CFLarsens use of Occams Razor.

[UndercoverElephant]

Background :

An experiment has been carried out into whether peoples nervous systems show different physical activity when that person is being stared at via a video link. The experiment repeatedly produced a statistically positive result, being carried out by a parapsychologist. She was challenged to get somebody else to repeat the experiment. A skeptic repeated the experiment and got no result. This was then repeated in both cases, and once more the parapsychologist got a result and the skeptic did not, supposedly cartying out exactly the same experiment. It was then suggested, as it has been before, that the beliefs and attitude of the person conducting the experiment can effect the outcome of the result. It is important to note that it was hypothesised that the mechanism of the effect was concerned with a direct influence on the behaviour of physical reality of the belief system and attitude of the experimenter. Because of this, great lengths were gone to in order to avoid any chance of the experimenter being able to influence the outcome by normal physical means (i.e. by accidentally or deliberately cheating).

The second set of experiments were carried out by these two people in the same lab on the same set of subjects. Once more the same result came out : The parapsychologist got a stastically positive result (even accepted as such by the skeptic) and the skeptic did not get a positive result.

Claus has argued that this result can be dismissed via the following reasoning.

1) It is possible that there was still an experimental error, even though every effort was made to avoid this.

2) Using Occams razor to decide whether it was more likely to be experimental error or the genuine paranormal effect in the original hypothesis, we can conclude that it must have been experimental error on thre grounds that paranormal phenomena are incredibly unlikely.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff

...you saw no problem in dismissing what others consider to be a positive result for a paranormal phenomena on the sole ground that experimental error was far more likely than a genuine positive PSI result. If you were really thinking about this as critically as you pretend to be then you would have recognised that this argument is "catch-all"...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is? Why? Let's discuss that in the new thread, eh?


Why?

Here is what is wrong with this line of reasoning :

a) The experiment was designed specifically to test for this effect, and every effort was made by all involved, including the skeptics, to eliminate any means by which experimenter could accidentally/deliberately influence the result. Whilst experimental error is always possible, it can usually be pinpointed when it occurs, or the experiment can be changed to eliminate the error. In order to use experimental error as part of an argument it is essential that you identify the source of that error. It cannot just be a woolly "there was an error somewhere". Neither the skeptic involved, nor Claus, has even been able to suggest what the error might have been, let alone what it actually was, if it was.

b) Claus then uses this possibility of experimental error to introduce a line of reasoning involving Occams Razor. He says that the chances of it being a geniune paranormal phenomena are very very low and therefore it is almost certainly experimental error even though none had been identified. The problem with this argument is that it can always be used at any time to discount any positive result for PSI. It does not matter if every effort has been made to eliminate error. It does not matter if no error has been found. Claus appears to believe that the simple fact that the result of the experiment is a positive result for a paranormal phenomena is enough to reject the result on the grounds that "it must have been a mistake."

You can use this argument forever to always reject the paranormal, regardless of the result of any scientific experiment. Therefore I believe it to be an invalid argument.

If you start rejecting scientific results on the grounds that you simply cannot accept the result then you are doing exactly what young earth creationists do when they reject scientific results indicating an old earth. They simply aren't prepared to accept the result so they invent "catch all" arguments like. "God made it that way to test our faith in Him." When presented with an argument like that, every skeptic would immediately recognise that it can be used at all times and in all places, and it is based on inventing a new clause in the argument which is pulled out of thin air with no evidence to back it up ("God is testing our faith"). Answer : Prove it. Claus's use of occams razor to discount this result can also be used at all times and in all places. It also depends on a new clause with no evidence to back it up ("There must have been a mistake."). Prove it.

The forms of these two arguments are identical. I believe they are both fallacious for the same reasons.

I am thinking ahead about how Claus will reply. I suspect he will state that there have been thousands of previous experiments to detect PSI, and all were false, so this makes this result incredibly unlikely. This is also a fallacious argument. For a start, even if there have been no other positive results at all, you cannot use this as a grounds for dismissing this one because, again, it is a catch-all argument that works forever. If you reject positive results for PSI on the grounds there have never been any before, then there will never be any results, so you can go on rejecting them.

The experiment must be dealt with on its own merit. Not by :

1) Claiming the whole field is fraudulent or unproffesional.
2) Claiming it is incredibly unlikely, for whatever reason.
3) Claiming it must have been an error or a cheat, even though none has been found.
4) Claiming that it contradicts known scientific laws, especially if you can't explain which laws it contradicts.
5) Claiming other forms of PSI contradict scientific laws.

[UndercoverElephant]

In addition it should be noted that Claus's argument was NOT used by the skeptic involved in the experiment. That skeptic took the following position :

"There is an effect here, but I do not know what it is yet. I do not believe it is paranormal."

THAT is proper skepticism. No fallacious reasoning. An admission that there is something going on, that he doesn't know what it is (NOTE : not neccessarily an error) but that he does not believe it is paranormal (his bias has been openly stated as a belief, rather than being cemented into his reasoning and causing him to accuse the parapsychologist of making a mistake or cheating).

[Dancing David]

Do you have a link to the study, what were the trial and run sizes?
How did they measure the effects.
Why did they use the same subjects in the folow up study?
Did they alter the person watching the video camera screen, or did they just tell them they did that?
How did they alter the person running the experiement?

I do not think I can make a coment until I know these things, there is a lways the statistical variance issue in small trials, it is an interesting result however.

I would be interested in the dynamic between the subjects and the testers.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Do you have a link to the study, what were the trial and run sizes?
How did they measure the effects.
Why did they use the same subjects in the folow up study?
Did they alter the person watching the video camera screen, or did they just tell them they did that?
How did they alter the person running the experiement?

I do not think I can make a coment until I know these things, there is a lways the statistical variance issue in small trials, it is an interesting result however.

I would be interested in the dynamic between the subjects and the testers.

The most important thing to know is if the study was blind. That eliminates the bias of not only the paranormalist and skeptic, but the subject as well.

This isn't rocket science.

Well, maybe it is rocket science in the paranomal sense (needless to say, in the paranormal sense, no such science need exist)

Edit to add: Why, oh why, am I even bothering to respond to this!? I mean, I know the purpose of this forum and all but this is just stupid. If the ability exists, there awaits a million-dollar prize for the one that can, with easily configured and very reasonable controls, demonstrate it. You don't need to post about it or dicker about it, or, dare I say, troll about it, you need only do it under controlled conditions.

Okay. I'm done. Sorry for the interruption.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Do you have a link to the study, what were the trial and run sizes?


Hello DD.

Yes, here it is :

http://www.hf.caltech.edu/ctt/show212/article2.shtml

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Rob Lister

Well, maybe it is rocket science in the paranomal sense (needless to say, in the paranormal sense, no such science need exist)


If the result were accepted it probably couldn't be incorporated into science as we currently know it, because it invalidates one or two of its primary assumptions. This is recognised by the parapsychologist involved, and she has said that she hopes it might lead to an additional field which tries to investigate this slightly different sort of phenomena. Rocket science it may not be, but it is probably the most interesting actual result that has been produced by parapsychology, and if it prompts closer co-operation between the two areas then this can only be a good thing. This experiment was a very good example of paranormalists and skeptics working together in a spirit of co-operation rather than conflict. They don't agree on the interpretation of the result, but that may just be the way it is.



Edit to add: Why, oh why, am I even bothering to respond to this!? I mean, I know the purpose of this forum and all but this is just stupid. If the ability exists, there awaits a million-dollar prize for the one that can, with easily configured and very reasonable controls, demonstrate it.


Except that this experiment lies outside the boundaries of what the JREF will accept as a test. Presumably if JR carried out the experiment, he would get a negative result. Under the terms of the experiment, it would still confirm the hypothesis, even though it wouldn't be accepted by JREF as a valid winner of the million.

Maybe there is some way for the parapsychologists and skeptics to meet in the middle on this one, and find an agreement about how to proceed.

[CFLarsen]

JustGeoff,

When I invite you to discuss this subject, I would appreciate it, if you at least took the time to present my view correctly, and not leave out crucial parts of my argument.

Perhaps I could suggest that next time, you merely state your own case, and let others speak for themselves?

You have totally neglected to mention why I think we can dismiss the experiment as not showing a paranormal phenomenon. It isn't merely because no experiment has ever found psi, it is also because finding psi - in this case the staring experiment - would completely topple everything we know about the universe.

And I emphasize "know."

I'll post my explanation again:

If we can affect anything - including the nervous system, which works by electricity (remember the poor frogs in class?) - across time and space, then the whole field of physics has to be re-evaluated. How can we know that Ørsted didn't move his compass needle by influencing the electrical current by thought? Why aren't sensitive pacemakers blowing up, when people are on TV? They are being stared at by millions. They should be reduced to quivering blobs of goo. Why doesn't it work then?

You were not able to give a satisfying answer to that.

Now, the only thing that particular experiment showed, was an experimenter effect. No evidence of any paranormal phenomena was found.

Here's what I think happened: Schlitz gave away some clues, probably unconsciously, that influenced the experiment. She could have a more positive attitude (she does, after all, believe in paranormal phenomena!), it could be choice of words, a gesture, a smile. I don't know, because I wasn't there. Inter-human contact can be extremely complicated, as any psychology student can tell you. However, these possibilities are far, far more likely to have produced the results, instead of a real paranormal one.

There is also the possibility of deliberate cheating. Schlitz does have a vested interested in finding psi, and we have seen far too often how such an interest can corrupt even the most angelic person.

Nevertheless:


We know that there is such a thing as an experimenter effect.
We know that Wiseman does not believe in psi.
We know that Schlitz does.


So, what is wrong with me applying Occam to say that it wasn't - most likely - a paranormal phenomenon?

As for your 5 points:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
1) Claiming the whole field is fraudulent or unproffesional.

The whole field is ripe with fraudulent and unprofessional examples. Very, very few experiments have been performed to a reasonable scientific standard, and those that have, have never produced a result.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
2) Claiming it is incredibly unlikely, for whatever reason.

It is, primarily because it would topple everything we know about how the universe works.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
3) Claiming it must have been an error or a cheat, even though none has been found.

