The Power of Collective Disbelief?

[Open Mind]

What if collective (and individual) disbelief and doubt impeded PSI severely? This has often been claimed by proponents …..

If true, what would be effects? Hmm….
- It might predict that the more people collectively disbelieve PSI is possible, the more collectively impossible it becomes?
- It might predict that a claimed effect is stronger conducted in small private group of believers, than in a mass of publicity who will suspect fraud, trickery, self deception?
- It might predict that successful PSI experiments are more likely to fail after scientific peer reviewed publication?
- It might predict that the never ending demands for tighter and tighter controls and high replication, place more expectation of failure upon the experimenters too?
- It might predict that believers do slightly better in experiments (sheep) than disbelievers (goats)
- It might predict that PSI effectiveness have weakened over the past century as belief in the paranormal has been replaced by greater disbelief in paranormal, religion, miracles, etc.

Do these sound familiar?

Feel free to disprove a collective disbelief impedes PSI hypothesis …… :) However in debunking this common idea - one should not jump straight to super duper strength collective PSI effects - For example claiming if the world was round, the colective belief it it was flat would have made it flat - this is incoherent as we are talking about more subtle weaker effects as claimed by parapsychology (and earlier psychical research)

Similar could be applied to medicine, we know a placebo effects definitely occur, or much more alarmingly a ‘nocebo’ effect appears to exist too....

If there is a PSI nocebo of disbelief, would promoting all paranormal claims as fraud and error (without actual proof) be bordering upon a crime against humanity and progress? ;) I supposed it might depend on whether the opponent is exaggerating the case against PSI by assuming error and fraud (without proof).

Debunking claims where the critic is not actually present (generally the case) , does this not require a-priori disbelief?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Open Mind
What if collective (and individual) disbelief and doubt impeded PSI severely? This has often been claimed by proponents …..

If true, what would be effects? Hmm….
- It might predict that the more people collectively disbelieve PSI is possible, the more collectively impossible it becomes?
- It might predict that a claimed effect is stronger conducted in small private group of believers, than in a mass of publicity who will suspect fraud, trickery, self deception?
- It might predict that successful PSI experiments are more likely to fail after scientific peer reviewed publication?
- It might predict that the never ending demands for tighter and tighter controls and high replication, place more expectation of failure upon the experimenters too?
- It might predict that believers do slightly better in experiments (sheep) than disbelievers (goats)
- It might predict that PSI effectiveness have weakened over the past century as belief in the paranormal has been replaced by greater disbelief in paranormal, religion, miracles, etc.


It might do.

Originally posted by Open Mind


Do these sound familiar?


Yep, they sound like many of your posts.

Originally posted by Open Mind

Feel free to disprove a collective disbelief impedes PSI hypothesis …… :)


Feel free to prove a collective disbelief impedes PSI hypothesis …… :)

Originally posted by Open Mind

However in debunking this common idea - one should not jump straight to super duper strength collective PSI effects - For example claiming if the the world was round, the colective belief it it was flat would have made it flat - this is an incoherent as we are talking about more subtle weaker effects as claimed by parapsychology (and earlier psychical research)


However in debunking this common idea - one should not jump straight to super duper strength collective disbelief PSI effects - For example claiming if the the world was flat, the colective disbelief it it was round would have made it round - this is an incoherent as we are talking about more subtle stronger effects as claimed by parapsychology (and earlier psychical research)

Originally posted by Open Mind

Similar could be applied to medicine, we know a placebo effects definitely occur, or much more alarmingly a ‘nocebo’ effect appears to exist too....

If there is a power of disbelief, would promoting all paranormal claims as fraud and error (without actual proof) be bordering upon a crime against humanity and progress? ;) I supposed it might depend on whether the opponent is exaggerating the case against PSI by assuming error and fraud (without proof).


No.

Originally posted by Open Mind

To debunk claim wgere the critic was not actually present (generally the case) , does this not require a-priori disbelief?

No.

[John Jackson]

Originally posted by Open Mind
What if collective (and individual) disbelief and doubt impeded PSI severely? This has often been claimed by proponents …..

If true, what would be effects? Hmm….
- It might predict that the more people collectively disbelieve PSI is possible, the more collectively impossible it becomes?
- It might predict that a claimed effect is stronger conducted in small private group of believers, than in a mass of publicity who will suspect fraud, trickery, self deception?
- It might predict that successful PSI experiments are more likely to fail after scientific peer reviewed publication?
- It might predict that the never ending demands for tighter and tighter controls and high replication, place more expectation of failure upon the experimenters too?
- It might predict that believers do slightly better in experiments (sheep) than disbelievers (goats)
- It might predict that PSI effectiveness have weakened over the past century as belief in the paranormal has been replaced by greater disbelief in paranormal, religion, miracles, etc.

Do these sound familiar? Yes - they're known as excuses for failure :D

One of my favourites is where Randi used his influence to prevent Uri Geller from psychically bending a spoon: Skeptics' sabotage (http://psymag.tripod.com/issue_1/1_sabotage.htm)

Let's face it. PSI effects diminish as experimental controls tighten.

[Ossai]

Open Mind
What if collective (and individual) disbelief and doubt impeded PSI severely? This has often been claimed by proponents …..

Do these sound familiar? Many times as excuses for NO effect, not diminished, but no effect whatsoever.

Feel free to disprove a collective disbelief impedes PSI hypothesis …… So post one.

However in debunking this common idea - one should not jump straight to super duper strength collective PSI effects You mean don’t do what you just did.

- For example claiming if the world was round, the colective belief it it was flat would have made it flat You are proposing that a belief in a god creates a god – or any other non-detectable event/place/being.

- this is incoherent as we are talking about more subtle weaker effects as claimed by parapsychology (and earlier psychical research) So subtle and weak that it’s indistinguishable from no effect.

Ossai

[Zep]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Feel free to disprove a collective disbelief impedes PSI hypothesis Presupposes that psi works at all, such that it CAN be impeded in any way, by disbelief or otherwise.

So far, this hasn't been proved, so let's get the first step out of the way first. And when that has been done, THEN we'll get down to measuring the anti-psi effect. OK?

[Bronze Dog]

The whole "negative vibes" thing is much like a typical paranoid conspiracy theorist raving:

"Aliens stole my brain!"
"But the X-rays and MRI still show it's there."
"The government paid the hospital to doctor those!"
"But the camera in your bedroom showed no aliens over that night."
"The government switched the tapes!"

It's called poisoning the well, and your particular sort also does circular logic: Psi exists, except when someone looks at it really hard. How's that any different than me saying I've got a green unicorn in my backyard that turns into a roughly equine-shaped bush when I look at it really hard?

Now, if psychics would subject themselves to Randi-esque super-tight controls, rather than turning to us eeeee-ville skeptics who magically suppress their powers, we might have something to talk about. But they don't.

[MRC_Hans]

So, OM's hypothesis fits the observations. Isn't that good? He/she has now presented evidence for the hypothesis and awaits our counter evidence.

What is wrong with this scenario?

It is called an ad hoc hypothesis. An ad hoc hypothesis is when you have a hypothesis, but tests have failed to support it and you then construct a new hypothesis to put on top of the old one to explain the failure.

Does that sound familiar ;)?

The real fallacy is not that you "improve" on your original hypothesis. That, after all is what most scientists do as test results come in. The real fallacy is the notion that you, by constructing an ad hoc hypothesis, move the burden of proof.

It is still the duty of the claimant to prove the new, "improved" hypothesis. The difference is that you have now made it much more complex to test.

Hans

[Robin]

Originally posted by Open Mind
What if collective (and individual) disbelief and doubt impeded PSI severely? This has often been claimed by proponents …..


In which case, given all the TV programs, radio shows, magazine and newspaper articles, live shows I have seen which demonstrate an overwhelming interest and belief in various types of psi, then the psi should be overwhelmingly powerful right now.

The psi around us should be so thick you could cut it with a knife.

So why, given all this collective belief, isn't it?

[Bronze Dog]

Also a good point. When you do a lot of ad hocking (is that even a word, or am I inappropriately verbing?), you dig yourself into a deeper hole. "Psi doesn't work when skeptics are around. It doesn't work under a full moon. It doesn't work during planetary alignments. It doesn't work when the psychic is under stress. It doesn't work when we decide the subject is being uncooperative. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera."

This raises the question, "When does it work?"

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by John Jackson
Yes - they're known as excuses for failure :D



I'm sure that occurs to some degree but how do you know there still isn't a real effect? :) How would you test it?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I'm sure that occurs to some degree but how do you know there still isn't a real effect? :) How would you test it?
Exactly what we're asking. So, Open Mind, how do you test it?

Oh, and shifting burden of proof. A better question to ask is why do you believe in psi?

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
[B]The whole "negative vibes" thing is much like a typical paranoid conspiracy theorist raving:

"Aliens stole my brain!"
"But the X-rays and MRI still show it's there."
"The government paid the hospital to doctor those!"
"But the camera in your bedroom showed no aliens over that night."
"The government switched the tapes!"



I don't think it is fair to pick the silliest claim you can imagine as if it somehow proves controlled parapsychology trials by serious researchers are in error. It doesn’t.


Now, if psychics would subject themselves to Randi-esque super-tight controls, rather than turning to us eeeee-ville skeptics who magically suppress their powers, we might have something to talk about. But they don't.

These have been done in the past, you can assume fraud if you don't want to believe the past controls…..... the disbeliever attitude of the past 100 years has typically been 'when I am there, only then do the proper experiments begin'

It just has not been achieved with Randi (…. yet ;) ) … the Randi challenge is looking for too strong effects in too short trials .. (and conducting far too few preliminary trials to prove anything much)

Also if there is a disbelief effect, what makes you think Randi is neutral enough?
What makes you think if Randi is not present and gets one of his equally hard skeptic friends to conduct trial instead this somehow rules out any disbelief effect? Add to this all the forum skeptics knowing about a upcoming preliminary trial and confidently predicting failure (e.g. read the last trial forum comments prior to trial) ....... It seems disbelievers have decided that if PSI exists it must work like a private telephone call unaffected by disbelief, cynicism, etc. Why should skeptics assume a test of information traveling external to brain must be only private, strong effect, stable, under individual human control, immune to hostility etc?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I don't think it is fair to pick the silliest claim you can imagine as if it somehow proves controlled parapsychology trials by serious researchers are in error. It doesn’t.
Controlled parapsychology trials such as...? Oh, and your claim is almost equally silly. Especially since it's built the same way.

These have been done in the past...
Show me.

It just has not been achieved with Randi (…. yet ;) ) … the Randi challenge is looking for too strong effects in too short trials .. (and conducting far too few preliminary trials to prove anything much)
Then propose a long protocol for sorting out weak effects.

Also if there is a disbelief effect, what makes you think Randi is neutral enough?
I don't think he's neutral. No one is. Oh, and drop the poison before you contaminate our water supply. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well)

What makes you think if Randi is not present and gets one of his equally hard skeptic friends to conduct trial instead this somehow rules out any disbelief effect?
Demonstrate this disbelief effect. Have a psychic perform with a bunch of believers and have a hidden skeptic walk by. If the psychic starts failing the moment the hidden skeptic shows up, you'll prove the disbelief effect. I think such a test would be eligible for the million.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Exactly what we're asking. So, Open Mind, how do you test it?



I would recommend the person investigates and conducts trials personally, ..... only you know you are not committing fraud, only you know you are not suffering from false memory........ otherwise nothing will satisfy a non present skeptic reviewer.

Add whatever controls you desire but the researcher should adopt an open mind and try to minimize a-prior disbelief ....... in fact during trials I would encourage researchers to avoid 'I will only believe it exists when I see it' and a encourage more 'if I believe it exists, I might see it attitude ..... anything else is perhaps not a fair trial of PSI


Oh, and shifting burden of proof. A better question to ask is why do you believe in psi?

I believe psi most probably exists because I have personally investigated it over many years. That is meaningless to you though, first you would assume I was self deceived, when that doesn't ringing true you will assume I was tricked, when I point out that most probably could not have occurred, you will merely assume I am lying ........

The nature of PSI is such, only personal investigation with an open mind might find it.....

[Ashles]

What if PSI doesn't exist?

If true, what would be effects? Hmm….
- It might predict that PSI is impossible?
- It might predict that a claimed effect is more likely to be claimed by a small private group of believers, than in a mass of publicity and strict protocols?
- It might predict that successful PSI experiments are more likely to fail after scientific peer reviewed publication?
- It might predict that the never ending demands for tighter and tighter controls and high replication, demonstrate smaller and smaller effects?
- It might predict that believers do slightly better in experiments (sheep) than disbelievers (goats)
- It might predict that PSI effectiveness have weakened over the past century as knowledge of trickery and methods of measurement and analysis have improved.

Do these sound familiar?


Starting hypotheses off with assumptions is fun isn't it?

Rather pointless though.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I would recommend the person investigates and conducts trials personally, ..... only you know you are not committing fraud, only you know you are not suffering from false memory........ otherwise nothing will satisfy a non present skeptic reviewer.
Riiiiight. People have perfect memories, untarnished by confirmation bias, retrospective falsification, and all that other stuff.

Add whatever controls you desire but the researcher should adopt an open mind and try to minimize a-prior disbelief
And even if he does minimize his disbelief, anyone can come along and say he wasn't sincere.
....... in fact during trials I would encourage researchers to avoid 'I will only believe it exists when I see it' and a encourage more 'if I believe it exists, I might see it attitude ..... anything else is perhaps not a fair trial of PSI
Right. So I should have said "If I believed the kid who claimed he had a rocket ship in his backyard was telling the truth, I might see it."
I believe psi most probably exists because I have personally investigated it over many years.
Show us what your investigation turned up.

That is meaningless to you though, first you would assume I was self deceived, when that doesn't ringing true you will assume I was tricked, when I point out that most probably could not have occurred, you will merely assume I am lying ........
Well, one big obsticle is that you seem to assume you're untrickable. Another is that you won't show us anything, just speculation.

The nature of PSI is such, only personal investigation with an open mind might find it.....
So, putting something on paper for others to read is useless?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Open Mind
What if collective (and individual) disbelief and doubt impeded PSI severely? This has often been claimed by proponents ….. Yes, it has:

"Every time you say you don't believe in fairies, a fairy dies." - J.M. Barrie :D

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by BronzeDog

Show me.


Pointless, been there, done it. I would quote trials in psychical research and parapsychlogy, made by the original reseachers over the past 100 years and you would probably just trust a non present skeptic revisionist version as accurate.


Then propose a long protocol for sorting out weak effects.

Routinely done in parapsychology .... I am not aware of Randi ever conducting a single trial of this type.



Demonstrate this disbelief effect. Have a psychic perform with a bunch of believers and have a hidden skeptic walk by. If the psychic starts failing the moment the hidden skeptic shows up, you'll prove the disbelief effect.

I'm working on it ;)

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Pointless, been there, done it. I would quote trials in psychical research and parapsychlogy, made by the original reseachers over the past 100 years and you would probably just trust a non present skeptic revisionist version as accurate.
I said drop the poison! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well)
Routinely done in parapsychology .... I am not aware of Randi ever conducting a single trial of this type.
I've never seen it done. And there's an application form you can fill out. He'll probably do a long protocol if you ask him to.
I'm working on it ;)
Ah. So, can you give us the protocol that experiment will be using?

[SpaceFluffer]

I've asked this question in related threads, but I never get even a half-assed answer: why can psi not be tested using the same methods of, for example, modern physics experiments?

When performing physics experiments you still have a problematic human element, it's just in a different form. People still want to see particular results, there are errors made, and these systematics have to be accounted for and evaulated. I can't tell you the number of times that results I've been involved in have been skewed because someone wanted to see a particular outcome and pushed the analysis in a particular direction. But that's OK - we can calculate the systematic error due to our methodology and we quote it along with our results. The rest of the physics community would be highly cynical of our results if we did not include this information.

And what about social science experiments? They directly measure human beings and their inherent unpredictability. When you design a scientific experiment accurately and carefully, and if you're clever, you can come up with a protocol that takes the human element out of picture as much as is possible. That's what science is. You can even get an estimate of how much the 'human stuff' may have affected your results.

So what the hell makes the study of 'psi' so special that all the rest of science has to defer to it?

What's the difference between an experiment that examines how people respond to authority (eg. the Yale experiments), and an experiment to examine whether ESP exists? In fact, the former sounds like it would be harder to do than the latter...

The most you can say about the evidence is that it is congruent with there being no effect at all. I'm not ruling out psi completely - I can't. I can say, however, that all the evidence amassed so far is completely consistent with there being no effect at all. It is also consistent with there being a transient, fickle, effect.

Anyway, my point is that incredibly small effects are measured accurately and reproduceably all the time in fields like physics, for example. Why should something like this be any different, and why can suitable controls not be created?

[Open Mind]

[Originally posted by BronzeDog
Riiiiight. People have perfect memories, untarnished by confirmation bias, retrospective falsification, and all that other stuff.

[quote]
Yes, it applies to disbelievers too.

[quote]
And even if he does minimize his disbelief, anyone can come along and say he wasn't sincere.

Yes but since you did it personally you can claim you were sincere and it still failed, just like Sue Blackmore does .... it has more credibilty (yet a meta analysis of Blackmore's work still shows a weak psi effect? )


Well, one big obsticle is that you seem to assume you're untrickable. Another is that you won't show us anything, just speculation.


No I don't assume I cannot be tricked, that is why I say psi 'most probably exists' and I stop short of saying it definitely exists.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Yes but since you did it personally you can claim you were sincere and it still failed, just like Sue Blackmore does .... it has more credibilty (yet a meta analysis of Blackmore's work still shows a weak psi effect? )
Link or reference, please. Make sure it includes the protocols used.

No I don't assume I cannot be tricked, that is why I say psi 'most probably exists' and I stop short of saying it definitely exists.
What evidence gave you this high confidence? All the psi research and demonstrations I've ever looked at gave me a very, very low confidence. Is my Google-fu that bad?

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by BronzeDog


Ah. So, can you give us the protocol that experiment will be using?

I did in another topic, however I won't be conducting it, when it is eventually done ... as it requires someone with a more esteemed reputation or it would merely be ignored (if successful).

[Darat]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer


...snip...

Anyway, my point is that incredibly small effects are measured accurately and reproduceably all the time in fields like physics, for example. Why should something like this be any different, and why can suitable controls not be created?

The idea that "psi" is a small effect (as well as being a "god of the gaps" argument) actually goes against the evidence that is normally given for why people believe there is something to investigate in the first place.

This is the definition given by Radin on his Consciousness Research Laboratory (http://www.psiresearch.org/para1.html#three) site.



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.



Most of these are anything but "small" effects, yet when investigated all these just fade into general background noise.

(Edited fist to first.)

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I did in another topic, however I won't be conducting it, when it is eventually done ... as it requires someone with a more esteemed reputation or it would merely be ignored (if successful).
I don't care about who conducts it. I just want the protocols.

I don't ignore studies. People just seem to be terrified of presenting them.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Link or reference, please. Make sure it includes the protocols used.


http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/skeptic_research.htm

But no protocols, you need to find that yourself ...

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/skeptic_research.htm
What stuff couldn't she dismiss? I'm thoroughly against dismissing stuff out of hand. That's why I ask for evidence.

But no protocols, you need to find that yourself ...
My google-fu is astoundingly poor when it comes to finding decent parapsychology stuff. But you're the one with the burden of proof, so you're the one who's supposed to be doing the work.

[John Jackson]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I'm sure that occurs to some degree but how do you know there still isn't a real effect? :) How would you test it? The first step would be to prove the existence of PSI phenomena. Otherwise, invoking a non-existent power, as an excuse for negating another non-existent power, results in a claim that is unfalsifiable; therefore meaningless and untestable.

