Aura Testing

[CFLarsen]

I'm sure one can see that people are talking about a person, and not the critiques.

Nobody is stopping you from talking about the critiques. As Mercutio points out, that's what we've been trying to get you to do.

You say there are "good points" in the critiques. What are these "good points"?

See? I want to talk about the critiques. Do you?

 

[T'ai Chi]

The paper by the skeptical club pointed the good critiques.

 

[Tricky]

The paper by the skeptical club pointed the good critiques.

So did I. You have made no comment at all. You're like some "out of office" message that just says "T'ai Chi is away from his desk right now, but there are good critiques of the experiment."

 

[Mojo]

The paper by the skeptical club pointed the good critiques.

But why do you think they were good? Just because the skeptical club told you so?

 

[CFLarsen]

The paper by the skeptical club pointed the good critiques.

What are these "good points"?

Talk about the critiques.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Still talking about me.. glad to know I'm on some people's minds. I'm touched.

Let's focus on the critiques.

 

[Mojo]

Still talking about me.. glad to know I'm on some people's minds. I'm touched.

Let's focus on the critiques.

OK.

What do you think are their good points?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Their critiques don't depend on what I think about them. Why would they? Just read the article. Plus, it states the critiques better than I could.

Something that stands out to me

In film clips from the Scientific American Frontiers production, (more about this below) Emily is shown stopping the coin in its spin by placing her hand on it. This cannot be called a random toss when the experimenter is intervening in the process.

Similarly, one can flip a coin, let in land in their hand, and by feeling the face of the coin tell which side is facing up or down. Then flip it, or not, depending on what side you want, or don't want, to come up. Old trick.

 

[Mercutio]

Their critiques don't depend on what I think about them.

Nor do they depend on our opinions. But wouldn't it be boring if none of us ever gave our views? You want discussion of the issues...but if the issues do not depend on what we think of them, why should any of us discuss?

 

[Pragmatist]

I'm touched.

I've thought so too, more than once - but I was too polite to mention it!

 

[CFLarsen]

Nor do they depend on our opinions. But wouldn't it be boring if none of us ever gave our views? You want discussion of the issues...but if the issues do not depend on what we think of them, why should any of us discuss?

T'ai Chi has no problems asking other people for their opinions. That's why it is peculiar that he refuses to give his own.

Their critiques don't depend on what I think about them. Why would they? Just read the article. Plus, it states the critiques better than I could.

No, they don't depend on what you think about them. That isn't the issue. The issue is that you have already stated that you find some of their points "good".

So, we ask you: What are these "good points" and why do you find them "good"?

Something that stands out to me

Is this one of these "good points"?

Similarly, one can flip a coin, let in land in their hand, and by feeling the face of the coin tell which side is facing up or down. Then flip it, or not, depending on what side you want, or don't want, to come up. Old trick.

I don't understand. Why does this stand out to you? In the test, there was no contact.

Please explain.

 

[Mojo]

Something that stands out to me

In film clips from the Scientific American Frontiers production, (more about this below) Emily is shown stopping the coin in its spin by placing her hand on it. This cannot be called a random toss when the experimenter is intervening in the process.

Similarly, one can flip a coin, let in land in their hand, and by feeling the face of the coin tell which side is facing up or down. Then flip it, or not, depending on what side you want, or don't want, to come up. Old trick.

So you are suggesting that the procedure was flawed because there was a possibility that it was not properly randomised, and that Emily might have consciously or unconsciously introduced some sort of pattern? If there was some sort of pattern, it would (i.e. if the subjects had been able to discern the pattern) make it easier for them to pass the test, in the absence of any actual ability to detect the "field". If the test results had appeared to support the idea that the subjects actually could detect a field, this might have been a very important criticism. Since they in fact failed to demonstrate that they could, it doesn't seem that possible poor randomisation had any significant impact on the results.

 

[CFLarsen]

It would require Rosa to spot when the coin was either heads or tails, and then, stop the coin to produce a desired result.

She would need to have super-quick perception to a degree that I would possibly classify that as supernatural!

Here are the test results.

