illusion on a theme park.. yes, this site is all about evidence :-D

and yep, i would like to see you discuss your quacks findings
just post a thread with a study please :-)
i already posted a link where a MENTALIST was used to proof telepathy by yoga magazine and it is published on radin´s website, what a pathetic joke, thats the guy that wrote your 2 favorite books?. nice.
here is a link to explain to you the meta analysis your favorite quack uses
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/meta-anal ... er_effect/

ooh.. sorry.. its on csicop
then i guess that doesnt count,
those damn guys on the side of science are biased!
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby highflyertoo » 12 Sep 2009, 04:27

I stil don't fully understand why ''skeptics'' aren't interested in the advancement of Polygraphs.

Probably the main reason why people object to polygraphs is because most people lie through their teeth on a daily basis.

It's time to put lots of effort into supporting Polygraphs machines. I would like to see the polygraph machines at world conferences such as G 20. Then we could find out how much shit the World Leaders are really brewing up.
Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
highflyertoo
 
Posts: 400
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby quantumparanormal » 12 Sep 2009, 05:58

ciscop wrote:im not sure if you have noticed
but the last ¨evidence¨ showed here
was an optical illusion on a theme park..


Did I post/write that? Am I claiming the optical illusion proves something? Am I saying that constitutes evidence for psi? No. Someone else did, so why are you stating it as if I did?

Again, you need to read carefully and think critically, something you don't seem to do very often, mostly likely due to those charged emotions of yours getting in the way.

ciscop wrote:yes, this site is all about evidence :-D


Actually, this section of the site is a forum wherein people can share and debate information, and, yes, that sometimes includes evidence. What evidence have you contributed that substantiates your beliefs and opinions? Oh, I know: opinion articles by folks at CSICOP. Fair enough.

ciscop wrote:and yep, i would like to see you discuss your quacks findings
just post a thread with a study please :-)


Firstly, regarding the use of the term "quacks," see what I mean? I haven't posted any evidence (yet) and yet you outright call it a "quack," having not yet seen any. This shows an a priori, outright bias/prejudice. It seems, therefore, you've already made up your mind. You refuse to "shake up" your conviction that "psi does not exist." I could say the same thing: "Yep, I would like to see you discuss your quack findings that 'psi doesn't exist or doesn't have any empirical support,'" but I don't do that because I'm more emotionally mature and objective than you are.

Secondly, I have nothing to prove to you, so I don't need to furnish any evidence, but if you would like to see some very good, empirical evidence that supports psi, again, read Radin's book, 'Entangled Minds'. It's loaded with empirical data/research. Once you read that, we can discuss what data or methods you believe are invalid, if any. Until then, you're simply making unsubstantiated claims. I really doubt, however, you will read his book. You don't want to believe psi is real. This is apparent by your a priori dismissal of any evidence supporting it.

I'll tell you what, I'll go ahead and let you read this published paper: http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/Meta-Analysis_of_ESP_Studies.pdf

Do you agree with the study's conclusion/results (I doubt you do)? Tell me what's wrong with their analysis and/or the empirical evidence/data shown. Is is that they used an incorrect z-scoring method? Did they use selective reporting in their meta-analysis? Is the effect size too small? Did they extrapolate data, making the p-value invalid? Do you think some of the trials or experiments were methodologically flawed? If so, please state your reasons why, along with any evidence to support them.

ciscop wrote:i already posted a link where a MENTALIST was used to proof telepathy by yoga magazine and it is published on radin´s website, what a pathetic joke, thats the guy that wrote your 2 favorite books?.
nice.


Please post this evidence here so that I can assess it. Until I actually review the data, I can't come to a conclusion either way, unlike you do so often.

ciscop wrote:here is a link to explain to you the meta analysis your favorite quack uses
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/meta-anal ... er_effect/


This is an opinion article, not actual research, but I'll "bite" nonetheless. I'll point out many things that are incorrect about this article:

VictorStenger wrote:"I cannot think of a single example of a new phenomenon that has been established by meta-analysis."


Firstly, the meta-analyses involved in psi research do not show "new phenomena" if by phenomena the author means psi per se. Why? Well, duh, since psi is a human related/correlated ability, and we've been around for a very long time (i.e., thousands of years), psi has also, too, been around for a long time. Therefore, psi cannot be considered a "new phenomenon." This should be logically obvious. Similarly, humans thought for many hundreds of years that the Earth was flat. That doesn't mean it wasn't flat all that time? It simply took some time and experimentation to figure out the Earth was flat all this time. The same is true of psi. The author, like you, is not thinking logically. Now, I could be wrong if psi has evolved since our existence and came about later, but how can we demonstrate this empirically? We can't, so I will assume we've always had psi abilities from the start.

Secondly, if the author, on the other hand, intends phenomena to mean "remarkable developments," then he is absolutely wrong, as I show below.

It's utterly false that meta-analyses have not been shown to provide empirical support for various novel things/new phenomena. Remember, meta-analyses are the statistical analyses of studies/experiments. It's the analyses of many experiments/studies that show whether or not an effect/outcome is really there, not just one or a few studies/experiments out of many. You have to take all of them into consideration, which is why meta-analyses exist. Here are just a few meta-analyses which show empirical support for various, novel medical drugs & procedures:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0920996498001054
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/15/1865
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/14/1724

This article author doesn't even bother to do his research, and yet you believe him on faith. How convenient for you. :lol:

VictorStenger wrote:He [Radin] takes these results at face value, downplaying any possibilities of cheating or other plausible conventional explanations that skeptics have been able to uncover in virtually every case where sufficient information about the data and procedures has been made available.


