Dr.Honorton anyone?...

[Hunter]

I recently picked up a copy of "The science of Starwars" (yes I am a nerd....so sue me.) and in the very last chapter on the discussion of "The Force" was mention of supposed experiments by a Dr.Honorton, these 'ganzfield' experiments supposedly had a success rate 10% higher than would be expected by chance alone.

Frankly I call bulls**t on this claim...after all if it had proved esp, surely this Honorton guy would be swimming in money, acclaim et al...right?

Does anyone here have any info on Mr. Honorton and his supposedly earth-shattering experiments that somehow got ignored by the "establishment"?

-Hunter:cool:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Hunter

Frankly I call bulls**t on this claim...after all if it had proved esp, surely this Honorton guy would be swimming in money, acclaim et al...right?
-Hunter:cool:

Um, how does that follow?

Do you think Hawking suddenly got rich when he figured out that things do escape from black holes?

Do you think Einstein suddenly had benjamins when he did all that relativity stuff?

There were some good articles in Statistical Science a while back. Look up him and Utts and Hyman.

[Jeff Corey]

Do a google or other search for Bem and Horonton. You should look for the Psych Bulletin article and Ray Hyman's replies.

[SteveGrenard]

Dr Honorton anyone?

Professor Honorton (Edinburgh University) is deceased. Sorry he can't come to the phone right now. He was not ignored, however except maybe by you up to now.


An associate, Daryl Bem, is still alive and is a professor at Cornell University. Dr. Adrian Parker of Goteburg University in Sweden has recently done some follow up studies using the work pioneered by Honorton and 8 or so other university centers doing replication studies. As was stated above, Professor Jessica Utts (Univ Cal Davis) and Prof Ray Hyman (Univ Oregon, retired) debated the statistical results of these tests so you shoud check them out as well.

Before you make such remarks you should research your subject a bit better and it is easy to do so via the web. Try:
Charles Honorton, Daryl Bem, ganzfeld and auto-ganzfeld studies,
Adrian Parker, Jessica Utts and Ray Hyman as key words to start.

There is no money is this kind fo research, why should there be?
How much can you get paid for staring at a picture of a flower, thinking hard about it and then someone else two doors down, in a state of isolation (ganzfeld) figures out it is a flower you are thinking of or describes the picture some other way
which is accurate (blob of color, etc).

We even have a thread here somewhere where we were going to discuss Honorton and other ganzfeld experimenters work and whether it provides evidence favoring the existence of telepathy --that is the transfer of information between two living persons, one a sender and one a receiver. Its not a terribly difficult subject but an interesting one and a number of interesting comments and observations were made. Check it out.
Enter Ganzfeld in this forums search feature.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Dr Honorton anyone? .

There is no money is this kind fo research, why should there be?
How much can you get paid for staring at a picture of a flower, thinking hard about it and then someone else two doors down, in a state of isolation (ganzfeld) figures out it is a flower you are thinking of or describes the picture some other way
which is accurate (blob of color, etc). .
A million bucks, if you can do it.

[SteveGrenard]

Well why don't you ask Randi if he will accept several thousand ganzfeld/autoganzfeld trials to apply for the challenge and if on average they exceed chance by 10% or more, he will fork over the dough. Don't hold your breath. This is the claim. Somehow I think he won't like this one.

[thaiboxerken]

It's amazing how ludricious SG's arguements are. Thousands of experiments for 10% above "average" or "chance"?

"How much can you get paid for staring at a picture of a flower, thinking hard about it and then someone else two doors down, in a state of isolation (ganzfeld) figures out it is a flower you are thinking of or describes the picture some other way
which is accurate (blob of color, etc). . "

How about just testing this claim instead?

The problem with the Ganzfield experiments is that they try quantify their results in a subjective manner. It's much like Lucianarchy's "ladybrook" claim.

The ganzfield experiments are BS.

[SteveGrenard]

If you wish to change the claim made for these go ahead. We've seen that tried before. You dn't have to agree with the claim, you can call it B.S. if you want to but Honorton never claimed anything beyond the results he and other centers doing similar studies got.
This is a familiar tactic, try and change the claim or subvert it from what it is to what its not. Its also called moving the goalposts. I reiterate this is one Randi is apt not to like so why waste his time and ours trying to recruit all of these studies for the challenge?

Ray Hyman, of CSICOP, studied these claims and the statistics to back them up very carefully, more so than you did. Perhaps you should read his and Utts paper on this first. I don't recall Hyman concluding these thousands of trials and their results were B.S.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

A million bucks, if you can do it.

Your aggression is noted.

Steve wasn't talking about taking any challenge, but was merely discussing the history of Honorton's work.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Do you think Hawking suddenly got rich when he figured out that things do escape from black holes?

Do you think Einstein suddenly had benjamins when he did all that relativity stuff?

No but they did get famous and I think the same thing will happen when (if ever) somebody proves a truly paranormal phenomenon.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Well why don't you ask Randi if he will accept several thousand ganzfeld/autoganzfeld trials to apply for the challenge and if on average they exceed chance by 10% or more, he will fork over the dough. Don't hold your breath. This is the claim. Somehow I think he won't like this one.

