jt Fivetwelve

Someone is shy

Jt hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
jt Fivetwelve
Posted over 2 years ago
Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license.
John Campbell has made the following argument to conclude that John Hoopes is a TED forum administrator. It is a case study in sloppy thinking and willingness to jump to a conclusion on insufficient evidence. He begins with the following premise: "The only way I was able to post a direct link to the TCM Group to my own Wordpress site or any Wordpress site was if I was admin of the site in question." And from that premise, he draws the following intermediary conclusion: "Any site that uses Akismet automatically deletes the comment that contains the link to the TCM group." And, using the above intermediary conclusion as an additional premise, he draws his final conclusion: "You sir [ie, Hoopes], are an admin on this site." But the intermediary conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. It does not follow that just because John Campbell has been unable to post the link to the TCM Group on any Wordpress site that he has tried, and can only post it as an admin on his own site, that any site that uses Akismet automatically deletes the post unless you are an admin. Furthermore, this conclusion is factually wrong. I use Akismet on my own Wordpress site, and I was able to post a comment comtaining the link to the TCM Group using an unprivileged user account. So, not only does John Campbell's final conclusion, that John Hoopes is a TED admin, not logically follow from his premises, the premises themselves are not even (all) true.
Noface
jt Fivetwelve
Posted over 2 years ago
Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license.
"Until we know who is on the 'anonymous science board' we will never know the full extent of Coyne's influence here." So you admit to not knowing the extent of Coyne's influence, and when I said that your statement at The Independent's blog, "The reason TED pulled the TEDx talks by Sheldrake and Hancock and cancelled the West Hollywood event was due to TED's new affiliation with the militant atheist movement," was a lie, you defended it by claiming that "they act[ed] on Jerry Coyne's say-so." Now you admit that you don't know how much influence Jerry Coyne has, which is tantamount to admitting that your statement on The Independent's blog was a lie. "It was Coyne's blog that precipitated TEDs actions against Hancock and Sheldrake." Interesting choice of words, "precipitated." Just the right amount of ambiguity there. You manage to insinuate that Jerry caused TED to pull the events without actually quite saying so. Nice touch. The fact is, we don't even know that Jerry Coyne's blog was how TED became informed of the Sheldrake and Hancock talks, but even if it was, that does not imply anything other than that TED concurred with Coyne's assessment after making their own determination. You claim you are a scientist. What kind of scientist are you that doesn't understand Occam's Razor or the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?
Noface
jt Fivetwelve
Posted over 2 years ago
Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license.
There is no rational reason to think that TED acted on Jerry Coyne's "say-so" on any of those events, or that Jerry even has any "say-so" with TED. Indeed, regarding the West Hollywoo event, a number of people—including me—had communicated with TED about it before anybody mentioned it to Jerry Coyne, and Jerry didn't know that they had de-licensed the event until I told him about it. And, no, I don't have any affiliation with TED either.
Noface
jt Fivetwelve
Posted over 2 years ago
Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license.
Steve, the paper by Greg Francis criticizing the Bem study is behind a paywall, unfortunately. The paper is not "shoddy." Greg applies the Ioannidis and Trikalinos (2007) test for an excess of significant findings to two papers, only one of which (Bem's) was a psi paper. Greg has published criticisms of a number of papers in experimental psychology using the same methodology. He is not a professional psi skeptic in the sense of Wiseman, and in no way was he singling out psi. I have written a brief description of how the test works on my blog, where I applied it to show that yet another experimental psych paper is not credible (link below). Also, it is not the case, as you allege, that Wiseman pretended anything or hid any data in his psychic dog experiments. In his paper he clearly explains that the experiments were designed to test specific claims made by the dog's owner. The tests were properly designed, conducted, and analyzed, and failed to confirm the owner's claims. It is not surprising that Sheldrake could find some similar pattern between his and Wiseman's data that appear to support Sheldrake's claim that dogs are psychic. If you examine a dataset enough ways you are bound to find something that supports your hypothesis. That is precisely why the definition of a "success" and the statistical test to be employed has to be well defined prior to conducting the experiment. That's what Wiseman did, and according to those criteria, which were specified in advance, the dog failed his psychic test. http://jt512.dydndns.org/blog?p=130