Taking the failure of PSI experiments as proof of negative skeptical energy cancelling out PSI abilities is one interpretation of such results. Using Billy Occam’s facial hair removing implement (sorry http://www.guidetokalsel.com/bb/Smileys/smilies_smf/embarassed.gif) leads to a more justifiable conclusion: the PSI effect was never there.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by John Jackson
The first step would be to prove the existence of PSI phenomena. Otherwise, invoking a non-existent power, as an excuse for negating another non-existent power, results in a claim that is unfalsifiable; therefore meaningless and untestable.

Taking the failure of PSI experiments as proof of negative skeptical energy cancelling out PSI abilities is one interpretation of such results. Using Billy Occam’s facial hair removing implement (sorry http://www.guidetokalsel.com/bb/Smileys/smilies_smf/embarassed.gif) leads to a more justifiable conclusion: the PSI effect was never there.
The same is true of that green unicorn that turns into an equine-shaped bush when people look at it hard. Either there's A) A green unicorn and B) a shapeshifting ability possessed by that, or C) No unicorn at all, just an equine-shaped bush.

Of course, you could measure the disbelief effect by that protocol idea I mentioned. After all, the disbelief effect is a paranormal claim.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Darat
The idea that "psi" is a small effect (as well as being a "god of the gaps" argument) actually goes against the evidence that is normally given for why people believe there is something to investigate in the first place.

This is the definition given by Radin on his Consciousness Research Laboratory (http://www.psiresearch.org/para1.html#three) site.


Most of these are anything but "small" effects, yet when investigated all these just fade into general background noise.

(Edited fist to first.)

Darat I know of no parapsychologist today claiming strong effects. Perhaps more useful to draw a dividing line between parapsychology which often makes weak (on average) effect claims and psi (psychical) research which often makes stronger effect claims).

Parapsychology is a controlled lab experiment and often claims just weak Telepathy, Remote Viewing, Precognition, etc. These are tests of human mind ability under human control.

Psychical research is not in a lab, often on the scene of claim but with some controls in place .... .. they often claim stronger effects .... most often the claimant claims an external intelligence (...usually spirit, ghost, etc.) is producing phenomena, not under their personal desire or command. However some researchers prefer to ignore claimant's opinion and interpreted this as a subconscious human mind power (Super PSI hypothesis)

A 3rd type doesn't fall into either group these days, this is the claim of a strong, accurate effect under their personal control / desire …. this is a rarer claim but it is perceived by public as more common claim due to the publicity it achieves and the publicity seekers it attracts (often magicians pretending to be otherwise). Note: the JREF challenge trial is only equipped to test this latter category. It is not equipped to test most parapsychology (long term trials, looking for weak effects) and psychical research claims (not greatly under human conscious control, therefore unlikely to claim prize.)

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Open Mind
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/skeptic_research.htm

That isn't Chris Carter of X-Files fame is it?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Darat I know of no parapsychologist today claiming strong effects. Perhaps more useful to draw a dividing line between parapsychology which often makes weak (on average) effect claims and psi (psychical) research which often makes stronger effect claims).
Probably because magicians can mimic strong psi easily.

Parapsychology is a controlled lab experiment and often claims just weak Telepathy, Remote Viewing, Precognition, etc. These are tests of human mind ability under human control.
Can you show us one of these experiments?

Psychical research is not in a lab, often on the scene of claim but with some controls in place .... .. they often claim stronger effects .... most often the claimant claims an external intelligence (...usually spirit, ghost, etc.) is producing phenomena, not under their personal desire or command. However some researchers prefer to ignore claimant's opinion and interpreted this as a subconscious human mind power (Super PSI hypothesis)
Can they do what they say they can?

A 3rd type doesn't fall into either group these days, this is the claim of a strong, accurate effect under their personal control / desire …. this is a rarer claim but it is perceived by public as more common claim due to the publicity it achieves and the publicity seekers it attracts (often magicians pretending to be otherwise).
No argument with that.
Note: the JREF challenge trial is only equipped to test this latter category. It is not equipped to test most parapsychology (long term trials, looking for weak effects) and psychical research claims (not greatly under human conscious control, therefore unlikely to claim prize.)
I'm sure it's equipped to deal with any claim. Bring forth your application and protocols.

[Harlequin]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I believe psi most probably exists because I have personally investigated it over many years.
Actually, you have this reversed. You only wasted many years on investigating it, because you believe psi most probably exists.

Originally posted by Open Mind
The nature of PSI is such, only personal investigation with an open mind might find it.....
Judging by the type of evidence that is usually presented in support of psi, the nature of PSI is such that only personal investigation by closed-minded believers might (and usually does) find it...


Edited to add: My point is that not only does disbelief apparently destroy all psi abilities, but actual neutrality does as well. It appears that only unquestioning belief will permit the magical psi abilities to function.

[aggle-rithm]

What if the Norse gods, Loki and Thor, were in a never-ending battle over the Earth, Loki trying to push the Earth into the Sun, Thor trying to stop him?

If true, what would be effects? Hmm….
- It might predict that the Earth would sometimes be closer to the Sun than other times?
- It might predict ocassional, sometimes severe, earthquakes?
- It might predict hurricans and other bad weather?
- It might predict that over time, the Earth would stay in a fairly stable orbit, since the two gods are evenly matched?

(Oh, and by the way, don't look for the gods through a telescope because they aren't detectable by scientific means. Of course.)

The only difference between my scenario and yours is that more people believe yours. (You know, of course, that popular support does not add one iota of veracity to an idea, so mine is just as valid.)

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Probably because magicians can mimic strong psi easily.


Not necessarily, magicians declined the challenge to replicate several victorian claims and more recently 1990s Scole Report too .... these were 'strong' effect claims (as often the case with strong effects, the claimants did not claim phenomena under their personal willpower)


Can you show us one of these experiments?

Parapsychology weak (on average) effects considered to be under human control? It has been done by others in tedious topics, over and over again ...

However since we are talking about sheep and goat effects in this topic, more coherent might be .........

'
Gathering in the Sheep and Goats. A Meta-Analysis of Forced-Choice Sheep-Goat ESP Studies, 1947-1993. by Tony R Lawrence (1993). ( The Parapsychological Association 36th Annual Convention. Proceedings of Presented Papers(pp. 75-86).)
[/i]


Can they do what they say they can?

Most claimants investigated by psychical research don't claim to do anything .... you mean can they ask a poltergeist to perform for Mr Randi to win a 1million experiment? ;) I would assume most who have entered have claimed something believed to be under personal control e.g. dowsing (and does the agreed trials look for too strong effects? )

[Ossai]

Open Mind
What if collective (and individual) disbelief and doubt impeded PSI severely? This has often been claimed by proponents …..

Ok, I read the opening post again.

Upon a bit of thought your proposal has already been nullified on a number of levels.

If psychic effects/powers worked but diminished around skeptics then the reverse should also be true. Psychic effects should strengthen when around believers. Why not start a secluded believer only community?
You wouldn’t have to worry about food, breathersian.
You wouldn’t have to worry about entertainment since you could view almost any movie and read any book at will, remote viewing.
You wouldn’t need medical attention. Therapeutic touch, kinetesiology, homeopathy, etc.
You wouldn’t need to overly worry about finances since you could seek the advice of the world’s leading financiers both living and dead, speaking with the dead, telepathy (if you wanted to drop the ethics just use the telepathy to get information about acquisition and mergers, etc.)
You could use prophecy for market trends.

Or we could look at the claim itself. That proximity to doubt and disbelief impede PSI severely. Since psychic claims (remote viewing, speaking with dead, telepathy, psychokinesis, etc) disregard physics. Why would proximity to disbelief in any way affect psychic performance?
For instance:

1. A remote viewer can perform when a skeptic is 2 kilometers away.
2. A skeptic has a disbelief field around themselves where psi ability will not function.
3. A remote viewer cannot perform when a skeptic is in the same room.
4. A remote viewer can perform when a skeptic is at the location being viewed.

Why wouldn’t a skeptic being physically present at the location interfere with the remote viewing?

Or we could go with the Gellar claim that Randi can block his power from ½ the world away. In which case why would the skeptic need to be in proximity at all?

Ossai

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Not necessarily, magicians declined the challenge to replicate several victorian claims and more recently 1990s Scole Report too .... these were 'strong' effect claims (as often the case with strong effects, the claimants did not claim phenomena under their personal willpower)
Where did they decline? This claim REALLY strikes me as sillier than my green unicorn story.
Parapsychology weak (on average) effects considered to be under human control? It has been done by others in tedious topics, over and over again ...
Can you just link me to one?

However since we are talking about sheep and goat effects in this topic, more coherent might be .........

'
Gathering in the Sheep and Goats. A Meta-Analysis of Forced-Choice Sheep-Goat ESP Studies, 1947-1993. by Tony R Lawrence (1993). ( The Parapsychological Association 36th Annual Convention. Proceedings of Presented Papers(pp. 75-86).)
[/i]
I'll see if I can find and read that.

Most claimants investigated by psychical research don't claim to do anything .... you mean can they ask a poltergeist to perform for Mr Randi to win a 1million experiment? ;)
If you're talking about haunted houses and stuff like that, can you link me to some of those investigations? All of the ones I've seen pull out complicated equipment and applaud every blip that shows up. Then they catch a kid knocking something over on camera and blaming it on the ghost. If you've got a different sort, please point it out.
I would assume most who have entered have claimed something believed to be under personal control e.g. dowsing (and does the agreed trials look for too strong effects? )
But they were claiming strong effects. Just because the JREF handles lots of strong claimants doesn't mean they're incapable of handling weak claimants.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
I've asked this question in related threads, but I never get even a half-assed answer: why can psi not be tested using the same methods of, for example, modern physics experiments?
This is a great question. So let me spin it a little.

I personally don't believe that electrons can be anything but particles. Thinking of them as waves is just total crap. That's why whenever I am around a double-slit experiment, my anti-wave vibes make the electrons not make interference patterns. My anti-wave vibes are so strong that they change the nature of the electrons around me to be purely particles and not be wavelike at all.

I have been banned from ever visiting Fermilab or the Stanford Linear Accelerator when they are running experiments. I caused five years' worth of data to be invalidated one afternoon when I was visiting.

And don't get me started on antigravity. Of course it exists. Electromagnetism both attracts and repels, so obviously gravity does too. I have been banned from Weight Watchers meetings and professional boxing weigh-ins because of this belief. I have submitted a job application to NASA; the job title I have applied for is Space Shuttle Propellant.


See? Doesn't this just sound ridiculous when it's applied to real things?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Beleth
This is a great question. So let me spin it a little.

I personally don't believe that electrons can be anything but particles. Thinking of them as waves is just total crap. That's why whenever I am around a double-slit experiment, my anti-wave vibes make the electrons not make interference patterns. My anti-wave vibes are so strong that they change the nature of the electrons around me to be purely particles and not be wavelike at all.

I have been banned from ever visiting Fermilab or the Stanford Linear Accelerator when they are running experiments. I caused five years' worth of data to be invalidated one afternoon when I was visiting.

And don't get me started on antigravity. Of course it exists. Electromagnetism both attracts and repels, so obviously gravity does too. I have been banned from Weight Watchers meetings and professional boxing weigh-ins because of this belief. I have submitted a job application to NASA; the job title I have applied for is Space Shuttle Propellant.


See? Doesn't this just sound ridiculous when it's applied to real things?
:roll:

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by dharlow
That isn't Chris Carter of X-Files fame is it?

Don't know, it is not his work anyway but Rick Berger's meta analysis

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
I've asked this question in related threads, but I never get even a half-assed answer: why can psi not be tested using the same methods of, for example, modern physics experiments?


Are you going to dismiss psychology too for falling short of the same level of evidence?

[Z]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Are you going to dismiss psychology too for falling short of the same level of evidence?

Generally, yes. Psychology is in dire need of some serious restructuring. As are most soft sciences.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Are you going to dismiss psychology too for falling short of the same level of evidence?

I certainly hope not, because psychology can be tested to the same level of evidence (and using the same methods) as physics. In fact, in many case, psychology experiments can and often are run using much tighter controls and better experimental procedures than physics experiments.

For example, physics experiments rarely need to be run blind, and almost never need to be run double-blind, because there's little room for the needs, wants, and desires of the muons to affect the results. On the other hand, single- and double-blind experiments are almost routine in psychology experiments, to the point where a paper is likely to be rejected from a high-end psychology journal if the experimentor committed an elementary error like failure to blind.

Only in parapsychology, it seems, is the idea that running a tightly-controlled experiment is somehow hostile to the subject under study, but as Open Mind put it,


"Successful PSI experiments are more likely to fail after scientific peer reviewed publication?"
"Never ending demands for tighter and tighter controls and high replication, place more expectation of failure upon the experimenters too?"


In any other discipline, these demands would not be seen as evidence of disbelief, but as part of the basic discipline of doing science competently:

-- "Hey, Larry, guess what! It looks like adding some unobtainium increases the crystal growth rate by something like five to thirty percent!"
-- "Five to thirty percent? That's unbelievable! But, why such a wide range? Are you sure of your numbers?"
-- "Not really. The numbers are all over the place. You know, crystal growth varies so much when the weather is as changeable as it has been...."
-- "You're right, Margaret. Tell you what -- I'll see if I can set you up with some space in one of the climate-controlled rooms and you can get some better numbers."

Is Larry being hostile? Does his demand for "better numbers" place an unreasonable expectation of failure on Margaret? Or is he just being a competent scientist in trying to run an experiment as well as possible?

But let me turn that scenario around slightly:

-- "Hey, Larry, guess what! It looks like changing the font size increased student learning by up to thirty percent!"
-- "Up to thirty percent? That's unbelievable! But, um, kind of vague."
-- "Well, the average increase wasn't statistically significant, but if I cherry-pick my data, the single best increase was in the experimental group. And I knew she would be the one as soon as I met her."
-- "'As soon as you met her'? Tom, you didn't blind yourself to the experiment? You know that invalidates all the results."
-- "Well, yes, but with only three subjects, I figured it wasn't worth the effort,...."
-- "'Only three subjects'? Tom, you can't conclude anything from just three people."
-- "Well, there were three more people, but they dropped out when I told them the experimental hypothesis."
-- "Tom, this experiment is worthless and doesn't show anything. You're going to have to run it all over again, from scratch, and with some real controls this time. You know if we tried to publish this worthless drek, the editors would rake me over the coals."
-- "That's not fair, Larry. These 'never ending demands for tighter and tighter controls and high replication' place an unreasonable expectation of failure on me. And furthermore, you know that I always get better results when I do the experiments my way than you do when you try to replicate them your way. It's the old "sheep" vs "goats" effect. And the more you disbelieve, the more and more difficult it is for me to get positive results. If you would just believe, as I do, then we could get these wonderful results together..."
-- "Tom?"
-- "And, then, once the entire world has been converted to belief, we can once again return to a world of effective treatements made so by wishing for them, and Tinker Bell will come back to life if we clap hard enough, and....
--"Tom?"
--"And everyone can be happy sitting in a circle, eating a low-protein diet, changing their names to Harmony, and blowing kisses at the Guru's new luxury car."
-- "TOM! You, um, remember those plans you made for 'after you graduate'?"
-- "Yeah?"
-- "You, uh, might want to rethink them."

[Open Mind]

Such strong disbelief expressed in this topic ;)

The proponents (believers) claim the effects of belief are a factor on weak (on average) PSI results, the opponents (firm disbelievers in PSI) refuse to consider that their own beliefs could be destryoing the subtle effects ...... much like some skeptics still stick rigidly to the belief a placebo effect doesn't affect the physical body at all, only the mind of the person.

I mentioned above the Tony Lawrence meta analysis of ESP sheep/goat effects from 1947-1993 . However more than this those conducting the experiment belief system may also alter the result as suggested by the Schlitz (believer) - Wiseman (disbeliever) joint parapsychology experiments ..... from a few years ago ......


‘The most recent experiments I've done were with a professor from England, Richard Wiseman, who's a card-carrying member of the skeptical community. He was very interested in doing experiments together, and the first project we did was in his lab, under his conditions. Everything was identical--same equipment, same randomization procedures, same subject population--except that I worked with half the people and he worked with half the people. The result was that we both replicated our initial findings: I got statistical significance and he didn't. This result was compelling to us, in terms of what effect the expectations of the researcher might have on the results. We then invited Richard to come over to my laboratory and set up the same experiment--and, again, we replicated the effect a second time. These experiments suggest that not only is there an effect but it can happen under conditions where skeptics and proponents work together. And they further suggest that there may be some way in which the belief systems or expectations of the researcher come into play.’

Dr. Marilyn Schlitz


I notice you guys keep comparing PSI to strong effects (to create strawmen) as I pointed out earlier the claim by many parapsychologists is that PSI under human control is weak (on average) effect .... stronger PSI phenomena may (or may not) exist but if it does, it does not seem much under human conscious control or desire, so such sporadic rare phenomena cannot be easily tested in controled lab experiments.

The claim by many parapsychologists is that PSI under human control is weak and interactive with all involved..

[b] Why is PSI weak and interactive? I think because the brain has evolved to close telepathy down, in order to develop a sense of individuality necessary for physical survival ....... telepathy isn't a private telephone call from brain to brain, it is a shared interaction between everyone involved and there are no clear boundaries under human control ........ if 100% perfect telepathy existed from brain to brain, well there is no individuality of thought, no sense of self..... the brain evolved to increase individual, competitive survival.

PSI is weak, possibly indicating at some level our minds are all linked - if you find that idea repulsive :D well again you have yet another reason for reduced PSI ability ....

Now if group interactive and individual belief/disbelief truly opens or shuts down weak (on average) PSI effects, will a firm disbeliever ever find it or acknowledge it?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
I've asked this question in related threads, but I never get even a half-assed answer: why can psi not be tested using the same methods of, for example, modern physics experiments?

When performing physics experiments you still have a problematic human element, it's just in a different form. People still want to see particular results, there are errors made, and these systematics have to be accounted for and evaulated. I can't tell you the number of times that results I've been involved in have been skewed because someone wanted to see a particular outcome and pushed the analysis in a particular direction. But that's OK - we can calculate the systematic error due to our methodology and we quote it along with our results. The rest of the physics community would be highly cynical of our results if we did not include this information.


What kind of systematic error are you talking about? How do you calculate it?

I think the fundamental difference between the physicists situation and the situation in psi research is that the physicists problem is an error in analysis whereas the parapsychologists problem is that the experimenter is probably also part of the experimental system. Psi research is dealing with properties of consciousness that are not very well understood. It is probable that the experimenters conscoiusness/observations are interacting with the experimental system to an unknown degree. The physicst may make subjective decisions on how to collect data and analyse it, which will skew results on way or another, but that is something independent of the mechanisms of the experimental system, contrary to the hypothesised situation in psi research. If a physicist perform the same experiment under precisely the same conditions and analysis, he/she is expected to get the same results. Not so for psi research if we take on board the hypothesised influence of the experimenters consciousness interactions with the experimental system. If we knew how to control the experimenters consciousness interactions there would be no problem, but we don't. That the difference.



And what about social science experiments? They directly measure human beings and their inherent unpredictability. When you design a scientific experiment accurately and carefully, and if you're clever, you can come up with a protocol that takes the human element out of picture as much as is possible. That's what science is. You can even get an estimate of how much the 'human stuff' may have affected your results.


I agree. However, think about how much social science experiments improved to take these factors into account as knowledge of the experimental systems increased. Psi research is still getting to grips with the nature of the phenomena under study. There have been some attempts to minimise the effect of the experimenter. See Daryl Bem's precognitive habituation experiments.


So what the hell makes the study of 'psi' so special that all the rest of science has to defer to it?

