[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]

Decades of public service?? He has been in the Senate one term, served 4 years as a state legislator.

John
[/quote]

8 years as a state senator actually.

And before then he did quite a bit of what most people consider to be public service work, just not as an elected official.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=arraya]Yes, I really did just bust out a Yoda quote to show how ridiculous they are.

A: I think McCain is a slightly bigger nightmere than Obama
B: The question I posed is valid.
C: I did not say it was fake. I stated the use of “African” to describe a black person was not commonly used if at all in 1961, therefore it is suspect.

Any google search on the political correctness movement can cite this. It’s well documented.

So again how was my question ridiculous? In what way?
[/quote]

So? Assuming that the hospital has upgraded their records to computer storage, it’s very likely they standardized the entries at the same time they did this. Nobody as far as I know is claiming that this is an ORIGINAL birth certificate from the 60’s, it’s a certified copy from hospital records (in fact, the copy I’ve seen on the web clearly isn’t, since it is clearly computer printed as opposed to hand-typed.)

It’s very likely that what happened is that the hospital when placing those records into the computer simply standardized on the currently PC choices, rather than have older records use different terminology for race.

I find this a more likely ad-hoc explanation than the alternative which implies a pretty massive conspiracy that has held up to decades of public service.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=arraya]Yes, I really did just bust out a Yoda quote to show how ridiculous they are.

A: I think McCain is a slightly bigger nightmere than Obama
B: The question I posed is valid.
C: I did not say it was fake. I stated the use of “African” to describe a black person was not commonly used if at all in 1961, therefore it is suspect.

Any google search on the political correctness movement can cite this. It’s well documented.

So again how was my question ridiculous? In what way?
[/quote]

So? Assuming that the hospital has upgraded their records to computer storage, it’s very likely they standardized the entries at the same time they did this. Nobody as far as I know is claiming that this is an ORIGINAL birth certificate from the 60’s, it’s a certified copy from hospital records (in fact, the copy I’ve seen on the web clearly isn’t, since it is clearly computer printed as opposed to hand-typed.)

It’s very likely that what happened is that the hospital when placing those records into the computer simply standardized on the currently PC choices, rather than have older records use different terminology for race.

I find this a more likely ad-hoc explanation than the alternative which implies a pretty massive conspiracy that has held up to decades of public service.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=arraya]Yes, I really did just bust out a Yoda quote to show how ridiculous they are.

A: I think McCain is a slightly bigger nightmere than Obama
B: The question I posed is valid.
C: I did not say it was fake. I stated the use of “African” to describe a black person was not commonly used if at all in 1961, therefore it is suspect.

Any google search on the political correctness movement can cite this. It’s well documented.

So again how was my question ridiculous? In what way?
[/quote]

So? Assuming that the hospital has upgraded their records to computer storage, it’s very likely they standardized the entries at the same time they did this. Nobody as far as I know is claiming that this is an ORIGINAL birth certificate from the 60’s, it’s a certified copy from hospital records (in fact, the copy I’ve seen on the web clearly isn’t, since it is clearly computer printed as opposed to hand-typed.)

It’s very likely that what happened is that the hospital when placing those records into the computer simply standardized on the currently PC choices, rather than have older records use different terminology for race.

I find this a more likely ad-hoc explanation than the alternative which implies a pretty massive conspiracy that has held up to decades of public service.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=arraya]Yes, I really did just bust out a Yoda quote to show how ridiculous they are.

A: I think McCain is a slightly bigger nightmere than Obama
B: The question I posed is valid.
C: I did not say it was fake. I stated the use of “African” to describe a black person was not commonly used if at all in 1961, therefore it is suspect.

Any google search on the political correctness movement can cite this. It’s well documented.

So again how was my question ridiculous? In what way?
[/quote]

So? Assuming that the hospital has upgraded their records to computer storage, it’s very likely they standardized the entries at the same time they did this. Nobody as far as I know is claiming that this is an ORIGINAL birth certificate from the 60’s, it’s a certified copy from hospital records (in fact, the copy I’ve seen on the web clearly isn’t, since it is clearly computer printed as opposed to hand-typed.)

It’s very likely that what happened is that the hospital when placing those records into the computer simply standardized on the currently PC choices, rather than have older records use different terminology for race.

