08-09-2012, 11:46 PM
گویا بعد از انتشار کتاب و ضایع شدن این برادرمان,ایشان به همراه فرد دیگری در آمریکا اقدام به انجام دو آزمایش به ظاهر دوسو کور و سه سو کور میکند تا نتایج خودش رو معتبر جلوه بده..جالبه که نتایج آزمایش سه سو کور نه تنها به نفعش نیست که نتایج وارونه ای هم نشون میده
!!!
در hypothesis development مهم ترین موضوع p-value هست.
این p-value میتونه one-tailed یا two-tailed باشه...
FAQ: What are the differences between one-tailed and two-tailed tests?
این تحقیقاتی دو سو کور و سه سو کور این عزیزان همگی one-tailed هست که اینجا به خوبی به ایرادات به کار بردنش اشاره شده:
P values. One-tail or two-tail ?
ژورنالی هم که مقالات ایشون رو چاپ میکنه اصولا در زمینه مسائلی از همین قبیل هست.پس چاپ شدنش همچین تو ژورنال چیز عجیبی نیست...اگه زمانی دیدین این مطلب تو nature چاپ شد یعنی از لحاظ علمی تایید شده!!!
[The Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE), founded in 1987, is a quarterly publication of the Society for Scientific Exploration. According to its mission statement, the journal provides a forum for research on topics "outside the established disciplines of mainstream science."[1] However, due to its scope of examining anomalies, fringe science, protoscience, and other controversial topics, the editors of the JSE acknowledge that the periodical "publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than in some mainstream disciplinary journals. Nevertheless, those observations and explanations must conform to rigorous standards of observational techniques and logical argument."[2
در آزمایش دو سور ایشون هم طبق بررسی اجمالی که من انجام دادم به این اشکالات برخورد کردم:
به دعوت جیمز رندی هم که جواب نداده و خودش هم اعتراف کرده که این تحقیق هم علمی نیست از دید خیلی از افراد!!!
یه مطلبی رو هم دیدم یه پزشک در جواب به ایشون نوشته بود که خوندنش خالی از لطف نیست:
Masaru Emoto’s Wonderful World of Water
!!!نقل قول:triple-blind study
a better-controlled "triple-blind" follow-up study published in the journal of scientific exploration did not yield positive results. More than 1,900 of mr. Emoto's followers focused gratitude on water bottles in a vault over a period of three days. The water was then frozen and compared to two different sets of controls in a very elaborate protocol. Crystals from all three groups were not, on average, considered to be particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). Crystals from the experimental group were also rated slightly less beautiful than a set of controls. An objective comparison of contrast did not reveal any significant differences among the samples.[18
در hypothesis development مهم ترین موضوع p-value هست.
نقل قول:In statistical significance testing, the p-value is the probability of obtaining a test statistic at least as extreme as the one that was actually observed, assuming that the null hypothesis is true.[1] One often "rejects the null hypothesis" when the p-value is less than the significance level α (Greek alpha), which is often 0.05 or 0.01. When the null hypothesis is rejected, the result is said to be statistically significant.
این p-value میتونه one-tailed یا two-tailed باشه...
FAQ: What are the differences between one-tailed and two-tailed tests?
این تحقیقاتی دو سو کور و سه سو کور این عزیزان همگی one-tailed هست که اینجا به خوبی به ایرادات به کار بردنش اشاره شده:
P values. One-tail or two-tail ?
ژورنالی هم که مقالات ایشون رو چاپ میکنه اصولا در زمینه مسائلی از همین قبیل هست.پس چاپ شدنش همچین تو ژورنال چیز عجیبی نیست...اگه زمانی دیدین این مطلب تو nature چاپ شد یعنی از لحاظ علمی تایید شده!!!
[The Journal of Scientific Exploration (JSE), founded in 1987, is a quarterly publication of the Society for Scientific Exploration. According to its mission statement, the journal provides a forum for research on topics "outside the established disciplines of mainstream science."[1] However, due to its scope of examining anomalies, fringe science, protoscience, and other controversial topics, the editors of the JSE acknowledge that the periodical "publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than in some mainstream disciplinary journals. Nevertheless, those observations and explanations must conform to rigorous standards of observational techniques and logical argument."[2
در آزمایش دو سور ایشون هم طبق بررسی اجمالی که من انجام دادم به این اشکالات برخورد کردم:
Upon receiving the four boxes, T.K. examined water samples from each bottle according to the following procedure:
1.For each bottle, approximately 0.5 mL of water was placed into each of 50 Petri dishes, and a lid was placed on each dish.
2.Each dish was then placed into a freezer maintained at −25 to −30°C for a minimum of 3 hours.
3.T.K. later removed the dishes from the freezer, and, in a walk-in refrigerator (maintained at −5°C), he examined the apex of each resulting ice drop for a crystal using a stereo optical microscope. Previous experience with ice drops formed under these conditions indicated that the apex was the location where crystals were most likely to form. Crystals were defined as hexagonal shapes.
4.If a crystal was observed at the apex (not all ice drops formed discernable crystals), T.K. photographed it at either ×100 or ×200 magnification, depending on the size of the crystal.
5.All resulting photographs, from all four bottles, were then e-mailed to D.R.
D.R. received a total of 40 photographs: 12 crystals were from bottle A, 12 from B, 7 from C, and 9 from D. Bottles A and B were the treated bottles, thus slightly more crystals were identified in the treated condition. To assess the aesthetic appeal of these 40 crystals, a group of 100 volunteers were recruited over the Internet to blindly and independently rate each crystal, one at a time, on a scale from zero to six, where zero meant “not beautiful” and six meant “very beautiful.” (The ratings were collected via a Web site programmed in Perl/CGI by the first author.)