Welcome back, Steve. I thought you left for good?

Oh, well...

Why don't you ask Bem (and perhaps get in touch with Honorton via your 100% accurate psychic medium, or perhaps John Edward) why he doesn't apply for the million bucks.

There are few things in this world that is impossible, and one of them is to find a serious researcher that turns down one million dollars, no strings attached, for doing what he claims he can do.

The onus is on Bem, not Randi. The offer is open to anyone who wants to apply.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


There is no money is this kind fo research, why should there be?
How much can you get paid for staring at a picture of a flower, thinking hard about it and then someone else two doors down, in a state of isolation (ganzfeld) figures out it is a flower you are thinking of or describes the picture some other way
which is accurate (blob of color, etc). .

That experiment seems dreadfully vague. How would you calculate the probability of “describing the picture some way which is accurate (blob of color, etc)”. Why not simply use a forced choice test where the probability can be calculated simply and objectively?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


Well why don't you ask Randi if he will accept several thousand ganzfeld/autoganzfeld trials to apply for the challenge and if on average they exceed chance by 10% or more, he will fork over the dough. Don't hold your breath. This is the claim. Somehow I think he won't like this one.

Are we talking about 10 percentage points or 10 percent more hits than expected? The first claim wouldn't reqire all that many tests.

[SteveGrenard]

Kerberos, the best thing you, Hunter and anyone else not familiar with this procedure and its findings is to read up on it. Fortunately there is an extensive literature on the subject from every angle available on the web; the key words/names to search were given above.

Duly noted that you too are attempting to change the claim. It is amazing how discussion by some .....always comes around to moving those darn goalposts. Everybody thinks they have a better idea I guess but it still is goal post moving.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Kerberos, the best thing you, Hunter and anyone else not familiar with this procedure and its findings is to read up on it. Fortunately there is an extensive literature on the subject from every angle available on the web; the key words/names to search were given above.

Done, I saw no obvious flaws in the procedure but as the authors said the results would need to be replicated.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Duly noted that you too are attempting to change the claim. It is amazing how discussion by some .....always comes around to moving those darn goalposts. Everybody thinks they have a better idea I guess but it still is goal post moving.

Change the claim? How exactly am I changing the claim? I simply asked whether we were dealing with 10 percentage points or 10 percent greater than expacted. Having read the Study it appear that we're dealing with a hit-rate of 32% against 25% expected by chance, which is 7 percentage points and 28% greater than expected.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Your aggression is noted.

I beg your pardon? Aggression?
You seem to have a vastly different definition of aggression than I do.
But then again, I live in Gnu Yak.

[thaiboxerken]

If you wish to change the claim made for these go ahead. We've seen that tried before. You dn't have to agree with the claim, you can call it B.S. if you want to but Honorton never claimed anything beyond the results he and other centers doing similar studies got.

Then why did you post the following?:

"How much can you get paid for staring at a picture of a flower, thinking hard about it and then someone else two doors down, in a state of isolation (ganzfeld) figures out it is a flower you are thinking of or describes the picture some other way
which is accurate (blob of color, etc). . "

The response to your post was:

A million bucks, if you can do it.

And then you wanted to switch claims to something else. Can you be a little more inconsistent with what you are claiming can be done? I guess BS tactics are just natural to you.

Oh, and ganzfield experiments are BS.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey


I beg your pardon? Aggression?
You seem to have a vastly different definition of aggression than I do.
But then again, I live in Gnu Yak.

He probably trains in Tai Chi.. they don't know, and can't deal with real aggression. He's probably a pantywaist hippie.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Kerberos


Done, I saw no obvious flaws in the procedure but as the authors said the results would need to be replicated.



They have. The PEAR PRP experiments. Now what?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Originally posted by Kerberos


Done, I saw no obvious flaws in the procedure but as the authors said the results would need to be replicated.


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



They have. The PEAR PRP experiments. Now what?


They need to be replicated again, and again, and again, and again until such and such a time where non-statistically significant results are obtained. The skeptics can then declare it has been proved that such an alleged effect doesn't exist.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


They have. The PEAR PRP experiments. Now what?

Please explain in detail.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Please explain in detail.

OK. Since you ask politely.

NB. In respect of Fair Use in an electronic educational format, the reproduction of the full text is allowed.



