Corrupt science as intellectual crime, or, The Emperors New Clothes ??
Toilet Seat
I am a researcher. I study UFO's and ghosts.
I have determined that %77 of all ghosts are spotted within a 5 mile radius
of UFO sightings, and that %82 of all UFO sightings are accompanied by a
general increase in the intensity and overall magnitude of ghost related
hauntings.
Therefore, I conclude, via statistics, that ghosts and UFO's are somehow
related, and that ghosts are in all probability using UFO's for
transportation purposes.
-----------------------------------------------
Will someone in the sci.math or sci.math.stat please stand up and tell me
why this is flawed, and no I am not kidding. I need an independent opinion.
People are telling me I'm crazy - where did I go wrong ????? Can I call this
"science" ?? Is my reasoning flawed somehow ?? Is there a problem with my
populations - or is this valid usage of stats ??
A N Niel
<Bar...@The.Moon> wrote:
Is there some officially recognized listing of "ghost sightings" and
"UFO sightings"? If not, there's always GIGO to explain it.
Toilet Seat
> > I have determined that %77 of all ghosts are spotted within a 5 mile
> > radius of UFO sightings, and that %82 of all UFO sightings are
> > accompanied by a general increase in the intensity and overall
> > magnitude of ghost related hauntings.
> >
> > Therefore, I conclude, via statistics, that ghosts and UFO's are somehow
> > related, and that ghosts are in all probability using UFO's for
> > transportation purposes.
> >
> > tell me why this is flawed, and no I am not kidding. I need an
> > independent opinion.
>
> is that CLAIMED SIGHTINGS of UFOs correlate with CLAIMED SIGHTINGS of
> ghosts. You are not studying UFOs or ghosts, but claims concerning
> them.
>
> Regards,
> Len.
>
Thank you for your most thoughtful response. You are correct, this is indeed
one of the many flaws.
However, it is not quite the glaring flaw that I'm looking for, but
certainly valid.
I'm looking for a much more obvious flaw, if anyone has an idea, please -
please feel free to respond.
Toilet Seat
You are getting warmer !!! You are very close to the fallacy I'm looking
for. You have almost nailed it.
Just one hint -
In statistics, the populations and samples are EXTREMELY important. For
instance, all of your work is invalidated if your populations are messed up.
Does anyone see a problem with my "scientific" population of ghosts and
UFO's ?
Toilet Seat
Is there nobody who will ask me to PROVE that I have isolated and identified
such populations ?? Seriously folks - or can I just take my data and waltz
over to the National Academy of Science and expect to get my research funded
?
Should I be "expected" to demonstrate the existence of UFO's and ghosts to
be considered solid science - or, are we now accepting pyramid power and
cold fusion as a means of reducing fossil fuel consumption ???
Someone please tell me that I'm not hallucinating - please confirm -
independently - that for science to be VALID, that populations in statistics
should be either verifiable, reproducible, falsifiable, or provable. Or was
my 8th grade science teacher just lying to me about all that stuff ?
If anyone can answer - please post !!!
Billy O'Connor
>> Is there some officially recognized listing of "ghost sightings" and
>> "UFO sightings"? If not, there's always GIGO to explain it.
>
> You are getting warmer !!! You are very close to the fallacy I'm looking
> for. You have almost nailed it.
>
> Just one hint -
> In statistics, the populations and samples are EXTREMELY important. For
> instance, all of your work is invalidated if your populations are messed up.
>
> Does anyone see a problem with my "scientific" population of ghosts and
> UFO's ?
There's no such thing as ghosts or UFO's? :)
Toilet Seat
YES !! Excellent, and now we are getting somewhere !!
So, while it is technically "possible" that UFO's and gosts really exist, I
cannot claim that any related analysis of the subject is actually valid
until I can prove that these questionable things really do exist.
If I am a scientist, and I spend the next 40 years using the entirety of the
body of all statistical methods to analyze ghosts and UFO's, even if I did
all the math correctly, my so-called "science" is still just garbage because
I cannot "prove" that UFO's and ghosts even exist !!
Now we are getting somewhere !!
If anyone else is wliling to confirm what I am saying - please just jump
right in. If I am just dead wrong please post as well. Whatever. Let's hear
it.
Toilet Seat
<lbu...@pobox.com> wrote in message news:65fsc3...@pobox.com...
