tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post2251478702584046330..comments2024-03-28T03:22:24.202-04:00Comments on The Multiverse According to Ben: The Psi Debate Continues (Goertzel on Wagenmakers et al on Bem on precognition)Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12743597120529571571noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-74241451996977116162015-10-19T05:08:38.306-04:002015-10-19T05:08:38.306-04:00cara mengobati kutil kelamin
cara alami mengobati ...<a href="http://www.apotikherbal.net/2014/09/cara-cepat-obati-kutil-kelamin.html" rel="nofollow">cara mengobati kutil kelamin</a><br /><a href="http://kutildankelamin.blogspot.com/2015/08/cara-alami-mengobati-kutil-di-kemaluan.html" rel="nofollow">cara alami mengobati kutil di kemaluan</a><br /><a href="http://cialisonlinepillgii.blogspot.com/2015/08/cara-menyembuhkan-kutil-kelamin-dengan.html" rel="nofollow">cara menyembuhkan kutil kelamin dengan obat herbal</a><br /><a href="http://cialisonanemptystomachlhl.blogspot.com/2015/08/cara-mengobati-kutil-di-kemaluan.html" rel="nofollow">cara mengobati kutil di kemaluan</a><br /><a href="http://cialisonlinediscounqxe.blogspot.com/2015/08/cara-menghilangkan-kutil-di-kemaluan.html" rel="nofollow">cara menghilangkan kutil di kemaluan</a><br /><a href="http://adipexpphenterminevspmc.blogspot.com/2015/08/cara-menghilangkan-kutil-di-sekitar.html" rel="nofollow">cara menghilangkan kutil di sekitar kemaluan</a><br /><a href="http://cialismixingviagrasei.blogspot.com/2015/08/cara-menghilangkan-kutil-di-daerah.html" rel="nofollow">cara menghilangkan kutil di daerah kemaluan</a><br /><a href="http://cialismixingviagrasei.blogspot.com/2015/08/cara-menghilangkan-kutil-kemaluan.html" rel="nofollow">cara menghilangkan kutil kemaluan</a><br /><a href="http://cialismixingviagradfi.blogspot.com/2015/08/cara-menghilangkan-kutil-pada-kemaluan.html" rel="nofollow">cara menghilangkan kutil pada kemaluan secara alami</a><br /><a href="http://www.apotikherbal.net/2014/09/cara-cepat-obati-kutil-kelamin.html" rel="nofollow">cara mengobati kutil kelamin secara tradisional</a><br /><a href="http://obatkutilkelamin10001.blogspot.com/2015/08/obat-kutil-kelamin-tradisional.html" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin tradisional</a><br /><a href="http://cialisnoprescriptionbestonbew.blogspot.com/2015/08/obat-alami-untuk-kutil-kelamin.html" rel="nofollow">obat alami untuk kutil kelamin</a><br /><a href="http://cialisattorneyohioviq.blogspot.com/2015/08/cara-cepat-mengobati-kutil-kelamin.html" rel="nofollow">cara cepat mengobati kutil kelamin dengan obat alami</a><br /><a href="http://cialischeapestduy.blogspot.com/2015/08/obat-kutil-kelamin-alami-yang-ampuh.html" rel="nofollow">Obat kutil kelamin alami yang ampuh</a><br /><a href="http://cialiscausesmuscleachebecadyf.blogspot.com/2015/08/tips-mengobati-kutil-kelamin-secara.html" rel="nofollow">Tips Mengobati Kutil Kelamin Secara Tradisional</a><br /><a href="http://cialisandaspirinfub.blogspot.com/2015/08/tips-mengobati-kutil-kelamin-secara.html" rel="nofollow">Tips Mengobati Kutil Kelamin Secara alami</a><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-2560320728083196052015-08-23T07:06:44.552-04:002015-08-23T07:06:44.552-04:00Superpowers in Yogasutras of Patanjali,include Omn...Superpowers in Yogasutras of Patanjali,include Omnipotence and Omniscience is real Psi powers in buddhist hindĂș tradition, well a AGI system of intelect hyper-intelligence could have Psi-superpowers, in yogasutras patanjali learn samadhi to access potential de Brahman a pantheist god in form of cuasi-personal god stranger"Ishvara" producte concentration of yogi to access stranger super powers incluide Omniscience or Omnipotence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-31241066926574019332015-06-29T02:20:04.646-04:002015-06-29T02:20:04.646-04:00cara menghilangkan kutil kelamin
merontokkan kutil...<a href="https://www.academia.edu/12098042/cara_menghilangkan_kutil_pada_kemaluan_secara_alami" rel="nofollow">cara menghilangkan kutil kelamin</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/12097986/CARA_MENGOBATI_KUTIL_KELAMIN_INTERNAL" rel="nofollow">merontokkan kutil kelamin</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/12097977/cara_menghilangkan_kutil_pada_kemaluan_pria" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin sampai tuntas</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/12092549/obat_kutil_kelamin_di_apotik_daftar_obat_apotek_obat_kutil_kelamin_pada_wanita_obat_kutil_kelamin_tradisional_obat_kutil_kelamin_wanita_obat_kutil_kelamin_pria" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin di jakarta</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/10973045/cara_mengobati_kutil_kelamin_tanpa_ke_dokter" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin tradisional</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/10756098/obat_alami_yang_manjur_untuk_mengobati_kutil_di_kemaluan" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin tradisional</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/10674666/obat_kutil_kelamin_yang_paling_manjur_tanpa_efek_samping" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin tradisional</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/10638519/obat_kutil_kelamin_di_apotik" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin tradisional</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/10367519/obat_kutil_di_kemaluan" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin tradisional</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/10367507/obat_kutil_di_kemaluan" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin tradisional</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/10346125/Obat_sifilis_herbal_khusus_untuk_wanita" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin tradisional</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/10136231/obat_dokter_untuk_kutil_kelamin" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin tradisional</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/10136213/obat_tradisional_kutil_di_kelamin" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin tradisional</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/10136202/obat_kutil_di_daerah_kelamin" rel="nofollow">obat kutil kelamin tradisional</a><br /><a href="https://www.academia.edu/10094779/kumpulan_artikel_obat_kutil_kelamin_kencing_nanah_sipilis_raja_singa_wasir_keputihan_kanker_payudara_miom" rel="nofollow">obat sipilis yang sudah terbukti manjur dan aman</a><br />obat kutil kelamin yang alamihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021938162867605234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-37618346478598666762011-02-15T23:17:42.361-05:002011-02-15T23:17:42.361-05:00A very good and detailed response to Wagenmakers e...A very good and detailed response to Wagenmakers et al is here...<br /><br />http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8290411/ResponsetoWagenmakers.pdf<br /><br />It addresses the details of the Bayes factor calculations (showing that Wagenmakers et al used a fucked-up prior, and if you use a more sensible one, you get highly significant results according to the Bayes factors). <br /><br />It also addresses philosophy of science issues like Mark Waser raises, making clear that the experiments Bem posed were based on hypotheses formed by study of prior psi and psych experiments. It's not true that he collected a bunch of data aimlessly then trolled it for promising-looking results.Ben Goertzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01289041122724284772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-74842378409426977492011-02-14T07:16:15.194-05:002011-02-14T07:16:15.194-05:00Really, Ben?!?? Shame on you! The scientific met...Really, Ben?!?? Shame on you! The scientific method is *very* clear about how SCIENCE is done. You create a hypothesis, you design an experiment and how it is going to be analyzed, and then you perform the experiment and analysis EXACTLY how it was designed. Trawling data for hypotheses is EXPLORATION, also a very worthwhile pursuit but NOT science. To DO science, you take the results of (hypothesis suggested by) that EXPLORATION and design a NEW experiment and analysis (or even simply redo an old one) and see if the new results confirm your hypothesis. Scientists do indeed do both exploration and science -- but the good ones understand the difference and don't fill the literature with confused garbage that mistakes one for the other. The key to good science is reproducibility. If the hypothesis is there, just do an experiment to prove it. Until then, it's just a hypothesis drawn post hoc from data and NOT science at all (i.e. just because something is done by a self-proclaimed "scientist" or even a "real" scientist does not mean that it is science).Mark Waserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04953566143956154534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-28550375388816656142011-01-06T19:58:52.417-05:002011-01-06T19:58:52.417-05:00Thanks for an interesting analysis, and it was goo...Thanks for an interesting analysis, and it was good also to have a comment from one of the authors of the paper. <br /><br />One thing that bothered me in the paper was a footnote arguing that the possible compatibility of psi and modern physics doesn't prove the truth of psi.