You guys considered my
medical perceptions claim falsified before it even begun. I prefer to collect data around a claim before carefully concluding on it.
But when you do collect data, you completely ignore it and never conclude anything.
Everyone else concludes from the data you gather that there is no ability as claimed. That is the conclusion that can be drawn.
But you simply decide to add more variables and parameters to ensure you never reach any conclusion.
This is not scientific. It is basically the exact opposite of scientific.
Skepticism should not be about disbelief, it should be about curiosity, openness to find out and willingness to test and consider.
It's also about forming conclusions based on what the evidence indicates.
Your idea of skepticism appears to involve clinging to your beliefs in direct opposition to what the evidence actually indicates.
This is not skepticism. It is basically the exact opposite of skepticism.
My interpretation of the results of my test on medical perceptions leads me to have another test.
You failed. An actual scientist would have accepted the results and considered the claim to be without merit.
But you however will
always choose to interpret
any set of results as requiring of 'further study'. No matter how much they indicate nothing of the sort.
From my background in chemistry I know that a subject under study is rarely concluded on in an afternoon or based on only one set of tests.
*sigh* Another transparent way to continue running failed tests for ever.
When a claim is clear and well stated why on earth could this not happen?
So how many failed series of tests are you intending to run?
When a Chemist claims he can make water boil at room temperature simply by adding a spoonful of salt to a beaker of water, how many trials would you expect him to run before declaring that this was not actually the case?
Any of you who have actually worked with research know that research is a tedious and iterative process. You go back and adjust the test procedure to approach a result that is reliable. If you suspect that your proposed hypothesis may manifest itself under a different temperature, you go back and test that assertion rather than sit and think that maybe temperature does have an effect and maybe it does not. Skeptical research, similarly, is more than a thought process. Research is hard, physical labor based on experimental evidence.
It does not have to be. It depends on the scope of what is being studied.
When someone claims they can, at will, look into a person's body to an atomic level and identify the molecules and atoms, offering them crushed pills to identify would be a fairly conclusive test.
Anyway all this is irrelevant - what
you (as the *cough* 'researcher') are actually kind of supposed to do is
state, at the start, what your statistical rate would be for failure.
Those of us
actually familiar with research understand that you don't just randomly keep testing something, mucking about with parameters, without structure or any form of conclusion or end to the series of experiments.
But the one thing
none of your tests/studies/experiments ever have is a clear stated falsification scenario.
For all your pretense to be investigating this scientifically, you refuse point blank to ever have any set of results which you would accept as demonstrating conclusively that you have no special abilities.
You have never provided such a set of parameters and you never will. Because you have absolutely no intention to ever stop running these pointless tests. You'll keep tweaking parameters and 'learning new things' about the ability and changing the claim being study...
But we know that you simply never want the testing to end.
And if I have reason to think that the set of subjects in trial 1 is what led me to not make an answer I was confident in and exhaustion in trial 3, then it is best to invest in another test in which these concerns have been corrected for. Falsification can only become more apparent, not less, if that is the conclusion it leads to.
Not if you never actually add a falsification scenario.
You have failed to perform above chance. In multiple different tests.
It's hard to know how much worse you can realistically do without starting to have an amazing anti-ability.
As for the migraine treatment claim, I will investigate it until a reliable volunteer in that study states that the method was not helpful in their migraines.
Nice little addition of the word 'reliable' there. So presumably you will be allowing people who are
not reliable into your study, but then just ignoring them if they tell you you are having no effect.
Another 'out' pre built into the test. As usual.
Data and research, not assumptions, should be the basis for concluding on claims, even claims of the paranormal or claims that seem absurd.
This is actually what
we keep telling
you.
The data and research backs up
our opinions on your claim.
The assumptions are all coming from
your side of the claim. You assume you have some ability so testing must continue until some statistical anomaly is dscovered. Even if that takes forever.
Some woos might conclude without research and data that healing is possible and some skeptics might conclude without research and data that healing is not possible. I am somewhere in the middle and open for either answer but willing to only conclude based on data.
But for some reason not any of the data you have produced so far.
That's apparently the
wrong sort of data - the sort that concludes you have no ability.
Woos choose what to believe. Skeptics who choose what to disbelieve are nothing but woos hiding under the good name of Skeptics to give their personal opinions some value. A true Skeptic is not allowed to choose what to believe but does their best to find the truth regardless of their preconceived ideas, prejudices, or personal preferences.
Which is why no-one here thinks of you as a skeptic.
You have no right to say that there is no way that what I do could have any effect on a person's migraines or to try to discourage me from finding out. Stop acting like woos and encourage research in the paranormal.
We're all for research into the paranormal.
But not meaningless random 'research' that is poorly conducted, has no structure and refuses to entertain the possibility of failure.
That's not real research, just delusion and attention seeking behaviour.
So, care to actually clearly state a falsification scenario?
Are you able to detail a test and a set of results from which you would be happy to conclude you have no special ability and no further testing is required?
