Mr.Samsa wrote:
What do you mean by "proper way to talk about 'non-scientific methodology'"? Where do you come up with this shit?

I'm just having a little fun with your endless production of bullshit, Mr.Samsa. Sure, some people might call chanting 'om mani padme om' a 'methodology', but that's mainly because 'self-important pronouncement of pants-shittingly stupid nonsense' sounds less-impressive -- calling it a methodology when it doesn't produce a result is just self-important pants-shittingly stupid nonsense.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
What do you mean by "proper way to talk about 'non-scientific methodology'"? Where do you come up with this shit?

I'm just having a little fun with your endless production of bullshit, Mr.Samsa. Sure, some people might call chanting 'om mani padme om' a 'methodology', but that's mainly because 'self-important pronouncement of pants-shittingly stupid nonsense' sounds less-impressive, because a methodology that doesn't produce a result is just self-important pants-shittingly stupid nonsense.

You call it "endless production of bullshit" but you forget that I embarrassed you by demonstrating that you are just making shit up and attributing it to me multiple times over the last couple of pages. In other words, the "endless production of bullshit" is entirely a product of your own mind. If such talk bothers you so much then stop fucking doing it.

It was funny at first showing you up as posting nothing but clear misrepresentations but it's getting a little boring now. Do you have any other tricks? Hey, here's an idea, instead of making shit up why don't you try addressing something relevant to the topic or maybe replying to something I have actually said?

I know it's a lot to ask but I'm just putting it out there.

Mr.Samsa wrote:...
...I have no trouble understanding "failure to replicate" but it appears that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means. "Failure to replicate" means that the methods of a study were repeated as exactly as possible and the same result wasn't found.

In no world does that mean that the effect doesn't exist and it doesn't even mean that we should be more likely to think the effect doesn't exist. If you have two results, one positive and one negative, you don't just side with the negative. This is because that result is just as likely to have been a result of chance as the positive result.

And did you actually read the paper you presented? Even the abstract provides a naturalistic explanation as an alternative explanation.
...

abstract wrote:These findings fail to confirm those reported by Robbins and Roe (2010) and support an explanation in terms of methodological artifact

Failure to replicate translates as "we found no such thing (as morphic resonance)". "methodological artifact" (sic) means failure to do the experiment correctly. Wibble as much as you like to the contrary, it's a public forum.

newolder wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:...
...I have no trouble understanding "failure to replicate" but it appears that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means. "Failure to replicate" means that the methods of a study were repeated as exactly as possible and the same result wasn't found.

In no world does that mean that the effect doesn't exist and it doesn't even mean that we should be more likely to think the effect doesn't exist. If you have two results, one positive and one negative, you don't just side with the negative. This is because that result is just as likely to have been a result of chance as the positive result.

And did you actually read the paper you presented? Even the abstract provides a naturalistic explanation as an alternative explanation.
...

abstract wrote:These findings fail to confirm those reported by Robbins and Roe (2010) and support an explanation in terms of methodological artifact

Failure to replicate translates as "we found no such thing (as morphic resonance)". "methodological artifact (sic)" means failure to do the experiment correctly. Wibble as much as you like to the contrary, it's a public forum.

To the first point, yes failure to replicate means that they didn't find it. So you have one positive result and one negative result; the negative result does not outweigh or trump the positive result.

Methodological artifact does not mean a failure to do the experiment correctly, it means that the positive result is due to an aspect of the methodological setup, like the randomly ordered counterbalancing coincidentally making a particularly outcome more likely than another. It can also mean a failure to do it properly (like forgetting to counterbalance at all) but not necessarily. Importantly, a methodological artifact is an alternative naturalistic explanation which you said was not included in the study.

You can talk of "wibble" all you want but you're the one making blatantly false claims about science. You thought that failure to replicate meant that there was no effect to explain and you're accusing me of "wibble"? Come on now, that's just silly.

Mr.Samsa wrote:To the first point, yes failure to replicate means that they didn't find it. So you have one positive result and one negative result; the negative result does not outweigh or trump the positive result.

