New PSI forum

[Lucianarchy]

Now we are going to have the PSI forum, we should prepare / compile a list of all the evidence / replictions including references and sources.

Given the evidence is now quite positive, and there now beign no mundane, rationale known scientific explanation for the effect.The starting point of the forum should be: The Psi effect exists. Now is the time to move onto applying scepticism to any forthcoming explanations. Not as denial, but as tests of exploration.

[apoger]

Given the evidence is now quite positive, and there now beign no mundane, rationale known scientific explanation for the effect.The starting point of the forum should be: The Psi effect exists.

You know... I heard that some guy was offering a million bucks for just such evidence.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by apoger


You know... I heard that some guy was offering a million bucks for just such evidence.

Then I think you misunderstod what you heard.

[LostAngeles]

I didn't hear anything, but I read "evidence" in a context that implied there was evidence.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Now we are going to have the PSI forum, we should prepare / compile a list of all the evidence / replictions including references and sources.

Given the evidence is now quite positive, and there now beign no mundane, rationale known scientific explanation for the effect.The starting point of the forum should be: The Psi effect exists. Now is the time to move onto applying scepticism to any forthcoming explanations. Not as denial, but as tests of exploration.

Proclaiming yourself the winner while sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALA? charming.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Now we are going to have the PSI forum, we should prepare / compile a list of all the evidence / replictions including references and sources.

Given the evidence is now quite positive, and there now beign no mundane, rationale known scientific explanation for the effect.The starting point of the forum should be: The Psi effect exists. Now is the time to move onto applying scepticism to any forthcoming explanations. Not as denial, but as tests of exploration.

Such a list of replicated experiments with good controls that show statistical significance when tseting for 'psi' probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Now we are going to have the PSI forum, we should prepare / compile a list of all the evidence / replictions including references and sources.

What are you talking about? What "PSI forum"?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Given the evidence is now quite positive, and there now beign no mundane, rationale known scientific explanation for the effect.The starting point of the forum should be: The Psi effect exists.

Gee, I'd really, really like to see the evidence of that...

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Now is the time to move onto applying scepticism to any forthcoming explanations. Not as denial, but as tests of exploration.

If anyone is in denial, it's you.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Such a list of replicated experiments with good controls that show statistical significance when tseting for 'psi' probably wouldn't be a bad idea.

If one exists, I would really, really like to see it...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If one exists, I would really, really like to see it...

So... do some homework...

And/or look at the RNG, ganzfeld, and auto-ganzfeld cumulative databases.

Do you believe that "replicated experiments with good controls that show statistical significance when testing for 'psi'" do not exist?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So... do some homework...

I have. I can't find it. Can you help by listing it?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
And/or look at the RNG, ganzfeld, and auto-ganzfeld cumulative databases.

Have you? Have you actually looked at the actual databases, or have you just read Radin's book?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you believe that "replicated experiments with good controls that show statistical significance when testing for 'psi'" do not exist?

It's not a question of belief. We know that there is no experiment with good controls that show statistical significance that can be replicated.

As for testing for "psi"? Please explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for).

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Have you? Have you actually looked at the actual databases, or have you just read Radin's book?


Have you? Have you actually looked at the actual databases, or have you just read Radin's book?


We know that there is no experiment with good controls that show statistical significance that can be replicated.


Auto-ganzfeld, RNG experiments...


As for testing for "psi"? Please explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for).

You'll have to be more specific. What exactly are you wanting me to do?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Have you? Have you actually looked at the actual databases, or have you just read Radin's book?

No, I have not looked at the actual databases. Have you?

Yes, I have read Radin's book. Have you?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Auto-ganzfeld, RNG experiments...

Those are descriptions of how to do experiments. Please list the exact experiments: What was tested, who tested it, how was it replicated?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You'll have to be more specific. What exactly are you wanting me to do?

Exactly what I said:

Please explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for).

[Doctor X]

Uma Thurmon is currently my love slave. . .

. . . I may consider allowing Nicole Kidman to join my herem. . . .

. . . my power is proven and clear.

Soon I shall have a special forum dedicated to my powers to allow those intelligent enough to appreciate the evidences to join in the study and deification of me.

While I accept donations to further these studies which have already proven Einstein and Archimedes wrong, I would not consider debasing myself to apply for a "Million Dollar Prize" for which no evidences exist that it exists.

--J. "Ego Eimi!" D.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


What are you talking about? What "PSI forum"?
Gee, I'd really, really like to see the evidence of that...
If one exists, I would really, really like to see it...

It's going to part of the new look here. See the announcemnt.

General Skepticism
Belief and Skepticism in the Media
Afterlife, Spirits, and Mediums
Aliens, UFOs, and Close Encounters
Alternative Medicine and Science
Parapsychology and Psi Claims

[Lucianarchy]

Most honest, informed sceptics these days accept that there is an effect.

In the face of the overallbody of evidence, it would be irrational, illogical and against occam to suggest each and every last peice of scientific evidence is a result of either self delusion, cheating or collusion of some sort. In fact it is extraordinary unlikely that that should account for every psi effect on record.

The liklihood is that the effect exists and current scientific thinking does not yet understand the mechanism of action.

People who study the phenomena agree that the effect shall be known as the 'Psi Effect'. You have to accept and remember that no known method of action has been found to account for the Ganzfeld. And if you are to assume that each and every last known recorded purported 'effect' is responsible to either delusion, fraud or error, in light of so many undeunked accounts, that is an extraordinary claim in itself, and as such requires extraordinary evidence.

The fact is, the method of action has not been identified, yet it fits so close to both common human experience and now the QM theories of non-local behaviour, that it is more likely that the effect is indeed non-local and therefore worthy of increased research and funding.

Here's the first part of the compilation of resources. Please feel free to add to it so we can begin the new forum with a good firm grounding.

"[...]When 10 new studies published after the Milton Wiseman cut off date are added to their database, the overall ganzfeld effect again becomes significant, but the mean effect size is still smaller than those from the original studies. Ratings of all 40 studies by 3 independent raters reveal that the effect size achieved by a replication is significantly correlated with the degree to which it adhered to the standard ganzfeld protocol. Standard replications yield significant effect sizes comparable with those obtained in the past. " Bem, D.J, Palmer, J. and Broughton, R.S. (2001). Updating the Ganzfeld database: a victim of its own success? Journal of Parapsychology, 65, 207-218

The above was also covered in Science News:


"Since the metanalysis was completed, nine more ganzfeld studies have been published. Milton acknowledges that the psi effect would be statistically significant if the analysis were updated to include these studies." - http://www.sciencenews.org
Bem's response to Hyman - http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem...e_to_hyman.html


"The Ganzfeld experiments at Edinburgh are getting highly
significant results. They appear to be well designed and
if they are carried out as stated, then the results are
very unlikely to be due to chance and therefore may be
evidence of ESP. " - Dr S Blackmore (member of CSICOP)

Bem, D. J. and Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer, Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4-18. Here's the article online: psi in the ganzfeld. http://www.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/does_psi_exist.html

Child, I. L. (1985). Psychology and anomalous observations: The question of ESP in dreams. American Psychologist, 40, 1219-1230.

Jahn, R. G. and Dunne, B. J. (1986). On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena. Foundations of Physics, 16, 721-772.

Jahn, R. G. (1982). The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An engineering perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE, 70, 136-170.

Radin, D. I. (1989). Searching for "signatures" in anomalous human-machine interaction research: A neural network approach. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 3, 185-200.

Radin, D. I. & Nelson, R. D. (1989). Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems. Foundations of Physics, 19, 1499-1514.

Radin, D. I. (1994). On complexity and pragmatism. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 8 (4), 523-534.

Rao, K. R. & Palmer, J. (1987). The anomaly called psi: Recent research and criticism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 539-551.

Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378.

Jessica Utts' Report on Remote Viewing for the US government, critic Ray Hyman's Response to Utts' Report, and her Response to Hyman's Response. http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/users/utts/response.html

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
In the face of the overallbody of evidence, it would be irrational, illogical and against occam to suggest each and every last peice of scientific evidence is a result of either self delusion, cheating or collusion of some sort. In fact it is extraordinary unlikely that that should account for every psi effect on record.

Is it? I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone cut a woman in half. So it MUST be true, mustn't it?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Parapsychology and Psi Claims

Claims are not evidence, you fool.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Most honest, informed sceptics these days accept that there is an effect.

Fool.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
In the face of the overallbody of evidence, it would be irrational, illogical and against occam to suggest each and every last peice of scientific evidence is a result of either self delusion, cheating or collusion of some sort. In fact it is extraordinary unlikely that that should account for every psi effect on record.

It is up to you to show just one piece of evidence. Simply saying "They can't all be fakes" is not good enough. Using that logic, you believe that Santa is real.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The liklihood is that the effect exists and current scientific thinking does not yet understand the mechanism of action.

Yeah, yeah: Scientists are not open-minded enough, scientists are not clever enough, blah, blah, blah...

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
People who study the phenomena agree that the effect shall be known as the 'Psi Effect'.

They do? Prove it.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You have to accept and remember that no known method of action has been found to account for the Ganzfeld.

Argument from ignorance. Using that logic, electricity should have been declared paranormal 300 years ago.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
And if you are to assume that each and every last known recorded purported 'effect' is responsible to either delusion, fraud or error, in light of so many undeunked accounts, that is an extraordinary claim in itself, and as such requires extraordinary evidence.

No, it is not very extraordinary to state that humans have a long history of deceit and self-delusion.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The fact is, the method of action has not been identified, yet it fits so close to both common human experience and now the QM theories of non-local behaviour, that it is more likely that the effect is indeed non-local and therefore worthy of increased research and funding.

Oh, please tell us how the QM theories explain psi!

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Here's the first part of the compilation of resources. Please feel free to add to it so we can begin the new forum with a good firm grounding.

Same old tired crap, debunked a zillion times.

[Doctor X]

Anyone want to "buy a fallacy?"

--J.D.

