Toward a theory of Psi? [Archive]

Bonzo

15th February 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

So... ? What is wrong with that? :) If particles can interact at a distance, that seems like a pretty good possible mechanism if there is any anomalous cognition. And if anomalous cognition is natural, which it is suspected that it is, it would have to 'obey' quantum mechanics, right?

I agree there is nothing inherently wrong with a quantum mechanics based mechanism, provided the people using it understand what they are talking about and the explanation makes scientific sense to experts in quantum mechanics.

Personally, I do not see how quantum mechanics can be used to explain particle interactions at the distances involved in some of the paranormal events, but I am not very knowledgable about quantum mechanics. Any scientifically-based, accurate theory of something paranormal would be acceptable to me as proof. As a skeptic I doubt such proof exists.

CFLarsen

15th February 2004, 12:22 PM

ceptimus

15th February 2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Please give one example of quantum mechanics working on a super-atomic level. Would this from PhysicsWeb.org qualify?

A team of researchers from Germany and the UK has transmitted a key for quantum cryptography 23.4 km through the atmosphere, more than twice as far as the previous best distance. The experiment, performed by researchers from the Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich and QinetiQ in the UK, took place at night between two mountains in the South German Alps. The result suggests that quantum-encoded transmissions could soon be established to and from low-orbiting satellites, enabling completely secure communications between any two points on Earth.Source (http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/10/5/1)

CFLarsen

15th February 2004, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by ceptimus
Would this from PhysicsWeb.org qualify?

Source (http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/10/5/1)

Does it happen on a super-atomic level? The article speaks of "single infrared photons at a wavelength of 850 nm".

I'm not an expert, but that does not sound like "super-atomic levels" to me.

I am willing to be shown wrong, of course.

ceptimus

15th February 2004, 12:44 PM

Well, it is a quantum phenomenon that affects things many miles apart, and certainly affects things at a macro level. It allows two people (armed with the relevant equipment) to communicate with each other. So in that sense, I think it may be relevant to 'Psi' investigations.

I don't personally believe in Psi, by the way.

Perhaps I am missing the point. That has been known. :)

Soapy Sam

15th February 2004, 12:55 PM

Brian Josephson!? My, my! Big names indeed.

CFLarsen

15th February 2004, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by ceptimus
Well, it is a quantum phenomenon that affects things many miles apart, and certainly affects things at a macro level. It allows two people (armed with the relevant equipment) to communicate with each other. So in that sense, I think it may be relevant to 'Psi' investigations.

How so? How does this experiment, with large, expensive equipment, producing an effect (not recording it happening in nature) explain any paranormal phenomenon?

Originally posted by ceptimus
I don't personally believe in Psi, by the way.

I am open to the possibility of it. Once it is defined and proven to exist, of course... :)

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

15th February 2004, 01:20 PM

T'ai said:
So... ? What is wrong with that? If particles can interact at a distance, that seems like a pretty good possible mechanism if there is any anomalous cognition. And if anomalous cognition is natural, which it is suspected that it is, it would have to 'obey' quantum mechanics, right?
Nothing inherently wrong with it, no. Let's see the math.

~~ Paul

ceptimus

15th February 2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

How so? How does this experiment, with large, expensive equipment, producing an effect (not recording it happening in nature) explain any paranormal phenomenon?Well it doesn't, of course. I was merely responding to your, "Please give one example of quantum mechanics working on a super-atomic level." request.
I am open to the possibility of it. Once it is defined and proven to exist, of course... :) So am I. But I won't believe in it till it's demonstrated. I'd be delighted if some people could truly demonstrate Psi, and win the million dollars. It would open up a whole new area of scientific study.

Wrath of the Swarm

15th February 2004, 01:29 PM

Need an example of a quantum effect on the macroscale?

Reflections from a CD. Not the reflections from the plastic surface itself, but from the diffraction grating underneath it. If I remember my layman's quantum mechanics, the angle of incidence does not match the angle of reflection because of the nature of the diffraction, which is a quantum effect.

I could be mistaken, of course. I'll see if I can find the book which mentions the effect - I think it was Schroedinger's Kittens.

Bonzo

15th February 2004, 01:31 PM

My understanding of how the distribution of crypto keys using quantum cryptology works is that photons are put into random quantum states at one end, then they are transmitted to the receiver, who measures the received quantum states and reports back to the sender what he measured. Then, using quantum theory, it is somehow possible for the receiver and sender to communicate public information which allows the receiver to figure out what the quantum states transmitted were. I don't think the process involves quantum mechanical effects acting on separate particles over large distances.

To me, this does not sound much like a mechanism that would be useful to explain something like telepathy for example.

This link explains it a lot better than what I said above.

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~jford/crypto.html

I don't pretend to understand it.

I remain open-minded to the possibility that an explanation for telepathy or some other pscyho stuff may someday be found. I find it curious that if telepathy exists, almost no one can do it, and the information passed by people who claim they can is largely trivial and not useful. This is the same objection I have to John Edwards. If he can really do what he says, why doesn't Grandma ever say anything interesting?

Abdul Alhazred

15th February 2004, 01:35 PM

I've read down the thread before coming up top to reply.

All I have to say is, before you have a theory of Psi, you'd better have a meaningful definition that covers all cases. I've not seen one here or anywhere else.

This is somehow separable from the terms of the million dollar challenge, in so far as both parties have to agree before the test.

For example, dowsing may or may not be "Psi" whatever that is, but Randi has agreed to pay off on a succesful demonstration of dowsing, with himself designing the test.

I use dowsing as an example because there is no particular religious or philosophical reason to believe it or not. So I can make my point without arousing emotions.

But it's been claimed and tested many times and failed.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

15th February 2004, 03:36 PM

Abdul, I expect the conference will cover those aspects of the "paranormal" commonly referred to as "psi": telepathy, precognition, remote viewing, psychokinesis. Heck, if they can even figure out how to tell those things apart, that would be progress.

Ceptimus: I'll pay your registration fee if you'll attend.

~~ Paul

BillHoyt

15th February 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Brian Josephson!? My, my! Big names indeed.

One word: Shockley

Wrath of the Swarm

15th February 2004, 06:02 PM

Discover magazine covered that encryption scheme some time ago - they had a fairly good layman's explanation of it (I think it may have been done in cartoons, as they are occasionally wont to do). Scientific American had a few articles as well, but they're usually harder to understand (although still layman-appropriate).

If I remember correctly, the procedure hinged on photons of polarized light. Classically we'd think that an incorrectly-oriented filter would block light of a different polarization, but in quantum mechanics it's a matter of chance. The polarization of the light can actually change when it comes across a filter of a different orientation, with the chance of it doing so depending on how similar the orientations of the light and the filter were in the first place.

So someone who wishes to send a message uses filters to produce photons of polarized light, and sends them to someone else with a similar set of filters.

Once the receiver guesses about the polarizations he received, he communicates with the sender and tells him what his results were. The sender informs him of how many incorrect results were reached, and the process begins again. It doesn't matter who learns this information, because unless they know what settings the cryptographers used, the number of mistakes is useless.

The nifty thing is that, if anyone taps into the signal, it will disturb the polarization of the light. Even if they send the signal onwards to disguise the fact it was tampered with, there will be more mismatches than there would otherwise. Not only can the tamperer not figure out the actual message, but the sender and receiver and figure out someone was listening in by performing a statistical analysis on their results.

Your pardons if this wasn't very clear - it's been a long time since I read the explanations. You may wish to look up the articles themselves.

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

15th February 2004, 08:39 PM

It’s all bunk! I’m correct in saying this until proven wrong being that I am the skeptic!

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

15th February 2004, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
It’s all bunk! I’m correct in saying this until proven wrong being that I am the skeptic!

The catch 22 is I can’t be proven wrong because I’m a skeptic! Being a skeptic is just frickin great!

69dodge

15th February 2004, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Please give one example of quantum mechanics working on a super-atomic level.superfluid helium (http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/super/super-f.htm)As in the case of both classical and high temperature superconductivity, superfluidity is a manifestation of quantum mechanical effects at the macroscopic level.

CFLarsen

16th February 2004, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by 69dodge
superfluid helium (http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/super/super-f.htm)

Thanks. Interesting, although it seems we have to create it in a lab.

Now, how is this related to a paranormal phenomenon? At temperatures close to 0K, I doubt it would go unnoticed...

T'ai Chi

16th February 2004, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Please give one example of quantum mechanics working on a super-atomic level.

Perhaps anomalous cognition also works on a sub-atomic level, hence the use of quantum mechanics to describe its workings.

T'ai Chi

16th February 2004, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I am open to the possibility of it. Once it is defined and proven to exist, of course... :)

Maybe you do mean actually mean "proven", but scientists talk about 'evidence for'.

T'ai Chi

16th February 2004, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by ceptimus
It would open up a whole new area of scientific study.

It already has, for about the last 40 years or so.

CFLarsen

16th February 2004, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Perhaps anomalous cognition also works on a sub-atomic level, hence the use of quantum mechanics to describe its workings.

Perhaps you can explain how QM can explain a paranormal phenomenon?

Pick any paranormal phenomenon, then show the QM equations that explain it.

T'ai Chi

16th February 2004, 12:47 AM

Well, my surficiency has been sorensified, and more superfluidity would be superfluous.

(I probably mispelled every word here)

T'ai Chi

16th February 2004, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nothing inherently wrong with it, no. Let's see the math.

~~ Paul

When I met the same request with DAT, it seemed when all was said and done that no one really wanted to actually see the math. Now much more difficult mathematics is involved and people want to see it?? :rolleyes:

There is this http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/FP_PEAR.pdf which has some stuff on it. I'll try to find other papers too.

T'ai Chi

16th February 2004, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Perhaps you can explain how QM can explain a paranormal phenomenon?

Pick any paranormal phenomenon, then show the QM equations that explain it.

See the pdf file below, for starters.

Darat

16th February 2004, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

See the pdf file below, for starters.

Have you any examples of something current? ;)

CFLarsen

16th February 2004, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
See the pdf file below, for starters.
Is this going to be yet another episode of you digging up some obscure paper which you claim support your point, but which you are incapable of summarizing the content of?

Please answer this question: Did you read this paper, T'ai Chi?

Just yes or no.

T'ai Chi

16th February 2004, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Darat

Have you any examples of something current? ;)

That is precisely what I am trying to find as we speak/type. :)

T'ai Chi

16th February 2004, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Is this going to be yet another episode of you digging up some obscure paper which you claim support your point, but which you are incapable of summarizing the content of?

Is this going to be another sad episode of you asking questions but not answering anything? Or another episode of me satisfying requests for references and you ignoring reading them?

Please answer this question: Did you read this paper, T'ai Chi?

Just yes or no.

Yes. I've read this paper.

Now you can please answer my question, just yes or no, did you read this paper, Claus?

CFLarsen

16th February 2004, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Darat
Have you any examples of something current? ;)

Hehe.... :)

CFLarsen

16th February 2004, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Is this going to be another sad episode of you asking questions but not answering anything? Or another episode of me satisfying requests for references and you ignoring reading them?

Not at all. It's just that your previous history shows a tendency to avoid questions like that.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yes. I've read this paper.

Now you can please answer my question, just yes or no, did you read this paper, Claus?

No, not yet. Should I? Will I find an answer to my question how QM can explain a paranormal phenomenon?

T'ai Chi

16th February 2004, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Not at all. It's just that your previous history shows a tendency to avoid questions like that.

Your belief of my history is interesting. I wonder what else you believe.

Your history seems to show you "answer" questions by asking questions. You can change that all right now by directly answering:

Are the letter/name counts independent in the following example?:

'I see an older man, a J name, Joe, Joseph, Jimmy, Johnny'

with a yes or no answer.

Or avoid it like its the plague...

No, not yet. Should I?

You're asking me to if you should read something?? Read it if you like, I don't have any interest either way what you do with your time. Personally, to me being skeptical means exposing yourself to ideas you might not be fond of and examining them. Examining them without reading about them from the authors' own mouth is somewhat paranormal, and if you do that, you could be eligible for the million.

Will I find an answer to my question how QM can explain a paranormal phenomenon?

You're asking me to possibly predict the future?? If you read authors' works on those subjects, maybe.

Also, besides QM, there are other models out there that have been proposed to explain anomalous cognition, such as DAT, M5, and some others. I'm sure you'll read those before commenting on them..

Soapy Sam

16th February 2004, 02:46 AM

Billhoyt- just one word- Shockley.

Yeah, but he isn't going to be there!:D

CFLarsen

16th February 2004, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Your belief of my history is interesting. I wonder what else you believe.

Why don't you simply ask me? All you do is make assumptions.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Your history seems to show you "answer" questions by asking questions. You can change that all right now by directly answering:

Could you please keep focused here??

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You're asking me to if you should read something?? Read it if you like, I don't have any interest either way what you do with your time. Personally, to me being skeptical means exposing yourself to ideas you might not be fond of and examining them. Examining them without reading about them from the authors' own mouth is somewhat paranormal, and if you do that, you could be eligible for the million.

Why are you so defensive about this paper? Why do you keep wanting to shift focus away from it?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You're asking me to possibly predict the future?? If you read authors' works on those subjects, maybe.

No, I am asking if I will find an answer to my question in that paper. That is why you found it, right?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Also, besides QM, there are other models out there that have been proposed to explain anomalous cognition, such as DAT, M5, and some others. I'm sure you'll read those before commenting on them..

That's fine. You brought up QM. Please keep focused.

RichardR

16th February 2004, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I think it's splendid that psi researchers are trying to grapple with a theory, even though their reason for doing so is that they think the phenomena have been demonstrated beyond doubt. I wish them luck in coming up with one that doesn't beg the question or prove unfalsifiable.Good points. If they can come up with a theory which is (1) falsifiable and (2) not falsified when tested, then they may have something. What's the betting?

BillHoyt

16th February 2004, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by RichardR
Good points. If they can come up with a theory which is (1) falsifiable and (2) not falsified when tested, then they may have something. What's the betting?
The odds-on favorite, I'd think, would be to recognize that you have to have some legit experiments first, then a few more hypotheses tested and confirmed, and then work your way up to a theory. That's the way the real scientists do it. The others always think there's an easier way.

But I'm a bouncer, not a bookie.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

16th February 2004, 10:59 AM

I bet they will having problems isolating a replicable psi event with which to test any hypotheses arising from the theory. They will try autoganzfeld, but the more the protocol varies from the "standard ganzfeld protocol," the less results they'll get. Then they will begin to adorn the theory with ad hoc explanations for why that is so. And we'll be back to debating whether there ever were any results at all.

But I'm getting ahead of myself here ...

~~ Paul

FutileJester

16th February 2004, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
When I met the same request with DAT, it seemed when all was said and done that no one really wanted to actually see the math. Now much more difficult mathematics is involved and people want to see it?? :rolleyes:

I read that paper, and although it was a while ago I seem to recall that the 'math' was just a way of defining psi as a combination of subjective quantities. What I would be very interested in is something capable of making quantitative predictions. I don't care if it's incomplete, or if it isn't quite accurate (so long as it's more accurate than guessing). But it has to relate measurable results to measurable conditions. Could be about the number of people expected to show certain ability levels, the variance of ability with age, the variability of effect with distance, the enhancement/reduction of abilties based on the number of people present... whatever.

Until psi is quantifiable parapsychology will never progess beyond "hmmm, that's interesting".

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

16th February 2004, 11:18 AM

Futile wants too see something like this fine piece of work from James Conrad:

http://jamesaconrad.tripod.com/TKequation-demo.html

~~ Paul

Wrath of the Swarm

16th February 2004, 11:25 AM

Well, not exactly like that. That's just an attempt to dress up a natural-language assertion in pseudo-mathematical terms. But the basic idea holds.

