geeky schrieb:Some might argue that those sessions should be counted as misses and that by ignoring so much data where the parrot clearly did not indicate any sign of telepathy is strong evidence that Sheldrake was more interested in confirming his biases than in getting at the truth.
Achja? In der Studie wird das hingegen recht schlüssig erklärt:
Using a majority scoring method, where there was agreement between at least two out of three blind transcribers, in 71 out of 131 trials, N’kisi said one or more of the 19 key words (Table 2). In the remaining 60 trials, N’kisi either remained entirely silent, or said none of the 19 key words corresponding to the test images. Thus, in these trials, neither a “hit” nor a “miss” was scored, and they were irrelevant to the analysis. Non-scorable comments made by N’kisi during these sessions were generally attempts to contact Aimée, or unrelated chatter about events of the day. Some of them, however, seemed to correspond to images Aimée was looking at during the trial, but such apparent “hits” could not be included in the statistical analysis because they did not involve prespecified key words.
In the 71 trials summarized in Table 2, N’kisi said 117 key words, of which 23 were hits.
...anyway: so much data?!? 60/ 131 is knapp die Hälfte, in der Tat. Aber reicht das jetzt für die Beweisführung daß Sheldrake mit der Studie nur Vorurteile kolportieren will? Ich frag mich eher warum Dein "Skeptiker" gleich so scharf schiesst! Dann zitierst Du:
geeky schrieb:One of the peer reviewers thought that the fact that the flower word and picture played so heavy a role in the outcome that the paper's results were distorted and that the paper should not be published. The other reviewer accepted Sheldrake's observation that even if you throw out the flower data, you still get some sort of statistical significance. This may be true.
"May be true"?!? Ich denke eher skepdic.com erweist sich hier endgültig als nur vermeitlich skeptischer "truther", nochmal zur Studie:
Nevertheless, to examine this argument more closely, we carried out a statistical analysis eliminating "flower" both as a target and as a response. Using the data from the majority scoring method, as shown in Table 2, following the BRA procedure with 20,000 random permutations, the results excluding "flower" were still strikingly significant (p = 0.006).
Also dieses ketzerische Papier sollte keinesfalls veröffentlicht werden, schon klar...
Bei diesem Maß an "Skepzis" werde ja sogar ich skeptisch aber dieser Punkt is besonders gut:
geeky schrieb:Furthermore, there is no evidence that it is reasonable to assume that when the parrot is by itself uttering words that it is trying to communicate telepathically with Morgana. Or are we to accept Sheldrake's assumption that the parrot turns his telepathic interest off and on, and it was on only when he uttered a word on the key list?
Einen Gegenbeweis führt niemand, aber gut... was anderes is auffällig: da hat jemand nich wirklich verstanden wie der Versuch aufgebaut war und was "key list" in diesem Zusammenhang eigentlich bedeutet. Was zum Geier hat das eigentlich mit dem "telepathischem Interesse" zu tun?
kurvenkrieger schrieb: At the beginning of each trial, Aimée opened a numbered sealed envelope containing a photograph, and then looked at it for two minutes. These photographs corresponded to a prespecified list of key words in N'kisi's vocabulary, and were selected and randomized in advance by a third party. We conducted a total of 149 two-minute trials. The recordings of N'kisi during these trials were transcribed blind by three independent transcribers. Their transcripts were generally in good agreement. Using a majority scoring method, in which at least two of the three transcribers were in agreement, N'kisi said one or more of the key words in 71 trials. He scored 23 hits: the key words he said corresponded to the target pictures
Hast Du mehr zu bieten wie diese abgeschriebene Pseudokritik?
Ansonsten könnten wir uns darauf einigen daß der wissenschaftliche Ansatz von Sheldrake sogar noch seinen Kritikern oft zu hoch is...
"May be true" daß die Studie Fehler hat und die Interpratation offenkundig Geschmackssache bleibt, ihr daraufhin gleich den wissenschaftlichen Ansatz absprechen zu wollen halte ich hingegen für zweifelhaft. Zumal die Methoden der "Skeptiker" oft derlei unlauter sind...