> "Toilet Seat" <Bar...@The.Moon> writes:
> >
> > I have determined that %77 of all ghosts are spotted within a 5 mile
> > radius of UFO sightings, and that %82 of all UFO sightings are
> > accompanied by a general increase in the intensity and overall
> > magnitude of ghost related hauntings.
> >
> > Therefore, I conclude, via statistics, that ghosts and UFO's are somehow
> > related, and that ghosts are in all probability using UFO's for
> > transportation purposes.
> >
> > tell me why this is flawed, and no I am not kidding. I need an
> > independent opinion.
>
> is that CLAIMED SIGHTINGS of UFOs correlate with CLAIMED SIGHTINGS of
> ghosts. You are not studying UFOs or ghosts, but claims concerning
> them.
>
> Regards,
> Len.
>
So then Chemistry does not concern real atoms, but the claimed observances
of atoms ?? Where does reality fit in ??
Music does not concern real notes, but merely the claim that someone heard
music ?
I would like to know if you can do valid science uopn things like UFO's and
ghosts, things which cannot be proven to exist in the first place.
I am not confused on this. Address the question.
Toilet Seat
> >> You are confused as to what you are studying. The correct
> >> conclusion is that CLAIMED SIGHTINGS of UFOs correlate with CLAIMED
> >> SIGHTINGS of ghosts. You are not studying UFOs or ghosts, but
> >> claims concerning them.
> >
observances
> > of atoms ?? Where does reality fit in ??
>
> you counted people who claimed to see a UFO, then that's what you've
> measured: people claiming to have seen a UFO. Now you know that that
> many people have made such a claim. You have no idea whether they
> really saw UFOs, or indeed whether UFOs exist at all. You didn't
> measure that; you measured CLAIMS.
I am not confused on this. I fully understand what you are saying, and I
agree. You cannot measure one thing and claim statistical relsults for
something unrelated.
You seem to be confused about something though - the fact that nothing
regarding UFO's can be measured, other than the prevalence of hallucinations
of the various observers. You cannot assemble a collection of UFO's or
ghosts, or vampires, or any other mythical nonsense. Such sets cannot be
assembled. If you want to measure marbles you can do so. But you cant take
the average height, weight, etc of vampires because "they do not exist".
You can spend the next 40 years doing statistical analysis on "vampires",
but none of it is valid "science" because your population is non-existent.
I am talking about "real science" - not abstractions. I am talking about the
set of "rael world vampires", and not the world of "hypothetical
abstractions".
> Similarly, if a survey (in Berkeley!) determines that 81% of people
> surveyed describe Bush as "a weenie", you have learned something about
> the opinions of people in Berkeley. You have not learned anything
> about whether Bush is indeed "a weenie", nor that he "has an 81%
> chance of being a weenie", nor anything else about Bush. You learn
> about the measurement you ACTUALLY MADE.
Or - did you learn something about "the response to a single question on a
particular day in history at a particular place" ?
You learn nothing about opinions of people at berkely from this - all you
learn is the response you will recieve to a particular question, on a
particular day in historty, at a specific place.
> > I am not confused on this. Address the question.
>
> If you want to know whether extraterrestrial spacecraft exist, polling
> earthlings is a useless procedure. If you _hypothesize_ that claimed
> sitings correlate with real sitings, then you might use that
> information to devise a good experiment for proving that ETs
> exist. But the surveys yield absolutely no data on that question.
I am talking not about "sightings". I am talking about actual alien
spacecraft from other worlds - the real thing, the actual spacecraft. My
question is as follows -
If you do not posses the actual spacecraft, is it possible to perform
genuine scientific analysis of the spacecraft ?
I claim that the answer is an absolute _no_
It sounds stupid, but this is the verification I seek.
> Your question was, "what is the flaw in this reasoning". The answer is
> that you measured one thing, and then drew a conclusion about an
> unrelated thing. If you don't fully realize that, then you ARE
> confused.
Well Len, I appreciate your input. But you are only %50 right. The correct
answer has to do with populations. I do not even have a valid population to
work with, and so EVERYTHING is moot - no science is possible whatsoever. Do
you see what I'm talking about ? I hope so, because it aint that difficult.
Is it possible to go out and capture a Leprachaun ? Would it be rational to
fly over to Scotland in hopes of riding the Loch Ness Monster up and down
the loch ?? Is it possible to perform science upon objects which cannot be
DEMONSTRATED as factually existing in the real world ?
Toilet Seat
>
> You cannot. You can only do statistical analysis on claims concerning
> vampires.
You could, but it would all be garbage. This is my point.
