'Skeptic' vs. 'Skeptic'

[CFLarsen]

C'mon, Claus, JZS is claiming the negative here.

Did he provide conclusive, complete evidence for his claim to negative exclusion, or is it just another extraordinary claim?

I know. I am just trying to hold Justin to his claim.

........OK, I'm stupid.

 

[drkitten]

I am very confused by what is meant by "weak" and "erratic" effects. The weak and erratic effects I encounter in my work are the result of statistical noise, and of no consequence. They are never considered significant, and positing them as such gets one's hypothesis and paper rejected. It also gets one critiqued by undergrads in seminars learning how to read and understand scientific literature. An effect is either statistically significant, or it isn't. Five hundred papers with statistically insignificant ("weak") results are worth nothing compared to a single paper with a statistically significant result. And altering your p-value threshold or massaging your data to achieve significance is equally worthless.

I submit either that your work as a geologist is atypical of science as a whole, or more likely that you aren't accurately describing what you do. The whole point of the statistical analysis -- the p values you describe -- are to mine "strong" effects from the actual "weak" and "erratic" effects that are actually observed.

A classic example of such an experiment would be Lord Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus, by firing alpha particles at a sheet of gold foil. As every schoolchild knows (meaning "Il'm not bothering to track down the original reference") most of the particles passed through unmolested, while "a few" were deflected, sometimes substantially. The chance of any given particle being deflected was low -- the deflection effect was "weak." Furthermore, there was no way of predicting which particles would be deflected -- the effect was also "erratic." But by gathering enough data, he showed that this effect was not simply experimental error or noise.

On a more mundane level, casinos make their money off of the long-term cumulative effect of a number of weak biases in the games that they play. In European roulette, for example, the casino keeps "on average" 1/37 of the money from each play, and of course never keeps exactly that much. The amount that is kept is "erratic" -- the house more or less keeps everything, but only when the number zero comes up.

Many of the psi apologists argue for the same effect. I might, for example, be able to predict the flip of a "fair" coin with 51% accuracy. This is a very weak effect, but in the long run would be enough to let me win substantial sums.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Re: evidence,yes, I do understand. But as I posted to Aussie T., -- sigh. Well, I'm not a skeptic, or, rather, don't have that innate 'skeptic gene" so I'm coming from a different place. . .

How terribly convenient to be coming from a mystical land where no evidence is required for belief.

 

[CFLarsen]

Many of the psi apologists argue for the same effect. I might, for example, be able to predict the flip of a "fair" coin with 51% accuracy. This is a very weak effect, but in the long run would be enough to let me win substantial sums.

So, why don't we see this happening? Even with very weak effects, psychics should be able to beat the odds. But they don't.

Could it be - and I am venturing a guess, based on the harsh realities - that these psychics simply don't have these powers?

We are down to (claimed) minuscule paranormal effects here, people. We have gone from "Grand Proclamations of Fantastic Results" to an increasingly weaker "effect". Today, it is indistinguishable from chance, because past experiments have shown that, unless you loosen the controls, you will not get any results at all.

With time, proponents of paranormal phenomena look more and more silly. And desperate.

 

[turtle]

How terribly convenient to be coming from a mystical land where no evidence is required for belief.

I said nothing of the kind. Did you read my post to Aussie? I suggest you do so, then you may comment.

I said nothing along the lines of "no evidence is required" -- My evidence and yours are two different things. My evidence is what I've personally experienced, along with years of study and the like wise experience of others.

Yes, yes, I understand you don't consider that valid, that's not what this is about. I am merely answering your comment -- and assumption.

I suggest you get off that high horse of yours that presumes I live in some la la land where only idiots roam the rainbow colored hills. Thank you.

I did say that I don't have that innate "skeptic gene" (and before any of you more literal nit picky types get hot under the collar, no, I don't mean it literally) and my approach to such things -- and my responses to them -- are different. For the most part. I am skeptical of many things, paranormal, political, and more. I am skeptical when it comes to the 'theory' of vats of human body parts being stirred by Reptilian Overlords in underground cities. Or that, as I said to Aussie, when someone sees the BVM or Jesus it's not really the BVM or Jesus they are seeing. (though it could be, I suppose. We don't know for certain now, do we?) But I don't believe in those things, and based on the evidence -- yes, evidence -- (which does not equate proof) I believe it's something else altogether. I don't believe a word Bush says, but that' another forum altogether.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I said nothing of the kind. Did you read my post to Aussie? I suggest you do so, then you may comment.

