Robertson and Roy-Preliminary Description

[SteveGrenard]

A preliminary description of the Scottish Mediumship studies conducted by Professor Archie Roy and Patricia Robertson appear in an article cited here (by Robertson):

www.survivalafterdeath.org/news.htm#scottish

[Yahweh]

www.survivalafterdeath.org/news.htm#scottish

For the site having relatively little information to offer (as opposed to quite abundant filler information), I would say that I was impressed by the site design, the presentation of the articles, color scheme... unfortunately, references like this are what really force you to shut off your critical thinking muscle:

Information about consciousness - perhaps separate from the soul, perhaps the same entity - might come, Burgess hopes, from studies of qi (sometimes spelled chi), the Chinese theory that a life force flows through our bodies, bringing good health when the energy flows freely and disease when the energy becomes blocked.

Burgess and a colleague are currently doing experiments to see if "external qi" - directed deliberately by a person toward someone or something else - can cause chicken nerve cells to grow differently in a petri dish. "The work is in progress, but it's promising," Burgess reports.

While they are doing legitimate scientifici research (and I'll admit, there has probably been many more crazy crazy experiments done in the name of physics and chemistry as well), I dont think anything that sounds like "mind and matter exist seperately from one another" are to come about anytime soon (or ever)...

[Pyrrho]

This thread has been moved from Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology.

[Ed]

I assume that this is the big experiment that has been referred to time and again.

This sets the stage (from the above referenced article):

We maintain that we have a repeatable experiment, providing the protocol is adhered to and GOOD mediums are used.

So, one can only assume that if "bad" mediums are used the experiment is not repeatable? Or, perhaps, that if the results stink. that it does not demonstrate the ancient Chinese theory of "Woo". Seems like their operationaal definition of a "good" medium is one that produces the results that they want. We shall see.

Note: Our results incorporate all of the mediums who were used; if we had only given the results from the "superstars" the odds against chance would have been even greater.

No *****, sherlock. When I read an irresponsible statement like that, my woo-ometer goes off scale. If such a statement were associated with a reputable scientist ... well you know.

Why do I sense a believer, Targian set of lies coming up? Come on Steve, this kind of writing does not get you nervous? This is exactly like saying that if you use "superstar" data points from your jumping experiments you have demonstrated levatation[/b]

[SteveGrenard]

I find it hard to believe you are not familiar in sports, with the concept of All-Star teams nor are you familiar with the multi-million dollar efforts of various teams to purchase the contracts of players they feel will improve their performance.

Nor are you familar with the concept of good lawyer-bad lawyer, good- surgeon vrs so-so surgeon, lousey restaurant vrs superb restaurant and anything and everything else involving various levels of performance ranging from piss poor to excellent. Why are you spinning a tale that it would be any different in this matter? Oh, I know. You have nothing better to say.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Ed
This is exactly like saying that if you use "superstar" data points from your jumping experiments you have demonstrated levatation[/b] [/B]
It's also like having 100 people toss a coin 100 times to try to produce heads. Then you discard all the people who got fewer than 50 heads and analyze the remaining data.
Have these people never heard of the File Drawer Effect?

[SteveGrenard]

There is nothing wrong with putting fake mediums into a file drawer. In fact lock em in there and throw away the key.

These are not coin tossing exercises.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There is nothing wrong with putting fake mediums into a file drawer. In fact lock em in there and throw away the key.

Whoa, Steve, back up a bit. How do you know they are fake?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
These are not coin tossing exercises.

No, we have seen that experiments have shown that nobody can influence a coin toss. So, why not simply complicate the experimental design and see if we get any static there, so we can pass it off as evidence of a paranormal phenomenon?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Only true psions need apply.

~~ Paul

[Paladin]

From the site:
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/news.htm#scottish

We maintain that we have a repeatable experiment, providing the protocol is adhered to and GOOD mediums are used.

Note: Our results incorporate all of the mediums who were used; if we had only given the results from the "superstars" the odds against chance would have been even greater. No amendments were made to any data sheets after the experimental sessions ended, even if someone "remembered" something as being correct after they had given a NO response - it remained as a NO.
If I cared much about such "experiments" I would definitely want to know how the experimenters discern between "good" mediums and mediums who do not qualify as "good". Surely, if the experiment is to be repeatable, a baseline performance standard for mediums must be established.

This strikes me as being a testable set of criteria which would be an excellent candidate for the JREF Challenge.

[Mike D.]

Skeptic Mark Tidwell analyzes the Robertson/Roy protocol here:

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/robertsonroy2.htm

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There is nothing wrong with putting fake mediums into a file drawer. In fact lock em in there and throw away the key.

These are not coin tossing exercises.

Keep running the experiments and keep burying the bad results until you find and publish results that suit you? :dl:

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Keep running the experiments and keep burying the bad results until you find and publish results that suit you?


Are you talking to me? First of all I am not running this experiment. You are getting almost as bad as Larsen. LOL. It has been going on for years in Glasgow and Edinburgh by Professor Archie Roy (http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/people/archie) and Patricia Robertson. I have zilch to do with it.

But you got it right. If researchers were testing new products that looked promising for cancer or lipid control or AIDS you can be sure they would bury the poor performers until they got one (or more) that clicked for them. You seem to know a lot about science so you should know that unsuccessful results are rarely published. What's the point? We're all looking for a positive result. Robertson and Roy have claimed they have found it in the mediums they ended up testing. I am sure they discarded many just like big pharm discards new MANY drug candidates.

The only field and its publications that delights in boring people to death by publishing failed experiments seems to be organized pseudoskepticism in the form of such publications as The Skeptical Inquirer and The Skeptic and others. They delight in accentuating negative results, wasting reader's time and money. What's the point. Oh, I know, somebody has got to do it. But they rarely tackle or cover the positive ones. They conveniently ignore them or spin/weasel their way around them.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Are you talking to me? First of all I am not running this experiment. You are getting almost as bad as Larsen. LOL.

Now, that's a badge of honor, Bill! :D

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
It has been going on for years in Glasgow and Edinburgh by Professor Archie Roy (http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/people/archie) and Patricia Robertson. I have zilch to do with it.

Saved for posterity.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
But you got it right. If researchers were testing new products that looked promising for cancer or lipid control or AIDS you can be sure they would bury the poor performers until they got one (or more) that clicked for them. You seem to know a lot about science so you should know that unsuccessful results are rarely published. What's the point? We're all looking for a positive result. Robertson and Roy have claimed they have found it in the mediums they ended up testing. I am sure they discarded many just like big pharm discards new MANY drug candidates.

Aren't you missing the point here? How do R&R know that the mediums are "good" if they haven't tested them already? On what do they base their assessment that these mediums are "good"?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The only field and its publications that delights in boring people to death by publishing failed experiments seems to be organized pseudoskepticism in the form of such publications as The Skeptical Inquirer and The Skeptic and others. They delight in accentuating negative results, wasting reader's time and money. What's the point. Oh, I know, somebody has got to do it.

It's a waste of time and money to point out that paranormal phenomena don't exist? Gee, Steve, that's such an open-minded approach....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
But they rarely tackle or cover the positive ones. They conveniently ignore them or spin/weasel their way around them.

Where are those "positive" results, Steve?

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I find it hard to believe you are not familiar in sports, with the concept of All-Star teams nor are you familiar with the multi-million dollar efforts of various teams to purchase the contracts of players they feel will improve their performance.

Nor are you familar with the concept of good lawyer-bad lawyer, good- surgeon vrs so-so surgeon, lousey restaurant vrs superb restaurant and anything and everything else involving various levels of performance ranging from piss poor to excellent. Why are you spinning a tale that it would be any different in this matter? Oh, I know. You have nothing better to say.


Steve, you are missing the point.

What was printed was:

Our results incorporate all of the mediums who were used

Presumably "used" refers to use within their protocol. To throw out data, or twist the objective in mid-stream (a la Targ of infamous memory) is simply a no-no. If they wanted an "all-star" team, that is very cool; provided they designed the study that way to begin with. If they muck with data or subjects, except for good reasons, the whole thing looks fishy. I was pointing out that even a statement to the effect that they are not doing that has the impact of Nixon insisting "I am not a crook".

Two other minor points that seem characteristic of this branch of science are the slips that betray bias. I refer specifically (in the same referenced document) to the statement This allows responses to be analysed where no psychic factor from a medium is at work.. Perhaps I am nit pickey but the proper phrase would have been "purported" or maybe "putative" or "hypothesised". You see, their minds are made up already, they are preventing a factor that they believe in from haveing any effect. This is just sloppy, and a bit troublesome. After all, if they cannot control their bias in writing, how do we have confidence that they are controlling it elsewhere? Put another way, regardless of design elegance, how comfortable would you be with a study done in the laboratories of Phillip Morris that demonstrated that smoking was really, really good for you?

Finally, I wonder why an investigator would comment in a fan magazine. A piece of scientific research should stand or fall on it's own with out preparatory spin. Just bad form, plain and simple. Particularly since I cannot read anything as yet to evaluate her statements.

