I mean the link to the complete phrase where I asked you if you lied or not.
Oh, sorry.
Doesn't your screen show the boxed arrow thingies next to your name?
On my screen, it says ""origionally posted by Wavebourn" ">"
Click on the box and it immediately goes to the cited post.
j
Ok and where you find clusters of churches you also find clusters of murders.
Now there is an interesting correlation between basketball players and a good grasp of three dimensional problem solving.
But I did send you to the text on phrenology, are you adding support to it? (I forget are we deficient because we are round headed or the other way around
! )
Ah, thanks. It works.
But I still am pretty sure that you even did not consider to review that data seriously because you a-priori "know that it is wrong because it can't be right".
Please educate us
A case of the un-mentioned variable. Consider a 2 year old, a 6 year old, a 10 year old, and an adult...
Here's another perfect example: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/210928-teen-moms-recessions.html#post2992071
Well then you are incorrect.. Shame on you.
I was unable to link to what you provided, for reasons I do not know. You assumed I didn't want to. But that's ok, our miscommunication is pretty much understood now, so I hope that moderator guy don't mind..
I have read some of his stuff in the past, and came away rather, shall we say, "disenchanted" with his methodology.
Should I have suspected that despite the level of his previous work, he suddenly attacked an issue with scientific rigor??
j
ps Wavebourn..when you say data, do you mean the raw data, or are you referring to the results of an analysis where the methodology behind it is hidden? Most of the time, that stuff is released more in the pop culture vein, with no mathematical meat to it. You know, written to tweak the public's interest rather than being rigorous in presentation.
Last edited:
Wavey,
John (N) has actually been rather accepting of what appear to some to be ridiculous claims when explained and properly documented. I have seen this behavior on at least two occasions. One when I was particularly tweaking John (N) & SY. Both waited for the explanation before rendering hasty judgement.
But the real issue is that I know what I hear, I know what I suspect I hear, I trust my friends, distrust some others based on history. And most importantly since the world revolves around my ego, I really don't care when others differ.
The only issue that bothers me is when I answer a newbie question and other chime in with their baseless opinion. But I let it go. I have told many many people they are ignorant (or even stupid) but they never seem to get it. (Wonder why, could anyone stupid please explain it to me?
)
Well then you are incorrect.. Shame on you.
I was unable to link to what you provided, for reasons I do not know. You assumed I didn't want to. But that's ok, our miscommunication is pretty much understood now, so I hope that moderator guy don't mind..
I have read some of his stuff in the past, and came away rather, shall we say, "disenchanted" with his methodology.
Should I have suspected that despite the level of his previous work, he suddenly attacked an issue with scientific rigor??
Actually, it is opposite. He started from attacking of what he thought was error of experiments. Generators of random numbers controlled computers that selected visual and audial information to present, and reactions of participants were recorded. What he tried to find, the cause of what he thought was an error, when reactions happened before stimuli, and what is more weird, they correlated with information to be presented. It was well documented fact, but he could not find any reasonable explanation. Then he analyzed data from other documented experiments and found the same "errors". He tried to prove that it can't be true, but evidences were against him, so he went deeper and deeper in similar experiments that lead him to even more weird discoveries about correlation of random processes and mental activity that can't be connected by any known ways. At least, nobody could show any mechanism of such connections. I know about speculations regarding quantum physic foundations of such correlations, but until proven I can't accept it 100%. I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN THAT, but it would be silly to attack Radin himself, as if he is either charlatan, or un-educated scientist, using "my ice cream is bigger" arguments.
Thanks for the synopsis...the IP was blocked for reasons unknown, so I can't affirm or refute what you've stated.
I've not attacked Radin. I have pointed out that I've looked at other work and came away shall we say, unimpressed. The invokation of Ice cream science is a discussion of correlation vs causation, NOT an attack on him as charlatan or uneducated. You have erred in attributing that line to me.
Why would you call it an argument.
It is a discussion, and a civil one at that. Items which may have been construed as arguments have been cleared up via discussion to locate errors of assumptions.j
There is.
I mentioned it already.
Expectation bias, regarding scientific rigor, as a component of scientific methodology that is used and accepted... ---is dead.
And that is only to start.
It goes way beyond that simplistic concept.
The question of correctness necessarily centers around an issue of psychological development.
The link was on his later results, when he stopped doing experiments with individuals, instead installed random number generators in laboratories around the world analyzing data obtained from them. What is interesting, it works only with real random number generators. Any form of hardware, or software - based simulation of randomness show no results.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.