Given the long history of fraud and incompetence, I don't think it is such an unreasonable thought.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
4) Claiming that it contradicts known scientific laws, especially if you can't explain which laws it contradicts.

Here is where you depart from honesty. I have explained it to you.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
5) Claiming other forms of PSI contradict scientific laws.

It does. I have explained this to you, but you will not acknowledge it.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You have totally neglected to mention why I think we can dismiss the experiment as not showing a paranormal phenomenon.


I believed it was because you think Occams Razor leads to a conclusion that experimental error must have been the cause because 'PSI' is extremely unlikely.


It isn't merely because no experiment has ever found psi, it is also because finding psi - in this case the staring experiment - would completely topple everything we know about the universe.


What does this have to do with the actual evidence in this actual experiment?


You were not able to give a satisfying answer to that.


What does this have to do with the actual evidence in this actual experiment?



Now, the only thing that particular experiment showed, was an experimenter effect. No evidence of any paranormal phenomena was found.


Well, that is a disagreement in the interpretation of the result, as discussed.

Do you agree with the position stated by the skeptic who took part, or are you still insisting it must have been experimental error?


Here's what I think happened: Schlitz gave away some clues, probably unconsciously, that influenced the experiment. She could have a more positive attitude (she does, after all, believe in paranormal phenomena!), it could be choice of words, a gesture, a smile. I don't know, because I wasn't there. Inter-human contact can be extremely complicated, as any psychology student can tell you. However, these possibilities are far, far more likely to have produced the results, instead of a real paranormal one.


So you suspect that it was accidental error caused by over-enthusiasm. That is your opinion, but you don't actually have any evidence, yes?


There is also the possibility of deliberate cheating.


Is there also a possibility that God is testing our faith?


So, what is wrong with me applying Occam to say that it wasn't - most likely - a paranormal phenomenon?


Because you can always invoke the argument with no evidential or logical grounds, just like the creationist invokes the belief that God tests our faith. It's not a valid way of conducting the debate, because via this argument you always win, whatever.


The whole field is ripe with fraudulent and unprofessional examples. Very, very few experiments have been performed to a reasonable scientific standard, and those that have, have never produced a result.


Maybe, but it has nothing to do with this experiment.


It is, primarily because it would topple everything we know about how the universe works.


Everything YOU know.



Given the long history of fraud and incompetence, I don't think it is such an unreasonable thought.


Nobody has said fraud or error is impossible.


Here is where you depart from honesty. I have explained it to you.


I invite you to repeat the explanation.


It does. I have explained this to you, but you will not acknowledge it.

I know many forms of PSI contradict science. Dead people with no brains cannot construct sentences unless brains and minds can exist without each other.

What does this have to do with the experiment we are discussing?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I believed it was because you think Occams Razor leads to a conclusion that experimental error must have been the cause because 'PSI' is extremely unlikely.

Your belief was wrong.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
What does this have to do with the actual evidence in this actual experiment?
...
What does this have to do with the actual evidence in this actual experiment?

We are not just discussing this actual experiment, but also why you think I draw the wrong conclusion of it. If I am not allowed to explain it, in my own fashion, then there is no reason to have this thread at all, except to browbeat me into employing a specific line of reasoning (which you have already tried once).

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Well, that is a disagreement in the interpretation of the result, as discussed.

Partly. All parties agreed that no paranormal evidence had been found.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Do you agree with the position stated by the skeptic who took part, or are you still insisting it must have been experimental error?

I am not saying that it "must" have been an experimental error. This is the third time you are misrepresenting my view. I am drawing the conclusion that it is most likely to have been either that, or fraud (unlikely perhaps, but not impossible).

Originally posted by JustGeoff
So you suspect that it was accidental error caused by over-enthusiasm. That is your opinion, but you don't actually have any evidence, yes?

If we had evidence, we wouldn't need Occam at all.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Is there also a possibility that God is testing our faith?

Yes, of course. However, that is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore has no place in a scientific setting.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Because you can always invoke the argument with no evidential or logical grounds, just like the creationist invokes the belief that God tests our faith. It's not a valid way of conducting the debate, because via this argument you always win, whatever.

Yes, but that is not what I am doing.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Maybe, but it has nothing to do with this experiment.

You have just ruled out the possibility that the experiment is fraudulous or incompetent? Why?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Everything YOU know.

No, everything we - humans - know. I am not talking about superstitious beliefs, but scientific knowledge.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Nobody has said fraud or error is impossible.

You just did, by brushing off the argument that it could be fraud or incompetence.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I invite you to repeat the explanation.

I did, in my very first post in this thread.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I know many forms of PSI contradict science. Dead people with no brains cannot construct sentences unless brains and minds can exist without each other.

What does this have to do with the experiment we are discussing?

Again, we are not just discussing this actual experiment, but also why you think I draw the wrong conclusion of it.

If you want debate, say so. If you don't, then I have better things to do.

[Ersby]

I didn’t read all the original thread, so forgive me if I’m going over old ground. Nevertheless, this debate interests me: what should a sceptic do in the face of contrary evidence? I’ve just been in a thread where I was constantly asked to explain positive results. And of course, I couldn’t (but, in the face of the overall database, I didn’t need to) and this lead to a kind of finger-wagging “aaaah!” reaction as if I’d just demonstrated the weakness of my position. And this is common: the idea that if you can’t give an answer right now, then how can you bear to live with yourself (or words to that effect)?

Claus should’ve said “I don’t know, let me have a look and I’ll get back to you,” but he didn’t. He went in yelling “Wrong, wrong, wrong!” and he listed all the things that may have been wrong witb the experiment, with psi as a concept, with anyone who didn’t know who Oersted was etc. And I read this and I thought, “Hmmm.”

It was too much like “scepticism as a reflex action” and it was regrettable that Claus got the lion’s share of the attention, perhaps because he is Claus. But you should bear in mind where Claus (and me, and many other sceptics, I believe) are coming from. It’s a regular pattern that books or papers are published and held up as incontrovertible evidence, only to discover much later a fact or flaw that hadn’t been mentioned in the paper. This can take years and you’re usually left with the feeling of “why didn’t you mention that in the first place?” To paraphrase an old joke “Why does CFLarsen instantly disbelieve anything paranormal?” “It saves time.”

Meanwhile, on this thread, JustGeoff’s background to the situation is wrong. According to the paper Wiseman’s experiments came first, as a response to an overview of other Remote Staring experiments. He found no effect, and afterwards Schlitz’s investigation into the matter showed an effect. I don’t see any mention of a challenge. Similarly, the claim about Remote Staring with a video link getting repeatedly significant results is not backed up by the paper. If there is a large database of experiments of this nature it’d be nice to see some details.

As for the argument itself: The experimenter effect is, I feel, like the Decline Effect. It’s an aspect of “psi” that can be brought in as an explanation as and when the results require it, and left unmentioned if not. If, for example, a hard-line sceptic does a Remote Staring experiment and gets significantly positive results, that would probably be considered as evidence to support psi. People would not be concerned because this goes against the experimenter effect and the results are all wrong!

As for the paper itself, I notice that the significant effect for Schlitz was negative. Was that the expected direction? Is it the same as previous results of this kind?

And there is an explanation suggested to explain the results, in that the random patterns of stare/non-stare were distributed to Schlitz and Wiseman in such a way that those patterns with longer periods without change (and therefore the ones more likely to give a result) were mostly given to Schlitz.

http://www.hf.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/hnctt/get/show212/18.html?nogifs

[UndercoverElephant]

We are not just discussing this actual experiment, but also why you think I draw the wrong conclusion of it. If I am not allowed to explain it, in my own fashion....


Are you seriously trying to suggest I am not going to let you explain yourself, Claus? Explain away. :)


Partly. All parties agreed that no paranormal evidence had been found.


That was a political position. There was a difference of interpretation of the result, but not a fatal one. This happens even in normal science - if a new phenomena is found it is often not accepted until several experiments have backed it up.

I am still waiting to hear you defend your line of reasoning itself. all this is just window-dressing.


I am not saying that it "must" have been an experimental error. This is the third time you are misrepresenting my view.
the conclusion that it is most likely to have been either that, or fraud (unlikely perhaps, but not impossible).


Ah, right. So this is just your conclusion, and it is not actually based on any direct evidence, it is just what you feel is most likely?

If so, then please don't go around confidently claiming that there has never been any result which suggests paranormal phenomena exist. This result DOES suggest it, according to one perfectly reasonable interpretation of the result. After all, the experiment was designed to detect it, and produced a statistically relevant result. You have rejected that result on the groundless speculation that a mistake is more likely than PSI. In the interests of politics, I will accept that only one experiment is not enough to confirm PSI. What I want to make crystal clear to you is that you did indeed overstate your case. This result is not a clear negative - far from it. Your grounds for rejecting the result are extremely weak. There are based on conjecture, not evidence. Please admit that to yourself.


If we had evidence, we wouldn't need Occam at all.


I don't need Occam at all, Claus. I am perfectly prepared to accept the result as it stands. YOU "need Occam" because you have to find some way to dismiss the result. Therefore you have suggested it was an error, even though you have no evidence, and followed it up with an Occams Razor argument.

Think about it the same form of argument from a creationist, Claus :

"It could be that the Earth is billions of years old, or it could be that God is testing our faith. If God would speak and intervene, we could know for sure, but since he doesn't we will have to use Occam. It is very unlikely that the Bible could be wrong, so Occam says God is testing our faith."

See? Not only has Occam been invoked out of thin air, for no more reason other than the creationist wants to reject the result, but his use of Occam is based on his own subjective assessment of the how likely it is that God is testing our faith. You are doing exactly the same thing : You invoke Occam out of thin air, simply because you aren't prepared to accept the result. Then you dismiss the result based on your own belief that "fraud and error are much more likely than PSI". In both cases this line of reasoning can be invoked at all times without any evidence to dismiss a scientific result. It is flawed reasoning based on pre-deciding what the conclusion should be, and whilst it has been allowed to pass this time, further experimental confirmation without any actual evidence of cheating could yet force you to accept it is indeed a valid paranormal phenomena. The true position is that the result is a positive result which has not been accepted because it needs to be repeated by others and developed. For now, you can reject it on your thin reasoning but don't pretend it is a solid argument, because it isn't.


Yes, of course. However, that is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore has no place in a scientific setting.


