Evidence of decline of 'psi' effects... [Archive]

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why isn't it peer reviewed?

Do you have a panel of people reviewing it? Judging from the fact I found 253 errors during a basic and quick scan, I doubt it.

[b]
Why isn't SkepticReport a reputable journal?

It is not even a journal in the first place.

A question for you: why would you claim psi effects decline as the study quality increases if you have no evidence in peer reviewed papers published in reputable journals?

Please show me the articles if you can.

Zep

21st February 2005, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by jzs
Judging from the fact I found 253 errors during a basic and quick scan, I doubt it.I'm the author.

Perhaps you might like to tell me what all these errors were you found? I'm betting they are simply "spelling" issues, and simply because you have used a US dictionary on a non-US document. But I can be wrong.

I await with interest...

Zep

21st February 2005, 01:01 AM

Anyway, regardless of what commentary I may have written, the PEAR paper itself admits clearly to there being a complete fall-off of evidence for psi given the application of more adequately rigorous data gathering and analysis techniques. Note that this is for their whole body of evidence over a period of 25 years.

So...

You can accept that PEAR are NOT inept kooks and have gathered data fairly and reported their analyses honestly, in which case their evidence for psi as reported is nill. Or you can accept that they are indeed inept kooks, in which case you can hardly trust their research and reporting of anything at all, really.

I can hardly wait to see which you prefer... :rolleyes:

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Zep
I'm the author.

Perhaps you might like to tell me what all these errors were you found? I'm betting they are simply "spelling" issues, and simply because you have used a US dictionary on a non-US document. But I can be wrong.

I await with interest...

No, not your article specifically. The articles on the site in general.

Zep

21st February 2005, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by jzs
No, not your article specifically. The articles on the site in general. FYI, you do realise that many articles on that site will include quotes verbatim from various paranormal articles, etc? And that the authors of those articles being quoted are not known for their clarity of writing, strength of English grammar, or even good basic spelling using words of one syllable? In fact, some of them are quite atrocious writers in any language, let alone clear thinkers - think "Kumar".

Also, have you considered the possibility that articles, or sections of articles, could have been written in non-English languages? They may be masterpieces of beautifully grammatical German or Danish or something, but they would still be thrown up as a long series of spelling mistakes by MS Word (US version).

Lastly, has your "checker" limited itself to the articles alone, and not to the HTML?

So when you got "253 errors" on that site, you might have at least had the curiosity to question why it was so and have done a little research...

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Zep
, the PEAR paper itself admits clearly to there being a complete fall-off of evidence for psi given the application of more adequately rigorous data gathering and analysis techniques.

The paper of PEAR's you looked at was http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/IU.pdf.

I gladly accept that paper as evidence, not your paper, as theirs was peer reviewed in a journal.

You can accept that PEAR are NOT inept kooks and have gathered data fairly and reported their analyses honestly, in which case their evidence for psi as reported is nill. Or you can accept that they are indeed inept kooks, in which case you can hardly trust their research and reporting of anything at all, really.

Their "kook" status is completely irrelevant to the scientific issue.

I'll bold a key part from my original sentence of what I am looking for

"Anyone have any peer reviewed papers published in reputable journals?"

ie. conceeding PEAR's review as evidence, one paper does not decide an issue in science; replication does. The issue is can one find any other peer reviewed papers published in journals?

Surely skeptics have been claiming that psi effects decline as study quality increases before 2003 (the date that PEAR paper was published).

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by Zep
FYI, you do realise that many articles on that site will include quotes verbatim from various paranormal articles, etc? And that the authors of those articles being quoted are not known for their clarity of writing, strength of English grammar, or even good basic spelling using words of one syllable? In fact, some of them are quite atrocious writers in any language, let alone clear thinkers - think "Kumar".

Normally, when quoting someone who has a spelling error, for example, you put a "[sic]" in their sentence.

They may be masterpieces of beautifully grammatical German or ..

They may be, sure, but that is irrelevant to the articles being put up on a site in English. Moreover, most of the ariticles were written by English speakers.

So when you got "253 errors" on that site, you might have at least had the curiosity to question why it was so and have done a little research...

Research would have cought the errors in the first place....

Zep

21st February 2005, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by jzs

The paper of PEAR's you looked at was http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/IU.pdf.

I gladly accept that paper as evidence, not your paper, as theirs was peer reviewed in a journal.

Their "kook" status is completely irrelevant to the scientific issue.

I'll bold a key part from my original sentence of what I am looking for

"Anyone have any peer reviewed papers published in reputable journals?"

ie. conceeding PEAR's review as evidence, one paper does not decide an issue in science; replication does. The issue is can one find any other peer reviewed papers published in journals?

Surely skeptics have been claiming that psi effects decline as study quality increases before 2003 (the date that PEAR paper was published). [/B]Heh heh - yeah, sure! PEAR papers are "peer-reviewed"! *giggle* By whom, pray tell?

I have no problem with you bad-mouthing my work, since you clearly haven't read it. If you had, you would see that it was a commentary on PEAR's scientific reporting biases, with speculation as to why it is so. As such, my commentary hardly needs peer-review, any more than a decent newspaper editorial! But hey - don't let facts get in the way of a good prejudice, will you.