I understand, Steve, that your knowledge of scientific research is a bit shakey but, nonetheless, I am sure that you can see the reasons for my concern.

Incidentially, when does this actually come out and where will it be available?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ed



Steve, you are missing the point.



I would really like to get some opinion on this from Jeff and perhaps Rolfe and anyone else that actually publishes in the scientific literature.

[SteveGrenard]

ED: Presumably "used" refers to use within their protocol. To throw out data, or twist the objective in mid-stream (a la Targ of infamous memory) is simply a no-no. If they wanted an "all-star" team, that is very cool; provided they designed the study that way to begin with. If they muck with data or subjects, except for good reasons, the whole thing looks fishy. I was pointing out that even a statement to the effect that they are not doing that has the impact of Nixon insisting "I am not a crook".

RESPONSE: I have written to Mrs. Robertson and asked her how and if they vetted the mediums who ended up in the final study. Again, looking at the analogy of finding candidates for therapeutic drugs.....nobody publishes the results of 1000s of molecules which have no predictable value against the target. They settle on a few, proceed to the next level and then the next. We only hear about the sucessful ones.
I surmise the same is true of mediumistic abilities. There are undoubtedly many more people who claim these abilities than actually have them if in fact they exist. Ed can say he's a medium, walk in off the street, present himself to the researcher and say test me. Ed fails miserably. What does this do to the stats? You are not being realistic in your treatment of this. Yes, it would be interesting to find out how this was determined. When you taste the acceptance of a new toothpaste, do you do so by testing it against dirt off the floor or do you do so by comparing it with other similarly and pleasantly flavored contenders?



ED: Two other minor points that seem characteristic of this branch of science are the slips that betray bias. I refer specifically (in the same referenced document) to the statement This allows responses to be analysed where no psychic factor from a medium is at work.. Perhaps I am nit pickey but the proper phrase would have been "purported" or maybe "putative" or "hypothesised".

RESPONSE: We have not seen the language in their final published paper. This was a very brief, preliminary blurb.
It will be out next month and hopefully copies will be reaching us here in the colonies before February 1st.

ED: You see, their minds are made up already, they are preventing a factor that they believe in from haveing any effect. This is just sloppy, and a bit troublesome.

RESPONSE: This depends on your outlook and from where on the worldview scale you are standing. Again, the drug company analogy. A researcher has made up his mind to find a molecule that dissolves cancer. He looks at hundreds, maybe thousands of canddiates and settles on a group that inhibits angiogenesis. Some are too dangerous, even potentially fatal and others do this more safely or more effectively. We are not going to hear about all the discarded molecules.

ED: After all, if they cannot control their bias in writing, how do we have confidence that they are controlling it elsewhere?

RESPONSE: We know what their bias is. If they vetted hundreds of mediums and ended up with 25 or 40 or whatever and they still failed to achieve their objective, biased or otherwise, then they have done a good job.


ED: Put another way, regardless of design elegance, how comfortable would you be with a study done in the laboratories of Phillip Morris that demonstrated that smoking was really, really good for you?

RESPONSE: I would be interested in seeing what they have come up with and weighing it against all the negative or adverse studies of smoking and second hand smoking (which as you know is a raging debate right here in NYC right now). Do I expect PM to come up with anything other than legislated or legal requirements to promote the adverse consequences of smoking? No.



ED: Finally, I wonder why an investigator would comment in a fan magazine. A piece of scientific research should stand or fall on it's own with out preparatory spin. Just bad form, plain and simple. Particularly since I cannot read anything as yet to evaluate her statements.

RESPONSE: Probably because she was asked to and decided to say okay. You and I both know that pre-release of major scientific findings often find their way into he non-scientific media ahead of their official publication in a peer reviewed/refereed journal.

ED: I understand, Steve, that your knowledge of scientific research is a bit shakey but, nonetheless, I am sure that you can see the reasons for my concern.


RESPONSE: You are evidencing your own bias by pre critiquing the study without having seen it. I have not done that. I provided a link to a "news" item about it. I realize your own shakiness comes from the super secret world of marketing studies and all the paranoia that surrounds that kind of work so I understand your misapplying that ethic to this subject. Yes, I have very little experience doing basic research and publishing in scientific journals.

ED: Incidentially, when does this actually come out and where will it be available?

RESPONSE: The first two studies referenced in this news item are already published. They were in the JSPR and are available for a couple of dollars each from the SPR-UK. The third study referenced in this news item is being published in the January, 2004 issue of the JSPR. I have asked Mrs. Robertson for an electronic version after the publication date and with the author's permission I will circulate it to whomsoever requests it. This probably will not be until sometime in February.
You can also buy this from the SPR as well. I do not know at this point if there are any official plans to launch the full text legally on a website somewhere
but if that happens I will provide the URL. If you were a member of the SPR you can see their entire archives on the C-FAR website as a pdf and I suspect this will be the only legal location of it on the web. For information on this:

http://www.c-far.org/

For information on the SPR go to:

http://www.spr.ac.uk


Edited to add: I just checked. The C-FAR project is ongoing and they only seem to have up to 2002 on there now.....

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Ed
I would really like to get some opinion on this from Jeff and perhaps Rolfe and anyone else that actually publishes in the scientific literature.
If you are referring to the file drawer effect, yes. Throwing away the data from subjects who don't perform in the manner that you wish them to is probably more common than one might expect.

I've been trying to track down a reference to Sir Peter Medwar's alleged coining of that term after visiting Rhine's lab and being shown the file cabinet with all the negative results.

But the point remains that anyone who does such a study and then says that the results would be impressive if they had only included the superstars is a moron who would be laughed off the stage of any real science convention.

[SteveGrenard]

If the objective of this study were to test anybody for mediumistic abilities, then consigning the failures to the file drawer would be a breech. If the intent of the study was to test people who not only profess such an ability but have in some way been pre-tested and have been proven to have it, then that is another.

Rhine and Targ both tested large groups of people, some of whom failed miserably and others who performed beyond chance. I don't understand their desire to continue testing failures but Rhine had least had some other theories he was working on such as seeing if there was a decline in the ability over time. Otherwise he was just beating the proverbial dead horse.

Depending on the objective of the study, one could remove the poor performers and just tally the superb performers.

However, I do not believe this was the intent of this study. Go back and read the objectives.

Does anyone who professes this ability actually have it? No.

Should anyone who professes this ability be tested? No.

Should people who profess this ability and have in some way demonstrated it be candidates for testing ? Yes.

I think this is called common sense.

In the final shut down, however, these researchers used a particular protocol with a particular group of mediums and
the question is did they achieve their objective?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
RESPONSE:

Oh, my.... From "Reply" to "RESPONSE". What ever will be next? "STEVEN GRENARD PROCLAIMS"?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I have written to Mrs. Robertson and asked her how and if they vetted the mediums who ended up in the final study. Again, looking at the analogy of finding candidates for therapeutic drugs.....nobody publishes the results of 1000s of molecules which have no predictable value against the target. They settle on a few, proceed to the next level and then the next. We only hear about the sucessful ones.

Well, that would explain the thundering silence....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
RESPONSE: Probably because she was asked to and decided to say okay. You and I both know that pre-release of major scientific findings often find their way into he non-scientific media ahead of their official publication in a peer reviewed/refereed journal.

IIRC, haven't you dissed peer reviewed scientific publications before for this kind of research? Hmmm....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yes, I have very little experience doing basic research and publishing in scientific journals.

You can say that again.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
RESPONSE: The first two studies referenced in this news item are already published. They were in the JSPR and are available for a couple of dollars each from the SPR-UK.

Any evidence of any paranormal phenomenon? Any at all?

(Thundering silence)

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If the objective of this study were to test anybody for mediumistic abilities, then consigning the failures to the file drawer would be a breech. If the intent of the study was to test people who not only profess such an ability but have in some way been pre-tested and have been proven to have it, then that is another.

Indeed. However, if the upcoming paper does not explain in details if and how these mediums were pre-tested (and what the results were), the paper would be worthless.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Rhine and Targ both tested large groups of people, some of whom failed miserably and others who performed beyond chance. I don't understand their desire to continue testing failures but Rhine had least had some other theories he was working on such as seeing if there was a decline in the ability over time. Otherwise he was just beating the proverbial dead horse.

Conversely, we have yet to see a medium that increases his/her ability over time.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Depending on the objective of the study, one could remove the poor performers and just tally the superb performers.

Well, one could do that, of course. However, where are these "superb performers"?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
However, I do not believe this was the intent of this study. Go back and read the objectives.

Why don't you go back and read the objectives, instead of asking other people to do it for you?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Does anyone who professes this ability actually have it? No.

Should anyone who professes this ability be tested? No.

Should people who profess this ability and have in some way demonstrated it be candidates for testing ? Yes.

I think this is called common sense.

In the final shut down, however, these researchers used a particular protocol with a particular group of mediums and
the question is did they achieve their objective?