And your hypothesis is also non-falsifiable!

Why? Because that would require somebody prove that they did not cheat, in a situation where there is no evidence of cheating. How can you prove you didn't do something when there is already no evidence you did it? What can the parapsychologist do to prove to the skeptic she didn't cheat? She can't! You can always invoke this line of reasoning and nobody can use scientific procedure to falsify it because it is not based on science. It is based on an accusation of cheating which is in turn based on your beliefs about the nature of reality and the possibility of PSI existing.

If you didn't understand the above paragraph, then ask me to explain it to you again. There is no difference between your argument and the creationist argument. Neither is based on evidence and neither can be disproved. Do you understand?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
Because you can always invoke the argument with no evidential or logical grounds, just like the creationist invokes the belief that God tests our faith. It's not a valid way of conducting the debate, because via this argument you always win, whatever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but that is not what I am doing.


It is EXACTLY what you are doing. You have no evidence of cheating and no evidence of a mistake. All you have is a result which you are not prepared to believe, and an argument that can always be invoked in any situation. Nobody can prove they didn't cheat, Claus. Instead, YOU have to prove they did. Please tell me you understand this. It is not difficult. :(


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
Maybe, but it has nothing to do with this experiment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have just ruled out the possibility that the experiment is fraudulous or incompetent? Why?


Now you have descended back down to outright lies, Claus. I did NOT say that. I said that you have NO EVIDENCE to support that claim.


No, everything we - humans - know. I am not talking about superstitious beliefs, but scientific knowledge.


So the argument is a fallacy then. You said that the result would "topple everything WE know about the Universe".

1) Even if true, that is not sufficient grounds to dismiss it. If it were, then all major scientific revolutions would have been dismissed similarly.

2) When you say "WE", you means SCIENTISTS. You have excluded parapsychologists and philosophers, who may well know things you don't. You have chosen to equate "all knowledge" with "all scientific knowledge". You cannot expect everybody else to accept that position.


You just did, by brushing off the argument that it could be fraud or incompetence.


Liar. I did not brush off that argument. I told you that you have no evidence to support it

This thread has been a real eye-opener, Claus. The boot is on the other foot, isn't it? You are depending on an argument for which you really need some evidence, and you don't have any. When I point out that you don't have any you get all huffy and accuse me of "brushing off your argument". Funny that. How f**king quickly do you "brush off" other peoples arguments with "Prove it!"? Eh? Well, I am doing it to you. It's called crticial thinking. :eek:

"It was a mistake or a fraud." PROVE IT, Claus, or expect to hear those words ringing in your ears like church bells. :)

If you live by that mantra, expect other people to hold you to it also.

[UndercoverElephant]

Claus should’ve said “I don’t know, let me have a look and I’ll get back to you,” but he didn’t. He went in yelling “Wrong, wrong, wrong!” and he listed all the things that may have been wrong witb the experiment, with psi as a concept, with anyone who didn’t know who Oersted was etc. And I read this and I thought, “Hmmm.”


Ersby, I don't have time to respond to the rest of your post, I have a sunday lunch to cook, but this is exactly what Claus has been criticised for. Being too quick to dismiss the result, overstating his case and failing to think critically. There is actually much to debate. It is not clear cut at all.

[UndercoverElephant]

OK, I have some spare moments....


It was too much like “scepticism as a reflex action”...


Which was Precisely what JJM accused him of and precisely what I accused him of. He already 'knows' he's right, so it doesn't matter if he skips looking at
the actual evidence.


and it was regrettable that Claus got the lion’s share of the attention, perhaps because he is Claus. But you should bear in mind where Claus (and me, and many other sceptics, I believe) are coming from. It’s a regular pattern that books or papers are published and held up as incontrovertible evidence, only to discover much later a fact or flaw that hadn’t been mentioned in the paper. This can take years and you’re usually left with the feeling of “why didn’t you mention that in the first place?”

To paraphrase an old joke “Why does CFLarsen instantly disbelieve anything paranormal?” “It saves time.”


Yes, but that is not skepticism. David Hume would be turning in his grave. Just because the skeptic has never seen a white crow, it doesn't follow that no such crow exists so you must keep looking for it.


Meanwhile, on this thread, JustGeoff’s background to the situation is wrong. According to the paper Wiseman’s experiments came first, as a response to an overview of other Remote Staring experiments. He found no effect, and afterwards Schlitz’s investigation into the matter showed an effect. I don’t see any mention of a challenge. Similarly, the claim about Remote Staring with a video link getting repeatedly significant results is not backed up by the paper. If there is a large database of experiments of this nature it’d be nice to see some details


OK, accepted. There is no large database. I agree that this is what is needed : more experiments like this one.


As for the argument itself: The experimenter effect is, I feel, like the Decline Effect. It’s an aspect of “psi” that can be brought in as an explanation as and when the results require it, and left unmentioned if not. If, for example, a hard-line sceptic does a Remote Staring experiment and gets significantly positive results, that would probably be considered as evidence to support psi. People would not be concerned because this goes against the experimenter effect and the results are all wrong!


This isn't quite true. This explanation was not just brought in when the results require it, because the experiment was deliberately designed to detect this effect. You may well be able to argue that the experimentor effect can be brought in as needed in general terms, but you cannot claim it in this instance.


As for the paper itself, I notice that the significant effect for Schlitz was negative. Was that the expected direction? Is it the same as previous results of this kind?


I don't follow. What do you mean? Schlitz got a result and Wiseman didn't.


And there is an explanation suggested to explain the results, in that the random patterns of stare/non-stare were distributed to Schlitz and Wiseman in such a way that those patterns with longer periods without change (and therefore the ones more likely to give a result) were mostly given to Schlitz.


That sounds like a flaw in the experiment which could easily be corrected in a future experiment.

What I want out of this thread is the following

1) An agreement of how skeptics and parapsychologists can go forward in a spirit of co-operation, rather than an acceptance from the skeptics that the result is proof of paranormal phenomena.

2) An admission from Claus that he put his mouth into action before his brain was in gear, especially now that he has been told by another skeptic that this was how it appeared. If you are championing the relevance of evidence and of critical thinking then you have got to be very careful to follow your own standards at all times. "Saving time" by assuming it is a bad result does not fly.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ersby


It was too much like “scepticism as a reflex action” and it was regrettable that Claus got the lion’s share of the attention, perhaps because he is Claus. But you should bear in mind where Claus (and me, and many other sceptics, I believe) are coming from. It’s a regular pattern that books or papers are published and held up as incontrovertible evidence, only to discover much later a fact or flaw that hadn’t been mentioned in the paper.



I don't know if that is true, but if it is, then I imagine that one could always find flaws or potential flaws if one looks hard enough, no matter what area of science we might be talking about. You need to try and be reasonable.

[Ed]

I would have critisised this experiment from a number of standpoints whether it was psi or not.

The basic design is seriously flawed. The notion of experimenters greeting the subjets, briefing them and so on makes my skin crawl because I don't know what went on. A far better approach would have been to have a neutral assistant unfamiliar with the purpose of the experiment greet and set up the subjects. Why was it a necessary part of the experiment to let the subjects know anyway? Maybe there was a good reason but it is sloppy to not make that clear. In any event, the briefing, if necessary should have been conducted by a third party playing a previously scripted and recorded tape. That is just basic control and not doing it is inexcusable. Finally, why did the experimenters inject themselves into the design? This sounds self aggrandizing, Schwartzian and sloppy to me. You mean to say that there are no sceptics and Woos in Hertfordshire? Sloppy.

Regarding the data itself. Was there a serial order effect? What was the varience of the "look" trials versus the other? If the control trials were very different between treatments that suggests a problem with the subject selection. This was not reported on. They say that one subject did not cause the observed finding. What about two? What about differences between control and test trials? I think that the only comparison was across conditions for the test trials. If so it is sloppy.

Data is precious and as such it should be analysed until it bleeds. Not PEAR like torture but examination of all permutations and combinations of the summarized stuff. I see no evidence of that.

All told, this appears to me to be another sloppy, Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland "Let's Put on a Show" type research that is indeed showey but proves nothing. And it was presented and published? Shame.

n.b. This is an unfortunate example of what is bad with paranormal research. There are holes and failures of design of unknown impact that are simply glossed over. In fact no interpretation of any findings of this experiment are possible. It is not "suggestive" or "indicative" of anything. Replications of poor experiments do not, unfortunately, suggest anything either (though they do enter into meta analyses now and then).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ersby

As for the argument itself: The experimenter effect is, I feel, like the Decline Effect. It’s an aspect of “psi” that can be brought in as an explanation as and when the results require it, and left unmentioned if not.



This is that data mining that Skeptics continually accuse parapsychologists of doing. I absolutely agree that one should not data mine. But what evidence do you have that they actually do this??



If, for example, a hard-line sceptic does a Remote Staring experiment and gets significantly positive results, that would probably be considered as evidence to support psi. People would not be concerned because this goes against the experimenter effect and the results are all wrong!




Hang on a sec. Hang on a sec. So an experiment is deliberately set up to detect the experimenter effect, and if the skeptical investigator obtains significantly positive results, this would be considered to be a positive result by the experimenters?? :eek: I hope you can back this up??

[Ed]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
OK, I have some spare moments....




OK, accepted. There is no large database. I agree that this is what is needed : more experiments like this one.

[b]Well, more good researh, perhaps


This isn't quite true. This explanation was not just brought in when the results require it, because the experiment was deliberately designed to detect this effect. You may well be able to argue that the experimentor effect can be brought in as needed in general terms, but you cannot claim it in this instance.

Whatever they did is not particularly relevant. They are chatting about something flawed. The fact that they don't seem to realize this yet go on is interesting



I don't follow. What do you mean? Schlitz got a result and Wiseman didn't.

No, Sclitz got one thing, Wiseman another. We don't know what they got



1) An agreement of how skeptics and parapsychologists can go forward in a spirit of co-operation, rather than an acceptance from the skeptics that the result is proof of paranormal phenomena.

