the existence of god is a scientific fact

[Subduction Zone]

Whether or not telepathy should be researched is not a question to be asked of a scientist expert in telepathy. It's a question to be asked of respected scientists who aren't experts in telepathy. Einstein qualified.

Please, your quote was out of context and you appealed to Einstein as an authority incorrectly. Admit your failure and move on.

In the future, I'll not reply to any post of yours that includes insulting comments like these.

There was no insult there. Only the most insecure take rational advice as insult.

 

[charlie sc]

The people who conduct the experiments are scientists, the statisticians are qualified, they go through the very same review process.

I hope they do a better job than the mainstream journals since a long-term meta-analysis of 100 studies found that 64% of Psychology studies failed to replicate.
Scientists Tried to Replicate 100 Psychology Experiments And 64% Failed

Jeez, I must have messed up my post. Anyway, I was curious why you mentioned this study?

 

[ecco]

...

Your juvenile attempts to ridicule my argument by repeating the same rude nonsense is a sure sign that your well-mannered attempts have failed and you know it.

I don't need to ridicule your arguments. You do a really good job of doing that yourself.

You keep posting about how you know ESP is real because you and your daughter once did it. Yet you never tried to repeat your amazing success. I think anyone who had done so well would have been anxious to try to replicate it. Not you. It puts into question whether anything really happened at all or if it was just a fun story you told your six-year-old daughter. A story that you came to believe.

 

[joe1776]

Jeez, I must have messed up my post. Anyway, I was curious why you mentioned this study?

I was responding to a poster who asserted that mainstream science journals could be expected to be of higher quality than the psi journals.

I made the point that, because of the intense scrutiny of psi research, their methods might even be better than the mainstream and one would hope far better than those of psychologists. The study supported their (psychologists) low quality.

 

[charlie sc]

I was responding to a poster who asserted that mainstream science journals could be expected to be of higher quality than the psi journals.

I made the point that, because of the intense scrutiny of psi research, their methods might even be better than the mainstream and one would hope far better than those of psychologists.

Ah ok, cause that study was particularly good for science. It showed how important replications are. The study concluded it's more likely replications will decrease in effect size because of mistakes in replication. So, there's something that went wrong there and there might be biases. So, if a study is released, it should be replicated numerous times before it's taken seriously.
You can see how this relates to psi as well as all of science, in general.

 

[joe1776]

Ah ok, cause that study was particularly good for science. It showed how important replications are. The study concluded it's more likely replications will decrease in effect size because of mistakes in replication. So, there's something that went wrong there and there might be biases. So, if a study is released, it should be replicated numerous times before it's taken seriously.
You can see how this relates to psi as well as all of science, in general.

I agree. But, I'll add that, despite the low quality in research, psychologists have not suffered for lack of funding, and replications cost money that psi researchers are denied.

 

[charlie sc]

despite the low quality in research

I won't deny psychology gets more funding but I don't know how you claim it's low quality research.

 

[joe1776]

I won't deny psychology gets more funding but I don't know how you claim it's low quality research.

I could give you a lot of reasons but the fact that 64% of the studies published didn't replicate ought to be sufficient on its own to support my claim.

 

[charlie sc]

I could give you a lot of reasons but the fact that 64% of the studies published didn't replicate ought to be sufficient on its own to support my claim.

From what I recall from the study, First, they chose random studies that have not been replicated. They didn't choose theories that have been substantiated with many many replications. Second, they didn't choose the same theory; it was all randomly chosen and singular.

That out the way, I see no good reason for you to say it's low quality research. Science is just as much about fails as it is about successes in significance. Perhaps you should read the original article?

 

[Road Warrior]

I was responding to a poster who asserted that mainstream science journals could be expected to be of higher quality than the psi journals.

I made the point that, because of the intense scrutiny of psi research, their methods might even be better than the mainstream and one would hope far better than those of psychologists. The study supported their (psychologists) low quality.

IMO, the quality and scrutiny are the same. I studied Psychology in the late 70s, primarily Behavioral, but also dabbled in what was called “Fourth Force” then: paranormal. The only thing legitimate to come out of Fourth Force psychology is biofeedback. The telepathy, telekinesis and other PSI stuff has never been shown to exist. Can’t prove a negative, but there is ZERO evidence of such things. During the Cold War, both the US and USSR invested heavily in such reason for multiple reasons. If they didn’t find anything, then there is nothing to be found. Makes for good movies though....

 

[joe1776]

From what I recall from the study, First, they chose random studies that have not been replicated. They didn't choose theories that have been substantiated with many many replications. Second, they didn't choose the same theory; it was all randomly chosen and singular.

That out the way, I see no good reason for you to say it's low quality research. Science is just as much about fails as it is about successes in significance. Perhaps you should read the original article?

I read the original article months ago. It only confirmed what the Stanford professor who pioneered the field of meta-research, had said before in his 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
John Ioannidis - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was responding to a poster who asserted that mainstream science journals could be expected to be of higher quality than the psi journals.