And I'm truly surprised that you can't find any peer-reviewed articles showing FIRST that psi does not exist, let alone seem to be on the decline when examined more closely. Do you not understand that the PEAR paper referred to here is about all there is being published from the pro-psi proponents that is even remotely acceptable as viable data gathering for a start? And only at a long stretch of the imagination? And which has even reasonable analysis of the data? And that whatever comes next is likely to be even LESS rigorously reliable scientifically (i.e. more laughable)? Some of it, quite honestly, is in the realm of a Harry Potter story it's so bad. So that you would expect scientific refutation of such "data" in peer-reviewed scientific journals is, frankly, expecting a bit much, don't you think? What would you like next - scientists to refute that Bugs Bunny doesn't have a New York accent?

However, it's up to you to decide what you are willing to accept.

Zep

21st February 2005, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by jzs

Normally, when quoting someone who has a spelling error, for example, you put a "[sic]" in their sentence.

Which will, of course, eliminate the original error. :nope:

They may be, sure, but that is irrelevant to the articles being put up on a site in English. Moreover, most of the ariticles were written by English speakers.

Ich habe eine kleine Deutch. Et Francais. Inter alia. (Sorry about the spelling, guys!)

Research would have <strike>cought</strike> caught the errors in the first place....

It surely would have! :D

PixyMisa

21st February 2005, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Heh heh - yeah, sure! PEAR papers are "peer-reviewed"! *giggle* By whom, pray tell?
By the peers of the researchers, i.e. other kooks.

AWPrime

21st February 2005, 03:03 AM

First I like to see evidence of existence of psi.

RamblingOnwards

21st February 2005, 03:09 AM

I think that jzs in referring to this argument:

1. PSI tests that show no results tend not to get published.
2. PSI tests that show slight results are published, but when repeated / refined, show worse results instead of the better results one would expect if the phenomenon existed.

I believe that jzs is simply asking for examples of this second case, rather than trying to attribute certain qualities to the nature of PSI.

PixyMisa

21st February 2005, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime
First I like to see evidence of existence of psi.
Hmm?

What we're saying is that supposed "psi" effects are really the result of poor experimental control.

So all we have is an absence of evidence for psi. Sorry.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by jzs
Do you have a panel of people reviewing it?

I have the whole world, Justin.

Originally posted by jzs
Judging from the fact I found 253 errors during a basic and quick scan, I doubt it.

Please post your list of those 253 errors.

Originally posted by jzs
It is not even a journal in the first place.

Does an article have to be printed on paper for it to be of value? Is form more important than content? SkepticReport is just as much a journal as anything else.

Journal: "a periodical dealing especially with matters of current interest"
Webster

Yup.

Now, why would you desperately try to get two articles published in a journal of such low quality?

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by jzs
Their "kook" status is completely irrelevant to the scientific issue.

Look at their data, Justin. Did they find anything paranormal? Just yes or no.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 03:48 AM

For thirty years professional psychologists, using sophisticated modern techniques, have been trying to duplicate the experiments of the parapsychologists, and they remain unconvinced.

...

Last year, for instance, the Journal of Psychology (vol. 60, pp. 313-18), reported on a carefully designed series of ESP tests by Richard C. Sprinthall and Barry S. Lubetkin. Fifty subjects were divided into two equal groups and each group was given a standard ESP test. One group took the test without "motivation"; the other was told that onyone who guessed twenty out of twenty-five ESP test cards correctly would immediately be given a hundred dollars. No one won any money. There was no significant difference in the results obtained from teh two groups, and neither showed any evidence of ESP.

This test had been prompted by Rhine's repeated assertions that financial reward provides strong motivation for ESP, and that "subject motivation to score high has long stood out as the mental variable that seems most closely related to the amount of psi effect shown in test results". Indeed, the most sensational result ever obtained by Rhine occurred during the Depression when he kept offering Hubert Pearce, one of his star subject, a hundred dollards for each top card he could call correctly in a pack of ESP cards. They halted the test by mutual consent after Pearce had correctly named twenty--five cards in a row. No one else was present on this occasion, and Rhine's published accounts of exactly what happened are vague.

Martin Gardner, "ESP: A scientific Evaluation", "Science - Good, Bad and Bogus", pp. 217-18

There's one for you: An ESP test, claimed to produce fantastic results, was repeated with increased study quality, but could not be repeated.

Now, tell me that the JoP is not a peer-reviewed reputable journal. Go ahead.

delphi_ote

21st February 2005, 07:07 AM

Just thought I'd point out that sir is using the tried and true rhetorical tactic of the false question or forcing the conclusion to get everyone all bothered.

If he'd simplified his question, sir might not come off as just trying to get negative attention (a.k.a. trolling.) Perhaps:

"I'm looking for evidence of psi effects in peer reviewed papers published in reputable journals."

would've sparked a conversation worth having.

Dr Adequate

21st February 2005, 08:59 AM

The decline of psi effects obtained by specific researchers --- including Rhine --- is recorded in Gilovich's How we know what isn't so : he documents how effects fell with increased controls.