Fair. I would like general agreement that poor research should be condemmed in the strongest possible terms by both sides. As long as the evidence for psi that is presented is basically anecdotal (as the "results" form a poorly designed experiment are) we only kill electrons. Job one for the community of paranormal researchers is to behave professionally. Until that happens all we will have is altercations

[Ed]

As an aside, if one accepts the contention that a person can alter the elecrophysiological mileu of another person the implications are troubling and pervasive. Since skin resistance is mediated by the automnomic system this implies that a broad swath of the field of electrophysiology is suspect. It also suggests that a trained sender might influence sporting events or that the staff in an operating room could have an impact on a patient's well being.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Originally posted by I. Ian:
I don't know if that is true, but if it is, then I imagine that one could always find flaws or potential flaws if one looks hard enough, no matter what area of science we might be talking about. You need to try and be reasonable.

Any experiement needs to be replicated and peer-reviewed. When we are dealing with something which at the same time is known to be sensitive to protocol and observer bias, has a history of error and deception, is hardly discernible from chance and if real will require a complete revision of science, then it is reasonable to require the quality of the research to be beyond reproach. Peer-reviews and replication are a must.

[Ed]

Forgot, it would have been neat to have used a within subject design. Wonder why they didn't.

Saw I misread the data comparison. No biggie, it is still thin.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
Originally posted by I. Ian:
I don't know if that is true, but if it is, then I imagine that one could always find flaws or potential flaws if one looks hard enough, no matter what area of science we might be talking about. You need to try and be reasonable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Any experiement needs to be replicated and peer-reviewed. When we are dealing with something which at the same time is known to be sensitive to protocol and observer bias, has a history of error and deception,



Are you claiming this happens more so than other branches of science?? If so it's not what I've heard. Where are you getting your information from?? Or are you just making it up??



is hardly discernible from chance



Only through a meta-analysis. Certain individual experiments can be highly significant.




and if real will require a complete revision of science,



That's an interesting one. OK let me know why? As far as I can see paranormal phenomena or the supernatural only contradicts materialism and naturalism. But since these metaphysical positions are utterly absurd this does not perturb me much.

Tell me how it contradicts science? What is it about science precisely which the existence of the supernatural contravenes? Let's take the staring effect. How does this supernatural phenomenon contradict science??

Or what about the existence of the self?? How does the existence of this supernatural entity, the self, contradict science??




then it is reasonable to require the quality of the research to be beyond reproach. Peer-reviews and replication are a must. [/B]

Not possible. Skeptics can always find potential flaws if they just look hard enough. You ask for the impossible. You are clueless.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

You are clueless. [/B]
And you are ignorant.

[Dancing David]

Hiya Geoff!

Thanks for the link, it seems to be an adequately controlled for study, which is a relief after reading all the Ganzfeld stuff.

There was one major methodological error however, the study did not randomly assign the subjects which is mentioned in the study.

I am not sure about the way they measured the results

A "detect score" was then calculated for each subject by subtracting the total EDA during the stare trials from the total EDA for the non-stare trials. An unpaired t test revealed that the detect scores of M. S.'s subjects were not significantly different from those of R. W.'s (df = 30, t = 1.39, p = .17, two-tailed).


On the surface this seems to be an adequate means of measuring the difference between the stare and the non stare states, however it would be better if they alsoew gave the means for each state and discussed the standard deviations for each state, that would really help in deciding if the results were significant. Especialy since they dont give the variation between the totals, I feel that I might not agree there is a result for a more detailed analysis.

The only problem that I can see is the very small sample size. They gave 32 trials per run, but used only a small number of subjetcs.

The second problem I see is that in the papare there is an immedeate assumption that psi is somehow involved. Which hasn't been demonstarted.

It is very likely that experimenter effect had the influence they are discussing.( If the effect is actualy significant.) The peronality of the experimenter could have a very high influence, also there has to be a random assignment to the two groups. I would like to know the effect with a neutral control group as well, where perhaps they read the instructions and apply the electrodes themselves.

I would like to see more than one study demonstrate this effect before it be considered, there are a number of controls that could be used to determine if it is an experiementer effect. I would especialy like to see crossed trials where the sceptic versus the believer reverse roles.

So I feel it is an interesting study, but due to the small sample size , we can't say, I also would like to jnow more about the data distribution, it might be that the alleged effect is 'smaller' than 'population variation'.

Interesting read.

[Dancing David]

Ed:
The notion of experimenters greeting the subjets, briefing them and so on makes my skin crawl because I don't know what went on.


That is what the experiment is about, in most psych studies you try to avtualy control for the presentation of the various researchers by vidio taping and rating thier affect.

In this case however, it is what the research is about, does the attitude of the experimenter effect the results.

I agree with you however, the data analysis is seriously lacking, ifd would appear that most researchers would have gone into a little more detailed, it said that the t-test showed no difference.

Theye don't mention the size of the 'effect' that they measure.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dancing David


That is what the experiment is about, in most psych studies you try to avtualy control for the presentation of the various researchers by vidio taping and rating thier affect.

In this case however, it is what the research is about, does the attitude of the experimenter effect the results.

I agree with you however, the data analysis is seriously lacking, ifd would appear that most researchers would have gone into a little more detailed, it said that the t-test showed no difference.

Theye don't mention the size of the 'effect' that they measure.

Beg pardon but I thought that the effect was on "staring". Why would chatting up the subject beforehand be relevant? And if it is relevant, it was not controlled for. I am surprised that you would say this is an adequitely controlled study.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Ed

Finally, why did the experimenters inject themselves into the design? This sounds self aggrandizing, Schwartzian and sloppy to me.


They incorporated themselves because previous experiments have suggested that parapsychologists get better results than skeptics. So someone sensibly suggested an experiment be designed to test for this specific effect. It is self-aggrandising - it is good science.

Some of the rest of your suggestions sound helpful. What is needed is a new round of experiments. Perhaps the JREF should define a suitable test - and agree beforehand what would constitute a result.


no interpretation of any findings of this experiment are possible.


Interesting position.....


It is not "suggestive" or "indicative" of anything. Replications of poor experiments do not, unfortunately, suggest anything either (though they do enter into meta analyses now and then). [/B]

Then define what would be a good experiment to detect this effect.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Are you seriously trying to suggest I am not going to let you explain yourself, Claus? Explain away. :)

I am seriously pointing out that you left out a crucial part of my argumentation. If you want to attack my argument, please have the courtesy of attacking it all, and not nitpick at it.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
That was a political position. There was a difference of interpretation of the result, but not a fatal one. This happens even in normal science - if a new phenomena is found it is often not accepted until several experiments have backed it up.

A "political" position? What are you talking about? Politics don't enter into this, it was a scientific acknowledgement that no paranormal evidence was found. They agreed on that, OK?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I am still waiting to hear you defend your line of reasoning itself. all this is just window-dressing.

Sure, ignore it when I "defend" my line of reasoning, and then claim I never did it.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Ah, right. So this is just your conclusion, and it is not actually based on any direct evidence, it is just what you feel is most likely?

If so, then please don't go around confidently claiming that there has never been any result which suggests paranormal phenomena exist. This result DOES suggest it, according to one perfectly reasonable interpretation of the result. After all, the experiment was designed to detect it, and produced a statistically relevant result. You have rejected that result on the groundless speculation that a mistake is more likely than PSI. In the interests of politics, I will accept that only one experiment is not enough to confirm PSI. What I want to make crystal clear to you is that you did indeed overstate your case. This result is not a clear negative - far from it. Your grounds for rejecting the result are extremely weak. There are based on conjecture, not evidence. Please admit that to yourself.

This result does not suggest anything else than the existence of the experimenter effect. The experiment produced a "statistically relevant" (not quite "significant") result for the experimenter who believes in the phenomenon she was investigating. This raises a huge, red flag with skeptics, scientists, and it should with you.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I don't need Occam at all, Claus. I am perfectly prepared to accept the result as it stands. YOU "need Occam" because you have to find some way to dismiss the result. Therefore you have suggested it was an error, even though you have no evidence, and followed it up with an Occams Razor argument.

But that's exactly when you apply Occam's Razor, Geoff: In the absence of evidence, we use Occam to reach a conclusion. Sure, it is temporary, as all scientific conclusions are. But when you don't "need" Occam, you accept a conclusion that the evidence cannot confirm. Without evidence, and without Occam, you wade directly into your preferred conclusion.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Think about it the same form of argument from a creationist, Claus :

"It could be that the Earth is billions of years old, or it could be that God is testing our faith. If God would speak and intervene, we could know for sure, but since he doesn't we will have to use Occam. It is very unlikely that the Bible could be wrong, so Occam says God is testing our faith."

See? Not only has Occam been invoked out of thin air, for no more reason other than the creationist wants to reject the result, but his use of Occam is based on his own subjective assessment of the how likely it is that God is testing our faith. You are doing exactly the same thing : You invoke Occam out of thin air, simply because you aren't prepared to accept the result. Then you dismiss the result based on your own belief that "fraud and error are much more likely than PSI". In both cases this line of reasoning can be invoked at all times without any evidence to dismiss a scientific result. It is flawed reasoning based on pre-deciding what the conclusion should be, and whilst it has been allowed to pass this time, further experimental confirmation without any actual evidence of cheating could yet force you to accept it is indeed a valid paranormal phenomena. The true position is that the result is a positive result which has not been accepted because it needs to be repeated by others and developed. For now, you can reject it on your thin reasoning but don't pretend it is a solid argument, because it isn't.

Thank you for proving my point: The hypothesis of God is nonfalsifiable in itself - God exists, because God exists, and all else must obey that. However, the hypothesis tested in the experiment is falsifiable, because more experiments can be made.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
And your hypothesis is also non-falsifiable!

Why? Because that would require somebody prove that they did not cheat, in a situation where there is no evidence of cheating. How can you prove you didn't do something when there is already no evidence you did it? What can the parapsychologist do to prove to the skeptic she didn't cheat? She can't! You can always invoke this line of reasoning and nobody can use scientific procedure to falsify it because it is not based on science. It is based on an accusation of cheating which is in turn based on your beliefs about the nature of reality and the possibility of PSI existing.

If you didn't understand the above paragraph, then ask me to explain it to you again. There is no difference between your argument and the creationist argument. Neither is based on evidence and neither can be disproved. Do you understand?

