Aura Testing

[Lynx2174]

hmm, would being an aura seer make one a better sniper? like seeing it through walls, or over barriers. kinda like a supernatural HUD.

 

[Lothian]

[Ta'i Chi]I think Ta’i chi is a tosser.. That is just my opinion, I see no need to elaborate on it, The reader is quite free to look at this thread and draw their own conclusions. I would rather they did that rather than focus on my summary .[/T'ai Chi]

 

[RichardR]

What you expect is irrelevant. You have not merely mentioned the existence of critiques but have specifically stated that the critiques were "very good". You have been asked on what basis you judge them to be "very good". That is a reasonable question. Why won't you answer it?

 

[drfrank]

[Ta'i Chi]I think Ta’i chi is a tosser.. That is just my opinion, I see no need to elaborate on it, The reader is quite free to look at this thread and draw their own conclusions. I would rather they did that rather than focus on my summary .[/T'ai Chi]

Your honour, I would like to call for multiple other threads to be taken into consideration

I think the inexorable point that is being inched towards is the possibility that T'ai Chi hasn't read the critiques at all, just seen the abstracts and, because they fit in with his/her preconceived notions, judged them to be `very good' with no evidence.

The bizarre evasiveness does seem to fit in with this hypothesis...

Of course, I might be completely wrong

 

[Pragmatist]

Your honour, I would like to call for multiple other threads to be taken into consideration

I think multiple other sock puppets should also be taken into consideration, including Whodini, Sherlock Holmes, jzs and Statisticool...

 

[CFLarsen]

Bumped for T'ai Chi.

What extraordinary claims have you made here, or on other forums?

 

[T'ai Chi]

This gets us nowhere.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Here's another critique (that people have such a hard time finding!)

http://www.rationalmagic.com/RMS/rms-jamacrit.html

This one by a skeptical club. They say

After thorough evaluation of the April 1, 1998, JAMA article on therapeutic touch, the Rocky Mountain Skeptics conclude that neither the data nor the experimental design support the conclusions as stated.

 

[Tricky]

Here's another critique (that people have such a hard time finding!)

http://www.rationalmagic.com/RMS/rms-jamacrit.html

This one by a skeptical club. They say

There are indeed some legitimate criticisms of the test in that link. I'll quote a few.

Can or should a public policy statement be made based on one experiment? We have always chided TT experimenters for advocating policies based on a single favorable test. Should a single test, however welcome its conclusions, with many questionable aspects be treated any differently? In fact, is it not essential to point out inadequacies ourselves in work that apparently supports our beliefs in order to allay any suspicion of dishonesty on our part?

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.

During the data-gathering phase of the experiment, the only attempt to control for any aspect of the experiment’s parameters is the coin-flipping procedure. We are told that Emily flipped a coin several times and 10 flips constituted a trial set. There was an opaque divider separating the TTp from Emily; a towel was placed over the arm of the TTp to permit "blinding". This aspect of the test procedure, while called "blinding" is actually the minimum requirement for obscuring the actual test from the participant.
Based on the description in the JAMA article, there was never any consideration given to an attempt to double-blind the experiment in any way. No matter the difficulties encountered in trying to double-blind the test, it should have been done in order for the experiment to have produced anything approaching valid test results.

The description of attempts to control for testable variables is very limited. The totality of the discussion consists of: "To examine whether air movement or body heat might be detectable by the experimental subjects, preliminary tests were performed on seven other subjects who had no training or belief in TT. Four were children who were unaware of the purpose of the test. Those results indicated that the apparatus prevented tactile cues from reaching the subject." (p 1008) This description does not constitute a control. If it was the same experimental protocol then what were the results? What about other possible cues? How were the controls selected? Did the experimenter go to the controls’ houses or did they all come to her house to be tested all in one session? If it was not the same protocol then what value is the control procedure?

There are design flaws in the experiment. Given the situation, that is to be expected, but that does not diminish the fact that there are design flaws. We would not expect skeptics to accept such flaws in an experiment which supported paranormal effects, so we should not be willing to accept them, regardless of the reasons, in an experiment which debunks paranormal effects.