[nikoteen]

Status of current Ganzfeld research :

- parapsychologists first claimed they got positive results with the Ganzfeld
- skeptics highlighted numerous protocol biases in their protocols

[=> 1st controversy]

- parapsychologists moved to "auto-ganzfeld" and claimed they got positive results
- skeptics validated the protocol byt they couldn't reproduce any of the successful tests

[=> 2nd controversy]

- parapsychologists made several meta-analysis and got positive results
- skeptics made several meta-analysis and got negative results

[=> 3rd controversy is about what experiment should be included in the "Ganzfeld database" or not (see papers about "updating the ganzfeld database")]

Is this controversy fixed yet ? As far as I know, no.

If you are interested in ESP research etc, don't try to get back to the 1st and 2nd controversy time. Read those papers you mention, and find a way to get out of the 3rd controversy era.

Clue: you never get out of a controversy by answering to the original question. Invent and get the never-ending debate toward its 4th step !


---
Nicolas Vivant

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No, I have not looked at the actual databases. Have you?


Some of the dataset, yes. All of them, no. Do I have a list or have kept the ones I've looked at a while back, no.


Yes, I have read Radin's book. Have you?


Yes. Twice.


Those are descriptions of how to do experiments. Please list the exact experiments: What was tested, who tested it, how was it replicated?


There have been plenty done. You'll have to contact the authors of those experiments for the details you are looking for.


Please explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for).

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "the hypothesis". If you could give me an example with something a non-psi subject, that would be great.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Most honest, informed sceptics these days accept that there is an effect.

In the face of the overallbody of evidence, it would be irrational, illogical and against occam to suggest each and every last peice of scientific evidence is a result of either self delusion, cheating or collusion of some sort. In fact it is extraordinary unlikely that that should account for every psi effect on record.

The liklihood is that the effect exists and current scientific thinking does not yet understand the mechanism of action.

People who study the phenomena agree that the effect shall be known as the 'Psi Effect'. You have to accept and remember that no known method of action has been found to account for the Ganzfeld. And if you are to assume that each and every last known recorded purported 'effect' is responsible to either delusion, fraud or error, in light of so many undeunked accounts, that is an extraordinary claim in itself, and as such requires extraordinary evidence.

The fact is, the method of action has not been identified, yet it fits so close to both common human experience and now the QM theories of non-local behaviour, that it is more likely that the effect is indeed non-local and therefore worthy of increased research and funding.

Here's the first part of the compilation of resources. Please feel free to add to it so we can begin the new forum with a good firm grounding.

The above was also covered in Science News:


Bem's response to Hyman - http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem...e_to_hyman.html



Bem, D. J. and Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer, Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4-18. Here's the article online: psi in the ganzfeld. http://www.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/does_psi_exist.html

Child, I. L. (1985). Psychology and anomalous observations: The question of ESP in dreams. American Psychologist, 40, 1219-1230.

Jahn, R. G. and Dunne, B. J. (1986). On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena. Foundations of Physics, 16, 721-772.

Jahn, R. G. (1982). The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An engineering perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE, 70, 136-170.

Radin, D. I. (1989). Searching for "signatures" in anomalous human-machine interaction research: A neural network approach. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 3, 185-200.

Radin, D. I. & Nelson, R. D. (1989). Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems. Foundations of Physics, 19, 1499-1514.

Radin, D. I. (1994). On complexity and pragmatism. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 8 (4), 523-534.

Rao, K. R. & Palmer, J. (1987). The anomaly called psi: Recent research and criticism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 539-551.

Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378.

Jessica Utts' Report on Remote Viewing for the US government, critic Ray Hyman's Response to Utts' Report, and her Response to Hyman's Response. http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/users/utts/response.html

And I would personally start with Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378. The article and its rejoinders are excellent. I was delighted to find this issue in my office that the previous grad student left!
(he left a big stack of Statistical Science issues, not just this issue ;) ).

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Same old tired crap, debunked a zillion times.

Can you show where Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378 was "debunked", as you claimed?

Thanks.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Some of the dataset, yes. All of them, no. Do I have a list or have kept the ones I've looked at a while back, no.

How can you possibly point to the content of datasets that you cannot identify? Do you go on memory?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
There have been plenty done. You'll have to contact the authors of those experiments for the details you are looking for.

I will not do your homework for you. Are you able to list the exact experiments: What was tested, who tested it, how was it replicated? Yes or no?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "the hypothesis". If you could give me an example with something a non-psi subject, that would be great.

Are you able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for)? Yes or no?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

How can you possibly point to the content of datasets that you cannot identify?


Because I've seen some before.


I will not do your homework for you.


It is your homework. You're the one who is interested in seeing the specifics of the experiment, so you'll have to contact the researchers involved with the experiments.


Are you able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for)? Yes or no?

You'll have to be more specific. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "the hypothesis". If you could give me an example with something a non-psi subject, that would be great.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Because I've seen some before.

You mean to tell us that all this time, when you were referring to the Ganzfeld, auto-Ganzfeld, and blah blah blah, you were going on memory?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It is your homework. You're the one who is interested in seeing the specifics of the experiment, so you'll have to contact the researchers involved with the experiments.

Of course it is not my homework, it is yours. You're the one who claims that these experiments with good controls show statistical significance that can be replicated. You're the one who has to list them.

But, you can't. Or, refuse. Either way, your claim is unsupported by evidence.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You'll have to be more specific. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "the hypothesis". If you could give me an example with something a non-psi subject, that would be great.

OK, you are not able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for).

Let's sum up:


You are not able to point to specific results from specific RNG, ganzfeld, and auto-ganzfeld cumulative databases, because you can not remember which you have looked at.
You are not able to list the experiments with good controls show statistical significance that can be replicated.
You are not able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for).


You may begin your arm waving.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You mean to tell us that all this time, when you were referring to the Ganzfeld, auto-Ganzfeld, and blah blah blah, you were going on memory?


Well I read them, yes.

By you stating "No, I have not looked at the actual databases.", and then saying "Same old tired crap, debunked a zillion times." are you saying you magically debunked it without even seeing the data at all? At least I have seen it in the past, you haven't even seen it at all, according to your own words!

Now, Claus, can you show where Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378 was "debunked", as you claimed?


Of course it is not my homework, it is yours. You're the one who claims that these experiments with good controls show statistical significance that can be replicated. You're the one who has to list them.


They have been listed. It is your homework to contact the authors if you are interested in specific details, such as the ones you are asking for.


OK, you are not able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for).


Hey, you didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it, because I'm not sure what you are asking and I need you to be more specific:

You asked:


Are you able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for)?


And I said:


You'll have to be more specific. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "the hypothesis". If you could give me an example with something a non-psi subject, that would be great.


So can you not elaborate on your question? I'm trying to get to a point where I can understand you, so I can try to answer it. You're just not cooperating here. Oh well, I guess that more lists I guess for me. :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Well I read them, yes.

No, you claim to have read some, yet you cannot name any of them.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
By you stating "No, I have not looked at the actual databases.", and then saying "Same old tired crap, debunked a zillion times." are you saying you magically debunked it without even seeing the data at all? At least I have seen it in the past, you haven't even seen it at all, according to your own words!

Now, Claus, can you show where Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378 was "debunked", as you claimed?

Where exactly did I claim that I had debunked them? Stop inventing things.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
They have been listed. It is your homework to contact the authors if you are interested in specific details, such as the ones you are asking for.

Where have they been listed? Not by you, as you should.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So can you not elaborate on your question? I'm trying to get to a point where I can understand you, so I can try to answer it. You're just not cooperating here. Oh well, I guess that more lists I guess for me. :rolleyes:

Wave your arms all you like.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No, you claim to have read some, yet you cannot name any of them.


They have already been named. I won't do your homework for you.

You haven't seen any of the data? I'm shocked!


Where exactly did I claim that I had debunked them? Stop inventing things.


Fine.

Where did anybody debunk Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378??? You claimed it has been debunked a zillion times... Evidence?


Wave your arms all you like.

Nope.

You asked:


Are you able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for)?


And I said:


You'll have to be more specific. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "the hypothesis". If you could give me an example with something a non-psi subject, that would be great.


Still waiting for you to elaborate on whatever it is you are trying to get across to me.

[apoger]

Still waiting for you to elaborate on whatever it is you are trying to get across to me.

Let me elaborate, if I may:

He is very simply asking you to define the topics (Psi and ESP).
This is the very first step in a coherent discussion. Defining our terms prevents people from hiding behind semantics and ambiguity.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


Is it? I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone cut a woman in half. So it MUST be true, mustn't it?

Pardon? What do a magician's tricks have to do with the scientifically designed experiments he's talking about? Really, poor form.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
[BWhere did anybody debunk Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378???

You claimed it has been debunked a zillion times...

Evidence?
[/B]

Still waiting.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by apoger

Let me elaborate, if I may:

He is very simply asking you to define the topics (Psi and ESP).
This is the very first step in a coherent discussion. Defining our terms prevents people from hiding behind semantics and ambiguity.

Well he asked me to define the hypothesis... Different researchers are testing different hypotheses, so I'm not sure what he is specifically going for here.

If he wanted me to define the words psi and esp, he should have simply said so. I use the definition of May, et al:

Anomalous Cognition- information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are absent.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by flyboy217

Pardon? What do a magician's tricks have to do with the scientifically designed experiments he's talking about? Really, poor form.

Nothing at all. It is a typical distraction ploy.

Neither do any popular understand of "ESP" like on X-files or movies, etc. have anything to do with scientifically testing such things in a lab.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Well he asked me to define the hypothesis... Different researchers are testing different hypotheses, so I'm not sure what he is specifically going for here.

Then list the different hypotheses that you know of, and explain those.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
If he wanted me to define the words psi and esp, he should have simply said so.

No, I did not. You are perfectly aware that I did not. Again, please stop inventing things.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I use the definition of May, et al:

Anomalous Cognition- information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are absent.

Finally, we drag something out of you!

Now, please explain the hypotheses for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for) that you know of. After that, please describe how to test them.

And if we could avoid this tedious back-and-forth, it would be most productive. Sooner or later, you will have to come out in the open, and explain what your stance is on this.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Nothing at all. It is a typical distraction ploy.

It is not. It is a valid comparison: How will you tell if the lady is not cut in half?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Neither do any popular understand of "ESP" like on X-files or movies, etc. have anything to do with scientifically testing such things in a lab.

