I'm not saying it isn't true, just that it's not statistically supported by the evidence presented in the paper.

You can invent post hoc justifications for almost any positive conclusion (although this one is weak since the authors admit the effect cannot be detected in individuals, only in aggregate).

[edit: you can even p-hack and retroactively justify your way to entire subfields; see famously https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/05/07/5-httlpr-a-pointed-rev...]

> I'm not saying it isn't true, just that it's not statistically supported by the evidence presented in the paper.

I hate to be that guy, but imo practical statistics are a joke. The samples are tainted and biased, and the results have nothing to do with the population at large.

It's actually up to the paper to prove that it's not a p-hack. That's done by declaring a null hypothesis and the intended stats analysis to be done before doing the experiment and collecting the data, because otherwise you can just compare arbitrary things until you find that some of them are correlated in the set you have. There's no numerical post-hoc analysis that would be able to prove that.

Exactly - a p-hack is a form of misreporting, so isn't easy to detect at the level of individual studies.

However, p-hacking isn't the only threat to replicability: in this case the authors have reported a large set of tests, so we can ask why they didn't control family-wise error via Bonferroni or friends (in which case the reported statistical significance almost certainly disappears). Also, I suspect if you fit Bayesian models (either separately or a hierarchical model) using reasonably narrow priors based on what we know about human sensitivity to magnetic fields, how much other senses are affected by sex differences, hunger, etc., and not starting each test assuming a complete state of ignorance of the world, then the data would be compatible with no effect.

In this case, the researchers admit and indicate they are doing multiple tests, but have not then done a multiple testing correction.

That's not even really a "p-hack" (where you hide that you have done multiple tests, in order to avoid a multiple testing correction and to report only the positive results): it's simply a p-mistake.

What they have said is statistically incorrect, judged on its own merits. Their conclusion is not supported by the research they have done.

> HN has a serious pedantry problem. Anything that challenges conventional wisdom is villified and attacked

I think you're being downvoted because you've misinterpreted the GP as saying a proposition is untrue ("exclude the possibility"), when the GP is just saying this study isn't evidence either way. Then you went on a pseudoscientific naturalistic tangential rant.

You seem to be claiming that denying this study is evidence either way shows an over-reliance on statistics. Furthermore, this over-reliance on statistics is a myopia particular to Western culture. This over-reliance on statistical significance has lead to poor environmental policy (with some thrown in hints toward naturalistic fallacy arguments). Am I understanding your argument correctly?

I would argue that the major problem with environmental policy in the U.S. is that it under-values statistically significant studies.

Fetishization of non-Western and pre-modern cultures isn't helpful. There are plenty of environmental disasters in both Asia and Africa. Slash-and-burn agriculture predates history, and Rio Tinto shows environmental damage from mining operations 5,000 years ago, so 'reject Western culture" and "just return to the old ways" aren't sufficient as a basis for environmental policy. (My apologies if you weren't hinting at a return to pre-modern practices. I know you didn't mention anything about ancient peoples, but I got a feeling that's where this discussion is headed and wanted to cut one round-trip out of the conversation.)

What would you propose as an alternative basis for environmental policy, if not studies of statistical significance?

I am not claiming that the possibility is excluded, just that it is not demonstrated here.

> In mammals, this is what guides birds to migrate. It's far more than that and the earth undergoes these field changes every interval with profound impact on life on earth.

> You and I are all made out of Earth and the things we eat and breathe are all Earth itself. There's just no way that we can brush off this phenomena with pedantry.

I agree that biology is profound, but pseudoscientific generalities like this confuse rather than clarify. [Likely typo: birds are not mammals.]

I don't think humans are considered a crepuscular or nocturnal species. Furthermore, birds are not mammals.

To be fair, the GP may have been claiming that mammals sense magnetic fields and then the mammals guide avian migrations. The sentence is ambiguous ("In mammals, this is what guides birds ..."). This kind of fits with their whole "all of nature is one. The Force is created by all life and flows through and binds all things" vibe of the GP's post.

Crepuscular or nocturnal humans do exist.

As far as I know people typically hid from predators at night, not hunted. And were more likely to be active during the light of a full moon rather than a dark night. We really rely on our eyes. And in Africa, where we come from, it's very dangerous to be about at night. That's when the big predators are most active.

