Are cockroaches masochistic, or is it the experimenter effect?

[Interesting Ian]

Random event generators (REGs) have been utilised in a laboratory setting to investigate the precognitive or psychokinetic skills of animal subjects (Nash, 1986, p. 146; Rush, 1982, p. 100).

One arguably questionable ethically experiment protocol here is to apply moderate electric currents to one half of the grid comprising the floor of the test cage which houses the creature in question. The half which is electrified is determined by the REG.

Now the objective here is to try and ascertain whether the creature in question is able to employ psi so as to avoid experiencing electric shocks to a statistically significant extent. Obviously the success of the creature in this endeavour could either be precognition (knowing the future so as to know which half of the grid will be electrified), or by psychokinesis (altering the REG so that the half of the cage which the creature isn't on is electrified).

Various creatures including hamsters, guinea pigs, gerbils, cats, rats, and brine shrimp have been able to prevent or avoid the electric shock to a statistically significant extent. However, there is one curious exception. In an experiment conducted by Schmidt (1970), cockroaches not only failed to avoid the electric current to a statistically significant extent, but they actually received more electric shocks to a statistically significant extent! :eek:

Now what accounts for this curious result? Are cockroaches masochistic by nature? Or could it be the case that, loathsome creatures that many people consider cockroaches to be, that Schmidt disliked cockroaches and used his own psychokinetic abilities to influence the REG so that the creatures would suffer more! :eek:

This brings into sharp focus the question of the experimenter effect in parapsychological research, and whether the experimenter might be using his own psi ability to influence the outcome of the research, even with human subjects. Just one of the huge problems which parapsychologists have to face.

Comments please?

[Ed]

Oddly, I performed a similar experiment using Tarantulas. Not so oddly, I got the same results. The problem was that the exskeleton acted as sorta a Zener diode. That is to say that up to a certain electrical potential, the critters did not respond. Above that potential the result was catastrophic ie. convulscions.

"This brings into sharp focus the question of the experimenter effect in parapsychological research, and whether the experimenter might be using his own psi ability to influence the outcome of the research, even with human subjects. Just one of the huge problems which parapsychologists have to face."

A far larger one is incompetance. As I recall the noxious stimulous used for such critters is light, not shock. Where was this work published? Giving a reference as you did is the form then there is a bibliography, not when there is not one.

So it is "Psi" huh? Right off the bat. Good thinking.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
Oddly, I performed a similar experiment using Tarantulas. Not so oddly, I got the same results.



You have done the same experiment?? You got what result??



II
This brings into sharp focus the question of the experimenter effect in parapsychological research, and whether the experimenter might be using his own psi ability to influence the outcome of the research, even with human subjects. Just one of the huge problems which parapsychologists have to face.

Ed
A far larger one is incompetance.



Not so, there is absolutely zero evidence that parapsychologists are any more incompetent than any other scientist, and parapsychology has now got tighter controls than any other area of science.


As I recall the noxious stimulous used for such critters is light, not shock.


It's not a question of them not minding pain. Why do they happen to be in the half of the cage which is electrified to a statistically significant extent? I said that one possibility is that they may be masochistic ie enjoy pain, or if that is to anthropomorphic, are drawn to experience pain.



Where was this work published? Giving a reference as you did is the form then there is a bibliography, not when there is not one.



What? Speak English please. I gave you the references. Go and check them out.



So it is "Psi" huh?

Well, it would seem to imply it. Have you any ideas apart from psi?

[Garrette]

Having written quite a few papers, albeit not scientific ones, I have to agree with Ed, Ian.

You say: Nash, 1986, p. 146.

That is an in-text reference to a detailed bibliographical entry at the end of a book or article, but you haven't given us the detailed entry.

Nash who? Or Who Nash? Page 146 of what work by Nash Who?

[The Mighty Thor]

Were the psi creatures 'experienced' lab creatures who had been previously exposed to electric shock? Maybe they can sense an electric field, and from previous experience think -- keep away from the bit that hums?

Cockroaches are too stupid.

After the 'nukular' holocaust, all that will be left will be Dubyah, cockroaches, and some psychics.:) Serves him right!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You have done the same experiment?? You got what result??

Yeah.. The problem was, as I mentioned, the exoskeleton. Shocking a critter that cannot avoid/escape violated even my sensibilities. I thought about using conducting gel on their feet...is it feet? Anyway, it became a real messy situation so I abandoned it. I have always had an interest in invertebrate learning. It was, now that I think about it, an example of the file drawer effect. I made no effort to publish. Though it never would have made a full paper, a "technical note" would have been appropriate though.



Not so, there is absolutely zero evidence that parapsychologists are any more incompetent than any other scientist, and parapsychology has now got tighter controls than any other area of science.

Well, perhaps only Schwartz, the guys at PEAR and Targ. Byrd on "The Power of Prayer" and a few others. The problem is that, given the track record, I suspect incompetence to a degree that I do not in other areas of inquiry. Too often they "know" what the effect is before they even start so the reader needs to provide the ethical compass.


It's not a question of them not minding pain. Why do they happen to be in the half of the cage which is electrified to a statistically significant extent? I said that one possibility is that they may be masochistic ie enjoy pain, or if that is to anthropomorphic, are drawn to experience pain.

I suspect that they simply can't move, like my Tarantulas. Can't really say without reading the paper. Ian, you ever take a course in basic electricity? They teach you to never touch a wire or object that might be "hot" palm out. Reason being that if it is, your muscles will contract and you won't be able to let go. Same thing here.

What? Speak English please. I gave you the references. Go and check them out.

Schmidt (1970) is a reference for within a paper where, at the end, there are full citations. The proper form where it has to stand alone is something like

Schmidt, J. R. Cockroach Learning: Extraterrestrials or Psi?, Journal of Irreproducable Results, 1963, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp 223-226

That is so someone can actually find it.


Well, it would seem to imply it. Have you any ideas apart from psi?

Convultions.

[Garrette]

Actually, I think Corrinda explains how to do this trick in his "13 Steps to Mentalism." Sheesh, Ian; do some research. I can do the same thing with a dead cricket and some foil from a gum wrapper...

--

Seriously, though, it sounds intriguing, which is why I posted the bit agreeing with Ed about the sources. Can you please provide more detail?

[The Mighty Thor]

BTW, my pooch seems to be attracted to any electrical wires trailing along the floor. He insists on lying on them as though he gets a wee buzz! But then, he also set his ear alight on a candle. I shouldn't but:

:dl:

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Garrette
Actually, I think Corrinda explains how to do this trick in his "13 Steps to Mentalism." Sheesh, Ian; do some research. I can do the same thing with a dead cricket and some foil from a gum wrapper...

--

Seriously, though, it sounds intriguing, which is why I posted the bit agreeing with Ed about the sources. Can you please provide more detail?

Yeah, and there's that chicken trick with the line of chalk:D

[Garrette]

Yeah, but the chicken has to be in on the trick for that to work. Mine always squealed on me, so I ended up having to eat them.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by malcolmdl
BTW, my pooch seems to be attracted to any electrical wires trailing along the floor. He insists on lying on them as though he gets a wee buzz! But then, he also set his ear alight on a candle. I shouldn't but:

:dl:

And, yes, Garrette, the pooch then ran through the house, set the curtains on fire, and set the whole ^&*%ing house up!

It wasn't funny at the time! But all living creatures involved survived the incident -- got rid of the cockroaches, though. Funny that, init;)

[Hamish]

Two thoughts on this:

1. Statistical significance. How exactly was this defined?

2. There may be a subjective component to the experiment although this may not be immediately apparent. What happens if the animal is sort of in the middle when the shock is delivered? Is there not some subjective decision about whether the animal was on the charged bit of floor at exactly the time the shock hit or "no, they just moved off, just before the shock". Whenever you have a subjective descision on the part of the experimenter, there is potential for bias.

[Ed]

Ian,

One more point. I tried an avoidance experiment once on rats. The strain that I used couldn't learn (hooded rats). Some wierd genetic component. Corey might be able to illucidate. Point is I could have invoked a woo reason or I could have researched a bit more before the experiment. You really have to give real scientists a bit more credit for what they have to know.

[Garrette]

Most funny, malcolm. I'm not sure I'd still have a pooch after that, though...

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Garrette
Yeah, but the chicken has to be in on the trick for that to work. Mine always squealed on me, so I ended up having to eat them.

:D :D :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette
[B]Having written quite a few papers, albeit not scientific ones, I have to agree with Ed, Ian.

You say: Nash, 1986, p. 146.

That is an in-text reference to a detailed bibliographical entry at the end of a book or article, but you haven't given us the detailed entry.

Nash who? Or Who Nash? Page 146 of what work by Nash Who?

Sorry. Nash, C.B. (1986)
Parapsychology: The Science of Psiology. Springfield, IL: Thomas

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Garrette
Most funny, malcolm. I'm not sure I'd still have a pooch after that, though...

Actually, we ate him. Not a bad curry, that. :D

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Sorry. Nash, C.B. (1986)
Parapsychology: The Science of Psiology. Springfield, IL: Thomas

In the book does he reference a paper that was published? Secondary sources make for bad references.

[Oleron]

I haven't been able to check out the research but I will make some pretty bold assumptions about it, greatly to it's favour:

I will assume that the experiments were performed by reputable scientists, under strictly controlled conditions, using controls and that the statistics show an indisputable significance where you mention.

Now that only leaves the results to discuss. All test animals except cockroaches seem to stand/move to an area of the test zone where there is no electrical charge. Cockroaches do the opposite.
There may be many reasons why an organism may be able to display this behaviour, such as the detection of heat/sound/static from the electrified grid. The result, taken at face value, is interesting but the least likely explanation for it is psi (on the part of the experimenter or the organism).

The earlier Schmidt experiment got opposite results to the later experiments you mention. This points to either poor controls or fundamental flaws on the part of one set of experimenters.

It is odd that you jump to the psi conclusion - or is that the opinion of the experimenters?

I find the experimenter 'psi effect' very difficult to believe, mainly because I was employed at a research lab for years and the number of times cold hard facts got in the way of my pet theories was just not funny. If there was such an effect, I would have found it by now!

A documented result in science is a result only because it can be repeated under the same conditions. If, one time, the result changed - it's because the conditions changed.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette
[B]Having written quite a few papers, albeit not scientific ones, I have to agree with Ed, Ian.

You say: Nash, 1986, p. 146.

That is an in-text reference to a detailed bibliographical entry at the end of a book or article, but you haven't given us the detailed entry.

Nash who? Or Who Nash? Page 146 of what work by Nash Who?

Sorry. Nash, C.B. (1986)
Parapsychology: The Science of Psiology. Springfield, IL: Thomas

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Sorry. Nash, C.B. (1986)
Parapsychology: The Science of Psiology. Springfield, IL: Thomas

Oh for Chr*st sake!! Where's my post gone????

Sorry replied to Ed and lost the post. Really can't be bothered to retype it.

[Interesting Ian]

RIGHT, THE SECOND TIME I'M HAVING TO TYPE OUT THIS POST!!!!!

Originally posted by Ed

II

You have done the same experiment?? You got what result??

Ed
Yeah.. The problem was, as I mentioned, the exoskeleton. Shocking a critter that cannot avoid/escape violated even my sensibilities. I thought about using conducting gel on their feet...is it feet? Anyway, it became a real messy situation so I abandoned it. I have always had an interest in invertebrate learning. It was, now that I think about it, an example of the file drawer effect. I made no effort to publish. Though it never would have made a full paper, a "technical note" would have been appropriate though.



What were the results??? Did they seek pain or not??????




II
Not so, there is absolutely zero evidence that parapsychologists are any more incompetent than any other scientist, and parapsychology has now got tighter controls than any other area of science.

Ed

Well, perhaps only Schwartz, the guys at PEAR and Targ. Byrd on "The Power of Prayer" and a few others. The problem is that, given the track record, I suspect incompetence to a degree that I do not in other areas of inquiry. Too often they "know" what the effect is before they even start so the reader needs to provide the ethical compass.



{sighs} Yet again I have to type out the same stuff. Schwartz and Targ are not professional parapsychologists. I know of no incompetence from PEAR. You must supply details. I do not know who Byrd is. Again you must supply details.

I have absolutely zero interest in what you suspect because you are a hopelessly biased pseudo-skeptic who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw up.



II

It's not a question of them not minding pain. Why do they happen to be in the half of the cage which is electrified to a statistically significant extent? I said that one possibility is that they may be masochistic ie enjoy pain, or if that is to anthropomorphic, are drawn to experience pain.

Ed

I suspect that they simply can't move, like my Tarantulas.



If they can't move then why the hell do they just happen to be in the half of the cage to a statistically significant extent where pain is applied??



Can't really say without reading the paper.



Then read it. Otherwise keep your baseless wild speculations to yourself and address the substance of my post which is about the experimenter effect, and not the existence of psi which has already been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.




Ian, you ever take a course in basic electricity? They teach you to never touch a wire or object that might be "hot" palm out. Reason being that if it is, your muscles will contract and you won't be able to let go. Same thing here.



This explains nothing. If they can move to the half of the cage where an electric shock is supplied, then clearly they can do vice versa



What? Speak English please. I gave you the references. Go and check them out.

Schmidt (1970) is a reference for within a paper where, at the end, there are full citations. The proper form where it has to stand alone is something like

Schmidt, J. R. Cockroach Learning: Extraterrestrials or Psi?, Journal of Irreproducable Results, 1963, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp 223-226

That is so someone can actually find it.



Right, for the 2nd time!!!! And you better heck it out!!!!

Schmidt, H. (1970). PK experiments with animals as subjects. Journal of Parapsychology, 34, 255-261.

The experiment as described by me is adumbrated from Irwin' "An introduction to parapsychology" (3rd edition).



II
Well, it would seem to imply it. Have you any ideas apart from psi?

Ed
Convultions.


Why do convulsions make them seek pain?? And how the hell does this refute psi??

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette
[B]Actually, I think Corrinda explains how to do this trick in his "13 Steps to Mentalism." Sheesh, Ian; do some research. I can do the same thing with a dead cricket and some foil from a gum wrapper...


I'm reading up as much as I can. I only have a certain number of hours in a day!!

I have no idea why you think this is a trick or what the hell you are talking about in the above. My post is supposed to be about the damn experimenter effect! Not the existence of psi which has been shown to exist beyond reasonable doubt.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by malcolmdl


And, yes, Garrette, the pooch then ran through the house, set the curtains on fire, and set the whole ^&*%ing house up!

It wasn't funny at the time! But all living creatures involved survived the incident -- got rid of the cockroaches, though. Funny that, init;)

Stop spamming my thread.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Hamish
[B]Two thoughts on this:

1. Statistical significance. How exactly was this defined?



I don't know, read the original papers. This has nothing to do with my original post.

[Garrette]

Ian:

I have no idea why you think this is a trick or what the hell you are talking about in the above.

Chill, Ian, chill. It was a joke, which is evidenced quite effectively by my follow-on comment:

Garrette

Seriously, though, it sounds intriguing,

Feel better?