I find this a more likely ad-hoc explanation than the alternative which implies a pretty massive conspiracy that has held up to decades of public service.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=arraya]Yes, I really did just bust out a Yoda quote to show how ridiculous they are.

A: I think McCain is a slightly bigger nightmere than Obama
B: The question I posed is valid.
C: I did not say it was fake. I stated the use of “African” to describe a black person was not commonly used if at all in 1961, therefore it is suspect.

Any google search on the political correctness movement can cite this. It’s well documented.

So again how was my question ridiculous? In what way?
[/quote]

So? Assuming that the hospital has upgraded their records to computer storage, it’s very likely they standardized the entries at the same time they did this. Nobody as far as I know is claiming that this is an ORIGINAL birth certificate from the 60’s, it’s a certified copy from hospital records (in fact, the copy I’ve seen on the web clearly isn’t, since it is clearly computer printed as opposed to hand-typed.)

It’s very likely that what happened is that the hospital when placing those records into the computer simply standardized on the currently PC choices, rather than have older records use different terminology for race.

I find this a more likely ad-hoc explanation than the alternative which implies a pretty massive conspiracy that has held up to decades of public service.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=4plexowner]Who was J. B. Rhine?
http://www.parapsych.org/members/jb_rhine.html

What conclusions can we draw about Rhine’s overall research program? By 1940, 33 experiments had accumulated, involving almost a million trials, with protocols which rigorously excluded possible sensory clues (e.g., by introducing distance and/or barriers between sender and receiver, or by employing precognition protocols (i.e., where the target has not yet been selected at the time subjects make their responses).

Twenty seven (27) of the 33 studies produced statistically significant results — an exceptional record, even today. Furthermore, positive results were not restricted to Rhine’s lab. In the five years following Rhine’s first publication of his results, 33 independent replication experiments were conducted at different laboratories. Twenty (20) of these (or 61%) were statistically significant (where 5% would be expected by chance alone).

A meta-analysis was done specifically for precognition experiments conducted between the years 1935 – 1987. (Honorton, C., & Ferrari, D. [1989]. Meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments 1935 – 1987. Journal of Parapsychology, vol 53, 281 – 308). This included 309 studies, conducted by 62 experimenters. The cumulative probability associated with the overall results was p = 10-24 (that is equivalent to .000000000000000000000001 where .05 is considered statistically significant). The scientific evidence for precognition, the most provocative of all parapsychological phenomena, stands of firm statistical grounds. [/quote]

Since it turned out later that he reported positive results while ignoring negative results, he was guilty of at the very least having a significant “confirmation bias” in his results. Some of his experimenters were later proven to be frauds (and some confessed). So, no – I don’t consider Rhine’s results to be trustworthy.

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Rhine,%20Dr.%20Joseph%20Banks.html

[SDEngineer]

[quote=4plexowner]Who was J. B. Rhine?
http://www.parapsych.org/members/jb_rhine.html

What conclusions can we draw about Rhine’s overall research program? By 1940, 33 experiments had accumulated, involving almost a million trials, with protocols which rigorously excluded possible sensory clues (e.g., by introducing distance and/or barriers between sender and receiver, or by employing precognition protocols (i.e., where the target has not yet been selected at the time subjects make their responses).

Twenty seven (27) of the 33 studies produced statistically significant results — an exceptional record, even today. Furthermore, positive results were not restricted to Rhine’s lab. In the five years following Rhine’s first publication of his results, 33 independent replication experiments were conducted at different laboratories. Twenty (20) of these (or 61%) were statistically significant (where 5% would be expected by chance alone).

A meta-analysis was done specifically for precognition experiments conducted between the years 1935 – 1987. (Honorton, C., & Ferrari, D. [1989]. Meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments 1935 – 1987. Journal of Parapsychology, vol 53, 281 – 308). This included 309 studies, conducted by 62 experimenters. The cumulative probability associated with the overall results was p = 10-24 (that is equivalent to .000000000000000000000001 where .05 is considered statistically significant). The scientific evidence for precognition, the most provocative of all parapsychological phenomena, stands of firm statistical grounds. [/quote]

Since it turned out later that he reported positive results while ignoring negative results, he was guilty of at the very least having a significant “confirmation bias” in his results. Some of his experimenters were later proven to be frauds (and some confessed). So, no – I don’t consider Rhine’s results to be trustworthy.

