Double standards in experiments

Originally posted by Deadline
I suspect you probably never even heard of Bayesian analysis and just started using it.

😆

What's wrong with using an alternative and possibly superior method even IF he just started using it? I see no fault. One should be applauded for such an endeavor. Don't you agree?

Originally posted by Deadline
Anyway I don't have enough in-depth knowledge to challenge in detail (or time to read up) but again I've asked people who have more knowledge about this subject than you do and they don't agree with your opinion.

Who? It's basic stuff you'll cover in your college stats class. There's no much to disagree on other than the semantics inimalist and I were arguing over...and that argument did not really affect the overall conclusion of how this data can be used (or not used).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Who? It's basic stuff you'll cover in your college stats class. There's no much to disagree on other than the semantics inimalist and I were arguing over...and that argument did not really affect the overall conclusion of how this data can be used (or not used).

Bayes doesn't get taught in most undergrad stat classes since its so anti-intuitive and people are already terrified of math classes so I'm not sure I'd call it "basic stuff". You might get Bayes Theorem mentioned but that's about it. It would be hard to get into graduate level psychology (or any other field that's heavy on data analysis) in the last ten years without being familiar with it, though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Bayes doesn't get taught in most undergrad stat classes since its so anti-intuitive and people are already terrified of math classes so I'm not sure I'd call it "basic stuff". You might get Bayes Theorem mentioned but that's about it. It would be hard to get into graduate level psychology (or any other field that's heavy on data analysis) in the last ten years without being familiar with it, though.

Look at the portion of his post that I quoted. The words I typed to that portion of his post have nothing directly to do with Bayesian probabilities nor did the section of his that I quoted.

Edit - Additionally, Bayesian stats is covered in my 3000 level class (junior) so I am not sure what you're talking about. It would depend on your degree and the institution you attend.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Look at the portion of his post that I quoted. The words I typed to that portion of his post have nothing directly to do with Bayesian probabilities nor did the section of his that I quoted.

Deadline's whole post looked like it was about Bayes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - Additionally, Bayesian stats is covered in my 3000 level class (junior) so I am not sure what you're talking about. It would depend on your degree and the institution you attend.

I certainly wouldn't count Junior level stats as "basic". srug

At that point your probably in a major where stats are really going to be important.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Bayes doesn't get taught in most undergrad stat classes since its so anti-intuitive and people are already terrified of math classes so I'm not sure I'd call it "basic stuff". You might get Bayes Theorem mentioned but that's about it. It would be hard to get into graduate level psychology (or any other field that's heavy on data analysis) in the last ten years without being familiar with it, though.

actually, we don't even get it at a graduate level, hence why I was trying to teach myself.

among the sciences though, psychology is still behind the times in terms of stats. I've had people in graduate level stats courses argue that they aren't important because you can just look at a graph and tell what is significant (and, fields like ABA, personality/social, etc, are often loath to use real statistics).

From the readings I do, Bayes is actually really rare, to the point where it might actually be more difficult to get publications with Bayes, as the editors wont know it and people are very territorial when it comes to change.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Deadline's whole post looked like it was about Bayes.

I disagree, but I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I certainly wouldn't count Junior level stats as "basic". srug

I wouldn't count junior level stats as post-grad coursework, either.

However, I looked it up and it is a 2000 level course (sophomore), not a 3000 level.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
At that point your probably in a major where stats are really going to be important.

Cyber Security and Digital Forensics. But after contemplating your point, you're right: Business Stats uses "Bayesian statistics" more so than most other applied stats courses that I know.

Originally posted by inimalist
From the readings I do, Bayes is actually really rare, to the point where it might actually be more difficult to get publications with Bayes, as the editors wont know it and people are very territorial when it comes to change.

I believe it was you who I was talking to about how "cliquish" publishing work can be. It is a bit irritating, imo, and part of the "subjective" portion of science that shouldn't really be there. I do understand the funding and "audience" requirements, however...

Originally posted by Digi
You keep making accusations like this, but never back them up. I would think you'd enjoy someone taking as much time as inimilist has to engage the topic with you, regardless of whether or not you disagree. Because, contrary to what your posts suggest you think, most peoples' motivating factor in these discussions is not to win debates on the internet by making things up.

Professed ignorance followed by an appeal to authority.

Lack of effort followed by another veiled accusation (also unsupported).

Note: I haven't once commented on your position, just your methods of debate. You can change to a more amenable form of communication without rubbing everyone the wrong way, and without having to change your positions on any topic.

Thats nonsense and you know it. Already made a post which showed you're hypocrisy and and I'm pretty sure you decided to ignore it. Obvoulsy what you're trying to do now is to get everybody to gang up on me.

