Mediums: Talking to the Dead

[Dragon]

On BBC 2 tonight 9 p.m. - Mediums: Talking to the Dead (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/everyman/index.shtml) They say they can talk to the dead, prove there is life after death and deliver messages to the grieving from beyond the grave. With extraordinary access, Talking to the Dead lifts the veil on mediumship in Britain and follows four different mediums as they give sittings to the bereaved, investigate hauntings and train aspiring mediums to hone their skills.

The programme comes under the "Everyman" banner and there doesn't seem to be much room for critical thinking if the above link is anything to go by.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Dragon
On BBC 2 tonight 9 p.m. - Mediums: Talking to the Dead (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/everyman/index.shtml) The programme comes under the "Everyman" banner and there doesn't seem to be much room for critical thinking if the above link is anything to go by. I was hopeful from the trailers that this would be a full investigation.

The previews I have read appear to suggest it is one sided view. I note in one review that Graham Smith, the psychic barber was very impressive as he didn’t give out initials but specific names.

Given that he appears regularly at spiritualist churches there is the possibility that he know the person he read for. There is also more chance of a specific name been a hit the more people in a room. However this is without seeing the program or segment.

What does appear clear is that none of these mediums were the five mediums with good track records provided by the Spiritualists' National Union whose recent testing showed no effect. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1310683,00.html)

On the bright side I understand that this is one of three programs so there is hope the other two will redress the balance. Unless they do I am afraid that the lure of Grand designs abroad on Channel 4 will be too strong for me.

[AlienX]

Just had a look at one of the links from the above (one of the Mediums web sites) where a written "impressive"?? reading is provided. The bloke is called Gordon Smith and claims to have passed double blind tests, maybe he should therefor apply to JREF.

Yet looking at his reading I think he should not bother, he claims specifics yet his reading is the standard fare i'm afraid - so much so i'm certain i've seen this reading before or something very very similar, certainly many of the individual sentances have cropped up before in other readings.

(Reading here --> http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/share.html)

For a reading he requests a photo of yourself and your loved one? - withouth a photo the old chestnut of "i'm letting my hair grow long" could be silly, a photo helps with this one does it not :-).

Anyway looks like the show is the usual pro medium stuff, will be interesting to watch and see how many "standard issue" statements are made.

AX

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lothian
[B]I was hopeful from the trailers that this would be a full investigation.

The previews I have read appear to suggest it is one sided view. I note in one review that Graham Smith, the psychic barber was very impressive as he didn’t give out initials but specific names.

Given that he appears regularly at spiritualist churches there is the possibility that he know the person he read for. There is also more chance of a specific name been a hit the more people in a room. However this is without seeing the program or segment.



WOW, looks like you don't need to see it.

[Soapy Sam]

Welcome back from exile, Ian.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lothian

What does appear clear is that none of these mediums were the five mediums with good track records provided by the Spiritualists' National Union whose recent testing showed no effect. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1310683,00.html)

[/B]

But this research was carried out by Wiseman. Can these results (i.e non-positive) be repeated when they are carried out by non-Skeptics?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by AlienX
Just had a look at one of the links from the above (one of the Mediums web sites) where a written "impressive"?? reading is provided. The bloke is called Gordon Smith and claims to have passed double blind tests, maybe he should therefor apply to JREF.
I have seen him before. He did one large event and it was full of the average cold reading demos. You know the stuff. I have an old man who died of a heart stoppage, he wants you to know he loves you. etc.

Then he went into “that man over there with the grey polo neck. I have someone for you. He says he is your son Graeme . He wants to say hi to his sister Esmerelda and cousins Cuthbert and Winifred. He says he is sorry that when he left home for work on the 8th august 1999 on his Yamaha 250, number plate H567TYR he didn’t say a final goodbye because he wasn’t expecting to misjudge the corner between the A89 and b45. He however now says he loves you very much,

The next reading was I am getting a R sound…..

I guess some spirits just get a better connection than others. ;)

Originally posted by Interesting IanWOW, looks like you don't need to see it.How many times do you have to see someone doing the same old, same old ?

[/quote]Originally posted by Interesting IanBut this research was carried out by Wiseman. Can these results (i.e non-positive) be repeated when they are carried out by non-Skeptics?
Yes, easily. That is how science works Ian. You do an experiment and tell everyone how you did it to see if they can repeat the results. If you follow the same proedures, I am sure will get the same results.

However I am sure that if you merely go to one of these Psychic for a reading you will be very impressed.

[JMA]

Originally posted by Lothian Yes, easily. That is how science works Ian. You do an experiment and tell everyone how you did it to see if they can repeat the results. If you follow the same proedures, I am sure will get the same results.

Ian was referring to the experimenter effect.

It means that Richard Wiseman is an antipsi. Even if Psi do exist, Wiseman'll not find anything because of his power: he is able to block any anomalous manifestation around him (my guess is that his antipsi ability works at least around 15 meters around him, maybe more...) ;)

Same thing for James Randi. He blocks anomalous manifestation around him for 30 meters or more...

[Lothian]

Originally posted by JMA
Ian was referring to the experimenter effect.

but no same person takes that seriously....oh I see, yes, you are probably right that is what he was refering to.

[Interesting Ian]

But this research was carried out by Wiseman. Can these results (i.e non-positive) be repeated when they are carried out by non-Skeptics?


Yes, easily.


Substantiate claim please.

Hang on a sec . .no you're wrong. The article states:


"The two scientists wanted to repeat previous research from the University of Arizona that suggested mediums could supply accurate information for people from deceased friends and relatives".





Lothian
That is how science works Ian. You do an experiment and tell everyone how you did it to see if they can repeat the results. If you follow the same proedures, I am sure will get the same results.



Not when dealing with human beings you ain't.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
"The two scientists wanted to repeat previous research from the University of Arizona that suggested mediums could supply accurate information for people from deceased friends and relatives."This wouldn't be referring to the work of Gary Schwarz, would it?

[Ashles]

Welcome back Ian. We missed you buddy.

Regarding the experimenter effect which may or may not exist:

The problem really is that the experimenter effect would be indistinguishable from the following scenario:

No psychic ability exists or has ever existed in the world
Some scientists who want to believe in the ability intentionally or accidentally produce false results and show positive evidence of psychic ability
Skeptical scientists produce accurate results showing no efffect

I'm not saying this is what is happening in the experiments, but it would yield the same pattern as the alleged experimenter effect.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zep
This wouldn't be referring to the work of Gary Schwarz, would it?

I imagine so.

Yeah, he didn't use a double blind protocol did he? Did Wiseman?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles


Regarding the experimenter effect which may or may not exist:

The problem really is that the experimenter effect would be indistinguishable from the following scenario:

No psychic ability exists or has ever existed in the world
Some scientists who want to believe in the ability intentionally or accidentally produce false results and show positive evidence of psychic ability
Skeptical scientists produce accurate results showing no efffect

I'm not saying this is what is happening in the experiments, but it would yield the same pattern as the alleged experimenter effect. [/B]

Regarding the experimenter effect which may or may not exist:

The problem really is that the experimenter effect would be indistinguishable from the following scenario:

Psychic ability exists and has always existed in the world.
Some scientists who don't want to believe in the ability intentionally or accidentally produce false results and show negative evidence of psychic ability
Non-Skeptical scientists produce accurate results showing a statistically significant effect

I'm not saying this is what is happening in the experiments, but it would yield the same pattern as the alleged experimenter effect.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I imagine so.

Yeah, he didn't use a double blind protocol did he? Did Wiseman? Wiseman criticised Schwartz experiments so he would have used different procedures to his own.

I am not sure about double blind. As I understand it. 5 mediums gave a readings for each of 5 sitters (25 in total)

Each recorded reading was jumbled up so it effectively became a series of statements.

For each medium the 5 sitters listened to the 5 readings and had to pick their own out They all failed.

As said I am not sure how you would double blind the above, or is it inherent in the system.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Regarding the experimenter effect which may or may not exist:

The problem really is that the experimenter effect would be indistinguishable from the following scenario:

Psychic ability exists and has always existed in the world.
Some scientists who don't want to believe in the ability intentionally or accidentally produce false results and show negative evidence of psychic ability
Non-Skeptical scientists produce accurate results showing a statistically significant effect

I'm not saying this is what is happening in the experiments, but it would yield the same pattern as the alleged experimenter effect.

That's why scientists publish their findings, so that others can test the findings and procdures to remove any tester bias. Dr. Gary Schwartz has refused to publish his findings which is why his results are considered suspect.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lothian
Wiseman criticised Schwartz experiments so he would have used different procedures to his own.

I am not sure about double blind. As I understand it. 5 mediums gave a readings for each of 5 sitters (25 in total)

Each recorded reading was jumbled up so it effectively became a series of statements.

For each medium the 5 sitters listened to the 5 readings and had to pick their own out They all failed.

As said I am not sure how you would double blind the above, or is it inherent in the system.

Wiseman would have to be in the dark as to which statement matched which sitter.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Wiseman would have to be in the dark as to which statement matched which sitter. I can see how if someone had to give a narrative about hits and misses and give a view on how good a reading was, then experimenter bias in judging the success of the reading could be important. Where the sitter merely says "reading number 3 was the best for me" I personally don't see what difference it makes, but am willing to be persuaded.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lothian
I can see how if someone had to give a narrative about hits and misses and give a view on how good a reading was, then experimenter bias in judging the success of the reading could be important. Where the sitter merely says "reading number 3 was the best for me" I personally don't see what difference it makes, but am willing to be persuaded.

OK, so you're saying that even with alleged supernatural phenomena, double blind protocols may not always be necessary in order to investigate such claims?

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
OK, so you're saying that even with alleged supernatural phenomena, double blind protocols may not always be necessary in order to investigate such claims? Depending on the experiment, No I personally don't think it is always necessary when the results are clear cut. But I may have overlooked something and am willing to be persuaded.

[Azrael 5]

Searching through articles on Gordon Smith, apparently he's got some deal with Disney group,insert your own punchline!

[Temp3st]

Some observations on the show - interesting to see the spooky barbers son claim he doesn't believe in it - is this to give Gordon a greater degree of credibility or is his son just a bad liar?

The blind Irish lady......ah yes - what a splendid demonstration she gave - vauge comments followed by many complete misses and audience members leaving, having being converted to the dark side.
...then she complains she isn't feeling well....funny she didn't mention that BEFORE she went on stage.

Holbrook- well anyone who has seen Peter Kay's Phoenix nights will know that Holbrook is really called John Baptiste.

The bored housewife....well she was exactly that!!!
I think, at the risk of sounding sexist, she should go out and get a job instead of imagining her kids toys going off on their own.

The married psychics - seen the guy on tv before - failed miserably!!!! - wife looks likeBet Lynch!! (http://faculty.uccb.ns.ca/amaclean/bet.jpg) well you've got to spend that filthy dosh on something...might as well be makeup.

Can't wait for next weeks episode where we won't see any ghosts

[jambo372]

The blind Irish woman gave vague comments ?
Did you see the private sitting she gave when she connected to that guy's dead son? Didn't look 'vague' to me.
She converted the guy into believing and he'd told her nothing and given her no clues.

Gordon Brown also gave an impressive reading to a couple who'd lost their son. He mentioned his full name - first, middle and surname, revealed what he done for a living and knew the mother had put 2 candles at his grave. It was the first time they met him and he asked no questions.

[Azrael 5]

No comments about the progarmme then? My general feeling was why cant they get a skeptic on the show,sit them down with one while they do a reading,and then see how convinced the couples were(the nearest we came to skepticism was about two questions "Why dont they say its Jim Smith here" and one to Sharon Neill "Why were the messages so vague"Obviously we all know on here its bul**it,but how bad was Sharon Neill?! The crushing silence in the theatre as she floundered around with miss after miss.Some of the hits in the private sittings were good-I suspect information had to have been leaked-especially with the psychic barber (who knew in advance who he was reading,as they had to book!)having a TV crew around is always suspicious!
Then finally to the awfully distraught woman and her husband,seeking solace in numerous visits to Stephen Holbrook(a former hairdresser,what is it with the hair trade tonight?)who Ive seen and -as was shown-is just a cold reader with a mullett hair do.My heart went out to the poor woman(although doing her own voiceover was pushing it),the grief had taken its toll on her face."He(her son)normally comes through with "A head injury here" I know its him then!" Whats the bet the TV cameras there were just too much for Holbrook to chance his act? The only words of sense for an hour came from a grief counsellor at the hospital. Give him an hour with one of the three next week.:(

I see there have been posts now,god I do type a lot,lol

[charva_gj]

I seen it too. Not a lot of scepticism in it and put together in such a way so the casual obverver would probably think "there's something to it".

The blind woman was embarrassing - I was on the verge of changing the channel when she was doing her stage show as it was so cringworthy. However, to be fair she did have a few hits when doing the reading for the pub landlord. She bombed out when doing the reading for his wife, though.

The barber's reading for the other couple who had lost their son was quite impressive. He got the first, middle and last name of the son among other things. Its hard to be objective about an edited show, though. Having said that, it still didn't make a believer out of me.

[Azrael 5]

Jambo,he didnt say anything about candles at the grave,quote"He thanks you for the candles" Those were his words,she embellished the rest.;)

[Loki]

Lothian,

From the link you posted about the testing of the five mediums :
A spokesperson for the Spiritualists' National Union could not be contacted.
Well, perhaps the Guardian should have tried using a medium to make contact???

[Lothian]

Originally posted by jambo372
The blind Irish woman gave vague comments ?
Did you see the private sitting she gave when she connected to that guy's dead son? Didn't look 'vague' to me.
She converted the guy into believing and he'd told her nothing and given her no clues.

Gordon Brown also gave an impressive reading to a couple who'd lost their son. He mentioned his full name - first, middle and surname, revealed what he done for a living and knew the mother had put 2 candles at his grave. It was the first time they met him and he asked no questions. Oh yes she was very specific. Started off with an older lady no one knew. But the older lady knew the woman well enough to know it was typical for here not to switch her phone off. Wow !

She knew that the woman was the boy’s mother and knew the boy died in the back yard.

Those are some big errors off the top of my head. This was cold reading.


The psychic barber, Strange we are told Gordon didn’t know any names. Does he not read his own diary?.
For the names of the couple: who have to explain to the diary keeper how important it is they need to contact whoever so she can make judgements on who he sees. From a name, well we know one newspaper covered the story. This was hot reading

[jambo372]

Azrael 5
He didn't need to - she knew exactly what he meant.

[Loki]

Ian,

Just want to say that I agree with you completely - there's no real difference between these two proposed theories :

1. Psi exists, and anti-psi researchers can produce negative results because they interfere with an experiment's results via "negative vibes, man".

2. Psi doesn't exist, and pro-psi reserachers can produce positive results because they actively, or inadvertantly, make mistakes in protocol or result gathering.

Now, how do you propose to resolve the conflict?

(Edited to Add : I have a process for choosing between the two alternatives, and it doesn't rest on "because I intuitively have always known which one is more likely". Just want to hear if you have anything other than you instincts to guide you here Ian)

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by jambo372
Azrael 5
He didn't need to - she knew exactly what he meant.
Yes.He meant he was making up as he went along.;)

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by jambo372
Azrael 5
He didn't need to - she knew exactly what he meant.

This is a perfect example of confirmation bias.

She knew exactly what she thought he meant.

Notice the medium said nothing about graves. He never mentioned the number of candles. He never mentioned any time frame for candles, or whether they were gifts, or anything else. I can think of several times I have recieved candles as gifts, as can most people. This guess from the medium could also have fit any of the following:

An earlier housewarming gift of decorative candles, or something similar

Her placement of candles on any other grave of a relative that was close to the dead boy

Candles at a funeral service, church service, or placed on a grave

Candles at a wake or viewing

Candles used during an emergency, such as a major blackout

There are other possibilities as well. The medium did not spcify that she placed two candles on her son's grave, he just mentioned candles. The mother made the conenction herself, not the medium. Candles are a fairly common practice, especially during the viewing and funeral..especially among certain religious demoninations. I would hardly count this as impressive, or even noteworthy.

Now, if the medium had said "He thanks you for the two purple candles you put on his grave last Thyrsday night" then we might be on to something.

[Interesting Ian]

Huntsman,

You're a very very sick person. I thought that maybe you had changed your avatar so I clicked the reveal message. Indeed you have; now its worse.

Don't ever expect me to take you off ignore.

[Dragon]

I was only able to watch about half of it. Most of what I did see looked like cold reading.

Jambo, you said - Gordon Brown also gave an impressive reading to a couple who'd lost their son. He mentioned his full name - first, middle and surname, revealed what he done for a living and knew the mother had put 2 candles at his grave. It was the first time they met him and he asked no questions.
I think he got the middle name and a similar surname (perhaps someone who recorded this could confirm). The show is edited -how do you know he asked no questions? How do you know he had no previous knowledge of the couple? Just because he said so?
Azrael and Huntsman have covered the "candle" hit - classic cold reading.

I'll be at work next Wednesday - might bother to set the video but so far I'm not impressed.

Oh - welcome back Ian!

[Azrael 5]

Had no previous knowledge of the couple? Do me a favour.They had to make an appointmwnt with the dizzy old bat who ran the church,who was very selective who she gave appointments to.Plus the fact they had a newspaper cutting with them,and a film crew.Get with it!
As an aside I guessed who the pub landlord had lost and how(in his dads case)I didnt get suicide ,just a tradegy(which would probably do for me)in his sons case.As far as I know Im not a medium...more an XL,lol;)

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
As an aside I guessed who the pub landlord had lost and how(in his dads case)I didnt get suicide ,just a tradegy(which would probably do for me)in his sons case.As far as I know Im not a medium...more an XL,lol;) I thought it was his dad so just like the cold reader whose first guess was his mother I was wrong. I did pick up the woman was not the boys mother. When the cold reader made the fantastic insightful revelation that the boy was saying to her ‘Hello Mum’, she looked embarrassed and explained she was not the mother.

The cold reader then made the standard response. Oh yes, he knows that but he is saying he thinks of you as his mum and is now saying that ‘Hello Mum’

Fortunately the cold reader was blind because the look on the woman’s face was not the happy response that this puff piece should give. I suspect that the couple got together after the boys death and she had never met him.

One of the other cold readers used the same trick. I have your mother here. Zip. I say mother but I mean the characteristics of a mother, grand mother, a motherly nature zip. Ok she is here for someone else. I suppose it was time to call it a day on that guess, but I may have pushed further by saying. This motherly nature is true, deep inside her but she more often than not had difficulty in letting it show, that way you cover all bases and get a hit with any female.

Huntsman mentioned confirmation bias. The one that was cynically exploiting the vulnerable for his own gain. Sorry, I should narrow it down. The one that was cynically exploiting the vulnerable for his own gain with a dodgy hair cut, had a hit with the woman’s son or brother, gave a message that she should look after her family.

At least the cold reader and everyone listening would have thought she had lost a son or brother. As she said later however the connection was a friend of her sons.

[AlienX]

Hats off to the "blind medium" as it must be significantly harder to cold read.. probably why the failure was so bad.

The main problem i've got with Gordon Smith is there are clear examples of readings by him that are cold readings. I just don't get it how we let these people get away with such obvious examples.

Many people point out the fact that on rare occasions the mediums are very accurate and the rest of the time display all the characteristics of cold readers and are very vague. This doesn't make much sense if they do what they claim they do.

If a medium came along that never displayed instances of clear cold reading people would take notice.

I did note that on G Smiths website he heavily emphasises the comfort side of his "work". Also as said earlier GS asks for information prior to a reading (He says so himself on his website)

"How to get in touch If you have a question about a dead loved one or your personal situation, you can write to Gordon. The letter should be in your own handwriting and accompanied by a photograph of yourself and your loved one. We regret we cannot return photos or reply privately to letters. Send your letter to: The Psychic Barber, Daily Record, One Central Quay, Glasgow G3 8DA."(http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/share.html).

AX

[fsol]

The blind Irish woman gave vague comments ?
Did you see the private sitting she gave when she connected to that guy's dead son? Didn't look 'vague' to me.
She converted the guy into believing and he'd told her nothing and given her no clues.

I thought she was shameless. That was probably the most uncomfortable part of the show. She flailed around a bit getting things wrong, before finally settling on the son. It seemed like she assumed she was meant to be doing a reading for the woman, who giben her age would likely have been grieving her mother. Terrible.

I think it is a three part series, so after we don't see any ghosts next week, I hope they tear it all down in part three.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by AlienX
"How to get in touch If you have a question about a dead loved one....... Send your letter to: The Psychic Barber, Daily Record, One Central Quay, Glasgow G3 8DA."[/B] I noted in the show he said he didn't like to be called the Psychic Barber. Any suggestions for what he should be called ? Remember that swearing is not allowed on the board.

[TheBoyPaj]

I was quite annoyed at first, given the total lack of sceptical viewpoint (other than the weary sighs of the grievance counsellor).

But I watched it with my wife, who has far more of a "live and let live" attitude than I do. She was of the opinion that there is no harm in people having these beliefs, whether they are justified or not, and she approached it with few preconceived ideas. However, she was unimpressed with the performances on show and, when she saw the final couple with that poor woman who lives day to day looking forward to hearing another message "from her dead son", she had to admit that this woman is being victimised by mediums.

The show did a good job of showing up how desperate these people are for anything resembling proof, and how they can be convinced by some very uninspiring cold reading. But I would have liked that message made a little clearer.

Maybe in a future episode, but I don't hold out much hope.

[Temp3st]

Originally posted by Lothian
I noted in the show he said he didn't like to be called the Psychic Barber. Any suggestions for what he should be called ? Remember that swearing is not allowed on the board.

How about 'The Barber'?

[Oleron]

I was surprised to see Sharon Neill doing her UK tour on the program. Surprised because a number of years ago my wife and I went for a reading with her.

My wife had been going on for ages about how she'd heard about this amazing blind woman who was super-psychic. She'd heard about this lady from several work colleagues who all raved about her.

She wanted to go for a reading and challenged me to get one at the same time. I think her motive was to prove me wrong about psychics.

After much objection I agreed to do it. Anything for a quiet life!

When we arrived at Sharon's house she greeted us in an informal, friendly manner. We asked to be seen separately and Sharon agreed.

She 'read' my wife first and then myself.

In all my experience I can honestly say that I have never heard or seen a worse reading than I got that day!
She mentioned I was artistic -I'm not at all, in any way.
She said I had children- wrong.
She got in touch with my father and both grandfathers - odd because they were all still alive at that time.
She said I was planning a wedding - no, I was married.
She changed this to 'someone' was planning a wedding- actually no-one I knew was planning a wedding at that stage. She moved on.

On it went like this until I started feeling embarrassed for her and actually tried to GIVE her some information to ease the tension. Even then she managed to misinterpret what I'd offered! In the end she gave me some vague advice about decisions I should make in the near future - all completely irrelevant to my life. I thanked her and left.

In the car on the way home, my wife asked me what I thought. I told her, bluntly. She looked at me and told me that she felt exactly the same way! Her reading was an unmitigated disaster also!

I never went to see a psychic again and my wife never mentioned the subject again.

I see Sharon hasn't improved much....

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Oleron
I was surprised to see Sharon Neill doing her UK tour on the program. Surprised because a number of years ago my wife and I went for a reading with her.

My wife had been going on for ages about how she'd heard about this amazing blind woman who was super-psychic. She'd heard about this lady from several work colleagues who all raved about her.

She wanted to go for a reading and challenged me to get one at the same time. I think her motive was to prove me wrong about psychics.

After much objection I agreed to do it. Anything for a quiet life!

When we arrived at Sharon's house she greeted us in an informal, friendly manner. We asked to be seen separately and Sharon agreed.

She 'read' my wife first and then myself.

In all my experience I can honestly say that I have never heard or seen a worse reading than I got that day!
She mentioned I was artistic -I'm not at all, in any way.
She said I had children- wrong.
She got in touch with my father and both grandfathers - odd because they were all still alive at that time.
She said I was planning a wedding - no, I was married.
She changed this to 'someone' was planning a wedding- actually no-one I knew was planning a wedding at that stage. She moved on.

On it went like this until I started feeling embarrassed for her and actually tried to GIVE her some information to ease the tension. Even then she managed to misinterpret what I'd offered! In the end she gave me some vague advice about decisions I should make in the near future - all completely irrelevant to my life. I thanked her and left.

In the car on the way home, my wife asked me what I thought. I told her, bluntly. She looked at me and told me that she felt exactly the same way! Her reading was an unmitigated disaster also!

I never went to see a psychic again and my wife never mentioned the subject again.

I see Sharon hasn't improved much....

Nice anecdote :D

I was challenged a while back to arrange a reading with Sahron Neil as the other person was so impressed by her. They even had a recording of the session, but due to the highly detailed and personal information in the recording they were not prepared to provide a copy of the recording :rolleyes:

I said I was happy to visit Sharon if she happned to be performing near by to me and it wasn't going to cost me a fortune, and that I could video the reading, as yet the opportunity has not arisen.