But you forget that the vast majority of paranormal claims do not take place in a lab setting. What are you going to do with those? Ignore them?

We still haven't gotten any further:


You are not able to point to specific results from specific RNG, ganzfeld, and auto-ganzfeld cumulative databases, because you can not remember which you have looked at.
You are not able to list the experiments with good controls show statistical significance that can be replicated.
You are not able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for).
You are not able to show where the experiments are listed.


But we do see a lot of arm waving.

[Lucianarchy]

OK, so we're getting together a database of the replications.

Which experiments run by any of the skeptical organisations do we have to chose from? Have we any sources, references or results to hand?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
OK, so we're getting together a database of the replications.

Which experiments run by any of the skeptical organisations do we have to chose from? Have we any sources, references or results to hand?

You crack me up. Really, you do. I'm not being rude, I am actually sitting here with a smile on my lips. If only real life were as frothy as these discussions. Once I realized that none of this signifies anything at all my Wa was restored.

Carry on.

[Lucianarchy]

Ch. 1 of The Conscious Universe on line here:

http://www.psiresearch.org/Chapter1.html

In science, the acceptance of new ideas follows a predictable, four-stage sequence. In Stage 1, skeptics confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible because it violates the Laws of Science. This stage can last from years to centuries, depending on how much the idea challenges conventional wisdom. In Stage 2, skeptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible, but it is not very interesting and the claimed effects are extremely weak. Stage 3 begins when the mainstream realizes that the idea is not only important, but its effects are much stronger and more pervasive than previously imagined. Stage 4 is achieved when the same critics who used to disavow any interest in the idea begin to proclaim that they thought of it first. Eventually, no one remembers that the idea was once considered a dangerous heresy.

[Lucianarchy]

http://www.jsasoc.com/library.html articles written by the staff of the Laboratories for Fundamental Research. The list follows:

Global Consciousness Project: An Independent Analysis of The 11 September 2001 Events, Edwin C. May; S. James P. Spottiswoode

A Search for Alpha Power Changes Associated with Anomalous Cognition, Edwin C. May; S. James P. Spottiswoode; Laura V. Faith

Anomalous Cognition Effect Size: Dependence on Sidereal Time and Solar Wind Parameters, S. James P. Spottiswoode; Edwin C. May

Apparent Association between Effect Size in Free Response Anomalous Cognition Experiments and Local Sidereal Time, S. James P. Spottiswoode

Applications of Decision Augmentation Theory,
Edwin C. May, PhD; Jessica M. Utts, PhD; Christine L. James

Decision Augmentation Theory: Toward a Model of Anomalous Mental Phenomena, Edwin C. May, PhD; Jessica M. Utts, PhD; S. James P. Spottiswoode

Decision Augmentation Theory: Applications to the Random Number Generator Database, Edwin C. May, PhD; Jessica M. Utts, PhD; S. James P. Spottiswoode

Effect of Ambient Magnetic Field Fluctuation on Performance in a Free Response Anomalous Cognition Task: A Pilot Study,
S. James P. Spottiswoode

Geomagnetic Activity and Anomalous Cognition: A Preliminary Report of New Evidence, S. James P. Spottiswoode

Geomagnetic Fluctuations and Free Response Anomalous Cognition: A New Understanding, S. James P. Spottiswoode

Managing the Target Pool Bandwidth: Noise Reduction for Anomalous Cognition Experiments Edwin C. May, PhD; S. James P. Spottiswoode; Christine L James

Shannon Entropy as an Intrinsic Target Property: Toward a Reductionist Model of Anomalist Cognition 22 April 1994, Edwin C. May, PhD; S. James P. Spottiswoode; Christine L. James

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Ch. 1 of The Conscious Universe on line here:

http://www.psiresearch.org/Chapter1.html




In Stage 1, skeptics confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible because it violates the Laws of Science.

No. Skeptics confidently proclaim that the idea is not impossible, but that it violates the Laws of Science.

This stage can last from years to centuries, depending on how much the idea challenges conventional wisdom.

No. Once the data is in, ideas are accepted pretty fast. All it takes is evidence.

In Stage 2, skeptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible, but it is not very interesting and the claimed effects are extremely weak.

No. Skeptics will not say that an idea is impossible. Skeptics are very interested in seeing just one paranormal phenomenon proved. But it is correct that the effects seem to be extremely weak...

Stage 3 begins when the mainstream realizes that the idea is not only important, but its effects are much stronger and more pervasive than previously imagined.

No. We do not see these effects become stronger and stronger, quite contrary: They become weaker and weaker, with increased controls.

Stage 4 is achieved when the same critics who used to disavow any interest in the idea begin to proclaim that they thought of it first. Eventually, no one remembers that the idea was once considered a dangerous heresy.

No. This is nothing but ad hominem.

In science, the acceptance of new ideas follows a predictable, four-stage sequence.

Hmmmmmm.......no.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
http://www.jsasoc.com/library.html articles written by the staff of the Laboratories for Fundamental Research. The list follows:

Yes, that's nice. Please explain the contents of these publications.

Where is the evidence?

[Lucianarchy]

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/investigators/

List of progressive sceptics.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/investigators/

List of progressive sceptics.

Where is the evidence?

[The Don]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Where is the evidence?
Well if you're not going to accept a set of essays, opinion pieces and wild conjecture I don't know what will satisfy you

Note to Lucianarchy

Are you sure you can't see your way to providing references to
- repeatable
- independently verified experimentally
- peer reviewed
studies published in reputable journals

[Lucianarchy]

"[...] But the most embarrassing error Randi makes concerns the position of the hole. It isn't three feet above the floor, but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.) I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole - therefore totally blocking it - during the time of the Geller experiments.
Little more needs to be said concerning Randi's criticisms of the Geller work, since the important point is not really whether the Israeli psychic proved his psychic powers, but whether Randi can be considered a responsible critic of parapsychology. I think the answer should be obvious by now. This fact, however, doesn't keep him from making wild accusations against both Targ and Puthoff, even to the point of questioning their scientific honesty.
It is well known that the two SRI physicists issued a film which shows Geller successfully guessing the uppermost face of a die after it had been shaken in a closed box. Their Nature report describes these tests and phenomenal accuracy. The critical film was taken by Zev Pressman (an SRI staff photographer) and it shows Geller correctly making a guess. Randi claims that Targ and Puthoff lied when they stated that this film was taken during the actual tests. He further asserts that the film was a re-enactment. Basing his charges on information he claims came from Pressman himself, Randi maintains that the film was taken after the photographer had gone home and was merely staged. 'Pressman revealed that he was told Geller's eight successful throws [my emphasis] were done after he (Pressman) had gone home for the day, writes Randi, 'and that this film was a re-enactment of that supposed miracle'
Dr Puthoff was thoroughly disgusted when I read this section of Flim-Flam! to him. 'Not one millimetre of that film was a re-enactment, he told me. He also claimed that he had even procured an affidavit from Pressman certifying that the footage was filmed by him during the actual SRI tests. Dr Puthoff supplied me with this affidavit and urged me to get in touch with Mr Pressman, which is exactly I did.
l spoke directly with Mr Pressman on 5 January 1981 and he was quite interested when I told him about Randi's book. He denied that he had spoken to the magician. When l read him the section of Randi's book dealing with his alleged 'expose' of the Targ-Puthoff film, he became very vexed. He firmly backed up the authenticity of the film, told me how he had taken it on the spot, and labelled Randi's allegation as a total fabrication. (His own descriptive language was a little more colourful!) [...]"

Psychic Breakthroughs Today
D. Scott Rogo
Aquarian Press 1987 - ISBN 0850305705

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"[...] But the most embarrassing error Randi makes concerns the position of the hole. It isn't three feet above the floor, but is located only a little above floor level. The only thing you can see through it - even under optimal conditions - is a small bit of exterior floor and opposing wall. (The viewing radius is only about 20°, and the targets for the Geller experiments were hung on a different wall completely.) I also discovered during my trip to SRI that an equipment rack was situated in front of the hole throughout the Geller work, which obstructed any view through it even further. I ended my little investigation by talking with two people who were present during these critical experiments. They both agreed that wires were running through the hole - therefore totally blocking it - during the time of the Geller experiments.
Little more needs to be said concerning Randi's criticisms of the Geller work, since the important point is not really whether the Israeli psychic proved his psychic powers, but whether Randi can be considered a responsible critic of parapsychology. I think the answer should be obvious by now. This fact, however, doesn't keep him from making wild accusations against both Targ and Puthoff, even to the point of questioning their scientific honesty.
It is well known that the two SRI physicists issued a film which shows Geller successfully guessing the uppermost face of a die after it had been shaken in a closed box. Their Nature report describes these tests and phenomenal accuracy. The critical film was taken by Zev Pressman (an SRI staff photographer) and it shows Geller correctly making a guess. Randi claims that Targ and Puthoff lied when they stated that this film was taken during the actual tests. He further asserts that the film was a re-enactment. Basing his charges on information he claims came from Pressman himself, Randi maintains that the film was taken after the photographer had gone home and was merely staged. 'Pressman revealed that he was told Geller's eight successful throws [my emphasis] were done after he (Pressman) had gone home for the day, writes Randi, 'and that this film was a re-enactment of that supposed miracle'
Dr Puthoff was thoroughly disgusted when I read this section of Flim-Flam! to him. 'Not one millimetre of that film was a re-enactment, he told me. He also claimed that he had even procured an affidavit from Pressman certifying that the footage was filmed by him during the actual SRI tests. Dr Puthoff supplied me with this affidavit and urged me to get in touch with Mr Pressman, which is exactly I did.
l spoke directly with Mr Pressman on 5 January 1981 and he was quite interested when I told him about Randi's book. He denied that he had spoken to the magician. When l read him the section of Randi's book dealing with his alleged 'expose' of the Targ-Puthoff film, he became very vexed. He firmly backed up the authenticity of the film, told me how he had taken it on the spot, and labelled Randi's allegation as a total fabrication. (His own descriptive language was a little more colourful!) [...]"