I don't know what you mean by defering, but you must admit that the replicability and reliability of results are partially dependent on the type of experimental system under study and how much we know about the system.


What's the difference between an experiment that examines how people respond to authority (eg. the Yale experiments), and an experiment to examine whether ESP exists? In fact, the former sounds like it would be harder to do than the latter...


With the Yale experiments, the experimenter can control their interactions with the experimental system to a high degree because they know how this interaction takes place, as with most conventional psychology experiments. With psi experiments, experimenter psi interactions are hypothesised as possible but we don't know to what degree because we know very little about the underlying psi phenomena, therefore we can't control experimenter effects very well, yet...



The most you can say about the evidence is that it is congruent with there being no effect at all. I'm not ruling out psi completely - I can't. I can say, however, that all the evidence amassed so far is completely consistent with there being no effect at all. It is also consistent with there being a transient, fickle, effect.

I disagree, but thats another longwinded thread altogether...

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Darat
The idea that "psi" is a small effect (as well as being a "god of the gaps" argument) actually goes against the evidence that is normally given for why people believe there is something to investigate in the first place.

(snip)

Most of these are anything but "small" effects, yet when investigated all these just fade into general background noise.


I have to pick you up on this point Darat. I don't think any serious parapsychologists would say that psi is a universally small effect in nature. Its just that when investigated in the lab the effect is small in so far as current experiments will allow. Clearly the "naturally" occuring phenomena seem to be large scale, but I see no contradiction just because large scale effects cannot be elicited in the lab yet.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
The proponents (believers) claim the effects of belief are a factor on weak (on average) PSI results, the opponents (firm disbelievers in PSI) refuse to consider that their own beliefs could be destryoing the subtle effects ...... much like some skeptics still stick rigidly to the belief a placebo effect doesn't affect the physical body at all, only the mind of the person.
Provide evidence, please.

I mentioned above the Tony Lawrence meta analysis of ESP sheep/goat effects from 1947-1993 . However more than this those conducting the experiment belief system may also alter the result as suggested by the Schlitz (believer) - Wiseman (disbeliever) joint parapsychology experiments ..... from a few years ago ......
Psi being repressed by the disbeliever looks indistinguishible from trickery being repressed by good experimental controls. If you want to use to belive in a disbelief effect, show us evidence of the disbelief effect. Or can the disbelief effect also be affected by the disbelief effect?

I notice you guys keep comparing PSI to strong effects (to create strawmen) as I pointed out earlier the claim by many parapsychologists is that PSI under human control is weak (on average) effect
If I made a straw man, please point it out. As for comparison, a small apple and a big apple are both still apples.

.... stronger PSI phenomena may (or may not) exist but if it does, it does not seem much under human conscious control or desire, so such sporadic rare phenomena cannot be easily tested in controled lab experiments.
Evidence, please. Heck, I'm not certain if I've even heard of one of these that didn't have a simple explanation.

The claim by many parapsychologists is that PSI under human control is weak and interactive with all involved..
Then it should be easy to apply for the JREF.

Why is PSI weak and interactive? I think because the brain has evolved to close telepathy down, in order to develop a sense of individuality necessary for physical survival ....... telepathy isn't a private telephone call from brain to brain, it is a shared interaction between everyone involved and there are no clear boundaries under human control ........ if 100% perfect telepathy existed from brain to brain, well there is no individuality of thought, no sense of self..... the brain evolved to increase individual, competitive survival.
Pointless speculation. Prove the existence of telepathy before you talk about its origins. We've been trying to get LAL to prove the existence of Bigfoot before he starts making conclusions about his behavior and evolutionary origins.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
..... large scale effects cannot be elicited in the lab yet.

Not until we figure out better ways to circumvent those pesky controls.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Are you going to dismiss psychology too for falling short of the same level of evidence?

This is from the Rhine-Pratt distance series paper:

"The subject, Hubert E. Pearce, Jr., was at the time a student in the Divinity School at Duke. He had introduced himself to J.B. Rhine approximately eighteen months earlier and had stated that he believed he had inherited his mother's clairvoyant powers."

Now, imagine someone approaching a psychology professor and claiming to have multiple personalities. On the basis of this claim, the prof designs experiments, using his new friend as a subject, to study the nature of multiple personalities.

See the problem? It hasn't been established that multiple personalities are anything more than play-acting. Even if it were, it hasn't been established that the subject HAS multiple personalities. Finally, the subject not only knows what he's being tested for, but he was the one who suggested it in the first place! The potential for bias is mind-boggling. It's the classic case of mice running the experiment.

Can you imagine any college professor actually doing this, without getting thrown out on his ear? (Well, unless he has tenure.)

True, experimental protocols in parapsychology have greatly improved since Rhine's day, but the recent experiments on communicating with the dead show that some of the old problems still exist.

[Zep]

Once AGAIN, this has to be referenced.

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/shapesintheclouds.htm

Open Mind - please read this and let me know what you think afterwards. It's an account of the premier "psi study team" having to admit, although very sotto voce, that 25 years of investigation of one aspect of psi produced nothing. And then goes on to ask why this has not been made so widely known in public.

And I would repeat my previous request, which has been echoed by others subsequently: FIRST, you must prove that psi actually exists, BEFORE you can prove there is such a thing as "anti-psi".

By the way, as an exercise in logic, here's the same request but with a different subject subtituted: FIRST you must prove the green unicorn exists in Darat's garage, BEFORE you prove it is invisible. Sounds sillier put like that, doesn't it.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by new drkitten
On the other hand, single- and double-blind experiments are almost routine in psychology experiments, to the point where a paper is likely to be rejected from a high-end psychology journal if the experimentor committed an elementary error like failure to blind.

I'm not sure the evidence points that way. In 1999 Rupert Sheldrake (hold on, there's more to this) did a study surveying scientific journals to see how many experiments reported blind and double blind conditions and compared them with experiments in parapsychology journals. He found a huge difference in the two, and in the psychology journals only 5% of the experiments reported that blind conditions were used. However, he used only one rater which leaves some decisions open to interpretation.

Watt and Nagtegaal (2004) followed this study up by examining the same journals that Sheldrake did for a more recent time period. They used two raters and obtained high interrater reliability in judgement as to whether the studies reported blind/double blind conditions or not. Their results were in agreement with Sheldrake except in the psychology experiments where they found that 14.5% reported blind conditions as opposed to the 5% that Sheldrake did. This was slightly outside the replication mark, but means little for present purposes of discussion.

Watt and Nagtegaal note that this study examined the "reporting" of blind conditions, not whether blind conditions were actually used, but believed that emplying blind conditions entails enough work that it usually ends up in the report if it is done (even if it was used and not reported, one would think that this should be corrected in peer-review). In addition, they employed liberal standards in determining whether a study was done blind or not. Obviously one can't totally generalize this finding since it was mostly applied to UK science journals (British Journal of Psychology, etc..), but it should provide concern about experimentation in that field (since it is more dependent on human interaction/bias) and/or its journal standards.

Your assessment of physical science experiments was correct...out of 455 experiments examined, only one reported blind conditions...the lowest of all sciences surveyed.

Watt, C. and Nagtegaal, M. (2004) Reporting of Blind Methods: An Interdisciplinary Survey. Journal of the Society For Psychical Research 68, 105-114

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I think the fundamental difference between the physicists situation and the situation in psi research is that the physicists problem is an error in analysis whereas the parapsychologists problem is that the experimenter is probably also part of the experimental system.OK, so if that's the problem, minimize or remove the experimenter's role in the experimental system. It can be done.

For example, let's say we want to do a test of ESP, like the Rhine studies. The experimenter sets up two rooms with a glass wall between them. In the first room, an electronic system randomly picks cards one by one and the testee in the other room attempts to divine the card's identity. He/She records the card's identity on a computer. Everything in both rooms is videotaped, and nobody except the testee needs to be anywhere near the experiment. Heck, do it in the middle of the desert with nobody around for miles. If you still feel that the experimenter will affect things, then shouldn't his/her effect be reduced by this protocol? Shouldn't that reduction be measurable?

Not to say that you couldn't go further. I'm sure you could come up with a protocol such that the experimenter wouldn't know when or where the test was done, and that no individual actually set up the experiment singlehandedly.

This is what I mean when I wonder why psi has to 'defer' to the rest of science. If you have a systematic effect, you can minimize or reduce it, and should be able to estimate it's effect on the experiment. If not, why not? What makes psi so special that the methodologies of science suddenly stop applying?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
OK, so if that's the problem, minimize or remove the experimenter's role in the experimental system. It can be done.

For example, let's say we want to do a test of ESP, like the Rhine studies. The experimenter sets up two rooms with a glass wall between them. In the first room, an electronic system randomly picks cards one by one and the testee in the other room attempts to divine the card's identity. He/She records the card's identity on a computer. Everything in both rooms is videotaped, and nobody except the testee needs to be anywhere near the experiment. Heck, do it in the middle of the desert with nobody around for miles. If you still feel that the experimenter will affect things, then shouldn't his/her effect be reduced by this protocol? Shouldn't that reduction be measurable?

Not to say that you couldn't go further. I'm sure you could come up with a protocol such that the experimenter wouldn't know when or where the test was done, and that no individual actually set up the experiment singlehandedly.

This is what I mean when I wonder why psi has to 'defer' to the rest of science. If you have a systematic effect, you can minimize or reduce it, and should be able to estimate it's effect on the experiment. If not, why not? What makes psi so special that the methodologies of science suddenly stop applying?
If you believe in the disbelief effect, that's definitely one sort of experiment you could set up, rather than whine that our suspension of disbelief isn't sincere enough.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Zep
[B]Once AGAIN, this has to be referenced.

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/shapesintheclouds.htm

Open Mind - please read this and let me know what you think afterwards. It's an account of the premier "psi study team" having to admit, although very sotto voce, that 25 years of investigation of one aspect of psi produced nothing. And then goes on to ask why this has not been made so widely known in public.

And I would repeat my previous request, which has been echoed by others subsequently: FIRST, you must prove that psi actually exists, BEFORE you can prove there is such a thing as "anti-psi".


I've read it before, I'm not sure why, I value the opinion of Skeptic Report just slightly above the Beano. :)

This article borrows heavily from the critique of Hansen, Utts both of whom have also come across phenomena and data in their opinion is real PSI phenomena ......... this demonstrates the standards of rigorous, open, unbiased critique within parapsychology field and unjustified insinuation of incompetence or gullibility or worse dishonesty often implied (if not actually said) by the publicity seeking, self proclaimed expert CSICOPmedians ...... that is my viewpoint. ;)



By the way, as an exercise in logic, here's the same request but with a different subject subtituted: FIRST you must prove the green unicorn exists in Darat's garage, BEFORE you prove it is invisible. Sounds sillier put like that, doesn't it.

And completely incoherent ...... name someone, anywhere, any place, anytime, who reported green unicorns? :)

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
And completely incoherent ...... name someone, anywhere, any place, anytime, who sincerely believed they saw green unicorn?
Ever heard of the word "analogy", Open Mind? Psi is the green unicorn. The disbelief effect is the invisibility.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Ever heard of the word "analogy", Open Mind? Psi is the green unicorn. The disbelief effect is the invisibility.

Nonsense, I have quoted trials indicating goat/sheep effects, experimenter belief effects ... give me one 'green unicorn' report. :)

[Bronze Dog]

I think you'll have to quote them again. I did a quick skim of one reference you gave me (I'll read it more thoroughly this weekend) and it wasn't of a trial. It was an article about psi articles. Not an experiment.

And we're trying to point out that the disbelief effect is what's called an "ad hoc" hypothesis. The vast majority of ad hoc hypotheses are made as excuses for someone to believe in something when the test results are negative.

Back to the unicorn analogy, would you trust someone who said that his unicorn disappears whenever a disbeliever tries to look at it? Consider this one of my higher priority questions for the moment.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
OK, so if that's the problem, minimize or remove the experimenter's role in the experimental system. It can be done.

For example, let's say we want to do a test of ESP, like the Rhine studies. The experimenter sets up two rooms with a glass wall between them. In the first room, an electronic system randomly picks cards one by one and the testee in the other room attempts to divine the card's identity. He/She records the card's identity on a computer. Everything in both rooms is videotaped, and nobody except the testee needs to be anywhere near the experiment. Heck, do it in the middle of the desert with nobody around for miles. If you still feel that the experimenter will affect things, then shouldn't his/her effect be reduced by this protocol? Shouldn't that reduction be measurable?

I'm not denying that experimenter effects in psi experiments can be controlled for. The extent of that is yet to be determined. I would say that your suggestion is open to the same problem as most attempts to design experiments that try to control experimenter effecs - very little is known about the nature and mechanism of the experimenter effect itself! Therefore its very hard to say whether your suggestion is actually controlling for the effect or not. For example, although the experimenter is not physically involved in your above experiment, the possibility is still open that they have a role in the experimental system in that the testee might be obtaining psi information from the experimenter in the future, when the experimenter views the results of the automatic card choice. Alternatively, the experimenter may be using PK to influence the computer to generate a non-random sequence of card choices which happens to coincide with the subjective bias of the testee. These scenarios may be far-fetched but I don't think it's wise to assume that such effects can be ruled out considering how little we know about psi in the first place. And since we don't know how psi works or what is limiting its influence, its very hard to say whether your experiment will reduce these possibilities, don't you agree?



Not to say that you couldn't go further. I'm sure you could come up with a protocol such that the experimenter wouldn't know when or where the test was done,

That may not be important to the experimenter effect. Indeed, psi experiments suggest that manipulating time and space do not influence the results very much (only suggestive mind you).


and that no individual actually set up the experiment singlehandedly.

Again, this may not be important. We don't know.

Instead of trying to control for experimenter effects by guess work, we should be trying to understand how the experimenter effect works. That will probably come when we have an understanding of psi itself. So its a bit of a catch-22


This is what I mean when I wonder why psi has to 'defer' to the rest of science. If you have a systematic effect, you can minimize or reduce it, and should be able to estimate it's effect on the experiment. If not, why not? What makes psi so special that the methodologies of science suddenly stop applying?

Well, the experimenter effect is only currently identified by a correlation between experimenters attitudes towards psi and the outcome of their experiments. Parapsychologists don't know much more than that so minimising or reducing it is going to be tough I expect. Not to say it's impossible.

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
For example, although the experimenter is not physically involved in your above experiment, the possibility is still open that they have a role in the experimental system in that the testee might be obtaining psi information from the experimenter in the future, when the experimenter views the results of the automatic card choice. Alternatively, the experimenter may be using PK to influence the computer to generate a non-random sequence of card choices which happens to coincide with the subjective bias of the testee.But why stop there? The computer system might be sentient and manipulating the testee and the data, a squirrel outside the window might be changing the mind of the testee, a tree 50 miles away might affect it from the far future when it rules the planet...

If such manipulations are feasible, and therefore if you're free to pull any excuse out of your ass, how can you ever measure anything? You can always say, with any kind of measurement that it could have been changed by the experimenter, the squirrel or the testee's belly button fluff.

If this is true, how could you ever hope to measure psi? And furthermore, if it's presence can be so easily subverted, what makes you think it's there in the first place?

[Bronze Dog]

I'm suddenly reminded of gambling superstitions. Never seemed to iron out which is more powerful: Good luck from rabbit's feet, or the bad luck from walking under a ladder. Anyone who knows a lot of superstitions can rationalize just about any stroke of bad luck.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
Heck, do it in the middle of the desert with nobody around for miles. If you still feel that the experimenter will affect things, then shouldn't his/her effect be reduced by this protocol? Shouldn't that reduction be measurable?


The distance involved is not generally believed to have any effect over telepathy or clairvoyance ......... and it is even more unlikely to make a difference to precognition (which has to be beyond time/space) ...... in other words locking CSICOP skeptics in a lead box in the remote jungle still wouldn't rule out a supposed influence if they know about the experiment (but it would make a great experiment!!! ;) ...... I'm kidding)

If there are any anti PSI effects occurring, what might occur over time is that debunkers gradually stop viewing the claims with hostility and become more interested in the claimed anomalies (rather than automatically assume fraud or error without proof) and a more PSI conducive environment (with proper controls of course) becomes increasingly successful to open minded doubters.

However I must point out I am not stating 'disbelief effects' are the correct explanation of why PSI is more elusive to hard skeptics ........there are other reasons why finding PSI could be elusive and I will raise these for discussion in a later topic :)

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
I'm suddenly reminded of gambling superstitions.

Note: Parapsychology trial size of effects are below the level to make money in casinos etc. ..... in theory money could be lost slower though :)

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
The distance involved is not generally believed to have any effect over telepathy or clairvoyance ......... and it is even more unlikely to make a difference to precognition (which has to be beyond time/space) ...... in other words locking CSICOP skeptics in a lead box in the remote jungle still wouldn't rule out a supposed influence if they know about the experiment (but it would make a great experiment!!! ;) ...... I'm kidding)
So... does that mean you can blame any negative result on their influence?

If there are any anti PSI effects occurring, what might occur over time is that debunkers gradually stop viewing the claims with hostility and become more interested in the claimed anomalies (rather than automatically assume fraud or error without proof) and a more PSI conducive environment (with proper controls of course) becomes increasingly successful to open minded doubters.
Psychics who remain civil and willing to be tested can be very well received. Just check the responses to Achau Nguyen in the challenge thread. I've decided to primarily point out bad logic and I'm reducing my mercy for propaganda techniques.

However I must point out I am not stating 'disbelief effects' are the correct explanation of why PSI is more elusive to hard skeptics ........there are other reasons why finding PSI could be elusive and I will raise these for discussion in a later topic :)
I look forward to it. As well as test protocols to control for them.

[Ossai]

Open Mind
For example, although the experimenter is not physically involved in your above experiment, the possibility is still open that they have a role in the experimental system in that the testee might be obtaining psi information from the experimenter in the future, when the experimenter views the results of the automatic card choice. Alternatively, the experimenter may be using PK to influence the computer to generate a non-random sequence of card choices which happens to coincide with the subjective bias of the testee. These scenarios may be far-fetched but I don't think it's wise to assume that such effects can be ruled out considering how little we know about psi in the first place.
This comes back around to, if psi is so easily disrupted how can it be measured at all?

And since we don't know how psi works or what is limiting its influence, its very hard to say whether your experiment will reduce these possibilities, don't you agree? No. You’re still under the assumption that there is a psi affect at all. Nothing you’ve listed is anything more than an ad hoc justification.

I’ve ask a slight variation of this once, but never received an answer.

1. A psi user can perform when a skeptic is 2 kilometers away.
2. A skeptic has a disbelief field/aura where psi ability will not function.
3. A psi user cannot perform when a skeptic is nearby (in the same room).
4. A psi user can perform when a skeptic is near the sender/receiver (i.e. not the one being actively tested).

Now you have just stated
The distance involved is not generally believed to have any effect over telepathy or clairvoyance
If distance (actually all of time space from the rest of what you posted) is meaningless to the psi effect, then the proximity of skeptics to the experiment is meaningless and you’ve just dismissed you’re ad hoc disbelief effect.

Ossai

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by Ossai
If distance (actually all of time space from the rest of what you posted) is meaningless to the psi effect, then the proximity of skeptics to the experiment is meaningless and you’ve just dismissed you’re ad hoc disbelief effect. Absolutely.

And another thing, Open Mind. How exactly is distance 'believed not to have any effect over telepathy'? Because it sure as hell can't be based on any experimental data. Did you just guess that distance doesn't matter?