Tricky

16th February 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

It already has, for about the last 40 years or so.
40 years, eh? It certainly hasn't progressed much since then. Why isn't there at least a prototype psi generator by now?

Just for fun, here are a few of the things invented or discovered 40 years ago. I'd argue that any of these have had more of an effect on us than psi.

The Frisbee
BASIC programming language
Buffalo wings
Argon lasers
AZT (now used in AIDS treatment)
The Sharpie
The computer mouse
ZIP codes
The aluminum can
The TV remote control
Fuzzy logic
Kevlar

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

16th February 2004, 12:10 PM

Wrath said:
Well, not exactly like that. That's just an attempt to dress up a natural-language assertion in pseudo-mathematical terms. But the basic idea holds.
Sorry Wrath, I should have use a sarcasto-smiley. That's an unmitigated piece of garbage. I had an email exchange with Conrad where I tried to get him to specify the units of each of the terms in his equation. Here's how far we got:

TK (?) = CFe (ug/dL) + VC (?) + ZPE (?) - SD (?) - E+ (?)

~~ Paul

thaiboxerken

16th February 2004, 12:34 PM

I thought that a theory in science is based on facts and evidence. Because of this, I conclude that there is no valid scientific theory on "Psi". Making a theory of psi is like making a theory of how people shoot lasers from their eyes.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

16th February 2004, 12:46 PM

Well, the psi community thinks they have facts and evidence. For example, they think autoganzfeld is a protocol that produces replicable results. I say let them carry on with this fanciful ideation* and get going on a theory. What's the first thing they'll need? Why, a replicable experiment with positive results! Thus, they will be forced to test their own assumption.

What more could you ask from entertainment than this?

~~ Paul

* Thanks to BillHoyt.

Tricky

16th February 2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I thought that a theory in science is based on facts and evidence. Because of this, I conclude that there is no valid scientific theory on "Psi". Making a theory of psi is like making a theory of how people shoot lasers from their eyes.
First, you have to be born on Krypton...

FutileJester

16th February 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Futile wants too see something like this fine piece of work from James Conrad:

http://jamesaconrad.tripod.com/TKequation-demo.html

~~ Paul

LOL! Thanks Paul, I'd forgotten about that gem. Yes, exactly like that, except perhaps for... well, everything.

Mike D.

16th February 2004, 04:55 PM

Here is a link to the full text of a paper on "paraphysics" that was published in 2001 in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The paper is perhaps relevant to the topic of theories of psi being discussed in this thread.

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:BKz2EIbpZ_kJ:www.scientificexplorat ion.org/jse/articles/pdf/beichler.pdf+smythies+%22science+and+esp%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

NullPointerException

16th February 2004, 08:57 PM

Because surely if there is a theory explaining something it must be true unless there is a more correct theory to replace it... I don't think people understand how much they currently teach, especially in history, is actually a theory about how things should have been based on a confabulation of "sources" and evaluation. For all we know the egyptian symbolic tradition had 1-2 million correct translations of which the 1 we chose made the most sense to us. Heck, they could have written down that they had amazing mind powers and thats how they made the pyramids. That being said, what kind of idiot believes in PSI when people can't even perfect basic empathy. Which is the ability to understand another human beings body language. No they want to jump ahead to I can create invisible balls that do nothing and read minds... to tell if someone wants a green or red car when given a choice... which they will make anyway regardless of me knowing it at that point. Also, I'm clairvoyent, but I don't understand my visions until they occur, which also is useless. Finally, this correlates directly with belief in God because I can chide you for having it, as neither have any direct effects on your life beyond you wasting three hours squinting in front of the mirror because you saw it in a manga.

T'ai Chi

16th February 2004, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Darat

Have you any examples of something current? ;)

Darat,

I actually couldn't find anything more current. To me, that's not a problem, since I didn't write a paper claiming to report on the current state of anything. ;)

T'ai Chi

16th February 2004, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Could you please keep focused here??
Why do you keep wanting to shift focus away from it?
Please keep focused.

You're focused on asking me to keep focused. Good job!

I find it silly that after being provided with a reference for the entire paper you still ask me what the paper was about. That's not being defensive or shifiting focus, that's asking a decent question.

T'ai Chi

16th February 2004, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by FutileJester

Until psi is quantifiable parapsychology will never progess beyond "hmmm, that's interesting".

The paper did have an 'anomalous perturbation strength parameter' (epsilon).

T'ai Chi

16th February 2004, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

40 years, eh? It certainly hasn't progressed much since then. Why isn't there at least a prototype psi generator by now?

I don't know why there would need to be a generator..

In any case the experiments have gotten better (think Rhine's cards way back when to modern day RNG experiments), there are several models, there is some evidence that certain situations lead to more of a 'psi' effect (forced choices don't as much as free range of selection, for example), and etc.

Just for fun, here are a few of the things invented or discovered 40 years ago. I'd argue that any of these have had more of an effect on us than psi.

If 'psi' is real I'd say it has very real effects. Its realness is what is in debate.

T'ai Chi

16th February 2004, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I thought that a theory in science is based on facts and evidence.

Experiments were done. Many showed significant effects. Then models were created.

Because of this, I conclude that there is no valid scientific theory on "Psi". Making a theory of psi is like making a theory of how people shoot lasers from their eyes.

That's great Ken. Ask some people where the actual evidence (of 10 dimensions, etc.) is that lead to string theory, for example.

thaiboxerken

17th February 2004, 01:41 AM

I'm so glad I have T'ai Chi on my ignore list. :)

T'ai Chi

17th February 2004, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I'm so glad I have T'ai Chi on my ignore list. :)

Ken, I know you're reading every single word I type. I don't need 'psi' to know that.

If you like to run away from relevant questions, be my guest. :)

Your comment:

"Making a theory of psi is like making a theory of how people shoot lasers from their eyes."

is fairly silly (probably what you intended. Joking is a coping mechanism in many cases afterall), given that what I've been talking about (Decision Augmentation Theory) is not the same thing as an influence based model like you are referring to.

FutileJester

17th February 2004, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The paper did have an 'anomalous perturbation strength parameter' (epsilon).

Which still can't be used to make a quantitative prediction based on measurements. Is there any conceivable experiment that would falsify the role of epsilon?

I've gotten into with other engineers over this kind of thing before. Sometimes people will argue for a design or a process with great gusto because they "know" that "things will be better this way". To which I say, how much better, and in what way? Do we save time, improve run-time performance, reduce the bug count, decrease re-work, what? All of these are measureable. If you can't measure it (at least in principle) then don't try to talk me into it.

The older engineers have been bitten in the a** by harsh reality before, and they know that insiting on unbiased confirmation (measurement) of anyone's ideas is essential. Few even get to be old engineers without this attitude. In science, where greater rigor is expected, this is even more pronounced.

T'ai Chi

17th February 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester

Which still can't be used to make a quantitative prediction based on measurements.

Why not?

Is there any conceivable experiment that would falsify the role of epsilon?

You can test it to see if it is different from 0 or not. If its 0, I'm pretty sure that would falsify it.

FutileJester

17th February 2004, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Why not?

Because the 'anomalous perturbation strength parameter' is a post-facto description of a set of data. Granted, I have to guess a little here since they don't define the term, despite using it more than once. The closest they come: '...is an anomolous perturbation strength parameter and in the general case may be a function of n and time.' All it seems to say to me is that if you have a set of data, and the mean varies from the expected value, then you can describe the variance with a number. Wow.

I think the authors summed it up nicely on page 200:
While DAT may have implications for anomalous mental phenomena in general, we develop the model in the framework of understanding experimental results.

Understanding, not predicting. They spend a lot of time discussing how their process can tell whether a variance is best described by informational (DAT) or force-like (micro-AP) processes - but strangely, the don't tell how to distinguish either of these cases from plain old random deviation. Surprising, since they mention at the outset that mean chance expectation is a possible explanation of these variances.

What value will epsilon be? Under what conditions is it non-zero? The only possible 'prediction' I can pull out of this is that if you make any data set while someone else is trying to exercise any psi ability regarding that data set, there will be a variation. I hope we can agree that this is silly, as obviously even if psi exists we know that there are cases where it doesn't seem to manifest at will. So even presuming the existence of anomolous cognition, the paper gives no information as to the conditions, abilities, etc. that lead to positive epsilons.

You can test it to see if it is different from 0 or not. If its 0, I'm pretty sure that would falsify it.

No, I don't think it would (see above). The existence of data sets without a variance proves nothing other than the fact that sometimes, everything is exactly as we expect. This wouldn't alter the fact that there might be other conditions where it would be non-zero. And the absence of any way to divine those conditions is why the theory has no predictive value.

T'ai Chi

17th February 2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by FutileJester

All it seems to say to me is that if you have a set of data, and the mean varies from the expected value, then you can describe the variance with a number. Wow.

If you have controlled for all known methods of communication in an experiment, and do the experiment, you get a number. If you don't control for all known methods of communication, or only control from some, in an experiment, and you do an experiment, you get a number. It seems significant if these numbers are very different, because if there is nothing to 'psi', these numbers should be the same, and should be close to chance expectation.

Understanding, not predicting.

One could predict that it would be lower (or higher) with certain varying of experimental conditions.

They spend a lot of time discussing how their process can tell whether a variance is best described by informational (DAT) or force-like (micro-AP) processes - but strangely, the don't tell how to distinguish either of these cases from plain old random deviation.

By testing the intercept and slope coefficients in a regression one can see if these are different from chance expectation.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

17th February 2004, 12:43 PM

T'ai said:
If you have controlled for all known methods of communication in an experiment, and do the experiment, you get a number. If you don't control for all known methods of communication, or only control from some, in an experiment, and you do an experiment, you get a number. It seems significant if these numbers are very different, because if there is nothing to 'psi', these numbers should be the same, and should be close to chance expectation.

Say what? Certainly the one where you were sloppy won't be close to chance. And the one where you were careful might be chance, or might show nonchance results. If the latter, what have you learned?

~~ Paul

T'ai Chi

17th February 2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Say what? Certainly the one where you were sloppy won't be close to chance.

It is well known that parapsychology experiments are very well controlled with excellent experimental design; they have to be in one of the most criticized scientific fields. Your hypothetical sloppy experiment is vacuous.

And the one where you were careful might be chance, or might show nonchance results. If the latter, what have you learned?

If it is non chance results, they won't be replicable. Since there is replication of effects, they are most likely non chance.

Darat

17th February 2004, 01:22 PM

thaiboxerken

17th February 2004, 01:50 PM

Oh come on, Darat.. you are just denying scientific evidence of psi now. :rolleyes:

Now, in the spirit of T'ai Chi, I'll suggest for you to go find the evidence of psi yourself.

Damn, the believer position is so easy to emulate.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

17th February 2004, 02:09 PM

T'ai said:
It is well known that parapsychology experiments are very well controlled with excellent experimental design; they have to be in one of the most criticized scientific fields. Your hypothetical sloppy experiment is vacuous.

Huh? I'm not the one that referred to sloppy experiments, you did:
If you don't control for all known methods of communication, or only control from some, in an experiment, ...

If it is non chance results, they won't be replicable. Since there is replication of effects, they are most likely non chance.
Sorry, that one sproinged my brain.

~~ Paul

FutileJester

17th February 2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
If you have controlled for all known methods of communication in an experiment, and do the experiment, you get a number. If you don't control for all known methods of communication, or only control from some, in an experiment, and you do an experiment, you get a number. It seems significant if these numbers are very different, because if there is nothing to 'psi', these numbers should be the same, and should be close to chance expectation.

Hmmm, three points. First of all there are all kinds of subtle yet perfectly normal ways that communication can happen, so it's very hard to be certain that we've controlled for all of them. Secondly, known communication and anomolous cognition are not the only possible explanations (false dichotomy); anything from equipment problems to experimenter error to demons that play with time and space to confuse us and amuse themselves are also possible explanations. Controlling for communication does nothing to eliminate these possibilities or shed any light on the actual nature of the effect, if any. Lastly, if one of our experiments is known to have faults in it's controls, then the only expectation we can have about the data is that it's garbage. Comparing this data to anything else tells us nothing at all, as we can't assume that the data is valid to begin with.

That's why science doesn't work by excluding everything we know and then assuming anything left over is the effect we've decided we're looking for. The idea is to delineate and understand the effect, not to stop and declare that it's there because we don't understand what else it could be. To that end we have to construct an abstract model, use it to predict specific things that we would not have predicted without the model, and conduct experiments to test those predictions. One strength of this is that radically different experiments can be used to validate the same model, reducing the chances that the effect was an error with a particular experimental design.

One could predict that it would be lower (or higher) with certain varying of experimental conditions.

:nope: Perhaps 'one could' say that it 'might go up or down'. But 'no one actually did' say that anything would do either. What you are talking about is what I want, but it doesn't appear anywhere in DAT. Under what conditions should epsilon be higher? Under what conditions should it be lower, or zero? These would be testable hypotheses.

T'ai Chi

17th February 2004, 02:39 PM

FutileJester

17th February 2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It is well known that parapsychology experiments are very well controlled with excellent experimental design; they have to be in one of the most criticized scientific fields. Your hypothetical sloppy experiment is vacuous.

I know that there have in fact been many parapsychology experiments that I consider to have poor design and inadequate controls. Surely you're not suggesting that all parapsychology experiments are now above reproach because of the spotlight? Never mind, this is all beside the point anyway; I didn't understand the relevance of the sloppy experiment when you first brought it up.

If it is non chance results, they won't be replicable. Since there is replication of effects, they are most likely non chance.

Or a problem with the experimental design, or any of a number of other human factors. Creating a falsifiable hypothesis and using multiple approaches to testing it is the best way to deal with the unlimited number of ways in which we can be fooled. It's like checks and balances in government; each branch has it's own unique mechanisms for validating the efforts of the other branches.

T'ai Chi

17th February 2004, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by FutileJester

First of all there are all kinds of subtle yet perfectly normal ways that communication can happen, so it's very hard to be certain that we've controlled for all of them.

If you are aware of these 'all kinds of subtle yet perfectly normal events', it is likely that scientists are too, and can control for these.
(you might be a scientist too, I don't mean to sound condescending here)

Secondly, known communication and anomolous cognition are not the only possible explanations (false dichotomy);

That is true. A truer dichotomy is known things and unknown things. In RNG experiments, for example, the machines are very well known, so error there very rarely occurs, same with computer based randomization methods employeed in other experiments.

That's why science doesn't work by excluding everything we know and then assuming anything left over is the effect we've decided we're looking for.

Except with dark matter. That stuff is 'everything else'. ;)

To that end we have to construct an abstract model, use it to predict specific things that we would not have predicted without the model, and conduct experiments to test those predictions.

Now that is a false dichotomy. Not all models are used for prediction, nor do they have to be to be scientific.

Under what conditions should epsilon be higher? Under what conditions should it be lower, or zero? These would be testable hypotheses.

There have been many experiments done to determine when 'psi' effects are going to be higher. Everything from free description vs. forced choice experiments, to experimenting with sensory deprivation to not, to having relatives as senders vs. complete strangers, etc.

CFLarsen

17th February 2004, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Darat
Could you present experiments that in your opinion match your above claims i.e. "very well controlled with excellent experimental design" and that have "non chance results"?

I predict that T'ai Chi can not. I also predict substantial squirming, posting of incomprehensive papers that T'ai Chi cannot explain the contents of, and - perhaps - personal attacks, because one dares ask T'ai Chi for real evidence.

And those are not a paranormal claims. Just watch.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Damn, the believer position is so easy to emulate.