This is utterly false as well. Victor has apparently not read Radin's book, 'Entangled Minds'. In his book & meta-analyses he accounts for the apples-and-oranges, file-drawer, and quality problem by removing trials/experiments from the analyses that are weak in those regards, and even after having done so, the statistical significance is still great: psi still has empirically strong support.

Note, however, that Victor doesn't bother to point out which cases/experiments are "polluted" by "cheating or other plausible conventional explanations," nor which "skeptics have been able to uncover in virtually every case where sufficient information about the data and procedures has been made available," yet you take his word for it because you're a CSICOP fan. Again, how convenient. ;)

VictorStenger wrote:Making the disputable assumption that the ESP data are all trustworthy, Radin claims that the odds against chance are more than a billion trillion to one.


Where does Radin state "the ESP data are all trustworthy?" Notice how Victor doesn't provide references? Convenient for him, too. ;) Actually, if any of you pseudo-skeptics would bother to actually read Radin's research, you'll find he "bothers" to look for problems in the research and account for them in the meta-analyses, but you will presume he doesn't. Again, how convenient. ;)

VictorStenger wrote:This obviously can greatly bias any analysis of combined results and Radin cannot ignore this as blithely as he ignores other possible, non-paranormal explanations of the data.


Again, Victor fails to describe what "other, possible non-paranormal explanations of the data" there could possibly be. He doesn't even provide references, so why should we take his word at face value? Oh, I know why: he posts an article on CSICOP. Again, how convenient. ;)

VictorStenger wrote:In his review of Radin’s book for the journal Nature, statistics professor I.J. Good disputes this calculation, calling it “a gross overestimate.” He estimates that the number of unpublished, unsuccessful reports needed to account for the results by the file drawer effect should be reduced to fifteen or less. How could two meta-analyses result in such a wide discrepancy? Somebody is doing something wrong, and in this case it is clearly Radin. He has not performed the file-drawer analysis correctly.


This is funny, as, in essence, what I. J. Good (rest his soul) is saying is that the majority of the experiments are "good," if indeed only 15 or less unpublished studies would be required to account for the file-drawer effect size(s). That said, even if you did this, the odds against chance would still be statistically significant. In other words, the odds against chance are so large that in order for skeptics to bring the odds down to chance levels, they would have to resort to all sorts of outlandish, ridiculous nit-picking.

Regarding the ESP card tests, let me excerpt this portion of his book (Radin, 2006, p. 85):

DeanRadin wrote:As for concerns about the quality of these experiments, philosopher Fiona Steinkamp has analyzed the Rhine-era ESP card tests in detail (Steinkamp, 2005, pp. 124-163). She found that as controls improved against such potential problems as sensory cues, recording errors, and investigator fraud the results did decline slightly, but even the most highly controlled studies had odds against chance of 375 trillion to 1.


Even if you were to add more reasons why the data is "invalid," you'd have to discard quite a large portion of the data/trials to bring the odds down to chance levels, something these skeptics have not been able to do, yet, successfully, to my knowledge.

Additionally, another interesting, but irrelevant, fact is that I. J. Good's brother, A. J. Good, wrote, yes, in the Journal of Parapsychology about some presentiment experiments (Radin, 2006, pp. 163-164, Levin & Kennedy, 1975) in which the results produced odds against chance of 100 to 1 (Vassy, 1978). Strange how at odds about psi these two brothers were at the time. :o

Furthermore, Victor fails to demonstrate why he believes Good is correct but not Radin, but I'll take a shot at it and assume it's because Good doesn't want to believe in psi either.

VictorStenger wrote:The file-drawer problem is not limited to meta-analyses but applies to single experiments as well.


Duh! The file-drawer problem is all about experiments. If researchers fail to publish those experiment's results, those experiments are considered file-drawer experiments. Therefore, it's only logical to conclude that even if you don't publish a single experiment, that single experiment is a file-drawer experiment. Furthermore, meta-analyses are all about statistically analyzing the results of experiments/trials. Ugg... :roll:

VictorStenger wrote:The file-drawer problem is not limited to meta-analyses but applies to single experiments as well. Stokes looked specifically at an experiment by Alan Vaughn and Jack Houck involving ESP-card guessing questionnaires sent to them by twelve subjects, each significant at the 5 percent level. The authors claimed that over 33,000 subjects would have had to be tested to produce the reported effect as a statistical fluctuation. Since they did not send out anywhere near that number of tests, they conclude that the net effect was real.

To test this calculation, Stokes simulated the experiment on a computer, which the authors also could have easily done-and indeed should have done. This is called a “Monte Carlo analysis.” I spent a good portion of my research career in particle physics doing such analyses, in which you try to learn all the possible sources of error in an experiment, statistical and systematic, by “doing the experiment in the computer.” This procedure is simple, straightforward, and does not rely on any problematic statistical techniques or packaged programs that the users apply blindly. As an example, Stokes generated random data for thirty subjects and selected out the twelve highest scores, all of which had statistical significances (p-values) of one percent or better. This left only eighteen in the file-drawer, not 33,000 as Vaughn and Houck claimed were needed. The experiment was designed so that the subjects knew their scores before mailing them in. One can easily imagine eighteen people with low scores not bothering to report.