[Correa Neto]

A friend of mine had a dog who loved to bite electrical wires and plugs. The poor dog died electrocuted after getting its teeth stuck on a energized plug.:run:

Now, this surely is a strong evidence for psi, since its a tale from a friend of mine (typicall source of evidence for paranormal phenomena) and involved an attraction to electrical currents ("energy fields"). That that particular dog felt attracted to electricity, so the laws of evolution took care of removing its genes from the gene pool:run:. See? I linked psi to evolution. Another evidence.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Oleron
[B]I haven't been able to check out the research but I will make some pretty bold assumptions about it, greatly to it's favour:

I will assume that the experiments were performed by reputable scientists, under strictly controlled conditions, using controls and that the statistics show an indisputable significance where you mention.

Now that only leaves the results to discuss. All test animals except cockroaches seem to stand/move to an area of the test zone where there is no electrical charge. Cockroaches do the opposite.
There may be many reasons why an organism may be able to display this behaviour, such as the detection of heat/sound/static from the electrified grid. The result, taken at face value, is interesting but the least likely explanation for it is psi (on the part of the experimenter or the organism).



The least likely? Where is your argument demonstrating this? Would there be heat, sound and static before the electricity is switched on? Moreover why would the foregoing make the creatures favour one half of the cage rather than the other?? Is there more heat, stactic and sound in one half of the cage rather than the other just before electricity is supplied? Why on earth should this be so?? I mean there's nothing to prevent the REG from selecting the otehr half so clearly what you say is simply nonsense.




The earlier Schmidt experiment got opposite results to the later experiments you mention.



How do you know he only tried it with cockroaches??




This points to either poor controls or fundamental flaws on the part of one set of experimenters.

It is odd that you jump to the psi conclusion - or is that the opinion of the experimenters?



If you can think of any other possible explanations, then name them. If it is the only reasonable explanation then clearly we should adopt it.





I find the experimenter 'psi effect' very difficult to believe, mainly because I was employed at a research lab for years and the number of times cold hard facts got in the way of my pet theories was just not funny. If there was such an effect, I would have found it by now!



Well we tend to get persistently get positive results from certain investigators of psi and persistent negative results from other investigators. This is suggestive of an experimenter effect.




A documented result in science is a result only because it can be repeated under the same conditions. If, one time, the result changed - it's because the conditions changed.

Absolute unadulterated rubbish! What on earth makes you come out with such a preposterous statement as this??

I really cannot believe the total unbelievable stupidity of people on this board! :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
A friend of mine had a dog who loved to bite electrical wires and plugs. The poor dog died electrocuted after getting its teeth stuck on a energized plug.:run:

Now, this surely is a strong evidence for psi,



How the hell is this strong evidence for psi?? Are you a complete and [b]total moron??

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How the hell is this strong evidence for psi?? Are you a complete and total moron??

Get a sense of humor, Ian.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Get a sense of humor, Ian.

Me? Me?? You need talk!! Besides, nothing remotely humorous has been uttered by anyone.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


How the hell is this strong evidence for psi?? Are you a complete and total moron??

As strong as any evidence ever presented for psi. The key parts are the dubious source ("a friend of mine"), the conclusions obtained before any study of the data (if not before the experiment is concluded) and the refusal to accept any explanations that do not fit with any other origin than paranormal phenomena. But I´m sure you realised the analogy I used.

Ian, if not accepting the evidence so far presented for paranormal phenomena due to its utter weakness, is a symptom of being a complete and total moron, then yes, I am, sir. I´d rather be a moron with a firm grasp on reality than a genius living in a fantasy world.

The only "researchers" (note the ") that get or interpret experimental results as consistent with the existence of paranormal events are those who belive that they are real. This sounds at least suspicious to me.

post edited to remove large fonts that could be interpreted as extreme lack of politeness

[Ed]

Until we find the paper this is all mental masturbation. A cite in a secondary source is not sufficient for any reasonable interpretation.

Ian, assuming the paranormal for an undocumented event does not do your cause any good.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
[B]

As strong as [b]any[/b evidence [b]ever[/b[ presented for psi.



I do not intend to waste my time with either liars or those profoundly ignorant of this subject matter.




The key parts are the dubious source ("a friend of mine"), the conclusions obtained before any study of the data (if not before the experiment is concluded) and the refusal to accept any explanations that do not fit with any other origin than paranormal phenomena. But I´m sure you realised the analogy I used.



One simply requires an explanation that could conceivably be true. Any such "explanations" are very welcome indeed.



Ian, if not accepting the evidence so far presented for paranormal phenomena due to its utter weakness,



"Utter weakness"?? What "utter weakness" might this be?? Why the hell don't you go and do your homework rather than waste my time with your facile ignorant remarks??



is a symptom of being a complete and total moron, then yes, I am, sir.



You are indeed in common with the vast majority of people on this board. Face reality, psi exists. The evidence is overwhelming when we consider all the evidence both scientific and anecdotal.



I´d rather be a moron with a firm grasp on reality than a genius living in a fantasy world.



Firm grasp on reality?? LMAO!!



The only "researchers" (note the ") that get or interpret experimental results as consistent with the existence of paranormal events are those who belive that they are real. This sounds at least suspicious to me.

Obviously if they get positive results they will come to believe the phenomena is real.

I might as well say:

The only "researchers" (note the ") that get or interpret experimental results as consistent with conventional explanations are those who tend to reject the existence of such putative phenomena from the outset.. This sounds at least suspicious to me.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
Until we find the paper this is all mental masturbation. A cite in a secondary source is not sufficient for any reasonable interpretation.

Ian, assuming the paranormal for an undocumented event does not do your cause any good.

Why not? The evidence is overwhelming. It is reasonable to assume the existence of certain paranormal phenomena such as psi and start addressing other questions such as the role of the experimenter in influencing his results via psi. This is what my post is about. It wasn't to argue over the existence of psi. It is clear to me that it exists. I am becoming more and more convinced of this.

A word of advice. Facile ignorant remarks by skeptics, flat out lies by skeptics, distortions of the truth by skeptics,, the employment of humour by skeptics to disparage parapsychological research, do absolutely nothing to dent my conviction. The sooner you all learn that the better. Indeed, if anything, I might tend to think that they have nothing better to counter the evidence so they have to resort to such puerile behaviour. I'm afraid I'm not impressed.

[Garrette]

Interesting Ian:

The evidence is overwhelming

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Stop spamming my thread.

Spamming? You are off your nut sunshine. Have you absolutely no sense of humour -- indeed no sense at all?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by malcolmdl


Spamming? You are off your nut sunshine. Have you absolutely no sense of humour -- indeed no sense at all?

WOW. Insulting me now huh. I'm really hurt :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette


II
The evidence is overwhelming


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrette
[I]
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...I] [/B]

Perhaps you could explain to me how the evidence is not overwhelming?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why not? The evidence is overwhelming. It is reasonable to assume the existence of certain paranormal phenomena such as psi and start addressing other questions such as the role of the experimenter in influencing his results via psi. This is what my post is about. It wasn't to argue over the existence of psi. It is clear to me that it exists. I am becoming more and more convinced of this.

A word of advice. Facile ignorant remarks by skeptics, flat out lies by skeptics, distortions of the truth by skeptics,, the employment of humour by skeptics to disparage parapsychological research, do absolutely nothing to dent my conviction. The sooner you all learn that the better. Indeed, if anything, I might tend to think that they have nothing better to counter the evidence so they have to resort to such puerile behaviour. I'm afraid I'm not impressed.

For arguments sake I will grant that the evidence is overwhelming. Now to the case at hand. Reading the original paper will go far to assuaging any doubts on the part od sceptics that Mr/Dr Nash did not f up his experiment and that it is, indeed, yet another piece of evidence for the ubiquity of Psi. Can't be too careful.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Now the objective here is to try and ascertain whether the creature in question is able to employ psi so as to avoid experiencing electric shocks to a statistically significant extent. Obviously the success of the creature in this endeavour could either be precognition (knowing the future so as to know which half of the grid will be electrified), or by psychokinesis (altering the REG so that the half of the cage which the creature isn't on is electrified).



False dichotomy: There are other possible explainations, not involving "psi" that must be ruled out. You have provided no indication that the study you cited examined the other possible reasons. Was it the authors, or you, who leaped to the conclusion that "psi" is the only possible explaination? Do you reject other explainations because there is data or tests that ruled them out or just because they don't seem likely to you?

[Garrette]

Interesting Ian:



Because there has been none presented that stands up to scrutiny.

No laboratory tests without protocols that allowed for cheating OR were replicated.

All that you have done is say (paraphrasing, just to be clear, and not intending this as a joke, just to be clear):

"There are anecdotes. A lot of anecdotes. A whole lot of anecdotes. Really now, quite a bunch of a whole lot of great numbers of anecdotes. Plus, in general, parapsychologists apply stricter controls than anyone except when we actually analyze their experiments, but we won't get into that. LOOK AT THE ANECDOTES!"

And, Ian, I truly am not being flippant. That sums up your position.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed


For arguments sake I will grant that the evidence is overwhelming. Now to the case at hand. Reading the original paper will go far to assuaging any doubts on the part od sceptics that Mr/Dr Nash did not f up his experiment and that it is, indeed, yet another piece of evidence for the ubiquity of Psi. Can't be too careful.

I really don't know if this particular experiment was watertight, or flawed, or whatever. I think everyone is missing the point. My original post was addressing the problem of how we know whether it is the subjects exhibiting psi, or the experimenter.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by patnray
[B]

False dichotomy: There are other possible explainations, not involving "psi" that must be ruled out.



It doesn't matter unless you consider all experiments to be flawed in some manner or other. You're missing the point.


You have provided no indication that the study you cited examined the other possible reasons. Was it the authors, or you, who leaped to the conclusion that "psi" is the only possible explaination? Do you reject other explainations because there is data or tests that ruled them out or just because they don't seem likely to you?

It doesn't matter. No I can't be sure this one particular experiment isn't flawed. It's supposed to be illustrative of an underlying problem as to what extent the psi abilities of the investigator influence the results. If such an experiment is flawed, then simply consider another experiment where it is unclear whether it is the subjects psi responsible for the results, or the experimenter's.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Garrette


Because there has been none presented that stands up to scrutiny.



You've been misinformed. The majority of them stand up to scrutiny. Moreover, even where possible sensory leakage might have conceivably occurred, this doesn't mean that it in fact did so.



No laboratory tests without protocols that allowed for cheating OR were replicated.



What?? Please speak English. The accusation that systematic fraud is taking place is unfalsifiable and can be levelled at any scientific experiment.


All that you have done is say (paraphrasing, just to be clear, and not intending this as a joke, just to be clear):

"There are anecdotes. A lot of anecdotes. A whole lot of anecdotes. Really now, quite a bunch of a whole lot of great numbers of anecdotes. Plus, in general, parapsychologists apply stricter controls than anyone except when we actually analyze their experiments, but we won't get into that. LOOK AT THE ANECDOTES!"
[/B]

If they have stricter controls then they have stricter controls. Analysing the results obviously doesn't alter that. If you're saying there are flaws in the experimental protocols then you are required to specify what they are. In short put up or shut up.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I really don't know if this particular experiment was watertight, or flawed, or whatever. I think everyone is missing the point. My original post was addressing the problem of how we know whether it is the subjects exhibiting psi, or the experimenter.
How about the possiblilty of neither - the test was flawed

[Correa Neto]

Ian,

First of all, you don´t know me. You have absolutely no evidence to claim that I am "either liars or those profoundly ignorant of this subject matter". As a matter of fact, lack of evidence is the central point of all these discussion regarding the paranormal. Most of the belivers in the paranormal just make claims without presenting any evidence.

I have never suggested similar things of you or nobody else in this or any other forum, neither offended anyone when confronted with an opinion that is different of mine. Now, I noticed that you have a problem with positions that are different from yours. Anyone who dares to disagree with you is an ignorant moron and receives aggresive answers.

Explanations? What about questionings? Can you remove any possibilty that the subjects could not avoid the fields using ordinary senses? All the mentioned animals are very sensible to vibrations (mechanical vibrations, not the ones invoked by the belivers in the paranormal). Or you think those long hairs on their snouts are there just to make them look cute? And that antennas on arthropods are jsut to make them look alien? Can you be sure that the equipent that produced the electrical curent did not vibrated? Or made very small low-pitched noises that the animals could pic? Whats the sensibility of the animals to electric fields? Could they detect static build up? Can you avoid the possibility that the very positioning of the people that were supervising the experiments did not influentiated the animal's behavior, standing above the plates?

And define "statistically significant". A 1% deviation from the expected probability? 10%? 50%? And how this deviation compare with the error margin of the predicted probablity? How many tests were done? Enough to stabilish a sound database?
By the way, psi IS fas from being a proven phenomena. If there were a slight chance of some of these phenomena being real, there would be several research projects underway, including private one. Why? Because there would exist a clear potential for money making. Now I don´t know of any project of this kind, but since I don´t pretend to know everything and that I´m never wrong, if anyone knows of a project of this type, please come forward and tell us how succesfull it was. Please provide links to the overwhelming evidence that paranormal phenomena are real.

What do you consider an evidence? Fuzzy intuitions about future events? NDEs? OBEs? That thread about the I Ching? Someone who claims to communicate with the dead?

What would be acceptable? Something on the level of an article published in Nature or some other important periodic. Scientific evidence for paranormal phenomena would be so extraordinary that would certainly deserve that. Or you will appeal to the usual line of "no one would give them a chance"? Present a solid database with solid interpretations and it will be accepted. It does not need to be spetacular, like a guy levitating. A nice statistic database showing something that deviates from random events and is above the error margin of the experiments would be enough. No defender of the paranormal managed to accomplish this so far. And if the phenomena is real, its measurable, and the results can be repeated. And can be published after review.

I stand to my moronic position- paranormal phenomena are real only for those who want to belive they are. They are not real because you somehow make them real. You have the illusion that they are real because you desperately want them to be real. No word games implied, no second meaning.

"Obviously if they get positive results they will come to believe the phenomena is real." So, why there is not a huge ammount of positive results?

On a funny note, someone once wrote that being called a moron by Ian is the first step to become a JREF god. This was my second. So, I must inform you all that I demand bloody aztec-style sacrifices or a dionisiac-like cult. Then I perhaps eventually may accept your prays. But you must do it anyway or I will use my powers and create a large number of religious fundamentalist neighbours around you!!! Oh, you already have them? So, want more proof of my powers?

[AlienX]

If the evidence was so water tight for PSI then this discussion would not be occuring.

So seeing as PSI is not generally accpeted by the scientific community one can only assume that the evidence is unfortunately lacking.

It's the same tiresome statistically significant argument put forward by woowoo's, they automatically assume the supposed statistical variation must be down to what they believe.

For me if it worked every time and the animal 100% avoided the shock each time then that would be statistically significant once you had ruled out totally other possibilities.