> >> Similarly, if a survey (in Berkeley!) determines that 81% of people
> >> surveyed describe Bush as "a weenie", you have learned something about
> >> the opinions of people in Berkeley. You have not learned anything
> >> about...Bush...
> >
> > Or - did you learn something about "the response to a single
> > question on a particular day in history at a particular place" ?
>
> Even better.
>
> > If you do not posses the actual spacecraft, is it possible to perform
> > genuine scientific analysis of the spacecraft ?
>
> If you'll pardon my saying so, it's a frivolous question. AND it has
> NOTHING to do with your hypothetical survey concerning UFO sightings.
>
> > I claim that the answer is an absolute _no_
>
> It is.
>
> > It sounds stupid...
>
> It is.
>
> > Well Len, I appreciate your input. But you are only %50 right. The
> > correct answer has to do with populations. I do not even have a
> > valid population to work with...
>
> If you did a valid survey, then you DID have a valid
> population. Namely, the population of people who may or may not have
> sighted a UFO. And you can do all sorts of scientific studies
> concerning that population.
>
> That population, however, has nothing to do with UFOs. You do not have
> a population of aliens.
>
> But you ARE confused: otherwise you would not keep repudiating your own
> hypothetical survey on the grounds that it is not some other survey.
>
> Regards,
> Len.
>
OK then - I am confused. No problem. I do understand what you are saying -
that the exampel in the original post was basically a mathamatical
non-sequiter. Thanks for observing, it was pretty much rhetorical if you
know what I mean.
The point, being, that you cannot measure the velocity of Superman in
flight, because you cannot collect real data on mythical or nonexistent
objects/people.
Similarly, for the folks in alt.psychology, you cannot measure love, hate,
etc. You cannot do statistics on things which cannot be measured or observed
properly. Any science which claims to do this, thus far, is bogus academic
fraud.
Arturo Magidin
Don't know about other newsgroups, but I'm answering from sci.math.
From a mathematical standpoint, you presented your hypothesis, and
presented your conclusions. As a mathematician, if somebody asks me to
"check" something like that, I would take the assumptions as granted,
and investigate, rather, whether the conclusions actually follow from
the assumptions. Whether or not the assumptions actually hold is a
separate issue, and usually of only secondary interest. The same would
be true for statistics: you presented statistics, and conclusions
derived from them. It is likely people interpreted your request as
asking whether or not your conclusion would indeed follow from such
statistics, NOT whether the statistics were accurate.
> Seriously folks - or can I just take my data and waltz
>over to the National Academy of Science and expect to get my research funded
>?
No, because at that stage, you will be asked also about your
methodology for collecting data. But you asked for help from sci.math,
so your request was understood in the terms of mathematics, not in the
terms of empirical science research. You wanted people to fault your
assumptions, not your method for deriving conclusions? Then you did a
poor job of presenting the problem for a mathematician.
To this mathematician, your request could be paraphrased as follows:
"Assume that I have determined that 77% of all ghosts sightings occur
within a 5 mile radius of a UFO sighting, and that 82% of all UFO
sightings are accompanied by an increase in the intensity and
magnitude of ghost-related-haunting-reports.
"From this data, I conclude that ghosts and UFO's are somehow
related; I also conclude that ghosts are in all probability, using
UFO's for transportations.
"Does the conclusion follow from the assumptions?"
From the point of view of statistical analysis, and from the point of
view of pure logic, it is immaterial whether or not the assumptions
are valid. The only question is whether or not the conclusions follow
from the assumptions, and they do not.
The fact that your assumptions are, in fact, false, damns your
premises; the fact that your conclusions do not follow from your
premises ("via statistics" or not) damns your analysis of those
assumptions.
->EITHER<- of those two faults makes your report useless as science
Both together make it doubly useless as science. As statistical
analysis, the former (validity of assumptions) is irrelevant. We are
only seeing whether or not you are correctly interpreting the
statistics, not whether the statistics are correct
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
mag...@math.berkeley.edu
Toilet Seat
> >>> "vampires"...
> >>
> >> You cannot. You can only do statistical analysis on claims
> >> concerning vampires.
> >
> > You could, but it would all be garbage. This is my point.
>
> particular interest how some idiot misuses them to prove
> non-sequiturs.
Well, one could define "vampires" as being x,y,z, or you could define the
set of all vampires V {V| a,b,c...etc}, and then you could do all kinds of
valid mathamatics.