Anyway - just wondering if you had recorded your sessions at all??

[Azrael 5]

I felt so sorry for the woman at the end,who was planning her next meeting with Stephen Holbrook-in the hope of a message from her son-that I may just go along to Otley town hall(about 8 miles from me) or whatever the venue was,in December and expose the flouncey git!With some burly mates,just in case! Lol

[Oleron]

Originally posted by Stitch

Anyway - just wondering if you had recorded your sessions at all??

I'm afraid not, it didn't occur to me at the time. :(

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Oleron
I'm afraid not, it didn't occur to me at the time. :(

< HomerSimpson >
Doh!
< / HomerSimpson >

[AlienX]

There have been many "Expose" shows on UK TV recently - from Manchester Airport security to the BNP etc. I'm suprised weve not seen any relating to Mediums yet.

Yet even when they are exposed I doub't it would make much difference (Remember when Uri Geller (not a medium but with geller i suppose he's claimed to be at some point) was caught red handed cheating by hidden cameras.. absolute classic, 100% caught with his hand well and truly in the cookie jar and crumbs all over his face.. yet he's still bumbling along with the same old rubbish).

We can argue all day if they do any good but the main point is they are profiting from what appears to be fraud. Also they are not liable for any damage they do - if they change it so they are liable then let them fire away as far as i'm concerned.

AX

[Azrael 5]

For a moment tonight I thought we were veering towards some skepticism.With some Vice President of Scottish Pyschical research hooking a medium to a blood pressure machine(?).Mediums have blood pressure! Shocking! But then she went on a ghost hunt and it fell by the wayside.Then there was a teenage lad who only read a book about the paranormal,and became possesed.But one argument with blind medium Sharon Neill and her spirit team later,and he was much better!! I expected better of Everyman,really.;) Even a local vicar voiced concerns about mediumship " Not knowing what you are getting into" *Shrugs*:(

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
For a moment tonight I thought we were veering towards some skepticism.With some Vice President of Scottish Pyschical research hooking a medium to a blood pressure machine(?).Mediums have blood pressure! Shocking! But then she went on a ghost hunt and it fell by the wayside.Then there was a teenage lad who only read a book about the paranormal,and became possesed.But one argument with blind medium Sharon Neill and her spirit team later,and he was much better!! I expected better of Everyman,really.;) Even a local vicar voiced concerns about mediumship " Not knowing what you are getting into" *Shrugs*:(

Why don't you read some serious books on the subject rather than watch stupid TV programmes?? :rolleyes: Do you have no interest in discovering the truth??

[Open Mind]

I watched the first 2 programs, Gordon Smith is not 'cold reading', the information is too accurate, he is either cheating ....... or genuinely doing something paranormal. I doubt selective TV editing would completely explain it either.

Either way more interesting than a medium deluding themselves, the rest on the program are awful :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
For a moment tonight I thought we were veering towards some skepticism.With some Vice President of Scottish Pyschical research hooking a medium to a blood pressure machine(?).Mediums have blood pressure! Shocking! But then she went on a ghost hunt and it fell by the wayside.

Did they check her armpit for a rubber ball?

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I watched the first 2 programs, Gordon Smith is not 'cold reading', the information is too accurate, he is either cheating ....... or genuinely doing something paranormal. I doubt selective TV editing would completely explain it either.

Either way more interesting than a medium deluding themselves, the rest on the program are awful :)
Both instances of Gordon Smith have been at the chusrch in London with parents who had to arrange their visit(give names etc.)both sets of parents had lost sons,in situations that had be carried in newspapers(last weeks couple even had the cutting with them)so I would definetly say hot reading.Even so last night he tried some cold reading-"Maggie,Margaret,Margherita?" and "Hes standing by a large rock" No response " I dont know where this is.." Neither did the spirit obviously,even though he was stood there! This is from memory,I have recorded it so will check,but its good enough to show he's still a fake.
;)

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But this research was carried out by Wiseman. Can these results (i.e non-positive) be repeated when they are carried out by non-Skeptics?

:D That is a fair point

Richard Wiseman (CSICOP fellow, sceptic ) - Marilyn Schiltz (open minded sceptic) did the same 'sense of being watched trial', same format, same people. Wiseman got no PSI evidence, Schiltz did. Trial repeated same result.

Back to the recent trial
from Guardian

said this was the best test of the abilities of mediums carried out so far.

That is a very bold claim :o I must check it out.

[andycal]

I watched a bit of this nonsense last night (Wednesdays are a trial on the remote what with History of British Isles and Grand Designs on at the same time!) and if they are leading up to a big reveal in the thrid episode, it'll be very embarrasing for everyone involved.

The program seems to hover between a serious documentary and a spoof - anyone notice if Dom Jolly is on the production team?

I mean, last night they went into an attic and we saw some nutter pull out a thermometer (digital, obviously, good job ghosts aren't analogue) and suddenly the temperature dropped!!

Formula therefore :

Temperature in open, draughty unheated attic = cooler than in this guys pocket therefore ghosts must be abroad!

The same nut case proceeded to take pictures of the timbers, the room, the roof and anything else to make himself look busy whilst some woman talked gibberish to the interviewer.

It's hard to know where it's going...

[Interesting Ian]

If it's so awful (which I agree), why are people watching it then? To bolster their Skepticism?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If it's so awful (which I agree), why are people watching it then? To bolster their Skepticism?

Because believers - such as yourself - need the fix. And they lack the courage to see the world as it really is.

[andycal]

If it's so awful (which I agree), why are people watching it then? To bolster their Skepticism?

You've gotta keep abreast of what's going on. For example, I just know that down the pub on Friday night, someone is going to say "Wow did you see that guy who could talk to the dead and stuff, it waz grate" etc.

Like when ITV had Roger Moore talking about how the KGB used ghosts for spying - one of my friends was convinced it was true - I had to drag him from the dark side.

By the way, as an aside to this, I have had some success in getting one friend in particular to think about what he's told. He's now definately more skeptical than he used to be and questions stuff rather than accepting it just because "the fat bloke down the pub said so".

Chalk one up for the good guys...

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Oleron
In all my experience I can honestly say that I have never heard or seen a worse reading than I got that day!
She mentioned I was artistic -I'm not at all, in any way.
She said I had children- wrong.
She got in touch with my father and both grandfathers - odd because they were all still alive at that time.
She said I was planning a wedding - no, I was married.
She changed this to 'someone' was planning a wedding- actually no-one I knew was planning a wedding at that stage. She moved on.
But you see, this is the famous experimenter effect. Mediums lose their powers around smart people.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If it's so awful (which I agree), why are people watching it then? To bolster their Skepticism?
Because the posters on this thread lack psychic powers, they didn't know in advance how rubbish it was going to be.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why don't you read some serious books on the subject rather than watch stupid TV programmes?? :rolleyes: Do you have no interest in discovering the truth??
Quite so. If I want to discover the truth about mediums, actually watching them strut their stuff is entirely ineffective. Instead, I should refuse to watch them perform, and read a book about the paranormal....

[Azrael 5]

To quote the numptys on Ghosts UK,Dr Adequate "Well said." Which reminds me...it took them a couple of days but this morning someone finally wrote "He(Randi)doesnt have the money" We should open a sweepstake up on length of time before token comments are made.Im going back to annoy them now...

[Ashles]

Some of them are real morons on that site. I have made so far 2 posts, and have been accused of "sinking to sceptic's level".

I haven't been rude or abusive to anyone, I merely defended the actions of someone having severe doubts about the legitimacy of certain mediums.

Obviously I committed some form of thought crime by not confirming or by having a different opinion.

I await my imminent ban.

[Azrael 5]

You mentioned Soham,Ashles thats enough to get you baned over there.

[patnray]

Originally posted by Loki
Ian,

Just want to say that I agree with you completely - there's no real difference between these two proposed theories :

1. Psi exists, and anti-psi researchers can produce negative results because they interfere with an experiment's results via "negative vibes, man".

2. Psi doesn't exist, and pro-psi reserachers can produce positive results because they actively, or inadvertantly, make mistakes in protocol or result gathering.

Now, how do you propose to resolve the conflict?

(Edited to Add : I have a process for choosing between the two alternatives, and it doesn't rest on "because I intuitively have always known which one is more likely". Just want to hear if you have anything other than you instincts to guide you here Ian)

If 'skeptical blocking' exists it ought to be measurable (unless there is no limit to this power, but in that case no psychic phenomina would be possible as long as there was at least one skeptic alive...). The effect should wane as the skeptic is moved further and further from the test, somewhat analagous to a dose/response curve for determining if a new drug is truely responsible for an observed effect. It is surprising, given how often 'skeptical blocking' is touted as an excuse for failures, that no one has attempted these measurements. If it exists, it must be one of the most repeatable and reliable of all psychic phenomina....

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by patnray
If it exists, it must be one of the most repeatable and reliable of all psychic phenomina....
Nice.

It can't apply as an excuse to those tests where the JREF does a baseline test: e.g. letting a water dowser try the first time when s/he knows where the water is, the second when s/he doesn't. The ambient levels of scepticism about water dowsing are equal in both cases: the only difference is that in the second case, the dowser would need to be able to dowse.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If it's so awful (which I agree), why are people watching it then? To bolster their Skepticism?

I watch it to see if the subject it treated seriously or just made a mockery off. Why have useless non psychic training to be psychics? (I don’t want to watch people learn the violin either :) ) Singing on buses? (to make them look idiots ….. even if they are :) ). A Christian who thinks he is possessed goes for help from a psychic who he thinks she is doing something evil? (Doesn’t make sense!) . A psychic dancing to Marilyn Monroe when hoovering the floor? :D And so on. Also the editing of the program is pathetic.

The program would be better 20 minutes long, leave Gordon Smith (remove the other garbage) at least he is doing something interesting, either genuine or hot reading. Instead of just saying Gordon Smith doesn't know the recipient of his psychic demonstrations, actually make sure and show he doesn't on program.

And preferably any test controlled by any open minded scientist (i.e. not a CSICOP psychologist ;)

[Open Mind]

Speaking of CSICOP psychologists, Richard Wise?man has been playing at being a scientist again. His latest trial tested involved 5 psychics with 5 people and he summed up …


"These are probably the most rigorous experiments that have been done in this field , and they show that the mediums could not contact the spirits and give accurate readings under controlled conditions," Richard Wiseman, of the University of Hertfordshire, told the paper


The ‘most rigorous’ appears to have involved using only 5 psychics giving only 5 messages to only 5 people (25 in total?) :rolleyes:

How long did that take? Two hours? I doubt a whole day? :D Rigorous?.

He says the mediums comments were ‘recorded, jumbled up and then played back in random order, none of the sitters recognized their own readings Why did he jumble up the order of the comments? Has he tried that with any psychology book and tested if anyone could understand it? Is this guy a CSICOPmedian? :D

But as he states again in another newspaper ’ In my opinion this was the best controlled test so far’. Has he read the history of psychical research to any degree? Or has he only read other psychologists?

The best? Even the Amateur Scottish Society for Psychical Research (using Gordon Smith and 12 other psychics) conducted a much more in depth, longer trials. Let’s compare this ‘amateur’ test with Richard Wiseman

Wiseman - 5 psychics
Amateurs - 13 psychics
Wiseman - fixed 5 people receiving messages
Amateurs - Choice of 30 people with random seat numbers receiving messages
Wiseman - No visual contact between psychic and recipient
Amateurs - No visual contact between psychic and recipient
Wiseman – Recipient doesn’t respond to psychic .
Amateurs - Recipient doesn’t respond to psychic .
Wiseman -Recipient does not know he is the recipient.
Amateurs - Recipient does not know he is the recipient.
Wiseman – So far unknown how recipient were chosen
Amateurs – Double blind, no one knows actual recipient
Wiseman - trial repeated ? It doesn't appear so
Amateurs - Yes trial repeated.

Wiseman conclusion – No evidence, it doesn't exist.
Amateurs – strong evidence for PSI

Wiseman methodology errors include...
-No repeat of trial, it appears (from his comments) he did the trial only once.
-Could be 5 useless ‘professional’ psychics (because they earn money proves nothing).
-Low number of recipients, causing host of potential errors, (e.g. 5 overly skeptical or even 5 plain idiot gullibles) would produce no evidence too. More importantly PSI is generally a weak ability (even if psychics ego thinks otherwise)
-Wiseman jumbling statements order for what purpose? (other than to make incoherent?)

Somebody out there needs to set up a 'Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of Psychologists' ;)

[Azrael 5]

Could you post a link to the results of the Scottish amateurs please.Expecting unbiased critical analysis of mediums on TV is like getting a medium to admit they're fake:it just doesnt happen.
Lets see Gordon Smith do a impromptu reading,thats suddenly ,without warning thrust upon him.Then we will see how much of the oothers was hot reading(most of it).;)

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Open Mind
He says the mediums comments were ‘recorded, jumbled up and then played back in random order, none of the sitters recognized their own readings Why did he jumble up the order of the comments? Has he tried that with any psychology book and tested if anyone could understand it? Is this guy a CSICOPmedian? :D


I think perhaps you do understand, but pretend not to.

He recorded the mediums' readings for 5 people, then played them back in random order. As in person 4, then person 2, then person 1 etc.

Not as in jumbling up the sentences. :rolleyes:

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I think perhaps you do understand, but pretend not to.

He recorded the mediums' readings for 5 people, then played them back in random order. As in person 4, then person 2, then person 1 etc.

Not as in jumbling up the sentences. :rolleyes:

Yeah I think you are right :) but he did say what I said, at least you cannot accuse me of 'making the message fit' ;)

Cheers :)

Bill

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Could you post a link to the results of the Scottish amateurs please.

I never read it on the internet but I will see if I can track down a internet link.

Also it might have been wrong of me to have said 'amateurs' , seemingly the Scottish Society for Psychical Research is an 'amateur' group however the test was actually done by a Professor Archie Roy and a Tricia Robertson who run it, rather than the members, slight difference.

Later,

Bill

[Azrael 5]

The series hasnt finished yet Stephen Holbrook already has "As seen on BBC2's Everyman" quoted on his tour date ad(seen in my local paper)So a shattering expose in ep3 is obviously off the agenda!;)

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Also it might have been wrong of me to have said 'amateurs' , seemingly the Scottish Society for Psychical Research is an 'amateur' group however the test was actually done by a Professor Archie Roy and a Tricia Robertson who run it, rather than the members, slight difference. Err, not really,

They are amateurs (albeit interested amateurs)

Professor Archie Roy is a Professor of Astronomy and his psychic work is outside his work there.

He is however, 'The founder of the Scottish Society for Psychical Research'- and is I understand still a Vice President.


Tricia Robertson is Vice President of the Scottish Society for Psychical Research

But lets not use that to downplay their experiments because as they say.

I will just say that even in triple (arguably quadruple) blind conditions the intended recipients’ acceptance levels continued to be higher than non- recipients Quadruple blind ! How can anyone argue? And if the procedures don’t convince you the statitstics will

Professor Roy says that highly accurate information was given and that the probability that it was due to chance was one in a hundred million million million

That it for those struggling with the millions. 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000.

And for those still questioning

Our results incorporate all of the mediums who were used; if we had only given the results from the “superstars� the odds against chance would have been even greater. No amendments were made to any data sheets after the experimental sessions ended, even if someone “remembered� something as being correct after they had given a NO response – it remained as a NO.

Well that is reassuring. I presume they be splitting the £1,000,000 reward ?

Some reading while 'Open Mind' tracks his links.

http://www.sspr.org.uk/Search.html
http://www.sspr.org.uk/Articles.html
http://www.rnw.nl/special/en/html/030221medium.html
http://www.nsac.org/newsletter/2003/2003-06-jun.htm

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lothian
Quadruple blind ! How can anyone argue?

It means that nobody knows what anyone is doing! :D

.....but I'd still like to know what they think it means...

Originally posted by Lothian
That it for those struggling with the millions. 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Always question nice, even numbers like that. How on Earth did they calculate that?

[CFLarsen]

Two articles about Robertson/Roy:

Testing a Non-Existent Claim (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/robertsonroy1.htm)

A Better Protocol, At Last? (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/robertsonroy2.htm)

[Azrael 5]

Ive posted these few snippets from Seance nonsense (http://www.thepsychictimes.com/articles/seance.htm) as they are so inviting to criticism its unbeliavable
Soon two trumpets were flying around up to about 8ft (2.4m) from the medium who was located behind a curtain in a corner of the room. This type of phenomena does not provide direct evidence of Survival, but does show just how flexible and adaptable ectoplasm is. And I don't know how anyone other than our Spirit friends could so accurately propel trumpets rapidly around the room in the dark without hitting anything

In the dark..and behind a curtain.Amazing!
Although we were sitting in the dark, we could follow the movement of the trumpets by the clearly visible luminous bands around them. Later on our only other visible evidence came when, what we were told was a partly materialised form, produced light and moved around the room. This

Believe everything "they're told" obviously!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Why don't you read some serious books on the subject rather than watch stupid TV programmes?? Do you have no interest in discovering the truth??
Absolutely! I recommend:


The Medium and the Scientist, Trevor Hall
The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading, Ian Rowland
The Psychic Mafia, Lamar Keene
The Psychology of the Psychic, David Marks


~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So if this skeptical interference thing is real, I presume psi researchers are going to amend their protocols to interview everyone in sight after the trials are over: the subjects, researchers, nearby grad students, research staff, janitors, everyone's significant others, etc. Then they will compute up an "interference factor" for each trial and see if it correlates to the results of the trial. We should see some interesting results from this.

Edited to add: And if the skeptical interference can be retroactive, they should also interview everyone in the future who reads their paper.

~~ Paul

[Loki]

Paul,

And if the skeptical interference can be retroactive, they should also interview everyone in the future who reads their paper.
You are closer to the truth here than you realise! In fact, you have the concept right, but the power wrong - it is psychic power that is retroactive. There are no psychics in the 21st century - when we see bursts of psychic 'ability' around us today this is nothing more than a temporal feedback from the great psychic masters of the 24th century. These mental giants use their awesome powers to correct the problems of the 24th century Earth (you know - cleaning up pollution, straightening out all that bent cutlery). A direct side effect of all this psychic exertion is a 'timeslip' of quantamical ectoplasm, which manifests as a high frequency vortex. The net result - sudden, random manifestations in the 21st century that come and go with no apparent reason.

[Azrael 5]

Last episode tonight. Any chance of a Scooby Doo ending?;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Last episode tonight. Any chance of a Scooby Doo ending?;)

Oh yeah {yawn}, I might as well watch it I suppose. It's on now is it? ie 9 pm?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Last episode tonight. Any chance of a Scooby Doo ending?;)
"And I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those pesky facts!"

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Oh yeah {yawn}, I might as well watch it I suppose. It's on now is it? ie 9 pm?

Hmmm . .much better than I thought. So much for the cold reading hypothesis.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Hmmm . .much better than I thought. So much for the cold reading hypothesis.
even Stevie Wonder wouldnt have been fooled by the amauteurish display tonight.Still Craig Parker stating "If anyone caught me cheating Id leave mediumship" is asking for trouble.That poor young guy who was left floundering around the audience looking for someone to "take a doormat..someone's moved a doormat" Amazing,Ian I agree.Amazing no-one sat there couldnt see through it! A spirit guide called brown bear! Is that the best he could do? Seems American audiences are more gullible than any other on the planet.Why would that black woman's mother decide to come through to a scottish medium,when she lived in San Fransisco? A bit fussy is she? American mediums not good enough fo rher vague messages?;)

[Ralfy]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
even Stevie Wonder wouldnt have been fooled by the amauteurish display tonight.Still Craig Parker stating "If anyone caught me cheating Id leave mediumship" is asking for trouble.

From what i have seen on the program (I missed most of program 2) Craig Parker is cold reading, so is he actually, in his own mind, cheating, whereas Gordon Smith is either hot reading (cheating) or the most convincing medium/showman I've ever seen (selective editing withstanding).

If Gordon is hot reading, I can see how he would have set it up with the British couples and the American black woman, but in an audience of over 1000, wouldn't this be a lot more difficult?

I had expected this thread to be alive with debate and critiques of each of Gordon's readings. I am interested in hearing some skeptical explanations for his accuracy.

I suppose there would be no chance of getting Gordon to apply for the Challenge. If tonight's program was anything to go by he stands to make far in excess of one million dollars in the U.S.

[Ashles]

The young medium (Danny was it?) was astonishingly bad. I could barely watch the TV in a kind of watching David Brent embarass himself kind of way.
Even the other mediums were starting to look a little embarassed.

It seemed like his mentor (the Doris Day, ahem, lookalike) wasn't entirely convinced by him when she did her little impromptu test beforehand.

Gordon Smith, on the other hand, was almost certainly not cold reading. His first reading with the woman looking to talk to her mother was extremely bad all the way through, but finished with a big hit with the woman's father.
He described a bang and felt like he was holding a gun and, indeed, the woman's father had been shot outside a building oppisite.
Two things:
1) The woman specifically wanted to contact her mother and felt that her mother had arranged all of this to speak to her. This did not happen at all
2) If you knew someone was coming to you for a reading then finding out that their father had been publicly shot would not be particularly hard to do

He was very accurate indeed in the large reading session. This could not realistically have been cold reading.

I know Ian has his 'rolls eyes' icon all ready, but I find it strange that, when mediumship is so hit and miss, Gordon was lucky enough to get such an extremely good reading to start the session with. Similarly it's very convenient that he managed to end the previous reading with such a strong hit. Timing is everything.

The BBC also cunningly managed to get all the mediums to admit their desires to be famous.

So all in all, sceptics, still sceptics, believers still believers. Any other result... now that would have been something.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
That poor young guy who was left floundering around the audience looking for someone to "take a doormat..someone's moved a doormat"


He was left floundering, until he got the right person. Then everything fit. It seemed unlikely to me to be cold reading.

[Ralfy]

Originally posted by Ashles
So all in all, sceptics, still sceptics, believers still believers. Any other result... now that would have been something.

As well as the minority of skeptics and believers watching this program, there will be a large number of viewers who are neither, who, after seeing this very one-sided series of 3 seperate 1 hour programs, will be much more likely to think there is something to this life after death thing after all.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles


Gordon Smith, on the other hand, was almost certainly not cold reading. His first reading with the woman looking to talk to her mother was extremely bad all the way through,



No, just not as convincing as his normal performances. It could have conceivably been cold reading, but it was somewhat unlikely.

[Ralfy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
He was left floundering, until he got the right person. Then everything fit. It seemed unlikely to me to be cold reading.

Were you watching the same program???

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ralfy
As well as the minority of skeptics and believers watching this program, there will be a large number of viewers who are neither, who, after seeing this very one-sided series of 3 seperate 1 hour programs, will be much more likely to think there is something to this life after death thing after all.

How was it one sided?

[Ralfy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How was it one sided?

As I have already mentioned I only saw the first and third episodes in full with a bit of episode 2 in passing, but overall I found it very one-sided. For example there was no mention of how the same results could be achieved by either hot or cold reading, no skeptical counter arguments and the readings with Gordon were edited to appear as if he had no prior knowledge of who he was meeting, whereas it is more than likely that he had names of all the sitters hours if not days in advance (remember this was a TV programme with a team of researchers and camera crew (not that I am suggesting that Gordon got any info directly from them)).

[Ashles]

No, just not as convincing as his normal performances. It could have conceivably been cold reading, but it was somewhat unlikely.
Two men are mentioned from different generations and so are the good old fashioned 'chest problems'. Alison nods, looks slightly confused and says "I think so". Do anyone know anyone this reading wouldn't apply to?

He (which he?) passed on close to an anniversary, birthday or special occasion. Again Alison says she thinks so but isn't sure.
He then changes to mother (well he actually says "somebody is shouting mother" which sounds a bit odd) but Alison looks a bit more confident here. It is, after all, why she has come.

Gordon then claims this new woman has barged the other two men aside because they weren't communicating well enough. So, you see, it's actually THEIR fault he isn't getting anything relevant.

He talks about hair being slicked back and then changes it to a photograph of this woman with slicked back hair. Alison just looks confused now.

There follow some vague generalities and luckily the mystery woman says Alison is doing fine and going to be fine. So that's nice. Alison is nodding and looking confused at the same time.

He has a shot at Elizabeth, "maybe even going back a generation". A flat out miss. Alison doesn't know who this might be. He tries again with the name 'Bess' saying, rather oddly "When I was saying Elizabeth I saw the name Bess". So, er, why didn't he say 'Bess' then? Anyway this doesn't matter as Alison has to say it's just not a name she recognises.

Gordon says he is confused because there are "Just so many people coming through". Obviously complete random strangers called Elizabeth by the sounds of it.
Then he goes into his 'bang' story which he is really certain of. This, turns out to be the real hit as I've mentioned above.

Up until that point his reading was pretty much very bad indeed.

How, exactly was cold reading "unlikely" given this performance?

