Don't be rude.
Same with the scientific research:
"It was sensory leakage"
"It is selective data"
Those are obviously the first two things any experiment is designed to exclude.
Historically, I have heard the double-blind randomized design was invented for parapsychology.
Every instance that I'm familiar with was either directly debunked or suffers from really obvious experimental design problems.
Here's a skeptic saying the opposite: that there are no methodological flaws so we must find some other grounds for disagreeing: https://web.archive.org/web/20170616174455/http://mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html
PS: He says: "The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present. Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws.... We also agree that the SAIC experiments appear to be free of the more obvious and better known flaws that can invalidate the results of parapsychological investigations. We agree that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments are too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes.... I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments and in the recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they appear to be accounted for by multiple testing, file-drawer distortions, inappropriate statistical testing or other misuse of statistical inference. I do not rule out the possibility that some of this apparent departure from the null hypothesis might simply reflect the failure of the underlying model to be a truly adequate model of the experimental situation....." – so I don't think it's valid to say that all the well-known research "suffers from really obvious experimental design problems" when peer-reviews by its opponents claim the opposite.
Here's a report on said government research by a skeptic:https://web.archive.org/web/20170616174455/http://mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html
Because my report will emphasize points of disagreement between Professor Utts and me, I want to state that we agree on many other points. We both agree that the SAIC experiments were free of the methodological weaknesses that plagued the early SRI research. We also agree that the SAIC experiments appear to be free of the more obvious and better known flaws that can invalidate the results of parapsychological investigations. We agree that the effect sizes reported in the SAIC experiments are too large and consistent to be dismissed as statistical flukes.
I will google the joke til I get it
Nobody's holding it to a lower standard. On the contrary, it's held to very high standards of rigor because of the taboo.
e.g. one research guideline is that the research team should have a skeptic and a believer (e.g. Bem and Honorton). We don't require such exacting standards for pharma research because it doesn't threaten our metaphysical beliefs (just the lives of our loved ones)
Blinded drug trials don't rigorously guard against the blinding being broken by sensory leakages (granted they do take some precautions).
The idea that "parapsychology research is held to low standards" is an old canard
I agree p=0.041 is not very conclusive.
I'll also note that saying the evidence should be approached as an "amazing claim" is explicitly saying you bring a biased approach to the evidence.
No one study is conclusive really, that's why we need meta-analyses
There are organised brigading groups deliberately tilting Wikipedia to their bias.
This is well-documented; they're surprisingly brazen about it.
It is particularly bad for charged/controversial topics like this.
This is confusing as fuck.
Are you asking about the country or the continent?
I use 'Usan' a little bit, but not totally satisfied with it.
17
Wow, look at us go. We have passed the halfway point of Vol.1, and are ⅕ of the way through the whole thing. You now have a better understanding of what Marx really said than most people.
Explain the bookclub: We are reading Volumes 1, 2, and 3 in one year and discussing it in weekly threads. (Volume IV, often published under the title Theories of Surplus Value, will not be included in this particular reading club, but comrades are encouraged to do other solo and collaborative reading.) This bookclub will repeat yearly. The three volumes in a year works out to about 6½ pages a day for a year, 46⅔ pages a week.
I'll post the readings at the start of each week and @mention anybody interested. Let me know if you want to be added or removed.
Just joining us? You can use the archives below to help you reading up to where the group is. There is another reading group on a different schedule at https://lemmygrad.ml/c/genzhou (federated at [email protected] ) which may fit your schedule better. The idea is for the bookclub to repeat annually, so there's always next year.
Archives: Week 1 – Week 2 – Week 3 – Week 4 – Week 5 – Week 6 – Week 7 – Week 8 – Week 9 – Week 10
Week 11, March 11-17, we are finishing Chapter 15 (i.e. sections 9 and 10), and reading Chapter 16. This is all in Volume 1.
Discuss the week's reading in the comments.
Use any translation/edition you like. Marxists.org has the Moore and Aveling translation in various file formats including epub and PDF: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/
Ben Fowkes translation, PDF: http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=9C4A100BD61BB2DB9BE26773E4DBC5D
AernaLingus says: I noticed that the linked copy of the Fowkes translation doesn't have bookmarks, so I took the liberty of adding them myself. You can either download my version with the bookmarks added, or if you're a bit paranoid (can't blame ya) and don't mind some light command line work you can use the same simple script that I did with my formatted plaintext bookmarks to take the PDF from libgen and add the bookmarks yourself.
Audiobook of Ben Fowkes translation, American accent, male, links are to alternative invidious instances: 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – 9
Resources
(These are not expected reading, these are here to help you if you so choose)
-
Harvey's guide to reading it: https://www.davidharvey.org/media/Intro_A_Companion_to_Marxs_Capital.pdf
-
A University of Warwick guide to reading it: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/postgraduate/masters/modules/worldlitworldsystems/hotr.marxs_capital.untilp72.pdf
-
Reading Capital with Comrades: A Liberation School podcast series - https://www.liberationschool.org/reading-capital-with-comrades-podcast/
58
Das Kapital reading group, Week 10, March 4-10. From Vol. 1, we are reading Chapter 15, sections 6, 7, and 8
(hexbear.net)
Man, sorry I've been offline til Friday, I was told we would get power back much sooner. I hope you have all just been reading independently, sorry for not providing a good place to discuss.
The overall plan is to read Volumes 1, 2, and 3 in one year. (Volume IV, often published under the title Theories of Surplus Value, will not be included in this particular reading club, but comrades are encouraged to do other solo and collaborative reading.) This bookclub will repeat yearly. The three volumes in a year works out to about 6½ pages a day for a year, 46⅔ pages a week.
I'll post the readings at the start of each week and @mention anybody interested. Let me know if you want to be added or removed.
Just joining us? It'll take you about 20 hours to catch up to where the group is. Use the archives below to help you. There is another reading group on a different schedule at https://lemmygrad.ml/c/genzhou (federated at [email protected] ) which may fit your schedule better.
Archives: Week 1 – Week 2 – Week 3 – Week 4 – Week 5 – Week 6 – Week 7 – Week 8 – Week 9
Week 10, March 4-10, we are reading Chapter 15 sections 6,7, and 8, from Volume 1
In other words, aim to reach the heading 'The Health and Education Clauses of the Factory Acts. The General Extension of Factory legislation in England' by Sunday
Discuss the week's reading in the comments.
Use any translation/edition you like. Marxists.org has the Moore and Aveling translation in various file formats including epub and PDF: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/
Ben Fowkes translation, PDF: http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=9C4A100BD61BB2DB9BE26773E4DBC5D
AernaLingus says: I noticed that the linked copy of the Fowkes translation doesn't have bookmarks, so I took the liberty of adding them myself. You can either download my version with the bookmarks added, or if you're a bit paranoid (can't blame ya) and don't mind some light command line work you can use the same simple script that I did with my formatted plaintext bookmarks to take the PDF from libgen and add the bookmarks yourself.
Audiobook of Ben Fowkes translation, American accent, male, links are to alternative invidious instances: 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – 9
Resources
(These are not expected reading, these are here to help you if you so choose)
-
Harvey's guide to reading it: https://www.davidharvey.org/media/Intro_A_Companion_to_Marxs_Capital.pdf
-
A University of Warwick guide to reading it: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/postgraduate/masters/modules/worldlitworldsystems/hotr.marxs_capital.untilp72.pdf
-
Reading Capital with Comrades: A Liberation School podcast series - https://www.liberationschool.org/reading-capital-with-comrades-podcast/
Yes it is, the null hypothesis is the placebo hypothesis.