That might be one of the reasons it is so easy to believe.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

17th February 2004, 03:43 PM

Futile said:
To that end we have to construct an abstract model, use it to predict specific things that we would not have predicted without the model, and conduct experiments to test those predictions. One strength of this is that radically different experiments can be used to validate the same model, reducing the chances that the effect was an error with a particular experimental design.
Yes, yes, yes! See that? Read that a couple of times.

Now read it again. What he said there. That's a good thing he said.

Everyone read that a few more times.

~~ Paul

P.S. That's a really important point.

FutileJester

17th February 2004, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
If you are aware of these 'all kinds of subtle yet perfectly normal events', it is likely that scientists are too, and can control for these.

I'm aware that they are there; I certainly don't know what they all are. Science implicitly recognizes that no one can be expected to eliminate all that is otherwise known from an experiment; it's simply not humanly possible. The unfortunate fact is that any one experiment might be flawed and produce data that seems to fit a certain model (this is especially true if this experiment, or a similar one, suggested the model in the first place). But it is highly unlikely that two or three experiments testing different aspects of one model will all be flawed in such a way as to validate it.

That is true. A truer dichotomy is known things and unknown things. In RNG experiments, for example, the machines are very well known, so error there very rarely occurs, same with computer based randomization methods employeed in other experiments.

No matter how well some aspects may be known, there will always be unknowns (who knows everything?). Scientific method is designed to make knowledge advance anyway, by means of constructing and testing abstract models.

Now that is a false dichotomy. Not all models are used for prediction, nor do they have to be to be scientific.

False dichotomy? Where did I say anything about models having to be either one thing or another? Models can indeed be lots of things. But when I say that what is lacking is the model required by the scientific method to predict experimental outcomes, then yes, in this case I'm talking about scientific models used for prediction. Other types of models may be interesting but they are not what I find lacking in parapsychology.

There have been many experiments done to determine when 'psi' effects are going to be higher. Everything from free description vs. forced choice experiments, to experimenting with sensory deprivation to not, to having relatives as senders vs. complete strangers, etc.

Lots of experiments, but still no falsifiable quantitative models. Unless you know of any? I've looked before and come up empty.

T'ai Chi

17th February 2004, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by FutileJester

Lots of experiments, but still no falsifiable quantitative models. Unless you know of any? I've looked before and come up empty.

I personally don't know how the models that I know about could be falsified. You should contact the scientists who came up with them.

Darat

18th February 2004, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Ganzfeld and RNG experiments come to mind.

Which, specific ones?

T'ai Chi

18th February 2004, 12:24 AM

I suggest Radin's The Conscious Universe for more info.

Darat

18th February 2004, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I suggest Radin's The Conscious Universe for more info.

Isn't that book about his results of his meta-analysis?

I was asking for the references to the specific experiments that met/meet your criteria of "are very well controlled with excellent experimental design" and had "non chance results".

(Edited to add.)

What I was hoping to do was to read some of these write-ups myself (visit a library etc. if necessary) and also take some into the science forum and see if I could interest some of the scientists there to get the complete papers and perhaps do a review and offer their conclusions.

T'ai Chi

18th February 2004, 01:25 AM

Darat, I would email several researchers (Radin, Bem, Jahn, and Utts) and ask for exemplars in Ganzfeld and RNG experiments.

Then report back and inform us of your findings.

CFLarsen

18th February 2004, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I personally don't know how the models that I know about could be falsified. You should contact the scientists who came up with them.

But...if they can't be falsified.....?

CFLarsen

18th February 2004, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Darat
I was asking for the references to the specific experiments that met/meet your criteria of "are very well controlled with excellent experimental design" and had "non chance results".

You won't get it. What you will get is squirming.

Originally posted by Darat
What I was hoping to do was to read some of these write-ups myself (visit a library etc. if necessary) and also take some into the science forum and see if I could interest some of the scientists there to get the complete papers and perhaps do a review and offer their conclusions.

And I would be more than happy to publish such a review in SkepticReport.

Darat

18th February 2004, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Darat, I would email several researchers (Radin, Bem, Jahn, and Utts) and ask for exemplars in Ganzfeld and RNG experiments.

Then report back and inform us of your findings.

I just assumed you could support what you had posted.

CFLarsen

18th February 2004, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Darat
I just assumed you could support what you had posted.

Your pattern-recognition skills fail you, it seems. Since when is a paranormal claim supported by evidence? ;)

thaiboxerken

18th February 2004, 03:11 AM

If a model or theory is unfalsifiable, it has no validity in science. Thanks for clearing up the fact that the psi model is invalid.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

18th February 2004, 06:04 AM

Here's one thing a theory could start with: How do you tell the difference between telepathy, precognitiion, remote viewing, and micro-PK?

That should be a falsifiable subtheory, right? Right? No? Hmm.

~~ Paul

Darat

18th February 2004, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Here's one thing a theory could start with: How do you tell the difference between telepathy, precognitiion, remote viewing, and micro-PK?

That should be a falsifiable subtheory, right? Right? No? Hmm.

~~ Paul

I'd go back one stage more and just try to get agreed definitions of the various "psi".

Think how many times we've seen posts like "but that wouldn't be telepathy/RV/mediumship", it would seem proponents of "psi" can't even agree on what they mean by the various terms!

18th February 2004, 07:16 AM

These discussions beggar the imagination. On one hand we hear from Ian that there must be something to the world of the paranormal because such events have been reported throughout history. On the other, we have appeals to incredably subtle effects that require the most refined of refined protocols and statistics.

I really don't get it. If an effect that "proves" the existance of Psi is so elusive, why would anyone have thought to look in the first place. If, onthe other hand, this stuff is all around us, what is the deal with subtle effects and their exploration? It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways.

In a rational universe (and in real science) there would be a clear definition of something first. Something that any reasonably intelligent observer would agree occurs. The biggest flaw in the world of the paranormal and supposedly serious investigation into it is that there is not benchmark experiment.

FutileJester

18th February 2004, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I personally don't know how the models that I know about could be falsified. You should contact the scientists who came up with them.

I appreciate the sentiment, but if they aren't falsifiable then I'm unwilling to spend my time investigating them. I've seen a number of unfalsifiable models and they provide nothing. I was just hoping someone could point me to something better.

FutileJester

18th February 2004, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Here's one thing a theory could start with: How do you tell the difference between telepathy, precognitiion, remote viewing, and micro-PK?

Excellent point. Things that aren't distinguishable from each other, even in principle, are not actually different things at all by any reasonable criteria.

Of course, as Darat pointed out, these missing definitions are components of the larger 'psi' - which is also missing a definition. Re-labeling it as anomolous cognition really doesn't help except to make it sound more scientific to the layman.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

18th February 2004, 07:28 AM

Ed makes a fascinating point. Why the heck are we running experiments on psi at all? Because bunches of people think they can predict when their long-lost friend is going to call.

The same thing goes for so many other paranormal things. As I once so eloquently stated about dowsing: You walk around with a stick, dig a well, and find water. You walk around without a stick, dig a well, and find water. What's to study?

But we're a bunch of open minded people, right? Think of all the entertainment we'd miss without this stuff.

~~ Paul

FutileJester

18th February 2004, 07:38 AM

18th February 2004, 08:21 AM

One thought further....

By proceeding to discuss theory you have largely conceded the point that there is something there in the first place.

The realm of the paranormal thrives on obfuscation. Regardless of the purported area, there are no clear cut definitions nor evidence. In spite of the assertions that there are many experiments and humanity has experienced this stuff over eons, no paranormal anything has been reliably demonstrated.

The pattern is amply demonstrated by T'ai. He cites experiments but backs off when details are discussed with a non-starter answer like "contact the researchers".

The ways of thinking that have advanced humanity suddenly, with no purpose other than to support a weak contention, are dismissed. They are dismissed because unless one behaves like a credulous child, most allegations of paranormal effects would be laughed at.

Our latest episode with Luci is another good case in point. Here we have a prediction of an event to take place on a given day when, palpably, events that are identicle to the predicted one have occured almost daily up to the appointed day! Exactly why would a rational adult even discuss such nonsense?

It comes down, at long last to putting up or shutting up. Show something that will trashcan all of medern science. Then let us discuss theories.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

18th February 2004, 08:52 AM

Ed said:
By proceeding to discuss theory you have largely conceded the point that there is something there in the first place.
By all means, let's concede it, at least for purposes of continuing on to the next step in psi research. Consider the entertainment value alone, as we watch researchers attempt to replicate an experiment sufficiently often to study some hypothesis arising from their new theory.

Really, folks, we've beaten the fundamental question of psi's existence to death. We've sucked out every last drop of entertainment value. We're left with discussing the same old issues over and over again. Just think of the new vistas opened up by moving on to the next step. Can you imagine the delicious papers that will come out of trying to devise a theory for psi?

~~ Paul

18th February 2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

By all means, let's concede it, at least for purposes of continuing on to the next step in psi research. Consider the entertainment value alone, as we watch researchers attempt to replicate an experiment sufficiently often to study some hypothesis arising from their new theory.

Really, folks, we've beaten the fundamental question of psi's existence to death. We've sucked out every last drop of entertainment value. We're left with discussing the same old issues over and over again. Just think of the new vistas opened up by moving on to the next step. Can you imagine the delicious papers that will come out of trying to devise a theory for psi?

~~ Paul

Well, we could talk gun control:D

Darat

18th February 2004, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Ed

Well, we could talk gun control:D

Nah - lets keep up a semblance of rationality please!

T'ai Chi

18th February 2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

And I would be more than happy to publish such a review in SkepticReport.

Make sure it is 'current', not like last time.

T'ai Chi

18th February 2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Darat

I just assumed you could support what you had posted.

You are really interested, yet don't want to contact the experts in the field?

What is wrong with that picture?

Darat

18th February 2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

You are really interested, yet don't want to contact the experts in the field?

What is wrong with that picture?

I asked you for what should have been a simple request for you to grant, if you had come to your conclusion based on any type of research. ;)

CFLarsen

18th February 2004, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Make sure it is 'current', not like last time.

It will absolutely be more current than your own source. Which, incidentally, was older than what Teresi's article mentioned.

Have you based your conclusion on any type of research?

T'ai Chi

18th February 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Darat

I asked you for what should have been a simple request for you to grant, if you had come to your conclusion based on any type of research. ;)

Not true. I have come to a conclusion; my conclusion being I'm skeptical and willing to still examine the scientific evidence.

If you want the best examples in each field, best to ask the actual scientists studying the phenomena. I'm just an amateur reading articles here and there.

There have been hundreds of Ganzfeld experiments, and thousands RNG experiments though. I'm not sure how to go about selecting the best ones out of all of these for you.

T'ai Chi

18th February 2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

It will absolutely be more current than your own source. Which, incidentally, was older than what Teresi's article mentioned.

That's fine as I wasn't claiming to present any current state of anything.

Have you based your conclusion on any type of research?

My conclusion would be what again.. ? That there is statistical significance in the hundreds of Ganzfeld and thousands of RNG experiments? Yes.

CFLarsen

18th February 2004, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That's fine as I wasn't claiming to present any current state of anything.

But, non-current studies are of no value, right?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
My conclusion would be what again.. ? That there is statistical significance in the hundreds of Ganzfeld and thousands of RNG experiments? Yes.

Significance of what, exactly?

And - whatever it is - is that a paranormal phenomenon?

You seem most unwilling to answer the question whether you consider "anomalous" the same as "paranormal phenomenon".

Why is that?

18th February 2004, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

That's fine as I wasn't claiming to present any current state of anything.

and thousands of RNG experiments? Yes. [/B]

As has been pointed out repeatedly, their own words hang them. You cannot control for the effect by definition, according to the Princeton group. That being the case you have a lousey experiment and bupkus for results. As long as they get funding I do not doubt that they have done thousand of experiments, and will do thouands more if the $ don't dry up.

So, why should one waste a moment generating a "theory"? They have contructed an environment where nothing is falsifiable.

Since you repeatedly cite this work, you must be aware of this. Why keep citing it as a positive example? And, as a point of interest, what broad human experiences led them to even invetigate this "effect"? Why not test directly, why elaborate the way they did? Bad science, bad thinking, convienient room for arm waving explinations. Exactly what I was talking about.

T'ai Chi

18th February 2004, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Here's one thing a theory could start with: How do you tell the difference between telepathy, precognitiion, remote viewing, and micro-PK?

That should be a falsifiable subtheory, right? Right? No? Hmm.

~~ Paul

The fact that an effect can be interpreted different ways doesn't suddenly negate the effect.

Decision Augmentation Theory (DAT) does offer a way to differentiate between information based cognition, micro-anomalous perturbation (AP) and macro-AP however.

T'ai Chi

18th February 2004, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
If a model or theory is unfalsifiable, it has no validity in science. Thanks for clearing up the fact that the psi model is invalid.

Please Ken, show us right now how string theory is falsifiable.

Thanks.

Darat

19th February 2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Please Ken, show us right now how string theory is falsifiable.

Thanks.

Very quick to ask other people to support claims that they haven't even made aren't you? :D

Yet whenever asked to support your grandiose claims you fail to deliver, I wonder why that is?

Any chance for references for your research that allowed you to state with such certainty "It is well known that parapsychology experiments are very well controlled with excellent experimental design; they have to be in one of the most criticized scientific fields."?

T'ai Chi

19th February 2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Ed
These discussions beggar the imagination. On one hand we hear from Ian that there must be something to the world of the paranormal because such events have been reported throughout history. On the other, we have appeals to incredably subtle effects that require the most refined of refined protocols and statistics.

Well for example, things like atoms are small and hard to detect by themselves, but get enough of them together and you have a large object that can be detected. Planck lengths are small, but lay enough of them end to end and you can get a mile. Oh, you get it. :p

I really don't get it. If an effect that "proves" the existance of Psi is so elusive, why would anyone have thought to look in the first place.

I'd think they thought to look in the first place based on motivation from observation and hypothesis, like in many sciences.

You don't prove something in science, you find evidence for it. The evidence is not elusive (see Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge.).

If, onthe other hand, this stuff is all around us, what is the deal with subtle effects and their exploration? It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways.

It is all around and the effects are often small. I don't see what is contradictory about that. It could also, for example, be distributed a certain way among people so not everyone would be psi superstar.

In a rational universe (and in real science) there would be a clear definition of something first.

Control for all known methods of communication, and of course known methods of cheating, etc. If you still get an effect after replications, label that 'psi'.

The biggest flaw in the world of the paranormal and supposedly serious investigation into it is that there is not benchmark experiment.

There isn't, but only if you totally ignore Ganzfeld and RNG experiments.

T'ai Chi

19th February 2004, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

But, non-current studies are of no value, right?

Uh nope. They are often of value, they are just not current research.

Significance of what, exactly?

Statistical significane, you know, showing the results are strongly against the hypothesis that the results are due to chance.

And - whatever it is - is that a paranormal phenomenon?

Possibly. You'd have to replicate some times to know to a good degree.

You seem most unwilling to answer the question whether you consider "anomalous" the same as "paranormal phenomenon".

They can be.

Why is that?

Claus, you seem more unwilling to answer the question of whether you consider the letter/name counts independent or dependent.

Why is that?

T'ai Chi

19th February 2004, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Ed

You cannot control for the effect by definition, according to the Princeton group.

Please show me exactly where they say that. They might have said that, or you might have misunderstood.

As long as they get funding I do not doubt that they have done thousand of experiments, and will do thouands more if the $ don't dry up.

Oh please. Don't play that card! Many scientists in many universities and laboratories in basically every scientific subject get funding, often much more (and more frequently) than parapsychologists receive.

So, why should one waste a moment generating a "theory"? They have contructed an environment where nothing is falsifiable.

Because theories are important.

If you do an experiment where you control for all known methods of communication, and of course for fraud, etc., and you don't get any effect, in replications either, I'd say that has falsified something.

