Jesse

Volker.Doormann:
Jesse,

I claim, I can specify a character of a born human from the laws of nature each time repeatable in a reasonable understandable order by meaningful words to be right. I have given a prove to this here, and this prove is acknowledged by the test person in about 24 specific properties as true

This "proof" is meaningless if you ignore the number of statements that were not true. Volker, surely you'd agree that if I come up with enough statements (say, 1000, as in my original scenario) off the top of my head, each of which applies to 5% or more of the population, then at least 24 are likely to apply to any given person just by random chance? Or would you deny that? If you refuse to answer this very simple question "yes" or "no", I will conclude that you are not interested in having a respectful discussion with me.

The real question here is whether the ratio of hits to misses in Lobstrosity's profile is more than would be expected by random chance. That's an issue open to debate. But as long as you continue to deny that the number of misses is even relevant in evaluating the significance of the 24 hits, you are displaying gross ignorance of the most basic ideas of statistics. The idea that you can't throw out negative results on a test you've already performed when computing the significance level (although you can redesign the test in a way that you think will raise the number of hits on future tests, as I mentioned) is as basic in statistics as the idea that you can't divide by zero in arithmetic--there is no room for debate on these issues. This issue has nothing to do with astrology, it's just basic math.

Volker.Doormann

How about clear (scientific) arguments and free speech on the subject, without arguing on the person?

Lobstrosity

That would be lovely, Volker. Just let me know when you actually plan to start making clear (scientific) arguments. Every post of yours is simply a failure to address the points others have made coupled with obfuscation tactics and a mind-bogglingly poor grasp of both science and statistical analysis. It eventually gets to the point where someone has to call you on this as your posting style makes it impossible to debate the real issues with you.

Volker.Doormann

Wait, wait. Who has given a proof, that there are a number of statements, that should not true?

A blue eye skeptic? Or a man, who agree on. " it costs (me) much effort to develop the ability to say what (I) feel real.". (?)

No Sir. We can discuss on that. But prior to your fantasy about 'proofs' were not true, we must discuss on that. This is not done until now. There is no discussion on the matter. Subdiscussion on statistics, Randi, physics instead, and final words to fails on the remote side.

You take that, what the test person is telling about fails for true, and that, what the test person is telling for true for 'meaningless'.

You do not take in account, that this blue eye test person can be biased in its answers. That is a serious lack of competence in judging on this plot.

You know, that in the German set up of testing astrology the astrologers have eliminated test persons, who are recognized as biased.

You are unable to serve an adequate professional statistical evaluation on this plot, but you criticizes my ideas about significance values.

You have not given a reasonable explanation about, why a true descriptions about a person should be taken as untrue or meaningless.

This is not science, this is religion. Religion of ignorance. And this is meaningless.

I have written in the analyses of the test person #3 :"On the basis of your inflexible strength and your insight ability, you could give the mankind big, new and important realizations in the area of the sciences."

This was one of 24 statements, that the test person has accepted as true. I have argued and claimed, that this statement is a result of reasonable rules. You have ignored this in total. You want not to know what the rule is. Not, what the rationality of this is.

But you claim - knowing the test person and his great investigations in natural science - that exact this truth 'must' be taken as 'meaningless'.

Sure, not all of the thousand+ of interpretations are perfect in the description and formulation, and clearness. Translation filtering, culture understanding or anything else. But what I wonder is, why there is ignorance here in total about that, what most people acknowledge as evident.

Astrology must be a terrible thing, that it is ignored by skeptics in total.

Volker

Lobstrosity

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

echidna

This is kinda funny from someone whose "Ignore List" covers a sizable proportion of S&S posters & ends most conversations by adding another name.

Jesse

Volker.Doormann:
Wait, wait. Who has given a proof, that there are a number of statements, that should not true?

I was just responding to your own words:

I assumed you meant "proof", since "prove" is a verb but here you were using it as a noun. But if you prefer, you could change that sentence in my post to "This 'evidence' is meaningless if you ignore the number of statements that were not true".