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Open Mind
The distance involved is not generally believed to have any effect over telepathy or clairvoyance ......... and it is even more unlikely to make a difference to precognition (which has to be beyond time/space) ...... in other words locking CSICOP skeptics in a lead box in the remote jungle still wouldn't rule out a supposed influence if they know about the experiment (but it would make a great experiment!!! ;) ...... I'm kidding)

If there are any anti PSI effects occurring, what might occur over time is that debunkers gradually stop viewing the claims with hostility and become more interested in the claimed anomalies (rather than automatically assume fraud or error without proof) and a more PSI conducive environment (with proper controls of course) becomes increasingly successful to open minded doubters.If psi is beyond time, then even if everyone starts believing in it, it still doesn't matter: maybe all the skeptics from the past are messing up the future experiments.

This is getting really silly, I must say...

An unfalsifiable theory cannot, of course, be falsified. That doesn't mean it's true. It means it's meaningless.

[Bronze Dog]

Another thing that comes to mind: If belief makes psi stronger, why didn't we have people hurling buildings with their minds back in ancient times? And if they did, how could any disbelief ever show up?

[Open Mind]

Several are implying the effects of disbelief cannot be tested and cannot be falsified .... For example

Originally posted by BronzeDog
So... does that mean you can blame any negative result on their influence?


Not if they don't know and the experiment is of more original design.

I doubt there is a ideal experiment to test the effects of collective disbelief but one idea is to test goats (hard skeptics) and sheep (positive believers) but only the sheep know they are being tested for PSI the goats are unaware of what the trial is about (e.g. computer game) then the goats are told. Then test if both the sheep and goats do worse. ...... .repeat the experiments and gather a mass of data on it before publishing the results for skeptical critique ......

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Not if they don't know and the experiment is of more original design.
How will you know they don't know?

I doubt there is a ideal experiment to test the effects of collective disbelief but one idea is to test goats (hard skeptics) and sheep (positive believers) but only the sheep know they are being tested for PSI the goats are unaware of what the trial is about (e.g. computer game) then the goats are told. Then test if both the sheep and goats do worse. ...... .repeat the experiments and gather a mass of data on it before publishing the results for skeptical critique ......
At first glance, that sounds like an okay protocol idea.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
Absolutely.

And another thing, Open Mind. How exactly is distance 'believed not to have any effect over telepathy'? Because it sure as hell can't be based on any experimental data. Did you just guess that distance doesn't matter?

Fairly common claim ....... it goes back at least to early parapsychology where those claiming positive results, claimed equally positive results over greater distances too. I could go an hunt out these trials but I rather think you would dimiss it regardless.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I could go an hunt out these trials but I rather think you would dimiss it regardless.
Poisoning the well again. Don't know about SpaceFluffer, but so far, I've ever had the opportunity to dismiss a psi trial. Or the opportunity to accept one.

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Fairly common claim ....... it goes back at least to early parapsychology where those claiming positive results, claimed equally positive results over greater distances too. I could go an hunt out these trials but I rather think you would dimiss it regardless. Well how very convenient for you. I'm not sure what your evidence is for believing that I would dismiss it...perhaps you believing that it will happen will make it true?

I would naturally be interested in seeing such claims, but I don't see how any 'results' can show that distance is irrelevant, since by it's very nature you cannot know who/what is affecting things. Even aliens on other planets could affect your results.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Poisoning the well again. Don't know about SpaceFluffer, but so far, I've ever had the opportunity to dismiss a psi trial. Or the opportunity to accept one.

Hmm.... OK I will answer the question again


Originally posted by SpaceFluffer

And another thing, Open Mind. How exactly is distance 'believed not to have any effect over telepathy'? Because it sure as hell can't be based on any experimental data. Did you just guess that distance doesn't matter?
[/b]


Did I guess? I will let you decide

.... here is one of the leading experts on parapsychology (Wiseman studied under him) ..... the late Professor Robert Morris speaking in 2001 ....


' The Ganzfeld work at least rules out certain kinds of signal. The shielding around the room--there to prevent subjects communicating via more prosaic mediums such as various signalling devices-- means that psi is unlikely to be an electromagnetic wave.

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


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



Note the claim PSI is unaffected by distance goes back several decades before the more recent Ganzfeld, etc.

Incidentally, Professor Robert Morris (CSICOP member) also said .....


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

Our results have been getting better. The two most recent Ganzfeld ESP studies that we did actually have the highest outcome.

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by Open Mind
.... here is one of the leading experts on parapsychology (Wiseman studied under him) ..... the late Professor Robert Morris speaking in 2001 ....OK...that's very interesting but I fail to see how this demonstrates that the 'unbeliever' effect is unaffected by distance. Just saying that we always get results no matter where the sender is just doesn't cut it. I'm talking about strong evidence, not suggestive evidence.
Did I guess? I will let you decideWell, you certainly haven't given me any reason to believe that you based this view on any evidence yet. And it's not up to me to 'decide' - reality is not a democratic process.

[bruto]

"If there is a PSI nocebo of disbelief, would promoting all paranormal claims as fraud and error (without actual proof) be bordering upon a crime against humanity and progress?"

You'd have to show me how millennia of belief in paranormal claims have contributed anything useful to humanity and progress first. Even if you could demonstrate to me that there's something to it all, you'd have to show me what its value is. Why should we worry about trivial powers put to trivial and venal uses? If collective doubt puts an end to channeling dead pets and bending spoons, I say go for it.

[dharlow]

OM,

I think what posters here are looking for are specific studies that show an effect...not meta analyses. What specific experiments do you think are suggestive of psi?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I've read it before, I'm not sure why, I value the opinion of Skeptic Report just slightly above the Beano. :)Ah, I see. Well, thank you for being so blatantly honest with your instant dismissals. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Open Mind
This article borrows heavily from the critique of Hansen, Utts both of whom have also come across phenomena and data in their opinion is real PSI phenomenaWhoops-a-daisy! They most definitely did NOT say "in their opinion is real PSI phenomena". They simply accepted that a very small part of the data seemed to be fairly obtained (for a change!), and thus could be reasonably relied upon. It's a heck of a long logical jump to make the statement you did, that they said psi was real.



Compare these news flashes:

MAN MAKES CAR THAT TRAVELS FASTER THAN SOUND - POWERED BY NICE THOUGHTS, FAIRIES AND CORNFLAKES!

MAN MAKES CAR THAT TRAVELS FASTER THAN SOUND - POWERED BY EX-MILITARY JET ENGINE!

Which of these is the more believable? And why?

Now think again about what Hansen Utts et al have said w.r.t. psi data...



Originally posted by Open Mind
......... this demonstrates the standards of rigorous, open, unbiased critique within parapsychology field and unjustified insinuation of incompetence or gullibility or worse dishonesty often implied (if not actually said) by the publicity seeking, self proclaimed expert CSICOPmedians ...... that is my viewpoint. ;)Ah, I see you have a bias about CSICOP. Perhaps you might care to point out where in that article CSICOP were mentioned.

Originally posted by Open Mind
And completely incoherent ...... name someone, anywhere, any place, anytime, who reported green unicorns? :) It's your problem of separating fantasy from reality that is where the issue clearly lies. BronzeDog got it right.

Carry on! You are fascinating.

:s2:

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Open Mind
... publicity seeking, self proclaimed expert CSICOPmedians .... that is my viewpoint. If they were publicity-seeking, rather than taking a skeptical standpoint, they would be claiming that psi is real: that sort of stuff always gets good media coverage.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
The whole "negative vibes" thing is much like a typical paranoid conspiracy theorist raving:

"Aliens stole my brain!"
"But the X-rays and MRI still show it's there."
"The government paid the hospital to doctor those!"
"But the camera in your bedroom showed no aliens over that night."
"The government switched the tapes!"

It's called poisoning the well, and your particular sort also does circular logic: Psi exists, except when someone looks at it really hard. How's that any different than me saying I've got a green unicorn in my backyard that turns into a roughly equine-shaped bush when I look at it really hard?

.

It's different because we find in our experience that objects do not spontaneously transmutate when we look at them carefully.

On the other hand we know that peoples' abilities do change according to setting, expectations, how one is feeling and a whole host of other factors.

Take soccer for example. We know that the score will depend on the psychological states of all the individuals comprising the 2 teams. There's a simple proof. We find that when a team plays on home there is a 46% of a chance of them winning on average, and 28% of a chance of them winning when they're playing away from home.

And that's it! This is enough to disprove the skeptical hypothesis that if psi exists, it must necessarily be able to be manifested no matter what the circumstances.

If you think that, then prove it! I suggest that'll be rather difficult since you reject the existence of psi in the first place! Of course you can attempt to give a philosophical justification of your thesis. I'd be very interested in seeing it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer


And what about social science experiments? They directly measure human beings and their inherent unpredictability. When you design a scientific experiment accurately and carefully, and if you're clever, you can come up with a protocol that takes the human element out of picture as much as is possible.



That would indeed be extremely clever. I cannot imagine how one would do that. How would you get soccer teams to win 46% at home on average without the supporting crowd? Let me know.



The most you can say about the evidence is that it is congruent with there being no effect at all.



That's like saying that the fact that soccer teams score 46% at home but only 28% at home is congruent with there being no home/away effect. This is true, but is it reasonable?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Originally posted by Open Mind
Are you going to dismiss psychology too for falling short of the same level of evidence?


new drkitten
I certainly hope not, because psychology can be tested to the same level of evidence (and using the same methods) as physics. In fact, in many case, psychology experiments can and often are run using much tighter controls and better experimental procedures than physics experiments.



It's precisely because psychology is so much less successful than physics that their experimental protocols have to be much tighter! And if anything the experimental protocol is even tighter in parapsychology.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BronzeDog

Open Mind
...... much like some skeptics still stick rigidly to the belief a placebo effect doesn't affect the physical body at all, only the mind of the person.

BronzeDog
Provide evidence, please.



huh? Provide evidence that skeptics don't believe in the placebo effect?? They've said it on here time after time! :eek:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zep
[B]Once AGAIN, this has to be referenced.

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/shapesintheclouds.htm

Open Mind - please read this and let me know what you think afterwards. It's an account of the premier "psi study team" having to admit, although very sotto voce, that 25 years of investigation of one aspect of psi produced nothing. And then goes on to ask why this has not been made so widely known in public.



Not that PEAR paper again! They changed the experimental protocol!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
I'm suddenly reminded of gambling superstitions.

You mean like believing the home team and away teams have equal chance of winning? Yeah you'll lose a hell of a lot of money believing that.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
huh? Provide evidence that skeptics don't believe in the placebo effect?? They've said it on here time after time! :eek:
That's a new one on me. Who said it and where?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
huh? Provide evidence that skeptics don't believe in the placebo effect?? They've said it on here time after time! :eek:
I meant provide evidence that the placebo effect has a physical effect, and not just a psychological one.

You mean like believing the home team and away teams have equal chance of winning? Yeah you'll lose a hell of a lot of money believing that.
Huh? What are you talking about?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
That's a new one on me. Who said it and where?

Most skeptics . .you might be one of the minority though. Take a look at this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48889&highlight=placebo) thread.

[Hellbound]

Ian,

Sorry, but your anaolgy fails abyssmally.

Even on the worst day of their lives, a soccer player is still able to play soccer. They don't suddenly lose the ability to play the game (even play the game poorly) just because they've had a rough weekend. Unless they're paraplegic or something similar.

And they sure don't lose their ability to play just because someone doesn't think they can play.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Most skeptics . .you might be one of the minority though. Take a look at this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48889&highlight=placebo) thread.
That's a very silly poll. Especially since I suspect you're using the Ianictionary for definitions.

[Z]

There seems to be some confusion - perhaps semantics, I don't know - concerning the 'placebo effect'.

In its strictest terms, IIRC, the placebo effect is simply a psychological effect when exposed to a remedy or situation which has no actual causative/curative power, in which the subject believes the remedy or situation should have such power, which causes that person to either report an effect or behave in a manner differently from how they might behave if exposed to no remedy or situation at all. It is a purely subjective psychological state, having no more power than any other subjective psychological state, and definitely having no superior power to actual remedies or situation.

Examples of 'placebo effect' can be found in various forms of faith healing, treatment for psychosomatic patients, folk witchcraft and superstition, religion, etc. Numerous so-called 'psi' effects clearly fall into this category.

However, this is not to say that, in an absence of actual remedy or causal situation that an effect occurs anyway, apart from subjective psychological effects. This is what seems to be confusing for many supporters of various paranormal concepts. For example, I've seen many homeopath supporters claim that the placebo effect is proof of the efficacy of homeopathy; that the reaction to remedies is an effective cure, whether attributed to 'placebo effect' or not.

Ian's home/away example also counts as a form of placebo effect. Clearly, psychologically, a player is going to feel more confident and relaxed playing in his hometown; in an away setting, anxiety and the general hostility of the local folks serves as a psychological adjuster, causing a player to be less confident and more tense, thus resulting in poorer performance, overall. There's nothing mystical or unnatural about this; it's just simple psychology.

Imagine a sport where every single match was played in the Omni Arena. There would be no home/away advantage, would there? Unless: in a particular game, for whatever reason, your team's fans just didn't show up, but fans for the other team did. I would be willing to bet that performance would drop signifigantly for your team if this were to happen.

This could, at least in theory, apply to psi performance; however, this does cause a significant problem if true. It is a well-known fact that those wishing to see a result are far more likely to than those not wishing to see one; that supporters of psi are far more likely to fudge results or relax test parameters, see effects that aren't there, etc. than those who don't support psi.

Meta-analysis is a fine example of what happens with bias: if the person performing a meta-analysis expects to find something, they usually do; if they don't expect to, they usually don't. This is what makes meta-analysis so contraversial.

Combined with the fact that almost every adult alive has some preconceived stance on psi, and we have a situation where it may become absolutely impossible to safely and effectively test for psi. The solution, I would think, would be to have a combined team of skeptics and believers create a largely automated system for testing for psi effect, with the results being analysed by both sides equally, and no damned meta-analysis crap. But even then, I sense great potential for failure.

BTW - someone ask Ian what source he got those figures for sporting events from? I'm curious to read that study.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Most skeptics . .you might be one of the minority though. Take a look at this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48889&highlight=placebo) thread.
No skeptic said that they didn't believe in the placebo effect.Why do you think we insist on double blind studies?

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Zep

Whoops-a-daisy! They most definitely did NOT say "in their opinion is real PSI phenomena". They simply accepted that a very small part of the data seemed to be fairly obtained (for a change!), and thus could be reasonably relied upon. It's a heck of a long logical jump to make the statement you did, that they said psi was real.


You have taken the wrong meaning of my words ..... when I said they were of the opinion PSI phneomena is genuine .. I was not talking specifically about their 1992 critique of the PEAR remote viewing experiments speicifically.

The skeptic report article used their valid critique to imply all psi is bunk ... yet ......

‘The matters concern fundamental limits of logic, rationality, and science. Parapsychology’s critics have long decried psi as irrational and have made an important contribution in doing so. The critics are partly right; psi is irrational, but it is also real.

George Hansen
http://www.tricksterbook.com/Intro.htm


I added the emphasis above

’
Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. ‘

Professor Jessica Utts

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
OK, so if that's the problem, minimize or remove the experimenter's role in the experimental system. It can be done.

For example, let's say we want to do a test of ESP, like the Rhine studies. The experimenter sets up two rooms with a glass wall between them. In the first room, an electronic system randomly picks cards one by one and the testee in the other room attempts to divine the card's identity. He/She records the card's identity on a computer. Everything in both rooms is videotaped, and nobody except the testee needs to be anywhere near the experiment. Heck, do it in the middle of the desert with nobody around for miles. If you still feel that the experimenter will affect things, then shouldn't his/her effect be reduced by this protocol? Shouldn't that reduction be measurable?


Use of the videotape made me think of a protocol that would be easier to implement.

Have the researcher and skeptic get together beforehand and agree on what behaviors on the part of the testees (cuing, wandering around the testing area unsupervised, etc. ) would render the round of testing invalid. Then do the test at an arbitrary time at a location that the skeptic does not know about. Videotape the tests such that none of the reported results are missing from the vidoetape. Afterwards, allow the skeptic to view the tape and disqualify those individiual tests that do not conform to protocol.

There you have it. How could the magic powers be cancelled out if the skeptic isn't present and doesn't know where and when the tests occured?

I have a feeling the researchers would then claim that the skeptic has the ability to change history...

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We find that when a team plays on home there is a 46% of a chance of them winning on average, and 28% of a chance of them winning when they're playing away from home. Does this home/away effect tend to disappear if more people are paying detailed attention to the game? In televised matches, perhaps? ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Ian,

Sorry, but your anaolgy fails abyssmally.

Even on the worst day of their lives, a soccer player is still able to play soccer. They don't suddenly lose the ability to play the game (even play the game poorly) just because they've had a rough weekend. Unless they're paraplegic or something similar.

And they sure don't lose their ability to play just because someone doesn't think they can play.

It is being argued by "skeptics" that no matter what the circumstances or psychological state of being, people should be able to perform equally well in any activity.

I have refuted that. So what is the problem??

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It is being argued by "skeptics" that no matter what the circumstances or psychological state of being, people should be able to perform equally well in any activity.

I have refuted that. So what is the problem??

No one argues that people should be able to perform equally well in any situation. They are saying that if they are really capable of doing something, they should be able to demonstrate it with at least some competence any any situation. (Barring extreme circumstances, such as a soccer player having both legs amputated.)

A psychic who can't work his wonders when skeptics are around would be analogous to a soccer player who cannot run and kick when his mother is watching.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
There seems to be some confusion - perhaps semantics, I don't know - concerning the 'placebo effect'.

In its strictest terms, IIRC, the placebo effect is simply a psychological effect when exposed to a remedy or situation which has no actual causative/curative power,



I'm sorry but I assure you that you are flat out wrong. I suffer from hypochondria. When I am worried that I have a fatal illness I sometimes undergo certain conditions such as a headache. That is to say my anxiety has certain physical effects on my body. When my anxiety is alleviated these conditions disappear. Moreover these conditions disappear very shortly after I have come to the conclusion that I have not got some fatal illness. The cause and effect relationship here is very very obvious. Moreover it is even very well documented that such effects take place as a consequence of anxiety and dissappear once one has ceased being anxious. The skeptics position of denying this is utterly absurd and flat out wrong.


in which the subject believes the remedy or situation should have such power, which causes that person to either report an effect or behave in a manner differently from how they might behave if exposed to no remedy or situation at all. It is a purely subjective psychological state, having no more power than any other subjective psychological state, and definitely having no superior power to actual remedies or situation.


I'm sorry but you are absolutely clueless. It is very very clear that when I worry about something that it has effects on my body. I couldn't give a flying f*** if you don't believe me; I'm simply stating what is the case.


It is a well-known fact that those wishing to see a result are far more likely to than those not wishing to see one; that supporters of psi are far more likely to fudge results or relax test parameters, see effects that aren't there, etc. than those who don't support psi.


I wouldn't dispute that. And of course the same goes for skeptics.



Meta-analysis is a fine example of what happens with bias: if the person performing a meta-analysis expects to find something, they usually do; if they don't expect to, they usually don't. This is what makes meta-analysis so contraversial.




Meta-analysis is just mathematics. It's the individual results which need to be questioned. If we were to conclude the individual results are sound then necessarily the meta-analysis will be OK.



BTW - someone ask Ian what source he got those figures for sporting events from? I'm curious to read that study.

The info is everywhere.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
No skeptic said that they didn't believe in the placebo effect.Why do you think we insist on double blind studies?

Then you haven't read the thread that I linked to. They deny that peoples' expectations have an affect on the body. This is simply flat out wrong.

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It is being argued by "skeptics" that no matter what the circumstances or psychological state of being, people should be able to perform equally well in any activity.

I have refuted that. So what is the problem?? The problem is that what you're stating has little to do with what anybody is saying. I'm struggling to see how you missed the point by such a wide margin...