Psychic Breakthroughs Today
D. Scott Rogo
Aquarian Press 1987 - ISBN 0850305705 And just look at the amazing progress that has taken place in this field over the last twenty years:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2253191425

James Randi has certainly been handed his comeuppance!

[Lucianarchy]

"[...]Another case is CSICOP's handling of the "Mars effect"
affair. In this case, a challenge to French "cosmobiologist"
Michel Gauquelin resulted in the verification of his claim
that correlations he found between the position of Mars and
sports ability were not the result of factors such as births
tending to occur at particular times of day. (For all the
gory details of this mess, see Curry 1982 and Kammann 1982.
Cherfas 1981 gives a brief summary.)
But what is by far the worst example of skeptical
failure I have come across is a description of a March 18,
1988 debate between creationist Duane Gish of the Institute
for Creation Research (ICR) and Ian Plimer, associate [sic]
professor of geology at Newcastle University. The
description of this debate which appeared in an article in
the Australian Skeptics' publication The Skeptic, by Steve
Roberts of the Canberra Skeptics and Skeptic editor Tim
Mendham (Roberts & Mendham 1988) was filled with serious
misrepresentations. I discovered this by viewing a videotape
of the debate, which took place at the Clancy Theatre of the
University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.[...]"

"Some Failures of Organized Skepticism"
and "Postscript to 'Some Failures of Organized Skepticism,'"
appeared in _The Arizona Skeptic_ (vol. 3, no. 1, January 1990,
pp. 2-5 and vol. 5, no. 3, November/December 1991, pp. 1-3
respectively)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Now we are going to have the PSI forum, we should prepare / compile a list of all the evidence / replictions including references and sources.

Where's the evidence?

[Lucianarchy]

Beloff, J (1974) ESP: the search for a physiological index. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 47: 401-420

Beloff, J., Cowles, M. & Bate. D. (1970). Autonomic reactions to emotive stimuli using sensory and extrasensory conditions of presentations. Journal of the American Society of Psychical Research 64

Braud, W. (1978). Allobiofeedback: Immediate feedback for a psychokinetic influence upon another person's physiology. In W. Rolls (Ed.), Research in Parapsychology 1977, Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. pp. 123-134

Braud, W. (1979). Conformance behavior involving living systems. In W. Roll (Ed). Research in Parapsychology, 1978, Metchuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. pp. 111-115.

Braud, W. (1983). More tests with electric fish. Psi Researcher 2: 114

Braud, W. (1990). Distant mental influence of rate of hemolysis of human red blood cells. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 84(1): 1-24.

Braud, W. (1986). PSI and PNI: Exploring the interface between parapsychology and psychoneuroimmuninology. Parapsychological Review 17: 1-5

Braud, W. (1989) Using living targets in psi research. Parapsychological Review 20: 1-4

Braud, W. (1992). Human interconnectedness: Research indications. ReVision: A Journal of Consciousness and Transformation, 14: 140-148

Braud, W. (1993). On the use of living target systems in distant mental influence research, In L. Coly (Ed.), Psi research methodology: A re-examination. New York: Parapsychology Foundation

Braud, W. (1993). Remote mental influence of electrodermal activity. Journal of Indian Psychology10 (1-2): 1-9

Braud, W. & Dennis, S. (1989). Geophysical variables and behavior: LVIII. Autonomic activity, hemolysis, and biological psychokinesis: Possible relationships with geomagnetic field activity. Perceptual and Motor Skills 68: 1243-1254

Braud, W. & Jackson, J. (1982). Ideomotor reactions as psi indicators. Parapsychology Review 12: 10-11

Braud, W. & Jackson, J. (1983). Psi influence upon mental imagery. Parapsychological Review 14: 13-15

Braud, W. & Schlitz, M. (1983). Psychokinetic influence on electrodermal activity. Journal of Parapsychology 47: 95-119

Braud, W. & Schlitz, M. (1989). Possible role of intuitive data sorting in electrodermal biological psychokinesis (bio-PK). Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 83: 289-302

Braud, W., Schlitz, M. & Schmidt, H. (1990). Remote mental influence of animate and inanimate target systems: A method of comparison and preliminary findings. In L. Henkel & J. Palmer (Eds), Research in Parapsychology 1989. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. pp. 42-47

Braud, W. & Schlitz, M. (1991). Consciousness interactions with remote biological systems: Anomalous intentionality effects. Subtle Energies 2(1): 1-46

Braud, W., Shafer, D. & Andrews, S. (1990). Electrodermal correlates of remote attention: Autonomic reactions to unseen gaze. Proceedings of Presented Papers: 33rd Annual Parapsychological Association Convention, Chevy Chase, MD. pp. 14-28.

Braud, W., Shafer, D, & Andrews, S (1993). Reactions to an unseen gaze (remote attention): A review, with new data on autonomic staring detection. Journal of Parapsychology 57: 373-390

Braud, W., Shafer, D, & Andrews, S (1993). Further studies of autonomic detection of remote staring: Replication, new control procedures, and personality correlates. Journal of Parapsychology 57: 391-409

Braud, W., Shafer, D., McNeill, K. & Guerra, V. (1993). Attention focusing facilitated through remote mental interaction. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 26th Annual Convention, The Parapsychological Association, Inc. pp. 2-11

Cade, C. M. & Woolley-Hart, P. A.. (1971). The measurement of hypnosis and autohypnosis by determination of electrical skin resistance. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 46: 81-101

Coover, J.E. (1913). The feeling of being stared at. American Journal of Psychology 24: 57?-575

Dean, E. D. (1962). Plethysmograph as indicator of ESP. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 41

Dean, E. D. (1968). Attempts to use plethysmograph recordings in communication. Journal of Parapsychology 32 (abstract)

Dean, E. D. (1969). Long-distance plethysmograph telepathy with agent under water. Journal of Parapsychology 33 (abstract)

Dean, E. D. & Nash, C. B. (1967). Coincident plethysmograph results under controlled conditions. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 44

Delanoy, D. & Sah. S. (1994) Cognitive and physiological psi responses to remote positive and neutral emotional states. Proceedings of the Parpasychological Association 27th Annual Convention, The Parapsychological Association, Inc. pp.128-137

Esser, A. H., Etter, T. L. & Chamberlain, W. B. (1967). Preliminary report: Physiological concomitants of "communication" between isolated subjects. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 44

Grad, B. (1965). Some biological effects of the "laying on of hands": A review of experiments with animals and plants. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 59: 95-127

Gruber, E. R. (1980). PK effects on pre-recorded group behavior of living systems. European Journal of Parapsychology 3: 167-175

Kelly, M.T., Varvoglis, M., & Keane, P. (1979). Physiological response during psi and sensory presentation of an arousing stimulus. In W. G. Roll (Ed.), Research in Parapsychology, 1978. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow press. pp. 40-41

Khoklov, N. (1983). Remote biofeedback in voluntary control of heart rate, Psi Research 2: 66-92

Morris, R. L. (1977). Parapsychology, biology, and anpsi. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.) Handbook of Parapsychology, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. pp. 687-716

Murphy, M. (1993). The Future of the Body: Explorations Into the Further Evolution of Human Nature. New York: Putnam.

Nash, C. B. & Nash, C. S. (1962). Coincident vasoconstriction in pairs of resting subjects. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 63

Radin, D., Taylor, R. & Braud, W. (1993). Remote mental influence of electrodermal activity: A preliminary replication. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association 36th Annual Convention, The Parapsychological Association, Inc. pp. 12-23

Sheldrake, R.(1994). Seven Experiments that Could Change the World. London: Fourth Estate.

Tart, C. T. (1963). Physiological correlates of psi cognition. International Journal of Parapsychology 5: 375-386

Thalbourne, M. & Evans, L. (1992). Attitudes and beliefs about, and reactions to staring and being stared at. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 33: 448-457

Tichener, E. B. (1898). The feeling of being stared at. Science 8: 895-897

Vasiliev, LL (1976). Experiments in Distant Influence. New York: Dutton, (English Translation)

[Lucianarchy]

Overview of Current Parapsychology Research in the Former Soviet Union
Edwin C. May, Ph.D. and Larissa Vilenskaya
(Subtle Energies Volume 3, Number 3, pp. 45-67, 1992)
ABSTRACT: This paper provides an in-depth discussion of research of anomalous mental phenomena (AMP) in the former Soviet Union. The authors spent approximately two months in Russia during 1992 and 1993, interacting with researchers in Moscow and Novosibirsk. The authors primarily discuss experiments in anomalous perturbation (often referred to as psychokinesis?PK and bio? which have been the main focus of AMP research programs in the Soviet Union. In particular, the authors discuss the methodologies and results of experimental attempts by human operators to affect the following inanimate and animate target systems: (1) microcalorimeters, (2) electric noise generators, (3) cellular cultures, (4) plant seeds, (5) plant biopotentials, (6) frequency of impulses emitted by an electricity?generating fish, (7) eating behavior of mice, (8) person's reaction time, and (9) parameters of human EEG.


Anomalous Mental Phenomena Research in Russia and the Former Soviet Union: A Follow Up
Larissa Vilenskaya & Edwin C. May, Ph.D.
(Subtle Energies Volume 4, Number 3, pp. 231-250, 1992)
ABSTRACT: We describe our further exploration into research of anomalous mental phenomena (AMP) in the Former Soviet Union (FSU). We visited numerous research centers in major cities of Russia and the Ukraine, met with leading researchers in the field, visited their laboratories, and participated in some experiments. In their research, our Russian colleagues emphasize studies of anomalous perturbation (AP), also termed psychokinesis (PK), and "distant mental effect" on biological systems (bio?AP or bio?PK). The experiments have been conducted in top academic and research institutions, including Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University, and several research institutes of the Russian and Ukrainian Academies of Sciences. Although the quality of research varies considerably in different institutions, there are groups that have developed rigorous methodologies. We also consider the potential cultural impact on Russian AMP research. We conclude with a discussion of the causal model of AP studies vs. informational, perceptual model in relation to the Russian research.