In order for me to comment about this objectively, I'd need to see a reference to the Vaughn/Houck research, but since the author hasn't bothered to include any references (convenient), I can't. My questions are these: How many total subjects were there? Supposedly only 12 subjects sent the researchers the questionnaires, but how many total subjects were asked/notified to submit their answers? I would assume it's at least 30, but how could I know this without seeing the data? How does Stokes know for a fact the 18 subjects did not submit their answers? Where's the evidence?

VictorStenger wrote:I regard it as especially significant that psi sympathizer Stokes has spoken out against meta- (and file-drawer-) analyses.


This is a testament to how even psi proponents can find flaws in other's experiments. Stoke has done a seemingly good job, if indeed the data shows it to be true, at pointing out statistical flaws in the methods employed in the Vaughn and Houck analysis. I honestly don't, either, see how Vaughn and Houck could obtain 33,000 unpublished trials given that only 30 total subjects were tested, but, yet again, I'd have to look at the actual data.

However, even if one experiment is flawed, it doesn't, alone, demonstrate all psi research is flawed. Psi has huge statistical support regardless of one individual experiment or analysis. Like I said before, even after accounting for flaws, lack of controls, selective reporting, fraud, etc, you would have to eliminate so many experiments/trials in order to get back down to chance levels that you really have to start asking yourself, "Is this really necessary?"

Speaking of D. Stokes, have you read the psi-supportive research he's done? Check it out; you can read his entire book online, "Consciousness and the Physical World": http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/docs/stokes/

VictorStenger wrote:We are not closed to any paranormal claim nor prejudiced against any individual adherent. Show us the evidence and we will consider it. However, we will steadfastly insist on applying the same rules that we would to claims for a new particle or a new drug.


If that's the case, then the author should accept psi, as similar types of meta-analyses used for assessing the efficacies of drugs are used for determining the significance of psi results.

Even if you can find as many flawed experiments and trials as you possibly could, and threw them out of the analyses, the outcome would still most likely reveal statistically significant odds against chance. Notice, however, that these various skeptics don't bother to perform a re-analysis of the data which has excluded these problem trials/experiments. I bet I know why: if they did, they'd still be left with significant results which support psi. Show me a published paper that shows skeptics having issues with the data, throwing out that data, re-analyzing the numbers, then showing psi still has no support.

Guess what, there's only one I've seen to date, and that's regarding a meta-analysis of 30 Ganzfeld studies Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman performed and published back in 1999. Even then, when I average the total z-scores (which comes out to 1.013), I get a p-value of 0.1555, or odds against chance of 6 to 1. While that's still not mind-shatteringly in favor of psi, it's still an indication psi has at least some support. However, as most skeptics seem to do, they tend to leave out the data that might prove them wrong. Milton and Wiseman's study excluded 10 additional Ganzfeld studies, which when added to the meta-analysis produces odds against the effects being due to chance of 208 to 1(p = .0048; Bem, Palmer, Broughton, 2001). Now, these odds only cover the total ganzfeld studies to date, not the entire wealth of psi data that exists. Once you include that data, the odds are greater against chance.

Now, it's your turn: discuss the data/evidence, please........................
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 20 Sep 2009, 06:09, edited 3 times in total.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby ciscop » 12 Sep 2009, 08:18

quantumparanormal wrote:
ciscop wrote:im not sure if you have noticed
but the last ¨evidence¨ showed here
was an optical illusion on a theme park..


Did I post/write that? Am I claiming the optical illusion proves something? Am I saying that constitutes evidence for psi? No. Someone else did, so why are you stating it as if I did?

Again, you need to read carefully and think critically, something you don't seem to do very often, mostly likely due to those charged emotions of yours getting in the way.

ciscop wrote:yes, this site is all about evidence :-D


Actually, this section of the site is a forum wherein people can share and debate information, and, yes, that sometimes includes evidence. What evidence have you contributed that substantiates your beliefs and opinions? Oh, I know: opinion articles by folks at CSICOP. Fair enough.

ciscop wrote:and yep, i would like to see you discuss your quacks findings
just post a thread with a study please :-)


Firstly, regarding the use of the term "quacks," see what I mean? I haven't posted any evidence (yet) and yet you outright call it a "quack," having not yet seen any. This shows an a priori, outright bias/prejudice. It seems, therefore, you've already made up your mind. You refuse to "shake up" your conviction that "psi does not exist." I could say the same thing: "Yep, I would like to see you discuss your quack findings that 'psi doesn't exist or doesn't have any empirical support,'" but I don't do that because I'm more emotionally mature and objective than you are.

Secondly, I have nothing to prove to you, so I don't need to furnish any evidence, but if you would like to see some very good, empirical evidence that supports psi, again, read Radin's book, 'Entangled Minds'. It's loaded with empirical data/research. Once you read that, we can discuss what data or methods you believe are invalid, if any. Until then, you're simply making unsubstantiated claims. I really doubt, however, you will read his book. You don't want to believe psi is real. This is apparent by your a priori dismissal of any evidence supporting it.