[Interesting Ian]

Had a search for "psychic barber" and "hot reading" on Google web search, google group search, and copernic forum search. A complete blank on all 3. I feel this is going to be a difficult one to establish!

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
He was left floundering, until he got the right person. Then everything fit. It seemed unlikely to me to be cold reading.
Darren"Ive got a Jane..sorry a Jennifer or a jessica"
The spirits dont know what their names are? Cant be a "bad phone line" scenario as the names are nothing alike.
"Problems with wine..and a car" A drunk driver,perhaps?
Ian the guy wasnt even cold reading,he was just mumbling any old rubbish-and thats the edited version I fear!
Also I must email Craig Parker and inform him -by his own standards-he must quit the day job!
I noticed with the readings in the spiritualist church in London,we got very little footage-what we did see had the sound dipped,and voiceover added.
With Alison it was all cold reading,I think the thing with the gun was just a bit of luck;he didnt say the father had been shot,or even the father's name come to think of it,but I think he was fidhing for a suicide with his comments " Its like I have a gun here in my hand"
Maybe if it was hot reading he was being sensitive in not giving too many details.The Amkerican woman and daughter in the hall was hot reading;he was almost reading from notes in his head!
My opinion anyway!;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Azrael 5

Maybe if it was hot reading he was being sensitive in not giving too many details.The Amkerican woman and daughter in the hall was hot reading;he was almost reading from notes in his head!
My opinion anyway!;) [/B]

I'm not at all interested in your opinion, or any other "skeptic". Your minds are already all made up. Same goes for uncritical believers.

I sort of watched a little bit last week whilst doing something else, and thought " yeah probably hot reading". Not I'm not so sure . . . but certainly at this stage I would still consider it a good possibility.

That's why I was doing a search on the Net to see if I could dig up some information and also read other peoples' opinions who adopt a more rational approach than Skeptics and uncritical believers.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm not at all interested in your opinion, or any other "skeptic". Your minds are already all made up. Same goes for uncritical believers.

Riiiiiight... that's why you've been posting here for 2.5 years: because you don't care what we think. Makes sense...

Can I get a Lanys award here please?

[Marian]

http://eqscreenshot.homestead.com/files/LanysDontCare.jpg

[Open Mind]

Gordon Smith's one to one was better in previous 2 programs, this time I was unimpressed with his one to one reading with american woman, until the 'bang' and 'gun' comment, that was more interesting. The rest could be obtained by cold reading. His performance in front of american audience was again better than cold reading (or perhaps more edited)

I have seen Gordon Smith perform live twice in the past, on the first occasion in a hall of 200 appoximately he again was significantly beating 'cold reading' to about 6 or 7 who received messages. On the second occasion I saw him, it wasn't as good, not necessrily wrong, just less names and detail for the onlooker to make judgments upon.

I'm completely unimpressed by the other psychics on this TV program :D I do not wish to be unkind but the husband and wife team seem to lack the degree of self analysis to be good at anything. I suspect it's a business, ego trip for them.

I've seen better than Gordon Smith, one called 'Gordon Higgiinson' (now dead, if there is such a thing ;) ) he gave me my surname and street address ('hot reading' would have required a intensive prior research and cunning....... but theoretically possible I suppose)

I've seen approxiamately 100 psychics at work, most were varying degrees of useless :D However, I'd say only about 2 or 3 were doing something very interesting and significantly better than cold reading possiblilities. That is another reason why Richard Wiseman's test of only 5 'professional' psychics is flawed, if the SNU (Spiritualist National Union) chose them frankly their idea of a good psychic is one who gives a nice philosophy chat, lovely prayer, comfort messages, a finishing off with a hymn, tea and a scone ;) Evidence is not the SNU's main priority. It's a religious get together, not psychical research.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
Riiiiiight... that's why you've been posting here for 2.5 years: because you don't care what we think. Makes sense...



What? Do you imagine that I do?? LOL

OK OK . .I used to. I was curious as to why skeptics believed what they did. That's why I first came on here (April 2002). That was a looonnng time ago now. Now I know why they believe what they do. They're just hapless unthinking puppets of the prevailing Zeitgeist.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I was curious as to why skeptics believed what they did. That's why I first came on here (April 2002). That was a looonnng time ago now. Now I know why they believe what they do. They're just hapless unthinking puppets of the prevailing Zeitgeist.

Unthinking puppets? As opposed to the radical free thinker you are whose point of view (life after death, etc.) is held by the overwhelming majority of the world? Did "because God allows it" require a great deal of intellectual effort on your part to construct, or was it handed down to you from thousands of years in the past for you to swallow unquestioningly? I only see one puppet here, and he's pulled by the strings of his culture, ego, and DNA to the same conclusions almost everyone else is. Then he thinks he’s the free thinking intellectual. Amazing.

Ian, the only "hapless unthinking puppet of the prevailing Zeitgeist" here is you.

Look, there are only a few possibilities here. Skeptics demand a burden of evidence in accord with the methods of science. Now, you might be ill equipped to meet that burden because of unfamiliarity with that method, in which case you should probably stop posting and start familiarizing yourself with it right away. You'll have a better chance of reaching your audience in way that will captivate and convince them when you're speaking the same language they are. Another possibility is that you're right! Skeptics are "hapless unthinking puppets of the prevailing Zeitgeist", in which case you can't reach them because they're closed off to the prospects you argue for. In that case it's hopeless and you should probably stop trying.

Either way you can stop posting now.

[CFLarsen]

"God allows it"....yeah, that was a classic... That really showed the intellectual depth of Ian's philosophy.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm not at all interested in your opinion, or any other "skeptic". Your minds are already all made up. Same goes for uncritical believers.

Your quote above was posted at 10-13-2004 08:05 PM.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Then please cease contributing to this thread. There are other people who are interested in communicating with me.
10-13-2004 05:49 PM (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870634159#post1870634159)


So, you are only looking for believers to communicate with who already agree with you?

[Ralfy]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
With Alison it was all cold reading,I think the thing with the gun was just a bit of luck;he didnt say the father had been shot,or even the father's name come to think of it,but I think he was fidhing for a suicide with his comments " Its like I have a gun here in my hand"

Where was Gordon when he read for Alison? - San Francisco.
What did Alison look like? - A black woman in her 20s or 30s.
Who came through first? - 2 men, 1 young, 1 old.
How did one of them die? - BANG!, I see a gun to the head.

Maybe Gordon has been listening to too much West Coast rap music.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
OK OK . .I used to. I was curious as to why skeptics believed what they did. That's why I first came on here (April 2002). That was a looonnng time ago now. Now I know why they believe what they do. They're just hapless unthinking puppets of the prevailing Zeitgeist.
You had me at "hapless unthinking puppets".
:dl:
Interesting Ian, you've just been watching "the prevailing Zeitgeist". And you're the only one here who was impressed.

[davidsmith73]

I think there are three types of explanation for these mediums

A- they are deliberately and knowingly cheating - eg, cold or hot reading -
B- They are unkowingly cheating, deceiving themselves - eg, cold reading
C- they have a genuine psi ability

I think it should be noted that a particular medium is not necessarily exclusively one of the above categories. I think some mediums may be C but also have a healthy dose of B in there too. This may cloud the issue of whether its possible to tell if any of these mediums are genuine, just by observing the reading sessions. For example, it may be possible to spot that Gordan Smith was using cold reading with the American woman. If we assume he was unwittingly doing so, this doesn't mean that a genuine ability was not also at work underneath this cold reading, for example when he claimed he heard a loud bang in his head.

Also, it irritates me when a medium or psychic, who may be part genuine, insists that they know everything there is to know about their ability. Mediums seem always to think that their ability must be due to some kind of "spirit world". There was a intriguing bit in the program where a young girl approached Gordan Smith and told him that she saw visions of people in her house (or something to that effect). Gordan's confident reply was that they were "spirit guides".

Originally posted by Open Mind

I'm completely unimpressed by the other psychics on this TV program :D I do not wish to be unkind but the husband and wife team seem to lack the degree of self analysis to be good at anything. I suspect it's a business, ego trip for them.


I agree with you there. Its a terrible shame that the whole subject of the "paranormal" is plagued by frauds and poor, self deluded individuals. I think that underneath this thick layer of self promoting, money making clap-trap is a small number of genuine cases worthy of serious and scientific attention.


I've seen approxiamately 100 psychics at work, most were varying degrees of useless :D However, I'd say only about 2 or 3 were doing something very interesting and significantly better than cold reading possiblilities. That is another reason why Richard Wiseman's test of only 5 'professional' psychics is flawed, if the SNU (Spiritualist National Union) chose them frankly their idea of a good psychic is one who gives a nice philosophy chat, lovely prayer, comfort messages, a finishing off with a hymn, tea and a scone ;) Evidence is not the SNU's main priority. It's a religious get together, not psychical research.

Good point. I wonder how long and careful the selection was for Wiseman's experiment. You have to search through the frauds and self deluded unfortunately.

[Azrael 5]

I've seen better than Gordon Smith, one called 'Gordon Higgiinson' (now dead, if there is such a thing ) he gave me my surname and street address ('hot reading' would have required a intensive prior research and cunning....... but theoretically possible I suppose)
Are these "facts" on tape Open MInd or simply anecdotal? also condider this in the case of any medium who does shows-they have 'fans' people will write to them asking them to help contact such and such,telling the medium they are coming to see them at the show in London(example).Or see him beforehand and mention things they are hoping to hear.Therefore he can mix hot reading with cold.He doesnt posess any paranormal abilities that I have seen-but edited TV doesnt help.;)
As previously mention in my earlier post,he didnt get Alison's parents names-despite plumping for Elizabeth/Bess.;)

[Ersby]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I've seen approxiamately 100 psychics at work, most were varying degrees of useless :D However, I'd say only about 2 or 3 were doing something very interesting and significantly better than cold reading possiblilities.

But how many readings would you have to hear before something significant came up merely by chance alone? You're suggesting that 1 in 33 are any good. I'd suggest that by guesswork alone, 1 in 10 would give you something "significant".

[TheBoyPaj]

The numbers would seem to point in that direction, yes.

Even if I took a way out guess, like "I see a man who has lost a limb in a farming accident", I wonder how many theatre audiences I would have to try before someone jumped up and whooped?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
The numbers would seem to point in that direction, yes.

Even if I took a way out guess, like "I see a man who has lost a limb in a farming accident", I wonder how many theatre audiences I would have to try before someone jumped up and whooped?

That depends on whether the limb was a leg or not. :p

[Azrael 5]

I thought the spirit paintings were rather interesting.No brushes or paint! Or canvas! But we were happy!
Sorry.There are a couple of links on google about the bang sisters(apparent pioneers of this)and spirit painting.anyone know of any modern instances of this.Rolf Harris on whiskey doesnt count,lol!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
Unthinking puppets? As opposed to the radical free thinker you are whose point of view (life after death, etc.) is held by the overwhelming majority of the world?



I do not allow that to effect me. On the vast majority of issues I am in a distinct minority. Capital punishment, taxation, drugs, education, ethical behaviour etc etc. Moreover, it seems most people that I encounter definitely do not believe in "life after death". The ones that do appear to believe in a very shallow sense, so far as I can establish.


Did "because God allows it" require a great deal of intellectual effort on your part to construct, or was it handed down to you from thousands of years in the past for you to swallow unquestioningly? I only see one puppet here, and he's pulled by the strings of his culture, ego, and DNA to the same conclusions almost everyone else is. Then he thinks he’s the free thinking intellectual. Amazing.


{shakes head sadly}



Ian, the only "hapless unthinking puppet of the prevailing Zeitgeist" here is you.

Look, there are only a few possibilities here. Skeptics demand a burden of evidence in accord with the methods of science.



Let's skip the nonsense shall we. Skeptics already "know" what the world is like. Nothing will convince them. Not science, not anything. They are immune to evidence and reason.



Now, you might be ill equipped to meet that burden because of unfamiliarity with that method, in which case you should probably stop posting and start familiarizing yourself with it right away. You'll have a better chance of reaching your audience in way that will captivate and convince them when you're speaking the same language they are. Another possibility is that you're right! Skeptics are "hapless unthinking puppets of the prevailing Zeitgeist", in which case you can't reach them because they're closed off to the prospects you argue for. In that case it's hopeless and you should probably stop trying.

Either way you can stop posting now.

It seems that you're the only poster that wants me to stop posting. I have yet to hear anyone else express that desire.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"God allows it"....yeah, that was a classic... That really showed the intellectual depth of Ian's philosophy.

Huh?? In what context did I say this??

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh?? In what context did I say this??

On PalTalk. Direct quote, Ian.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It seems that you're the only poster that wants me to stop posting. I have yet to hear anyone else express that desire.

The JREF boards would not be the same without II, that's for sure.

Edited because I goofed!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
On PalTalk. Direct quote, Ian.

God allows what? I can't begin to discuss this unless I know what the conversation was.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
God allows what? I can't begin to discuss this unless I know what the conversation was.

......you can't remember what happened on PalTalk??

Are you serious?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
......you can't remember what happened on PalTalk??

Are you serious?

I certainly remember what happened on Paltalk, and I vaguely remember saying that. I can't remember specifically what question was addressed to me though that elicited that response. But one thing I am overwhelmingly confident of is that it does not demonstate in the remotest sense any deficiency on my part of my philosophical ability.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I certainly remember what happened on Paltalk, and I vaguely remember saying that. I can't remember specifically what question was addressed to me though that elicited that response. But one thing I am overwhelmingly confident of is that it does not demonstate in the remotest sense any deficiency on my part of my philosophical ability.

I asked you how the non-physical can affect the physical world. When pressed you said "because God allows it."

You also admitted that your philosophical ability granted you no ability to actually answer questions. Why do you insist on adhering so religiously to a system that is powerless to discern fact from fiction? Please stop. Your philosophy is worthless and no one here is interested in it or will be swayed by the arguments you make from it. Learn some science so you can stop wasting our time.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
{shakes head sadly}

Once again, instead of addressing the words you post a useless exclimation. You're a complete waste of time, Ian.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's skip the nonsense shall we. Skeptics already "know" what the world is like. Nothing will convince them. Not science, not anything. They are immune to evidence and reason.

Then you can leave now. Bye!

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's skip the nonsense shall we. Skeptics already "know" what the world is like. Nothing will convince them. Not science, not anything. They are immune to evidence and reason.
So they would refuse to believe in quantum theory, relativity, evolution, etc? Who are these idiots? And why do you refer to them as skeptics?

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's skip the nonsense shall we. Skeptics already "know" what the world is like. Nothing will convince them. Not science, not anything. They are immune to evidence and reason.

Odd...I seem to recall someone else making the statement that they have just "always known" how the world works, and that their philosophy was right...

I don't think that person was a sceptic, or a skeptic...hmmmm, my memory seems to be fading, who could that have been?

:con2:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


Then you can leave now. Bye! [/B]

I should leave because one solitary person wants me to leave? :rolleyes:

If you do not like my posts, then do not respond to them. Indeed don't read them.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I should leave because one solitary person wants me to leave? :rolleyes:

If you do not like my posts, then do not respond to them. Indeed don't read them.

You should at least try reading my posts before completely mischaracterizing them.

You should leave because either you can't reach us because we're closed minded or you can't reach us because you're not equipped to do so (just between you and me, it's the second one).

Either way, you can quit wasting everyone’s time. Please let me know what you don't understand.

[CFLarsen]

Ian,

You clearly cannot prove anything with philosophy. You have admitted this. E.g. why do you claim that materialism is false, when you know you are unable to prove that it is?

You have failed utterly, Ian. You are not making any progress at all. None in several years. You admit yourself that it is futile.

So, why do you keep claiming victory? Why are you still here?

[The Don]

Because during a frank exchange of views here, he only figuratively gets the **** kicked out of him. In the real world, his "debating" style would like as not result in something physically unpleasant happening to him.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Don
Because during a frank exchange of views here, he only figuratively gets the **** kicked out of him. In the real world, his "debating" style would like as not result in something physically unpleasant happening to him.

Perhaps, but still...Ted is right, what Ian is doing is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing, over and over again, never getting anywhere, despite knowing that you don't.

Ian reminds me of an animal in a zoo that has gone insane, and simply rocks back and forth.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian reminds me of an animal in a zoo that has gone insane, and simply rocks back and forth.
How unpleasant are you planning on being today? Do let us know.

This thread doesn't seem to be about anything any more except slagging people off.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
You should at least try reading my posts before completely mischaracterizing them.

You should leave because either you can't reach us because we're closed minded or you can't reach us because you're not equipped to do so (just between you and me, it's the second one).

Either way, you can quit wasting everyone’s time. Please let me know what you don't understand.

I shall not be leaving. What don't you understand about that?

[Interesting Ian]

Just had some bad news. Just let it drop TLN/Larsen. I'm not in the mood.

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian,

You clearly cannot prove anything with philosophy. You have admitted this. E.g. why do you claim that materialism is false, when you know you are unable to prove that it is?

You have failed utterly, Ian. You are not making any progress at all. None in several years. You admit yourself that it is futile.

So, why do you keep claiming victory? Why are you still here?

Whenever you're ready Ian.

[Ashles]

I shall not be leaving. What don't you understand about that?
Ian sounds like a Bond villain there.

But seriously I may not agree with Ian about... well, almost anything really, but will happily admit I often click on a thread when I see Ian has posted as his opinions are often worth reading (for various reasons) and he is a very clear writer.

Some of his debates about dualism and consciousness are only tenable because Ian takes it to the absolute extreme and, as noted by another poster, can often be extremely eloquent.

And of course he is right about one thing - we don't HAVE to respond to anyone.

What I like about this forum is how it very rarely bans anyone (unlike certain other forums we could mention) and it is free for anyone to express any opinion.

I'm not particularly generally particularly interested in the mental mastubatory sessions of consciousness discussions, but there have been some very goof one on this forum thanks primarily to Ian.

That all said I do think you sound slightly nutty sometimes Ian, but so long as you are here for fun, and not because you think you will be able to convince anyone to change their views (nobody will ever end up changing anyone's viewpoints around here, believer or sceptic) then that's all fine and dandy.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
This thread doesn't seem to be about anything any more except slagging people off.

I am not slagging people off, but this is truly how Ian appears to me. So many years, and not a single sign of progress. And yet, he still claims victory.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Just had some bad news. Just let it drop TLN/Larsen. I'm not in the mood.

It's not a question of being "in the mood". It's a question of looking back over the years you have spent here. You have achieved nothing. Nothing.

Why do you continue? You have admitted that you cannot prove anything with philosophy.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Ashles
(nobody will ever end up changing anyone's viewpoints around here, believer or sceptic)
Merissa. Accepted negative results of an experiment as disproof of her hypothesis. I miss her. I miss her so much.

And I may have got through to Dov Ivry. Although he believes so many weird things that curing him of numerology is... at least it's something.

And you never know, the long silence from 1inChrist might be the sound a fundie makes reading a geology textbook.

[Dragon]

Back on topic -

Did anyone else notice that Gordon Smith's hits on his first reading for the audience seemed to be nearly all names of people in the same family who were all sat next to each other? Hot reading seems a distinct possibility ...

(but I'm just fitting the facts to my world-view, of course ;) )

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I am not slagging people off, but this is truly how Ian appears to me. So many years, and not a single sign of progress. And yet, he still claims victory.

I know I've made no progress amongst you lot; you're all beyond hope. But there's always the lurkers. Some non-skeptics have to be on here to sort you lot out. Anyway, I'm not in a mood for a quarrel right now. Somebody I know has just unexpected died.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I know I've made no progress amongst you lot; you're all beyond hope. But there's always the lurkers. Some non-skeptics have to be on here to sort you lot out. Anyway, I'm not in a mood for a quarrel right now. Somebody I know has just unexpected died.

I'm sorry to hear that.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Are these "facts" on tape Open MInd or simply anecdotal?


Not on tape (I could call 5 witnesses, all members of my family), anecdotal to you of course. But it certainly wasn’t a case of 'false memory syndrome' :) …. but if you wait a second while I hit my head on a nearby wall, I'll test my perception and senses just to make sure :D (Incidentally the psychic got one letter single consonant wrong in giving my usually street address, which was interesting, he pronounced it as the brain is likely to hear it and make sense of it, not as spelt from reading a telephone directory)


in the case of any medium who does shows-they have 'fans' people will write to them asking them to help contact such and such, telling the medium they are coming to see them at the show in London(example)

Yes possibly that can happen often but that explanation wouldn’t fit my case. I had never met the psychic before and he lived 200+ miles away. If it was trickery, I suppose it could have been done by him (or a helper?) somehow hearing or obtaining our surname (I was with 6 relatives), looking up a telephone directory for address, type of idea. I can be fooled by magicians too, so I'm willing to consider the possibility of a trick ……..as well as the possibility it was completely genuine :) .


Originally posted by Ersby
But how many readings would you have to hear before something significant came up merely by chance alone? You're suggesting that 1 in 33 are any good. I'd suggest that by guesswork alone, 1 in 10 would give you something "significant".

Well, I didn’t quite mean that, I saw several more than once. The awful psychics were generally always awful! :D Some psychics were generally better (but I’m not sure they were beating good cold reading by much or at least by a degree that would convince any sceptic). As I said 2 or 3 were beating cold reading odds to a degree that ‘cold reading’ is an inadequate explanation to anyone being reasonable IMHO.


"God allows it"....


I don’t know in what context that was said, but I think you guys are being tough of Ian. You probably don’t criticize Einstein for saying ‘ God doesn’t play dice’ :) Perhaps to Einstein and many scientists, God is just perfect mathematics behind the universe? What created these mathematical constants? ;) The idea of an intelligent design (and purpose) behind life is still a valid viewpoint.

[Azrael 5]

Open Mind I wasny sugessting YOU wrote to a clairvoyant beforehand,simply that people do and such how some readings are blindingly accurate and some not ,from the same sitting.I have enjoyed discussing this programme,what to do next week?
Incidentally I am going to try contact the producer of the series and ask him a few things about the general bias of the shows.I let you know any results.:D

[Ashles]

I have to just mention that I was in fact trying to type some very 'good' ones in relation to the consciousness debates I mentioned above. Not 'goof'.
Sorry I was at work and trying to concentrate on two things at once.

But I do think Ian is one of the interesting regulars about here.

And I do offer my best wishes to him with regards to what has happened. I hope you're okay Ian.

[Ashles]

Open mind I find this interesting:
he pronounced it as the brain is likely to hear it and make sense of it, not as spelt from reading a telephone directory
Do you mean he pronounced it as read on a page, or as heard and properly pronounced?

You make it sound like he made a mistake with pronounciation - is that correct? Please clarify this.

[Azrael 5]

You work some odd hours Ashles old boy.I presume open Mnd meant he prounounced it as said and not how it looks written,cant think of an example of this.No thought on the spirit paintings by anyone then? :(

[Ashles]

I do work odd hours. (I'm never here in the mornings).

The reason I was asking is that I am confused as to how a reading who was speaking a street name got it wrong "as the brain heard it". It would be pronounced a certain way so why didn't the medium get that?

Open mind says:
pronounced it as the brain is likely to hear it and make sense of it, not as spelt from reading a telephone directory
That doesn't make sense. If the medium got it wrong he must have got it verbally wrong (unles he was writing the session).
If he got it verbally wrong this implies that he pronounced it as read.
This would further imply that he read the address without knowing how it was actually pronounced.

For example (and this is an extreme example) if you lived in Phition Road but it was actually pronounced as as 'Fishin' Road and you heard a reader say "You live in Puhitienn Road" you might presume they had previously read you address somewhere but had never heard it pronounced.

This is what I am trying to clarify - in what exact way the reader made a mistake.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Don
Because during a frank exchange of views here, he only figuratively gets the **** kicked out of him. In the real world, his "debating" style would like as not result in something physically unpleasant happening to him.

For those who don't know, we live very close to each other. And people are extremely aggressive here; I suspect more so than other places.

Hell Don, I've been there. I've had people hating my guts all my life. I've been an outsider all my life. I've had people continually wanting a fight with me all my life. I've had people bullying me all my life; at least during my school years from 5 years old to 16 years old. Yeah . . ever since my earliest recollections. I'm used to it matey.

Will I say 'yes I agree with you' when I get bullied by the scum who live round here??? Ummm . . no I'm afraid I won't.

I've been in quite a few confrontations, but now I've learn't to keep quite about it. I accept now totally that people will never understand me.

{shrugs}

I will never agree with dimwits who understand absolutely nothing.

I suggest you try to deal with it.

[Open Mind]

I don’t wish to give out an address on this internet forum, so let me give you a very similar example......

Imagine my address was ‘5 North Ribberside Avenue’ and the psychic just gives ‘North Riverside Avenue’. I think you will agree that is too close for ‘cold reading’?

If the word ‘ribberside’ is spoken, I think many think people's brains would decipher it to ’riverside’, as it makes more sense. But if you read it on an address book, I doubt it would become ‘riverside’. This means if he was cheating he was deliberately introducing error for some reason.