Advances in Remote-Viewing Analysis
Edwin C. May, Jessica M. Utts, Beverly S. Humphrey, Wanda L. W. Luke, Thane J. Frivold, and Virginia V. Trask
(Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 54, September 1990, pp: 193-228)
ABSTRACT: Fuzzy set technology is applied to the ongoing research question of how to automate the analysis of remote-viewing data. Fuzzy sets were invented to describe, in a formal way, the subjectivity inherent in human reasoning. Applied to remote-viewing analysis, the technique involves a quantitative encoding of target and response material and provides a formal comparison. In this progress report, the accuracy of a response is defined as the percent of the intended target material that is described correctly. The reliability is defined as the percent of the response that was correct. The assessment of the remote-viewing quality is denned as the product of accuracy and reliability, called the figure of merit The procedure is applied to a test set of six remote-viewing trials. A comparison of the figures of merit with the subjective assessments of 37 independent analysts shows good agreement. The fuzzy set technology is also used to provide a quantitative definition of target orthogonality.


Decision Augmentation Theory
Edwin C. May, Jessica M. Utts, and S. James P. Spottiswoode
(Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 59, September 1995, pp: 195-220)
ABSTRACT: Decision augmentation theory (DAT) holds that humans integrate information obtained by anomalous cognition into the usual decision process. The result is that, to a statistical degree, such decisions are biased toward volitional outcomes. We introduce our model and show that the domain over which it is applicable is within a few standard deviations from chance. We contrast the theory's experimental consequences with those of models that treat anomalous effects as due to a force. We derive mathematical expressions for DAT and force-like models using two distributions, normal and binomial. DAT is testable both retrospectively and prospectively, and we provide statistical power curves to assist in the experimental design of such tests. We show that the experimental consequences of our theory are different from those of force-like models except for one special case.


Applications of Decision Augmentation Theory
Edwin C. May, S. James P. Spottiswoode, Jessica M. Utts, and Christine L. James
(Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 59, September 1995, pp: 221-250)
ABSTRACT: Decision augmentation theory (DAT) provides an informational mechanism for a class of anomalous mental phenomena that have hitherto been viewed as being caused by a force-like mechanism. Under specifiable conditions, DATs predictions for statistical anomalous perturbation databases are different from those of all force-like mechanisms. For large random number generator databases, DAT predicts a zero slope for a least squares fit to the (z^2 , n) scatter diagram, where n is the number of bits resulting from a single run and z is the resulting z score. We find a slope of (1.73 ± 3.19) X 10^-6 (t= 0.543, df= 126, p = .295) for the historical binary RNG database, which strongly suggests that some informational mechanism is responsible for the anomaly. In a two sequence length analysis of a limited set of RNG data from the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory, we find that a force-like explanation misses the observed data by 8.6 Sigma; however, the observed data are within 1.1 sigma of the DAT prediction. We also apply DAT to one pseudo-RNG study and find that its predicted slope is not significantly different from the expected value for an informational mechanism. We review and comment on six published articles that discussed DATs earlier formalism (i.e., intuitive data sorting). We found two studies that support a force-like mechanism. Our analysis of Brand's 1990 hemolysis study confirms his finding in favor of an influence model over a selection one (p = .023), and Braud and Schlitz (1989) demonstrated a force-like interaction in their remote staring experiment (p = .020). We provide six circumstantial arguments against an influence hypothesis. Our anomalous cognition research suggests that the quality of the data is proportional to the total change of Shannon entropy. We demonstrate that the change of Shannon entropy of a binary sequence from chance is independent of sequence length; thus, we suggest that a fundamental argument supports DAT over influence models. In our conclusion, we suggest that, except for one special case, the physical RNG database cannot be explained by any influence model, and that contradicting evidence from two experiments on biological systems should inspire more investigations in a way that would allow valid DAT analyses.

ESP and the Brain: Current Status
Edwin C. May
(3rd Symposium: Behind and Beyond the Brain, 321-352)
ABSTRACT: Serious research into extrasensory perception (ESP) has been conducted since the 1930's, and a number of different protocols have been established to elicit the phenomenon. The large database to date has been analyzed by critics and statisticians alike, and the consensus is that the result meets generally accepted criteria for evidence of a statistically based, information transfer anomaly. We provide a brief overview of three of the most common procedures and their results as the basis for the justification to engage in a search for a central nervous system (CNS) correlate to ESP. Our search for a CNS response to an ESP stimulus began in 1973 when we found that alpha band (8 to 12 Hz) power changed significantly concomitant with a remote and isolated flashing-light (i.e., 16 Hz) stimulus. Even though there was statistically significant evidence of a change in alpha power, the single participant in the study "was unable to demonstrate cognitively in which epochs the remote light was flashing. In addition, there was considerable ambiguity as to the EEG lead and direction of the alpha power change for the observed significant effects. That is, significant increases or decreases of in-band alpha power were observed on different electrodes at different times. Thus we abandoned this line of investigation until 1986. At that time, we used magnetoencephalographic techniques to search for evoked-response-fields occurring concomitant with a remote flashing sinusoidal stimulus. Although the initial results were encouraging in that we apparently detected significant spontaneous primary alpha phase shifts, we were unable to replicate our findings. Continuing our search in 1994, we conducted an experiment to detect event-related desynchronizations (ERD's) resulting from an ESP stimulus. Three subjects contributed a total of 70 trials during which both ESP and EEG data were collected. The ESP data, which have been blind judged by an established rank-order method, yielded independently significant results for two of the three receivers, and the overall ESP result was significant at p=0.006 (ES = 0.303). Using a cross correlation technique, which was twice as sensitive as standard signal averaging, we did not observe any evidence for an ERD in response to an ESP stimulus. Our analysis technique was sensitive enough to detect a 20% decrease from prestimulus alpha power1. We will summarize our previous experiments and discuss a number of possible explanations for this result.


Target and Sender Dependencies in Anomalous Cognition Experiments
Nevin D. Lantz, Wanda L. W. Luke, and Edwin C. May
(Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 58, September 1994, pp: 286-302)
ABSTRACT: The ganzfeld experiments as summarized by Bem and Honorton (1994) suggest that using dynamic targets produces stronger results than using static ones. Bem and Honorton, however, only analyzed ganzfeld studies that included the use of a sender. Because a sender is not a necessary requirement hi forced-choice trials, we designed and carried out a study to see if a sender is required in nonganzfeld, free-response trials. In the first of two experiments, five experienced receivers participated hi 40 trials each, 10 in each condition of a 2x2 design to explore sender and target type. We observed significant effects for static targets (exact sum-of-rank probability of p < .0073, effect size = 0.248, n = 100), chance results for dynamic targets (p < .500, effect size = 0.000, n = 100), and no interaction effects between sender and target-type conditions. One receiver slightly favored the no-sender condition, F(l,36) = 4.43, p < .04, whereas another slightly favored static targets, F(l,36) = 5.47, p < .04. We speculate that these surprising results (i.e., favoring static over dynamic targets) arose, in part, because of the difference between a topically unbounded dynamic target pool and a topically restrictive static pool. In a second experiment, we redesigned the dynamic pool to match more closely the properties of the static pool. Four of the receivers from the first study participated in at least 20 trials each, 10 in each target-type condition. No senders were used throughout this experiment. We observed a significant increase in anomalous cognition for the new dynamic targets, £(143) = 3.06, p < 1.3x 10~ , and a significant increase hi anomalous cognition for the static targets, £(143) = 1.68, p<. 047. We conclude that a sender is not a necessary requirement for free-response anomalous cognition. A rank-order analysis showed no target-type dependencies in the second study. On the basis of an analysis by May, Spottiswoode, and James (1994b), we believe a fundamental argument suggests mat hi free-response anomalous cognition experiments, dynamic targets should be better than static ones.


Managing the Target-Pool Bandwidth: Possible Noise Reduction for Anomalous Cognition Experiments
Edwin C. May, S. James P. Spottiswoode, and Christine L. James
(Journal of Parapsychology Vol. 58, pp. 303-313, 1994)
ABSTRACT: Lantz and colleagues recently reported in the first of two studies that experienced receivers from die Cognitive Sciences Laboratory produced significant evidence for anomalous cognition (AC) of static targets but showed little evidence for AC of dynamic targets. This result was surprising: It was directly opposite to the results that were derived from the 1994 Bem and Honorton ganzfeld database. In Lantz et al.'s experiment, the topics of the dynamic targets were virtually unlimited, whereas die topics for the static targets were constrained in content, size of cognitive elements, and range of affect In a second experiment, they redesigned the target pools to correct this imbalance and observed significant improvement of AC functioning. We incorporate these findings into a definition of target-pool bandwidth and propose that die proper selection of bandwidth will lead to a reduction of incorrect information in free-response AC.


Feedback Considerations in Anomalous Cognition Experiments
Edwin C. May, Nevin D. Lantz, and Tom Piantineda
(Journal of Parapsychology Vol. 60, pp. 211-226, 1996)
ABSTRACT: To determine from what time frame the data from anomalous cognition (AC) originate, we have examined the role of precognition and feedback on the quality of AC. In an otherwise standard AC protocol, we displayed feedback tachistoscopicauy to receivers. The cognitive awareness of the feedback experience was minimal, and 2 of the 8 intensities used for visual display of the feedback were below subliminal threshold. We hypothesized a number of possible relationships between feedback intensity and AC quality, including one based on precognition (i.e., the data originated from the future feedback). Four viewers contributed 40 trials each (5 at 8 different intensity bands). Using a sum-of-ranks statistic, 2 viewers produced independently significant evidence of remote viewing (i.e., the binomial probability of 2 hits in 4 trials with an event probability of .05 is .014). None of the data showed significant correlation of feedback intensity with AC quality. This result is discussed with regard to precognition in general and the troublesome unfalsifiability aspect of truly goal-oriented precognition.

Skin Conductance Prestimulus Response: Analysis, Artifacts and a Pilot Study
S. James P. Spottiswoode and E. C. May
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 617-647, 2003)
ABSTRACT:Previous studies have suggested that the human autonomic nervous system responds to stimuli 2-3 seconds before presentation. In these studies randomly chosen photographs with high and low affectivity were presented to participants. Ensemble averaging of skin conductance in the prestimulus epochs showed a differential response between high and low affectivity photographs. In our protocol the problem of idiosyncratic responses to pictorial stimuli was avoided by using audio startle stimuli. Stimulus type was determined just before presentation by a true random generator. Participants heard 20 stimuli per session with a 50% chance of an audio startle as against a silent control. Our dependent variable was the proportions of 3-second epochs prior to audio and control stimuli in which a skin conductance response, that is a minimum in skin conductance followed by a maximum, occurred. We found a significant effect (N = 125, Z-score (Z) = 3.27, effect size (ES) = 0.0901 0.0275, p = 5.4 10-4). Explanations for this result as an artifact were examined and rejected. We show that a significant result from an average-based epoch analysis in this type of experiment is not a necessary requirement to demonstrate significant evidence for a prestimulus response.