Don't bother because I can easily prove you're one of the hypocrites as well. I have better things to do however.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see what you want here deadline...? like, you seem determined to keep this active, but your posts amount to little more than accusations of lying and insults, whereas you are the first person to cry foul when you perceive even the smallest slight from other members. You clearly don't read what I'm writing, and have essentially refused to support any study or answer any claim I have made in this thread.

It really seems like you are looking for some kind of validation or vindication of your position from me, which, tbh, really isn't that important. If you believe this stuff, sure, that is cool, I don't judge you for that, however, if you want to substantiate this idea that psi phenomenon are being specifically ignored and there is a vast conspiracy among psychologists to suppress it, you might have to do better than suggesting I don't understand things that I've made (in retrospect far too) long posts describing.

I mean, you asked people who know better than I do, wtf do you care what I think? Obviously I don't know what I'm talking about. It's not like I do this for a living. Every. Day. Of. My. Life.

That last post with the smilies was supposed to be tongue in cheek. Look man you're basically a liar from the beginning you've argued that there is no evidence for the paranormal and I've discussed this shit with you for years. Whats clear is that you're biased, for example it seems pretty obvious that you didn't even know that there was actually evidence in favour of the paranormal or know any of the scientists who believe it exists.

On the face of it my post looks like a cop out but it just comes from experience of your debating style. Look didn't really want to argue with you, just explaining my reasons for not replying.

Originally posted by dadudemon
😆

What's wrong with using an alternative and possibly superior method even IF he just started using it? I see no fault. One should be applauded for such an endeavor. Don't you agree?

Who? It's basic stuff you'll cover in your college stats class. There's no much to disagree on other than the semantics inimalist and I were arguing over...and that argument did not really affect the overall conclusion of how this data can be used (or not used).

Theres nothing wrong with that, but basically his MO is to try and debunk as much as he can hes not doing it with open mindness. He also exaggerates about how much he knows about this subject. He sets himself up as an expert but what beceome apparent over the years is that he really doesn't even know the subject well either.

You just get offended too easily. Half the time you're spouting off about hypocrisy or something and we're just confused, trying to have a conversation with you. Your apparent persecution complex doesn't serve you well here; we're just dudes trying to talk about sh*t, not one-up each other or gang up on anyone.

Anyway, I was just trying to help you out with my last post, even if it did include some criticisms of your debate style. I'm not "against" you in any sense here, and haven't even been a part of this conversation on experiments.

Originally posted by Digi
You just get offended too easily. Half the time you're spouting off about hypocrisy or something and we're just confused, trying to have a conversation with you. Your apparent persecution complex doesn't serve you well here; we're just dudes trying to talk about sh*t, not one-up each other or gang up on anyone.

You're 100% incorrect. Maybe what I'll do is post your obnoxious post again. Basically you athiests take yourself too serioulsy.

Originally posted by Deadline
You're 100% incorrect. Maybe what I'll do is post your obnoxious post again. Basically you athiests take yourself too serioulsy.

Generalization, sarcasm, and insults.

I've got something like 30K posts on KMC. If you decide to hate me, you can find some isolated incidents of idiocy. It's basically unavoidable. The vast majority of my history on this forum is behavior that I'm proud of, though - either debating rationally and respectfully with others, or sharing my views in a candid manner.

"Taking too seriously" I would think would be something more along the lines of holding grudges over months and years. I can't even remember our fights - seriously, I can't. I don't hold grudges. If I burned a torch for everyone who ever insulted or disliked me (usually just because I'm a mod, once in a while with legit reason), I'd never sleep.

If I've ever offended you in any way, you have my sincere apologies. It doesn't mean I'm a fan of how you're handling yourself right now, but it means I don't want bad blood between us.

Originally posted by Deadline
That last post with the smilies was supposed to be tongue in cheek. Look man you're basically a liar from the beginning you've argued that there is no evidence for the paranormal and I've discussed this shit with you for years. Whats clear is that you're biased, for example it seems pretty obvious that you didn't even know that there was actually evidence in favour of the paranormal or know any of the scientists who believe it exists.

On the face of it my post looks like a cop out but it just comes from experience of your debating style. Look didn't really want to argue with you, just explaining my reasons for not replying.

you are correct, it is entirely my fault that you are both unable and unwilling to defend your position.

look, you don't need me to validate what you believe, just be a happy person confident in the knowledge that I'm obviously wrong.

