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.
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.
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.
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.
I could choose, but I want you to. I don’t know which study to choose based on any criterion. You posted the overview, so hopefully you may know which study is the most famous, which study is considered the most legitimate, ect. If you don’t, just say, and i’ll choose one randomly. Just don’t complain that I chose the worst one when I do.
My choice is for you to study them all individually, and then as a whole with regards to the conclusions from the meta-view.
If you don’t want to do that, then look at them all quickly and choose the weakest one carried out by a researcher from a discipline you find to be the least scientific.
I also kind of need you to align yourself with one the studies, otherwise it will be like last time. Where you just go from study to study quoting it’s conclusion, and I’m the only one that reads them all and tries to understand them. It was far too one-sided. You get one study this time.
Have you not figured this out yet, Wobbly? If you disagree with him it’s because you either haven’t read what he posted, haven’t read it carefully enough, or you’re just an idiot. Duh.
Yeah, that’s just smoke an mirrors though, a behavior he has acquired recently. Let us hope for his sake that I don’t decide it’s not worth the effort to pry some authenticity out of him.