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Rhine,%20Dr.%20Joseph%20Banks.html

[SDEngineer]

[quote=4plexowner]Who was J. B. Rhine?
http://www.parapsych.org/members/jb_rhine.html

What conclusions can we draw about Rhine’s overall research program? By 1940, 33 experiments had accumulated, involving almost a million trials, with protocols which rigorously excluded possible sensory clues (e.g., by introducing distance and/or barriers between sender and receiver, or by employing precognition protocols (i.e., where the target has not yet been selected at the time subjects make their responses).

Twenty seven (27) of the 33 studies produced statistically significant results — an exceptional record, even today. Furthermore, positive results were not restricted to Rhine’s lab. In the five years following Rhine’s first publication of his results, 33 independent replication experiments were conducted at different laboratories. Twenty (20) of these (or 61%) were statistically significant (where 5% would be expected by chance alone).

A meta-analysis was done specifically for precognition experiments conducted between the years 1935 – 1987. (Honorton, C., & Ferrari, D. [1989]. Meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments 1935 – 1987. Journal of Parapsychology, vol 53, 281 – 308). This included 309 studies, conducted by 62 experimenters. The cumulative probability associated with the overall results was p = 10-24 (that is equivalent to .000000000000000000000001 where .05 is considered statistically significant). The scientific evidence for precognition, the most provocative of all parapsychological phenomena, stands of firm statistical grounds. [/quote]

Since it turned out later that he reported positive results while ignoring negative results, he was guilty of at the very least having a significant “confirmation bias” in his results. Some of his experimenters were later proven to be frauds (and some confessed). So, no – I don’t consider Rhine’s results to be trustworthy.

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Rhine,%20Dr.%20Joseph%20Banks.html

[SDEngineer]

[quote=4plexowner]Who was J. B. Rhine?
http://www.parapsych.org/members/jb_rhine.html

What conclusions can we draw about Rhine’s overall research program? By 1940, 33 experiments had accumulated, involving almost a million trials, with protocols which rigorously excluded possible sensory clues (e.g., by introducing distance and/or barriers between sender and receiver, or by employing precognition protocols (i.e., where the target has not yet been selected at the time subjects make their responses).

Twenty seven (27) of the 33 studies produced statistically significant results — an exceptional record, even today. Furthermore, positive results were not restricted to Rhine’s lab. In the five years following Rhine’s first publication of his results, 33 independent replication experiments were conducted at different laboratories. Twenty (20) of these (or 61%) were statistically significant (where 5% would be expected by chance alone).

A meta-analysis was done specifically for precognition experiments conducted between the years 1935 – 1987. (Honorton, C., & Ferrari, D. [1989]. Meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments 1935 – 1987. Journal of Parapsychology, vol 53, 281 – 308). This included 309 studies, conducted by 62 experimenters. The cumulative probability associated with the overall results was p = 10-24 (that is equivalent to .000000000000000000000001 where .05 is considered statistically significant). The scientific evidence for precognition, the most provocative of all parapsychological phenomena, stands of firm statistical grounds. [/quote]

Since it turned out later that he reported positive results while ignoring negative results, he was guilty of at the very least having a significant “confirmation bias” in his results. Some of his experimenters were later proven to be frauds (and some confessed). So, no – I don’t consider Rhine’s results to be trustworthy.

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Rhine,%20Dr.%20Joseph%20Banks.html

[SDEngineer]

[quote=4plexowner]Who was J. B. Rhine?
http://www.parapsych.org/members/jb_rhine.html

What conclusions can we draw about Rhine’s overall research program? By 1940, 33 experiments had accumulated, involving almost a million trials, with protocols which rigorously excluded possible sensory clues (e.g., by introducing distance and/or barriers between sender and receiver, or by employing precognition protocols (i.e., where the target has not yet been selected at the time subjects make their responses).

Twenty seven (27) of the 33 studies produced statistically significant results — an exceptional record, even today. Furthermore, positive results were not restricted to Rhine’s lab. In the five years following Rhine’s first publication of his results, 33 independent replication experiments were conducted at different laboratories. Twenty (20) of these (or 61%) were statistically significant (where 5% would be expected by chance alone).