From Newolder's link::

However, potential shortcomings were identified within the experimental design, and so the current study was intended to replicate earlier findings with a more robust research design that used a more comprehensive system of randomising across participants.

The original study was flawed, ergo the new study outweighs the original.

Pulsar wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:To the first point, yes failure to replicate means that they didn't find it. So you have one positive result and one negative result; the negative result does not outweigh or trump the positive result.

From Newolder's link::

However, potential shortcomings were identified within the experimental design, and so the current study was intended to replicate earlier findings with a more robust research design that used a more comprehensive system of randomising across participants.

The original study was flawed, ergo the new study outweighs the original.

Firstly, the discussion of "shortcomings" doesn't mean the study was flawed, it means that it might not have been as rigorous as it could have been. If we interpreted "shortcomings" as "flawed" then, by definition, practically every single scientific study would be "flawed". And obviously we can't judge whether the authors' claims of shortcomings are valid or not without access to the paper and I can't find it.

Secondly, that doesn't contradict the comment of mine that you linked. The discussion there was about whether "failure to replicate" indicates that there was no effect or not. Newolder argued that it does and I argued that it didn't, but there was no discussion about shortcomings in methodology.

To the first point, yes failure to replicate means that they didn't find it. So you have one positive result and one negative result; the negative result does not outweigh or trump the positive result.

The author common to both studies (Roe) changed their mind in light of improved experiment. Only a fool would do otherwise.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Morphic resonance is essentially a reformulation of vitalism which claims that there is a non-physical thing that somehow interacts with the physical and creates some effect. How could a methodology which inherently ignores any possible non-physical causes (i.e. science) test non-physical causes?

As I've explained before to you, I don't recognise this profound distinction you do between the "physical" and the "non-physical".

If morphic resonance were an actual thing, then what we would be dealing with would be some force or substance hitherto unaccounted for by the body of scientific knowledge. "Physical" and "Non-Physical" don't enter into it.

As I've also explained to you before, this would merely place us in the same position as we were before scientists started studying gravity, or air, or any number of extant things that are not directly observable in an obvious way. That is, Sheldrake thinks phenomena (the bit I bolded in your post) are being caused by this force or substance,he forms falsifiable hypotheses about how this is happening, he attempts to falsify them, he adjusts his hypothesis and ... surely I don't need to tell you how this works?

I'd also like to say that I do understand you are not supporting Sheldrake's attempt to lower the standards of the scientific method due to the fact that this would obviously destroy the confidence in results that is what makes science useful in the first place. I just think you are giving the guy's claims unnecessary credence.

What we are dealing with is a dude who was quite willing to use the scientific method, right up to the point that he was unable to provide the evidence required to back up his hypothesis and who has gone on to blame the scientific method rather than the failings of either his methodology or his hypothesis.

It's absolutely classic pseudoscience.

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Morphic resonance is essentially a reformulation of vitalism which claims that there is a non-physical thing that somehow interacts with the physical and creates some effect. How could a methodology which inherently ignores any possible non-physical causes (i.e. science) test non-physical causes?

As I've explained before to you, I don't recognise this profound distinction you do between the "physical" and the "non-physical".

If morphic resonance were an actual thing, then what we would be dealing with would be some force or substance hitherto unaccounted for by the body of scientific knowledge. "Physical" and "Non-Physical" don't enter into it.

As I've also explained to you before, this would merely place us in the same position as we were before scientists started studying gravity, or air, or any number of extant things that are not directly observable in an obvious way. That is, Sheldrake thinks phenomena (the bit I bolded in your post) are being caused by this force or substance,he forms falsifiable hypotheses about how this is happening, he attempts to falsify them, he adjusts his hypothesis and ... surely I don't need to tell you how this works?

I'd also like to say that I do understand you are not supporting Sheldrake's attempt to lower the standards of the scientific method due to the fact that this would obviously destroy the confidence in results that is what makes science useful in the first place. I just think you are giving the guy's claims unnecessary credence.

What we are dealing with is a dude who was quite willing to use the scientific method, right up to the point that he was unable to provide the evidence required to back up his hypothesis and who has gone on to blame the scientific method rather than the failings of either his methodology or his hypothesis.

