>doesn't believe in the paranormal and refutes themYep, it's based.
People involved with "skepticism" usually are qlippothic occultists who practice "Sathariel". Basically, they're just trying to keep knowledge and spirituality hidden from people so they can hoard it all for themselves. James Randi, Mick West, Joe Nickell, Michael Shermer....These people are almost universally dark magic occultists. When you read what they promote you will see very fast they do not believe their own "views".They are anti-intellectual, anti-science, and they mostly just think up new ways to gaslight the public then publicly shame anyone who speaks out. If you look at like "bent spoon" or "pigasus" awards these things are just designed to try to keep people who have abilities or experiences from ever speaking out in the public sphere. They're awful. The "Skeptics" are just the absolute fucking worst.
>>42262637Keep in mind we're talking about a person who had a sign installed outside of his home which read "Randi _ Charlatan">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi#Magician>Although defining himself as a conjuror, Randi began a career as a professional stage magician[19] and escapologist in 1946. He initially presented himself under his real name, Randall Zwinge, which he later dropped in favor of "The Amazing Randi". Early in his career, he performed numerous escape acts from jail cells and safes around the world. On February 7, 1956, he appeared live on NBC's Today show, where he remained for 104 minutes in a sealed metal coffin that had been submerged in a hotel swimming pool, breaking what was said to be Harry Houdini's record of 93 minutes, though Randi called attention to the fact that he was much younger than Houdini had been when he established the original record in 1926.[20][21]>Randi was a frequent guest on the Long John Nebel program on New York City radio station WOR, and did character voices for commercials.[22]:31:00 After Nebel moved to WNBC in 1964,[23][24] Randi was given Nebel's time slot on WOR, where he hosted The Amazing Randi Show until January 1966, and often had guests who defended paranormal claims, among them Randi's then-friend James W. Moseley.[25] Randi stated that he was fired from WOR over complaints from the archbishop of New York that Randi had said on-air that "Jesus Christ was a religious nut," a claim that Randi disputed.[22]:34:00
>>42262637>>42262699>Randi also hosted numerous television specials and went on several world tours. As "The Amazing Randi" he appeared regularly on the New York-based children's television series Wonderama from 1959 to 1967.[26] In 1970, he auditioned for a revival of the 1950s children's show The Magic Clown, which showed briefly in Detroit and in Kenya, but was never picked up.[27] In the February 2, 1974, issue of the British conjuring magazine Abracadabra, Randi, in defining the community of magicians, stated: "I know of no calling which depends so much upon mutual trust and faith as does ours." In the December 2003 issue of The Linking Ring, the monthly publication of the International Brotherhood of Magicians, it is stated: "Perhaps Randi's ethics are what make him Amazing" and "The Amazing Randi not only talks the talk, he walks the walk."[28]>During Alice Cooper's 1973–1974 Billion Dollar Babies tour, Randi performed on stage both as a mad dentist and as Cooper's executioner.[29] He also built several of the stage props, including the guillotine.[30] In a 1976 performance for the Canadian TV special World of Wizards, Randi escaped from a straitjacket while suspended upside-down over Niagara Falls.[31]
>>42262637>>42262699>>42262703>Randi has been accused of actually using "psychic powers" to perform acts such as spoon bending. According to James Alcock, at a meeting where Randi was duplicating the performances of Uri Geller, a professor from the University at Buffalo shouted out that Randi was a fraud. Randi said: "Yes, indeed, I'm a trickster, I'm a cheat, I'm a charlatan, that's what I do for a living. Everything I've done here was by trickery." The professor shouted back: "That's not what I mean. You're a fraud because you're pretending to do these things through trickery, but you're actually using psychic powers and misleading us by not admitting it."[32] A similar event involved Senator Claiborne Pell, a confirmed believer in psychic phenomena. When Randi personally demonstrated to Pell that he could reveal—by simple trickery—a concealed drawing that had been secretly made by the senator, Pell refused to believe that it was a trick, saying: "I think Randi may be a psychic and doesn't realize it." Randi consistently denied having any paranormal powers or abilities.[33]>Randi was a member of the Society of American Magicians (SAM), the International Brotherhood of Magicians (IBM), and The Magic Circle in the UK, holding the rank of "Member of the Inner Magic Circle with Gold Star."[34]He's also infamous for getting a bunch of pedophiles off by convincing courts witness testimony where memories were recovered (entirely common after traumatic events such as childhood rape which force victims to black out their memories as coping mechanisms) could not be accepted.Guy's a bastard.