Clearly, the psychological state of an individual affects the outcome of the activity of said individual. How much it is affected depends upon the nature of the activity in question. In performing physics experiments, for example, the psychological state of the experimenters is not generally believed to affect the outcome of an experiment, but if may affect the way that data analysis is done. Hence, sometimes physics experiments are blinded, but usually they are not.

In a medical experiment, the state of mind of the patient, experimenter and anyone else involved can change the results, so double-blinding is necessary in almost all cases.

Open Mind and Interesting Ian have suggested that parapsychology experiments performed by those without an existing belief in psi do not show an effect because the experimenter's own psi abilities remove the effect. Ignoring the circular logic here, I'm still struggling to see why this systematic effect, presuming it exists, cannot be removed via a clever protocol, such as the one that I suggested. Double-blinding clearly does not go far enough, but I'm confident that a suitable protocol can be found.

If the supression effect really exists, then it should be measurable. If not, why not?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mojo
Does this home/away effect tend to disappear if more people are paying detailed attention to the game? In televised matches, perhaps? ;)

No.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
I'm sorry but I assure you that you are flat out wrong. I suffer from hypochondria. When I am worried that I have a fatal illness I sometimes undergo certain conditions such as a headache. That is to say my anxiety has certain physical effects on my body. When my anxiety is alleviated these conditions disappear. Moreover these conditions disappear very shortly after I have come to the conclusion that I have not got some fatal illness. The cause and effect relationship here is very very obvious. Moreover it is even very well documented that such effects take place as a consequence of anxiety and dissappear once one has ceased being anxious. The skeptics position of denying this is utterly absurd and flat out wrong.

Is someone denying this? It has happened to me, too.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
The problem is that what you're stating has little to do with what anybody is saying.


Huh?? :eek: I'm sorry but people are saying that people should perform equally well no matter what the circumstances. If this is indeed the case for PSI, then I'm simply saying it's unique in this respect.



Open Mind and Interesting Ian have suggested that parapsychology experiments performed by those without an existing belief in psi do not show an effect because the experimenter's own psi abilities remove the effect.



I have not sugessted this in this thread. Ordinary psychology plays a huge role here.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
I meant provide evidence that the placebo effect has a physical effect, and not just a psychological one.


The placebo effect is real ….more than just delusion … … however the real placebo effect is usually lower than ideal (i.e. less than a cure) and can be beaten by a drug (which has a significant placebo component in its overall effectiveness and also usually less than a cure) some skeptics treat the placebo as only useless component ……

To do this they claim a placebo is all spontaneous remission, regression to the mean , symptom detection ambiguity, etc. …. …and these do occur ...... however (just like PSI) a real effect is also occurring behind much of the misinterpretation ……

Just some evidence examples of real effects .......

(1) http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/23/10/4315

(2) A. Steptoe, 'Placebo responses: An experimental study of psychophysiological processes in asthmatic volunteers,' British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1986, 25, 173-183.

(3) 'Effects of suggestion and conditioning on the action of chemical agents in human subjects: The pharmacology of placebos/ Journal of Clinical Investigation, 1950, 29,100-109.

……………………………..

An interesting theory concerning placebo effect is based on ‘neuropeptides’

( C. B. Pert, M. R. Ruff, R. J. Weber, and M. Herkenham, 'Neuropeptides and their receptors: A psychosomatic network/ /. Immunol., 1985, 35(2), 820s-826s.)

Neuropeptides trigger emotion .... but perhaps of significance to understanding the placebo effect emotion produce neuropeptides (mind/body bi-directional process) ....... neuropeptides are involved in a whole array of different bodily functions, from hormone regulation, to protein manufacture, to cellular repair upon injury, to memory storage, to pain management.

...... neuropeptides have receptors all over the body…… the whole body therefore is psychosomatically wired to emotion to some degree

PET Scans have showed placebo triggered neuropeptides in the brain. (Science 2002, 295, 1737-1740)

Also of possible interest is …… ‘Psychosocial Genomics’
http://www.ernestrossi.com/about_psychobiology_of_gene_expression.htm

[Zep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not that PEAR paper again! They changed the experimental protocol! If by "they" you mean PEAR then that's one way of putting it.

What PEAR actually did was agglomerate a number of vaguely related studies on clairvoyance done under a number of different protocols over the 25 years, did some "balancing acts" with the raw data, and then tried to draw conlusions using a variety of increasingly precise analysis methods.

You can draw two conclusions from their results:

1) The agglomeration was not just measuring apples and oranges by the apple standards, but the whole fruit basket by the apple standards. In which case you could say the data are utterly manufactured.

2) Or you could allow that the data were reasonable, only to see that the analysis methods, as they became more precise, yielded less and less effect. To the point that a scientifically acceptable analysis yielded nothing but noise.

What the Skeptic Report paper really was on about was the performance of PEAR subsequent to the discovery of the second point.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Is someone denying this? It has happened to me, too.

~~ Paul

Yes, most skeptics are. Read the link I provided.

I'm pleased that you acknowledge that belief can have beneficial or deleterious effects on the body though! Nice one! :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zep
If by "they" you mean PEAR then that's one way of putting it.

What PEAR actually did was agglomerate a number of vaguely related studies on clairvoyance done under a number of different protocols over the 25 years, did some "balancing acts" with the raw data, and then tried to draw conlusions using a variety of increasingly precise analysis methods.

You can draw two conclusions from their results:

1) The agglomeration was not just measuring apples and oranges by the apple standards, but the whole fruit basket by the apple standards. In which case you could say the data are utterly manufactured.

2) Or you could allow that the data were reasonable, only to see that the analysis methods, as they became more precise, yielded less and less effect. To the point that a scientifically acceptable analysis yielded nothing but noise.

What the Skeptic Report paper really was on about was the performance of PEAR subsequent to the discovery of the second point.

I'm sorry? The analysis methods became more precise?? :eek:

So are you saying the experimental protocol never changed, but that they looked at the data in a differing way?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Yes, most skeptics are. Read the link I provided.
No thanks. That thread started out with a confusing question to begin with:

Do placebos affect reality, or do they only affect our perception of reality?

Huh?

~~ Paul

[Zep]

Originally posted by Open Mind
The skeptic report article used their valid critique to imply all psi is bunk ... yet ......

‘The matters concern fundamental limits of logic, rationality, and science. Parapsychology’s critics have long decried psi as irrational and have made an important contribution in doing so. The critics are partly right; psi is irrational, but it is also real.

George HansenDid you read on?This book was not written as an exercise in literary theory, anthropology, religion, sociology, or folklore. To the extent that those disciplines ignore or deny the reality of psi, they are seriously flawed. I owe no allegiance to them. This book was produced to address fundamental problems of the paranormal and supernatural. ... Psi does not merely violate categories; rather subversion of categories is its essence. As such, there are limits as to what can be said about it within our typical logical frameworks.http://www.tricksterbook.com/Intro.htm

To me, it's an apologia for his point of view, not a serious scientific paper that would provide evidence or lead to any proofs. The things is, while Hansen can discuss the metaphysical at length, the reality is that the phenomena he is discussing have yet to be shown to exist by any rational method. And if, as he says, psi is irrational, what reliance can then be placed on any evidence of it? What arguments can be put to support its existence? Once psi is classed as an orange or a pear at random times or not, how can we continue to examine it as if it were an apple all the time?

Incidentally, I seem to recall Jessica Utts was involved in the laughable attempt by SRI or someone to show the power of prayer, along with Elizabeth Targ. I must go and look that up though to be sure...

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh?? :eek: I'm sorry but people are saying that people should perform equally well no matter what the circumstances. If this is indeed the case for PSI, then I'm simply saying it's unique in this respect.I don't see where anyone has said that. I can't help but notice that you've sidestepped all the interesting questions and are insisting on telling us what our points are. Perhaps you should pay more attention in future.

I have not sugessted this in this thread. Ordinary psychology plays a huge role here. My apologies, you did not suggest so in this thread, but I do recall you suggesting it elsewhere, although I may be incorrect. And I agree that psychology plays a big role, but we were trying to discuss this believer/non-believer supression effect, but suddenly you appeared and complained that we were suggesting that everyone will always do everything the same irrespective of psychological state. Since we were doing no such thing, how about we get back on topic? And if you have nothing to bring to this particular discussion, please do not obuscate the issue.

[Zep]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
If the supression effect really exists, then it should be measurable. If not, why not? I think the answer to that is that there is no "baseline", i.e. consistent psi effect, to measure it against, to show that it negatively affects. ;)

I suspect what actually happens is that a reasonably performed and sound test by a disinterested examiner yields no result of psi simply because it is not there to find. The "anti-psi" effect in that case is so much "fairies stole my data" type of thinking.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I do not know for sure, but it is possible that Wiseman and Schlitz's next paper at the Parapsychology Association conference on August 11--15 will present some new information about the experimenter effect in their parallel psi experiments.

~~ Paul

Edited to add: The paper is by Marilyn Schlitz, Richard Wiseman, Dean Radin & Caroline Watt and is titled Of Two Minds: Skeptic-Proponent Collaboration Within Parapsychology

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian said:
Yes, most skeptics are. Read the link I provided.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
No thanks. That thread started out with a confusing question to begin with:

II
quote: Do placebos affect reality, or do they only affect our perception of reality?


Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Huh?

What's the problem here? Do my beliefs cause the headache in the first place when I'm worried about something, and cure it when I cease to worry about it? Or is it all in the mind as skeptics say?

I don't know what skeptics mean by that. You'd need to ask them. I suppose they mean that when I start to worry about something I only seem to get a headache, but don't really.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh?? I'm sorry but people are saying that people should perform equally well no matter what the circumstances. If this is indeed the case for PSI, then I'm simply saying it's unique in this respect.
SpaceFluffer
I don't see where anyone has said that.

That's what I thought all the skeptics were saying on here. If you weren't I think you all need to communicate more effectively.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Then you haven't read the thread that I linked to. They deny that peoples' expectations have an affect on the body. This is simply flat out wrong.
You simpleton, I read the thread. They said no such thing. Except one poster who said there was something different about physical and psychological. It's just the level of analysis. Psychologists seek to find the causes of the behavior of living organisms.
The presence or the absence of a placebo has been shown to change behavior.
Not quite Q.E.D., but close enough for a Saturday night.

[bruto]

So a soccer player plays better at home than away. Plenty of reasons, including the belief that it will be that way, but also including such things as the stress of travel, unfamiliar surroundings, etc. So a patient who believes the medicine will help tends to get better. I don't think anyone reasonably disputes that a person's state of mind will influence his performance or his health. I fail to see why this has any bearing on the question of whether supernatural powers are thwarted by doubt, unless the claim is that doubt influences the state of mind of the practitioner and makes him unable to exercise his powers well. But I don't think that's what the psychics et al are usually claiming. They claim that the doubt itself exerts a direct influence on the event, rather than an influence on their own psychological state.

I think there's a very distinct difference between saying you have to believe in yourself to perform your best, and saying that a force outside yourself has to be believed in order to work. To put it simply, I'd say one is common sense, and the other is bulls**t.

There's another problem here. I see claims that doubt will cause a paranormal event to fail, even at a distance. Now I'm sure there are many of us who doubt these things with great consistency and conviction. Randi, for example, is an outspoken, blanket doubter, well known and well broadcast. Yet we seem unable to prevent psychics and other charlatans from performing in their own milieu to their own satisfaction. I don't hear them complaining about us when they're out there doing their thing their way. They're certainly not going broke. The doubt only seems to kick in when there's an attempt to verify on terms other than their own. The variable here is not the skepticism but the verification. If skepticism were the culprit, then it should mess up any paranormal events or performances, however scientifically set up they are.

Here's a thought: assuming for the moment that the force of doubt and the force of belief should more or less balance, I would propose a scientific, double blind test of the usual sort, but with a special allowance. The paranormal claimant will be guaranteed that there will be only a certain, small number of doubters present, and that the test and its time will not be announced beforehand to doubters outside that group. The claimant can then announce to his own supporters and friends what the test will be, and when and where it will take place. A gathering place could be provided for any reasonably large number of them to exert their belief and support together, observing the experiment, perhaps by closed circuit TV, without interference.

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That's what I thought all the skeptics were saying on here. If you weren't I think you all need to communicate more effectively. My dear boy, are you really that arrogant and ignorant? Yet again, I notice that you've decided to ignore the rest of my post. Doesn't exactly support your "I'm the only one that's paying attention" theory, does it?

And I'll say it again - if you have nothing to bring to this particular discussion (and I don't think you do), please do not obuscate the issue. We were trying to discuss something here, before you decided to tell us what our opinions are. If you can't join a discussion without your ego getting in the way, kindly butt out.

[Z]

What causes your headaches, Ian? Stress. You stress over some imagined disease, and we all know stress can cause headaches. And relaxation can cure them.

So what were you trying to argue against? This is how the placebo effect works in these cases - removing stress. In other words, it's a simple folk psychology trick to get a patient to stop worrying about something.

You've refuted nothing, nor contributed to understanding OpenMind's contention concerning the Disbelief effect. Go crawl into your homophobic, psychosomatic, beligerent drunken corner and eschew education while embracing obfuscation some more.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's precisely because psychology is so much less successful than physics that their experimental protocols have to be much tighter! And if anything the experimental protocol is even tighter in parapsychology. Because parapsychology is even less successful than psychology?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Zep
I suspect what actually happens is that a reasonably performed and sound test by a disinterested examiner yields no result of psi simply because it is not there to find. The "anti-psi" effect in that case is so much "fairies stole my data" type of thinking. Open Mind's original suggestion in this thread is really just the idea that Ian brought up a while ago, that psi is "actively evasive" dressed up slightly differently: "sure, there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, but they hide whenever you're around."

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
You simpleton, I read the thread. They said no such thing.

What the hell are you talking about?? It's a long time since I've read it but they were quite definitely saying that the placebo effect does not have any physical effects!! Otherwise why the flying **** do you think I started the ****** thread in the first place!!!

P*** of moron.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What the hell are you talking about?? It's a long time since I've read it but they were quite definitely saying that the placebo effect does not have any physical effects!! Otherwise why the flying **** do you think I started the ****** thread in the first place!!!

P*** of moron.

Final warning, any further breaches of your Membership Agreement will result in a banning.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by bruto
[B]So a soccer player plays better at home than away. Plenty of reasons, including the belief that it will be that way, but also including such things as the stress of travel, unfamiliar surroundings, etc. So a patient who believes the medicine will help tends to get better. I don't think anyone reasonably disputes that a person's state of mind will influence his performance or his health.


The "skeptics" on here were!



I fail to see why this has any bearing on the question of whether supernatural powers are thwarted by doubt, unless the claim is that doubt influences the state of mind of the practitioner and makes him unable to exercise his powers well. But I don't think that's what the psychics et al are usually claiming. They claim that the doubt itself exerts a direct influence on the event, rather than an influence on their own psychological state.



When I am interested in what they claim I'll let you know. This doesn't alter the fact that I have refuted the contention made by all "skeptics" that ones psychological state cannot possibly affect ones psi abilities.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
What's the problem here? Do my beliefs cause the headache in the first place when I'm worried about something, and cure it when I cease to worry about it? Or is it all in the mind as skeptics say?
The problem is that your question:
Do placebos affect reality, or do they only affect our perception of reality?
implicitly assumes that our perception of reality is not part of reality.

When I am interested in what they claim I'll let you know. This doesn't alter the fact that I have refuted the contention made by all "skeptics" that ones psychological state cannot possibly affect ones psi abilities.
For this to be meaningful, you first have to produce a "skeptic" who thinks people have psi abilities at all.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat
Final warning, any further breaches of your Membership Agreement will result in a banning.

Don't bother. I've had more than enough of the incredible stupidity, dishonesty, consistently attacking strawman positions to last me several lives. I intend to waste not one more second of talking to concrete blocks -- including you.

I'm gone.

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
When I am interested in what they claim I'll let you know. This doesn't alter the fact that I have refuted the contention made by all "skeptics" that ones psychological state cannot possibly affect ones psi abilities. If you'd paid attention, you'd would have seen that nobody did anything of the kind. So quite how you've refuted a contention that was never contended is beyond me.

Ian, I think you feel a headache coming on.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Toodles.

~~ Paul

[Jeff Corey]

Any wagers on the duration of Insipid Ian's absence?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What the hell are you talking about?? It's a long time since I've read it but they were quite definitely saying that the placebo effect does not have any physical effects!! Otherwise why the flying **** do you think I started the ****** thread in the first place!!! Are you saying that you wouldn't have started the thread if you hadn't known in advance that people would say, in the thread, that the placebo effect does not have any physical effects? Wow! When can we expect your application for the million dollars?

In any case, skeptics saying that the placebo effect is purely psychological is not actually the same as your contention in this thread that skeptics have said that they don't believe the effect exists at all. Originally posted by Interesting Ian
huh? Provide evidence that skeptics don't believe in the placebo effect?? They've said it on here time after time!

Edited to add: as usual, I hadn't noticed that the thread had reached the bottom of a page.

[Jeff Corey]

The point that I was trying to make is that I think the distinction between "psychological" and "physical" effects is wrong. Any change in behavior is physical. That is what psychologists measure - behavior. Not an immaterial mind.

[Open Mind]

Sorry to see Ian go :( ........ I would hope he returns but it is true he is wasting his time in here speaking to some of the most concrete of ‘skeptics’ (i.e. who claim to know parapsychologists are in error from an armchair ;) )

I also think Space Fluffer was a bit out of order requesting Ian to leave this topic. I mentioned the placebo effect in first post. If Ian was off topic (I don't think he was) then it was in response to off topic replies by other skeptics that no one complained about. Also if skeptics can not choose the correct option in Ian’s mentioned poll but meant something else more suggestive of the other option .... well what can one say about the standard of ‘critical thinking’ in this forum? ;)

[Bronze Dog]

Glad so many people called him on his inability to read what we were actually saying. I have a feeling that if I was around for that last string of posts I'd be far too busy spitting out the words II would have been putting into my mouth, just like he did in that Jane Goodall thread. He even put me on ignore when I told him my actual views, which contradicted the ones he said I had. Talk about dismissing evidence.

Also if skeptics can not choose the correct option in Ian’s mentioned poll but meant something else more suggestive of the other option .... well what can one say about the standard of ‘critical thinking’ in this forum?
We couldn't choose a correct option, because the vocabulary was far too vague, especially since II seems to have a hate affair with dictionaries. Even if the poll was asking what I think it was asking, it smelled of a false dilemma fallacy.

Besides, of course the placebo effect affects reality: It wouldn't be called an "effect" if it didn't, and it would likely never have been identified.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm gone.
Darn. I had an important question to ask.

If 46% of soccer games are won by the home team and 28% are won by the away team, who wins the remaining 26%?

Maybe that's why soccer hasn't caught on in America.
A quarter of the time, nobody wins.

[bruto]

Originally posted by Mojo
Open Mind's original suggestion in this thread is really just the idea that Ian brought up a while ago, that psi is "actively evasive" dressed up slightly differently: "sure, there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, but they hide whenever you're around."

If the fairies are as useless and mercenary as the practitioners of the paranormal seem to be, then let's chase the little blighters away.

[Robin]

Originally posted by Open Mind
[B]Sorry to see Ian go :( ........ I would hope he returns but it is true he is wasting his time in here speaking to some of the most concrete of ‘skeptics’ (i.e. who claim to know parapsychologists are in error from an armchair ;) )
Ian always accuses those who disagree with him of having closed minds. And yet whenever someone presents something that contradicts one of his assertions he resorts to personal abuse.

Just because somebody believes in psi does not mean they have an open mind. Just because somebody disbelieves or is unconvinced does not mean they have a closed mind.

My mind is open to many things but I need to see some evidence before I will shift.