I neither require nor request your permission to comment. Talk about high horses.

I said nothing along the lines of "no evidence is required" -- My evidence and yours are two different things. My evidence is what I've personally experienced, along with years of study and the like wise experience of others.

Yes, yes, I understand you don't consider that valid, that's not what this is about. I am merely answering your comment -- and assumption.

And why should anyone consider your evidence valid? What makes you so special that you get to operate under different rules?

I suggest you get off that high horse of yours that presumes I live in some la la land where only idiots roam the rainbow colored hills. Thank you.

My, we're sensitive, aren't we? I do not presume you live in a land where only idiots roam. I'm certain there are many morons in those parts, as well.

I did say that I don't have that innate "skeptic gene" (and before any of you more literal nit picky types get hot under the collar, no, I don't mean it literally) and my approach to such things -- and my responses to them -- are different. For the most part. I am skeptical of many things, paranormal, political, and more. I am skeptical when it comes to the 'theory' of vats of human body parts being stirred by Reptilian Overlords in underground cities. Or that, as I said to Aussie, when someone sees the BVM or Jesus it's not really the BVM or Jesus they are seeing. (though it could be, I suppose. We don't know for certain now, do we?) But I don't believe in those things, and based on the evidence -- yes, evidence -- (which does not equate proof) I believe it's something else altogether. I don't believe a word Bush says, but that' another forum altogether.

Got that all out of your system? Good, now thicken up your skin, state your standards for evidence, and tell us why anyone should respect them.

 

[Blondin]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said nothing along the lines of "no evidence is required" -- My evidence and yours are two different things. My evidence is what I've personally experienced, along with years of study and the like wise experience of others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty much sums up your problem - you're a poor judge of what constitutes evidence.

Unintentional bias, fallibility of senses, incorrect interpretation, memory failure... there are dozens of reasons why personal experience is NOT evidence.

 

[drkitten]

So, why don't we see this happening? Even with very weak effects, psychics should be able to beat the odds. But they don't.

Could it be - and I am venturing a guess, based on the harsh realities - that these psychics simply don't have these powers?

Well, that would be my guess as well Scientists as a group are pretty good at spotting weak effects given sufficient time and motivation.

Alternatively, the effects that exist are so weak that they haven't shown up on any of the tests that have been done. Weak to the point of being an operational definition of nonexistent.

Or perhaps scientists haven't been sufficiently motivated. After all, finding clear-cut scientific evidence for psi would only earn the discoverer a Nobel prize, a tenured position at any university in the world, an endless stream of book contracts and lecture fees, and a place in the history books to rival Newton and Freud.

Or perhaps there's the sooper-sekrit conspiracy among scientists to keep this kind of stuff from being widely known. But if that were the case, I'd have to shoot you all because I just mentioned the conspiracy.

 

[jj]

We are down to (claimed) minuscule paranormal effects here, people. We have gone from "Grand Proclamations of Fantastic Results" to an increasingly weaker "effect". Today, it is indistinguishable from chance, because past experiments have shown that, unless you loosen the controls, you will not get any results at all

This is exactly what has happened time after time when dealing with audio enthusiasts(AE) vs. jj (JJ).

---

(AE and JJ do ABX test or something DBT) First, it's something "obvious". Poof, they fail a DBT ABX test for something they said was "glaringly obvious".

(AE) Then, of course, "ABX tests don't work".
(JJ) Ok, after that's churned out and dismissed as the crock it is, we see:

(AE)But I didn't have enough training to detect such small differences!

(JJ)Ok, which was it, small or glaringly obvious?

(AE)Why, why, you close-minded idiot philistine you! You're just part of the ABX mafia coming to try to shut down all advances in the science of audio, why you're a quack trying to push the status quo, you fake (on and on and on), you're trying to monopolize all of the audio discussion on the internet you cheapskate you, you fraud quack moronic idiot criminal ethical relitivist (rule 8) you, bow wow woof woof

------

Then when that's over, they spend the rest of their time sniping at people much like jzs does, trying to take things out of context, misrepresent what others say in an attempt to defame them, and in general be incivil, insulting pains in the butt, pretending to be "skeptics" or "sceptics" (same word, same meaning) about science, but of course with an unwillingness to espouse their own theories or put them up for general examination. The more intellectually honest of them become like Interesting Ian, and pretty much admit that what they have is a faith. Still, like Ian or Hammy-dearest, they hang around to insult others from time to time, I think just for form's sake.

