the existence of god is a scientific fact

[charlie sc]

Here's a link to Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology from the PSI position.

1st, The link it not working, 2nd, give a bit more context, 3rd, show one study not a meta analysis.

I think I know why you are giving a link to a meta-analysis. It seems like you think the meta-analysis for the 100 studies somehow infers low-quality research, partly because it's a meta-analysis. However, that was not their goal, their conclusion or their methodology. Their goal was to see if there's a replication crisis in psychology. This is what they achieved. The goal of a meta-analysis in psi is to see if there's enough statistical power from studies if psi(AS A WHOLE THEORY) studies as a whole. Therefore, they are measuring psi, not reproducibility. They're going through each psi study with this in mind and selectively choosing with this in mind. In comparison, the 100 replication study took randomish samples with all different theories. They aren't measuring a single theory or single method. If they wanted to measure the quality of research, they'd go about it in other means. I don't know how but it wouldn't be this way.

 

[joe1776]

No, you do not know how to apply logical fallacies either.

Opinion not an argument.

I gave you a very good source on what qualifies as scientific evidence.

Opinion not an argument.

I could find others for you that would say the same thing

Irrelevant.

You have not constructed a proper hypothesis.

I gave you one. You rejected it.

You could not think of a reasonable way that it could be falsified.

I gave you one which you rejected.

Others too have noted that you do not understand how work in the sciences is done.

Logical fallacy: appeal to popularity.

You do not appear to understand the concept of evidence which definitely hinders your ability to post any reliable evidence.

Opinion not an argument.

This has been comments on by quite a few others.

Logical fallacy: appeal to popularity.

Bottom line: You made no argument worthy of debate in this post.

 

[joe1776]

1st, The link it not working, 2nd, give a bit more context, 3rd, show one study not a meta analysis.

Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology | Psi Encyclopedia

 

[ecco]

Alan Turing, the pioneering computer scientist, referred to the ‘overwhelming’ statistical evidence for telepathy in a landmark paper on artificial intelligence.

Here's a list of Nobel Prize winners interested in psi. Most of them are/were scientists.

Creationists and psi woosters often post quotes out of context. Your list is even worse. It doesn't show what the person said. It just shows where a person allegedly said something.

Random example:

Gerald Balfour (1853-1945), scholar, Chief Secretary for Ireland, president of the Society for Psychical Research.252

252 http://www.spr.ac.uk/page/past-presidents-parapsychology​

Which links to

Page not found​

Your link... Eminent People Interested in Psi | Psi Encyclopedia
...is not even on a par with a creationist link to AIG.



ETA: I just had to add this...

Santiago Ramón y Cajal (1852-1934), 1906 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, researched hypnosis and psi phenomena and wrote a book about them (destroyed during the Spanish Civil War).
​

How convenient - his book was destroyed. Yet we are to take someone's word for the content.

 

[ecco]

And to you a list that includes the support of Nobel Prize winning physicists is no match for the opinions of such luminaries as James Randi?

We can and have given examples of people trying to prove psi to Randi and other people like Johnny Carson (all of whiom failed).

Your list of people, Nobels included, does not show that any of them actually did any research. Their inclusion on the list is, at best, based on their opinions.

 

[Audie]

Creationists and psi woosters often post quotes out of context. Your list is even worse. It doesn't show what the person said. It just shows where a person allegedly said something.

Random example:

Gerald Balfour (1853-1945), scholar, Chief Secretary for Ireland, president of the Society for Psychical Research.252

252 http://www.spr.ac.uk/page/past-presidents-parapsychology​

Which links to

Page not found​

Your link... Eminent People Interested in Psi | Psi Encyclopedia
...is not even on a par with a creationist link to AIG.



ETA: I just had to add this...

Santiago Ramón y Cajal (1852-1934), 1906 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, researched hypnosis and psi phenomena and wrote a book about them (destroyed during the Spanish Civil War).
​

How convenient - his book was destroyed. Yet we are to take someone's word for the content.

Hey, the golden Book of Mormon is gone too.
Happens to the best of books.

 

[ecco]

Those journals by the way have published studies in psychology which meta-analysis of 100 were not replicated in 64% of the studies.

Do you understand that that means that 2/3 of the "tests" had flawed protocols? Not even good or bad results - FLAWED PROTOCOLS! That leads one to believe that many researchers intentionally tried to be deceptive.

 

[ecco]

Here's a link to Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology from the PSI position.

"Here," said the Creationist with a straight face, "is a link to a number of articles confirming the validity of Genesis: Answers in Genesis

 

[Audie]

"Here," said the Creationist with a straight face, "is a link to a number of articles confirming the validity of Genesis: Answers in Genesis

People working for god are to be trusted.

 

[ecco]

Hey, the golden Book of Mormon is gone too.
Happens to the best of books.

I suspect arson. Smith melted down the tablets to fund the trek to Utah.

 

[Audie]

I suspect arson. Smith melted down the tablets to fund the trek to Utah.

Well, he said that a angel swiped it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are lagging behind in this debate. I posted two articles, one from the Stanford scientist who pioneered the meta-analysis. His study concluded that more than half of the published studies in psychology don't replicate. I also linked a met-analysis of 100 such studies and 64% didn't replicate

Which might be relevant in a discussion about psychology. Which this is not.