No, it is not non-falsifiable, it is perfectly in accordance to every other scientific hypothesis. I am not basing it on an accusation of cheating, I am pointing out that it is a possibility. As for my "beliefs" about the nature of reality and the possibility of psi existing, I prefer the scientific explanation. So far, it has proven itself remarkably solid, as opposed to all the hare-brained explanations we have seen within the field of parapsychology.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
It is EXACTLY what you are doing. You have no evidence of cheating and no evidence of a mistake. All you have is a result which you are not prepared to believe, and an argument that can always be invoked in any situation. Nobody can prove they didn't cheat, Claus. Instead, YOU have to prove they did. Please tell me you understand this. It is not difficult. :(

I have no evidence of cheating, and no evidence of a mistake. All I have is a result that points to the experimenter effect, and I am backed by the two people who did the experiment - they were there, you and I were not. I don't have to prove that they cheated, because I am not saying that it has to be either fraud or incompetence. It looks very much like the experimenter effect to me, and both experimenters agree with me. You are the one who jumps to the conclusion that it is evidence of psi.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Now you have descended back down to outright lies, Claus. I did NOT say that. I said that you have NO EVIDENCE to support that claim.

May I refer you to that little "?"-sign at the end of my sentence? I asked if this was your stance. So, I did not lie.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
So the argument is a fallacy then. You said that the result would "topple everything WE know about the Universe".

1) Even if true, that is not sufficient grounds to dismiss it. If it were, then all major scientific revolutions would have been dismissed similarly.

2) When you say "WE", you means SCIENTISTS. You have excluded parapsychologists and philosophers, who may well know things you don't. You have chosen to equate "all knowledge" with "all scientific knowledge". You cannot expect everybody else to accept that position.

No, it is not a fallacy. When I say "we", I mean those who have accepted the harsh reality that science has proven to us. I can't do much about daydreamers.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Liar. I did not brush off that argument. I told you that you have no evidence to support it

Again, I refer you to the "?"-sign. I asked. I did not lie.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
This thread has been a real eye-opener, Claus. The boot is on the other foot, isn't it? You are depending on an argument for which you really need some evidence, and you don't have any. When I point out that you don't have any you get all huffy and accuse me of "brushing off your argument". Funny that. How f**king quickly do you "brush off" other peoples arguments with "Prove it!"? Eh? Well, I am doing it to you. It's called crticial thinking. :eek:

"It was a mistake or a fraud." PROVE IT, Claus, or expect to hear those words ringing in your ears like church bells. :)

If you live by that mantra, expect other people to hold you to it also.

Why has this thread been a real eye-opener? I have not changed my argument one iota, and I do not depend on an argument for which I need the evidence. You do brush off my argument, e.g. the part where I point out that finding evidence that people can influence something by staring at it, would completely topple all known experiments: How do we know that Ørsted did not move the compass-needle? Or, if you want the more "soft" sciences, how can we be sure that psychologists are not influencing their subjects by looking at them? In order for this experiment to be evidence of psi, you will have to prove that all psychological experiments were not influenced by this effect.

Go ahead.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
1) An agreement of how skeptics and parapsychologists can go forward in a spirit of co-operation, rather than an acceptance from the skeptics that the result is proof of paranormal phenomena.

Fine with me. Could we also agree that the results so far have been less than impressive? That the field has been littered with fraud and incompetence, and that no evidence has ever been replicated? Because if this evidence has been replicated, then there's not much to co-operate on, is there? Then, we could simply charge on, piling up more and more evidence, thereby supporting the idea that paranormal phenomena exist?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
2) An admission from Claus that he put his mouth into action before his brain was in gear, especially now that he has been told by another skeptic that this was how it appeared. If you are championing the relevance of evidence and of critical thinking then you have got to be very careful to follow your own standards at all times. "Saving time" by assuming it is a bad result does not fly.

You would have to show that I was wrong first. So far, you have done nothing that even resembles it. On the contrrary, you have picked the parts of my argument that you felt you could shoot down, but which I have shown were very solid indeed.

Now, could you please address the complete argument I have made, and not nit-pick at it? If you don't, then don't bother replying at all, because I will not be forced to argue from half of my argument.

And if you could dispense with the baseless accusations and four-letter words, I am sure we could live up to Randi's admonishment, not to speak of a heightened level of debate...

[Ed]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


They incorporated themselves because previous experiments have suggested that parapsychologists get better results than skeptics. So someone sensibly suggested an experiment be designed to test for this specific effect. It is self-aggrandising - it is good science.

Beg pardon but you missed my point. Why were they personnally involved? As I said, no believers in Hertfordshire? A scientist becoming part of the story, as it were, is Schwartzian. If the contention is "a scientist becoming directly involved in the experiment who believes that the results will be in a certain direction tends to assure such results" we have a different question and one that was not addressed whatsoever. I thought that the issue was simply one of "sympathy". Anyway, why did they have to meet the subjects? Was being in the control booth not enough? Why did they personnaly participate. Not explained in what I read.

Some of the rest of your suggestions sound helpful. What is needed is a new round of experiments. Perhaps the JREF should define a suitable test - and agree beforehand what would constitute a result.

I think that a clear operational definition of what the issue is is paramount. That and then properly designing an experiment to test that.


Interesting position.....


If the experiment is flawed in ways where the effect of the flaw is unknown, how would you interpret anything? What would be the point?

Then define what would be a good experiment to detect this effect.

As an intellectual exercise for for actual implimentation? Why is it that improvements are always post hoc? I have not conducted a formal experiment in almost 30 years and the flaws here are blindingly obvious. When these guys are not doing "research" do they drive a cab?

Sorry to sound cross but it is always the same damn thing. All experimental skill seems to evaporate when one studies the paranormal, regardless of length of vita (cf. Schwartz). Why is that? Is that the REAL parnormal effect?

Now, these folks might have gotten together and, over a pint, said "hell, wonder if WE have an impact?" and then cobbled together some trials. That is cool but it is not a formal experiment. It sort of looks like that is what they did.

Sure, I'd love to work on a design if it were to be implimented strictly.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I can see that NDE bunny (whose picture is on my homepage) still tricks people!

About Schrödinger's cat in a closed box: Is the cat dead, alive, or is it impossible to know until the cat is observed!?
A: The cat is alive, angry, wet, and ready to beat the f*ck out of any kooktards that dare to question materialism!

With the supernatural absence of hard evidence (that will please skeptics who will reject all evidence) is proof of absence!

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: I know that there is no supernatural! It’s all fictional and doesn’t occur in reality! Its frickin bunk!
Stupid Believer!: How do you know this?
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: Because science! And anything without hard physical proof is impossible!
Stupid Believer!: What scientific evidence contradicts the supernatural?
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: Science does contradict it because it does and it’s retarded to think otherwise! Materialism is true because you cannot conclusively prove immaterialism using science! Materialism wins because of the lack of proof of immaterialism!
Stupid Believer!: But why?
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: Why!? Because there are mountains of scientific evidence which says that there is no supernatural!
Stupid Believer!: What evidence are you talking about?
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: I’ve already demonstrated the massive amounts of anti-supernatural evidence but you’re just too stupid to see it! Retard!
Stupid Believer!: I just want a straight answer about exactly what contradicts the supernatural but you’re avoiding the question.
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: Now that’s wishful thinking! Stop being so gullible! LIAR!
Stupid Believer!: I just want you to back up your claim that science disproves the supernatural.
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: You’re contradicting yourself again! Hypocrite!
Stupid Believer!: Please tell me what this evidence is.
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: I already did! Now where is your evidence!? There is none and can be none! There is no proof so there is no evidence!
Stupid Believer!: I repeat: what evidence disproves supernatural claims?
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: The burden of proof is on you! I’m a skeptic so the burden of proof isn’t on me for anything! There isn’t proof so it’s impossible and people shouldn’t make the claim! Stupid!
Stupid Believer!: Didn’t you make a claim?
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: Kooktard, I made no claims, you did so prove your nonsense or shut up! So there is no God!
Stupid Believer!: I wish you would stop avoiding the question.
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: Face it you have been refuted!
Stupid Believer!: Where?
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: You were refuted here countless times! I don’t have to show where because I’m the skeptic and you’re in denial of the obvious! I enjoy refusing to answer woowoos questions but obsessively demanding that they answer my questions! Selective quoting rules!
Stupid Believer!: Apparently you can’t provide evidence for your claim that science disproves the supernatural.
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: I’ve already presented the evidence! Your little brain just can’t comprehend reality or the obvious materialistic truth! Science goes against the paranormal because it does and that is just the way things are because it’s retarded to think otherwise because it is and science! All evidence which I have just shown points to this!
Rational Skeptical who was formerly a stupid believer!: I guess I was wrong there really is no supernatural because science! It’s now in my best interest to fanatically ridicule anything that threatens to go against the materialist viewpoint! From now on no paranormal evidence will meet my standards and I will just scoff and explain away! I’m going to go worship science! Science saves from irrational thinking! Science rules!

:alc:

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Ed
Beg pardon but I thought that the effect was on "staring". Why would chatting up the subject beforehand be relevant? And if it is relevant, it was not controlled for. I am surprised that you would say this is an adequitely controlled study.

I said nothing of the sort, I ask first off if there is an effect and I put it to experiemental error, which would include the difference in interaction bewteen the two researchers. that is standard experiemental error.

The effect is on the perception of staring, since they did no control to see what happens when you just tell someone you are staring, any how.

Perhaps you just don't like people who discuss things politely, I have asked many questions in my post as well, it is a better designed study than most of the Ganzfeld studies.

My guess is that the 'effect' is most likely statisticaly insignificant, since the t-test made it go away. Also since it appears the subjects are selected non-randomly by the researcehers, that could explain a lot of the effect.

Were the subject all chosen from the pool of frehmen students, were they chosen through an ad, or were they selected through friendship?

These questions remain unanswered.

One can disagree with another and still be polite ED.

[Dancing David]

Just Geoff asks:

Then define what would be a good experiment to detect this effect.


First off if you read the paper again you will see that calling it an effect is not something most people would do, it is highly suspicious that they use the method they do to determine an effect.(The t-test showed that there was NO effect)

An unpaired t test revealed that the detect scores of M. S.'s subjects were not significantly different from those of R. W.'s (df = 30, t = 1.39, p = .17, two-tailed).