Consider PEAR. They have been running or a quarter of a century in one of the most prestigious institutions in the world. And yet they do not even have one experiment that can be reliably replicated outside of their facility.

And against this fact they plead that the requirement for replicability should be relaxed in their case.

Faced with that am I supposed to accept that they have identified something real, motivated by fear I might be called closed minded?

I am sorry, but the point I made earlier still stands. There is an overwhelming amount of belief in the paranormal, so by your OP there should be overwhelminingly demonstrable psi effects.

But there isn't, no matter how much people continue to believe.

[Z]

Anyone want to place bets on how long Ian will stay gone?

OpenMind, take this as an object lesson: you can either listen to what others tell you and learn something, or you can keep your opinions locked firmly in place and become bitter and hypochondrial, like Ian.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Any wagers on the duration of Insipid Ian's absence?
Grate minds think alike.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Robin

I am sorry, but the point I made earlier still stands.


No need to be 'sorry' .... this topic was raised as a hypothesis to discuss or debate ...... in my opinion goat/sheep/experimenter effects are probably genuinely occurring in parapsychology trials, to what extent these occur under various circumstances is still not known..... so I'm not stating the opening post as factual explanation of the consequences of sheep/goats/experimenter effects, merely a topic :)


There is an overwhelming amount of belief in the paranormal, so by your OP there should be overwhelminingly demonstrable psi effects.


First of all ' overwhelmingly demonstrable' sounds like strong PSI effects? But the claims by parapsychologists are weaker effects. Why must PSI be reasoned to have no limits of strength or effectiveness? For example is it not possible for a real phenomena to range only from very weak to moderate?

Secondly, one could dispute the out come of ' there is an overwhelming amount of belief in the paranormal' ....... it could be argued there isn't on specifics. The type of overwhelming belief is in religion not in specific types of phenomena occuring. Christians might believe Jesus walked on water, that doesn't mean they believe other people can levitate over water too .... (I'm not religious). ...... in fact Christianity and other religions have historically opposed belief in paranormal claims outside its own religion

Yes most people do believe in some paranormal but is not strong or shared on specifics. If a medium appears on TV, not all paranormal believers will automatically think this is real, for example the reaction from Christians would range from 'fraud, the dead are sleeping' to 'devils impersonating loved ones' to 'only Jesus can do that' to ' wow, that is divine' to 'wow, that is awful' ...... yet they all believe in a paranormal but share no strong belief on what is specifically possible.

Even phenomena like telepathy, is not a straight forward desire to believe it works. I reckon most people do not want their inner thoughts to be read most of the time.

Alternative medicine is very popular today, but that doesn't mean people have great faith in it ...... it could merely mean conventional medicine hasn't fully satisfied their hopes and they are hopeful of something better. Similar applies to PSI, people hope it is true, but they have doubts.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

OpenMind, take this as an object lesson: you can either listen to what others tell you and learn something, or you can keep your opinions locked firmly in place and become bitter and hypochondrial, like Ian.

Why should I listen to CSICOP? You guys are reading websites all based upon information that can largely be traced down to a group of paranormal revisionists.

Why should I trust an organization that claims 'scientific investigation' but has never conducted a proper long term trial in its existence?

Who really should be listened to, the parapsychologist scientists doing the actual long term experiments or the revisionists who claim to hold no a-priori belief but only revise and campaign media?

So why should I listen to your opinion? I got out of the armchair and went to investigate and I cannot explain it all as error or fraud either. To skeptics in here even considering possible sheep/goat/experimenter effects will sound absurd .....fine ... that is understandable :) I don't have that choice however, I need to find reasons to explain the erratic nature of the phenomena and what I witnessed and frankly error and fraud solution isn't that compelling, but yes it is compelling to someone lacking evidence who thinks the paranormal phenomena must behave as normal phenomena or is false.

As for Ian’s ‘bitter’ comments … since reading this forum I think I have read more bitter comments made collectively against Ian than he could possibly have replied to. :)

[Zep]

FYI, I have not even visited the CSICOP website (do they have one?), nor do I read their information, nor do I specifically search it out elsewhere indirectly.

I spend the majority of my time when looking at these paranormal claims, especially people like SRI and PEAR, reading and analysing their stuff, and what they produce. Usually it is plainly obvious, even to a reasonably educated non-scientist, that these folks have a penchant for inventing and manipulating data, jumping to nonsensical conclusions from that, and over-inflated the resulting claims. Rarely, and I do mean very rarely, does anything worth serious consideration arise from these sources.

And if you think skeptic information comes from just a few sources (it doesn't - it comes from the vast majority of thinking scientists, young and old, but let that pass), take a look at the paranormal pushers. They truly DO have only a few sources to draw on, and of those, a number are patently and clearly lunatic obsessives who are only tangentially impinging on reality every second Thursday.

For example, here's a fun little site from one of our own home-grown bobble-heads. And I might point out that this guy is no dummy, is (supposedly) still a lawyer, and he's proud to keep flaunting it! Doesn't stop him being lost in his own little fantasy-land though. Please say hello to Victor Zammit, arch proponent of life-after-death "research". (www.victorzammit.com)

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by Zep
For example, here's a fun little site from one of our own home-grown bobble-heads. And I might point out that this guy is no dummy, is (supposedly) still a lawyer, and he's proud to keep flaunting it! Doesn't stop him being lost in his own little fantasy-land though. Please say hello to Victor Zammit, arch proponent of life-after-death "research". (www.victorzammit.com)

As it's quite likely you have forgotten in the myriad of postss on this forum (or just happened to miss it), OM has actually in all seriousness linked to our old fraud Zammit, as "evidence" of the paranormal. I will admit, it certainly seems paranormal how people can get fooled by such an obvious cheat...

[Ersby]

Hmm, I should have been paying attention. I've been having a discussion on this very topic on www.skepticforum.com and I'm sure Open Mind won't mind if I bring over some of my comments.

[start of quoting]

Having read plenty of parapsychological papers myself, I can say that the "experimenter effect" is not just limited to the skeptic/non-skeptic dichotomy. I've seen plenty of occasions in which experiments with more than one experimenter in which they got different results was referred to as an "experimenter effect". And of course, there are plenty of pro-psi parapsychologists who get poor results.

In my opinion, the "experimenter effect" is just one of a raft of excuses people put forward (see also "decline effect" and also geo-magnetic activity and Local Sidereal Time as well as wrong kind of subjects or even being tested on a Monday) to explain contrary results.

I had a brief look through some of the documents I have on my hard drive about the Experimenter Effect to see what I could find. In the 1980 issue of the European Journal of Parapsychology, Adrian Parker wrote "It has long been maintained that there are clear and distinctive personality characteristics between those experimenters who obtain significant results in psi research and those who do not. However what is less recognised is that much of the evidence for this view is merely anecdotal in nature and consists of recommended ways of handling subjects based on the experimenter's own experience. The experimental evidence is either post-hoc or limited to showing that differential scoring patterns can occasionally be obtained from groups which the experimenter has handled in say an aloof, detached manner versus a warm personalised style."

In 1980, the main thrust of the "experimenter effect" theory was solely on the personality of the experimneter and little to do with belief in psi, so it would appear to me that this idea of "experimenter effect" being linked to belief and non-belief is relatively new. Perhaps as a result of Richard Wiseman's high media profile?

From my own research into the ganzfeld work, it is true that on occasion good results seem to cluster around certain experimenters, but my statistical knowledge is not sufficiently advanced that I can tell if this distribution is simply what you'd expect by chance, or if something is going on. Certainly, being a psi-inhibitor in the early stage of your career is no barrier to being psi-conducive in the later stages, and vice versa.

(By the way, as for the Lawrence meta-analysis: don't have a copy of it so can't comment. I'm a little surprised by Open Mind's unwillingness to quote from it. [late edit: just found it in French!])

As for the Milton/Wiseman paper:

So we have one experiment from recent years. As Pyrrho pointed out [in the original thread], with just 32 trials, there's not enough data for the effect, if it exists, to been seen. Also, Jim Bonomo believed he found a possible source of the difference in results. He noted that the random patterns telling Schlitz or Wiseman when to look and when not to look were distributed such that Schiltz got patterns with longer periods without change between the 'look' and 'non-look' states. He considered these patterns to be the one most likely to throw up false positive results. Whether it could account for the entirety of the difference in the results of Schlitz and Wiseman, I don't know. But it could bring them closer such that chance alone can easily explain the results.

Next, I'd like to put forward another paper investigating the experimenter effect. This one used the ganzfeld (already mentioned in this thread as a conducive protocol to measure this effect). Carried out by Parker, Millar and Belhoff (“Three-experimenter ganzfeld: an attempt to use the ganzfeld technique to study the experimenter effect�, Research in Parapsychology 1976). After 72 ganzfeld sessions, overall results were at chance, and so were the results for the individual experimenters despite people recording differing levels of rapport and expectancy of success they elicited.

It's a common enough pattern in science, let alone parapsychology, that successful results get the headlines and the fame, while the following work (which may or may not support it) is less well known. Andrew Wiles' solution to Fermat's Last Theorem is a case in point: his announcement was major news, while the subsequent fall and rise of his solution was not so widely followed in mainstream press. The same happens in parapsychology. The Wiseman/Schlitz experiment has often been held up as an example of the experimenter effect with little reference to replications in the past or since.

[/end of quoting]

Given that this is a theory entirely reliant on lab-based observations, there's been a remarkable lack of papers quoted from. Open Mind has referenced Lawrence's meta-analysis, but with no quotes from it I wonder if he's actually read it. The Wiseman/Schlitz paper I've mentioned above.

In fairness, I often read parapsychological papers which mention that the experimenter effect is a major concern in research. However, whenever I read a paper about the experimenter effect itself, the effect seems to vanish.

[Z]

Originally posted by Zep
FYI, I have not even visited the CSICOP website (do they have one?), nor do I read their information, nor do I specifically search it out elsewhere indirectly.

I spend the majority of my time when looking at these paranormal claims, especially people like SRI and PEAR, reading and analysing their stuff, and what they produce. Usually it is plainly obvious, even to a reasonably educated non-scientist, that these folks have a penchant for inventing and manipulating data, jumping to nonsensical conclusions from that, and over-inflated the resulting claims. Rarely, and I do mean very rarely, does anything worth serious consideration arise from these sources.

And if you think skeptic information comes from just a few sources (it doesn't - it comes from the vast majority of thinking scientists, young and old, but let that pass), take a look at the paranormal pushers. They truly DO have only a few sources to draw on, and of those, a number are patently and clearly lunatic obsessives who are only tangentially impinging on reality every second Thursday.

For example, here's a fun little site from one of our own home-grown bobble-heads. And I might point out that this guy is no dummy, is (supposedly) still a lawyer, and he's proud to keep flaunting it! Doesn't stop him being lost in his own little fantasy-land though. Please say hello to Victor Zammit, arch proponent of life-after-death "research". (www.victorzammit.com)

Thank you, that sums it up nicely.

OM, I've never had any involvement whatsoever with CSICOP. I have absolutely no interest in them at this point. I have, however, been involved in a number of paranormal research studies, on strictly amateur levels, and am myself a Wiccan priest. I have an almost daily exposure to people claiming psi effects of all sorts. And I look mainly at the experimenter's own publications.

My statements stand, in the face of having personally experienced 'psi-effects', that belief of the audience or participants has nothing to do with it. The fact is, I think that some type of weak, uncontrollable psi effect does exist; but it is unaffected by belief, by meditation, or by much of anything else. It cannot be turned on or off; it cannot do great things like bending spoons or reading minds. It's a minor phenomenon at best.

At any rate, OM, you've demonstrated in your reply to me exactly why your handle is a bald-faced lie. You're not open to learning; you're seeking justification for the beliefs you currently hold.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
But why stop there? The computer system might be sentient and manipulating the testee and the data, a squirrel outside the window might be changing the mind of the testee, a tree 50 miles away might affect it from the far future when it rules the planet...

If such manipulations are feasible, and therefore if you're free to pull any excuse out of your ass, how can you ever measure anything? You can always say, with any kind of measurement that it could have been changed by the experimenter, the squirrel or the testee's belly button fluff.

Firstly, lets not get confused over the results of experiments and their interpretation. If the experimenter effect exists, and I think there is suggestive evidence that it does, then it could be defined as the consistent lack or presence of effects that correlate with the attitudes of the psi experimenter. That this correlation exists suggests that it may be the experimenter causing the results and not belly button fluff since there is no correlation between experimental outcome and the presence of belly button fluff to my knowledge.

However, you make a good point. If time and space is not a factor is this effect then how can we measure the effect and from where and when it comes from? To answer that you need a tesable model. Helmut Schmidt who pioneered micro-PK experiments proposed one such model which explicitly recognised the problem you are talking about. I've taken this from the Koestler psi unit web site:

--------------------------------------------------
"Helmudt Schmidt proposed a teleological (goal-seeking) model that postulated psi as representing a modification of the probabilities for different world histories. That is, the psi agent need concentrate only on the desired outcome of an event. Psi would act to skew the probability of that event happening, or having happened in the case of retrospective psychokinesis (retro-PK). As such, this theory was not a theory of a psi mechanism but rather one which looked at the way psi was experienced by the psi agent. It was one of the first parapsychological theories to include a unified psi: PK, ESP, precognition - all were aspects of one common psi principle wherein reality was altered to match expectation. This theory also meant that psi would be independent of space and time as when and where in the world history psi occurred would be irrelevant, and that psi is independent of task complexity as the psi agent aims only for the desired end-point. As most human actions are essentially teleological - when we want to pick something up, we do not consider in detail which muscles we wish to move, and so on - this brought psi more into the realms of human experience. Feedback was considered to be vital: the psi agent can have an effect only if it is coupled to its environment in such a way that it may receive a stimulus. There was also what was called a 'divergence problem'. That is, all future psi agents could so have an effect on the present world history. In effect, this meant that for any experiment, the psi agent was not only the experimental participant but all future readers of the experimental paper!

Schmidt, H. (1975). Towards a Mathematical Theory of Psi. The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 69(4): 301-320 "

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

So there is a basic hypothesis that observation of the system outcome is what cements the observing consiousness into the experimental system. And since Helmut Schmidt's micro-PK experiments seem to show time-independent effects, your experimental suggestion is most probably not going to control for experimenter effects because experimenters have an important role in observing the outcome of the experiment. At least as far as this kind of model would predict.

[Ersby]

This is what I've managed to translate from Lawrence’s paper:

The author found 73 studies from 37 principal authors that covered more than 685,000 trials with over 4,500 participants. The studies ranged from 140 to 500,000 trials (mean=10,540; median=5,750) and the number of participants ranged from 9 to 399.

Eighteen studies (24%) showed a sheep goat effect significant at 5%.

The sheep-goat effect does not change according to which method of measurement is used.

In the conclusion he notes: "Future research must focus on the development of measuring with precision the belief in the paranormal."

And this is as far as my French goes. If anyone wants a copy, they can PM me. Actually, it's a very short paper. It seems the translator has taken a lot out, preferring to focus on the data, since the original was four pages long, and there's no way the translation would fill four pages of anything (unless it was A6 paper). There's no list of studies included, and no tabulated data. But unless anyone has the English version (Open Mind? Do you have it?), it's the best we seem to have.

[Ersby]

I notice that Open Mind quotes from Jessica Utts. He does so without reference, so I had to search through my files to find its source. It was from the AIR report into the US government's research into psi. Therefore when Open Mind quotes:

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. ‘

Professor Jessica Utts

In context it appears that this refers to psi experiments as a whole, but in fact it refers to the work at SRI and SIAC and a handful of ganzfeld experiments. But Hyman and Utts were only given a small amount of data from the last few years due to the classified nature of some of the data (since revoked, since all the data is now available on CD-Rom). Additionally, when the report was published in 1995, her figures for the ganzfeld were already woefully incomplete and out of date. That she used the same figures again for her 1999 paper "The Significance of Statistics in Mind-Matter Research" should be real cause for concern to the pro-psi camp. She even admits that the data is old and that "it is not the intention here to do a thorough meta-analysis of all ganzfeld studies." This doesn't stop people quoting her figures as evidence in favour of psi.

And I'd like to take a closer look at this AIR report. It's so often referred to in articles about psi, I think it may be worth closer investigation.

For a start, she swallows the pro-psi party line on the "successful" remote viewing of URDF-3, a Russian military site.

from "An assessment of the evidence of Psychic Functioning" by Jessica Utts"
The third reported operational success concerned an accurate description of a large crane and other information at a site in Semipalatinsk, USSR. Again the viewer was provided with only the geographic coordinates of the site and was asked to describe what was there.

Although some of the information in these examples was verified to be highly accurate, the evaluation of operational work remains difficult, in part because there is no chance baseline for comparison (as there is in controlled experiments) and in part because of differing expectations of different evaluators. For example, a government official who reviewed the Semipalatinsk work concluded that there was no way the remote viewer could have drawn the large gantry crane unless "he actually saw it through remote viewing, or he was informed of what to draw by someone knowledgeable of [the site]." Yet that same analyst concluded that "the remote viewing of [the site] by subject S1 proved to be unsuccessful" because "the only positive evidence of the rail-mounted gantry crane was far outweighed by the large amount of negative evidence noted in the body of this analysis." In other words, the analyst had the expectation that in order to be "successful" a remote viewing should contain accurate information only.

Utts has clearly read the paper into this research, as have I, but she seems to have missed the part where the author describes how Pat Price (the remote viewer) was given not only the geographical co-ordinates, but was also shown where it was on a map (Pat Price's only accurate information came from him describing the surrounding geography such as mountains and rivers), and that it was a Russian military base. As for him drawing a crane, he was told to draw a crane (he drew two - one of which didn't exist), and as for Price successfully guessing its size: throughout his sessions he described everything as being big (obviously working from the idea that the US only have aerial photographs to check his information).

None of this occurs to Utts. She focuses on the straw man argument that the author demanded only accurate information (he makes no such demand), ignoring that out of 35 items mentioned by Price, only one was correct. Just how inaccurate are remote viewers allowed to be?

As for the AIR report itself, Open Mind has obviously read the various articles about it on-line (as I have) concerning its bias. But when you read it all (by which I mean all 183 pages of it, not just the 77 pages of Hyman and Utts' contributions, a different picture emerges.

Let me supply a quote from someone who actually tried to use remote viewing:

from "An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications", Mumford, Rose, Goslin
REQUEST: The remote reviews were asked to provide a variety of information about the target person. The requested information included descriptions of the person, likely travel locations, and events occurring during travel. Four sequential, apparently "independent," remote viewings were obtained.
NATURE OF INFORMATION: The four sequential viewings were provided and accompanied by reports. The information provided in these reports included both verbal descriptions and drawings. A high degree of agreement was not observed among the four remote viewing reports. Furthermore, the narrative descriptive information was provided in broad, highly ambiguous terms.
USE OF INFORMATION: The information provided by these viewings was not held to be useful in any operational sense. The reasons stated for reaching this conclusion were: 1) the information was too broad and too vague to direct relevant observations: 2) crucial elements of the case, particularly financial concerns, did not appear in any of the reports; 3) the information provided could be interpreted in too many different ways; 4) hits were often stereotypic given the available cues in the tasking; 5) there were a large number of demonstrably wrong conclusions.

And that's not the only one. There's five interviews in total, plus an executive summary at the which is far more damaging to the pro-psi lobby than Hyman's report. What is interesting is when you read articles on this AIR report, they almost always refer to the disparity between Hyman and Utss and conclude that the government sided with Hyman merely for prejudicial reasons. Read the paper itself and you'll find a large database of people unhappy with remote viewing's results.

And all of this was behind the rather optimistic quote from Utts!

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Zep
FYI, I have not even visited the CSICOP website (do they have one?), nor do I read their information, nor do I specifically search it out elsewhere indirectly.



