Evidnece for the super natural

[Shadow_self]

58 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Now its the old 'edit previous posts' tactic  and 'bump the content '

 

 

The real ironic situation here is that this individuals heavily focuses on appeals to authoritiessuch as academics which is a logical fallacy

 

I am an in academia, and I have had to point out the most basic flaws in reasoning and cognition...to the point that their argument is basically a non runner

 

Now one would imagine, that given their predisposition towards people of this inclination..you would think they would do well to listen and learn 

[Cleansox]

Not to mention that in that specific group of authority, the written account of the result of a properly developed and executed research protocol seems the gold standard for communicating evidence. 

[Nungali]

Well, this thread  is all about   ' evidnece ' .    

[Earl Grey]

[Nungali]

[Zork]

As a side question @Iliketurtles what is your opinion on deep fakes??

 

[Iliketurtles]

8 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

 

The real ironic situation here is that this individuals heavily focuses on appeals to authoritiessuch as academics which is a logical fallacy

 

I am an in academia, and I have had to point out the most basic flaws in reasoning and cognition...to the point that their argument is basically a non runner

 

Now one would imagine, that given their predisposition towards people of this inclination..you would think they would do well to listen and learn 

 

There is a reason most papers (edit: published in reputable top journals) are published by people with PhDs in their relevant fields, and not by random laypeople off the street. 

 

When a journal rejects a paper written by some random slob who flunked out of 8th grade that is not an appeal to authority. 

 

It is not an appeal to authority to want someone who is qualified to do the job, to do the job.

 

When you look over someone's resume to make sure they are qualified, that is not an appeal to authority.

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Iliketurtles]

27 minutes ago, Zork said:

As a side question @Iliketurtles what is your opinion on deep fakes??

 

 

Anything that can be recorded and documented can be faked.

 

In the future it may be possible to fake DNA evidence on the fly too.

 

In the end we can only do the best we can do. 

[Shadow_self]

10 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

There is a reason most papers are published by people with PhDs in their relevant fields, and not by random laypeople off the street. 

 

When a journal rejects a paper written by some random slob who flunked out of 8th grade that is not an appeal to authority. 

 

It is not an appeal to authority to want someone who is qualified to do the job, to do the job.

 

When you look over someone's resume to make sure they are qualified, that is not an appeal to authority.

 

 

Nobody needs a PhD to publish a well respected paper...what absolute crap ...bachelors, and masters students do it all the time....more inconsistencies and nonsense..Not only that, but professionals in the field who have no PhD regularly publish too, in the highest ranking journals....It happens ALL THE TIME....and as a person in the occupation, I can tell you that your understanding of the way it works, is totally and unequivocally wrong

 

It absolutely is an appeal to authority to claim the mere presence of a PhD brings credence to something...it does not, and will not ever......your unfounded religious like dogmatism wont change that..anyway you've yourself tied up in so many logical inconsistencies at this stage...its just sad to be honest

 

The difference is, you have to appeal to authority and employ multiple biases and fallacies...I don't....I actually work with these people...do the peer reviewed stuff...do the research, design the protocols, lecture to 100s of students..and have done so for some time...in other words, I teach this stuff as well as practice it. I am more than in a position to tell you that you have no understanding of how this works....none at all

 

So to summarize...you don't know what you are talking about....first you misrepresent the Mo Pai ..and now you misrepresent academia, again something you clearly have no affiliation to (no sane academic would operate with the amount of biases and fallacies you do)

 

This is why nobody here will ever take you or your peers seriously...because you operate from a default of logical inconsistency and will outright lie. I'm pretty sure the entire forum is laughing (or cringing) at the silliness of you... However...its a good record for anyone who ever considers reaching out to you...just to see what it looks like when a person in academia addresses the type of nonsense your are presenting

 

Anyway...we're done now....please refrain from telling lies about PhDs and academics.....we don't take kindly to you misrepresenting us ( much like another group of people you do that with)

[Shadow_self]

7 hours ago, Cleansox said:

Not to mention that in that specific group of authority, the written account of the result of a properly developed and executed research protocol seems the gold standard for communicating evidence. 

 

 

You are not talking to people who are fully "there"....as evidenced in the prior string of posts

 

[Iliketurtles]

https://thegeekanthropologist.com/2015/09/11/so-youre-an-undergraduate-and-you-want-to-get-published/

 

As an undergrad, I wouldn’t attempt to get your paper published in Cell or Annual Review of Immunology, simply because of their rankings and impact factor. 

