Dr. Stephen Braude – your memories aren’t in your brain|318|

Normative - Of or relating to, or prescribing a norm or a standard
(nothing to do with data sets)
http://alzres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/alzrt94

A web-based normative calculator for the uniform data set (UDS) neuropsychological test battery

Steven D Shirk, Meghan B Mitchell, Lynn W Shaughnessy, Janet C Sherman, Joseph J Locascio, Sandra Weintraub and Alireza AtriEmail author

Abstract
With the recent publication of new criteria for the diagnosis of preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD), there is a need for neuropsychological tools that take premorbid functioning into account in order to detect subtle cognitive decline. Using demographic adjustments is one method for increasing the sensitivity of commonly used measures. We sought to provide a useful online z-score calculator that yields estimates of percentile ranges and adjusts individual performance based on sex, age and/or education for each of the neuropsychological tests of the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set (NACC, UDS). In addition, we aimed to provide an easily accessible method of creating norms for other clinical researchers for their own, unique data sets.
Normative data

—A set of data collected to establish values representative of a group such as the mean, range, and standard deviation of their scores. It is also used to get a sense of how a skill, or characteristic is distributed in a group.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

Yes, don't talk about poltergeists, get first hand evidence.
He's talking based on investigations of evidence that [have] been done.

And he does have first hand evidence from his own life. IIRC he even mentioned it in that video?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the show threads being open are fine, so long as they stick to the actual topic. (What's a bit annoying about this time around is people don't address the argument Braude is making about memories which just makes this thread into one long debate about basically everything that gets argued in CD.)

The bigger problem right now, IMO, is you have a spammer messaging everyone, posting the same link in multiple sections (including Spirituality), and an unclear line between C&S and CD.

My thinking was C&S is about where science goes after one accepts immaterialism on some level, CD is whether immaterialist ideas are valid?

p.s. This isn't an attack against the mods, just curious about what's going on.
I wonder if it would help to start a new thread (possibly sticky) to discuss moderation concerns. Comments burried in other threads probably don't achieve much.

David
 
So every scientific experience-experiment needs to be filmed, otherwise it should be rejected?
That's not what I imply or state. You've posted a story which cannot be verified in any practical way. As a skeptic what can I do with it? I do with it as I do with any other story or new physical theory to explain some speculative idea, I shrug my shoulders and wait to see what develops.

Yes, every scientific experiment is documented, if not, then it is not science.
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

That's not what I imply or state. You've posted a story which cannot be verified in any practical way. As a skeptic what can I do with it? I do with it as I do with any other story or new physical theory to explain some speculative idea, I shrug my shoulders and wait to see what develops.

Yes, every scientific experiment is documented, if not, then it is not science.
So anthropology and to some degree sociology aren't really academic disciplines?

To say nothing of history...

Curious...what are the qualifications one needs to be called a skeptic? Because it seems many skeptics have no college level experience with STEM, no professional experience with research, cursory-at-best knowledge of logic, and the list of deficiencies goes on...I mean perhaps you've taken the time to self-teach, but it's rather unclear what it actual means to be a "skeptic"?
 
So anthropology and to some degree sociology aren't really academic disciplines?

To say nothing of history...

Curious...what are the qualifications one needs to be called a skeptic? Because it seems many skeptics have no college level experience with STEM, no professional experience with research, cursory-at-best knowledge of logic, and the list of deficiencies goes on...I mean perhaps you've taken the time to self-teach, but it's rather unclear what it actual means to be a "skeptic"?
Each discipline has it's own standard for documenting. In Braude's case he was describing physical phenomena such as rocks materializing out of thin air, that requires a stricter level of documentation over and beyond a recitation.
what are the qualifications one needs to be called a skeptic
Only one, to think critically.
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking — about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
There's one you have forgotten. Immersing ones self into the paranormal.

STEM is useful, but one can still be a skeptic without them as a foundation.

Skeptics have their faults, but so do folks that are not skeptics.
 
Curious...what are the qualifications one needs to be called a skeptic? Because it seems many skeptics have no college level experience with STEM, no professional experience with research, cursory-at-best knowledge of logic, and the list of deficiencies goes on...I mean perhaps you've taken the time to self-teach, but it's rather unclear what it actual means to be a "skeptic"?
You seem to be confusing "skeptic" with "PHd level scientist". One needs no qualifications to apply skepticism in evaluating claims. Though of course those with certain knowledge can take the analysis of certain propositions to deeper levels than those without.

For myself, skepticsm is the withholding of belief in a proposition absent sufficient reliable evidence. What can be considered suffiicient or reliable can be up for debate, of course - two people can disagree on those issues and still be considered skeptics (at least as far as I'm concerned). And of course applying skepticism in some claims does not entail that the person applies skepticism in all claims. Note that there are pragmatic limitations to the depth of skepticism that one can apply - few have the time to fully research each and every claim. To some extent everyone has to rely on the work of others.

What do you consider being skeptical to be?
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

Interesting responses...

Seems like "skeptic" is just a label anyone can take on so long as they maintain a religious faith their views are the rational ones?

Makes me wonder about pass-rate if tests in science & introductory logic were administered as pop-quizzes among those with memberships at the varied skeptical organizations...
 
Interesting responses...

Seems like "skeptic" is just a label anyone can take on so long as they maintain a religious faith their views are the rational ones?

Makes me wonder about pass-rate if tests in science & introductory logic were administered as pop-quizzes among those with memberships at the varied skeptical organizations...
Scofftic was the term coined by another poster - I rather like it. Of course it's always easier to criticise research rather than actually do some.
 
Interesting responses...

Seems like "skeptic" is just a label anyone can take on so long as they maintain a religious faith their views are the rational ones?

Makes me wonder about pass-rate if tests in science & introductory logic were administered as pop-quizzes among those with memberships at the varied skeptical organizations...
Guess you probably got some giggles from your intended audience. I walked into that one. I'll leave your posts alone. Thanks for some good discussions though.
 
Top