Global Consciousness Project

[T'ai Chi]

So, you can start by commenting on pixie's deconstruction. If you cannot then GCP is dead.

If I cannot respond to everything then it is dead? If I don't know how to respond or am unaware of the specifics of the GCP or am unfamiliar with some methods they used then GCP is dead? That is really poor critical thinking there Ed, I must say. You really need to review what you wrote above and find the flaws in it.

What pixie wrote is long. Feel free to select a small portion of it, just one thing at a time, and I could try.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The author makes some very interesting points, especially - in my opinion - when he speaks about "data fiddling", as he calls it. (The author is Jeffrey Scargle of the NASA Ames Research Center.) Clearly Larsen, Ed and I are not the only ones with serious misgivings about how the project is being executed.

In addition, there is a good skeptical article by May and Spottiswoode. Not sure what issue it is in, or if it was just privately circulated, but it is out there.
(googling commencing...)

Ah here it is

http://www.jsasoc.com/docs/Sep1101.pdf

They make some very good points, many of which I agree with.

I'm curious: when the GCP folk produce a result and Claus cried something like 'the rngs are impossible to calibrate!', what does Claus conclude about the calibrate-ability of the rngs when other analysts conclude nothing special is going on and things are operating as we'd expect by chance?

 

[jmercer]

I wouldn't say that the other analysts say that nothings going on in a sense of calibration. The guy I referenced made an interesting point about how the rng remained at a random "noise" level until you applied sliding windows. Then by playing with the windows, spikes become more frequent because the amount of data being processed is less.

So if you take the rng stuff at a "macro" level, it's what it's supposed to be - random. But when you reduce the amount of data being sampled, spikes appear... and thats when he got into "fiddling with data", or manipulating the data to generate the end result desired.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I wouldn't say that the other analysts say that nothings going on in a sense of calibration. The guy I referenced made an interesting point about how the rng remained at a random "noise" level until you applied sliding windows. Then by playing with the windows, spikes become more frequent because the amount of data being processed is less.

In Radin's article he explored the reasonable critique of choosing a fortuitous window. Radin happened to choose (a priori) a window of 6 hours for smoothing and got significant results.

He has a graph (Fig. 8) of significance for windows from 5 minutes to 12 hours. The optimal window length turned out to be 8 hours, but basically any window length over 10 minutes resulted in significant correlation for the 9/11 data.

 

[CFLarsen]

Still no contribution. Batting 1.000

True. But this is interesting:

Come 3/05, yes. My college education is in statistics. But that is all besides the point. Does one need to be a professional statistician to know and understand the definition, that is found in basic statistics texts, of a p-value? I don't think so.

Yet, he has criticized others for not having a background in statistics, when they talked about statistics.

Add hypocrisy to insinuating and passing the buck.

 

[T'ai Chi]

True.

What does Ed mean by "contribution" specifically? What is your contribution? What is Ed's contribution?

Yet, he has criticized others for not having a background in statistics, when they talked about statistics.

One doesn't need to be a professional statistician to know and understand the definition, that is found in basic statistics texts, of a p-value. Anyone can talk about statistics, sure. What is your point?

I criticize others that get statistics wrong and/or have the gall to lecture others about it. For example, you constantly telling me I select data, have no background in it, etc., when you amateurishly inferred to the all astrologers based on a convenience sample of 7! (not 7 factorial, just 7). You simply goofed, then lectured others. Or BillHoyt, for example, who threw every stat question at me he could, I answered all of them, then he accused me of pulling my answers off the internet and having a cracker-jack degree and etc. When counter-challenged, he ran and is still running. I deal with these types of people all the time it seems. All talk.

That is the difference, and it is a big difference that one day I hope you comprehend.

 

[CFLarsen]

What does Ed mean by "contribution" specifically? What is your contribution? What is Ed's contribution?