So, a test was made. Nothing was found.

[Ed]

Is there anything yet as to how the subjects were drawn from the population?

[Jeff Corey]

Rhine tested thousands of people with Zener cards. At first, the low quality of the printing caused cues to bleed through to the back of the card (sensory leakage). Then, people who scored high initially (approximately 5 % showed significance at the .05 level), showed lower scores later (the decline effect). Anyone who knows anyhing about experimental design is familiar with statistical regression to the mean. Then, the file drawer.
Not to mention experimenter bias, confirmation bias and blatant public mopery.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Rhine tested thousands of people with Zener cards. At first, the low quality of the printing caused cues to bleed through to the back of the card (sensory leakage). Then, people who scored high initially (approximately 5 % showed significance at the .05 level), showed lower scores later (the decline effect). Anyone who knows anyhing about experimental design is familiar with statistical regression to the mean. Then, the file drawer.
Not to mention experimenter bias, confirmation bias and blatant public mopery.

Yeah. To be brutally honest, I have little trust for people who do research in this area, they seem to have an ax to grind. Couple this with the fraud and poor research that we have seen already, and I really don't trust much that these guys do, on the face of it. Hence my question regarding subject selection. I am very interested in knowing how they were selected and what inventory of background questions were utilized. A simple random probability sample will not cut it without such information being collected.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
At first, the low quality of the printing caused cues to bleed through to the back of the card (sensory leakage).


Perhaps I am being a wee bit cynical but to me "sensory leakage" is a polite term for fraud. It is nice and neutral with no implications. Do you know how this leakage was discovered?

[Jeff Corey]

I first read about it in Skinner (1949) "Card guessng Experiments" American Scientist, reprinted in his Cumulative Record.

[SteveGrenard]

ED:
Yeah. To be brutally honest, I have little trust for people who do research in this area, they seem to have an ax to grind. Couple this with the fraud and poor research that we have seen already, and I really don't trust much that these guys do, on the face of it. Hence my question regarding subject selection. I am very interested in knowing how they were selected and what inventory of background questions were utilized. A simple random probability sample will not cut it without such information being collected.



Response: The protocol employed should brutally fall or stand on its own regardless of the name of the pill or, in this case, the medium employed to test it. The fact is Ed seems to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that there are bad pills and good pills, lousy mediums and good mediums. No, he knows it. Regardless of how Robertson & Roy selected the mediums, if they provide the goods under tightly controlled conditions (no possibility of cold, hot or warm reading) then the validity being sought is obtained. I am sure those closed minded and biased persons (such as evidenced in the above statement) would love nothing more than to to have parapsychologists spinning their wheels testing people with no abilities whatsoever. This is like going to Phase 3 testing with substances which never made it past phase I.

Ed, why would you be concerned about how the medium(s) was/were selected? What difference could this have on the results? Please explain.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
ED:
Yeah. To be brutally honest, I have little trust for people who do research in this area, they seem to have an ax to grind. Couple this with the fraud and poor research that we have seen already, and I really don't trust much that these guys do, on the face of it. Hence my question regarding subject selection. I am very interested in knowing how they were selected and what inventory of background questions were utilized. A simple random probability sample will not cut it without such information being collected.



Response: The protocol employed should brutally fall or stand on its own regardless of the name of the pill or, in this case, the medium employed to test it. The fact is Ed seems to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that there are bad pills and good pills, lousy mediums and good mediums. No, he knows it. Regardless of how Robertson & Roy selected the mediums, if they provide the goods under tightly controlled conditions (no possibility of cold, hot or warm reading) then the validity being sought is obtained. I am sure those closed minded and biased persons (such as evidenced in the above statement) would love nothing more than to to have parapsychologists spinning their wheels testing people with no abilities whatsoever. This is like going to Phase 3 testing with substances which never made it past phase I.

Ed, why would you be concerned about how the medium(s) was/were selected? What difference could this have on the results? Please explain.

Nonononononononnonononononnonononono

The people who are responding, not the media.

There is a distinct difference between being closed minded and careful. I feel that the caution that you would expect of researchers in real science cannot be taken for granted here.

They get good results, I will provisionally accept them. Then again, I would have provisionally accepted the Targ experiment when in fact it was one step from a fabrication.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If researchers were testing new products that looked promising for cancer or lipid control or AIDS you can be sure they would bury the poor performers until they got one (or more) that clicked for them. You seem to know a lot about science so you should know that unsuccessful results are rarely published. What's the point? We're all looking for a positive result. Robertson and Roy have claimed they have found it in the mediums they ended up testing. I am sure they discarded many just like big pharm discards new MANY drug candidates.
Steve, it's high time you read Richard Feynman's excellent seminar on "Cargo Cult Science", available here (http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html), because that's exactly what you and your cronies are practicing. Specifically:

"But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves--of having utter scientific integrity--is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results."

Now, I think it was Feynman -- perhaps I'm misremembering -- who told the story of when he sat in on a psychology class during a lecture on ESP. He got all the students in the room to stand up and mentally think "heads" or "tails", then he flipped a coin and whatever side came up he got those students to remain standing while the others sat down. After doing this five times he only had a couple of students left standing who he used for the actual ESP experiment he was demonstrating, because those two students were the "most tuned in" to ESP. Now, anyone who's passed a high school statistics course can tell you what's wrong with that procedure, but the experiments you've linked to are guilty of essentially the same simple error.

When Feynman said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool", I'm pretty sure he was talking about you specifically.


[edited to change "cornies" to "cronies", and it's probably STILL an incorrect spelling]

[Clancie]

Posted by Ed

quote: "Our results incorporate all of the mediums who were used"

If they wanted an "all-star" team, that is very cool; provided they designed the study that way to begin with. If they muck with data or subjects, except for good reasons, the whole thing looks fishy.
Yes, well, that's an interesting point when dealing with mediumship testing. From what I can tell, it looks like they tried to select mediums they felt had ability from the beginning--not have various "psychics" participate and then throw out the results of those that were "bad".

However, Ed, just hypothetically....when it comes to mediumship research would you really feel it was so bad if, say, researchers studied five mediums....found three who got nothing and two who were "amazing"...and kept the results separate for all five, concluding there "is something to it" only based on the two mediums whose results they had isolated?

Not averaging the results for everyone (a la Schwartz) wouldn't be "fishy" at all as long as it was clarified, right?

If someone tested ten mediums...and only one was "amazing"...that would still make the case for mediumship stronger, not weaker.....

[Ed]

Steve said:"We're all looking for a positive result."

And therein lies the essential, core, basic problem. YOU are looking for positive results, the "researchers" are looking for positive results. I am simply looking for honesty.

Looking for positve results is what seems to be going on in paranormal research. Do you think, for one split second that, after all of the data torture, the guys at Princeton were looking for truth or anything remotely resembling it? No, they were looking for positive results. You just summed up the problems with this field of human endevor in a nutshell, and tipped your hand in the process.

[Ed]

duplicate post deleted.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
duplicate post deleted.

It can't be said too often, though.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie

However, Ed, just hypothetically....when it comes to mediumship research would you really feel it was so bad if, say, researchers studied five mediums....found three who got nothing and two who were "amazing"...and kept the results separate for all five, concluding there "is something to it" only based on the two mediums whose results they had isolated?

Not averaging the results for everyone (a la Schwartz) wouldn't be "fishy" at all as long as it was clarified, right?

If someone tested ten mediums...and only one was "amazing"...that would still make the case for mediumship stronger, not weaker.....


A single subject design is pretty powerful, if done properly. And yes, if that subject were the real deal it would be astounding. The danger here is that, unlike psychophysics for example, you are not dealing with well understood verities like dark adaptation. Such results would require the testing and re-testing of the same subject, and by different laboratories.

I cannot stress enough how bad research in this area (Schwartz for a good example) has sullied the work of everyone. Steve told us why, "we are all looking for positive results". I would love positive results, really, really. That makes me suspect from the gitgo. Therefore it is all in well designed and replicated experiments. The parapsychological community has not earned the trust of anyone. That is not a hallmark of science.

[Clancie]

Ed,

I think we're in basic agreement, based on your post above.

However, I do think your SG quote is a bit unfair to Steve's original intent. He -didn't- say, "We are all looking for positive results" as if to say that is the goal of parapsychologists--to confirm mediumship as being real.

Actually his quote was this:
Posted by Steve Grenard

You seem to know a lot about science so you should know that unsuccessful results are rarely published. What's the point? We're all looking for a positive result.
Of course, you can also learn something from experiments where the results do -not- support the hypothesis (which I think, btw, is why we never heard the results from Schwartz about his cold reading experiments). But I don't think Steve's saying what you're implying he is.

I think he's just saying that we're more interested in experiments that show compelling results, not ones that are highly flawed failures where nothing has been learned.....

[Ed]

One more point, if I may. I may come accross as beligerant on this topic, and if so I do not apologise. I look on "scientists" who conduct knowingly flawed research as no better than than anyone else that abuses a trust. Pedophile priests come to mind.