Not to mention, not much blue light at night.

Obviously I was not there, neither were you. I said I think humans avoided the night based on the way other primates in the area are prey for the big cats and hyenas. I've also never heard of any recent hunter-gatherer cultures where they hunt at night. I think that's strong evidence against your claim.

You think humans would have risked the dangers to hunt at night for better cover but without evidence. Can you find an example of of a recent human hunter-gatherer group that did that? Any archaeological evidence? Obviously we're not evolved as nocturnal animals - so the evolutionary evidence goes against your theory.

Just in context, you're arguing against a random point I made in tangent to the main discussion here, but OK. If you feel you need something to knock against, hello. So...

No, not without evidence. Simply just evidence that you don't want to see or don't think exists, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I get if you look at the same stuff and reach different conclusions. But you say you think not hearing about stuff is strong evidence against. I don't think so, that you've never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You want to ask for "evidence"...can you really provide any evidence either way? Can you give me like a study that compares hunter-gatherer groups and shows a majority of them do most of their hunting during the day? No. So don't try to talk about evidence as if you're backing up your claims with it. How ridiculous.

We're both just thought experimenting. So...Comparing humans to other primates it stupid. We're an apex predator. Our ancestors even more so re hunting. Just think about it. What will we eat? When will it be easier to catch that? How do other super predators hunt? At night. We were hunting experts. Our hunting behaviors would probably be similar to other hunting experts. "Hunt at night" describes every spec ops outfit ever, as well as big cats.

We're evolved enough to hunt at night in moonless nights I'd say your "evolutionary evidence" which you claim supports your idea, actually fully supports what I'm saying instead.

You don't seem like you're open to changing your mind or learning something new here, so I don't expect you to respond and go, "Oh yeah, I hadn't thought of that. Good point."

All that hot air and you didn't put any evidence forward. I'm open minded, but you're not giving me anything to work with here.

Haha, i assure you the air is very cool. Did you give any either? No. We're both just thought experimenting. Just seemed fine to work with that until you got beat. Now your just pretending your don't get any evidence, when you never had any to start with. Don't a pretender! Own it, you lost.

I lost alright, I lost time and opportunity to learn something by arguing with someone of your caliber.

So you didn't learn? Told you (my other account I put a long noprocrast on). And if you did, who's fault is that? You want to blame someone but yourself? That's your responsibility, not mine, of course, because what you think and react is up to you, not me. You could have learned something, but you weren't open to it. You pretended everything I said was wrong, because it wasn't what you said, and didn't conform to your view.

When you missed your opportunities to learn, because you wanted to look "right" instead:

1.

You: no one hunts at night, no blue light. Me: paper says night blue light. Not you: Ok, you're right, blue light.

2.

Actually you: No solo human night hunters! Me: packs. Not you: You're right, packs. But night?

3.

Actually you: NO evidence for night! Me: Night makes sense, here's examples. But consider...No "evidence" for anything, neither of us know, we're just thinking about it. Not you: OK, you're right, night makes sense, and btw, you're right, I've offered no evidence either. Let's keep thinking

4.

Actually you: Still no evidence!

So the pattern seems to be, when you've been outdone in thinking, you retreat into a cave crying for more "evidence" when that was never the currency you dealt with in the first place, and you were content to base your existing views on zero evidence, but not content to hear views of others without evidence. What can explain that except a form or arrogance, where your view is someone necessarily "more true" than someone else's? Or a form of fear, where you are unable to admit that someone knows something you don't? (I find this to be common in engineers perhaps because their wallet size is tied to their percieved "knowledge size" ~~ but I always wonder, how can knowledge get bigger if you cannot say, "I don't know, thanks for teaching me")

You had at least 3 places you could have learned something, and explored the topic together, but instead of doing that...you just kept saying, basically, "What you say is wrong, I'm right".

Maybe you just don't trust yourself to think yourself to some new perspective, you need someone else (with "authority" or "evidence") to tell you, 'this has been "proved", now you can "trust" it.' Or maybe you were just not willing to admit you didn't know and choose to become open to learning something from someone else...because...you think you're smarter than or more experienced than everyone so you couldn't learn from them, as that would challenge your precious belief of your superiority? I don't think it's what you "know" that makes you "superior" or not, I think it's your ability to "know", to be open, and to think. It's possible we just have different ideas of that, and each of us is pursuing our own idea of the best thing to do. I get you want evidence, (who doesn't) but it's disingenuous to demand of others that when you don't even demand that of yourself.

