NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27 / NN_1992_27.iso / spool / sci / skeptic / 19989 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1992-11-20 | 21.3 KB | 453 lines

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!gwdu03.gwdg.de!ibm.gwdg.de!SERTEL From: SERTEL@ibm.gwdg.de Subject: Mars effect (alias Masr effect) Message-ID: <168A68E8.SERTEL@ibm.gwdg.de> Sender: news@gwdu03.gwdg.de (USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: ibm.gwdg.de Organization: GWDG, Goettingen Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 00:38:00 MEZ Lines: 441 Dr. Nienhuys replied to my post, not via sci.skeptic, though. I am commenting here on his comments copyying what he has to say. His original message is therefore not needed. S. Ertel Comments by Ertel on comments by Nienhuys on a post by Ertel (Nienhuys` post is unabridged.) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments on a post by Suitbert Ertel (note. Ertel has three different posts all titled `Mars effect'; this is an answer to the first. No need to look up the first, because the full text is here too. Sorry guys for the length.) # BACKSTAGE NEWS ABOUT THE EUROSKEPTICS PROCEEDINGS # #I would like to invite interested readers of this post to give #comments and Dr. Nienhuys to answer a number of questions at the #end of my message: # # #------- (1/5) Proceedings just published ------------------------ # ...... #I did not receive any pages of those papers neither did I #receive Dr. Nienhuys' "summary". NIENHUYS: First Comment Professor Ertel may recall that I wrote to him: I have received your letter. The 75 pages I refer to consist of 16 pages JJ, 12 pages Jongbloet, 20 pages Koppeschaar, 17 pages Ertel, (that makes 65, which you have seen) and an unknown number of pages from F. Gauquelin, which I estimate at between 10 and 15 pages, and which consist of a completely new comment on all papers above. I will send them to you when I receive them.... ERTEL's comment: Dr. Nienhuys sent me F. Gauquelin's pages, not those of the Dutch authors. NIENHUYS: I don't see much point in sending you my comments prior to publication; ... ERTEL's comment: But he should have known that *I* see much point, I had indicated that in my letter. NIENHUYS: ... as soon as my introduction is finished, I will bring the stuff to the printer, and collect the printed Proceedings one week later. If madame Gauquelin is not too tardy, I can get this over and done with before August. NOTE: actually the number of pages went up a bit because of changes in layout. I was rather optimistic about the time schedule, though. ERTEL's comment: Anyone interested in numbers of pages? I am afraid: It's a red-herring. N. should have explained here why he did not see much point to send me his alleged summary and why he thought that that wasn't much point for *me*. I would not insist on that had D. Nienhuys behaved as predicted in a letter by Prof. de Jager to me in which he said that "he (Dr. N.) not being party in the dispute, is an excellent person to weigh the various pros and cons and thus to come to a balanced conclusion". Prof. de Jager's predictions contributed to my surprise later. # #---------- (3/5) Startling discoveries in the Proceedings ------------- ..... #J&J's insertion in their paper is an attempt to undo the #criticized neglect.... NIENHUYS: As far as I knew Ertel had obtained all his information about J&J's paper by direct correspondence with J&J long before February 4 (when I received the corrections to the first version); Ertel's contribution was sent on February 18. By the beginning of May it escaped me that Ertel might not have seen these corrections. De Jager had talked to Koppeschaar and others, and wanted to be a little more clear about what he thought were weak points in Gauquelin's work. There is no question of De Jager changing his paper after reading what Ertel sent to me.... ERTEL's comment: Jan : Dr. N. receives J&J's first version of his paper. Jan : Ertel receives J&J's first version of his paper. Jan : Ertel receives CORRECTIONS #1 of J's first version. Feb 4 : Dr. N. receives CORRECTIONS #1 of J's first version. (With Nienhuys' word "correction" above readers are gravely mislead. They will understand that J&J sent the belated CORRECTIONS THAT I AM RESENTING quite on time, i.e. Feb. 4, before J&J sent THEIR paper on Feb 18. The "corrections" which Nienhuys refers to, however, are some earlier corrections which are irrelevant here. Dr. Nienhuys should not have brought in CORRECTIONS #1 at all, even I myself misunderstood his passage believing that I made an error until I had checked our correspondence again. How could others understand that passage correctly?) Feb 18 : N. receives Ertel's contribution to the Proceedings. April : Ertel entertains much correspondence with Koppeschaar May : J&J talk to Koppeschaar ("and others"?) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- May : Nienhys receives CORRECTIONS #2 of J's paper --------------------------------------------------------------------------- May-Nov : Ertel does not receive CORRECTIONS #2 In his CORRECTIONS #2 J&J removed "weak points" of his paper.I did not receive J&J`s CORRECTIONS #2 and I am at a loss to understand (1) that J&J did not send me them (2) that Dr. Nienhuys was mistaken (in MAY !) that J&J's belated changes had been agreed upon by correspondence between J&J and Ertel. Dr. Nienhuys should have realized that his neglect is hard to understand, he should have explained how this "it escaped me" could happen. NIENHUYS: ...For a general reader it seems not so much of a contradiction: De Jager apparently thinks the Eminence Effect not very important, whereas Ertel thinks it is a replication of the Mars Effect.... ERTEL's comment: I don't see the logic. The contradiction is that I criticize de Jager for not considering the eminence issue. But J&J dealt with it (IN THEIR ADDITIONS). This contradiction is independent of the fact that J&J`s and my views on this issue differ. The reader cannot take the difference of views as something that might lessen the contradiction. NIENHUYS: ...But yes, the very astute reader, might wonder what caused Ertel's optimism that merely reading 1988 exposition (quoted in the original version as well) would convince J&J of the fact that the eminence effect replicated the Mars effect, especially in view of the dismissive remark "In view of the very small margins involved it seems questionable to us if this benefit [i.e. the benefit of the doubt extended to Gauquelin] is permissable." ... ERTEL's comment: J&J's not taking the eminence issue serious isn't what I criticize. I criticize that J&J did not say a word about this in their paper. Nienhuys here continues his red-herring strategy by criticizing me ("optimism" etc) instead of explaining J&J's and his own lack of informing me about changes in the Proceedings which were made 3 months after I had submitted my paper. # # I---------------------------I-----I-----I-------------------I # N = I 2,088 I 450 I 350 I N=1,503 I # I---------------------------I-----I-----I-------------------I #correct: I published I unpublished I # I---------------------------I-----------I-------------------I #wrong (J&J):I "published" I "unpublished" I # I---------------------------I-------------------------------I # # Figure 1: Gauquelin data, correct and wrong (J&J) divisions # .... #J&J's concise "This is not true" sounds as if that statement were #true. But it is wrong. J&J's error is to mistake the N = 2,088 #sample as the only published Gauquelin sample. The remainder of #the published sample (450+350=800) and the unpublished sample #are erroneously pooled. This error is hardly excusable. All #information regarding source of data and eminence counts are on #the file I posted them for analysis and in my 1988 paper minute #descriptions of that information is provided. #References to #"2,888 published" and "1,503 unpublished" #athletes (not "2,303") are made nine times and five times, #respectively, the samples #are listed in two tables. NIENHUYS: >From J&J's paper it is clear that they divide the total data set into two parts: published in 1972 by the Gauquelins and the remainder, which for two thirds consist of unpublished data. That remainder they denote by `Ertel Specific' and `unpublished'; the latter name for this is a rather unfortunate choice. The main impact of that section is to argue that the 2088 champions published by the Gauquelins in 1970 showed the Mars Effect (if it exists) most clearly. ERTEL's comment: (1) J`s choice is not "unfortunate", it is wrong. (2) The main impact is NOT that the 2,088 sample of champions "showed the Mars effect most clearly" (that isn't what skeptics J&J wanted to say). J&J said that the "unpublished" sample (actually a mixed-up sample) did not differ from the published (N=2,088) sample regarding citations. Here is an error and Dr. Nienhuys should help removing, not fogging it. # #Now, let us have a look at how J&J should have compared #the eminence (citation frequencies) of published and unpublished #samples (see Tabel 1): # # Table 1 # # Published All published Unpublished # N N = N = N = % N = % #Cit 2,088 450+350 2,888 100 1,503 100 #------------------------------------------------------------------ # # 0 1,178 153 1,331 46.1 940 62.5 # 1 431 226 657 22.7 443 29.5 # 2 271 191 462 16.0 73 4.9 # 3 115 95 210 7.3 43 2.9 # 4 39 57 96 3.3 4 0.3 # 5 43 35 78 2.7 0 0 # 6 10 23 33 1.1 0 0 # 7 1 17 18 0.6 0 0 # 8 0 3 3 0.1 0 0 #------------------------------------------------------------------- # #As can be seen, numbers of citations are considerably less for #unpublished as compared to published athletes. J&J having based #their conclusion on wrong sample divisions said there is no #difference. Their final conclusion based on this wrong #statement must therefore be rejected. # NIENHUYS: All these figures can be found in Koppeschaar's contribution. If one starts to divide data into groups, one may have differences of opinion about what constitutes a `natural' division. But one of the conclusions of J&J, namely `the difference between published and unpublished parts of Gauquelin's material ... remains a serious problem' doesn't have to be rejected: the percentage of athletes born in kS in the `unpublished' stuff is even below that of `ordinary people. ERTEL's comment: Dr. Nienhuys doesn't say "Ertel is right with pointing at J&J's erroneous premise. He says:"J&J's conclusion is correct anyway". #----------- (4/5) Another surprise ------------------------ # # The model (shape of the #relationship) is a precise claim totally different from #Nienhuys' derogatory simile with clouds and camels (my paper #will be published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration). NIENHUYS: Professor Ertel might consult Act 3, Scene 2 of Hamlet and find that camel detectors are in good company (but not those who believe them). This discussion must be continued in the Journal for Scientific Exploration. Nonetheless, in a nutshell, Ertel's new hypothesis is that the eminence effect follows a kind of sine curve on [0,pi], which enables him to fit almost any experimental data into his new model. ERTEL's comment: This is not correct. The way Dr. Nienhuys "informs" readers is not only vague, it is deficient. The curvilinear eminence hypothesis (not "sine wave")is precise and unifies seemingly diverging results. (see forthcoming paper in The Journal of Scientific Exploration). # Nienhuys did not refer to that information even #though I had indicated in my Amsterdam rebuttal that it would #soon be available: "... final agreement should be expected, at #the latest from pending discussions with the French group #(CFEPP)". In a footnote I provided details about that important #study. NIENHUYS: I have not seen the CFEPP article, and I don't like to announce any opinions on it, before I've studied the paper of Benski (which isn't published yet), and before I've read what Benski himself has to say about it. #--------- (5/5) Questions ---------------------------------------- # #Postponing final conclusions I would like to consider, dear Dr. #Nienhuys, your answers to six questions: # #(1) Did you send a copy of my rebuttal to J&J before publication? I think so, but not before you had corrected the proofs, I think. ERTEL's comment: The question of whether my paper was sent before I had corrected the proofs or later is irrelevant. #(2) If yes, did you accept the revised version of J&J's paper # *after* having provided them a copy of my paper? No. I received J&J's revisions (and prepared the paper for final typesetting) two weeks before I received yours. ERTEL's comment: This fogs the issue. Dr. Nienhuys here refers to REVISION #1, the red-herring revision. My question (2) is directed solely at revision #2 which was done in May. In his reply to question (2) Dr. N. should have explained what actually "escaped him" in May (see above:" By the beginning of May it escaped me that Ertel might not have CORRECTIONS #2---> seen these corrections. De Jager had talked to Koppeschaar and others, and wanted to be a little more clear about what he thought were weak points in Gauquelin's work. There is no question of De Jager changing his paper after reading what Ertel sent to me....". (THAT IS, J&J CHANGED THEIR PAPER - NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT - AND DR. NIENHUYS ACCEPTED THEIR CHANGES) #(3) Were you aware of their having changed their paper? Yes. I inserted carefully all the changes they indicated on their proofs into the definitive version, which was ready, warts and all, on February 9 (or earlier). ERTEL's comment: When I first read this sentence I thought that Dr. Nienhuys held that he had inserted J&J's changes before February 9. It is hard to understand this differently. But Dr. Nienhuys does not