In others words, this isn't a very high bar the PSI journals must meet to equal mainstream in reliability.

And even that low bar is still to high for PSI stuff, apparantly.

My explanation required you to make a logical deduction. If you were unable to do it, I can't help.

Don't ask me to do your homework.
You're the one accusing an entire community of scientists of dishonesty - not me.

Simply repeating your accusation does not raise its credibility.
Accusing someone 100 times isn't different from doing it only once, if every time you fail to support your accusations.

Repeating unsupported claims won't magically make them supported.

In the opening paragraph you implied that you "truely [sic]" understand science. Now it appears that you never heard of the terms hard and soft sciences.

I indeed haven't. English isn't my first language and in dutch such an expression does not exist.

(dictionary.com) hard science --- any of the natural or physical sciences, as chemistry, biology, physics, or astronomy, in which aspects of the universe are investigated by means of
hypotheses and experiments.

Ok.

.I gave you credible causes which could explain the effect (bias). That's an explanation.

No. Assertions aren't explanations.

Just like answering "god dun it", to "how did humans come into existance", is not an explanation of human origins.

If you had asked for an explanation that you'd be willing to accept, I wouldn't have bothered.[/QUOTE]

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Arguments from analogies should make a point that counters your opponent's arguments by taking HIS arguments and showing him how they would fail in another similar context.

It's not an analogy geared to any specific point.
It's just a list up of the extreme similarities between both the PSI as well as the creationist narrative and how they interact (or not) with the scientific community.

It's about the pattern of the arguments - not the content of the arguments themselves.

[qutoe]
For example, you and I will agree that the creationist claim of bias is unfounded.[/quote]
That certainly seems to be the case, because when asked to support their claim - they can't. They might attempt, just like you, but they fail. Just like you.

But you and I will not agree that the PSI claim of bias is unfounded

Well, that's not my fault.
It's yours. You can easily fix that situation by actually supporting your accusation. But you don't. Or won't.

Yet, in the analogy, you use your position not mine to show a parallel to the creationist claims.

No, I use the objective facts that we can observe in this thread.
You accuse the community of bias and you don't properly support that accusation.
PSI can't get published in mainstream journals so they create their own journals

This is the exact behaviour we observe in creationist circles.

When you imply by analogy that my claim of bias makes the same error as the creationist, that reasoning relies on your own opinion on the bias issue. That's circular reasoning.

No. It relies on the fact that many in this thread have asked you to support your accusation of bias and you completely failing to meet that challenge.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am aware of that, yes.

It doesn't sound like it.

I also feel completely competent in making judgments on my own experience.

Who doesn't.
That's exactly why people believe the craziest things - because they feel "completely competent" in judging their own experiences.

This is why alien abductees really believe they were kidnapped and experimented on while aboard a space ship and even pass lie detector tests.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't understand the argument from authority. The question on the table is: "Should telepathy be studied by science?" This is a question that falls in the category of the Philosophy of Science. It doesn't require someone expert in telepathy. So, any acclaimed scientist's opinion should be valued.

Nobody here is opposed to any subject being investigated scientifically.

Copied and pasted from the link below:

Alan Turing, the pioneering computer scientist, referred to the ‘overwhelming’ statistical evidence for telepathy in a landmark paper on artificial intelligence.

Here's a list of Nobel Prize winners interested in psi. Most of them are/were scientists.

Haaaaa.... another creationist tactic.
"lists" of scientists in an attempt to raise their credibility.


Want to raise your credibility? Write a proper paper of quality with actual positive results and get it published in respected community journals (instead of your own private inner circle).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If the hypothesis is that telepathy exists, you test for telepathy, if you get no positive results, the hypothesis has been refuted.

Ow please.....
As if you will suddenly drop your near-religious faith in PSI if a "telepathy experiment" comes out negative.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, that isn't "my standard." I can't imagine how you made that deduction.

It seems that,perhaps for some unfathomable debate strategy, you are straining to find ways to ask questions with obvious answers.

Then tell us "your" standard.
What observation or test would refute PSI according to YOUR standard?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I recall, the logical fallacy you make here is called "argument by insistence."

Insisting that claims and accusations are actually supported by evidence before they are accepted as "likely" or "accurate", is a fallacy now???

 

[charlie sc]

Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology | Psi Encyclopedia

Great, a link to a website and with no context on your part. This is gone beyond any reasonable scientific discussion, but I will humour myself.

From the 42 study meta analysis(1985) in psi, "He now found that only 45% of the 42 studies were significant."(this is from your link) We're granting Honorton's recalculation, not Hyman, otherwise it would be 31%

According to your logic, 55% of those 42 studies, conducted from 1974 to 1982, are low-quality, because they found nothing. They had no effect size and no significance.
Just to remind you, this is your logic, not mine.

 

[joe1776]

...According to your logic, 55% of those 42 studies, conducted from 1974 to 1982, are low-quality, because they found nothing. They had no effect size and no significance.
Just to remind you, this is your logic, not mine.

You cherry-picked the evidence to focus on skeptic Ray Hyman's calculations from 1985 and then jumped to the conclusion that studies below the independently significant 5% level "found nothing."

And you found unworthy of comment that "Six of the 10 investigator groups reported significant outcomes, and cumulation by investigator yielded a composite Z of 6.16."