I don't want to think you're one of those irretrievably arrogant people who can never ever admit they were wrong, but I've often been optimistically biased towards seeing a fantasy of the good in people long past it should have been evident to me that the reality of them didn't live up to that. Maybe you really are like that. But I prefer to think it's simply a misunderstanding, and you were not understanding things or having a bad day or something.

So I wish you have a better 2021! Make it great :p ;) xx

I don't know... A human has no chance alone in the open, under low light conditions, against a big feline...

Why respond to the weakest possible version of what I say? The version that requires almost a deliberate imagination against the likely interpretation. Besides being against the HN guidelines...Of course humans hunt in packs. What are you even thinking?

I'm sure you weren't trying to do that specifically, but this propensity of people to straw man everything to find a gap to then comment against, and pretend that their "successful" comment against a straw man disproves the real comment they're replying to (which of course it doesn't), lets me feel like commenting online is so different to talking in person. Almost like every comment needs to be written like a legal document covering every possible edge case and malicious misinterpretation...Ugh. People seem obsessed with being right and proving others wrong, rather than learning. So often pretending it's binary, rather than nuanced.

I guess this is the "game" of commenting online. We pretend it's about learning, but actually it's about "outwitting" others with these malicious misinterpretations (bad faith interpretations), malevolent reframings, ignoring data that contravenes your cherished beliefs (confirmation bias) and other dirty rhetorical tricks. Maybe everyone's day to day sucks so much they need to come online to feel they're finally smarter and more dominant than someone else...maybe it's just an outlet....Of course it's not. There's plenty of good discussions, but the bad discussions happen much more online than in real life.

I don't care to get good at such a "game". I want to be able to defend against that balderdash type commentary, rather than just tolerate or ignore it, but I also want to learn. I'm pretty certain I'm guilty of most of this stuff myself......I think this metacomment by me can serve as a reminder to myself to try to get good enough at this game so I can ignore it, but to not make that my focus, with my focus instead being learning. If I do bother to comment, I may as well create and get something good for myself and others.

> Why respond to the weakest possible version of what I say?

If there was a rule somewhere, I tried to point out an exception. A feline has better sight at night than a human. Any north-pole-searching human that (hungrily) goes out in the middle of the night might be attacked by night predators.

No 'gaming' or 'outwitting' or anything like that. And I don't know much about 'games' you talk about. It was no my intention to 'game' you or to look smarter. But, please, if you need to, write a comment to this message to vent out anything you need to vent out. I promise I won't care.

So what you're saying doesn't mean humans don't go out at night, they just go hunt in packs, like I'm saying.

Why respond to the weakest version of what I'm saying and pretend like the point I'm making is wrong? You get that I think. Language is not "rules", and "pointing out exceptions" is treating what I'm saying as "containing that exception", which is an overly literal interpretation, that assumes the weakest version, and seems to lead to bad faith readings of comments as their weakest versions.

Don't be so literal...this isn't programming. Assume the best/strongest version of what someone's saying. That's in the guidelines. I'm sure you already know (or can figure out) why that's a good thing to do.

So...if you don't care then why did you bring it up? Just to say you don't care? I think that's might be a problem you have. Not caring. If you're going to respond to someone, I think you should care for what they said, otherwise you might say something stupid. Like this case in point.

So you respond to that by trying to reframe it and pretend I'm "venting", and also that you invite me or "give me permission" to do that. Yeah, like I need your permission, of course I don't. And if you don't care, why do this reframing where you are like the one "giving permission" ... to give yourself more status? Which is obviously ridiculous, as you're of course not ever giving me permission to talk, and I don't ever need that from you, and I don't need to be "invited" by you in order to reply. You chose to make your comment, and I choose to make mine. Who do you think you are talking like that?