<br /><br />The problem is that nobody claims that, so it's an utterly irrelevant point. When people attempt to show that psi is consistent with quantum physics, it's either to try to find a mechanism explaining the data, or it is in answer to the common objection that psi can't exist since it is against the laws of physics (or both). Now, the lack of a mechanism for psi is a serious shortcoming (though much more common in science than people tend to believe), so it's not bad to look for one. And to answer the objection that x is impossible due to its incompatibility with y by trying to show its compatibility with y also seems quite rational. So that footnote was really bad (which of course says nothing about the more interesting statistical points made in the article).Scessesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-1216726534734366562010-11-27T12:35:07.690-05:002010-11-27T12:35:07.690-05:00You folks all need to meet more mystics.You folks all need to meet more mystics.gregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408369948377761936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-80374013391034526922010-11-24T10:15:10.750-05:002010-11-24T10:15:10.750-05:00Robin Zimmerman:
OK, I should have worded it more...Robin Zimmerman:<br /><br />OK, I should have worded it more carefully.....<br /><br />This gets down to the difficulty of translating mathematics into English in an effective way.<br /><br />According to the verbiage in the WM paper, "anecdotal evidence in favor of chance" means that the incidence of psi effects in the data -- though greater than the *average* one would expect if psi did not exist -- is not enough greater than the average to allow statistical confirmation that psi exists according to their chosen test (but it's *almost* enough greater...).<br /><br />What I meant to say is: WM are not disputing that the Bem results show psi effects more often than one would expect, on average, if psi did not exist. But they dispute that the difference between the actual results and the "expected in the absence of psi" results are sufficient to conclude psi exists... except in the case of one of the experiments.Ben Goertzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01289041122724284772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-56964860112121326922010-11-23T23:59:30.472-05:002010-11-23T23:59:30.472-05:00I'm not really qualified to comment on most of...I'm not really qualified to comment on most of this, but a point: You said that the paper found the results were positive, but of lower significance ... but I believe the summary of the results of the Bayesian <i>t</i>-test were summarized in Table 2, and of the ten tests:<br /><br />* One returned a 'substantial' result in favor of psi,<br />* Three returned 'anecdotal' results in favor of psi,<br />* Three returned 'anecdotal' results in favor of chance - that is, <i>against</i> psi, and<br />* Three returned 'substantial' results in favor of chance.<br /><br />Contrary to your summary, the average result measured by that method is outright negative, although not significantly.Robin Zimmermannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06752049355328742397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-57571053536766389772010-11-23T22:36:46.458-05:002010-11-23T22:36:46.458-05:00A reply to EJ.
Thanks for taking the trouble to c...A reply to EJ.<br /><br />Thanks for taking the trouble to comment on my blog.<br /><br />I want to add that I think your paper falls on the side of "intelligent, responsible criticism of psi research" rather than "knee-jerk, intellectually dishonest pseudo-skepticism" -- so, thanks for that! <br /><br />Intelligent criticism of the type made in your paper, on balance, moves psi research forward rather than just creating noise and trouble like some of the crappier pseudo-skeptical criticism does...<br /><br />Having said that, I still don't think your recommendations regarding psi research are terribly practical, though I agree that's how things would work in an ideal world. In practice, packaging up one's research software for others to use takes a lot of work, and finding serious-minded, properly-educated, not-egregiously-biased skeptics to monitor one's work requires plenty of effort too.... It's hard enough to find time and funding for psi research, without adding all these other requirements on. <br /><br />I think what Bem did was OK, and I think that to be taken really seriously his results will need to be replicated by others using the software he provided. A couple successful replications would lead to many more, I suppose, which would eventually provide the larger sample sizes needed to achieve significance according to your own preferred significance test.<br /><br />I hope to find time to dig into the statistical analysis of Bem's data myself at some point ... my PhD is in math so I have the chops to do it, but currently I just don't have the time. And I'm kinda hoping Jessica Utts will do it first, as I have a lot of faith in her insight into this kind of issue.Ben Goertzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01289041122724284772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-78451688614754861802010-11-23T22:28:49.483-05:002010-11-23T22:28:49.483-05:00A reply to Anonymous about psi and trading....