I'm afraid I haven't got the book by me; the references would of course be to the papers of the researchers concerned. I don't know whether you consider peer review necessary to show one number to be smaller than another.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 09:56 AM

New Analyses Raise Doubts About Replicability of ESP Findings (http://www.csicop.org/si/9911/lilienfeld.html)

drkitten

21st February 2005, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Why isn't it peer reviewed?

Why isn't SkepticReport a reputable journal?

Get real, Larsen. I can only imagine the reactions of the promotion/tenure committee if I tried to present them with a collection of SkepticReport articles as "peer reviewed articles". It's a periodical, granted, and perhaps even a good one. There's nothing wrong with Scientific American, or the Harvard Law Review as a periodical either -- but none of them are peer-reviewed journals, either.

As to why it's not peer-reviewed.... it's because you don't have a review panel of authorial peers that critically examines the articles prior to publication. Instead, it prints what you decide to print... which means that the article selection will inevitable reflect your areas of expertise (and inexpertise) as well as your own biases.

And, of course, the Webster definition doesn't really reflect the current use of "journal" among scientists (unsurprisingly, since discipline-specific uses tend not to get indexed). The Webster definition is more akin to the use of journal as a synonym for "newspaper." In science, a journal is typically defined as "a type of periodical including ones that are issued by a society or institution and contain news, proceedings, transactions and articles about work carried out in a particular discipline. Intended for a scholarly audience. Compare with magazine." (from http://www.royalroads.ca/coppul/glossary.html). Given the mass-market focus of SkepticReport, I think it's much more clearly a magazine ("a type of periodical especially one that is intended for a general reading audience and contains articles of popular interest. Compare with journal.")

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Zep
Heh heh - yeah, sure! PEAR papers are "peer-reviewed"! *giggle* By whom, pray tell?

The people on the editorial board of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, where they got the article published.

SkepticReport articles are peer reviewed by "the whole world", on the other hand. :rolleyes:

I have no problem with you bad-mouthing my work, since you clearly haven't read it.

You are wrong on two counts. I have read it, and I'm not "bad- mouthing". I didn't say your article was poor, just that it doesn't satisify what I inquired about.

As such, my commentary hardly needs peer-review,

I don't think you understood me then. I specifically asked for peer reviewed things published in a journal. Your commentary satisfies neither of those, as I've stated.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 10:46 AM

Which will, of course, eliminate the original error.

Of course not. Never said it would. But if it had a "[sic]" I wouldn't have counted it as an error.

It surely would have!

My spellings errors typing on a discussion forum are irrelevant. I'm not submitting these posts to any journal or online publication, right?

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I have the whole world, Justin.

Um, whatever.

Please post your list of those 253 errors.

I already did. They are in your monthly 'SkepticReport has been updated' thread. You know this because you responded in that thread.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Look at their data, Justin.

You have their data for me to look at? Email it to me please.

Did they find anything paranormal? Just yes or no.

No, doesn't look like it.

This is an irrelevant aside, however. I'm not asking if they did or didn't, but for examples of articles published in peer reviewed journals showing as study quality increases, psi effects decrease.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
There's one for you: An ESP test, claimed to produce fantastic results, was repeated with increased study quality, but could not be repeated.

Where do you get that the study quality was increased?

Now, tell me that the JoP is not a peer-reviewed reputable journal. Go ahead.

Um, why would I do that? I think it does satisfy being peer reviewed and being a journal.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
New Analyses Raise Doubts About Replicability of ESP Findings (http://www.csicop.org/si/9911/lilienfeld.html)

From the article

"Parapsychologists have already begun to raise questions regarding Milton and Wiseman's findings and conclusions. For example, some have criticized Milton and Wiseman for including a heterogeneous set of studies in their meta-analysis, and have pointed out that several studies in their database were in fact statistically significant.
...
It seems likely that Milton and Wiseman's meta-analysis will not be the final word on the Ganzfeld technique,"

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by new drkitten
As to why it's not peer-reviewed.... it's because you don't have a review panel of authorial peers that critically examines the articles prior to publication.

How do you know that?

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by jzs
The people on the editorial board of the Journal of Scientific Exploration, where they got the article published.

Really??

Justin, I want you to take a look at who wrote the article. You can find it here (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/IU.pdf). There are two names. At the top of page 1.

Now, go to here (http://www.scientificexploration.org/council.php), where you will find who is on the board of JSE.

Then, tell me if you can find the two names on the board.

Can you, yes or no?

If the answer is yes, do you agree that the same people who write the articles also are the ones which peer review them?

Originally posted by jzs
SkepticReport articles are peer reviewed by "the whole world", on the other hand. :rolleyes:

Yep. Which pi55ses you off to no end.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by jzs
They are in your monthly 'SkepticReport has been updated' thread. You can go get them, please.

Please link to the actual thread.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by jzs
No, doesn't look like it.

Can you find any study that has evidence of any paranormal phenomenon?

Originally posted by jzs
This is an irrelevant aside, however. I'm not asking if they did or didn't, but for examples of articles published in peer reviewed journals showing as study quality increases, psi effects decrease.

