Design a double-blind experiment

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Stimpson, let's assume that we know what the "same results" are and that they are well-defined. Couldn't we propose the hypothesis that those results cannot be obtained by anyone other than the specific group of people (mediums) from which they were derived? Then we would have a null hypothesis something like Luci's.

Now let me see if I can answer my own question. First, it may be hopeless to define the "same results." Second, of course, just because the null hypothesis is rejected says nothing about the way in which the mediums produced the results in the first place. Third, how do we know that some of our subjects don't have the same talents as the mediums.

Comments appreciated from all.

~~ Paul

 

[Lucianarchy]

What I have done is address your direct claim that I am ignorant of how the scientific process works with respect to publication, by posting a link to my own publications.

Dr. Stupid

I haven't made any claim about publications, Stupid.

You and Billy seem to have problems understanding simple English, let alone science.

Stupid, how many replications would settle an issue for you?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Luci,

I haven't made any claim about publications, Stupid.

No, what you did was claim that I don't understand how the publication aspect of the scientific process works, and imply that I was just agreeing with Billy because I consider him to be an expert.

You and Billy seem to have problems understanding simple English, let alone science.

That's very ironic, coming from you.

Stupid, how many replications would settle an issue for you?

The question is meaningless. As Billy stated, there is no set number. It depends on the nature of the experiments, and the content of the publications. It's not like there is some magic number of replications needed to make an issue suddenly go from completely undecided to completely decided. It is a gradual process that is unique for each experiment.

In other words, I would require as many replications as it takes to establish that the results are consistent, reliable, and unambiguous.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Stimpson said:

Let me give you a hint here. The null-hypothesis never ever says something like "when doing this experiment we will see these results".

Could you expand upon this? For example, in drug testing the null hypothesis is something like "Our new drug Snorenomor will eliminate snoring at the same rate as placebo."

~~Paul

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Paul,

Let me give you a hint here. The null-hypothesis never ever says something like "when doing this experiment we will see these results".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you expand upon this? For example, in drug testing the null hypothesis is something like "Our new drug Snorenomor will eliminate snoring at the same rate as placebo."

Sure. In the example you gave, that is not the null-hypothesis. The actual null-hypothesis is that the drug does not effective at treating ailment X. At that point, an experimental protocol is developed to test that null-hypothesis, and that protocol is what stipulates that the necessary criteria for rejection of the null-hypothesis is that the effects be distinguishable from the placebo effect.

That's the key point. The actual null-hypothesis does not make reference to the experimental procedure. The experimental procedure is designed to test the null-hypothesis. If you work the other way, you are putting the cart before the horse.

If you do that, you are saying "This is what I expect to see under conditions X, and this is a possible explanation for those observations", and then if you see what you expected, accepting that as evidence for the explanation. The scientific method is to come up with an explanation for what you have already seen, make predictions about what you expect to see under other conditions from that explanation, and then devise an experiment to test those predictions.

See the difference? Only the second method actually properly tests the theory. The first method is far to susceptible to preconception bias, and also results in experiments which are very difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. This is one of the major problems facing Parapsychology, since they don't have any psi phenomena which they have "already seen". There is nothing for them to construct a theory to explain.

Dr. Stupid

 

[BillHoyt]

I haven't made any claim about publications, Stupid.

You and Billy seem to have problems understanding simple English, let alone science.

Stupid, how many replications would settle an issue for you?

I hate to confuse you with the facts, Luci, but you are the one having problems with English. There is no set number of replications. None. That is not how it works. Please read my post about papers and replications. If you honestly read that, you will at least understand what I am saying. You may continue to disagree with it, but you cannot persist in asking inane questions. There is no set number of replications. None. Period. End of Luci.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Thanks, Dr. Cat, that makes it clear. It's a subtle distinction if you don't pay attention.

~~Paul

 

[Lucianarchy]

Luci,


No, what you did was claim that I don't understand how the publication aspect of the scientific process works, and imply that I was just agreeing with Billy because I consider him to be an expert.

Thanks for admiting that you made a mistake about attributing a claim to me. It seems I have to spend a large part of my time correcting the sloppy errors and downright misleading bullhal around here I didn't make any claim about publication, Stupid.

I said you seem to allow others do your thinking for you, and can't make your own choices.

All I asked was for your or Billy's personal opinion as to how many replications would settle an issue for you.

If you really won't answer, I'll assume you're just trolling and admit, you hooked me there for a minute.

Never the less, thanks to everyone who has offered positive comments here. If anyone does actually come up with a name(s) who will be nominated to take this research challenge, please post them here.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Luci,

No, what you did was claim that I don't understand how the publication aspect of the scientific process works, and imply that I was just agreeing with Billy because I consider him to be an expert.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for admiting that you made a mistake about attributing a claim to me. It seems I have to spend a large part of my time correcting the sloppy errors and downright misleading bullhal around here I didn't make any claim about publication, Stupid.

What??? I did not admit to any mistake. I never said that you made a claim about publication. I said that you made a claim about my understanding of the publication process. A claim which is clearly false, and which, if you had a shred of intellectual honesty, you would retract.

I said you seem to allow others do your thinking for you, and can't make your own choices.

