|
SAPS
May 9, 2008 13:09:42 GMT -11
Post by xXSpookyXx on May 9, 2008 13:09:42 GMT -11
This is a great site for skeptics (both skeptical believers and non alike) They do very thorough, and in my opinion, excellent job at debunking various claims and ghostly sightings. www.skepticalanalysis.com/index.html
|
|
|
SAPS
May 9, 2008 14:16:05 GMT -11
Post by hoobsmom on May 9, 2008 14:16:05 GMT -11
I have never been to this site until tonight. Great site Spooky thanx.
|
|
|
SAPS
May 10, 2008 3:11:44 GMT -11
Post by «Foz» on May 10, 2008 3:11:44 GMT -11
Ok, that was too funny! They had an analysis of the blue "ghost" caught on camera at an Ohio gas station. Their explanation and experimentation make perfect sense but they way they present it is so funny! I always thought it was a blue plastic bag,but I guess I was wrong.
|
|
|
SAPS
May 10, 2008 9:01:20 GMT -11
Post by xXSpookyXx on May 10, 2008 9:01:20 GMT -11
Yep I thought it could have been like a blue feather from some one's gawdy hat that broke loose, or a bag or a bug. Reviewing it again, it does look like it's running sporadically on the lens.
|
|
|
SAPS
May 18, 2008 11:43:11 GMT -11
Post by ifpthenq on May 18, 2008 11:43:11 GMT -11
While I appreciate some of the work the SAPS people do--I do believe that in their fervor they miss a great deal of the scientific details necessary to skeptical research in this field. The link below is to a survey administered by Allison Smith's site (the author of the survey was C.M. Hall (a SAPS member and James Randi foundation member): www.stellarsurvey.com/Analyzer/SharedSummary.aspx?s=4752&u=2764The survey is entirely inaccurate with regard to the data collected. Look at the supernatural/paranormal belief levels indicated on the survey; they are incredibly low due to improper statistical proceedure--not actual low reported beliefs by respondents. The author of the survey put all of the beliefs into a single question and then used all of the respondent numbers as a summative measure for the mean of each of these. More simply put--there were aroud 165 people that took the survey, the author of the survey counted 1308 people for the probabilities; each probability being the number of people believing divided by the total number of respondents. So the more respondents used the lower the probability. In this case the 1308 comes from using the number of respondents from 26 questions to determine the probability of each of the 26 discrete beliefs. For example the first question "belief in God" is 102 people who believe, with 162 people who answered the question=62.96%; or 102/162--very simple math. By Hall's estimation the answer is 102/1308=7.8%. Remember, the 1308 comes from taking the total response to all 26 questions--which mathematically has nothing do do with one and other--they are discrete entities quantitatively. This mathematical error is repeated for all 26 questions. At first I thought it might be an error in software usage but then I noticed the final question of the basic supernatural/paranormal belief section. There is also a problem with the last question in this section "I do not believe in any of the above". This question shows that the survey author is unaware of her statistical error--attempting to mathematically treat distinctive, discrete, beliefs as one entity. Sorry but this type of information is so basic--it can be learned in a 200 or 300 level undergrad stats class. This kind of quick, uninformed use of mathematical reasoning is a waste of a great many people's time. As a researcher in social stats--and a paranormal skeptical researcher--it pisses me off to see people putting spurious data out there in the field. If this field of inquiry is to have any scientific merit--it must do thing properly. I did try to contact both Hall and Smith numerous times only to get a mailer daemon, and/or overflow error with regard to each of their respective email accounts. PGA
|
|
|
SAPS
May 18, 2008 12:05:01 GMT -11
Post by ifpthenq on May 18, 2008 12:05:01 GMT -11
While I appreciate some of the work the SAPS people do--I do believe that in their fervor they miss a great deal of the scientific details necessary to skeptical research in this field. The link below is to a survey administered by Allison Smith's site (the author of the survey was C.M. Hall (a SAPS member and James Randi foundation member): www.stellarsurvey.com/Analyzer/SharedSummary.aspx?s=4752&u=2764The survey is entirely inaccurate with regard to the data collected. Look at the supernatural/paranormal belief levels indicated on the survey; they are incredibly low due to improper statistical proceedure--not actual low reported beliefs by respondents. The author of the survey put all of the beliefs into a single question and then used all of the respondent numbers as a summative measure for the mean of each of these. More simply put--there were aroud 165 people that took the survey, the author of the survey counted 1308 people for the probabilities; each probability being the number of people believing divided by the total number of respondents. So the more respondents used the lower the probability. In this case the 1308 comes from using the number of respondents from 26 questions to