What I am talking about is actually going out into the physical world as a
physicist or chemist would, rounding up a group of vampires and collecting
data on them.
Now, I could be wrnog here, but last tiem I checked, there were no real
vampires. The cardinality of the set of all vampires in our physical world
is assumed to be zero. I could do all kinds of statistics on people who I
think are probably vampires, but if ther are not genuine vampires then my
analysis is just garbage.
> >> But you ARE confused: otherwise you would not keep repudiating your
> >> own hypothetical survey on the grounds that it is not some other
> >> survey.
> >
> > OK then - I am confused. No problem. I do understand what you are
> > saying - that the exampel in the original post was basically a
> > mathamatical non-sequiter...
>
> Correct.
>
> > The point, being, that you cannot measure the velocity of Superman
> > in flight, because you cannot collect real data on mythical or
> > nonexistent objects/people.
>
> The only problem is that it's confusing when you describe one
> experiment (a survey of Superman sightings) and discuss another
> (Superman's airspeed). What you need to do is to get absolutely clear
> what your question is, and then design an experiment that addresses
> THAT question.
I apologize. Admitted, the original post was thrown together rather hastily.
> > Similarly, for the folks in alt.psychology, you cannot measure love,
> > hate, etc...
>
> Can't comment: vast amounts of "research" in the soft sciences is
> deeply flawed, for lots of reasons.
Agreed. You need not take a position here, and I dont blame you for
remaining neutral on what I am about to say - but MY position is that
psychology is mostly garbage for the very reasons I am discussing here.
Without any method of making physical measurements of human emotion or will
or intent, either quantitative or qualitative, one simply cannot generate
any solid science.
> > You cannot do statistics on things which cannot be measured or
> > observed properly.
>
> "Love" can be defined as an immeasurable, intangible thing, or it can
> be defined to be consonant with the perception thereof--i.e., that the
> assertion "I love X", if honest, is true.
Yes - it can be defined many ways. But can it be measured directly ?
You have a couple approaches here. You can model it algebraicly, in which
case you are treating a metaphysical entity as an abstraction. So, it starts
getting fairly "strained" already to say the least. You must somehow define
"love" using human speech language otherwise your variables are inaccurate
or incomplete - something which may not be possible with a finite amount of
statements. Even if you succed, and you would then be immediately famous,
there is no way to verify that you have modelled love because love cannot be
measured with instruments.
Hell - we cannot even prove that love exists. I do not dispute that it does,
but you can never tell when you are observign love or something else which
just looks like love, and then how many kinds of love are there ?
This is a nightmare - and all because such items are metaphysical in nature.
> > Any science which claims to do this, thus far, is bogus academic
> > fraud.
>
> Hmm. If the whole point of your question is to advance some crankish
> claim that the whole field of psychology is invalid, then I'm sorry I
> replied.
That is exactly the point and I'm sorry that you feel sorry, but it is not
one bit crankish to discard rubbish.
In fact - it is very crankish, but also very very true that psychology is
fraud.
> Regards,
> Len.
>
>
Toilet Seat
"Arturo Magidin" <mag...@math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:bt7vgh$2am7$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
Indeed - my example was poorly worded, perhaps somewhat sarcasticly in an
attempt to provide a little humor or levity to the sillyness of this.
And, indeed, I certainly could have worded it more formally, and I thank you
for pointing that out.
> > Seriously folks - or can I just take my data and waltz
> >over to the National Academy of Science and expect to get my research
funded
> >?
>
> No, because at that stage, you will be asked also about your
> methodology for collecting data. But you asked for help from sci.math,
> so your request was understood in the terms of mathematics, not in the
> terms of empirical science research. You wanted people to fault your
> assumptions, not your method for deriving conclusions? Then you did a
> poor job of presenting the problem for a mathematician.
Both are at fault here, and if there were some way to distinguish one as
being more faulty than the other I would like to see that. However, based on
my sensate human experiences in this world, I find it absolutely and
patently absurd in the extreme to say the least, that someone could claim to
have collected data about things like bigfoot, UFO's, alien abductions,
Wolfman (for e's g), when it is rather obvious that these items cannot be
studied due to their failure to even exist.
> To this mathematician, your request could be paraphrased as follows:
>
> "Assume that I have determined that 77% of all ghosts sightings occur
> within a 5 mile radius of a UFO sighting, and that 82% of all UFO
> sightings are accompanied by an increase in the intensity and
> magnitude of ghost-related-haunting-reports.