Anyway, my last post wasn't about astrology at all, it was solely about the narrow question of whether it's OK to throw away results when calculating the probability (or significance value) of getting a given number (like 24) of hits on a test. You responded with another long soliloquy about issues unrelated to the topic of my post (my post had nothing to do with the general validity of astrology, skepticism, etc.), and once again ignored the simple yes/no question I've repeated in my last 3 or 4 posts. To me, ignoring the contents of the post you're responding to and refusing to answer a simple question is a sign of a lack of respect for your discussion partner, so unless you plan to at least answer that one question, I won't waste my time with someone who's more interested in sermonizing than a two-way dialogue.

Volker.Doormann

I think, I have leyed down my arguments and an example of astro_logical work.

Thank you, Jesse, spending your time to this.

Volker

Secular Pinoy

And the dear astrologer has yet again evaded direct questions regarding his craft.

Volker.Doormann

dannybhoy1.tripod.com/paranormal.htm :
"Despite a 130-year record of scientific research on parapsychology, our committee could find no scientific justification for the existence of phenomena such as extra sensory perception, mental telepathy, or "mind over matter" exercises. - National Research Council, 1988"

"Paranormal encompasses several distinct phenomena. In fact, most of the subjects criticized in this web site can be considered as Paranormal. But allow me to restrict it to certain subjects that are usually thought of when we think of the word paranormal. These are ESP, telepathy, ghosts, astrology and divination."

www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/tucson.html
"THE PARANORMAL: THE EVIDENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSCIOUSNESS
Jessica Utts and Brian D. Josephson
... Debunkers of parapsychology are fond of showcasing the very few experiments that have been found to have serious problems. But that ignores the fact that the vast majority of experiments were done using excellent protocols, paying close attention to potential subtle cues, using well-tested randomisation devices and so on. For the past decade the U.S. government experiments were overseen by a very high-level scientific committee, consisting of respected academics from a variety of disciplines, all of whom were required to critique and approve the protocols in advance. There have been no explanations forthcoming that allow an honest observer to dismiss the growing collection of consistent results.
What are the implications for science of the fact that psychic functioning appears to be a real effect? These phenomena seem mysterious, but no more mysterious perhaps than strange phenomena of the past which science has now happily incorporated within its scope. What ideas might be relevant in the context of suitably extending science to take these phenomena into account? Two such concepts are those of the observer, and non-locality. The observer forces his way into modern science because the equations of quantum physics, if taken literally, imply a universe that is constantly splitting into separate branches, only one of which corresponds to our perceived reality. A process of "decoherence" has been invoked to stop two branches interfering with each other, but this still does not answer the question of why our experience is of one particular branch and not any other. Perhaps, despite the unpopularity of the idea, the experiencers of the reality are also the selectors.
This idea perhaps makes sense in the light of theories that presuppose that quantum theory is not the ultimate theory of nature, but involves (in ways that in some versions of the idea can be made mathematically precise) the manifestations of a deeper "subquantum domain". In just the same way that a surf rider can make use of random waves to travel effortlessly along, a psychic may be able to direct random energy at the subquantum level for her own purposes. Some accounts of the subquantum level involve action at a distance, which fits in well with some purported psychic abilities.
These proposals are extremely speculative. What needs to be done, in any event, is to integrate mental phenomena more thoroughly into the framework of science (including the quantum level) than is presently the case. The research of Lawrence LeShan (as described in his book The Medium, the Mystic and the Physicist), where interviews with psychics disclosed that they were aware of a "hierarchy of meaningful interconnections", perhaps provides a hint of what might be involved. Science has a poor handle on ideas such as meaningful interconnections since they are alien to its usual ways of thinking. Perhaps it will need to overcome its current abhorrence of such concepts in order to arrive at the truth."

www.parapsych.org/members/j_m_utts.html Jessica Utts is professor of statistics, University of California, Davis, and was one of two experts commissioned by the CIA to review the two-decade U.S. government psychic research programme in the Summer of 1995. She has recently published a book, Seeing Through Statistics, Duxbury Press, 1996, designed to improve understanding of statistical studies. Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate, is professor of physics, University of Cambridge, and heads the Mind-Matter Unification Project at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge."

dannybhoy1.tripod.com/religion.htm
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
- Gautama Buddha "

You never have realized this, little debunker.