Talk:Global Consciousness Project/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Calibration

After revealing the "problems" with Jeffers' interpretations, now we should focus on why the material related to his article can not stay in GCP article. My points are:

1- Isn't it a disgrace for wikipedia to include such irrelevant "criticism" in GCP article? Consider that not any skeptic out there (Scargle, Tsakiris, May & Spottiswode, to name a few) have taken this "calibration" issue as wikipedia article does. In other words, there has not been any criticism towards GCP claiming that, since PEAR experiments performed by 90 operators show a slight baseline deviation out of theoretical chance expectation, data collected by GCP EGGs are flawed or biased. Is there any user who can explain this paradox? Let me give the answer; because what is done in wikipedia GCP article by including such an irrelevant material is OR and synthesis; unfortunately some users either knowingly or unknowingly are doing this.

2- Users who have real interest in learning how GCP EGGs are calibrated can look into these links here and here. Some quotes from those links about calibration are: "All three are designed for research applications and are widely used in laboratory experiments. They are subjected to calibration procedures based on large samples, typically a million or more trials, each the sum of 200 bits. An unbiased mean is guaranteed by hardware or software XOR logic." "The random event generators used in the Project incorporate three special measures to ensure nominal performance. First, only high quality components are used in sophisticated, state-of-the-art hardware designs. Second, an XOR of the raw bit-stream with an alternating or balancing template eliminates secular bias of the mean. Third, the actual experimental data are sums of a large number (200) bits, mitigating all residual short-lag autocorrelations and other potential time-series aberrations. All REG devices are subjected to calibrations prior to the actual experimental application." It should be clear now that they take necessary measures to guarantee unbiased random number generation. Nevertheless, if users can find some criticisms directly related to the calibration of the equipment used by GCP and the data generated, they can anytime mention it in the article. Remember, skeptic Scargle also admits that by using XOR to guarantee randomness more, GCP is actually eliminating some part of the "consciousness effect". If GCP's aim were to exaggerate the results, they would never use such XOR. Logos5557 (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

One doesn't need to assume bad faith in the GCP or other psychic believers to think that their set-up is flawed and their interpretations are credulous. Fences&Windows 22:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

One needs to look at GCP, it's study/methodology/equipment to be able to understand whether their set-up is flawed and their interpretations are credulous, or not, not at some other organization and it's study, if one does not want to be seen as naive. Logos5557 (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Their data analysis allows them to claim "hits" before events, it isn't blinded, they have no possible mechanism, and they cherry-pick "global events" with no kind of standard. One shouldn't ignore that if one does not want to be seen as totally unscientific. Fences&Windows 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue has nothing to do with calibration. It has to do with the characterics of a random walk, or in this case the accumulation of an unbiased random number generator. The assumption that the base-line would hover around zero is wrong. It doesn't. The only thing you can say for sure is that the baseline at a specific time t would be somewhere near the value at t-1. It is as in coin-flipping, heads will not come up more frequent after a series of predominantly tails. So if the baseline hovers around f.i. z there is no law that would let it return to zero again. Even if a curve travels outside the chosen p-boundary in a graph for almost the entire time, it does not show that this graph is more anomalous than a graph that traverses the p-boundary just once and then returns. In both cases it could simply be caused by only one extraordinary number-output at one specific time within that time series.
It's not about bias in number generators, it is about the characteriscs of a randow walk. The accumulation is deceiving. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we are on the same subject. PEAR charts are different than GCP charts; x-axis in PEAR charts is "number of trials", whereas x-axis in GCP charts is "time". GCP charts plot Chisquare-distributed values of normalized trial scores (as Z-scores) versus time. Saying that accumulation of deviations is meaningless is something else and it should be discussed under a new heading in order not to mislead and confuse the readers. Logos5557 (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that, but this is the section about the Jeffers criticism. You threw in a story about the calibration of the random number generators, suggesting Jeffers was not correct on that point. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And what's the relation between your comment, which is about random walks, (t-1)s, and Jeffers' criticism or calibration? I had to explain what Jeffers were trying to mean, and showed that 1-he was not so correct in his criticism (he should study well the experiment which he would like to criticise) 2-his criticism has nothing to do with GCP study. 3-how GCP RNGs are calibrated so that the concerns about the non-randomness of RNGs could be addressed. Logos5557 (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Jeffers quote that was more synthy and inserted some properly referenced material. I don't believe the other Jeffers quote is WP:SYNTH as it is in a paragraph that references Nelson's extensive participation in PEAR. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

NYT

Logos557 wants to remove this, citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "The New York Times reported that "All things considered at this point, the stock market seems a more reliable gauge of the national -- if not the global--emotional resonance."New York Times". I see nothing in that policy that says that opinions given in reliable sources should be removed; Logos557 is trying to claim the WP:NOTNEWS applies, but that would be a misreading of the meaning of that policy.

Also, Logos5557 has claimed that there is no connection between PEAR and GCP. That will be news to Roger Nelson. Here he is describing PEAR and the GCP: "During deeply engaging meetings, concerts, rituals, etc., the data tend to have slightly increased order compared with the expected randomicity, and we are able to predict this deviation, according to the type of gathering, with significant success. In the GCP, exactly the same procedure is applied on a broader scale."[my bold][1] Fences&Windows 19:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Several problems. although new york times is reliable, material from it may not be reliable always; an opinion piece should be attributed to its author as stated here, otherwise it becomes a statement of fact, which we are not allowed to include here. We should be aware that a new york times reporter/editor can't consider all things about the subject ("All things considered at this point"). It is humour/sarcasm or whatever, but decreases the quality.

I couldn't catch the proof of connection between PEAR and GCP. Is the connection Nelson, or the experiments done during depply engaging meetings etc.? I used the "connection" in the sense of PEAR's being a mother organisation funding and governing the GCP project. Even in that case, GCP would still be qualified to have a separate article and Jeffers' article can't be used to criticise GCP. exactly the same procedure refers to installing RNGs in different locations on earth to catch "consciousness", similar to what was occurred in field studies with REGs. Since the basics are the same, we can expect Nelson (he was one of the members of PEAR) to attribute to the experiments they carried out in PEAR. I thought it was clear enough that PEAR chart or Jeffers' criticism can't be used to claim flaws in GCP experiments. Logos5557 (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Our point is that if Nelson considers the procedure to be exactly the same there is clearly a link beyond his deep participation in both. Simonm223 (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So what does that link, if there is any, proove here. I tried to explain what exactly the same procedure looks to me. My understanding is, it is nothing more than to ease the understanding of a layman. Are you able to see the whole procedure through that phrase? You say "our point" and become the spokesman of the point; perhaps Fences's point was different. There is one big vital difference at least; GCP study is online, and is dependent on time, whereas PEAR experiments performed on lab with "operator"s are not. If PEAR performed field "recording"s during deeply engaging meetings etc., which would document the change in randomness with respect to time, then this type of experiment looks the same as GCP study with regards to the "recording" side of the story. But, how about the rest; was PEAR transforming the data in the same way GCP has been doing? Even in that case, does this proove any connection with PEAR? When you change your job, you have no connection any more with your previous job, other than being an ex-employee of theirs. By the way, the field studies performed by PEAR seems including blinding also here. Thanks Fences for bringing it into attention.. Logos5557 (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have a source backing that up your position, that Nelson didn't mean precisely what he said, would fall under WP:SYNTH.