From my experience many factors can have massive impact upon various experiments, these miniscule variences thus could be unknown miniscule variences in methodolgy. It can be very difficult to eliminate such variences but to associate that because there is a minor varience (within the realms of possibility) to a woowoo reason without eliminating the other possibilities is basic incompetance. It's not as you suggest earlier as a mass con but infact it's mass ignorance on behalf of the experimenters.

To be a "scientist" that demonstrates yet another woowoo claim failure is nothing spectacular, but to be the "scientist" that proves any of these fame and fortune awaits... you don't need dodgy statistics to work out that one ;-).

AX

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It wasn't to argue over the existence of psi. It is clear to me that it exists. I am becoming more and more convinced of this.

So does it clearly exist as your first statement suggests, or are you still being convinced, as the second statement suggests? I'm confused.


A word of advice. Facile ignorant remarks by skeptics, flat out lies by skeptics, distortions of the truth by skeptics,, the employment of humour by skeptics to disparage parapsychological research, do absolutely nothing to dent my conviction. The sooner you all learn that the better.

I think its abundantly clear to all that nothing ever has, or ever will dent your convictions Ian. I applaud Ed for giving you your assumption that psi exists(because its clear to you, or is it becoming clear? I'm still confused) and continuing to try and point out the flaws in the experiment, although I predict here also that anything he comes up with will also not dent your conviction no matter how convincing.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I really don't know if this particular experiment was watertight, or flawed, or whatever. I think everyone is missing the point. My original post was addressing the problem of how we know whether it is the subjects exhibiting psi, or the experimenter.

Oh, sorry. Though now I am intregued.

You can isolate experimentor effects pretty easily, particularly with lower orders.

[alfaniner]

Wow. Congratulations, Ian. With this thread you reach a rare level of "git"ness previously attained only by Paul Bethke, Lucianarchy, Carlos Swett, and few others.

[Jeff Corey]

Interesting, innit?

So interesting that Claus and I could work up something for SkepticReport, given that Claus has saved this thread.

It proceded like this
1. Believer puts forth a claim amout cockroaches (cucaraches americanos) that prefer the hot shock side of a two-compartment Mowrer box. Says it either is cockroarch masochistic psi or the experimenter's psi. No other possibility.
Can you say false dichotomy (reference the poster who did, here.)
2. Various posters ask him for the primary reference, and he gives a secondary reference from an old book by a believer (Irwin) which presents only data that suggest that these effects are real, but don't criticise the protocols.
3. When asked for a primary refernce, he "adumbrated" from the secondary source, and then told people to go look it up, when he never did. Not as if that would have made any difference.
4. Pepper in the mandatory name calling throughout the posting.
Not very original, only left out "Cretin!" (OF, "christian").

What say you, Claus, old beetroot?

[Ed]

I was thinking the same thing which is why I was trying to keep the thread on track.

This is a wonderfully claer example (and nice and short, too!) of the thinking of a believer.

It addresses questionable evidence, lack of primary references, invoking the God of the Gaps, and a host of other logical no-no's. At directed to the end of supporting the unsupportable.

It seems that logic, reason and honesty all suffer for belief. Very curious.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
I was thinking the same thing which is why I was trying to keep the thread on track.

This is a wonderfully claer example (and nice and short, too!) of the thinking of a believer.

It addresses questionable evidence, lack of primary references, invoking the God of the Gaps, and a host of other logical no-no's. At directed to the end of supporting the unsupportable.

It seems that logic, reason and honesty all suffer for belief. Very curious.

The thread hasn't been on track since my first post. I haven't read the last 6 or 7 posts though. No doubt it's full of inane contributions by idiotic skeptics who understand nothing whatsoever. Can't really be ars*d to read them.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The thread hasn't been on track since my first post. I haven't read the last 6 or 7 posts though. No doubt it's full of inane contributions by idiotic skeptics who understand nothing whatsoever. Can't really be ars*d to read them.

You are not being objective in the slightest.

Try reading it again.

[Jeff Corey]

And when the believer is overwhelmed, he can't be "arsed" or sumtin' like that, to read them.

My psi tells me that he will be back with more crepulant fodder for the arses, if not the great unwashed masses.

'e's a cretin!

"There's no stoppin'
the cretins from hoppin'.
(The Ramones)

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Ed
I was thinking the same thing which is why I was trying to keep the thread on track.

This is a wonderfully claer example (and nice and short, too!) of the thinking of a believer.

It addresses questionable evidence, lack of primary references, invoking the God of the Gaps, and a host of other logical no-no's. At directed to the end of supporting the unsupportable.

It seems that logic, reason and honesty all suffer for belief. Very curious.
Who pointed out the false dichotomy? This needs a citation.

[Loki]

Ian,

It wasn't to argue over the existence of psi. It is clear to me that it exists. I am becoming more and more convinced of this.
And they say you don't have a sense of humour!! Well, I'm laughing ...

Tell me, since you're convinced that psi exists, can you give me just one clear attribute of psi (other than "exists") ? In your own time, using your own words, just explain something that psi is, rather than what it isn't.

(edited to add : Jeff - for some reason, "Beat on the Brat" seems more appropriate at this moment...)

[DangerousBeliefs]

I've said this before and I'll say it again... the most damning evidence against Psi (well, at least mind over matter or precognition) is....


CASINOS



If humans can in any significant way alter the odds of a slot machine or black jack game, casinos would not exist.

So either psi is nearly completely non-existent or the number of humans with said power are statistically insignificant.

It certainly is damning for Uri Geller... he should be banned from every casino in the world.

Oh, and here's some anecdotal evidence, in all the years I've been in the casino business or anyone I've ever heard or read about in the casino business, no cheater has ever been caught using "psi" has his/her edge. It was either physics, memory, or math.

Forget bugs... why isn't this guy in a casino cleaning up?

Rebuttal Ian?

[Yahweh]

Are cockroaches masochistic, or is it the experimenter effect?
I read the title and I immediately thought of this article titled Skepdic.com - Ad hoc Hypothesis (http://www.skepdic.com/adhoc.html):
Martin Gardner reports on this type of ad hoc hypothesizing reaching a ludicrous peak with paraphysicist Helmut Schmidt who put cockroaches in a box where they could give themselves electric shocks. One would assume that cockroaches do not like to be shocked and would give themselves shocks at a chance rate or less, if cockroaches can learn from experience. The cockroaches gave themselves more electric shocks than predicted by chance. Schmidt concluded that "because he hated cockroaches, maybe it was his pk that influenced the randomizer!" (Gardner, p. 59)

To be perfectly honest, insects are mindless little creatures. I think this somewhat humorous experiment sums up the behavior of insects:
In a series of famous experiments, entomologist Charles Fabre, studied the predatory habits his subject, the digger wasp. Fabre noted that the digger wasp, as it would paralyze its prey, the wasp would leave the paralyzed prey just outside of the its burrow in the ground. The wasp would then quickly enter the burrow, check to see that the burrow is fit for dining, then drag the prey in to be eaten. In Fabre's experiments, he examined a peculiar phenomena in the wasp's nervous system: While the wasp was inspecting the inside of its burrow, Fabre would take the paralyzed prey just outside the burrow, then nudge it a few inches from where the wasp had dropped it. Upon resurfacing, the digger wasp would see its prey missing, it would relocate the prey back to original location just outside the burrow. Now, logic would tell you that the wasp would proceed to drag the prey inside the burrow after having inspected. But contrary to logic, the wasp seems blissfully unaware that it has performed this part of its feeding procedure, to which the wasp inspects its burrow again. Any naturalist recreating this experiment can repeat this process of "playing with the wasp" 40 times or more until he gets bored. It appears the wasp's routine has been "reset" to an earlier phase. Much like a washing machine, the dial has been turned back, the machine will move forward through its routine regardless of whether its washed the same clothes 40 times.
- Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden
Insect behavior is quite mechanical, very alien by human standards. I dont know, I guess by some weird degree of sadism, the behavior is almost funny in a way.

I dont know why the cockroaches would give themselves more shocks then predicted by chance, I would guess its the same phenomena that occurs when little buggy-boo flies into the bug zapper which he just saw all his buggy friends get fried on...

[Ladewig]

The study that you quote, I.I., seems somewhat intriguing. Have these researchers or any other researchers performed any other studies of this effect in the past eighteen years?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


WOW. Insulting me now huh. I'm really hurt :rolleyes:

Nah! That wasn't an insult.

You, Ian, made the curt accusation of spamming. Now you realise that my posts were quite pertinent. But you couldn't simply apologise, Ian, could you? Because you hate admitting it when you are wrong, don't you?

You don't even seem to realise that calling people 'stupid' and 'morons' en masse, and chauvinistically demanding that those for whom English might be a second, third, or fourth language should "Speak English" (as though an occasional slight technical error in grammar or spelling makes their posts incomprehensible to you) is boorish and asinine behaviour. Or, do you?

Posts were pertinent because:

1. They were about quite normal, not paranormal, animal behaviour that could explain the results.

2. We made some jokes in your thread entitled: "Are cockroaches masochistic, or is it the experimenter effect?" This was obviously a spoof thread intended to encourage jokes. I mean, who could come up with such a ridiculous thread title and expect to be treated seriously? Look at it, man!

3. Jokes are pertinent in most 'Aye, Aye' threads because nobody takes him seriously except his diminishingly few cowering, whingeing woo buddies.

I guess it was the Monday 2-3 pm secondary hangover kicking in for Ian after the latest weekend binge, but he can judge for himself.

General Symptoms:


Becoming irritable
Becoming irascible
Addled thinking
Grandiose thoughts mixed with feelings of inadequacy -- a terrible roller coaster this -- causes slight nausea and stomach cramps
Visual disturbance
Dehydration
Magical thinking caused by the increasing damage to brain cells eroding the ability to reason. Often results in an inability to read anything that doesn't have 'para', 'psi', or 'bunny rabbits' in the text.
Physical and mental lassitude accompanied by manual tremor (causes inability to type or post properly -- leading to temper tantrum)
Unwarranted feelings of persecution leading to loss of ability to detect humour
Lapses in concentration. (Inability to cite references properly)
Untimely, and often inappropriate, sexual cravings frustrated by temporary impotence (impotence may become permanent as illness progresses. This untimely craving can also make sufferer see merino sheep as being rather sexy. This is a re-emerging mental aberration carried over from the weekend's sexual encounters and/or fantasies. Anthropomorphic eco-warrior bunny rabbits might also be involved in extreme cases)
Profuse perspiration with stale alcohol/curry odour (see below) leading to any sexual advances being rejected, even by the sheep
Diarrhoea, exacerbated by the binge drinker's macho tendancy to stuff his face with late-night Vindaloo curries laced with extra chillies. Anusol bullets can relieve the ring of fire, but might increase irritability. 'Now, wash your hands', as they say!
Bad breath -- sheep have feelings too, you know.
A jaundiced, inexpressive look to the face, making sufferer look slightly psychotic (qv)
Rummy eyes (qv)
Craving for more alcohol (topping up)


Ian, do yourself a favour, m8, and please see yesterday's BBC page for some sobering reading.

"Binge Drinking"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3513820.stm

"How drink ruined my life"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3502848.stm

Or start a new 'Aye, Aye' polling thread: "How many people here think Interesting Ian is an ignorant git?"

SATIS

[iain]

Originally posted by Garrette
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means... Thank you Garrette. There I was forcing my way through another thread in which Ian demonstrates his disconnection from reality; when for a moment you threw me back blissfully to memories of one of my favourite films and books. Happy days.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Loki
...snip...

Tell me, since you're convinced that psi exists, can you give me just one clear attribute of psi (other than "exists") ? In your own time, using your own words, just explain something that psi is, rather than what it isn't.


...snip...

Don't be silly "psi" can only be defined "negatively"...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
I really don't know if this particular experiment was watertight, or flawed, or whatever. I think everyone is missing the point. My original post was addressing the problem of how we know whether it is the subjects exhibiting psi, or the experimenter.
My brain is now officially sproingulated.

~~ Paul

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The thread hasn't been on track since my first post. I haven't read the last 6 or 7 posts though. No doubt it's full of inane contributions by idiotic skeptics who understand nothing whatsoever. Can't really be ars*d to read them.
No, Ian, you were given a reasonable explanation with the second post in this thread. Ed pointed to the "zener diode" effect of the roach's exoskeleton. You then began your usual nonsense response, which ended by asking Ed for an explanation other than "psi". He gave you one, Ian.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

My brain is now officially sproingulated.

~~ Paul

His question makes complete sense if you assume Psi exists. In that case the "experiment" is only a springboard for discussion.

Unfortunately, this is the flaw common to woo's: Theorizing ahead of the evidence. The problem for the rational among us is that if one does not insist on beginning at the beginning one is enveloped in discussions whose basis is sand and in so doing give creedence to the initial suppositions. The casual observser then comes away thinking that there really is something there because it's ramifications are being discussed so seriously.

This approach is often used in political areas. In the case of gay marrage, for example, by engaging in such a discussion the core issue of the morality of homosexuality is neatly sidestepped. In the gun control debate, the hammering of the term "assault weapon" sidesteps the basic issues of gun ownership. It can be very effective and causes, eventually, the casual observer to say to the person concerned with core factors "get with the program", thus marginalizing what are very real and basic concerns.

A clever ploy and one to be mercilessly countered at every turn.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
I've said this before and I'll say it again... the most damning evidence against Psi (well, at least mind over matter or precognition) is....

CASINOS

If humans can in any significant way alter the odds of a slot machine or black jack game, casinos would not exist.
Actually, DB, casinos know better than anyone that psi exists and has the potential for ruining them. That is why casinos only hire skeptics for dealers, croupiers, bartenders etc. These skeptics flood the casinos with negative psi, thus effectively cancelling out any positive psi powers that any players might have.

We know this effect is real, because the exact same thing has been known to occur to people testing for the JREF million. Everything works fine until they get in with a bunch of skeptics, then, BOOM, their powers go away. The only explanation can be negative psi, or ISP, as it is called. This is similar to PSE which forces disembodied spirits to leave the room when a skeptic comes in.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ed said:
His question makes complete sense if you assume Psi exists. In that case the "experiment" is only a springboard for discussion.

Not only that, but you have to assume that a psi experiment can't possibly be messed up, resulting in a mundane explanation for the results.

Why does someone who makes such assumptions even bother to start conversations with people who do not make such assumptions?

~~ Paul

[Darat]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Not only that, but you have to assume that a psi experiment can't possibly be messed up, resulting in a mundane explanation for the results.

Why does someone who makes such assumptions even bother to start conversations with people who do not make such assumptions?

~~ Paul

From http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37139


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm not going anywhere. Everyone has ignored me apart from one guy. I hate being ignored! :mad: I know people won't ignore me on here.

;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by malcolmdl


Nah! That wasn't an insult.

[b]You, Ian, made the curt accusation of spamming. Now you realise that my posts were quite pertinent.