 

[turtle]

I neither require nor request your permission to comment. Talk about high horses.

]If you're going to make comments about living in "mystical lands" then you should have an idea of what you're on about.

And why should anyone consider your evidence valid? What makes you so special that you get to operate under different rules?

LOL, you can consider it any way you like. As shall I.

My, we're sensitive, aren't we? I do not presume you live in a land where only idiots roam. I'm certain there are many morons in those parts, as well.

Your little jabs have not escaped me. When you make comments like "living in a mystical land" and sneering that such is "convenient" for me, I will comment accordingly. I knew I should have modified my comment because of the literal response some would make. I gave you more credit than though. I will not make that mistake again.

Got that all out of your system?

Yes. Did you? I assume you did. Or else you wouldn't have posted.

Good, now thicken up your skin,...

My skin is fine thank you. I will not, however, allow posts that are in error and directed at me to go unanswered

state your standards for evidence, ...

I need not, although, I have already done so. Again, I direct you to read my posts.

and tell us why anyone should respect them.

Oh, let's see, because it's the civil thing to do, because respecting and agreeing are not the same thing, because it's simply the way it is. I've explained myself, I shall not do so again. Unlike some around here, I try not to engage in 'repeat theater." So I suggest you move on, nothing more to see here.

 

[turtle]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said nothing along the lines of "no evidence is required" -- My evidence and yours are two different things. My evidence is what I've personally experienced, along with years of study and the like wise experience of others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty much sums up your problem - you're a poor judge of what constitutes evidence.

Unintentional bias, fallibility of senses, incorrect interpretation, memory failure... there are dozens of reasons why personal experience is NOT evidence.

Okay. Says you, lol. Of course, you're assuming quite a bit here. . .shrug.

 

[voodoochile]

Okay. Says you, lol. Of course, you're assuming quite a bit here. . .shrug.

And yet it's skeptics who are hardheaded...

 

[jj]

Well, that would be my guess as well Scientists as a group are pretty good at spotting weak effects given sufficient time and motivation.

Boy, in particle physics you can say that a few times, indeed.

It's also true in signal detection theory. When you know the limited forms a highly redundant signal can take, you can extract it (of course, slowly and with much calculation) out of remarkably noisy, bad conditions. How do you think they got data from voyager, after all?

Detecting small effects inside of large, noisy ones is a key method of refinement in many parts of science.

Alternatively, the effects that exist are so weak that they haven't shown up on any of the tests that have been done. Weak to the point of being an operational definition of nonexistent.

Although people don't quote both type 1 and type 2 error often enough, it is possible (of course I know you know this!) to state for any given test the actual level of non-random behavior that could have been detected in a test.

For some of the large aggregates, that would set any non-random part very close to exactly random indeed.

Now, this does lead to another problem, that of when people selectively choose what tests to aggregate. It's trivial, by picking a few tests that happen, by sheer probability, to be on one side of random, and by then summing them, to show a "meaningful" result, but that's nothing but an artifact of data selection.

For instance, in a pure binomial, one person responding with 5 of 8 will happen a bit more than 20% of the time. In short, it's meaningless.

But if we SELECT 8 of those from a population of 100 tests, which will have most likely many more than 8 of, and add them together, we see 40/64, which more or less meets a 1 sided 5% criterion. What does it mean? Nothing except that we selected our data.

Or perhaps scientists haven't been sufficiently motivated. After all, finding clear-cut scientific evidence for psi would only earn the discoverer a Nobel prize, a tenured position at any university in the world, an endless stream of book contracts and lecture fees, and a place in the history books to rival Newton and Freud.

As well as lead to enormous advances in understanding of the physical universe, to say the least. But we don't see it, again and again, we see nothing.

Or perhaps there's the sooper-sekrit conspiracy among scientists to keep this kind of stuff from being widely known. But if that were the case, I'd have to shoot you all because I just mentioned the conspiracy.

And if there was, I'd have heard about it by now, too, and you know what? I haven't. Furthermore, I know a lot of people who would bounce with excitement if something showed up, but all they look is busy doing other work, because nothing has shown up, over and over and over again.

 

[jj]

Okay. Says you, lol. Of course, you're assuming quite a bit here. . .shrug.

Blondin is assuming no more than what science shows about personal testamony and human perception.

Do you have any proof that what science shows is wrong? Evidence, please, hard evidence.