Since you repeatedly cite this work, you must be aware of this. Why keep citing it as a positive example?

Because it has acheived statistically significant results, the controls seem very good from what I've read and understood, and it has a huge cumulative database of results behind it. Also, a computer randomly generating 1's and 0's, for example, is much easier to describe to people than a long and involved experiment. It is much easier for me to understand! :)

And, as a point of interest, what broad human experiences led them to even invetigate this "effect"?

I'd guess that perhaps people tended to notice machines going on or off (or breaking down all together), and wanted to see if there was anything to peoples' moods/thoughts influencing them. Or perhaps they simply thought it would be interesting to explore, out of the blue.

Go ask them! :)

Why not test directly, why elaborate the way they did?

Directly like what exactly did you have in mind?

T'ai Chi

19th February 2004, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Ed

By proceeding to discuss theory you have largely conceded the point that there is something there in the first place.

Ok.

I'd only go as far as saying there is something there based on statistically significant effects in hundreds of parapsychological experiments done in scientific manner in laboratories and replicated many times. What this something is, I don't know, but fraud has essentially been ruled out unless you're into conspiracy theories. Call this something 'psi' if you like.

Regardless of the purported area, there are no clear cut definitions nor evidence.

No evidence? See Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge for some discussion on the evidence.

In spite of the assertions that there are many experiments and humanity has experienced this stuff over eons, no paranormal anything has been reliably demonstrated.

Only if you don't consider statistical evidence and interpretations in parapsychology the same way you consider statistical evidence and interpretations in other sciences.

The pattern is amply demonstrated by T'ai. He cites experiments but backs off when details are discussed with a non-starter answer like "contact the researchers".

That is because the person wanted details that the researchers could best answer, in my opinon. I've only read some of the papers and am familiar with some of the issues.

It comes down, at long last to putting up or shutting up. Show something that will trashcan all of medern science. Then let us discuss theories.

The idea is to do science, not trash it.

T'ai Chi

19th February 2004, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester

but the anecdotal psi bears scant resemblance to the psi studied today by parapsychologists. What historical reports are there of peole being able to influence a long series of coin tosses by a fraction of a percent?

Probably none (although, there has been a history since about 1985 or so ;) ).

I fail to see how that matters, since 'psi', in any way you want to look at it, has been reported. I simply see RNG's as a nice way to explore that further.

T'ai Chi

19th February 2004, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Why the heck are we running experiments on psi at all? Because bunches of people think they can predict when their long-lost friend is going to call.

Yeah, basically I agree; exploring things that you or someone else has observed that may or may not be coincidences, and seeing if anything is really there. It is doing this exploration in a scientific manner as in parapsychology that is important.

If we just said that so and so many people 'know' when their friend is going to call, and said 'psi is real!!!!' based on that, that wouldn't be science, that would be religion. If we run many scientific tests, and get significant effects even in replications, and of course there is no fraud etc. invovled, there might be something to it.

T'ai Chi

19th February 2004, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by Darat

Very quick to ask other people to support claims that they haven't even made aren't you? :D

Oh please! TBK said:

"If a model or theory is unfalsifiable, it has no validity in science. Thanks for clearing up the fact that the psi model is invalid."

ie. he is being ultra critical of psi-stuff (which he therefore considers outside of science) when there are theories in science that aren't falsifiable. Saying it will be falsifiable one day is not being falsifiable, it is affirming a scientistic belief that it is falsifiable or will be some unspecified day in the future with unspecified technology.

I disagree with TBK's opinion that a model or theory is unfalsifiable then it has no validity in science. There is a saying that 'all models are false, but some are useful'.

Yet whenever asked to support your grandiose claims you fail to deliver, I wonder why that is?

Such as... ?

Any chance for references for your research that allowed you to state with such certainty "It is well known that parapsychology experiments are very well controlled with excellent experimental design; they have to be in one of the most criticized scientific fields."?

Yes, see Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge. for a good summary of the evidence. Bonus: the references are at the end of the book.

Darat

19th February 2004, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Oh please! TBK said:

"If a model or theory is unfalsifiable, it has no validity in science. Thanks for clearing up the fact that the psi model is invalid."

ie. he is being ultra critical of psi-stuff (which he therefore considers outside of science) when there are theories in science that aren't falsifiable. Saying it will be falsifiable one day is not being falsifiable, it is affirming a scientistic belief that it is falsifiable or will be some unspecified day in the future with unspecified technology.

I disagree with TBK's opinion that a model or theory is unfalsifiable then it has no validity in science. There is a saying that 'all models are false, but some are useful'.

A couple of question - why didn't you post this originally to TBK? And why didn't you point him to the thread that you started in the Science section about String Theory rather then a new discussion here? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35551)

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Such as... ?

Yes, see Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge. for a good summary of the evidence. Bonus: the references are at the end of the book.

I do not accept that this answers my request to supply references to back up your conclusions.

T'ai Chi

19th February 2004, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by Darat

A couple of question - why didn't you post this originally to TBK?

Saying:

"Please Ken, show us right now how string theory is falsifiable.

Thanks. "

in response to TBK and quoting his post in my response is not posting it to him??

And why didn't you point him to the thread that you started in the Science section about String Theory rather then a new discussion here? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35551)

Because he brought up something related here (about falsifiability and psi) which necessitated my mentioning of the lack of falsifiability of string theory, here, in this thread.

I do not accept that this answers my request to supply references to back up your conclusions.

That's not my issue.

Invest 10 minutes at your local library and you have all the references you could want.

Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge.

Darat

19th February 2004, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
...snip....
That's not my issue.

Invest 10 minutes at your local library and you have all the references you could want.

Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge.

No I couldn't have all the references I wanted because what I asked for was the references that you used to form your conclusions.

In other words I wanted to see if using the same references you did I would come to the same conclusion and see if some practising scientists on this forum also agreed. And since I'm not a million dollars richer today I still can't read your mind to know what references you used. ;)

CFLarsen

19th February 2004, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yes, see Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge. for a good summary of the evidence. Bonus: the references are at the end of the book.

Book Review: Dean Radin, "The Conscious Universe" (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radinbook.htm)
by Morten Monrad Pedersen

An evening with Dean Radin (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radin2002.htm)
by Claus Larsen

CFLarsen

19th February 2004, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by Darat
No I couldn't have all the references I wanted because what I asked for was the references that you used to form your conclusions.

In other words I wanted to see if using the same references you did I would come to the same conclusion and see if some practising scientists on this forum also agreed. And since I'm not a million dollars richer today I still can't read your mind to know what references you used. ;)

I cannot understand why this has to be a secret. Why all this dancing about?

T'ai Chi, just tell us what references you have used.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

19th February 2004, 04:47 AM

T'ai said:
If we just said that so and so many people 'know' when their friend is going to call, and said 'psi is real!!!!' based on that, that wouldn't be science, that would be religion.
What I wonder is why people don't just say "What an amazing coincidence!"

~~ Paul

Darat

19th February 2004, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

What I wonder is why people don't just say "What an amazing coincidence!"

~~ Paul

I said something about this a few days ago

"...snip...

We all experience events that we don't understand or can't explain. Yet as humans we have a compulsion it seems to seek patterns and understanding in what we see and the "believers" offer something that "fills a gap" with an "answer" whilst the "sceptic" has to just shrug their shoulders and accept uncertainty.

...snip..."

As humans we just seem to like asking "Why?" about everything and don't find it emotionally satisfying that an answer can be that what happened was "just chance".

FutileJester

19th February 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I fail to see how that matters, since 'psi', in any way you want to look at it, has been reported.

I disagree. Lots of unexplained things have been reported. To lump all of these things, and current research like RNG work, under one label is to suck any actual meaning out of the label. The only way I can see all of these as one effect is to say the psi is anytyhing that current models don't predict, and that's hopelessly broad (we might as well call the expansion rate of the universe psi if this is true).

Take PK. When I was a kid I read about PK; I saw Geller bend spoons; I saw videos, like one I remember of a woman apparently moving a playing card across a table by just waving her hands over it. Easily observable, macroscopic effects far above any measurement noise. But now we say that the best evidence of PK - which we studied because of all of those reported macroscopic effects - is tiny differences in the expected stream of random numbers from a digital device, very close to the noise floor. Without better understanding (like that provided by, say, a testable model) there is no reason to call these the same effect at all except convention. And that's dangerous, because it blinds us to the possibility that more than one effect is at work.

If you do an experiment where you control for all known methods of communication, and of course for fraud, etc., and you don't get any effect, in replications either, I'd say that has falsified something.

I say again, no one knows everything. That's why science never assumes you can control for everything, and prefers to advance by finding models that can be tested in multiple ways. You obviously still disagree with this. Why? Do you think that this is not how science works, or that it is not applicable to psi for some reason? Do you know of any examples of other fields of science advancing by "controlling for all known methods"?

T'ai Chi

19th February 2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

(two webpages)

I'm more interested in the scientific evidence that Radin writes about.

T'ai Chi

19th February 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

What I wonder is why people don't just say "What an amazing coincidence!"

~~ Paul

Well you can scientifically study that, and many people have. If you have an experiment where the probability of guessing a person calling is 25%, yet after many replications the proportion is more around 33%, it might not be coincidence. It may, sure, but it may be so amazing that it is not.

T'ai Chi

19th February 2004, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Darat

No I couldn't have all the references I wanted because what I asked for was the references that you used to form your conclusions.

I used the ones in the book, as well as many addition ones. Unfortunately, I don't keep exact references of everything I've read, for instant recall, as I'm sure many other people don't do either. If you think people do, that is unreasonable.

Here are a couple ones I have read recently that I do have the references on:

Operator-Related Anomalies in a Random Mechanical Cascade. J. Scientific Exploration, 2, No. 2, pp.155-179, 1988.

Information and Uncertainty: 25 Years of Remote Perception Research. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 17, No. 2, 2003.

The American Institutes for Research Review of the Department of Defense's STAR GATE Program: An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning, Professor Jessica Utts, Division of Statistics, University of California, Davis

CFLarsen

19th February 2004, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm more interested in the scientific evidence that Radin writes about.

Odd that the book does not do a very good job of providing that.

What, then, persuaded you?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I used the ones in the book, as well as many addition ones. Unfortunately, I don't keep exact references of everything I've read, for instant recall, as I'm sure many other people don't do either. If you think people do, that is unreasonable.

But you have no problems asking specifics of other people? Come, now, T'ai Chi....that is unreasonable. Don't ask others what you yourself cannot live up to.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Here are a couple ones I have read recently that I do have the references on:

Yes, you've already mentioned these several times. Do you have the actual papers, or just the online abstracts?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

19th February 2004, 12:25 PM

T'ai said:
Well you can scientifically study that, and many people have. If you have an experiment where the probability of guessing a person calling is 25%, yet after many replications the proportion is more around 33%, it might not be coincidence. It may, sure, but it may be so amazing that it is not.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about this sort of event in real life. I can't keep track of the context.

Beware the clock synchronization leak!

~~ Paul

CFLarsen

19th February 2004, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Sorry, I thought we were talking about this sort of event in real life. I can't keep track of the context.

Of course we're not. It's flim flam. Haven't you noticed?

Jeff Corey

19th February 2004, 01:47 PM

In the lab, it's known as the Von Restorff effect. Items that stand out are recalled more frequently than others.
Application to everyday events? Possibly. Extraordinary coincidences are probably remembered much better than all the cases where coincidences just didn't arise.
That goes for the phone call example, "prophetic" dreams and similar cases.

voidx

19th February 2004, 01:51 PM

Posted by T'ai Chi
It is all around and the effects are often small. I don't see what is contradictory about that. It could also, for example, be distributed a certain way among people so not everyone would be psi superstar.

"Often" small, not "everyone" would be a psi superstar. Are there clear examples of large effects, or of psi superstars? In all probability there should be some. You have to admit that on many levels this looks like excuses to fit diminutive effects. Do the same subjects consistently get the same variance, therefore supporting the idea that the distribution is different, yet still slight, in different people?

T'ai Chi

19th February 2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Odd that the book does not do a very good job of providing that.

Evidence for your belief?

It seems to present the evidence very well.

Yes, you've already mentioned these several times. Do you have the actual papers, or just the online abstracts?

Spend 2 second and search for the articles, sheesh. Use your resources; don't ask me to hold your hand.

T'ai Chi

19th February 2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Of course we're not. It's flim flam. Haven't you noticed?

Flim-flam is a word. I'm talking about the scientific evidence for psi.

Do try and pretend to keep up. ;)

T'ai Chi

19th February 2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Extraordinary coincidences are probably remembered much better than all the cases where coincidences just didn't arise.

Right, but when you scientifically study these things, and replicate many times, the effects are way beyond explanations of chance.

This, to me, does not seem to be able to merely be explained away by saying people remember the hits and forget the misses. In fact, it outright seems to assume they are coincidences and proceeds for there, instead of examining if they really are coincidences.

Jeff Corey

19th February 2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Right, but when you scientifically study these things, and replicate many times, the effects are way beyond explanations of chance.
Sorry, "these things" you refer to have not been replicated many times. If they had been, they would have been published in mainstream peer reviewed scientific journals and forced their way into mainstream science by bludgening people over the head with reliable effects and real data.
That sure hasn't happened yet.

T'ai Chi

20th February 2004, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Sorry, "these things" you refer to have not been replicated many times.

LOL? Really? This is your belief?

Sorry to inform you, but RNG experiments, ganzfeld experiments, autoganzfeld experiments, have been replicated many, many times.

Pulling some quick figures from The Conscious Universe, I get that the ganzfeld experiments were replicated at:

1985 ganzfeld metaanalysis (762 sessions)
Physophysical Research Laboratories autoganzfeld (355)
Edinburgh (289)
Amsterdam (164)
Cornell (25)
Rhine Center (590)
Gothenburg (90)
Utrecht (232)

And dice tossing experiments have been recorded since 1935 and RNG experiments have been recorded since 1959!

If they had been, they would have been published in mainstream peer reviewed scientific journals and forced their way into mainstream science by bludgening people over the head with reliable effects and real data.

Why you equate replication with where something is published is confusing. Perhaps you could explain?

FutileJester

20th February 2004, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester
I say again, no one knows everything. That's why science never assumes you can control for everything, and prefers to advance by finding models that can be tested in multiple ways. You obviously still disagree with this. Why? Do you think that this is not how science works, or that it is not applicable to psi for some reason? Do you know of any examples of other fields of science advancing by "controlling for all known methods"?

Repeat. Any comments T'ai?

Jeff Corey

20th February 2004, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Why you equate replication with where something is published is confusing. Perhaps you could explain? [/B]
I didn't. There are two types of replication, direct and systematic. You either follow the original procedure exactly or systematically change part of the procedure to explore the generality of the effect.
Where something is published is a separate matter. The Journal of Experimental Psychology orExperimental Analysis of Behavior are rigorous peer-reviewed journals that are trusted by scientists. The journals you cite aren't.

CFLarsen

20th February 2004, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Spend 2 second and search for the articles, sheesh. Use your resources; don't ask me to hold your hand.

You don't have the actual papers, then, nor read them. Great.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Flim-flam is a word. I'm talking about the scientific evidence for psi.

You got that right. You are talking about it, you just can't seem to get around to actually showing it.

T'ai Chi

20th February 2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You don't have the actual papers, then, nor read them. Great.

Interesting belief. Too bad I'm not concerned one bit with your beliefs.

You got that right. You are talking about it, you just can't seem to get around to actually showing it.

And you can't manage to hunt down the references, so we're even.

T'ai Chi

20th February 2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

There are two types of replication, direct and systematic. You either follow the original procedure exactly or systematically change part of the procedure to explore the generality of the effect.