Second: There are a lot of ways to control for the effect.
A. Tell people you are watching them when you are not. What base rate of response do you get? What variation in base rate is there? How does it correlate to being a sceptic or a non-sceptic?
B.Use a system where a number of people are being run simultaneously, have the video camera switch between them on a random number through a hash table. This would be a super blind system, because if the 'effect' is the video link being on, then you cantrol for that as well.
C. Do your standard psychological work up, get good demographics on all sorts of stuff on the subjects, to add control for baseline paranoia.
D. Use standard psychological role playing, have experiementers who are believers and sceptics. Video tape them as they do the presentation, have a set of raters trained to evaluate the presentations. After that you run a study with a matrix of two by two or four by four.
One set is run by a believer, one set is run by a sceptic, one set is run by a believer pretending to be a sceptic, another is run by a sceptic pretending to be a believer, have a set that is presented the same video by the believer, another set that is shown a video by the sceptic, set that is led by a neutral student acting like a believer, anothers set by a neutral student acting like a sceptic, a set that read instruction and puts the electrodes on by themselves.
That would give you a good stab at getting to the effect. you can also vary the confidence of the experiementer in the study, have the sceptic vs. the believer and then have weak, medium and high confidence. All of this is rehearsed and practised and rated and then taped and scored again.
Or you can vary the level of authority of the experimenter as well, undergrad, graduate student, professor, professor emeritus; vs of course the sceptic vs. believer role playing.
You can also load the test and the confidence by telling set phrases to the subjects "We have had some really good results in this run", "We never get any results in these studies".
E. Use a larger sample size that is randomly selected for the different groups. Make sure to match the demographics in the groups or account for them in the analysis.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dancing David

One can disagree with another and still be polite ED.

No offence but is english your first language? There was nothing impolite in what I wrote.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
I can see that NDE bunny (whose picture is on my homepage) still tricks people!

About Schrödinger's cat in a closed box: Is the cat dead, alive, or is it impossible to know until the cat is observed!?
A: The cat is alive, angry, wet, and ready to beat the f*ck out of any kooktards that dare to question materialism!

With the supernatural absence of hard evidence (that will please skeptics who will reject all evidence) is proof of absence!

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: I know that there is no supernatural! It’s all fictional and doesn’t occur in reality! Its frickin bunk!
Stupid Believer!: How do you know this?
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: Because science! And anything without hard physical proof is impossible!
Stupid Believer!: What scientific evidence contradicts the supernatural?
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: Science does contradict it because it does and it’s retarded to think otherwise! Materialism is true because you cannot conclusively prove immaterialism using science! Materialism wins because of the lack of proof of immaterialism!
Stupid Believer!: But why?
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: Why!? Because there are mountains of scientific evidence which says that there is no supernatural!
Stupid Believer!: What evidence are you talking about?
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: I’ve already demonstrated the massive amounts of anti-supernatural evidence but you’re just too stupid to see it! Retard!
Stupid Believer!: I just want a straight answer about exactly what contradicts the supernatural but you’re avoiding the question.
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: Now that’s wishful thinking! Stop being so gullible! LIAR!
Stupid Believer!: I just want you to back up your claim that science disproves the supernatural.
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: You’re contradicting yourself again! Hypocrite!
Stupid Believer!: Please tell me what this evidence is.
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: I already did! Now where is your evidence!? There is none and can be none! There is no proof so there is no evidence!
Stupid Believer!: I repeat: what evidence disproves supernatural claims?
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: The burden of proof is on you! I’m a skeptic so the burden of proof isn’t on me for anything! There isn’t proof so it’s impossible and people shouldn’t make the claim! Stupid!
Stupid Believer!: Didn’t you make a claim?
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: Kooktard, I made no claims, you did so prove your nonsense or shut up! So there is no God!
Stupid Believer!: I wish you would stop avoiding the question.
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: Face it you have been refuted!
Stupid Believer!: Where?
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: You were refuted here countless times! I don’t have to show where because I’m the skeptic and you’re in denial of the obvious! I enjoy refusing to answer woowoos questions but obsessively demanding that they answer my questions! Selective quoting rules!
Stupid Believer!: Apparently you can’t provide evidence for your claim that science disproves the supernatural.
!Xx+-Rational-+xX!: I’ve already presented the evidence! Your little brain just can’t comprehend reality or the obvious materialistic truth! Science goes against the paranormal because it does and that is just the way things are because it’s retarded to think otherwise because it is and science! All evidence which I have just shown points to this!
Rational Skeptical who was formerly a stupid believer!: I guess I was wrong there really is no supernatural because science! It’s now in my best interest to fanatically ridicule anything that threatens to go against the materialist viewpoint! From now on no paranormal evidence will meet my standards and I will just scoff and explain away! I’m going to go worship science! Science saves from irrational thinking! Science rules!

:alc:

LMAO!!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
LMAO!!

Not surprising.

[Jeff Corey]

And not interesting, as usual.

[Aussie Thinker]

JustGeoff,

You know what I find amusing.

You tell Claus off for quickly jumping on an experiment without giving it more research and time…

And YES he probably did jump on it a bit quick.. as Ersby said.. it s bit of a reflex we all tend to develop to save time…

BUT.. as it turns out…

Claus was 100 % correct in his initial assumption.

The ONLY thing shown was a slight and VERY disputable “experimenter effect”

The protocols of the experiment WERE flawed

The DATA of the experiment was limited.

The experimenters agreed NO PSI effect was found !

ETC ETC…

Your only beef with Claus was his WAY of arguing.. did it gall you that he was so absolutely RIGHT..

Second..

You argument about Claus having NO EVIDENCE is ridiculous.. you are basically saying he has no evidence that they have no evidence…. Trying to equate this to the creationists way of debating is pretty puerile and quite dishonest.

[CFLarsen]

(puts finger up in the air)

This wasn't the first time I read about this experiment.

(takes finger down again)

[Aussie Thinker]

Claus…

I can just see you with your figure raised and that stern intractable Danish frown…lol

Forget our comments about timing etc…

Just lap up the fact that AS USUAL you were completely correct and yet another piece of paranormal paraphernalia was shown to be a pile of rubbish !

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Claus…

I can just see you with your figure raised and that stern intractable Danish frown…lol

I raised my finger a lot in school, but it was the wrong finger... :D

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Forget our comments about timing etc…

It's OK. No worries.

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Just lap up the fact that AS USUAL you were completely correct and yet another piece of paranormal paraphernalia was shown to be a pile of rubbish !

I do seem to have a knack of playing the ol' Monty Python game "Spot the Loony". It becomes easier and easier, that's all there is to it.

[Ersby]

This explanation was not just brought in when the results require it, because the experiment was deliberately designed to detect this effect. You may well be able to argue that the experimentor effect can be brought in as needed in general terms, but you cannot claim it in this instance.

Yes, you’re right. Got a bit carried away, there. I agree: the experiment went looking for an effect and found it. This is important, and despite the possible flaws, worthy of more investigation.

I don't follow. What do you mean? Schlitz got a result and Wiseman didn't.

Yes, Schlitz got a result, but was it the right result? On the paper, her z-score is -2.02 while for Wiseman it is -0.44. Normally a negative z-score indicates an effect in the opposite direction to what was expected. For instance, in a ganzfeld paper, a negative z-score would indicate a hit rate of less than chance. But this is Remote Staring, not Remote Viewing, and the protocols may not have been established which means that any deviation from chance is notable. Certainly it looks like Schlitz’s subject reacted to the stare/non-stare conditions. In a replication, however, they would have to react in the same way, wouldn’t they?

On the bright side, on Wiseman’s web page he mentions that a replication is underway at the moment, and should be much larger.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Claus…

I can just see you with your figure raised and that stern intractable Danish frown…lol



He is simply signaling his men to attack Lindisfarne (again).

[Camillus]

Originally posted by Ed
Beg pardon but I thought that the effect was on "staring". Why would chatting up the subject beforehand be relevant? And if it is relevant, it was not controlled for. I am surprised that you would say this is an adequitely controlled study.

That may be what the paper is about but I don't think that that's what Wiseman is actually interested in.

I heard him talk about this experiment a couple of times before it was run and he always made it clear that what really interested him was why he and Schiltz got different results.

His hypothesis was simple. When he runs this type of experiment he uses a 'cold' setup where the subjects are simply told they are there to be tested. Schiltz, on the other hand, is much warmer and encourages people to demonstrate the psi skills she believes they have. Therefore it's the atmosphere in which the experiment is run that's important, not some underlying psi effect.

She gets positive results; he doesn't. He's therefore curious about how much the combination of positive/negative briefing with belief/scepticism has on the results. Clearly it has some sort of result and that's what's curious about this experiment, not the fact that it tests perceptions of being stared at.

I don't know where the two of them intend to go next with this but I can think of a couple of intriguing experimental setups that I'd like to see run.

[Ed]

But why, Geoff, is the state of paranormal research in such a muddle? The way I see it there can only be a few reasons:

- There is a very high level of incompetance amoung researchers in this area.

- There is really nothing there but the researchers are dishonest and are too ego involved/deluded to admit it.

It comes down to dishonetsy or incompetance. Would you dispute this?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ed
But why, Geoff, is the state of paranormal research in such a muddle?

It's not. It's all in your subjective mind.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Camillus
That may be what the paper is about but I don't think that that's what Wiseman is actually interested in.

I heard him talk about this experiment a couple of times before it was run and he always made it clear that what really interested him was why he and Schiltz got different results.

His hypothesis was simple. When he runs this type of experiment he uses a 'cold' setup where the subjects are simply told they are there to be tested. Schiltz, on the other hand, is much warmer and encourages people to demonstrate the psi skills she believes they have. Therefore it's the atmosphere in which the experiment is run that's important, not some underlying psi effect.

She gets positive results; he doesn't. He's therefore curious about how much the combination of positive/negative briefing with belief/scepticism has on the results. Clearly it has some sort of result and that's what's curious about this experiment, not the fact that it tests perceptions of being stared at.

I don't know where the two of them intend to go next with this but I can think of a couple of intriguing experimental setups that I'd like to see run.