 

[turtle]

And yet it's skeptics who are hardheaded...

Did I say skeptics were hardheaded?

Hmm, because some of you cannot understand what I'm posting - for example, I said evidence is not proof, I said I've done years of study on various things, I said I am skeptical of some things -- I'm 'hardheaded?" Qualifier: I know that you did not say literally I was hardheaded, however, it is implied in your statement. Hopefully that will stop any posts about nitpicking over meaning and who said what really....

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

]If you're going to make comments about living in "mystical lands" then you should have an idea of what you're on about.

I've an idea what I'm on about; I've no idea what you're on.

Your little jabs have not escaped me.

Good. Perhaps you're slightly less clueless than you appear.

My skin is fine thank you. I will not, however, allow posts that are in error and directed at me to go unanswered

Demonstrate the error, then. Whining about it helps nothing.

I need not, although, I have already done so. Again, I direct you to read my posts.

I've done so already. I am not quite enough the masochist to subject myself to that again.

Oh, let's see, because it's the civil thing to do,

I've no use for your notions of civility. Your ideas about evidence are demonstrably wrong. I respect difference of opinion out of civility. I do not respect wrong-headedness for any reason.

Unless you can demonstrate that your standards of evidence even approach usefulness, much less validity, I shall continue to disrespect them.

 

[jmercer]

So, why don't we see this happening? Even with very weak effects, psychics should be able to beat the odds. But they don't.

Could it be - and I am venturing a guess, based on the harsh realities - that these psychics simply don't have these powers?

We are down to (claimed) minuscule paranormal effects here, people. We have gone from "Grand Proclamations of Fantastic Results" to an increasingly weaker "effect". Today, it is indistinguishable from chance, because past experiments have shown that, unless you loosen the controls, you will not get any results at all.

With time, proponents of paranormal phenomena look more and more silly. And desperate.

Hmm... well, for the record, I don't believe in psychic powers, weak or otherwise. However, I think I should point out that if there really are weak powers, your comment may not be valid.

We all know that the odds favor the house, which is how they make their money. But - would the casinos even notice someone who broke even as opposed to someone who wins consistently and walks out with a profit? I think they're focused on the "winners" - and probably only the consistent ones, at that.

Someone who "breaks even" is beating the odds on a regular basis, though. If the inconsistency of "weak powers" gave someone only slightly better odds , a casino-going "weak" psychic might only lose a very little... or perhaps break even.

Ergo, no big winners - just someone who's not a loser.

 

[turtle]

Blondin is assuming no more than what science shows about personal testamony and human perception.

Do you have any proof that what science shows is wrong? Evidence, please, hard evidence.

Isn't that proving a negative? I can't show how science is wrong -- that doesn't mean they're right, always. In context of the paranormal. I've seen ghosts -- prove me wrong! You have no way of knowing. I was there, you weren't. I can't prove it, sure, but you cannot disprove I didn't see a ghost. Then of course we can argue about what is "hard" evidence, and from what I've seen around here, no amount is ever satisfactory. Oh well. . .

 

[turtle]

I've an idea what I'm on about; I've no idea what you're on.

Cute. Real funny. You should give Comedy Central a call.

Good. Perhaps you're slightly less clueless than you appear.

Nice.

Demonstrate the error, then. Whining about it helps nothing.

Ah, the old 'whining' standby. That don't work on me dude! As I said, read my posts. Don't "whine" at me about what you find wrong, irksome, annoying, or whatever it is you're finding.

I've done so already. I am not quite enough the masochist to subject myself to that again.

Then why are you "whining" and continuing to blather on to me about it? Move on for crying out loud, and quit "whining" about it.

I've no use for your notions of civility.

LOL, that seems quite obvious.

Your ideas about evidence are demonstrably wrong.

yeah, okay.

I respect difference of opinion out of civility. I do not respect wrong-headedness for any reason.

Ah. How "conveinent" for you.

Unless you can demonstrate that your standards of evidence even approach usefulness, much less validity, I shall continue to disrespect them.

You mean you'll continue to be a rude thug.
I've demonstrated just fine, and it's quite usefull, I have no problem with it.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

You mean you'll continue to be a rude thug.
I've demonstrated just fine, and it's quite usefull, I have no problem with it.

You're really quite fun. [poke]

So, you cannot demonstrate how I was in error, and you can not demonstrate the efficacy of your standards for evidence. This is correct?