Thursday, August 13, 2015

Hate Mail - According to Materialists The Valid Response To Published Science Is

citing a line from a 1951, Z grade sci-fi flick.  

And that's really about all there is to "skepticism" as popularly understood and promoted by the sciency side of things.  I expect to be sent the link to where the Eschatots take up that line of erudition.  

Now, Sims, tell me where Jessica Utts went wrong in her paper analyzing the methodology and statistical analyses of the peer-reviewed, published research.*  

Update:  Now he's refuting published science by quoting Kristie Alley in Star Dreck II.   

I really should think about posting the comments, they confirm what I said about the Randi fan base being scientific illiterates and idiots.   Yet they're the ones who are supposedly the "brain trust" of contemporary enlightenment. 

*  How about you refute the observations made by Utts in this section of her paper:

3.3 An Overall Analysis of the SRI Experiments: 1973-1988

In 1988 an analysis was made of all of the experiments conducted at SRI from 1973 until that
time (May et al, 1988). The analysis was based on all 154 experiments conducted during that
era, consisting of over 26,000 individual trials. Of those, almost 20,000 were of the forced
choice type and just over a thousand were laboratory remote viewings. There were a total of
227 subjects in all experiments.

The statistical results were so overwhelming that results that extreme or more so would occur
only about once in every 1020 (i.e., the p- value was less than 10-20)). Obviously some explanation other than chance must be found.  Psychic functioning may not be the only possibility, especially since some of the earlier work contained methodological problems. However, the fact that the same level of functioning continued to hold in the later experiments, which did not contain those flaws, lends support to the idea that the methodological problems cannot account for the results. In fact, there was a talented group of subjects (labeled G1 in that report) for whom the effects were stronger than for the group at large. According to Dr. May, the majority of experiments with that group were conducted later in the program, when the methodology had been substantially improved.

Show your work, not ignoring the statement that the same level of functioning continued when the methodological objections were eliminated in subsequent experiments.   If those methodological flaws had been relevant to the results they should have disappeared when those were eliminated.

Update 2 : I hate having to paste stuff from pdf files.  Sorry for the breaks, I'll refer you to the original at the link in my previous post.


  1. It really is all about faith, isn't it? What evidence is there for a "quark"? What proof has been presented of its existence? Who has seen one? Isn't seeing=proof? I mean, if I can't "see" anomalous cognition, it must not be true! Statistics are just numbers! "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics!" Damned straight!

    But mesons and bosons and quarks! You dare not deny their reality! Because some scientist said so, that's why!

    It's kinda pitiful.....

  2. "Now he's refuting published science by quoting Kristie Alley in Star Dreck II."

    Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical.

    1. Oh, I see. He's repeating himself repeating some hack scriptwriters words.

      About the only honest thing he's ever said is his ever reapeated, "Words fail me".

    2. "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad!"