|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 07/16/2005 : 00:26:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
As far as I've been able to tell (and I know of no prominent skeptic making this argument), the only thing the GCP has run statistical analyses on is particular "events," and I've seen no data whatsoever from any other time period. For all I know, there are statistical "spikes" constantly, but they only report the ones that they know happened during "significant events" (again, that's what I've seen).
And it seems they shoehorn the data to fit what spikes are found. For 9-11 they didn't just see what happened on that day, but also the days leading up to and following the tragedy. This is exactly what parapsycholgists did with one Zener Card experiment, where they staring counted "hits" for guesses that not only matched the current card, but also the one previous or the one following. Anything to increase the odds a hit will occur and appear to defy the laws of chance.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/16/2005 00:27:26 |
 |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2005 : 12:53:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie: Yet any decent scientist should have been embarrassed by Joe Nickell's (of CSICOP) response to another scientist's findings which put the medevial radiocarbon dating of the Turn Shroud in doubt. How the human 'varnish' of such animosity and obvious spin can figure so prominently in a seasoned scientist and truth seeker is puzzling. To me, that is the dark side of skepticism. quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: Have you read Nickell's reply to the rebuttal of Nickell's response to that other scientist's findings about the Shroud of Turin? Perhaps the "obvious spin" is coming from a different direction than you suppose?
No I haven't read Nickell's reply. If there is such a thing and you know where I can obtain it I would like to see it. I know it hasn't been posted at the CSICOP site as of today.
quote:
Originally posted by markie: Ah, but read the skeptical articles regarding the Global Consciousness Project. It looks like resistance, not merely caution.]quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: Why shouldn't bad arguments be thouroughly resisted?
Yes bad science should be resisted, but is it bad science? I have *yet* to see a real statistician find a flaw. Again, the objections to the Global Consciousness Project I have read are superficial, and not based on a rigourous analysis of the data.
The impression I had from the video is this: Ignoring the conciousness explanation, the fact remains that the Random Event Generators are producing, occassionally, anamolous data which is not in keeping with what is statistically expected from the normal ups and downs of random behaviour.
The GCP of course is attempting to go further than this and correlate these anomalous readings with certain consciousness focussing events in the world. So really it is a two stage problem. The second stage, the correlation of the anomalous data with consciousness focussing events is the more difficult stage to produce statistical confidence, for obvious reasons. But it should still be doable.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: For all I know, there are statistical "spikes" constantly, but they only report the ones that they know happened during "significant events" (again, that's what I've seen).
If that was the case, that would be outright *deceptive* at worst or incredibly *airheaded* at best. Since these guys are working from Princeton I would think they should be granted the benefit of the doubt as to their competence and integrity. (But oooh do I have a whopper regarding competence and integrity at CSICOP, but I'll save that for another thread.)
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.: (Actually, without producing all of their data, when the GCP issues press releases about "global consciousness" events real time, that's when I'll be impressed that they might be onto something. Unfortunately, looking at their catalog of "events," I can't find any indication of when the analyses were run, and the reports put online.)
To my shame I've only read about five minutes from their site, but I plan to look into this more closely and even query them about this.
If it is true that the 'wave' which begins its departure from statistically expected behaviour also begins *days* before the 'event', then it could conceivably be *predictive* of major events. That would be incredible, whoa. Imagine people tuning into GCP reports or even *forecasts* like they do the weather.
"The consciousness in Toronto took an unwelcome turn towards greater entropy earlier today..."
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2005 : 13:25:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
No I haven't read Nickell's reply. If there is such a thing and you know where I can obtain it I would like to see it. I know it hasn't been posted at the CSICOP site as of today.
I read it in the same issue of Skeptical Inquirer in which they published the rebuttal to Nickell.quote:
Yes bad science should be resisted, but is it bad science? I have *yet* to see a real statistician find a flaw. Again, the objections to the Global Consciousness Project I have read are superficial, and not based on a rigourous analysis of the data.
And I have yet to see the GCP publish a rigorous anaylsis of their own data. The burden of proof is upon them. If they can't be bothered to do the simple anaylsis that should be expected of them - analyzing random time periods with the same methods that they analyze "events" - then it is their problem that scientists and skeptics don't take their claims at face value.quote:
If that was the case, that would be outright *deceptive* at worst or incredibly *airheaded* at best.
And it happens all the time when people try to mix science with "consciousness studies" and artists. Go look at the staff list, and their disciplines.
Note also that Harvard Medical School gave us Deepak Chopra and John Mack. That something wacky is going on at Princeton isn't surprising, and the school's prestige lends nothing to the validity of the project.quote:
Since these guys are working from Princeton I would think they should be granted the benefit of the doubt as to their competence and integrity.
Not at all. The burden of proof is theirs. The fact that they won't present the "slam dunk" that they claim to have (see above comments) says that they are not competent to do this research properly, and with scientific integrity.
They may be honest and well-intended, but if they can't do the science correctly it would be a disaster to call the GCP a scientific project.quote:
(But oooh do I have a whopper regarding competence and integrity at CSICOP, but I'll save that for another thread.)
You're such a tease! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