"Bill Nye The Science Guy" (who isn't even a scientist). This is another one who is heavily involved in the "skepticism" community. And pretty obviously is a private occult. Who is pushing a very clear demonic and right-wing agenda too (and yes, these people are pushing right-wing agendas on purpose when everything they do makes you want to vote for political rightists)
>>42262637>They are anti-intellectual, anti-scienceThey ask for proof which should be easily provided.>who have abilities or experiences from ever speaking out in the public sphereWe have smartphones with 4k cameras. For some reason team paranormal just can't be bothered to prove anything.>The "Skeptics" are just the absolute fucking worst.Because you keep getting proven to be a fraud and a grifter every single time.It's your fault you have no evidence for your claims.
>>42262753Funny how you have no evidence for anything you just wrote. And made it all up in your head. But I bet that irony is not really lost on you. Like all people in your "skepticism" field, you're just a person whose agenda is not actually what you pretend it is and I bet you're absolutely horrified to learn you do not fool as many people as you previously believed you have. Bitch.
>>42262803>>42262753By the way, all of this stuff has actually been "proven" but you just won't admit it because your agenda is to deny the existence of the paranormal in order to hoard it all for yourself. The Ganzfeld Experiments, PEAR labs at Princeton, the UCLA psi labs, tons of government stuff, tons of Soviet and communist Chinese research (this actually is where the bulk of the most advanced work in the field was done) and on top of the fact that the overwhelming majority of human beings report personal experiences with these phenomena (which you just casually dismiss with the wave of your hand as if billions of personal experiences mean nothing). Yeah, your view is entirely, 100%, unscientific and based around you wanting to push an agenda to hoard human ability and potential just for yourself and a handful of your wealthy, wealthy friends.
>>42262803You lash out emotionally rather than just proving the paranormal with evidence.
>>42262812LMFAO @ how I listed a bunch of literal evidence and research which has been done and proved the existence of ESP, and then talk about how you just want to ignore it to push your agenda. Then immediately you post your next comment doing exactly that.>>42262812>>42262810>>42262803>>42262753>By the way, all of this stuff has actually been "proven" but you just won't admit it because your agenda is to deny the existence of the paranormal in order to hoard it all for yourself. The Ganzfeld Experiments, PEAR labs at Princeton, the UCLA psi labs, tons of government stuff, tons of Soviet and communist Chinese research (this actually is where the bulk of the most advanced work in the field was done) and on top of the fact that the overwhelming majority of human beings report personal experiences with these phenomena (which you just casually dismiss with the wave of your hand as if billions of personal experiences mean nothing). Yeah, your view is entirely, 100%, unscientific and based around you wanting to push an agenda to hoard human ability and potential just for yourself and a handful of your wealthy, wealthy friends.PS Let's also not forget your most hated scientific enemy of all: The ENTIRE field of "Quantum Physics". Yup. Your secular materialist views you're trying to push on the public (100% for your own agendas) involve a reliance on handwaving and dismissing AN ENTIRE FIELD OF SCIENCE.And not even one of the flimsy flakey fields either, like "social sciences", where there's no replicability for anything, but people like you mysteriously always seem to LOVE those "sciences". Nope. You need to ignore AN ENTIRE FIELD OF ACTUAL HARD SCIENCE, DATA AND MATH in order to keep your whole "secular skepticism" agenda sounding cogent. And it doesn't sound cogent to anyone anyway. It's just a joke of a human being and whatever gaslight you post next will be fully unconvincing to everyone. And people will just laugh in your face like the lolcow you are.
People like the guy I'm talking to in this thread view occultism as a resource and power which they want to hoard for themselves. This is the only reason why they push "skepticism". And that's why none of the bullshit they push ever makes any fucking sense. But they push it anyway because it's not about their real beliefs. It's just about them trying to mislead the public into believing "there's nothing in this universe other than what you can see with your own 2 eyes (and whatever we tell you, too! like 50 different genders!)" because they want to hoard the knowledge of these things for themselves and for a very small handful of very wealthy private proprietors in western society. Much of the "skeptic" community is, secretly, funded by the CIA. Or, VERY often, the billionaires.