I'll tell you what, I'll go ahead and let you read this published paper: http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/Meta-Analysis_of_ESP_Studies.pdf

Do you agree with the study's conclusion/results (I doubt you do)? Tell me what's wrong with their analysis and/or the empirical evidence/data shown. Is is that they used an incorrect z-scoring method? Did they use selective reporting in their meta-analysis? Is the effect size too small? Did they extrapolate data, making the p-value invalid? Do you think some of the trials or experiments were methodologically flawed? If so, please state your reasons why, along with any evidence to support them.

ciscop wrote:i already posted a link where a MENTALIST was used to proof telepathy by yoga magazine and it is published on radin´s website, what a pathetic joke, thats the guy that wrote your 2 favorite books?.
nice.


Please post this evidence here so that I can assess it. Until I actually review the data, I can't come to a conclusion either way, unlike you do so often.

ciscop wrote:here is a link to explain to you the meta analysis your favorite quack uses
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/meta-anal ... er_effect/


This is an opinion article, not actual research, but I'll "bite" nonetheless. I'll point out many things that are incorrect about this article:

VictorStenger wrote:"I cannot think of a single example of a new phenomenon that has been established by meta-analysis."


The meta-analyses involved in psi research do not show "new phenomena." Why? Well, duh, since psi is a human related/correlated ability, and we've been around for a very long time (i.e., thousands of years), psi has also, too, been around for a long time. Therefore, psi cannot be considered a "new phenomenon." This should be logically obvious. Similarly, humans thought for many hundreds of years that the Earth was flat. That doesn't mean it wasn't flat all that time? It simply took some time and experimentation to figure out the Earth was flat all this time. The same is true of psi. The author, like you, is not thinking logically.

Regardless of this lack of employed logic, it's utterly false that meta-analyses have not shown empirical support for various novel things. Here are just some meta-analyses which show empirical support for various, novel medical drugs/procedures:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0920996498001054
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/15/1865
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/14/1724

See? This article author doesn't even bother to do his research, and yet you believe him on faith. How convenient for you. :lol:

VictorStenger wrote:He [Radin] takes these results at face value, downplaying any possibilities of cheating or other plausible conventional explanations that skeptics have been able to uncover in virtually every case where sufficient information about the data and procedures has been made available.


This is utterly false as well. Victor has apparently not read Radin's book, 'Entangled Minds'. In his book & meta-analyses he accounts for the apples-and-oranges, file-drawer, and quality problem by removing trials/experiments from the analyses that are weak in those regards, and even after having done so, the statistical significance is still great: psi still has empirically strong support.

Note, however, that Victor doesn't bother to point out which cases/experiments are "polluted" by "cheating or other plausible conventional explanations," nor which "skeptics have been able to uncover in virtually every case where sufficient information about the data and procedures has been made available," yet you take his word for it because you're a CSICOP fan. Again, how convenient. ;)

VictorStenger wrote:Making the disputable assumption that the ESP data are all trustworthy, Radin claims that the odds against chance are more than a billion trillion to one.


Where does Radin state "the ESP data are all trustworthy?" Notice how Victor doesn't provide references? Convenient for him, too. ;) Actually, if any of you pseudo-skeptics would bother to actually read Radin's research, you'll find he "bothers" to look for problems in the research and account for them in the meta-analyses, but you will presume he doesn't. Again, how convenient. ;)

VictorStenger wrote:This obviously can greatly bias any analysis of combined results and Radin cannot ignore this as blithely as he ignores other possible, non-paranormal explanations of the data.


Again, Victor fails to describe what "other, possible non-paranormal explanations of the data" there could possibly be. He doesn't even provide references, so why should we take his word at face value? Oh, I know why: he posts an article on CSICOP. Again, how convenient. ;)

VictorStenger wrote:In his review of Radin’s book for the journal Nature, statistics professor I.J. Good disputes this calculation, calling it “a gross overestimate.” He estimates that the number of unpublished, unsuccessful reports needed to account for the results by the file drawer effect should be reduced to fifteen or less. How could two meta-analyses result in such a wide discrepancy? Somebody is doing something wrong, and in this case it is clearly Radin. He has not performed the file-drawer analysis correctly.


This is funny, as, in essence, what I. J. Good (rest his soul) is saying is that the majority of the experiments are "good," if indeed only 15 or less unpublished studies would be required to account for the file-drawer effect size(s). That said, even if you did this, the odds against chance would still be statistically significant. In other words, the odds against chance are so large that in order for skeptics to bring the odds down to chance levels would have to resort to all sort of outlandish, ridiculous things.

Regarding the ESP card tests, let me excerpt this portion of his book (Radin, 2006, p. 85):

DeanRadin wrote:As for concerns about the quality of these experiments, philosopher Fiona Steinkamp has analyzed the Rhine-era ESP card tests in detail (Steinkamp, 2005, pp. 124-163). She found that as controls improved against such potential problems as sensory cues, recording errors, and investigator fraud the results did decline slightly, but even the most highly controlled studies had odds against chance of 375 trillion to 1.


Even if you were to add more reasons why the data is "invalid," you'd have to discard quite a large portion of the data/trials to bring the odds down to chance levels, something these skeptics have not been able to do, yet, successfully, to my knowledge.

Additionally, another interesting, but irrelevant, fact is that I. J. Good's brother, A. J. Good, wrote, yes, in the Journal of Parapsychology about some presentiment experiments (Radin, 2006, pp. 163-164, Levin & Kennedy, 1975) in which the results produced odds against chance of 100 to 1 (Vassy, 1978). Strange how at odds about psi these two brothers were at the time. :o

Furthermore, Victor fails to demonstrate why he believes Good is correct but not Radin, but I'll take a shot at it and assume it's because Good doesn't want to believe in psi either.