گذشته از اینها مثلا در تحقیق دو سو کور که کل عکس ها 40 تا بوده و اینکه حقیقتا چند تا عکس گرفته شده معلوم نیست یا اینکه بین عکس ها سلکت شده یا نه... اما این تعداد برای یه تحقیق آماری خیلی خیلی کم هست..معیار زشت و زیبا رو هم بر اساس نظر سنجی اینترنتی که معلوم نیست چه افرادی بودن و چه شرایطی داشتن و 100 نفر اول 4000 نفری که نظر دادن انجام دادن تازه اونم بین 0 تا 6 ارزش گذاری شده که باز اینم خودش یه ایراد بزرگ هست!! معیار رو اگه بین 0 تا 100 میذاشت اونوقت میشد بهش اعتبار داد...1.For each bottle, approximately 0.5 mL of water was placed into each of 50 Petri dishes, and a lid was placed on each dish.
کلا نیم سی سی از هر بطری آب برداشتن...حالا حجم کل نا مشخص هست!!! این یه ایراد..
2.Each dish was then placed into a freezer maintained at −25 to −30°C for a minimum of 3 hours.
حداقل 3 ساعت گذاشتنش!! اینم یه ایراد دیگه..برای زمان های کمتر و بیشتر چیزی مشخص نشده!!!
3.T.K. later removed the dishes from the freezer, and, in a walk-in refrigerator (maintained at −5°C), he examined the apex of each resulting ice drop for a crystal using a stereo optical microscope. Previous experience with ice drops formed under these conditions indicated that the apex was the location where crystals were most likely to form. Crystals were defined as hexagonal shapes.
نمونه رو فقط از راس یخ برداشتن!! اینم یه ایراد دیگه...
4.If a crystal was observed at the apex (not all ice drops formed discernable crystals), T.K. photographed it at either ×100 or ×200 magnification, depending on the size of the crystal.
اگه کرسیتالی در راس یخ دیده میشد اون رو 100 یا 200 بار بزرگنمایی میکردن...همه قطرات یخ کریستال تشکیل ندادن...
5.All resulting photographs, from all four bottles, were then e-mailed to D.R.
D.R. received a total of 40 photographs: 12 crystals were from bottle A, 12 from B, 7 from C, and 9 from D. Bottles A and B were the treated bottles, thus slightly more crystals were identified in the treated condition. To assess the aesthetic appeal of these 40 crystals, a group of 100 volunteers were recruited over the Internet to blindly and independently rate each crystal, one at a time, on a scale from zero to six, where zero meant “not beautiful” and six meant “very beautiful.” (The ratings were collected via a Web site programmed in Perl/CGI by the first author.)
این عجب تحقیقی بوده![[عکس: 3.gif]](http://www.daftarche.com/images/imported/2012/08/3.gif)
!! کلا از بین چندین عکسی که گرفته شده و نا معلوم هست تعدادش , 40 تا رو فرستادن برای این گروه...حالا جالبه 12 تا از بطری اول و 12 تا از بطری دوم فرستاده شده که هر دو آب هایی بودن که براشون حرفای قشنگ و دعا خونده شده....در خالی از دو تا بطری دیگه به ترتیب 7 و 9 تا عکس فرستاده شده...چرا تعداد مساوی نیست از هر دو نمونه؟ نوشته به اونهایی که عکس میگرفتن چیزی نگفتن آب ها مربوط به کدوم بطری هست اما با تعجب میبینیم تعداد عکس های آب دعا شده بیشتره....
بعد اینکه 2000 نفر از فاصله 5000 مایلی برای 5 دقیقه دعا خوندن و بعد 36 ساعت از هم جدا گذاشته میشن و بعد فرستاده میشن ژاپن...این همه فاصله افتاده بین آزمایش تا بررسی!!! این اصلا هیچی رو نشون نمیده...
!! کلا از بین چندین عکسی که گرفته شده و نا معلوم هست تعدادش , 40 تا رو فرستادن برای این گروه...حالا جالبه 12 تا از بطری اول و 12 تا از بطری دوم فرستاده شده که هر دو آب هایی بودن که براشون حرفای قشنگ و دعا خونده شده....در خالی از دو تا بطری دیگه به ترتیب 7 و 9 تا عکس فرستاده شده...چرا تعداد مساوی نیست از هر دو نمونه؟ نوشته به اونهایی که عکس میگرفتن چیزی نگفتن آب ها مربوط به کدوم بطری هست اما با تعجب میبینیم تعداد عکس های آب دعا شده بیشتره....بعد اینکه 2000 نفر از فاصله 5000 مایلی برای 5 دقیقه دعا خوندن و بعد 36 ساعت از هم جدا گذاشته میشن و بعد فرستاده میشن ژاپن...این همه فاصله افتاده بین آزمایش تا بررسی!!! این اصلا هیچی رو نشون نمیده...
به دعوت جیمز رندی هم که جواب نداده و خودش هم اعتراف کرده که این تحقیق هم علمی نیست از دید خیلی از افراد!!!
یه مطلبی رو هم دیدم یه پزشک در جواب به ایشون نوشته بود که خوندنش خالی از لطف نیست:
Masaru Emoto’s Wonderful World of Water
![[-]](https://daftarche.com/images/bootbb/collapse.png)