the existence of god is a scientific fact

[Road Warrior]

Neither. It's not that uncommon.

Agreed. Especially when the initial poster’s comments seem lost on those to whom it was a addressed. Repeating the same argument in different phrasing from a different poster sometimes helps enlighten a few minds.

 

[charlie sc]

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."

Now you're not being intellectually honest. You want to use this article as evidence that there's a problem with science and/or there's some low quality studies going on in science, but you don't want to listen to what the authors actually say. This makes no sense unless you're using confirmation bias. This is just how science is done. It corrects itself with failure; it's part of science. I don't know what else to tell you.

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

If you want to look at the non-existence of things, you should be looking at philosophy, not science. Philosophy is not concerned with the scientific method. Granted, they may use science as references, but the scientific method is done by the scientists. I have never read in a philosophy paper or a scientific one that effect size, or significance(more appropriate), equates to non-existence. If you have, please let me know.

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

Yes, it's my opinion, but I don't know of any alternate opinions on this matter. Even you agree their funding is low, so we can agree they're not getting the attention they want. We can also agree that parapsychology has been going on for quite some time. What I'm saying, which you may not agree with, is that I don't know of any other theory in psychology that's lasted as long as parapsychology and received continual diminishing returns. Do you? Even a grandiose theory like psychoanalyses is in the realm of pseudoscience, because of its unfalsifiable and unverifiable claims.

 

[Road Warrior]

.... What I'm saying, which you may not agree with, is that I don't know of any other theory in psychology that's lasted as long as parapsychology and received continual diminishing returns. Do you? Even a grandiose theory like psychoanalyses is in the realm of pseudoscience, because of its unfalsifiable and unverifiable claims.

Agreed; there is no evidence of paranormal activity. It’s purely subjective.

 

[joe1776]

Now you're not being intellectually honest. You want to use this article as evidence that there's a problem with science and/or there's some low quality studies going on in science, but you don't want to listen to what the authors actually say.

The author, an expert in his field, actually supported my main claim but you think I am being "intellectually dishonest" if I don't agree on a lesser point he made? I can't even imagine how you came up with that.

If you want to look at the non-existence of things, you should be looking at philosophy, not science. Philosophy is not concerned with the scientific method. Granted, they may use science as references, but the scientific method is done by the scientists. I have never read in a philosophy paper or a scientific one that effect size, or significance(more appropriate), equates to non-existence. If you have, please let me know.

This paragraph is irrelevant because there is no rule in Logic that requires its use to be limited to Science or Philosophy. Logically, if telepathy doesn't exist, the effect size would be zero.

Yes, it's my opinion, but I don't know of any alternate opinions on this matter. Even you agree their funding is low, so we can agree they're not getting the attention they want. We can also agree that parapsychology has been going on for quite some time. What I'm saying, which you may not agree with, is that I don't know of any other theory in psychology that's lasted as long as parapsychology and received continual diminishing returns. Do you? Even a grandiose theory like psychoanalyses is in the realm of pseudoscience, because of its unfalsifiable and unverifiableuclaims.

I can make unsupported claims to counter yours; but what would that accomplish?

 

[charlie sc]

he author, an expert in his field, actually supported my main claim

Quote it from me.

think I am being "intellectually dishonest" if I don't agree on a lesser point he made?

Lesser point? Going by memory, the hypothesis was to verify the replication problem in science. It was not to see whether there's low quality research being conducted.

I can't even imagine how you came up with that.

I came up with that, because you seem to be making generalisation claims from your own opinions inferred from this study. However, the author knew people would take it out of context. That's why they said the quote I pasted.

This paragraph is irrelevant because there is no rule in Logic that requires its use to be limited to Science or Philosophy. Logically, if telepathy doesn't exist, the effect size would be zero.

There are rules in the scientific method. See, this is the problem. You don't know what you're talking about. To demonstrate this further, effect size is about the strength of the association, not whether the alternative hypothesis has been demonstrated. In other words, you're confusing effect size with significance.

I can make unsupported claims to counter yours; but what would that accomplish?

It would demonstrate that I'm wrong. Though, you don't have to do this. No one is pointing a gun at your head.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An argument of "psychological science is not perfect therefore psi is real" simply does not fly. From my experience every time that psi is investigated it goes away. Is there any reliable evidence to the contrary?

