The Stupidity of Scientists

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.
Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: The Stupidity of Scientists

Postby Jonathan Townsend » January 28th, 2011, 9:51 pm

Brad wrote:
would we decry the scientists who observed, analyzed and testes how objects fell to the earth merely because they had yet to formulate a complete theory of gravity?


As it happens Galileo did some insightful work using an inclined plane with little speed bumps so a ball rolling down the plane made clacking sounds he could time. He made similar observations on the period of the swinging chandelier in the cathedral during services. No too very long later someone set up a free standing pendulum and observed it over a few hours to see how the plane of the pendulum swing rotated - thus demonstrating that it makes sense to claim the earth revolves. That's science in action.

Folks, if this stuff is of interest I encourage you to go and do some science. Get some meaningful data and see where that leads you. What's real is real. Where the data lead and what will turn out to be the best/most useful model is anyone's guess - and the history of science is full of astounding surprises.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4547
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: The Stupidity of Scientists

Postby Brad Henderson » January 28th, 2011, 9:57 pm

What's real is real. But bem's results aren't.

Ok

I get it

Glad Galileo didn't stop analyzing and measuring just because he didn't have all the answers.

You should feel lucky you do.

(and for several of the experiments/excersizes we ran in grad school, 3% was more than significant. But thanks for the dig. A little to the left next time, please.)

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: The Stupidity of Scientists

Postby Jonathan Townsend » January 28th, 2011, 10:11 pm

Again Brad, you're making it personal.

I was not convinced that his (Bem's) experimental design was sufficient to falsify his hypothesis and that the results of his reported experiments are significant evidence in favor of any particular hypothesis in favor (or to the exclusion of others).

If you recall the Monty Hall door problem, the odds shift in your favor by 50% ( well from 30 to 60 percent to be precise ) when you switch after he shows you one of the three places the prize is not. That's significant.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Bob Coyne
Posts: 717
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Charlies [sic]
Location: New York, NY

Re: The Stupidity of Scientists

Postby Bob Coyne » January 29th, 2011, 12:07 am

Significance in statistics doesn't refer to the magnitude of the difference but to the confidence you have in that difference (i.e. how likely or not it was to have occured by chance). A very large difference can be statistically insignificant and a relatively small difference (e.g. less than 3%) can have high significance.

If the experiment and data analysis somehow manage to hold up, then some hypotheses will be disfavored over others -- that's the whole point of empirical results! Of course, given the counterintuitive nature of these results, it's likely that there are flaws in the experimental design or interpretation of data or whatever. But it's all part of science to identify those flaws, see if the experiment can be reproduced, etc. This is all in line with how science is and should be conducted.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4547
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: The Stupidity of Scientists

Postby Brad Henderson » January 29th, 2011, 1:56 am

" But it's all part of science to identify those flaws, see if the experiment can be reproduced, etc. This is all in line with how science is and should be conducted."

And condemning the results, predicting failure of future attempts at replication, is decidedly un scientific and, if words hold meaning, anti skeptical.

To paraphrase a statement made by a very smart magician friend, if Jesus Christ rose from the grave in front of James randi himself and turned his Fiji water into a grand cru while being held in his very hand, randi would call [censored] and stick both fingers in his ears.

Modern skepticism has become a religion of zealous fanatics equally blind as the shut eyes they happily mock and condemn.

I think I'm going to go learn some street magic now. Where did I put that black deck of cards?

John Wilson
Posts: 98
Joined: June 23rd, 2008, 7:43 pm

Re: The Stupidity of Scientists

Postby John Wilson » January 29th, 2011, 2:30 am

In my opinion, in a study using one hundred students and a fifty-fifty choice of computer screens the 3% is well within range for calling it random. Are you telling me that you would be amazed if you flipped a coin one hundred times and heads came up fifty-three times out of a hundred? You could then claim to have made the coin fall heads with your telekinetic powers. In a case such as this, 53% is well within one standard deviation and is no different than the 50% that is "expected" if there is no such thing as ESP or time-reversed memory or whatever they want to call it in an experiment such as this.

User avatar
Tom Stone
Posts: 1521
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: The Stupidity of Scientists

Postby Tom Stone » January 29th, 2011, 2:41 am

Brad Henderson wrote:To paraphrase a statement made by a very smart magician friend, if Jesus Christ rose from the grave in front of James randi himself and turned his Fiji water into a grand cru while being held in his very hand, randi would call [censored] and stick both fingers in his ears.

If Jesus managed to dig his way from his grave in Jerusalem, underneath north Africa and underneath the Atlantic Ocean, just to emerge from the ground in front of Randi in Florida - then I'm pretty sure that even Randi would be impressed.

I'm also confident that Randi would be impressed no matter which imaginary creature would rise from the ground in front of him; Smurfs, Christ, Santa Claus, God, Elfs, Merlin... But the real litmus test is; would it impress a drunk audience of factory workers?

Henley
Posts: 53
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 6:20 am
Location: Japan

Re: The Stupidity of Scientists

Postby Henley » January 29th, 2011, 5:04 am

Brad Henderson wrote:To paraphrase a statement made by a very smart magician friend, if Jesus Christ rose from the grave in front of James randi himself and turned his Fiji water into a grand cru while being held in his very hand, randi would call [censored] and stick both fingers in his ears.


If I'm correct in assuming that said magician is Christian, do I win the million dollars?

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: The Stupidity of Scientists

Postby Jonathan Townsend » January 29th, 2011, 9:44 am

Dunno, but that reads like a poor take on a Lenny Bruce routine.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

User avatar
David Scollnik
Posts: 287
Joined: January 19th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Calgary

Re: The Stupidity of Scientists

Postby David Scollnik » February 7th, 2011, 2:59 pm

Jonathan Townsend wrote:
If you recall the Monty Hall door problem, the odds shift in your favor by 50% ( well from 30 to 60 percent to be precise ) when you switch after he shows you one of the three places the prize is not.

That reminds me of this quantum con:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 072755.htm

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: The Stupidity of Scientists

Postby Jonathan Townsend » February 7th, 2011, 6:23 pm

That quantum con could serve well as "patter" for some fun with a radio signal mat, the three shell game or perhaps three cups and one ball. The bit being that you do the con a couple of times then get a second volunteer up and let one of them in on the "secret" that there's a third cup or shell and you know what's what when you look underneath to find either nothing (undetermined state) or a different colored ball (being the collapsed state).
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: The Stupidity of Scientists

Postby Jonathan Townsend » April 28th, 2011, 10:00 am

The Bem paper has been read and its experiments duplicated. Findings reported here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ad-science

But you already know that - didn't you? ;)
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time


Return to “Buzz”