Your posts pertinent? You're a complete f*ck up mate. A complete retard. I stopped reading your posts after seeing about 2 of them in the Piper thread. Now p*ss off.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Your posts pertinent? You're a complete f*ck up mate. A complete retard. I stopped reading your posts after seeing about 2 of them in the Piper thread. Now p*ss off.

Ian,

Are you going for the benching? Are you headlong for a banning?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

No, Ian, you were given a reasonable explanation with the second post in this thread. Ed pointed to the "zener diode" effect of the roach's exoskeleton. You then began your usual nonsense response, which ended by asking Ed for an explanation other than "psi". He gave you one, Ian.

He has said nothing of any remotest relevance from what I've read so far. He's just as much as a mental retard cretin as you are. And that's saying something.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


He has said nothing of any remotest relevance from what I've read so far. He's just as much as a mental retard cretin as you are. And that's saying something.
So, to your mind, the fact that the roach is the only exoskeletal critter not soaking in salty water has nothing to do with the fact that it somehow doesn't exhibit a strong shock-avoidance response?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
[B]

His question makes complete sense if you assume Psi exists. In that case the "experiment" is only a springboard for discussion.

Unfortunately, this is the flaw common to woo's: Theorizing ahead of the evidence.



There's no point in accumulating evidence forevermore.

2 things are abundantly clear:[list=a]
Psi has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Skeptics will never be convinced of this.[/list=a]

Parapsychologists need to move on and start addressing the fundamental problems that such research entails. One huge problem is the experimenter effect.

If I'd wanted to have started a thread about the authenticity issue I wouldn't have talked about damn cockroaches avoiding electric shocks!

None of the responses imo have any relevance. This is why I haven't been reading them or responding to them since last night.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If I'd wanted to have started a thread about the authenticity issue I wouldn't have talked about damn cockroaches avoiding electric shocks!

None of the responses imo have any relevance. This is why I haven't been reading them or responding to them since last night.
Well, we won't confuse you with the facts, then, Ian. Next time, though, perhaps you should entitle the thread "Is Ian masochistic, or is it the alcohol effect?"

[The Don]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


There's no point in accumulating evidence forevermore.

2 things are abundantly clear:[list=a]
Psi has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Skeptics will never be convinced of this.[/list=a]


Actually I think you'll find that in this case:

Psi has been proved beyond reasonable doubt to somoeone whose reasoning skills have been demonstrated time and again to be exceptionally poor and who wishes to believe the Psi exepriments to be true.

This skeptic certainly believes the first statement

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Don


Actually I think you'll find that in this case:

Psi has been proved beyond reasonable doubt to somoeone whose reasoning skills have been demonstrated time and again to be exceptionally poor and who wishes to believe the Psi exepriments to be true.

This skeptic certainly believes the first statement

Hey! I'm more cognisant of all the pitfalls of such research, and anecdotal accounts, than just about anyone else on here. I was going to start a thread on it before but couldn't be bothered because no-one would disagree with me.

Anecdotes? Well obviously people are psychologically prone to make all sorts of errors in this regard.

Inaccuracies of recall, misinterpretation of ambiguous perceptions, subconscious perceptions, misunderstanding of chance events, fraud. I am familiar with all of it!

Scientific research? Much better, but there can always be some unknown artifacts skewing the results. The possibility of fraud is always there.

Passive collection of data is insufficient. Parapsychologists shouldn't just solely be concerned about the authenticity issue, but should strive to interpret the data, to understand it, to come to theories about it. Hence this will lead to predictions which further research and experiments can seek to fulfil.

Now one huge problem, which is especially pertinent to parapsychology, is the experimenter effect. This is why I wanted to address this issue. The authenticity debate gets us nowhere because we have radically differing philosophical interpretations of reality. Another approach is required. This is what I was trying to do in this thread.

[AlienX]

Well now your not a happy bunny are you Ian?

So far all i've seen is constant user abuse (against the rules btw).

The whole point of these boards it to discuss the various issues in a rational scientific manor. Unfortunately it's clear that a reasoned scientific approach is not ideal for you, which simply highlights that many believers have to igonre or be ignorant in the first place.

Throwing around the toys and making claims that your right because .. err you just are is rediculous in the extreme. What do you expect?, people who take a reasoned scientific approach to things to simply abandon them because you say so?

I'm certain there are boards that you can frequent that will simply believe you because you say so, maybe you should try them out and let us get on with discussing these issues.

As far as i'm concerned all your doing is demonstrating irrational and illogical thought trains. You seem too closed minded to even entertain the fact that PSI may not exist in the first place - this clearly places you in a questionable position if your unable to argue against yourself.

Yes people pour scorn on woowoo's but for me it's the lack of scientific approach i scorn.

Jumping upon science as and when it suits is the worst offence for me. At least i can say most rational thinkers at least stick to science irrelevent of what it tells them - we don't pick and choose as what suits us best - we have scientific approach and stick with it.

Imagaine if you will that i took the same approach as Ian is here all i would have to do is state: PSI does not exist because it doesn't.. and i'm right... hey its really easy you don't have to think about anything.. make up what you want to be the case and just say it!!.. wow. I'll try it for talking to the dead... talking to the dead does not exist because I say so... ooohh its getting even easier ;-). Only one slight problem with those statements .. they are garbage as they have no scientific foundation.

Ian used to have the odd insight into various aspects but he's simply gone off the rails of late :-(. Quoting youself in your sig is a bit wierd also?.. like what you have said in the past is really important and profound.. get over yourself dood.

If you wan't to be taken seriously at least have something reasonable to say and hopefully keeping it civilised.

AX

[Dancing David]

Interesting Ian
Not so, there is absolutely zero evidence that parapsychologists are any more incompetent than any other scientist, and parapsychology has now got tighter controls than any other area of science.


Ian there is plenty of evidence that parapsychology uses poor methodolgy and totaly bogus control in the tests.

It is not a matter of incompetence, it is matter of what a scientific test reall yis, not to Hector you but man, you are so far away from the goal!

[Ladewig]

There's no point in accumulating evidence forevermore.

2 things are abundantly clear:

a. Psi has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
b. Skeptics will never be convinced of this.

Leaving aside all the "closed-minded" skeptics, what about all the other people in the world. Shouldn't there be tens or hundreds of millions of dollars pouring in to fund practical applications of telepathy, psychokinesis, and remote viewing? Why is the current level of research in psi reduced to just a few noticeable experiments each year? Why did the U.S. military (which wants remote viewers more than any other organization with billions of dollars of discretionary spending) cancel its remote viewing research?

[Oleron]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Your posts pertinent? You're a complete f*ck up mate. A complete retard. I stopped reading your posts after seeing about 2 of them in the Piper thread. Now p*ss off.

This isn't on.

I think I'll take Pyrrho's advice and leave you to stew in your own delusions.

I would advise others to do the same, Ian has hit the self-destruct switch.

[Dancing David]

Interesting ian
Now one huge problem, which is especially pertinent to parapsychology, is the experimenter effect. This is why I wanted to address this issue. The authenticity debate gets us nowhere because we have radically differing philosophical interpretations of reality. Another approach is required. This is what I was trying to do in this thread.


the problem with this Ian is that you can analyse the method for both physical error and experimenter error. the reason that the roaches act differently is due to the physical nature of thier exoskeleton(potentialy), therefore before addresing the experimenter effects one must eliminate the possibility tyhat the roaches can't feel the lectric shock in the first place.

Now most of the cited Ganzfeld studies are just rife with experiementer error and induction.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Oleron


This isn't on.

I think I'll take Pyrrho's advice and leave you to stew in your own delusions.

I would advise others to do the same, Ian has hit the self-destruct switch.
I think this is on. It is beginning to sound like the intro to a swan song entitled "I'll p*** on you when I'm gone."

The chorus will talk about how civil and polite he was, how rude we were, and how he won the debates and we couldn't tolerate that. We banned him for his opinions and his refusal to be bullied.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Passive collection of data is insufficient. Parapsychologists shouldn't just solely be concerned about the authenticity issue, but should strive to interpret the data, to understand it, to come to theories about it. Hence this will lead to predictions which further research and experiments can seek to fulfil.
This is true, and this is where parapsychologists fail so miserably. There are no theories. As you know, a theory tries to integrate the data to show a mechanism for how it works. Okay, let's assume you have lots of data for the existence of psi. Where is the theory on how it works? How would you design an experiment or more research to support the theory?

Okay, admittedly some things have a mechanism that is inadeqately explained, gravity for example. But we have defined precice laws and formulae for gravity, and it always works. Where are the formulae for psi? Why doesn't it always work? Does it obey an inverse square relationship? Does it work across a vaccuum?

Your "theory" consists of exactly three parts.

1) There is an anomaly.
2) I can't think of anything else, so it must be psi.
3) Let's have a drink.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Unfortunately, I was actually drinking something when I read Tricky's post, and so I had a snortacious moment with the beverage. The place is all cleaned up now, thanks.

~~ Paul

[voidx]

Here's where I get confused. It would appear to me that there could be any number of physiological reasons or natural explanations for the cockroaches behaviour. It doesn't even matter in this context whether or not PSI has been shown conclusively or not. It makes no sense that PSI is the number 2 explanation here. Other test subjects ran away from electricity, cockroaches did not. This does not make sense, therefore, PSI. This sounds alarmingly close to the Chewbacca Defense from South Park. Where did these two explanations come from, and more pertintently where are all the other possible physical, mundane explanations? We are to believe that the only viable explanations here are masochistic cockroaches, or PSI experimenter effects? Give me a break. If you want to study PSI experimenter effects that's all fine and good, but choose something that aside from an experiment that could have any number of normal explanations. That way it doesn't look as bad when you discount all those explanations so you can try and fit PSI into the mold.

Basically it looks to me like your taking a normal experiment and trying to make it account for a PSI effect, rather than observing a physical phenomenon and without pretext, attempting to explain why it happens.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx
Here's where I get confused. It would appear to me that there could be any number of physiological reasons or natural explanations for the cockroaches behaviour. It doesn't even matter in this context whether or not PSI has been shown conclusively or not. It makes no sense that PSI is the number 2 explanation here. Other test subjects ran away from electricity, cockroaches did not. This does not make sense, therefore, PSI.

I don't know why everyone keeps banging on about the psi issue :rolleyes:

I don't care about whether it was psi or not, but I have to confess I'd be delighted to hear anyone come up with any other possible explanations! If there are no other possible explanations then it is psi. It's as simple as that. It's what psi means!

And if people want to criticise the experimental protocol and suggest that artifacts allowing sensory leakage account for the behaviour of the creatures, shouldn't they read the original paper?

How many people have done so? Come on, hands up.

[Interesting Ian]

Living beings can detect a wide range of physical cues. A variety of signals might be carried by electromagnetic radiation in the bands discernable by animals other than humans (Pressman 1970). Similarly, organisms respond to minute magnetic fluxes (Barnothy 1964) and to charged subatomic particles such as pions and muons (much work in the mid-1970s, including McNulty, Pease and Bond). Animals may be acutely sensitive to tiny changes in pressure or temperature (Callahan 1964, Bullock and Cowles 1952). Some insects can detect the polarization of light, much as we might see its color (Goldsmith 1962). The ongoing investigations into avian navigation has revealed many sophisticated techniques at work, among them the ability to detect magnetic fields.

When one considers that animals detect these varied and weak signals much more acutely than humans can, and often through physiological channels greatly different than the ones we use, it is not surprising to think that some animals may pick up signals of which most humans are not aware at all. After all, when was the last time you saw the polarization of light? We can not detect magnetic fields, as birds can, but our brains do produce these fields (Brenner, Williamson and Kaufman 1975). Perhaps birds use these fields to read our minds.

From here. (http://www.empowerment.com/pets/petESP9.html)


Hands up all those intelligent enough to realise all this is wholly irrelevant.

[iain]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't care about whether it was psi or not, but I have to confess I'd be delighted to hear anyone come up with any other possible explanations! You were given another possible explanation in the second post to this thread. Go back and read it, and the follow-up posts that expanded on it.

What is your problem with that as a possible explanation?

[iain]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Hands up all those intelligent enough to realise all this is wholly irrelevant. Just out of interest, do you have any external evidence to support your belief in your own overwhelming intelligence and wisdom, or is it just a conclusion you've reached on your own?

[Interesting Ian]

Now if there is some significant time after the time the REG comes up with some value and the application of the electric field, then yes, it would be a very poor experiment. Is this so? I don't know. But it's what you lot need to maintain for your objections to have any merit.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by iain
You were given another possible explanation in the second post to this thread. Go back and read it, and the follow-up posts that expanded on it.

What is your problem with that as a possible explanation?

I have seen no possible explanations and I responded to that post. I fail to see how it consitutes a possible explanation.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
I don't care about whether it was psi or not, but I have to confess I'd be delighted to hear anyone come up with any other possible explanations! If there are no other possible explanations then it is psi. It's as simple as that. It's what psi means!
No, psi means that there are no other explanations that anyone can think of. It is impossible to rule out all other possible explanations, because you cannot make a list of them. That is why psi is a joke without a theory. It is a catalog of experiments for which no one can think of a mundane explanation.

~~ Paul

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't care about whether it was psi or not, but I have to confess I'd be delighted to hear anyone come up with any other possible explanations!
Really? Others have posted possible explanations, yet you managed to conceal your delight perfectly.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If there are no other possible explanations then it is psi. It's as simple as that. [i]It's what psi means![/u]

No, it only means you are unable to think of any other explanations. This is called "arguing out of personal incredulity", and it is probably the number one reason that people believe weird things. They are merely incapable of considering alternatives. They are as simple as that.

And I doubt seriously that even paranormal researchers would define psi as "that which we can't explain".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

No, psi means that there are no other explanations that anyone can think of. It is impossible to rule out all other possible explanations, because you cannot make a list of them. That is why psi is a joke without a theory. It is a catalog of experiments for which no one can think of a mundane explanation.

~~ Paul

You still fail to understand what psi means. It's all about no known mechanisms (ie not recognised by science). It might well be the case that should a mechanism be discovered you would label it "mundane", but this is still psi.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky

Really? Others have posted possible explanations, yet you managed to conceal your delight perfectly.



I admit I haven't read all such "explanations" because it is not what the thread was supposed to be about. Perhaps someone would be good enough to repeat all of them rather then me search and guess what are supposed to constitute such "explanations".



No, it only means you are unable to think of any other explanations.



Yes I agree, so enlighten me.


This is called "arguing out of personal incredulity", and it is probably the number one reason that people believe weird things. They are merely incapable of considering alternatives. They are as simple as that.


But if no-one can think of any conceivable mechanism why the creatures behave as they do, and indeed as far as we understand it is impossible for these creatures to access any information here, then what do you want to choose to call it??

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't know why everyone keeps banging on about the psi issue :rolleyes:

Because it was the crux of your question, go back and read your own first post there skippy.


I don't care about whether it was psi or not, but I have to confess I'd be delighted to hear anyone come up with any other possible explanations! If there are no other possible explanations then it is psi. It's as simple as that. It's what psi means!