So you have examined all the parapsychology claims directly and the best of 100 years of psychical research claims and come to your own opinion...... excellent! That is my appeal for people to read both sides directly…… if you have somehow missed CSICOP in doing all of this, gosh, I think that is truly paranormal. ;)

Originally posted by Hawk one
As it's quite likely you have forgotten in the myriad of postss on this forum (or just happened to miss it), OM has actually in all seriousness linked to our old fraud Zammit, as "evidence" of the paranormal. I will admit, it certainly seems paranormal how people can get fooled by such an obvious cheat...

I cannot recall doing so in here, possibly I did borrow some quotes as an easy to refind source ....... my forum search of Zammit found me making these comments …..


I’d like to comment on Grendel’s post but I’d rather not post in this topic, because it sounds like I'm defending Zammit or 1inChrist (I'm neither a Spiritualist or Christian or anything else)



I make no defense of Zammit, Zammit should not be mentioning those like Einstein, he is however justified in mentioning many of the others such as Crookes, etc. They clearly were convinced that what they reported (real or not) was genuine. To assume those scientists were all idiots, all committing fraud or all tricked all off the time, requires evidence that is not obtainable today, we weren't there. Skeptic books on them have been written using 'hearsay' .


Actually my latter criticism is wrong, it appears Einstein did write the preface to a book on telepathy……. my error.... (although I have never read Sinclair's book ... I should, it is well known)

……. so it seems Einstein didn’t find telepathy as silly as so many much greater geniuses in here do! ...... for some reason Einstein didn't compare telepathy to 'green unicorns', 'easter bunnies', 'santa claus', etc. :) Using debunkers logic Einstein was a woo woo! :)

Of course Einstein’s relativity killed of Oliver Lodge’s ether ….. which many proponents of psychic phenonmena of that time believed was the underlying structure behind how telepathy could work …… actually Michelson Morley experiment leading to relvativity only killed of one type of ether theory and various other modified ether theories could make the same accurate predictions, so much so Einstein never won the Nobel Prize for relativity due to the doubt ....... but we sooned preferred relativity due to Occam’s Razor reductionism.... even with long standing difficulty with Quantum Physics .....If the problems between macro and micro physics are ever solved, I doubt it will ever be called ether :)

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer

I'm still struggling to see why this systematic effect, presuming it exists, cannot be removed via a clever protocol, such as the one that I suggested. Double-blinding clearly does not go far enough, but I'm confident that a suitable protocol can be found.


This is the problem I see with your view. If you're going to propose a protocol to control for possible psi effects from the experimenter then you must be basing this on some understanding of what it is you are controlling for and how. Can you answer that?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Ersby
In fairness, I often read parapsychological papers which mention that the experimenter effect is a major concern in research. However, whenever I read a paper about the experimenter effect itself, the effect seems to vanish. This parallels the PEAR results of their detailed analysis of their own RV (remote viewing - clairvoyance) results. The better the look at it, the more it isn't there.

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
This is the problem I see with your view. If you're going to propose a protocol to control for possible psi effects from the experimenter then you must be basing this on some understanding of what it is you are controlling for and how. Can you answer that? You've made the good point that it does depend of which model of the experimenter effect you are attempting to control for. The protocol I suggested would certainly control for the experimenter effect where the experimenter's presence affects the outcome of the experiment. Of course, if the effect is such that the experimenter merely knowing about the experiment (and how could he/she not?) is enough, then how could you control for it, let alone test for it?

One of the quotes above mentions that every future person reading the paper could potentially play a part in the experiment itself, using one form of the effect. Again, I don't see how you could control for this, but then how could you test for it's presence? There are many 'weaker' forms of the experimenter effect that can be controlled for. For example, if reading the paper is sufficient for the effect, but simply knowing of the experiment's existence is not, the effect can be controlled. It's only the very extreme models of the experimenter effect (where all time and space are irrelevant) that I can see there being a problem controlling for the effect. But how could you claim to know the effect exists if that was the model?

My point is that irrespective of the model, if the manifestations of the experimenter effect can be observed sufficiently to claim proof of the existence of this effect, that this effect can be controlled for.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
My statements stand, in the face of having personally experienced 'psi-effects', that belief of the audience or participants has nothing to do with it. The fact is, I think that some type of weak, uncontrollable psi effect does exist; but it is unaffected by belief, by meditation, or by much of anything else. It cannot be turned on or off; it cannot do great things like bending spoons or reading minds. It's a minor phenomenon at best.

Ok, stop. I have not followed this thread very closely, still.. this revelation comes as a shock. You believe in PSI effects? then why argue as strong as you argue, agains Ian and others?

[Ersby]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Ok, stop. I have not followed this thread very closely, still.. this revelation comes as a shock. You believe in PSI effects? then why argue as strong as you argue, agains Ian and others?

I hope zaayrdragon doesn't mind me jumping in here.

There's a difference between believing in some form of psi (anomolous transfer of information) and agreeing with Interesting Ian!

I, personally, believe in ghosts (to an extent) and I'm agnostic to spontaneous cases of psi. However, I am very skeptical that psi can be replicated in the laboratory. This thread was based on findings of laboratory trials (sheep/goat & experimenter effect). So I feel justified in arguing against it (even if I was a bit late). If it had been an anecdote about personal psi experiences, I probably wouldn't have bothered saying anything.

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I would hope he returns but it is true he is wasting his time in here speaking to some of the most concrete of ‘skeptics’ (i.e. who claim to know parapsychologists are in error from an armchair ;) ) I can't speak for everyone here, but we don't 'know' that parapsychologists are in error. This, however, does not stop us from discussing the relative merits of such research. It's not like you're doing something different to what we're doing. Couldn't I also be a jerk and claim that you 'claim to know parapsychologists are correct from an armchair'?

I also think Space Fluffer was a bit out of order requesting Ian to leave this topic. I mentioned the placebo effect in first post. If Ian was off topic (I don't think he was) then it was in response to off topic replies by other skeptics that no one complained about. I didn't request that Ian left the topic, nor was my problem in response to off-topic discussion. I suggested that if he intended to join the discussion, he should do just that - join the discussion. Instead he insisted on confusing the issue by refuting claims that had never been claimed and acting all pissy when called on it.

I'm personally finding this a fascinating discussion and I hope it continues. But the 1-2 pages where Ian decided to butt in were frankly pointless, since the guy seems incapable of holding an intelligent discussion with someone that disagrees with him.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
You've made the good point that it does depend of which model of the experimenter effect you are attempting to control for. The protocol I suggested would certainly control for the experimenter effect where the experimenter's presence affects the outcome of the experiment. Of course, if the effect is such that the experimenter merely knowing about the experiment (and how could he/she not?) is enough, then how could you control for it, let alone test for it?

I think that these types of questions, important as they are, can only be satisfactorily answered once we have a good understanding of what psi is and how it can be controlled for (if it exists at all). Because that is what we are talking about here really - psi effects attributable to the experimenter rather than the testee. That’s not to say I rule out the possibility that the experimenter effect is nothing to do with psi but rather is an effect of normal psychological interactions between the experimenter and the testee such that the testee is put in a favorable or inhibitory "mood". I suppose that your experiment would be testable in that if it is controlling for the effect then you would predict that "believer" experimenters and "sceptical" experimenters would produce the same results. So you would have to include that variable in the experiment otherwise I don't think your experiment is necessarily controlling for the effect since we don't know the manner in which the effect works in the first place. Your experiment could be more of an investigation into the nature of the experimenter effect itself rather than a straight test of psi with experimenter effects controlled for. So well done for proposing some process oriented psi research! Perhaps you should consider a change in field ;)


One of the quotes above mentions that every future person reading the paper could potentially play a part in the experiment itself, using one form of the effect. Again, I don't see how you could control for this, but then how could you test for it's presence? There are many 'weaker' forms of the experimenter effect that can be controlled for. For example, if reading the paper is sufficient for the effect, but simply knowing of the experiment's existence is not, the effect can be controlled. It's only the very extreme models of the experimenter effect (where all time and space are irrelevant) that I can see there being a problem controlling for the effect. But how could you claim to know the effect exists if that was the model?


All good points, and I think that the models that incorporate some kind of "first come first served" effect are the only ones that stand a chance of testability. But I'd just like to emphasise the point that the experimenter must at least be considered as a source of psi effects along with the testee, since each of their consciousness' interacts with the experimental system.

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I think that these types of questions, important as they are, can only be satisfactorily answered once we have a good understanding of what psi is and how it can be controlled for (if it exists at all).My understanding is that the experimenter effect is usually invoked to explain why psi experiments that claim positive results are not reproducable by others. i.e. skeptics perform the same experiment, but the experimenter effect causes the results to go away, since they are non-believers.

As you rightly say, this effect could be due to psi-related as well as non-psi-related reasons (tighter controls, some unknown psychological effect). But if it is some second order psi effect, then how can we ever do what you suggest? i.e. how can we understand what psi is, and indeed, believe it to be real, if it comes with this baggage that will stop us from consistently measuring it?

Either the reason for the unreproduceability of psi results is something non-psi related (and therefore these results do not demonstrate the existence of psi), or the experimenter effect in these cases is a real effect of psi, psi is real, and we'll never know it.

Your experiment could be more of an investigation into the nature of the experimenter effect itself rather than a straight test of psi with experimenter effects controlled for. So well done for proposing some process oriented psi research! Perhaps you should consider a change in field ;) Well, I guess I'll take the compliment. I'm in a hard science so I'll stay where I am, thanks :)

But I'd just like to emphasise the point that the experimenter must at least be considered as a source of psi effects along with the testee, since each of their consciousness' interacts with the experimental system. Absolutely. But this is why I suggested a protocol where the experimenter is at least removed from the experimental site, and doesn't know when/where it is to take place. If an experiment like this was done by a skeptic team, and 'believer' (I hate using this word but can't think of an alternative) team, it would be harder for psychological effects to play a role.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I think that these types of questions, important as they are, can only be satisfactorily answered once we have a good understanding of what psi is and how it can be controlled for (if it exists at all).

What it is:

An interesting psychological phenomenon in which "nothing" is mistaken for "super powers".

How it can be controlled:

1. Use it as a litmus test to determine which people are the most gullible.
2. Take their money.
3. Keep most of the money, use the rest to find more gullible people.
4. Repeat as necessary.

[Z]

Originally posted by Ersby
I hope zaayrdragon doesn't mind me jumping in here.

Hey, it's an open forum, do what you like!

There's a difference between believing in some form of psi (anomolous transfer of information) and agreeing with Interesting Ian!

Exactly.

I find there's a great deal of difference between believing in a paranormal phenomenon, and swallowing bad research and anecdotal evidence about the same phenomenon. I believe in life on other planets, but I'm not defending UFO videos or nuts like Art Green, either.

Bad science is bad science, whether you believe it's researching something potentially valid or not. That's what I argue against: bad science. Ian is full of bad science. Open Mind's OP is about lame excuses. Even if I claimed some psi ability, I wouldn't be agreeing with these two.

As it is, I believe in at least one psi phenomenon completely. I believe I have the power to leave my dreams and enter the dreams of others, on rare occasion. However, there is absolutely no scientific justification for this belief, and I can conceive of no valid experiment that would prove it, being it would rely upon subjective reports of individuals who may not even remember the dream in question. Add to that the fact that this ability is nearly impossible to control when dealing with strangers or light acquaintances, and dealing with friends and family would certainly not be considered reliable, unbiased reports... and I am left with an ability that I rarely discuss, certainly rarely bring up with others, and believe that science is a long way from discovering.

Perhaps that is what makes me a skeptic/believer. That, or just a deep psychological imbalance.

:D

I, personally, believe in ghosts (to an extent) and I'm agnostic to spontaneous cases of psi. However, I am very skeptical that psi can be replicated in the laboratory. This thread was based on findings of laboratory trials (sheep/goat & experimenter effect). So I feel justified in arguing against it (even if I was a bit late). If it had been an anecdote about personal psi experiences, I probably wouldn't have bothered saying anything.

I have a similar belief in ghosts, though I doubt they have anything to do with once-living people. But that's another topic entirely.

[darw]

Hi Open Mind,

It seems to me that you believe precognition. I am an open minded for this subject too. Could you please show me some (links to) good research/study articles that you think is very convincing?

Thanks.

[Hawk one]

I cannot recall doing so in here, possibly I did borrow some quotes as an easy to refind source ....... my forum search of Zammit found me making these comments
My apologies. It was jambo372 that made the link in this thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54106)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
As it is, I believe in at least one psi phenomenon completely. I believe I have the power to leave my dreams and enter the dreams of others, on rare occasion.

Why do you believe this? Im a lucid dreamer too, and sometimes I believe (in the dream) that I can also do it, enter others dreams. But... back in here I do not see a viable hypothesis to sustain that belief.

[Robin]

Originally posted by Open Mind
First of all ' overwhelmingly demonstrable' sounds like strong PSI effects? But the claims by parapsychologists are weaker effects. Why must PSI be reasoned to have no limits of strength or effectiveness? For example is it not possible for a real phenomena to range only from very weak to moderate?
It can be just weak if you like, you don't need a strong or even moderate effect to be demonstrable. You just need an effect. Weak effects just need bigger sample spaces

I think that Daryl Bem, for example, quotes a 35% hit rate on a Ganzfeld 4 picture experiment where chance would give 25% - that could be tested with about 50 subjects. Smaller effects would require more subjects.

Now you can do these tests and stack the place to the rafters with enthusiastic believers if you think that would help, as long as the experimental procedure is stringent.

For example if you read the Schlitz-Wiseman study there is all this unnecessary manual handling such as pasting data onto spreadsheets and calculating averages. You could have done that entire experiment completely automated, with results generated directly from the PC - no direct intervention required. That they didn't do this and similar steps indicates that neither the believer nor the skeptic were entirely serious about the endeavour.

[Z]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Why do you believe this? Im a lucid dreamer too, and sometimes I believe (in the dream) that I can also do it, enter others dreams. But... back in here I do not see a viable hypothesis to sustain that belief.

Well, I've been lucid dreaming since I was about eight, IIRC. Since about 11 or so I had active and complete control of my dreams.

Sometime after that - the details are fuzzy - I began encountering others in my dreams and then meeting the same people in real life. This was an occasional event that I do not chalk up to any form of 'precognition', and in at least a dozen cases, was interesting in that the person in question introduced themselves to me and explained that they had dreamed of me.

Several of my close friends verified that I had been in their dreams, including precise conditions that I remembered establishing, after I managed to find their dreams. This without prompting or asking, I should add.

I know my six-year-old's dreams well, and he often mentions our dream visits as fond outings... sometimes gets a bit creepy, though.

Now, I won't completely rule out some form of self-delusion; but if that's what it is, then it's a contagious form of self-delusion, and that in itself might qualify as a paranormal claim. But ever since I moved to Cincinnati - the densest populated area I've ever lived in - I've been lucky to get into my son's dreams, much less anyone else's. It feels like listening for a single voice in a choir of millions.

But is this the right thread to discuss this? And I feel uncomfortable starting a new thread about it myself.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
My understanding is that the experimenter effect is usually invoked to explain why psi experiments that claim positive results are not reproducable by others. i.e. skeptics perform the same experiment, but the experimenter effect causes the results to go away, since they are non-believers.

As you rightly say, this effect could be due to psi-related as well as non-psi-related reasons (tighter controls, some unknown psychological effect). But if it is some second order psi effect, then how can we ever do what you suggest? i.e. how can we understand what psi is, and indeed, believe it to be real, if it comes with this baggage that will stop us from consistently measuring it?

Presumably by small steps. There's no reason to assume that the experimenter effect will stop us from building models that take the experimenter into account and testing these models by manipulating variables and observing systematic trends in the data. Eventually, the experimenter's psi contribution may be controllable leading to better measurement.


Absolutely. But this is why I suggested a protocol where the experimenter is at least removed from the experimental site, and doesn't know when/where it is to take place. If an experiment like this was done by a skeptic team, and 'believer' (I hate using this word but can't think of an alternative) team, it would be harder for psychological effects to play a role.

Ok, but that's not controlling for possible experimenter psi effects. That's a test to see if the experimenter effect is a psi effect rather than due to normal psychological interactions. Under your null hypothesis you would expect no difference between the two groups. If there indeed is an experimenter effect that is due to psi then the "believer" (I share your dislike of that term) team is expected to produce better results. You are rather controlling for normal psychological interactions between the experimenter and testee.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Robin
It can be just weak if you like, you don't need a strong or even moderate effect to be demonstrable. You just need an effect. Weak effects just need bigger sample spaces

I think that Daryl Bem, for example, quotes a 35% hit rate on a Ganzfeld 4 picture experiment where chance would give 25% - that could be tested with about 50 subjects. Smaller effects would require more subjects.

It's true that smaller effects need more subjects but how much more? Bem and Honorton reckon that your 50-subject experiment has about a 1 in 3 chance of success:

--------------------------------------------------------
Given its larger effect size, the prospects for successfully replicating the psi ganzfeld effect are not quite so daunting, but they are probably still grimmer than intuition would suggest. If the true hit rate is in fact about 34% when 25% is expected by chance, then an experiment with 30 trials (the mean for the 28 studies in the original meta-analysis) has only about 1 chance in 6 of finding an effect significant at the .05 level with a one- tailed test. A 50-trial experiment boosts that chance to about 1 in 3. One must escalate to 100 trials in order to come close to the break even point, at which one has a 50-50 chance of finding a statistically significant effect (Utts, 1986). (Recall that only 2 of the 11 autoganzfeld studies yielded results that were individually significant at the conventional .05 level.) Those who require that a psi effect be statistically significant every time before they will seriously entertain the possibility that an effect really exists know not what they ask.
------------------------------------------------------------
from here (http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html)




For example if you read the Schlitz-Wiseman study there is all this unnecessary manual handling such as pasting data onto spreadsheets and calculating averages. You could have done that entire experiment completely automated, with results generated directly from the PC - no direct intervention required. That they didn't do this and similar steps indicates that neither the believer nor the skeptic were entirely serious about the endeavour.

What was their hypothesis? If it was to test whether the experimenter effect is due to normal psyhological interactions with the participants then your comment doesn't matter if the manual handling was done in the absence of the participants.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Well, I've been lucid dreaming since I was about eight, IIRC. Since about 11 or so I had active and complete control of my dreams.

Sometime after that - the details are fuzzy - I began encountering others in my dreams and then meeting the same people in real life. This was an occasional event that I do not chalk up to any form of 'precognition', and in at least a dozen cases, was interesting in that the person in question introduced themselves to me and explained that they had dreamed of me.

Several of my close friends verified that I had been in their dreams, including precise conditions that I remembered establishing, after I managed to find their dreams. This without prompting or asking, I should add.

I know my six-year-old's dreams well, and he often mentions our dream visits as fond outings... sometimes gets a bit creepy, though.

Now, I won't completely rule out some form of self-delusion; but if that's what it is, then it's a contagious form of self-delusion, and that in itself might qualify as a paranormal claim. But ever since I moved to Cincinnati - the densest populated area I've ever lived in - I've been lucky to get into my son's dreams, much less anyone else's. It feels like listening for a single voice in a choir of millions.

But is this the right thread to discuss this? And I feel uncomfortable starting a new thread about it myself.

It would interestinf to start another discussion if you like. I would like to ask how you interpret these events. If I was going to attribute something paranormal to your experiences then its most probably ESP that you are experiencing IMO.

[kieran]

Originally posted by Open Mind
What if collective (and individual) disbelief and doubt impeded PSI severely? This has often been claimed by proponents …..