VictorStenger wrote:The file-drawer problem is not limited to meta-analyses but applies to single experiments as well.


Duh! The file-drawer problem is all about experiments. If researchers fail to publish those experiment's results, those experiments are considered file-drawer experiments. Therefore, it's only logical to conclude that even if you don't publish a single experiment, that single experiment is a file-drawer experiment. Furthermore, meta-analyses are all about statistically analyzing the results of experiments/trials. Ugg... :roll:

VictorStenger wrote:The file-drawer problem is not limited to meta-analyses but applies to single experiments as well. Stokes looked specifically at an experiment by Alan Vaughn and Jack Houck involving ESP-card guessing questionnaires sent to them by twelve subjects, each significant at the 5 percent level. The authors claimed that over 33,000 subjects would have had to be tested to produce the reported effect as a statistical fluctuation. Since they did not send out anywhere near that number of tests, they conclude that the net effect was real.

To test this calculation, Stokes simulated the experiment on a computer, which the authors also could have easily done-and indeed should have done. This is called a “Monte Carlo analysis.” I spent a good portion of my research career in particle physics doing such analyses, in which you try to learn all the possible sources of error in an experiment, statistical and systematic, by “doing the experiment in the computer.” This procedure is simple, straightforward, and does not rely on any problematic statistical techniques or packaged programs that the users apply blindly. As an example, Stokes generated random data for thirty subjects and selected out the twelve highest scores, all of which had statistical significances (p-values) of one percent or better. This left only eighteen in the file-drawer, not 33,000 as Vaughn and Houck claimed were needed. The experiment was designed so that the subjects knew their scores before mailing them in. One can easily imagine eighteen people with low scores not bothering to report.


In order for me to comment about this objectively, I'd need to see a reference to the Vaughn/Houck research, but since the author hasn't bothered to include any references (convenient), I can't. My questions are these: How many total subjects were there? Supposedly only 12 subjects sent the researchers the questionnaires, but how many total subjects were asked/notified to submit their answers? I would assume it's at least 30, but how could I know this without seeing the data? How does Stokes know for a fact the 18 subjects did not submit their answers? Where's the evidence?

VictorStenger wrote:I regard it as especially significant that psi sympathizer Stokes has spoken out against meta- (and file-drawer-) analyses.


This is a testament to how even psi proponents can find flaws in other's experiments. Stoke has done a seemingly good job, if indeed the data shows it to be true, at pointing out statistical flaws in the methods employed in the Vaughn and Houck analysis. I honestly don't, either, see how Vaughn and Houck could obtain 33,000 unpublished trials given that only 30 total subjects were tested, but, yet again, I'd have to look at the actual data.

However, even if one experiment is flawed, it doesn't, alone, demonstrate all psi research is flawed. Psi has huge statistical support regardless of one individual experiment or analysis. Like I said before, even after accounting for flaws, lack of controls, selective reporting, fraud, etc, you would have to eliminate so many experiments/trials in order to get back down to chance levels that you really have to start asking yourself, "Is this really necessary?"

Speaking of D. Stokes, have you read the psi-supportive research he's done? Check it out; you can read his entire book online, "Consciousness and the Physical World": http://noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/docs/stokes/

VictorStenger wrote:We are not closed to any paranormal claim nor prejudiced against any individual adherent. Show us the evidence and we will consider it. However, we will steadfastly insist on applying the same rules that we would to claims for a new particle or a new drug.


If that's the case, then the author should accept psi, as similar types of meta-analyses used for assessing the efficacies of drugs are used for determining the significance of psi results.

Even if you can find as many flawed experiments and trials as you possibly could, and threw them out of the analyses, the outcome would still most likely reveal statistically significant odds against chance. Notice, however, that these various skeptics don't bother to perform a re-analysis of the data which has excluded these problem trials/experiments. I bet I know why: if they did, they'd still be left with significant results which support psi. Show me a published paper that shows skeptics having issues with the data, throwing out that data, re-analyzing the numbers, then showing psi still has no support.

Guess what, there's only one I've seen to date, and that's regarding a meta-analysis of 30 Ganzfeld studies Julie Milton and Richard Wiseman performed and published back in 1999. Even then, when I average the total z-scores (which comes out to 1.013), I get a p-value of 0.1555, or odds against chance of 6 to 1. While that's still not mind-shatteringly in favor of psi, it's still an indication psi has at least some support. However, as most skeptics seem to do, they tend to leave out the data that might prove them wrong. Milton and Wiseman's study excluded 10 additional Ganzfeld studies, which when added to the meta-analysis produces odds against the effects being due to chance of 208 to 1(p = .0048; Bem, Palmer, Broughton, 2001). Now, these odds only cover the total ganzfeld studies to date, not the entire wealth of psi data that exists. Once you include that data, the odds are greater against chance. My point is that even he highly replicable Ganzfeld studies demonstrate empirical support for psi.


Awesome!!
see
i like you more here than discussing 911 which was idiotic
i have to confess i have to review your links yet
but pretty enlightening, cool stuff quantum! i like it!
and you can keep insulting me, but lets face it.. se who you are siding with on this site...HIGHFLYER a mental patient... so i remain on my ground, you side with wackos.
and yes
i do like csicop, they have some cools books about researching the paranormal
just like you like books by swartz, radin and sheldrake
you are just as biased as you think i am
you discared just as easily Nas and Harvard and mit findings.
:-D so stop with the hipocrecy
you are biased towards believing in psi
the fact is psi can exist or not.. i can accept that psi can exist, can you accept it could all be just a belief?
Last edited by ciscop on 12 Sep 2009, 09:17, edited 1 time in total.
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby soldiergirl » 12 Sep 2009, 08:39

highflyertoo wrote:I stil don't fully understand why ''skeptics'' aren't interested in the advancement of Polygraphs.