[Iliketurtles]

44 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

 

Nobody needs a PhD to publish a well respected paper...what absolute crap ...bachelors, and masters students do it all the time....more inconsistencies and nonsense..Not only that, but professionals in the field who have no PhD regularly publish too, in the highest ranking journals....It happens ALL THE TIME....and as a person in the occupation, I can tell you that your understanding of the way it works, is totally and unequivocally wrong

 

It absolutely is an appeal to authority to claim the mere presence of a PhD brings credence to something...it does not, and will not ever......your unfounded religious like dogmatism wont change that..anyway you've yourself tied up in so many logical inconsistencies at this stage...its just sad to be honest

 

The difference is, you have to appeal to authority and employ multiple biases and fallacies...I don't....I actually work with these people...do the peer reviewed stuff...do the research, design the protocols, lecture to 100s of students..and have done so for some time...in other words, I teach this stuff as well as practice it. I am more than in a position to tell you that you have no understanding of how this works....none at all

 

So to summarize...you don't know what you are talking about....first you misrepresent the Mo Pai ..and now you misrepresent academia, again something you clearly have no affiliation to (no sane academic would operate with the amount of biases and fallacies you do)

 

This is why nobody here will ever take you or your peers seriously...because you operate from a default of logical inconsistency and will outright lie. I'm pretty sure the entire forum is laughing (or cringing) at the silliness of you... However...its a good record for anyone who ever considers reaching out to you...just to see what it looks like when a person in academia addresses the type of nonsense your are presenting

 

Anyway...we're done now....please refrain from telling lies about PhDs and academics.....we don't take kindly to you misrepresenting us ( much like another group of people you do that with)

 

If I am doing and observational study, I want reasonable, rational and qualified professionals present to do their best to rule out any funny business. 

 

I do not want people like Giorgio A. Tsoukalos spearheading the investigation. 

 

This seems reasonable to me to have qualified people doing the work.

[Shadow_self]

45 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

https://thegeekanthropologist.com/2015/09/11/so-youre-an-undergraduate-and-you-want-to-get-published/

 

As an undergrad, I wouldn’t attempt to get your paper published in Cell or Annual Review of Immunology, simply because of their rankings and impact factor. 

 

This has no bearing on anything

 

Undergraduates can and do publish their thesis in high ranking journals with decent impact factors ALL the time

 

 

[Shadow_self]

54 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

If I am doing and observational study, I want reasonable, rational and qualified professionals present to do their best to rule out any funny business. 

 

I do not want people like Giorgio A. Tsoukalos spearheading the investigation. 

 

This seems reasonable to me to have qualified people doing the work.

 

There is no qualification to make your qualified to do research....You need to be (1) reasonable (2) rational and (3) have training in research methods...it changes by that thing called context...the thing that constantly eludes you

 

A PhD is not a prerequisite....Not in journals, not in academia and not in industry.  People who do PhDs regularly take classes in research...but they are just very slight extensions of whats covered at undergraduate and postgraduate...nothing thats really required per se...the only exception to this are skill specific classes, but they are never  really offered as part of a PhD ( for example, I recently took advanced EEG training...but that was not part of a PhD...or any module offered on the program..I went to a workshop run by a university...where there were people of all walks....not  just PhDs)

 

It is absolutely right to ask a rational and reasonable and competent person to do the work.....three letters after your name has nothing to do with it...there are probably more incompetent PhDs and professors than competent ones....and the replication crisis, amongst other situations in science prove this

Edited January 18, 2022 by Shadow_self

[Iliketurtles]

If I am doing an observational study I want to make sure qualified professionals are present, and not people like Giorgio A. Tsoukalos.

 

I wouldn't take evidence gathered by Giorgio A. Tsoukalos seriously, and I wouldn't expect others to either.

 

As to getting published in a top reputable journal, I suppose that might be possible if you had your professor work with you,  but I would think it would be much harder to publish directly.  

 

Remember there are thousands of predatory journals that will publish any nonsense so long as their fees get paid. 

 

https://www.livescience.com/59927-midi-chlorians-paper-accepted-by-journals.html

 

Mitochondria or Midi-Chlorians? 'Star Wars' Hoax Paper Published in 4 Journals
 

[Shadow_self]

31 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

If I am doing an observational study I want to make sure qualified professionals are present, and not people like Giorgio A. Tsoukalos.

 

I wouldn't take evidence gathered by Giorgio A. Tsoukalos seriously, and I wouldn't expect others to either.

 

As to getting published in a top reputable journal, I suppose that might be possible if you had your professor work with you,  but I would think it would be much harder to publish directly.  

 

Remember there are thousands of predatory journals that will publish any nonsense so long as their fees get paid. 

 

https://www.livescience.com/59927-midi-chlorians-paper-accepted-by-journals.html

 

Mitochondria or Midi-Chlorians? 'Star Wars' Hoax Paper Published in 4 Journals
 

 

Because he is neither reasonable nor rational, and does not appear to show competence in research methods

 

The title of PhD is utterly meaningless in this instance....there are more useless PhDs than competent ones...