Of course you care. Your whole point was how an experimenters PSI could possibly screw up REG and therefore bias the experiments. If you don't care about PSI as it affects this, then why are we talking at all? Just because many fine points have been brought up as to why it makes no sense to start assuming a PSI effect in this experiment its not justification for you to flip flop and claim you never cared about whether there is PSI involved or not. Your own first post contradicts you.


And if people want to criticise the experimental protocol and suggest that artifacts allowing sensory leakage account for the behaviour of the creatures, shouldn't they read the original paper?

How many people have done so? Come on, hands up.

Since you provided no link to the original paper, and since I like probably most everyone else doesn't have the book in question, then this is hardly surprising isn't it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx

Because it was the crux of your question, go back and read your own first post there skippy.


Of course you care. Your whole point was how an experimenters PSI could possibly screw up REG and therefore bias the experiments. If you don't care about PSI as it affects this, then why are we talking at all? Just because many fine points have been brought up as to why it makes no sense to start assuming a PSI effect in this experiment its not justification for you to flip flop and claim you never cared about whether there is PSI involved or not. Your own first post contradicts you.


Since you provided no link to the original paper, and since I like probably most everyone else doesn't have the book in question, then this is hardly surprising isn't it.

Oh God!! {bangs head against brick wall}

Sorry you guys. I truly do despair of ever getting any of you lot to understand anything.

I just give up.

Bye.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ian
Oh God!! {bangs head against brick wall}

Sorry you guys. I truly do despair of ever getting any of you lot to understand anything.

I just give up.

Bye.
I see Ian has reached step three of his theory.
Originally posted by Tricky
Your "theory" consists of exactly three parts.

1) There is an anomaly.
2) I can't think of anything else, so it must be psi.
3) Let's have a drink.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
You still fail to understand what psi means. It's all about no known mechanisms (ie not recognised by science). It might well be the case that should a mechanism be discovered you would label it "mundane", but this is still psi.
Oh, okay. I didn't realize that the hopeless, fruitless search for unexplained anomalies was what all the parapsychologists wanted to be doing. No wonder they've declared psi to be proven.

You should avoid confusing an unknown mechanism with one not recognised by science.

~~ Paul

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Oh God!! {bangs head against brick wall}

Sorry you guys. I truly do despair of ever getting any of you lot to understand anything.

I just give up.

Bye.
Oh your really not so complex as all that. I know what your getting at. You want to say that hmmm there seems to be no physical explanation here, that what causes the cockroaches to get electrocuted more often can't be explained. You say that its possibly the PSI of the experimenter affecting the REG. You say that once, if ever, Science could quantify PSI, then it would also be mundane, making the above stated PSI affect mundane and not paranormal and therefore a perfectly reasonable explanation. The problem being is that no one is convinced that there are no adequate phsyical explanations for the cockroaches behaviour. You assume there are none so you can play around with the experimenter PSI effect.

If I'm a hopeless twit, and have this all wrong again, then use your superior intellect to clarify your stance for me.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Sorry you guys. I truly do despair of ever getting any of you lot to understand anything.

I, for one, am glad. If you ever got me to understand your illogical twaddle, I'd start to doubt my grasp on reality.

[Correa Neto]

Simplified recipe for a test to access not only the influence of skeptics in PSI experiments but also the veracity of a PSI effect.

1. Assemble three sets of similar experiments. All equipment should be the same.
2. Assemble two teams, one composed by belivers and other composed by skeptics.
3. Assemble a control team who will be unaware of the real goals of the experiments and will be composed by 50% belivers and 50%skeptics.
4. One experiment assemblage will be run by belivers, another by skeptics and the remaining will be automatic. All experiments will use the same protocols to every single minute detail.
5. Run a batch of at least 30 experiments, then rotate the crews. Rotate also the lab rats or equivalent, if any are used.
6. Check your data. Remove background noise, equipment glitches and random effects.
8. Study your data. Is there anything really unexplainable by "mundane causes"?
9. Found it?
10. Answer is yes and you are a beliver ->Publish a paper, became famous, apply to JREF and get a million bucks. Jump to the last line.
11. Answer is yes and you are a skeptic ->Publish a paper, became famous, apply to JREF and get a million bucks. Tell Ian he was right but in the end you got the reward and will not share because he´s very unpolite. Jump to the last line.
12. Answer is no and you are a beliver -> Find a lame excuse about bad vibrations from the janitor that was passing by late at night or something like that. Jump to the last line.
13. Answer is no and you are a skeptic -> Publish a paper and a report on JREF. See how your study is ignored by the belivers, who will find some lame excuses ("the lab rats were not belivers").
14. Get drunk.

OK, apart from the ironic last lines, this would be a nice general layout. Anyone here has ever seen such a test?

Recipe for a test to prove psi:

1. Admit that paranormal phenomena are real.
2. Set up an experiment with poor control and several flaws. The results from the experiment are certainly already known beforehand.
3. Run a small number of tests without statistic meaning.
4. Make surficial analysis of the data, not taking in to account random effects, background noise, and the error sources, as well as mundane explanations.
5. Create a crackpot hipothesys (labelling it a theory) or if your experiment has not worked as it was supposed to, create another crackpot explanation as a lame excuse .
6. Publish the study on a periodic or a book whose editorial line favors the paranormal and will not make a detailed review.
7. Complain about skeptics and "academic scientists", the system, repression again true pioneers, status quo, etc.

Now, this last recipe seems quite familar, wouldn´t you agree?

[Loki]

To be fair, I must state that I agree completely with Ian in this thread - "psi" HAS been proven to exist. Totally, completely, and to my utter satisfaction. (You can see how true this statement is, because I used CAPS and bold)

"Psi" exists, it's true. It exists in exactly the same way that "ufos" exist. It's all in the definition. After all, we need to remember Ian's preferred defintion :
If there are no other possible explanations then it is psi. It's as simple as that. It's what psi means!

So if something happens and no one can explain it - that's "psi".

If someone sees an object in the sky, and can't explain what it is, then it's a UFO. Therefore, since this has happened, UFOs exist. It's what the term means!!! (Of course, this also means that the term has no explanatory value whatsoever, and is simply a conveniece label for verbal communication. But don't tell Ian that.)

But if no-one can think of any conceivable mechanism why the creatures behave as they do, and indeed as far as we understand it is impossible for these creatures to access any information here, then what do you want to choose to call it?
An error in reporting? Unknown/unexplained?

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If there are no other possible explanations then it is psi. It's as simple as that. It's what psi means!


Which means that before 1812, the reason that Africa's west coast and South America's east coast fit so well was not continental drift, but psi.

Before we knew about pathogens causing disease, it was psi.

As soon as we learn something, it is no longer psi.

Am I getting this right, Ian?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Don't forget - the reasons the continents move at all is psi.

Psi is also the mechanism for the peculiar behavior of high-temperature superconductors, the solution to all cosmological problems, and is responsible for Ian's Incredible Intelligence.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Ian,

So precognitive or psychokinetic skills are a fact?

Uh... so what about my question on casinos? Forget testing in the lab, where is the real-world effect?

[NullPointerException]

I believe lan is talking about the ability of animals to affect quantum random number generators(its done with decay right?). Meaning he is implying PSI is universal. I would interested to see which animal was the most powerful PSI user.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
I believe lan is talking about the ability of animals to affect quantum random number generators(its done with decay right?). Meaning he is implying PSI is universal. I would interested to see which animal was the most powerful PSI user.
Ian is actually referring to a test in which Cockroaches shocked themselves more times than predicted by chance.

A nice plump ad hoc hypothesis (http://www.skepdic.com/adhoc.html) infers that the experiments Psychokinesis is somehow influencing these cockroaches, because everyone knows how truely intelligent the creatures are, humans can therefore logically infer that a few human standards apply to the cockroaches in that cockroaches cannot possibly enjoy shocking themselves. It would be absurd to believe they do this willfully and intentionally, therefore must have been something influencing the randomizer (most likely the scientist's unconscious PK as he conducts the experiment).

[The Don]

This is just too funny : From Ian's link here http://www.empowerment.com/pets/petESP9.html

The last is the most intriguing, and rarest. A animal left behind may trail its owner to a new, previously unseen location. Research at Duke University in the 1960s turned up 25 demonstrable cases of trailing, each involving more than 30 miles of travel. The cases involved cats, dogs and birds. Research into this area is continuing, and if you think you know of examples of trailing behavior, contact a research center immediately.

So on 30 occasions the animal managed to follow the owner. The other 10 gajillion times the pet did not. Isn't Psi amazing. In order to get a balanced view shouldn't people be writing in to say when no trailing happened.

But maybe it's all our fault

There are those who hold the view that no psychic powers exist and that if they attend an experiment where psychic powers are being tested, the experiments will fail. They suggest that this means that the experiments were faked. Perhaps…or perhaps they have ability, innate or deliberate, to distort others’ psychic powers. If deliberate, we have to ask ourselves — what do they have to gain by hiding the truth?!?

Ao we can switch off Psi ? Also, I tend to disregard statements which are punctuated as if with a blunderbuss.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Your posts pertinent? You're a complete f*ck up mate. A complete retard. I stopped reading your posts after seeing about 2 of them in the Piper thread. Now p*ss off.

I rest my case. :(

I guess the self-destructive impulse just has to take the abusive, delusional drunk to rock bottom.

He ain't gonna like the cockroaches that come with the DT's, though.

Oh well. At least we tried to warn him.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


Which means that before 1812, the reason that Africa's west coast and South America's east coast fit so well was not continental drift, but psi.

Before we knew about pathogens causing disease, it was psi.

As soon as we learn something, it is no longer psi.

Am I getting this right, Ian?

No, psi encompasses both anomalous cognition and anomalous perturbation. To take the example of AC, we say that it has occurred if no known mechanism accounts for the gaining of information and there is no sensory leakage.

Now in the case of the experiment of interest, how could all these creatures know which half of the cage would have an electric current applied to it?

Now before the REG "decides" which half of the cage should have the current applied, it is in principle impossible to know which side will have the current applied, right? I mean otherwise it wouldn't be random (and remember this is intrinsic randomness rather than pseudo-randomness). In other words a creature could literally be in possession of the totality of all information comprising the Universe, and necessarily must still be utterly clueless as to which side of the cage is "safe"!.

The only way the experiment could be flawed were if the electric current were not more or less immediately applied after the REG "decides". You see?

[Loki]

Ian,

The only way the experiment could be flawed were if the electric current were not more or less immediately applied after the REG "decides". You see?
I can think of at least 4 other ways in which the experiment *might* be flawed - care to use your brain for a moment and think what these might be??

But I do agree with Ian that the experiment offers up an interesting question. Basically, the situation is :

1. At time 'T' an electric charge is applied to half the area
2. At time 'T-1', most creatures placed in the test area will move to the half that will not be charged
3. At time 'T-1', cockroaches placed in the test area will move to the half that will be charged.

Assuming "psi" exists, the question is a choice between two alternatives :

A. Cockroaches and other tested insects are "psi-capable". The roaches use their psi ability to seek out pain, the other creatures use their psi ability to avoid pain.

B. The tested creatures are not psi-capable, but rather the human experiementer is using his psi ability to direct the creatures to seek safety, and the roaches to seek pain ('cos he hates roaches).

Of course, it's important to note that what really happened is that in the overwhelming majority of trials, the creatures showed no ability to either avoid or seek the electric shock - the noted 'effect' was small (but "statistically significant"). In other words, even if "cockroach-psi" or "experimenter-psi" exists, it doesn't help much. Perhaps only 1 cockroach actually was "psi-capable", and the rest just wandered at random?

The difficulties of psi research - so many theories, so little effect.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now in the case of the experiment of interest, how could all these creatures know which half of the cage would have an electric current applied to it?

Easy, they don't know. They merely react. Or as presented as an alternative, in the case of the cockroach not feeling the current, they don't react.

So we have:

A) animals that sense current react by moving away from the current when applied. And animals that do not sense current stay where they are, and in the process of many trials appear more often to "want" to get electrocuted.

B) a bunch of vague made up crap about PSI.

Now here's a question, since I have no link to the study, is the behaviour of the cockroaches that they move "towards" the current after it is turned on? As in their attracted to it? Or do they simply not move, when the current is applied? As in they don't feel it.

Discussing PSI in regards to this experiment is getting WAY WAY ahead of ourselves here in my opinion.


Now before the REG "decides" which half of the cage should have the current applied, it is in principle impossible to know which side will have the current applied, right? I mean otherwise it wouldn't be random (and remember this is intrinsic randomness rather than pseudo-randomness). In other words a creature could literally be in possession of the totality of all information comprising the Universe, and necessarily must still be utterly clueless as to which side of the cage is "safe"!.

As we would expect, so whats your point here? The animals don't know which side is safe until after they react to the current being applied. Or are you trying to tell me that the other animals all rush to one side or the other "before" the current is applied? Unless the other animals move before the current is applied in order to avoid it en masse, or the cockroaches move en masse to partake in it, then you simply have animals reacting, or not reacting to the sensation of a low current. If only one mouse moves away before hand how do you know its simply not a random movement of that one mouse? This gets more silly the more I think about it.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

How do we really know that any event is genuinely random, as opposed to pseudorandom? What test could we perform to 'prove' that some phenomenon was actually random?

[The Mighty Thor]

Loki said: Perhaps only 1 cockroach actually was "psi-capable", and the rest just wandered at random?

That would be the cockroach that the researchers affectionately named "Interesting Ian".

[AlienX]

There seems to be this notion the unexplained phenomena (call it PSI if you like) is somehow supernatural because the people who have examined it are unable to explain it.

There is the simple possibility that the right person just hasn't looked at it, i'm pretty certain that our best minds don't go around vetting these things?.

So just like the age old woowoo argument of "well person X has been proved to be a fraud/delusional .. what about person Y.. ohh them aswell but what about this person" etc etc etc, then we can simply say that the "right" scientist just hasn't looked at the experiment yet. Even when they do and say the experiment is flawed and how woowoo's never take any notice.

Also a poorly designed experiment can add unknowns in the first place and with an inadequate protocol / methodology then measuring any "unknown effect" is rediculous. Technically you could argue that all PSI really shows is how well designed the experiment is.

In other words: PSI is directly proportional to how fundamentaly flawed your experiment is.

To me there is the general impression that PSI is supernatural, when really all it means is of the select few that have looked at X with the data provided and withing the scope of the method it reveals nothing.

I'm certain everyone here has done any experiments has got unexpected/unusual results at some point, did i refer to this as PSI.. nope i refered to it as making a mistake in the methodology. Sometimes I identified my error and somethimes I didn't, but I'd made a mistake because repetition showed this to be the case QED.

I think this is just the same as here and fundamental flaws in methodology are creating "unknown" results. Simply the data and experiment is not rigorous enough to completely define the subject.