Generally when results come from a laboratory, you read them and think "ummmmm" as you consider the results. The notion of fakery generally does not come to mind. Sure, people make mistakes. The contract is that they admit it.

A long time ago I was doing an interesting experiment on the mediation of a "fear" response. It involved getting scads of timed pregnant rats and then, when they delivered, culling the pups into test/control, male/female in each litter (every litter was a multiple of 4).The pups had to be injected w/ gold thioglucose for various arcane reasons, for 7 days at the same time every day. They had to be marked w/ food dye and that too had to be counterbalenced. Then, in lockstep they had to be run on a task.

I go thru this in some detail because of what happened next.

(I suspect Corey will get it is about a second.) The task was two-way active avoidence and I was using a strain of hooded rat (harty critters, the hooded rat). Well, certain strains cannot learn that task. Period. They escape, they do not avoid. It's actually in the literature but I missed it.

If I wanted positive results, believe me, at that point I could have had them. But even at that point it was not an option. So I redid it.

Researchers are faced with this kind of problem all of the time. In the world of woo, they seem to sucumb all too regularly. What do you think of the work of Creation "scientists"? I wouldn't bother to read the crap that they publish because the answer, for them, was in before pen went to paper. So when Steve says something like "we all want positive results" I see creation scientists saying "Jesus is lord". Same damn thing, we know the answer and now just have to show it. Lies.

This is why, in my biased view, paranormal research is tainted and the practioners deserve our opprobrium, in general. But I will treat each case as it comes.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Ed



A single subject design is pretty powerful, if done properly. And yes, if that subject were the real deal it would be astounding. The danger here is that, unlike psychophysics for example, you are not dealing with well understood verities like dark adaptation. Such results would require the testing and re-testing of the same subject, and by different laboratories.


I concur completely.

Originally posted by Ed
I cannot stress enough how bad research in this area (Schwartz for a good example) has sullied the work of everyone. Steve told us why, "we are all looking for positive results". I would love positive results, really, really. That makes me suspect from the gitgo. Therefore it is all in well designed and replicated experiments. The parapsychological community has not earned the trust of anyone. That is not a hallmark of science.
Also a very good point. On the phone with a parapsychologist correpsondent the other day, who I consider to be a reliable and competent man, we discussed this problem. Much of it centers around scientists who may be well-versed in one specific field who then venture into the realm of parapsychology. But this is precisely not what they are trained to do, and while their "positive results" get a lot of attention due to their status, they are not in any way competent in trickery, the history of the field, etc,etc.... This has been a common trait for the subject from its inception. Hence William Crookes tested and endorsed known tricksters Anna Eva Fay and Florence Cook and Alfred Russel Wallace marveled over showers of flowers that rained down onto the table in a totally dark room. Today we see these incarnations in the form of Brian Josephson and Gary Schwartz. All of these people believe themselves competent to investigate this subject, but have little to no understanding of the problems involved. There are, on the other hand, people who I think have done and do good work in the field (most of whom have specilized in it), but who are generally not well known outside of the parapsychology circle. These are the people whose work should be read, and who, I believe at least, are trust-worthy and only in search of truth.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
However, I do think your SG quote is a bit unfair to Steve's original intent. He -didn't- say, "We are all looking for positive results" as if to say that is the goal of parapsychologists--to confirm mediumship as being real.

Actually his quote was this:

Posted by Steve Grenard

You seem to know a lot about science so you should know that unsuccessful results are rarely published. What's the point? We're all looking for a positive result.

Of course, you can also learn something from experiments where the results do -not- support the hypothesis (which I think, btw, is why we never heard the results from Schwartz about his cold reading experiments). But I don't think Steve's saying what you're implying he is.

I think he's just saying that we're more interested in experiments that show compelling results, not ones that are highly flawed failures where nothing has been learned.....

Then he is a fool. He is also completely unaware of what goes on in science.

Look at the past 100 years of discovery. What have we learned? That the world is not as we thought it was. We have discovered a lot of new things, but a large part is about how old superstitions have been proved wrong. It has, in the words of Daniel Boorstein, been an age of discoveries of "not"s.

Thunder is not Thor's chariot. Lightning is not his hammer. Mice do not come from dirty rags. We are not ruled by the whims of gods, but the laws of nature.

And so on.

So, it is very important to publish the "negative" results as well, and they are. At least in science. All the time, every day.

But not in parapsychology. Apparently, the dishonesty is so ingrained in the field, that one could almost speak of a "conspiracy of misplaced embarrassed silence".

Keeping mum about your failures is as dangerous as not finding out anything at all. We make no progress from either.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie
Ed,

However, I do think your SG quote is a bit unfair to Steve's original intent. He -didn't- say, "We are all looking for positive results" as if to say that is the goal of parapsychologists--to confirm mediumship as being real.

That, obviously, is not how I read it, but if that was his intent I certainly apologise


Of course, you can also learn something from experiments where the results do -not- support the hypothesis (which I think, btw, is why we never heard the results from Schwartz about his cold reading experiments). But I don't think Steve's saying what you're implying he is.

I think he's just saying that we're more interested in experiments that show compelling results, not ones that are highly flawed failures where nothing has been learned.....

Allow me to be catty. If ever there was a field that could benefit from closely examining failures, it is parapsychology.

How many times have you read "well, we found that allowing the psi guy to actually touch the object that he was trying to move thru telekinesis really is a flaw that the next round of experiments will control for"? Jesus, it is not that this is a particularly new field, is it? These characters all seem to be at the same low point on the learning curve, it's like every experiment is the first one. This, unfortunately, is a characteristic of the believer ethos. It is not openminded, it is positive result oriented. What do you think would happen if the RC church found, clearly and unequivically, the body of Jesus? You think they would say "Whoopsie"? No. Why after all of this time don't we have clear, unambiguous evidence on this parapsychological stuff? Where are the definative experiments? Tell me, is it in the interests of the practitioners to do that? Tell me. Look at the major players and tell me if it is their best interest to design good experiments?

I have not really explored the issue of what believers make of this sad state. Does it not, should it not, give one pause?

Let me put it another way, suppose this area concerned financial investment. What would you make of a company that can never get it quite right when it comes to their analysis of instruments (even though they all have MBA's and worked at Goldman), that the basic premisis of an investment strategy shift under your feet and whose livlihood depends more on going thru the motions than your financial security? Would you work with them?

[Ed]

This is actually turning into an interesting, introspective thread. Odd, with Claus me and Steve in the same room:D

[Clancie]

I may come across as beligerant on this topic, and if so I do not apologise.
Actually, you don't at all. (In fact, I keep wondering where the "Ed of yore" has gone, lol. Though personally I always thought your posts were okay--after I filtered enough to make them "G" rated...:) ).
I look on "scientists" who conduct knowingly flawed research as no better than than anyone else that abuses a trust.
I agree, though I think most of it is sloppiness, not "knowingly". I'm sorry to say in Schwartz's case that the flaws have been highlighted so often that sloppiness isn't an excuse any more, though. And, re: Schwartz, I felt sadly convinced that he was -knowingly- fraudulent when I read a description of his seminar by a friendly writer (Justine Picardie's "If the Spirit Moves You...")
I will treat each case as it comes.
Fair enough. :)
Posted by Ed

Why after all of this time don't we have clear, unambiguous evidence on this parapsychological stuff?
I don't know, Ed. But I think "clear and unambiguous" should work both ways...and it hasn't, that I can see.
Where are the definative experiments? Tell me, is it in the interests of the practitioners to do that? Tell me. Look at the major players and tell me if it is their best interest to design good experiments?
Actually, I think for most people that it is. I really doubt that most credible researchers into this are intentionally "stacking the deck"...or else believers would have a lot more, lot more "definitive" results to quote.

I think most professional researchers--even those who might like ADC to be true--are professional enough to go where there research takes them....not to try to "phony it up". I can't prove it, but I'd be surprised if fraud was rampant.

One possible conclusion is that there's "nothing" to investigate. Another, of course, is that it is simply extremely difficult to scientifically investigate something as out of our daily realm of experience as ADC would be, if it really exists.

I'm trying to become more familiar with research into this, past and present, as I realize I know very little about it. I'll let you know if any of the above changes in the process. :)

[Clancie]

Ed,

I just noticed another possible explanation for the research problems, posted by dharlow above.
Posted by dharlow

...this problem. Much of it centers around scientists who may be well-versed in one specific field who then venture into the realm of parapsychology. But this is precisely not what they are trained to do, and while their "positive results" get a lot of attention due to their status, they are not in any way competent in trickery, the history of the field, etc,etc....
So, its not just enough to be a Harvard educated psychologist in order to be a good paranormal investigator, aware of the history and a wide variety of tricks that may be used...
Posted by dharlow

There are, on the other hand, people who I think have done and do good work in the field (most of whom have specilized in it), but who are generally not well known outside of the parapsychology circle. These are the people whose work should be read, and who, I believe at least, are trust-worthy and only in search of truth.
I know you listed some references of past research yesterday, dharlow. Could you mention which current parapsychologists you're thinking of here, the ones who you feel are honest and knowledgeable in looking into this?