>
> "From this data, I conclude that ghosts and UFO's are somehow
> related; I also conclude that ghosts are in all probability, using
> UFO's for transportations.
Well, a correct wording that I was actually after would require existence of
ghosts of UFO's or aliens etc. Your rewording provides for "sightings" -
which can clearly exist, because people can be wrong.
If I had an opportunity to reword part of this in such a way which would
require the existence of the subject, please allow me the opportunity - for
ex,
I have determined that %77 of all ghosts are located within a 5 mile
radius of UFO landing sites. Furthermore, %82 of all UFO landings and alien
visitations are located within 8 miles of a ghost.
Now, in this rewording there is no ambiguity - I have asserted indirectly
that I know where the ghosts are , and that I have found aliens, etc. For my
statements to be true, aliens must exist, and ghosts must exist, and I
should be able to prove it or be called a quack.
> "Does the conclusion follow from the assumptions?"
You are correct - it does not, nor did it in the original post. No problem.
> From the point of view of statistical analysis, and from the point of
> view of pure logic, it is immaterial whether or not the assumptions
> are valid. The only question is whether or not the conclusions follow
> from the assumptions, and they do not.
This is true. But it _is_ within the purview of statistics to invalidate a
conclusion or result when the initial sets upon which the analysis is
performed are found to be corrupted.
Suppose, for example, that I published information regarding the average
height, weight and IQ of a sample population of ghosts, and I made the claim
that the average IQ was higher and standard deviation was exactly 1/2 of a
similar sized sample from a population of angels.
You dont have a problem with that ? If this turned up in the MAA Math
Magazine or somewhere, and it was presented as factual data - you are
telling me that you would not question how I took the samples ? Where I
found such populations in the first place ?
> The fact that your assumptions are, in fact, false, damns your
> premises; the fact that your conclusions do not follow from your
> premises ("via statistics" or not) damns your analysis of those
> assumptions.
OK -
> ->EITHER<- of those two faults makes your report useless as science
> Both together make it doubly useless as science. As statistical
> analysis, the former (validity of assumptions) is irrelevant. We are
> only seeing whether or not you are correctly interpreting the
> statistics, not whether the statistics are correct
You have done a very careful and thorough job of correcting me and I am most
appreciative that you would take this seriously - but we are getting further
from my objective.
Without rewriting the question, or rewording the statement, I give you my
claim.
I claim that if you do statistics on ivalid data, then your results are
invalid "by definition", regardless of whether the derived solutions come
out correct or not.
Arturo Magidin
Toilet Seat <Bar...@The.Moon> wrote:
[.snip.]
>Well, a correct wording that I was actually after would require existence of
>ghosts of UFO's or aliens etc. Your rewording provides for "sightings" -
>which can clearly exist, because people can be wrong.
Just a short point here: in your original post, there were four things
mentioned: "ghosts spotted", "UFO sightings", "UFO sightings", "ghost
related haunting"; only the latter talks about actual phenomena, while
the former three are readily interpreted as reports of sightings.
[.snip.]
>
>> From the point of view of statistical analysis, and from the point of
>> view of pure logic, it is immaterial whether or not the assumptions
>> are valid. The only question is whether or not the conclusions follow
>> from the assumptions, and they do not.
>
>
>This is true. But it _is_ within the purview of statistics to invalidate a
>conclusion or result when the initial sets upon which the analysis is
>performed are found to be corrupted.
You are confusing validity with soundness, I think. Like I said, most
people in sci.math seem to have interpreted your question as a
question about validity, when you are clearly more interested in
soundness.
>Suppose, for example, that I published information regarding the average
>height, weight and IQ of a sample population of ghosts, and I made the claim
>that the average IQ was higher and standard deviation was exactly 1/2 of a
>similar sized sample from a population of angels.
>
>You dont have a problem with that ?
Yes, I might have a problem with that.
>If this turned up in the MAA Math
>Magazine or somewhere, and it was presented as factual data - you are
>telling me that you would not question how I took the samples ? Where I
>found such populations in the first place ?
Depends entirely on the purpose of the article. If the purpose of the
article is to discuss the properties of angels and ghosts, then (a)
there would be no reason for it to be in the Mathematics Magazine
(which, by the way, a journal for expository undergraduate level
mathematics; but I assume you mean "a mathematical peer reviewed
journal on statistics" or some such); and (b) the process whereby the
data was supposedly acquired would have to be included; that's
"experiment design."