If true, what would be effects? Hmm….
[snip]
- It might predict that a claimed effect is stronger conducted in small private group of believers, than in a mass of publicity who will suspect fraud, trickery, self deception?
[snip]
- It might predict that believers do slightly better in experiments (sheep) than disbelievers (goats)
[snip]

Haven't read all the posts since this original one so I hope I'm not dredging up old points ...

1) Why change wording on the size of the effect here? "Stronger effect" - at least to me - implies something objective. "Slightly better" seems quite subjective. Is PSI going to be objective or subjective?

2) Can I paraphrase Open Mind? "PSI: it's so not there that you have to wish it true - and if anyone says it ain't there then it vanishes." Sounds very much like the 15ft purple dragon in my garage.:crazy:

3) There appears to be so much complete b@ll@cks around - obvious fakery. Until the pathethic deception is pointed out, believers claim it is PSI or some other vague paranormal twaddle. After it is exposed as nothing more than a vile manipulation of peoples hopes/dreams/fears, these "believers" move onto the next steaming pile of *****, without a backwards glance for the ruined lives they leave strewn behind them. To my mind, those that look to justify this process are as culpable as the direct perpetrators.:a2:

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Presumably by small steps. There's no reason to assume that the experimenter effect will stop us from building models that take the experimenter into account and testing these models by manipulating variables and observing systematic trends in the data. Eventually, the experimenter's psi contribution may be controllable leading to better measurement.I certainly hope so, but my point was more that if we cannot measure the experimenter effect, there's no reason to believe we can control for it. So do you agree that if the experimenter effect is measureable then it is possible to control for it to some extent? I expect this to be true in general. i.e. measureable effect => controllable effect.

You are rather controlling for normal psychological interactions between the experimenter and testee. Absolutely, and I think that this would be a very valuable endeavor.

There appears to be so much complete b@ll@cks around - obvious fakery.I agree, but this is because our senses are easily fooled, among other things. Don't mistake the barreloads of charlatans for the (admittedly few) genuine scientists doing rigorous research in the field. I think that the study of 'psi', or whatever you want to call it, can teach us some useful and interesting things. Whether these things are paranormal in nature or not, remains to be seen. My money would be on them not being paranormal, and merely psychological, but that's beside the point.

[Ersby]

I just noticed this:

originally posted by Open Mind
So you have examined all the parapsychology claims directly and the best of 100 years of psychical research claims and come to your own opinion...... excellent! That is my appeal for people to read both sides directly…… if you have somehow missed CSICOP in doing all of this, gosh, I think that is truly paranormal

Have you, Open Mind, examined all the parapsychology claims and come to your own opinion? Something tells me you haven't. Perhaps you've just been reading websites"all based upon information that can largely be traced down to a group of paranormal revisionists". Of course, that's just the impression that I get from your vague referencing style. I could be wrong. It would be nice if you could at least quote from the Lawrence meta-analysis to reassure us you'd actually read it before you posted it here as evidence.

And on the subject of things you've posted as evidence, that article by Chris Carter doesn't really show anything about Blackmore's work. You said yourself it was a mere reworking of Berger's work. At the end of Berger's article he said "For any conclusions to be drawn regarding the presence or absence of psi effects in her database, a serious meta-analysis with weighting of each study for flaws would be necessary."

Did Chris Carter do that? No, he didn't. And as for his quote "Seven of these experiments produced statistically significant results. Although these experiments form the basis of Blackmore's claim of "failing to find the paranormal", the odds against 7 successes out of 21 happening by chance are over 20,000 to one!", he doesn't say what index he's measuring significance with, but looking at Berger's data I can see that of the seven results most deviant from chance, three were in a negative direction!

Oh, wait: I forgot. That's psi missing. Another excuse to believe in psi.

Now, come on, Open Mind: you did sterling work in posting links and references about the placebo effect. Let's see something similar for the experimenter effect.

[bruto]

Originally posted by kieran
Haven't read all the posts since this original one so I hope I'm not dredging up old points ...

1) Why change wording on the size of the effect here? "Stronger effect" - at least to me - implies something objective. "Slightly better" seems quite subjective. Is PSI going to be objective or subjective?

2) Can I paraphrase Open Mind? "PSI: it's so not there that you have to wish it true - and if anyone says it ain't there then it vanishes." Sounds very much like the 15ft purple dragon in my garage.:crazy:

3) There appears to be so much complete b@ll@cks around - obvious fakery. Until the pathethic deception is pointed out, believers claim it is PSI or some other vague paranormal twaddle. After it is exposed as nothing more than a vile manipulation of peoples hopes/dreams/fears, these "believers" move onto the next steaming pile of *****, without a backwards glance for the ruined lives they leave strewn behind them. To my mind, those that look to justify this process are as culpable as the direct perpetrators.:a2:

It's always surprising how willing psi-fanciers, cryptozoological critter-hunters and the like are to ignore negative evidence and to excuse fraud and incompetence. Copouts no sane person would ever accept from, say, a stockbroker, a wandering spouse, a car dealer or a kid who forgot his homework are standard fare, it seems, for psychics and hunters of the paranormal. There aren't that many other areas of life (well, ok, maybe politics too...) where a person could consistently fail or be caught cheating or both and still keep his job.

Even if it were to turn out that there is a little bit of substance to psi claims, it seems there's more fraud and deception and greed than anything else among its practitioners. If they can't do any better than that, it's hard to see how thwarting them with skepticism could be seen, as "Open Mind" suggests in his original post, as a crime against humanity. I mean, even if Uri Geller really could bend spoons with his mind, if after all those years of practice and hype he hasn't come up with something more useful to do with his power, why should he make any better living at it than a squeegee man anyway? If a massive exercise of collective doubt could put an end to all that nonsense, I see little loss.

Weeds are plants as real as roses, but we feel no compunction about pulling them out.

By the way, I tried to get some scale samples from your garage dragon. Unfortunately, they turned out to be from a goldfish. However, I am not discouraged, because the previous samples tested out as plastic. I consider this a very significant bit of progress. The folks down at the garage dragon forum are really excited. I have teamed up with a famous dragon hunter. Unfortunately, the last dragon he found turned out to have been manufactured out of papier mache in his own garage, but it was very lifelike and showed an amazingly close resemblance to those seen by other dragon hunters. I consider him a very useful ally because of his detailed knowledge of the creature's physiology. He wrote a very scholarly monograph on its mating habits. I also have found a photographer to come take its picture. He is equipped with a high technology 640x480 pixel webcam which he hopes to set up within a half mile of the garage. Now if all those damn skeptics weren't poisoning the minds of the scientific community against our research, we would be able to get enough funding to continue the quest.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
I certainly hope so, but my point was more that if we cannot measure the experimenter effect, there's no reason to believe we can control for it. So do you agree that if the experimenter effect is measureable then it is possible to control for it to some extent? I expect this to be true in general. i.e. measureable effect => controllable effect.

Yes I agree. But the nature of the effect must first be established.

[Zep]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Yes I agree. But the nature of the effect must first be established. And surely, since the "measurement" of that effect is bound totally to that of the existence of psi in the first place, that would necessitate the definite proof that psi exists as a mandatory prerequisite. Yes?

The demand to "prove my car is red" presupposes "my car" exists enough to be examined for its colour.

[Open Mind]

Briefly ….

Ersby, I will see if I can assist you on the Lawrence paper I cannot promise anything, I am away on 2 weeks holiday on Thursday ..... nor was I aware I had any obligation to provide anyone with the original data, papers or analysis :)

……I have read your comments, some perhaps valid, some I think not but I don’t have time to get in to a long winded debate right now … More interestingly. you believe in ghosts? When I read that I nearly fell of my chair in shock!!! :) You have just removed youself from the stereotypical skeptic in here :)

-----
Darw, personally I believe in a short term precognition, however I do not believe all of life is predetermined and mapped out and highly detailed predictions can be made of what will happen far into future …… rationalizing precognition is most likely to give me a headache …. if you read David’s posts above he has nicely referred to some of the paradoxical problems that would arise when a PSI phenomena appears out of normal space/time

Also suggestive of shorter term precognition …….
‘Future Telling: A meta-analysis of forced choice precognition experiments’ . 1935-1987 Honorton, C. & Ferrari, D. – 1989 (Journal of Parapsychology, 53, 281- 302.)

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Zep
And surely, since the "measurement" of that effect is bound totally to that of the existence of psi in the first place, that would necessitate the definite proof that psi exists as a mandatory prerequisite. Yes?


If the experimenter effect is not attributable to normal psychological interactions between the experimenter and participant then yes. It makes sense to find out if psi exists first, then try to understand how it works and thus control for experimenter psi effects. But, and I'm sure you'll disagree, I think that it has already been established that psi exists. We now have to figure out how it works.

[SpaceFluffer]

And surely, since the "measurement" of that effect is bound totally to that of the existence of psi in the first place, that would necessitate the definite proof that psi exists as a mandatory prerequisite. Yes?I don't think that testing for the presence of the experimenter effect requires that we believe in psi. By 'experimenter effect', I mean any affect upon the outcome of the experiment that is modified by the experimenter in some way, which may be either psychological or paranormal in nature.

For example, if the Schiltz-Wiseman experiments show that there is a clear difference between groups that cannot be explained by regular methodological systematics (and I'm not convinced that's true yet), we have some kind of experimenter effect. This could be psychological or paranormal in nature, but whatever it is doesn't stop us doing further experiments to isolate what might be causing the different results between groups. Again, I'm not so sure that this is the case just yet, but it serves my example.
Originally posted by davidsmith73
If the experimenter effect is not attributable to normal psychological interactions between the experimenter and participant then yes. It makes sense to find out if psi exists first, then try to understand how it works and thus control for experimenter psi effects. But, and I'm sure you'll disagree, I think that it has already been established that psi exists. We now have to figure out how it works. My opinion of the data gathered so far, is that either the psi version of the experimenter effect is real, or that psi is not real. I don't see how you can reconcile the results on psi gathered so far without being forced to concede that the only way they can be made self-consistent is to believe that there is some 'self-shielding' at work due to a psi-based experimenter effect.

I would be interested in why you think otherwise, davidsmith. I usually avoid these kinds of discussions here, but we seem to have a civilized, reasoned thang going on here. If we keep it that way, I'm happy to continue in this vein.

[Francois Tremblay]

Our senses cannot be fooled - they are not alive and they don't have a mind. They simply transmit to our brain the information they receive. People who do not understand the facts relevant to what they are seeing (ex. a person looking at a pencil in a glass of water who does not know about refraction) will, however, be fooled by what they see.

[SpaceFluffer]

Um...OK...thanks.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Sometime after that - the details are fuzzy - I began encountering others in my dreams and then meeting the same people in real life. This was an occasional event that I do not chalk up to any form of 'precognition', and in at least a dozen cases, was interesting in that the person in question introduced themselves to me and explained that they had dreamed of me.

Ok, lets do an experiment. Im a fairly good Lucid Dreamer myself, so lets arrange a meeting, and then we will come to tell how does the other look. Do you think that would work?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
Our senses cannot be fooled - they are not alive and they don't have a mind. They simply transmit to our brain the information they receive. People who do not understand the facts relevant to what they are seeing (ex. a person looking at a pencil in a glass of water who does not know about refraction) will, however, be fooled by what they see.
An example: Our eyes (usually) aren't being fooled because photons hitting your retina aren't affected. Visual trickery usually involves taking advantage of how our visual cortex works, as well as how our mind sorts and recalls that information.

[Z]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Ok, lets do an experiment. Im a fairly good Lucid Dreamer myself, so lets arrange a meeting, and then we will come to tell how does the other look. Do you think that would work?

I wish it would work. Then I'd doubt the ability a lot less.

Unfortunately (at least, any more), I have to really know the person to manage the dreamwalking, or be in close proximity to the person for a day or two (including while dreaming), really getting to know them (tuning into them???). Which actually makes me suspect some sort of self-delusion even more - maybe picking up subconsciously on clues as to what they might dream about, etc.

Now, I'd be happy to try it anyway. You just never know when something is going to work amazingly well, huh? I just suspect we'll not manage much.

Yep - woo excuses. *shrug*

PM me if you do want to give this a try, Bodhi, and we'll try to set up a common meeting 'place'... don't suppose you have a favorite meditation spot that you have a photo of?

:D

[Ersby]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Briefly ….

Ersby, I will see if I can assist you on the Lawrence paper I cannot promise anything, I am away on 2 weeks holiday on Thursday ..... nor was I aware I had any obligation to provide anyone with the original data, papers or analysis :)


Strictly speaking I guess there's no obligation, but if you don't want to look like the type of person who drops references and runs, then I think it'd be good.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
[fquote=Zep]
My opinion of the data gathered so far, is that either the psi version of the experimenter effect is real, or that psi is not real. I don't see how you can reconcile the results on psi gathered so far without being forced to concede that the only way they can be made self-consistent is to believe that there is some 'self-shielding' at work due to a psi-based experimenter effect.



I don't think that any experiments have yet shown that the experimenter effect is due to either normal psychological interactions or psi. If the experimenter effect is eventually found to be based on normal psychological interactions then I don't see how this makes the results of parapsychology inconsistent. It could just mean that the testee can pick up on normal psychological cues of the experienter that give away the experimenters attitude towards psi (belief or scepticism). This could then either promote or inhibit the testees psi ability. So it would be a case of normal psychological mechanisms influencing the mechanism of psi. Hence why I don't think you have to believe that the experimenter effect is due to psi in order for the findings of parapsychology to be consistent.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Now, I'd be happy to try it anyway. You just never know when something is going to work amazingly well, huh? I just suspect we'll not manage much.

Yep - woo excuses. *shrug*

PM me if you do want to give this a try, Bodhi, and we'll try to set up a common meeting 'place'... don't suppose you have a favorite meditation spot that you have a photo of?

:dl:

so "woo excuses" are logical, depending on the point of view!! :p

I will send you a PM, we will try

[philippe]

hello

first of all, I hope I will be understood (I'm French and my english is very bad), excuse me if I'm not clear. I would do short posts because I spend a lot of time to write in english... don't hesitate to ask me more explanations, I would answer shorts posts by shorts posts.

I find this topic very interesting. I think that discussion about psi should be about "experimenter effects", that's the essential point about the controversy pro psi / skeptics.

I have read a bit about psi controversy, there are good arguments that should indicate that psi exist (for example, the number of psi experiments that give statistical significatives evidences of psi that you can find in the journal of parapsychology) and good arguments against psi.

so I tried to make my own opinion by examining both arguments.

Even there are lots of difficulties, problems, I think psi exists and I think psi phenomenons are belief effets (belief can localy change laws of nature : that is psi...in a dream, you can do whatever you want (levite, see the future of your dream, etc.), belief in real word permit to do a bit of that, what happens is a consensus of beliefs)

I think experimenters effects can't be reduced to psychological explanations because experiences show that people can affect the experience after the experience (it's very paradoxal, tough to be thought)

for example : in this article
http://www.aspr.com/persons.htm

you could read the Fisk and West experiences.

Philippe

[Open Mind]

Ersby, check your private mail when you get the time ...

---------
Philippe,

I understand your English well enough :)

Thanks for providing the interesting link ....

..... Sorry if I don't reply to anyone, holiday time :) ...... but golf clubs banned :( :) )

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I don't think that any experiments have yet shown that the experimenter effect is due to either normal psychological interactions or psi. If the experimenter effect is eventually found to be based on normal psychological interactions then I don't see how this makes the results of parapsychology inconsistent. It could just mean that the testee can pick up on normal psychological cues of the experienter that give away the experimenters attitude towards psi (belief or scepticism). This could then either promote or inhibit the testees psi ability. So it would be a case of normal psychological mechanisms influencing the mechanism of psi. Hence why I don't think you have to believe that the experimenter effect is due to psi in order for the findings of parapsychology to be consistent. OK, good point. I guess we'll have to wait for some experiments that will rule between a psi experimenter effect and a psychological experimenter effect, given it's existence. Something like the protocol I suggested would go some way to testing this idea. i.e control for the psychological effects.

One other thing though. As I stated above, I feel that the experimenter effect is the only 'get out clause' for psi. i.e. either the experimenter effect exists in some way (in whatever form), or psi does not exist. There's simply no reliable evidence for me to believe, without the experimenter effect being responsible for the lack of consistent reproduceability between groups, that psi exists.

But davidsmith, you seem to believe otherwise (please correct me if I'm wrong). Would you be willing to share references to one or more studies that convince you that psi exists?

[Jeff Corey]

What about Mennis, F. G.(1988) A recursive proof that Rosenthal's efffect is an artifact?
It turns out that only people who replicate the Rosenthal Effect get published.
How about the ones who didn't.

[Robin]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
What was their hypothesis? If it was to test whether the experimenter effect is due to normal psyhological interactions with the participants then your comment doesn't matter if the manual handling was done in the absence of the participants.
On the contrary, if you want to test whether the experimenter effect is due to normal psychological interactions with the participants then you need to eliminate the possibility that it is due to procedural error. Hence you eliminate the manual handling.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Robin
On the contrary, if you want to test whether the experimenter effect is due to normal psychological interactions with the participants then you need to eliminate the possibility that it is due to procedural error. Hence you eliminate the manual handling.

Quite right I see your point

[Zep]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
If the experimenter effect is not attributable to normal psychological interactions between the experimenter and participant then yes. It makes sense to find out if psi exists first, then try to understand how it works and thus control for experimenter psi effects. But, and I'm sure you'll disagree, I think that it has already been established that psi exists. We now have to figure out how it works. I have to disagree at the last point - it has NOT been established to any reasonable extent that psi exists at all. Really, it has not - the jury is still out on that whole matter. Therefore testing the "experimenter effect" is really nothing more than an exercise in examining how various sets of people make subjective judgements. You could do that testing adequately against some mundane personal choice situation like choosing house-paint colours, and not need to bring psi into the equation at all!

I go back to my analogy (which I will rephrase a bit): To determine the colour of my car (i.e. evaluate the experimenter effect on psi), a mandatory prerequisite is that my car (i.e. psi) exists sufficient to be examined. Is this not elementary?

[Zep]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I don't think that any experiments have yet shown that the experimenter effect is due to either normal psychological interactions or psi. If the experimenter effect is eventually found to be based on normal psychological interactions then I don't see how this makes the results of parapsychology inconsistent. It could just mean that the testee can pick up on normal psychological cues of the experienter that give away the experimenters attitude towards psi (belief or scepticism). This could then either promote or inhibit the testees psi ability. So it would be a case of normal psychological mechanisms influencing the mechanism of psi. Hence why I don't think you have to believe that the experimenter effect is due to psi in order for the findings of parapsychology to be consistent. I'm going to suggest that it actually works the other way around. The "experimenter effect" is actually an effect on the experimenter him/herself, NOT on the subject of the test. Put simply, if the experimenter "believes" then the results tend to be more "positive", and the converse, of course. In effect, the experimenter is actually the subject of that particular effect!

Again, I refer to the PEAR report on remote viewing (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/shapesintheclouds.htm) as as an example of this: PEAR were adamant at first that their 25 years of data would confirm the existence of RV as it was analysed more closely and robustly. That it actually went the other way led to subsequent behaviour that is discussed in that commentary. The object here is not to scorn PEAR on the report subject, but to show what happens when the experimenter themself is the (indirect) subject of a psychological situation based on high hopes and fear, etc. That is, there is some emotional investment in the outcome by the experimenter, such as, in this example, PEAR (and not just for the sake of the kudos here either). The "negative" experimenter effect outcome seems to happen not when there are "anti-psi feelings" involved but when there is proper scientific disinterest in the process and outcome. Check that word "disinterest" - it's important.

[Ersby]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
What about Mennis, F. G.(1988) A recursive proof that Rosenthal's efffect is an artifact?
It turns out that only people who replicate the Rosenthal Effect get published.

Could we have more details, please?