My contribution is consistently challenging proponents of paranormal phenomena to produce some evidence. I investigate paranormal claims and explain them from a scientific point of view. I also run SkepticReport.com as both editor and contributor, as well as being a board member of Skeptica and NYASk.

How would you describe your contribution?

One doesn't need to be a professional statistician to know and understand the definition, that is found in basic statistics texts, of a p-value. Anyone can talk about statistics, sure. What is your point?

Why do you chastize others for talking about statistics? E.g. you ask BillHoyt for his credentials in statistics?

I criticize others that get statistics wrong and/or have the gall to lecture others about it. For example, you constantly telling me I select data, have no background in it, etc., when you amateurishly inferred to the all astrologers based on a convenience sample of 7! (not 7 factorial, just 7). You simply goofed, then lectured others. Or BillHoyt, for example, who threw every stat question at me he could, I answered all of them, then he accused me of pulling my answers off the internet and having a cracker-jack degree and etc. When counter-challenged, he ran and is still running. I deal with these types of people all the time it seems. All talk.

That is the difference, and it is a big difference that one day I hope you comprehend.

What advice am I talking about in the article? General advice or compatibility charts?

 

[jmercer]

If you don't think that, I'm asking W(hy)TF are you going after me to prove to you that one needs a null hypothesis to calculate p-values?

I don't think you're guilty; you don't need to confess your sins to me. I just think it was odd of you asking me to prove something that is defined to be calculated from a null hypothesis.

God, I hate the way this forum doesn't include nested quotes. Oh, well.

I retracted that request when you correctly pointed out that Ed made the claim that a null hypothesis wasn't required, and so the burden of proof was on him. Didn't you read my acknowledgement of that, and my retraction of my request for proof from you?

Regarding confessing any sins... it's amusing how you try to introduce a religious overlay to a simple colloquialism in a skeptics forum... I'm wasn't confessing to anything. I was pointing out that YOU were mistaken when you claimed that I asserted that a null hypothesis wasn't required for a p-value, and I asked you to show me where I did so.

I notice that you haven't you retracted your claim about this or shown me where I asserted that a null hypothesis wasn't needed for a p-value.

Also, regarding having an active imagination and your ad hom commentary... since I seem to have "mis-interpreted" your meaning, please go right ahead and clarify it for me.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I notice that you haven't you retracted your claim about this or shown me where I asserted that a null hypothesis wasn't needed for a p-value.

I said a null hypothesis is needed to compute a p-value. You were incredulous and demanded proof that this was the only way.

After showing you the definiton of a p-value, you responded

So, are you a professional statistician? If so, then I accept your contention that the only way to have a p-value is by having a null hypothesis

Why would you demand proof of, or accept my "contention" if you already thought a null hypothesis was needed to compute a p-value? That would be a little odd.

 

[T'ai Chi]

My contribution is consistently challenging proponents of paranormal phenomena to produce some evidence. I investigate paranormal claims and explain them from a scientific point of view. I also run SkepticReport.com as both editor and contributor, as well as being a board member of Skeptica and NYASk.

How would you describe your contribution?

That's a sweet deal: every article you contribute the editor approves.

This empty shell has academic, professional, consulting, and recreational background in mathematics and statistics which allows me to respond efficiently to numerical stimuli...which are present in science.

My background in actual science and multidisciplinary numerical areas has cultivated my critical thinking skills. The skeptical topics that interest me, naturally, are the ones involving statistical issues.

I try and encourage people to be more numerically aware when I can.

Why do you chastize others for talking about statistics? E.g. you ask BillHoyt for his credentials in statistics?

As I've explained, Bill attempted to challenge me in statistics by asking me questions (which is entirely OK). I answered them all, yet he still went on, and even accused me of getting the answers off of a webpage. Common courtesy should allow me to ask him questions and he address them. Yet he didn't answer any of them I, nor admit he couldn't.. but he still took jabs at me. To put it simply; if he is saying I am absolutely wrong on a question or an issue, he has to have some background in the area we are talking about to allow him to even make such a statement.