So...I'm not "venting", I'm just saying whatever I choose to say, which in this case happens to be a specific metacommentary criticism of you responding to the weakest version. So you (and your reframing) might want to pretend this is entirely about something other than you, and pretend that I must just need to "vent" about something entirely unrelated to you, but in fact what I'm saying is directly talking about what you did. I understand that might be hard for you to face, but I think reconsidering your pattern of "trying to point out" exceptions, will lead you to make better, more caring and more high value comments. I'm sure you can do that.

There's a lot more blue light during the day than at night.

I upvoted you only because you said, "Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it isn't true."

Thanks because I was about to run down the list of upvoters and just make sure they were updating me for "right" reasons. Not, hehe. I think that comment is totally right that you can upvote for, but understand if you and a handful of other people differ. No problem at all.

Evolutionary psychology in action. P hack a result and then backfill hypothetical stories of why the behavior evolved.

Fair enough. But is it a p-hack? Has that been proven? It's an easy dismissal without any data. Backfill hypothetical stories of why is also knows as thinking and theorizing. You ought to try it. It's how science gets done. Understand if you're averse to that, tho :) ;p x

It’s absolutely not. Making testable hypotheses and then running experiments to try to prove them wrong is how science is done. Making untestable hypotheses is by definition the realm of philosophy.

Holy shit, that's mind-blowing. as a humorous aside I'm sure that sort of total information control program (but run by a terrestrial government siding another territory) has been specked up in some elaborate document in a think tank or intelligence agency somewhere, as an alternative to "world of atoms" occupation.

Sure but in regards to remote viewing it is in fact a real thing, so there's a degree to which the existence of disinformation is not a confirmation of nonexistence of some underlying reality.

Btw, i think you may have meant to put credible in quotes, otherwise it's an oxymoron... as, in "Credible ufos are actually psyops."

I'm confident a lot of information is disinformation I think that your hypothesis that most or all is is probably false and maybe you can see they too if you examine the range of documents in the CIA FOIA reading room, the testimony of people, the work required to create all of these different documents in different formats with all of this different information about people's names and departments from the correct historical time period the correspond to you know correct historical designations and departments, it just seems way too much work for it to make sense. What are they getting from this? I think you need a credible explanation of the payoff to justify such an enormous investment of manpower and time.

From another view, if you have the standard where way you claim that the ROI of remote viewing programs was so low there was no point to them (when in fact there's declassified documentation of them being a reliable intelligence source commensurate with other sources, as well as it easily observable reality of various subreddits dedicated to people practicing this and getting results) then it seems doubly true that you know the return on investment of such a massive disinfo program, where there is no documentation of payoff and there's no obvious payoff, is unimaginably low.

it's basically a sort of insane elaboration that doesn't pass the Occam's razor test the simplest explanation is that these are simply reports of real things that happened. so definitely there will be disinformation because that makes sense from a narrative management point of view but I think it's becoming crazier and crazier to deny the simple and obvious explanation that all of this documentation describes something real.

However....One thing I do wonder about though, and I think is a bit odd is why is all of this so-called UFO and disclosure information promoted by mostly white American men. Where are the women where are the black people (besides Billy Carson) where are the Asian people where are the Chinese coming out with their disclosure information...that seems weird to me but I think if you wanted a credible program you would probably you know enlist people from other countries just like you know regular you know counterintelligence disinformation campaigns do. So it's weird to me that it's so heterogeneous. if there is a secret space program where are all the female whistleblowers coming forward.

You said a lot which I appreciate. I will just say, my claim is not that most or all is disinformation, just that disinformation should be on the table when trying to make sense of info being fed to us from the matrix.

My reading skills may be lacking here, but are you claiming that remote viewing works?

Unequivocally yes.

You can try it yourself, there's subreddits for it where you can learn much more.

For CIA documentation, search FOIA reading room for "PROJECT CENTER LANE"

Here's a quote from a special access program briefing transcript[1]:

Over 85% of our operational missions have produced accurate target information. Even more significant, approximately 50% of the 700 missions produced usable intelligence.

Note that 50% is not "no better than chance" because the data produced are not binary selections, but things that other intelligence sources give, such as structure layouts, facility purposes, machine blueprints, site and personnel locations.

