A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Here . . . have some A1 Sauce. . . .

--J.D.

Thankyou, I can give that to the dogs while I talk to Nicole Kidman.

[LadyShea]

Page 499

The author’s third discovery asks this question: With the Earth billions of years old, and with trillions upon trillions of babies coming into the world since time immemorial, doesn’t it seem a strange coincidence and unbelievable phenomenon that YOU, OF ALL PEOPLE, were born and are alive at this infinitesimal fraction of time? The undeniable answer will
make you very happy by removing any fears you might have regarding your own death. This chapter is available in book format only.

[Adam]

I've only been checking in on this thrad periodically, so I totally missed that the game Angakuk described apparently has some kind of letter jumble minigame built into it. How do you play that one? Do I get an Achievement or anything for it?

[LadyShea]

According to peacegirl Lessans solved this puzzle, but she won't share the solution with us, so it could be a big fat lie

Some people are taking on the challenge though. We don't want to share solutions with peacegirl however, as we don't know if she is fishing for an answer to pass off as Lessans'

Puzzle rules (I think, Lessans writing style even made the puzzle difficult to understand)

You need to make 35 unique 3 letter combinations using only the letters A-O. So basically you can use each letter 7 times, but cannot overlap any letter combination. SO for example

ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO

No two letters can appear together again in any other grouping.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It seems that someone doesn't know what the word "skewed" means in this context. If the results had not been skewed, that would have indicated that the dogs couldn't recognize their handlers' faces and/or that they had no preference in the matter.

That the results were skewed indicated that the dogs could indeed recognize their handlers' faces and had a clear preference.

Definition of skewed: 'distorted' or incorrect figures meaning that the experiment has to be done again.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Thankyou, I can give that to the dogs while I talk to Nicole Kidman.

You will find "talking" rather difficult after the dogs. . . .

--J.D.

P.S. So what is left? Aside from a deep-seated fear of dachshunds and Moulin Rouge? Lessan's theories have been disproven. She cannot even post any evidence he solved a puzzle. She cannot even express the "rules" of the puzzle coherently.

So, is that all there is?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Definition of skewed: 'distorted' or incorrect figures meaning that the experiment has to be done again.

That's not the definition that applies here. So we can add another subject to the list of things about which you know nothing but nonetheless feel inclined to pontificate: statistical analysis.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I took that quote from the book peacegirl. Have you lost your mind? Go look for yourself.

The top of page 483. I'm begining to wonder if peacegirl has ever read the book. It was in my PDF version.

[LadyShea]

That's not what it means when discussing data, peacegirl

Skew:
4.
a. Mathematics Neither parallel nor intersecting. Used of straight lines in space.
b. Statistics Not symmetrical about the mean. Used of distributions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Skewed how? It removes bias because the animals are rewarded regardless of which picture they chose.

You are ridiculous. You want us to accept Lessans "observations" with no evidence yet you completely ignore actual compelling evidence by calling it skewed. And you really don't see that you are behaving exactly like a Flat Earther or moon landing denier or YEC?

I'm sorry you feel that way LadyShea, but in all my life having dogs I have never seen them react to a picture as if they really knew me, nor have I seen other people's dogs react to a picture as if they knew them. I don't buy it. I am not ignorning compelling evidence if it's truly compelling, but I am not convinced. Why in the world did they have to reward the dogs at all? That's all I'm saying. Something about this experiment doesn't sit well with me. If a dog recognized his master he would act excited, or have some kind of reaction, toward that particular picture. Why would they need to teach a dog how to push a lever and reward him each time he pressed it. I think that skewed the experiment, even though that was not their intention. I don't get the whole thing, I'm sorry. If you want to call me a Flat Earther, be my guest.

[Doctor X]

I find Christian fundamentalists deal with the world better if they, also, do not read the biblical texts themselves and merely vomit back what some preacher digest for them.

Thus, peacegirl.

--J.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never said that.

Of course he said it, I mentioned it many pages ago!

Wow, you are like an ongoing trainwreck that one can't help rubberneck at, no matter how one tries not to.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have been interacting with multiple people in this thread with genius IQs. The folks here at generally don't give a shit about IQ scores, however, because they aren't all that revealing about much of importance.