 

[joe1776]

Quote it from me.

I commented on the low quality of psychology research. You doubted that the 64% failure to replicate was evidence of low quality. I remembered seeing an earlier paper confirming the low quality and posted it.

Lesser point? Going by memory, the hypothesis was to verify the replication problem in science. It was not to see whether there's low quality research being conducted.

No. Our issue began with my statement on the low quality of psychological research.

There are rules in the scientific method. See, this is the problem. You don't know what you're talking about. To demonstrate this further, effect size is about the strength of the association, not whether the alternative hypothesis has been demonstrated. In other words, you're confusing effect size with significance

.I understand the scientific method -- probably better than you do. Science, Philosophy, the scientific method -- you are dancing around the fact that your statement of "diminishing effect size" is illogical. It can't happen. If telepathy has an effect size X it can be under-estimated or over-estimated but it will not diminish.

It would demonstrate that I'm wrong. .

Are you offering to accept my unsupported claims as true? If you're willing to do so. I'll give you a list to match your unsupported claims.

 

[Vinayaka]

OP makes one post, never returns, and still gets over 500 replies ... amazing.

 

[charlie sc]

I commented on the low quality of psychology research. You doubted that the 64% failure to replicate was evidence of low quality. I remembered seeing an earlier paper confirming the low quality and posted it.

Well, until you're actually specific and quotable with what the paper suggesting, I'll take that as your uninformed opinion as to what science is and what constitutes good science.

No. Our issue began with my statement on the low quality of psychological research.

Yes, and you're drawing your own conclusions from a basic understanding to suite your idea of what science is. Well, since you seem to think this is their lesser point, I'll quote from the conclusion.

"Conclusion
After this intensive effort to reproduce a sample of published psychological findings, how many of the effects have we established are true? Zero. And how many of the effects have we established are false? Zero. Is this a limitation of the project design? No. It is the reality of doing science, even if it is not appreciated in daily practice. Humans desire certainty, and science infrequently provides it. As much as we might wish it to be otherwise, a single study almost never provides definitive resolution for or against an effect and its explanation. The original studies examined here offered tentative evidence; the replications we conducted offered additional, confirmatory evidence. In some cases, the replications increase confidence in the reliability of the original results; in other cases, the replications suggest that more investigation is needed to establish the validity of the original findings. Scientific progress is a cumulative process of uncertainty reduction that can only succeed if science itself remains the greatest skeptic of its explanatory claims."

You may quote anything in that study to me that shows a greater view. Basically, anything that aligns your view. Eh...

I understand the scientific method -- probably better than you do. Science, Philosophy, the scientific method -- you are dancing around the fact that your statement of "diminishing effect size" is illogical. It can't happen. If telepathy has an effect size X it can be under-estimated or over-estimated but it will not diminish.

Umm, but it has diminished. This is, for example, what you see in the more recent Ganzfeld experiments compared to the original ones

Are you offering to accept my unsupported claims as true? If you're willing to do so. I'll give you a list to match your unsupported claims.

What? No, this particular point was about how no other theory has lasted as long as psi research with the same diminishing returns. I was asking if you knew of other theories that have lasted this long under the same conditions. I sure don't know of any. Usually, once a theory fails replication, as psi does, the theory falls flat and becomes lost in obscurity.

Look, I don't particularly enjoy talking to you in this manner because I think you have some intellectually honesty. However, when you use a paper to justify your views when the paper explicitly says this is not what's going on, then you're being intellectually dishonest with me and perhaps yourself. Not only that, but I have to explain what science is, which makes it more frustrating. Then you make claims about lesser explanations in the paper, Jesus... If you said, it's your opinion that the quality of research in psychology is low, therefore, we have replication failures, then that's fine with me. But, if you use this paper to justify low quality research, then you really need to know what you're talking about in order to make this kind of claim and know more than just the title.

 

[Road Warrior]

An argument of "psychological science is not perfect therefore psi is real" simply does not fly. From my experience every time that psi is investigated it goes away. Is there any reliable evidence to the contrary?

There is no evidence that PSI exists. If there were, it'd be proof of the supernatural and life after death.

