SIMON PARKES IS SCAMMING PEOPLE WITH A FAKE PRODUCT!
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (15)
sorted by:
Umm, you new to the GAW community? That dude is a farce and a clown. Most here know it.
Total BS conman, like his pal Charlie Ward.
No, Not Simon !
He is a good conman because he comes accross as so trustworthy. He had me fooled for a couple months I have to admit.
He had me until the 20th. My wife hated him immediately because he appears to be a slob.
oh my dear Simon! biggest source of low-quality hopium.
It may be a scam, but the person in the video has crap arguments. He argues that because the scientific study only had five people, it's a scam. He says that a scientific study needs 100 people minimum. He is literally just making things up as his arguments against this.
How many people do I have to punch in the face to prove that being punched in the face hurts?
I'm not going to watch this video. I have no idea what its about so forgive me if this is out of context, but this right here is not a sound argument.
The primary purpose of a scientific experiment is to get enough data that a meaningful statistical analysis can be produced. With only five people (if the people themselves are the study (i.e. one person = one data point)) such an analysis is impossible.
The least number of people for a reasonable analysis is 30. 100 is better. The more people, the better the statistics, the better the evidence, the better the science (assuming the parameters of the study are well defined and controls are properly set up).
So my theory is that shuffling your feet in socks against the carpet and then touching a doorknob will produce a static shock. I want to test my theory. Why would I need 30 or 100 people to do that?
This isn't medicine. Not all studies need large amounts of people with different immune systems. After five people do it we can probably say it's good evidence that we are conductive.
This is a function of statistics, which is the basis of all scientific research. Let me give you a simple example.
Lets say I hypothesize that if I drop a ball it will fall straight down and hit the ground. I have two possible outcomes:
Assuming there is nothing in the way, and there are no tricks to this test, I will calculate the probability that the next drop will hit the ground given previous data.
Lets say I drop it 5 times. The probability that the next drop will hit the ground based on the data set is simply n/N; where n is the number of times it has hit the ground, and N is the number of total tests. In this case it has hit the ground 5 times and there are 6 tests (the five previous and the one I am about to do).
This gives a calculated probability of 83.3% that the sixth test will hit the ground.
Now lets say I do it 30 times, and I want to test the 31st. Again, the same two outcomes are possible within my test:
n/N = 30/31 = 96.7%
Now 100 times, testing 101st:
n/N = 100/101 = 99.0%
As you see, the first test did not give me much confidence that the ball will always fall down and hit the ground, but the 101st gave me a great deal of confidence that all future tests will produce the same result.
This is a trivial example, and the statistics for most tests are more complicated, but it shows the kind of effort that must go into science to get results that produce models that are likely to represent reality. Without sufficient data, no reasonable conclusion can be derived.
Are they nazi’s? Or from a HS in Covington?
I don't believe that Simon Parkes is scamming people when he's not having sex with his intergalactic catgirl wife. It would be devastating to find out he's making stuff up. What would his alien cat children think?
I invented hollow soap. Never again have to mess with that little piece of crap that's too small to use and just gets stuck everywhere!.
Thinking this guy could be legit is one of the most embarrassing conclusions I’ve come to in my life. Made me question myself after seeing his illustrations drawn in crayon of his alien sex partner. I could have used an egg in that trying moment.