The same is valid for the "connection" issue; unless there is a source quoting Nelson as saying that there is a connection between PEAR and GCP, extracting/building connections up on procedures falls under WP:SYNTH. Logos5557 (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a quote of him saying it's exactly the same procedure. I'd call that a RS of a connection between the two. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Like many other products on earth, body in whites are manufactured through exactly the same procedures by every production car manufacturers. Do those manufacturers using the exactly same procedures have a connection in between? Well, sometimes they exchange data like stock amounts etc. but in the end they're separate. You have a quote of Nelson which proves nothing. Logos5557 (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your metaphor might apply if every body in white were made by the same guy. Since they aren't it's not relevant. With that being said I have no opposition to the qualifier that went on the quote. I have a bit of opposition to the qualifier you put in the edit summary but there's nothing to be done about that but note it. Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the point already; Nelson is not the only guy in GCP. He is just the only guy, as far as I know, who has been member of both PEAR and GCP. Logos5557 (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nelson is a primary contributor to both projects. Please don't tell me you are going to try to contradict that. Simonm223 (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Truly random number generators

Users who believe "truly random number generators" is a pleonasm, should see, as an initial step, these links [2], [3] before reverting my justified edits. Industry, names pseudo-random generators as "pseudo-random", and truly random generators as "truly random", not as "non-pseudo-random". Please also stop shoving irrelevant material into the article. I'm stating once again; Stanley's article has nothing to do with GCP. Stanley criticises the first group of experiments performed on individuals in PEAR lab. PEAR does not exist any more, and GCP is a different project built by completely different individuals. Adding that material into the article is plain synthesis and OR, insisting on to refuse this fact is not a proper conduct/behaviour. Logos5557 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"random" is a tricky mathematical concept. Hardware random number generators have two main uses - for cryptography (real randomness is utmost important, speed less so) or for statistical modelling (real randomness not so important, large quantities of data and speed are important). Depending of the source of the noise, and the post processing, and the hardware interface, and any firmware used, and the software used - many hardware random noise generators are lousy. Just call it a RNG or a P-RNG, and link to relevant articles. People are smart enough to realise that even a P-RNG is pretty much random. Note that some industry "true random number generators" have been shown to have severe bias. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Truly" sits there to differentiate from pseudo random number generators or from software random generators. It is just a basic identification/naming. Logos5557 (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is your naming scheme; making it WP:OR, and also a WP:NPOV violation considering that one of the better documented criticisms of experiments involving thinking really hard at random number generators is the failure of those generators to produce random results during baseline calibrations. Simonm223 (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My naming? Who did make these attributions; [4], [5]? Who did insert "truly random number generator" into the article? That naming sits there for at least 4 years, including several other "skeptic" users nobody objected its presence until you came up and "discovered" without presenting any source that it should go. Well, the thing you do not understand and will not volunteer to understand is GCP is not a project of thinking really hard at random number generators. Baseline calibration? You even have no any idea about what Jeffers' article is saying. You're breaching every limits of WP:synthesis by claiming a connection between Jeffers' article and GCP. Logos5557 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am tired of asking you to stick to WP:CIVIL you should not be suggesting or implying that I don't understand an article regardless of whether I do or not. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no incivility here. How can I demonstrate a fact that you do not understand Jeffers' article without communicating with you? Logos5557 (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you mean that they "do not understand" the article? It criticises PEAR's use of RNGs. The argument here is whether it is valid to apply Jeffrey's criticism to the GCP. It might be, as GCP was a project begun by PEAR and presumably uses the same RNGs. The argument for improper synthesis is that Jeffrey's article doesn't directly mention PEAR. The dispute is quite simple, so don't spin it off on tangents.

Do you have an independent reliable source that calls the RNGs the GCP uses "truly random number generators", and knows what this means? If you don't, you can't include the phrase. Fences&Windows 22:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s. If the RNGs are susceptible to outside influence as the GCP claims, then surely they aren't "truly random" by definition. A "truly random number generator" would tick on regardless of global events.Fences&Windows 22:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

GCP is independent of PEAR. If it is not mentioned anywhere that GCP was a project begun by PEAR, then we should not frame such statements. "The argument here is whether it is valid to apply Jeffrey's criticism to the GCP. It might be, as GCP was a project begun by PEAR and presumably uses the same RNGs". "might be"? It is user's duty to be sure about the material he/she adds into the article, or at least he/she should take warnings serious. Even if the RNGs used by GCP are the same, the type of experiment and methodology are completely different. There are exactly 21 counts of the word PEAR in Jeffers' article. No need to have an independent reliable source that calls RNGs the GCP uses "truly random number generators" (you also seriously ask me to be sure that if there is such source it should know the meaning). Let me state one more time; "truly random number generator" is identification/naming and is equivalent of "hardware random number generator"; google it, you'll see. It is sufficient to include "truly" in the article if secondary sources (published papers) like these mention it. More than that, wikipedia articles mention truly Hardware_random_number_generator, random number generator. "If the RNGs are susceptible to outside influence as the GCP claims, then surely they aren't "truly random" by definition." "truly" is just an identification, just to differentiate from pseudo. Logos5557 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

p.s. "If the RNGs are susceptible to outside influence as the GCP claims, then surely they aren't "truly random" by definition." You're trying to create a contradiction but there is none, that would be a byproduct of this study. Actually, more true would be to say "in the absence of global consciousness truly random number generators are truly random". We can put in the way Tsakiris has put as well; "GCP is testing an established theory in physics, a fundamental theory that there shouldn’t be any structure to random data, they're testing the validity of that theory in a sense". Another point is; saying "truly random number generators are biased" is different than saying "truly random number generators are biased due to global consciousness". You can remove the effect of "global consciousness" on your "truly random number generator" by running it in poles or in any least populated geographical location on earth. On the other hand, the "bias" global consciousness creates on any truly random number generator on earth may not be so vital in it's practical use. Logos5557 (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If an RNG is "truly random", it must not be able to be influenced by external forces. Unless the claimed "global consciousness" works via magicnon-causal, non-physical means, it has to act via a force or particle. If it is claimed that "global consciousness" can influence physical objects via magicnon-causal, non-physical means, it's not amenable to scientific study. Anyway, this is beside the point - there are no secondary sources that say that the GCP RNGs are "truly random", so that claim doesn't go in. Fences&Windows 23:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Who says (other than you) it's not amenable to scientific study if it is claimed that global consciousness can influence physical objects via non-physical? Your deductions are flawed. You should first consider that (as far as I know) there is no any "official" result or law brought by GCP study declaring that truly random number generators are influenced by global consciousness. They're looking at anomalies (which fall outside of statistical chance expectations) which coincide with global events. When they come up with a concrete result, then the industrial identification/naming of hardware number generators as truly random number generators may be questioned. However, even in that case, I suspect that the naming will change. Because it is just a naming, just a differentiation from software or pseudorandom number generators, as you are very well aware. Why don't you bring a secondary source challenging the true randomness of the RNGs used in GCP study? Even that would be not enough because by removing "truly" from the article we're censoring the facts, because in their publications GCP always use truly (which is a fact) and we have to stick to the facts while writing the wikipedia articles. I guess this is a truly interesting example of censoring an identification/naming. Logos5557 (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No censorship - just present a secondary source using the term.