JSE V17 No.2 pp207-241

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1
Information and Uncertainty inRemote Perception ResearchBRENDAJ. DUNNE ANDROBERTG. JAHNPrinceton Engineering Anomalies ResearchPrinceton UniversityPrinceton NJ 08544-5263e-mail: pearlab@princeton.eduAbstract—This article has four purposes: 1) to present for the first time inarchival form all results of some 25 years of remote perception research at thislaboratory; 2) to describe all of the analytical scoring methods developed overthe course of this program to quantify the amount of anomalous informationacquired in the experiments; 3) to display a remarkable anti-correlationbetween the objective specificity of those methods and the anomalous yield ofthe experiments; and 4) to discuss the phenomenological and pragmaticimplications of this complementarity. The formal database comprises 653experimental trials performed over several phases of investigation. The scoringmethods involve various arrays of descriptor queries that can be addressed toboth the physical targets and the percipients’ description thereof, the responsesto which provide the basis for numerical evaluation and statistical assessment ofthe degree of anomalous information acquired. Twenty-four such recipes havebeen employed, with queries posed in binary, ternary, quaternary, and ten-leveldistributive formats. Thus treated, the database yields a composite z-scoreagainst chance of 5.418 ( p 5 3 3 1028, one-tailed).Numerous subsidiary analyses agree that these overall results are notsignificantly affected by any of the secondary protocol parameters tested, or byvariations in descriptor effectiveness, possible participant response biases,target distance from the percipient, or time interval between perception effortand agent target visitation. However, over the course of the program there hasbeen a striking diminution of the anomalous yield that appears to be associatedwith the participants’ growing attention to, and dependence upon, theprogressively more detailed descriptor formats and with the correspondingreduction in the content of the accompanying free-response transcripts. Thepossibility that increased emphasis on objective quantification of thephenomenon somehow may have inhibited its inherently subjective expressionis explored in several contexts, ranging from contemporary signal processingtechnologies to ancient divination traditions. An intrinsic complementarity issuggested between the analytical and intuitive aspects of the remote perceptionprocess that, like its more familiar counterpart in quantum science, brings withit an inescapable uncertainty that limits the extent to which such anomalouseffects can be simultaneously produced and evaluated.Keywords: remote perception—remote viewing—anomalous informationacquisition—consciousness-related anomalies—uncertainty—complementarity—PEAR—enginee ring anomalies—analyticaljudgingJournal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 207–241, 20030892-3310/03207
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
("Remainder removed by Hal for copyright violations" - Hal Bidlack. ..even though it's not a copyright violation to reproduce entire papers for educational or research reasons within a non-profit, electronic, educational format ) :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

First, your post is in violation with forum rules.

I have reported you to the moderators.

Second, when I say "Please explain in detail", it does not mean "Please repost 35 pages of which you probably haven't read and most certainly don't understand".

It means "Please explain in detail, in your own words".

Yes, I am sure you find this very, very funny. I suppose you think you are getting back at one of those who pointed out that your "ladybrook prediction" was anything but.

Just answer the question, or state that you do not want to answer it.

[hal bidlack]

This thread was reported, and so I have read it.

Luci,

I do not care what rules about copyright you think apply. On this forum, you may not quote full articles.

You have 15 minutes to edit your response, and to provide a link to the full text. If you do not, I will take the needed action.

Again, I am not interested in debating the rule with you. This forum has rules, and you must follow them if you are to continue to post here.

hal

[hal bidlack]

Luci,

I have seen that you were online, and viewing this thread, but have not chosen to take any action. Therefore, I will edit your post. As there is no active link in your post (another violation) to the original source, I must ask that you include that as well.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


They have. The PEAR PRP experiments. Now what?

Well I'll check the PEAR PRP experiments and check some skeptical sources for information about Ganganzfeld/autoganzfeld, the fact that I saw no flaws after all doesn't mean there aren't any.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Luci,

I have seen that you were online, and viewing this thread, but have not chosen to take any action. Therefore, I will edit your post. As there is no active link in your post (another violation) to the original source, I must ask that you include that as well.

You are being petty, you sad, sad man. Claus wanted a detailed explanation, you know how finickity he is, he'd only go on to ask for a variety of quotes, sources, evidence etc,. so I posted the whole thing, lock, stock and two smoking barrells. This is an educational forum, and to provide such new information, in detail, is a much, *much* better use of resources than the tripe and pap you get ( and contribute to, don't forget, anyone can see your posting history ) elsewhere in the forum. So you are being petty and silly, if not a more than little disingenuous. Sorry I didn't pay attention to your post in time though. In respect of links, again, this was an email copy someone sent straight out of the JSE, you can leave the JSE no and vol there if you want.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Kerberos


Well I'll check the PEAR PRP experiments and check some skeptical sources for information about Ganganzfeld/autoganzfeld, the fact that I saw no flaws after all doesn't mean there aren't any.

Of course, you may well be a better skeptical analyst than Dr Hyman (CSICOP), yes, of course, silly me, I should have realised that.:rolleyes:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lucianarchy,

First, your post is in violation with forum rules.

I have reported you to the moderators.

Second, when I say "Please explain in detail", it does not mean "Please repost 35 pages of which you probably haven't read and most certainly don't understand".

It means "Please explain in detail, in your own words".



No, it means what you wrote. In detail. The explanation can be no better detailed than the full report itself.

That's why you cried like a little baby to Hal isn't it.

Well, boof**kinghoo:v: babycrook

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

Very well. I see that you are not capable of explaining how the PEAR PRP experiments have been replicated.

Your replicated defeat has been duly noted.

Do you think you will ever win just once?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
This thread was reported, and so I have read it.