So do you agree or disagree that ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments, to name a few, have been replicated? If not, why?

Why is the replication is parapsychology different than the replication in other fields of science?

Do you agree or disagree that several independent statisticians and other scientists have said that replication has been acheived in parapsychology?

Where something is published is a separate matter. The Journal of Experimental Psychology orExperimental Analysis of Behavior are rigorous peer-reviewed journals that are trusted by scientists. The journals you cite aren't.
[/quote][/b]

Science isn't a popularity contest, but unfortunately often people mistake the methods of science with the currently studied topics of science and it gets treated like a popularity contest. An experiment should stand on its own merits and we should address that, not where it was published or who did the experiment, etc.

CFLarsen

20th February 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Interesting belief. Too bad I'm not concerned one bit with your beliefs.

Nice evasive strategy:

You claim there is evidence of psi.
You are asked to present it.
You come up with a reference - after much ballyhoo.
You are asked where, in that reference, the evidence is.
You say "Go find it yourself" - after much ballyhoo.
You can only give generalities about the papers.

BS-detector says: You haven't read the papers.

You claim that it is merely a belief.
You then dismiss the whole thing.

Conclusion: Your inability to show evidence of your own claims leads you to dismiss the one asking for it.

Nice going! If one didn't know it, one might be convinced that you are right.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
And you can't manage to hunt down the references, so we're even.

"Even"? It's not a petty schoolyard fight, T'ai Chi. Grow up.

T'ai Chi

20th February 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by FutileJester

Repeat. Any comments T'ai?

I say again, no one knows everything. That's why science never assumes you can control for everything, and prefers to advance by finding models that can be tested in multiple ways. You obviously still disagree with this. Why? Do you think that this is not how science works, or that it is not applicable to psi for some reason? Do you know of any examples of other fields of science advancing by "controlling for all known methods"?

Parapsychology experiments control for all known methods of communication. I think they'd be the first to admit they don't know everything.

It many fields, medicine comes to mind, the experimenters control for many variables in their experiments. Medical scientists wouldn't control for talking, tapping, writing, hand signals, and the like, because that isn't the type of things they study, but they would control for variables that they study such as weight, age, gender, etc.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

20th February 2004, 01:20 PM

T'ai said:
Parapsychology experiments control for all known methods of communication. I think they'd be the first to admit they don't know everything.
Come on, man, no they don't.

When Sheldrake published his telephone telepathy experiments, I sent him email to ask if he'd controlled for clock synchronization between the callers and the subject. He had not.

Here's another one: Do you think that all telepathy experiments control for the possibility that the subject has a radio receiver implant in his ear and the senders have radios?

Do you think that all experiments control for odors on materials transfered between participants? I hope so, but I bet not.

It's a tough job controlling for all known methods of information transfer. Psi researchers should get the hell out of that business.

~~ Paul

FutileJester

20th February 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Parapsychology experiments control for all known methods of communication. I think they'd be the first to admit they don't know everything.

Then why in the world don't they do what other scientists have always done in the face of this inevitable inability to eliminate all posibilities - namely, model the thing independently of the of the experiment and design more than one experiment to test it?

It many fields, medicine comes to mind, the experimenters control for many variables in their experiments. Medical scientists wouldn't control for talking, tapping, writing, hand signals, and the like, because that isn't the type of things they study, but they would control for variables that they study such as weight, age, gender, etc.

Strawman. Every experiment is designed to control for variables, no one is disputing that. The question is whether scientists draw conclusions by putting all known controls in place for one experimental design. They don't. Any single experimental design on it's own is weak evidence for anything.

T'ai Chi

20th February 2004, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Nice evasive strategy:

Quite an interesting belief you have there.

You say "Go find it yourself" - after much ballyhoo.

Right, because you have the references. I'm not going to type them out for you.

You can only give generalities about the papers.

The papers are pretty complex. I'm not going to waste my time with you typing out specifics when the reasonable thing is for you to get out of your armchair and read the actual original articles, which I gave to information on where to locate them.

BS-detector says: You haven't read the papers.
[/b]

I think you need to measure yourself with that BS detector..

"Even"? It's not a petty schoolyard fight, T'ai Chi. Grow up.

This from someone who posts lists but admits he isn't even interested in discussion, and joins threads (DAT for example) arguing about it yet later admits he hasn't read the paper!

:i:

T'ai Chi

20th February 2004, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by FutileJester

Then why in the world don't they do what other scientists have always done in the face of this inevitable inability to eliminate all posibilities - namely, model the thing independently of the of the experiment and design more than one experiment to test it?

I believe there have been more than one psi experiment, many more; ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, RNG's, REG's, dice, dream studies, reaction studies, remote cognition, and many more.

The question is whether scientists draw conclusions by putting all known controls in place for one experimental design. They don't.

Controlling for all known methods of communication, not all known controls period. And I'd say it is crucial in psi, because they are trying to test if people can communicate using methods other than the normal methods of communication!

T'ai Chi

20th February 2004, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Come on, man, no they don't.

I am skeptical that all of them don't.

Here's another one: Do you think that all telepathy experiments control for the possibility that the subject has a radio receiver implant in his ear and the senders have radios?

Possibly. I'd bet the majority of them would check for such methods of communication.

Do you think that all experiments control for odors on materials transfered between participants? I hope so, but I bet not.

Hmm, I'm not sure there. :)

It's a tough job controlling for all known methods of information transfer. Psi researchers should get the hell out of that business.

"All known", key words. They also get a lot of criticism (some of it deserved) and they take this into account to design better experiments.

CFLarsen

21st February 2004, 02:20 AM

Ta'i Chi,

You are shown a concrete example of a sloppy experiment by one of the most predominant paranormal researchers around, and all you can say is: "I'd bet the majority of them would check for such methods of communication"?

Paul comes up with concrete evidence of sloppy experiments, and you come up with "I'd bet..."?

Let's cut the crap, shall we? If you have evidence, show it. Just show it, and let's discuss it.

Put up or shut up.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2004, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You are shown a concrete example of a sloppy experiment by one of the most predominant paranormal researchers around, and all you can say is: "I'd bet the majority of them would check for such methods of communication"?

You have yet to shown why it was 'sloppy'. Merely to assert from an armchair isn't enough.

Let's cut the crap, shall we? If you have evidence, show it. Just show it, and let's discuss it.

Put up or shut up.

Yeah, you've mentioned this. You should really answer some questions, like why you dogmatically believe the letter/name counts are independent.

You tend to squirm like the flakiest woo-woo's that you criticize when pressed for the most simple of answers, as you've ran from the above question about 50 times now. Sad really.. all the time criticizing my statistical knowledge amazingly.

Will you specifically address it? Please show evidence that the name/letter counts are independent. Any time....

CFLarsen

21st February 2004, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You have yet to shown why it was 'sloppy'. Merely to assert from an armchair isn't enough.

Are you crazy? The "clock synchronization between the callers and the subject" is one of the oldest trick in the world, and Sheldrake did not check for it. That's not "sloppy"??

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yeah, you've mentioned this. You should really answer some questions, like why you dogmatically believe the letter/name counts are independent.

You tend to squirm like the flakiest woo-woo's that you criticize when pressed for the most simple of answers, as you've ran from the above question about 50 times now. Sad really.. all the time criticizing my statistical knowledge amazingly.

Will you specifically address it? Please show evidence that the name/letter counts are independent. Any time....

OK, you don't have any evidence. Or refuse to answer. The result is the same.

You couldn't put up. So shut up.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

21st February 2004, 08:52 AM

Perhaps I should explain the clock synchronization problem. There are two clock tricks, one cheating and one accidental. The accidental one is the most interesting.

So I'm the subject and one of callers A, B, and C is supposed to call me at 15pm each day. One calls at 14:59:40 and it's A. Another calls at 15:00:20 and it's B. It's easy to consciously or even subconsciously realize that I can use these differences between our clocks to figure out who is calling. I only have to do this for one or two of the callers to increase the hits significantly. You'll notice in some of the telephone telepathy experiments that the subject didn't even bother to guess one or two of the callers. She just focused on her friends.

This problem was supposedly dealth with in the email telepathy experiments. Have those been published yet?

~~ Paul

FutileJester

21st February 2004, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I believe there have been more than one psi experiment, many more; ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, RNG's, REG's, dice, dream studies, reaction studies, remote cognition, and many more.

But there is absolutely no reason to suppose that these are the same effect at all, other than the fact that various researchers have labeled them with the same words. The only way to demonstrate that two or more experiments are really dealing with the same effect is by means of single model which predicts the results of both experiments. A hypothesis which amounts to, 'this is how this experiment should turn out', can't be applied beyond that experiment. See how important that model is to real understanding?

Controlling for all known methods of communication, not all known controls period. And I'd say it is crucial in psi, because they are trying to test if people can communicate using methods other than the normal methods of communication!

Only communication? Why? Just because that's what we're studying doesn't mean that there aren't other possible explanations, such as bad randomization procedures or simple researcher fraud. And by saying it's crucial to have these controls you're still skirting the real issue. Of course they're important! They are just not sufficient to draw practical conclusions about an otherwise unknown effect.

And anyway, they do not control for all known methods of communication. Paul gave a good example, and I remember the discussions about medium tests (John Edward?) where the barrier to visual communication turned out to be a screen with gaps in it. Besides, you said yourself that the researchers can't know everything; this statement is incompatible with the statement that they can, even in principle, ever eliminate all known anything! They do not, because they cannot, control for everything. Scientists (sincere ones) know that this is unavoidable and therefore build models that can be tested in multiple ways.

FutileJester

21st February 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
"All known", key words. They also get a lot of criticism (some of it deserved) and they take this into account to design better experiments.

You can never roll that stone to the top of the hill, Sysyphus. There's always something else we haven't thought of.

FutileJester

21st February 2004, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
This problem was supposedly dealth with in the email telepathy experiments. Have those been published yet?

I'd like to know too, sounds interesting. I can see some possible leakage there too, depending on the protocol; is the timestamp or other header information in the e-mail hidden from the receivers?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

21st February 2004, 09:22 AM

The experiments are still ongoing at Sheldrake's site. We can participate if we want, by getting a group of five of us together.

I think the time stamps on email are arbitrary enough to prevent any synchronization leaks.

~~ Paul

CFLarsen

21st February 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester
You can never roll that stone to the top of the hill, Sysyphus. There's always something else we haven't thought of.

Precisely.

If an experiment is so well designed that every "possible" hole is closed, and the results show evidence of a paranormal phenomenon, why bother to refine it? Whoopdedoo, here we have the replicable experiment, right?

But, on the other hand, if every "possible" hole is not closed....how do we know it's a paranormal phenomenon?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

21st February 2004, 09:33 AM

And even if the impossible is accomplished and every hole is closed, you better not screw up the statistical analysis.

~~ Paul

T'ai Chi

21st February 2004, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Are you crazy?

Would that make it easier for you to debate?

The "clock synchronization between the callers and the subject" is one of the oldest trick in the world, and Sheldrake did not check for it. That's not "sloppy"??

Again, Claus, since you didn't get my point: MERELY TO ASSERT A HYPOTHETICAL IN ORDER TO CAST DOUBT ON AN ENTIRE EXPERIMENT AND THE RESULTS FROM IT IS NOT ENOUGH. YOU MUST SHOW IT HAS IN FACT OCCURED IN SAID EXPERIMENT.

Can you?

One can easily come up with hypotheticals for any experiment. Yawn. Not too impressive.

OK, you don't have any evidence. Or refuse to answer. The result is the same.

You couldn't put up. So shut up.

I don't think I'll be shutting up as you so fervently wish.

One would think a skeptic would encourage discussion, not say he isn't interested in discussion, and certainly not say 'shut up' to someone who does want a discussion. Oh well.

CFLarsen

22nd February 2004, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Again, Claus, since you didn't get my point: MERELY TO ASSERT A HYPOTHETICAL IN ORDER TO CAST DOUBT ON AN ENTIRE EXPERIMENT AND THE RESULTS FROM IT IS NOT ENOUGH. YOU MUST SHOW IT HAS IN FACT OCCURED IN SAID EXPERIMENT.

Can you?

Earth calling T'ai Chi! Earth calling T'ai Chi!

Yes, I can. Sheldrake said so himself. OK?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I don't think I'll be shutting up as you so fervently wish.

One would think a skeptic would encourage discussion, not say he isn't interested in discussion, and certainly not say 'shut up' to someone who does want a discussion. Oh well.

Discussion for discussion's sake is merely verbal masturbation. It leads nowhere. You point to evidence, but cannot provide it. Sure, we can go on and on and on merely discussing, without ever progressing at all.

You may want that, I don't.

FutileJester

22nd February 2004, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Again, Claus, since you didn't get my point: MERELY TO ASSERT A HYPOTHETICAL IN ORDER TO CAST DOUBT ON AN ENTIRE EXPERIMENT AND THE RESULTS FROM IT IS NOT ENOUGH. YOU MUST SHOW IT HAS IN FACT OCCURED IN SAID EXPERIMENT.

I disagree. The revelation that insufficient controls are used in an experiment deprives us of the ability to meaningfully analyze the data (we don't know if the effects are due to the flaw or not). The correct response to this is not some kind of defensive, "you haven't proven that happened", but rather to re-run the experiment with better controls to remove that doubt.

Of course even this doesn't impart any real understanding if the hypothesis under test is, "this experiement will produce a non-zero variance."

CFLarsen

22nd February 2004, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester
I disagree. The revelation that insufficient controls are used in an experiment deprives us of the ability to meaningfully analyze the data (we don't know if the effects are due to the flaw or not). The correct response to this is not some kind of defensive, "you haven't proven that happened", but rather to re-run the experiment with better controls to remove that doubt.

Ah, I see. I misunderstood what T'ai Chi was saying. I thought he said that the clock synchronization had been checked for.

However, you're absolutely right, FJ: If we cannot rule out even this simple possibility of error, then how can we assume that it was not used?

metacristi

22nd February 2004, 10:25 AM

Mike D.

toward a theory of Psi?

I think this will be very difficult to accomplish.Indeed,apart from accomodating the positive results of some successful experiments it will have also to make new,testable,predictions which to be corroborated later.The best would be if those predictions refers to observed facts which appear systematically,the usual probabilistic 'confirmations' would not be sound,there will always be room to object against their results on different grounds.It is even possible that,in spite of the fact that the usual 'frequentist' approach will confirm the existence of some paranormal abilities,a subjective,bayesian,approach to prove otherwise (the bayesian approach is considered much more sensitive than the frequentist approaches like the 'z test' and so on).But anyway even a tentative,though not entirely relevant,hypothesis would represent a huge leap forward.Finally there is absolutely no reason now to think that it is impossible for the paranormal (at least some paranormal phenomena) to find its own Darwin.

T'ai Chi

22nd February 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Yes, I can. Sheldrake said so himself. OK?

Um, what on earth does Sheldrake have to do with the ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments?

Attempted guilt by association. Hey, if there were holes in one study, there are probably holes in another!! What logic.

Discussion for discussion's sake is merely verbal masturbation. It leads nowhere.

Yeah, exchanging ideas is utterly worthless.

CFLarsen

22nd February 2004, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Um, what on earth does Sheldrake have to do with the ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments?

I think it is time for you to get your head out of your a55 and start paying attention. Scroll back and see that I corrected myself.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Attempted guilt by association. Hey, if there were holes in one study, there are probably holes in another!! What logic.

Keep shifting focus from one subject to another. Or, in this case, one study to another. Hey, nobody will notice!! Really!!

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yeah, exchanging ideas is utterly worthless.

I didn't say that. I said that discussion without aim is useless.

