The challenge is more lax than serious parapsychological research

[Abdul Alhazred]

If I say you can pick a card and look at it and I will tell you what it is, and I agree to a protocol that eliminates trickery, and I really do it, then I win the prize.

No need for me to come up with a theory.

But a parapsychological researcher is more constrained. The phenomenon must be labelled if not explained.

I might say it's telepathy but really it might be clairvoyance. If I'm told how well I did afterward, it might be precognition. I might even have "forced" the card with telekenesis. Permute accordingly.

[davidhorman]

But a parapsychological researcher is more constrained. The phenomenon must be labelled if not explained.

That doesn't make any difference as to whether or not you passed the test, though. Part of the trouble with parapsychology research could be, in fact, that the researchers spend too much time trying to label a phenomenon without making pretty well sure it exists.

David

[Hand Bent Spoon]

^Kind of like the mediumship/psi debate.

Does it really matter if it's mediumship or psi? No, not until something is actually demonstrated to exist. Until then, it's semantics.

[Joe_Black]

"Part of the trouble with parapsychology research could be, in fact, that the researchers spend too much time trying to label a phenomenon without making pretty well sure it exists.

David"

That generalization lacks any kind of validity.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Joe_Black
"Part of the trouble with parapsychology research could be, in fact, that the researchers spend too much time trying to label a phenomenon without making pretty well sure it exists.

David"

That generalization lacks any kind of validity.
Show the evidence that there is a proved parapsychological phenomenon

[davidhorman]

That generalization lacks any kind of validity.

Hence my clever use of the phrase "could be".

David

[Joe_Black]

Generally parapsychology research is conducted under strick protocals too prevent 'cheating' of any kind, wittingly or unwittingly.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Joe_Black
Generally parapsychology research is conducted under strick protocals too prevent 'cheating' of any kind, wittingly or unwittingly. The words you are looking for are spelled "strict", "protocols", and "to", respectively. But that's beside the point.

The point is that the more parapsychology research is conducted to reduce the possibility of cheating, the more the results of that research indicate a correlation with random chance.

[Oleron]

Originally posted by davidhorman


That doesn't make any difference as to whether or not you passed the test, though. Part of the trouble with parapsychology research could be, in fact, that the researchers spend too much time trying to label a phenomenon without making pretty well sure it exists.

David

I agree with you david.
It has also struck me that psi effects (mediumship, whatever), if they exist, should be more easily provable than they appear to be.

Often the debate is over the statistical significance (or not) of an anomalous test result when I feel like saying 'Hold on, either they can perform these claims or they can't!'.

However I realise that this view reflects more opinion than science and I applaud the work of honest psi researchers such as Chris French and Richard Wiseman. They readily admit that they are part of a profession that has yet to have a positive experimental result and yet they continue to search for one. I suppose it's a bit like the SETI debate. Is an extremely unlikely positive outcome, reason enough not to even look?
Tricky one. But I personally like the idea that someone is diligently pursuing the matter.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Abdul said:
But a parapsychological researcher is more constrained. The phenomenon must be labelled if not explained.
Wouldn't that be nice? How can a parapsychologist design an experiment to distinguish between telepathy, clairvoyance, remote viewing, and micro-PK?

Joe said:
Generally parapsychology research is conducted under strick protocals too prevent 'cheating' of any kind, wittingly or unwittingly.
Roight. This requires a list of all possible mundane sources of information flow. Do you have that list? Love to see it.

~~ Paul

[Joe_Black]

Roight. This requires a list of all possible mundane sources of information flow. Do you have that list? Love to see it.

~~ Paul

First we have electronic devices that could be used for any sort of witting communication. Sounds too muffled/sheilded from. Even the people that know the answer too a particular test session should not be exposed too anyone who might be monitoring the test subjects as even their bodylanguage could pass some infomation accross in some way. You could ask the people at the Cognitive sciences laboritory for there list i think.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Joe_Black
First we have electronic devices that could be used for any sort of witting communication. Sounds too muffled/sheilded from. Even the people that know the answer too a particular test session should not be exposed too anyone who might be monitoring the test subjects as even their bodylanguage could pass some infomation accross in some way. You could ask the people at the Cognitive sciences laboritory for there list i think.

I can beat that protocol:

Person A sits in one room, Person B sits in another. They can't hear, see, feel or smell each other. No microphones, no mirrors, no cameras. It could be in Denmark and Australia.

Person A flips a coin (provided by you), then presses a button that tells Person B that the coin is flipped.

Person B guesses either heads or tails, but correct, each time.

Care to tell me how that works? (Anybody else, don't tell JoeBlack!)

If not, give me a million dollars.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
^Kind of like the mediumship/psi debate.

Does it really matter if it's mediumship or psi? No, not until something is actually demonstrated to exist. Until then, it's semantics.
A scene plays out in my mind...

1st Parapsychologist: Invisible unicorns are PINK!