The American Institutes for Research Review of the Department of Defense's STARGAT Program: A Commentary
Edwin C. May
(Journal of Parapsychology Vol. 60, pp. 3-23, 1996)
ABSTRACT: As a result of a Congressionally Directed Activity, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) conducted an evaluation of a 24-year, government-sponsored program to investigate ESP and its potential use within die intelligence community. The American Institutes for Research (AIR) was contracted to conduct the review of both research and operations. Their September 29, 1995 final report was released to the public November 28, 1995. As a result of AIR's assessment, the CIA concluded that a statistically significant effect had been demonstrated in the laboratory but that there was no case in which ESP had provided data that had ever been used to guide intelligence operations. This paper is a critical review of AIR's methodology and conclusions. It will be shown that there is compelling evidence that the CIA set the outcome with regard to intelligence usage before the evaluation had begun. This was accomplished by limiting the research and operations data sets to exclude positive findings, by purposefully not interviewing historically significant participants, by ignoring previous extensive Department of Defense program reviews, and by using the questionable National Research Council's investigation of parapsychology as the starting point for their review. Although there may have been political and administrative justification for the CIA not to accept the government's in-house program for the operational use of anomalous cognition, these external considerations appeared to drive the outcome of the evaluation. As a result, they have come to the wrong conclusion with regard to the use of anomalous cognition in intelligence operations and have significantly underestimated the robustness of the basic phenomenon.

[Timble]

So no real journals like Nature then?

[Zep]

Lucianarchy, your list looks awfully like the one Winston Wu sent me once.

Only once.

All the same old suspects, all the same old tired arguments. All the same old avoidance of the issues and facts.

Let's see what the LEADING researchers from your group are ACTUALLY finding these days:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/IU.pdf

Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 207–241, 2003

Information and Uncertainty in
Remote Perception Research

BRENDA J. DUNNE AND ROBERT G. JAHN
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
Princeton University
Princeton NJ 08544-5263


Abstract—This article has four purposes: 1) to present for the first time in archival form all results of some 25 years of remote perception research at this laboratory; 2) to describe all of the analytical scoring methods developed over the course of this program to quantify the amount of anomalous information acquired in the experiments; 3) to display a remarkable anti-correlation between the objective specificity of those methods and the anomalous yield of the experiments; and 4) to discuss the phenomenological and pragmatic implications of this complementarity.Further in same article:By 1985 the PEAR program had amassed a substantial body of experimental data that both confirmed the reality and robustness of the remote perception phenomenon and demonstrated the efficacy of the analytical scoring techniques.Five alternative algorithms subsequently were applied ex post facto to these FIDO [accumulated] data in an effort to understand the cause of the lower yield and to devise more effective scoring strategies....the results from the...five methods all displayed relatively close concurrence, marginally significant composite z-scores, and effect sizes only about half that of the ab initio trials and only about a fifth as large as that of the ex post facto subset. Although the proportions of trials with positive scores were above 50% in all the calculations, neither these nor the numbers of significant trials exceeded chance expectation.Once again, there was reasonably good agreement among the six scoring recipes, but the overall results were now completely indistinguishable from chance. No more than the expected number of significant trials emerged in the analyses, and the low statistical resolution in defining the local empirical chance backgrounds, a consequence of the small size of the scoring matrices, made calculation of individual trial z-scores virtually meaningless. In a certain sense, this was reminiscent of one of the problems that had stimulated development of the analytical judging methodologies 18 years earlier, namely, the statistical inefficiency of assessing the informational content of individual trials in small experimental series. But now the phenomenon itself seemed to have disappeared.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by apoger


You know... I heard that some guy was offering a million bucks for just such evidence.

....and would not believe it if he saw it. ;)

It's true, no?

Most of the people here calling themselves "skeptics" would not actually believe their own eyes if they saw paranormal phenomena. They "know" it doesn't exist, therefore anything they saw that said otherwise would be "rationalised", no matter how extra-ordinary the "rationalisation"? [skeptic thinks : dumb question, I could never actually be presented with such evidence, because I know it doesn't exist]

I met a guy on philosophyforums.com calling himself "180 proof". I asked him if he would believe in the supernatural if he was up the mountain with Moses when the stone tablets appeared out of thin air. He said no, he still wouldn't believe it, even if he saw it. At that point I stopped arguing with him. Now - there is nothing wrong with having made your mind up conclusively, but let's not pretend to be "skeptical" when we mean "we will never believe this".

:)

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


....and would not believe it if he saw it. ;)

It's true, no?

Most of the people here calling themselves "skeptics" would not actually believe their own eyes if they saw paranormal phenomena. They "know" it doesn't exist, therefore anything they saw that said otherwise would be "rationalised", no matter how extra-ordinary the "rationalisation"? [skeptic thinks : dumb question, I could never actually be presented with such evidence, because I know it doesn't exist]

I met a guy on philosophyforums.com calling himself "180 proof". I asked him if he would believe in the supernatural if he was up the mountain with Moses when the stone tablets appeared out of thin air. He said no, he still wouldn't believe it, even if he saw it. At that point I stopped arguing with him. Now - there is nothing wrong with having made your mind up conclusively, but let's not pretend to be "skeptical" when we mean "we will never believe this".

:)

I don't think your generalization is that prevalent.

Though I do think that it's convenient to dismiss skeptics with a "They refuse to accept it!" instead of actually facing the issues.

[Zep]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
It's true, no?No, it's not true. Next silly comment?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

I don't think your generalization is that prevalent.

Though I do think that it's convenient to dismiss skeptics with a "They refuse to accept it!" instead of actually facing the issues. [/B]

Hi Ratman,

Personally, I'm not scared of "facing the issues". I have quit my job to study a degree in Philosophy and Cognitive Science in September, which is about as "facing the issues" as it gets.

All generalisations are only generalisations. I am a reformed skeptic. By that, I mean I am probably still skeptical of many many things (telling the future by reading palms, newspaper horoscopes, most religions) but I am a lot less certain of my disbelief than I once was. Basically, I used to "know" I was right, but now I am not so sure. I suspect that most of the people who post here, be they "believers" or "skeptics", are posting because deep down, they "know" they are correct. No evidence is likely to change their mind, because accepting the evidence is not just a matter of accepting the evidence - in both cases it would require a total re-evaluation of their entire belief system and understanding of reality to accept the evidence. There are strings attached.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Zep
No, it's not true. Next silly comment?

George W. Bush. :D :D :D

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


Hi Ratman,

Personally, I'm not scared of "facing the issues". I have quit my job to study a degree in Philosophy and Cognitive Science in September, which is about as "facing the issues" as it gets.


Well, I wasn't talking about anything like that. I was talking about the tendency for believers to side step the issue of the quality of evidence and go down the 'skeptics are meanies' road, during a debate.

All generalisations are only generalisations. I am a reformed skeptic. By that, I mean I am probably still skeptical of many many things (telling the future by reading palms, newspaper horoscopes, most religions) but I am a lot less certain of my disbelief than I once was. Basically, I used to "know" I was right, but now I am not so sure. I suspect that most of the people who post here, be they "believers" or "skeptics", are posting because deep down, they "know" they are correct. No evidence is likely to change their mind, because accepting the evidence is not just a matter of accepting the evidence - in both cases it would require a total re-evaluation of their entire belief system and understanding of reality to accept the evidence. There are strings attached.

Well, I can't help that. Wether it's true or not.

[Zep]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
All generalisations are only generalisations. I am a reformed skeptic. By that, I mean I am probably still skeptical of many many things (telling the future by reading palms, newspaper horoscopes, most religions) but I am a lot less certain of my disbelief than I once was. Basically, I used to "know" I was right, but now I am not so sure. I suspect that most of the people who post here, be they "believers" or "skeptics", are posting because deep down, they "know" they are correct. No evidence is likely to change their mind, because accepting the evidence is not just a matter of accepting the evidence - in both cases it would require a total re-evaluation of their entire belief system and understanding of reality to accept the evidence. There are strings attached. I know this was addressed to Ratman, but you are starting out with a major presupposition here: that skeptics have a firm "belief" system that they refuse to give up despite evidence. Like, say, fundie religions.

The correction is that skeptics have a firm belief in a method of discovering and examination, that has proven itself worthy many times over. This being the "scientific method" - of itself it holds and perpetuates no "beliefs" at all. Nor is it always incompatible with other belief systems - many skeptics here hold religious beliefs to some extent, for example. The scientific method says nothing at all about such supernatural beliefs one way or the other.

What you seem to be confusing is the belief in a "system" versus adherence to a proven "method" of proof.

[Aussie Thinker]

Just Geoff

It's true, no?

Most of the people here calling themselves "skeptics" would not actually believe their own eyes if they saw paranormal phenomena. They "know" it doesn't exist, therefore anything they saw that said otherwise would be "rationalised", no matter how extra-ordinary the "rationalisation"? [skeptic thinks : dumb question, I could never actually be presented with such evidence, because I know it doesn't exist]

I met a guy on philosophyforums.com calling himself "180 proof". I asked him if he would believe in the supernatural if he was up the mountain with Moses when the stone tablets appeared out of thin air. He said no, he still wouldn't believe it, even if he saw it. At that point I stopped arguing with him. Now - there is nothing wrong with having made your mind up conclusively, but let's not pretend to be "skeptical" when we mean "we will never believe this".

It sure bugs a lot of sceptics that the paranormal woo woos have managed to get this ridiculous “fantasy” idea about how sceptics are intractable into the minds of reasonable sounding fellows like yourself.

