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- It might predict that PSI effectiveness have weakened over the past century as belief in the paranormal has been replaced by greater disbelief in paranormal, religion, miracles, etc.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