2nd Parapsychologist: No they arent! Invisible unicorns are PURPLE!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Joe said:
First we have electronic devices that could be used for any sort of witting communication. Sounds too muffled/sheilded from. Even the people that know the answer too a particular test session should not be exposed too anyone who might be monitoring the test subjects as even their bodylanguage could pass some infomation accross in some way. You could ask the people at the Cognitive sciences laboritory for there list i think.
Their list, if they have one at all, would be a list of all known (to them) mundane sources of information. We need a list of all possible mundane sources.

~~ Paul

[Anders W. Bonde]

Assuming psychic faculties existed, those endowed with them to a higher degree than others would posses a distinct evolutionary advantage. Why is it that psychics don't rule the world?

(edited for typo)

[Spektator]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
....
Person A sits in one room, Person B sits in another. They can't hear, see, feel or smell each other. No microphones, no mirrors, no cameras. It could be in Denmark and Australia.

Person A flips a coin (provided by you), then presses a button that tells Person B that the coin is flipped.

Person B guesses either heads or tails, but correct, each time.

Care to tell me how that works? (Anybody else, don't tell JoeBlack!)

....
Hmmm....one possible way: A and B are wearing watches with synchronized second hands. If A presses the button when the second hand of A's watch is between twelve and three, it's heads; between three and six, it's tails; between six and nine, heads; between nine and twelve, tails. On twelve exactly, the coin landed on edge.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
If I say you can pick a card and look at it and I will tell you what it is, and I agree to a protocol that eliminates trickery, and I really do it, then I win the prize.

No need for me to come up with a theory.

But a parapsychological researcher is more constrained. The phenomenon must be labelled if not explained.

I might say it's telepathy but really it might be clairvoyance. If I'm told how well I did afterward, it might be precognition. I might even have "forced" the card with telekenesis. Permute accordingly. No.

Telepathy is not proven. Precognition is not proven. Clairvoyance is not proven. Telekenesis is not proven.

Trickery is very much proven.

If, in a controlled setting, you could pick the right card in a statistically important manner, then you may have something.

[Nihilanth]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I can beat that protocol:

Person A sits in one room, Person B sits in another. They can't hear, see, feel or smell each other. No microphones, no mirrors, no cameras. It could be in Denmark and Australia.

Person A flips a coin (provided by you), then presses a button that tells Person B that the coin is flipped.

Person B guesses either heads or tails, but correct, each time.

Care to tell me how that works? (Anybody else, don't tell JoeBlack!)

If not, give me a million dollars.

Ooh, ooh, I thought of a way!
If the button emits some kind of buzzer noise, you could have it worked out so that if it's held down for a short period of time, it's heads, a little longer it's tails. It wouldn't even have to be that noticable. A short "BRZT" for one, just a little bit longer for the other.

Or...hm...highly trained and incredibly tiny carrier pidgeons.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Person A sits in one room, Person B sits in another. They can't hear, see, feel or smell each other. No microphones, no mirrors, no cameras. It could be in Denmark and Australia.

Person A flips a coin (provided by you), then presses a button that tells Person B that the coin is flipped.

Person B guesses either heads or tails, but correct, each time.

Care to tell me how that works? (Anybody else, don't tell JoeBlack!)


Based on time.

Even if they don't have wallclocks or watches, just base it on the time between button presses. Just guess on the first coin toss, then after every other one, say wait 5 seconds before pressing the button for H, and 10 seconds for T.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Wouldn't that be nice? How can a parapsychologist design an experiment to distinguish between telepathy, clairvoyance, remote viewing, and micro-PK?


Decision Augmentation Theory claims, I believe, to differentiate between information based and micro-PK based anomalous cognition (and of course, chance).


Roight. This requires a list of all possible mundane sources of information flow. Do you have that list? Love to see it.
~~ Paul

Do you have such a list? Do even physicists have such as list? Don't hold me to a higher standard...

[CFLarsen]

Well, since Joe Black didn't answer...

Originally posted by Nihilanth
Ooh, ooh, I thought of a way!
If the button emits some kind of buzzer noise, you could have it worked out so that if it's held down for a short period of time, it's heads, a little longer it's tails. It wouldn't even have to be that noticable. A short "BRZT" for one, just a little bit longer for the other.

Clever little you.

Originally posted by Nihilanth
Or...hm...highly trained and incredibly tiny carrier pidgeons.

Very clever little you!

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Based on time.

Even if they don't have wallclocks or watches, just base it on the time between button presses. Just guess on the first coin toss, then after every other one, say wait 5 seconds before pressing the button for H, and 10 seconds for T.

A variation of the first. Clever little you.

[glee]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
If I say you can pick a card and look at it and I will tell you what it is, and I agree to a protocol that eliminates trickery, and I really do it, then I win the prize.

No need for me to come up with a theory.

But a parapsychological researcher is more constrained. The phenomenon must be labelled if not explained.

I might say it's telepathy but really it might be clairvoyance. If I'm told how well I did afterward, it might be precognition. I might even have "forced" the card with telekenesis. Permute accordingly.

Well I see what you mean, but firstly, neither of the above has happened and secondly, science does work if something is observed and proven by testing before the underlying principle is explained.