>>42262829>proved the existence of ESP>Ganzfeld experiment>ganzfeld studies have not been independently replicated and had thus failed to produce evidence for psi.>PEAR labs at Princeton>PEAR's results have been criticized for deficient reproducibility.[16] In one instance two German organizations failed to reproduce PEAR's results, while PEAR similarly failed to reproduce their own results.[13] An attempt by York University's Stan Jeffers also failed to replicate PEAR's results
>>42262839And MAKE NO MISTAKE, when I talk about the 50 different genders thing, these people absolutely are pushing right-wing agendas. "50 different genders" is made-up by the wealthy, not to make you vote for democrats, but to make you vote for republicans. Almost everyone who hears that votes for republicans as a result of it. It's not that way by accident, it's that way on purpose. None of what you witness in western society is what it appears to be on the surface. Every bit which you see is the polar opposite of what you feel it is at first.
>>42262841Yeah that's not accurate information, though. It's on wikipedia because wikipedia is run by people with your agenda. The Ganzfeld studies are consistent and emperical proof of psychic abilities and this is information which yourself, and others like you, intentionally try to suppress. And the same is true with any work done at PEAR. Your posts are unscientific and anti-intellectual and no "but it says on wikipedia, where they also tell me there's 50 different genders" does not make it true or constitute any for of a valid argument.
>>42262850>Your posts are unscientificMy posts are about reproducibility which is the definition of science.You know it's bad when the experimenters cannot replicate their own results.
>>42262841>>42262850Are there 2 genders, Mr Science? Let's just have a sanity check from you here. Are there 2 genders? Because there's a HUGE overlap of people like you, who invoke "science" and "skepticism" and claim "no evidence for psi" and then turn around and do the "gender theory thing". IE Bill Nye who was aforementioned >>42262729.And the reason is because it's usually tied in with the same agenda. To keep people dumb. To keep people confused. To keep people fighting over identity politics. And, most importantly of all, to keep uninformed idiots voting for the financial interests of the ultrawealthy under the fucking republican party.
>>42262854Yeah, well they've been reproduced dozens of times and that's just an undeniable fact. That can't stop another person like you though, who are psychopathic con artists with this evil dark agenda, from claiming you "performed the experiment and didn't find any results" though. And those are very probably the instances you're cherrypicking to claim "they weren't consistently reproduced". That's what happens when politics intersects with science. Now how many genders are there? 2? Or 50?
An entire field of actual science, quantum physics, just infamously handwaved away and ignored by these deceivers. Unreal. Fucking unreal.
>>42262865The issue isn't with QM, it's with charlatans who claim that QM proves their woo nonsense.
The "how many genders" question comes up, and suddenly its crickets. Too funny.
>>42262870However you respond, you have to wave your hand to deny and ignore an entire branch of physics. And that's what you just did here. Funny enough. Hilariously enough. You're like this fulfilling prophecy where everything I write about your people as a laughable trope you just immediately show up and do.Look at your own comment here, bro. You just waved your hand on the basis of nothing and just dismissed an entire branch of physics because it does not benefit your bullshit views. You're a fucking joke. You, nor others like you, are just not serious people.
>>42262870>>42262872>>42262876NOW TELL ME, HOW MANY GENDERS ARE THERE? 2? OR 50? Because, unfortunately, the Venn Diagram of people who push your types of views and the people who push "Gender Theory" is almost a fucking perfect circle.And why is it even taking you this fucking long to just point out "there's only 2 genders" if you don't have any problem with that concept?
>>42262855You sound based.If you look at the history of the universe and Earth up to the present there is an obvious trend: increasing complexity. The universe is intrinsically creative without requiring a mind behind it. This is the true reason why atheism is so popular. But atheism is defined as mere "not theism." To truly transcend theism means developing a spirituality around the creative nature of The Cosmos. Such a spirituality treats curiosity as an extension of the primordial creative impulse of the universe. Every urge to explore, create, discover and love contributes to the unfolding creative process of reality. Education and learning are sacred.
>>42262881Wave, particle, and a superposition of both.
>>42262902Well there you go. Presuming you're the same anon I was talking about before, there you go. You're a literal fucking gender theory cultist who invokes "science" for your batshit insane, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific views. And the relevance of this topic being, naturally, that you invoke "scientific consensus" on issues like the Ganzfeld Experiments, but that "scientific consensus" is demonstrably politically skewered in the same way the "Scientific Consensus" on "Gender Theory" is demonstrably politically skewered.
>>42262909I thought you believed in quantum mechanics? Anyways I was just mocking you.