 

[joe1776]

Well, until you're actually specific and quotable with what the paper suggesting, I'll take that as your uninformed opinion as to what science is and what constitutes good science.

Charlie, we were not discussing what constitutes good science in our debate therefore what constitutes good science is irrelevant in our discussion.

The authors of the paper showing that 64% of published findings didn't replicate were well meant. They didn't want to damage the science of psychology so they spun the results in the best possible light. You bought their angle. I didn't. But it doesn't matter in our debate. It's irrelevant.

What does matter is that the quality of psi publishing can't be assumed to be of lesser quality than mainstream publishing (I don't recall if it was you or another poster who argued that mainstream publishing could be assumed to be of much higher quality).

Umm, but it has diminished. This is, for example, what you see in the more recent Ganzfeld experiments compared to the original ones

Let's assume that what you say is fact. How do you know that the original wasn't simply an over-estimate based on a statistical error? If there has been a positive effect in all those tests, it's evidence that a psi effect exists in humans and that, logically, some people are probably more gifted than others.

 

[joe1776]

There is no evidence that PSI exists. If there were, it'd be proof of the supernatural and life after death.

I think you've hit upon one of the reasons explaining the bias against psi research. Many scientists are philosophical materialists. They are afraid to be proven wrong.

Your claim that there's no evidence of psi was previously made: Here's a link to over 100 links to evidence:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

 

[ecco]

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

My emphases...

John Ioannidis - Wikipedia
Ioannidis wrote that "a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance."
​

Once again I have to wonder if you really understand the significance of something you link to.

You have been arguing as a proponent of PSI. In the world of PSI research, there have been many small studies. Some of these small studies have found support for PSI. When these studies are replicated with larger groups, the larger studies invariably show that the small studies positive results could not be replicated.

The other problem with PSI studies is that every pro-PSI researcher decides on his own how to do the testing.

These are precisely the problems that Ioannidis refers to. You, apparently just hooked on to the part about finances and ignored the rest.




Just to refresh your memory, here is part of what I posted #374...

Across 7 experiments (N 3,289), we replicate the procedure of Experiments 8 and 9 from Bem (2011), which had originally demonstrated retroactive facilitation of recall. We failed to replicate that finding. We further conduct a meta-analysis of all replication attempts of these experiments and find that the average effect size (d 0.04) is no different from 0. We discuss some reasons for differences between the results in this article and those presented in Bem (2011).

 

[ecco]

I understand the scientific method -- probably better than you do.

Really???

 

[ecco]

Your claim that there's no evidence of psi was previously made: Here's a link to over 100 links to evidence:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

SERIOUSLY? You really want to present this page again to show evidence for PSI? Did you completely miss post #374 and reposts from articles in that list that specifically refute what you are saying? Well, no, you didn't miss them. Instead, you said I cherry picked.

I'll do some more cherry picking...

Four of the 25 studies under Telepathy & ESP
are by...

Alfred Rupert Sheldrake is an English author, and researcher in the field of parapsychology, who proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience.​

Nevertheless, why don't you select three or four of the articles that you feel are unbiased and provide the psi evidence you have been claiming. Then you can post excerpts from them and comment in your own words as to the meaning.

 

[charlie sc]

Charlie, we were not discussing what constitutes good science in our debate therefore what constitutes good science is irrelevant in our discussion.

The authors of the paper showing that 64% of published findings didn't replicate were well meant. They didn't want to damage the science of psychology so they spun the results in the best possible light. You bought their angle. I didn't. But it doesn't matter in our debate. It's irrelevant.

What does matter is that the quality of psi publishing can't be assumed to be of lesser quality than mainstream publishing (I don't recall if it was you or another poster who argued that mainstream publishing could be assumed to be of much higher quality).

Good science is central to this conversation, because you seem to think if studies fail replication, that somehow means it low quality research, as if the scientific method is perfect already. Good science is finding failures and figuring out how to fix them. Bad science is maliciously making up figures, like Wakefield's research that vaccinations cause autism. The failed replications do not necessarily mean the research itself did not find anything or that they found false positives. You of all people should know this because you're sticking to psi research no matter what, lol. There may be problems in the replication procedure. For instance attempting to copy how the study was done exactly is part of replicating the research. There may have been variables that were not accounted for.