It's absolutely classic pseudoscience.

It's the quintessential woo-peddler's methodology: Naively propose an actual hypothesis, then test it. When it fails, rationalize it away with a new modified hypothesis. Never actually admit to yourself (or any one) that your original hypothesis has been falsified, no no, the new modified version is what you meant all along. After a few tries of reinventing the hypothesis with new parameters, but consistently coming up short on actual demonstrations, start blaming science itself.

Bah, that whole testing thing, who needs that anyway? Surely there's "other ways of knowing" besides, you know, actually demonstrating an effect.

This is what EVERY single peddler of supernaturalist woo has done for all of time. Some of them took the hint early and proceeded to just making straight up unfalsifiable woo (we can't predict anything with god's free will etc.) for various human emotional reasons (can't live without higher purpose, "deeper answers", an afterlife bla bla), others just refuse to accept the results. Sheldrake used to be in the latter category but he's now moved on to full blown rejection of the methodology of testing. Now to him because science doesn't produce the answers he wants, science itself must be flawed.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Pulsar wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:To the first point, yes failure to replicate means that they didn't find it. So you have one positive result and one negative result; the negative result does not outweigh or trump the positive result.

From Newolder's link::

However, potential shortcomings were identified within the experimental design, and so the current study was intended to replicate earlier findings with a more robust research design that used a more comprehensive system of randomising across participants.

The original study was flawed, ergo the new study outweighs the original.

Firstly, the discussion of "shortcomings" doesn't mean the study was flawed, it means that it might not have been as rigorous as it could have been. If we interpreted "shortcomings" as "flawed" then, by definition, practically every single scientific study would be "flawed". And obviously we can't judge whether the authors' claims of shortcomings are valid or not without access to the paper and I can't find it.

Secondly, that doesn't contradict the comment of mine that you linked. The discussion there was about whether "failure to replicate" indicates that there was no effect or not. Newolder argued that it does and I argued that it didn't, but there was no discussion about shortcomings in methodology.

True and untrue. In general 'pilot' studies tend to produce 'large' effects due to faulty design and type 2 errors among other things. Often subsequent studies being better designed end up with much narrower confidence intervals, which often can exclude any significant effect.
Now that is an ideal scenario - but take for example initial studies suggesting magnesium, vitamin E and HRT were beneficial in heart disease, followed by properly constructed trials showing no benefit and even a trend to harm. The authors of int initial 'wrong' trials were the most resistant to this new information.
Usually however, while further trials may be negative, they lack to power to exclude an effect.

newolder wrote:

To the first point, yes failure to replicate means that they didn't find it. So you have one positive result and one negative result; the negative result does not outweigh or trump the positive result.

The author common to both studies (Roe) changed their mind in light of improved experiment. Only a fool would do otherwise.

Are we basing scientific conclusions on opinions and personal positions now?...

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Morphic resonance is essentially a reformulation of vitalism which claims that there is a non-physical thing that somehow interacts with the physical and creates some effect. How could a methodology which inherently ignores any possible non-physical causes (i.e. science) test non-physical causes?

As I've explained before to you, I don't recognise this profound distinction you do between the "physical" and the "non-physical".

And that is your choice, but words and concepts don't just disappear if you close your eyes tightly enough.

Nicko wrote:If morphic resonance were an actual thing, then what we would be dealing with would be some force or substance hitherto unaccounted for by the body of scientific knowledge. "Physical" and "Non-Physical" don't enter into it.

If it's non-physical then, by science's very nature, it will always be unaccounted for even if real.

Nicko wrote:As I've also explained to you before, this would merely place us in the same position as we were before scientists started studying gravity, or air, or any number of extant things that are not directly observable in an obvious way. That is, Sheldrake thinks phenomena (the bit I bolded in your post) are being caused by this force or substance,he forms falsifiable hypotheses about how this is happening, he attempts to falsify them, he adjusts his hypothesis and ... surely I don't need to tell you how this works?

It wouldn't be the same as things like gravity, air, etc, are physical things and science can study the physical things (as I've explained to you before).