actually say that he made the insertions before February 9, he says that the "definite" version was ready, "warts and all", on February 9. He doesn't say anything about the date of his insertions which occurred apparently in May. #(4) If yes, did you consider informing me about these changes # and if yes, why did you decide not to inform me about these # changes? As your paper arrived two weeks after their revision and as your paper ERTEL's comment: Dr. N is talking about the red-herring revision. apparently was based on direct communication between you and De Jager, it did not occur to me that there was any need to inform you; also because I was at that stage merely handling the typesetting part, and apart from details of spelling and formulation not familiar with the ERTEL's comment: There is no need to talk about revision #1. My question doesn't address this one. contents. That came only after Koppeschaar's paper. That's my explanation for not noticing the contradiction; if I had noticed the misleading term `unpublished' I would not have permitted them to change their paper. ERTEL's comment: Here Dr. Nienhuys refers to the belated changes brought in with REVISION #2. They were done in May at the time when Koppeschaar finished his paper. Dr. Nienhuys implies by what he says that he did not realize that J&J had made changes which contradicted my rejoinder. THIS, I think, is believable. But he should have asked ME to make sure. #(5) Why did you decide not to send me your own contribution # ("Summary") despite my having requested for it? You received the summary as soon as it came from the printer. ERTEL's comment: A driver defending himself after being accused to have caused an accident: "We stopped as soon as you were run over". With most of it you were familiar, because apart from last minute touch ups it is what I told in Munchen. ERTEL's comment: Dr. Nienhuys did not tell me in Munich what he would publish in the Proceedings. #(6) If you hold that replication trials of the Mars effect with # independent data are important why didn't you add while # referring to my Munich report in your "summary" my information # about Mars effect-supporting results with CFEPP? Professor Ertel, I heard your talk from yourself; that's something different from hearing a report on research of Benski from you. I have received some information (but not a complete paper) from Benski directly, but he made me promise not to say anything about it until it was published. Should I then go ahead, and print what I've ERTEL's comment: That strategy (to say nothing until it is published) seems to be practiced in Paris no less than in Eindhoven. heard other people say about it? This whole business of getting prior information on the contents of papers and running discussions about their contents (between people who hold more or less antagonistic points of view) even before the stuff is submitted, is somewhat distasteful to me. If a reader reads piece A by author X, and then ERTEL's comment: Distasteful? Would Dr. N include here my long correspondence with Koppeschaar (five postings of mine, 13 pages)? K's paper improved with every new critique and he expressed satisfaction, at least in his letter of Apr. 28 ("I am very happy with your comments and I will indeed change the respective sections in my paper wherever the comments are appropriate"). Inadvertantly, perhaps, he did not refer to my commenting on previous versions in his acknowledgments. There he mentions the help of Dr. Nienhuys who, after the work is done, will find his correspondence with me "distateful"). comment B by author Y, s/he cannot get a clear view on the discussion if actually X and Y have been exchanging many versions and comments already. In other words, readers (such as myself) want a real discussion, not some rehearsed play on a theatre stage. ERTEL's comment: The common practice of exchanging views about papers, critique by colleagues and referees, does this give rise to a "play on a theatre stage"? #I am looking forward to your replies. I am also looking forward to some spare time in which I can answer your proposals of tests of the CFEPP data. (Some of my time goes into other things, like teaching or providing information about Transcendental Meditation, Earth Ray witching, Homeopathy and Getting Things from Printers, reading UFO-manuscripts, and editing Congress contributions). Also not the time this has been sent. ERTEL's comment: More sincerity would have saved us time. The most deplorable result of this communication is indeed: LOSS OF TIME. Is anyone out there who would say: It payed, though? S. Ertel