In the paper, they found it was more likely a study would be significant and have similar effect sizes if the instructions were simple. This means that the scientific methods needs improvement explaining the procedure more thoroughly. Other things that could happen in the original research is P hacking, bias influences, small sample sizes, and a number of confounding variables. For instance, something as simple as the participants knowing what's going on can change the results. This doesn't mean it's low quality research. For arguments sake, If this is really low quality research then so is every psi research study out there, because they all fail the replication process. In reality, them finding failures in replication means the scientific method needs to be improved. It bears no bearing on low quality research. One of the problems with human research is that we're incredibly difficult to pin down, however, when a theory holds water it really holds water. The quality of the research is largely judged during the peer review process and different journals will have varying levels of prestige and difficulty getting in.

Let's assume that what you say is fact. How do you know that the original wasn't simply an over-estimate based on a statistical error? If there has been a positive effect in all those tests, it's evidence that a psi effect exists in humans and that, logically, some people are probably more gifted than others.

I don't know, that's the thing. It is logical to surmise something went on in psi research, but, as far as science is concerned, it's not been been demonstrate for any scientific consensus. For science, a theory needs to be (1) falsifiable (2)verifiable and (3) reproducible. Psi lacks in reproducibility and gets worse and worse. I can show the difference, if you want, between 30-50 year research to today.
You're having double standards if you say the 64% of studies that failed one replication is poor research quality but say psi is good research quality when they have failed numerous replication attempts. This is what happens when you get too close to something.

 

[Road Warrior]

I think you've hit upon one of the reasons explaining the bias against psi research. Many scientists are philosophical materialists. They are afraid to be proven wrong.

Your claim that there's no evidence of psi was previously made: Here's a link to over 100 links to evidence:

http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

Dude, it's not a bias. It's been heavily researched by both the Soviets and the CIA since the end of WWII. There's nothing to find. ZERO evidence. What would you think if you spent Billions of dollars looking for something and came up with zilch? Do you think spending more billions would help or would you conclude there is nothing to find?

As for your links, sure blogs are "evidence" just like blogs of alien abductions.

If there is evidence of PSI, why don't people know about it and use it? That's what the Soviets and CIA wanted to do with it. Sure, maybe it's a conspiracy! and the government is hiding it from us, but that'd only mean the US government. Why would all governments do it? Face it, there's nothing there.

 

[joe1776]

Dude, it's not a bias. It's been heavily researched by both the Soviets and the CIA since the end of WWII. There's nothing to find. ZERO evidence. What would you think if you spent Billions of dollars looking for something and came up with zilch? Do you think spending more billions would help or would you conclude there is nothing to find?

As for your links, sure blogs are "evidence" just like blogs of alien abductions.

If there is evidence of PSI, why don't people know about it and use it? That's what the Soviets and CIA wanted to do with it. Sure, maybe it's a conspiracy! and the government is hiding it from us, but that'd only mean the US government. Why would all governments do it? Face it, there's nothing there.

The link I gave you was to research projects, all of it at least claiming positive results, and yet you won't back off your claim of "no evidence."

Now, if you had claimed that there is inconclusive evidence of PSI, that claim would have indicated that you might actually know something about the topic and be able to hold up your end of an intelligent debate.

 

[Road Warrior]

The link I gave you was to research projects, all of it at least claiming positive results, and yet you won't back off your claim of "no evidence."

Now, if you had claimed that there is inconclusive evidence of PSI, that claim would have indicated that you might actually know something about the topic and be able to hold up your end of an intelligent debate.

Awesome. So why hasn't some government weaponized it or some company profited from it? Why has no one ever made use of it?

Three guesses:
1) XXX
2) XXX
3) It doesn't exist.

Please fill in the blanks.

 

[joe1776]

Awesome. So why hasn't some government weaponized it or some company profited from it? Why has no one ever made use of it?

Three guesses:
1) XXX
2) XXX
3) It doesn't exist.

Please fill in the blanks.

Your "argument" is a logical fallacy. It's circular. You are sure that some government hasn't weaponized it and sure no company is profiting from it because it doesn't exist. And since no company is profiting from it and no government has weaponized, it therefore must not exist.