On the other hand, if it is an article about statistical analysis or
correlation calculation, then I wouldn't care: it would be a made-up
example to highlight certain ->mathematical features<- of the models,
not a discussion of actual fact.
>Without rewriting the question, or rewording the statement, I give you my
>claim.
> I claim that if you do statistics on ivalid data, then your results are
>invalid "by definition", regardless of whether the derived solutions come
>out correct or not.
Again, I think you are confusing soundness with validity.
The validity of an argument refers to whether the conclusions follow
from the premises; an argument is valid if and only if they do.
On the other hand, an argument is ->sound<- if and only if, in
addition to being valid, the premises hold.
So what you shoudl really say is that if you do statistics from
invalid data, then your argument is necessarily ->UNSOUND<-.
(Of course, to further claim that the conclusions of an unsound
argument must be false is itself a logical fallacy, called an
Argumentum ad logicam)
Mathematics (and statistical analysis as such) are concerned first and
foremost with validity, not with soundness. Of course, statistical
analysis is seldom used as an intellectual exercise, and is instead
embedded inside a process that requires a test of soundness in
addition to validity, which is I think what you are concerned about.
There is in fact a famous aphorism by Bertrand Russell: "Mathematics
may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are
talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true." Because we
care about whether the argument is valid, but not whether it is sound,
or what the premises are to be applied to.
So, when you came to sci.math and sci.math.stat, your questions was
interpreted as a question on validity; but you are obviously far more
interested in soundness than in validity. It is certainly not a bad
idea to check on the truth of the premises before starting analysis
--
Toilet Seat
> Over and over, you describe a perfectly valid experiment concerning X,
> and then argue that it isn't valid because it isn't an experiment
> concerning Y. This suggests that you haven't got a firm grip on the
> scientific method.
It is psychology which is ignoring the scientific method, to the detriment
of mankind, making a mockery of academia through it's sanctioned fraud.
What I said was very clear. Pay attention and then respond after thinking
carefully.
Show me how this discipline which you seem to defend is actually observing
the scientific method. It does not. It is fraud.
> > ...MY position is that psychology is mostly garbage for the very
> > reasons I am discussing here.
>
> It may or may not be, but you're having trouble making the point,
> because you seem to have trouble understanding the scientific method
> in general.
Strawman -
you lose.
> > Without any method of making physical measurements of human emotion
> > or will or intent, either quantitative or qualitative, one simply
> > cannot generate any solid science.
>
> There are lots of interesting ways. People are generally honest enough
> that their claims to like one thing, and dislike another, will
> correlate pretty well with the truth. Involuntary responses such as
> pupil dilation and skin temperature have also been used to good effect.
People are frequently WRONG. You have no means to prove this - you are
promoting quackery and fraud.
You do not understand that science has requirements which must be satisfied.
You have deomstrated this in writing.
> >> "Love" can be defined as an immeasurable, intangible thing, or it
> >> can be defined to be consonant with the perception thereof...
> >
> > Yes - it can be defined many ways. But can it be measured directly ?
>
> That's a good question for a philosophy class; you could get an A on
> an essay about it. In practice, the answer is often "well enough".
>
> > Hell - we cannot even prove that love exists...
>
> Or that you exist. You aren't talking science, but philosophy.
And you are not a scientist, but a sociopolitical hack.
> > That is exactly the point and I'm sorry that you feel sorry, but it
> > is not one bit crankish to discard rubbish.
>
> Until you understand how experiments work, and what they do or don't
> tell you, you will be unable to distinguish the wheat from the chaff.
You need to learn basic 8th grade material. Verifiability, falsifiability,
and reproducibility. If you do not have these, then you do not have science.
Tell me - would you believe in cold fusion when there is no valid data ? You
believe just because people say that it is true ? You have learned nothing.
> > In fact - it is very crankish, but also very very true that psychology
is
> > fraud.
>
> I have no wish to help you grind your axe. I'm off this thread.
Good, then run from truth.
> Regards,
> Len.
>
Toilet Seat
> So what you shoudl really say is that if you do statistics from
> invalid data, then your argument is necessarily ->UNSOUND<-.
Thank you - this is all I needed, and is in exactly the very thing which I
was originally attempting to communicate, albeit somewhat sinically.
I always learn so much from you guys - every time I shop for knowledge -
your appreciation for unabiguity and clarity is most encouraging.
thanks
ZZZonka Tonka
observation
A psychologist would say given enough people the numbers will repeat about the
same time every year.
