Fucking bizarre.
A report of the statistics is not sufficient to study the experiment. I think that was his point, to which I agree.
The details of the actual experiment need to be seen in detail (the devil is always in the detail).
Fucking bizarre.
A report of the statistics is not sufficient to study the experiment. I think that was his point, to which I agree.
The details of the actual experiment need to be seen in detail (the devil is always in the detail).
Are you saying they don’t go over the methodology in study I posted?
That they only mentioned the statistical outcomes?
Is that what you’re saying? If so, it’s wrong.
Dude, it is an overview, do you know what that means…It is a description of various studies, and does not talk about the specifics of data collection.
Put your power-ego-boner away and choose one.
So…? They still lay out, in detail, the methodology. If you want all the specifics go look at the individual studies. She includes the summaries from them anyways.
If you want to say, ‘She is a statistician, and because I haven’t read all the details, it immediately invalidates everything presented’ that is a ridiculous statement. As far as I can tell, that is what you’re saying.
Why? It’s better to use the data collected from more than one study, as opposed to just one.
Absolutely, I am brushing it off and asking you to choose a study that I can focus on and investigate…
My god you are dense.
Uh-huh, but the data must be vetted in it’s manner of collection, you learned that in the trash study you originally posted.
You’re asking me to do more work than the work I’m already doing in this thread. I don’t need, or want to do that.
If you don’t want to look at the evidence I will just assume you don’t want to because it’s not the type of evidence you want to see.
Yeah, choosing a study from an already available list that I would then spend time analyzing is a lot of work on your part.
Can we cut out the ad hom and get to the actual details in question?
I really don’t care if Gobbo is an egotist or an altruist.
I don’t care what credentials anyone has who might be doing the experiment.
I agree that the exact details must be carefully scrutinized to verify the experiment.
I personally don’t care much which details were overlooked, if any, but anyone trying to prove anything must eliminate all possible alternatives else nothing has been proven at all.
Obviously a lot of effort was made to ensure sensory deprivation, which is an issue in itself, but as I said before, if you can show positive results that are valid, you have shown something. If they got negative results, nothing has been demonstrated except that by using sensory deprivation, such ESP effects are usually canceled.
Frankly, I would find it awkward to try to sense anything under such annoying and noisy conditions, but if they can show that someone has higher than 5% significance in detecting particular affects at a hidden or distant scene then they have an interesting story to tell.
So the real question is only whether there was some detail overlooked?
But it is a bit like looking at a magic show and trying to deduce how he did it. The ability to do such magic, regardless of how, is still of interest even to Science.
Just waiting for Gobbo to choose. It just requires a bit of work and hoops to jump through to pry it out of him, for whatever reason.
Did you see some detail overlooked?
Did you see the opening for the trick; the card up his sleeve?
I have no idea, the overview does not offer nearly enough detail to know. It’s all clear on P-values, statistical principles, possible problems, types of evidence, the history of the literature, the stated results, and brief overviews of each studies methodology. But as we know, untill the data collection is reviewed, that doesn’t mean anything.
Yeah, choosing a study from an already available list that I would then spend time analyzing is a lot of work on your part.
Actually it does. You could have just picked one, or all, but instead you want to waste time.
Seeing as how no one wants to focus on the data, we’ll move onto another study.
Seeing as how no one wants to focus on the data, we’ll move onto another study.
LOL
Study of the sense of being stared at
Source: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING Professor Jessica Utts, Division of Statistics, University of California, Davis. (anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html)
Show Credentials
In fall 1995, Professor Ray Hyman (University of Oregon) and Dr. Utts prepared a report assessing the statistical evidence for psychic functioning in U.S. government sponsored research as part of a review done by the American Institutes of Research (AIR) at the request of Congress and the CIA. The study that follows is taken from that report. Results of studies in the Former Soviet Union (FSU), the United States and Scotland demonstrated that people do have a sense of being stared at. In other words, without contact with the other person, someone is aware when that person's consciousness is trained on them. To replicate the results, SAIC performed two studies of its own. The result was that they found that people displayed the same subconscious reaction of knowing when they are being stared at. Dr. Utts reviewed the two studies to determine whether they were valid studies.
Abstract:
Purpose: It is often reported anecdotally that people know when they are being watched. Two experiments were conducted at SAIC to determine whether or not these anecdotes could be supported by a change in physiology when someone is being observed from a distance. The experimental design was essentially the same for the two experiments. This work was a conceptual replication of results reported by researchers in the Former Soviet Union (FSU), the United States and Scotland. The experiments in the FSU were interpreted to mean that the physiology of the recipient was being manipulated by the sender, an effect that if real could have frightening consequences.
Method: The “observee” was seated in a room with a video camera focused on him or her, and with galvanic skin response measurements being recorded. In a distant room the “observer” attempted to influence the physiology of the observee at randomly spaced time intervals. During those time intervals, an image of the observee appeared on a computer monitor watched by the observer. During “control” periods, the video camera remained focused on the observee but the computer monitor did not display his or her image to the observer. There were 16 “influence” periods randomly interspersed with 16 “control” periods, each of 30 seconds, with blank periods of 0 to 5 seconds inserted to rule out patterns in physiology.
Results: To determine whether or not the galvanic skin response of the observees was activated while they were being watched, the response during the control periods was compared with the response during the “influence” periods for each subject. The results were then averaged across subjects. In both experiments, there was greater activity during the periods of being watched than there was during the control periods. The results were statistically significant in each case (p = .036 and .014) and the effect sizes were similar, at 0.39 and 0.49. As preplanned, the results were combined, yielding an effect size of .39 (p = .005). As an interesting post hoc observation, it was noted that the effect was substantially stronger when the observer and observee were of opposite sexes than when they were of the same sex.
Homework: pick a study and see if you can find something wrong with the methodology.
Na, I’m still trying to figure out why someone would read or post studies if the data doesn’t matter.
(btw the dude (Hyman) working with the statistician in these is a Psychologist)
Na, I’m still trying to figure out why someone would read or post studies if the data doesn’t matter.
No, you’re avoiding looking at data because it’s supporting a thesis you would rather not be correct.
A cursory glance at the new link showed that it is a synopsis of of the literature written by a statistician. It is unsatisfactory in this thread. We need the actual studies with clear descriptions of the methodology and manor of experimenting. Choose one from the meta-article to focus on.
Statisticians cannot preform scientific inquiry…
Now I know I have you on the ropes.
I’m starting to think your guys’ form of argumentation here is ‘Well I didn’t read that part.’
Are you saying they don’t go over the methodology in study I posted?
That they only mentioned the statistical outcomes?
Is that what you’re saying? If so, it’s wrong.
If you want to say, ‘She is a statistician, and because I haven’t read all the details, it immediately invalidates everything presented’ that is a ridiculous statement. As far as I can tell, that is what you’re saying.
If you don’t want to look at the evidence I will just assume you don’t want to because it’s not the type of evidence you want to see.
LOL
Still waiting for a study of your choosing.
You can choose a study to analyze, or you can keep making excuses as to why you refuse to look at any information.
I’ve brought all this information together. It’s not my job to say ‘here, read this specifically, then that,’ and all this stuff. If you don’t want to make any effort here than it’s pretty obvious what your intentions are.