And, re: this thread....What's your opinion of the work, so far, of Robertson and Roy?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
I agree, though I think most of it is sloppiness, not "knowingly". I'm sorry to say in Schwartz's case that the flaws have been highlighted so often that sloppiness isn't an excuse any more, though. And, re: Schwartz, I felt sadly convinced that he was -knowingly- fraudulent when I read a description of his seminar by a friendly writer (Justine Picardie's "If the Spirit Moves You...")

Brian Josephson also knows how to design and conduct an experiment.

Originally posted by Clancie
I don't know, Ed. But I think "clear and unambiguous" should work both ways...and it hasn't, that I can see.

You are free to state your grievance here. Please make it specific, instead of vague.

Originally posted by Clancie
Actually, I think for most people that it is. I really doubt that most credible researchers into this are intentionally "stacking the deck"...or else believers would have a lot more, lot more "definitive" results to quote.

The list of fraudulent researchers in the field of paranormal is long.

Originally posted by Clancie
I think most professional researchers--even those who might like ADC to be true--are professional enough to go where there research takes them....not to try to "phony it up". I can't prove it, but I'd be surprised if fraud was rampant.

Then you are not very knowledgable about paranormal research.

Originally posted by Clancie
One possible conclusion is that there's "nothing" to investigate. Another, of course, is that it is simply extremely difficult to scientifically investigate something as out of our daily realm of experience as ADC would be, if it really exists.

But the impact of these phenomena seems quite detectable, whenever a serious investigation is not going on. Strange, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm trying to become more familiar with research into this, past and present, as I realize I know very little about it. I'll let you know if any of the above changes in the process. :)

Weren't you the one chastizing skeptics for not knowing enough?

[Cynical]

Yes, she was chastizing skeptics for not knowing enough. But, the difference between CF and Clancie is that Clancie ADMITS that she doesn't know everything, and that there is always opportunity to learn more.

Cantata, however, already KNOWS everything there is to know - or so he thinks.

It's the difference between maturity and arrogant immaturity - like Clancie pointed out about certain skeptics.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Are you talking to me? First of all I am not running this experiment. You are getting almost as bad as Larsen. LOL.
Quick recap for you, Steve. You said you agreed with the idea of putting data about fake mediums in the file drawer You've now dug yourself a deeper hole by stating that you're looking for positive results. I didn't say you personally were doing any research. Given the nonsense you continue to spout about science, it would clearly be a less than wise decision to put you in charge of any research beyond washing petri dishes and cuvettes.
But you got it right. If researchers were testing new products that looked promising for cancer or lipid control or AIDS you can be sure they would bury the poor performers until they got one (or more) that clicked for them. You seem to know a lot about science so you should know that unsuccessful results are rarely published. What's the point? We're all looking for a positive result. Robertson and Roy have claimed they have found it in the mediums they ended up testing. I am sure they discarded many just like big pharm discards new MANY drug candidates.
This is utter nonsense. First, you confound searching for things that work with research on an hypothesis. The difference is a matter of visibility. If you have in your lab twenty candidate chemicals and nineteen of them don't work, yes, you don't bother publishing about the losers. Unless you or somebody else has already published about one of them. Then it is incumbent upon you to put forward the findings because the issue is now visible, and the record of science needs to be corrected. If your candidate has progressed into FDA phase I, II or III trials and you fail to publish the negative findings about that investigational new drug (IND), your next likely paper will be on techniques for washing cuvettes.

Second, as for your more general claim that unsuccessful results are rarely published, would you care to retract that now, or shall I begin listing the citations? I await your decision.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Clancie
I know you listed some references of past research yesterday, dharlow. Could you mention which current parapsychologists you're thinking of here, the ones who you feel are honest and knowledgeable in looking into this?

And, re: this thread....What's your opinion of the work, so far, of Robertson and Roy?

George Hansen is no longer a parapsychologist, though he used to be. He's been extremely helpful in answering my queries, and is very honest about the work done, I believe. I've liked the views expressed by Gerd Hovellmann, and the work done by Robert Morris and J.E. Kennedy is sound as well. From the psychical research side, I think Alan Gauld, D.J. West, Tony Cornell, and Tom Ruffles are good, and I think Richard Wiseman could be good if he weren't so wrapped up with the media. There are others, I'm sure, but I'm not as familiar with the contemporary scene. I should note that many, if not all, of the people listed above are either trained in magic or have knowledge of deceptive practices.

As far as the R and R study, I'll have to read it first. I've mentioned before that I have less interest in mental mediumship and the research on it. I think Mark (Dogwood) did an admirable critique of it in the Skeptic Report. I think it crucial to have the unedited transcripts of all sittings published in some form or the other...or at least made readily available on request.

[SteveGrenard]

Geez, I go away for a few hours and look what I came back to. Its the last shopping weekend before Sir Isaac's birthday for newton's sake.

Anyway, thanks Ed for telling me it wasn't the selection of the mediums you were interested in but rather the selection of the sitters. This wasn't clear. Anyway Mrs. R. answered me regarding the first question which was that the mediums were selected on the basis of personal reputation. This is interesting because it might tell us something about the meaningfulness of that parameter. I have written her back asking her about the selection of sitters but it is late in the UK now so I may not hear until tomorrow.

On the subject of transcripts, I am not sure what value they would be since there was no give and take insofar as I am aware between medium and sitter.
Sitters were sequestered from mediums, could not be seen or heard and were not allowed to answer.
They rated the medium afterwards as did non-sitters as if the reading was for them. Its like Randi's SB protocol but to a statistically sigificant degree. Not just one medium and 1 sitter and 9 non-sitters as he proposed.

So all you would see (or hear if listening to audio) was the medium talking and there would be no nuances, no yeses, no no s, no questions to sitters or anything else to help one diagnose cold reading, a game of 20 q's or so on. The information was reduced to paper statements and rated by sitters and non-sitters. I do not know much else specific about the protocol so yes, we should wait on this. However, be that as it may, I have also asked Mrs. R about whether transcripts would be available and I even volunteered Clancie to type them (sorry Clancie--) if they weren't available in this format.

While I reserve waiting to see the final published report, it appears as if the researchers more than adequately secured against the possibility of cold, hot and warm reading.

Now let me see about Hoyt's rant. Oh yes, failed experiments are not published. Go back and read ...I said "rarely" ever published, I never ever say never. Certainy disputed procedures and drug trials are published. If someone makes a claim about a procedure or a drug and other investigators find fault with that it is certainly up to them to publish that. However, I was thinking more along the lines of novel research before such claims would be made. If a
researcher thinks he discovered a new molecule that could cure cancer and it doesn't get past Phase I, doesn't work in mice or hood rats, etc. then he is apt to consign this early research to the file drawer if not the round file. And Hoyt, I said, also didn't make it past Phase I.

In fact I have published rebuttals on some disputed procedures myself in my own field. It was for a diagnostic procedure followed by a therapeutic procedure that was alleged to bypass gold standard testing and titration procedues. Over a period of several years I serendipitously got the chance to re-test and re-titrate a dozen or so (and other labs have done likewise) cases who received this procedure. They were miserable failures, leading myself and many others to conclude it did not work. We would be seriously remiss if we did not publish our experiences and present them at meetings and conferences. And yes, if an originator of a failed procedure or drug finds that out himself, it is certainly incumbent on that person to go public with that. If they don't they can be sure others will at some point.

But on the issue of mediumship testing, I remain firm in my statement that it is proper and ethical for investigators to weed out poor performing self professed psychics, psychic-mediums or mediums and retain only those who perform above average. At this level it is not about going after fakes or self-deluded phonies. Randi and the cops at csicops can do that. As mediumship involves parameters of superior performance, not unlike runners, ball players, and race horses, I think it is not only ethical but incumbent for researchers to recruit the best they can find. The public has to realize that like race horses, not all mediums perform above average or even perform well at all. And many are fakes or self-deluded phonies.

It is gratifying so any people choose to join in this interesting thread and that there is such a great deal of interest. It
is sure to grow as publication of the study becomes imminent.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Iconoclast:
Steve, it's high time you read Richard Feynman's excellent seminar on "Cargo Cult Science"

Thanks, Been there, done that. If you had had the experience I had with a particular medium , you would be looking for a scientific basis/thesis and proof yourself.
I deal with objective data all day long but in this matter, I don't expect you to understand.

BTW, Feynman's ideas not withstanding, the biggest truly cargo cult time of the year is with us right now......have a Merry Sir Isaac Newton's B' Day.

Thanks for this pointer, however.