So, why should we care if Lessans had a high IQ score? What's your point in mentioning it?

Because maybe something will jar people to pay more attention to him. You said if you knew he got the math question right, maybe that would sway people to take him seriously. I'm grasping at straws because I don't believe people are taking his knowledge seriously at all, and I don't know if they ever will. I might be barking up the wrong tree. (I mean forum)

[LadyShea]

I'm afraid it would be used against him. I can hear people saying, "I knew how to figure that out; it's not hard at all; he just wasn't clear enough, or, "Just because he could figure this puzzle out doesn't mean his claims are accurate," or, "He is a liar like you are; he probably got this right out of a book." Who knows what people will say, and I'm just not willing to take the chance.

So what? Everyone thinks he's a crackpot and you're dishonest. What great chance would you be taking? It's not like lives are at stake, or like his sterling reputation would be sullied.

Gimme a break.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

So, is that all there is?

Your wish is my command, on very rare occasions, so don't get used to it.

YouTube - Peggy Lee -- Is That All There...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In a typical statistical analysis, one expects the data to be clustered around some value (typically, the mean), and more or less equally-distributed on either side of the plot of data points. A commonly-seen example is a normal distribution of the data. (That, in fact, is why it's called a "normal" distribution.)

We've all seen plots of normally-distributed, non-skewed data.

If the data are skewed, then they aren't normally-distributed -- the data points "pile up" on one side or the other of the data plot. Since, in most cases, you expect the data to be unskewed and normally-distributed, any time you see a skewed data plot, you should suspect that something is going on.

You're right. Something is going on. But the results may not mean what you think it means; that the dog is leaning toward recognition of his master. It could be that the test itself is not reliable, and therefore the results are not reliable either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Peacegirl,

I find it interesting that you complain that people, even those who have read his book, are unwilling to give Lessans' the benefit of the doubt. Yet, when ever you are presented with properly conducted scientific evidence that challenges Lessans' claims, you refuse to give those studies the benefit of the doubt. What's good for the goose is, apparently, not good enough for the gander.

Angakuk, that's not true. I can't in all honesty accept a study that I think is skewed. Something isn't right. How many empirical tests are done that people accept hook, line, and sinker, and then are contradicted by another study not long after the first. I have an idea. Let's all go home and put a couple of pictures of ourselves and family members against a wall and see if our dogs (those who have one) do anything at all. Or people could even put a video of a family gathering and stop the frame when your picture comes up. See if the dog does anything. But you have to leave the voice out. I would be very surprised if there was any evidence of recognition. This would be anecdotal, of course, but it would either give Lessans support, or it wouldn't.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry you feel that way LadyShea, but in all my life having dogs I have never seen them react to a picture as if they really knew me, nor have I seen other people's dogs react to a picture as if they knew them.

Neither have I. Of course, I've also never seen my dogs find a bomb, track game, rescue an avalanche victim, or help a blind person maneuver busy city streets. Of course unlike you, I don't base my understanding of what dogs can or cannot do on shit my dogs do or don't do. That would be willful ignorance.

I am not ignorning compelling evidence if it's truly compelling, but I am not convinced.

With the multiple evidences presented, any reasonable person would have to accept the possibility that dogs can recognize human faces.

Why in the world did they have to reward the dogs at all?

Because that's how dogs are trained to do things. In order to accurately quantify the responses, the dogs had to be trained to respond to the pictures and indicate their choice in a consistent way.

Something about this experiment doesn't sit well with me. If a dog recognized his master he would act excited, or have some kind of reaction, toward that particular picture.

Not in a controlled setting over many months. That would be a ludicrous way to conduct an experiment. Does your dog act excited every time you walk by when you are at home? Mine sure doesn't.

I don't get the whole thing, I'm sorry. If you want to call me a Flat Earther, be my guest.

You haven't the slightest clue how science works then if you don't understand the need to have consistent responses to ensure accuracy of the data.

Even in experiments with humans they have to say a letter/number, press a button or point at something or touch a screen or in some way indicate their choices. Unfortunately dogs don't speak or understand much human language

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, that's not true. I can't in all honesty accept a study that I think is skewed.