You are really thoroughly dishonest. You are also an airhead. Oh, well....

T'ai Chi

22nd February 2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by metacristi

,a subjective,bayesian,approach to prove otherwise (the bayesian approach is considered much more sensitive than the frequentist approaches like the 'z test' and so on).

Great point metacristi.

There have been some articles that look at the use of Bayesian statistics in studying psi stuff. Here is one:

On the Bayesian Analysis of REG Data. J. Scientific Exploration, 6, No.1, pp.23-45, 1992._(paper (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/Allen_Press/5Bay%20i0892-3310-006-01-0023.pdf))

I am definitely interested in exploring Bayesian statistics in psi (and all other areas). I had one class entirely on Bayesian statistics in grad. school (many classes touched on the theory and applications of it in addition) and my thesis advisor was a specialist in Bayesian statistics, and she'd tell me all sorts of good things about it. It is certainly an area worth exploring.

I can imagine how convincing a psi experiment would be where data is analyzed the Bayesian way, where there is a highly significant effect using the psi-entist's prior, and still a highly significant effect using a skeptic's prior.

CFLarsen

22nd February 2004, 12:54 PM

What, another one??

Why don't you just stick to the ones you got?

Perhaps not convincing to you, either?

T'ai Chi

22nd February 2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What, another one??

Another what exactly?

Why don't you just stick to the ones you got?

Yeah, shame on me for reading all I can on a subject!

Perhaps not convincing to you, either?

What is supposedly not convincing to me either?

T'ai Chi

22nd February 2004, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What, another one??
Why don't you just stick to the ones you got?
Perhaps not convincing to you, either?

Feel free to actually address the contents of the paper Claus...

FutileJester

22nd February 2004, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by metacristi
It is even possible that,in spite of the fact that the usual 'frequentist' approach will confirm the existence of some paranormal abilities,a subjective,bayesian,approach to prove otherwise (the bayesian approach is considered much more sensitive than the frequentist approaches like the 'z test' and so on).

Interesting point. The fact that different mathematical tools can lead to different results seems to me to highlight the problem of results which are always just above the noise. Successive refinements of experiments are supposed to reduce noise sources. This is another benefit of a good model, as it suggests ways to increase the signal/noise ratio.

But anyway even a tentative,though not entirely relevant,hypothesis would represent a huge leap forward.

Absolutely. I would go so far as to say the field is effectively stalemated until it can make some progress here.

CFLarsen

23rd February 2004, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Another what exactly?

Another way of beating the data into submission.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yeah, shame on me for reading all I can on a subject!

Yeah. Strange how you seem unable to explain what you read.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
What is supposedly not convincing to me either?

The statistical analyses already done on psi data. If those are convincing to you, why continue with yet another analysis?

It's exactly the same pattern we see in paranormal research: Data are collected, and are mutilated until they show a slight possibility. Then, victory is claimed, but.....another experiment is proposed, certain parameters are changed and the show continues. Data are collected, and are mutilated until they show a slight possibility. Then, victory is claimed, but.....another experiment is proposed, certain parameters are changed and the show continues. Data are collected, and are mutilated until they show a slight possibility. Then, victory is claimed, but.....another experiment is proposed, certain parameters are changed and the show continues.

I think you get the picture.

If you don't like to be compared to Steve Grenard and Clancie, how about Jahn, Sheldrake and Schwartz? They do this.

Surely, you are not going to cry "guilt by association" there, are you?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Feel free to actually address the contents of the paper Claus...

Oh, I am still waiting for you to address the contents of the papers you have posted so far. You merely post paper after paper after paper, without ever being able to address what they really say.

T'ai Chi

23rd February 2004, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Another way of beating the data into submission.

Please explain what you mean, speficially. If you object to commonly accepted methods and theory of statistical analysis used in the sciences, please, let me know.

AFAIK, statistics is the only method known to analyze data. I could be wrong though.

Please provide examples of 'beating the data into submission' as you claim.

strange how you seem unable to explain what you read.

Yawn. You've tried this before. I mention a paper and when I don't hold your hand and explain it for you and to you, you do this.

Why you don't read it yourself is beyond me. If you want a summary, the papers have nice abstracts at the beginning.

The statistical analyses already done on psi data. If those are convincing to you, why continue with yet another analysis?

There's many ways to analyze data.

It's exactly the same pattern we see in paranormal research: Data are collected, and are mutilated until they show a slight possibility.

Please show examples of how data is "mutilated" as you claim.

All I can see going on is standard commonly used statistical analysis used in the sciences.

I think you get the picture.

Nope. I'd rather see your '1000 words' in this case.

If you don't like to be compared to Steve Grenard and Clancie, how about Jahn, Sheldrake and Schwartz?

How about you just read and focus on the actual paper? If you can...

Oh, I am still waiting for you to address the contents of the papers you have posted so far. You merely post paper after paper after paper, without ever being able to address what they really say.

I'm waiting for you to address the contents of the papers I have posted. Again, go read them yourself. I've read them; it is not my job to be your tutor and explain them to you. Hence the purpose of me posting the papers in the first place.

While you're at it Claus, you claimed there is no evidence for psi stuff. I said, hey, what about the ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments?

You claimed effect size decreases as study quality increases. I said, hey, can you provide evidence for this claim of yours?

Are you EVER going to provide evidence for these claims of yours?

Ersby

23rd February 2004, 01:42 AM

I’m pretty clued up on the whole ganzfeld thing, and Tai Chi isn’t really making much sense. Truth is: I recognise a lot of the references he’s posted but I still don’t know the point he’s trying to make.

I’ve been through this “replication” argument before, and one thing bothers me is that when claiming a replication, no one actually says just TWO experiments that replicate each other. They either say nothing at all and demand I do the research or, as is happening now, they throw out any number of examples so fast it’s hard to pin down what is being claimed.

Tai Chi said this, for example:

Sorry to inform you, but RNG experiments, ganzfeld experiments, autoganzfeld experiments, have been replicated many, many times.

Pulling some quick figures from The Conscious Universe, I get that the ganzfeld experiments were replicated at:

1985 ganzfeld metaanalysis (762 sessions)
Physophysical Research Laboratories autoganzfeld (355)
Edinburgh (289)
Amsterdam (164)
Cornell (25)
Rhine Center (590)
Gothenburg (90)
Utrecht (232)

Okay, well the first thing is to make sure everyone knows that these are the numbers of trials, not the numbers of individual experiments. And to suggest that all these trials successfully replicated the effect is simply wrong. Those numbers are meaningless.

Jeff Corey said there were two types of replication. Direct and systematic. Take the first: has the ganzfeld effect been directly replicated? No. That’s simple enough.

So I’m guessing Tai Chi thinks there’s been a systematic replication, right? Could I get that clear before I go on?

thaiboxerken

23rd February 2004, 01:59 AM

What this really comes down to is T'ai Chi claiming that there is real and conclusive scientific evidence of psi, even though he doesn't have a clue as to what it is or where to find it. He's using the shot-gun intimidation approach, give the skeptic big references and tell him to research it himself and hope that the skeptic gives up or goes away to research for a very long time.

Many of these very experiments, trials and "evidences" have been discussed and have been found inconclusive and/or fraudulent in this very forum.

Why bother trying to reason with the unreasonable?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd February 2004, 04:54 AM

I said:
And even if the impossible is accomplished and every hole is closed, you better not screw up the statistical analysis.
Ahem, *cough*, Mr. Sheldrake.

~~ Paul

T'ai Chi

23rd February 2004, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

even though he doesn't have a clue as to what it is or where to find it.

That's interesting, as I've mentioned several studies, a book, and the references it contains. :)

give the skeptic big references and tell him to research it himself

That's true, as I recommend everyone discussing/arguing about the actual articles rather than summaries or 3rd party reports about the articles.

So, have you read them?

and hope that the skeptic gives up or goes away to research for a very long time.

Uh, that's your belief. I'm hoping people stick around to discuss it.

Many of these very experiments, trials and "evidences" have been discussed and have been found inconclusive and/or fraudulent in this very forum.

Be specific Ken! Which experiments, what type of fraud? References?

And what do these cases have to do with the ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments?

Why bother trying to reason with the unreasonable?

Because I'm interested in what you have to say. ;)

Yeah Ken, its best to ignore people if you disagree with them. Coward!

CFLarsen

23rd February 2004, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That's interesting, as I've mentioned several studies, a book, and the references it contains. :)

So can anyone. Point is, can you tell us what is in those several studies, a book, and the references it contains?

Guess not.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That's true, as I recommend everyone discussing/arguing about the actual articles rather than summaries or 3rd party reports about the articles.

So, have you read them?

Have you? Funny you don't know what they contain.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Uh, that's your belief. I'm hoping people stick around to discuss it.

Try finding evidence of psi instead.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Be specific Ken! Which experiments, what type of fraud? References?

Talk about the pot and the f*cking kettle...

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
And what do these cases have to do with the ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments?

Hey, everything is related, remember?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Because I'm interested in what you have to say. ;)

No you are not. You want to keep the discussion going nowhere, so you don't have to show your evidence of psi.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yeah Ken, its best to ignore people if you disagree with them. Coward!

Tsk, tsk....resorting to namecalling now?

thaiboxerken

23rd February 2004, 01:05 PM

All one has to do it a search for those very experiments mentioned to find out that there are threads that discuss them in this very forum. Not only have they been discussed, but they've been found lacking any real value. This is the reason why skeptics here are asking for specific examples of evidence within those experiments, because skeptics haven't seen it in those experiments.

Then again, it is much easier for a believer to say something like "Ganzfeld experiments" as evidence instead of citing anything of real value. It gives the believer a feeling that they actually know something even though they don't. It's as credulous as Luci saying "Ladybrook" as evidence of his superpowers.

CFLarsen

23rd February 2004, 01:21 PM

It is interesting, all this smoke'n'mirrors, isn't it? Interesting, in a perverted sense.

I mean: If the evidence of psi (or any kind of paranormal phenomenon) were as clear-cut as claimed, why all this hand-waving? Why not simply present it to the world? Why all these maneuvers, why these evasions, why these endless, tedious attempts of dragging out the hard-core evidence?

Blind us with the friggin' evidence! Shame us with the friggin' evidence!

What do we get? "Find it yourself, nyah, nyah!" "Here's a truckload of evidence, but I can't just pick one that is convincing when investigated thoroughly, nyah, nyah!" "You're just mean, nyah, nyah." "You have to prove me wrong, nyah, nyah." And so on, and so on, and so on...

Put up or shut up. Stop wasting people's times. It's not just the vast impact this elusive evidence will have on our understanding of how the universe works, people are being cheated and hurt by these claims, each and every day.

Unfortunately, this seems more like a parlour-game to some. To some, even a crusade to silence critics of their own, precious beliefs.

Whatever their reasons are, they do not want the truth.

23rd February 2004, 01:31 PM

A simple theory of psi:

There ain't no such thing, Harriet!

Now, test that, please, and show me any experimental evidence of any credible fashion that controverts that theory. The theory is testable, certainly, all you have to do is show CREDIBLE evidence that PSI exists.

T'ai Chi

23rd February 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So can anyone. Point is, can you tell us what is in those several studies, a book, and the references it contains?

Guess not.

Better to read the actual full text of the references yourself.

As we've seen before, if I summarize the articles, you simply ask me questions about the summaries ad infinitum. It is more productive for you to read the full article and then we discuss concepts in the articles, rather than you discussing my summary of the article.

Have you? Funny you don't know what they contain.

You're entitled to your beliefs.

Try finding evidence of psi instead.

Ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, RNG experiments, and some others seem promising.

No you are not. You want to keep the discussion going nowhere, so you don't have to show your evidence of psi.

This from someone who said he's not interested in discussion. :rolleyes:

Tsk, tsk....resorting to namecalling now?

Pot, kettle?

T'ai Chi

23rd February 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is interesting, all this smoke'n'mirrors, isn't it?

The "smoke n mirror" like the scientific study of psi?

I mean: If the evidence of psi (or any kind of paranormal phenomenon) were as clear-cut as claimed, why all this hand-waving?

You consider commonly used and accepted statistical analysis as hand waving? Could you kindly inform the world of any other ways to analyze data? :D

Do you think any use of statistics is hand waving and/or bogus? Or only in psi experiments?

Why not simply present it to the world?

It does not appear to be a material object.

but I can't just pick one that is convincing when investigated thoroughly,

Oh, the ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments are pretty convincing, and this is well after they have been investigated. :)

Put up or shut up.

You can do the same right now Claus. Provide evidence for your claim that effect size decreases as study quality increases. Blind me with your friggin' evidence...

people are being cheated and hurt by these claims, each and every day.

hehe, gee, I think you can find people being hurt from just about anything, even cute puppies.

Whatever their reasons are, they do not want the truth.

So... will you provide evidence for your 'truth' that psi effects decrease as study quality increases?

T'ai Chi

23rd February 2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by jj
A simple theory of psi:

There ain't no such thing, Harriet!

Really?

http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Physical_H.html

Decision Augmentation Theory seems promising.

There is also M5 (the Modular Model of Mind Matter Manifestations):

A Modular Model of Mind/Matter Manifestations (M5). J. Scientific Exploration, 15, No. 3, pp. 299-329, 2001.*
(http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/m5.pdf)

M*: Vector Representation of the Subliminal Seed Regime of M^5. J. Scientific Exploration, 16, No. 3, pp. 341-357, 2002.*
(http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/m3_16(3).pdf)

and there are other models as well.

The theory is testable, certainly, all you have to do is show CREDIBLE evidence that PSI exists.

Ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments, to name a few. :)

Of course, when you throw in "credible" in there, you could always ignore anything you don't believe is credible..

CFLarsen

23rd February 2004, 02:26 PM

T'ai Chi,

It's not about "promising".

It's not about "believing".

It's not about "models".

It's about "evidence".

Got any?

No, you do not.

Shame me, T'ai Chi, by showing it. Silence me, T'ai Chi, by showing it.

(sound of crickets)

FutileJester

24th February 2004, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by jjA simple theory of psi:

There ain't no such thing, Harriet!

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Really?

Ummm, he wasn't saying there are no theories, he was saying that his theory is that there is no psi effect. An admirably testable hypothesis.

http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Physical_H.html

Decision Augmentation Theory seems promising.

There is also M5 (the Modular Model of Mind Matter Manifestations):

A Modular Model of Mind/Matter Manifestations (M5). J. Scientific Exploration, 15, No. 3, pp. 299-329, 2001.*
(http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/m5.pdf)

M*: Vector Representation of the Subliminal Seed Regime of M^5. J. Scientific Exploration, 16, No. 3, pp. 341-357, 2002.*
(http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/m3_16(3).pdf)

and there are other models as well.

The first link lists quite a few mutually incompatible models. The fact that diametrically opposed theories are still considered viable underscores the fact that the theories cannot be conclusively falsified by experimental data. It's interesting that out of the references given under each model, not one is a simple experimental confirmation of the model.

The PEAR papers don't solve any problems either. I could spend all day typing about problems I saw in those papers, but in terms of this discussion I thought this quote summed it up nicely:

Although our modular model has been constructed to be consistent with the bemusing bodies of empirical data accumulated heretofore in our laboratory and elsewhere, it can aspire to scientific credibility only if its future applications lead to more replicable and significant experimental results. Unfortunately, given the abstract nature of the components and configurations of the models, opportunities for such validation are quite limited and elusive to implement

They talk about experiments supposedly implied by the model, but interestingly none of these would falsify the model. More of the same, I'm afraid...

