|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2011 : 07:01:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
You have a point there. |
But then you seem to ignore it. Or maybe you're just unaware of what science is.| Should the recognition of our own gullibility prevent us from being receptive to the paranormal? |
No, the science should do that. Science, as a process, works to counter our gullibility.| I am sure DARYL J. BEM considered the skeptics before publishing his research... |
Given the obvious errors he made, I wouldn't be so sure.| ...which was peer reviewed. |
Which should have stopped the paper's publication, but failed to do so. The paper is horribly flawed. It's a statistical nightmare. Peer review is supposed to catch such problems. The publication of the paper was a huge black eye for the journal in particular and for peer review overall.| There are many unexplained mysteries beyond the realm of science to prove or disprove and ESP/PSI has its skeptics and believers. |
If ESP/psi is "beyond the realm of science to prove or disprove," then you are saying that Bem's scientific study was completely worthless.
It's rather self-defeating for you to first appeal to science to confirm the truth of ESP/psi and to now suggest that ESP/psi will never be scientifically supported, don't you think?| With 41% of Americans endorsing it... |
If a million people believe a silly thing, it is still a silly thing.| ...raises the bar for Presidential candidates to possess this talent. |
ESP/psi hasn't typically included talking to or hearing god. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 07:43:57 [Permalink]
|
Talking or hearing from God would put it in the realm of the paranormal. ESP/PSI deals with mind over matter and a whole gamut of paranormal experiences even Presidential aspirations.
What I said was there are many unexplained mysteries beyond the realm of science to prove or disprove. Expanding on this line eg cancer remissions without intrusive surgery or chemotherapy.
And ESP/PSI has its skeptics and believers. The same publication by Bemm was seen by many as validation and to others as sloppy work. Sorry if it came across differently. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 07:51:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
What I said was there are many unexplained mysteries beyond the realm of science to prove or disprove. Expanding on this line eg cancer remissions without intrusive surgery or chemotherapy.
|
Pray tell why investigating spontaneous cancer remission is beyond science. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 09:46:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
Originally posted by justintime
What I said was there are many unexplained mysteries beyond the realm of science to prove or disprove. Expanding on this line eg cancer remissions without intrusive surgery or chemotherapy.
|
Pray tell why investigating spontaneous cancer remission is beyond science.
|
There are cases when doctors give up on the patient because the cancer has advanced and terminal. But through some miracle the patient goes into remission and for want of a better explanation. It is called miraculous recovery.
Of course skeptics may have a problem with that but I hope my response answered your prayer.
|
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 10:16:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Originally posted by CRUX
Originally posted by justintime
What I said was there are many unexplained mysteries beyond the realm of science to prove or disprove. Expanding on this line eg cancer remissions without intrusive surgery or chemotherapy.
|
Pray tell why investigating spontaneous cancer remission is beyond science.
|
There are cases when doctors give up on the patient because the cancer has advanced and terminal. |
..and this is evidence or proof of what, exactly ?
| -` But through some miracle the patient goes into remission and for want of a better explanation. It is called miraculous recovery. |
OK, a miracle happened, according to some people. If it's not readily and simply explainable to every dimwit on the planet, then it's a miracle. Not to be addressed by scientific investigation.
Gotcha. Understood.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 10:47:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Talking or hearing from God would put it in the realm of the paranormal. |
So "the paranormal" includes all of "religion." You're saying that they aren't slightly overlapping sets, but that religion is a subset of the paranormal. That certainly doesn't make the case for either one stronger.| ESP/PSI deals with mind over matter and a whole gamut of paranormal experiences even Presidential aspirations. |
Which presidential aspirant has mentioned ESP/psi on the campaign trail?| What I said was there are many unexplained mysteries beyond the realm of science to prove or disprove. Expanding on this line eg cancer remissions without intrusive surgery or chemotherapy. |
And:| But through some miracle the patient goes into remission and for want of a better explanation. It is called miraculous recovery. |
No, it's called spontaneous remission, and isn't a miracle or anything close to a miracle. People who call it a miracle think miracles are whatever science doesn't explain, but that's just an argument from ignorance.| And ESP/PSI has its skeptics and believers. The same publication by Bemm was seen by many as validation and to others as sloppy work. |
It is objectively sloppy work. Those who see it as validating are objectively wrong. It's not a matter of taste or preference. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 11:15:31 [Permalink]
|
But that is exactly the point I am raising. Science cannot explain everything (yet maybe)
q 1. Pray tell why investigating spontaneous cancer remission is beyond science.