You are a better man than I am, Gunga Din, if you actually would go listen to this stuff.:D

You do see, though, that the question that you suggest he was after was not answered by the experiment as designed, right?

In fact a couple of simple changes would have gone far to addressing this specific issue. Tell me, did he drive himself in his own cab when he went to the meeting?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
It's not. It's all in your subjective mind.

Quite contrary, it is objectively true that the state of paranormal research is in such a muddle. Incompetence, fraud, and, worst of all, missing results, have marred this area since its beginning. And it doesn't look as if we are going to find any evidence of any paranormal phenomenon any day soon.

Of course, I can always be convinced by evidence....

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
It's not. It's all in your subjective mind.

Well, it is, actually (patented Hugh Grant self effacing twitch and self deprecatory flash of a smile---how much better and less foul than an Ian fart).

Where is this research? Not a list of stuff, a real paper that is good.

You see where this is going, don't you? At some point, driven to the wall, you will declare that science is not capable of descerning the truth. At that point I withdraw as the discussion moves to RaptureReady.

[UndercoverElephant]

Claus,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
Are you seriously trying to suggest I am not going to let you explain yourself, Claus? Explain away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am seriously pointing out that you left out a crucial part of my argumentation. If you want to attack my argument, please have the courtesy of attacking it all, and not nitpick at it.


"leaving out a crucial part of your argument" (from your POV) is not the same as "not allowing you to explain it in your own fashion." This is typical Claus Larsen misrepresentation, again.

Geoff : States Claus's argument as he believed it was
Claus : "You aren't allowing me to explain myself in my own fashion"
Geoff : "Why are you suggesting I am preventing you from explaining yourself"
Claus : "I am pointing out you left out some of my argument"

No, Claus, you accused me of "not letting you explain yourself", and you were wrong. All I did was leave out part of your argument. All you had to do was put it back in. OK?

Please stop misrepresenting people.


A "political" position? What are you talking about? Politics don't enter into this.....



Doesn't it? Unfortunately, it does. You see both sides in this debate aren't just having a debate. They are having a debate about things have implications about peoples beliefs systems. You have confirmed this yourself by stating that if it were recognised as a paranormal phenomena then it would "overturn everything (I) know about the Universe.". In the case of the parapsychologists, they are likely to get equally irritated if they think that the skeptics have overstated their case and claimed the experiment has been "debunked" when in truth the result is ambiguous (for whatever reason). So where does politics come in? It comes in because there will only be progress made on this subject, if both sides respect not only the rules of scientific procedure and logical debate, but each others right to hold different beliefs. There must be mutual respect. In this case, it means that neither side should claim victory befire it has been unambiguously demonstrated, even if they feel confident they are correct. Neither side should jump the gun, because this shows a lack of respect for the other side, and a failure to understand that this lack of respect does nobody any good.



, it was a scientific acknowledgement that no paranormal evidence was found. They agreed on that, OK?


They agreed that there was no clear explanation for the result, Claus. They also agreed that more experiments were required. Those experiments could well produce more interesting results. In other words they have agreed that there is no way of agreeing on a positive result for PSI. They have not agreed on a negative result for PSI. There is a subtle difference there, and it reflects the fact that this is a politically difficult issue.


This result does not suggest anything else than the existence of the experimenter effect.


That is what it was supposed to find. It wasn't looking for anything else! The next question is "What is causing the experimenter effect?"


The experiment produced a "statistically relevant" (not quite "significant") result for the experimenter who believes in the phenomenon she was investigating. This raises a huge, red flag with skeptics, scientists, and it should with you.


Relevant : "Having a bearing on or connection with the matter at hand."

Significant : "Having or expressing a meaning"

I am not sure what the difference is between relevant and significant. I'm happy with either word. But yes, it produced a relevant result for the parapsychologist, and yes, this raises a red flag with skeptics and scientists. Which is precisely why we have to take care with how we deal with this. I have already explained in this thread that the hypothesis concerned falls outside of the JREF criteria for PSI. If Randi did the test he could get a negative result and still confirm the hypothesis, so this hypothesis challenges the framework scientists normally use to do their experiments. Yes, this means we must take care. It does not mean we should discount the result or declare it to be a fraud on principle. That would simply be waving a red flag at the parapsychologists. Both sides must respect the other, yes?

Simply because the parapsychologist got a result and the skeptic did not DOES NOT mean that you can conclude there was foul play or incompetence. You can SUSPECT it, but you do not have grounds to make the accusation. This is very important, because if you do go beyond suspicion and start drawing premature conclusions then you leave yourself open to the sorts of accusations you have recently had quite a lot of : overstating your case and being biased. Red flag? Yes. Conclusion? No, Claus. You must wait for more evidence befoire you can come to a valid conclusion.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
I don't need Occam at all, Claus. I am perfectly prepared to accept the result as it stands. YOU "need Occam" because you have to find some way to dismiss the result. Therefore you have suggested it was an error, even though you have no evidence, and followed it up with an Occams Razor argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But that's exactly when you apply Occam's Razor, Geoff: In the absence of evidence., we use Occam to reach a conclusion.


Wrong. You lack the evidence to introduce the line of argument that leads to Occam in the first place. How would you feel if the creationists started using Occams razor to conclude that God was testing our faith? You would say "You have no evidence to claim that God is testing our faith." Using your logic, the creationist can then say "But isn't that exactly why we use Occam? Sure, we have no evidence that God is testing our faith, and that is why I am using Occam!" It's nonsense, of course, because Occam is only invoked when there is a clear dichotomy and no evidence. You have to use evidence or logic to get to the dichotomy before you can invoke Occam. Then, when you have a valid dichotomy and no evidence, you can invoke Occam. In this case you are like the creationist - you are only using Occam AFTER you have invented a new clause in the argument which itself is not supported by direct evidence or logic.


But when you don't "need" Occam, you accept a conclusion that the evidence cannot confirm. Without evidence, and without Occam, you wade directly into your preferred conclusion.


What you mean, and you have said it many times already, is that the conclusion one arrives at without the invalid invoking of Occam is unacceptable to you. If that result was not unacceptable to you, you would not need to invoke Occam. Usually when an experiment is completed nobody goes around accusing the experimenter of errors unless they have grounds for doing so. Sometimes an experiment produces a controversial conclusion. In these cases, people may try to find ways of discounting the result, as you have done here. The only way forward in such cases is to carry out more experiments, hopefully with the co-operation of the doubters, and get more evidence. Eventually, if the phenomena is real, enough evidence is produced to convince all but the most die-hard believers in the old paradigm. We have not got there yet.


Thank you for proving my point: The hypothesis of God is nonfalsifiable in itself - God exists, because God exists, and all else must obey that. However, the hypothesis tested in the experiment is falsifiable, because more experiments can be made.


....and more accusations of fraud and incompetence can be made. At the moment your argument is "A result proving PSI is so unlikely and so unthinkable that I must assume this is a mistake". Theoretically, so long as you go on believing PSI is unthinkable, you will always claim there result is a mistake.

As long as you are willing to accept that eventually, given enough experiments of a high enough quality, you would accept the result, then I can accept your argument. But that would imply that this result is OPEN - that no firm conclusions can be drawn yet, and that eventually you would be willing to accept the result, regardless of how "unthinkable" you find it.

So long as your argument remains "The result is unthinkable" and you have no direct evidence of what went wrong, your use of Occam is illegal.


No, it is not non-falsifiable, it is perfectly in accordance to every other scientific hypothesis. I am not basing it on an accusation of cheating, I am pointing out that it is a possibility. As for my "beliefs" about the nature of reality and the possibility of psi existing, I prefer the scientific explanation. So far, it has proven itself remarkably solid, as opposed to all the hare-brained explanations we have seen within the field of parapsychology.


It does not matter HOW you have concluded that PSI is unthinkable, Claus. Provided you are using that position to discount a result in a specific experiment then you are using an illegal argument. It is like discounting all arguments for the existence of God on the basis that the Bible contains errors and some Christians are liars. Yes, the bible contains errors, and yes some Christians are liars, but you cannot use this to discount a future argument or experiment for the existence of God.

There is only so long you can keep claiming that "Cheating was a possibility" without anything to substantiate the claim. You can get away with it once or twice. After that, it starts to look like a refusal to accept a result you don't like. It is a weak argument, like I said. Not so weak it falls over just yet, but don't expect to rely on it forever.


I have no evidence of cheating, and no evidence of a mistake. All I have is a result that points to the experimenter effect, and I am backed by the two people who did the experiment - they were there, you and I were not.


Yes, but the experimenter effect was what they were looking for! :D


I don't have to prove that they cheated, because I am not saying that it has to be either fraud or incompetence. It looks very much like the experimenter effect to me, and both experimenters agree with me. You are the one who jumps to the conclusion that it is evidence of psi.


I have done no such thing. It is you who wants to jump to a conclusion. If you bothered to read my posts properly you would know that I do not believe we can draw a firm conclusion from this. Plus, "the experimenter effect" was what they were looking for! The difference of opinion is in what the mechanism for that effect it. The parapsychologists have hypothesised that beliefs can affect reality. The skeptics don't accept that is the only possible explanation. So far, neither side can prove which is the correct interpretation.


No, it is not a fallacy. When I say "we", I mean those who have accepted the harsh reality that science has proven to us. I can't do much about daydreamers.


That is your business, Claus, but do not expect the rest of the world to accept your sciencism. You are indeed a foundationalist, and you are a sciencist. You only accept that which has proven by science. I am not criticising you for that. I am criticising you for then claiming that "This is all that HUMANITY knows." You have NOT earned the right to claim that the whole of humanity must either follow your epistemology or be accused of being "daydreamers". Philosophers, psychologists, historians and parapsychologsts are not "daydreamers", and you have no right to accuse them of being so, and no right to claim that the only group of people who know anything about existence are scientists. If you try to do this all you do is make yourself look like a narrow-minded extremist. If you aren't a narrow-minded extremist, then stop sounding like one.

So from now on please do not say "humanity" when you mean "scientists" or "me". Fair enough?


Or, if you want the more "soft" sciences, how can we be sure that psychologists are not influencing their subjects by looking at them?


Drum roll coming up........Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......we don't. :eek:


In order for this experiment to be evidence of psi, you will have to prove that all psychological experiments were not influenced by this effect.