I haven't yet heard anything which contradicts these fundamental points:

Quantitative models which predict unique, measureable results are fundamental to all science
There are no such models for psi
Until there are such models for psi, we can't be said to understand it at all; we can't even be sure that it's one effect, or many, or none

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th February 2004, 10:45 AM

Just repeating this for my own edification:

Until there are such models for psi, we can't be said to understand it at all; we can't even be sure that it's one effect, or many, or none

~~ Paul

Darat

24th February 2004, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Just repeating this for my own edification:

Until there are such models for psi, we can't be said to understand it at all; we can't even be sure that it's one effect, or many, or none

~~ Paul

How little you know Paul ;)

"Anomalous Cognition (AC) — A form of information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are absent. In this process some individuals are able to gain access to information from events outside the range of their senses by a currently not understood mechanism. Several synonyms for this phenomenon are in use: Remote Viewing (RV), Clairvoyance, and ESP."

T'ai Chi

24th February 2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
T'ai Chi,
It's not about "promising".
It's not about "believing".
It's not about "models".
It's about "evidence".
Got any?
No, you do not.
Shame me, T'ai Chi, by showing it. Silence me, T'ai Chi, by showing it.
(sound of crickets)

You do the same and provide evidence for your claims:

That videos increase the recipient's hit rate
That psi effects decrease as study quality increases
That the letter/name counts are independent
(to name a few of your claims)

I'll wait.

FutileJester

24th February 2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'll wait.

While you're waiting, perhaps you'd like to address some of the other points brought up here? Or are you conceding that we're right?

(P.S. - when the only posts you respond to are those that have devolved to personal attacks, then it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you can't address the substantive points and just want to have some fun by getting into an argument. If you're going to post links and berate people for not reading them, it's very impolite to then ignore people who do read them and try to discuss them.)

Ersby

24th February 2004, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

You do the same and provide evidence for your claims:

That videos increase the recipient's hit rate

You know, if you'd read the papers you posted, you should already have the evidence for this claim.

T'ai Chi

25th February 2004, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Ersby

You know, if you'd read the papers you posted, you should already have the evidence for this claim.

It is about Claus providing evidence for HIS claim, not me doing his work for him.

CFLarsen

25th February 2004, 11:12 PM

T'ai Chi,

The onus is on you.

T'ai Chi

25th February 2004, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
T'ai Chi,

The onus is on you.

Provide evidence for your claims:

That videos increase the recipient's hit rate
That psi effects decrease as study quality increases
That the letter/name counts are independent
That the majority of the ganzfeld studies show zero effect
(to name a few of your claims)

Ersby

25th February 2004, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

It is about Claus providing evidence for HIS claim, not me doing his work for him.

Judging by your avoidance of any real discussion, it seems you don't want to do any work at all.

T'ai Chi

26th February 2004, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Ersby

Judging by your avoidance of any real discussion, it seems you don't want to do any work at all.

How am I avoiding discussion? I am asking for evidence for Claus' magical claims!

That videos increase the recipient's hit rate
That psi effects decrease as study quality increases
That the letter/name counts are independent
That the majority of the ganzfeld studies show zero effect
(to name a few of his claims)

Ersby, you might take them on faith, but I don't.

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
How am I avoiding discussion?

That's a laugh.

T'ai Chi

26th February 2004, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

(snip)

Avoidance noted.

Do you agree or disagree that the autoganzfeld studies had a lower hit rate (in comparison to the ganzfeld studies)?

AGREE or DISAGREE?

I know how much questions are important to you...

FutileJester

26th February 2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
How am I avoiding discussion? I am asking for evidence for Claus' magical claims!

All well and good, you two go at it all you please. Surely you don't think that if one person doesn't answer one of your questions that you are justified in refusing to answer questions from anyone at all? Are we all guilty by association? Other people here are taking the time to read your links, think about the issues, formulate responses, engage in a discussion; and you're ignoring them completely. Is my mistake that I'm being polite? If I get abusive as well, will you actually discuss the issues and papers you brought up?

In the absence of any information from you at all, I can once again only assume that you concede that we are right about the importance of scientific models, the lack of any such models in psi (including the papers you posted), and the fact that this lack makes the entire field very weak at best. I am, as always, willing to discuss this if you think any of it is unjustified. But that does require that you actually engage in a discussion.

FutileJester

26th February 2004, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Ersby, you might take them on faith, but I don't.

Or, he might consider them irrelevant since they're issues between you and Claus from previous discussions. :rolleyes:

Come on, T'ai, your just derailing the thread to off-topic issues where you feel you've got grounds for a grievance. This thread is about theories of psi, and involves at least some people you don't seem to have a grievance with. Can we discuss the topic, or not?

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 06:48 AM

FJ,

You got a point. I'm out of this thread for now. Let's see if T'ai Chi wants to discuss paranormal issues, or if he merely wants to play games with me.

FutileJester

26th February 2004, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You got a point. I'm out of this thread for now. Let's see if T'ai Chi wants to discuss paranormal issues, or if he merely wants to play games with me.

Well I certainly didn't mean to chase anyone out, but I appreciate the attempt to force the thread back on track. I'm guessing we both expect the same result, but hey, you never know....

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester
Well I certainly didn't mean to chase anyone out, but I appreciate the attempt to force the thread back on track. I'm guessing we both expect the same result, but hey, you never know....

Oh, it's quite alright. If my being here in this thread makes it impossible for T'ai Chi to discuss the issues, I am more than happy to stay away.

Let's see what happens.

T'ai Chi

26th February 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by FutileJester

Come on, T'ai, your just derailing the thread to off-topic issues where you feel you've got grounds for a grievance. This thread is about theories of psi, and involves at least some people you don't seem to have a grievance with. Can we discuss the topic, or not?

So you mean like Claus suddenly talking about TT and Rosa when we the thread was about ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments?

Pot... kettle...

T'ai Chi

26th February 2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
FJ,
You got a point. I'm out of this thread for now. Let's see if T'ai Chi wants to discuss paranormal issues, or if he merely wants to play games with me.

Run forest run.

Don't hold me to your standards if you can't hold yourself to them.

T'ai Chi

26th February 2004, 12:29 PM

Claus, I must note that you avoided answering the questions again.

Typical.

"I'm up for it."

I guess you aren't.

CFLarsen

26th February 2004, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So you mean like Claus suddenly talking about TT and Rosa when we the thread was about ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments?

Pot... kettle...

It seems that you are not capable of separating whatever comes up with the issues you have with me. I will stop addressing your posts for a while (except that I will watch out for your reply in the Emily Rosa thread), and let you focus on the issues instead.

FutileJester

26th February 2004, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

So you mean like Claus suddenly talking about TT and Rosa when we the thread was about ganzfeld, autoganzfeld, and RNG experiments?

Pot... kettle...

"Claus, Claus, Claus, Claus...."

Let me try this again.

I AM NOT CLAUS.

I have not derailed your thread. I have not avoided any questions you've asked me, even though you do that to me. I have done nothing but make polite responses to issues which you raised, relevant to the topic of the thread. So are you capable of discussing these issues or not?

FutileJester

27th February 2004, 10:14 PM

Bump.

Ersby

29th February 2004, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Avoidance noted.

Do you agree or disagree that the autoganzfeld studies had a lower hit rate (in comparison to the ganzfeld studies)?

I agree.

(bump)

BillHoyt

29th February 2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by FutileJester

"Claus, Claus, Claus, Claus...."

Let me try this again.

I AM NOT CLAUS.

I have not derailed your thread. I have not avoided any questions you've asked me, even though you do that to me. I have done nothing but make polite responses to issues which you raised, relevant to the topic of the thread. So are you capable of discussing these issues or not?
I feel your pain, FJ. But this has become the totality of T'ai Chi's posting style here. I interpret it in light of an overall cargo-cult approach to anti-skepticism. He picks elements of skeptical debating style and tries to throw them back, bereft of substance, but copying the style.

A skeptic sees an assertion and challenges for evidence. When the other poster doesn't deliver, he may repeat the question. Of course, underlying this must be an unfounded assertion, a relevant question and a lack of response.

The cargo cult approach is to find a red herring cum question, pose it and then rant and rave about how the skeptic refuses to answer the question. See, that's being skeptical?

Obviously, it derails intelligent discourse. Obviously that is its only point. Obviously I am long past tired of these kiddy games and am awaiting a sea change at this forum. As an educational organization, JREF squanders it resources by leaving this forum as a kiddie playground. The real action ought to be in the classroom.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th February 2004, 09:08 AM

BillHoyt said:
Obviously, it derails intelligent discourse. Obviously that is its only point. Obviously I am long past tired of these kiddy games and am awaiting a sea change at this forum. As an educational organization, JREF squanders it resources by leaving this forum as a kiddie playground. The real action ought to be in the classroom.
I think you're being a bit pessimistic here, Bill. There are going to be threads that go nowhere because one party or another doesn't muster some real arguments in favor of his position. There are going to be other threads, such as the Parrot thread, where we focus on the issue and reach a conclusion, yet in the grand scheme of things the issue is trivial. There will be a very few threads where we have serious debate and potentially change some people's viewpoints. In particular, people with something to gain from a claim (e.g., homeopathists) will stay away in droves.

So, really, are we going to change the world, or even a backwater corner of it? Probably not. I believe your hopes outreach the possibilities. But stay anyway, please.

~~ Paul

T'ai Chi

29th February 2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

A skeptic sees an assertion and challenges for evidence.

Right, and some have made assertions and I have challenged them on it; that includes you and Claus, for example.

In the past you said:

"You (sunny & tachump & some others) seem to think you can mimic this approach to play some sort of game here. You seem to think the skeptics here can pepper believers with questions and that, therefore, the beleivers can pepper the skeptics back and expect answers. That ain't how it works, kiddies."

Really? Why isn't that exactly how it works?

The cargo cult approach is to find a red herring cum question, pose it and then rant and rave about how the skeptic refuses to answer the question. See, that's being skeptical?

Cargo cults have nothing to do with repeating questions. You seem to be confusing your skeptical terminology.

Ersby

1st March 2004, 12:32 AM

Hey, I’ve got an idea: since we’re all here, why don’t we have a discussion about parapsychology?

I don’t think that the ganzfeld results are proof of psi. They may be considered evidence, but not very good evidence. The results are suggestive of some kind of effect. Personally, I think response bias may be that effect, but that’s just my pet theory. I’ve yet to see any real experiments into how big an effect response bias is. Nevertheless, it goes some way to explain PEAR’s results, and if you consider that SRI and SAIC mostly used the same set of 100 National Geographic photographs, wouldn’t some kind of “best guessing” technique emerge over the space of twenty years?

The meta analyses are often cited as evidence, but people forget there are actually four of these. The first was Hyman’s, and he found no effect. But he filtered out those he considered flawed. This was then followed by Bem and Honorton who took the same approach and, since they chose different experiments to filter out, they found an effect. The third was Milton and Wiseman’s, which found no effect. This was again rejigged (this time filtering out experiments according to “standardness”) and including new experiments. An effect was found, although less that before. So each m-a that found no effect was followed by a second that adjusted the figures and found the effect. This worries me.

What’s more, I have little time for this “standardness” since it muddies the water. They rule out Willin’s investigation into whether you can RV music, even though being able to hear sound IS part of the claim for RV.

Trying to work out, indeed, what can or can’t be viewed is tricky. As above, people have reported hearing sounds, but Willin found they couldn’t identify music. Colours, too, have been reported, but Targ, Tart and Lichtarge in 1985 ran a test using black and white or colour photographs and found that RVers couldn’t tell the difference. So can they even see colour?

And then there’s the wide range of other variables that apparently have and effect. Same sex/different sex sender/receiver pairs, geo-magnetic activity (or lack of), static/dynamic, feedback/non-feedback, size of target pool, and so on.

The ganzfeld is interesting and it’s one I keep an eye on. I can understand how someone who’s lust discovered this wealth of material could get very excited. But it’s not the holy grail or anything. Not just yet.

FutileJester

1st March 2004, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Ersby
Hey, I’ve got an idea: since we’re all here, why don’t we have a discussion about parapsychology?

Great idea!

I don’t think that the ganzfeld results are proof of psi. They may be considered evidence, but not very good evidence. The results are suggestive of some kind of effect. Personally, I think response bias may be that effect, but that’s just my pet theory. I’ve yet to see any real experiments into how big an effect response bias is. Nevertheless, it goes some way to explain PEAR’s results, and if you consider that SRI and SAIC mostly used the same set of 100 National Geographic photographs, wouldn’t some kind of “best guessing” technique emerge over the space of twenty years?

That's interesting, I didn't realize the same pictures were used; that does seem to imply a real need to consider response bias.

The meta analyses are often cited as evidence, but people forget there are actually four of these. The first was Hyman’s, and he found no effect. But he filtered out those he considered flawed. This was then followed by Bem and Honorton who took the same approach and, since they chose different experiments to filter out, they found an effect. The third was Milton and Wiseman’s, which found no effect. This was again rejigged (this time filtering out experiments according to “standardness”) and including new experiments. An effect was found, although less that before. So each m-a that found no effect was followed by a second that adjusted the figures and found the effect. This worries me.

Well said. Meta-analysis can be useful, but trying MA over and over - with different sets of data used each time - seems like an obvious fishing expedition.

Trying to work out, indeed, what can or can’t be viewed is tricky. As above, people have reported hearing sounds, but Willin found they couldn’t identify music. Colours, too, have been reported, but Targ, Tart and Lichtarge in 1985 ran a test using black and white or colour photographs and found that RVers couldn’t tell the difference. So can they even see colour?

To tie this in with the earlier discussion (or perhaps just to beat a dead horse), these types of questions are what a good model is all about. I suspect the real problem, of course, is that there is no model that matches both the implicit expectation of what psi is (the cumulative anectdotal evidence), and the data collected in controlled conditions. This is a great example: people say that RV includes music and color, but this doesn't seem to be what happens in the lab.

And then there’s the wide range of other variables that apparently have and effect. Same sex/different sex sender/receiver pairs, geo-magnetic activity (or lack of), static/dynamic, feedback/non-feedback, size of target pool, and so on.

Another of my usual complaints is that so many experiments seem to vary lots of these to see what happens. To really understand things, the idea should be to hold everything constant except for one thing which is varied. Why not a study of, say, women aged 21-30, from the same geographic area, conducted at the same time of day each time in the same place, in an electromagnetically shielded room, with the same target pool, and vary only the level of feedback. Does anyone know of good examples of this kind of study? It seems all the ones I read about have many phases where they triy changing all kinds of variables, but then draw conclusions from the entire data set anyway.

Thanks Ersby, we'll turn this into an actual discussion yet... :)

T'ai Chi

1st March 2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Ersby

I don’t think that the ganzfeld results are proof of psi.

I don't either and I don't think many of the parapsycholgists do either, as scientists don't talk about proof but evidence. They consider it evidence of something.

Nevertheless, it goes some way to explain PEAR’s results, and if you consider that SRI and SAIC mostly used the same set of 100 National Geographic photographs, wouldn’t some kind of “best guessing” technique emerge over the space of twenty years?

Could you expand on specifically how response bias could be responsible for an effect here?

Also, with randomness involved and controls in place, how could one develop a best guessing technique?

Moreover, is there anything beyond speculation here? That is, is there actual evidence of response bias and/or best guessing techniques?

The meta analyses are often cited as evidence, but people forget there are actually four of these. The first was Hyman’s, and he found no effect. But he filtered out those he considered flawed. This was then followed by Bem and Honorton who took the same approach and, since they chose different experiments to filter out, they found an effect. The third was Milton and Wiseman’s, which found no effect. This was again rejigged (this time filtering out experiments according to “standardness”) and including new experiments. An effect was found, although less that before. So each m-a that found no effect was followed by a second that adjusted the figures and found the effect. This worries me.