AX

[scribble]

I don't know anything about "psi" but reading this thread confirms I was right: it's completely and totally disproven for now and evermore. How anyone could be so incredibly stupid as to think otherwise is beyond me. Good job mates, let's go have a beer.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by scribble
I don't know anything about "psi" but reading this thread confirms I was right: it's completely and totally disproven for now and evermore. How anyone could be so incredibly stupid as to think otherwise is beyond me. Good job mates, let's go have a beer.
Make sure you don't go to a pub with psi roaches. Those little buggers know when you go to the men's room, and come out with huge straws while you're gone. You never seem them, of course, because they know when you're coming back. The only clue is how little is left in the pint glass when you get back, and the hiccups from beneath the floorboards.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Something that AlienX said bears repeating:
There is the simple possibility that the right person just hasn't looked at it, i'm pretty certain that our best minds don't go around vetting these things?
This is the answer to "Oh, but the experimenters can't think of a mundane explanation for the effect." Yup, maybe not. Let someone else think about it!

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
[B]Ian,


I can think of at least 4 other ways in which the experiment *might* be flawed - care to use your brain for a moment and think what these might be??



If the REG is truly random and the electric current is applied just about immediately after the emission of the particle from radioactive source, then basically no, I don't see how it can be flawed. You'll need to enlighten me.



But I do agree with Ian that the experiment offers up an interesting question. Basically, the situation is :

1. At time 'T' an electric charge is applied to half the area
2. At time 'T-1', most creatures placed in the test area will move to the half that will not be charged
3. At time 'T-1', cockroaches placed in the test area will move to the half that will be charged.

Assuming "psi" exists, the question is a choice between two alternatives :

A. Cockroaches and other tested insects are "psi-capable". The roaches use their psi ability to seek out pain, the other creatures use their psi ability to avoid pain.

B. The tested creatures are not psi-capable, but rather the human experiementer is using his psi ability to direct the creatures to seek safety, and the roaches to seek pain ('cos he hates roaches).

Of course, it's important to note that what really happened is that in the overwhelming majority of trials, the creatures showed no ability to either avoid or seek the electric shock - the noted 'effect' was small (but "statistically significant").



The effect is small?? Where are you obtaining this information from??



In other words, even if "cockroach-psi" or "experimenter-psi" exists, it doesn't help much. Perhaps only 1 cockroach actually was "psi-capable", and the rest just wandered at random?



This is wild speculation! Let's deal with the facts please.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now in the case of the experiment of interest, how could all these creatures know which half of the cage would have an electric current applied to it?

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

voidx
Easy, they don't know. They merely react. Or as presented as an alternative, in the case of the cockroach not feeling the current, they don't react.



But if they lack the knowledge as you claim, they can only react after the electric current is applied. But all creatures, apart from cockroaches, are found on the non-electrified part of the grid to a statistically significant extent before the electric current is applied.





So we have:

A) animals that sense current react by moving away from the current when applied. And animals that do not sense current stay where they are, and in the process of many trials appear more often to "want" to get electrocuted.



You're ignoring the experimental results. This does not happen.

Please respond to how the experiments transpired, not how you would have liked them to have transpired in order to fit into your skepticism.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Something that AlienX said bears repeating:
There is the simple possibility that the right person just hasn't looked at it, i'm pretty certain that our best minds don't go around vetting these things?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is the answer to "Oh, but the experimenters can't think of a mundane explanation for the effect." Yup, maybe not. Let someone else think about it!

~~ Paul [/B]

I don't understand. Are you suggesting fraud? Clearly that's always a possibility. But assuming no fraud has taken place, I fail to see how this can have a non-psi explanation.

People have talked a lot, but say far the skeptics have not addressed this issue. Their complaints are simply not relevant (apart from the fraud hypothesis).

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But if they lack the knowledge as you claim, they can only react after the electric current is applied. But all creatures, apart from cockroaches, are found on the non-electrified part of the grid to a statistically significant extent before the electric current is applied.

Your dodging my question. All creatures are "found" on the non-electrified part of the grid. But did they "move" there immediately before the application of the current? I imagine not. Its not uncommon for rodents to huddle together. I'm certain that if most of the group is one side of the grid or the other its quite likely that they all are. Its extremely disingenious to look at a group of animals that are merely sitting on a certain side of the grid, electrify at random one side or the other, and conclude that the reason they are on the non-electrified side more often than not is because they are seeing the future, or using some other kind of PSI ability. Now if mere moments before the current was applied all animals migrated en masse to one side or the other, and more often than not this was the non-electrified side, well then you might have something to talk about. Is this what is happening? I asked you this question last time and you ignored it and spewed forth about me ignoriing the experimental results of an experiment that you have not provided me a link for on the Internet. I don't have the text book as I also mentioned before, so where should I go read about this further hmmm?


You're ignoring the experimental results. This does not happen.

Covered above.


Please respond to how the experiments transpired, not how you would have liked them to have transpired in order to fit into your skepticism.

I asked questions about how the experiment transpired because you have not provided me any way of reading about the experiment if I don't already have that textbook. You did not make an attempt to clarify for me based on my questions, so I've asked them again above.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't understand. Are you suggesting fraud? Clearly that's always a possibility. But assuming no fraud has taken place, I fail to see how this can have a non-psi explanation.

People have talked a lot, but say far the skeptics have not addressed this issue. Their complaints are simply not relevant (apart from the fraud hypothesis).
A more blatant example of completely ignoring what we've been saying so as to not have to address the questions, I've yet to see.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx
[B]
Your dodging my question. All creatures are "found" on the non-electrified part of the grid. But did they "move" there immediately before the application of the current? I imagine not. Its not uncommon for rodents to huddle together. I'm certain that if most of the group is one side of the grid or the other its quite likely that they all are. Its extremely disingenious to look at a group of animals that are merely sitting on a certain side of the grid, electrify at random one side or the other, and conclude that the reason they are on the non-electrified side more often than not is because they are seeing the future, or using some other kind of PSI ability. Now if mere moments before the current was applied all animals migrated en masse to one side or the other, and more often than not this was the non-electrified side, well then you might have something to talk about. Is this what is happening? I asked you this question last time and you ignored it and spewed forth about me ignoriing the experimental results of an experiment that you have not provided me a link for on the Internet. I don't have the text book as I also mentioned before, so where should I go read about this further hmmm?


Nothing you have said explains why all creatures (apart from cockroaches) are found on the non-electrified part of the grid. Sure, cats, rats or whatever might huddle together. But why are they huddling together on the non-electrified part of the grid to a statistical significant extent? There is no answer to this. It doesn't matter if they go there 5 seconds before, or 5 minutes before the REG decides which side will be electrified. It is wholly inexplicable why they should be found there to a statistically significanrt extent (SSE).

And how do you know they're not just testing a single creature at a time.?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by voidx

A more blatant example of completely ignoring what we've been saying so as to not have to address the questions, I've yet to see.

Yep. It looks like 'the ostrich effect' in operation. Ian can even tell if a reply is 'relevant' or not when he hasn't read it. More evidence of psi?

Any valid challenges to his pet theories are deemed 'irrelevant' or even 'spam'. (I mistyped that as irerelevant, at first)

In the Mrs Piper's Mediumship thread he asked for alternative methods by which Mrs Piper might have gotten her information on sitters. Apparently he couldn't come up with any himself, so he issued a challenge.

Other methods were then suggested. What happens?

Ian doesn't comment, but elsewhere, he admits he didn't read the posts. Although he did manage to reveal a trick that had no bearing on the subject
:(

Clancie asks how someone could get information on an 'anonymous' sitter. The answer is given.

What happens -- no comment from Clancie.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870362057#post1870362057

I guess some of us won't get an invitation to the wedding!

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[B]

Nothing you have said explains why all creatures (apart from cockroaches) are found on the non-electrified part of the grid. Sure, cats, rats or whatever might huddle together. But why are they huddling together on the non-electrified part of the grid to a statistical significant extent? There is no answer to this. It doesn't matter if they go there 5 seconds before, or 5 minutes before the REG decides which side will be electrified. It is wholly inexplicable why they should be found there to a statistically significanrt extent (SSE).

Judging by the amount of dancing about your doing, I'll assume its a safe bet that the animals in fact are just "found" to be on one side or the other, and they do not move their so as to indicate they have previous knowledge of what side will be electrified. And there is NO answer to this, perhaps its merely that you cannot think of one, which is what Paul was getting at. Others here seem to have come up with thoughts on what could be happening. So now your saying that there is in fact no demonstrable PSI effect here. Merely that the researchers couldn't think of any reason as to why they were on the non-electrified side to a SSE. So you assume that since these researchers could no think of anything, that it is "wholly inexplicable". The notion that they merely couldn't think of what might be happening, or missed something, or any number of alternate explanations carry no weight with you. These researchers found nothing, so therefore inexplicable...wholly so. Insert PSI nonsense here.


And how do you know they're not just testing a single creature at a time.?

I don't because you won't provide me a link to the study. But knowing you, if you yourself knew they were testing only a single creature at a time, you would have thrown it in my face. So therefore I assume your just hypothesizing to throw me off. To which I must quote your own load of bull back at you:
"Please respond to how the experiments transpired, not how you would have liked them to have transpired..."

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
I don't understand. Are you suggesting fraud? Clearly that's always a possibility. But assuming no fraud has taken place, I fail to see how this can have a non-psi explanation.
Your failure to come up with alternate possibilities has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there are alternate possibilities. You, like so many believers, think that you can enumerate all possible mundane explanations in your head, then eliminate them. I know this means something deep about the way you think and, if I could figure it out, I would become famous by writing a paper about it. Alas, it is beyond my comprehension.

Of course, I am making the rash assumption that by "psi" you do not simply mean "something I cannot explain on Thursday."

~~ Paul

[Sindai]

Originally posted by malcolmdl
I guess some of us won't get an invitation to the wedding!

Sure we will, they just won't notice we're there! :D

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

There must be some kind of sensory leakage! The fake scientists probably cheated told the creatures what was going to happen before the shock! At least it's more sensible than the paranormal explanation!


Axiomatic fact: Finding natural laws and coming up with equations for one system (the external universe composed of matter) clearly discredits that idea that there can be anything beyond that not operating under those laws disproving life after death! Once established the laws of our universe are not subject to change we shall forever suppress the possibility of paradigm change! Explaining laws running a video game discredits the notion of an afterlife because there can be nothing outside of that game, since those laws are understood! But !Xx+-Rational-+xX! doesn’t that discredit the existence of the external world outside of the game if you’re right!? The burden of proof isn’t on me to show this, it’s on believers to prove the afterlife!

[Ed]

Did anyone actually read this experiment? How are the critters introduced? What was the distribution of temperature and light on the grid? What was the critters prior experience? Was this done by trial? Did they sterilize the grid from trial to trial? Where was the experimenter? Was noise controlled for?

Short of knowing this kind of stuff any discussion is pointless.

[Loki]

Ian,

The effect is small?? Where are you obtaining this information from??
Sorry - must be getting my threads crossed here. I though you'd posted the "statistically significant" level, but re-reading the thread I can see that in fact you've never put a number on it.

So, in the absense of the actually experiment result (which, I would think, you should have posted at the outset, and definitely need to post now if this is going anywhere - see Ed's comment above!) - well, I guess I have no ide what the effect size was. Consider the comment withdrawn (pending seeing the real outcomes).

If the REG is truly random and the electric current is applied just about immediately after the emission of the particle from radioactive source, then basically no, I don't see how it can be flawed.
Well, I was going to string this along for a bit, but Ed kinda just gave away the answer! Here's a clue for you Ian ... how many possible sources of information are there in the experimental setup, and what types of information are there? What monitoring of these other sources/types of information was done? What controls were instituted to isolate these variables? Still need more info - or can you use that fabulously logical brain of yours to see the answer yet?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki


Sorry - must be getting my threads crossed here. I though you'd posted the "statistically significant" level, but re-reading the thread I can see that in fact you've never put a number on it.

So, in the absense of the actually experiment result (which, I would think, you should have posted at the outset,



I should not have posted it at the outset because this thread was not supposed to be about the authenticity of psi. I keep saying this but you don't seem to understand.



and definitely need to post now if this is going anywhere - see Ed's comment above!)



Sorry, don't have it, and none of the papers are available on the net so far as I can establish.




- well, I guess I have no ide what the effect size was. Consider the comment withdrawn (pending seeing the real outcomes).


Well, I was going to string this along for a bit, but Ed kinda just gave away the answer! Here's a clue for you Ian ... how many possible sources of information are there in the experimental setup,



None. How could there be since the REG is intrinsically random?

It really doesn't matter if, say, one side of the grid is cast in light and the other side isn't, or the temperature is different between the 2 sides, or whatever.

Let's say that one side of the grid is dark, so the cockroach scurries to this side. But since the REG is intrinsically random, its output is not determined by the light distribution, or indeed anything else. Why? because the REG is intrinsically random.

After a sufficiently large number of trials the cockroaches should not, to a statistically significant extent, be in the half where the electric current is applied. Not unless say the dark side of the grid continually switches to a significant statistical extent with the output of the REG. Which it doesn't because the REG is intrinsically random! {sweats}

[Loki]

Ian,

Okay, let's take it slow. Try to keep up.

The experiment consists of a surface divided into 2 halves. We are comparing the distribution of cockroaches in the two halves over two states - when both halves are not electrified, and when 1 half is. We will take 'snapshots' of the insect distribution at random intervals - the "control" snapshots are there to give us a benchmark to compare to (you understand this need?). So we have :

1. "Control" Snapshots taken when no charge was applied.
2. "Trial" Snapshots taken when a charge was applied.

Our hyposthesis is that roaches will seek to be electrocuted. From this, we can make two predictions :

A. A snapshot taken when no charge is applied will show 5 roaches on the left, and 5 on the right.
B. A snapshot taken when a charge is applied to the left will show 10 roaches on the left, and none on the right.

Lets say we do 10 snapshots, and we get the following results :

1. Control Snaps (with no charge applied) :

trial 1 : 10 insects on left, no insects on right
trial 3 : 5 insects on left, 5 insects on right
trial 5 : 5 insects on left, 5 insects on right
trial 7 : 5 insects on left, 5 insects on right
trial 9 : 5 insects on left, 5 insects on right

2. Trial Snapshots (with charge applied to left side of surface)

trial 2 : 10 insects on left, no insects on right
trial 4 : 10 insects on left, no insects on right
trial 6 : 10 insects on left, no insects on right
trial 8 : 10 insects on left, no insects on right
trial 10 : 10 insects on left, no insects on right

Gosh. Look at those results. Sure, the first trial is a little odd (we were expecting a 5/5 split) - but hey, we know that we're looking for an overall statistical result, and there will always be the occasional anomally! And anyway the other 9 trails are perfectly clear and consistent How can this be anything other than a clear example of PSI?. Somehow, at the moment (determined randonly) that we apply the charge, all the cockroaches are already on the left, just waiting to be zapped. There's not other explanation possible! It must be PSI!! Statistically its overwhelming clear (just not quite 100%) that cockroaches like getting zapped (or the experimenter hates roaches).