In reality, some will write books about the space invasion and others about
ghosts and still others will buy them and talk about it in all sorts of ways.
Jonathan Miller
news:SyMJb.279232$_M.1360793@attbi_s54...
>
> However, based on
> my sensate human experiences in this world, I find it absolutely and
> patently absurd in the extreme to say the least, that someone could claim
to
> have collected data about things like bigfoot, UFO's, alien abductions,
> Wolfman (for e's g), when it is rather obvious that these items cannot be
> studied due to their failure to even exist.
Well, that argument was once made about rocks falling from the sky.
> Suppose, for example, that I published information regarding the average
> height, weight and IQ of a sample population of ghosts, and I made the
claim
> that the average IQ was higher and standard deviation was exactly 1/2 of a
> similar sized sample from a population of angels.
>
> You dont have a problem with that ? If this turned up in the MAA Math
> Magazine or somewhere, and it was presented as factual data - you are
> telling me that you would not question how I took the samples ? Where I
> found such populations in the first place ?
Such things show up in "word problems" all the time. It's a "cute" way to
inject some levity into a problem that is really simply about the
relationships between things.
As Hilbert said, the important thing to remember about geometry is that it's
just as true if you replace point, line and plane with table, chair, and
beer stein.
> Without rewriting the question, or rewording the statement, I give you my
> claim.
> I claim that if you do statistics on ivalid data, then your results
are
> invalid "by definition", regardless of whether the derived solutions come
> out correct or not.
Yabbut. In real life, data are not really valid or invalid, simply more or
less correct. If your data pretty much reflect reality, then your
conclusions will again "pretty much" reflect reality as well. To find out
how well, you need to do research on "robustness" of statistical techniques.
Some things are much like walking a tightrope -- one little slip and you're
history. Other things are more like walking -- a little trip and nothing
much happens (usually).
The concept of robustness has also found its way into artificial
intelligence and lots of other engineering applications. Again, it's the
idea that you can recover from incomplete data or errors introduced
somewhere in the process.
Also, we don't really care if you are talking about manufacturing widgets or
sighting ghosts. What matters mathematically is the process. It's well
known that applying the right process to the wrong data generates nonsense,
as A N Niel said at the beginning of this subthread.
Jon Miller
Toilet Seat
Thanks for the input Jon - but just a few observations. First, let me
recall an issue relating to "dangling chads", where a certain set of data
was drawn into serious question, and sealt a serious blow to the very
credibility of elections in the US as far as I'm concerned.
The point being, however, that trials in which discrete decisions are
being recorded such as in an election - how does it come out so screwed up
?? And if we are having thes issues with discrete data from a poll booth,
then how much more questionable is psychological data where EVERYTHING is
subjective ??
My concern here is not to attack statistics - which is sound
theoretically, but rather the complete misapplication of statistics by
psychology.
The only thing in life that I compare this to is that there is nothing
wrong with a sportscar. The car is theoretically sound. But the operator is
a madman, and he slams the car into a brick wall. This is what psychology
does with statistics. They crash it into a brick wall with their stupidity
and their erroneous subjective idiocy. I will demonstrate elsewhere, that
their usage of statistics is false.
My main concern here, is to raise the issue of data and conclusions. It may
sound pedantic, btu I am trying to get an AMEN to the follwoing claim:
Performing statistics upon bad data is not a sound statistical practice.
If you have incorrect data to work with, you cannot produce conclusions
which are correct. It is impossible to derive real world truths based uopn
data which is corrupted.
Now - confidence levels notwithstanding, I am not talking about errors due
to approximation or levels of confidence.
Here's an example of what I am after.
I am hired by Ford Corp to do a statistical analysis of a sample of Ford
automobiles. Unfortunately, all I have is a parking lot full of Chevy's and
BMW's.
Can I perform the task which is required of me based on the population
that I have been given ?? Can I turn in my results to Ford, an analysis of
Ford vehicles, if I do not have any Ford cars to study ?? Is it valid to
study a BMW or a Chevy and turn in the results as if having studied a Ford ?
_ G O D _
> garbage snipped
>
>
>
> > >> "Love" can be defined as an immeasurable, intangible thing, or it
> > >> can be defined to be consonant with the perception thereof...
> > >
> > > Yes - it can be defined many ways. But can it be measured directly ?
>
> > > is not one bit crankish to discard rubbish.
> > > is fraud.