>>42262909>>42262902>Well there you go. Presuming you're the same anon I was talking about before, there you go. You're a literal fucking gender theory cultist who invokes "science" for your batshit insane, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific views. And the relevance of this topic being, naturally, that you invoke "scientific consensus" on issues like the Ganzfeld Experiments, but that "scientific consensus" is demonstrably politically skewered in the same way the "Scientific Consensus" on "Gender Theory" is demonstrably politically skewered.PS what you have going on (or the other anon presuming you're not him) is not "science" but "the politicization of science". Right? Which is why you just mindlessly invoke these platitudes, and false consensuses, or a bunch of random lines plucked from a wikipedia page written by people with your same political agenda, and then you falsely term that "science facts". But it's not that. The Ganzfeld Experiments have been replicated dozens of times. This is an indisputable demonstrable fact you'll find with even a little bit of googling. When you people say "well, but they're reproduced INCONSISTENTLY", that's because no one can stop someone with your agenda from writing a paper which tells the world "we did the experiment but got bad results". Now why would anyone do this? Politics. Just like with Gender Theory. This is the unfortunate dilemma we face when we arrive at an intersection of politics and science, and when it comes to the paranormal we are in just such an intersection.
>>42262909>you invoke "scientific consensus"No one has done that in this thread. see >>42262841No one can reproduce your claims, not even yourself.
>>42262918You've had about a dozen chances now to distance yourself from the Gender Theory thing and you've chosen not to. So no, you're not "just mocking me". You're intentionally evading a question, and even openly endorsing gender theory but doing so in a way which will let you backpedal out of it later on if you need to. I think it's very clear what you are, and the problem is you people have nothing to do with "science" or "scientific thought", but rather you've just weaponized the word and notion of "science" in order to push your twisted, regressive, backwards political view. It's fucking gross. It doesn't fool people and everyone fucking hates you.
>>42262927God damn you just really want to be fucked in your sissyhole, don't you?
>>42262927I think we can all agree that the paranormal and gender theory are too sides of the same coin and both deserve mockery.There's a reason you use a computer and not a crystal ball to bitch at us on this thread.
>>42262923>"No one invoked scientific consensus">Immediately links back to the comment where he explicitly invoked a "scientific consensus" on the basis of a wikipedia article, which is demonstrably false or misleading.You're a fucking joke, dude. You're a flat out fucking joke. You're a fucking joke who unironically backs "gender theory" and invokes "scientific consensus", which are clearly politically motivated, to push your backwards political views and then pretends not to understand there are clear undeniable political agendas in academia. "Acting dumb to own the /x/people," or whatever. Grow up. And, I'm sorry to have to tell you but "You Will Never Be A Woman".
>>42262942This is a full blown autistic meltdown.
>>42262942>he explicitly invoked a "scientific consensus"Where? No one can reproduce the results including the original experimenter.That's not consensus. That's a replicability problem.
>>42262939>>42262934Oh yeah, you're doing your 180 from earlier when you dodged the questions about it and then appeared to endorse it, huh? Cuz you learned it would leave you with no credibility afterwards if you were associated with that. Anyway, your invocation of "scientific consensus" is unimportant in a climate of "scientific consensus" which endorses Gender Theory and a litany of other clear politically motivated conclusion. You're trying to invoke the credibility of an institution which has flatly ruined its own credibility, and the Ganzfeld experiments, like other psi experiments which were well designed and reviewed, have been replicated plenty of times.
>>42262951Trans people are valid. Cry more.
>>42262951>Ganzfeld experiments, like other psi experiments which were well designed and reviewed, have been replicated plenty of times.>>ganzfeld studies have not been independently replicated and had thus failed to produce evidence for psi.lol
>>42262949No. That's not factual. The Ganzfeld studies have been replicated dozens upon dozens of times, and a simple google search will show you that. What you're referencing is people who have attempted the study and failed to produce results, which once more is most likely the result of the political motives involved in the field. You're just telling lies here, man. You're just telling fucking lies.