Well, lets examine another possibility. At the start of the experiment, the left side is slightly darker (the difference is too subtle for us humans to detect, but assume cockroaches are better at detecting this than we are). Lets' further assume that cockroaches prefer dark over light. So the 10 roaches will naturally tend to all cluster to the left - attracted to the dark.

We do the trial 1 (no charge) and find 10 on the left! Hmmm ... odd, not what our theory predicted. But it's early days yet, lets press on.

We do trial 2 (with charge) and find 10 on the left. Just as our PSI/masochistic roach theory predicts. Now we're getting somewhere!

We do trial 3 (no charge) and find 5 roaches on each half. Just as our PSI/masochistic roach theory predicts (But undetected by us, the result is actually due to the fact that 5 roaches have fled the charge from trial 2 - their fear of pain overcoming their preference for the dark, and are now huddled on the right side. The other 5 are made of tougher stuff - they're prepared to suffer the pain in order to remain in the dark, so they stay. We get a 5/5 split, but no PSI is involved)

We do trial 4 (with charge) and find 10 on the left. Just as our PSI/masochistic roach theory predicts. (But the truth is that the 5 roaches who fled the original charge have now got over the fear of the (no longer present) pain, and have return to the dark. We get a 10/0 split, no PSI involved)

We do trial 5 (no charge) and find 5 roaches on each half. Just as our PSI/masochistic roach theory predicts (Again, the cowardly roaches have fled, and the brave ones stoically suffer throught he pain. We get a 5/5 split, but no PSI is involved)

We do trial 6 (with charge) and find 10 on the left. Just as our PSI/masochistic roach theory predicts. (Once again this is jsut the cowards retreating back to the dark. We get a 10/0 split, no psi involved).

And so on....

Statistically, an amazing and apparently clear result - cockroaches like to be electrocuted, and can psychically predict when this will happen. In truth, simply a failure to control for an additional source of information available to the cockroaches - their preference for dark, and the (subtle) differences in shading between the two halves.

Now, did this happen in the actual experiement? I have no idea - I haven't read the protocol or results. But are you still prepared to declare that you cannot think of anyway in which the "apparent" result could be anything other than psi? My example has focused on 'light'. You can also add 'sound', 'smell' and 'touch' to that list (just for starters) as factors that may influence the distribution. And don't forget combinations!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
Ian,

Okay, let's take it slow. Try to keep up.

The experiment consists of a surface divided into 2 halves. We are comparing the distribution of cockroaches in the two halves over two states - when both halves are not electrified, and when 1 half is. We will take 'snapshots' of the insect distribution at random intervals - the "control" snapshots are there to give us a benchmark to compare to (you understand this need?). So we have :

1. "Control" Snapshots taken when no charge was applied.
2. "Trial" Snapshots taken when a charge was applied.

Our hyposthesis is that roaches will seek to be electrocuted. From this, we can make two predictions :

A. A snapshot taken when no charge is applied will show 5 roaches on the left, and 5 on the right.
B. A snapshot taken when a charge is applied to the left will show 10 roaches on the left, and none on the right.

Lets say we do 10 snapshots, and we get the following results :

1. Control Snaps (with no charge applied) :

trial 1 : 10 insects on left, no insects on right
trial 3 : 5 insects on left, 5 insects on right
trial 5 : 5 insects on left, 5 insects on right
trial 7 : 5 insects on left, 5 insects on right
trial 9 : 5 insects on left, 5 insects on right

2. Trial Snapshots (with charge applied to left side of surface)

trial 2 : 10 insects on left, no insects on right
trial 4 : 10 insects on left, no insects on right
trial 6 : 10 insects on left, no insects on right
trial 8 : 10 insects on left, no insects on right
trial 10 : 10 insects on left, no insects on right

Gosh. Look at those results. Sure, the first trial is a little odd (we were expecting a 5/5 split) - but hey, we know that we're looking for an overall statistical result, and there will always be the occasional anomally! And anyway the other 9 trails are perfectly clear and consistent How can this be anything other than a clear example of PSI?. Somehow, at the moment (determined randonly) that we apply the charge, all the cockroaches are already on the left, just waiting to be zapped. There's not other explanation possible! It must be PSI!! Statistically its overwhelming clear (just not quite 100%) that cockroaches like getting zapped (or the experimenter hates roaches).

Well, lets examine another possibility. At the start of the experiment, the left side is slightly darker (the difference is too subtle for us humans to detect, but assume cockroaches are better at detecting this than we are). Lets' further assume that cockroaches prefer dark over light. So the 10 roaches will naturally tend to all cluster to the left - attracted to the dark.

We do the trial 1 (no charge) and find 10 on the left! Hmmm ... odd, not what our theory predicted. But it's early days yet, lets press on.

We do trial 2 (with charge) and find 10 on the left. Just as our PSI/masochistic roach theory predicts. Now we're getting somewhere!

We do trial 3 (no charge) and find 5 roaches on each half. Just as our PSI/masochistic roach theory predicts (But undetected by us, the result is actually due to the fact that 5 roaches have fled the charge from trial 2 - their fear of pain overcoming their preference for the dark, and are now huddled on the right side. The other 5 are made of tougher stuff - they're prepared to suffer the pain in order to remain in the dark, so they stay. We get a 5/5 split, but no PSI is involved)

We do trial 4 (with charge) and find 10 on the left. Just as our PSI/masochistic roach theory predicts. (But the truth is that the 5 roaches who fled the original charge have now got over the fear of the (no longer present) pain, and have return to the dark. We get a 10/0 split, no PSI involved)

We do trial 5 (no charge) and find 5 roaches on each half. Just as our PSI/masochistic roach theory predicts (Again, the cowardly roaches have fled, and the brave ones stoically suffer throught he pain. We get a 5/5 split, but no PSI is involved)

We do trial 6 (with charge) and find 10 on the left. Just as our PSI/masochistic roach theory predicts. (Once again this is jsut the cowards retreating back to the dark. We get a 10/0 split, no psi involved).

And so on....

Statistically, an amazing and apparently clear result - cockroaches like to be electrocuted, and can psychically predict when this will happen. In truth, simply a failure to control for an additional source of information available to the cockroaches - their preference for dark, and the (subtle) differences in shading between the two halves.

Now, did this happen in the actual experiement? I have no idea - I haven't read the protocol or results. But are you still prepared to declare that you cannot think of anyway in which the "apparent" result could be anything other than psi? My example has focused on 'light'. You can also add 'sound', 'smell' and 'touch' to that list (just for starters) as factors that may influence the distribution. And don't forget combinations!

:rolleyes:

Please please try to understand. On average half the time the left hand side will be electrified, and on average half the time the right hand side will be electrified. But you have it so that only the left hand side is ever electrified!

Dear me!

It rhymes with clucking bell.

Try out your thought experiment again.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sorry Loki, I'm not following you. What happens when you randomize the trials so that only half of the zaps are on the dark side?

Edited to add: Here we are trying to have a reasonable conversation about an experiment that might as well be a fairy tale.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Sorry Loki, I'm not following you. What happens when you randomize the trials so that only half of the zaps are on the dark side?

~~ Paul

The power of psi raises its beautiful head :D

[Loki]

Ian/Paul,

*sigh* Okay, the point I wanted to make was how a statistical result can appear to support a conclusion (by a large margin, even), yet be the result of uncontrolled for factors.

(Paul wrote) : What happens when you randomize the trials so that only half of the zaps are on the dark side?
...
On average half the time the left hand side will be electrified, and on average half the time the right hand side will be electrified.
Okay, I deliberately used the "left side only" to create a clear example where a design has an inherent flaw that doesn't readily appear. I wanted an example that was easy to follow and showed the way in which the apparent result was flawed, despite being statistically significant.

How can the same principle be applied to the scenario where the side to be zapped is random? For instance, we run the experiment where we randonly decide which side to zap, and get the following results. How could this be anything other than psi?:

Trial 1 - Zap the left, result 10 left, 0 right
Trial 2 - Zap the left, result 10 left, 0 right
Trial 3 - Zap the right, result 10 left, 0 right
Trial 4 - Zap the left, result 10 left, 0 right

Trial 5 - Zap the right, result 0 left, 10 right
Trial 6 - Zap the right, result 0 left, 10 right
Trial 7 - Zap the left, result 0 left, 10 right
Trial 8 - Zap the right, result 0 left, 10 right

Well, if it was only Ian asking I'd probably just conclude that he'll never get the point and not bother. But since Paul has asked, I'll offer a similar explanation (I think it's less clear, but perhaps you'll disagree. Perhaps I should have used this first).

We've run 8 trials, and we had 6 that support our hypothesis, and 2 that don't. 4 trials tested the left, and 4 tested the right. The order of left/right was random. I'll explain why I've divided the two sets of results into two groups in a moment. Doesn't this give us some strong statistical support for the masochistic pyschic cockroach hypothesis?

Lets add in the two assumptions from the original scenario I described - that cockroaches prefer 'dark', and that the left side is slightly darker than the right.

We run the first 4 trials, and get a 75% success rate. When the left is zapped, the cockroaches are there (waiting in the dark, althought he experiemtner doesn't relise this), except for trial 3 where the right is zapped. This is a pretty impressive result.

If we stopped at this point, we could conclude that either :

(A) the roaches often, but not always, pyschically follow the zap
(B) there's something else drawing them to the left.

But we're trying to be accurate and not jump to early conclusions, because this is parapyschology - the most rigorous and controlled of all the sciences. Since we're not sure which (A) or (B) might be true, we run another 4 trials. Again, an 75% success rate. And good news - it seems that we can eliminate (B), the non-psychic "left side bias" option, because this time it's the right that scores the hits.

So that's it, then. We've designed a great test, got some initial encouraging results, but with a worrying potential undefined flaw (the "left side bias" - no idea what's causing it, but it seems like it might be true). We've then run another set of tests and apparently eliminated the "left side bias". Final meta-analysis shows no apparent "side-bias", so we can conclude that the results must be due to (A). QED.

So how else could these result be obtained? Imagine, in order to facilitate the 'snapshot' counting process, there are two light bulbs - one over each side of the test surface. At the start, and for the duration of the first 4 tests the left side light bulb is slightly weaker than the right, casting the left side in a slightly darker light. Hence, the "left side bias" during the first 4 tests. Just prior to the start of the fifth test, the filament in the right side bulb degrades slightly, and the right side now because slightly darker than the left. Hence, the "right side bias" in the second set of tests.

Now, we KNOW the test results are due to 'light/dark' variations between the sides, yet the overall analysis reveals no particular side bias, and an overall strong statistical effect. The conclusion is 'PSI". The conclusion is wrong.

Did this actually happen? How do I know! Ian has posted no details of the actual experiment, and claims they aren't important, because the question of "must be PSI" is already established. I'm just trying to show how a statistical result may fail to reflect an uncontrolled for effect.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, Loki, I was being a bit too literal in my interpretation of your first scenario. Your second scenario is more "realistic" and gets the point across well.

I wonder how many trials were actually run?

~~ Paul

[Loki]

Paul,

Your second scenario is more "realistic" and gets the point across well.
I have no idea how "realistic" it is, but I guess I should have stayed as close as possible to the (brief) details that Ian has given us for the actual experiment. By not doing so in my first post I left the door open for Ian to completely dismiss the point I wanted to make (which was/is about "statistical significance" versus "what actually happened").

I wonder how many trials were actually run?
Given enough trials, even things like faulty light bulbs and the assumed cockroach fear of the light can probably be reduced to statistical irrelevance.

Ian is simply arguing that "psi wins" because all other alternatives are impossible. I would have though such a wise philosopher would have been more careful about using such universal declarations - after all, a single "white crow" (or faulty light bulb) brings his argument down.

I'm sure the next qualification from Ian will be "all other alternatives are extremely unlikely".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
Paul,


I have no idea how "realistic" it is, but I guess I should have stayed as close as possible to the (brief) details that Ian has given us for the actual experiment. By not doing so in my first post I left the door open for Ian to completely dismiss the point I wanted to make (which was/is about "statistical significance" versus "what actually happened").


Given enough trials, even things like faulty light bulbs and the assumed cockroach fear of the light can probably be reduced to statistical irrelevance.

Ian is simply arguing that "psi wins" because all other alternatives are impossible. I would have though such a wise philosopher would have been more careful about using such universal declarations - after all, a single "white crow" (or faulty light bulb) brings his argument down.

I'm sure the next qualification from Ian will be "all other alternatives are extremely unlikely".

Hang on a damn second. Hang on a damn second! Here is my statement from earlier:

"After a sufficiently large number of trials the cockroaches should not, to a statistically significant extent, be in the half where the electric current is applied".

Obviously to a statistical extent significant extent is a certain degree of confidence. But obviously that degree of confidence doesn't amount to certainty!

You have been maintaining that psi is an unlikely hypothesis. You have not substantiated this assertion remotely! You claimed there were sources of information available to the cockroaches which they could use to decide which half of the grid they should go to. You said you could think of at least 4. But you have not so far mentioned any!.

Any artifacts you mention are damped out by a sufficiently large number of trials, as is always the case.

To a statistically significant extent we seem to have shown psi to exist for numerous creatures. In order to deny this you need to specify sources of information for the creatures concerned. But as I have argued it is not possible for such sources of information to exist!

Science can never prove anything, so don't you damn well try to pin that assertion on me!

[Loki]

Ian,

Back to square one...

Now before the REG "decides" which half of the cage should have the current applied, it is in principle impossible to know which side will have the current applied, right?... In other words a creature could literally be in possession of the totality of all information comprising the Universe, and necessarily must still be utterly clueless as to which side of the cage is "safe"!.
I agree with this.

The only way the experiment could be flawed were if the electric current were not more or less immediately applied after the REG "decides".
And here's the disagreement. You're saying that we have a statistical correlation between location of cockroaches, and application of charge. You aserrted that this correlation must indicate some form of causation, and the only form that fits is "psi". I've offered an example of how a clear and definite statisical significance can in fact be false.

You claimed there were sources of information available to the cockroaches which they could use to decide which half of the grid they should go to. You said you could think of at least 4. But you have not so far mentioned any!.

Note the bolded word there, Ian. "Could". Now what do YOU think that means? I've mention 4 sources, that might have been available. Perhaps none of them were. Perhaps none of them are in anyway "useful" to cockroaches. Why are you insisting that I must provide detailed descriptions of what might affect cockroach movement patterns, while you claim that the details (results and protocol) are not relevant?

Can't you see that as long as psi is defined in negative terms it will always suffer from this issue? By definition, it's proven only when ALL alternatives are eliminated. It's impossible to eliminate all alternatives. Where does that leave you?

Any artifacts you mention are damped out by a sufficiently large number of trials, as is always the case.
Yes, I'd probably agree with the general thrust of this statement - although there are exceptions to this. Certain flaws in a given experiment will never be eliminated simpy by doing more and more trials. But as a general rule of thumb we can agree on this.

The important thing though is that it is not obvious what would consitutute "a sufficiently large number of trials". If you don't know what you're controlling for, then how do you know when you've eliminated it?