The appeal to non-causal mind entanglement used by the GCP is very reminiscent of the appeals to quantum theory used by proponents of homeopathy such as Harald Walach. Retrocausality above the quantum scale, as claimed by Richard Shoup,[6] is another red flag for pseudoscience; here's Victor Stenger on "retroactive prayer":[7]

SkepDic on the GCP: "It is not clear that these successful experiments support their hypothesis because we have no way of knowing that their prediction must truly follow from their hypothesis... How can we be sure that if there is a field consciousness, the thoughts of many people will affect random event generators in some cases but not in others? If the thoughts of many people could have some sort of unified effect on RNGs, how can we know a priori that the effect would be to cause more order? For all we know, if there is a causal relationship between thoughts and RNGs, it could be to produce more disorder (and how would you measure that if randomness is the base?), or more order sometimes and less order at other times... Another problem is that, according to Nelson and Radin sometimes the order occurs before the alleged global consciousness gets revved up. For example, they claim that there have been major deviations in RNG output prior to major events like 9/11 or the massive tsunami in the Indian Ocean that killed several hundred thousand people in 2004. This implies that global consciousness may be precognitive. If a pattern showed up after a major disaster, I suppose that would be taken as evidence of retrocognition. That doesn't leave much room for falsifiability... I think we can safely say that this will not prove to be of any interest to most scientists. It is a leap of faith to assume that every seemingly strange statistic uncovered is proof of psi or some other mysterious entity like global consciousness. Weird statistics are seductive, but they prove nothing."[8]

George Dvorsky: "A 1 in 200 chance (which is hardly astronomical at 0.5%), along with the seeming arbitrariness of when the data is deemed to be meaningful, seriously puts these claims into question. Other valid criticisms of the GCP include the problem of having no objective criterion for determining whether an event is significant, and that there is no correlation between degree of significance and type or magnitude of fluctuations observed."

Scargle noted[9] that "GCP data processing includes the application of a logical XOR operator to the bit stream. The process actually involves an XOR between two physical random digit streams, followed by a deterministic flipping of every second bit (Roger Nelson, personal communication). The purpose of this operation is to filter out ‘... trends attributable to spurious physical sources’ (RDN) and ‘to ensure that the mean output is unbiased regardless of environmental conditions, component interaction, or aging’’ and argued that "the system is purposefully sensitive to only effects that transcend both direct sensory detection and elementary causality as described above...Their position seems to be that such ‘physicalist’ causal effects are not being pursued because they have already been ruled out." Fences&Windows 19:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lots of sources; [10]. As presented by yourself, Skepdic does not classify GCP as pseudoscience or as "being not amenable to scientific study". It just says "will not be of any interest to most scientists". Scargle's point is blurry to me; why should we criticise GCP since they pursue "consciousness/psi" effects? Logos5557 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think you miss my point. I'm not attempting to get "pseudoscience" entered into the article. My point is that there is substantial criticism of the scientific basis of the project. As raised by Scargle, to rule out material/'physicalist' effects in the design of the experiment is a significant bias; if there were in reality a physical field or particle that was influenced by human consciousness or some other correlate of "world events" that could influence the RNGs, the GCP could not detect it. Dvorsky points out how the data analysis is not objective. SkepDic points out that the allowance of retrocausality and other factors make falsifiability of the GCP difficult - and falsifiability is a cornerstone of science.

p.s. Yes, lots of sources use the term "truly random number generator". Do any independent sources describe those used by the GCP in this manner? Btw, you can add "described by the researchers as 'truly random number generators'", as that adds a description of the view of the researchers with a claim to The Truth^TM that they really are truly random. Fences&Windows 19:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

more sources

this was added as a new source to the page and I reverted it for a couple reasons. The source seems ok but it is being used to contradict a cited statement already in the article, the source doesn't seem to support this contradiction and may be wp:synthesis. Second the new source is a 25 page long very dense academic article, don't ask readers or other editors to read through all of that; it makes it hard to verify that the source is good and adversly affects the readability of the article. Provide either a quote from the article or better yet give a line or page number for what you are referencing. The source seems useful, it just needs a little more work before it's ready for the article. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a useful comment. Thank-you. I have replaced the reference but added a comment to the footnote which points to the relevant section of the technical article. pabancel 15:30 October 11,2009 (UTC)

Basically the comments in the edit were overly broad, Any information that is relevent to the article should be added to the article and backed up by referencing a reliable source. Simply referencing a source and saying "go read that" is not encylopedic. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

trivial style issue

when I read this article I did a doubletake when I came to:

 electrogaiagram, a portmanteau of electroencephalogram and Gaia.

I wasted a full second before realizing that the intended meaning was

 electrogaiagram (that word is a portmanteau of electroencephalogram and Gaia).

Remembering the Wiki rule "Edit aggressively" I adopted the form that seems so much clearer to me.

Am I wrong? Is the first form really clearer??

Sorry to bring such trivia to your attention, but Voiceofreason01 reverted my edit immediately stating that his form is clearer! I am curious about the GCP but am now, temporarily, curious whether my stylistic prejudice is actually wrong. (To me, concepts aren't portmanteaus, words are; putting electrogaiagram in quotes might avoid the objection, but the quotes here change to italicization.)

I'll redo the change and then go away quietly if a different editor reverts it.

Jamesdowallen (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The first form is clearer and more grammatically correct. Simonm223 (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Simonm223, the first version is more grammatically correct and more clear. It should stay the it was. But you were right to make the change if you thought the original version was unclear, also do not be afraid to take an issue to the article talk page; you made an edit which you thought was correct but which I reverted, starting a discussion on the talk page was absolutely the correct thing to do. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm a semi-professional writer and did want feedback on my stylistic prejudices. As to GCP itself, my only suggestion is that Wikipedia help disconfuse me by creating some more lists or categories: Strange theories that haven't been debunked, ... that have been debunked, ... whose debunking has been debunked! etc. (Smiley-face)

Jamesdowallen (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

September 11

There are two problems with the article's content concerning 9/11.