The FOIA documentation is overwhelming in its confirmation of this as an intelligence sensor on par with other sources, which leads me to believe that the AIR report (which you can also search for online) was partially disinfo designed to soften the blow of releasing that this is possible, and I'm quite sure that government and corporate use of psi continues to this day. Perhaps the FOIA release was also part of a limited hangout designed to yield some control over the narrative and provide a pretext for dismissal to protect ongoing classified programs.

Here's a MS Strategic Intelligence thesis from the Defense Intelligence College that gives a good overview:

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R0026002...

[1]: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R0017003...

The Wikipedia page on remote viewing gives the opposite impression. Wikipedia also tells me that "The Stargate Project was terminated and declassified in 1995 after a CIA report concluded that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. Information provided by the program was vague and included irrelevant and erroneous data, and there was reason to suspect that its project managers had changed the reports so they would fit background cues."

I'm not really qualified to read through CIA papers. People who are seem to not agree with you.

If remote viewing works, wouldn't all major companies have departments full of viewers spying on competitors?

I'll note that the James Randi prize has not been won.

So...there's conflicting reports? What are you going to do? I guess you'll have to think and decide for yourself. That's not too much to ask is it?

There are conflicting reports about every little thing.

I've never seen a single indication of remote viewing and I've never seen any such claims hold up. I know of no mechanism that would allow remote viewing. Null hypothesis and Occam's razor points me to dismiss claims of remote viewing.

Experts from CIA have apparently researched this, found nothing and closed the project. The James Randi prize has not been won.

If remote viewing was possible, why are we not seeing the results?

That's me thinking, like you asked for. On the other hand, I don't see any actual evidence from you. Do you have any?

It's conceivable you looked at the same data as other people and came to different conclusions. Diversity of opinions and beliefs, that's not a bad thing is it?

Remote viewing works or it doesn't. How do you propose we find out which it is?

Do you have an opinion on what 2+3 equals?

I've already found out. If you haven't, I guess you'll need to do more. Seems there's more opinions on RV than arithmetic.

The Wikipedia page on remote viewing gives the opposite impression. The Wikipedia page leaves out all the supporting data and editorially takes a false stance against it. This makes it not credible, I don't think you should trust a source like this. If you choose to, it says more that you want some easy to pretend to justify your disbelief of it. Confirmation bias.

"The Stargate Project was terminated and declassified in 1995 after a CIA report concluded that it was never useful in any intelligence operation. Information provided by the program was vague and included irrelevant and erroneous data, and there was reason to suspect that its project managers had changed the reports so they would fit background cues." This is not the final nor the only word on it. After many reports lauding how effective it was, it was terminated? Seems more likely it continues in a special access program, and the release was either to shake up the personnel structure that controlled it, or the reason I stated in my previous comment.

I'm not really qualified to read through CIA papers. Then you're not qualified to be credible nor have an opinion, if you choose to not look at the evidence for and against evenly. This seems like a lazy pretense to avoid looking at information that challenges your preexisting biases. In other words, you're choosing to make yourself a victim to confirmation bias. That makes what you say not very credible.

People who are seem to not agree with you. I disagree, and since you're not qualified to "read" these papers (which are created by the CIA, they are from various service branches), you're not qualified to say who is or who isn't qualified, right? So...who disagrees? Plenty of people agree with me, plenty of military people with first hand experience of these results agree. So if you're standard for belief is people and "qualified" people agree with me, then you have it. This seems pretty like a pretty bogus and lazy dismissal, "invoking authority" to hide your desire to stay within your preexisting bias. Confirmation bias.

If remote viewing works, wouldn't all major companies have departments full of viewers spying on competitors? If intelligence collection works, wouldn't all major companies have departments full of corporate spies spying on competitors? Is this how it works? I think they contract it out, I guess the same for RV, but probably less because "people are reluctant to believe it" even when shown it works, as you seem to be demonstrating.

I'll note that the James Randi prize has not been won. Which may not prove anything? Why close the prize? Perhaps he didn't want to pay it. Or it could have been a charity to people like yourself who want a very comforting (but not very informative) dismissal, instead of looking at the data. I had a prize open for 10 Million dollars for the first alien life known to humankind to prove that it really exists, but no aliens came to claim it, therefore humans are alone in the universe. Correct? Of course not.

So what happened here?