Except that you have no reason to think it is skewed, other than that it does not show the result you want. Indeed, I doubt you even looked at the studies, just like you admit you did not even read The Lone Ranger's essay.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because maybe something will jar people to pay more attention to him. You said if you knew he got the math question right, maybe that would sway people to take him seriously. I'm grasping at straws because I don't believe people are taking his knowledge seriously at all, and I don't know if they ever will. I might be barking up the wrong tree. (I mean forum)

No, I said it would at least demonstrate that one of his many grandiose claims was correct. Not that it would sway anyone to take his other stuff seriously.

You've barked up the wrong forum how many times now? Nobody is taking Lessans seriously because the book is so badly written as to be incoherent and you are a terrible spokesperson and can't answer questions adequately.

You have had many opportunities to change your presentation, find some evidence, etc. you can only blame yourself for the reception you keep receiving. Nobody will take it seriously, guaranteed, if you continue doing what you are doing in the way that you are doing it.

By the way, is it still your assertion that Lessans never said "Trillions upon trillions" of babies have been born?

[davidm]

Nobody is ever going to take the stuff seriously anyway, no matter how peacegirl presents herself, because it's wrong. If it's wrong it's wrong, and that's it. No help for it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What "props"? The animals were choosing their preference from photographs. The only training was how to signal their choice. If a dog has been trained to step on a square or point or flip a lever, that is a more accurate and repeatable test. If it was up to the researcher trying to read body language, then there would be no way to control for bias.

How on Earth would you determine a dog was recognizing something if there was no controlled set up for the experiment?

I changed my previous answer because it didn't really didn't address the issue. If the dog picked the master's face over all others 85% of the time, this still doesn't prove that he recognized his owner by his face. It could be coincidence. Why only 85%? Why not 100%? I recognize my children's face 100% of the time, so why not the dog? That right there makes me question the validity of the study. I still don't see how a dog could associate a picture and use a lever to indicate his response. That also is questionable. How did they train the dog to do this? There are many unanswered questions and I would never accept these results without further testing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What "props"? The animals were choosing their preference from photographs. The only training was how to signal their choice. If a dog has been trained to step on a square or point or flip a lever, that is a more accurate and repeatable test. If it was up to the researcher trying to read body language, then there would be no way to control for bias.

How on Earth would you determine a dog was recognizing something if there was no controlled set up for the experiment?

There are other type of controls that, in my opinion, would be more appropriate for a dog. They are treating dogs like people, as if a dog can follow directions when he sees his master's face. I find it mind boggling, actually.

We silence the cognitive dissonance through self-imposed ignorance.~Jonah Lehrer

No, we silence the cognitive dissonance in our heads by changing our worldview when it's warranted, instead of rejecting new information to protect our worldview.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I changed my previous answer because it didn't really didn't address the issue. If the dog picked the master's face over all others 85% of the time, this still doesn't prove that he recognized his owner by his face. It could be coincidence. Why only 85%? Why not 100%? I recognize my children's face 100% of the time, so why not the dog? That right there makes me question the validity of the study. I still don't see how a dog could associate a picture and use a lever to indicate his response. That also is questionable. How did they train the dog to do this? There are many unanswered questions and I would never accept these results without further testing.

You are hopeless. Dogs cannot respond like people do or understand instructions like people do, dogs cannot explain their choices to researchers, nor do they naturally give a shit about photographs, so they have to be trained to respond in such a way that researchers can recognize it as a purposeful response.

Dogs have to be trained to find drugs, and often are trained to signal differently for different kinds of drugs...same with search and rescue dogs. They are trained to do one thing for cadavers and another for living victims. This is how we can communicate with dogs since we don't know they're language. All manner of animal research depends on training. If we could learn dolphinese or doginese things would be a lot easier

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

For one thing, because "subject got excited" is not quantifiable. They needed the dogs to make a specific choice in order to determine whether the dogs could and would distinguish between photos of their handlers and photos of other people.

This test does not prove that the dog really recognized his master. They control one aspect of the test by making it quantifiable, but skew it by making it quantifiable in this particular manner.