Probably the main reason why people object to polygraphs is because most people lie through their teeth on a daily basis.

It's time to put lots of effort into supporting Polygraphs machines. I would like to see the polygraph machines at world conferences such as G 20. Then we could find out how much shit the World Leaders are really brewing up.


Research polygraphs. It is not just skeptics of the paranormal who don't believe they are 100% accurate, but even polygraph examiners know they are only as good as the examiner. Secondly, many sociopaths have no problem passing them because they have no conscience and lying comes second nature to them so while lying they will have no physical symptoms since they have no guilty conscience bothering them. Know how many people have passed polygraphs in the law enforcement field and months and years later something bad from their past is uncovered which wasn't found during their initial background investigation? Heck there are people almost every cycle being pulled from the border patrol academy even though they passed their polygraph they got an interim clearance and the background invesigation finds something they lied about.

As far as your statement about most people lie through their teeth on a daily basis you must be speaking for yourself and your friends. BTW, are you psychic? Simple yes or no will do.
soldiergirl
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 08 Sep 2009, 13:40

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby soldiergirl » 12 Sep 2009, 09:26

quantumparanormal wrote:
soldiergirl wrote:Quantum,

On another post somewhere here i used an example of snow which I will retype now so you can see how I make judgements on what to believe. If i wake up one morning and my yard is covered in snow, my neighbors yard is covered in snow, the streets are covered in snow and the weatherman on the news channel says its snowing outside I'm gonna believe it freakin snowed. Now is it possible my neighbors are playing a cruel hoax on me with a snow machine, well i suppose there is a slight possibility. Is it possible that an alien in a UFO dumped the snow in my neighborhood, I guess there is a slight possibility (how can i really prove it wasn't so). Now I like to think of myself as a reasonable prudent person (RPP) so I come to the logical conclusion that it snowed given the facts and information I can gather. You will say but yes it might have snowed but the alien might have dumped the snow too. Prove it wasn't an alien. Scecop would say a friend of my cousins great aunt said it was dumped by an alien and threfore it was a fact because she was on my mailing list plus has 6 degrees of separation from me.


I'm not sure what your point is exactly, but your snow example is empirically testable. If it's indeed snowing, you can walk outside your home and see and feel the snow directly. This is "objective reality." There's no escaping it. If it were a hoax, you'd most likely know it, as you'd probably see some type of snow-blowing machine(s) placed at some considerable height above the ground. Additionally, you have the empirical data obtained via weather satellites and news weather reports. You can furthermore obtain witness testimony from others who have actually observed the snow falling from the sky. You have a bunch of data to assess and with which to conclude with a very great degree of accuracy that it actually snowed. Could it have been aliens that caused the snow to form in the first place? Well, this is highly improbable given the empirical data just discussed which counters such a claim. Unless you have empirical evidence to show aliens are the cause, you shouldn't believe it. I don't understand why, given I've shown in detail how I think (i.e., logically), you would believe I think illogically.

So, that's not a good comparison to, or analogy of, what I'm talking about when I refer to the MDC's validity.

Maybe not for the MDC validity, but Scecop would say that the weatherman was in on it and it is a big conspiracy theory. He would also claim that weather satellites do not exist and simply is government propaganda. Could be wrong here but i bet that Scecop probably believes we never stepped on the moon either.

soldiergirl wrote:You will say but yes it might have snowed but the alien might have dumped the snow too.


I will? How do you know this? On what evidence do you base this presumption? If there were no empirical evidence to demonstrate aliens caused the snow, I would not believe such a thing to be true, a fact, or reality. You are presuming too much. I'm much more logical than this. Have you even read the many posted I've written?

No i haven't read the many posts you have written and only read a few so yes you yourself probably are more logical than this, but unfortunately since you are grouped with Scecop, professor, highflyer, and the likes of those kind of people I do tend to judge people based on the crowd they hang with and I judge books by their covers so sometimes I can be wrong. To err is human heh. However my analogy fit perfectly for Scecop, professor, and highflyer. Actually not so much professor since he is a con artist like Jim callahan (sp) and therefore they aren't really believers, but merely people who scam money from the gullible or emotionally distraught. Not so much highflyer either since he has been committed and therefore is mentally unbalanced. Does Scecop make money from this stuff? Never looked at his website to see if he sells crap, just had a direct link to the forums from a funny Jim Callahan (sp) video on youtube.

soldiergirl wrote:Prove it wasn't an alien.


That's not a logical argument because you can't prove such a negative. That's like asking to prove God doesn't exist or that psi doesn't exist. There's empirical evidence psi most likely does exist, however. There's no empirical evidence God exists. I've read on these boards some pseudo-skeptics saying, "Psi doesn't exist." How can they prove this? They can't!