[Clancie]

Posted by Steve Grenard

So all you would see (or hear if listening to audio) was the medium talking and there would be no nuances, no yeses, no no s, no questions to sitters or anything else to help one diagnose cold reading, a game of 20 q's or so on.
I think the transcript of a monologue could still tell a lot about cold reading (hypothetically)--and some other interesting things, too.
Posted by Steve Grenard

The information was reduced to paper statements and rated by sitters and non-sitters.
"reduced to paper statements" and "rated by sitters and non-sitters". Of course, details of this will be great to see as, off hand, these two steps sound like where the greatest "accuracy/interpretation" problems (if any) would be.
Posted by Steve Grenard

I have also asked Mrs. R about whether transcripts would be available and I even volunteered Clancie to type them (sorry Clancie--) if they weren't available in this format.
Say what? :eek:

Lol, Steve. Well, after recovering from my shock at reading that you volunteered me (!), I -did- remember that just a minute before reading this sentence I had been thinking, "Having transcripts of this would be so good to see that I'd even type them up for R&R myself!" Haha!

And, actually, I'd probably -like- to do it myself, to be perfectly honest, since that way I'd know for certain that there was no editing involved. And hearing the mediums on the original tapes would be very very interesting! So, maybe you're not psychic, Steve, but...you -did- get this right! So, yes, if there aren't extreme time constraints, I would definitely be willing to do it....)

[Clancie]

dharlow,

Thanks for the references. I've never heard of anyone except Hansen (and that, probably only because you've mentioned him before) and, of course, Gauld.

It'll be good be able to go find out more about some current research into this...Tx.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Now let me see about Hoyt's rant. Oh yes, failed experiments are not published. Go back and read ...I said "rarely" ever published, I never ever say never. Certainy disputed procedures and drug trials are published. If someone makes a claim about a procedure or a drug and other investigators find fault with that it is certainly up to them to publish that. However, I was thinking more along the lines of novel research before such claims would be made. If a researcher thinks he discovered a new molecule that could cure cancer and it doesn't get past Phase I, doesn't work in mice or hood rats, etc. then he is apt to consign this early research to the file drawer if not the round file. And Hoyt, I said, also didn't make it past Phase I.

In fact I have published rebuttals on some disputed procedures myself in my own field. It was for a diagnostic procedure followed by a therapeutic procedure that was alleged to bypass gold standard testing and titration procedues. Over a period of several years I serendipitously got the chance to re-test and re-titrate a dozen or so (and other labs have done likewise) cases who received this procedure. They were miserable failures, leading myself and many others to conclude it did not work. We would be seriously remiss if we did not publish our experiences and present them at meetings and conferences. And yes, if an originator of a failed procedure or drug finds that out himself, it is certainly incumbent on that person to go public with that. If they don't they can be sure others will at some point.

But on the issue of mediumship testing, I remain firm in my statement that it is proper and ethical for investigators to weed out poor performing self professed psychics, psychic-mediums or mediums and retain only those who perform above average. At this level it is not about going after fakes or self-deluded phonies. Randi and the cops at csicops can do that. As mediumship involves parameters of superior performance, not unlike runners, ball players, and race horses, I think it is not only ethical but incumbent for researchers to recruit the best they can find. The public has to realize that like race horses, not all mediums perform above average or even perform well at all. And many are fakes or self-deluded phonies.

It is gratifying so any people choose to join in this interesting thread and that there is such a great deal of interest. It
is sure to grow as publication of the study becomes imminent.
Hey, Steve, not only can you not distinguish between your own and material belonging to others, but you can't distinguish between what I've said and the straw you'd like to debate. I repeated back to you, sir, exactly what you said, sir, including, sir, the "rarely", sir. And, as I said, sir, would you like to retract that inane claim or shall I start with the citations?

My example of INDs, was exactly that: an example. The overarching point concerned visibility as the component you missed in your mangled claims about the appropriateness of burying failed experiments. And I maintain, sir, that this is the most inappropriate and addle-brained description of what science is all about that I can imagine.

Now kindly begin addressing these points. The first is your idiotic claim that negative results are rarely published. Please provide evidence for this.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie

Actually, you don't at all. (In fact, I keep wondering where the "Ed of yore" has gone, lol. Though personally I always thought your posts were okay--after I filtered enough to make them "G" rated...:) ).



I agree, though I think most of it is sloppiness, not "knowingly". I'm sorry to say in Schwartz's case that the flaws have been highlighted so often that sloppiness isn't an excuse any more, though. And, re: Schwartz, I felt sadly convinced that he was -knowingly- fraudulent when I read a description of his seminar by a friendly writer (Justine Picardie's "If the Spirit Moves You...")

Leaving dishes out is sloppy. Our spelling on this board is sloppy. Designing and poorly executing a scientific experiment, if you purport to be a scientist, is malfesence. No excuse. Whipping hell out of data (Princeton, Targ) when that is disipline independent is fraud. The fact that some of these people continue underlines the bankruptcy of the disipline. Tell me, in what eskimo village do you think those cold fusion guys work? In real science there is little forgiveness. In parapsychology there is absolution for all. This general problem makes the area stink to high heaven. I rarely read any serious work, on any subject EXCEPT PARAPSYCHOLOGY, with the first thought through my brain being "are they lieing?".

I don't know, Ed. But I think "clear and unambiguous" should work both ways...and it hasn't, that I can see.

You can't clearly and unambiguously demonstrate the absence of anything. It really only works one way. I won't bore you with the "extraordinary claims blah blah" stuff. Simply put certain people make certain contentions. They must prove it.

To lapse into tedium a bit: If you were looking for financial advice and you came to EdInc, Financial Services and I said "Yo...25% per annum tax free" what would your response be? You would want proof, I hope. It would not be up to you to disprove my contention. Here people are trying to get you to alter your belief system (and some your money too). As a wise consumer you must ask "is it true?".

Actually, I think for most p eople that it is. I really doubt that most credible researchers into this are intentionally "stacking the deck"...or else believers would have a lot more, lot more "definitive" results to quote.

I suspect that if they did not believers would have a lot less then the pittence that they have.

I think most professional researchers- -even those who might like ADC to be true--are professional enough to go where there research takes them....not to try to "phony it up". I can't prove it, but I'd be surprised if fraud was rampant.

They seem to get "hit by the faith" and elaborate way in advance of the data. Again, look at Pear. Based on nothing these guys were positing all sorts of silly mechanisms for non-existant results. To the point where the lack of results were results. Religion. The real sniff test is the unassailable fact that there is not an exemplar experiment that demonstrates ANYTHING in the realm of the paranormal at all, period. Some guy here said something to me about demonstrating schitzophrenia. Cute. The fact is that, wobbly psyhological diagnoses aside, you can demonstrate that. If it is real, you can show it. Real phenomena are, well, real.

One possible conclusion is that there's "nothing" to investigate. Another, of course, is that it is simply extremely difficult to scientifically investigate something as out of our daily realm of experience as ADC would be, if it really exists.

I disagree. In the absence of a laboratory, these things seem to permeate life. Criminy, JE gets slammed by dead guys the moment the tape starts rolling. Science is really nothing more than formal questioning. Are you suggesting that ADC is beyond questioning? If it is a pure belief system and inherently non-falsifiable and you go for it then I submit that you have abrogated your primary responsibility as sentient human being, that is understanding. To each his own.

I'm trying to become more familiar with research into this, past and present, as I realize I know very little about it. I'll let you know if any of the above changes in the process. :)

By all means. While you are at it you might read a real scientific paper, it does not matter what the subject or discipline. The point is for you to see how real scientists approach problems. If I might suggest a couple of choices.

Karl Lashley was a founder of neuropsychology. He was an excellent writer and his pure science, formal papers are quite accessable. For a hoot dig up "the nesting habits of the Noddy and Sooty Terns" it was reprinted in "The Neuropsychology of Lashley" edited by Hebb et al. Don't have to read the whole thing, just get a flavor. In a different direction, there is a book entitled "King Arthurs Round Table" which is a series of essays on the examination of the table in Winchester Castle. Note the rigor, note the triangulation of methods in dating. Look, in fact, at real science. When you have done this go back and read Schwartz or any of these other guys and see why I an furious. What they do ain't science.

[SteveGrenard]

Get past Phase I and rarely, not never.

Show me all the published studies of drugs and procedures that did not make it past Phase I.....

Get some rest....

[SteveGrenard]

Ed....

Tell us about the rats whose brains Lashley removed and they still had their memory intact. Is that in the book?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Get past Phase I and rarely, not never.

Show me all the published studies of drugs and procedures that did not make it past Phase I.....

Get some rest....

These are from the FIRST PAGE OF RESULTS from a pubmed search for "Phase II trial"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14679114&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14676110&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14676110&dopt=Abstract

Now, shall we go on with this diversion, sir? Or will you address the rest of my comments about your inane claim? As you will recall my comments on IND trials were simply an example. You have now failed on this diversion. You will also fail to find support for your broader claim that negative scientific results are rarely published. Shall I begin citations for that point?