>>42262964>have been replicated dozens upon dozens of times> What you're referencing is people who have attempted the study and failed to produce results>failed to produce resultsso no replicability
>>42262962Once more, it's a flat out lie that you're telling, and you know full well that referencing a quote by some random dude on wikipedia does not mean anything because "wikipedia is not a valid source". Here's an ACTUAL peer-reviewed and valid source. Something known as a "meta-study" in which they detail and examine many (not even all) of the times in which people have worked to replicate the Ganzfeld Experiments.>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11134153/>The overall picture emerging from this meta-analysis is that there is sufficient evidence to claim that it is possible to observe a non conventional (anomalous) perception in a Ganzfeld environment. The available evidence does not seem to be contaminated by publication bias or questionable research practices.OK? Your posts are bullshit. You know they're bullshit. You're pushing a dark and sadistic right-wing agenda which is intended to crush human potential and then beguile them into voting for the republican party on the basis of your fucked up "gender theory, 50 different genders culturewars" but you havent fooled me or very many others.
>>42262973No. By all means. Go ahead and intentionally pretend to be too dumb to understand the words people write to you in response. That always makes you people who are arguing for bullshit points look much, much better.
>>42262957shut up you fucking sex pest freak, fuck off and stop shitting up my board
>>42262978>>42262973>No. By all means. Go ahead and intentionally pretend to be too dumb to understand the words people write to you in response. That always makes you people who are arguing for bullshit points look much, much better.PS the point, obviously, was that we're at the intersection of politics and science. So when that happens people fake or bullshit with their results in order to make them appear the way they want. And there are many "legal" ways people within academia can do this too. For example, p-hacking. Or a number of other mechanisms. And you're pretending not to understand all of this, or how politics impacts science, in order to push your sadistic bullshit political agenda on this board under the false guise of "science". And it's what's being done all over television, and media, and everywhere. And it's being done all over America's top universities presently too.
>>42262980I was here long before you.
>>42262975>Storm & Ertel (2001) comparing Milton & Wiseman’s (1999) database with Bem & Honorton’s (1994) one, found the two did not differ significantly. Furthermore, Storm and Ertel went on to compile a 79-study database, which had a statistically significant average standardized effect size of 0.138.An effect size of 0.138 is very small.>Storm et al. (2010), meta-analyzed a database of 29 ganzfeld studies published during the period 1997 to 2008, yielding an average standardized effect size of 0.14This is the best you can find and the result is "slightly more than random" without even considering experimental flaws.To demonstrate an extraordinary claim such as ESP you're going to need much stronger evidence.
>>42262993What's reassuring is that you are statistically unlikely to be here much longer.
>>42263015LMFAO. No, actually, my pseudoscientific, transgendered, 50-different-genders friend. I think the issue here is that you don't know what the term "statistically significant", nor perhaps the field of "statistics" in general, means. Learn what science and math is. When the results are "statistically significant" it doesn't matter what the "effect size" is. You don't like that? Then you're anti-science. Period. Because these are the absolute basics of how experimental models are executed and evaluated.So like I've said a dozen times above: your views are not based on anything rational, but rather your own will to push your bankrupted regressive political agenda on to the public. And when what you believe is irrevocably proven scientifically untrue, you just ignore it, handwave it away, or irrationally pretend to be too fucking dumb to understand what you're reading in order to avoid having to admit you're wrong.But you were wrong. You were wrong and were fully proven wrong.
>>42263026https://aminom.ytmnd.com/>Author: Anono>2006
>>42263036>>42263015>LMFAO. No, actually, my pseudoscientific, transgendered, 50-different-genders friend. I think the issue here is that you don't know what the term "statistically significant", nor perhaps the field of "statistics" in general, means. Learn what science and math is. When the results are "statistically significant" it doesn't matter what the "effect size" is.>You don't like that? Then you're anti-science. Period. Because these are the absolute basics of how experimental models are executed and evaluated.>So like I've said a dozen times above: your views are not based on anything rational, but rather your own will to push your bankrupted regressive political agenda on to the public. And when what you believe is irrevocably proven scientifically untrue, you just ignore it, handwave it away, or irrationally pretend to be too fucking dumb to understand what you're reading in order to avoid having to admit you're wrong.>But you were wrong. You were wrong and were fully proven wrong.PS TLDR: "Statistical significance" is what people look for in science. Not "effect size". Learn how math, numbers and experimentation works. And never pretend to be speaking under the guise of "science" until you do. "Statistical Significance" this is TOO fucking basic.
>>42262575Aw sweet another thread that has nothing to do with the op
>>42263015>>42263036>>42263040PPS here's a wikipedia article for "statistical significance", since you seemed to love wikipedia so much above.>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significanceNotice how there's a very big wikipedia article for this concept? Because it's like, you know, one of the foundational concepts of analysis of any scientific experiment?Yeah, "Statistical Significance" is what matters in science. Not any other inane cherrypicked metric you try to find and divert focus onto.