****ing douche

Originally posted by Deadline
Theres nothing wrong with that, but basically his MO is to try and debunk as much as he can hes not doing it with open mindness. He also exaggerates about how much he knows about this subject. He sets himself up as an expert but what beceome apparent over the years is that he really doesn't even know the subject well either.

There's this internet video out there that explains that concluding just one thing instead of keeping and open mind to many other explanations is actually being closed minded. Meaning, you're concluding one thing while inimalist is only addressing that one particular approach. He doesn't mean he is closed minded, at all.

HOWEVER...I have no idea what possibilities he is willing to entertain nor do I know if he is open minded. I'm just giving you a tip on what open-mindedness can mean for different people.

Me? Man, you know I'd love for those studies to show some sort of ESP. But I'd want some very very solid evidence before I believe the ESP conclusions. More likely, I would look for reasons that proved the stats were wrong or that the studies themselves were conducted with suspect. I consider myself fairly open minded by I also consider myself a skeptic.

More on your point, only an idiot would try and rationalize away clear evidence in favor of a conclusion. I am not too sure these studies do that for us. One or two did but it would have created a shit-storm if it was legit. So it is more likely that I am missing something or am not away of the criticisms of those two studies that appeared to have nifty results.

Originally posted by inimalist
****ing douche

Awww. Come on. 🙁 He's just an irritated kid.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Awww. Come on. 🙁 He's just an irritated kid.

I'm not of the opinion that pity is a more positive emotion than anger

😉

Fair enough. I just don't want to see you in trouble for a kid's immature rage posts. 😐

Originally posted by inimalist
you are correct, it is entirely my fault that you are both unable and unwilling to defend your position.

look, you don't need me to validate what you believe, just be a happy person confident in the knowledge that I'm obviously wrong.

****ing douche

I just decided to explain why I didn't respond.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Fair enough. I just don't want to see you in trouble for a kid's immature rage posts. 😐

Cheers.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's this internet video out there that explains that concluding just one thing instead of keeping and open mind to many other explanations is actually being closed minded. Meaning, you're concluding one thing while inimalist is only addressing that one particular approach. He doesn't mean he is closed minded, at all.

Um if you actually look at our discussions it's actually not about me being right. I argue in favour of the paranormal but don't neccesarily believe that the evidence is conclusive. His actual problem is he always assume that his atheistic point is the most rational explanation. ie if our current understanding according to science is that a certain state indicates that a person is dead and experiences an NDE then the person must be alive. So it doesn't matter what science says but because he thinks that his viewpoint is superior he'll assume that they have to be alive.

You see heres the problem. His debating style makes it impossible to prove the paranormal. So basically in the case of the dead person no matter how much evidence is supplied he keeps arguing that there is a 'rational' explanation. My point isn't that I neccesarily disagree with their point of view the problem is that his debating style makes it impossible. The irony of it is that I could actually make a better case for the support that there is no life after death than he can. So no you're 100% wrong there.

In all fairness you're who was arguing that all Vikings that die go to Vallhalla and being a complete douche about it as well, so really not so sure if you wanna be pointing fingers ( also stated you knew heathens not sure if I believe that). If you must know lil b has pointed out his bias as well.

Originally posted by Digi
Generalization, sarcasm, and insults.

I've got something like 30K posts on KMC. If you decide to hate me, you can find some isolated incidents of idiocy. It's basically unavoidable. The vast majority of my history on this forum is behavior that I'm proud of, though - either debating rationally and respectfully with others, or sharing my views in a candid manner.

"Taking too seriously" I would think would be something more along the lines of holding grudges over months and years. I can't even remember our fights - seriously, I can't. I don't hold grudges. If I burned a torch for everyone who ever insulted or disliked me (usually just because I'm a mod, once in a while with legit reason), I'd never sleep.

If I've ever offended you in any way, you have my sincere apologies. It doesn't mean I'm a fan of how you're handling yourself right now, but it means I don't want bad blood between us.

Not sure if I'm holding a grudge, you responded to my post I told you what I thought. Telling you what I think = grudge?

Originally posted by Deadline
Telling you what I think = grudge?

Issuing unprovoked insults based on at least months-old posts (probably years). I'd say so.

Originally posted by Digi
Issuing unprovoked insults based on at least months-old posts (probably years). I'd say so.

Well there not insults its the truth. Therefore telling like it is = grudge. Sure the post was old, had nothing better to do so I responded to an old post I was meaning to, not sure if I sounded that pissed. Hell inimalist called me a douche I didn't...yes of course he was justified 🙄

how hard it must be to be victimized so unfairly

Originally posted by inimalist
how hard it must be to be victimized so unfairly

Everyone creates their own hell.