[SteveGrenard]

1. Krankenhaus Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf, Germany.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab provides significant clinical benefits in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients when administered in combination with chemotherapy

CONCLUSION: Successful study. Phase II


2. Johnson BE, Fischer T, Fischer B, Dunlop D, Rischin D, Silberman S, Kowalski MO, Sayles D, Dimitrijevic S, Fletcher C, Hornick J, Salgia R, Le Chevalier T.


CONCLUSIONS: There was no observed antitumor activity in this limited Phase II trial of patients with SCLC, of which only a few tumors showed expression of the imatinib target. The results of this trial are, thus, inconclusive about the antitumor activity of imatinib against SCLC with the targeted KIT receptor (CD117). Further testing of imatinib in patients with SCLC will focus on demonstration of KIT expression in the setting of confirmed SCLC histology.

ADDL CONCLUSION: Phase II. Recommendation for further testing due to possibilities. Not a total failure. What don't you understand abut not getting past Phase I?

3. There is no 3. It is a duplicate of 2.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Ed....

Tell us about the rats whose brains Lashley removed and they still had their memory intact. Is that in the book?

I don't have it handy but his theories were expounded in a book called "Brain Mechanisms and Intelligence". In the book I cited there is a paper called "In Search of the Engram" which is, again as I recall, a transcript of an address where he talks about Mass Action and Equipotentiality.

The core issue was the question of the location of the "Engram" or memory trace. He systematically aspirated rat cortex according to a plan that balanced location and mass of tissue removed. He looked at post-op retention of some task whose nature escapes me. He loved mazes so it might very well have been a t-maze. The lesions were confirmed histologically.

The research led to the development of the concepts of Mass Action (deficit dependent of size of lesion) and Equipotentiallity (deficit not dependent on location of lesion).

Incidentially, did agree you with the couple of diatribes that I posted on the state and nature of paranormal research?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
1. Krankenhaus Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf, Germany.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab provides significant clinical benefits in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients when administered in combination with chemotherapy

CONCLUSION: Successful study. Phase II


2. Johnson BE, Fischer T, Fischer B, Dunlop D, Rischin D, Silberman S, Kowalski MO, Sayles D, Dimitrijevic S, Fletcher C, Hornick J, Salgia R, Le Chevalier T.


CONCLUSIONS: There was no observed antitumor activity in this limited Phase II trial of patients with SCLC, of which only a few tumors showed expression of the imatinib target. The results of this trial are, thus, inconclusive about the antitumor activity of imatinib against SCLC with the targeted KIT receptor (CD117). Further testing of imatinib in patients with SCLC will focus on demonstration of KIT expression in the setting of confirmed SCLC histology.

ADDL CONCLUSION: Phase II. Recommendation for further testing due to possibilities. Not a total failure. What don't you understand abut not getting past Phase I?

3. There is no 3. It is a duplicate of 2.
Steve,

I will follow through on the third, and correct that link for all to see, but only after thrashing you soundly for your usual bullsh!t. What deceitful arrogance it must take for you to deign to re-write the conclusions of a paper presented to you. The first abstract said nothing even remotely approaching your conclusion of a successful study. Is this simply your inability to read? Or perhaps yet another example of your confusing quotes with your own pap?

Here is what that abstract says:
"CONCLUSIONS: Trastuzumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin is well tolerated. Clinical benefit was not observed. Although HER2 3+/FISH-positive patients may benefit from trastuzumab, the subgroup is too small to provide definitive information. No significant effect of gemcitabine-cisplatin on trastuzumab pharmacokinetics was observed."

Clinical benefit was not observed. The trial failed. What don't you understand about that?

Abstract #2: Here, sir, you try to pull the No True Scotsman maneuver. Your claim, sir, was that negative results are rarely published. This, sir, is now the second example of a negative result. But you wish to change your claim to no definitive, further research-terminating negative results are published. But, please, Steve, one inane claim at a time.

And here is the correct link for number 3: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14670556&dopt=Abstract
Now allow me to quote the conclusion, since you've so clearly demonstrated continued intellectual dishonesty with your claims:
"At the end of the first month, the median change in the PSA value from baseline for the cohort increased by 43%. Green tea toxicity, usually Grade 1 or 2, occurred in 69% of patients and included nausea, emesis, insomnia, fatigue, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and confusion. However, six episodes of Grade 3 toxicity and one episode of Grade 4 toxicity also occurred, with the latter manifesting as severe confusion.Green tea carries limited antineoplastic activity, as defined by a decline in PSA levels, among patients with androgen-independent prostate carcinoma."

Now, sir, for us to continue, I demand that you stop the diversion game, that you stop the NTS game, and that you absolutely cease to substitute your own writing as if it were from the authors quoted. The nonsense you were stopped from doing by hal works both ways. Do not claim others' work as your own and do not claim your statements as belonging to others.

[SteveGrenard]

So Lashley then didn't know how to explain the retention of memory in rats whose cerebral cortices + more were removed, leading his students such as Karl Pribam and later Bohm to postulate that the brain behaves as a holographic picture.....you can cut a tiny segment out of a holographic representation and when projected it continues to display the entire picture.


Yes, I agree that the state of paranormal research is poor to non-existent due to a variety of factors:

1. Lack of interest by funders
2. Lack of interest by researchers
3. Lack of funds
4. Difficulties deciding which discipline should be in control

The majority of paranormal research over the past 120 years has been done as a hobby by rich people with time available, and/or as a side line to a principal occupation. Hey Ed, you seem to have a lot of money and spare time. Here's a new field for you.

[SteveGrenard]

I said, and for the last time, that negative results are rarely published for molecules that do not make it past phase I. That means they havent even achieved Phase I and were discarded before that. There are lots of candidates that fall into this category.

These examples are phase II trials. Clearly.

Also: I meant it when I said "rarely." Have you compared the #s of the published Phase I and even Phase II trials against the entire lit base on all published drug studies? What % do you think they represent? And of these, what% are positive studies or which have outcomes calling for additional trials as these you try to foist on us?

I dont understand why you find it instructive to waste so much time on this other than to harass me. I said what I said. Disprove it but don't lie to do so. Thank you. If not, I will ignore all further posts from you, whether in red ink or not.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I said, and for the last time, that negative results are rarely published for molecules that do not make it past phase I. That means they havent even achieved Phase I and were discarded before that. There are lots of candidates that fall into this category.
Here is what you said, sir:
If researchers were testing new products that looked promising for cancer or lipid control or AIDS you can be sure they would bury the poor performers until they got one (or more) that clicked for them. [/b]
Nothing about Phase I, sir.
Also: I meant it when I said "rarely." Have you compared the #s of the published Phase I and even Phase II trials against the entire lit base on all published drug studies? What % do you think they represent? And of these, what% are positive studies or which have outcomes calling for additional trials as these you try to foist on us?
Have you compared? I found three from the first page of twenty. A simple search. You persist in lying about the conclusions, and you fail to understand that a call for more investigation does not equal a successful experiment. That's basic science, sir. You should be ashamed.
I dont understand why you find it instructive to waste so much time on this other than to harass me. I said what I said. Disprove it but don't lie to do so. Thank you. If not, I will ignore all further posts from you, whether in red ink or not.
That's right, Steve. You steal other authors' work and I am guilty of harassment when I call for you to cease or be stopped. You make inane claims, and I am guilty of harassment for challenging you. You meet the challenge with both fallacies and outright lies, and I am guilty of harassing you for pursuing logic and truth.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
So Lashley then didn't know how to explain the retention of memory in rats whose cerebral cortices + more were removed...
Dead wrong.
As was pointed out earlier, by ED!, he aspirated parts of the cerebral cortex. If he had aspirated the "cerebral cortex + more" they would have been ex-rats with ex-memories.

[SteveGrenard]

Posted 12-20 at 6:50 PM:

"Now let me see about Hoyt's rant. Oh yes, failed experiments are not published. Go back and read ...I said "rarely" ever published, I never ever say never. Certainy disputed procedures and drug trials are published. If someone makes a claim about a procedure or a drug and other investigators find fault with that it is certainly up to them to publish that. However, I was thinking more along the lines of novel research before such claims would be made. If a
researcher thinks he discovered a new molecule that could cure cancer and it doesn't get past Phase I, doesn't work in mice or hood rats, etc. then he is apt to consign this early research to the file drawer if not the round file. And Hoyt, I said, also didn't make it past Phase I."

----------------------------------------------

I gotta stop wasting my time on these rants. Figure out what not getting past phase I means in terms of my original post. Have a nice day. The % of failed Phase II and III studies is small, but I agree, necessary to publish. Hence rare. We obviously do not know how many failed II and III trials are not published, especially those paid for by pharmaceutical companies. Somehow they don't like to publish such stuff and since they are paying for the research, they simply ask the researchers not to publish. This is a highly contentious issue we cannot go into here but is being widely debated among people who know abut this and have a stake in it.