The trouble with most paranormal powers is that people claim they exist, define them in great detail and only then try to see if there is any evidence.

Just compare remote viewing with satellite observation. Over the last 20 years or so, science has come up with a machine in orbit that can read a car number plate. How does remote viewing compare?!

[princhester]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Based on time.

Even if they don't have wallclocks or watches, just base it on the time between button presses. Just guess on the first coin toss, then after every other one, say wait 5 seconds before pressing the button for H, and 10 seconds for T.

5 or 10 seconds from when? Am I right in thinking that you are assuming remarkably rhythmic coin tosses?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Nihilanth


Ooh, ooh, I thought of a way!
If the button emits some kind of buzzer noise, you could have it worked out so that if it's held down for a short period of time, it's heads, a little longer it's tails. It wouldn't even have to be that noticable. A short "BRZT" for one, just a little bit longer for the other.

Or...hm...highly trained and incredibly tiny carrier pidgeons.

And it doesn't even need to be a conscious decision to "cheat".

It could be that on the whole people hold down the buzzer slightly longer when a head comes up then a tail for some "psychological" reason and its one of these things we "unconsciously" react to.

(Obviously in this instance tiny carrier pigeons makes more sense.)

[TheBoyPaj]

I sometimes find it odd that people complain about the Randi challenge not being up to the standards of an in depth scientific experiment. It's just a challenge! It's a first step to the further understanding of a new phenomenon.

The challenge is a single event (well, two if you count the prelims), not replicated by other labs. It does not come up with theories. It does not appear in a peer-reviewed journal. It's not part of the accepted body of scientific research, nor does it claim to be. But it does employ scientific methods and reasoning, in order to detect and prevent fraud. If anything interesting turns up, it will be over to the regular scientists to quantify and explain it.

The challenge is more lax than proper research should be. So isn't it even more amazing that no one has passed it?

[Anders W. Bonde]

Spot on!

[luvhumility]

I Really like this website, and as one who has "faith" in both a creator and trust in science. (Boy has my life been tough)! I love how you people put paranormal "stuff" and science + religious belief systems to the test! I have been following Princeton University's research for years and find it amazing (assuming its true/ I hope it is) that a persons "Good Intent" can repeatably affect the data distribution of "random machines" outputs without physically touching them. If our creator really designed good intent having a slight advantage in "our universal system" then he.she is really pretty savy. But I wonder if anyone has seen the results of these Princeton PEAR tests? and do You believe the results are valid? it seems that these random machine test(s) could win the JR challenge. But there is an exclusion our creator seems to have designed in! I wonder has anyone read these PEAR sceintific reports and data?
Any comments on why this intent does not affect these "random machines" when its operators thoughts are of a business (greedy) or academic (boxed thinking) nature. I am curious of what you people's experience's are in this area....
PLEASE COMMENT! AT length!!

[Zep]

Originally posted by luvhumility
I Really like this website, and as one who has "faith" in both a creator and trust in science. (Boy has my life been tough)! I love how you people put paranormal "stuff" and science + religious belief systems to the test! I have been following Princeton University's research for years and find it amazing (assuming its true/ I hope it is) that a persons "Good Intent" can repeatably affect the data distribution of "random machines" outputs without physically touching them. If our creator really designed good intent having a slight advantage in "our universal system" then he.she is really pretty savy. But I wonder if anyone has seen the results of these Princeton PEAR tests? and do You believe the results are valid? it seems that these random machine test(s) could win the JR challenge. But there is an exclusion our creator seems to have designed in! I wonder has anyone read these PEAR sceintific reports and data?
Any comments on why this intent does not affect these "random machines" when its operators thoughts are of a business (greedy) or academic (boxed thinking) nature. I am curious of what you people's experience's are in this area....
PLEASE COMMENT! AT length!! Yes, a number of us have read them. They have been commented on at length here. If you search using the keyword "PEAR" I'm sure you will find these discussions. There's also one or two articles over on Skeptic Report website (ask CFLarsen where that is!).

Let me personally just comment that, after more than 25 years of operation without any tangible results, PEAR's priorities seem to lean more towards obscuring that very point. That is, job-preservation.

[luvhumility]

I look forward to reading up on this PEAR conjecture and to conversing with all of you on this site! Good work here.
Being a person of both faith and Science is difficult in this world Today. I seem to get hit from all sides! It certainly has challenged my perceptions of many things i used to think were actually truths that may have been myths/symbolical and vs-vs. religion(s) + people that "teach" them sometimes have their own dogmatic controlling power constructs that need to be exposed, As do many parapsycholigical areas++. I hope we all keep up our search of truth. There are Good things ahead! So much to learn. Thank you for the info!

[Ladewig]

The challenge is more lax than proper research should be. So isn't it even more amazing that no one has passed it?

You beat me to it.
I'm looking forward to Abdul's response.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
The challenge is more lax than proper research should be. So isn't it even more amazing that no one has passed it?

Not really.

It's the same reason parapsychological research has proven nothing for fifty years.

The phenomenon does not exist.