Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Well that is interesting....please provide the formal evidence and procedural process that led to Professor Utts of UC being discredited? I will check it out....thanks in advance......
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The contributions of the sciences to Religion
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Shad
Veteran Member
Well that is interesting....please provide the formal evidence and procedural process that led to Professor Utts of UC being discredited? I will check it out....thanks in advance......
http://drsmorey.org/bibtex/upload/Hyman:2010.pdf
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Haha.....you have a gall to say Professor Utts has been discredited....the article is merely a published comment on a paper by other researchers in the American Psychological Bulletin...and in it the author merely makes this passing remark.... " They do not actually go so far as their colleagues Utts and Radin, who use meta-analysis to justify their claim that the ganzfeld experiment, along with other parapsychological experiments, is replicable. Utts (1995) has written, “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established” (p.289). Radin (1997) has put the claim more forcefully: “We are forced to conclude that when psi research is judged by the same standards as any other scientific discipline, then the results are as consistent as those observed in the hardest of the hard sciences!"
You should be ashamed of yourself.....
Shad
Veteran Member
Haha.....you have a gall to say Professor Utts has been discredited....the article is merely a published comment on a paper by other researchers in the American Psychological Bulletin...and in it the author merely makes this passing remark.... " They do not actually go so far as their colleagues Utts and Radin, who use meta-analysis to justify their claim that the ganzfeld experiment, along with other parapsychological experiments, is replicable. Utts (1995) has written, “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established” (p.289). Radin (1997) has put the claim more forcefully: “We are forced to conclude that when psi research is judged by the same standards as any other scientific discipline, then the results are as consistent as those observed in the hardest of the hard sciences!"
You should be ashamed of yourself.....
Read her review of Stargate. That is why she has been discredited. Her review mentioned above, by you, is merely her bias in written form. Radin's experiments were never repeated by external researchers. Meta-analysis is flawed which my reference goes into detail about. Meta-analysis attempts to change statistics based on large databases which "scores" hits but each study failed independently which is part of said database to score hits. Never mind that those doing the meta-analysis are ignoring the misses in each study.
Again read my reference.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
You have not shown anything of substance that resembles a discrediting or a refutation of her paper.. Here is Professor Utts' bio...http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/ ...she is head of Department of Statistics at UC and has been elected as President of the American Statistical Association for 2016.....and you say she has been discredited for this paper....http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Utts1996.pdf
Show me the evidence of the refutation of this paper and the details of her discrediting if it exists... Btw, where do I find this Stargate review?
Shad
Veteran Member
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Utts1996.pdf
She is head of a department not part of parapsychology. Her work in one field has zero merit in the topic at hand. Her parapsychology paper was discredited.
Actually I have. Read my citation.
You can read a part of the review here
http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/airreport.pdf
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Haha..of course the Department of Statistics is not Parapsychology...nor is it Astronomy or Climate Science....but statistics plays a part in all these fields of research.. You have not shown to date that Dr Utts work has been discredited...
Shad
Veteran Member
Yes I have, I provided references showing as such. No my problem you do not read what I supply.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I read it...and Dr Utts was not discredited...nor was her paper refuted. You made the claim so you need to prove it.....please quote the words from the document whereby you claim Dr Utts or her paper was discredited?
Shad
Veteran Member
The meta analysis, which Utts used was refuted. Read the report again
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
I did and there is no discrediting of Utts..... You are the one making the claim, it is you who has to provide the evidence that she was discredited...not just ask me to read stuff that where I can't find any evidence of her being discredited...
Shad
Veteran Member
The citation discredits meta-analysis thus Utts view using said analysis. Page 489
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Where is the link to the citation?
Shad
Veteran Member
Post #406
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Of course I had checked that pdf file you linked to in your post #406.....but you said Page 489......there is no Page 489....what gives?
Shad
Veteran Member
Sorry I referenced the wrong paper. The paper below addresses meta-analysis thus Utt's conclusions. Utts is specifically mentioned on the page I mentioned.
http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/airreport.pdf
Last edited:
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
That is the same pdf file .....there is no Page 489.....are you playing some game with me? If not you need a mental health check up...no offense but is there something distracting on your mind?
Shad
Veteran Member
Sorry again. I thought I had copied the link properly but must of copied another link or just didn't copy it as I thought I did.
No game, just a series of mistakes.
http://drsmorey.org/bibtex/upload/Hyman:2010.pdf
I made sure to check the link properly this time
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Sorry to break it to you Shad....there is no discrediting of Professor Utts on that page....Professor Hyman was chosen to be on the panel due to his skepticism while Professor Utts was chosen because of her positive position....naturally the sponsors of the research wanted balance... So what precisely on that pages do you claim is a formal discrediting of Professor Utts?
Research Evaluation http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/airreport.pdf
To evaluate the research program, a "blue ribbon" panel was assembled. The panel included two noted experts in the area of parapsychology: Dr . Jessica Utts, a Professor of Statistics at the University of California/Davis, and Dr. Raymond Hyman,a Professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon. In addition to their extensive credentials, they were selected to represent both sides of the paranormal controversy: Dr. Utts has published articles that view paranormal interpretations positively, while Dr. Hyman was selected to represent a more skeptical position. Both, however, are viewed as fair and open-minded scientists.
Shad
Veteran Member
Wrong as the paper is about meta-analysis itself thus also about Utt's meta-analysis as well.
Research Evaluation http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/airreport.pdf
Irrelevant as that is not the paper I am talking about. You should also read the conclusion which even questions the few results produced are even demonstration of "ESP" (general term usage) in which Utts view is discredited, as in false, rather than discredited as in reputation.