From: SERTEL@ibm.gwdg.de
Subject: Mars effect (alias Masr effect)
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 00:38:00 MEZ

 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

From: Alan.Moorman@f31.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Alan Moorman)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com