Honestly i don't know what you mean by psi (never heard of psi before unless you are referring to psychic). And yes I am too lazy to google it. Well Scecop consistantly says prove this and that which is my whole point that how can i prove it is not alien. He even throws articles and videos up of known liars with titles such as amazing proof by Bob Lazer. Then when you confront him with Bob Lazer is a known liar and ask him questions about SAEDA he has no reply, but the following day will link another stupid video on 9/11 conspiracy again with no proof and no logical basis. He linked one video with 5 pakastani ordinary folk who said Bin Laden was a CIA agent and he used that as proof. Hello that is not proof.

soldiergirl wrote:This is where we so called skeptics will always differ from believers such as you (ones who look at other possibilities) and especially from zealous believers such as professor and scecop who have no logical and deductive reasoning at all.


I was once a die-hard skeptic like Randi. This is no lie. It took many years of researching and reading the outstanding various literature consisting of empirically obtained data to come to my conclusions and beliefs. Once again, I don't base my beliefs on bias or prejudice, or even emotions, I base them on the critical analysis of empirical data with the objective aid of logic.

Unless there is no or insufficient empirical data to demonstrate claim A, for example, is true, and there is empirical data to demonstrate claim B might be possible, then I would consider claim B to be a possibility, yes. That's how I think! Isn't that logical? I wouldn't use absolute terms, such as claim B is a "fact" or "reality," but a "possibility?" Yes.

soldiergirl wrote:Anyways this is why I believe th MDC is real is just based off of the information that I have gathered and analyzed.


Now this is where the debate actually initiated. I was asking how you could know, empirically, that the MDC is valid. Do you have physical evidence that shows he has the money in a bank account? Don't get me wrong. I'm not denying the money is there or that the MDC is valid. I have no bias or prejudice that will incline me to dismiss outright the possibility of this evidence existing or not existing, but I'd like to see it so that I can prove it to myself either way, which is why I asked. Maybe you know something I don't. You see, I haven't really investigated the whole MDC-not-valid claim because I simply haven't cared to know either way. It's not empirical research. I'm into actual research, not claims that the MDC is not valid. So, I simply want to know how it is you came to the conclusion that the MDC is legit. Simple.

Well it would seem to me that he would have to have the money since he does allow people like Sylvia Brown to test for it but they always opt out for some strange reason. Speaking of Sylvia Brown, she is one ruthless person. To sit there and tell grieving parents their child is dead (who turns up being alive) is cruel. This type of behavior is irresponsible and goes beyond scamming people for money.

soldiergirl wrote:1 more point to make is who would pay for this polygraph? I assume it would be the professor or whoever wants him to take it cause why in the hell should he pay. Any idea how expensive it is for a good professional polygraph examiner? There are preliminary questions before you even get hooked up and then all the control questions after you start. Not cheapo.


OK.


Okay so it is settled, The Professor will pan handle the money to pay for the polygraph. Professor, get a polygraph examiner who works for a federal law enforcement agency and offer to fly him out to Randi, pay for all accomedations and pay his fee. Then give Randi the offer for him to take the polygraph along with supplying the name of the examiner and see if he will take you up on the offer.
soldiergirl
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 08 Sep 2009, 13:40

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby quantumparanormal » 12 Sep 2009, 10:00

ciscop wrote:Awesome!!
see
i like you more here than discussing 911 which was idiotic
i have to confess i have to review your links yet
but pretty enlightening, cool stuff quantum! i like it!
and you can keep insulting me, but lets face it.. se who you are siding with on this site...HIGHFLYER a mental patient... so i remain on my ground, you side with wackos.
and yes
i do like csicop, they have some cools books about researching the paranormal
just like you like books by swartz, radin and sheldrake
you are just as biased as you think i am
you discared just as easily Nas and Harvard and mit findings.
:-D so stop with the hipocrecy
you are biased towards believing in psi
the fact is psi can exist or not.. i can accept that psi can exist, can you accept it could all be just a belief?


Are you frickin' kiding me? I write all of that detail regarding data, methods, and arguments, and all you can reply with is "awesome," "wackos," "I like books from Radin," and "I'm biased!" You don't even discuss the data. You don't even bother to read the published study I posted, yet I studied your opinionated, non-published article.

ciscop wrote:"I can accept psi can exist."


:lol: Yeah, that's evidenced by you saying "just like you like books by swartz, radin and sheldrake," "you wackos!" :lol: :lol:

Ahh... you are hopeless. There's no point in debating anything with you, since you don't even bother even to critically, objectively, and logically analyze the actual evidence, the data.

You are as pseudo-skeptic as pseudo-skeptic can get. :lol: Thanks for laughs though. :lol:
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 12 Sep 2009, 10:03, edited 1 time in total.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby quantumparanormal » 12 Sep 2009, 10:02

soldiergirl wrote:Okay so it is settled, The Professor will pan handle the money to pay for the polygraph. Professor, get a polygraph examiner who works for a federal law enforcement agency and offer to fly him out to Randi, pay for all accomedations and pay his fee. Then give Randi the offer for him to take the polygraph along with supplying the name of the examiner and see if he will take you up on the offer.