What advice am I talking about in the article? General advice or compatibility charts?

It doesn't matter. You made inferences to a population when it wasn't warranted:

“So, a third of the time, the advice you will get from your astrologer will be completely random."

How do you know about my (hypothetical of course) astrologer, from your convenience sample of 7? Perhaps you could explain.

 

[jmercer]

I said a null hypothesis is needed to compute a p-value. You were incredulous and demanded proof that this was the only way.

Why would you demand proof of, or accept my "contention" if you already thought a null hypothesis was needed to compute a p-value? That would be a little odd.

I was not incredulous. (Or is it my turn to suggest that you should take Randi's challenge as a mind-reader?)

You (as well as Ed) made an assertion. I asked you for proof of your statement - and I should have also been asking Ed for the same thing.

However, as I said, I never asserted anything abput p-values one way or the other. I simply asked for proof.

 

[T'ai Chi]

However, as I said, I never asserted anything abput p-values one way or the other. I simply asked for proof.

So you either did not know (about p-values being dependent on their null hypotheses) and were asking for proof, or you knew and were asking for proof anyway for some reason.

Which was it?

 

[CFLarsen]

That's a sweet deal: every article you contribute the editor approves.

Sure. If you think it's a problem, perhaps you can suggest ways to avoid such a "sweet deal"?

This empty shell has academic, professional, consulting, and recreational background in mathematics and statistics which allows me to respond efficiently to numerical stimuli...which are present in science.

My background in actual science and multidisciplinary numerical areas has cultivated my critical thinking skills. The skeptical topics that interest me, naturally, are the ones involving statistical issues.

I try and encourage people to be more numerically aware when I can.

You point to your education (and yet, you screw up in the most basic statistics), but you don't say what you are doing - apart from "encouraging" people to be more "numerically aware". Judging from your posts here, you are not much of a teacher.

As I've explained, Bill attempted to challenge me in statistics by asking me questions (which is entirely OK). I answered them all, yet he still went on, and even accused me of getting the answers off of a webpage. Common courtesy should allow me to ask him questions and he address them. Yet he didn't answer any of them I, nor admit he couldn't.. but he still took jabs at me. To put it simply; if he is saying I am absolutely wrong on a question or an issue, he has to have some background in the area we are talking about to allow him to even make such a statement.

"Common courtesy"? "Anyone can talk about statistics, sure". One set of rules for you, another for everyone else.

It doesn't matter. You made inferences to a population when it wasn't warranted:

It doesn't matter?? Of course it matters! You claim I made inferences to a population when it wasn't warranted, and I ask you what population I am talking about. Of course it matters!

“So, a third of the time, the advice you will get from your astrologer will be completely random."

How do you know about my (hypothetical of course) astrologer, from your convenience sample of 7? Perhaps you could explain.

Trying to turn the tables yet again. It won't work, T'ai. Please explain which population I was talking about: Those who used these charts, or the general population of astrologers.

It matters, you know.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Sure. If you think it's a problem, perhaps you can suggest ways to avoid such a "sweet deal"?

I challenge you to get any writing of yours actually peer reviewed. Or have you?

I have not. The only thing I have in anything technical is a calculus problem.

I'm thinking about writing a 'statistics in skepticism' type of article for SI however, in moments of free time, to stress the role that Statistics plays in critical thinking and examining claims that involve statistics. I have a few ideas.

You point to your education (and yet, you screw up in the most basic statistics),

Ah, these fantasy screw ups that I have. Besides a few typos that were corrected, could you show me actual examples of screw ups in basic statistics that I supposedly made? I challenge you to do this too.

I have provided an actual example of you doing so, on the other hand.

Someone who incorrectly inferred to a population from a convenience sample of 7, talking about other peoples' screwups in basic statistics?

"Common courtesy"? "Anyone can talk about statistics, sure". One set of rules for you, another for everyone else.

