Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 07:25 am

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,749 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 04:33 pm
@gungasnake,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW6cjZVh3CA
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 12:39 am
@farmerman,
THIS posting shows your EXTREMELY stupidity, mate!

Out in the open for anyone to see now!


O man how you have no clue at all how dumbed down you are!!!
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 02:39 am
@Quehoniaomath,
relax Quahog. I put that up a yr ago in anticipation of hat youd say. You've outed yourself. Now everyone can see what n idiot you are for following and believing such a douche bag.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 04:22 am
Fm:QED
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 05:22 am
@Quehoniaomath,
No prob. If you ever have anything intelligent to say, you be sure to let me know cause I want to see what that looks like.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 05:27 am
FM: QED
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 05:48 am
@Quehoniaomath,
You mean that by QED, I have demonstrated to your satisfaction, that you've not said anything intelligent yet?


GLAD I COULD HELP
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 07:29 am
FM: QED

Come'on!
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 03:31 am
@Quehoniaomath,
I wonser what it is that attracts people to actually listen to folks like Dean Radin more than once.
I heard him on a local show in Princeton and thought,
"What a dick".
He blends bleedin obvious observations with nonsensical conclusions and wants respect. If parapsychology is ever validated it wont be by guys like him.Itll come out of neurophysics labs

Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 04:12 am
@farmerman,
FM: QED

You are ONLY good at Ad Hominems!

No argument, no counter argument from your side, nothing, nothing, nothing at all!



Not worth reading anymore -> ignore (again!)

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 05:48 am
@Quehoniaomath,
so, by merely hollering insults, you can duck having any input. Why don't you just admit youre a fraud .

Probably because you don't know how to spell it
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 05:55 am
@Quehoniaomath,
        http://lowres.jantoo.com/workplace-italic-font-ability-boss-hr-29604602_low.jpg
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 06:59 am
@farmerman,
When you really don't understand something (like with these science topics), silence actually is an option, i.e. that way people at least have to guess as to how ignorant you actually are.....
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 08:15 am
@gungasnake,
lol, goodone! like it! lol
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 08:43 am
@gungasnake,
I understand when you "buy" all the crap from these feel good ssouche bags. When Radin actually uses science to forward his BS, let me know.
I wonder why most of his work, like Dr Austens, don't get published in peer reviewed journals.

Perhaps yu should do a careful self inspection of your own "Science savvy". Since youre the only one who insists on a Worldwide Flood and a young earth,

I only go where evidence leads me.

You've inherited the latest douche bag , Quahog. I rest my case
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2015 08:50 am
@farmerman,
I J Good did a review of Radin's "Scientific view of Psychic Phenomena. The book was not featured but Good's review appeared in NATURE, Heres a clip,


Quote:
”Radin is aware of the file-drawer effect, in which only positive results tend to get reported and negative ones are left in the filing cabinet. This obviously can greatly bias any analysis of combined results and Radin cannot ignore this as blithely as he ignores other possible, non-paranormal explanations of the data. Even the most fervent parapsychologists recognize this problem. Meta-analysis incorporates a procedure for taking the file-drawer effect into account. Radin says it shows that more than 3,300 unpublished, unsuccessful reports would be needed for each published report in order to “nullify” the statistical significance of psi. In his review of Radin’s book for the journal Nature, statistics professor I.J. Good disputes this calculation, calling it “a gross overestimate.” He estimates that the number of unpublished, unsuccessful reports needed to account for the results by the file drawer effect should be reduced to fifteen or less. How could two meta-analyses result in such a wide discrepancy? Somebody is doing something wrong, and in this case it is clearly Radin. He has not performed the file-drawer analysis correctly.[2]
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dean Radin on Coast to Coast
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/02/2021 at 06:14:14