"UC Davis statistician analyzes validity of paranormal predictions"

[Rodney]

"The research program involved remote viewing, in which test subjects were asked to describe or draw an unknown target. The target could be anything and could be located anywhere. According to [Professor of statistics at UC Davis, Jessica] Utts' meta-analysis of the 966 studies performed at Stanford Research Institute, subjects could identify the target correctly 34 percent of the time. The probability of these results occurring by chance is .000000000043.

"Utts compared these results to a similar meta-analysis of aspirin treatment for heart disease. In 2002, researchers published a meta-analysis in the British Medical Journal of 188 studies. The results demonstrated that aspirin reduced the number of heart attacks in people likely to have heart disease by 25 percent, with a probability of it occurring by chance equaling .0003.

"'The evidence for [remote viewing] is much stronger than [aspirin preventing heart attacks] and yet we have people taking aspirin everyday to try to prevent heart attacks,' Utts said. 'People aren't willing to either look at this evidence or aren't willing to believe it when they see it.'"

See http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/09/10/ScienceTech/Uc.Davis.Statistician.Analyzes.Validity.Of.Paranor mal.Predictions-2958047.shtml

[The_Animus]

I may be wrong, but this seems bogus to me. They could guess a completely random object and its location correctly about 1/3 of the time? If they could actually do this then they could win the Million.

I saw a BS espisode where people claimed they could do this and were supposed to draw the object or scene also. None of them were even close.

Until I see this posted somewhere a little more reputable I'm considering it bogus.

[Normal Dude]

And to think this came from the campus I am typing from right now.... sigh....

A little something useful for statistics:
Garbage In -----> Garbage Out

ETA:

Here is her campus homepage: http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/

[thatguywhojuggles]

And to think this came from the campus I am typing from right now.... sigh....

I thought SRI had nothing to do with your school.

[Normal Dude]

I thought SRI had nothing to do with your school.

SRI? I meant the professor(s).

[JoeTheJuggler]

And these things are notorious for shoehorning hits.

I don't see how you can calculate probabilities when almost ANYTHING counts.

[Mercutio]

With that result, we can reject chance as an explanation for the results. This leaves at least two explanations--a real effect, and systematic error. Systematic error would include opportunity for cheating, but also inadvertant leakage.

The original paper (link here--really worth reading, actually! (http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html)) does a nice job of listing some of the problems with the earlier research, and the author is convinced that these problems are adequately addressed in the later research. I personally think Utts is too trusting of the early data, and of the experimental control by researchers like Targ & Puthoff--I have read critiques of their methodology that include potential problems that are not addressed in this paper (including inadvertent clues left in analyses of remote viewing pictures--clues that might allow a judge to improve their odds. A comment like "this is not as easy as yesterday's" allows a judge to eliminate at least the first position, when matching drawings to locations.). It is possible that Utts addressed such critiques, but it is not clear from the paper. It is also interesting to note, in figure one, the inverse relationship between probability obtained and subjectivity in judging (the binary target--no judging at all involved--has a p (obt) of .664).

Her conclusion:
It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria. The phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures. The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar across experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it would require an equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger number of subjects.

What is not so clear is that we have progressed very far in understanding the mechanism for anomalous cognition. Senders do not appear to be necessary at all; feedback of the correct answer may or may not be necessary. Distance in time and space do not seem to be an impediment. Beyond those conclusions, we know very little.

I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look for proof. No one who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a collective whole, has been able to suggest methodological or statistical problems to explain the ever-increasing and consistent results to date. Resources should be directed to the pertinent questions about how this ability works. I am confident that the questions are no more elusive than any other questions in science dealing with small to medium sized effects, and that if appropriate resources are targeted to appropriate questions, we can have answers within the next decade. ...is very optimistic. It is also a bit of an echo of previous optimistic assessments of paranormal evidence...William James wrote, when stepping down as the president of the Society for Psychical Research, noted the optimism of ten years prior, and the expectation that the decade would have brought a wealth of answers. Of course...that was a century ago.

[Normal Dude]

snip... I personally think Utts is too trusting of the early data, and of the experimental control by researchers ... snip


After reading the papers, this is my beef exactly. All of the best statistical analysis in the world is useless if the data/data collection is flawed (hence my earlier garbage in garbage out comment).

Reading the papers, especially the comparison to aspirin, it strikes me as written by someone who dearly wants to believe it and will go to lengths to rationalize that belief.

Hyman's report is worth reading:
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/hyman.html
As is her response to it:
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/response.html

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Is this the article?
An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning, Journal of Parapsychology, The, Dec, 1995 by Jessica Utts or is it a new one? The OP reference is not dated.

If it is not a new study, I can only note that it has not convinced very many people in a dozen years. If it is new, what does it add?

[Zep]

It's a very old and much disputed article, is it not? Saw this one years ago, or something much like it. And isn't SRI long dead and gone now?

ETA: Gord seems to have located it.

[Narveson]

SRI still exists.

http://www.sri.com/

[Slimething]

SRI still exists.

http://www.sri.com/

That's a different SRI. I've used SRI International for contract research. They're on the up and up.

[Ersby]

"Utts compared these results to a similar meta-analysis of aspirin treatment for heart disease. In 2002, researchers published a meta-analysis in the British Medical Journal of 188 studies. The results demonstrated that aspirin reduced the number of heart attacks in people likely to have heart disease by 25 percent, with a probability of it occurring by chance equaling .0003.

"'The evidence for [remote viewing] is much stronger than [aspirin preventing heart attacks] and yet we have people taking aspirin everyday to try to prevent heart attacks,' Utts said. 'People aren't willing to either look at this evidence or aren't willing to believe it when they see it.'"

From JE Kennedy, who's worked in both pharmaceuticals and parapsychology:

The research strategies and procedures in parapsychology stand in marked contrast with pharmaceutical research, through which I now earn my livelihood. The level of planning, scrutiny, and resulting evidence is much higher in pharmaceutical research than in most academic research, including parapsychology.

http://jeksite.org/psi/jp04.htm