Nicko wrote:I'd also like to say that I do understand you are not supporting Sheldrake's attempt to lower the standards of the scientific method due to the fact that this would obviously destroy the confidence in results that is what makes science useful in the first place. I just think you are giving the guy's claims unnecessary credence.

I'm not giving them any credence at all, I am simply respecting the scientific method and not trying to abuse it in order to fit my personal beliefs. I would love for science to be able to state that non-physical or supernatural things don't exist. I would be ecstatic if I could devise such experiments, publish them, and state with a high degree of certainty that the ideas expressed by anti-science idiots are objectively wrong.

I just can't do that without fucking up the process of science.

Nicko wrote:What we are dealing with is a dude who was quite willing to use the scientific method, right up to the point that he was unable to provide the evidence required to back up his hypothesis and who has gone on to blame the scientific method rather than the failings of either his methodology or his hypothesis.

It's absolutely classic pseudoscience.

Maybe so but I find it troubling that so far nobody has actually explained why his arguments for a change in the scientific method are wrong. Remember that what you've described there has occurred multiple times in the history of science and their arguments were found to be accurate, and we actually changed the scientific process in light of them. So whilst it may be an act of pseudoscience, it could also be a necessary reaction to a flaw in scientific methodology.

I don't believe it is but I think people seem to be dismissing it without reason and instead basing their position on what is essentially: "But science is right!". Yeah, often it is right but sometimes it's inadequate and needs to be fixed - the debate here is whether this is an instance of science being right and a charlatan refusing to admit fault, or whether it is something that needs to be fixed.

Pebble wrote:

Firstly, the discussion of "shortcomings" doesn't mean the study was flawed, it means that it might not have been as rigorous as it could have been. If we interpreted "shortcomings" as "flawed" then, by definition, practically every single scientific study would be "flawed". And obviously we can't judge whether the authors' claims of shortcomings are valid or not without access to the paper and I can't find it.

Secondly, that doesn't contradict the comment of mine that you linked. The discussion there was about whether "failure to replicate" indicates that there was no effect or not. Newolder argued that it does and I argued that it didn't, but there was no discussion about shortcomings in methodology.

True and untrue. In general 'pilot' studies tend to produce 'large' effects due to faulty design and type 2 errors among other things. Often subsequent studies being better designed end up with much narrower confidence intervals, which often can exclude any significant effect.
Now that is an ideal scenario - but take for example initial studies suggesting magnesium, vitamin E and HRT were beneficial in heart disease, followed by properly constructed trials showing no benefit and even a trend to harm. The authors of int initial 'wrong' trials were the most resistant to this new information.
Usually however, while further trials may be negative, they lack to power to exclude an effect.

Sure, no disagreement there, but we aren't talking about pilot studies. And whilst we'd assume that follow-up studies are better designed, this isn't necessarily true so if the only information we have is that there is one positive result and one negative, we have no way of deciding between the two.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Nicko wrote:As I've explained before to you, I don't recognise this profound distinction you do between the "physical" and the "non-physical".

And that is your choice, but words and concepts don't just disappear if you close your eyes tightly enough.

You know very well that is not the basis upon which I reject a profound distinction between "physical/natural/material" things and "non-physical/supernatural/spiritual" things. In case you had genuinely forgotten the previous instances where I have made my position clear, I've already linked to an article that explains the problems with proposing such a profound distinction.

Mr.Samsa wrote:If it's non-physical then, by science's very nature, it will always be unaccounted for even if real.

Mr.Samsa wrote:It wouldn't be the same as things like gravity, air, etc, are physical things and science can study the physical things (as I've explained to you before).

If you'd like to explain how it is you are making this distinction between the "physical" and "non-physical", I might be able to treat these comments with something other than dismissive contempt.

Try this. If you were wandering along one day and encountered something completely outside your experience, upon what basis would you decide if the thing was "physical" or "non-physical"?

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
And that is your choice, but words and concepts don't just disappear if you close your eyes tightly enough.

You know very well that is not the basis upon which I reject a profound distinction between "physical/natural/material" things and "non-physical/supernatural/spiritual" things. In case you had genuinely forgotten the previous instances where I have made my position clear, I've already linked to an article that explains the problems with proposing such a profound distinction.