That wasn't hard to do at all, T'ai Chi. Why do you have such difficulty taking a stance?

I would say though that I find it telling that those who practice theraputic touch have not been trying to reproduce the experiment with proper controls.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Why do you have such difficulty taking a stance?

My "stance" is that these critiques exist and have some good points. I have not had "difficulty" saying that, since I said it from like my second post or so.

 

[Mojo]

My "stance" is that these critiques exist and have some good points. I have not had "difficulty" saying that, since I said it from like my second post or so.

While you did say that the critiques were "very good" in your third post in the thread, you denied that you had said this in your seventh and eighth posts.

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi:
I didn't make any claim other than their existence.

You only conceded that you had said that the criticisms were "very good" when Lothian quoted your own words back at you.

So yes, we know you said this, even if you had apparently forgotten that you had said it.

What people have been asking you about, and what you seemed to have great difficulty saying, is why you think the critiques are "very good", and what the "good points" you say they have are.

 

[Mojo]

That wasn't hard to do at all, T'ai Chi. Why do you have such difficulty taking a stance?

It wasn't so much that he had difficulty taking a stance, it's more that, having taken a stance, he seemed to have great difficulty in justifying it, to the extent that he tried to deny having taken the stance in the first place.

 

[Harlequin]

Look, obviously he never read the original critiques that he was recommending. It's very clear that he just read the abstracts and said: "Ha, take that you evil skeptics!"
Otherwise, it would have taken actual effort to read the full document and it might not quite have confirmed his opinion - which would have made it wasted time, right?

 

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi's a one trick pony.

He will lie, cheat and fake, if he sees a chance to deride skeptics.

Unfortunately for him, he tries to do this to skeptics, who will see through his cheap tricks immediately.

 

[CFLarsen]

My "stance" is that these critiques exist and have some good points. I have not had "difficulty" saying that, since I said it from like my second post or so.

But you have "difficulty" saying what those good points are. Why is that?

 

[Tricky]

My "stance" is that these critiques exist and have some good points. I have not had "difficulty" saying that, since I said it from like my second post or so.

But you refused, despite many requests, to give any reasons or examples of what was good about the critiques, even though it would have been quite easy to do so. Is it petulance or torpor?

 

[CFLarsen]

But you refused, despite many requests, to give any reasons or examples of what was good about the critiques, even though it would have been quite easy to do so. Is it petulance or torpor?

T'ai doesn't want others to discuss what he brings to the table. Since he constantly defends the paranormal view, he knows his data isn't strong enough, and he will get clobbered.

He has absolutely no problems discussing what skeptics bring to the table, though.

Watch and see if I am wrong. T'ai will not defend these "good points".

 

[Hellbound]

Personally, I vote for ego.

With minimal effort, he can make all these one-line comments, trying to look like some sort of Internet-Yoda spouting profound Wisdom and Taoisms left and right, leaving explanation for the "edification of the reader".

He isn't interested in debate or communication, kinowledge or learning. He's interested in tossing out a few, easily found clues, that will cause others to do the digging and hard research, and leave us all with the impression that he has some overarching wisdom.

Call it "Master Po" syndrome.

So far, I don't believe anyone has fallen for it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Look, obviously he never read the original critiques that he was recommending. It's very clear that he just read the abstracts and said: "Ha, take that you evil skeptics!"
Otherwise, it would have taken actual effort to read the full document and it might not quite have confirmed his opinion - which would have made it wasted time, right?

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

I'll post again, since people need to be reminded that that is the topic:

http://www.rationalmagic.com/RMS/rms-jamacrit.html

This one by a skeptical club. They say

After thorough evaluation of the April 1, 1998, JAMA article on therapeutic touch, the Rocky Mountain Skeptics conclude that neither the data nor the experimental design support the conclusions as stated.

 

[Mercutio]

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

Funny thing, that. We asked you about the critiques, and you refused to elaborate. We would all be talking about the critiques, if the person who claimed they were good would simply have explained why. In the absence of that, there really was not that much to discuss.

Come on, TC. If you had responded to the early questions, the entire thread could have been about the critiques.