Luci,

I do not care what rules about copyright you think apply. On this forum, you may not quote full articles.

hal

Even with the full permission of the author of the article in question? Does this include pro-skeptic articles?

[hal bidlack]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Even with the full permission of the author of the article in question? Does this include pro-skeptic articles?

yes.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian



They need to be replicated again, and again, and again, and again until such and such a time where non-statistically significant results are obtained. The skeptics can then declare it has been proved that such an alleged effect doesn't exist.

No, the pseudo-skeptics censor the data, it's easiest 'out' they have.

The PEAR PRP meet the requirements set by Hyman.

It has now been proven now beyond all *reasonable* doubt.

So they censor it whenever they can.

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

This has nothing to do with censorship. It has everything to do with presenting the evidence.

Merely pasting 30+ pages is NOT "presenting the evidence". That's mindless parrotting.

You're just pissed because you cannot explain what you think is "evidence". Don't blame your own shortcomings on anyone else.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lucianarchy,

This has nothing to do with censorship. It has everything to do with presenting the evidence.

Merely pasting 30+ pages is NOT "presenting the evidence". That's mindless parrotting.



Nope, that's presenting the evidence, in full. Because everyone knows what an insufferable little pedant you are, you pick and weasle, badger and deny, the posting of the full report is the only way to deal with you. But then, as we've seen, when you get what you aske for "in detail", you run and cry that it is 'breaking the rules' :rolleyes: Here, right here, you have been proven to be the hypocritical half-wit and data censor most people know you as.

Ladybrook was the real deal. SAIC was the real deal. Ganzfeld is the real deal. PEAR PRP is the real deal. Psi exists, Liarson. You could make your life easier if you choose to wake up, but you are stuck in a narrow dream world full of lies, deception and denial. All you can do at times like this is try to get me censored. Well done, you got your censorship, everyone sees you for what you are. Liarson. You are transparent.

[TLN]

Luci, can you explain the evidence yourself, yes or no?

If yes, why aren't you?

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

Yes, that's nice.

Now, please explain - in your own words - why the PEAR PRP is "the real deal".

What, you can't do it? Do you understand it, then?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


You are transparent.

Are you familiar with the song, "I'm Looking Through You"?

Is so, just hum the lyrics.

[Hunter]

Hmm...I am beginning to sense some hostility with my John Edwardesque powers...wait, I'm also getting an a letter...perhaps a b, anyone know a "b"?...hold it; yes, now I am recieving a "c", is there a C connection in anyones life?...what about a d, I think I am also picking up an f or maybe a g....

:rolleyes:

But seriously folks, all I wanted was some data on the honorton experiments as well as your informed opinions on whether you thought the tests valid or not... I never thought I would be the opening gun in a full blown war. However from what you all have said, here are some thoughts: Firstly, as to why someone would get lots of cash for being able to do this stuff....Aside from randi I imagine the CIA, Large corporations et al, would be killing each other off left and right to get at you. You could making money simply by demonstrating your power to the incredulous ( assuming you didnt go the CIA/megacorporation route, unlikely as that would seem).

Hawking, Einstein and Co. all recieved some very major acclaim during their lives, and will go down in history as being among the most influential people of our time. Not to mention the sheer assload(relatively speaking [pardon the pun] for a physicist) of books that Hawking has sold. In fact when someone mentions physics, a whole lot of people think of the name Hawking.

A point of note; one of the reasons I have gone to the trouble of asking all of your opinions is that not only do I respect highly a great deal of you, but I'm not a trained scientist or statistician. When I see paper's full of numbers and seemingly unintelligible jargon, I realize that I need people to help me make heads or tails of this stuff. If anyone thinks I was a little too rude in my first post, then I apologize for the offense, but question remains- has anyone replicated the results. Has these papers been thoroughly peer-reviewed, and what were the general conclusions and why.

Thankyou all for your time.
-Hunter:cool:

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Of course, you may well be a better skeptical analyst than Dr Hyman (CSICOP), yes, of course, silly me, I should have realised that.:rolleyes:

What on Earth are you talking about :confused: Was Hyman involved in the test procedure in some way? In any case I did a search on CSICOP on Hyman and autoganzfeld, and according to him the procedure wasn't truly double blind.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9603/claims.html

"The experimenter, who was not so well shielded from the sender as the subject, interacted with the subject during the judging process. Indeed, during half of the trials the experimenter deliberately prompted the subject during the judging procedure. This means that the judgments from trial to trial were not strictly independent."

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
He probably trains in Tai Chi.. they don't know, and can't deal with real aggression. He's probably a pantywaist hippie.

There's a reason why no Thai boxers of the past were known as "the invincible".

[thaiboxerken]

There's a reason why no Thai boxers of the past were known as "the invincible".

Maybe because comic-book names don't really interest thaiboxers. Thailand vs China in martial arts competitions are about about equal wins on both sides. But, the Chinese fighters are doing San Shou, not Tai Chi.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Maybe because comic-book names don't really interest thaiboxers. Thailand vs China in martial arts competitions are about about equal wins on both sides. But, the Chinese fighters are doing San Shou, not Tai Chi.

Your density rivals that of something that is really dense. ;)

The san shou you talk about was created by "the invincible" that I talked about, Yang Lu-Chan, a t'ai chi chuan person.

Next time, do yourself a favor and read something other than the grapplin' mags.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Your density rivals that of something that is really dense. ;)

The san shou you talk about was created by "the invincible" that I talked about, Yang Lu-Chan, a t'ai chi chuan person.

Next time, do yourself a favor and read something other than the grapplin' mags.

who cares? i'm sure my .45 ACP 1911 would defeat "the invincible" quite handily.

[T'ai Chi]

That's a little off-topic.

But while we're on *that*, you might be about as martially effective as a bowl of Jello without your gun. I find most gunners are.

Plus, one can take my martial arts anywhere. You are limited by metal detectors and security personnel, so if there is a situation in a club, airport, government building, etc etc etc, you may be in trouble. Your gun could also be used against you.

I can also vary my level of defense depending on the level of the attack. Your gun have a 'stun' mode?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Your density rivals that of something that is really dense. ;)

The san shou you talk about was created by "the invincible" that I talked about, Yang Lu-Chan, a t'ai chi chuan person.

Next time, do yourself a favor and read something other than the grapplin' mags.

LOL. San Shou still isn't tai chi, is it?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
LOL. San Shou still isn't tai chi, is it?

LOL right back at you.

A taijiquan person originated san shou, and san shou is currently a major part of a taijiquan practicioners training.

So it looks like the rest of your glib "he probably trains in tai chi..." comment is completely off base, eh sparky?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


LOL right back at you.

A taijiquan person originated san shou, and san shou is currently a major part of a taijiquan practicioners training.

So it looks like the rest of your glib "he probably trains in tai chi..." comment is completely off base, eh sparky?

Call it what you want, it's basically Muay Thai with takedowns thrown in. It doesn't matter who developed the system or how, it's still not Tai Chi. It is a seperate entity.

You probably believe in all kinds of nonsense, like "chi", as well.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Call it what you want, it's basically Muay Thai with takedowns thrown in. It doesn't matter who developed the system or how, it's still not Tai Chi. It is a seperate entity.

You probably believe in all kinds of nonsense, like "chi", as well.

Now you're changing the topic entirely. OK. I do believe in qi, but not in the way AT ALL that you are using the word. We've been over this at least x number of times, where x tends to infinity.

Ssssh, truth be told Ken, I'm a pantywaist t'ai chi hippe who believes in nonsense like ch'i. Whatever you say.

"It doesn't matter who developed the system or how". My teachers would be so proud if I said that. ;)

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That's a little off-topic.

But while we're on *that*, you might be about as martially effective as a bowl of Jello without your gun. I find most gunners are.

Plus, one can take my martial arts anywhere. You are limited by metal detectors and security personnel, so if there is a situation in a club, airport, government building, etc etc etc, you may be in trouble. Your gun could also be used against you.

I can also vary my level of defense depending on the level of the attack. Your gun have a 'stun' mode?

:s2:

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Kerberos


No but they did get famous and I think the same thing will happen when (if ever) somebody proves a truly paranormal phenomenon.

Funny how noone, throughout the entire course of human history, has managed to convincingly demonstrate any sort of "paranormal" phenomena, let alone prove its existence. And yet people still cling to the notion that there is "something more" or something beyond. Cripes, isn't the real world amazingly awesome and remarkable and varied enough to keep us all dazzled without having to event fantasy versions of reality and pretend they're real. There is no real evidence for anything paranormal at all and there is no rational or philosophical reason to suppose there would be.

The whole concept of "paranormal" is nonsensical. If a demonstratable phenomena occurs, then it is, by definition, a part of the reality of the universe and not paranormal. Essentially, what paranormal means is things happening that can't happen and don't happen - things happening in the absence of cause and effect. If that could happen then the very basis of our understanding of reality loses its underpinnings and we would inhabit an entirely arbitrary and incomprehensible universe - a nightmare universe.

Personally, I think we are very lucky to inhabit a universe that actually has rules and where things don't just arbitrarily happen. It would be a very existence if it were otherwise. bdk

[T'ai Chi]

billydkid,

The known physical world certainly is amazing, but that doesn't negate the possibility of other things being out there. I think there is good reason that such things may be possible, and that we should scientifically obtain and anaylze the evidence or lack thereof.

"If that could happen then the very basis of our understanding of reality loses its underpinnings and we would inhabit an entirely arbitrary and incomprehensible universe - a nightmare universe."

That might be one reason why many people don't investigate possible paranormal topics.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
billydkid,

The known physical world certainly is amazing, but that doesn't negate the possibility of other things being out there. I think there is good reason that such things may be possible, and that we should scientifically obtain and anaylze the evidence or lack thereof.

"If that could happen then the very basis of our understanding of reality loses its underpinnings and we would inhabit an entirely arbitrary and incomprehensible universe - a nightmare universe."

That might be one reason why many people don't investigate possible paranormal topics.