Yeah, you could argue that introducing an error is just cunning to smooth the gap between cold reading errors and hot reading perfection (or even just a memory aid)……….but that is one of the fascinating thing about debates over PSI, people often choose the explanation they most want to believe. Just like believers remember the ‘hits’ better, sceptics remember the ‘misses’ better.

[Aussie Thinker]

Open Mind,

If medium said Nth Riverside .. I would be CERTAIN they had cheated.

If they were genuine they would KNOW it was Ribberside.. If they had a plant finding clues about you before the reading I would assume they heard “Riverside� when you mentioned your address..

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
[B]Open Mind,

If medium said Nth Riverside .. I would be CERTAIN they had cheated.

I'm not trying to change your faith :) But I think CSICOP would welcome you powers of deduction ;)


If they were genuine they would KNOW it was Ribberside..

I think that is the reason why so many scpetics will never find PSI, they set an arbitary level of accuracy 'above this is PSI, below this is no PSI' . They view PSI as a human ability that can be switched on and off or is always constant or is an equal ability in anyone claiming the title 'I'm psychic' or works just as well in hostile enviroments or with hostile recipient or with a sceptical researcher telling students 'PSI doesn't exist but let's repeat there test and find out what these experimenters have done wrong' sort of mentalities ......

Even if PSI still pops out under adverse conditions, the sceptic might exaggerate experimental error, or the ability to 'cold reading' to a superhuman degree or more likely assume fraud and deception.


If they had a plant finding clues about you before the reading I would assume they heard “Riverside� when you mentioned your address..

The one thing I'm confident of is that no one said my address out loud, no reason to. However there would have been a few there who knew our surname. So if the address was tracked down from a name, I am confident it must have been found by reading something, possibly a telephone directory.

My comments won't convince anyone (nor should it) but it convinces me that PSI is worth investigating

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I accept now totally that people will never understand me.
And so, sadly, you'll always remain the only one amongst the whole six billion of us who Knows The Truth.

[Ashles]

Imagine my address was ‘5 North Ribberside Avenue’ and the psychic just gives ‘North Riverside Avenue’. I think you will agree that is too close for ‘cold reading’?
Oh I don't think that sounds like cold reading.
This means if he was cheating he was deliberately introducing error for some reason
Not at all, it would imply that if he were cheating he heard the information, not read it.

If he were cheating (for the purposes of argument) this would imply to me that it was information he heard somehow.
Does the psychic know friends of yours?
Did you have to say your address anywhere in or before the reading?
Did you have to phone book and give your address for credit card payment or anything similar?

[TheBoyPaj]

Maybe someone working for the psychic recognised you in the lobby and knows roughly where you live? They hurriedly passed this on before the performance and the psychic misheard.

[Stitch]

This means if he was cheating he was deliberately introducing error for some reason


Yes...and???

Think on it, even in a warm / hot reading, the "psychic" is going to have to make a few guesses. If half the read is absolutely on the nail and the rest is off wack, then the misses become far more obvious and are less likely to be interpreted as near hits.

By getting things a bit wrong, it helps with the illusion that the connection to the spirit world isn't quite as good a modern telecomunication methods and blurs the edges far more.

[Azrael 5]

Just wondering about the trainee medium from the programme this week.How do you train someone to do it,without telling them its cold reading and therefore owning up to being a fraud themselves?;)

[Ashles]

How do you train someone to do it,without telling them its cold reading and therefore owning up to being a fraud themselves?
Without cold reading skills you would literally just be encouraging to walk out onto a stage and have random guesses and look really foolish.

Oh hang on, that's exactly what happened.

[Azrael 5]

Funny.Didnt quite look at it that way.;)

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Stitch
Yes...and???

Think on it, even in a warm / hot reading, the "psychic" is going to have to make a few guesses. If half the read is absolutely on the nail and the rest is off wack, then the misses become far more obvious and are less likely to be interpreted as near hits.

By getting things a bit wrong, it helps with the illusion that the connection to the spirit world isn't quite as good a modern telecomunication methods and blurs the edges far more.

If you read my post again, I suggested that possibility before you did :) It doesn't however prove that actually occurred. I understand many sceptics viewpoint that the last possible option worthy of consideration is that genuine psychic phenomena exists. The problem is there will always be another explanation whether contrived or not, so the final option never really gets considered by confirmed sceptics.

Originally posted by Ashles

Does the psychic know friends of yours?


The psychic knew no one directly I was with, none of us had seen the psychic before. I did know others who were there (as I had been to this spiritualist church before on number of occasions, to investigate other psychic’s abilities ….but I’m not a spiritualist or anything else). So even if the psychic somehow got the name by cheating, that would require him or someone researching an address (which requires reading)


Did you have to say your address anywhere in or before the reading?
[quote]
No, it was not a private reading, it was in a hall of around 200 people. The psychic choosing who to go to.
[quote]
Did you have to phone book and give your address for credit card payment or anything similar?
No. An address was not given, it wasn’t even ticketed, people arrived and paid donation at end.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Open Mind
So even if the psychic somehow got the name by cheating, that would require him or someone researching an address (which requires reading)
Yes, but if it was "someone else" then they could have given the information to the medium orally, so then Ashles' argument applies again.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Just wondering about the trainee medium from the programme this week.How do you train someone to do it,without telling them its cold reading and therefore owning up to being a fraud themselves?;)

Having met and spoken to many psychics or mediums, it is clear most aren’t committing fraud, if they did there would be far more evidence appearing ;) I think it is true a considerable percentage are deluding themselves into thinking they are more psychic than they are because when recipient receives a message there is this feeling of having to be polite rather than say ‘sorry, you are completely off the mark, I don’t understand a word of what you have been saying’ :D If it is so vague you can’t say that anyway …… however that is general standard of those claiming ‘I’m psychic’ (which anyone can claim and often does), others certainly do seem more evidential, only these are worthy of investigation IMHO

That young trainee ‘psychic’ on programme (if he is psychic at all) only looked a bit foolish because he was trying to give detail, if he had said [I] ‘I’m coming to the back of the hall, I’ve got an elderly lady with her hair tied back who loved cooking for the family. I see lots of cakes. She is giving the name beginning with a ‘J’ :rolleyes: Someone is thinking about changing their job up there? ’ [/b] Yawn :rolleyes: :D ……..

So in my opinion, I’m actually pleased the young spiky haired man actually attempted to give detail, I’d rather see a psychic attempt to give evidence, probably get a lot wrong, possibly fall flat on their face, it’s more honorable than a psychic giving a fit almost anyone type message. With detail in messages, the psychic cannot delude themselves into thinking ‘I’m very psychic’ and the recipient cannot place much trust in their statements without some reason to.


I personally think PSI probably exists (unlike most here), but science isn't going to find it (yet) for a number of reasons.

-The psychic ability is very weak in nearly all humans
- The weak effects in replicated trials can be nitpicked as 'experimental error'
- Scientists assume ability is controlled by psychic and can be switched on and off at command. i.e. a consistent effect.
- A sceptic holding trial will influence neutral testers belief PSI is possible, increasing odds of failure (nocebo like effects?).
- The area of paranormal research receives almost no funding for extensive replication of claims for or against.
- Magicians will assume trickery or cold reading
- Psychologists will assume 'psychology of suggestion' and 'false memory syndrome'
- Most scientists will think it is impossible, because there is no known or proven means of information traveling from brain to brain (or mind to mind)
- Believers will be far too gullible, get carried away on a New Age mish mash of unproven, airy fairy ideas ....... making the whole subject unbelieveable and alarming to sceptics. (Much to the delight of TV)
- Most sceptics will only consider it as a last resort
- Christian and other religious people will oppose it as evil, blocking funding and research into paranormal
- Many CSICOP members think it is dangerous to science and are more keen on debunking than open minded research. Many also oppose funding, preferring money to be in other sciences
- Some will cheat for money, some will hoax it because they think it is funny, etc. .. confusing the issue
- A psychic under pressure to perform will make information fit. They often lack the humility to admit 'I'm not very good at this' due to egotism. Believer recipients make things fit helping to delude useless psychics and also blurring the difference between possibly interesting psychics and useless ones.

In other words, the only reason we cannot find out for certain whether PSI exists or not, is down to human bias. Few opinions are neutral, humans are instinctively biased...... even me :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Having met and spoken to many psychics or mediums, it is clear most aren’t committing fraud, if they did there would be far more evidence appearing ;) I think it is true a considerable percentage are deluding themselves into thinking they are more psychic than they are because when recipient receives a message there is this feeling of having to be polite rather than say ‘sorry, you are completely off the mark, I don’t understand a word of what you have been saying’ :D If it is so vague you can’t say that anyway …… however that is general standard of those claiming ‘I’m psychic’ (which anyone can claim and often does), others certainly do seem more evidential, only these are worthy of investigation IMHO

That young trainee ‘psychic’ on programme (if he is psychic at all) only looked a bit foolish because he was trying to give detail, if he had said [I] ‘I’m coming to the back of the hall, I’ve got an elderly lady with her hair tied back who loved cooking for the family. I see lots of cakes. She is giving the name beginning with a ‘J’ :rolleyes: Someone is thinking about changing their job up there? ’ Yawn :rolleyes: :D ……..

So in my opinion, I’m actually pleased the young spiky haired man actually attempted to give detail, I’d rather see a psychic attempt to give evidence, probably get a lot wrong, possibly fall flat on their face, it’s more honorable than a psychic giving a fit almost anyone type message. With detail in messages, the psychic cannot delude themselves into thinking ‘I’m very psychic’ and the recipient cannot place much trust in their statements without some reason to.


I personally think PSI probably exists (unlike most here), but science isn't going to find it (yet) for a number of reasons.

-The psychic ability is very weak in nearly all humans
- The weak effects in replicated trials can be nitpicked as 'experimental error'
- Scientists assume ability is controlled by psychic and can be switched on and off at command. i.e. a consistent effect.
- A sceptic holding trial will influence neutral testers belief PSI is possible, increasing odds of failure (nocebo like effects?).
- The area of paranormal research receives almost no funding for extensive replication of claims for or against.
- Magicians will assume trickery or cold reading
- Psychologists will assume 'psychology of suggestion' and 'false memory syndrome'
- Most scientists will think it is impossible, because there is no known or proven means of information traveling from brain to brain (or mind to mind)
- Believers will be far too gullible, get carried away on a New Age mish mash of unproven, airy fairy ideas ....... making the whole subject unbelieveable and alarming to sceptics. (Much to the delight of TV)
- Most sceptics will only consider it as a last resort
- Christian and other religious people will oppose it as evil, blocking funding and research into paranormal
- Many CSICOP members think it is dangerous to science and are more keen on debunking than open minded research. Many also oppose funding, preferring money to be in other sciences
- Some will cheat for money, some will hoax it because they think it is funny, etc. .. confusing the issue
- A psychic under pressure to perform will make information fit. They often lack the humility to admit 'I'm not very good at this' due to egotism. Believer recipients make things fit helping to delude useless psychics and also blurring the difference between possibly interesting psychics and useless ones.

In other words, the only reason we cannot find out for certain whether PSI exists or not, is down to human bias. Few opinions are neutral, humans are instinctively biased...... even me :) [/B]

I must admit "Open Mind" that your posts are extremely impressive. I absolutely agree with everything you say (so far as I am able to recall). I've said before that psi will remain in its current state for a very long time to come. I haven't spelt out all the reasons though like you have here.

Keep up the good work! :)

[Anders]

Originally posted by Open Mind

[snip]
I personally think PSI probably exists (unlike most here), but science isn't going to find it (yet) for a number of reasons.

-The psychic ability is very weak in nearly all humans

Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?

- The weak effects in replicated trials can be nitpicked as 'experimental error'

Science has measures a lot of very weak effects, so why wouldn't they be able to register the PSI weak effect?

- Scientists assume ability is controlled by psychic and can be switched on and off at command. i.e. a consistent effect.

Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?

- A sceptic holding trial will influence neutral testers belief PSI is possible, increasing odds of failure (nocebo like effects?).

Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?

- The area of paranormal research receives almost no funding for extensive replication of claims for or against.

Oh, they get funding!

- Magicians will assume trickery or cold reading

Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?

- Psychologists will assume 'psychology of suggestion' and 'false memory syndrome'

There is a reason to why they assume different psychological effects. Psychologists know how they look, and they also know very well that psychological effects have very down to earth explanations.

- Most scientists will think it is impossible, because there is no known or proven means of information traveling from brain to brain (or mind to mind)

Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?

- Believers will be far too gullible, get carried away on a New Age mish mash of unproven, airy fairy ideas ....... making the whole subject unbelieveable and alarming to sceptics. (Much to the delight of TV)

Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject? There are believers that are highly intelligent, and I would say that the intelligence of believers follow the usual bell curve of intelligence.

- Most sceptics will only consider it as a last resort

Most skeptics would be very happy if there were any evidence for a PSI effect, and some would be very amazed.

- Christian and other religious people will oppose it as evil, blocking funding and research into paranormal


- Many CSICOP members think it is dangerous to science and are more keen on debunking than open minded research. Many also oppose funding, preferring money to be in other sciences

Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?

- Some will cheat for money, some will hoax it because they think it is funny, etc. .. confusing the issue

Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?

- A psychic under pressure to perform will make information fit. They often lack the humility to admit 'I'm not very good at this' due to egotism. Believer recipients make things fit helping to delude useless psychics and also blurring the difference between possibly interesting psychics and useless ones.

Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?


In other words, the only reason we cannot find out for certain whether PSI exists or not, is down to human bias. Few opinions are neutral, humans are instinctively biased...... even me :)
What you have done above is to state what YOU think about various things. But you probably don't know anything. You don't know if "The psychic ability is very weak in nearly all humans ". You don't know that "Many CSICOP members think it is dangerous to science...". You assume a lot of things, and that don't impress me at all, but it seems to impress other people on this forum...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Anders
You assume a lot of things, and that don't impress me at all, but it seems to impress other people on this forum...

Not me. I am thoroughly UNimpressed.

[JMA]

Originally posted by Open Mind
- A sceptic holding trial will influence neutral testers belief PSI is possible, increasing odds of failure (nocebo like effects?).

Why do you always think that the experimenter effet only works for sceptic?

Is it so hard for you to imagine that it could be just the other way around: A proponent holding tial will influence neutral testers belief PSI if possible, increasing odds by allowing sensory leackage, cold reading, even cheating in some case (placebo like effects?). ;)

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Anders

There is a reason to why they assume different psychological effects. Psychologists know how they look, and they also know very well that psychological effects have very down to earth explanations.

I could reply ’‘Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?’ ;)

How many double blind, properly controlled trials testing the theories of CSICOP psychologists claims on the paranormal have been done that have been widely replicated (without failure) and checked for methodology errors? ;)


You don't know that "Many CSICOP members think it is dangerous to science...". You assume a lot of things…


Admittedly I don't know how many however they said it .............


: "[Belief in the paranormal is] a very dangerous phenomenon. Dangerous to science, dangerous to the basic fabric of our society …...We feel it is the duty of the scientific community to show that these beliefs are utterly screwball."

……. CSICOP originated in the spring of 1976 to fight mass-media exploitation of supposedly "occult" and "paranormal" phenomena. The strategy was twofold: First, to strengthen the hand of skeptics in the media by providing information that "debunked" paranormal wonders. Second, to serve as a "media-watchdog".

Lee Nisbet, the CSICOP Executive Director

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


“It is incumbent on us to defend the naturalistic interpretation of reality, a materialistic not a spiritual-paranormal account. We need generalists of science to sum up what science tells us about the human condition in a Universe without purpose or design, yet who have the ability to awaken wonder and excitement about the scientific quest itself.�

Paul Kurtz, Founder of CSICOP, president of Prometheus Books
-------------------------------

“Belief in paranormal phenomena is still growing, and the dangers to our society are real�

A fund-raising letter signed by the Executive Council (dated March 23, 1985).
-----------------------------------
[
. “In a free society, skeptics are the watchdogs against irrationalism.

Michael Sherman - CSICOP member


Also most members of CSICOP do not seem to do any PSI research (i.e. they have not published any) , they might comment. It seems their interest in being part of the 'committee for the scientific investigation of claim of the paranomal, doesn't actually involve any investigation .




-‘The psychic ability is very weak in nearly all humans ‘
Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?

A CSICOP member who has done and published trials is Professor Robert Morris, the Koestler Professor of Parapsychology at the University of Edinburgh )…….

’ Presenting his latest results he said: "There appears to be an effect occurring that is not just due to chance fluctuations, or to a handful of clever cheats. I don't call it telepathy," he said, describing it as "anomalous cognition".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/11/nsci211.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/09/11/ixhome.html


‘- The weak effects in replicated trials can be nitpicked as 'experimental error'
[I] Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?

‘Sense of being watched’, widely replicated according to some PSI investigators


Science has measures a lot of very weak effects, so why wouldn't they be able to register the PSI weak effect?

It certainly appears they can to me, but not in a manner to convince those who will consider a PSI explanation only as a last possible option. Or those who think PSI (possible at the edge of most human's ability) should function consistently under adverse conditions. Pharmaceutical medicines do not work on all people all of the time, should they been removed if not consistently successful? Do you think if researcher told a patient a medicine (e.g. Prozac) doesn’t work before they take it, it might weaken the effect?



- A sceptic holding trial will influence neutral testers belief PSI is possible, increasing odds of failure (nocebo like effects?).
Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?

According to Mick O’Neill who taped Richard Wiseman of CSICOP - ‘The World's Largest Esp Experiment Ever’

Richard [Wiseman] had improperly or inconsistently informed them of 3 previous results as "didn't go at all well", "not bad" and "absolutely dreadful". This was certain to influence many of the senders and Richard had to be aware of this, because in the short write up of the 1971 experiment Ullman et al. wrote "For those who find it an exciting and novel challenge, ESP may actually be enhanced; for those who feel they are attempting something impossible and do not expect success, there may be no results."
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/Wiseman.htm

Wiseman responds with some valid points against O’Neill criticism but still fails to consider the possibility of negative comments affecting results
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/Wiseman.htm
If Ullman in 1971 was correct to say ‘For those who find it an exciting and novel challenge, ESP may actually be enhanced; Then this might also explain why in the Wiseman/Schiltz trail, Schiltz got evidence of anomalous cognition and Wiseman didn’t. Wiseman commented the experiment was ‘boring’. Trial repeated - same result.

Attitude could be crucial in finding PSI.

- Scientists assume ability is controlled by psychic and can be switched on and off at command. i.e. a consistent effect.
Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?

Wiseman/O'Keef recent trial. This ‘rigorous’, ‘best’ ever trial (according to Wiseman) on just 5 anonymous psychics and just 5 recipients (25 messages in total? Rigorous? ) seems to have such an assumption. Otherwise the trial would have been a long term one. (Not forgetting other potential flaws in his test)



-' The area of paranormal research receives almost no funding for extensive replication of claims for or against.'

Oh, they get funding!

Very little I think. By whom? And is that research looking for PSI or for looking for any explanation to debunk PSI?


- Magicians will assume trickery or cold reading
Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?


You are correct I should have said most ‘CSICOP magicians’. The majority of magicians believe in the paranormal according some reports.



- Psychologists will assume 'psychology of suggestion' and 'false memory syndrome'
Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?

I could look for a report, but frankly I don’t think a psychologist ‘opinion’ is worth more than anyone honest with common sense. Psychologists are only looking for a psychological explanation not a paranormal one. When the only tool a workman has in his bag is a hammer, soon everything begins to look like a nail :D ;)


- Most scientists will think it is impossible, because there is no known or proven means of information traveling from brain to brain (or mind to mind)

Amazing that you know that, I guess that you can show us a report on the subject?

Again you are correct I should have said ‘many CSICOP scientists’ .
Read ‘A Physicist's Guide to Skepticism’ by Milton A. Rothman (CSICOP member?) published by Prometheus books (owned by CSICOP member)


’- Most sceptics will only consider it as a last resort’

Most skeptics would be very happy if there were any evidence for a PSI effect, and some would be very amazed.

But I doubt that would apply to many CSICOP sceptics who have placed their professional reputations on no PSI existing.


What you have done above is to state what YOU think about various things.

Absolutely, that is what we are all doing on this forum.

[JMA]

Also most members of CSICOP do not seem to do any PSI research (i.e. they have not published any) , they might comment. It seems their interest in being part of the 'committee for the scientific investigation of claim of the paranomal, doesn't actually involve any investigation .

On top of Wiseman and Morris, you also have Susan Blackmore who is a CSICOP member and who did PSI research... ;) The other members (like Joe Kickell) don't do any experimental research, I agree with that, but they do a lot of investigations in the field!!!

I don't think it's fair to say that CSICOP don't do any investigations. They do investigations, even if you don't like that and if you don't agree with their conclusions of it...

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by JMA
... The other members (like Joe Kickell) don't do any experimental research, I agree with that, but they do a lot of [B]investigations in the field!!!...
Joe Nickell'll get a kick out of that. I believe he taught investigative journalism at the U of K before heading up investigations at CSICOP.

[Interesting Ian]

Brilliant post "Open Mind"! I see that it's silenced "Anders" :D

[JMA]

Hi,

You are correct I should have said most ‘CSICOP magicians’. The majority of magicians believe in the paranormal according some reports.

"According some reports"? Don't you have anything more precise than that?

I've red this statement in an George P. Hansen article about CSICOP:

Hansen, G. P. CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview._ Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 86, No. 1, January 1992, pp. 19-63.

or:

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm

And, it's strange, you know, but your entire post sound exactly like this article ("CSICOP don't do investigation", and so on...). You must be a big fan of him ;)

Brilliant post "Open Mind"!

I don't agree, except if "Open Mind" is George Hansen's pseudo on this forum :D

[dharlow]

Originally posted by JMA

I don't agree, except if "Open Mind" is George Hansen's pseudo on this forum :D

I can assure you that is not the case. :)

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Brilliant post "Open Mind"! I see that it's silenced "Anders" :D

Well I'm pleased at least someone here enjoyed reading it! :) …… but I have no desire to silence Anders, he is entitled to his viewpoint too.


And, it's strange, you know, but your entire post sound exactly like this article ("CSICOP don't do investigation", and so on...). You must be a big fan of him ;)

No it was the reading of Hansen’s mind. Can I collect my $1,000,000 now? :D

The 4 quotes by CSICOP members were indeed taken from his page, posted only as Anders requested them. I did intend to post a link to the source of these quotes, usually do.

But these opinions are not unique to Hansen (I probably disagree with Hansen on some things) . Another source that appears skeptical of CSICOP is ………. .
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm


("CSICOP don't do investigation"

I never actually said that, I said ‘ most members of CSICOP do not seem to do any PSI research ‘ So perhaps quite a few are lending their reputations in support of a belief all PSI is bunk, rather than trying to replicate claims.

Originally posted by JMA


"According some reports"? Don't you have anything more precise than that?

I've red this statement in an George P. Hansen article about CSICOP:


If you are looking for more detail on that report, if you read Dean Radin article ….


Birdsell (1989) polled a group of magicians and found that 82% gave a positive response to a question of belief in ESP. Truzzi (1983) noted a poll of German magicians that found that 72.3% thought psi was probably real.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:ADb_W_xxad4J:www.utdallas.edu/orgs/idea/pdf/Skepticism_Field_Guide.pdf++%22Although+the+public +tends+to+view+%22&hl=en


Are these out of date? I hope so! I was hoping a greater number of magicians turn out to be wrong when PSI is proven ;) ..... I’m kidding, I love watching magic,

However this reminds me of an amusing TV program a few years ago where they had set up this trial with a not well known magician cold reading but pretending to be psychic and a real psychic (who didn’t appear evidential at all IMHO) giving a reading to the same unaware recipient. My expectation being ‘You have chosen a magician’ outcome. However recipient lady said more fitted with the psychic and she felt the other one (i.e. magician) was asking too many questions and she didn’t feel he was a real psychic :o ………… in other words, the reading recipient appeared far more psychic than both the magician and the one claiming to be psychic :D


I don't agree, except if "Open Mind" is George Hansen's pseudo on this forum :D

Originally posted by dharlow
I can assure you that is not the case. :)



Dowsing rods? :eek:

Bill

[JMA]

But these opinions are not unique to Hansen (I probably disagree with Hansen on some things) . Another source that appears skeptical of CSICOP is ………. . http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm

CSICOP is the biggest skeptic organisation in the world. And it's the US organisation too. So, it's obvious that, if you are a proponent, you'll "appears skeptical of CSICOP".

No paranormal phenomena here :D

CSICOP is for the moment the main target for proponents who wants to "blast an destroy" skepticism ;)

On the other hand, I found George P. Hansen article interresting.

As I said before, I found the argument "CSICOP don't do researchs" a little bit unfair because they do a lot of investigations... On the other hand, I agree with you that they should do more PSI research (especially Ganzfeld if you ask my wish :p).

PS: http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm is not a skeptic website. It's more a proponent website, despite is title.

[steenkh]

Originally posted by JMA

As I said before, I found the argument "CSICOP don't do researchs" a little bit unfair because they do a lot of investigations... On the other hand, I agree with you that they should do more PSI research (especially Ganzfeld if you ask my wish :p).
[/B]
Actually I do not understand why CSICOP should do any research at all. Their purpose is to investigate claims of the paranormal, and this is what they do. Why should they conduct research in Ganzfeld, which is really the opposite of their stated purpose? This research is already conducted by various parapsychologist institutions, and if they ever find something, CSICOP can decide to criticize or praise it. CSICOP members, on the other hand, can conduct the research, and I also have the impression that this is done (earlier posts have given the names of some CSICOP members conducting research in parapsuchology).

[Anders]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Brilliant post "Open Mind"! I see that it's silenced "Anders" :D
Well, I've been sick, still having fever, but I manage to drag myself to the computer today. A rebuttal is in the works.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Open Mind
But I doubt that would apply to many CSICOP sceptics who have placed their professional reputations on no PSI existing.
Name just one.

[JMA]

Originally posted by steenkh Actually I do not understand why CSICOP should do any research at all. Their purpose is to investigate claims of the paranormal, and this is what they do. Why should they conduct research in Ganzfeld, which is really the opposite of their stated purpose?

Maybe... I know that their purpose is to investigate paranormal claims and I agree that's what they do (well, that's what Joe Nickell do ;) ).

But, in the other hand, I just feel that Richard Wiseman beeing the only one doing PSI experiments is a little bit too few for an organisation as big as the CSICOP...

Susan Blackmore don't do it anymore. Ray Hyman don't do it either...

If I was Wiseman, I would feel very lonely... :(

[steenkh]

Originally posted by JMA

If I was Wiseman, I would feel very lonely... :(
If Wiseman feels lonely, I do not think it is because he is a CSICOP member doing research, but because he is one of the very few skeptical psychologists doing research.

I have understood that after some controversy about CSICOP-funded research many years ago, they have limited themselves to conduct pure debunking. I believe that Joe Nickell is only doing this, at least that was his topic at the congress in Italy.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by JMA

No paranormal phenomena here :D



Ah, you mean you've not come across it yet ;)


PS: http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/home.htm is not a skeptic website. It's more a proponent website, despite is title. [/B]

I think there should be more sites like that, CSICOP is presenting only one side of the debate IMO

[JMA]

-

[JMA]

And what, Open Mind? You think that SkepticalInvestigation is presenting both side of the debate? Or maybe you think that the Parapsychological Association is presenting both side of the debate? Or maybe the Society for Psychical Research?

:roll:

Don't make me laugh!!! None of these organisations/website/Scientific publication are presenting both side.

So, the CSICOP don't present both side, like the Parapsychological Association don't present both side. So what?

I find that kind of argument really naïve... Or just crap (it depends of the writter, in your case "crap")...

Just says that you don't like CSICOP because your're not a skeptic. It would be more close to the truth...

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by JMA
And what, Open Mind? You think that SkepticalInvestigation is presenting both side of the debate? Or maybe you think that the Parapsychological Association is presenting both side of the debate? Or maybe the Society for Psychical Research?

:roll:

Don't make me laugh!!! None of these organisations/website/Scientific publication are presenting both side.


You seem to be laughing at what I never said :) I never said the site was neutral or presented both sides ;)

Yes, I do think there should be more sites countering CSICOP dogmatism :) CSICOP is largely a media campaign to present one side of the debate while claiming to be the 'scientific' view. Since many other scientists disagree with CSICOP’s conclusion and debunking methods, their voices deserve to be heard in the media and on web sites, preferable free from psychic hotlines, alien abductions, crop circles and new age noise which just make PSI evidence look nonsense by association



I find that kind of argument really naïve… Or just crap (it depends of the writter, in your case "crap")...

Just says that you don't like CSICOP because your're not a skeptic. It would be more close to the truth... [/B]

‘Sceptic’ means doubt, it doesn’t mean ‘I’m absolutely bloody convinced this cannot exist’ mentality :) …. I am a sceptic, just not the extreme sceptic, like most here.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Open Mind
But I doubt that would apply to many CSICOP sceptics who have placed their professional reputations on no PSI existing.
----------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Name just one.


"The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it are fakes and charlatans"

Professor Richard Dawkins (CSICOP member)
Sunday Mirror Newpaper, Feb 8, 1998

[Hellbound]

Bad example.

Dawkins professional reputation has been pretty well solidified by his work on evolutionary theory. And, like most scientists, he would happily admit to being mistaken should actual evidence come along for PSI.

The whole idea of people being so vested as to ignore evidence of psi is ignorant. It flies in the face of scientific history. Whiel every new theory has had opposition, evidence has been produced and the scientists have changed their minds to accept the new ideas. Evolution is one example, another is Relativity. Even quantum mechanics; it faced enormous opposition when first proposed. Very few people thought this system of "we can't really know" had any bearing to reality. However, it was tested and found to be sound. Science changed. All in the space of a couple decades.

Psi and psi research has been around for hundreds of years. And to date, no solid, repeatable evidence has been forthcoming. Most of the quotes you're posting are not a staking of reputation, but a reporting of evidence. There is no good evidence for psi powers. If, as you contend, they are intermitant, affected by environment, unreliable, etc, etc, then they are useless and can be safely discarded. In short, if they were effective at all that would come out in testing. The fact that it does not means either that A: they don't exist or B: they exist but are so weak/ineffective/unreliable/easily countered that they are useless. Occam leads us to A.

I firmly believe that Psi doesn't exist. In fact, I would agree with Dawkins statement. However, if reliable, repeatable evidence of psi emerged I would also be among the first to eat crow and admit I was wrong. I'd also be among the first to try and figure out how to do it myself. Unfortunately, despite what I think should be true or what I want to be true, reality has shown no evidence for psi.

[JMA]

Originally posted by Open Mind Yes, I do think there should be more sites countering CSICOP dogmatism :)

OK. I don't find CSICOP dogmatic, but why not? It's always interresting to have counter-arguments...

But, in "SkepticalInquiry" website (in the "who's who?" section especially), they mainly do ad hominem attack on famous skeptics. It's not very convincing from a scientific point-of-view :D

Since many other scientists disagree with CSICOP’s conclusion and debunking methods, their voices deserve to be heard in the media and on web sites, preferable free from psychic hotlines, alien abductions, crop circles and new age noise which just make PSI evidence look nonsense by association

"Many other scientists"? You mean a few scientits in parapsychology. Dean Radin, Sheldrake, what? Maybe 5 more names like that? For me it's not "many other scientists"... It's just a few scientists...

..preferable free from psychic hotlines, alien abductions, crop circles and new age noise which just make PSI evidence look nonsense by association

Yeah... You know there is also scientist who don't like CSICOP because they believe (as you do for PSI) in alien abductions (John Mack for exemple), crop circles, creationism, homeopathy and so on... So you can't seperate parapsy from other nonsense because of these scientists who think that's not nonsense (like you think that PSI is not nonsense)...

It's not as easy as you think...

‘Sceptic’ means doubt, it doesn’t mean ‘I’m absolutely bloody convinced this cannot exist’ mentality :) …. I am a sceptic, just not the extreme sceptic, like most here.

So you are a pseudo-skeptic ;) No, just kidding. As soon as you have strong evidence (you know: reliable, repeatable, and so on), I will change my mind... :p

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Huntsman


Psi and psi research has been around for hundreds of years. And to date, no solid, repeatable evidence has been forthcoming.


Well I've also heard sound bites like that from CSICOP members.

PSI effects are fairly weak, but if you gather data over many trials by meta analysis, as done in pharmaceutical trials, when this is done the evidence for PSI is stronger than some medicinal drugs on the market.

However to debunk the sceptics tend to ignore meta analyzing parapsychology published trials and focus on establishment science & psychology published journals (which were and still are biased against publishing anything on paranormal, particularly if positive results) .. hence no PSI evidence.

For example in the same type of trial, Richard Wiseman (CSICOP) did 3 trials and got published in the British Journal of Psychology. Rupert Sheldrake who created the original test and did the over 100 trials got refused publication in the same magazine. (According to Sheldrake). Wiseman supplied the conclusion that fitted their preferred paradigm?


There is no good evidence for psi powers. If, as you contend, they are intermitant, affected by environment, unreliable, etc, etc, then they are useless and can be safely discarded.

I think there is evidence. So if PSI exists, even to the weakest (but proven degree) science needs a significant rewrite to accommodate PSI effects. That doesn't just mean 'PSI exists, it's weak, fairly useless, now let's all get back to useful science' for example the changes to theories to accommodate PSI like phenomena might even lead to useful technologies that would not have previously been considered possible?

[apoger]

I think there is evidence.

{yawn} Then present it.

[andycal]

PSI effects are fairly weak, but if you gather data over many trials by meta analysis, as done in pharmaceutical trials, when this is done the evidence for PSI is stronger than some medicinal drugs on the market.

This thread has become boring and circular.

Look, analyze what people are saying. The skeptics say : "if there's evidence, show it, prove it, give us the evidence".

Believers simply say "There is evidence...etc" and then state the above quote (with nothing to back it up) and then moan about studies being refuted and biase being given to other scientists.

If you truely beleive that studies are being ignored because of who did them or what they contain then campaign to get them listened to. But remember, it's happened before.

The study over the healing effect of prayer - apparently concluding proof, then it's discovered that it was a big con.

Homeopathy - Proof from Jacque Beneviste, backed up by lots of other scientists, even (embarrasingly) some UK politicians - then when a sober, scientific, *double blind* test is done - nada. Nothing, all zip.

The scientific community (the real one, the one who makes drugs, beats cancer, cures bone disease) has a lot to do, they don't want to be distracted by constantly having to check people's claims into Psi etc.

And why should they bother? Surely, if Psi existed, if people could move stuff with their mind, if all of the stuff that beleivers beleive in *actually* worked - the world would be a much better place already. There wouldn't be a need for medicine.

And it's not because of lack of beleivers, I'm surrounded by them. At regular intervals at parties I'm subjected to Tarot, mind reading, divination and all that baloney yet not one of the them has yet got a win on the lottery. Not one has managed to win the pools, not one can tell me what will win the 3:30 at Ascot, not one can tell me my grandads name (only one generation ago), not one can predict that their exhaust will drop off on the way to work (that was particularly funny). And best of all, one recently completly failed to know that he was getting the sack even though everyone else could tell days before.

Excuses? Plenty. "It doesn't work for stuff like that", "You need to be in this sort of environment", "There's a skeptic in the room". blah blah blah.

Recently a freind of mine went to see John Starkey, a local woo-woo in the mould of John Edward. They came back full of how accurate he was. Talking to spirits etc. The spirits told him that my friend had just had her hair done. Great. But it took a couple of attempts to get her grandfather's name (having tried a couple's of J - names).

So, let's get this straight, the spirit turns up and say's "Hey John, I'm the spirit guide of that girl in the front row and I can tell you she's had her hair done today".

John: "Cool, I'll tell her. By the way, what's your name?"

Spirit: "It's Jmmmmmph."

"Eh?"

"It's Johmnppjh, Josephmmmmm or something"

Just think about it for a few minutes. Then, analyse what people are saying.

With a little common sense you could conclude that Psi doesn't exist. If you were to ignore common sense and conclude that perhaps it does, then at best, it's proven itself to be useless.

[Hellbound]

Open Mind:

Sorry, you're wrong.

Please point me to ANY drug whose effects were PROVEN using a meta-analysis. Any one. Please provide links and sources. *taps foot*. What, nothing? None? Interesting...

A meta-analysis is not consdiered "proof" by anyone, but stands somewhere between evidence and anedcdote. A meta-analysis is done (in REAL science) to identify trends that indicate the need for and direction of future study. A meta-analysis of aspirin effects led to research being done into it's use as a preventative for heart attack; the meta-analysis itself was not the proof. Likewise, the meta-analysis of psi research shows only one thing...something was happening. However, since the meta-analyses doen to date have relied on Ganzfield, there is an easy, simple explanation for what shows up in meta-analyses: subejctive grading. The majority of psi "research" is invalid due to poor controls and subjective techniques. A meta-analysis simply amplifies these features, and "drowns out" the good research. A case in point is the analysis of Ganzfield that used an arbitrary "correctness scale" to determine how standard an experiment was. This is completely unscientific. An experiment is either properly controlled (standard) or not (nonstandard). If a study is 99% standard, that means that there is something that was not controlled for that should have been. These analyses are meaningless. They are poorly done, based on source studies which are, themselves, of dubious quality, and are not "proof" of anything.

So, I state my challenge again. Show me a drug whose effects were proven using a meta-analysis. Also, show me any drug, approved for a use, that has less evidence for that use than the evidence for psi.

Sorry, but you speak of that which you know not. Learn what science is, learn what scientific method is, learn what controls are and what double-blind means, then you might have the ability to discuss these topics with some semblence of credibility.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I think there is evidence. So if PSI exists, even to the weakest (but proven degree) science needs a significant rewrite to accommodate PSI effects. That doesn't just mean 'PSI exists, it's weak, fairly useless, now let's all get back to useful science' for example the changes to theories to accommodate PSI like phenomena might even lead to useful technologies that would not have previously been considered possible?
(1) A theory, remember, is judged by its predective power. So any such change would involve changing the laws of nature as we now know them so that they still predict all the phenomena they do now, but also predict the results of psi investigations...

The trouble is, it looks like the existing laws do indeed predict the results of psi investigations, certainly better than anything else can. The prediction: indistinguishable from the null hypothesis.

(2) If, as you claim, there are drugs on the market with weaker evidence for their efficacity than there is for psi, they should be withdrawn immediately. Write to your MP. But I suspect this is just something else you've made up.

(3) As Huntsman points out, a meta-analysis of experiments which have not been properly done is completely worthless.

(4) Instead of posting your opinions about science, most of which are wrong, why don't you ask us questions? We have taken the trouble to find out about the subjects which your misconceptions concern (actually, you could do the same yourself by reading the right books...)

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Huntsman
The majority of psi "research" is invalid due to poor controls and subjective techniques.

Could you cite a few actual experimental studies where this is apparent?

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by dharlow
Could you cite a few actual experimental studies where this is apparent?

The vast majority of Ganzfield experiments.

I'll get some specifics later, but ANY protocol which requires a person to judge whether a text description matches a picture is inheritly subjective and thus uncontrolled. Also, even those Ganzfields that use a target pool of pictures often use pictures with many busy elements and multiple features, which also can skew judgements as to what view was seen or not.

dharlow, this has been the subject of these forums for years, so I suspect you're only trying to be snippy here. But, I'll find the studies and point out to you the problems in blinding and subjectivity.

Heck, the "famous" meta-analysis with the "standardness" number is a case in point. Why would you include ANY experiment that had non-standard elements? And didn't they even conclude that only about 40% of the experiments were above their arbitrary 4.0 midpoint on the scale? That seems to support my observation, as well.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by dharlow
Could you cite a few actual experimental studies where this is apparent?
Have a look at this woo (http://www.istpp.org/crime_prevention/voodoo_rebuttal.html) for a piece of statistical analysis. He and his friends are trying to reduce the crime rate by TM. During their experiment, the murder rate rose. I'll quote the key passage:

Park asserts that the murder rate soared during the experiment, and claims that 'participants in the project seemed serenely unaware of the mounting carnage around them.'

It is true the murder rate did not drop during the course --- as we acknowledged in the initial research report and in the published study --- but the facts were very different. For six weeks ending the month before the experiment, from mid-March through April, homicides in Washington averaged ten per week. Beginning one week after the course and for twelve weeks thereafter, homicides also averaged ten per week. During the eight weeks of the experiment, in June and July, the average was again ten per week --- except for one horrific 36-hour period in which ten people died. Apart from this brief episode, which was a statistical outlier, the level of homicides during June and July of 1993 was not significantly higher than the remainder of the year.
I have magic psychic powers by which I can make a tossed coin come up heads more often than tails. To prove this, I shall
toss it 56 times. Any run of three or more tails will be removed as a "statistical outlier". Heads I win, tails you lose...
According to his article, Park apparently took his lead on the murder issue from a Washington Post reporter who had been impressed that the one 36-hour period had led to a sudden doubling of the murder rate that week. The reporter, and Park, did not notice that the very next week the murder rate dropped from its common rate of ten by more than twice --- that is, the totals went up to 20 one week and down to 4 the next. This is precisely the type of sporadic fluctuation one must account for when total numbers are small."
Whereas a run of heads is not a "statistical outlier", and needn't be removed from the data.

Now, this guy has carefully trimmed the data to remove unwanted results, and put up a pretense of using proper statistics, and proper statistical jargon, whereby an event you'd have put your shirt on occuring over a 56 day period becomes a "statistical outlier".

Stick this in a "meta-analysis" and what do you get? The perpetuation of an error.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Huntsman
The vast majority of Ganzfield experiments.

dharlow, this has been the subject of these forums for years, so I suspect you're only trying to be snippy here. But, I'll find the studies and point out to you the problems in blinding and subjectivity.


No, I'm not being snippy. I've seen statements of this kind made on this forum frequently, but rarely with any reference to specific experiments (I'm not talking about certain types, but rather actual individual studies). I certainly agree that a meta-analysis of any kind does not serve as proof of the phenomena being researched, so I disagree with anyone who makes statements that it does (such as Dean Radin). However, I'm more interested in critiques involving specific experiments, so I'm curious as to what these specific experiments are that some people have in mind when making blanket statements regarding poor controls, etc....

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by dharlow
However, I'm more interested in critiques involving specific experiments, so I'm curious as to what these specific experiments are that some people have in mind when making blanket statements regarding poor controls, etc....
Well, Hunstman posted:
Originally posted by Huntsman
Heck, the "famous" meta-analysis with the "standardness" number is a case in point. Why would you include ANY experiment that had non-standard elements? And didn't they even conclude that only about 40% of the experiments were above their arbitrary 4.0 midpoint on the scale?
I think that's answered your question. Have a look at the raw Ganzfeld data. Anything which scores less than 8/8 was nearly a scientific experiment... that's "nearly" as in as in "nearly pregnant".

[Hellbound]

Well, speaking of the devil, Radin's mediumship experiments, for one. There are suggestions that the controls were lacking, and it was not properly double-blinded. However, this can't be said conclusively because Radin won't release the source data.

The TM experiment Dr. A referred to above is also one.

And, as I said before, any experiment based on Ganzfield. Now, I'm generalizing..there may be some that have adapted the Ganzfield protocol to tighten it up to sufficient levels. But, as I said, I'll find some specifics for you. Give me a few hours..I'm in the middle of troubleshooting a printer so I'm back and forth at my desk right now.

One quick link about the meta-analyses, and some holes:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_3_65/ai_83262436/pg_1

This is the "standardness" meta-analysis. On page two you'll not that the mean was 5.33 (median would be more useful, IMO). Basically, this means only half the studies were above 5.33. And, as Dr. A stated, a study is either standard (follows protocol) or non-standard (does not follow protocol). Nothing with a standardness less than 7 should be considered at all.

[Hellbound]

Another link of interest:

http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/does_psi_exist.html

While this article conludes a "pro-psi" stance, they do highlight many of the problems with Ganzfield and with the meta-analyses in particular.

However, in their descriptions of the protocols used (and, indeed, in any description of Ganzfield protocols) there is never mention of a control group. In other words, why not have a subset of the recievers for which no senders are paired, and see how they rate? If the "hit results" then are comparable to that already acquired, that would speak to some sort of flaw or bias in the study.

They did have one interesting quote from that paper, comparing novice senders and experienced senders:

Considered together, sessions with novice participants (Studies 101-105) yielded a statistically significant hit rate of 32.5% (p = .009), which is not significantly different from the 31.6% hit rate achieved by experienced participants in Studies 201 and 301.

Which supports my idea of using a control group. If there is no difference between novice and experienced participants, then this suggests no difference between completely new people (or non-believers) and experienced viewers.

Actually, it appears a study was started using no sender, but stopped after only 33 sessions. Still, it achieved a hit rate of 29% with no sender (not statistically signifigant, but close enough to Ganzfield rates that more research is needed). Of course, the paper concludes that this means a person is clairvoyant, rather than that the procedure might have problems.

There is much more detail in the paper, but it highlights a lot of the issues that occur with Ganzfield studies. I'l go into more specifics if you like, but this lays out many of the arguments. While the paper's authors believe they have accounted for the flaws, there were still flaws there. Thus, even these meta-analyses are not proof, although possibly suggestive (the conclusion the author makes as well, although we would disagree as to how suggestive they are).

I focus on Ganzfield because these are often the experiments and analyses most often produced by believers...to my knowledge there aren't any relaible, replicable studies outside this (I have not had any brought to my attention). Because of issues with the Ganzfield protocol, and the inclusion in a meta-analysis of studies with admitted and discovered problems and/or bias, the meta-analyses are useless.

[kieran]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
He was left floundering, until he got the right person. Then everything fit. It seemed unlikely to me to be cold reading.

Sorry to bring this thread back to the mundance original topic of the TV program - I have been having major problems logging in so I haven't been able to post this before ...

Was it just me or was the "hit" with the right person (Ian's title) just a little odd? - suddenly this woman remembered that all the stuff spoken by the psychic for the previous (and highly embarrasing) minute applied to her. She appeared to be giggling while confirming everything he said from then on ... and her friend that was sitting beside her appeared to be barely controlling her laughter during this ..... I have a suspicion that these two ladies just wanted to be on TV and dug the poor guy out of his highly embarrasing hole. (Why did the program not show a "post-reading interview" with this woman who had just had a remarkably perfect reading?)

As for the psychic barbers hits in the "showbiz" readings in he US - what was the point of the spirits that came to Gordon telling groups of people in the audience that they (the people - not the spirits) were there? (That is my recollection of the majority of the readings given.)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by kieran
Sorry to bring this thread back to the mundance original topic of the TV program - I have been having major problems logging in so I haven't been able to post this before ...

Was it just me or was the "hit" with the right person (Ian's title) just a little odd? - suddenly this woman remembered that all the stuff spoken by the psychic for the previous (and highly embarrasing) minute applied to her. She appeared to be giggling while confirming everything he said from then on ... and her friend that was sitting beside her appeared to be barely controlling her laughter during this ..... I have a suspicion that these two ladies just wanted to be on TV and dug the poor guy out of his highly embarrasing hole. (Why did the program not show a "post-reading interview" with this woman who had just had a remarkably perfect reading?)


Indeed that might well be so.

[kieran]

Originally posted by Ralfy
Where was Gordon when he read for Alison? - San Francisco.
What did Alison look like? - A black woman in her 20s or 30s.
Who came through first? - 2 men, 1 young, 1 old.
How did one of them die? - BANG!, I see a gun to the head.

Maybe Gordon has been listening to too much West Coast rap music.

Another Gordon Smith observation ... on the program, Alison said that she wouldn't give him any clues as to whether he was right or wrong ... so that she could be sure that he was a genuine psychic.

Well, I think she needs to work on her "poker face" as, although she didn't *say* very much, her frowning expressions when he was going down blind alleys let him know to stop that track, and her smiles and tears when he touched a raw nerve told him to carry on.

I found it interesting that Gordon's only real "hit" in this psychic reading was "gun + father". I suppose that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that there was a local news story when a lawyer (her father) was shot dead in his office. I wonder if that would be found in a "surname search" of the local library's archives? :con2:

[Azrael 5]

Although Ive recorded over this programme now so my recollection may not be 100%,but I dont think he said "father "when speaking of a gun.Anyway why didnt he use the fathers name if he'd researched it? No it was cold reading with a bit of verbal ambiguity,and possibly TV editing,thrown in for good measure.;)

[amherst]

Originally posted by JMA
And what, Open Mind? You think that SkepticalInvestigation is presenting both side of the debate? Or maybe you think that the Parapsychological Association is presenting both side of the debate? Or maybe the Society for Psychical Research?

:roll:

Don't make me laugh!!! None of these organisations/website/Scientific publication are presenting both side.

So, the CSICOP don't present both side, like the Parapsychological Association don't present both side. So what?

I find that kind of argument really naïve... Or just crap (it depends of the writter, in your case "crap")...

Just says that you don't like CSICOP because your're not a skeptic. It would be more close to the truth...
+The papers published in the parapsychological journals are peer reviewed scientific studies.

-The papers published in the skeptical magazines are not peer-reviewed and largely consist of derisive polemic.

+The Parapsychological Association is an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

-CSICOP is not an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

+The Parapsychological Association encourages skeptics to conduct research and has an offical policy against selective reporting.

- Since 1981 CSICOP has had a formal policy of not conducting research. This policy was implemented the same month a former member published an expose of members who had covered up the positive results of a paranormal test they had conducted.

+The parapsychological publications are scientific journals.

-The skeptical publications are religious magazines.


OK. I don't find CSICOP dogmatic, but why not? It's always interresting to have counter-arguments...

Some quotes,

Richard Broughton (1991):

In a 1989 issue of the Journal of Scientific Exploration (vol. 3, no. 1) Prof. Henry H. Bauer, of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, reported an exchange of letters with (Kendrick) Fraizer in which SI's editor argued that "the magazine's purpose is not to consider what the best evidence for anomalous claims might be but to argue against them" (Bauer's words).

George Hansen (1991):

After the moderate members left, little dissent or criticism of the Committee has been seen in the pages of SI. The magazine nearly always presents only one side of a controversy in its articles. Although SI sometimes publishes letters of complaint, full papers from CSICOP’s critics almost never appear. This is in remarkable contrast to refereed parapsychology journals and even some of the pro-paranormal magazines. For instance, the popularly written magazine Fate has carried full articles by CSICOP members Susan Blackmore, L. Sprague de Camp, Kendrick Frazier, Martin Gardner, Philip Klass, Larry Kusche, Lawrence Jerome, David Marks, Joe Nickell, James Oberg, Dennis Rawlins, Robert Sheaffer, Gordon Stein, and Marcello Truzzi. In keeping with CSICOP’s one-sided approach, SI has given scant attention to papers in well-known, orthodox scientific journals that present evidence for psi (e.g.. Child, 1985; Jahn, 1982; Radin & Nelson, 1989; Rao & Palmer, 1987; Winkelman, 1982)...

The general use of ridicule by CSICOP can be seen in the pages of SI, where caricatures and cartoons are used to denigrate those discussed. Such illustrations are very rare in scientific journals but are common fare in religious magazines such as American Atheist and Free Inquiry.

Former CSICOP member Dennis Rawlins:

I used to believe it was simply a figment of the National Enquirer's weekly imagination that the Science Establishment would cover up evidence for the occult. But that was in the era B.C. -- Before the Committee. I refer to the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal" (CSICOP), of which I am a cofounder and on whose ruling Executive Council (generally called the Council) I served for some years.
I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism. I now believe that if a flying saucer landed in the backyard of a leading anti-UFO spokesman, he might hide the incident from the public (for the public's own good, of course). He might swiftly convince himself that the landing was a hoax, a delusion or an "unfortunate" interpretation of mundane phenomena that could be explained away with "further research."
The irony of all this particularly distresses me since both in print and before a national television audience I have stated that the conspiratorial mentality of believers in occultism presents a real political danger in a voting democracy. Now I find that the very group I helped found has partially justified this mentality.

Former CSICOP member Marcello Truzzi:

Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. I helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal. I found myself attacked by the Committee members and board, who considered me to be too soft on the paranormalists. My position was not to treat protoscientists as adversaries, but to look to the best of them and ask them for their best scientific evidence. I found that the Committee was much more interested in attacking the most publicly visible claimants such as the "National Enquirer". The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers.

amherst

[amherst]

Originally posted by Huntsman
One quick link about the meta-analyses, and some holes:



This is the "standardness" meta-analysis. On page two you'll not that the mean was 5.33 (median would be more useful, IMO). Basically, this means only half the studies were above 5.33. And, as Dr. A stated, a study is either standard (follows protocol) or non-standard (does not follow protocol). Nothing with a standardness less than 7 should be considered at all.
You and Dr. A have misunderstood the paper. A study rated non-standard does not mean that it was found likely to have artifacts (which is what you and he seem to be assuming). The raters were explicitly instructed not to have this influence their ratings:

Do not count deviations the only effect of which is to influence the likelihood of artifacts, such as sensory leakage of the target information. Such deviations are important in the broader scheme of things, but not for this exercise.

The whole point of the analysis was to differentiate experiments containing previously identified psi conducive elements from those which lacked them, and then see if the hit rates between the two groups differed significantly. They did. Studies which were rated as standard (i.e., those which contained psi conducive elements comparable to the original Honorton proof-oriented experiments) had hit rates consistent with that highly successful work. Studies rated non-standard (i.e., those lacking in psi conducive -standard- elements) had low hit rates inconsistent with it. To reiterate, the paper is not about artifacts, it is about the difference in success between process oriented experiments (non-standard) and proof-oriented (standard) experiments. And it convincingly shows that "Standard replications yield significant effect sizes comparable with those obtained in the past."
Another link of interest:

[url]http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/does_psi_exist.html (]http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_3_65/ai_83262436/pg_1[/URL)

While this article conludes a "pro-psi" stance, they do highlight many of the problems with Ganzfield and with the meta-analyses in particular.

However, in their descriptions of the protocols used (and, indeed, in any description of Ganzfield protocols) there is never mention of a control group. In other words, why not have a subset of the recievers for which no senders are paired, and see how they rate? If the "hit results" then are comparable to that already acquired, that would speak to some sort of flaw or bias in the study.

Actually, it appears a study was started using no sender, but stopped after only 33 sessions. Still, it achieved a hit rate of 29% with no sender (not statistically signifigant, but close enough to Ganzfield rates that more research is needed). Of course, the paper concludes that this means a person is clairvoyant, rather than that the procedure might have problems.
You seem to believe a priori that clairvoyance in the ganzfeld is impossible. Why?
There is much more detail in the paper, but it highlights a lot of the issues that occur with Ganzfield studies. I'l go into more specifics if you like, but this lays out many of the arguments. While the paper's authors believe they have accounted for the flaws, there were still flaws there.
I'd like you to go into more specifics.

amherst

[Ceinwyn]

I always find this amusing.

The whole point of the analysis was to differentiate experiments containing previously identified psi conducive elements from those which lacked them

We're looking for stuff we know about to look weird for stuff we also know about, but aren't sure.

and then see if the hit rates between the two groups differed significantly. They did. Studies which were rated as standard (i.e., those which contained psi conducive elements comparable to the original Honorton proof-oriented experiments)

We're just talking out of our ass right now. Most of our experiments showed nada, so we'll just highlight the very small results we've had.

had hit rates consistent with that highly successful work. Studies rated non-standard (i.e., those lacking in psi conducive -standard- elements) had low hit rates inconsistent with it. To reiterate, the paper is not about artifacts, it is about the difference in success between process oriented experiments (non-standard) and proof-oriented (standard) experiments. And it convincingly shows that "Standard replications yield significant effect sizes comparable with those obtained in the past."

We've got nothing. Yeah, we've got some lines on paper, but really, nothing. Sorry.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by amherst
You seem to believe a priori that clairvoyance in the ganzfeld is impossible. Why?

Oooookaaayyyy

You really don't see the problem here?

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that this test doesn't provide evidence for it either way.

If the hit rates using no sender are comparable to the hit rates with a sender, that leaves two options:

1. The reciever is clairvoyant, something for which there is no current solid evidence, which contradicts currently accepted physical laws, and which would require entirely new theories of physics and biology to accomodate or

2. Something in the procedure causes the hit rates to be slightly higher than chance, thus it makes no difference if a sender exists or not.

I've seen no study where the tests were done telling the reciever there was a sender, but actually using no sender. These would HAVE to be done as controls before either results, the original Ganzfield or the clairvoyancy option, would have any relevance whatsoever. Yes, there are a lot of controls and modifications that have been made to test procedures, but no one has crashed those tests into a wall. No one knows whether the tests will break the wall or crumple from a 10mph impact. Until that's done, the "clairvoyance" tests are so much hot air. Same for Ganzfield.

[amherst]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Oooookaaayyyy

You really don't see the problem here?

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that this test doesn't provide evidence for it either way.

If the hit rates using no sender are comparable to the hit rates with a sender, that leaves two options:

1. The reciever is clairvoyant, something for which there is no current solid evidence, which contradicts currently accepted physical laws, and which would require entirely new theories of physics and biology to accomodate or

2. Something in the procedure causes the hit rates to be slightly higher than chance, thus it makes no difference if a sender exists or not.
If you have no reason for thinking the existence of clairvoyance is more unlikely than the existence of telepathy, you can't say tests without senders are controls any more than you can say tests with them are.
I've seen no study where the tests were done telling the reciever there was a sender, but actually using no sender. These would HAVE to be done as controls before either results, the original Ganzfield or the clairvoyancy option, would have any relevance whatsoever.
You are confused. Clairvoyance is defined by the Parapsychological Association as the act of "obtaining information about events at remote locations, beyond the reach of the normal senses." (http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file1.html#6) If clairvoyance were real, how would falsely telling a receiver there is a sender keep the phenomenon from occurring?
Yes, there are a lot of controls and modifications that have been made to test procedures, but no one has crashed those tests into a wall. No one knows whether the tests will break the wall or crumple from a 10mph impact. Until that's done, the "clairvoyance" tests are so much hot air. Same for Ganzfield.
Unless you are under the impression that psi is something it hasn't been defined as, I don't understand how you could think a ganzfeld control for it is possible. I do realize that you believe a no-sender control condition must be used, and I presume you will also believe (once you understand no clairvoyance control is possible) that the lack of an ability to do this renders the ganzfeld experiments unfalsifiable. This was an argument someone raised in an Internet discussion which took place right after the "Does Psi Exist?" article was published. Co-author Daryl Bem was a participant. He very lucidly explained why your proposed control condition is neither necessary nor possible (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1119650848d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=2juuoqINNcen%40newsstand.cit.cornell.edu):
Not all experiments need a control condition--even in neurophysiology. Some experiments can test observed results against an a priori hypothetical null baseline. Suppose you claim that a coin is biased towards heads (experimental hypothesis). You flip it N times and then test the observed proportion of heads statistically to determine whether it is significantly higher than .5 (which is the "null hypothesis"). The particulars of the experimental situation enable one to determine a priori what chance would produce. If it is significant, you are permitted to "reject the null hypothesis." BUT you are not necessarily required to accept the experimenter's hypothesis--that the coin is biased. If you have an alternative hypothesis that can explain the non-chance result, then a control condition (or additional experimental conditions) is called for.

For example, suppose someone claims that the coin is NOT biased but that the human flipper knows how to toss it in a tricky way to bias the outcome towards heads. Now you have TWO competing hypotheses that predict the same non-chance outcome. You can then design a study that has two conditions: one uses a mechanical flipper; another uses the human flipper. These two conditions can be considered two experimental conditions or, alternatively, one can be considered a "control" condition. This extended study is thus designed to attempt to decide between the two competing causes of the effect (the effect itself has already been demonstrated). If both conditions yield identical, non-chance results (as in your example of a non-sender ganzfeld experiment) then you might be ready to conclude that the coin IS biased since you have ruled out the "tricky flipper" hypothesis. Note that you have NOT smashed the phenomenon itself--ha, ha, it was all a mirage--by showing no difference; you have merely ruled out an alternative hypothesis for the demonstrated non-chance effect.

Now reconsider your control condition that you seem to believe would demolish the argument for psi. The Honorton ganzfeld studies tested for telepathy--anomalous communication between a sender and receiver. Your so-called control experiment tests for another parapsychological phenomenon called clairvoyance, in which a receiver is hypothesized to be picking up psi information directly from the target--bypassing the sender. Suppose both the telepathy and the clairvoyance procedures yield comparable results (as you hypothesize). One logical conclusion from this pair of outcomes would be that clairvoyance is the operative phenomenon and the presence of the sender is irrelevant. Presumably you wouldn't be happy with that conclusion. You are still left with an anomalous non-chance effect. What, then, is your explanation for it? Why is the target selected significantly more frequently than .25?

Parapsychologists long ago recognized an interesting logical asymmetry between telepathy and clairvoyance. Namely, it is not possible to do an adequate test of telepathy because the receiver could always be using clairvoyance. (A design in which the sender simply thinks up a target stimulus would not be valid because it is essential that the target be generated randomly--which humans cannot do.) Now consider further: If precognition exists--in which the receiver can look into the future when the data are recorded or observed--then neither telepathy nor clairvoyance can be tested for because precognition could be the operative phenomenon in any test. One CAN, however, test for precognition by having the subject go through the ganzfeld BEFORE the computer selects the target. (I here ignore a further complication that arises if one grants that a human can influence the random generator itself.)

The main point, however, is that control groups or procedures are usually included in experiments when one wants to rule out some alternative explanation for non-chance effects. They are NOT needed if one can justify using an a priori theoretical chance baseline and wishes only to demonstrate a non-chance effect.

I find it amusing that you--presumably a skeptic--have suggested a design for explaining away the telepathy effect by demonstrating that it must be clairvoyance! Surely that is not what you had in mind.

I find misunderstandings outside of one's domains of specialization quite understandable and forgivable. I enjoy the reciprocal teaching and learning that I share with my colleagues. Ignorance combined with the arrogant assumption that everyone else must be stupid, however, I find most unattractive.

Daryl J. Bem
amherst

[steenkh]

Why is it amusing that a skeptic may have suggested a test procedure that could validate clairvoyance but not telepathy? For some reason, it is always assumed that skeptics do not want psi to exist. Most of us just simply do no believe that psi exists, and if we get the proper evidence, we will be just as happy.

In any case, the simpler theory is usually the better, so if telepathy can be eliminated by postulating that only clairvoyance exists, maybe that is the way to go. Under this hypothesis, it will not be necessary to test for telepathy any more, only for clairvoyance.

[Loki]

(steenkh wrote) : Under this hypothesis, it will not be necessary to test for telepathy any more, only for clairvoyance.
Exactly!! This is a clear next step for ganzfeld research - if we start by assuming the result is "something", then an obvious next step is to begin to eliminate alternatives.

(Bem wrote) : Namely, it is not possible to do an adequate test of telepathy because the receiver could always be using clairvoyance. ... If precognition exists--in which the receiver can look into the future when the data are recorded or observed--then neither telepathy nor clairvoyance can be tested for because precognition could be the operative phenomenon in any test.
But this is backwards. We can construct a test for precognition - Bem offers one alternative. If we run this test and it fails, then precognition is eliminated, and clairvoyance or telepathy remain. We can construct a test for clairvoyance - Huntsman has offered one. If it fails, then clairvoyance is eliminated, and telepathy remains. If it passes, then telepathy is eliminated and clairvoyance remains.

(Bem wrote) : I find it amusing that you--presumably a skeptic--have suggested a design for explaining away the telepathy effect by demonstrating that it must be clairvoyance! Surely that is not what you had in mind.
Cute quote, but wrong. The suggested design does not explain away telepathy by demonstrating clairvoyance, it explains away telepathy by demonstrating "something other than telepathy". It is Bem that insists on offering paranormal explanations. Even so, eliminate telepathy or eliminate "something else".

[Hellbound]

*sigh*

Okay.

I try an experiment with a friend. Each of us stands on one side of a tall brick wall. My friend draws lines on the ground, seperating the area into four equal zones. He's going to concentrate really, really hard on making the ball land in a specified zone. You can double-blind this and randomize it and whatever.

Now, we try this experiment, and it seems that 30% of the time my ball lands in the zone my friend is concentrating on. Now, my firend gets bored and wanders off. However, the randomizer is still going, etc. Turns out my ball still lands in the randomly selected zone about 30% of the time.

Now, for a rational, intelligent person with a number of brain cells greater than their number of ocular organs, this would indicate something. it would indicate that my firend's concentration was not affecting the ball, but that some other factor was not accounted for that caused the success rate to be off. Doing more studies with people who think their ball would be guided, to show a "default" position, would help set the baseline. The whole issue is that it is an assumption that the chance rate is 25%. That chance rate needs to be tested.

Of course, if you're a psi-proponent, you just assume that the results mean that the thrower must have psychokinetic abilities and clairvoyance, and is guiding the ball to the zone on his own.

Now, I'm sure one can draw the parallels here. By doing the test with a person who claims to be recieving from a sender, when there is no actual sender, then you can test a "default" rate. Do the test with people who claim no abilities with clairvoyance. Make sure they fell they are recieving the "sender's" thoughts before they give an answer.

Likewise, another option would be runing the test without recievers or senders. Simply take a mix of previous reciever's results...say you have 4 pictures. You take results from 40 previous recievers (thier text descriptions or whatever), make sure 10 were previously judged to each of the four pictures, and send them through as current results for judging. See if the results match.

These are simple ways to test that the chance rate assumed in Ganzfield is actually an expected, representative chance rate. It doesn't take much bias to shift from 25% to 30% chance rates (about 2 results in 50).

Until these types of controls are done, no amount of articles saying "nah nah we don't need no stinking controls!" is going to mean anything. The fact that you can quote someone else with a vested interest who was educated way beyond his ability doesn't support your point. It's not about who says so, it's about basic logic, basic controls, and good, basic scientific procedure.

Oh, and just to go back to earlier quotes, I have no reason for thinking that the existence of giant purple aliens beaming the answers into someone's head from a planet 20 light-years away using time-warping wormhole technology is any more unlikely than either telepathy or clairvoyance. But, if the reciever only thinks they're getting telepathic contact when they actually aren't, I wouldn't call it clairvoyance. That's like a person claiming they can hit a baseball out of the park, then standing 10 feet from the stadium edge and tossing it over. According to your logic, that would mean the person could teleport!!

A does not follow B, sorry.

[amherst]

Originally posted by steenkh
Why is it amusing that a skeptic may have suggested a test procedure that could validate clairvoyance but not telepathy?
Because, like Huntsman, the skeptic didn't realize he was suggesting a test for clairvoyance. He falsely believed that a study done in the absence of a sender would rule out psi as an explanation for above chance results.
For some reason, it is always assumed that skeptics do not want psi to exist. Most of us just simply do no believe that psi exists, and if we get the proper evidence, we will be just as happy.
A lot of skeptics are fond of saying this but they very rarely spell out what they mean by "proper evidence." Care to break the mold?
In any case, the simpler theory is usually the better, so if telepathy can be eliminated by postulating that only clairvoyance exists, maybe that is the way to go. Under this hypothesis, it will not be necessary to test for telepathy any more, only for clairvoyance.
I don't think enough no-sender studies have been conducted for us to conclude whether telepathy is or isn't the psi phenomenon being elicited in the sender studies. If it is eventually found that no-sender studies are just as successful as sender studies, I agree that telepathy can be ruled out.
Originally posted by Loki
(Bem wrote) : Namely, it is not possible to do an adequate test of telepathy because the receiver could always be using clairvoyance. ... If precognition exists--in which the receiver can look into the future when the data are recorded or observed--then neither telepathy nor clairvoyance can be tested for because precognition could be the operative phenomenon in any test.

But this is backwards. We can construct a test for precognition - Bem offers one alternative. If we run this test and it fails, then precognition is eliminated, and clairvoyance or telepathy remain.
We can construct a test for clairvoyance - Huntsman has offered one. If it fails, then clairvoyance is eliminated, and telepathy remains. If it passes, then telepathy is eliminated and clairvoyance remains.
Bem doesn't disagree (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2787118288d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=2k1l6sINNcpn%40newsstand.cit.cornell.edu&rnum=68):
Whether one can conclude something or nothing about which kind of psi is operating depends on the results. For example, if one gets equally large non-chance results with both sender and no-sender conditions than one can conclude--barring artifacts--that the sender is not a necessary element in the process and, as you suggest, implicate clairvoyance (or precognition or psychokinesis). If one gets a differential result, whereby sender conditions produce the effect and non-sender conditions do not then one CAN conclude something about telepathy--again barring artifacts (such as subjects expecting to do better if they know there is a sender; the experiment would have to control for such expectations.)
(Bem wrote) : I find it amusing that you--presumably a skeptic--have suggested a design for explaining away the telepathy effect by demonstrating that it must be clairvoyance! Surely that is not what you had in mind.

Cute quote, but wrong. The suggested design does not explain away telepathy by demonstrating clairvoyance, it explains away telepathy by demonstrating "something other than telepathy". It is Bem that insists on offering paranormal explanations. Even so, eliminate telepathy or eliminate "something else".
And what exactly is the "something other than telepathy" if not clairvoyance, nor precognition, nor psychokinesis? If you have no testable answer, you have no argument against the paranormal explanations.

amherst

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by amherst
[BIf you have no testable answer, you have no argument against the paranormal explanation.[/B]

And until the paranormla researchers can show that their expected basline of 25% is actually the expected chance result, there is no evidence for the psi pheonomena in the first place, whether you explain it as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, postcognition, or lack-of-cognition.

The "clairvoyance" explanation is a post hoc fallacy, pure and simple. If the recievers believe they are being tested for reception, then the production of results above 25% do not mean they're really clairvoyant, no matter how many times you click the heels of your ruby slippers together.

[amherst]

Originally posted by Huntsman
And until the paranormla researchers can show that their expected basline of 25% is actually the expected chance result, there is no evidence for the psi pheonomena in the first place, whether you explain it as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, postcognition, or lack-of-cognition.
I'll (very hesitantly) give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you understand that if there are 3 decoys and 1 target, the odds that someone will pick correctly are 1 in 4. If you don't believe this, your issue is not just with the ganzfeld but with the laws of chance.

Putting that aside, your argument makes sense if, for instance, you are trying to claim that the random selection of images happened to cause ones which receivers had biases for to be targets significantly more frequently than other images (and if that is your concern, why weren't you more clear about it?). In any case, this (testable) criticism was put to rest by Bem in his Response to Hyman. (http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/response_to_hyman.html)
The "clairvoyance" explanation is a post hoc fallacy, pure and simple. If the recievers believe they are being tested for reception, then the production of results above 25% do not mean they're really clairvoyant, no matter how many times you click the heels of your ruby slippers together.
Again, if clairvoyance were real, how would falsely telling a receiver there is a sender keep the phenomenon from occurring? Instead of just blindly asserting it would, why don't you try giving an actual explanation?

amherst

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by amherst
[BAgain, if clairvoyance were real, how would falsely telling a receiver there is a sender keep the phenomenon from occurring? Instead of just blindly asserting it would, why don't you try giving an actual explanation?[/B]

Please, tell me you aren't serious? Are you really this stupid? You're just putting us on, right?

Have you ever studied science past the grade school level? Are you familiar with what scientific method is? Do you even KNOW what a post hoc fallacy is?

This has got to be a joke.

Okay, let's try this again. I'm saying that if people think they're recieving telepathic thoughts, but they aren't, then the hit rates cannot be due to telepathy. Correct? Yes? We can agree so far.

Now, you take this to mean that it must be due to clairvoyance, when no one is testing for or claiming that option. I'm saying don't get clairvoyant subjects. Don't get anyone who claims to have ever had clairvoyance. Get people who claim only telepathy. If nothing else, this would show that even if psi exists, those who have it don't have a clue what the f**k they're doing, and can safely be told to shut the f**k up because the tests don't prove anything. If they claim telepathy but it isn't, this in NO way supports clairvoyance. It's like doing a precognition test on coin flipping, but flipping the coins before the subject makes guesses. The subject claims they are seeing the future, not the past. Even if they guess more right than wrong, this doesn't mean they see into the past, or psychokinetically alter past events. The logic does not follow. At all. There is no link from A to B. The test was designed to test the specific claim of the persons tested. If they get the same results, even though the circumstances are not what they claim to need, then it shows that the results are not due to the methods they claim, and in NO WAY WHATSOEVER does this support clairvoyance. Are we clear now? I sure hope so, I'm not going to cover basic logical fallacy..if you need remedial courses there you're below my level...go home and play in your sandbox.

Now, 1 in 4 is a 25% chance, yes, assuming only random factors are at work. That is the key, how random is random? There are multiple areas for bias in these experiments, and as I stated, 2 out of 50 is all it takes to throw off results. I've rarely seen any with more than 50 or 60 trials per test. And the tests are judged, making them subjective in parts. Therefore, the assumption of complete randomization and complete objectivity that would give a 25% chance rate is unfounded. The tests I'm suggesting are precisely to set and confirm the assumption of a 25% chance rate...they are trying to rule out any biases that might be present. I mentioned another test before where we could try to determine this, by using results from previous studies. This would, of course, not prove clairvoyance (although in your logic it must prove precognition, right?). This would determine if the judging procedure has any inherit biases that could modify results. Even a few misjudged entries is enough to throw results off to an unreliable level. Until the procedure is properly, double-blindly tested, it is not trustworthy. The 25% rate was pulled out of someone's a$$ just becuase there are four targets. It's like claiming a 25% chance for any vehicle in a four-vehicle military convoy to be hit first. There are other factors at work that cannot be ruled out, such as vehicle type, size, position, etc. Likewise, assuming the Ganzfield chance result is 25% is failing to take into account the subjective nature of parts of the process. You can't simply declare it 25% because there are 4 targets.

The odds are not necessarily 1 in 4. Even if a person were randomly picking a card from a square spread, the odds may not be one in four. Becaue it is subjective. Now, the odds are 1 in 6 of rolling any particular number on a fair die. However, if I ask someone to choose a number from one to six, the odds of them choosing a particular number are NO LONGERR one in six because the process is NO LONGER OBJECTIVE.

I hope you actually understand that the laws of probability are NOT a simple choice over choices affair. You seem to be the one that lacks an understanding of probability.

Now, go play with your crystals or whatever, and come back when you have something intelligent to say. I do not take kindly to fools pontificating about subjects they lack an understanding of. Fools often label wisdom as ignorance.

[Loki]

amherst,

And what exactly is the "something other than telepathy" if not clairvoyance, nor precognition, nor psychokinesis? If you have no testable answer, you have no argument against the paranormal explanations.
Perhaps it is invisible time travellers from the future who pop into the labs to doctor the results of trials???

But we've been here before I think. You'll (hopefully) note that the context to that comment was "if we start by assuming the result is 'something' ". I still have enormous trouble with the fact that the 30% figure is a result of meta analysis, and if you and I were to sit down today and set up a standard Ganzfeld experiment, run it for a week, and check the results we can't be sure we'd get even 25%, let alone 30%.

There is no "a properly conducted set of ganzfeld trials always gets at least 30%". This is purely a meta analysis result - there is no "minimum" result any given ganzfeld will return. And there is still debate about the veracity of various meta analysis. In this context, I'm not sure we should speculate about that "something other than telepathy" might be, since I can't see how "something at all" has been established.

But again, even if you wish to accept that "something" is happening, I have no idea why Ganzfeld proponents appear uneasy about trying to determine which of telepathy, clairvoyance or precognition it might be.

[Loki]

Huntsman,

The odds are not necessarily 1 in 4. Even if a person were randomly picking a card from a square spread, the odds may not be one in four. Becaue it is subjective.
As an example of how the odds can be affected over multiple trials, assume that the majority of humans have a natural bias to pick the first or second of 4 choices more often than the third or fourth. But further assume that over an extended number of trials this bias reverses, and eventually such a person ends up favouring the third and fourth choice in later trials. If the random generator ALSO happened to such a bias, then the hit rate will exceed 25%. This will be true even though each of the four choices appeared the same number of times over the trials.

Does this actually happen? No idea, but unless such a problem is identified and actively guarded against, then it would cause results above 25% on a regular basis.

The point is the same - the random chance is 25% on any single trial, but over a run of trials it remains at 25% opnly if EVERYTHING is truly random.

Amherst, Care to try and explain how to measure and define "random", especially in relation to human choice?

[amherst]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Please, tell me you aren't serious? Are you really this stupid? You're just putting us on, right?

Have you ever studied science past the grade school level? Are you familiar with what scientific method is? Do you even KNOW what a post hoc fallacy is?

This has got to be a joke.

Okay, let's try this again. I'm saying that if people think they're recieving telepathic thoughts, but they aren't, then the hit rates cannot be due to telepathy. Correct? Yes? We can agree so far.

Now, you take this to mean that it must be due to clairvoyance, when no one is testing for or claiming that option.
The only one who isn't allowing for that option is you. "Honorton and I presented evidence we believe implicated psi, some anomalous 'process of information transfer.' We took no stand on what that might be (Bem, Internet discussion)."
I'm saying don't get clairvoyant subjects. Don't get anyone who claims to have ever had clairvoyance. Get people who claim only telepathy. If nothing else, this would show that even if psi exists, those who have it don't have a clue what the f**k they're doing, and can safely be told to shut the f**k up because the tests don't prove anything.
The ganzfeld studies were/are primarily conducted with everyday people as subjects. Most, I would imagine, make no claim for having any profound psychic abilities. Since Rhine's day, the majority of parapsychologists have believed psi to be a faculty everyone possesses to some degree.
If they claim telepathy but it isn't, this in NO way supports clairvoyance. It's like doing a precognition test on coin flipping, but flipping the coins before the subject makes guesses. The subject claims they are seeing the future, not the past. Even if they guess more right than wrong, this doesn't mean they see into the past, or psychokinetically alter past events. The logic does not follow. At all.
You have concocted one of the most hilarious arguments I've ever come across. You're basically saying that if tests in which subjects are falsely led to believe a sender is present, get non-chance results unexplainable by anything non-paranormal, then that doesn't mean anything because deluded woo-woos JUST DON'T have psychic ability!
There is no link from A to B. The test was designed to test the specific claim of the persons tested. If they get the same results, even though the circumstances are not what they claim to need, then it shows that the results are not due to the methods they claim, and in NO WAY WHATSOEVER does this support clairvoyance. Are we clear now? I sure hope so, I'm not going to cover basic logical fallacy..if you need remedial courses there you're below my level...go home and play in your sandbox.
Please, put Flim-Flam! down for a moment. This isn't the Randi challenge. As I mentioned above, the majority of those tested in the ganzfeld are ordinary people. College students. In fact, one of the most successful sets of ganzfeld studies ever conducted was with Juilliard students. They scored a hit rate of 50%. (Creativity has long been thought to be a major component of psi ability).
Now, 1 in 4 is a 25% chance, yes, assuming only random factors are at work. That is the key, how random is random? There are multiple areas for bias in these experiments, and as I stated, 2 out of 50 is all it takes to throw off results. I've rarely seen any with more than 50 or 60 trials per test. And the tests are judged, making them subjective in parts. Therefore, the assumption of complete randomization and complete objectivity that would give a 25% chance rate is unfounded.
What multiple areas for bias are you referring to? As I stated in my previous post, analyses have been performed which show the ganzfeld results are not due to content-related response bias nor sequence-related response bias. If you have specific problems with the analyses or any other specific concerns, explain what those are.
The tests I'm suggesting are precisely to set and confirm the assumption of a 25% chance rate...they are trying to rule out any biases that might be present. I mentioned another test before where we could try to determine this, by using results from previous studies. This would, of course, not prove clairvoyance (although in your logic it must prove precognition, right?). This would determine if the judging procedure has any inherit biases that could modify results. Even a few misjudged entries is enough to throw results off to an unreliable level.
If you had bothered to read the paper I referenced in my previous post, you would have seen that Bem "actually did two analyses that eliminated the need for the assumption that the chance baseline is .25. In the first analysis, the proportion of times that each clip (in the target set of 4) appeared in the study was multiplied by the proportion of times that receivers rated it as the target. This product yields the probability that there would have been a 'hit' on that target 'in the absence of psi' (to use River's favorite phrase). When summed across the four clips in the set, this yields an EMPIRICAL (rather than an assumed theoretical) chance baseline against which the actual hit rate observed for that target set can be compared. This showed that a psi effect (i.e., a non-chance, presumably non-artifactual effect) did occur (Bem, Internet discussion)."
Until the procedure is properly, double-blindly tested, it is not trustworthy.
It is double-blinded. Neither the experimenter nor the receiver knows what the correct target is until after the session has ended.
The 25% rate was pulled out of someone's a$$ just becuase there are four targets. It's like claiming a 25% chance for any vehicle in a four-vehicle military convoy to be hit first. There are other factors at work that cannot be ruled out, such as vehicle type, size, position, etc. Likewise, assuming the Ganzfield chance result is 25% is failing to take into account the subjective nature of parts of the process. You can't simply declare it 25% because there are 4 targets.

The odds are not necessarily 1 in 4. Even if a person were randomly picking a card from a square spread, the odds may not be one in four. Becaue it is subjective. Now, the odds are 1 in 6 of rolling any particular number on a fair die. However, if I ask someone to choose a number from one to six, the odds of them choosing a particular number are NO LONGERR one in six because the process is NO LONGER OBJECTIVE.
In my previous post I wrote:

Putting that aside, your argument makes sense if, for instance, you are trying to claim that the random selection of images happened to cause ones which receivers had biases for to be targets significantly more frequently than other images (and if that is your concern, why weren't you more clear about it?). In any case, this (testable) criticism was put to rest by Bem in his Response to Hyman. (http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/response_to_hyman.html)
Did you not read that part?
I hope you actually understand that the laws of probability are NOT a simple choice over choices affair. You seem to be the one that lacks an understanding of probability.
As my previous post shows, I am well aware of the factors which could cause a ganzfeld chance hit rate to be greater than .25. These have all been sufficiently addressed in papers which you refuse to acquaint yourself with.
Now, go play with your crystals or whatever, and come back when you have something intelligent to say. I do not take kindly to fools pontificating about subjects they lack an understanding of. Fools often label wisdom as ignorance.
And even more so, if they are of an unpleasant egotistical sort, their own ignorance as wisdom.


amherst

[Loki]

amherst,

As my previous post shows, I am well aware of the factors which could cause a ganzfeld chance hit rate to be greater than .25. These have all been sufficiently addressed in papers ...
Actually, it's more correct to say that you're well aware of the factors that have been sufficiently addressed. There remains the possibility that the real factor is as yet undetermined, and therefore unaddressed.

I'm sure that you are basing your comment here on the idea that a large number of well-credentialled researchers have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about, looking for, and eliminating possible factors. But you need look no further than the famous "Monty Hall" problem to see that a large number of experts can be easily mislead, and wrong, about even simple questions of probability.

[amherst]

Originally posted by Loki
amherst,


Actually, it's more correct to say that you're well aware of the factors that have been sufficiently addressed. There remains the possibility that the real factor is as yet undetermined, and therefore unaddressed.

I'm sure that you are basing your comment here on the idea that a large number of well-credentialled researchers have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about, looking for, and eliminating possible factors. But you need look no further than the famous "Monty Hall" problem to see that a large number of experts can be easily mislead, and wrong, about even simple questions of probability.
Unless you can show that all these well-credentialled researchers are likely wrong and misled, you, in effect, have no argument against the results of their studies.

amherst

[Loki]

amhesrt,

Unless you can show that all these well-credentialled researchers are likely wrong and misled, you, in effect, have no argument against the results of their studies
I have, in effect, just one argument against the results. That you can take any of these well-credentialled researchers, fund them, run a set of ganzfeld trials, and end up with zip. Not one of them can guarantee a result above chance for any given set of future trials. I can't see how that counts as "replicatable result".

The Ganzfeld researchers are just playing the "meta-analysis shuffle" to produce a result that even the proponents can't explain ("is it telepathy?, is it clairvoyance?, is it precognition?, is it alien life forms playing jokes?, is it the leprechauns?"). They seem unable to find anyway of improving the result over time. The observed result hovers dangerously near "irrelevant", despite attempts to vary the protocol to improve it. In fact, it seems that virtually all attempts to vary it produce an increased tendency towards chance - hence the entire 'standardisation' analysis.

Bottom line? Something happens in the majority of Ganzfeld trials - but no one, including the researchers, has any real idea what, or why, or how to improve the testing. Now, you want to go with the paranormal explanation? Fine. All you're saying is "I don't actually know what's happening, or how, but for now I'm going to believe it's probably paranormal". All I'm saying is "I don't actually know what's happening, or how, but for now I'm going to believe it's probably normal". And despite your implication, I don't see how it's up to me to prove I'm right - you're the one proposing the fundamental change in the nature and shape of the universe. I think you need to be providing a better evidential base than "Ganzfeld meta-analysis" in order to be taken seriously.

Your argument seems to amount to "if you can't prove me wrong, then I'm right, even though I have no real explanation either". Sorry, can't see how that works...

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Loki

I have, in effect, just one argument against the results. That you can take any of these well-credentialled researchers, fund them, run a set of ganzfeld trials, and end up with zip. Not one of them can guarantee a result above chance for any given set of future trials. I can't see how that counts as "replicatable result".


Well credentialed researchers have had a lot more than 'zip'. :)


They seem unable to find anyway of improving the result over time.

A bit too early to say for certain but I think Professor Robert Morris trial (2003 Ganzfeld) found carefully selected artistic people (musicians, artists and writers) did significantly better than non artistic people.

Brief interview ...
http://groups.msn.com/PsychicAdventuresOnline/paranormaltales.msnw

Interesting part to me is 'The shielding around the room--there to prevent subjects communicating via more prosaic mediums such as various signalling devices--means that psi is unlikely to be an electromagnetic wave.

[Loki]

Open Mind,

Well credentialed researchers have had a lot more than 'zip'.
Perhaps I was unclear - I mean that on their next set of trials they cannot guarantee a result. Not talking past results, but future ones. No one can say what the next ganzfeld result will be - no one can say it will exceed chance.

Regarding the idea of "improving/changing" the Ganzfeld, from your link..

Where things get sticky is that it doesn't seem to matter whether there's a sender or not. Ganzfeld experiments that claim a positive result have also been successful if the computer is displaying images to an empty room. Nor do distance or time appear to inhibit the results. In psychokinesis experiments, where subjects try to influence the output of a random number generator, results have been successful when the subject was on the other side of the world, or did their stuff several days before or after the recording session.


For skeptics, this has simply strengthened their view that the source of all positive results must have something to do with the set-up or analysis of parapsychology experiments. For parapsychologists, it leaves them even further away from concrete ideas about mechanism.

Once again, the conclusion here is what I said before - either you conclude that "something normal but not understood" is occuring, or you conclude that "something paranormal but not understood" is occuring. Call this "evidence of the paranormal" if you wish, but in that case I can't see why it's not also evidence for the existence of mischiveous leprechauns.

[Interesting Ian]

From the link supplied by Open Mind.


Robert Morris
When I came here, I set the odds at about 85 per cent that we were studying something that would turn out to be above and beyond what present-day science could account for. During those years I've probably drifted into the low to middle 90s. But I still remain confident that future scientists will figure it out.


That gives me an idea for a poll :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
[B]Open Mind,


Perhaps I was unclear - I mean that on their next set of trials they cannot guarantee a result. Not talking past results, but future ones. No one can say what the next ganzfeld result will be - no one can say it will exceed chance.



Well if they could guarantee a result, then they would be no point in carrying out further experiments!

I know what you mean though. Parapsychology is not like physics where, if you duplicate the experimental protocol precisely, one should theoretically obtain precisely the same results (although it doesn't always happen even in physics!)

But do you not understand that when you're dealing with human beings they're simply too many variables? The psychological well being, and dispositions, and mood of the participants seem to me to be absolutely crucial. Just to give one example: pressure to perform in the face of a skeptical researcher seems to me to be very likely to dampen what little esp abilities one might have.

You cannot expect sciences dealing with human beings to be as successful as the "hard sciences". Is parapsychology any worse off than sociology, economics and psychology in this respect?

[Ashles]

Is parapsychology any worse off than sociology, economics and psychology in this respect?
Yes of course it is as those other fields have, again, repeatable, demonstrable experiments and results. Some are open to interpretation and some are considered firm facts.

They are not at all similar.

You are trying to claim some kind of equality in respectability between parapsycholgy and other fields of study (even physics!) but this just isn't true.

Parapsychologists just don't have anything demonstrable to warrant a field of study.

If they want to keep looking, fine, I hope they do find something. But as it stands they are the only 'scientists' in existence studying a field that doesn't even appear to exist.
How can they be expected to be taken as seriously as other researchers?

All their excuses about the moods of the subjects or the attitude of the reseacher etc. look like just that - excuses.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
Yes of course it is as those other fields have, again, repeatable, demonstrable experiments and results. Some are open to interpretation and some are considered firm facts.

They are not at all similar.


Well you would need to show references demonstrating these other sciences are more successful. Please note that I'm not talking about readiness to accept the results, but rather repeatible effects of a more or less similar statistical significance.




You are trying to claim some kind of equality in respectability between parapsychology and other fields of study (even physics!) but this just isn't true.



Certainly not even physics. You've got to be kidding. The empirical realm, excluding those actions initiated by sentient beings, seems to be reducible to microphysics. Thus apparently disparate phenomena operate according to the same equations described by mathematics of a most exquisite beauty.

[Ashles]

Well you would need to show references demonstrating these other sciences are more successful. Please note that I'm not talking about readiness to accept the results, but rather repeatible effects of a more or less similar statistical significance.
I can't believe, even from you Ian, that you are requesting references to show that sociology, economics, psychology and physics have a higher degree of testable results than parapsychology.

You may want to try, oh I don't know, anywhere. A library perhaps. The internet.

Why not try here (http://www.princeton.edu/~sbwhite/sociwebb.html)
Or here (http://www.jstor.org/journals/00346527.html)
Or here perhaps (http://www.socialpsychology.org/expts.htm)

But I know even you know how ridiculous your claims are getting so we'll leave that for the time being.


Thus apparently disparate phenomena operate according to the same equations described by mathematics of a most exquisite beauty.
Oh really? Which mathematics is that then? I would be interested to know your take on it and your grasp of such mathematics (or did you just read that phrase in a book and kind of liked it)

It's hard to know quite what you are trying to say with your last comments. Are you drunk already? It's only just gone 5pm!

[Interesting Ian]

Well you would need to show references demonstrating these other sciences are more successful. Please note that I'm not talking about readiness to accept the results, but rather repeatible effects of a more or less similar statistical significance.

----------------------------
I can't believe, even from you Ian, that you are requesting references to show that sociology, economics, psychology and physics have a higher degree of testable results than parapsychology.
------------------------------------

Not physics!! :mad:



You may want to try, oh I don't know, anywhere. A library perhaps. The internet.

Why not try here
Or here
Or here perhaps

But I know even you know how ridiculous your claims are getting so we'll leave that for the time being.



You're going to have to do better than that. Supply the precise quotes which vindicates your case.




Thus apparently disparate phenomena operate according to the same equations described by mathematics of a most exquisite beauty.

-------------------------------------
Oh really? Which mathematics is that then? I would be interested to know your take on it and your grasp of such mathematics (or did you just read that phrase in a book and kind of liked it)



Any kind of mathematics. The apparently most useless mathematics is eventually discovered to apply to the real world.

[Ashles]

I am really uncertain as to what kind of a quote you are looking for Ian.

A quote that illustrates that sociology is about groups of prople?
A quote that confirms that people exist?
A quote that shows that studies have been done on groups of people and the results have been recorded and analysed?
that theories have been created about group structures and interactions?
Quotes that, in essence, confirm that Sociology is the study of something that actually exists? Is that what you mean?
Are you questioning the existence of societies or large groups of people?
If not what exactly are you questioning?
Try and find whatever you are looking for here (http://www.wcsu.edu/socialsci/socres.html)

Any kind of mathematics. The apparently most useless mathematics is eventually discovered to apply to the real world.
Yes I'm not disagreeing with that. You seemed to go off into a weird place for a short while an I thought you were describing a particularly beautiful area of mathematics and I was curious as to what you were referring to.
I now assume you just mean all maths is equally beautiful.

[amherst]

Originally posted by Loki
amhesrt,


I have, in effect, just one argument against the results. That you can take any of these well-credentialled researchers, fund them, run a set of ganzfeld trials, and end up with zip. Not one of them can guarantee a result above chance for any given set of future trials. I can't see how that counts as "replicatable result".
Your position is analogous to someone who doesn't believe home runs exist. Yes, no one can guarantee receivers in the next ganzfeld study will be successful. BUT, no one can guarantee the New York Yankees will hit home runs in their next game either. If a game occurs where no player hits it home, that doesn't mean a skeptic can claim home runs don't exist or that they won't occur in the future. I think you've already basically agreed that the ganzfeld evidence shows that, like home runs, the effect (whatever your interpretation of it is) is real, repeatable, and can be confidently expected to occur a significant amount of the time.
The Ganzfeld researchers are just playing the "meta-analysis shuffle" to produce a result that even the proponents can't explain ("is it telepathy?, is it clairvoyance?, is it precognition?, is it alien life forms playing jokes?, is it the leprechauns?").
It always fascinates me when skeptics make this (extremely desperate) argument. Do you really believe the results are more likely due to aliens (technology?) or leprechauns (???) than psi?
They seem unable to find anyway of improving the result over time. The observed result hovers dangerously near "irrelevant", despite attempts to vary the protocol to improve it. In fact, it seems that virtually all attempts to vary it produce an increased tendency towards chance - hence the entire 'standardisation' analysis.
Parapsychologists have made a lot of progress in identifying what factors are necessary for significant psi results to occur. As has been mentioned before, creativity seems to be highly important. The Juilliard students achieved a hit rate of 50% and Kathy Dalton's experiments with highly creative subjects got nearly that. Other than creativity, many different elements have been shown important for the success of an experiment. All these are considered standard, and most will need to be present if an experimenter is doing a proof-oriented study. So the questions become,

1.Why don't parapsychologist only run studies with highly creative people? And,

2. why do they often deviate from the standard methodology?

The first question is answered by realizing that highly creative people are somewhat rare and that many may not have the time nor the inclination to participate in parapsychological studies.

As for the second, when you say "The observed result hovers dangerously near 'irrelevant', despite attempts to vary the protocol to improve it," you seem to be assuming that the only reason researchers vary the standard protocol is to try and "improve it." As can be seen by looking over some of the non-standard experiments, this isn't true. Many of the non-standard studies attempt to understand what psi is and isn't capable of. For instance, the two studies which were rated to have the lowest standardness were ones in which an experimenter tried to see if music could be transmitted via psi. It couldn't. But if it could, I don't see how this would have done anything to improve the standard proof-oriented methodology.

Furthermore, many parapsychologists (as well as many non) believe that parapsychology has come to a point where there is no longer any use in conducting proof-oriented work. The cumulative evidence is so strong that, as statistician Jessica Utts puts it, (http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air.html) "There is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data."

(And, as you should be aware, the observed results for standard studies do not "hover dangerously near irrelevant," nor do all of the experiments -standard and non- taken togther.)
Bottom line? Something happens in the majority of Ganzfeld trials - but no one, including the researchers, has any real idea what, or why, or how to improve the testing. Now, you want to go with the paranormal explanation? Fine. All you're saying is "I don't actually know what's happening, or how, but for now I'm going to believe it's probably paranormal".
Since the existence of psi is really the only conceivable explanation for the results, I see it as valid. I'm sorry, but it breaks my credulity to consider that the results are due to mischievous aliens or leprechauns.
All I'm saying is "I don't actually know what's happening, or how, but for now I'm going to believe it's probably normal". And despite your implication, I don't see how it's up to me to prove I'm right - you're the one proposing the fundamental change in the nature and shape of the universe. I think you need to be providing a better evidential base than "Ganzfeld meta-analysis" in order to be taken seriously.
Since the only explanation you've been able to provide involves aliens and leprechauns, maybe you should start taking it seriously.

Bem (Internet discussion):

The important point here is that, while the burden of proof for an extraordinary claim lies with the claimant not the critic, once the data have been presented, it falls to the critic to spell out how some overlooked or inadaquately controlled variable might have produced artifactual results--which is what Hyman tries to do. It is not sufficient simply to make handwaving statements to the effect that X was not controlled (laboratory temperature, day of the week, selection of targets) without spelling out the logic of how these might have produced the observed effects.
Your argument seems to amount to "if you can't prove me wrong, then I'm right, even though I have no real explanation either". Sorry, can't see how that works...
My explanation is that psi exists. This explanation is more realistic than any you, or anyone else has offered.


amherst

[Open Mind]

Nice series of posts by Amherst

[Loki]

amherst,

If a game occurs where no player hits it home, that doesn't mean a skeptic can claim home runs don't exist or that they won't occur in the future.
Analogies are only useful if they mirror the main aspects of the issue, and don't bring in any major side issues. The problem here is that the mechanism, cause, and result of home runs is fully understood, fully compatible with all existing lasws of physics, and the absense of a home run in a game is also fully explainable. Care to offer any reason why any of this applies to the Ganzfeld? Mechanism for result? Compatible with existing physical laws? Explanation for failure?

I think you've already basically agreed that the ganzfeld evidence shows that, like home runs, the effect (whatever your interpretation of it is) is real, repeatable, and can be confidently expected to occur a significant amount of the time.
Close enough - the statistics are there. What they mean is the issue. I'd still question the claim of 'repeatable', but I'm prepared to concede that this is probably a matter of personal interpretation.

It always fascinates me when skeptics make this (extremely desperate) argument. Do you really believe the results are more likely due to aliens (technology?) or leprechauns (???) than psi?
It always fascinates me why you avoid the issue - can you offer any reason to exclude these explanations, other than your own personal "credibility rating"? Is the machanism of leprechauns better understood? Are they more compatible with physics? Just why are they such an incredible explanation? Please, just take the time to explain why leprechauns are unlikely to be the cause of the Ganzfeld. Just a few simple steps of logic or reason that demonstrates the weakness of this possible explanation. Thanks.

The fact that you find invisible, undetectable, uncontrollable, unquatifiable, unreliable human "mental powers" to be more credible that leprechauns is nothing more than personal bias - it has no foundation in anything except your own wish fulfillment. Muslims find Allah far more credible that a resurrected Jesus, Penticostal Christians are exactly the opposite. And both are built on the same foundation as your rejection of leprechauns - given the absence of an explanation, you fill in your own label.

The cumulative evidence is so strong that, as statistician Jessica Utts puts it, "There is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data."
Of course lets ignore that silly little issue of proof! After all, hasn't harmed homeopathy to simply assert that the cumulation of anecdotes constitutes sufficient evidence of veracity. You believe in homeopathy amherst? If not, why not? Surely that lack of any solid proof or mechanism doesn't interfer in your believe in it does it? After all, hundreds of thousands of people world wide swear by it.

Since the existence of psi is really the only conceivable explanation for the results, I see it as valid. I'm sorry, but it breaks my credulity to consider that the results are due to mischievous aliens or leprechauns
Your broken credibility is probably where you're having so much trouble understanding what is being said to you. Of course, the label 'psi' really means "anything except normal", so you are pinning your credibility to a mirage. Continue if you wish.

Since the only explanation you've been able to provide involves aliens and leprechauns, maybe you should start taking it seriously
Since the only explanation you've been able to provide involves telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, the experimenter effect, human 'mental manipulation' of random number generators (telekinesis?), or remote viewing, then perhaps you need to ask which of these, and why, you want to take seriously. Then explain how you intend to eliminate the others - unless, of course, you think they all exist????

[Hellbound]

You have more patients than I, Loki. Bravo.

You've also got more eloquence...you've driven to the heart of the matter, I think.

[amherst]

Originally posted by Loki
amherst,


Analogies are only useful if they mirror the main aspects of the issue, and don't bring in any major side issues. The problem here is that the mechanism, cause, and result of home runs is fully understood, fully compatible with all existing lasws of physics, and the absense of a home run in a game is also fully explainable. Care to offer any reason why any of this applies to the Ganzfeld? Mechanism for result? Compatible with existing physical laws? Explanation for failure?
The analogy only provides (and was only meant as) an explanation for why psi, if it exists, should not be expected to be successfully elicited in every single experiment. Like the results of baseball games, the results of psi experiments are dependent upon human performance. Human performance is subject to many variables and, by its nature, never completely reliable. Therefore, unless you can provide a satisfactory reason for thinking that if psi exists, it shouldn't be classified as a human perfomance, the analogy between it and home runs remains valid.

-As an answer to your incompatibility with physical laws criticism, I offer this passage from Charles Honorton's essay, Rhetoric Over Substance: The Impoverished State of Skepticism (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v57/ai_14890637):
The most prominent critic of this period was the English psychologist C. E. M. Hansel (1966/1980). Hansel pursued the line of attack initiated by Price.(1) "It is wise," Hansel wrote, "to adopt initially the assumption that ESP is impossible, since there is a great weight of knowledge supporting this point of view" (Hansel, 1980, p. 22). He provided no documentation whatsoever for this assumption. Neither Hansel, nor any other critic has ever, to the best of my knowledge, shown that the existence of psi phenomena necessarily conflicts with established knowledge. Consider, for example, the following comment by physicist Gerald Feinberg (1975), concerning what is probably the most intuitively distressing parapsychological phenomenon--precognition:

Instead of forbidding precognition from happening, accepted physical~ theories typically have sufficient symmetry (between past and future) to suggest that phenomena akin to precognition should occur.... Indeed, phenomena involving a reversed time order of cause and effect are generally excluded from consideration on the ground that they have not been observed, rather than because the theory forbids them. This exclusion itself introduces an element of asymmetry into the physical theories, which some physicists have felt was improper or required further explanation.... Thus, if such phenomena indeed occur, no change in the fundamental equations of physics would be needed to describe them.
Close enough - the statistics are there. What they mean is the issue. I'd still question the claim of 'repeatable', but I'm prepared to concede that this is probably a matter of personal interpretation.
Do you personally interpret home runs as being non-repeatable? If not, then (as I've shown above) you'd be inconsistent in believing the ganzfeld effect is not repeatable.
It always fascinates me why you avoid the issue - can you offer any reason to exclude these explanations, other than your own personal "credibility rating"? Is the machanism of leprechauns better understood? Are they more compatible with physics? Just why are they such an incredible explanation? Please, just take the time to explain why leprechauns are unlikely to be the cause of the Ganzfeld. Just a few simple steps of logic or reason that demonstrates the weakness of this possible explanation. Thanks.
1. We have evidence that people are able acquire information without the use of their normal senses.

2. We don't have any evidence that leprechauns exist.

To posit the existence of leprechauns who (somehow???) cause the ganzfeld results to be significant is an unnecessary, unjustified, nonparsimonious step. Haven't heard of Occam's Razor?

-For the sake of my own curiosity, I'd like you to explain exactly how you think leprechauns could be causing the ganzfeld results.
The fact that you find invisible, undetectable, uncontrollable, unquatifiable, unreliable human "mental powers" to be more credible that leprechauns is nothing more than personal bias - it has no foundation in anything except your own wish fulfillment. Muslims find Allah far more credible that a resurrected Jesus, Penticostal Christians are exactly the opposite. And both are built on the same foundation as your rejection of leprechauns - given the absence of an explanation, you fill in your own label.
As I explained above, proposing the existence of leprechauns to explain the ganzfeld results is unnecessary and not parsimonious. Allah and Jesus are probably (unlike psi and leprechauns) of equal parsimony but you presumably, like I with the leprechauns, think believing the stories surrounding either of the two is unnecessary since you (probably) think you can provide a simpler more realistic answer to whatever the question you think they were invented to answer is. Your personal bias explanation for why the Christ and Allah myths are believed in then, is in stark contrast to the explanation for why the psi explanation is believed true. Again, the only (non psi???) explanation you've been able to provide is much more complex and unrealistic than its alternative.
Of course lets ignore that silly little issue of proof! After all, hasn't harmed homeopathy to simply assert that the cumulation of anecdotes constitutes sufficient evidence of veracity. You believe in homeopathy amherst? If not, why not? Surely that lack of any solid proof or mechanism doesn't interfer in your believe in it does it? After all, hundreds of thousands of people world wide swear by it.
This is bizarre coming from you. We've been discussing nothing but experimental proof this entire time. Proof which you admit not having an explanation for. Maybe it will shock you to learn that the ganzfeld isn't the only successful parapsychological experiment; and that those who think there is no longer any use in doing proof-oriented work base their belief not on anecdotes but on scientific evidence.
Your broken credibility is probably where you're having so much trouble understanding what is being said to you. Of course, the label 'psi' really means "anything except normal", so you are pinning your credibility to a mirage. Continue if you wish.
I actually said it breaks my c-r-e-d-u-l-i-t-y, not credibility. And if the not normal (psi) explanation for the results is a mirage, what then is the normal explanation? (You haven't been able to provide one, remember?)
Since the only explanation you've been able to provide involves telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, the experimenter effect, human 'mental manipulation' of random number generators (telekinesis?), or remote viewing, then perhaps you need to ask which of these, and why, you want to take seriously. Then explain how you intend to eliminate the others - unless, of course, you think they all exist????
Since all of those psi phenomena have strong experimental evidence supporting their existence, I believe they should all be taken seriously. We've already discussed how we could potentially figure out which one is being elicited in the ganzfeld, but this has no relevance to the question of psi's existence. A question which the evidence has conclusively answered in the affirmative.

amherst

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Loki
Please, just take the time to explain why leprechauns are unlikely to be the cause of the Ganzfeld.

Consider the definitions of the words "telepathy," "psi," and "Leprechaun":

Telepathy: Communication by means other than through the normal senses.

Psi: Parapsychological phenomena or abilities considered as a group.

Leprechaun: One of a race of elves in Irish folklore who can reveal hidden treasure to those who catch them.

The first two are labels for observed effects. The third is being used in an attempt to explain the cause of them.

So, to answer the question: we do not know that Leprechauns do not cause telepathy. But the purpose of the Ganzfeld experiments (or indeed any experiments) is not to postulate a cause for the effects they exhibit. They merely seek to exhibit evidence for a particular hypothesis--in this case, it is labeled "telepathy."

Once sufficient evidence has been compiled (and I don't know whether it has been), the conclusion that "telepathy occurs" inevitably follows. It is only shorthand for the statement that "humans do gain information through extrasensory channels."

On the other hand, if we were to catch a little green man with an Irish accent, and he were able to lead us to a pot of gold, we might declare that "Leprechauns do exist." In that case, it would not make any more sense to ask "why is the Loch Ness monster unlikely to be the cause of Leprechauns?" than it would to ask "why aren't Leprechauns likely to be the cause for telepathy?" now.

[amherst]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Consider the definitions of the words "telepathy," "psi," and "Leprechaun":

Telepathy: Communication by means other than through the normal senses.

Psi: Parapsychological phenomena or abilities considered as a group.

Leprechaun: One of a race of elves in Irish folklore who can reveal hidden treasure to those who catch them.

The first two are labels for observed effects. The third is being used in an attempt to explain the cause of them.

So, to answer the question: we do not know that Leprechauns do not cause telepathy. But the purpose of the Ganzfeld experiments (or indeed any experiments) is not to postulate a cause for the effects they exhibit. They merely seek to exhibit evidence for a particular hypothesis--in this case, it is labeled "telepathy."

Once sufficient evidence has been compiled (and I don't know whether it has been), the conclusion that "telepathy occurs" inevitably follows. It is only shorthand for the statement that "humans do gain information through extrasensory channels."

On the other hand, if we were to catch a little green man with an Irish accent, and he were able to lead us to a pot of gold, we might declare that "Leprechauns do exist." In that case, it would not make any more sense to ask "why is the Loch Ness monster unlikely to be the cause of Leprechauns?" than it would to ask "why aren't Leprechauns likely to be the cause for telepathy?" now.
I've been under the impression that Loki is claiming---not that aliens or leprechauns are the cause of psi--- but that they are the cause of an illusion of it. Now I have no idea how leprechauns could do this, but I can (barely) imagine mischievious aliens with a highly advanced technology putting an undetectable device in the senders room which transmits, non-psychically, the target images to the receivers senses. This would certainly be an "anamolous process of information transefer," and paranormal, but it wouldn't be "psi" as it is currently defined. Of course the suggestion that this is the cause of the ganzfeld results is completely ridiculous, unfounded, and desperate, but Loki seems to think that the existence of psi is even more absurd. I've tried to explain to him why his reasoning is wrong, but I have little hope that he will understand.

amherst

[Loki]

flyboy217,

Thanks to amhesrt for getting in before me - see his reply for the essence of our misunderstanding.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by amherst
I've been under the impression that Loki is claiming---not that aliens or leprechauns are the cause of psi--- but that they are the cause of an illusion of it.But there's no difference between a perfectly convincing illusion of telepathy and telepathy!Originally posted by flyboy217
Consider the definitions of the words "telepathy," "psi," and "Leprechaun":

Telepathy: Communication by means other than through the normal senses.

Psi: Parapsychological phenomena or abilities considered as a group.

Leprechaun: One of a race of elves in Irish folklore who can reveal hidden treasure to those who catch them.

The first two are labels for observed effects. The third is being used in an attempt to explain the cause of them. What he said. Telepathy caused by leprechauns is just as much telepathy as if it's explained by Interesting Ian's MegaSuperDuperMind, or whatever he calls it. Or "vibrations". Or Satan. Or any other woo explanation.

[Loki]

amherst,

I've tried to explain to him why his reasoning is wrong, but I have little hope that he will understand.
You're quite correct - I fail to see any failure of reasoning here, and therefore do not understand why you claim to have shown this. What I see is simply your constant repetition of your one single argument - the Ganzfeld result is statistically significant, therefore psi exists...

You and I differ only in that we label the ganzfeld result differently. We both agree that most meta analysis throws up a statistical result. We both agree that the exact nature and cause (mechanism) of this result is, at this time, unknown. I choose to call this state of affairs "unknown". You choose to call it "psi", and then go on to build a sandcastle of telepathy/clairvoyence/precogition/etc/etc on this empty foundation.

Like the results of baseball games, the results of psi experiments are dependent upon human performance.
Unlike the results of baseball games, the results of psi expriments appear to be dependant upon an unknown, and unquanitified aspect of human performance. See now why the analogy fails? You simply assume the "psi-factor".

Do you personally interpret home runs as being non-repeatable? If not, then (as I've shown above) you'd be inconsistent in believing the ganzfeld effect is not repeatable.

In a scientific setting, home runs are eminently repeatable - in fact, we can build a machine to hit home runs everytime. Care to try an build a ganzfeld machine that works everytime?

As an answer to your incompatibility with physical laws criticism, I offer this passage from Charles Honorton's essay
Yes, I've seen various comments that discuss the theoretical underpinnings that would allow time to be bi-directional - thus creating a theorectical basis for precognition. But I'm not sure I can recall any such theory for the core of the telepathy theory - action independant of distance. And please lets not resort to any references to Quantum entanglement - the Ganzfeld is purely a macro-level event, so it requires a macro level explanation.

Anyway, even if we accept these theories, then the proving of precognition would invalid any physical theory that relies upon a uni-directional concept of time - which is the current norm. The point remains that psi is not necessarily incompatible with ALL physical theories, just the currently accepted ones.

As far as the 'symetry' argument goes, it falls on it's own sword since the main argument against symetry is failure to observe such behaviour in the physical universe. Should telepathy prove to the exception to the "doesn't happen" rule, the question then becomes "why does this one aspect only of the physical universe exhibit this behaviour". That's equally or more unsettling as "why is time an asymetrical aspect of the physical universe".

For the sake of my own curiosity, I'd like you to explain exactly how you think leprechauns could be causing the ganzfeld results.
Are you really this dense? The point is, I have no idea how the result is caused. Neither do you. Yet you're willing to include some "paranormal" possibilities, and exclude others. You're inconsistent, and for no reason. I'm consistent - until better evidence is available, I'm excluding all such alternatives. I'm not offering leprechauns as a valid option - I'm saying they seem as unlikely to me as any other para-normal explanation.

But perhaps you're right, and the use of the term leprechaun is simply diluting the point I'm making. Let's try a variation. Let's posit the existence of a "mental-lifeform" called a "Telechaun". These spirit based entities exist as symbiots for humans, and can exchange information between one human and another via the spirit realm in which they dwell.

1. We have evidence that people are able acquire information without the use of their normal senses.

2. We therefore have evidence that Telechauns exist.

Care to explain why this is false? Why it's "less parsimonious" than telepathy or clairvoyance? I assume that you're willing to consider Telechauns as a reasonable and potentially valid explanation for the ganzfeld?

Anyway, the problem with this whole exchange is that your point 1 above simply assumes your conclusion. You may as well have written :

1. We have evidence that psi exists.

2. Therefore psi exists.

And if you think I'm just being pedantic about the wording, then just please explain how you can prove that the ganzfeld result is not an anamoly in random number generation? And before you start asking to me to prove that it is, please try to understand that it is you who is claiming that "people are able acquire information without the use of their normal senses". How you can claim this when you are unable to prove that ALL normal avenues are closed is beyond me.

I can only assume your argument amounts to "well, lots of smart people said they can't find any fault with the protocol". For the nth, and final I think, time - these same people also have no idea of what they are getting. They just label it with their own pet theory. They claim to know what it's NOT, but not what it IS.

Again, the only (non psi???) explanation you've been able to provide is much more complex and unrealistic than its alternative
Just to be clear, since you seem to have a lot of trouble following what is being said to you, I have not offered leprechauns as an explanation. See above - I've asked you why we should exclude them.

But lets agree they are dead as an explanation, and put our energy into proving the existence of Telechauns. I have some interesting statistical results from the ganzfeld database to present to you that I think presents a compelling case for their existence. In fact, I see little need for further proof-oriented experiments to support the existence of Telechauns, since if you aren't prepared to accept the current evidence then you probably never will...

I actually said it breaks my c-r-e-d-u-l-i-t-y, not credibility.
Correct, and for a moment I was going to apologise for misquoting you (although I'd taken you meaning) - but then I thought about it, and I think the linking of your credibility to your credulity works quite well - I'm going to stick with it.

A question which the evidence has conclusively answered in the affirmative.
Okay, I'm done amherst. I've made my points, you've made yours, and there's not much left to add. You believe the evidence answers the question, even though you can't actually explain what the question is. "Does psi exist" isn't a valid question, despite what you might think, since the term "psi" is undefined in any real sense. Please explain why the same evidence is not also to be used to answer the question "Do Telechauns exist"? I assume then you agree the answer to that is in the affirmative?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Loki
"Does psi exist" isn't a valid question, despite what you might think, since the term "psi" is undefined in any real sense.Then what the heck are we all doing here? I know perfectly well what's meant by psi. Please explain why the same evidence is not also to be used to answer the question "Do Telechauns exist"? For the same reason that the evidence for the existence of gravity is not evidence for the existence of the graviton.

[Loki]

Dr Aequate,

I know perfectly well what's meant by psi.
Care to share? Or is this one of those "you know it when you see it" thingies?

For the same reason that the evidence for the existence of gravity is not evidence for the existence of the graviton.
Evidence of the effect is not necessarily evidence for any particular mechanism? Fair enough.

My comment is made in the context of amherst's insistance that the ganzfeld is "evidence of an effect", and that he can go further and claim it as evidence for some potential mechanisms, and against others. Included in these mechanisms that he has eliminated are any and all possible current or future natural explanations. My point is only to get him to explain the elimination process - if it's inconsistent, then the "proof of psi" claim is also inconsistent.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Loki
Care to share? Or is this one of those "you know it when you see it" thingies? Telepathy, precognition, telekenisis... stuff involving the "power of the mind" which would win someone $1,000,000 if they could actually do it.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by amherst
I've been under the impression that Loki is claiming---not that aliens or leprechauns are the cause of psi--- but that they are the cause of an illusion of it.

But what is the difference to us, really, if Leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns, or quantum foam causes it, so long as those things don't manifest themselves in other ways relevant to our hypothesis?

Now I have no idea how leprechauns could do this, but I can (barely) imagine mischievious aliens with a highly advanced technology putting an undetectable device in the senders room which transmits, non-psychically, the target images to the receivers senses. This would certainly be an "anamolous process of information transefer," and paranormal, but it wouldn't be "psi" as it is currently defined.

If it were truly undetectable, it certainly would be "psi" as far as we could determine, wouldn't it?


Of course the suggestion that this is the cause of the ganzfeld results is completely ridiculous, unfounded, and desperate, but Loki seems to think that the existence of psi is even more absurd. I've tried to explain to him why his reasoning is wrong, but I have little hope that he will understand.

amherst

Here's where I keep getting lost. How can one argue that the existence of an observed effect is "more absurd" than a particular cause of it?.

To use Dr. Adequate's example (actually, my own from last night, which he stole... tinfoil hat going on... now): after observing the effects of gravity in a series of experiments, how could one claim that the existence of gravity is more absurd than the existence of gravitons?

The way I understand it, psi is only an observed effect. So long as a person is able to gain information without resort to any of the channels we know about in the human body today, it fits the definition of "psi."

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Loki
Unlike the results of baseball games, the results of psi expriments appear to be dependant upon an unknown, and unquanitified aspect of human performance. See now why the analogy fails? You simply assume the "psi-factor".


You two are going in circles here. There are two things in question: "is the effect repeatable?", and "is the effect psi?"

The baseball analogy is only meant to satisfy the first question. Specifically, if some observable effect (call it "notpsi" if "psi" is bothersome) is not reproducible on demand, but shows up in a statistically significant way, can it be said to be repeatable? In baseball we answer yes, so in the Ganzfeld we should too.

Maybe home runs are caused by elves, and maybe the Ganzfeld result is caused by the Loch Ness Monster, but both meet the same criterion for repeatability (even if by different orders of magnitude).

[amherst]

Originally posted by flyboy217
But what is the difference to us, really, if Leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns, or quantum foam causes it, so long as those things don't manifest themselves in other ways relevant to our hypothesis?
The difference would mainly be in the implications of the results. If, like in my alien example, something were causing the ganzfeld results to be significant in non-psi ways, the ganzfeld wouldn't be providing evidence that people are able to obtain information about events beyond the reach of their normal senses. Basically, the implications of the current interpretation of the evidence are different than what the implications would be if aliens or leprechauns were causing the results.
If it were truly undetectable, it certainly would be "psi" as far as we could determine, wouldn't it?
As far as we could determine, yes. But if aliens were non-psychically causing the results, our determination would be wrong.
Here's where I keep getting lost. How can one argue that the existence of an observed effect is "more absurd" than a particular cause of it?.

To use Dr. Adequate's example (actually, my own from last night, which he stole... tinfoil hat going on... now): after observing the effects of gravity in a series of experiments, how could one claim that the existence of gravity is more absurd than the existence of gravitons?

The way I understand it, psi is only an observed effect. So long as a person is able to gain information without resort to any of the channels we know about in the human body today, it fits the definition of "psi."
I think I understand why there's been a misunderstanding. When someone simply mentions the "observed ganzfeld effect", that person is not directly referring to whatever he assumes caused it, but to the significant hit rate. No one is claiming the ganzfeld effect is any more absurd than whatever they assume caused it. For instance, since I have assumed the cause of the hit rate to be psi, to me, the hit rate is only as absurd as that. Loki thinks that psi would be a more ridiculous cause than an alien device, so he assumes the latter to be more likely. Unlike gravity and gravitons there's a (very stupid) dispute over what the cause (psi, aliens, experimenter error?) of the observed effect (non-chance hit rate) is. Understand?

amherst

[amherst]

Since some confusion may still remain around certain aspects of the current discussion, this post will be a final attempt to achieve clarity.

Loki basically has two arguments against the ganzfeld results,

1. Though there is no evidence that the researchers have made any errors in their analyses of the ganzfeld results, Loki believes that since smart people have been wrong before, it's likely they are wrong in this instance too. He believes that just because neither he nor anyone else can point out any way the researchers could possibly be "wrong" or "misled", this doesn't mean they likely aren't.

2. He also argues that a belief that the ganzfeld results are (non psychically) due to aliens is just as justified as the belief that they are due to human ESP or PK. This argument essentially works in three ways:

-One- By trying to show that an obviously absurd, ridiculous non-psi explanation is just as viable as the human psi explanation, the argument hopes to force the psi proponent to either accept both as equals (and therefore seem deluded) or reject both (and therefore reject the existence of psi).

-Two- Even if by accepting both the psi and alien non-psi explanations as equally valid, the psi proponent fails to be thought discredited, this still allows the skeptic to feel justified in ignoring the contradictions the existence of psi (i.e., ESP, and PK) would create in his belief system since a non-psi explanation has been admitted just as likely.

-Three- If the argument can cause the proponent to reject (or make it seem necessary that he should reject) the psi explanations, the skeptic will then be more able to forcefully argue his first main point i.e., even though no one has any evidence of mistakes, the researchers have made an unknown error which has caused spurious results.

My answers to Loki's two arguments are as follows:

1. The claim that researchers have made an unknown (and if one is never found, unknowable) error is unfalsifiable and fallacious.

2. The non-psi alien explanation (as well as the psi exists in Telechauns explanation) is much more complex and unrealistic than the simple psi exists (in humans) explanation --since-- in order for us to believe the alien explanation true, we'd have to assume the existence of alien life forms, believe they have a highly advanced technology, and then invent a reason for why they would desire to cause parapsychological studies to spuriously succeed. Since we have no evidence for any of this, the simplest explanation for the evidence we DO HAVE, is that people are sometimes able to perceive events without the use of their normal senses. Unlike the alien explanation, this requires no unnecessarily complex, unwarranted, bizarre steps to achieve.

amherst

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by amherst


2. The non-psi alien explanation (as well as the psi exists in Telechauns explanation) is much more complex and unrealistic than the simple psi exists (in humans) explanation --since-- in order for us to believe the alien explanation true, we'd have to assume the existence of alien life forms, believe they have a highly advanced technology, and then invent a reason for why they would desire to cause parapsychological studies to spuriously succeed. Since we have no evidence for any of this, the simplest explanation for the evidence we DO HAVE, is that people are sometimes able to perceive events without the use of their normal senses. Unlike the alien explanation, this requires no unnecessarily complex, unwarranted, bizarre steps to achieve.

amherst [/B]

Yes but what is the mechanism whereby psi is achieved!?? :mad:

Just joking ;)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by amherst
1. Though there is no evidence that the researchers have made any errors in their analyses of the ganzfeld results, Loki believes that since smart people have been wrong before, it's likely they are wrong in this instance too. He believes that just because neither he nor anyone else can point out any way the researchers could possibly be "wrong" or "misled", this doesn't mean they likely aren't.
Show me the data.

[flyboy217]

I can (barely) imagine mischievious aliens with a highly advanced technology putting an undetectable device in the senders room which transmits, non-psychically, the target images to the receivers senses.


As far as we could determine, yes. But if aliens were non-psychically causing the results, our determination would be wrong.

Is anybody (sensible) haranguing physicists today, asking them to prove that gravity is not caused by aliens? Of course not. Science says that if it looks and smells and feels like gravity, it is gravity.

Similarly, until such time as we can distinguish alien-caused psi from "normal" psi, it's all just psi.

The only thing parapsychologists need to do is give evidence that humans can receive information through channels other than the normal ones, and psi can provisionally be called true. At that point, it no more makes sense to ask how we know that Leprechauns aren't causing anomalous cognition as it does to ask how we know that they're not causing gravity.

On the other hand, if you had claimed:
I can (barely) imagine mischievious aliens with a highly advanced technology putting an undetectable device in the senders room which causes the receivers to speak the number of the correct video clip.
Then you might have a case, because the subjects can differentiate between having an anomalous cognition of the scene and an anomalous cognition of the right number to speak. (And even then, it fits the definition of psi, even if it's not the one we want to apply to the Ganzfeld).

But since there is no such differentiating factor, science dictates that we must label the effect "psi."