No, same rules. If Bill can ask me questions, I can ask him questions. I'll answer them, however. Again, if Bill can say I am wrong about something in statistics, he has to have some knowledge in the area we are discussing in order to say that. He, of course, had no actual reason to say I copied my answers, got my degree from a crackerjack box, etc., other than to be a sore loser.

It doesn't matter?? Of course it matters! You claim I made inferences to a population when it wasn't warranted

Not just me, Claus. Basic statistics books "claim" it is not warranted. It is a fact of Statistics, since your sample was not chosen in a scientific manner.

Your inference, no matter what population you were talking about, was not warranted. You simply are not justified in making an inference to a population from a convenience sample of 7. None of your wordplay or diversions will get rid of that basic fact.

 

[CFLarsen]

I challenge you to get any writing of yours actually peer reviewed. Or have you?

No. I have not claimed that my articles are scientific. How do you suggest that my articles appear in SkepticReport, without it being a "sweet deal"?

I have not. The only thing I have in anything technical is a calculus problem.

Great. Completely irrelevant to skepticism.

I'm thinking about writing a 'statistics in skepticism' type of article for SI however, in moments of free time, to stress the role that Statistics plays in critical thinking and examining claims that involve statistics. I have a few ideas.

Great. But nothing so far. This is merely one of your projects that never get anywhere. You promise to deliver, but never do.

Ah, these fantasy screw ups that I have. Besides a few typos that were corrected, could you show me actual examples of screw ups in basic statistics that I supposedly made? I challenge you to do this too.

Jeff Corey pointed one out to you.

I have provided an actual example of you doing so, on the other hand.

Based on the wrong assumption that I am talking about all astrologers, when I am clearly not.

Someone who incorrectly inferred to a population from a convenience sample of 7, talking about other peoples' screwups in basic statistics?

Am I talking about all astrologers or those astrologers who use these charts?

No, same rules. If Bill can ask me questions, I can ask him questions. I'll answer them, however.

This is not correct. You have a long history of avoiding questions. Especially the tough ones.

Again, if Bill can say I am wrong about something in statistics, he has to have some knowledge in the area we are discussing in order to say that. He, of course, had no actual reason to say I copied my answers, got my degree from a crackerjack box, etc., other than to be a sore loser.

All you need to do is prove him wrong. There is no need to ask him for his credentials.

Not just me, Claus. Basic statistics books "claim" it is not warranted. It is a fact of Statistics, since your sample was not chosen in a scientific manner.

Your inference, no matter what population you were talking about, was not warranted. You simply are not justified in making an inference to a population from a convenience sample of 7. None of your wordplay or diversions will get rid of that basic fact.

You are weaseling away from your false assumption that I was talking about all astrologers. I wasn't. There are absolutely no wordplay or diversions from my side: I have constantly asked you which group of astrologers I was referring to. You claim it "doesn't matter".

From the article:

A paltry 31, which means that they only agreed 21.5% of the time. However, there were no less than 47 points where they were completely divided, 3 against 4. That's 32.6%, almost one in three!

So, a third of the time, the advice you will get from your astrologer will be completely random.

WHAT ADVICE AM I TALKING ABOUT?

 

[T'ai Chi]

No. I have not claimed that my articles are scientific.

Peer review applies to more than just science articles Claus.

Great. Completely irrelevant to skepticism.

It implies critical thinking, which is part of skepticism, and actually getting something in a real publication. Tell Gardner that mathematical thinking is irrelevant to skepticism..

Great. But nothing so far. This is merely one of your projects that never get anywhere. You promise to deliver, but never do.

Let's make a bet: I'll get a technical article published in SI before you do. Care to play?

Jeff Corey pointed one out to you.

No, Jeff really didn't. He focused on me reading of the wrong line of a table and didn't address the actual issues at hand even after I corrected the numbers.

Based on the wrong assumption that I am talking about all astrologers, when I am clearly not.