Go ahead.


Go ahead and try to prove a negative? Claus, do you think I was born yesterday? :rolleyes:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
1) An agreement of how skeptics and parapsychologists can go forward in a spirit of co-operation, rather than an acceptance from the skeptics that the result is proof of paranormal phenomena.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fine with me.


Good. Let's see how you do.


Could we also agree that the results so far have been less than impressive?


We could agree they are not strong enough, given that many people within the scientific world would demand very clear and unambiguous evidence before they would accept it. Any result that depends on statistics would be likely to be challenged.


That the field has been littered with fraud and incompetence, and that no evidence has ever been replicated?


You cannot keep bringing up previous fraud and incompetence as a reason to question future results. It is bad form, Claus. To go forward, you cannot accuse all parapsychologists of cheating because of people like Uri Geller. It is not fair because no new parapsychologist, however honest and competent, can do anything about previous frauds.


Because if this evidence has been replicated, then there's not much to co-operate on, is there?


There are future tests which can be designed to eliminate the problems people have raised with this one. That will require co-operation.



You would have to show that I was wrong first.


I have, Claus. And I remind you that other skeptics have accused you "reflex skepticism". When people from your own side are recognising the problem, then maybe it is time to back down a tiny bit? :(


So far, you have done nothing that even resembles it. On the contrrary, you have picked the parts of my argument that you felt you could shoot down, but which I have shown were very solid indeed.


Solid as swiss cheese, Claus. :)


Now, could you please address the complete argument I have made, and not nit-pick at it?


Don't 'nit-pick'?

That sounds awfully like, don't be too rigorous. I would have thought that a person who prides himself on his rigorousness would have no fear of nit-pickers.


If you don't, then don't bother replying at all, because I will not be forced to argue from half of my argument.


I am examining your chosen line of reasoning. It's called critical thinking.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Ed
As an aside, if one accepts the contention that a person can alter the elecrophysiological mileu of another person the implications are troubling and pervasive. Since skin resistance is mediated by the automnomic system this implies that a broad swath of the field of electrophysiology is suspect. It also suggests that a trained sender might influence sporting events or that the staff in an operating room could have an impact on a patient's well being.

Maybe so. But you cannot dismiss results on the grounds that they have implications you find worrying.

[UndercoverElephant]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

You know what I find amusing.
[/QUOTE]

I know I find your attempts at debating quite funny...... :rolleyes:

I have already stopped responding to you after you accused me of being "no different to Napoleon". I refer you to my previous post to Claus where I emphasised the importance of treating other people with respect (even if you don't agree with them), of not jumping the gun and prematurely declaring victory, of not overstating your case, and of not deliberately antagonising the other side.


You tell Claus off for quickly jumping on an experiment without giving it more research and time…

And YES he probably did jump on it a bit quick.. as Ersby said.. it s bit of a reflex we all tend to develop to save time…


That is not good enough, AT. You wouldn't tolerate it for one second if the parapsychologists did the same thing, would you? Mutual respect is what is needed, not "saving time" by breaking the rules.


Claus was 100 % correct in his initial assumption.


Overstated claim (rather obviously).


The ONLY thing shown was a slight and VERY disputable “experimenter effect”


Which was the ONLY thing they were looking for! :)

The fact that it was slight and was disputable doesn't make it non-existent. Do you want me to give you some hard science examples of slight and disputable effects that turned out to be real, or can you think of some yourself?


The protocols of the experiment WERE flawed


Possibly. In which case the flaws need to be addressed.


The DATA of the experiment was limited.


The DATA in all experiments is limited. Unless you have discovered Infinity. :rolleyes:


The experimenters agreed NO PSI effect was found !


See note about politics in RED in the reply to Claus.


Your only beef with Claus was his WAY of arguing.. did it gall you that he was so absolutely RIGHT..


Overstated claim, combined with deliberate attempt to antagonise the opposition.

My beef is with the way he does his thinking, which he betrays in his way of arguing. Yep, that is the problem.


Second..

You argument about Claus having NO EVIDENCE is ridiculous.


Overstated claim.


you are basically saying he has no evidence that they have no evidence….


Plain wrong. I am saying that he has no direct evidence to substantiate his accusation of cheating. I am not saying that "they have no evidence that he has no evidence." I am saying Claus has no evidence of cheating/incompetence. And far from being "ridiculous" it is completely true. He has no evidence. All he has is a conclusion he finds unacceptable. :(


Trying to equate this to the creationists way of debating is pretty puerile and quite dishonest.


Why? Because you don't like it when critical thinking is applied to your own thoughts, maybe?

AT, I am neither a skeptic nor a parapsychologist. What I am is a philosophy student and I am interested in the logical forms that people use when debating about their beliefs. The logical form of these two arguments is the same. If it isn't, show me what the difference is. Don't just call it "puerile". :shakes head:

I realise that you believe that skepticism is generally rational and creationism generally isn't, and you are correct. But that does not mean that skeptics don't sometimes mistakenly employ the same flawed debating tactics as the creationists. I am not trying to say "Claus is a dumb as your average creationist". I am trying to get him (and you) to closely examine the logical form of the argument and realise that it is actually no different. Even if the parasychologists carried out the experiment perfectly and the result was a valid demonstration of PSI, Claus would have still rejected it under the form of argument he is using. Thinking to yourself "but Claus's conclusion is the right one" is also no different to the creationist thinking "but I know the Bible is true, whatever." Claus may or may not be correct, but he must use the correct route to get to his conclusion - and he didn't.

[UndercoverElephant]

Aussie Thinker :

Just lap up the fact that AS USUAL you were completely correct and yet another piece of paranormal paraphernalia was shown to be a pile of rubbish !


I hope you know what this looks like. :)

It looks like hero-worship.

I am not trying to antagonise you, but that is what it looks like to me.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I do seem to have a knack of playing the ol' Monty Python game "Spot the Loony". It becomes easier and easier, that's all there is to it.


Oh yes Claus, you are sooooo brilliant. And you make it look so effortless! You are just simply superb! :D

Anyone else want to join the circle-jerk? :rolleyes:

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Ersby


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This explanation was not just brought in when the results require it, because the experiment was deliberately designed to detect this effect. You may well be able to argue that the experimentor effect can be brought in as needed in general terms, but you cannot claim it in this instance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes, you’re right. Got a bit carried away, there. I agree: the experiment went looking for an effect and found it. This is important, and despite the possible flaws, worthy of more investigation.


Thankyou for demonstrating once more that there is such a thing as a genuine critical thinker here. :)

The problem I see is that the hypothesis itself invalidates one or two of the basic assumptions of normal science. So we might have to figure out some new rules by which we will judge the answer. I don't see how the JREF could officiate on this experiment, because if James Randi carried it out and got a negative result, it would still confirm the hypothesis. I get the feeling that some people would like to disqualify the hypothesis outright on these grounds, but to do so would require a philosophical justification for discounting the hypothesis as impossible, and I don't see how such a justification could be supplied. I'd be interested in reading anyones attempt.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't follow. What do you mean? Schlitz got a result and Wiseman didn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Schlitz got a result, but was it the right result? On the paper, her z-score is -2.02 while for Wiseman it is -0.44. Normally a negative z-score indicates an effect in the opposite direction to what was expected. For instance, in a ganzfeld paper, a negative z-score would indicate a hit rate of less than chance. But this is Remote Staring, not Remote Viewing, and the protocols may not have been established which means that any deviation from chance is notable. Certainly it looks like Schlitz’s subject reacted to the stare/non-stare conditions. In a replication, however, they would have to react in the same way, wouldn’t they?


I'm struggling with this. You say that Schlitz subjects reacted, but Wisemans did not, yet you also say that they reacted in the wrong direction. Does that mean you are saying their nervous systems showed less activity when they were being stared at?

If so, the result is even more counter-intuitive but remains of interest.


On the bright side, on Wiseman’s web page he mentions that a replication is underway at the moment, and should be much larger.


That is excellent news. I am sure we all await the new results eagerly. :)

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Camillus

Originally posted by Camillus

His hypothesis was simple. When he runs this type of experiment he uses a 'cold' setup where the subjects are simply told they are there to be tested. Schiltz, on the other hand, is much warmer and encourages people to demonstrate the psi skills she believes they have. Therefore it's the atmosphere in which the experiment is run that's important, not some underlying psi effect.


The two aren't neccesarily exclusive. PSI effects, if they exist, are clearly dependent on peoples mental states, and peoples mental states are influenced by the atmosphere in which an experiment is conducted.

[UndercoverElephant]

double

[UndercoverElephant]

Ed :


But why, Geoff, is the state of paranormal research in such a muddle? The way I see it there can only be a few reasons:

- There is a very high level of incompetance amoung researchers in this area.

- There is really nothing there but the researchers are dishonest and are too ego involved/deluded to admit it.

It comes down to dishonetsy or incompetance. Would you dispute this?


I would dispute it, yes.

It is quite clear that there are a lot of vulnerable and ignorant people out there who are prime targets to being taken advantage of by unscrupulous people. People want to know about this, want to believe it, want to believe in life-after-death, and are willing to pay good money for the services of people claiming supernatural powers. It is human nature that when there is a market for something like this, somebody will provide what is wanted. So in terms of people who claim to have paranormal abilities, especially those who make money out of it or are silly enough to attempt to win Randis money, are probably either incompetent or fraudulent. Personally I would say that anyone who thinks they can win the prize is extremely unlikely to be honest and competent. But that does not include the whole field, and it certainly doesn't include parapsychologists like Schlitz.

As for why the field of paranormal research is in such a muddle, I think the reasons may be more complex than you have presented. For example, if this hypothesis is correct, and the beliefs and attitudes of the people involved in the experiments influences the results (paranormally) then we could expect to get very confusing and muddled experimental outcomes. Even more important is the fact that both sides have non-scientific biases - the paranormalists are often driven by personal experience and philosohical/spiritual viewpoints which are not shared by the skeptics. The skeptics would like to claim that these viewpoints and experiences are not valid, and scientifically speaking some of them aren't, but it doesn't mean the experiences aren't real or all the viewpoints aren't valid. On the other side, the skeptics are trying to defend an ideaology and a worldview that they believe is under attack (and maybe it is). The