Again, exaggerations don't prove anything. They simply show emotional immaturity. It was pretty funny though. :lol:
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby soldiergirl » 12 Sep 2009, 10:58

How is that an exaggeration exactly? The professor wants him to take a polygraph so he should coordinate and pay for it. Its really quite simple.
soldiergirl
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 08 Sep 2009, 13:40

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby ciscop » 12 Sep 2009, 15:46

quantumparanormal wrote:
ciscop wrote:Awesome!!
see
i like you more here than discussing 911 which was idiotic
i have to confess i have to review your links yet
but pretty enlightening, cool stuff quantum! i like it!
and you can keep insulting me, but lets face it.. se who you are siding with on this site...HIGHFLYER a mental patient... so i remain on my ground, you side with wackos.
and yes
i do like csicop, they have some cools books about researching the paranormal
just like you like books by swartz, radin and sheldrake
you are just as biased as you think i am
you discared just as easily Nas and Harvard and mit findings.
:-D so stop with the hipocrecy
you are biased towards believing in psi
the fact is psi can exist or not.. i can accept that psi can exist, can you accept it could all be just a belief?


Are you frickin' kiding me? I write all of that detail regarding data, methods, and arguments, and all you can reply with is "awesome," "wackos," "I like books from Radin," and "I'm biased!" You don't even discuss the data. You don't even bother to read the published study I posted, yet I studied your opinionated, non-published article.

ciscop wrote:"I can accept psi can exist."


:lol: Yeah, that's evidenced by you saying "just like you like books by swartz, radin and sheldrake," "you wackos!" :lol: :lol:

Ahh... you are hopeless. There's no point in debating anything with you, since you don't even bother even to critically, objectively, and logically analyze the actual evidence, the data.

You are as pseudo-skeptic as pseudo-skeptic can get. :lol: Thanks for laughs though. :lol:


Nope!...
read again
you are doing what you accused me of doing earlier
I said Highflyer is a wacko and that your holy trinity are quacks on that post
so please stop editing what i said to fit your biased mind about me

highflyer IS a wacko
he was in a mental institution, and guess on who´s side he is in? (yep, not the skeptic side)

and thats that
:-D
please share some info about schwartz i wanna see you defending him
and dont play smart here, see in which thread we are, this thread was initialized by a freaking wacko about conducting QUACK science on a guy on his death bed... AND YOU SUPPORT HIM... you have such a weird twisted mind to think about that.. how sad, but well... i guess even guys with knowledge think and act like whackos when skeptics have fun with their religion.

and you still cant said that you are biased towards psi
i DID ADMIT psi can exist, i did have some awesome coincidences, but i believe it is a coincidence, could it be psi? YES! but science has told us that psi DOESNT NOT EXIST. 15O YEARS OF STUDY OF PSI and no evidence according to NAS. but nah.. lets discard that and go to the few questionable scientists that support psi and got their bestsellers.

you are so biased you are almost blind, get your head out of your ass
hahaha you are a closeted pseudo skeptic, common agree that RADIN CAN BE WRONG.. isnt that what skeptics do?
come out and play quantum
is fun out here with the rest of us, the skeptics
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby quantumparanormal » 12 Sep 2009, 21:18

ciscop wrote:but science has told us that psi DOESNT NOT EXIST.


Prove it. Show me the evidence that psi does NOT EXIST.

And please don't give more childish remarks, like the following--use logic, deduction (something you don't seem to be able to to):

ciscop wrote:i would like to see you discuss your quacks findings

ciscop wrote:radin, swartz, sheldrake all those quacks

ciscop wrote:you are the dream come true of all those quacks

ciscop wrote:Was merely pointing out that quacks automatically assume

ciscop wrote:you only care about questionable data provided by quacks

ciscop wrote:whatever but all i have seen so far is bad science and quacks

ciscop wrote:a lot of the folks talking about paranormal are just quacks

ciscop wrote:you are a friking wacko my friend
Heh, friend? :lol:
ciscop wrote:you are just a another wacko that hates randi
Heh, hate? :lol:
ciscop wrote:proof for wacko claims


Until you can objectively discuss data, you are still a wacko, quack pseudo-skeptic. All you know what to do is call people names. That's it. Yet you still can't come to discussing actual evidence, data. You've got nothing. You are clueless and blinded by your faith. You didn't respond to anything I wrote in that long post, just about "quack" and "wacko" researchers. :lol:

It's a waist of my intelligence debating anything with people with the maturity of 5-year-olds. :roll:

I'm no longer going to discuss anything with you until you're ready to objectively discuss actual data, not what you think about people.

You, "my friend," are a bona fide imbecile! :lol:
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 12 Sep 2009, 21:32, edited 1 time in total.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby quantumparanormal » 12 Sep 2009, 21:31

soldiergirl wrote:How is that an exaggeration exactly? The professor wants him to take a polygraph so he should coordinate and pay for it. Its really quite simple.


It's an exaggeration to assume 1) "The Professor will pan handle the money to pay for the polygraph," 2) "get a polygraph examiner who works for a federal law enforcement agency," 3) "pay for all accomedations," 4) "pay his fee," and 5) Randi would go along with it, as it's evidenced time and time again Randi won't (besides the other things), as he hasn't yet despite the many calls for him to do so (from what I've been told), so what has changed since then that would change his mind? It's really quite that simple.
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 12 Sep 2009, 22:19, edited 3 times in total.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Would Randi take a Lie Detector Test?

Postby highflyertoo » 12 Sep 2009, 21:47

Now it's without question that Randi has accused many people of being Liars, So now it's Randi's turn to put his money where his mouth is and prove that his JREF MDC is not a ''circus act''.
Randi was no researcher of the paranormal even though he tried half heartedly.... Shows over.
highflyertoo
 
Posts: 400
Joined: 26 Jul 2009, 09:57

PreviousNext

Return to JREF / Randi Challenge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest