The PSI Conspiracy

[Open Mind]

What is a PSI conspiracy? :) It seems an underlying theme in the minds of both sceptics and believers. Sceptics accuse believers of conspiracy theories yet sceptics regularly assume fraud (a conspiracy to deceive) to explain cases of PSI that cannot be explained by the psychology of self deception (or experimental error). The term ‘fraud’ and ‘conspiracy’ have very similar meanings.

Since joining this forum I have been rather intrigued by a few of the sceptics here (a minority I think) who seem extremely suspicious of anyone who believes there is evidence for PSI. :) It strikes me that the more polarized sceptics and believers are heading down conspiratorial routes without actually using the term ‘conspiracy’. Some sceptics are all but stating there is a conspiracy to promote PSI phenomena and some believers suggest there is a conspiracy to hide it.

Sceptics also accuse believers of being gullible because they value anecdotal evidence (as well as controlled trial evidence) Similarly believers accuse sceptics of presenting anecdotal accounts against PSI as fact. Even controlled trials require a degree of trust in those who did the trial ….and I’m not sure much trust is there! :) Sceptics seem to view positive PSI result researchers with suspicion…..
David Marks [CSICOP fellow, psychologist] mentions positive results of a remote viewing experiment reported by Marilyn Schlitz and Elmar Gruber. Admitting that this was a successful replication of the similar experiments of Targ and Puthoff, Marks gets off this particular hook by stating: "However, we do not know how many nonsignificant studies remain in the investigators' file drawer. If it is a small handful, which seems likely, the... statistical significance simply melts away like snowflakes in the spring" He has no evidence that any such "file-drawer" studies exist.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm

Likewise believers view negative result PSI researchers with suspicion (as the above link also confirms)

One of the biggest problems in the PSI debate is the greater interest when the PSI claims are spectacular. As PSI is a weak effect to many believers, they also regard spectacular claims with suspicion too as they know such huge claims are liable to fall flat or be unproven in brief trials designed to measure larger or consistent effects. The failure is then used by skeptics to present the case for no evidence of PSI at all, when it could be just the case for no large PSI effects occurring. This could be easily viewed by believers as looking for a strong effect in brief trials to deliberately fail test (i.e. conspiracy). And for sceptics the test confirms such claims are fraudulent or hoax (i.e. conspiracy like)

One example is the US remote viewing program. Whereas early researchers claimed spectacular results such as ……..


'The secret is out: remote viewing exists, it works, it has been tested, proven and used in intelligence for over two decades. The recent (US) government admissions concerning the use of psychic warfare are crucial, irrefutable testimony that what I have said here is the truth...'
(U.S.) Major David Morehouse

'I never liked to get into debates with the skeptics, because if you didn't believe that remote viewing was real, you hadn't done your homework.'
Major General Edmund R Thompson, U.S. Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 1977-81, Deputy Director for Management and Operations, DIA, 1982-84 (Schnabel 1997: cover).

'You can't be involved in this for any length of time and not be convinced there's something here.'
Norm J., former senior CIA official who tasked remote viewers (Schnabel 1997: cover).

'There were times when they wanted to push buttons and drop bombs on the basis of our information.'
Dr Hal Puthoff, a former manager of the remote-viewing program (Schnabel 1997: cover).

'She went into a trance. And while she was in the trance, she gave us some latitude and longitude figures. We focused our satellite cameras on that point, and the lost plane was there.'
Former President Jimmy Carter, recalling a 1978 remote-viewing operation (Schnabel 1997: cover).

http://www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter17.html


When reviewed by skeptic Ray Hyman (CSICOP), he was unconvinced there was remote viewing evidence but less skeptical Jessica Utts was convinced it contained remote viewing evidence. It was disbanded in 1995 due to lack of results or lack or usefulness, however lack of results doesn’t mean, no weak PSI effect (although Hyman comments he couldn’t explain what was happening for sure he preferred a unknown non PSI explanation) . Other skeptic observers tend to think the early remote viewers were cheating or claiming evidence or weak controls just to keep the program running (i.e. conspiracy) and the believers think a partially successfully (and inexpensive) program was debunked to become more secret (i.e. conspiracy)

Some skeptics seen to think there are psychic mafias or organizations with plans to deliberately deceive public. Even TV programs with TV psychics assume producers or staff in on the deception if they appear to beat cold reading odds. For skeptic conspiracy theorists the motive for the PSI deception is money.

For believer conspiracy theorists the motive for PSI being hidden from public has traditionally been philosophical bias against the concept such as atheism, secular humanism or earlier Christianity’s viewpoint PSI is evil (common bible interpretation) .

Another modern believer conspiracy is only scientific evidence for PSI is being suppressed, traditional faith and non scientific belief systems are of no threat. Evidence of PSI effects, however weak, requires changes to the laws of physics to accommodate it. What changes to physics would be required to allow information to travel (by means other than magnetic fields) from brain to brain?

In the past century of world wars, cold wars or today global terrorism, science today still appears one of scientific communities sharing information and being openly published in easily obtained journals or published patents, it’s all seems above board, honest and shared for a common good of humanity ….. yet PSI researchers (particularly when positive result) generally struggle to achieve publication in prestigious journals

Of course skeptics argue PSI struggles to get published because it is ‘junk science’ or ‘pathological science’ and the failed PSI trials receive more publications because it was better trial……...
or feel it's the right result.

What do I think? I think conspiracies are interesting but most probably wrong! :) I prefer to think simple human bias explains most of the PSI debate. The bias is applies to both skeptics and believers …. Skeptics are looking for too strong an effect and concluding no PSI because enthusiastic believers tend to claim far too big a PSI effect.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Open Mind

What do I think? I think conspiracies are interesting but most probably wrong! :) I prefer to think simple human bias explains most of the PSI debate. The bias is applies to both skeptics and believers …. Skeptics are looking for too strong an effect and concluding no PSI because enthusiastic believers tend to claim far too big a PSI effect.
There is no conspiracy against anyone, not from the skeptic community anyway.

About PSI we know just two things:

1) The better quality of the study, the less effect.

2) There has been a couple of notable forgeries.

[CFLarsen]

Open Mind,

You do realize the rationale behind the often deep suspicion of paranormal claims?

Have you heard of the Blue Book that contained information of people known to attend psychic seances?

Did you know that Schwartz refuses to let anyone see his data?

Or that Radin clearly selects his data?

Or that John Edward demands that his audience sign a contract that allows him to edit everything they say anyway he wants it?

I don't know if you can call it a "conspiracy". But I think it is fair to call it a "pattern".

[Anders]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Open Mind,

You do realize the rationale behind the often deep suspicion of paranormal claims?

Have you heard of the Blue Book that contained information of people known to attend psychic seances?

Did you know that Schwartz refuses to let anyone see his data?

Or that Radin clearly selects his data?

Or that John Edward demands that his audience sign a contract that allows him to edit everything they say anyway he wants it?

I don't know if you can call it a "conspiracy". But I think it is fair to call it a "pattern".
The Blue Book, what is it about (I think I know but I want to be sure)? Is is availible? For purchase or free on the net?

[Operaider]

Originally posted by Anders
The Blue Book, what is it about (I think I know but I want to be sure)? Is is availible? For purchase or free on the net? I don't believe it is available to anyone outside of the psychic community. It is a book of people who regularly attend seances. It is used to allow one psychic to mention something they "couldn't possible know", by reading what was told to a different psychic. Things like the names of dead family members, common worries, and various other personal information that could be used to make it seem like they know more than they actually do.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Anders
The Blue Book, what is it about (I think I know but I want to be sure)? Is is availible? For purchase or free on the net?

Ron Strong (Nyarlathothepepppeeesomething) has an article on spiritualist fraud here. (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/spiritualistfraud.htm)

[Operaider]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ron Strong (Nyarlathothepepppeeesomething) has an article on spiritualist fraud here. (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/spiritualistfraud.htm) You know what,
one of these days I'm going to get around to reading all of those articles you have on that site Larsen.
I just need to set aside about 6 - 7 hours :D

[Darat]

Originally posted by Open Mind
What is a PSI conspiracy? :) It seems an underlying theme in the minds of both sceptics and believers. Sceptics accuse believers of conspiracy theories yet sceptics regularly assume fraud (a conspiracy to deceive) to explain cases of PSI that cannot be explained by the psychology of self deception (or experimental error). The term ‘fraud’ and ‘conspiracy’ have very similar meanings.


They may have some similarities in their definitions but they have significant different meanings, that’s why we have them both. An accusation of fraud against someone or a group is not necessarily an accusation of conspiracy.

It also appears that throughout this post you believe that there is a group of "sceptics", a common group that can be identified. I maintain it is just as wrong to claim there is a common behaviour for everyone who is “sceptical� as it is to claim some commonality for everyone who is a believer. Indeed it is quite possible for a "believer" to be “sceptical�...

Originally posted by Open Mind


Since joining this forum I have been rather intrigued by a few of the sceptics here (a minority I think) who seem extremely suspicious of anyone who believes there is evidence for PSI. :) It strikes me that the more polarized sceptics and believers are heading down conspiratorial routes without actually using the term ‘conspiracy’. Some sceptics are all but stating there is a conspiracy to promote PSI phenomena and some believers suggest there is a conspiracy to hide it.


Any evidence (via links to posts on this forum) to support this claim?

Originally posted by Open Mind


Sceptics also accuse believers of being gullible because they value anecdotal evidence (as well as controlled trial evidence) Similarly believers accuse sceptics of presenting anecdotal accounts against PSI as fact. Even controlled trials require a degree of trust in those who did the trial ….and I’m not sure much trust is there! :) Sceptics seem to view positive PSI result researchers with suspicion…..


Is the use of the term "sceptic" in the above paragraph still referring to the minority of "sceptics" you previous referenced or is this a now a generalisation about all people who call themselves a "sceptic" ?

Trust should not be a factor in any research but it can be. However science (which is I presume is the target for the above criticism?) is "self correcting" - it may take years but if someone, no matter how trusted has made an assertion or claimed something that cannot be proved or was false it will eventually come out in the wash.


Originally posted by Open Mind

Likewise believers view negative result PSI researchers with suspicion (as the above link also confirms)

One of the biggest problems in the PSI debate is the greater interest when the PSI claims are spectacular. As PSI is a weak effect to many believers, they also regard spectacular claims with suspicion too as they know such huge claims are liable to fall flat or be unproven in brief trials designed to measure larger or consistent effects.


Can you provide any evidence for this claim? I hold the opinion that in fact most "believers" do believe in "spectacular psi effects�. Effects such as telepathy, remote viewing, communicating with the dead, ghost, visible auras, telekinesis and so on. A brief search with Google throws up hundreds of sites that claim these type of spectacular results are happening everywhere all the time. In support of my opinion, this is the definition of psi put forward by Radin (see: http://www.psiresearch.org/para1.html).



Psi : A neutral term for parapsychological phenomena. Psi, psychic, and psychical are synonyms.
Telepathy : Direct mind-to-mind communication.
Precognition: Also called premonition. Obtaining information about future events, where the information could not be inferred through normal means. Many people report dreams that appear to be precognitive.
Clairvoyance : Sometimes called remote viewing; obtaining information about events at remote locations, beyond the reach of the normal senses.
ESP: Extra-sensory perception; a general term for obtaining information about events beyond the reach of the normal senses. This term subsumes telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition.
Psychokinesis : Also called PK; direct mental interaction with physical objects, animate or inanimate.
Bio-PK : Direct mental interactions with living systems.
NDE : Near death experience; an experience reported by those who were revived from nearly dying. Often refers to a core experience that includes feelings of peace, OBE, seeing lights and other phenomena.
OBE : Out-of-body experience; the experience of feeling separated from the body, often accompanied by visual perceptions as though from above the body.
Reincarnation: The belief that we live successive lives, with primarily evidence coming from the apparent recollections of previous lives by very small children.
Haunting : Recurrent phenomena reported to occur in particular locations that include apparitions, sounds, movement of objects, and other effects.
Poltergeist: Large-scale PK phenomena often attributed to spirits, but which are now thought to be due to a living person, frequently an adolescent.



All the above are spectacular large scale effects.

Originally posted by Open Mind

The failure is then used by skeptics to present the case for no evidence of PSI at all, when it could be just the case for no large PSI effects occurring.


This is equivalent to a "god of the gaps" argument, since there will always be (or at least for the foreseeable future) holes in our understanding of the universe, "psi" could be in one of the gaps. However what you are failing to acknowledge is the lack of evidence for a psi effect in the first place. It is not the negative results that make a lot of people come to the conclusion there are no "psi" effects but the fact that there are no consistent repeatable positive results.

Originally posted by Open Mind

This could be easily viewed by believers as looking for a strong effect in brief trials to deliberately fail test (i.e. conspiracy). And for sceptics the test confirms such claims are fraudulent or hoax (i.e. conspiracy like)


Yet even the "pro-psi" researchers cannot provide evidence for the spectacular effects they say are "psi".


Originally posted by Open Mind

One example is the US remote viewing program. Whereas early researchers claimed spectacular results such as ……..

When reviewed by skeptic Ray Hyman (CSICOP), he was unconvinced there was remote viewing evidence but less skeptical Jessica Utts was convinced it contained remote viewing evidence. It was disbanded in 1995 due to lack of results or lack or usefulness, however lack of results doesn’t mean, no weak PSI effect (although Hyman comments he couldn’t explain what was happening for sure he preferred a unknown non PSI explanation) .

Other skeptic observers tend to think the early remote viewers were cheating or claiming evidence or weak controls just to keep the program running (i.e. conspiracy) and the believers think a partially successfully (and inexpensive) program was debunked to become more secret (i.e. conspiracy)


Did it produce results or not is the only question that matters. (Oh and sometimes conspiracies do exist.)

Originally posted by Open Mind


Some skeptics seen to think there are psychic mafias or organizations with plans to deliberately deceive public.


There is evidence that there have been in the past. And look at the recent stuff about Miss Cleo in the USA. An organisation claiming to be "psi" yet...

Originally posted by Open Mind


Even TV programs with TV psychics assume producers or staff in on the deception if they appear to beat cold reading odds. For skeptic conspiracy theorists the motive for the PSI deception is money.


You are referring to the TV programmes that all have disclaimers? Plus can you point out a TV show that has "beat cold reading odds" and how you calculated those odds?

Originally posted by Open Mind


For believer conspiracy theorists the motive for PSI being hidden from public has traditionally been philosophical bias against the concept such as atheism, secular humanism or earlier Christianity’s viewpoint PSI is evil (common bible interpretation) .


I point you to the history of weapon development and warfare as an argument as to why any of those prohibitions are unlikely to ever have "hidden" working spectacular psi effects (if they existed). Plus it always seems ignored that the “authorities� are made up of people, people with families, friends and so on.

Originally posted by Open Mind

Another modern believer conspiracy is only scientific evidence for PSI is being suppressed, traditional faith and non scientific belief systems are of no threat. Evidence of PSI effects, however weak, requires changes to the laws of physics to accommodate it. What changes to physics would be required to allow information to travel (by means other than magnetic fields) from brain to brain?


If psi existed it would not mean one change to the "laws of physics". The universe is as it is. At best it would mean changes to the theories we have that we think describe aspects of reality. At worse it would mean that although we've been damned successful with these theories (we are communicating via one of the best examples of how our theories of "how things work and are" can be translated into reality) that they were totally wrong. And what is the problem with that?

Originally posted by Open Mind

In the past century of world wars, cold wars or today global terrorism, science today still appears one of scientific communities sharing information and being openly published in easily obtained journals or published patents, it’s all seems above board, honest and shared for a common good of humanity ….. yet PSI researchers (particularly when positive result) generally struggle to achieve publication in prestigious journals


Which positive results that have withstood the peer-review system that need to be called "psi" have been denied publication?

A better way of stating what you have just said is that research that does not meet the standards that is now expected of sound research finds it hard to get published in mainstream journals. Doesn’t matter if it is about cold fusion, a new finding in cosmology or homeopathy if it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny it will struggle to be published in anything that a "mainstream" scientist will take seriously.

Originally posted by Open Mind

Of course skeptics argue PSI struggles to get published because it is ‘junk science’ or ‘pathological science’ and the failed PSI trials receive more publications because it was better trial……...
or feel it's the right result.


Can you support this claim?

Plus I thought that research that resulted in negative results is rarely published? (I've read opinion pieces in the like of Nature, SA and the New Scientist about scientists pushing for more negative results to be published.)

Originally posted by Open Mind

What do I think? I think conspiracies are interesting but most probably wrong! :)


I think conspiracies are either true or not.


Originally posted by Open Mind

I prefer to think simple human bias explains most of the PSI debate. The bias is applies to both skeptics and believers …. Skeptics are looking for too strong an effect and concluding no PSI because enthusiastic believers tend to claim far too big a PSI effect.

Bias can be a form of fraud; for instance if you don't design your research to avoid your bias that could be considered fraud. Since fraud is conspiracy (from your opening statements) you are finishing by contradicting yourself by saying that conspiracies explain most of the PSI debate.... ;) Seriously playing with words can be fun and can be used to "score points" but in the end it is the facts that matter, doesn’t matter if you want to invoke a conspiracy, fraud or bias, the results either are or are not as claimed.

Regarding the scale of the psi effects aren’t you, like Radin, claiming an effect like “telepathy� is “psi�? If so this is an example of a large, spectacular effect, it is not a small almost unnoticeable effect, if is an effect of communication between people. That can be no more described as a “small effect� then talking to someone can be.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Operaider
You know what,
one of these days I'm going to get around to reading all of those articles you have on that site Larsen.
I just need to set aside about 6 - 7 hours :D

I just counted them. 146 articles. Damn....

[Operaider]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I just counted them. 146 articles. Damn.... well keep up the good work, I've enjoyed every one I've gotten around to reading

[The Mighty Thor]

'There were times when they wanted to push buttons and drop bombs on the basis of our information.'
Dr Hal Puthoff, a former manager of the remote-viewing program (Schnabel 1997: cover).


Perhaps skeptics have a right to be concerned when they hear claims like this.

And Victor Zammit is rather strange in any sane person's book

"Conspiracy" implies something illegal or unlawful or harmful. Since most skeptics believe that PSI is unsupported by evidence, and since frauds have been exposed in PSI practice and research, many skeptics feel that PSI is indeed harmful to society and often fraudulent at the expense of the vulnerable in society. So, a PSI conspiracy could be an appropriate term. Claus has mentioned just some of the "conspiring" that can be proven.

Can skeptics be involved in conspiracy? Only if you view the truth as harmful. Skeptics are generally united by being adherents to the rules of critical thinking and empirical science. In PSI, there are no rules, only dogma.


Anyway, what would this "extremely weak" PSI effect do for humanity were it proven to exist. Is it thought to be something humans had, but are losing -- or as an emergent property that some hope will get stronger?

If we want to bend spoons, we already know of an efficient method -- physical force. But if we want to bend enemy rifles at a distance and perform remote sabotage, that is another matter.

I think the whole PsiOps thing was a psychological weapon of the cold war used to draw suspicion from things like the U2 spyplane and submarine infiltration of Soviet communications systems.

Unfortunately, some folk weren't let in on the secret and became convinced of the reality of Psi -- because if the government is looking into it, it must be real, right?

[Operaider]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
I think the whole PsiOps thing was a psychological weapon of the cold war used to draw suspicion from things like the U2 spyplane and submarine infiltration of Soviet communications systems.

Unfortunately, some folk weren't let in on the secret and became convinced of the reality of Psi -- because if the government is looking into it, it must be real, right? Not to mention it is a good form of psychological warfare.

Just imagine if you were fighting an enemy with the power to read minds and affect things with a thought.
If this power was real, you might as well admit defeat.

As I mentioned in other threads, being able to intimidate your enemy is a very powerful tool.
And can often give you the advantage needed to win.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Operaider
Not to mention it is a good form of psychological warfare.

Just imagine if you were fighting an enemy with the power to read minds and affect things with a thought.
If this power was real, you might as well admit defeat.

As I mentioned in other threads, being able to intimidate your enemy is a very powerful tool.
And can often give you the advantage needed to win.

Too true. It worked for Constantine at the battle of Malvern Bridge, apparently. And the Ancient Greeks never went to war unless the "signs" were right.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Open Mind
What is a PSI conspiracy? :) It seems an underlying theme in the minds of both sceptics and believers. Sceptics accuse believers of conspiracy theories yet sceptics regularly assume fraud (a conspiracy to deceive) to explain cases of PSI that cannot be explained by the psychology of self deception (or experimental error). The term ‘fraud’ and ‘conspiracy’ have very similar meanings.
It's not that simple. the problem is, was there an opportunity for fraud on the part of the testee? If there was, then since we know that fraud takes place in psi sometimes, the research wasn't good enough to tell us anything.
Some sceptics are all but stating there is a conspiracy to promote PSI phenomena and some believers suggest there is a conspiracy to hide it.
The difference is that sceptics can explain why people would pretend to be psychic, and no-one can explain why I and others should be involved in a massive cover-up. We are, after all, sceptical because of the shortage of evidence... so obviously we aren't hiding the evidence...
Sceptics also accuse believers of being gullible because they value anecdotal evidence (as well as controlled trial evidence) Similarly believers accuse sceptics of presenting anecdotal accounts against PSI as fact. Even controlled trials require a degree of trust in those who did the trial ….and I’m not sure much trust is there! :) Sceptics seem to view positive PSI result researchers with suspicion…..
What are "anecdotal accounts against PSI"?

"Last night I didn't have a precognitive dream"?

"Wow... I had no idea you were going to say that"?

"I have this amazing feeling of jamais vu"?

"I was hynotised, and didn't remember being Julius Caesar in a past life"?
David Marks [CSICOP fellow, psychologist] mentions positive results of a remote viewing experiment reported by Marilyn Schlitz and Elmar Gruber. Admitting that this was a successful replication of the similar experiments of Targ and Puthoff, Marks gets off this particular hook by stating: "However, we do not know how many nonsignificant studies remain in the investigators' file drawer. If it is a small handful, which seems likely, the... statistical significance simply melts away like snowflakes in the spring" He has no evidence that any such "file-drawer" studies exist.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations....oswho/index.htm
As he says: "We do not know how many". But they exist in every other science. How many publications in ontology journals are entitled: "Some substances which have no effect on cancer whatsoever"? The same almost certainly happens with psi. No-one's rushing to put The BoyPaj's book test into print: "Another Remote Viewing Failure Analysed: Results Indistinguishable From The Null Hypothesis." So likely enough they exist

But the problem, which I think you've missed, is that unless we know about the "file-drawer" studies one way or the other, any "meta-analysis" (beloved of the desperate) is necessarily flawed for want of that data. (Just as a "meta-analysis" of oncology journals would reveal that practically everything which doesn't help cure cancer helps to cause it, or a "meta-analysis" of maths journals would show that no mathematician ever has a bad idea).
One of the biggest problems in the PSI debate is the greater interest when the PSI claims are spectacular. As PSI is a weak effect to many believers, they also regard spectacular claims with suspicion too as they know such huge claims are liable to fall flat or be unproven in brief trials designed to measure larger or consistent effects. The failure is then used by skeptics to present the case for no evidence of PSI at all, when it could be just the case for no large PSI effects occurring. This could be easily viewed by believers as looking for a strong effect in brief trials to deliberately fail test (i.e. conspiracy). And for sceptics the test confirms such claims are fraudulent or hoax (i.e. conspiracy like)
You do have to wonder why anyone would conduct brief trials which can't prove a small effect when they could conduct lengthier ones, which would.
Some skeptics seen to think there are psychic mafias or organizations with plans to deliberately deceive public. Even TV programs with TV psychics assume producers or staff in on the deception if they appear to beat cold reading odds. For skeptic conspiracy theorists the motive for the PSI deception is money.
There are. This is not to say that every psychic belongs to one.
I prefer to think simple human bias explains most of the PSI debate. The bias is applies to both skeptics and believers …. Skeptics are looking for too strong an effect
No. anything better than chance would do, given a long enough trial. An effect, however small, will show up in the long run. 1% better than chance is all it took the first card-counters to win big, and to get barred from casinos.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Anders


1) The better quality of the study, the less effect.

[/B]

Could you provide the appropriate evidence?

Thanks.

[Open Mind]

Hmm…. So many points to respond to I don’t have time right now, perhaps tomorrow

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]Open Mind,
Have you heard of the Blue Book that contained information of people known to attend psychic seances?

Interesting conspiracy theory, it might work for a privately held, invited guest séance. However for a public demonstration in a hall, it requires a bigger conspiracy than a shared book of details,

Can you (a) provide evidence this is not just a rumour (b) provide a non CSICOP source of that claim? (i.e. Paul Kurtz is founder of CSICOP) We need to rule out CSICOP bias (or even CSICOP conspiracy, in a conspiracy topic at least ;) ) (c) How many names were in the book? Does anyone have a copy? How many psychics used it and had copies?

Let’s assume it is real, so a secret organization would be required to pass around this ‘blue book’ amongst mediums? The secret organizations of that time that springs to mind are the masons and magician’s secret clubs :D How do we know it wasn’t just few magicians faking psychic phenomena for a few bucks that later got used to discredit psychics? Why do we call them fraudulent psychics, why not fraudulent magicians pretending to be psychic. ;) Magicians have always pretended to have paranormal powers, Houdini started off as a fake psychic.

[c4ts]

I thought he started off as an escape artist.

[Nex]

Originally posted by c4ts
I thought he started off as an escape artist.

Yes, he had learned the tricks used by the mediums of the era, who would let themselves be tied up and then releasing themselves in a darkened room to perform as "spirits." He used their escape artistry before he had created his own.

He was never a phony psychic. He just used the phony psychics' tricks.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Interesting conspiracy theory, it might work for a privately held, invited guest séance. However for a public demonstration in a hall, it requires a bigger conspiracy than a shared book of details,

Of course. But nobody was saying that a certain technique would work for all occasions. Psychics employ different techniques, depending on the situation.

Originally posted by Open Mind
Can you (a) provide evidence this is not just a rumour (b) provide a non CSICOP source of that claim? (i.e. Paul Kurtz is founder of CSICOP) We need to rule out CSICOP bias (or even CSICOP conspiracy, in a conspiracy topic at least ;) ) (c) How many names were in the book? Does anyone have a copy? How many psychics used it and had copies?

Why do you assume that CSICOP "bias" would compel Kurtz to lie? Have you read his book at all?

Originally posted by Open Mind
Let’s assume it is real, so a secret organization would be required to pass around this ‘blue book’ amongst mediums? The secret organizations of that time that springs to mind are the masons and magician’s secret clubs :D

And? Mediums belong to a relatively small community, and it is very likely that they would exchange information about the sitters. Lamar Keene describes it in his book, The Psychic Mafia. And he used to pose as a psychic, but later recanted.

We can also point to today's psychics: In Schwartz' book "The Afterlife Experiments", he does his experiments with famed psychics - who know each other beforehand.

On this board, we have even had a believer in mediumship, who spent thousands of dollars on visiting one medium after another. Add to that, the ease of the Internet. Still think it is impossible that psychics share information?

Originally posted by Open Mind
How do we know it wasn’t just few magicians faking psychic phenomena for a few bucks that later got used to discredit psychics? Why do we call them fraudulent psychics, why not fraudulent magicians pretending to be psychic. ;) Magicians have always pretended to have paranormal powers, Houdini started off as a fake psychic.

Wrong.

Why do we call them fraudulent psychics? It may be an oxymoron, because I have never seen a psychic who was not one. Can you show me one real psychic?

The onus is on the psychics: They have to prove themselves real.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Nex
Yes, he had learned the tricks used by the mediums of the era, who would let themselves be tied up and then releasing themselves in a darkened room to perform as "spirits." He used their escape artistry before he had created his own.

He was never a phony psychic. He just used the phony psychics' tricks.

Houdini did expose fraud but sceptics need to remember he didn’t rule out PSI completely, he certainly wasn’t an atheist (he was a master mason, at his funeral Masonic and Zionist rites were performed. )

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Why do you assume that CSICOP "bias" would compel Kurtz to lie? Have you read his book at all?


I never used the term lie , I prefer the term ‘bias’. Philosopher Paul Kurtz has a humanist philosophy to promote. It appears he thinks PSI is impossible, so I doubt he would feel concerned about whether a 'blue book' conspiracy theory was adequate explanation or more anecdotal


'“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 ..... '

Paul Kurtz
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/whoswho/index.htm#PaulKurtz


Paul Kurtz founded CSICOP (also Council of secular humanism, Centre for Inquiry, etc) .


And? Mediums belong to a relatively small community, and it is very likely that they would exchange information about the sitters. Lamar Keene describes it in his book, The Psychic Mafia. And he used to pose as a psychic, but later recanted.

The book 'The Psychic Mafia' is published by Prometheus Books founded by Paul Kurtz.

I’ve seen this book quoted a lot by skeptics so I suppose it’s time I buy it. :) I cannot comment on American psychics as I’m in the UK but I admit you have some very strange people over there, it appears the New Age movement has dominated viewpoints on PSI.

On the amazon website one reviewer’s comments says ’I was very interested in the observation at the beginning that psychic phenomena do exist on a much smaller, more personal scale, …..which if the book says that, doesn’t contradict my argument that PSI is real and weak effect, but blown out of proportion by exaggerating enthusiasts, New Age movement giving skeptics fuel to set it on fire.

Another reviewer says the other mediums he exposes were dead, so they cannot defend themselves ’ I remember trying to find reference to any living person in his book years ago and there were none. What was or is Keene afraid of?

Another review says ’American psychic who used trickery and deceit to finance his extravagant lifestyle. At one point, he gave it up, and found strength from a friend (a Mason!) to expose his former friends and colleagues as frauds’

Ahh, no conspiracy topic is complete without a mason theory :D This reminds me of a Masonic conspiracy theory on PSI (I don’t believe it but it is mildly entertaining :) ) It goes along the lines Masons promote phony PSI to also debunk, they promote the New Age movement (which is Masonic in origin) ……. Supposedly masons and magicians are in a conspiracy to hide scientific (only) knowledge of PSI with New Age clap trap, trickery, debunks, etc. promoting known frauds to later expose them. ‘The international brotherhood of magicians logo’ supposedly looks Masonic (handshake, eye at bottom, intertwining serpents)……… very silly conspiracy theory :)



Still think it is impossible that psychics share information?

It is very possible tricksters pretending to psychic share information, I never doubted that. I do doubt all mediums are fraudulent or part of a psychic mafia (at least in UK) it’s another silly conspiracy IMHO


Why do we call them fraudulent psychics? It may be an oxymoron, because I have never seen a psychic who was not one.

Even Richard Wiseman (magician, psychologist) doesn’t go that far …… ’ "I think the mediums are fairly sincere, but the person is reading a lot into what are fairly ambiguous comments," I agree most do but sometimes it is not ambiguous, it is beyond chance, beyond cold reading and requires the most contrived hot reading theory to explain it (i.e. conspiracy).

Naturally a magicians will think ‘it’s a trick’, naturally a psychologist will think ‘it sensory leakage’, naturally materialistic humanist philosopher will think ‘PSI doesn’t exist’ , naturally a Christian will view PSI as dangerous and naturally New Ager will see cosmic PSI relevance in anything everything …… they are all biased.

Humans are biased, even me, so let’s settle the debate in controlled trials over the coming years, lets not ridicule PSI researchers, if someone claims PSI in a controlled trial it deserves respect even if some others fail to replicate it, there could be many reasons why PSI doesn’t occur with mechanical regularity other than assumption of fraud. or conspiracy

[Ashles]

Why do we call them fraudulent psychics? It may be an oxymoron,
Isn't it a tautology?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Open Mind
...snip...

Humans are biased, even me, so let’s settle the debate in controlled trials over the coming years, lets not ridicule PSI researchers, if someone claims PSI in a controlled trial it deserves respect even if some others fail to replicate it, there could be many reasons why PSI doesn’t occur with mechanical regularity other than assumption of fraud. or conspiracy

How many test, trials and so on and for how long?

"Psi" has been around as long as any other claimed human ability; scientists have successfully explored those other areas and made immense strides in understanding the results. Yet "psi" appears to be one area that despite the 100 or so years of “modern scientific research� has not discovered anything or made any advances.

And you don't seem to have addressed my point of the effects you claim could be "psi" being large scale. I mean the communication of information is large scale no matte rthe underlying process, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t know anything had been communicated. It would be like saying someone who claims to be able to predict the lottery numbers isn’t making a claim for a large scale effect.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Open Mind
The book 'The Psychic Mafia' is published by Prometheus Books founded by Paul Kurtz.

The Prometheus copy is a reprint of the original, from 1976, published by St. Martin Press. The book contains a very useful bibliography on pseudo-psychic deception.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Houdini did expose fraud but sceptics need to remember he didn’t rule out PSI completely, he certainly wasn’t an atheist (he was a master mason, at his funeral Masonic and Zionist rites were performed. )

Your argumentation would probably be received with a bit more respect if you didn't constantly misrepresent the position of skeptics.

Skeptics don't rule out PSI at all. We just want to see evidence. Of which there is none.

Originally posted by Open Mind
I never used the term lie , I prefer the term ‘bias’. Philosopher Paul Kurtz has a humanist philosophy to promote. It appears he thinks PSI is impossible, so I doubt he would feel concerned about whether a 'blue book' conspiracy theory was adequate explanation or more anecdotal

No, no, no. When you cast doubt on the existence of the Blue Book, then you cast doubt about whether or not Kurtz tells the truth or not.

Originally posted by Open Mind
Paul Kurtz founded CSICOP (also Council of secular humanism, Centre for Inquiry, etc) .

How is that quote showing Kurtz' bias? It shows that he is pointing to the scientific method. Is that "bias"?

Originally posted by Open Mind
The book 'The Psychic Mafia' is published by Prometheus Books founded by Paul Kurtz.

As dharlow pointed out, the book was not published by PB originally. Does that make you reconsider your opinion?

Originally posted by Open Mind
I’ve seen this book quoted a lot by skeptics so I suppose it’s time I buy it. :) I cannot comment on American psychics as I’m in the UK but I admit you have some very strange people over there, it appears the New Age movement has dominated viewpoints on PSI.

On the amazon website one reviewer’s comments says ’I was very interested in the observation at the beginning that psychic phenomena do exist on a much smaller, more personal scale, …..which if the book says that, doesn’t contradict my argument that PSI is real and weak effect, but blown out of proportion by exaggerating enthusiasts, New Age movement giving skeptics fuel to set it on fire.

Another reviewer says the other mediums he exposes were dead, so they cannot defend themselves ’ I remember trying to find reference to any living person in his book years ago and there were none. What was or is Keene afraid of?

Another review says ’American psychic who used trickery and deceit to finance his extravagant lifestyle. At one point, he gave it up, and found strength from a friend (a Mason!) to expose his former friends and colleagues as frauds’

Ahh, no conspiracy topic is complete without a mason theory :D This reminds me of a Masonic conspiracy theory on PSI (I don’t believe it but it is mildly entertaining :) ) It goes along the lines Masons promote phony PSI to also debunk, they promote the New Age movement (which is Masonic in origin) ……. Supposedly masons and magicians are in a conspiracy to hide scientific (only) knowledge of PSI with New Age clap trap, trickery, debunks, etc. promoting known frauds to later expose them. ‘The international brotherhood of magicians logo’ supposedly looks Masonic (handshake, eye at bottom, intertwining serpents)……… very silly conspiracy theory :)

What you read on Amazon does not necessarily apply here. If you are going to criticize the skeptics here, please have the courtesy of addressing the points made here.

Originally posted by Open Mind
It is very possible tricksters pretending to psychic share information, I never doubted that. I do doubt all mediums are fraudulent or part of a psychic mafia (at least in UK) it’s another silly conspiracy IMHO

Who here has claimed this?? Names, please.

Originally posted by Open Mind
Even Richard Wiseman (magician, psychologist) doesn’t go that far …… ’ "I think the mediums are fairly sincere, but the person is reading a lot into what are fairly ambiguous comments," I agree most do but sometimes it is not ambiguous, it is beyond chance, beyond cold reading and requires the most contrived hot reading theory to explain it (i.e. conspiracy).

It is "beyond chance" and cold reading? Could you provide us with a reading in a controlled environment that was "beyond chance" and "cold reading"?

Originally posted by Open Mind
Naturally a magicians will think ‘it’s a trick’, naturally a psychologist will think ‘it sensory leakage’, naturally materialistic humanist philosopher will think ‘PSI doesn’t exist’ , naturally a Christian will view PSI as dangerous and naturally New Ager will see cosmic PSI relevance in anything everything …… they are all biased.

All we want to see is evidence. Got some?

Originally posted by Open Mind
Humans are biased, even me, so let’s settle the debate in controlled trials over the coming years, lets not ridicule PSI researchers, if someone claims PSI in a controlled trial it deserves respect even if some others fail to replicate it, there could be many reasons why PSI doesn’t occur with mechanical regularity other than assumption of fraud. or conspiracy

PSI researchers have for decades now claimed "controlled trials". They have gotten nowhere. Psychics don't want to be tested. Sure, Schwartz performed some experiments, but they were true abominations. They were so full of holes that they are worthless.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Darat
How many test, trials and so on and for how long?

"Psi" has been around as long as any other claimed human ability; scientists have successfully explored those other areas and made immense strides in understanding the results. Yet "psi" appears to be one area that despite the 100 or so years of “modern scientific research� has not discovered anything or made any advances.


PSI has been showing up in controlled trials for a century, causing controversy then as now. The progress made has been tighter and tighter controls .. and PSI still pops out, weaker perhaps than decades ago but the effect is still there in many trials, not all. I think progress is being made very slowly, it is being found in controlled trials of recent years highly skilled creative types such as skilled musicians, writers, etc are having better results than scientific minded types. The belief of the researcher and those involved seems to be having an effect. More research is required.



And you don't seem to have addressed my point of the effects you claim could be "psi" being large scale. I mean the communication of information is large scale no matte rthe underlying process, if it wasn’t we wouldn’t know anything had been communicated. It would be like saying someone who claims to be able to predict the lottery numbers isn’t making a claim for a large scale effect.

With regard to your previous comment.... Telepathy, ESP, remote viewing, Clairvoyance ….. can be very flawed but still supply information above chance odds of guessing.

(Psychokinesis, poltergeist and hauntings, are possibly not even under the control of the psychic , it might require the cooperation of whatever is causing it, who knows)

Accounts of reincarnation, OBE and NDE again do not need to be perfect, it is question of whether these supply information significantly beyond coincidence. The search should be for PSI in general, saying what the phenomena really is what is claimed, is another matter.

I'm not saying PSI can never be a strong effect but I'm happy to acknowledgea weak effect is taking place, the stronger claims are more problematic, generally in less controlled conditioned, so more prone to possible fraud.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Skeptics don't rule out PSI at all. We just want to see evidence. Of which there is none.


You mean there is apparently none after chewed by CSICOP ;) Also read the researchers defend their experiments.


It is "beyond chance" and cold reading? Could you provide us with a reading in a controlled environment that was "beyond chance" and "cold reading"?

Wit regard to that type of phenomena in particular (i.e. mediums)
, there was the SSPR study on mediums, done a year or two ago, positive result. (I briefly mentioned in the topic Mediums:Talking to the dead) I'm sure you are aware of it, it's on your web I think, perhaps not.


All we want to see is evidence. Got some?

Controlled evidence has been debated elsewhere in here. I have some personal evidence but you will dismiss that as anecdotal (which is fine by me)

I'm going to be very busy, the next few days so if I don't reply to everyone's comments, sorry - it's rather time consuming ... but thanks for the comments and debate :)

[c4ts]

There's no conspiracy, just data that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and people believing in it, rather than believing it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Open Mind
PSI has been showing up in controlled trials for a century, causing controversy then as now. The progress made has been tighter and tighter controls .. and PSI still pops out, weaker perhaps than decades ago but the effect is still there in many trials, not all. I think progress is being made very slowly, it is being found in controlled trials of recent years highly skilled creative types such as skilled musicians, writers, etc are having better results than scientific minded types. The belief of the researcher and those involved seems to be having an effect. More research is required.

Show me one controlled trial where PSI has showed up. Just one. Let's investigate it.

Originally posted by Open Mind
With regard to your previous comment.... Telepathy, ESP, remote viewing, Clairvoyance ….. can be very flawed but still supply information above chance odds of guessing.

Prove it. Let's see the experiments.

Originally posted by Open Mind
(Psychokinesis, poltergeist and hauntings, are possibly not even under the control of the psychic , it might require the cooperation of whatever is causing it, who knows)

We can speculate about how a phenomenon works after we have seen it. Can you show examples of psychokinesis, poltergeists and hauntings that could not have been natural phenomena?

Originally posted by Open Mind
Accounts of reincarnation, OBE and NDE again do not need to be perfect, it is question of whether these supply information significantly beyond coincidence. The search should be for PSI in general, saying what the phenomena really is what is claimed, is another matter.

Can you show examples of reincarnation, OBEs and NDEs that could not have been natural phenomena?`

Originally posted by Open Mind
I'm not saying PSI can never be a strong effect but I'm happy to acknowledgea weak effect is taking place, the stronger claims are more problematic, generally in less controlled conditioned, so more prone to possible fraud.

Exactly. When controls get stronger, the effect weakens. What does that tell you?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Open Mind
You mean there is apparently none after chewed by CSICOP ;)

CSICOP is not the only ones looking at paranormal phenomena. I have yet to see any such phenomenon.

Originally posted by Open Mind
Also read the researchers defend their experiments.

I have read some researchers defend their experiments. Which ones should I read to become convinced?

Originally posted by Open Mind
Wit regard to that type of phenomena in particular (i.e. mediums)
, there was the SSPR study on mediums, done a year or two ago, positive result. (I briefly mentioned in the topic Mediums:Talking to the dead) I'm sure you are aware of it, it's on your web I think, perhaps not.

Please be more specific.

Originally posted by Open Mind
Controlled evidence has been debated elsewhere in here. I have some personal evidence but you will dismiss that as anecdotal (which is fine by me)

Yes, I will. Can you point me to the threads where controlled evidence was debated?

Originally posted by Open Mind
I'm going to be very busy, the next few days so if I don't reply to everyone's comments, sorry - it's rather time consuming ... but thanks for the comments and debate :)

Fine with me. Take your time.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Could you provide the appropriate evidence?

Thanks.
In the works, mate! But at this point in time I have a lot on my hands. So, it's gonna take a while.

[Open Mind]

it is being found in controlled trials of recent years highly skilled creative types such as skilled musicians, writers, etc are having better results than scientific minded types. The belief of the researcher and those involved seems to be having an effect. More research is required.
-----------------------
Originally posted by CFLarsen
Show me one controlled trial where PSI has showed up. Just one. Let's investigate it.



Professor Robert Morris (unfortunately recently deceased) , Koestler Professor of Parapsychology at the University of Edinburgh . His later ganzfeld studies (after the Ray Hyman critique ….. after the Wiseman/Milton 1999 debunk most quoted by skeptics) … still produced evidence of PSI

"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".




(New Scientist 2001 interview …….
http://groups.msn.com/PsychicAdventuresOnline/paranormaltales.msnw

Professor Robert Morris ……..
‘ The most recent Ganzfeld work has produced results showing that the odds against there being some paranormal effect would be in the millions to one.
Question: That sounds spectacular. But isn't your problem always going to be that no matter how good your results, outsiders will say the experiments are fixed?

Well, yes. There is one definition of ESP as "error some place"--as in "I can't quite find it but I know there is an error in there some place". My feeling is that as we've progressed, and as people have read our research in detail, more and more are saying that our research looks harder to beat than they thought. ……..
……………..Our best results were obtained with creative people--musicians and visual artists. As far as personality was concerned, we didn't get any consistent links between extroverts versus introverts or things like that’ …………..
………Taking a lot of care with how you recruit participants, how you welcome them into the lab, how you help them relax and feel as though it's OK to do well or succeed at these kinds of procedures. It also seems important to select participants from groups who appear to produce better results and avoid those who don't feel they will do well.

In otherwords, if you test a lot of science students or those doubtful PSI can exists or a group of people with low (i.e. normal) creative talent or anyone under pressure ……yes the usual trial ……. you possible get no or a weaker PSI effect

More research needs to be done on the earth magnetic field interference (Schumann resonance?) and the location where the PSI trial is done (geophysical structure) .

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Anders


1) The better quality of the study, the less effect.


--------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Could you provide the appropriate evidence?

Thanks.

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


Incidentally Profrssor Rober Morris also said
'Our results have been getting better. The two most recent Ganzfeld ESP studies that we did actually have the highest outcome.' that statement goes back to 2001 though, still fairly recent as far as little funded paraspsychology studies go

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Professor Robert Morris (unfortunately recently deceased) , Koestler Professor of Parapsychology at the University of Edinburgh . His later ganzfeld studies (after the Ray Hyman critique ….. after the Wiseman/Milton 1999 debunk most quoted by skeptics) … still produced evidence of PSI

"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".

I asked for one controlled trial. I did not ask for an interview.

Originally posted by Open Mind
In otherwords, if you test a lot of science students or those doubtful PSI can exists or a group of people with low (i.e. normal) creative talent or anyone under pressure ……yes the usual trial ……. you possible get no or a weaker PSI effect

So, it is the SuperPsiGuys who achieve these results? Who are these people? Names, please.

Originally posted by Open Mind
More research needs to be done on the earth magnetic field interference (Schumann resonance?) and the location where the PSI trial is done (geophysical structure) .

We can talk more about that after you provide evidence of PSI.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Incidentally Profrssor Rober Morris also said
'Our results have been getting better. The two most recent Ganzfeld ESP studies that we did actually have the highest outcome.' that statement goes back to 2001 though, still fairly recent as far as little funded paraspsychology studies go

This is three years ago. What has happened with the studies?

I'll tell you what will happen: They will join the CIEPPCTBEBNW.

"Choir Invisible of Experiments of Paranormal Phenomena Claimed To Be Evidence, But Never Was."

We see this all the time: A study is hailed as evidence of PSI. After scrutiny, the results turn out to be less-than-impressive. Calls for more research. After years, a new study arrives, with the same claimed evidence.

The show must go on.

[Ashles]

Well, yes. There is one definition of ESP as "error some place"--as in "I can't quite find it but I know there is an error in there some place". My feeling is that as we've progressed, and as people have read our research in detail, more and more are saying that our research looks harder to beat than they thought.

Combined with:
In otherwords, if you test a lot of science students or those doubtful PSI can exists or a group of people with low (i.e. normal) creative talent or anyone under pressure ……yes the usual trial ……. you possible get no or a weaker PSI effect

More research needs to be done on the earth magnetic field interference (Schumann resonance?) and the location where the PSI trial is done (geophysical structure) .
If you do enough trials you will see some effect. We will retrospectively work out a reason why the failure groups failed.

This all looks incredibly unconvincing. Any phenomenon that can only be demonstrated by differences of opinions on very small statistical differences has by no mean been shown to exist

And even if we assume that Psi does exist (a huge logical leap), it would be the most useless and pointless ability in existence. Something that can only be demonstrated in certain places, at certain times by certain people to little or no effect. How are we EVER going to distinguish this from chance? An effect that small will never be clear.

Also is there not a colossal discrepency by what the Ganzfeld researchers show and what people claim their experiences of PSI are?
People claim it is a clear ability that the average person can judge to exist. Yet it never shows up like that in tests. What Ganzfeld tests show is different to the claims made by people who claim to have psychic ability.

Someone's deluding themselves.

[MRC_Hans]

Isn't this what we always see? It is certainly the same with homeopathy (my hobby-horse, at present ;)): As long as we're in anecdoticals, we hear of a strong and consistent effect, but the moment somebody even mumbles "test", everything suddenly becomes very vague.

Hans

[Open Mind]

I will reply to other points later … when I get more time …..briefly .

Originally posted by Ashles
[B]

And even if we assume that Psi does exist (a huge logical leap), it would be the most useless and pointless ability in existence. Something that can only be demonstrated in certain places, at certain times by certain people to little or no effect. How are we EVER going to distinguish this from chance? An effect that small will never be clear.

(a) I think it is only a huge leap for some (b) If it was acknowledged to exist siginificant changes in theoretical physics (c) it is not chance, there is an effect, whether you think it is a PSI or something else is another matter – you are entitled to doubt :)



Also is there not a colossal discrepency by what the Ganzfeld researchers show and what people claim their experiences of PSI are?
People claim it is a clear ability that the average person can judge to exist. Yet it never shows up like that in tests. What Ganzfeld tests show is different to the claims made by people who claim to have psychic ability.

Studies do not generally use mediums …. The only two in recent years I am aware of done in the UK are Robertson/Roy 2003 (surprisingly positive result) and Wiseman/O’Keefe 2004 (negative result). The former was a larger, longer trial (as it should be) , Wiseman/O’Keefe very short trial but still got a lot of media coverage.

It has not been proven those claiming to be psychic are not more psychic than the general population, psychics are often reluctant to be scientifically tested in controlled trials because they don’t want to be tested for ESP or telepathy ability (that is not exactly their claim) most prefer to be tested on the dead contacting them with information (they do not even claim to contact the dead, they claim the dead contacts them with information) ….. so that has been a problem, it doesn’t make statistical analysis easy as a judgment had to be made on how evidential each statement was …. But the above 2 trials step neatly around that problem by simply measuring who the message fits best.

For ganzfeld type trials I think parapsychologists should look for those claiming to be remote viewers rather than mediums (unless willing) probably better to avoid fortune telling psychics (who use tarot, astrology, palmistry ….. none of which actually have much to do with PSI ability at all, anyone can follow such procedure, assuming it does anything )

Short of time to reply to other people’s points right now ….. later :)