1. The cited references do not support the claims that the article attributes to the GCP. The real GCP claims are *far* more careful and measured.

2. The 9/11 event is peripheral to the GCP. It can be included in the article but should have a separate heading. The "Analysis" section should deal with the main GCP experiment which is a long-term replication.

Regarding point 1

The References cited in the article version prior to Oct 20, 2009 (refs were 13-15; "Sept 11";"Extended Analysis";"Nelson (2002)") do not support or contain the claim that

the data changed at the time of the plane impacts and building collapses.

nor the claim that

changes in the level of randomness seen in the EGG data hours and even days before the attacks were themselves caused by the attacks

nor the claim that

data _ before the attacks _ implying either subconscious mass precognition or backwards causality

Here is an example of what the GCP does claim. I take the trouble to quote from the conclusions section of the Nelson et al paper (currently ref 15) in Foundation of Physics Letters

Regarding the 9/11 analyses, they write

The statistical significance of these excursions is limited to roughly three normal deviations. Thus, as isolated, post hoc analyses, none of these individually would be sufficient to conclude a causal or other direct link between the September 11 events and the measured deviations. In light of the formal result, however, these analyses do suggest that independent metrics spanning the database and consistent with the experimental hypothesis may reveal other correlations with our statistical measures.

Regarding the formal experimental result as a whole, they write

Barring demonstration of a conventional interaction that can affect the random generators on a global scale, we are obliged to confront the possibility that the measured correlations may be directly associated with some aspect of consciousness attendant to global events. In particular, this evidence, if confirmed, would support the idea that some processes in nature that have been assumed to be fundamentally random are in fact somewhat mutable. If the present understanding of quantum randomness is called into question, there are profound theoretical and practical implications. However, there needs to be significant replication and extension of our results before these novel theoretical positions can be seriously considered.

Regarding point 2

Because the GCP is a small project and out of the scientific mainstream there are few secondary sources for a wiki article. Most of what there is, unfortunately, relates to 9/11. So it is difficult to have referenced material that doesn't give perhaps undo weight to 9/11. The wiki article can address this problem by a) making a separate subsection for 9/11 and b) including a statement to the effect that 9/11 is only one of 300 formal events treated by the GCP replication experiment

Lastly, the article makes too heavy a use of newspaper articles, and does not rely enough on articles published in peer-reviewed journals (mention of the articles by Scargle and May/Spottiswode being exceptions)

From the Wikipedia guidelines

For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabancel (talk • contribs) 15:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that for topics such as a minor pseudo-scientific experiment in thinking really hard at computers most scientists just ignore them. We are left with the popular press for the majority of non-primary source material because of the irrelevance of the project to the scientific community at large.Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Claims must be sourced, especially for pseudo and fringe science topics secondary and tertiary sources are vital for an article's notability and maintaining NPOV. Since this subject is kind-of obscure we have to work with the sources we have. Even if you don't think the 9/11 articles fairly describe the projects overall aims, they go a long way to making the project Notable. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Voiceofreason01 makes a valid point. A few of us would probably shed few tears if it was decided that GCP was non-notable. The truth is though that it is and that the journalistic sources in the article lend strongly to demonstrating that notability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be fine, for example, to include a paragraph describing the notability of the GCP, explaining that it receives attention from skeptics, new-agers and others who have a range of reactions to the Project; that's an interesting sociological aspect (seriously). However, citations verifying notability do not necessarily guide content. Some of the usage of newspaper articles (or selected quoting therefrom) in the current article confounds these points. From wiki guidelines:

The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles..

As for POV, one could also say there's a detrimental POV in believing strongly that the Project is completely misguided. While one can have this view and contribute to the article, it does make objectivity difficult. The same would apply to someone who believed strongly in the existence of some kind of global consciousness, whatever that might mean. Any strong POV is not fatal to useful editing, but it does require the editor to be mindful not to express it in edits. In my case, I am undecided as to whether something that might be construed in the end as global consciousness is really responsible for the experimental outcome. That said, I agree with Robert Matthews that the the GCP replication presents a genuine puzzle, but I do not have a strong POV about it. I'm not interested in arguing, however. My arguments are made in the research papers I've had a hand in. If one reads carefully in those papers, one can see that the claims therein have no relation to the claims attributed in the current wiki article to the Project.

As for COI, that concern can really only be addressed by assessing the tone of my research - a tedious thought to be sure - and a willingness to believe in good faith. That's asking for too much, I think, so I will simply wish you success on the continuation of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabancel (talk • contribs) 21:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Matthews citation

Matthews wrote a newspaper article on the GCP in Jan 2009. He is one of the few secondary sources that are qualified physicists. His article is thus a useful citation to have in the article. However, the current sentence which makes the citation

Citing the unreliability of significant events to cause statistically significant spikes, Robert Matthews concludes that "The only conclusion to emerge from the Global Consciousness Project so far is that data without a theory is as meaningless as words without a narrative."[21]

does not accurately convey his treatment of the GCP. Here is a better representation of his article which reflects his balanced assessment of the GCP

Physicist Robert Matthews, writing in early 2009 about the replication experiment, finds that "the GCP is the most sophisticated attempt yet to prove the existence of PK (psychokinetic effects)". He concludes that although "the combined result is spectacular", the statistically weak effect precludes testing individual events, thus impeding any attempt to identify or understand a physical mechanism for the hypothesis. Matthews summarizes his view writing that "The only conclusion to emerge from the Global Consciousness Project so far is that data without a theory is as meaningless as words without a narrative." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabancel (talk • contribs) 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I guess the article needs a criticism section which would address issues about design of the experiment, misinterpretation of the data etc. However, the critics should be from real experts not from the ones who seem to have no background to understand and interpret what's going on.

Here; "My background is in computer science. I was doing early stuff in developing XML specifications and advanced Java application architecture, stuff that’s more conceptual rather than sitting down and programming. I was always a skeptical person, from being dragged kicking and screaming to church as a little kid through I loved reading Bigfoot stories and ghost stories and all that stuff. I went to film school, also. That was my minor, I guess, in college, was writing for film and television. So I always had these two things. I loved technology and skepticism and I loved writing and entertainment, but there was really no way to put those two things together until podcasting came out." says Brian Dunning.

Sometimes being a skeptical, who was once dragged kicking and screaming to church as a little kid, is not just enough. Skeptical people (like Scargle) mentioned in here and the papers published by The Journal of Scientific Exploration (published by Society for Scientific Exploration) would be better choices.

"Alex Tsakiris: There’s a couple of points that I just want to pull out and kind of clarify, maybe in simpler terms. One thing, this whole idea of there lacking a theory, I think that’s just ridiculous. A couple of things I want to point out. One is, there is an established theory in physics, a fundamental theory that there shouldn’t be any structure to random data. So, if you’re doing nothing else other than testing the validity of that theory, that’s a pretty fundamental kind of physics thing to do." Logos5557 (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read John Allen Paulos. He is a mathematician. In Irreligion, on page 51-59 he treats interpretation of meaning in random data at some length and in plain language. There are perfectly valid reasons to criticize a design that is based around seeking patterns in randomly generated numbers. Also, on page 113-114 of the same book, he provides an experiment for creating complex patterns (by certain rather specific definitions of complexity) from completely random data.Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, I was able to take your advice and could reach pages 51-59 and 114 of Irreligion by John Allen Paulos on amazon.com. Page 113 is not available, but that does not matter in the context of this global consciousness project because; he does not attribute any statement in those pages to this project and in fact he argues coincidence on 51-59 (from a perspective of 9/11 oddities, numerology etc.) and cellular automaton on 113-114 in the way layman would grasp. As it is explained in the article, the hardware used in this project are true random number generators (electronic-noise based) not pseudo ones (softwares). There is no fixed rule (mathematical function) in action as in automatons. There is no arguable relation between coincidence, numerology etc., cellular automaton and global consciousness project. There is real statistics here. Normal distribution is a natural phenomenon and significant deviations from that may be correlated with consciousness. I suggest this presentation to the ones who want to dig a bit further. I fully agree with you on your statement that "there are perfectly valid reasons to criticize a design that is based around seeking patterns in randomly generated numbers", however I think that should come from real experts who have knowledge of statistics, not from the ones who apparently do not know the basics but instead try to synthesize some other concepts, that have no relevance, into the topic as falsifications/rebuttals. Logos5557 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course he isn't arguing specifically about this project in his book - the book is about religion. And the part on coincidence is the one I really think you need to read. It is relevant to the discussion at hand. Simonm223 (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course he can't argue specifically about this project with that trivial stuff in his book. The second he does, he sees all his reputation buried under the well constructed valid arguments coming from real experts. If you can really specifically point why I need to read (actually I did, do I need to do something else) the part on coincidence, we can discuss in detail. Also if you can specifically point how it is related to the discussion at hand, we can see what to discuss. Otherwise, any incapable user can come and leave something (some implication, some synthesis) here which has no relevance whatsoever with the project. Logos5557 (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The section named "Analysis" as now constituted is pretty much all criticism. Even descriptive statements are embellished with a pejorative "claims" apparently intended to make the reader believe the description is questionable. I propose to change the name to "Criticism". The article could do with a section on analysis, but that should, as I understand it, be written by someone not associated with the GCP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogunnar (talk • contribs) 20:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the "claims" in the former Analysis section, the name of which I changed to Criticism, as explained above, are simply wrong. Here is an example (not the only one): "GCP claims changes in the level of randomness seen in the EGG data hours and even days before the attacks were themselves caused by the attacks, ..." No such claim is made. We describe clearly labeled explorations, and note correlations that exist in the data. Their likelihoods are calculated using best practices if we think it is useful. But we simply do not claim causal relationships. Rogunnar (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that not the basic hypothesis that the experiment is operating under? That the randomness of the data generated by the EEG's is affected by "global consiousness." Voiceofreason01 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

We are careful to distinguish correlation and causality. We have excellent evidence for the former but we realize that does not justify claims of the latter. Here is the general hypothesis we test in a series of instantiations: "Periods of collective attention or emotion in widely distributed populations will correlate with deviations from expectation in a global network of physical random number generators." Sorry to quibble -- I know that many people don't pay much attention to the scientific use of these words, but the differences between "cause" "correlate" and "affect" are important. I should also note that we test a basic hypothesis. It isn't appropriate to say we "operate under a basic hypothesis." Rogunnar (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying I agree that this section is problematic or that I endorse weakening it but would it be more correct to say: the "GCP claims changes in the level of randomness seen in the EGG data hours and even days before the attacks may have been caused by the attacks, ..."

or are you objecting to the inclusion of this section of text in any form? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We make claims only based on analyses of the formal replication series, because this is comprised of events for which a fully specified hypothesis test was made, thus providing interpretable statistics. Our post hoc exploratory analyses are informal and cannot be rigorously interpreted because the analysis parameters are not set a priori. So, although an exploration might produce a graph that looks interesting, that is about the limit of a claim that can safely be made. We can do simulations or resampling to get some idea of how unusual or how normal is an outcome like the now-famous variance deviation on 9/11 which started a few hours before the first plane hit, but if you think about it, you must see that no formal claim can be made since we did not make a prediction that such might happen ahead of time. There is more I could say about how problematic post hoc analysis is, and why, but this should give you a basic understanding of my position: we do not claim what the article says about the 9/11 data. What we do say is more modest -- that it looks interesting; it is suggestive; it stimulates prospective (a priori) tests to see whether there is reliable evidence for a precursor effect. All speculations and suggested potential explanations of the exploratory analyses are labeled as such -- they are informal talking, not scientific claims. Rogunnar (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

removing sentence from Background section

I am removing the following sentence that Simon added on Sept 27: "Jeffers, a professor of physics at York University has questioned the randomness of the numbers produced by the generators due to base blinds that have shown results which would be considered significant by PEAR research parameters (p>.05).". This is one that rdnelson complained about -- I am removing it because it is incomprehensible and lacks any sourcing. If you can point to the source of the statement, we should discuss here how it should be stated and whether it belongs in the article.

Concerning the "brief account of errors" that rdnelson wrote, I would like to try to address them one at a time. The first part deals with purported errors in one of the sources -- it may or may not be correct, but I think we should restrict ourselves to demonstrable errors in the Wikipedia article itself. Looie496 (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

for an additional critique of the Analysis section (Nelson's point III), see comments in the section September 11 higher up on this discussion page. Pabancel (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It was sourced. Somebody deleted the ref previously. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going on the basis of this diff. Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember what happened now. The Jeffers information was previously in two places but I only included a citation link in one. Consensus determined it was inappropriate in one of those two places and so I deleted it... and it happened to be the one including the citation link. I can find it again if necessary... I feel very strongly that any connection of this project to PEAR should also mention the deep flaws in PEAR methodology. Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not averse in principle, but I couldn't understand the sentence as written. Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

see also section

I removed web bot from the see also page because I do not believe it is related closely enough to the Global Consciousness Project. Web Bot's only connection with this article is that they both rely on the theory of the existence of the collective unconscious. That being said, my primary concern is to prevent abuse of the 'see also' section similar to what has happened to Unidentified flying object. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I added it back, as a connection has been drawn by reliable sources.