>>42263051Read your own article:>Effect size is a measure of a study's practical significance.[49] A statistically significant result may have a weak effect. To gauge the research significance of their result, researchers are encouraged to always report an effect size along with p-values. An effect size measure quantifies the strength of an effect, such as the distance between two means in units of standard deviation (cf. Cohen's d), the correlation coefficient between two variables or its square, and other measures.[50]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_size>Effect size is an essential component in the evaluation of the strength of a statistical claim, and it is the first item (magnitude) in the MAGIC criteria.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3FJgIZVW4g
>>42263063No, dude. Statistical significance is what people look at in science, and there's nothing in any of what you posted which even suggests otherwise. Read it again. Maybe you're fucking illiterate or something. "A statistically significant result may have a weak effect" even according to your own fucking quote you mined and cherrypicked. FFS you're not fucking dumb, you're dishonest."Statistical Significance" is what people look at when they're judging the outcome of a scientific experiment. Not "effect size". This is not a matter of debate, or something in question. It's just a basic, foundational pillar of the way that "science" works, so don't ever pretend to be "pro-science" when you won't acknowledge even 1 of it's most basic facts.
>>42263074>Effect size is an essential component in the evaluation of the strength of a statistical claim, and it is the first item (magnitude) in the MAGIC criteria.essentialcomponentiintheevaluationofastatisticalclaim
>>42263074>>42263063>No, dude. Statistical significance is what people look at in science, and there's nothing in any of what you posted which even suggests otherwise. Read it again. Maybe you're fucking illiterate or something.>"A statistically significant result may have a weak effect" even according to your own fucking quote you mined and cherrypicked. FFS you're not fucking dumb, you're dishonest.>"Statistical Significance" is what people look at when they're judging the outcome of a scientific experiment. Not "effect size". This is not a matter of debate, or something in question. It's just a basic, foundational pillar of the way that "science" works, so don't ever pretend to be "pro-science" when you won't acknowledge even 1 of it's most basic facts.PS just give it up, dude. Just fucking be done with your bullshit. You just posted this whole spiel of bullshit where you cut and pasted from wikipedia, and what you cut and pasted doesn't even corroborate your own view or point. Not in any way. I mean, are you fucking illiterate and unable to read? What you wrote disproves your own fucking point. And there's no way you even buy into what the fuck you're posting at this point even after I posted you the literal wikipedia fucking article which proves to you that "statistical significance" is what people go by in science, and not "effect size", and you're just unwilling to recognize it. Patently.
>>42263077Yup. It's an essential component in the evaluation of a statistical claim. Yup. That's unrelated to anything you're discussing though. You're just taking random words out of context and ascribing random meanings to them which they do not hold. And you're doing that because you do not want to acknowledge that you're irrevocably, fully proven wrong.
>>42263074https://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/p-valuestatement.pdf>By itself, a p-value does not provide a good measure of evidence regarding a model orhypothesis.
>>42263081>>42263077>Yup. It's an essential component in the evaluation of a statistical claim. Yup. That's unrelated to anything you're discussing though.>You're just taking random words out of context and ascribing random meanings to them which they do not hold. And you're doing that because you do not want to acknowledge that you're irrevocably, fully proven wrong.PS bud this is too basic about science. "Statistical significance" is the only measure of matter when we're discussing whether something "is" or "is not". "Effect size" would be like if you wanted to measures how much of a force something was. If you were measuring how powerful people's psychic perceptions were, for example, rather than "whether or not they are there". This is too basic. Too basic of a concept which you're just outright pretending you're too dumb to understand in order to evade having to admit you're just wrong and bullshitting.
>>42263087>Statistical significance" is the only measure of matter when we're discussing whether something "is" or "is not". >By itself, a p-value does not provide a good measure of evidence regarding a model or hypothesis.
>>42263082In an entirely different context where there are multiple hypothesis' where people are just testing 1 of them, but not in this one. With ESP, you're measuring whether or not people were able to get these answers right in this experiment, more than they would be expected to do so by chance. You're not measuring something overly complex here and the point of all of this is that they answered more than would be expected. And they did so in a way which is statistically significant. So you're just fucking wrong. You need to fucking face it.You're a complete fucking idiot, and you've totally lost the plot. It's time for you to just stop responding. Really, just stop responding.