A meta-analysis was done specifically for precognition experiments conducted between the years 1935 – 1987. (Honorton, C., & Ferrari, D. [1989]. Meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments 1935 – 1987. Journal of Parapsychology, vol 53, 281 – 308). This included 309 studies, conducted by 62 experimenters. The cumulative probability associated with the overall results was p = 10-24 (that is equivalent to .000000000000000000000001 where .05 is considered statistically significant). The scientific evidence for precognition, the most provocative of all parapsychological phenomena, stands of firm statistical grounds. [/quote]

Since it turned out later that he reported positive results while ignoring negative results, he was guilty of at the very least having a significant “confirmation bias” in his results. Some of his experimenters were later proven to be frauds (and some confessed). So, no – I don’t consider Rhine’s results to be trustworthy.

http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Rhine,%20Dr.%20Joseph%20Banks.html

[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]Hi SD,

Read this link for fun. See what you think.
http://www.militaryremoteviewers.com/cia_remote_viewing_sri.htm

John
[/quote]

Considering Puthoff was also convinced that Uri Geller was the real thing, I’m not convinced that any research which he directed would have been rigourous or devoid of observational or experimental bias. I especially thought that the fact that the purported psychic with the “remote viewing” ability got to suggest many of the more advanced tests is a bit like allowing Uri Geller his own spoons to bend (oddly, Uri has never been able to bend a skeptics spoon). His initial “hit” that landed the contract sounded quite a lot like he was “cold reading” the people holding the boxes as well.

James Randi (of CSICOP) currently has a $1 million dollar prize available for anyone who can demonstrate remote viewing under controlled scientific circumstances. Nobody has collected yet.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]Hi SD,

Read this link for fun. See what you think.
http://www.militaryremoteviewers.com/cia_remote_viewing_sri.htm

John
[/quote]

Considering Puthoff was also convinced that Uri Geller was the real thing, I’m not convinced that any research which he directed would have been rigourous or devoid of observational or experimental bias. I especially thought that the fact that the purported psychic with the “remote viewing” ability got to suggest many of the more advanced tests is a bit like allowing Uri Geller his own spoons to bend (oddly, Uri has never been able to bend a skeptics spoon). His initial “hit” that landed the contract sounded quite a lot like he was “cold reading” the people holding the boxes as well.

James Randi (of CSICOP) currently has a $1 million dollar prize available for anyone who can demonstrate remote viewing under controlled scientific circumstances. Nobody has collected yet.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]Hi SD,

Read this link for fun. See what you think.
http://www.militaryremoteviewers.com/cia_remote_viewing_sri.htm

John
[/quote]

Considering Puthoff was also convinced that Uri Geller was the real thing, I’m not convinced that any research which he directed would have been rigourous or devoid of observational or experimental bias. I especially thought that the fact that the purported psychic with the “remote viewing” ability got to suggest many of the more advanced tests is a bit like allowing Uri Geller his own spoons to bend (oddly, Uri has never been able to bend a skeptics spoon). His initial “hit” that landed the contract sounded quite a lot like he was “cold reading” the people holding the boxes as well.

James Randi (of CSICOP) currently has a $1 million dollar prize available for anyone who can demonstrate remote viewing under controlled scientific circumstances. Nobody has collected yet.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]Hi SD,

Read this link for fun. See what you think.
http://www.militaryremoteviewers.com/cia_remote_viewing_sri.htm

John
[/quote]

Considering Puthoff was also convinced that Uri Geller was the real thing, I’m not convinced that any research which he directed would have been rigourous or devoid of observational or experimental bias. I especially thought that the fact that the purported psychic with the “remote viewing” ability got to suggest many of the more advanced tests is a bit like allowing Uri Geller his own spoons to bend (oddly, Uri has never been able to bend a skeptics spoon). His initial “hit” that landed the contract sounded quite a lot like he was “cold reading” the people holding the boxes as well.

James Randi (of CSICOP) currently has a $1 million dollar prize available for anyone who can demonstrate remote viewing under controlled scientific circumstances. Nobody has collected yet.

[Author]

Posts