Well, let me ask you this: what "paranormal" phenomenon would you consider worth investigating and why? Where do you draw the line at what you consider ridiculous and not worth investigating? In as much as one paranormal phenomenon (read: claim without basis in demonstratable reality) has as much to recommend it as another, how do you choose? For example, suppose I make the claim (or a thousand people make the claim) that invisible fairy elves live in our bowels and periodically fly out of our butts when we are asleep and hide Hersheys Kisses in the woods for good boys and girls to find - is that a claim worth investigating? Rationally speaking it is no less worthy or plausible then claims of telekinesis or communicating with the dead.

Of course, that is a ridiculous example, but you could easily make a less ridiculous sounding one. I could have a theory that eating the brains of brilliant people makes you smarter because their brain energy gets incorporated into your consciousness. How is that any less a basis serious research than the notion that people can read minds? Do we investigate any possible ridiculous notion that anyone can dream up or do we just limit it to ridiculous notions that have found favor with pop culture? Certainly there have been a nearly infinite number of paranormal claims made throughout history. Are all of them worthy of serious study or only those which people currently find appealing?

No doubt, the universe is vastly more intricate and mysterious than we can fully imagine, but that does not mean that there are things out there that happen without some sort of mechanism for them happening. I seriously doubt that there are any fundamental aspects of reality, anything demonstratably true that we would have overlooked in course of human history. It seems to me the height of hubris for "researchers" to suppose that they would be able to reveal any sort of basic aspect of reality that had been overlooked by everyone else that came before.

[Loki]

hunter,

But seriously folks, all I wanted was some data on the honorton experiments as well as your informed opinions on whether you thought the tests valid or not...
My opinion (informed or otherwise) is that the Ganzfeld procedure - if correctly implemented - is a pretty good protocol. This is especially true since it has been progressively modified (into 'AutoGanzfeld', etc) over time, in response to criticisms.

...but question remains- has anyone replicated the results.
Yes...and No.

The Ganzeld data is interesting because there have a been a large number of trials, using variations of the basic procedure, run across a variety of institutions in the past 20 years or so. Meta-analysis of these results show a "beyond chance" overall effect.

The Ganzfeld data is frustrating because if we were to set up a Ganzfeld test right now, today, we have no way of knowing if this particular trial will produce "above chance" results - some trials are spectacular failures, well below chance.

A further problem with the Ganzfeld data is that as researchers have begun introducing minor variations to try and "narrow down" what might be happening, the results seem to lessen, and start approaching chance again.

The result of all this seems to be that "something" is happening, but not much is really known about "what" that is.

(At least, that's how I understand it.)

A nice, brief summary is here (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mganzfeld.html) (but this is not a detailed critique, just a summarizing of opinions. It's also slightly out of date, since the results of the Milton and Wiseman study [that Ganzfeld is false] have since been challenged by various Ganzfeld supporters, such as Bem and Storm & Ertel)

[T'ai Chi]

billydkid,

I would consider the majority of paranormal claims worth investigating. I would personally draw the line at testing claims where the claimant, or anybody involved with the test, could get hurt.

"I seriously doubt that there are any fundamental aspects of reality, anything demonstratably true that we would have overlooked in course of human history."

That's great, and for the most part I agree, but we only gain knowledge about their truth of falsity if we test them.

[thaiboxerken]

billydkid,

I would consider the majority of paranormal claims worth investigating.

You call yourself a scientist? I hope you aren't in charge of research, else you'd be wasting your entire teams time chasing tall tales and pixie dust. Evidence is what drives research, most paranormal claims have none.


I would personally draw the line at testing claims where the claimant, or anybody involved with the test, could get hurt.

Does this include their feelings? I think lucianarchy's feelings would get hurt if he was found not to have superpowers.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You call yourself a scientist? I hope you aren't in charge of research, else you'd be wasting your entire teams time chasing tall tales and pixie dust. Evidence is what drives research, most paranormal claims have none.


I said "the majority". Obviously I can't study something without data. Most paranormal claims have data to go with them and therefore can be examined.


Does this include their feelings? I think lucianarchy's feelings would get hurt if he was found not to have superpowers.

No, I don't include feelings in that.

You changed the topic to Lucianarchy. You'll have to ask that person, Ken.

[thaiboxerken]

I said "the majority". Obviously I can't study something without data. Most paranormal claims have data to go with them and therefore can be examined.

And that data is most always anecdotal accounts and nothing more. That's flimsy evidence in the world of science, there needs to be more to justify research.


No, I don't include feelings in that.


Good, because believers often get butt-hurt when called on their stupidity.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
And that data is most always anecdotal accounts and nothing more. That's flimsy evidence in the world of science, there needs to be more to justify research.


I'm definitely not saying to analyze the existing data to come to your conclusion. I'm saying keep the existing data in mind, but scientifically experiment to obtain new data, and analyze that to see if there is anything there.

Unfurtunately, there is no magic evidence level cut-off that tells a researcher to research or to not research a claim. What justifies research is time, money, and the interesting-ness of the question, how that topic will effect the world, and existing data on that topic.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by billydkid


Funny how noone, throughout the entire course of human history, has managed to convincingly demonstrate any sort of "paranormal" phenomena, let alone prove its existence.