I removed it again because it really has nothing to do with the GCP; it is irrelevant. I'd be interested to know which reliable sources draw the connection. I also removed the "data dredging" item because it bears a false implication that the GCP uses data dredging, which it does not. If someone wants to add that item with its implication, s/he must give a reliable source. Rogunnar (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To raise another of your edits,[11] you removed that supporters of the GCP have also used the analogy to The Force as "undue weight". Can we please add that back in? I don't understand your "undue weight" comment, and the source was fine as it was a primary source to the Boundary Institute that Dean Radin of the GCP founded, not just some random website. I would like to include the fact that GCP supporters also use the analogy to avoid it being seen as merely a snide remark by skeptics. Fences&Windows 02:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I will take another look at the Boundary Institute source but using a primary source from the creator of GCP where he supports his own work may not be reliable. My main concern about the "The Force" comment is that GCP supporters are using it exactly to make this claim by critics seem less damaging. The way the article phrases it, it sounds like critics and GCP believers are agreeing, which is not the case. I removed the comment because I thought it was sourced from the boundary Institute. I still have some misgivings about it remaining in the article, but as it is properly sourced feel free to restore "The Force" comment. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're correct, the boundary institute source is perfectly fine for the "The Force" comment and it should be re-added. I'll go ahead and take care of that. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The See also item "data dredging" is not justified by any citation. Is the intention of those who want it in the See also section to imply that the GCP does data dredging? If so, this intent and interpretation must have justification. If not, the item should go. Rogunnar (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI

[12] As evident in this difference link Pabancel (talk · contribs) has a serious Conflict of Interest. I would suggest reading WP:COI. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Pbancel (talk · contribs) is Peter Bancel. I am physicist, skeptical GCP collaborator, and co-author of several research papers on the GCP. My interest in the GCP is not a COI as I am certain that a neutral editor would agree with my edits. The edits simply correct misstatements about citations in the wiki article. See my note under section heading September 11. It is in the interest of Wikipedia to have accurate statements about the citations. Unfortunately, my edits were removed immediately after posting (see reverts by Simomn223 and Verbal in history). A better procedure would be to first verify whether the edits are accurate. My edits on the Matthews citation (also reverted) improve the article as well. Matthews is one of the few scientists to intelligently critique the GCP (Scargle is another). Accurately emphasizing these two will bring added -value for the reader. Since I've not the time for back and forth on this, I will leave it to readers of this discussion page to pursue my suggestions, should anyone care to do so. Some editors will find they cannot take the GCP seriously, which is fine, but that should not influence the care they take in their edits.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs)

Per WP:BURDEN you have to convince the rest of us, and since you have a clear CoI could you please propose changes on teh talk page first? Thanks, Verbal chat 18:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick search of the name Peter Bancel reveals the researcher in question gets considerable grant monies from parapsychological organizations. Again I point out this could constitute a CoI. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter Bancel also presented along with Roger Nelson at the 2007 SSE annual meeting on the topic of "convergent empirical evidence for global consciousness". So assuming this is you, again, CoI. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the vast majority of edits by Pbancel (talk · contribs) have been neutral and have increased the quality of the article, simply being related to the project is not necessarily a Conflict of Interest as long as his contributions are NPOV. So far I see no problem. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the vast majority of edits by Pabancel (talk · contribs) have not been reverted. Only ones which could be viewed as pushing the PoV that GCP has proven something have been. These are the ones which concern me with regard to CoI.Simonm223 (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The article on GCP used to be a reasonably objective description of the project, including its methods, technology, and analyses, followed by a hearty criticism section that, although I thought it had mistakes, was also a reasonably objective description. In the last few months, the article has become a playground for pseudo-skeptics, by which I mean people who don't actually know much about the GCP, and apparently are satisfied to repeat and exaggerate unfounded or mistaken lore. Immediately in the intro paragraph we find a citation of a badly flawed article linking GCP and the Terri Schiavo case. If you read that article, knowing even a little about the GCP, you will conclude that the author doesn't know much. Obviously, as the director of the GCP, I would prefer the Wikipedia article be correct, including correctly critical, but as it is, the current version demeans Wikipedia; it is far from authoritative, encyclopedic information. rdnelson (talk · contribs) 24 November 2024

For me personally, the use of a p=0.05 significance criterion pretty much eliminates any possibility of taking the project seriously, as it is certain to produce a lot of false positives. But if you can point to demonstrable errors of fact in the article, I will make an effort to get them fixed. Looie496 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have taken this request by user Looie496 seriously, and have written a brief account of the errors and what appears to be agenda-driven, non-neutral editing of the GCP article. This discussion page is too long, and for all I know, what I have to say will be edited away if I place it here -- thus the link. And, by the way, your p=0.05 comment misses the mark both because it is not relevant to our research program, and because one-size-fits-all filters are bound to be inappropriate most of the time, given the complexity of the real world. rdnelson (talk · contribs) 24 November 2024

I find it humourous in the extreme that you have actually put a sub-page on the project page of your supposedly scientific research in thinking really hard at computers. Seriously if a critical page on Wikipedia is a threat to your privately funded project that's kind of sad. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

With apologies to those who might prefer a link to a long entry in the discussion, the following is an account of errors Simon223 thinks should be placed here rather than on the GCP website. I think he is right. They are thus immediately available for anyone who may be motivated to improve the quality of the article.

The Wikipedia article on the Global Consciousness Project is marred, apparently having become the focus of biased editors with an agenda. It has always been controversial, but in my view it improved over several years to become an informative encyclopedia article with reasonable balance as of some time in 2008. I don't pay attention often, but in late 2009, I discovered it had been redone in what is termed on Wikipedia a POV, in this case one of obdurate and uninformed skepticism. For example, the first paragraph, which should be an introduction of the encyclopedia item, immediately informs us that skeptics question the methodology of the Project. In itself that's not seriously out of line, but the documentation for that statement is not what one expects from an authoritative source. The following is a response to someone asking what errors I see in the article.

I: Reference 1, which is provided to support a claim about questionable methodology, attempts to draw a parallel between the sad Terry Schiavo case and the GCP, which is a stretch in any case. But the reference contains factual errors, beginning with the statement that the GCP is being conducted by Princeton University. It is not, and never was, as is stated clearly on the website under media & info, the first item in the main menu. My guess is that the author, who appears to be Wally Hartshorn, got his information from a UK newspaper article because he refers to claims I have seen only there and in derivatives such as a Slashdot posting. He says we created a "black box" and look for "spikes" in the number of ones, and that we are looking for a "disturbance in the force". These are journalistic fancies, not facts, as can be verified by anyone who goes the GCP website or reads our papers. But there are more important errors. Here are some facts -- in contradiction to the claims in this reference:

1. We make formal a priori predictions and report all results, including when the effect is null or negative.

2. We do not presume, as Hartshorn implies we should, that great tragedies will inevitably produce big effects; instead, we do formal research asking whether there is a correlation.

3. We specify all parameters of the hypothesis test before data analysis, and we do not look for effects prior to events, despite the excitement of many over exploratory (not formal) analyses that suggest precursor effects.

4. We do not change the prediction post facto to accept "big drops in the numbers" as evidence for the prediction; we take our lumps, and include all results in the series of formal replications leading to our bottom line. About 1/3 of the event analyses show results contrary to our prediction and count against our hypothesis.