You are also losing site of the original purpose of this thread, the issue of discarding mediums, failed candidates and not bothering to publish anything on them. You talk about diversions. You have taken an analogy and have run it up several irrelevant (to the thread) flagpoles. Now you are on ignore here also. Join Larsen for a beer or something.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Dead wrong.
As was pointed out earlier, by ED!, he aspirated parts of the cerebral cortex. If he had aspirated the "cerebral cortex + more" they would have been ex-rats with ex-memories.

I read second hand accounts where it was reported he excised and/or aspirated (removed) most of the brain which I why I was interested in any first hand accounts Ed may have.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
So Lashley then didn't know how to explain the retention of memory in rats whose cerebral cortices + more were removed, leading his students such as Karl Pribam and later Bohm to postulate that the brain behaves as a holographic picture.....you can cut a tiny segment out of a holographic representation and when projected it continues to display the entire picture.




I think he posited the notion of reduplication. I really don't recall since I read this stuff 25 years ago.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


I read second hand accounts where it was reported he excised and/or aspirated (removed) most of the brain which I why I was interested in any first hand accounts Ed may have.

Lordy, lordy no. You might be thinking of the cervaux and encephale isole preparations that were used by some french guy whose name escapes me. As I recall, and this is really a stretch, the encephale preparation was created with a mid-pontine section and the other above the cerebellum(?).

Though I did this stuff, acute preparations rather disturb me.

I recall work on decorticate rats, but dip me in honey and roll me in oats if I can remember. There were also studies on infants born without a cortex and the recovery of kids that had massive strokes that destroyed large portions of cortex.

If you have an interest I might suggest the text I used in Grad school Peter Milner's Physiological Psychology. A pretty good read, particularly if you have the basic concepts. Milner, of course, with Olds did the self stimulation work that made them sorta stars. I am sure Dr. Corey will have more up to date suggestions. I guess that I am really an historian at heart.

Hey, why are you guys not at the rally?

[Jeff Corey]

The most recent text I have is the 1998 edition of Neil Carlson's Foundations of Physiological Psychology. I don't teach the course, but a researcher with grants from Sloan-Kettering does, and very well from what I hear.
And drop the "Dr." bit. The title is only used in an academic setting.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
The most recent text I have is the 1998 edition of Neil Carlson's Foundations of Physiological Psychology. I don't teach the course, but a researcher with grants from Sloan-Kettering does, and very well from what I hear.
And drop the "Dr." bit. The title is only used in an academic setting.

My use of the term "Dr." is meant as a bit of theatrical formality all in good fun.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hey Ed, you seem to have a lot of money and spare time. Here's a new field for you.

Here is a true and honest response. I believe that there is nothing whatsoever there. I believe that with all the people looking at the problem, something, anything would have emerged by this time. There is nothing, there is only the reflection of human wishes writ large on a background of noise.

At some point you have to say, about any endevor, "stop, cut your losses". How long, Steve will this go on? Another 50 years? Maybe you are correct and a problem is that this field attracted dillatantes. Even so, there have been competant researchers on the case. Schwartz had the credentials and should have known what he was doing. Unfortunately he, too, got on the Woo express.

Science is littered with failed theories and dead end research. I recall a story about Lashley where he was studying whether critters learn a place or set of responses (like in a t maze). He took one side and some other guy took the reverse. The research went on for 20 years with nothing concrete. Finally the parties just agreed that it was a non question. There is more too it and Jeff could expound, I am sure. The point is that, the issue that they were examining was a cul de sac.

So it is with parapsychology. I know you scoff at my sniff test of the area but the fact remains that there is nothing. After all this time and discussion. Nothing. What is truely remarkable is that the theories outnumber the data by orders of magnitude.

5% is a magic number. There was a point where 5% of the US population did not know Regan was President, I bet the number is the same today regarding Bush. 5% of murder cases do not get closed, 5% of UFO sightings remain "unexplained". Perhaps 5% of the cases of psi are not explained. Why assume that there is something that sets everything we know on it's head in that case but not in the case of awareness of who is president? Wishful thinking and the inability of most people to deal with the somewhat ambiguous nature of human existance is the root cause. Oh, yes, money and celebrity, too.

That said, I would not spend a dime on a lost cause.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
My use of the term "Dr." is meant as a bit of theatrical formality all in good fun.

Like in "Dr. Mabuse" or "Dr. Frankenstein"? :)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Posted 12-20 at 6:50 PM:

"Now let me see about Hoyt's rant. Oh yes, failed experiments are not published. Go back and read ...I said "rarely" ever published, I never ever say never. Certainy disputed procedures and drug trials are published. If someone makes a claim about a procedure or a drug and other investigators find fault with that it is certainly up to them to publish that. However, I was thinking more along the lines of novel research before such claims would be made. If a
researcher thinks he discovered a new molecule that could cure cancer and it doesn't get past Phase I, doesn't work in mice or hood rats, etc. then he is apt to consign this early research to the file drawer if not the round file. And Hoyt, I said, also didn't make it past Phase I."

----------------------------------------------

I gotta stop wasting my time on these rants. Figure out what not getting past phase I means in terms of my original post. Have a nice day. The % of failed Phase II and III studies is small, but I agree, necessary to publish. Hence rare. We obviously do not know how many failed II and III trials are not published, especially those paid for by pharmaceutical companies. Somehow they don't like to publish such stuff and since they are paying for the research, they simply ask the researchers not to publish. This is a highly contentious issue we cannot go into here but is being widely debated among people who know abut this and have a stake in it.

You are also losing site of the original purpose of this thread, the issue of discarding mediums, failed candidates and not bothering to publish anything on them. You talk about diversions. You have taken an analogy and have run it up several irrelevant (to the thread) flagpoles. Now you are on ignore here also. Join Larsen for a beer or something.
Steve,

Yep, yep, I'm on ignore alright. You, sir, were the one who drove us down the Phase I road here, not me. You keep trying to deflect from the nonsense you said about the appropriateness of dumping studies in the file drawer. Now you complain about the course of your careening car. Go figure.

So let us get back to the issue here, Steve, now that you are done with your own deflection. How do you justify burying data on mediumship? How do you justify declaring some mediums fakes, not publishing about them? And how, Mr. Wizard, do you possibly justify this statistically?

Now we've been down that road before, Grenard. You do twenty studies, each with a significance level of .05, declare nineteen to be fake mediums and publish the twentieth. What have you got? Squat, Steve. You've got squat. You have a declaration of significance that, if the data weren't hidden, would instantly be declared specious by all reasonable observers.

[SteveGrenard]

Not studies dumped in the file drawer or round file, preliminary tests or the equivalent of pre Phase I..

And yes, if your means of selecting mediumistic ability is flawed, you will get the result you mention. Time to cull out the able bodied medium and tell the others "Dont call us, we'll call you..."

I understand why you want the losers to be part of the study. It will skewer the results to fit your hypothesis and close minded worldview. If the objective is to prove 19 out of 20 self-professed mediums are fakes or self-deluded phonies, fine. You still have a problem. Its called #20. But if you are out to find out if someone can do this, then you have to concentrate on subject#20.

[BillHoyt]

The decay of yet another idiot Grenard claim
by Dranerg Nevets

As the curtains rise, we see Grenard, in his first soliloquy:

Grenard: "If researchers were testing new products that looked promising for cancer or lipid control or AIDS you can be sure they would bury the poor performers until they got one (or more) that clicked for them. You seem to know a lot about science so you should know that unsuccessful results are rarely published. What's the point? We're all looking for a positive result."

[Exit Grenard, enter the Rational Harpies]

Rational Harpies: "But Grenard, surely we can cite for you example after example of negative scientific results being published!"

[re-enter Grenard] "I said, also didn't make it past Phase I."

Rational Harpies: "What? Where? Oh, that's right. You didn't. Please provide evidence that negative results are rarely published. Here are our citations; three culled from the first 20 of a quick search."

Grenard: "CONCLUSION: Successful study. Phase II"

Rational Harpies: "Uh, no. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical benefit was not observed. Why, oh why, Steve, must you prevaricate?"

Grenard: "These examples are phase II trials. Clearly."

Rational Harpies: "Poor, poor, Steve. He cannot acknowledge the distortion of the study results, and now he has watered down his claim from all of science to Phase I drug investigations. Poor, poor, Steve. He must have realized his first claim was utter nonsense! But, soft, what dark through yonder window breaks. It is Steve's claim. Fall back, fair claim, and decay the more as we stand with jaws agape!"

Grenard: "Not studies dumped in the file drawer or round file, preliminary tests or the equivalent of pre Phase I."

Rational Harpies: "So, Steve, your claim about science wasn't true? How surprising. So, Steve, your watered down claim about drug investigations also wasn't true? How surprising. So, Steve, now your claim about Phase I isn't true? How surprising. So now, Steve, we back way up to "pre Phase I? What is next, Steve? "

:dl:

[SteveGrenard]

The man spends all this time ranting and raving and still doesn't understand what it means to say "didn't make it past Phase I."

Oh well. You have much too much time on your hands.