It's not possible to reject a distinction between the two concepts and still be saying something meaningful. It's like saying you don't recognise a distinction between the concepts of "above" and "below". We've discussed Paul Almond's article before and I've explained why I think it's flawed - presenting it again isn't going to somehow convince me.

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:If it's non-physical then, by science's very nature, it will always be unaccounted for even if real.

Mr.Samsa wrote:It wouldn't be the same as things like gravity, air, etc, are physical things and science can study the physical things (as I've explained to you before).

If you'd like to explain how it is you are making this distinction between the "physical" and "non-physical", I might be able to treat these comments with something other than dismissive contempt.

Physical things are those with physical dimensions, like mass, height, length, etc, and they are usually observable. Non-physical things are usually defined as being the opposite, as in having no material basis.

But just hold up a second there: I'm the one using commonly accepted words that are used by the general public, scientists, philosophers, and other relevant academics. You can dismiss my comments if you like but you're the one with the burden of proof if you want to say that the distinction does not hold.

I'm happy to play along because I think demanding things of other people in debates like "burden of proof" disrupt actual discussion more than promote it but I just want it to be very clear here that you are the one making the extremely radical claim, not me. You hold the fringe position and it's really up to you to be supporting it, rather than asking people to link you to a dictionary.

Nicko wrote:Try this. If you were wandering along one day and encountered something completely outside your experience, upon what basis would you decide if the thing was "physical" or "non-physical"?

I'm not sure such a thing even makes sense to talk about but your comment presupposes that such things can exist which is unnecessary. All you need to recognise is that there is a distinction in concepts, not that such concepts are even possible.

In other words, if I create a method of identifying animals which specifically adopts an axiom which says that it can only detect observable blue creatures, then before we even begin an investigation I can say that a limitation of my method is that even if invisible pink unicorns existed, my method would not be able to detect them. It doesn't matter if invisible pink unicorns existed, it doesn't even matter if it's a coherent concept. All that matters is that if they did somehow exist then my method has no means in which they could identify them.

The same applies to science in its adoption of the principle of ignoring the possibility of supernatural entities. Without lending any credence to the concept of the supernatural at all or even entertaining the possibility of it being a coherent concept, we can say with absolute confidence that science could not identify a supernatural cause or entity given its current method. By definition that is necessarily true.

Mr.Samsa wrote:The same applies to science in its adoption of the principle of ignoring the possibility of supernatural entities. Without lending any credence to the concept of the supernatural at all or even entertaining the possibility of it being a coherent concept, we can say with absolute confidence that science could not identify a supernatural cause or entity given its current method. By definition that is necessarily true.

The concept now referenced by the term 'supernatural' was invented by ignorant people who were complete idiots compared to moderns with respect to the scope of application of the term 'natural', people who didn't know how to classify all of human physiology as 'natural'. Now there are people like Sheldrake who take advantage of the credulity of others who, for whatever reason, can't let go of that sort of idiocy, usually because they are attached to wishful thinking that death is not the end. Some others, in their lust to slap the label 'rational skeptic' on themselves, may simply be embarrassed any more to shout their wishful thinking loudly, and instead repeat mantras like 'we can(not) say with absolute confidence' without reference to anything specific, which is ridiculous in its banality and triviality.

If we say with absolute confidence that science could not identify a 'supernatural cause', then we are granting an absolute power to the semantic content of 'natural' and 'super' that is nothing short of woo-addled worship of some linguistic theory or other, never specified very precisely at all.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:The same applies to science in its adoption of the principle of ignoring the possibility of supernatural entities. Without lending any credence to the concept of the supernatural at all or even entertaining the possibility of it being a coherent concept, we can say with absolute confidence that science could not identify a supernatural cause or entity given its current method. By definition that is necessarily true.