Again, it doesn't matter. You infer to a population based on a convenience sample of 7 which is not warranted.

All you need to do is prove him wrong. There is no need to ask him for his credentials.

You've got it backwards. Why would it be up to me to prove him wrong? It is up to him to provide evidence he is correct. Can he provide evidence my degree is from a crackerjack box, or evidence that I copied all of my answers from a webpage? Or evidence he can answer the questions I posed to him. Nope.

You are weaseling away from your false assumption that I was talking about all astrologers. I wasn't.

Say you were talking about astrologers who just use charts; my point still stands regardless of what group you were trying to infer to. you aren't scientifically justified in making an inference to a population based on a convenience sample of 7.

 

[CFLarsen]

Peer review applies to more than just science articles Claus.

That's nice. Do you have any suggestions or not?

It implies critical thinking, which is part of skepticism, and actually getting something in a real publication. Tell Gardner that mathematical thinking is irrelevant to skepticism..

So, you getting a mathematical article published suddenly nullifies everything I ever did? Is that the gist of your argument?

Let's make a bet: I'll get a technical article published in SI before you do. Care to play?

If you were a skeptic, you would know not to gamble. This isn't a competition, T'ai. I am not competing with you, I am asking about your skeptical endeavors.

No, Jeff really didn't. He focused on me reading of the wrong line of a table and didn't address the actual issues at hand even after I corrected the numbers.

Deny reality all you like.

Again, it doesn't matter. You infer to a population based on a convenience sample of 7 which is not warranted.

No, no, no: You claimed that I referred to all astrologers. I provided evidence that I did not.

You've got it backwards. Why would it be up to me to prove him wrong? It is up to him to provide evidence he is correct. Can he provide evidence my degree is from a crackerjack box, or evidence that I copied all of my answers from a webpage? Or evidence he can answer the questions I posed to him. Nope.

It would be devastating to Bill Hoyt if you could prove him wrong. It should be simple for you, yet you choose to make a personal attack instead. Go figure.

Say you were talking about astrologers who just use charts; my point still stands regardless of what group you were trying to infer to. you aren't scientifically justified in making an inference to a population based on a convenience sample of 7.

Is this your way of admitting that you were wrong? You admit that I was not talking about all astrologers?

Just yes or no.

 

[T'ai Chi]

So, you getting a mathematical article published suddenly nullifies everything I ever did? Is that the gist of your argument?

No, but then I never said it did. It does, however, demonstrate critical thinking skills on my part, at least in mathematics, and ability to pass stages of review in a real publication.

As my webpage shows, anyone can put up a webpage, and then miraculously put their own articles and content on it.

If you were a skeptic, you would know not to gamble.

"If" I was... right. More veiled insults from Claus.

Skeptics don't gamble? That is probably not true. I'm sure some of the skeptics at the recent TAM did in fact gamble, wouldn't you agree?

I'd hope a skeptic wouldn't gamble for investment purposes. I think a skeptic would realize that his/her expected "winnings" are negative, and that they are gambling for enjoyment.

Afterall, a lot of probability theory, which is the tool used in science to numerically assess, originated from messing around with gambling.

Deny reality all you like.

Please just show me were Jeff actually pointed out a real, relevant issue in that thread or anywhere else, that demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic statistics. Not me reading the wrong line of a table, but an actual real misunderstanding of the issues at hand. I won't stand for your wordplay and evasion.

No, no, no: You claimed that I referred to all astrologers. I provided evidence that I did not.

Yes yes yes. You refered to a larger population. You cannot make an inference to the larger population (any larger population) based on a convenience sample of 7.

You analyzed some very speficailly chosen data, then concluded by talking about "your astrologer" and "astrologers", ie. a larger population of astrologers than the 7 your analysis came from.

It would be devastating to Bill Hoyt if you could prove him wrong.