You have been maintaining that psi is an unlikely hypothesis.
No, I've been showing how a negative theory can never hope to prove itself.

Any artifacts you mention are damped out by a sufficiently large number of trials, as is always the case.
Again, how large?

But as I have argued it is not possible for such sources of information to exist!
Not possible? Don't you mean "Not likely"? How have you rpoven impossibility? You mean logical impossibility, right? I must have missed that proof....

1. It's logically impossible for cockroaches to know where the charge will appear.
2. It's logically impossible for cockroaches to correlate with appearance of the charge to a 'statistically significant' degree

Which is your position? Which have you established? Which are we discussing?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

The cockroaches were just too stupid to pick up on the large amount of sensory leakage! The hamsters understood every word that was given away by the false scientists in order to achieve positive results! Hence the sensory leakage, I just know it!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

If you look at the transcript of theses experiments that I have secretly obtained it’s apparent that the protocols are flawed and there is deliberate fraud!

Experiment with hamster:
Fake scientist: *whispers* “you’re going to want to move to the left side of the cage to avoid being shocked”
Hamster: *nods head in agreement* *moves to left side of cage where there is no shock*
Fake scientist: “Success! We must conclude that paranormal powers are at work!”


Experiment with cockroach:
Fake scientist: *whispers* “get over to the right side so you don’t get shocked”
Cockroach: *sits motionless like an idiot*
Fake scientist: “come on mother f*cker even a few believers would be able to get this one!”
Cockroach: *still ignores deliberate sensory leakage*
Fake scientist: “fine than idiot you will just have to feel the shock”
Cockroach: *gets shocked*
Fake scientist: “Success! I’ll just twist your cockroach stupidity into making it look like ESP has validity by calling it a significant negative result!”


Conclusion: Any experiment showing positive results for the paranormal is fraudulent BS and shall be treated accordingly!

[AlienX]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't understand. Are you suggesting fraud? Clearly that's always a possibility. But assuming no fraud has taken place, I fail to see how this can have a non-psi explanation.

People have talked a lot, but say far the skeptics have not addressed this issue. Their complaints are simply not relevant (apart from the fraud hypothesis).

I'm not suggesting anything here, what i've said is that the definition of PSI is something that can't be explained.

So just because something is labelled as unexplained could simply mean the right person has not inspected the experiment yet, so if they examine it and explain it it's no longer PSI and in reality it never was.

So just like woowoo's always claim - you can't prove for every single instance that X does not exist, ironically this applies to PSI as you can't prove PSI until an infinite number of people have examined the experiment that supposedly demonstrated it.

In its most basic form you could state X is PSI but by it's own definition it can't exist as you never know if someone who just hasn't examined it could explain it. I think the difference is unexplained Vs Unexplainable, for me the latter would be PSI and clearly the latter can never be proven.

So by woowoo belief/proof and logic methodology PSI doesn't exist. Personally i don't agree with this but a woowoo who lives by the sword should die by the sword.

AX

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
To a statistically significant extent we seem to have shown psi to exist for numerous creatures. In order to deny this you need to specify sources of information for the creatures concerned. But as I have argued it is not possible for such sources of information to exist!

Then he said:
Science can never prove anything, so don't you damn well try to pin that assertion on me!
Since science can't prove anything, what basis are you using for your absolute statement "... it is not possible for such source of information to exist"?

~~ Paul

[voidx]

Here's something that sounds like it would be extremely hard to control for:


You might find putting the old boot down on one harder than you think. Their reflex actions are in the order of 1/50th second and therefore faster than human reflexes by about 5 times; and they know when you are coming: projecting from the back of a cockroach is the cerci, a finger-like organ covered with fine hairs which shimmer in the slightest air current - like the sound waves coming from your footsteps as you approach them. The sensory hairs are so finely tuned that that they can detect the 'sound' of other cockroaches walking nearby.


http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/articles/nitemr2.html
(http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/articles/nitemr2.html)

Does the information regarding controls for these experiments take this into account. Does it in fact list any of the in depth controls taken by the researchers? Does it describe the enclosure the cockroaches were in. Does it describe anything?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This is the only mention I can find of the whole cockroach thing:

http://www.empowerment.com/pets/petESP9.html

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
This is the only mention I can find of the whole cockroach thing:

http://www.empowerment.com/pets/petESP9.html

~~ Paul

2 mins search so far and found this (http://www.thegline.com/thought/2001/10-11-2001.htm)


Why are these researchers preoccupied with the notion that a randomizer (of all things) can be influenced by the human mind? Were they perhaps taking a cue from the work of Helmut Schmidt? Schmidt's research into paraphysics consisted of placing cockroaches in a box where they could be subjected to electric shocks based on the output of a randomizer. Since the roaches were shocked more often than chance would allow, Schmidt stated that since he hated roaches, his feelings were most likely influencing the randomizer. Never mind any pesky questions about the functional integrity of the randomizer, reader error, or any of the other things that are the sine qua non of good scientific work. The thinking seems to have gone like so:

Observation: The randomizer isn't behaving properly.
Conclusion: ESP exists.

And people looking for a "scientific" defense for ESP ate it up.



I'll see if I can find anything better in 30 mins after shower :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Damn, can't find anything. There is ch 6 of that Irwin book, but I got it from ch 7. But the chapter is about psychokinesis and mentions the Schmidt guy who did the experiment with the cockroaches, and his research etc. It will be very useful for you guys to read it.

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/irwin/Images/Chapter6.pdf

Edit to add:

{quote}
The methodology of the REG-PK research nevertheless has been criticized,
principally by Hansel (1980, 1989), Hyman (1981), and Alcock (1990). Some
criticisms, such as the possibility of fraud, are ultimately irrefutable but equally
as applicable to any topic of research in the behavioral sciences. The insufficient
documentation of methodological detail particularly in the earlier publications
on REG-PK received some comment; it is notable that recent papers
(e.g., Schmidt, 1991) tend to report the experimental procedure and apparatus
very thoroughly. A few other points have been satisfactorily countered by
parapsychologists (Rao & Palmer, 1987). One reasonably cogent criticism is
that although the experimenters periodically checked their REG apparatus for
nonrandomness over extremely long series of trials, this might not have ruled
out the presence of nonrandomness in shorter runs of the kind used in the PK experiments.
On the other hand, it is difficult to envisage how such biases
could yield significant data in the predicted direction in those studies in which
experimental (PK-trial) performance was compared directly to control
sequences generated by the same REG (e.g., Schmidt, 1976). The problem of
short-run biases also would seem to be negated by the results of meta-analyses
of the cumulative record of REG-PK studies (Radin, May & Thomson, 1986;
Radin & Nelson, 1989). These analyses suggest there is a small but nonetheless
genuine phenomenon here to be explained. {quote}

[scribble]

Damn, can't find anything.


And four pages later we have it.

Jesus, what a ***** waste. I mean you, Ian, not this thread.

[Interesting Ian]

Ah! Interesting. Schmidt also subscribes to a teleological model of psi the same as me! :)

From here (http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Physical_H.html)

{quote}
Teleological Model of Psi (TM)
Helmudt Schmidt proposed a teleological (goal-seeking) model that postulated psi as representing a modification of the probabilities for different world histories. That is, the psi agent need concentrate only on the desired outcome of an event. Psi would act to skew the probability of that event happening, or having happened in the case of retrospective psychokinesis (retro-PK). As such, this theory was not a theory of a psi mechanism but rather one which looked at the way psi was experienced by the psi agent. It was one of the first parapsychological theories to include a unified psi: PK, ESP, precognition - all were aspects of one common psi principle wherein reality was altered to match expectation. This theory also meant that psi would be independent of space and time as when and where in the world history psi occurred would be irrelevant, and that psi is independent of task complexity as the psi agent aims only for the desired end-point. As most human actions are essentially teleological - when we want to pick something up, we do not consider in detail which muscles we wish to move, and so on - this brought psi more into the realms of human experience. Feedback was considered to be vital: the psi agent can have an effect only if it is coupled to its environment in such a way that it may receive a stimulus. There was also what was called a 'divergence problem'. That is, all future psi agents could so have an effect on the present world history. In effect, this meant that for any experiment, the psi agent was not only the experimental participant but all future readers of the experimental paper!

Schmidt, H. (1975). Towards a Mathematical Theory of Psi. The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 69(4): 301-320


{/quote}

[Interesting Ian]

Another (http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/articles/Circle_of_lights2.pdf) relevant paper.

[Interesting Ian]

Some more commentary on Scmidts work investigating psi through REG's. Chapter 1 of another parapsychology textbook.

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/textbooks/rao/images/Chapter_1.pdf

{quote}
Schmidt published several experimental reports in which REGs were
used to test for ESP and PK. Chapter 3 is a reprint of his Á973 report. In
this experiment he tested the PK mode of psi. In these tests the source
of randomness is electronic noise and not radioactive decay. The importance
of SchmidtÕs work is many-fold. First, it represents one of the major
experimental paradigms in contemporary psi research. Second, his results
are regarded by most parapsychologists as solid evidence for psi. Third,
Schmidt used fully-automated equipment to record the targets as well as
subjectsÕ responses, which rules out the possibility of unintended errors.
In fact, his experimental set up was far superior to the VERITAC machine
designed by W.R. Smith et al. (Á963), which was hailed by Hansel (Á966)
as Òadmirably designed.Ó Fourth, in some of his studies Schmidt had
attempted through a multi-experimenter design to control against his
own competence and reliability as an experimenter. For example, in one
of SchmidtÕs PK experiments (Schmidt, Morris & Rudolph, Á986) the
experimenter himself was supervised by observes in another laboratory in
order that negligence and even fraud by the experimenter could be ruled
out. Interestingly, the results of this experiment also provided signiÞcant evidence for psi. Fifth, the REG experiments were extensively replicated
by other investigators such as Robert Jahn and associates at Princeton
University ( Jahn, Á982). Finally, SchmidtÕs experiments withstood detailed
scrutiny by critics. Hansel (Á98Á) attempted to show the ÒweaknessÓ of
SchmidtÕs experiments under three headings: (Á) experimental design, (2)
unsatisfactory features of the equipment, and (3) inability to conÞrm the
Þndings. Each of these criticisms was shown to be inadequate and unsubstantiated.
(For a point by point discussion of HanselÕs criticism of
SchmidtÕs experiments see Rao & Palmer, Á987).
{/quote}

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wait, I thought his name was Harold Schmidt?

Helmut Schmidt is famous for the archetypical ad hoc hypothesis:

http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Wait, I thought his name was Harold Schmidt?

Helmut Schmidt is famous for the archetypical ad hoc hypothesis:

http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html

~~ Paul

Is it? How do you know? Irwin's book only refers to him as H. Schmidt. Must be Helmudt Schmidt surely because he's associated with all this REG and micro-psychokinesis stuff. What makes you think he's Harold?

[Correa Neto]

Find me a paper published in Nature with positive results for paranormal phenomena and I will take it seriously. I'm sure all people here would also accept papers on mainstream periodics regarding psicology, medicine, sociology, biology, et.

Several people here showed "alternative" explanations for the animals behavior other than paranormal. And as Ed pointed out without a better view of the set up experiments, there's no way to make a more detailed discussion.

If the experiment can be questioned (regarding its set up, data handling and mundane explanations not being taken in to account), then asking if the experimenter's alleged paranormal powers or senses can affect the experiment is irrelevant.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Is it? How do you know? Irwin's book only refers to him as H. Schmidt. Must be Helmudt Schmidt surely because he's associated with all this REG and micro-psychokinesis stuff. What makes you think he's Harold?
The link I posted above:

http://www.empowerment.com/pets/petESP9.html

Maybe someone confused Helmut and Harold. Oh wait, that author also used Lucky Hans for Clever Hans. Must have a problem with first names.

~~ Paul

[voidx]

From the vague descriptions of this experiment it seems to become obvious that there are almost no controls on what happens in the box. They have so much confidence in the REG machine that there are no environmental controls at all. The cockroaches are just put in a box. The arguement is is that the REG must be purely random. There is no indication I've read that the cockroaches know anything, it all has to do with the researcher. The researcher uses PK to affect the atoms within the REG machine to give him the outcome he wants. This is the "evidence" of PSI. The animals could be moving based on sound, light, movement, smell or any other number of environmental variables. These are not controlled or even attempted to be explained because the REG is purely random, and the only the researcher through PK could make it not random. You could just as well put rocks in the box and do the same experiment. Whats in the box seems to mean absolutely nothing.

For example, I've got 5 red rocks on one side, and 2 blue rocks on the other. I run a bunch of tests using the REG machine. Because I have a pure hatred of blue rocks and the number two, I use my PK to zap the living crap out of those 2 rocks to a SSE more than the other rocks. If this happens, voila, PSI. If I didn't have PSI then they should get zapped no more than chance. I could in the meantime have light, sound, wind, dust, dirt, magnets or any number of other such effecting variables buzzing around the boxes I put the rocks in and it matters not. The REG reigns King.

[alfaniner]

Just wondering...

If you put Ian in the box, which side would he go to?

[S. D. Youngren]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I should not have posted it at the outset because this thread was not supposed to be about the authenticity of psi. I keep saying this but you don't seem to understand.



What was it supposed to be about?

Also: Ian's pdf links weren't working for me, so please pardon me if this is covered, but I have to wonder: How the heck did they manage to electrify half of the grid for the brine shrimp? These buggers live in water-- or, to be specific, water that's about half again as salty as the ocean, going by specific gravity. How does one electrify one half of this solution and not the other?

I did mange to get the first link, and am amazed. Seems to me that Clever Hans and Rolf were both entirely discredited years ago as simply reacting to simple signals given by their trainers. And then this:


Skeptics might claim that animals respond simply to the subtle signals of their owners and trainer, signals that the animals, with the sensitive eyes and ears, are able to discern. However, this argument does not explain the prescient behavior of dogs and horses before earthquakes (Kilian 1964). The animals respond to subtle tremors before quakes, but don’t respond to seemingly identical tremors which do not precede a quake. How do they know? The simplest answer is precognition.


That is a very simple answer. Doesn't even matter whether it's right, though, because the question is wrong. This is a thing I've read about, and I have anecdotal evidence to back it up. I have lived in California all my life--Northern and Southern--usually with pets--even did some time working in a pet shop, and I have never once seen or heard of an animal who gave a roach's cerci (somebody mentioned these earler but I don't remember whether it was made clear they're those things sticking out the back) about earthquakes. My rabbit and fish didn't care about the Northridge quake; my dog, hamsters, other fish, other rabbit, etc., never cared about the numerous smaller ones they lived through, and just this afternoon my cat spent her latest quake looking from my husband to me as if to say, "This is a game, right? How do I play?" It's a topic of conversation among California pet owners: Did your dog panic? I have never heard of one who did.

And even humans can sometimes hear an earthquake just before any shaking begins, via a lil' ol thing called a P Wave. Regular non-psychic humans, like me.