5. We look at many kinds of events (including ones Hartshorn deems inappropriate) since there is no prior experience to guide predictions; we include some that are unusual or even unlikely in order to study the range of what kinds and sizes of events do show correlations.

6. We do not confuse evidence with proof, and we know that in a low S/N experiment, no single outcome is interpretable, much less that "hits" or "misses" show existence or nonexistence of a putative global consciousness.

It is ironic that Hartshorn speaks of confirmation bias and suggests that GCP researchers "are very good at seeing connections -- even when there is no connection to be seen." That would explain nicely how he came to the title of his article, "Terry Schiavo and the Global Consciousness Project."

II: In the Background section of the article itself, the attempt to show GCP methodology is flawed continues. The random number generators are said to be non-random, but the claim is irrelevant and incorrect (and such claims should in any case be in a Criticism section): "Jeffers, a professor of physics at York University has questioned the randomness of the numbers produced by the generators due to base blinds that have shown results which would be considered significant by PEAR research parameters (p>.05)." This sentence is so obscure it is, as Pauli once said, "not even wrong." I don't know what "due to base blinds" means, and no serious scientist will attempt to show randomness is or is not present using a p>.05 test. That's statistical nonsense. In any case Jeffers has not addressed GCP random number generators to my knowledge, and whatever he has to say about PEAR is irrelevant to GCP, which is and always has been independent from PEAR. [Note: this item has been corrected.]

III: The Analysis section begins with "The GCP claims ..." and lists several items that GCP does not claim -- certainly not based on the Formal Analysis, which should be the subject of this section. The rest of the section also is not analysis, but criticism -- so the main section heading is incorrect. Addressing it for what it is, we note further errors. The May and Spottiswoode "conclusion" is misrepresented, while their false statement about "no set time frame" and their own post hoc data selection mistakes are accepted. The Wolcotte Smith remark about "statistical adjustments" turns out to be content-free when you read the reference. The Scargle comment about Bayesian and Frequentist statistics having to agree is about the only useful one in the section, but arguably, given reasonable priors, such agreement is entirely possible. Finally, the Matthews quote is selective editing; in fact Matthews gives a generally positive, non-skeptical account of the GCP.

IV: The See Also list includes "Data Dredging" which implies that is what GCP does, but the implication is false; we run a statistically sound formal experiment. [Note: this item has been corrected. Later note: The item has been restored -- still without any justification.Rogunnar (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)] The list also includes "Web Bot" for no good reason I can see other than that GCP also uses the web.

More could be said, but this note gives a flavor of what's wrong with the GCP article. Simply put, these are not the kinds of things one looks for in an encyclopedia, and the low quality of the article and the POV bias demeans Wikipedia while also misinforming a public that looks for authoritative answers from the web's most popular information source.

For the most up-to-date descriptions of the Project in a peer-reviewed publication, you can access page proofs of an article in J Sci Explor. 2008;22:309-333. Rogunnar (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rogunnar (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account created in response to the recent cleanup of a variety of deeply flawed parapsychology articles, as seen here. I don't know why he signed his sig using rdnelson (talk · contribs) an extant, but unused wikipedia account which likely has some implied connection to roger nelson. That sort of rather suspicious and transparent subterfuge makes me think that it might be good to keep an eye on this user.Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't expect to spend much time on it, but given Simonm223 (talk · contribs)'s performance and expressed attitudes here, I am faintly curious what the "recent cleanup of a variety of deeply flawed parapsychology articles" looks like. For the teminally suspicious, one reason I created a new account is that I forgot the password for rdnelson (too long too busy to do any Wikipedia editing) and have not been able to get the system to send a new one, despite its promises. Oh yes, do keep your eye on me. That'll be really edifying. rdnelson (talk · contribs) 24 November 2024

If you want to help Wikipedia, find some decent independent reliable sources rather than complaining on your own website. This page doesn't exist to promote your project, so don't expect it to be favourable. Fences&Windows 20:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity rdnelson (talk · contribs) = Rogunnar (talk · contribs) = 64.7.11.44 (talk · contribs) As user is using multiple accounts for edits I thought this should be on record. Simonm223 (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

POV Shifting again

A lot of work went into fixing this article and now the POV is slowly being shifted back to credulous acceptance and weasel statements. Why? Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I just reread the article after taking a day off and as of this morning it looks good. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a big POV problem, which is Roger Nelson, a main contributor to the GCP, editing the page. I think the COI is so clear here that Nelson should refrain from editing this page. For instance, he doesn't like a couple of see also links, so he removed them "per discussion", a discussion which didn't happen beyond him saying he doesn't like them.[13] Fences&Windows 22:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can readily accept not editing the article. I will try to help via discussion. I have of course done more than say "I don't like it" about the two items I think should be removed from the see also list. I repeat previous discussion material here. The context is a revert by Fences&Windows of an edit by Voiceofreason01. My comment: "I removed [web bot] again because it really has nothing to do with the GCP; it is irrelevant. I'd be interested to know which reliable sources draw the connection. I also removed the "data dredging" item because it bears a false implication that the GCP uses data dredging, which it does not. If someone wants to add that item with its implication, s/he must give a reliable source." Since you, Fences&Windows, want those items in the list, I request that you please provide sources to justify your point of view. I do assume you want a credible and useful article. Rogunnar (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've boldly removed the data dredging link on the grounds that the relevance is very marginal, plus the article being linked to is pretty sucky, in fact it looks like nearly pure OR to me. I believe the Web bot link is sufficiently related to remain. Looie496 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the data dredging link which someone keeps reinstating - I concur with Looie496 and others that it's not relevant. If someone wants this in they need to justify it with citations 92.25.138.86 (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've visited the Global Consciousness Projects Website and also checked out Roger Nelson's papers in peered reviewed journals. I have to say that I don't think this Wikipedia entry does justice to the subject - it appears to have been repeatedly edited with an anti-GCP bias. I'm not in any way associated with GCP and whilst not a paranormal believer I'm completely open minded about the possibility. Particularly as Quantum Physics is now making discoveries which could offer possible mechanisms. I very much favour a scientific approach to investigate these phenomena and Roger Nelson appears to be making every effort to adhere rigourously to this. If editors of this page are posting statements which are mathematically or scientifically wrong then I can't see any reason to prevent Roger Nelson from correcting them. In the interests of fairness and scientific truth (as opposed to "skeptic fundamentalism") I will research GCP and where necessary I will edit this page to ensure it does reflect a balanced view. Gonefishingforgood 20:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Vague Tag

It is not inappropriate nor has Roger Nelson provided any justification for why "consciousness" or "events" are not vague.

Unless there is a clear consensus that the tags should be removed (there is not) I will restore them.