a 1. There are cases when doctors give up on the patient because the cancer has advanced and terminal. But cannot explain why a remission happens in the same patient even though further treatment was discontinued.
| Dave W wroteNo, it's called spontaneous remission, and isn't a miracle or anything close to a miracle. People who call it a miracle think miracles are whatever science doesn't explain, but that's just an argument from ignorance. |
Agreed to label the unexplained as a miracle is silly/absurd. It is just highlighting gaps in science. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 11:40:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
But that is exactly the point I am raising. Science cannot explain everything (yet maybe)
q 1. Pray tell why investigating spontaneous cancer remission is beyond science.
a 1. There are cases when doctors give up on the patient because the cancer has advanced and terminal. But cannot explain why a remission happens in the same patient even though further treatment was discontinued.
| Dave W wroteNo, it's called spontaneous remission, and isn't a miracle or anything close to a miracle. People who call it a miracle think miracles are whatever science doesn't explain, but that's just an argument from ignorance. |
Agreed to label the unexplained as a miracle is silly/absurd. It is just highlighting gaps in science.
|
Not at all. What this illustrates is that you feel it's reasonable that should silly persons put forward silly objections, then that has effect on science, or "shows a gap".
The gap this shows is certainly not in Science, buddy ! |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 11:41:19 |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 13:42:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by justintime
You have a point there. |
But then you seem to ignore it. Or maybe you're just unaware of what science is.| Should the recognition of our own gullibility prevent us from being receptive to the paranormal? |
No, the science should do that. Science, as a process, works to counter our gullibility.| I am sure DARYL J. BEM considered the skeptics before publishing his research... |
Given the obvious errors he made, I wouldn't be so sure.| ...which was peer reviewed. |
Which should have stopped the paper's publication, but failed to do so. The paper is horribly flawed. It's a statistical nightmare. Peer review is supposed to catch such problems.
|
How is that so ? Are reviewers for a paper that has some stats in it, picked from a list of respected statisticians ? No, it doesn't go like that. review is just a check to see if anything stands out as needing some correction. To think that reviewers are stats experts, and would know details about more modern or better methods, that is wrong thinking.
Often methods in a discipline are decades out of date, and that is acceptable within the field because everyone inside, generally accepts the out-of-date methods. Review is a roughish check, and although it might go deeper, that is not a "given". |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 13:49:52 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 16:14:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
Originally posted by justintime
But that is exactly the point I am raising. Science cannot explain everything (yet maybe)
q 1. Pray tell why investigating spontaneous cancer remission is beyond science.
a 1. There are cases when doctors give up on the patient because the cancer has advanced and terminal. But cannot explain why a remission happens in the same patient even though further treatment was discontinued.
| Dave W wroteNo, it's called spontaneous remission, and isn't a miracle or anything close to a miracle. People who call it a miracle think miracles are whatever science doesn't explain, but that's just an argument from ignorance. |
Agreed to label the unexplained as a miracle is silly/absurd. It is just highlighting gaps in science.
|
Not at all. What this illustrates is that you feel it's reasonable that should silly persons put forward silly objections, then that has effect on science, or "shows a gap".
The gap this shows is certainly not in Science, buddy !
|
It is not the silly questions or the gaps in science that is troubling here. It is your total miscomprehension of what is actually being said that defies the odds that you are in control of your
faculties or even endowed with functional ones..
The words silly/absurd was referencing the conclusion of a layperson who for want of a better word calls it a miracle (the remission). I stood corrected by Dave W. and I acknowledged the people who call it a miracle think miracles are whatever science doesn't explain, but that's just an argument from ignorance.
No one claimed there are no gaps in science ....it is the absurdity of filling those gaps with words like miracle/miraculous that should be frowned upon.
|
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 16:25:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Originally posted by CRUX
Originally posted by justintime
But that is exactly the point I am raising. Science cannot explain everything (yet maybe)
q 1. Pray tell why investigating spontaneous cancer remission is beyond science.
a 1. There are cases when doctors give up on the patient because the cancer has advanced and terminal. But cannot explain why a remission happens in the same patient even though further treatment was discontinued.
| Dave W wroteNo, it's called spontaneous remission, and isn't a miracle or anything close to a miracle. People who call it a miracle think miracles are whatever science doesn't explain, but that's just an argument from ignorance. |
Agreed to label the unexplained as a miracle is silly/absurd. It is just highlighting gaps in science.
|
Not at all. What this illustrates is that you feel it's reasonable that should silly persons put forward silly objections, then that has effect on science, or "shows a gap".