 

Not exactly, the only real assistance one would need to publish a paper, if they were aiming for a  high ranking journal would be aid in editing a manuscript...because in all honesty that is the most tedious part...you could design, test and write up a protocol suitable for a high ranking journal without any assistance provided you are a good student....it really is not that hard

 

Im quite aware of the issues with journals...fortunately  with scientometrics and a bit of discernment one can easily recognize this

 

If I was you id be less worried about the journals...most competent people understand this... the real issues are the deliberate incompetence of people contributing to the replication crisis. So...yes...those " qualified " people...many of them are actively manipulating information irrespective of the medium it is either documented or presented via video, writing  etc...it makes no difference

 

So the key measure here is not even  being .rational, reasonable or competent..truth be told it is actually having academic integrity. No video or testimony will change that....hence why we have things like pre-registration, transparency  and access to data. These are the things that help us to really narrow down fraud

Edited January 18, 2022 by Shadow_self

[Cleansox]

Every field attract frauds and criminals if there is a profit to it. 

Nothing new, why should the field of science be without them? 

[Shadow_self]

6 minutes ago, Cleansox said:

Every field attract frauds and criminals if there is a profit to it. 

Nothing new, why should the field of science be without them? 

 

You're right...and if people dont understand that science is a profit driven exercise firstly and a knowledge generation machine second....then they have missed the point

 

But what you are describing is essentialy the difference between a good and bad scientist....one whos in it to really find out about the world...vs one who just wants to make money and will distort, twist and manipulate both the data and narrative to suit the means

 

It should be without them, because their very presence sinks the world into a deeper state of delusion...but the reality is it will never be without them...in fact they are just becoming more and more representative of the status quo...a sad truth..but one that unfortunately needs to be accepted

[Cleansox]

3 hours ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

There is a reason most papers (edit: published in reputable top journals) are published by people with PhDs in their relevant fields, 

/... ... /

When you look over someone's resume to make sure they are qualified, 

 

The point here being "in their relevant fields" 

A person with a PhD should be qualified to conduct independent research in his/her field of study, while at the same time might not be competent to conduct research in a different field. 

 

A M.D. might not be qualified to do independent research at all, and might not be qualified to do research in any field outside of the chosen medical specialization. 

 

And I know this because I have been in a PhD program, with MD's. 

[Iliketurtles]

5 hours ago, Cleansox said:

The point here being "in their relevant fields" 

A person with a PhD should be qualified to conduct independent research in his/her field of study, while at the same time might not be competent to conduct research in a different field. 

 

A M.D. might not be qualified to do independent research at all, and might not be qualified to do research in any field outside of the chosen medical specialization. 

 

And I know this because I have been in a PhD program, with MD's. 

 

 

I guess it would depend on what type of supernatural claim was being documented as to which professionals would or would not be relevant.

[Nungali]

10 hours ago, Zork said:

As a side question @Iliketurtles what is your opinion on deep fakes??

 

 

9 hours ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

...

 

In the end we can only do the best we can do. 

 

 

Ooooo !  What a giveaway !  

 

[Nungali]

8 hours ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

If I am doing and observational study, I want reasonable, rational and qualified professionals present to do their best to rule out any funny business. 

 

I do not want people like Giorgio A. Tsoukalos spearheading the investigation. 

 

This seems reasonable to me to have qualified people doing the work.

 

Qualified in what profession ?

 

- the question he dare not answer !

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, Cleansox said:

The point here being "in their relevant fields" 

 

Thats the thing he doesnt want to address or answer me about .

 

Do you know why ?

 

Because what he desires to be reality was filmed and witnessed by 'professionals' and that was always touted as giving the claims some validity .

 

But 'professionals ' in   WHAT ? 

 

Doest matter .... one had a  PhD .  

 

 

6 hours ago, Cleansox said:

A person with a PhD should be qualified to conduct independent research in his/her field of study, while at the same time might not be competent to conduct research in a different field. 

 

A M.D. might not be qualified to do independent research at all, and might not be qualified to do research in any field outside of the chosen medical specialization. 

 

And I know this because I have been in a PhD program, with MD's. 

 

Most people realise this as well , in that they dont call a plumber when the friggin lights blow out !

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

 

I guess it would depend on what type of supernatural claim was being documented as to which professionals would or would not be relevant.

 

Then you are back to my question - which you won't answer -   

 

James  Randi has good experience in exposing supernatural claims  - so do 'ghost hunters'  .  Both are 'professionals' .

[natural]

11 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Then you are back to my question - which you won't answer -   

 

James  Randi has good experience in exposing supernatural claims  - so do 'ghost hunters'  .  Both are 'professionals' .

 

What about Ghost Busters aren't they pertinent?