>>42263091Again dude, >>42263094, you've completely lost the plot at this point. Just stop fucking responding. When you're measuring ESP, you're measuring, by definition, whether or not people can make right guesses as a rate which is more than what's expected by chance. And when you find answers which are "statistically significant" then your experiment is considered successful.You just sound like a massive fucking idiot right now man. And you fucking just need to stop.
>>42263097>>42263094>>42263091>>42263082PS, what you're referencing would be a important in an experiment where there are multiple or various hypothesis for explaining the outcome. Like if we were trying to figure out if "ESP was causing something, or if maybe space aliens were beaming the answers into their brains magically,"But in this case we're not willing or needing to entertain any other hypothesis for how these people might have guessed the right answer. So what you're posting here is irrelevant and the "statistical significance" is the only thing which matters right now. Once more, very basic science stuff here. And you're very anti-science.
>>42263082>>42263091>>42263094>>42263097>>42263104PPS I mean unless you DO think space aliens were beaming the proper answers into the study participants' heads, but no one other than you would worry of that as a possibility.
>>42263097Effect size tells you how big the deviation from chance actually is. That's why the study you originally linked included it.Statistical significance alone does not mean the experiment "worked." Again I posed links telling EXACTLY this.If you continue to be a flamingly belligerent ignoramus like this the only person you'll convince is yourself (not difficult) while alienating anyone who knows what they are talking about.
>>42263109>Effect size tells you how big the deviation from chance actually is.No. That's what the "Statistical significance" is. You've just completely misdefined 1 word as the other, in order to evade having to recognize you're just wrong and full of bullshit."Effect size" is the magnitude of the effect, which, in this case, is entirely irrelevant since we're only trying to determine about whether or not this effect exists."Statistical significance" is, quite literally, the how big the deviation from chance is. I find it hard to believe, at this point, that you really believe any of what you're writing, and that you're not just intentionally trying to misinform and mislead people in order to push your agenda or evade admitting you were wrong.
>>42263109>>42263116PS, again, from YOUR own link here on "effect size".>In statistics, an effect size is a quantitative measure of the magnitude of a phenomenon.>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_sizeOK? And again, as I posted above, here is a wiki on "statistical significance", which literally references the probability in it's deviation from chance.>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significancePLEASE just stop now, alright? PLEASE. It's EMBARRASSING at this point for you. And you're just outright writing bullshit and brutally, intentionally, misdefining words to evade having to just admit when you're wrong.
>>42263124>>42263109>>42263116 >PS, again, from YOUR own link here on "effect size".>>In statistics, an effect size is a quantitative measure of the magnitude of a phenomenon.>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_size>OK? And again, as I posted above, here is a wiki on "statistical significance", which literally references the probability in it's deviation from chance.>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance>PLEASE just stop now, alright? PLEASE. It's EMBARRASSING at this point for you. And you're just outright writing bullshit and brutally, intentionally, misdefining words to evade having to just admit when you're wrong.PS you're not even "misdefining" these words. But rather, instead, you're literally swapping the meanings of the 2 things around, entirely in the most random way, in order to pretend "you win the argument" or whatever. Please just stop, man. It's no fun for me, and it's only making you look even worse.
I got to go do a bunch of bullshit anyway. Can't reply anymore. Your bullshit is just wrong, OP. You want to push this agenda in order to hide the facts about spirituality and paranormal powers from the public. And the reason a person would want to do that would be to hoard them for themselves only.
>>42263141>You want to push this agenda in order to hide the facts about spirituality and paranormal powers from the public. And the reason a person would want to do that would be to hoard them for themselves only.Seek help man, you're probably having manic episode.
>>42262637It's also a corruption of the original Greek/Buddhist skepticism. >Ancient Greek skepticism was a philosophical tradition focused on continuous inquiry (skepsis) and the suspension of judgment (epoche) regarding non-evident beliefs to achieve mental tranquility (ataraxia). Primarily divided into Pyrrhonism and Academic skepticism, it rejected dogmatism, arguing that one cannot definitively know the true nature of reality
>>42263144He's not. You're just nudging him staying true to your glowing tranny nature.Begone.
>>42262699Internet is being flooded in areas like /x/ with false conspiracies (flat earth as example) & skeptics. They're going hardcore on skeptics right now because alot of conspiracies are being proven true. They're hoping to tilt the shift back to anti-conspiracism.
>>42262708Repressed memories has been proven to be false.