The gap this shows is certainly not in Science, buddy !
|
It is not the silly questions or the gaps in science that is troubling here. It is your total miscomprehension of what is actually being said that defies the odds that you are in control of your
faculties or even endowed with functional ones..
The words silly/absurd was referencing the conclusion of a layperson who for want of a better word calls it a miracle (the remission). I stood corrected by Dave W. and I acknowledged the people who call it a miracle think miracles are whatever science doesn't explain, but that's just an argument from ignorance.
No one claimed there are no gaps in science ....it is the absurdity of filling those gaps with words like miracle/miraculous that should be frowned upon.
|
I find this is a misrepresentation of what went on here. You argued
| Scientist have gone as far as to publish in a well respected scientific journal strong evidence that ESP(Extrasensory Perception) exist....Imagine when science and religion merge and with the aid of evolutionist/genealogist some are able to look into the past and trace their ancestor apes and just as easily with the aid of psychics look into the future and meet their Creator/God |
What you trying to pull, justintime ?
Scientist are also curious that human beings inherit a set of genes that predisposes them towards spiritual or mystic experiences.
So if you ignore what an open mind can accept. |
The latter is not even a sentence. The former is no evidence of ESP.
Here you go changing the subject to what the population might believe.
But what we can be certain about is he is American and statistics show 75% of Americans profess at least one paranormal belief. The most popular is extrasensory perception (ESP), mentioned by 41%.
Culture affects genes and vice versa....i.e reciprocal interactions between |
Scorn for silly superstitions, from scientifically-minded justintime. Is that how it was ? |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 16:45:40 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 16:42:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
How is that so ? Are reviewers for a paper that has some stats in it, picked from a list of respected statisticians ? No, it doesn't go like that. review is just a check to see if anything stands out as needing some correction. To think that reviewers are stats experts, and would know details about more modern or better methods, that is wrong thinking.
Often methods in a discipline are decades out of date, and that is acceptable within the field because everyone inside, generally accepts the out-of-date methods. Review is a roughish check, and although it might go deeper, that is not a "given". |
Perhaps you should read Alcock's critique of the paper. He points out statistical methods used by Bem that no scientist should ever have used. This isn't a matter of the reviewers not being stats experts, it's a matter of the reviewers ignoring basic statistical errors. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 16:49:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
How is that so ? Are reviewers for a paper that has some stats in it, picked from a list of respected statisticians ? No, it doesn't go like that. review is just a check to see if anything stands out as needing some correction. To think that reviewers are stats experts, and would know details about more modern or better methods, that is wrong thinking.
Often methods in a discipline are decades out of date, and that is acceptable within the field because everyone inside, generally accepts the out-of-date methods. Review is a roughish check, and although it might go deeper, that is not a "given". |
Perhaps you should read Alcock's critique of the paper. He points out statistical methods used by Bem that no scientist should ever have used. This isn't a matter of the reviewers not being stats experts, it's a matter of the reviewers ignoring basic statistical errors.
|
I get the impression that you think it quite unusual if peer review does not address such things ? I think it's "par for the course". Papers routinely get through with no checking at all done ( or possible; data code and method not fully supplied in a Supplementary Information). If it sounds OK, that's often all they are looking for.
|
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 16:51:20 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 17:48:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
I get the impression that you think it quite unusual if peer review does not address such things ? I think it's "par for the course". Papers routinely get through with no checking at all done ( or possible; data code and method not fully supplied in a Supplementary Information). If it sounds OK, that's often all they are looking for. |
The point to publishing a scientific paper is to present all the information needed for other people to critique the experiment and/or replicate it. If the methods are not "fully supplied," then it can't be replicated or criticized properly, and that would be a failure of peer review. You seem to be defending these bad practices, but instead I hope you would agree that while they might be common, they shouldn't be acceptable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 18:29:35 [Permalink]
|
To our new member CRUZ
I would suggest you try to find what you are capable of comprehending and participating in, and contain your your ego to respond to every thread that challenges the intellect. You can only rise to your level of capabilities and much of the redundancy you created is a result of failed attempts to engage. We are sympathetic but disproportionately biased against idiots because the threshold for skeptics are quite distinguishable. You must qualify before we indulge you for your frivolous banter which is not only tiresome but verbosely repetitive. Get a life. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Be a Master of Apologetics: amaze your friends!