Furthermore I would appreciate it if IP users took discussion here before going to my user talk page. I have this page on watch and will see it. Simonm223 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that you have a COI because you wish to promote a very narrow, materialist world view. Your previous edits suggest you are pushing an agenda which is not about ensuring neutrality. You appear to have already made up your mind that GCP cannot produce any results of value and you make incorrect, pejorative accusations ("data dredging") about the scientific methodology used, despite the GCP website containing detailed responses showing that such criticisms are not valid. Your user page makes it clear that you regard yourself as a "skeptic" and a proponent of a "materialist" world view. If Wikipedia is going to attempt to document such projects which are on the boundaries of our current understanding, it should at the very least be accurate. The GCP is a valid exploration of subtle, and possibly very important, aspects of human experience and the nature of reality. Scientists such as Roger Nelson are working hard to explore these effects with scientific methodologies, despite a prevailing paradigm which denies even the possibility that such effects could be real. I'm not suggesting that the article should not contain critical analysis - what I object to is the dismissive (and innaccurate) editing which you appear to think is "neutral", but in fact merely reflects your narrow world view. 89.243.26.153 (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

First I'll remind you of WP:CIVIL; you shouldn't base your edit decisions on your opinion of my point of view. Second even if I do have a point of view on this topic that doesn't change the validity of the vague tags.

Please provide a reliable source defining consciousness. Please provide a reliable source defining an event. Please do so without violating WP:SYNTH Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you for the reminders, I do regret that you have interpreted anything I've written as violating WP:CIVIL - I assumed that my raising the point that your user page refers to your sceptic and materialist tendencies was relevant to my concern that you have a COI, and far from editing from a standpoint of neutrality you were in fact promoting your own agenda. My edit decisions were solely based on the fact that this article is a very poor representation of the subject. Looking back through earlier versions the accuracy of the article's content appears to have peaked and then declined markedly - as Roger Nelson has pointed out above. I am reverting your edit which changed interconnected to global as certain of the events the project studied are not global. I'm also removing the vague tag from consciousness as there is a link to the WP article - you're welcome to add the vague tag to the consciousness article if you wish, I dare-say someone will debate it with you... 92.28.172.113 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Reread WP:COI as you don't appear to understand it.Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already studied WP:COI - The following is an extract from the article "Any situation in which strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.". I think your User page clearly states your strong allegiances to causes/agendas that are in conflict with any view that does not conform to the materialist, sceptic paradigm. Your stated allegiences, talk pages, user contributions and earlier edits to this article all suggest that you would prefer it if Wikipedia read like the Skeptics dictionary. I don't want to get into an edit war over this but there are other viewpoints to yours, which are both philosophically and scientifically valid and should be accurately reflected in Wikipedia if it is going to be encyclopedic. 92.28.172.113 (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Linked article to Event which I think gives a comprehensive description of the word's meanings, hence removed the "vague" tag. 92.28.172.113 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Event is a disambiguation page and does nothing to clarify how the GCP uses the word operationally. And Allegiances? To what causes exactly? Are you suggesting a distaste for pseudosciencce is an allegiance? You have to stop editing out of some bizarre vendetta against me and start thinking about wikipedia policy - notably WP:OR. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Vendetta? I'd merely hoped to introduce a more balanced tone to an article that, as it stands, does not fairly or accurately reflect its subject. As for your pseudoscience accusation it seems to me that this is defined as anything that a pseudosceptic disagrees with. I have no allegiances and no axe to grind; I also have more productive things to do than to get into an edit war with you. Therefore I'm not going to make any more edits to this page as you are clearly intent on ensuring it is written from your viewpoint. Sincerely though, I would suggest that you visit the GCP website and consider the possibility that the effects they are seeing are real; even if it is a small effect, the consequences for our understanding of the nature of reality are profound. I wish you a happy and conflict free 2010. 92.28.172.113 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Independent research to consider the possibility that global consciousness could be real isn't part of an editor's purview. We really can only report what reliable sources have said about the subject. As the subject of the article falls under WP:FRINGE the claims need to be well framed by the mainstream view that global consciousness is not supported. I'd avoid putting criticism in a ghetto and integrate the mainstream view where possible. Don't really understand the disagreement about the lead, but if it is considered too vague, then that's something that could easily be fixed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of fixing it (or I wouldn't have tagged it) but not with original research. We need a well referenced operational definitions for "consciousness" and for "event" and not an editor's opinion as to what was meant. One stumbling block is that there is some concern over whether Nelson & co. have produced an operational definition for either of those terms. Notwithstanding that, if a properly referenced set of operational definitions is provided I'll gladly let them replace the tags. Simonm223 (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd avoid describing the project using the subject's own definitions. I wonder if a better lead could be fashioned using the NY Times article as a source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the NY Times article is just as unclear as to what Nelson is actually measuring as any other source. That lack of clarity is the problem. Simonm223 (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's some more news sources. There's got to be a way to reliably describe what this thing is in plain English, even if it's framed as a set of claims, no? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately blocked by a paywall but this headline sums up the problem well: Flouting probability, Global Consciousness Project is out to measure something - if researchers can figure out what it might be. It's the first one that pops up on your list. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see it. Well, I'll get back to this when I have time. Be nice to see a good article here instead of a mess. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is why I think we need operational definitions in the lede. There seems to be some consensus in the journalistic community that the GCP is interesting but rather vaguely defined. There is next to nothing in the scientific community because it's a minor parapsychological experiment and parapsychology is generally ignored by legitimate scientists. The skeptical press is uniformly critical but, again, says very little because the GCP doesn't have the following of zener experiments, tv psychics or ganzfeld experiments. Notwithstanding this problem with reliable sources the evident preponderance of journalistic sources clearly demonstrates the topic is notable within Wikipedia's guidelines; deletion is not an option.

So, pending an operational definition from the GCP for what, precisely constitutes "consciousness" and what, precisely constitutes an "event" within the bounds of their "experiment" we have to just tag them as vague and wait. Simonm223 (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed the ongoing controversy with this article, I'd like to help reach a consensus if I may. I'd like to propose the following change to clarify the aim of the GCP, which avoids "consciousness" and "events" and so removes the need for the first two vague tags.

old: "that aims to detect potential interactions of global consciousness[vague] with physical systems, by generating random numbers and attempting to uncover patterns in them that might correlate with major world events.[vague]"

new: "that aims to test the hypothesis that an emotive or attentional response from large numbers of people will correspond to periods of anomalous deviations in a geographically distributed network of random number generators."

the citation for this definition is ref 7: Bancel, P, & Nelson, R. "The GCP Event Experiment: Design, Analytical Methods, Results". Journal of Scientific Exploration (2008) Gonefishingforgood (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice. It might need some unpacking for those unfamiliar with the topic, but that's an concise, accurate description of the aims of the GCP. It misses that they're ruling out physical effects, but it'll do for the lead. Fences&Windows 01:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you, another editor has implemented my suggested wording and unpacked it. I agree with the way it's been changed. Gonefishingforgood (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)