My point exactly.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Loki said:My opinion (informed or otherwise) is that the Ganzfeld procedure - if correctly implemented - is a pretty good protocol. This is especially true since it has been progressively modified (into 'AutoGanzfeld', etc) over time, in response to criticisms.
Yet isn't it interesting that the meta-analyses show that the further one deviates from "the standard protocol," the less significant the results. It makes it difficult to perform experiments with variants of the protocol in an effort to determine what's really going on.

http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/updating_the_ganzfeld_data.htm

~~ Paul

[Wudang]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Your density rivals that of something that is really dense. ;)

The san shou you talk about was created by "the invincible" that I talked about, Yang Lu-Chan, a t'ai chi chuan person.

Next time, do yourself a favor and read something other than the grapplin' mags.

Nonsense. San Shou just means fighting applications (scattering hands) and is a pretty generic term. Fighting might be "Da Shou" (striking Hands) as in the "Da Shou Ge" or Fighters Song from the Tai Chi classics. Interesting that only one of Yang Lu-Ch'ans sons was also called "invincible" and nobody after that. Most Western tai chi would be better called Tofu Chuan.

[Starrman]

Yet isn't it interesting that the meta-analyses show that the further one deviates from "the standard protocol," the less significant the results. It makes it difficult to perform experiments with variants of the protocol in an effort to determine what's really going on.

I'm not much on statistics, but aren't there inherent problems with doing a meta-analysis on statistics from thousands of experiments that have different protocols? Shouldn't each experiment stand or fall on its own merit if this is the case?

Any help from the statistically minded would be appreciated.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, it's possible that the meta-analysis is flawed and the results don't diminish as the protocol is varied. Perhaps the results are always good. Or bad. Or whatever.

Don't you just love it when the hypotheses are about the results of the experiments instead of a theory? So much fun.

~~ Paul

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Wudang
Most Western tai chi would be better called Tofu Chuan.

Yeah, but only by you.

I think there is only t'ai chi ch'uan, not "Western" or "Eastern", etc.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Starrman

I'm not much on statistics, but aren't there inherent problems with doing a meta-analysis on statistics from thousands of experiments that have different protocols? Shouldn't each experiment stand or fall on its own merit if this is the case?

Any help from the statistically minded would be appreciated.

Meta analyses are completely sound under certain conditions. The most important is that the studies you desire to combine must have been conducted under similar conditions (ideally, of course, under the exact conditions).

[Lucianarchy]

The SAIC experiments ( which Hyman could find no rational candidate for error or flaw and called for their replication ) have been replicated. See the PEAR PRP paper which Claus had censored from this thread.

Psi exists. It has been proven beyond all *reasonable* doubt.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
See the PEAR PRP paper which Claus had censored from this thread.

What are you talking about? It was in violation with forum rules, you dimwit. It wasn't "censored".

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Psi exists. It has been proven beyond all *reasonable* doubt.

Then show us the evidence.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Then show us the evidence.


You have been given it, here, in this thread, published and peer reviewed, but you had it censored.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You have been given it, here, in this thread, published and peer reviewed, but you had it censored.

PEAR proves nothing. Try again.

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

It wasn't censored. It was against forum rules.

Dimwit.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


PEAR proves nothing. Try again.

On the contrary, it proves the existence of the effect beyond all *reasonable* doubt. What did you find wrong with the full, peer reviewed, published article I posted here before Claus had it censored?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
On the contrary, it proves the existence of the effect beyond all *reasonable* doubt. What did you find wrong with the full, peer reviewed, published article I posted here before Claus had it censored?

For starters, PEAR has not been peer reviewed.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
For starters, PEAR has not been peer reviewed.

No, it was PEAR reviewed! :D

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


For starters, PEAR has not been peer reviewed.

The PEAR PRP has. Didn't you read the paper before Claus had it censored? Would you like me to post it again?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


The PEAR PRP has. Didn't you read the paper before Claus had it censored? Would you like me to post it again?

LOL. And, the conclusion of the PEAR results ended up showing.. absolutely no significant data to support psychic energies or powers. Of course, they worded it a bit different to try and justify getting more money for research.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


LOL. And, the conclusion of the PEAR results ended up showing.. absolutely no significant data to support psychic energies or powers. Of course, they worded it a bit different to try and justify getting more money for research.

:confused:You seem to have a tenuous grasp on reality, Kenneth.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


:confused:You seem to have a tenuous grasp on reality, Kenneth.

This has very little meaning coming from you, a person that believes he has superpowers.
I'm playing the odds here, so far, no valid evidence of psi has been uncovered.

Now, go play with your tarot cards.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I'm playing the odds here, so far, no valid evidence of psi has been uncovered.



What, specifically, do you claim invalidates the PEAR PRP results?:confused:

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


What, specifically, do you claim invalidates the PEAR PRP results?:confused:

Nothing, they state that they found no significant results. I agree with them.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Luci, post a link or post the reference. Just don't post the entire paper.