The concept of 'supernatural' was invented by ignorant people who were complete idiots compared to moderns with respect to the scope of application of the term 'natural', people who didn't know how to classify all of human physiology as 'natural'. Now there are people like Sheldrake who take advantage of the credulity of others who, for whatever reason, can't let go of that sort of idiocy, usually because they are attached to wishful thinking that death is not the end. Some others, in their lust to slap the label 'rational skeptic' on themselves, may simply be embarrassed any more to shout their wishful thinking loudly, and instead repeat mantras like 'we can(not) say with absolute confidence' without reference to anything specific, which is ridiculous in its banality and triviality.

If we say with absolute confidence that science could not identify a 'supernatural cause', then we are granting an absolute power to the semantic content of 'natural' and 'super' that is nothing short of woo-addled worship of some linguistic theory or other, never specified very precisely at all.

Sorry, no idea what you're trying to say here. I recognise the words but they make no sense in the order you've randomly thrown them at the screen in.

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:The same applies to science in its adoption of the principle of ignoring the possibility of supernatural entities. Without lending any credence to the concept of the supernatural at all or even entertaining the possibility of it being a coherent concept, we can say with absolute confidence that science could not identify a supernatural cause or entity given its current method. By definition that is necessarily true.

The concept of 'supernatural' was invented by ignorant people who were complete idiots compared to moderns with respect to the scope of application of the term 'natural', people who didn't know how to classify all of human physiology as 'natural'. Now there are people like Sheldrake who take advantage of the credulity of others who, for whatever reason, can't let go of that sort of idiocy, usually because they are attached to wishful thinking that death is not the end. Some others, in their lust to slap the label 'rational skeptic' on themselves, may simply be embarrassed any more to shout their wishful thinking loudly, and instead repeat mantras like 'we can(not) say with absolute confidence' without reference to anything specific, which is ridiculous in its banality and triviality.

If we say with absolute confidence that science could not identify a 'supernatural cause', then we are granting an absolute power to the semantic content of 'natural' and 'super' that is nothing short of woo-addled worship of some linguistic theory or other, never specified very precisely at all.

Sorry, no idea what you're trying to say here. I recognise the words but they make no sense in the order you've randomly thrown them at the screen in.

He is just into his usual rant about us all being closet wooists, pay him no mind.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Sorry, no idea what you're trying to say here. I recognise the words but they make no sense in the order you've randomly thrown them at the screen in.

Two can play at that game:

LucidFlight wrote:Mr.Samsa, I really want to understand what you're saying, but my brain hurts trying to follow the twists and turns of it all. I guess I'm not cut out for these sorts of discussions. I'm going to go have a lie down now. Thanks for trying to help me understand, though. I do appreciate it. Maybe I'll come back later and try to figure it out.

I'll let you guess which one I find more humourous.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
He is just into his usual rant about us all being closet wooists, pay him no mind.

Ah, I figured there was an insult in there but it was obscured by his inability to effectively communicate.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Sorry, no idea what you're trying to say here. I recognise the words but they make no sense in the order you've randomly thrown them at the screen in.

Two can play at that game:

LucidFlight wrote:Mr.Samsa, I really want to understand what you're saying, but my brain hurts trying to follow the twists and turns of it all. I guess I'm not cut out for these sorts of discussions. I'm going to go have a lie down now. Thanks for trying to help me understand, though. I do appreciate it. Maybe I'll come back later and try to figure it out.

I'll let you guess which one I find more humourous.

Are you serious? You're so upset that people can't understand you that you're going to derail the thread by scouring RatSkep to find similar instances of failures to understand that don't involve you to make, what point exactly? Is your suggestion that unless I'm perfectly understood under all circumstances and to all people then... what? That you are suddenly intelligible? How exactly does that work in your mind? You know what, nevermind.

Stay classy, Cito.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Physical things are those with physical dimensions, like mass, height, length, etc, and they are usually observable. Non-physical things are usually defined as being the opposite, as in having no material basis.

So what makes mass, height etc "physical"?

What non=physical things are there which have no physical basis?

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
He is just into his usual rant about us all being closet wooists, pay him no mind.

Where'd ya get your concept of 'supernatural', DB? Name your sources! Surely it wasn't Rupert Sheldrake!

Oh, OK. I get it. Unsourced and private references have metaphysical weight. You go, DB!