It is a true victory for them than instead of providing evidence their blathering cries of “bully” and “unfair” and “but lots of people say so”.. have resulted in sceptisc having to defend their REASONABLE position of … “provide evidence”

I personally would LOVE to have something paranormal proved.. I don’t want to die, I want to have a God, I want amazing powers.. however I am realistic enough to ask for some modicum of proof.

Over time I have developed a default position which I think most sceptics have…

As everything EVER proven has had a natural (mundane) explanation it is fair to assume that everything that is unexplained will have a natural (mundane) explanation.

Therefore if I saw some amazing thing I could not explain I would “assume” it had a natural explanation. I would look for a Natural explanation.. if I did not find one I would continue to assume a natural occurrence that I (or others) could not explain… if a supernatural occurrence could be proven then I WOULD accept it.

Given the previous statement what is wrong with that !

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Psiload
And just look at the amazing progress that has taken place in this field over the last twenty years:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2253191425
This high quality Silver spoon, measuring 19 cm, in it's bent state, was especially bought at the World famous department store 'Selfridges', in London's Oxford Street and taken to Uri's home for him to bend using his power of mind. .... We arrived at his home on one sunny Sunday after noon, ...I presented him with my magnificent Silver spoon!! I mentioned to him that the spoon was silver, which totally surprised him!!! 'This is actually Silver, wahoo', he said. Uri walk towards his fire place and proceeded to crouch down to show little Sofia (my 6 yr old niece) how he bent spoon. The spoon started to bend. It was magical!! He then signed the spoon with a special permanent ink pen. .A special permanent Ink pen no less. :D

My money is on the spoon starting to bend as he walked towards the 6 years old and stopping just before he showed it to her but without anything other than an anecdote we will never know.

And this is the problem with Luci’s examples but to be fair she is better than that nutter who died recently. Montague Keen used to quote evidence that was generally over 100 years old. OK Luci has nothing this century but it is a bit more recent. One difference between pesudoscience and real science however is that pseudoscience says this is what DID happen please explain. Real science says this is what DOES happen, have a look your self and try to explain.

I was interested in her quote about the ways science accepts new ideas. It is obviously a massive massive generalisation however. Science, as Claus, says will accept anything that has good evidence.

While Luci doesn’t give examples of the acceptance process in action it is clear how it works. Someone says wrap a wire in a coil and spin it in a magnetic field and measure the current flow, lo and behold everyone does it and it works, electricity accepted instantly.

So never mind the past tell me an experiment that can be done now that shows that you have an effect.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Zep


Let's see what the LEADING researchers from your group are ACTUALLY finding these days:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/IU.pdf



Good URL Zep. If you actually read the full article, you will see that PEAR are extremely positive about the results. Their conclusion is that you can't catch a butterfly in a bear-trap.

Apart from suggesting you re read the article a few times in order to dispell your obvious cognitive dissonance, you would do well to take a look at this too:


"Statistical and Methodological Problems of the PEAR Remote Viewing Experiments"

York H. Dobyns, Brenda J. Dunne, Robert G. Jahn, and Roger D. Nelson

Most of the issues raised by Hansen, Utts, and Markwick, including shared descriptor preferences, environmental or temporal cues, and agent encoding, have long been acknowledged, adequately addressed in our experimental designs and analytical techniques, and fully documented in our literature. The remainder of their concerns, including randomization of targets and reference score distributions, trial-by-trial feedback, stacking, and cheating are either misapplied, fundamentally incorrect, or have trivial impact. Additional calculations and derivations, supplementing those previously published, further demonstrate the insensitivity of our matrix scoring methods to target and descriptor dependence from any source. In sum, it is readily shown, both empirically and theoretically, that analytical methods, which remain rigorous and effective methodologies for remote perception research. Thus, the published results and conclusions of our entire 336 trial database are fully reaffirmed. - Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research. Princeton University - Abstracts publications

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Zep
I know this was addressed to Ratman, but you are starting out with a major presupposition here: that skeptics have a firm "belief" system that they refuse to give up despite evidence. Like, say, fundie religions.


Well, in the vast majority of cases they do. They often don't like to admit it is a "belief system", but I think that this is precisely what it is - it is simply a naturalistic, atheistic belief system. Perhaps comparing it to fundamentalist religious belief systems is wrong, because those belief systems often have very powerful psychological penalties attached for people who question them. But from the point of view of the skeptic, it is still a belief system, and it still plays the same role.


The correction is that skeptics have a firm belief in a method of discovering and examination, that has proven itself worthy many times over. This being the "scientific method" - of itself it holds and perpetuates no "beliefs" at all.


Science is not a belief system, I agree. It only becomes a belief system when it is elevated to the point of "sole arbiter of the truth" i.e. when a person will only believe things which are proven by science. For example, people who would reject all metaphysics as irrelevant nonsense (because it cannot be experimentally confirmed) have crossed the line and become victims of dogma. For these people, science has begun to turn into a religion.


Nor is it always incompatible with other belief systems - many skeptics here hold religious beliefs to some extent, for example. The scientific method says nothing at all about such supernatural beliefs one way or the other.


Agreed.


What you seem to be confusing is the belief in a "system" versus adherence to a proven "method" of proof.


I don't think I have confused these things. There is nothing wrong with having faith in the scientific method for doing what the scientific method was desgined to do, which is to investigate the repeatable behaviour and the observable history of the physical world. As you say, things such as paranormal or supernatural phenomena (if they exist at all) may well lie outside of the area where the scientific method can be applied, and "evidence" for such things may either (a) not exist, (b) exist, but be untouchable by science, or (c) only exist in the personal reality of certain individuals. Many skeptics would attempt to dismiss (c) as absurd or as an attempt to dodge tough questions, though it is neither. If (c) is true, then science can never hope to prove or disprove supernaturalism - it is destined to remain a personal thing forever. What I am saying is that simply because there is no scientific evidence for something does not mean that there is no non-scientific evidence for it, available only to the individual. That is why I mentioned the example of "180 proof" admitting he still would not believe in supernatural phenomena even if he witnessed such phenomena first hand. He simply said "It would not matter what I see, I will always attempt to find the most rational naturalistic answer for it." Someone cleverly replied "Ah, then 180 would be a mystic, because it would be very mysterious why he would no longer believe in God." :)

:)

My point is that most skeptics could never accept paranormal/supernatural phenomena as real without completely re-assessing their whole conception of reality, and that simply does not happen overnight, regardless of "evidence".

[Stitch]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


....and would not believe it if he saw it. ;)

It's true, no?

Most of the people here calling themselves "skeptics" would not actually believe their own eyes if they saw paranormal phenomena. They "know" it doesn't exist ***Snip***

I think you are referring to cynics here not skeptics -

Skeptic: One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. - Source Dictionary.com

[Zep]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Good URL Zep. If you actually read the full article, you will see that PEAR are extremely positive about the results. Their conclusion is that you can't catch a butterfly in a bear-trap.Of COURSE they're saying that they're very positive about their own outcomes, even though they state that they got precisely chance results; it is for one very good reason totally unrelated to the subject.

But let's review:

1. PEAR is accepted by paranormalists to be one of the premier paranormal research groups in the world. They are respected.

2. They did extensive statistical analysis on 25 years of their own data on remote viewing.

3. They admit, in 2003, that they found nothing beyond chance from this 25 years of data, and then went on to offer no constructive (or even believable) reasons why this was so.

4. Other reviewers have noted issues with the PEAR statistical data sets and analysis methods. However, as you have pointed out, PEAR have dismissed those criticisms - they are sticking by their data, statistical analyses and results. (Personally, I have few issues with their statistical analyses, but their data sets leave heaps to be desired, like consistency for a start, but however...)

5. The publicly published result ultimately remains: PEAR have nothing of substance to show for 25 years work on the subject of remote viewing.

Do you agree this is the situation represented by this report, Lucianarchy?


And why did PEAR put the positive spin at the end of this particular report? Have a think about it, Lucianarchy. What would have happened to PEAR's highly lucrative sponsorships and their positions-for-life if they had reported 25 years of failure instead? Hmmmm?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Stitch


I think you are referring to cynics here not skeptics -

Skeptic: One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. - Source Dictionary.com

Yes. "True" skeptics are as you have defined them. Experience (much of it in various incarnations at this site) tells me that these "true skeptics" are few and far between, but that is just an opinion.

[Stitch]

Do you have a link to the full report and supporting evidence for this??

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

"Statistical and Methodological Problems of the PEAR Remote Viewing Experiments"

York H. Dobyns, Brenda J. Dunne, Robert G. Jahn, and Roger D. Nelson

Most of the issues raised by Hansen, Utts, and Markwick, including shared descriptor preferences, environmental or temporal cues, and agent encoding, have long been acknowledged, adequately addressed in our experimental designs and analytical techniques, and fully documented in our literature.


Can anbody provide links to the writers rebutalls of the critisms?

[b]
The remainder of their concerns, including randomization of targets and reference score distributions, trial-by-trial feedback, stacking, and cheating are either misapplied, fundamentally incorrect, or have trivial impact.

Cheating has a trivial impact?? Cool, so why do schools and Universities get so upset when people cheat in exams if it has litte impact??

Or are they suggesting that everybody they have tested is so honorable that they would never cheat and so it can be discounted??

Why not just devise a test where they cannot cheat and then there is no debate is there?? :rolleyes:

[Zep]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
My point is that most skeptics could never accept paranormal/supernatural phenomena as real without completely re-assessing their whole conception of reality, and that simply does not happen overnight, regardless of "evidence". If some phenomenon is "real" then it is worthy of scientific examination, but it therefore cannot be "supernatural". Something cannot be both "natural" and "supernatural" at the same time - they are mutually exclusive.

Just because something exists in someone's imagination doesn't make it so. Therefore there is no reason to adjust the natural world accordingly. Once this imagination is realised, that's when we can examine things. Einstein's theories remained up for debate for some years, until physical proof was actually provided.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Aussie Thinker

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

It sure bugs a lot of sceptics that the paranormal woo woos have managed to get this ridiculous “fantasy” idea about how sceptics are intractable into the minds of reasonable sounding fellows like yourself.