 

[Mercutio]

It would require Rosa to spot when the coin was either heads or tails, and then, stop the coin to produce a desired result.

She would need to have super-quick perception to a degree that I would possibly classify that as supernatural!

I disagree. She would also have to ascertain ahead of time which hand the TTpractitioner would say she would hold her hand near, and force the coin to the opposite face.

Oh my Ed, this means Emily is psychic!

eta: before this derails (further), I know she did not catch the coin in her palm. Stopping a spinning coin, once it is clear which side will be "up", does not introduce any additional variation. The critique does not say that Emily interfered more than this.

 

[T'ai Chi]

So you are suggesting that the procedure was flawed because there was a possibility that it was not properly randomised, ...

I'm saying that is what the article from the skeptical club introduces as a possibility.

 

[T'ai Chi]

But wouldn't it be boring if none of us ever gave our views?

I'm not for that, but no, it wouldn't.

 

[CFLarsen]

I disagree. She would also have to ascertain ahead of time which hand the TTpractitioner would say she would hold her hand near, and force the coin to the opposite face.

Oh my Ed, this means Emily is psychic!

You, Sir, are correct!

eta: before this derails (further), I know she did not catch the coin in her palm. Stopping a spinning coin, once it is clear which side will be "up", does not introduce any additional variation. The critique does not say that Emily interfered more than this.

Critique dismissed? Yes.

Next?

I'm not for that

That is a bald-faced lie. You have clearly demonstrated that you are not interested in giving your view, in no less than three threads, in this week alone.

You want to hear the views of others, and then take cheap swipes at them.

 

[Tricky]

Critique dismissed? Yes.

Next?

If you really are all that eager to discuss critiques, you can address some of the ones I mentioned, like:

LS and LR have published numerous articles debunking TT. They are members of or founders of groups whose purpose is to expose TT as unsound scientifically. They therefore have a well-established reputation in the skeptical community as adversaries of the TT practice as being science-based. Since ER is the daughter and step-daughter of LR and LS, it is difficult to imagine that she does not share her primary care giver’s attitudes about TT. Thus, it is highly likely that the experimental design and the experimenters themselves were biased against the existence of the HEF. Any honest experiment, therefore, should have been conducted, and data recorded by neutral experimenters.

I regard that as a very valid criticism. The JREF goes to great lengths to assure that any measuring to be done is in the hands of neutral observers. I realize that such a setup might be very difficult for one with limited resources, and that is a shame. But just because it might not have been possible to use neutral experimenters, it does not diminish the fact that it is an experimental flaw.

And I'm not trying to make things easy on T'ai Chi, but if you really want to discuss the criticisms, well we can do so without his input, which he seems very reticent to give.

 

[Mercutio]

I agree, Trixie, that this is a valid criticism. For the purposes of a school science project, it is nothing. For a peer-reviewed paper, though, it is surprising that it did not merit mention.

Still, if she is a biased observer, by what mechanism does her bias enter into this particular study? Is there any suggestion that she altered data? How many of the trials were videotaped? (that would allow analysis of that particular suggestion.) Any suggestion of "negative psi" can be countered by the practitioners' claim that, unblinded, they were able to detect her energy.

I would much prefer to see this double-blinded. But as is, this criticism is of a potential problem, not necessarily an actual problem.

 

[CFLarsen]

If you really are all that eager to discuss critiques, you can address some of the ones I mentioned, like:

I regard that as a very valid criticism. The JREF goes to great lengths to assure that any measuring to be done is in the hands of neutral observers. I realize that such a setup might be very difficult for one with limited resources, and that is a shame. But just because it might not have been possible to use neutral experimenters, it does not diminish the fact that it is an experimental flaw.

And I'm not trying to make things easy on T'ai Chi, but if you really want to discuss the criticisms, well we can do so without his input, which he seems very reticent to give.

That's an understatement.

In what way was the experimental design influenced by this?

In what way did this influence the experiment?

In both cases: No way.

While it is optimal to have unbiased experimenters, in practice it is impossible. How do you decide who is unbiased? How can one be unbiased? The moment we see something, we form opinions of it.