You have the burden backwards still. It is not up to me to prove him wrong, but for him to provide evidence he is correct. Where is his evidence my degree is from a cracker jack box, and where is his evidence that I copied my answers from a webpage? But this is moot as Bill refuses to answer, or even communicate for that matter.

You admit that I was not talking about all astrologers?

You made an inference to a larger population, as I've said, it doesn't matter exactly what that population is; it still wasn't scientifically warranted.

If you had randomly sampled, then, your inference to a larger population would have been justified.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, but then I never said it did. It does, however, demonstrate critical thinking skills on my part, at least in mathematics, and ability to pass stages of review in a real publication.

As my webpage shows, anyone can put up a webpage, and then miraculously put their own articles and content on it.

Yeah. And as my web site shows, it take a lot more to get other people to put their articles on it. How many people have you persuaded to put their articles on your web site, T'ai?

None.

"If" I was... right. More veiled insults from Claus.

Not at all. You are not a skeptic, by anyone's standard.

Skeptics don't gamble? That is probably not true. I'm sure some of the skeptics at the recent TAM did in fact gamble, wouldn't you agree?

I'd hope a skeptic wouldn't gamble for investment purposes. I think a skeptic would realize that his/her expected "winnings" are negative, and that they are gambling for enjoyment.

Sure, some may have gambled. Did they think they would win? No. You want to bet, because you think you will win. Skeptics might bet, but they do it for entertainment. That's why you are not a skeptic.

Please just show me were Jeff actually pointed out a real, relevant issue in that thread or anywhere else, that demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic statistics. Not me reading the wrong line of a table, but an actual real misunderstanding of the issues at hand. I won't stand for your wordplay and evasion.

No evasion or wordplay. Jeff showed that you are wrong. End of story.

Yes yes yes. You refered to a larger population. You cannot make an inference to the larger population (any larger population) based on a convenience sample of 7.

You analyzed some very speficailly chosen data, then concluded by talking about "your astrologer" and "astrologers", ie. a larger population of astrologers than the 7 your analysis came from.

You are fighting a losing battle here. I specifically referred to those astrologers who use these charts. Deny this all you like - you are the fool for doing so.

You have the burden backwards still. It is not up to me to prove him wrong, but for him to provide evidence he is correct. Where is his evidence my degree is from a cracker jack box, and where is his evidence that I copied my answers from a webpage? But this is moot as Bill refuses to answer, or even communicate for that matter.

All you have to do is flick your wrist, and prove him wrong. Shame him, T'ai, exactly like you have been shamed before. Golly, people would think you would have picked up on how it's done by now.

You made an inference to a larger population, as I've said, it doesn't matter exactly what that population is; it still wasn't scientifically warranted.

If you had randomly sampled, then, your inference to a larger population would have been justified.

Still trying to evade your claim, eh? Did I speak about astrologers in general, or was I speaking about those astrologers who use these charts?

 

[delphi_ote]

Evidence of anomalous structure in what should be random data ... which correspond to certain events.

Only if you loosely define "evidence," "anomalous structure," and "random."

Evidence should be concrete and repeatable, this is not.

Anomalous structure would be a structure that we don't expect or is outside the norm. We expect ANY strucutre in a truly random sequence. Given an infinite number of mathematical structures, at any moment any string of data will conform to one of them. It's only a matter of finding the "right" mathematical strucutre.

But none of these numbers are "random," they are the cumulative result of an infinite amount of complex physical and mathematical phenomina. There is some kind of quantified measurement that is producing these numbers. In other words, patterns may be evolving in their data from some unmeasured effect. If they're finding perterbations of some kind, it might just be their two neighbors used their microwave ovens 1.5 meters away from their computer during a solar flare while their monitor was 80% the color blue, etc. etc. etc. It might be that a transistor in their computers is located close to the processor fan.

Data intentionally decoupled from reality-> infinite analysis tools -> whatever you want

There is no way to completely control this experiment BY DESIGN!