I made the point that, because of the intense scrutiny of psi research, their methods might even be better than the mainstream and one would hope far better than those of psychologists. The study supported their (psychologists) low quality.

And your "scrutiny" claim is one that you have not been able to support at all. If you seriously want to convince the "open minded" you need to learn how to support your claims. As it is only the gullible will believe you.

 

[joe1776]

IMO, the quality and scrutiny are the same. I studied Psychology in the late 70s, primarily Behavioral, but also dabbled in what was called “Fourth Force” then: paranormal. The only thing legitimate to come out of Fourth Force psychology is biofeedback. The telepathy, telekinesis and other PSI stuff has never been shown to exist. Can’t prove a negative, but there is ZERO evidence of such things. During the Cold War, both the US and USSR invested heavily in such reason for multiple reasons. If they didn’t find anything, then there is nothing to be found. Makes for good movies though....

You are coming in late and making the same claims I've argued against previously in this thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read the original article months ago. It only confirmed what the Stanford professor who pioneered the field of meta-research, had said years before in his 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
John Ioannidis - Wikipedia

And this is a Tu Quoque fallacy on your part. You are trying to say that because real science is wrong some of the time that a source that appears to be wrong all of the time is valid. It does not work that way. You need to show that your sources have merit on their own, if you can't they are wallpaper at best.

 

[Road Warrior]

You are coming in late and making the same claims I've argued against previously in this thread.

Does that please you or distress you?

 

[charlie sc]

I read the original article months ago. It only confirmed what the Stanford professor who pioneered the field of meta-research, had said before in his 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
John Ioannidis - Wikipedia

I haven't gone into the replication crisis in detail, but let's assume it's true. I see nothing wrong with this or with science. Part of the scientific method is replication. If it cannot be replicated, it cannot be taken seriously. The better the effect size in the replications and the original study, the better overall. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False The guy you linked said that the power of the study and in the replication is how to combat this. So, if you have an issue with this, I cannot see how you don't have an issue with psi research. As their power, or effect size, has been continuously diminishing.

 

[joe1776]

Does that please you or distress you?

Neither. It's not that uncommon.

 

[joe1776]

I haven't gone into the replication crisis in detail, but let's assume it's true. I see nothing wrong with this or with science. Part of the scientific method is replication. If it cannot be replicated, it cannot be taken seriously.

I think it's a problem when PUBLISHED research doesn't replicate. The scientists involved seem to think it's a problem. But, you're welcome to your opinion that it's not a problem..

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False The guy you linked said that the power of the study and in the replication is how to combat this. So, if you have an issue with this, I cannot see how you don't have an issue with psi research. As their power, or effect size, has been continuously reducing.

If telepathy doesn't exist, its effect size is zero. If it exists, the effect size is X and there is no reason that X would diminish. And the same is true for all kinds of psi. So, it's more likely that your perception is somehow flawed.

 

[charlie sc]

I think it's a problem when PUBLISHED research doesn't replicate. The scientists involved seem to think it's a problem. But, you're welcome to your opinion that it's not a problem..

Yes, it's a problem in the sense that the scientific method can be improved. However, this happening, as your suggest, is not a problem. This is how we improve science. The authors of the 100 replication study said -

"The present results suggest that there is room to improve reproducibility in psychology. Any temptation to interpret these results as a defeat for psychology, or science more generally, must contend with the fact that this project demonstrates science behaving as it should." Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

If telepathy doesn't exist, its effect size is zero. If it exists, the effect size is X and there is no reason that X would diminish. And the same is true for all kinds of psi. So, it's more likely that your perception is somehow flawed.

There's a few things wrong with this quote, but I'll just focus on the bold.

Science doesn't say things don't exist. Science offers an alternate hypothesis than the null hypothesis(which means there is no difference or they're the same). Right now, psi has serious problems with reproducibility, low effect sizes and non-significance. Any other field in psychology would have given up long ago. However, parapsychologists are stubborn. If anything, they've been given quite a bit of leeway than most theories out there.

 

[joe1776]

Yes, it's a problem in the sense that the scientific method can be improved. However, this happening, as your suggest, is not a problem. This is how we improve science. The authors of the 100 replication study said -

"The present results suggest that there is room to improve reproducibility in psychology. Any temptation to interpret these results as a defeat for psychology, or science more generally, must contend with the fact that this project demonstrates science behaving as it should." Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

If our topic was politics, what you and the author of the paragraph are doing would be labeled "spinning" the truth. You made a major problem insignificant by sticking another label on it: "just part of our esteemed process, folks."

Science doesn't say things don't exist.

Your opinion on what science says does not defeat logic. If telepathy doesn't exist, the effect size is logically zero.

Right now, psi has serious problems with reproducibility, low effect sizes and non-significance. Any other field in psychology would have given up long ago. However, parapsychologists are stubborn. If anything, they've been given quite a bit of leeway than most theories out there

I can't debate your opinion on the topic except to say I disagree.