For starters, nobody does my thinking for me, my opinions are my own. The reason I think many skeptics are intractable on this issue is that I used to be a class-A intractable skeptic (moderator of www.infidels.org science and skepticism forum) myself, and I have spent a very long time talking to people on both sides of this debate (>5000 posts at this site alone). If you come from a science-heavy background it is very easy to end up being an "intractable skeptic". There are very good reasons for this, and I am not really criticising people for holding this position. Also, it is probably true that many of the "woo-woos" find it easier to point fingers at skeptics failing to see things the way the paranormalists do rather than trying to understand why the skeptics refuse to believe in things they have never seen any evidence for. There are two sides to these stories.


I personally would LOVE to have something paranormal proved.. I don’t want to die, I want to have a God, I want amazing powers.. however I am realistic enough to ask for some modicum of proof.


That is fair enough. But can I ask you whether you would find it easy to integrate proof such as this into your existing conception of reality? Wouldn't you agree that accepting such evidence would force a complete re-evaluation of your current beliefs about Reality? Isn't it true that deep down you are very confident that such proof will never be presented?

And would you still LOVE it if it happened to you, but you couldn't prove it?. Say, aliens come and visit you, have a very interesting conversation and then disappear leaving no trace of their visit. You would KNOW it was true, but you could prove nothing. It would have to remain your own private revelation.


Over time I have developed a default position which I think most sceptics have…

As everything EVER proven has had a natural (mundane) explanation it is fair to assume that everything that is unexplained will have a natural (mundane) explanation.


Yes, this is the way the skeptic thinks. But you have to examine what is meant by "proof", and whether or not the standard of proof itself may exclude certain types of phenomena. As already mentioned, it excludes any type of phenomena which are personal oir belief-dependent. The position you have outlined involves an assumption that the behaviour of "reality" is observer-independent and belief-independent. These assumptions are required in order for science to operate, but they are not required in order for reality to operate. For the skeptic, science is the final arbiter. For the paranormalist, science is not the final arbiter. Any "woo-woo" who thinks he can provide scientific evidence for his beliefs is probably just an idiot. As you say, if such evidence was likely to arrive, it would already have arrived.


Therefore if I saw some amazing thing I could not explain I would “assume” it had a natural explanation. I would look for a Natural explanation.. if I did not find one I would continue to assume a natural occurrence that I (or others) could not explain… if a supernatural occurrence could be proven then I WOULD accept it.

Given the previous statement what is wrong with that ! [/B]

Nothing neccesarily "wrong" with it. I am not here to tell one bunch of people they are "wrong" to believe what they believe. I like living in a diverse world with many different competing viewpoints. If everyone believed the same things and thought the same things, it would be awful.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by JustGeoff If you come from a science-heavy background it is very easy to end up being an "intractable skeptic". There are very good reasons for this, and I am not really criticising people for holding this position.


First can I ask that if you don't mean Skeptic (see definition below) then please use another term, cynic seems to fit what you are describing better. If you can find another term then fine, but a "skeptic" is not what you are describing.

I don't see why a science background should lead to a "cynical" position, or one where you are not prepared to accept new ideas or evidence. In my personal experience (anecdotal - I know) this has not been the case. I tend to start from a position of "innocence" listen to the claims, ask for supporting evidence (and with many things paranormal, it stops here as the evidence is not forthcoming), then look for the counter arguments, critiques and so forth and weigh up the evidence. I am not one for saying something is "impossible" rather "based on the current evidence (or lack of it) something is highly unlikely to be true, however I will change my view should new evidence be made available".

There needs to be some clarification perhaps of "evidence", I picked up somebody else earlier who seemed to be of the opinion that any evidence was valid regardless of the quality. Sadly I don't agree, I don't consider Sun Flowers being yellow as good evidence for Homeopathy being effective. Extreme example I know, but hopefully it makes my point.

I am more than happy to accept evidence that takes the form:

1) A claim is made
2) A hypothesis is developed (Dictionary.com: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.)
3) A test is developed to investigate the hypothesis further.
4) The test protocol is reviewed by peers and other interested parties.
5) Flaws in the protocol are addressed and any changes are made.
6) The tests are performed and the results are recorded.
7) The tests are repeated by the same people a number of times to confirm the results.
8) The tests are independently corroborated by a different group of people using the same test protocol.
9) The results and protocols are reviewed and conclusions drawn.
10) These conclusions are then subject to peer review.
11) If the results support the hypothesis and the peer review is happy with the protocols, analysis and conclusions, we can then say, with a degree of certainty that the claim has some validity.
12) We can then carry out further tests etc and over a number of years we either become more confident in the hypothesis and it becomes scientific "fact" (but not an absolute certainty), it is shown to no longer hold true, in which case we come to discount it.

We now have validated evidence that has stood the test of time.

Sadly with many of the "paranormal" phenomena, it is hard to even get a hypothesis that is testable, never mind proceeding much further than that. With the experiments that I have seen documentation for, many of the above steps have been omitted, resulting in the “evidence” being questionable at best. If there is no evidence to support the claim, then I keep an open mind, but do not accept that the claim is currently valid.


That is fair enough. But can I ask you whether you would find it easy to integrate proof such as this into your existing conception of reality? Wouldn't you agree that accepting such evidence would force a complete re-evaluation of your current beliefs about Reality? Isn't it true that deep down you are very confident that such proof will never be presented?

My views and beliefs on how things “work” are constantly changing, in some cases it is just that I have discovered more, rather than conflicting, evidence which actually changes my perspective a little, I think back to how my understanding of chemical reactions changed when I got to the 6th form and started to discover more details about the workings of atoms.


And would you still LOVE it if it happened to you, but you couldn't prove it?. Say, aliens come and visit you, have a very interesting conversation and then disappear leaving no trace of their visit. You would KNOW it was true, but you could prove nothing. It would have to remain your own private revelation.


Assuming I could find no evidence to support the “belief” that aliens had visited me, I would have to:
1) Consider it was a dream
2) Consider I was delusional and seek psychiatric assistance
I certainly wouldn’t KNOW it was true, I have no proof to suggest that it is.


Yes, this is the way the skeptic thinks. But you have to examine what is meant by "proof", and whether or not the standard of proof itself may exclude certain types of phenomena.

Nope – but the believers do love to use that one as a cop out for having to provide any evidence.


As already mentioned, it excludes any type of phenomena which are personal oir belief-dependent.

Note really – propose a hypothesis, test it, job’s a good ‘un.

If you can’t even formulate a hypothesis then why on Earth should anybody believe it?? “I believe in flugalbinders, they control everything”, I can’t prove this of course, and you can’t disprove it either, but I believe it, therefore you should too. Nah – I don’t think so, do you??? But put the label “God” on it and suddenly it now gains credence?


For the paranormalist, science is not the final arbiter.

Very true, as time and time again the claims just fail to hold any water, so they try to claim that “science can’t measure it” or “it is beyond science” to wriggle out of it.


Any "woo-woo" who thinks he can provide scientific evidence for his beliefs is probably just an idiot.
“Any “woo-woo” who thinks he can provide scientific evidence for his beliefs is to be commended” please step forward and present it.
“Any "woo-woo" who knows his beliefs to be true and will not question them despite not being able to provide scientific evidence for them is probably just an idiot.”


Nothing neccesarily "wrong" with it.

I think quite a few people may disagree with you on that point


I am not here to tell one bunch of people they are "wrong" to believe what they believe.
Neither are sceptics, we are just asking for the evidence to support your claim that your belief is correct.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Zep

If some phenomenon is "real" then it is worthy of scientific examination, but it therefore cannot be "supernatural". Something cannot be both "natural" and "supernatural" at the same time - they are mutually exclusive.

Just because something exists in someone's imagination doesn't make it so. Therefore there is no reason to adjust the natural world accordingly.


What if it manifests in their reality, and not yours. What if reality doesn't behave the same for everybody at all times? It is not logically inevitable that all phenomena are capable of being scientifically examined.

Also, there is a standoff when it comes to scientific investigation of the paranormal anyway - because many people who have been at the cutting edge of this research claim that there is an "observer effect", i.e. that different people get different results dependent on their different expectations - something which if true places these phenomena into a slightly different category than normal physical phenomena. Skeptics tend to dismiss the argument as just another way of avoiding confronting the facts, but my own opinion is that there is enough data available now to make it rather difficult to dismiss the argument out of hand. There have been far too many "borderline positive" results from paranormal believers and far too many "borderline negatives" from the skeptics. In fact somebody came up with some hard data which showed that skeptics would accept borderline positives in drug trials but reject statistically better results in PSI experiments, on the grounds that PSI is so unlikeley to be real that borderline positives must be rejected. Basically, the standard of evidence required by the skeptics is raised when they have trouble believing the result is possible - and this not mere conjecture - it has been statistically demonstrated and published in New Scientist. But the skeptics beliefs are then dependent on their own metaphysical preferences, NOT merely the data. There is no scientific way of resolving that standoff that the skeptics are likely to accept as valid. New Scientist dedicated a whole issue to this area last year. It is not quite a straightforward as some people might like it to be.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


What if it manifests in their reality, and not yours.

There is only one reality, and it belongs to everyone. This question is invalid and borders on the meaningless.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


What if it manifests in their reality, and not yours. What if reality doesn't behave the same for everybody at all times? It is not logically inevitable that all phenomena are capable of being scientifically examined.
Oh, come on, UCE, are we back at this again? Also, your last sentence contradicts your overall theme.

Also, there is a standoff when it comes to scientific investigation of the paranormal anyway - because many people who have been at the cutting edge of this research claim that there is an "observer effect", i.e. that different people get different results dependent on their different expectations - something which if true places these phenomena into a slightly different category than normal physical phenomena.
This claim is a diversion to explain the inherent non-repeatability of their experiments. It is, frankly, laughable and utterly unscientific.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Stitch

The first part of your post is a description of the scientific method. I suspect we don't have much to disagree about on that - my arguments are about the fuzzy grey area at the borders of science, psychology and metaphysics - places where maybe the scientific method alone cannot neccesarily provide us with an answer to the question.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And would you still LOVE it if it happened to you, but you couldn't prove it?. Say, aliens come and visit you, have a very interesting conversation and then disappear leaving no trace of their visit. Y