And you got it.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by jzs
Where do you get that the study quality was increased?

From here:

...a carefully designed series of ESP tests...

Are you saying that the study quality was not increased?

Originally posted by jzs
Um, why would I do that? I think it does satisfy being peer reviewed and being a journal.

Great. That's one.

Now, for the third time: Why would you desperately try to get two articles published in a journal of such low quality?

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by jzs
From the article

"Parapsychologists have already begun to raise questions regarding Milton and Wiseman's findings and conclusions. For example, some have criticized Milton and Wiseman for including a heterogeneous set of studies in their meta-analysis, and have pointed out that several studies in their database were in fact statistically significant.
...
It seems likely that Milton and Wiseman's meta-analysis will not be the final word on the Ganzfeld technique,"

......so?

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Now, for the third time: Why would you desperately try to get two articles published in a journal of such low quality?

Claus, you keep trying to turn this thread into another one of your personal wars.

I'm just asking for evidence of a decline in psi effects as the study quality increases and peer reviewed papers published in reputable journals that show this.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Yep. Which pi55ses you off to no end.

The point, which you missed, was that saying SkepticReport, which is on the internet, and is therefore peer reviewed by the whole world, does not even make sense.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Please link to the actual thread.

You are able to go get them.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

...a carefully designed series of ESP tests...

Where is the evidence that that means an improvement in study quality?

Great. That's one.

You're attempting to be sneaky here. Me saying the JoP qualifies as a peer reviewed journal is not the same thing as me saying that that article shows evidence that an increase in study quality leads to a decrease in a psi effect. Where is the evidence that study quality was improved?

Moreover, and you should know this, one or a few examples don't tell the whole story. In science replication is the key. For example, a graph of study quality vs. psi effect, showing a downward trend line, should provide evidence for the claim of decreasing psi effect with increased study quality.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
......so?

This was all you posted

"New Analyses Raise Doubts About Replicability of ESP Findings "

and you're asking me "......so?" ?

drkitten

21st February 2005, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How do you know that?

Well, from the point of view of being regarded as "peer-reviewed," one typically needs a public statement regarding the peer reviewers, typically with the identities of the reviewers made public. Check any recent copy of JAMA, for example.

SkepticReport does not have a publically named editorial board. I have exactly as much evidence to support the claim that SR is peer-reviewed as I have to support the claim that it's published by a leprechaun.

"The whole world" does not count as an editorial board -- very few of the people in "the whole world" are my peers, and they don't get prepublication input into the contents of SR.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Really??

Justin, I want you to take a look at who wrote the article. You can find it here (http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/IU.pdf). There are two names. At the top of page 1.

Now, go to here (http://www.scientificexploration.org/council.php), where you will find who is on the board of JSE.

Then, tell me if you can find the two names on the board.

The "board" is not the same as who peer reviews. I would assume that the authors themselves did not peer review their own paper, but other members on the board.

If you don't consider the PEAR paper to be peer reviewed, fine. Then that paper cannot possibly count as an example of a peer reviewed paper in a journal that shows evidence of a decline in psi effects with the increase of study quality.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by jzs
The point, which you missed, was that saying SkepticReport, which is on the internet, and is therefore peer reviewed by the whole world, does not even make sense.

On the contrary. I have a lot of eyeballs on the articles. That does not mean that I use only the world as peers.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Claus, you keep trying to turn this thread into another one of your personal wars.

I'm just asking for evidence of a decline in psi effects as the study quality increases and peer reviewed papers published in reputable journals that show this.

And when you got a link, you criticized SR for not being peer-reviewed. So, the question is very relevant.

No personal wars on my account. It's not me who points to 253 errors on SR, Justin.

Garrette

21st February 2005, 01:19 PM

Claus,

I luvs ya dearly, but you're not helping yourself here.

Non-scientist that I am, I do not think SR is peer-reviewed in the sense commonly used here.

I would, however, be ecstatic to be wrong.

Is it peer-reviewed? If so, how and by whom?

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by jzs
You are able to go get them.

Sorry, I can't find them. Please link to them.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by jzs
Where is the evidence that that means an improvement in study quality?

Ignore the evidence. Be the fool.

Originally posted by jzs
You're attempting to be sneaky here. Me saying the JoP qualifies as a peer reviewed journal is not the same thing as me saying that that article shows evidence that an increase in study quality leads to a decrease in a psi effect. Where is the evidence that study quality was improved?

If you don't believe Gardner, look it up yourself. Just don't claim that you haven't been shown evidence.

Originally posted by jzs
Moreover, and you should know this, one or a few examples don't tell the whole story. In science replication is the key. For example, a graph of study quality vs. psi effect, showing a downward trend line, should provide evidence for the claim of decreasing psi effect with increased study quality.

Moving the goal posts here. You asked for studies, and you got one. All else is bullsh*t, Justin.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by jzs
This was all you posted

"New Analyses Raise Doubts About Replicability of ESP Findings "

and you're asking me "......so?" ?

Yes, Justin. I am. So?