Here some examples as how the "psychology" is being used to avoid responsibility and to save lives of loved pets, etc.... :
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1465389,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/04/royal.dog.ap/
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1115801,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/30/royals.baddog.reut/
http://www.news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1424202003
http://www.femail.co.uk/pages/standard/article.html?in_article_id=204872&in_page_id=2
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/story/0,6903,1115855,00.html
Killer Royal dog 'cranky'
04/01/2004 11:33
London - The British royal family's bull terrier which killed one of Queen Elizabeth II's beloved corgi dogs is not dangerous, just "cranky" and in need of training, according to the animal expert called in to treat it.
Roger Mugford, an animal psychologist asked to treat Florence, the English bull terrier belonging to the queen's only daughter, Princess Anne, said he was hopeful of saving the dog from having to be destroyed.
Eight-year-old Florence so badly injured the corgi in an attack at the Sandringham royal estate in eastern England just before Christmas that the smaller dog had to be put down.
Five days later Florence's reputation suffered further after she took a bite out of a royal maid's knee.
Mugford told the Sunday Telegraph that techniques he might use on Florence included re-enacting previous attacks using human stand-ins, with the aim of training the dog not to be aggressive.
"There is probably some underlying medical factor. We are not talking about an inherently aggressive or dangerous dog," he told the newspaper.
Florence might well be in pain, or could merely be " feeling a bit cranky on the day," Mugford explained, saying he would probably see the dog for an initial consultation within days.
"Cases like this have a high probability of being sorted out, and that's what I hope will happen."
Another royal bull terrier, Dotty, left Princess Anne as the first British royal in modern times to have a criminal record after the dog bit two boys in a park in November 2002.
--
As Benjamin Franklin advised, "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. Empty the coins of your purse into your mind, and your mind will fill your purse with gold"
Stewart Robert Hinsley
>
>I have determined that %77 of all ghosts are spotted within a 5 mile radius
>of UFO sightings, and that %82 of all UFO sightings are accompanied by a
>general increase in the intensity and overall magnitude of ghost related
>hauntings.
Consider the case where >77% of the potential population of observers
live within a 5 mile radius of a putative UFO sighting.
>
>Therefore, I conclude, via statistics, that ghosts and UFO's are somehow
>related, and that ghosts are in all probability using UFO's for
>transportation purposes.
>
You have at best demonstrated a correlation, and not any particular
causal link between the two classes of entity. Consider the hypothesis
that the propulsion system of UFOs disturbs the spiritual harmony and
hence cause an increase in ghostly activity. I'm sure anyone with a
little imagination can come up with other hypotheses to "explain" your
putative correlation.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
The Usenet Kook
"Stewart Robert Hinsley" <{$news$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gTC0SSAmid+$Ew...@meden.demon.co.uk...
Thanks for the feedback SRH,
I have pretty much scrapped my original example because it did not
really serve it's intended purpose.
I guess that I was after something more like the following-
A researcher is studying Earth's 5th moon. The researcher derives
mountains of data regarding the Earth's 5th moon. A theory is developed, and
others begin to study it as well. Pretty soon, it is regarded as a
discipline unto itself. There is now a huge following of researchers and
theorists. But, there is just one problem. There _is_no_5th_moon.
I claim that this is the basis of a huge fraud currently known as
psychology. You need not weigh in on this claim of mine, but the example
above should pretty much illuminate what I was after in the original post.
Dissident
Well, for one thing "Len" has relieved my mind about getting
AIDS from unprotected anal sex, since I now realize that all
this time the researchers have been identifying, not actual
infections transmitted by buttfucking, but CLAIMS of infection.
Now I can get rid of all those annoying, uncomfortable condoms
and enjoy sex for a change.
Dissident
> The point, being, that you cannot measure the velocity of Superman in
> flight, because you cannot collect real data on mythical or nonexistent
> objects/people.
Nonsense. Of course you can. Superman's flight velocity has
been described, in various scripts, as approaching the speed
of light. Therefore, we can establish the following inequality:
V(superman) > .98ic
where "c" is the commonly accepted symbol for the speed of light,
and "i" is the mathematical symbol for sqrt(-1).
Superman's speed IS imaginary, isn't it? <g>
The Usenet Kook
"Dissident" <qq...@7600.net> wrote in message
news:3FFBE00F...@7600.net...
Indeed : )
Equally as imaginary as any psychological truths.
The Usenet Kook
I turned to the mathematicians with a poorly worded example, composed in
haste.
Predictably, they provided a very good critique as would be expected, and
confirmed a few things which were more or less obvious to begin with.