Exactly. And yet you have provided no explanation for this claim. The fact that I have quite a few publications of my own, and also serve as a referee for the scientific review process, clearly indicates that I am not just "letting Billy do my thinking for me" with respect to this issue. I agree with Billy because, like Billy, I actually understand how the scientific review process works.

All I asked was for your or Billy's personal opinion as to how many replications would settle an issue for you.

If you really won't answer, I'll assume you're just trolling and admit, you hooked me there for a minute.

You can't possibly be this dense, and still be able to figure out to turn on your computer. You did get an answer, from both of us. And that answer was clarified and explained to you several times. You are not going to get an answer in the form of "It would take N publications to satisfy me", because as we have both already repeatedly explained, it just simply doesn't work that way.

Never the less, thanks to everyone who has offered positive comments here. If anyone does actually come up with a name(s) who will be nominated to take this research challenge, please post them here.

Why would anybody nominate somebody to take part in a poorly conceived experiment whose results, positive or negative, will tell us nothing we don't already know?

Dr. Stupid

 

[BillHoyt]

Luci, I'm home!

But, Luci, its yust so ridicalos...

Do you, at long last, understand that your implicit claim that there can ever be a pre-set number of experiments that settle a scientific issue is wrong?

Cheers,

 

[Lucianarchy]

Luci, I'm home!

But, Luci, its yust so ridicalos...

Do you, at long last, understand that your implicit claim that there can ever be a pre-set number of experiments that settle a scientific issue is wrong?

Cheers,

If you care to show me what specific, quoted, claim you are talking about, maybe I could help you further.

ITMT, all I have asked you is how many replications would settle an issue for you, personally. To date, you have not been able to give a number. Perhaps you prefer to walk a flat earth and restrict your own scientific progress to what others think on your behalf. If you do, that's OK, I respect your personal beliefs, I just don't find them to be measurable; ergo, not skeptical or rational.

 

[BillHoyt]

If you care to show me what specific, quoted, claim you are talking about, maybe I could help you further.

ITMT, all I have asked you is how many replications would settle an issue for you, personally. To date, you have not been able to give a number. Perhaps you prefer to walk a flat earth and restrict your own scientific progress to what others think on your behalf. If you do, that's OK, I respect your personal beliefs, I just don't find them to be measurable; ergo, not skeptical or rational.

There it is, Luci. Right there. Your second paragraph. That is one more reiteration of your specific claim: that there is (or should be) a quantifiable number of experiments that settle a scientific issue.

Care to try to defend it? Or are you still working on understanding?

 

[Lucianarchy]

There it is, Luci. Right there. Your second paragraph. That is one more reiteration of your specific claim: that there is (or should be) a quantifiable number of experiments that settle a scientific issue.

There must be for yourself, otherwise you are putting your faith in others to come to a conclusion for you, which is neither skeptical nor rational. If you seriously won't put a quantifiable, measurable basis to your beliefs, I will have to assume that you are, like Stupid, simply trolling.

 

[BillHoyt]

There must be for yourself, otherwise you are putting your faith in others to come to a conclusion for you, which is neither skeptical nor rational.

Bzzt. False dichotomy. Try again. Use your brain this time.

If you seriously won't put a quantifiable, measurable basis to your beliefs, I will have to assume that you are, like Stupid, simply trolling.

Bzzt. False dichotomy again! Try again.

Luci, this is yust so ridickiluss! I already gave you the answer and you still can't get to it. You keep insisting on this assertion that one can quantify how many experiments settle a research issue.

Now how do you get the answer to this question for yourself, Luci? How about you try to come back with some sources that support this contention.

This should be rich!

Cheeers,

 

[Lucianarchy]

I already gave you the answer and you still can't get to it.

I have read several of your 'answers', Billy, but not one of them has given a measurable, qauntifiable basis to your personal belief.

It is evident, therefore, that you are either trolling or weaselling. Mr Randi has asked us not to 'taunt' or be un-civil, so it is only right and proper that I should not ask you again or that you should continue with your ad homs. For this reason, sadly, Billy Hoyt, you will become one of the very, very few members of this forum who are on my ignore list.

Peace be with you.

 

[BillHoyt]

I have read several of your 'answers', Billy, but not one of them has given a measurable, qauntifiable basis to your claim.

It is evident, therefore, that you are either trolling or weaselling. Mr Randi has asked us not to 'taunt' or be un-civil, so it is only right and proper that I should not ask you again or that you should continue with your ad homs. For this reason, sadly, Billy Hoyt, you will become one of the very, very few members of this forum who are on my ignore list.

Peace be with you.

I hope you've reported my trolling behavior to a moderator, Luci! So, please, act quickly, before they bench me for my horrid transgressions! Please follow the logic here:

You asked for a set number of experimental replications that would settle a scientific question.

Luci, there is no such number. Now, your question and repeated faulting of my answer constitutes an implicit claim on your part, Luci. Namely, that it is possible to set such a number.

Substantiate this claim, Luci. The world is watching. You said you would answer questions to any claims you made.

Cheers,

 

[TLN]

I have read several of your 'answers', Billy, but not one of them has given a measurable, qauntifiable basis to your personal belief.

You do this every day.

 

[BillHoyt]

(chirp) (chirp)