determine the probability of each of the 26 discrete beliefs. For example the first question "belief in God" is 102 people who believe, with 162 people who answered the question=62.96%; or 102/162--very simple math. By Hall's estimation the answer is 102/1308=7.8%. Remember, the 1308 comes from taking the total response to all 26 questions--which mathematically has nothing do do with one and other--they are discrete entities quantitatively. This mathematical error is repeated for all 26 questions. At first I thought it might be an error in software usage but then I noticed the final question of the basic supernatural/paranormal belief section. There is also a problem with the last question in this section "I do not believe in any of the above". This question shows that the survey author is unaware of her statistical error--attempting to mathematically treat distinctive, discrete, beliefs as one entity. Sorry but this type of information is so basic--it can be learned in a 200 or 300 level undergrad stats class. This kind of quick, uninformed use of mathematical reasoning is a waste of a great many people's time. As a researcher in social stats--and a paranormal skeptical researcher--it pisses me off to see people putting spurious data out there in the field. If this field of inquiry is to have any scientific merit--it must do thing properly. I did try to contact both Hall and Smith numerous times only to get a mailer daemon, and/or overflow error with regard to each of their respective email accounts. PGA Before I get questions on it I should mention a couple things that might be unclear in my response. The 162 was on the survey was 166 total respondents, with 4 people not answering. I used 165 as a ballpark figure because there wasn't 100% response on all questions. Secondly, the 1308 is a problem because it counts the same people multiple times (aproximately 26 times) in the same statistic. Sorry for any confusion but when I posted this on Skiffy earlier this year people were a bit confused and asked some strange questions. And yes, I am aware that my example is not only true for the 26 questions of the paranormal section, but for a few other sections in the survey itself. PGA
|
|
|
SAPS
Jun 2, 2008 16:44:48 GMT -11
Post by dreamsinger on Jun 2, 2008 16:44:48 GMT -11
While I appreciate some of the work the SAPS people do--I do believe that in their fervor they miss a great deal of the scientific details necessary to skeptical research in this field. The link below is to a survey administered by Allison Smith's site (the author of the survey was C.M. Hall (a SAPS member and James Randi foundation member): www.stellarsurvey.com/Analyzer/SharedSummary.aspx?s=4752&u=2764The survey is entirely inaccurate with regard to the data collected. Look at the supernatural/paranormal belief levels indicated on the survey; they are incredibly low due to improper statistical proceedure--not actual low reported beliefs by respondents. The author of the survey put all of the beliefs into a single question and then used all of the respondent numbers as a summative measure for the mean of each of these. More simply put--there were aroud 165 people that took the survey, the author of the survey counted 1308 people for the probabilities; each probability being the number of people believing divided by the total number of respondents. So the more respondents used the lower the probability. In this case the 1308 comes from using the number of respondents from 26 questions to determine the probability of each of the 26 discrete beliefs. For example the first question "belief in God" is 102 people who believe, with 162 people who answered the question=62.96%; or 102/162--very simple math. By Hall's estimation the answer is 102/1308=7.8%. Remember, the 1308 comes from taking the total response to all 26 questions--which mathematically has nothing do do with one and other--they are discrete entities quantitatively. This mathematical error is repeated for all 26 questions. At first I thought it might be an error in software usage but then I noticed the final question of the basic supernatural/paranormal belief section. There is also a problem with the last question in this section "I do not believe in any of the above". This question shows that the survey author is unaware of her statistical error--attempting to mathematically treat distinctive, discrete, beliefs as one entity. Sorry but this type of information is so basic--it can be learned in a 200 or 300 level undergrad stats class. This kind of quick, uninformed use of mathematical reasoning is a waste of a great many people's time. As a researcher in social stats--and a paranormal skeptical researcher--it pisses me off to see people putting spurious data out there in the field. If this field of inquiry is to have any scientific merit--it must do thing properly. I did try to contact both Hall and Smith numerous times only to get a mailer daemon, and/or overflow error with regard to each of their respective email accounts. PGA I haven't seen the survey, but I do understand the flaw in their math. That's a pretty bad flaw and as you said it does nothing but generate junk data. I thought that was TAPS job, not SAPS.
|
|