Ac...A reply to Anonymous about psi and trading....<br /><br />Actually, in practice it's not that easy to make a winning trading system from a predictive algorithm with, say, 53% odds of predicting the correct market direction, and a high volatility. You can do it but you need careful attention to money management rules and other details of trading system construction. <br /><br />So hypothetically, if a person had a slight edge over the stock market via psi, they could make $$ from this if A) they were *also* good traders with good trading instincts and a knowledge of how to execute a trading system, or B) they used their psi-driven signals within a well-tuned black-box trading system of some kind.<br /><br />If there are also machine-learning or statistics based trading systems out there which can predict the price direction 53% of the time (but often with high volatility), which I do believe ... then the psi-based systems wouldn't necessarily be distinguishable from the ML-based systems in terms of their market impact.<br /><br />So I don't agree with your claim that, if psi of the magnitude Bem's experiments suggest were real, the financial markets would look different than they do today.Ben Goertzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01289041122724284772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-45827633067596074282010-11-23T22:09:29.863-05:002010-11-23T22:09:29.863-05:00When considering the possibility of a claim, we ca...When considering the possibility of a claim, we can ask the question "how could this be true" but also "what if this is true?". The answer to the second question seems pretty easy (as the WM paper points out) -- if precognition existed, then we would see it used everywhere for personal gain. <br /><br />Just one example -- even with a few second window into the future, one could make a huge fortune trading S&P futures if one was well connected with wall street insiders with fast trade executions. And one person could do this, then others would soon also be using it which would fundamentally alter the stock market. I don't think this is happening, so by this fact alone we can conclude that precognition does not exist in the proportions that Bem reports.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-79430698141325054372010-11-23T21:47:11.056-05:002010-11-23T21:47:11.056-05:00Hi Ben,
As you mention throughout your discussion...Hi Ben,<br /><br />As you mention throughout your discussion of our paper, we did not intend to critique Bem's work specifically -- instead, we feel that this work highlights some of the more general problems in the field. <br /><br />Unfortunately, these problems are especially damaging to people who want to make a claim for psi. Check for yourself -- how many tests did Bem compute for the data from Experiment 1? <br /><br />Yes, other work in science sometimes also proceeds along these lines -- but that should hardly increase our confidence in Bem's results.<br /><br />I disagree that the solutions we propose at the end of the paper are too strict; it is easy to find a skeptic to work with, and it *should* be easy to determine in advance what test you will do. This seems a small price to pay for increased credibility. <br /><br />Cheers,<br />E.J. (Wagenmakers)EJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14128820127410812375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-79285954880846119412010-11-23T15:44:32.712-05:002010-11-23T15:44:32.712-05:00jimrandomh wrote
The fact that other scientific ...jimrandomh wrote<br /><br /><i><br />The fact that other scientific fields are also abusing statistics does not make it okay, because it does not make the conclusions that result from statistical abuses true. The choice of which statistical test to use is not arbitrary, and using the wrong one is as bad as writing down the wrong value for a low-order digit; you can get away with it when the effect size is large, but not here.<br /></i><br /><br /><br />Of course it's not OK to use the wrong statistical technique. <br /><br />Please note, though, that Wagenmakers et al did NOT claim that Bem used the "wrong statistical technique" in his paper.<br /><br />They suggested a different statistical technique, but they didn't dispute Bem's choice of technique, or claim that it was "wrong."<br /><br />Matthew Fuller asked:<br /><br /><i><br />Okay, so if you believe in psi anomalies, which is rational in my opinion given the evidence, what is your opinion of remote viewing?<br /></i><br /><br />Based on what I've read, I would guess it probably is a real phenomenon, though I haven't studied it as carefully as precognition or ganzfeld experiments.Ben Goertzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01289041122724284772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-7853980065550250992010-11-23T15:05:20.270-05:002010-11-23T15:05:20.270-05:00thats just an assertion jim that you think the fil...thats just an assertion jim that you think the file drawer effect matters more than supporters of psi think.Matthew Fullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794612505531904382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-74757121343128260032010-11-23T12:06:45.443-05:002010-11-23T12:06:45.443-05:00The fact that other scientific fields are also abu...The fact that other scientific fields are also abusing statistics does not make it okay, because it does not make the conclusions that result from statistical abuses true. The choice of which statistical test to use is not arbitrary, and using the wrong one is as bad as writing down the wrong value for a low-order digit; you can get away with it when the effect size is large, but not here.<br /><br />The problem with meta-analyses is that they're biased, not just by the file drawer effect, but also by incorporating the occasional incorrect procedures and falsified datasets. Selection effects can also occur at multiple granularities than a single published paper, with researchers conducting a series of runs, discarding some of the negative ones, and combining the remaining results into a single published study. Since all the biasing effects are cumulative, the number of unpublished negative studies necessary to explain the data is much smaller than you think.jimrandomhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12840344000349576240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11168555.post-67925578742247367092010-11-23T11:06:12.446-05:002010-11-23T11:06:12.446-05:00Okay, so if you believe in psi anomalies, which is...Okay, so if you believe in psi anomalies, which is rational in my opinion given the evidence, what is your opinion of remote viewing? In particular: <br />http://www.farsight.org/demo/Multiple_Universes/MUP_Session_Download_Page_November2009.html<br /><br />tl;dr The remote viewers sketch a missile launch which is consistent with the Russian report of the spiral anomaly. This was done by being given a number which corresponds to an event which had not been chosen yet. After the remote viewing session is over, an event is chosen, in this case the spiral anomaly, which is obviously outside the control of the organization, so no leaking of info. was possible.Matthew Fullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794612505531904382noreply@blogger.com