~~ Paul

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Nothing, they state that they found no significant results.

Where on earth do they say that the PRP results are not significant? Which quotes are you referring to?

:confused: :confused:

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Would you like me to post it again?

You cannot post the full paper as that is a violation of the forum rules, regardless of whether you agree with that policy or not. You can't change the rules of this board to suit your fancy like you do with science.

Can't you just post a link, or are you simply interested in trolling?

Put up or shut up. Just pick one.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


You cannot post the full paper as that is a violation of the forum rules, regardless of whether you agree with that policy or not. You can't change the rules of this board to suit your fancy like you do with science.

Can't you just post a link, or are you simply interested in trolling?



Anyone reading this, who has been here for more than ten minutes, will realise that 'the rules' are enforced with bias and with prejudice. The paper is a copy from the Journal I recieved via email. It is acceptable to post in full under Fair Use due to this being a non profit, electronic educational forum ( three seperate validators). Given the paper's significance and relevance and given the JREFs educational status, there is no resource excuse for deleting it. It was censorship.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Anyone reading this, who has been here for more than ten minutes, will realise that 'the rules' are enforced with bias and with prejudice. The paper is a copy from the Journal I recieved via email. It is acceptable to post in full under Fair Use due to this being a non profit, electronic educational forum ( three seperate validators). Given the paper's significance and relevance and given the JREFs educational status, there is no resource excuse for deleting it. It was censorship.

None of which address the real points:

[list=1]
Those are the rules here, like it or not. Tough.
You could provide it another way, but you won't because you're not genuine.
You're a troll who's only interest is in pissing people off, not examining your claims scientifically.
[/list=1]

[Loki]

Paul,

Yet isn't it interesting that the meta-analyses show that the further one deviates from "the standard protocol," the less significant the results. It makes it difficult to perform experiments with variants of the protocol in an effort to determine what's really going on.
Precisely why I have trouble in taking the Ganzfeld results as anything more than "statistical anomaly" at the moment. Any movement towards exploring the details of the assumed phenomena seesm to result in the phenomena weakening.

Surely if the "musically talented receivers" can produce results way above 50% on any kind of reliable basis then there's a clear lesson there - only conduct future Ganzfeld trials using musically inclined receivers! A series of prolonged, continuous "above 50%" results would go a long way towards establishing the reality of Ganzfeld.

Do you know how many "receivers" are typically used in a Ganzfeld trial? If there are 30 "viewings" would they use 3 sitters 10 times each? 10 sitters 3 times each? 30 different sitters?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I've read most of the PEAR paper Information and Uncertainty in Remote Perception Research. At one point they are discussing the fact that they were distracted by having to write a response to an analysis of their research, and that this may have reduced the effect of current experiments. They say:Beyond, this, in order to forestall further such specious challenges, it led to the imposition of additional unnecessary constraints in the design of the subsequent distributive protocol. Although it is not possible to quantify the influence of such intangible factors, in the study of consciousness-related anomalies where unknown psychological factors appear to be at the heart of the phenomena under study, they cannot be dismissed casually. (emphasis mine)
What an odd thing to say.

~~ Paul

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I've read most of the PEAR paper Information and Uncertainty in Remote Perception Research. At one point they are discussing the fact that they were distracted by having to write a response to an analysis of their research, and that this may have reduced the effect of current experiments. They say:
What an odd thing to say.

~~ Paul

Why? There is evidence that the effects depend on the nature of conscious belief.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm not arguing whether the distraction of writing the rebuttal caused a reduction in effect. That's a silly and unfalsifiable hypothesis. What interests me is that they thought the protocol constraints were unnecessary, yet they think those constraints might have resulted in a dimunition of effect. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the contraints might have plugged leaks in the protocol.

~~ Paul

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Why? There is evidence that the effects depend on the nature of conscious belief.
And what evidence is that?
Is it immaterial?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

And what evidence is that?


"Lawrence [30] conducted a meta-analysis of the 73 published studies examining the sheep/goat effect. These studies were conducted by 37 principal investigators, and involved over 4,500 subjects who completed over 685,000 trials. The overall effect size per trial is small ( r = 0.029), but highly significant over these studies which involved a large number of procedural manipulations and potential modifying variables. The combined Stouffer z = 8.17, p = . Using seven different measure of study quality, Lawrence found that effect size did not covary with study quality. A file-drawer estimate (Rosenthal's ``fail-safe N'') revealed that 1726 unreported studies with null results (i.e., 23 unreported studies for each of the 73 reported ones) would be required to reduce the significance of the database to chance expectancy.

This database has used a wide range of different sheep/goat scales, ranging from single questions to more lengthy questionnaires. The means of determining belief have also varied, with most focusing upon previous personal psi experiences, self-evaluation of personal psi ability, opinions regarding one's ability to display psi ability in the specific testing situation and/or one's general attitudes towards such phenomena. Lawrence found there was no overall relationship between effect size and the type of measure used, from which he concluded that the sheep/goat effect was quite robust regardless of how it was measured. " http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/node6.html