Is this going to be yet another example of you dancing around the issue, never engaging in real debate? Just say the word, so we can save a lot of time.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Sorry, I can't find them. Please link to them.

They are in a thread that you started, I have already told you which thread, and it is a thread which you have posted in a lot, and as recently as 2/13/05. Please don't pretend to not know.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by new drkitten
Well, from the point of view of being regarded as "peer-reviewed," one typically needs a public statement regarding the peer reviewers, typically with the identities of the reviewers made public. Check any recent copy of JAMA, for example.

I am not aware of this rule. Could you direct me to one such?

Originally posted by new drkitten
SkepticReport does not have a publically named editorial board. I have exactly as much evidence to support the claim that SR is peer-reviewed as I have to support the claim that it's published by a leprechaun.

The key issue about peer reviewing is that the author does not know who reviews his article. That way, he can never influence them. It's a good system.

And no, I'm not a leprechaun. I'm Santa... ;)

Originally posted by new drkitten
"The whole world" does not count as an editorial board -- very few of the people in "the whole world" are my peers, and they don't get prepublication input into the contents of SR.

I didn't say that the whole world was the only peer review function I had. But you are certainly right about your last point.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by jzs
The "board" is not the same as who peer reviews. I would assume that the authors themselves did not peer review their own paper, but other members on the board.

BING! Thank you for calling.

You assume, Justin. You have to know. Go find out and get back to us.

Originally posted by jzs
If you don't consider the PEAR paper to be peer reviewed, fine. Then that paper cannot possibly count as an example of a peer reviewed paper in a journal that shows evidence of a decline in psi effects with the increase of study quality.

You haven't read the PEAR paper. You haven't read Zep's article. If you had, you would know that the PEAR paper did not claim to show a decline in PSI effects with the increase of study quality.

If you want to at least give the impression that you are participating in a debate, you will have to do a hell of a lot better that this.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Garrette
I luvs ya dearly,

Keep your dirty mind to yourself...

Originally posted by Garrette
Non-scientist that I am, I do not think SR is peer-reviewed in the sense commonly used here.

I would, however, be ecstatic to be wrong.

Is it peer-reviewed? If so, how and by whom?

With certain articles, I submit them before publications to a certain group of people, who give me feedback. And yes, articles have been turned down, if the feedback is not favorable. One of Justin's article is one of them.

And no, I can not and will not reveal who they are. That would make it possible for authors to try and influence the reviewers.

drkitten

21st February 2005, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

The key issue about peer reviewing is that the author does not know who reviews his article. That way, he can never influence them. It's a good system.

Um, no. The key issue about peer reviewing is that the articles are reviewed by the peers of the authors. Anonymously having the articles reviewed by "some bloke down at the pub" is neither useful, helpful, nor appropriate.

That's why it's called "peer review."

Although the authors are usually not informed which specific member of the editorial board (or ad-hoc reviewer) was responsible for the manuscript comments that they received, the identity of the editorial board as a group is almost always made public, because that's the only way to judge the validity of the "peer" review.

There is no [public] editorial board for SkepticReport.

Let me turn this around. I believe that SR is not peer-reviewed, on the basis of public information. If you want me to adjust my beliefs, then where's the evidence? I believe that JAMA is peer-reviewed, both because they have explicitly claimed to be peer-reviewed (no such claim exists for SR), and because they publish the names of the reviewers, so I can check.

drkitten

21st February 2005, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

With certain articles, I submit them before publications to a certain group of people, who give me feedback. And yes, articles have been turned down, if the feedback is not favorable. One of Justin's article is one of them.

And no, I can not and will not reveal who they are. That would make it possible for authors to try and influence the reviewers.

In other words, you don't submit all articles to the reviewers, and you don't make the editorial board public so I can confirm that they are my peers.

This level of editorial involvement and secrecy is inappropriate for a respectable newspaper.

Thank you for confirming that SR is not a peer-reviewed journal.

Garrette

21st February 2005, 01:39 PM

Got it. Thanks.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ignore the evidence. Be the fool.

More personal attacks, tsk tsk

I'm not ignoring anything. Rather, I'm asking you, directly, to provide evidence that being a 'careful design' translates to 'improvement in study quality'.

Where is the evidence that that means an improvement in study quality?

You asked for studies, and you got one.

I asked for studies, and I got one, yes, one which may or may not match the criteria (evidence of study improvement) of what I asked for.

It is still not clear what improvement in study quality was done in that article. Maybe you could tell us?

Moreover, you know one example doesn't really settle the issue. We need replication in science.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You assume, Justin. You have to know.

You know improvement in study quality leads to decline in psi effect? You know I haven't read the PEAR paper? You know I haven't read Zep's article? Sounds like you assume some things.

In fact I've read both, very thoroughly.

, you would know that the PEAR paper did not claim to show a decline in PSI effects with the increase of study quality.

Ok, that's fine if you believe that. Then why did Zep bring it up as an example of what I was looking for?

Garrette

21st February 2005, 01:56 PM

jzs,

not that my opinion matters, but I don't think you're helping your case, either.