You asked me do I believe RV is real. I said unequivocally yes and gave you multiple resources to not only read straight away but to find out more, including going to a subreddit and seeing regular people trying it for themselves and getting results, which I encouraged you to also do. And instead of responding to, being open to, or curious, or even doing something, about that very generous offer of information and time I made you, you decided to ignore all of that supporting evidence (under the weak and pathetic excuse of saying you're not qualified to read it ~~ then of course you're not qualified to read Wikipedia and decide against it, either right?), and remain where it seems you are comfortable -- which appears to be a preexisting bias against believing this. So what have you demonstrated with your choices here? Confirmation bias in action.

It's very common, and a very predictable reaction. It makes sense as a defensive reaction to protect you from investing time, or belief in something which you fear may not be true, and may expose you to social ridicule. But at what point does that useful skepticism reach the point of diminishing returns where you need to stick your head in the sand and live in a made up fantasy world delusion where you have to manufacture excuses just so you can ignore evidence and shut your eyes against the truth? When do you choose comfort over knowing more? Confirmation bias.

Your fear to open up to this data, and your preference to remain in your confirmation bias, does not have any relation to the reality of RV, and obviously your choice to react like that doesn't mean RV is not true. You were given evidence that supports a claim you seem to not want to believe, and you ignored it. This is confirmation bias. This means your opinions about this are not credible, and one reason they are not credible is because you have not yet invested the time in investigating them honestly.

I guess you like playing innocent and trying to pick on true believers to try to get a rise out of them, because that makes you feel people are paying attention to you? So predictable, and easy right? No skin in the game tho? The reason I didn't address your points yesterday is because it seemed to be you were just doing precisely this, so I deliberately didn't give you the reaction you wanted. And I felt satisfied when it seemed you were incensed with my refusal to play your little game, and I instead dismissed your replies with even handed positivity. Moreover, it seemed you were questioning without making the effort to learn and be open to the data I shared and without really caring about the topic, so I wasn't going to reward your dishonesty and contempt for a serious topic with more informative responses when you'd already shown your contempt for this. The reason I'm putting it here now is for other readers who drop by in future, and your future self, if you become better (or your current self, if you want to learn how to improve) :) ;p xx

It's not my problem (and it says nothing of the quality of the data or the reality of this) if you want to remain in your confirmation bias when you have evidence in front of your eyes, and refuse to see it. Neither does your keeping your eyes closed prove there's no light in the world. You can pretend that's "someone else's fault" for not "proving" it to you, when in fact that's your responsibility for refusing to see the data, and choosing to keep your eyes closed. If you're going to do that, I think you should at least own it, rather than weakly trying to blame it on someone else by pretending there's no evidence, when it's just your responsibility. And if you do want to treat your mind this way (with confirmation bias) then be careful that you don't attack other people or be mean to them just because you're choosing to stay in your preexisting comfortable bias, because that unjustified meanness would be extremely bad for your karma. Just know that it's your responsibility if you think that way, and own it and don't try to incorrectly blame anyone else. Your choice to belief. To investigate. It's your mind, I'm not telling you what to do with it, because it's your life. I'm pointing out the context, the larger context, so hopefully you can make choices that work for you better in future. All the best of luck with that and have a great and a wonderful 2021! :) ;p xx

We think space is empty, but we don't really have evidence that it is... It could be teeming with life or ships that our current sensor tech simply doesn't pick up from here.

Maybe if we inhabited space significantly we would find there's a lot going on between the stars

But haven't we almost mastered faster than light communication with quantum entangled radios?

These are some nice timeframe predictions, seems more up to date than Kurzweil

It would be cool if cellular automata could create the factor trees of natural numbers

This is a sage like observation. Thank you for this!

The answer is it probably is somewhat arbitrary but maybe related to human psychological proximity and the fear response. The most common response to fear is denial and so questioning the credibility of those people providing information that could provoke fear is a form of denial. The closer the object of fear the more fear therefore the more denial perhaps.

I liked your take on the redactions (and your crazy ass username, hehe). But, we're not lunatics, tho maybe your are for living in a fantasy of denial rather than facing the reality of the huge amounts of data on this. It seems crazier these days to deny the realities suggested by the Himalayas of reports and testimony. And this new index, well, it doesn't seem to be shutting anyone up now, tho, does it, hmm?

Great, thank you so much!!