Regarding meta-analysis, I think it is very important who is doing the selecting of experiments for the analysis; this goes both ways. You forgot, however, to mention that a professional statistician, Utts, evaluted the ganzfeld studies too.

You seem to be surprised that the addition of evidence is able to change conclusions. In addition, the claims of a hypothetical file-drawer fail to be convincing due to the very large number of hypothetical negative unpublished studies that would have to be in the drawer for every significant published study.

What’s more, I have little time for this “standardness” since it muddies the water.

It is very imporatnt, especailly if they are trying to assess critics' claims that researchers only get statistically significant results if they stick with the original ganzfeld procedures.

Ersby

2nd March 2004, 02:22 AM

Could you expand on specifically how response bias could be responsible for an effect here?

Also, with randomness involved and controls in place, how could one develop a best guessing technique?

Moreover, is there anything beyond speculation here? That is, is there actual evidence of response bias and/or best guessing techniques?

With SAIC and SRI, almost anything is speculation since most of it is still classified. (Even your statement “with randomness involved and controls in place”)

As for evidence, consider the investigation by Spottiswode and May into dynamic/static target differences. The first trials, as usual, used the National Geographic set for static targets and a wide range of new video clips for the dynamic. The static came out with the better results, against what you’d expect after Bem & Honorton’s m-a into the static/dynamic issue.

Then the dynamic target set was changed. It’s content and size now reflected that of the static target set: ie, the one the viewers were already familiar with. Now both dyamic and static target sets got the same positive results. But even this is against what is expected: dynamic targets should do better than static ones. It is, however, what you’d expect if they are employing (deliberately or not) a best guessing technique built up over time with a familiar target set.

As for a best guessing technique, you’re right, even guessing should still net you a 25% hit rate. I’m no statistician but there’s something about response bias which appeals. I’d like to see a run of experiments to explore this properly.

Regarding meta-analysis, I think it is very important who is doing the selecting of experiments for the analysis; this goes both ways. You forgot, however, to mention that a professional statistician, Utts, evaluted the ganzfeld studies too.

I didn’t forget. I was talking about people who did a meta analysis themselves. I did forget Rosenthal, though. But he made little attempt at accounting for flawed studies.

You seem to be surprised that the addition of evidence is able to change conclusions. In addition, the claims of a hypothetical file-drawer fail to be convincing due to the very large number of hypothetical negative unpublished studies that would have to be in the drawer for every significant published study.

Douglas Stokes has some interesting things to say about the file drawer: http://www.hf.caltech.edu/ctt/show212/newitems/stokes.html

…a standard practice in statistical meta-analysis, at least as practiced in parapsychology, is to compute the size of the "filedrawer." The filedrawer is the number of unpublished experiments with null results that would have to be assumed to exist in order to explain away the evidence for psi provided by these 28 experiments as being caused by data selection.

Honorton conducted the standard filedrawer analysis and concluded that there would have to be 423 unreported studies averaging null results in order to attribute the overall effect found in the 28 experiments in his sample as being due to data selection.

… however, the standard filedrawer analysis may be quite flawed… if only the best results are selected for publication, one might expect the results of the remaining experiments to average below chance, rather than at chance as assumed in the usual filedrawer analysis. This would substantially lower the number of unpublished studies that would need to be assumed.
…
Thus, there need be only 62 unpublished experiments rather than the 423 asserted by Honorton. While it may be ludicrous to suppose that there are 423 unpublished experiments, it is not at all ludicrous to suppose that there might be 62.

It is very imporatnt, especailly if they are trying to assess critics' claims that researchers only get statistically significant results if they stick with the original ganzfeld procedures.

I’m not sure I follow you. The “standardness” criteria was invented and adopted AFTER the Milton Wiseman m-a was published. Which critics are you referring to?

CFLarsen

10th March 2004, 08:31 AM

T'ai Chi,

I have gotten my copy of Radin's "The Unconscious Universe" back. There are 595 references in the back of the book.

Of course, you can't base your conclusions on something you haven't read, and I doubt seriously that you have read all 565 references.

So, which references did you read to form your conclusions?

Where, specifically, in Radin's book can we find "a good summary of the evidence"? I have the book right here, I just need a page reference.

T'ai Chi

12th March 2004, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
T'ai Chi,

I have gotten my copy of Radin's "The Unconscious Universe" back. There are 595 references in the back of the book.

Of course, you can't base your conclusions on something you haven't read, and I doubt seriously that you have read all 565 references.

So, which references did you read to form your conclusions?

Where, specifically, in Radin's book can we find "a good summary of the evidence"? I have the book right here, I just need a page reference.

Read the section on the ganzfeld and autoganzfeld.

CFLarsen

23rd March 2004, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Read the section on the ganzfeld and autoganzfeld.

I re-read it.

Short summary:

Ganzfeld Telepathy Experiments.

Meditative state is claimed to help psi effects.

The Ganzfeld method.

Description.

Mentation Examples.

The First Meta-analysis.

Although it is claimed that "eight" other labs could "replicate" the effect, we never learn any exact numbers. Ther are serious issues with how Honorton came to the number eight (out of ten).

Radin also admits that he doesn't know how many experiments were filed away. Oops.

Concerns about design flaws, sensory are minimized.

Randomization is discussed, but Hyman is - once again - sought marginalized, solely because he is a skeptic.

Effect size. Radin tries to explain away the complaints about the very low effect size: It is just a "red herring". He then points to a meta-analysis, where we learn nothing of the actual data from the experiments themselves. He then points to an aspirin-study, as if to say "Hey, there are flaws in real science, too, so that means the ganzfeld is a real phenomenon!". Yeah, right.

The Joint Communique.

Radin makes unfair and untrue jabs at skeptics, and misrepresents Hyman's stance.

The Autoganzfeld.

Gets an "expert opinion" from a psychic. Yeah, right.

Results.

Ah, finally. A very wide range of people with different backgrounds, apparently no need to test the experts. No indication whatsoever on how the proclaimed results were reached. None.

Providing proof of the Telepathy pudding.

Radin lists experimenters, all (presumably, I only took a glance) favorable to the existence of psi. Incredibly, Radin tries to convince us that - in the absence of evidence, it is the skeptics' (personified in Hyman) beliefs that are hard to give up on. Yeah, right.

Ganzfeld summary.

Summoning up, even quoting Freud. Whoopdedoo.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see any evidence. So let's turn to the references. Which references have you actually read yourself, from start to finish?

T'ai Chi

23rd March 2004, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I re-read it.

Short summary:

Ganzfeld Telepathy Experiments.

Meditative state is claimed to help psi effects.

The Ganzfeld method.

Description.

Mentation Examples.

The First Meta-analysis.

Although it is claimed that "eight" other labs could "replicate" the effect, we never learn any exact numbers. Ther are serious issues with how Honorton came to the number eight (out of ten).

Radin also admits that he doesn't know how many experiments were filed away. Oops.

Concerns about design flaws, sensory are minimized.

Randomization is discussed, but Hyman is - once again - sought marginalized, solely because he is a skeptic.

Effect size. Radin tries to explain away the complaints about the very low effect size: It is just a "red herring". He then points to a meta-analysis, where we learn nothing of the actual data from the experiments themselves. He then points to an aspirin-study, as if to say "Hey, there are flaws in real science, too, so that means the ganzfeld is a real phenomenon!". Yeah, right.

The Joint Communique.

Radin makes unfair and untrue jabs at skeptics, and misrepresents Hyman's stance.

The Autoganzfeld.

Gets an "expert opinion" from a psychic. Yeah, right.

Results.

Ah, finally. A very wide range of people with different backgrounds, apparently no need to test the experts. No indication whatsoever on how the proclaimed results were reached. None.

Providing proof of the Telepathy pudding.

Radin lists experimenters, all (presumably, I only took a glance) favorable to the existence of psi. Incredibly, Radin tries to convince us that - in the absence of evidence, it is the skeptics' (personified in Hyman) beliefs that are hard to give up on. Yeah, right.

Ganzfeld summary.

Summoning up, even quoting Freud. Whoopdedoo.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see any evidence. So let's turn to the references. Which references have you actually read yourself, from start to finish?

Yeah Claus, you seemed to overlook the actual numbers... you know, p-values and confidence intervals and stuff.

Try again.

CFLarsen

23rd March 2004, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yeah Claus, you seemed to overlook the actual numbers... you know, p-values and confidence intervals and stuff.

What "numbers"? We never see any data, just proclaimed results. I referred to the meta-analysis, where we learn nothing of the actual data from the experiments themselves. How the heck are we supposed to know how he got to the results? (You did read the book, didn't you?)

This is evidence, T'ai Chi? You have extremely low standards, if you accept this as evidence of psi.

Try again.

Oh, and do try to answer the question this time:

Which references have you actually read yourself, from start to finish?

Ersby

23rd March 2004, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Yeah Claus, you seemed to overlook the actual numbers... you know, p-values and confidence intervals and stuff.

Try again.

Earlier you referred to some "critics". I don't suppose you could drag yourself away from the cut and thrust of a debate with Claus long enough to tell me who they were, could you?

T'ai Chi

23rd March 2004, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

What "numbers"?

You know, p-values and confidence intervals and stuff.

We never see any data, just proclaimed results.

You have to do actual work and read the references and contact the authors if you want the full datasets I'd imagine.

This is evidence, T'ai Chi? You have extremely low standards, if you accept this as evidence of psi.

Try again.

Have you contacted the researchers for their full datasets Claus? Let us know.

Which references have you actually read yourself, from start to finish?

Unfortunately I don't have the book in front of me. I can say that almost all of the ones on the Ganzfeld and RNG experiments though.

T'ai Chi

23rd March 2004, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Ersby

Earlier you referred to some "critics". I don't suppose you could drag yourself away from the cut and thrust of a debate with Claus long enough to tell me who they were, could you?

What exactly are you referring to?

CFLarsen

23rd March 2004, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You know, p-values and confidence intervals and stuff.

Yes, I know. You told me this. Can you be a little more specific?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You have to do actual work and read the references and contact the authors if you want the full datasets I'd imagine.

You'd "imagine"? So, you haven't read them yourself.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Have you contacted the researchers for their full datasets Claus? Let us know.

I am asking you. I keep asking you, because you refuse to answer.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Unfortunately I don't have the book in front of me. I can say that almost all of the ones on the Ganzfeld and RNG experiments though.

Really? When you get the book, get back to us and tell us what those say. Until then, I hardly think it appropriate that you point to the book.

T'ai Chi

23rd March 2004, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Yes, I know. You told me this. Can you be a little more specific?

The p-values and confidence intervals presented in the book.

Have you or the article author figured out why Radin used 65% confidence intervals in several places yet?

You'd "imagine"? So, you haven't read them yourself.

I'm asking you if you've contacted the authors for their full data sets since you are the one complaining that they aren't in the book.

Have you, yes or no?

Really? When you get the book, get back to us and tell us what those say. Until then, I hardly think it appropriate that you point to the book.

Funny how when I brought this up when I had the book, you were silent, now weeks later you want to talk about it.

Have you contacted them yet for their full data sets?

T'ai Chi

23rd March 2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

He then points to an aspirin-study, as if to say "Hey, there are flaws in real science, too, so that means the ganzfeld is a real phenomenon!". Yeah, right.

By the way, you missed the point here by a large margin. There weren't any flaws in the aspirin study. It used identical statistical methods as the ganzfeld study, yet even had a smaller effect size, and people took its results as solid evidence.

Ersby

23rd March 2004, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

What exactly are you referring to?

This thread.

On this page, you said:

"It is very imporatnt, especailly if they are trying to assess critics' claims that researchers only get statistically significant results if they stick with the original ganzfeld procedures."

To which I said

"I’m not sure I follow you. The “standardness” criteria was invented and adopted AFTER the Milton Wiseman m-a was published. Which critics are you referring to?"

CFLarsen

23rd March 2004, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The p-values and confidence intervals presented in the book.

In the Ganzfeld chapter, Radin speaks only of the 95% confidence intervals. No p-values at all.

Please show me where, in the Ganzfeld chapter, Radin speaks of 65% confidence intervals and of p-values.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Have you or the article author figured out why Radin used 65% confidence intervals in several places yet?

Keep focused here, T'ai Chi. We are discussing the Ganzfeld chapter.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Funny how when I brought this up when I had the book, you were silent, now weeks later you want to talk about it.

Funny how you "forget" that I told you that I didn't have the book handy. Now I do.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
By the way, you missed the point here by a large margin. There weren't any flaws in the aspirin study. It used identical statistical methods as the ganzfeld study, yet even had a smaller effect size, and people took its results as solid evidence.

Why don't people take the Ganzfeld results as solid evidence?

Why no headlines?

T'ai Chi

24th March 2004, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Keep focused here, T'ai Chi. We are discussing the Ganzfeld chapter.

I asked: "Have you or the article author figured out why Radin used 65% confidence intervals in several places yet?"

I'll take your answer as a "NO".

Why don't people take the Ganzfeld results as solid evidence?

Some do.

Why no headlines?

FYI, science is conducted through experiments and writing about the results in peer reviewed journals.

There aren't headlines for A LOT of scientific discoveries. You do know that, right?

CFLarsen

24th March 2004, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I asked: "Have you or the article author figured out why Radin used 65% confidence intervals in several places yet?"

I'll take your answer as a "NO".

No, you can not take my answer as a "no". I am trying to get you to focus on the Ganzfeld chapter in Radin's book. You pointed to it, so let's discuss that.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Some do.

And some regard Uri Geller as real. That does not make him real, T'ai Chi. What we need is solid evidence. That evidence is just not there.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
FYI, science is conducted through experiments and writing about the results in peer reviewed journals.

I know. Does that mean your study is not science?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
There aren't headlines for A LOT of scientific discoveries. You do know that, right?

I know. However, scientific evidence of a paranormal phenomenon would most certainly clear the headlines of every news outlet in the world.

Now, let's keep focused here, OK?

Please show me where, in the Ganzfeld chapter, Radin speaks of 65% confidence intervals and of p-values.

T'ai Chi

24th March 2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No, you can not take my answer as a "no". I am trying to get you to focus on the Ganzfeld chapter in Radin's book. You pointed to it, so let's discuss that.

Too late, I have already took your answer as NO because you insist on running away from it. Clearly you haven't bothered to find out why 65% CI's were used. So much for being skeptical.

And some regard Uri Geller as real. That does not make him real, T'ai Chi. What we need is solid evidence. That evidence is just not there.

This from someone who hasn't contacted the authors to get the full datasets. Riiiighhtttt.

I know. Does that mean your study is not science?

You believe you know, yet you talk about headlines. :rolleyes:

I know. However, scientific evidence of a paranormal phenomenon would most certainly clear the headlines of every news outlet in the world.

Your belief might be correct, who's to say?

Please show me where, in the Ganzfeld chapter, Radin speaks of 65% confidence intervals and of p-values.

I've already said I don't have the book anymore; just how dense are you?

CFLarsen

24th March 2004, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Too late, I have already took your answer as NO because you insist on running away from it. Clearly you haven't bothered to find out why 65% CI's were used. So much for being skeptical.

So much for the data quality of your study. You force data to have a value, instead of accepting its value.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
This from someone who hasn't contacted the authors to get the full datasets. Riiiighhtttt.

This from someone who accepts the claimed evidence without ever having seen it. Riiiighhtttt.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You believe you know, yet you talk about headlines. :rolleyes:

Yes. So?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Your belief might be correct, who's to say?

Are you saying that finding scientific evidence of a paranormal phenomenon would not clear the world's headlines?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I've already said I don't have the book anymore; just how dense are you?

Then you cannot point to the book anymore.

Let's just get this straight, shall we?

Radin never speaks of 65% confidence intervals and of p-values in the Ganzfeld chapter.

And you? You have yet another problem following you around...