Let's assume for the moment that after a few more post-exchanges, you irrefutably demonstrate that there are exactly zero studies-published in the appropriate journals-that demonstrate that the psi effect diminishes as controls are increased/improved. (Or more precisely, you irrefutably demonstrate that Claus can provide no such evidence)

What, exactly, will that accomplish for you other than the personal satisfaction that you will have caught Claus out for once?

Will this somehow change the fact that there is now, no reliable research demonstrating the psi effect exists at all?

For my money, this whole thread has degenerated, predictably, into chimeras chasing chimeras to claim they've found and not found a gryphon.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by new drkitten
Um, no. The key issue about peer reviewing is that the articles are reviewed by the peers of the authors. Anonymously having the articles reviewed by "some bloke down at the pub" is neither useful, helpful, nor appropriate.

Sorry, but I am not using "some bloke down at the pub".

Originally posted by new drkitten
Although the authors are usually not informed which specific member of the editorial board (or ad-hoc reviewer) was responsible for the manuscript comments that they received, the identity of the editorial board as a group is almost always made public, because that's the only way to judge the validity of the "peer" review. There is no [public] editorial board for SkepticReport.

Almost, yes. There is none such for SR. Does that also invalidate those publications who don't make their list public?

Originally posted by new drkitten
Let me turn this around. I believe that SR is not peer-reviewed, on the basis of public information. If you want me to adjust my beliefs, then where's the evidence? I believe that JAMA is peer-reviewed, both because they have explicitly claimed to be peer-reviewed (no such claim exists for SR), and because they publish the names of the reviewers, so I can check.

Fine with me.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by new drkitten
In other words, you don't submit all articles to the reviewers, and you don't make the editorial board public so I can confirm that they are my peers.

This level of editorial involvement and secrecy is inappropriate for a respectable newspaper.

Thank you for confirming that SR is not a peer-reviewed journal.

I don't need to submit all articles to the reviewers. Some articles are personal comments, some are humorous pieces. Should Homeopathic Functional Food (http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/homeopathyfuncfood.htm) be peer-reviewed??

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Garrette

(Or more precisely, you irrefutably demonstrate that Claus can provide no such evidence)

He doesn't need my help for that.

Will this somehow change the fact that there is now, no reliable research demonstrating the psi effect exists at all?

I'm asking for evidence for the skeptical mantra/claim that an increase in study quality leads to decrease in psi effects. This isn't about the claim of psi effects existing.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by jzs
You know improvement in study quality leads to decline in psi effect? You know I haven't read the PEAR paper? You know I haven't read Zep's article? Sounds like you assume some things.

In fact I've read both, very thoroughly.

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrright.

Originally posted by jzs
Ok, that's fine if you believe that. Then why did Zep bring it up as an example of what I was looking for?

He brought up his own article. Please, please do try to get things right, Justin. You are mixing up the articles.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 02:07 PM

Justin,

If you can spare the time to go through the entire archive of articles on SkepticReport to find 253 errors, then you can spare the time to show me what these errors are.

Can I see them, please?

You brought them up. Now, let's see them.

dharlow

21st February 2005, 02:08 PM

Given that meta-analyses of psi experiments have never, to my knowledge, been carried out by people blinded to the outcome, assessing whether above chance success can be attributed (or not attributed) to poor quality cannot be assessed in any definitive manner. When Honorton and Hyman developed flaw ratings for the initial Ganzfeld results, Honorton's assessment found no evidence of a decline in success in correlation with flaws while Hyman did. Neither is neccessarily wrong, but both had access to the results and may have allowed subtle biases to creep in when assessing the individual experiments. Radin's meta-analyses of psi experiments using a variety of experimental procedures have all been non-blind, as have all others I've seen.

Garrette

21st February 2005, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by jzs:

I'm asking for evidence for the skeptical mantra/claim that an increase in study quality leads to decrease in psi effects.

The skeptical mantra? I post here periodically and lurk here frequently. Outside Claus mentioning it recently, I do not recall seeing it anywhere. I could be wrong.

But now you're making a claim. Please provide evidence for it.

This isn't about the claim of psi effects existing.

It's not about psi effects existing.

It's about psi effects not getting smaller.

I was right: chimeras.

Hmmm.

Seems to me it's about nothing then.

Have at it.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrright.

I'm glad you admit you made assumptions.

He brought up his own article. Please, please do try to get
(snip)

..which is even less evidence as it is commentary on an article (the PEAR one) that you say is not evidence of a decline in psi effects due to increase in study quality. And...?

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Garrette
Seems to me it's about nothing then.

You know, even though it hurts me to agree with you (;)), you are absolutely right.

This is about nothing.

Garrette

21st February 2005, 02:23 PM

Take heart, Claus.

Jerry Seinfeld made mega-millions with a show about this very thing.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 02:23 PM

Justin,

If you have anything of value to contribute, please let us know.

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Garrette
Take heart, Claus.

Jerry Seinfeld made mega-millions with a show about this very thing.

He had to be on TV to do it, though.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If you can spare the time to go through the entire archive of articles on
(snip)

Are you assuming that took a long time? It didn't. That was kinda my point.

Can I see them, please?

You brought them up. Now, let's see them.

You have already seen them considering you responded to me in the thread that I posted the errors in.

No more game playing, please.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Garrette
The skeptical mantra? I post here periodically and lurk here frequently. Outside Claus mentioning it recently, I do not recall seeing it anywhere. I could be wrong.

But now you're making a claim. Please provide evidence for it.

I'd like to see actual evidence for their claim, which was made prior to mine.

Garrette

21st February 2005, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by jzs:

I'd like to see actual evidence for their claim, which was made prior to mine.

Just whom do you mean by "their?"

I only know of Claus making this claim.

You said it's a skeptic mantra. It's not mine. I don't think it's dharlow's nor dr kitten's.

How has it suddenly become a skeptic mantra?

Edited to fix formatting

CFLarsen

21st February 2005, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by jzs
No more game playing, please.

No games. Just point me to the thread.

It will take less effort than to explain why you won't do it.

AWPrime

21st February 2005, 02:46 PM

Are we getting offtopic???!!!!

Zep

21st February 2005, 03:06 PM

It's like watching tennis, isn't it, folks! :)

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
Are we getting offtopic???!!!!

Well, I'd say particular individuals are, despite repeated attempts to get back on track.

Garrette

21st February 2005, 03:09 PM

Oh, I'm not very particular at all. Just interested in a claim you've made.

Now Claus, on the other hand. He's particular.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No games. Just point me to the thread.

It will take less effort than to explain why you won't do it.

I don't have to do anything for you.

You have already seen them considering you responded to me in the thread that I posted the errors in.

I'm not going to believe you are unable to know what I am talking about nor able to use the search feature, nor be able to find a thread you started and posted in, a lot, about 8 days ago. Please cease the game playing distractions.

T'ai Chi

21st February 2005, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Garrette
Just whom do you mean by "their?"

Here's another example

"The more closely ESP has been studied in the laboratory, the smaller the effects become."

(source: http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n02/esp-fact-sheet.html)

CFLarsen

22nd February 2005, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by jzs
I don't have to do anything for you.

You have already seen them considering you responded to me in the thread that I posted the errors in.

I'm not going to believe you are unable to know what I am talking about nor able to use the search feature, nor be able to find a thread you started and posted in, a lot, about 8 days ago. Please cease the game playing distractions.

No sign of these "253 errors" on SkepticReport. Or anything else.

Ah, well.

Ersby

22nd February 2005, 02:08 AM

Is it too late to try and answer the oroginal question? Kennedy touched on the subject in a paper in the JoP.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_67/ai_104657309

In this article, he references two other papers that also cover the subject:

BATCHELDOR, K.J. (1994). Notes on the elusiveness problem in relation to a radical view of paranormality. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 88, 90-115.

BRAUD, W. G. (1985). The two faces of psi: Psi revealed and psi obscured. In B. Shapin & L. Coly (Eds.), The repeatability problem in parapsychology (pp. 150-175). New York: Parapsychology Foundation.

Dick Bierman also gives an overview of decline effects in various fields of parapsychology, but not with reference to any link to quality. It is on the internet somewhere, but I can't find it just now. PM me and I'll email you the pdf.

CFLarsen

22nd February 2005, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Ersby
PM me and I'll email you the pdf.

Lemmehaveit.

dharlow

22nd February 2005, 02:58 AM

Kennedy's papers, including the one cited by Ersby, can be found in a somewhat more readable format here:

http://www.jeksite.org/psi.htm

BTW Ersby, somewhat on the subject, did you ever happen to get a hold of Westerland (was that who it was?) regarding the Dalton work?

T'ai Chi

22nd February 2005, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No sign of these "253 errors" on SkepticReport. Or anything else.

Ah, well.

The games continue.. You started the thread and posted in it, in response to my post. You are aware of it.

AWPrime

22nd February 2005, 07:30 AM

Why post about these 253 errors, without giving examples?

That is just asking for trouble.

Ersby

22nd February 2005, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lemmehaveit.

Don't get too carried away, it's not all that exciting. I'll send it tomorrow morning.

Ersby

22nd February 2005, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by dharlow
BTW Ersby, somewhat on the subject, did you ever happen to get a hold of Westerland (was that who it was?) regarding the Dalton work?

I emailed him, but never got an answer. I blame my hotmail address: it probably got put straight in the bin.

CFLarsen

22nd February 2005, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Ersby
Don't get too carried away, it's not all that exciting. I'll send it tomorrow morning.

:j2:

........OK. ;)

Dogwood

22nd February 2005, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Please link to the actual thread. 15th post down (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52107)

T'ai Chi

22nd February 2005, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
Why post about these 253 errors, without giving examples?

I've already posted, in a thread that Claus has responded in, these specific errors.

Claus knows this thread.

He is just attempting to get me to post a link to them; his game playing.

So you are wrong when you state that I hvae not given examples. I have given all 253 of them in that thread.

Zep

22nd February 2005, 09:29 PM

MEANWHILE... Having watched two posters play postiing ping-pong for more than 80 posts between themselves alone, on a topic being covered elsewhere anyway...

I've just found and read the "253 errors" list. OK, sure, there are grammar and spelling errors (and heaven knows we could do with a bit more edja-kayshon in that regard). But as far as I can tell, they don't seem to negate any arguments or nullify any submissions here on this thread - they seem to be about as relevant to the arguments as a bad paint job is to a NASCAR racing car.

What's more, I note there are NONE (that's zero) errors listed against my own SR submission. Which, as far as I can tell, is about the only one on SR concerned with this precise subject. The rest is an argument for another (already existing) thread.

So can we please get back to the thread topic?

T'ai Chi

22nd February 2005, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Zep
MEANWHILE... Having watched two posters play postiing ping-pong for more than 80 posts between themselves alone, on a topic being covered elsewhere anyway...

You can thank CF for his game playing, since he was well aware of where the list was to begin with.

But as far as I can tell, they don't seem to negate any arguments

I never said they did. That was a strawman that was created. I simply pointed them out as errors that missing the "peer review" and need correcting.

What's more, I note there are NONE (that's zero) errors listed against my own SR submission.

I think several people have already established that your article is a) commentary not a study, and b) not in a peer reviewed journal. I could be wrong though. Additionally, CF doesn't count the original PEAR article as being evidence of a decline in effects given an increase in study quality.

CFLarsen

23rd February 2005, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Dogwood
15th post down (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52107)

Thanks. I was hoping that wasn't it.

T'ai Chi

23rd February 2005, 12:41 AM

pong

Pragmatist

23rd February 2005, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by jzs
pong

You do rather. But thanks at least for being honest! ;)

T'ai Chi

23rd February 2005, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Pragmatist
You do rather. But thanks at least for being honest! ;)

I'm actually very good at table tennis in real life. Go figure.

Zep

23rd February 2005, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by jzs
You can thank CF for his game playing, since he was well aware of where the list was to begin with.

It takes TWO to tango. You COULD have simply ignored him if you think he was simply being contrary, and got on with the topic at hand (which I think happens to be quite a reasonable subject, btw). It seems like you came here for the full 30 minute argument...

I never said they did. That was a strawman that was created. I simply pointed them out as errors that missing the "peer review" and need correcting.

Don't be pedantic. There's a thread elsewhere devoted to that precise subject - you know that.

I think several people have already established that your article is a) commentary not a study, and b) not in a peer reviewed journal. I could be wrong though. Additionally, CF doesn't count the original PEAR article as being evidence of a decline in effects given an increase in study quality.

So don't take my article as evidence of anything one way or another. It was never proposed by me as such, just as a lead-in to the PEAR article. {shrug}

And if you think CF is wrong about this then does that mean you DO accept the PEAR article is peer-reviewed evidence, etc, etc?

To be honest, I do think you are going at this bass-ackwards. Looking for peer-reviewed evidence of a DECLINE in psi effects has the very basic presupposition that there IS good evidence of psi effects existing that can do the declining. Since THAT is a matter that has not been resolved at all, looking for trends in the evidence seems a mite premature and pointless.

Perhaps your question should be more usefully put as: What reputable peer-reviewed evidence exists regarding psi effects, and what conclusions can be drawn from it? This might be useful research for many reasons. Note that you need to properly quantify "peer-reviewed" and "reputable" to be objective, so it's not a small task...

T'ai Chi

24th February 2005, 12:07 AM

It takes TWO to tango. You COULD have simply ignored him if you think he was simply being contrary, and got on with the topic at hand

So could he. I agree.

If you look back, he was the first one to start with the personal wars and avoid providing evidence of decline of psi effects due to increase study quality, by asking me why I tried to get two articles published in SR.

And if you think CF is wrong about this then does that mean you DO accept the PEAR article is peer-reviewed evidence, etc, etc?

There is evidence of it being more peer reviewed that SR articles. For starters, we have some idea of the people on the Journal Scientific Exploration board.

Looking for peer-reviewed evidence of a DECLINE in psi effects has the very basic presupposition that there IS good evidence of psi effects existing that can do the declining

An often criticism is that an increase in study quality leads to a decline in psi effects. I'm just looking for actual evidence.

Note that you need to properly quantify "peer-reviewed"

No, I do not. Peer reviewed is a farily well understood thing. A ton of journals do it, so it really is no mystery.

Zep

24th February 2005, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by jzs
An often criticism is that an increase in study quality leads to a decline in psi effects. I'm just looking for actual evidence.

Then the PEAR article I referenced (at least the first half) fills that bill.

No, I do not. Peer reviewed is a farily well understood thing. A ton of journals do it, so it really is no mystery.

Sorry to disillusion you, but SOME "peer review" means "giving it to my mates in the pub to read". That these mates have a list of letters after their names does not guarantee that they are actually qualified to review the articles, nor even that they actually DID read them. Nor reveal that they have a vested interest in the subject of the articles, and so are hardly likely to raise any objections to the content. Best example: Institute for Creation Research - they peer-review like crazy, but it's all incestuous and the results are always crap.

Note also that even quality and well-respected peer-reviewed journals such as The Lancet, JAMA and Nature are not immune from oversights from time to time. The articles will be spellchecked and grammatically correct, though. :)